Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number:

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District:

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Date of Hearing: March 11, 2014

Actual Record Closed Date: April 21, 2014

Hearing Officer: Rona Feinberg, Esq

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MARCH 11, 2014

CSE Representative — DOE

Advocate — Parents

(via telephone)

Father

Director, — Parents

(via telephone)

INTRODUCTION

On March 11, 2014 I held an impartial hearing pursuant to the Individuals With Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(1) regarding the education program of a school-aged child, Samuel Z (“SZ”). The hearing commenced at 1:00 p.m. and was held at the Impartial Hearing Office, 131 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, New York. A list of witnesses testifying and documents received into evidence are attached to this Decision and Order.

BACKGROUND

is -old and attends the ”). In a letter dated October 17, 2013, SZ’s parents, by their advocate , filed a Due Process Complaint (“Complaint”) requesting an impartial hearing. In that Complaint the parents maintained that the Department of Education did not offer a Free and Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) for the 2013-2014 school year. The parents alleged that appropriate for the child and that the equities favor them. They requested reimbursement and/or direct payment to or , direct payment for the cost of s mandated related services at Sinai and bus transportation to and from ’s home (Parents’ Ex. A).^[1] The Department of Education did not file a response to the parents’ Due Process Complaint.

I was appointed as the Impartial Hearing Officer in this case on October 18, 2013. The original compliance date was January 2, 2014. On November 21, 2013, 2014, at the request of the parents for the availability of witnesses and without objection by the Department of Education, hearing dates were scheduled for January 22, 2014 and February 3, 2014 and the compliance date was extended to January 30, 2014. On January 6, 2014 at the request of the parents for the availability of witnesses and without objection by the Department of Education hearing dates were scheduled for February 13, 2014 and March 11, 2014 and the compliance date was extended to March 1, 2014. On March 3, 2014 at the request of the parents for the availability of witnesses the compliance date was extended to April 2, 2014. At the conclusion of the hearing on March 11, 2014 at the request of both parties for the receipt of the transcripts the issuance of a Decision and Order, the compliance date was extended to May 1, 2014.

The extensions were granted after considering the cumulative impact of the factors enumerated in Section 200.5(j)(5)(ii) of the New York State Regulations of the Commissioner of Education (“Commissioner’s Regulations”) and a determination that there was a compelling reason for each of the extensions as required by Section 200.5(j)(5)(iii) of the Commissioner’s Regulations. Specifically, (a) the child was attending Sinai, the independent placement, and thus there was no negative impact on the child’s educational interest or well-being as a result of the delay; (b) in accordance with due process the parents were entitled to the opportunity to secure witnesses to appear at the hearing in support of their position and the parties were entitled to have this hearing officer review the transcript and consider the evidence prior to the issuance of a Decision and Order; (c) there were no financial or detrimental consequences likely to be suffered by either party by the delay since there was no pendency in the case and the parents were able to make monthly payments to the school; and (d) for the reasons indicated above any prior delays due to the unavailability of the parents’ witnesses did not require the denial of a subsequent extension request.

THE PARENTS’ POSITION

represented the parents as their advocate at the impartial hearing. Ms. alleged that the Department of Education did not provide with a FAPE for the 2013-2014 school year, is appropriate and that the equities support the parents. The parents asked that the Department of Education reimburse the parents for the portion of the tuition they have paid and for direct for the remainder of the tuition, excluding the amount of the tuition related to the “strictly religious portion” of the school day (Hearing: 48-49).

THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S POSITION

represented the Department of Education. Mr. conceded that the Department of Education did not provide with a FAPE for the 2013-2014 school year. However, he argued not an appropriate placement because there was no evidence that it is providing with an educational benefit and that in any event, payment for the religious portion of the school day should be denied (Hearing: 51-53).

