Special Education Hearing Officer


Child’s Name: [REDACTED]

Date of Birth: XX/XX/XX

Date of Hearing: March 24, 2009


ODR No. 9790/08-09 LS

Parties to the Hearing:

Parents : [REDACTED]

Parent Representative: Mark Painter, Esq.
63 Malsbey Road Royersford, PA 19468

School District:
Leigh Ann Ranieri, Director of Special Education
Wilson School District
2601 Grandview Boulevard
West Lawn, PA 19609

School District Attorney:
Thomas C. Warner, Esq.
Sweet, Stevens, Katz & Williams 331 Butler Avenue, P.O. Box 5069 New Britain, PA 18901-5069

Date of Hearing: March 24, 2009

Date Transcript Received: March 27, 2009

Date Record Closed: March 29, 2009

Date of Decision: April 1, 2009

Hearing Officer: Daniel J. Myers


[REDACTED]1 (Student) is an elementary school student with autism who contests the Wilson School District’s (School District) proposed extended school year (ESY) program. While all parties agree that Student requires ESY programming, there is a large discrepancy between the quantity of ESY programming proposed by the School District and that sought by Student. I conducted an expedited due process hearing on March 24, 2009, and I closed the record on March 29 with receipt of the parties’ written closing arguments. After conducting a two-step ESY sufficiency analysis described herein, and based upon the severity of Student’s need for ESY, I order an amount of ESY programming that falls in between the positions of the parties. I find that while Student requires more ESY programming than the School District proposes, Student requires less ESY programming than Student seeks.


  •   Whether the School District’s ESY programming is appropriate?
  •   If the School District’s ESY programming is not appropriate, what is the appropriate ESY programming for Student?

Leave a Reply