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: August 9, 2013
November 15, 2013
December 20, 2013
February 10, 2014
April 25, 2014
June 5, 2014
July 11, 2014
Actual Record Closed Date: October 1, 2014
Hearing Officer: , Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON AUGUST 9, 2013
Esq. — Student
No Appearance — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON NOVEMBER 15,
2013
Esq. — Student
Parents
Esq. — DOE
Dean of Special Services (via telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON DECEMBER 20,
2013
Esq. — Student
Parents
Esq. — DOE
School Psychologist — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON FEBRUARY 10,
2014
Esq. — Student
Parents
Esq. — DOE
School Psychologist — DOE
Teacher (via telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL 25, 2014
Esq. — Student
Esq. — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 5, 2014
Esq. — Student
Parents
Dr., — Student
Parent Advocate (via telephone) — Student
Esq. — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 11, 2014
Esq. — Student
Parents
Esq. — DOE
INTRODUCTION
On July 12, 2013, I was appointed as the Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) to conduct a hearing pursuant to the Individual with Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 United States Code, Section 1415(f)(1), concerning a dispute involving the special education program of Phoenix B., (the student) and the New York City Department of Education (DOE), district 11. The hearing was held on August 9, 2013, November 15, 2013, December 20, 2013, February 10, 2014, April 25, 2014, June 5, 2014 and July 11,
2014. The parents were represented , Esq. The Department of Education (DOE) was represented , Esq.
A list of the witnesses who appeared and the documents admitted into evidence are annexed to this decision.
POSITION OF THE PARTIES
The DOE contends that it offered a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to the student for 2012-2013-and 2013-2014 school years and that all requests for relief should be denied. Transcript (T) at 784-834
The parent argues that the DOE failed to offer the student a FAPE during 20122013 and 2013-2014 school years. Ex. A-1 Specifically, the parent claims that the committee on special education (CSE) failed to timely perform evaluations and classify the student under the Child Find law. The parent also claims that the CSE team that conducted that student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting was not duly constituted and failed to provide the parent with a meaningful opportunity to participate and thus created an IEP that does did not provide the student with an appropriate recommendation or services. The parent also argues that the recommended placement for the 2013-2014 school year was inappropriate. As such, the parent seeks an appropriate placement in a nonpublic school at public expense, reimbursement for privately obtained evaluations, assistive technology, central auditory processing, visual perceptual and vision evaluations, , at an enhanced rate, FBA) and and other relief. Ex. A; T at 756-783
FINDINGS OF FACT
Although only portions of the evidence are referenced herein, the testimony and documents were reviewed in full.
The student’s mother, Ms. , has a Master’s degree in early childhood education and is employed by the DOE as a kindergarten teacher. T at 562-563 The years old and as of June 2014, he was in . T at 561-562; Ex.S He is diagnosed is . He . Ex. C, L
Through early intervention services, the student ( ). T at 485, 563-564, 646-647 & 748 When he aged out of early intervention his services were discontinued. T at 565
( ) is a kindergarten through fourth grade public charter school. T at 28-29 The school has general, as well as special, education programs. T at 29
Response to ) is a state-mandated policy whereby public and charter schools identify a baseline academic level for students, determine are present and provide some . There are three tiers each tier provides a more intense intervention to address the student’s deficits. T at 105-107 & 321-322 the student is referred to special education unless the student’s weaknesses are profound. T at 106-107 year is comprised of five cycles and each cycle is between six to eight weeks in length. T at 47-48 When a child , he receives at least two cycles or twelve to sixteen weeks of interventions before he is referred to the CSE for evaluation. T at 61-62 If the child does not progress, the student may be evaluated and the school would assist the parent in contacting the CSE to start the evaluation process. T at 30 & 47 are performed at level in reading. T at 48, 70 & 349 At the end of a child’s kindergarten year, he should read at a level E. T at 344, 347 & 568
During the 2012-2013 school year, followed the national common core standards. T at 340-341 from unit assessments conducted during the school year. T at 341-343
The student attended during the 2012-2013 school year and was enrolled in an integrated co-teaching (ICT) kindergarten class as a general education student. Ex. 16; T at 54 & 371-372 An ICT class has a general and special education teacher. T at 30, 33, 54, 367-368 & 562 During the course of the school year, there were approximately 2830 children in the student’s class. T at 597 The student’s teachers were T at 33 & 574 In class, the student was a . T at 36
