The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review an appeal over what services a 3-year-old with disabilities should receive during a dispute between her family and a public education agency over the child’s individualized education program.
From age 2 ½, Georgia Pardini, who has cerebral palsy, had received “conducive education,” a method addressing central-nervous-system disabilities. When she turned 3, the transition age under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act for moving a child from a medically oriented “individualized family-services plan” to an IEP, her new service provider, the Allegheny Intermediate Unit, based in Homestead, Pa., refused to include conducive education in her IEP.
In August, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, in Philadelphia, ruled that the intermediate unit should have maintained the status quo of appropriate services, including conducive education, until the child’s IEP was made final.
The Supreme Court on March 27 refused to hear the unit’s appeal in Allegheny Intermediate Unit v. Pardini (Case No. 05-795).
A version of this article appeared in the April 05, 2006 edition of Education Week