HL vs. Haverford Township School District

Background

Student is a xx-year-old eligible student who resides in the Haverford Township School District (hereinafter District) and currently attends Private School, a private school for children with learning disabilities. Mr. and Mrs., (hereinafter Parents), assert that the District failed to offer Student a free, appropriate public education (hereinafter FAPE), including an appropriate extended school year (hereinafter ESY) program for summer 2005, when she was enrolled in the District’s elementary school, and that she is therefore entitled to compensatory education. Additionally, the Parents are seeking tuition reimbursement for their unilateral placement of Student at Private School for the 2005- 2006 and the 2006-2007 school years, including the program for summer 2006, and reimbursement for several evaluations, tutoring and counseling services. Finally the Parents assert that the IEP offered for the coming year (2007-2008) is inappropriate and that Student’s placement should be continued at Private School at District expense.

Issues

1. Are the Parents entitled to reimbursement for one or more evaluations they obtained for Student?
2. Did the District provide Student with a free, appropriate public education for the period from February 2005 through April 2005 and from the beginning of May 2005 through the end of the school year in June 2005? If the District did not provide Student with FAPE for the specified period, is she entitled to compensatory education, in what amount and in what kind?
3. Did the District offer Student an appropriate IEP for the 2005-2006 school year? If the District did not offer Student an appropriate IEP, was the placement unilaterally chosen by the Parents appropriate, and if so, do equitable considerations reduce or remove the District’s responsibility for tuition reimbursement?
4. Was Student eligible for an Extended School Year (ESY) program during the summer of 2006, and if so did the District’s failure to offer her an ESY program constitute a denial of FAPE? If Student was eligible for ESY during the specified summer, and the District was incorrect in its decision not to offer her an ESY program, was the summer program obtained by the Parents appropriate and are they entitled to reimbursement?
5. Did the District’s decision not to offer Student an IEP for part of the 2006-2007 school year constitute a denial of FAPE? If the District’s not offering Student an IEP for part of the 2006-2007 school year constituted a denial of FAPE, was the placement unilaterally chosen by the Parents appropriate, and if so, do equitable considerations reduce or remove the District’s responsibility for tuition reimbursement?
6. Did the District offer Student an appropriate IEP for part of the 2006-2007 school year and for the 2007-2008 school year? If the District did not offer Student an appropriate IEP for these periods, is the placement unilaterally chosen by the Parents appropriate, and if so, do equitable considerations reduce or remove the District’s responsibility for tuition reimbursement?
7. Was Student in need of tutoring1 and/or counseling services during the period from fall 2004 through August 2005? If Student was in need of tutoring and/or counseling services, was the District responsible for providing them, and are the Parents entitled to reimbursement for these services?
8. Was Student eligible for an Extended School Year (ESY) program during the summer of 2005, and if so did the District offer her an appropriate program? If Student was eligible for ESY during the specified summer, and the District did not offer an appropriate program, was the summer program obtained by the Parents appropriate and are they entitled to reimbursement?

HL-Haverford-Township-ODRNo-7374-06-07-AS