KF vs. Cumberland Valley School District

PENNSYL V ANIA
SPECIAL EDUCATION HEARING OFFICER

DECISION

Child’s Name: KF

Date of Birth: Redacted

Dates of Hearing: October 4, 2011 November 18, 2011

CLOSED HEARING

ODR File No. 1914-1011KE

Parties to the Hearing:

Cumberland Valley School District 6746 Carlisle Pike
Mechanicsburg, PA 17050

Representative: Pro Se

Mark W. Cheramie Walz, Esquire Sweet, Stevens, Katz & Williams LLP 331 E. Butler Avenue
P. O. Box 5069
New Britain, PA 18901

Date Record Closed: November 28, 2011

Date of Decision: December 8, 2011

Hearing Officer: Cathy A. Skidmore, M.Ed., J.D.

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Student1 is a high school-aged student in the Cumberland Valley School District (District) who is eligible for special education pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
in June 2011, asserting that the District failed to provide adequate direct reading instruction (the Lindamood Bell Visualizing and Verbalizing program) during the 2010-11 school year, and they sought compensatory education through provision of this program over the summer of 2011. After that issue was resolved by the parties, the Parents were subsequently permitted to amend the complaint which raised new and different claims.

The case proceeded to a due process hearing convening over two sessions, at which the parties presented evidence in support of their respective positions. The Parents sought to establish that the District failed to provide an appropriate education during the 2010-11 school year and that its proposed program for the 2011-12 school year was not appropriate for Student. The District maintained that its special education program, as offered and implemented, was appropriate for Student.

For the reasons set forth below, I find in favor of the District, with the understanding that by agreement of the parties the District is currently undertaking a reevaluation of Student and that future programming will be based upon and responsive to the needs identified in that reevaluation, as well as previous evaluations and assessments, as determined by the IEP team.

ISSUES3

  1. Whether the Individualized Education Program (IEP) proposed by the District for the 2011-12 school year was appropriate for Student with respect to assistive technology and Visualizing and Verbalizing instruction; and
  2. Whether the educational program provided to Student during the 2010-11 school year was appropriate with respect to [Redacted], assistive technology, transition to the high school, counseling, support and accommodations for mathematics, and goals in the areas of reading comprehension, written expression, self-advocacy, socialization, and mathematics instruction.
KF-Cumberland-Valley-ODRNo-1914-1011KE

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.