Commonwealth Connections Academy Charter School | Case 17636-15-16 | 2016-06-10

This is a redacted version of the original decision. Select details have been removed from the decision to preserve anonymity of the student. The redactions do not affect the substance of the document. Pennsylvania Special Education Hearing Officer DECISION Child’s Name: J. H. Date of Birth: [redacted] ODR No. 17636-15-16-KE OPEN HEARING Parties to the Hearing: Representative: Parent[s] Pro Se Commonwealth Connections Ki mberly M. Colonna, Esquire Academy Charter School McNees, Wallace & Nurick, LLC 4050 Crums Mill Road, Su. 303 100 Pine Street, P.O. Box 1166 Harrisburg, PA 17112 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1166 Date of Hearing: May 25, 2016 Record Closed: May 25, 2016 Date of Decision: June 10, 2016 Hearing Officer: William F. Culleton, Esq., CHO

1 INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The child named in this matter (Student)1 is an eligible enrollee of the cyber charter school named in this matter (Charter). It is uncontested that Student is identified under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq. (IDEA), as a child with the disabilities of Other Health Impairment and Specific Learning Disability. The Student’s Guardian (Parent) filed the present due process complaint notice (complaint) pursuant to the IDEA and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794 (section 504), requesting a hearing and order for the purpose of amending three quarterly progress reports sent to Parent and maintained by the Charter during the 2015-2016 school year. The Charter moved to dismiss, the motion was held in abeyance, and a hearing was held. During the hearing, Parent discussed the purposes of the request for due process. At that point, the hearing was suspended and Parent, at her re quest, was given time to respond to the motion. Subsequently, Parent sent an email message sta ting that she did not inte nd to file any further response, and agreed that the matter be decided on the present record. I now grant the motion and dismiss this matter; however, I want to make cl ear that this decision is narrow and does not preclude Parent from seeking relief in other forums. ISSUE 1. Does the hearing officer have jurisdiction under either the IDEA or section 504 to decide the matters set forth in the complaint and grant all or any of the requested relief? 1 Student, Parent and the respondent Charter are named in the title page of this decision; personal references to the parties are omitted here in order to guard Student’s confidentiality.

2 FINDINGS OF FACT 1. On April 18, 2016, Parent filed a Complaint Notice pursuant to the IDEA requesting a special education due process hearing. (Complaint, 4-18-16.) 2. The complaint asserts that the Charter issued and maintained as educational records three progress reports during the 2015-2016 school year, and that these reports were inaccurate and were based upon inappropriate goals. (Complaint, 4-18-16; NT 16-21.) 3. The complaint requests orders to amend the re ferenced progress reports and to report the amendment to Parent and the Department of Education. (Complaint, 4-18-16; NT 16-19.) 4. Prior to filing the complaint in this matter, Parent filed and brought to hearing a separate complaint, ODR No. 17321-1516-KE. This comp laint asserts that the goals in the prevailing Individualized Educa tion Program (IEP) are inappropr iate and seeks relief on the basis of that assertion. (NT 13-14, 18-21.) DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AUTHORITY TO ORDER AMENDMENT OF EDUCATIONAL RECORDS The IDEA and its regulations 2 provide parents with a righ t to a due process hearing “relating to the identification, evaluation or educational placement of a child with a disability, or the provision of FAPE3 to the child … .” 34 C.F.R. §300.507(a) . While this language is broad, it is not unlimited. The IDEA also sets certain standards for the confidentiality of, and parental access to, educational records. 34 C.F.R. §300.610 et seq., and it requires compliance with the standards for record-keeping set forth in the regulations that implement the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. §1232g (FERPA). 34 C.F.R. §300.612, 621. Specifically, the IDEA 2 As the IDEA regulations implement the IDEA and have the force of law, further reference to the IDEA will be cited to the pertinent regulations. 3 “FAPE” in the regulation quoted here means “free appropriate public education”. 34 C.F.R. 300.17.

3 provides for a hearing regardi ng disputes concerning the am endment of records 34 C.F.R. §300.618-621. The hearing is conducted pursuant to the FERPA, and not pur suant to the IDEA provisions for special educa tion due process hearings, 34 C.F.R. §300.507-514. 34 C.F.R. §300.621. This specific provision for h earings pursuant to FERPA pro cedures excludes such claims from the broad class of claims that are approp riate for a special educat ion due process hearing under 34 C.F.R. §300.507-514. Thus, a hearing officer whose jurisdiction is provided pursuant to 34 C.F.R. §300.507-514 does not have jurisdiction of claims assigned to FERPA procedures, such as record amendment claims. Therefore, I do not have jurisdiction to hear or decide a claim regarding amendment of records. ASSOCIATED CLAIMS REGARDING INAPPROPRIATE GOALS A parent may bring a due process request to a special education impartial hearing officer such as myself regarding the alleged inappropriateness of goals in a child’s IEP, under 34 C.F.R. §300.507(a). However, the parent can seek only one such hearing for the same claim. See 34 C.F.R. §300.513(c). Here, Parent candidly acknowledged that her claim in the present matter was limited to the issue of amending records, NT 16-19; moreover, Parent acknowledged that the reference in her complaint in this matter, regarding the inappropriateness of the Student’s IEP goals, referred to claims that are the subject of the parallel pr oceeding before a different hearing officer in ODR No. 17321-1516-KE. (NT 20.) Therefore, any such claims are not part of this matter, and to the extent that they were, they would be barred under 34 C.F.R. §300.513(c) because they are being adjudicated in the parallel case before a different hearing officer.

4 CONCLUSION I have no jurisdiction to deci de Parent’s claims regarding amendment of Student’s records; these claims must be brought to a hearing before a different adjudicator pursuant to the FERPA procedures. Any claims regarding the appropriateness of the Student’s IEP are encompassed in the parallel hearing and will be addressed in that proceeding. Therefore, Parent has other avenues of relief for both subjects, and I have no jurisd iction. Accordingly, the pr esent matter will be dismissed. ORDER In accordance with the foregoing findings of fa ct and conclusions of law, it is hereby ORDERED that the captioned matter is DISMISSED. It is FURTHER ORDERED that any claims that are encompassed in this captioned matter and not specifically addressed by this decision and order are denied and dismissed. William F. Culleton, Jr. Esq. _____________________________ WILLIAM F. CULLETON, JR., ESQ. HEARING OFFICER DATED: June 10, 2016