CF vs. Pine Grove Area School District

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.

Pennsylvania
Special Education Hearing Officer

DECISION

ODR No. 00979-0910AS

Child’s Name: C.F.

Date of Birth: [redacted]

Date of Hearing: 6/15/10

CLOSED HEARING

Parties to the Hearing:

Parents
Parent[s]

School District

Pine Grove Area
103 School Street
Pine Grove, PA 17963-1698

Representative:

Parent Attorney

Phillip Drumheiser, Esq P.O. Box 890
Carlisle, PA 17013

School District Attorney

Sharon Montanye, Esq.
Sweet, Stevens, Katz & Williams 331 Butler Avenue, P.O. Box 5069 New Britain, PA 18901-0934

Date Record Closed: July 10, 2010

Date of Decision: July 23, 2010

Hearing Officer: Anne L. Carroll, Esq.

 

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Student, a pre-teen-aged resident of the Pine Grove Area School District, recently completed 5th grade in a regular education classroom in the neighborhood school. After a March 2010 initial evaluation was completed, Student began receiving itinerant visually impaired and learning support services and related services.

Student’s Mother first requested an educational evaluation to determine Student’s eligibility for IDEA services at the end of the 2008/2009 school year. After learning that Student was expected to have eye surgery in the fall of 2009, the District postponed the evaluation until Student’s doctor notified Parent that Student had sufficiently healed from the surgery and Parent renewed her evaluation request.

The psycho-educational evaluation conducted included standardized cognitive and achievement tests, a behavior rating scale completed by Parent, two teachers and Student, along with vision, mobility and occupational therapy assessments, Student was identified as IDEA eligible due to vision impairment. Although Parent agreed with that determination, she disagreed with the District’s conclusion that Student is not also eligible for special education under the category of specific learning disability.

The District denied Parent’s request to fund an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) to explore other potential disabilities and filed a due process complaint to support the appropriateness of its evaluation. The record compiled at a brief hearing session, including the testimony of school psychologists called by each of the parties, the District’s evaluation report and the written comments of Parent’s expert witness, supports the conclusion that Student is not entitled to an IEE at public expense because the District’s evaluation meets IDEA statutory/regulatory standards, appropriately and accurately identified Student’s disability, and

Student’s special education and related services needs.

ISSUES

Did the School District conduct an evaluation of Student in March 2010 that accurately identified Student’s disability and described all of Student’s special education and related services needs, and, therefore, is appropriate?

 

C-F-Pine-Grove-Area-ODRNo-00979-0910AS

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.