Brownsville Area School District v. Student X
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
729 A.2d 198 (1999)
- Written by Daniel Clark, JD
Facts
Student X (defendant) tested in the ninety-fifth percentile for mathematics, reading, and language ability as a kindergarten student in the Brownsville Area School District (district) (plaintiff). Student X’s parents sought an accelerated program for Student X. When Student X was in fifth grade, the district furnished him with an individualized education program (IEP) pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to place Student X into a gifted program. The district failed, however, to individualize the IEP, monitor Student X’s progress under the IEP, or update the IEP. Student X’s parents requested a due-process hearing and alleged that the district had failed to provide Student X with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) as required by the IDEA. The hearing officer agreed with Student X’s parents and ordered the district to provide Student X with nearly 2,000 hours of compensatory instructional hours. The hours were to include instruction beyond that offered by the district, which would require the district to arrange enrollment for Student X in postsecondary schools or to hire individual instructors. An administrative appeals panel upheld the hearing officer’s order, and the district brought suit in the commonwealth court, seeking judicial review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Colins, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.