Impartial Hearing Decision

THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,

NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

In the Matter of and on behalf of Petitioners, v.

School District Respondent.

Case ID XXXXXX Findings of Fact and Order

I Introduction and Jurisdiction

The undersigned, James A. Monk, a duly certified Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO), having been so designated by the State Education Department, and heretofore having been duly appointed by the Board of Education of the School District (Respondent), pursuant to Chapter 853 of the Laws of New York (Section

4404 of the New York State Education Law) and in accordance with Section 200.5 (c), Regulations of the Commissioner of Education (Subchapter P, Part 200 - Children With

Handicapping Conditions) , to conduct a due process hearing upon the petition of XX (Child)

, by his parents, OO and NN (Parents/Petitioners). The due process hearing was held and a decision in this matter is being rendered pursuant to the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. Section 1400 et seq.

and its implementing regulations 34 C.F.R. section 300 et seq. and the New York State Education Law section 4404 et seq, and its implementing regulation 8 NYCRR section 200.5

et seq.

On June 26, 2017, I was appointed as Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) by the School District to conduct an impartial hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 29 U.S.C. §1415(f)(1) and Part 200 of the Regulations of the New York State Commissioner of Education regarding the educational program of (XX). The case convened on September 6, 2017.

Three 30-day extensions were granted in this case. A schedule for post-hearing submissions was established. Additional documents were requested and forwarded, and the record closed

(except for receipt of briefs) on November 14, 2017, when parent requested materials were received. Briefs were submitted and the record closed on December 18, 2017.

XX is an XX-year-old student (DOB XXXX) classified as having an of September, 2017, the School District indicated it did not have an appropriate in-district program for XX for 2017-2018 and presently his pendency placement is partial in district placement in a regular classroom with related services and home tutoring with related services provided to XX in the district. His parents, object to the district’s denial of their request to have XX educated full time in the district with related services.

The Due Process Complaint Notice, dated and received by the district on July 27, 2017, was filed by the parents and their advocate . The case was identified in the state's

Impartial Hearing Reporting System (IHRS) as Case # TTTT on the IEP of ZZZZ.

Appearing in this case for the district was , Esq. and representing the parents was advocate, On June 30, 2017, the district's Motion to Dismiss the Due Process Complaint was denied.

On July 20, 2017 a prehearing conference call was conducted. The parties participated in a pre hearing conference call and determined future hearing dates.

Hearing Officer’s Hearing Summary Case Number : TTTTTTTTTTTTT indicated on 9/7/17 IEP and Case # UUUUUU on Parents’ Brief on 12/18/17 Dates of Hearing: 9/6/17, 9/13/17, 9/19/17, 9/20/17, 11/13/17, 11/14/17 Date of Decision: 1/2/18 Student’s Name: XX Address: DELETED, , N.Y. 11040 Most Recent Designation of Handicapping Condition: Petitioner’s Name: OO and NN (for XX) Address: DELETED, , N.Y. 11040

Respondent’s Name: Schools Board of Education Address:

Issue/ Purpose of Hearing: To resolve the parents concern relative to School District providing an appropriate placement and program for XX in 2017-2018 in a regular classroom with related services.

Committee for Special Education Current Recommendation: BOCES Special class in a 6-1-1 class in the Middle School. Related services to include 1 hour weekly of 1-1 counseling, 1 hour weekly of 5-1 counseling. Supplementary aids and services, testing accommodations, participate in state and local assessments, and special transportation.

II Issues in the Case

The Due Process Complaint Notice in the case before the Free School District alleged that XX was being denied placement into the School District in violation of his right under IDEA to a free and appropriate education (FAPE), seeking as relief his enrollment and admission inside the School District in a regular grade 6 classroom with supplemental services.

