Student vs. School District Philadelphia

Pennsylvania
Special Education Hearing Officer

DECISION

IN RE: A STUDENT IN THE
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA

Date of Birth: [Redacted]

Date of Hearing: 04/24/09

CLOSED HEARING

ODR No. 9900/08-09 KE

Parties to the Hearing:

Parent [Redacted]

School District Philadelphia

Representative:

Parent Attorney None

School District Attorney Kimberly Caputo, Esq.
Office of General Counsel
440 North Broad Street, 3rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19130

Date Record Closed: April 29, 2009

Date of Decision: April 30, 2009

Hearing Officer: Anne L. Carroll, Esq.

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Student is currently a high school student at the [REDACTED] School pursuant to an agreement between Parent and the District. After a re-evaluation by the District in August 2008, Student was found to be IDEA eligible in the categories of emotional disturbance (ED) and other health impairment (OHI), based upon an ADHD diagnosis. In prior evaluations, Student had not been identified by the District as IDEA eligible, but had received services since 2002 under a §504 Service Agreement.

There has been a long-standing contentious relationship between Parent and the District, resulting in a number of due process complaints under both IDEA and §504, several of which are currently pending. In this case, jurisdiction of the hearing officer is based upon the IDEA statute and the federal and state implementing regulations, specifically those relating to extended school year (ESY) services. 34 C.F.R. §300.106; 22 Pa. Code §14.132. At the time this case was filed, Parent’s complaint centered on the District’s failure to determine Student’s ESY eligibility by February 28, 2009. Just prior to the April 24, 2009 hearing date, however, Student’s ESY eligibility was discussed at an IEP team meeting. Based upon information provided by Student’s case manager at School, the District concluded that Student does not need ESY to receive FAPE, in that Student did not meet the criteria for ESY found in the Pennsylvania regulations. The focus of the hearing and the decision, therefore, is whether the District’s decision is correct, and if not, the ESY services Student should receive.

At the close of the evidence, Parent requested the opportunity to submit a written closing argument and additional time to supply copies of the exhibits admitted into the April 24 hearing record. The District elected to close on the record and did not offer any exhibits.

ISSUES

Does Student need ESY services for the summer of 2009 in order to receive a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) from the School District of Philadelphia?

If ESY is necessary for Student to receive FAPE, what type of services and or/ what ESY program would be appropriate?

Student-PHILADELPHIA-ODRNo-9900-08-09-KE

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.