New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number:

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District:

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Date of Hearing: June 12, 2015

June 23, 2015

June 24, 2015

June 26, 2015

July 10, 2015

Actual Record Closed Date: August 12, 2015

Hearing Officer: James Walsh, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 12, 2015

Mother of Student — Parents

Esq. Attorney for Parents — Parents

District and New York State Department of Education Representative — DOE

School Psychologist – Participated in a number of C.S.E. meetings regarding Student – conducted a (by phone) — DOE

Evaluation of — Student

– Student’s for several years (by phone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JUNE 23, 2015

Mother of Student — Parents

Father of Student — Parents

Esq. Attorney for Parents — Parents

District and New York State Department of Education Representative — DOE

– Student’s since 9-2012 (by phone) — DOE

Special Education Teacher – has been Student’s Special Education Teacher since (by phone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JUNE 24, 2015

Mother of Student — Parents

Father of Student — Parents

Esq. Attorney for Parents — Parents

Ph.D. and – Evaluated Student for in July, 201? (by phone) — Parents

PhD Certified Psychologist – Conducted a Evaluation of Student (by phone) — Parents

O.D. – Has provided Student with for two years (by phone) — Parents

District and New York State Department of Education Representative — DOE

Special Education Teacher – has been Student’s Special Education Teacher since (by phone) — DOE

Physical Education Teacher – Provided Student with Education (by phone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JUNE 26, 2015

Mother of Student — Parents

Father of Student — Parents

Esq. Attorney for Parents — Parents

PhD Certified Psychologist – Conducted a Evaluation of Student (by phone) — Parents

School Psychologist – Participated in a number of C.S.E. meetings regarding Student – conducted a (by phone) — Parents

Evaluation of — Student

District and New York State Department of Education Representative — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JULY 10, 2015

Mother of Student — Parents

Father of Student — Parents

Esq. Attorney for Parents — Parents

Admissions Director of (by phone) — Parents

District and New York State Department of Education Representative — DOE

The Matter of (hereinafter referred to as “Student”) came before me for determination in accordance with the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(1) and Article 89 of the Education Law of the State of New York on June 12, 2015; June 23, 2015; June 24, 2015; June 26, 2015 and July 10, 2015. The proceeding was commenced by , attorney for Student’s Parents, by the filing of a Due Process Complaint Notice sent to the New York City Department of Education’s Impartial Hearing Office, dated March 9, 2015 and received by said Office on that date. The undersigned was appointed by the Impartial Hearing Office to preside over this matter by notification dated March 10, 2015. After the close of proceedings on July 10, 2015, arrangements were made to have all exhibits received in evidence to be forwarded to me in Albany. A glitch in those arrangements delayed the arrival of such exhibits until August 12, 2014. The Actual Record Close Date was August 12, 2015.

Parents’ Due Process Complaint Notice (Exhibit 1), nineteen pages in length, recites, at length, the areas in which, it is claimed, District failed to meet its obligation to Student pursuant to the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) during the 2013-2014 and 2014 2015 school years. It cites, among others, that District’s Committee on Special Education (C.S.E.) consistently failed to properly assess Student; that it consistently failed to develop appropriate programs for Student; that it consistently failed to conduct proper Committee meetings used to develop Student’s Individualized Education Programs (I.E.P.’s); that it consistently failed to authorize certain educational programs necessary for Student’s advancement, and, in general, denied Student a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2013-2014 and 2014- 2015 school years (Exhibit 1). In order to appropriately address such alleged failures,

Parents seek compensatory education; placement is a specific non-public school; specialized training; and the creation of additional I.E.P.’s by District’s C.S.E. increasing certain .

District filed its Response to Parents’ Complaint, dated March 17, 2015 (Exhibit 2), which simply and perfunctorily addressed Student’s I.E.P. of March 6, 2015. It was otherwise unresponsive.

