Section 341.15. [Reserved]  

Individualized Education Plan

The bare assertion by a special school director that his institution would be able to implement an Individualized Education Plan formulated in accordance with 22 Pa. Code § 341.15, thereby providing an appropriate program of education as defined in 22 Pa. Code § 13.1 is insufficient to support a recommended assignment regarding the ability of an institution to implement an IEP and cannot constitute substantial evidence for placing a student who is brain-damaged as defined by 22 Pa. Code 341.1(i) and speech and language impaired as defined by 22 Pa. Code § 341.1(ix) in that particular school. Murphy v. Department of Education, 460 A.2d 398 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983); affirmed 504 A.2d 382 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986).

Individualized Educational Program for mathematically gifted students which did not provide for a math course was appropriate where student had already been provided several advanced math courses and it was the educational staff’s opinion that the student had gone ‘‘too far too fast’’ in math, to the detriment of his education in other subject areas, and where the IEP was otherwise appropriate. Scott S. v. Department of Education, 512 A.2d 790 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986).