NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Case Number:
Student’s Name:
Date of Birth:
District:
Hearing Requested By: Parent
Date of Hearing: November 26, 2014
December 24, 2014
January 9, 2015
February 23, 2015
March 4, 2015
April 10, 2015
Actual Record Closed Date: May 14, 2015
Hearing Officer: , Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON NOVEMBER 26,
2014
Attorney (Via Telephone) — Student
District Representative (Via Telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON DECEMBER 24,
2014
Attorney for Parent — Student
District Representative — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JANUARY 9, 2015
Attorney — Student
Parents
Parents
District Representative — DOE
District Representative (Via Telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON FEBRUARY 23,
2015
Attorney for Parent — Student
Father — Student
Mother — Student
District Representative — DOE
(Via Telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MARCH 4, 2015
Attorney — Student
DR., Psychologist (Via Telephone) — Student
DR., Psychologist (Via Telephone) — Student
Teacher (Via Telephone) — Student
Parents
Parents
CSE Designee — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL 10, 2015
Attorney — Student
(Via — Student
Telephone) — Student
Teacher, (Via Telephone) — Student
Parents
Parents
CSE Designee — DOE
INTRODUCTION
On 10/24/14 I was appointed as the Impartial Hearing Officer (“ ”) by the New City Department of Education (“the District” or “DOE”) to conduct a hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) 20 United States Code, §1415 (f) (1) concerning a dispute involving the special education program for (“ ” “ ”) for the 2014-2015 school year.
BACKGROUND
is a year old student who is currently in the and attends
(“ ”) and while at is also placed in the
Program (“ ”). was unilaterally placed at by his Parents for the 2014- 2015 school year. His classification of Learning Disability is not in dispute. (t. 79) The
Parents assert that the District has failed to provide with a free and appropriate public education (“ ”) for the 2014-2015 school year and seek tuition reimbursement for , including for the school year at issue as well as the cost of private evaluations. The District contends that was provided with FAPE for the school year in question and that the recommended program addressed his unique needs.
FINDINGS OF FACT
attended (“ ”) for the 2013-2014 school
year and was in the . Prior to attending had attended , the , from through the . The Parents had concerns about academically for many years, beginning in the . The Parents hired to work with him over the years and his father worked with him as well.
They also approached his teachers for suggestions on how to assist academically. The
Parents were assured by the staff at that was doing fine and the prospect of an Individualized Education Plan (“IEP”) was never raised by the school and the Parents did not think of it on their own (t. 61, 259, 281,303) At some point in the beginning of the first semester some of his teachers at raised concerns about the student at the (“ ”) meeting. (t. 44) The is a small committee consisting of a teacher, a special education teacher and a counselor who meet monthly to discuss at risk students. The investigates concerns that teachers might have about students and look for ways to assist those students. (t. 45-46) After concerns were raised about he was put in and (“ ”) resource room taught by . Ms. is a special education teacher and IEP coordinator for the at . (t. 41-42, 46, 49) The Parents were aware of the at risk intervention. (t. 47)
In January 2014, the Parents advised the school that they had concerns about ’s progress and grades and requested a referral to the Committee on Special Education (CSE) and advised that they would be getting a private evaluation of The Parents were advised that was being moved in to a class with (“ ”) as an at risk intervention. In the section the special education teacher works with the teacher to plan the lessons, provide the student with . There are students in the classroom. The response of to the Parents concerns was immediate. (t. 49, 71, 282, 334-35, Ex. A, B) In addition, was receiving at risk and services. (t. 69)
A psychoeducational/ evaluation was conducted by Dr.
at the request of the Parents. Testing was done over the course of days and a written report was issued on 3/8/14. (Ex. 4) Dr. testified that was referred to her by his Parent because she was concerned about his poor performance and wanted to know what supports he could use at school. Dr. explained the difference between a and a psychoeducational evaluation. A psychoeducational evaluation focuses on cognitive and achievement and a evaluation is a more in depth look into , memory, learning, the dual spatial skills and executive . (t. 257-58) In preparing the evaluation Dr. reviewed ’s report card from and information provided by of his teachers.
