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: 166085
Student’s Name:
Date of Birth:
District:
Hearing Requested By: Parent
Date of Hearing: September 14, 2017
Actual Record Closed Date: March 2, 2018
Hearing Officer: Jeffrey Schiro, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
SEPTEMBER 14, 2017
For the Student:
ESQ., Attorney
parent
Director, Via telephone)
For the Department of Education:
Impartial Hearing 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 parent in a due process complaint notice dated April 27, 2017. 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-AA).[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 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 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 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()(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 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 HI TORY
The DOE appointed me to hear this matter on June 1, 2017 following the recusal of another hearing officer. See 8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(3)G). A hearing on the merits of the matter was thereafter held on September 14, 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
At the time of the April 27, 2017 due process complaint, the student was "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 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 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. 90-91; Exs. IHO-I - IHO-IX). See 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(c); 8 NYCRR § 200.5(4)(5). and has been diagnosed with a During the 2016/17 school year, the student attended the at until December 2016. The student attended between December 16, 2016 and April 5, 2017. Following , the parent was advised that was unable to meet the student’s needs. As of April 27, 2017, the student was placed at . The student's eligibility for special education and related services as a student with a is not in dispute in this hearing (Exs. P-A, P-F at 1, SD-1). See 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(c)(6); 8 NYCRR § 200.1(zz)(6).°
On May 7, 2014, conducted a of the student due to concerns regarding his noted teacher reports of _ 8 NYCRR § 200.1(zz)(6). recommended that the student receive both in school (Ex. P-B).
On January 7, 2014, the CSE convened to develop an IEP for the student for the 2014/15 school year. The team noted that It was reported that the student benefitted from a small classroom environment
The CSE classified the student “The CSE recommended that the student receive the majority of his instruction in a ina school . The CSE also recommended that the student receive related services of (Ex. P-A at 1, 8-9).
The student attended during the 2015/16 school year. On June 2, 2015, the CSE conducted an annual review of the student’s program. The CSE reclassified the student . The CSE recommended that the student receive the majority of his instruction in an classroom, supported by , ina school - The CSE also recommended that the student received related services of (Ex. P-C at 1, 7-8).
On April 19, 2016, staff at imposed a See 8 NYCRR §§ 200.6(g)(1)-(2). (Exs. P-D, P-AA at 5).
On April 20, 2016, completed a classroom observation while the student attended class. She noted that (Ex. P-E).
On June 8, 2016, the CSE convened to develop an JEP for the student for the 2016/17 school year. The CSE recommended that the student receive the majority of his instruction in an classroom, supported by , ina school . The CSE also recommended that the student received related services of: (Ex. P-F at 7-8).
The student started attending on August 24, 2016, an (Ex. P-AA at 6). The student did not receive all mandated and services while in that school (Ex. P-AA at 7). On a November 10, 2016 Report Card, (Exs. P-M, P-AA at 7).
On December 16, 2016, the parent placed the student at ; where his academic and struggles continued (Ex. P-AA at 7). On January 30, 2017, the DOE issued the student a letter due to the student’s failure to perform at the level needed for promotion in both and (Ex. P-U). The student failed to make academic progress during the 2016/17 school year, (Ex. P-V).
From September to November 2016, (Exs. P-D, P-H, PJ, P-K, P-N, P-O, P-P, P-Q, P-R, P-S, P-T, P-AA at 7-8).
On March 1, 2017, the DOE issued a to the student beginning on March 2, 2017 (Ex. P-W). On or about April 4, 2017, the DOE imposed a on the student beginning on April 5, 2017. According to the , on April 3, 2017, (Exs. PX, P-AA at 10).
The DOE advised the parent that was unable to address the student’s significant needs and, therefore, was not an appropriate placement for him. On April 27, 2017, the DOE placed the student at because would not accept the student back (Ex. P-AA at 10). This hearing ensued.
IV. PO ITION OF THE PARTIE
A. The DOE
The DOE conceded that it did not provide the student with a FAPE beginning from April 2015 through the 2015/16 and 2016/17 school years (R. 15). The DOE requests that any compensatory additional services ordered be paid at the DOE rate.