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Department of Education’s Case

The Department of Education did not present any witnesses. The Parents’ Case is the director of site located at the . She has Masters’ Degrees in Special Education and in Educational Administration, is a licensed special education teacher and has supervisory certification ( : 7-8 : 43)

appeared by telephone at an IEP meeting for on January 10, 2013; Ms. Glicksman participated in the meeting as well ( 43-44, 47; Parents’ Ex. C at 17).2 The program recommendation at the meeting was for a special class with a 12:1:1 ratio. visited the placement recommended by the Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) and he thought that the student to teacher ratio was not appropriate ( : 44).

currently attends ( 44-45 believed is an appropriate placement . From ’s own observations and his conversations with the school staff he believed that has made progress at the school, is “very very successful” there and is “very happy” ( 45).

The tuition is $67,500.00 (EZ: 45; Parents’ Ex. H). s 1040 Income Tax Return for the 2012-2013 school year shows an adjusted gross income of $61,737.00. The document shows that has five dependents. He cannot personally afford to pay the tuition at : 46). He has been paying the school $600.00 a month and as of January 1, 2014 he had paid the school $3600.00 (Parents’ Exs. I, J). The parents owe the remainder of the tuition to the school. If he does not prevail at the impartial hearing the amount of the unpaid tuition will be his debt and he would have to take out a pension loan to pay back the school (EZ: 46-47; Parents’ Exs. I, J).

is an elementary and middle school for students with learning and developmental disabilities (Parents’ Ex. B). It is a ten month program and rents space from the (“ ”). The 2013-2014 school year began the week before Labor Day and will

Citations to pages 47-48 refer to Mr. Ellen’s cross-examination of Mr. Zinstein. end on the last day of June 2014 (Glicksman: 33). Ms. is the director of the school. She supervises the five self-contained classes at and is the liaison with provides inclusion experiences for its students at : 7-8; Parents’ Ex. B).

There are 36 students for the 2013-2014 school year; the students range in age from six to fourteen years-old ( : 8). The school has 15 full-time teachers, one half-time teacher and one “floating” teacher assistant. A behavioral consultant comes to the school three times a month and a consultant art therapist comes to the school every week. The school has a speech pathologist, an occupational therapist and a psychologist (Glicksman: 9).

Sinai conducts teacher workshops in writing. The school uses a social/emotional system called “responsive classroom.” A number of teachers attended a weeklong training in “responsive classroom” over the summer and these teachers are providing ongoing training for the rest of the staff. There are two professional development days a month during which either the writing program or the social/emotional program is addressed ( : 10-11).

Ms. has two associate directors and each teacher has a direct supervisor. The teachers meet with their direct supervisors at least once a week and on an as-needed basis. The home classroom team, including the psychologist, meets with all of the administrators once a week. Once a month the related service providers participate in the meeting as well ( : 15-16).

There are eight students in grade class for the 2013-2014 school year ( 9). s teachers are , a Judiac studies teacher, is the third adult in the classroom ( 13-14). Ms. are both licensed special education teachers; Ms. is not a licensed teacher in New Jersey ( 14-15, 23-24).3

At the beginning of the 2013-2014 school ( : 11). He was reading on a first grade level and his math skills were delayed require a lot of support and at that time his writing showed the most . He had difficulty following classroom routines, changing a

Citations to pages 23-37 and 39-41refer to Mr. s cross-examination of Ms. schedule when necessary and joining groups that were larger than just one or two children (Glicksman: 12).

impeded his . For example, if he was asked to perform a “less desired task” such as writing, he would go under his chair, leave the table or engage in “self-talk” to escape. Ms. explained that involved with computer game superhero characters and that he engages in self-talk with those characters. during which the other side of the classroom. both by things that might be going on in class as well has his “internal program,” which is evidenced by his 17).

developed a Comprehensive Student Plan (“CSP”) at the beginning of the school year with “very specific” goals for him and progress is marked in November, February and June ( : 19; Parents’ Ex. G). The teachers use a behavioral rewards system . He has his own specific goal chart on his CSP and gets “checks” when he meets those goals, such as following classroom routines or using his words to express his frustration. When achieves a goal in class he gets a “check” for that class and is able to choose a “prize” mid-day and at the end of the day. Once the teachers were able to improve behavior he made a “lot of progress academically” (Glicksman: 12-13, 32-33, 35-36; Parents’ Ex. G at 9).

