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: 163770
Student’s Name:
Date of Birth:
District:
Hearing Requested By: Parent
Date of Hearing: December 21, 2016
Actual Record Closed Date: February 28, 2017
Hearing Officer: Jeffrey J. Schiro, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON DECEMBER 21, 2016
Attorney — Student
Parents
District Representative, — DOE
I. JURISDICTION - OVERVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES
This impartial due process proceeding arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482, and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law. This hearing was requested by the attorneys for the student and the parent in a due process complaint notice dated October 11, 2016. The primary issue to be determined at this hearing is whether the Department of Education (the “DOE”) shall be ordered to reimburse the parent, and/or directly pay for, costs associated with several independent educational evaluations (“IEEs”) (Ex. P-A).[1]
When a student in New York is eligible for special education services, the IDEA calls for the creation of an individualized education program (“IEP”), which is delegated to a local committee on special education (the “CSE”) that includes, but is not limited to, parents, teachers, at least one psychologist, and school district representatives. See N.Y.
Educ. Law § 4402; see also 20 U.S.C. §§ 1414(d)(1)(a)-(b); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320, 300.321; 8 NYCRR §§ 200.3, 200.4(d)(2). If disputes occur between parents and school districts, incorporated among the procedural protections is the opportunity to engage in mediation, present state complaints, and initiate an impartial due process hearing. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1221e-3, 1415(e)-(f); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.151 - 300.152, 300.506, 300.511; N.Y.
Educ. Law § 4404(1); 8 NYCRR §§ 200.5(h)-(l).
New York State has implemented a two-tiered system of administrative review to address disputed matters between parents and school districts regarding “any matter relating to the identification, evaluation or educational placement of a student with a disability, or a student suspected of having a disability, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such student.” See 8 NYCRR § 200.5(i)(1); see also 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(b)(6)-(7); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.503(a)(1)-(2), 300.507(a)(1). An impartial hearing officer (“IHO”) typically conducts a trial-type hearing regarding the matters in dispute in which the parties have the right to be accompanied and advised by counsel and certain other individuals with special knowledge or training; present evidence and confront, cross-examine and compel the attendance of witnesses; prohibit the introduction of any evidence at the hearing that has not been disclosed five (5) business days before the hearing; and obtain a verbatim record of the proceeding. See 20 U.S.C.
§§ 1415(f)(2)(a), (h)(1)-(3); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.521(a)(1)-(4); 8 NYCRR §§ 200.5(j)(3)(v),
(vii), (xii).
The IHO must render and transmit a final written decision in the matter to the parties not later than forty-five (45) days after the expiration period or adjusted period for the resolution process. See 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.510(b)(2), (c), 300.515(a); 8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(5). A party may seek a specific extension of time of the 45-day timeline, which the IHO may grant in accordance with state and federal regulations. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(c); 8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(5). The decision of the IHO is binding upon both parties unless appealed. See N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404(1). A party aggrieved by the decision of an IHO may appeal that decision to a State Review Officer (“SRO”). See
N.Y. Educ. Law § 4402(2); see also 20 U.S.C. § 1415(g)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 300.514(b)(1); 8 NYCRR § 200.5(k).
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The DOE appointed me to hear this matter on October 18, 2016 following the recusal of another hearing officer. See 8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(3)(i). A hearings in this matter was thereafter held on December 21, 2016.[2] Appended to this decision are: a statement of appeal rights; a list of the persons in attendance at the hearings; and a list of the documents received into evidence. See 8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(5)(v).
III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
At the time of the October 11, 2016 due process complaint, the student was and has been diagnosed with:
(Exs. P-A at 2-4, P-B at 6, P-P
at 1, P-T at 12, P-V at 1, P-W at 1, P-X at 6). For the 2016/17 school year, the student attends the in , which has been approved by the Commissioner of Education as a nonpublic school with which public school districts may contract to instruct students with disabilities (Exs. P-A at 1, P-E). See 8 NYCRR §§ 200.1(d), 200.7. The student's current eligibility for special education and related services as is not in dispute in this hearing (Exs. P-A at 1, P-B at 1, P-C at 1, P-D at 1, P-M at 1, P-O at 1). See 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(c)(4); 8 NYCRR § 200.1(zz)(4).3
When the student reached age , his mother began to notice .
During the 2003/04 school year, the student entered at for . During his time in , the student had and .
(Exs. P-A at 1-2, P-P at 3).
In May 2004, the parent requested an evaluation of the student due to his . During the evaluation, the student was
, but had .
