NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
______________________________________________________________________
In the Matter of the Due Process Hearing Between
The Parents of BLANK BLANK And
REDACTED SCHOOL DISTRICT
NYSED Case #513131 Pursuant to the Provisions of Article 89 of the Education Law of the State of New York
JAMES P. WALSH, ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer 381 Delaware Avenue Delmar NY 12054
APPEARANCES:
REDACTED PLLC
Attorneys for District REDACTED Street REDACT , New York REDAC
ED TED
REDACTED , ESQ. Of Counsel
REDACTED
Attorneys for Parent
REDACTED
REDACTED , New York REDAC TED REDACTED , ESQ, Of Counsel
DECISION
JURISDICTION
This proceeding was commenced by the Parents of BLANK BLANK, a student residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the REDACTED Central School District and a student previously determined to be a student with a disability, (hereinafter referred to as “Student”), by the filing by their attorneys, the Law Office of REDACTED , of a Due Process Complaint Notice, with the REDACTED Central School District (hereinafter referred to as “District), dated April 16, 2018. The proceeding was brought pursuant to the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C §1400 et seq.; New York State Education Law §4400 et seq.; and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
In accordance with the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, the undersigned was appointed as the Impartial Hearing Officer authorized to preside over the above-captioned proceeding on April 19, 2018. In such Letter of Appointment, I was advised that Attorney REDACTED of the Firm of REDACTED , L.L.P. would serve as Counsel for the District.
Pre-Hearing Conferences were thereafter conducted with the attorneys for the respective parties on May 24, 2018; June 18, 2018; June 21, 2018 and July 16, 2018. Hearing dates were thereafter established for September 26, 2018 and September 27, 2018. However, such hearing dates were cancelled when Parents, through their attorneys, the Law Office of REDACTED , filed an Amended Due Process Complaint, dated September 20, 2018 and accepted by District on that date. Hereafter, Pre-Hearing Conference was conducted on October 26, 2018. Hearings were scheduled to be conducted on January 24, 2019; January 25; 2019; February 7, 2019 and February 8, 2019. District, through its attorney Andrew Freedman, filed District’s Response to Parents’ April 16, 2018 Complaint, dated January 4, 2019 and District’s Response to Parents’ September 20, 2018 Amended Complaint, dated January 16, 2019 (I.H.O. Exhibit II) .The hearings that had been scheduled for January 24, 2019; January 25; 2019; February 7, 2019 and February 8, 2019 were cancelled at my request and my concern for driving to the hearing site in mid-Winter, with the consent of both attorneys. Thereafter those hearings were rescheduled for April 10, 2019; April 11, 2019; May 2, 2019 and May 3, 2019. However, I was thereafter advised that District would be presented in this proceeding by Attorney REDAC of the TED firm of REDACTED PLLC. Due to schedule conflicts, the established hearing dates were scrubbed and reset for April 29, 2019; April 30, 2019; May 30, 2019; and May 31, 2019.
THE COMPLAINT
As noted, Parents filed an Amended Due Process Complaint on September 20, 2018 (District’s Exhibit 1). Such superseded Parents’ original Complaint, dated April 10, 2018 (District’s Exhibit 3). District filed its Response to such Amended Complaint, dated January 10, 2019 (District Exhibit 2), which superseded District’s Response to Parents original Complaint, dated January 4, 2019 (District’s Exhibit 4). Both Parents’ original Complaint (District Exhibit 3) and District’s Response thereto (District Exhibit 4) are no longer relevant.
Parents’ Amended Complaint (District’s Exhibit 1) (hereinafter referred to as “Parents’ Due Process Complaint” or “Parents’ Complaint”) alleged that District had failed to offer Student a Free, Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) by failing to recommend appropriate instruction and/or services for Student during a portion of the 2016-2017 school, the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 school years. Parents sought compensatory services for the 2016-2017 school year, and reimbursement of tuition paid by Parents for their unilateral placement of Student at the BLANK BLANK School during the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 school years.
THE HEARING
Hearings were held in the above referenced proceeding at the REDACTED Central School District Offices, located in REDACTED , New York on April 29, 2019; April 30, 2019; May 30, 2019; May 31, 2019; June 26, 2019; June 27, 2019: and July 8, 2019. The parties were advised, prior to the commencement of the receipt of testimony, that each would have the right to call witnesses on their behalf, to cross-examine witnesses called by the other party and to offer exhibits into evidence. The parties were further advised that nothing except the sworn testimony of the witnesses appearing in this Proceeding and the contents of the exhibits received into evidence would be considered in my determination of this matter.
The District, in submitting its case-in-chief, presented the testimony of three (3) witnesses. They were:
BLANK BLANK District’s Coordinator of Special Education Programs; Attended all of Student’s Committee on Special Education Meetings
BLANK BLANK A Special Education Teacher Employed by District;
Was Student’s Special Education Teacher during the 2015-2016 (Third Grade) and 2016-2017 (Fourth Grade) school years
BLANK BLANK A Speech Pathologist Employed by District and
Assigned to District’s BLANK BLANK Elementary School – Served as Student’s Speech Therapist during the 2015-2016 (Third Grade) and 2016-2017
(Fourth Grade) school years
In addition to the testimony of the above witnesses, District offered one hundred nine (109) exhibits into evidence, one hundred eight (108) of which were received and considered.
Parents submitted the testimony of five witnesses. They were:
BLANK BLANK Parent of Student
BLANK BLANK Parent of Student
REDACTED Parent Advocate – Assisted Parent at
C.S.E. and School Meetings
BLANK BLANK Fellow of the Orton-Gillingham Academy –
Supervised Testing and Instruction of Student
BLANK BLANK Ed.D. Director of BLANK BLANK School In addition to the testimony of the above witnesses, Parents offered ninety-three exhibits into evidence, but thereafter withdrew twenty-two of them, leaving a total of seventy-one exhibits which were considered.
