Pennsylvania
Special Education Hearing Officer
DECISION
Child’s Name: J.S.
Date of Birth: [redacted]
ODR No. 01103-0910 AS
CLOSED HEARING
Parties to the Hearing: Parents
Dunmore School District 300 West Warren Street Dunmore, PA 18512
Representative: Pro Se
Harry P . McGrath, Esquire McGrath Law Office
321 Spruce Street, Suite 600 Scranton, PA 18503
Date of Resolution Session May 12, 2010
Date of Hearing: June 3, 2010
Record Closed: June 7, 2010
Date of Decision: June 15, 2010
Hearing Officer: William F. Culleton, Jr., Esquire
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[Student] (Student) is an [elementary school-aged] eligible student of the Dunmore School District (District), who is finishing second grade in the District. (NT 18-4 to 22-17; P-15 p. 1, 28.) The Student is identified with Specific Learning Disability and Speech and Language Impairment. (NT 21-23 to 22-5.) Parents requested this due process proceeding, asserting that the District had failed to offer an appropriate plan of Extended School Year services. In addition, Parents complained that the District failed to provide written answers to questions they posed, and failed to agree to record the IEP meeting during which ESY services were discussed. (P-1.)
The Parents’ Complaint Notice, on an Office for Dispute Resolution (ODR) form, is dated by hand for April 28, 2010; however, it was not stamped as received by ODR until May 18, 2010. I received the assignment on May 19, 2010, listed as an expedited matter. On May 25, the District filed its response to the complaint with me. The hearing was held and this decision is filed within thirty days of receipt of the complaint Notice by ODR.
Prior to the hearing, I ruled that the Parents’ complaint concerning the answering of questions in writing and the recording of an IEP meeting would not be part of the issues in this case, because those issues were already before another hearing officer, who has jurisdiction. (NT 29-11 to 33-17.) The hearing was conducted and concluded in one day utilizing accelerated procedures customary in these matters. (NT 28-3 to 19.)
ISSUES
1. Did the District fail to comply with the IDEA and state regulations by failing to provide written prior notice to the Parents with regard to ESY services for the summer of 2010?
2. Did the District fail to offer an appropriate plan of ESY services to the Student?
J-S-Dunmore-ODRNo-01103-0910-AS