Court Opinion

ID: 9733543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:10:15.947151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:42.253220
License: Public Domain

BYER, Judge,
concurring.
I agree that the Special Education Appeals Panel correctly decided the narrow issues before us, and I would affirm based upon the excellent opinion of Appellate Officer Selkowitz.1
I believe it warrants emphasis that Anderson, who appears to be seeking what he believes to be the best education for his educationally gifted daughter,2 does not bear *373total responsibility for the problems in this case, although the fact that he is proceeding pro se does not help. Instead, I agree completely with the observation of Appellate Officer Selkowitz, who wrote in his opinion for the Special Education Appeals Panel:
Although there is much in this record that is not clear, there is one conclusion which can be drawn with crystalline purity: the school district failed to follow mandated procedures regarding due process at almost every turn. It is simply not within the discretion of the school district to decide which processes it will and will not follow no matter how well intentioned the motives of the person or persons making those decisions. For example, and without belaboring all of the difficulties displayed by the district’s actions in this case, the district was required to have forwarded the request for a hearing to the Right to Education office upon its receipt from the parents. In actuality, the school district never forwarded this request and the hearing only resulted from the parents making the request more than three months later and directly to the Right to Education office. Had those three months not elapsed, it is quite likely that this matter would and could have been resolved prior to the beginning of the school year or certainly near the beginning of the school year, thus limiting any issues regarding pendency. Moreover, it is also clear that the school district has not followed the appropriate procedures regarding the development of an IEP for Huldah. The district’s attempt to do so during the hearing process does not replace or excuse its obligations to follow the regulations.
(Opinion, pp. 5-6).
A top priority of our public education system must be the nurturing of educationally gifted students to enable them to *374reach their full potential. The Department of Education’s regulations, in conformity with the mandates of state and federal law, are designed to guard against school districts losing our best and brightest by failing to provide them with the special attention they need to avoid the real threat of educational boredom faced by a gifted child whose special talents are not recognized or nurtured properly.
It truly is unfortunate when the proper education of a gifted child must be determined through an adversarial litigation process. A court is not the best forum for deciding such issues. Instead, for the education system and the administrative review process to function properly, there must be more cooperation by school districts in addressing the legitimate concerns of parents of gifted children than occurred at least initially in this case.
Our affirming the decision of the Special Education Appeals Panel in this case should not be viewed as condoning the conduct of the school district criticized in the opinion by Appellate Officer Selkowitz or as diminishing the rights of gifted children and their parents.

. I disagree with the majority that Anderson has failed to preserve for review his argument that certain psychological information and reports should be stricken from the record. This issue was addressed in the opinion by Appellate Officer Selkowitz and I believe the Special Education Appeals Panel acted within its discretion in rejecting the argument (pp. 7-8).

. Appellate Officer Selkowitz did observe that Anderson might unwittingly be working at odds with Huldah’s best interest by removing her *373from the enrichment program in favor of her placement in a "pull out” program. Although there is some logic to this observation, and it is possible that Anderson is laboring under a misunderstanding of the relative benefits of the enrichment and “pull out” programs, Anderson does have the right to proceed according to what he considers to be the best interest of his daughter.