IN THE PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE FOR DISPUTE RESOLUITON
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER
ODR File Number 2036-1011 KE
Child’s Name: J.T.
Date of Birth: [redacted]
Hearing Date: July 19, 2011
Parties to the Hearing: Parent[s]
Perkiomen Valley School District 3 Iron Bridge Drive
Collegeville, PA 19426
Frederick M. Stanczak, Esquire 179 North Broad Street Doylestown, PA 18901
Pamela Halpern, Esquire
Fox Rothschild, LLP
10 Sentry Parkway, Suite 200 P.O. Box 3001
Blue Bell, PA 19422-3001
Record Closed: August 2, 2011
Date of Decision: August 9, 2011
Hearing Officer: Brian Jason Ford
Introduction and Procedural History
This due process hearing was requested by the Parents, on behalf of their child (Student) against the Perkiomen Valley School District (District). The Parents claim that the extended school year (ESY) services offered to the Student for the summer of 2011 are inappropriate and, indirectly, demand reimbursement for the summer program they have funded in lieu of that offer. More specifically, the Parents claim that the District’s ESY offer is inappropriate because it does not continue to provide the same applied behavior analysis (ABA) program that the Student received during the prior school year. That ABA program is delivered by private providers in the Student’s home and is referred to herein as the “Home Program.”
The Parents were pro se when they initiated this hearing, but later retained counsel. The Parents’ Complaint, however, was not amended.1 The District challenged the sufficiency of the Complaint, but I determined that the Complaint was sufficient and that the District’s alleged failure to offer a home program was properly plead. See H-2.
Issues and Demanded Relief
The following issues were presented for adjudication:
- Did the Student’s IEP team fail to consider the Home Program for ESY?
- Is the District’s ESY offer inappropriate for its failure to provide the Home Program?