New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number:

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District:

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Date of Hearing: November 27, 2013

Actual Record Closed Date: November 27, 2013

Hearing Officer: Daniel Ajello, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON NOVEMBER 27,

2013

, ATTORNEY

For the Department of Education:

, DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE

INTRODUCTION

On October 01, 2013, I was appointed the Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) by the Department of Education’s Impartial Hearing Office to conduct an impartial hearing pursuant to the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1415(f) and Article 89 of the Education Law of the State of New York.

On November 27, 2013 an impartial hearing was completed.

Appended to the record are lists of persons in attendance and the documents received in evidence.

I note that the student was formerly known as as indicated in documents and presented at hearing by the parties.

BACKGROUND

The student is currently old female student, with a disability classification of , currently attending a New York State Approved Non Public Day School, with related services of Counseling, and receiving a 12 month program. (Ex T-1, T 3 & T6-7)

Student was recommended to a New York State Approved Non Public Day School at the Individualized Education Plan (IEP) meeting of 07/16/2013. (T-9)

IEP notes that the student requires a “more structured program and 24/7 supervision”. (Ex T-10)

Department of Education (DOE) Assurance Checklist, dated 07/17/2013, indicates the appropriate setting for the student is Residential. (Ex J -2)

DOE documentation indicates residential services are necessary to meet educational needs of the student. (T K-2)

THE PARENT’S POSITION

, attorney, presented the parent position as reflected in the hearing request. (Ex A)

IEP meeting took place on July 16, 2013. Parent has not received a placement offer for the 2013-2014 school year and proposes a resolution by Order of a DOE issued P-1 or Nickerson Letter, to allow the student to attend a New York State Approved Non Public School, at public expense. (Ex A)

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION POSITION

DOE representative presented no evidence and did not present any placement offer, or evidence opposing the parent position. DOE does confirm the matter was referred to the Central Based Support Team (CBST) for placement.

APPLICABLE STANDARDS

Two purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) are (1) to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a free and appropriate public education (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 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 Individualized Education Program (IEP) developed by its Committees on Special Education (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]). Under the IDEA, if a procedural violation is alleged, an administrative officer may find that a student did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a) impeded the student's right to a FAPE, (b) significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student, or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 CFR 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 525-26 [2007]; A.H. v. Dep't of Educ., 2010 WL 3242234, at *2 [2d Cir. Aug. 16, 2010]; E.H. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 3930028, at *7 [N.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2008]; Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 471 F. Supp. 2d 415, 419 [S.D.N.Y. 2007] aff'd, 2008 WL 3852180 [2d Cir. Aug. 19, 2008]).

The IDEA directs that, in general, an IHO's decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][i]). 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 at 132). Nonetheless, a school district must provide "an IEP that is 'likely to produce progress, not regression,' and . . . affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere 'trivial advancement'" (Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195, quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130 [citations omitted]; see P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 118-19 [2d Cir. 2008]; Perricelli, 2007 WL 465211, at *15). The IEP must be "reasonably calculated to provide some 'meaningful' benefit" (Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 [2d Cir. 1997]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192). The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE) (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 CFR 300.114[a][2][i], 300.116[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[cc], 200.6[a][1]; see Newington, 546 F.3d at 114; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 [2d Cir. 2007]; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132; E.G. v. City Sch. Dist. of New Rochelle, 606 F. Supp. 2d 384, 388 [S.D.N.Y. 2009]; Patskin v. Bd. of Educ., 583 F. Supp. 2d 422, 428 [W.D.N.Y. 2008]).

An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that includes a statement of the student's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (see 34 CFR 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] [noting that a CSE must consider, among other things, the "results of the initial evaluation or most recent evaluation" of the student, as well as the "'academic, developmental, and functional needs'" of the student), establishes annual goals designed to meet the student's needs resulting from the student's disability enabling him or her to make progress in the general education curriculum (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][2][i], [2][i][A]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]), and provides for the use of appropriate special education services (see 34 CFR 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; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 93-9).

