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: April 27, 2012
May 29, 2012
May 31, 2012
Actual Record Closed Date: June 7, 2012
Hearing Officer: Jean Marie Brescia, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL 27, 2012
Mother, via telephone, District Representative, via telephone
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL MAY 29, 2012
Mother — Student
District Representative — DOE
DR., Psychologist (Via Telephone) — DOE
Assistant Principal (Via Telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL MAY 31, 2012
Parents
Director (Via Telephone) — Student
Director of Student Services, — DOE
On April 4, 2012, I was designated as impartial hearing officer, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (―IDEA‖), 20 U.S.C. §1415(f), in the matter of . The parents requested the hearing on April 3 alleging that the services recommended in ’s Individualized Education Program had not been provided and seeking (1) immediate commencement of the services and (2) ―private tutoring to make up for the missed days.‖
The resolution period concluded on April 20 with a partial resolution agreement. A pre-hearing conference was conducted on April 27 (IHO Ex. I). 1 At the conference, the School District Representative and the parent indicated that on April 17 had been placed in the special education class recommended in his IEP. The parent wished to pursue her claim for tutoring.
The hearing request was amended on April 30. The parent stated that she wished to ―add to [her] initial request‖ the following claims: (1) the IEP as written was ―poorly written, confusing, and contradictory;‖ (2) the IEP did not address ’s because it does not include ―multiple learning styles‖ to address ’s reading and math delays; (3) the IEP did not include research-based interventions; and (4) the IEP did not set forth a plan to raise ’s performance to the fifth grade level because had repeated two grades and should be in grade, rather than the grade in which he is currently enrolled. The parent sought a private school placement and private tutoring. The parent specified that she was seeking 480 to 500 hours (IHO Ex. II; trans. 17).
The second resolution period terminated on May 2 upon the parties’ waiver of the remainder of the resolution period. The parent obtained an evaluation of at Learning Processes (―LMB‖) on May 16 (Parent’s Ex. A). The hearing was conducted on May 29 and May 31. Appended to the record are the names of the persons who appeared at the hearing and a list of the documents entered into evidence.
The original compliance date of June 18 was not extended. The record closed on June 7 (and the parties were so informed by the hearing officer) upon receipt by the hearing officer of the transcript.
This summary of the pre-hearing conference was forwarded to the parties and entered into the record.
in Brooklyn. His disability is classified, for the purpose of the IDEA, as . This classification is not in dispute. was placed in the special education class recommended in his IEP on April 17.
In her hearing requests and at the prehearing conference, the parent did not challenge the appropriateness of the special class program for . At the hearing, the parent acknowledged that she was not challenging the special class program (trans. 15).
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following facts relevant to this decision are not in dispute. attended kindergarten in a public school in . When the family moved to , he attended first, second, repeated second, and third grades in public school in Queens. The family returned to Brooklyn, and entered in September 2011 (trans. 69). He is now repeating third grade at (see Department Ex. 14).
By letter dated November 14, 2011 and addressed to the school principal, the parent requested that be evaluated to determine his eligibility for special education because has repeated third grade and the parent was ―concerned about his progress and development‖ (Department Ex. 12; trans. 109-110). The parent handed this letter to ’s classroom teacher on November 14 (trans. 110, 200-201). On or about January 3, 2012, the parent received a telephone call from the social worker at asking her to come in to the school to sign a form indicating her consent for an evaluation of . The parent went to and signed the form (which is dated January 3) on January 3 (Department Ex. 13; trans. 202-205).
Dr. , a certified school psychologist assigned to , conducted a educational evaluation of on February 8 (Department Ex. 6; trans. 33-34). cooperated with the testing and expressed his enjoyment of math and his frustration with reading and writing tasks (Department Ex. 6; trans. 39). obtained the following percentile and grade equivalent scores on the WIAT-III: early reading skills, , g.e.; word reading, , g.e.; pseudoword decoding, , g.e.; reading comprehension, , g.e.; math problem solving, g.e.; numerical operations, , g.e.; sentence composition, , g.e.; alphabet writing fluency, , g.e.; and spelling, , g.e. On the WISC-IV, attained the following scores: verbal comprehension index, (borderline range); perceptual reasoning index, ( ); working memory index, ( ); processing speed index, ( ); and a full scale I.Q. of ( ). Dr. noted that ’s ―nonverbal reasoning skills are relatively stronger than his verbal reasoning skills, with significance at the . level. This discrepancy renders his Full Scale IQ as meaningless. Evidence of higher potential is manifested in his Perceptual Reasoning Index results‖ (Department Ex. 6 at p. 2).
