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: November 1, 2013
November 15, 2013
January 6, 2014
January 16, 2014
Actual Record Closed Date: February 10, 2014
Hearing Officer: Daniel Ajello, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON NOVEMBER 1,
2013
Attorney (via telephone) — Student
District Representative — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON NOVEMBER 15,
2013
Attorney (via telephone) — Student
) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JANUARY 06, 2014
Attorney (via telephone) — Student
Designee (via telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JANUARY 16, 2014
Attorney (via telephone) — Student
(via telephone) — Parents
Teacher (via telephone) — Parents
Teacher (via telephone) — Parents
(via telephone) — Parents
CSE Representative — DOE
INTRODUCTION
On September 25, 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) (1).
A hearing was conducted and appearances made by the parties as indicated herein.
Appended to the record are lists of persons in attendance and the documents received in evidence.
Pre hearing conference was conducted on November 01, 2013. IHO was advised that the matter was submitted for settlement by the DOE. Control date of November 14, 2013 was set.
Pre conference was set for November 15, 2013.
DOE representative advised the IHO that the DOE would not be presenting a prong one case at hearing. Hearing dates were scheduled for January 06, 2014 and January 16, 2014. (T 15)
On November 15, 2013 parent made a motion to extend the compliance date by 30 days to allow for availability of witnesses. Motion was granted and compliance date was extended to January 07, 2014. (T 17-20)
On January 06, 2014 parent made a motion to extend the compliance date by 30 days to allow for availability of witnesses. Motion was granted and compliance date was extended to 02/05/2014. (T 35)
At hearing of January 16, 2014 parent attorney requested to be allowed to submit a written closing statement. Request was granted and Actual Record Close date was set at January 31, 2014. (T 111)
On January28, 2014 parent attorney, via email, requested an extension of the compliance date. This request was made due to the transcript not being received by the parent, and to allow time to submit a closing brief. Extension was granted and parties were notified via email. Parties were granted time to submit closing statement through February 10, 2014, coinciding with Actual Record Close Date which was then set as February 10, 2014. Compliance date was extended through February 31, 2014.
This matter was instituted by the impartial hearing request, dated September 24, 2013, as corrected, October 21, 2013, alleging that, for the 2013-2014 school year, the Department of Education (DOE) failed to provide a procedurally valid and substantively appropriate Individual Education Program (IEP), and failed to properly evaluate the student and placement for the student. Parent alleges that this failure resulted in a denial of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for the student for the 2013-2014 school year. (Ex A 1-3)
Relief sought, which is to addressed herein, includes a finding that the DOE failed to offer the student a FAPE or the 2013-2014 school year, reimbursement of tuition for unilateral placement at the Preparatory School () and the Program, for the 20132014 school year, and reimbursement for the cost of s. (Ex A 4-5)
I note the IHO erroneously identified the two IHO exhibits as I. Therefore, any references will be made to the identified document in full to avoid any confusion. Documents are: Notice of Appearance, dated September 25, 2013, 1 pp. and I Hearing Request dated September 24, 2013, 5 pages.
BACKGROUND
Student is currently years old, an student at , classified as a student with a . (Ex A 2-3 & 3-1)
Last IEP for the student was completed on 07/26/2011. (Ex 3-23)
DOE, via letter dated June 26, 2012, advised parent “
FINDING OF FACTS AND DECISION
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 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 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; H.C. v. Katonah-Lewisboro Union Free Sch. Dist., 2013 WL 3155869 [2d Cir. June 24, 2013]; R.E. v. New City Dep't. of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 189-90 [2d Cir. 2012], cert. denied 2013 WL 1418840 [U.S. June 10, 2013]; M.H. v. New City Dep't of Educ., 685 F.3d 217, 245 [2d Cir. 2012]; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]). "'[A]dequate compliance with the procedures prescribed would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP'" (Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 129 [2d Cir. 1998] [quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206]; see T.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 247, 253 [2d Cir. 2009]). While the Second Circuit has emphasized that school districts must comply with the checklist of procedures for developing a student's IEP and indicated that "[m]ultiple procedural violations may cumulatively result in the denial of a FAPE even if the violations considered individually do not" (R.E., 694 F.3d at 190-91), the Court has also explained that not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (M.H., 685 F.3d at 245; 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 procedural violations are 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]; R.E., 694 F.3d at 190; M.H., 685 F.3d at 245; 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], aff'd, 2009 WL 3326627 [2d Cir. Oct. 16, 2009]; 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, 142 F.3d at 130; 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 T.P., 554 F.3d at 254; 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; G.B. v. Tuxedo Union Free Sch. Dist., 751 F. Supp. 2d 552, 573-80 [S.D.N.Y. 2010], aff'd, 2012 WL 4946429 [2d Cir. Oct. 18, 2012]; 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 (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 or most recent " of the student, as well as the " '" of the student]), establishes annual goals designed to meet the student's needs resulting from the student's and enable 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 also Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 07-018; Application of a Child with a , Appeal No. 06-059; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 06-029; 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).
