NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Case Number:
Student‘s Name:
Date of Birth:
District:
Hearing Requested By: Parent
Date of Hearing: December 22, 2010
March 23, 2011
March 30, 2011
June 17, 2011
Actual Record Closed Date: July 29, 2011
Hearing Officer: Judith T. Kramer, Esq.
CORRECTED
Hearing Officer‘s
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED DECEMBER 22, 2010
ESQ., Attorney — Student
Parents
Parents
ESQ., Attorney, — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED MARCH 23, 2011
Attorney — Student
Attorney — Student
Parents
Parents
DOE Attorney — DOE
DOE Psychologist, via telephone — DOE
DOE Teacher, via telephone — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED MARCH 30, 2011
Attorney — Student
Parents
Parents
Witness, via telephone — Student
DOE Attorney — DOE
DOE Teacher, via telephone — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JUNE 17, 2011
Attorney — Student
Parents
Hearing Officer‘s — Student
Parents
Supervisor, CLD — Student
DOE Attorney — DOE
IEP Coordinator — DOE
Hearing Officer‘s — DOE
INTRODUCTION
On December 22, 2010, an impartial hearing was commenced pursuant to the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (―IDEA‖), 20 U.S.C. 1415 regarding the alleged failure of the DOE to provide a FAPE to (―the child ―) for the 2010-2011 School year. The hearing was held at the Impartial Hearing Office of the Board of Education of the located at , New York. The hearing commenced at 10:00 a.m. and was continued on March 23, 2011, March 30, 2011 and June 17, 2011.
A list of exhibits that were admitted into evidence is attached to this decision.
BACKGROUND
On October 6, 2010, the parent filed a request for an impartial hearing alleging that the CSE failed to provide a FAPE for the 2010-2011 School year. (DOE Ex. 10.) On March 5, 2010 the Committee on Education (―CSE‖) met and developed and IEP for the child for the 2010-2011 School year. The child was classified as and Impaired. A class in a School, , was recommended for a month school year. (DOE Ex. 1). The CSE also recommended related services of therapy ( ), therapy ( ), and therapy ( ) and , with and to be provided on a 12-month basis for the 2010-2011 school year. On June 15th, 2010 a Final Notice of Recommendation (―FNR‖) was sent to the parent recommending a class at . (DOE Ex. 9.) The parent did not agree, inter alia, that the recommended placement was appropriate and believes that the DOE improperly denied the child the related services recommended on the IEP during the summer of 2010.
THE PARENT’S POSITION
The Parents contend that the child was denied a FAPE because: (1) the March 5, 2010 Individualized Education Program (―IEP‖) was inappropriate, (2) the DOE‘s recommended program and school were inappropriate to address the child‘s needs and (3) the DOE improperly refused to provide the child with the mandated related services recommended on her IEP during the Summer of 2010 and for transportation to and from for thr 2010-201 school year. They further contend that the child‘s placement at the Center (― ‖), a school for children with disabilities, was appropriate to address her Hearing Officer‘s needs and that the equities tip in their favor.. Thus, the Parents contend that they are entitled to reimbursement for their unilateral placement at and for the provision of related services to the child during the summer of 2010.
THE DOE’S POSITION
The DOE contends that: 1) it provided a FAPE, 2) it was not required to provided related services over the summer of 2010 as recommended in the IEP; 3) the parent is not entitled to reimbursement for the tuition at , for the related Services provided to the child during the summer of 2010 or for transportation services; 4) is not an appropriate placement 5) the equities favor the DOE. Thus, the DOE contends that the parents are not entitled any reimbursement for tuition or for related services.
THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED
The child years old and is classified as impaired. (DOE Ex. 1; T. 751). The child was born on August 13, 2004, and was diagnosed with (T. 731). The child received services through Early Intervention and then the Committee on Preschool Education (―CPSE‖). (T. 732). The CPSE placed the child at the School for the 2008-09 school year. (T. 733) The child aged out of at the age of . The CSE deferred the case to its‘ Central Based Support Team (―CBST‖), which failed to place her for the 2009-10 School year. As a result the child attended for the 2009-
10 School year, after the parents looked into approximately 15-20 other schools, both public and private. (T. 735-736).
On March 5, 2010, a CSE meeting was held for the child to address the 2010-11 school year. The CSE recommended a placement in a class in a community school with a class ratio of (― ‖). The parents received a placement offer in June 2010. (DOE Ex. 9, Parents‘ Exs. K, L).
Prior to the CSE meeting, the parents provided the CSE with a evaluation. (Parents‘ Ex. O). The evaluation noted that the child suffers from significant delays within the areas of and , including , activities of daily living (―ADLs‖) , fine skills, gross skills and the ability to process input. She also has . As a result, she tires easily. The child is naïve Hearing Officer‘s and requires adult support to appropriately. She also presents with executive functioning, attention and processing (Parents‘ Ex. O).
The evaluation stated that the child should attend a structured and supportive program with a low student-teacher ratio. It indicated that she required differentiated support across all academic areas, for and . It also recommended , , , , and exposure to appropriate role models to assist her in to communicate and and to develop her , endurance, and skills. A complete processing examination was also recommended. (Parents‘ Ex. O).
Prior to the March 5, 2011, the CSE had the evaluation, (T. 131; Parent‘s Ex. O), and the report from documenting the child‘s needs and improvement across all domains. (T. 131; DOE .Ex 3, Parents‘ Exs, M, N). The CSE did not perform an processing exam.
The IEP generated at the March 5, 2010 recommended a placement which Ms. , the school psychologist at the CSE meeting, testified was a change from the previous year‘s recommended program. (T. 143) The parents expressed their concerns regarding the appropriateness of recommendation. (T. 632-633). Ms believed that a program was the and would offer the child a FAPE and that a placement where all of the children were disabled would not provide that child with role model peers. (T. 142) She had no role in choosing .
Ms testified that generally the program utilizes a multiapproach. It is a small class comprised of children with similar needs, a modified curriculum, and small groups working with a teacher‘s assistant, repeating directions, breaking things as well as realt4ed services to work on her low tone and her gross and fine skill. (T. 140 ) She thought the child could benefit from the and she should not be with lower functioning children. (T. 141) The child would benefit from role models and she would have had an opportunity to spend time with typically developing children. (T. 142). She also testified that children at also have an opportunity to spend time with typically developing children. She does not think that is a Hearing Officer‘s therapeutic environment but she does not think that the child needs a therapeutic environment. (T. )
Ms stated that the CSE discussed the child‘s performance in class and addressed the areas of need relying upon the teachers reports and the progress reports the child as well as the evaluation (T. 151) She testified that the goals on the IEP, which addressed the child‘s deficits, are measurable, were developed for the upcoming year and were based upon her then current teacher‘s reports. The teacher can adapt these goals. They discussed the health concerns such as the fact that the child has and low muscle tone. She stated that the child has an awkward gait and needs supervision when going up the stairs. (T. 150)
The CSE recommended that the child receive twice a week for thirty minutes and once a week for thirty minutes , three times week for thirty minutes , and twice a week for thirty minutes and twice a week for thirty minutes during the summer of 2010 for six weeks. (DOE Ex. 1.13 ; T. 137). The parents believed that the DOE would provide the related services to the child during the summer of 2010 and would provide Related Service Authorization (―RSA‖) vouchers, (T. 758, 759), As the summer approached the parent realized that she had not been provided with RSA vouchers to allow the child to receive , , and during the summer. She made a number of telephone calls to the DOE that went unanswered. (Parents‘ Ex. Y). At some point, Ms. , advised her that the RSAs would not be provided and that, if she wanted the child to receive summer services, she would have to file an impartial hearing request. (Parents‘ Ex. X; T. 763). The mother wrote to the Chairperson of the CSE seeking assistance. (T. 759-760; Parents‘ Ex. X). The DOE did not respond. (T. 757) The parent obtained summer services for the child on their own (Parents‘ Ex. P, Q) In December 2010, the DOE claimed that it did not have to provide the child with the summer services that it recommended for her because her parents did not accept the IEP in its‘ entirety prior to July 2010. (T. 23, 57-65, 67, 96, 97, 169-170).
