Impartial Hearing Decision

X In the Matter of the Application of the Parent and Guardian of X, and

The Central School District X

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Impartial Hearing Officer

James McKeever, Esq.

March 9, 2015

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

NYS Case Identifier No.: 87413 Student’s Name: X District: Central School District Hearing Requested By: Parent Pre-hearing Conference November 25, 2014 Dates Of Hearing: December 8, 2014, January 9, 2015, January 12, 2015 and

January 16, 2015 Hearing Officer: James McKeever, Esq.

Hearing Officer’s Findings of Fact and Decision

Case No. 87413 _________________________________________________________________

PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON DECEMBER 8, 2014

Esq.: Attorney for School District

Advocate for Parent

T: Director of Student Services

XX.: Parent -Mother

D: School Counselor

M: English Teacher

PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JANUARY 9, 2015

Esq.: Attorney for School District

Advocate for Parent

S: Director of Student Services

XX.: Parent –Mother

JB: School Psychologist

PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JANUARY 12, 2014

Esq.: Attorney for School District

Advocate for Parent

S: Director of Student Services

P.B.: Parent –Mother

D.G.: Special Education Teacher-

A C: Resource Room Teacher

ME: Assistant Coordinator for Student

Services

PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JANUARY 16, 2014

Esq.: Attorney for School District

Advocate for Parent

S: Director of Student Services

P.B.: Parent –Mother

J W: English Teacher-10th Grade

Hearing Officer’s Findings of Fact and Decision

On the above listed dates, I conducted an impartial hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), regarding a parent’s request for compensatory educational services, an independent occupational therapy evaluation and placement in an integrated co-teaching class, among other things.

The parent’s due process complaint (”DPC”), dated October 14, 2014, alleges, inter alia, that the subject child was denied a Free and Appropriate Education (”FAPE”) by the Sachem Central School District (“District”) because the District failed to identify X. (“Student”) as a student with a disability and failed refer the Student to the Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) during the 2011-2012 and 2012-213 school years. The parent also alleges that the Student’s IEP, dated July 31, 2014, failed to offer Student a FAPE for the 2014-2015 school year because the recommended program does not meet the Student’s educational needs (Exhibit D-3).

The District asserts that the Student did not require a referral to the CSE for special education services during the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years because the Student’s academic and social/emotional performance was sufficient for the Student to obtain an educational benefit in the general education setting. The District also contends that the Student’s current IEP is appropriate to meet the Student’s needs and that the IEP provides FAPE for the 2014-2015 school year. Additionally, the District contends that the current IEP has been faithfully implemented and that the Student is doing well. Consequently, the District requests that the parent’s due process complaint be dismissed.

Subsequent to the filing of the DPC, the parent entered into a Resolution Agreement wherein the District agreed to fund and/or provide the following: 1) A evaluation; 2) reading and writing evaluations; 2) An evaluation; 4) Parent counseling and training; and 5) services. (Exhibit D-2). Findings of Fact:

The Student is a sixteen-year old boy diagnosed with

”). The Student is classified as ”) (Exhibits D-2, and D-9). The Student suffers from which sometimes effect his attendance at school (Tr. 105). 8th Grade (2012-2013 school year):

During his 8th grade school year, the Student attended a general education program in District’s Middle School. The Student’s report card at the end of this school year indicated that the received the following grades: English 72, U.S. History 79, Phys. Ed. 90, Art 80, Music 95, Writing Workshop 83, Science 79, Spanish 91, and Math 90 (Exhibits, D-8, D-26, Tr. 92).

David S was the Student’s guidance counselor during the 2012-2013 school year (8th Grade) (Tr. 87). Mr. S testified that the Student was a typical 8th grader who was a “C+, B” student and that the Student did well in math (Tr. 87). He also testified that the Student received Academic Intervention Services (“AIS”) in 6th and 7th grade. Mr. S further testified that although he did not observe Student in class during this school year, the Student did not exhibit any academic and/or social/emotional signs that would warrant a referral to the CSE or consideration of a 504 plan (Tr. 101, 137). Nor did any of the Student’s teacher report to him that a referral to the CSE was necessary. Additionally, Mr. S stated that he knew the parent and that she never asked him to have the Student evaluated for possible classification under the IDEA (Tr. 104, 126). Further, he was aware that the Student suffered from and sometimes missed school (Tr. 105). However, he testified that there was no evidence that the Student required counseling under the IDEA in order to address this issue (Tr. 147). 9th Grade (2013-2014 school year):

During his 9th grade school year, the Student attended a general education program in District’s Middle School. The Student’s report card for the end of this school year indicated that he received the following grades: English Regents 80, Living Environment 83, Global History 66, Algebra 48, Phys. Ed. Fitness 76, Intro to Phys. Ed. 89, Media-Arts 87 and Spanish 78, (Exhibits, D-7, D-26).

