1This is a redacted version of the original hearing officer decision. Select details have
been removed from the decision to preserve anonymity of the student as required by
IDEA 2004. Those portions of the decision which pertain to the student’s gifted education
have been removed in accordance with 22 Pa. Code § 16.63 regarding closed hearings.
HEARING OFFICER DECISION/ORDER
CHILD’S NAME: C.S. FILE 6323/05-06 LS
BETHEL PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT
Date of Birth: xx/xx/xx
Type of Hearing: CLOSED
Date of Hearing: March 21, 2006
I. PARTIES TO THE HEARING
PARENTS:
PARENT REPRESENTATIVE:
Lilian Akin, Esquire 428 Connor Street Pittsburgh, PA 15207 412-422-4383 laakin@bellatlantic.net
DISTRICT CONTACT:
Ms. Idessa Hiriscak Special Education Supervisor Bethel Park School District 301 Church Road Bethel Park, PA 15102 412-854-8410 hiriscak.idessa@bpsd.org
DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE:
Michael Brungo, Esquire Maiello, Brungo, & Maiello 1 Churchill Road 3301 McCrady Road Pittsburgh, PA 15235-5137 412-242-4400 mlb@mbm-law.net
DATE TRANSCRIPT RECEIVED:
March 24, 2006
HEARING OFFICER:
Dorothy J. O’Shea, Ph.D.
___________________________
Signature: Hearing Officer
April 3, 2006
Date of Decision/Order
RE: STUDENT, FILE 6323/05-06 LS
BETHEL PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Student, a resident of the Bethel Park School District (i.e., the District), was a xx year-old sixth grade student attending the District’s Middle School during the 2005-2006 school year. Pursuant to 22 Pennsylvania Code, Student received a Chapter 15 Service Agreement in February 2005. In February 2006, Student participated in an incident involving a weapons violation. The District conducted a “Manifestation Determination” review, determining that Student’s conduct in bringing the weapon to school was a manifestation of his disability (i.e., Attention Deficit with Hyperactivity Disorder: ADHD).
IV. ISSUES
The parties agreed to two hearing issues during a pre-hearing telephone conference (HO 2) and stipulated to a third issue on the record (NT pages 18-20). The agreed upon hearing issues are:
- Is Student eligible for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s (IDEA 2004) protections as a “thought to be” student under the IDEA 2004, thereby prohibiting a placement in an Alternative Education Program under Article XIX-C of the Pennsylvania Public School Code without parental consent?
- Is the weapon that Student brought to school a “dangerous weapon” under the IDEA 2004, thereby permitting the District to place him into an interim alternative education program for up to 45 school days?
- Does Student meet the definition of a “disruptive student” as defined under Article XIX-C of the Public School Code?
C-S-BETHEL-PARK-ODRNo-6323-05-06-LS