It must be noted that no one at this proceeding took exception to the classification of XX 2017-2018 school year. Placement was the only contested matter, but all felt that XX was being provided with the appropriate classification recommendations needed to address his disabilities. In the Parents’ brief they rely on numerous alleged Commissioner’s Regulations having been violated including: 200.3(d) 200.4(a)(2)(iii)(a) 200.4(a)(2)(iii)(b) 200.4(a)(2)(iii)(c) 200.4(a)(2)(iv)(b)(2) 200.4(a)(2)(iv)(b)(9) 200.4(b)(1) 200.4(b)(6)(v), (vi), (vii), (ix), (x) and (xi) 200.4(c) 200.4(d) 200.4(d)(2) 200.1(qq) 200.1(ww) 200.4(d)(2)(v) 200.1(bbb) 200.4(d)(3) 200.4(d)(4) 200.4(d)(4) and (5) 200.4(e)

It is of great concern to this Hearing Officer in that not a single reference to these numerous alleged violations of Commissioner’s Regulations is mentioned or referenced in the original Parent Complaint authored by , the parent’s advocate. However, in the interest of fairness I will comment on some of these alleged violations to clarify the factual record before me. In accordance with 8 NYCRR 200.5(j)(1)(ii) the party requesting the hearing “shall not be allowed to raise issues at the impartial due process hearing that were not raised in the notice”.

The case against in the original claim challenged the recommendation made by the CSE for XX's program and placement outside the School District for the 2017-2018 school year. In addition the complaint claimed the district CSE Chairperson recommended an educational placement inconsistent with the child’s record, the district CSE Chairperson recommended an educational placement within a more restrictive learning environment than necessary, the district CSE Chairperson recommended an educational placement without exploring the possibility of implementing XX’s IEP goals within district, the district CSE Chairperson recommended an educational placement that the parents claim would do harm to the child, the district CSE Chairperson recommended an educational placement that did not take into account the child’s progress to date regarding his , the integrity of the CSE was compromised by numerous violations of State Regulations. In the parents brief they state that “The School District’s inability to effectively assist XX to overcome his issues” fails to recognize the impact of his being bullied.

This contention completely ignores the district CSE’s right to determine a placement and assumes incorrectly that the district has a program readily available in the district, which they have repeatedly indicated they do not have.

Furthermore in the parents’ brief they claim that (page 5) “the CSE decision making process violated the regulations” of the Commissioner of Education in numerous ways. (see above listed areas). The parent arbitrarily assumes that the LRE is “within district” but the program they suggest is simply not the LRE for XX at this time. The contention that implementing XX’s IEP within district remains entirely possible was clearly disputed by numerous district witnesses and not well supported even by some parent witnesses. The parents’ contention that absent an order compelling the district to implement XX’s IEP within the district, that district will continue to defy its legal obligations, is simply not supported by both case law and IDEA requirements.

I would be remiss if I did not note that I respect and sympathize with the parents efforts on behalf of their son and their desire to obtain the best possible treatment for XX, however, simply conceding repeatedly to XX’s insistence that he be chauffeured to school by his parents and stays only as long as he desires each day is NOT acceptable. As such, conceding this behavior to be acceptable is clearly NOT in their child’s best interests and resulted in academic obstacles that prevented XX from fulfilling his academic potential and allowed for unexcused absences to be legitimized.

III Findings of Fact

XX is an 11-year-old child, classified as a student with an . XX attended an elementary parochial school until mid year in grade three and then entered the School District from grade three through grade 6. XX was an early reader, able to decode, but with more difficulty in comprehension. Mathematics is very difficult for him. In math, he struggles with basic foundation concepts. His parents feel he needs tutoring for academic support in math..

The School District recommended a BOCES placement. BOCES Special class in a 6-1-1 class in the Middle School with related services to include 1 hour weekly of 1-1 counseling, 1 hour weekly of 5-1 counseling and Supplementary aids and services, testing accommodations, participate in state and local assessments, and special transportation.

Special education programs in the School District have proven to be insufficient to address all of XX’s emotional and social deficits. For resident students whose needs are more intensive and for whom the district does not have an appropriate program to meet the student's needs, placement is typically sought in another School District, a BOCES program, an approved private school, a day school program, or a state operated school or residential program.

