STATE OF CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Student v. Stamford Board of Education - CT SDE Case No. 14-0099
Case No. 14-0099
Student v. Stamford Board of Education
Appearing on behalf of the Parent: David C. Shaw, Esq. Law Office of David C. Shaw LLC 34 Jerome Avenue, Suite 210 Bloomfield, CT 06002
Appearing on behalf of the Board: Christopher Tracey, Esq. Shipman & Goodwin, LLP 300 Atlantic Avenue Stamford, CT 06901
Appearing before: Sylvia Ho, Esq., Hearing Officer
ISSUES:
1. Did the Board provide an appropriate program for the 2012-2013 school year?
2. Did the Board offer an appropriate program for the 2013-2014 school year?
3. Should the Board be required to follow the recommendations of Dr. Kardos?
4. Should the Board be required to pay for the independent educational evaluation conducted by Dr. Kardos?
5. Should the Board be required to assign a paraprofessional/sign language interpreter to work exclusively with student?
6. Do the circumstances warrant an award of compensatory education?
7. Should the Board be required to appoint an independent educational consultant acceptable to both parties to develop and implement the IEP for applicable school years in this Due Process Hearing?
PROCEDURAL HISTORY/SUMMARY:
The parents filed the Due Process Complaint and Request for Hearing on August 9, 2013. The: Complaint also requested that the State Department of Education provide the interpretation services of a Spanish language translator. The Hearing Officer was appointed on August 12, 2013. The mailing date of the Final Decision is October 23, 2013. The Hearing Officer held a Prehearing Conference on August 16, 2013 and a hearing was scheduled for September 19, 2013. On September 11, 2013, the parties reported that they had engaged in mediation with a state appointed mediator and that though an agreement was not finalized, the session was productive. The parties mutually requested postponement of the September 19 hearing date so that they could continue to work toward a settlement. The joint request for postponement was granted and the hearing was rescheduled to October 2, 2013. The Hearing commenced on October 2, 2013 with no attorneys in attendance. The Board representative was present. The parents and their child advocate were present. The parents, through the state appointed translator, reported that the parties had settled the matter in dispute and finalized the terms the previous evening and asked that the matter be dismissed with prejudice.
FINAL DECISION AND ORDER:
The matter is DISMISSED with prejudice.