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: October 12, 2011
December 8, 2011
Record Close Date: January 10, 2012
Hearing Officer: .
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON OCTOBER 12, 2011
Attorney — Student
Parents
District Representing — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON DECEMBER 8, 2011
ESQ., Attorney — Student
Parents
Site Director, School (via telephone) — Student
Transition Director, School (via telephone) — Student
Chairperson Designee — DOE
INTRODUCTION
This hearing was requested on 9/15/11 by the parent, (“PARENT”), of the student (“STUDENT”). The hearing was requested, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C §1415(f) and 1412(a)(10)(c), §504 of the Rehabilitation Act (504) and the United States Supreme Court decisions Burlington School Committee v. Department of Education, et. al., 736 F.2d 773 (1st Cir. 1984, aff'd at 471 U.S. 359, 105 S. Ct. 1996, 556 IDELR 389 (1985) (BURLINGTON) and Florence County School District v. Shannon Carter, et. al., 510 U.S. 7, 114 S. Ct. 361 (1993) (“CARTER”), to have the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (“DOE”) pay prospective tuition to the (“ ”) from July 5, 2011 through June 30, 2012, including reimbursement of monies paid to date and any payments made in the future; door to door limited time travel special education transportation for STUDENT to ; and costs and fees.
I was appointed to hear the matter by the Department of Education of the City of New York DOE and a hearing was scheduled for October 12, 2011.
On October 12, 2011, the hearing took place pursuant to IDEA at 20 U.S.C. §1415(f) and pursuant to §504. At that time , representing the DOE stated that it was conceding prong one, that the DOE did not offer a Free Appropriate Public Education Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) and that it was requesting an adjournment to "seek a resolution without litigation". Tr. P 6. A second hearing was held on December 8, 2011. The record was initially closed on December 29, 2011. However, due to a delay in the preparation and receipt of the transcripts the actual closing date was changed to January 10, 2012. Appended to the record are lists of the persons in attendance and the documents received in evidence.
BACKGROUND
STUDENT is years old, in the grade for the 2011-2012 school year. He has been diagnosed with an disorder. He also . He takes for . Since the recent . Exhibit B-5.
As the DOE conceded prong one in the October 12, 2011 hearing--that it did not offer STUDENT a FAPE, the discussion at the second hearing on December 8, 2011 shifted to whether the PARENT'S selection of was appropriate and whether the equities favored the PARENT.
On STUDENT'S 5/13/11 IEP, STUDENT was classified with . Recommended services were deferred to and were to include related services, special education transportation (limited travel time), adaptive phys. ed. and assistive technology. Exhibit B-1. He was recommended for a 12 month school year. Tr. P. 6.
POSITION OF THE PARTIES
DOE
In regard to whether meets the standard of appropriateness under prong two, the DOE believes as indicated in its closing brief, that it fails to do so as it is too restrictive of a program for STUDENT who needs to expand his retinue of self-sufficiency and independence; it did not provide STUDENT with all the services PARENT claims STUDENT needs to receive FAPE; and it is not a New York State approved nonpublic school. Further, in regard to the equities of prong 3, PARENT failed to exhaust all of their administrative remedies and failed to send a timely 10 day notice of unilateral placement required under the regulations.
PARENT
The PARENT, as indicated in its closing brief, held the following positions.
The DOE failed to offer a FAPE as indicated by its concession on the record. STUDENT is mandated for a 12-month school year which begins in July 2011 and ends in June 2012.
A determination of appropriateness of a unilateral placement is made by considering whether the placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits and likely to produce progress, not regression. The test for whether a parent’s placement is appropriate is “not perfection”. Rather the inquiry must focus on whether the placement is an appropriate school designed to address the child’s special education needs.
The fact that the placement chosen by the PARENT is not in a school approved by the New York State Education Department is not dispositive in an award of reimbursement to the parent. PARENT'S unilateral placement will be reimbursable even if the placement is not in the child’s least restrictive environment. The Supreme Court held that a child need not have ever attended a public school order for parents to be eligible for special education services and tuition reimbursement when the District fails to offer FAPE. A private school placement does not have to conform to an IEP and thus does not have to provide the related services recommended therein. Parents "need not show that a private placement furnishes every special service necessary to maximize their child’s potential.”; Parents are not barred from reimbursement where a private school they choose does not meet the IDEA definition of a FAPE as defined by 20 U.S. section 1401(9). An appropriate private placement need not meet state education standards or requirements. PARENTS may not be subject to the same mainstreaming requirements as a school board.