I note certain allegations contained in Parents’ Due Process Complaint that relate to events prior to and including during the 2012-2013 school year (Paragraphs #13; 14; 15; 18 and 19) with specific references to I.E.P.’s created on January 16, 2013 and January 27, 2013 (Paragraphs #18 and #19). As such events and I.E.P.’s predate the two-year Statute of Limitations contained in

Commissioner’s Regulations (8 NYCRR 200.5(j)(1)(i)), they will not be reviewed or considered. Only allegations relating to events occurring after March 9, 2013 come within the purview of such Regulation.

. The Student whose educational program was reviewed in this proceeding is presently , having been born on . Student entered at , in September of 2012 (T.R.541)

where Student received his special education program in an class.

District’s C.S.E. convened on September 11, 2013 and created Student’s I.E.P.

that was to be implemented on that date of September 11, 2013 (Exhibit 57). That I.E.P.

continued Student’s classification as having a and recommended his placement in a class for for , and for for , as well as the of , , , in a ; and , , , in the

; weekly, ,

, in a ; and ,

, in a , in a ; and ,

, in a , in the , together

with Education, in the

(Exhibit 57). A Final Notice of Recommendation was also issued that date, in which the program prepared by the C.S.E., i.e., Part-time class with the set out in the I.E.P. , at the address for , was clearly set forth (Exhibit 56). Parent, on September 18, 2013, noted her agreement with the recommended services by checking the appropriate box and by placing her signature on the Final Notice of Recommendation (Exhibit 56). It is my determination that, having done so, Parents are precluded from thereafter challenging the appropriateness of that program. Thus, the allegations contained in Parent’s Due Process Complaint and specifically in Paragraphs #16 and #17, in which the appropriateness of the I.E.P. created by District ’s C.S.E. on September 11, 2013, have no standing and will not be reviewed or considered.

District’s C.S.E. next convened on February 14, 2014 and created Student’s I.E.P.

that was to be implemented on February 24, 2014 (Exhibit 51). That I.E.P. continued Student’s classification as having a and recommended his placement in a class for for , and for for , as well as the of , , in a , in a ; and , , , in the ; , , in a , in a ; and ,

, in a , in a ; and ,

, in a , in the (Exhibit

57). A Final Notice of Recommendation was also issued that date (Exhibit 49, in which the program prepared by the C.S.E. was clearly set forth (Exhibit 49). Parent, on February 14, 2014, noted her agreement with the recommended services by checking the appropriate box and by placing her signature on the Final Notice of Recommendation

(Exhibit 49). It is my determination that, having done so, Parents are precluded from thereafter challenging the appropriateness of that program.

As noted, Student entered the at at the commencement of the 2013-2014 school year. During that school year, and specifically on the dates of March 20, 2014, March 27, 2014 and April 2, 2014, a Evaluation of Student was conducted by . The results of that evaluation were contained in her Report (Exhibit 44), which showed that, in assessing Student utilizing the ( ), Student performed in the in and and achieved a , placing Student in the same . Through the utilization of the it was developed that Student performed in the in the ; in the in Composite; in the in ; but (Exhibit 44). The Report also noted that Student had been diagnosed at the with ( ) and that Student’s teacher reported that Student continued to appear unfocused at times, specifically during and writing. The

Report also noted that the teacher also reported that Student had made steady progress in his academics (Exhibit 44).

District’s C.S.E. thereafter convened on April 24, 2014, having received the results of the Evaluation Report by , to review Student’s special education program. The Committee incorporated the results of the Evaluation (Exhibit 44) into the I.E.P., and also noted that Student was, as of an assessment completed in February of 2014, on an , equivalent to the beginning of . The I.E.P. prepared on that date continued Student ’s classification as having a and recommended his placement in a class for for , and for for , as well as the of , , in a , in a ; and , , , in the ; , , in a , in a ; and ,

, in a , in a ; and ,

, in a , in the , together with Education, in the . At the conclusion of that meeting, Parents requested additional; testing by a (T.R.66). A Prior Written Notice (Notice of Recommendation) was forwarded to Parent (Exhibit 41). On April 28, 2014, Parents’ Attorney wrote to , requesting District to arrange and pay for a evaluation of Student (Exhibit 40). Such request was granted.

