AR vs. Great Valley School District

This is a redacted version of the original decision. Select details have been removed
from the decision to preserve anonymity of the student. The redactions do not affect the
substance of the document.

Pennsylvania
Special Education Hearing Officer

DECISION

Child’s Name: AR

Date of Birth: x/xx/xxxx

ODR No. 00398-0910 AS

CLOSED HEARING

Parties to the Hearing:

Great Valley School District 47 Church Road
Malvern, PA 19355-1539

Representative:

Dean M. Beer, Esquire McAndrews Law Offices, P.C. 30 Cassatt Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312

David T. Painter, Esquire
Sweet, Stevens, Katz & Williams 331 East Butler Avenue
P.O. Box 5069
New Britain, PA 18901

Date of Ruling: May 12, 2010

Hearing Officer: William F. Culleton, Jr., Esquire

INTRODUCTION

(Student) is a seven year old eligible resident of the Great Valley School District (District). (NT 11-10 to 14.) He is privately placed in the Vanguard School, an Approved Private School for special education. (NT 24-3.) The Student is identified with Autism and Mental Retardation. (NT 12-2 to 3.) The Student attended kindergarten at the District’s K.D. Markley Elementary School during the 2008-2009 school year.

The parents seek full day compensatory education for the entire 2008- 2009 school year, including ESY services, alleging that the District failed to provide a FAPE to the Student. 1 In particular, they allege that the District failed to evaluate the Student appropriately with regard to his behavioral, social and emotional needs. They also assert that the District failed to offer or implement an appropriate educational program to the Student.

The District asserts that it offered a program and placement that was reasonably calculated to provide meaningful educational benefit and that it implemented that program appropriately. It asserts that, as a result, the Student made meaningful progress in kindergarten.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Parents filed their Complaint Notice by letter dated October 26, 2009. The hearing was held in three sessions: December 23, 2009, February 3, 2009 and March 18, 2009. Written summations were received on April 27, 2010 and the record closed on that day.

ISSUES

1 The Parents’ complaint was based upon the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq.; and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, section 504 (section 504), 29 U.S.C. §794.

1

  1. During the period from September 2, 2008 through July 31, 2009, did the District appropriately evaluate the Student with regard to his behavioral, social and emotional needs?
  2. During the period from September 2, 2008 through July 31, 2009, did the District offer an educational program and placement that for the 2008-2009 school year that was reasonably calculated to provide the Student with meaningful educational benefit by appropriately addressing all of the Student’s educational needs?
  3. During the period from September 2, 2008 through July 31, 2009, did the District provide the Student with a meaningful educational benefit through an appropriate educational program and placement?
  4. Should the hearing officer award compensatory education to the Student?

 

AR-Great-Valley-ODRNo-00398-0910-AS

Leave a Reply

Pennsylvania

Montgomery Law, LLC
1420 Locust Street, Suite 420
Philadelphia, PA 19102
T/F. 215-650-7563

Rate By
SUPER LAWYERS
Joseph W Montgomery, II

New Jersey

Historic Smithville, Suite 1
1 N. New York Road
Galloway, NJ 08205
(all mail to Phila. office)
T. 856-282-5550

Disclaimer: Montgomery Law, LLC does not give legal advice until after it has entered into an attorney-client relationship. No part of this website creates an attorney-client relationship. All Parts of this website are Attorney Advertising. The photos and videos on this website contain portrayals of clients by non-clients, re-enactment of scenes, pictures and persons which are not actual or authentic and depictions which are a dramatization.