NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Case Number:
Student’s Name:
Date of Birth:
District: Hearing Requested By: Parent Date of Hearing: March 18, 2015
March 25, 2015
April 15, 2015
April 17, 2015
April 28, 2015
April 29, 2015
May 13, 2015
May 20, 2015
May 27, 2015
June 4, 2015
June 8, 2015
June 10, 2015
June 12, 2015
June , 2015
July 1, 2015
July 7, 2015
July 8, 2015
July 22, 2015
July 28, 2015
July 31, 2015
August 12, 2015 Actual Record Closed Date: August 18, 2015 Hearing Officer: Esther Mora, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MARCH 18, 2015
Attorney — Student
Attorney — Student
Mother — Student
Department of Education Attorney — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MARCH 25, 2015
Attorney for Parent, (Via Telephone) — Student
Attorney for Parent, (Via Telephone) — Student
Interpreter — Student
District Representative (Via Telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL 15, 2015
Attorney — Student
Attorney — Student
Parents
Interpreter — Student
Attorney — DOE
(Via — DOE
Telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL 17, 2015
ESQ., Attorney (Via Telephone) — Student
ESQ., Attorney (Via Telephone) — Student
ESQ., Attorney (Via Telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL 28, 2015
Attorney — Student
Attorney — Student
Parents
Interpreter — Student
Attorney — DOE
CSE Director, (Via Telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL 29, 2015
Attorney — Student
Attorney — Student
Parents
Student
Attorney — DOE
DOE Supervisor of Psychologists (Via Telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MAY 13, 2015
Attorney — Student
Attorney — Student
Parents
Interpreter — Student
Attorney — DOE
DR., Psychologist (Via Telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MAY 20, 2015
Attorney — Student
Mother — Student
Interpreter — Student
Department of Education Attorney — DOE
CSE Coordinator (Via Telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MAY 27, 2015
Attorney — Student
Parents
NYC DOE Teacher (Via Telephone) — Student
Interpreter — Student
Attorney — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEAREDO ON JUNE 4, 2015
Attorney (Via Telephone) — Student
Attorney (Via Telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 8, 2015
Attorney — Student
Parents
DR., (Via Telephone) — Student
Interpreter — Student
DOE Attorney — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 10, 2015
Attorney — Student
Parent/Mother — Student
Interpreter — Student
CBST Case Manager (Via Telephone) — Student
Attorney — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 12, 2015
Attorney — Student
Parent/Mother — Student
Interpreter — Student
(Via Telephone) — Student
Attorney — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE , 2015
ESQ., Attorney — Student
ESQ., Attorney — Student
Parent/Mother — Student
Student
ESQ., Attorney, — DOE
ESQ., Attorney, — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 1, 2015
Attorney for Parent — Student
Attorney for Parent — Student
Parent/Mother — Student
District Representative — DOE
District Representative — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 7, 2015
Attorney — Student
DR., Director Coaching (Via Telephone) — Student
Parents
Attorney — Student
Interpreter — Student
Attorney — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 8, 2015
Attorney — Student
Attorney — Student
Parent/Mother — Student
Interpreter — Student
DR., Pediatrician (Via Telephone) — Student
Attorney — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 22, 2015
Attorney — Student
Parents
Interpreter — Student
DOE Attorney — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 28, 2015
Attorney — Student
Parents
Interpreter — Student
DOE Attorney — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 31, 2015
Attorney — Student
Parents
DOE Attorney — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON AUGUST 12, 2015
Attorney for Parent — Student
District Representative (Via Telephone) — DOE
The school district contends that it provided a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2014-2015 school years, that the failure of the school district to place the student was a procedural error that did not amount to a denial of FAPE, that the student is not eligible for compensatory education, that the parent was provided with sufficient translation support at both Individualized Education Program (IEP) meetings, that the parent’s request for translation of documents should be denied, that the parent’s request for an evaluation should be denied and that equitable considerations favor the school district.
