WW vs. Scranton City School District

Decision

Due Process Hearing for WW

Date of Birth: xx/xx/xx File Number: 7621/06-07LS

Date of Hearing: May 8, 2007

OPEN HEARING

Parties: Mr.

Ms. Lee Carr
Scranton City School District 425 N. Washington Avenue Scranton, PA 18503-1305

Representative:

Harold McGrath, Esq McGrath Law Office
321 Spruce Street, Suite 600 Scranton, PA 18503

Date Transcript Received: May 11, 2007

Date of Decision: May 20, 2007

Hearing Officer: David F. Bateman, PhD

I. BACKGROUND

Student is a xx-year-old student eligible for special education and related services identified by the District as a student with autism and other disabilities. He currently attends the local high school. The District has found him eligible for extended school year services for the summer of 2007 and offered an individualized education program (IEP) for extended school year (ESY) services on March 23, 2007. The Parent disagrees with the IEP, specifically the amount and duration of the ESY services offered.

This hearing was held shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court issued their decision in the Schaffer v. Weast1 matter shifting the burden of persuasion to the party filing for the hearing. It was clear a lot of animosity existed in this hearing. The issues in this hearing were very similar to a previous due process hearing and appeal from 2004.2

III. ISSUE PRESENTED

Is the extended school year program offered by the Scranton City School District for the summer of 2007 appropriate for Student?

WW-Scranton-City-ODRNo-7621-06-07LS

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.