YK vs. School District Wallingford-Swarthmore

Pennsylvania
Special Education Hearing Officer

DECISION
ODR No. 15255-1415AS

Child’s Name: Y.K.
Date of Birth: [redacted]

Date of Hearing: 9/12/14

CLOSED HEARING

Parties to the Hearing:

Parents Parent[s]

School District Wallingford-Swarthmore 200 S. Providence Road Wallingford, PA 19086

Representative:

Parent Attorney None

School District Attorney Lawrence Dodds, Esquire
Blue Bell Executive Campus 460 Norristown Road, Suite 110 Blue Bell, PA 19422-2326

Date Record Closed: October 1, 2014

Date of Decision: October 20, 2014

Hearing Officer: Anne L. Carroll, Esq.

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Student and a younger sibling, both identified as IDEA eligible due to an autism spectrum disorder and speech/language impairment, were also eligible for ESY for the summer of 2014. Parents approved the ESY NOREP in the early spring of 2014, and Student began attending the District ESY program in early July. Student’s ESY program consisted of academic instruction in the morning, followed by lunch and an afternoon session focusing on social skills instruction and practice. Student was also to be provided with occupational therapy (OT) and speech/language therapy during the ESY program. The morning session for academic instruction was open to non-disabled peers who needed additional practice in reading, writing and math skills, but the afternoon session (extended day program) was provided only to IDEA eligible students for whom social skills instruction was part of their ESY program.

Because Parents were dissatisfied with the transportation the District provided to the ESY program, and with the social skills component delivered during the extended day program, particularly the peer group, they withdrew Student from the District ESY program after three days and substituted a private summer program that included academic instruction and the opportunity for peer social contacts through recreational activities.

After the District refused Parents’ request for reimbursement for the summer program they selected, Parents filed a due process complaint to recover their cost. Because Parents produced insufficient evidence that the District’s ESY program was inappropriate for Student, rather than less desirable than the private program, and because the private summer program did not include formal social skills instruction, identified as an ESY need for Student, Parents’ reimbursement claim must be denied.

ISSUES

  1. Did the District fail to offer an appropriate ESY Program for Student in that:
    1. there was insufficient contact with peers with whom Student could practice appropriate social skills, and
    2. the transportation provided by the District was inappropriate
  2. Did the District fail to sufficiently permit and consider Parent input into selecting the ESY program?
  3. If the District ESY program was inappropriate, should the District be ordered to reimburse Parents for the private summer program that they selected and substituted for the District ESY program?
Y-K-Wallingford-Swarthmore-ODRNo-15255-1415AS

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.