PENNSYLVANIA SPECIAL EDUCATION DUE PROCESS
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER
ODR No. 30146-24-25
This is a redacted version of the original decision. Select details have been removed from the decision to preserve the anonymity of the student. The redactions do not affect the substance of the document.
Child’s Name: C.H.
Date of Birth: [redacted]
Parent: [redacted]
Counsel for Parent: Heather M. Hulse, Esquire
30 Cassatt Avenue Berwyn, PA 19422
Local Education Agency: Pleasant Valley School District
2233 Route 115 Brodheadsville, PA 18322
Counsel for the LEA: Timothy E. Gilsbach, Esquire
980 Jolly Road, Suite 110 Blue Bell, PA 19422
Hearing Officer: Cathy A. Skidmore, Esquire
Date of Decision: 05/20/2025
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The student, C.H. (Student),[1] is a mid-teenaged student residing with the Parent and formally enrolled in the Pleasant Valley School District (District). Student has been identified as eligible for special education pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)[2] under the Specific Learning Disability classification. Accordingly, Student also has a disability entitling Student to protections under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.[3] At the time of the due process hearing, Student was enrolled in and attending a charter school.
At approximately the time that the 2024-25 school year began for most schools in the Commonwealth, the Parent filed a Due Process Complaint under the IDEA and Section 504, contending that the District denied Student a free, appropriate public education with several respects from the start of the 2021-22 school year through September 2023. As a remedy, the Parent sought compensatory education. The District disagreed with the Parent’s contentions and the relief demanded, asserting that Student’s needs were identified and met throughout the time period in question. The matter proceeded to hearing with the presentation of witnesses and documentary evidence,[4] focused on Student’s disabilityrelated needs and the District’s approach to addressing them.
Following review of the record and for all of the reasons set forth below, the claims of the Parent cannot be sustained and must be denied.
ISSUES
1. Whether any of the Parent’s claims are barred by the IDEA provision limiting the scope of the claims;
2. Whether the District deprived Student of a free, appropriate public education in any respect for the appropriate time period not barred by the IDEA limitations period, with the full time period claimed as the start of the 2021-22 year to
September 2023;[5]
3. If the District did deprive Student a free appropriate public education for any time period, should Student be awarded compensatory education?
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Student is a mid-teenaged student residing within the boundaries of the District. Student has been identified as eligible for special education based on a Specific Learning Disability. (P-16.)
Prior Relevant Educational History
2. The District first evaluated Student in the spring of 2018 when Student was in [redacted] elementary school due to academic concerns, including increased need for reading interventions. Student was determined to be eligible for special education at that time under the Specific Learning Disability classification due to reading skill deficits.
(P-18 at 4-14.)
3. The District conducted another evaluation with a record review in the spring of 2021 and issued a Reevaluation Report (RR) in March of that year. At the time, Student was attending the District’s Intermediate School and was in a program of learning support.[6] (P-16.)
4. The 2021 RR incorporated results of the 2018 evaluation. Student’s cognitive ability Composite scores were all in the average range, with a Full Scale IQ of 101 (also average range). On academic assessment, Student earned below average-range scores in Total Reading; Reading
Fluency; Reading Comprehension; Word Reading; and Oral Reading
Fluency, Rate, and Accuracy; Mathematics scores were all in the average range. Additionally, benchmark and curriculum-based measures reflected below grade level expectations in the areas of reading and written expression. (P-16 at 1-5.)
5. Student’s behavioral presentation at the time of the 2021 RR reportedly was generally positive, but also included “periodic” organizational and task initiation difficulties (P-16 at 5) that were easily managed in the classroom. Educational strengths identified were use of reading decoding strategies, reading accuracy, rading comprehension, class participation, and use of written expression supports. Identified needs related to reading fluency, spelling, and written expression with appropriate conventions. (P-16 at 5-6.)
6. A classroom observation conducted for the 2021 RR in English/Language Arts (ELA) reflected appropriate on-task behavior and attention; Student also followed directions. (P-16 at 6-7.)
7. The 2021 RR confirmed Student’s eligibility for special education based on Specific Learning Disability (basic reading, reading fluency, and reading comprehension skills). (P-16.)
March 2021 Individualized Education Program
8. An Individualized Education Program (IEP) developed in March 2021 identified areas of strength to include many reading (decoding, accuracy, and comprehension) and written expression (sequencing ideas, editing) skills as well as mathematics basic facts and operations. Needs were for improved reading fluency, written expression (increasing to at least six complete sentences) and spelling. Student reportedly responded well to redirection and prompts when needed in the regular education classroom. (P-18 at 47-49.)