Reimbursement merely requires a district to belatedly pay expenses it should have paid all along and would have borne in the first instance had it developed a proper IEP.
The equities are in favor of the PARENT as it cooperated with the DOE at all times in the creation of the IEP.
ISSUES ADDRESSED AT THE HEARING
Was the STUDENT offered a FAPE? Was the PARENT'S placement of the STUDENT appropriate? What other services, if any, should be provided. In whose favor were the equities in the case.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Legal Framework and Standard The I.D.E.A.
The I.D.E.A. mandates that participating States provide students with disabilities FAPE. FAPE requires special education and related services tailored to meet the unique needs of a particular student and reasonably calculated to enable a student to receive educational benefits. Board of Education v. Rowley, 102 S. Ct. 3034, 3037-38 (1982). The law expresses a strong preference for students to be educated to the maximum extent appropriate with non-disabled peers and requires that students be segregated only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes cannot be achieved satisfactorily. Walczak v. Florida Union Free School Dist4rict, 142 F.3rd 119 (2nd Cir. 1998).
The particular educational needs of a student with a disability and the services required to meet the needs must be set forth annually in a written IEP which states present levels of performance, annual goals, specific services to meet those goals, the extent to which the student will participate in regular education, transition services needed for when a student leaves a school setting, the initiation date and duration of services, and objective criteria for determining whether goals and objectives are being achieved. Walzcak, supra at 122.
Parents play a significant role in the IEP process. They must be informed about and consent to evaluations and have the right to an independent educational evaluation of their child. They are members of the IEP team. (Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S. Ct. 528532 (2005). Moreover, parents' participation at IEP meetings must be meaningful. Deal v. Hamilton County Board of Education, 392 F. 3d, 840, 853 (6th Cir. 2005). Parents must also be given prior written notice of any changes to the IEP and notice of procedural safeguards, including the right to an impartial due process hearing. Schaffer, supra 126
S. Ct. at 532.
Adequate compliance with the procedures prescribed by the IDEA will in most cases satisfy what is required substantively in an IEP. Schaffer, supra 126 S. Ct. at 532 citing Rowley at 206; M.S. v. Board of Education of the City School Districts of Yonkers, 231 F. 3rd 96, 102 (2d Cir, 2000). Following Schaffer, the New York State legislature enacted Chapter 583 of the Laws of 2007 (Chapter 583) which provides that the school district bears the burden of proof with respect to the appropriateness of its recommendation.
When determining the appropriateness of a school district IEP recommendation, Congress now requires that hearing officer render a decision on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the child received FAPE. Where a procedural violation is alleged, the hearing officer may find that a child did not receive FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies impeded the child's right to FAPE, significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in the decision making process regarding the provision of FAPE, or caused a deprivation of educational benefits. 20 U.S.C. section 1415 (f)(2)(E).
A board of education may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private educational services obtained for a student by his or her part, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected the parent were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parent's claim. (CARTER). In CARTER, the Court found that Congress intended retroactive reimbursement to parents by school officials, as an available remedy in a proper case under IDEA. "Reimbursement merely requires (a district) to belatedly pay expenses that it should have paid all along, and would have borne in the first instance had it developed a proper IEP." CARTER at 370-71. 504 Legal Standard
504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794[a]) states: "No otherwise qualified individual with a disability…shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."
As a threshold matter a person is protected under 504 if he or she is qualified person with a disability. A qualified person with a disability is one who has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities. 29 U.S.C. 705(20)(B); 42 U.S.C. 1202(2).
To demonstrate disability it must be shown that the person suffers from a physical or mental impairment, has identified an activity claimed to be impaired and establish that it is a "major life activity", and show that person's impairment substantially limits the major life activity identified. Colwell v. Suffolk County Police Dept. 158 F 3rd 635, 641 (2d Cir. 1998).
