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: 165101
Student’s Name:
Date of Birth:
District:
Hearing Requested By: Parent
Date of Hearing: April 5, 2017
May 24, 2017
Actual Record Closed Date: July 5, 2017
Hearing Officer: Gary D. Peters, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL 5, 2017
Attorney — Parents
DOE Designee — DOE
Father — Parents
( ) — Parents
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MAY 24, 2017
Attorney — Parents
DOE Designee — DOE
Father — Parents
( ) — Parents
( ) — Parents
INTRODUCTION
On the above dates, I conducted hearings, pursuant to the Individuals Disability Education Act (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. section 1415 (f)(3) regarding a special education program, Students with Disability, New York City Impartial Hearing .The hearings were conducted at the impartial hearing office, New York City Department of Education, at 131 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, New York. At the hearing, the Department of Education, hereinafter referred to as the “DOE” was represented by its designee and the Parent was represented by their counsel
.
BACKGROUND
The student is currently a who was previously diagnosed in in with . There were subsequent evaluations in May-July 2015 and November 2016, wherein the child was diagnosed with
“ ”.
The Parents allege that prior to the 2016-2017 school year , the DOE grossly violated the IDEA which resulted in a denial of FAPE for a substantial period of time; failed to identify, locate and evaluate as a child with a disabilities pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(3).
THE DEPARTMENT’S POSITION
The Department conceded Prong I of the Burlington-Carter test and maintains that the Parents unilaterally chose a program which is inappropriate to meet the child’s needs and that the equitable considerations do not support the Parent.
THE PARENT’S POSITION
The Parent maintains that the DOE failed to classify the child, failed to hold IEP reviews in the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years. That on September 2, 2016, the Parent sent a letter requesting FAPE and provided consent to evaluate the child. The CSE failed to conduct evaluations, failed to perform a classroom observation, failed to conduct a social history evaluation and failed to hold an annual review for the 2016-2017 school year.
Additionally, the CSE didn’t recommend placement for the 2016-2017 school year and was not provided with a Prior Written Notice as per 34 CFR 300.503(a). The
Parent’s counsel is requesting that the Parents receive reimbursement for tuition and to the and the ; and costs for a evaluation by Dr. ..
THE PARENT’S CASE
The first witness to testify was who stated that she is certified in New York as a teacher in in and in as a . Her current position is a teacher in a and an . She provides instruction to in her ;
. She also
meet with for , which are approximately and and there is which is approximately (tr. page7).
The witness stated that ’s primary include
. Regarding needs to and needs to ; in order to address the child’s deficits, the witness testified that different types of , such as . Additionally, and has made progress (tr. page 8).
Ms. described ’s difficulties with and stated that she requires ; to address those
Difficulties, “
” (tr. page 9).
Regarding ’s difficulties with , the witness stated that needs help with ; she needs help with “ ” and this helps to . requires
.“
” (tr. page 10). The witness stated that has benefited from and has made progress with her (tr. page 11).
Regarding Describe ’s difficulties with , the witness stated that needs help with . In order to address the difficulties “ . has benefited from those activities (tr. page 12).
Upon further questioning, the witness stated that since September, “ ” (tr. page 13).
Ms. stated that it's helpful in , such as and “
(tr. page 15)
has ; to address those difficulties, included . The witness stated that employs and that is in a ; there are and . has made progress with and . has benefited from .
Upon cross examination, the witness stated that she doesn’t provide for as she is not the and is a .
is in a , and she can go at any time she wants to. ”
” (tr. page 16).
The witness stated that she reviewed the evaluation; primarily had difficulties in the . (tr. page 18) “ ”. At this time, the main focus is on . The witness was uncertain as to , however stated that she is improving and that (tr. page 19).
is unable to , and she's not able
to ,“
”. Additionally, there
was no formal assessment of ; in ,“
(tr. page 21). Ms. stated that there is data on her , as in each session, “
(tr. page 21).
Furthermore, is provided to in the ; it is a
; there are in the
. The grade span of the students range from (tr. page 23).
Every student has different weaknesses and strengths that are focused on. Regarding the , skills are worked on as needed.
(tr. page 24). “
”.
The Parent herein after referred to as testified that he first noticed that his daughter had when she was in , very early on, when
.
–“
” (tr. page 30). In his opinion, it wasn't about . The Parent was officially notified by the school, wherein the teacher said “
(tr. page 31).