’s CSP indicated that in November he was “progressing” in his goals of selfmonitoring as he reads and in using pictures to confirm and predict reading, and Ms. Glicksman testified that both of these goals were “mastered” in February. The goal of searching for familiar parts of words when reading was “still progressing” at the time of the hearing but a “significant number” of other goals were mastered. After goals are mastered more goals are added (Glicksman: 20).

At the time of the reading level had gone up to the end of second grade/beginning of third grade (Glicksman: 33, 40; Parents’ Ex. G at 9). He was “much better able” to follow classroom routines and to participate in all of his classes than he was at the beginning of the school year. His was better able to maintain attention in a group of about six students whereas at the beginning of the school year he could function in groups of only one or two students. However, Ms. testified that class size is a “huge issue” because he to keep him on task (Glicksman: 17-18).

Socially, emotionally and behaviorally improved in that the other children are more likely to seek him out than they were at the beginning of the school year and he is “much better to relate to children on things that are common to both of them.” At the beginning of the school year a teacher had to sit with during speech group and even then he could not last until the end of the session. At the time of the hearing was maintaining his active involvement in the group until the end of the half hour session (Glicksman: 21-22).

receives the related services of individual counseling once a week, occupational therapy once a week individually and twice a week in a group, and speech therapy once a week individually and twice a week in a group (Glicksman: 16-17).

Ms. believed is providing with an appropriate education in the least restrictive environment (“LRE”) for the 2013-2014 school year. is mainstreamed with the general education second grade class for recess and for special events such as a class play and assemblies. Mainstreaming has been beneficial in terms of role models for behavior and language, and his language has improved as a result (Glicksman: 18-19). Because has made a lot of progress the teachers are considering inclusion in a music class and then at lunch. Ms. stated that ould get “academic inclusion in the near future,” possibly with some level of support (Glicksman: 22-23).

The school day at is from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and from 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Friday. Beginning on the week of April 24, 2024, following the Passover break, the school day was extended to 3:00 p.m. on Friday; the subjects that would be added on Friday had not yet been determined at the time of the hearing. The school day includes several hours of religious instruction. The schedule class indicates “Prayer” from 8:30 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. on Monday through Thursday and from 8:30 a.m. to 9:10 a.m. on Friday. There is “Bible” on Tuesday through Thursday from 9:20 a.m. to 9:30 a.m., on Monday through Thursday from 10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. and on Friday from 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.4 There is “Hebrew Reading” from 9:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. on Monday through Thursday and from 9:30 to 10:00 on Friday. There is “Hebrew Language” from 12:45 to 1:05 on Monday and Wednesday ( : 26-32; Parents’ Ex. F). Ms. testified that Hebrew Language is taught as a foreign language not as a religious subject. reads in Hebrew every day and the Hebrew Language twice a week is a “kind of immersion” where the students read story books and have to respond : 38-39). The “Overview ” includes “Hebrew Language” under Judaic studies. Ms. testified that there is no Judaic studies or religious content in the Hebrew classes except for the fact that they are conducted in Hebrew (Glicksman: 39).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISCUSSION

The purpose behind the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482 is to is to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE, a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment (“LRE”). 20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]; see Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S. Ct. 528, 531 (2005); Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179-81, 200-01 (1982); Frank G v. Board of Education of Hyde Park, Central School District, 459 F.3d 356, 371 (2d Cir. 2006); Application of the Board of Education of the Colton Pierrepont Central School District, Appeal No. 08-005. A FAPE includes special education and related services designed to meet SZ's unique needs, provided in conformity with a comprehensive written individualized education program. 20 U.S.C. § 1401[9][D]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.13; see 20 U.S.C. § 1414[d]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.347; Rowley at 181-182; R.E. and M.E. v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Educ., 785 F. Supp. 2d 28 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), appeal pending. A school District offers a FAPE by “providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit SZ to benefit educationally from that instruction.” Rowley, 458 U. S. at 203.

