BC vs. Southern York County 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

DUE PROCESS HEARING

Name of Child: BC
ODR #8186/0-08 LS

Date of Birth:
xx/xx/xx

Dates of Hearing:
February 5, 2008
April 11, 2008
April 14, 2008
April 25, 2008
May 2, 2008
May 5, 2008

CLOSED HEARING

Parties to the Hearing:

Mr. and Mrs.

Southern York County School District 3280 Fissels Church Road
PO Box 128
Glen Rock, Pennsylvania 17327

Representative:
Tanya Alvarado, Esquire McAndrews Law Offices
30 Cassatt Avenue
Berwyn, Pennsylvania 19312

Sharon Montanye, Esquire Sweet, Stevens, Katz & Williams PO Box 5069
New Britain, Pennsylvania 18901

Date Record Closed: July 17, 2008

Date of Decision: July 30, 2008

Hearing Officer: Linda M. Valentini, Psy.D.

Background

Student is a teenage student who is a resident of the Southern York County School District (hereinafter District). On October 12, 2007 the Parents filed a Due Process Complaint raising Child Find issues that dated back to the 2000-2001 (1st grade) school year through February 28, 2003 (3rd grade) when Student was found to be eligible for special education services and provided with an IEP. The Parents assert that the District then denied Student FAPE by conducting inappropriate reevaluations and offering inappropriate IEPs from the remainder of the 3rd grade school year to May 10, 2006 when Student was exited from special education. The Parents allege that the District inappropriately exited Student from special education and by so doing continued to deny Student FAPE from May 11, 2006 to the present. The Parents sought compensatory education for the 1st grade school year, including summers, to the present, as well as reimbursement for an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE), for private tutoring services and for private counseling services. Finally, the Parents are seeking a finding that Student is a child who is eligible for special education services and or a 504 Service Plan.

As noted below this hearing officer held a preliminary hearing on the issue of exceptions to the two-year limitations period, and finding no exception(s) existed, limited the scope of the hearing to the period from October 12, 2005 (6th grade) to the present.

Issues

  1. Did the District fail to offer Student a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) from October 12, 2005 to May 10, 2006? If the District did not offer Student FAPE during this time period, is Student entitled to compensatory education and in what form and amount?
  2. Did the District inappropriately exit Student from special education on May 10, 2006 at the end of Student’s 6th grade school year and thus deny Student’s FAPE? If the District did inappropriately exit Student from special education and thus deny Student’s FAPE, is Student entitled to compensatory education and in what amount?
  1. Is Student a student who is eligible under the IDEIA and therefore a protected handicapped student? If so under what classification(s) is Student eligible? If Student is not eligible under the IDEIA is Student a protected handicapped student?
  2. Should the District be required to reimburse the Parents for the Independent Educational Evaluation they obtained for Student?
  3. Should the District be required to reimburse the Parents for the private reading tutoring services they obtained for Student?
  4. Should the District be required to reimburse the Parents for the private counseling they have obtained for Student?
BC-Southern-York-County-ODRNo-8186-0-08-LS

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.