PP vs. West Chester Area School District

Background

Student is a xx-year-old fourth grade student who resides in the West Chester Area School District (hereinafter District). He was enrolled in a parochial school for his entire educational career, until Mr. and Mrs. (hereinafter Parents) unilaterally enrolled him in a private school for children with learning disabilities. The Parents requested this hearing, raising Child Find issues under the IDEA/Chapter 14 and Section 504/Chapter 15, and asserting that the District’s evaluation and its proffered IEP were inappropriate under these statutes. The Parents sought compensatory education for alleged Child Find violations from 2002-2003 through 2004-2005 and for alleged denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) because of an inappropriate evaluation and IEP. The Parents also sought reimbursement for two independent educational evaluations (IEEs), for vision therapy services from July 2003 through March 2004, for a summer 2005 program at Private School, and for tuition to Private School for the 2005-2006 school year.

Prior to the convening of the hearing, the District filed a motion to limit the issues and remedies (HO-1) and the Parents responded (HO-2, HO-8). The hearing officer determined that she would limit any recovery to the period from October 5, 2003 through October 5, 2005, but would allow the Parents to present evidence from September 2002 through October 4, 2003 in the event a higher body chose to consider that period.

The U. S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Schaffer v. Weast1 regarding the

burden of persuasion in special education matters four days before the first session of the hearing. In an unexpected conference call from the attorneys, the hearing officer was asked which party would bear the burden of production; she ruled that the District retained the burden of production and should present its case first. However, on the day of the first hearing session, having had time to reconsider, the hearing officer reversed her ruling following a motion by the District, and assigned the burden of production to the parents, recessing the hearing after opening statements in order to allow time for the Parents to prepare their case. The hearing officer denied a motion from the Parents to reconsider (HO-3, HO-6, HO-7).

The Parents filed a request that the hearing officer order and/or the District voluntarily fund, an independent educational evaluation (IEE), as they interpreted Schaffer as bestowing such an entitlement. The hearing officer and the District denied this request in a prehearing conference. (HO-4, HO-5).

This matter was delayed at the outset by the hearing officer’s granting a continuance after the first session in order to allow the Parents time to prepare their case presentation and the matter was also delayed at the end of the case as the last witness required unexpected surgery and was not available for the originally scheduled final session.