In addition, the IEP recommended that the child receive transportation services. (DOE Ex. 1.1) In the Fall of 2011, the mother to the DOE several times requesting that Hearing Officer‘s the child receive transportation services to and from . (Parents‘ Exs.E,F,G,H, I) The parents provided a doctor‘s note substantiating their request for transportation services of limited duration. Due to the child‘s epilepsy, she could not travel more than 45 minutes in each direction. Id. The DOE did not provide the child with the requested transportation services for the 2010-2011 school year.
The parent testified that the CSE stated that a deferral to CBST was not an option because the child was not disabled enough. (T. 632-633). Ms. testified that a deferral to CBST was the most restrictive environment that is utilized when a public school cannot meet the child‘s needs such as where the child is or has problems. (T. 143). She testified that Ms. explained this to the parents at the CSE meeting. Ms further testified that the CSE recommended a ten-month program with twelve-months of related services to commence during the summer of 2010. The summer services included . and . (T.138 )
In June 2010, the parents received the proposed placement, (DOE Ex. 9, Parents‘ K, L). They immediately sought more information. (Parent‘s Ex. L). The DOE did not respond to that request. (T. 766). The parents contacted to arrange a school visit. The parents and a representative of visited where they saw the classroom that the child would attend in September 2010. (T. 767). Upon viewing the classroom and , the parents did not believe that was an appropriate placement for the child. (T. 646-649; Parents‘ Ex. K).
The parent thought that the environment at was chaotic. ( T. 647-649). She observed that the hallways were cluttered with newspapers and books, and was worried that given the child‘s deficits in gross skills it would be impossible for the child to negotiate her way around . (T. 647-649, 768-774). Upon being led to what they were told would be the child‘s classroom, the parent saw half the students standing in the hallway, unsupervised, near a group of older children who were and . (T. 768-774). The teacher, Ms. , and her paraprofessional, whom the parent was advised was ―untrained‖ (T. 772), were in the classroom with the remainder of the children. (T. 647). The mother communicated her concerns about the recommended Hearing Officer‘s placement to the DOE (Parents‘ Ex. K), but she testified that she received no response. (
T. 776).
Ms. testified that she could have implemented the goals on the child‘s IEP, understood them, did not find them overly broad and found them measurable. (T. 326-334 , 389). Sarah , was the class teacher at for the class where the student would have been assigned. (T. 561). She testified that there was a seat available the first day of class, as there were only 11 students in the class at this time. (T. 273). She testified that she had seven years of experience as a DOE education teacher. (T. 267-270). She had a mandated paraprofessional, who has a school degree and at least one-year of experience (T. 277). The mandated para‘s role is to assist the children academically and and . (T.280). She had four additional para-professionals in the classroom assigned to various children. ( T. 276-278). One was a crisis para to manage an child who wanders. She had to stay with him all of the time. (T.361) Two paras were assigned to assist two children and was a health para to assist a child with . (T.362) They some interaction with other children including prompting, guiding, redirecting and supporting students as well as assisting in small-group instruction. (T. 279-283)
Ms. , as well as IEP Coordinator , explained how the required related services of , , therapy and would have been provided to the student. ( T. 320-326 & 563). Ms. stated that the child could be supervised on the stairs. (T. 336 ). She also testified that the student was similar to many of the students in the class academically, and . She also testified that although she has had no experience teaching a child with Syndrome, she believed that she could meet her needs, (T. 372) She did have experience teaching children who did not . She described her experience with getting children to by using visual cues, a reward system, modeling and exposure to . (T. 373,393-394) She also testified that she has been trained by a nurse to deal with children who have . (T.388 )
Ms. testified that the day is scheduled and routine, the students are with her and the 5 paraprofessionals when they are in her classroom. She is not present when Hearing Officer‘s the children go to other classrooms. During recess and lunch and s where she is not present, paraprofessionals and other related service providers (specifically and OT providers) may be present. (T. 340-342, 385-386).
