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: June 25, 2015
Actual Record Closed Date: July 10, 2015
Hearing Officer: Dora Lassinger, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 25, 2015
- — Parents
Parents
Social Worker — Student
Rep — DOE
Teacher (Via Telephone) — DOE
School (Via Telephone) — DOE
Teacher (Via Telephone) — DOE
The parents of requested an impartial hearing on April 21, 2015 to seek a private placement at .[1] I was designated to hear this matter on April 23, 2015, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. Section 1415(f) (1). An impartial hearing was held before me on June 25, 2015.
At the request of both parties, the compliance date was extended to July 17, 2015, due to the unavailability of witnesses. (IHO Ex. II).
EVIDENCE AT HEARING
is a year old girl with . She is and
, and . Her classification of
is not in dispute. (DOE Ex. 1, 3). has attended a program at for four years, since . (Tr. p. 157).
’s March 21, 2014, Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) provided for placement in a ( ) with (“ ”) (3 periods per week); (“ ”) times per week for minute sessions; Parent Counseling and Training, times per year; (“ ”), times per week for minute sessions; and / (“ ”)
per week , and per week . (DOE Ex. 4).
had goals including ,
(progress reportedly made) and
(goal met); and
and (goal reported to be too difficult, and not met). (DOE Ex.
4).
She had goals including skills ( and
); ;
. (DOE Ex. 4).
Her March 19, 2015 IEP provides the same level of service as the prior IEP, except that was reduced to per week. (DOE Ex. 3). Ms. , ’s mother, testified that at the March 19, 2015 meeting, ’s recommended reducing the level of to per week; however when the parent objected, was kept at times per week. In addition, at the request of the parent, ’s was changed. (Tr. pp. 72-74).
The reported that was able to
. She proposed, that in the following school year, focus on ’s . She recommended two goals which were incorporated into the March 19,
2015 IEP; and
;
. (DOE Ex. 4, 7).
Her goals remained focused on ; but at a more advanced level
( ;
, ). Her goals also included
, . A goal was added of
. (DOE Ex. 3 at 5-6).
The parent did not voice any objections to the goals or objectives at the CSE review meeting. (Tr. p. 120).
, ’s current , testified that is progressing well with these goals. Ms. works with on the goals outside of the class, and observes to see that she is following through in the class. In addition, . (Tr. pp. 96-97). She testified that is doing much better than when she first came into the school, and that she is , which is the purpose of . (Tr. pp.
103, 110-111). She does not notice , except she may
. (Tr. p. 99). In her work with ,
; so that . (Tr. p. 100).
, ’s / , testified that has been making progress toward her IEP goals, , which she likes. She has begun to . (Tr. pp. 147-148). Ms. also sees daily, during an , and has seen progress in her communications with staff and peers.
(Tr. p. 150). She has and and
. . (Tr. p. 153).
Mrs. , ’s mother, testified that progressed well in her and programs. She feels that there has not been much progress during the four years since she entered her current program at . (Tr. p. 157).
She feels that would be better served at the , which is a state approved school. (Tr. pp. 157-158). She testified that it was her concern about ’s progress in which led her to request a change in schools. (Tr. p. 130).
She testified that ’s has decreased over the past few months, and that she is active than she was previously. (Tr. pp. 159-162). She testified that goals have not changed much over the past three years, with the exception of slight modifications. (Tr. pp. 163-164).
Mr. , ’s father, testified that whereas used to be able to ; she no longer does so. In addition, he has observed such as that previously did not . (Tr.
p. 162). She also . (Tr. p. 80). She
has also been ; which she did not previously do. (Tr. p. 84).
Ms. , ’s teacher, testified that communicates by . She uses . (Tr.
pp. 23-24). She has improved in
; . (Tr. pp.
25-26). She does not . (Tr. p. 81). Nor has Ms.
. (Tr. p. 86). Ms. uses ; and is able to
2 Ms. at first testified that has been her student for two years . (Tr. p. 19). She later testified that she has been her student since September 2014. (Tr. p. 42). She did not know whether would be in her classroom again for the following school year. (Tr. p. 58). out her name from a group of , and is able to follow the schedule. (Tr. p.
27).[2] She , , and . (Tr. p. 48).
Ms. , the unit coordinator at ’s school, testified that the parent did not express any concerns about the goals at the March 19, 2005 IEP meeting. (Tr. pp.
114, 118). Ms. could not state whether has progressed or regressed in skills; stating that the department and department would have to respond to those questions. (Tr. pp. 127-128).
, the family’s coordinator, testified that based upon her communications with the parents, has regressed in her skills. (Tr. p.
134). She testified that during her last visit with , she Ms.
had not previously observed, including and
. (Tr. pp. 136-137). Ms. assumed that these were connected with ’s school program; but had no actual knowledge of any such connection. (Tr.
p. 144).
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
The school district bears the burden of proving the appropriateness of the recommended program. Education Law 4404(1). The school district must comply with the procedural requirements of the Individual with Disabilities Education Act. (IDEA), and the IEP developed through its CSE must be reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive meaningful educational benefits. (Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S.
176, 192 [1982]. The special education provided by a district must be meaningful, and provide the opportunity for more than only trivial advancement. Walczak v. Fla Union Free School District, 142 F. 3d 119 (2d Cir. 1998)
An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student's needs, establishes annual goals related to those needs, and provides for the use of appropriate special education services.
Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 11-043.
I find that the Department of Education sustained its burden of proving that is has provided with an appropriate educational program. The record indicates that while has not made as much progress as her parents would have liked, she has progressed in her , skills. With regard to , she has progressed in her skills, , and . In , she has progressed from , . The IEP goals were not challenged at the IEP meetings, and I find that they are appropriate.
While it is disappointing that ’s teacher did not know how long has been in her class; and the unit coordinator was not familiar with ’s progress in and ; I find that has made progress in her program; and that the IEP is reasonably calculated to enable to continue to make progress.
There is no basis for me to find that the which the parents report indicate regression; or that they are a function of ’s school program.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the parents’ request for a private school placement is denied.
Dated: July 14, 2015
DORA LASSINGER, 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
PARENT
1 Impartial Hearing Request, 4/21/15, 1 page
2 Due Process Response, 4/24/15, 3 pages
3 IEP, 3/19/15, 17 pages
4 IEP, 3/21/14, 31 pages
5 2014/2015, various dates 1 page
6 Annual Review Plan, 3/18/15, 2 pages
7 Annual Review Plan, 3/13/15, 3 pages
8 Parent Training and Counseling, 2/5/14, 4 pages
9 SESIS Event Log, 4/24/15, 2 pages
10 Report Card, 3/13/15, 10 pages
11 Profile, various dates, 12 pages
12 Parent Training and Counseling, various dates, 6 pages
13 Assessment, various dates 1 page
14 Ass, 12/8/14, 13 pages
15 Progress Report, 4/24/15 5 pages
16 Attendance, 5/12/15, 1 page
17 Survey, 9/7/11, 2 pages
18 Assessment, 5/4/15, 13 pages
19 Booklet, various dates, 57 pages
20 with IEP Targets, various dates, 3 pages
21 Booklet, 53 pages
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
A Letter, 5/4/15, 1 page
IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER
I Case Follow-up Sheet, 6/25/15, 1 page
Footnotes
[1] The parents complained that the student has regressed in the areas of at her current placement; and that the student’s IEP goals are very simplistic and not challenging. (DOE Ex. 1).
[2] Ms. at first testified that has been her student for two years . (Tr. p. 19). She later testified that she has been her student since September 2014. (Tr. p. 42). She did not know whether would be in her classroom again for the following school year. (Tr. p. 58).