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: June 26, 2012 Actual Record Close Date: July 5, 2012 Hearing Officer: Mary Noe, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS APPEARING ON
For the Student:
For the Department of Education:
The parent requested an Impartial Hearing on April 16, 2012. I was appointed after hearing officer recusal on May 15, 2012. I contacted the parties on May 21, 2012 and the parties agreed to the following hearing dates: June 26 and June 28, 2012. The hearing was held on June 26, 2012. The second hearing date was cancelled. The parent’s attorney made a motion to extend the compliance date and it was granted. The parent was represented by , Esq. and the District was represented by . The student attended the hearing.
The student’s date of birth is June 25, 2003. He is classified as . He current attends in a general education class that has collaborative team teaching. The parent is challenging inter alia the classification. The parent believes the classification should be autistic. The last IEP dated March 2, 2012 recommends a special class in a twice a week for thirty minutes; , twice a week for thirty minutes and , once a week for thirty minutes. ((Exh. BB)
The IEP dated March 2, 2012 indicates the following: Present Levels of Performance and Individual Needs: Reading Program: Level 1 – Upper Level; Reading: Early Level; Math: Level; Nonverbal IQ – , Verbal IQ – , Adaptive Functioning, Communication Domain, Daily Living Skills, Socialization, Adaptive Behavior Composite – . (Exh. BB-1) Physical Development – the student has , . He takes . He is medically but is and like to play with friends. The IEP states that the parent would like the student to become , and more independent. (BB-2) Management Needs: “In the classroom, [the student] needs an adult or student buddy to keep him on task when he is in a group larger than 5. He needs to have smaller groupings and one on one time. He needs positive praise. He would also benefit from preferential seating; cues, and repetition of instruction.” (Exh. BB-2)
The recommendation program is for a class in a community school; speech and language therapy twice a week for thirty minutes; occupational therapy twice a week for thirty minutes and counseling once a week for thirty minutes. (Exh. BB-6, 7) “The student will participate in the same State and district-wide assessments of student achievement that are administered in general education students.” (Exh. BB-8)
“Testing Accommodations: double time, separate room with up to 12 students, mathematics test only and listening section, directions read and reread aloud.” (Exh. BB8)
The student had a private Comprehensive Psychological Evaluation on May 21, 2011 by Dr. and Ms. , M.S.Ed of – (Exh. R) The Evaluation articulates the student’s background including that the student’s mother stated that the student was diagnosed with . The background information includes that the student suffers from . The student is . The parent reported that the student exhibits . (Exh. R-1) The parent also told the evaluator that the student exhibits . (R-2) The evaluator notes in “CURRENT EVALUATION” that the student exhibited no difficulty separating from his mother and godmother, was cooperated and engage himself with all subtests of the tests administered to him. The student impressed as being in a good mood and engaged with the examiner in conversation. He made adequate eye contact through the testing session and asked how much longer the testing would take. His motivation and cooperation were sustained and the evaluation results should be considered a valid assessment of his cognitive abilities. Throughout the evaluation, the student impressed as attempting to perform to the best of his abilities. (R-2) The student scored a Full Scale , placing him within the . He had an between his Nonverbal and Verbal IQ scores which indicates in relation to his nonverbal abilities. He scored within on the Knowledge, Quantitative Reasoning and Visual-Spatial. He scored in the Borderline range on the Fluid Reasoning and Working Memory. As to the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales he scored in the low range on communication skills, daily living skills, socialization and adaptive behavior composite. (R-3) It was reported to the evaluator that the student is “…overly dependent, has eating difficulties, refuses to go to school, is or too easily, is sad for no clear reason, is his , has strange habits or ways, uses happening around him,…fearful of ordinary sounds, objects and situations…prefers to be alone, has sleep difficulties… , lies, is physically aggressive, wets himself, has a , …destroys someone else’s day due to his .” (Exh. R-4) The examiner in his CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS states that according to the parent the student was diagnosed with autism “this year.” The examiner repeats information provided to him by the parent. He provides the results of the IQ testing, . He states “[the student] presented as a cooperative individual who overall appeared as attempting to perform to the best of his abilities. Taken together, background information, test data, and behavioral observations are consistent with a .” (Exh. R-5)
RECOMMENDATIONS: “continued case management in order to obtain and maintain needed entitlements; referral to …for options for a weekend program, as per the request of [the student’s mother]; referral to for options for a parenting skills class, as per the request of [the student’s mother]; referral to for an age-and-developmentally appropriate summer camp, as per the request of [the student’s] mother; continue current school placement and provision of related services; continue current services.” (R-6)
