IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, a minor, by her parents Joseph and Karen Gaskin;
JOHN FORTE, a minor, by his parents Daniel and Michaelene Forte;
HASSAN ADIB SABREE, a minor, by his mother Hana Sabree;
MERRIN RAINEY, a minor, by her parents, Thomas and Linda Rainey;
SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, a minor, by his parents, Thomas and Wendy Luckinbill;
LISA McCANN, a minor, by her mother, Lisa McCann;
ELIZABETH MOSER, a minor, by her mother, Giovanna Moser;
ANNE CORR, a minor, by her foster parents and next friends, Patrick and Judith Corr;
BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, a minor, by his parents, James and Dawn Koneski;
MICHAEL WINTERING, a minor, by his parents, Michael and Nancy Wintering;
SARAH NOE, a minor, by her parents, Roland and Janice Noe;
TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, a minor, by her parents, Richard and Robin Zimenoff;
THE ARC OF PENNSYLVANIA, on behalf of its members;
LEARNING DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA, on behalf of its members;

:

CIVIL ACTION NO.

:

:

:

CLASS ACTION

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: : : : : : : : : : :

PENNSYLVANIA PROTECTION & ADVOCACY, INC.;
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION OF CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES, on behalf of its members;
PENNSYLVANIA STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, on behalf of its members;
AUTISM SUPPORT AND ADVOCACY IN PENNSYLVANIA, on behalf of its members;
PENNSYLVANIA TASH, on behalf of its members;
PARENTS UNION FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, on behalf of its members,
PHILADELPHIA POLICE & FIRE ASSOCIATION FOR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN, on behalf of its members;
DISABLED IN ACTION, on behalf of its members;
THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, on behalf of its members;
Plaintiffs
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA;
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION;
DONALD M. CARROLL, Jr., in his official capacity as Secretary of Education, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania;
JOSEPH F. BARD, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education, Pennsylvania Department of Education;
MICHELLE DESERA, in her official capacity as Director, Bureau of Special Education, Pennsylvania

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
: : : : : :
: : : : : : : : : : : : :

Department of Education;

:

:

EARL H. HORTON; MADGE K. BENOVITZ;

:

E. PETER BENZING; RONALD R.

:

COWELL; EDWARD DONLEY;

:

KARL R. GIRTON; EDITH W. ISACKE;

:

R. GERARD LONGO; BEATRICE

:

MOORE; JAMES J. RHOADES;

:

HOWARD SELEKMAN,

:

in their official capacities

:

as members of the State

:

Board of Education and the

:

Council of Basic Education,

:

:

Defendants.

:

COMPLAINT

Introduction

1. This is an action to enjoin the Pennsylvania Secretary of

Education from frustrating the effective education of students with

disabilities whose parents seek their education in regular class

with supplementary aids and services. It is brought by students

with disabilities and their parents, on behalf of themselves and

all others similarly situated, and by statewide and regional

organizations created by parents, citizens with disabilities,

advocates and professionals, to redress the violation of federal

law which requires

(a) comprehensive personnel development;

(b) the "adoption of promising educational

practices and materials";

(c) an "appropriate educational program" for

each child, that is, one reasonably calculated

to confer real educational benefits, and

(d)

the

education

of

children

with

disabilities "to the maximum extent

appropriate, with children who do not have

disabilities."

3

2. Federal law is plain that a school district, when determining whether a child with disabilities can be included in a regular classroom, "'must consider the whole range of supplemental aids and services'" that will make inclusion possible, including "speech and language therapy, special education training for the regular teacher, behavior modification programs, or any other available aids and services appropriate to the child's particular disabilities." Oberti v. Board of Education of the Borough of Clementon, 995 F. 2d 1204, 1216 (3d Cir. 1993), quoting Greer v. Rome City School District, 950 F.2d 688, 696 (11th Cir. 1991). The school "must also make efforts to modify the regular education program to accommodate a disabled child." Id., citing 34 C.F.R. Part 300, App. C. Question 48. Defendants, officials of the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE), have failed to assure that local school districts provide "the whole range" of supplementary aids and services in regular classes, or that personnel are trained to provide those services adequately.
3. As a result of defendants' inactions, some plaintiff students are mainstreamed in regular classrooms but are denied the specially designed instruction, modification of the regular curriculum and other supplementary aids and services that they need to receive an appropriate education, while other plaintiff students are unnecessarily segregated and denied their right to be educated with students who do not have disabilities to the maximum extent appropriate.
4. Plaintiffs have been denied the benefits of specialized instruction in regular education settings because the defendants have failed to discharge their duty under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) to assure that each local
4

education agency in Pennsylvania develops and implements a plan for comprehensive personnel development. Such plans must ensure that all personnel receive the training necessary to fulfill the purposes of IDEA, including the integration of students with disabilities in regular classes to the maximum extent appropriate with supplementary aids and services.
5. Although school district personnel development plans do not meet the requirements of IDEA and are not adequate to assure mastery by district personnel of the provision of supplementary aids and services in regular classes, PDE routinely approves these plans and does not require school districts to provide the training required by IDEA.
6. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief in the form of an order to PDE to assure that school district personnel are adequately trained to educate students with disabilities in regular classes with supplementary aids and services and to assure that students with disabilities have access, to the maximum extent appropriate, to supplementary aids and services in regular classrooms.
Jurisdiction and Venue 7. This court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1343. Plaintiffs' cause of action arises under 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq., 29 U.S.C. § 794, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 12161-12165. Venue in this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
Plaintiffs 8. LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN is ten years old and lives with her parents, Joseph and Karen Gaskin, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Lydia is a student in the Moreland Elementary School of the Carlisle Area School District (CASD). She has Down Syndrome and, as is typical of
5

children with Down Syndrome, she has retardation, low muscle tone

and difficulties with fine motor control and coordination.

9. Lydia has friends in the neighborhood who do not have

disabilities, and she participates in community activities such as

Sunday School and YMCA camp with nondisabled peers. Her parents

have asked that she be fully included in regular classes of the

Carlisle Area School District with appropriate supportive services.

10. Lydia attended preschool programs in Carlisle including a

regular nursery school. When she reached kindergarten age in 1989,

her parents enrolled her in CASD and asked the district to place

her in a regular kindergarten with support and related services.

CASD offered the Gaskins three placement choices:

a

Multihandicapped Assessment class operated by the intermediate

unit; a class for trainable mentally retarded (TMR) children in a

middle school; and regular kindergarten with no supplementary aids

and services.

The district informed the Gaskins that it could

place Lydia in a regular kindergarten, but could not provide her

with supplementary aids and services in that setting.

11. While the Gaskins first chose the intermediate unit

program, they soon noticed regression and other negative changes in

Lydia's behavior and asked that Lydia be placed in a regular

kindergarten class of CASD with and Individualized Education

Program (IEP) and supplementary aids and services, including

consultation by the special education director to the classroom

teacher and the help of a teacher aide. The District agreed to

place Lydia in the regular kindergarten, but refused to develop an

IEP for her on the ground that the district had other children with

disabilities placed in regular classrooms without IEPs and did not

want to set a "precedent" that might force it to develop IEPs for

6

these children.

12. The district agreed to provide certain supplementary aids

and services to Lydia in the regular classroom including speech

therapy and a full-time classroom aide.

The director of special

education for the district agreed to consult with the regular

kindergarten teacher.

13. Lydia made progress in the kindergarten class. The signs

of regression that the Gaskins had observed were completely

reversed. Her speech improved.

She made friendships with the

children in her class. The following year, both the school district

and Lydia's parents agreed that she would repeat the regular

kindergarten with the same supplementary aids and services.

14. In spring and summer of 1991, the Gaskins asked that Lydia

progress into regular first grade with supplementary aids and

services. However, the district informed the Gaskins that the full-

time aide Lydia had during 1990-91 would not be available for the

coming year. The district instead produced an IEP and Notice of

Recommended Assignment (NORA) placing Lydia into a full-time

learning support class, while promising to "look into" a more

inclusive program. The Gaskins signed the NORA because the director

of special education had told their advocate that if they did not

sign it Lydia would not be able to attend school in the fall.

15. The Gaskins were unable to resolve their differences with the school district and requested a due process hearing. The hearing was held in February and March, 1992 before a hearing officer assigned by the Pennsylvania Right to Education Office, an agency that coordinates special education hearings under contract with PDE. Like many hearing officers recruited and trained by the
7

Right to Education Office, the hearing officer assigned to Lydia's

case was a special education professional employed by an

intermediate unit.

16. Prior to the hearing, the district made a settlement

proposal which it defended at the hearing as its proposed program

and placement. According to that proposal, Lydia would be

mainstreamed in regular classes for approximately 36% of the school

day. For 51% of the school day Lydia would be somewhere other than

a regular class and the remaining 13% of the day would be occupied

by lunch and recess. The school district's proposal would require

Lydia to go in and out of the regular classroom 27 times per week.

It contained no provision for support in the regular classroom, nor

did it state how the regular first grade program would be modified

so that Lydia could work on her own IEP goals and objectives in the

regular classroom.

Thus, Lydia's IEP goals were not addressed in

the regular class and the instruction in the regular class was not

modified for her. No aide was present in the regular class to

assist her although an aide was available when she was in the

learning support class.

17. The Gaskins alleged at the hearing that the district had

violated Lydia's rights under Pennsylvania law, Section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the

IDEA including both 20 U.S.C. § §1412(5)(b) (the integration

requirement of the Act) and 20 U.S.C. §§ 1413(a)(3) and

1414(a)(1)(C)(i) (the comprehensive personnel development

requirement). During the hearing, the hearing officer refused to

consider the Gaskins' claim that the school district had failed to

carry out its duty to train its personnel as required by 20 U.S.C.

§§ 1413(a)(3) and 1414(a)(1)(C)(i).

8

18. On April 16, 1992, the hearing officer ordered that Lydia
remain in the learning support class to the extent proposed by the
school district with the exception of Lydia's physical education,
which he found she could receive with regular first graders. The
hearing officer did not reach the Gaskins' claims under Section 504
or the ADA, claiming that those claims were "identical" to their
claims under the IDEA and state law.
19. The Gaskins appealed to the Special Education Appeals
Panel which, in a decision on June 19, 1992, affirmed the hearing
officer. In essence, the Panel held that Lydia's full inclusion in
regular class was inappropriate because she would not be able to
master the regular academic curriculum. In rejecting the evidence
presented by the Gaskins that supplementary aids and services,
including a modified curriculum, would enable Lydia to meet her
educational goals within the matrix of the regular class, the Panel
looked not to Lydia's educational needs but to the integrity of the
regular education curriculum:
What concerns this Panel, and what we do not believe served Lydia's interests at all, is that the specific supplementary aids and curriculum modifications desired by the parents would lead to Lydia being included only in a physical sense ....we do not agree that the type of program growing out of [the modifications suggested by the parents] would result in "inclusive" education in its intended sense. Even though it is beyond question that education for Lydia is not the same as it may be for her nonhandicapped peers, we believe that evaluation of these supplementary aids and modifications must consider the realization that there are still academic purposes to regular education. Those purposes have a place in deciding whether inclusion is appropriate for a particular child in individual subject areas, since presumably they are part of the benefit that is to be obtained from being "included" in regular education.
9

Pennsylvania Special Education Appeals Panel Opinion No. 565-A at 15-16. In so holding, the Appeals Panel did not inquire whether Lydia could benefit from being educated in the regular class with supplementary aids and services by accomplishing her own educational goals; rather, it assumed that even if she could meet the goals in her own IEP in the regular class, inclusion would still be inappropriate as long as she was not achieving the same academic benefit as the "regular" students.
20. On many occasions, beginning in 1991, the Gaskins have asked the CASD Superintendent and Board to provide a program of inclusive education for Lydia, that the district engage the help of an integration specialist and hire an Instructional Support Teacher (IST) to facilitate the inclusion of children with special learning needs, including Lydia, in regular classes. Instructional support is a program required of each school district in Pennsylvania in which specially training teachers may provide "consultation, technical assistance and training to the teachers and parents of identified students" in regular classes. 22 PA. CODE 342.24(d). The school district has taken the position that instructional support is available only for regular education students, and that it is inappropriate to use an instructional support teacher to facilitate the inclusion of a child who has been identified as exceptional. In any case, the district has not made an instructional support teacher available to any students in Lydia's school building.
21. As part of its Quality Education Initiatives project, PDE has developed GATEWAYS (Gaining Access To an Education With All Youth and Students), a model program for the inclusion of students with significant disabilities into regular schools and classes. Schools participating in GATEWAYS receive training in inclusion and
10

best practices for students with significant disabilities, assistance from Statewide Support Initiative consultants in developing an action plan for inclusion and frequent on-site technical assistance from experts provided by PDE. GATEWAYS enables schools to train special and regular education teachers in practices that lead to successful integration including the delivery of specialized services in regular classrooms, consultation between regular and special education, modification of educational materials, the use of classroom aides, peer tutoring, and the development of friendships and social networks for students with disabilities.
22. However, participation in GATEWAYS is voluntary--school districts must apply for a grant from PDE--and PDE makes only a limited number of GATEWAYS grants available each year. CASD has elected not to apply for a GATEWAYS grant.
23. Although several special education teachers from CASD attended a workshop on inclusion that was sponsored by the local intermediate unit, this was not a training program but simply an overview of inclusion. CASD has not required regular education teachers to receive training in the provision of supplementary aids and services in their classes to children with disabilities.
24. Since the Appeals Panel decision, the Gaskins have continued to ask for full inclusion for Lydia at each annual IEP meeting. They have also asked the district to obtain training and technical assistance to facilitate Lydia's inclusion, including the assistance of an instructional support teacher and a GATEWAYS grant. After learning that training and technical assistance was available from Temple University in the Adaptive Learning Environments Model (ALEM), a highly successful method for including
11

children with disabilities in regular classes, and that Temple staff were willing to train CASD staff in ALEM, the Gaskins asked CASD to consider Temple as a source of assistance as well, but the district declined to do so.
25. Despite the Gaskins' persistent advocacy, the district has not agreed to full inclusion for Lydia, nor has it agreed to obtain the training and technical assistance its teacher, particularly its regular education teachers, need to learn how to include Lydia. Lydia's IEP for 1993-94 specified that she would be removed from regular class up to 40% of the time. Lydia's IEP for 1994-95 fails to specify the extent of her participation in regular class. The IEP provides that she will be removed from the regular class for math, reading and language arts and leaves the amount of her removal from language arts class to the discretion of her teachers. District representatives at the IEP meeting said they would "try" to include Lydia for some part of language arts but they would not commit to what part and for how much time.
26. The actions and inactions of defendants as set forth in paragraphs 200-250 below have denied Lydia Gaskin her right to receive a free appropriate education in regular classes with supplementary aids and services.
27. JOHN FORTE is eighteen years old and lives with his parents, Daniel and Michaelene Forte, in Bensalem, Pennsylvania. John has significant learning disabilities including severe dyslexia. He is a student in the Bensalem Township School District (BTSD), where in the acquisition of academic skills he has lagged far behind his superior intellectual potential.
28. John was first identified as an exceptional student in 1982, when he was attended the Neshaminy School District. He was
12

classified as "brain injured" and placed in an approved private school, the Summit School. In 1983, he was transferred to the Wordsworth Academy, another approved private school, where he remained until 1988. Wordsworth was a school for children classified as brain injured or socially and emotionally disturbed. All but one of the students there was male; the atmosphere was like that of a detention center. John was educated with children who were disturbed, aggressive or absorbed in self-stimulation. Students at Wordsworth were frequently restrained or placed in time-out boxes. Students used drugs on school outings. John could not understand why he was there and became withdrawn and confused.
29. Wordsworth failed completely to address John's dyslexia and inability to read. Instead of instruction in primary reading skills, he was made to read the same paragraph over and over again, or to write the same sentence--"I will ignore the immature behavior of others"--over and over. He made virtually no educational progress at all in the time he was there.
30. In November, 1988, John's parents asked that BTSD remove him from Wordsworth because the program was extremely inappropriate and because John expressed such unhappiness and anxiety about attending the school. The school district agreed to place John in a regular school building operated by the district. The district placed John in a learning disabilities (now called learning support) class in a district middle school.
31. In a class of twelve exceptional students with very diverse needs, John's special education teacher was unable to individualize the classroom instruction to John's specific learning disabilities. John's primary reading disorder--a specific learning disability in word attack or word decoding skills--was not
13

addressed. Rather, the students were all given a standard reading program. The students were not achieving on grade level, the curricular expectations were lowered, and the program was geared toward the lowest common denominator.
32. John was depressed and angry because of the wasted years he had spent at Wordsworth. His parents asked that he receive psychotherapy as a related service but the school district refused, not because John did not need it but because BTSD had a policy of not providing psychotherapy to any student who was not in an approved private school.
33. John's parents twice took the school district to due process over the services he needed, but was not provided, while he was a student in the learning support class. In the first proceeding, in 1989, the hearing officer ordered the school district to provide a specialized reading program to remediate John's difficulty with word attack skills. The program could be delivered by an instructional aide for two twenty-minute periods three times a week; however, the district did not consistently implement the program and John's difficulties with reading persisted. At the time of the hearing, when John was thirteen, his word attack skills were on a first grade level; at the time of his most recent testing, he had progressed only to a third grade level.
34. John's parents requested the second due process hearing to obtain psychotherapy for him. The Special Education Appeals Panel found that John needed that service, and, for the second time in an administrative opinion at the state level, found that Bensalem's policy and practice to refusing of provide psychotherapy to students enrolled in the regular schools of the district violated the IDEA. BTSD had followed this categorical policy for many years
14

without corrective action by PDE. 35. John refused to remain in the learning support class for
ninth grade because he wanted to be educated in a regular class. His parents supported him and requested regular classroom placement. The school district refused, telling John's parents that they were "making a guinea pig" of their son and that district personnel could not adapt the instruction and curriculum for him. The Fortes removed John from BTSD and enrolled him in a parochial school in Lawrenceville, New Jersey, which they chose because it had a remedial program.
36. John spent ninth and tenth grade and part of the eleventh grade in parochial school. At the school in New Jersey, John was not eligible for any supportive special education services, including psychology, because he was not a New Jersey resident. For this reason, his parents transferred him to another parochial school in Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, which was unable to provide the supplementary aids and services John needed. In the fall of 1993, the Fortes re-enrolled John in the Bensalem Township School District and insisted that he be educated in regular classes.
37. When John re-enrolled in BTSD, the district refused to develop an IEP for him because he wanted to be in regular classes. The school guidance counselor informed John's parents that he "belonged in special education" and that the teachers could not adapt for him in the regular classes. John's mother insisted that the school district develop a new IEP and that they use his last IEP from eighth grade until a new one was completed. However, the district did not develop a new IEP until the spring of 1994.
38. John was provided with no supplementary aids and services in the regular classroom and his regular education teachers did not
15

even know he was a special education student. He was embarrassed and made fun of in class. He began cutting English class after the teacher humiliated him for his reading performance. In February, 1994, he was excluded from school and placed on homebound instruction after threatening the English teacher who had repeatedly humiliated him. He returned to school in April, 1994. While he was out of school, he received a total of one hour of homebound instruction until the last two weeks of his exclusion, when the district offered him tutoring provided by a private agency under contract with the district.
39. After the February incident the district agree to develop an IEP for John containing adaptations of the regular classroom instruction and materials, including extra time for completing reading assignments, extra time for test-taking and an opportunity to go back over the test, the use of a spell-checker in English class, the use of a calculator in math, frequent short quizzes and behavioral support emphasizing positive approaches. However, the adaptations have not been provided. Regular education teachers say it is "not in my job description" to adapt instruction for a special education student. The math teacher refused to sign the IEP or take the list of adaptations that was handed to her by the school district; she said that John was being "dumped" on her.
40. On the April IEP, the private tutoring service was listed as John's special education. However, the service was neither able nor qualified to provide special education or to adapt John's regular classroom work for him. Instead, they gave him books to read that are designed for third graders.
41. After it became clear that the tutoring service could not meet John's needs, the district assigned him to a resource room,
16

where he was supposed to receive assistance with his work for one or two periods a day. The resource room teacher's job description was that of a monitor, not a special education teacher. He had sixteen students with physical and learning disabilities who came to the resource room to do their classroom assignments. The teacher was overwhelmed with the diverse needs of these students and had neither the training nor the time to teach John. At a meeting in June with the resource room teacher, John's mother learned that he had never seen John's IEP. When she asked that he provide John with the specialized instruction he needed to complete his assignments in regular classes, he refused.
42. In June, 1994, John's mother attended IEP conferences with the school district to develop an Individualized Education Program that would provide the supplementary aids and services John needs to succeed in the regular class. However, the teachers told John's mother that they were unable to adapt for John because they had too many students in their classes. The IEP team agreed with John's mother than the adaptations promised for him in the past have not been provided. The vice-principal of the school stated that he could not make the regular education teachers adapt instruction for John if they were unwilling to do so. When John's advocate suggested a program of specialized reading instruction, OrtonGillingham, which must be implemented by a trained teacher, the district responded that there was no one at the school who was trained to use a reading program with John.
43. John ended the 1993-94 school year by failing several classes. He is an intelligent student with high potential that has been squandered by educational neglect. Because of his failure in school and his inability to read, his wasted years in special
17

education settings and his experience being treated as a "stupid"

student in regular education, John is depressed and angry. The harm

he has suffered may be life-long.

44. The actions and inactions of defendants as set forth in

paragraphs 200-250 below have denied John Forte his right to

receive a free appropriate education in regular classes with

supplementary aids and services.

45. HASSAN ADIB SABREE is fourteen years old and lives with

his mother, Hana Sabree, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Hassan has

Down Syndrome and is a student in ninth grade at Roxborough High

School in the Philadelphia School District, where he is placed in

a life skills support class.

46. For his entire school career, the school district has

never offered Hassan the opportunity to be a member of a classroom

with nondisabled students.

The Philadelphia School District has

placed Hassan in five different public schools. He was placed in a

full-time Trainable Mentally Retarded class at F.S. Edmond's

Elementary School from 1984-87; from 1987-90 he attended Emlen

Elementary School; in the school year 1990-91, he attended Jenks

Middle School; from 1991-93, he attended Hills Middle School; and

he presently attends Roxborough High School in a full-time life

skills support class.

47. In these self-contained classes, Hassan has been denied an

opportunity to learn effective academic skills. His reading

instruction has focused on teaching him to read sight words in

isolation, rather than mastery of a functional reading curriculum.

He has not been taught to learn to write, perform mathematical

calculations or to use money. Each attempt by his mother to make

these skills a part of his education has been met with resistance

18

by the school district. 48. Hassan was denied any opportunity to be educated with
nondisabled students until sixth grade, when, at his mother's insistence, a provision was included in his IEP requiring that he participate in regular physical education class twice per week. Upon Hassan's graduation from elementary school and his entry into Jenks Middle School, however, his participation in regular physical education was reduced to once a week. The next year, after Hassan was moved to Hill Middle School, all integration stopped and Hassan was placed in a life skills class at Hill in a separate section of the building from nondisabled students. Students in the Life Skills class even ate lunch at their own table within the cafeteria.
49. Hassan graduated from Hill Middle School in 1993 and entered Roxborough High School, the school he presently attends. In January 1994, at his mother's insistence, Hassan was integrated into a regular computer lab. However, he receives no support services during the lab time to enable him to fully participate. No IEP goals have been drafted that pertain to his work in the computer lab; no curriculum adaptations have been made; the teacher has received no training in how to teach Hassan or other students with intellectual disabilities. As a result, Hassan is denied an opportunity to participate in and benefit from the computer lab that is as effective as the opportunity provided the other students.
50. At Roxborough High School, Hassan's mother asked that he be included in extracurricular activities. The school consistently has refused, often with transparent excuses. For example, when Ms. Sabree requested that Hassan participate in the color guard, she was told he should participate in Special Olympics instead; when
19

she asked that he be allowed to participate as a towel boy in sports, she was told he could not because the games lasted too late at night, he would have to cross the street to get to the football field and only girls were assigned to give out the towels for football and basketball.
51. In January 1994, a meeting was held to develop an IEP and a transition plan for Hassan. The Philadelphia School District recommended that Hassan's placement be changed to the Industrial Production program at the Randolph Skills Center, a completely segregated program that offers no opportunity for interaction with nondisabled children. The program does not allow students to explore jobs that meet their interests and tracks disabled students into segregated and sheltered employment opportunities.
52. Throughout his entire school career, Hassan had little opportunity to model the behavior of age-appropriate nondisabled peers. In fact, he has lost appropriate behaviors his mother instills in him at home. Recently, Hasan has begun to mimic the behavior of another classmate by grinding his teeth, making strange noises, and letting his tongue hang out of his mouth.
53. In order to give Hassan the opportunity to be with nondisabled peers and to access an appropriate educational program, Hassan's mother has spent enormous energy in utilizing community resources outside of the educational system and working with him on developing functional academic and life skills. She has taught him to work on a computer, to use public transportation, use money, shop on his own, his own clothes, pay his way at movies, recite identifying information and his social security number, buy the newspaper, wash and dry his clothes at the laundromat, and shop at the supermarket. Since he was five years old, Hassan has
20

participated in typical camp programs through the YMCA and Boys' Club of Philadelphia. He was fully included in the Rites of Passage program, a Saturday program at Temple University that teaches school-age children about African history and becoming a responsible member of one's community.
54. Ms. Sabree wants Hassan to have the opportunity to participate and learn with his nondisabled peers. She wants Hassan to have supplementary aids and services available to him so that he can benefit from inclusion in a regular education classroom and from extracurricular activities.
55. The actions and inactions of defendants as set forth in paragraphs 200-250 below have denied Hassan Sabree his right to receive a free appropriate education in regular classes with supplementary aids and services.
56. MERRIN RAINEY is fourteen years old and lives with her parents, Thomas and Linda Rainey, in Fairview, Pennsylvania. Merrin has mild mental retardation and severe motor and language disabilities. Merrin has been misdiagnosed as moderately retarded because of her significant language disability, and at times her difficulty performing motor tasks and language skills has led to the development of behavior problems. Merrin is a student in the Fairview School District, where she is placed in a self-contained learning support class for her academic subjects with integration into regular class for science, social studies and specials.
57. Merrin began her schooling as a preschool student in an early childhood program operated by the Northwest Tri-County Intermediate Unit ("IU 5"). She was classified by the IU as "trainable mentally retarded" (TMR). When Merrin reached school age, she was placed by the IU in a self-contained classroom for
21

children labelled TMR operated by the IU but located at the Chestnut Elementary School in her home school district. The placement decision was made by matching Merrin's classification, based on her scores on an IQ test and a test of adaptive behavior, to a classroom with the corresponding label. The IU psychologist recommended the TMR placement on the ground that "Given her mental age and her present social functioning it would probably be in Merrin's best interest if she were serviced through the Trainably Mentally Retarded classroom" and suggested that eventually "Merrin could gain enough skills to go into an Educable Mentally Retarded setting." Merrin's IEP team did not inquire then, nor have her IEP teams inquired since, whether the services to help Merrin develop these skills could be provided in a regular class with supplementary aids and services.
58. In 1987, Merrin's parents, frustrated with the low expectations and lack of opportunity for learning in the TMR classroom, requested a due process hearing on the issue of Merrin's educational classification. They prevailed and in early 1988 Merrin's classification was changed to "educable mentally retarded" (EMR). The hearing officer directed that Merrin be placed in a combined mixed-category (EMR/LD) and TMR program with some time spent in regular education. Following the hearing officer's decision, the district and intermediate unit proposed several times to transfer Merrin to another school district. Merrin's parents successfully resisted the proposed transfers in a complaint filed with the United States Department of Education and in two additional due process hearings.
59. In the mixed-category/TMR program, Merrin had an IEP providing that she would receive art and music instruction in a
22

regular class. Instead, her instruction in these subjects was provided by regular education teachers within the TMR classroom. The Raineys filed a complaint with PDE seeking enforcement of the provisions in Merrin's IEP and were told that PDE policy allowed regular education teachers to deliver a regular curriculum to children with disabilities without the opportunity for integration with non-disabled children provided the parents were informed of that in writing. PDE ruled in April, 1989 that Merrin's placement for art and music was improper, but only because the Raineys had not been informed of it in writing.
60. After the third due process hearing decision in 1991, the Raineys asked the school district and intermediate unit to include Merrin as much as possible in regular class with supplementary aids and services. When Merrin's needs are met, and when she is provided with appropriate instruction including multisensory techniques, manipulatives and behavioral support, she does not display frustration or difficult behavior. However, the district and the intermediate unit have resisted even a limited amount of inclusion for Merrin. It was not until Merrin's last IEP meeting, in September, 1993, that the district and intermediate unit agreed to include Merrin in regular education for science and social studies, and inclusion in these subjects was not in fact implemented until January, 1994. Merrin's mother also asked at the IEP meeting for Merrin's inclusion in regular English class, but the district refused.
61. Lack of teacher training has been an enormous obstacle to Merrin's successful inclusion. Merrin's teachers have refused to be trained in techniques for implementing her IEP in a regular classroom--they say it is "not part of their job description." Nor
23

have the regular teachers been trained in the behavior management techniques listed on Merrin's IEP. Instead, a gym teacher who was unfamiliar with the behavior management plan in Merrin's IEP and failed to follow the plan when Merrin had a behavioral episode filed criminal charges against Merrin (the charges were dismissed).
62. Merrin has had many negative experiences with non-disabled peers that, in turn, have led to behavioral difficulties. Those experiences include teasing, baiting and making fun of Merrin and refusing to sit next to her. Beginning in September, 1992 and on at least six occasions thereafter, the Raineys asked the district and PDE to help Merrin develop better peer relationships through a widely used and highly successful technique for developing friendships between disabled and non-disabled students called "Circle of Friends." However, neither PDE nor the Intermediate Unit was able to provide training and technical assistance in Circle of Friends or a similar approach. Finally, Mrs. Rainey offered to provide the training herself; the district agreed to let her do this only in May, 1993, and then would only permit her to offer a class for volunteer attendees after school. The teachers were not paid or given release time to attend the training, and only one staff member, a special education teacher, attended, and then for only half the session.
63. The Raineys have repeatedly asked PDE to provide teacher training and technical assistance to Fairview School District to facilitate the inclusion of Merrin and other students with disabilities, and at times the school district has joined their request, but that assistance has not been forthcoming. For the last several years the school district has applied for a GATEWAYS grant, but its applications have been denied. On several occasions, for
24

example at a pre-hearing conference in November, 1992, the school district agreed to request technical assistance in behavioral support and curriculum and instructional modifications from PDE, but PDE was unable to provide the assistance requested in a timely fashion. At a planning meeting for Merrin in January, 1993, a PDE consultant agreed to provide technical assistance in curriculum modification, but failed to return to the district for a year and a half.
64. Merrin has been assigned a special education teacher to assist with her inclusion in regular classes, but instead of facilitating her inclusion the teacher follows her everywhere and does everything for her, inducing dependency on Merrin's part, hindering her integration into the class and preventing the development of peer relationships and social skills.
65. At Merrin's last IEP conference in September, 1993, her mother asked for supplementary aids and services to facilitate Merrin's inclusion in the regular class including taped textbooks, curriculum materials on Merrin's reading level, assistive technology, teaching Merrin keyboarding skills, inservice training in modifying the regular curriculum, disability awareness, Circle of Friends and co-teaching by regular and special education teachers. To avoid a due process hearing, the district agreed to try to address all these needs, but none of the requested aids and services were provided except for a small amount of instruction in keyboarding, which was not sufficient to teach Merrin how to use a computer.
66. Merrin has been denied a meaningful opportunity to participate in nonacademic and extracurricular activities at her school. Last year, Merrin had a peer support program to enable her
25

to eat lunch twice a week with regular education students; the program was supposed to continue this year but it was dropped. At the September, 1993 IEP meeting, Merrin's mother asked that Merrin be included in extracurricular activities including the soccer team, school newspaper and yearbook. Merrin was allowed to join the soccer team, but received no support at all and dropped out in frustration. Teachers and coaches who direct or chaperon extracurricular activities refuse to provide reasonable modification for Merrin.
67. Merrin's placement in an IU-operated learning support class for "academic" subjects, rather than a district-operated class, presents an additional barrier to inclusion. The IU has no incentive to encourage or facilitate Merrin's inclusion in regular district-operated classes because that would mean the loss of Merrin as an IU student. Further, the fact that IU teachers are not district employees but report to a different chain of command discourages collaboration between district teachers and IU teachers. Regular education teachers feel no obligation to implement portions of Merrin's IEP that were developed by IU personnel and indeed, may not even be aware of them, like the gym teacher who was unfamiliar with Merrin's behavior management program.
68. Merrin has made little progress academically in special education classes because IU programs are not individualized--for example, all students in IU learning support classes, including Merrin's class, receive the same basal reading program. This program is inappropriate for Merrin because of her severe language disability. Merrin wasted years in this program and remained at the first grade level in reading for five of the last six years.
26

Although Merrin is fourteen, she has no plan for her transition

from school to adult life.

69. The Raineys would like Merrin to be more included in her

school and community but the school district has refused to make a

commitment to inclusion for Merrin or to provide her with the

accommodation and support she needs in the regular class

because

of the large investment in staff training that would be required.

As a result, Merrin has experienced harm including loss of

potential, lack of friends, loss of social relationships with

peers, and stigmatization.

70. The actions and inactions of defendants as set forth in

paragraphs 200-250 below have denied Merrin Rainey her right to

receive a free appropriate education in regular classes with

supplementary aids and services.

71. SAMUEL LUCKINBILL is fourteen years old and lives with his

parents, Thomas and Wendy Luckinbill, in Womelsdorf, Pennsylvania.

Samuel is a gifted student with severe learning disabilities,

attention deficit disorder (ADD) and fine and gross motor

difficulties. He was an eighth grade student in the Conrad Weiser

Area School District until his parents withdrew him from school in

October, 1993.

72. Sam's intellectual gifts include exceptional reasoning

aptitude and ability to think creatively and abstractly. He is able

to see relationships and think conceptually at a very high level.

However, his learning disabilities significantly affect his

educational performance. Because of the combination of giftedness

and severe learning disabilities, Sam's scores on the subparts of

standardized tests range from the 2nd percentile to the 99th

percentile. He has sequential processing difficulties which, in

27

combination with his attention deficit disorder, cause great difficulty breaking down a task into its component parts, figuring out how to begin working on it, and organizing a response. In school, he has extreme difficulty producing written work. As is common among students with ADD and severe learning disabilities, anxiety, avoidance, confusion and anger arising from poor performance compound Sam's academic problems.
73. Sam had symptoms of ADD, learning disability and high intelligence from early childhood. He had difficulty with school from the beginning; he was diagnosed as having ADD by a neurologist at the age of eight. In third grade, Sam enrolled in the Conrad Weiser Area School District and his learning disability was diagnosed by as psychologist at the Hershey Medical Center. In response to this evaluation, the district conducted an MDE and found Sam to be nonexceptional but offered him gifted services. Sam's parents withdrew him from school because the district offered no services for his learning disabilities and ADD but took the position that Sam would have to meet all regular and gifted class expectations. The Luckinbills homeschooled Sam for sixth months.
74. When Sam re-enrolled in the school district six months later, the district placed him in fifth grade. The district conducted an MDE and recommended that he be placed in a gifted program; however, he was offered no supplementary aids and services for his learning disabilities and ADD. Sam's parents contested the school district's refusal in a due process hearing.
75. Although the school district prevailed at the due process hearing, the Special Education Appeals Panel reversed the hearing officer and found that Sam did have a specific learning disability in the area of written instruction. The school district appealed
28

the decision to Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, which on February 10, 1992, upheld the Appeals Panel and ordered the school district to conduct a new multidisciplinary evaluation and develop an appropriate IEP for Sam that addressed both his giftedness and his specific learning disabilities. However, the school district did not implement the Commonwealth Court's order to conduct a new multidisciplinary evaluation. Instead, it developed an IEP based on the MDE that had been conducted before the Commonwealth Court action.
76. After the Luckinbills sought mediation, the school district agreed to provide supplementary aids and services including a word processor, modified testing and instructional materials, class notes, and regular team meetings between special and regular education teachers, staff and Sam's parents.
77. Even after Sam was identified as a student with giftedness and learning disabilities, his teachers failed to provide him with specialized instruction and other supplementary aids and services in the regular class. Instead, Sam's regular teachers punished him for not completing the regular classroom assignments. They begrudged him any adaptation, refused to individualize instruction for him and expressed the view that Sam should be able to do the regular classroom work without modification.
78. Because district staff were not adequately trained to provide supplementary aids and services to a student with Sam's learning needs, Sam's educational program remained inappropriate and ineffective. Rather than modify the instruction and materials for Sam, his teachers simply lowered the classroom expectations as they apply to him. For example, when other students in the class were working on a writing assignment, the teacher let Sam sit idle
29

without doing anything. Sam's teachers did not know what Sam was capable of and what to expect from him.
79. There was little collaboration and coordination between Sam's regular education and special education teachers. For example, Sam was supposed to use a computer for math assignments, but the regular mathematics did not know how Sam was supposed to use the computer and did not ask. The learning support teacher who was assigned responsibility for modifying Sam's homework did not confer with the regular education teacher to establish what the expected outcomes were for the homework. At least one of Sam's teachers flatly refused to modify written tests for him.
80. The Luckinbills asked that Sam be provided with a laptop computer to assist with written assignments. In response, the district applied for an assistive technology grant to purchase a computer with a voice activator. However, although the district purchased and received the device, it was not made available to Sam because his teachers never obtained the necessary training in how to use the device.
81. Sam continued to fail in school and fell farther and father behind. In April, 1993, Dr. Carol Mills, a psychologist from Johns Hopkins University, evaluated Sam and concluded that he could not receive an appropriate education in the Conrad Weiser Area School District. Nevertheless the Luckinbills continued to try to work with the school district. In the summer of 1993, the district conducted a new MDE and held an IEP conference. The Luckinbills asked that an outside psychologist with a strong understanding of Sam's combination of needs consult with the school district on a monthly basis for the purpose of integrating the psychologist's recommendations into the regular classroom activity. The school
30

district refused. 82. Finally, in August, 1993, the Luckinbills requested a due
process hearing on the issue whether Sam was receiving a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. In October, 1993, after unsuccessfully trying to work with the school district, the Luckinbills withdrew Sam from school. On April 9, 1994, the hearing officer ruled that the IEP offered to Sam and his parents in August, 1993 was "appropriate at the time it was offered." The hearing officer ordered some prospective relief for the 1994-95 school year should Sam re-enroll in the district; however, those orders, for example "staff orientation and training will be provided on an as needed basis for those individuals working with Samuel" were vague and unenforceable.
83. As a result of the Luckinbills' struggle to obtain an appropriate education for their son, relations between the Luckinbills and the school district have broken down. Sam has been greatly harmed and his future compromised. As a psychologist who evaluated Sam in 1992 wrote, "Sam's difficulties in school have been going on for so long now that unraveling the complexity of his situation and helping him to achieve in school and life will take a concerted, sustained, and coordinated effort on the part of everyone in Sam's life."
84. The actions and inactions of defendants as set forth in paragraphs 200-250 below have denied Samuel Luckinbill his right to receive a free appropriate education in regular classes with supplementary aids and services.
85. LISA McCANN is nine years old and lives with her mother, Lisa McCann, in Denver, Pennsylvania. Lisa is labelled severely retarded and sometimes displays challenging behaviors. The Cocalico
31

School District, where she lives, is responsible for her education;

however, she is currently placed in a multiply handicapped support

class operated by Intermediate Unit 13, in another school district

that is approximately a 45 minute bus ride each way. Her home base

school, Reamstown Elementary, is only a short walk from her home

and Lisa's mother believes that Lisa would benefit greatly from

being educated close to home with peers from her neighborhood.

Lisa's mother wants her to receive a meaningful, functional

education with supplementary aids and services in the regular class

to the maximum extent appropriate.

86. Lisa's mother has had great difficulty persuading the

district to provide appropriate support and related services to

Lisa even in her present program, in which she spends most of her

time in special education. The long bus ride is stressful for Lisa,

who has difficulty sitting still and must be strapped to her seat.

The bus ride exacerbates Lisa's challenging behavior and her

tendency toward self-abuse.

87. Beginning in the school year 1990-91, at her mother's

request, Lisa has attended regular class for 20 to 45 minutes a day

accompanied by her special education teacher or other special

education staff.

The only supplementary service provided by the

school district during Lisa's time in regular class is the support

of the special education personnel who accompany her.

88. In the regular classroom, Lisa's special education teacher

is responsible for "managing" her with one on one attention and

redirection. Little or no attention has been given by the school

district to alternatives such as modifying the activities in the

regular class to be more appropriate for Lisa, or technical

assistance by an inclusion specialist. The special education

32

teacher did not feel it was appropriate for her to make suggestions about Lisa to the regular education teacher since it was not her classroom. The former kindergarten teacher testified that she did not participate in Lisa's IEP meeting.
89. In 1993, at the request of Lisa's mother, a due process hearing was held in the Cocalico School District to determine whether Lisa could be educated at her home school and whether she was integrated with non-disabled students to the maximum extent appropriate. At the due process hearing, the parent's expert witnesses testified that Lisa could be educated for at least half a day in the regular class, and that education in the regular classroom with supplementary aids and services would afford academic and non-academic benefits to Lisa and could be effected successfully with supplementary aids and services including teamwork between regular and special education, staff training and technical assistance from specialists in inclusion, behavior management, assistance with communication and physical assistance.
90. The hearing officer ordered the school district to develop a program for Lisa at Reamstown Elementary School; however, his decision was reversed on appeal by the Special Education Appeals Panel.
91. The hearing officer ordered the school district to include Lisa in regular class for three periods of 30 minutes each per day. In reaching his decision that this was the appropriate amount of inclusion for Lisa, the hearing officer did not consider whether supplementary aids and services would enable Lisa to be educated in a regular class to the extent advocated by the parents.
92. The school district and intermediate unit point to Lisa's distractibility and challenging behavior as reasons why she cannot
33

spend more time in a regular class; however, they have failed to

provide Lisa with an appropriate program of positive behavior

management despite her mother's numerous requests. Instead, when

Lisa bites and pinches herself, school personnel call her mother

and ask what to do.

93. The actions and inactions of defendants as set forth in

paragraphs 200-250 below have denied Lisa McCann her right to

receive a free appropriate education in regular classes with

supplementary aids and services.

94. ELIZABETH MOSER is seven years old and lives with her

mother Giovanna Moser in Lebanon, Pennsylvania. Elizabeth has Down

Syndrome and is a student in the Lebanon School District.

95.

Elizabeth began her schooling in the Lebanon United

Cerebral Palsy Preschool Program in infancy and subsequently was

placed in the Preschool Special Education Program operated by

Intermediate Unit 13 in September, 1991. At her mother's request,

when Elizabeth reached kindergarten age she was enrolled in a

regular kindergarten, although the IU rather than the Lebanon

School District continued to assume responsibility for her

education and her educational plan was an IU-generated IEP. She was

also enrolled in a kindergarten-level special education

"diagnostic" classroom but was to be there only between the time

between her arrival at school and when kindergarten class began, or

when the kindergarten class was not in session. Elizabeth received

no supplementary aids and services in the regular kindergarten

class, although she received the related services of speech and

language.

96. Elizabeth's multidisciplinary team evaluation conducted by

the IU in April, 1993, found that "the relatively higher

34

developmental level of instructional activities [and] the lower staff-to-pupil ratio in kindergarten has seemed to cause an inordinate amount of academically non-engaged time for Beth." Nevertheless, the team agreed with Elizabeth's mother that she had made progress in the regular kindergarten and was able to follow the classroom routine.
97. Despite the progress Elizabeth had made in the regular kindergarten even without supplementary aids and services, the IU multidisciplinary and IEP teams recommended that she be placed for first grade in a fulltime self-contained special education classroom. The team offered no rationale for Elizabeth's removal from regular class other than a need for a "low teacher-student ratio to focus on communication, academic, socialization and fine motor skills." Elizabeth's mother rejected the proposed placement and requested a due process hearing.
98. As the hearing date drew near in August, 1993 and Elizabeth's mother retained an attorney, the IU and school district made a settlement offer to develop a program of inclusion for Elizabeth with the support of an aide. The school district agreed that Elizabeth's primary assignment would be the first grade class.
99. When Elizabeth started school in the fall of 1993 in the Lebanon School District, the district had not yet hired an aide. The regular education teacher made clear to Elizabeth's mother that she did not want her in her class. The teacher had no training in inclusion and asked Ms. Moser why she wanted Elizabeth in the regular class when "she isn't grasping anything." The teacher also was untrained in behavior management and did not know how to cope with Elizabeth's occasional challenging behavior. The district finally hired a full-time aide for Elizabeth but the aide left
35

almost immediately. 100. The district asked Ms. Moser to agree to let Elizabeth go
to an Intermediate Unit special education classroom for reading and math because their teachers did not have the training required to include Elizabeth in regular class for academic subjects. The district promised a target date of January, 1994, to include Elizabeth full time in regular education. Elizabeth's mother agreed to her temporary placement in a separate special education class for part of the day because she believed, based on her past experience with the IU and school district, that district personnel were not trained in methods and techniques of inclusion and that they would not be able to provide the supplementary aids and services Elizabeth needed without that training.
101. The district's decision to place Elizabeth in the IU class for her academic subjects was not based on her IEP since her 1993-94 IEP had not been developed yet. On September 16, 1993, the school district developed an IEP for Elizabeth defining her program as "supplemental intervention in the regular classroom." The IEP also committed the school district to "Implement Gateway inclusion practices with consultation of support staff to Elizabeth's program and assignment." Despite the placement stated on the IEP, Elizabeth's placement was in reality not "supplemental intervention in the regular class" but approximately half time in a special education class.
102. By November, 1993, it became clear that the school district was unable to phase in a program of full inclusion by January, 1994. As the school year went on, the district was unable to include Elizabeth for additional subjects and she remained in the separate special education class for approximately half of her
36

school day. In February, 1994, the district gave Ms. Moser a Notice of Recommended Assignment (NORA) assigning Elizabeth half-time to a regular class and half-time to a learning support class. An IU special education teacher, not a district teacher, had responsibility with the principal for seeing that Elizabeth's IEP is implemented. In the second half of the year, Elizabeth ceased to have recess with her first grade classmates but went to recess with the other IU students.
103. Elizabeth appears to be happy in the regular class and successfully follows the class routine. However, her mother is concerned that her academic skills are not developing as they should and fears that her IEP has not been implemented in the regular class and that the curriculum has not been adapted for her. Although Elizabeth needs behavioral support, the school district has failed to provide that service, and Ms. Moser pays for behavioral support privately. The principal of Elizabeth's school has acknowledged to Ms. Moser that the district does not have enough resources for training.
104. In June, 1994, the school district presented Ms. Moser with an IEP for the 1994-95 school year for Elizabeth that continues her placement half time in regular education and half time in a separate special education class. The district's justification was that many of the staff who were working with Elizabeth had left and the new staff would need to be trained to work with her. Ms. Moser asked that Elizabeth receive integrated speech and language therapy (that is, therapy that is integrated or incorporated into regular classroom activities and instruction), but the Intermediate Unit speech therapists refused to agree to the integrated therapy model, and Ms. Moser will pay a speech therapist
37

privately to work with Elizabeth and her classroom teacher. 105. The "target date" for Elizabeth's full inclusion is now
fourth grade (1996-97). Ms. Moser wants full inclusion for Elizabeth, but she believes that she has no choice but to accept a half-and-half placement due to the district's lack of training and expertise in providing specialized instruction and other supplementary aids and services in the regular classroom.
106. The actions and inactions of defendants as set forth in paragraphs 200-250 below have denied Elizabeth Moser her right to receive a free appropriate education in regular classes with supplementary aids and services.
107. ANNE CORR is ten years old and lives with her foster parents, Patrick and Judith Corr, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Anne has autism. She does not speak, but rather communicates with facilitated communication, yes and no gestures and signs. Anne is a student at Highcliff Elementary School in North Hill School District (NHSD).
108. Anne's early schooling consisted of a program for children with emotional problems and autism, followed by a program in a separate school in the Mt. Lebanon School District. In the segregated school, Anne gained little academically and she developed bizarre and challenging behavior. During the first year after she came to live with the Corrs in June, 1991, she remained at Mt. Lebanon; in the fall of 1992, at her parents' request, she entered the North Hills School District, where she was placed in a life skills classroom with six other children with significant disabilities.
109. The Corrs wanted Anne to be educated in the North Hills School District so that she could attend school with her brothers
38

and sisters. Their goal for Anne is inclusion, and North Hills not only is her home school district but a GATEWAYS site. At the Corrs' request, an IEP was developed for Anne in June, 1993, providing that Anne would be included 87% of the time in regular classes with supplementary aids and services, including collaborative team meetings every four to six weeks, behavior management and adaptations to the regular curriculum made by the special education teacher. Anne was also to be provided with assistive technology devices to enable her to communicate. A Statewide Support Initiative consultant was to provide technical assistance to Anne's team.
110. When school began in the fall, it soon became apparent to the Corrs that the North Hills staff working with Anne had not been trained to provide the supplementary aids and services in her IEP, that the collaborative team process was ineffective, and that the recommendations of the Statewide Support Initiative consultant were not implemented by school district personnel.
111. The Corrs and another family who had experienced similar problems contacted defendant Michelle DeSera and asked that she investigate the problems in integrating Life Skills students into regular classes at the North Hills School District and take corrective action. Ms. DeSera and the director of the GATEWAYS project made a site visit to the North Hills School District on October 4, 1993, and the GATEWAYS director transmitted a report and recommendations to the superintendent of the school district on November 30, 1993. The PDE team found that "not all staff in the buildings who work with students with disabilities are aware of and comfortable with ways to approach and communicate with these students"; that there was a need for training and guided practice
39

in assistive technology, positive approaches to challenging behavior and methods for accomplishing integration into regular classroom activities, including curriculum modification and adaptations; that there was a need for assistance in collaborative teaming and a need for better communication between teachers and parents. Noting that North Hills had been accepted as a GATEWAYS expansion site and had agreed to implement the GATEWAYS model with technical assistance and a minigrant provided by PDE, the team asked the district to respond to its recommendations by submitting goals and activities to the director of the GATEWAYS project.
112. The recommendations made by defendant DeSera and the GATEWAYS coordinator were not implemented, nor did PDE defendants take any action to ensure that the commitments made by the North Hills School District in exchange for its GATEWAYS grant were honored.
113. The principal of Highcliff Elementary School failed to ensure that Anne's teachers had release time for common planning, that the regular education teachers were trained in positive approaches to behavior management, and that regular education teachers were held accountable to deliver the supplementary aids and services in Anne's IEP. Although Anne's life skills teacher supported inclusion for Anne, the regular education teachers resisted collaboration with the special education teacher to modify the regular curriculum for Anne. Anne's positive behavior management plan was not implemented as it was written; instead, the regular fourth grade teacher simply removed Anne from the classroom when she exhibited challenging behavior. The team continued to meet but never considered how to modify the regular curriculum to meet Anne's academic needs because the team was so preoccupied with
40

administrative and "turf" issues. 114. Concluding that Anne was being harmed by the failure of
the regular education staff to implement Anne's IEP and the recommendations of the GATEWAYS consultant, their negative attitudes toward Anne and their resistance to having her in a regular classroom, the Corrs removed Anne from regular education in March, 1994. She came back to school later that month with a revised schedule in which she was removed from the regular class during the academic portion of the day. Anne received instruction in reading and language arts in the life skills class. The location of this class--outside the double doors that lead to a school exit and isolated from the ebb and flow of school activities--enhances Anne's isolation, stigmatization and "difference."
115. A Comprehensive Evaluation Report (CER) held for Anne on March 30, 1994 recommended increased inclusion in the regular class for academics. On May 23, 1994, the GATEWAYS consultant to North Hills wrote to the principal of Highcliff informing him that, based on observation and written data collected by the Statewide Support Initiative consultant and school personnel, Anne's program had not been implemented consistently. AN IEP conference was held for Anne on June 10, 1994. The meeting broke up when the principal of Highcliff refused to agree to Anne's inclusion for reading and language arts, although Anne's CER had found that she was reading at grade level. When members of the team recommended co-teaching-having the regular fifth grade teacher and the life skills teacher teach the regular class as a team--the principal refused and stated that he would not agree to team teaching in his building.
116. At present, Anne has no agreed upon IEP for the 1994-95 school year and, based on her experience in 1993-94, even if an IEP
41

is developed providing for her inclusion to the maximum extent appropriate, her parents have little confidence that it will be implemented.
117. The actions and inactions of defendants as set forth in paragraphs 200-250 below have denied Anne Corr her right to receive a free appropriate education in regular classes with supplementary aids and services.
118. BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI is seven years old and lives with his parents, James and Dawn Koneski, in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. Brett has Down Syndrome and is a kindergarten student in the Wilkes-Barre Area School District. Brett's parents chose to live in Wilkes-Barre because of the high quality of the district schools, and their dream was that Brett would attend his home school with his neighborhood peers.
119. As a young child, Brett received early intervention services and therapies, attended preschool and made great progress. By the fall of 1993, when he was six, he demonstrated virtually the same academic achievement as a typical beginning kindergarten student.
120. In May, 1993, Brett's parents asked the school district to educate him in regular kindergarten with support at his home school, Kistler Elementary, and the school district agreed. In September, 1993, the district assigned Brett to a new teacher who had never taught kindergarten before; unbeknownst to the Koneskis, the other kindergarten teachers had refused to have Brett in their class.
121. The school district promised to provide Brett with the supplementary aids and services he needed to succeed in regular class, including specially designed instruction and materials,
42

integrated therapies (physical and occupational therapy and speech and language) in the regular classroom, peer tutoring and regular team meetings.
122. Brett began school at Kistler Elementary School in September, 1993. It soon became apparent that none of the promised supplementary aids and services were in place. On Brett's first day of school, the vice-principal called his mother to come get him because of his "uncontrolled behavior." The following week, the Koneskis learned that the related services on Brett's IEP (occupational therapy and speech therapy) were not available. Soon after, they became aware that school personnel were regularly using four-point physical restraint with Brett, that is, restraining all four limbs at once. The Koneskis filed a complaint against the school district with PDE's Division of Compliance challenging the district's physical mistreatment of Brett and the use of restraints.
123. Soon after, at the Koneskis' request, a meeting was held to revise Brett's IEP. The revision stated that a written behavior management plan utilizing positive approaches would be developed for Brett; that all staff, including teachers, aide and related service personnel would be trained in the implementation of the plan; that the curriculum would be adapted for Brett; that the classroom aide would be trained to assure meaningful participation for Brett in all classroom activities; and that all school personnel working with Brett would receive training in inclusion, curriculum adaptation, disability awareness, positive approaches and integrated therapies. The school district agreed to request the necessary training from PDE.
124. The Koneskis withdrew the complaint they had filed with
43

PDE after the district requested technical assistance from PDE and PDE referred the school district to the Statewide Support Initiative-Early Childhood specialist in Intermediate Unit 18.
125. Despite the agreement between the district and the parents and the Koneskis' own persistent advocacy, the school district failed to implement Brett's IEP. The teacher and aide were unable to adapt assignments for Brett and implement his IEP in the regular classroom. In February, 1994, Brett's teacher reported that although Brett's behavior no longer was a problem, he was failing academically, he was not communicating with his peers, he was being humiliated in the classroom and the parents' insistence on his inclusion in regular class amounted to "child abuse." The teacher admitted that he was not in sympathy with inclusion of children with Brett's disabilities in regular classes and that he still did not know how to teach Brett. Also in February, the Koneskis learned that the aide assigned to Brett did not have a copy of his IEP.
126. District personnel were unable to deliver integrated therapies successfully and the Koneskis agreed reluctantly to allow the therapies to be delivered in a separate therapy room. On at least one occasion, Brett was left in a physical support classroom where he sat with nothing to do. Brett's teacher and aide continued to regard him as an outsider in the class, demonstrated little respect for his personhood or dignity, and failed to treat him as an equal of the other children. On one occasion, Brett's clothes were removed in the library area of his kindergarten classroom and he was walked through the room and down the hall to the nurse's office by his classroom teacher and aide, unclothed (although there was a private bathroom in his class).
127. Brett became fearful, easily upset and resisted going to
44

school or entering his kindergarten class. In March, 1994, defeated by the district's failure to provide their son an appropriate education, the Koneskis decided not to return Brett to Kistler. On March 30, Brett was transferred to another school, Dan Flood Elementary and placed in a kindergarten class taught by a teacher who had prior experience (not in the district but in a Head Start program) working with children with special needs. There is no special "program" at Dan Flood for teaching children with Brett's educational needs, but only more acceptance of his presence in regular class.
128. In March, 1994, while Brett was at home awaiting placement at Dan Flood, the Koneskis filed a second complaint with PDE charging that the provisions in Brett's IEP requiring teacher and staff training in positive behavioral approaches, integrated therapies and curriculum adaptations had not been implemented. They further alleged that rather than a planned program of positive behavioral strategies as called for in the IEP, the school district used a time out chair. The Koneskis asked PDE to assure that PDE assure that personnel at Kistler Elementary School were trained in inclusion, disability awareness, adaptations to the curriculum, best practices and implementation of Brett's IEP.
129. The Koneskis received no response and when on June 7, 1994, they called PDE to ask why they had not responded, PDE staff said they were unaware that a second complaint had been filed.
130. The Koneskis want Brett to return to his home school. Brett does not go to school with his friends from the neighborhood. He rides the bus for children in emotional support classes to and from Dan Flood. Sometimes he has to leave school early because of the bus schedule. The Koneskis have agreed reluctantly to keep
45

Brett at Dan Flood for first grade but have asked that the district plan to return him to Kistler for second grade. The district has agreed to consider this only as a "possibility."
131. The actions and inactions of defendants as set forth in paragraphs 200-250 below have denied Brett Koneski his right to receive a free appropriate education in regular classes with supplementary aids and services.
132. MICHAEL WINTERING is thirteen years old and lives with his parents, Michael and Nancy Wintering, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Michael is a gifted student with pervasive developmental disorder-not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS), a disability that is part of the autism spectrum. He is a former student in the Philadelphia School District, where he attended the Farrell and Franklin Schools in Northeast Philadelphia. He was identified by the school district as gifted in 1988.
133. Michael has superior intelligence, exceptional reading ability and savant-like gifts; however, his expressive language and learning style are very concrete, and he is able to repeat more than he understands. He has poor social judgment, stemming at least in part from his concrete learning style. Because of these characteristics, he needs specialized instruction and modification of the regular education curriculum.
134. Although Michael was identified as having PDD-NOS at the age of two years and eight months, the Philadelphia School district refused to provide services appropriate to his disability. He was later identified as gifted and received gifted support one day a week, but with no supplementary aids and services for his PDD-NOS. When his parents asked for these services, they were told, "you don't want the special education label" for Michael.
46

135. Without supplementary aids and services, Michael had difficulty meeting the expectations of the gifted program and the regular education classrooms. His teachers punished and humiliated him. Michael developed behavioral problems and identified himself with "the bad children." He was once suspended from school and in 1991 he experienced a severe clinical depression, which further compromised his ability to succeed in school.
136. The school district's response to Michael's problems with school resulted in his classification as "socially and emotionally disturbed" (SED) and his placement in 1992 in a separate emotional support class where he repeated the sixth grade. The school district offered Michael's parents no other options to SED placement.
137. In the emotional support class, Michael was surrounded by children with aberrant behavior which he began to model. Because of his concrete learning style and inability to assess social situations, Michael is especially likely to imitate the behavior of the children with whom he is educated.
138. Michael's difficulties in the emotional support class became so serious that his parents withdrew him from school, taught him at home for eight months, and, in January, 1994, placed him at a private school, St. Helena, without school district involvement. He finished the school year at St. Helena's in a regular class with no support other than acceptance and understanding by his teachers. He did not receive the supplementary aids and services he needs to receive an appropriate education, but his parents believe that he is not being harmed as he was in public school.
139. The actions and inactions of defendants as set forth in paragraphs 200-250 below have denied Michael Wintering his right to
47

receive a free appropriate education in regular classes with

supplementary aids and services.