The purpose behind the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482 is to is to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE, a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment (“LRE”). 20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]; see Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S. Ct. 528, 531 (2005);

SZ’s schedule indicates that Bible is from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. on Friday but Ms. Glicksman testified Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179-81, 200-01 (1982); Frank G v. Board of Education of Hyde Park, Central School District, 459 F.3d 356, 371 (2d Cir. 2006); Application of the Board of Education of the Colton Pierrepont Central School District, Appeal No. 08-005. A FAPE includes special education and related services designed to meet s unique needs, provided in conformity with a comprehensive written individualized education program. 20 U.S.C. § 1401[9][D]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.13; see 20 U.S.C. § 1414[d]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.347; Rowley at 181-182. A school District offers a FAPE by “providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit o benefit educationally from that instruction.” Rowley, 458 U. S. at 203.

The legal standard applicable to a request for reimbursement for educational services, such as in this case, is well established. A Board of Education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a child by the child's parent, if: 1) the services offered by the Board of Education were inadequate or inappropriate; 2) the services selected by the parent were appropriate; and 3) equitable considerations support the Parents’ claim. School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985). The Board of Education bears the burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of the program recommended by its CSE. N.Y. Educ. Law §4404[1][c]; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 11-053. I.

To meet its burden, the Board of Education must show that it recommended a program that is reasonably calculated to allow the child to receive educational benefits and that the recommended program is the LRE for the child. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 188189; 34 CFR 300.550 [b]; 8 NYCRR 200.6 [a][1]. An appropriate program begins with an IEP which accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the child's needs, provides for the use of appropriate special education services to address the child's special education needs, and establishes annual goals and short-term instructional objectives which are related to the child's educational deficits. See R.E, v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 175 (2nd Cir. 2012).

that the schedule is in error and that the time is actually from 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. ( : 28-29).

With respect to this criterion Mr acknowledged that the Department of Education did not provide with a FAPE for the 2013-2014 school year. II.

Under the second criterion of the legal standard, parents bear the burden of proof with regard to the appropriateness of the services that the parent obtained for the current school year. N.Y. Educ. Law §4404[1][c]; M.S. v. Board of Education of the City of Yonkers, 231 F.2d 96, 104 (2nd Cir. 2000); Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 11-053. In order to meet that burden, the parents must show that the educational services were "proper under the act" [IDEA]. Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370, i.e., that the educational program is one which met 's special education 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. Parents cannot be denied reimbursement because a private school does not meet the standards required for a state educational agency such as the developing IEPs or employing faculty members that are not state certified. Rather, the parents 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." Ultimately, the issue turns on whether a placement - public or private - is "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits." Rowley, 458 U.S. at 188-189, 207; Florence County School District Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7, 14 (1993); Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364. While parents are not held as strictly to the standard of placement in the LRE as school Districts are, the restrictiveness of the parental placement may be considered in determining whether the parent are entitled to an award of tuition reimbursement. Rafferty v. Cranston Public School Comm., 315 F.3d 21, 26-27 (1st Cir. 2002); M.S., 231 F.3d at 96.

To begin, unless otherwise indicated below I credit the testimony of the witnesses who appeared at the hearing. My Decision is based on the Findings of Fact detailed above with citations to the record and on any additional facts recounted below. Ms. the director who has known for the past two years in first and second grade, explained that at the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year s academic functioning was impacted by behavior was addressed by the Social/Behavior goals on the CSP that the school developed for him at the beginning of the school year and which was implemented by giving checks” each time he meets a specific behavioral goal in class; those checks lead to a reward twice each day. The testimony showed that this system has benefitted in that at the time of the significantly and his academics improved as well. For example, at the beginning of the school was not able to sustain a 30-minute speech session even with a teacher beside him while at the time of the hearing he was able to attend and participate in his group speech session for the entire 30 minutes.

