Special Education Hearing Officer
Child’s Name: N.W.
Date of Birth: [redacted]
Date of Hearing: July 9, 2015
ODR Case # 16497-1415AS
Parties to the Hearing: Parent[s]
Penn Hills School District
260 Aster Street Pittsburgh, PA 15235
Pamela Berger, Esquire 434 Grace Street Pittsburgh, PA 15211
Chelsea Dice, Esquire
Bruce E. Dice & Associates, P.C. 787 Pine Valley Drive
Pittsburgh, PA 15239
Date Record Closed: July 9, 2015
Date of Decision: July 23, 2015
Hearing Officer: Jake McElligott, Esquire
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[Student] (“student”)1 is a [mid-teenaged] student who has been identified as a student with a specific learning disabilities. The student resides in the Penn Hills School District (“District”).
The parties do not dispute that the student is a student with a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act of 2004 (“IDEA”).2 The parties dispute centers on the student’s extended school year (“ESY”) program for the summer of 2015. The parent maintains that the District’s proposed ESY program is inappropriate because it is geared to credit-recovery for failed classes in the 2014-2015 school year and not in furtherance of the student’s individualized education plan (“IEP”) goals. The District maintains that the proposed ESY program it has offered is appropriate and, as such, has complied with its duties under federal and Pennsylvania law to offer the student a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”).
For the reasons set forth below, I find in favor of the parent with modifications related to parents’ claim for remedy.
Is the District’s ESY program appropriate?
If not, is the student entitled to compensatory education?