Student vs. North Penn School District

PENNSYLVANIA
SPECIAL EDUCATION HEARING OFFICER

DECISION

Student: Student

Date of Birth: xx/xx/xx

Hearing Dates: November 5, 2009; November 24, 2009

ODR File No.: 00250/09-10 LS

OPEN HEARING

School District: North Penn School District

Parties:North Penn School District

Representatives:

Parent Attorney: Frederick M. Stanczak, Esq. 179 North Broad Street, 2nd floor Doylestown, PA 18901

School District Attorney: Brian Ford, Esq. Dischell, Bartle, Yanoff, Dooley P.O. Box 107 1800 Pennbrook Parkway, Ste 200 Lansdale, PA 19446

Date Record Closed: December 27, 2009

Decision Date: January 11, 2010

Hearing Officer: Gloria M. Satriale, Esquire

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case concerns the educational program for Student (hereinafter referred to as “student”), a teen aged student, who resides with Student’s parents in the North Penn School District. The Student has been identified as a child with a disability and eligible for special education services. The Student has received as part of Student’s Individualized Educational Plan (hereinafter referred to as “IEP”) and provision of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (hereinafter referred to as (”FAPE”) by the school district, educational services in the home (hereinafter referred to as “Home Program). A dispute between the Student and the School District arose when the District proposed to reduce/eliminate components of the Home Program. The within Due Process Hearing ensued following the Student’s rejection of the District’s proposal alleging a denial of FAPE, seeking reinstatement of all components of the Home Program and compensatory education for the period of time the Home Program was not fully provided by the District in compliance with the pendent IEP. For the reasons more fully described below, I find for the STUDENT, IN PART and IN PART for the DISTRICT.

ISSUES

  1. Whether the District’s proposed titration of the Student’s Home Program constitutes a denial of FAPE? The Student seeks a continuation of the Student’s home program at current levels as a remedy.1
  2. Whether the District’s alleged failure to timely fund the Student’s Home Program constitutes a denial of FAPE? The Student seeks timely funding of the same as a remedy.2
  3. Whether the absence of supervisory services from 6/16/08 – 10/20 /08 constituted a denial of FAPE? The Student seeks compensatory education as a remedy.
  4. Whether the District’s proposed elimination of funding for the Parents to attend conferences constitutes a denial of FAPE? The Student seeks a continuation of funding as a remedy.
Student-North-Penn-ODRNo-00250-09-10-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.