The Comprehensive Psychosocial Evaluation date July 5, 2011 states the following: IDENTIFYING INFORMATION: “His receptive skills impressed as stronger than his expressive skills. [The student] appeared alert and appeared to have some understanding as to the nature and purposed of the interview. Information for this report was provided by [the student] and [the student’s parent}. According to an Evaluation dated 10/14/10…[the student] is diagnosed with ( ).” (Exh. S-1) Under : “He was also seen by a at . This is awaiting results of all evaluations before continuing to treat [the student].” (Exh. S-3)
RECOMMENDATIONS: “ , Medicaid Service Coordination, Saturday Respite, , Holiday Parent Support Group, Family Reimbursement, Weekend Recreation, Continue Current Services.” (Exh. S-4)
An was conducted by Dr. Heal, Clinical Laboratory and Dr. Research Scientist/Behavior Analyst on October 14, 2012. In the the following is noted: In the area of communication, [the student] used sentences in a largely correct fashion with …His speech was somewhat mechanical and he frequently exhibited repetition of certain words. {The student] offered information or facts in general but did not ask the examiner for her thoughts or experiences relative to the context. It was necessary for the examiner to provide specific probes in order to have [the student] provide an account of a rountine event, as he appeared to lose his train of thought. The reciprocal conversation leads provided by [the student] for the examiner to follow were less than the amount that would have been expected for [the student’s] level. {The student] gestures… Overall, [the student] scored in the on this scale.” (Exh. P-1) “Based upon the results of the , current clinical observation, parent report, history, and presentation of [the student’s] symptomatology, he presents with an autism spectrum disorder, specifically , Not Otherwise Specified ( ). To meet criteria for an , [the student] would have to exhibit a severe and pervasive impairment (in the development) of his communication, social interaction, and/or , interests or activities. All these criteria were observed and/or reported during the clinical visits.”
: “1. It is recommended that [the student] continue to receive the services he currently receives. 2. …it is recommended that [the student] receive an in-home intensive, applied behavior analysis intervention program for a minimum of 10 hours per week… 3. Parent training in the methodologies of applied is also recommended.” 4. …{The student} should be placed in a school setting that has a small teacher to student ratio as well as be taught by professionals who are familiar with individuals on the …(Exh. P-2-3)
The TEACHER COMMENTS dated January 25, 2012 indicated the following: “[The student] is below grade level in all realms. He is able to consistently decode… When he is prompted, he can give simple surface level answers to comprehension questions. When working one on one he can tell stories and thoughts clearly but benefits from scribing. {The student} is below grade level in all academic realms. His attention, memory and problem solving abilities prevent him from being able to certain new or transferable information. When he is unsure of something, he will get up from the group and walk to the bathroom, to get water, and/or to get a tissue. It takes [the student] many trials to retain small pieces of information needed to scaffold into bigger ideas. [The student] prefers visual, hands on and repetitive learning. [The student], when in small groups or individual, he is able to clearly verbalize his thoughts. He is a verbal child. He prefers to sit off to side, but in his peripheral. He gets along very well with others, but tends to without an adult to support group work. He quite a bit during lessons and tens to lessons. He becomes distracted. He is a very social well like boy. He can sometimes be too . Very . The larger the work group, the harder it is for [the student] to . He becomes by all of the environmental factors in the classroom.” (Exh. W 1 – 2)
In a Teacher Report dated December 11, 2009, the teacher notes that the student’s classroom behavior has show improvement, he is , he follows rules and routines more easily as he becomes , he has made progress with his peers and his interaction with adults is respectful and appropriate. The teacher notes that his interfere with his progress in all academic areas and his and he would benefit from a barrier free school. (Exh. K)
In Teachers Notes dated October 13, 2009, the teacher remarks “unable to stay on task and complete work. He requires constant supervision because he disturbs other children. He currently sits alone (by mother’s request and this is also the 3rd table he has been seated at. As to his physical condition the teacher notes that the doctors describes his condition as “persistent moderate asthma” he plays and runs at recess (he is reminded by the para to take it easy). The teacher also notes that the student allows his to and behavior in the classroom and the teacher makes a note that the student has poor . (Exh. 6)
In September 2009 there were two notes that the teacher sent home, one regarding constant talking and making noises and the other about at his table and spitting at a girl. (Exh. C)
In a letter from a doctor (unknown name) from Beth Israel dated November 13, 2009, the letter states that the student has a significant and needs a class in a barrier free school due to the students . (Exh. I)
In the student’s First Grade Report Card 2009 – 2010 as of November 2009 in the Development, the teacher noted that he shows respect for adults most of the time, he sometimes 1) shows respect for peers, 2) demonstrates self-control, 3) assumes responsibility for 1) listens well to others, uses appropriate 2) language and expresses thoughts clearly, 3) peacefully.