described himself to Dr. as having difficulty keeping up with the pace of presentation of information in his class and his teachers noted concerns with his . Both teachers indicated that had significant difficulties with in the very elevated range. Dr. testified that being in the very elevated range was clinically significant, meaning that it was more problematic than of other children ’s age. (t. 259-61, 296) Dr. found that had processing speed in the and that this would impact on his . She found that he had significant difficulties with . She found ’s cognitive skills in the in the area of comprehension and oral . While Dr. did not find significant difficulties in executive , the teachers from expressed that had significant problems in the classroom. However, in a to setting has the fundamental skills to focus and shift his attention and be more organized but is unable to use those skills in the classroom. Dr. explained that responds to an individualized setting in which he can use the skills he has but is unable to do so in a larger setting. (t. 262-65)
Dr. recommended that be referred to the Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) as well as a consultation with a , among other things. (t. 266) A copy of the /psychoeducational evaluation was provided to the school by the Parents on March 23 when they received the report from Dr. . A second copy of the evaluation was sent to Ms. at her request on April 23, as the original had been misplaced. (t. 139-40, Ex. C)
On May 8, 2014 a CSE meeting was held to develop an IEP for This was the first IEP ever developed for The meeting lasted between . (t. 152,
195, 284, 334-35) The student was classified as at the meeting and there was no dispute over the classification. (t. 79) Present at the meeting was Ms.
, Ms. a teacher, Mr. a social worker, Ms.
a school psychologist, the Parents and There was no parent member present at the meeting nor were the Parents informed that they were entitled to have present. (t. 51, 161, 289, Ex. 11) The Parents had advised the school that they had never been through CSE process and they relied on the school to lead them through the process every step of the way. The Parents testified that they never received a copy of their procedural rights. (t. 289, 341-42)
Ms. testified that the after an initial referral is made for an IEP, the process is for the request to be sent to the school psychologist. The school psychologist meets with the student and does testing. The social worker does a classroom observation and the parents are interviewed to get a social history. When that is done they meet and discuss the results. This process is supposed to happen within 60 calendar days of the referral. (t. 128) It is unclear why it took significantly more the 60 days to schedule an IEP meeting. (t. 182)
A few days before the meeting Ms. sent an email to the Parent outlining or four recommendations that they would be making at the meeting and during the meeting she went over those items. Ms. testified that she advised the Parents prior to the meeting that she would be recommending with but that the recommendation could be changed at the meeting. (t. 179, 286) Prior to the CSE meeting Ms. met with the school psychologist and the social worker to have a conversation about the information that had been gathered.[1] Ms. conceded that they did not have all the documents necessary to make an initial recommendation at the CSE meeting and that they had not reviewed ’s records from his prior school. The Parents testified that there was no discussion of a classroom evaluation at the meeting, no discussion of a and evaluation other than that the team wanted to schedule for , that the school psychologist had not yet met with and introduced herself to him at the meeting, no discussion of a transition plan or a vocational assessment. In addition, the private evaluation was not discussed at the meeting. The Parents did not receive copies of any documents at the meeting and never received a copy of the and evaluation when it was done. (t. 183,
287-90, 336-39) The CSE recommended with
(t. 340, Ex. 11) The goals were not written or reviewed at the meeting but written after the meeting. (t. 179, 290, 340) Despite the fact that was below where he should be in and , only goal and goal was developed and Ms. agreed that they were both general in nature. (t. 158-57, 166, 273, 379-80) The IEP notes other program options considered, were a class and a in a school. The Parents testified that no alternate program was discussed at the meeting.[2] (t. 291, 341) The IEP was developed to finish out the and continue in to the . There was no plan to reconvene at the end of the to evaluate the success of the IEP. Ms. testified that she could reconvene if necessary but at the end of the year determined it was not necessary. (t. 161-
63, 199) The Parent testified that he was never notified of a reconvene for the IEP meeting scheduled for 6/13/14. (t. 302, Ex S) A review of the DOE meeting notice (Ex.
S) indicates that a CSE meeting was scheduled for 6/13/14 and the purpose of the meeting was because the “ ”.[3] The Parents received a copy of the IEP in June just before the end of the school year. (t. 342, Ex E) A review of the IEP submitted in to evidence by the District (Ex. 11) and the IEP submitted by the Parents (Ex. E) are different. In Parents Ex. E, under Evaluation Results, there is a section on and which is similar but not the same as the and paragraph under contained in the Districts Ex. 11. In addition there are / goals in Parents Ex. E but in the Districts Ex. 11 there are goals. It should be noted that the /
Evaluation (Ex. 8) which was done after the 5/8/14 CSE meeting found that
/ as a related service was not indicated at that time and ascribed this to the fact that ’s issues were related to his deficits in executive
.