9. Annual goals in the March 2021 IEP addressed reading fluency at a third grade level to 85 words correct per minute (from a baseline of 52); and written expression through writing at least six complete sentences with 95% correct spelling (from a baseline of four sentences with 92% correct spelling). (P-18 at 53-54.)
10. Program modifications and items of specially designed instruction in the March 2021 IEP included small group reading instruction for accuracy and fluency; frequent checks for understanding; chunking of material; organizational checks; written expression assistance and supports; preferential seating; and a number of test and assignment accommodations (such as mathematics word problems read aloud) along with reduced expectations. Student’s program was one of learning support at a supplemental level, with Student not participating in regular education for small group instruction as needed. Student’s ELA and mathematics classes would be co-taught. The Parent approved the accompanying NOREP. (P-18 at 55-65.)
2021-22 School Year
11. An IEP developed in March 2022 summarized teacher input. Student reportedly participated in classroom activities, completed assignments, and self-advocated as needed in most classes (ELA, mathematics), but did not participate in science/social studies class. Review, redirection when necessary, and check-ins were beneficial. (P-15 at 13.)
12. A Qualitative Reading Inventory reflected that between September 2021 and February 2022, Student’s Instructional reading comprehension level went from a third grade level to a fourth grade level. Student exhibited strengths and weaknesses with reading (decoding, accuracy, comprehension) and written expression (correct punctuation and capitalization) skills, with needs identified in the March 2022 IEP related to reading fluency and better-developed written expression skills. (P-15 at 10-11, 14.)
13. Annual goals in the March 2022 IEP addressed reading fluency at a fourth grade level to 75 words correct per minute (from a baseline of 61); and written expression through writing two five-sentence paragraphs writing ten sentences with descriptive words and phrases (from a baseline of two three-sentence paragraphs). (P-15.)
14. Program modifications and items of specially designed instruction in the March 2022 IEP included frequent checks for understanding, daily practice for skill reinforcement, review/study time, and a number of test and assignment accommodations along with reduced expectations (such as limited number of multiple choice options, word banks). Student’s program was one of learning support at a supplemental level, with Student not participating in regular education during the intervention period. ELA and mathematics classes would continue to be co-taught. (P-15.)
15. Student’s ELA and mathematics classes during the 2021-22 school year were co-taught by the learning support teacher who worked with students who needed assistance individually or in small groups; sometimes a paraprofessional provided that support. Each of those class periods was approximately one hour. (N.T. 123-24, 131, 45758, 466.)
16. Student’s IEP was implemented by the regular education ELA teacher during the 2021-22 school year. (N.T. 460-62.)
17. Student met with the special education case manager over the 202122 school year almost every day for approximately thirty five minutes during the intervention period for learning support, addressing reading fluency, reading comprehension, and written expression. Some of that instruction was individual and some was in small group. (N.T. 86-87, 128-30.)
18. Student did not exhibit distractibility or lack of focus during the 202122 school year that was observed by the special education case manager. (N.T. 96.)
2022-23 School Year
19. Student had the same intervention period learning support for ELA and mathematics as in the prior school year. Student’s ELA and mathematics classes were also co-taught by a learning support teacher, who provided support and any necessary modified materials.
(N.T. 280-82, 319, 409-12, 415, 417.)
20. Student had a regular education history class during the 2022-23 school year. Student’s IEP was implemented as applicable in that class. The history teacher did not believe that Student’s learning disability in reading impacted Student’s success in that class because of the supports provided. (N.T. 435-37, 440-41, 445-46.)
21. At the IEP meeting in the fall of 2022, the team addressed the Parent’s concern with anxiety relating to mathematics assignments and tests. Student’s IEP was revised to provide support for word problems in mathematics (read aloud, assistance with breaking them down for solving if needed), and added that to the items of specially designed instruction. The Parent approved the accompanying NOREP. ((N.T. 274-75, 278; P-15 at 9, 14, 20, 25-28.)
22. Progress monitoring reports over the fall of 2022 reflected variable but overall growth on the IEP goal for reading fluency; and widely variable performance on the written expression goal but a trend toward growth. (S-1.)
23. In January 2023, the special education teacher notified the Parent that she had asked the guidance counselor to speak with Student because she had noticed that Student was more quiet and withdrawn than previously. (N.T. 314, 326.)