The burden of proof is on the school district during an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement (Educ. Law § 4404[1][c]; see M.P.G. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2010 WL 3398256, at *7 [S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2010]).

A "Nickerson letter" is a remedy for a systemic denial of FAPE that was imposed by the U.S. District Court based upon a class action lawsuit, and this remedy is available to parents and students who are class members in accordance with the terms of a consent order (see R.E. v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 785 F.Supp.2d 28, 44 [S.D.N.Y. 2011]). The Nickerson letter remedy authorizes a parent to immediately place the student in an appropriate special education program in a State-approved nonpublic school at no cost to the parent (see Jose P. v. Ambach, 553 IDELR 298, No. 79 Civ. 270 [E.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 1982]). The remedy provided by the Jose P. decision 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 (id.; M.S. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 734 F. Supp. 2d 271, 279 [E.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2010]; see Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 03110; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-075; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 00-092; see also Tr. pp. 146-47).

This remedy addresses the circumstance whereby a child has not been evaluated or placed in a timely manner. (See SRO Nos. 06-088, 02-075 & 00-092) Additionally, this remedy is also available when a student has completed all necessary evaluations but a final notice of recommendation is not sent or given to the parent by the student's eligibility date. The parent must be provided a Nickerson Letter entitling the student to be placed in an appropriate non-public school at public expense. (Jose P., et al. v. Thomas Sobol, et al., 1995 WL 591304 (EDNY) - Stipulation)

FINDING OF FACTS AND DECISION

Parties do not dispute the deferral to CBST and the recommendation for a New York State Approved Non Public School residential placement.

DOE made the recommendation at the July 16, 2013 IEP meeting and through documentation presented as Assurance Checklist and LRE Placement Efforts. (Ex T, J & K)

DOE has yet to offer a placement for the IEP nor have they presented an appropriate placement offer at hearing, for the 2013-2014 school year.

More than 60 days have passed since the IEP meeting was completed back on July 16, 2013.

I find the DOE failed to offer the student a Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE) for the 2013-2014 school year and the student is entitled to a New York State Approved School residential placement as indicated in her IEP and accompanying documentation. (Ex 2)

ORDER

The DOE shall issue a Nickerson (P-1) Letter for a New York State Approved Non Public School residential placement for the student for the 2013-2014 school year. The Department of Education will provide the parent with the Nickerson P -1 letter immediately upon receipt of this Order and no later than December 13th, 2013. Dated: December 2, 2013

_______________________

DANIEL AJELLO, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer DA:mv

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

NO DATE DOCUMENT PAGES

A 09/27/13 IMPARTIAL HEARING REQUEST 3

B 01/24/13 UPDATE 3

C 03/14/13 2012-2013 SCHOOL YEAR REPORT CARD 5

D 03/18/13 EVALUATION 10

E 03/18/13 EVALUATION 4

F 04/10/13 DISCHARGE PLAN 1

G 04/26/13 DISCHARGE PLAN 1

H 05/07/13 PARENT’S REFERRAL LETTER 6

WITH PROOF OF DELIVERY

I 06/20/13 PROGRESS NOTES 4

J 07/17/13 ASSURANCE CHECKLIST 2

K 07/17/13 LRE PLACEMENT EFFORTS 3

L 06/26/13 ACCEPTANCE LETTER 2

M 13/14 EDUCATIONAL 7

PROCEDURES AT JRC

N 13/14 DISTINGUISHING FEATURES 11

O 05/2002 POSITIVE PROGRAMMING PROCEDURES 16

P 01/28/10 EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS FOR JRC’S 9

STUDENTS

Q 12/14/81 & JOSE P SPECIAL MASTER’S REPORT 21

01/05/82 WITH APPENDIX

R 07/02/82 JOSE P ORDER 7

S 07/28/88 JOSE P STIPULATION 5

T 07/16/13 INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PLAN 11

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

NONE