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
Suite 313
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


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?


Leave a Reply