24. Student’s IEP team also met in January 2023 at Parent request after the District reported on Student’s poor grades. Input from the Parent at that time indicated that Student’s program was meeting Student’s needs, but that Student had difficulty with history and English, the latter due to not completing work (studying, completing homework). The Parent also reported exploring therapy for Student. (P-11 at 1-3.)
25. Teacher input into the January 2023 IEP reflected variable effort, assignment, and class engagement; the ELA teacher reported a poor attitude toward school since the end of the winter break. Benchmark assessments indicated that Student was well below grade expectations in reading, written expression, and mathematics; however, Student was then Instructional at a fifth grade level on the Qualitative Reading Inventory. Strengths at the time included better developed skills in both reading and written expression; needs were for reading comprehension and overall written expression skills. (P-11.)
26. Annual goals in the January 2023 IEP addressed reading comprehension of fifth grade level text to a score of 75% (from a baseline of 63%); and written expression through writing samples to a score of 75% on a five-domain rubric (from a baseline of 65%). (P-11 and 22-23.)
27. Program modifications and items of specially designed instruction in the January 2023 IEP included summaries of grade level text; repeated/rephrased directions; frequent checks for understanding; written expression assistance and supports; and a number of test and assignment accommodations (such as mathematics word problems read aloud) and reduced test expectations. Student’s program was one of learning support at a supplemental level, with Student not participating in regular education for the intervention period, and ELA and mathematics still co-taught. The Parent approved the accompanying NOREP. (P-11 at 24-32.)
28. Student was determined not to be eligible for extended school year (ESY) services in February 2023. The Parent approved that NOREP.
(P-11.)
29. Student had access to the school counselor during the 2022-23 school year. Beginning in approximately March 2023, Student began to visit the counselor regularly because Student was experiencing anxiety.
(N.T. 231-32, 242-43.)
30. In late May 2023, Student reported inappropriate physical contact by a peer to the counselor. The counselor recommended that Student make an incident report, and that steps be taken to ensure that the two students were always separated. Student did not report other incidents to the counselor, but did make two incident reports to the office for the same behavior that week. (N.T. 238-41; P-18 at 20607.)
31. Student reported the late May 2023 incidents to the Parent, and also shared that the same type of incidents had occurred over the past three months. The Parent did not convey this information to the District. (N.T. 379-82, 394-95; P-10.)
32. The Parent made a police report the following day, and was told that the police would contact the school and ask that the two students be separated. The police report included a summary of information obtained, including interviews.[7] (N.T. 382-84; P-2.)
33. If a District middle school student reports an incident involving another student that concerns the reporting student, the District begins an investigation that includes speaking with the reporting student. Depending on the severity of the incident, precautions to avoid future incidents may be taken such as notifying the teacher where the incident occurred to keep the students apart; monitoring their interactions is a common approach. Additional interventions are made if necessary. (N.T. 191-92, 212.)
34. After Student reported the incidents to the District in late May 2023, the District followed the approach outlined for precautions and spoke with the Parent. The District administrator who handled the incidents was not made aware of any others at the time. (N.T. 192-93, 195-97, 209-10.)
35. After the incidents reported to the District, Student expressed to the Parent that Student was experiencing difficulty at school because of the incidents, including attention of and comments by peers. The Parent also notified a District teacher that Student had just reported the inappropriate contact by the peer for a number of months. (N.T. 386; P-9; S-2.)
36. At some point during the 2022-23 school year, one of the Parents expressed concern about Student having difficulty with homework. That had not been an ongoing concern in the past. (N.T. 359, 366.)
37. Progress monitoring on IEP goals in the spring of 2023 reflected times of variable progress on the reading comprehension goal but overall growth; and slow but steady growth on the written expression goal.
(P-14.)
Start of 2023-24 School Year
38. At the start of the 2023-24 school year, Student continued to experience difficulty especially when the schedules had Student and the peer in the same lunch period. Shortly thereafter, the Parent enrolled Student in a charter school and withdrew Student from the District. (N.T. 388-89, 395, 397; P-8; S-3.)
39. The Parent and the other Parent believed that the District was meeting Student’s needs at school. (N.T. 361-63, 372-75.)
Enrollment at Charter School Fall 2023 and Beyond
Charter School Evaluation December 2023
40. The charter school conducted a reevaluation of Student in the fall of 2023 (CSRR) and issued a report in December. (P-6.)
41. Parent input into the CSRR included acceptance of directions and positive listening skills; by contrast, concerns related to expressing thoughts and emotions, frustration with tasks, and academic difficulties particularly in ELA and social studies including completing assignments and requiring help in doing so. (P-6 at 2-3.)