140. SARAH NOE is twelve years old and lives with her parents,

Roland and Janice Noe in Langhorne, Pennsylvania. Sarah has Down

Syndrome and attends Neshaminy Middle School in the Neshaminy

School District.

Mr. and Mrs. Noe want Sarah to have the

opportunity to be educated in her neighborhood school with her

nondisabled peers. They believe that this will best prepare her for

an adult life of working and living in her community.

141. Sarah was classified as educable mentally retarded (EMR)

upon her entry into the Neshaminy School District at the age of

five in 1987. From school year 1987-88 through school year 1991-

92,

she was educated in a full-time self-contained EMR/Learning

Support classroom.

This classroom was located within the school

district, but was not within her local neighborhood school. During

that time, at her parents' request, the district allowed Sarah some

limited mainstreaming in music and art.

142. In December 1991, Sarah's parents requested a change in

placement for school year 1992-93.

They requested that Sarah be

moved to Oliver Heckman Elementary School, the school she would

attend if she did not have a disability. They explained to

Neshaminy School District administrative personnel that they wanted

Sarah to get to know the students at her local elementary school so

that she could comfortably attend the neighborhood middle school,

Neshaminy Middle School.

At that time, they requested that

preparations be made, including teacher and staff training, during

the remainder of the 1991-92 school year so that a smooth

transition could take place.

Despite numerous telephone calls and

a follow-up IEP meeting, their request went unanswered until August

48

1992. 143. Sarah was moved to Oliver Heckman Elementary School
beginning the first day of school 1992. Her parents were advised by the regular education teacher that she had not been assigned to that classroom until the day before school started. There was no opportunity for the teacher and staff training that was requested, as well as planning for classroom and curriculum modifications. During the 1992-93 school year, Sarah received academic instruction within a self-contained learning support classroom and was included, with some support, in a regular fifth grade homeroom, music, art, gym, library, school chorus, and social studies class. Sarah made progress in expressive and receptive language, socialization, reading, language comprehension, and problemsolving. She demonstrated an understanding of social studies concepts that far exceeded her parents' and teachers' expectations.
144. Throughout the year, Sarah's parents made repeated requests for preparation and training of staff at Neshaminy Middle School. At a meeting in June 1993 between Sarah's parents and representatives from the Intermediate Unit, Neshaminy Middle School, Oliver Heckman, and the school district administration, an IEP was developed which incorporated supplementary aids and services for Sarah's successful transition into middle school. Again, her parents requested staff training; on the last day of school, a one day training was provided to the staff at the Middle School by members of the Intermediate Unit addressing the needs of Sarah and two other new students with special needs (a blind student and a student from Poland).
145. In September 1993, Sarah began classes at Neshaminy Middle School. As far as Sarah's parents know, no additional
49

training was provided to Neshaminy Middle School staff. Sarah

participated in regular education home room, music, art, home

economics, gym, industrial arts, computer and chorus. She received

special education instruction in functional reading and math,

science, and social studies in a learning support class.

Discussions between her parents and her teachers indicate that

neither regular nor special education teachers had a clear

understanding of why Sarah was in their classes or how to made

adaptations to meet her needs.

146. In effort to address these issues, Sarah's parents

requested an IEP meeting in October 1993. Because of the parents

work schedules, they requested an evening meeting.

A meeting was

scheduled in November 1993; it was attended by the parents and a

school district representative. None of Sarah's teachers was

present, and therefore, a discussion of Sarah's educational support

needs could not take place. Repeated attempts were made to

reschedule this meeting, but the school district did not

accommodate the parents' scheduling needs. Finally, in February

1994, a daytime meeting was convened. The special education

teacher, who had been appointed as the "lead" teacher of the team,

was not in attendance and as a result, several key issues remained

unresolved, including the development of a consistent behavior

plan, the defining of the role of the "lead" teacher, the poor

communication between parents and educational staff, and a marked

regression in Sarah's math skills.

Subsequent attempts by the

parents to schedule another meeting have failed.

147. Throughout her school years, Sarah has exhibited

challenging behavior. This behavior has intensified in scope and

frequency during the last school year. Sarah's parents believe that

50

this is a result of the school inability to provide appropriate

supplementary services, including behavior management. For example,

Sarah has resisted going to class by sitting in the hall and

refusing to move or by deliberately going to the wrong classroom.

The school is unable to deal with these behaviors effectively.

Communication between the parent and school staff has been

inconsistent and generally negative in nature.

Though Sarah has

made some academic progress in reading and computers this year, her

parents are greatly concerned about the regression in her behavior.

Additionally, Sarah continually tells her parents that she hates

school. It has become increasingly difficult to get her to attend

school each day.

Again, they believe that

Sarah's progress has

been hindered by the lack of training and preparation given to

staff.

148. Throughout the three years that Sarah's parents have

requested inclusionary educational opportunities for her, Sarah's

parents have provided the school district with information

regarding training opportunities for their staff, names of

individuals who could deliver training and ongoing technical

assistance, and written resource materials.

They have met with

Sarah's teachers and instructional aides and Neshaminy staff on an

ongoing basis to make suggestions as to curriculum adaptations and

modifications and behavioral interventions.

149. Sarah's parents look forward to day when Sarah will again

enjoy attending school. They want Sarah to have the opportunity to

become a valued, participating member of her school community.

150. The actions and inactions of defendants as set forth in

paragraphs 200-250 below have denied Sarah Noe her right to receive

a free appropriate education in regular classes with supplementary

51

aids and services.

151. TIFFANY ZIMENOFF is eleven years old and lives with her

parents, Richard and Robin Zimenoff, in Langhorne, Pennsylvania.

Tiffany has Down Syndrome and is entering the fourth grade at

Herbert Hoover Elementary School in the Neshaminy School District.

Tiffany's parents want Tiffany to have the same experiences of

growing up of any eleven year old girl. They want her to play with

neighborhood friends, attend birthday parties and sleepovers. At

the same time, they want Tiffany to learn the skills, both social

and academic, she will need in order to develop into a productive

adult member of her community. They believe that Tiffany can be

given the opportunity for a "regular" life and can be taught the

skills she needs by being supported in a regular education class at

her neighborhood school.

152. Tiffany became a student in the Neshaminy School District

in September 1988.

At that time, she was classified "educable

mentally retarded" and placed in a full-time self-contained "EMR"

classroom at Albert Schweitzer Elementary.

No other placement

options were discussed with her parents.

In October 1990, her

parents requested a change of placement for Tiffany into a regular

kindergarten class at her home school of Herbert Hoover Elementary

School, with part-time special education services for reading,

math, and language in a self-contained setting.

The school

district refused the change and the Zimenoffs requested a due

process hearing. After the hearing began, the district entered into

a settlement agreement with the parents in which Tiffany would

attend the afternoon session of the regular kindergarten program at

Albert Schweitzer Elementary School with an instructional support

aide and a half-day session of the "learning skills support

52

program." Tiffany began kindergarten in April 1991.

153. In June, 1991, the district presented the Zimenoffs with

a Notice of Recommended Assignment recommending a change of

placement back into the full-time learning support classroom with

mainstreaming for "specials"; music, art, gym, library.

Tiffany's

parents rejected the NORA and requested another due process

hearing.

On September 18, 1991, the hearing officer ordered that

Tiffany be educated in a regular first grade classroom, accompanied

by an instructional support aide, with a pull-out program for

reading and math. He ignored the parents' request that Tiffany

attend her local neighborhood school.

154. Tiffany's parents filed a complaint with the Bureau of

Special Education in September 1991 in an effort to gain a decision

regarding whether Tiffany's education program could be implemented

at her local neighborhood school, Herbert Hoover Elementary School.

The reviewer from the Bureau of Special Education was able to

clarify to the school district that Tiffany would be eligible to

receive her reading and math instruction in the learning support

classroom at Herbert Hoover Elementary School, even though it had

previously been a classroom for children with learning

disabilities.

Unfortunately, the learning support classroom at

Herbert Hoover Elementary School was a its maximum enrollment and

the school district was not willing to apply for a waiver for one

additional part-time student. Tiffany had to wait until a student

left that class until she would be able to attend her local

elementary school.

155. In October 1991, Tiffany began her first day of first

grade at Albert Schweitzer Elementary School.

When her mother

entered the classroom that Tiffany had been assigned to, she found

53

the teacher sitting at her desk in tears. When Mrs. Zimenoff asked

what was wrong, the teacher replied that she did not know what she

was supposed to do with Tiffany. She had only been told on Friday

afternoon that Tiffany would be in her classroom (it was now

Monday). Mrs. Zimenoff asked if she had seen a copy of Tiffany's

IEP and she replied that she had not. Mrs. Zimenoff looked over

the lesson plan for the day and give the teacher some ideas on how

to include Tiffany in the activities.

She then asked to see

Tiffany's desk.

Tiffany's desk was in a corner of the room

surrounded by several adult-size chairs.

The teacher explained

that the chairs were for Tiffany's aides. Mrs. Zimenoff was then

shown a copy of a schedule which indicated that three or four aides

had been assigned to Tiffany.

Each aide was assigned different

times to accompany Tiffany throughout the day. When Mrs. Zimenoff

asked the principal what preparation had been made for the teacher

and the other students for Tiffany's arrival into first grade, she

was told that the principal had meet personally with the other

first grade students and explained to them that a "retarded child"

would be in their class on Monday. They were warned not to call

her "a retard."

156. During the remainder of her time at Albert Schweitzer

Elementary School, Tiffany's mother spent much time communicating

through a communication notebook to both the regular and special

education teachers in an effort to assist them in adapting lessons

for Tiffany. To the parents' knowledge, no training was given to

either the regular or special education teachers in how to adapt

curriculum, facilitate social interactions, or on any other issues

that would have supported Tiffany's inclusion in first grade.

157. In February, 1992, Tiffany was able to transfer to her

54

home school, Herbert Hoover. During the rest of the year, Tiffany's

mother communicated regularly with the first grade teacher and

recommended methods for adapting materials and strategies to help

Tiffany to be an active participant in the classroom. Tiffany was

assigned an instructional support aide, on an as-needed basis. The

Zimenoffs asked that peer supports be utilized in the classroom so

that Tiffany did not become overdependent on an adult for support.

Tiffany made excellent progress, developing more age-appropriate

social skills and expanding her verbal communication.

158. In May 1993, Tiffany's parents requested that her second

grade teacher be trained and provided opportunities for team

planning before the next school year began. However, to the

Zimenoffs' knowledge, no training in methods for including children

with mental retardation in regular classes was ever made available

to the second grade teacher.

159. Shortly before the first day of school, Tiffany's mother

meet with the second grade teacher. Mrs. Zimenoff had prepared a

packet of information on strategies for the successful inclusion of

students with disabilities into regular classroom.

This

information was meet with great enthusiasm by the second grade

teacher. Mrs. Zimenoff and the second grade teacher worked together

throughout the year to make the year a success for Tiffany. As far

as the Zimenoffs know, the only training or technical assistance

afforded to Tiffany's teacher was that which was given by the

Zimenoffs. Tiffany made excellent progress, both socially and

academically, so much so that she began to be included for regular

mathematics with an adapted curriculum and was pulled out only for

reading.

160. In September 1993, Tiffany began third grade. Before

55

school began, Mrs. Zimenoff met with the regular education teacher

and the instructional support aide, and they told her they had not

received any training, beyond meeting with the previous year's

teacher. Again, Mrs. Zimenoff shared information regarding

inclusion strategies with the teacher and aide.

161. Several incidents occurred during the 1993-94 school year

that indicated that Tiffany was no longer an active participant in

the classroom.

The Zimenoffs noticed that science and social

studies assignments and tests were no longer adapted for Tiffany.

An observer in the classroom reported that Tiffany spent a good

amount of time working one-on-one with aide, separate from the

other students.

When asked why adaptations were not being made,

the instructional support aide indicated that she was too busy to

make them.

The regular educational teacher often seemed confused

about her role.

She indicated that she felt her job was to

"expose" Tiffany to the regular education curriculum and let her

learn what she could learn. Discussions with the special education

teacher indicated that there was little collaboration or consulting

taking place between the two teachers.

Meetings with several of

the staff working with Tiffany indicated that they wanted to

continue to include Tiffany in regular education classes but they

felt they lacked the skills to do so successfully.

162. In an effort to address issues that had occurred during

the 1993-94 school year, Tiffany's parents drafted a letter to the

Director of Pupil Services for the Neshaminy School District

requested that training in the areas of "(a) strategies needed to

effectively work together as team; (b) planning for inclusion; (c)

curriculum adaptation and modification; (d) facilitating peer

support and social interaction."

They asked that teacher training

56

be made a related service on Tiffany's IEP.

The Zimenoffs

identified several resources for the school district from which the

needed training could be obtained. In response, they received a

memo from the district refusing to include inservice training for

school district staff as a related service in Tiffany's IEP. As of

the last day of school 1994, none of the teachers nor the aide that

will be working with Tiffany during school 1994-95 had received any

training from the school district in the areas of need identified

by Tiffany's parents. To their knowledge, the school district has

made no plans to provide this training in September.

Each year,

Mrs. Zimenoff has worked with Tiffany's teachers and shared

information with them about curriculum modification and inclusion

strategies. As a result, each year Tiffany loses two to three

months of instruction while her teachers learn the skills necessary

to teach her in a regular education setting. The Zimenoffs fear

that without adequate training to her teachers and instructional

support aide, Tiffany's educational progress will deteriorate.

163. The actions and inactions of defendants as set forth in

paragraphs 200-250 below have denied Tiffany Zimenoff her right to

receive a free appropriate education in regular classes with

supplementary aids and services.

164. THE ARC OF PENNSYLVANIA is a non-profit corporation

created in 1949 and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania, with approximately 14,000 members and with member

chapters in fifty-four of Pennsylvania's sixty-seven counties. The

Arc's purpose, for which it expends its resources, is to advance

the interests of persons with retardation in Pennsylvania and to

secure for them the opportunities available to all persons in the

Commonwealth. The members of the Arc include parents, other

57

relatives, guardians and next friends of children and adults with retardation.
165. For forty-five years the Arc of Pennsylvania and its member chapters have advocated for the right of children with mental retardation to receive an effective education with maximum integration into the classes and schools they would normally attend if they did not have a disability. Originally, parents joined together in the face of exclusion of their children from the public schools first to create and provide alternative services through their association, and then to challenge the schools' exclusionary practices through litigation. In 1971, the Arc of Pennsylvania filed PARC v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 343 F.Supp. 279 (E.D. Pa. 1972) to enforce the right of children with retardation under the Equal Protection Clause to the educational opportunities available to children without disabilities. The result was a landmark consent decree whose essential provisions--a free, appropriate education for all children with disabilities, an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for each eligible child, and the right of children with disabilities to be educated with children who do not have disabilities to the maximum extent appropriate--were codified in 1975 in P.L. 94-142, now the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq. Through the network of 29 Local Task Forces established by the PARC consent decree, Arc members and parents have participated for more than twenty years in implementation and monitoring of the decree.
166. In enforcing the duties of responsible public agencies to provide the educational and other opportunities that are essential to persons with retardation, the Arc has experienced and affirmed
58

that the opportunity to receive an appropriate, individualized education in regular classes and neighborhood schools fosters learning, growth and development, and further, that it nurtures the friendships and relationships that are vitally important to children with retardation if they are to grow to productive adulthood and become full participants in their communities.
167. THE LEARNING DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA (LDAP) is a nonprofit organization incorporated in 1964 and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with 18 chapters and 950 members throughout the Commonwealth. Its members are parents, professionals and friends of people with learning disabilities. LDAP's mission, for which it expends its resources, it to promote quality education and to support the general welfare of children and adults with learning disabilities.
168. LDAP assists parents of children with learning disabilities to obtain the most appropriate education for their individual child with a learning disability, whether that be a regular class or special class setting. LDAP's work in the education system includes individual advocacy by a network of advocates around the state who inform parents of their rights, help them prepare for and participate in the individualized education program planning and placement process, and at times in due process proceedings. LDAP also works to disseminate information to families and special and regular education teachers about promising and best practices in the education of students with learning disabilities. Under an advocacy grant from the Pennsylvania Developmental Disabilities Planning Council, LDAP conducts workshops on successful strategies for teaching and managing students with learning disabilities in the regular classroom. LDAP's annual
59

conferences include programs for teachers and other professionals to sensitize them about the needs of students with learning disabilities and to gain knowledge of how to accommodate their individual learning needs.
169. PENNSYLVANIA PROTECTION & ADVOCACY, INC. (PP&A), is a non-profit corporation existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. PP&A has been designated by the Governor of Pennsylvania as the state's designated protection and advocacy agency for persons with developmental disabilities and mental illness. PP&A acts here on behalf of class members in its designated protection and advocacy capacity.
170. PP&A works to protect the civil rights of persons with disabilities throughout Pennsylvania. PP&A expends significant time and resources seeking to enforce the duties of state officials and local school districts to provide children with disabilities with a free appropriate public education, together with the opportunity to be educated with children without disabilities to the maximum extent appropriate. PP&A seeks to ensure that all children with developmental disabilities and mental illness in Pennsylvania are guaranteed the same rights and opportunities to receive an effective education and to prepare for productive adulthood as all other citizens of the Commonwealth.
171. THE PENNSYLVANIA COALITION OF CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES (PCCD) is an organization created in 1976 and governed by persons with disabilities throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Its mission, for which it expends its resources, is to advocate with a unified voice for the civil rights of, and services for, people with physical, sensorial, and mental disabilities through local, state and national forums. PCCD's membership includes 65
60

organizations of persons with disabilities as well as individual members who are adults and children with disabilities and their families. PCCD's volunteer members and staff advocate for people with disabilities on a broad range of issues including education, transportation, employment, civil rights and access to public services and public accommodations.
172. PCCD and its members have a direct interest in educational policies and practices that affect children with disabilities. They know from first hand experience the importance of an effective education for productive adult life, and the lifelong harm caused by ineffective education, unnecessary segregation and low expectations.
173. PENNSYLVANIA STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES is a component of the National Association for the Advanced of Colored People, the oldest and largest civil rights organization in the country. The conference, founded in 1934, consists of fifty-two branches within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. For more than sixty years the Conference and its member branches have advocated for the rights of the African-American and other minorities within the Commonwealth.
174. The NAACP's purpose, for which it expends its resources, is to advance the interest of African-Americans and other minorities to: (1) secure opportunities that supposedly are readily available to all persons residing in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and (2) removing all barriers which impeded AfricanAmerican and other minority youth from receiving a free and equal education.
175. AUTISM SUPPORT AND ADVOCACY IN PENNSYLVANIA (ASAP) was formed in 1988 and incorporated in 1992 as a non-profit corporation
61

operating under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Its purpose, for which it expends its resources, is to advance the full inclusion of Pennsylvania's citizens with autism in all aspects of our society, to secure full citizenship and social justice for persons with autism, and to promote the general welfare of all individuals with autism, Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD) or other profound disabilities of communication and behavior. ASAP is an all-volunteer, parent-directed association which fosters selfhelp and self-advocacy through values-based training and information sharing.
176. ASAP is directed by a fourteen person Steering Committee selected to represent the regional, cultural, economic and ethnic diversity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Thirteen Steering Committee members are parents of persons with autism/PDD; of those, nine have children with autism of school age and one has a child who is transitioning from school to work. ASAP has approximately 350 subscribing members, including both individuals and organizations. A majority of individual subscribers are parents of pre-school and school age children with autism/PDD. A substantial number of professionals who work in the school systems of Pennsylvania also are members.
177. Education is the primary advocacy concern of ASAP. ASAP founders' first effort was to shape the definition of autism/PDD contained in the 1990 Pennsylvania Special Education Standards, and ASAP's earliest information brochures concerned the needs of children with autism in the special education system. ASAP has continued to promote, through newsletters and conferences, the values of school and community inclusion, and to inform parents and educators about facilitated communication (a sets of techniques
62

enabling persons with autism and other communication disabilities to communicate using a keyboard) and other positive approaches to address the communication and behavioral challenges of autism/PDD. ASAP supports and fosters the growing appreciation of the competence of persons with autism and their ability to make and express choices. ASAP is convinced that inclusive, supported education enables children with autism/PDD to benefit from the educational opportunities afforded non-disabled children in the Commonwealth and is essential to the accomplishment of ASAP's goal of inclusion in all aspects of society for all citizens with autism and PDD.
178. PENNSYLVANIA TASH was created in 1990 as a member chapter of International TASH. Included in its members across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are professionals, self-advocates and families of children and adults with disabilities. Its mission, for which it expends its resources, is to actively support individuals with varying abilities so that full community membership becomes a reality. In addition to education, PA-TASH advocates for people with disabilities and for the implementation of best practices in a wide range of areas including community living, positive behavioral approaches, attendant care, public services and public accommodations and facilitated communication. PA-TASH has served as an amicus curiae in litigation on behalf of people with disabilities on issues including accessibility and involuntary sterilization.
179. In education, PA-TASH advocates for the full and equitable implementation of promising and best practices so that children and families have meaningful access to inclusive education in regular classrooms. PA-TASH members know and experience the
63

unfortunate reality that in Pennsylvania, the opportunity to choose inclusion varies widely across the Commonwealth and depends on where the family lives.
180. PARENTS UNION FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS was founded in 1972 and has approximately 4,000 members, including families of children with disabilities. Its mission, for which it expends its resources, is to promote and develop parent involvement in the public schools. Parents Union carries out its mission through programs to train and educate public school parents in Philadelphia to participate in their children's educational experience and resolve school-related problems and by monitoring the actions of the Board of Education and school administration. All members of the Parents Union Board of Directors, most of the staff and the volunteers who form the backbone of the organization are public school parents.
181. Both at the local and systemwide levels, Parents Union has been at the forefront of issues affecting the education of public school students; It assists thousands of parents each year, is active at the national level in educational organizations such as the NAtional Coalition of Advocates for Students and the National Parent Network on Disabilities and is widely recognized as an informed and experienced parent voice in Philadelphia. Its activities include the provision of parent training programs and educational workshops for more than 600 parents of children with and without disabilities annually; publication of a bi-monthly newsletter to keep parents and citizens informed about educational issues; assisting more than 1400 parents each year with schoolrelated problems and appropriate special education services for their children; presenting testimony at the Philadelphia School District Board of Education; and leadership in citywide coalitions
64

to address the needs of children and families. Through its activities Parents Union collects information on systemic problems and violations of children's rights under IDEA, § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Parents Union is a plaintiff intervenor in Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission v. School District of Philadelphia and Harry and Annemarie Gwynne, ASPIRA of Pennsylvania, et al., in which the Honorable Doris A. Smith ruled on February 4, 1994 that severe inequities exist in the education provided to public school students in the School District of Philadelphia and ordered substantial reform of District programs.
182. The PHILADELPHIA POLICE & FIRE ASSOCIATION FOR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN (PPFA) was formed in December, 1977 by families of police officers and firefighters who were concerned about the needs of their sons and daughters with disabilities. PPFA was incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in May, 1979. Beside Police and Fire families, members include other families and interested citizens who are not affiliated with the police or fire departments; about 160 families are registered as current members. The purpose of PPFA, for which it expends its resources, is to secure the economic, social and educational rights of all people who are disabled and ensure that their needs are met.
183. PPFA advances its purpose through parent education and advocacy. As educators, PPFA members inform parents of their rights and provide parent training on how to obtain appropriate educational programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). As advocates, PPFA members assist individual parents as they negotiate with school districts to ensure that their sons and daughters receive appropriate educational programs
65

as mandated by IDEA. PPFA also advocates for people with disabilities at the local, state and federal levels through participation in city and state councils, committees and task forces; providing testimony at public hearings; and engaging in due process hearings and litigation when necessary to ensure that educational programs comply with the "Right to Education" mandate. PPFA sponsors meetings and distributes informational materials about topics of current interest to families of persons with disabilities including best practices in the area of education of children with disabilities.
184. Members of the Philadelphia Police and Fire Association were among those who sought and won a free, appropriate education for all children with disabilities under P.L. 94-142, now known as IDEA. In the late 1970s, PPFA filed an action to enforce P.L. 94142 and the consent decree in PARC v. Commonwealth; this action led to a consent decree entered in 1982 under which the Philadelphia School District established the Urban Model Project, a program for life skills training in regular public schools for children with disabilities who heretofore had been educated in separate schools for children with disabilities only. This program, which included a strong emphasis on effective inservice training and technical assistance for teachers of students in life skills programs, represented best practice in the early 1980s for educating children with severe and multiple disabilities and became a national model. PPFA also participated in the Armstrong v. Klein litigation, which secured Extended School Year services for students with disabilities throughout the country. At present, PPFA is active in supporting transition services for students exiting the public schools, and advocates persistently for all those who are not
66

receiving support as adults, so that waiting lists may be eliminated and quality services are available to all who need them.
185. Ultimately, the mission of the Philadelphia Police and Fire Association is to support people with disabilities and their families, providing opportunities for them to live full lives of dignity and respect and to be fully included in their communities.
186. DISABLED IN ACTION (DIA) was founded in 1973 during the struggle to affirm the civil rights of persons with disabilities by enacting Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Its mission, for which it expends its resources, is to advocate for all persons with disabilities, to promote inclusion for all persons with disabilities both adults and children and to bring about changes in society to meet that goal. In pursuit of that mission, DIA worked for promulgation of the § 504 regulations in 1977, the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and has struggled to assure implementation and enforcement of all civil rights laws that affect persons with disabilities.
187. THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE is an organization founded in Philadelphia in 1993 with a core membership of families of children with disabilities. Its mission is to create and support efforts to build a more humane and inclusive society. "A.N.D." stands for A Necessary Development Accepting No Discrimination on the basis of ability, culture or age.
188. A.N.D. has a keen interest and investment in the education of children with disabilities and the enforcement of federal law protecting those children's civil rights in the education arena. Acting on the assumption that if children are to learn to live together, they must be educated together, A.N.D. has sought to improve the quality of education and advance the progress
67

of inclusion through parent peer training, advocacy, presentation of testimony, letter campaigns, petitions, sponsoring conferences, collaborating with other disability rights organizations and dissemination of information about special education law and practice. A.N.D. advocates on behalf of children with disabilities and their families and supports and teaches them to advocate for themselves.
Class Action Allegations 189. Individual plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(2). The plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of all school age students with disabilities who have been denied the option of receiving a free appropriate education in regular classrooms with individualized supportive services or have been placed in regular education classrooms without the supportive services, individualized instruction and accommodations they need to succeed in the regular classroom. 190. The class is subdivided into two subclasses: (a) the subclass of students with disabilities who, because of defendants' unlawful policies and practices are unnecessarily segregated in separate classrooms and separate schools, and (b) the subclass of students with disabilities who, because of those same unlawful policies and practices are mainstreamed in regular classrooms but denied the specialized instruction and accommodation they need to receive an appropriate individualized education. 191. The class is so numerous as to make joinder of all members impracticable. The number of class members is not known to plaintiffs at present, although it could be ascertained by defendants.
68

192. The members of the class have all been denied rights

under federal law as a result of the actions, inactions, policies,

and practices of defendants.

Plaintiffs seek for themselves and

for all members of the class declaratory and injunctive relief to

eliminate those actions, policies and practices and to require

defendants to establish standards and procedures that do not

arbitrarily deny to plaintiffs and the class their rights

guaranteed by federal law.

193. There are substantial questions of law and fact common

to the entire class.

194. The claims of the plaintiffs are typical of the class and

predominate over any questions affecting only individual needs. The

named plaintiffs will adequately and fairly represent the interests

of the class. A class action is superior to any other available

method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.

Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the class,

thereby making appropriate final injunctive and declaratory relief

with respect to the class as a whole.

Defendants

195. DONALD M. CARROLL, JR. is Secretary of the Pennsylvania

Department of Education (PDE). As its chief executive officer, he

is responsible for exercising all the powers and duties of the

Department. His responsibilities include:

(a) General supervision and oversight of all educational

programs for exceptional students and early intervention

programs within the Commonwealth;

(b) Assuring that educational programs for exceptional

children meet state and federal requirements;

(c) The establishment of administrative procedures for

69

ongoing monitoring of program implementation, including evaluation of the effectiveness of special education services and programs, taking corrective action and ensuring the provision of appropriate programs for exceptional students;
(d) The imposition of sanctions upon public agencies to ensure that special education plans are submitted as required, approved in a timely manner, implemented as specified and evaluated accordingly;
(e) The establishment and maintenance of a comprehensive special education information system that allows for the monitoring of service delivery of school districts and intermediate units;
(f) The exercise of appropriate and responsible fiscal oversight and control;
(g) The evaluation and approval of teacher education programs leading to the certification of professional personnel in the schools;
(h) The annual review of teacher certification regulations to report on needed revisions;
(i) The dissemination of information about promising practices and the promotion of their use;
(j) Review of special education plans, budget and plans for comprehensive personnel development submitted by local school districts and disapproval of plans and budgets that fail to assure that the services and programs of the district are adequate in quantity and variety to meet the needs of persons of every exceptionality. 196. JOSEPH F. BARD is the Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education within the Pennsylvania Department of
70

Education. He is responsible for policy, monitoring and research in all areas of elementary and secondary educational including the education and training of exceptional students, the subjects to be taught and the activities to be conducted in elementary and secondary schools, and the qualifications for employment of professional personnel in the public schools.
197. MICHELLE DESERA is the Director of the Bureau of Special Education within the Pennsylvania Department of Education. She is responsible for carrying out the functions of the Department with respect to programs and services for exceptional students.
198. M. LAWREACE ANTOUN, EARL H. HORTON, MADGE K. BENOVITZ, E. PETER BENZING, RONALD R. COWELL, EDWARD DONLEY, KARL R. GIRTON, EDITH W. ISACKE, R. GERARD LONGO, BEATRICE MOORE, JAMES J. RHOADES and HOWARD SELEKMAN are members of the State Board of Education and the Council of Basic Education of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Their responsibilities include the power and duty:
(a) To adopt and promulgate rules, regulations, policies, principles and standards governing the educational program of the Commonwealth;
(b) To adopt a master plan for basic education for the guidance of the Governor, the General Assembly, and all public school entities, containing recommendations for school program approval, evaluation and requirements; school personnel training and certification; student testing and assessment; school governance and organization; curriculum materials development; school finance; school buildings and facilities; transportation; technical services and support services to local education agencies; and the projected long-range needs of the public school system of the Commonwealth; and
71

(c) To establish and promulgate standards of preliminary

and professional education and training for teachers in the

Pennsylvania schools.

The Facts

199. Education in regular classes with supplementary aids and

services is often termed supported inclusive education or

inclusion. Inclusion of school age students with disabilities means

that

(a) The student receives a free, appropriate public and

individualized education;

(b) T h e

student

receives

specially designed

instruction, supplementary aids and services and

other necessary support;

(c) The student receives maximum integration into the

classes and school the student would attend if she

or he did not have a disability;

(d) The student is considered, treated and addressed,

so that he or she is seen by others, as someone who

"belongs" and is a full member of the school and

community.

In a program of inclusive education, students receive specialized

instruction and related services in regular classroom settings

through methods such as team teaching; consultation and

collaboration among regular education teachers, special education

teachers, parents and related service personnel; use of classroom

aides and peer tutors; accommodations for individual learners; and

modification of the regular curriculum.

200. Supported inclusive education is not the same as

"mainstreaming"--that is, placing a child with a disability in a

72

regular classroom without modification or support and requiring the

child to meet the same curricular expectations as the nondisabled

students in that class.

201. Supported inclusive education offers many advantages to

students with disabilities. Regular education age-appropriate

classes frequently offer a richer educational environment than

self-contained special education settings. Classroom activities are

more challenging and engaging; creativity is stimulated;

expectations for achievement are higher.

In many self-contained

settings, expectations for students with disabilities are low,

instruction is rote and mechanical. The presence of many students

with challenging needs overwhelms the teacher. Teachers are forced

to teach to the lowest common denominator because of the clustering

of students with extremely diverse needs.

202. In regular classes, students with disabilities may

receive considerable non-academic benefits, such as language and

role modeling, from association with peers who do not have

disabilities.

203. However, placement in regular class without effective

accommodation and support can lead to harm. Students who, because

there is no accommodation, cannot meet teachers' expectations in a

regular class, risk failure and loss of opportunity to master

needed skills. Often, they are punished with loss of recess,

points, school parties and other activities. They are retained

because of failing grades.

204. A small number of school districts in Pennsylvania have

chosen to provide students with disabilities with a full

opportunity to choose supported inclusive education and have

trained their personnel accordingly. Parents in other school

73

districts who wish their children to receive a supported inclusive

education face long and costly due process proceedings. Fulfillment

of the right of parents and students to choose education in the

regular classroom with accommodation varies depending on where the

family lives.

205. The disparity of opportunity for students with

disabilities to be educated with their non-disabled peers is due to

PDE's failure to enforce, through its general supervisory

authority, two interrelated mandates of the IDEA: the obligation to

train personnel in promising practices and the obligation to offer

a full continuum of services, including specialized instruction and

other supplementary aids and services in regular classrooms.

Without effective state oversight, local school districts are free

to provide accommodation to students with disabilities in regular

classrooms if, but only if, they choose to do so voluntarily.

Teacher Training in Promising Practices

206. Under the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1414(a)(1)(C)(i), 1413(a)(3)

and 34 C.F.R. § 300.380(c), state and local education agencies have

a duty to carry out a program of comprehensive personnel

development to train regular and special education personnel in

promising practices developed through research and demonstration.

The program must include

(a) The inservice training of general and special educational instructional, related services and support personnel;

(b) Procedures to insure that all personnel necessary to carry out the purposes of [IDEA] are qualified ... and that activities to carry out this personnel development plan are scheduled; and

(c) Effective procedures for acquiring and

disseminating

to

teachers

and

administrators

of

programs

for

74

handicapped

children

significant

information derived from educational

research, demonstration, and similar

projects, and for adopting, where

appropriate, promising educational

practices and materials developed through

those projects.

34 C.F.R. § 300.380(c).

207. In many school districts in Pennsylvania, teachers are

trained in teaching practices that hinder inclusive education such

as "teaching as talking," reliance solely on textbooks for

instructional material, and referring students to special programs

first and adapting instruction as a last resort. Reform of teacher

training can have a significant impact on teachers' classroom

practice and enhance the ability of regular education teachers to

adapt instruction to the needs of all students. Yet, if change in

teaching practice is not supported in schools, it soon dies as

teachers return to the norms of instruction for which they are

currently reinforced.

208. Because the state of the art in education, including the

knowledge of how to provide supplementary aids and services in

regular classes, is always advancing, enforcement of IDEA's

requirement that comprehensive personnel development plans make

provision for training in promising practices developed through

research and demonstration is of critical importance to children

and families seeking inclusion.

209. Pennsylvania state law, P.L. 1602, No. 178 (Act 178),

codified at 24 P.S. 12-1205.1, requires each district to formulate

a professional development plan for its schools. The plan is

prepared by teacher representatives chosen by the teachers and

administrative representatives chosen by the administrative

personnel of the district. PDE is responsible for establishing the

75

minimal content of the plans, and for approving or disapproving them.
210. The typical Act 178 plan submitted by a school district is framed on a high level of generality and lacks specificity about the content of professional development activities. The plans do not explain how regular and special education teachers and administrators will acquire "significant information derived from educational research, demonstration, and similar projects," or how "promising educational practices and materials developed through those projects" will be adopted by the district. Plans state, for example, that personnel will learn "strategies for special need students," or that they will acquire "knowledge of the uniqueness of special needs students and techniques to address their needs," without further specificity or detail.
211. PDE provides inservice training and technical assistance in inclusive practices and in-class support to school districts who request such training and assistance, yet it does not require school districts to train their own staff in those practices nor to demonstrate mastery of inclusive education. PDE training is limited and, above all, it is voluntary; often, it is requested by a school district that has agreed to educate an individual child in regular class at the insistence of the child's parents. As a result, mastery of inclusive practices is viewed by school districts as the responsibility and domain of PDE.
212. In other states, boards of education have established certification requirements for special and regular educators that require that all teacher trainees take both special education and regular education courses.
213. A system of certification and teacher training that
76

requires mastery of both the technology of special education and that of regular education prepares teachers better to accommodate the needs of a diverse student body. The "technology of individualization" developed by special education--including techniques of individualized planning, professional teamwork and powerful tools for assessing individual learning styles, skill levels and social and behavioral needs--needs to become more readily available to regular education teachers. Conversely, the innovations developed in regular education, such as cooperative learning, whole language approaches to reading and language, interdisciplinary teaching (methods that emphasize cooperation and empowerment of children of diverse cultural backgrounds and teach children to see the relevance of school to life) need to become more readily available to students with special education needs.
214. However, the PDE defendants have not promoted such an integrated system. To the contrary, local school districts in Pennsylvania typically maintain a rigid and artificial separation between regular and special education. This system encourages a bifurcation in which specialized instruction is provided only in restrictive education settings. Regular education teachers in whose classes a student with a disability is "mainstreamed" often are not required to attend that student's IEP meeting; consequently, they are not considered responsible for implementation of a disabled student's IEP and frequently are not even provided with a copy of the student's IEP. An itinerant (part-time) special education teacher is frequently expected to perform all necessary support for a large caseload of "itinerant" special education students.
The Non-Availability of Supplementary Aids and Services in Regular Classes
77

215. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1401 et seq., requires each school district and state agency receiving funds under the IDEA to insure that a continuum of alternative placements is available to meet the needs of handicapped students for special education and related services. The continuum required must include the alternative of instruction in regular classes and must make provision for supplementary services to be provided in conjunction with regular classroom placement. 34 C.F.R. §300.551.
216. PDE has failed to assure the availability of a full continuum of educational placements to afford students with disabilities the opportunity to be educated in regular classes with supplementary aids and services to the maximum extent appropriate.
217. PDE has failed to assure that placement decisions are based on a student's IEP or the students' needs. Instead, placement decisions often are made before the IEP is developed. This practice leads to unnecessary segregation, the failure to consider supportive intervention in regular class, and to placement in regular classes with few specific supports or accommodations set forth in the IEP.
218. Many school districts in Pennsylvania make placement decisions for students with disabilities by "matching" the child's disability to a program that is available, without considering whether the goals and objectives in a child's IEP could be met in the regular classroom with supplementary aids and services. Further, they fail to consider the full range of supplementary aids and services, including curricular adaptations and modifications, the support of instructional assistants, instructional support teachers and special education personnel, that could enable the
78

child with a disability to be satisfactorily educated in the regular classroom, but consider only the services that are readily available or already exist.
219. Many school districts in Pennsylvania do not consider regular classroom placement as an option, let alone the preferred option, for students with certain disabilities, including retardation, autism and social and emotional disabilities, and do not seriously discuss this option with the parents of students with disabilities. As a result, less than three percent of all children classified as mentally retarded in Pennsylvania are fully included in regular classes; 86% of these students spend most of their day in a separate class. Of children classified with autism or PDD, only 1% are fully included, while 98% spend most of their day in a separate class.
220. Young children with disabilities (ages three to five) are entitled to a free appropriate public education under federal and Pennsylvania law. Federal policy directives state that education agencies that do not operate regular preschool classes for children without disabilities must make available the option of education in regular classes to eligible young children with disabilities by other means, such as contracting with, paying tuition for, and providing technical assistance to private preschool programs.
221. In Pennsylvania, early childhood programs are provided by the Intermediate Units, nearly always in separate classes or schools. In most Intermediate Units, young children are offered no alternative to the special classes operated by the IU. Parents who request a free, appropriate and inclusive early childhood education are told that no such programs are available.
222. PDE has failed to prevent the common practice of refusing
79

to integrate students with disabilities until they "earn" their way out of special education, either by demonstrating the ability to master the regular education curriculum or demonstrating certain behavioral skills.
223. The result of these failures is that some students who could make more educational progress in a regular classroom with supplementary aids and services than in a self-contained setting are denied the benefits of regular classroom placement; other students are placed in regular class but denied a free appropriate public education.
224. PDE has failed to assure that students with disabilities have opportunities to participate in nonacademic and extracurricular activities such as field trips, recess, home room, sports, clubs and student organizations with nondisabled students.
Defendants' Failure to Exercise Their General Supervisory Authority to Require
Adequate Personnel Development and Availability of Supplementary Aids and Services 225. As a state educational agency (SEA) receiving funds under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), PDE is responsible for ensuring that all requirements of IDEA, including the personnel development requirements set forth above, are carried out in Pennsylvania. IDEA requires PDE and other SEAs to exercise general supervision over all educational programs for children with disabilities within the state and to assure that all public agencies within the state comply with the requirements of IDEA. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(6). PDE's general supervisory authority extends to 501 local education agencies (LEAs) and 29 intermediate units (IUs). 226. In the exercise of its general supervisory authority, PDE
80

is responsible for the adoption and use of proper methods for

enforcement of the obligations imposed by IDEA on all agencies,

institutions and organizations in Pennsylvania. 20 U.S.C. §

1232(b)(3)(A) and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.600, 300. 194 and 80.43.

227. PDE's 1992-94 State Plan states that

The

Secretary

shall

superintend

the

organization of such special education classes

and such other arrangements for special

education and shall enforce the provisions of

the act relating thereto (22 PA Code §

1372(3)).

The Plan further states that the authority accorded the Secretary

by state statute "assures that enforcement power and authority

rests with the Secretary."

228. The enforcement powers available to PDE include the

following:

(a) Disapproval of a local special education plan.

(b) Deferral of the disbursement of state and federal

funds.

(c) Reduction in the amount of funds disbursed to a

school district--for example, by the amount of money it takes

to provide an appropriate education to a child or group of

children if a district fails to provide those children with an

appropriate education.

(d) Filing an action for injunctive relief against a

school district.

(e) Joining with parents in legal action against a school

district.

(f) Taking action to withdraw the commission of the

officer responsible for administering the school district.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Education, Basic

81

Education Circular 10-94 (April, 1994). 229. Despite the clear enforcement authority granted the
Secretary by state law, PDE defendants take the position that they are powerless to enforce compliance with the guarantees of IDEA by withholding state funds from local school districts. They have not withheld federal funds on the ground that federal dollars flow directly to Intermediate Units (IUs) rather than to the local school districts, unlike state special education funds which flow to the school districts.
230. Although PDE plainly has the authority to bring suit against school districts that fail to meet federal and state requirements, it has never done so.
231. PDE lacks policies and procedures that make state education funding contingent on plan eligibility and compliance. The disapproval of a school district's special education plan or personnel development plan does not result in the withholding of funds by PDE.
232. PDE officials state that they are powerless to enforce corrective actions in response to complaint investigations or monitoring reports.
233. PDE has failed adequately to discharge its responsibility to provide general supervision over programs providing education and related services to students with disabilities in Pennsylvania. Specifically, PDE has failed to discharge its duty to monitor educational programs; to review and approve LEA applications; to manage complaints; to provide an adequate system of due process and procedural safeguards; to provide protection in evaluation procedures; to assure adequate individualized education programs; and to assure placement in the most integrated setting appropriate
82

to the child's needs. 234. PDE has failed to adopt and use proper methods of
monitoring local school districts to assure that they are carrying out their obligations under IDEA, as required by 20 U.S.C. § 1232d(b)(3)(A) and (E). Further, PDE has failed to correct deficiencies even when they are identified by the monitoring process.
235. PDE discontinued its comprehensive monitoring reviews in 1988 and resumed them only recently and in a limited fashion. From 1988 to 1991, PDE conducted no monitoring of special education programs in Pennsylvania. In 1991, PDE developed a monitoring system that it used to survey six agencies, but it abandoned it when it determined that the system produced no useful information.
236. In October, 1992, PDE began to implement a new monitoring system. However, PDE is able to monitor only about 30 education agencies a year; at this rate, it will take PDE 16 years to monitor every public education agency in Pennsylvania. Further, corrective actions to remedy deficiencies identified by PDE through the new monitoring process have not been implemented.
237. PDE has failed to monitor local school districts to determine whether placement in the least restrictive environment is being implemented with the use of supplementary aids and services. PDE has not collected information to determine whether students are removed from the regular education environment, or from their neighborhood school, based on educational need or upon such noneducational reasons as the unavailability of programs and resources, category of disability, configuration of the educational service delivery system, and lack of teacher training.
238. Adequate evaluation and education planning are essential
83

to effective inclusive education. Without proper, individualized education planning and goal setting, an IEP team cannot design the accommodations necessary for participation in regular classroom.
239. PDE has failed to require, as part of the required multidisciplinary evaluation (MDE) process, a specific listing of recommendations concerning appropriate specially designed instruction and accommodation necessary for participation in a regular classroom.
240. PDE has failed to require adequate individualized education programs for students with disabilities who are, or could be, educated in regular classes with supplementary aids and services. Missing from many IEPs are such essential components as present levels of performance, annual goals and measurable shortterm objectives. Without adequate individualized planning, a disabled child's unique educational needs cannot be met nor can success or failure be measured.
241. PDE has failed to ensure that each child's IEP contains a statement of the specific special education and related services to be provided and the extent of participation in regular education. PDE does not adequately monitor the school districts' implementation of this requirement and fails to identify incomplete or conflicting information about the extent of the student's participation in regular education.
242. Some school districts' IEPs list as "participation in regular education," time spent by students in classes composed entirely of students with disabilities but taught by a regular education teacher.
243. PDE has failed to ensure that each student with a disability receives the kind and amount of related services that
84

are required to assist the child to benefit from special education, as required by 34 C.F.R. §§300.300, 300.16(a), 300.17(a) and 300.350.
244. Many school districts in Pennsylvania categorically refuse to provide psychotherapy as a related service. The unavailability of psychological services denies many students the support they need to succeed in regular classes and results in unnecessary and harmful segregation in separate classes for students labelled "socially and emotionally disturbed." Even when a child is determined to need psychological counseling, the school makes available only the services of a guidance counselor untrained in psychotherapy, or makes the parents provide the service at their own expense. In many school districts, school psychologists provide no direct psychological services to students; their work consists primarily of administering standardized tests to establish and maintain eligibility for special education.
245. PDE has failed to ensure that each student fourteen or over has an effective individual transition plan.
246. PDE has failed to ensure that complaints that a public agency has violated a requirement of IDEA be investigated and resolved within 60 calendar days of filing the complaint unless exceptional circumstances exist, as required by 34 C.F.R. § 300.661(a). Of the 512 complaints filed during the two-year period from January 1, 1991 through December 31, 1992, PDE failed to investigate and resolve the complaints within 60 calendar days in 168 cases despite the absence of exceptional circumstances.
247. PDE has failed to take swift and effective corrective action when presented with complaints that students with
85

disabilities are improperly excluded from regular classroom

instruction and that IEPs are procedurally and substantively

inappropriate or are not being implemented in the regular

classroom.

248. The system of procedural safeguards operated by the

defendants is inadequate to safeguard the right of students with

disabilities to receive supplementary aids and services in regular

classes. Pennsylvania has a two-tier system of procedural

safeguards: impartial due process hearings are conducted by a

hearing officer at the local school district level, and hearing

officer decisions may be appealed to an appellate hearing panel at

the state level. Many hearing officers are employees of school

districts and intermediate units or professionals who work under

contract with those entities. All too often, they are products of

the same system as the school district personnel whose actions they

are called upon to review and share that system's lack of knowledge

of inclusive practices.

249. PDE has no method for determining whether due process

hearing decisions are implemented unless a dissatisfied party files

a formal complaint with the State.

250.

"Quality

education

prepares

students

to

assume

responsible adult roles as citizens, family members, workers, and

life-long learners by attending to their intellectual,

developmental, and social needs." 22 PA.CODE § 5.201(c). As a

result of defendants' failure to assure that students with

disabilities have access to a quality education in regular class

with supplementary aids and services, students with disabilities in

Pennsylvania leave school ill-prepared for responsible adulthood.

251. The practice of delivering special education services

86

only in separate settings is expensive in human costs. As PDE defendants have recognized, among special education students, "[d]ropout rates are high. Special education students are often stigmatized. And, educated in homogeneous settings, neither they nor their non-disabled peers are prepared to cope with a world that daily becomes more diverse." Pennsylvania Department of Education, Bureau of Special Education, Quality Education Initiatives.
252. Not only children with disabilities but also their parents, siblings and peers without disabilities are harmed by poor educational practices and unnecessary separation between regular and special education. As a result of defendants' unlawful policies and practices, many students with disabilities in Pennsylvania suffer life-long harm, including failure to learn academic, functional, social and communication skills. Students who could have graduated with a regular diploma are denied the opportunity to do so. Students are denied the opportunity to form friendships with students who do not have disabilities. For many students with disabilities, the failure of timely intervention means the opportunity for effective learning is lost forever.
Claims Count I: Individual with Disabilities Education Act.
253. PDE defendants have violated the rights of plaintiffs as secured by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1412(5)(B), 1414 (a)(1)(C)(iv), and 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.550300.556, by:
(a) Failing to develop policies that are binding on local school districts, monitor the extent to which students with disabilities receive instruction and accommodation in regular classrooms and taking action that is necessary and appropriate
87

to effectively implement the federal mandate that education in

regular classrooms with supplementary aids and services be

available as a placement option.

(b) Permitting local school districts to continue the

practice of denying students with disabilities access to

specially designed instruction and related services in regular

classrooms, based on availability of services, extent or

nature of the disability, configuration of the service

delivery system, lack of teacher training, lack of

availability of space and other considerations that are

unrelated to the needs of the child, thus violating 20 U.S.C.

§ 1401 et seq.

(c) Failing to train hearing officers and state review

panel members and to monitor their activities, thus failing to

ensure fair and impartial due process proceedings in violation

of 20 U.S.C. § 1415(a) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.501.

254.

PDE

defendants

have

violated

20

U.S.C.

§§

1414(a)(1)(C)(i), 1413(a)(3) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.380(c), by failing

to carry out a program of comprehensive personnel development to

train regular and special education personnel in promising

practices in inclusive education and the provision of supplementary

aids and services in regular classrooms.

Count II: Americans With Disabilities Act

255. Defendants have violated the rights of plaintiffs secured

by the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101

et seq., and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, by:

(a) Denying plaintiffs and the class the opportunity to

participate in and benefit from regular education services,

including academic and nonacademic services and school

88

activities.

(b) Failing to adapt and modify regular classroom

activities to meet the individual needs of students with

disabilities.

(c)

Failing to provide students with disabilities an

opportunity to participate in and benefit from their services

that is equal to the opportunity afforded students without

disabilities.

(d) Failing to provide students with disabilities with

educational and other services that are as effective as the

services provided other students.

(e) Providing different and separate services to

students with and without disabilities, for reasons that have

to do with administrative convenience rather than the

educational needs of the child.

(f)

Denying plaintiffs and the class the benefits of

federally assisted educational programs on the basis of the

severity of their disabilities.

(g) Segregating students with disabilities on the basis

of their physical, behavioral or medical disabilities.

(h)

Providing federally assisted educational and non-

educational services to class members only in segregated

settings.

(i)

Aiding and perpetuating discrimination against class

members in federally-funded programs because of the severity

of their retardation and their physical disabilities.

(j) Limiting disabled students's enjoyment of the right

and opportunity to receive a public education.

(k) Failing

to

provide

specialized

instruction,

89

adaptations and accommodations in the regular classroom.

(l) Failing and refusing to assign students to regular

educational programs with supplementary aids and services when

they could benefit from those programs.

Count III: Rehabilitation Act.

256. Defendants have violated the rights of plaintiffs secured

by Sections 100 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as

amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 720 and 794, and regulations promulgated

pursuant thereto, 45 C.F.R. parts 84 and 1361, by:

(a) Denying plaintiffs and the class the opportunity to

participate in and benefit from regular education services,

including academic and nonacademic services and school

activities.

(b) Failing to adapt and modify regular classroom

activities to meet the individual needs of students with

disabilities.

(c)

Failing to provide students with disabilities an

opportunity to participate in and benefit from their services

that is equal to the opportunity afforded students without

disabilities.

(d) Failing to provide students with disabilities with

educational and other services that are as effective as the

services provided other students.

(e) Providing different and separate services to

students with and without disabilities, for reasons that have

to do with administrative convenience rather than the

educational needs of the child.

(f)

Denying plaintiffs and the class the benefits of

federally assisted educational programs on the basis of the

90

severity of their disabilities.

(g) Segregating students with disabilities on the basis

of their physical, behavioral or medical disabilities.

(h)

Providing federally assisted educational and non-

educational services to class members only in segregated

settings.

(i)

Aiding and perpetuating discrimination against class

members in federally-funded programs because of the severity

of their retardation and their physical disabilities.

(j) Limiting disabled students's enjoyment of the right

and opportunity to receive a public education.

(k) Failing

to

provide

specialized

instruction,

adaptations and accommodations in the regular classroom.

(l) Failing and refusing to assign students to regular

educational programs with supplementary aids and services when

they could benefit from those programs.

Relief

WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs respectfully request the court to

order the following relief:

1. Preliminary and permanently enjoin PDE to carry out a

program of comprehensive personnel development to train regular and

special education personnel in promising educational practices for

the provision of supplementary aids and services to students with

disabilities in regular classes.

2. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin PDE to produce

mandated procedures for the production of MDE reports that will

include specific recommendations concerning specially designed

instruction and accommodations.

3. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin PDE defendants to

91

determine whether each local school district is affording class members the opportunity to receive specialized instruction and related services in regular classes with all needed adaptations and modifications.
4. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin PDE defendants to determine whether local school districts are improperly refusing to provide specialized instruction and supplementary aids and services in regular classrooms, and to insure that prompt and effective corrective action is taken.
5. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin PDE defendants to determine whether school districts are improperly placing class members in regular classes without attempting to determine the specialized instruction, accommodations and modifications needed to provide that child with a free appropriate public education;
6. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin PDE defendants to determine whether school districts are failing to provide students with disabilities in regular classes with the specialized instruction, accommodations and modifications contained in their IEPs;
7. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin PDE defendants to determine whether local school districts are improperly removing class members from the regular classroom environment without considering the specialized instruction and supplementary aids and services that could enable the student to be satisfactorily educated in the regular classroom environment, and to insure that prompt and effective corrective action is taken.
8. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin PDE defendants to determine whether local school districts are improperly failing to provide supplementary aids and services, including adaptations and
92

modifications of regular classroom activities, that could enable the student to be satisfactorily educated in the regular classroom environment, and to insure that prompt and effective corrective action is taken.
9. Preliminarily and permanent enjoin PDE defendants to insure that each plaintiff and member of the plaintiff class receives special education in a regular classroom to the maximum extent appropriate, and that removal of plaintiffs from the regular classroom occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
10. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin PDE defendants to submit a plan for court approval that specifies the program of comprehensive personnel development they will carry out, and the monitoring and enforcement activities that they will conduct, to insure that students with disabilities are afforded the opportunity to receive specialized instruction and related services in regular classrooms with all needed supplementary aids and services.
11. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin PDE defendants to submit a plan for court approval which specifies the preservice and inservice training and oversight of hearing officers they will provide to ensure that families requesting regular classroom placement are given a full and fair opportunity to obtain such placements.
12. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin PDE defendants to submit a plan for court approval that describes the actions they will take to insure that local school districts offer the classroom accommodations and modifications needed for the appropriate education of students with disabilities in regular classes.
93

94

13. Award such other relief as the court deems appropriate, including compensatory education and tuition reimbursement for individual plaintiffs and members of the class.
Respectfully submitted,

June 30, 1994

_____________________________ Judith A. Gran Barbara E. Ransom Public Interest Law Center of
Philadelphia 125 South 9th Street, Suite 700 Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 627-7100
Counsel for Plaintiffs

95

 
 Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 1 of 51

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GASKIN, ET AL.,

: CIVIL ACTION

: NO. 94-4048

Plaintiffs, :

:

v.

:

:

COMMONWEALTH OF

:

PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.,

:

:

Defendants. :

M E M O R A N D U M

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

SEPTEMBER 16, 2005

After eleven years of alternating between aggressive litigation and intensive settlement negotiations, the parties in this action have reached a Settlement Agreement. Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion for final approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement (doc. no. 326). For the following reasons, the Court will grant the motion, approve the Settlement Agreement, and dismiss the case with prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND On June 30, 1994, twelve students,1 all of whom were
enrolled in various local school districts in Pennsylvania and alleged to have disabilities, and eleven state and regional

1

All twelve students were minors when the class action

was initiated. Thus, the students’ parents or foster parents

commenced the lawsuit on their behalf.

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 2 of 51

disability advocacy groups (“Plaintiffs”), initiated the instant class action against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Department of Education (“PDE”), and multiple individuals acting in their capacities as officials of various state organizations (“Defendants”).
Plaintiffs claimed that Defendants violated: (1) the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1485, by failing to identify disabled students, develop individual educational programs or plans (“IEPs”),2 and provide a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) in the least restrictive environment (“LRE”) to the maximum extent reasonably possible; (2) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, as amended by 29 U.S.C. § 794, by excluding disabled students, solely because of their disability, from participating in or from receiving the benefits of any program that received federal funding; and (3) Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act

2

According to the Settlement Agreement:

“IEP” stands for “individualized education program” or “individualized education plan.” IEP is statutorily defined as “a written statement for each child with a disability that is developed, reviewed, and revised in accordance with [20 U.S.C. §] 1414(d).” See 20 U.S.C. § 1401(1)); 32 C.F.R. §§ 300.340300.350.

(Settlement Agreement, Provision II(I)(3), doc. no. 295.)

2

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 3 of 51

(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12134, by excluding otherwise
qualified students from access to public programs solely because
of their disability. Defendants denied these allegations.
In 1995, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23, the Court certified the class, defined as:
[A]ll present and future school age students with disabilities in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who have been denied the option of receiving a free appropriate education in regular classrooms with individualized supportive services, or have been placed in regular education classrooms without the supportive services, individualized instruction, and accommodations they need to succeed in the regular classrooms.
Gaskin v. Pennsylvania, No. Civ. A. 94-4048, 1995 WL 355346, at
*1 (E.D. Pa. June 12, 1995). The class is comprised of
approximately 255,264 members, according to the most recent data
from PDE.3 (Fairness Hr’g Tr., 06/24/2005, 20-22.)
Following certification, the parties engaged in
extensive discovery, which lead to, inter alia, the production of
thousands of documents, the taking of dozens of depositions, and
the exchange of at least eighteen expert reports involving a

3

This total reflects the number of school-aged

children--that is, children between the ages of 3 and 21--who

have an IEP. (Fairness Hr’g Tr., 06/24/2005, 20 & Defs.’ Ex. 3.)

At the Fairness Hearing, Dr. Linda Rhen, Director of the Bureau

of Special Education for the Commonwealth, testified that this

number represents the best estimate of class members. (Id. at

21-22.)

3

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 4 of 51
panoply of subjects. During various stages of discovery, the parties also exchanged settlement proposals and participated in settlement discussions with a number of court-designated facilitators. Each settlement attempt, although not initially successful, brought the parties closer together.
In 2002, following a discovery dispute, the Court appointed The Honorable Louis C. Bechtle, former Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, as Discovery Master in the case. With Judge Bechtle’s guidance, the parties completed discovery on May 30, 2003. Thereafter, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, along with responses and replies. On March 24, 2004, the Court heard oral argument on the summary judgment motions. After oral argument, and at the Court’s suggestion, the parties agreed to reconvene settlement discussions, with Judge Bechtle serving as a mediator.
From July 2004 to December 2004, the parties negotiated--through mediation sessions with Judge Bechtle, faceto-face meetings with negotiating teams that represented the parties, and the exchange of correspondence--a settlement that addressed all of the issues in the case. On December 21, 2004, the parties filed a joint motion for provisional approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement (doc. no. 295), which the Court
4

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 5 of 51

granted on April 29, 2005 (doc. no. 305).4 The Court also (1)

4

As the Court indicated in its order granting

provisional approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement, citing

to its decision in Samuel v. Equicredit Corp., No. Civ. 00-6196,

2002 WL 970396, at *1 n.1 (E.D. Pa. May 6, 2002),

[a] decision granting preliminary approval does not bind the court to granting final approval. As noted by the Third Circuit, “[the] preliminary determination establishes an initial presumption of fairness . . . .” In re General Motors Corp., 55 F.3d 768, 785 (3d Cir. 1995) (emphasis added). “If the proposed settlement appears to be the product of serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations, has no obvious deficiencies, does not improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives or segments of the class, and falls within the range of possible approval, then the court should direct that the notice be given to the class members of a formal fairness hearing . . . .” Manual for Complex Litigation, Second § 30.44 (1985). In addition, “[t]he court may find that the settlement proposal contains some merit, is within the range of reasonableness required for a settlement offer, or is presumptively valid.” Newberg on Class Actions § 11.25 (1992). In this case, the court finds that the settlement falls within the “range of possible approval” and shall be submitted to the class members for their consideration and for a hearing to determine whether the settlement will be approved by the court.

(doc. no. 305).

5

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 6 of 51
altered and approved the parties’ proposed form of notice; (2) prescribed time frames for the distribution of the notice; (3) established time frames for the submission of objections to the proposed Settlement Agreement; and (4) set a date for a Fairness Hearing.
The Court received nineteen objections to the Settlement Agreement, of which only sixteen where submitted by class members or their parents. At the Fairness Hearing, which was held on June 24, 2005, the Court heard oral argument from the parties and other interested persons and received testimony from a special-education expert, Commonwealth officials, parents of several named Plaintiffs, and certain representatives from advocacy groups. The parties submitted additional evidence through declarations and reports. Thereafter, the Court ordered the parties to file a joint motion for final approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement (doc. no. 318). The joint motion was filed on August 5, 2005. (doc. no. 326).
II. PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT With the Court’s final approval, the Settlement
Agreement will resolve--finally and completely--the case of Gaskin v. Pennsylvania, No. Civ. A. 94-4048 (E.D. Pa. 1994). Rather than continuing to litigate this action, the parties have agreed to follow the terms and conditions of the proposed
6

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 7 of 51
Settlement Agreement fully and comprehensively to resolve all
outstanding claims in the case.
The life of the Settlement Agreement will be the five-
year period of time commencing on the date on which the Court
formally enters an order dismissing the case and ending exactly
five years later. (Settlement Agreement, Provisions II(B)-(C),
doc. no. 295.) As a foundation to the Settlement Agreement, the
parties have affirmed the following mutual goals and principles
that will guide interpretation of the Settlement Agreement.
(1) The IDEA and related case law, including Oberti v. Board of Education, 995 F.2d 1204 (3d Cir. 1993), require special education students to be educated with students who do not have disabilities to the maximum extent appropriate.
(2) It is desirable that school districts increase their capacity to provide appropriate specially designed instruction, related services, supplementary aids and services and support to special education students placed in regular education classrooms.
(3) When the law requires that special education students receive supplementary aids and services in order to be educated with students who do not have disabilities to the maximum extent appropriate, such supplementary aids and services should be: (a) available to all students in
7

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 8 of 51
need of them; (b) designed to provide meaningful educational benefits; and (c) provided in a manner sensitive to the need to avoid stigmatizing special education students who receive them. (4) Pennsylvania school districts educate all children and welcome children with special needs. (Id. at Provision III(A)(1)-(4).) A summary of certain Settlement terms and conditions follows.
A. Policy Development and Implementation The overarching policies undergirding the Settlement
Agreement are divided into five categories. (Id. at Provision IV.1.) First, PDE agrees to require school districts to adhere strictly to the IDEA, and the case law construing that statute, when making decisions regarding the placement of students with disabilities. To meet this condition of the Settlement Agreement, the PDE will ensure: (1) students may not be removed from regular education classes simply because of the severity of their disabilities; (2) school districts have an obligation to provide students with disabilities, including students with significant cognitive disabilities, specially designed instruction or other supplementary aids and services, if needed, to benefit from participating in a regular education classrooms;
8

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 9 of 51

(3) before considering removal of a student with disabilities from a regular education classroom, the IEP team must first determine whether the goals in the student’s IEP can be implemented in a regular education classroom with supplementary aids and services; and (4) school districts will consider the full range of supplementary aids and services, based on peerreviewed research to the extent practicable, that can be utilized in regular education classrooms before contemplating removal of a student with disabilities from a regular classroom. (Id. at Provision IV.1(A).)
Second, when non-PDE Commonwealth agencies or private agencies are required to provide a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment, “the services will be provided, coordinated, and paid in accordance with the interagency coordination [set forth in the] Memorandum of Understanding entered into among PDE, the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, and the Pennsylvania Department of Health.” (Id. at Provision IV.1(B).)
Third, students who are entitled to gifted support or Chapter 15 accommodations5 will have one IEP that incorporates

5

As Chapter 15 of Pennsylvania’s Administrative Code on

Education provides:

(a) This chapter addresses a school district's

9

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 10 of 51
responsibility to comply with the requirements of Section 504 and its implementing regulations at 34 CFR Part 104 (relating to nondiscrimination on the basis of handicap in programs and activities receiving or benefiting from federal financial assistance) and implements the statutory and regulatory requirements of Section 504.
(b) Section 504 and its accompanying regulations protect otherwise qualified handicapped students who have physical, mental or health impairments from discrimination because of those impairments. The law and its regulations require public educational agencies to ensure that these students have equal opportunity to participate in the school program and extracurricular activities to the maximum extent appropriate to the ability of the protected handicapped student in question. School districts are required to provide these students with the aids, services and accommodations that are designed to meet the educational needs of protected handicapped students as adequately as the needs of nonhandicapped students are met. These aids, services and accommodations may include, but are not limited to, special transportation, modified equipment, adjustments in the student's
10

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 11 of 51
all specially designed instruction, accommodations, or other support identified by the IEP team. (Id. at Provision IV.1(C).)
Fourth, PDE agrees to create readily available, informational materials about the types of supplementary aids and services that children with disabilities can receive in a regular education classroom and how parents can seek assistance in obtaining these aids and services for their children. PDE will seek input from the Advisory Panel (see Part II.A below) for this initiative. (Id. at Provision IV.1(D).)
Finally, PDE agrees to create materials representing that all children, including those children with disabilities, are welcome in school. These materials will be displayed in school buildings. PDE also agrees to seek input from the Advisory Panel (see Part II.A below) for this initiative. (Id. at Provision IV.1(E).)
B. Advisory Panel PDE agrees to establish a special advocacy group, known
as the “Bureau Director’s Advisory Panel on Least Restrictive
roster or the administration of needed medication. For purposes of the chapter, students protected by Section 504 are defined and identified as protected handicapped students. 22 Pa. Code § 15.1.
11

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 12 of 51

Environment Practices” (or simply the “Advisory Panel”),6 to engage in the following functions: (1) to review system-wide progress in the delivery of individualized, specially designed instruction in regular education classrooms to students with disabilities; (2) to analyze and report periodically on the status of implementation of the Settlement Agreement; and (3) to advise PDE on the implementation of the Settlement Agreement’s terms and conditions. (Id. at Provision IV.2(A).) The Advisory Panel will be comprised of fifteen members, at least nine of whom will be parents of children with disabilities who are not employed by PDE, or by any school district in Pennsylvania, or by any other local education agency in Pennsylvania. (Id. at Provision IV.2(B).) More specifically, during the life of the Settlement Agreement, the organizational Plaintiffs will annually select twelve Advisory Panel members, and the Bureau Director will annually select three Advisory Panel members. (Id.) Although all Advisory Panel members will initially be appointed to a one-year term, the Settlement Agreement provides that each member is eligible for reappointment, up to a maximum of five years. (Id.)
The Settlement Agreement also establishes guidelines for how vacancies on the Advisory Panel will be filled, how often

6

The “Bureau Director” refers to the Director of PDE’s

Bureau of Special Education.

12

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 13 of 51
the Advisory Panel will meet, how the Advisory Panel will operate, and what types of data will be accessible to the Advisory Panel. (Id. at Provision IV.2(C)-(M).) Notably, the Bureau of Special Education agrees to provide “a reasonable level of support, including support staff, to the Advisory Panel consistent with the PDE’s budgetary resources and as determined by the Bureau Director.” (Id. at Provision IV.2(K).) Two of the Advisory Panel’s main initiatives will be: (1) to assist in designing a needs assessment, based on research-based practices and the supplementary aids and services available in regular education classrooms, of the school districts’ and intermediate units’ personnel; and (2) to aid the Director of the Bureau of Special Education in identifying school districts that have established exemplary LRE programs and practices, rewarding those districts, and creating materials to help other school districts replicate the LRE initiatives of the exemplary school districts. (Id. at Provision IV.2(L)-(M).)
C. Individualized Education Program or Plan (“IEP”) Format As done previously, PDE will provide an Annotated IEP
Format to guide school districts in developing IEPs. (Id. at Provision IV.3(A).) Under the Settlement Agreement, however, the LRE portion of the Annotated IEP Format will be modified to reflect the new LRE Monitoring, which is described below. (Id.
13

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 14 of 51
at Provision IV.3(C)-(E).) Additionally, the Settlement Agreement sets forth how and when the LRE portion of the IEP may be modified during the life of the Settlement Agreement, and what type of guidance PDE will provide to school districts concerning the modified LRE portion of the IEP.
D. Compliance Monitoring Perhaps the most significant aspect of the Settlement
Agreement involves the provision for “compliance monitoring” by PDE of the individual school district’s performance. Compliance monitoring is intended to ensure, inter alia, that local school districts are adhering to the IDEA and other federal and state laws that protect the rights of children with disabilities. (Id. at Provision IV.4(A).)
Of the three types of compliance monitoring that PDE agrees to conduct, one is new (“LRE Monitoring”) and two are existing, but will be modified under the Settlement Agreement (“Regular Cyclical Monitoring” and “Targeted Monitoring”). (Id.) All types of compliance monitoring will be “data- and information- based and verifiable.” (Id. at Provision IV.1(B)(1)(A).) PDE will use this data-based information as a guide for determining how to allocate resources to address “areas of greatest need[,]” relating to the support for children with disabilities. (Id. at Provision IV.1(B)(1)(B).) “As permitted
14

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 15 of 51
by its resources, PDE will provide support, including focused,
customized technical assistance, to school districts in need of
such support.” (Id. at Provision IV.1(B)(1)(C).) Moreover,
parents of children with disabilities will be afforded the
opportunity, on a continuous basis, to provide PDE with
information. (Id. at Provision IV.4(B)(1)(e).) And for those
school districts failing to take corrective action as mandated by
PDE, sanctions will result. (Id. at Provision IV.4(I).)
LRE Monitoring, which is a new type of monitoring under
the Settlement Agreement, will be based of five guiding
principles:
(a) LRE monitoring will be based on a limited number of priorities (goal statements) identified by PDE following input from a diverse group of stakeholders through the Advisory Panel. Priorities will include: (1) increasing the number of students with disabilities included in regular education classes and neighborhood schools with needed supplementary aids, services and support; and (2) developing IEPs capable of providing students with disabilities a meaningful benefit from education.
(b) LRE monitoring will be based on a limited number of indicators (objective measures of the goal) identified by PDE within each priority area.
15

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 16 of 51
(c) LRE monitoring will be based on comparisons to state averages identified by PDE. Monitoring standards will be clearly communicated to school districts.
(d) Triggers (levels of performance at which PDE will intervene and require corrective action) will be clearly communicated to school districts.
(Id. at Provision IV.4(A)(3)(a)-(d).) Under LRE Monitoring, PDE will closely monitor and
provide specialized support to half of Pennsylvania’s school districts--selected according to “LRE Index Score” rankings--that have not been meeting the needs of children with disabilities. (Id. at Provision IV.4(C).) The LRE Index Score will derive from weighted “data factors,” which will be agreed to by the parties and reviewed on an annual basis. (Id.) Based on the LRE Index Score, half of all school districts in Pennsylvania will be identified under one of three categories on an annual basis. (Id.) “Tier One LRE Monitoring” will be comprised of the twenty school districts with the lowest LRE Index Scores. (Id. at Provision IV.4(C)(1).) “Tier Two LRE Monitoring,” also known as the “warning list,” will consist of school districts in the bottom ten percent of the LRE Index Scores that have not been identified for “Tier One LRE Monitoring.” (Id. at Provision IV.4(C)(2).) Finally, “Tier Three LRE Monitoring,” also known as
16

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 17 of 51
the “alert list,” will be comprised of school districts in the bottom fifty percent of the LRE Index Score that have not been identified for Tier One LRE Monitoring or Tier Two LRE Monitoring. (Id. at Provision IV.4(C)(3).) The LRE Index Scores of all school districts will be made publicly available as part of the school and district report cards under the No Child Left Behind Act and the IDEA. (Id. at Provision IV.4.)
Regular Cyclical Monitoring, a pre-existing monitoring process that is mandated by the United States Department of Education (“USDOE”), involves the monitoring of each Pennsylvania school district once every six years to ensure that the district is in compliance with the state and federal special education laws and regulations. (Id. at Provision IV.4(A)(1).)
Targeted Monitoring, the other pre-existing type of compliance monitoring, is performed by the Bureau of Special Education in response to specific deficiencies within a particular school district that were identified through the Regular Cyclical Monitoring process. (Id. at Provision IV.4(A)(2).)
The parties have agreed to a five-tier process for compliance monitoring, including initial triggers for each level of intervention:
(a) Tier One LRE Monitoring of 20 school districts (excluding any school district implementing a
17

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 18 of 51
Tier One CAP)7 identified via data analysis as most in need of systemic LRE-related changes.
(b) Tier Two LRE Monitoring based on a warning designation for school districts identified in the bottom ten percent (approximately) of data analysis (excluding any school district implementing a Tier One or Tier Two CAP).
(c) Tier Three LRE Monitoring based on an alert designation for school districts identified in the remaining bottom half (approximately) of data analysis.
(d) Targeted [M]onitoring based on referral by a Bureau staff member due to extenuating circumstances within the school district.
(e) Regular [C]yclical [M]onitoring of all Pennsylvania school districts coordinated to the district strategic plan process, currently on a sixyear cycle as approved in the Pennsylvania state plan approved by the USDOE.
(Id. at Provision IV.4(B)(2)(a)-(e) (emphasis in original)
(footnote added).)

7

Under the Settlement Agreement, “CAP” means “a

corrective action plan ordered by PDE as the consequence of

deficiencies identified during compliance monitoring conducted

under Section IV.4 of the Settlement Agreement.” (Settlement

Agreement, Provision II(L), doc. no. 295.)

18

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 19 of 51
Those school districts failing to comply with PDE’s
corrective action plans--created to rectify deficiencies
identified through any type of compliance monitoring--will be
subject to sanctions and enforcement powers, including:
(1) A mandatory meeting with PDE in Harrisburg in which the superintendent and chair of the school board will be obligated to participate.
(2) Appropriate sanctions as set forth in PDE’s “Basic Education Circular” on enforcement, including the withholding of funds from the school district and redirecting those funds to the appropriate body to support specific expenditures (e.g., hiring personnel) to implement the action required.
(3) If appropriate, the initiation of professional disciplinary action against the superintendent or others whose conduct is found to have resulted in the school district’s failure to meet its obligations under the CAP.
(Id. at Provision IV.4(I).)
E. Complaint Resolution
Under the Settlement Agreement, PDE will modify and
expand its present system of complaint investigation and
resolution. (Id. at Provision IV.5.) First, the Bureau will
investigate all complaints filed by parents or students. (Id. at
19

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 20 of 51
Provision IV.5(A).) If PDE determines that the complaint was timely filed and that jurisdiction lies with PDE to investigate the complaint, pursuant to 34 C.F.R. § 300.662, then PDE will resolve the matter using its best efforts to interview: (1) the parents or student, and (2) a reasonable number of persons identified by the complainant(s) as having actual knowledge of the facts. (Id.)
Second, when PDE finds in the course of the complaint resolution process that a school district has violated a student’s right to receive supplementary aids and services in a regular education class or when such a violation is established after a due process hearing, PDE will investigate whether the offending school district has corrected the violation for all similarly situated students during the school district’s next compliance monitoring. (Id. at Provision IV.5(B).)
F. Financial Terms Defendants will pay named Plaintiffs $350,000 in full,
final, and complete settlement and release of Plaintiffs’ claims for compensatory damages that have been asserted in this case. (Id. at Provision IV.9(A).) Plaintiffs will be responsible for allocating the $350,000 among themselves. Additionally, Defendants will pay Plaintiffs’ counsel $1,825,000 in full, final, and complete settlement and release of all claims by
20

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 21 of 51
Plaintiffs or their attorneys for attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. (Id. at Provision IV.9(B).)
G. Other Components of the Proposed Settlement Agreement Under the Settlement Agreement, PDE will “build upon
and refine its present system of review and approval or disapproval of special education plans [that are] submitted by the 501 school districts in Pennsylvania[.]” (Id. at Provision IV.6.) In part, PDE will require those school districts that failed to meet the needs of children with disabilities, as determined by compliance monitoring, to include appropriate corrective actions in their special education plans. Id.
Additionally, the Settlement Agreement establishes that the Bureau of Special Education will provide extensive on-site training, technical assistance, and professional development to school districts to ensure that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are being met. (Id. at Provision IV.7.) The Advisory Panel will offer support in this initiative by recommending content, delivery systems, and evaluation processes, inter alia, for the training programs. (Id.)
Plaintiffs’ counsel will continue to advocate for trained, informed, and effective support to parents on issues relating to specially designed instruction to students with disabilities. (Id. at Provision IV.8.) As Plaintiffs’ counsel
21

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 22 of 51
has informed PDE, part of their advocacy will include submitting grant proposals to PDE and seeking funding for programs that support their special-education goals. (Id.) During the life of the Settlement Agreement, PDE agrees to review such grant proposals. (Id.) If the proposals submitted by Plaintiffs’ counsel are consistent with PDE’s obligations, priorities, and goals, and do not jeopardize PDE’s own grant proposals, then PDE will support such grants and take reasonable steps to assist Plaintiffs’ counsel in obtaining the grants. (Id.)
III. SUMMARY OF PROOFS, AFFIDAVITS, AND TESTIMONY Class members and their parents had the opportunity to
file written objections to the proposed Settlement Agreement by June 10, 2005. Nineteen objections were either filed or received by the Court. All objectors were given the opportunity to produce evidence and be heard at the Fairness Hearing. The following proofs, affidavits, and testimony were produced by the parties to support approval of the Settlement Agreement.
A. Experts
1. Christopher Kliewer, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Special Education at the University of Northern Iowa
The parties submitted the declaration of Christopher Kliewer, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Special Education at the
22

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 23 of 51
University of Northern Iowa, to support their joint motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement. Dr. Kliewer served as an expert in an earlier phase of the litigation and is familiar with the Settlement Agreement. Based on a substantial body of scholarly and empirical research, Dr. Kliewer stated that special needs children perform better, both academically and socially, when educated in regular classrooms then when educated in a non-inclusive setting. (Dr. Christopher Kliewer’s Decl. ¶¶ 3-8, doc. no. 302.) Moreover, Dr. Kliewer indicated that great disparities exist among the states in placing children with special needs, which is evidenced by data that the United States Department of Education collected in 2002. (Id. at ¶ 14.) According to that data, Pennsylvania educated only 35% of its special education students (aged 6-21) in general education classrooms for 80% of a day or more. (Id.) Comparably, Vermont and New Hampshire educated approximately 80% and 75% of its special education students (aged 6-21), respectively, in general education classrooms for 80% of a day or more. (Id.) This disparity helps to demonstrate that Pennsylvania’s practices for educating children with disabilities are not reflective of what experts know about “best practices.” (Id.)
23

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 24 of 51
2. Gail McGregor, Ed.D., Research Professor of Education at the University of Montana
Dr. Gail McGregor, a research professor of education at the University of Montana, testified at the Fairness Hearing. (Fairness Hr’g Tr., 06/24/2005, at 53-77.) With over thirty years of experience in the area of special education, which includes approximately twelve years working in Pennsylvania, Dr. McGregor served as an expert witness in earlier stages of this litigation and, if the Court gives final approval to the Settlement Agreement, will be assisting the Bureau of Special Education in implementing the Settlement Agreement. (Id. at 5357.)
As an expert on behalf of Plaintiffs, Dr. McGregor studied Pennsylvania’s approach to professional development for teachers. (Id. at 57-58.) In Dr. McGregor’s opinion, the Settlement Agreement provides strong training, technical assistance, and professional development. (Id.) Notably, the Settlement Agreement also emphasizes “system accountability.” (Id. at 62.) In her declaration submitted to the Court and from her testimony at the Fairness Hearing, Dr. McGregor highlights certain aspects of the Settlement Agreement that meet the training and accountability directives.
First, the Settlement Agreement establishes “policy guidance” to the IEP teams by requiring them to consider initially whether a special needs child can be supported in a
24

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 25 of 51
regular classroom with supplementary aids and services. (Id. at 59.) Accordingly, for this policy to be implemented, the IEP teams must be aware of the research-based practices that allow children with disabilities to learn in a general education classroom. (Id. at 58-59.) Additionally, because the Settlement Agreement will require PDE and the Bureau of Special Education to provide parents of special needs children with information about supplementary aids and services, both the parents and the IEP teams will start “on the same page.” (Fairness Hr’g Tr., 06/24/2005, at 60.)
Second, under the Settlement Agreement, professional development needs will be assessed throughout the Commonwealth, whereby actual practice will be contrasted with research- and evidence-based “best practices” in the special education field. (Id. at 61-62.)
Third, the LRE Monitoring created under the Settlement Agreement, which requires the ranking of school districts according to data factors that measure how well children with disabilities are being included in regular classrooms, will provide an objective mode for determining the impact of training. (Id. at 62-67.) According to Dr. McGregor, tiered monitoring and corrective action create accountability. (Id.) And although the LRE Index Scores will be based on data factors that have not yet been determined by the parties, Dr. McGregor testified that the
25

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 26 of 51
realm of possible data factors is limited and includes information that the school districts are already required to report to PDE. (Id. at 74.)
Fourth, the Settlement Agreement establishes system accountability by creating provisions for review and approval of each school district’s special education plans, which in turn will help direct training and technical assistance. (Id. at 6267.) Moreover, parents will be able to address their grievances through the complaint resolution process. (Id. at 60.)
Based on the aforementioned and “a very, very large body of evidence that suggests that there are positive outcomes from students with disabilities” to be placed in regular classrooms, Dr. McGregor is confident that the Settlement Agreement will “absolutely” benefit Pennsylvania’s special needs children. (Id. at 66-67.)
B. PDE Officials Two PDE officials--Francis V. Barnes, Ph.D., Secretary
of Education for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and Linda Rhen, Ed.D., Director of the Bureau of Special Education of the Pennsylvania Department of Education--testified at the Fairness Hearing. Both officials expressed, on behalf of the Commonwealth, full support for the Settlement Agreement.
26

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 27 of 51
1. Francis V. Barnes, Ph.D., Secretary of Education for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
At the time the Settlement Agreement was entered into, Dr. Barnes served as the Secretary of Education for the Commonwealth. In that capacity, he was the highest educational official in Pennsylvania. At the Fairness Hearing, Dr. Barnes testified that he was familiar with the Settlement Agreement, that the Pennsylvania Department of Education was entering into the Settlement Agreement willingly and voluntarily, and that the terms of the Settlement Agreement would be implemented faithfully. (Id. at 12-14.) Additionally, Dr. Barnes stated that the Commonwealth had both the staff support and financial support to implement the terms of the Settlement Agreement. (Id. at 13.) Although Dr. Barnes acknowledged that he planned to leave his position as Secretary of Education within a few months of the Fairness Hearing, he stressed that his departure would “absolutely not” impact the commitment of the Commonwealth to carry out the terms of the Settlement Agreement. (Id.) Dr. Barnes indicated that the Settlement Agreement would not only serve the best interests of special education children in the Commonwealth, but also those children receiving a general education. (Id.)
27

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 28 of 51
2. Linda Rhen, Ed.D., Director of the Bureau of Special Education of the Pennsylvania Department of Education
As Director of the Bureau of Special Education of PDE, and with more than thirty-four years of experience in the field of special education, Dr. Rhen is the Commonwealth official who will have the most direct responsibility for implementing the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement. (Id. at 1720.) At the Fairness Hearing, Dr. Rhen defined special education as: “In a generic sense, special education is providing the support[] and services to students with disabilities from the ages 3 through 21 to help them be successful in school and prepare them for adult life.” (Id. at 20.) Also, Dr. Rhen indicated that 255,264 students with disabilities are school-aged in Pennsylvania, according to the most recent official data that PDE reported to the United States Department of Education, as of December 1, 2003. (Id. at 21-22.)
Dr. Rhen testified that she has “studied ... and studied” the Settlement Agreement and is very familiar with its terms. (Id. at 22.) Under the Settlement Agreement, the Bureau will be responsible for convening the Advisory Panel and naming three of the Panel’s fifteen members. (Id. at 19.) Additionally, the Bureau will present information and recommendations to the Advisory Panel, help devise the LRE Index Score, and conduct compliance monitoring. (Id.) According to
28

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 29 of 51
Dr. Rhen’s testimony, the Bureau of Special Education is committed to implementing the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement, which “serves the best interests of the Commonwealth and our students.” (Id. at 22.) Dr. Rhen also represented that PDE can afford the implementation costs for the five-year life of the Settlement Agreement. (Id. at 23.)
As to the life of the Settlement Agreement, Dr. Rhen testified that the five-year period gives PDE and the Bureau adequate time to “address the issues and the tasks that are in front of us in the settlement agreement. Some are more complex than others. But, I think it gives us the time to be able to identify and work with each and every issue.” (Id.) Under the recently enacted federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Dr. Rhen indicated that “Least Restrictive Environment Monitoring” will be required, which is very similar to monitoring that is mandated under the Settlement Agreement. (Id. at 24.) With changing laws, however, Dr. Rhen stated that it would be hard to predict what exactly would happen after the life of the Settlement Agreement, but the “five years gives us the time to implement the settlement agreement and get some sound information on which . . . to build future plans.” (Id. at 24-25.)
Finally, Dr. Rhen testified about a series of town hall meetings that the Bureau participated in throughout the
29

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 30 of 51
Commonwealth to inform parents, school districts, intermediate units, charter schools, agencies, and other interested parties about the Settlement Agreement. (Id. at 27-30.)
C. Plaintiffs Three parents of individually named Plaintiffs--
including Joseph Gaskin, the father of lead Plaintiff Lydia Gaskin--testified at the Fairness Hearing. These parents shared their experiences with navigating through the educational system in an effort to have their children with disabilities included in regular classroom settings. Moreover, the parents explained the litigation, mediation, and settlement phases of this case. These parents fully support the Settlement Agreement and believe that it is in the best interest of Pennsylvania students. In particular, Mr. Gaskin stated that his greatest reservation with the Settlement Agreement had been the limited five-year time frame, but determined that this provision was a better alternative than a lengthy trial without guaranteed results. (Id. at 46.) Mr. Gaskin noted, however, that with the Settlement Agreement, “we [can] start implementing it right away and start helping kids throughout Pennsylvania immediately.” (Id.)
Additionally, representatives from state and regional disability advocacy groups--some named organizational Plaintiffs-testified and/or submitted declarations. These representatives
30

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 31 of 51
described the arms-length negotiations and expressed full support of the Settlement Agreement.
Finally, twelve parents of children with disabilities requested to speak at the Fairness Hearing, and the Court afforded them the opportunity to do so. (Id. at 91-120.) With one exception, these parents commended the efforts of the parties to the action and expressed their support for the Settlement Agreement. (Id.) One parent evinced several concerns that the Settlement Agreement would limit parents’ choices in placement of their children. (Id. at 92.)
IV. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. Standard of Review “Even if [a proposed settlement agreement] has
satisfied the requirements for certification under Rule 23, a class action cannot be settled without the approval of the court and a determination that the proposed settlement is ‘fair, reasonable, and adequate.’” In re Prudential Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 283, 316 (3d Cir. 1998) (citing In re Gen. Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liability Litig., 55 F.3d 768, 785 (3d Cir. 1995)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(C) (“The court may approve a settlement . . . that would bind class members only after a hearing and on finding that the settlement . . . is fair, reasonable, and adequate.”). This determination “is left to the
31

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 32 of 51
sound discretion of the district court.” Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153, 157 (3d Cir. 1975).
Before delving into legal analysis, it is important to delineate the role of the Court in the shaping of the public policy choices that are embedded in the Settlement Agreement. Contrary to the expectations of some who object to the Settlement Agreement or who appeared at the Fairness Hearing, it is not the Court’s role (or intent) to superintend from henceforth the delivery of educational services to the members of the class, or to adjudicate individual disputes between parents and the school districts, or to pick and choose among programs or policies to be implemented by the Commonwealth or its school districts. Whether the Settlement Agreement embodies optimum educational choices or strikes the proper allocation of resources among competing educational needs is not the business of the Court. The task of giving life to the statutory mandate of providing a “free appropriate public education” to children throughout the Commonwealth and to fund those mandates adequately will remain, as it should, under the stewardship of the executive and legislative branches of state government, and not the Court. 20 U.S.C. § 1412; 34 C.F.R. § 300.13. Rather, the role of the Court is focused and more modest, which is simply to ensure that the public policy choices embodied in the Settlement Agreement are not inconsistent with federal or state law.
32

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 33 of 51
In addition, the Court has the statutory role of
verifying that the Settlement Agreement is “fair, reasonable, and
adequate.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1)(C). In Girsh, the Third
Circuit enumerated certain factors that district courts may
consider in determining whether to grant final approval of a
class action settlement. Id. at 157. The Girsh factors include:
(1) the complexity, expense and likely duration of the litigation . . .; (2) the reaction of the class to the settlement . . . ; (3) the stage of the proceedings and the amount of discovery completed . . . ; (4) the risks of establishing liability . . . ; (5) the risks of establishing damages . . . ; (6) the risks of maintaining the class action through the trial . . . ; (7) the ability of the defendants to withstand a greater judgment; (8) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund in light of the best possible recovery . . . ; (9) the range of reasonableness of the settlement fund to a possible recovery in light of all the attendant risks of litigation . . . .
Id. (quoting City of Detroit v. Grinnell Corp., 495 F.2d 448, 463
(2d Cir. 1974)).
These factors, however, are not exclusive. Nor are
they all relevant to every class action. Id. at 156 (stating
“[s]ome of the factors which are relevant to a determination of
the fairness of a settlement [are] . . . as follows.”). In fact,
the Third Circuit has suggested that district courts consider
33

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 34 of 51
additional factors given the “sea-change [which has occurred] in
the nature of class actions.” Prudential, 148 F.3d at 323.
These additional factors include:
[1] the maturity of the underlying substantive issues, as measured by experience in adjudicating individual actions, the development of scientific knowledge, the extent of discovery on the merits, and other factors that bear on the ability to assess the probable outcome of a trial on the merits of liability and individual damages; [2] the existence and probable outcome of claims by other classes and subclasses; [3] the comparison between the results achieved by the settlement for individual class or subclass members and the results achieved-or likely to be achieved-for other claimants; [4] whether class or subclass members are accorded the right to opt out of the settlement; [5] whether any provisions for attorneys’ fees are reasonable; and [6] whether the procedure for processing individual claims under the settlement is fair and reasonable.
Id.
As this Court recognized in Schwartz v. Dallas Cowboys
Football Club, Ltd., 157 F. Supp. 2d 561 (E.D. Pa. 2001)
(Robreno, J.),
Distilled to their essence, Girsh-Prudential compels courts to obtain satisfactory answers to the following questions:
1. What benefit did the litigation confer upon the putative class
34

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 35 of 51
members either by way of financial compensation or by [structural] relief?
2. What past, present or future claims are surrendered by the class members by settling the case?
3. Do the administrative costs, including attorneys fees, reflect the market value of the services performed and are they commensurate with the results achieved?
4. Are the terms of the Settlement Agreement consistent with the public interest and is the public’s confidence in the administration of justice and the integrity of the class action process enhanced or impeded by the settlement?
5. What are the prospects that, if the Settlement Agreement is rejected, further litigation would enlarge the recovery of the class and, if so, at what financial cost?
Id. at 572. It is within this framework that the Court will
consider the pending Settlement Agreement.
B. Analysis of the Settlement Agreement
1. What benefit did the litigation confer upon the class members?
While the Settlement Agreement does not create new
norms of conduct for the PDE or the school districts, it does
provide for systematic changes in the manner in which PDE
monitors, advises, and trains the local school districts in
supporting children with disabilities. Significant impacts in
35

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 36 of 51
monitoring will be implemented. Improved measuring instruments will permit closer monitoring, and a more efficient and effective delivery of student services. This focus on how better to meet the needs of children with disabilities in Pennsylvania will greatly benefit more than 255,000 students.
2. What past, present or future claims are surrendered by the class members by settling the case?
As set forth in Provision IV.9(E) of the Settlement Agreement,
the payments . . . of the Settlement Agreement are intended by the parties to constitute, and will be construed by the parties to constitute, consideration exchanged by the defendants for a full, final, and complete release of all claims that the plaintiffs asserted or could have asserted against any and all of the defendants arising out of or relating directly or indirectly to the causes of action asserted in Gaskin v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, No. 94-CV-4048 (E.D. Pa.). (Settlement Agreement, Provision IV.9(E), doc. no. 295.) Therefore, the sweep of the release is not overly broad and does not extinguish the rights of parents to otherwise vindicate federal- or state-provided rights through due process hearings.
36

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 37 of 51
3. Do the administrative costs, including attorneys fees, reflect the market value of the services performed and are they commensurate with the results achieved?
Under the Settlement Agreement, Plaintiffs’ counsel will receive $1,825,000 for attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. “In determining the appropriate amount of attorneys’ fees to be paid to class counsel, the principal consideration is the success achieved by the plaintiffs under the terms of the settlement.” Schwartz, 157 F. Supp. 2d at 578; see also Prudential, 148 F.3d at 338 (“‘[N]umerous courts have concluded that the amount of the benefit conferred logically is the appropriate benchmark against which a reasonable . . . fee charge should be assessed.’”) (quoting Conte, 1 Attorney Fee Awards § 2.05, at 37).
After litigating for over eleven years, Plaintiffs represent that the Settlement Agreement provides them “with a remedy that addresses virtually every form of relief that was requested in the Complaint.” (Joint Mot. for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement at 56.) In their complaint, Plaintiffs requested that PDE: (1) provide comprehensive development and training to regular and special education personnel concerning provisions for supplementary aids and services to students with disabilities in regular classrooms; (2) monitor local school districts to determine whether they are improperly removing class members from regular education classrooms and whether the local school districts are providing specialized instruction and
37

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 38 of 51
supplementary aids and services that could enable students with disabilities to be educated satisfactorily in a regular classroom; and (3) require local school districts to take corrective action when failure to provide the aforementioned services occurs. (Id.) These requests have been met under the Settlement Agreement.
Moreover, the Settlement Agreement provides for policy development and implementation that will require school districts to adhere to the standards for placing students in regular education classrooms; to change the IEP format to include additional guidance to IEP teams in making placement decisions; and to implement a complaint resolution process that is responsive to parental complaints.
Plaintiffs’ counsel has filed an itemized listing of all attorneys’ costs and fees associated with this litigation. The actual fees and costs amount to $2,651,000. (Michael Churchill’s Decl. ¶ 4, doc. no. 302.) Plus, an estimated $90,000, which reflects over 300 hours of attorney time during negotiations, is excluded from the actual fees and costs. (Id. ¶ 8.)
The $1,825,000 sought by counsel reflects only 62% of counsel’s actual fees and costs, as of June 1, 2004. This reduced amount is lower than the lodestar method would command. See In re Gen. Motors Corp. Pick-Up Truck Fuel Tank Prods. Liab.
38

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 39 of 51

Litig., 55 F.3d 768, 821 (3d Cir. 1995) [hereinafter General Motors]. 8

8

In General Motors, the Third Circuit determined that “a

court making or approving a fee award should determine what sort

of action the court is adjudicating and then primarily rely on

the corresponding method of awarding fees[, either the lodestar

or the percentage of recovery methods].” 55 F.3d at 821. The

Third Circuit recognized:

Courts generally regard the lodestar method, which uses the number of hours reasonably expended as its starting point, as the appropriate method in statutory fee shifting cases. Because the lodestar award is de-coupled from the class recovery, the lodestar assures counsel undertaking socially beneficial litigation . . . an adequate fee irrespective of the monetary value of the final relief achieved for the class.

Id. On the other hand, a percentage of recovery method is used in common-fund cases, based on “the theory that the class would be unjustly enriched if it did not compensate the counsel responsible for generating the valuable fund bestowed on the class.” Id.

As this Court recognized in Lake v. First Nationwide Bank, 900 F. Supp. 726 (E.D. Pa. 1995), “[n]either the lodestar method nor the percentage of recovery method, however, is mandatory. Thus, the district court has wide discretion to decide which method of fee calculation to apply.” Id. at 734 (citing General Motors, 55 F.3d at 821).

Here, Plaintiffs secured substantial changes in the monitoring, training, and delivery of special-education services. While the exact value of these changes is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify, the Court can consider these changes in normative terms. That is, the provisions of the Settlement Agreement will presently affect approximately 255,264 children and thousands more over the life of the Settlement Agreement. The extent of counsel’s recovery is not disproportional to the equitable relief obtained.

39

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 40 of 51
Most of the work for which compensation is sought appears to have been necessary and diligently performed. The attorneys’ hourly rates are not unreasonable, and, in the Court’s experience, are consistent with market rates. Therefore, the attorneys’ fees and costs under the Settlement Agreement are fair and reasonable.
4. Are the terms of the Settlement Agreement consistent with the public interest and is the public’s confidence in the administration of justice and the integrity of the class action process enhanced or impeded by the Settlement?
The Settlement Agreement is the product of lengthy and arms-length litigation and negotiations conducted by experienced counsel with the assistance of well-qualified experts and a skilled mediator. All policies embodied in the Settlement Agreement have been fully endorsed at the highest levels of the Commonwealth’s educational decision makers. The objections to the Settlement Agreement are de minimis. The Court is also satisfied that the terms of the Settlement Agreement are not inconsistent with federal or state law. Nor does the Settlement Agreement entangle the judiciary in the future management or delivery of state services. The attorneys’ fees and costs are reasonable, particularly in light of the results achieved. Under these circumstances, public confidence in the administration of
40

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 41 of 51
justice and the integrity of the class system will not be undermined.
5. What are the prospects that, if the Settlement Agreement is rejected, further litigation would enlarge the recovery of the class and, if so, at what financial cost?
As this Court has previously recognized, in this final step of the analysis,
the sole reason for approving the Settlement Agreement must be that, in the opinion of counsel, further litigation will generate significant expenses and is unlikely to result in greater recovery for the class members. The opinion of experienced counsel, particularly one with knowledge of this area of the law, is entitled to substantial weight. Schwartz, 157 F. Supp. 2d at 580. Both parties maintain that the costs and time associated with further litigation, which would most likely result in a trial, would be large. The Court agrees. As the parties contend in their joint motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement, this case involves novel issues concerning, generally, the responsibility of state agencies for the education of special needs children. If this case were to proceed to summary judgment and/or to trial, the result would be uncertain. An appeal would almost be certain to follow. Consequently, the
41

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 42 of 51

parties would most likely have to wait years for resolution of the case.
As it currently stands, this case has been before the Court for over eleven years. Most of the individually named Plaintiffs have graduated from public high school and will not directly benefit from the new procedures being implemented under the Settlement Agreement. Moreover, Plaintiffs initiated this action to effectuate change in the future policies and practices of PDE and other Commonwealth agencies, all of which are achieved by the Settlement Agreement. Considering these factors, the Court finds that further litigation is not likely to result in a greater recovery for the class and would entail significant financial costs and risks.
In light of the above discussion, the Court concludes that the terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement are fair, reasonable, and adequate.

V. OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT The Court received nineteen objections to the
provisionally approved Settlement Agreement.9 Although the Court directed objectors to file their concerns with the Clerk’s

9

The Court prepared a summary of all objections that

were either filed with the Clerk’s Office or submitted to the

Court prior to the Fairness Hearing. This summary was filed

after the Fairness Hearing so that the parties could comment on

them in post-Fairness Hearing briefs (doc. no. 320).

42

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 43 of 51
Office, only three objectors followed this directive. One of those three objectors later sought leave from the Court to withdraw the objection, which the Court granted (doc. no. 313). Out of the nineteen objections, three were submitted by non-class members, which included identical objection letters from twelve school districts, one objection by a former teacher, and one objection by the Berks County Intermediate Unit and Chester County Intermediate Unit. The Court will not directly entertain objections from non-class members. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(4)(A). Notably, some of the objections submitted by nonclass members have also been asserted by class members.
First, of the 255,264 members of the class, only sixteen class members (or parents of class members) filed objections. These objections to the Settlement Agreement can be broken down into eight categories, each of which will be discussed in turn.10
10 The Berks County Intermediate Unit and Chester County Intermediate Unit (the “Intermediate Units”)--non-parties to this action--filed a motion to intervene for purposes of filing a motion to strike the proposed Settlement Agreement (doc. nos. 303 and 304), which the Court denied. Although the Intermediate Units have no standing to object to the Settlement Agreement, they did assert a procedural issue that is worth comment. Under the Commonwealth Documents Law, 45 Pa. Stat. Ann. §§ 1102-1602, administrative agencies must follow specialized procedures for implementing a new standard of conduct. The parties to the action vehemently deny that the Settlement Agreement creates new or modified standards of conduct.
As one Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court stated:
43

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 44 of 51
Administrative agencies often devise rules or regulations, some of which create a controlling standard of conduct, while some do not. In order for an agency ‘to establish a substantive rule [thereby] creating a controlling standard of conduct, it must comply with the provisions of the Commonwealth Documents Law.’ These ‘substantive regulations . . . when properly enacted under the Commonwealth Documents Law, have the force of law.’ Agencies also devise rules, known as ‘interpretive rules,’ which do not establish a binding standard of conduct. These interpretive rules ‘need not be promulgated in accordance with the Commonwealth Documents Law.’ For an interpretive rule to be viable, however, it ‘must genuinely track the meaning of the underlying statute, rather than establish an extrinsic substantive standard.
Lowing v. Public Sch. Employees’ Retirement Bd., 776 A.2d 306, 308-09 (Commonwealth Court of Penn. 2001) (internal citations omitted) (alteration in original); see also Giant Food Stores, Inc. v. Commonwealth of Pa., Dep’t of Health, 713 F.2d 177, 180 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1998) (“The [Commonwealth Documents Law, or “CDL,”] establishes a process for issuing regulations that includes public notice of a proposed rule, receiving comments from interested parties, and holding hearings when appropriate.”).
By entering into the Settlement Agreement, neither PDE nor any Commonwealth agency is creating a new substantive rule. No obligations are directly imposed on the Intermediate Units. Rather, the Settlement Agreements provides for increased monitoring, inter alia, to ensure that school districts are following both federal and state educational laws, such as the IDEA. This monitoring does not substantively change the state of education law in Pennsylvania. On the contrary, the monitoring created under the Settlement Agreement provides a means to better
44

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 45 of 51
A. Failure to Compensate Absent Class Members for Past Wrongs Four class members questioned why only the named
Plaintiffs, as opposed to all class members, were receiving compensation under the Settlement Agreement. According to the parties, Plaintiffs initiated this action to effectuate change in the future policies and practices of PDE and other Commonwealth agencies, and not to receive compensation for previous harm. Moreover, most of the individually named Plaintiffs have graduated from public school and will not directly enjoy the benefits created under the Settlement Agreement.
The Court agrees with the parties. This lawsuit was not about compensatory damages. The compensation to Plaintiffs is appropriate considering the time and effort spent in prosecuting this lengthy and complex litigation. Accordingly, the Court will overrule this objection.
B. Failure to List “Brain Injury” Among the Specific Injuries in the Definition of “Eligibility’ Two objectors requested that “brain injury” be added to
the list of conditions requiring training and technical assistance under the Settlement Agreement. According to the
determine whether school districts are following federal and state educational law. In fact, it appears that the Commonwealth has the power to implement the provisions of the Settlement Agreement, whether or not the Settlement Agreement is approved by the Court, without violating the Commonwealth Documents Law.
45

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 46 of 51
parties, students with brain injury who are eligible for special education services are included in the category of “students with significant disabilities,” under Provision IV.7 of the Settlement Agreement. Additionally, the list of disabilities following the definition of “students with significant disabilities” is not exhaustive and cannot be used to exclude students with brain injury from benefitting under the Settlement Agreement. The parties also comment that if a needs assessment required under Provision IV.2(L) of the Settlement Agreement reveals that teachers lack knowledge and experience in teaching children with brain injury in a regular classroom, then training will be provided in response to the assessment.
The Court finds that brain injury is addressed under the Settlement Agreement, as argued by the parties. As such, the Court will overrule this objection.
C. Inadequate Length of the Settlement Agreement Two class members opposed the length of the Settlement
Agreement, arguing that a five-year time frame is inadequate. The parties, however, have indicated that this duration was a necessary compromise to reach a Settlement Agreement. Additionally, as the parties appropriately point out, “[m]any of the provisions of the settlement, when implemented, will have an impact lasting far longer than the agreement terms and will build the Commonwealth’s capacity for inclusive practices.” (Joint
46

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 47 of 51
Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement at 30-31; see also Gaskin Decl. ¶ 10.) In fact, at the Fairness Hearing, Dr. Rhen testified that the “five years gives us the time to implement the settlement agreement and get some sound information on which . . . to build future plans.” (Fairness Hr’g Tr., 06/24/2005, 24-25.)
The Court concludes that any period lengthier than five years will require Court entanglement in the delivery of state educational services for longer than necessary to fulfill the objectives of the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, the objection will be overruled.
D. Large Compensation to the Individual Plaintiffs and Attorneys Two class members object to the compensation that the
individually named Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel will receive under the Settlement Agreement. As previously addressed in Part IV.B.3 of this decision, the Court finds that the compensation is fair and reasonable. Therefore, this objection will be overruled.
E. Potential Effects of Provisions for Training and Technical Assistance One parent expressed concern that the school districts
would use Provision IV.7 of the Settlement Agreement, which
47

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 48 of 51
concerns training, “to argue against the provision of training and consultation with respect to individual students rather than to ‘school districts.’” (Joint Motion for Final Approval of Settlement Agreement at 31.) According to the parties, Provision IV.7 does not prevent training and technical assistance with respect to individual students, but rather requires such training and assistance identified by a needs assessment.
The Court finds the parties’ argument to be persuasive. When considering the parties’ position in light of Dr. McGregor’s testimony at the Fairness Hearing, the Court determines that training and technical assistance are adequately addressed in the Settlement Agreement, as driven by the educational policy of the Commonwealth. Thus, the Court will overrule this objection.
F. Failure to Increase State Funding to Local School Districts Parents of a child with a disability objected that the
Settlement Agreement did not guarantee increased state funding to assist the school districts in meeting their obligations. First, Plaintiffs did not seek increased state funding in their complaint. Second, it is doubtful that the Court has the power to require any specific expenditures of state funds under the circumstances of the case. Third, to the extent that moneys are needed to fund the Settlement Agreement, both the Secretary of Education and the Director of PDE’s Bureau of Special Education
48

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 49 of 51
testified at the Fairness Hearing that the Commonwealth had the funds and resources to implement the provisions of the Settlement Agreement. (Fairness Hr’g Tr., 06/24/2005, 13, 23.) Accordingly, the Court will overrule this objection.
G. Need for a Change in Placement Practices One parent proposed that children who have not met
certain testing and grading standards should immediately be placed in a learning support program, while the school districts and parents arrange for appropriate testing to determine the specific learning disability and then tailor the IEP to address each child’s specific needs. According to the parties, the Settlement Agreement does not--and cannot--change the provision in the IDEA that requires evaluation and development of an IEP before a student’s placement can be changed. 20 U.S.C. § 1414. The parties note, however, that the Settlement Agreement provides for professional development, which may help teachers identify students in need of supplementary aids and services, but who have not been identified as having a disability because they can be clearly included in a regular classroom. The Court concurs with the parties and will overrule this objection.
49

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 50 of 51
H. Lack of Time Between Notice of Proposed Settlement and Deadline for Filing Objection Two class members take issue with the amount of time in
which they had to file objections to the Settlement Agreement. As this Court set forth in its provisional approval of the Settlement Agreement (doc. no. 305), notice of the proposed Settlement Agreement was to be published to certain Pennsylvania newspapers and distributed to educational agencies, entities, and known parents of children with disabilities by May 20, 2005. The Court determined that class members and their parents could file written objections to the proposed Settlement Agreement no later than June 10, 2005. Thus, objectors should have had approximately twenty-one days, give or take, to file objections. In any event, at the Fairness Hearing, the Court heard from any individual wanting to share his or her thoughts about the Settlement Agreement, whether or not that individual filed a written objection. There is no evidence that the parties did not meet the notice requirements established by the Court, or that any member of the class lacked notice or the opportunity to object. Accordingly, the Court will overrule this objection.
VI. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant the
parties’ motion, approve the Settlement Agreement, and dismiss the case with prejudice.
50

Case 2:94-cv-04048-ER Document 330 Filed 09/19/2005 Page 51 of 51

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GASKIN, ET AL.,

: CIVIL ACTION

: NO. 94-4048

Plaintiffs, :

:

v.

:

:

COMMONWEALTH OF

:

PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.,

:

:

Defendants. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 16th day of September, 2005, it is hereby

ordered that this case shall be REMOVED FROM SUSPENSE and PLACED

ON ACTIVE STATUS.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, upon consideration of the Joint

Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement Agreement (doc. no.

