EF vs. School District Methacton

Background

The student’s date of birth is xx/xx/xx. He resides within the geographic boundaries of the Methacton School District with his family. The student was only recently identified as eligible for special education supports and services under IDEA. The parents and the district agree on his current placement and IEP. The dispute is over whether or not the student is entitled to compensatory education for the period from June 2002 through September 2005.

The district first requested that the claim for compensatory education be reduced to one year only, and later asked for the consideration of the claim to be limited to two years per IDEIA 2004. I ruled for the parents on this aspect of the case, noting that the school’s counsel misinterpreted the relevant language of IDEIA’s 2004 Section 615 (f)(3)(C). The details of that ruling are at HO 5. In further support of the ruling, I note that at the time of the hearing, the parents explicitly asserted protections under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. There is no statute of limitations contained within Section 504 at all.

The notes of transcript are contained within four volumes, with consecutively numbered pages. The two attorneys greatly contributed to the smooth management of the hearing by presenting a Joint Exhibit Book, meaning that the exhibits within it had been jointly agreed upon by the parties to be admissible. Therefore, exhibits are referred to as J 1, J 2, etc.