A classroom observation was conducted on February 28 (the same day as the CSE meeting) (Department Ex. 5). The evaluator noted that did not focus on his work, which, at the time, involved a writing task. He
The CSE convened on February 28 and created an IEP for (Department Ex. 4). The parent attended this meeting with Dr. (as district representative and school psychologist), a special education teacher, Ms. ( ’s general education teacher), and a social worker. The CSE recommended that ’s disability be classified as learning disabled and that he attend a special class and be mainstreamed for math. Dr. explained how s special education needs would be addressed in the self-contained class through the small setting with fewer distractions, information broken down and taught at a slower pace, modified instruction, and more individualized attention from the special education teacher (trans. 58-59). The CSE had the following evaluative material available at the meeting: a medical examination (provided by the parent), Dr. ’s educational evaluation, a social history and a classroom observation (Department Ex. 5; trans. 54-57). ’s teacher provided input on his school performance (trans. 55).
The IEP notes that scored at below grade level in reading and at a grade level in math on school-based reading assessments in December 2011 (trans. 100). The IEP also summarizes the results of Dr. ’s evaluation and states that ― ’s academic needs, at this time, warrant a full time small class setting with mainstreaming for math‖ (Department Ex. 4 at p. 2). Dr. explained for the parent at the hearing the significance of the discrepancies in ’s I.Q. scores and the inappropriateness of using ’s full scale I.Q. score to understand his abilities (trans. 44-48). The IEP notes that is well-behaved and ―does not present with any in class‖ (Department Ex. 4 at p. 2). The IEP states that ―would benefit from a multi-modal teaching approach, pre-taught content vocabulary, use of graphic organizers, having tasks broken down, refocusing, and motivat[ation] to work on tasks perceived as difficult‖ (Department Ex. 4 at p. 3).
The IEP includes goals in the areas of reading comprehension (understanding text through the third grade level; understanding characters and sequencing through the third grade level); reading decoding (decoding through the level); writing; math computation (multiplication and division through the level); and math concepts (fractions and geometry through a level). was to receive the testing accommodation of ―time and a half‖ on citywide and state examinations (Department Ex. 4 at pp. 4-5, 7).
The parent signed a ―Final Notice of Recommendation: Initial‖ consenting to the 12:1 special class on April 16 (Department Ex. 7). The top of this form is dated March
15. The parent testified that she signed a form at the CSE meeting which she believed was for to attend the program (trans. 144). School personnel informed her that they were not sure there was ―any space‖ for in a class and would contact her when ―there is space‖ and ―it’s time to move him‖ (trans. 144, 218, 219-220). School personnel informed her that there might not be room for in a class until September 2012 (trans. 219-220). She was not contacted about s move to the class (trans. 144-145). Since she was not contacted, she requested the impartial hearing (trans. 220). Once the parent requested the hearing, she was contacted by school personnel, and she went to the school to sign the Final Notice of Recommendation on April 16 (trans. 145-146, 218-219). was placed in the class at on April 17.
, the assistant principal of , testified that the teachers at the school implement research-based programs in reading and math, including for reading, Everyday Math, Math Steps, online reading intervention programs (IStation and Ticket to Read), and an instructional computer software program for third graders in reading and math (Success Maker) (trans. 70-76).
A Pearson reading assessment administered on May 11 found that was reading at a grade level (based on National Assessment of Educational Progress descriptions) (Department Ex. 8 at p. 1). The math assessment administered on the same date found ’s ability to perform math operations to be at a grade level (Department Ex. 8 at p. 2).
As of the time of the hearing, had not been mainstreamed for math as specified in his IEP (trans. 80).
was evaluated at on May 16 (Parent’s Ex. A; trans. 171-172). attained the following scores on the following testing instruments: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – IV, , grade equivalent; Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude – mental age; Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude/Word Opposites, mental age; Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (word attack), , grade equivalent; Slossen Oral Reading Test, , grade equivalent; WRAT (spelling), , grade equivalent; WRAT (math computation), , grade equivalent; GORT (paragraph reading), grade equivalent; GORT (rate), , grade equivalent; GORT (accuracy), below the grade equivalent; GORT (fluency), below the , grade equivalent; and GORT (comprehension), , grade equivalent.