School witnesses included , the student’s teacher at the ( ), , Committee on Special Education (CSE) Director at , and , School District
Supervisor of Psychologists. Documentary evidence was also submitted. (Exhs. 1-22)
Parent
The parent contends that the school district procedurally and substantively failed to provide a FAPE for 2014-15 school year, that the procedural violation significantly impeded the student’s right to a FAPE because the school district failed to evaluate the student in all areas of suspected disability and failed to have sufficient evaluative data in order to make an appropriate classification and placement, that the school district failed to allow the Parent to meaningfully participate in the development of the student’s IEP because it failed to provide documents to her in and failed to provide sufficient at the IEP meetings, that the school district failed to develop an appropriate IEP and program, and that did not provide a FAPE.
Seven witnesses testified on behalf of the Parent.
, the student’s former public school teacher during the 2013-14 school year, who attended the June 2014 IEP meeting, testified that at the meeting she recommended that the student be placed in a different class because he was and than the other students in his current class. (Tr. 499-524)
Dr. , a who conducted an independent
evaluation of the student, testified as to the results of his evaluation.
The evaluation revealed that the student presents with , an
, a and a .
However, the student did not have an
. Dr. concluded that had the student received appropriate instruction he would be reading at a . (Tr. At 602-643, Exh. ZZ)
, case manager at the school district’s Central Based Support Team (CBST), who was assigned to locate an appropriate non-public school placement for the student, testified regarding her efforts to place the student for the 2014-15 school year. The record revealed that she made minimal efforts to locate an appropriate placement. (Tr. 693-799, Exhs. SS, TT, UU)
, a who conducted the of the student, testified that the student presented with significant deficits in , , and . (Tr. At 816-818, Exh. OO) Ms.
recommended a with for . (Exh. OO)
Dr. , Director , evaluated the student to determine whether he needed special education . Testing revealed that the student was performing on a and across the board in all of his academic skills. Dr. recommended , , over a , , totaling . (Tr. 964-975),
Dr. , the student’s pediatrician testified regarding the student’s medical and educational placement needs. Because of the posed by the student’s , ( ), which include and in the event of an , she recommended a and an . (Tr. 1024-1029)
The Parent also testified regarding the student’s educational history, his and her for the 2014-15 school year. (Tr. At 886-942)
FINDINGS
I find that the school district failed to offer a FAPE. I also find that the record supports the relief sought by the parent.
As was recently restated in Appeal No. 15-033, Two purposes of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) are (1) to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living; and (2) to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities and parents of such students are protected (20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]-[B]; see generally Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230, 239 [2009]; Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-
07 [1982]).
A FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07; R.E. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 189-90 [2d Cir. 2012]; M.H. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 685 F.3d 217, 245 [2d Cir. 2012]; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir.
2005]). "'[A]dequate compliance with the procedures prescribed would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP'" (Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119,129 [2d Cir. 1998], quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206; see T.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 247, 253 [2d Cir. 2009]). While the Second Circuit has emphasized that school districts must comply with the checklist of procedures for developing a student's IEP and indicated that "[m]ultiple procedural violations may cumulatively result in the denial of a FAPE even if the violations considered individually do not" (R.E., 694 F.3d at 190-91), the Court has also explained that not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (M.H., 685 F.3d at 245; A.C. v. Bd. of Educ., 553 F.3d 165, 172 [2d Cir. 2009]; Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 [2d Cir.
2003]; Perricelli v. Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 465211, at 10 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2007]). Under the IDEA, if procedural violations are alleged, an administrative officer may find that a student did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a)
impeded the student's right to a FAPE, (b) significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student, or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits (20 U.S.C.§ 1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 CFR 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 525-26 [2007]; R.E., 694 F.3d at 190; M.H., 685 F.3d at 245; A.H. v. Dep't of Educ., 394 Fed. App'x 718, 720, 2010 WL 3242234 [2d Cir. Aug. 16, 2010]; E.H. v.
Bd.of Educ., 2008 WL 3930028, at *7 [N.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2008], aff'd, 361 Fed. App'x 156, 2009 WL 3326627 [2d Cir. Oct. 16, 2009]; Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 471 F. Supp. 2d 415, 419 [S.D.N.Y. 2007], aff'd, 293 Fed. App'x 20, 2008 WL 3852180 [2d Cir. Aug. 19, 2008]).
