Special Education Hearing Officer


Child’s Name: J.T.

Date of Birth: [redacted]

Date of Hearing: September 24, 2010


ODR Case # 01547-1011JS

Parties to the Hearing: Parent[s]

Denise Higgins
Perkiomen Valley School District 3 Iron Bridge Drive
Collegeville, PA 19426


Frederick Stanczak, Esq. 175 North Broad Street 2nd Floor
Doylestown, PA 18901

Mark Fitzgerald, Esq.
Fox Rothschild
10 Sentry Parkway
Suite 200/P.O. Box 3001 Blue Bell, PA 19422-3001

Date Record Closed: September 29, 2010

Date of Decision: October 13, 2010

Hearing Officer: Jake McElligott, Esquire


Student is [an early elementary school-aged] student who is eligible for special education under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act of 2004 (“IDEA”)1 as a student with autism. The student resides in the Perkiomen Valley School District (“District”). The parents filed a complaint at a different file number (01402-1011JS) asserting that the District denied the student a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) under the IDEIA. The parties disputed the pendent placement of the student—the educational programming to be provided to the student pending the outcome of the dispute at 01402-1011JS.

The District filed a pre-hearing motion regarding the pendent program for the student, and the student’s parents filed a response to the motion. Because the question of the student’s pendent program required fact-finding, a one day hearing was held under the instant file number to resolve the question of pendency.

For the reasons set forth below, I find in favor of the parents.


What should the student’s pendent program and placement be until the underlying dispute between the parties is resolved?


Leave a Reply