Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CENTENNIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (01/31/86)

decided: January 31, 1986.

CENTENNIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, PETITIONER
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND ROBERT C. WILBURN, SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, RESPONDENTS



Appeal from the Order of the Secretary of Education in case of In Re: The Educational Assignment of Terry A., a student in the Centennial School District, Special Education Opinion No. 229, dated April 11, 1984.

COUNSEL

John Philip Diefenderfer, Stuckert, Yates & Krewson, for petitioner.

Mary Beth O'Hara Osborne, for respondents.

Thomas E. Coval, Clover & Coval, for intervenor/respondents, Richard and Judy Auspitz.

William Fearen, with him, Michael I. Levin, for amicus curiae, Pennsylvania School Boards Association.

John D. Killian, Killian & Gephart, for amicus curiae, Pennsylvania Association for Gifted Education.

Judges MacPhail, Doyle and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Palladino. Judge Rogers did not participate in this decision.

Author: Palladino

[ 94 Pa. Commw. Page 532]

The Centennial School District (District) appeals from an order of the Secretary of Education (Secretary) which requires the District to provide an appropriate individualized education program (IEP) for an exceptional student, Terry Auspitz, who is mentally gifted. We affirm.

Terry is presently eleven years old and resides with his parents in the District. In October of 1981, the District developed an IEP for him, recommending that he be placed in a regular third grade class and that he participate in the District's program for mentally gifted students. The program provided by the District is one of enrichment rather than one of accelerated instruction in academic subject areas.

Terry's parents disapproved of this recommendation, on the ground that, in addition to the enrichment program Terry should receive individual instruction at his advanced instructional levels in reading and mathematics. Because the District and Terry's parents could not agree on an appropriate IEP, the parents requested a due process hearing, pursuant to 22 Pa. Code ยง 13.32.

The hearing was held in September of 1982, after which the hearing officer determined that Terry was a mentally gifted ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.