Due Process Hearing for NK

Date of Birth: xx/xx/xx File

Number: 7522/06-07KE

Dates of Hearings: April 27, 2007; May 15, 2007



Heidi Konkler-Goldsmith, Esq 30 Cassatt Avenue
Berwyn, PA 19312


Cheltenham Township School District 500 Rices Mill Road
Wyncote, PA 19095

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

Date Transcript Received: May 22, 2007

Date Closing Arguments Received: June 5, 2007

Date of Decision: June 20, 2007

Hearing Officer: David F. Bateman, PhD


Student is a xx-year-old student eligible for special education and related services identified by the District as a student with a learning disability who is also eligible for a Section 504 plan as a student with ADHD. He currently attends [redacted] high school. He and his friends were in the hall of the high school on February 21, 2007 when Student asked his Spanish teacher to say “limonada” and to say it “sexy like you do in class.” When she protested, he then proceeded to make physical gestures around her. As a result, Student was suspended for ten school days. In contemplation of possibly removing him for additional days, the District convened a manifestation determination meeting wherein they found his actions were not a manifestation of his specific learning disability in math.

The Parent disagreed with the manifestation determination report as completed by the District, and requested a due process hearing. The hearing was held to determine if the behavior was a manifestation of his disability, and to determine if he was a danger to himself or others. This was the second due process request regarding this issue. The first request was filed immediately after the incident and was withdrawn because a settlement appeared imminent. The present due process hearing was filed several weeks later when negotiations broke down.


Was the manifestation determination held by the District appropriate?


Leave a Reply