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
SPECIAL EDUCATION HEARING OFFICER
Child’s Name: C.M.
Date of Birth: [redacted]
Dates of Hearing: October 3, 2011 November 15, 2011 November 30, 2011
ODR File No. 2128/1112KE
Parties to the Hearing:
Montgomery County IU EI Program 1605 West Main Street
Norristown, PA 19403
Frederick M. Stanczak, Esquire 179 N. Broad Street Doylestown, PA 18901
Timothy E. Gilsbach, Esquire Fox Rothschild LLP
10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 200 P. O. Box 3001
Blue Bell, PA 19422
Date Record Closed: December 21, 2011
Date of Decision: January 3, 2012
Hearing Officer: Cathy A. Skidmore, M.Ed., J.D.
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
C.M. (hereafter Child)1 is an eligible young child who resides within the geographic area served by the Montgomery County Intermediate Unit (IU) and is eligible for special education early intervention services pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) on the basis of autism.2 Child’s Parent filed a due process complaint against the IU in July 2011, asserting that it denied Child a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) under the IDEA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504),3 and the federal and state regulations implementing both statutes, in its evaluation of Child and the proposed educational program as Child transitioned to the IU.
The case proceeded to a due process hearing convening over three sessions, at which the parties presented evidence in support of their respective positions. The Parent sought an independent educational evaluation, compensatory education, and development of an appropriate educational program. The IU disagreed that its evaluation and program were deficient, with the exception of certain services which it admitted were not provided and remain due and owing.
For the reasons set forth below, I find in favor of the Parent.
1. Whether the Parent and Child are entitled to an Independent Educational Evaluation at public expense;
2. Whether the Individualized Education Program developed by the IU was appropriate for Child pursuant to the IDEA;
3. Whether the IU has violated Section 504;
4. Whether Child is entitled to compensatory education and, if so, in what amount?