PENNSYLVANIA SPECIAL EDUCATION DUE PROCESS
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER
ODR No. 30499-24-25
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: L.H.
Date of Birth: [redacted]
Parent/Guardian: [redacted]
Counsel for Parent/Guardian: Savannah L. Murphy, Esquire 106 N. Franklin Street Pen Argyl, PA 18072
Local Education Agency: Parkland School District 1210 Springhouse Road Allentown, PA 18104
Counsel for the LEA: Jennifer Donaldson, Esquire 60 E. Court Street Doylestown, PA 18901
Hearing Officer: Cathy A. Skidmore, Esquire
Date of Decision: 05/05/2025
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The student, L.H. (Student),[1] is a [redacted] child residing with the Parent, and enrolled, in the Parkland School District (District). Student has been identified as eligible for special education pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)[2] under based on Specific Learning Disability, Other Health Impairment, and Speech/Language Impairment. Accordingly, At the time of the due process hearing, Student attended a District elementary school. In late fall 2024, the Parent filed a Due Process Complaint under the IDEA contending that the District has denied Student a free, appropriate public education with respect to programming and placement. As remedies, the Parent seeks compensatory education and specific directives to the District regarding Student’s programming. The District denies the Parent’s assertions and the relief demanded. The matter proceeded to a hearing with the presentation of witnesses and documentary evidence[3] focused on Student’s disability-related needs and the LEA’s approach to addressing those, revealing the significant disparity between the parties’ perspectives on Student’s potential. Those viewpoints have been carefully considered in this rather challenging disagreement.
Following review of the record and for all of the reasons set forth below, the claims of the Parent cannot be sustained.
ISSUES
1. Whether the District has deprived Student of a free, appropriate program beginning with the start of the 2022-23 school year through the present;
2. If the District has denied Student an appropriate program during the relevant time period, is Student entitled to compensatory education; and
3. If the District has denied Student an appropriate program during the relevant time period, should the District be ordered to comply with specific directives moving forward?
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Student is a [redacted] student residing in the District and is eligible for special education under the IDEA as a student with Specific Learning Disability and Other Health Impairment (OHI). Student has been in a program of learning support and speech/language support at the District on a supplemental level. (N.T. 33-34.)
2. The District is a recipient of federal funding. (N.T. 34.)
3. Student experienced developmental delays at an early age leading to early intervention services, including occupational, physical, and speech/language therapy. (N.T. 37-38, 84.)
4. Student has exhibited fatigue at school due to the OHI. (N.T. 31718., 375)
5. Student has experienced frustration at school and at home over the years as Student worked diligently to complete tasks accurately. Student has also become aware that peers exhibited academic skills that Student did not yet have. (N.T. 39, 42-43, 54-55, 66-68, 11213, 134.)
Early Education History June 2019 Evaluation
6. An Evaluation Report (ER) issued in June 2019 before Student transitioned from [redacted]. [Redacted] addressed Student’s developmental delay, and Student also had private occupational therapy at the time. (S-1.)
7. The June 2019 ER included classroom observations and input from the [redacted teacher and related service providers (speech/language and occupational therapy). A summary of previous assessments including cognitive ability and achievement was incorporated, reflecting belowage expectations in the areas of cognitive, adaptive, and social/emotional development. Cognitively, results revealed an area of relative strength (fluid reasoning) and areas of weakness (verbal comprehension, visual spatial, working memory, and processing speed). Student earned a very delayed [redacted] score. Speech/language and occupational therapy skills also remained areas of need. By contrast, Student exhibited age-appropriate social/emotional/behavioral skills. (S-1 at 5-11.)
8. The June 2019 ER identified Student as eligible for special education under the OHI and Speech/Language Impairment classifications. Recommendations included specially designed instruction addressing reading, written expression, mathematics, and communication skills with occupational and speech/language therapy services. (S-1 at 1314.)
9. Baseline information provided in June 2019 reflected that Student had continuing needs in the areas of speech/language (receptive and expressive communication); basic reading skills including letter identification and early sight words; handwriting/copying; and early mathematics skills including color and number identification. (S-2.)
