This is a redacted version of the original hearing officer decision. Select details may have been
removed from the decision to preserve anonymity of the student. The redactions do not affect the
substance of the document.
Name of Child
Date of Birth
7013/06-07 AS ODR
December 12, 2006, January 29, 2007
Dates of Hearings
Parties to Hearing
Mr. and Mrs.
Parent Representative Frederick Stanczk
179 N. Broad Street Doylestown, PA 19901
School District Karen Beck
760 Lower Road Souderton, PA 18964
Karl Romberger, Esq.
Fox Rothchild O’Brien & Frankel 1250 S. Broad Street
PO Box 431
Lansdale, PA 19446-0431
Dates Transcripts Received: January 10, 2007 February 2, 2007
Date of Decision: February 19, 2007
Kenneth Rose Hearing Officer
The student is a xx year-old student of the Souderton Area School District. He is an eligible student with a Specific Learning Disability (SLD) in the areas of reading, writing and math. He has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). He was the subject of a due process hearing at the end of last school year. HO Myers found a denial of FAPE over a several year period and ordered:
1. The school district’s current programming for student is not appropriate. 2. The school district shall provide Orton-Gillingham based language arts
instruction to student in classes of 4-7 students or fewer.
3. The school district shall insure that student meets with a faculty advisor at the beginning and end of each day for assistance in organization and structure.
4. The school district shall provide to student 660 hours of compensatory education.
5. Student’s parents are not entitled to reimbursement for privately-secured audiological and vision evaluations.
This decision was appealed and the Appeals Panel found in Appeals Panel Decision 1750 that:
1. The provision of the hearing officer’s order that mandates the Orton- Gillingham reading methodology and the class size of the student’s placement are REVERSED.
2. All other aspects of the hearing officer’s order are AFFIRMED.
3. Furthermore, as the student’s pendent placement is an inappropriate program, the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team shall convene within 30 days of the date of this order to develop an appropriate program.
Pursuant to the Appeals Panel Decision an IEP was issued on August 25, 2006. The parents rejected the IEP and placement offered by the school district. The parents informed the school district at that time that they were going to have the student attend [redacted] (Private School).
The parents contend the proposed IEP is inappropriate and request tuition reimbursement for their unilateral placement of the student at Private School.