326) and objections from class members and interested parties at

the Fairness Hearing, that the motion is GRANTED and the parties’

Settlement Agreement is APPROVED in the form submitted to this

Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the case is DISMISSED WITH

PREJUDICE. The court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce

certain aspects of the Settlement Agreement as provided therein.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, J.

 
 Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 1 of 71
SEALDC,CLOSED,SPECIAL
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:94−cv−04048−ER

GASKIN, et al v. COMMONWEALTH OF PA, et al Assigned to: HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO Demand: $0
Case in other court: USCA Third Circuit, 05−04627
Cause: 20:1401 Appeal From The Decision Of The Special Education Appeals Panel (IDEIA)
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/30/1994 Date Terminated: 09/19/2005 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN a minor, by her parents Joseph and Karen Gaskin

represented by BARBARA E. RANSOM PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER OF PHILA 125 S. 9TH ST. STE. 700 PHILA, PA 19107 215−627−7100 Fax: 215−627−3183 Email: bransom@pilcop.org TERMINATED: 04/11/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY

JESSICA R. LOWENTHAL PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER OF PHLA. 125 S. 9TH STREET SUITE 700 PHILA, PA 19107 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDITH A. GRAN Freeman Carolla Reisman &Gran LLC 19 CHESTNUT STREET HADDONFIELD, NJ 08033 856−354−0021 Fax: 856−873−5640 Email: judith@freemancarolla.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MAX LAPERTOSA 125 S. 9TH STREET SUITE 700 PHILA, PA 19107 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PHILLIP A. DRUMHEISER SOLE PRACTIONER P.O. BOX 890 CARLISLE, PA 17013 717−245−2688 Email: pdrumheiser@epix.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

YVONNE M. HUSIC HUSIC LAW OFFICE NORTHWOOD OFFICE CENTER

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 2 of 71

2215 FOREST HILLS DR SUITE 35 HARRISBURG, PA 17112−1099 717−236−4282 Email: ymhusic@aol.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
HASSAN ADIB SABREE a minor, by his mother Hana Sabree

represented by BARBARA E. RANSOM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY

JESSICA R. LOWENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDITH A. GRAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MAX LAPERTOSA (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PHILLIP A. DRUMHEISER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

YVONNE M. HUSIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
MERRIN RAINEY a minor, by her parents, Thomas and Linda Rainey

represented by BARBARA E. RANSOM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY

JESSICA R. LOWENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDITH A. GRAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MAX LAPERTOSA (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PHILLIP A. DRUMHEISER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 3 of 71

Plaintiff SAMUEL LUCKINBILL a minor, by his parents, Thomas and Wendy Luckinbill
Plaintiff LISA MC CANN a minor, by her mother Lisa McCann

YVONNE M. HUSIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by BARBARA E. RANSOM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY
JESSICA R. LOWENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JUDITH A. GRAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MAX LAPERTOSA (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PHILLIP A. DRUMHEISER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
YVONNE M. HUSIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by BARBARA E. RANSOM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY
JESSICA R. LOWENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JUDITH A. GRAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MAX LAPERTOSA (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PHILLIP A. DRUMHEISER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
YVONNE M. HUSIC

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 4 of 71

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
ELIZABETH MOSER a minor, by her mother, Giovanna Moser

represented by BARBARA E. RANSOM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY

JESSICA R. LOWENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDITH A. GRAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MAX LAPERTOSA (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PHILLIP A. DRUMHEISER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

YVONNE M. HUSIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
ANNE CORR a minor, by her foster parents and next friends, Patrick and Judith Corr

represented by BARBARA E. RANSOM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY

JESSICA R. LOWENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDITH A. GRAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MAX LAPERTOSA (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PHILLIP A. DRUMHEISER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

YVONNE M. HUSIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 5 of 71

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI a minor, by his parents, James and Dawn Koneski

represented by BARBARA E. RANSOM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY

JESSICA R. LOWENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDITH A. GRAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MAX LAPERTOSA (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PHILLIP A. DRUMHEISER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

YVONNE M. HUSIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
MICHAEL WINTERING a minor, by his parents, Michael and Nancy Wintering

represented by BARBARA E. RANSOM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY

JESSICA R. LOWENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDITH A. GRAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MAX LAPERTOSA (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PHILLIP A. DRUMHEISER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

YVONNE M. HUSIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 6 of 71

Plaintiff SARAH NOE a minor, by her parents, Roland and Janice Noe
Plaintiff TIFFANY ZIMENOFF a minor, by her parents, Richard and Robin Zimenoff
Plaintiff

represented by BARBARA E. RANSOM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY
JESSICA R. LOWENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JUDITH A. GRAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MAX LAPERTOSA (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PHILLIP A. DRUMHEISER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
YVONNE M. HUSIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by BARBARA E. RANSOM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY
JESSICA R. LOWENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JUDITH A. GRAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MAX LAPERTOSA (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PHILLIP A. DRUMHEISER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
YVONNE M. HUSIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 7 of 71

THE ARC OF PENNSYLVANIA on behalf of its members

represented by BARBARA E. RANSOM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY

JESSICA R. LOWENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDITH A. GRAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MAX LAPERTOSA (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

YVONNE M. HUSIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
LEARNING DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA on behalf of its members

represented by BARBARA E. RANSOM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY

JESSICA R. LOWENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDITH A. GRAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MAX LAPERTOSA (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PHILLIP A. DRUMHEISER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

YVONNE M. HUSIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
PENNSYLVANIA PROTECTION &ADVOCACY, INC.

represented by BARBARA E. RANSOM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY

JESSICA R. LOWENTHAL (See above for address)

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 8 of 71

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDITH A. GRAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MAX LAPERTOSA (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PHILLIP A. DRUMHEISER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

YVONNE M. HUSIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION OF CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES on behalf of its members

represented by BARBARA E. RANSOM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY

JESSICA R. LOWENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDITH A. GRAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MAX LAPERTOSA (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PHILLIP A. DRUMHEISER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

YVONNE M. HUSIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
PENNSYLVANIA STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES on behalf of its members

represented by BARBARA E. RANSOM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY

JESSICA R. LOWENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 9 of 71

Plaintiff AUTISM SUPPORT AND ADVOCACY IN PENNSYLVANIA on behalf of its members
Plaintiff PENNSYLVANIA TASH on behalf of its members

JUDITH A. GRAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MAX LAPERTOSA (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PHILLIP A. DRUMHEISER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
YVONNE M. HUSIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by BARBARA E. RANSOM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY
JESSICA R. LOWENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JUDITH A. GRAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MAX LAPERTOSA (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
PHILLIP A. DRUMHEISER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
YVONNE M. HUSIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by BARBARA E. RANSOM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY
JESSICA R. LOWENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JUDITH A. GRAN

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 10 of 71

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MAX LAPERTOSA (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PHILLIP A. DRUMHEISER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

YVONNE M. HUSIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
PARENTS UNION FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS on behalf of its members

represented by BARBARA E. RANSOM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY

JESSICA R. LOWENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDITH A. GRAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MAX LAPERTOSA (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PHILLIP A. DRUMHEISER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

YVONNE M. HUSIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
PHILADELPHIA POLICE &FIRE ASSOCIATION FOR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN on behalf of its members

represented by BARBARA E. RANSOM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY

JESSICA R. LOWENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDITH A. GRAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 11 of 71

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MAX LAPERTOSA (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PHILLIP A. DRUMHEISER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

YVONNE M. HUSIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
DISABLED IN ACTION on behalf of its members

represented by BARBARA E. RANSOM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY

JESSICA R. LOWENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDITH A. GRAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MAX LAPERTOSA (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PHILLIP A. DRUMHEISER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

YVONNE M. HUSIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE on behalf of its members

represented by BARBARA E. RANSOM (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/11/1995 LEAD ATTORNEY

JESSICA R. LOWENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDITH A. GRAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 12 of 71

MAX LAPERTOSA (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PHILLIP A. DRUMHEISER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

YVONNE M. HUSIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
JOHN FORTE a minor, by his parents Daniel and Michaelene Forte

represented by BARBARA E. RANSOM (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JESSICA R. LOWENTHAL (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDITH A. GRAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

MAX LAPERTOSA (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

PHILLIP A. DRUMHEISER (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Petitioner
PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, INC.

represented by ALLISON S. PETERSEN LEVIN LEGAL GROUP, P.C. 1301MASONS MILL BUSINESS PARK 1800 BYBERRY ROAD HUNTINGDON VALLEY, PA 19006 215−938−6378 Fax: 215−938−6375 Email: apetersen@levinlegalgroup.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ANDRIA B. SAIA LEVIN LEGAL GROUP,P.C. 1301 MASONS MILL BUSINESS PARK 1800 BYBERRY ROAD HUNTINGDON VALLEY, PA 19006 215−938−6378 Email: asaia@levinlegalgroup.com LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 13 of 71
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MICHAEL I. LEVIN LEVIN LEGAL GROUP PC 1301 MASONS MILL BUSINESS PK 1800 BYBERRY RD HUNTINGDON VALLEY, PA 19006 215−938−6378 Fax: 215−938−6375 Email: mlevin@levinlegalgroup.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

represented by FREDRICK CABELL , JR. DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL STRAWBERRY SQUARE 15th FLOOR HARRISBURG, PA 17120 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GWENDOLYN T. MOSLEY OFFICE OF ATTY GEN 15TH FL. STRAWBERRY SQUARE HARRISBURG, PA 17120 717−787−1180 Email: gmosley@attorneygeneral.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JUDY SHOPP PA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF CHIEF COUNSEL 333 MARKET STREET 9TH FLOOR HARRISBURG, PA 17126−0333 717−787−5500 Email: jshopp@state.pa.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAWRENCE WHITE PA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 333 MARKET STREET 9TH FLOOR HARRISBURG, PA 17126−0333 717−787−5500 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LINDA C. BARRETT 333 Market Street 17th Floor HARRISBURG, PA 17101−0031 717−783−6563 Fax: 717−787−1788 Email: lbarrett@pa.gov TERMINATED: 01/04/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 14 of 71

M. PATRICIA FULLERTON OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 333 MARKET ST., 9TH FL PA DEPT EDUCATION HARRISBURG, PA 17126−0333 717−787−5500 Email: mfullerton@state.pa.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

represented by FREDRICK CABELL , JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

GWENDOLYN T. MOSLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LAWRENCE WHITE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

M. PATRICIA FULLERTON (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDY SHOPP PA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 333 MARKET STREET 9TH FLOOR HARRISBURG, PA 17126−0333 717−787−5500 Email: jshopp@state.pa.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
JR. DONALD M. CARROLL in his official capacity as Secretary of Education, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

represented by FREDRICK CABELL , JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

GWENDOLYN T. MOSLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDY SHOPP (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LAWRENCE WHITE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 15 of 71

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

M. PATRICIA FULLERTON (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
JOSEPH F. BARD in his official capacity as Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education, Pennsylvania Department of Education

represented by FREDRICK CABELL , JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

GWENDOLYN T. MOSLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDY SHOPP (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LAWRENCE WHITE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

M. PATRICIA FULLERTON (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
MICHELLE DESERA in her official capacity as Director, Bureau of Special Education, Pennsylvania Department of Education

represented by FREDRICK CABELL , JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

GWENDOLYN T. MOSLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDY SHOPP (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LAWRENCE WHITE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 16 of 71

LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

M. PATRICIA FULLERTON (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant EARL H. HORTON

represented by FREDRICK CABELL , JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

GWENDOLYN T. MOSLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDY SHOPP (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LAWRENCE WHITE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

M. PATRICIA FULLERTON (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant MADGE K. BENOVITZ

represented by FREDRICK CABELL , JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

GWENDOLYN T. MOSLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDY SHOPP (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LAWRENCE WHITE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address)

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 17 of 71

TERMINATED: 01/04/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

M. PATRICIA FULLERTON (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant E. PETER BENZING

represented by FREDRICK CABELL , JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

GWENDOLYN T. MOSLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDY SHOPP (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LAWRENCE WHITE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

M. PATRICIA FULLERTON (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant RONALD R. COWELL

represented by FREDRICK CABELL , JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

GWENDOLYN T. MOSLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDY SHOPP (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LAWRENCE WHITE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 18 of 71

Defendant EDWARD M. DONLEY
Defendant KARL R. GIRTON

M. PATRICIA FULLERTON (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by FREDRICK CABELL , JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GWENDOLYN T. MOSLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JUDY SHOPP (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAWRENCE WHITE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
M. PATRICIA FULLERTON (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by FREDRICK CABELL , JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GWENDOLYN T. MOSLEY (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
JUDY SHOPP (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAWRENCE WHITE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
M. PATRICIA FULLERTON

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 19 of 71

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant EDITH W. ISACKE

represented by FREDRICK CABELL , JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

GWENDOLYN T. MOSLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDY SHOPP (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LAWRENCE WHITE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

M. PATRICIA FULLERTON (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant R. GERARD LONGO

represented by FREDRICK CABELL , JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

GWENDOLYN T. MOSLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDY SHOPP (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LAWRENCE WHITE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

M. PATRICIA FULLERTON (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 20 of 71

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant BEATRICE MOORE

represented by FREDRICK CABELL , JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

GWENDOLYN T. MOSLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDY SHOPP (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LAWRENCE WHITE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

M. PATRICIA FULLERTON (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant JAMES J. RHOADES

represented by FREDRICK CABELL , JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

GWENDOLYN T. MOSLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JUDY SHOPP (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LAWRENCE WHITE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY

M. PATRICIA FULLERTON (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 21 of 71

Defendant
HOWARD SELEKMAN in their official capacities as members of the State Board of Education and the Council of Basic Education

represented by FREDRICK CABELL , JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
GWENDOLYN T. MOSLEY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JUDY SHOPP (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LAWRENCE WHITE (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
LINDA C. BARRETT (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/04/2000 LEAD ATTORNEY
M. PATRICIA FULLERTON (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Respondent
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF LANCASTER

represented by MICHAEL I. LEVIN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Movant
PENNSYLVANIA STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION

represented by ERIC J. ROTHSCHILD PEPPER, HAMILTON AND SCHEETZ 18TH AND ARCH STS. 3000 TWO LOGAN SQUARE PHILA, PA 19103−2799 FAX 215−981−4750 Fax: FAX 215−981−4750 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
HAROLD R. BERK HAROLD R. BERK, P.C. 1041 GLENDEVON DRIVE AMBLER, PA 19002−1855 215−646−3434 Fax: 215−646−3434 Email: haroldberk@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 22 of 71

Movant EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION
Movant BERKS COUNTY INTERMEDIATE UNIT TERMINATED: 09/19/2005
Movant CHESTER COUNTY INTERMEDIATE UNIT TERMINATED: 09/19/2005

HAROLD R. BERK (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY
JUDITH A. GRAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ERIC J. ROTHSCHILD (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
HAROLD R. BERK (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
HAROLD R. BERK (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/24/1998 LEAD ATTORNEY
YVONNE M. HUSIC (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ELLIS H. KATZ SWEET STEVENS TUCKER &KATZ LLP 331 EAST BUTLER AVE POBX 5069 NEW BRITAIN, PA 18901 215−345−9111 Fax: 215−348−1147 Email: ekatz@sweetstevens.com TERMINATED: 09/19/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY
ANDREW E FAUST SWEET STEVENS KATZ &WILLIAMS LLP BUCKS COUNTY OFFICE 331 EAST BUTLER AVE POBOX 5069 NEW BRITAIN, PA 18901 215−345−9111 Email: afaust@sweetstevens.com TERMINATED: 09/19/2005
represented by ELLIS H. KATZ (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY
ANDREW E FAUST (See above for address)

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 23 of 71

TERMINATED: 09/19/2005

Movant MARION ROWE

represented by DONALD DRISCOLL COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROJECT 429 FORBES AVENUE SUITE 1705 ALLEGHENY BLDG PITTSBURGH, PA 15219 412−434−6002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

EVALYNN B. WELLING COMMUNITY JUSTICE PROJECT 429 FORBES AVENUE SUITE 1705 ALLEGHENY BLDG PITTSBURGH, PA 15219 412−434−6002 Email: ewelling@cjplaw.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Movant NORTH HILLS SCHOOL DISTRICT

represented by MICHAEL J. WITHEREL MICHAEL J. WITHEREL AND ASSOCIATES 966 PERRY HIGHWAY PITTSBURGH, PA 15237 TERMINATED: 07/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

STEPHEN T. SALTZ SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT &BENDESKY, P.C. 1650 MARKET STREET ONE LIBERTY PLACE − 52ND FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103−7301 215−496−8282 Fax: 215−496−0999 TERMINATED: 08/02/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

Movant JOHN ESAIAS

represented by MICHAEL J. WITHEREL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

STEPHEN T. SALTZ (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/02/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

Movant RICHARD SANTILLO

represented by MICHAEL J. WITHEREL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

STEPHEN T. SALTZ (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/02/2005

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 24 of 71

LEAD ATTORNEY

Movant RITA NEU

represented by MICHAEL J. WITHEREL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

STEPHEN T. SALTZ (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/02/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

Movant MICHAEL BISHOP

represented by MICHAEL J. WITHEREL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

STEPHEN T. SALTZ (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/02/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

Movant CHERI R. NEELY

represented by MICHAEL J. WITHEREL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

STEPHEN T. SALTZ (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/02/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

Movant JOAN M. O'BRIEN

represented by MICHAEL J. WITHEREL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

STEPHEN T. SALTZ (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/02/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

Movant ARLENE J. BENDER

represented by MICHAEL J. WITHEREL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

STEPHEN T. SALTZ (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/02/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

Movant JOHN H. BERNAUER

represented by MICHAEL J. WITHEREL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2005

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 25 of 71

LEAD ATTORNEY

STEPHEN T. SALTZ (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/02/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

Movant ALICE F. HARVEY

represented by MICHAEL J. WITHEREL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

STEPHEN T. SALTZ (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/02/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

Movant SYLVIA K. LYNN

represented by MICHAEL J. WITHEREL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

STEPHEN T. SALTZ (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/02/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

Movant THOMAS R. MILARSKI

represented by MICHAEL J. WITHEREL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

STEPHEN T. SALTZ (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/02/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

Movant MARK E. SCOTT

represented by MICHAEL J. WITHEREL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

STEPHEN T. SALTZ (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/02/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

Movant DENNIA A. WATSON

represented by MICHAEL J. WITHEREL (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/29/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

STEPHEN T. SALTZ (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/02/2005 LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 26 of 71

Movant HEMPFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT
Movant NORTHERN LEHIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Movant DONALD H. NIKOLAUS
Movant ELIZABETH R. NIKOLAUS parents of MATTHEW J. NIKOLAUS Special Master ESQUIRE LOUIS C. BECHTLE

represented by ANDREW E FAUST (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROSEMARY E. MULLALY SWEET, STEVENS, TUCKER &KATZ 331 BUTLER AVENUE P.O. BOX 5069 NEW BRITAIN, PA 18901 FAX 215−348−1147 Fax: FAX 215−348−1147 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ANDREW E FAUST (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ROSEMARY E. MULLALY (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ANTHONY MARC HOPKINS NIKOLAUS &HOHENADEL 212 NORTH QUEEN STREET LANCASTER, PA 17603 TERMINATED: 09/19/2005
represented by ANTHONY MARC HOPKINS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2005
represented by LOUIS C. BECHTLE CONRAD O'BRIEN 1500 MARKET ST SUITE 3900 CENTRE SQUARE WEST TOWER PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102−2100 215−864−9600 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/30/1994 06/30/1994 06/30/1994 08/01/1994

# Docket Text
1 Complaint. filing fee $ 120 receipt # 529658 (jmp) (Entered: 07/01/1994)
Summons(es) issued Forwarded to: counsel 7/1/94 (jmp) (Entered: 07/01/1994)
Special Case Management Track. (jmp) (Entered: 07/01/1994)
2 Appearance of LINDA C. BARRETT for DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT MICHELLE

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 27 of 71

08/24/1994 08/26/1994
08/29/1994 08/29/1994 09/12/1994

DESERA, DEFENDANT EARL H. HORTON, DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 08/01/1994)
3 MOTION by DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT EARL H. HORTON, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(3) AND 12(b)(6) , BRIEF IN SUPPORT, CERTIFICATES OF SERVICE. (jy) (Entered: 08/24/1994)
4 MOTION BY PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND THE DEFTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT , CERTIFICATION OF UNOPPOSED MOTION, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jmp) (Entered: 08/26/1994)
5 MOTION by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 08/29/1994)
6 ORDER GRANTING [4−1] MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND THE DEFTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT, RESPONSE TO MOTION reset to 10/8/94 for [3−1] MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(3) AND 12(b)(6) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 8/29/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gn) (Entered: 08/29/1994)
7 MOTION by DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT EARL H. HORTON, DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE TO EXTEND TIME TO REPOND TO PLFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 28 of 71

09/13/1994 10/11/1994
11/30/1994 11/30/1994 12/07/1994
12/12/1994 01/19/1995

CERTIFICATION , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 09/12/1994)
8 ORDER GRANTING [7−1] MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO REPOND TO PLFF'S MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION, RESPONSE TO MOTION reset to 11/30/94 for [5−1] MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 9/13/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gn) (Entered: 09/13/1994)
9 Response by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE to [3−1] MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(3) AND 12(b)(6), Memorandum, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 10/12/1994)
10 Brief by DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT EARL H. HORTON, DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN in opposition to [5−1] MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 11/30/1994)
11 Defts' documents in opposition to plffs' motion for class certification, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 11/30/1994)
12 MOTION by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF CLASS CERTIFICATION , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 12/07/1994)
13 ORDER GRANTING [12−1] MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF CLASS CERTIFICATION, set PLFFS' REPLY MEMORANDUM DUE 1/17/95 ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 12/12/94 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gn) (Entered: 12/12/1994)
14 Reply Memorandum by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 29 of 71

02/27/1995
02/27/1995
02/27/1995
03/01/1995 03/08/1995 03/08/1995 03/10/1995
03/10/1995

PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE in support of [5−1] MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 01/19/1995)
15 MOTION BY DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT EARL H. HORTON, DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lvj) (Entered: 02/27/1995)
16 Brief by DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT EARL H. HORTON, DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN in support of [15−1] MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, certificate of service. (lvj) (Entered: 02/27/1995)
17 Documents in support by DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT EARL HORTON, DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDITH W. DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN of MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (lvj) (Entered: 02/28/1995)
18 Notice of hearing: set TELEPHONE CONFERENCE FOR 9:15 3/13/95 , RESPONSE TO MOTION DUE 3/10/95 TO [15−1] MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (gn) (Entered: 03/01/1995)
19 MOTION by PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION . (gn) (Entered: 03/08/1995)
20 Memorandum by PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR in support of [19−1] MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 03/08/1995)
21 MOTION by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE TO COMPEL DEFTS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCOVERY PROCESS , BRIEF, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 03/13/1995)
Memorandum by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 30 of 71

03/13/1995 03/13/1995 03/20/1995 03/20/1995
03/21/1995 03/22/1995 03/22/1995 03/30/1995
03/30/1995 03/31/1995

SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE in opposition to [15−1] MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER, Brief, Certificate of Service. (See paper #21) (gn) (Entered: 03/13/1995)
22 ORDER GRANTING [15−1] MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 3/14/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gn) (Entered: 03/14/1995)
Certain documents governed by Protective Order. (gn) (Entered: 03/14/1995)
23 Memorandum by MOVANT PA STATE EDUCATION, MOVANT EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT in support of motion to intervene of right or in the alternative to intervene permissibly, Certificate of Service. (Answer of Intervenors PSEA &ESPA attached) (gn) (Entered: 03/21/1995)
24 Brief by DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT EARL HORTON, DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDITH W. DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN in opposition to [19−1] MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 03/21/1995)
25 MOTION by MOVANT PA STATE EDUCATION, MOVANT EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT TO INTERVENE OF RIGHT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO INTERVENE PERMISSIBLY , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 03/21/1995)
26 Praecipe by MOVANT PA STATE EDUCATION, MOVANT EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT to withdraw the motion to Intervene filed 3/21/95, and the Memorandum of Law &Responsive pleading filed 3/20/95, Certificate of Service. (gn) Modified on 03/23/1995 (Entered: 03/23/1995)
27 MOTION by MOVANT PA STATE EDUCATION, MOVANT EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT TO INTERVENE OR RIGHT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO INTERVENE PERMISSIBLY , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (Answer of Intervenors attached) (gn) Modified on 03/23/1995 (Entered: 03/23/1995)
28 ORDER THAT A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ON PLFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND PLFF ANNE CORR'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS SCHEDULED. set TELEPHONE CONFERENCE FOR 9:00 4/7/95 ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 3/31/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED BY CHAMBERS. (gn) (Entered: 03/31/1995)
29 ORDER−MEMORANDUM DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE [3−1] MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(3) AND 12(b)(6) ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 3/31/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gn) (Entered: 03/31/1995)
30 Praecipe by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE,

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 31 of 71

04/03/1995
04/03/1995
04/05/1995 04/05/1995 04/07/1995 04/07/1995 04/07/1995 04/11/1995

PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE to withdraw motion for preliminary injunction on behalf of Anne Corr, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 03/31/1995)
31 MOTION by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO INTERVENE OF THE PA. STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION ET AL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 04/03/1995)
32 UNCONTESTED MOTION by DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT EARL HORTON, DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDITH W. DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN TO EXTEND TIME , CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) Modified on 04/03/1995 (Entered: 04/03/1995)
33 ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO RESPOND TO MOTION TO INTERVENE OF THE PA. STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION ET AL. PLFFS' RESPONSE TO THE MOTION SHALL BE DUE ON OR BEFORE 4/17/95. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 4/6/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gn) (Entered: 04/06/1995)
34 ORDER THAT THE TIME FOR DEFTS TO RESPOND TO THE MOTION TO INTERVENE IS EXTENDED TO 4/17/95. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 4/6/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gn) (Entered: 04/06/1995)
35 STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH COURT APPROVAL. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 4/10/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gn) (Entered: 04/10/1995)
36 ORDER THAT PLFF ANNE COOR'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS DENIED AS MOOT. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 4/10/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gn) (Entered: 04/10/1995)
37 ORDER THAT DEFTS' ORAL MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AN ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT IS GRANTED, AND DEFTS' ANSWER WHALL BE FILED 10 DAYS AFTER THE COURT ENTERES AN ORDER DECIDING THE MOTION TO INTERVENE OF THE PA. STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION AND THE EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 4/10/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gn) (Entered: 04/10/1995)
38 Withdrawal of appearance by BARBARA E. RANSOM for PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 32 of 71

04/17/1995
04/19/1995
04/19/1995 04/26/1995 04/26/1995 05/26/1995 06/05/1995

WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 04/11/1995)
39 Brief by DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT EARL H. HORTON, DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE in opposition to PSEA and ESPA's motion to intervene or right or in the alternative to intervene permissibly, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 04/17/1995)
40 Response by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE to to the application of The Pennsylvania State Education Association and Educational Support Personnel Association for Leave to Intervene, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 04/19/1995)
41 MOTION by MOVANT PA STATE EDUCATION, MOVANT EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 04/20/1995)
42 ORDER THAT PA. STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION'S &THE EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT PERSONNEL ASSOCIATION'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO INTERVENE IS GRANTED. A REPLY BRIEF SHALL BE FILED BY 4/26/95. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 4/27/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gn) (Entered: 04/27/1995)
43 Reply Memorandum by MOVANT PA STATE EDUCATION, MOVANT EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT in support of their motion to intervene, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 04/27/1995)
44 ORDER−MEMORANDUM THAT THE MOTION IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO APPLICANTS' RIGHT TO RE−ASSERT IT WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS OF ANY RULING BY THE COURT ON THE MERITS IN FAVOR OF THE PLFFS. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 5/30/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gn) (Entered: 05/30/1995)
45 Answer to Complaint by DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT EARL H. HORTON, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 06/06/1995)

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 33 of 71

06/05/1995 06/12/1995
06/14/1995 07/10/1995 07/18/1995 07/28/1995 07/28/1995 11/08/1995
11/16/1995
11/16/1995

ISSUE JOINED. (gn) (Entered: 06/06/1995)
46 ORDER−MEMORANDUM GRANTING PLFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE MOTION TO DIVIDE THE CLASS INTO TWO SUBCLASSES WILL BE DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO PLFFS' RIGHT TO RE−ASSERT IT AT A LATER POINT IN THE LITIGATION, IF NECESSARY. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 6/12/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gn) (Entered: 06/12/1995)
47 ORDER THAT, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER III OF THE CIVIL JUSTICE EXPENSE AND DELAY REDUCTION PLAN (EFFECTIVE DECEMBER 31, 1991), THE PARTIES SHALL SUBMIT A PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN BY JULY 10, 1995. (SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO) 6/15/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (mec) (Entered: 06/15/1995)
48 Joint Case Management Plan, Certificate of Service. (mc) (Entered: 07/10/1995)
49 ORDER THAT AN INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR 7/27/95 AT 4:00 P.M. IN COURTROOM 3−A. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 7/19/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gn) (Entered: 07/19/1995)
50 ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DEFTS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCOVERY PROCESS ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 7/28/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gn) (Entered: 07/28/1995)
51 ORDER THAT PLFF'S COUNSEL SHALL SEND A LETTER TO THE COURT 90 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER AND EVERY 90 DAYS THEREAFTER, REPORTING TO THE COURT ON THE STATUS OF DISCOVERY IN THE CASE. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 7/28/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gn) (Entered: 07/28/1995)
52 ORDER THAT A RULE IS ISSUED UPON PLFFS TO SHOW CAUSE WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE COURT'S ORDER OF 7/28/95 (DOCKET ENTRY NO. 51), REQUIRING THE SUBMISSION OF A STATUS REPORT TO THE COURT WITHIN 90 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER. A WRITTEN RESPONSE BY PLFFS SHALL BE DUE BY 11/16/95. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 11/9/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gn) (Entered: 11/09/1995)
53 First 90−Day Status Report of PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 11/17/1995)
54 Response by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE to Rule to Show

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 34 of 71

11/20/1995 11/22/1995 11/22/1995 01/29/1996
02/05/1996 02/15/1996
02/28/1996
03/07/1996

Cause, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 11/17/1995)
55 ORDER THAT PLFF'S FIRST STATUS REPORT AND PLFF'S RESPONSE TO RULE TO SHOW CAUSE, THE RULE IS DISSOLVED, PLFF HAVING SHOWN EXCUSABLE NEGLECT. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 11/20/95 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gn) (Entered: 11/20/1995)
56 Addendum of ALL DEFENDANTS to plaintiffs' first 90−day status report, certificate of service. (gm) (Entered: 11/24/1995)
57 Response by ALL DEFENDANTS to plaintiff's response to rule to show cause, certificate of service. (gm) (Entered: 11/24/1995)
58 Second 90−Day Status Report of PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 01/29/1996)
59 Defts' Second Status Report, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 02/05/1996)
60 Appearance of FREDRICK CABELL JR. for DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT EARL H. HORTON, DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 02/16/1996)
61 Appearance of YVONNE M. HUSIC for PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 02/28/1996)
62 UNOPPOSED MOTION BY DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT EARL HORTON, DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDITH W. DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN REQUESTING APPROVAL OF SECOND STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (lvj) (Entered: 03/08/1996)

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 35 of 71

03/13/1996 03/13/1996 04/25/1996
05/29/1996 06/05/1996 06/21/1996
06/24/1996

63 Appearance of BARBARA E. RANSOM for ALL PLAINTIFFS, certificate of service. (fe) (Entered: 03/13/1996)
64 ORDER, THAT DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION REQUESTING APPROVAL OF SECOND STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE PARTIES HAVING FAILED TO SHOW GOOD CAUSE FOR THE ORDER OF PROTECTION AS REQUIRED BY FED.R.CIV.P. 26(c). (SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO), 3/13/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (fe) (Entered: 03/13/1996)
65 Third 90−Day Status Report of PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 04/26/1996)
66 Response by DEFENDANTS COMMONWEALTH OF PA, PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DONALD M. CARROLL, JOSEPH F. BARD, MICHELLE DESERA, EARL HORTON, MADGE K. BENOVITZ, E. PETER BENZING, RONALD R. COWELL, EDWARD M. DONLEY, KARL R. GIRTON, EDITH W. ISACKE, R. GERARD LONGO, BEATRICE MOORE, JAMES J. RHOADES, HOWARD SELEKMAN to PLAINTIFFS third 90 day status report, certificate of service. (jw) (Entered: 05/30/1996)
67 ORDER THAT A TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE ON PLFF'S THIRD 90 DAY STATUS REPORT AND DEFT'S RESPONSE IS SCHEDULED IN THE CASE FOR 6/25/96 AT 9:15 AM. COUNSEL FOR THE PLFF SHALL INITIATE THE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE AND CALL CHAMBERS WHEN ALL PARTIES ARE ON THE LINE. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 6/5/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. ( COPIES FAXED ON 6/5/96) (gn) (Entered: 06/05/1996)
68 MOTION by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE TO AMEND JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 06/21/1996)
69 UNOPPOSED MOTION by DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT EARL HORTON, DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDITH W. DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN REQUESTING APPROVAL OF SECOND STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER , CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 06/24/1996)

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 36 of 71

06/26/1996 07/01/1996 07/26/1996 08/29/1996 09/09/1996
10/28/1996
11/01/1996 11/04/1996
11/08/1996 11/08/1996

70 FIRST AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN ORDER THAT DISCOVERY BE COMPLETED BY 5/31/97. ALL DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS WILL BE FILED BY 6/30/97. RESPONSES TO DISPOSIIVE MOTIONS WILL BE FILED BY 7/31/97. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 6/26/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (COPIES FAXED ON 6/26/96) (gn) (Entered: 06/26/1996)
71 SECOND STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER WITH COURT APPROVAL. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 7/1/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (COPIES FAXED ON 7/1/96) (gn) (Entered: 07/01/1996)
72 Plffs' Fourth 90−day Status Report, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 07/26/1996)
73 ORDER/LETTER DATED 8/28/96 RE: PROTOCOL AND DATA TAPES. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 8/30/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (fe) (Entered: 08/30/1996)
74 Addendum of DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT EARL H. HORTON, DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN to plffs' 7/24/96 status report and 8/28/96 letter update, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 09/09/1996)
75 Fourth 90−Day Status Report of PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 10/29/1996)
76 ORDER THAT A STATUS CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR 11/7/96 AT 12:30PM IN COURTROOM 3−A. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 11/4/96 ENTERED AND COPIES FAXED BY CHAMBERS. (gn) Modified on 11/04/1996 (Entered: 11/04/1996)
81 MOTION by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE FOR SANCTIONS , AND MOTION TO COMPEL DEFTS TO PRODUCE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ON THE SELECTED SAMPLE , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 11/15/1996)
77 Defts' response to plffs' fourth 90 day status report, certificate of service. (adr) (Entered: 11/08/1996)
78 Minute entry: Status conference of 11/7/96. (sc) (Entered: 11/08/1996)

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 37 of 71

11/08/1996 11/12/1996
11/20/1996
11/25/1996 11/26/1996 11/27/1996 11/27/1996

79 ORDER THAT PLFFS SHALL FILE A MOTION TO COMPEL BY 11/14/96. DEFTS SHALL RESPOND TO ANY SUCH MOTION BY 11/25/96. PLFFS SHALL PROVIDE DEFTS WITH OUTSTANDING ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES BY 11/18/96 AND PLFFS SHALL PRODUCE MR. DANIEL NOE &MR. &MRS. FORTE FOR DEPOSITION BY 11/25/96 AT A TIME AND PLACE MUTUALLY AGREED UPON BY COUNSEL. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 11/12/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
80 MOTION by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE TO DROP PLFF A.N.D. ALLIANCE , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 11/12/1996)
82 MOTION by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE ANSWERS TO DEFTS' INTERROGATORIES ADDRESSED TO PLFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE ASSOCIATION FOR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 11/20/1996)
83 Memorandum by DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT EARL H. HORTON, DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN in opposition to plffs' motion for sanctions and motion to compel production of identifying information on the selected sample, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 11/25/1996)
84 JOINT MOTION by PLAINTIFF'S, LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, ET AL., DEFENDANT'S COMMONWEALTH OF PA, ET AL., FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE THE DEPOSITIONS OF NAMED PLAINTIFFS . (fe) (Entered: 11/27/1996)
85 Response by DEFENDANTS COMMONWEALTH OF PA, et al. to plaintiffs' MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE ANSWERS TO DEFTS' INTERROGATORIES ADDRESSED TO PLFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE ASSOCIATION FOR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN, Certificate of Service. (fe) Modified on 11/27/1996 (Entered: 11/27/1996)
86 Response by DEFENDANTS COMMONWEALTH OF PA, et al. to plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the A.N.D. Alliance, Certificate of Service. (fe) (Entered: 11/27/1996)

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 38 of 71

11/29/1996 12/03/1996 12/06/1996
12/10/1996 12/12/1996 01/09/1997
02/07/1997
02/10/1997

87 ORDER THAT A HEARING ON PLFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IS SCHEDULED FOR 12/19/96 AT 9:30AM IN COURTROOM 3−A. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 12/2/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED BY CHAMBERS. (gn) (Entered: 12/02/1996)
88 ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE THE DEPOSITIONS OF NAMED PLAINTIFFS. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT MRS. FORTE'S DEPOSITION SHALL BEGIN ON 12/6/96. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 12/3/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 12/03/1996)
89 MOTION by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE TO WITHDRAW ITS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 12/09/1996)
90 ORDER GRANTING PLFFS' MOTION TO WITHDRAW ITS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS. PLFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IS DENIED AS MOOT. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 12/11/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 12/11/1996)
91 ORDER THAT THE HEARING ON PLFFS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS SCHEDULED IN THE CASE FOR 12/19/96 IS CANCELLED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 12/12/96 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 12/12/1996)
92 ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO WITHDRAW ITS MOTION FOR SANCTIONS. DENYING AS MOOT JOINT MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE THE DEPOSITIONS OF NAMED PLAINTIFFS. DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE ANSWERS TO DEFTS' INTERROGATORIES ADDRESSED TO PLFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE ASSOCIATION FOR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN. DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO DROP PLFF A.N.D. ALLIANCE. DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR SANCTIONS. DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO COMPEL DEFTS TO PRODUCE IDENTIFYING INFORMATION ON THE SELECTED SAMPLE. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 1/9/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 01/09/1997)
93 Sixth 90−Day Status Report of PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 02/07/1997)
94 Response by DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT EARL H. HORTON, DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO,

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 39 of 71

03/20/1997
03/24/1997
03/31/1997 04/03/1997 04/08/1997 04/09/1997
04/10/1997

DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN to plff's fifth 90−day status report, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 02/11/1997)
95 UNOPPOSED MOTION by DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT EARL HORTON, DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDITH W. DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN TO EXTEND TIME TO DEFER FILING OF DEFENSE EXPERT REPORT , CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 03/20/1997)
96 MOTION by DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT EARL H. HORTON, DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND RECOVER SANCTIONS , BRIEF, CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (Volumes I &II attached) (gn) (Entered: 03/24/1997)
Notice of Motion hearing re: defts' motion to compel and recover sanctions at 12:30PM on 4/16/97. A status conference on defts' unopposed motion for enlargement of time to defer filing of defense expert report for 4/16/97 at 12:30PM. im EXTEND TIME TO DEFER FILING OF DEFENSE EXPERT REPORT at 12:30 4/16/97 (gn) (Entered: 03/31/1997)
97 Defts' Interim Status Report, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 04/03/1997)
98 ORDER THAT A STATUS CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR 4/11/97 AT 9:00AM. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 4/8/97 ENTERED AND COPIES FAXED BY CHAMBERS. (gn) (Entered: 04/08/1997)
99 Response by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE to defts' motion to compel and for sanctions, Memorandum, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 04/10/1997)
101 Memorandum by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D.

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 40 of 71

04/11/1997 04/14/1997
04/15/1997 04/15/1997 04/15/1997 04/15/1997
04/18/1997

ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE in support of their motion responding to defts' motion to compel. (gn) (Entered: 04/11/1997)
100 ORDER THAT THE MATTER SCHEDULED FOR A TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE ON 4/11/97 IS CONTINUED UNTIL THE HEARING ON 4/16/97 AT 12:30PM IN COURTROOM 3−A. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 4/11/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 04/11/1997)
102 Withdrawal of appearance by FREDRICK CABELL JR. for DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT EARL H. HORTON, DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 04/14/1997)
103 Defendants' Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Interim Status Report, Certificate of Service. (dt) (Entered: 04/15/1997)
104 Defendants' Hearing Memorandum in Connection with their Motion to Compel and for Sanctions, Certificate of Service. (dt) (Entered: 04/15/1997)
105 ORDER THAT THE STATUS AND DISCOVERY CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 4/16/97 AT 12:30 P.M. IS CONTINUED TO 4/17/97 AT 9:30 A.M. IN COURTROOM 3−A . ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 4/16/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. 4/15/97 COPIES FAXED BY CHAMBERS. (jw) (Entered: 04/16/1997)
106 MOTION BY PLAINTIFFS LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, HASSAN ADIB SABREE, MERRIN RAINEY, SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, LISA MC CANN, ELIZABETH MOSER, ANNE CORR, BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, MICHAEL WINTERING, SARAH NOE, TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, THE ARC OF PENNA., LEARNING DISABILIT, PA PROTECTION &ADV, PA COALITION OF CIT., PA STATE CONFERENCE, AUTISM SUPPORT, PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PARENTS UNION, PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, DISABLED, THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, JOHN FORTE TO JOIN THE NORTH HILLS, NORTHERN LEHIGH AND HEMPFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICTS AS A NECESSARY PARTIES , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (COMPLAINTS ATTACHED) (jw) (Entered: 04/16/1997)
107 ORDER GRANTING DEFT'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO DEFER FILING OF DEFENSE EXPERT REPORT. THE MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY IS DENIED IN PART AND GRANTED IN PART AS FOLLOWS: DEFT'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES #34 AND #35 IS DENIED AS MOOT. DEFT'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES #13 AND #31 AS TO PLFF "PPA" IS GRANTED. DEFTS' MOTION TO COMPEL ANSERS TO INTERROGATORIES AS TO PLFF AUTISM SUPPORT &ADVOCACY IN PA. IS DENIED AS MOOT. DEFT'S MOTION TO COMPEL ANSERS TO INTERROGATORIES AS TO PLFF A.N.D. IS DENIED AS MOOT. DEFTS' MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS AS TO INTERROGAOTIRES AS TO PLFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE ASSOC. IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. DEFTS' MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES AS TO PLFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF IS DENIED AS MOOT. DEFTS' MOTION TO COMPEL PLFFS TO PRODUCE NOTES AND &OTHER DOCUMENTS FROM THE TRAINING SESSIONS OF PLFFS' EXPERTS IS DENIED AS MOOT. DEFTS' MOTION TO COMPEL PLFFS TO PRODUCE THE IEP'S AND CER'S IS GRANTED. THE MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. THE MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IS DENIED. ANY PARTY WITHHOLDING ANY DOCUMENTS ON THE BASIS OF PRIVILEGE MUST FILE A PRIVILEGE LOG BY 5/2/97. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO ROBRENO ) 4/18/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn)

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 41 of 71

04/24/1997
04/29/1997 04/29/1997
05/02/1997 05/02/1997 05/05/1997 05/05/1997 05/09/1997
05/09/1997

(Entered: 04/18/1997)
108 MOTION TO INTERVENE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSES OF OPPOSING PLFF'S MOTION TO JOIN BY MOVANT NORTH HILLS SCHOOL, MOVANT JOHN ESAIAS, MOVANT RICHARD SANTILLO, MOVANT RITA NEU, MOVANT MICHAEL BISHOP, MOVANT CHERI R. NEELY, MOVANT JOAN M. O'BRIEN, MOVANT ARLENE J. BENDER, MOVANT JOHN H. BERNAUER, MOVANT ALICE F. HARVEY, MOVANT SYLVIA K. LYNN, MOVANT THOMAS R. MILARSKI, MOVANT MARK E. SCOTT, MOVANT DENNIA A. WATSON , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (RESPONSE TO MOTION ATTACHED) (gn) (Entered: 04/25/1997)
109 ORDER THAT A TELEPHONE SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ON MOTION OF NON−PARTIES NORTH HILLS SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL FOR INTERVENTION FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF OPPOSING PLFF'S MOTION TO JOIN NORTH HILLS SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR 5/2/97 AT 10:30AM. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 4/29/97 ENTERED AND COPIES FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 04/29/1997)
110 Brief by DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT EARL H. HORTON, DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN in opposition to PLFFS' MOTION TO JOIN THE NORTH HILLS, NORTHERN LEHIGH AND HEMPFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICTS, certificate of service. (fb) (Entered: 04/30/1997)
111 Defts' Privilege Log, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 05/02/1997)
112 ORDER THAT THE PARTIES MAY FILE FURTHER SUBMISSIONS ON PLFFS' MOTION FOR JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES AND THE MOTION TO INTERVENEBY NORTH HILLS SCHOOL DISTRICT BY 5/9/97. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 5/5/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 05/05/1997)
113 Stipulation re: Proposed Second Amended Joint Case Management Plan, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 05/05/1997)
114 Plffs' Privilege Log. (gn) (Entered: 05/06/1997)
SECOND AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER THAT DISCOVERY WILL CLOSE ON 5/30/98. THE PARTIES SHALL FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS BY 7/30/98. RESPONSES TO DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS SHALL BE DUE ON 8/28/98. PLFFS WILL FILE THEIR MOTION FOR JOINDER BY 4/15/97. RESPONSES TO THE MOTION WILL BE DUE ON 5/2/97. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 5/9/97 ENTERED COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (See Paper #113) (gn) (Entered: 05/09/1997)
115 Supplemental Memorandum of PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE in support of their motion to join the North Hills School District, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 05/12/1997)

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 42 of 71

05/13/1997 05/19/1997
05/20/1997 05/22/1997 05/22/1997 05/23/1997
05/23/1997
05/23/1997
06/02/1997

116 Transcript of Discovery Conference 4/17/97. (gn) (Entered: 05/13/1997)
117 Objections by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE to defts' privilege log, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 05/20/1997)
Letter to MICHAEL J. WITHEREL re: L.R. 83.5 and 83.5.2. (gn) (Entered: 05/20/1997)
118 MOTION by MOVANT HEMPFIELD SCHOOL, MOVANT NORTHERN LEHIGH TO INTERVENE IN ACCORDANCE WITH FRCP 24(A) AND FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSES OF OPPOSING THEIR JOINDER , BRIEF, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 05/23/1997)
Brief by MOVANT HEMPFIELD SCHOOL, MOVANT NORTHERN LEHIGH in opposition to plffs' motion to join intervenors as parties, Certificate of Service. (See Paper #118) (gn) (Entered: 05/23/1997)
119 MOTION by MOVANT NORTH HILLS SCHOOL, MOVANT JOHN ESAIAS, MOVANT RICHARD SANTILLO, MOVANT RITA NEU, MOVANT MICHAEL BISHOP, MOVANT CHERI R. NEELY, MOVANT JOAN M. O'BRIEN, MOVANT ARLENE J. BENDER, MOVANT JOHN H. BERNAUER, MOVANT ALICE F. HARVEY, MOVANT SYLVIA K. LYNN, MOVANT THOMAS R. MILARSKI, MOVANT MARK E. SCOTT, MOVANT DENNIA A. WATSON FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 11 , BRIEF, CERTIFICATE OF OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 05/23/1997)
120 Supplemental Submission of MOVANT NORTH HILLS SCHOOL, MOVANT JOHN ESAIAS, MOVANT RICHARD SANTILLO, MOVANT RITA NEU, MOVANT MICHAEL BISHOP, MOVANT CHERI R. NEELY, MOVANT JOAN M. O'BRIEN, MOVANT ARLENE J. BENDER, MOVANT JOHN H. BERNAUER, MOVANT ALICE F. HARVEY, MOVANT SYLVIA K. LYNN, MOVANT THOMAS R. MILARSKI, MOVANT MARK E. SCOTT, MOVANT DENNIA A. WATSON addressing the issues of venue and joinder, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 05/23/1997)
121 MOTION TO INTERVENE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF OPPOSING PLFF'S MOTION TO JOIN NORTH HILLS SCHOOL DISTRICT BY MOVANT NORTH HILLS SCHOOL, MOVANT JOHN ESAIAS, MOVANT RICHARD SANTILLO, MOVANT RITA NEU, MOVANT MICHAEL BISHOP, MOVANT CHERI R. NEELY, MOVANT JOAN O'BRIEN, MOVANT ARLENE J. BENDER, MOVANT JOHN H. BERNAUER, MOVANT ALICE F. HARVEY, MOVANT SYLVIA K. LYNN, MOVANT R. MILARSKI, MOVANT MARK E. SCOTT, MOVANT DENNIA A. WATSON , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 05/23/1997)
122 Response by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE to NON−PARTIES NORTH HILLS SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 43 of 71

06/02/1997
06/03/1997
06/04/1997 06/04/1997 06/05/1997 06/16/1997 06/20/1997

AL., MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 11, certificate of service. (fe) (Entered: 06/03/1997)
123 Memorandum by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE in opposition to NON−PARTIES NORTH HILLS SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL., MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 11, certificate of service. (fe) (Entered: 06/03/1997)
124 Brief by DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT EARL H. HORTON, DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN in opposition to plffs' objections to defts' privilege log, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 06/03/1997)
125 DEFTS' SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY , RULE 37(a)(2) STATEMENT, CERT. OF SERVICE. (jef) (Entered: 06/04/1997)
126 DEFTS' Brief in support of DEFTS' SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IN PLFFS' PRIVILEGE LOG PURSUANT TO FED.R.C.P.26, cert. of service. (jef) (Entered: 06/04/1997)
127 Appearance of STEPHEN T. SALTZ for MOVANT NORTH HILLS SCHOOL, MOVANT JOHN ESAIAS, MOVANT RICHARD SANTILLO, MOVANT RITA NEU, MOVANT MICHAEL BISHOP, MOVANT CHERI R. NEELY, MOVANT JOAN M. O'BRIEN, MOVANT ARLENE J. BENDER, MOVANT JOHN H. BERNAUER, MOVANT ALICE F. HARVEY, MOVANT SYLVIA K. LYNN, MOVANT THOMAS R. MILARSKI, MOVANT MARK E. SCOTT, MOVANT DENNIA A. WATSON (gn) (Entered: 06/06/1997)
128 Reply of NON−PARTIES, NORTH HILLS SCHOOL, JOHN ESAIAS, RICHARD SANTILLO, RITA NEU, MICHAEL BISHOP, CHERI R. NEELY, JOAN M. O'BRIEN, ARLENE J. BENDER, JOHN H. BERNAUER, ALICE F. HARVEY, SYLVIA K. LYNN, THOMAS R. MILARSKI, MARK E. SCOTT and DENNIA A. WATSON to plaintiff's response to [119−1] MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE 11, certificate of service. (sj) (Entered: 06/16/1997)
129 Response by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE to defts' second motion to compel discovery, Memorandum, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 06/23/1997)

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 44 of 71

07/28/1997 07/30/1997
08/11/1997
08/12/1997 08/18/1997
08/29/1997 09/03/1997
09/04/1997 09/04/1997

130 ORDER THAT MS. GRAN'S REQUEST FOR A WEEK'S EXTENSION TO FILE PLFFS' 90−DAY STATUS REPORT IS GRANTED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 7/29/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 07/29/1997)
131 Seventh 90−Day Status Report of PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 07/30/1997)
132 Response by DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT EARL H. HORTON, DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN to plffs' Seventh 90−Day Status Report, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 08/11/1997)
133 MOTION by PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 08/13/1997)
134 ORDER THAT A HEARING SHALL BE HELD ON 9/3/97 AT 3:30 PM: THE MOTION BY PLFFS FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, DEFTS' SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY, THE MOTION OF NON−PARTIES NORTH HILLS SCHOOL DISTRICT NORTHERN LEHIGH, AND HEMPFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO INTERVENE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF OPPOSING PLFF'S MOTION FOR JOINDER OF ADDITIONAL PARTIES AND THE MOTION OF NON−PARTIES NORTH HILLS SCHOOL DISTRICT ET AL FOR SANCTIONS; THE MOTION BY PLFFS TO JOIN THE NORTH HILLS, NORTHERN LEHIGH AND HEMPFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICTS AS A NECESSARY PARTIES ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 8/19/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED 8/14/97. (sc) (Entered: 08/19/1997)
135 Brief by COMMONWEALTH DEFENDANTS in opposition to plff Anne Corrs' motion for preliminary injunction, certificate of service. (td) (Entered: 09/02/1997)
136 Supplemental Objection of PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE to defts' privilege log, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 09/03/1997)
137 Minute entry: Motion Hearing 9/3/97. (gn) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
138 ORDER DENYING AS MOOT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART DEFTS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY. DENYING MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO RULE

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 45 of 71

09/15/1997 10/02/1997 10/15/1997
10/15/1997
10/30/1997 11/04/1997

11. DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO INTERVENE IN ACCORDANCE WITH FRCP 24(A) AND FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSES OF OPPOSING THEIR JOINDER. DENYING AS MOOT MOTION TO INTERVENE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSES OF OPPOSING PLFF'S MOTION TO JOIN BY MOVANT NORTH HILLS SCHOOL, MOVANT JOHN ESAIAS, MOVANT RICHARD SANTILLO, MOVANT RITA NEU, MOVANT MICHAEL BISHOP, MOVANT CHERI R. NEELY, MOVANT JOAN M. O'BRIEN, MOVANT ARLENE J. BENDER, MOVANT JOHN H. BERNAUER, MOVANT ALICE F. HARVEY, MOVANT SYLVIA K. LYNN, MOVANT THOMAS R. MILARSKI, MOVANT MARK E. SCOTT, MOVANT DENNIA A. WATSON. DENYING MOTION TO JOIN THE NORTH HILLS, NORTHERN LEHIGH AND HEMPFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICTS AS A NECESSARY PARTIES ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 9/4/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 09/04/1997)
139 Brief by DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT EARL H. HORTON, DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN in opposition to defts' privilege log, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 09/15/1997)
140 MOTION by MOVANT HEMPFIELD SCHOOL, MOVANT NORTHERN LEHIGH TO QUASH SUBPOENA , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 10/02/1997)
141 MOTION by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE TO COMPEL NON−PARTY DEFTS HEMPFIELD &NORTHERN LEHIGH SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO COMPLY WITH THEIR SUBPOENA , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 10/16/1997)
Response by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE to Hempfield School District's &Northern Lehigh School District's motion to quash subpoena and supporting plffs' motion to enforce the subpoenas, Certificate of Service. (See Paper #141) (gn) (Entered: 10/16/1997)
142 PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN eighth 90− day status report, certificate of service. (jl) (Entered: 10/31/1997)
143 ORDER THAT AS TO THE DEFTS' PRIVILEGE LOG, PLFFS' OBJECTIONS THERETO ARE OVERRULED IN PART &USSTAINED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT SUBJECT TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER THE

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 46 of 71

11/07/1997 01/12/1998 01/22/1998 02/06/1998
03/13/1998
03/18/1998 05/13/1998
07/28/1998

DEFTS SHALL RPVODE THE DOCUMENTS TO COUNSEL FOR PLFFS BY 11/7/97, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE MOTION ON NONPARTY HEMPFIELD &NORTHERN LEHIGH SCHOOL DISTRICTS TO QUASH THE SUBPOENAS IS DENIED AND THAT THE MOTION OF PLFFS TO COMPEL NONPARTIES HEMPFIELD &NORTHERN LEHIGH SCHOOL DISTRICTS IS GRANTED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 11/4/97 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 11/04/1997)
144 Reply by DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al to plffs' eighth status report, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 11/07/1997)
145 Proposed Third Amended Joint Case Management Plan. (gn) (Entered: 01/13/1998)
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN ORDER WITH COURT APPROVAL. DISCOVERY WILL CLOSE ON 11/30/98. RESPONSES TO DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS SHALL BE DUE 2/26/99. PLFFS' MOTIONS TO JOIN CERTAIN SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THIS ACTION HAVE BEEN DENIED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (SEE PAPER #145) (gn) (Entered: 01/22/1998)
146 Ninth 90−Day Status Report of PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 02/06/1998)
147 MOTION BY DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT EARL H. HORTON, DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (fdc) (Entered: 03/16/1998)
148 ORDER THAT THE TIME FOR DEFTS TO RESPOND TO PLFFS' SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS IS ENLARGED TO 4/30/98. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 3/18/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 03/18/1998)
149 Tenth 90−Day Status Report of PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL, Certificate of Service. WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE . (gn) (Entered: 05/13/1998)
150 MOTION by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 47 of 71

