NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
Impartial Due Process Hearing 8 N.Y.C.R.R. Parts 200 & 201
In the Matter of AAA, Parent, on behalf of his child, BBB, Petitioner, Decision & Order vs.
SED Case Identifier: # 88264 Poughkeepsie City School District, Respondent
Petitioner & Student:
Petitioner is the Father of BBB (d.o.b. x/x/xx) (“Student”), an xxxxx-year-old student of the Poughkeepsie City School District (“District”). He appears deeply committed to ensuring that his son completes his high school education (e.g., Tr. 1270, 1273-1276).
As early as the 2010-2011 school year, when his son repeated seventh grade (Tr. 1275), the Father pressed to have his son receive additional services. The Parent referred his son to the CSE in 2010. That resulted in a CSE determination of ineligibility (D-155, Tr. 324-326 & 1084–1088). His referral in 2012 (D-23), with his consent for evaluations (D-25), resulted in a review of the 2010 evaluations (see, D-30 at p. [390]), followed by a second CSE ineligibility decision (D-30).
He made numerous attempts to establish sign-in procedures to keep his son on track and attend his classes (see, Tr. 1273-1276, e.g., D-119. D-125, D-128, D-140, D-146, D-147, D-173, D-174 & D-175) and made telephone calls and sent e-mails to school staff during his work and off hours to state his concerns (e.g., Tr. 1335, D-75, D-107, D-108, D-116).
The Father, employed as a truck driver, daily leaves for work around 5:00-5:15 a.m. and returns home between 3:30 – 7:00 p.m. (Tr. 1268-1269) and is dependent on his son’s report of school attendance – an issue of controversy between the parties. Where conflict has existed between what his son has described as his experiences in school and what school staff has reported to the Father, the Father has defended his son’s information over school officials (e.g., Tr. 1273-1274).
The Student was seventeen and in his 10th grade school year on April 1, 2014, when the District’s Committee on Special Education (CSE) identified him as a student with a learning disability (D-58 & D-50) and acknowledged that he had been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (D-58, p. [378] & D-45, report p. 15). The Student’s educational classification is not in dispute. The Hearing Request: The District received the Father’s December 13, 2014 twenty-seven-page Due Process Complaint Notice (D-1)[1] (the “Complaint”) on December 15, 2014. The Complaint consists of five pages[2] and two attachments: (a) DrRT’s OctoberNovember 2014 neuropsychological report of his evaluation of the then-sixteen-year-eight-month-old Student[3] and (b) DrRF’s August 23, 2014 psychological report[4] regarding the Student. The Father complains that “Special Education is not helping my son” (D-1, p. [5]). Hearing testimony makes clear that DrRT’s report was first received by the District on February 27, 2014 when a copy was faxed to Special Education Director VVV as an attachment to the Father’s February 26, 2014 letter requesting reimbursement for the $3,500 cost of the evaluation. (D-45).[5] The District first received Dr. DrRF’s report on December 15, 2014 as an attachment to the Complaint. (Tr. 1093).
Appearances:
Ambrose W. Wotorson, Jr. Esq., 225 Broadway, 41 Floor, New York, NY 10007 represented the Petitioner in the hearing, having replaced the Parent’s former counsel in March 2015 after proceedings had commenced. Shaw Perelson, May & Lambert, LLP (Beth L. Sims, Esq. of Counsel), 21 Van Wagner Road, Poughkeepsie, NY 12603 represented the District. Statute of Limitations: The Father’s claims are limited by Education Law section 4401(1)’s two-year statute of limitations that restrict me from adjudicating matters that occurred prior to December 15, 2012. Specifically, as to the March 1, 2012 CSE’s ineligibility determination during the Student’s eighth-grade school year, Education Law section 4401(1) bars any challenge to the propriety of that determination. Similarly, Education Law section 4401(1) bars a challenge to the CSE’s ineligibility determination when the Student was in seventh grade (Tr. 1085 – 1088). Scope of Hearing: The Complaint raises multiple problems, including that the past and thencurrent special education program for the Student was not working. The Complaint alleges eight relief requests plus one catchall request for “remedies that may become known to me during the hearing process.” (D-1, pp. [5]-[6]).
On the first day of the hearing, the District objected to expansion of the scope of the hearing beyond the four corners of the Complaint (Tr. 19-20 & 315-316) on the ground that the Complaint had not been amended prior to the hearing in compliance with the IDEA[6] and that the District had not and did not agreed to expansion of the issues.[7] Further, the District objected to IHO consideration of any expansion as untimely once the hearing had begun. [8] I agree that I lack jurisdiction to adjudicate issues outside of the four corners of the Complaint. I do not decide those issues.
As to the Student’s 2013 referral to the CSE, the Father failed to provide his consent to evaluate his son. That failure bars his claim that the District violated any child-find obligation as to the Student. (See, D-38, D-39, D-40, D-41, D-42 D-43 & D44 and Tr. 336- 343). [9] The Parent’s claim that various school records are inaccurate raises questions that arise under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) [10] and its administrative procedures. FERPA provides a right to challenge the accuracy of school records.[11] I lack authority to grant the Parent’s relief request number 3 that seeks an order for an investigation into the school records of absences and sign-in sheets. Finally, the Father’s claims raise a credibility issue relating to the Student’s presence in or absence from school that are relevant to the Student’s education and separate from record-keeping issues. I determine that credibility issue below since it concerns claims arising under the IDEA. Finally, the Father’s claim that the Student did not receive high school credit for the 2013-2014 school year[12] is not within my jurisdiction to determine. Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 14-138 (SRO Oct. 22, 2014). Mootness and the District’s Resolution Offer: The District argues that its offer to the Father at the January 15, 2015 Resolution Session resolved all issues, thus, rendering all matters moot and this hearing frivolous. I disagree. To determine whether issues remain live, the relevant inquiry is whether the facts alleged evince a substantial controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant relief. Christopher P. v. Marcus, 915 F.2d 794, at 802 (2nd Cir. 1990). The District focuses solely on eight of nine relief items alleged and not the central claim that “Special Education is not helping my son” (D-1, p. [5]) that I read as complaining that the IEP is not meeting the Student’s needs.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has held that the adequacy of an IEP will be judged “by its contents at the close of the resolution period.” R.E. v. New York city Department of Education, 194 F.3d 167, 187-188 (2nd Cir. 2015). But, the Parent, not the District, determines whether a due process hearing will continue after a Resolution Session. The court’s decision in R.E. made this clear. “If, at the end of the resolution period the parents feel their concerns have not been adequately addressed and the amended IEP still fails to provide a FAPE, they can continue with the due process hearing.” 194 F.3d at 187-188.
The IDEA requires that a resolution session conclude the matter to the “satisfaction of the parents”[13] and if resolution is reached, the parties must “execute a legally binding agreement” signed by both parties.[14] Here, there was no amended IEP and no executed resolution agreement. The Parent did not believe that his son’s educational needs were being met under the contested IEPs.
The District’s resolution session offer did not resolve the dispute over the appropriateness of the Student’s IEP. The controversy is very much alive and was not resolved to the satisfaction of the parent under the IDEA[15] or the Commissioner of Education regulation at 8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(2)(v). The April 1, 2014 CSE meeting & the DrRT Ph.D. evaluation:
The testimony is in conflict about whether, and to what extent, the CSE considered the detailed DrRT neuropsychological report. The DrRT report is thorough and thoughtful. DrRT evaluated the Student. He also reviewed the Student’s school records (D-45, p. 6). He conducted a classroom observation (D-45, p. 5). He spoke to both the Father and the Student’s teachers (D-45, pp. 1- 4). His conclusions and recommendations are thorough and clear.
The DrRT evaluation was shared with the CSE. As a private evaluation so shared with the CSE, the Commissioner of Education regulations state that it “must be considered by the school district . . . in any decisions made with respect to the provision of a free appropriate public education for the student.” 8 NYCRR § 200.5(g)(1)(vi)(a).
The Father testified that DrRT’s evaluation “wasn’t brought up” (Tr. 1815). The Father’s testimony is credible but in conflict with several District witnesses. The District’s Special Education Director, VVV, who chaired the April 1, 2014 CSE meeting (Tr. 365), testified that the CSE considered the DrRT report at that meeting (Tr. 365-366) and that she was the person who reviewed the findings of the DrRT neuropsychological report provided by the Father to the committee as noted in the “Comments” section of the IEP (D-58, p [378], Tr. 1070-1072). School psychologist MMM, an attendee at the April 1, 2014 CSE meeting, claimed to recall Chairperson VVV reviewing a private evaluation (Tr. 1985, 1988-1989). She also said that a staff secretary would insert information into the “Comment” section contemporaneously during the meeting (Tr. 1990) and that the Chairperson was the one responsible for that “Comments” section of the IEP (Tr. 1989). But the DrRT report is not listed in the IEP as a report considered by the CSE. Special Education Director VVV said “There’s no reason, no” (Tr. 1073) for not listing it. Yet, she gave no indication that it should have been so listed. She did not say that the omission was a clerical error. More confusing was that school psychologist MMM said that she did not know why the DrRT evaluation was not listed (Tr. 1986), did not know who would be responsible to list the evaluation on the IEP, and did not know of any protocol for listing a private parent-provided evaluation on an IEP (Tr. 1987). That a school psychologist does not know of a protocol of what to do about listing a private evaluation raises more questions that it answers. Guidance Counselor LLL, one of the participants in the April 1, 2014 CSE meeting, testified that other than the testing by the school psychologist (Tr. 798-799, 803-804), she was not aware of any other basis for the CSE’s IEP determination (Tr. 800). She was not familiar with DrRT (Tr. 829), not familiar with any report by DrRT (Tr. 829) and “not aware” that a psychological evaluation done by DrRT was reviewed at the April 1, 2014 CSE meeting (Tr. 830). When shown the IEP (D-58) “Comments” section reference to the chairperson having reviewed the findings of a neuropsychological evaluation she had no such recollection (Tr. 847). School social worker, UUU indicated that if an independent psychological report from a parent existed, it was the type of thing that she would know about. (Tr. 909). Yet, she said that she had never seen the DrRT report (Tr. 907-908) and its existence had not been brought to her attention (Tr. 911). Special Education teacher DDD, a Co-Chair of the Special Education Department (Tr. 1375), the Student’s “case manager” and math teacher during the 2014-2015 school year (Tr. 1377) and the staff member responsible for communicating with teachers to implement the Student’s IEP (Tr. 1379-1380), said that she was not familiar with DrRT’ report and had never reviewed it (Tr. 1488) and to her knowledge it had never been shared at a CSE meeting (Tr. 1489). The first time she ever heard of his name in connection with the Student was during her cross-examination (Tr. 1493-1494). That a secretarial staff member contemporaneously made the initial information for the “Comments” section of the IEP as the meeting progressed suggests that the entry about the private evaluation report means that something was said about it. Nevertheless, the conflicting testimony of District staff on this issue suggests that, at most, the DrRT report was given no meaningful consideration.
