Special Education Hearing Officer
Child’s Name: K.G.
Date of Birth: [redacted]
Dates of Hearing:
January 7, 2013 January 28, 2013 February 11, 2013 February 27, 2013
ODR Case # 13272-1213AS
Parties to the Hearing:
Hampton Township School District 4591 School Drive
Allison Park, PA 15101
Patricia Andrews, Esquire 1500 Ardmore Boulevard Suite 506
Pittsburgh, PA 15221
Edward Feinstein, Esquire 429 Forbes Avenue
Allegheny Building/17th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Date Record Closed: March 22, 2013
Date of Decision: April 2, 2013
Hearing Officer: Jake McElligott, Esquire
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[Student] (hereinafter “student”) is [a] student residing in the Hampton Township School District (“District”) who has been identified as a student with a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act of 2004 (“IDEIA”) and Pennsylvania special education regulations (“Chapter 14”).1 Specifically, the student has been identified as a student as having an intellectual disability.
Parents allege that substantive flaws in the design and implementation of the student’s individualized education plans (“IEP”), and more specifically the post-secondary transition planning contained in the IEP, denied the student a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the 2010-2011, 2011-2012, and 2012-2013 school years. Parents seek compensatory education for alleged deprivations in the student’s programming as it relates to community-based instruction and vocational skills.2
The District counters that the post-secondary transition planning in the student’s IEP was appropriately designed and implemented. Therefore, the District’s position is that the student was provided with FAPE at all times.
For the reasons set forth below, I find in favor of the District.
Was the student provided FAPE
through the design and implementation
of the post-secondary transition planning contained in the student’s IEPs
for the 2010-2011, 2011-2012, and 2012-2013 school years?