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.

SCOTT S. v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (07/18/86)

decided: July 18, 1986.

SCOTT S., A MINOR, BY PETER AND WINIFRED S., HIS PARENTS AND GUARDIANS, PETITIONERS
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, RESPONDENT



Appeal from the Order of the Department of Education, in case of In Re: The Educational Placement of Scott S., a student in the Tredyffrin/Easttown School District, Special Education Opinion No. 250.

COUNSEL

Janet F. Stotland, for petitioners.

Gregory R. Neuhauser, Deputy Attorney General, with him, Allen C. Warshaw, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Chief Litigation Section, Ernest Helling, Legal Division Attorney, and LeRoy S. Zimmerman, Attorney General, for respondent.

W. Mark Mullineaux, with him, Frank L. White, Jr., Duane, Morris & Heckscher, for intervenor as a matter of right, Tredyffrin/Easttown School District.

Paul L. Stevens ; of Counsel: Curtin and Heefner, for Amicus Curiae, Pennsylvania Association for Gifted Education (P.A.G.E.).

President Judge Crumlish, Jr., Judges Craig, MacPhail, Barry and Colins. Opinion by Judge Craig.

Author: Craig

[ 99 Pa. Commw. Page 58]

Scott S. and his parents, as petitioners, appeal from an order of the Secretary of Education rejecting a hearing officer's recommendation that Scott's individualized educational program (IEP) include a classroom-taught calculus course. The Secretary of Education's order determined that the Tredyffrin/Easttown School District's

[ 99 Pa. Commw. Page 591984]

-85 school year IEP proposal for Scott, who is mentally gifted, was appropriate. We affirm.

During the summer of 1984, the school district had developed an IEP for Scott. That program provided for enrollment in various honors courses and advanced placement courses but did not include a mathematics course. There is no dispute that Scott's particular aptitude is in mathematics. However, the school district had accelerated Scott through its mathematics program, at his parents' request, to the extent that he had completed the school district's final and most advanced mathematics course, B.C. Calculus, in his sophomore year. He received a B grade in that course.

After receiving the school district's proposal for Scott, which did not include a mathematics course, his parents challenged the appropriateness of that program and requested a due process hearing before a hearing officer pursuant to Department of Education regulations, 22 Pa. Code ยง 13.33. Pending the outcome of that due process hearing, the parents enrolled Scott in the Young Scholars Program at the University of Pennsylvania, where he participated in a calculus program at the cost of $200 a semester, plus books.

On October 15, 1984, a due process hearing was held before a hearing officer. The petitioners limited their challenge of the school district's IEP proposal to the extent that it did not include a mathematics course. The parents asserted that an appropriate IEP had to include an advanced level mathematics course, beyond B.C. calculus, in a classroom setting. They requested that the school district either provide that class or reimburse them for the cost of the college calculus course. The school district asserted ...


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.