CP vs. Central Bucks School District

Pennsylvania
Special Education Hearing Officer

DECISION

Child’s Name: CP
Date of Birth: XX-XX-XXXX

Date of Hearing: 9/5/09

CLOSED HEARING

ODR No. 00016-09-10AS

Parties to the Hearing:

Parents

School District

Central Bucks
20 Welden Drive Doylestown, PA 18901-2359

Representative:

Pro Se

School District Attorney

Scott Wolpert, Esquire Timony Knox, LLP

400 Maryland Drive P.O. Box 7544

Fort Washington, PA 19034

Date Record Closed: September 22, 2009

Date of Decision: October 7, 2009

Hearing Officer: Deborah G. DeLauro, Esq.

 

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

“Student” (hereinafter “Student”) is a fifteen year old tenth grade student who resides in the Central Bucks School District (hereinafter “District”). Student qualifies for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (hereinafter “IDEA”) with a disability category of autism1 and with a secondary disability of speech and language impaired. Student has substantial communication, social and behavioral delays and requires significant adaptations and modifications in all curricular areas. [N.T. 244-246; SD-33] Student’s placement was and is identified as “Supplemental Autistic Support.” [N.T. 147; 178-179; SD-19; SD-33] Student spent the majority of “student’s” ninth grade year, 2008-2009, in the [Redacted] Middle School (hereinafter Middle School) where “student” was placed in an Autistic Support Class for all of “student’s” academic subjects and direct instruction in special area subjects and had a personal care assistant (hereinafter “PCA”) at all times. [N.T. 148-150; SD-33]

In the spring of 2009, the Individual Education Plan (hereinafter “IEP”) team initiated discussions about transitioning from the Middle School to a District High School, [Redacted] High School (hereinafter High School) in the 2009/2010 school year.

The dispute in this case centers on the Parent’s disagreement with the High School proposed placement.2 To that end, a due process hearing was scheduled for September 2, 2009. However, on August 23, 2009, this Hearing Officer issued an Interim Order, which provided that Student’s Pendent Placement was the Autistic Support Class at High School. [Interim Order dated August 23, 2009 attached hereto and incorporated herein] At the Due Process Hearing, Parent contended that the location of the Student’s educational placement at High School was inappropriate because, inter alia:

  1. 1)  Student does not have a valid IEP since student and “student’s” Parents were not permitted to participate in the placement decision and the special education supervisor dictated key components in advance of the May 9, 2009 IEP meeting;
  2. 2)  The May 9, 2009 IEP was also invalid because of its dangerous omission of a PCA; and
  3. 3)  Student’s placement at High School is the furthest possible location in the District in violation of 34 Code of Federal Regulations. [N.T. 40-42]

After a due process hearing session and a careful review of the parties’ testimony and evidence, I find for the District for the reasons described below.

ISSUES

1. Whether the District’s proposed placement in the supplemental autistic support program at High School for the 2009-2010 school year is appropriate?3

CP-Central-Bucks-ODRNo-00016-09-10AS

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.