Special Education Hearing Officer
Child’s Name: HR
Date of Birth: xx/xx/xxxx
Dates of Hearing: 3/16/09, 3/17/09
ODR No. 9646/08-09 KE
Parties to the Hearing: Parents
P.O. Box 38
Lehman, PA 18627-0038
Parent Attorney Yvonne Husic, Esq. Husic Law Office
2215 Forest Hills Drive Harrisburg, PA 17112
School District Attorney Charles Coslett, Esq. Coslett & Coslett
312 Wyoming Avenue Kingston, PA 18704
Date Record Closed: April 6, 2009
Date of Decision: April 21, 2009
Hearing Officer: Anne L. Carroll, Esq.
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Student is presently enrolled in 10th grade at [Redacted private residential school] in [Redacted state], a private residential college preparatory school for students with learning disabilities. Student was unilaterally placed at [Redacted private residential school] by her Parents beginning in the 2007/2008 school year after completing her third year as a District student. Parents enrolled Student in the District in the 2004/2005 school year after becoming dissatisfied with the private school for learning disabled students Student had previously attended for several years. A District evaluation conducted in April 2004 concluded that Student was an IDEA eligible student due to learning disabilities in reading, math and writing, confirming the results of several private evaluations obtained by Parents.
Parents filed a due process complaint in January 2009 in which they sought reimbursement for past tuition at [Redacted private residential school] , payment of tuition for Student ’s next two school years, reimbursement for three years of summer programs as ESY services, compensatory education for the three school years Student was enrolled in the District and reimbursement for the services of their educational consultant. Parents also asserted a claim for discrimination under §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
In addition to defending on the substance of Parents’ claims, the District contended that Parents had failed to provide the required notice of their intent to withdraw Student from the District and enroll her in private school and that Parents’ claims are time-barred. A two day hearing session was held in March 2009 concerning the tuition reimbursement claims and the number of years for which Parents could assert their claims in light of the IDEA time limit provisions. Substantive evidence concerning claims which date back more than two years from the date the due process complaint was filed were reserved pending a decision on the time limitation issues.
- Is the District required to reimburse Student
Parents for past private school tuition and pay Student ’s tuition
for the remaining two years of high school in her current private placement?
- For what period of time may Student’s Parents assert claims for the District’s alleged failure to provide her with appropriate special education services?
- Is Student entitled to an award of compensatory education while enrolled in the District between January 25, 2007 and the date she left the District, and if, so in what amount and form?
- Is the District required to reimburse Student’s Parents for the services provided by Andrew Klein?
Was Student subjected to discrimination by the District on the basis of her disabilities?HR-District-ODRNo-9646-08-09-KE