The best evidence of whether an evaluation was actually “carefully considered” (8 NYCRR § 200.4(c)(1) by a CSE is the record, in the IEP itself, of the “Evaluations / Reports” and “Test Results” listed as the “documentation of the student’s current performance and academic, developmental and functional needs” on which a student’s Present Levels of Performance and Individual Needs” are based. 8 NYCRR § 200.4(d)(2)(1).
The CSE’s April 1, 2014 IEP for the balance of the 2013-2014 school year does not list the Randall DrRT, Ph.D. evaluation as having been considered for the IEP’s recommended program. The DrRT evaluation, as “information obtained from” the parent, is part of the information that the Commissioner’s regulations require be “documented and carefully considered” by the CSE [8 NYCRR § 200.4(c)(1)]. Noteworthy too, the CSE’s May 30, 3014 annual review meeting’s two IEPs (D-72, for the balance of the 2013-2014 school year, and D-73, for the 2014-2015 school year) and the Amended IEP for 2014-2015 (D-93), which added counseling services by consent, do not list the DrRT evaluation as having been considered. Presumably, a reference to the DrRT evaluation could have appeared in the two May 30, 2014 IEPs and the September 22, 2014 amended IEP if the earlier omission had been a mere clerical oversight. That it was not added suggests that its omission was not an oversight. Weighing the testimony and assessing the records and apparent procedures of the District, I conclude that, at most, the DrRT neuropsychological evaluation was given perfunctory consideration at most. Among District staff, there appears to be a misunderstanding of the role and weight that a private parent-evaluation can or should have in the CSE decision-making process. The 2013-2014 school year IEPs of April 1 (D-58) & May 30, 2014 (D-72): The crux of the Parent’s substantive objection to the April 1, 2014 CSE IEP recommendations is that it was inappropriate because it was “to little and … too late” (Parent’s Brief p. 22) and the CSE should have recommended “an intense, self-contained and restrictive program that would quickly … get [the Student] on track” (Parent’s Brief p. 22).
The IDEA standard for assessment of the appropriateness of an IEP recommendation is a prospective one to be made in light of the information before the CSE at the time of the recommendation. R.E. v. New York City Department of Education, 694 F.3d 167, 186 (2nd Cir. 2012). The court said: “We now adopt the majority view that the IEP must be evaluated prospectively as of the time of its drafting . . . .” 694 F.3d at 186.
Based on this decisional-law, the CSE’s April 1, 2014 initial recommendation (D-58) and it’s May 30, 2014 annual review recommendation for the 2013-2014 school year (D-72) were not appropriate and not reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefit. At the April 1, 2014 CSE meeting, the committee considered, among other things, the school’s March 24, 2014 MMM psychological evaluation (D-50) and March 25, 2014 Addendum (D-49), the Social History (D-53), and the MMM classroom observation of the Student in the Student’s U.S. History & Government class (D-50, p. [429] where the Student was reported to be seemingly disengaged in class and not particularly prepared or organized. At the time of the April 1, 2014 CSE meeting, the Student was failing in three of his four core classes (Earth Science, English and Geometry).
The CSE concluded that the student’s cognitive verbal ability and comprehension-knowledge was in the low-average range and that his cognitive efficiency was in the low average range when compared to others at his grade level (D-58, p. [380]).
The CSE did not articulate clear academic needs that are of concern to the Parent, but rather referenced only the Father’s worry that his son “should be making better academic progress” (D-58, p. [381]) and, somehow, that “Resource room will also provide [the Student] with the skills needed to support his organization and time management skills” (D-58, p. [381]). To the extent that organization and time management skills are identified as need areas, the severity of those needs, considered in light of his failing grades, suggest that special education services more intense than once-a-day resource room was required on April 1, 2014 to begin meeting the Student’s needs.
The CSE recognized that the Student struggled to complete items in an expeditious manner in both reading and mathematics and academically scored in the low average range. These deficits suggest a need for more immediate in-class-room assistance to enable the student to succeed. The diagnosis of ADHD strongly supports this conclusion. Finally, both the District’s (D-50) and DrRT’ (D-45) evaluations concluded that the Student had weaknesses in organization and study skills and particularly time management skills. The CSE correctly identified that the Student “needs teacher refocusing and redirection to stay on task” (D-50, p. [381]). DrRT found that the Student needed “highly structured and supervised study time” (D-45, report p. 17) and he “is significantly impaired in his capacity to sustain his attention over a long period of time” (D-45, report p. 9). DrRT focused, I think appropriately, on the environment in which the student would perform (D-45, report p. 13) and that it would tend to forecast his likely performance (D-45, report p. 13). Both the District psychologist’s findings from the BRIEF (Teacher Form), completed by the Student’s U.S. History teacher (the Student’s favorite class), and Dr. DrRT’ findings indicated a need to provide constant educational supports to help the Student maintain focus on and understand the high-school task at hand. Among other things, the BRIEF indicated poor receptive and express communication skills and difficulty seeking out and finding information on his own (D-49, p. [427]). The Student needed increased in-class assistance in order to succeed.
In terms of social development, the CSE accurately concluded, from the BASC-2 reporting, that the Student had difficulty adjusting to change, took longer to recover than his peers and had difficulty seeking out and finding information on his own (D-58, p. [381]). As to management needs, the CSE also correctly concluded that the Student “needs teacher refocusing and redirection to stay on task” as well as development of a sense of responsibility for brining materials to school and handing in assignments. (D-58, p. [381]).
Although the evaluative information suggested a need for more structured learning environment, the CSE chose not to make any significant change in the student’s educational environment but merely recommended Resource Room services for one period daily, tracking sheets for attendance, classroom seating largely at the option of the Student, additional time for completion of assignments, flexible scheduling and timing of testing, flexible setting and on-task focus prompts. (D-58, pp. [384]-[385]).
The CSE also concluded that the Student’s transition services would focus on the Student’s desire to pursue a course of study that would allow him to graduate with a Regents Diploma (D-58, p. [385]). Those transition services are consistent with the evaluations and the Student’s abilities and desires. Integrated co-teaching classes in the Student’s core high school subject areas would provide the opportunity for the level of contemporaneous in-class redirection and assistance in focusing and completion of tasks that the evaluations indicated were needed. The District argues that the Resource Room recommendation for initial support “was logical to provide . . . without requiring [the Student] to change to one or more new classes with only (10) VVV remaining in the school year” (District Brief p. 7). But the Director of Special Education, citing to the very problems of difficulties in organization, assignment completion, and weakness in math, said “So to recommend resource room to assist him in those areas seemed appropriate.” (Tr. 365). The recommendation does not flow from the information derived from the Student’s evaluation. The resource room program was not the least restrictive environment for the Student. To be the least restrictive environment, a recommended program must “provide the special education needed by the student.” [16] Special Education Director VVV opined that to recommend placement in a self-contained classroom “would have been too restrictive” (Tr. 367), but she gave no explanation for why integrated co-taught classes in the Students core classes were not the appropriate or somehow too restrictive. In light of the Student’s evaluations pointing to the need for constant re-focusing and re-direction and assistance to complete his academic work in a timely manner and the undisputed diagnosis of ADHD, one cannot conclude that the resource room services would enable the Student to receive educational benefit.
The IDEA requires that a District offer an educational program that addresses the Student’s needs at that time. It may seem “logical” (District’s brief p. 7) from an administrative convenience point of view, not to move a student from one set of core classes to another set of core classes three-quarters of the way through the school year, but that is not the IDEA standard of appropriateness. Additionally, the District, Father and the then seventeen-year-old Student agreed that the Student’s transition plan should include seeking to go to college after graduation from high school. It appears unlikely that the college transition goals could be met without special education intervention in the Student’s core classes. Finally, the goals in the April 1, 2014 IEP do not address the Student’s need for instructional support for core academic classes and daily re-direction and refocusing, something that was much more clearly identified by the CSE sixty days later at the annual review meeting on May 30, 2014 (see, D-73, pp. [360]-[361]). Without repeating the above, the CSE’s May 30, 2014 IEP that merely continues the Resource Room program for the balance of the 2013-2014 school year (D-72, pp. [366]-[366], & [372]) continued the then-inappropriate program for the Student. The 2014-2015 IEPs of May 30 (D-73) & September 22, 2014 (D-93): In contrast with the two 2013-2014 school year IEPs, the CSE’s May 30, 2014 recommendation addressed the Student’s needs for the 2014-2015 school year and was appropriate. I do not repeat all of my findings regarding the Student’s needs but note that the 2014-2015 IEP addressed those needs whereas the 2013-2014 IEPs did not.
An appropriate IEP is one that is likely to produce progress, not regression. Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District, 142 F.3d 119, 130 (2nd Cir. 1977). Prospectively, the Student’s in-class support needs are addressed in the integrated co-taught classes recommended and they were likely to produce progress, not regression. That, by hindsight, the Student did not make significant progress cannot be attributed to the May 30 or September 22, 2014 IEPs since the Student had so many absences. Even if the CSE had given deference to the Randall DrRT evaluation, the Student’s needs required a placement in the integrated co-teaching classes as the least restrictive placement for the then-seventeen-year-old Student still seeking to graduate and attend college. A self-contained class would have been too restrictive and the evaluations did not point to a need for such a program or placement, DrRT’ testimony and recommendations not withstanding.
The CSE recommended an eleventh-grade high school program of Integrated Co-taught classes in English/Language Arts, Math, Science and Social Studies (D-73) with goals to be measured daily. Under the May 30, 2014 IEP, the Student would receive assistance from a special education teacher during class to help him stay focused on his academic tasks, be re-directed throughout and complete academic tasks with greater supervision and structure. The cognitive and academic testing by school psychologist MMM (D-50) is consistent and in the average range with low average results in the verbal ability cluster and low average on tasks of divided attention. The school psychologist’s BRIEF-SR assessment indicated that the Student’s executive functioning suggest that he is capable of functioning in a multiperiod high school setting but that the Student needed in-class supports.
The May 30, 2014 IEP (D-73) that recommended the integrated co-teaching classes is based upon the same evaluation data as the 2013-2014 school year’s April 1 (D-58) initial and May 30 continuation (D-72) IEPs. I can find no rational (other than administrative convenience) or reasonable educational explanation for why the District’s CSE concluded that the integrated co-teaching classes were only necessary on May 30 for the following September but not earlier.
