Pennsylvania Special Education Hearing Officer

DECISION

Child’s Name: KP

Date of Birth: xx/xx/xx

Date of Hearing: 11-06-07

OPEN HEARING

ODR #8098/07-08 LS

Parties to the Hearing:

Mr. and Ms.

Juniata County School District RR 4 Box 259 Mifflintown, PA 17059-9806

Scott C. Etter, Esquire RR 4 Box 259 720 South Atherton St. Mifflintown, PA 17059-9806 State College, PA 16801

Date Record Closed: November 16, 2007

Date of Decision: December 1, 2007

Hearing Officer: William F. Culleton, Jr., Esquire

INTRODUCTION

Student is an xx year old eligible student of the Juniata County School District (District). (NT 17-2 to 7, 24-7 to 8.) She is identified with Multiple Disabilities (Mental Retardation and Other Health Impairment), due to a diagnosis of partial Agenesis of the Corpus Collosum. (S-2 p. 30.) The District requested due process to resolve a question whether or not it had provided training in public transportation that was reasonably calculated to provide meaningful educational progress. The District also seeks a ruling that its offer of such training meets its obligations under a Compensatory Education Agreement. (NT 21-14 TO 25.) Mr. and Ms. (Parents) questioned the Hearing Officer’s jurisdiction to make any finding with regard to compliance with a compensatory education agreement resulting from corrective action plan ordered by a Compliance Officer. The Parents also assert that the District’s offer did not provide a FAPE.

ISSUES

1. Does the hearing officer have jurisdiction to determine whether or not the District complied with the Compensatory Education Agreement dated June 4, 2007?

2. Did the District’s offer – of either a taxi, a limousine service, or district transportation as part of a training exercise involving public transportation – comply with the Agreement?

3. Was the District’s offer – of either a taxi, a limousine service, or district transportation as part of a training exercise involving public transportation – reasonably calculated to provide meaningful educational opportunity?

4. Was the District’s proposed IEP with transition service utilizing District transportation to teach mobility skills reasonably calculated to provide meaningful educational opportunity?