The IDEA directs that, in general, an IHO's decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE (20 U.S.C.
§ 1415[f][3][E][i]). A school district offers a FAPE "by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction" (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203). However, the "IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP" (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189). The statute ensures an "appropriate" education, "not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents" (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132, quoting Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d 563, 567 [2d Cir. 1989] [citations omitted]; see Grim, 346 F.3d at 379). Additionally, school districts are not required to "maximize" the potential of students with disabilities (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199; Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132). Nonetheless, a school district must provide "an IEP that is 'likely to produce progress, not regression,' and . . . affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere 'trivial advancement'" (Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195, quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130 [citations omitted]; see T.P., 554 F.3d at 254; P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 118-19 [2d Cir.2008]; Perricelli, 2007 WL 465211, at *15). The IEP must be "reasonably calculated to provide some 'meaningful' benefit" (Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 [2d Cir. 1997]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192). The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE)
(20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 CFR 300.114[a][2][i], 300.116[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[cc], 200.6[a][1]; see Newington, 546 F.3d at 114; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent.
Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 [2d Cir. 2007]; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132; G.B. v. Tuxedo
Union Free Sch. Dist., 751 F. Supp. 2d 552, 573-80 [S.D.N.Y. 2010], aff'd, 486 Fed. App'x 954, 2012 WL 4946429 [2d Cir. Oct. 18, 2012]; E.G. v. City Sch. Dist. of New Rochelle, 606 F. Supp. 2d 384, 388 [S.D.N.Y. 2009]; Patskin v. Bd. of Educ., 583 F.
Supp. 2d 422, 428 [W.D.N.Y. 2008]).
An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that includes a statement of the student's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (see 34 CFR300.320[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]; Tarlowe v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL2736027, at 6 [S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2008] [noting that a CSE must consider, among other things, the "results of the initial evaluation or most recent evaluation" of the student, as well as the "'academic, developmental, and functional needs'" of the student]), establishes annual goals designed to meet the student's needs resulting from the student's disability and enable him or her to make progress in the general education curriculum (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][2][i], [2][i][A]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]), and provides for the use of appropriate special education services (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][4]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]; see also Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 07-018; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-059; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 06-029; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04- 046; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-014; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 93-9).
The burden of proof is on the school district during an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement (Educ. Law § 4404[1][c]; see R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85; M.P.G. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2010 WL 3398256, at 7 [S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2010]).
The school district failed to evaluate the student in all areas of suspected disability and failed to have sufficient evaluative data in order to make an appropriate classification and placement. Consequently, it failed to develop appropriate IEPs at the June and September 2014 IEP meetings with appropriate Present Levels of Performance and appropriate IEP Goals
The hearing record supports the parent’s contention that the school district failed to conduct an adequate evaluation in order to recommend an appropriate classification and placement.
The record establishes that the school district relied almost exclusively on the 2013 psychoeducational evaluation. (Exh. N). For example, the school district did not conduct , , or evaluations even though the student in all of these areas.
As a result, the recommended classification and placement were flawed.
The failure to evaluate adequately also resulted in the failure to develop appropriate present levels of performance, appropriate IEP goals and the failure to recommend an appropriate program. For example, the school district failed to recommend testing accommodations, a , The school district failed to allow the parent to meaningfully participate in the development of the student’s IEP because it failed to provide documents to her in and failed to provide sufficient at the IEP meetings.
I find that the parent was denied meaningful participation because of the school district’s failure to provide documents in her native language, , and because of the lack of adequate at the IEP meetings, in violation of well-established federal and state law and the Chancellor’s regulation A-663.
The school district failed to recommend an appropriate Placement for the 2014-15 school year and did not provide a FAPE The record also establishes that the CBST case manager made minimal efforts to secure a placement for the student. As a result, the student remained at for the entire 2014-15 school year. The independent evaluation determined that the student made no progress. (Tr. 642)
Compensatory Relief
As was restated in , compensatory education is an equitable remedy that is tailored to meet the unique circumstances of each case (Wenger v.