A board of education may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private educational services obtained for a student by his or her parents, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parents were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parents' claim (Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]; Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-70 [1985]; R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85; T.P., 554 F.3d at 252). In Burlington, the Court found that Congress intended retroactive reimbursement to parents by school officials as an available remedy in a proper case under the IDEA (471 U.S. at 370-71; see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 111; Cerra, 427 F.3d at 192). "Reimbursement merely requires [a district] to belatedly pay expenses that it should have paid all along and would have borne in the first instance" had it offered the student a FAPE (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370-71; see 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][ii]; 34 CFR 300.148).
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 R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85; M.P.G. v. New City Dep't of Educ., 2010 WL 3398256, at *7 [S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2010]).
The parent bears the burden of proof concerning the appropriateness of their unilateral placement.
A private school placement must be "proper under the Act" (Carter, 510 U.S. at 12, 15; Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370), i.e., the private school offered an educational program which met the student's special education needs (see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, 115; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 129; Matrejek, 471 F. Supp. 2d at 419). A parent's failure to select a program approved by the State in favor of an unapproved option is not itself a bar to reimbursement (Carter, 510 U.S. at 14). The private school need not employ certified special education teachers or have its own IEP for the student (Carter, 510 U.S. 7; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 08-085; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 08-025; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 08-016; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 07-097; Application of a Child with a , Appeal No. 07-038; Application of a Child with a , Appeal No. 02-014; Application of a Child with a , Appeal No. 01-105). Parents seeking reimbursement "bear the burden of demonstrating that their private placement was appropriate, even if the IEP was inappropriate" (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; see M.S. v. Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 104 [2d Cir. 2000]). "Subject to certain limited exceptions, 'the same considerations and criteria that apply in determining whether the [s]chool [d]istrict's placement is appropriate should be considered in determining the appropriateness of the parents' placement…'" (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364, quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207 [identifying exceptions]). Parents need not show that the placement provides every special service necessary to maximize the student's potential (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65). When determining whether the parents' unilateral placement is appropriate, "[u]ltimately, the issue turns on" whether that placement is "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits" (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364; see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115, citing Berger v. Medina City Sch. Dist., 348 F.3d 513, 522 [6th Cir. 2003] [stating "evidence of academic progress at a private school does not itself establish that the private placement offers adequate and appropriate education under the IDEA"]). A private placement is only appropriate if it provides education instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a student (20 U.S.C. § 1401[29]; 34 CFR 300.39[a][1]; Educ. Law § 4401[1]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[ww]; Rowley, 458 U.S. at 188-89; Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 114-15 [noting that even though the unilateral placement provided special education, the evidence did not show that it provided special education services specifically needed by the student]; Frank G., 459 F.3d at 365; Stevens v. New City Dep't of Educ., 2010 WL 1005165, *9 [S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2010])
The Second Circuit has set forth the standard for determining whether parents have carried their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of their unilateral placement.
No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining whether parents' unilateral placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. Grades, test scores, and regular advancement may constitute evidence that a child is receiving educational benefit, but courts assessing the propriety of a unilateral placement consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child's individual needs. To qualify for reimbursement under the IDEA, parents need not show that a private placement furnishes every special service necessary to maximize their child's potential. They need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction.
(Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; see Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-
65).
