B.C. and natural guardian, J.C. v. Penn Manor School District
No. 1150 C.D. 2005 (Pa. Commonwealth, 2006)
Facts of the Case
B.C. entered Penn Manor School District as a kindergarten student in the fall of the 2000/2001 school year. B.C. was identified as gifted during his 1st grade year (01-02). On November 12, 2002, the district issued a report for eligibility for the district’s Discovery program. A Gifted Individualized Education Plan (GIEP) was written for the 2002/2003 school year. B.C.’s parents signed a Notice of Recommended Assignment (NORA) agreeing to the services presented by the school district. The GIEP tracked the Discovery program but provided little individualized education for B.C.. On September 4, 2003 a GIEP was written and implemented for the 2003/2004 school year. The GIEP was written to include advanced math instruction but no other individualized instruction. B.C. was to attend the Discovery program and receive accelerated math in small groups.
On March 8, 2004 B.C.’s parents addressed the school stating that they did not believe B.C. was receiving individualized education and requested that their son be reevaluated. The school reevaluated B.C. on May 20-21, 2004. While the school was evaluating B.C., the parents also had B.C. independently evaluated two times. The parents rejected the 2004/2005 GIEP and request due process on August 5, 2004.
A due process hearing took place between December 6, 2004 and February 15, 2005. On April 2, 2005, the hearing officer filed extensive findings and conclusions of law. The hearing officer stated that any claim regarding the 2002-2003 GIEP was time-barred under Montour School District v. S.T. and Carlyton School District v. D.S., 815 A.2d 666 (Pa Cmwlth. 2003)unless B.C. was able to prove mitigating circumstances to explain why he did not file due process earlier. In regards to the 2003-2004 GIEP, the hearing officer found that the GIEP failed to describe the student’s present ability levels or needs. The 2004-2005 GIEP was found to be a vast improvement from the 2003-2004 GIEP. Based on her findings, the hearing officer concluded that B.C. was denied a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2003-2004 school year and awarded B.C. one hour of compensatory education for every school day of the 2003-2004 school year. The school district was also ordered to write the 2004-2005 GIEP with short-term learning outcomes.
Both B.C. and the district filed exceptions to the hearing officer’s decision with the Special Education Due Process Appeals Review Panel. The panel stated that B.C. failed to prove any outstanding circumstances to excuse the delay in the due process, rejecting the student’s exception that the statue of limitations was actually two years. The panel also found that the student was not entitled to a full day of compensatory education for each day of the 2003-2004 school year. The panel affirmed the hearing officer’s award of one hour compensatory education for every school day of the 2003-2004 school year. The panel also found the hearing officer’s requirement that the district to draft short-term outcomes for the 2004-2005 GIEP be to merely a strong suggestion.
Decision of the Court
On August 15, 2006, the Commonwealth Court No. 1150 C.D. 2005, affirmed the decisions of both the hearing officer and the panel. . The student was not granted compensatory education for the 2002-2003 school year but he was granted one hour per school day of compensatory education for the 2003-2004 school year.
Basis of the Decision
The Commonwealth Court based its decision on three contexts. First, the student was unable to prove mitigating circumstances to incorporate the 2002-2003 school year based on statue of limitations (Montour School District v. S.T. and Carlyton School District v. D.S., 815 A.2d 666 (Pa Cmwlth. 2003) and procedural grounds. New issues can not be brought up in higher courts that were not brought up in the lower courts. Since, a standard had not yet been set at the state level regarding awarding compensatory education, the court looked to Federal three federal cases for guidance. This court based its decisions on the decisions reached by the Ninth and the District Columbia’s Circuits: “We find the Ninth and District Columbia’s Circuits’ standard more persuasive and workable that that of the third circuit, as it tailors the equitable award of compensatory education to the particular student’s need, which a one-for-one standard fails to do.”
Prepared by Lindsie Wolfe, June 2007.