A listing of all such exhibits appears at the conclusion of this Decision
At the close of proceedings, both parties requested the opportunity to submit Post-Hearing briefs, which requests were granted as long as such were submitted no later than the Close of Business on August 16, 2019. However, as Transcript of the final day of hearing was not timely received, at the joint request of the parties, that date was extended to September 6, 2019. I also granted the application to expand Closing Briefs from thirty pages to fifty pages. Thereafter, I granted the parties the opportunity to submit Rebuttal Briefs, so long as such were forwarded by September 19, 2019. Each party timely submitted Closing Briefs and each timely submitted Rebuttal Briefs. All have been read and considered. The Actual Record Close Date was September 23, 2019.
DISCUSSION
Student is approaching his BLANK Birthday, having been born on BLANK BLANK. However, during the 2015-2016 school year, the first year in which Parents have alleged a complaint, Student was nine years of age and in the Third Grade at District’s BLANK BLANK Elementary School. Student is classified as having Autism.
Student was evaluated in April and May of 2015, as Student was preparing to proceed to Third Grade. Student’s I.E.P. (Parent’s Exhibit 4) reflects scores Student achieved when given the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test – Third Edition (WIAT-III). Such showed that Student was functioning in all areas – Basic Reading Skills; Math Problem Solving; Numerical Operations; Oral Expression; and Word Reading; at a Kindergarten Level or below. On the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals – Fifth Edition (CELF-5), for Ages 5-8, Student scored at the first percentile or below in all tested areas: Core Language Index; Expressive Language Index; and Receptive Language Index. In that I.E.P. it is noted that “[Student] has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. He exhibits significant delays in speech/language skills, fine motor, and academic skills which interferes with participation in age appropriate school activities. He presents social, functional, and behavioral needs that require adults to provide structure and supports throughout the school day”.
It appears that no further formal testing has taken place since that time, although Student’s triennial reevaluation, which should have occurred in April of 2018, has not, apparently due to Parents’ refusal to provide District with consent. Thus, Student’s most recent I.E.P., created on August 27, 2018 (District’s Exhibit 8) reflects the same Test Scores as did Student’s I.E.P. of 2015 (Parents’ Exhibit 4).
However, while Student’s Present Levels of Performance have not been kept current, there is information regarding Student in the description of Student’s Academic Achievement, Functional Performance and Learning Characteristics, which describe student as well as including summations of various evaluations. Thus, in the I.E.P. prepared by District’s C.S.E. on August 25, 2017 (District’s Exhibit 23), it is reported that Student can read approximately one hundred fifty sight words; that Student knows all the letters and letter sounds; that when presented with an unfamiliar text, Student relies on the beginning letter to identify the word; that Student can listen to a short paragraph and answer various “wh” questions; that the legibility and size of Student’s writing has improved; that Student can consistently count to one hundred; can identify coins and tell time to the hour; that Student is friendly and energetic and enjoys interacting with adults and with non-disabled peers.
Student’s mother is a certified Special Education Teacher, who has served as such in a number of school districts, including the REDACTED Central School District. Parent has been an active proponent for Student at both C.S.E. meetings and in informal classroom discussions with staff regarding Student. As Student was advancing into Third Grade, Parent expressed concerns regarding Student’s inability to read. Parent and District personnel discussed, both formally and informally, various reading programs from which Student might benefit, as well as the need as perceived by Parent for Student to have a Reading Specialist as a part of his program. There appears to be agreement that during Student’s Third and Fourth Grade years, Student could not read.
As might be expected from the fact that this proceeding involved the testimony received over seven days of hearing and the receipt and examination of the plethora of exhibits received into evidence, the interaction of the parties over the two years in which Student was in District’s Third Grade and Fourth Grade programs at BLANK BLANK Elementary School were often perceived differently, resulting in the presentation of many disputed issues. I find no benefit or purpose in reviewing the conflicting testimony contained in the Record, except in those areas that directly impact upon those decisions I am required to make in this proceeding.
During a Pre-Hearing Conference conducted on May 16, 2019, the parties reviewed and agreed to the issues presented in this proceeding. Those issued, as set out in.my correspondence to both attorneys, dated May 17, 2019 (I.H.O. Exhibit I), were:
Tuition Reimbursement for the unilateral placement by Parent of Student at BLANK BLANK School for the 2017-2018 school year; Tuition Reimbursement for the unilateral placement by Parent of Student at BLANK BLANK School for the 2018-2019 school year:
Compensation Services for the 2016-2017 school year in Reading and Speech;
Reimbursement of monies paid by Parent to BLANK BLANK for services;
Transportation.
I will consider those issues separately and in an amended order.
ISSUE ONE
IS STUDENT ENTILED TO COMPENSATION SERVICES
FOR THE 2016-2017 SCHOOL YEAR IN READING AND SPEECH?
Both parties concur that Compensatory Services are equitable in nature and are appropriate where a student has been denied a free, appropriate public education (FAPE). It has been stated that a FAPE is offered to a student when (a) a board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) the IEP developed by its CSE through those procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]). However, such statement is no longer exactly accurate. For, while school districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures, not all procedural errors will render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (A.C. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 5505470, at *4 [2d Cir. Jan. 16, 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 as amended, if a procedural violation is 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 Parent' 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 (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; E.H. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 3930028, at *7 [N.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2008]; 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]). It has also been stated that an appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student's needs (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]), establishes annual goals related to those needs (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]), and provides for the use of appropriate special education services (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][4]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]; see Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 07-018; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-059; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 06-029; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04- 046; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-014; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 93-9).17 The student's recommended program must also be provided in the Least Restrictive Environment (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., 2008 WL 4509089, at *7 [2d Cir. Oct. 9, 2008]; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 [2d Cir. 2007]; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132). The IDEA directs that, in general, an impartial hearing officer's decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][i]). A school district offers a FAPE "by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction" (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 v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 [2d Cir. 1998]; 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 Parent" (Walczak, 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; 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'" (Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195, quoting Walczak, 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).
