Special Education Hearing Officer
ODR No. 00237-0910AS
Child’s Name: E.Z.
Date of Birth: <redacted>
Dates of Hearing: 11/17/09; 11/20/09
Parties to the Hearing: Parents
126 Wallace Avenue Downingtown, PA 19335-2643
Parent Attorney: None
School District Attorney
Andria Saia, Esquire
Levin Legal Group
1402 Masons Mill Business Park 1800 Byberry Road
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
Date Record Closed: January 3, 2010
Date of Decision: January 18, 2010
Hearing Officer: Anne L. Carroll, Esq.
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
<Student>, a resident of the Downingtown Area School District, is eligible for special education services due to autism spectrum disorder, speech/language deficits and probable mental retardation. <Student> is currently attending a full-time, center based autistic support program located within the District but run by the Chester County Intermediate Unit.
Over a period of several months, from the spring to the fall of 2009, Parents and the District were involved in a due process hearing before another hearing officer concerning the appropriateness of the District’s most recent full reevaluation and past IEPs.
Before the previous case concluded, Parents filed a second due process complaint, the subject of this hearing, challenging the appropriateness of the IEP offered by the District for the 2009/2010 school year. The hearing in this case encompassed two days of testimony in November 2009.
Based upon that record, and for the reasons explained in detail below, the District’s final IEP offer for the 2009/2010 is appropriate for <student>. Parents’ claims, therefore, will be denied in all respects.
1. Did Parents have a meaningful opportunity to participate in developing the 2009/2010 IEP?
2 . Is the educational program proposed by the
District for <student> for the 2009/2010 school year appropriate?
3. If the proposed 2009/2010 IEP is inappropriate in any respect, how should it be changed?