Khepera Charter School | Case 22285-18-19 | 2020-05-30
Pennsylvania special education due-process decision
- Case number
- 22285-18-19
- Date
- 05/30/2020
- Parties / district (official listing)
- Khepera Charter School
- Hearing officer
- Michael McElligott
- Issues (official listing)
- Charter School State Education Agency Compensatory Education
Open saved decision PDF · Official source
This page reproduces text extracted from the public decision. The saved PDF controls formatting and wording. No attorney-reviewed summary has been added.
Decision text
Page 1
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 Due Process
Hearing Officer Final Decision and Order
Closed Hearing
Consolidated ODR File Numbers
22285-18-19
22286-18-19
Child’s Name
N.M.
Date of Birth
[redacted]
Parent
[redacted]
Counsel for Parent
David J. Berney, Esquire
Heather J. Hulit, Esquire
1628 JFK Boulevard – Suite 1000
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Local Educational Agency
Khepera Charter School (defunct)
926 W. Sedgley Avenue
Philadelphia, PA 19132
Counsel for LEA
No appearance entered
State Educational Agency
Pennsylvania Department of Education
333 Market Street – 9th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Counsel for SEA
Elizabeth Anzalone, Esquire
Eric Augustine, Esquire
Pennsylvania Department of Education – Office of General Counsel
333 Market Street – 9th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Hearing Officer:
Michael J. McElligott, Esquire
Date of Decision:
05/30/2020
Page 2
Page 2 of 14
Introduction
This special education due process decision concerns the educational
rights of N.J.M. (“student”), a student who resides in the Philadelphia School
District (“District”).1
1 The generic use of “student”, and avoidance of personal pronouns, are employed to
protect the confidentiality of the student.
For multiple past school years, the student attended
Khepera Charter School (“Khepera”), a charter school which had obtained a
charter from the District under the terms of the Charter School Law (24 P.S.
§§17
-1701-A, et seq).
In December
2017, the District revoked Khepera’s charter. Khepera
appealed the revocation, and in December 2018 the Charter School Appeal
Board affirmed the revocation. Khepera ceased operations at the conclusion
of the 2018-2019 school year.
In May 2019, the parent filed special education due process complaints
at these file numbers, one against Khepera and the other against the
Pennsylvania Department of Education (“PDE”), the state educational agency
(“SEA”), as defined under the terms of the Individuals with Disabilities in
Education Improvement Act of 2004 (“ID
EIA”)2.
2 It is this hearing officer’s preference to cite to the pertinent federal implementing
regulations of the IDE
IA at 34 C.F.R. §§300.1-300.818. See also 22 PA Code §§14.101-
14
.162 (“Chapter 14”) although, as set forth below, the parties have largely stipulated to
the record in this matter and certain citations to
IDEIA statutory provisions are cited.
These two fi
le numbers were formally consolidated into one hearing
process. PDE, through counsel, engaged in communications and
collaborative hearing planning with the hearing officer and counsel for the
parent. Khepera did not retain counsel and did not engage in
Page 3
Page 3 of 14
communications or hearing planning. Khepera has been absent from these
proceedings.
Counsel for PDE and the parent requested that the hearing officer
consider disposing of these matters through a stipulated record. The hearing
officer agreed to consider the submission of a stipulated record, and
stipulated findings of fact, whereupon PDE and the parent, through counsel,
began a process of crafting those stipulations. This process took place over a
long time, although counsel for the parties continually and diligently worked
with each other to fashion a stipulated record. Counsel also regularly
updated the undersigned hearing officer so that the status of the matter
never languished or grew cold. The stipulated record and stipulated findings
of fact were ultimately submitted to the hearing officer and form the basis of
this decision and order.
Issues
1. Was the student denied a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”)?
2. If so, is the student entitled to compensatory education and who
should provide this remedy?
Findings of Fact
The findings of fact are entirely drafted by counsel for parent and PDE.
This hearing officer, having reviewed the stipulations of those parties and
the stipulated exhibits, accepts the stipulated findings of fact as drafted.
Certain non-material aspects of the stipulations have been removed.
Additionally, certain stylistic or grammatical changes have been made.