By the first marking period in November 2012, it was evident that the student was in school. multiple promptings to do his work and often failed to complete his work. T at 487, 572, 581 & 597-601; Ex. N, 13, 14, 15-2 & 16 He received one-to-one intervention in the classroom from both teachers and . T at 577; Ex. N, 22
The student the student received level “ones” on his report card in math and writing indicating that he was “substantially deficient” in both areas. T at 50, 53 & 572573; Ex. I The student remained . T at 53, 65 & 568; Ex I His overall reading grade dropped from a level three 3 to a level one during the course of the year. T at 51-52; Ex. I The student received interventions and in February 2013, tier 2 interventions were initiated. T at 31 & 573-576; Ex. K , five children. She used the Level Literacy Intervention program which helps children with their reading comprehension, work solving skills and writing. T at 27-28, 32, 55, 56, 68 & 576 also worked with the student in a small group four times a week. T at 32 & 68-69
The school did not provide pull-out tiered math interventions during the 20122013 school year. T at 56, 350-351 & 576-577 The teachers employed “whatever it takes interventions” which included the teachers collecting data and adjusting their instruction in the . Small group instruction was also used in the classroom. T at 56-57 & 351
The Student received promotion in doubt notifications during 2012-2013 school year. T at 243, 501 & 569-570; Ex. J He was retained in First as he did not meet the school’s benchmarks to . T at 57-59, 70, 243, 355-356, 361, 502 & 571
On March 5, 2013, the parent sent a letter to the school-based support team
(SBST) . T at 579-578; Ex. G & 3 At was not warranted, as the student’s . T at 364-365 & 504
On March 12, 2013, the parent requested a referral to the CSE. She requested that , evaluations be performed. She also and modifications and classroom management needs. Ex. H-2 & 6 As the student was only in his First did not make a decision regarding the referral until the cycle was completed. T at 62-65, 68, 284, 368, 490, 580581, 599-605 & 646 Ex. H
On April 6, 2013, the parent consented to testing by the DOE to determine the student’s eligibility for special education services. Ex. 8 & 9
In late March and early April 2013, the parent had the . The student performed at age appropriate levels in various areas, but and . The clinicians recommended therapy 3 times a week for 45 minutes a session and twice weekly pushin sessions. Ex. F at 9; T at 601
During April 2013, Dr. of the student.[1] The student did not exhibit and was . T at 418-419 & 465; Ex. C His performance was variable information at an adequate rate. T at 420 The student had . The student processing issues. T at 424 At the time , the student did not . T at 481
The parents’ privately were provided to the DOE. T at 233, 257 & 609
On May 2, 2013, , a DOE , evaluation of the student. T at 112, 117-118, 261 & 268; Ex 17 Mr. indicated that the student’s - was and . Ex. 17
The DOE did not evaluation as there was no evidence that the student could not access resources and the curriculum. T at 119-120 & 237-239
The DOE did not because the student’s functioning in a classroom setting was not . T at 196 & 288-289 Ex. 32-3 & 32-4
On April 6, 2013, an . The student exhibited “ skills” but did not require as his needs could be addressed with resources and accommodations. Ex. 18
On June 14, 2013, an IEP meeting was conducted for the student’s 2013-2014 school year. T at 112 & Ex. M The meeting was . T at 669 The student’s mother and her advocate, appeared as the DOE and . An and a DOE social worker were present, , the student’s teacher, , who appeared as the special education teacher, and a parent member. Ex. 31, 194, 218, 362, 367, 489 & 533
The team reviewed the report, social history report, classroom observations and progress reports from the student’s teachers as well as the parent’s privately obtained . T at 222, 257, 271, 273, 309, 500, 530-533, 540, 542-548, 621-623 & 749
The team determined that the age appropriate as he did not have severe . However, he . T at 150, 292-299, 302-303 & 319-320
The student’s teachers participated at the meeting, discussed his struggles and the interventions he received. T at 492-493, 533, 547-538, 576, 705-706 The parent and her advocate also participated at the meeting. Ex. 35 & AA
The IEP included testing results from , as well as . T at 123 & 130-141 The management needs listed in the IEP were based on the documents reviewed at the meeting and teacher . T at 154-156; Ex. 16 Goals were created that addressed his academic needs and attentional deficits. T at 157-159; Ex. 30
The DOE recommended that the student remain in an ICT class but as a special education student. T at 159, 491, 534, 536-537 & 655-656; Ex. 30 services were not recommended as the student’s evaluations demonstrated that any deficits exhibited in these areas were minor and could be addressed through management needs and other supports. T at 159-160
