22 Pa. Code § 13.1. [Reserved].

§ 13.1. [Reserved].

Source

   The provisions of this §  13.1 adopted May 15, 1970; amended November 30, 1973, effective December 1, 1973, 3 Pa.B. 2763; amended June 13, 1975, effective June 14, 1975, 5 Pa.B. 1541; reserved June 15, 1990, effective July 1, 1990, 20 Pa.B. 3339. Immediately preceding text appears at (133102) and (135541) to (135542).

Notes of Decisions

   Unisensory hearing therapy sessions were found to be an ‘‘appropriate program’’ by the Department of Education for which the school district was required to provide free transportation. Philadelphia School District v. Department of Education, 547 A.2d 520 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988).
   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).
   Parental preference for classroom instruction over independent ability was not sufficient to establish that instruction provided under Individualized Educational Program must be in a classroom setting. Scott S. v. Department of Education, 512 A.2d 790 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986).
   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 provid ing an appropriate program of education as defined in this section 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).
   The definition of ‘‘gifted and talented school aged persons’’ identifies children who deviate from the norm mentally and creatively and, as such, fall well within the parameters of the legislative definition of ‘‘exceptional children’’ which is contained in 24 P. S. §  13-1371(1). Lisa H. v. State Board of Education, 447 A.2d 669 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982); affirmed 467 A.2d 1127 (Pa. 1983).
   Gifted and talented students are included within this definition of exceptional persons. Central York School District v. Department of Education, 399 A.2d 167 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).

No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.

This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Code full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.