Finally, so that the parties, or a reviewing body, can be assured that the
stipulated findings of fact are adopted without material changes, the parties’
submitted stipulations are included in the record as Hearing Officer Exhibit
Page 4
Page 4 of 14
[“HO”]-1. The stipulated findings of fact below do not include citations as
any such citation would be uniformly to HO-1.
1. The student is [redacted].
2. The parent and PDE agree t hat, by reason of the student’s
disabilities, the student is eligible for special education and related
services under the IDEIA.
3. The parent and PDE agree that the student is "disab
led" under the
Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973.
4. The parent and PDE agre e that the student is "othe
rwise qualified" to
participate in school activities.
5. The stu
dent was enrolled in Khepera from the 2015-2016 school year
through the 2018-2019 school year.
6. The student’s parent enrolled the student in the District for the
2019-2020 school year, the student’s [redacted].
7. At all times relevant to these proceedings, the student's local
educational agency (“LEA”), as defined under the terms of the IDEIA,
was Khepera.
8. Th e SE
A, as defined under the terms of the IDEIA, is PDE.
9. During the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 school years, the student was
identified, under the terms of the
IDEIA, as a student with specific
learning disabilities in reading, writing, and mathematics.
10. At all times relevant to these proceedings, Khepera received federal
financial assistance.
11. On December 14, 2017, the District revoked Khepera's charter.
Page 5
Page 5 of 14
12. On March 1, 2018, in response to the District’s revocation of
Khep
era’s charter, PDE sent a letter to the parents of students
enrolled in Khepera to inform them of the steps that its Bureau of
Special Education (“BSE”) intended to take to protect their children’s
right to FAPE,
including monitoring and addressing complaints.
13. PDE, as the SEA under the terms of IDEIA at 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(11),
is responsible for overseeing the provision of FAPE for all special
education students in the Commonwealth. PDE is required to provide
special education and related services directly to eligible students
when their
LEA is unable to establish and maintain programs of FAPE.
20 U.S.C. §1413(g).
14. On D
ecember 17, 2018, in response to Khepera’s appeal of the
revocation of its charter, the Charter School Appeal Board affirmed
the District’s revocation of Khepera’s charter. Khepera did not appeal
the Charter School Appeal Board's decision.
15. Khepera closed at the end of the 2018-2019 school year.
16. On May 29, 2019, the student’s parent filed a special education due
process complaint against Khepera, at ODR file number 22285-18-19,
alleging that Khepera denied the student a FAPE during the
2017-2018 and 2018-2019 school years.
17. On the same date, the parent filed a special education due process
complaint against PDE, at ODR file number 22286-18-19, alleging
that Khepera denied the student a FAPE during the 2017-2018 and
2018-2019 school years. The parent further alleged that because
Khepera could not meet its FAPE obligations, PDE must step in and
remediate Khepera's failure to provide FAPE to the student.
18. The undersigned hearing officer consolidated into one hearing process
the matters at ODR file numbers 22285-18-19 and 22286-18-19.
Page 6
Page 6 of 14
19. On August 1, 2019, the complaint against PDE at 22286-18-19 was
amended to include additional allegations related to Khepera’s denial
of FAPE to the student. The two matters at 22285-18-19 and
22286-18-19 remained consolidated in one hearing process.
20. Khepera did not answer the parent's due process complaint or her
amended complaint, thereby admitting that it failed to provide
FAPE to the student and that it is unable to provide FAPE to the
student.
21. On June 13, 2019, PDE sent a letter to the parents of students
enrolled in Khepera to inform them of the steps that they must
take relating to enrolling their children with a new LE
A due to
Khepera's closing.
22. On September 19, 2019, PDE issued a letter to the parent to inform
her that the BSE at PDE had initiated a record review to determine
Khepera's compliance with special education laws and regulations as
it related to the student. The letter provided that, based on BSE's
review of the student's special education records, BSE had
determined that the student was entitled to 612 hours of
compensatory education and that PDE was making that remedy
available to the student.
23. On September 26, 2019, the parent, through counsel, responded to
PDE’s letter by contending that, inter alia, the student was entitled to
more than 612 hours of compensatory education to remedy
Khepera’s denial of FAPE.
