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 15, 2013

January 9, 2014

January 31, 2014

Actual Record Closed Date: February 14, 2014

Hearing Officer: Daniel Ajello, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON NOVEMBER 15,

2012

NONE

For the Department of Education: , District Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JANUARY 09, 2014

Attorney (via Telephone) — Student

District Representative (via telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JANUARY 31, 2014

Attorney — Student

Parents

District Representative — DOE

(Via Telephone) — DOE

(Via Telephone) — DOE

INTRODUCTION

On October 9, 2014, 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 15, 2012, hearing commenced. Parent did not appear. Parent was contacted with the hearing date prior to hearing. On day of hearing IHO called the parent’s to try and determine why parent did not appear. Another hearing date was set for December 16, 2013 to allow parent the opportunity to appear. Later is was discovered that the Department of Education (DOE) had scheduled an Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting for the same day as the hearing. (T 3-4)

An amended Due Process request was submitted on December 10, 2013 and approved on December 11, 2013. Hearing date of December 16, 2013 was cancelled. Pre hearing conference was held on January 09, 2014. Hearing was scheduled to commence on January 31, 2014.

BACKGROUND

Hearing request dated October 08, 2013 was amended by Amended Hearing Request dated December 09, 2013. (Ex B & A)

Amended Hearing request alleged the DOE failed to recommend an appropriate placement for the student for the 2013-2014 school year, failed to adequately address the student transportation needs, failed to student’s learning needs, failed to order in order to provide an appropriate program and services to meet the student’s individual needs, failed to adequately provide the and failed to provide the parent with specifically requested educational records. (Ex A 5-7) Parent seeks the relief to address the allegations made above: a. Order for the Committee on Special Education (CSE) to address student’s individual learning needs and change his current placement for the 2013-2014 school year and order a more restrictive setting, or the CSE to defer the case to the Central Based Support Team for identification of an appropriate placement.; b. h. DOE payment of Parent’s attorney fees and costs;

I. Any other further relief the IHO may deem appropriate. (Ex A 7-9) IEP of November 15

PARENT POSITION

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Two purposes of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) are (1) to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and ; 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; 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 (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 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 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 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) DOE offer of FAPE for the 2013-2014 School Year

DOE testimony established the DOE had not delivered the services contained in the IEP it sought to defend.

6. This order is subject to review by the State Review Officer. Dated: February 20, 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 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

ENTERED 01/31/2014

A Amended Request For Due Process Hearing dated 12/9/13, 10 pgs. B Request For Due Process Proceeding by Parent dated 10/18/13, 3 pgs. C IEP (NYC) dated 11/15/13, 14 pgs. D IEP ( ) dated 4/15/13, 23 pgs. E Prior Written Notice dated 11/15/13, 3 pgs. F Comparable Service Plan dated 9/20/13, 3 pgs. G Letter From dated 9/18/13, 1 pg. H Authorization to Program as Comparable Service dated 9/16/13, 1 pg. I With Coversheet dated 10/24/13, 11 pgs. J dated 10/11/13, 2 pgs. K dated 10/4/13, 4 pgs. L Support Plan dated 3/2/11, 7 pgs. M dated 5/18/12, 3 pgs. N Letter From dated 1/17/14, 1 pg.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

None

IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER

NONE