The Parents continued to be concerned about after the CSE meeting and were of the opinion that his performance and grades had actually dropped during the last quarter. On June 5, 2014 the Parent sent an email to Ms. asking if the and evaluation had come in; that they were concerned about his grades and wondering if he would progress to the and whether there were any summer school programs available. Ms. advised the Parent that was going to progress to the , that the IEP had not yet been finalized and that she had no information about summer school programs but directed him to a DOE website. (t. 292-
94, 342-43, Ex. Q) The Parents were still committed to working with the staff at in spite of their feeling that was not making progress. The Parents investigated summer school programs. and his Parent went to see the summer school program at . They were interviewed and was told that if he were to attend he would have to repeat the and participate in the program. After the interview both Parents testified that was enthusiastic about attending even if it meant that he had to repeat the . (t. 298, 343-46) On July 29th the Parent met with the principal of , Ms. . The Parent asked how even made it to the and Ms. told her that is very generous in their grading and that he had been accepted in to based on his interview. (t. 346-47)
In mid-August 2014 the Parents had re-evaluated by Dr. , as was still struggling despite supports put in place. Dr. found that had not made progress and recommended that he be in a small inclusion setting that minimizes distractions and with other students at a level similar to his with teachers who are able to individualize the instruction to his needs so he does not get lost. (t. 267-71 Ex. G)
Ms. testified that the Parents cooperated with the process and did everything that they could to keep at . (t. 187) On August 15, 2014 the Parent sent a letter to , CSE chairperson and to Principal advising them that she had come to the conclusion that the recommended program would not provide with the appropriate supports. She enclosed a copy of the re-evaluation (Ex. G) and notified them of her plan to unilaterally place at . She advised that she was willing to consider any additional recommendations that the CWSE could provide. The
Parents while willing to continue to work with the CSE wanted to make sure that they had an appropriate placement for the student in September. The Parents received no response from or the CSE to their correspondence. (t. 301-02, 347, Ex. R) On 8/18/14 the
Parent signed an enrollment contract for and the Program. The Parent participated in the tuition refund insurance program as she still held out hope that the DOE would come up with a suitable program. (t. 349, Ex. J)
is a school with grades and is accredited by the . Classes in the lower grades tend to be smaller (between students)
going up in the higher grades to students. The school has tracks for each course and in the there tend to be tracks for each course. Students are placed in tracks based on previous grades in the subject area, teacher recommendations and standardized testing, evaluations and IEP’s. Approximately of the students have learning disabilities. The program is an support program where a student would see his a week on a to basis for during an elective course or study hall. In addition, they see their in a group for in the morning and in the afternoon.
The teachers have to have special education certification or some other specialty like with a certification from New York State. (t. 238-41) uses a computer program called which has components to it and is accessed through a password system. The students have a password as do their parents and the teachers also have access. has a homework component and a grading component so that the students and parents have access to this information. helps with executive and because if the student loses track of assignments they can easily look it up on the computer system. (t. 242-44, 362-63)
Ms. is a at and is of her students in a
. She testified that the group sessions focus on executive , planning and organizing and any other subject that might arise. Individual sessions are more skill based and they work on skills that would help a student work on their learning deficits. The also collaborates with the classroom teachers and advocates for her students. (t. 316, 362-65) His teachers at describe as polite with a good sense of basic skills and is comfortable in asking for help I a supportive environment. They describe his weaknesses as listening and comprehension is his greatest struggle.
He also struggles with .
is in the
. ’s attention has improved since the start of the year. (t. 319-21, 365-68, 392-94) They testified that had made tremendous progress at and has learned skills and strategies that allow him to work independently on some tasks. The curriculum is modified to meet ’s needs, in fact, and when it was determined that they were not making sufficient progress. (t. 316-17, 372-74 395, 397-98) The teachers believe that is appropriately placed at and do not believe that he would do well in with and students due to his need for constant support ad a lot of consistency. requires and and is which would be exacerbated in a large class. (t. 326-32, 377-78, 399-400) ’s Parent’s believe that he is benefitting from his enrollment in and the program. (299-300, 349-50)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §1400-1482)
has as its core tenet the assurance that students with disabilities have available to them a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) (20 U.S.C. §1400 (d) (1) (A); see Schaffer
v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 51 (2005); Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179-81, 200-01 (1982); Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 371 (2d Cir. 2006). A FAPE includes special education and related services designed to meet the student’s unique needs, provided in conformity with a written IEP (20 U.S.C. §1401 (9) (D); 34 C.F.R. 300.17 (d); see 20 U.S.C. §1414 (d); 34 C.F.R. 300.320).