Ms, testified that the child‘s IEP required management needs that she already follows such as utilizing multi- and small, functional group instruction, support, , prompting, positive rewards, etc. (T. pp. 294-307 & 319-320). Ms. testified that she and the related service providers at would and could have implemented the IEP.( T. 326-334).
, a supervisor at , testified that in January 2010, while attending , the child was not ing in school. She was using unsophisticated sign .The mother testified that the child may have stopped due to a EEG exam that she had which was very for her. She has not spoken in school since then except for occasional whispering. Her parent has hired a in selective to work with the child at home and in school. The child‘s teacher at as had no experience teaching a child with select . (T. 487) Ms. also testified that when the child transitions, she used to ― she would go limp and fall to the floor. She stated that since 2009, the incidents of has decreased.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Under the IDEA, a child with a disability is entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A). A FAPE includes education and related services designed to fulfill the unique needs of the student with a disability, and it is provided in conformity with a written IEP. 20 U.S.C. §1401(8).
A school district offers a FAPE "by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction" (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203). However, the "IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP" (Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 [2d Cir. 1998]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189). The statute ensures an "appropriate" education, "not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents" (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132, quoting Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d 563, 567 [2d Cir. 1989] [citations Hearing Officer‘s omitted]; see Grim, 346 F.3d at 379). Additionally, school districts are not required to "maximize" the potential of students with disabilities (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199; Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132). Nonetheless, a school district must provide "an IEP that is 'likely to produce progress, not regression,' and . . . affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere 'trivial advancement'" (Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195, quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130 [citations omitted]; see P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 118-19 [2d Cir. 2008]; Perricelli, 2007 WL 465211, at *15). The IEP must be "reasonably calculated to provide some 'meaningful' benefit" (Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 [2d Cir. 1997]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192). The student's recommended program must also be provided in the LRE (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.114[a][2][i], 300.116[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[cc], 200.6[a][1]; see Newington, 546 F.3d at 114; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 [2d Cir. 2007]; WalczakE.G. v. City Sch. Dist. of New RochellePatskin v. Bd. of Educ., 583 F. Supp. 2d 422, 428 [W.D.N.Y. 2008]).
The DOE may be required to pay for tuition at a unilateral placement in a private school where the DOE is found to have denied the student a FAPE. Burlington School Comm. V. Dep‘T of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (1985); Florence County School Dist. V. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993). If the DOE is found to have denied s a FAPE, the parent then bears the burden of proving that the unilateral placement chosen for the child is an appropriate placement and that the equities tip in their favor.
In this case, the DOE had the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence that it provided s with a FAPE. The first issue to be addressed is whether the CSE was properly constituted. The parent contends that it was not.
, the child‘s classroom teacher at and a education teacher attended and gave her input at the meeting. , a supervisor at also attended and gave input. (T.150-153, 158-159, 625-626.) Ms. , who is a educator employed by the DOE , attended the meeting. She has experience and knowledge necessary to plan and advise the CSE. ( T.116 & 122-131). That is all that is required. [
20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B); NY CLS Educ. §4402(1)(b)(1)(a); 8 NYCRR 200.3(a)(1)], See App. NYC Dept. of Educ., Appeal No. 11-040 (SRO). (Finding that failure of the CSE Hearing Officer‘s education teacher to be the student‘s teacher is not a procedural violation, and further that if it were, inclusion of a student‘s then-current teacher does not make it a substantive violation).
Similarly, Ms. was an appropriate District Representative. She has experience and knowledge of what the DOE offers on the Continuum of Services.( T. 122-131,186-187). Thus, she was an appropriate district representative.[ 8 NYCRR 200.3(a)(1)].