The parent and her advocate disagreed with the ICT class recommendation as the ICT class was too large a setting . T at 272-273, 275, 331, 511, 513, 515-516, 654, 672 & 675
On the day of the IEP meeting, the parent received a copy of the evaluation. T at 495, 528-529, 548-550, 557 & 612; Ex. 18 The Parent disagreed with the DOE’s and requested an authorization for private testing. Mr. provided the parent with an . T at 204, 277, 495, 528, 537, 551, 559, 613, 664 & 681 Ex. 32
During the summer of 2013, the parent performed by Comprehensive Consultation; Ex D. The parent provided the report to principal the student’s public school placement for the 2013-2014 school year. T at 614-615, 683 The parents’ private insurance paid for the portion of the report not covered by the DOE authorization; the parents paid the $20 co-payment. T at 616
In August 2013, the parent privately ; Ex. E-5; T at 615 The parents private insurance paid for report; the parents paid the $20 co-payment. T at 616, 682 The parent provided the report to principal at . T at 683
During the 2013-2014 school year, the student was in a first grade class at T at 596, 599, 663, 679 & 746 The student continued to struggle academically and was unfocused, moved about, failed to complete assignments and was distracting to other children. T at 583-596, 599, 640, 662-663, & 694; Ex. S, T, U, V, Z & BB
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
Tthe Student was Denied a FAPE for the 2012-2013 School Year The parent contends that there was a violation of the as the student was not promptly considered for special education services despite the student’s obvious academic struggles. Ex. The DOE argues that there was First provided the student with interventions and timely referred the student for evaluation when it recognized that the student . The point of the "child find" provisions of the IDEA are to identify, locate, and evaluate students who are suspected of being a and thereby may be in need of special education and related services, but for whom no determination of eligibility as a student with a disability has been made (see Handberry v. Thompson, 446. F.3d 335, 347-48 [2d Cir. 2006]; A.P. v. Woodstock Bd. of Educ., 572 F.Supp.2d 221, 225 [D. Conn. 2008] aff'd,2010 WL 1049297 [2d Cir. March 23, 2010]; see also 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][3][A]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.111; 8 NYCRR 200.2[a][7]). There is an affirmative duty on State and local educational agencies to identify, locate, and evaluate all children with disabilities residing in the State "to ensure that they receive needed special education services" (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][3]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.111[a][1][i]; Forest Grove, 129 S. Ct. at 2495; see 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][A][ii]; see also 8 NYCRR 200.2[a][7]; New Paltz Cent. Sch. Dist. v. St. Pierre, 307 F. Supp. 2d 394, 400, n.13 [N.D.N.Y. 2004]). The "child find" requirements apply to "children who are suspected of being a child with a disability . . . and in need of special education, even though they are advancing from grade to grade" (34 C.F.R. § 300.111[c][1]; see 8 NYCRR 200.2[a][7]). To satisfy the requirements, a board of education must have procedures in place that will enable it to find such children (Application of a student Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 10-009; Application of a Student Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 09-132; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-062; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 05-090; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-054; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 01-082; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 93-41). A district's child find duty is triggered when there is "reason to suspect a disability and reason to suspect that special education services may be needed to address that disability" (New Paltz, 307 F. Supp. 2d at 400, n.13, quoting Dep't of Educ. v. Cari Rae S., 158 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1194 [D. Haw. 2001]; see Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 06-092; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 06-087; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 05-127; Application of a Child Suspect Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 05040; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 04-087; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 04-037; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 03-043; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02092; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 01-082). To determine that a child find violation has occurred, school officials must have overlooked clear signs of disability and been negligent by failing to order testing, or have no rational justification for deciding not to evaluate (A.P., 572 F.Supp.2d at 225, quoting Bd. of Educ. v. L.M., 478 F.3d 307, 313 [6th Cir. 2007]).
