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.



Child’s Name: B.W.

Date of Birth: [redacted]

Dates of Hearing:
August 11, 2011, August 23, 2011
August 30, 2011, September 27, 2011


ODR File No. 2029-1011AS

Parties to the Hearing:


Methacton School District 1001 Kriebel Mill Road Norristown, PA 19403


Liliana Yazno-Bartle, Esquire Law Offices of Caryl Andrea Oberman
Grove Summit Office Park 607A North Easton Road Willow Grove, PA 19090

Sharon W. Montanye, Esquire Kathleen M. Metcalfe, Esquire
Sweet, Stevens, Katz & Williams LLP 331 E. Butler Avenue
New Britain, PA 18901

Date Record Closed: October 21, 2011

Date of Decision: November 4, 2011

Hearing Officer: Cathy A. Skidmore, M.Ed., J.D.



Student1 is a high school-aged student in the Methacton School District (District) who is eligible for special education pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)2 by reason of a specific learning disability in reading, mathematics, and written expression. Student’s Parents filed a due process complaint against the District in June 2011, asserting that it denied Student a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) under the IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 19733 for the 2009-10 and 2010-11 school years, as well as the program proposed for and ultimately implemented at the start of the 2011-12 school year. The Parents sought compensatory education, an order for a private placement at public expense,4 and reimbursement for an independent educational evaluation (IEE).

The case proceeded to a due process hearing convening over four sessions, at which the parties presented evidence in support of their respective positions. The Parent sought to establish that the District failed to provide Student with FAPE throughout the time periods in question. The District maintained that its special education program, as offered and implemented, was appropriate for Student.

For the reasons set forth below, I find in favor of the Parents on a portion of the claims, and in favor of the District on a portion of the claims.


  1. Whether the educational program provided to Student during the 2009-10 and 2010-11 school years was appropriate;
  2. Whether the educational program proposed and currently implemented during the 2011-12 school year was and is appropriate;
  3. Whether Student was entitled to extended school year program during the summers of 2009, 2010, and 2011;
  4. Whether Student is entitled to compensatory education for any of those time periods and, if so, in what amount;
  5. Whether Student requires a private school placement at public expense;
  6. Whether the Parents are entitled to reimbursement for the IEE.

Leave a Reply