MG vs. Abington School District

DECISION
Due Process Hearing for MG

ODR File No. 8470/07-08 LS

Date of Birth: xx/xx/xx

Dates of Hearing: March 19, April 14, April 28, June 30, and July 1, 2008 – Open Hearing

Parties to the Hearing:

Abington School District 970 Highland Avenue Abington, PA 19001

Representative:

Mark Voigt, Esquire
Plymouth Meeting Executive Campus 600 West Germantown Pike, Suite 400 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462

Claudia Huot, Esq.
484 Norristown Road, Suite 100 Blue Bell, PA 19422

Hearing Officer: Debra K. Wallet, Esq.

Record Closed: July 23, 2008

Date of Decision: August 7, 2008

BACKGROUND:

Student is a teenage student (date of birth xx/xx/xx) who completed Student’s ninth grade year at the [redacted] School within the Abington School District [hereinafter School District] in June 2008. Because Student was initially identified as having specific learning disabilities in reading, writing, and math, Student was provided services through an Individualized Educational Plan [hereinafter IEP] in elementary school. In seventh grade, Student was determined to have the additional diagnosis of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder [hereinafter ADHD].

Student’s Parents filed a due process complaint seeking compensatory education from January 2006 through the present, alleging that the School District failed to offer Student a Free Appropriate Public Education [hereinafter FAPE] because Student’s IEPs were deficient and because Student failed to make meaningful educational progress. Parents further contend that the IEP which will be in place for the [next school year] is not appropriate and request a more restrictive private placement to address Student’s identified learning disabilities. Finally, they seek reimbursement for the costs of a private evaluation.

The School District contends that Student made meaningful progress both behaviorally and academically during the years in question and therefore no compensatory education is due. No private school tuition should be awarded because the offered public school placement in part- time emotional support classes is appropriate and the least restrictive. The cost of the private evaluation must be denied for failure to comply with applicable regulations.

ISSUES:

  1. Did the School District provide Student with FAPE between January 2006 and the present?
  2. Should the School District reimburse Parents for Student’s private school placement, including transportation costs?
  3. Should the School District reimburse Parents for their costs associated with the independent educational evaluation?Are Parents entitled to compensatory education?
  4. Did the School District err in failing to provide ESY during 2006, 2007, and 2008?
MG-Abington-ODRNo-8470-07-08-LS

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.