CM vs. North Penn 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

ODR No. 00751-0910AS

Child’s Name: C.M.

Date of Birth: [redacted]

Dates of Hearing: 4/15/10; 6/9/10; 6/10/

CLOSED HEARING

Parties to the Hearing:

Parents Parent[s]

School District North Penn
401 E. Hancock St. Lansdale, PA 19446

Representative:

Parent Attorney
Frederick Stanczak, Esquire 179 N. Broad Street, 2nd Floor Doylestown, PA 18901

School District Attorney Kyle Somers, Esquire 1800 Pennbrook Parkway, Suite 200 PO Box 107 Lansdale, PA 19446

Date Record Closed: July 14, 2010

Date of Decision: July 28, 2010

Hearing Officer: Anne L. Carroll, Esq.

 

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Student received learning support services from the North Penn School District from mid-way through 2nd grade, until Student was withdrawn from the District to spend the remainder of 4th grade at the [Private School], a Private School for children with language-based learning disabilities.

Student struggled with academic and social issues since kindergarten, and received instructional support and Title I reading services in 1st grade. After the District’s first evaluation in March 2007, Student was found IDEA eligible in the category of speech/language impairment and provided with speech/language services. A second District evaluation in October 2007 added learning disability as an eligibility category. Student began receiving two and then three hours of pull-out learning support services daily for reading, writing and math.

Dissatisfied with Student’s limited progress in reading, Parents obtained an evaluation from an independent psychologist in April 2009 who identified a nonverbal learning disability and made suggestions for intensive, direct multi-sensory instruction in a small group, full-time learning support setting to address Student’s learning needs, as well as services to address Student’s social deficits. Despite an offer from the District to increase reading instruction in the learning support setting with a Wilson-based reading program, Parents continued with their plans to enroll Student in the Private School and filed a due process complaint to obtain reimbursement for the independent evaluation, tuition reimbursement, and compensatory education from February 2008.

After thorough review of the record compiled over three hearing sessions, Student will be awarded compensatory education and Parents claim for reimbursement for the costs of the independent evaluation will be granted. Parents’ claim for tuition reimbursement, however, will be denied.

 

ISSUES

  1. Did the School District fail to provide Student with a free, appropriate public education at any time between February 2008 and December 2009?
  2. If so, for what periods of time, in what amount and in what form is Student entitled to an award of compensatory education?
  3. Did the School District propose an appropriate IEP for Student in December 2009?
  4. Are Student’s Parents entitled to an award of tuition reimbursement for the Private School they selected for Student for the second half of the 2009/2010 school year?
  5. Are Student’s Parents entitled to reimbursement for the independent educational evaluation of Student that they obtained in April 2009?

 

C-M-North-Penn-ODRNo-00751-0910AS

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.