The 2014-2015 IEPs (D-73 & D-93) were appropriate and the offered the Student the possibility of success and any lack of success is more clearly associated with the Student’s absence from classes and not due to the IEPs themselves. The Student’s attendance issue:
The CSE’s April 1, 2014 decision to include supplementary service of “tracking sheets” for all academic classes daily (D-58, p. [384]) continued a practice earlier established by the District’s instructional support team and that support, in isolation, was appropriate at that time and in later IEPs since the teacher member reported that the Student did not always hand in assignments (D-58, p. [377]). The Father similarly had significant concerns about the Student completing homework assignments. Also, the tracking sheets served, or at least were intended to serve, the purpose of being a credible record of class attendance to help the Father and District know that the Student was or was not in his high school classes. It was unsuccessful for the latter purpose because the District staff concluded that the Student was not in attendance in a substantial number of instances and the Father concluded, based on his son’s reports to him, that the Student was in class at the times that the school staff reported him absent. This supplementary service continued in the May 30, 2014 IEP (D-72, p. [373] & D-73, p. [362]) and September 22, 2014 IEPs (D-93, p. [351]). By the Fall of 2014, the conflict between what the Student reported to his Father and what the school staff reported to the Father (D-75, P-82, D-119, D-125, D-142, D-162 & D-175-B) led the Father to request counseling services. The Father appears to have done so, consistent with private psychologist DrRF’s August 23, 2014 letter’s (D-91) report of two prior years of private counseling, as a way to help his son succeed and, to help the Father know if his son’s report of attendance was accurate or not (Tr. 1336). Although the Father and the District agreed to add counseling to the IEP in September 2014 (D-92 & D-93), the credibility conflict about the Student’s attendance continued all the way to the hearing.
I need only decide this credibility issue as to attendance from the perspective of the snapshot view of what was appropriate in light of what the CSE knew on April 1, May 30 and September 22, 2014 (the latter date being the IEP agreed-upon amendment to add counseling).
I conclude that on this credibility issue, the school records and staff testimony are a more credible version of class attendance than the version by the Student to his Father, school staff and this hearing officer. First, the Student (Tr. 1819) and math teacher KKK (Tr. 1853) both testified that during the 2014-2015 school year, the Student was in Ms. KKK’s fifth period Geometry class. Second, Parent’s counsel cited to one incident during the 2014-2015 school year in the Geometry class (Parent’s Brief pp. 15-16) that he found troubling but I find strongly suggest that the Student can put on a façade when he chooses to do so. The incident involved a fellow student, who was sitting across from him in Geometry class. The student used rude language to call the Student out for putting on a façade in class. This female student said, “Why are you acting like you’re F***ing retarded? I’ve known you since your [sic] five years old and you are not retarded and you need to stop acting like you’re retarded” (Tr. 1865). That call-out by a peer provoked the Student to begin laughing and seemingly breaking out of character, according to math teacher Ms. KKK (Tr. 1866), and then the Student began interacting with fellow students as a typical teenager. The incident’s occurrence is credible. The possibility that the Student chooses to put on a façade from time to time is credible. Third, undisputed copies of the Student’s signature appear on two letters of September 30, 2014 (D-130) and October 14, 2014 (D-133) and a June 3, 2014 list of required courses, school transcript and Regents examination schedule (D-164) that show that the Student varies how he signs documents - using both cursive and printing to do so. Those signatures appear the same, or so substantially the same, as the Student’s signatures on tracking sheets used during the 2013-2014 school year (D-162) and the 2014-2015 school year (D-170 & D-176). Fourth, some of the Student’s signatures on Special Education DDD’s attendance log (D-176) appear to be identical or substantially identical to the Student’s signature on the undisputed records. That leads me to the conclusion that the signatures on the DDD attendance log were indisputably the Student’s signature. Thus, the Student necessarily had contact with Special Education DDD during the 2014-2015 school year to place his signature on the document. Since the tracking sheet (D-170) and log (D-176) were to track attendance in the Student’s classes, the only credible explanation for the Student’s signature appearing on Ms. DDD’s attendance log is that she was one of his geometry teachers and he had contact with her when he attended school. Ms. DDD testified that she co-taught the geometry class in which the Student was a participant (Tr. 1377) and that KKK was her co-teacher (Tr. 1506-1507). Similarly Ms. KKK testified that Ms. DDD taught the Student’s 2014-2015 geometry class with her (Tr. 1852-1854). Fifth, having concluded that without doubt Special Education Teacher DDD co-taught the Student’s geometry class with Ms. KKK during the entire 2014-2015 school year and regularly interacted with the Student, I conclude that the Student’s testimony (Tr. 1818) that Ms. DDD was never his teacher is patently untrue. Sixth, school counselor and social worker UUU testified that she had met with the Student on a few occasions, one being January 6, 2015. She described that January 6, 2015 session as a positive one (Tr. 868). Ms. UUU was providing counseling services to the Student pursuant to the September 22, 2014 amended IEP (D-93). I conclude that she had no incentive or reason to claim that she had met with the Student for a counseling session, that the session was positive and the she intended to check with the Student the next day if, in fact, it had not occurred. Nevertheless, the Student testified that he never met with Ms. UUU (Tr. 1829-1830). I conclude that the Student’s statement that the meeting on January 6, 2015 did not occur (Tr. 1829-1830) is untrue. Seventh, Assistant High School Principal SSS testified to having a role during the first semester of the 2014-2015 school year of assisting staff to implement aspects of the Student’s IEP including the tracking sheets to be used (Tr. 1152-1156). She also testified as to her frequent use of e-mail in her duties. Specifically, she testified that she met with the Student on September 22, 2014, discussed his school work in English and the tracking sheets, and that he reported having met with counselor UUU. (Tr. 1162-1163). She also testified about communicating with the Father by phone and following up by e-mail (D-172) and that the Father reportedly claimed that his son had not seen Ms. SSS that day. (Tr. 1164-1165). Ms. SSS’s demeanor, recollection and responses are credible. I conclude that Ms. UUU’s and Ms. SSS’s testimony, about having met with the Student and their report of statements made by the Student, are accurate and truthful. Eighth, Ms. DDD testified that the Student, in response to her inquiry to him in class after several days of absence, said that “he would leave for school and then he said that he would turn around and go home and play video games.” (Tr. 1603). The Student testified that the conversation never happened. (Tr. 1820). Since the Student falsely denied that Ms. DDD was his teacher during the 2014-2015 school year and falsely denied that he had met with Ms. SSS and Ms. UUU, I conclude that he would also falsely deny having made any such statement to Ms. DDD. Ninth, I necessarily conclude that the Student was frequently absent from school both before and after April 1, 2014 and throughout the 2014-2015 school year. The Parent’s individual Complaint items: The IDEA contemplates Parental access to a hearing when they dispute a CSE’s decision. It contemplates expeditious determinations, although in this case, speed is not the hallmark of the result of the parties’ various requests for scheduling. Nevertheless, I have concluded that the Parent desires, and I think deserves, a determination of each of his individual claims. This will enable both parties to evaluate their respective positions for any possible review before the State Review Officer. 1. Parent’s request for reimbursement for IEE by Randall DrRT, Ph.D.
On February 27, 2014, the District received the Father’s February 26, 2014 letter request for a $3,500.00 reimbursement for his cost of the Independent Educational Evaluation [IEE] conducted by DrRT, Ph.D. from October through December 2013 (D-45). The Father also provided with District with a copy of DrRT’ IEE and his bill for the evaluation that included a breakdown of the costs (D-45). The Father’s submission complied with the District’s IEE policy 4321.3R as to documentation for a reimbursement claim. (See D-54, p. [588]).
On March 14, 2014 the District denied the request stating that it did “Not fit the criteria” in the District’s policy (D-54). The District enclosed a copy of the District’s Policy 4321.3R that includes the provision that if the District denies the request it will state its reasons and its “intention . . . to initiate a hearing to defend this refusal.” (D-54, p. [589]).
The Commissioner of Education regulations at 8 NYCRR § 200.5(g)(1)(iv) impose an affirmative obligation on school district to act without unnecessary delay. Where a school district, like the District here, chooses not to pay for a requested IEE, the Commissioner’s regulations impose the obligation that: “[T] he school district must, without unreasonable delay. . . file a due process complaint notice to request a hearing to show that its evaluation is appropriate or that the evaluation obtained by the parent does not meet the school district criteria.” 8 NYCRR § 200.5(g)(1)(iv). [emphasis added]
On March 20, 2014, the District’s attorney wrote to the Father’s attorney at that time disputing that the DrRT Ph.D. neuropsychological evaluation report qualified as an IEE, stating that the District was then conducting its own evaluations, and citing 8 NYCRR § 200.5(a) in support of its position.
On March 27, 2014 (D-56) and April 1, 2014 (D-65), the Father wrote to the District and renewed his request for an IEE at public expense and referenced that he was attaching DrRT’ billing statement and the report.
On May 3, 2014, (D-67) approximately 65 days after submitting the DrRT report and billing statement to the District, and again three VVV later on May 24, 2014 (D-70), the Father wrote to the District and stated that if the District continued to disagree, “please schedule impartial hearing” (D-67) and to contact his attorney to schedule a hearing (D-70).
The school year ended in June 2014, approximately 120 days after the District received the DrRT evaluation, the DrRT billing statement and the District did not comply with its own IEE Policy 4321.3R to initiate a hearing to show that its denial was proper.
Eventually, over 276 days passed, December arrived, and the District still had not complied with its own policy or the Commissioner’s regulation requiring it to “file a due process complaint notice to request a hearing “without unreasonable delay.”[17] An over-276-day delay is grossly unreasonable.
Any greater-than-sixty-day delay following receipt of an IEE report and billing statement for which a parent seeks reimbursement, after which a school district does not request a hearing to defend its denial of payment, is unreasonable delay under 8 NYCRR § 200.5(g)(1)(iv).
2. Parent’s request for an Evaluation.
The District first delayed the Assistive Technology [“AT”] Evaluation by not acting on the CSE’s May 30, 2014 authorization for the AT evaluation (D-93) until July 24, 2014 (D-85) when it asked the Father to for his written consent. By then, the Father’s had written his June 23, 2014 (D-80) letter inquiring as to why the evaluation had not been done. The Father thereafter delayed the AT evaluation by not providing his consent when contacted by the District on July 21, 2014 (D-84), August 1, 2014 (D-85) and August 4, 2014 (D-88). Special Education Director VVV testified that after commencement of the 2014-2015 school year, the AT evaluation delay was due the BOCES evaluator having a difficult time scheduling it on a date the Student was in school. (Tr. 1028).
At the time of the hearing, the AT evaluation (D-100) had been completed, albeit, belatedly on January 15, 2015.