The Parent‘s contentions that the team pre-determined the program, did not properly consider the appropriate options and denied the parent participation in the meeting are not supported by the evidence . [DOE Ex. 10-3, 10-4, 10-5 , 10-7]. The CSE considered various options including a Disdtrict 75 school which was considered too restrictive. (DOE Ex. 1-12; T. 133-137, 144-147, 240-241). The placement recommendation was not predetermined. The CSE determined what it would recommend at the meeting. (T. 177-178). Moreover, the parent did not ask for a deferral to CBST or indicate disagreement with the program. (T. 143-144, 178, 243). Cindy , confirmed that the CSE elicited input from everyone at the meeting. In fact, the CSE took her suggestion that the IEP include 12 months of related services. (T. 625-626. 681, 683).
That the CSE did not create a program exactly in line with what was being proposed by the parent and the child‘s provider‘s does not deny the child a FAPE. A CSE team need not defer to all recommendations or desires by parents or providers, only listen to the input and have its own reasonable calculation of what can confer educational benefit. [Appeal 11-040, Supra, at 15].
The parents‘ contend that in developing the IEP, the DOE did not conduct or otherwise consider, inter alia, a complete processing analysis that had been recommended (Ex. O) and thus, the denied the child a FAPE. The assertion that the CSE did not have or consider sufficient evaluative materials is not supported by the evidence. As Ms. testified, the student‘s latest progress report from , a current classroom observation by Ms. , as well as the pre-school reports and the 2009 psychological evaluation, were all reviewed and used to evaluate the student. ( T.112-113, 131; DOE Exs. 3 – 8). Although Ms. stated that the processing analysis Hearing Officer‘s it would have been helpful, (T. 204), this was an annual review. (T.110; DOE Ex. 1-1). As such, there are no mandated documents or evaluations, which the DOE must consider. [ 8 NYCRR 200.4 (b)(4) &(5); See, In Re: Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 10-099 at p. 13 (Finding that progress reports, observation and teacher estimate are appropriate evaluative material for annual reviews and that formal re-evaluation is not necessary at such reviews); In Re: Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 09-137 at. FN 9 (explaining reevaluation of students need be every three years or upon parental request, what documents must be present, and not requiring this be done on a yearly basis)].
The CSE must have adequate information to understand, describe and plan or a student‘s needs over the school year. The IEP contains the child‘s present level of performance given to the CSE by her teachers at . (DOE Ex.[1] .3) The evidence does not support the parent‘s contention that teacher estimates in such annual review are inadequate. Though the evidence showed that the child was too young for standardized assessments, the CSE had adequate information to understand the student‘s needs, deficits and abilities. Ms. discussed the basis for the educational programming in the IEP academically, functionally, / and developmentally including the input from the child‘s teacher at the meeting (T. 150-153, 155-157 ,and 199-200).
The parents‘ claim that the IEP lacked the required information is also not supported by the evidence. An IEP must include: I) present levels of academic achievement and functional performance and…the individual needs of the student; ii) ‗individual needs of the student‘ includes management needs that enable the student to benefit from instruction; iii) disability classification iv) measurable annual goals…consistent with the students needs and abilities; v) education goals and services; and vi) contains statements of program recommendation. [8 NYCRR 200.4(d)(2)(I)-(vi)]. Here, the IEP contains all of the required information including measurable annual goals, which Ms. testified that she could implement. (DOE Ex
Hearing Officer‘s , supports a finding that the placement would have provide the child with an opportunity to derive an educational benefit and not regress. In fact, the report from and from 2009 does not refute this evidence. They recommended a small, structured, based therapeutic classroom1 with related services. He did not specify the class ratio. (DOE Ex. 4.4) further testified that in a community school was the , which is what the DOE is obligated to provide.
Ms ‘s testified that the program will offer the child a multi approach, a small class comprised of children with similar needs, a modified curriculum, and small groups working with a teachers‘s assistant supports the conclusion that the recommended program was the . Moreover, in that setting, the child would have had an opportunity to spend time with typically developing children like the child had at .