M K was the Student’s English teacher during the 2012-2014 school year (Tr. 169). Ms. K testified that the Student was well mannered, well liked and that he met her course requirements with success (Tr.173). She also testified that the Student’s academic ability did not warrant a referral to the CSE (Tr. 174). However, she did acknowledge that he had failed some his essay writing assignments (Tr. 190). Additionally, although she stated that she could refer a student to the CSE, she had not done so in the eleven years she had been employed with the District (Tr. 202).

The Parent testified that beginning in November 2013 she called D. ME, who is the assistant to the Director of Special Education Services in the District, on numerous occasions, to ask about a possible referral of her son to the CSE. However, the Parent stated that Mr. ME did not return her telephone calls (Tr. 590). However, the Parent also testified that at this time she was “not sure which direction to go” with respect to a possible IEP (Tr. 540, 590, 591, 650, 606). The Parent also that during the 2012-2013 school year, she did not was an IEP of a 504 plan for the Student (Tr. 637).

Mr. ME testified that he did not recall receiving a telephone call from the Parent until May of 2014 regarding a possible referral of the Student to the CSE (Tr. 582-583).

In an email to the Student’s teachers, dated January 10, 2014 (Exhibit 4, page 10), the Parent , who is a special education teacher (Tr. 608), stated that she had concerns with her son’s academic performance, but that she had chosen not to pursue an IEP and/or a 504 plan at that time (Tr. 631). Additionally, the parent stated that she believed her son’s lack of success during this school year was due, in part, to the implementation of the Common Core curriculum.

The Parent further testified that the Student did not like his math teacher in 9th grade and that she believed the Student required an ICT class for the current school year. Additionally, the Parent believes that the Student has learning disability. However, she acknowledge that a l evaluation was in the process of being completed.

On or about May 31, 2014, the parent requested that the District refer the Student to the CSE for evaluation for special education services. The parent’s request indicated that the Student struggled with reading comprehension and writing and she noted that the Student had previously received AIS services in English (Exhibit D-31).

Thereafter, and as part of the CSE referral process, the District conduced a psychological evaluation on June 30, 2014. As part of the evaluation, the District administered the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV (WISC-IV) and the Behavioral Assessment for Children-Self Report (BASC) (Tr. 322). The results of the WISC-IV indicated that the Student obtained a Full Scale IQ in the Average Range with a Verbal Comprehension Index, a Perceptual Reasoning Index and a Working Memory Index in the Average range. However, the Student’s Processing Speed Index was in the Low-Average range (Exhibit 13, page 5).

The BASC results indicated that the Student was in the “at risk” area for Attention and Self-Reliance (Exhibit 13).

Also, on June 30, 2014, the District conducted an educational evaluation using the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test III (WIAT-III). (Exhibit 14). The Student achieved the following Standard Scores (“SS”): in Oral Language Composite, in Basic Reading, in Reading Comprehension, for Total Reading Composite, in Written Expression Composite, Mathematic Composite and an for the Math Fluency Composite. Though it was noted that the Student had weaknesses in pseudo-decoding and essay writing (Exhibits 14 and 17), the results indicated that the Student had average academic abilities (Exhibit 4, Tr. 471-473).

On July 3, the District conducted a Vocational Assessment.

On July 15, 2015, the District conducted a Social History.

On July 31, 2014, a properly composed CSE team convened a meeting with the parent and the parent’s advocate and determined that the Student was eligible for special education services. As indicated above, the Student was classified as . The IEP team reviewed the aforementioned evaluations and referenced the results in the IEP (Exhibit D-9, pages 2-3). The CSE also considered a “Teacher Report” dated June 12, 2014 and reviewed the Student’s year-end report card. Subsequently, the CSE recommended placement in a general education program with Resource Room five times per week for 42 two minutes. The IEP noted that the Student showed strength in the areas of listening comprehension, word reading and oral reading fluency. It also noted that the Student is a polite, social young man who is outgoing and “funny,” and that no social/emotional needs were noted (Exhibit D-9, page 4). However, the Student needed to improve on his ability to maintain an agenda for his homework assignments and he needed to improve on his ability to create a well-developed written response. The IEP included goals for “Study Skills” and “Writing.” The accommodations included seating the Student within the first two rows of the classroom and use of a daily planner to monitor and record his assignments. The IEP did not provide for any related services (Exhibit D-9, page 7).