Page 7
Page 7 of 14
24. On April 30, 2020, PDE issued a letter to parent to inform her that,
upon BSE learning new information from parent, BSE determined that
the student was owed an additional 54.3 hours of compensatory
education and that PDE was making available to the student a total of
666.3 hours of compensatory education. On May 1, 2020, parent,
through counsel, responded to PDE’s letter by contending, inter alia,
that the student was entitled to more than 666.3 hours of
compensatory education to remedy Khepera’s denial of FAPE.
25. Since Khepera is closed, it has no IDEIA funding source to provide
any compensatory education remedy.
26. The parent and PDE are unaware of any other funding source from
which Khepera could provide any compensatory education
remedy.
27. Khepera failed to provide the student with FAPE.
28. Khepera is unable to provide compensatory education to remedy
its denial of FAPE to the student.
29. Khepera is unable to provide the student with FAPE.
30. PDE determined that paying for the student's compensatory
education is the appropriate manner to satisfy its obligation.
31. The parent and PDE agree that PDE must pay for an independent
educational evaluation of the student.
32. The parent and PDE agree that PDE must pay for 1,60 0 hours of
compensatory education for the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 school
years.
Page 8
Page 8 of 14
33. The parent and PDE incorporate by reference and make part of
the stipulated record in these matters, certain documents. 3
3 The documents include the following, included in their entirety as part of HO-1 and in the
order presented therein: Parent’s May 2019 Complaint, Parent’s August 2019 Amended
Complaint, PDE’s March 2018 Letter, PDE’s June 2019 Letter, PDE’s September 2019 Letter,
PDE’s April 2020 Letter, January 2016 ER, January 2017 IEP, January 2017 NOREP,
February 2018 IEP, February 2018 NOREP, April 2019 RR, May 2019 IEP, and April 2020
private evaluation report.
Discussion
Provision of FAPE
The parent and PDE stipulate to the following conclusions of law, all of
which are part of their stipulations at HO-1:
• Khepera failed to provide FAPE to the student.
• Khepera is unable to establish and maintain a program of FAPE.
• As the SEA, PDE must provide special education and related
services directly to the student when their LE
A is unable to
establish and maintain programs for the provision of FAPE.
20 U
.S.C. § 1413(g).
Khepera did not participate in the proceedings and offered no
defense to the parent’s complaint. Nothing in the documentary evidence
presented by the parent and PDE contravenes these legal conclusions,
namely that Khepera failed to provide FAPE to the student and is no
position to remedy that failure. PDE stands ready, as it must under the
terms of these legal conclusions, to remedy the denial of FAPE due to the
closure, and defunct status, of Khepera.
Page 9
Page 9 of 14
Accordingly, the undersigned hearing officer finds no reason to
oppose the stipulated conclusions of the parent and PDE that the student
was denied FAPE by Khepera and is entitled to remedy as provided by
PDE.
Compensatory Education
Where a student has been denied FAPE, compensatory education is an
equitable remedy that available to the student. (Lester H. v. Gilhool, 916
F.2d 865 (3d Cir. 1990); Big Beaver Falls Area Sch. Dist. v. Jackson, 615
A.2d 910 (Pa. Commonw. 1992)). The parent and PDE have stipulated that
Khepera is unable to provide any compensatory education to remedy the
denial of FAPE to the student. PDE has determined that compensatory
education is the means by which it will meet its obligations, as the
SEA, to
provide FAPE to the student.
The parent and PDE stipulate to the following compensatory education
remedy, all of which are part of their stipulations at HO-1:
The parent and PDE agree that the student is owed 1,600
hours of compensatory education for the 2017-2018 and
2018-2019 school years. The compensatory education shall
be subject to the following terms:
A. The compensatory education may be used by the parent
in her sole discretion, so long as (1) the provider of the
services is properly credentialed, licensed, or certified,
(2) compensatory education is used for services that
occurred after the start of the 2017-2018 school year,
and (3) the services take the form of appropriate
developmental, remedial, or enriching instruction, or are
services or materials that further the goals of the
student's current or future IEPs, recommended by the
Page 10
Page 10 of 14
student's evaluation/reevaluation reports, remediate
past denials of FAPE, or overcome the effects of the
student's disabilities. If the student is enrolled in a
public school, "comp
ensatory education" includes
services provided outside of the regular school day
which supplement services included in the student's IEP.
