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: Parents
Dates of Hearing: December 21, 2012
February 5, 2013
April 11, 2013
April 15, 2013
April 15, 2013
June 10, 2013
July 22, 2013
July 25, 2013
Actual Record Closed Date: Seember 20, 2013
Hearing Officer: Judith Schneider, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON DECEMBER 21, 2012
Attorney — Parents
Chairperson’s Designee — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON FEBRUARY 5, 2013
Attorney — Parents
Legal Intern — Parents
Parents
Parents
Father — Parents
District Representative — DOE
teacher — DOE
(via telephone)
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL 11, 2013
Attorney — Parents
Attorney — Parents
Parents
Parents
Father — Parents
Representative — DOE
DOE
(via telephone)
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL 15, 2013
Attorney — Parents
Attorney — Parents
Parents
Parents
Father — Parents
Parents
(via telephone)
DOE
DOE
(via telephone)
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 10, 2013
Attorney — Parents
Parents
Parents
Father — Parents
Program Director, — Parents
(via telephone)
Parents
(via telephone)
District Representative — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 22, 2013
Attorney — Parents
Attorney — Parents
Parents
Parents
Father — Parents
Education Director, — Parents
(via telephone)
DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 25, 2013
Attorney — Parents
Attorney — Parents
Parents
Parents
Father — Parents
DOE
On December 21, 2012, February 5, 2013, April 11, 2013, April 15, 2013, June 10, 2013, July 22, 2013 and July 25, 2013, I conducted an Impartial Hearing at the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) Impartial Hearing Office, 131 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, New York, pursuant to the Individuals with Education Improvement Act (“IDEIA”), 20 U.S.C. §1415, and Article 89 of the Education Law of the State of New York, regarding the education program of XXX (“the student”).
The proceeding was initiated at the request of the parent by correspondence dated Seember 7, 2012, recorded as received by the hearing office on Seember 27, 2013. (Exs. A, IV) I was appointed Impartial Hearing Officer on Seember 28, 2012. I was available to conduct a hearing within 14 days. At a telephone conference with the parties conducted on November 8, 2012, the initial hearing was scheduled for December 21, 2013, the first mutually available date for the parties and the hearing officer. (T. 4, Ex. I)
The initial compliance date in this matter was December 11, 2012. The parties moved to extend the compliance date on various occasions in light of delays caused by and subsequent her weather conditions, anticipated testimony, the scheduling of witnesses and submission of evidence and the request to submit closing memoranda. In considering the requests I weighed the cumulative impact of the relevant factors and found that the need of the parties for additional time to prepare and present their positions in accordance with the requirements of due process was greater than any delay in the resolution of this matter. Accordingly, the joint requests for extensions of the compliance dates were granted and written decisions with regard to those extensions were provided to the parties. (T. 4-5, 8, 14-15, 92-93, 208, 215, 217, 281-282, 409, 419-420, 510, 632, Ex. II)
The current compliance date is November 2, 2013. The record closed on Seember 20, 2013, upon my recei of information from the district that, nwithstanding earlier agreement, it was n submitting a closing statement and would rely upon the existing record. (T. 630, Ex. VI)
Background 1
At the commencement of the 2011-2012 school year ( ), the student was years old and classified as . (Ex. 1) That classification is n in dispute. (T. 105) The student had attended the (“”) since the and for the 2011-2012 school year, the student’s grade, she had been unilaterally enrolled in by her parents. (T. 315) operates its classes within various and the student was in ’s class sited in (“”), a . . (T. 265, 308-309, 327-328,
329) The student has resided since with her . (T. 514-516) (The student’s parents and are either specifically identified or referred to collectively herein as “the parents” or “the family.”)