To the extent that the Parent may have a concern as to the sufficiency of the AT Evaluation (D-100), that concern was not raised in the December 13, 2014 hearing request and I lack jurisdiction to entertain a claim as to its sufficiency.
3. Parent’s request for an investigation into alleged cutting/absences; counseling, sign-in sheets, and or compensatory education.
Although I have jurisdiction to determine a compensatory education claim, I do not have jurisdiction to order an investigation as requested in this part of the Parent’s Complaint.
As to the counseling, the Parent’s request was granted in September 2014 with the IEP Amendment to add counseling (D-93).
4. Tracking Sheets, per current IEP.
Tracking or sign-in sheets were used and/or attempted to be used with the Student and samples of those documents appear in the record. See, tracking sheet entitled “Student Schedule for [the Student]” (D-146 at p. [693] and D-170 and D175-b). Additionally, Ms. DDD used an attendance sign-in sheet bearing the Student’s signature on some days. (D-176). Also, the Teacher Progress Monitoring Daily Reports (D-162) and the Instructional Support Team Weekly Reports (also D162) were used in the 2013-2014 school year. It does appear that the one-week-per-page sign-in sheet listing the Student’s courses (D-146 at p. [693]) and entitled “Student Schedule for [the Student]” was not in place on September 4, 2014 as contemplated by the May 30, 2014 IEP (D-73,
p. 6 of 9) and was not put in place until the sign-in sheet was disseminated to the teaching staff on September 26, 2014 (D-146). To the extent that the Parent’s claim referred to use of those sign-in sheets, I find that the District began using them pursuant to the IEP but commencing three VVV late.
5. Parent’s request for a list of alternative placement options, including, BOCES and Spackenkill School.
The district provided the requested list of alternative placements to the Parent prior to the first hearing day. (D-6, D-7, & D-8).
6. Parent’s request for a realistic plan for obtaining a high school diploma in a timely manner.
The Student’s plan for obtaining a high school diploma is, I conclude, being facilitated by the IEP’s contemplation that the Student will seek a Regents diploma and the supports to achieve success in the high school credit-bearing courses will achieve that goal. I conclude that the IEPs for the 2014-2015 school year adequately addressed the Student’s class issues with the integrated co-teaching classes in his core subjects.
7. Parent’s request that if homework tutoring is necessary, it must be on the IEP and provided by a qualified person.
While individual tutoring may be beneficial to the Student, the IDEA does not require that a school provide every service that a caring and loving Parent would want provided. Here, the 2014-2015 IEPs offer the Student an opportunity to receive significant, not merely minimal, educational benefit. The District is not required to offer individual tutoring to the Student.
8. Other remedies that may become know to me during the hearing process.
No additional remedy was sought at the time of the hearing. Remedies:
Although I conclude that the 2013-2014 was not appropriate, (a) since student’s program for the 2014-2015 school year was appropriate and (b) the student has now entered his 2015-2016 school year based upon annual review recommendations for his education, and (c) because I have found that significant absences did occur that make it impossible to determine what adverse effect the 10-week inappropriate IEPs (D-58 & D-72) had, I conclude that no compensatory remedy is appropriate. I direct that the parties continue to try to work together as collaboratively as possible. Should further CSE decisions be unsatisfactory to the Parent, his right to a further review remains available to him. In light of the above, I find that: 1. The 2013-2014 IEPs (D-58 & D-72) were not appropriate are I nullify both and uphold the Parent’s claim as to those IEPs; and 2. The 2014-2015 IEPs (D-73 & D-93) were appropriate and offered the Student a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment consistent with his needs; and I deny the Parent’s claims as to those IEPs; and 3. The Student’s lack of progress during the last 10 VVV of the 2013-2014 school year and throughout the 2014-2015 school year cannot be clearly attributed to the IEP since the credible evidence indicates that the Student was absent a substantial amount of the time; and 4. The Parent’s claim for a $3,500 reimbursement for the cost of the Randall DrRT, Ph.D. evaluation is valid and the District waived whatever defense it may have had or could have asserted by (a) its excessive delay, beyond sixty days following its receipt of the DrRT evaluation, (b) failing to follow its own policy and (c) by failing to follow the Commissioner of Education regulation requiring it to initiate a hearing “without unnecessary delay” to prove that it had a valid defense to such payment.
ORDER
In light of the above, it is ORDERED, that the 2013-2014 IEPs (D-58 & D-72) are annulled; and it is ORDERED, that the 2014-2015 IEPs (D-73 & D-93) are upheld as appropriate; and it is ORDERED, that the District shall pay to the Parent the sum of $3,500.00 within thirty calendar days of this Decision and Order as reimbursement for the cost of the DrRT evaluation; and it is ORDERED, that all other requests for relief in the Complaint are denied as either already provided or outside the scope of my authority as an Impartial Hearing Officer to adjudicate.
November 14, 2015 WWWville, NY Jerome D. Schad, Esq.
Impartial Hearing Officer
NOTICE OF IDEA APPEAL RIGHTS
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
that pursuant to the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, specifically, section 200.5(k) any party aggrieved by my findings of fact and decision may appeal to the State Review Officer pursuant to the provisions of Part 279 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education [8 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 279].
A parent seeking review must serve his or her Notice of Intention to Seek Review upon the school district, in compliance with Part 279, no later than 25 days from the date of this decision and order.
Exhibit List
No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page
No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page D-1 Father’s Due Process Complaint Notice 28 5/18/15 45 dated 12/13/14 with attachments; stamped received 12/15/14 - [Bracketed numbered] pages [1] – [28] D-2 District’s response to Complaint pursuant 2 5/18/15 45 to 8 NYCRR 200.5(i)(4) dated 12/23/14 pp. [29]-[30] D-3 District letter to Parent scheduling 2 5/18/15 46
Resolution Session 1/15/15 - pp. [31]-32]. D-4 Procedural Safeguards Notice - pp. [33]- 46 5/18/15 46 [78] D-5A District’s attorney’s settlement offer letter, 3 5/18/15 per 34 C.F.R. § 300.513 and FRCP Rule 68, to Father’s attorney dated 3/6/15 - pp. [79]-[81] D-5B Attachment to Ex. 5A - Addendum A - pp. 19 5/19/15 295 [82]-[100] D-6 Dutchess BOCES Alternative High School 3 5/18/15 49
Programs - pp. [101]-[103] D-7 Dutchess BOCES Career & Technical 5 5/18/15 49
Institute 2014-2015 Course Offerings pp. [104]-[108] D-8 Ulster BOCES Career Technical Center 64 5/18/15 50 program guide - pp. [109]-[172] D-9 District’s attorney Sims’s 3/20/24 letter to 5 5/18/15 50
Father’s attorney Charpentier stating why
District was refusing to reimburse Parent for the DrRT, Ph.D. evaluation, with attached copy of District’s Director of Special Education’s letter to Father to the same effect - pp. [173]-[177] D-10 Report After Investigation of Bullying and 53 5/18/15 52
Harassment Pursuant to Complaint filed by No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page [Father] against the Poughkeepsie CSD dated April 23, 2014 - pp. [178]-[230] D-11 Student’s attendance records – 2012-2013 20 5/26/15 483
& 2013-2014 and attendance records
9/4/14 – 5/15/15 - pp. [236, 239 - 253] & three unnumbered pages 14-15 “Student
Period Attendance Detail” D-12 Assistant Principal SSS’s 10/28/14 Fax to 10 5/18/15 53
GGG re Student’s attendance - pp. [259][267] 2014-2015 school year. D-13 Poughkeepsie Pediatrics, P.D. absence note 2 5/18/15 62
5/28/14 - pp. [268] & [337]. D-14 Student Transcript - pp. [269 & 270] & 4 5/18/15 54 [281 & 282] D-16 Student grade sheets and graduation 2 5/18/15 55 projections 2011-2014 – pp. [292]-[293] D-17 Student’s report cards – pp. [283]-[291] 9 5/18/15 56 D-18 Graduation Checklist – p. [297] 1 5/18/15 57 D-20 Student Test Score Detail – pp. [304]-[305] 2 5/18/15 60 D-21 Summer School Report Card 2014 – pp. 2 5/18/15 61 [310]-[311] D-23 Father’s 1/25/12 letter to Executive 1 5/18/15 69
Special Education Director requesting special education services – p. [648] D-24 District’s 1/27/12 letter to Father 3 5/18/15 70 regarding CSE referral and requesting consent to initial evaluation – pp. [644]646]
No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page D-25 Consent for Evaluation signed 1/29/12 – p. 1 5/18/15 70 [416] D-26 E-mail dated 1/1/12 from Middle School 1 5/18/15 71
Principal to Father re weekly reports, meeting and assignments and evaluation – p. [643] D-27 District’s 2/10/12 letter to Father 2 5/18/15 71 regarding CSE meeting 2/21/12 re initial eligibility determination meeting – pp. [641]-[642] D-28 Father’s 2/16/12 letter to Executive 1 5/18/15 71
Director of Special Education VVV that parent cannot attend 2/21/12 meeting but
Advocate Joseph Beckles will attend for Father – p. [640] D-29 District’s 2/23/12 letter to Father re CSE 2 5/18/15 72 meeting 3/1/12 re initial eligibility determination meeting – pp. [638]-[639] D-30 CSE Ineligibility Determination regarding 2 5/18/15 72 the Student - 2011-2012 from CSE Meeting
3/1/12 – pp. [389]-[390] D-31 CSE Ineligibility Determination regarding 2 5/18/15 73 the Student - 2011-2012 from CSE Meeting
3/1/12 – pp. [389]-[390]
Additional Test information reported. D-32 Social/Developmental History – Initial 2 5/18/15 73
Report dated 2/13/12 prepared by school social worker – pp. [446]-[447] D-33 Classroom Observation 11/5/10 of Student 2 5/18/15 74
– pp. [469]-[470]
Psychological Assessment Report dated 12 5/18/15 74
11/29/10 of Student (then age 13 yr., 10 mo.) – pp. [457]-[468]
No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page D-35 District Notice of Board of Education 1 5/18/15 75
Review of 3/1/12 CSE ineligibility determination and approval – p. [637] D-36 Father’s 5/2/12 letter to Executive 1 5/18/15 75
Director of Special Education requesting an IEE of the Student at public expense – pp. [636] D-37 Assistant Superintendent for Pupil 1 5/18/15 76
Services, DrLP’s 5/14/12 letter to Father that his 5/2/12 IEE request letter does not sufficiently identify the evaluation with which the Father disagrees – p. [635] D-38 District ‘s 9/27/13 letter to Father 4 5/18/15 76 requesting his consent to evaluation his son – pp. [631]-[634] D-39 District’s 10/4/14 “Second Notice” to 4 5/18/15 77