B. Examples of permissible uses of the compensatory
education include but are not limited to:
i. Educational or instructional programs, including but
not limited to tutoring, courses, classes, after school
programs, summer and winter break programs;
ii.
Related services, as that term is defined by the
IDEIA and its implementing regulations;
iii. Evaluations and assessments by appropriately
credentialed individuals, including, but not limited
to, psychoeducational assessments, functional
behavior assessments, vocational assessments,
related services assessments, transitional
assessments, and neuropsychological assessments
as permitted by the
ID
EIA;
iv. Behavioral therapy, training, or education provided
by Board Certified Behavior Analysts (BCBA) or
Board Certified Assistant Behavior Analysts
(
BCABA)
or providers under the authority and supervision of a
BCBA or BCABA, such as an Applied Behavior
Specialist, or by qualified behavioral specialists,
therapeutic support staff, personal care assistants,
Page 11
Page 11 of 14
or licensed or appropriately accredited providers,
schools, or programs;
v. Transition services and planning, as defined by the
IDEIA
, including services that instruct the student in
skills needed for employment, post- secondary
education, or independent living, including but not
limited to apprenticeships;
vi. Services of appropriately credentialed professional
educators to assist in de vising the student's
educational program, and identifying or selecting
appropriate assistive technology devices;
vii. Parent training;
viii. Transportation costs to the provider of services for
which reimbursement is due, including but not
limited to public transportation and transportation at
the then-applicable Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's
reimbursement rate when such transportation is
provided by the parent or the student to travel to
and from a provider providing compensatory
education services;
ix. Materials, services, or equipment (as "equipment"
is defined by the IDEIA and its implementing
regulations) that further the goals of the student's
current or future IEPs or private school education
or that will assist the s tudent in overcoming the
effects of the student’s disabilities, as identified in
evaluation report(s) prepared by an appropriat ely
Page 12
Page 12 of 14
credentialed professional, the s tudent's IEP, or an
education plan developed by a private school;
x. Materials, services, or equipment (as "equipment"
is defined by the IDEIA and its implementing
regulations) that support the development of skills
in Science, Technology, Engineering, Art, and
Math (STEAM); improve the s tudent's social, fine
or gross motor, behavioral, adaptive and language
skills; or prepare the s tudent for employment or
independent living;
xi. Private, parent-selected educational placements
and equipment or activity fees for nonacademic
and extracurricular services and activities as
defined by
3
4 C.F.R. §300.107(b);
xii. Assistive technology, as that term is defined by
the
IDEIA and its implementing regulations,
including computers, printers, tablets, and
educational software; and
xiii. Nonacademic and extracurricular activities
designed to assist the student with improving the
student’s social skills, behavior, furthering
transitional programming, or otherwi se
overcoming the effects of the student’s
disabilities.
C. The compensatory education may not be used for:
i. Purchasing more than one computer, more than one
printer, or more than one tablet during a three -year
Page 13
Page 13 of 14
period, unless the computer, printer, or tablet to be
replaced is antiquated;
ii. Activities intended for personal enrichment;
iii. Leisure travel;
iv. Living expenses;
v. Food;
vi. Clothing;
vii. Entertainment activities, including but not limited to,
attendance at amusement parks, movies, and
vacations;
viii. Video game systems such as PlayStation and X-Box;
ix. Legal services, attorney's fees, or litigation costs;
x. Services which have no educational purpose or
which are not permissible under the
IDEIA
.
The hearing officer sees no equitable considerations or impediments
which would interfere with making part of this decision these stipulated
provisions of the compensatory education award.
Accor
dingly, compensatory education under these terms will be made
part of this decision and order.
ORDER
In accord with the findings of fact and conclusions of law as set forth
above, the student is awarded 1,600 hours of compensatory education. The
compensatory education remedy shall be the responsibility of the
Pennsylvania Department of Education and shall be governed by the
provisions set forth above.
Page 14
Page 14 of 14
A ny claim not specifically addressed in this decision and order is
denied and dismissed.
s/ Michael J. McElligott, Esquire
Michael J. McElligott, Esquire
Special Education Hearing Officer
05/30/2020