On May 23, 2014 and May 29, 2014, , Ph.D. conducted a and Psycho-educational Evaluation of Student. The evaluator purportedly utilized different assessment instruments; namely, the

( ), the

( , but the same of Achievement – Third Edition (WJ-III) as had been use by (Exhibit 44) less than two months before. The Report then proceeded to state that Student, as measured by “the

( )”, the same assessment instrument utilized by less than two months previously - an instrument which the evaluator had not indicated was used to assess Student, but appears in the Appendix to the Report with appropriate score – while there are none such for the - displayed a , based on a ;a and a . The Report noted Student’s abilities in , finding them variable, noting that Student performed in the when , but that Student struggled with longer passages (Exhibit 39). The Report noted that Student hade , with , and . The Report further noted that Student had been diagnosed with , and that Student’s reported in class, as well as the results of the and educational evaluation, were consistent with such diagnosis (Exhibit 39).

District’s C.S.E. thereafter again convened, meeting on June 23, 2014, after having received the results of the and Psycho-educational evaluation

Report of Dr. (Exhibit 39), to again review Student’s special education program.

At that meeting, the Committee reconsidered Student’s classification and, purported in light of Dr. ’s diagnosis (T.R.69), changed Student’s classification to

(Why the Committee relied on the statement by Dr. to do so, when ’s Report (Exhibit 44) made the same comment regarding Student’s previous diagnosis of , is unclear). The Committee retained the scores as were taken from ’s Report (Exhibit 44), rather than those scores found by Dr. . It also continued Student’s Special education program of placement in a class for for , and for for , as well as the of , , in a , in a ; and , , , in the

; , , in a

, in a ; and ,

, in a , in a ; and ,

, in a , in the , together with Education, in the . However, it also added to Student’s program ( ), , for the , in a , for ; and ( ), , for the , in a , for (Exhibit 36). Such program was scheduled to be implemented at the commencement of the 2014-2015 school year. Witness testified that the Committee had added of per week to Student’s program as a way to deal with Student’s by placing him in a (T.R.70). It was reported by Witness that Parents, at that meeting, continued to express concern that Student was not making enough progress and had requested that a evaluation be performed (T.R.74). Authorization for such was granted and an evaluation performed by on July 16, 2014. The results of that evaluation were contained in a Report (Exhibit 30) that concluded that Student presented with overall language skills in the and had a severe disorder. It was noted that Student’s significantly outweighed his expressive language skills. The Report recommended that Student continue to receive and that existing be continued (Exhibit 30).

One month later, on August 16, 2014, , Ph.D., conducted an and of Student. The Report by Dr.

(Exhibit 29) noted that Student was a child, who was over , and that Student’s to understand, resulting in his classification of having a . Dr.

concluded, after the administration of a number of assessments, that Student had an and a . Dr.

recommended, among other measures, that Student be provided with classroom and and the use of an , as well as an increase in his sessions to (Exhibit 29) It was also stated in Dr. ’s Report that Student needed a program to address .

District’s C.S.E. thereafter again convened, meeting on November 10, 2014 to discuss the results of the Evaluation and Dr. ’s Report, as well as to review Student’s classroom performance and records. At that meeting, the Committee incorporated the testing results developed in the Evaluation into the I.E.P. The Committee also acted upon Dr. ’s recommendation that Student be provided with an . Student’s special education program, that is, placement in a class for for , and for for , as well as the of , , in a , in a ; and , , , in the ; , , in a , in a ; and ,

, in a , in a ; and ,

, in a , in the ;

( ), , for the , in a for ; and program

( ), , for the , in a , for

. It appears that the provision of Education, in the , was omitted. The Committee appears to have not acted upon Dr. ’s recommendation of increasing Student’s sessions or providing Student with a program to address . It did, however, review the Teacher Report provided by Student’s Special Education Teacher , dated October 27, 2014

(Exhibit 28).

