SM vs. Manheim Township School District

PENNSYLVANIA
SPECIAL EDUCATION HEARING OFFICER

DECISION

DUE PROCESS HEARING

Name of Child: SM

ODR #9708/08-09 LS #9468/08-09 LS

Date of Birth: XX/XX/XX

Dates of Hearing: March 27, 2009 April 8, 2009

CLOSED HEARING

Parties to the Hearing: Mr. and Mrs.

Manheim Township School District 2933 Lititz Pike
Lititz, PA 17606-5134

Representative:

Amy Slody, Esquire 41 E. Orange Street Lancaster, PA 17602

Jeffrey Champagne, Esquire McNees, Wallace & Nurick, LLC 100 Pine Street- P.O. Box 166 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166

Date Transcripts Received: April 13, 2009; May 4, 2009; May 6, 2009

Date of Decision: May 29, 2009

Hearing Officer: Deborah G. DeLauro, Esquire

Procedural History

This is the second phase of a bifurcated hearing.1 The first phase of the hearing was expedited to determine whether Student’s misbehavior was a manifestation of Student’s disability. Student is a late teen-aged eligible student living in the Manheim Township School District (hereinafter “District”). Student qualifies for special education services and specially designed instruction under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (hereinafter “IDEIA”) as a student with an Other Health Impairment (hereinafter “OHI”) due to Student’s severe Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (hereinafter “ADHD”) and Specific Learning Disabilities (hereinafter “SLD”) in the areas of Written Expression and Math Calculation. Student was expelled from the District’s public school Student had been attending as a result of Student’s violation of the code of conduct. At the conclusion of the first phase of the hearing, this Hearing Officer concluded that Student’s behavior was not a manifestation of Student’s disability2, and Student was placed in an alternative educational placement in the [redacted] (hereinafter “AES”). The programs at AES are operated by [redacted] Intermediate Unit. The AES staff and teachers are Intermediate Unit (hereinafter “IU”) employees.

The question in this second phase of the hearing revolves around the appropriateness of the post-expulsion alternative educational placement.

Issues

Whether Student’s placement in the AES is appropriate?

And, if not, whether Student is entitled to compensatory education?

SM-Manheim-Township-ODRNo-9708-08-09-LS-9468-08-09-LS

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.