There is a three prong test that is the legal standard applicable in a request for reimbursement for educational services: (1) were the services offered by the Department of Education inadequate or inappropriate; (2) if so, were the services selected by the parent appropriate; and (3) if so, are there equitable considerations to support the parents.
School Committee of Burlington v. Department of Education of Massachusetts, 471 U.S.
359 (1985). Pursuant to N.Y. Education Law § 4404 (1) (c) the burden to proceed on prong 1 is that of the School District.
I find that based on the testimony and evidence adduced at the hearing the District has failed to provide FAPE for the 2014-2015 school year based on procedural and substantive deprivations in that they failed to meet ’s unique needs. The IEP was not reasonably calculated to confer an educational benefit, the program recommendation was predetermined and the Parents were not given the opportunity to fully participate in the IEP process.
The State Review Office (“SRO) considered the type of procedural flaw which would result in a denial of FAPE in Application of the New York City Dept. of Edu., Appeal No. 08-037. The SRO noted that not all procedural flaws automatically require a finding of denial of FAPE. A hearing officer “may find that a student did not receive FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies: (a) impeded the student’s right to FAPE; significantly impeded the parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision making process regarding the provision of FAPE for the student; or caused a deprivation of education benefits.” (Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. School Dist., 471 F. Supp 2d 415, 419 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). FAPE is offered “by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction”.
(Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203) The Court in R.E. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, at 191 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2012) emphasized that “even minor violations may cumulatively result in a denial of FAPE”. See also Application of a Student With A
Disability., Appeal No. 15-001 where the aggregate effect of procedural violations resulted in a denial of FAPE.
The testimony and documentary evidence clearly support the Parents position. In the case at hand, the CSE did not meet until almost four months after the initial referral and there is no explanation for the delay. While was receiving at risk intervention, this does not excuse or explain the delay. Prior to the CSE meeting, there is no evidence that any evaluations or observations were done by the District, in fact the evidence and testimony reveals that the classroom observation was done on the day of the CSE meeting and the and evaluation done days after the meeting. While Ms.
testified that as part of the CSE process the school psychologist meets with the student and does testing there is no evidence or testimony in the record that this was ever done. The Parent testified that the school psychologist first met at the CSE meeting. It was conceded by Ms. that they did not have all the necessary documents to make an initial recommendation.
I credit the testimony of both Parents regarding their interactions with the school, the CSE meeting and following the meeting. The Parents were clearly concerned about and reached out to the school as well as having a private /psychoeducational evaluation done which they promptly shared with . The Parents testified that responded immediately to their concerns and promptly put at risk services in place. But that is where it seemed to end as the school seemed content with the at risk services. The Parents were grateful for the prompt action by the school and were clear that they had no experience with the CSE procedures and relied on the school for direction. The Parent testified that they had not received any notice of procedural safeguards and were not informed that they were entitled to have a parent member present at the CSE meeting.
The CSE meeting held on 5/8/15 lasted and there was no discussion about any observations or evaluations, including the private evaluation provided previously by the Parents. A / evaluation had not yet been done and there was no indication in the record of any progress reports being reviewed. I credit the testimony of the Parents that they received no documents at the meeting and no goals were discussed or written at the meeting. Ms. testified that the goals were written after the meeting. The goals ultimately written were general and were not written to specifically target ’s deficits. While Ms. testified that they discussed alternate placements her testimony was contradictory on this point and the Parents were clear that no other programs were discussed. In essence the program recommendation was predetermined to be a class with periods of and . It appears that the CSE determined the program prior to the meeting and there is nothing in the record to support a finding that the recommendation was discussed and alternatives considered at the meeting or that either before or after the meeting was making progress in this program. While Ms. testified that she felt that was learning the skills he needed and making progress in the program
(t. 199) there is nothing in the record to support this. His Parents testified, as did Dr.
, that ’s grades had actually gone down and in her August 2014 re-evaluation Dr.
found that had made no progress. In addition, despite Ms. testimony that a reconvene of the CSE was not necessary at the end of the school year and not done it appears that there was a reconvene scheduled for 6/13/14 (Ex. S) in order to have the complete the goals. In as much as there are versions of the IEP (Ex.
11 and Ex. E) it appears that some form of reconvene was held and a goal added and some additional changes made in the area of . I credit the Parents testimony that they had no notice of this reconvene of the CSE to make changes to ’s IEP. It is worth noting that the evaluation (Ex. 8) did not recommend for finding that his problems were a result of his deficits in executive .