However, before embarking on any review to determine whether District failed to offer Student a free, appropriate public education during a portion of the 2015-2016 school year, it is necessary to consider District’s contention that the Statute of Limitations regarding claims brought pursuant to the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Article Eighty-Nine of the Education Law of the State of New York limits Parents’ contention.
Commissioner’s Regulations (8 NYCRR 200.5(j)(1)(i) require that:
“The request for an impartial due process hearing must be submitted within two years of the date the parent or agency knew or should have known about the alleged action that forms the basis of the complaint…” District notes that Parents’ Due Process Complaint was served upon District on April 16, 2018. District asserted its right to challenge Parents’ Complaint on the basis of the Statute of Limitations at the Pre-Hearing Conference of May 16, 2018 (I.H.O. Exhibit I). District contends that Parents are limited by such Statute to the period between April 16, 21016 and the close of the 2015-2016 school year – a period of some ten weeks. I concur with such contention and limit Parents to the ten-week period specified above.
District’s C.S.E. convened on April 22, 2016. The Minutes of that meeting (District Exhibit 56) reflect that Special Education Teacher BLANK stated that she was working on Orton-Gillingham with Student and that Student was making limited progress. Parents challenge appears to be based on the fact that Special Education Teacher BLANK was not certified by the Orton-Gillingham Academy. However, it appears that
Orton-Gillingham, as referred to in this proceeding, is a method - and a method Ms. BLANK had become familiar with while at Summit – a private facility primarily addressing the needs of children with Autism – and by attending training sessions with RLAC during which the Orton-Gillingham methodology was reviewed. There was no requirement that Ms. BLANK be certified in such methodology. While Parent claims to have been misled by the Building Principal as to what methodology Ms. BLANK was using in her classroom, such does not establish that Student was not receiving FAPE. Moreover, I.E.P.’s should not specify a particular methodology, but should leave such to the determination of the Special Education Teacher.
It is my finding and determination that the Record is bereft of any testimony or exhibit that comes anywhere near establishing that, during the last ten weeks of the 2015-2016 school year, Student was not afforded FAPE. The I.E.P. established by the C.S.E. on April 22, 2016 (District’s Exhibit 55) was, with the Related Services contained therein and Student’s placement in Ms. BLANK’s 8:1+1 Special Class, sufficient to meet Student’s needs and insure some progress. Nothing more is required.
Parents’ claim for Compensatory Services based upon a denial of FAPE during the latter portion of the 2015-2016 school year is DENIED.
ISSUE TWO
ARE PARENTS ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF
MONIES PAID BY PARENT TO BLANK BLANK
FOR SERVICES?
District opposes any reimbursement to Parents for moneys paid to BLANK BLANKfor services during the summer of 2017, noting that Parents seeking reimbursement have the burden of proof and the burden of persuasion regarding their unilateral securement of private services. However, I find I need no review this claim, as Parents’ Counsel has abandoned this issue, stating in Parents’ Rebuttal Brief that:
“This issue is moot since Parents did not submit any proof on this issue. The Parents did not pursue reimbursement for Speech Language services the mother had obtained from private providers while the Student was at REDACTED Central School District which is consistent with that the mother would optimize and maximize the student’s services.” Based upon the statement of Parents’ Counsel, the “claim” for monies paid by Parents to REDACTE Speech and Hearing is DISMISSED. D
ISSUE THREE
ARE PARENTS ENTITLED TO TUITION REIMBURSEMENT
FOR THE UNILATERAL PLACEMENT BY PARENTS
OF STUDENT AT THE BLANK BLANK SCHOOL FOR THE 2017-2018
SCHOOL YEAR?
Student continued in Ms. BLANK’s 8:1+1 Special Class for the 2016-2017 school year, while also receiving the Related Services set out in Student’s I.E.P. of April 22, 2016 (District Exhibit 55). At a Meeting of District’s C.S.E. conducted on August 25, 2017, an I.E.P. was created which continued Student’s program, consisting of an 8:1+1 Special Class and the Related Services set out in Student’s previous I.E.P.’s, but with Student’s placement at District’s BLANK Middle School (District Exhibit 23. By notification to District from Parents’ attorney, dated October 31, 2017, Parents advised District that they were removing Student from District and rejecting the placement prosed by District’s C.S.E. on August 25. 2017. The letter further advised that Parents intended to enroll Student in the BLANK BLANK School at public expense for the remainder of the (2017-2018) school year (Parents’ Exhibit 53).
It has been established that Boards of Education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a child by the child’s Parent, if (1) the services offered by the Board of Education were inadequate or inappropriate; (2) the services selected by the Parent were appropriate and; (3) equitable considerations support the Parent’s claim. Such prerequisites were established by the United States Supreme Court when considering claims for reimbursement brought by Parent who had unilaterally placed their disabled child in a private facility. (School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985); Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-052). Further, it was later held that the fact that the facility selected by the Parent to provide special education services to the child had not been approved as a school for children with disabilities by the state agency would not be dispositive of a Parent’s claim for tuition reimbursement (Florence County School District 4 et al. v. Carter by Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]).
The Court noted that Parents who unilaterally decide to place their child do so at their own financial risk.
Burden of Proof
Generally, in applying the three-prong standard enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Burlington and Carter decisions above-cited, it is necessary, in my consideration of the issues presented, that I first determine whether or not the School District offered to the student a free, appropriate public education. The guidelines for such determination have been set out previously in this Decision. However, Commissioner’s Regulations (8 NYCRR 200.5(j)(4)(1)(ii)) adds the following:
In matters alleging a procedural violation, an impartial hearing officer may find that a student did not receive a free, appropriate public education only if the procedural inadequacies impeded the student’s right to a free, appropriate public education, significantly impeded a parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a free, appropriate public education to the parent’s child, or caused a deprivation of educational benefits.
