Section 14.123. Evaluation

(a) The group of qualified professionals, which reviews the evaluation materials to determine whether the child is a child with a disability under 34 CFR 300.306 (relating to determination of eligibility), shall include a certified school psychologist when evaluating a child for autism, emotional disturbance, mental retardation, multiple disabilities, other health impairments, specific learning disability or traumatic brain injury.

(b) In addition to the requirements incorporated by reference in 34 CFR 300.301 (relating to initial evaluations), the initial evaluation shall be completed and a copy of the evaluation report presented to the parents no later than 60-calendar days after the agency receives written parental consent for evaluation, except that the calendar days from the day after the last day of the spring school term up to and including the day before the first day of the subsequent fall school term will not be counted.

(c) Parents may request an evaluation at any time, and the request must be in writing. The school entity shall make the permission to evaluate form readily available for that purpose. If a request is made orally to any professional employee or administrator of the school entity, that individual shall provide a copy of the permission to evaluate form to the parents within 10-calendar days of the oral request.

(d) Copies of the evaluation report shall be disseminated to the parents at least 10 school days prior to the meeting of the IEP team, unless this requirement is waived by a parent in writing.

The provisions of this § 14.123 adopted June 8, 2001, effective June 9, 2001, 31 Pa.B. 3021; amended June 27, 2008, effective July 1, 2008, 38 Pa.B. 3575. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (293071) to (293072).

Notation

Authority

The provisions of this § 14.123 amended under sections 1372 and 2603-B of the Public School Code of 1949 (24 P. S. § § 13-1372 and 26-2603-B).

Notes of Decisions

Basis for Decision

The panel’s award of compensatory education was premised on a separate and distinct basis from the issues raised before the Hearing officer, requiring remand for an evidentiary hearing and an adjudication on the issue of appropriateness of the multidisciplinary evaluation. Mifflin County School District v. Special Education Due Process Appeals Board, 800 A.2d 1010 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002).

Cross References

This section cited in 22 Pa. Code Appendix A (relating to model memorandum of understanding); 22 Pa. Code § 14.153 (relating to evaluation); and 22 Pa. Code § 14.161 (relating to purchasing conferences).