The student’s Third Grade Report Card 2011 – 2012 issued in November 2011 indicates that he is far below grade level standards in the following: independently reads and comprehends grade-appropriate literature, uses reading strategies taught in class to make meaning, understand and can identify story elements, responds in writing to literature in meaningful ways, engages in independent silent reading for extended periods of time, retains and applies information throughout the course of the unit, in math in most all areas, in writing, applies writing strategies and craft lessons, writes with an understanding of genre, organizes writing effectively, edits for correct spelling, grammar and punctuation. (Exh. U- 1, 2, 3)
In an undated Note from there is the following information, the student in a small group or individual is able to , he is a verbal child, he needs to be to minimize distractions, he gets along very well with others, he and tends to play with very small objects, he becomes distracted, he is a . (Exh. W)
The principal of the student’s school, Ms. testified that the student is very mild mannered, he can be a little anxious and , but largely, he is , needs constant redirection. He's not disruptive, and he doesn't present any whatsoever that we have evidence of in school. (T. 21) Ms. testified at the IEP meeting on March 2, 2012 the parent agreed with at program but was requesting a more restrictive environment in a special school in a private setting. (T. 29, 30) The principal stated that at the IEP meeting the parent talked about her inability to manage him, that he got at home, that he was contrary, that he was physical, he was getting too big for her to be able to manage him, but the principal did not see any of those . (T. 30, 31) The student has conversations and appropriately acts with his peers. (T. 33)
, special education teacher at has been the student’s teacher for the past two years, for 2nd and 3rd grade. (T. 34) The student is currently in a class of 28 students.
(T. 45) As to the student’s academic, the student “shines” when he is with a small group. His reading has improved over the last two years. It started to stalemate, but it's because he was in a bigger group. He's able to tell you his story. In terms of math, he's very behind. (T. 35) The student is much better in listening speaking as compared to reading speaking or reading writing. He is very easily distractible (T. 37) He needs a lot of prompting in terms of classwork. (T. 40) He's very passive. He's very laid back, loveable. He will come over to you and tell you that he's having a great day or just checking in on you. He's super, actually, in terms of behavior. (T. 39) Ms. believes the student would receive an appropriate education in a class of 12:1:1. (T. 42 – 45) Ms. testified that she adjusted some of the student’s IEP goals. (T. 50) She stated that she has never seen a temper tantrum from the student in two years. (T.67) Ms. believes that I think he needs a smaller setting with less distractions because within those small groups, he is absolutely capable of the would fit his needs. (T. 76 – 77)
, therapist testified that the student’s strengths in terms of his language would be more of his expressive language. He has a great vocabulary and he learns works very quickly and is able to use them appropriately. (T. 81 – 82) The would be more of his mostly due to a lot of times his inability to maintain focus for longer periods of time. He needs to be redirected to the task so that we know that he's and able to comprehend whatever information is being provided for him. (T. 82) The student has made some progress but it is difficult for him to stay focused in class. (T. 83) Ms. believes it would be beneficial for to be in a smaller class to help him really be able to focus on the skills that he needs because there are less children. (T. 86) Ms. testified that she believes the therapy twice a week in a group are appropriate for the student and assistive technology is unnecessary. (T. 92, 93)
, school psychologist testified that the team felt that the student was making progress and that the team also felt that in a smaller group, the student would continue to make progress, and his progress would be greater than it had been because in a smaller group, there would be more attention to him. The teachers would be able to focus more on his academic delays and his . (T. 166, 167) Ms. testified all classifications are considered, and what we felt was the best classification for the student that fit him as a student was other health impairment. (T. 132)
The Parent testified to the following behaviors at home: up, takes the my . (T. 141, 142) I requested my son should go to the school immediately, which was October 14, 2010, gave these papers in so he can classified as autistic. (T. 143)
DISCUSSION
1. The first issue is the student’s classification. The parent believes he should be classified as autism as compared to other health inpaired. A classification requires:
"a developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal communication and social interaction, generally evident before age 3, that adversely affects a student's educational performance. Other characteristics often associated are engagement in and , resistance to environmental change or change in daily routines, and unusual responses to experiences.
