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: March 25, 2014

May 5, 2014

May 7, 2014

Actual Record Closed Date: November 5, 2014

Hearing Officer: , Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MARCH 25, 2014

Parent Advocate — Student

CSE- Chairperson's Designee — DOE

DR., School Psychologist (Via Telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MAY 5, 2014

Parent Advocate — Student

CSE- DOE Representative — DOE

Special Education Administrator (Via Telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MAY 7, 2014

Advocate — Student

Mother — Student

Teacher (Via Telephone) — Student

DR., Psychologist (Via Telephone) — Student

CSE DOE Representative — DOE

INTRODUCTION

This document constitutes the Decision and Order of the undersigned, the duly designated Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) in an Impartial Hearing brought pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the New York State Education Laws. The School District will be referred to as District, the parents as Parents and the student will be referred to as Student. This is a reimbursement case.

OVERVIEW

The Student was diagnosed with

(“ ”) in 2010. (Ex. 3-5) The Parents placed the Student at the Private School in October of 2011. (Ex. 3-1) The record is silent regarding the Student’s educational history prior to the 2011/2012 school year. (Ex. 1-1) On or about January 26, 2012, the Student was administered an updated psychological evaluation. (Ex. 3) The CSE convened on or about March 20, 2012, and recommended a special class with related

, and services. (Ex. 1-7) At this time the Student was again classified by the CSE as . (Ex. 1-1) The Parents were sent

Final Notice of Recommendation (“FNR”) on or about July 11, 2012. (Ex. 2-1) On or about August 29, 2013, the Parents signed a contract to unilaterally place (and keep) the Student in the Private School. (Ex. C) The Parents subsequently notified the District that they were rejecting the recommended placement on or about September 19, 2012. (Ex. B)

The Student attended the Private School for the duration of the 2012/2013 school year, and returned to the Private School for the 2013/2014 school year. (Ex. A-3) The Parents filed the Complaint Notice on or about December 23, 2013. (Ex. A) The Student was years old at the time the Complaint Notice was filed. (Id.)

PARENTS’ POSITION

The Parents allege that the District failed to provide the Student with a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) for the 2012-2013 school year. The Parents argue first that the CSE was not properly constituted. (Ex. A-2) The Parents claim that the recommended placement in a class would not provide the Student with the support he requires to learn and progress. (Id.) The Parents argue also that the CSE failed to allocate sufficient time for . (Ex. A-3) The Parents allege that the recommended placement was inappropriate, as the classroom was and students were not monitored properly. (Id.) Such an environment, the Parents argue, would not be conducive to the Student’s development. (Id.) The Parents maintain that the Private School is an appropriate placement for the Student. (Id.) The Parents are seeking tuition direct pay/reimbursement for the 2012/2013 school year at the private school, and direct pay/reimbursement for related services and transportation costs for same. (Id.)

DISTRICT’S POSITION

The District’s position was related through testimony at hearing on March 25, May 5, and May 7, 2014. The District argues that the CSE was duly constituted at the March 20, 2012 IEP meeting. (Tr. 13-15) Also, the District maintains that the March 20, 2012 IEP was based on adequate observations. (Tr. 15) In view of that, the recommended placement was sufficient to provide the Student with a FAPE for the 2012/2013 school year. (Tr. 15-25) The District challenges the appropriateness of the placement with the Private School. (Tr. 143-56)

STUDENT HISTORY

The Student was diagnosed with in 2010 (Ex. 3-5) testing in 2010 indicated that the Student’s intellectual capabilities were within the range. (Ex. 3-2) The Student received services, and as a student, he received , , and . (Tr. 195). The Student has been attending the Private School since October, 2011. (Ex. 3-1) The Student was administered a psychological evaluation on or about January 26, 2012. (Ex. 3) At that time his academic skills on the were in the range. (Ex. 3-3-

4) The Student was classified on or about March 20, 2012 by the CSE as “ ” (Ex. 1-1) The Private School issued Progress Reports for the Student in February of 2013. (Ex. H; I; J) The wrote that the Student presents with deficits in to difficulties. (Ex. I) The Student also had difficulty with , and . (Id.) The Progress Report indicated that the Student has delays in , , skills, and abilities (Ex. J). The Student is also ,

, , , and

. (Id.) The Teacher Progress Report, dated February 2013, indicated that the Student was often and ; he had ; and

. (Ex. H) The Student is on a level in , and he on a level. (Id.)

VIOLATIONS

The Parent alleges the following violations:

1. The IEP was procedurally and substantially flawed.

2. The CSE team lacked a parent member, and the March 20, 2012 IEP was not based on proper student testing and observation. (Ex. A-2)

3. The CSE denied the Parents meaningful participation by failing to consider a more supportive placement for the Student, which the Parents felt he needed. (Id.)

