Special Education Hearing Officer


Child’s Name: T.M.

Date of Birth: [redacted]

Dates of Hearing: 12/1/2015, 2/5/2016, 3/1/2016 and 3/4/2016


ODR File No. 16811-15-16

Parties to the Hearing:

Parents Parent[s]

Local Education Agency
Quakertown Community School District 100 Commerce Drive
Quakertown, PA 18951


Parent Attorney
Frederick Stanczak Esq.
179 North Broad Street 2nd Floor Doylestown, PA 18901 215-340-5000

LEA Attorney
Mark W. Cheramie Walz Esq.
Sweet, Stevens, Katz & Williams LLP 331 E. Butler Avenue
New Britain, PA 18601 215-345-9111

Date Record Closed: April 1, 2016

Date of Decision: April 22, 2016

Hearing Officer: Charles W. Jelley Esq. LL.M.

Introduction and Procedural History

The Student1 is an elementary-aged pupil who resides with [the Student’s] Parents in the School District (District) 2. The Parties agree the Student is eligible for special education pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Parties also agree the Student is a person with a disability within the meaning of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA).3 The Student’s Parents filed a due process complaint against the District asserting a denial of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) under the IDEA, its implementing regulations, and claims of discrimination in violation of Section 504 and the ADA.

The case proceeded to a due process hearing convening over several sessions, at which the parties presented evidence in support of their respective positions. The Parents sought to establish the District failed to provide appropriate programming to address all of Student’s unique needs. They now seek compensatory education for the 2014-2015 and the 2015-2016 school years. The District maintains that its special education program, as designed, offered and implemented was at all times appropriate for the Student in all respects.

On September 25, 2015, the District filed an Answer to the Complaint denying the Student’s claim for compensatory education and discrimination.4 For the reasons set forth below, I find in favor of the District on all Parents’ claims.


  1. Duringthe2014-2015schoolyear,didtheDistrictprovidetheStudent FAPE?
  2. During the 2015-2016 school year, did the District provide the Student FAPE?
  3. During the 2014-2015 school year, did the District discriminate against the Student in violation of Section 504 or Title II of the ADA?
  4. During the 2015-2016 school year, did the District discriminate against the Student in violation of Section 504 or Title II of the ADA?

Leave a Reply