As to the placement of the child at , the evidence shows that the parent visited the school on only one occasion. On that day, the children in the class were headed out for a class trip and were not all together. Some were in the hall and some were in the classroom. The parent‘s description of the class as chaotic on that day was apparently not a typical day. The teacher described her classroom as structured and stated that there are five paras in the room with her everyday. She testified that she would have been able to implement the goals on the IEP and assess the child‘s progress. It is true that she never taught a child with but she has taught children whose performance level was similar and some who did not . She testified that she has taught such children to using incentives which is more than the providers have been able to do. In addition, the parents have provided the child with a selective at home and in school. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the could not have continued to work with the child at .
With respect to the child‘s tendency to during transitions, the teacher at was not trained in coping with deadweighting but learned how to help this child so that now her episodes of deadweighting have decreased considerably. There is nothing
1
testimony that she did not consider a classroom was no0t contracdicted at the hearing. Hearing Officer‘s in the record to indicate that Ms. together with the help of five paras in the classroom would have been unable to cope with the child during such transitions or of she deadweighted. Indeed, the reports from the child‘s related service providers do not even mention this issue as a concern. (DOE‘s Exs.6,7,8)
Ms. could have also adequately tended to the child were she to suffer a . She testified that she has had experience with children who suffer from and has been trained by a nurse on how to help with them. There was a health para in the classroom who also could have assisted her.
Finally, contrary to the DOE‘s claim that an IEP must be accepted in full for the parent to receive any of the mandated services, the Commissioner‘s Regulations governing the provision of education and related services to children with disabilities specifically state that a school district may not use a parent‘s refusal to consent to one service or activity to deny a disabled child any other services or benefits.
[8 N.Y.C.R.R. §200.5(b)(2)]. Further, for approximately 24 years, since at least 1987, the United States Department of Education (―USDOE‖) has advised school districts that they may not withhold services from a child with a disability by giving parents the choice of accepting all of the school district‘s recommendations, even those with which they disagree, or having the child receive no services. Instead, the USDOE has long advised school districts that they must implement those parts of a student‘s IEP with which they and the parents agree while the disputed issues are resolved through other means, such as mediation or due process. Letter to Winston, 213 IDELR 102 (OSEP 1987). The parties and all of the witnesses testifying for the DOE concur that the child required related services during the summer. Accordingly, the District should have provided the child with the mandated related services set forth in her IEP during the summer of 2010. Its‘ refusal to do so entitles the parent to equitable relief in the form of reimbursement for services procured by the parents. Moreover, the parents‘ claim for transportation services should also be compensated in some way. The DOE‘s argument thatis not respoinsiblbe to provide such services is not supported by the regulations or SRO decisions. N.Y.Educ. Law Section 4402(4)(d) requires that children with a disability, even those who attend non-public schools, must be provided with transportation services provided that the Hearing Officer‘s school is within 50 miles of the child‘s home as is the case here. [Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-073] Here, the parent requested such services multiple times during the school year and provided the appropriate medical documentation for the request. The DOE did not provide it to the child.
Since it has been determined that the DOE provided the child with FAPE (except for the summer of 2010 and transportation services), it is not necessary to discuss the appropriateness of the parents‘ unilateral placement of the child at or whether the equities tip in favor of the parent.
Ordered that:
1) The DOE shall reimburse the parent for the cost of the related services which the parent obtained for the child during the summer of 2010-2011 in the amounts of $ for therapy (Parents‘ Ex. P) and $ for (Parents‘ Ex. Q)
immediately upon receipt of the this Order. In addition, the DOE shall reimburse the parent for any additional related services costs incurred for , or which they provided to the child during the summer of 2010-2011 at their own expense upon proof of payment for those services to the DOE.
2) The DOE must also reimburse the parent for the cost of transportation services incurred during the 2010-2011 school year immediately upon proof of payment for such services.