4. The goals on the IEP are insufficient to address the Student’s needs. (Id.)

5. The recommended placement was not appropriate because of its and environment. Also, the recommended placement would force the Student , and this expectation was unrealistic. (Ex. A-3)

FINDINGS OF FACT

The following evidentiary details are established as findings of fact in this case:

1. The Student was diagnosed with in October of 2010. (Ex. 3-5)

2. The Student has been attending the Private School since October, 2011. (Ex. 3-1)

3. The Student was administered a psychological evaluation on or about January 26, 2012. (Ex. 3)

4. The CSE met to formulate an IEP for the Student on or about March 20, 2012.

(Ex. 1)

5. The Parent of the Student was the only Parent member in attendance at the March 20, 2012 IEP meeting. (Id.; Tr. 13)

6. The Student was classified on or about March 20, 2012 by the CSE as “

” (Ex. 1-1)

7. The March 20, 2012 IEP recommended placement in a special class with times per week for minutes each session; times per week for minutes each session; and services a week for a minutes. (Ex. 1-7)

8. The Parents were sent the FNR on or about July 11, 2012. (Ex. 2)

9. The recommended placement was closed when the Parents received the FNR.

(Tr. 202)

10. The Parents signed the contract with the Private School on or about August 29, 2012. (Ex. C)

11. The Parents were not permitted to visit the recommended placement until the second week of the 2012/2013 school year. (Tr. 203)

12. The Parents sent notice to the District, rejecting the recommended placement on or about September 19, 2012. (Ex. B)

13. The Parents filed their Complaint Notice on or about December 23, 2013. (Ex. A)

14. The Student was attending a class at the Private School during the 2012- 2013 school year. (Tr. 115, 122, 152)

DISCUSSION

A board of education may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private education 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). This framework may be referred to as the B urlington/Carter Test. The first prong of this test; whether the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, is the proper heading under which to consider the alleged violations in this case.

Prong I

The purpose of IDEA is to provide students with a “basic floor of opportunity” of access to specialized instruction and related services that are individually designed to provide educational benefits. Board of Education, Hendrick Hudson CSD v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 189-190, 102 S. Ct. 3034 (1982); W alczak v. Florida UFSD, 142 F.3d 119 (2nd Cir. 1998). Neither the IDEA, nor Article 89 of the New York State Education Law, requires a school district to provide special education and related services designed to maximize the potential of a disabled student. Nor do federal and state education laws require a school district to provide the best possible educational program and related services, or match those services requested by a parent. Application of a Child With a Disability (City School District of B uffalo), S.R.O. Decision 04-20 (2004). Rather, the goals and mandates of the IDEA and N.Y. Education Law are relatively modest: namely, to provide appropriate specialized education and related services sufficient for the disabled student to benefit from his/her education. S traube v. Florida UFSD, 801 F.

Supp. 1164, 1175-1176 (S.D.N.Y. 1992); Moubry v. Independent School District, 9 F.

Supp.2d 1086, 1104 (D. Minn. 1998) (citing Rowley)

This straightforward obligation of the District is accompanied by the requirement to demonstrate the appropriateness of the program recommended by its CSE. (Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 93-9; Application of a Child with a Handicapping Condition, Appeal No. 92-7; Application of a Handicapped Child, 22 Ed Dept Rep 487 [1983]). To meet its burden, a board of education must show that its recommended program is reasonably calculated to confer educational benefits (Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 [1982]). The recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (34 C.F.R. § 300.550[b]; 8 NYCRR200.6[a][1]).

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; R.E. v. New Y ork City D ep't. of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 189-90 [2dCir. 2012]) "'[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'" (W alczak 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. M amaroneck Union Free Sch. 3 For the most part, these additional assertions are duplicative of those contained in the petition. 6 Dist., 554 F.3d 247, 253 [2d Cir. 2009]).

I turn now to the instant case. The Parents allege that the CSE was unduly constituted because it lacked a Parent member. (Ex. A-2) Although not required by the IDEA, New York State law requires the presence of an additional parent member on the committee that formulates a student's IEP. (Educ. Law § 4402[1][b][1][a]) New York law provides that membership of a CSE shall include an additional parent member of a student with a disability residing in the school district or a neighboring school district, provided that such parent is not a required member if the parents of the student request that the additional parent member not participate in the meeting (Educ. Law §

4402[1][b][1][a]; 8 NYCRR 200.3[a][1][viii]).

The attendance page of the March 30, 2012 IEP does not indicate the presence of an additional parent member. (Ex. 1-14) Nor did the Parents of the Student request that they be the only Parent members at the CSE meeting. Even though the attendance page and related testimony indicated that the Parent of the Student was in attendance (Id.; Tr.

13), I find that the District committed a procedural error by failing to include an additional parent member.

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. Carm el Cent.

Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 465211, at 10 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2007]).