Moreover, states are encouraged to develop "effective teaching strategies and positive behavioral interventions to prevent over-identification and to assist students without an automatic default to special education" (Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. D.L., 548 F.Supp.2d 815, 819 [C.D.Cal. 2008], referencing 20 U.S.C. § 1400[c][5]). Indeed, districts must initiate a referral and promptly request parental consent to evaluate a student to determine if the student needs special education services and programs if a student has not made adequate progress after an appropriate period of time when provided instruction in a school district's response to intervention program (8 NYCRR 200.4[a]).
I find that the Child Find law was violated. requires that the school district have procedures to determine if a student may be in need of special education. I find that had procedures in place to determine if the student was in need of special education. However, I also find that requires that the district provide adequate academic interventions to address the student’s struggles while it determines if special education services are warranted.
Initially, I find that early in the student’s kindergarten year, recognized that the student may be in need of special education and that academic interventions were necessary. Indeed, the with that were provided daily to the student. However, the student , and there is insufficient evidence regarding how to assist the student in this area of study. did not have specific math interventions for the student. only employed “whatever it takes interventions” and there is no adequate description of these interventions or how these interventions attempted to address the student’s specific math needs. T at 56-57 & 351 Thus, I find that the student did not receive specific interventions to math.
Indeed, if the referring the student for evaluation for special education services, so it could provide academic interventions and determine if a referral was needed, it had to also provide adequate interventions to address the student’s needs. In this instance, I find that it failed to provide sufficient academic interventions for the student. Thus, as , it also failed to provide a student with a FAPE for the 2012-2013 school year. The DOE Failed to Provide The Student with a FAPE for the 2013-2014 School Year
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 (Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 [1982] Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]).
The DOE 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). 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). An "appropriate" education, is "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). Moreover, 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). However, 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 C.F.R. §§ 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]).
I find that the DOE failed to offer the student a FAPE for the 2013-2014 school year. The student was as a general education student during the 2012-2013 school year. By all accounts, the student struggled, even with daily academic interventions in and out of the classroom. Despite ample evidence at the IEP meeting indicating his in an ICT class, the CSE recommended that the student again be placed in an ICT class arguing that as a , his needs would be adequately addressed. I disagree, as the student struggled in an ICT class despite receiving academic interventions, one-to-one instruction and other supports. I find that there was no reason to believe that the student would and could make academic progress in an ICT class primarily because he would be enrolled as a special education student.
I also find that the DOE’s failure to provide the was a denial of a FAPE as there was sufficient evidence before the CSE to determine that the student needed . The thorough and concluded were needed. In addition, Dr. ’s evaluation indicated that the student had language difficulties that required . Ex. C & F I recognize that the CSE team may not agree with the results and recommendations contained in private evaluations provided by parents and are not required to include in the IEP recommended services from the evaluations. However, in this instance, as there were two services, I find that the CSE’s determination were warranted.
Based on the record before the CSE at the time of meeting, I find that the failure to provide was not a denial of a FAPE. The student’s , skills and retaining information, . I find that based on the record, it was reasonable to conclude that the management needs contained in the IEP would assist the student that may have been addressed . As to the , the student in class beyond his being distracted and at times, distracting his classmates. The record does not demonstrate with adults or his classmates. As to performance, the was exhibited outside of the classroom and did not interfere with his classroom instruction.
As to the parents claim the CSE team failed to develop appropriate and measureable goals, I find that the goals included in the IEP include annual goals that are consistent with the student's ( ) . (see Dist. Ex. 1 at pp. 3-9; see also Dist. Ex. 1 at pp. 10-18). I also find that the criteria indicated to measure progress was appropriate. Ex. 30 at 10 & 11 The parent also makes several procedural challenges to the student’s 2013-2014
IEP. When a procedural violation is alleged, a denial of a FAPE may only be found 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, 550 U.S. at 525-26; 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 parent claims that neither an was present at the meeting despite the fact that the evaluations during the meeting. Although the regulations list specific individuals that must be included in the CSE team, related services providers are not required unless the school district or the parent so designates. Thus, the request by a district for the participation of related service clinicians is discretionary under State law and I find that the district did not violate any procedural requirements by not inviting a or to participate. 8 NYCRR 200.3[a][1]. I also note that the parents were not precluded from inviting a to attend and participate in the meeting (8 NYCRR 200.3[a][1][ix]).