3) The parents‘ request for tuition reimbursement for the 2010-2011 school year for is denied. Dated: August 12, 2011 Corrected Date: August 15, 2011 (Incorrect body to the decision)
JUDITH T. KRAMER, ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer JTK;gc:jj Hearing Officer‘s
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
Within 35 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the Department of Education has a right to appeal the decision to the State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
“The notice of intention to seek review shall be served upon the school district not less than 10 days before service of a copy of the petition for review upon such school district, and within 25 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. The petition for review shall be served upon the school district within 35 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. If the decision has been served by mail upon petitioner, the date of mailing and the four days subsequent thereto shall be excluded in computing the 25- or 35-day period.”
(8NYCRR279.2[b]) Failure to file the notice of intention to seek review is a waiver of the right to appeal this decision.
Directions and sample forms for filing an appeal are included with this decision. Directions and forms can also be found in the Office of State Review website: www.sro.nysed.gov/appeals.htm.
Hearing Officer‘s
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD
PARENT
A Impartial hearing Request and Proof of Transmission, 10/6/10, 14 pp. B Letter Motion with Attachments and proof of Transmission, 12/6/10, 19 pp. C E-Mail Correspondence, 10/14/10 and 10/15/10, 2 pp. D Letter from , 10/12/10, 4 pp. E E-Mail Correspondence Regarding Transportation, 11/22/10-12/13/10, 5 pp. F Facisimile Regarding Transportation, 11/22/10, 2 pp. G E-Mail to Regarding Transportation with Attachments, 11/1/10, 7 pp. H Letter to with Proof of Transmission, 10/29/10, 7 pp. I Letter to with Proof of Transmission, 9/21/10, 3 pp. J Letter to with Proof of Transmission, 8/16/10, 4 pp. K Letter to , 7/1/10, 4 pp. L Letter to , 6/21/10, 3 pp. M Progress Report, 11/2010, 18 pp. N Cumulative Skills Based Progress Report, 2009-2010, 27 pp. O l Evaluation, 1/7/09, 1/24/09, 2/7/09 and 3/28/09, 8 pp. P Invoice, 7/30/10, 1 p. Q Therapist Invoice, 7/7/10-9/28/10, 1 p. R Enrollment Contract, 2010-2011, 2 pp. S Affidavit Reflecting Payment, 12/10/10, 1 p. T Cancelled Checks, Various Dates, 4 pp. U Center Brochure, Undated, 2 pp. V Center Program Description, 1/2009, 4 pp. W Fax to , 3/8/10, 3 pp. X Fax to , 6/9/10, 4 p. Y Letter to , 6/1/10, 1 p. Z BNS ( ) Class Profile, 2 pp. AA Description of the Brooklyn , 1 p. BB Center Progress Reports, 3/2011, 21 pp.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION\
1 IEP, 3/5/10, 14 pp. 2 CSE Review Minutes, 3/5/10, 2 pp. 3 Center School Progress Report, 11/2009, 15 pp. 4 Evaluation, 1/17/09, 1/24/09, 2/7/09 and 2/28/089, 5 pp. 5 History from New York , 1/16/09, 2 pp. 6 and Report from New York ,
1/30/089, 5 pp. 7 Report from New York , 1/29/09, 2 pp. 8 Update from New York , 1/15/09, 3 pp. Hearing Officer‘s
9 Final Notice of recommendation/Placement Officer, 6/28/10, 1 p. 10 Due Process Complaint, 10/6/10, 8 pp. 11 Due Process Response, 10/15/10, 5 pp. 12 Educational Progress Report from New York League Early ,
1/30/09, 4 pp. 13 Classroom Observation, 11/10/09, 1 p. 14 DOE Response to the Parents‘ Motion, 12/15/10, 5 pp.
Footnotes
[1] Moreover, Ms stated that the classroom teacher can adapt the goals on the IEP. The second issue is whether the child was provided with an appropriate program, services and placement. First, with regard to the appropriateness of the program, the testimony from the school (the only who testified), Ms.