Results of the revealed
. Measures of the student’s
on the revealed
, as well as .
On the , the student
3
.
. As a result of this evaluation, the student was given an IEP providing him with (Exs. P-A at 1-2, P-P at 5). For the 2004/05 school year ( ), the student attended for (Exs. P-A at 2, P-P
at 3).
During the 2005/06 school year, the student entered at , which he attended through (2006/07 school year). The student was placed in a but the DOE later determined that that was an inappropriate environment for him because and . As a result, the student was placed in an at for the 2007/08 school year, the student’s . The DOE later determined that the was inappropriate in meeting the student’s educational needs (Exs. P-A at 2, P-P at 3).
For the 2008/09 school year, the parent transferred the student to , a in . When given an , the student and . He attended through the 2009/10 school year, his year. While at the , the student received . At that time, . The student while at the due to and the fact that his needs were not being adequately addressed (Exs. P-A at 2, P-P at 3-4).
In October 2008, when the student was , the parent brought him to the for a evaluation, a evaluation, and a evaluation. Based on the results of the evaluation, the student was diagnosed with . The evaluation determined that
;
. On the evaluation, the student’s , as measured by the
, was
. The indicated
. The revealed
. On the , the student’s performance was . To address the student’s needs, the evaluator recommended
(Exs. P-A at 2, P-P at 5, P-V, P-W, P-X, P-Y, P-Z).
During the summer of 2009, the parent brought the student to for a evaluation. During the evaluation, the student . The student was again administered the to measure , and he . On the , the student performed in the (Exs. P-A at 3, P-P at 5, P-T).
Following this evaluation and due to the student’s lack of progress, the parent petitioned the DOE to move the student into a non-public school that would be able to meet his needs. The DOE recommended that the student be placed at the .
The student has attended the since his year, the 2010/11 school year (Exs. P-A at 3, P-P at 4).
In December 2011, the parent brought the student to for a evaluation. During that evaluation, the student
.
The student was administered the and his was in the , his was in the and his was in the
. To assess ,
. On this measure, the student’s was and
,
, and (Exs. P-A at 3, P-P
at 4).
The student continued at the for the 2011/12 school year and remains there today. Since he began at the , the student has received . The was initially a good fit for the student. It was one of the first settings where
. , the work
continued to be challenging and the student struggled with . Although initially appropriate for the student, he has ceased making progress at the and the student’s feelings towards the school have changed to (Exs. P-A at 3, P-P at 2, P-BB, P-CC, P-FF, P-GG, P-HH).
IV. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
A. The DOE
The DOE has offered the student a free appropriate public education for the 2016/17 school year. The parent should be estopped from challenging the adequacy of the DOE’s evaluations of the student, or from seeking IEEs at public expense, because the parent waived a mandated three year reevaluation of the student in December 2014 (R. 35-
36; Exs. P-N, SD-11 at 4).
B. The Parents
The DOE failed to properly evaluate the student in all areas of suspected disability. The evaluation conducted by the in May 2007 did not comprehensively assess the student’s individual abilities and needs, nor did it make meaningful recommendations on how the student’s needs should be addressed. The parent is seeking reimbursement for a comprehensive independent evaluation conducted by Dr. in July 2016. The parent is also seeking an appropriate independent evaluation by , an appropriate independent by , and an appropriate independent evaluation by Dr. (R. 40-43; Ex. P-A at 6).
V. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A. Applicable Legal Standards
Two purposes of the IDEA, see 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482, are: (a) to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education (“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 (b) to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities and parents of such students are protected, see 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A)-(B); see generally Forest Grove v. T.A ., 557 U.S. 230, 239 (2009); B oard of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176,
206-07 (1982).[4]
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. See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07; H.C. v. Katonah-Lewisboro Union Free Sch. Dist., 2013 WL 3155869 (2d Cir. June 24, 2013); R.E. v. New Y ork City D ep't.
of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 189-90 (2d Cir. 2012), cert. denied 2013 WL 1418840 (U.S. June
10, 2013); M.H. v. New Y ork City D ep't of Educ., 685 F.3d 217, 245 (2d Cir. 2012); Cerra v. Paw ling 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.'" W alczak 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. M amaroneck 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 has indicated that "[m]ultiple procedural violations may cumulatively result in the denial of a FAPE even if the violations considered individually do not," see 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.
Carm el 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. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); 34 C.F.R.
§ 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., 2010 WL 3242234, at *2 (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, 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, 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. See 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." See 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."