According to the testimony of Witness , Parent had indicated her belief that there was a need for a of Student to be performed, and, soon after the Committee meeting, placed that request in writing (Exhibit 23).

Responding immediately, the Committee had a initiated on December 4, 2014 (Exhibit 22), and completed on December 23, 2014 (Exhibit 19). Based upon the results of that Assessment, a ( was prepared, dated February 3, 2015 (Exhibit 12), In the interim, Parents had obtained n evaluation of Student’s . The Report of the results of an evaluation conducted by Dr. (Exhibit 20), had concluded that Student evidenced

, were thereafter shared with the

Committee.

On February 10, 2015, the Committee again reconvened to review newly obtained material, the results of previous evaluations, and current academic information. While reflecting accurately the results of such evaluations, the Committee continued Student’s special education program as placement in a class for for , and for for , as well as the of , , in a , in a ; and , ,

, in the ; ,

, in a , in a ; and

, , in a , in a

; and , , in a , in the

; ( ),

, for the , in a for ; and program

( ), , for the

, in a , for : together with his use of an

. (Exhibit10). A final meeting of the Committee occurred on March 6, 2015, which

Witness described as held solely to correct an error in a date of an assessment that had appeared in the February 2015 I.E.P. (Exhibit 10), and that no other change to Student’s I.E.P. was made (T.R.85-86).

Parents presented, in addition to their own testimony, the testimony of three witnesses; Dr. ; Dr. and Dr. . Witness reviewed his interactions with Student, the testing done by the witness in assessing Student; and the results and recommendations emanating from the evaluation. It appeared that the witness placed great import on Student’s reported diagnosis – a diagnosis made, according to the Report of (Exhibit 44) – when Student was . It was the recommendation of this witness that Student would benefit from a placement in a school with and a and (T.R.499) (Exhibit 39). Parents’ Witness , who had impeccable credentials, confirmed her findings that Student had an and a . Witness , an who had assessed , testified as to his findings that Student displayed and had . It is my finding that each of Parents’ witnesses amply substantiated their diagnoses. However, it is necessary to determine, in light of those , whether student’s special education program, as provided by District, was appropriate.

Parents globally assert that District failed to provide Student with a free, appropriate public education during the period under review. In order to properly assess that allegation, it is necessary to determine the extent of District’s obligation to Student.

But what, exactly is a free, appropriate public education? Courts on various levels and officers have, through the years, expressed differing guidelines for determining exactly what FAPE is and how such is to be determined. It has been stated that a FAPE is offered to a student when (a) a board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]). However, such statement is no longer exactly accurate, for, while school districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures, not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (A.C. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 5505470, at *4 [2d Cir. Jan. 16, 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 as amended, if a procedural violation is alleged, an administrative officer may find that a student did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a) impeded the student's right to a FAPE, (b) significantly impeded the Parent' 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 C.F.R. § 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; E.H. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 3930028, at *7 [N.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2008]; Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 471 F. Supp. 2d 415, 419 [S.D.N.Y. 2007] aff'd, 2008 WL 3852180 [2d Cir. Aug. 19, 2008]).

The IDEA directs that, in general, an impartial hearing officer's decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][i]). A school district offers a FAPE "by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction" (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203). However, the "IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP" (Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 [2d Cir.

1998]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189). The statute ensures an "appropriate" education, "not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving Parent" (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 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). It is this last requirement – that the IEP must be "reasonably calculated to provide some 'meaningful' benefit" - that will guide my review in this matter.

