File Number: 7194/06-07 LS

Child’s Name: KC

Date of Birth: xx/xx/xx

School District: Minersville Area

Type of Hearing: Closed

For the Student:

Joseph P. Nahas, Esq.
214 South Lehigh Avenue Frackville, PA 17931

For the School District:

Mary Ann Wynosky
Minersville Area School District 787 Battlin Miners Drive Minersville, PA 17954

Nicholas A. Quinn, Esq. 601 West Market Street Pottsville, PA 17901

Due Process Hearing Request Date: December 1, 2006

Mandatory Resolution Meeting Date: February 27, 2007

Hearing Date: March 13, 2007

Date Transcript Received: March 19, 2007

Decision Date: April 1, 2007

Hearing Officer: Daniel J. Myers


Student is a xx year old, 3rd grade resident of the School District with dysgraphia, a specific learning disability, and attention deficit disorder, hyperactivity. Her parent objects to the School District’s proposed November 2006 IEP and contends that the School District has not been implementing Student’s pendent IEP. She contends that Student needs a smaller class size and more instructional time with a teacher or aide. The School District defends its proposed and pendent IEPs. For the reasons described below, I agree with Student’s parent that the proposed November 2006 IEP is deficient, but I disagree that the IEP must require a smaller class size and more instructional time with a teacher or aide. For similar reasons, I find the pendent IEP to be deficient as well. Accordingly, I order the School District to develop more appropriate baseline present levels of academic achievement, more appropriate IEP goals, and more appropriate progress monitoring.


Whether or not the School District has properly implemented Student’s IEP? Whether or not Student’s IEP is appropriate?


Leave a Reply