Special Education Hearing Officer
ODR No. 00590-0910AS
Child’s Name: K.S.
Date of Birth: [redacted]
Dates of Hearing: 3/12/10, 4/1/10, 4/26/10, 4/29/10 6/30/10, 7/22/10
Parties to the Hearing:
School District Central York
775 Marion Road York, PA 17406
Daniel Fennick, Esq.
Anderson, Converse and Fennick 1423 East Market Street
York, PA 17403
School District Attorney
Brooke Say, Esq.
Stock and Leader
Susquehanna Commerce Center East 221 W. Philadelphia Street, Suite 600 York, PA 17401-2994
Date Record Closed: September 10, 2010
Date of Decision: September 25, 2010
Hearing Officer: Anne L. Carroll, Esq.
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Student, a resident of the Central York School District, attended the District high school until the end of the 2007/2008 school year. The District evaluated Student in the middle of 4th grade (2000/2001 school year), concluded that Student met the IDEA criteria for specific learning disability, and began providing special education services.
Beginning with the 2008/2009 school year, Parent enrolled Student in a small private school, hoping for improved academic progress. After repeating 11th grade, Student graduated from the private school at the end of the 2009/2010 school year.
Parent first filed a complaint in November 2009, which was assigned to a different hearing officer and dismissed in response to the District’s sufficiency challenge. The District’s sufficiency challenge to Parent’s second complaint, filed in December 2009, was also granted, but Parent was given the opportunity to amend the complaint. Parent sought tuition reimbursement for two school years, as well as compensatory education from 7th grade through the end of the 2007/2008 school year. A preliminary ruling on the District’s affirmative defense that claims that arose before January 2008 were time-barred limited the scope of the compensatory education claim to the second half of the 2007/2008 school year, but Parent was permitted to present evidence concerning the entire school year for purposes of determining the appropriateness of the District’s program/placement for that year.
The due process hearing was held in six sessions between March and July 2010. Upon a thorough review of the basis for Parent’s claims, the purported deficiencies in the District’s IEPs as described by Parents’ witnesses, evidence comparing the educational services offered by the District and the private school selected by Parent, and Student’s progress in each setting in light of the applicable legal standards, the conclusion is inescapable that Parent’s claims must be denied.
- Did the School District provide Student with an appropriate special education program and placement during the 2007/2008 school year?
- Is Student entitled to compensatory education and if so, for what period and in what form?
- Did the School District offer Student an appropriate special education program and placement for the 2008/2009 school year?
- Did the private school in which Parent unilaterally placed Student for the 2008 and 2009 school years provide an appropriate education that addressed the deficiencies Parent alleged in the School District’s program?