10. Student’s identified skill deficits were addressed over the 2019-20 and 2020-21 school years as impacted by the COVID-19 mandated school closures. Overall, Student made incremental but somewhat variable progress along with mastery of some goals. (S-3; S-4.)
2021-22 School Year December 2021 ER
11. A new ER in December 2021 reflected Parent input to include Student’s strong social interaction with peers and challenges with memory, as well as concerns with Student’s academic progress. (S-5 at 1-2.)
12. A summary of curriculum-based assessments in the December 2021 ER identified a number of areas of significant weakness with basic reading skills. No concerns with behavior were reported, but occupational therapy skills remained underdeveloped. (S-5 at 2-3.)
13. The December 2021 ER summarized teacher recommendations for replacement curricula in reading/language arts and mathematics, visual, verbal and non-verbal cuing and prompts; mathematics manipulatives; occupational therapy and speech/language support; easily understandable directions; regular education whole group reading; extended wait time; sensory/movement breaks for the OHI; and test/assignment accommodations. Student remained eligible for special education based on OHI and Speech/Language Impairment. (S-5 at 4-7.)
14. An audiological evaluation performed in February 2022 revealed deficits in auditory processing that were compounded by other areas of weakness including auditory memory, cognitive ability, and speech/language skills. (S-5 at 10-13; S-8.)
December 2021 IEP
15. A new Individualized Education Program (IEP) was developed for Student in December 2021. This document summarized Student’s prior IEP noting that Student’s reading, mathematics, written expression, and communication skills remained areas of need. However, Student had shown skill development in all of those: listening comprehension, reading short vowel sounds, and reading [redacted]-level sight words (reading); counting basic addition, and use of manipulatives (mathematics); accuracy of writing letters, strategies for spelling consonant-vowel-consonant words independently (written expression); and speech/language (voice and fluency). Student exhibited difficulty with long vowel sounds, sight words at a [redacted] level, and reading speed and accuracy; basic mathematics calculation skills; written expression at the sentence level with conventions; and receptive/expressive language including articulation skills. (P-1; S-7.)
16. Annual goals in the December 2021 IEP addressed sound fluency (accurately reading 61 sounds per minute at a specified level of accuracy from a baseline of 43 sounds per minute with lower accuracy); reading sight words at a specified level of accuracy from a baseline of 35/40 at a [redacted] level and 14/25 at a [redacted] level); number identification of 58 numbers at a specified level of accuracy (from a baseline of 33/36 at a lower level of accuracy); computation of mathematics basic operations (addition, subtraction) at a [redacted] level (from a baseline of 22 at a [redacted] level); writing sentences with 20 total words and 10 correct sequences (from a baseline of 11 total words with 4 correct sequences); and speech/language (articulation of specific sounds at the sentence level at a specified level of accuracy (from a baseline of a lower level of accuracy at the word and sentence level); and answering listening comprehension questions after a 3-5 sentence length paragraph at a specified level of accuracy (from a baseline of lower accuracy with a 1-3 sentence length). (S-7 at 13-19.)
17. Program modifications and items of specially designed instruction in the December 2021 IEP incorporated all of the recommendations in the December 2021 ER (replacement curricula in reading/language arts and mathematics, visual, verbal and non-verbal cuing and prompts; mathematics manipulatives; occupational therapy and speech/language support; easily understandable directions; regular education whole group reading; extended wait time; sensory/movement breaks for the OHI; and test/assignment accommodations), in addition to cuing for word retrieval. Speech/language and occupational therapy were identified as related services. Student’s program was one of learning support at a supplemental level with participation in regular education for whole group reading, content-area instruction, special classes, lunch/recess, and special activities; Student was not eligible for extended school year services (ESY) at the time. (S-7.)
18. The Parent approved the Notice of Recommended Educational Placement for implementation of the December 2021 IEP. (S-7 at 2426.)
19. Student’s December 2021 IEP was revised in February and March 2022 to reflect updated academic achievement and functional performance with spring 2022 data; a new speech/language evaluation; a new speech/language goal for articulation of a different sound at a specified level of accuracy (from a baseline of a lower level of accuracy at the word level); and eligibility for ESY services in 2022. (P-1; S-9.)
March 2022 Reevaluation
20. A Reevaluation Report (RR) in March 2022 added new data available in the spring of 2022 and additional teacher input and classroom observations. The team also determined that new assessments were necessary. (S-10.)
