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.
Special Education Hearing Officer
Child’s Name: B.L.
Date of Birth: [redacted]
Date of Hearing: 5/15/2015
ODR File No. 16048-14-15-KE
Parties to the Hearing:
Local Education Agency
Owen J. Roberts School District 901 Ridge Road
Pottstown, PA 19465-8423
Sharon Montanye Esq.
Sweet, Stevens, Katz & Williams PO Box 5069, 331 Butler Avenue New Britain , PA 18901
Date Record Closed: 5/15/2015
Date of Decision: 6/4/15
Hearing Officer: William Culleton Esq.
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
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. (1NT 8-9.)2 Student is identified under the IDEA as a child with the disabilities Autism, 34 C.F.R. §300.8(c)(1), and Intellectual Disability, 34 C.F.R. §300.8(c)(6)3. (1NT 8.)
The Parents challenge the appropriateness of specific language in an individualized educational program (IEP) offered by the District. The District responds that the IEP is appropriate and that it should not be revised as requested by Parent. The hearing was completed in one session. I conclude that much of the contested IEP language is inappropriate and I order removal of specific language.
- Does the IDEA permit the District to add a log or summary of Parent’s statements to the IEP, and is the added log or summary at page 6 of the IEP appropriate?
- Are the SDI set forth in the IEP, which offer to provide assessments and training of Parents in the home setting, appropriate?
- Is the SDI set forth in the IEP, which offers to provide “informal screening” regarding Student’s physical therapy needs, appropriate?
Does the IEP contain appropriate language showing how Student’s disabilities affect Student’s involvement and progress in the general education curriculum? If not, should the hearing officer order its inclusion in the IEP?