JK vs. Pleasant Valley School District

PENNSYLVANIA
SPECIAL EDUCATION HEARING OFFICER

DECISION
DUE PROCESS HEARING

Name of Child: JK

ODR #8453/07-08 LS

Date of Birth: Xx/xx/xxx

Dates of Hearing: May 19, 2008 May 28, 2008 June 16, 2008 June 24, 2008 September 12, 2008 September 15, 2008 September 23, 2008

CLOSED HEARING

Parties to the Hearing: Mr. and Mrs.

Pleasant Valley School District Route 115
Brodheadsville, Pennsylvania

Representative:
Jonathan Corchnoy, Esquire
1515 Market Street Suite 1510 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102

Glenna Hazeltine, Esquire Anne Hendricks, Esquire Levin Legal Group
1800 Byberry Road

1301 Mason’s Mill Business Park Huntington Valley, PA 19006

Date Closing Arguments Received: October 3, 2008

Date of Decision: October 7, 2008

Hearing Officer: Linda M. Valentini, Psy.D.

Background

Student is a teen-age eligible student enrolled in the Pleasant Valley School District (hereinafter District). The District has classified Student as a student with a specific learning disability, an other health impairment (ADHD), Asperger’s Disorder and speech/language impairment.

Mr. and Mrs. (hereinafter Parents) requested this hearing because they believed that the District’s Assistive Technology Evaluation was inappropriate, and that the IEP was inappropriate in that, among other things, it did not provide for a one-to-one aide, did not include an appropriate functional behavioral analysis and an appropriate behavior support plan, and was not designed/implemented such that Student could make/made meaningful educational progress.

The District raised a standing objection, its position being that the issues raised by the Parents were not ripe for hearing as the IEP team had not considered them. Throughout the term of the hearing the hearing officer gave repeated instructions that the parties hold an IEP meeting, and at least one was held, however by the last date of the hearing the issues remained unresolved.

Issues1

  1. Should Student receive an independent Assistive Technology Evaluation at the District’s expense?
  2. Were the 2006-2008 Functional Behavioral Plans (FBAs) and Behavioral Support/Intervention Plans (BIPs) the District developed for Student appropriate and were the BIPs appropriately followed?
  3. Is it necessary that Student be provided with a one-to-one aide in order for Student to receive FAPE?
  4. Should the recommendations of the independent educational evaluator be incorporated into Student’s IEP?
  5. Did the District deny Student FAPE for the 2006-2007 and/or the 2007-2008 school years? If the District denied Student FAPE for any or all of this period is Student entitled to compensatory education, in what amount and in what kind?
JK-Pleasant-Valley-ODRNo-8453-07-08-LS

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.