42. Curriculum-based assessments reported in the CSRR reflected somewhat variable scores in the area of mathematics and, in reading, scores below grade expectations. Student had all A grades at the time. (P-6 at 14-16.)
43. Observations by teachers in the CSRR suggested that Student was performing as expected with accommodations (checks for understanding, guided notes, texts read aloud, support for written expression, and some testing modifications), although Student did have a few overdue assignments affecting grade averages. Improved self-advocacy skills were noted by several teachers. (P-6 at 17-19.)
44. Cognitive assessment for the CSRR (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fifth Edition) yielded somewhat variable scores on subtests, with overall low average ability. Relative strengths (average-range Visual-Spatial, Working Memory, and Processing Speed) compared to relative weaknesses (low-average range Verbal Comprehension and Fluid Reasoning) were the reported Index scores. (P-6 at 4-5.)
45. On the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test – Fourth Edition for the CSRR, Student earned average-range scores on the Mathematics and Written Expression Clusters but the low range on the Reading,
Phonological Processing, Orthographic Processing, and Basic Reading
Skills Clusters, with a suggestion of dyslexic characteristics. (P-6 at 57.)
46. Social/emotional/behavioral functioning was assessed through rating scales completed by the Parent and Student. The Parent endorsed atrisk concerns with anxiety, withdrawal, and functional communication. Student’s ratings reflected several areas of at-risk concern: atypicality, anxiety, sense of inadequacy, attention problems, hyperactivity, and self-reliance; a clinically significant concern with interpersonal relations was also noted. (P-6 at 7-10.)[8]
47. Occupational therapy was also completed for the CSRR. Results were generally within expectations but with some concern with Student avoiding sensory stimulation in certain situations such as large or crowded environments. Direct occupational therapy services were not recommended in the report, but counseling for social-emotional skills was. (P-6 at 10-14, 21, 24.)
48. The CSRR identified Student as eligible for special education based on Specific Learning Disability (basic reading skills, reading comprehension, reading fluency); other recommendations included support for social skills development and self-regulation of anxiety.
(P-6 at 24-25, 28-37.)
July 2024 Independent Educational Evaluation
49. The Parent obtained an independent educational evaluation (IEE) of Student in the spring of 2024 by a neuropsychologist, with a report issued in late July. (P-4.)
50. The IEE summarized information from records provided and provided the results of various assessments administered. Student reportedly complied with requests and, despite some attention and selfmonitoring difficulties, the results were considered by the private neuropsychologist to be a valid estimate of Student’s profile. (P-4.)
51. Assessment of cognitive ability for the IEE yielded average-range scores relating to verbal skills, nonverbal reasoning, and spatial functioning, as well as overall, and a relative weakness with processing speed. (P-4 at 4-7.)
52. Academic functioning for the IEE included administration of several instruments. Student earned scores reflecting deficits in overall reading skills and spelling/written language; mathematics achievement was in the average range. (P-4 at 7-8.)
53. The IEE also assessed social/emotional/behavioral functioning through various rating scales completed by Student, the Parent, and a teacher. Some areas of weakness were noted by all and particularly anxiety at home (Student and Parent). Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder was also very likely. (P-4 at 9-10.)
54. The private neuropsychologist determined that Student met criteria for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, ADHD, and Specific Learning Disability in the areas of reading and written instruction. (P-4 at 10-11.)
55. IEE recommendations in the school were provided, including learning support for reading and written expression, executive functioning instruction and support, multisensory instruction and experiences, social skills instruction, school-based counseling, assistive technology, and accommodations. Home-based suggestions were also included.
(P-4.)
February 2025 Speech/Language Evaluation
56. The Parent obtained an independent speech/language evaluation in February 2025 following assessments in the fall of 2024. (P-1.)
57. The private speech/language pathologist who conducted that evaluation summarized results of a variety of education records, although erroneously described certain documents as from the District or charter school. A variety of assessments were conducted for the evaluation. (P-1.)
58. Student attained average-range Index scores on the Language Processing Skills Assessment, with some variability among subtests on each Index. The private speech/language pathologist identified a number of areas of challenge for students with similar patterns of strengths and weaknesses. (P-1 at 10-18.)
59. Student’s scores on an instrument assessing information processing skills did not reflect any areas of weakness one standard deviation or greater from the mean. The private speech/language pathologist did nonetheless interpret Student’s performance as relatively weak in some skills. (P-1 at 25-27.)