Canastota, 979 F. Supp. 147 [N.D.N.Y. 1997]).
Compensatory education may be awarded to a student with a disability who no longer meets the eligibility criteria for receiving instruction under the IDEA (see 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401[3], 1412[a][1][B]; Educ. Law §§ 3202[1], 4401[1], 4402[5]). In New York State, a student who is otherwise eligible as a student with a disability, may continue to obtain services under the IDEA until he or she receives either a local or Regents high school diploma (34 CFR 300.102[a][3][i]; 8 NYCRR 100.5[b][7][iii]; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 05-084; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 05-037), or until the conclusion of the ten-month school year in which he or she turns age 21 (Educ. Law §§ 3202[1], 4401[1], 4402[5][b];6 8 NYCRR 100.9[e], 200.1[zz]; see 34 CFR 300.102[a][1], [a][3][ii]; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-100). Within the Second Circuit, compensatory education has been awarded to students who are ineligible by reason of age or graduation if there has been a gross violation of the IDEA resulting in the denial of, or exclusion from, educational services for a substantial period of time (see Somoza v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 538 F.3d 106, 109 n.2, 113 n.6 [2d Cir. 2008]; Mrs. C. v. Wheaton, 916 F.2d 69 [2d Cir.
1990]; Burr v. Ambach, 863 F.2d 1071 [2d Cir. 1988]; Cosgrove v. Bd. of Educ., 175 F.
Supp. 2d 375, 387 [N.D.N.Y. 2001]; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No.
03-078 [awarding two years of instruction after expiration of IDEA eligibility as compensatory education]).
Compensatory education relief may also be awarded to a student with a disability who remains eligible for instruction under the IDEA (see 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401[3], 1412[a][1][B]; Educ. Law §§ 3202[1], 4401[1], 4402[5]). Within the Second Circuit, compensatory education relief in the form of supplemental special education or related services has been awarded to such students if there has been a denial of a FAPE (see Newington, 546 F.3d at 123 [stating that "[t]he IDEA allows a hearing officer to fashion an appropriate remedy, and . . . compensatory education is an available option under the Act to make up for denial of a [FAPE]"]; Student X. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2008 WL 4890440, at *23 [E.D.N.Y. Oct. , 2008] [finding that compensatory education may be awarded to students under the age of twenty-one]; see generally R.C. v.
Bd. of Educ., 2008 LEXIS 113149, at 38-40 [S.D.N.Y. March 6, 2008]). Likewise, SROs have awarded compensatory "additional services" to students who remain eligible to attend school and have been denied appropriate services, if such deprivation of instruction could be remedied through the provision of additional services before the student becomes ineligible for instruction by reason of age or graduation (Bd. of Educ. v. Munoz, 16 A.D.3d 1142 [4th Dep't 2005] [finding it proper for an SRO to order a school district to provide "make-up services" to a student upon the school district's failure to provide those educational services to the student during home instruction]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 09-111 [adding summer reading instruction to an additional services award]; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 09-054 [awarding additional instructional services to remedy a deprivation of instruction]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 09-044 [awarding "make-up" counseling services to remedy the deprivation of such services]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No.
09-035 [awarding 1:1 reading instruction as compensation for a deprivation of a FAPE]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 08-072 [awarding after school and summer reading instruction as compensatory services to remedy a denial of a FAPE]; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 08-060 [upholding additional services awards of and therapy]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 08-035 [awarding ten months of home instruction services as compensatory services]; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 06-074; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 05-041; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-054).
