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.
IN THE PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Final Decision and Order
ODR File No. 2330-1112AS
Child’s Name: C.D.1
Date of Birth: [redacted]
Hearing Dates: 11/21/2011, 01/30/2012
Parties to the Hearing
Bethel Park School District 301 Church Road
Bethel Park, PA 15102
Pamela E. Burger, Esquire 434 Grace Street Pittsburgh, PA 15211
Michael L. Brungo, Esquire Maiello, Brungo & Maiello, LLP 3301 McCrady Road Pittsburgh, PA 15217
Record Closed: March 2, 2012
Date of Decision: March 2, 2012
Hearing Officer: Brian Jason Ford
The Parents requested the instant due process hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, as amended 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (IDEA). They allege that the Bethel Park School District (District) has violated the Student’s right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Specifically, the Parents allege that the Student’s individualized education programs (IEPs) have not provided the type of social skills training and behavioral interventions that the Student requires. The Parents also claim that the Student’s IEPs were not reasonably calculated to ensure that the Student could make meaningful educational progress in academic areas – and that meaningful progress was, in fact, not made.
For reasons detailed below, this Hearing Officer determines that the District has not provided the social skills training and behavioral supports that the Student needs, and that the District has not provided appropriate Math instruction leading to a denial of FAPE in that particular area. Remedies are awarded to correct these particular denials.
1. Was the Student denied FAPE from September 14, 2009 through the present?
2. Has the District offered an appropriate IEP to the Student?
The Parents argue that both questions should be answered in the negative, and demand compensatory education and an independent FBA. The District argues that both questions should be answered in the affirmative and that no remedy is owed.