Here, the exclusion of an additional parent member is an example of a procedural error that does not nullify the validity of the IEP. The record generally shows that the Parent of the Student was intricately involved with planning for the Student ’s development. The teacher from the Private School characterized the Parents as “very involved.” (Tr. 133) This is not a case where the Parents of the Student were unable to participate or were otherwise removed from the process. The District’s oversight on this issue is a de minimus flaw that does not prevent the Student from receiving a FAPE.

Accordingly, the Parents’ allegation that the CSE panel was not duly constituted is dismissed.

The Parents allege that the March 20, 2012 IEP was procedurally flawed because student testing and classroom observation did not occur before the IEP was written. (Ex.

A-2) The Regulations of the Commissioner of Education require that a CSE conduct a classroom observation as part of its initial evaluation of a child referred to it. (SRO No.

01-007, citing 8 NYCRR 200.4[b][1][iv])

In this case, the school psychologist testified that a Student Observation (Ex. 3)

was conducted on January 26, 2012. (Tr. 27) Then the psychologist testified that a

(“ ”) was considered, but not conducted. (Id. at 30) The psychologist also testified that reports were received for the IEP meeting. (Id. at 42)

These reports were the teacher’s report and the three related service provider reports. (Id.

at 44) However, the record does not indicate that a classroom observation occurred in advance of the March 20, 2012 IEP. The school psychologist testified that when an observation is done, a report is always generated. (Tr. 26) Evidence of the report was not offered in this case. The District’s silence on this issue also supports a finding that no such observation occurred. Accordingly, I find that a classroom observation of the Student was not conducted. Even if such observation did occur, I find that it was not considered by the CSE. On this point, I find also that the absence of a classroom observation led to an incomplete picture of the Student’s educational needs. This procedural error was significant, as it led to the formulation of a flawed educational plan, and ultimately contributed to the loss of a FAPE.

I turn now to the Parents’ charge that they were denied a meaningful right to participate. The Parents’ right to meaningful participation in the formulation of the Student’s educational plan is typically a procedural issue. In this case, The Parents allege that they were denied meaningful participation because the CSE failed to consider a more supportive placement. (Ex. A-2) However, the appropriateness of the recommended placement is a substantive issue. In other words, the Parents have framed the CSE’s recommendation as a procedural issue, though it is rightly a substantive matter. As such, I consider the appropriateness of the recommended placement with the substantive allegations as set forth below.

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" (W alczak, 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" (W alczak, 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; W alczak, 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'" (W alczak, 142 F.3d at 130) 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]; Gagliardo v. A rlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 [2d Cir. 2007])

An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that includes a statement of the student's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (see 34 CFR 7 300.320[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]; Tarlow e v. New Y ork City Bd. 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 evaluation or most recent evaluation" 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 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])

Here, the Parents allege that the recommended placement was not appropriate because of and environment. Also, the recommended placement would force the Student , and this expectation was unrealistic. (Ex. A-3)

In light of the evidence and related testimony, I must agree.

The Parent testified that she objected to the placement at the CSE meeting on the basis that the Student required more . (Tr. 199) The Parent’s objection was based on her observation of a class with students. (Tr. 203-204). Her testimony was that the class did not seem to have a system; students were expected to (Id. at 204).

The students were taught . (Id. at 205) She argued that the Student would not be able to learn in that class because of his . (Id. at 206). The Student would not have been able , as students did in that class (Id. at 207).

The Parent was asked if the Student would need a in the placement. (Id. at 231) The Parent said yes, the Student would need a because of his need for . (Id.) However, the CSE did not recommend one. (Id.)

The March 20, 2012 IEP recommended placement in a class. (Ex. 1-7) The psychological evaluation report noted that the Student required , and . (Ex. 3-5) That report was available to the CSE at the time the March 20, 2012 IEP was drafted. (Ex. 3) In , the District’s recommendation for a class was made while the Student was attending a class (Tr. 115, 122, 152), and still exhibiting difficulties. Though the classroom observation was missing, the CSE knew or should have known that the student’s constant need for was inconsistent with a placement. Put simply, the evidence in this case does not support the recommended placement.

Here, I note again the importance of the classroom observation and its absence in this case. The psychologist testified that the classroom observation is important because it provides the CSE with insight that is needed in the development of the IEP. (Id. at 27). A classroom observation may have enabled the CSE to see the Student’s constant need for , and thus the difficulty with a class.

The Parents allege also that the goals on the IEP were insufficient to address the Student’s needs. (Ex. A-2) The Parents argue specifically, that the goals related to the are insufficient and not appropriate for the Student.

(Tr. 239) I find that the goals are appropriate to address the Student’s needs; however, the goals are not realistic in light of the services recommended.

