Mt. Lebanon SD v. J.S., by and through his parents H.H. and J.S.
172 A.3d 1190
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- J.S., a seventh-grade student in Mt. Lebanon School District, is identified as "gifted" and has a GIEP that accelerates him two years in mathematics so he attends a high‑school geometry class.
- The middle school is ~0.13 miles from J.S.'s home; the high school is an additional ~0.4–0.6 miles from the middle school; the full walk home→middle→high school is ~40–45 minutes.
- The District is a walking district that provides no regular transportation except for students with disabilities; it does provide a return ride from the high school to the middle school after the geometry class.
- J.S. (through his parents) filed a due process complaint claiming the District’s failure to provide morning transportation from the middle school to the high school violated his GIEP and raised safety concerns.
- A Gifted Education Hearing Officer ordered the District to provide morning transport under Section 1374; the District appealed.
- The Commonwealth Court reversed, holding Sections 1374 and 1362 authorize but do not mandate that a school district provide free transportation and that the District did not abuse its discretion in being a walking district.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1374 requires the school district to provide free transportation to a gifted student attending an approved class offsite | §1374, read with related code sections, obligates districts to transport gifted students required to travel >1.5 miles | §1374 uses "may," so it grants districts discretion; intermediate unit provides transport only if district does not | Court: §1374 authorizes but does not mandate district transport; district not required to provide free transport |
| Whether §1362 creates a mandatory distance-based entitlement (1.5 miles) to transportation | §1362 + §1374 together impose a 1.5‑mile rule triggering transport | §1362 merely lists means/conditions under which a district may furnish transport; it does not mandate service | Court: §1362 is permissive/enumerative, not a mandatory entitlement statute |
| Whether Woodland Hills controls to require District transport here | Woodland Hills interpreted §1374 to require transport where district provided midday transport to all students; Student relies on its legal rule | District distinguishes Woodland Hills because that district had elected to provide transportation to all students; here District is a walking district | Court: Woodland Hills is inapposite because that case involved a district that had elected to provide transportation to all students |
| Whether District abused its discretion in uniformly applying a walking‑district policy | J.S. argued safety/fear and missed classes show denial of appropriate implementation of GIEP | District showed uniform walking‑district policy applied to all students and no evidence of arbitrariness or physical inability to walk the route | Court: No showing of arbitrary/capricious action or abuse of discretion; court will not disturb board’s discretionary transportation policy |
Key Cases Cited
- Woodland Hills School District v. Dept. of Education, 516 A.2d 875 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (district that elected to provide midday transportation to all students implicated §1374 obligations)
- Abrahams v. Wallenpaupack Area School District, 422 A.2d 1201 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (§1362 is descriptive of means; does not mandate free bus service)
- Roberts v. Board of Directors of the School District of the City of Scranton, 341 A.2d 475 (Pa. 1975) (boards’ transportation discretion is plenary absent bad faith or abuse)
- Punxsutawney Area School District v. Kanouff, 663 A.2d 831 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (scope of review for hearing officer adjudications: substantial evidence, errors of law, constitutional violations)