DB vs. Fairview School District

INTRODUCTION

[Student] (hereinafter “student”)1 is an [elementary school-aged] student who resides in the Fairview School District (“District”). The parties do not dispute that the student qualifies as a student with a disability under the terms of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act of 2004 (“IDEIA”) and Pennsylvania special education regulations (“Chapter 14”) as a student with a health impairment and speech/language needs.2 However, the parties dispute the appropriateness of the District’s programming for the student over the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years. Parents claim that the student was denied a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) and seek compensatory education as a remedy, as well an independent educational evaluation of the student.

The District counters that, at all times, it met its obligations to the student under IDEIA/Chapter 14. Consequently, the District claims that no remedy is owed.

For the reasons set forth below, I find that the District provided a FAPE to the student in the 2012-2013 school year. In the 2013-2014, I find that the District failed in its obligations to the student for a brief period of time. Even though the District failed in its obligations, however, the intersection of the chronologies of the District’s knowledge/imputed knowledge and its actions as those chronologies surface in the mandates of IDEIA, Chapter 14, and precedential case law does not support an award of compensatory education. Finally, I find that the District’s evaluation processes and reports were appropriate and, as such, the District will not be ordered to provide an independent educational evaluation.