W alczak, 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." See W alczak, 142 F.3d at 132 (quoting Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d 563, 567 (2d Cir. 1989); see also Grim, 346 F.3d at 379.
Additionally, school districts are not required to "maximize" the potential of students with disabilities. See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199; Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; W alczak, 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.'" See Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195 (quoting W alczak, 142 F.3d at 130); see also 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" See M rs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 (2d Cir. 1997); see also Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192. The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (“LRE”). See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a)(2)(i), 300.116(a)(2); 8 NYCRR §§ 200.1(cc), 200.6(a)(1); see also Newington, 546 F.3d at 114; Gagliardo v.
A rlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 (2d Cir. 2007); W alczak, 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, 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); Patsk in v. B oard 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 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(1);[8] NYCRR § 200.4(d)(2)(i); Tarlow e v. Dep't of Educ., 2008 WL 2736027, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2008), 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 C.F.R. §§ 300.320(a)(2)(i), (2)(i)(A);
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. See N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404(1)(c); see also R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85; M.P.G. v. New Y ork City D ep't of Educ., 2010 WL 3398256, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2010).
B. Equitable Estoppel
At the outset of the hearing, the DOE raised a defense of equitable estoppel to the parent’s request for reimbursement and/or direct funding of several IEEs (R. 35-36; Exs.
P-N, SD-11 at 4).
Equitable estoppel is generally invoked to prevent one party who by words or actions has represented that certain facts are true, thereby inducing another party to act to his or her detriment, from subsequently denying the truth of those facts. See T rav elers
Intern. A .G. v. TransW orld A irlines Inc., 722 F. Supp. 1087 (S.D. N.Y. 1989). It is an intentional relinquishment of a known right. See Orange Steel Erectors, Inc. v.
Newburgh Steel Products, Inc., 225 A.D.2d 1010 (3d Dept. 1996). “The doctrine of equitable estoppel is applicable to school districts.” Greco v. B oard of Educ. of the
Patchogue-M edford Union Free Sch. Dist., 98 A.D.2d 721 (2d Dep’t 1983); see A pplication of the Bd. of Educ. of the W appingers Cent. Sch. Dist., Appeal No. 97-29
(SRO June 25, 1997).
The DOE’s estoppel argument centers on a document signed by the parent in December 2014, in which she agreed with the DOE’s determination that a mandated three year reevaluation was not necessary at that time (R. 35-36; Exs. P-N, SD-11 at 4). It is well settled that a school district must conduct a reevaluation at least once every three years, unless the school district and the parent agree in writing that such a reevaluation is unnecessary. See 8 NYCRR § 200.4(b)(4); see also 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.303(b)(1)-(2). The document the parent signed on December 11, 2014 states, in relevant part, that “I agree that the mandated three year reevaluation for my child is not necessary at this time” (Ex.
P-N at 1). The DOE asserts that by agreeing in 2014 that the student did not require a reevaluation, the parent is estopped from now challenging the adequacy of the student’s evaluations until the next mandated three year reevaluation. However, nothing in the language of the document, nor the hearing record taken as a whole, supports the conclusion that in December 2014 the parent knowingly intended to relinquish her right to obtain an IEE at public expense. See 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.502(a), (b); 8 NYCRR §
200.5(g)(1).
C. Adequacy of Evaluations/Request for IEEs
The parent seeks reimbursement of costs associated with Dr. ’s independent evaluation of the student in July 2016, as well as direct funding of independent evaluations of the student (R. 40-43; Ex. P-A at 6).
Generally, a school district must conduct an evaluation of a student where the educational or related services needs of a student warrant a reevaluation or if the parent or teacher requests a reevaluation. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.303(a)(2); 8 NYCRR § 200.4(b)(4).
A school district, however, need not conduct a reevaluation more frequently than once per year unless the parent and the school district otherwise agree and must conduct one at least once every three years unless the school district and the parent agree in writing that such a reevaluation is unnecessary. See 8 NYCRR § 200.4(b)(4); see also 34 C.F.R. §§
300.303(b)(1)-(2). A school district must ensure that a student is appropriately assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, where appropriate, social and emotional status, see 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(3)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c)(4); 8 NYCRR § 200.4(b)(6)(vii), and an evaluation of a student must be sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the student's special education and related services needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in which the student has been classified, see 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c)(6); 8 NYCRR § 200.4(b)(6)(ix).
