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: 164076
Student’s Name:
Date of Birth:
District:
Hearing Requested By: Parent
Date of Hearing: March 13, 2017
March 31, 2017
May 3, 2017
May 10, 2017
June 9, 2017
Actual Record Closed Date: February 6, 2018
Hearing Officer: Jeffrey Schiro, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
MARCH 13, 2017
For the Student:
ESQ., Attorney
For the Department of Education:
Representative
Via telephone)
Via telephone)
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
MARCH 31, 2017
For the Student:
ESQ., Attorney
For the Department of Education:
Representative
Via telephone)
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
MAY 3, 2017
For the Student:
ESQ., Attorney
For the Department of Education:
Representative
Via telephone)
Via telephone)
Via telephone)
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
MAY 10, 2017
For the Student:
ESQ., Attorney
Via telephone)
Via telephone)
Via telephone)
For the Department of Education:
Representative
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
JUNE 9, 2017
For the Student:
ESQ., Attorney
parent
parent
Evaluator (via telephone)
Via telephone)
For the Department of Education:
Representative
I. JURI DICTION -OVERVIEW OF ADMINI TRATIVE PROCEDURE
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 parents in a due process complaint notice dated October 26, 2016. The primary issue to be determined at this hearing is whether the Department of Education (the “DOE”) offered the student a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) during the 2015/16 and 2016/17 school years (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 (“JEP”), which is delegated to a local committee on special education (the “CSE”’) that includes, but is not limited to, parents, teachers, at least one , 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 8§ 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)-(1).
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(4)(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 (“THO”) 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 as “Ex.” 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 §§ 200.5G)(3)(v), (vii), (x11). 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 § 200.5G)(5). A party may seek a specific extension of time of the 45-day timeline, which the [THO 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 THO 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 HI TORY
The DOE appointed me to hear this matter on December 7, 2016 following the recusal of another hearing officer. See 8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(3)G). Hearings on the merits of the matter were thereafter held on: March 13, 2017; March 31, 2017; May 3, 2017; May 10, 2017; June 9, 2017.*[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).
Il. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
C.F.R. § 300.515(c); 8 NYCRR § 200.5(G)(5).
At the time of the October 26, 2016 due process complaint, the student (Exs. P-F at 1, P-H at 1, P-J at 2, P-L at 1, P-M at 2, P-Q at 1, P-R at 1). For the 2015/16 and 2016/17 school years the student attended at , a specialized school operated by the DOE (Exs. P-A at 1, P-E, P-G at 1, P-I at 1, P-Q at 2, P-R at 1). The student's eligibility for special education and related services is not in dispute in this hearing (Exs. P-A, P-F at 1, P-H at 1, SD-5 at 1). See 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(c)(1);[8] 8 NYCRR § 200.1(zz)(1).? (R. 537). Upon arrival, the student was issued a comparable service plan (Ex. P-D). The comparable service plan called for the student to receive the majority of his instruction in specialized school. The plan also called for the student to receive related services of The student began attending in July 2015, but related services did not start until September 2015 (R. 539; Exs. P-A, P-E).
Between June 19, 2015 and August 3, 2015, the CSE conducted a ; an evaluation, a evaluation and a / evaluation (Exs. P-L, P-M, P-N, P-O, P-P). On August 17, 2015, the CSE convened to develop an JEP for the student for 2015/16 school year. The CSE recommended that the student receive the majority of his instruction
The CSE also 8 NYCRR § 200.1(zz)(1). recommended that the student receive related services oft: The CSE reconvened on May 6, 2016 to develop an IEP for the student for the 2016/17 school year. The CSE again recommended that the student receive the majority of his instruction
The CSE also recommended that the student receive related services of: (Ex. P-F at 9-12).
On June 28, 2016, the CSE conducted a of the student and developed a (Exs. P-S, P-JJ).* According to the (Ex. P-JJ). The CSE reconvened in June 2016 to incorporate the results of the and into the student’s IEP and added to the student’s recommended program (Ex. P-H at 9). The parents objected to the sufficiency of the June 2016 IEP and this hearing ensued (Ex. P-A).
IV. PO ITION OF THE PARTIE
NYCRR§ 200.1(r).
. 8 NYCRR§ 200.1(mmm).
A. The DOE
The CSE provided the student with a FAPE for the 2015/16 and 2016/17 school years. All claims for compensatory additional services should be denied (R. 48-49).
B. The Parents
The student was denied a FAPE for the 2015/16 and 2016/17 school years and is entitled to compensatory additional services. The programs, goals and services that the DOE offered through its one-size fits most model of program was wholly inadequate for the student. The CSE failed to sufficiently evaluate the student and its annual goals for the student were inappropriate. The CSE failed to address the student’s needs, needs. The CSE failed to recommended needed instruction and adequate amounts of related services. The DOE also denied the student access to non-academic and extracurricular activities (Ex. P-A).
V. FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLU_ ION 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 genera y Forest Grove v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230, 239 (2009); Board of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 (1982).[5]
A FAPE is offered to a student when: (a) the board of education complies with the 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. 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 Row ey458 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 York City Dep't. of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 189-90 (2d Cir. 2012), cert. denied 2013 WL 1418840 (U.S. June 10, 2013); MLH. 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.“ Wa_ czakyv. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 129 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting Row ey458 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 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. 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. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)Gi); 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(a)(2); 8 NYCRR § 200.5G)(4)Gi); 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)G). 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 Row ey458 U.S. at 203. However, the "IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP." Wa_ czak 142 F.3d at 130; see Row ey 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 Wa czak142 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 Row ey458 US. 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." See Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195 (quoting Wa_ czak 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 Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 (2d Cir. 1997); see also Row ey458 USS. 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)Q), 300.116(a)(2); 8 NYCRR 8§ 200.1(cc), 200.6(a)(1); see also Newington, 546 F.3d at 114; Gag iardov. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 (2d Cir. 2007); Wa czak 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); Patskin v. Board 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); Tarlowe 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)q), (2)4)(A); 8 NYCRR § 200.4(d)(2)(i1), 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).
The burden of proof is on the school district during an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition retmbursement 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 York City Dep't of Educ., 2010 WL 3398256, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2010).
B. Recommended Public Programs
The evidence contained in the hearing record demonstrates that the student was denied aFAPE during the 2015/16 and 2016/17 school years.
In December 2015, the student participated in a evaluation to determine eligibility for services. Among other things, the recommended that the student receive:
(Ex. P-R at 5). There is no indication in the hearing record that the CSE considered incorporating any of these recommendations into any of the relevant IEPs.
The parent credibly testified that the student made no academic and functional progress in school over the relevant period (R. 536).
(R. 520). No IEP goals were developed to address those significant issues (Ex. SD-5 at 2-3). (Ex. P-F at 1-4). Yet, no goals concerning , researched-basted strategies, supports, additional services or were added to the JEP, and services were never considered (R. 174-176, 181-182).
(R. 571).
C. Compensatory Additional Services
The parent seeks an Order directing the DOE to authorize the student’s receipt of compensatory additional services to remedy the denial of FAPE during the 2015/16 and 2016/17 school years (Ex. P-A).
Within the Second Circuit, compensatory education generally has been viewed as instruction provided to a student after he or she is no longer eligible because of age or graduation to receive instruction. It has been awarded 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 (2d Cir. 2008); Mrs. C. v. Wheaton, 916 F.2d 69 (2d Cir. 1990); Burr v. Ambach, 863 F.2d 1071 (2d Cir. 1988); but see P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir. 2008) (upholding an award of compensatory education for a school aged student without finding a gross violation of the IDEA). Compensatory education is an equitable remedy that is tailored to meet the circumstances of the case. See Wenger v. Canastota, 979 F. Supp. 147 (N.D.N.Y. 1997).
State Review Officers also 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. See Newington, 546 F.3d at 123 (stating "[t]he IDEA allows a hearing officer to fashion an appropriate remedy, and we have held compensatory education is an available option under the Act to make up for denial of a free and appropriate public education"); Student X v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2008 WL 4890440, at *23 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2008) (finding that compensatory education may be awarded to students under the age of twenty-one); Board of Educ. v. Munoz, 16 A.D.3d 1142 (4th Dep't 2005) (finding it proper for a State Review Officer 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 Chi d with a Disability, Appeal No. 08-072 (awarding after school and summer reading instruction as compensatory services to remedy a denial of a FAPE).
Compensatory education awards can be crafted pursuant to two distinct theories: a quantitative approach and a qualitative approach. Under the quantitative approach, courts examine the amount of time during which a child has been deprived of a FAPE, and award compensatory services with an eye towards making up that time. See, e.g., M.C. v. Central Reg’l Sch. Dist., 81 F.3d 389, 297 (3d Cir. 1996) (holding that a “child is entitled to compensatory education for a period equal to the period of deprivation, excluding only the time reasonably required for the school district to rectify the problem’). Under the qualitative approach, the examination should focus on the child’s needs; “some students may require only short, intensive compensatory programs targeted at specific problems or deficiencies” while “[o]thers may need extended programs, perhaps even exceeding hour-for-hour replacement of the time spent without FAPE.” See Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 524 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Pursuant to this approach, there must be evidence regarding the child’s “specific educational deficits” resulting from the failure to provide FAPE and “specific compensatory measures” designed to “correct those deficits. Jd. at 526.
