DJ vs. School District of Philadelphia

PENNSYLVANIA
SPECIAL EDUCATION HEARING OFFICER

DECISION
DUE PROCESS HEARING

Name of Child: D.J.

ODR #6214/05-06 KE

Date of Birth: xx/xx/xx

Dates of Hearing:
March 3, 2006 (9:00 am to 3:20 pm) April 10, 2006 (5:00 pm to 8:50 pm) April 25, 2006 (9:30 am to 4:05 pm) May 5, 2006 (9:30 am to 4:00 pm)

CLOSED HEARING

Parties to the Hearing: Parent

Ms. Susan Levy
School District of Philadelphia 440 N. Broad Street, 3rd Floor Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19130

Representative:
David Painter, Esquire McAndrews Law Firm
30 Cassatt Avenue
Berwyn, Pennsylvania 19312

Karl Romberger, Esquire
Fox, Rothschild, O’Brien & Frankel 1250 S. Broad Street Suite 1000 Lansdale, Pennsylvania 19446

Date Last Transcript Received: May 10, 2006

Date Record Closed May 27, 2006

Date of Decision: June 1, 2006

Hearing Officer: Linda M. Valentini, Psy.D.

 

Background

Student is [a pre-teenaged] eligible student who resides in the School District of Philadelphia (hereinafter District). He began school in a private kindergarten, moved to public school for first and second grades, went to a charter school for third grade, and repeated third grade in a parochial school. Following an evaluation through Elwyn, Student enrolled in the District, and an IEP providing for learning support was completed over the summer prior to his starting the 4th grade (2004-2005). Following a private educational evaluation1 completed during the next summer, the District recommended an emotional support program located at a school different from the one he attended the previous year. Thus for 5th grade (2005-2006) he was placed within the District in an emotional support classroom operated under contract by [redacted] (hereinafter CC), a mental health agency.

Parent, Student’s mother, (hereinafter Parent) asked for this hearing because she believes that Student’s IEP was not appropriately implemented, and she believes that he is therefore entitled to compensatory education for the 2005-2006 school year, continuing until the District appropriately implements Student’s IEP. The District contends that it offered Student FAPE during the period in question and that it was not given the opportunity to address the Parents’ concerns as Student has rarely attended school since December 2005.

The IEP itself is not at issue in this hearing.

Issues

  1. Is the School District’s manner of implementing the IEP for Student appropriate and representing FAPE?
  2. If the School District is not offering Student FAPE, is he entitled to compensatory education and in what amount?
  3. If the manner in which the School District is implementing the IEP is not appropriate, what changes need to be ordered by the hearing officer?
D-J-School-District-of-Philadelphia-ODRNo-6214-05-06-KE

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.