Special Education Hearing Officer


Child’s Name: K.B.

Date of Birth: [redacted]

Dates of Hearing:

March 12, 2015 April 7, 2015


ODR Case # 15604-1415AS

Parties to the Hearing: Parent[s]

Propel Charter Schools 3447 East Carson Street Suite 200
Pittsburgh, PA 15203


Jeffrey Ruder, Esquire Michelle Kline, Esquire 429 Forbes Avenue Suite 450

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Jordan Strassburger, Esquire Four Gateway Center
444 Liberty Avenue
Suite 2200

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Date Record Closed: May 4, 2015

Date of Decision: May 12, 2015

Hearing Officer: Jake McElligott, Esquire


Student1 is an early teen-aged student who attends Propel Charter School (Charter School) who has been identified as a student with a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA)2. The student has been identified under the terms of IDEA as a student with health impairments, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and specific learning disabilities in reading and mathematics.

The student’s parent asserts that the last agreed-upon individualized education plan (IEP) for the student, in July 2014, is inappropriate and has denied the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE), both as to its design and implementation. The Charter School asserts that, at all times, it provided the student with a FAPE. In a prehearing stipulation, the parties agreed that this decision should speak only to a declaratory finding as to whether the Charter School met its obligations to provide the student with a FAPE; by stipulation, the parties agreed that the decision would not result in any award of compensatory education.3

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


Was the student’s July 2014 IEP
reasonably calculated to yield meaningful education benefit?


Leave a Reply