21. In observations of Student in the classroom for the March 2022 RR, Student did not exhibit atypical behavior compared to peers. (S-10 at 4-5.)
22. Assessment of cognitive ability for the March 2022 RR (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fifth Edition (WISC-V)) yielded variable scores across subtests and Indices. Student’s Visual Spatial and Fluid Reasoning skills were relative strengths (average range Index scores), whereas Verbal Comprehension, Working Memory, and Processing Speed were clear relative weaknesses (very low range, at the 6th percentile or lower).
Student’s Full Scale IQ score at the 10th percentile and General Ability Index score at the 23rd percentile were both in the low average range. (S-10 at 7-9.)
23. On the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test – Fourth Edition (WIAT4) reported in the March 2022 RR, Student earned scores that varied between the extremely low to very low range across subtests and Composites with the exception of the Numerical Operations subtest (low average range). (S-10 at 10-12.)
24. Speech/Language evaluation for the March 2022 RR included assessment of auditory perception skills, with results reflecting weaknesses in word discrimination, phonological segmentation, number memory, sentence memory, auditory comprehension, and auditory reasoning. Additional measures indicated other deficits with listening comprehension, oral expression, overall expressive and receptive language, and articulation of one specific sound.
(S-10 at 15-18.)
25. Assessment of behavioral functioning for the March 2022 RR identified parental concerns with learning problems, executive functioning, impulsivity, and emotional regulation. Both teachers endorsed concern with learning problems, as well as executive functioning skills and, for one teacher, ADHD. (S-10 at 18-22.)
26. The March 2022 RR concluded that Student met eligibility criteria for special education under the Specific Learning Disability (basic reading skills, reading comprehension, reading fluency, mathematics problem solving, and written expression) with significant discrepancy between the WISC-V and WIAT-4 scores, and Speech/Language Impairment classifications. Occupational therapy and supports were also recommended. (S-10.)
27. By the end of the 2021-22 school year, Student’s progress was variable with some growth (mathematics problem solving, articulation, answering questions). Inconsistent attendance in the spring reportedly contributed to Student’s lack of progress or even apparent slight regression on some goals (sound fluency, sight word reading, number identification, sentence writing). (S-6; S-24 at 3.)
Speech/Language Support
28. Over the relevant time period, Student worked on articulation as well as expressive and receptive language including listening comprehension. (N.T. 209, 223-26)
29. Student’s most significant articulation deficit (a particular sound) during the 2022-23 school year and continuing through the present is one that is challenging to many individuals into middle school and even beyond public school age.
(N.T. 223, 266-67, 274-75, 474-78, 486-87, 492-93)
30. Student’s speech/language therapists have used a multisensory approach with significant repetition for Student. (N.T. 226-237.)
31. Student’s speech/language therapy over the relevant time period has been provided in a small group when Student would not miss academic classes or work. (N.T. 247-48, 256-57.)
2022-23 School Year
32. Over the 2022-23 school year, Student reported to homeroom in a regular education classroom each morning for approximately fifteen minutes; Student returned later in the day for thirty minutes of English Language Arts (ELA) for whole group reading, followed by lunch, recess, and special classes. Student’s day ended with a thirty minute regular education period for science or social studies. All students interacted with peers during those times of the day including Student. (N.T. 171-77, 182-83, 185, 188-89, 193-94.)
33. Student’s regular education teacher during the 2022-23 school year implemented the items of specially designed instruction in Student’s IEP and had the support of other District staff. (N.T. 177-82, 185, 187.)
34. Student’s learning support teacher for the 2022-23 school year had Student for ELA and mathematics. (N.T. 290-92.)
35. Student’s ELA programming involved use of several different reading and writing interventions, as well as the intervention block when Student had another period of reading. One component of reading instruction supplemented and kept pace with the regular education reading curriculum including vocabulary, and there was a multisensory phonics-based program as part of the ELA instruction. (N.T. 292-98, 312, 346.)