, the center director of the , prepared a brief report stating that the ―diagnostic learning evaluation indicates that will benefit from intervention to develop his language and literacy skills‖ and recommended that receive 200 to 240 hours of tutoring in reading decoding and reading comprehension (Parent’s Ex. A; trans. 178). Mr. described the program as a multisensory reading decoding and comprehension program focusing on phonemic awareness and sequencing, word attack, and language and concept comprehension (trans. 166-168, 185, 190-193). has a ―strong and steady success rate for students with ‖ (trans. 170-171). The evaluation of indicated that ―struggles‖ with both decoding and sight words and, in particular, with tying phonemic awareness to word symbols (trans. 172-176). monitors students’ progress on a weekly basis (trans. 179-180). He recommended that instruction be provided four hours per day, five days per week during the summer and two hours per day after school during the school year (trans. 178). charges $119.00 per hour for such one-to-one tutoring (trans. 18).
was absent 14 days and late 54 times during the fall 2011 semester; in the spring 2011 semester, he was absent 31 days, but was not late on any days he attended; in the fall 2010 semester, he was absent 11 days and late two times (Department Ex. 15).
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S POSITION
The Department contended that ’s evaluation was completed within the required timeframes from the date of the parent’s request (trans. 34-35).
The Department contends that research-based programs are implemented at The Department argues that was placed in the class promptly upon the parent signing the ―Final Notice of Recommendation‖ on April 16. Dr. stated that she telephoned the parent at the end of April to discuss with the parent the parent’s concerns with the IEP; the parent did not return the telephone calls (trans. 40).
The Department also argues that ’s learning was impeded by his failure to attend school regularly and on time (trans. 206). The Department took the position that, if had missed instruction due to the delay in placing him in the class as per his IEP, the appropriate remedy would be one period per day of resource room/SETSS through the end of the 2011-2012 school year which could be provided at (trans. 20-21).
THE PARENT’S POSITION
The parent stated that she wanted to be performing at a level because he is eleven years of age (trans. 112). She explained that she wanted tutoring for because no one in the Department of Education had ―picked up that he has problems‖ learning during the time has been enrolled in school; she contended that if she had not requested the evaluation, ―nothing‖ would have happened (trans. 112-113). In his general education class, ―checks out‖ during classroom reading instruction and is ―not even trying at all‖ because he does not understand; he does participate during math instruction (trans. 127-128). The parent reported that since has been attending the class, he returns home from school and reports that ―they don’t do anything‖ (trans. 131).
The parent explained that was school because he experiences severe asthma which requires hospitalization, particularly in the winter. Each time he has been absent, she has provided school personnel with doctors’ notes (trans. 208, 211). She stated that during fall 2011 (the time period of the most latenesses), she had difficulties as a single parent getting her baby to daycare, then to school and then herself to work by public transportation by herself—resulting in arriving at at 8:30 to 8:45 A.M. for the 8:15 A.M. school day start (trans. 209-210). The parent has changed her schedule to bring to school before bringing the baby to daycare (trans. 217).
The parent visited and was impressed by the descriptions of how works with children with , particularly how the instructors break ―everything down‖ (trans. 114).
The Department submitted in evidence samples of ’s class work and tests from September 2011 through January 2012 (Department Exs. 10, 11). The parent testified that these documents were not representative of ’s school work and that the Department selected ’s ―best‖ work to present at the hearing (trans. 111). The parent also expressed disagreement with the contents of the IEP (trans. 139-140).
The parent reported that since she requested the impartial hearing, school personnel have made her and her sister uncomfortable when they are at the school (trans. 132, 142-143).
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
The central purposes of the IDEA are to ensure: (1) that students with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living and (2) that the rights of students with disabilities and their parents are protected. 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1)(A); Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 51 (2005); Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179-181 (1982). A free appropriate public education includes special education and related services designed to meet the student’s individual needs, provided in conformity with a written IEP. See 20 U.S.C. §1401(9); 20 U.S.C. §1414(d) (emphasis added).