J B, is a school psychologist who administered the WISC-IV (Tr. 320). Ms. B testified that the CSE developed study goals and writing goals because these were areas where the Student needed to improve (Tr. 356). However, she testified that the Student did not need any math goals because that was an area of strength (Tr. 357). Further, Ms. B testified that the placement recommendation in a general education setting with Resource Room services was the Student’s Least Restrictive Environment and a “good fit” to help him with his attention and organization issues. (Tr. 355). She also testified that an Integrated-Co-teaching (“ICT”) class was too restrictive because the Student did not require special education services throughout the day (Tr. 361). In support of her conclusion, Ms. B noted that the Student had average cognitive abilities and average academic abilities (Tr. 327-331, 333, 346). She also noted that the Student did not suffer from low self-esteem or lack of confidence (Tr. 351). Additionally, and as an aside, Ms. B testified that he Student told her that he stopped taking his medication for sometime in spring 2014 (341), which she thought may have had an impact on his academic performance in 9th grade, but she wasn’t sure.

With respect to occupational therapy services, Ms. B testified that the Student did not require OT as a related service. However, she acknowledged that she could not read one of the Student’s writing samples and she conceded that “it was not good writing” (Tr. 376, 380, 385, Parent Exhibit B). Nevertheless, she did not know the context in which the writing sample was written and she did not know if the Student was “rushing” at the time he wrote the statement (Tr. 380).

Finally, Ms. B testified that a classroom observation was not conducted prior to the CSE meeting in July 2014 because school was not in session (Tr. 385).

D G is a special education teacher in the District and was present at the CSE meeting. Ms. G also conducted the WIAT that was administered to the Student in June of 2014 (Tr. 471-473). Ms. G testified that the Student did not present with any social or emotional concerns (Tr. 486). She also testified that the Student did not require one-to one instruction for reading or writing (Tr. 486). Additionally, Ms. G stated that the Student did not require any special education services beyond his Resource Room (Tr. 496).

With respect to math in the 10th grade, Ms. G noted that the Student’s math teacher reported that the Student did not do the classwork and did not make-up his missed assignments.

With respect to writing, Ms. G testified that the Student’s writing sample (Parent’s Exhibit B) was typical writing for a 10th grade student (Tr. 506). She also testified that the Student did not require OT services because the Student can correctly hold a pencil and he was able to use his fine motor skills to complete a writing sample during the WIAT (Tr. 510). Lastly, Ms. G noted that the Student’s writing sample during the WIAT was sloppy, but it was done quickly (Tr. 510). 10th Grade (2014-2015 school year):

During his 10th grade school year, the Student was classified for special education services. As indicated above, the IEP, dated July 31, 2014, provided for placement in a general education class with Resource Room 5 times a week for 42 minutes each day (Exhibit 9).

The Student’s report card for the first Marking Period of this school year indicated that the received the following grades: English Regents 71, Earth Science 88, Global History 87, Algebra 84, Phys. Ed. 92., and Spanish 82 (Exhibit D-9).

A C is a certified special education teacher and the Student’s Resource Room teacher (Tr. 527). Ms. C testified that she maintains contact with the Parent and with the Student’s teachers regarding the Student’s progress (Tr. 530). She also testified that she works on the goals in the Student’s IEP and that the Student was making progress (Tr. 531, 535). However, she stated that the Student sometimes he does not do his homework (Tr. 574). Additionally, with respect to writing, Ms. C conceded that sometimes she needs context cues to decipher Student’s writing (Tr. 562).

J W is the Student’s 10th grade English teacher (Tr. 717). Mr. W was called by the Parent to testify at the hearing with respect to a writing assignment that the Student completed for Mr. W’s class (Exhibit B). Mr. W testified that the Student earned a 96 on the assignment because he “used periods at the end of every sentence and separated his clauses with a comma…”(Tr. 721). However, although the Student’s writing sample was no particularly legible, Mr. W was able to read it and he stated that he does not grade for legibility (Tr. 719).

As indicated above, during the Resolution Session, the Parent requested that the District add counseling services to the Student’s IEP. The District agreed and counseling services as well as counseling goals were added to the IEP (Tr. 538, Exhibit 2). Conclusions of Law:

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 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; 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 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 achievement and functional performance (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 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 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 9 300.320[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 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. 02014; 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]).

