Special Education Hearing Officer


Child’s Name: B.L.

Date of Birth: [redacted]

Date of Hearing: 12/14/16


ODR File No. 18443-16-17-AS

Parties to the Hearing:

Parents Parent[s]

Local Education Agency
Owen J. Roberts School District 3650 St. Peters Road
Elverson, PA 19465


Parent Attorney Pro Se

LEA Attorney
Sharon Montanye Esq.
Sweet, Stevens, Katz & Williams 331 Butler Avenue
New Britain , PA 18901

Date of Decision: January 9, 2017

Hearing Officer: William Culleton Esq.


Student1 is an eligible child with a disability pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq. (IDEA). Student lives within the respondent District and is of school age. (NT 10-11.) Student is identified under the IDEA as a child with the disabilities Intellectual Disability, 34 C.F.R. §300.8(c)(6)2, and Autism, 34 C.F.R. §300.8(c)(1). (NT 10.)

The Parents challenge the timing of the District’s provision to them of a Notice of Recommended Placement/Prior Written Notice form (NOREP) on November 4, 2016. The District asserts that it provided the NOREP when it did because it was obligated to comply with the Order of a Pennsylvania hearing officer dated September 30, 2016 (Order), which required it to provide the NOREP by November 30, 20163. Parents argue that the District should not have issued the NOREP when it did, because this effectively reduced Parents’ time within which to appeal the hearing officer’s decision.

The hearing was completed in one session. I have determined the credibility and reliability of all witnesses, and I have considered and weighed all of the evidence of record. I conclude that the District’s issuance of the NOREP on November 4, 2016 was appropriate.


  1. Did the District appropriately issue the NOREP on November 4, 2016?
  1. Did the NOREP form presented to Parent require Parent to consent to services?
  2. Did the previous hearing officer have legal authority to set deadlines for compliance with his order?

Leave a Reply