XB vs. School District of Philadelphia

Pennsylvania
Special Education Hearing Officer

DECISION

Child’s Name: XB

Date of Birth: xx/xx/xx

ODR No. 01689-10-11-KE

OPEN HEARING

Parties to the Hearing: Ms.

School District of Philadelphia 440 North Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19130

Representative:

Judith A. Gran, Esquire Reisman Carolla Gran, LLP 19 Chestnut Street Haddonfield, NJ 08003

Jennifer Nestle, Esquire
Office of General Counsel
440 North Broad Street, Suite 313 Philadelphia, Pa 19130-4105

Dates of Hearing: December 14, 2010; January 25, 2010; February 8, 2011

Record Closed: March 1, 2011

Date of Decision: March 16, 2011

Hearing Officer: William F. Culleton, Jr., Esquire

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The captioned Student is an eligible resident of the captioned District, (NT 14-14 to 19), and is nearing the end of Student’s high school years, (NT 12-24 to 13-12.) The Student is identified with Other Health Impairment and Speech and Language Disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq. (IDEA). (NT 13-14 to 14-14.) The captioned Parent requests due process under the IDEA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794 (section 504), seeking compensatory education for prior years and prospective relief. (NT 21-10 to 32-24.) The District asserts that it provided appropriate services at all relevant times and that the Parent is not entitled to relief under the law.

On the District’s pre-hearing motion, I limited the scope of the matter to a two year period beginning on October 21, 2010, and ending on December 14, 2010 (in this decision called the relevant period). (NT 145-12 to 156-16.) This matter was heard in three sessions and the record closed upon receipt of written summations.

ISSUES

  1. During the relevant period, did the District provide an appropriate evaluation of the Student?
  2. During the relevant time period, did the District fail to provide the Student with a free appropriate public education with regard to educational needs in reading, writing, mathematics, motor skills, speech and language and post secondary transition?
  3. Should the hearing officer award compensatory education to the Student for all or any part of the relevant period?
  4. Should the hearing officer order prospective relief, including Wilson training, auditory reinforcement strategies, aural instructional materials, daily speech and language programming, assistive technology, counseling and post secondary transition evaluation and planning?
XB-School-District-of-Philadelphia-ODRNo-01689-10-11-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.