Father requesting his consent to evaluation of his son – pp. [627]-[630] D-40 District’s 10/11/14 “Third Notice” letter to 4 5/18/15 77
Father requesting his consent to evaluation of his son – pp. [623]-[626] D-41 Handwritten not of telephone call with 1 5/19/15 341
Father on 10/21/13 that he was declining to have testing completed – p. [417] D-42 Email from Student Services staff member 1 5/18/15 78
LEV to Assistant Superintendent for Pupil
Services, DrLP, that the third consent request had been sent home to the Parent – p. [622] D-43 Email from Student Services staff member 1 5/18/19 79
LEV to Assistant Superintendent for Pupil
Services, DrLP] that in 10/21/13 telephone conversation with Father and that he declined to consent to evaluate and that No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page she was withdrawing the referral to the CSE – p. [621] D-44 Committee Meeting Information form 1 5/18/15 79 undated stating that “Referral Withdrawn” regarding the Student in 10th grade – p. [394] D-45 Fax dated 2/27/14 to DrLP, Assistant 23 5/15/15 80
Superintendent for Pupil Services, with attached Parent letter dated 2/26/14 requesting reimbursement, DrRT, Ph.D. billing dated 2/18/14 for $3,500 and copy of DrRT’s Psychological Evaluation Report of the Student – Not Bates Numbered. D-46 District letter dated 2/27/14 to Father that 4 5/18/14 81 his son had been referred to the CSE and requesting consent to evaluate – pp. [594][597] D-47 Consent for Initial Evaluation form dated 1 5/18/15 82
2/27/14, signed by Father 3/1/14 – p. [598] D-48 District’s Committee on Special Education 1 5/18/15 82
Request for Evaluation notice dated
3/4/14, re Student, to staff members MMM, Buckman, UUU, & Serino to conduct evaluations – p. [418] D-49 Addendum to Report of Psychoeducational 3 5/19/15 300
Initial Evaluation dated 3/28/14 by School Psychologist – pp. [425]-[427] D-50 Report of Psychoeducational Initial 12 5/19/15 300
Evaluation dated 3/24/14 by School Psychologist – pp. [428]-[439] D-51 Report of Student’s physical health dated 1 5/18/15 87
3/7/14 – p. [456] D-52 Classroom Observation of the Student by a 2 5/18/15 87
No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page
Special Education Student dated 3/12/14 – pp. [454]-[455] D-53 Developmental Psychosocial History of 4 5/18/15 88
Student – Report by Social Worker UUU – pp. [440]-[443] D-54 Letter dated 3/14/14 from Director of 5 5/18/15 88
Special Education – pp. [587]-[591] D-55 Handwritten notes from Father dated 13 5/18/15 89
March – June 2014 and Poughkeepsie
Pediatrics P.C. 5/19/14 re student – pp. [574]-[586] D-56 Father’s letter dated 3/27/15 to Special 3 5/18/15 90
Education Director or Superintendent requesting IEE at public expense, with copy of Randall DrRT, Ph.D.’s 2/18/14 Billing
Statement and fax cover sheet – pp. [569][571] D-57 District letter dated 3/24/14 to Father 2 5/18/15 90 regarding CSE meeting on 4/1/14 re initial eligibility determination meeting – pp. [572]-[573] D-58 IEP from 4/1/14 CSE meeting classifying 12 5/18/15 91
Student as a student with a Learning
Disability and recommending Resource
Room services daily for one period, preferential seating and extended time to complete assignments & attendance sign-in sheet – pp. [377]-[388] D-59 District Compliance Verification Form for a 2 5/18/15 92
Student Suspected of a Specific Learning
Disability re Student and 4/1/14 CSE
Eligibility Determination – pp. [400][4001] D-60 Father’s Fax to VVV dated 4/1/14 with 2 5/18/15 92 attached signed consent for Student’s Evaluation – pp. [565]-[566]
No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page D-61 Parent/Guardian Concerns form dated 5 5/18/15 93
4/3/14 re Student and Father’s concerns about absences reported 9/6/13 –
3/18/14 – pp. [560]-[563] D-62 Prior Written Notice re Proposed Initial 3 5/18/15 95
Eligibility for Special Education dated
4/9/14 re CSE determination of 4/1/14 re
Student – pp. [ ? ]-[ ? ] D-63 Notice of CSE Meeting dated 4/10/14 to 4 5/18/15 95
District High School staff to access 4/1/14
IEP for the Student – pp. [552]-[555] D-64 Notice of Board of Education Review for 1 5/18/15 96
Special Education dated 4/10/14 regarding
4/9/14 BOE approval of CSE’s 4/1/14 recommendation – pp. [ ? ] D-65 Father’s letter dated 4/1/14 to VVV CSE 2 5/18/15 96
Director, repeating disagreement with District evaluation and requesting an IEE at public expense – [567]-[568] D-66 Father’s letter dated 4/1915 to VVV 2 5/18/15 97
Director of Special Education requesting an assistive technology evaluation – pp. [549][550] D-67 Father’s letter dated 5/3/14 to VVV 1 5/18/15 97
Director of Special Education resubmitting a request for an IEE at public expense – p. [547] D-68-A Father’s letter dated 5/315 to VVV Director 1 5/18/15 158 of Special Education re Student’s grades and tutor – p. [548] D-68-B E-mail dated 5/13/14 from Director of 1 5/18/15 158
Special Education to Father re rescheduling previously scheduled CSE meeting of 5/14/14 to the week of 5/26/14 – p. [774]
No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page
D-69 Director of Special Education’s letter dated 1 5/18/15 98
5/21/14 to Father regarding Fathers
5/3/14 letter enclosing NYS Procedural
Safeguards notice and District Policy on IEEs and stating that Father’s letter was unclear about what evaluation the Father disagreed with – p. [542]
D-70 Father’s letter dated 5/24/14 to VVV 1 5/18/15 99
Director of Special Education regarding resubmission of his request for an IEE at public expense and saying he disagreed with the 2010 and 2014 evaluations - p. [541]
D-71 CSE Meeting Notice letter, dated 5/21/14, 2 5/18/15 99 to Father re 5/30/14 subcommittee CSE Meeting re Student review and annual review - pp. [543]-[544]
D-72 IEP from 5/30/14 CSE subcommittee 11 5/18/15 100 review and annual review Meeting continuing Resource Room services and accommodations for the remainder of the 2013-14 school year; discussing Parent’s request for and Assistive Technology Evaluation and IEE and reporting that as to an IEE the Chairperson “informed the parent that a written request with a reason for the hearing should be sent to the district” – pp. [366]-[376].
D-73 IEP from 5/30/14 CSE subcommittee 11 5/18/15 101 annual review Meeting recommending
Services for the Student for the 2014-2015 school year:
Resource Room 5:1 - 5 x week 41 min. Integrated Co-teaching English/Language Arts Class 5 x week 41 min. Integrated Co-teaching Math Class 5 x week 41 min. No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page Integrated Co-teaching Science Class 5 x week 41 min. Integrated Co-teaching Social Studies Class 5 x week 41 min. And Tracking Sheets all academic classes daily. Preferential Seating – Student to work with teacher re seating. Additional Time to Complete Assignments as needed. Flexibility in Scheduling for Tests & Extended time. Flexibility in Setting for Tests – separate location/room and small group administration (3-5 students)
On-Task focusing prompts - pp. [355][365].
D-74 “Committee Information and Attendance” 1 5/18/15 101 form re 5/30/14 Subcommittee CSE meeting attendees, including Father in attendance – p. [398].
D-75 Father’s letter dated 5/30/14 to Director of 2 5/18/15 102
Special Education re 5/30/14 CSE meeting and his request for son to sign in attendance in “every classroom” and that he receive phone calls when son misses two classes in a week and requesting the Integrated-Co teaching classes to start immediately and not await beginning of 2014-2015 school year and that that CSE did not think son needed extra help in the form of tutoring at the administration building and “I am stopping it immediately”
– pp. [539]-[540].
D-76 Father’s letter dated 6/7/14 to 1 5/18/15 102
Superintendent of Schools re reported altercation with school SRO officer on 5/20/15 in boys bathroom and requesting an investigation – p. [538].
No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page D-77-A Father’s letter dated 6/23/14 to 1 5/18/15 157
Superintendent of Schools re 6/17/14 letter from Director of Special Education re
5/30/14 CSE meeting and claiming that it contained information that was not discussed at the CSE on 5/30/14 – p. [535]
D-77-B Father’s letter dated 6/23/14 to Director of 1 5/18/15 157
Special Education demanding why son
“was being marked absent when he was in school” – p. [534].
D-78 District’s Prior Written Notice of Proposed 2 5/18/15 103
Continuation for Special Education for Student from 5/30/14 Subcommittee CSE recommending continuation of Resource Room services for the balance of the 2013-2014 school year and the recommendation of the Integrated Co-Teaching classes for the 2014-2015 school year – pp. [536][537].
D-79 District letter dated 6/26/14 to Father of 1 5/18/15 104
Notice of Board of Education Review for Special Education approving the CSE’s recommendations for the balance of the 2013-2014 school year and the 2014-2015 school years – p. [531].
D-80 Father’s letter dated 6/23/14 to Director of 1 5/18/15 104
Special Education asking why an Assistive
Technology Evaluation agreed to at the 5/30/14 CSE meeting had not been completed – p. [532].
D-81 Father’s letter dated 6/24/14 to Director of 1 5/18/15 105
Special Education requesting a class profile for the Student’s classes for the 2014-2015 school year p. [533].
D-82 High School Principal’s letter dated 1 5/18/15 105
6/27/14 to Father informing him that the Student had not successfully completed
No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page
Global R, US History R, English 10R, and Earth Science R and giving notice of the Summer School schedule and registration schedule p. [530].
D-83 Father’s letter dated 7/5/14 to 1 5/18/15 106
Superintendent requesting copies of the Student’s Regents exams taken in June in Geometry, Global History, Earth Science and English 10R – p. [529].
D-84 District’s letter dated 7/21/14 to Father of 3 5/18/15 107
Prior Written Notice of Proposed
Additional Assessment and Request for Consent to conduct an Assistive Technology Evaluation of the Student with consent form attached – pp. [526]-[528]
D-85 District’s letter dated 8/1/14 to Father of 3 5/18/15 107
Prior Written Notice of Proposed
Additional Assessment and Request for Consent to conduct an Assistive Technology Evaluation of the Student with consent form attached – pp. [520]-[522]
D-87 Father’s letter dated 8/3/14 to Director of 1 5/18/15 110
Special Education requesting that the student take the Regents Competency Test
p. [519]
D-88 District letter dated 8/4/14 to Father 3 5/18/15 110 responding to Father’s three letters regarding attendance (referring the Father to the High School attendance office), class profiles (indicating that when the classes are finalized, a profile will be provided) and the Assistive Technology Evaluation (indicating that it cannot be scheduled until the Father’s consent is received) , with attached copy of certified mail receipt - pp. [516]-[518].
