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. 00979-0910AS
Child’s Name: C.F.
Date of Birth: [redacted]
Date of Hearing: 6/15/10
Parties to the Hearing:
Pine Grove Area
103 School Street
Pine Grove, PA 17963-1698
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.
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?