.

Legal Updates for Special Education Law

Legal Update for Special Education Law – Updates from the Pennsylvania Department of Education

Presented by the School Leaders’ Liability Practice Group

May 1, 2024

by Christopher J. Conrad

PDE Publishes 2022–2023 Report of Expenditures Relating to Exceptional Pennsylvania Students

Act 16 of 2000, in part, amended Section 1372 of the Public School Code of 1949, and it requires the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) to compile information, annually, listing the number of students throughout the Commonwealth with disabilities and the expenditures related to each student. School districts and charter schools must report to PDE the number of students with disabilities for which expenditures fall in one of five categories:

Category

Cost Range

1A

$1.00 - $5,042.49

1B

$5,042.50 - $27,535.15

2

$27,535.16 - $55,070.31

3A

$55,070.32 - $82,605.51

3B

$82,605.52 and over

 

PDE compiles this data—based on the prior fiscal (school) year’s costs—and reports annually.

In February 2024, PDE published its Report of Expenditures Relating to Exceptional Pennsylvania Students for fiscal year 2022–2023. PDE reported that all 500 school districts and 175 charter schools in Pennsylvania submitted expenditure data for 2022–2023. The compiled data below shows the student count per cost category, with comparison to counts for the prior fiscal year 2021–2022:

Category

Cost Range

FY 21-22 # of students

FY 22-23 # of students

Increase/ Decrease

1A

$1.00 - $5,042.49

72,120

91,573

19,453

1B

$5,042.50 - $27,535.15

254,154

249,736

(4,418)

2

$27,535.16 - $55,070.31

24,307

25,954

1,647

3A

$55,070.32 - $82,605.51

7,213

7,317

104

3B

$82,605.52 and over

3,294

4,291

997

 

PDE also required each school district or charter school that showed an increase of 20% or greater from data reported for fiscal year 2022–23 to provide PDE’s Bureau of Special Education with documentation to substantiate the reported data and expenditures.

The overall takeaway from the above data is that school districts and charter schools across Pennsylvania saw an increase from the prior fiscal year, in total, of nearly 17,800 students who are receiving special education and related services and who require an expenditure of public funds to support them. And, significantly, there was an increase of nearly 1,000 students who required expenditures to support them of $82,605.52 or more.

The Report also stated that in fiscal year 2022–2023, the total public school and charter school student enrollment in Pennsylvania was 1,680,038, and the number of IDEA eligible children was 324,720, or 19.3% of the total student population. By comparison, for fiscal year 2021–2022, the total student enrollment was 1,684,754, and the number of IDEA eligible children was 313,446, or 18.6% of the total student population. Thus, Pennsylvania saw a slight increase in 2022–23 in the overall percentage of IDEA eligible students from the prior school year. 


 

Legal Update for Special Education Law – May 2024 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We would be pleased to provide such legal assistance as you require on these and other subjects when called upon. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1 Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints or inquiries, or if you wish to be removed from this mailing list, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.