36. By November 2022, Student had mastered the reading fluency goal. (S-12 at 1.)
37. A new IEP was developed for Student in December 2022. This document summarized Student’s reading, mathematics, written expression, and communication skills, all of which were still areas of need. At the time, Student continued to demonstrate skills in each of those areas: reading (listening comprehension, reading short vowel sounds, and reading kindergarten-level sight words); mathematics (counting, basic addition, and use of manipulatives); written expression (accuracy of writing letters, strategies for spelling consonant-vowel-consonant words independently; and speech/language (voice and fluency). Student did exhibit difficulty with long vowel sounds, sight words at a first grade level, and reading speed and accuracy; basic mathematics calculation skills (subtraction of multi-digit numbers); written expression at the sentence level with conventions; and receptive/expressive language (answering comprehension questions using oral reasoning and inferencing) as well as articulation skills. (S-13.)
38. Annual goals in the December 2022 IEP addressed reading 25 sight words at a first grade level with a specified level of accuracy (from a baseline of 13/25 at a first grade level); increasing scores on probes of basic reading skills to a scaled score of 875 (from a baseline of 805); computation of mathematics basic operations (addition, subtraction) with a score of 30 at a second grade level (from a baseline of 19 at a second grade level); writing sentences in three minutes with 20 total words and 10 correct sequences (from a baseline of 11 total words with 4 correct sequences); and speech/language (articulation of a specific sound at the conversation level at a specified level of accuracy (from a baseline of a lower level of accuracy at the word and sentence level); answering listening comprehension questions after a 3-5 sentence length paragraph at a specified level of accuracy (from a baseline of lower accuracy with a multi-paragraph sentence length). (S-13 at 17-22.)
39. Program modifications and items of specially designed instruction in the December 2022 IEP were the same as in the December 2021 IEP, and speech/language and occupational therapy remained as related services. Student’s program continued to be one of learning support at a supplemental level with participation in regular education for whole group reading, content-area instruction, special classes, lunch/recess, and special activities. Student was eligible for ESY. (S13.)
40. For the majority of the 2022-23 school year, Student worked on prereading, developmental skills. By the end of the school year, Student was working more on reading skills beyond that developmental level. (N.T. 302-03.)
41. Student exhibited difficulty with writing probes during the 2022-23 school year, needing to respond to a prompt within a set period of time. Student’s reading skill deficits contributed to the underdeveloped written expression skills. (N.T. 301, 305.)
42. Student’s mathematics special education programming generally worked below grade level and involved group and individual instruction and practice. (N.T. 293, 298-99.)
43. Progress reporting over the 2022-23 school year reflected somewhat variable but incremental growth on the basic reading skill goal, near mastery of the mathematics computation goal, maintenance of performance on the sentence writing goal, steady growth on the articulation goal, and mastery of the listening comprehension goal. (S-12.)
2023-24 School Year
44. During the 2023-24 school year, Student again began with school day in the regular education classroom for the morning routine, and returned for whole group reading as well as science or social studies. Student interacted and engaged well with peers during those times. (N.T. 368-70, 374, 377-78, 386-88.)
45. Student’s regular education teacher implemented the items of specially designed instruction in Student’s IEP during the 2023-24 school year. (N.T. 372-73.)
46. Student had lunch, recess, and special classes with regular education peers during the 2023-24 school year and also participated in other school activities. (N.T. 375-76, 387-88, 440.)
47. Student had ELA and mathematics instruction daily during the 202324 school year with the learning support teacher. (N.T. 386-88.)
48. Student’s ELA instruction during the 2023-24 school year involved a multi-sensory program and other interventions. Student continued to experience difficulty with writing prompts but was diligent with accuracy in writing. (N.T. 389-405, 459-60.)
49. Student’s mathematics instruction during the 2023-24 school year included multisensory tools and strategies. (N.T. 390-91.)
50. By the end of October 2023, Student essentially maintained performance on the nonsense word fluency goal, and made slight growth on the sentence writing goal. The mathematics computation and speech/language goals were new without any data at the time. (S-14.)