The CSE had convened on May 16, 2011, for an aual review to develop an IEP for the 2011-2012 school year. (T. 102) It recommended a program in a class (
The IEP was received by the family on June 30, 2011. (T. 600, Ex. F)
By letter dated June 9, 2011, the CSE had recommended a placement in a community school. (Ex. Y) The family had visited that school on June 21, 2011 and had specific and substantial concerns about the program and concluded that it was n appropriate and they informed the CSE that they were rejecting it and that the student would attend unless an appropriate IEP and placement was provided. (Ex. G) ter attems commencing on Seember 26, 2011,they revisited that school on October 24, 2011 and again concluded that it was n appropriate and again informed the CSE that the student would attend unless an appropriate IEP and program were provided. (T. 602-606 Ex. B)
In various letters, dated June 14, 2011, June 24, 2011, July 31, 2011, August 19, 2011, Seember 26, 2011, and November 4, 2011, the family informed the CSE of their concerns regarding the program and that they were rejecting the proposed placement. (Exs. G, F, E, D, C, B) The sole response received was one letter characterized by the as a “form” letter that did n substantively respond. (T. 599, 602, 607, Ex. E).
On May 11, 2011, the student’s parents had executed a contract with for the student’s attendance during the 2011-2012 school year for $31,000 for tuition. (Exs. S,
U) The contract included provisions concerning release from the contract if a DOE recommended placement was acceed. (Ex. S)
The hearing request was filed by letter dated Seember 7, 2011 transmitted on Seember 27, 2012. (Ex. IV)
Positions of the Parties
The parents assert that the DOE failed to provide the student with a FAPE for the 2011-2012 school year. They claim that the IEP was procedurally and substantively inadequate and specifically claim, among her things, improper composition of the CSE team and reliance upon inadequate and , an inappropriate program with regard to, among her things, . They also claim that the parents were denied a meaningful opportunity to participate in the development of the IEP. Further, the parents assert that the placement was n appropriate for this student. The parents claim that the placement at was appropriate and that equities favor them. They seek DOE funding for that placement. [2] (Exs A, V)
1 The contents of this Background section are included herein as Findings of Fact.
The DOE made an opening statement claiming it had provided a FAPE through an appropriate program and placement, that the unilateral placement was n appropriate and that equitable considerations favored the DOE. (T. 22-23) The DOE did n submit a closing memorandum. (Ex. VI)
Cases Presented
A. A list of documents in evidence is appended.
B. Witnesses
The DOE presented the testimony of: (“”), the CSE school who participated in the review; (“”), education teacher assigned to the recommended school.
is a certified school who participated in the review. (T. 101) Her testimony included the following:
her participants were , as education teacher and district representative, the student’s (collectively “the family”) and, by telephone, , as a representative, , the student’ education teacher and Ms. , the student’s computer teacher who was provided in response to the CSE’s request for a teacher from a mainstream class who was currently working with the student 3(T. 102-104,144-145, 257-258, 262-263, Ex. 1) There was no parent member present although the family indicated they wanted not addressed in the hearing and no claims have been made concerning it in the post-hearing memorandum. I conclude that it has been abandoned.
Further, in connection with and related to the parents’ claim that a scribe was required, which the CSE disputed, the CSE provided an ) referral form. (T. 202-204, 206, 247, 254-255) During the hearing, it was claimed that the form was properly and promptly completed and that there had been no response. (T. 481, 548, 554, Ex. FF) By letter dated April 14, 2013, a hearing request was filed as DOE Case no. 144207 which stated the claim and reiterated the challenge to the May 16, 2011 review. (Ex. LL) That complaint and any formal motion to consolidate made by the parents was not submitted to me. (T. 288) By letter dated June 3, 2011, captioned “Corrected Hearing Request”, the April 14 complaint contents was substantially reiterated. (Ex. KK) That complaint was transmitted to me as was a copy of an e-mail to the case manager asking for consolidation. The DOE was thereafter given an opportunity to respond. (T. 288-297) On July 22, 2013, additional documents were provided to me concerning this matter. I informed the parties that a motion to consolidate would be denied noting among other things possible additional delay. (T. 417-419) Testimony concerning the matter of any claimed failure by the CSE to respond appropriately to an referral was permitted solely for possible consideration with regard to the issue of cooperation with regard to the equities. (T. 547-554)
3 The general education teacher participant specified in the May 16, 2011 IEP is denominated as “”. She is referenced intermittently in the transcript as “”. “” will be used herein. one and the family was offered a reschedule but rejected it, asserting that family members had already . 161-165, 235-238) has never or observed the student but knew her from casual interactions in her frequent visits to the program. (T. 136) She also participated in several prior meetings and knew that the student had been seeing a private . (T. 149,
165) The CSE education teacher/district representative had prepared an for this review.
