VG vs. Carlynton School District

V .G.

Date of Birth: [redacted]
Date of Hearing: February 15, 2008


Parties to the Hearing: Parent:

Carlynton School District

Date Transcript Received: February 19, 2008

Date of Decision: February 21, 2008

Gerald Dambach, Ed.d Hearing Officer


[Student] is a xx year old grade 12 student at Carlynton High School. She is identified as Gifted and receives Gifted Support (GS). During grade 12 [Student] is attending Carlynton for AP English 12, PE (2 days/week) and band (2 days/week). She attends [Redacted] University on an early release program. At [Redacted University] she is currently taking two (2) courses. In the Fall 2007 she also took two (2) courses at [Redacted University]. During the Fall term [Student] took Calculus II and English and she is currently taking Biological Statistics and English at [Redacted University].

There is no current agreed to GIEP for Carlynton. The district has offered a GIEP but, it has not been agreed to by the parent. The issue for this hearing is the development of an appropriate GIEP for grade 12 to reflect gifted programming in math. The parent would like the district to pay for the college credits for [Student] at [Redacted] University. The parent is seeking compensatory education for grade 12 because there is no appropriate GIEP. The parent would like tuition reimbursement for the courses at [Redacted University].


  1. Did the Carlynton School District offer an appropriate GIEP for [Student]for the 2007-08 school year?
  2. Is [Student] entitled to compensatory education?

Leave a Reply


Montgomery Law, LLC
1420 Locust Street, Suite 420
Philadelphia, PA 19102
T/F. 215-650-7563

Rate By
Joseph W Montgomery, II

New Jersey

Historic Smithville, Suite 1
1 N. New York Road
Galloway, NJ 08205
(all mail to Phila. office)
T. 856-282-5550

Disclaimer: Montgomery Law, LLC does not give legal advice until after it has entered into an attorney-client relationship. No part of this website creates an attorney-client relationship. All Parts of this website are Attorney Advertising. The photos and videos on this website contain portrayals of clients by non-clients, re-enactment of scenes, pictures and persons which are not actual or authentic and depictions which are a dramatization.