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.


Student’s Name: C.P. File #5645/05-06 LS)
Date of Birth: [redacted]
Dates of Hearing: 3/7/06, 3/30/06, 3/31/06, 4/3/06, 5/2/06,
5/4/06, 5/31/06, 6/2/06, 6/7/06, 6/12/06, 6/14/06
Type of Hearing: Closed

Parties to the Hearing

Parents’ Names: Parent[s]

Parents’ Representative: Richard L. Chamovitz, Esq.

Representative’s Address: 4 Winding Way
Wayne, Pa 19087

School District: Ridley School District

School District’s Address: 1001 Morton Avenue Folsom, PA 19033

School District Contact:
Ms. Kim Woods
Director of Special Education

Representative’s Name: Andria B. Saia, Esq.

Levin Legal Group, P.C.
Ste 1301, 1800 Byberry Road Huntington Valley, Pa 19006

Date Transcripts Received: various

Date of Order: July 28, 2006

Hearing Officer’s Name: William J. Wall, Esq.



Signature: Hearing Officer
July 28, 2006



STUDENT (FILE # 5645/05-06 LS)

Ridley School District


The Parents requested a due processing hearing in the instant matter by means of a hand delivered letter dated June 30, 2005 (P-107) to the School District. The District initiated the hearing on July 6, 2005(P-109). By means of a letter dated July 8, 2005, the parents were advised of my appointment as the Hearing Officer in this matter. There was an extensive discussion with the parent about whether or not the guidelines applicable under IDEA ‘97 or IDEA 2004 applied to the hearing. Before counsel for the parent entered his appearance, the parties agreed that the hearing would be conducted under the guidelines that were in effect as a result of IDEA ‘97. However, the agreement to conduct the hearing according to those guidelines does not extend to the application of the relevant law. The applicable law cannot be determined by agreement between the parties but must be ascertained by an analysis of the applicable statutes and the case law that has interpreted those statutes where relevant.



A review of the parents’ request for this hearing as well as the additional requests made by counsel for the parents result in the following issues that were the subject of the hearing and these issues are the subject of this decision.

  1. The implementation of all recommendations made by Dr. Y, contained in his School-Neuropsychological Evaluation dated May 31, 2005. (P. 97).
  1. The assignment of a one-to-one aide to the student during the school day. The aide is to have psychological and educational training that will enable the aide to deal with the student’s emotional and academic issues.
  2. The District is to pay for the student’s participation in a social skills group (limited to the costs not covered by the student’s medical insurance).
  3. Compensatory Education is sought for all the days since September 2001 that the student missed as a result of disciplinary suspensions.
  4. Compensatory Education is also sought for those related services which were not provided, especially psychological counseling and language therapy.
  5. The District failed to develop legally sufficient Evaluations Reports (“ER’s”), Individualized Education Plans (“IEPs”) and programs and placements from the 2001-2002 school year to the present.
  6. The District ignored recommendations for the student from non-District experts and its own personnel at times.
  7. The IEPs did not include appropriate Behavior Management Plans (“BMP”) based on an adequate Functional Behavioral Assessments (FBA).
  8. A new IEP that is specifically designed to meet the student’s various needs is to be developed after comprehensive Independent Education Evaluations (IEEs) at the district’s expense so that the student’s needs can be fully and properly identified.
  9. The parents contend that the School District failed to provide the student with a Free Appropriate Public Education (hereinafter “FAPE”) as a result of the issues presented.



Leave a Reply