(T. 136)
When it created the IEP, the CSE considered a teacher report as well as input at the meeting from whomever chose to comment concerning her current levels of performance and reviewed her progress in and incorporated that information in the IEP.
(T. 106-112, Ex. 1, 2) The CSE also had an which had been discussed at the review.
(T. 139) The academic goals were created ter the review based upon teacher input and reports concerning accomplishment of prior IEP goals and necessary (T. 123, 141-142, 148, Exs. 1-17, 1-18) Although the input with regard to those goals had been principally from the teacher, all participants had been able to comment. (T. 142. 146) A descriion of , was prepared by the and incorporated as written into the IEP. (T. 113-114, Ex. 1-5) In view of the student’s were specified based from information provided at the review.
(T. 114-117, 245-246, 252-253) Two pages were included in the IEP: one put together by the team based upon information provided at the meeting, primarily from the student’s teachers (T.117, 119, Ex. 1-6); the her provided by the student’s who also provided goals. (T. 119, 120, Exs. 1-7, 1-13, 1-14) The student had n actually received during the school year although an had been issued. The teacher and family provided information as to that issue at the review. A goal was created ter the review by . (T. 121, 190 Ex. 1-14) could n recall if a report had been received. (T. 158) The goals were either obtained from the or based upon the information obtained from that person. (T. 123, Ex.1-15) was unclear with regard to whether the goals were provided by the or developed by the CSE from information provided. (T. 185-188, Exs. 1-11, 1-12) However, no related services recommendations had been received but for and the team continued all related services at the previous levels (T. 124-125, 183-185)
had no recollection as to whether a report or history was discussed, however the team was aware that the student took for issues and various . (T. 149, 165-166, Ex. 1-1) The IEP specifically addressed issues and the teacher had provided input concerning in the classroom generally including reporting improvement with regard to oppositional (T. 167-168) opined that the performance pages would communicate immaturity. (T. 171-
172) Further, based upon a discussion at the review about the student’s pages were written by the CSE ter the meeting based upon the information provided. (T. 148, 223,226, 227, Exs. 1-3, 1-8,1-15, 1-16, 1-17 )
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
The legal standard applicable to a request for reimbursement for educational services is well established. Reimbursement is granted if: (1) the services offered by the Board of Education are inadequate or inappropriate (Prong 1); (2) the services selected by the parent are appropriate (Prong 2); and (3) equitable considerations support the parent's claim (Prong 3). Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993); School Comm. of Burlington v. Department of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359 (1985). In New York State the DOE bears the burden of proof with regard to Prong 1 and Prong 3 and the parent bears the burden of proof with regard to Prong 2. Educ. Law 4404[1][c] Prospective payment for tuition may be ordered by an impartial hearing officer when a child would herwise be denied a free appropriate education and the parent can show financial inability to pay the tuition and then seek reimbursement. Mr. & Mrs. A v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 769 F. Supp. 2d 403 (S.D. N.Y. 2011). See also, Coors v. Mills, 34 F. Supp 2nd 795 at 806, n.7 (N.D. N.Y. 1998)
Prong 1
An appropriate educational program begins with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) which accurately reflects the results of to identify the student's needs, establishes aual goals related to those needs, and provides for the use of appropriate education services (Application of a Child with a , Appeal No. 04-046; Application of a Child with a , Appeal No. 02-014; Application of a Child with a , Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a , Appeal No. 93-9). While school districts are required to comply with all Individuals with Education Act procedures, n all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F. 3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003]) If a procedural violation has occurred, relief is warranted only if the violation fected the student's right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) (J.D. v. Pawlet Sch. Dist., 224 F.3d 60, 69 [2d Cir. 2000]). A denial of a FAPE occurs when procedural inadequacies either result in a loss of educational opportunity for the student, seriously infringe on the parents' opportunity to participate in the IEP formulation process (see Werner v. Clarkstown Cent. Sch. Dist., 363 F. Supp. 2d 656, 659 [S.D.N.Y. 2005]; W.A. v. Pascarella, 153 F. Supp. 2d 144, 153 [D. Co. 2001]), or compromise the development of an appropriate IEP in a way that deprives the student of educational benefits under that IEP (see Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. v. D.K., 2002 WL 31521158 [S.D.N.Y. 2002]). In the substantive program developed by the CSE, the Second Circuit has observed that “for an IEP to be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, it must be likely to produce progress, n regression” (Weixel v. Bd. of Educ., 287 F.3d 138, 151 [2d Cir. 2002], quing M.S. v. Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 103 [2d Cir. 1998]). This progress, however, must be meaningful; i.e., more than mere trivial advancement (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130). The IDEA, however, does n require school districts to develop IEPs that maximize the pential of a student with a (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 197 n.21, 199; see Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132. The student's recommended program must also be provided in the Least Restrictive Environment (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.550[b]; 8 NYCRR 200.6[a][1]).
The parents assert that the DOE has failed to establish that the program was substantively appropriate. I agree.
It is the DOE’s burden to establish that the recommended program was supported by sufficient material. See 8 NYCRR 200.4[b][4][5][6] “Any of a student with a must use a variety of tools and strategies to gather relevant about the student, including information provided by the parent, that may assist in determining, among her 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]).” Appeal No. 11-025. In the instant matter, the DOE has n demonstrated that the CSE relied upon adequate material.
Based upon the foregoing, I find that the IEP was substantively defective and that the DOE has n established that it provided a FAPE.
Accordingly, I do n address the parents’ her claims concerning the IEP and the review exce to ne that I find credible the testimony regarding the review of each witness in that I find that each testified accurately in accordance with her current recollection. However, with regard to the issue of what documents were provided to the parents, I find credible the ’s testimony that the IEP pages written by her persons and such reports as were received by the CSE were n provided to the family at the review although they were requested. Further, I find credible ’s testimony that had the team had the documents at that time, they would have been provided. Accordingly, I conclude that the substance of those documents, although thereter included in the IEP, were n discussed with the family.
In view of my finding of substantive defect, I do n address the parents’ claims concerning the placement proposed exce to state that I find credible the testimony of the as to her s and communications and ne that that testimony is substantially uncontested and indeed generally supported by the testimony of . To the extent that there are inconsistencies in the testimony in this matter with regard to the placement, I find the credible.
Prong 2
When a public school system has failed to provide FAPE, the program and services chosen by the parent are “proper under the Act” if the education provided is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.” Carter, 510 U.S. at 14. The parents bear the burden of proof with regard to the services obtained by the parents for the student. However, parents are n barred from reimbursement if their program does n meet the IDEA definition of a FAPE. See 20 U.S.C. §1401(9), Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park., 459 F. 3d 356 (2nd Cir. 2006). It is n required that the of the services be State-approved to provide instruction to children with . Carter, 510 U.S. at 10. The student need n be the least restrictive environment. Frank G, 459 F. 3d at 364.. “Ultimately the issue turns on whether a placement…is ‘reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.’ [internal citations omitted] …”, Frank G, 459 F. 3d at 130. No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining that. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 207 (1982). Parents need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational instruction ly designed to meet the needs of a child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction. Id. at 364-365. See also Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F 3d. 105, 115 (2d Cir. 2007).
I find that the parents have met that burden here. I find the testimony of and credible with regard to the secular program provided to the student.
The credible evidence, detailed above, shows that the methods and curriculum were aligned with the specifications of the IEP. Classroom instruction incorporated the specific needs and goals of the student. Her teacher for academic subjects was a certified educator and there was ongoing supervision from qualified persons. Stfing ratios provided the opportunity for one to one attention and the support this student required to control her , participate and make academic gains. The student received mandated related services from qualified persons who conferred with stf and a for this student was utilized. training was included in her program and mainstream opportunities were available. The student was routinely by a variety of instruments, including those provided in provided. Stf met routinely and a comprehensive approach provided. Parental involvement was facilitated.