The CSP also developed specific academic goals for several of which he has mastered and others in which he progressing. Ms. explained that once a goal is met new goals are developed for him. The evidence showed reading skills improved as well in that Ms. testified had mastered some reading goals on the CSP and was progressing in others. The CSP showed was progressing in math as well. And, Ms. testified that s currently reading at above grade level, either the end of second grade or the beginning of third grade ( : 19-20, 40; Parents’ Ex. G at 4-5).

The class schedule indicates that the academic subjects taught are reading, math, phonics, handwriting and language. Ms. testified receives , related services indicated on his most recent Individual Education Program (“IEP”) ( : 17-18; Parents’ Exs. C at 10, Gat 2-3, 6-8).

social and over the 2013-2014 school year as well. Ms. explained that at the time of the hearing had become a “preferred peer” in that his classmates sought him out and he was interacting with them appropriately, something he was not doing at the beginning of the school year.

I find that is an education that is meeting his individual special education needs and that it is also the LRE Specifically, shares the building with a general education yeshiva and ’s class attends recess, assemblies and special events with the mainstream students, who provide appropriate role models Ms. testified that the mainstreaming had a positive impact on . Ms. also testified that teachers are considering mainstreaming him for a music class and then for lunch, with possible academic mainstreaming in the future, with support.

Based on the above, I find that the parents met their burden of demonstrating that Sinai is “reasonably calculated to to receive an educational benefit” in the LRE and that it is meeting his social and emotional needs. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207; Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364. However, there are several subjects on daily schedule that I find do not contribute to that educational benefit, specifically, Prayer, Bible, Hebrew Reading and Hebrew Language (Parents’ Ex. F). The parents’ advocate, Joan Harrington, stated at the hearing that the parents are not asking the Department of Education pay for the “strictly religious portion” of the school day, specifically “Prayer” and “Bible” (Hearing: 48-49), Ms. asserted that, based on the sworn testimony of Ms , Hebrew Reading and Hebrew Language do not include religious content and thus are not part of religious studies curriculum (Hearing: 49). the Department of Education representative, took the opposite position, arguing that the Hebrew instruction is, in fact, part of the religious component of the program (Hearing: 51-53).

Ms. testified that during the Hebrew Reading portion of reads books written in Hebrew but that the stories do not have religious content. She also testified that the Hebrew Language portion of the day is taught as a foreign language “immersion” during which reads story books and has to respond to questions (Glicksman: 38-39).

s old and is in . The parents’ Complaint describes him as a child who was not able to participate in a psychological evaluation in part, because of his “constant need for redirection, refocusing.” The Complaint also indicates that requires “a great deal of teacher attention to succeed” including “redirecting and refocusing and scaffolding.” It also states verbal understanding is weak” and that he “must have a teacher scaffold information to assure his understanding” (Parents’ Ex. A at 1). Ms. Glicksman testified that requires a “lot of attention to keep him on task” Glicksman: 18). Based on these factors, I find that regardless of the content of Hebrew Reading and Hebrew Language, these particular subjects are not appropriate to needs. Indeed, there is nothing in the Complaint or in the evidence or testimony at the hearing to suggest that learning to read the letters of the Hebrew alphabet or responding to questions in Hebrew would in any way address unique special education needs.

Thus, I find that the parents are entitled to reimbursement and direct payment for the portion of the tuition that excludes the time spent for Prayer, Bible, Hebrew and Hebrew Reading. III. The third criterion of the Burlington standard requires a balancing of the equities in determining whether reimbursement should be awarded.