The burden of initially establishing that a student has received a free, appropriate public education rests upon the District (N.Y.S. Education Law§4404). Under the guidelines established by Burlington and Carter, should I determine that District offered Student an appropriate educational program, my inquiry into parent’s request for reimbursement would cease at that point, for if a district has offered an appropriate program, a parent’s right to the requested relief must be denied. Under the same guidelines, if it is determined that District failed to establish the appropriateness of its proffered program, I would then proceed to determine the appropriateness of the Parents’ unilaterally-selected educational facility. The burden of establishing the appropriateness of such program rests upon Parents (N.Y.S. Education Law §4404). Should Parents fail to establish the appropriateness of the unilaterally-selected facility, Parents’ request for relief must be denied. If the unilaterally-selected educational facility is determined to be appropriate, I must, because the awarding of any relief is possible only by an invocation of the equitable powers inherent in the proceeding, then review the equities in order to determine whether equitable considerations favor an award of any relief to the Parents.
Federal Regulations mandate that at the beginning of each school year, a district must have in effect an IEP for each child with a disability (34 CFR §300.323). District has adopted a policy of having its I.E.P.’s run for one year from its Annual Review date (T.R.54).
The Annual Review for Student for the 2017-2018 school year was of particular importance inasmuch as Student would be transitioning from his Elementary School setting to a Middle School setting. Further, Student’s behavior in the school had seriously escalated, which had resulted in a number of Incident Reports District (Exhibits 59 to 62). The Annual Review of Student’s program for the 2017-2018 school year took place on April 28, 2017. However, the Committee made no determination of the nature or placement of Student’s program at such Annual Review. Rather, it decided that Student’s program for the next (2017-2018) year would not be determined and that the Committee would reconvene due to Parent’s previous request to have her attorney present. The Minutes of that meeting (District Exhibit 33) note that “The CSE will reconvene before the end of June to discuss ESY and fall program and services.”. Witness BLANK, District’s Coordinator of Special Education Programs and who served as District Representative at the meeting, testified that the reason why the Committee had not determined Student’s program for the 2017-2018 school year was that Parent’s Advocate REDACTED “had actually stipulated that the parent did not want to talk about September’s programming”.
(T.R.194). However, Witness REDACTED pointedly denied having made such statement. I find Witness REDACTED ’s testimony to be credible.
It is my finding and determination that District committed a serious procedural violation by failing to determine Student’s program and placement for the 2017-2018 school year at its April 22, 2017 meeting.
District’s Committee next convened on June 21, 2017. As noted, the Committee had determined in April of 2017 that it would reconvene before the end of June to discuss ESY and fall program and services. However, at the reconvention, the Committee, according to the Minutes of such meeting (District’s Exhibit 28), that:
“[T]his meeting was for the purpose of discussing ESY program and services. The advocate indicated that the family wanted to add in programing for next year as well. The district is not prepared at this time to discuss next year’s program and plans on meeting in the summer to determine this”. Parent had been assured by the Committee in April of 2017 that the Committee would reconvene to discuss ESY and fall program and services. Yet, what should have been determined in April, at Student’s Annual Review, was again being denied to Parent.
District’s C.S.E. again reconvened on August 25, 2017. The meeting was again chaired by District Coordinator BLANK. Minutes of that meeting reflect that the purpose of the meeting was a requested program review. It notes that Student would be entering 5th grade at BLANK BLANK Elementary School (sic). BLANK BLANK Elementary School has no 5th grade). The participants consisted on personnel from BLANK BLANK Elementary School, Parent and her representatives, and REDACTED REDA , a school psychologist from BLANK Middle School. The minutes note that Ms.
CTED
REDA explained the program. After a review by Student’s BLANK BLANK
CTED
Elementary providers of Student’s achievements, the Committee rejected recommending Student be in an educational setting and confirmed its recommendation that Student’s program remain unchanged; i.e. that Student be educated in a Special Class having a staffing ratio of 8:1+1, with the same Related Services as were in Student’s prior programs, but in an 8:1+1 program at District’s BLANK Middle School (District’s Exhibit 23)
It is my finding and determination that District has committed numerous procedural violations in the preparation of Student’s I.E.P. for the 2017-018 school year, as outlined above, and that such violations had the cumulative effect of impeding the student’s right to a free, appropriate public education and significantly impeding Parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.
I also note that District failed to submit credible evidence that the 8:1+1 class at the BLANK Middle School was appropriate to meet Student’s needs. Testimony established that the only 8:1+1 class at BLANK Middle School was that taught by a Mr. REDACTE (Parents’ Exhibit 60). Discussions at the August 25, 2017 meeting D referenced how Mr. REDACT could teach students spanning four levels and how Mr. ED REDACTE would communicate with parents (District Exhibit 24). However, REDACT D ED REDACTE never appeared as a witness in this proceeding, although listed as such in D District’s filing. Neither, for that matter, did School Psychologist REDA
CTED
It is, therefore, my finding and determination that District has failed to sustain its burden of establishing that it offered Student a free, appropriate public education for the 2017-2018 school year.
Having found that District has failed in its burden, it is necessary that I determine the appropriateness of Parents’ unilateral placement of Student at the BLANK BLANK School. Parents bear the burden of establishing the appropriateness of such placement (N.Y.S Education Law §4404-1(c)). The standard for determining whether such burden has been successfully borne was enunciated by the Court in Frank G. v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 459 F.3d 364 (2d Cir. 2007, wherein it was stated that:
“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 to 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.”
The BLANK BLANK School is presided over by Dr. J. BLANK, who started the School after a career in education, including thirty years of mostly Fifth Grade Elementary School teaching of mathematics. The School is a non-traditional facility not approved by the New York State Education Department. The School is housed in an 1824 residence with many rooms. The student population is twenty to twenty-one students from First to Eighth Grade. The School is staffed by three full-time teachers and part-time instructors in the areas of Art, Language and Music. The premise of the School is that, with staff and so few students, teaching can be accomplished by individually meeting whatever need a student might display without delay. Also, because of such few students, students can be educated together without segregation by age or ability and can benefit from each other – with or without adult instruction. The School acts as a family, with older students looking after younger ones.
