http://204.186.159.23/odr/HearingOfficerDecisions/2824-11-12.pdfFeast your eyes on the above link. ^
Same Hearing Officer on the same subject FAPE, different cases. How much stock anyone wants to put into what one poster (me) on a food allergy board has to say about a decision rendered by a practicing attorney (with a PhD, possibly) I don't know but nonetheless, check out the citation by hearing officer below.
WTH with his
preference to cite pertinent (in
his opinion) federal regulations? That, dear sir, is the name of the game. Here again he names state regulations adopting federal. Again, no expert here but isn't that what Holder went after Arizona for doing? A state mirroring federal law and enforcing their own version of it? And again, the guiding principal in disability law on the federal level is that greater protections prevail because it is expansive rather than restrictive.
On the chance that these decisions haven't been pored over with a fine tooth comb including his citations to what he references, his sourcing, I'd go through both of these FAPE decisions with a keen eye if the decision process is holding to that principal of greater protections prevailing and also if the use of federal vs. state law is appropriate as a
preference. Were all procedural safeguards honored? Where are THOSE records? Have they been shared with all parties and VERIFIED as to timeline? With whom were they verified?
It is this hearing officer’s preference to cite to the pertinent federal implementing regulations of Section 504 at 34 C.F.R. §§104.1-104.61. See also 22 PA Code §§15.1- 15.11 wherein Pennsylvania education regulations explicitly adopt the provisions of 34 C.F.R. §§104.1-104.61 for the protection of “protected handicapped students”. 22 PA Code §§15.1, 15.10.
2 34 C.F.R. §§300.1-300.818. See also 22 PA Code §§14.101-14.162.
Thoughts. Useful ones? You'd be crazy to listen to me but smart to force some transparency for timeline and evidence, I think.
Also, I noticed the name "Zirkel" on the appeals panel board on the state PA ODR page where I found these decisions. Would that be the same Perry Zirkel of Pennsylvania in the now well-known letter to Zirkel from DOE OSEP re: "reasonable" standard incorrectly used in public educational situations and that greater protections always prevail rather than lesser? Anyone able to see if this is possibly same individual?
If so, here's the letter to him from OSEP so you can have the straight dope.
http://www.dueprocessillinois.org/zirkel.htmlThe DOE having to set Pennsylvania straight may not set a good precedent for who you're dealing with. You should also take a look at Mystic Valley appeal and resulting Hearing Officer's decision.
http://www.doe.mass.edu/bsea/decisions/03-3629.pdfOne strikes me as "do I hafta" in contrast to the other's "yeah, don't be stupid it's not an undue burden, nor over the top".