I conclude that the equities support the parents. There is no evidence or testimony to support a conclusion that the parents failed to cooperate with the Department of Education in the development of an IEP for the 2013-2014 school year.

in the January 29, 2013 FNR. In a letter dated June 14, 2013, advised the CSE 10 Chairperson did not believe that the recommendation would be able to needs and that the parents were for the 2013-2014 school year. The letter also stated that the parents would observe any public school placement that was offered and that they would notify the CSE if they believed the offered placement was appropriate. If they did not believe the recommended placement was appropriate, they would enroll and request reimbursement and/or direct payment for the tuition at the school (Parents’ Ex. E). I note that the 2013-2014 tuition contract for Sinai provides that if the parents notified the school in writing by October 7, 2013 that they were accepting a placement offered by the Department of Education, they would be responsible for paying only the $600.00 deposit and any prorated tuition for the spent to enrolling in the public school placement (Parents’ Ex. H).

In light of the foregoing I find that the equities of the case support the parents. * * *

In sum, I find that the parents are entitled to have the Department of Education pay a portion of the remainder tuition for the 2013-2014 directly the parents are entitled to reimbursement for a portion of the tuition that they already paid to the school. The total amount of tuition to be paid by the Department of Education shall not exceed $67,500 minus the percentage of the tuition allocated for the time spent on Prayer, Bible, Hebrew Reading and Hebrew Language.

The school the week before Labor Day and it ends on the last day of June. From the first day of the school year through the first day of Passover vacation the school day at Sinai was from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on Monday through Thursday and from 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Friday. Beginning on the first Friday after the Passover vacation the school day was extended two hours so that the students remain in school until 3:00 p.m. ( ). Ms. testified that she did not yet know which subjects would be taught on those additional afternoons (Glicksman: 32). Thus I cannot conclude that the subjects taught during that time period will include Prayer, Bible, Hebrew Reading and/or Hebrew Language.

For purposes of calculating the amount of tuition to be paid by the Department of Education, the school week will be considered to be from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on Monday through Thursday and from 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Friday, a total of 32.5 hours a week. During that time a total of 2.6 hours are spent on Prayer, 3 hours on Bible, 2.5 hours on Hebrew Reading and .66 hours on Hebrew Language, for a total of 8.76 hours a week, or 27% of the total school hours a week. Therefore, I find that the amount of tuition subject to reimbursement/direct payment is not to exceed 73% of $67,500.00, or $49,275.00.

ORDER

In light of the above findings of fact, it is hereby Ordered that:

a) Within 30 days of the receipt of this Decision and Order the parents are to provide the Department of Education with for the 2012-2014 school year, proof for the school year and proof of the payments they have made to the school thus far;

b) Within 30 days of the receipt of those documents the Department of Education is to reimburse the parents for 73% of the tuition they have paid to

Sinai thus far and to provide direct payment the amount of 73% of the remaining tuition. The total to be paid is not to exceed 73% of $67,500.00 ($49,275.00). Dated: April 30, 2014

Rona Feinberg, Esq. gc

RONA FEINBERG, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

RF:gc

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

Parents:

Exhibit A Impartial Hearing Request dated

October 17, 2013, 5 pages

Exhibit B School Program Description

undated, 1 page

Exhibit C Individualized Education Program

dated January 10, 2013, 20 pages

Exhibit D Final Notice of Recommendation

dated January 29, 2013, 2 pages

Exhibit E Ten Day Notice dated June 14, 2013,

2 pages

Exhibit F Class Schedule 2013/2014, 1 page

Exhibit G Comprehensive Student Plan

2013/2014, 9 pages

Exhibit H Tuition Contract dated July 16, 2013,

1 page

Exhibit I Affidavit of Payments dated January

20, 2014, 1 page

Exhibit J Proofs of Payment various dates, 10

pages

Exhibit K 1040 U.S. Income Tax Return 2012,

2 pages

Department of Education:

The Department of Education did not enter any documents in to evidence.

Hearing Officer

Exhibit I Case Follow Up sheets indicating

extensions of the timeline, 5 pages

Footnotes

[1] The issues of reimbursement for transportation and for related services were not pursued at the hearing and thus are deemed to be waived (Hearing: 48-49).