A school district offers a student a free appropriate public education when (1) it complies with the procedural requirements of the IDEA and (2) its CSE develops an IEP reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits. Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson S.D. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-207 (1982). While school districts are required to comply with all procedures set forth in the IDEA, not all procedural errors result in an inadequate IEP. See, e.g., Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-121. If a procedural violation is alleged, a hearing officer may find that a student did not receive an appropriate special educational program only if the procedural inadequacy: (1) impeded the student’s right to a free appropriate public education; (2) ―significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decisionmaking process regarding the provision of a free appropriate education‖ to the student; or (3) ―caused a deprivation of educational benefits.‖ 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); see also Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-007. The school district bears the burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of the program recommended by its CSE.
A. The Parent’s Claim for Compensatory Services The parent is seeking compensatory services for in the form of tutoring for the alleged failure of the Department to provide with a timely placement in the program
recommended in the February 28 IEP.
Compensatory education is an equitable remedy that is tailored to meet the unique circumstances of each case. Wenger v. Canastota, 979 F. Supp. 147 (N.D.N.Y. 1997); Application of the New York City Department of Education, Appeal No. 11-004. Compensatory educational relief may be awarded to a student with a disability who remains eligible for services under the IDEA. Application of the New York City Department of Education, Appeal No. 11-132. Here in the Second Circuit, compensatory educational relief in the form of supplemental special education or related services has been awarded to such students if they have been denied a free appropriate public education. P. v. Newington Board of Education, 546 F. 3d 111, 123 (2nd Cir. 2008) (IDEA ―allows a hearing officer to fashion an appropriate remedy‖ and ―compensatory education is an available option . . . to make up for‖ a denial of a free appropriate public education‖). Compensatory ―additional services‖ have been awarded to students who remain eligible to attend school and have been denied appropriate services, ―if such deprivation of instruction could be remedied through the provision of additional services before the student becomes ineligible for instruction by reason of age or graduation.‖ Application of the New York City Department of Education, Appeal No. 11-132 at p. 19.
In this proceeding, determining whether or not is entitled to compensatory services requires an inquiry into whether the Department provided him with special educational programs and services in a timely manner. The Department contends that it conducted the evaluation in a timely manner. A parent may request that his or her child be evaluated to determine whether the child is eligible for special education programs and services. 8 N.Y.C.R.R. §200.4(a)(1)(i). Such a request must be in writing and state the reasons for the referral, any interventions used to remediate the student’s performance and the extent of parental contact. 8 N.Y.C.R.R. §200.4 (a)(2)(iii). There is no dispute in this proceeding that the parent’s November 14 request for an evaluation was a valid request and/or referral for an evaluation of and triggered the school district’s obligation to obtain consent form the parent for CSE personnel to evaluate . The parent clearly described the reasons she was requesting the evaluation; and the Department did not dispute nor present any evidence that the parent’s request for evaluation was somehow insufficient or that school personnel were unable to act upon her request for evaluation.
Upon receipt of the parent’s request, the school district was required to ―within 10 school days . . . request parent consent to initiate the evaluation.‖ 8 N.Y.C.R.R. §200.4(a)(2(iv). The ―date of receipt of a referral‖ is ―the date on which either the committee chairperson or the building administrator receives the referral, whichever is earlier.‖ 8 N.Y.C.R.R. §200.4(a)(3). In the event that parental consent is not obtained within 30 [calendar] days of the date of receipt of a referral, the CSE is required to document attempts to obtain parental consent for the evaluation. 8 N.Y.C.R.R. §200.4(a)(8). ―Consent‖ should have been requested from the parent by November 30. It was not obtained from the parent until January 3—more than 20 school days and 50 calendar days from November 14. Even allowing for a reasonable period of time (a few school days) for the parent’s letter to make its way to the school principal, this time period is beyond the 10 school days’ time period the school district is allowed to request consent. In addition, the school district did not document efforts to obtain parental consent. The evidence indicates that the first attempt to obtain the parent’s consent to evaluate was on or about January 3—the date the parent signed the consent. Furthermore, it is irrelevant that the winter break intervened between the parent’s request for an evaluation and the signing of the consent for the evaluation. See Letter to Reyes, 112 LRP 23105 (Office of Special Education Programs, April 11, 2012) (recognizing that ―conducting evaluation activities during extended breaks‖ such as school vacations, ―can be challenging for school districts;‖ however, an initial evaluation may ―not be unreasonably delayed so that eligible children with disabilities are not denied a FAPE‖). This delay in obtaining the parent’s consent rises to the level of a deprivation of a free appropriate public education because it impeded the ’s right to a free appropriate public education by delaying his evaluation and ―caused a deprivation of educational benefits‖ to him. See 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(3)(E)(ii).