Subject to certain limitations, federal and State regulations provide that a parent has a right to obtain an IEE at public expense if a parent disagrees with an evaluation obtained by the school district. See 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.502(a), (b); 8 NYCRR § 200.5(g)(1). A school district may request the reason that the parent(s) disagree with an evaluation, but may not require an answer from the parents or impose any additional conditions prior to providing an IEE at public expense. See 8 NYCRR §§ 200.5(g)(1)(ii),
(iii). Rather, “[i]f a parent requests an independent educational evaluation at public expense, the school district must, without unnecessary delay, either ensure an independent educational evaluation is provided at public expense or 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).
Based on the evidence contained in the hearing record, I find that the DOE has failed to comprehensively evaluate the student. The only evaluation that was conducted by the Department in the last nine (9) years was a evaluation dated May 31, 2007 (Ex. P-Z). The other evaluations conducted were commissioned by the parent (Exs. P-P, P-T, P-V, P-W, P-X, P-Y). The evaluation that was conducted fails to provide a sufficient understanding of the reason
, fails to consider all of the student’s
concerns, or make any recommendations as to appropriate programming, methodology, or support on which the CSE team could develop a program (Ex. P-Z).
On March 14, 2016, the parent faxed a letter to the student’s CSE Chairperson, , Chairperson of , requesting a comprehensive IEEs, a related service authorization (“RSA”) for , , and an evaluation (Ex. P-K). The parent followed up with phone calls to Ms. . The DOE failed to respond in any way to the parent’s requests (R. 51-52;
Exs. P-A at 4, P-MM).
After not having received a response to her requests from the DOE in more than six (6) months, on September 23, 2016, the parent hand-delivered a second letter to Ms.
, again requesting comprehensive IEEs, specifically a evaluation, a evaluation, a , and an evaluation. She stated in her letter that she was not in agreement with the evaluations that had been conducted by the DOE, as they were insufficiently comprehensive and also reminded the DOE that the last evaluation conducted by the DOE was dated May 31, 2007. The parent requested that the DOE respond within ten (10) calendar days, either with a letter authorizing the IEEs at public expense, or, in the alternative, a letter stating that the DOE would initiated an impartial hearing to establish the appropriateness of its own evaluations (Ex. P-E).
Again, the parent received no response from the DOE as to any of her requests (Ex. P-A
at 5).
I also note that upon its receipt of the parent’s October 11, 2016 due process complaint (which again requested several IEEs of the student), the DOE failed to promptly ensure that either the requested IEEs were provided at public expense, or alternatively, file its own due process complaint to defend its evaluations (Ex. P-A at 6).
Cf. 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(2); 8 NYCRR § 200.5(g)(1)(iv); A .S. v. Norwalk Bd. of Educ., 183 F. Supp. 2d 534 (D. Conn. 2002).
As the DOE failed to fulfill this obligation, and ignored the parent’s IEE requests of March 14, 2016 and September 23, 2016, the parent here must be reimbursed for the costs she incurred in obtaining the private evaluation at her own expense (Exs. P-P, P-JJ, P-KK, P-LL), and the DOE will be directed to approve and provide payment for independent , and evaluations. See A pplication of a Student with a Disability (Tuxedo Union Fee Sch. Dist.), Appeal No. 08-087 at 18 (SRO Dec. 15, 2008), rev’d on other grounds, G.B. & L.B. v. Tuxedo Union Free Sch. Dist., 751 F. Supp. 2d 552 (S.D.N.Y.
2010), aff’d, 485 F. App’x 954 (2d Cir. 2012); see also Regional School Unit #61, 111 LRP 48320 (SEA ME Apr. 27, 2011); Baldwin Co. Bd. of Educ., 21 IDELR 311 (SEA
AL Mar. 4, 1994).
VI. ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF FACT,
IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The parent’s claim for reimbursement for costs associated with an Dr.
’s September 13, 2016 independent evaluation of the student is GRANTED; and within thirty (30) days of its receipt of this Order, the DOE shall reimburse the parent for all costs, i.e., , associated with said evaluation;
The parent’s claim for an appropriate independent evaluation of the student is GRANTED; and within thirty (30) days of its receipt of this Order, the DOE shall approve and provide payment for an independent evaluation by , at her customary rate for said evaluation, not to exceed ;
The parent’s claim for an appropriate independent of the student is GRANTED; and within thirty (30) days of its receipt of this Order, the DOE shall approve and provide payment for an independent by , at its customary rate for said evaluation, not to exceed ;
The parent’s claim for an appropriate independent evaluation of the student is GRANTED; and within thirty (30) days of its receipt of this Order, the DOE shall approve and provide payment for an independent evaluation by Dr. , at , at his customary rate for said evaluation, not to exceed ; and
Upon completion of the independent educational evaluations listed above, the CSE shall meet within fifteen (15) days of its receipt of said evaluations to review the student’s program and placement.
