Pennsylvania
Special Education Hearing Officer
WILLIAM F. CULLETON, JR.
2310 Waverly St. Philadelphia PA 19146 ◊ 215-284-2860 (phone) ◊ 215–545-0840 (FAX)
INTRODUCTION
Student is a xx year old eligible child residing in the School District of Philadelphia (District). (NT13-18 to 14-16.) The District considers him to be in ninth grade, although he has been hospitalized repeatedly since March 2005 and has received education at different grade levels. (NT14-16 to 15-11.) The Student has been diagnosed clinically with Disruptive Behavior Disorder, Adjustment Disorder and Mood Disorder. Educationally, he has been identified with Emotional Disturbance and Specific Learning Disability in Reading, Mathematics and Written Expression. (S-42.) He is currently placed in Full Time Emotional Support provided through an Alternative Special Education Setting, a full time emotional support school operated through a contract with the District. (NT830-25 to 831-1, 905-23 to 906-7, 913-11 to 16; S-42 p. 46.
The Student’s Grandmother, (Parent), requested this due process proceeding. Parent contends that the District failed to identify the Student as in need of special education services when he was in second grade, during the 1998-1999 school year, in violation of its Child Find obligations. As a result, the Parent contends, the Student failed to learn commensurate with his abilities and developed an emotional disturbance that further interfered with, and continues to interfere with, his learning. The Parent requests an award of compensatory education for two periods: 1) from the beginning of the school year, 1998, to the end of the 2000-2001 school year, when the Parent withdrew the Student from the District; and 2) from the beginning of the 2003 school year until September 23, 2005, when the Student was hospitalized.1
The District contends that the claim is barred by the limitations period established in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C.§1415(b)(6)(B), 1415(f)(C),(D)(2004). In addition, it argues that an evaluation issued by the District in June 2004 correctly found that the Student was not learning disabled, and that therefore, there was no denial of FAPE.
ISSUES
- Did the District waive application of the two year limitation period of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (IDEIA) through its attorney’s oral agreement during a resolution meeting on June 14, 2005?
- Does the two year limitation period set forth in the IDEIA preclude the Parent from requesting compensatory education for any denial of FAPE earlier than two years prior to the filing of this due process request on July 26, 2006?
- During the period from July 26, 2004 until September 23, 2005, did the District fail to comply with its Child Find obligations in failing to identify the Student as eligible for special education under the IDEIA?
- During the period from July 26, 2004 until September 23, 2005, did the District fail to provide an appropriate evaluation to the Student?
- During the period from July 26, 2004 until September 23, 2005, did the District fail to offer FAPE to the Student through an appropriate IEP?
- During the period from July 26, 2004 until September 23, 2005, did the District fail to provide FAPE to the Student?
- During the period from July 26, 2004 until September 23, 2005, did the District fail to provide FAPE to the Student by subjecting him to discipline contrary to the requirements of the IDEIA?
- During the period from July 26, 2004 until September 23, 2005, did the District fail to provide FAPE to the Student by failing to comply with the procedural requirements of the IDEIA?