Consideration in determining whether, in to what degree, reimbursement for a unilateral placement is appropriate requires balancing of the relevant equitable considerations applicable to the parents' claim. Equitable considerations are relevant to fashioning relief under the IDEA (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374; M.C. v. Voluntown, 226 F.3d 60, 68 [2d Cir. 2000]; see Carter, 510 U.S. at 16 ["Courts fashioning discretionary equitable relief under IDEA must consider all relevant factors, including the appropriate and reasonable level of reimbursement that should be required. Total reimbursement will not be appropriate if the court determines that the cost of the private education was unreasonable"]). With respect to equitable considerations, the IDEA also provides that reimbursement may be reduced or denied when parents fail to raise the appropriateness of an IEP in a timely manner, fail to make their child available for by the district, or upon a finding of unreasonableness with respect to the actions taken by the parents (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][iii]; see S.W. v. New City Dep't of Educ., 2009 WL 857549, at *13-14 [S.D.N.Y. March 30, 2009]; Thies v. New City Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 344728 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2008]; M.V. v. Shenendehowa Cent. Sch. Dist., 2008 WL 53181, at *5 [N.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2008]; Bettinger v. New City Bd. of Educ., 2007 WL 4208560, at *4 [S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2007]; Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist. v. V.P., 373 F. Supp. 2d 402, 417-18 [S.D.N.Y. 2005], aff'd, 2006 WL 2335140 [2d Cir. Aug. 9, 2006]; Werner v. Clarkstown Cent. Sch. Dist., 363 F. Supp. 2d 656, 660-61 [S.D.N.Y. 2005]; see also Voluntown, 226 F.3d at n.9; Wolfe v. Taconic Hills Cent. Sch. Dist., 167 F. Supp. 2d 530, 533 [N.D.N.Y. 2001]; Application of the Dep’t of Educ., Appeal No. 07-079; Application of the Dep’t of Educ., Appeal No. 07-032).
The IDEA allows that reimbursement may be reduced or denied if parents do not provide notice of the unilateral placement either at the most recent CSE meeting prior to removing the student from public school, or by written notice ten business days before such removal, "that they were rejecting the placement proposed by the public agency to provide a [FAPE] to their child, including stating their concerns and their intent to enroll their child in a private school at public expense" (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][iii][I]; see 34 C.F.R. § 300.148[d][1]). This statutory provision "serves the important purpose of giving the school system an opportunity, before the child is removed, to assemble a team, evaluate the child, devise an appropriate plan, and determine whether a [FAPE] can be provided
While parents are entitled to reimbursement for the cost of an appropriate private placement when a district has failed to offer their child a FAPE, it does not follow they may take advantage of deficiencies in the district's offered placement to obtain maximization of their child's potential at the expense of public funds, as such results do not achieve the purpose of the IDEA. To the contrary, "[r]eimbursement merely requires [a district] to belatedly pay expenses that it should have paid all along and would have borne in the first instance" had it offered the student a FAPE (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370-71 [emphasis added]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][ii]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.148). To clarify a circuit court recently explained, "[e]quity surely would permit a reduction from full reimbursement if [a unilateral private placement] provides too much (services beyond required educational needs)" (C.B. v. Garden Grove Unified Sch. Dist., 635 F.3d 1155, 1160 [9th Cir. 2011]). Similarly, "a finding that a particular private placement is appropriate under IDEA does not mean that all treatments received there are per se [reimbursable]; rather, reimbursement is permitted only for treatments that are related services as defined by the IDEA" (Richardson Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael Z., 580 F.3d 286, 301 [5th Cir. 2009]).
DOE IEP and PROPOSED PLACEMENT
DOE did not present any case and conceded prong one. By conceding prone one the DOE acknowledges it did not offer the student a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for the 2013-2014 school year. (T 15 & 31)
I find the DOE failed to offer the student a FAPE for the 2013-2014 school year.
PLACEMENT
Witnesses detailed an understanding of the student’s needs and the appropriateness of the program for the student for the 2013-2014 school year.
I find the educational instruction at is especially designed to meet the unique needs of the student and is supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction.
For the 2013-2014 school year I find offered an educational program which met the student's special education needs and such placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.
PAYMENT FOR
The IDEA and State and federal regulations guarantee parents the right to obtain an Indepentdent Educational (IEE) (see 20 U.S.C. § 1415[b][1]; 34 CFR 300.502; 8 NYCRR 200.5[g]). IEEs are defined by State regulation as "an individual of a student with a or a student thought to have a , conducted by a qualified examiner who is not employed by the public agency responsible for the education of the student" (8 NYCRR 200.1[z]; see 34 CFR 300.502[a][3][i]). In addition to having an IEE considered by the CSE, parents have the right to have one IEE conducted at public expense if the parent disagrees
Additionally, an IHO is vested with the authority to direct that a student be at district expense (34 CFR 300.502[d]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[g][2]; [j][3][viii]). IHOs are "granted broad authority in their handling of the hearing process and to determine the type of relief which is appropriate considering the equitable factors present and those which will effectuate the purposes underlying IDEA" (Warren Consolidated Schs., 106 LRP 70659 [LEA MI 2000]).