An initial evaluation to determine if a student is eligible for special education ―must be completed within 60 days of receiving parental consent for the evaluation.‖ 8 N.Y.C.R.R. §200.4(b)(7). The regulations clearly state that for ―a student not previously identified as have a disability,‖ the school district must ―arrange for the appropriate special education programs and services to be provided to the student with a disability within 60 school days of the receipt of consent to evaluate.‖ 8 N.Y.C.R.R. §200.4(d); see also 8 N.Y.C.R.R. §200.4(e)(1). was not placed in the class until April 17; he has yet to be mainstreamed for math. Even assuming that the 60 day clock started to run on January 3, should have been enrolled in a class by April 4. In actuality, the clock should have started to run on or about the end of November 2011, when the Department should have sought and obtained the parent’s consent for the evaluation, and should have been placed in the class by March 9. See 8 N.Y.C.R.R. §200.4(e)(1)(i), 8 N.Y.C.R.R. §200.4(e)(7) (school districts are required to provide special education and related services ―in accordance with the student’s IEP‖ and ―there may be no delay in implementing a student’s IEP ‖). The evidence thus indicates that missed approximately five weeks of special educational programs and services as a result of delays in the evaluation and implementation process. He continues, since April 17, to be deprived of mainstreaming for math as mandated by his IEP.
There is no dispute that is below grade and age level in reading. Testing shows that he is functioning at a first to second grade level in reading.[3] The Department makes a compelling argument that ’s was impeded by his failure to attend school regularly and on time. If ’s attendance (due to his and the parent’s attempts to fulfill all her obligations as a parent) was , it should have been raised and discussed at the most recent IEP meeting and a plan implemented with the parent to address this issue. Furthermore, even though ’s , this did not absolve the Department of fulfilling its obligations to evaluate and provide services to .4
The Department proposes that—if compensatory services were to be provided to —one period per day of resource room/SETSS be provided to as a mechanism for remedying any deprivation of services may have experienced. This is a thoughtful proposal, but it could necessitate that miss desperately needed instruction in the special education class or in his mainstream math class.
As a result of the delays outlined above, the Department did not provide with the special educational programs and services to which he was entitled under the IDEA. Since the purpose of a compensatory educational services award is to remedy a denial of a free appropriate public education, such an award ―should aim to place the student in the position she would have been in had the district complied with its obligations.‖ Application of the New York City Department of Education, Appeal No. 11-132 at p. 19 (internal citations omitted). The evidence supports a finding that missed approximately five weeks of special education instruction and is still without the recommended mainstream math instruction. While a one-to-one correspondence of hours missed to hours compensated is not required in formulating a compensatory services remedy, the record does not support a compensatory remedy of the 200 to 240 hours of tutoring recommended by for the deprivation of a free appropriate public education to during this current school year. The record does, on the other hand, support 150 hours of tutoring at to address ’s reading deficits (five weeks times 30 hours per week). The parent is encouraged to have complete as many hours of this tutoring as possible before the beginning of fourth grade.
B. Parent’s Request for Private School Placement
A P-1 letter is an automatic remedy to which a student is entitled by operation of the Jose P. consent decree. In New York City, the remedy for a violation of the timeliness requirements of the IDEA is the issuance of a ―Nickerson‖ or P-1 letter pursuant to the settlement agreement in Jose P. See Jose P. v. Ambach, 553 IDELR 298 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 1982)[memorandum and order incorporating special master’s report]) (―parents of handicapped students who have requested special education services and have not received a placement recommendation within sixty days of referral for evaluation shall be permitted to enroll their children in appropriate programs conducted at nonpublic schools approved by the New York State Commissioner of Education‖); Jose
P. v. Ambach, Order dated July 8, 1982. The remedy provided by the Jose P. order is intended to address those situations in which a student has not been evaluated within 30 days or placed within 60 days of referral to the CSE. See, e.g., Application of the New York City Department of Education, Appeal No. 10-115. is such a student; as a result, the parent is automatically entitled to a P-1 letter permitting her to place at an approved non-public school at Department of Education expense.