With respect to the provision of educational services, 504 requires recipients of federal funds to provide disabled students with a FAPE (34 C.F.R. 104.33(a). FAPE is defined similar to FAPE defined in I.D.E.A. regulations (34 C.F.R. 300.17) as the provision of regular or special education and related services that are designed to meet individual needs of handicapped persons as adequately as the needs of non-handicapped persons are met, 34 C.F.R. 104.33(b); Scruggs v. Meriden Bd. Of Educ., 2007 WL 2318851 at pg. 9 (D. Conn. August 10, 2007). However, the requirement for an IEP under the I.D.E.A. in order to provide FAPE is not required for FAPE under 504.
A party asserting claim of disability discrimination under 504 must demonstrate the student is disabled, the student is otherwise qualified to participate in school activities, the school receives federal financial assistance, and the student was excluded from participation. 504 requires a demonstration that the School District acted with bad faith or gross misjudgment. Intentional discrimination may be inferred when a school district acts with gross negligence or reckless indifference in depriving a child of access to FAPE. See Gabel ex rel L.G. v. Bd. Of Edcu. 368 F. Supp. 2d 313, 334-336 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); see also, Scaggs v. New York State Department of Education, 2007 WL 1456221 at p. 16-17 (E.D.N.Y. May 16, 2007). Parents of a child alleging disability discrimination by a school district pursuant to 504 bear the burden of proof. Rothschild v. Grottenthaler, 907 F. 2d. 286 (2d Cir. 1990).
Findings of Fact
Prong One
I find that the record shows that DOE conceded prong 1 in that it did not offer the STUDENT a FAPE. Prong Two
Accordingly the next step is to determine whether the PARENT'S placement was appropriate under the guidelines. The Burden of Proof is now on the PARENT to demonstrate that the placement is appropriate.
There has been testimony and evidence presented that provides individualized instruction tailored to meet STUDENT'S unique special education needs. Although it is not necessary to show progress for a determination of appropriateness of parent’s placement, here there is evidence indicating that STUDENT has made significant academic and and gains at during the current school year. There was testimony from the Site Director of , as well as on director. That offers an individualized program for children with disorders (Tr. 24-5, 82).
The school is housed in a building with floors, which include classrooms, a cafeteria, related service rooms, a gymnasium, a computer lab and a quiet room (Tr. 3032). The “quiet room” serves as a place where children can go if they are over-stimulated and need a quiet place to regain their composure (Tr. 32). staff, including teachers, related service providers, and teaching assistants are all certified (Tr. 31, 45, 64). Teachers and staff engage in professional development at the school and outside workshops (Tr. 33). methodologies include (“ ”) and Collaborative Problem Solving (“CPS”) (Tr. 25-6, 90-1). The program is individualized to the needs of each student (Tr. 27, 118-9). Teachers and related service providers work collaboratively so that there is consistency in addressing challenging behaviors (Tr. 36-7, 77, 102). Every student has a (“ ”) to identify and strategies used to address them and this hasgreatly benefited STUDENT (Tr. 29-30, 102). uses a lot of functional academics as well as social skills building with their students to prepare them for life and career development (Tr. 28-9). STUDENT is in the program, which is an ungraded individualized program for children with disorder (Tr. 24). The program is based on a curriculum Functional Academic Curriculum or Exceptional Students (“ ”) (Tr. 61-2). Students in the program have a daily communication log between school and home (Tr. 34). STUDENT is an class with a certified teacher and teaching assistant (Tr. 63). STUDENT has been diagnosed with Disorder (Exh. B-5) STUDENT receives related services, which include , and from licensed providers (Tr. Exh. I, 39, 40-1). He also participates in adaptive physical education (Tr.86). STUDENT is a whose challenges include , , frustration in and (Tr. 35-, 77). Academically, STUDENT is working between a level (Tr. 67). In the classroom, STUDENT is given and (Tr. 73). Individualized goals were developed for STUDENT for the 2011-12 school year (July 2011-June 2012) and he is making significant and steady progress in all areas (Exhs. G, I, S). He is and has developed life skills (Tr. 46). STUDENT has also made significant academic progress, including to comprehend in reading (Tr. 69), ability to write more (Tr. 71-2), and in math, the ability to understand time and money concepts is greatly improved (Tr. 73-4). Progress is tracked in a binder and discussed at school team meetings (Tr. 91). STUDENT has made a lot of (Tr. 78). STUDENTvolunteers as part of the program. He goes out into the community to develop job skills (Tr. 92-3, 110). STUDENT has made great strides in improving his distractibility and is producing great work (Tr. 94). His progress is tracked through worksheets (Exh. L). schedule changes within the school day are purposeful and have helped STUDENT become more flexible to change (Tr. 89-90). Lunchtime is also used as a way to teach (Tr. 97-8). STUDENT'S are addressed with the availability of a in the classroom to help him concentrate (Tr. 105). Technology is used in the classroom to address poor handwriting and transition difficulties (Tr. 105- 6). Parent testified as well, noting that STUDENT is making a lot of progress in the area of academics, including math and reading and independent functioning, and he attributes this to the work done at (Tr. 141-5).