District bears the burden of establishing that it offered Student a free, appropriate public education (N.Y.S. Education Law §4404(1)(c). District presented the testimony of , who explained at length the steps taken by the Committee in assessing Student and in determining what Student’s needs were and how to address them in the Least Restrictive Environment. The many records received in evidence in this proceeding attest to the completeness of those assessments, as well as the District’s acquiescence to each request made by Parents for by independent evaluators. Contrary to what appeared to be Parents’ contention that the Committee accept and implement all of the recommendations made by such evaluators, it is my finding that the Committee gave appropriate consideration to such recommendations, but were not obliged to concur or implement such. District also presented the testimony of Witness , who was Student’s for each of the three years that Student attended his present placement. Witness described at length the methods employed by her in addressing Student’s needs (T.R.175-

177). Witness explained that she had rejected the request by Parents and the recommendation by Dr. that Student’s sessions be increased, noting that additional services would have a negative impact on Student being educated in the least restrictive environment. According to Witness , Student made progress in both 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years (T.R. 182-183). District also presented the testimo9ny of Witness , who served as Student’s for each of the three years Student attended his current placement. Without reviewing in detail the methods Witness employed, it is my find that the goals worked on by Student’s were appropriate and that Student made appropriate progress in the areas of deficit.

District also presented the testimony of Student’s Special Education Teacher

. Ms. had served as the Special Education Teacher in Student’s classroom for each of the school years Student attended his current placement. Witness was taken though each of his academic Goals for both 20143- 2014 and 2014 2015 school years. Ms. noted that progress had been made on each

Goal during each school year. It was noted that, where students struggled, as did Student, they were placed in a and given instruction (T.R.285). According to Witness , Student’s levels advanced, as measured by a method of assessment (T.R. 297). Ms. ’s Reports (Exhibits 46 and 28) provide evidence of consistent progress. A review of the various I.E.P.’s discloses that, in each successive program, Student’s levels had advanced, so that, in February of 2015 (Exhibit 4), it is reported that Student is between levels independently – at a . – at the time Student was in .

It is my finding and determination that for all of the periods under review in this proceeding, District has established that it had offered Student a special education program that was clearly not only reasonably calculated to provide Student with meaningful educational benefit, but that, indeed, provided Student with meaningful educational benefit.

This was District’s obligation and that obligation was met.

I commend Parents for pursuing every possible source of information or evaluation that might shed light on Student’s deficits, as well as the cooperation displayed by District’s C.S.E. in authorizing such evaluation. I recognize that Student might well have benefitted from the full implementation of each and every recommendation contained in those evaluative Reports now in evidence. Student might well have made more advancement in this academic performance had he been permitted to attend one of the placements sought by Parents. However, it is not the obligation to provide Student with the best program available – or even one slightly better than that offered by District.

It is only necessary that District offered a program that was reasonably calculated to provide meaningful educational benefit. Even if Student was only approaching grade level in each year, that alone demonstrates progress, since each year necessarily provides an advance of the grade level.

Parents also raised in this proceeding allegations of procedural violations. In many instances, it was alleged that the person attending Committee meetings in the role of District Representative was not functioning as such, as the District representative sought advice and direction from a person in higher authority who was not in attendance.

Purportedly, this deprived Parents of any meaningful participation in the meeting. I find such allegation specious. Whether the District Representative sought guidance from another, it was still the determination of the Committee that established the program offered to Student. As to this and any other claim of procedural violation, I note that, pursuant to the provisions of the IDEA as amended. while school districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures, not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (A.C. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 5505470, at *4 [2d Cir. Jan.

16, 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 as amended, if a procedural violation is alleged, an administrative officer may find that a student did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a)

impeded the student's right to a FAPE, (b) significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student, or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; E.H. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 3930028, at *7 [N.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2008]; Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 471 F.