According to Dr. BLANK, students graduating from the BLANK BLANK School easily meet or exceed State-mandated performance levels.
Parent testified that Student began attending the BLANK BLANK School in the second week of September 2017 in order to “shadow” the program – a method used to determine if Student would be a good fit for the School and its philosophy (T.R.678). Parent also testified that Parent was waiting to receive a decision regarding Student’s pendency program. That Interim Order on Pendency was issued on October 21, 2017 (District Exhibit 16). While Parent was unable to state when Student was enrolled as a student at the BLANK BLANK School, I have presumed that it was sometime in mid-November of 2017, as Parents’ Attorney REDACTED sent correspondence to District, dated October 31, 2017 (Parents’ Exhibit 53), in which he stated that the letter was to satisfy the requirement of 34 CFR §300.148(d). Such requirement is that, to avoid reduction or denial of reimbursement for a unilateral placement, parents must give written notice to District at least ten days prior to the removal of the child from the public school, stating their rejection of the placement proposed by the District and of their intention to enroll their student in a private school. Attorney REDACTED ’s correspondence clearly states the Parents’ intention to enroll and register their child in the BLANK BLANK School at public expense for the remainder of the 2017-2018 school year. As Parents were required to provide notice to District ten days prior to the removal of Student from District, such removal date clearly could occur only after November 10, 2017.
However, also in evidence as Parents’ Exhibit 14 is a copy of an Individualized Education Service Program (I.E.S.P.) prepared by the Committee on Special Education of the REDACT Union Free School District for Student, dated October 18, ED 2017. Such I.E.S.P. notes that “Parent has unilaterally placed the student at BLANK BLANK School.” Such unilateral placement as of that date clearly contravenes the requirement of the provisions of 34 CFR §300.148(d).
According to the testimony of Parent and Dr. BLANK, Student began attending the BLANK BLANK School sometime about the second week of September, 2017. Student ‘shadowed” the students for some time so that the parties could determine whether Student “fit” into the School’s program. Dr. BLANK testified that he had concerns about Student being a part of the School due to Student’ display of some aberrant behaviors. Also, according to both, at the beginning of the school year, Student was instructed solely by Parent, who drove Student to the School in the morning and remained at the School for the entire school day.
However, as noted above, in order to prevail, Parents have the burden of establishing that the unilateral placement of Student at the BLANK BLANK School provided an educational program to Student that was specifically designed to meet the unique needs of Student. Clearly, such was not the case. Student had many needs which required services in Speech/Language Therapy and Occupational Therapy, as well as deficits in Reading and Math. Parent was fully aware of such needs, as well as the fact that the BLANK BLANK School could not meet such needs. Such is reflected in Parent’s immediate efforts in mid-October of 2017 to secure such services from the local School District. New York State Education Law §3602-c requires that school districts in which parents enroll students in non-public elementary or secondary schools (the District of Location) provide students with disabilities with special education services. The I.E.S.P. secured by Parent provides Student with Speech/Language Therapy, individually, two times per week, thirty minutes per session; and two times per week, thirty minutes per session, in a small group; as well as Occupational Therapy, once per week, individually, thirty minutes per session; and once per week, thirty minutes per session, in a small group.. I also note that, pursuant to an I.E.S.P. issued by the BLANK BLANK U.F.S.D. dated May 1, 2018, Specialized Reading was added to Student’s program on March 22, 2018 (Parents Exhibit 16). The BLANK BLANK School does not offer such services. While Dr. BLANK claimed that Student’s Reading deficits were addressed by the BLANK BLANK School, through instruction by himself and Parent, such claim is contradicted by the addition in the I.E.S.P. of the REDACT U.F.S.D.’s C.S.E. of a Specialized ED Reading Program. As noted by the State Review Officer in Application of the Board of Education of the Lake George Central School District, Appeal No. 10-049 “[S]upplemental education services offered at a unilateral placement with services obtained elsewhere, either privately or from outside agencies, does not support a finding that the services at the unilateral placement were appropriated to meet the student’s needs.” Such finding was reasserted in the decision rendered by the State Review Officer in Application of the Board of Education of the Saugerties Central School District, Appeal No. 15-103.
It is my finding and determination that Parents have failed to sustain their burden of establishing that their unilateral placement of Student at the BLANK BLANK School for a portion of the 2017-2018 school year was appropriate or that the BLANK BLANK School – without regard to the supplementary services provided by BLANK BLANK U.F.S.D. - provided an educational program to Student that was specifically designed to meet the unique needs of Student.
Having made such determination, there is no need to proceed further or determine the issue of whether equitable considerations support Parents’ requested relief.
ISSUE FOUR
ARE PARENTS ENTITLED TO TUITION REIMBURSEMENT
FOR THE UNILATERAL PLACEMENT BY PARENTS
OF STUDENT AT BLANK BLANK SCHOOL FOR THE 2018-2019
SCHOOL YEAR?
Parents continued their unilateral placement of Student at the BLANK BLANK School for the 2018-2019 school year and seek reimbursement of tuition necessitated by such placement. District opposes such relief upon the same grounds asserted in its opposition to similar relief for Parents’ unilateral placement of Student at the BLANK BLANK School for the 2017-2018 school year; i.e., that District offered Student a free, appropriate public education; that Parents’ unilateral placement of Student at the BLANK BLANK School was inappropriate; and that equitable considerations do not favor the requested relief.
However, I find it is unnecessary to conduct such three-pronged review, as I find that District had no obligation to offer Student any program for the 2018-2019 school year. The provisions of New York State Education Law §3602-c states that the district of location is responsible to develop the Individual Educational Service Program (IESP) for students with disabilities who are New York State residents and who are enrolled by their parents in non-public schools located within the geographic boundaries of such public school.