I ne that the DOE has made no specific claims supporting its bare assertion at the commencement of the hearing that the program was n appropriate.
However, with regard to the parents’ claims, in the instant matter reimbursement for the entirety of the program is sought. (Ex. V) With regard to a program which is religious in nature, the fact that the student may also derive some ancillary educational benefit is n a basis for public funding. See e.g. Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734, 743 (1973). It is undisputed that at least some 26% of the program provided to this student is religious instruction. (T. 324-327, 367, Ex. P) language instruction was n included in that calculation. I ne that there has been no evidence submitted to support a conclusion that this Moreover, I am n persuaded by testimony that there was no religious component in the provided. I also ne that the instruction was provided in the period identified repeatedly by stf as n “secular” (see for examples T. 310, 311) and that the teacher’s training for that instruction was in coection with instruction regarding teaching religion.
(T. 342-344, 347-348) I have calculated the tal school hours for the week including Friday and conclude that some 50% of the tal weekly program is n properly publicly funded.
Prong 3
The determination of whether equitable factors support a parent’s claim for tuition reimbursement hinges, in large part, on whether or n a parent cooperated with the DOE and CSE. See generally Burlington, 471 U.S. 359; Carter, 510 U.S. 7; see also Mr. & Mrs. A ex rel. D.A. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Edu., 769 F. Supp. 2d 403, 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); see also N.R. ex rel. T.R. v. Dep’t of Educ. of City Sch. Distr. Of N.Y., No. 07 Civ. 9648, 2009 WL 874061, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2009). It is well established that a parent’s subjective intent, or preference for a nonpublic educational setting, is n relevant to a determination of the equities, even if, in seeking tuition funding, the parent has, as “[p]resumably, nearly all parents who make unilateral placement . . . and then seek tuition reimbursement, act[ed] at least in part out of a hope, belief, or expectation that the school district [would] ultimately be forced to fund [the] placement,” Mr. & Mrs. A. ex rel. D.A., 769 F. Supp. 2d at 430; see also N.R. ex rel. T.R. 2009 WL 874061, at *14.
The DOE has the burden with regard to this issue. Although the DOE made a general claim at the commencement of the hearing that equitable considerations support denial of the parents’ request for DOE funding, it has n articulated any basis for that assertion. Further, the evidence, as detailed above, shows herwise. The uncontested evidence, detailed above, shows that the family cooperated with the CSE prior to the review and provided reports and recommendations in their possession, participated in the review, visited the proposed placement twice, and promly and repeatedly informed the CSE as to their objections to the IEP and to the program and of the intention to maintain the student in in those circumstances to which communications they received substantially no reply. I also ne CSE delays in providing copies of material reviewed by the CSE although n provided to the family.
It is the case that the student was enrolled in prior to the CSE review. However, the grandfather credibly testified that that was necessary in order to ensure a place for the student in the coming school year and as to his understanding that the family would n be bound by the contract if a DOE placement was acceed. (T. 625-626, Ex. S) Moreover, a parent’s preference for a private school, even if established, and even the signing of a contract prior to an IEP review, is n dispositive of a claim for DOE payment. Appeal No. 05-087.
I find no basis for the denial or limitation of DOE payment but for the reduction of 50 % as a consequence of my determination that that was the portion of the program deved to instruction n appropriate for public funding.
ORDER
Entitlement to funding for the secular portion of the student’s placement in the Program for the 2011-2012 school year has been determined. The DOE shall immediately reimburse the family for the student’s tuition for the Program ($31,000) minus 50% upon submission to it of documentary evidence of the tuition charged, the payments made and the student’s attendance.
Dated: October 8, 2013
_______________________
JUDITH SCHNEIDER, ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer
NICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Within 35 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the Public School District has a right to appeal the decision to a State Review Officer (SRO) of the New York State Education Department under section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Education Act.