The PARENT presented proof of his income through an IRS Individual Income Tax Return Form 1040 for 2010, the last tax year (Exh. P). The parent’s adjusted gross income is $ The PARENT indicated hecannot afford the tuition of $ to and is seeking prospective funding.
The DOE did not call any witnesses at either hearing. The DOE states on its closing brief that it believes that when determining whether the parent’s unilateral placement is appropriate, “ultimately, the issue turns on whether the placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. Frank G. v. Bd. Of Education, 459 F.3d 356 (2d Cir. 2006) (FRANK G.); Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2007) (GAGLIARDO). The Second Circuit has set forth standards for determining whether PARENT/S have carried their burden of proving the appropriateness of their chosen placement. Although no one factor is controlling as to whether the parent's unilateral placement meets this standard, factors such as grades, test scores and regular advancement may constitute evidence that a child is receiving an educational benefit. Courts assessing the propriety of a unilateral placement should consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the placement reasonably serves a child’s individual needs. Part of this includes showing that the chosen placement provides educational instruction designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction. (GAGLIARDO) In this case, the DOE submits that the parent has not met this burden.
The DOE asserts in its closing brief that the record established that is a small . Although it is uncontested that STUDENT requires a classroom, the DOE asserts that the of any opportunity to interact with general education students fails to promote instructing STUDENT in the least restrictive environment. It is conceded that no law requires private schools to adhere to this edict; however, it goes to the appropriateness of the educational setting. DOE indicates that STUDENT should be educated in a less restrictive environment than a school where the only students he has the chance to interact with are severely disabled ones.
The DOE also asserts that there was no testimony demonstrating that the program at is specifically tailored to meet the unique needs of the STUDENT. In Application of a Child With a Disability, Appeal No. 08-013 the SRO denied tuition reimbursement for a private school where the hearing record failed to “…specifically indicate how the program and services provided are specially designed to meet the student’s unique needs…”. Prong Three
The DOE claims in its closing brief that the record shows that the equities do not support the PARENT'S claim. Exhaustion begins at an IEP meeting: (Ellenburg v. New Mexico Military Institute, 47 IDELR 153, 47F.3rd 1262 (10th Cir. 2007) (ELLENBURG) Since exhaustion begins at the IEP meeting, the parent has a duty to raise any and all objections to the IEP or meeting there and then when necessary.
Here, the parent claims that there are deficiencies with the composition of the July 28, 2010 IEP team meeting yet did not raise any concerns at the time of the IEP meeting.
The parent failed to issue a valid and timely 10 day notice of unilateral placement as is required pursuant to the regulations. Specifically, 34 C.F.R. §300.148[d] outlines that the cost of reimbursement can be reduced or denied (1) If-
(i) At the most recent IEP Team meeting that the parent attended prior to the removal of the child (ii) From public school, the parent did not inform the IEP Team that they were rejecting the placement proposed by the public agency to provide FAPE to their child in a private school at public expense; or (iii) At least ten (10) business days (including any holidays that occur on a business day) prior to the removal of the child from the public school, the parent did not give written notice to the public agency of the information described in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section.
