CG vs. Greater Johnstown 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:

January 17, 2012 January 25, 2012 February 6, 2012 February 14, 2012 March 9, 2012 March 13, 2012

CLOSED HEARING

ODR Case # 2557-1112AS

Parties to the Hearing:

Parents

Greater Johnstown School District 1091 Broad Street
Johnstown, PA 15906-2437

Representative:

Pro Se

Pro Se

John J. Kuzmiak, Esquire 442 Main Street Johnstown, PA 15901

Date Record Closed: March 13, 2012

Date of Decision: April 13, 2012

Hearing Officer: Jake McElligott, Esquire

 

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[Student] is an [elementary school-aged] student residing in the Greater Johnstown School District (“District”) who has been identified as a student with a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act of 2004 (“IDEIA”) and Pennsylvania special education regulations (“Chapter 14”).1 Specifically, the student has been identified as a student with specific learning disabilities in reading and mathematics and an other health impairment, namely attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”). The parties disagree over the student’s past and current special education programming.

Parents assert that the student should be identified as a student with autism. They assert that the District inappropriately programmed for the student since the District began educating the student in kindergarten, the 2009-2010 school year, continuing through the current 2011-2012 school year. Parents seek compensatory education as a result of the alleged deprivations of a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”). The parents also request a private placement for the student. To the extent that a private placement would be declined, the parents seek certain accommodations and program changes. The District counters that at all times it has provided a FAPE to the student and met its obligations under IDEIA and Chapter 14.

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

 

ISSUES

Has the student been appropriately identified?

Has the District provided a FAPE in the 2009-2010, 2010-2011, and/or 2011-2012 school years?

If not, is compensatory education owed to the student?
Should the student be removed from the District to a private placement?

 

C-G-Greater-Johnstown-ODRNo-2557-1112AS

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.