51. A new IEP was developed for Student in October 2023. This document summarized Student’s reading, mathematics, written expression, and communication skills, all continuing as areas of need. At that time, Student continued to demonstrate skills in each of those areas: reading (listening comprehension, reading short vowel sounds and digraphs, and reading kindergarten-level sight words); mathematics (multi-digit addition with carrying, counting to 100, addition, and use of manipulatives); written expression (accuracy of writing letters, strategies for spelling consonant-vowel-consonant words independently, and writing complete sentences with spelling support; and speech/language (voice and fluency). Student did exhibit difficulty with long vowel sounds, sight words at a first grade level, and reading speed and accuracy; basic mathematics calculation skills (subtraction multi-digit numbers); written expression at the sentence level with conventions; and receptive/expressive language (answering comprehension questions using oral reasoning and inferencing) as well as articulation skills. The occupational therapist recommended discontinuation of those services. Parent concerns at the time were about reading level and ability in addition to mathematics level. (S-15.)
52. Annual goals in the October 2023 IEP addressed reading 66 words correct per minute at a second grade level (from a baseline of 25 words correct per minute at a first grade level); increasing nonsense word fluency to 13 words per minute at a first grade level (from a baseline of 4 words per minute); computation of mathematics basic operations (addition, subtraction) with a score of 44 in ten minutes (from a baseline of 28 in ten minutes); writing sentences in three minutes with 20 total words and 10 correct sequences (from a baseline of 11 total words with 5 correct sequences); and speech/language (articulation of different forms of a specific sound at the conversation level at a specified level of accuracy (from a baseline of a lower level of accuracy of some forms at the word and sentence level); answering listening comprehension questions after a 3-5 sentence length paragraph presented auditorily at a specified level of accuracy (from a baseline of lower accuracy with a muti-paragraph sentence length)). (S-15 at 22-27.)
53. Program modifications and items of specially designed instruction in the October 2023 were the same as in the December 2022 IEP, with speech/language as a related service. Student’s program continued to be one of learning support at a supplemental level with participation in regular education for whole group reading, contentarea instruction, special classes, lunch/recess, and special activities. Student was not determined to be eligible for ESY at that time. (S15.)
54. Student began private counseling beginning sometime during the 2023-24 school year. (N.T. 53, 66, 112.)
55. By the end of the 2023-24 school year, Student had exhibited slow but clear growth on the reading fluency goal, mastery of the nonsense word fluency goal, near mastery of the mathematics computation goal, near mastery of the sentence writing goal, steady growth on the articulation goal, and some variability with maintenance of skill on the listening comprehension goal. (S-18.)
56. Student did not meet criteria for ESY eligibility in 2024, but the District decided to offer those services at the Parent’s request. Student’s IEP was revised accordingly. (N.T. 429-31; S-17.)
57. Student’s ESY program in 2024 focused on Student’s IEP goals in the areas of reading, mathematics, and written expression. (S-19.)
2024-25 School Year
58. As in the relevant previous school years, during 2024-25 Student again began with school day in the regular education classroom for the morning routine, and returned for whole group reading as well as science or social studies. Student interacted and engaged well with peers during those times. (N.T. 525, 527-31, 538-39.)
59. Student’s ELA instruction over the 2024-25 school year was in small groups in learning support. Student worked through several reading and related intervention programs including the same multi-sensory program used in the prior school year. Writing instruction focused on sentence and paragraph structure and written narratives. (N.T. 56263, 569-72, 590-93, 610-12, 634-36.)
60. Student’s mathematics instruction was also provided in learning support during the 2024-25 school year with direct instruction and lessons using a multi-sensory approach. Student’s intervention period was also used for mathematics skill practice and assignments. (N.T. 565-68, 594.)
61. A new IEP was developed for Student in October 2024. This document summarized Student’s reading, mathematics, written expression, and communication skills still noted as areas of need. At that time, Student continued to demonstrate more skills in each of those areas: reading (reading short and long vowel sounds and digraphs, and reading comprehension with support); mathematics (multi-digit addition with carrying, subtracting without regrouping, and use of manipulatives); written expression (writing complete dictated sentences, use of some conventions, and legible handwriting); and speech/language (voice and fluency). Student did exhibit difficulty with decoding words with a vowel-consonant-e pattern; oral reading fluency and accuracy at a second grade level; mathematics skills (place value, solving multi-step word problems, subtraction with regrouping); written expression at the sentence level with proper spelling; and receptive/expressive language (identifying main ideas and key details) as well as articulation skills. Parent concerns at the time were about reading level and progress, as well as timed assessments. (S-21.)
