PENNSYL V ANIA
SPECIAL EDUCATION HEARING OFFICER
Child’s Name: KF
Date of Birth: Redacted
Dates of Hearing: October 4, 2011 November 18, 2011
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.
- 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
- 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.