In a dramatic legal turn, a Pennsylvania school district is challenging a ruling that could set a precedent for special education provisions. On June 13, 2024, the Hatboro-Horsham School District (HHSD) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against R.C., a minor student, and his parents C.K. and S.C., seeking to overturn an administrative decision that found HHSD had failed to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
The case centers around R.C., who was identified as eligible for special education services under IDEA after moving from India to the United States in June 2022. The parents of R.C. enrolled him in AIM Academy, a private institution, immediately upon arrival and later sought tuition reimbursement from HHSD for the 2022-23 and 2023-24 school years. The Pennsylvania Office for Dispute Resolution assigned Hearing Officer Cathy A. Skidmore to the case, who ruled in favor of the parents on March 15, 2024.
According to HHSD's complaint, this ruling was erroneous on multiple grounds. "The hearing officer made numerous, material errors of fact and law," states the complaint filed by Karl A. Romberger Jr., attorney for HHSD. The school district argues that their December 2022 Individualized Education Program (IEP) for R.C. met all statutory requirements despite claims otherwise by the hearing officer. Specifically, HHSD contends that Skidmore incorrectly asserted that the IEP lacked necessary components such as baselines and expected levels of growth—elements not mandated by IDEA.
Furthermore, HHSD disputes Skidmore's finding that an appropriate IEP should have included a transition plan for moving R.C. from private schooling in India to public schooling in the U.S., arguing that such a requirement is not stipulated by law. They also claim that Skidmore improperly used retrospective evidence to judge the appropriateness of prior IEPs—a practice prohibited by controlling Circuit precedent.
Adding another layer of complexity, HHSD asserts that C.K. and S.C.'s intention was never to place R.C. in public school but rather to secure funding for his private education at AIM Academy from the outset. This assertion is backed by evidence showing that they signed a tuition contract with AIM Academy before even enrolling R.C. in HHSD solely for transportation purposes.
HHSD seeks multiple forms of relief from the court: reversal of Skidmore’s decision regarding both FAPE provision and tuition reimbursement; affirmation that they provided FAPE; judgment against all defendants; and coverage of legal costs incurred during this action.
Representing HHSD is Karl A. Romberger Jr., while Judge overseeing this case has been identified as HB with Case ID 2:24-cv-02591-HB.