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.P.

Date of Birth: [redacted]

ODR No. 00824-0910 AS


Parties to the Hearing:


School District of Philadelphia 440 North Broad Street, 3d Floor Philadelphia, PA 19130-4015


Jonathan S. Corchnoy, Esquire 1515 Market Street, Suite 1510 Philadelphia, PA 19102

Mimi Rose, Esquire
School District of Philadelphia Office of General Counsel
440 North Broad Street, Suite 313 Philadelphia, PA 19130

Date of Resolution Meeting April 28, 2010

Dates of Hearing: May 12, 2010, June 1, 2010, August 3, 2010, September 14, 2010

Record Closed: October 4, 2010

Date of Decision: October 18, 2010

Hearing Officer: William F. Culleton, Jr., Esquire


Student is a teen-aged resident of the School District of Philadelphia (District), who graduated in 2010 and presently attends college at [redacted] University in [redacted city] [redacted state]. (NT 30-16 to 31-16, 320-17 to 321-14.) While enrolled in the District, Student was not identified as a child with a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq. (IDEA). (NT 31-18 to 32-12.) The Student did receive services under a District Service Agreement under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794(a)(section 504) and Chapter 15 of the Pennsylvania Code, 22 Pa. Code §15.7.

Student’s Parent, through the assistance of the Student’s sibling, seeks compensatory education and other relief for the District’s alleged failure to identify the Student under the IDEA and provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE). (P-1, P-2.) I find that the Student made meaningful educational progress and therefore deny the requested relief.

The hearing was conducted and concluded in four sessions on May 12, 2010, June 1, 2010, August 3, 2010, and September 14, 2010. Written summations were received in the matter on October 4, whereupon the record closed.



  1. During the period from March 16, 2008 to June 1, 2010, did the District inappropriately fail to identify the Student with a Specific Learning Disability regarding reading, thus failing to fulfill its Child Find obligation?
  2. Was the District’s Re-evaluation, reflected in its Report dated April 20, 2010, appropriate?
  3. Should the hearing officer order an independent educational evaluation including psychological, speech and language, auditory processing, reading and assistive technology evaluations?
  4. Should the hearing officer order the District to provide compensatory education to the Student for deprivation of a FAPE from March 16, 2008 to June 1, 2010?

Leave a Reply