GB vs. Central Bucks School District

Pennsylvania
Special Education Hearing Officer

DECISION

Student’s Name: G.B.

Date of Birth: [redacted]

ODR No. 3399-12-13-AS

CLOSED HEARING

Parties to the Hearing: Parents

Central Bucks School District 16 Welden Drive Doylestown, PA 18901

Representative:

Frederick M. Stanczak, Esquire 179 North Broad Street, 2d Floor Doylestown, PA 18901

Scott H. Wolpert, Esquire Timoney Knox
P.O. Box 7544
400 Maryland Drive

Fort Washington, PA 19034

Dates of Hearing:

September 20, 2012; September 25, 2012; November 15, 2012; November 16, 2012;

December 5, 2012; December 18, 2012

Record Closed: January 14, 2013

Date of Decision: January 29, 2013

Hearing Officer: William F. Culleton, Jr., Esq., CHO

 

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Student named in the title page of this decision (Student) is an eligible resident of the school district named in the title page of this decision (District). (NT 7.) Student attends a private elementary school (School), and previously attended the District’s elementary school.

The District has identified Student with Speech or Language Impairment. (NT 8.)
Parents unilaterally removed Student from the District and placed Student in the School after disputes arose with the District at the end of Student’s third grade. Pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq. (IDEA), and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794 (section 504), Parents assert that the District failed to provide Student with an appropriate evaluation. Parents also assert that the District failed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years, including extended school year (ESY) services in the summers of 2010, 2011 and 2012, and that the District failed to offer a FAPE for the 2012-2013 school year. (NT 13-23.) Parents seek compensatory education for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years and tuition reimbursement for the 2012-2013 school year. In addition, Parents seek reimbursement for a private educational evaluation. The District denies the allegations.

The hearing was concluded in six sessions. The record closed upon receipt of written summations.

ISSUES

  1. Are Parents entitled to an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense, either because the District’s evaluation was inappropriate at any time after July 23, 2010 or because the District failed to provide a timely re-evaluation when requested in April 2012?
  2. Did the District fail to provide a FAPE to Student for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years, including the summers of 2010, 2011 and 2012?
  3. Did the District offer to provide Student with a FAPE for the 2012-2013 school year?
  4. Is the Student’s current placement at the School appropriate?
  5. Does equity support an order for reimbursement of private school tuition for all or any part of the 2012-2013 school years?
  6. Should the hearing officer order the District to provide compensatory education to Student for all of any part of the 2010-2011 or 2011-2012 school years, and/or the summers of 2010, 2011 or 2012?
  7. Should the hearing officer order the District to reimburse Parents for the cost of tuition at the School during the 2012-2013 school year?
  8. Should the hearing officer order the District to reimburse Parents for the cost of a private educational evaluation conducted in the summer of 2012?

G-B-Central-Bucks-ODRNo-3399-12-13-AS

Leave a Reply

Pennsylvania

Montgomery Law, LLC
1420 Locust Street, Suite 420
Philadelphia, PA 19102
T/F. 215-650-7563

Rate By
SUPER LAWYERS
Joseph W Montgomery, II

New Jersey

Historic Smithville, Suite 1
1 N. New York Road
Galloway, NJ 08205
(all mail to Phila. office)
T. 856-282-5550

Disclaimer: Montgomery Law, LLC does not give legal advice until after it has entered into an attorney-client relationship. No part of this website creates an attorney-client relationship. All Parts of this website are Attorney Advertising. The photos and videos on this website contain portrayals of clients by non-clients, re-enactment of scenes, pictures and persons which are not actual or authentic and depictions which are a dramatization.