Special Education Hearing Officer
Child’s Name: S.C.
Date of Birth: [redacted]
Dates of Hearing:
March 15, 2016 May 18, 2016 June 1, 2016
ODR Case #17184-1516AS
Parties to the Hearing: Parent[s]
125 Bell Tower Lane Oxford, PA 19363
Michael Connolly, Esquire 30 Cassatt Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312
Katie Metcalfe, Esquire 331 E. Butler Avenue New Britain, PA 18901
Date Record Closed: June 22, 2016
Date of Decision: July 8, 2016
Hearing Officer: Jake McElligott, Esquire
Student1 is a late teen-aged student residing in the Oxford Area School District (“District”). The parties agree that the student qualifies under the terms of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act of 2004 (“IDEIA”)2 for specially designed instruction/related services as a student with specific learning disabilities in reading, mathematics, and written expression.
Parent claims, in her complaint, that the student was denied a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the school years 2012-2013 through 2014-2015, inclusive, and seeks a compensatory education remedy for that alleged denial. As set forth more fully in the Procedural History section, the parent’s claims related to the school years were timely filed in parent’s complaint of December 2015.
Additionally, parents claim that the District has violated its obligations to the student under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”).3
The District counters that at all times it provided FAPE to the student. The District also claims that it did not violate its obligations to the student under Section 504. As such, the District argues that the parents are not entitled to remedy.
For the reasons set forth below, I find in favor of the District.
Did the District deny a FAPE to the student
in the 2012-2013, 2013-2014, and/or 2014-2015 school years?
If so, is the student entitled to compensatory education?
Did the District fail in its obligations to the student as a student with a disability under Section 504?S-C-Oxford-ASD-ODRNo-17184-1516AS