Issuance of the P-1 letter does not provide or his parent with duplicative relief. A P-1 letter does not constitute ―compensatory services;‖ it is, as described above, an automatic and ―blanket‖ remedy for delays by the Department of Education in evaluating and placing eligible students. Compensatory education, on the other hand, is a remedy specifically tailored to provide a student with special education services to ―make up for‖ missed services. It is also important to note that the timeframes required by the Jose P. order are different than the timeframes in the regulations set forth in section A above. Moreover, compensatory services cannot remedy the continuing failure of the Department to mainstream for math as mandated by his IEP. Since the P-1 letter will be issued after March 15, the P-1 letter will be effective, as per the Jose P. order, through June 30, 2013.
C. Parent’s Challenges to the Content of the IEP The parent (in her amended hearing request) alleges that the IEP is poorly written and does not include methodologies and researched-based interventions to address ’s reading and math delays. Dr. explained the language in the IEP and the psychological evaluation which concerned the parent. Both Dr. and Ms. described the methodologies and research-based interventions that were provided at to address ’s special educational needs. An IEP is not required to set forth specific methodologies. ’s IEP does describe the interventions to address his needs: placement in a small special education class with mainstreaming for math, multi-sensory instruction, refocusing, and breaking down tasks. Dr. and Ms. explained how these interventions would address ’s needs. Furthermore, the parent is not challenging the placement in the program.
Planning a child’s special education program is a ―collaborative process‖ involving educators and the parent. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 51 (2005). The CSE should reconvene to consider ’s , and, if appropriate, formulate a plan to address these issues. At this meeting, the parent should raise any concerns she continues to have regarding the IEP and discuss those concerns with the CSE.
Therefore, for all the above reasons, it is ordered that:
1. The Department of Education shall immediately implement the recommendation that be mainstreamed for math as per his IEP.
2. The Department of Education shall pay for tutoring for at for 150 hours at the rate of $119.00 per hour. This tutoring shall be completed before December 31, 2012.
3. The Department of Education shall issue to the parent within five school days of receipt of this decision a P-1 letter.
4. The CSE shall reconvene within 21 days of receipt of this decision to consider ’s attendance and lateness, and, if appropriate, formulate a plan to address these issues. At this meeting, the parent shall raise any concerns she continues to have regarding the IEP. The CSE shall discuss and consider these concerns. Dated: June 13, 2012
______________________________
JEAN MARIE BRESCIA, ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer
JMB:gc
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
PARENT
A Report, 5/16/12, 4 pages
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
1.1 – 1.4 Request for Impartial Hearing, 4/3/12, 4 pages 2.1 - 2.2 Amended Request for Impartial Hearing, 4/24/12, 2 pages 3.1 – 3.3 Resolution Agreement, 4/20/12, 3 pages 4.1 – 4.12 IEP, 2/28/12, 12 pages 5.1 – 5.2 Classroom Observation, 2/28/12, 3 pages 6.1 – 6.3 Evaluation, 2/28/12, 3 pages 7.1 Final Notice of Recommendation: Initial, 3/15/12, 1 page 8.l – 8.2 Student Performance Pearson – Math and Reading, 5/4/12, 5/9/12, 2 pages 9.1 – 9.6 Skill Growth Report – Reading, 2011 – 2012 School Year, 6 pages 10.1 – 10.19 Student Sample Work – Reading, 2011 – 2012 School Year, 19 pages 11.1 -11.13 Student Sample Work – Math, 2011-2012 School year, 13 pages 12.1 Request for Evaluation from Parent, 11/14/11, 1 page 13.1 Signed Consent for Evaluation, 1/3/12, 1 page 14.1 – 14.2 Grade/Official Class History, 5/30/12, 2 pages 15.1 – 15.2 Attendance History Inquiry by Grade, 5/29/12, 2 pages
IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER
I Pre-Hearing Conference Summary, 4/27/12, 1 page II Email from Parent, 5/25/12, 1 page
Footnotes
[2] It is important to note that the parent did not raise any ―Child Find‖ allegations or any claims with respect to prior school years.
[3] The highest score he attained was on the May 11 assessment, on which he was found to be reading at a high second grade level. This is the highest reading score he has obtained. Dr. found to be reading at the mid to high first grade level. There is no evidence that ’s impeded the evaluation process at .