Child find" obligations with regard to the student, the IDEA places an affirmative duty on state and local educational agencies to identify, locate, and evaluate all children with disabilities residing in the state (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][3]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.111[a][1][i]; 8 NYCRR 200.2[a][7]; New Paltz Cent. Sch. Dist. v. St. Pierre, 307 F. Supp. 2d 394, 400, n.13 [N.D.N.Y. 2004]). The "child find" requirements apply to "children who are suspected of being a child with a disability . . . and in need of special education, even though they are advancing from grade to grade" (34 C.F.R. § 300.111[c][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.2[a][7]). To satisfy the requirements, a board of education must have procedures in place that will enable it to find such children (Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 05-090; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04054; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 01-082; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 93-41).

Child Find and the 2012-2013 School Year:

As indicated above, the purpose of the "child find" provisions of the IDEA are to identify, locate and evaluate those students who are suspected of being a student with a disability and thereby may be in need of special education and related services, but for whom no determination of eligibility as a student with a disability has been made (see Handberry v. Thompson, 436 F.3d 52, 65 [2d Cir. 2006] [holding that the purpose behind the "child find" provisions is to locate children with disabilities who are eligible for special education services who might otherwise go undetected]).

Here, the evidence shows that the during this school year the Student passed all of his classes. Significantly, his lowest grade was 72 in English, and his highest grade was a 91 in Spanish. He also received a 90 in math. The evidence also shows that the Student was a typical 8th grader and that the Student did not exhibit any academic and/or social/emotional signs that would warrant a referral to the CSE or consideration of a 504 plan (Tr. 87, 101). Additionally, the Parent acknowledged that she did want a referral to the CSE or a 504 plan during this school year (Tr. 637). Accordingly, the parent’s claim that the District failed in its Child Find obligations for this school year is dismissed. Child Find and the 2013-2014 School Year:

During school year the Student continued to earn average grades. However, the evidence shows that the Student failed math, which is typically an area of strength for him. Nevertheless, the evidence also shows that the student had a conflict with his math teacher during this school year and that the Student did not do the classwork. Additionally, the evidence shows that although the student failed some of the English assignments, the Student was successful in meeting the course requirements. Further, it was also noted that the Student was well liked and that there were no signs that the Student has any social/emotional issues (173-174, 190). Based on these facts, I find that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the Student required a referral to the CSE for this school year. 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][3]; 34 C.F.R. §300.111[a][1][i]; 8 NYCRR 200.2[a][7]; New Paltz Cent. Sch. Dist. v. St. Pierre, 307 F. Supp. 2d 394, 400, n.13 [N.D.N.Y. 2004]). I also note that there is no evidence that the District failed to have a policy or procedure in which to make a referral because the District witnesses were aware that they could make a referral CSE, but thought it was unnecessary. Additionally, and contrary to the Parent’s contentions, there is no evidence that that Student’s grades were inflated.

Further, although the Parent claims that she tried to request a referral to the CSE in November 2013, and that she was ignored by the District, the evidence shows that in January 2014, which is approximately two months later, the Parent sent a note to the Student’s teachers at the District wherein she stated that she “had chosen not to pursue an IEP and/or a 504 plan” (“emphasis added”) (Exhibit 4). Additionally, the Parent also stated that she believed her son’s lack of success during this school year was due, in part, to the implementation of the Common Core curriculum. Accordingly, I find that there is no evidence to support a finding that the Parent made a request for a referral to the CSE in the fall of 2013 and that the District chose to ignore it. I also note that it is understood that the Child Find obligations lie with the District. However, the evidence with respect to this school year does not support a finding that the District should have suspected that the Student was a Student with a disability. Accordingly, the parent’s claim that the District failed in its Child Find obligations for this school year is dismissed. FAPE for the 2014-2015 School Year:

As indicated above, on July 31, 2014, the Student was classified for special education services and the District generated an IEP that provided for placement in a general education class with Resource Room 5 times a week for 42 minutes each day (Exhibit 9). Here, the evidence shows that the Student is in the Average range, cognitively, and that the Student possess average academic skills. Although the Parent claims that the Student requires an ICT class, which is a more restrictive setting, the Student’s report card for the first Marking Period of this school year indicated the Student is doing well (Exhibit D-9). Additionally, the Student’s special teacher testified that the Student was making progress on his goals in Resource Room(Tr. 535). Therefore, based on these facts, I find that the recommended placement is appropriate for to meet the Student’s current educational needs and that the placement provides FAPE for the subject school year. I also find that based on the testimony of the school psychologist and the Student’s Resource Room teacher, that the current placement is the Student’s Least Restrictive Environment (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]; Occupational Therapy Evaluation:

