Student vs. Cumberland Valley School District

Special Education Hearing Officer


Child’s Name: Student

Date of Birth: xx/xx/xx

Date of Hearing: May 26, 2010

ODR Case # 01054-09-10-AS

Parties to the Hearing:

Cumberland Valley School District 6746 Carlisle Pike Mechanicsburg, PA 17050


Philip Drumheiser, Esq. P.O. Box 890
Carlisle, PA 17013

Sharon Montanye, Esq. Sweet, Stevens, et. al. 331 E. Butler Avenue New Britain, PA 18901

Date Record Closed: June 4, 2010

Date of Decision: June 9, 2010

Hearing Officer: Jake McElligott, Esquire


Student (“student”) is a pre-teen aged student who has been identified as student with anxiety issues and as a student in need of emotional support. The student resides in the Cumberland Valley School District (“District”). The parties do not dispute that the student is a student with a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act of 2004 (“IDEIA”)1. The student’s grandmother, who acts as the student’s guardian, claims that the proposed school location for the student’s extended school year (“ESY”) program is inappropriate. The District maintains that the location proposed for the ESY program it has offered is appropriate and, as such, has complied with its duties under federal and Pennsylvania law to offer the student a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”).


Is the school location proposed by the District for the ESY program appropriate or not?

If not, what is an appropriate location for the ESY program?


Leave a Reply


Montgomery Law, LLC
1420 Locust Street, Suite 420
Philadelphia, PA 19102
T/F. 215-650-7563

Rate By
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.