DB vs. School District Salisbury Township

Pennsylvania
Special Education Hearing Officer

DECISION
ODR No. 01602-1011JS

Child’s Name: D.B.
Date of Birth: [redacted]
Dates of Hearing: 11/16/10, 11/23/10, 12/13/10,

12/20/10, 1/13/11 CLOSED HEARING

Parties to the Hearing:

Parents Parent[s]

School District Salisbury Township 1140 Salisbury Road Allentown, PA 18103

Representative:

Parent Attorney Elizabeth Kapo, Esq. 2123 Pinehurst Road Bethlehem, PA 18018

School District Attorney Kristine Roddick, Esq. King, Spry,
One West Broad Street Suite 700

Bethlehem, PA 18017

Date Record Closed: January 28, 2011

Date of Decision: February 12, 2011

Hearing Officer: Anne L. Carroll, Esq.

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In June 2010, Student received a regular high school diploma, having completed all requirements for graduation. Student and Parents reside within the Salisbury Township School District, where Student was first identified as IDEA eligible in 3rd grade due to specific learning disabilities in reading, writing and math. By the 2008/2009 school year (11th grade) emotional disturbance (ED) had been added as disability category, Student’s learning disability had been limited to math, and the District placed Student in a partial hospitalization program conducted by the [local]Intermediate Unit (IU) at a regular high school in a neighboring school district.
During 11th and 12 grades, Student received emotional support services and some academic instruction in the program’s emotional support classroom and the remainder of instruction in regular education classes at the high school, some of which were co-taught by a regular and a special education teacher.

At the end of 12th grade, based upon placement test results, Student was informed of the need to take several non-credit remedial courses before enrolling in college level classes at the community college Student expected to attend beginning in the fall of 2010. As part of the IDEA triennial evaluation requirement, standardized achievement tests administered in June 2010 indicated borderline functioning in math. Convinced that the combination of test results indicated inappropriate and inadequate special education services during the 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 school years, Parents filed a due process complaint.

The hearing was held in four sessions between mid-November 2010 and mid-January 2011. For the reasons that follow, Parents claims for compensatory education based upon inappropriate academic instruction and inadequate transition services are denied in all respects.

ISSUES

  1. Did [the] School District appropriately evaluate Student and appropriately identify all of Student’s special education needs between February 13, 2009 and June 2010?
  2. Did [the] School District provide Student with appropriate special education services that met all of Student’s needs between February 13, 2009 and the date of graduation in June 2010, specifically by providing IEPs that included appropriate goals, objectives, specially designed instruction and transition services, and by appropriately implementing Student’s IEPs?
  3. Is Student entitled to an award of compensatory education for any period between February 13, 2009 and June 2010, and if so, for what period, in what amount and in what form?
D-B-Salisbury-Township-ODRNo-01602-1011JS

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.