Special Education Hearing Officer


Child’s Name: E.W.
Date of Birth: [redacted]

Date of Hearing: July 15, 2014

ODR Case # 15180-1314AS

Parties to the Hearing: Parent[s]

School District of Philadelphia 440 North Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19130


Jason Fortenberry, Esq.
1709 Benjamin Franklin Parkway 2nd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Benjamin Hinerfeld, Esq.
2 Penn Center / Suite 1020
1500 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 15102

Sarah Davis, Esq.
10 Sentry Parkway/Suite 200 P.O. Box 3001
Blue Bell, PA 19422-3001

Date Record Closed: July 15, 2014

Date of Decision: July 25, 2014

Hearing Officer: Jake McElligott, Esquire


Student is an early teen-aged student who has been identified as a student with a specific learning disability. The student resides in the School District of Philadelphia (“District”).

The parties do not dispute that the student is a student with a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act of 2004 (“IDEA”)1. The parties’ dispute centers on the student’s extended school year (“ESY”) program for the summer of 2014. The parent maintains that the District’s proposed ESY program is inappropriate due to predetermination and non-individualization. The District maintains that the proposed ESY program it has offered is appropriate and, as such, has complied with its duties under federal and Pennsylvania law to offer the student a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”).

For the reasons set forth below, I find in favor of the parent.


Was the District’s proposed ESY program predetermined and/or
did it lack individualization?

If so, is the student entitled to compensatory education? If not, is the District’s proposed ESY program appropriate?


Leave a Reply