From the start, the parents expressed their strong feeling that was their community, a theme voiced throughout many conversations, and that it was important that XX stay with the children with whom he had gone to school and maintained friendships as he transitioned out of elementary school as well as attend the school district that his siblings would be attending.

understanding of applicable law was that the district was obligated to enroll a student in a district elementary school "unless there's a valid and sufficient reason to enroll the student elsewhere." There was considerable misunderstanding among all parties about the obligation of concerning XX.

The refusal by to educate XX in-district was based on its belief that the district's regular sixth grade class was not an appropriate placement for XX in 2017-2018. They claimed it would be appropriate for him to participate in the BOCES program described above.

, Director of Special Education, testified that there is no intensive therapeutic support program required in order for XX to make academic progress in the district, and they did not have enough student population to develop such a program. The district took the position that there would be nothing to be gained for XX in placing him in the regular sixth grade classroom for the 2017-2018 school year as the parents repeatedly demanded.

The parents' actions were based on their belief that community integration was paramount for XX. Ms. ht fied at length about the importance of XX attending school in , stating that his success in the future is going to be predicated upon the friendships and networks developed in the community. She also testified about the benefits of community for XX, citing friends, parties, and church attendance.

The July 20, 2017 IEP for XX for the 2017-2018 school year provided a special class of 6:1:1 that would address his needs in English, math, science, social studies and student and parent counseling and training.

The IEP had nine goals for XX in the 2017-2018 school year. The CSE meeting was contentious, and the concern was not about goals or classification but about the locale of the placement, which was the parents' biggest concern. The meeting addressed recommendations for placement. The parents objected to the recommendations of the CSE, and refused to send XX to the BOCES program. The parents continued to refuse to send XX to BOCES, even on an interim or pendency basis as an IHO hearing ensued. Their objection was based primarily on location, although they also disputed the appropriateness of an 6:1:1 placement. They also stated their objection to the class as being inappropriate due to the composition of the children, although their refusal to place him was clear at the CSE meeting and long before they had seen any profile of the class. The parents' objection was consistent again declaring any outside placement to be an inappropriate placement because it was not in their community.

My duty is to assess whether the district has offered a FAPE for XX, under IDEA, NY Education Law §4400 et seq., and federal and state regulations.

In the parents' post-hearing brief, there are multiple alleged violations of regulations and yet the original hearing complaint mentions nothing about most of these “violations” and declares his placement in the district school as the only appropriate placement possible.

Assessment of XX's needs must include weighing the benefits that might accrue by attending school near to his home, as indicated by the preference in regulation for a child to attend school near to his home, against benefits only available out of the district. It was undisputed that the parents had no disagreement with the IEP goals and objectives. I note Mr. and Mrs. X's agreement with evaluations and goals on the IEPs other than location. Ms. X was adamant that nothing else was at issue, that for the school year she had no complaint about review of XX's goals, evaluations, discussions relevant to those goals and evaluations, and that her complaint focused on geographic placement. There was no real dispute about the degree of counseling support needed by XX.

Although the parents disputed whether a suitable program could only be addressed out of district, there was no real dispute with the type of program. They agreed that implementation of XX's IEP would require some related services in academic areas identified as weak.

PPS Director, , stressed the importance that a program with intense therapeutic counseling would be for XX because of his inability to accept and understand the requirements of attending school regularly. Also placing XX in a class with non disabled students would be an inappropriate action, depriving him of educational benefit.

Central to this case are the questions of whether the district has an obligation to create an in-district program for the child and whether the child’s parents have the right to demand the district create an appropriate program within the district. The parent argued that the requirement governing least restrictive environment required a comprehensive definition of inclusion that included the concept of community integration within a child's IEP, falsely assuming that this automatically entitles XX to placement in the School District.

The parties disagreed on the size or structure of a program for XX. Thus the parties disagreed about what constituted least restrictive environment for XX. Both - and XX's parents expressed a willingness to seek an appropriate placement, the parents, however, only agreeing if offered in-district. Again, the only bone of contention was in the district or at BOCES. In fact, the parents argued in their brief that “XX’s IEP, itself amounts to bullying of XX and his family by the district to railroad XX into having an education diminished in quality in a setting that will cause him real emotional disturbance.” In addition, the parents claimed that bullying was a major issue at school but could not cite any incidents other than a brief confrontation between XX and a classmate to back up this claim.