62. Annual goals in the October 2024 IEP addressed reading 66 words correct per minute at a second grade level (from a baseline of 46 words correct per minute at a second grade level); solving 4.8 mathematics concepts and applications probes in ten minutes at a third grade level (from a baseline of 3.0); writing sentences in three minutes with 16 total words and 11 correct sequences (from a baseline of 12 total words with 11 correct sequences); and speech/language (articulation of different forms of a specific sound at the conversation level at a specified level of accuracy (from a baseline of a lower level of accuracy of some forms at the word and sentence level); answering listening comprehension questions involving inferencing, oral reasoning, main ideas, and key details after a 5-7 sentence length paragraph at a specified level of accuracy (from a baseline of lower accuracy on those domains with a 5- sentence paragraph). (S-21 at 21-25.)
63. Program modifications and items of specially designed instruction in the October 2024 IEP were the same as in the previous IEP, with the addition of repeated drill/practice and graphic organizers for writing assignments. Speech/language remained a related service. Student’s program continued to be one of learning support at a supplemental level with participation in regular education for whole group reading, content-area instruction, special classes, lunch/recess, and special activities. Student was determined to be eligible for extended school year services (ESY). (S-21.)
64. By mid-November 2024, Student exhibited some variable performance on the reading fluency goal, growth from baseline on the mathematics problem solving and sentence writing goals, and maintenance of the articulation skill. (S-22.)
65. Student’s IEP was reviewed in December 2024 with a discussion of a new reevaluation with cognitive and other assessments; a possible private school; and the Parent’s concern with Student’s potential anxiety at school. (S-23.)
March 2025 Reevaluation
66. A March 2025 RR summarized available information including prior evaluations and school-based assessments and records. Teacher input into this RR noted Student’s willingness to work and help when needed, respect for others, development of self-advocacy skills, diligence and determination, and peer interactions and socialization. Areas of reported weaknesses included following directions at times, frustration with some tasks, and organizational skills in certain environments. Frequent repetition and review especially with academic demands was reportedly beneficial. (S-26 at 1-11.)
67. Classroom observations for the March 2025 RR revealed some inattention compared to peers and a need for prompting and redirection, but overall good participation in those classes. Observations by occupational and speech/language therapists were also conducted. (S-26 at 11-14.)
68. Assessments for the March 2025 RR involved re-administration of the WISC-V and WIAT-4, a memory profile, and rating scales of adaptive and social/emotional/behavioral functioning. (S-26.)
69. The results of the WISC-V were reported within a 95% confidence interval. Student’s subtest and Index scores varied, with relative strengths on the Visual Spatial and Fluid Reasoning Indices; Student’s scores were in the very low range on the Verbal Comprehension and Working Memory Indices, and in the extremely low range on the Processing Speed Index. Student’s Full Scale IQ was in the very low range (4th percentile) with a General Ability Index score in the low average range (12th percentile). (S-26 at 16-18.)
70. The significant variability among Student’s WISC-V scores is extremely rare. However, the results reflected in the March 2025 RR are consistent within applicable confidence intervals compared to previous cognitive assessments of Student. The General Ability Index score provides useful information, but does not necessarily reflect Student’s functioning in the school environment where all facets of cognitive ability are impacted. (N.T. 654-69, 671-75.)
71. Student’s WIAT-4 scores reflected variable achievement across subtests and composites. The Total Achievement, Basic Reading, Reading, and Written Expression Composite scores were all in the extremely low range (6th percentile and below), whereas the scores on the Math Fluency and Mathematics Composites were in the very low range (3rd and 4th percentile, respectively). (S-26 at 18-20.)
72. Assessment of Student’s memory profile for the March 2025 RR revealed variable scores from the average to extremely low ranges, and Index scores were all in the below average to extremely low range with a Total Memory Index score below the 1st percentile. Like the WISC-V results, this profile is unusual. (N.T. 674, 706; S-26 at 20-22.)
73. Adaptive skills assessed for the March 2025 RR reflected average to above average skills and overall average ability as rated by the Parent, while the teacher’s ratings indicated some below age expectations with communication skills and functional academics. (S26 at 22-23.)