Likewise, I find that the parent and her advocate were provided with a meaningful opportunity to participate during the meeting. Ex.35 & AA Similarly, although the DOE may not have developed the IEP in a timely manner, I find that this failure does not rise to the level of a denial of a FAPE. As argued by the DOE, the evaluations and resulting IEP were performed and created well before the 2013-2014 school year when the IEP would be implemented.
The parent argues that the failure to perform an FBA and create a BIP was a denial of a FAPE. When developing an IEP, if , the CSE must consider the use of , and other strategies, to address that behavior" when developing, reviewing, and revising an IEP (20 U.S.C. § 1414[d][3][B][i]; see 34 C.F.R. § 300.324[a][2][i]; 8 NYCRR [d][3][i]). However, the failure to perform a FBA or prepare a BIP will not always rise to the level of a denial of a FAPE. R.E. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 190 (2d Cir. 2012) I find the in class stemmed . I find that the evidence in the hearing record indicates that the CSE was aware of and properly considered the student’s behavior and the IEP appropriately supported the student's behavioral needs. I find that the recommended management suggestions , of expectations and personal , among others, adequately addressed any concerns. Thus I find that a failure to perform an FBA and create a BIP was not a denial of a FAPE.
The parent also argues that she requested that the DOEs perform an assistive and visual perceptual evaluation and that its failure to perform these evaluations resulted in a denial of a FAPE. Ex. A & A
First, the parent seeks evaluation for the student because and the parent wanted to provide that would help him. T at 601 However, the student . T at 481 Although I understand the parent’s concern that there is the potential for the student to , as there was no reason to believe at the time of the IEP meeting, I find that there was no denial of a FAPE because the DOE did not .
As to the request for a , the parent testified that she believed this evaluation was necessary because “a lot of children in our family genetically ” and that they attempted to have the but was informed . T at 602 Although I recognize the parent’s concerns, I find that the record before the CSE team did not support the need for a visual perceptual evaluation. As well, I find that the record does not indicate that a visual perception test was warranted.
Requested Relief
The amended complaint alleged claims for the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school year, which ended in June of 2014. Accordingly, the parent’s placement request is now moot as the 2013-2014 school year ended during the course of the hearing. In any event, the parent’s request for “[a]n appropriate placement in a non-public school at DOE expense,” would be denied as I cannot order the DOE to fund a private school placement for the student when there is no evidence in the record regarding a private school and that the student was accepted into the private school.[2] Similarly, the parent’s request for tutoring is denied as the 2013-2014 school year has ended.[3]
The parent’s request for reimbursement for the privately beyond the rate provided in the DOE voucher, is granted but only as to the amount the parent personally paid for the evaluation.
The parent’s request for reimbursement for is denied as I find that there was insufficient evidence supporting the need for the evaluation and the DOE was not required to The parent’s request for is denied as I find that there was insufficient evidence supporting the need for the evaluation and that the DOE was not required to perform the evaluation.
As to the parent’s requests for a ,” a “ ” and “ ” at the DOE’s expense, the requests are also denied as insufficient evidence was presented as to the nature of these evaluations and that the student that warranted the evaluations.
As to the parent’s request for “ ” at the DOE’s expense, this request is also denied as no evidence was presented as to the nature of “ ” and how it would benefit the student.
As indicated above, I find were not warranted, and thus deny the parent’s request at the DOE’s expense. Likewise, I find that an expense is not warranted.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY
ORDERED that the parent’s request for reimbursement for the privately obtained , beyond the rate provided in voucher the DOE, is granted but only as to the amount the parent personally paid for the evaluation. Dated: December 1, 2014 , ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer
documents provided by the parent as to tutoring services ( Ex. X) and there was no testimony about the Huntington report or how could address the student’s specific needs.
