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: 164222
Student’s Name:
Date of Birth:
District:
Hearing Requested By: Parent
Date of Hearing: January 12, 2017
Actual Record Closed Date: January 12, 2017
Hearing Officer: Mary Noe, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JANUARY 12, 2017
Parent (Via Telephone) — Student
District Representative — DOE
(Via Telephone) — DOE
(Via Telephone) — DOE
Parent requested a hearing on November 4, 2016. I was appointed on November 21, 2016. I scheduled a hearing for December 14, 2016. Parent is pro se. At the request of the parent I adjourned the hearing till December 21, 2016. Parent requested another adjournment. The adjournment was granted. (T. 26) A new hearing date was scheduled for January 12, 2017 at 9:00. On January 12th the district appeared by .
The Parent did not appear. I was able to contact the Parent by phone. She stated she was . I asked if while she was waiting we could start the hearing and she could listen and participate by phone. The
Parent agreed. During the course of the hearing the Parent was never disturbed by anyone nor needed to hang up the phone for any reason.
The compliance date was not extended by either party. An impartial hearing officer is regardless of the parties' positions, to ensure compliance with the 45-day timeline for issuing a decision (see Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 11-095;
Application of the Dep't of Educ, Appeal No. 11-037; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 08-064; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 08-061).
The student is , classified as and currently
attending . In the IEP dated April 8, 2016 the District recommended a
; ,
. (Exh.
3) The parent challenges the recommendation and requests that the student remain in the current school. The parent’s position is that the school’s evaluations are inaccurate and therefore the IEP is inappropriate. The parent wants to have the student privately evaluated but has not done so as of the date of the hearing. (T. 4)
, testified he completed the student’s evaluation.
(T. 31) The student has received . (T. 31) The student has made . (T. 32) The IEP team recognized that and because , and because , he qualified for a new classification. He met all the criteria for , and the IEP team felt that they had to explore the entire continuum of special education services. He had been in a in a for at least two years, and it was felt that he should be recommended for something more restrictive just to try to see if that was going to be helpful for him. (T. 33) Mr. testified that the parent did not want the new placement and he explained that if the recommended placement was inappropriate, it could be changed. The parent was not able to articulate why she didn’t want a new placement. (T. 33-34) Mr. stated that the student’s teacher agreed with the recommendation. (T. 35)
DISCUSSION
The IDEA (20 U.S.C. §§ 1431-1444; 34 C.F.R. § 303.340) states that beginning at the age of 3 and generally continuing until the age of 21, a school district must provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) based on their educational needs which includes special education and related services, provided in accordance with an IEP (20 U.S.C. §
1401[8][D]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.13; see 20 U.S.C. § 1414[d]; 34 C.F.R. §300.347).
Based on the evaluation and student’s progress reports (Exh. 5), I find the IEPs recommendations appropriate.
The parent’s request is denied.
Dated: January 20, 2017
MARY NOE, ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer MN:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
Within 35 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to appeal the decision to the State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
“The notice of intention to seek review shall be served upon the school district not less than 10 days before service of a copy of the petition for review upon such school district, and within 25 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. The petition for review shall be served upon the school district within 35 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. If the decision has been served by mail upon petitioner, the date of mailing and the four days subsequent thereto shall be excluded in computing the 25- or 35-day period. ” (8NYCRR279.2[b]) Failure to file the notice of intention to seek review is a waiver of the right to appeal this decision.
Directions and sample forms for filing an appeal are included with this decision. Directions and forms can also be found in the Office of State Review website: www.sro.nysed.gov/appeals.htm.
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
1 Impartial Hearing Request, 11/3/16, three pages
2 SESIS Report, November 2013-December 2016, 11 pages
3 IEP, 4/8/16, 16 pages
4 , 4/8/16, four pages
5 Student Progress Report, 4/19/16, two pages
6 Prior Notice, 3/28/16, four pages
7 School Location Letter, 4/20/16, two pages
IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER
None