JG vs. CARLYNTON SCHOOL DISTRICT

HEARING OFFICER DECISION/ORDER CHILD’S NAME: J.G.
(FILE # 6353/05-06 AS) CARLYNTON SCHOOL DISTRICT

Date of Birth: xx/xx/xx
Type of Hearing: OPEN
Dates of Hearing: April 7, 2006; April 26, 2006

I. PARTIES TO THE HEARING

PARENTS

PARENT REPRESENTATIVE:

DATE TRANSCRIPT RECEIVED:

April 29, 2006

HEARING OFFICER:

Dorothy J. O’Shea, Ph.D.

____________________

Signature: Hearing Officer

DISTRICT CONTACT:

Dr. Walter McMillan Pupil Service Coordinator 435 Kings Highway Carnegie, PA 15106

DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE:

Jocelyn M. Perry, Esquire
503 Ft. Pitt Commons Building 445 Ft. Pitt Blvd.
Pittsburgh PA 15219

May 11, 2006

Date of Decision/Order

HEARING OFFICER DECISION/ORDER CHILD’S NAME: Student
(FILE # 6353/05-06 AS) CARLYNTON SCHOOL DISTRICT

II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Student, a resident of the Carlynton School District (i.e., the District), was a [teenaged] student attending the District’s Carlynton High School during the 2005-2006 school year. The parties participated in a previous due process hearing in the Spring 2004 to address the appropriateness and implementation of Student’s Gifted Individualized Educational Program (GIEP). As a result of that hearing, the hearing officer ordered the District to develop an appropriate GIEP prior to the beginning of the 2005-2006 school year.

However, during the spring 2004, Student received an independent educational evaluation (IEE), diagnosing a Specific Learning Disability and recommending Student’s eligibility for and need of Special Education. The current hearing centered on the parties’ dispute of the appropriateness of Student’s individualized services offered and implemented. Because the Parents alleged a denial of Student’s free appropriate public education (FAPE), the Parents claimed Student should be awarded compensatory education during his eighth grade (2004-2005) and ninth grade (2005-2006) years.

IV. ISSUES

The parties agreed to the hearing issues on the record (NT 22):

  • Did the District offer and implement an appropriate GIEP from August 26, 2004 through December 5, 2004?
  • Was the District obligated to offer an appropriate IEP from September 1, 2004 through December 5, 2004?
  • Did the District implement an appropriate IEP from December 6, 2004 through June 3, 2005?
  • Is compensatory education an appropriate remedy for any alleged denial of FAPE during the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years?

Student’s hearing initiated April 7, 2006. Based on the Hearing Officer’s authority to grant continuances (34 C.F.R. §300.511(c)), Student’s hearing continued to and adjourned on April 26, 2006 (HO 1, HO4; NT 325).

J-G-CARLYNTON-ODRNo-6353-05-06-AS

Leave a Reply

Pennsylvania

Montgomery Law, LLC
1420 Locust Street, Suite 420
Philadelphia, PA 19102
T/F. 215-650-7563

Rate By
SUPER LAWYERS
Joseph W Montgomery, II

New Jersey

Historic Smithville, Suite 1
1 N. New York Road
Galloway, NJ 08205
(all mail to Phila. office)
T. 856-282-5550

Disclaimer: Montgomery Law, LLC does not give legal advice until after it has entered into an attorney-client relationship. No part of this website creates an attorney-client relationship. All Parts of this website are Attorney Advertising. The photos and videos on this website contain portrayals of clients by non-clients, re-enactment of scenes, pictures and persons which are not actual or authentic and depictions which are a dramatization.