08/03/1998 08/07/1998 08/10/1998
08/10/1998
08/13/1998 08/14/1998 08/24/1998 08/26/1998 08/27/1998
11/25/1998
12/01/1998

MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE ANSWERS TO DEFTS' SIXTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 07/29/1998)
151 ORDER THAT A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED ON 8/7/98 AT 2:30PM. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 8/4/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 08/04/1998)
152 Eleventh 90−Day Status Report of PLAINTIFFS, Certificate of Service. (mc) (Entered: 08/07/1998)
153 ORDER GRANTING PLFFS MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE ANSWERS TO DEFTS' SIXTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT PLFFS' SHALL FILE AN ANSWER TO PLFF'S SIXTH SET OF INTERROGATORIES BY 6/21/98. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 8/11/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 08/11/1998)
154 ORDER THAT A HEARING ON PLFFS' PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE THIRD AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER WILL BE HELD ON 8/27/98 AT 10:00AM IN COURTROOM 3A. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 8/11/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 08/11/1998)
155 Status Report of DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED. &Cert. of Service. (lm) (Entered: 08/13/1998)
156 Transcript of Telephone Conference on 8/1/98. (gn) (Entered: 08/17/1998)
157 Appearance of HAROLD R. BERK for MOVANT PA STATE EDUCATION, MOVANT EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT. (Change of Address) (fe) (Entered: 08/24/1998)
158 Proposed Fourth Amended Joint Case Management Plan, certificate of service. (jl) (Entered: 08/26/1998)
159 FOURTH AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN WITH COURT APPROVAL; THE PARTIES SHALL FILE DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS BY 4/30/00; DISCOVERY COMPLETED BY 2/28/00. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 8/28/98 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED 8/28/98. (sc) (Entered: 08/28/1998)
160 Status Report of DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT EARL H. HORTON, DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN, certificate of service . (jl) (Entered: 11/25/1998)
161 Twelfth Day Status Report of PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 48 of 71

01/07/1999
01/11/1999 04/16/1999 04/16/1999 04/16/1999 04/20/1999 04/21/1999
04/27/1999 04/27/1999 04/28/1999

THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 12/01/1998)
162 Entry of Appearance of MAX LAPERTOSA for PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE, Certificate of Service. (fdc) (Entered: 01/11/1999)
163 Entry of Appearance of MAX LAPERTOSA as counsel for PLAINTIFFS, Certificate of Service. (fdc) (Entered: 01/11/1999)
164 MOTION TO INTERVENE BY MOVANT DONALD H. NIKOLAUS, MOVANT ELIZABETH R. NIKOLAUS , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 04/19/1999)
165 MOTION by MOVANT DONALD H. NIKOLAUS, MOVANT ELIZABETH R. NIKOLAUS TO QUASH THE SUBPOENA AS IT RELATES TO MATTHEW J. NIKOLAUS , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 04/19/1999)
166 Appearance of ANTHONY MARC HOPKINS for MOVANT DONALD H. NIKOLAUS, MOVANT ELIZABETH R. NIKOLAUS (gn) (Entered: 04/19/1999)
167 ORDER THAT A HEARING ON MOTION TO INTERVENE AND MOTION TO QUASH IS SCHEDULED FOR 5/4/99 AT 4:30PM IN ROOM 22316. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 4/20/99 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gn) (Entered: 04/20/1999)
168 MOTION by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND INSPECTION OF PREMISES AND TO SHORTEN TIME FOR RESPONSE TO MOTION , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 04/21/1999)
169 Defendant's Response to Motion to Quash Subpoena and Motion to Intervene filed by Donald H. Nikolaus and Elizabeth R. Nikolaus, Certificate of Service. (dt) (Entered: 04/27/1999)
170 Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena for Production of Documents and Inspection of Premises in The Lancaster School District, Certificate of Service. (dt) (Entered: 04/27/1999)
Notice of Tele−conference SET at 3:30PM on 4/30/99. (gn) (Entered: 04/28/1999)

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 49 of 71

04/29/1999 04/30/1999 04/30/1999 05/03/1999
05/05/1999 05/05/1999 05/06/1999 05/07/1999 05/07/1999 05/07/1999 05/07/1999

171 ORDER THAT THE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE HEARING SCHEDULED FOR 4/30/99 AT 3:30PM IS CONTINUED TO 5/4/99 AT 4:30PM. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 4/30/99 ENTERED AND COPIES FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 04/30/1999)
172 Response by RESPONDENT SCHOOL DIST LANCASTE to plffs' motion to compel. (gn) (Entered: 04/30/1999)
173 Memorandum by RESPONDENT SCHOOL DIST LANCASTE in opposition to plffs' motion to compel compliance with subpoena for production of documents and inspection of premises and to shorten time for response to motion, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 04/30/1999)
174 MOTION by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY AND PLFFS' REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND INSPECTION OF PREMISES TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF LANCASTER , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 05/03/1999)
175 ORDER THAT THE SUBPOENA SERVED ON THE HEMPFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT IS QUASHED AS IT PERTAINS TO MATTHEW J. NIKOLAUS. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 5/5/99 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gn) (Entered: 05/05/1999)
176 ORDER THAT THE PLFFS AND DONALD H. AND ELIZABETH R. NIKOLAUS DENY THE MOTION OF THE FAMILY SEEKING PERMISSION TO INTERVENE IN THIS MATTER ON BEHALF OF THEIR SON, MATTHEW J. NIKOLAUS AS MOOT. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 5/5/99 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gn) (Entered: 05/05/1999)
177 ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART PLFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND INSPECTION OF PREMISES AND TO SHORTEN TIME FOR RESPONSE TO MOTION. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 5/6/99 ENTERED AND COPIES FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 05/06/1999)
178 Notice of change of address by HAROLD R. BERK, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 05/07/1999)
179 Copy of plffs' motion to compel compliance with subpoena for production of documents and inspection of premises (99−mc−112) transferred from the Western Distict of PA. (gn) (Entered: 05/07/1999)
180 Copy of Plffs' Amended motion to compel compliance with subpoena for production of documents and inspection of premises (99−mc−113) transferred from the Western District of PA. (gn) (Entered: 05/07/1999)
181 ORDER THAT THIS COURT'S ORDER OF 5/5/99 IS MODIFIED TO THE EXTENT THAT THE COURT EDITED PLFFS' PROPOSED LETTER WHICH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WILL INCLUDE INT ITS MAILING TO THE PARENT(S) OR GUARDIAN(S), AFFORNDING NOTICE OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S INTENT TO PRODUCE THE STUDENT'S EDUCATIONAL RECORDS. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 5/7/99 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 05/07/1999)

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 50 of 71

05/07/1999 05/17/1999
05/19/1999 05/20/1999 05/25/1999 05/25/1999 06/02/1999 06/02/1999 06/02/1999
06/21/1999 07/29/1999

182 ORDER THAT A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED IN THE CASE FOR 5/7/99 AT 8:45AM. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 5/7/99 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 05/07/1999)
183 MOTION by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE FOR CLARIFICATION , OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO MODIFY THE COURT'S 5/5/99 DISCOVERY ORDER , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (ATTACHMENTS UNDER SEAL) (gn) Modified on 05/17/1999 (Entered: 05/17/1999)
184 ORDER GRANTING PLFFS' MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MODIFICATION OF THE COURT'S ORDER 5/5/99. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 5/19/99 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 05/19/1999)
185 Certified copy of order from the M.D. of Pennsylvania signed by Judge Yvette Kane that Misc. 99−58 re: Plff's motion to compel compliance with subpoena be transferred to E.D. of PA. (mc) (Entered: 05/20/1999)
186 ORDER THAT MOTION TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA AND THE UNOPPOSED MOTION TO ALLOW ENTRY UPON LAND ARE DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THE MATTER SHALL BE MARKED CLOSED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 5/25/99 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 05/25/1999)
Case closed (kv) (Entered: 05/26/1999)
187 Transcript of 5/4/99, hearing. (jl) (Entered: 06/02/1999)
188 Transcript of 4/17/97 hearing. (jl) (Entered: 06/02/1999)
189 STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT PLFFS WILL CONDUCT THE TEACHER INTERVIEW PORTION OF THEIR SAMPLE SURVEY AS DEPOSITIONS UPON WRITTEN QUESTIONS. PLFFS WILL DEPOSE (1) SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER AND (1) GENERAL EDUCATION TEACHER, ETC. IN THE EVENT THAT ANY OTHER PARTY REQUEST ADDITIONAL SURVEYS TO BE RESPONDED TO BY THE SAID SUBPOENAED TEACHERS AS PART OF THE PLFFS' SURVEY BE DEPOSITION ON WRITTEN INTERROGATORIES, THOSE ADDITIONAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLETED SURVEYS SHALL ALSO BE DEEMED TO BE "CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS" WITHIN THE MEANING AND SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS SET FORTH IN THE SECOND STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 6/2/99 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 06/02/1999)
190 Appearance of ROSEMARY E. MULLALY for MOVANT HEMPFIELD SCHOOL, MOVANT NORTHERN LEHIGH, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 06/21/1999)
191 MOTION by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV,

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 51 of 71

07/29/1999
08/03/1999
08/05/1999 08/12/1999 08/16/1999

PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE TO AMEND SECTION V.5 OF THE FOURTH AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN TO ALLOW PLFFS TO COMPLETE THEIR SURVEY OF TEN SAMPLE SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND PLFFS' EXPERTS' REPORTS , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 07/30/1999)
192 MOTION by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFTS FOR DEFTS' RETALIATION AGAINST PLFFS' SAMPLE SURVEY AND STUDY , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 07/30/1999)
193 MOTION by PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER , AND TO QUASH DEFTS' SUBPOENAS OF PLFFS' EXPERTS AND DATA COLLECTORS , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 08/03/1999)
194 ORDER THAT A HEARING ON PLFFS' MOTION TO AMEND THE FOURTH AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH DEFTS' SUBPOENAS IS SCHEDULED FOR 8/27/99 AT 9:30AM COURTROOM 7A. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 8/6/99 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 08/06/1999)
195 Memorandum by DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, DEFENDANT EARL H. HORTON, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA in opposition to plffs' motion for enlargement of their obligations under the present case management order, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 08/12/1999)
196 MOTION by PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, MOVANT PA STATE EDUCATION, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE, PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 52 of 71

08/16/1999
08/18/1999 08/18/1999 08/19/1999
08/23/1999
08/24/1999 08/27/1999

WINTERING, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO PLFFS' THIRD SET OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 08/16/1999)
197 Brief by DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, DEFENDANT EARL H. HORTON, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA in opposition to plffs' motion for sanctions for defts' retaliation against plffs' sample survey and study, Certificate of Service. (Exhibits in opposition attached) (gn) Modified on 08/17/1999 (Entered: 08/17/1999)
198 Amended Certificate of service of Max Lapertosa re: certain facts. (gn) (Entered: 08/18/1999)
199 ORDER THAT A HEARING ON PLFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL IS SCHEDULED FOR 8/27/99 AT 9:30AM IN COURTROOM 7A. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 8/18/99 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 08/18/1999)
200 Brief by DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, DEFENDANT EARL H. HORTON, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA in opposition to plff's motion to quash subpoenas addressed to plffs' experts and data collectors, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 08/19/1999)
201 MOTION by PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE, PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF DISABLED FOR LEAVE TO FILE PLFFS MEMORANDUM IN REPLY TO DEFTS' BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLFFS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS FOR DEFTS' RETALIATION AGAINST PLFFS' SAMPLE SURVEY AND STUDY , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (REPLY MEMORANDUM ATTACHED) (td) (Entered: 08/24/1999)
202 ORDER THAT THE HEARING SCHEDULED FOR 8/27/99 IS CONTINUED TO 9/3/99 at 2:00 . ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 8/24/99 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED BY CHAMBERS ON 8/23/99. (md) Modified on 08/26/1999 (Entered: 08/24/1999)
203 MOTION by PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE, PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN,

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 53 of 71

08/30/1999 09/02/1999 09/07/1999 09/09/1999
09/21/1999
10/04/1999 10/19/1999

PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY TO DEFTS' BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLFFS' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (adr) (Entered: 08/30/1999)
204 MOTION by PLAINTIFF DISABLED FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS'MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH DEFENDANTS' SUBPOENAS , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (ph) (Entered: 08/31/1999)
205 UNOPPOSED MOTION by all DEFENDANTS FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL , BRIEF, CERTIFICATES OF SERVICE. (md) (Entered: 09/02/1999)
206 ORDER GRANTING DEFTS' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL UNTIL 9/2/99. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 9/8/99 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 09/08/1999)
207 ORDER THAT PLFFS' MOTION TO AMEND IS GRANTED THAT THE PARTIES SHALL SUBMIT A FIFTH AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN BY 10/4/99. PLFF'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. PLFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH DEFTS' SUBPOENAS IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. PLFFS' OBLIGATION TO FILE A 90 DAY STATUS REPORT IS HEREBY DISCONTINUED AND INSTEAD PLFFS SHALL FILE A STATUS REPORT IN 180 DAYS. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 9/9/99 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 09/09/1999)
208 ORDERED THAT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MEMORANDUM IN REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME, AND PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND TO QUASH DEFENDANTS' SUBPOENAS ARE DENIED AS MOOT. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 9/21/99 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (jl) (Entered: 09/21/1999)
209 ORDER THAT THE PARTIES SHALL SUBMIT THE AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN BY 10/15/99. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 10/5/99 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 10/05/1999)
210 Proposed Case Management Plan by DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE, PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, DEFENDANT EARL H. HORTON, PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 54 of 71

10/22/1999 01/03/2000
03/17/2000
03/17/2000 03/24/2000 06/22/2000
07/05/2000

KONESKI, DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER . (gn) (Entered: 10/19/1999)
PROPOSED FIFTH AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVED BY THE COURT. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 10/22/99 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (SEE PAPER #210) (gn) Modified on 10/22/1999 (Entered: 10/22/1999)
211 Appearance of GWENDOLYN T. MOSLEY for DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, DEFENDANT EARL H. HORTON, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, and withdrawal of appearance of LINDA C. BARRETT, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 01/04/2000)
212 UNOPPOSED MOTION by PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE, PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER TO EXTEND TIME FOR COMPELTION OF EXPERT REPORTS , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 03/20/2000)
213 Proposed Sixth Amended Joint Case Management Plan. (gn) (Entered: 03/20/2000)
214 ORDER GRANTING PLFFS' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME SEEKING TO AMEND SECTION V, SUBSECTION E. PARA. 68OF THE FIFTH AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 3/24/00 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 03/24/2000)
215 MOTION by PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE, PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER TO EXTEND TIME FOR COMPELTION OF EXPERT REPORTS , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 06/22/2000)
216 ORDER THAT THE SIXTH AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN IS AMENDED TO REFLECT AN EXTENSION OF THE DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF PLFFS' EXPERT REPORTS TO 8/31/00 AND FOR SUBMISSION OF DEFTS' EXPERT REPORTS TO 3/2/01. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 7/6/00 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 07/06/2000)

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 55 of 71

08/30/2000 08/30/2000 09/01/2000 09/18/2000 09/18/2000 10/27/2000
11/03/2000 11/24/2000
11/29/2000 12/29/2000

217 Proposed Eighth Amended Joint Case Management Plan. (md) (Entered: 08/30/2000)
218 UNOPPOSED MOTION by all PLFFS FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FOR COMPLETION OF EXPERT REPORTS , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (md) (Entered: 08/30/2000)
219 ORDER THAT A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ON THE PROPOSED EIGHTH AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN IS SCHEDULED FOR 9/14/00 AT 9:00 A.M. , ETC.. (SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO) 9/5/00 ENTERED AND COPIES FAXED BY CHAMBERS. (fb) (Entered: 09/05/2000)
220 ORDER GRANTING PLFFS' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME FOR COMPLETION OF EXPERT REPORTS. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 9/18/00 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 09/18/2000)
221 ORDER THAT THE EIGHTH AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN IS APPROVED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 9/18/00 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 09/18/2000)
222 UNOPPOSED MOTION by PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE, PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF ANNE PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER TO EXTEND TIME FOR COMPLETIONOF REMAINING EXPERT REPORTS , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 10/30/2000)
223 JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER WITH COURT APPROVAL. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 11/3/00 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gn) (Entered: 11/03/2000)
224 UNOPPOSED MOTION by PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE, PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF ANNE PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER TO EXTEND TIME FOR COMPLETION OF REMAINING EXPERT REPORTS , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 11/27/2000)
225 ORDER GRANTING PLFFS' MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR COMPLETION OF REMAINING EXPERT REPORTS AND THAT THE PROPOSED TENTH AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN IS APPROVED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 11/29/00 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 11/29/2000)
226 UNOPPOSED MOTION by PLAINTIFFS' FOR ENLARGMENT OF TIME FOR COMPLETION OF REMAINING EXPERT REPORTS , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (jl) (Entered: 12/29/2000)

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 56 of 71

01/02/2001 01/16/2001
01/16/2001 01/19/2001 02/02/2001 03/23/2001
03/29/2001 04/13/2001 04/23/2001 08/31/2001

227 ORDER GRANTING PLFFS' MOTION FOR ENLARGMENT OF TIME AND THAT THE PROPOSED ELEVENTH AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN IS APPROVED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 1/2/01 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gn) (Entered: 01/02/2001)
228 UNOPPOSED MOTION by PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE, PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER TO EXTEND TIME FOR COMPLETION OF REMAINING EXPERT REPORTS , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 01/16/2001)
229 Proposed Twelfth Amended Joint Case Management Plan. (gn) (Entered: 01/16/2001)
230 ORDER THAT A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ON PLFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGMENT OF TIME IS SCHEDULED FOR 2/1/01 AT 9:15AM. ( SIGNED SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 1/22/01 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gn) (Entered: 01/22/2001)
231 ORDER GRANTING PLFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR COMPLETION OF REMAINING EXPERT REPORTS AND THAT THE PROPOSED ELEVENTH AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN IS APPROVED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 2/5/01 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 02/05/2001)
232 MOTION by PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE, PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER FOR REMISSION OF FINES FOR LATE SUBMISSION OF AN EXPERT REPORT , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn) (Entered: 03/23/2001)
233 ORDER, MOTION HEARING SET FOR 2:00 4/11/01 FOR MOTION FOR REMISSION OF FINES FOR LATE SUBMISSION OF AN EXPERT REPORT ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 3/30/01 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED BY CHAMBERS. (ph) (Entered: 03/30/2001)
234 ORDER DENYING PLFF'S MOTION FOR REMISSION OF FINES FOR LATE SUBMISSION OF AN EXPERT REPORT. ORDER THAT THE PUBLIC INTEREST LAW CENTER REPRESENTING THE PLFFS SHALL PAY TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT $1,000 WITHIN (10) DAYS. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 4/16/01 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED ON 4/13/01. (gn) Modified on 04/23/2001 (Entered: 04/16/2001)
The sum of $ 1,000.00 deposited into the Registry of the Court pursuant to the court order dated 4/13/01. (gn) (Entered: 04/23/2001)
235 MOTION BY DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, DEFENDANT EARL H.

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 57 of 71

09/07/2001 10/03/2001
10/03/2001
10/17/2001 10/22/2001

HORTON, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT A PROPOSED TWELFTH JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (rp) (Entered: 09/04/2001)
236 ORDER DENYING [235−1] MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT A PROPOSED TWELFTH JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 9/10/01 ENTERED AND COPIES AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 09/10/2001)
237 JOINT MOTION by DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE, PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., DEFENDANT MADGE K. BENOVITZ, PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, DEFENDANT EARL H. HORTON, PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER FOR ENLARGEMENT OF REMAINING DISCOVERY DEADLINES , MEMORANDUM. (gn) (Entered: 10/03/2001)
238 Proposed Thirteenth Amended Joint Case Management Plan by DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF RAINEY, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, PLAINTIFF PARENTS PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE, PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., DEFENDANT MADGE K. PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, DEFENDANT EARL H. HORTON, PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL KONESKI, DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA, PLAINTIFF A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 10/03/2001)
239 ORDER THAT A HEARING ON THE JOINT MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF REMAINING DISCOVERY DEADLINES IS SCHEDULED FOR 11/8/01 AT 4:00PM IN COURTROOM 3A. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 10/17/01 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED BY CHAMBERS. (gn) (Entered: 10/17/2001)
240 ORDER THAT THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON 11/8/01 SHALL BE RESCHEDULED ON 11/14/01 AT 11:00AM, COURTROOM 3A. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 10/22/01 ENTERED AND COPIES

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 58 of 71

11/13/2001 11/28/2001 12/26/2001 01/03/2002
01/11/2002 01/25/2002 04/12/2002
04/17/2002

MAILED AND FAXED BY CHAMBERS. (gn) (Entered: 10/22/2001)
241 ORDER THAT THE HEARING ON THE JOINT MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF DISCOVERY DEADLINES SCHEDULED FOR 11/14/01 IS CONTINUED TO 11/20/01 AT 3:30PM IN COURTROOM 12A. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 11/13/01 ENTERED AND COPIES FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 11/13/2001)
242 ORDER THAT THE HEARING SCHEDULED ON 11/20/01 IS RESCHEDULED ON 12/19/01 AT 2:00PM IN COURTROOM 12A. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 11/28/01 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 11/28/2001)
243 ORDER THAT THE HEARING ON MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME SCHEDULED FOR 12/19/01 IS CONTINUED TO 1/10/02 AT 4:00PM IN COURTROOM 12A. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 12/27/01 ENTERED AND COPIES FAXED. (gn) Modified on 12/27/2001 (Entered: 12/27/2001)
244 MOTION by PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE, PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER TO EXTEND TIME FOR CLOSURE OF DISCOVERY . (gn) (Entered: 01/04/2002)
245 ORDER GRANTING [244−1] MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR CLOSURE OF DISCOVERY. DENYING AS MOOT [237−1] JOINT MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT REMAINING DISCOVERY DEADLINES. THE PARTIES SHALL FILE A FIFTEENTH AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS PLACED ON THE RECORD. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 1/14/02 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 01/14/2002)
246 ORDER THAT COUNSEL SHALL CONFER AND SUBMIT TO THE COURT ON OR BEFORE 2/21/02, THE FOLLOWING: A REASONABLE, PRACTICAL JOINT LITIGATION SURVEY AGREED UPON BY THE PARTIES; AND A SIMPLE, CONCISE OUTLINE OF THE ISSUES REMAINING IN THIS CASE. (SIGNED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARNOLD C. RAPOPORT) 1/25/02 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (er) (Entered: 01/25/2002)
247 MOTION by PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE, PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS , FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST THE PA. DEPT OF EDUCATION , AND TO EXTEND TIME TO COMPLETE FACT DISCOVERY , MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF COUNSEL. (gn) (Entered: 04/15/2002)
248 ORDER THAT A HEARING ON PLFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL AND EXTENSION OF TIME AND THE PROPOSED FIFTEENTH AMENDED JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN IS SCHEDULED FOR 5/14/02 AT

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 59 of 71

05/10/2002
05/10/2002
05/13/2002
05/15/2002 05/15/2002 05/31/2002 06/11/2002 07/22/2002

4:00PM IN COURTROOM 12A. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 4/18/02 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED BY CHAMBERS. (gn) (Entered: 04/18/2002)
249 Response by DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT EARL H. HORTON, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA to plff's [247−3] motion to extend time to complete fact discovery, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 05/13/2002)
250 Brief by DEFENDANT KARL R. GIRTON, DEFENDANT EDWARD M. DONLEY, DEFENDANT RONALD R. COWELL, DEFENDANT E. PETER BENZING, DEFENDANT EARL H. HORTON, DEFENDANT MICHELLE DESERA, DEFENDANT JOSEPH F. BARD, DEFENDANT HOWARD SELEKMAN, DEFENDANT DONALD M. CARROLL, DEFENDANT JAMES J. RHOADES, DEFENDANT BEATRICE MOORE, DEFENDANT R. GERARD LONGO, DEFENDANT PA. DEPARTMENT OF ED, DEFENDANT EDITH W. ISACKE, DEFENDANT COMMONWEALTH OF PA in opposition to [247−1] plffs' motion to compel, and [247−2] motion for sanctions, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 05/13/2002)
251 Supplement of PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE, PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER to their motion to compel the production of documents, for sanctions against the PA. Dept of Education, and for an additional six weeks to complete fact discovery, Certificate of Service. (gn) (Entered: 05/13/2002)
252 ORDER THT BY 5/24/02 THE PARTIEA SHALL JOINTLY SUBMIT TO THE COURT A RECOMMENDATION FOR AN INDIVIDUAL TO SERVE AS A DISCOVERY MASTER IN THIS THIS CASE. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 5/15/02 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 05/15/2002)
253 ORDER DENYING [247−1] MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. DENYING [247−3] MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO COMPLETE FACT DISCOVERY. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT ALL DEADLINES PREVIOUSLY IMPOSED IN THIS CASE ARE VACATED UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 5/15/02 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 05/15/2002)
254 ORDER THAT A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ON JUDITH GRAN, ESQ.'S LETTER TO THE COURT DATED 5/24/02 IS SCHEDULED FOR 6/10/02 AT 9:15AM. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 6/2/02 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 06/03/2002)
255 Transcript of 5/14/02 hearing (jl) (Entered: 06/11/2002)
256 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT LOUIS C. BECHTLE, ESQ. BE APPOINTED AS SPECIAL DISCOVERY MASTER. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 7/23/02 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 07/23/2002)

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 60 of 71

08/22/2002
09/04/2002 02/06/2003 02/19/2003 03/04/2003 06/17/2003 06/19/2003 07/15/2003 07/15/2003 07/15/2003 07/15/2003

257 Report of PLAINTIFF DISABLED, PLAINTIFF LISA MC CANN, PLAINTIFF PHILA. POLICE &FIRE, PLAINTIFF SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, PLAINTIFF MERRIN RAINEY, PLAINTIFF HASSAN ADIB SABREE, PLAINTIFF PARENTS UNION, PLAINTIFF PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PLAINTIFF AUTISM SUPPORT, PLAINTIFF PA STATE CONFERENCE, PLAINTIFF JOHN FORTE, PLAINTIFF LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PLAINTIFF PA COALITION OF CIT., PLAINTIFF PA PROTECTION &ADV, PLAINTIFF LEARNING DISABILIT, PLAINTIFF THE ARC OF PENNA., PLAINTIFF TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, PLAINTIFF SARAH NOE, PLAINTIFF MICHAEL WINTERING, PLAINTIFF BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, PLAINTIFF THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, PLAINTIFF ANNE CORR, PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH MOSER concerning request for production of documents. (gn) (Entered: 08/23/2002)
258 Supplementary Report by ALL PLAINTIFFS concerning request for production of documents, Certificate of Service. (rv) (Entered: 09/04/2002)
259 ORDER THAT A TELEPHONE STATUS CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR 2/19/03 AT 9:00AM. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 2/7/03 ENTERED AND COPIES FAXED BY CHAMBERS. (gn) (Entered: 02/07/2003)
260 SUPPLEMENT TO JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN ORDER THAT ALL DISCOVERY IN THIS CASE WILL CLOSE 5/30/03. THE PARTIES SHALL FILE AND SERVE UPON EACH OTHER ANY DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS TO BE FILED ON 6/30/03. THE PARIES WILL BE READY FOR TRIAL ON 11/30/03. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 2/19/03 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 02/19/2003)
261 ORDER THAT THE DISQUALIFICATIONOF THE PRESIDING JUDICIAL OFFICER IS NOT WARRANTD. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ) 3/5/03 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn) (Entered: 03/05/2003)
262 ORDER THAT THE LETTER DATED 6/17/03 FROM LOUIS C. BECHTLE REQUESTING A TWO−WEEK EXTENSION IS GRANTED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 6/18/03. ) 6/18/03 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED.(gn, ) (Entered: 06/18/2003)
263 ORDER THAT PLFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR A TWO−WEEK ENLARGMENT OF TIME FOR FILING DISPOSITIVE MOTION IS GRANTED. THE PARTIES' DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS SHALL BE DUE ON 7/14/03. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 6/19/03. ) 6/19/03 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED. (gn, ) Modified on 6/19/2003 (gn, ). (Entered: 06/19/2003)
264 MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY DEFTS' E. PETER BENZING, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, RONALD R. COWELL, EDWARD M. DONLEY, KARL R. GIRTON, EDITH W. ISACKE, R. GERARD LONGO, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(gn, ) (Entered: 07/15/2003)
265 Memorandum in support of defts' (264] motion for partial summary judgment filed by defts' E. PETER BENZING, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, RONALD R. COWELL, EDWARD M. DONLEY, KARL R. GIRTON, EDITH W. ISACKE, R. GERARD LONGO, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Certificate of Service. (gn, ) (Entered: 07/15/2003)
266 Documents in support of their motion for partial summary judgment filed by defts' E. PETER BENZING, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, RONALD R. COWELL, EDWARD M. DONLEY, KARL R. GIRTON, EDITH W. ISACKE, R. GERARD LONGO, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. (gn, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/14/2003 (gn, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 10/14/2003 (gn, ). (Entered: 07/15/2003)
267 ORDER THAT THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 7/15/03. ) 7/16/03 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 61 of 71

07/17/2003 07/23/2003
08/20/2003
08/27/2003 09/02/2003 09/03/2003

FAXED.(gn, ) (Entered: 07/16/2003)
268 EXHIBITS to plffs' motion for summary judgment by plffs' AUTISM SUPPORT AND ADVOCACY IN PENNSYLVANIA, ANNE CORR, DISABLED IN ACTION, JOHN FORTE, LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, LEARNING DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA, SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, LISA MC CANN, ELIZABETH MOSER, SARAH NOE, PARENTS UNION FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PENNSYLVANIA COALITION OF CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES, PENNSYLVANIA PROTECTION &ADVOCACY, INC., PENNSYLVANIA STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PHILADELPHIA POLICE &FIRE ASSOCIATION FOR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN, MERRIN RAINEY, HASSAN ADIB SABREE, THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, THE ARC OF PENNSYLVANIA, MICHAEL WINTERING, TIFFANY ZIMENOFF. (VOLUMES I − VII) (gn, ) (Entered: 07/18/2003)
269 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY PLFFS' AUTISM SUPPORT AND ADVOCACY IN PENNSYLVANIA, ANNE CORR, DISABLED IN ACTION, JOHN FORTE, LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, LEARNING DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA, SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, LISA MC CANN, ELIZABETH MOSER, SARAH NOE, PARENTS UNION FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PENNSYLVANIA COALITION OF CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES, PENNSYLVANIA PROTECTION &ADVOCACY, INC., PENNSYLVANIA STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PHILADELPHIA POLICE &FIRE ASSOCIATION FOR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN, MERRIN RAINEY, HASSAN ADIB SABREE, THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, THE ARC OF PENNSYLVANIA, MICHAEL WINTERING, TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(gn, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 7/29/2003 (gn, ). (Entered: 07/24/2003)
270 Plaintiffs' Resonse in Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed by AUTISM SUPPORT AND ADVOCACY IN PENNSYLVANIA, DISABLED IN ACTION, JOHN FORTE, LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, LEARNING DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA, SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, LISA MC CANN, ELIZABETH MOSER, SARAH NOE, PARENTS UNION FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PENNSYLVANIA COALITION OF CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES, PENNSYLVANIA STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PHILADELPHIA POLICE &FIRE ASSOCIATION FOR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN, MERRIN RAINEY, HASSAN ADIB SABREE, THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, THE ARC OF PENNSYLVANIA, MICHAEL WINTERING, TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, Memorandum, Certificate of Service. (ar, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/9/2003 (ar, ). (Entered: 08/20/2003)
271 ORDER APPROVING THE EXTENSION TO REPLY TO PLFF'S 269 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DUE BY 9/19/2003. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 8/27/03. ) 8/28/03 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(gn, ) (Entered: 08/28/2003)
272 DEFENDANTS' UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE THE BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY JOSEPH F. BARD, MADGE K. BENOVITZ, E. PETER BENZING, DONALD M. CARROLL, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, RONALD R. COWELL, MICHELLE DESERA, EDWARD M. DONLEY, KARL R. GIRTON, EARL H. HORTON, EDITH W. ISACKE, R. GERARD LONGO, BEATRICE MOORE, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, JAMES J. RHOADES, HOWARD SELEKMAN,CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(ar, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/14/2003 (gn, ). (Entered: 09/02/2003)
273 ORDER THAT DEFTS' MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE THE BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLFFS' 269 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED DEFTS SHALL FILE THE BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLFFS' MOTION FOR SUMAMRY JUDGMENT ON 9/19/03.

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 62 of 71

09/22/2003
09/23/2003 09/26/2003 09/26/2003 09/26/2003 10/28/2003
10/29/2003

( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 9/3/03. ) 9/4/03 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED.(gn, ) (Entered: 09/04/2003)
274 UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR ENLARGMENT OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE THE BRIEF AND OTHER MATERIALS IN OPPOSITION TO PLFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, FILED BY DEFTS' JOSEPH F. BARD, MADGE K. BENOVITZ, E. PETER BENZING, DONALD M. CARROLL, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, RONALD R. COWELL, MICHELLE DESERA, EDWARD M. DONLEY, KARL R. GIRTON, EARL H. HORTON, EDITH W. ISACKE, R. GERARD LONGO, BEATRICE MOORE, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, JAMES J. RHOADES, HOWARD SELEKMAN, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(gn, ) (Entered: 09/23/2003)
275 ORDER THAT THE LETTER REQUEST DATED 9/22/03 FROM LOUIS C. BECHTLE IS GRANTED WITH COURT APPROVAL. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 9/22/03. ) 9/23/03 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED.(gn, ) (Entered: 09/23/2003)
276 Answers to plffs' Statement of Undispsuted Facts, filed by defts' by JOSEPH F. BARD, MADGE K. BENOVITZ, E. PETER BENZING, DONALD M. CARROLL, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, RONALD R. COWELL, MICHELLE DESERA, EDWARD M. DONLEY, KARL R. GIRTON, EARL H. HORTON, EDITH W. ISACKE, R. GERARD LONGO, BEATRICE MOORE, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, JAMES J. RHOADES, HOWARD SELEKMAN, Certificate of Service. (gn, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/14/2003 (gn, ). (Entered: 09/29/2003)
277 Brief in Opposition to plffs' motion for summary judgment and in support of its 264 motion for partial summary judgment, filed by defts' JOSEPH F. BARD, MADGE K. BENOVITZ, E. PETER BENZING, DONALD M. CARROLL, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, RONALD R. COWELL, MICHELLE DESERA, EDWARD M. DONLEY, KARL R. GIRTON, EARL H. HORTON, EDITH W. ISACKE, R. GERARD LONGO, BEATRICE MOORE, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, JAMES J. RHOADES, HOWARD SELEKMAN, Certificate of Service. (gn, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/14/2003 (gn, ). (Entered: 09/29/2003)
278 Documents by defts' in support of their motion for partial summary judgment and in opposition to plffs' motion for summary judgment, Certificate of Service. (gn, ) (Entered: 09/29/2003)
279 EXHIBIT by plffs' AUTISM SUPPORT AND ADVOCACY IN PENNSYLVANIA, ANNE CORR, DISABLED IN ACTION, JOHN FORTE, LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, LEARNING DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA, SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, LISA MC CANN, ELIZABETH MOSER, SARAH NOE, PARENTS UNION FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PENNSYLVANIA COALITION OF CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES, PENNSYLVANIA PROTECTION &ADVOCACY, INC., PENNSYLVANIA STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PHILADELPHIA POLICE &FIRE ASSOCIATION FOR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN, MERRIN RAINEY, HASSAN ADIB SABREE, THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, THE ARC OF PENNSYLVANIA, MICHAEL WINTERING, TIFFANY ZIMENOFF in support of their reply to defts' response to plff's motion for summary judgment. (gn, ) (Entered: 10/29/2003)
280 REPLY to defts' response to plffs' 269 motion for Summary Judgment filed by AUTISM SUPPORT AND ADVOCACY IN PENNSYLVANIA, ANNE CORR, DISABLED IN ACTION, JOHN FORTE, LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, LEARNING DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA, SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, LISA MC CANN, ELIZABETH MOSER, SARAH NOE, PARENTS UNION FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PENNSYLVANIA COALITION OF CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES, PENNSYLVANIA PROTECTION &ADVOCACY, INC., PENNSYLVANIA STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, PENNSYLVANIA TASH,

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 63 of 71

10/29/2003
02/23/2004 03/10/2004 03/26/2004 03/26/2004 03/31/2004 04/19/2004 04/21/2004 04/29/2004 05/21/2004

PHILADELPHIA POLICE &FIRE ASSOCIATION FOR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN, MERRIN RAINEY, HASSAN ADIB SABREE, THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, THE ARC OF PENNSYLVANIA, MICHAEL WINTERING, TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, Certificate of Service. (gn, ) (Entered: 10/30/2003)
281 Declaration of Michaelene Forte and John R. McArdle filed by plffs' AUTISM SUPPORT AND ADVOCACY IN PENNSYLVANIA, ANNE CORR, DISABLED IN ACTION, JOHN FORTE, LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, LEARNING DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA, SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, LISA MC CANN, ELIZABETH MOSER, SARAH NOE, PARENTS UNION FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PENNSYLVANIA COALITION OF CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES, PENNSYLVANIA PROTECTION &ADVOCACY, INC., PENNSYLVANIA STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PHILADELPHIA POLICE &FIRE ASSOCIATION FOR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN, MERRIN RAINEY, HASSAN ADIB SABREE, THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, THE ARC OF PENNSYLVANIA, MICHAEL WINTERING, TIFFANY ZIMENOFF. (gn, ) (Entered: 10/30/2003)
282 ORDER GRANTING 274 MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE BRIEF. DEFTS SHALL FILE THEIR MATERIALS OPPOSING PLFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON OR BEFORE 9/29/03. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 9/25/03.) 2/23/04 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn, ) (Entered: 02/23/2004)
283 ORDER THAT A HEARING WILL BE HELD ON 3/24/04 AT 9:00AM IN COURTROOM 11A ON DEFTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 3/9/04. ) 3/11/04 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. ( gn, ) (Entered: 03/11/2004)
284 ORDER THAT THIS CASE SHALL BE PLACED IN SUSPENSE UNTIL FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD ON 5/20/04 AT 9:00AM TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 3/25/04. ) 3/29/04 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED.(gn, ) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
Set/Reset Hearings: TELEPHONE CONFERENCE SET FOR 5/20/2004 09:00 AM BEFORE HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO. (gn, ) (Entered: 03/29/2004)
285 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 3/24/04 before Judge Robreno. ESR Operator: Joe Matkowski. (gn, ) (Entered: 03/31/2004)
286 UNOPPOSED MOTION TO RESCHEDULE THE 5/20/04 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL FILED BY DEFTS' COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ET AL, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(gn, ) (Entered: 04/19/2004)
287 ORDER THAT DEFTS' MOTION TO RESCHEDULE THE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE IS GRANTED. THE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE NOW SCHEDULED ON 5/20/04 AT 9:00AM IS RESCHEDULED FOR A DATE AFTER 5/31/04, TO BE SET BY THE COURT. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 4/20/04.) 4/21/04 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn, ) (Entered: 04/21/2004)
288 ORDER THAT A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS SCHEDULED FOR 6/18/04 AT 9:00AM. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 4/29/04.) 4/29/04 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED BY CHAMBERS.(gn, ) (Entered: 04/29/2004)
289 Entry of Appearance by PHILLIP A. DRUMHEISER on behalf of AUTISM SUPPORT AND ADVOCACY IN PENNSYLVANIA, ANNE CORR, DISABLED IN ACTION, JOHN FORTE, LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, LEARNING DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION OF

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 64 of 71

06/21/2004 09/09/2004
09/15/2004 09/20/2004 10/19/2004 12/20/2004 12/21/2004 01/26/2005 02/08/2005

PENNSYLVANIA, SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, LISA MC CANN, ELIZABETH MOSER, SARAH NOE, PARENTS UNION FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PENNSYLVANIA COALITION OF CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES, PENNSYLVANIA PROTECTION &ADVOCACY, INC., PENNSYLVANIA STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, PENNSYLVANIA TASH, PHILADELPHIA POLICE &FIRE ASSOCIATION FOR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN, MERRIN RAINEY, HASSAN ADIB SABREE, THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, MICHAEL WINTERING, TIFFANY ZIMENOFF (ac, ) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
290 ORDER THAT A TELEPHONE STATUS AND SCHEDULING CONFERENCE SHALL BE HELD ON 9/9/2004 AT 09:00 AM. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 6/18/04. ) 6/22/04 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED.(gn, ) (Entered: 06/22/2004)
291 ORDER REGARDING MEDIATION THAT THE PARTIES SHALL ADHERE TO THE FOLLOWING PROTOCOL ON MEDIATION. (1) THE PARTIES IN THIS ACTION (THE "GASKIN CASE" OR "GASKIN") AND THEIR COUNSEL ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO PARTICIPATE IN COURT−SUPERVISED MEDIATION OF ISSUES RELATED TO THE GASKIN CASE FOR THE PURPOSE AND WITH THE OBJECTION OF DETERMINING WHETHER GASKIN CAN BE SETTLED TO THE MUTUAL SATISFACTION OF ALL PARTIES AND THE COURT, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 9/9/04. ) 9/10/04 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED.(gn, ) (Entered: 09/10/2004)
292 ORDER THAT A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE IS SCHEDULED FOR 10/18/2004 AT 09:15 AM. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 9/14/04. ) 9/15/04 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED BY CHAMBERS.(gn, ) (Entered: 09/15/2004)
Copy of order dated 9/9/04 and envelope returned by U.S. Postal Service and addressed to Yvonne Husic for the following reason: Return to Sender. (gn, ) (Entered: 09/20/2004)
293 ORDER THAT PARTIES SHALL FILE MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY 12/17/2004.. SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 10/18/04. 10/20/04 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED.(wgc, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 10/20/2004 (wgc, ). (Entered: 10/20/2004)
294 ORDER THAT THE JOINT REQUEST OF COUNSEL FOR A BRIEF EXTENSION UNTIL 12/22/04 TO FINALIZE WORK ON THE PREPARATION OF A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND RELATED PLEADINGS IS GRANTED. SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 12/17/04. 12/21/04 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED.(stb, ) (Entered: 12/21/2004)
295 JOINT MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, MEMORANDUM, PROPOSED ORDER, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE, NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE(le, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 12/21/2004 (stb, ). (Entered: 12/21/2004)
296 ORDER THAT A STATUS AND SCEDULING CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD ON 2/16/2005 AT 10:00 AM IN COURTROOM 11A. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 1/26/05. ) 1/27/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED.(gn, ) (Entered: 01/27/2005)
297 ORDER THAT THE STATUS AND SCHEDULING CONFEREENCE PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED ON 2/16/05 IS RESCHEDULED ON 2/17/05 AT 9:00AM IN COURTROOM 11A. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 2/7/05. ) 2/9/05 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED AND MAILED BY CHAMBERS.(gn, ) ). Modified on 2/10/2005 (gn, ). (Entered: 02/09/2005)

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 65 of 71

02/17/2005 02/18/2005
02/18/2005 03/31/2005 03/31/2005
04/01/2005 04/27/2005 04/27/2005 05/02/2005

298 Entry of Appearance by LAWRENCE WHITE on behalf of all defendants with Certificate of Service (wgc, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/14/2005 (gn, ). (Entered: 02/17/2005)
299 ORDER THAT A HEARING TO CONSIDER PROVISIONAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND FORM OF NOTICE (DOC. NO. 295) SHALL BE HELD ON 4/20/05 AT 9:30AM IN COURTROOM 11A. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE PARTIES SHALL SUBMIT TO THE COURT, NOT LATER THAN 3/31/05, A SUMMARY PROPOSED TESTIMONY TO BE OFFERED BY WITNESSES AT THE FINAL HEARING FOR APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, THE DAT OF WHIH WILL BE SET FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 2/17/05. ) 2/18/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED AND FAXED.(gn, ) (Entered: 02/18/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to 295 MOTION for Approval. MOTION HEARING SET FOR 4/20/2005 09:30 AM IN COURTROOM 11A. (gn, ) (Entered: 02/23/2005)
300 Summary of Proposed Testimony by COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DONALD M. CARROLL, JOSEPH F. BARD, MICHELLE DESERA, EARL H. HORTON, MADGE K. BENOVITZ, E. PETER BENZING, RONALD R. COWELL, EDWARD M. DONLEY, KARL R. GIRTON, EDITH W. ISACKE, R. GERARD LONGO, BEATRICE MOORE, JAMES J. RHOADES, HOWARD SELEKMAN, Certificate of Service. (MOSLEY, GWENDOLYN) Modified on 4/1/2005 (np). (Entered: 03/31/2005)
302 NOTICE of declarations and affidavits of experts and exhibits by plffs' MICHAEL WINTERING, SARAH NOE, TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, THE ARC OF PENNSYLVANIA, LEARNING DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA PROTECTION &ADVOCACY, INC., PENNSYLVANIA COALITION OF CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES, PENNSYLVANIA STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, AUTISM SUPPORT AND ADVOCACY IN PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA TASH, LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PARENTS UNION FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PHILADELPHIA POLICE &FIRE ASSOCIATION FOR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN, DISABLED IN ACTION, THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, HASSAN ADIB SABREE, JOHN FORTE, MERRIN RAINEY, SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, LISA MC CANN, ELIZABETH MOSER, ANNE CORR, BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI, Certificate of Service. (gn, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 4/7/2005 (gn, ). Additional attachment(s) added on 4/7/2005 (gn, ). (Entered: 04/01/2005)
301 Summary of Proposed Testimony by COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DONALD M. CARROLL, JOSEPH F. BARD, MICHELLE DESERA, EARL H. HORTON, MADGE K. BENOVITZ, E. PETER BENZING, RONALD R. COWELL, EDWARD M. DONLEY, KARL R. GIRTON, EDITH W. ISACKE, R. GERARD LONGO, BEATRICE MOORE, JAMES J. RHOADES, HOWARD SELEKMAN, Certificate of Service. (MOSLEY, GWENDOLYN) Modified on 4/4/2005 (np). (Entered: 04/01/2005)
303 MOTION TO INTERVENE FILED BY MOVANTS BERKS COUNTY INTERMEDIATE UNIT, CHESTER COUNTY INTERMEDIATE UNIT..(gn, ) (Entered: 04/28/2005)
304 MOTION TO STRIKE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, FILED BY PROPOSED INTERVENORS BERKS COUNTY INTERMEDIATE UNIT, CHESTER COUNTY INTERMEDIATE UNIT, BRIEF, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(gn, ) (Entered: 04/28/2005)
305 ORDER THAT SUBJECT TO THE HEARING OF ANY OBJECTIONS OF CLASS MEMBERS TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT EMBODIED IN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, THE AGREEMENT IS HEREBY PROVISIONALLY APPROVED. THE FORM OF NOTICE, IN THE FORM ATTACHED TO THIS ORDER, IS HEREBY APPROVED, ETC. A FAIRNESS HEARING SHALL BE HELD ON 6/24/2005 AT 09:00 AM IN COURTROOM

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 66 of 71

06/03/2005
06/10/2005 06/10/2005 06/10/2005 06/10/2005 06/14/2005 06/20/2005 06/20/2005
06/23/2005 06/23/2005
06/23/2005

11A, ETC. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 4/29/05. ) 5/3/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED.(gn, ) (Entered: 05/03/2005)
306 MOTION for Order to have Moton to Intervene Deemed Unopposed, to Permit Intervention, to Establish a Time within which Parties Must respond to Motion to Strike and to Allow Argument in Support of Motion to Strike the Proposed Settlement Agreement filed by BERKS COUNTY INTERMEDIATE UNIT, CHESTER COUNTY INTERMEDIATE UNIT.Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support# 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(FAUST, ANDREW) (Entered: 06/03/2005)
307 Objections by objector LINDA J. BRYAN to Settlement of Class Action. (gn, ) (Entered: 06/10/2005)
308 APPLICATION by Movant MARION ROWE for pro hac vice of EVALYNN B. WELLING, STATEMENT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn, ) (Entered: 06/13/2005)
309 APPLICATION BY MOVANT MARION ROWE FOR PRO HAV VICE OF DONALD DRISCOLL, STATEMENT, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (gn, ) (Entered: 06/13/2005)
310 Objections by Unamed Class Members to Proposed Settlement, Certificate of Service. (gn, ) (Entered: 06/13/2005)
311 ORDER, LETTER REQUEST FROM DONALD DRISCOLL TO FILE A BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTION ON 6/21/05 IS APPROVED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 6/6/05. ) 6/14/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED BY CHAMBERS.(gn, ) (Entered: 06/14/2005)
312 Withdrawal of Objection by Unnamed Class Members and Others To Proposed Settlement, filed by Marion Rowe, Carmen Hinton, Frances Carter, Anitra Washington and Christine Alkhuzai, Certificate of Service. (gn, ) (Entered: 06/20/2005)
313 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW OBJECTION TO PROPOSED SETTLEMENT PURSUANT TO FRCP 23(c)(4)(B), FILED BY MARION ROWE, CARMEN HINTON, FRANCES CARTER, ANITRA WASHISNGTON, CHRISTINE ALKHUZAI, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (Attachments: # 1 Exh A# 2 proposed order)(gn, ) Modified on 6/20/2005 (gn, ). (Entered: 06/20/2005)
314 NOTICE of Appearance by ANDRIA B. SAIA, MICHAEL I. LEVIN, ALLISON S. PETERSEN on behalf of petitioner PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, INC., Certificate of Service. (gn, ) (Entered: 06/24/2005)
315 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED INTERVENORS' MOTION TO STRIKE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, FILED BY PETITIONER PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, INC., CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. (AMICUS BRIEF ATTACHED).(gn, ) (Entered: 06/24/2005)
317 PLAINTIFFS' MICHAEL WINTERING, SARAH NOE, TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, THE ARC OF PENNSYLVANIA, LEARNING DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA PROTECTION &ADVOCACY, INC., PENNSYLVANIA COALITION OF CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES, PENNSYLVANIA STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, AUTISM SUPPORT AND ADVOCACY IN PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA TASH, LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PARENTS UNION FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PHILADELPHIA POLICE &FIRE ASSOCIATION FOR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN, DISABLED IN ACTION, THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, HASSAN ADIB SABREE, JOHN FORTE, MERRIN RAINEY, SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, ELIZABETH MOSER, ANNE CORR, BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI Response to BERKS COUNTY INTERMEDIATE UNIT and CHESTER COUNTY INTERMEDIATE UNIT 303 MOTION TO INTERVENE and 304 MOTION TO STRIKE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, Certificate of Service. (fh) (Entered: 06/24/2005)

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 67 of 71

06/24/2005 06/28/2005
06/28/2005 06/28/2005 06/28/2005
06/28/2005 07/11/2005 07/19/2005 07/19/2005 07/26/2005

316 AMENDED DOCUMENT by PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, INC.. Amendment to 314 Notice of Appearance. (SAIA, ANDRIA) (Entered: 06/24/2005)
318 ORDER THAT THE PARTIES SHALL FILE BRIEFS ADDRESSING THE TOPICS OUTLINED BELOW NO LATER THAN 7/27/05. THE PARTIES SHALL PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF ALL PROOFS, AFFIDAVITS, AND TESTIMONY IN THIS CASE, ETC. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE BERKS COUNTY INTERMEDIATE UNIT AND CHESTER COUNTY INTERMEDIATE UNIT AND THE PA. SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, INC. SHALL BE PERMITTED TO SUBMIT COMMENTS CONCERNING THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NO LATER THAN 7/27/05. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE INTERMEDIATE UNITS MAY REPLY TO PLFFS' RESPONSE TO THE INTERMEDIATE UNITS' MOTION TO INTERVENE AND MOTION TO STRIKE THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT NO LATER THAN 7/27/05. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 6/27/05. ) 6/29/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED AND FAXED.(gn, ) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
Set/Reset Deadlines as to REPLIES DUE BY 7/27/2005. (gn, ) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
319 ORDER THAT THE MOTION FOR LEAVE TO WITHDRAW THE OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT (DOCUMENT NO. 312) IS GRANTED. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 6/27/05. ) 6/29/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED AND FAXED.(gn, ) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
320 ORDER THAT THE ATTACHED CHART, WHICH CONTAINS SUMMARIES OF OBJECTIONS RECEIVED BY THE COURT CONCERNING THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, SHALL BE FILED OF RECORD. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 6/27/05. ) 6/29/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(gn, ) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
Summary of Objections to Proposed Settlement Agreement filed pursuant to order dated 6/28/05. (Attached to Paper #320) (gn, ) (Entered: 06/29/2005)
321 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 6/24/05 before Judge Eduardo C. Robreno. ESR Operator: Joseph Matkowski. (gn, ) (Entered: 07/12/2005)
322 Post Hearing Brief with Certificate of Service filed by BERKS COUNTY INTERMEDIATE UNIT, CHESTER COUNTY INTERMEDIATE UNIT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit "C") (FAUST, ANDREW) Modified on 7/20/2005 (np). (Entered: 07/19/2005)
323 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by BERKS COUNTY INTERMEDIATE UNIT, CHESTER COUNTY INTERMEDIATE UNIT. Certificate of Service (FAUST, ANDREW) (Entered: 07/19/2005)
324 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Documents in Support of Approval of Settlement Agreement filed by MICHAEL WINTERING, SARAH NOE, TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, THE ARC OF PENNSYLVANIA, LEARNING DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA PROTECTION &ADVOCACY, INC., PENNSYLVANIA COALITION OF CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES, PENNSYLVANIA STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, AUTISM SUPPORT AND ADVOCACY IN PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA TASH, LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PARENTS UNION FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PHILADELPHIA POLICE &FIRE ASSOCIATION FOR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN, DISABLED IN ACTION, THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DONALD M. CARROLL, JOSEPH F. BARD, MICHELLE DESERA, EARL H. HORTON, MADGE K. BENOVITZ, E. PETER BENZING, RONALD R. COWELL, EDWARD M. DONLEY, KARL R. GIRTON, EDITH W. ISACKE, R. GERARD LONGO, BEATRICE MOORE, JAMES J. RHOADES, HOWARD SELEKMAN, HASSAN ADIB SABREE, JOHN FORTE, MERRIN RAINEY, SAMUEL

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 68 of 71

07/28/2005 08/02/2005 08/05/2005
08/05/2005 08/19/2005 09/09/2005 09/19/2005
09/19/2005

