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: January 21, 2014
Actual Record Closed Date: February 21, 2013
Hearing Officer: Roslyn Roth, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JANUARY 21, 2014
Director of Student Services — DOE
(Via Telephone) — DOE
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This hearing was held pursuant to New York Education Law § 4404(1), 20 U.S.C. §1415(f), the Individuals with Disabilities Act (“IDEA”). In accordance with the parent’s request for a hearing dated October 11, 2013, I was appointed by the Department of Education, (hereinafter referred to as “DOE”), to hear this matter. The DOE filed a motion to dismiss the complaint based on the insufficiency of the parent’s due process complaint, which was denied on October 26, 2013. On January 21, 2014 a hearing was held.
The DOE submitted 5 exhibits, entered as Exhibits 1 through 5, (the list of exhibits is attached hereto as “Attachment A”). The parents’ due process complaint requests that the student. The Parent, testified in support of her position. The school’s principal testified on behalf of the DOE. District’s Position
The District asserts that student is placed in a class consistent with State regulations which indicate, in relevant part, that the range of ages in a Parent’s Position The Parent argues that the student needs. The parent asserts that the student’s current class is Statement of Facts
A school district offers a FAPE "by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction. However, the "IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an " (Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 [2d Cir. 1998]). 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). Additionally, school districts are not required to "maximize" the potential of students with disabilities. Nonetheless, a school district must provide "an that is 'likely to produce progress, not regression,' and . . . affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere 'trivial advancement'" (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130 ). The must be "reasonably calculated to provide some 'meaningful' benefit" (Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 [2d Cir. 1997]).
With regard to functional grouping in the class, State regulations require that in classes, students must be suitably grouped for instructional purposes with other students having similar individual needs (8 NYCRR 200.1[ww][3][ii], 200.6[a][3], [h][3]; see Walczak, 142 F.3d at 133 [upholding a district's determination to group a student in a classroom with students of different intellectual, social, and behavioral needs, where sufficient similarities existed]). State regulations further provide that determinations regarding the size and composition of a shall be based on the similarity of the
The social and physical levels of development of the individual students shall be considered to ensure beneficial growth to each student, although neither should be a sole basis for determining placement (8 NYCRR 200.6[a][3][ii], [iii]). Further, the management needs of students may vary and the modifications, adaptations, and other resources are to be provided to students so that they do not detract from the opportunities of the other students in the class (8 NYCRR 200.6[a][3][iv]). State regulations also require that a "district operating a provide the [CSE] and the parents and teacher of students in such class a description of the range of achievement in reading and mathematics . . . in the class, by November 1st of each year" (8 NYCRR 200.6[h][7]). However, State regulations do not preclude a grouping of students in a classroom when the range of achievement levels in reading and math would exceed three years (see Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 11-025).
The DOE’s position that the self-contained class is an appropriate setting is supported. Accordingly, based on the evidence, I find the class placement is appropriate. The Parent’s claim is dismissed. Dated: February 25, 2014
ROSLYN ROTH, ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer
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
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.
1 , dated 1/9/14, 1 page
2 , 11 pages
3 , 16 pages
4 , 13 pages
5 , 14 pages