LN vs. North Penn School District

PENNSYLVANIA
SPECIAL EDUCATION HEARING OFFICER

DECISION

DUE PROCESS HEARING

Name of Child: L.N.

ODR #16759 / 15-16-KE

Date of Birth: [redacted]

Dates of Hearing: October 6, 2015 October 28, 2015 November 18, 2015 November 20, 2015

CLOSED HEARING

Parties to the Hearing: Parent[s]

North Penn School District 401 E. Hancock Street Lansdale, PA 19446

Representative:
Jason Fortenberry, Esquire Frankel Kershenbaum 1230 County Line Road Bryn Mawr, PA 19010

Kyle Somers, Esquire
1800 Pennbrook Parkway Suite 200 Lansdale, PA 19446

Date Record Closed: January 5, 2016

Date of Decision: February 2, 2016

Hearing Officer: Linda M. Valentini, Psy.D., CHO Certified Hearing Official

Background

Student1 is a pre-teen aged 6th grade student residing in the District who is eligible for special education subject to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] and Pennsylvania Chapter 14. Student’s classifications are in some dispute, although Other Health Impairment and Specific Learning Disability are not contested. Student is also a qualified handicapped person / protected handicapped student under §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. §794), and Chapter 15 of the Pennsylvania Code. Student attended school in the District from kindergarten through second grades, and then pursuant to a settlement agreement attended a private school for children with learning differences (Private School) for 3rd through 5th grades. The District declined to grant the Parents’ request to extend the agreement for the 2015-2016 school year, and offered Student a program/placement to be implemented for 6th grade in the District.

The Parents believed that the program and placement the District offered was inappropriate and kept Student at the Private School for the current school year. They asked for this hearing, seeking tuition reimbursement. They are also asking for reimbursement for the services of a behavior consultant whom they engaged to work with Student at the Private School and at home.

The parties stipulated that although the District had previously objected to exhibits J-32 and J-33 on the basis that the information contained therein constituted settlement discussions, and the objections were sustained, the District was willing to withdraw its objection and therefore both exhibits are included in the record.

For the reasons put forth below I find in favor of the Parents on the issue of tuition reimbursement and in favor of the District on the issue of reimbursement for the behavior consultant.

Issues2

  1. Was the program/placement the District offered to Student for the 2015-2016 school year appropriate?
  2. If the District’s offered program/placement was not appropriate, is the program/placement unilaterally chosen by the Parents appropriate?
  3. Are there any equitable considerations that would remove or reduce the District’s obligation to fund the parentally-chosen program/placement?
  4. Should the District be required to reimburse the Parents for the costs of the services of a behavior consultant?
L-N-North-Penn-ODRNo-16759-15-16-KE

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.