The PARENT'S purported 10 day notice of unilateral placement is not timely since it is dated August 2, 2011 and STUDENT started at in February 2011 (see District's Exh. F-2). The parent produced a document entitled "Parental Guarantee of Tuition," (Parent's Ex. M-1) which clearly shows enrollment at beginning July 5, 2011 for the (11-12) school year. The PARENT thus did not give the DOE timely notice of unilateral placement in violation of the Federal Regulation referenced above and applicable to this case. The child was placed at long before the IEP of May 13, 2011. The SRO has ruled on this issue in numerous cases including the recent decision in Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 11-015 wherein the parent did not give adequate notice to the school district. The SRO in that case annulled the IHO's finding that the equities favored the parent since the parent failed to satisfy the notice requirements. If the equities do not favor the parent, as is the case here then the request for tuition reimbursement can be reduced or denied (SW v. NYCBOE 07 Civ. 9812). Equitable considerations may not support an award of tuition reimbursement where parent has failed to cooperate with a school district or has otherwise frustrated a district's attempt to offer a FAPE (See Bettinger, 2007 WL 4208560 in SRO No. 11-131). The DOE asserts that the record does not support a finding that the equities favor the parent since they failed to comply with 34 C.F.R. §300.148[d](1) and thus a finding that they are entitled to full tuition reimbursement would be in opposition to the law.
Normally the burden of persuasion lies with the party seeking relief. However, the Schaffer Court held that the “ordinary rule, of course, admits of exceptions. The burden of persuasion as to certain elements of a plaintiff’s claim may be shifted to the defendants, when such elements can be fairly characterized as defenses or exemptions”. Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S.Ct. 528(2005). Therefore, if the District pleads parental cooperation as an affirmative defense for failing to offer a FAPE, it is the District that bears the burden of proof. Here, there is no Answer in evidence and therefore no such defense has been plead. The board of education or trustees of the school district or the state agency responsible for providing education to students with disabilities shall have the burden of proof, including the burden of persuasion and burden of production, in any such impartial hearing, except that a parent or person in parental relation seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral parental placement shall have the burden of persuasion and burden of production [only] on the appropriateness of such placement. NY Educ. Law §4404(1)(c).
Therefore, it is the DOE who has the burden on Prong III relating to equities. Additionally, Equitable Considerations are clearly set out in N.R. on behalf of T.R., 07 Cv. 9648 (BSJ), March 31, 2009. The Court held that reimbursement is denied on equitable grounds only when a parent frustrates the public education authorities’ ability to provide a FAPE. The District has not offer any evidence that would support a contention that the PARENT interfered with the Districts’ ability to offer a FAPE to their child. Therefore, there are no equity-based issues. The PARENT has fully cooperated with the DOE in all respects and there has been no evidence whatsoever to the contrary.
CONCLUSIONS
As prong one was conceded by the DOE, the next issue is in regard to the appropriateness of the program selected by the parent.
The DOE contends that 's program is too restrictive and that it fails to promote instruction in the least restrictive environment. It concedes that no law requires private school to adhere to the requirement but that the issue goes to the appropriateness of the educational setting. The PARENT cites the FRANK G Second Circuit case which provides that the parent's unilateral placement will be reimbursable even if the placement is not in the child's least restrictive environment. Also that parents may not be subject to the same mainstreaming requirements as a school board. (CARTER).
The DOE contends that the placement is not appropriate because it did not provide STUDENT with all the services that the PARENT claims STUDENT requires in order to receive a FAPE.
PARENT asserts, citing CARTER, that it is well settled that a private school placement does not have to conform to an IEP and thus does not have to provide the related services recommended therein. PARENT also cites FRANK G in that parents "need not show that a private placement furnishes every special service necessary to maximize their child's potential."
DOE states that is not a New York State approved nonpublic school. PARENT replies that the fact that placement is not in a New York State Education Department approved school is not dispositive in an award of reimbursement to the parent (CARTER).
