Special Education Hearing Officer
ODR No. 14071-1213 KE
Child’s Name: E.A.
Date of Birth: [redacted]
Dates of Hearing: 7/24/13, 7/29/13
Parties to the Hearing:
Fox Chapel Area
611 Field Club Road Pittsburgh, PA 15238
Rebecca Heaton Hall, Esquire Ruder Law
429 Forbes Avenue, Suite 450 Pittsburgh, PA 15219
School District Attorney Patricia R. Andrews, Esquire Andrews and Price
1500 Ardmore Blvd., Suite 506 Pittsburgh, PA 15221
Date Record Closed: August 30, 2013
Date of Decision: September 15, 2013
Hearing Officer: Anne L. Carroll, Esq.
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Student, ad opted by Parents from a Central American country in early childhood, resides within the District and was enrolled in a District school for the first time during the 2012/2013 school year, having attended a private school from kindergarten through the end of the 2011/2012 school year (5th Prior to the 2012/2013 school year, the District conducted a psycho-educational evaluation of Student at Parents’ request, resulting in the conclusion that Student is not IDEA eligible. Subsequently, at Parent’s request, the District conducted a second evaluation to determine whether Student qualifies as a protected handicapped Student.
Parent disagreed with the District’s conclusion that Student does not have a disability that substantially impairs a major life activity, and initiated the current due process complaint in late June 2013, asserting a §504 claim only. Parent sought a determination that Student’s learning in the areas of reading and writing is substantially impaired by dyslexia and asserts that the District should provide Student with a Service Agreement. The evidence produced at a hearing conducted over two sessions in late July does not, however, support Parent’s position, as explained below. The District, therefore, is not required to develop a Service Agreement for Student.
1. Did the School District appropriately evaluate Student to determine whether Student is a protected handicapped student in accordance with §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and 22 Pa. Code Chapter 15?
2. Did the School District correctly conclude that Student does not meet the criteria to qualify as a protected handicapped student in accordance under §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and 22 Pa. Code Chapter 15, and/or does not need a Service Agreement?E-A-Fox-Chapel-Area-ODRNo-14071-1213-KE