Supp. 2d 415, 419 [S.D.N.Y. 2007] aff'd, 2008 WL 3852180 [2d Cir. Aug. 19, 2008]). It is my finding and determination that there is absolutely no evidence of any procedural violation that rose to the level of depriving Student of a free, appropriate public education.

I also note that Parent, while acknowledging some progress was being made on the part of Student, complained to District personnel that it was “not enough”. As noted by the State Review Officer in deciding A pplication of a Student with a Disability , Appeal No. 13-222, it was stated:

The parents attempt to allege that the district’s failure to implement was apparent by virtue of the fact that the student failed to make progress during the 2011-2012 school year. Such an argument is misguided in that, progress, although an important factor in determining whether student is receiving educational benefit, is not dispositive of all claims brought under the IDEA (cases cited).

The goal of the IDEA is to provide opportunities for students with disabilities to access special education and that are designed to meet their needs and enable them to access the general education curriculum to the extent possible (20 U.S.C. §§1400(d);

1414(d)[1][A]). The IDEA provides no guarantee of any specific amount of progress so long as a district offers a program that is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits.

District’s Committee, on each of the occasions when it met and developed

Student‘s program, had the obligation to comply with the mandate that guaranteed to Student a program in the Least Restrictive Environment (8 NYCRR 200.1(cc)). – that is, that it provide Student with the special education needed by Student, to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of the Student with other students who do not have disabilities. This, I find, District’s C.S.E. has done.

ORDER

Based upon the above review, it is

HEREBY ORDERED that Parents’ Due Process Complaint be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED.

Dated: August 24, 2015

JAMES P. WALSH, 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 RECORD ON JUNE 12, 2015

1. Parents’ Due Process Complaint Notice, dated 3-9-15 (19 pages; DOE)

2. District’s Response to Complaint, dated 3-17-15 (3 pages; DOE)

3. Final Notice of Recommendation, dated3-6-15 (4 pages; DOE)

4. Student’s I.E.P. as prepared by District’s C.S.E. dated 3-6-15 (19 pages; DOE)

5. Student’s (1 page; DOE)

6. Notice to Parents of C.S.E. meeting, dated 2-27-15 (4 pages; DOE)

7. Annual Review Plan for Student by,, dated 1-20-15 (2 pages; DOE)

8. Prior Written Notice of Recommendation, dated 2-13-15 (4 pages; DOE)

9. Annual Review Plan for Student dated 2-10-15, by, (3 pages; DOE)

10. Student’s I.E.P. as prepared by District’s C.S.E. dated 2-10-15 (18 pages; DOE)

11. Teacher Report, dated 2-3-15, by (2 pages; DOE)

12. , developed 2-3-15 (5 pages; DOE)

13. Assessment for Independent Levels, dated DOE 11-2014 through 2-2015 (6 pages; DOE)

14. Notice to Parents of C.S.E. meeting, dated 1-16-15 DOE (3 pages; DOE)

15. Letter to Parent re: Assessment Sufficiency, dated 1-15-15 (1 page; DOE)

16. Letter from Parent to, dated 1-12-15 (1 page; DOE)

17. Letter from Parent to, dated 1-9-15 (1 page; DOE)

18. Notice to Parents of C.S.E. meeting, dated 12-23-14 (3 pages; DOE)

19. , dated 12-23-14 DOE (2 pages; DOE)

20. Skills Evaluation Report, dated 12-18-14, by, O.D., Psy.D. (2 pages; DOE)

21. Form: Consideration of a Student’s Need for,, or a (3 pages; DOE)

22. Checklist re: Student, dated 12-4-14 (11 pages; DOE)

23. Parent’s request for and for Student, dated 11-17-14 (1 page; DOE)

24. Consent for Testing Form, signed by Parent on 11-18-14 (1 page; DOE)

25. Prior Written Notice of Recommendation, dated 11-14-14 (4 pages; DOE)

26. Student’s I.E.P. as prepared by District’s C.S.E. dated 11-10-14 (20 pages; DOE)

27. Notice to Parents of C.S.E. meeting, dated 11-3-14 DOE (3 pages; DOE)

28. Teacher Report by S., dated 10-27-14 (2 pages; DOE)

29. and Report by, Ph.D., dated 8-16-14 (9); Appendix (1) (10 pages; DOE)