The purpose of an award of compensatory educational services or additional services is to provide an appropriate remedy for a denial of a FAPE (see E.M. v. New
York City Dep't of Educ., 758 F.3d 442, 451 [2d Cir. 2014]; Newington, 546 F.3d at 123 [holding that compensatory education is a remedy designed to "make up for" a denial of a FAPE]; see also Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 524 [D.C. Cir. 2005] [holding that, in fashioning an appropriate compensatory education remedy, "the inquiry must be fact-specific, and to accomplish IDEA's purposes, the ultimate award must be reasonably calculated to provide the educational benefits that likely would have accrued from special education services the school district should have supplied in the first place"]; Parents of Student W. v. Puyallup Sch. Dist., 31 F.3d 1489, 1497 [9th Cir. 1994] [holding that "[a]ppropriate relief is relief designed to ensure that the student is appropriately educated within the meaning of the IDEA"]; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 11-075; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 10- 052). Accordingly, an award of additional services should aim to place the student in the position he or she would have been in had the district complied with its obligations under the IDEA (see Newington, 546 F.3d at 123 [holding that compensatory education awards should be designed so as to "appropriately address[] the problems with the IEP"]; S.A. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2014 WL 1311761, at *7 [E.D.N.Y. Mar. , 2014] [noting that compensatory education "serves to compensate a student who was actually educated under an inadequate IEP and to catch-up the student to where he [or she] should have been absent the denial of a FAPE"] [internal quotations and citation omitted]; see also Draper v.
Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 518 F.3d 1275, 1289 [11th Cir. 2008] [holding that "[c]ompensatory awards should place children in the position they would have been in but for the violation of the Act"]; Bd. of Educ. v. L.M., 478 F.3d 307, 316 [6th Cir. 2007]
[holding that "a flexible approach, rather than a rote hour-by-hour compensation award, is more likely to address [the student's] educational problems successfully"]; Reid, 401 F.3d at 518 [holding that compensatory education is a "replacement of educational services the child should have received in the first place" and that compensatory education awards "should aim to place disabled children in the same position they would have occupied but for the school district's violations of IDEA"]; Puyallup, 31 F.3d at 1497 [finding "[t]here is no obligation to provide a day-for-day compensation for time missed"]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 13-168; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 12-135; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 11-132; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 11-091).
Having reviewed the entire record, I find that the parent is entitled to the compensatory relief she seeks which includes of and a to assist the Parent in identifying an appropriate placement.
of is a reasonable amount and will compensate the student for the school district’s failure to provide appropriate services to enable him to fully benefit from his educational program.
A is required to remedy the school district’s failure to make diligent efforts to place the student in an appropriate non-public school.
ORDER
1. This matter is remanded to the school district.
2. Unless the parties agree otherwise, within five calendar days of the date of this Order the school district shall conduct an evaluation or authorize the Parent to obtain an independent evaluation at school district expense. Within five calendar days of receipt of the evaluation the school district is to provide a translation to the parent.
3. Unless the parties agree otherwise regarding the deadline, within ten calendar days of the date of this Order the school district shall translate all of the existing independent educational evaluations.
4. Unless the parties agree otherwise regarding the deadline, within fifteen calendar days of the date of this Order the school district shall convene an IEP meeting to consider the results of the existing evaluations. The IEP is to include an accurate and comprehensive statement of the student’s current levels of performance and appropriate and measurable goals. The meeting is to be held at a time convenient for the Parent and her advocate. The school district is to provide an independent and certified interpreter to provide simultaneous at the meeting.
5. Within five calendar days of the date of this Order the school district is to commence providing research based to the student at school or outside of school for a ( )
.
6. To assist the Parent in locating an appropriate placement for her son, the school district is to authorize the parent to obtain ( ) of services from a educational advocate at school district expense.
7. Within one business day of the date of this Order the school district is to authorize the Parent to place the student in an approved or non-approved non-public school, at school district expense, for the 2015-16 school year.
8. Within one business day of the date of this Order the school district is to authorize the parent to obtain ( ) of from Coaching, at school district expense.
9. The school district shall provide to the Parent copies of all future evaluation and progress reports in within five business days of completion of the report and at least five calendar days before any scheduled IEP meeting.
10. The school district shall provide all future correspondence to the Parent in
.
11. Unless the parties agree otherwise, for the 2015-16 school year the student is to receive for per the recommendations made by Ms. .
