KS vs. Methacton School District

PENNSYLVANIA
Special Education Hearing Officer

Decision
Due Process Hearing
For
KS
Date of Birth: xx/xx/xx
Date of Hearings: July 16, August 15, 20, 30, 2007

Closed Hearing

Parties to the Hearing:

Methacton School District 1001 Kriebel Mill Road Norristown, PA 19403-1047

Representative: Pro se

Sharon Montanye, Esquire Sweet, Stevens, Katz, & Williams
PO Box 5069, 331 Butler Avenue New Britain, PA 18901 smontanye@sweetstevens.com

Transcript Received: September 12, 2007

Record Closed: September 25, 2007

Date of Decision: October 1, 2007

Hearing Officer: Max Wald, Ed.D.

Background

Student is a xx year old young women who resides with her Parent within the Methacton School District (hereinafter District). The Student, who has been identified as learning disabled, also has several specific health issues.

The Parent filed a request for a due process hearing on May 8, 2007 asserting that the District, during the September 2007-2008 school year would allow the Student to attend school only two hours per day instead of six. Additionally, the Parent asserted that the Student would be required to accept a graduation diploma prior to her completing her allotted hours in cosmetology at the [redacted] (hereinafter Vo-Tech).

The Parent also complained that the District was requiring her to drive her daughter “to a location in the District; make her wait at that location and then go to the school.” The Parent indicated in her complaint that “the District was not cooperating with her in structuring the Student’s IEP in an appropriate way.”

Among other issues the Parent asserted that the District was withholding documents and that her daughter was reevaluated without her permission.

The Hearing Officer contacted the parties and requested that they participate in a conference call with the purpose of clarifying the issues. The conference call was held on May 22, 2007 at 11:30 a.m. The Parent indicated during the conference call that she wanted her daughter

To attend the Vo-Tech school for (six) hours per day,

To participate in her high school graduation ceremony but not receive her diploma until her cosmetology hours were completed,

And to receive “door to door transportation” to and from school.

The representative for the District indicated that the District had already agreed to items one and two but not three. Following the conference call the Parent telephoned the Hearing officer and indicated that she still had concerns regarding the Student’s IEP. The Hearing Officer referred the Parent to the District for further discussion.

An additional conference call was arranged and held on July 2, 2007. The appropriateness of the IEP, the availability of records, and the need for the Superintendent to testify were among the issues discussed.

Subsequently a meeting intended to resolve the IEP issue was held with the IEP Team on July 25, 2007 but did not result in resolution.

The first hearing session was held on July 16, 2007 and the fourth and concluding session was held on August 30, 2007. All hearing sessions except the first were conducted in the evening and were focused on the issues addressing transportation and the delivery of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for this student.

Issues

  1. Is the District required to provide the Student with “door to door” transportation to and from school?
  2. Is the currently offered IEP appropriate and does it provide the Student with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)?
KS-Methacton-

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.