Section 13.11. [Reserved]  


Latest version.

The provisions of this § 13.11 adopted May 15, 1970; amended November 31, 1973, effective December 1, 1973, 3 Pa.B. 2763; amended June 13, 1975, effective June 14, 1975, 5 Pa.B. 1541; amended June 17, 1977, effective June 18, 1977, 7 Pa.B. 1636; reserved June 15, 1990, effective July 1, 1990, 20 Pa.B. 3339. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (135545) to (135546).

Notation

Notes of Decisions

Appropriate Facility

Where substantial evidence indicates that an appropriate educational or training facility exists within the Commonwealth, an appeal for placement in an out-of-State program will be denied. Murphy v. Department of Education, 504 A.2d 382 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986).

Appropriate Placement

Since the parents of a deaf child did not establish that a vocational education was preferable to an academic education for their child and did not establish that the district or intermediate unit could not provide such vocational education, placement of the child in the Pennsylvania School for the Deaf was not justified. Fitz v. Intermediate Unit Number 29, 403 A.2d 138 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).

There is no duty to use private schools in programs for handicapped school-aged persons. Summit School, Inc. v. Department of Education, 402 A.2d 1142 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).

Placement of a child at the Vanguard School was proper, since she was not attaining her intellectual potential in a public school, but her behavior had dramatically changed for the better after her placement at Vanguard. Levy v. Department of Education, 399 A.2d 159 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).

Appropriate Program

In light of the provisions in subsection (b) (placing primary responsibility for special education programs on school districts), an intermediate unit was not bound to continue classes for educable mentally retarded students absent a showing that the petitioner itself could not efficiently and effectively provide an appropriate educational program for such students. Bermudian Springs School District v. Department of Education, 475 A.2d 943 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984).

All handicapped school-age persons are entitled to an appropriate program of education or training as defined in this section including the right to due process procedures to determine appropriateness. Murphy v. Department of Education, 460 A.2d 398 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983); affirmed 504 A.2d 382 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986).

There is nothing which requires a ‘‘more appropriate’’ program when an appropriate educational program exists in the intermediate unit. Krawitz v. Department of Education, 408 A.2d 1202 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).

Identification

Learning disabled students are required to be identified in order to evaluate the need for special educational services. Frederick L. v. Thomas, 557 F.2d 373 (3rd Cir. 1977).