PHILADELPHIA - A Pennsylvania school district is still going back-and-forth with a disabled student and his parent on whether he received proper education, a dispute that led to a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Plaintiff S.W. (Student) by and through his parent, S.W., (Parent) and S.W. in her own right filed an appeal against Abington School District (District), pursuant to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
The appeal came after Parent filed a complaint in a Special Education Due Process Hearing with allegations the District didn’t give Student free appropriate public education (FAPE) when he was in first and second grade. The Hearing Officer determined the District gave suitable services during the timeframe in question and denied the Student and Parent’s request for relief.
In the complaint with the district court, the plaintiffs stated the Hearing Officer made several mistakes when determining the District provided an appropriate Individualized Education Program (IEP) to the Student when he was in first and second grade.
The plaintiffs requested for the court to reverse the Hearing Officer’s ruling. They added the Hearing Officer erred in multiple other aspects including when it determined the IDEA didn’t require the District to do a Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA) and that its decision not to do so was permitted because of its level of discretion.
The District replied with a response of its own and asked the court to affirm the Hearing Officer’s decision. It first stated the Hearing Officer was correct when determining the District provided FAPE for the school year in question.
It added, “The District’s IEP was reasonably calculated to enable Student to make progress appropriate in light of his circumstances,” according to the court document it submitted. It added the District consistently provided proper educational programming throughout the school year in question and pointed out there is evidence the Student made progress in his first grade year.
It echoed similar sentiments for the child’s second grade year and stated the Hearing Officer made the proper decision. It suggested if plaintiff’s refusal to allow an evaluation and FBA was responsible for the District’s alleged failure to give the Student proper programming in the second grade.
The District added the Hearing Officer was correct in deciding the Student was not eligible for compensatory education because the Student did receive proper education.
The motion for judgment is currently still pending.