Dated: March 16, 2017
JEFFREY J. SCHIRO, ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
The parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to obtain a review of this decision by a State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Part 200.5(k) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, Section 4404 of the Education Law, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Directions and forms can be found on the Office of State Review website: http://www.sro.nysed.gov/RevisedRegulationsOverview.html
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD
PARENTS
A. Due Process Complaint Notice/Impartial Hearing Request, 10/11/16, 8 pgs.
B. Individualized Education Program (IEP), 2/14/15, 14 pgs.
C. Individualized Education Program (IEP), 1/24/14, 13 pgs.
D. Individualized Education Program (IEP), 5/3/13, 16 pgs.
E. Parent Request for Reimbursement/Independent Educational Evaluations, 9/23/16,
1 pg.
F. , 4/4/16, 1 pg.
G. Progress Report, undated, 1 pg.
H. Progress Report Letter, 3/2016, 1 pg.
I. Request for , 3/15/16, 3 pgs.
J. Prior Written Notice (Notice of Recommendation), 3/15/16, 2 pgs.
K. Parent Request for Evaluation, 3/15/16, 3 pgs.
L. , 2/2016, 1 pg.
M. Prior Written Notice (Notice of Recommendation), 1/21/15, 4 pgs.
N. Notice of Mandated Three Year Revaluation, 11/17/14, 2 pgs.
O. Prior Written Notice (Notice of Recommendation), 3/14/14, 4 pgs.
P. , 9/13/16, 29 pgs.
Q. Progress Report, 1/29/16, 2 pgs.
R. Progress Report, 1/7/16, 2 pgs.
S. Report, 2015/16, 4 pgs.
T. , 6/25/09, 19 pgs.
U. [Withdrawn]
V. , 10/17/08, 3 pgs.
W. , 9/25/08, 2 pgs.
X. ,
7/3/08, 7 pgs.
Y. , 5/7/08, 9 pgs.
Z. , 5/31/07, 5 pgs.
AA. IEP Measurable Annual Goals, undated, 4 pgs.
BB. IEP Annual Goals Progress Report, undated, 6 pgs.
CC. IEP Annual Goals Progress Report, undated, 6 pgs.
DD. , 6/2016, 1 pg.
EE. , 2/2016, 1 pg.
FF. Progress Report, 2015/16, 1 pg.
GG. Report, 2015/16, 4 pgs.
HH. Report Card, 2015/16, 2 pgs.
II. Report, 11/18/15, 2 pgs.
JJ. Invoice, 11/6/16, 1 pg.
KK. Credit Card Statement - , 7/29/16, 1 pg.
LL. Credit Card Statement - , 6/21/16, 1 pg.
MM. U.S. Certified Mail Postal Receipt, 4/4/16, 1 pg.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
1. [Withdrawn]
2. [Withdrawn]
3. [Withdrawn]
4. [Withdrawn]
5. [Withdrawn]
6. [Withdrawn]
7. [Withdrawn]
8. [Withdrawn]
9. [Withdrawn]
10. [Withdrawn] 11.SESIS Events Log, various dates, 7 pgs.
IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER
I. Confirmation of Extension, 12/26/16, 1 pg.
II. Confirmation of Extension, 1/26/17, 1 pg.
III. Confirmation of Extension, 2/17/17, 1 pg.
Footnotes
[1] References to the hearing transcript are noted as “R.” References to exhibits admitted into evidence are noted as “Ex.”
[2] Following my appointment to this case, the parties moved to extend the case compliance date in this matter several times in order to allow for adequate time for my review of the hearing record taken on the extensive issues raised in the parent’s due process complaint. In considering those requests, I weighed the cumulative impact of the relevant factors and found that the stated reason for the extensions justified the delay in the resolution of the matter and were in accordance with the requirements of due process. Accordingly, requests for extensions of the case compliance date were granted (R. 61-62; Exs. IHO-I - IHO-III). See 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(c); 8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(5).
[4] The term “free appropriate public education” means special education and related services that – (A) have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge; (B) meet the standards of the State educational agency; (C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education in the State involved; and (D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education program required under section 1414(d) of this title. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9); 34 C.F.R. § 300.17.
[8] NYCRR § 200.4(d)(2)(iii), and provides for the use of appropriate special education services, see 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(4); 8 NYCRR § 200.4(d)(2)(v).