60. Results of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals – Fifth Edition for the private speech/language evaluation yielded Index scores that led to identification of several areas of deficit: Receptive Language, Language Content, and to a lesser extent, Core Language. Additional weakness was also indicated by a supplemental assessment of Reading Comprehension. A rating scale for the Parent was obtained but not one by a teacher.[9] (P-18 at 18-25.)
61. Other assessments of Student’s spoken language including through a language sample for the private speech/language evaluation yielded results below expectations. (S-1 at 27-29.)
62. Overall, the private speech/language pathologist determined that Student had working memory deficits and impairments in several areas: language processing, spoken language, executive functioning, and language-based learning. She made a number of recommendations for interventions and programming for those, including weekly speech/language therapy at school. (P-1.)
DISCUSSION AND APPLICATION OF LAW
General Legal Principles As a general premise, the burden of proof is viewed as comprising wo elements: the burden of production and the burden of persuasion. The burden of persuasion lies with the party seeking relief. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 62 (2005); L.E. v. Ramsey Board of Education, 435 F.3d 384, 392 (3d Cir. 2006). Accordingly, the burden of persuasion in this case must rest with the Parent who filed the Complaint leading to this administrative hearing. Nevertheless, application of this principle determines which party prevails only in those rare cases where the evidence is evenly balanced or in “equipoise.” Schaffer, supra, 546 U.S. at 58. Special education hearing officers, who assume a role as a fact-finder, have a responsibility for assessing the credibility of testifying witnesses who.
J. P. v. County School Board, 516 F.3d 254, 261 (4th Cir. Va. 2008); T.E. v.
Cumberland Valley School District, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1471 *11-12 (M.D. Pa. 2014). This hearing officer found each of the witnesses who testified to be generally credible as to the facts based on the perspective and understanding of each, without intention to mislead. The weight accorded the evidence was not equally placed for a variety of reasons, including persuasive value as well as the specific perspectives of the witnesses along with their individual knowledge of Student. The documentary evidence was accorded significant weight.
The heartfelt testimony of the Parent was clearly genuine and involved firm beliefs as a highly dedicated advocate for Student. However, the expectations for Student’s accomplishments over time was premised in large part upon an inaccurate perspective on the District’s IDEA obligations, see infra. The parental descriptions of conversations with District IEP team members was also unpersuasive in light of the inconsistency with the documentary evidence.
The witnesses all generally had a lack of recall of the events about which they testified, something that is quite understandable given the lapse in time. Many of the District witnesses responded to leading questions with obvious puzzlement and uncertainty about how to answer, all of which significantly diminished any persuasive value of that testimony. For example, several of those witnesses did not identify specific programs used with Student because they did not or because they were unable to remember them, and they instead provided vague descriptions. The District school psychologist who conducted the 2021 RR was, unfortunately, rather evasive and clearly did not want to testify; her demeanor was that of an individual who wanted only to finish and exit as quickly as possible such that nothing she said was credible and little was even responsive to the questions asked.
The findings of fact were made as necessary to resolve the issues; thus, not all of the testimony and exhibits were explicitly cited. However, in reviewing the record, the testimony of all witnesses and the content of each admitted exhibit were thoroughly considered, as were the parties’ carefully written closing statements.
General IDEA Principles: Child Find and Eligibility
The IDEA requires all states to provide a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE) to children who are eligible for special education services. 20 U.S.C. § 1412. The IDEA applies to a “child with a disability.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k); 34 C.F.R. § 300.530(a). The definition of a “child with a disability” is two-pronged: having one of certain enumerated conditions and, by reason thereof, needing special education and related services. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3).
The IDEA and state and federal regulations further obligate local education agencies (LEAs) to locate, identify, and evaluate children with disabilities who need special education and related services. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.111(a); see also 22 Pa. Code §§ 14.12114.125. This mandate is commonly referred to as “Child Find.” LEAs are required to fulfill the Child Find obligation within a reasonable period of time. W.B. v. Matula, 67 F.3d 584 (3d Cir. 1995). In other words, an LEA must consider an evaluation for special education services within an appropriate amount of time after notice of behavior or other functioning and performance that suggests a disability. D.K. v. Abington School District, 696 F.3d 233, 249 (3d Cir. 2012). They need not, however, identify a disability “at the earliest possible moment” or to evaluate “every struggling student.” Id.
Substantively, the IDEA describes the primary purposes of a special education evaluation as twofold: to determine whether or not a child is a child with a disability as defined in the law, and to “determine the educational needs of such child[.]” 20 U.S.C. §1414(a)(1)(C)(i).
