Pennsylvania Code & Bulletin

• No statutes or acts will be found at this website.

The Pennsylvania Code website reflects the Pennsylvania Code changes effective through 53 Pa.B. 6142 (September 30, 2023).

22 Pa. Code § 14.32. [Reserved].

§ 14.32. [Reserved].


   The provisions of this §  14.32 adopted June 15, 1990, effective July 1, 1990, 20 Pa.B. 3339; amended October 11, 1991, effective October 12, 1991, 21 Pa.B. 4830; amended December 18, 1992, effective December 19, 1992, 22 Pa.B. 6030; amended January 7, 1994, effective January 8, 1994, 24 Pa.B. 144; amended February 20, 1998, effective February 21, 1998, 28 Pa.B. 1002; reserved June 8, 2001, effective June 9, 2001, 31 Pa.B. 3021. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (242017) to (242018) and (256361) to (256363).

Notes of Decisions


   This section does not incorporate all possible related service personnel into the list of individuals whose salaries and retirement fund payments will be reimbursed by the Commonwealth; therefore, ‘‘assistants’’ did not include physical therapists, psychiatrists and the like. Bethlehem Area School District v. Carroll, 616 A.2d 737 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992).

   Cover Pages

   The school district failed to provide an exceptional student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE), where its individualized education program (IEP) was procedurally deficient because a certified school psychologist was not part of the Multiple Disciplinary Team, the required cover pages of the IEP which detail the type of program being offered, the related services, the duration of the IEP, various services that needed to be considered and reviewed and the like were noticeably absent, no Notice of Recommended Assignment was ever proffered by the district to the family, and there is no evidence in the record that the district ever attempted to go to the student’s school in order to develop further the Comprehensive Evaluation Report (CER) through the use of its own psychologist and other staff, and where the CER and the IEP devised by the district also failed to meet substantive requirements because the degree of need in the CER were sketchy and thin, the IEP was vague, failed to address a means of handling the student’s emotional and behavioral disorders and contained immeasurable standards. Cumberland Valley School District v. Lynn T., 725 A.2d 215 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999).


   As the approved private school failed to establish a basis for an allocation of allowable costs alternative to the equivalent full-time student (EFTS) reimbursement entitlement formula which the auditor applied in concluding that the Department of Education had overpaid the school, the Court properly determined that the school must reimburse the Department of Education for overpayments which the school received for tuition and maintenance of approved special education pupils enrolled at the school. Community Country Day School v. Department of Education, 641 A.2d 1282 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994).

   Reimbursement Appropriate

   The school district failed to meet its obligations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act for the 1994-95 school year because it did not make any formal offer of educational placement for the student until April 1995, 10 months after the school district offered an inappropriate placement and nearly 7 months after the hearing officer determined that the offered placement was inappropriate and ordered the school district to provide an appropriate educational program. Thus, the parent was entitled to reimbursement of tuition expenses at the private school which offered an appropriate education. Christen G. v. Lower Merion School Dist., 919 F. Supp. 793 (E. D. 1996).

   Reimbursement Inappropriate

   Although the parent disagreed with the emotional support component of the Individualized Education Plan, the school district’s plan was reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits and was a free appropriate public education; thus, the parent was not entitled to tuition reimbursement for private education. Christen G. v. Lower Merion School Dist., 919 F. Supp. 793 (1996).

   Religious Schools

   Reimbursement to a parent for the cost of educating their child at a Quaker sponsored school where the school district failed to offer a free appropriate public education in accordance with its obligations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act did not violate the First Amendment to the United States Constitution by having a principal or primary effect that advances religion. Such reimbursement did not in any way advance religion and the only matter advanced was the determination by Congress that a disabled child should receive a free appropriate public education. Christen G. v. Lower Merion School Dist., 919 F. Supp. 793 (1996).

No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.

This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Code full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.