No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page D-89 Father’s letter dated 8/15/14 to Director of 3 5/18/15 111
Special Education seeking a “better placement for [the Student]” and attaching a 5/29/14 letter from a Radha S. Biswas, M.D. “To whom it may concern” regarding the Student and an alteration with students at school on 5/24/14 – PP. [513]-[515]. D-90 Father’s letter dated 8/16/14 to Director of 1 5/18/15 112
Special Education re 5/30/15 meeting discussion about BOCES and inquiry about description of possible program for Student pp. [511]-[512].
D-91 Richard J. DrRF, Ph.D. letter dated 8/23/14 2 5/18/15 112 to Superintendent that Student has been under his care for Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and Depression since
11/10/12 and has had weekly individual and family therapy and opining that relationship between Student and school
“sufficiently toxic to warrant transferring him to another school district) – pp. [423][424]
D-92 District Prior Written Notice of Proposed 2 5/18/15 113
Amendment to IEP without a Committee
Meeting for the Student dated 9/15/14, signed by school social worker, Director of Special Education and Father 9/21/14, to add Individual Counseling 1 x 1 week for 30 minutes to the IEP – pp. [396]-[397]. D-93 IEP 9/22/14 Amendment – No Meeting, 11 5/18/15 113 adding Psychological Counseling Services, Individual 1 x weekly 30 min. to list of services from 5/30/14 IEP pp. [344]-[354]. D-94 District’s Prior Written Notice of Proposed 2 5/18/15 114
Continuation for Special Education for Student from 9/22/14 IEP Amendment with No Meeting to add psychological counseling services 1 x week for 30 minutes – Individual – pp. [508]-[509].
No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page D-95 District’s Attendance Officer’s “DAY 15 2 5/18/15 114
LETTER” dated 10/14/14 to Father that the Student had 15 unexcused absences and requesting a call back with attached
“Student Period Attendance Detail” as of 10/14/14 – pp. [717]-[718]. D-96 District Notice of Board of Education 1 5/18/15 115 Review for Special Education on 10/4/14 approving 9/22/14 IEP Amendment to add counseling services to the IEP – p. [503]. D-97 District “Notice of CSE Meeting” to Staff to 3 5/18/15 115 access IEP for the 9/22/14 Amendment to the Student’s IEP with attached first page of IEP and services summary page – pp. [504]-[506]. D-98 Father’s letter dated 12/11/14 regarding 2 5/18/15 115 CSE request for physical examination for related services and inquiring as to why pp. [495]. D-99 District Meeting Notice to Father dated 3 5/18/15 116 1/14/15 regarding 1/22/15 CSE meeting with attached certified mail receipt - pp. [490]-[492]. D-100 Assistive Technology Evaluation of Student 4 5/18/15 118 dated 1/15/15 - pp. [419]-[422]. D-101 Father’s letter dated 1/26/15 to SSS stating 1 5/18/15 118 that he was dissatisfied with the Assistive Technology evaluation and requesting an Independent AT evaluation at public expense - p. [488]. D-102 District Letter dated 2/4/15 to Father 6 5/18/15 119 regarding Father’s 1/26/15 request for an Independent Assistive Technology evaluation, agreeing to the request for the evaluation at District expense and No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page providing a copy of the District’s IEE policy - pp. [482]-[487]. D-103 Father’s letter dated 2/11/15 to Director of 1 5/18/15 120 Special Education that the Father cannot be present at a 2/17/15 CSE meeting and that he wants his attorney present also- p. [478]. D-104 District’s Meeting Notice dated 2/6/15 to 3 5/18/15 120 the Father about a proposed CSE meeting on 2/17/15 – pp. [479]-[481]. D-105 Father’s letter dated 2/21/15 to Director of 2 5/18/15 121 Special Education selecting West Inst. Of Human Development for Technology Evaluation – pp. [47 . D-106-A District CSE Meeting Notice letter dated 2 5/19/15 432 3/25/15 to Father re 4/8/15 subcommittee CSE Annual Review meeting. D-106-B Father’s letter dated 4/11/15 to CSE 2 5/19/15 433 Subcommittee Chairperson inquiring why Student was not called down to the 4/8/15 CSE meeting – pp. [471] – [472]. D-107 Father’s email dated 5/16/14 to 1 5/18/15 107 Superintendent about IST Meeting and concern that Son’s words are being changed around and complaining that the Student is not being given work in Resource room; Superintendent’s response that Assistant Superintendent DrLP would follow-up – p. [773]. D-108 Father’s email dated 5/17/14 to 1 5/18/15 125 Superintendent about Student’s tutor not being available on 5/14/14 and Superintendent’s response apologizing and that tutor would be available on 5/19/14. Father’s further email re Student’s regents No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page courses and exams and that Student would like to take US History regents if possible – p. [772].
D-109 Father’s email dated 5/30/14 to 1 5/18/15 126
Superintendent about 5/30/14 CSE meeting statements by Director of Special Education about Student’s absences and repeating complaint that school work was not being sent down to the Resource Room for the Student to complete – p. [766]
D-110 Father’s email dated June 6, 2014 to 1 5/18/15 126
Superintendent that his Son was still being marked absent “for no reason at all” – p. [765].
D-111 Email dated 6/11/14 from 1 5/18/15 127
Superintendent’s secretary to Deputy
Superintendent and Superintendent regarding Father’s telephone call that the Student was “kicked out of the Upward
Bound Program yesterday (Thursday, July 10, 2014) and that Father wanted the Student in the Summer Program – p. [760].
D-112 Father’s email dated 8/3/14 to 1 5/18/15 127
Superintendent about Student’s grades in summer school and that the Student did not receive work back from teachers;
Superintendent’s response that Deputy
Superintendent GGG would follow-up with Parent on Monday – p. [753].
D-113 Multiple e-mails dated 8/5/14 between 2 5/18/15 128 and among Father, the Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent regarding signing consent form to return to Special Education Director and Student’s grade reports and possibly meeting between Student and Deputy Superintendent regarding attendance – pp. [748] – [749].
No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page D-114 Multiple e-mails dated 8/6/14 between 3 5/18/15 128 and among Father, the Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent regarding Regents exams for the Student and absences – pp.
745] – [747].
D-115 Father’s e-mail dated 8/11/14 to 1 5/18/15 129
Superintendent disagreeing with school’s report of the Student’s absences and explaining that another summer school student has a similar name and claiming that the a confused that student with his son & Superintendent’s response that Deputy Superintendent GGG would follow up - p. [744].
D-116 E-mail dated 8/12/14 from PHS 2 5/18/15 129
Receptionist, ROM, to Student about conflict in Geometry regents exam that morning and schedule change for students to take Earth Science Practicum immediately after the Geometry regents; followed by Father’s e-mail to Superintendent inquiring about telephone call on the topic; followed by Superintendents e-mail to Deputy Superintendent GGG to follow up - pp. [742] –[743].
D-117 E-mail exchange between the Father and 3 5/18/15 130
Deputy Superintendent GGG dated
8/12/14 regarding Regents examination schedule on 8/13/14 and 8/14/14 and that the Student was not eligible to take the Earth Science Regents exam due to incomplete labs and Father’s request to review school records – pp. [739] – [741].
D-118 E-mail exchange dated 8/14/14 and 4 5/18/15 130
8/15/14 between and among the Father, the Superintendent, the Deputy
Superintendent and the School Social
Worker regarding Student not being
No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page permitted to take the Earth Science exam on 8/14/14 and scheduling a meeting with Deputy Superintendent GGG – pp. [733] – [736].
D-119 E-mail exchange between Father and 4 5/18/15 131
Deputy Superintendent GGG dated
9/12/14 regarding telephone report to Father about student not attending anatomy class and resource class and Father’s concerns that the information is not accurate and having requested sign-in sheets and Deputy Superintendent’s response about referring the Student to the grade level counselor and Father’s 9/13/14 e-mail regarding 8/20/14 meeting with GGG with his Son and continued dispute about staff attendance reporting about the Student and duplicate copies of 8/16/14 &
8/18/14 e-mails – pp. [729] –[732].
D-120 Father’s e-mail dated 9/12/14 to 1 5/18/15 132
Superintendent about 11:53 telephone call from staff member FFF that Student was in ISS and Father further call that the Student was in class and seeking follow up – p [727].
D-121 Father’s e-mail dated 9/15/14 to 1 5/18/15 133
Superintendent about Student being informed that he had failed the US History and Global History regents and claiming he never received scores in the mail and that is why he is in AIS class and complaining that teachers had failed his Son in summer school and now. Superintendent’s response that school would follow up and set up a meeting with the Student and Father – p. [725].
D-122 Email from Social Worker LLL to Deputy 1 5/18/15 133
Superintendent GGG dated 9/15/14 re
Students grades, credits & possible
No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page counseling – p. [724]. D-123 Father’s e-mail dated 9/12/14 to 1 5/18/15 134
Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent and others regarding appointment with Student and schedule change and disagreement about whether staff about whether Student appeared for appointment p. [726]. D-124 Social Worker UUU’s e-mail to Special 1 5/18/15 134
Education Director dated 9/16/14 regarding attempt to meet with Student 6th period and that student not in Resource Room – p. [668]. D-125 E-mail exchange dated 9/12/14, 9/15/14, 3 5/18/15 135
9/16/14 & 9/18/14 between and among
Father and Superintendent, Deputy
Superintendent & Special Education
Director VVV regarding Father’s request for counseling services and Deputy
Superintendent’s response apologizing for sign-in sheets not yet being in every classroom – pp. [665] – [667]. D-126 E-mail dated 9/19/14 from Secretary to 1 5/18/15 136
Superintendent to Social Worker UUU with sign in sheets for the Student per parent request – p. [664]. D-127 E-mail dated 9/19/14 from Social Worker 1 8/13/15 876
UUU to Special Education Director about
IEP change form, intent to send home with Student and mailing – p. [663]. D-128 E-mail exchange dated 9/19/14 from the 3 8/13/15 878
Father to Deputy Superintendent GGG regarding morning telephone call about Student not being in anatomy class and recourse class, that his Son said that he was in class, and his letter to Special Education Director VVV, and Deputy Superintendent’s
No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page response regarding follow up and between Ms. VVV and Father about amendment form and from Social Worker to Special Education Director VVV about Student’s attendance and amendment form – pp. [660] – [662].