For this student the last IEP for the student was completed on 07/26/2011. (Ex 3-23) to be completed via letter dated June 26, 2012, and parent provided consen
DOE notified parent of the need for t. (Ex E 1)
DOE did not act to conduct any of the student. Parents were never contacted regarding the consented s. (T 34)
Parent was left with no choice but to obtain a private . Parent paid for same as indicated on attached Exhibit I.
DOE has not presented any contest to the parent’s evidence or claim for reimbursement for the obtained.
Parent attorney argues: “When the need for an is established and the district fails to conduct the , a parent may have the done without sending a specific letter that they “disagree” with an and then seek reimbursement. Application of a Student with a , Appeal No. 12-025 (Parent who signed consent in April 2010 and had s completed in September 20102 were entitled to reimbursement due to district’s failure to conduct s.) “While it would have been preferable for the parents to request that the district conduct the necessary s prior to obtaining one themselves, where, as here, the district acknowledged the need to evaluate the student and failed to do so, I find that the parents are entitled to reimbursement of IEEs.” Id. See also C.S. and L.B. obo K.S. v. Ramsey Board of Education (available online at http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/html/initial/eds10160-11_1.html) (Parent who requests an of their child may seek reimbursement, without additional notice, when the district decides that an is not warranted.)” (IHO Ex II 13-14)
I agree with the parent’s position. Without the ability to be reimbursed for the obtained there is nothing to compel the DOE from completing an .
Parent acted appropriately and in the interest of their child. When DOE failed to act to the student, the parent took action and obtained and paid for the . (Ex C & E)
I find the parent is entitled to reimbursement for the obtained.
EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS
I find equitable considerations support the parent’s claim. The parent cooperated and gave consent to the student and has not acted to deny any request buy the DOE. (Ex E)
Parent letter of 08/21/2013, advises the DOE that a CSE Review has not been conducted for his child and he would be unilaterally placing his child at , and seeking tuition reimbursement. No meeting was ever held by the CSE. (T 34-35, Ex D)
Execute contract with sets forth tuition as $40,500.00, plus the JSP $19,000.00 and a fee of $1,150. Total tuition and cost of the program is $60,650.00. (Ex 4-1)
ORDER
1. The Department of Education (DOE) failed to offer, and failed to provide, the student with an appropriate program and placement and therefore, a FAPE has been denied the student, for the 2013-2014 school year.
2. , with the Program, is an appropriate program and placement for the student for the 2013-2014 school year.
3. The DOE shall reimburse parent the cost of tuition, the Program and fees in the amount of $60,650.00.
4. DOE shall reimburse parent $4,000.00 for the cost of Report, obtained by parent. 5. DOE shall provide parent with any required documentation and forms necessary to facilitate reimbursement within ten days of the date of this order.
6. This decision is subject to appeal and review by the State Review Officer. Dated: February 19, 2014
________________________
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 City Department of Education has a right to appeal the decision to the State Review Officer of the New 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
ENTERED 01/06/2014
A Corrected Impartial Hearing Request dated 10/21/13, 5 pp. B IEP dated 7/26/11, 25 pp. C Report, May June 2013, 16 pp. D Parent Correspondence to CSE, dated 8/21/13, 3 pp. E 2012 signed consent to dated 8/7/12, 2 pp. F proofs of payment, June 2013 1 pp. G 2013-'14 school schedule, 1 pp. H contract dated 06/19/13, 4 pp. I proof of payment & dated 7/31/13, 3 pp.
ENTERED 01/16/2014
J Student Report card, dated January 16, 2014, 1 page
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
NONE
IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER
ENTERED 01/06/2014
I Notice of Appearance, dated 9/25/13, 1 pp.
ENTERED 01/16/2014
I Hearing Request dated 9/24/13, 5 pages
ENTERED 02/07/2014
II Parents’ Closing Brief, dated 02/07/2014, 15 pages