RP vs. School District of Philadelphia

Pennsylvania
Special Education Hearing Officer

DECISION

Student’s Name: R.P.

Date of Birth: [redacted]

ODR No. 01919-10-11-AS

CLOSED HEARING

Parties to the Hearing: Parent[s]

School District of Philadelphia 440 North Broad Street, Suite 313 Philadelphia, PA 19130

Representative:

Benjamin D. Geffen, Esquire
Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia 1709 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, 2d Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103

Heather L. Matejik, Esquire Office of General Counsel
440 North Broad Street, Suite 313 Philadelphia, PA 19130

Dates of Hearing: March 11, 2011; April 5, 2011; May 16, 2011

Record Closed: June 13, 2011

Date of Decision: June 28, 2011

Hearing Officer: William F. Culleton, Jr., Esquire

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Student is an eligible resident of the School District of Philadelphia (District), and attended a District elementary school at all relevant times. (NT 12-14.) Student is identified with Other Health Impairment due to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq. (IDEA). Ibid. The Parent requested due process alleging that the District had failed to comply with its obligations under the IDEA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794 (section 504), specifically alleging Child Find violations, failure to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to Student, and failure to include Parent in the planning process for an Individualized Education Program (IEP).1 The District asserts that it has evaluated Student timely and appropriately, and offered a FAPE with full participation of the Parent.

The hearing was conducted in three sessions and the record closed upon receipt of written summations. I conclude that the District has complied with its legal obligations to Student and Parent, and no compensatory education will be ordered.

ISSUES

  1. Do the IDEA limitation of action provisions bar Parent’s complaints about District action or inaction from October 1, 20072 to December 30, 20083, due to failure to request due process within two years of Parent’s knowledge or notice during that period of time?
  1. Prior to June 20, 20094, did the District fail to comply with its Child Find obligations under either the IDEA or section 504, inter alia by failing to evaluate Student properly, failing to provide appropriate educational services, or denying participation by Parent?
  2. During the period prior to and including March 11, 2011, did the District fail to provide a FAPE to Student under either the IDEA or section 504, with regard to reading, writing, mathematics, behavior impeding learning, or attention?
  3. Did the District fail to allow Parent to participate appropriately in the educational planning process for Student during the period from October 1, 2007 to March 11, 2011?
  4. Should the hearing officer order the District to provide compensatory education to Student for all or any part of the period prior to March 11, 2011?
R-P-School-District-of-Philadelphia-ODRNo-01919-10-11-AS

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.