Special Education Hearing Officer
Child’s Name: S.H.
Date of Birth: [Redacted]
ODR No. 2120-11-12-AS
ODR No. 2552-11-12-AS
ODR No. 2652-11-12-AS
Parties to the Hearing: Parent
Pennsylvania Virtual Charter School 1 West Main Street, Suite 400 Norristown, PA 19401
Elizabeth Kapo, Esquire 2123 Pinehurst Road Bethlehem PA 18018
Nicole D. Snyder, Esquire
Latsha Davis Yohe & McKenna, P.C. 350 Eagleview Boulevard, Suite 100 Exton, PA 19341
Dates of Hearings: January 27, 2012; February 7, 2012; March 5, 2012; March 12, 2012
Record Closed: April 19, 2012
Date of Decision: May 5, 2012
Hearing Officer: William F. Culleton, Jr., Esquire, CHO
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The child named in the title page of this decision (Student) is enrolled in the school named in the title page of this decision (School). (NT 19-20.) In these three matters, which were heard together and which are decided together in this decision, the School brings No. 2120 pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq. (IDEA), and the Pennsylvania Code, 22 Pa. Code §14.151 et seq. The School requests an order authorizing an evaluation notwithstanding the refusal of Student’s parent, named on the title page of this decision (Parent), to consent to such evaluation.
Parent brings Nos. 2552 and 2652 pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq. (IDEA), the Pennsylvania Code, 22 Pa. Code §14.151 et seq., and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794 (section 504). Parent requests compensatory education for Student, asserting that the School failed to offer or provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE), and requests that the hearing officer order the School to provide all services in the Student’s home, removing Student from an Intermediate Unit Multiple Disabilities Support classroom to which Students is assigned at present for half day sessions. Parent also asserts retaliation and discrimination on account of disability.
The hearing was concluded in four sessions, and the records were combined for all three matters. The record closed upon receipt of written summations.
1. Should the hearing officer authorize the School to conduct a pediatric neurological evaluation of the Student in the absence of parental consent?
2. Did the School provide an appropriate placement to Student during the relevant period, from January 1, 2010 until February 7, 2012, and was the Intermediate Unit’s multiple disabilities classroom an appropriate setting for Student?
3. Did the School fail to offer or provide a FAPE to Student during the relevant period?
4. Did the School fail to provide a FAPE to Student during the relevant period by denying or limiting Parent’s access to observe the Student’s program?
5. Did the School discriminate against Student on account of disability, contrary to its obligations under section 504?
6. Did the School retaliate against Student for Parent’s filing of a Complaint Notice under the IDEA and section 504?
7. Should the hearing officer order the School to provide compensatory education to Student for all or part of the relevant period?
8. Should the hearing officer order the School to provide all services within Student’s home?S-H-Pennsylvania-Virtual-Charter-ODR-No-2120-11-12-AS-ODRNo-2552-11-12-AS-ODRNo-2652-11-12-AS