Special Education Hearing Officer
Child’s Name: D.F.
Date of Birth: [redacted]
Dates of Hearing: July 6, 2010
ODR No. 1265-09-10 AS
Parties to the Hearing:
Frank Herron, Superintendent Red Lion Area School District 696 Delta Road
Red Lion, PA 17356
Mr. Daniel Fennick, Esquire 1423 East Market Street York, PA 1740
Ms. Judith Gran, Esquire Reisman Carolla Gran, LLP
19 Chestnut Street Haddonfield, NJ 08033
School District Attorney
Mr. Stephen Russell, Esquire
Stock and Leader
221 West Philadelphia Street, Suite E-600 York, PA 17404
Date Record Closed: July 14, 2010
Date of Decision: July 21, 2010
Hearing Officer: Rosemary E. Mullaly, Esquire
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[Student] (“Student”) is a [teenaged] student residing in the Red Lion Area School District (“District”) who has been identified as a child with a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) and its implementing regulations at Title 34 Part 300 of the United States Code, and Chapter 14 of the Pennsylvania education regulations at Title 22 of the Pennsylvania Code. Specifically, The Student has been identified as a child with deaf-blindness pursuant to 300.8(b)(2) resulting from bacterial meningitis contracted when [Student] was 6 months old. (S-5 at 3).
The hearing in the matter was originally scheduled for July 12, 2010 but due to the unavailability of District witnesses, it was rescheduled for July 6, 2010.
The parties were notified of the expedited nature of the proceedings and that certain time limits would apply to the compilation of the record to assure that a timely decision was rendered.Nopartyvoicedanobjection. Atthehearing,thepartieswerepresentedwitha document entitled, “Procedures to Appeal the Decision of the Hearing Officer.” It was marked as H.O. Exhibit 1 and entered into the record.
The only issues presented to the hearing officer in this one-session hearing were (1) whether the District’s offer of a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) – specifically related to the schedule for services provision and non-academic components of its offer of extended school year (“ESY”) for the Summer of 2010 – complied with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) and (2) what constituted the Student’s current educational placement “during the pendency of any administrative or judicial proceeding regarding a due process complaint notice requesting a due process hearing.” (N.T. 13-14, 32, 39, 198). No other issue was addressed by the hearing officer in that no additional issue that was asserted by the parties was an appropriate subject for the expedited hearing timelines. (N.T. 39). The parties were notified that if there were additional outstanding issues that required administrative review, they would need to be asserted in a different matter.
Neither party asserted an objection as to the timeliness of the disclosure of evidence and records. (N.T. 10). The parents, who were accompanied by counsel and notified of the options for an open or a closed hearing, opted for the hearing to be opened. Since no resolution meeting took place prior to the hearing, the parties indicated on the record the resolution meeting was waived and they would memorialized this in writing. (N.T, 9-10).
The District preserved an objection as to the admission of documents into the record upon identification. (N.T. 24).
- Whether the District’s offer of FAPE – specifically related to the schedule for the provision of services and non-academic components of its offer of ESY for the Summer of 2010 – complied with the IDEA; and
- What constitutes the Student’s current educational placement “during the pendency of any administrative or judicial proceeding regarding a due process complaint notice requesting a due process hearing.”