§ 14.42. [Reserved].


Source

   The provisions of this §  14.42 reserved June 8, 2001, effective June 9, 2001, 31 Pa.B. 3021. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (271482) to (271483) and (256365) to (256366).

Notes of Decisions

   Notice of Recommended Assignment

   The school district failed to provide an exceptional student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE), where its individualized education program (IEP) was procedurally deficient because a certified school psychologist was not part of the Multiple Disciplinary Team, the required cover pages of the IEP which detail the type of program being offered, the related services, the duration of the IEP, various services that needed to be considered and reviewed and the like were noticeably absent, no Notice of Recommended Assignment was ever proffered by the district to the family, and there is no evidence in the record that the district ever attempted to go to the student’s school in order to develop further the Comprehensive Evaluation Report (CER) through the use of its own psychologist and other staff, and where the CER and the IEP devised by the district also failed to meet substantive requirements because the degree of need in the CER were sketchy and thin, the IEP was vague, failed to address a means of handling the student’s emotional and behavioral disorders and contained immeasurable standards. Cumberland Valley School District v. Lynn T., 725 A.2d 215 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999).

   Placement

   Placement in a private school, with the district bearing the responsibility for the attendant tuition, will only be approved if neither the local school district nor its supporting IU can provide an appropriate education for the child in question. Veschi v. Northwestern Lehigh School District, 772 A.2d 469, 1037 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001); appeal denied 788 A.2d 382 (Pa. 2001).

   Tuition Reimbursement

   Mother of a student was entitled to reimbursement for tuition she paid to an out-of-State residential educational facility, where the program offered by the school district had not been effective because the student’s social and emotional needs were not addressed by his individual educational program (IEP) and because his behavior continued to worsen. Stroudsburg Area School District v. Jared M., 712 A.2d 807 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998).



No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.

This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Code full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.