LUCKINBILL, LISA MC CANN, ELIZABETH MOSER, ANNE CORR, BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI.Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1)(MOSLEY, GWENDOLYN) (Entered: 07/26/2005)
325 ORDER THAT A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ON THE JOINT MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME (DOC. NO. 324) IS SCHEDULED FOR 8/5/2005 AT 09:00 AM BEFORE HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 7/28/05. ) 7/29/05 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED AND FAXED BY CHAMBERS.(gn, ) (Entered: 07/29/2005)
Per Courtroom Deputy Connie Flores and Mr. Saltz, Esq. re: please terminate Mr. Saltz, from the docket and label in this case. (gn, ) (Entered: 08/03/2005)
326 JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, FILED BY PLFFS' MICHAEL WINTERING, SARAH NOE, TIFFANY ZIMENOFF, THE ARC OF PENNSYLVANIA, LEARNING DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA PROTECTION &ADVOCACY, INC., PENNSYLVANIA COALITION OF CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES, PENNSYLVANIA STATE CONFERENCE OF NAACP BRANCHES, AUTISM SUPPORT AND ADVOCACY IN PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA TASH, LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN, PARENTS UNION FOR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PHILADELPHIA POLICE &FIRE ASSOCIATION FOR HANDICAPPED CHILDREN, DISABLED IN ACTION, THE A.N.D. ALLIANCE, HASSAN ADIB SABREE, JOHN FORTE, MERRIN RAINEY, SAMUEL LUCKINBILL, LISA MC CANN, ELIZABETH MOSER, BRETT MICHAEL KONESKI AND DEFT PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, MEMORANDUM, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.(gn, ) (Entered: 08/05/2005)
327 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE BRIEF AND OTHER DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT OF APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. THE PARTIES SHALL FILE THEIR BRIEF AND OTHER DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT OF APPROVAL OF THE SETTLMENT AGREEMENT ON 8/6/05. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 8/6/05.)8/8/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND FAXED. (gn, ) (Entered: 08/08/2005)
328 ORDER THAT A HEARING TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING MOTIONS AND BRIEFS SHALL BE HELD ON 9/7/05 AT 11:00AM IN COURTROOM 11A: (DOC. NO. 303); (DOC. N0 304); (DOC NO. 317); (DOC NO. 315); DOC. NO. 322). ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 8/18/05. )8/19/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED AND FAXED.(gn, ) (Entered: 08/19/2005)
329 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 9/7/05 before Judge Eduardo C. Robreno. ESR Operator: Joseph Matkowski. (gn, ) (Entered: 09/12/2005)
330 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER THAT THIS CASE SHALL BE REMOVED FROM SUSPENSE AND PLACED ON ACTIVE STATUS. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED UPON CONSIDERATION F THE JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (DOC. NO. 326) AND OBJECTIONS FROM CLASS MEMBERS AND INTERESTED PARTIES AT THE FAIRNESS HEARING, THAT THE MOTION IS GRANTED AND THE PARTIES' SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS APPROVED IN THE FORM SUBMITTED TO THIS COURT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE CASE IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. THE COURT SHALL RETAIN JURISDICTION TO ENFORCE CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AS PROVIDED THEREIN. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 9/16/05. ) 9/19/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED.(gn, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 9/19/2005 (gn, ). (Entered: 09/19/2005)
331 ORDER DENYING BERKS COUNTY INTERMEDIATE UNIT AND CHESTER COUNTY INTERMEDIATE UNIT'S MOTION TO INTERVENE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT BERKS COUNTY INTERMEDIATE UNIT AND CHESTER COUNTY INTERMEDIATE UNIT'S MOTION TO STRIKE

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 69 of 71

10/14/2005 10/14/2005 10/31/2005 11/01/2005 11/01/2005 11/22/2005 02/06/2006
04/10/2006 08/18/2006 03/10/2008
03/19/2008 03/24/2008
04/07/2008 04/07/2008

THE PROPOSED SETTELMENT AGREEMENT IS DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT BERKS COUNTY INTERMEDIATE UNIT AND CHESTER COUNTY INTERMEDIATE UNIT'S MOTION TO HAVE THEIR MOTION TO INTERVENE DEEMED UNOPPOSED IS DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THE PA. SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION, INC.'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSED INTERVENORS' MOTION TO STRIKE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS DENIED AS MOOT. ( SIGNED BY JUDGE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 9/16/05.)9/19/05 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED AND E−MAILED. (gn, ) (Entered: 09/19/2005)
332 NOTICE OF APPEAL from the order entered 9/19/05 filed by LINDA J. BRYAN pro se. Copies to Judge, Clerk USCA, Appeals Clerk and counsel (gn, ) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
333 Clerk's Notice to USCA re 332 Notice of Appeal: (gn, ) (Entered: 10/14/2005)
NOTICE of Docketing Record on Appeal from USCA re 332 Notice of Appeal filed by LINDA J. BRYAN,. USCA Case Number 05−4627 (gn, ) (Entered: 10/31/2005)
334 Copy of TPO Form re 332 Notice of Appeal. (cdd, ) (Entered: 11/02/2005)
Filing fee: $ 255.00, receipt numbers 922703 AND 922704. (cdd, ) Modified on 11/2/2005 (cdd, ). (Entered: 11/02/2005)
335 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 6/24/05 before Judge ROBRENO. Court Reporter: JOSEPH MATKOWSKI. HEARING (jl, ) (Entered: 11/22/2005)
Certified and Transmitted Record on Appeal to US Court of Appeals re 332 Notice of Appeal.(Total of 8 boxes).(Documents Not Included are #25,27,91,part of 96,101,107,137,149,155,165,166,183,237,238,244, 264,271,282,287,289,291,303,304,307,312,317,329). (mjo, ) Modified on 2/6/2006 (mjo, ). (Entered: 02/06/2006)
336 NOTICE of Appearance by BARBARA E. RANSOM on behalf of LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN with certificate of service (RANSOM, BARBARA) (Entered: 04/10/2006)
337 ORDER of USCA dated 7/25/06 as to 332 Notice of Appeal filed by LINDA J. BRYAN,. order by this Court that the appeal is hereby dismissed. Costs shall be taxed to the appellant. (gn, ) (Entered: 08/21/2006)
338 ORDER THAT A STATUS AND SCHEDULING CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD ON 3/24/2008 AT 10:00 AM IN COURTROOM 11A. ( SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 3/7/08. ) 3/10/08 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED AND FAXED.(gn, ) (Entered: 03/10/2008)
339 NOTICE of Appearance by JUDY SHOPP on behalf of PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION with Certificate of Service(SHOPP, JUDY) (Entered: 03/19/2008)
340 ORDER THAT THE STATUS CONFERENCE IS RESCHEDULED FOR 4/7/2008 10:00 AM IN COURTROOM BEFORE HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 3/23/08. 3/24/08 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED.(stb, ) (Entered: 03/24/2008)
341 Minute Entry for proceedings held before HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO: Status Conference held on 4/7/08. ESR Reporter: Joseph Matkowski. (gn, ) (Entered: 04/07/2008)
342 ORDER THAT PLFFS SHALL FILE THEIR MOTION BY 4/11/2008. DEFTS SHALL FILE A RESPONSE TO PLFF'S MOTIONBY 5/12/08. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT A TELEPHONE CONFERENCE SHALL TAKE PLACE ON 5/21/08 AT 2:00PM. ( SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 4/7/08. ) 4/8/08 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED AND FAXED.(gn, ) (Entered: 04/08/2008)

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 70 of 71

04/11/2008 05/09/2008 05/16/2008 05/19/2008 05/19/2008 05/19/2008 05/20/2008 05/20/2008
05/20/2008 05/20/2008

343 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN.Memorandum, Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit 7, # 8 Supplement Memorandum of Law, # 9 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order, # 10 Supplement Certificate of Service)(GRAN, JUDITH) (Entered: 04/11/2008)
344 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 4/7/08 before Judge Eduardo C. Robreno. ESR Reporter: James Cruz. (gn, ) (Entered: 05/09/2008)
345 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS SHALL FILE A REPONSE TO THE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT BY 5/19/2008. SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 5/16/2008. 5/16/2008 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED AND FAXED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 05/16/2008)
346 Memorandum in Support of its 348 Response re 343 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. (SHOPP, JUDY) Modified on 5/21/2008 (nd). (Entered: 05/19/2008)
347 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE RE: 346 Memorandum in Support of its Response to Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreementby PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (SHOPP, JUDY) Modified on 5/21/2008 (nd). (Entered: 05/19/2008)
348 RESPONSE to Motion re 343 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. (SHOPP, JUDY) (Entered: 05/19/2008)
349 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE RE: 348 RESPONSE to Motion re 343 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement by PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Certificate of Service) (SHOPP, JUDY) Modified on 5/21/2008 (nd). (Entered: 05/20/2008)
350 Exhibits to 348 RESPONSE to Motion re 343 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement filed by PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit L, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit M, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit N, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit O, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit P, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit Q, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit R, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit S, # 21 Exhibit Exhibit T, # 22 Exhibit Exhibit U, # 23 Exhibit Exhibit V, # 24 Exhibit Exhibit W, # 25 Exhibit Exhibit X, # 26 Exhibit Exhibit Y, # 27 Exhibit Exhibit Z, # 28 Exhibit Exhibit AA, # 29 Exhibit Exhibit BB, # 30 Exhibit Exhibit FF, # 31 Exhibit Exhibit GG, # 32 Exhibit Exhibit HH, # 33 Exhibit Exhibit Ii, # 34 Exhibit Exhibit JJ, # 35 Exhibit Exhibit KK, # 36 Exhibit Exhibit LL, # 37 Exhibit Exhibit MM, # 38 Exhibit Exhibit NN, # 39 Exhibit Exhibit OO, # 40 Exhibit Exhibit PP, # 41 Exhibit Exhibit QQ, # 42 Exhibit Exhibit QQ, # 43 Exhibit Exhibit RR, # 44 Exhibit Exhibit SS, # 45 Exhibit Exhibit TT, # 46 Exhibit Exhibit UU, # 47 Exhibit Exhibit VV, # 48 Exhibit Exhibit WW, # 49 Exhibit Exhibit XX, # 50 Exhibit Exhibit ZZ, # 51 Exhibit Exhibit AAA, # 52 Supplement Table of Contents)(SHOPP, JUDY) Modified on 5/21/2008 (nd). Modified on 5/21/2008 (nd, ). (Entered: 05/20/2008)
351 VERIFICATION AND PROPOSED ORDER RE: 348 RESPONSE to Motion re 343 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement by PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (Attachments: # 2 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order, # 3 Affidavit Verification of John Tommasini &Patricia Hozella) (SHOPP, JUDY) Modified on 5/21/2008 (nd). (Entered: 05/20/2008)
352 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION re 348 Response to Motion Certificate of Sevice by Pennsylvania Department of Education re Exhibits CC, DD, and EE (SHOPP, JUDY) (Entered: 05/20/2008)

Case: 2:94-cv-04048-ER As of: 01/31/2014 12:51 PM EST 71 of 71

05/20/2008
05/20/2008 05/27/2008 07/09/2008 12/15/2008 03/19/2009
03/19/2009

353 RESPONSE to Motion re 343 MOTION to Enforce Settlement Agreement Response with Exhibits CC, DD, and EE filed by PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit CC−1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit CC−2, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit CC−3, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit CC−4, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit CC−5, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit CC−6, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit CC−7, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit DD−1, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit DD−2, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit DD−3, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit DD−4, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit DD−5, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit DD−6, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit DD−7, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit DD−8, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit EE−1, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit EE−2, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit EE−3, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit EE−4, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit EE−5)(SHOPP, JUDY) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
354 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION re 353 Response to Motion,,, Certificate of Service for Electronic Service of Exhibits CC−EE (SHOPP, JUDY) (Entered: 05/20/2008)
355 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 5/21/08 before Judge ROBRENO. Court Reporter: JOSEPH MATKOWSKI. HEARING (jl, ) (Entered: 05/28/2008)
356 Minute Entry for proceedings held before MAGISTRATE JUDGE THOMAS J. RUETER: Settlement Conference held on 7/8/08. (jl, ) (Entered: 07/09/2008)
357 ORDER THAT PLFFS' MOTION TO ENFORCEMENT (DOC #343) IS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. ( SIGNED BY HONORABLE EDUARDO C. ROBRENO ON 12/12/08. )12/16/08 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED, E−MAILED AND FAXED.(gn, ) (Entered: 12/16/2008)
358 TRANSCRIPT of held on 7/8/08, before Judge Thomas J. Rueter. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 4/9/2009. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/20/2009. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/17/2009. (gn, ) (Entered: 03/19/2009)
359 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript with Certificate of Service re 358 Transcript − PDF, 3/19/09 Entered and Copies Emailed and Mailed.. (gn, ) (Entered: 03/19/2009)

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

__________________________________________

LYDIA REBECCA GASKIN et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, )

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF

)

EDUCATION, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

__________________________________________)

No. 94-CV-4048 (JUDGE ROBRENO)

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE

I. INTRODUCTION (A) This Settlement Agreement is entered into for the purpose of finally and completely resolving Gaskin v. Pennsylvania Department of Education, No. 94-CV-4048 (E.D. Pa.), a civil action filed by the plaintiffs on June 30, 1994, against the Pennsylvania Department of Education, various of its officers, and members of the State Board of Education. Gaskin was certified as a class action lawsuit pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (B) The Settlement Agreement is entered into by and between the following parties: (1) Plaintiffs Lydia Rebecca Gaskin; Anne Corr; John Forte; Brett Michael Koneski;
Samuel Luckenbill; Lisa McCann; Sarah Noe; the estate of Merrin Rainey; Elizabeth Moser Royer; Hassan Sabree; Michael Wintering; and Tiffany Zimenoff (hereinafter referred to, collectively, as “the individual plaintiffs”);

Page 2
(2) Plaintiffs The Arc, Pennsylvania; Autism Support and Advocacy in Pennsylvania; Disabled in Action; the Learning Disabilities Association of Pennsylvania; Parents’ Union for Public Schools; Pennsylvania Protection & Advocacy Association; and Pennsylvania TASH (hereinafter referred to, collectively, as “the organizational plaintiffs”); and
(3) Defendants Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Pennsylvania Department of Education; the Secretary of Education; the Commissioner of Basic Education; the Director of the Bureau of Special Education; and the members of the State Board of Education.
(C) The individual plaintiffs are representatives of a certified class consisting of all school-age students with disabilities in Pennsylvania who have been denied a free appropriate education in regular education classrooms with individualized supportive services, or have been placed in regular education classrooms without the supportive services, individualized instruction, and accommodations they need to succeed in the regular education classroom.
(D) All of the plaintiffs, seeking system relief, allege in the complaint, among other things, that the defendants failed to assure that members of the class are educated with students who do not have disabilities to the maximum extent appropriate and that those included in the regular education classroom are not provided with the supplementary aids and services needed to benefit from participation in the regular education classroom. The defendants deny the allegations in the complaint. Both the plaintiffs and the defendants conducted extensive discovery and filed dispositive motions.

Page 3
(E) In lieu of litigating this case to its conclusion, the parties, by entering into this Settlement Agreement, agree to the following terms and conditions fully and comprehensively to settle and resolve all outstanding claims asserted in or relating to the Gaskin lawsuit.
II. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS USED IN THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (Preamble) As used in this Settlement Agreement, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated. (Defined terms are indicated throughout by the use of bold-faced text.) (A) “Settlement Agreement” shall mean this Settlement Agreement entered into in Gaskin v. Pennsylvania Department of Education, No. 94-CV-4048 (E.D. Pa.). (B) “Effective date of the Settlement Agreement” shall mean the date on which the Court formally enters an order dismissing and ending the Gaskin case. (C) “Life of the Settlement Agreement” shall mean the five-year period of time commencing on the effective date of the Settlement Agreement and ending exactly five years later as described in Section IV.10(B) of the Settlement Agreement. (D) “IDEA” shall mean the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, as amended, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (E) “USDOE” shall mean the United States Department of Education. (F) “PDE” shall mean the Pennsylvania Department of Education. (G) “Bureau” shall mean PDE’s Bureau of Special Education. (H) “Bureau Director” shall mean the Director of the Bureau. (I) “LRE,” “FAPE,” and “IEP” are abbreviations borrowed from IDEA.

Page 4
(1) “LRE” stands for “least restrictive environment.” LRE is statutorily defined as follows: “To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular education classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.” See 34 C.F.R. §300.550.
(2) “FAPE” stands for “free appropriate public education.” FAPE is statutorily defined in part as “special education and related services that (A) have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge; (B) meet the standards of the State educational agency; (C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or secondary school education in the State involved; and (D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education program required under” section 614(d) of the IDEA. See 34 C.F.R. §300.13.
(3) “IEP” stands for “individualized education program” or “individualized education plan.” IEP is statutorily defined as “a written statement for each child with a disability that is developed, reviewed, and revised in accordance with [20 U.S.C. §] 1414(d).” See 20 U.S.C. § 1401(11); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.340-300.350.

Page 5
(J) “Advisory Panel” shall mean the “Bureau Director’s Advisory Panel on Least Restrictive Environment Practices” established in accordance with Section IV.2 of the Settlement Agreement.
(K) “Chapter 14” and “Chapter 15” refer, respectively, to Chapters 14 and 15 in the State Board of Education’s codified regulations (Volume 22 of the Pennsylvania Code).
(L) “CAP” shall mean a corrective action plan ordered by PDE as the consequence of deficiencies identified during compliance monitoring conducted under Section IV.4 of the Settlement Agreement.
(M) “Organizational plaintiffs” shall mean the organizational plaintiffs identified in Section I(B)(2) of the Settlement Agreement.
III. RECITALS (A) As an integral part of the Settlement Agreement, all parties affirm, as mutual goals and as principles for interpreting the provisions in the Settlement Agreement, the following understandings. (1) The IDEA and related case law, including Oberti v. Board of Education, 995 F.2d
1204 (3d Cir. 1993), require special education students to be educated with students who do not have disabilities to the maximum extent appropriate. (2) It is desirable that school districts increase their capacity to provide appropriate specially designed instruction, related services, supplementary aids and services and support to special education students placed in regular education classrooms.

Page 6
(3) When the law requires that special education students receive supplementary aids and services in order to be educated with students who do not have disabilities to the maximum extent appropriate, such supplementary aids and services should be: (a) available to all students in need of them; (b) designed to provide meaningful educational benefits; and (c) provided in a manner sensitive to the need to avoid stigmatizing special education students who receive them.
(4) Pennsylvania school districts educate all children and welcome children with special needs.
IV. SETTLEMENT TERMS, CONDITIONS, AND UNDERTAKINGS (Preamble) The parties to the Settlement Agreement hereby agree to the following terms, conditions, and undertakings in full and final settlement of all claims as between them.
IV.1. Policy Development and Implementation (A) PDE will require school districts to adhere to the requirements of the IDEA and case law, including Oberti v. Board of Education, 995 F.2d 1204 (3d Cir. 1993), when making placement decisions, including the following: (1) Students may not be removed from regular education classrooms merely because
of the severity of their disabilities. (2) When students with disabilities, including students with significant cognitive
disabilities, need specially designed instruction or other supplementary aids and

Page 7
services to benefit from participating in regular education classrooms, school districts have an obligation to ensure that those services are provided. (3) Students’ IEP teams must determine whether the goals in the student’s IEP can be implemented in regular education classrooms with supplementary aids and services before considering removal from the regular education classroom environment. (4) School districts will consider the full range of supplementary aids and services in regular education classrooms, based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable, including modification of curriculum content, before contemplating removal. (B) Where services from other Commonwealth or private agencies are required in order to provide a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment, the services will be provided, coordinated, and paid in accordance with the interagency coordination Memorandum of Understanding entered into among PDE, the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, and the Pennsylvania Department of Health. (C) Special education students who are entitled to gifted support or Chapter 15 accommodations will have a single individualized education plan (“single plan”) incorporating all specially designed instruction, accommodations or other support identified by the IEP team. The Advisory Panel may review PDE policy and make recommendations to the Bureau Director for changes that clarify PDE policy related to the use of a single plan.

Page 8
(D) PDE, with input from the Advisory Panel, will design and make available to parents of children with significant disabilities information about supplementary aids and services that children with disabilities can receive in regular education classrooms and information about how to seek assistance in obtaining such supplementary aids and services. The information will be supplied to parents via mechanisms such as distribution by school districts, PennLink, or the PDE website.
(E) PDE, with input from the Advisory Panel, will design and distribute to school districts materials for display in school buildings that make it clear that all children, including those with disabilities, are welcome.
IV.2. Advisory Panel (A) PDE will establish the “Bureau Director’s Advisory Panel on Least Restrictive Environment Practices” (the Advisory Panel), a special advisory group to the Bureau Director. The purpose of the Advisory Panel will be to review system-wide progress in the delivery of individualized specially designed instruction in regular education classrooms to students with disabilities in Pennsylvania, to analyze and report periodically on the status of implementation of this agreement, and to advise PDE on implementation. (B) The Advisory Panel will consist of fifteen members, at least nine of whom will be parents of children with disabilities who are not employed by PDE or by any school district or other local educational agency in Pennsylvania. During the life of the Settlement Agreement, the members will be selected annually as follows: (1) Twelve members will be selected by the organizational plaintiffs, as provided in
Section IV.2(B)(5) of the Settlement Agreement.

Page 9
(2) Three members will be selected by the Bureau Director. (3) All members will serve for terms of one year, and will be eligible for
reappointment to additional terms up to a maximum of five terms in succession. (4) The membership of the Advisory Panel will be representative of the population
of children served in special education in Pennsylvania with respect to race, ethnicity, cultural characteristics, geography, and age. (5) The organizational plaintiffs will be responsible jointly for selecting twelve members of the Advisory Panel. These members will include persons with recognized expertise in research and practices related to the provision of a free appropriate public education to children with disabilities in the least restrictive environment. The names of the organizational plaintiffs’ initial representatives will be forwarded to the Bureau Director by no later than the sixtieth day following the effective date of the Settlement Agreement, and by no later than March 31 of succeeding calendar years during the life of the Settlement Agreement. (6) In the event of a vacancy, the party or parties who selected the member will designate a replacement.
(C) Advisory Panel members will receive reimbursement at Commonwealth rates for their travel costs to participate in the work of the Advisory Panel.
(D) The initial meeting of the Advisory Panel will be held no later than ninety days following receipt by PDE of the names of the organizational

Page 10
plaintiffs’ twelve initial nominees. (E) The Advisory Panel will meet quarterly to review and evaluate all
relevant data on system-wide progress in implementation of all components of the Settlement Agreement and to make recommendations for continued progress.
(F) The Advisory Panel will develop a committee structure to facilitate the effective performance of its work.
(G) The Advisory Panel will select from among its members a Chair and a Vice Chair. The Advisory Panel will develop its own operating rules and procedures (which will be consistent with state law and PDE policies applicable to the deliberations of advisory panels), designate the committees it considers necessary to its effective operation, and appoint Advisory Panel members to committees.
(H) PDE will make data available to assist the Advisory Panel in assessing the efforts of school districts and other programs in assuring a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment for schoolchildren with disabilities. The Advisory Panel will review samples of student IEPs to determine whether school district staff understand and are following the policies on compliance monitoring set forth in Section IV.4 of the Settlement Agreement.
(I) Data made available to the Advisory Panel will include the number of special education students in each school district who begin first grade outside the regular education classroom in their neighborhood schools.

Page 11
(J) Data provided to the Advisory Panel will be in a form that complies with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996); the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; IDEA; and other applicable federal and state privacy laws.
(K) The Bureau will provide a reasonable level of support, including staff support, to the Advisory Panel consistent with PDE’s budgetary resources and as determined by the Bureau Director.
(L) The Advisory Panel will assist in the design of an assessment of the needs of school district and intermediate unit personnel in research-based practices and the provision of supplementary aids and services in regular education classes. The needs assessment will evaluate actual practice in districts against standards for good practice in the field.
(M) The Advisory Panel will assist the Bureau Director in identifying school districts in Pennsylvania that have developed exemplary programs and practices in the area of education in the least restrictive environment, recognize these districts through awards, and assist them in developing materials for dissemination that will assist other districts in replication of their work.
IV. 3. IEP Format (A) PDE will continue to provide an Annotated IEP Format to guide school districts in developing IEPs. (B) By no later than December 31, 2005, PDE will modify the LRE portion of the Annotated IEP Format as agreed to by the parties. A copy of the modified text is attached to the

Page 12
Settlement Agreement and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A. The same modification will be incorporated into the IEP Format at the same time.
(C) For a period of three years commencing on the effective date of the Settlement Agreement, PDE will not make other modifications to the LRE portion of the Annotated IEP Format or IEP except with the consent of the plaintiffs; except that, should modification be required by changes in applicable federal statutory or case law or by the USDOE, PDE will be entitled to make appropriate modification following notification to the plaintiffs’ counsel. By no later than the sixtieth day following the effective date of the Settlement Agreement, PDE will notify school districts that it is likely that the current IEP Format will have to be modified to address changes in the law due to the reauthorization and amendment of the IDEA in late 2004.
(D) The Advisory Panel may suggest other modifications to the LRE portion of the IEP format for consideration and approval of the Bureau Director.
(E) By no later than the sixtieth day following the effective date of the Settlement Agreement, PDE will provide written guidance to all school districts related to completing the LRE portion of the IEP. The guidance will explain the phrases “LRE percentages” and “time in a special education class” and explain how to calculate the “LRE percentages” and “time in a special education class.” A copy of the guidance is attached to the Settlement Agreement and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit B.
IV.4.Compliance Monitoring (A) “Compliance monitoring” refers to a range of activities undertaken by PDE to assure that local educational agencies are complying with the requirements of the IDEA and other federal and state laws protecting the rights of schoolchildren with disabilities. Compliance

Page 13
monitoring will include three forms: (1) “Regular cyclical monitoring” is required by the USDOE and is performed in accordance with a time frame negotiated with the USDOE so as to encompass all local educational agencies in Pennsylvania over an agreed-upon period of time. Commencing no later than January 1, 2006, regular cyclical monitoring will include the additional steps described in Section IV.4(H)(4) of the Settlement Agreement. (2) “Targeted monitoring” is performed by Bureau personnel in response to specific deficiencies or shortcomings identified through the regular cyclical monitoring process because of complaints from family members or advocacy organizations or through other means. (3) “LRE monitoring” is new. LRE monitoring focuses on half of Pennsylvania’s 501 school districts every year, and will be conducted at various levels of intensity depending on a particular district’s relative place on a list developed by reference to an LRE index. LRE monitoring, in contrast to other forms of monitoring, will, to the maximum extent feasible, be based on the following principles: (a) LRE monitoring will be based on a limited number of priorities (goal statements) identified by PDE following input from a diverse group of stakeholders through the Advisory Panel. Priorities will include: (1) increasing the number of students with disabilities included in regular education classes and neighborhood schools with needed supplementary aids, services and support; and (2) developing IEPs capable of providing students

Page 14
with disabilities a meaningful benefit from education. (b) LRE monitoring will be based on a limited number of indicators (objective
measures of the goal) identified by PDE within each priority area. (c) LRE monitoring will be based on comparisons to state averages identified by
PDE. Monitoring standards will be clearly communicated to school districts. (d) Triggers (levels of performance at which PDE will intervene and require
corrective action) will be clearly communicated to school districts. (B) Overview. (1) All categories of compliance monitoring serve the purpose of assessing the
educational progress of children with disabilities, as measured by several outcomes. All categories of compliance monitoring will be conducted in accordance with the following general rules: (a) Compliance monitoring will be data- and information-based and verifiable. (b) To the extent practicable, PDE will allocate its monitoring resources so as to
address areas of greatest need. PDE will use data-based information to make judgments about the allocation of its resources. (c) As permitted by its resources, PDE will provide support, including focused, customized technical assistance, to school districts in need of such support. (d) PDE will exercise its authority to levy sanctions for failure to take actions required under the terms of a CAP. (e) Families of children with disabilities will have avenues of communication to provide information to PDE on a continuous basis.

Page 15
(1) PDE’s monitoring staff will be appropriately trained and will engage in regular professional development. Compliance monitoring will be done in accordance with a five-tier process, with initial triggers for each level of intervention as set forth below: (a) Tier One LRE Monitoring of 20 school districts (excluding any school district implementing a Tier One CAP) identified via data analysis as most in need of systemic LRE-related changes. (b) Tier Two LRE Monitoring based on a warning designation for school districts identified in the bottom ten percent (approximately) of data analysis (excluding any school district implementing a Tier One or Tier Two CAP). (c) Tier Three LRE Monitoring based on an alert designation for school districts identified in the remaining bottom half (approximately) of data analysis. (d) Targeted monitoring based on referral by a Bureau staff member due to extenuating circumstances within the school district. (e) Regular cyclical monitoring of all Pennsylvania school districts coordinated to the district strategic plan process, currently on a six-year cycle as approved in the Pennsylvania state plan approved by the USDOE.
(C) Identification of school districts via data analysis. On an annual basis, PDE will review statewide data on all 501 Pennsylvania school districts to identify districts having data factors indicating a need to improve in the area of LRE. School districts will be identified for LRE improvement by assigning to each district an “LRE index score.” The LRE index score will be determined by weighting data factors as agreed to by the parties. The data will be reviewed

Page 16
annually and school districts will be identified annually under the following categories: (1) The twenty school districts at the bottom of the list will be identified for “Tier One LRE Monitoring.” (2) School districts in the bottom ten percent of all Pennsylvania districts but not identified for Tier One LRE Monitoring will be placed on a “warning list” and identified for “Tier Two LRE Monitoring.” (3) School districts in the bottom fifty percent but not identified for Tier One LRE Monitoring or Tier Two LRE Monitoring will be placed on an “alert list” and identified for “Tier Three LRE Monitoring.”
Districts’ LRE index scores will be made public as part of school and district report cards under the No Child Left Behind Act and the IDEA.
(D) Tier One LRE Monitoring. (1) By no later than December 31, 2005, and by no later than December 31 of each
subsequent year, school districts will be identified for Tier One LRE Monitoring on the basis of the data analysis described in Section IV.4(C) of the Settlement Agreement. With respect to the initial identification of school districts in calendar year 2005, however, the parties may, by mutual agreement, identify and substitute particular school districts for Tier One LRE Monitoring in lieu of districts that would otherwise be identified on the basis of the data analysis described in Section IV.4(C) of the Settlement Agreement. (2) Monitoring visits will be conducted by a team consisting of a minimum of three members, with larger teams for larger school districts as appropriate. Team

Page 17
members will be appointed by the Bureau Director. Parents and advocates will be included as team members. (3) The process will involve an analysis of information similar to that used in regular cyclical monitoring with the following additional elements: (a) Analysis of data to determine if there is a legitimate basis for identification of
the school district for Tier One LRE Monitoring; (b) A determination of whether the school district is identified for Tier One LRE
Monitoring due to a refusal to comply with IDEA; (c) A determination of factors resulting in the school district’s identification; (d) Selection of appropriate intervention(s) to remedy deficiencies; (e) Continued oversight by PDE to determine whether intervention is effective;
and (f) Other additions recommended by the Advisory Panel and approved by the
Bureau Director. (4) Visits will last a minimum of two days on-site, with adequate pre-visit
preparation and post-visit follow-up. The process will start with facilitated selfassessment and validation of data. There will be on-site review of student files; interviews; and review of outcome data. (5) The team will conduct an exit conference with school district representatives. Team members will use the exit conference to discuss the elements of a CAP to remedy any deficiencies found to exist. (6) If deficiencies are found to exist, then the Bureau will follow up by submitting a

Page 18
written CAP no later than six weeks following the on-site visit. The school district will be required to complete the CAP. The CAP may require one, two, or more years to complete, with interim reporting and monitoring obligations. Required training will be identified to address specific areas in the CAP. (E) Tier Two LRE Monitoring—the “Warning List.” School districts on the warning list will receive a written communication from the Bureau. The communication will warn the district that it is close to the point of being subject to Tier One LRE Monitoring; identify the factors indicating a need for LRE improvement, including an explanation why the data indicated a need for LRE improvement; and state (in words to this effect), “The Department expects you to take the following steps….” Among the steps that will be delineated are the following: (1) Attendance at PDE-sponsored training and technical assistance programs; (2) Acceptance of technical assistance by PDE personnel; and (3) Submission by the school district of a CAP addressing areas identified for improvement. (F) Tier Three LRE Monitoring—the “Alert List.” School districts on the alert list will receive a written communication from the Bureau. The communication will inform the district that it is in the bottom half of all districts in terms of the LRE data analysis described in Section IV.4(C) of the Settlement Agreement; identify areas in need of improvement; and describe resources available to the district to assist in improvement. (G) Targeted Monitoring. Targeted monitoring is a selective process used by Bureau personnel to identify a school district based on extenuating circumstances in that particular school year. School districts subject to targeted monitoring are selected based on a referral by a

Page 19
Bureau staff member. Monitoring is confined to a discrete area identified by the staff member. (H) Regular Cyclical Monitoring. (1) Consistent with federal law and implementing regulations, the Bureau’s regular cyclical monitoring will continue to be conducted as part of PDE’s general supervisory responsibility in accordance with its monitoring obligations to the USDOE. Currently, each school district in Pennsylvania is monitored once every six years to ensure that the district is in compliance with state and federal special education laws and regulations. (2) Regular cyclical monitoring is aligned with existing strategic planning and special education planning at the school district level. Each district completes a strategic plan every six years to address all programs within the district. As described in Section IV.6 of the Settlement Agreement, regular cyclical monitoring is completed the year before the strategic plan is due so that any corrective actions or improvement strategies can be incorporated into the special education and strategic plans. Over the next two years, the strategic and special education plans will be made part of the same process and document. (3) Regular cyclical monitoring focuses on systemic problems within a school district using data analysis, onsite review, and procedural and performance indicators. Following a regular cyclical monitoring visit, data are compiled and a report is sent to the district detailing the results. If deficiencies are identified, the Bureau prepares a CAP and the district is obligated to correct the deficiencies. The Bureau’s compliance division monitors and verifies the district’s implementation

Page 20
of the CAP on an ongoing basis. (4) When a school district in Tier One LRE Monitoring or Tier Two LRE Monitoring
is identified for regular cyclical monitoring, PDE will take the following additional steps as part of the regular cyclical monitoring process: (a) PDE will require the district to provide and analyze data specifically related
to LRE, including data on the percentage of students with disabilities educated in regular education classrooms for 80 percent or more of the school day, disaggregated by disability; the percentage of students with disabilities removed from the regular education classroom for 60 percent or more of the school day; the percentage of students with disabilities educated in separate school buildings; and the percentage of students with disabilities educated outside their home district or in programs operated by another educational agency. (b) PDE will examine a representative sample of individualized education plans for the purpose of determining whether the district is satisfying its FAPE and LRE obligations under federal law. (c) PDE will examine district policies and procedures to ensure that a full array of services are available. (d) PDE will require specific staff training for district personnel, designed to target the particular LRE deficiencies identified in compliance monitoring, to assure that the district possesses the skills necessary to meet the needs of diverse learners, including students with significant disabilities, in the regular

Page 21
education classroom. (I) Sanctions for Noncompliance. A school district that fails to honor the commitments and obligations contained in a CAP (whether the plan be to rectify deficiencies identified through LRE monitoring, targeted monitoring, or regular cyclical monitoring) will be subject to the following sanctions and enforcement powers: (1) A mandatory meeting with PDE in Harrisburg in which the superintendent and
chair of the school board will be obligated to participate. (2) Appropriate sanctions as set forth in PDE’s “Basic Education Circular” on
enforcement, including the withholding of funds from the school district and redirecting those funds to the appropriate body to support specific expenditures (e.g., hiring personnel) to implement the action required. (3) If appropriate, the initiation of professional disciplinary action against the superintendent or others whose conduct is found to have resulted in the school district’s failure to meet its obligations under the CAP.

Page 22
IV.5. Complaint Resolution.
(Preamble) PDE will build upon and modify its present system of complaint investigation and resolution in the following respects:
(A) Whenever a parent or student submits a complaint to the Bureau, PDE will, without exception, investigate the complaint. If PDE determines that the complaint was timely filed and that it has jurisdiction to investigate the complaint (see 34 C.F.R. §300.662), then PDE will not resolve the complaint without using its best efforts (i) to interview the parent or student, and (ii), if the complainant identifies persons alleged to have actual knowledge of the facts, to interview a reasonable number of such persons.
(B) When the complaint resolution process results in a finding by PDE that a school
district has violated an individual student’s right to receive supplementary aids and services in a
regular education class, or where such a violation has been established after a due process
hearing, PDE will investigate during the district’s next compliance monitoring whether the
district has corrected the violation, not only for the student who was the subject of the complaint
but for similarly situated students.

Page 23
IV.6. Plan Approval (Preamble) PDE will build upon and refine its present system of review and approval or disapproval of special education plans submitted by the 501 school districts in Pennsylvania as follows: (A) Where results of compliance monitoring demonstrate failure to provide special education students with meaningful educational benefit or with supplementary aids and services in regular education classes and neighborhood schools to the maximum extent appropriate, PDE will require school districts’ special education plans to include appropriate corrective action, which may include development of appropriate training and customized technical assistance plans. (B) By no later than one year following the effective date of the Settlement Agreement, PDE’s special education planning cycle will be synchronized with the compliance monitoring cycle in at least 50 percent of Pennsylvania school districts so that planning follows monitoring and the district’s special education plan addresses the findings of compliance monitoring; and by no later than two years following the effective date of the Settlement Agreement, PDE’s special education planning cycle will be synchronized with the compliance monitoring cycle in at least 90 percent of Pennsylvania districts so that planning follows monitoring and the district’s special education plan addresses the findings of compliance monitoring. It is PDE’s goal to achieve, by no later than three years following the effective date of the Settlement Agreement, synchronization of the planning and monitoring cycle in 100 percent of Pennsylvania districts.

Page 24
IV.7. Training (A) In furtherance of the mutual goals described in Section III of this Agreement, the Bureau will provide on-site training, technical assistance and professional development to school districts for the purpose of building local capacity in providing individualized supplementary aids and services in regular education classrooms to students with disabilities to enable them to be educated in regular education classrooms to the maximum extent appropriate. Services provided by the Bureau will be based on the needs of school district and intermediate unit personnel, on research-based practices, and on the assessment referenced in Section IV.2(L) of the Agreement. The Advisory Panel will review and recommend specific content, delivery systems, and evaluation processes and will assist in developing a plan for delivering technical assistance and training to respond to the needs identified in the objective assessment referenced in Section IV.2.(L) of the Settlement Agreement, which the Bureau will implement. The following components will become part of the delivery plan for training, technical assistance and professional development: (1) Training school district staff to provide supplementary aids and services in
regular education class to students with significant disabilities, including those with significant learning disabilities, retardation, autism, emotional disabilities, physical disabilities and multiple disabilities. (2) Training and technical assistance in research-based practices and specialized interventions for students with significant learning disabilities, retardation, autism, emotional disabilities, physical disabilities and multiple disabilities. (3) Assistance in the development and delivery of customized, sustained technical

Page 25
assistance plans. (4) Joint training of school district staff and families in the use of supplementary aids
and services in regular education class for students with significant disabilities, including significant learning disabilities, retardation, autism, emotional disabilities, physical disabilities and multiple disabilities. (5) Assistance in developing collaborative teamwork in the provision of supplementary aids and services in regular education class to students with significant disabilities. (6) On-site technical assistance and consultation in response to requests from parents.
(7) Resources on inclusive and research based practices available to families via a website along with other resource materials.
(8) A minigrant program under which PDE would set aside money to make discretionary grants to fund school district initiatives that use training and technical assistance to overcome gaps in knowledge and skills identified by the assessment referred to in Section IV.2(L) of the Agreement. A school district would not be eligible to apply for or receive a minigrant until the district completed the assessment to identify gaps in knowledge and skills, thereby recognizing school district and parent commitment in exchange for additional resources.
(9) Collaboration with higher education to address student teaching, induction and mentoring processes that build capacity of each school or local educational

Page 26
agency and begins the development of a master teacher network to address ongoing needs for maintaining inclusion related programs. (10) Training in effective advocacy services for children with disabilities and their families.
IV.8. Advocacy (A) As part of their effort to promote the goal of providing trained, informed and effective advocacy support to parents on issues relating to the provision of specially designed instruction to students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment including the laws and regulations that govern the provision of special education services in the least restrictive environment, the plaintiffs have informed PDE of their intention to prepare a grant proposal and seek funding for a program or programs serving that purpose. If, during the life of the Settlement Agreement, plaintiffs’ counsel presents such a grant proposal to PDE for consideration in accordance with this paragraph, then PDE agrees to review the grant proposal. If PDE determines that the grant proposal is consistent with PDE obligations, priorities, and goals and does not jeopardize the likelihood of funding for or compete with PDE’s own grant proposals, then PDE will prepare a letter or other written communication supporting such grant proposal and will take such other reasonable steps to assist plaintiffs’ counsel in obtaining such grant as plaintiffs’ counsel will request. If, after review, PDE determines in good faith that the grant proposal is inconsistent with PDE obligations, priorities, and goals or would jeopardize the likelihood of funding for or compete with its own grant proposals, and that therefore it cannot support the grant proposal, then PDE will inform plaintiffs’ counsel in writing of its determination and the reasons therefor.

Page 27
IV.9. Financial Terms (A) The defendants will pay to the plaintiffs’ counsel, on behalf of the plaintiffs, the lump sum of three hundred fifty thousand dollars exactly ($350,000) in full, final, and complete settlement of all claims by the plaintiffs for compensatory damages. It will be the sole obligation of the plaintiffs to allocate and apportion that sum among themselves as they see fit. Except for the payment of the sum indicated in the first sentence of this paragraph, no plaintiff (individual or otherwise) will be entitled to any payment or other form of damages, whether legal or equitable. No plaintiff will have any claim whatsoever against the defendants individually or collectively arising out of the manner in which the lump-sum payment described in the first sentence of this paragraph is allocated or apportioned. (B) The defendants will pay to the plaintiffs’ counsel the lump sum of one million, eight hundred twenty-five thousand dollars exactly ($1,825,000) in full, final, and complete settlement of all claims by the plaintiffs or their attorneys for attorneys’ fees and litigation costs. It will be the sole obligation of the plaintiffs and their counsel to allocate and apportion that sum between attorneys’ fees and litigation costs as they see fit. No plaintiff will have any claim whatsoever against the defendants individually or collectively arising out of the manner in which the lumpsum payment described in the first sentence of this paragraph is allocated or apportioned. The amount paid under this paragraph and denominated by the plaintiffs and their counsel as attorneys’ fees will be the only attorneys’ fees payment the defendants will ever be required to make in connection with the Gaskin case, and the plaintiffs and their counsel by accepting that payment specifically and categorically waive forever their right to seek additional attorneys’ fees payments by any means, including (by way of illustration only and not by way of limitation) a

Page 28
fee petition to the Court or an action to recover fees already incurred or incurred in the future. The amount paid under this paragraph and denominated by the plaintiffs and their counsel as litigation costs will be the only payment for litigation costs that the defendants will ever be required to make in connection with the Gaskin case, and the plaintiffs and their counsel by accepting that payment specifically and categorically waive forever their right to seek additional payments for litigation costs by any means, including (by way of illustration only and not by way of limitation) an application to the Court for payment of a bill of costs or an action to recover costs now or in the future.
(C) The payments specified in Sections IV.9(A) and IV.9(B) of the Settlement Agreement will be due and owing to the plaintiffs and their counsel by no later than 120 days following the later of the following events: (1) the date upon which the Settlement Agreement is formally approved by the Court; (2) the date upon which the case is dismissed or otherwise ended by order of the Court as provided in Section IV.10 of the Settlement Agreement.
(D) It is expressly understood by the parties and their counsel that the payments specified in Sections IV.9(A) and IV.9(B) of the Settlement Agreement are the only payments to which the plaintiffs or the plaintiffs’ counsel will be entitled either under the Settlement Agreement or from any other source. The plaintiffs and their counsel specifically release the defendants, individually and collectively, and hold the defendants harmless from and against any claim for pecuniary relief in any form except for the payments specified in Sections IV.9(A) and IV.9(B) of the Settlement Agreement.
(E) The payments specified in Sections IV.9(A) and IV.9(B) of the Settlement Agreement are intended by the parties to constitute, and will be construed by the parties to

Page 29
constitute, consideration exchanged by the defendants for a full, final, and complete release of all claims that the plaintiffs asserted or could have asserted against any and all of the defendants arising out of or relating directly or indirectly to the causes of action asserted in Gaskin v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, No. 94-CV-4048 (E. D. Pa.).
IV.10. Enforcement and Other Terms (A) All parties will jointly move the Court for approval of the Settlement Agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) and will advocate in good faith for approval of the Settlement Agreement by the Court. Following the approval of the Settlement Agreement by the Court, it is the expectation of the parties that the Court will enter an order formally dismissing Gaskin. As of the date of that order, the Court shall relinquish jurisdiction over the case and the parties except as provided in Section IV.10(B) of the Settlement Agreement. (B) For a period commencing on the effective date of the Settlement Agreement and ending exactly five years later (that period to be referred to in the Settlement Agreement as the “life of the Settlement Agreement”), the Court shall retain jurisdiction for the sole purpose of enforcing the following covenants and undertakings agreed to by the parties: (1) In accordance with the schedule set forth in Section IV.10(B)(2) of the
Settlement Agreement, PDE will send the plaintiffs’ counsel written certifications stating either (a) that PDE is in compliance with all obligations and undertakings to which the defendants have committed by entering into the Settlement Agreement, or (b), if such is the case, that PDE is materially not in compliance with one or more specified obligations or undertakings. If the certification states that PDE is materially not in compliance with the Settlement

Page 30
Agreement in any respect, then the certification will provide specific details about each provision not materially complied with; the reason for noncompliance; PDE’s plan for coming into compliance; and PDE’s anticipated timetable for coming into compliance. (2) PDE’s certifications will be due in accordance with the following timetable: (a) The first certification will be due on the later of the following dates: (i)
December 31, 2005, or (ii) six months following the date on which the Court formally enters an order dismissing the Gaskin case. (b) The second certification will be due on the later of the following dates: (i) June 30, 2006, or (ii) twelve months following the date on which the Court formally enters an order dismissing the Gaskin case. (c) The third certification will be due on the later of the following dates: (i) December 31, 2006, or (ii) eighteen months following the date on which the Court formally enters an order dismissing the Gaskin case. (d) The fourth certification will be due on the later of the following dates: (i) June 30, 2007, or (ii) twenty-four months following the date on which the Court formally enters an order dismissing the Gaskin case. (e) The fifth certification will be due on the later of the following dates: (i) December 31, 2007, or (ii) thirty months following the date on which the Court formally enters an order dismissing the Gaskin case. (f) The sixth certification will be due on the later of the following dates: (i) June 30, 2008, or (ii) thirty-six months following the date on which the Court

Page 31
formally enters an order dismissing the Gaskin case. (g) The seventh certification will be due on the later of the following dates: (i)
June 30, 2009, or (ii) forty-eight months following the date on which the Court formally enters an order dismissing the Gaskin case. (h) The eighth and final certification will be due on the later of the following dates: (i) the date upon which the Settlement Agreement expires, or (ii) fiftynine months following the date on which the Court formally enters an order dismissing the Gaskin case. (3) Following receipt of certification, plaintiffs’ counsel will have thirty days to respond in writing. Should plaintiffs’ counsel not respond in writing within the thirty-day period, then plaintiffs’ counsel shall be estopped thereafter from seeking relief for any alleged material breach of the Settlement Agreement not identified as such in PDE’s certification. In its written response, plaintiffs’ counsel will identify any material breach not identified by PDE in the certification. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s failure to identify a material breach will thereafter estop plaintiffs’ counsel from seeking relief for such alleged material breach. (4) Should either PDE or plaintiffs’ counsel identify a material breach in the certification or the written response to the certification, then the parties will endeavor informally to agree on a course of action to remedy the breach. (5) Should the parties fail to reach resolution through informal means, then plaintiffs’ counsel will have the right to seek the appointment of a mediator to resolve the

Page 32
dispute. Plaintiffs’ counsel will seek in the first instance to engage the Honorable Louis Bechtle as mediator. If Judge Bechtle is unable or unwilling to mediate, then either (a) the parties will agree on an alternative mediator, or (b) each of the two sides (plaintiffs and defendants) will submit the name of one mediatorcandidate to the Court, who shall select one. The costs of mediation will be split on a fifty-percent-each basis by the parties, except that, should plaintiffs’ counsel seek mediation more than twice in any twelve-month period, then for that twelvemonth period the costs of the third and subsequent mediations will be borne 75 percent by plaintiffs’ counsel and 25 percent by PDE. (6) If a dispute is not successfully mediated, then either party will have the right to petition the Court to hear and resolve the dispute. The Court shall not entertain such a petition unless the parties have tried and failed to resolve the dispute through mediation as provided in Section IV.10(B)(5) of the Settlement Agreement. The parties agree not to apply to the Court for and not to seek by any other means reimbursement of attorneys’ fees or litigation costs associated with the resolution of disputes under Section IV.10(B) of the Settlement Agreement. (C) During the life of the Settlement Agreement, the parties agree that the dispute resolution mechanism provided in Section IV.10(B) of the Settlement Agreement shall be the exclusive and sole mechanism available to the parties for resolving any dispute whatsoever related to the terms of the Settlement Agreement or the obligations of the parties thereunder. Specifically but not by way of limitation, neither party shall file a separate action for breach of the Settlement Agreement nor seek through any other means not mutually acceptable to all

Page 33
parties to resolve disputes through the intercession of a court, arbitrator, or other third party. (D) It is agreed and understood by the parties that the Settlement Agreement is not a
consent decree, nor is it intended to be construed as such; nor will the Court’s approval of the Settlement Agreement convert the Settlement Agreement into an enforceable court order or consent decree. The Settlement Agreement does not operate and shall not be construed as an adjudication on the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims in Gaskin. The Settlement Agreement has no precedential value and may not be cited or relied upon by any person in any proceeding for any purpose. The Settlement Agreement represents the compromise of disputed claims, and nothing contained in the Settlement Agreement shall be construed as an admission of liability or wrongdoing by any party, any such liability or wrongdoing being hereby expressly denied.
(E) In consideration of the performance of PDE’s obligations under the Settlement Agreement, the plaintiffs, individually and collectively, hereby remise, release, and forever discharge each of the defendants and each defendant’s predecessors, successors, agents, employees, administrators, heirs, and assigns from all actions and causes of action, suits, grievances, debts, dues, accounts, bonds, covenants, contracts, agreements, judgments, claims and demands whatsoever in law or equity, known or unknown, foreseen or unforeseen, particularly those which were or could have been set forth in Gaskin v. Pennsylvania Department of Education, No. 94-CV-4048 (E.D. Pa.), or which any of the plaintiffs ever had or now has, or which that plaintiff’s heirs, executors, administrators, successors, attorneys, or assigns, or any of them hereafter can, shall, or may have, for or by reason of any cause, matter, or thing whatsoever arising out of or related to the claims brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants in the Gaskin case from the beginning of the world to the effective date of the

Page 34
Settlement Agreement; except that claims against a local school district in which that school district is not acting as PDE’s employee, assign or agent shall not be barred.
(F) The plaintiffs hereby warrant and represent that none of them has filed other charges, complaints, appeals, or other actions against any of the defendants or any PDE official, administrator, or staff, including but not limited to any charges filed with the USDOE, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and/or the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, related to the actions complained of in the Gaskin case; and that, if it is subsequently discovered that such charges, complaints, appeals, or other actions have in fact been filed or are pending, plaintiffs shall promptly dismiss, withdraw, or discontinue any and all such past or pending charges, complaints, appeals, or other actions.
(G) The Settlement Agreement contains the entire agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendants with regard to the matters set forth herein and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the executors, administrators, personal representatives, heirs, successors, attorneys, and assigns of all of them.
(H) In entering into the Settlement Agreement, the parties hereto represent that they have relied upon the legal advice of their attorneys; that the terms of the Settlement Agreement have been completely explained to them by their attorneys; and that those terms are fully understood and voluntarily accepted by them. Each party hereby represents that his, her or its attorney is authorized to execute the Settlement Agreement on the party’s behalf and in the party’s name.
(I) The Settlement Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Page 35
(J) When used in the Settlement Agreement, the term “plaintiffs’ counsel” refers to the counsel who represent the plaintiffs and plaintiff class members as of the effective date of the Settlement Agreement. Should new counsel replace plaintiffs’ counsel at any time subsequent to that date, it will be the plaintiffs’ obligation to notify PDE promptly by sending notice in accordance with Section IV.10(K) of the Settlement Agreement. The notice will include the name, mailing address, telephone number, and facsimile number of new counsel. Should the persons who serve currently as plaintiffs’ counsel ever be replaced by counsel who work at more than one law firm, organization, or address, then notice to one of plaintiffs’ counsel shall be deemed effective notice to all of plaintiffs’ counsel.
(K) All certifications, notices, and other written correspondence required by the Settlement Agreement to be sent by the plaintiffs or the plaintiffs’ counsel will be mailed by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to PDE at the following address:
Office of Chief Counsel Pennsylvania Department of Education 333 Market Street, 9th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17126-0333 The certifications required by Section IV.10(B)(1) of the Settlement Agreement to be sent by the defendants or the defendants’ counsel will be mailed by first-class mail, postage prepaid, to the plaintiffs’ counsel at the following address: Judith A. Gran Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia 125 South 9th Street, Suite 700 Philadelphia, PA 19107 (L) The Settlement Agreement may be executed in one or more identical counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one and the

Page 36
same instrument. Signed signature pages may be transmitted by facsimile, and any such signature shall have the same legal effect as an original.
(M) The effective date of the Settlement Agreement will be the date on which the Court formally enters an order dismissing and ending the Gaskin case. The Settlement Agreement will remain in effect until the fifth anniversary of the effective date of the Settlement Agreement, after which date it shall expire and shall no longer be enforceable by either party; except that, should any dispute subject to the dispute resolution mechanism established under Section IV.10(B) of the Settlement Agreement be pending and unresolved on the date on which the Settlement Agreement expires, the Court shall retain jurisdiction for the sole purpose of resolving that dispute.

For the Plaintiffs:
_________________________________ JUDITH A. GRAN

Date: _______________________

___________________________________ BARBARA E. RANSOM
Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia 125 South 9th St., Suite 700 Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 627-7100 ext. 225 (215) 627-3183 (FAX)

Date: ________________________

_________________________________

Date: ____________________________

JOSEPH J. GASKIN 426 Arch Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3776
For the Defendants:

Page 37

_________________________________ MARY PATRICIA FULLERTON Assistant Counsel Pennsylvania Department of Education 333 Market Street, 9th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17126-0333 (717) 787-5500 (717) 783-0347 (FAX)

Date: ____________________________

Page 38
EXHIBIT A

Page 39

TO: FROM: DATE: RE:

Pennsylvania School Administrators
Linda Rhen, D.Ed.
November 1, 2004
Least Restrictive Environment
The purpose of this memo is to clarify the difference between the least restrictive environment (LRE) requirement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and educational placement and caseload under Chapter 14 Special Education Regulations. This memorandum will provide guidance to local education agencies (LEAs) on the use of the LRE percentage reporting under IDEA versus the type of service (itinerant, resource, part time, full time) as listed under Chapter 14. They are not the same and there is no one to one correspondence between type of service and LRE.
Educational Placement (Type of Service)

The type of service refers to the service options and the amount of special education instruction received by the student, regardless of location. In addition, this section of the IEP requires IEP teams to specify the number of hours per week that the student receives special education services.

Examples: Educational Placement: Resource Room, Learning Support Number of hours per week the student receives special education services: 5 hours/week and speech ¾ hour/week

Educational Placement: Part-Time, Life-Skills Support Number of hours per week the student receives special education services: 28 hours/week, speech 1 hour/week, PT 30 minutes/week.

Penn Data Information (LRE Percentages) LRE percentages refer to the amount of time the student receives special education outside of the regular education classroom. It is literally the percentage of time the student is physically outside the general education classroom, not the amount of special education services and supports that the student receives as determined by the IEP team.

· How do I calculate LRE percentages? Take the total number of hours per week the student receives special education services outside of the regular education classroom, and you divide this number by the total number of hours per week the student is in school.

Page 40
Examples: 5 hours of special education per week are outside of the general education classroom/ 40 hours per week = 12%. Mark on the IEP: _____ "Less than 21% outside of the regular education classroom"
25 hours of special education services per week, of which 20 hours of supplementary support and services are in the regular education classroom. 5 hours of special education per week are outside of the general education classroom/ 40 hours per week = 12%. Mark on the IEP: _____ "Less than 21% outside of the regular education classroom"
25 hours of special education services per week, of which 5 are in the general education classroom and 20 are outside of the general education classroom. 20 hours of special education per week are outside of the general education classroom/40 hours per week = 50%. Mark on the IEP: _____ " 21% to 60% outside of the regular education classroom"
· When do I use the LRE percentages? LRE percentages are only to be used for students being educated in regular education buildings with non-disabled students. Statewide, this group represents approximately 96% of all students with IEPs.
Indicate on the IEP: (1) the amount of time in the percentages section, and (2) write the name of the school under Location.
· How do I report students not being educated in regular education buildings with nondisabled students? If the student is receiving special education in a location outside of a regular education building: (1) Write "N/A" in the percentages section, and (2) indicate the name of the "facility," "hospital" or write "instruction conducted in the student's home." See Annotated IEP for additional clarification (www.pattan.k12.pa.us)
· Is it appropriate to mark Resource Room if the LRE is equal to 21-60%? No. Once again, there is no correlation between Type of Service and LRE percentages. Make sure that all IEP teams in your LEA are not automatically and incorrectly assigning LRE based on Type of Service.
What about full time and >61%? No. A student may be receiving 100% of special education services in an

Page 41
inclusion setting, thus the LRE percentage is <21% outside general education (i.e., the student is not removed from the general education classroom).
It is very important for LEAs to appropriately determine, document, and report LRE percentages. Pennsylvania is selecting LEAs for monitoring based on LRE data which the LEA reports. Please take the time to ensure that what you report is accurate.
I hope this memorandum helps clarify the difference between LRE percentages and Type of Service. For addition information, please contact your BSE Point of Contact.