The IDEA explicitly identifies the following qualifying disabilities: “intellectual disabilities, hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or language impairments, visual impairments (including blindness), serious emotional disturbance[], orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain injury, other health impairments, [and] specific learning disabilities.” 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(a).
General IDEA Principles: Substantive FAPE
In light of the mandate to provide FAPE, special education is comprised of both special education and related services. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9); 34 C.F.R. § 300.17. More than two decades ago, in Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed these statutory requirements, holding that the FAPE mandates are met by providing personalized instruction and support services that are designed to permit the child to benefit educationally from the program and also comply with the procedural obligations in the Act.
Through LEAs, states meet the obligation of providing FAPE to an eligible student through development and implementation of an IEP which is “‘reasonably calculated’ to enable the child to receive ‘meaningful educational benefits’ in light of the student’s ‘intellectual potential.’ ” P.P. v. West Chester Area School District, 585 F.3d 727, 729-30 (3d Cir. 2009)(citations omitted).
As the U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed, “an educational program must be appropriately ambitious in light of [the child’s] circumstances… [and] every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives.”
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 580 U.S. 386, 402 (2017). This standard is “markedly different” than de minimis growth. Id. However, not every child should be aiming for grade level achievement if that is not a reasonable expectation for him or her. Id. Rather, an IEP “is constructed only after careful consideration of the child’s present levels of achievement, disability, and potential for growth.” Id.
Individualization is unmistakably the central consideration for purposes of the IDEA. Nevertheless, an LEA is not obligated to “provide ‘the optimal level of services,’ or incorporate every program requested by the child's parents.” Ridley School District v. M.R., 680 F.3d 260, 269 (3d Cir. 2012). Additionally, a proper assessment of whether a proposed IEP meets the above standard must be based on information “as of the time it was made.” D.S. v. Bayonne Board of Education, 602 F.3d 553, 564-65 (3d Cir. 2010); see also Fuhrmann v. East Hanover Board of Education, 993 F.2d 1031, 1040 (3d Cir. 1993) (same). “The IEP must aim to enable the child to make progress.” Dunn v. Downingtown Area School District, 904 F.3d 248, 255 (3d Cir. 2018) (emphasis in original).
Scope of Claims Issues
The applicable law for issues surrounding the scope of the claims was set forth in a preliminary interim ruling and need not be repeated here.[10] In summary, however, the IDEA ensures that parties have the opportunity to “present a complaint [] with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to [a] child.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)(A). Additionally, a party “must request an impartial due process hearing on their due process complaint within two years of the date the parent or public agency knew or should have known about the alleged action which forms the basis of the complaint.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(c); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.511(e). In this context, the precise language of the IDEA (quoted above at 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(C)) references the time period following the “action” on which a due process complaint is based. As is also set forth in the IDEA, the “action” that may form the basis of a complaint is the proposal or refusal to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, educational placement, or provision of FAPE to, a child. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6).
The statute further specifies what it is that initiates the time period within which the filing party must act.[11] “The IDEA statute of limitations is triggered when the parent knew or should have known about the action that forms the basis of the complaint.” J.L. v. Ambridge Area School District, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54904, * 28-29, 2008 WL 2798306 (W.D. Pa. July 18, 2008). The language in G.L. v. Ligonier Valley School District Authority, 802 F.3d 601, 614 (3d Cir. 2015), focuses on the accrual of a cause of action “once…a reasonably diligent plaintiff would have discovered the facts constituting the violation.”
802 F.3d at 614. The key, thus, is determining the “action(s)” that form the basis of the Parents’ Complaint. See E.G. v. Great Valley School District, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77920, *21, 2017 WL 2260707 at ___ (E.D. Pa. 2017) (agreeing with the hearing officer that the term “action” means the LEA’s initiation of or change to the identification, evaluation, educational placement, or provision of FAPE).
General IDEA Principles: Procedural FAPE
From a procedural standpoint, the family including parents have “a significant role in the IEP process.” Schaffer, supra, 546 U.S. at 53. This critical concept extends to placement decisions. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(e); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.116(b), 300.501(b). Consistent with these principles, a denial of FAPE may be found to exist if there has been a significant impediment to meaningful decision-making by parents. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E); 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(a)(2); D.S. v. Bayonne Board of Education, 602 F.3d 553, 565 (3d Cir. 2010).
The IEP proceedings entitle parents to participate not only in the implementation of IDEA's procedures but also in the substantive formulation of their child's educational program. Among other things, IDEA requires the IEP Team, which includes the parents as members, to take into account any “concerns” parents have “for enhancing the education of their child” when it formulates the IEP. Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 550 U.S. 516, 530 (2007).
