This is a redacted version of the original hearing officer decision. Select details may have been
removed from the document 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: CG
Date of Birth: xx/xx/xx
Dates of Hearing:
November 30, 2006, December 21, 2006, January 9, 2007, January 23, 2007,
February 8, 2007, February 22, 2007, February 27, 2007
CLOSED HEARING
ODR #6936/ 06-07 AS
Parties to the Hearing:
Mr. and Mrs.
Scranton City School District 425 North Washington Avenue Scranton, PA 18503-1305
Representative:
Harry P. McGrath, Esquire McGrath Law Offices
Bank Towers Building Suite 600 321 Spruce Street
Scranton, PA 18503
Date Record Closed: March 7, 2007
Date of Decision: March 22, 2007
Hearing Officer: William F. Culleton, Jr., Esquire
INTRODUCTION
Student is a xx year old eligible student in the Scranton School District. (NT 18-21 to 23, 1356-19.) The Student has been diagnosed with Down Syndrome and mental retardation. (NT 18-9 to 16, 1358-2 to 3) He has numerous congenital disorders, several of which are highly disabling. (FF 18; NT 1358-16 to 1359-21, 1362-9 to 1356-19.) His functional disabilities impair his ability to eat and digest food, to communicate, to ambulate and to participate in an age appropriate fashion with other children. (NT 1366-25 to 1376-21.) He is chronically underweight and small for his age, and therefore requires careful attention to nutrition. (NT 1392-17 to 1393-9, 1401-10 to 1402-11.)
The Parents contend that the Student’s eating disorders are life threatening and therefore constitute the most important in his constellation of disabilities. (NT 1382-25 to 1383-4.) They contend that the District assessed these disorders inadequately and therefore is not in a position to provide safe, sufficient feeding during school hours to enable the Student to obtain meaningful educational benefit. They also contend that the District failed to provide an adequate evaluation of the Student’s communication disabilities, and that the District’s evaluator was not sufficiently qualified to provide a sufficiently comprehensive evaluation. Finally, they contend that the District failed to provide an adequate assessment of the Student’s academic and communicative capabilities with assistive technology.
The District found that the Student was eligible for special education services and consistently averred that it was prepared to provide individualized special education services to the Student in order to meet all of his needs. It brought this request for due process and requests a decision that its evaluation was appropriate, so that it will not be required to provide an independent evaluation at public expense in the three areas listed above.
ISSUES
1. Was the District’s fact finding regarding the Student’s feeding needs inadequately comprehensive, conducted by insufficiently qualified individuals or otherwise conducted in an inappropriate manner, so as to render its educational evaluation of August 2006 inappropriate?
2. Was the District’s fact finding regarding the Student’s speech and language needs inadequately comprehensive, conducted by insufficiently qualified individuals or otherwise conducted in an inappropriate manner, so as to render its educational evaluation of August 2006 inappropriate?
3. Was the District’s fact finding regarding the Student’s assistive technology needs inadequately comprehensive, conducted by insufficiently qualified individuals or otherwise conducted in an inappropriate manner, so as to render its educational evaluation of August 2006 inappropriate?
CG-Scranton-City-ODRNo-6936-06-07-AS