The March 20, 2012 IEP recommended

times per week for minutes each session; times per week for minutes each session; and services a week for a minutes. (Ex. 1-7) The psychological evaluation noted that the Student has limited skill in the area of . (Ex. 3-3) When asked to , the Student was only able to . (Id.) The report also showed weakness in the Student’s . (Ex. 3-5) The Private School teacher, whose testimony I credit, testified that at the beginning of the school year, the Student had trouble

. (Tr. 118) The Student had difficulty and difficulty . (Id.) The Teacher’s testified also that the Student’s was when compared to the other students. (Tr. 148)

. (Tr. 143, 155) The psychologist from the

Private School, whose testimony I also credit, testified that the Student required a lot of

, and was “

.” (Tr. 164)

The record does not depict an Student, with difficulty, whose needs could be met with a mere hours per week of related services. For this reason, I find that the goals recorded in the March 20, 2012 IEP were not realistic in consideration of the services offered.

In review of Prong I, I find that the District failed to conduct a classroom observation of the Student prior to the March 20, 2012 IEP meeting. This oversight contributed to the CSE’s failure to recommend an appropriate placement. Likewise, the services recommended were not suitable in light of the Student’s needs. For these reasons, I resolve Prong I in favor of the Parents. I must now consider whether the Parents met their burden of proving the appropriateness of the placement at the Private School.

Prong II

On Prong II, New York federal courts have held that parental placements are “subject to fewer constraints than that applied to the school authorities.” S chreiber v. E. Ramapo

Cent. Sch. Dist., 700 F. Supp 529 [S.D.N.Y. 2010] The Second Circuit has clearly stated:

“ . . . [P]arents 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 v. A rlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105 [2d Cir.

2007] quoting Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 364 [2d Cir. 2006]

In this case, I find that the Parents met their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of the Private School. The director of psychological services at the Private School testified that a class would be and for the Student. (Tr. 165) With this, I find agreement based on the record and Student history.

Conversely, the class in the private school is calculated to meet the unique needs of this Student. The Student’s teacher testified that the students were taught , for and (Tr.122-124). The teacher also testified that the Student made progress during the 2012/2013 school year in , , and , and gained knowledge in , , and (Id. at 125). The Student also made progress with skills, such as and (Id. at 126). Reports from the Private School indicate the Student has difficulties in certain areas, but that he is making progress in others. (Ex. I, J) Overall, the record is sufficient to support a finding that the Private School is providing the Student with an educational benefit.

Upon the information before me, I find that the private school placement, with students and student-to-teacher ratio, and a program including and services is appropriate. Therefore, the Parents met their burden of proof with respect to the second of the three criteria.

Prong III

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 Y ork City D ep't of Educ., 2010 WL 3398256, at 7 [S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2010]).

Tuition 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 child 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. § 612[a][10][C][iii][I] ; see 34 C.F.R. § 300.148[d]) 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 in the public schools." (Greenland Sch. Dist. v. A m y N ., 358 F.3d 150, 160 [1st Cir. 2004])

In this instance, the Parents signed the contract with the Private School on or about August 29, 2012. (Ex. C) The Parents sent notice to the District, rejecting the recommended placement on or about September 19, 2012. (Ex. B) Although the Parents did not provide written notice ten business days before removal, I find this is not an equity that weighs in favor of the District. In this case, the Parents were unable to visit the recommended placement until the second week of the 2012/2013 school year. (Tr. 247)

The Parents’ alternative to signing the contract would have been to keep the Student at home until they were able to visit the recommended placement. (Id. at 248) This would have resulted in the Student not returning to school at the beginning of the 2012/2013 school year. (Id.) I agree with the Parents that this was not a viable alternative. I find that the Parents’ decision to execute the contract before visiting the recommended placement does not warrant a reduction in tuition reimbursement. I find also that the Parents fully cooperated with the DOE in this case, and therefore, all equitable considerations are resolved in favor of the Parent.

It is therefore ORDERED

That the District reimburse/pay the Parent/Private School for percent of the tuition at the Private School upon the presentation of proper invoices for the payment of such tuition.

So Ordered,

Dated: November 5, 2014

, 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.

DOCUMENATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

PARENT

A Parent’s Impartial Hearing Request, 12/23/13, 3 pages

B Parent’s Letter to District, 9/19/12, 1 page

C contract, 2012-2013, 2 pages

D Addendum to Contact, 2012-2013, 1 page

E Daily Schedule for Student, 2012-2013, 1 page

F Attendance 2012-2013 School Year, 6/19/13, 1 page

G IEP, October 2012, 2 pages

H Teacher Progress Report, February 2013, 2 pages

I Progress Report, February 2013, 1 page

J Progress Report, February 2013, 1 page

K , 2/4/13, 1 page

L Parent’s W2 Wage and Tax Statement, 2013, 1 page

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

1 IEP, 3/20/12, 14 pages

2 FNR, 7/11/12, 1 page

3 Psychological Update, 1/26/12, 6 pages