12. Unless the parties agree otherwise, for the 2015-16 school year the student is to receive the services of a and an on-site school nurse per the recommendations of Dr. . Dated: August 21, 2015
ESTHER MORA, ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
Within 35 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to appeal the decision to the State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
“The notice of intention to seek review shall be served upon the school district not less than 10 days before service of a copy of the petition for review upon such school district, and within 25 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. The petition for review shall be served upon the school district within 35 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. If the decision has been served by mail upon petitioner, the date of mailing and the four days subsequent thereto shall be excluded in computing the 25- or 35-day period. ” (8NYCRR279.2[b]) Failure to file the notice of intention to seek review is a waiver of the right to appeal this decision.
Directions and sample forms for filing an appeal are included with this decision. Directions and forms can also be found in the Office of State Review website: www.sro.nysed.gov/appeals.htm.
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD
PARENT
A Hearing Request, 2/3/15, 14pp
D IEP, 6/10/14, 15pp
E IEP, 9/16/14, 14pp
G Progress Report, 2/8/13, 4pp
H Educational update, 2/12/13, 6pp
I Progress Report, 2/12/13, 2pp
J Progress Report, 2/15/13, 4pp
K NYC DOE Classroom Observation, 3/12/13, 2pp
L Evaluation, 7/23/13, 5pp
N Evaluation, 8/8/13, 5pp
R Letter, 2/27/13, 2pp
S Letter, 3/21/13, 1pp
U Letter, 9/9/13,1pp
V Letter, 3/13/14, 2pp
W Letter, 4/10/14, 1pp
Z Parent Consent to the Assessment Process, 8/5/13, 1pp
AA Parent’s Request for Records, 1/16/15, 5pp
BB Letter, 1/20/15, 4pp
CC Letter. 4/8/15, 7pp
DD Parent’s motion, 3/18/15, 3pp
EE Impartial Hearing Officer’s Decision on Motion, 3/19/15, 5pp
FF Parent’s Motion, 3/23/15, 4pp
GG , 3/24/15, 3pp
HH Parent’s Motion, 4/13/15, 2pp
II Impartial Hearing Officer’s Decision on Motion , 4/20/15, 4pp
JJ Email, 9/11/14, 1pp
KK Email, 9/2014-10/2014, 6pp
LL Email. 3/2014-9/2014, 15pp
MM Evaluation, 4/1/15, 14pp NN Evaluation, 3/25/15, 7pp
OO evaluation, 4/17/15, 23pp
PP Resume, 2pp
QQ Resume, 12pp
RR Brief, 3pp
SS CBST case notes and , 5/4/15, 7pp
TT Deferral Packet, 5/4/15, 42pp
UU Deferral Packet, 5/4/15, 44pp
VV Emails, 5/4/15, 7pp
WW School Responses, 5/4/15, 16pp
XX Email and Letter, 5/4/15
YY Teaching Certification, 1pp
ZZ Evaluation, 6/1/15, 13pp
AAA , 5pp
BBB , 2pp
CCC Subpoenas, various dates
DDD Post hearing Brief, 7/28/15, 32pp
DOE
1 IEP, 9/16/14, 15pp
2 Progress Report, 4/4/14, 7pp
3 Progress Report, 5/16/14, 5pp
4 Progress Report, 4/2/14, 3pp
5 Progress Report, 5/8/14, 4pp
6 Social History Update, 8/5/13, 3pp
7 CSE Meeting Minutes, 6/10/14, 5pp
8 Notes, 9/16/14, 1pp
9 Class profile, 1pp
10 Progress Report, 4pp
11 Progress Report, 10/31/14, 1pp
12 Progress Report, 10/24/14, 1pp
13 Progress Report, 10/5/14, 1pp 14 Progress Report, 5pp
15 Progress Report, 2/24/15, 1pp
16 Progress Report, 2/6/15, 1pp
17 Progress Report, 2/24/15, 1pp
18 Attendance Report, 2pp
19 Attendance Report, 2pp
20 Certifications, 1pp
21 Profile of Students, 5pp
22 Closing, 7/28/15, 20pp