Page 42
EXHIBIT B

Page 43
VI. LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT (LRE)
EDUCATIONAL PLACEMENT (Type of Service, Type of Support, ex: Full-time learning support)
Annotation: VI. LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT Educational Placement: (Type of Service and Type of Support ex: Itinerant)
Type of Service: The type of service refers to the amount of special education instruction received by the student. The number of hours per week that the student receives special education services must be specified. The continuum of placements are described below. Wherever possible, special education services must be delivered and provided in the regular education environment:
1. Itinerant Regular education classroom instruction for most of the school day with special education services and programs provided by special education personnel inside or outside of the regular education class for part of the school day.
2. Resource Regular education classroom instruction for most of the school day, with special education services and programs provided by special education personnel in a resource classroom for part of the school day.
3. Part-time special education class in the regular school Special education services and programs are provided outside of the regular education classroom, but in a regular school for most of the school day, with some instruction provided in the regular education classroom for part of the school day.
· Full-time special education class Special education classes are provided for the entire school day, with opportunity for participation in non-academic and extra curricular activities to the maximum extent appropriate, which may be located in or outside of a regular school.
Type of Support: Students are assigned to type of support according to their learning needs and age. This support may differ from the disability category used for determination of eligibility. There are nine possible types of support: · Autistic Support · Blind or Visually Impaired Support · Deaf or Hard of Hearing Impaired Support · Emotional Support · Learning Support · Life Skills Support

Page 44
· Multiple Disabilities Support · Physical Support
- Speech and Language Support
The chronological age ranges of the students in each class must not exceed three years for grades K-6 and four years in grades 7-12. Exceptions may be made by the IEP team for an individual student based upon the student’s needs and must be justified in the IEP.
Examples: EDUCATIONAL PLACEMENT (Type of Service, Type of Support, e.g., Full time learning support)
Part time emotional support
Resource learning support
Itinerant speech and language support
Explanation of the extent, if any, the student will not participate with non-disabled children in the regular education class and in the general education curriculum:
Annotation: EXPLANATION OF THE EXTENT, IF ANY, THE STUDENT WILL NOT PARTICIPATE WITH NON-DISABLED CHILDREN IN THE REGULAR EDUCATION CLASS AND IN THE GENERAL EDUCATION CLASSROOM
The IEP must include an explanation and a description of those activities, if any, in which the student will not participate with non-disabled children within the regular education class and school activities. These required IEP statements should be based on current assessments and evaluations performed with full consideration of the least restrictive environment (LRE) intent, including the provision of the full range of supplemental aids and services within the regular education curriculum.
It is the responsibility of each public agency to ensure that to the maximum extent appropriate, students with disabilities, including those in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled. Special classes, separate schooling or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular education classes even with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

Page 45
QUESTIONS FOR IEP TEAM:
-What supplementary aids and services were considered? What supplementary aids and services were rejected? Explain why the supplementary aids and services will or will not enable the student to make progress on the goals and objectives (if applicable) in this IEP in the general education class.
-What benefits are provided in the regular education class with supplementary aids and services versus the benefits provided in the special education class?
-What potentially beneficial effects and/or harmful effects might be expected on the student with disabilities or the other students in the class, even with supplementary aids and services?
-To what extent, if any, will the student participate with nondisabled peers in extracurricular activities or other nonacademic activities?
Number of hours per week the student receives special education services outside of regular education classroom: _________________ Number of hours per week the student receives special education services in regular education classroom: _________________
Annotation: Number of hours per week the student receives special education services. The school district is required to list the number of hours per week of special education services.
Examples: Resource room learning support 5 hours/week and speech ¾ hour/week
Multiple disabilities support 35 hours/week, PT 1 hour/week, OT ½ hour/week, speech ½ hour/week,
Itinerant learning support 5 hours/week
PENN DATA INFORMATION Percentage of time the student receives special education outside of the regular education classroom (Example: If the number of hours student receives special education outside of regular education classroom per week = 5 hours and the total number of hours of education per week = 40 hours, then calculate 5/40=12%. Check less than 21% outside of the regular education classroom):
_____ Less than 21% outside of the regular education classroom
_____ 21-60% outside of the regular education classroom
_____ 61% or more outside of the regular education classroom
Location: ___________________________________________________

Page 46
Annotation: Percentage of time the student receives special education outside the regular education classroom This section applies to students with disabilities receiving special education outside their regular education classroom in regular schools with non-disabled students.
The IEP team calculates the percentage of time the student receives special education outside the regular education classroom and indicates one of the following:
_____ Less than 21% outside of the regular education classroom
_____ 21-60% outside of the regular education classroom
_____ 61% or more outside of the regular education classroom
Examples: If the number of hours a student receives special education outside of regular education classroom per week = 5 hours and the total number of hours of education per week = 40 hours, then calculate 5/40=12%. Check less than 21% outside of the regular education classroom.
25 hours of special education services per week, of which 20 hours of supplementary support and services are in the regular education classroom. 5 hours of special education per week are outside of the general education classroom/ 40 hours per week = 12%. Mark on the IEP:
_____ "Less than 21% outside of the regular education classroom"
25 hours of special education services per week, of which 5 are in the general education classroom and 20 are outside the general education classroom. 20 hours of special education per week are outside of the general education classroom/40 hours per week = 50%. Mark on the IEP:
_____ " 21% to 60% outside of the regular education classroom"
The information on percentage of time the student receives special education outside of the regular education classroom should be listed on PennData.
Annotation: Location The information on location should be listed on PennData.
If the student is receiving special education in a regular building with non-disabled peers (1) indicate the percentage of time in the previous section, and (2) write the name of the school here.
If the student is receiving special education in one of the locations below: (1) Write "N/A" in the previous section (percentages), and (2) indicate the name of the "facility," "hospital" or write "instruction conducted in the student's home.”
-Approved Private School (Non Residential) -Approved Private School (Residential) -Public Separate Facility (Non Residential), e.g., Special education center

Page 47

 
 BROKEN PROMISE FINAL REPORT OF THE BUREAU DIRECTOR’S ADVISORY PANEL ON LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT FOLLOWING GASKIN V. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
SEPTEMBER, 2005—JUNE, 2010
Prepared by Martin Elks, Ph.D.
Panel Chair
June 3, 2010

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
CONTENTS

Preface

3

Introduction

4

Implementation Findings

IV.1 Policy Development and Implementation

5

IV.2 Advisory Panel

9

IV.3 IEP Format

17

IV.4 Compliance Monitoring

19

IV.5 Complaint Resolution

32

IV.6 Plan Approval

32

IV.7 Training

33

IV.8 Advocacy

38

IV.9 Financial Terms

39

IV.10 Enforcement and Other Terms

39

Conclusion

40

Figure

Number of Improvement Plan Activities by Theme

47

Table 1

Contrast Between PDE and Panel Regarding

LRE Monitoring

48

Table 2

Levels of Implementation of Settlement Agreement

49

Table 3

Contrast Between Panel Priorities and PDE Initiatives

50

Table 4

Disability Category Child Count, December 1, 2009

51

Table 5

Tier 1 School Districts, 2005-2009

52

Appendix 1 Recommendations Made at June, 3, 2010 Panel Meeting 57

Appendix 2 Statistical Summary of LRE in Pennsylvania

58

2

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
PREFACE Sixteen years is a long time. On June 30, 1994, Lydia Gaskin and eleven other students filed a federal lawsuit in which their parents alleged that the Pennsylvania Department of Education was violating their right to a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). Eleven years later this class action lawsuit was concluded in a Settlement Agreement (SA). This SA represented an agreement on behalf of PDE to implement a set of provisions designed to increase the number of students included in regular education classrooms and the benefit they received from education in the least restrictive environment in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania has therefore, from 1994 to 2010, been dealing with the issue of LRE for students with disabilities, first in litigation and then through a settlement agreement. In 2009 there were 264,409 children with disabilities receiving special education in Pennsylvania (www.penndata.hbg.psu.edu). This lawsuit, spanning 16 years, has therefore covered the entire school careers of many thousands of students with disabilities. For example, this report writer’s daughter, who has Down Syndrome, was in pre-school when this lawsuit began. She is now a high school senior. In fact, taken together, 3.84 million student IEP years have been completed under the time span of this lawsuit, 1.2 million student IEP years have passed just in the time of the SA. The implementation of this SA was therefore a large undertaking and an even bigger responsibility. The SA embodied a vision for change in Pennsylvania that affected thousands of students and their families. PDE agreed to implement the provisions of this SA to achieve the promise of more inclusive education in Pennsylvania. This promise has not been realized. Not only was the implementation of the SA minimal or absent in many key provisions but several groups of students show little if any change in LRE during the life of the SA. This report could have been a celebration. Instead, it is a metaphor of what is wrong in Pennsylvania with education in the least restrictive environment for students with disabilities.
3

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
INTRODUCTION
"The department of Education is committed to fulfilling the terms of the agreement and is pleased to put more than 11 years of litigation behind and move forward for the sake of the affected children and their families." Abe Amoros, Department spokesperson, September, 2005
On September 19, 2005, Judge Eduardo Robreno of the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania granted the motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement in Gaskin v. Pennsylvania, ending 11 years of litigation regarding the education of students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment with supplementary aids and services in their neighborhood schools. Among the 50+ provisions of the Settlement Agreement, were those that addressed the establishment, composition, and function of the Bureau Director’s Advisory Panel on Least Restrictive Environment. In addition to other enumerated roles, Settlement Agreement provision IV.2(A) states that "The purpose of the Advisory Panel will be....to analyze and report periodically on the status of implementation of this agreement and to advise PDE on implementation." The report that follows is the Panel’s third and final report and it represents the Panel’s fulfillment of this obligation to the Pennsylvania Department of Education, the named individuals and organizational plaintiffs.
The report and reported areas of emphasis are best viewed in totality in that the whole may be worth more than the sum of its parts as it provides both details on implementation of specific provisions as well as a large-scale picture of LRE activities to date. Any meaningful efforts to effect durable systems change, even beyond the life of the Settlement Agreement, will appreciate the critical address of both micro and macro issues.
The Bureau of Special Education was given drafts of this report. No comments were received by the panel from the Bureau of Special Education for this report or previous implementation reports (June 27, 2007 & July 15, 2009).
This final report was adopted by the panel by majority vote on June 3, 2010, in Harrisburg.
Additional reports, meeting notes and other information may be found at http://disabilities.temple.edu/programs/lre
4

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
FINDINGS The least amount of integration spread over the longest period of time.
School Board, Little Rock, AR, September, 1957
Our findings relating to specific sections of the Settlement Agreement are presented below.
IV.1. Policy Development and Implementation
(A) PDE will require school districts to adhere to the requirements of the IDEA and case law, including Oberti v. Board of Education, 995 F.2d 1204 (3d Cir. 1993), when making placement decisions, including the following: (1) Students may not be removed from regular education classrooms merely because of the severity of their disabilities. (2) When students with disabilities, including students with significant cognitive disabilities, need specially designed instruction or other supplementary aids and services to benefit from participating in regular education classrooms, school districts have an obligation to ensure that those services are provided. (3) Students’ IEP teams must determine whether the goals in the student’s IEP can be implemented in regular education classrooms with supplementary aids and services before considering removal from the regular education classroom environment. (4) School districts will consider the full range of supplementary aids and services in regular education classrooms, based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable, including modification of curriculum content, before contemplating removal.
This provision was not met.
There is insufficient evidence available to the Panel to substantiate that PDE is requiring school districts to adhere to the requirements of IDEA and case law, including Oberti, when making placement decisions. For example, The Capital Area IU (IU 15) erected a large new facility for the IU to lease that significantly increases the classroom capacity for segregated educational placements in the CAIU service area. This much larger facility was erected and leased despite the CAIU executive director’s claims that there is only an average 0.7% placement rate in other settings for school districts in the service area. This larger capacity building was reported to BSE in the CAIU’s special education plan of May 2007 and approved by BSE staff. Increasing capacity prior to any expressed need from participating school districts that results from correctly completing student’s IEPs in accordance with Oberti is alarming.
During a review of initial IEPs the panel analyzed use of assistive technology and positive behavior supports. Some concerns from this review of the IEP sample are that assistive technology is not understood and used effectively as a supplementary aid and service to support students in general education classrooms. Other issues include the absence of effective positive behavior support and/or assistive technology even in cases where the team has identified the need for assistive technology and/or positive behavior support in the special considerations section of the IEP.
5

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
Our review of the use and provision of positive behavior supports to meet the needs of students in general education classrooms shows inconsistency, incompleteness and ineffectiveness.
One positive development from the SA was the development of a Supplementary Aids and Services (SAS) Toolkit that was endorsed by the panel. The panel has recommended that it be used by all IEP teams to facilitate consideration of SAS prior to the team making a placement decision. To date the panel has not received a report on progress in implementation of the SAS Toolkit.
The Department proposed amendments to Chapter 14 to incorporate Oberti language. Chapter 14 was amended on June 27, 2008. Chapter 14 training to all LEA’s has been started and will include the Oberti language. This is also a positive development. The LRE Basic Education Circular was also updated 10/1/06 with panel input.
However, the overriding issue with this provision is the issue of “requirement.” PDE has shown that it is willing to require that SDs document that they have considered the least restrictive environment but does not necessarily investigate the quality of this consideration. PDE regards the IEP team’s statement of consideration to be adequate. We therefore cannot report that this provision has been met since we interpret the SA as indicating that requiring adherence is more that requiring consideration.
(B) Where services from other Commonwealth or private agencies are required in order to provide a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment, the services will be provided, coordinated, and paid in accordance with the interagency coordination Memorandum of Understanding entered into among PDE, the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, and the Pennsylvania Department of Health.
This provision was not met.
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), a mechanism for resolving interagency disputes, pre-dates the SA and continues to be used to resolve disputes. Copies of MOU dispute resolution opinions were requested by the panel and were posted on the Moodle (an electronic “blackboard”) on 12/14/2007.
Despite the information posted on the Moodle, the AP feels more specific information must be presented to meet this obligation. Information provided was limited to a very brief report regarding very limited use of the Memorandum of Understanding. The report of use of the MOU was limited to two cases, both involving situations with more segregated settings.
Data reviewed revealed that 20.3% of children classified as emotionally disturbed are served in locations other than the regular neighborhood school. An additional 28.2% spend more than 61% of the day outside the regular education classroom. Related services data for students with emotional support needs indicated that: only 6.3% of children with emotional support needs receive psychological services; at most, 15.5% receive counseling services; and, at most, 22.8% have a behavior intervention plan.
6

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
Of the 134 districts serving 50 or more children identified with emotional support needs, 60 report that five or less students receive psychological services, counseling services, or a behavior intervention plan.
The Panel is unaware of the extent to which the services of other Commonwealth or private agencies are coordinated and paid for in accordance with the MOU. Indications are that these agency services are more often provided in restrictive settings rather than as a support within inclusive educational settings.
In June, 2006, the Panel advised PDE to formulate a capacity-building plan relevant to the provision of Functional Behavior Assessments (FBAs) and other evidence-based behavior interventions and supports for students with disabilities who exhibit behavior that impedes learning. More specifically, the Panel advised that PDE provide outreach to schools that results in a greater proportion of students receiving emotional support having access to necessary FBA and Behavior Intervention Plans and other evidencebased behavior interventions, including counseling and related services, necessary to derive reasonable educational benefit from their IEPs within the LRE. The Panel has not received further information on this advice.
(C) Special education students who are entitled to gifted support or Chapter 15 accommodations will have a single individualized education plan (“single plan”) incorporating all specially designed instruction, accommodations or other support identified by the IEP team. The Advisory Panel may review PDE policy and make recommendations to the Bureau Director for changes that clarify PDE policy related to the use of a single plan.
This provision was met.
PDE included the following paragraph in its Basic Education Circular on Least Restrictive Environment: “Additionally, PDE policy on educational placement requires that special education students who are also entitled to gifted support under Chapter 16, Special Education for Gifted Students, have a single individualized education plan incorporating all specially designed instruction, accommodations or other support identified by the IEP team.”
The panel made suggestions with regard to the “single plan” via panel member participation in a workgroup meeting with stakeholders in 2006. The panel gave input on the forms and formats that were posted on the web from 3/14/2008- 4/11/2008. Panel Input was sent by the LRE Committee Chair on 3/10/08. PDE has incorporated policy related to the single plan into the IEP documents. These documents have been shared with school districts and were to be used starting in the 08-09 school year. Additionally, a fact sheet Gaskin Settlement Agreement Overview was issued in January, 2007. LRE, BEC, and Fact Sheets formally supported by the panel remain in place.
In June, 2006, an Advisory Panel member participated in a PDE workgroup on “Single Plan’ policy and practice. In September, 2006, the Panel requested that PDE include that member in the design of a single plan annotated IEP format and share drafts with
7

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
the Policy and Compliance Committee, while also requesting that PDE share a summary of pilot monitoring for Gifted IEPs. To date, there has been no substantive update from PDE in response to these requests. PDE has provided no updates with regard to a pilot monitoring for Gifted IEPs. Also, the panel does not know how the documents are being shared with the district or if there is staff training for Gifted IEPs.
(D) PDE, with input from the Advisory Panel, will design and make available to parents of children with significant disabilities information about supplementary aids and services that children with disabilities can receive in regular education classrooms and information about how to seek assistance in obtaining such supplementary aids and services. The information will be supplied to parents via mechanisms such as distribution by school districts, PennLink, or the PDE website.
This provision was met.
A fact sheet on supplementary aids and services was developed with Panel input and is available on the web. There is little evidence to suggest that this information was distributed to parents through school districts. Further, parents do not typically receive information via PennLink. The information has been made available electronically to parents via the PDE and Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network (PaTTAN) websites. It is unclear as to how many parents have accessed the information through these venues.
PDE co-sponsored the PEAL Center Conference on Inclusive Education in March, 2007, and funded parent training sessions in the fall/winter of 07/08. PDE also conducted sessions on supplementary aids and services at the annual Department’s Bureau of Special Education conference in March, 2007, February 2008, and the spring of 2009. C2P2 trainings through Temple University were funded for the 200506, 2006-07, 2007-2008 school years. PDE stated that these trainings, which focus on parent training and information dissemination, will continue throughout the life of the Settlement Agreement. However, PDE did not fund Competence and Confidence: Partners in Policymaking (C2P2) or the Arcadia summer institute for 2009-10 stating that these funds had been shifted to the Include Me From the Start initiative, a training and technical assistance initiative to include children with disabilities in Kindergarten and 1st grade.
To date, it is unclear as to the outcomes and impact of these trainings.
The Supplementary Aids and Services Toolkit (SAS Toolkit) was developed with input from the AP, and workshops for parents are being provided in collaboration with PEAL and other entities. There will be a minimum of three workshops per year in various locations. Additionally, the Training and Technical Assistance fact sheet is being updated and revised specifically for parents.
PDE instigated an initiative in September 2009 to develop a parent information booklet. Progress on this initiative is still very preliminary at the time of writing.
8

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
(E) PDE, with input from the Advisory Panel, will design and distribute to school districts materials for display in school buildings that make it clear that all children, including those with disabilities, are welcome.
This provision was met.
Two posters and accompanying materials, one for elementary level and one for secondary level, were developed, printed and distributed to school districts (1 for each school in the district). The Training and Technical Assistance Committee of the AP and the full Panel were consulted in the design and choice of final selected materials. Welcome materials were mailed in September of 2007. PDE issued a PennLink on October 23, 2007 reminding districts of the availability of posters and materials. Additional copies of the posters were distributed in response to requests from September 2007 through January 2008. Twelve hundred eighty-two additional Elementary posters were requested and distributed. Four hundred seventy-one additional Elementary Spanish posters were requested and distributed. One thousand ten additional Secondary English posters were requested and distributed. Three hundred forty-five additional Secondary Spanish posters were distributed. The posters continue to be available to schools at no charge.
The welcome packet accompanying the posters included lesson plans (grade K-8, and 6-12) and supplementary materials. From September 2007 through January 2008, twenty-four hundred forty-nine additional copies of the welcome packet were distributed in response to requests. The welcome packet continues to be available electronically and in hard copy at no charge. A letter from Dr. Gerald L. Zahorchak, Secretary of Education, addressed to the superintendent of each school district was included in the packet. The panel has endorsed the welcome packet.
It remains widely reported however, that these posters are not prominently displayed in all of Pennsylvania schools. It has also been reported that when parents/advocates ask about the posters and/or welcome packets and materials, the school staff are unaware as to what the parent/advocate is referring – this is happening across Pennsylvania and not just in one region.
IV.2. Advisory Panel
(A) PDE will establish the “Bureau Director’s Advisory Panel on Least Restrictive Environment Practices” (the Advisory Panel), a special advisory group to the Bureau Director. The purpose of the Advisory Panel will be to review system-wide progress in the delivery of individualized specially designed instruction in regular education classrooms to students with disabilities in Pennsylvania, to analyze and report periodically on the status of implementation of this agreement, and to advise PDE on implementation.
This provision was met.
The Advisory Panel (AP) has met quarterly with an additional organizational meeting on January 29, 2006 and a PATH facilitation on March 5, 2007. The AP provides advice, analysis, reports and recommendations at each meeting. Panel meetings
9

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
have typically been held in the Harrisburg area. The September 2007 meeting was held in Pittsburgh at the request of the panel. There have been conference calls between quarterly meetings where the full AP has had opportunity to attend. This has given the panel the opportunity to function between meetings when appropriate. There have also been occurrences when teleconferencing has been provided by the plaintiffs. Since January, 2009, the panel has been meeting monthly via teleconference. In addition to full AP meetings, subcommittees have met to discuss various issues and reported to the full AP.
PDE has also made staff available, and arranged for conference calls with other PDE Department leaders at times outside the scheduled panel meetings e.g., phone call with Maureen Cronin from PDE.
(B) The Advisory Panel will consist of fifteen members, at least nine of whom will be parents of children with disabilities who are not employed by PDE or by any school district or other local educational agency in Pennsylvania. During the life of the Settlement Agreement, the members will be selected annually as follows: (1) Twelve members will be selected by the organizational plaintiffs, as provided in Section IV.2(B)(5) of the Settlement Agreement. (2) Three members will be selected by the Bureau Director. (3) All members will serve for terms of one year, and will be eligible for reappointment to additional terms up to a maximum of five terms in succession. (4) The membership of the Advisory Panel will be representative of the population of children served in special education in Pennsylvania with respect to race, ethnicity, cultural characteristics, geography, and age. (5) The organizational plaintiffs will be responsible jointly for selecting twelve members of the Advisory Panel. These members will include persons with recognized expertise in research and practices related to the provision of a free appropriate public education to children with disabilities in the least restrictive environment. The names of the organizational plaintiffs’ initial representatives will be forwarded to the Bureau Director by no later than the sixtieth day following the effective date of the Settlement Agreement, and by no later than March 31 of succeeding calendar years during the life of the Settlement Agreement. (6) In the event of a vacancy, the party or parties who selected the member will designate a replacement.
This provision was met.
The panel’s membership has met these requirements and was appointed as outlined in the SA except that three positions were unfulfilled for 2008 due to difficulty recruiting potential members. A total of 34 members (including two alternates) served on the panel over the life of the SA. Names of panel members are as follows.
10

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report

Reggie Bonfield (PDE nomination) Kathy Brill Diane Bryen Jeff Champagne (PDE nomintion) Margeret Drayden Martin Elks Joseph Gaskin Michael Glass Amy Goldman Elizabeth Hemmings Carol Hemmingway and Stephanie TrottBatipps (alternate) Sarah Holland Paulette Hunter Jill Hrinda-Patten Sherry Kidd Tim Knoster

Linda Lengyel Sallie Lynagh Michelle McCollin Bernard Miller (PDE nomination) Thomas Neuville Emilio Pacheco Pina Rahill Linda Stengle Susan Tachau Cathy Taschner and Kim Donahue (alternate) (PDE nominations) Lisa Tessler Nicole Turman Gail Walker Shelby Walker Ned Whitehead Nancy Wintering

(C) Advisory Panel members will receive reimbursement at Commonwealth rates for their travel costs to participate in the work of the Advisory Panel.
This provision was met.
PDE has reimbursed Advisory Panel members for their travel costs at the Commonwealth rate.
(D) The initial meeting of the Advisory Panel will be held no later than ninety days following receipt by PDE of the names of the organizational plaintiffs’ twelve initial nominees.
This provision was met.
The initial meeting of the Panel was held December 14 & 15, 2006 which was within the ninety day window of February 16, 2006.

(E) The Advisory Panel will meet quarterly to review and evaluate all relevant data on system-wide progress in implementation of all components of the Settlement Agreement and to make recommendations for continued progress.
This provision was minimally met.
As mentioned above, the panel has met quarterly and made many recommendations to the Bureau. However, this provision was minimally met because the requirement to review and evaluate “all relevant data on system-wide progress in implementation of all components” has not been met due to PDE’s difficulty and/or (in some instances)
11

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
refusal to provide requested data. Two outstanding data requests are for additional IEPs and for reports of complaint.
(F) The Advisory Panel will develop a committee structure to facilitate the effective performance of its work.
This provision was met.
The Panel developed a structure comprised of the following committees: (1) Executive, (2) Inclusive Practices, (3) Policy and Compliance, and (4) Training and Technical Assistance.
(G) The Advisory Panel will select from among its members a Chair and a Vice Chair. The Advisory Panel will develop its own operating rules and procedures (which will be consistent with state law and PDE policies applicable to the deliberations of advisory panels), designate the committees it considers necessary to its effective operation, and appoint Advisory Panel members to committees.
This provision was met.
The following panel members served as chairs to the Panel: Joseph Gaskin, Sally Lynagh, Cathy Taschner and Martin Elks. The panel’s operating rules were developed in the first year (2005-06).
(H) PDE will make data available to assist the Advisory Panel in assessing the efforts of school districts and other programs in assuring a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment for schoolchildren with disabilities. The Advisory Panel will review samples of student IEPs to determine whether school district staff understand and are following the policies on compliance monitoring set forth in Section IV.4 of the Settlement Agreement.
This provision was minimally met.
As mentioned above, the issue of providing data has been problematic for the life of this Settlement Agreement. PDE’s response to data requests by the panel was to create a “user-friendly” data request form that may only be completed by the panel or committee chair and that requires, among other things, to state “the specific component (paragraph and language) of the settlement agreement that requires PDE to respond to this request” [emphasis added]. Thus, the general provisions for data provision outlined above are not sufficient to request data, PDE requires in addition, the specific provision within the SA implying that PDE will not provide data unless it is specifically required by the SA. The form also stated that requests had to identify what data source we were expecting PDE to use to respond to the request.
Development of a data request form was perhaps understandable if PDE was being flooded with obscure and unreasonable data requests by panel members. This has was not the case however. Data requests have been clearly based on monitoring concerns relating to implementation of the SA.
12

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
On June 4, 2007, the executive committee of the advisory panel informed Mr. Tommasini, Director of the Bureau of Special Education that we disagreed that (a) the panel must invariably cite a SA reference more specific than the general provisions listed on the form, (b) that panel members are not required to have knowledge of data sources beyond PennData that only those working within PDE would possess, (c) no other advisory panel we know of is required to comply with such a procedure and (d) the requirements contradict the provision that the advisory panel develop its own operating rules and procedures. The communication concluded with a statement that we are willing to work with PDE to develop a mutually acceptable process. There has been no response to this communication.
Outstanding unfulfilled data requests include: • Sample IEPs • Data for students with specific disability categories (and placement and related services) by school district • List of districts by phase of special education and strategic plan submission • Mini-grant recipients “exit” reports for 2005-06 implementation • Raw data from needs assessments • Complaint investigation reports
Finally, we recommended that the Bureau conduct its own identification, analysis and definition of the key data elements it believes would meet the requirement to evaluate all relevant data on a system-wide progress in implementing all components of the SA. A quarterly “Comprehensive Data-Based Summary Report of LRE in PA” would be an excellent document to provide to the panel for review. In September, 2009, PDE developed an initiative that was responsive to this recommendation relating to a comprehensive data-based summary. The panel gave advice as to content and format as requested. However, this initiative, coming in the final months of the Settlement Agreement, was not completed at the time of this final report.
The Panel has however, been able to access data including the following: • Neighborhood schools LRE data for first-grade • Single plan data (gifted students with IEPs) • LRE data by school district • LRE data for Tier 1 school districts (2005-6 and 2006-07 and 2007-08) • Student LRE placement over time by disability • Professional development provided to districts identified as Tier 1 and 2 over the past three years, and • One sample of IEPs for analysis
One set of data PDE initially refused to provide the panel was the data from the school level self-assessments of their need for LRE training. It was not until the matter was raised in mediation and concluded after two years of formal mediation meetings between the plaintiffs and PDE that these data was provided.
It is also important to report that when data is provided it is often in a very userunfriendly format with little or no analysis e.g., hundreds of raw numbers or percentages. For example, the data provided on changes in LRE percentages for Tier
13

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
1 school districts—which is a key indicator of progress as a result of this agreement— was provided in five pages of columns containing 2,240 percentages (20 school districts x 14 disability groups x 4 placement levels x 2 years). No analysis was provided by PDE and when asked at a panel meeting whether LRE was improving in Tier 1 schools we were told that “improvement is occurring” and to look at these data on the Moodle.
When the panel requested data on LRE by disability over time in Pennsylvania we were asked to provide model graphs to PDE. It is surprising that a Department of Education that handles vast amounts of data and had staff dedicated to data analysis and display has to ask the panel how to graph key LRE data.
The issue regarding review of IEPs has never been resolved. Recognizing that there are over 250,000 active IEPs in Pennsylvania at any one time, the panel requested that it begin with a small manageable but meaningful sample of IEPs. Accordingly, it requested that each Year One Tier One school district provide two consecutive redacted IEPs representing their best examples of LRE. One IEP should be from 2005-06 and one should be from 2006-07. Each consecutive IEP should be of the same student. The student chosen should be a student with a cognitive disability (e.g., intellectual disability). This would provide a total of 40 IEPs (two from each of 20 students) and be a useful sample from which to make further recommendations for IEP review by the Panel.
Without any discussion, PDE responded to our request by supplying a one time only single stratified random sample of 51 redacted IEPs. Such a sample is too small to be considered representative of the population of IEPs in Pennsylvania and therefore any conclusions made from the sample could not be generalized across all IEPs in Pennsylvania. In fact, the sample is so small that it’s utility lies largely in provided a pilot sample for developing review formats for future samples of IEPs.
Despite the limitations of sample, the panel conducted a review of the IEP’s and found the following:
1) That these IEP's were not developed in compliance with the requirements of the Oberti decision or Congress' strong preference for inclusive education as defined in the IDEA, and
2) It is evident that more segregated placements were often determined based on the student's disability. For example:
• Due to the nature and the severity of his disability, in addition to the extent and degree of the needed accommodations and assistance, _______ does not presently participate in the general education curriculum, _______ requires modifications in all curricular areas and functional daily routines." Placement: Approved Private School (Nonresidential)
• ______ emotional and behavioral difficulties prevent him from gaining maximal benefits from instruction in the regular education setting at this
14

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
time. Therefore, it is recommended that he receives instruction in a highly structured, more individualized setting that includes a behavioral management program to address his needs." Placement: Approved Private School (Non-residential)
The panel also requested IEPs from the same students identified in the first sample of 51 IEPs in order to review any changes in IEPs that may be attributable to the impact of this SA. PDE however, refused to provide these IEPs stating that they had fulfilled their obligations to the SA with the one-time sample of 51 IEPs. Changes in the consideration and provision of LRE in these 53 students would have been powerful information as to the impact of this Settlement Agreement.
Finally, PDE does not report data cells including ten or fewer students or 10 or less percent citing federal confidentiality requirements. However, there is no 10 student threshold in the SA and, as will be discussed with Corrective Action Plans below, this threshold defeats the purpose of data since few conclusions may be drawn from blank data cells. The panel believes that a threshold of “10” is a convention and not mandatory and that perhaps other ways could have been used to provide the necessary information in a confidential manner to the panel.
(I) Data made available to the Advisory Panel will include the number of special education students in each school district who begin first grade outside the regular education classroom in their neighborhood schools.
This provision was not met.
Data for first graders educated in settings outside of regular schools has been made available to the Panel and the public. Data reflecting first graders in and out of their neighborhood schools has been provided to the extent available. However, PDE chose to interpret this provision as showing percentages of first grade students attending their neighborhood schools by intermediate unit not classroom. The SA asked for data for first grade students outside the regular education classroom not outside the neighborhood school. This is not responsive to this requirement of the Settlement Agreement "Outside of the regular schools" is not the same as "outside of regular class."
Moreover, the provision of the data according to Intermediate Unit is not helpful since it introduces an additional level of complexity in making sense of these data which is simply asking how many students with disabilities are being included in regular education in first grade.
(J) Data provided to the Advisory Panel will be in a form that complies with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (1996); the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; IDEA; and other applicable federal and state privacy laws.
This requirement has been met.
15

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
Student level data is redacted before data is provided to panel. Data provided consists of aggregate school district, region, and/or statewide data.
(K) The Bureau will provide a reasonable level of support, including staff support, to the Advisory Panel consistent with PDE’s budgetary resources and as determined by the Bureau Director.
This provision was partially met.
Documents are duplicated and distributed among panel members. Committees hold conference calls at PDE expense. Support has been provided to panel members in terms of conference calls, accommodation and meals at quarterly meetings, requests to obtain rooms for committee meetings prior to panel meetings, and the continued support of a facilitator at panel meetings and prior to panel meetings.
However, a request for travel support for stakeholders who are family members of people with disabilities or persons with disabilities who worked on committees and sub-committees was denied. Requests for documents in alternative formats (one panel member has a visual impairment) were not consistently addressed. In addition, PDE did not participate in the June, 2009 quarterly meeting either in person of by way of written report.
(L) The Advisory Panel will assist in the design of an assessment of the needs of school district and intermediate unit personnel in research-based practices and the provision of supplementary aids and services in regular education classes. The needs assessment will evaluate actual practice in districts against standards for good practice in the field.
This provision was met.
Members of the Training and Technical Assistance Committee contributed input to the Needs Assessment (building level) prior to its pilot in nine districts in October, 2006. In December and January, 2006 the Panel had an opportunity to provide input to the Needs Assessment at the district level. The needs assessment was finalized in March 2007. Training for Intermediate Unit Training and Consultation Staff and BSE personnel on the District Level Needs Assessment occurred in March, 2007.
The needs assessment is being used by districts identified as having systemic LRE compliance issues. Additionally, all districts that applied for inclusive practices minigrants were required to use the needs assessment. As of 2/29/08, 55 districts have completed the district level needs assessment. A detailed report of districts and schools that completed needs assessment as of 2/29/2008 was provided to the panel in March, 2008. It should be noted that the panel has asked to see the raw data from the needs assessment but this request has been denied.
In addition to evaluating practices at the district level, the Inclusive Practices Evidenced based self-assessment includes a component to assess practices at the
16

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
school building level. As of August 31, 2009, 340 schools have completed this component. However, the panel cannot draw any conclusions from these data since it did not have access to the raw-data from the self-assessments during this time period.
Beginning 07-08 LRE monitoring, Tier 1 SDs completed the District Level needs assessment. As of August 31, 2009, the District Level Needs Assessment has been completed in 221 SDs.
The panel has fully endorsed the needs assessment. In fact, the TTA committee of the panel has requested that the needs assessment be given to all schools. This was endorsed by the panel, but has yet to occur.
(M) The Advisory Panel will assist the Bureau Director in identifying school districts in Pennsylvania that have developed exemplary programs and practices in the area of education in the least restrictive environment, recognize these districts through awards, and assist them in developing materials for dissemination that will assist other districts in replication of their work.
This provision was minimally met.
PDE sought and received nominations of exemplary programs. This was done with input from the panel as well as with input from Dr. Graciela Slesaransky-Poe of Arcadia University. Dr. Slesaransky-Poe also assisted in developing a validation protocol, and in training reviewers for validating exemplary programs.
An outline of the proposed process was shared with the panel in March 2008. Only five exemplary programs were identified by September, 2009, one year prior to the end of the Settlement Agreement.
IV. 3. IEP Format
(A) PDE will continue to provide an Annotated IEP Format to guide school districts in developing IEPs.
This provision was met.
PDE continues to provide an Annotated IEP Format.
(B) By no later than December 31, 2005, PDE will modify the LRE portion of the Annotated IEP Format as agreed to by the parties. A copy of the modified text is attached to the Settlement Agreement and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A. The same modification will be incorporated into the IEP Format at the same time.
This provision was met.
The IEP format and annotated format modifications were completed March 31,2006. It is available in Spanish and English versions. Panel input was sought and given. Additional language from the annotated IEP modification supplements the IEP format.
17

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
A PennLink regarding the IEP supplement was issued in January 2008. School Districts were notified that the changes were effective February 1,2008. The IEP supplement has been incorporated into the IEP format as of July 1, 2008.
However, the Advisory Panel has requested but has not seen or reviewed an IEP format for 3-5 year olds.
(C) For a period of three years commencing on the effective date of the Settlement Agreement, PDE will not make other modifications to the LRE portion of the Annotated IEP Format or IEP except with the consent of the plaintiffs; except that, should modification be required by changes in applicable federal statutory or case law or by the USDOE, PDE will be entitled to make appropriate modification following notification to the plaintiffs’ counsel. By no later than the sixtieth day following the effective date of the Settlement Agreement, PDE will notify school districts that it is likely that the current IEP Format will have to be modified to address changes in the law due to the reauthorization and amendment of the IDEA in late 2004.
This provision was met.
In March, 2007, the Annotated IEP format was revised to include the sentence, “Parents must be part of any group that makes decisions on the educational placement of their child” as well as consideration of supplementary aids and services in extracurricular and nonacademic settings. Reportedly, a Penn Link announcing these and other changes was issued March 12, 2007.
In February 2008 PDE added four questions to the IEP in the LRE section. These were then added to the actual IEP document in July 2008. The Panel does not know what training has been given in discussing these questions or whether the answers to the questions are required to be stated on the IEP. It is not clear if and how parents receive information about the July 2008 additions to the IEP.
School Districts were notified via PennLink about the changes in the IEP and were invited to participate in training.
(D) The Advisory Panel may suggest other modifications to the LRE portion of the IEP format for consideration and approval of the Bureau Director.
This provision was met.
The panel submitted changes and recommendations to the BSE on March 10, 2008 including the following: 1. Behavior plans must be included in the body of the IEP, using the usual progression of present levels, goals, interventions and measurement and not attached as a separate document. 2. Regarding the LRE placement data section, if the student does not attend his/her neighborhood school, LRE calculation ends – the school district should not receive “credit” for a student’s attendance in regular education classes in another school and/or school district.
18

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
Neither of these recommendations was approved by the Bureau Director.
(E) By no later than the sixtieth day following the effective date of the Settlement Agreement, PDE will provide written guidance to all school districts related to completing the LRE portion of the IEP. The guidance will explain the phrases “LRE percentages” and “time in a special education class” and explain how to calculate the “LRE percentages” and “time in a special education class.” A copy of the guidance is attached to the Settlement Agreement and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit B.
This provision was met.
A memo of clarification entitled “Least Restrictive Environment” was issued March 16, 2005 by the Bureau Director.
IV.4. Compliance Monitoring
(A) “Compliance monitoring” refers to a range of activities undertaken by PDE to assure that local educational agencies are complying with the requirements of the IDEA and other federal and state laws protecting the rights of schoolchildren with disabilities. Compliance monitoring will include three forms:
(1) “Regular cyclical monitoring” is required by the USDOE and is performed in accordance with a time frame negotiated with the USDOE so as to encompass all local educational agencies in Pennsylvania over an agreed-upon period of time. Commencing no later than January 1, 2006, regular cyclical monitoring will include the additional steps described in Section IV.4(H)(4) of the Settlement Agreement.
This provision was met.
PDE completes the process of regular cyclical monitoring. For Districts subject to cyclical and Tier 1 LRE monitoring, both the LRE monitoring protocol and the cyclical monitoring protocol are used.
(2) “Targeted monitoring” is performed by Bureau personnel in response to specific deficiencies or shortcomings identified through the regular cyclical monitoring process because of complaints from family members or advocacy organizations or through other means.
This provision was minimally met.
This is one of the provisions of the SA that could be used to lead to significant changes in LRE in PA. This provision of the SA was not utilized until June 2008, almost three years into the SA timeline. On May 8, 2007 the chair of the Policy and Compliance Committee requested a list of SDs that have been subject to target monitoring and the status of such monitoring. At the May 31, 2007 quarterly panel meeting PDE stated that “At this point, no source has identified any school districts for Target monitoring. If
19

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
districts are identified via PDE criteria, target monitoring will occur.” At its meeting in June, 2007, the advisory panel requested that PDE provide the panel with the criteria PDE is using to identify school districts for target monitoring. No one from PDE was able to state or otherwise provide the criteria PDE was using despite the presence of the Deputy Director and his various assistants at that meeting. PDE responded that they did not have the criteria with them at that time but would send it to the panel by July 15, 2007. After repeated requests for the criteria to be supplied the panel was informed that the criteria would be provided at the September 2007 meeting.
Only seven school districts, all in Philadelphia, have been target monitored during the life of the SA. The monitoring reports are published on the Moodle. The panel sees this mechanism as another way to increase LRE in PA, one that appears to be under utilized in increasing LRE given the surprising low number of schools receiving target monitoring.
(3) “LRE monitoring” is new. LRE monitoring focuses on half of Pennsylvania’s 501 school districts every year, and will be conducted at various levels of intensity depending on a particular district’s relative place on a list developed by reference to an LRE index. LRE monitoring, in contrast to other forms of monitoring, will, to the maximum extent feasible, be based on the following principles: (a) LRE monitoring will be based on a limited number of priorities (goal statements) identified by PDE following input from a diverse group of stakeholders through the Advisory Panel. Priorities will include: (1) increasing the number of students with disabilities included in regular education classes and neighborhood schools with needed supplementary aids, services and support; and (2) developing IEPs capable of providing students with disabilities a meaningful benefit from education. (b) LRE monitoring will be based on a limited number of indicators (objective measures of the goal) identified by PDE within each priority area. (c) LRE monitoring will be based on comparisons to state averages identified by PDE. Monitoring standards will be clearly communicated to school districts. (d) Triggers (levels of performance at which PDE will intervene and require corrective action) will be clearly communicated to school districts.
This provision was not met.
The Panel had an opportunity to provide input on priorities and indicators for LRE monitoring in January, 2007. The input offered included a restatement of those priorities identified in the Settlement Agreement, and the addition of the following: increasing school districts’ capacity to provide specially designed instruction, related services and supplementary aids and services to students in regular classrooms; school districts welcoming of all children with special needs; the ready availability of meaningful supplementary aids and services provided in a non-stigmatizing manner; and adherence to Oberti standards. The Panel was asked for additional input in amending the LRE protocol for the 2007-2008 school year. PDE contracted with Dr. Gail McGregor, a nationally known expert in inclusive practices, to make recommendations based on her review of the 05-06 and 06-07 LRE monitoring protocols, relevant provisions of the settlement agreement, and the advisory panel input. Dr. McGregor’s recommendations are reported to be incorporated into the LRE
20

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
monitoring protocol. However, the relationship between Dr. McGregor, the plaintiffs and the panel was problematic since the panel was not included in the mediation sessions discussing Dr. McGregor and the panel was denied a request for a teleconference with Dr. McGregor to clarify issues.
(B) Overview. (1) All categories of compliance monitoring serve the purpose of assessing the educational progress of children with disabilities, as measured by several outcomes. All categories of compliance monitoring will be conducted in accordance with the following general rules: (a) Compliance monitoring will be data- and information-based and verifiable. (b) To the extent practicable, PDE will allocate its monitoring resources so as to address areas of greatest need. PDE will use data-based information to make judgments about the allocation of its resources. (c) As permitted by its resources, PDE will provide support, including focused, customized technical assistance, to school districts in need of such support. (d) PDE will exercise its authority to levy sanctions for failure to take actions required under the terms of a CAP. (e) Families of children with disabilities will have avenues of communication to provide information to PDE on a continuous basis.
This provision was not met.
The monitoring protocol includes an analysis of LRE, continuum of services, supplementary ideas and services, dispute resolution parent and professional training and interagency coordination. The panel expressed concerns about the adequacy of the monitoring protocols specifically with the closed ended approach they embody which severely limits the ability of the assessors to search for underlying systemic barriers and issues.
Districts were selected for monitoring based on the greatest deviation from state placement averages in three categories (see page 55). The degree to which PDE has provided focused, customized technical assistance to districts in need is unclear from the CAPs and there continues to be tension between the expectation of mandated technical assistance to non-compliant districts and PDE’s less stringent “offering” of support.
PDE has never attempted to address provision (e) calling for avenues of communication to PDE by families on a continuous basis as opposed to the infrequent opportunities that arise during compliance monitoring.
(2) PDE’s monitoring staff will be appropriately trained and will engage in regular professional development. Compliance monitoring will be done in accordance with a five-tier process, with initial triggers for each level of intervention as set forth below: (a) Tier One LRE Monitoring of 20 school districts (excluding any school district implementing a Tier One CAP) identified via data analysis as most in need of systemic LRE-related changes. (b) Tier Two LRE Monitoring based on a warning designation for school districts identified in the bottom ten percent (approximately) of data analysis (excluding any school district implementing a Tier One or Tier Two CAP). (c) Tier Three LRE Monitoring based
21

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
on an alert designation for school districts identified in the remaining bottom half (approximately) of data analysis. (d) Targeted monitoring based on referral by a Bureau staff member due to extenuating circumstances within the school district. (e) Regular cyclical monitoring of all Pennsylvania school districts coordinated to the district strategic plan process, currently on a six-year cycle as approved in the Pennsylvania state plan approved by the USDOE.
This provision was met minimally.
PDE’s monitoring staff were trained in LRE monitoring and the Oberti standards and LRE in March, 2007. A webinar training for peer monitors was conducted in April, 2007. A recommendation by the Panel to provide two-day training to compliance personnel that would result in certification upon demonstration of proficiency in LRE investigations was refused by PDE for civil service-related reasons.
A session on “Access to General Curriculum for Students with Significant Disabilities” was held in March 2008. Professional development has also been incorporated into monthly BSE staff meetings. BSE staff also attend sessions at PDE conferences, PEAL conferences and other statewide and regional professional development activities on an ongoing basis. Further, BSE staff participated in the LRE improvement series. However, it is difficult to guage the effectiveness of these trainings as no data has been provided that links BSE staff training to effective outcomes in the school districts to which they in turn provide training. Moreover, the Panel has not been allowed to participate in any monitoring in order to get a first-hand knowledge and appreciation of the process.
With respect to the 20 SDs in Tier 1, Year 1 (see p. 52) Philadelphia was identified as Tier One for two years in conflict with the Settlement Agreement provisions, by dividing it into two districts. Erie City School District, identified for Year One, was exempted and Abington School District, identified for Year Two, was excluded due to data anomalies. By way of remedy, PDE has proposed to monitor additional districts in subsequent years.
Warning letters were sent to 30 districts each year. Additionally, each tier 2 school district is contacted to reinforce the warning and offer assistance. Focused LRE training activities are also available to Tier 2 SD’s. While the panel acknowledges that these activities are steps taken beyond the settlement agreement, there is great concern in the continued tone of “availability” of support, rather than mandated support.
Alert letters were sent to 200 SD’s in 05-06, to 180 SD’s in 06-07, 165 SD’s in 07-08, 146 SD’s in 2008-09 and 125 in 09-10.
(C) Identification of school districts via data analysis. On an annual basis, PDE will review statewide data on all 501 Pennsylvania school districts to identify districts having data factors indicating a need to improve in the area of LRE. School districts will be identified for LRE improvement by assigning to each district an “LRE index score.” The LRE index score will be determined by
22

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
weighting data factors as agreed to by the parties. The data will be reviewed annually and school districts will be identified annually under the following categories: (1) The twenty school districts at the bottom of the list will be identified for “Tier One LRE Monitoring.” (2) School districts in the bottom ten percent of all Pennsylvania districts but not identified for Tier One LRE Monitoring will be placed on a “warning list” and identified for “Tier Two LRE Monitoring.” (3) School districts in the bottom fifty percent but not identified for Tier One LRE Monitoring or Tier Two LRE Monitoring will be placed on an “alert list” and identified for “Tier Three LRE Monitoring.”
Districts’ LRE index scores will be made public as part of school and district report cards under the No Child Left Behind Act and the IDEA.
This provision was met.
Via educational placement data analysis, PDE identified Tier One, Two, and Three districts as set out in the Settlement Agreement. The tiered lists of districts have been made publicly available on the PDE website. PDE has placed District LRE index scores on its PennData website for 2006-07 & 2007-08.
(D) Tier One LRE Monitoring. (1) By no later than December 31, 2005, and by no later than December 31 of each subsequent year, school districts will be identified for Tier One LRE Monitoring on the basis of the data analysis described in Section IV.4(C) of the Settlement Agreement. With respect to the initial identification of school districts in calendar year 2005, however, the parties may, by mutual agreement, identify and substitute particular school districts for Tier One LRE Monitoring in lieu of districts that would otherwise be identified on the basis of the data analysis described in Section IV.4(C) of the Settlement Agreement. (2) Monitoring visits will be conducted by a team consisting of a minimum of three members, with larger teams for larger school districts as appropriate. Team members will be appointed by the Bureau Director. Parents and advocates will be included as team members. (3) The process will involve an analysis of information similar to that used in regular cyclical monitoring with the following additional elements: (a) Analysis of data to determine if there is a legitimate basis for identification of the school district for Tier One LRE Monitoring; (b) A determination of whether the school district is identified for Tier One LRE Monitoring due to a refusal to comply with IDEA; (c) A determination of factors resulting in the school district’s identification; (d) Selection of appropriate intervention(s) to remedy deficiencies; (e) Continued oversight by PDE to determine whether intervention is effective; and (f)Other additions recommended by the Advisory Panel and approved by the Bureau Director. (4) Visits will last a minimum of two days on-site, with adequate previsit preparation and post-visit follow-up. The process will start with facilitated self-assessment and validation of data. There will be on-site review of student files; interviews; and review of outcome data. (5) The team will conduct an exit conference with school district representatives. Team members will use the exit conference to discuss the elements of a CAP to remedy any deficiencies found to exist. (6)If deficiencies are found to exist, then the Bureau will follow up by submitting a written CAP no later than six weeks following the on-site visit. The
23

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
school district will be required to complete the CAP. The CAP may require one, two, or more years to complete, with interim reporting and monitoring obligations. Required training will be identified to address specific areas in the CAP.
This provision was not met.
Districts were identified for Tier One monitoring through a process agreed upon by the parties, though not by December 31, 2005 for Year One due, in part, to the timing of the Court’s order. The Panel cannot comment on the size or composition of the monitoring teams as provision of that information was denied. Though monitoring was to include a determination of whether the district is identified for Tier One LRE Monitoring due to a refusal to comply with IDEA, PDE’s reply to inquiry on that determination for each identified district was: “School districts do not have an option whether to comply with IDEA requirements. PDE is required to exercise general supervisory authority to ensure compliance, in part, through monitoring and corrective action.”
On-site visits, preceded by a self-assessment, were reported to last a minimum of two days and included data validation, file reviews, and interviews. The analysis of outcome data appears less clear. It is reported that exit conferences were held to discuss the elements of a CAP. In Year One, 17 of the monitored districts were found to be out of compliance for continuum of placement options, as well as numerous procedural violations. Compelling information regarding non-compliance with Oberti and IDEA LRE requirements yielded from interviews with teachers, parents, and administrative staff, were not cited as violations.
Though the Panel provided extensive input into the development of interview protocols, much of which was applied in Year One, PDE revised the interview protocols for Year Two with the expressed intention of standardizing responses to achieve statistical validity in determinations of compliance or non-compliance. The Panel advised PDE in March, 2007 to revert to the interview protocol of Year One, however the Department denied this request based on reason of timeliness. Unfortunately these revisions, which may have been motivated by good intentions, have had a deleterious impact on the monitoring process from the Panel’s perspective.
Though the Settlement Agreement plainly states the CAPs’ purpose to “remedy any deficiencies found to exist,” the Panel determined significant and substantial shortcomings in the Year One CAPs. Most plans were limited to an address of procedures, caseloads, and accurate data reporting. During its March, 2007 panel meeting the Panel formally advised PDE that “the documents created as a result of the 2005-2006 LRE monitoring and referred to by PDE/BSE as “CAPs” are, in fact, not CAPs, as they do not contain all of the required elements to constitute a CAP, per the Settlement Agreement in Gaskin v. Commonwealth.” An analysis of the Year One CAPs concluded: “It is highly unlikely that durable positive change with respect to LRE will be realized as a result of these CAPs.” PDE has indicated its agreement that the CAPs can and should be strengthened and made more specific in the future.
24

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
While the Settlement Agreement contemplates the possibly long-term nature of rectifying systemic deficiencies, allowing that CAPs could take one, two, or more years to implement, PDE has made a distinction between CAPs, which must be resolved within a year as per federal requirements, and Improvement Plans, or long-term plans for systemic improvement that will be subject to monitoring and enforcement as a CAP.
Year 2 Tier 1 Improvement Plans submitted as components of the Corrective Action Verification Plans from PDE were reviewed by the Policy and Compliance Committee. IPs were summarized as a whole using the following rubric. Each plan was analyzed in five ways: (a) why the school district needed an improvement plan, (b) needed improvement, (c) components of that particular school district’s plan for improvement, (d) a rating of each components likely impact on the stated needed improvement, and (e) a rating as to the likelihood that this plan, taken as a whole, would make a significant impact on the stated needed improvement.
A five-point scale was used to evaluate impact on needed improvement: -2=Strong negative impact on needed improvement -1=Some Negative impact on needed improvement 0=Neutral impact; More information needed; Plan to plan; Unclear or Vague +1=Positive impact on needed improvement +2=Strong positive impact on needed improvement
Findings 1. Timing These plans have taken over 5 months to produce. The SA specifies 6 weeks.
2. Lack of Significant Goals While these plans include 24 goal statements, each goal is written in a way that is very vague. For example, goals refer to an “increase” in percentage of students, and “expansion” of inclusive options, “increase in trend,” or “build capacity.” These statements are so vague that almost anything can qualify as success. What is needed is significant and meaningful change. For example, all First Graders need to be fully included in their neighborhood school not just some vaguely increasing percentage.
To “correct” means to make right, to “improve” means to use profitably or to good advantage. While many of these activities may lead to some improvement the Settlement Agreement is focused on correction. By 2010 we are expecting to see real change not “some improvements.”
3. Easy Reversibility The plans have little likelihood of developing a firm foundation for long-lasting systemic change. On the contrary, any positive momentum these activities may produce can be easily reversed with the prospect that Pennsylvania could soon return to the bottom of the nation with respect to LRE. Until there is an actual increase in the number of students with disabilities participating fully in general education for their entire school career little long-lasting change will be achieved. It is easy to stop an “improvement
25

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
activity,” it is much harder to remove a child who is well integrated into the general school environment, is learning and benefiting all students.
4. Over-Reliance on Training Activities Training activities are the overwhelming emphasis of the Improvement Plans. However, training is a necessary but not sufficient means to meet the priorities of the SA. For example, PaTTAN has been conducting LRE-related training in Pennsylvania for many years but we are still on the bottom level of LRE rankings nationally. If training is to be the main mechanism for achieving increased LRE in Pennsylvania, as these plans indicate, we have to conclude that it is highly likely that these plans will fail.
While the topics of much of the proposed training is very relevant, there is little specificity as to who will be trained, when, by whom, what the expectations will be for implementation in the classroom and most importantly, how the training relates to achievement of specific goals. For example, simply meeting with Dr. Villa three times is unlikely to lead to long-term systemic change. This is even further cause for concern given that PDE has not provided the Panel with any outcomes-based evaluation data on trainings provided.
The assumption seems to be that gently exposing teachers and others to ideas of inclusion and LRE will automatically lead to the adoption and implementation of these ideas in the classroom and an inevitable increase in LRE for all students. This assumption is highly questionable. What is needed is training within a context of system change and accountability for goal achievement.
5. Lack of Address of Complexity Systemic change is very complex. These plans focus on specific discrete matters of compliance rather than understanding and addressing the many complex issues faced by Tier One school districts. These complex issues include a long history of noninclusive practices and mindsets and a system of education in Pennsylvania that has condoned and even encouraged such practices.
6. Ineffectiveness Activity does not equal results. These plans prescribe a lot of activity (see Figure) but the connection between these activities and the address of the significant issues that led to a particular SD being identified as Tier 1 is absent or unclear. In some instances the activities may increase not reduce problems of LRE.
The panel concluded that these Improvement Plans (IPs) would have little impact on LRE in Pennsylvania and have wasted a year of the Settlement Agreement timeline in their development. Furthermore, these IPs could not be accepted as meeting the requirements of the Settlement Agreement.
The panel also concluded that the process of LRE monitoring being conducted by PDE is unsatisfactory and is wasting time and that there is a significant lack of congruence between PDE’s interpretation of the SA with respect to Corrective Action Plans and the requirement of the SA (see Table 1). PDE’s lack of leadership in this matter was further delaying the rights of children with disabilities to be educated in their
26

