Special Education Hearing Officer
Child’s Name: SH
Date of Birth: XX/XX/XX
Dates of Hearing: 10/31/08; 11/05/08; 12/03/08; 12/17/08; 02/09/09
ODR No. 9246/08-09 KE
Parties to the Hearing: Parents
Mr. & Mrs.
3650 Perkiomen Avenue Reading, PA 19606
Representative: Parent Attorney
Jonathan Corchnoy, Esq. 1515 Market Street Suite 1510
Philadelphia, PA 19102
School District Attorney
Thomas Warner, Esq.
Sweet, Stevens, Katz & Williams 331 Butler Avenue, P.O. Box 5069 New Britain, PA 18901 -0934
Date Record Closed: March 9, 2009
Date of Decision: March 24, 2009
Hearing Officer: Anne L. Carroll, Esq.
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Student, currently a senior at [redacted] School, is IDEA eligible due to specific learning disabilities. After two years in a District funded private school, Student returned to the Exeter Township School District for 11th grade (2007/2008 school year). By the end of the school year, Student and Parents had become dissatisfied with Student’s educational program because Student was still reading well below the level of Student’s non-disabled peers and the District had declined to provide Student with either assistive technology or extended school year services. Parents were also dissatisfied with the District’s progress monitoring and the transition services provided to Student during the 2007/2008 school year.
Convinced that Student is not on an academic path that will enable Student to attend college and prepare for a satisfying career, Parents commenced a due process hearing to require the District to provide intensive reading instruction for Student at the [redacted] Center and assistive technology in the form of software and equipment for reading and writing. Parents also requested compensatory education for the alleged procedural and substantive deficiencies in Student’s special education program.
The due process hearing was held over five sessions between October 31, 2008 and February 9, 2009. Because the District provided all services necessary for Student to receive a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) and Student made meaningful progress during the 2007/2008 school year, Parents’ claims will be denied.
- Did the Exeter Township School District deny Student a free, appropriate public education for the 2007/2008 school year by:
a. failing to develop an appropriate IEP for Student;
b. failing to provide Student with appropriate assistive technology/devices; c. failing to appropriately monitor Student’s progress;
d. failing to develop and implement an appropriate post- school transition plan for Student
- Did the Exeter Township School District inappropriately deny Student extended school year (ESY) services for the summer of 2008?