74. Two teachers and the Parents completed behavior rating scales for the March 2025 RR. One or both teachers endorsed a clinically significant concern with learning problems, and at-risk concerns with attention problems, atypicality, leadership, and functional communication. By contrast, the Parent did not report any concerns other than with leadership (at risk). (S-26 at 23-26.)
75. Additional rating scales related to executive functioning skills were completed by two teachers and the Parent for the March 2025 RR. One or both teachers reported that Student’s working memory and self-monitoring skills were atypical; the Parent only indicated mild concern with inhibition and self-monitoring. An additional rating scale related to ADHD were in the normal range for both the Parent and teacher. (S-26 at 26-31.)
76. Speech/language evaluation completed as part of the March 2025 RR continued to reveal a number of areas of strength, in addition to weaknesses with articulation of a specific sound and expressive and receptive language. Continuation of those services were recommended. (S-26 at 33-37.)
77. The March 2025 RR reached the conclusion that Student remained eligible for special education as a student with Specific Learning Disability (basic reading, reading fluency, reading comprehension, written expression, mathematics problem solving, and mathematics calculation) with Student exhibiting severe discrepancy between the WISC-V and WIAT-4 scores, among other factors. Student also qualified under the OHI and Speech/Language Impairment categories. (S-26.)
78. Occupational therapy evaluation for the March 2025 RR did not reveal any deficits but suggested that use of guided notes would be helpful. (S-26 at 31-33.)
79. By the end of March 2025, Student demonstrated growth toward mastery of the reading fluency goal, mastery of the mathematics computation goal, near mastery of the sentence writing goal, and growth toward mastery on the articulation and listening comprehension goals. (S-25.)
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 intending 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 firmly held beliefs, as was that of the family member who testified. Both presented as dedicated advocates for Student who understandably have high expectations. Their very positive view of Student’s disability-related potential, however, was rather inconsistent with the record evidence. Moreover, their expectations for Student’s accomplishments over time was premised upon an inaccurate perspective on the District’s IDEA obligations, see infra. In addition, was far outweighed by the compelling and convincing testimony of the District school psychologist who administered assessments for the March 2025 RR. His testimony was detailed , thorough, logical, and well-corroborated by the evidentiary record as a whole. The testimony of the other District witnesses who also had a knowledgeable understanding of Student’s aptitude, strengths, and needs, and who unanimously described Student as a model child who is a joy to have in school, was similarly highly credited. 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’ thoughtful though divergent 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 gradelevel 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).
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). Full participation in the IEP process does not mean, however, that parents are the sole decision-makers on the team. See, e.g., Blackmon v. Springfield R-XII School District, 198 F.3d 648, 657-58 (8th Cir.1999) (noting that IDEA “does not require school districts simply to accede to parents' demands without considering any suitable alternatives” and that failure to agree on placement does not constitute a procedural violation of the IDEA). As has previously been explained by the U.S. Department of Education, The IEP team should work towards a general agreement, but the public agency is ultimately responsible for ensuring the IEP includes the services that the child needs in order to receive a free appropriate public education (FAPE). It is not appropriate to make IEP decisions based on a majority "vote." If the team cannot reach agreement, the public agency must determine the appropriate services and provide the parents with prior written notice of the agency's determinations regarding the child's educational program and of the parents' right to seek resolution of any disagreements by initiating an impartial due process hearing or filing a State complaint. Letter to Richards, 55 IDELR 107 (OSEP 2010); see also 64 Fed. Reg. 48 at 12472 (1999) (same).
The Parent’s Claims The first issue is whether the District has deprived Student of FAPE at any time from the start of the 2022-23 school year through the present. As noted, the parties’ perspectives on Student’s aptitude and potential for meaningful growth, required considerations under Endrew F. and other caselaw, is widely disparate and serves as the very foundation for resolving this primary claim. The Parent and the other family member who testified essentially described Student as average. The difficulty with accepting this perspective is that each and every evaluation of Student over the years that has involved cognitive assessment has yielded results that are not consistent with an average descriptor. Student unquestionably presents with an extremely complex profile, and all factors contributing to Student’s disability-related strengths and needs are critical considerations in assessing ability. As noted above, the testimony of the District school psychologist who administered assessments for the March 2025 RR was very persuasive, describing in detail many of these elements that the District was obligated to, and did, examine. The District did not, as the Parent suggests, merely distill Student’s potential down to select elements of the WISC-V.