30. Evaluation, dated 7-24-14, by (5 pages; DOE)

31. Parent’s Consent to Testing, dated 6-26-14 DOR (1 page; DOE)

32. Letter from Parent to and, dated 6-25-14 (1 page; DOE)

33. Letter from Parent to R., dated 6-24-15 (1 page; DOE)

34. Letter from Parent to and, dated 6-24-14 (1 page; DOE)

35. Prior Written Notice, dated 6-24-14 (3 pages; DOE)

36. Student’s I.E.P. as prepared by District’s C.S.E. dated 6-23-14 (20 pages; DOE)

37. Report of Levels by Center, dated 6-16-14 (1 page; DOE)

38. Notice to Parents of C.S.E. meeting, dated 6-12-14 DOE (2 pages; DOE)

39. and Psych-educational Evaluation Report by Integrative Services, PLLC, J., Ph.D. (12 pages; DOE)

40. Letter from Parents’ Attorney to R., dated 4-28-14 (1 page; DOE)

41. Prior Written Notice, dated 4-25-14 (1 page; DOE)

42. Student’s I.E.P. as prepared by District’s C.S.E. dated 4-24-14 (19 pages; DOE)

43. Form: Consideration of a Student’s Need for,, or a, as completed for Student, dated 4-24-14 (2); NonCompleted Form (1) (3 pages; DOE)

44. Psycho-educational Evaluation Report, datedDOE 4-2-14, by R. (5 pages; DOE)

45. Notice to Parents of C.S.E. meeting, dated 4-4-14 (3 pages; DOE)

46. Teacher Report, dated 2-24-14, by S. Cutrona (2 pages; DOE)

47. Waiver by Parent of C.S.E. Meeting, dated 2-14-14 (1 page; DOE)

48. Letter from Parent to Principal, dated 2-14-14 (1 page; DOE)

49. Final Notice of Recommendation, dated 2-14-14 (1 page; DOE)

50. Student’s I.E.P. as prepared by District’s C.S.E. dated 2-14-14 (15 pages; DOE)

51. Student’s I.E.P. as prepared by District’s C.S.E. dated 2-14-14 (16 pages; DOE)

52. Annual Review Plan by,, dated 1-28-14 (2 pages; DOE)

53. Notice to Parents of C.S.E. meeting, dated 1-26-14 DOE (3 pages; DOE)

54. Teacher Report, dated 1-23-14, by and (2 pages; DOE)

55. Annual Review Plan, dated 1-20-14, by, (3 pages; DOE)

56. Final Notice of Recommendation, dated 9-11-13 (1 page; DOE)

57. Student’s I.E.P. as prepared by District’s C.S.E. dated 9-11-13 (22 pages; DOE)

58. Notice to Parents of C.S.E. meeting, dated 9-4-13 (3 pages; DOE)

59. Student’s I.E.P. as prepared by District’s C.S.E. dated 1-16-13 (22 pages; DOE)

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD ON JUNE 23, 2015

A. Transcript of C.S.E. meeting of 4-24-14 (32 pages; Parents)

B. Transcript of C.S.E. meeting of 6-23-14 (29 pages; Parents)

C. Transcript of C.S.E. meeting of 11-14-14 (25 pages; Parents)

D. Transcript of C.S.E. meeting of 2-10-15 E USB Disc – Audio of C.S.E. meetings of Parents 6-23-14; 4-24-14; 2-10-15; and 11-10-14 (22 pages; Parents)

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD ON JUNE 24, 2015

None

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD ON JUNE 26, 2015

None

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD ON JULY 10, 2015

None