Ms. recommended Dr. who was the and at the . stated that was initiated , and continued for almost her entire time at ; she started in and was requested to find another school for (tr. page 32). Additionally, when the workload increased in , it became evident that children had to take a bigger role in ; was not able to provide his daughter with the services and support that she needed (tr. page 33).
was directed to Exhibit C, a letter dated September 2nd, 2016; he identified it as a letter, wherein he requested a FAPE from the DOE and included a consent to evaluate; the DOE didn’t conduct an evaluation for and ever had a meeting to create an IEP.
Prior to entering into that summer of 2014, requested us to “
(tr. page 34). The Parent stated that he had an evaluation completed after that letter; he was directed to Exhibit D, a letter dated December 16th, 2016, wherein he submitted an evaluation by Dr. . A reevaluation by Dr. , exhibit B was identified by the Parent. was stated that because the original evaluation was more than one year old, “ ”.
Parent is seeking reimbursement for the updated evaluation (tr. page 35).
began attending in September 2016 as a ; he stated that if an appropriate placement was recommended by the DOE that he would’ve sent his daughter.
Upon cross examination the Parent stated that he didn’t contact the DOE before September 2016; that he “ ”.
first applied to in the spring of 2016, when he had a meeting with the , a psychologist, and teacher and was told that “ ” (tr. page 36).
The Parent conceded that by the time he had contacted the DOE his daughter was already attending ; however he took out tuition insurance, in the event the DOE offered an appropriate placement (tr. page 37).
The Parent stated that his daughter attends daughter or with Dr. ; “
”(tr. page 39).
Upon re direct examination, the Parent stated that as per Exhibit L, he paid the sum of for the evaluation and is seeking reimbursement for same (tr, page 41).
Ms. submitted an affidavit in lieu of testimony and appeared telephonically to testify for cross examination. She stated that does not maintain any certification in disabilities; however, there are students in her class with IEPs.tr. page 51)
Her affidavit indicated that her “
. In her opinion would benefit from her class (tr. page 52).
The witness opined that is able to
, however, . In her class is not exposed to . All students have access to and utilizes it daily (tr. page 53).
Ms. stated that she is aware that “ ”; she was uncertain if she attends on a regular basis in her school. She has observed her in in her classroom, however has not observed her in a larger class (tr. page
54).
All of her students receive the same degree of and the same degree of ; however often seeks . ’s at the beginning of the school year was . The witness performed formal evaluations of her and stated that is currently .
Upon redirect examination, the witness stated that a class be inappropriate for a student who was . The child is in the . Additionally, a would be inappropriate for employs ; if needs it, the are available (tr. page 56)
Mr. also submitted an affidavit in lieu of direct examination. He stated that helps the students and provides to all the students as needed. are provided in the same manner. There are students in the his class and ; (tr. page 62)..
The witness stated that he a master's degree in and stated that “may be” considered a issue and that it depends on its origin (tr. page 63).
He conceded that as health professional that he is not qualified to diagnose . In his experience . (tr. page 64)
As per his affidavit, at the beginning of the year exhibited that would indicate that ; however “ ”. Mr. stated that he has never formally assessed and has never referred her for an evaluation to assess her (tr. page 65).
Upon redirect examination, the witness stated that he addresses ’s by
“
”.
He reiterated that he noticed that has significantly decreased;
, , in order for her to do that, it
means that her “
” (tr. pages 66-67). .
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The purpose of the "child find" provisions of the IDEA are to identify, locate, and evaluate students who are suspected of being a student with a disability and thereby may be in need of special education and related services, but for whom no determination of eligibility as a student with a disability has been made (see Handberry v. Thompson, 446 F.3d 335, 347-48 [2d Cir. 2006]; E.T. v. Bd. of Educ., 2012 WL 5936537, at *11 [S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2012]; A.P. v. Woodstock Bd. of Educ., 572 F. Supp. 2d 221, 225 [D.
Conn. 2008], aff'd, 370 Fed. App'x 202 [2d Cir. Mar. 23, 2010]; see also 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][3][A]; 34 CFR 300.111; 8 NYCRR 200.2[a][1], [7]). The IDEA places an affirmative duty on State and local educational agencies to identify, locate, and evaluate all children with disabilities residing in the State "to ensure that they receive needed special education services" (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][3]; 34 CFR 300.111[a][1][i]; Forest Grove, 557 U.S. at 245; E.T., 2012 WL 5936537, at *11; see 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][A][ii]; see also 8 NYCRR 200.2[a][1], [7]; New Paltz Cent. Sch. Dist. v. St.