Rather, the various District evaluations have each fully explored Student’s cognitive aptitude that is compounded by Student’s other disability-related strengths and needs, as it was obligated by law to do. There is, of course, no dispute that Student has not been, and is not, meeting grade-level expectations. While it may be logical for one to expect that an LEA must “close the gap” when students are behind same-grade peers, as the Parent appears to suggest, this is not what the law mandates. The actual question is whether the District has been and is programming in a way that is reasonably calculated to provide meaningful educational benefit “after careful consideration of the child’s present levels of achievement, disability, and potential for growth.” Endrew F., supra, 500 U.S. at 399. The record is more than preponderant that this District has done so for Student throughout Student’s school-age tenure.
Each of the IEPs in question has adhered to the recommendations of teachers and other professionals. Student’s annual goals have been carefully drafted to align with Student’s then-current performance and functioning with reasonable expectations for Student’s growth over the following calendar year. Appropriate program modifications, items of specially designed instruction, and related services have been directly responsive to Student’s needs. The District has monitored Student’s program on an ongoing basis as required and, where appropriate, made appropriate revisions. Student has exhibited growth that, while incremental and even variable at times, has overall been steadily positive across Student’s areas of identified need. This hearing officer must conclude that Student’s program has therefore met the legal standards of appropriateness. The Parent’s focus on Student’s ongoing below grade-level performance oversimplifies Student’s unique presentation, and fails to outweigh the significant contrary evidence of record. The Parent does observe that the progress monitoring reports are confusing, which could amount to a procedural violation. However, careful review of those reveals overall generally accurate information. In addition, the Parent testified to not recalling regular receipt and review of those reports (N.T. 68, 81), so any confusion is harmless. In any event, the evidence overwhelmingly establishes that the Parent has been well aware of Student’s functioning at school over the relevant time period and expressed concerns on an ongoing basis about those. Thus, this minor flaw to the extent it did exist has not led to any substantive loss or significantly impede the Parent’s meaningful participation.[4] The Parent also contends that the District failed to ascertain Student’s needs in various areas including the impact of Student’s ADHD, noting that Student has exhibited inattentive behavior that ultimately led to that diagnosis. The District’s evaluations clearly met the requisite IDEA criteria, however. Although the record does establish some difficulty for Student in maintaining focus and attention, each of the District’s various evaluations of Student properly investigated social/emotional/behavioral functioning. Student’s weaknesses in those areas have not been significant over the relevant time period, and the Parent has not met her burden of showing that the District’s responses to those needs were unreasonable or in violation of the IDEA. Having found no denial of FAPE, it is unnecessary to address any remedy. Nonetheless, by way of dicta, this hearing officer strongly encourages the parties to set aside their differences and continue to work together collaboratively, engaging in meaningful discussion of Student’s unique needs and how they should be appropriately addressed. The Parent will undoubtedly be disappointed in the outcome here, but Student is poised to enter a new educational environment in the fall of 2025 and changes associated with that transition are very likely. Careful planning will be critical to Student’s success.
suggested that the District consider a discussion of standard scores at a future meeting and, perhaps, limit that reporting.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The District did not deny Student FAPE on procedural or substantive grounds over the time period in question, and no remedy is due.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th 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 date as required by 34 C.F.R. § 300.515 by electronic mail message as requested by counsel[5] 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] References to the record throughout this decision will be to the Notes of Testimony (N.T.), Parent Exhibits (P-) followed by the exhibit number, and School District Exhibits (S-) followed by the exhibit number. Citation to testimony that merely confirmed the content of documents is unnecessary and is generally not provided.
[4] It is also important to recognize that grade-level scores must be interpreted cautiously and carefully, as they can be misleading for many reasons. Sattler, J. M., Assessment of Children: Cognitive Applications (6th ed. 2018) at 107-08. The Parent and at least one District witness shared the common but erroneous belief that these scores mean that a student is functionally performing at that a specified grade level. It is respectfully
[5] See N.T. 768-69.