Given my earlier finding that the DOE denied the student a FAPE for the 2015/16 and 2016/17 school years, I now conclude that the student is entitled to compensatory additional services to remedy the denial of FAPE. Using the credible testimony of ; ; ; and ; , I shall apply a qualitative approach in fashioning a compensatory remedy of additional services for the student. The DOE will be directed to provide services based on the denial of FAPE during the 2015/16 and 2016/17 school years. The DOE will also be directed to provide compensatory related services to remedy missed and/or insufficient services provided during the relevant time period.
1. Services
In October 2016, conducted an independent Assessment, which included a visit, and a school observation as well as interviewing the parents, and conducted the (Exs. P-V, P-W). He evaluated the student’s abilities in several important domains
He had also previously observed the student in school. His evaluation resulted in three (3) major findings:
During a school observation in October 2016, observed the student (Exs. P-V, P-X at 6).
Based on empirically-supported research, recommended (Ex. P-W at 4).
The student shall receive
The student shall also receive (Ex. P-X at 7-8).
2. Parent Counseling & Training and testified that parent training, beyond the recommended (Ex. __-5), was necessary to assist the student (Exs. P-F, P-H). recommended parent training (R. 425-426).
The student shall receive of compensatory parent training. The recommended number of parent and training hours is based on:
3. Compensatory Related Services
The evidence contained in the hearing record demonstrated that (R. 263-65, 342). The parent credibly testified that the student did not receive or in the summer of 2015 and was not recommended for at that time (R. 539).
Therefore, the student shall be awarded a bank of ; , and equal to the amount of each service that was recommended for him pursuant to the independent expert evaluators as follows for each school year, based on a forty-six (46) week school year basis as of July 1, 2015, less any services that he received:
(1)
(2) |
(3) | (1)
(11) | (iii)
All providers shall be paid via related services authorizations (“RSAs’”’) at their customary (enhanced) rate. Lastly, as the student would be unable to access the additional services , the DOE will be ordered to provide the student and the parents with so that the student can safely attend the ordered services. See generally, R.B. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 713 F. Supp. 2d 235, 242
(S.D.N.Y. 2010)
D. Prospective Relief - Amendment of IEP
The parents also seek an amendment of the student’s IEP to include: (Exs. P-W, P-Y at 10-11).
Based on the circumstances of this case, the claim for prospective relief is denied. In accordance with its obligation to review a student's IEP at least annually, the CSE should have already revised and developed a new IEP for the student for the 2017/18 school year. See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(4)(A); N.Y. Educ. Law § 4402(2); 34 C.F.R. § 300.324(b)(1); 8 NYCRR § 200.4(f). A CSE is tasked with reviewing information about the student's progress under current educational programming and periodically assessing a student's needs, and it would be inappropriate to circumvent these statutory processes by suddenly ordering amendments to the student's IEP, especially in the absence of any material evidence regarding the annual review of the student's current needs or services conducted subsequent to the matters under review in this proceeding. See Student X, 2008 WL 4890440, at *16 (noting that "services found to be appropriate for a student during one school year are not necessarily appropriate for the student during a subsequent school year").
Moreover, the evidence in the hearing record shows that, to the extent that the CSE may recommend a level of related services commensurate with years past (Exs. P-F, P-H, SD-5), these services, in combination with compensatory additional services ordered below and a prospective order directing the DOE to provide additional services, may not be feasible or in the student's educational interests. The appropriate course is to require the parties to come into compliance with the statutory process envisioned under the IDEA and to effectuate equitable relief to remediate past harms that have been explored through the development of an appropriate evidentiary record. See Application of a Student with a Disability (New York City Dep’t of Educ.), Appeal No. 15-075 at 17 (SRO Sept. 21, 2015). Therefore, the parents’ request that the undersigned direct amendments to the contents of new IEPs going forward is denied.
VI. ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FINDING OF FACT,
ITI
HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The parents’ claim that the student was denied a free appropriate public education for the 2015/16 and 2016/17 school years is U TAINED;
2. Within thirty (30) days of its receipt of this Order, the DOE shall authorize the student’s receipt of the following compensatory additional services at public expense:
(a) services via RSA at an enhanced rate;
(b) via RSA at an enhanced rate;
(c) training via RSA at an enhanced rate;
(d) via RSA at an enhanced rate;
(e) via RSA at an enhanced rate;
(f) via RSA at an enhanced rate; and
(g) the DOE shall provide the student and the parents with All other requests for relief are denied.
