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
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
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?E-W-Philadelphia-ODRNo-15180-1314AS