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
Student’s Name: C.L.
Date of Birth:
[redacted]
ODR No. 13201-12-13-AS
CLOSED HEARING
Parties to the Hearing:
Parents
Avon Grove School District 383 South Jennersville Road West Grove, PA 19390-9409
Representative:
Lawrence Lee Wentz, Esquire 2424 East York Street, Suite 316 Philadelphia, PA 19125
Kathleen M. Metcalfe, Esquire
Sweet, Stevens, Katz & Williams, LLP 331 Butler Avenue
P.O. Box 5069
New Britain, PA 18901
Date of Hearing: December 20, 2012
Record Closed: January 9, 2013
Date of Decision: January 16, 2013
Hearing Officer: William F. Culleton, Jr., Esquire
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The student named in the title page of this decision (Student) is an eligible resident of the school district named in the title page of this decision (District), and attends a District elementary school. (NT 127.) Student is identified as a child with Specific Learning Disability, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq. (IDEA). (NT 9.)
In response to a request for an independent educational evaluation at public expense (IEE) by Student’s Parents (identified in the title page of this decision), the District filed a request for due process, seeking an order establishing that its re-evaluation dated May 6, 2011 is appropriate. (S-1, 4.) The District also requested an order concluding that the Parents are not entitled to an IEE specifically for a speech and language evaluation where the District had already funded an independent psychoeducational evaluation that did not include a speech and language evaluation.1
The hearing was completed in one session. I conclude that the District failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the IDEA, by failing either to fund the requested IEE or file for due process without unnecessary delay. Consequently, I order the District to provide the requested independent speech and language evaluation at public expense.
ISSUES
1. Did the IDEA limitation to one IEE per District evaluation preclude Parents from requesting an independent speech and language evaluation?
2. Was the District’s re-evaluation dated May 31, 2011, appropriate under the IDEA?
3. Is the Parent entitled to an IEE at public expense?
C-L-Avon-Grove-ODRNo-13201-12-13-AS-1