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
neighborhood schools with Supplementary Aids and Services (SAS). Such delay and ineffectiveness undermines the intent and purpose of the SA.
The Policy and Compliance Committee recommended that (a) these Improvement Plans not be accepted as Corrective Action Plans for purposes of implementation of the Settlement Agreement and (b) PDE draft new monitoring protocols that track the requirements of the Settlement Agreement and determine the causes of the district's low ranking on LRE. The protocols must have high face validity (they must clearly and directly measure what is required by the Settlement Agreement) and must be based on several reliable and objective sources of information.
The committee also recommended that PDE use redesigned monitoring protocols to develop CAPs for Year One Tier One school districts.
The panel adopted the recommendations of the Policy and Compliance committee. This meant that the panel has rejected three sets of corrective action plans: Tier 1, Year 1; Tier 1, Year 1 (revised); and Tier 1, Year 2, as not meeting the provisions of the SA.
A fourth set of CAPs (2007-08) was issued by PDE but these were not reviewed by the panel because the matter was now under mediation and the plans were of the same format at the previous three rejected plan years. This mediation concluded with an agreement on February 4, 2009 with respect to the contents and process of the remaining CAPs.
The 2008-09 CAPs were submitted using this February 4, 2009 mediated agreement and were reviewed by the panel. The panel did not accept these plans as meeting the requirements of Corrective Action Plans in the SA as they failed to be responsive to one or more of the February 4, 2009 mediated requirements as described below. The mediated agreement stated that Corrective Action Plans need to:
1. Identify with specificity the actions the district will be required to undertake to correct each violation of substantive LRE requirement.
The plans specified many actions that will be taken but there is little likelihood that the activities taken together, will correct the substantive issues. For example, one plan specified fourteen actions most of which are related to training. The plan called for development of a roadmap for increased student participation in general education and an application to become a pilot site focusing on educating children with significant disabilities in the general education classroom. However, it is a matter of conjecture as to whether these measures will correct the substantive issues.
2. What specific SAS will the district develop and put in place to enable students identified as disproportionately placed outside general education classrooms?
All of these plans had training related to SAS but they all relate to general training in the SAS toolkit and/or fact sheet. There is no mention of which specific SAS the districts will develop to meet the specific requirements of the students in more restrictive settings.
27

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
3. For each intervention, explain why it has been chosen to correct the identified violation.
There were no explanations provided in any of the actions to correct the identified violations. For example, one SD introduces a bullying program with no explanation. The assumption seemed to be that all issues in LRE should be addressed by general training in LRE and related issues. A small number of plans correlated some interventions with a particular disability category or issue, for example, an issue of emotional support appears to be translated into a need for positive behavioral supports, but there is no statement of explanation for that SD.
4. What specific training, technical assistance, coaching, follow-up and monitoring of outcomes will be provided to support change in practice?
These plans outlined a great deal of general and specific training and assistance including differentiated instruction, co-teaching, the SAS toolkit and general legal issues. However, attendance at trainings, evidenced by sign-in sheets, is not sufficient to show change in learning, practice or impact.
Some plans stated that observation of data trends by school teams and stakeholders will be undertaken to determine if changes are needed to plan activities and that trends are in the desired direction. However, it is an assumption that any improvements in data trends will be the result of training and not other interventions (such as revisions in data gathering, calculations and/or definitions). That is, the quality of the training and participation by attendees and the subsequent change in practices resulting from that training will not be demonstrated by these plans since there is no specified evaluation of training.
5. If training in particular SAS is indicated, what training will be provided and why?
As mentioned in number 2 above, all training in SAS is general.
6. Is the intensity of training and technical assistance sufficient to change practice? Does it move beyond awareness to practice?
These plans contain no stated process to evaluate the impact of the training. If we assume that personnel attend and complete these trainings then we can assume that attendee’s awareness has increased. However, in no case will we able to say anything about the effectiveness of the training to change behavior of the attendees.
LRE data was also requested to review the actual impact that PDE’s CAPs were having on LRE in Tier 1 school districts for the first three years of implementation. Data was requested for up to three years of implementation. However, the three-year data provided by PDE omitted cells with numbers (or percentages) of students 10 or less. This made the data very difficult to review because it is not known if a cell contains 0 students of any number up to 10 students. Thus, with four levels of LRE, a SD may have all levels with asterisks in each cell which could mean zero students at all levels, 0 students in three levels and 10 in the fourth level, or any other combination of numbers or percentages. Determining if there has been any improvement in LRE
28

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
for that category of disability is thereby extremely difficult if not impossible. It should be noted that the SA does not make any provision for omitting data for student’s numbers under 10.
However, it was possible to draw some conclusions. 1. Specific Learning Disability is by the far the category with the most improvement in LRE >80% 2. Speech and Language shows little change but is already close to 100% for all SDs 3. Only 3 out of 20 SDs were able to increase LRE >20% over three years for students with Mental Retardation 4. The majority of disability groups show no significant change in LRE over the life of the Corrective Action Plans
These data are consistent with overall state data that show increasing LRE for groups of students with less severe disabilities such as specific learning disability but very little improvement in LRE for students with more severe disabilities such as mental retardation (see appendix).
(E) Tier Two LRE Monitoring—the “Warning List.” School districts on the warning list will receive a written communication from the Bureau. The communication will warn the district that it is close to the point of being subject to Tier One LRE Monitoring; identify the factors indicating a need for LRE improvement, including an explanation why the data indicated a need for LRE improvement; and state (in words to this effect), “The Department expects you to take the following steps….” Among the steps that will be delineated are the following: (1) Attendance at PDE-sponsored training and technical assistance programs; (2) Acceptance of technical assistance by PDE personnel; and (3) Submission by the school district of a CAP addressing areas identified for improvement.
This provision was not met.
The districts in Tier Two for each year were notified via letter. The letters did not identify specific areas in need of improvement, but alerted districts as to which placement category’s data resulted in the identification. In contrast to the strong language of the Settlement Agreement as stated above, the letter states an anticipation on PDE’s part that districts will take self-assessment steps including: examining their data to assess and, if necessary, correct data reporting; determining whether there are LRE-related provisions of IDEA in need of improvement; and developing an improvement plan that includes participation in PDE training and acceptance of technical assistance, if the school identifies areas in need of improvement. This category of compliance monitoring has not served the purpose of assessing the educational progress of children with disabilities, as measured by several outcomes, as described in B (1) above.
29

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
(F) Tier Three LRE Monitoring—the “Alert List.” School districts on the alert list will receive a written communication from the Bureau. The communication will inform the district that it is in the bottom half of all districts in terms of the LRE data analysis described in Section IV.4(C) of the Settlement Agreement; identify areas in need of improvement; and describe resources available to the district to assist in improvement.
This provision was not met.
The districts on Tier Three for each year were notified via letter. The letters did not identify specific areas in need of improvement, but alerted districts as to which placement category’s data resulted in the identification. The letter referred districts to either their Single Point of Contact (SPOC) or BSE’s data contact as resources. This category of compliance monitoring has not served the purpose of assessing the educational progress of children with disabilities, as measured by several outcomes, as described in B (1) above.
(G) Targeted Monitoring. Targeted monitoring is a selective process used by Bureau personnel to identify a school district based on extenuating circumstances in that particular school year. School districts subject to targeted monitoring are selected based on a referral by a Bureau staff member. Monitoring is confined to a discrete area identified by the staff member.
This provision has not been met.
See IV.4.(2) above.
(H) Regular Cyclical Monitoring. (1) Consistent with federal law and implementing regulations, the Bureau’s regular cyclical monitoring will continue to be conducted as part of PDE’s general supervisory responsibility in accordance with its monitoring obligations to the USDOE. Currently, each school district in Pennsylvania is monitored once every six years to ensure that the district is in compliance with state and federal special education laws and regulations. (2) Regular cyclical monitoring is aligned with existing strategic planning and special education planning at the school district level. Each district completes a strategic plan every six years to address all programs within the district. As described in Section IV.6 of the Settlement Agreement, regular cyclical monitoring is completed the year before the strategic plan is due so that any corrective actions or improvement strategies can be incorporated into the special education and strategic plans. Over the next two years, the strategic and special education plans will be made part of the same process and document. (3) Regular cyclical monitoring focuses on systemic problems within a school district using data analysis, onsite review, and procedural and performance indicators. Following a regular cyclical monitoring visit, data are compiled and a report is sent to the district detailing the results. If deficiencies are identified, the Bureau prepares a CAP and the district is obligated to correct the deficiencies. The Bureau’s compliance division monitors and verifies the district’s implementation of the CAP on an ongoing basis. (4) When a school district in Tier One LRE Monitoring or Tier Two LRE Monitoring is identified for regular
30

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
cyclical monitoring, PDE will take the following additional steps as part of the regular cyclical monitoring process: (a) PDE will require the district to provide and analyze data specifically related to LRE, including data on the percentage of students with disabilities educated in regular education classrooms for 80 percent or more of the school day, disaggregated by disability; the percentage of students with disabilities removed from the regular education classroom for 60 percent or more of the school day; the percentage of students with disabilities educated in separate school buildings; and the percentage of students with disabilities educated outside their home district or in programs operated by another educational agency. (b) PDE will examine a representative sample of individualized education plans for the purpose of determining whether the district is satisfying its FAPE and LRE obligations under federal law. (c) PDE will examine district policies and procedures to ensure that a full array of services is available. (d) PDE will require specific staff training for district personnel, designed to target the particular LRE deficiencies identified in compliance monitoring, to assure that the district possesses the skills necessary to meet the needs of diverse learners, including students with significant disabilities, in the regular education classroom.
This provision has been met.
LRE monitoring and regular cyclical monitoring is aligned as proposed. The quality of the Corrective Action/Improvement Plans resulting from monitoring have been reviewed above in section (D) for Tier 1 school districts. Details of special education plans are available on the PDE website.
Sanctions for Noncompliance. A school district that fails to honor the commitments and obligations contained in a CAP (whether the plan be to rectify deficiencies identified through LRE monitoring, targeted monitoring, or regular cyclical monitoring) will be subject to the following sanctions and enforcement powers: (1) A mandatory meeting with PDE in Harrisburg in which the superintendent and chair of the school board will be obligated to participate. (2) Appropriate sanctions as set forth in PDE’s “Basic Education Circular” on enforcement, including the withholding of funds from the school district and redirecting those funds to the appropriate body to support specific expenditures (e.g., hiring personnel) to implement the action required. (3) If appropriate, the initiation of professional disciplinary action against the superintendent or others whose conduct is found to have resulted in the school district’s failure to meet its obligations under the CAP.
The Panel is not aware of PDE imposing any sanctions of school districts for noncompliance with CAPS to correct deficiencies identified through any type of monitoring.
IV.5. Complaint Resolution
(Preamble) PDE will build upon and modify its present system of complaint investigation and resolution in the following respects: (A) Whenever a parent or student submits a complaint to the Bureau, PDE will, without exception,
31

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
investigate the complaint. If PDE determines that the complaint was timely filed and that it has jurisdiction to investigate the complaint (see 34 C.F.R. §300.662), then PDE will not resolve the complaint without using its best efforts (i) to interview the parent or student, and (ii), if the complainant identifies persons alleged to have actual knowledge of the facts, to interview a reasonable number of such persons.
This provision has not been met.
The Panel has requested and been denied complaint investigation reports. Without this data, it cannot assess implementation of IV.5(A) of the SA.
(B) When the complaint resolution process results in a finding by PDE that a school district has violated an individual student’s right to receive supplementary aids and services in a regular education class, or where such a violation has been established after a due process hearing, PDE will investigate during the district’s next compliance monitoring whether the district has corrected the violation, not only for the student who was the subject of the complaint but for similarly situated students.
This provision has not been met.
The Panel has requested and been denied complaint investigation reports. Without this data, it cannot assess implementation of IV.5(B) of the SA.
IV.6. Plan Approval
(Preamble) PDE will build upon and refine its present system of review and approval or disapproval of special education plans submitted by the 501 school districts in Pennsylvania as follows: (A) Where results of compliance monitoring demonstrate failure to provide special education students with meaningful educational benefit or with supplementary aids and services in regular education classes and neighborhood schools to the maximum extent appropriate, PDE will require school districts’ special education plans to include appropriate corrective action, which may include development of appropriate training and customized technical assistance plans.
This provision has not been met.
The special education plans of districts identified as Tier One for the 05-06 School Year were reviewed by the Panel’s LRE Practices Committee. Although the PDE Implementation Workplan of September 2009 reports “that plans are amended, as needed, to incorporate corrective action on an on-going basis”, the panel is not aware of special education plans being changed as a result of compliance monitoring.
32

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
(B) By no later than one year following the effective date of the Settlement Agreement, PDE’s special education planning cycle will be synchronized with the compliance monitoring cycle in at least 50 percent of Pennsylvania school districts so that planning follows monitoring and the district’s special education plan addresses the findings of compliance monitoring; and by no later than two years following the effective date of the Settlement Agreement, PDE’s special education planning cycle will be synchronized with the compliance monitoring cycle in at least 90 percent of Pennsylvania districts so that planning follows monitoring and the district’s special education plan addresses the findings of compliance monitoring. It is PDE’s goal to achieve, by no later than three years following the effective date of the Settlement Agreement, synchronization of the planning and monitoring cycle in 100 percent of Pennsylvania districts.
This provision has not been met.
In December 2007, PDE has presented a plan of synchronization for the special education planning cycle and compliance monitoring but the panel is not aware of actual synchronization.
IV.7. Training
(A) In furtherance of the mutual goals described in Section III of this Agreement, the Bureau will provide on-site training, technical assistance and professional development to school districts for the purpose of building local capacity in providing individualized supplementary aids and services in regular education classrooms to students with disabilities to enable them to be educated in regular education classrooms to the maximum extent appropriate. Services provided by the Bureau will be based on the needs of school district and intermediate unit personnel, on research-based practices, and on the assessment referenced in Section IV.2(L) of the Agreement.
This provision has been met minimally.
According to a report from the Training and Technical Assistance Committee, on-site training has been provided to 10 school districts in 13 visits. In April 2007, training conducted by Richard Villa and supported by the Intermediate Unit Training and Consultation (IU TaCS) personnel and PaTTAN staff, was provided through the Alvernia Inclusion Symposium. It was reported that on-going training, technical assistance and professional development is delivered to districts by PaTTAN, IU TaCS, and university personnel (Arcadia, Alvernia, Duquesne and Temple). However, to date, the Committee has not received specific information as to numbers, audience composition or most importantly, outcomes of these trainings. The PEAL Center and the Arc of Pennsylvania were funded as providers of awareness level workshops for parents, families, and educators. To date, outcome data has not been provided.
The AP attended a videoconference with Dr. Richard Villa. Dr. Villa shared the scope of his work in relation to LRE Improvement: District Supports for Inclusive Practices. School-based teams joined Dr. Villa for a 2 day presentation on the “What”, “Why”, and
33

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
“How” of Inclusive education. Site Visits with Dr. Villa are part of the training. Site Visits include classroom observations and coaching.
During 2007-08, Dr. Villa spent 49 days in Pennsylvania this which included: presentations, site visits with Tier 1 schools, presentations at the Hershey conference and a Video conference (PaTTan-Pittsburg/Harrisburg/King of Prussia, Northwest TriCounty IU 5, Coudersport ASD-Elementary, Luzerne IU 18, and Colonial IU 20.)
However, the Panel has not seen data reflecting the effectiveness of the training nor its impact on LRE. Most of these activities are introductory only and likely to have little impact in developing local capacity for school inclusion.
Missed Opportunity With Dr. Villa During his more than 80 days of consulting and training in Pennsylvania for Tier one schools Dr. Villa was able to identify several substantive barriers to inclusion in Pennsylvania which he presented to PDE and the advisory panel at the June, 2008 meeting. He noted that these barriers are by no means unique to Pennsylvania. These barriers include
(a) Tradition, attitudes and lack of awareness of inclusion (b) An education system that is not conducive to new methods of education
such as fixed curriculum, traditional teaching methods, existence of separate schools and institutions and inadequate pre-service and in service teacher education (c) Challenges to collaboration and cooperation’s between the professions and government agencies (d) Current policy, procedures and structures (e) Poor administration and inconsistent enforcement at the local level
Dr. Villa went on to state that complex change takes 5-7 years to achieve and that there needs to be a clear vision of the change desired, skills, incentives, resources for change needed and an action plan.
Dr. Villa prefaced his presentation with the statement that he was used in a purely reactive manner in Pennsylvania, namely providing TTA to school districts already identified as struggling with LRE issues. He stated that in New Mexico he was used in a pro-active manner in which the state of New Mexico set a goal of being within 5% of the national average with respect to LRE within 5 years—a goal they came very close to achieving.
Dr. Villa could have been used in a pro-active manner in Pennsylvania. The presence of a Settlement Agreement relating to increasing LRE in Pennsylvania was an excellent opportunity to use such a nationally known expert (or another similar consultant) to assist in achieving the outcomes specified in the SA. The fact that this was not done illustrates PDE’s preference for ad-hoc TTA activities for specific school districts at the expense of systemic change efforts.
Lack of Collaboration on Inclusion DVD The approach PDE took in developing their DVD “Inclusive schools: Learning…Working…Achieving together” (June, 2008) illustrates the lack of
34

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
collaboration with the AP. The idea of a widely distributed DVD on inclusion in Pennsylvania was supported by the panel (March 2008) and would make an excellent change agent tool. The panel, however, strongly recommended that PDE not develop a DVD on its own but collaborate with panel members. Several panel members are well aware of the difficulties in producing DVDs on any subject let alone one on inclusion with so many widely differing perceptions about what inclusion is and is not.
Nevertheless, PDE chose to develop, copy and distribute a DVD independently of the panel. This DVD was revealed to the panel in final form at the June, 2008 panel meeting. Despite some positive comments, panel members believed that a much better DVD could have been created by addressing the following.
(a) Including interviews with students with disabilities in the DVD rather than only interviewing non-disabled students about students with disabilities (b) Including references to evidence-based practice in the DVD. “Evidencebased practice” is an education mantra but is conspicuously absent from the DVD giving the impression that inclusion is purely a moral issue of “Doing the right thing” and “giving it a chance” (c) Describing regulations relating to LRE as positive rather than as “burdens” and “necessary evils” (d) Including captioning and audio description to ensure accessibility
Despite statements from Mr. Tommasini that there would be revisions to the DVD, the panel has no knowledge of any pending revisions. There has been no evaluation of the DVD’s use, change in knowledge and practice, nor impact on LRE.
The Advisory Panel will review and recommend specific content, delivery systems, and evaluation processes and will assist in developing a plan for delivering technical assistance and training to respond to the needs identified in the objective assessment referenced in Section IV.2.(L) of the Settlement Agreement, which the Bureau will implement. The following components will become part of the delivery plan for training, technical assistance and professional development:
(1) Training school district staff to provide supplementary aids and services in regular education class to students with significant disabilities, including those with significant learning disabilities, retardation, autism, emotional disabilities, physical disabilities and multiple disabilities. (2) Training and technical assistance in research-based practices and specialized interventions for students with significant learning disabilities, retardation, autism, emotional disabilities, physical disabilities and multiple disabilities. (3) Assistance in the development and delivery of customized, sustained technical assistance plans. (4) Joint training of school district staff and families in the use of supplementary aids and services in regular education class for students with significant disabilities, including significant learning disabilities, retardation, autism, emotional disabilities, physical disabilities and multiple disabilities.
35

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
(5) Assistance in developing collaborative teamwork in the provision of supplementary aids and services in regular education class to students with significant disabilities. (6) On-site technical assistance and consultation in response to requests from parents. (7) Resources on inclusive and research based practices available to families via a website along with other resource materials. (8) A mini grant program under which PDE would set aside money to make discretionary grants to fund school district initiatives that use training and technical assistance to overcome gaps in knowledge and skills identified by the assessment referred to in Section IV.2(L) of the Agreement. A school district would not be eligible to apply for or receive a mini grant until the district completed the assessment to identify gaps in knowledge and skills, thereby recognizing school district and parent commitment in exchange for additional resources. (9) Collaboration with higher education to address student teaching, induction and mentoring processes that build capacity of each school or local educational agency and begins the development of a master teacher network to address ongoing needs for maintaining inclusion related programs. (10) Training in effective advocacy services for children with disabilities and their families.
This provision has not been met.
The Panel provided initial recommendations for content and delivery systems of training and technical assistance in August 2006. Panel suggestions are incorporated as training is designed and delivered. An outline of a training framework was reported at June 2007 quarterly meeting and a comprehensive report of T & TA was provided to the panel at the June 2007 quarterly meeting.
Needs assessments, facilitated by IU and PaTTAN staff, assist school districts with identifying strengths and areas of need related to LRE. Tier 1 school districts and those school districts seeking mini grants must use the needs assessment. Ongoing support is provided in the implementation of school district action planning for LRE Improvement. There is not data do demonstrate how, by whom, and any outcomes of its use to demonstrate that the Needs Assessment has had any effect on improved capacity in LRE-related school practices.
The panel did not receive raw data from any needs assessments despite repeated requests dating from September 25, 2008. The panel did receive summary data from needs assessments but this was judged by the panel to be insufficient for purposes of review and reporting.
An Inclusive Practice Module, developed and utilized by PaTTAN and IU consultants, addresses Supplementary Aids and Services. Customized training provided for student focused teams and school district staff as part of LRE improvement activities will be granted upon request. The SAS toolkit was piloted within multiple LEA's during the spring of 2008. Information regarding the results of the pilot and how it will be utilized has not been received by the panel. Training sessions for SAS toolkit were as follows:
36

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
IU 13 June 2008; Low Incidence Conference-August 2008; and PASCD ConferenceNovember 2008. In addition, training modules focused on leadership, curriculum modification, co-teaching, SAS consideration and accessing the general education curriculum have been developed by PaTTAN. No data including output, outcome or impact evaluation has been provided to the Advisory Panel. As such, there is no evidence that any of these trainings have resulted in improved knowledge and practice related to LRE (outcomes), nor is there any data to support that this training has had any impact on the educational placement or the provision of necessary supplementary aids and services to students with disabilities in Pennsylvania.
The Inclusive Practice Evidence Based Self-Assessment tool was developed based on the review and research of the practice in this field. The PaTTAN system provided a variety of professional development that addresses research-based strategies for students with significant disabilities. PDE/BSE, PaTTAN and IU consultants continue to assist in developing plans to provide professional development and TA. No outcome or impact evaluation data has been provided to the Advisory Panel. As such, there is no evidence that any of these professional development activities have resulted in improved knowledge and practice related to LRE (outcomes), nor is there any data to support that these professional development activities have had an impact on the educational placement and the provision of necessary supplementary aids and services to students with disabilities in Pennsylvania.
PDE provided joint training for staff and families with Office of Special Education Programs. Other opportunities include: PEAL March 2007-2009; C2P2 Inclusive Education 06-09; Pittsburgh Public Schools Summer Institute, August 2006-2009; Arcadia Inclusion Institute, June 2006-2008. No outcome or impact evaluation data has been provided to the Advisory Panel for any of these training initiatives. As such, there is no evidence that any of these trainings have resulted in improved knowledge and practice related to LRE (outcomes), nor is there any data to support that this training has had an impact on the educational placement or the provision of necessary supplementary aids and services to students with disabilities in Pennsylvania.
PDE, PaTTAN and IU consultants support schools and families in the topic of collaborative teamwork. Resources are included on PaTTAN and PDE websites. Funding is provided by PDE in order to disseminate information to parents about training opportunities and materials. Fact Sheets are available at no charge.
Mini-grants have been awarded to 98 SD's in 2007-08 and $1.5 million allocated. Once again, there has been no evaluation of outcomes or impact of mini-grants on LRE.
However, the activities of PDE with respect to increasing LRE in Pennsylvania fall far short of a Plan that addresses all10 components required by the SA. This provision became the subject of mediation for over 12 months. Mediation concluded in November, 2009 with the following outcome. PDE will contract with the Arc of Pennsylvania to provide a Kindergarten/First grade statewide training and technical assistance initiative. A contract was signed with the Arc of Pennsylvania in January, 2010.
Finally, in September 2009 PDE initiated a series of training initiatives that include: (1) Significant Disabilities Pilot project, (2) a leadership training for school principals, (3)
37

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
Including LRE in the development of PDE’s Standards Aligned System, (4) Development of a Master Teacher Network, (5) Development of a parent booklet, (6) Revising the Inclusive Practices in Secondary Transition Folders and (6) Using Data to Guide Implementation of LRE Opportunities.
At the request of PDE, input from the Advisory Panel was provided to each of these initiatives. At the writing of this final report and as the 5-year Settlement Agreement reaches its end, some of these trainings have occurred while others are still being developed by PaTTAN. Once again, no outcome or impact evaluation data (or evaluation plans for same) have been provided to the Advisory Panel for any of these planned or extant training initiatives. As such, there is no evidence that any of these trainings have resulted in or will result in improved knowledge and practice related to LRE (outcomes), nor is there any data to support that these training initiatives have had (or will have) an impact on the educational placement or the provision of necessary supplementary aids and services to students with disabilities in Pennsylvania. Also, given the lateness of these initiatives the panel will have very little input into their development other than advising in the earliest stages.
IV.8. Advocacy
(A) As part of their effort to promote the goal of providing trained, informed and effective advocacy support to parents on issues relating to the provision of specially designed instruction to students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment including the laws and regulations that govern the provision of special education services in the least restrictive environment, the plaintiffs have informed PDE of their intention to prepare a grant proposal and seek funding for a program or programs serving that purpose. If, during the life of the Settlement Agreement, plaintiffs’ counsel presents such a grant proposal to PDE for consideration in accordance with this paragraph, then PDE agrees to review the grant proposal. If PDE determines that the grant proposal is consistent with PDE obligations, priorities, and goals and does not jeopardize the likelihood of funding for or compete with PDE’s own grant proposals, then PDE will prepare a letter or other written communication supporting such grant proposal and will take such other reasonable steps to assist plaintiffs’ counsel in obtaining such grant as plaintiffs’ counsel will request. If, after review, PDE determines in good faith that the grant proposal is inconsistent with PDE obligations, priorities, and goals or would jeopardize the likelihood of funding for or compete with its own grant proposals, and that therefore it cannot support the grant proposal, then PDE will inform plaintiffs’ counsel in writing of its determination and the reasons therefore.
Plaintiffs have not prepared a grant proposal as described in this section.
38

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
IV.9. Financial Terms
The financial terms of the Settlement Agreement have been met.
IV.10. Enforcement and Other Terms
PDE has provided plaintiff’s counsel with written certifications and plaintiff’s counsel has responded. The Plaintiffs invoked the terms of enforcement in April, 2007. The parties (PDE, Plaintiffs and Plaintiff Organizations) were involved in formal mediation as outlined in IV.10.(5) of the Settlement Agreement from December 2007 through November, 2009.
39

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
CONCLUSION BROKEN PROMISE As the weeks and months went by, we realized we were the victims of a broken promise. Martin Luther King, Jr., Letter from a Birmingham Jail, 16, April, 1963
This Settlement Agreement provided PDE with a powerful opportunity and many useful tools to increase LRE in Pennsylvania. This opportunity was not utilized to its potential. The promise of this settlement agreement was broken in two senses, firstly, the promise to implement the agreement was only minimally met, and secondly, the promise of significantly increased numbers of students educated in the least restrictive environment in their neighborhood schools inherent in the vision of this settlement agreement was not realized.
The panel’s conclusions are as follows.
1. An overall improvement in LRE masks a lack of improvement in LRE for students with moderate and severe disabilities
With respect to overall LRE, Pennsylvania’s national status changed from 49th in 2005 (www.ideadata.org) to 43rd (www.PaTTAN.net). Approximately 58% of all students with disabilities (see appendix) are being educated in regular education classes for more than 80% of the day in 2009-10. There was an increase in regular education placement for more than 80% of the day by 14% from pre-Gaskin to 2009-2010. However, we do not know if this educational placement is in the neighborhood school nor do we know the degree to which needed services and supports are being provided. However, these overall data are highly inflated by the data for the high incidence category speech or language impairment which is 15% of the total population of students with IEPs (see Table 4). This category has had an LRE percentage of 98% for 80% or more of the school day for the entire life of the SA.
It is disappointing that the overall percentage of students in other settings (approximately 4%) has not changed over the life of this SA. Other settings include approved private schools (day and residential); public and private facilities (day and residential); in home placement; correctional facilities; hospital and homebound; and out of state facilities.
A much more accurate picture of changes in LRE in Pennsylvania may be gained by looking at the data for specific disability groups. For example, the categories of mental retardation, multiple disabilities, hearing impairment, orthopedic impairment, visual impairment, and deaf-blindness show minimal or negative changes in LRE (for 80% or more of the school day) over the life of the Settlement Agreement. This is another disappointing result since the Settlement Agreement was directed at benefiting all disability groups.
Approximately 59% of students with specific learning disabilities are being educated in regular education class for a minimum of 80% of the time during the final year of the Gaskin Settlement agreement. Improvement in LRE is approximately 19% from pre-
40

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
Gaskin figures to 2009-2010. However, we do not know if this educational placement is in the neighborhood school nor do we know the degree to which needed services and supports are being provided.
For the purpose of the following analyses, the remaining categories represent low incidence disability populations such as hearing disabilities/deafness, TBI, visual impairment including blindness, deaf-blindness or students with disabilities such as autism, intellectual disabilities, multiple disabilities, or emotional disabilities.
At the end of the Gaskin SA, less than 40% of students with autism are being educated in regular education classes for more than 80% of the day. This is an improvement of approximately 16% from pre-Gaskin to 2009-2010 data. However, we do not know if this educational placement is in the neighborhood school nor do we know the degree to which needed services and supports are being provided. There was no change in use of other settings.
Approximately 23% of students with deaf-blindness are being educated in regular education classes for more than 80% of the day. This represents a decrease of approximately 7% from pre-Gaskin to 2009-2010 data. Again, we do not know if this educational placement is in the neighborhood school nor do we know the degree to which needed services and supports are being provided. There was an increase in out of district settings of approximately 16% with about 54% of students receiving their education in other settings.
Approximately 40% of students with emotional disturbance are being educated in regular education classes for more than 80% of the day. This represents an improvement of approximately 16% from pre-Gaskin 2009-2010 data. However, we do not know if this educational placement is in the neighborhood school nor do we know the degree to which needed services and supports are being provided. There was a very minimal (1%) decrease in use of other settings with approximately 19% being educated in other settings.
At the end of the Gaskin SA, less than 63% students with hearing impairments, including deafness, are being educated in regular education classes for more than 80% of the day. This represents an improvement of approximately 7% from pre-Gaskin to 2009-2010 data. However, we do not know if this educational placement is in the neighborhood school nor do we know the degree to which needed services and supports are being provided. There was no change in the use of other settings (approximately 15%).
For students with intellectual disabilities (mental retardation) only 13% are being educated in regular education classes for more than 80% of the day. This represents a small increase (4% over five years) from pre-Gaskin to 2009-2010 data. Again, we do not know if this educational placement is in the neighborhood school nor do we know the degree to which needed services and supports are being provided. Unfortunately there was an increase in out of district settings of approximately 3% with about 9% of students receiving their education in out of district settings.
41

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
For students with multiple disabilities, only about 5% are being educated in regular education classes for more than 80% of the day. This percentage has not changed over the life of the Settlement Agreement. Again, we do not know if this educational placement is in the neighborhood school nor do we know the degree to which needed services and supports are being provided. There was an increase in use of other settings of approximately 5% over the life of the SA with about 33% of students receiving their education in other settings in 2009-10.
Only 40% of students whose primary disability is orthopedic are being educated in regular education classes for more than 80% of the day. This is an improvement of approximately 13% from pre-Gaskin to 2009-2010 data. However, we do not know if this educational placement is in the neighborhood school nor do we know the degree to which needed services and supports are being provided. There was a decrease in out of district settings of approximately 4% with about 7% of students receiving their education in out of district settings in 2001-10.
At the end of the Gaskin SA, less than 60% students with other health impairments are being educated in regular education classes for more than 80% of the day. This represents an improvement of approximately 13% from pre-Gaskin to 2009-2010 data. However, we do not know if this educational placement is in the neighborhood school nor do we know the degree to which needed services and supports are being provided. There was no change in use of other settings (approximately 2%).
At the end of the Gaskin SA, only 35% students with Traumatic Brain Injury are being educated in regular education classes for more than 80% of the day. This represents an improvement of approximately 19% from pre-Gaskin to 2009-2010 data. However, we do not know if this educational placement is in the neighborhood school nor do we know the degree to which needed services and supports are being provided. Additionally, there was a decrease by 4% in placement in other settings.
At the end of the Gaskin SA, 62% of students with visual impairments including blindness are being educated in regular education classes for more than 80% of the day. This represents an improvement of only 2% from pre-Gaskin to 2009-2010 data. Again, we do not know if this educational placement is in the neighborhood school nor do we know the degree to which needed services and supports are being provided. There was an increase in use of other settings of about 4% with about 21% of students being educated in other settings in 2009-10.
If we ask how long will it take, at current rates of change in Pennsylvania, for 80% of students with disabilities to be included 80% or more of the time in regular education we can conclude the following.
1. Students in the category Deaf-Blind will NEVER reach that goal since inclusion 80% or more is declining (9%) over the life of the SA
2. Students in the category Multiple Disability will NEVER reach that goal since inclusion 80% or more is the same at the end of the SA as it was the year before the SA (5%)
3. Students in the category Mental Retardation with take 84 more years to reach the goal
42

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
4. Students in the category Visual Impairment will take 45 more years to reach this goal
5. Students in the category Orthopedic Impairment will take another 16 years to reach this goal
6. Students in the category Autism will take another 14 years to reach this goal 7. Students in the category Emotional Disturbance will take another 12 years to
reach this goal 8. Students in the category Hearing Impairment will take 12 more years to reach
this goal 9. Students in the category Traumatic Brain Injury will take another 12 years to
reach this goal 10. Students in the category Other Hearing Impairment will take another 8 years to
reach this goal 11. Students in the category Specific Learning Disability will take another 6 years
to reach this goal 12. (Students in the Speech or Language category already exceed this goal)
2. Most provisions of the SA were not met
Table 2 presents the conclusions of the panel as to which provisions were met, met minimally or partially, or not met. Provisions that were met included development of posters, the Supplementary Aids and Services Toolkit, and the Needs Assessment, all of which relate to increasing awareness of disability or resources available to consider LRE. Also addressed were provisions relating to maintaining the IEP format and development of a single plan.
The majority of provisions, including those relating most clearly to regulation and enforcement, were met minimally or were considered by the Panel not to have been met. This included major provisions relating to LRE monitoring and corrective action plans for the most segregated school districts in Pennsylvania and the development of a comprehensive training and technical assistance plan for the commonwealth. This is a very disappointing and frustrating conclusion of the Panel which, instead of monitoring and advising on implementation of the agreement spent most of its time monitoring non-implementation.
Many opportunities to implement change over the life of this SA were not taken. The following relatively easy actions could have been taken by PDE but were not:
a. Dr. Villa, a nationally recognized expert on inclusion, could have been given a proactive rather than reactive role in Pennsylvania
b. PDE could have set a realistic but meaningful goal for increasing LRE over 5 years that could have focused the commonwealth’s efforts. PDE has consistently refused to develop a vision or a goal for LRE in Pennsylvania under the SA.
c. PDE could have developed strong Corrective Action Plans and a system of target monitoring backed up by the enforcement provisions of the SA. Instead, plans for correction could be more accurately described as plans to write plans for self-correction.
d. PDE could have coordinated an early childhood initiative in their activities instead of contending that pre-school is covered by other departments
43

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
e. PDE could have addressed the role and funding of intermediate units and other non-neighborhood school settings in perpetuating segregation in Pennsylvania
f. PDE could have developed a comprehensive training and on-site technical assistance plan based on needs assessments. This could have had farreaching impact on education in the commonwealth.
3. There remains substantial disagreement between PDE and Panel members on key issues of LRE
PDE refuses to believe that there is a serious problem with LRE in PA whereas the panel believes that the problem is significant and systemic. PDE believes that LRE is a matter of considering options with a view to increasing opportunities for LRE whereas the Panel sees LRE and inclusion as a civil right that cannot be “considered away.” PDE believes that LRE is best handled via training, technical assistance and resource development and best delegated to Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network. The Panel however, believes that there is a significant role to be played in relation to enforcement, vision, leadership and systematic planning and intervention that is best and necessarily the function of PDE. PDE has failed to show it has a vision for LRE in Pennsylvanian or the leadership and political will to engage in the necessary systems change that this would entail.
This difference was evident early in the life of the agreement. In December 2008 the panel recommended that PDE adopt six priorities for the remainder of the SA. (see Table 3). These priorities were ignored by PDE at the time stating that while the priorities were very worthwhile PDE would nevertheless stay on its course to implement its workplan based on the provisions of the SA. Less than one year later, in July 2009, the panel recommended four initiatives to salvage the Settlement Agreement (a) an initiative to make sure that first graders begin their education in the least restrictive environment possible, (b) a high school initiative to make sure that LRE does not disappear in upper grades, (c) a family training initiative, and (d) an overhaul of the statewide system of training and technical assistance with respect to LRE. At that time PDE chose to take two of the Panel’s suggestions. The Kindergarten/First Grade priority was reinterpreted as a small training and technical assistance initiative and part of its obligations under the Section IV.7 of the SA to develop a comprehensive training and technical assistance plan. The panel’s most segregated populations priority was turned into a small Significant Disabilities training and technical assistance project with PaTTAN.
4. Data relating to the two provisions most relevant to assessing the benefit of education being received were denied to the panel
A major goal of the SA was not just to increase placement of students in regular education but to increase the meaningful benefit of such placement. Two provisions were directly related to assessing benefit: reviewing IEPs and reviewing complaints. PDE refused to provide the panel with the samples of IEPs it requested except for a one-time random sample of 50 IEPs. This sample size is so small as to preclude making any generalizations to the 250,000 IEPs in Pennsylvania. An analysis of the
44

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
complaints received from parents through the Department’s office of Compliance was not possible since PDE refused to provide these documents to the panel.
5. Prolonged mediation between PDE, plaintiffs and some panel members, had negative effects on implementation and operation of the panel
Over two years of mediation with two separate mediators ran the clock down for implementation since matters being mediated were not discussed at panel meetings. Confidentiality agreements severely reduced communication between panel and mediation parties on matters of mutual interest. This dynamic interfered with transparency in panel meetings since it was impossible to tell if panel discussions were being influenced by parallel discussions in mediation. The fact that more than two years of this settlement agreement were spent in mediation arguing about the terms and definitions of an agreement that was itself the result of many years of litigation shows that very little in this settlement agreement was indeed settled at the time it went into effect on September 19, 2005.
6. The timeline of this Settlement Agreement was cut short
The Agreement was to include five years of implementation. The first meeting of the Advisory panel occurred in December, 2005. At the September 2009 meeting, just prior to adjournment, BSE announced the meeting dates for the final year (2010). The dates given omitted a meeting in September 2010. For four years it had been assumed by the panel that the final meeting would be in September, 2010 since the SA was signed in September, 2005 and was for a five-year period. This would have given ample time to review additional data and monitor progress on implementation. Moreover, it was assumed that the final report would cover as much of the five-year period as possible.
On October 18, 2009 the panel wrote to the Bureau Director requesting a meeting in September 2010 due to the fact that much work needed to be done and that BSE had expressed a desire for optimal transition to a post Gaskin environment. The Bureau Director replied that he would give his decision in due time. At the March 2010 panel meeting Mr. Tommasini communicated to the panel that there would not be a meeting of the panel in September 2010 but that individual panel members were invited to attend a dinner with the keynote speaker of the statewide conference taking place in September, 2010.
The lack of a September 2010 meeting and the fact that PDE did not participate in the June, 2009 meeting had the effect of significantly reducing the implementation time of this agreement.
Finally, it is interesting to note that the panel’s first Implementation Report concluded with the following recommendations:
As we move forward with implementation, the Panel urges the Department’s attention to and consideration of the following beliefs:
45

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
! The achievement of real systems change must rely less on self-monitoring and self-prescription of remedy by school districts. Imposition of sanctions for noncompliance with corrective action and failure to implement improvement plans must be a reality.
! The panel must be acknowledged in their role as preeminent advisor on implementation, as evidenced by timely consultation on LRE-related policies and practices, provision of requested data, and earnest consideration and substantive implementation of those recommendations endorsed by the Panel.
! The Pennsylvania Department of Education must champion a vision of inclusive education that encompasses all bureaus and divisions within the Department, effectuates consistency in policy and practice, and eliminates systems barriers between regular and special education in a model of integrated community support and effective practice.
The fact that these recommendations are still valid at the end of the SA is testimony to its lack of implementation by PDE. The Bureau has stated repeatedly that it is looking past the SA timeframe and that PDE will be thinking about LRE long after the panel is dissolved. This statement is meant to be reassuring to panel members. Unfortunately, this panel cannot place much confidence in such a sentiment given the facts outlined in this report. At the June 3, 2010 meeting, the panel decided to make some final recommendations to PDE. These are outlined in Appendix 1.
46

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report

Figure Number of Improvement Plan Activities by Theme

Training (80)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Goals (26)

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

New Models & Programs (22)

XXXXXXXXXXX

Further Data Gathering (21)

XXXXXXXXXX

Procedures (16)

XXXXXXXX

Develop a Plan (12) XXXXXX

Resources (10)

XXXXX

Parents Networks (10) XXXXX

Scheduling (5)

XX

Supports (5)

XX

Other (4)

XX

Vision/Mission (3)

X

Statements (3)

X

Leadership (2)

X

47

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report

Table 1 Contrast Between PDE and Panel Regarding LRE Monitoring

MONITORING

BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

DESCRIPTION

Corrective Action & Verification /Improvement Plan Monitoring for compliance and improvement

Corrective Action Plan LRE monitoring

PURPOSE

Discovery and address of specific, discrete compliance issues

Discovery and address of underlying and systemic causes of LRE problems

PLAN COMPONENTS

Specific and discrete activities are outlined to remedy issues of non-compliance e.g., document and track meeting invitations; attendance at trainings
IEP invitations mailed in a timely manner
Regular education classes with SAS are considered
Training occurs on a regular basis

A multi-year comprehensive plan of correction with goals, monitoring, specific training and enforcement addressing, for example
Effects of historic systems of segregation on LRE
Resistance by teachers to LRE
Financial investments in alternative education settings leading to resistance to LRE

GOAL

Remediation of specific compliance issues

Increasing LRE in Pennsylvania

TRAINING

Gently expose School Districts to new ideas regarding LRE via teleconferences, guest speakers, field trips and other activities

Develop specific training that matches the needs and goals of the Corrective Action Plan

48

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report

Table 2 Levels of Implementation of Settlement Agreement

Level Implementation

Area of Focus

Regulation/Enforcement

Training/Awareness

Other

Provisions met

IEP format (IV.3(A-E) Single Plan (IV.1(C)) Regular Cyclical Monitoring (IV.4 (A) (1)(H)) LRE Index (IV.4(C)(H))

Posters (IV.1(E)) SAS Tool Kit (IV.1(D)) Privacy of Data (IV.2(J)) Needs Assessment (IV.2(L))

Advisory Panel (IV.2 (A-D)(F), (G)) Financial terms (IV.9) Enforcement and Other Terms (IV.10)

Provisions met partially

Advisory Panel Support (IV.2 (K))

Provisions met minimally

HIPPA conformity (IV.2(J)) Data provision (IV.2 (E), (H) & (I)) Overview (IV.4(B)(2)

Exemplary programs (IV.1(M)) On-site TTA (IV.7(A)

Provisions not met

Requiring adherence to Oberti (IV.1(A)) Memorandum Of Understanding (IV.1(B)) Provision of Data (IV.2(H), (I)) LRE Monitoring (IV.4(A)(3) Target monitoring (IV.4(A)(2); & IV.4(G)) Overview (IV.4(B), (D))(1) Tier 1-3 Monitoring (IV.4(D-F)) Complaint Resolution (IV.5) Plan approval (IV.6)

TTA Plan (IV.7(A)

49

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report

Table 3 Contrast Between Panel Priorities and PDE Initiatives

Panel Priorities (December 2008)

PDE Initiatives (June, 2009)

Comprehensive statewide TTA plan and model system of training

Increasing the quality of IEPs in PA

Increasing LRE in kindergarten and First Grade when available
Ensuring LRE through a student’s career

Include Me From the Start (Kindergarten/First grade Training & Technical Assistance Project)

Increasing LRE using the corrective action process

Increasing LRE for the most segregated populations (e.g., mental retardation, multiple disabilities, emotional disabilities)

Significant disabilities Training & Technical Assistance Project

Including LRE in development Standard Aligned System

Leadership training for school principals

Master Teacher Network (already in SA)

Parent Booklet Development

Including Inclusive Practices in Secondary Transition Folders

Using Data to Guide Implementation of LRE Opportunities

50

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report

Table 4 Disability Category Child Count
December 1, 2009

DISABILITY MENTAL REATRDATION HEARING IMPAIRMENTS SPEECH OR LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT VISUAL IMPAIRMENT EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE ORTHOPEDIC IMPAIRMENTS OTHER HEALTH IMPAIRMENTS SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY DEAF-BLINDNESS MULTIPLE DISABILITIES AUTISM TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY DEVELOPMENTAL DELAY TOTAL

AGE 6-21 YRS 20,945 2,595 39,643 1,069 24,149 800 21,272 134,525 60 2,718 15,871 693 69 264,409

Source: www.penndata.hbg.psu.edu

PERCENT 8 1 15 0 9 0 8 51 0 1 6 0 0
100%

51

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
Table 5 TIER 1 SCHOOL DISTRICTS
2005-2009
2005 Avonworth Bensalem Township Bethlehem-Center Bristol Borough Bristol Township Carbondale Area Chester-Upland Coatesville Area Duquesne City East Allegheny Erie City Greater Nanticoke Area Greenville Area Norristown Area Philadelphia City Reading Washington Williamsport Area Wilkinsburg Borough
2006 Brentwood Borough Charleroi Clairton City Connellsville Area Coudersport Area Greater Johnstown Lebanon Millcreek Township Northern Potter Pittston Area Pottstown Pottsville Area South Western Steelton-Highspire Sto-Rox Union City Area William Penn Woodland Hills
52

2007 Abington Allentown City Altoona Area Bangor Area Berwick Area Bethlehem Area Big Spring Chambersburg Area Columbia Borough Cornell East Stroudsburg Area Harrisburg City Johnsonburg Area Mount Union Area Pocono Mountain Shenandoah Valley Southeast Delco Southeastern Greene Steel Valley Upper Dauphin Area Williams Valley Wilson Area Wyoming Valley West
2008 Big Beaver Falls Area Blue Ridge Catasauqua Area Central Dauphin Farrell Area Hazelton Area Jeannette City Minersville Area Northern Lebanon Northern Tioga Oswayo Valley Penn-Trafford Penn Hills Penns Manor Pennsbury Sharon City Smethport Area South Allegheny South Williamsport Area Upper Moreland Township
53

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report

2009 Albert Gallatin Carlynton Conestoga Valley Easton Area Frazier Hempfield Kane Area Lancaster Mifflin County Morrisville Borough Muhlenberg Neshaminy New Brighton Area New Kensington-Arnold Pittsburgh Riverside Beaver County Rochester Area Saint Mary’s Area Upper Darby Wyoming Area

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report

54

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report

LRE INDEX SCORES and
IDENTIFICATION OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR LRE MONITORING

PDE analyzes and reports the data collected on LRE categories in the following placement categories:

1. Students with IEPs who receive special education outside regular class less than 21% of the day; (higher numbers of students are desirable)

2.

Students with IEPs who receive special education outside regular class

more than 60% of the day; and (lower numbers of students are desirable)

3. Students with IEPs served in settings outside regular schools. (lower numbers of students are desirable)

A separate LRE index score is assigned for each of these three data categories based upon each district’s relative percentage of students receiving special education services as compared to other districts.1 A high LRE index score indicates a higher potential need for systemic LRE-related improvement within a particular data category. Conversely, a low LRE index score indicates a lower potential need for systemic LRErelated improvement within a particular data category. The three LRE index scores are used to identify half of the districts for LRE monitoring, as follows:

Tier 1 – On-Site LRE Monitoring The twenty districts where LRE data indicate the highest potential need for systemic LRE related improvement are identified as Tier 1 districts and receive on-site LRE Monitoring.2 Districts are identified within the three data categories as follows:

1 The following placement data is excluded:
- Data for students who are placed without an IEP team decision (students receiving services in a hospital/homebound setting, correctional facility, or out of state facility),
- Data for students whose LEA does not control the placement (wards of state),
and - Data for one LEA where students all receive their education in another district
(Bryn Athyn School District)
2 Districts that are in the process of implementing a Tier 1 LRE corrective action and improvement plan are excluded from Tier identification. During the 2007-08 school year, 23 school districts were identified for Tier 1 on-site LRE Monitoring.

55

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
o The 5 districts with the highest score in the first data category (lowest percentage of students receiving special education services outside the regular education classroom less than 21% of the school day).
o The 10 districts with the highest score in the second data category (highest percentage of students receiving special education services outside the regular education classroom more than 60% of the school day).
o The 5 districts with the highest score in the third data category (highest percentage of students receiving special education services outside regular schools).
Tier 2 - Warning The thirty districts where LRE data indicate that the districts are close to the point of being subject to Tier 1 on-site LRE monitoring receive a letter of warning.3 The letter identifies the data that indicate a need for LRE improvement and the steps to be taken by the district. Districts are identified within the three data categories as follows:4
o The 7 districts with the highest score in the first data category (lowest percentage of students receiving special education services outside the regular education classroom less than 21% of the school day).
o The 16 districts with the highest score in the second data category (highest percentage of students receiving special education services outside the regular education classroom more than 60% of the school day).
o The 7 districts with the highest score in the third data category (highest percentage of students receiving special education services outside regular schools).
Tier 3 - Alert The districts remaining within the bottom half of the data receive a letter of alert. The letter identifies the data that indicate a need for LRE improvement and describes resources available to the district to assist in improvement.
3 Districts that are identified for Tier 1 LRE monitoring or are in the process of implementing a Tier 1 or Tier 2 LRE corrective action and improvement plan are excluded from Tier 2 identification.
4 During the 2008-09 school year, the 30 tier 2 school districts were identified as follows: 8 districts with the highest score in the first data category (two districts had the same score because they had the same percentage of students); 15 districts with the highest score in the second data category; and 7 districts with the highest score in the third data category.
56

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
APPENDIX 1 Recommendations Made at June, 3, 2010 Panel Meeting 1. Vision a. Recommend that PDE clearly establish a vision for LRE in Pennsylvania. For example, 100% of first graders will be fully included in their neighborhood schools with needed supplementary aids and supports b. Recommend that Intermediate Units not operate segregated preschool classrooms. Create preschools for all children and make it nearly impossible to have a segregated preschool experience. c. Recommend that every child must have an inclusive IEP written before other placement options are considered
2. Outcomes a. Recommend that PDE take seriously the need to provide outcomes evaluation on all PDE initiatives
3. Leadership a. Recommend that a high priority on inclusion of all children with the necessary supports and services as specified in IDEA, Gaskin Settlement Agreement and Oberti be placed on the positions of Secretary of Education and Director of the Bureau of Special Education b. Recommend that PDE/PaTTAN be more aggressive in ensuring that tools and resources such as the Needs Assessment be used at the local level
4. Ongoing Advisory Support a. Recommend that PDE continue to utilize advisory panel members on each Bureau Director initiative to ensure best practice b. Recommend that PDE examine all avenues by which panel members can maintain involvement in the work of the Bureau of Special Education such as through involvement in the Special Education Advisory Panel
5. Monitoring a. Recommend that PDE continue to monitor LRE for all 501 school districts and post results yearly on the PDE website
6. Parent Education a. Recommend continued early education for parents and professionals on the benefits of inclusive settings b. Recommend PDE support parent training in the Supplementary Aids and Services Toolkit and other instruments c. Recommend that PDE continue to send invitations to assist advocacy groups and families in forming groups of various kinds
57

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
APPENDIX 2 PENNSYLVANIA LEAST RESTRICTIVE ENVIRONMENT PLACEMENT DATA
2004-2009
58

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
DISABILITY CATEGORIES (PART 300 FEDERAL REGULATIONS, 2006)
Definitions of disability terms. The terms used in this definition of a child with a disability are defined as follows: (1)(i) Autism means a developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal communication and social interaction, generally evident before age three, that adversely affects a child’s educational performance. Other characteristics often associated with autism are engagement in repetitive activities and stereotyped movements, resistance to environmental change or change in daily routines, and unusual responses to sensory experiences. (ii) Autism does not apply if a child’s educational performance is adversely affected primarily because the child has an emotional disturbance, as defined in paragraph (c)(4) of this section. (iii) A child who manifests the characteristics of autism after age three could be identified as having autism if the criteria in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section are satisfied. (2) Deaf-blindness means concomitant hearing and visual impairments, the combination of which causes such severe communication and other developmental and educational needs that they cannot be accommodated in special education programs solely for children with deafness or children with blindness. (3) Deafness means a hearing impairment that is so severe that the child is impaired in processing linguistic information through hearing, with or without amplification that adversely affects a child’s educational performance. (4)(i) Emotional disturbance means a condition exhibiting one or more of the following characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree that adversely affects a child’s educational performance: (A) An inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors. (B) An inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers. (C) Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances. (D) A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression. (E) A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems. (ii) Emotional disturbance includes schizophrenia. The term does not apply to children who are socially maladjusted, unless it is determined that they have an emotional disturbance under paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section. (5) Hearing impairment means an impairment in hearing, whether permanent or fluctuating, that adversely affects a child’s educational performance but that is not included under the definition of deafness in this section. (6) Mental retardation means significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental period, that adversely affects a child’s educational performance. (7) Multiple disabilities means concomitant impairments (such as mental retardationblindness or mental retardation-orthopedic impairment), the combination of which causes such severe educational needs that they cannot be accommodated in special education programs solely for one of the impairments. Multiple disabilities does not include deaf-blindness.
59

Least Restrictive Environment Final Report
(8) Orthopedic impairment means a severe orthopedic impairment that adversely affects a child’s educational performance. The term includes impairments caused by a congenital anomaly, impairments caused by disease (e.g., poliomyelitis, bone tuberculosis), and impairments from other causes (e.g., cerebral palsy, amputations, and fractures or burns that cause contractures). (9) Other health impairment means having limited strength, vitality, or alertness, including a heightened alertness to environmental stimuli, that results in limited alertness with respect to the educational environment, that— (i) Is due to chronic or acute health problems such as asthma, attention deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, diabetes, epilepsy, a heart condition, hemophilia, lead poisoning, leukemia, nephritis, rheumatic fever, sickle cell anemia, and Tourette syndrome; and (ii) Adversely affects a child’s educational performance. (10) Specific learning disability—(i) General. Specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. (ii) Disorders not included. Specific learning disability does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. (11) Speech or language impairment means a communication disorder, such as stuttering, impaired articulation, a language impairment, or a voice impairment, that adversely affects a child’s educational performance. (12) Traumatic brain injury means an acquired injury to the brain caused by an external physical force, resulting in total or partial functional disability or psychosocial impairment, or both, that adversely affects a child’s educational performance. Traumatic brain injury applies to open or closed head injuries resulting in impairments in one or more areas, such as cognition; language; memory; attention; reasoning; abstract thinking; judgment; problem-solving; sensory, perceptual, and motor abilities; psychosocial behavior; physical functions; information processing; and speech. Traumatic brain injury does not apply to brain injuries that are congenital or degenerative, or to brain injuries induced by birth trauma. (13) Visual impairment including blindness means an impairment in vision that, even with correction, adversely affects a child’s educational performance. The term includes both partial sight and blindness. (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1401(3); 1401(30))
60