Parents re-enrolled Student in the BLANK BLANK School for the 2018-2019 school year. On June 6, 2018, the C.S.E. of the BLANK BLANK U.F.S.D. prepared an IESP for Student on June 6, 2018, with a Start Date of July 1, 2018 and an End Date of June 21, 2019 (Parents Exhibit 17). The IESP clearly states that “Parent has unilaterally placed the student at BLANK BLANK School”. The IESP notes a Speech/Language Progress Summary, dated June 5, 2018. It also notes the attendees at the June 6, 2018 meeting, including the Parent/Guardian of Student; the Student; and Parent Advocate Ann Neumann (Parents Exhibit 17).
The IESP provides Student with Speech/Language Therapy four times weekly, thirty minutes per session, individual; Occupational Therapy, twice in a six-day cycle, thirty minutes per session, individually; Specialized Reading, once daily, forty minutes per session; and Resource Room Program (5:1) five times weekly for three hours (it would appear that such frequency of Resource Room services is misrepresented).
The provisions of Education Law §3602-c clearly places the obligation to prepare Student’s educational program for the 2018-2019 school year on the Est Aurora U.F.S.D. as the District of Location. As was noted by the State Review Officer in Application of the Board of Education of the Lake George Central School District, Appeal No. 10-049:
“I find that the district was not obligated to offer the student an IEP for the 2008-09 school year because according to the facts of the case and consistent with the VESID guidance memorandum dated September 2007, the district “need not make FAPE available’ to a student who has been parentally placed in a private school in the district of location and who has been evaluated and provided with an IESP by the district of location.” The VESID memorandum referenced in the Decision of the State Review Officer and reported in part, notes that “the CSE of the district of location must develop the IESP for student with disabilities who are NYS residents and who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools located in the geographic bounBLANKes of the public school” and that “The IESP must be developed in the same manner and with the same contents of an IEP is developed.”
It is, therefore, my finding and determination that District was not required to make a FAPE available to the student and therefore is not responsible for tuition reimbursement for the 2018-2019 school year.
While not necessary, I note that, were I to review the appropriateness of the program provided to Student at the unilaterally selected BLANK BLANK School, I would come to the same conclusion as I found regarding such program during the 20170-2018 school year – that, standing alone and without consideration of the services provided to Student pursuant to the provisions of the IESP prepared by the Committee of the BLANK BLANK U.F.S.D., the program was insufficient to address Student’s needs and therefore inappropriate.
TRANSPORTATION
Parents have requested in their Due Process Complaint reimbursement for costs involved in the daily transportation of Student from home to the BLANK BLANK School and from the BLANK BLANK School to home. Parents Exhibit 49 is a Mapquest printout showing the mileage associated with such trip. However, in light of my findings that Parents have failed to establish the appropriateness of their unilateral placement of Student at the BLANK BLANK School for either the 2017-2018 or 2018- 2019 school years, Parents are not entitled to reimbursement for any of the costs associated with transportation of Student between home and the BLANK BLANK School.
Dated: October 4, 2019 ____________________________
JAMES P. WALSH
Impartial Hearing Officer
The above constitutes my decision that in accordance with the provisions of Article 89 of the New York State Education Law.
Within 40 days of the date of this Decision, Parents and/or the Williamsville Central School District have a right to appeal this Decision to a State Review Officer (SRO) of the New York State Education Department under Section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
If either party plans to appeal the decision, a notice of intention to seek review shall be personally serve upon the opposing party no later than 25 days after the date of the Decision sought to be reviewed.
An appealing party’s request for review shall be personally served upon the opposing party within 40 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. An appealing party shall file notice of intention to seek review, notice of request for review. request for review, and proof of service with the Office of State Review of the State Education Department within two days after service of the request for review is complete. The rules of procedure for appeals before an SRO are found in Part 279 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education. A copy of the rules in Part 279 and model forms are available at http:/www, sro.nysed.gov
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD ON APRIL 29, 2019
PARENTS EXHIBITS
No.: # of Pages Description Offered by
1. Removed from Evidence by Parents’ Attorney Parents on June 27, 2019 (T.R.1043) 2 Removed from Evidence by Parents’ Attorney Parents on June 27, 2019 (T.R.1043) 3 Removed from Evidence by Parents’ Attorney Parents on June 27, 2019 (T.R.1043)
