Special Education Hearing Officer
Child’s Name: GD
Date of Birth: xx/xx/xxxx
Date of Hearing: April 30, 2010
ODR Case # 00940-09-10-KE
Parties to the Hearing:
Ms. Lori Sutton
Bethel Park School District 301 Church Road
Bethel Park, PA 15102
Representative: Pro Se
Michael Brungo, Esq. 1 Churchill Park 3301 McCrady Road Pittsburgh, PA 15235
Date Record Closed: April 30, 2010
Date of Decision: May 10, 2010
Hearing Officer: Jake McElligott, Esquire
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Student (“student”) is a 12-year old student with autism residing in the Bethel Park School District (“District”) who qualifies as a student with a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act of 2004 (“IDEIA”)1. The student’s mother alleges that the student does not qualify for extended school year (“ESY”) programming.2 To the extent that it is determined that the student qualifies for ESY programming, the student’s mother alleges that the District’s proposed ESY program is inappropriate. The District maintains that the student qualifies for ESY programming and that it has offered an appropriate ESY program to the student for summer 2010. As such, the District avers that it has complied with its duties under federal and Pennsylvania law to offer the student a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”). The student’s father agrees in substance with the District— namely that the student qualifies for ESY programming and that the District’s proposed ESY program is appropriate.
For the reasons set forth below, I find that the student qualifies for ESY programming and that the District’s proposed ESY programming is appropriate.
Does the student qualify for ESY programming?
If so, is the District’s proposed summer 2010 ESY program appropriate?GD-Bethel-Park-ODRNo-00940-09-10-KE