Special Education Hearing Officer
Child’s Name: I.W.
Date of Birth: [Redacted]
Date of Hearing: June 4, 2012
ODR Case # 3111-1112KE
Parties to the Hearing: Parent
School District of Philadelphia 440 N. Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19130
Brian Subers, Esquire Fox Rothschild
10 Sentry Parkway Suite 200
P.O. Box 3001
Blue Bell, PA 19422-3001
Date Record Closed: June 4, 2012
Date of Decision: June 18, 2012
Hearing Officer: Jake McElligott, Esquire
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Student is a [teen-aged] student residing in the School District of Philadelphia (“District”) who has been identified as a student with a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act of 2004 (“IDEIA”) and Pennsylvania special education regulations (“Chapter 14”).1 Specifically, the student has been identified as a student with specific learning disabilities and communications needs.
While the parties broadly agree on most aspects of the student’s individualized education plan (“IEP”), parent asserts that certain provisions of the IEP are inappropriate. The District counters that the IEP is appropriate as proposed.
For the reasons set forth below, I find in favor of the District although under the terms of the order, the District must undertake explicit revisions to the IEP at issue.
Are the contested provisions of the proposed IEP appropriate?I-W-School-District-of-Philadelphia-ODRNo-3111-1112KE