BM vs. Quakertown Community Sch. Dist.

Pennsylvania
Special Education Hearing Officer

DECISION
Child’s Name: B. M.
Date of Birth: [redacted]
Dates of Hearing: 02/22/2017, 02/24/2017, 03/16/2017, 04/19/2017

ODR File No. 18379-1617AS

CLOSED HEARING

Parties to the Hearing:

Parents Parent[s]

Local Education Agency

Quakertown Community Sch. Dist. 100 Commerce Drive Quakertown, PA 18951

Representative:

Student Attorney

Hollie John, Esq.
Jacobson & John LLP
99 Lantern Drive, Suite 202 Doylestown, PA 18901

LEA Attorney

Mark W. Cheramie Walz, Esq. Sweet Stevens Katz & Williams LLP 331 E. Butler Avenue
New Britain, PA 18601

Date of Decision: 05/22/2017

Hearing Officer: Brian Jason Ford, JD, CHO

Introduction

The parents (Parents) requested this special education due process hearing on behalf of their child (Student), against the Quakertown Community School District (District).1

The Student exhibits significant school avoidance behaviors. Currently, the parties are unable to get the Student to attend school. This matter concerns the appropriateness of the District’s actions in the years leading up to the current situation, and the parties’ current efforts to return the Student to school.

This matter arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.

Specifically, the Parents claim that the District failed to suspect that the Student has a disability and initiate the IDEA’s evaluation process, violating the IDEA’s Child Find requirements, described below. Eventually, the Student was identified as “protected handicapped student” under Section 504, and received a Section 504 service agreement (504 Agreement). The Parents claim that the 504 Agreement was inappropriate. Ultimately, the Student received an IDEA evaluation, that evaluation was documented in an Evaluation Report (ER). Through the ER, the Student was found eligible to receive special education. An Individualized Education Plan (IEP) was drafted for the Student. The Parents claim that the ER and resulting IEP were both inappropriate.

Explained below, I find partly in favor of the Parents and partly in favor of the District.

Issues

On January 19, 2017, the Parents clarified via email that they are only seeking relief from October 25, 2014, forward. The issues in this case were phrased differently at various points in the testimony and in the Complaint. My synthesis of those various phrasings results in the following issues:

  1. From October 25, 2014 through March 2, 2016, was the Student entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the IDEA and, if so, did the District provide a FAPE and, if not, is the Student owed compensatory education?
  2. From March 2, 2016 through September 14, 2016, was the Student’s 504 Agreement appropriate and, if not, is the Student entitled to compensatory education?
  3. From September 14, 2016 onward, was the Student’s IEP appropriate and, if not, is the Student entitled to compensatory education?
B-M-Quakertown-Community-ODRNo-18379-1617AS

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.