PENNSYLVANIA
SPECIAL EDUCATION HEARING OFFICER
DECISION
DUE PROCESS HEARING
Name of Child: I.K.
ODR #2158/11-12 KE
Date of Birth: [redacted]
Dates of Hearing: October 4, 2011
October 7, 2011 November 4, 2011 November 7, 2011 January 6, 2012 January 20, 2012 January 27, 2012
CLOSED HEARING
Parties to the Hearing: Parents
Haverford Township School District 50 E. Eagle Road
Havertown, PA 19083
Representative:
Sonja Kerr, Esquire
PILCOP
1709 Benjamin Franklin Parkway Philadelphia, PA 19103
Natalie Habert, Esquire BeattyLincke
2000 Old Forge Road Suite 202 Kennett Square, PA 19348
Date Record Closed: March 20, 2012
Decision Due Date: April 19, 2012
Date of Decision: April 18, 2012
Hearing Officer: Linda M. Valentini, Psy.D., CHO Certified Hearing Official
Background
Student1 is a late teen-aged resident of the District who is eligible for special education pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]2 under the classification of Intellectual Disability, and consequently a protected handicapped individual under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [Section 504],3 as well as the federal and state regulations implementing those statutes.
The Parents assert that Student was denied a free appropriate public education [FAPE] under the IDEA and suffered discrimination under Section 504 and is therefore entitled to appropriate remedies. The Parents also assert that the District has denied them meaningful participation in Student’s program and has engaged in retaliation.
The District maintains that at all times Student was provided with FAPE, that Student was not discriminated against, that the Parents were offered meaningful participation and that it did not engage in retaliation.
Student began attending District schools in 4th grade but has been educated at home at the Parents’ choice since March 13, 2009. Because of events explained in the Procedural History the relevant period addressed in this decision is from June 15, 2007 to the present.
Issues10
- Did the District deny Student a free, appropriate public education under the IDEA during the relevant period in the following and/or other areas by
- Failing to provide an appropriate evaluation including non-verbal instruments and an FBA; and/or
- Failing to follow appropriate procedure when the Parents requested an IEE; and/or
- Failing to provide appropriate and measurable IEP goals, a behavior management plan, transition services, assistive technology, speech/language services including alternative means of communication, and/or an appropriate aide;
- Denying the Parents meaningful participation in deciding educational environment; and/or
- Refusing to provide homebound services; and/or
- Retaliating against the Parents as a result of their complaint to the BSE?
- Did the District discriminate against Student in consideration of the requirements under Section 504 by denying equal opportunity to access the regular education curriculum?
- As a result of any or all of the above alleged failures of the District, did Student fail to make meaningful educational progress and/or regress in some areas?
- If the District violated the IDEA and/or Section 504 in any or all these areas, must the District fund appropriate educational services in reading, mathematics, writing and/or other academic subjects; and/or fund an appropriate transition evaluation; and/or fund an appropriate assistive technology evaluation; and/or fund appropriate speech/language services; and/or reimburse the Parents for costs of private tutoring; and/or be responsible for providing other remedies as the hearing officer finds appropriate?