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
Special Education Hearing Officer
ODR No. 2273-1112 KE
Child”s Name: CD
Date of Birth: [redacted]
Date of Hearing: 11/7/11
Parties to the Hearing: Parents
375 South Jennersville Road West Grove, PA 19390
Dean Beer, Esquire McAndrews Law Office 30 Cassatt Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312
School District Attorney
Kathleen Metcalfe, Esquire
Sweet, Stevens, Katz & Williams 331 Butler Avenue, P.O. Box 5069 New Britain, PA 18901
Date Record Closed: December 16, 2011
Date of Decision: December 29, 2011
Hearing Officer: Anne L. Carroll, Esq.
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Student in this case resides within the District but has been enrolled in a charter school since the beginning of the 2010/2011 school year. The issues in this case center primarily on Student’s last two years in the District.
Although Student has a medical diagnosis of ADHD, for which the District provided accommodations and supports via a §504 Service Agreement during the last quarter of the 2008/2009 school year and the entire 2009/2010 school year, a multi-disciplinary evaluation completed in February 2009 resulted in the District’s conclusion that Student was not IDEA eligible under the categories of specific learning disability (SLD) in math, and/or other health impairment (OHI) because Student did not need specially designed instruction, although Student met the first part of the eligibility criteria for both disability categories.
Parents initiated the due process complaint in August 2011, claiming that the District’s failure to provide Student with special education services from the time Student enrolled in the District at the beginning of the 2004/2005 school year through the end of the 2009/2010 school years constituted a denial of FAPE. At the time the hearing was convened, however, Parents limited their claim to full days of compensatory education from February 2007 through the end of Student’s last year in the District, based upon the alleged identification error and an alleged child find violation for the 2 years prior to the District’s evaluation.
The record compiled at the one session due process hearing established that the District’s non-eligibility conclusion was correct, and, therefore, the record did not support Parents’ claims for denial of FAPE based upon a failure to properly identify Student and/or a child find violation.
The record further established that the District provided Student with an effective and properly implemented §504 Service Agreement. Parents’ claims in this matter are, therefore, denied.
- Did the School District improperly fail to identify Student as a child with a disability and eligible for services under the IDEA?
- Did the School District effectively address Student’s needs for academic supports through an appropriate and properly implemented §504 Service Agreement?
- Is Student entitled to an award of compensatory education and if so, for what period, in what amount and in what form?