The focus of the parents' claim was exclusively on their argument concerning location, stressing the importance of community above all other factors in XX's success. Although much of their argument is based on general information about children and largely on speculation about how XX would react negatively if placed at BOCES, the parents' concern for their child is unquestioned and their concerns for his welfare are genuine.

The implementation of XX’s IEP as requested by the parents cannot be accommodated as currently structured within the School District. The district does not have a 6:1:1 program with all the related services offered at the out of district BOCES setting.

Clouding the matter further, in an attempt to gain support for their claims, the parents employed a consultant, , LCSW, to support their claim that any change of schools (to BOCES) would be clinically inappropriate and detrimental to XX’s continued success. The consultant examined programs both inside and outside the district for XX and made recommendations in accordance with the results of her review.

Consultant after conducting a thorough review, concluded that ”XX with supplementary aids and supports would benefit from inclusion in class within the district and would make meaningful progress in the in-district school that is as close to his home as possible, specifically a Elementary School, the school he would have attended if he did not have a disability.” Unfortunately, failed to take into account that the district had no appropriate program for students with similar needs to XX and a far more appropriate setting was available in a nearby district BOCES program. She reviewed district records pertaining to the student, observed XX within the in-district setting where related services were provided as well as in the home where the academic instruction was imparted, visited numerous district classes, and reviewed class profiles within the UFSD middle school. She disagreed with the final CSE recommendation providing for XX’s placement in a neighboring school district. It provided him with a functional program that possessed strong transitional programs to the high school level and supplementary aids and services within the neighboring district BOCES program. testified that XX’s anxiety was partially a result of marital problems between his mother and father with Dr. licensed psychiatrist, specifically found that the -

UFSD did not currently have available special education classes and instructional groupings that would be able to accommodate XX. She recommended four things that could address XX’s disabilities.

1. Gradual regaining of control by the parents regarding dealing with defiance.

2. Treatment of XX for psychiatric concerns.

3. Development of a behavioral plan in the home to create an incentive program encouraging XX to improve his attitude toward school.

4. Discourage home schooling to compel XX to attend school and become associated with his peers.

IV Conclusions of Law

The New York State Legislature amended the Education Law to place the burden of production and persuasion upon the School District during an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of production and persuasion regarding the appropriateness of such placement (Educ. Law § 4404[1][c], as amended by Ch. 583 of the Laws of 2007). The amended statute took effect for impartial hearings commenced on or after October 14, 2007 (see Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 08-016).

In order to make an appropriate recommendation, it is necessary to have adequate and sufficient evaluative information (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 05-062; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-114; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-100; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-044; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 02-008). When a child suspected of having a disability is referred to a CSE, the CSE must ensure that an individual evaluation of the referred child is performed. An individual evaluation must include at least a physical examination, an individual psychological evaluation, a social history, an observation and other appropriate assessments or evaluations as necessary to ascertain the physical, mental behavioral and emotional factors which contribute to the suspected disability (8 NYCRR 200.^[4] (b)(1). Neither federal nor state regulations prescribe a particular set of tests which must be used in each evaluation (34 C.F.R.sect.300.532,8NYCRR 200.1)

The law requires that a child’s IEP include “a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services, based upon peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable to be provided to the child” 20 U.S.C. s 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)IV.

Under the IDEA and its implementing regulations an IEP must contain:

1. The student’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance.

2. Measurable annual goals for the child.

3. The methods used to measure the student’s progress toward those goals.

5. An explanation of the extent to which the student will be educated with nondisabled peers.

6. The reasons for any alternate assessments.

7. The start date for recommended services, their duration, and their frequency. 20 USC s.1414(d)(1)(A); 8 NYCRR tit. 8 s. 200.4(d)(2).

Under IDEA all children with special needs are entitled to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) and it must include special education and related services which meet the needs of the student and they must be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. Hendrick Hudson CSD v Rowley (20 USC s1400(d)(1)(A). Nothing that the parents presented disputed the fact that the IEP offered XX in 2017-2018 met his needs and was reasonably calculated to enable him to receive educational benefits.