The DOE argues that the ultimate issue of appropriateness is whether the placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits (FRANK G). Although no one factor is controlling factors such as grades, test scores and regular advancement may constitute evidence that the child is receiving an educational benefit. The DOE argues that the ultimate issue of appropriateness is whether the placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits (FRANK G). Finally the DOE contends that there was no testimony demonstrating that the program at is specifically tailored to meet the unique needs of the STUDENT.
PARENT claims that appropriateness considers whether the placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits and likely to produce progress and not regression (FRANK G). The test is "not perfection" but whether the program addresses the child's special education needs (GAGLIARDO). Parent indicates that the record shows that STUDENT has made significant academic and social/emotional and behavioral gains at during the current school year.
The third prong is the issue of equities. The DOE asserts that PARENT failed to exhaust all of their administrative remedies. They also failed to send a timely 10 day notice of unilateral placement required under the regulations.
PARENT states that there is no evidence in the record that PARENT has been anything but cooperative and that the Court in N.R on behalf of T.R., o7 Cv. 9648 (BSJ), March, 2009 that reimbursement may be denied on equitable grounds only when a parent frustrates the public education authorities' ability to provide a FAPE and that there is no evidence to support the contention that PARENT interfered with DOE's ability to offer a FAPE.
In light of the above I find the following conclusions of fact:
PARENT, in a unilateral placement does not have to place the child in the least restrictive environment. PARENT is not subject to the same mainstreaming requirements as a school board.
PARENT'S unilateral placement does not have to conform to an IEP and thus does not have to provide the related services recommended therein. PARENT does not have to show that a private placement furnishes every special service necessary to maximize their child's potential.
The fact that placement is not in a New York State Education Department approved school is not dispositive in an award of reimbursement to the parent.
As to whether the placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits and whether the program at is specifically tailored to meet the unique needs of the STUDENT, I find the issue to be whether the placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits and likely to produce progress and not regression. The test is "not perfection". I find that the record shows that STUDENT has made significant academic and and gains at during the current school year.
As to the equities, I find that there is no evidence in the record that PARENT has not been cooperative. As reimbursement may be denied on equitable grounds only when a parent frustrates the public education authorities' ability to provide a FAPE and there is no evidence to support the contention that PARENT interfered with DOE's ability to offer a FAPE, I find the equities to be in the PARENT'S favor.
Accordingly, I find that STUDENT was denied FAPE for the 2011-12 school year; that the program offered by is appropriate and able to meet STUDENT'S special education needs for the 2011-12 school year; that the parent has cooperated with the DOE as required and that the equities weigh in his favor.
ORDER
The DOE, therefore, shall provide prospective funding for for the 2011-2012 school year beginning July 2011 and ending June 2012 in the total amount of $ the DOE shall reimburse all monies laid out by PARENT towards tuition for already paid by PARENT for the 2011-12 school year; and door to door limited time travel special education transportation for STUDENT to . Dated: February 7, 2012
_________________________________
Impartial Hearing Request
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
Within 35 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the New York City 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.
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON DECEMBER 8, 2011
PARENT
A Hearing Request, 9/15/11, 6 pages B IEP, 5/13/11, 10 pages C Academic Annual Review, , 5/12/11, 3 pages D Annual Review, , 3/10/11, 2 pages E Annual Review, , 4/15/11, 2 pages F Transition Annual Review, , 4/18/11, 2 pages G Progress Report for Annual Goals, , 2011/2012, 13 pages H Report Card, Academy, 2011/2012, 1 page J Assessments and Protocol, , 9/23/11 to 11/3/11, 17 pages K Projected Annual Lesson Plans, , 2011/2012, 3 pages L Job Coaching Worksheet, , 11/21/11, 4 pages M Parental Guarantee of Tuition, 6/28/11, 2 pages N Affidavit of Tuition, 10/14/11, 1 page O Parent Proof of Payment, 8/12/11, 1 page P Parent Tax Return, 2010, 2 pages Q Parent Correspondence to CSE with Proof of Mailing, 6/28/11, 3 pages R Parent Correspondences to CSE with Proof of Mailing, 8/20/11, 4 pages S 2010/2011 Progress Report for IEP Goals, , 5 pages T CSE Meeting Minutes, 5/13/11, 3 Pages U , 9/12/11, 2 pages
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
None