It is undisputed that the Student has poor handwriting. Although the parent claims that the Student cannot read his own handwriting and that the writing samples in evidence prove that the Student requires OT services, the District submits that the Student fine motor skills are intact and that he can hold a pencil correctly in order to execute a writing assignment. I find that there is insufficient evidence in the record to grant the Parent’s application on this point. However, I note that there is an outstanding evaluation, which was not part of this record. Accordingly, at this time the Parent’s request for an OT evaluation is denied. However, it is denied without prejudice.

ORDERED

The Parent’s request for an OT evaluation is dismissed, without prejudice.

All other claims in Parent’s due process complaint, dated October 14, 2014, are dismissed, with Prejudice Dated: New York , New York

March 9, 2015 James McKeever

James McKeever, Esq.

Impartial Hearing Officer

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

Within 35 days of the receipt of this decision, the parent and/or Board 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 see review shall be served upon the school district not less than 10 days before service of a copy of the petitioner for review upon such school district, and within 25 days from the date 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 dated of the decision sought to be review. 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 rights to appeal this decision.

Directions and sample forms can be found in the Office of State Review website: www.sro.nysed.gov/appeals.htm.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD BY THE DISTRICT

1-Answer to Due Process 3

Complaint dated 11/6/14

consisting of three pages

2-Partial Resolution Agreement

dated 10/27/14 consisting of tw o pages

3-Due Process Complaint received 3

10/14/14 consisting of four

pages

4-Parent Correspondence to 3

Teachers dated 1/10/14

consisting of one page

5-Information for Student dated 3

10/15/14 (8th, 9th and 10th

grades) consisting of one page

6-Report Card and Progress 3

Report for 10th Grade

consisting of two pages

Report Card and Four Progress 4

7-Reports for 9th Grade

consisting of five pages

Report Card and Four Progress 4

8-Reports for 8th Grade

consisting of five pages

9-IEP dated 7/31/14 consisting 4 of nine pages

10-CSE Attendance Sheet dated 4

7/31/14 consisting of one page

11-Prior Written Notice dated 4

7/31/14 consisting of one page

12-District Social History dated 4

7/15/14 consisting of two

pages

13-District Psychological 5

Evaluation dated 6/30/14

consisting of five pages

14-District Educational 5

Evaluation dated 6/30/14

consisting of 19 pages

15-Private Physician Physical 5

Exam Form dated 7/25/14

consisting of two pages

16-CSE Physician Statement Report 5

dated 7/25/14 consisting of two pages

17-District Transition Plan dated 5

7/3/14 (Student, Teacher,

Parent Forms) consisting of three pages

18-District Application for 5

Insufficiency with IHO

Decision consisting of 11

pages

19-Progress Report 10th Grade 6

consisting of two pages

20-Letter to , 6

Advocate, dated 11/26/14

consisting of one page

(Marked for ID only)

21-Text Message sent from 6

s cell phone received

by Counsel for School District

(Joseph Madsen, Esq.)

consisting of one page

(Marked for ID only)

22-FOIL Request from 6

Advocate, sent to

District dated 9/8/14

consisting of three pages

(Marked for ID only)

23-Text Message sent from cell phone received by C ou n sel for S ch ool D istrict

( , Esq.)

consisting of two pages

24- Central School District Public (Community) Facebook Site

Postings (This Facebook page site is not an official School District page)consisting of 41 pages (Marked for ID only)

25- Central School District 7

Public (Community) Facebook

Site Postings (This Facebook

page site is not an official

School District page)

consisting of 38 pages

(Marked for ID only)

26-Student's 8th Grade Record 7

(2012 - 2013) English, U.S.

History, PE, Art, Music,

Writing Workshop, Science,

Spanish & Math consisting of

39 pages

27-Student's 9th Grade Record 8 (2013 - 2014) English, Living Environment,

Spanish, Global History, Media Arts & Algebra consisting of 34 pages

28-Student's 10th Grade Record 8

(9/2013 - 11/2014) Global

History, English, Spanish,

Algebra, Earth Science

consisting of 10 pages

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD BY THE PARENT

A-None

B-Handwriting sample for Student