A FAPE has been defined as an education offered to a student when 1. A board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA and 2. The IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA’s procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (See Exhibit P). (again Rowley). The CSE met and adopted the educational goals and objectives in the 7/20/17 IEP that included a setting outside the district that provides for a program that can best serve to meet XX’s needs with all the supplementary aides and services.

If procedural violations are alleged as set forth in the IDEA an IHO may find that a child did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a) impeded the child’s right to a FAPE (b) significantly impeded the parent's’ opportunity to participate in the decision making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the child or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits. 20 U.S.C. s1415(f)(3)(E0(ii). Reference in this decision is also made to the Least Restrictive Environment. The students’ recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment. 20 U.S.C. s 1412(a)(5)(A). The LRE is defined as “one that, to the greatest extent possible, satisfactorily educates disabled children together with children who are not disabled, in the same school the disabled child would attend if the child were not disabled”. I did not see any indication of procedural violations, nor did I see any evidence of any violation of the parents’ rights to participate in the decision making process.

The statute ensures an "appropriate" education, "not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents" (WalczXX, 142 F.3d at 132, quoting Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d 563, 567 [2d Cir. 1989] [citations omitted]; see Grim, 346 F.3d at 379). Additionally, School Districts are not required to "maximize" the potential of students with disabilities (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199; Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; WalczXX, 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'" (Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195, quoting WalczXX, 142 F.3d at 130 [citations omitted]; see Perricelli, 2007 WL 465211, at *15). The IEP must be "reasonably calculated to provide some 'meaningful' benefit" (Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 [2d Cir. 1997]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192). The student's recommended program must also be provided in the LRE (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.114[a][2][i], 300.116[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[cc], 200.6[a][1]; see P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 114 [2d Cir. 2008]. The IEP (Exhibit D3) developed on 7/20/17 meets the requirements as set forth in the above decisions.

The parents’ claim that a FAPE was not offered to XX in the year in question and that the Supreme Court decision in the Forest Grove Decision Forest Grove School District v T.A. 557 U.S. 230 (2009) entitles the parents to equitable considerations and are relevant in fashioning relief. The parents, however, fall short in proving that a FAPE was not offered by the School District in the 2017-2018 school year at issue. In fact, nothing offered by the parents substantiates a denial of FAPE by the School District other than speculative arguments against the recommendations of the CSE to place XX in an appropriate setting outside the School District. I find that the parents claim is not supported by equitable considerations. There is no evidence that the parents had a sincere interest in exploring options offered by the CSE and it can be inferred from their actions subsequent to and prior to each CSE meeting that the parents had no intention to accept the CSE recommendations unless the CSE agreed to in-district placement.

The principles of least restrictive environment apply to various self-contained placements across the continuum as well. The law recognizes the need to weigh the importance of providing an appropriate education and the benefits to be gained from services which cannot be obtained in a less restrictive setting. P. v. Newington Bd. of Ed., 546 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2008); Roncker v. Walter, 700F.2d 1058 (6th,Cir. 1983), cert. denied 464 US 864,104 S.Ct.196.

School Districts are required to ensure that a continuum of alternative placements be available to meet the needs of students with disabilities for special education and related services. Under the law, however, placement does not mean a particular school, but rather a setting, such as regular classes, special education classes, and special schools. 34 CFR §300.115, 8 NYCRR §200.6. No federal or appellate court has recognized right to a neighborhood school assignment under the IDEA. Placement within the district, although a legitimate concern of parents that a child attend school with other neighborhood children, has been held to be a concern beyond the educational benefit inquiry made under IDEA. White v. Ascension Parish School Board, 343 F.3d 373 (2003); Lebron v. N. Penn Sch. Dist.; 769 F. Supp. 2d 788 (2011); see also Application of A Student with a Disability, Appeal No, 15-028, April 1, 2014.