The term does not apply if the student's educational performance is adversely affected primarily because the student has an emotional disturbance . . . A student who manifests the characteristics of after age 3 could be diagnosed as having autism if the criteria in this paragraph are otherwise satisfied" (34 C.F.R. § 300.7[c][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[zz][1]).
OTHER HEALTH IMPAIRED
[H]aving limited strength, vitality or alertness, including a heightened alertness to environmental stimuli, that results in limited alertness with respect to the educational environment, that is due to chronic or acute health problems, including but not limited to a heart condition, tuberculosis, rheumatic fever, nephritis, asthma, sickle cell anemia, hemophilia, epilepsy, lead poisoning, leukemia, diabetes, attention deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or tourette syndrome, which adversely affects a student's educational performance. 200.1 zz (10)
20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A). 34 C.F.R. § 300.7(c)(9).
In the dated October 14, 2012 conducted by Dr. , Heal, Clinical Psycholinguistics Laboratory and Dr. Gomez, Research Scientist/Behavior Analyst their diagnosis was not otherwise specified ( ). A private Comprehensive Psychological Evaluation on May 21, 2011 and a Comprehensive Evaluation date July 5, 2011 does not independently find such a diagnosis but rather refers to the autism evaluation. None of the evaluators testified and therefore there was no opportunity to ask questions regarding their reports or the testing that was conducted. A medical doctor’s letter dated November 13, 2009 indicates that the student has a learning disability. (Exh. I)
In all the teacher’s notes and report cards there are no behaviors consistent with the statute’s definition of . (Exh. C, G, J, K, U, W)
The parent reports to the evaluators of the Psychological Evaluation and Evaluation are inconsistent with the teacher’s reports.about the student’s behaviors. (Exh. R, S)
The student attended the hearing which lasted approximately three hours and there were two five to ten minute breaks. The student played with a small hand held video game for the entire hearing. He was not was extremely quiet.
An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student's needs (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]; Tarlowe v. Dep't of Educ., 2008 WL 2736027, at *6 [S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2008]), establishes annual goals related to those needs (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]), and provides for the use of appropriate special education services (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][4]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]; see Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 07-018; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-059; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 06-029; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-046; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-014; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-095. An evaluation of a student with a disability must use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information about the student, including information provided by the parent, that may assist in determining, among other things the content of the student's IEP (20 U.S.C. § 1414[b][2][A]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.304[b][1][ii]; see Letter to Clarke, 48 IDELR 77 [OSEP 2007]). In particular, a district must rely on technically sound instruments that may assess the relative contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors, in addition to physical or developmental factors (20 U.S.C. § 1414[b][2][C]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.304[b][3]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[b][6][x]). A district must ensure that a student is appropriately assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, where appropriate, social and emotional status (20 U.S.C. § 1414[b][3][B]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.304[c][4]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[b][6][vii]), and evaluation of a student must be sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the student's special education and related services needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in which the student has been classified (34 C.F.R. § 300.304[c][6]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[b][6][ix]; see Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 07-018). A district must conduct an evaluation of a student where the educational or related services needs of a student warrant a reevaluation or if the student's parent or teacher requests a reevaluation (34 C.F.R. § 300.303[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[b][4]); however, a district need not conduct a reevaluation more frequently than once per year unless the parent and the district otherwise agree (34 C.F.R. § 300.303[b][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[b][4]). A CSE may direct that additional evaluations or assessments be conducted in order to appropriately assess the student in all areas related to the suspected disabilities (8 NYCRR 200.4[b][3]).