Pierre, 307 F. Supp. 2d 394, 400 n.13 [N.D.N.Y. 2004]). The "child find" requirements apply to "children who are suspected of being a child with a disability . . . and in need of special education, even though they are advancing from grade to grade" (34 CFR 300.111[c][1]; see 8 NYCRR 200.2[a][1], [7]; D.K. v. Abington Sch. Dist., 696 F.3d 233, 249 [3d Cir. 2012]; J.S. v. Scarsdale Union Free Sch. Dist., 826 F. Supp. 2d 635, 660 [S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2011]). To satisfy the requirements, a board of education must have procedures in place that will enable it to identify, locate, and evaluate such children (34 CFR 300.111[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.2[a][1], [7]).
Because the child find obligation is an affirmative one, the IDEA does not require parents to request that the district evaluate their child (see Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 518 [D.C. Cir. 2005] [noting that "[s]chool districts may not ignore disabled students' needs, nor may they await parental demands before providing special instruction"]; see also Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 11-153; Application of a Student Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal Nos. 11-092 & 11-094). A district's child find duty is triggered when there is "reason to suspect a disability and reason to suspect that special education services may be needed to address that disability" (J.S., 826
F. Supp. 2d at 660; New Paltz Cent. Sch. Dist., 307 F. Supp. 2d at 400 n.13, quoting Dep't of Educ. v. Cari Rae S., 158 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1194 [D. Haw. 2001]). To support a finding that a child find violation has occurred, school officials must have overlooked clear signs of disability and been negligent by failing to order testing, or have no rational justification for deciding not to evaluate the student (A.P., 572 F. Supp. 2d at 225, quoting Bd. of Educ. v. L.M., 478 F.3d 307, 313 [6th Cir. 2007]). States are encouraged to develop "effective teaching strategies and positive behavioral interventions to prevent over-identification and to assist students without an automatic default to special education" (Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. D.L., 548 F. Supp. 2d 815, 819 [C.D. Cal.
2008], citing 20 U.S.C. § 1400[c][5]). Additionally, and particularly relevant in this case, a school district must initiate a referral and promptly request parental consent to evaluate a student to determine if the student needs special education services and programs if a student has not made adequate progress after an appropriate period of time when provided instruction in a school district's response to intervention program (8 NYCRR 200.4[a]).
see also 8 NYCRR 100.2[ii]).
The parties agree that the student is eligible to receive special education and related services as a student with a . The parties' dispute concerns the appropriateness of the Parent’s unilateral placement; as per Prongs II and III of the Burlington/Carter test.
The Parents presented four witnesses, to wit; the testimonial evidence of , the child's teacher. And then three affidavits, from , the , , the child's teacher, and , the child's
teacher.
Parent’s counsel asserts that the testimony of the witnesses demonstrates student's issues are being addressed. testified how she addresses the student's difficulties in terms of . Mr. 's testimony and affidavit
discussed 's
. Ms. 's testimony described ’s , specifically
. She also testified how she
addresses ’s . I agree with the
Parent’s counsel that the testimony demonstrates that the program at addresses the child’s individual needs, and that she is benefiting from the program. The father explained why he is seeking reimbursement for the evaluation and that the costs were . Clearly, the Parent wrote a letter requesting an evaluation and it was not done.
Parents are also seeking reimbursement for the costs of , which are which includes tuition, , and .
Although, the DOE has conceded Prong I, the DOE designee asserts that the Parent has not met their burden in establishing and its as an appropriate Prong II placement. Mr. maintained that is clearly a ; that special education is limited to . Furthermore, that the testimony is that the are not instructional sessions, and therefore should not be construed as special education services. Additionally, this student with issues has not had her needs addressed in the program, nor has it been followed up appropriately by those who encounter the student. Finally, although the Parent has not done anything to obstruct the development of an IEP, it is a cooperative process, and neither have they been entirely forthcoming. Lastly, the DOE asserts that the Parents counsel has not met the standard reimbursement for any independent evaluation.
The United States Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs (PSEP) has opined that under child find duties, a district that is responsible for offering a student a FAPE must not decline a parent’s request to conduct an eligibility evaluation of the student even if the student is attending a private school located in another district (Letter to Eig, 52 IDELR 136 [OSEP 2009]; see Application of the Bd. of Case No. 165101
Educ., Appeal No. 09-067; see also Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 10-049). In Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 09-133, the parents did not place a FAPE at issue when they informed the district of residence of their intent to continue the student’s enrollment at a nonpublic school in the district of location.
It is well settled that a board of education may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private educational services obtained for a student by his or her parents, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parents were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parents’ claim (Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]; Sch.
