Special Education Hearing Officer
Child’s Name: C.R.
Date of Birth: [redacted]
Dates of Hearing:1 November 2, 2016 November 3, 2016 November 11, 2016
ODR Case # 17992-1617AS
Parties to the Hearing:
Hempfield School District 200 Church Street Landisville, PA 17538
Mark Cheramie Walz, Esquire 331 East Butler Avenue
New Britain, PA 18601
Judith Gran, Esquire 19 Chestnut Street Haddonfield, NJ 08033
Date of Decision: January 10, 2017
Hearing Officer: Michael J. McElligott, Esquire
[The student] (hereinafter “student”)2 is a post-teenaged student residing in the Hempfield School District (“District”) who has been identified as a student with a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act of 2004 (“IDEIA”) and Pennsylvania special education regulations (“Chapter 14”).3 Specifically, the student has been identified as a student with autism.
Parents allege that substantive flaws in the design and implementation of the student’s individualized education plans (“IEPs”), and more specifically the post-secondary transition planning and programming contained in the IEPs, denied the student a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years. Parents seek compensatory education for alleged deprivations in the student’s programming. Additionally, parent claims that the District has violated its obligations to the student under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”).4
The District counters that the post-secondary transition planning and programming in the student’s IEPs were appropriately designed and implemented. Therefore, the District’s position is that the student was provided with FAPE at all times.
For the reasons set forth below, I find in favor of the District.
Was the student provided FAPE through the design and implementation
of the post-secondary transition planning contained in the student’s IEPs
for the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years?