However, contrary to the parent's allegation that the CSE failed to conduct its own evaluations, a CSE is not required to use its own evaluations in the preparation of an IEP and in the recommendation of an appropriate program for a student and is not precluded from relying upon privately obtained evaluative information in lieu of conducting its own evaluation (M.H. v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 2011 WL 609880, at *9 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2011]; Mackey v. Board of Educ., 373 F. Supp. 2d 292, 299 [S.D.N.Y. 2005]; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 10-025; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 10-004; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02098; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal , Appeal No. 07-139; , Appeal No. 06-087. No. 01-040; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 96-87); Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Handicapping Condition, Appeal No. 9212; see also Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 98-80). In addition, as part of a CSE's review of a student, a CSE must consider any private evaluation report submitted to it by a parent provided the private evaluation meets the school district's criteria (34 C.F.R. § 300.502[c][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[g][1][vi][a]). Although a CSE is required to consider reports from privately retained experts, it is not required to follow their recommendations (see, e.g., Watson v. Kingston City Sch. Dist., 325 F. Supp. 2d 141, 145 [N.D.N.Y. 2004]; see also Pascoe v. Washingtonville Cent. Sch. Dist., 1998 WL 684583 at *6 [S.D.N.Y. Sept. 29, 1998]; Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d 563, 567 [2d Cir. 1989]; Application of a Child with a DisabilityApplication of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability
I find that the evidence supports the conclusion that the CSE considered the results of the private evaluations and evaluative data provided to it by the parents. (see T.S. v. Bd. of Educ., 10 F.3d 87, 89-90 [2d Cir. 1993]). Furthermore, based on all the documents and testimony provided, I find that the district’s classification is correct.
The second issue is whether the district provided the student with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. Two purposes of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) are (1) to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE 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) to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities and parents of such students are protected (20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]-[B]; see generally Forest Grove v. T.A., 129 S. Ct. 2484, 2491 [2009]; Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 [1982]).
A district has an affirmative obligation to offer an eligible student a FAPE (20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]; Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 51 [2005]; Rowley, 458 U.S. at 180-81). A FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]). While school districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures, not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (A.C. v. Bd. of Educ., 553 F.3d 165, 172 [2d Cir. 2009]; Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003]; Perricelli v. Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 465211, at *10 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2007]). 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 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 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).
I find that the district has provided an academic program that meets the individual needs of the student however they have failed to provide a barrier free school. The student suffers from severe asthma as reported by his treating physician who recommends a barrier free school. (Exh. I) The student’s teacher also recommended a barrier free school. (Exh. K)
The parent has requested parent training, individual counseling, twelve month program, ten hours of home based , sensory gym, a para-professional, and a lower student to teacher ratio. The parent’s attorney called the parent as a witness and no other witnesses. I find that the evidence submitted does not support any of the requests in the parent’s complaint. Therefore, the parent’s request is denied and the district is ordered to provide the recommended program in a barrier free school.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parent’s requests are denied and the district provide the program recommended in the IEP dated March 2, 2012 in a barrier free school. Dated: July 10, 2012
__________________________
MARY NOE, ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer
MN:jj
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 IEP, 4/11/08, 10 pp. B IEP, 4/8/09, 12 pp. C Notes from Teacher, 9/15/09-9/22/09, 1 p. D Reading Screening, 9/25/09, 1 p. E Results, 10/5/09, 1 p. F Teacher Request for Assessment for Adaptive Physical Education, 10/8/09, 1 p. G Notes from the Teacher, 10/13/09, 3 pp. H Request for Reevaluation, 10/13/09, 1 p. I Doctor Letter, 11/13/09, 1 p. J 1st Grade Report Card, November 2009, 3 pp. K Teacher Report, 12/11/09, 2 pp. L Signed Consent to Evaluate, 12/11/09, 1 p. M Assessment, 1/14/10, 3 pp. N Questionnaire for School Counselor, 2/12/10, 4 pp. O IEP, 2/25/10, 15 pp. P Autism Evaluation, 10/14/10, 3 pp. Q IEP, 2/18/11, 20 pp. R Comprehensive Evaluation, 5/21/11, 6 pp. S Comprehensive Evaluation, 7/5/11, 4 pp. T Consultation Notes, 10/21/11, 3 pp. U 3rd Grade Report Card, November 2011, 3 pp. V Therapy Review, 12/7/11, 2 pp. W Teacher's Comments, 1/25/12, 2 pp. X Recommendation for Reevaluation, 1/15/12, 1 p. Y Signed Consent to Evaluate, 1/25/12, 1 p. Z Student Progress Report, 3/1/12, 2 pp. AA Test of Gross Motor Development, March 2012, 4 pp. BB IEP, March 2012, 13 pp. CC Request for a Due Process, 4/16/12, 7 pp.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
2 IEP Documents in SESIS, Undated, 1 p. 6 Adaptive Physical Education Assessment, 3/1/12, 3 pp. 13 Letter to Parent, 2/1/12