CG vs. Council Rock 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

Child’s Name: C.G.

Date of Birth: [redacted]

Dates of Hearing:

May 25, 2011
June 14, 2011
June 30, 2011

OPEN HEARING

ODR Case # 1552-10-11-AS

Parties to the Hearing:

Parent[s]

Council Rock School District 30 North Chancellor Street Newtown, PA 18940

Representative:

Pro Se

Catherine Nguyen, Esq. 60 East Court Street Doylestown, PA 18901

Date Record Closed: June 30, 2011

Date of Decision: July 18, 2011

Hearing Officer: Jake McElligott, Esquire

 

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Student is a pre-teen-aged student residing in the Council Rock School District (“District”) who is a student with a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act of 2004 (“IDEIA”)1. The parties do not dispute that the student qualifies under the IDEIA.

The parties, however, have highly divergent views of what the student’s educational needs are. Parent believes that the student is low- average cognitive ability but has learning difficulties that require attention in a cognitive strengthening environment. The District believes that the student has moderate cognitive impairment that requires a placement in a life skills program.

The parent has requested tuition reimbursement of a privately funded education placement due to an alleged failure by the District to propose an education program reasonably calculated to provide a free appropriate public education (”FAPE”). Particularly, parent claims that reimbursement is owed for an alleged failure by the District to propose a program to provide FAPE in the 2010-2011 school year. The District maintains that the programming proposed for the student was reasonably calculated to yield meaningful education benefit and, as such, was designed to provide FAPE to the student.

For the reasons set forth below, I find in favor of the District.

 

ISSUES

Was the educational program proposed by the District for the 2010-2011 school year appropriate?

If this proposed program was not appropriate, is parent entitled to tuition reimbursement for the unilateral private placement undertaken for the 2010-2011 school year?

 

C-G-Council-Rock-ODRNo-1552-10-11-AS

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.