RM vs. Kennett Consolidated School District

Pennsylvania
Special Education Hearing Officer

DECISION
Child’s Name: R.M.

Date of Birth: [redacted]

Dates of Hearing: July 8, 2008

OPEN HEARING

ODR#8988/07-08 KE

Parties to the Hearing: Parents

Dr. Constance Ames
Kennett Consolidated School District 300 E. South Street
Kennett Square, PA 19348

Representative:

Mark W. Voigt, Esq.
Law Office of Mark Voigt
Plymouth Meeting Executive Campus 600 West Germantown Pike, Suite 400 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462

David F. Conn, Esq.
Sweet, Stevens, Katz & Williams 331 Butler Avenue
P.O. Box 5069
New Britain, PA 18901-5069

Date Record Closed: July 16, 2008

Date of Decision: July 28, 2008

Hearing Officer: Daniel J. Myers

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

[Student] (Student) 1 is a gifted 6th grade Student who complains that his/her gifted individualized education programs (GIEPs) for the last two years have been inappropriate. Student seeks 1080 hours of compensatory education and assignment to a particular math class. For the reasons described below, I find that Student’s claim is limited to one year, I agree with Student that Student has been denied appropriate gifted programming for the last year, but I order a different remedy than that suggested by Student.

ISSUES

  • Whether the School District has provided Student an appropriate gifted education?
  • Whether Student’s complaint may extend further than one year before the due process hearing request ?
  • Whether Student is entitled to placement in the accelerated math class?
R-M-Kennett-Consolidated-ODRNo-8988-07-08-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.