If the parent plans to appeal the decision, a nice of intention to seek review shall be personally served upon the school district n 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 so that a certified copy of the hearing record may be prepared for submission by the school district. If a school district plans to appeal the decision, the district shall file a certified copy of the hearing record together with its petition.
An appealing parties' petition for review shall be personally served upon the opposing party 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. (8 NYCRR § 279.2(b))
The rules of procedure for proceedings before a SRO are found in Part 279 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education available at http://www.sro.nysed.gov/part279home.html.
DOCUMENTS ENTERED INTO THE RECORD
1 IEP, 5/16/11, 21 s. Department of Education
2 Teacher Report, 5/12/11, 4 s. Department of Education
3 , 7/27, 7/30, 8/9/10, 10 s. Department of Education
A Impartial Hearing Request, 9/7/12, 8 s. Parents
B Letter , w/fax transmit, 11/04/11, 9 s, Parents
C Letter to w. fax transmit., 9/26/11, 5 s. Parents
D Letter w/fax transmit, 8/19/11, 4 s. Parents
E Letter to w/fax. Transmit. 7/31/11, 6 s. Parents
F Letter to w/fax transmit, 7/31/11, 6 s. Parents
G Letter w/fax transmit, 6/24/11, 12 s. Parents
H Letter to w/fax transmit, 6/14/11, 3 s. Parents
I Letter w/fax transmit, 5/18/11, 3 s. Parents
J 1) Testing Parents
2) Request for
Sent to w/fax transmit, 4/11/11, 6 s.
K , 4/15/12, 1 . Parents
L ., 4/19/12, 1 . Parents
M , 4/22/12, 1 . Parents
N undated, 1 . Parents
O , 4/11/11, 4 s. Parents
P 2011-2012 Class Schedule Parents
Q , undated, 1 . Parents
R , 10/12/12, 1 . Parents
S Tuition Contract, 2011-2012, 2 s. Parents
T Attendance Record, 2011-2012, 1 . Parents
U Proof of Payment, Misc. dates, 9 s. Parents
V NYC School Survey- 216, 2011-2012, 19 s. Parents
W , 2011-2012, 1 . Parents
X DOE Due Process Response, 2/1/13, 3 s. Parents
Y FNR, 6/9/11, 1 . Parents
Z Letter from , 8/20/10, 2 s. Parents
AA DOE IEP Mtg. nes (from 5/16/11), undated, 2 s. Parents
BB Exc. From NYC DOE SOP, 02/2009, 5 s. Parents
CC Related Services Student Prog.- w/fax transmit, Parents
5/11/11, 5 s.
DD Report, 5/11/11, 1 . Parents
EE Related Service Student Prog- , 6/6/11, 1 . Parents
FF Referral, 5/2011, 6 s. Parents
GG . For Students with Disabil., 05/2006, 7 s. Parents
HH a Quality IEP, 01/2005, 4 s. Parents
II E-mail Correspondence Regarding , 7/9/13, 5 s. Parents
JJ , 06/10/13, 2 s. Parents
KK Corrected Hearing Request (144207), 6/3/13, 3 s. Parents
LL Impartial Hearing Request (144207), 4/14/13, 3 s. Parents
I Prehear Conf memo Impartial Hearing Officer
II Compliance date extension decisions Impartial Hearing Officer
III Email from , 6/24/13, 2 s, Impartial Hearing Officer
IV Hearing Request dated 9/7/13 attached to IHO Ap. Impartial Hearing Officer with fax date 9/27/12
V Parents Closing Memo Impartial Hearing Officer
VI E-mail to IHO from DOE stating no closing memo Impartial Hearing Officer would be submitted
Footnotes
[2] With regard to the parents’ complaint, I note that the absence of a BIP as well as the specific claim that a scribe was required to be listed as an academic management need were referenced in the closing memorandum but not specifically stated in the complaint. (Exs. A, V) Further, in their hearing request, the parents sought funding for a tutoring program alleged to have been provided by the family. This issue was