B. The Parents
As the DOE failed to conduct any updated evaluations of the student during the relevant school years, the student is entitled to evaluations, as well as an updated and a . As the student was denied a FAPE for the 2015/16 and 2016/17 school years, the student is entitled to compensatory and related services (Ex. P-AA).
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 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); Board of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 (1982).[6]
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 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); M_H. 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." Walczak 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. 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 [HO'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 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." Walczak, 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 Walczak, 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; 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 Walczak, 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 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)qQ), 300.116(a)(2); 8 NYCRR 8§ 200.1(cc), 200.6(a)(1); see also Newington, 546 F.3d at 114; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 (2d Cir. 2007); Walczak, 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)(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).
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 York City Dep't of Educ., 2010 WL 3398256, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2010).
B. Recommended Public Program
At the hearing, the DOE conceded that it failed to offer the student a FAPE for the 2015/16 and 2016/17 school years (R. 15). Accordingly, I find in the parent’s favor on that issue.
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 2016/17 school year (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 Child 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’! 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 the parent as a guide, I shall apply a qualitative approach in fashioning a compensatory remedy of additional services for the student.
1. Compensatory
The record establishes that the student failed to make meaningful progress beginning in at least April 2015 and throughout the 2015/16 and 2016/17 school years. In addition, the student’s IEPs did not offer a program, services or goals designed to allow him to make meaningful educational progress.
The DOE failed to draft an IEP for the student’s 2014/15 school year and failed to conduct a properly constituted CSE meeting (R. 68; Ex. P-C at 12).
(R. 73-75).
The CSE again failed to evaluate the student prior to developing his 2016/17 IEP (R. 77; Ex. P-F). The student made very little, if any, progress during the 2016/17 school year (R. 78-81; Exs. P-L, M-M, P-V). The DOE issued a letter to the student but failed to modify the student’s IEP goals, placement or services (R. 80; Ex. PU). evaluated the student at the on May 4, 2017 (R. 23, 26-28, 50; Exs. P-Y, P-Z). testified that was indicative of his clear need for services (R. 29-30, 32-33, 36-40, 42; Ex. P-Z at 3-5). recommended that the student receive of compensatory at an enhanced rate to address the student’s skills (Ex. P-Z at 1). There were approximately instructional weeks of school during each of the 2015/16 and 2016/17 school years, and instructional weeks of school between April 25, 2015 and June 26, 2015 ( instructional weeks in total), during which the student lost approximately of appropriate educational instruction. On an hour for hour basis, this amounts to approximately of instruction from which the student obtained no meaningful benefit, which demonstrates the reasonableness of recommendation. is an appropriate provider of the requested compensatory , is prepared to provide the student with instruction from a New York State certified special education teacher who will utilize a approach through active learning techniques, modeling, content-based instruction, and manipulatives necessary to address the student’s (R. 47-48).
While the DOE requested that any relief awarded be provided at its standard rate (R. 15), it offered no evidence of its ability to provide the student with a at that rate trained to teach children diagnosed with The DOE will be directed to authorize the student’s receipt of of compensatory provided by the at an enhanced rate (R. 57; Ex. P-Z).
2. Compensatory
The DOE failed to mandate sufficient to address the student’s increasing needs and failed to provide all of the student’s mandated services (R. 68-70, 76, 81; Ex. P-C at 8). The hearing record reflects that (R. 66-67, 76, 81). Specifically, the DOE during the 2015/16 school year and during the 2016/17 school year (R. 86-89; Exs. P-D, P-H, PJ, P-K, P-O, P-P, P-Q, P-R, P-S, P-T). Given the student’s mandate of , the DOE will be directed to authorize the student’s receipt of , which it either failed to provide or from which the student derived no meaningful benefit.
3. Compensatory
The DOE failed to provide the student with as recommended by his May 7, 2014 evaluation (R. 65-67, 76, 81; Ex. P-B). The student’s / mandates for the 2015/16 and 2016/17 school years were insufficient given his difficulties (R. 66; Exs. P-C, PF). Moreover, the DOE failed to provide the student with any during the relevant time period (R. 72-73, 88). There were approximately instructional weeks of school at issue. Assuming a mandate of , the student is entitled to of which the DOE either failed to provide or from which the student derived no meaningful benefit.