D-129 E-mail exchange dated 9/22/14 between 1 5/18/15 146 teacher and Assistant Principal SSS about Student walking out of Global AIS class – p. [678].
D-130 Student’s 9/30/14 letter to Superintendent 1 5/18/15 140 that he was not receiving tracking sheets and disputing a school contact with his
Father that he was absent from school that morning – p. [510].
D-131 E-mail exchange dated 9/30/14 between 2 8/13/15 879
Social Worker UUU and Assistant Principal
SSS copied to teachers regarding sign-in sheets and Social Worker’s report of the Student’s absence from school that day – pp. [652] – [653].
D-132 E-mail dated 10/1/14 from Social Worker 1 5/18/15 141
UUU to Director of Special Education VVV about Student being absent from 3rd period
Science class – p. [651].
D-133 Student’s letter dated 10/18/14 to 1 5/18/15 142
Superintendent disputing the accuracy of the school’s marking him absent[113] times since the school year began – p. [716].
D-134 Student’s 10/18/14 e-mail to 2 5/18/15 143
Superintendent repeating dispute of accuracy of school’s marking him absent
No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page D-135 E-mail dated 10-27/14 from secretary to 4 8/14/15 1172
Deputy Superintendent to Assistant
Principal SSS for documentation on Student’s attendance; Assistant Principal
SSS’s e-mail to teaching staff for information; and teacher e-mails dated
10/18/14 responding with reports about absences in PE, Global AIS, Anatomy & Physiology / Resource and AIS U.S. History
– pp. [672] – [675].
D-136 Physical Education teacher’s 10/27/14 e- 2 8/14/15 1173 mail to Assistant Principal SSS with dates of Student’s absence from P.E. – pp. [676] – [677].
D-136 Global AIS teacher’s 10/27/15 e-mail to 1 8/14/15 1174
Assistant Principal SSS with report on Student’s absence from Global AIS class – p. [671].
D-138 Teacher Lawrence’s 10/28/14 e-mail to 1 8/14/15 1174
Assistant Principal SSS reporting the Student’s absences from AIS .S. History class and about accessing the infinite campus attendance information regarding the Student – p. [670].
D-139 Father’s 10/25/14 e-mail to 1 5/18/15 146
Superintendent that the only day his Son missed school was 9/16/14, disputing special education teacher DDD’s apparent telephone call to the Father that the Student had been absent 8 times from Math class and Superintendent’s response that Deputy Superintendent GGG would work with the Father to resolve his concerns – p. [714].
D-140 E-mail exchange. Assistant Principal SSS’s 3 5/18/15 146
10/31/14 e-mail to Father with attached information about Student’s attendance.
Father’s 10/31/14 e-mail to No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page
Superintendent WWW disputing attendance & stating that Student missed a total of 3 days of school to that date.
Father’s 11/1/14 e-mail to Superintendent
WWW disputing attendance information and teachers’ reports about attendance and Room 116 and Ms. KKK and Ms. DDD and claiming that Ms. DDD identified herself to the Student only as the Case Manager and not the Student’s teacher. Superintendent
WWW’s response that District would continue to work with Father and Deputy Superintendent GGG would follow up
Monday – pp. [710] – [712].
D-141 E-mail exchange. Assistant Principal SSS’s 3 5/18/15 147
10/31/14 e-mail to Father, the Father’s
10/31/14 e-mail to Superintendent WWW, Superintendent WWW’s 11/1/14 e-mail response to Father and Deputy Superintendent GGG’s 11/6/14 e-mail response to Father about phone call with Father, acknowledging that the Father does not believe the school reports on absences and that the High School team would (a) follow up on tutoring for the Student for January Regents exams, (b) follow up on the Earth Science Exam, and (c) whether Ms. DDD or MsK is the teacher of record and possible classroom change 113 to 116
– pp. [707] – [709].
D-142 Father’s letter dated 11/8/14 to 2 5/18/15 147
Superintendent reviewing conversations with Deputy Superintendent GGG and events from August through October 2014 regarding absences, delay in use of sign-in sheets at the beginning of the school year, Regents examinations taken by the Student, and High School classroom changes ending with the Father’s request for amendment of the Student’s attendance records and claiming that DDD was never
No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page the Student’s teacher – pp. [500] – [501].
D-143 E-mail exchange. Father’s 11/8/14 e-mail 3 5/18/15 148 repeating the Father’s 11/8/14 letter [Ex.
D-142] & Superintendent WWW’s
11/10/14 e-mail response to Father acknowledging receipt of the Father’s email and about the school’s commitment to continue to work with the Father – pp. [704] – [706].
D-144 E-mail exchange. Father’s 12/2/14 e-mail 1 5/18/15 148 to Superintendent that the Student will continue to go to school despite staff constantly failing him and marking him absent. Superintendent WWW’s response that school is committed to ensuring the Student a high-quality education and that Deputy Superintendent GGG would follow up with opportunities for tutoring for the Student – p. [700].
D-145 Student’s 12/3/14 letter to Superintendent 1 5/18/14 148
WWW disputing physical education teacher Zmudosky’s marking the Student absent from PE class on 11/24/14, claiming he responded as “Here” when his name was called, that he saw her check his name off the list and that he did not do warm-ups because he had a medical excuse but stayed in gym class & claiming that the teacher also wrongly marked him absent on 12/1/14 when he was actually present and responded “Here” when his name was called – p. [499].
D-146 E-mail exchange. Assistant Principal SSS’s 4 8/14/15 1188
9/26/14 e-mail to teachers forwarding
Secretary to Deputy Superintendent’s email to SSS with “sign in sheet that should be used daily for [Student]” stating that the document “is to be used in every class for [the Student], that Social Worker UUU “will
No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page go over this form with [the Student]” as per
Dr. Grayson and Assistant Principal SSS would contact the Father “to inform him of the new procedure.” SSS 1/7/15 e-mail to teachers AHH, DLL, DDD, JJJ, NLP, JEE, School Counselor LLL, Social Worker UUU, and Executive Director of Family & Student Support Services VVV, Assistant Principal
CCC & others forwarding the sign-in form – pp. [690] – [693].
The sign-in sheet, a chart of 8 classes for teacher signatures is at p. [693].
D-147 E-mail exchange. Father’s 1/7/15 8:50 2 5/18/15 150 p.m. e-mail to Assistant Principal CCC copying other staff that as of 1/5/15 that “no teachers will sign my son tracking sheet” and that the Student was providing further information below. Student writes “None of my teachers signed my tracking sheet that I used last year again.” That “the sheets of paper you gave me in the lobby is not the tracking sheets that I have used last year.” We met at the end of the day. “We didn’t meet Today, January 8, 2015.” Finally stating that attached was the tracking sheet used last year [not attached to Exhibit D-147].
Father’s 1/7/15 8:51 p.m. e-mail to Assistant Principal / Director of Special Education SSS that “[Student’s teachers] did not sign his tracking sheet today
January 7, 2014” and that the balance of email is from the Student stating that he only missed 3 days of school, claiming that he did not meet with Social Worker UUU the day before (1/6/15) regarding the tracking sheet and that “today my teachers still refused to sign my tracking sheet” and claiming “I was never given a tracking
No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page sheet earlier in the year when I asked [School Counselor] Ms. LLL in September, and “in Resource today, Ms. UUU came in and gave me a sheet of paper to my teacher and never spoke to me about it. My teacher then asked me to sign it, but I declined because it wasn’t a tracking sheet, I will continue to use a proper tracking sheet tomorrow.”
D-148 JKK’s 1/23/15 e-mail to VVV forwarding 1 5/18/15 151
10/2/14 e-mail to teachers about making sure attendance is entered into infinite campus daily – p. [679].
D-149 JKK’s 1/23/15 e-mail to VVV forwarding 1 5/19/15 309
10/7/14 e-mail to teachers that they could contact MRR, Library Media Specialist at PHS, if one need help setting up or using
Infinite Campus - p . [680].
D-150 JKK’s 1/23/15 e-mail to VVV forwarding 1 5/18/15 152
DRW’s 9/24/14 e-mail to Teachers to check attendance daily and submit manual attendance sheets to Ms. JKK by the next day - p. [682].
D-151 JKK’s 1/23/15 e-mail to VVV forwarding 1 5/18/15 153
JKK’s 10/2/14 e-mail to High School Teachers explaining that a late-arriving-to-class student with a “pass from CAASS” is not an excused lateness and that teachers are to record “excused” or “with a pass” in the comments section but that a pass from CAASS does not need a comment – p. [681].
D-152 JKK’s 1/23/15 e-mail to VVV forwarding 1 5/18/15 153
Director of Technology EAH’s 9/20/14 email to Staff about Campus instruction – p. [683].
D-153 JKK’s 1/23/15 e-mail to VVV forwarding 1 5/18/15 154
No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page
EAH’s 8/28/14 e-mail to Staff Infinite
Campus tutorials and announcing 9/4/14 start date for taking attendance [using
Infinite Campus] – p. [684].
D-154 JKK’s 1/23/15 e-mail to VVV forwarding 2 5/18/15 154
EAH’s 8/4/15 e-mail to Teachers regarding
“Training for Infinite Campus” with 8/26/14 & 8/27/14 training sessions – pp. [685] – [686].
D-155 CSE Ineligibility Determination dated 3 5/19/15 309
1/19/11 – 2010-2011 School Year 7th
Grade & sign-in sheet – parent reported to be interested in Student moving to 8th grade in the 2011-2012 school year –
Reporting that the decision is based on Psychological & Educational Evaluations dated 11/29/10, Classroom Observation
11/5/10 and Social History dated
10/25/10 – Parent participated via telephone call.
D-156 Counseling Contact Log 9-11-14 – 4/30/14 1 5/18/15 168 re Student – Grade 11 – Counselor LLL – p. [296].
D-157 Counseling Attendance report 2014-2015 6 5/19/15 310
School Year re Student by Social Worker
UUU - (3-page document duplicated as 6 pages).
D-158 2014-2015 Student Schedule for the 1 5/26/15 503
Student, Grade 11, generated 5/6/15.
D-159 Student Schedule for the Student dated 2 5/18/15 177
1/23/15 by subject, instructor, room, days, term, course & section – School Year
2013-2014 CHECK Transcript
D-160 CSE Meeting Notice letter, dated 5/6/15 to 2 5/19/15 435
Father re 5/15/15 Annual Review meeting.
No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page D-161 Father’s 5/12/15 letter to Karen Brown, 1 5/19/15 436
CSE Subcommittee Chairperson requesting reschedule of Annual Review meeting due to hearing.
