Special Education Hearing Officer
ODR No. 1649-1011AS
Child’s Name: J.H.
Date of Birth: [redacted]
Dates of Hearing: 5/5/11
Parties to the Hearing:
349 Cemetery Street Hughesville, PA 17737-1028
Parent Attorney None
School District Attorney Jeffrey F. Champagne, Esq. McNees Wallace & Nurick PO Box 1166, 100 Pine Street Harrisburg, PA 17108
Date Record Closed: May 10, 2011
Date of Decision: May 25, 2011
Hearing Officer: Anne L. Carroll, Esq.
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Student is a high school age resident of the East Lycoming School District, who has always maintained an excellent academic record and exhibits a particular ability in math. At Parents’ request, the District conducted an evaluation to determine whether Student needs a gifted education program, but determined that Student met only two of the four eligibility criteria used by the District for identification of gifted students and, therefore, declined to offer a GIEP. Parents’ disagreement with the District’s conclusion led to a due process complaint and a one session hearing on May 5, 2011.
As fully explained below, based upon the testimony and documentary evidence produced at the hearing, there was no factual or legal error in the District’s non-eligibility conclusion. Accordingly, Parents’ claims in this matter must be denied.
- Did the School District properly evaluate Student for gifted education services?
- Did the District use appropriate factual and legal criteria for determining Student’s eligibility, and correctly conclude that Student is not a gifted student who needs specially designed instruction provided in accordance with a Gifted Individualized Educational Program (GIEP)?
- If the District failed to properly evaluate Student or incorrectly concluded that Student is not eligible for a gifted education, what is the appropriate remedy?