4 13 Student’s I.E.P. as prepared by District’s Parents C.S.E. on 5/12/15 5 13 Student’s I.E.P. as prepared by District’s Parents C.S.E. on 6-12-15 6 Removed from Evidence by Parents’ Attorney Parents on June 27, 2019 (T.R.1043) 7 Removed from Evidence by Parents’ Attorney Parents on June 27, 2019 (T.R.1043) 8 Removed from Evidence by Parents’ Attorney Parents on June 27, 2019 (T.R.1043) 9 1 Disc of C.S.E. Meeting of 6/21/17 Parents 10 Removed from Evidence by Parents’ Attorney Parents on June 27, 2019 (T.R.1043) 11 18 Transcript of C.S.E. Meeting of 6/21/17 Parents 12 Removed from Evidence by Parents’ Attorney Parents on June 27, 2019 (T.R.1043) 13 13 Student’s DRAFT I.E.P. as prepared by Parents
District’s C.S.E., dated 8/25/17 14 13 Student’s I.E.S.P. as prepared by RED Parents ACT
REDACT U.F.S.D., dated 10/18/17 ED ED 15 Removed from Evidence by Parents’ Attorney Parents on June 27, 2019 (T.R.1043) 16 10 Student’s I.E.S.P. as prepared by RED Parents ACT
REDACT C.S.E. on 5/1/18 ED ED 17 14 Student’s I.E.S.P. as prepared by RED Parents ACT
REDACT C.S.E. on 6/6/18 ED ED 18 13 Student’s DRAFT I.E.P. as prepared by Parents
District’s C.S.E., dated 8/27/18 19 Removed from Evidence by Parents’ Attorney Parents on June 27, 2019 (T.R.1043) 20 Removed from Evidence by Parents’ Attorney Parents on June 27, 2019 (T.R.1043)
21 1 Letter from Attorney REDACTED to Attorney Parents
REDACTED , dated 9/19/17
22 3 Prior Written Notice to Parents, dated 4/27/18 Parents
(2); Consent Form for Reevaluation, unsigned (1) 23 Removed from Evidence by Parents’ Attorney Parents on June 27, 2019 (T.R.1043) 24 2 Prior Written Notice to Parents, dated 6/6/18 Parent
By BLANK BLANK’s Board of Education 25 6 District’s Child Support Team Summary (1), Parents dated 6/7/13; Publication: The New York State Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities (5)
26 6 FAST TRACK Assessment Report, dated Parents 9/22/16, by REDACTED 27 Removed from Evidence by Parents’ Attorney Parents on June 27, 2019 (T.R.1043)
28 Removed from Evidence by Parents’ Attorney Parents on June 27, 2019 (T.R.1043)
29 20 San Diego Quick Assessment – Record Form, Parents dated 4-9-18 30 7 BLANK BLANK UFSD Progress Report, dated Parents 6/20/18 31 6 FastBridge Learning Publication: Screening Parents 32 Removed from Evidence by Parents’ Attorney Prents on June 27, 2019 (T.R.1043) 33 3 District Assistive Technology Report, dated Parents 4/25/17 34 4 San Diego Quick Assessment of Reading Parents Ability 35 6 District Child Support Team Summary (1), Parents dated 6/7/13; Publication: The New York State Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities (5) 36 Removed from Evidence by Parents’ Attorney Parents on June 27, 2019 (T.R.1043)
37 7 District’s Progress Report for Goals and Parents
Objectives – 2016-2017 by Mrs. BLANK 38 Removed from Evidence by Parents’ Attorney Parents on June 27, 2019 (T.R.1043) 39 3 Report for Student by REDACTED , Director of Parents
BLANK BLANK School, dated 6/1/18
40 3 Speech/Language Summary Report, dated Parents
6/5/8, by REDACTED , M.S., CCC-SLP of the BLANK BLANK School 41 7 Progress Report for Goals and Objectives, Parents dated 6/20/18, by REDACTED , COTA/L of
BLANK BLANK UFSD
42 Removed from Evidence by Parents’ Attorney Parents on June 27, 2019 (T.R.1043) 43 Removed from Evidence by Parents’ Attorney Parents on June 27, 2019 (T.R.1043) 44 Removed from Evidence by Parents’ Attorney Parents on June 27, 2019 (T.R.1043) 45 Removed from Evidence by Parents’ Attorney Parents on June 27, 2019 (T.R.1043) 46 3 Progress Report for Goals and Objectives, Parents dated 11/26/18, by REDACTED , COTA/L of
BLANK BLANK UFSD
47 Removed from Evidence by Parents’ Attorney Parents on June 27, 2019 (T.R.1043) 48 2 Account Transactions – 7/1/18 to 2/26/18 - Parents
BLANK BLANK School, Inc. 49 3 MapQuest Statement of Trip from Parents to Parents BLANK BLANK School 50 1 Letter from Attorney REDACTED to Attorney Parents
REDACTED dated 8/2/17 51 Removed from Evidence by Parents’ Attorney Parents on June 27, 2019 (T.R.1043) 52 Removed from Evidence by Parents’ Attorney Parents on June 27, 2019 (T.R.1043)
53 1 Letter from Attorney REDACTED to Dr. REDA , Parents
CTED
dated 10/31/17
54 1 Letter from Attorney REDACTED to Attorney Parents
REDACTED , dated 5/4/18 55 1 Letter from Attorney REDACTED to Attorney Parents
REDACTED , dated 5/23/18
56 1 Letter from Attorney REDACTED to Attorney Parents
REDACTED , dated 6/21/19 57 1 Letter from Attorney REDACTED to Attorney Parents
REDACTED , dated 6/27/19
58 7 Email Chain between Parent and REDACTED Parents between 9/1/16 through 9/14/16 (3): Email Chain between Parent and REDACTED between
9/20/16 through 9/22/16 59 2 Email Chain between Parent and R. BLANK, Parent
Between 9/21/16 and 9/22/16 60 2 Email Chain between Parent and REDACTED , Parent 61 2 Memo from School Psychologist REDACT r to Parents ED Parent, dated 4/6/17
62 NOT RECEIVED
63 NOT RECEIVED
64 5 Description of Program and Staff at BLANK BLANK Parents School 65 1 Publication by BLANK BLANK School Parents 66 1 A Picture Parents 67 4 Affidavit by C. BLANK, sworn to on 10/10/17 Parents
(2); Description of students in BLANK Middle
School Program by Classification, Grade,
Cognitive Level; Reading Level and Math
Level (1); Description of students in R.