Teacher Progress Monitoring Daily Report 51 10/1/15 1644 D-162 [TPMDR] form dated 11/13/13 re Student
TPMDR dated 11/14/13 re Student
TPMDR dated 11/15/13 re Student
TPMDR dated 11/18/13 re Student
TPMDR dated 11/19/13 re Student
Upward Bound Student Recommendation
Form dated 11/22/13
Instructional Support Team Weekly Report [ISTWR] dated 11/21/13 re Student
TPMDR dated 11/22/13 signed by Student
TPMDR dated 11/25/13 re Student
ISTWR dated 12/5/13 (Earth Science) re
Student & “Sign In Sheet”
- signed by LLL, ARR, & Student
TPMDR dated 12/5/13 re Student
ISTWR dated 12/12/13 (Geometry) re
Student
TPMDR dated 12/12/13 re Student
ISTWR dated 12/18/13 (English) re
Student & “Sign In Sheet”
- signed by LLL, TCC, IIM & Student
TPMDR dated 12 [?] re Student
Copy of “Sign In Sheet” dated 12/18/13 with additional note at foot of page
0ne-page Handwritten note dated 1/6/14 signed by LLL & Student
ISTWR dated 1/9/14 (Geometry) re
Student & “Sign In Sheet”
- signed by LLL, Mr. ARR, Tutoring
JJL, & Student
ISTWR dated 1/16/14 (Earth Science) re
Student & “Sign In Sheet”
- signed by LLL, VTT, & Student
No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page
ISTWR dated 1/23/14 (US History) re
Student
ISTWR dated 2/6/14 re Student & “Sign In Sheet”
- signed by LLL, IIM, & Student
ISTWR dated 3/27/14 signed by LLL, Mr.
ARR, & Student
ISTWR dated 4/3/14 signed by LLL, VTT, &
Student
ISTWR dated 4/10/14 signed by LLL, Michael A…., & Student
ISTWR dated 4/24/14 signed by LLL, KBB [sp], & Student
ISTWR dated 5/1/14 signed by LLL, I. IIM, Cheryl Nu …ty [sp?], & Student
ISTWR dated 5/15/14 signed by LLL, J.
ARR, & Student
D-163 Attendance Summary Report re Student for 1 9/3/15 1225
Grade 11, 2014-2015 school year.
D-164 Student’s 12th Grade Required Courses list 3 8/13/15 757
– signed by Student 6/3/15
Poughkeepsie High School Official
Transcript for the Student generated
6/1/15 page 1 of 2 and signed by Student on 6/3/15
Examination Schedule: June 2015 listing dates of June examinations by subject & signed by Student 6/3/15.
D-165 “Student Test Scores Detail” report re the 2 8/13/15 764
Student - generated 8/13/15 re Student listing 19 State Tests and 9 local tests
D-166 Poughkeepsie High School “Credit 1 8/13/15 765
Summary Report” re Student – generated
8/13/15 listing graduation credits earned
No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page D-167 Committee Information & Attendance form 1 10/1/15 1654 with notation at foot “Cancelled by Parent!” D-168 Committee Information & Attendance form 1 10/1/15 1654 with notation at foot “Tabled! – Parent did not show up!” D-169 Group of documents, including Father’s 52 8/14/15 1148
3/1/14 letter to Superintendent making a complaint about inappropriate language toward the Student at a 2/27/14 meeting (p. [593]) and e-mails on pages batesnumbered [651], [664] – [668], [687] – [689], [700] – [706], [710] – [712], [714], [71`6], [720] – [721], [734] – [736], [739] – [749], [753]], [765] – [766], [771] – [774]. D-170 Student Schedule Grade 11 with daily 5 8/14/15 1158 schedule and place for Student & Teacher
Signature – Dates 10/2/14 through
12/18/14 with notation on last page that
“continued on new sheet – 1/6/15 is the first date of 2015.” D- 171 Assistant Principal SSS’s 9/18/14 e-mail to 1 8/14/15 1160 School Counselor LLL regarding SSS’s attempts to contact the Father regarding Student missing English classes. D-172 Assistant Principal SSS’s 9/22/14 e-mail to 1 8/14/15 1210 Counselor LLL reporting meeting with the Student and follow up call with the Father & that Student denied having met and Father challenging the School Counselor’s statement and summary of reported statements by the Student in the same telephone call with the Father. D-173 1/6/15 Handwritten note about Father 3 8/14/15 1179 speaking to author about “teachers’ not signing tracking sheet” and contacts with other school staff. No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page D-174 Father’s 1/5/15 letter to Superintendent 2 8/14/15 1180 WWW about not signing tracking sheets and contacts with multiple staff members – pp. [493] – [494].
D-175-A E-mail exchange. Special Education 5 8/14/15 1541
Director [as of 1/1/15] SSS’s 1/6/15 6:24 p.m. e-mail to Father regarding tracking sheets & that Social Worker UUU had met with Student that day and report from several teachers that the Student “is not coming to their class or fails to give them the tracking sheet to sign” and that she followed up with Staff to sign the sheets.
Father’s & Student’s joint e-mail 1/7/15 at 8:51 pm about teachers not signing sheets on 1/7/15 and Student’s claim that he only missed three days of school, that he had not met with Ms. UUU on 1/6/15, and that teachers were refusing to sign the sheets & reporting that the Student did not sign the sheet that day “because it wasn’t a tracking sheet, I will continue to use a proper tracking sheet tomorrow.”
CCC’s 1/8/15 e-mail to Ms. SSS that she met with the Student, introduced herself as the new Assistant principal, reviewed the expectation of the tracking sheet with the Student, provided him with several tracking sheets and identified the location in the 11th Grad AP office where they will be available.
Social Worker UUU’s 1/8/15 e-mail to Ms.
SSS and others about her 1/6/15 6th Period
Counseling meeting with Student and having provided the student with “a copy of our standard tracking sheet” and realizing after the meeting that she should have given him the customized tracking sheet and reconnecting with the Student in the Resource room to give him the customized sheets. Also reporting that the Student allegedly said that “while he had No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page not been in school he had been doing online Regents Review through regentsprep.org.”
Father’s & Student’s 1/8/15 e-mail to Assistant Principal CCC that as of 1/5/15 that the teachers were still not signing the sheets and that the conduct was bullying toward the Student. The Student’s comments state that “None of my teachers signed my tracking sheet that I used last year again” and that “We did not met
Today, January 8, 2015.”
1/14/15 E-ail to staff regarding Resolution
Meeting scheduled for 1/15/15.
D-175-B DLL’s tracking sheets for the Student. 11 9/17/15 1624
Log of entries 9/5/14 through 11/17/14 – p. [271]
Student schedule – sign in dates 10/14/14
– 10/18/14 – p. [272]
Student schedule – sign-in dates 10/6/14 –
10/19/14 – p. [273].
Student schedule –sign-in dates 10/14/14 -10/18/14 p. [274].
Student schedule –sign-in dates 10/14/14 -10/18/14 p. [275].
Student schedule –sign-in dates 10/20/14 -10/24/14 p. [276].
Student schedule –sign-in dates 10/27/14 -10/31/14 p. [277].
Student schedule –sign-in dates 10/27/14 -10/31/14 p. [278].
Student schedule –sign-in dates 11/3/14 -11/7/14 p. [279].
Student schedule –sign-in dates 11/3/14 -11/7/14 p. [280].
Student schedule –sign-in dates 2/2/15 -2/6/15 p. [279].
D-176 Special Education Teacher DDD’s 2 9/17/15 1624
Attendance log with dates from 1/7/15 through 4/16/15.
No. In In Exhibit Description Pages Evidence Evidence No. Date Page P-1 Resume of DrRT, Ph.D., Neuropsychologist. 2 5/21/15 584 P-1(a) Father’s Calendar / Diary with handwritten 40 9/3/15 1319 entries. 2013 - pp. 20-40 & 2014 – pp. 1-19 (8 ½ x 11-inch copy). P-1(b) Father’s 2013 Calendar / Diary with 12 10/1/15 1694 handwritten entries. One-month-per-page format (11 x 17-inch copy). P-1(c) Father’s 2014 Calendar / Diary with 10/1/15 1694 handwritten entries. One-month-per-page format (11 x 17-inch copy). P-1(d) Father’s 2015 Calendars/ Diaries with 24 10/1/15 1694 handwritten entries. One-month-per-page format (11 x 17-inch copy in two parts). P-1(e) Father’s 2012 Calendar / Diary with 8 10/1/15 1694 handwritten entries. One-month-per-page format (11 x 17-inch copy). P-2 Typewritten timeline September 2, 2014 – 15 10/1/15 1694
June 30, 2015.
P-64 Father’s 1/25/12 letter to VVV requesting 1 9/3/15 1353 that the CSE evaluate and provide services to the Student.
P-68 Father’s 12/8/13 letter to Assistant 1 9/3/15 1346
Superintendent DrLP giving permission for DrRT to talk to the Student’s teacher and review records.
P-82 Father’s 5/30/14 letter to VVV about that 2 5/30/14 1334 day’s CSE meeting and requesting sign in sheets for every classroom and phone calls.
Footnotes
[1] Exhibit D-1 is a 28-page document with each a “bates number” in brackets [1] through [28] printed at the foot of the copy of the document. However, page [3] a printout of a page from the SED IHRS that was not part of the Due Process Complaint received by the District.
[2] Exhibit D-1, pp. [1], [2], [4] – [6].
[3] Exhibit D-1, pp. [7] through [26].
[4] Exhibit D-1, pp. [27] – [28].
[5] Exhibit D-45 consists of (1) a fax coversheet apparently from the District’s Special Education office to Assistant Superintendent, DrLP, (2) the Father’s February 26, 2014 letter requesting reimbursement of $3,500 for the cost of the evaluation, (3) a copy of DrRT’s billing statement dated 2/18/14 for the $3,500 in services, and (4) a copy of the 20-page Evaluation report. The copy marked in evidence was not bates-numbered.
[6] 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E).
[7] (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(B) and 8 NYRCC § 200.5(i)(7)(i)(a).
[8] 8 NYCRR § 200.5(i)(7)(i)(b).
[9] 34 CFR. § 300(a)(3)(ii) and 8 NYCRR § 200.5(b)(3).
[10] 20 USC § 1232g.
[11] 20 USC §1232g(a)(2) and 34 CFR § 99.20 – 99.22.
[12] See D-1 at p. [5].
[13] 20 USC § 1415(f)(B)(ii).
[14] 20 USC § 1415(f)(B)(iii).
[15] 20 USC § 1415(f)(B)(ii).
[16] 8 NYCRR § 200.1(cc)(1).
[17] 8 NYCRR § 200.5(g)(1)(iv).
[113] times since the school year began and Superintendent’s e-mail to Deputy Superintendent for follow up – pp. [720] – [721].