This is a redacted version of the original hearing officer decision. Select details have been removed from the decision to preserve anonymity of the student as required by IDEA 2004. Those portions of the decision which pertain to the student’s gifted education have been removed in accordance with 22 Pa. Code § 16.63 regarding closed hearings.
Pennsylvania
Special Education Hearing Officer
DECISION
Child’s Name: B. B.
Date of Birth: xx/xx/xx
Dates of Hearing:
January 5, 2006 and January 19, 2006
CLOSED HEARING
ODR #6061/ 05-06 LS
Parties to the Hearing:
Mr. and Mrs. [Parents]
Council Rock School District The Chancellor Center
30 North Chancellor Street Newtown, PA 18940
Representative:
David T. Painter, Esquire McAndrews Law Offices 30 Cassatt Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312
Hollie John, Esquire
Sweet, Stevens, Tucker & Katz P.O. Box 5069
New Britain, PA 18901
Date Record Closed: January 26, 2006
Date of Decision: February 9, 2006
Hearing Officer: William F. Culleton, Jr., Esquire
INTRODUCTION
Student is a [teenaged] eligible student residing within the Council Rock School District. Student attended the High School for ninth and tenth grades; however, between December 8, 2005 and January 2, 2006, his parents, Parents, unilaterally placed him in a private school. (NT 28-16 to 22, 29-8 to 13.) The Student has been classified with other health impairment due to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and Specific Learning Disability in written expression. He has been diagnosed with Asperger’s Disorder. The Parents have requested an independent evaluation at District expense, and the District has filed for a due process hearing to determine whether or not the District’s latest evaluation, dated June, 2005, was appropriate.
The District asserts that its evaluation of June 29, 2005 was appropriate because it was conducted by qualified personnel, was comprehensive and otherwise complied with the requirements of the IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. It ruled out Autism and found that any educational interference was due to oppositional behavior due to social maladjustment, and not due to emotional disturbance.
The Parents assert that the evaluation was not appropriate because it was not comprehensive in light of the history of prior evaluations and classifications, and because it employed instruments that were not valid for the purposes for which they were used. As a result, they assert, the Evaluation failed to classify the Student as a child with a disabilities of Asperger’s Syndrome and serious emotional disturbance.
ISSUE
1. Was the evaluation of June 29, 2005 appropriate so as to divest Parents of their right to an independent Educational Evaluation at District expense?
B-B-Council-Rock-ODRNo-6061-05-06-LS