Comm. of Burlington v. Dep’t. of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-70 [1985]). In Burlington, the Court found that Congress intended retroactive reimbursement to parents by school officials as an available remedy in a proper case under the IDEA (471 U.S. at 370-71; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 111 [2d Cir. 2007]; Cerra v,
Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]). “Reimbursement merely requires [a district] to belatedly pay expenses that it should have paid all along and would have borne in the first instance” had it offered the student a FAPE (Burlington, 471 U.S.
at 370-71; see 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][ii]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.148).
A private school placement must be “proper under the Act” (Carter, 510 U.S. at 12, 15; Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370), i.e., the private school offered an educational program which met the student’s special education needs (see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, 115; Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 129 [2d Cir. 1998]; 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]). A parent’s failure to select a program approved by the State in favor of an unapproved option is not itself a bar to reimbursement (Carter, 510 U.S. at 14). The private school need not employ certified special education teachers or have its own IEP for the student (Carter, 510 U.S. 7; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 08-085; Application of the Dep’t of Educ., Appeal No. 08-025; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 08-016; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 07-097; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal
No.. 07-038; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-014; Application of Case No. 165101 a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-105). Parents seeking reimbursement “bear the burden of demonstrating that their private placement was appropriate, even if the IEP was inappropriate” (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; see M.S. v. Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 104 [2d Cir. 2000]). “Subject to certain limited exceptions, ‘the same considerations and criteria that apply in determining whether the [s]chool [d]istrict’s placement is appropriate should be considered in determining the appropriateness of the parents’ placement” (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d at 364 [2d Cir. 2006]
[quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207 and identifying exceptions]). Parents need not show that the placement provides every special service necessary to maximize the student’s potential (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65). When determining whether the parents’ unilateral placement is appropriate, “[u]ltimately, the issue turns on” whether that placement is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits” (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364; see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115 [citing Berger v, Medina City Sch. Dist., 348 F.3d 513, 522 [6th Cir. 2003] [stating “evidence of academic progress at a private school does not itself establish that the private placement offers adequate and appropriate education under the IDEA:]]) A private placement is only appropriate if it provides education instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a student (20 U.S.C. § 1401[29]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.39[a][1]; Educ. Law § 4401[1]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[ww]; Rowley, 458 U.S. at 188-189; Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 114-15 [noting that even though the unilateral placement provided special education, the evidence did not show that it provided special education services specifically needed by the student]; Frank G., 459 F.3d at 365; Stevens v. New York City Dep’t. of Educ., 2010 WL 1005165, *9 [S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2010].
The Second Circuit has set forth the standard for determining whether parents have carried their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of their unilateral placement. No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining whether parents’ unilateral placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. Grades, test scores, and State regulation defines “especially designed instruction” as “adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible student under this Part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction to address the unique needs that result from the student’s disability; and to ensure access of the student to the general curriculum, so that he or she can meet the educational standards that apply to all students”
(8 NYCRR 200.1[vv]). Regular advancement may constitute evidence that a child is receiving educational benefit, but courts assessing the propriety of a unilateral placement consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child’s individual needs. To qualify for reimbursement under the IDEA, parents need not show that a private placement furnishes every special service necessary to maximize their child’s potential. They need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction. (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; see Frank G., 459 F.3d at 365-65).
THE EVIDENCE CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THE AND
THE IS APPROPRIATELY MEETING ’s
NEEDS.
To demonstrate that the private school placement chosen by the parent is appropriate, the parent must show that the services met the student’s educational needs.
Burlington, 471 U.S. 359 (1985). Review of the nonpublic placement is more informal than review of the original IEP – indeed, the nonpublic placement need not even meet the IDEA’s definition of a FAPE. R.E., 694 F.3d at FN3. The ultimate issue to be determined is whether the placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits; there is no one dispositive factor in this determination. Frank G. v.
Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park , 459 F.3d 356, 364 (2d Cir. 2006). The private program need not employ certified special education teachers, as the requirements for district placements to meet State educational agency standards do not apply to parental placements. Carter, 510 U.S. at 14; See also 34 C.F.R. § 300.148(c).
The evidence amply demonstrates that ’s placement at the with the is appropriate, as the program is specifically designed to meet her needs.
The is accredited by the and is registered in New York State. The Affidavit of the , , indicated that the initial Mission Statement of was to create an environment in which students could succeed. To that end,
. There are
.
; and this allows to place students in which are appropriate for them and also
.
The provides settings with up to students
in the and up to students in the . Additionally, instituted its in the beginning of . A student in is assigned a who is State-Certified in or in a remedial specialty such as . Furthermore, to be admitted in , students must have a Department of Education IEP or preferably a or evaluation. The reviews the documents to determine whether a student is appropriate for the program.