Least restrictive environment for XX involves a procedural as well as a substantive review. “Case law regarding inclusion requires a demonstration by the district that programs and services could not be implemented within a regular education classroom with supplementary aids. Oberti v. Bd. of Educ. Borough of ementon Sch. Dist., 995 F.2d 1204 (3d Cir·. 1993).” The testimony of both , Director of Special Education, and , School Psychologist, demonstrated that programs and services could not be implemented within a classroom inside the school district for XX. was criticized by the parents for her communication with claiming that she misled staff and caused undue hardship on their family. They did not, however, present any proof of their claims.

Ms. , BOCES Assistant Principal, testified in detail about the program that was offered to XX for the 2017-2018 school year. The program was referred to as the ISP program (Intensive Support Program) and included a.) Family Counseling and Therapy, b.)Small class size. c.) Incentive based programs d.) Truncated days and e.) clinical services from the Center, a mental health agency.

“Although geographic proximity remains a factor that the district must consider, the district has authority to select the school site as long as it is educationally appropriate, and the district has fulfilled its legal obligations by considering placing the student in his neighborhood school before deciding to implement his IEP elsewhere. IDEA §601 et seq., 34 CFR §300.116(b)(3),(c). Lebron v. N. Penn Sch. Dist., 769 F. Supp. 2d 788(2011). See also Beth v. Van clay, 282 F.3d 493 (2002).” is not required to create a program, but it is required to examine whether XX's needs can be met within a district class with supplementary aids and services. I feel that they have conducted this examination and made a well informed determination.

Order

It is the decision of this hearing officer as follows: After careful review of the record before me I am issuing a final decision. The issues originally before me have remained constant. The dispute centered around the appropriate placement and program for XX for the school year 2017-2018.

The District has sustained its burden to demonstrate that it was fully prepared to provide a FAPE for the challenged school year. There is no reason to doubt that an improved level of progress would have resulted had XX attended the School District recommended out of district placement. The IHO finds that the District had both the intention and the resources to offer XX a FAPE in 2017-2018. In addition, the IHO finds that the parents preferred in district placement for XX is not the LRE. It does not, in fact, meet any of the established criteria as outlined for the Least Restrictive Environment. The IDEA requires all students with disabilities be moved to a more restrictive school setting when “the nature and severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily”. 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(5)(A). The testimony and information produced in the record does not demonstrate any reasonable accommodation at School District could be made, nor how XX’s numerous academic deficits could be addressed within district. The record will also show ample proof of the need to address XX’s academic deficits and IEP goals and these were best met out of district.

XX’s inability to function in a mainstream setting because of his anxiety and skill deficits has been well established and with the appropriate support system he likely would have to progressed in the CSE recommended program in 2017-2018.

It is the decision of this Hearing Officer that the School District did, in fact, offer an appropriate program and placement for XX during the year in question. The testimony from district witnesses was consistent in explaining the intentions of the district in addressing XX’s specific academic and social needs. Even though the parents were adamant in disagreeing with the contested IEP placement, the program that was to be offered XX as described by district personnel was appropriate and, in all likelihood, would have benefitted XX.

After carefully reviewing the entire record, I have determined that the district's recommended program and placement for the 2017-2018 school year was reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit and thus, offered the student a FAPE in the LRE. My decision was guided by my intention to apply the proper legal standard in determining whether XX was offered a FAPE in the LRE, including whether the School District complied with the procedural requirements in the IDEA and whether the recommended special education programs and services were reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit.

The parties are ordered to implement the CSE recommended IEP for 2017-2018. The parents’ insistence on an in-district program and placement are not a viable alternative for the 2017-2018 school year.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF THE PARTIES RIGHT TO APPEAL AS DESCRIBED IN

THE ACCOMPANYING “FINALITY OF DECISION; APPEAL; IMPARTIAL REVIEW.

This decision rendered January 2, 2018.

_________________________

Impartial Hearing Officer

Dr. James A. Monk

APPENDIX A: WITNESSES

, Director, Pupil and Personnel Services, y School District , Consultant assigned by the School District , Consultant assigned by the School District , Consultant Advocate hired by the Parents , Mother of XX

, Father of XX and Parent’s Attorney

APPENDIX B: EXHIBITS (Attached)

---

Footnotes

[4] The special education and related services that the IEP recommends.