I find that the DOE predetermined the program for , did not properly evaluate
’s present levels of in preparation for the CSE meeting, did not provide the Parents with the procedural safeguards or advise them that they were entitled to have a parent member present. It is important to note that this was the first IEP meeting for and yet the CSE did very little preparation in order to be in a position to make a determination that the student should be classified and if so what the proper program and related services should be in order to meet ’s unique educational needs. While the CSE had the private evaluation and conceded that it was thorough and comprehensive (t.
139) there is no indication that it was reviewed or relied on at the meeting. Further, there is no indication of what information the District relied on in order to make the determination that with and would be appropriate programming for this student. In making these decisions without reviewing all evaluations and information at the CSE meeting, or reconvening to review necessary documents the Parents opportunity to meaningfully participate in the decision making process is denied. It leads to the conclusion that decisions were made based on factors other than the unique needs of the student which in turn caused a deprivation of educational benefit to the student. The mere presence of the Parents at the CSE and the fact that they did not disagree at the time of the meeting is not dispositive especially in light of the fact that the Parents advised the school all along that they were new to the process. In addition, after the 5/8/14 meeting the Parents remained involved and concerned in ’s progress and communicated those concerns to .
The Parents also seek reimbursement for the costs of the private evaluation (Ex. 4)
and the updated educational evaluation (Ex. 6). Under 8NYCRR 200.5 (g) a parent may request an independent evaluation if the parent disagrees with an evaluation obtained by the District. In this case though the staff at was aware that was experiencing difficulties from the beginning of the year no evaluations were done to pinpoint the source of the difficulties in spite of at risk services being in place. As ’s difficulties continued no evaluations were done or referral to the CSE made until the Parent’s requested a referral in January 2014. At the same time the Parents informed the school that they were going to have privately evaluated and received encouragement to do so from . There is nothing in the record to support a finding that the school had any plans to do an evaluation or advised the Parents that the District could do the evaluation but instead relied on the Parents to do an evaluation privately. The private evaluation was provided to the schools as was the re-evaluation. The record shows that the only evaluation done by the District was the evaluation which was done after the 5/8 CSE meeting. In view of the foregoing the Parents are entitled to reimbursement of the cost of both evaluations.
The Parent has the burden of proof, that the services provided were “ ” Florence County School District v. Carter 510 U.S.7 at 12, 15 (1993); Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370, that the private school offered an educational program that met the child’s special education needs. The Second Circuit has held that a “private placement is only appropriate if it provides ‘education instruction specifically designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child’” Gagliardo v Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F3d 105, 115 (2d Cir. 2007) (emphasis in original)
A parent must show that the unilateral placement afforded the student with an educational benefit but need not “meet the IDEA definition of a FAPE…or meet state education standards” and it need not “furnish every special service necessary to maximize their child’s potential.” Frank G v. Board of Education of Hyde Park., 459 F3d 356, at 364-65. I find the parental placement as issue had been reasonably calculated to confer an education benefit to the student. I find that the testimony, and evidence submitted by the Parent support this finding. The testimony supported the Parents position that the student is progressing academically and that the school has crafted an individualized program that meets the student’s academic and social needs. The teachers at testified that the program is individualized to meet ’s needs and that the program is also individualized and acts as an support system for I find the testimony of the staff at credible. The DOE did not address the curriculum at in any way.
The third prong of the test for tuition funding is whether the equities favor the Parent’s position or the District. I find that the Parent cooperated fully with the IEP process. They provided the CSE with the privately obtained
Evaluation and participated in the IEP. They worked with the school, attended the 5/8
CSE meeting and continued to advocated for their son after the CSE meeting. The
Parents trusted the school to do the right thing academically for but when they saw that he was not making progress they reached out to the school with their concerns. They were concerned that the he would not progress to the and also sought a program from the DOE. In the search for a the Parents interviewed at and was enthusiastic about attending. The Parent went to see
Principal about her concerns. A letter was sent 8/15/14 (Ex. R) explaining their concerns with the recommended program and plans to unilaterally place at if the DOE could not find a suitable program. No answer was received. The Parents signed a contract with on 8/18/14 (Ex. J) which included a tuition insurance provision which the Parent took as she hoped the DOE might still find a suitable program for
There is nothing in the record to support a finding that the Parents were just giving the appearance of cooperation with no intent to continue at a public school. On the contrary Ms. testified that the Parents cooperated fully with the process and did everything that they could to keep at . In view of the foregoing the equities favor the Parents.
ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ordered that that the New York City Department of Education reimburse the Parents in the amount of for the tuition for the 2014- 2015 school year at as well as reimbursement of for the cost of private evaluations for a total reimbursement of . Payment shall be made within 60 days of the date of this Order
Dated: May 20, 2015
, ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
Within 35 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to appeal the decision to the State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
“The notice of intention to seek review shall be served upon the school district not less than 10 days before service of a copy of the petition for review upon such school district, and within 25 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. The petition for review shall be served upon the school district within 35 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. If the decision has been served by mail upon petitioner, the date of mailing and the four days subsequent thereto shall be excluded in computing the 25- or 35-day period. ” (8NYCRR279.2[b]) Failure to file the notice of intention to seek review is a waiver of the right to appeal this decision.
Directions and sample forms for filing an appeal are included with this decision. Directions and forms can also be found in the Office of State Review website: www.sro.nysed.gov/appeals.htm.
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD JANUARY 9, 2015
1. Impartial Hearing Request, dated 10/23/14, 7 pages District
2. Parent email seeking evaluation, undated, 1 page District
3. Examination, dated 5/20/13, 4 pages District
4. Evaluation, dated 3/8/14, 35 pages District
5. Notice of Social History, dated 3/27/14, 1 page District
6. Initial Consent, dated 4/4/14, 1 page District
7. Social History Evaluation, dated 4/4/14, 3 pages District
8. and Evaluation, dated 5/13/14, 4 pages District
9. Classroom Observation, dated 5/8/14, 1 page District
10. Meeting Notice Committee on Special Education, dated District
4/28/14, 3 pages
11. Individual Education Plan, dated 5/8/14, 14 pages District
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON FEBRUARY 23, 2015
D. Hearing Request, dated 10/23/14, 8 pages Parent
E. IEP, dated 5/8/14, 9 pages Parent
F. Parnt Letter to the CSE & with Parent
Proof of Delivery, dated 8/15/14, 4 pages
G. Eduational Evaluation, , Psy.D., dated 8/12/14, 7 Parent pages
H. Second Quarter Report, , dated 1/6/15, 1 page Parent
I. Description of Program, , undated, 2 pages Parent
J. Enrollment Contract including Contract, , Parent dated 8/18/14, 4 pages
K. Proof of Tuition Payment, various dates, 3 pages Parent
L. Invoice for Testing, , Psy.D., dated 11/3/14, 1 Parent page
M. Proof of Payment for Testing, various dates, 3 pages Parent
N. End of Year Report Card, , 2013- Parent
14, 2 pages
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON MARCH 4, 2015
A. Email from , Principle of Parent
School, dated 1/8/14, 2 pages
B. Email Correspondence between Parents and , Parent
January 2014, 3 pages
C. Email Correspondence between Parent and , dated Parent
3/23/14, 2 pages
O. Email Correspondence from to Parent, dated Parent
4/25/14, 1 page
P. Email Correspondence from to Parent, dated Parent
5/6/14, 1 page
Q. Email Correspondence between Parent and , dated Parent
6/5/14, 1 page
R. Parent Letter to (with stamped Parent
receipt date), dated 8/15/14, 2 pages
S. NYDOE Meeting Notice, dated 6/13/14, 6 pages Parent
T. NYCDOE State Common Core Tests FAQ, 8/2013, 3 pages Parent
POST HEARING SUBMISSION BY IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER
I. Statement of Adjournments and Extensions, undated, 1 page IHO
II Closing Brief And Memorandum Of Law For The Department Of IHO
Education, dated 5/4/15, 14 pages
III. Parent’s Memorandum of Law And Closing Statement, dated IHO
5/4/15, 17 pages
Footnotes
[1] While Ms. testified that they reviewed the and evaluation, the classroom observation and the interview the school psychologist had done with the student it is clear from the record that the and evaluation was done on 5/13/14 after the CSE meeting. (t. 53,142-44, Ex. 8) The classroom observation was done the morning of the meeting and Ms. had no recollection of actually reviewing it at the meeting (t. 133-38, 287,337) and the school psychologist had not yet met with at the time of the meeting. (t. 335-36)
[2] Ms. ’s testimony about whether and (“ ”) program was considered was contradictory. (t. 157, 160)
[3] It should be noted that the meeting notice is dated 6/13/14 which is the same date that the meeting was schedule for.