Approximately one third of ’s students are in ; during the current school year there is an enrollment of approximately students with in . Noteworthy is that many students graduate out of the program while attending .
The indicated that the Teacher typically works with about students or less.
. In the sessions, the
Teacher provides to address the student’s
. Additionally,
. In the the Teacher works largely on issues related to , and also addresses
if necessary.
Another program that is being utilized in is the
“
”.
.
. It appears that has been a valuable program as stated by Mr. ; first most students with also have . Accordingly, they have difficulty .
helps students
. Additionally, recognizes that it need to have the parents of students involved as part of the education team. permits the parents to see what is going on with their children on a weekly basis so that they can be actively involved.
Additionally, succeeds as stated by Mr.
in large part because its classroom Teachers and Teachers work together. To that end,
. The Teachers support the Classroom
Teachers and assist them to modify their instruction to meet the needs of the students. Furthermore, Classroom Teachers receive regular training on how to provide appropriate instruction to students. Teachers together with outside specialists provide said training.
As per the Affidavit of Mr. , it is indicated that many students have , and that Classroom Teachers typically modify instruction to meet their needs. They often incorporate various special education strategies into their instruction as well including . Additionally, Classroom Teachers provide accommodations to their students including
.
is in the class. The
; there are students in the class and in
; . He reported that benefits from the and that she receives as a result of a setting.
The Affiant further stated that he uses several special education methods including and that benefits from this methodology. Additionally, he assists the students in and that
.
The Affiant further stated that ’s main difficulties are in the area of . She has difficulty . To address this, Mr. indicated
that he will
. Additionally,
. has benefitted from this and reportedly is improving.
has difficulties with . To address these weaknesses, he uses in that has also benefitted from this methodology and has made progress in .
Lastly, was reported to have difficulties with . More particularly, in the beginning of the school year . In order to address these needs, Mr.
stated that needs help with . He provides
so that she and all children
.
Mr. is the child’s Teacher in the class which is the . There are students in the class .
benefits from the and . She also stated that Special Education methods are used in her class.
.
Additionally, she reported that has “ ” wherein
.
, and the Affiant stated that she makes sure that . also benefits her because
.
The Affiant stated that employs , and ; they are available if needs help.
However, the Affiant stated that the child’s never has been great enough that it could not be addressed in class.
With respect to difficulties, she stated that has difficulty starting and . The child is given and provided with . She is reportedly doing better and needs less support. Reportedly is also improving and she is .
Lastly, the offers services
and , she has office hours when students
can come see her and she is also available for ’ needs.
There are no equitable bars to recovery for the child’s placement at . To demonstrate that the private school placement chosen by the parent is appropriate, the parent must show that the services met the student’s educational needs. Burlington, 471 US 359 (1985). Review of the non-public placement is more informal than the review of the original IEP-indeed the non-public placement may not even meet the IDEA’s definition of FAPE, R.E. 694(f)
3rd at FM3.
Congress granted Hearing Officers broad discretion to fashion an equitable relief in “light of the purpose of the act” to insure that a child with a disability receives a FAPE Burlington, 471 US 371-1, See also 20 USC Section 1415
(i)(2)(C)(iii); Carter 510 US 7, 16 (1993). If a student is not provided with a FAPE and the placement obtained by the student’s parents is appropriate, then the Hearing Officer may engage in a “balancing of the equities” to determine appropriate relief (Burlington 471 US 367. 374).
Lastly, I find that the parent cooperated with the DOE and did not engage in any conduct that would have precluded the CSC from creating an appropriate IEP. The Parent testified that if he received an appropriate offer of placement that he would have sent his daughter to a public school.
Accordingly, I award parents reimbursement for tuition as follows:
1. Reimbursement for the cost of which is , which includes tuition, , and .
2. Reimbursement for evaluations by Dr. in the sum of
.
Dated: July 25, 2017
GARY D. PETERS, ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer GP:
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
PARENT’S EVIDENCE
Document Date Pages
A Impartial Hearing Request 1/19/17 7
B Re-valuation Sept.-Nov. 2016 7
C Parent Correspondence to CSE 9/2/16 6
D Parent Correspondence to CSE 12/1/16 4
E School Contract 5/10/16 4
F Proof of Payments tuition various 4
G Report Card 3/8/17 1
H Schedule 1/24/17 1
I Affidavit of 3/10/17 4
J Affidavit of 3/17/17 3
K Affidavit of 3/17/17 3
L Proof of Payment for Evaluations various 15