The Parent’s Claims
The first issue is whether any portion of the Parent’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The Parent has contended that there was no basis of knowledge until awareness in December 2023 with the CSRR followed by the May 2024 IEE about deficiencies in the District’s March 2021 evaluation, and that she first understood certain unaddressed educational needs of Student at those times. The District, on the other hand, points to documentary evidence that seemingly contradicts such lack of knowledge.
A major challenge to the Parent in this case was the length of time that has elapsed since the events about which she now challenges, with memories no longer vivid and details long forgotten. “[S]tatutes of limitations serve compelling policy interests, including ‘... protect[ing] defendants from having to confront controversies in which the search for truth may be thwarted by the loss of evidence, the fading of memories, or the disappearance of witnesses.’” Higgs v. Lanigan, 2024 WL 575104, at *2 (3d Cir. 2024) (quoting National Iranian Oil Company v. Mapco International, 983 F.2d 485, 493 (3d Cir. 1992)); see also, e.g., United States ex rel. Charte v. American Tutor, Inc., 934 F.3d 346, 356 (3d Cir. 2019). In other words, such limitations seek to avoid stale claims. Higgs, supra.
The major premise of the Parent’s statute of limitations argument is that she had no reason to suspect that the District failed to identify certain needs of Student while enrolled in its schools until the IEE reached different, more expansive conclusions about Student’s disabilities. The IEE, however, does not establish that the District should have suspected additional needs at the time Student was enrolled, or that the deficits identified by the private neuropsychologist were ignored or overlooked by the District at any point. The CSRR that was nearer in time is rather consistent with the District’s evaluations of Student. The evidence does not establish a knew or should have known date that would permit claims beyond the two-year IDEA limitation period. Furthermore, even assuming, arguendo, that the Parent did establish a reasonable lack of the requisite knowledge within the two year period after the fall of 2021, she has simply been unable to provide a preponderance of the evidence to support any denial of FAPE on substantive grounds.
Student was identified at the time of initial evaluation in the fall of 2018 with disability-related needs. Those were confirmed in the spring of 2021, and the IEPs developed from March 2021 through disenrollment responded appropriately to the weaknesses. Various Qualitative Reading Inventories support a conclusion that Student made reasonable progress with reading comprehension over the time period in question, and reading accuracy and decoding were likewise improving. The evidence of Student’s progress toward mastering IEP goals is not robust, but the reports over the fall of 2022 suggested that Student was struggling with the written expression goal and, at best, attaining only slight growth through variable performance. Certainly by January 2023, the District was on notice that Student was experiencing difficulty that had not previously been exhibited with that academic skill; and, around that time, Student began to demonstrate some withdrawal and anxiety. The District had an obligation to respond appropriately to examine the reasons for the changes and to revise programming accordingly. The District addressed the behavioral presentation through counseling, and, although reasons for the widely variable performance do not appear to have been monitored closely or identified, Student did exhibit growth on the IEP goals that spring that, for Student’s unique circumstances, was meaningful even if perhaps not ideal. Further, contrary to the Parent’s contentions, the District was not made aware of the asserted multiple inappropriate peer interactions while Student was enrolled.[12] The Parent suggests that the District should have, but failed, to identify speech/language and executive functioning needs. Her reliance on a fall 2024 private speech/language evaluation, the District’s speech/language therapist’s agreement that such needs were possible for students with similar disabilities (N.T. 339-40), and the Parent’s unexplained belief that such weaknesses must have been present for many years (N.T. 376-78) simply cannot, overcome the lack of evidence of actual need in that related service area during Student’s tenure at the District, particularly with the District speech/language therapist’s equivocation (N.T. 341-43, 346). Similarly, the rather infrequent references in the record to occasional organizational needs do not, as the Parent contends, mean that an evaluation of executive functioning was necessary and would likely have led to additional deficits requiring educational programming. The mere possibility that additional needs “could have” existed is not sufficient evidence of a denial of FAPE on the District’s disability identification.
Although the Parent argued throughout that Student should have eventually narrowed the gap between performance and grade-level expectations, the case law interpreting the IDEA demands something different: an IEP with sufficient ambition that is reasonably calculated to yield meaningful educational benefit in light of the child’s potential for making growth based on known information. Student made overall steady growth toward IEP goals during the time period in question, and the evidence to the contrary is scant at best and speculative at worst. Consequently, the record evidence establishes that the IEPs as a whole were sufficiently ambitious in light of Student’s potential and identified educational deficits.