Dated: February 8, 2018
JEFFREY J. SCHIRO, ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer
PLEA E TAKE NOTICE
The parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has aright to obtain areview of this decision by a tate Review Officer of the New York tate Education Department under Part 200.5(k) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, ection 4404 of the Education Law, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Directions and forms can be found on the Office of tate Review website: http://www.sro.nysed.gov/RevisedRegulationsOverview. html
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD
PARENTS
Due Process Complaint Notice/Impartial Hearing Request, 10/26/16, 7 pgs.
mproY
Notice of Reevaluation, 12/9/16, 1 pg. [Reserved]
Comparable Service Plan, 6/25/15, 5 pgs.
School Location Letter, 6/24/15, 1 pg.
Individualized Education Program (IEP), 5/6/16, 13 pgs.
Prior Written Notice (Notice of Recommendation), 5/27/16, 2 pgs.
Individualized Education Program (IEP), 6/27/16, 14 pgs. — Prior Written Notice (Notice of Recommendation), 6/28/16, 2 pgs.
New Admissions Examination Form, 6/29/15, 3 pgs.
CNHAH2YRxPKFOFsOAZXrA
Administration Form, 6/29/15, 1 pg.
Evaluation, 6/19/15, 4 pgs.
Evaluation, 8/3/15, 7 pgs.
Evaluation, 7/2/15, 5 pgs.
Evaluation, 6/22/15, 4 pgs.
Evaluation, 6/20/15, 6 pgs.
Evaluation, 11/11/15, 4 pgs.
Evaluation, 12/4/15, 5 pgs.
6/28/16, 5 pgs.
Related Service Providers’ Report, 6/2016, | pg.
Daily Communication Report, various dates, 24 pgs.
School Observation Report, 10/17/16, 6 pgs.
Assessment Report, 10/17/16, 5 pgs.
Affidavit of , 3/8/17, 8 pgs.
Evaluation, 4/13/17, 11 pgs.
Affidavit of , 4/20/17, 5 pgs.
Evaluation, 4/23/17, 6 pgs. BB. = Affidavit of , /4/17, 5 pgs.
CC. Evaluation, 4/5/17, 4 pgs.
DD. Affidavit of , 9/8/17, 3 pgs.
EE. Evaluation, 4/5/17, 9 pgs.
FF. Affidavit of , /9/1T, 4 pgs.
GG. IEP Attendance Page, 5/6/16, | pg.
HH. IEP Attendance Page, 6/27/16, 1 pg.
I. Related Service Attendance Information, various dates, 6 pgs.
JJ. , 6/28/16, 6 pgs.
KK. Supporting Documentation, various dates,[14] 14
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
l. [Reserved]
[Reserved]
FNoYDFe [Reserved]
[Reserved]
Individualized Education Program (IEP), 8/17/15, 20 pgs.
[Reserved]
[Reserved]
[Reserved]
[Reserved]
[Reserved]
eiaNDOYFWNFoPS’ [Reserved] [Reserved] [Reserved] [Reserved] [Reserved] [Reserved] [Reserved] [Reserved] [Reserved]
20. [Reserved]
21. [Reserved]
22. Events Log, 5/27/16 - 1/9/17, 1 pg.
IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER
[. Signed Subpoenas, 2/13/17, 12 pgs.
I. Interim Order (IEEs), 4/2/17, 1 pg.
Ii. Confirmation of Extension, 1/6/17, 1 pg.
IV. Confirmation of Extension, 2/8/17, 1 pg.
Confirmation of Extension, 3/10/17, 1 pg.
VI. Confirmation of Extension, 4/10/17, 1 pg.
VIL. Confirmation of Extension, 5/9/17, 1 pg.
VIL. Confirmation of Extension, 6/9/17, 1 pg.
IX. Confirmation of Extension, 7/3/17, 1 pg.
Confirmation of Extension, 8/8/17, 1 pg.
XI. Confirmation of Extension, 9/7/17, 1 pg.
XI. Confirmation of Extension, 10/7/17, 1 pg.
XIII. Confirmation of Extension, 11/6/17, 1 pg.
XIV. Confirmation of Extension, 11/14/17, 1 pg.
XV. Confirmation of Extension, 1/4/18, 1 pg.
XVI. Confirmation of Extension, 2/5/18, 1 pg.
Footnotes
[1] "References to the hearing transcript are noted as “R.” References to exhibits admitted into evidence are noted
[2] "Following my appointment to this case, the parties moved to extend the case compliance date in this matter several times in order to accommodate the availability of the parties’ witnesses and in order to allow for adequate time for my review of the hearing record taken on the extensive issues raised in the parents’ due process complaint. In considering those requests, I weighed the cumulative impact of the relevant factors and found that the stated reasons 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. 184-185, 223-224, 399-400, 598-599; Exs. IHO-III - IHO-XVI). See 34
[5] 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 § 200.1(zz)(1).
[14] [Reserved]