4. Compensatory
The DOE ignored the parent’s concerns regarding the student’s need for (R. 77-78). Had the DOE evaluated the student and awarded session to address the student’s during each of the approximately at issue, the total number of hours provided would have equaled approximately (Exs. P-A at 3, P-C at 1, P-F at 3). As such, the student is entitled to that number of hours in compensatory services for the DOE’s failure to evaluate and provide needed services to the student during the years at issue.
VI. ORDER
NOW, THEREFORE, IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FINDING OF FACT,
ITI
HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The parent’s 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 the date of this Order, the DOE shall conduct and evaluations to determine the student’s current levels and needs;
3. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, the DOE shall conduct a and develop a tailored to the student’s unique needs;
4. Within thirty (30) days of its receipt of all of the evaluations listed above, the CSE shall convene a duly constituted IEP team to develop an appropriate IEP for the student; and
5. The DOE shall provide of compensatory ; of compensatory ; of compensatory , and of compensatory at an enhanced rate due to the DOE’s failure to evaluate, provide all mandated services, and provide a FAPE to the student.
Dated: March 15, 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
A. Individualized Education Program (IEP), 1/7/14, 14 pgs.
B. Assessment, 5/7/14, 8 pgs.
C. Individualized Education Program (IEP), 6/2/15, 12 pgs.
D. Notice, 4/19/16, 3 pgs.
E. Classroom Observation, 4/20/16, 2 pgs.
F. Individualized Education Program (IEP), 6/8/16, 13 pgs.
G. Waiver of IEP Meeting to Amend IEP, 6/28/16, 5 pgs.
H. Notice, 9/27/16, 1 pg.
— Form, 10/18/16, 1 pg.
Notice, 10/19/16, 2 pgs.
YR<FAZOcTOSnZP
Notice, 10/27/16, 1 pg.
Assessment Results, 11/10/16, 3 pgs.
Quarter 2 Report Card, 2016/17,
1 pg.
CSE Summary, 11/15/16, 1 pg.
Notice, 11/16/16, 1 pg.
Notice, 11/16/16, 1 pg.
Notice, 11/16/16, 1 pg.
Notice, 11/16/16, 2 pgs.
Notice, 11/16/16, 1 pg.
Notice, 11/16/16, 2 pgs.
Letter, 1/30/17, 1 pg.
Report Card, Period 2, Term 1 (2016/17), 2/17/17, 1 pg. , 3/1/17, 3 pgs. <Nx , 4/4/17, 9 pgs.
Observables, 5/4/17, 13 pgs.
Evaluation, 6/13/17, 7 pgs.
AA. Due Process Complaint Notice/Impartial Hearing Request, 4/27/17, 15 pgs.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
1. Due Process Response, 5/1/17, 4 pgs.
IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER
I. Confirmation of Extension, 7/3/17, 1 pg.
II. Confirmation of Extension, 8/9/17, 1 pg.
Ill. Confirmation of Extension, 9/11/17, 1 pg.
IV. Confirmation of Extension, 10/9/17, 1 pg.
V. Confirmation of Extension, 11/6/17, 1 pg.
VI. Confirmation of Extension, 12/11/17, 1 pg.
VII. Confirmation of Extension, 1/8/17, 1 pg.
VII. Confirmation of Extension, 2/5/18, 1 pg.
IX. | Confirmation of Extension, 3/1/18, 1 pg.
Footnotes
[1] ‘References to the hearing transcript are noted as “R.” References to exhibits admitted into evidence are noted as “Ex.” The parent withdrew claims regarding the 2014/15 school year prior to April 2015, as well as her request for adeferral to DOE’s Central Based Support Team (“CBST”’) (R. 17).
[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 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 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. 90-91; Exs. IHO-I - IHO-IX). See 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(c); 8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(5).
[6] 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 ; 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.