The Parent also argues that the District failed to develop IEP goals in all areas of need, such as reading comprehension. While at the District, however, the team actually identified reading comprehension as a relative strength for Student despite the learning disability identification. Similarly, the Parent points to certain potentially procedural errors in the IEP documents themselves which did not comport with what was actually provided, such as when mathematics word problems were read to Student and others. Those flaws did not, however, rise to the level of a substantive violation or serious impediment to meaningful parental participation.
A major focus of the Parent at the hearing on Student’s reported performance on various assessments is undermined by the common but erroneous understanding of grade-equivalency scores, which must be interpreted cautiously and carefully because they can be quite misleading for many reasons.[13] Simply put, these scores do not mean that a student is functionally performing at a specified grade level. This inaccurate perception is compounded by the Parent’s apparent belief that a set of data points that do not unwaveringly increase automatically equates to regression. Variability in educational performance is not unusual, but is dependent upon countless factors and is thus expected by educators.
Furthermore, the Parent’s suggestion that the District failed to use research-based reading programs would not, as the U.S. Department of Education previously explained, “automatically result in a denial of FAPE.” 71 Fed. Reg. 46,665 (2006). Where lack of memory is a significant hurdle, as is the case here, one cannot assume that this assertion by the Parent is accurate, and it is certainly not preponderant.
In summary, the Parent has not met her burden of persuasion on a FAPE deprivation by the District at any time from the fall of 2021 through disenrollment in September 2023. There is therefore no basis for a remedy, and the Parent’s claims must accordingly be denied in their entirety.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The District did not deny Student a free, appropriate public education on any basis during the time period in question.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 20th day of May, 2025, in accordance with the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is hereby ORDERED that the Parent’s claims are DENIED in their entirety.
It is FURTHER ORDERED that any claims not specifically addressed by this decision and order are DENIED and DISMISSED. Jurisdiction is
RELINQUISHED.
/ s/ Cathy A. Skidmore
Cathy A. Skidmore, Esquire
HEARING OFFICER
Sent to counsel for both parties this same date as required by 34 C.F.R. § 300.515 by electronic mail message as requested by counsel[14] consistent with 22 Pa. Code § 14.162(n).
Footnotes
[1] In the interest of confidentiality and privacy, Student’s name, gender, and other potentially identifiable information are not used in the body of this decision. All personally identifiable information, including details appearing on the cover page of this decision, will be redacted prior to its posting on the website of the Office for Dispute Resolution in compliance with its obligation to make special education hearing officer decisions available to the public pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(h)(4)(A) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(d)(2).
[2] 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482. The federal regulations implementing the IDEA are codified in 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.1 – 300. 818. The applicable Pennsylvania regulations are set forth in 22 Pa. Code §§ 14.101 – 14.163 (Chapter 14).
[3] 29 U.S.C. § 794. The federal regulations implementing Section 504 are codified in 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.1 – 104.61; the applicable Pennsylvania regulations are set forth in 22 Pa. Code §§ 15.1 – 15.11 (Chapter 15).
[4] References to the record throughout this decision will be to the Notes of Testimony (N.T.), Parent Exhibits (P-) followed by the exhibit number, School District Exhibits (S-) followed by the exhibit number, and Hearing Officer Exhibit 1 (HO-1). Citations to testimony that merely confirmed the content of documents was not necessary and are generally not provided.
[5] The allegations related to inappropriate contact by a peer and the District’s response thereto are subsumed within the denial of FAPE claims, and any claim beyond denial of FAPE may not be considered because it is beyond this hearing officer’s authority. (N.T. 24-26.)
[6] The District was subject to the state-mandated COVID-19 school closures in the spring of 2021.
[7] The police report is redacted, so the names of many individuals interviewed cannot be readily ascertained.
[8] No teacher rating scales were reported.
[9] The private speech/language pathologist indicated that a rating scale form was sent to a teacher but the email message was returned; there was no response to her request to the Parent to follow-up.
[10] HO-1.
[11] The IDEA also expressly provides for two specific exceptions to the two-year limitation period, permitting claims beyond that timeframe to a parent who was prevented from requesting the hearing sooner. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(D); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.511(f). Neither exception was asserted in this case.
[12] The sole evidence of District knowledge of these relates to reports of an uncorroborated hearsay statement that cannot form the basis of a factual finding. Walker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 27 Pa. Commw. 522, 367 A.2d 366 (1976).
[13] Sattler, J. M., Assessment of Children: Cognitive Applications (6th ed. 2018) at 107-08.
[14] See N.T. 475-76.