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 ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE ON NOVEMBER 15, 2013
A Amended Impartial Hearing Request, 9/3/13, 4 p
B Due Process Response, 7/11/13, 3 p
C Evaluation, 5/29/13, 14 p
D Evaluation, 8/19/13, 4 p
E Evaluation, 8/16/13, 5 p
F Evaluation, 3/29/13, 4/5/13, 12 p
G Initial Request for Testing, undated, 2 p
H Supplemental Request for Testing, 3/13/13, 2 p
I Student Report Card, 2012/2013, 1 p
J Notifications, 2/12/13 and 6/13/13, 2 p
K Notice of Tier Two Interventions, 2/6/13, 1 p
L Classroom Observations, 4/19/13 through 5/15/13, 3 p
M Proposed IEP, 6/14/13, 15 p
N Teacher Report, 6/3/13, 4 p
O Teacher Notices to Parent, 4/14/13 and 4/29/13, 4 p
P Final Notice of Recommendation, 7/17/13, 1
Q Social History Evaluation, 4/6/13, 5 p
R Prior Written Notice Package, 7/17/13, 3 p
DOCUMENTATION ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE ON DECEMBER 20, 2013
S Student Report Card, 2 p
T Initial , 10/2/11, 12 p
DOE:
1 Petition of Complaint, 9/3/13, 5 p
2 Department's SESIS Events for the Student, 11/7/13, 10 p 3 Letter from , 3/5/13, 1 p 4 Letter from , 3/6/13, 5 p 5 Department Notice of Social History, 3/6/13, 1 p
8 Department Consent for Initial Evaluation, 4/6/13, 2 p
9 Department Assessment Planning, undated, 2 p
10 Department Home Language Identification Survey, 4/6/13, 3 p
11 Department Physical Examination Form, 4/6/13, 3 p
12 Department , 4/9/13, 1 p
13 Teacher Form, 4/29/13, 3 p
14 2nd Edition, 4/29/13, 2 p
15 Permission to Release Information, 4/29/13, 2 p
16 Department Teacher Report, 4/29/13, 2 p
17 Department , 5/2/13, 8 p
18 Department Evaluation of School Function and Participation, 5/10/13, 9 p
19 Department Classroom Observation, 4/19/13, 1 p
20 , 5/3/13, 1 p
21 Department , 5/13/13, 1 p
22 Department Classroom Observation, 5/15/13, 3 p
23 Emails By and Between , Clinicians, 5/21/13 through 6/5/13, 19 p
24 Department Notice of IEP, Meeting, 5/24/13, 5 p
25 Department Notice of IEP Meeting, 5/31/13, 5 p
27 Department Notice of IEP Meeting, 6/4/13, 5 p
28 Department Notice of IEP Meeting, 6/5/13, 5 p
29 Evaluation, 6/13/13, 8 p
30 Department Individualized Education Plan, 6/14/13, 16 p
31 Department Individualized Education Plan Attendance Page, 6/14/13, 1 p
32 CSE 5 Conference Agenda Sheet, 6/14/13, 4 p
34 Department AA-2 Form, undated, 4 p
DOCUMENTATION ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE ON APRIL 25, 2014
DOE:
6 Parent , undated, 1 p
7 DOE Letter to Parent, 3/14/13, 1 p
DOCUMENTATION ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE ON JUNE 5, 2014
PARENTS:
U Progress Report, 1/14, 2 p
V Report card, 2013/2014, 4 P
W Teacher Letter to Parent, 4/2/14, 2 p
X Assessment, 4/18/14, 3 p
Y Student Work Samples, 10/13, 9 p
Z Parent Teacher Notes, 1/14, 1 p
AA Transcript of CSE Meeting, 6/14/13, 167 p
DOE:
35 Transcript of Meeting, 6/14/13, 54 p
DOCUMENTATION ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE ON JULY 11, 2014
PARENTS:
BB Report card, 2013/2014, 4 p
Footnotes
[1] In 2011 when the student , performed an evaluation of the student. At that time, the student ” of his . T at 419 & 465
[2] I note that the parent’s request does not seek deferment to the CBST for consideration for a non-public placement.
[3] I also note that the parent did not specifically request compensatory tutoring services. In any event, I find that insufficient evidence was provided to support the parent’s request for tutoring. The only