BLANK Class Program by Classification,
Age, Grade, Cognitive Level; Reading Level and Math Level
68 17 Copies of Sonday System Worksheets Parents 69 4 List of Level 22 Words (2) and Sentences (2) Parents 70 15 List of Sentences Parents 71 42 Reading Practice Worksheets Parents 72 8 Consent by Parent to Amend without meeting Parents
(1); Prior Written Notice from BLANK BLANK
UFSD, dated 4/30/18 (2); BLANK BLANK UFSD
IEP or IESP Consent Form, dated 4/30/18 (1)
(unsigned); Email from REDACTE to R D E
REDACTED dated 4/30/18 (1); Prior D Written
Notice from BLANK BLANK UFSD A to Parents, dated 5/1/18 (2); Notice of Board ofCT East
Aurora UFSD to Parents, dated 5/15/18 E D 73 63 Book: Frog and Toad Together Parents 74 92 Book: The Chocolate Touch Parents 75 2 Test on The Chocolate Touch Parents 76 3 Venn Diagram Parents 77 19 Chapter Summaries of The Chocolate Touch Parent 78 136 Various Worksheets; Word Lists; Orton- Parents
Gillingham Lesson Plans 79 2 Publication: Orton-Gillingham Instruction Parents
85 55 Assemblage of various Worksheets Parents 86 3 [Student]’s Weekly Update (1); Evaluation of Scheduled Services for 1/20/17 (1); Worksheet (1) 87 7 Various Worksheets Parents 88 8 Various Worksheets Parents 89 1 BLANK BLANK School Calendar for 2018-2019 Parents
90 18 Various Worksheets Parents 91 1 Disc – “Bike News Story” Parents 92 1 Disc – BLANK-BLANK BLANK School Parents
DISTRICT EXHIBITS
1 11 Parents’ Amended Due Process Complaint District
Notice, dated 9/20/18
2 6 District’s Response to Parents’ Amended Due District
Process Complaint Notice, dated January 10, 2019 3 8 Parents’ Due Process Hearing Complaint District
Notice, dated 4/16/18 4 5 District’s Response to Parents’ Original Due District
Process Complaint Notice, dated January 4, 2018 5 1 Notice to Parents’ from District’s Board, dated District 10/23/19 6 3 Prior Written Notice to Parents, dated 8/28/18 District 7 2 Prior Written Notice to Parents, dated 8/27/18 District 8 14 Student’s I.E.P. as prepared by District’s District C.S.E. on 8/27/18 9 3 Committee Meeting Information for C.S.E. District Meeting of 8/27/18 10 2 Notice of C.S.E. Meeting of 8/27/18, dated District
8/22/18 11 1 Invitation to BLANK BLANK School to attend C.S.E. District Meeting of 6/7/18 12 2 Notice to Parents of C.S.E. meeting of 6/7/18, District dated 5/23/18 13 1 Letter from Attorney REDACTED to Attorney District REDACTED , dated 11/9/17
14 1 Letter to Parents from C. BLANK, dated District 11/1/17 15 1 Letter from Attorney REDACTED to Dr. REDACTE , District D dated 10/31/17
16 9 Cover Letter (1) and Decision on Pendency (8) District by I.H.O. J. Walsh, dated 10/21/17
17 1 Notice of Review, dated 10/17/17, to Parents District 18 1 Letter from Attorney REDACTED to Attorney District REDACTED , dated 9/27/17
19 1 Letter from Attorney REDACTED to Attorney District REDACTED , dated 9/19/17
20 1 Letter from Attorney REDACTED to Attorney District REDACTED , dated 9/7/17
21 3 Prior Written Notice to Parents, dated 9/1/17 District 22 2 Prior Written Notice to Parents, dated 8/25/17 District 23 13 Student’s I.E.P. as prepared by District’s District C.S.E. on 8/25/17 24 5 Committee Meeting Information for C.S.E. District Meeting of 8/25/17 25 2 Notice to Parents of C.S.E. meeting of 8/25/17, District dated 8/16/17 26 2 Prior Written Notice to Parents, dated 6/21/17 District 27 12 Student’s I.E.P. as prepared by District’s District C.S.E. on 6/21/17 28 2 Committee Meeting Information for C.S.E. District Meeting of 6/21/17 29 2 Notice to Parents of C.S.E. meeting of 6/21/17, District dated 6/6/17 30 1 Notice of Board Review, dated 5/23/17, to District Parents 31 2 Prior Written Notice to Parents, dated 4/28/17 District 32 12 Student’s I.E.P. as prepared by District’s District C.S.E. on 4/28/17 33 2 Committee Meeting Information for C.S.E. District Meeting of 4/28/17 34 1 Agreement to Excuse Required Committee District
Member, dated 4/28/17 35 2 Notice to Parents of C.S.E. meeting of 4/28/17, District dated 4/21/17 36 1 Notice of Board Review, dated 4/7/17, to District Parents 37 2 Notice to Parents of C.S.E. meeting of 4/20/17, District dated 4/4/17
38 2 Prior Written Notice to Parents, dated 3/9/17 District
39 12 Student’s I.E.P. as prepared by District’s District C.S.E. on 3/9/17 40 1 Committee Meeting Information for C.S.E. District Meeting of 3/9/17
41 2 Prior Written Notice, dated 2/10/17 District
42 1 IEP or IESP Amendment Consent Form, District dated 2/28/17 by Parent and 3/9/17 by R E
REDACT
D ED A C 43 1 Notice of Board Review, dated 12/15/16, T to District
Parents E D 44 2 Prior Written Notice to Parents, dated 12/1/16 District 45 12 Student’s I.E.P. as prepared by District’s District C.S.E. on 12/1/16 46 1 Committee Meeting Information for C.S.E. District Meeting of 12/1/16
47 1 IEP or IESP Amendment Consent Form, District dated 11/24/16 by Parent and 12/1/16 by C.
BLANK
48 1 Notice of Board Review, dated 11/15/16, to District Parents 49 2 Prior Written Notice to Parents, dated 10/14/16 District 50 12 Student’s I.E.P. as prepared by District’s District C.S.E. on 10/14/16 51 2 Committee Meeting Information for C.S.E. District Meeting of 10/14/16 52 2 Notice to Parents of C.S.E. meeting of 10/14/16,District dated 10/5/16 53 1 Notice of Board Review, dated 5/24/16, to District Parents 54 2 Prior Written Notice to Parents, dated 4/22/16 District 55 13 Student’s I.E.P. as prepared by District’s District C.S.E. on 4/22/16
56 2 Committee Meeting Information for C.S.E. District Meeting of 4/22/16 57 2 Notice to Parents of C.S.E. meeting of 4/22/16, District dated 4/5/16 58 12 Student’s I.E.S.P. as prepared by BLANK BLANK District C.S.E. on 3/22/18 59 2 Personal Intervention Report, dated 6/7/17 by District
REDACTED
60 2 Personal Intervention Report, dated 5/8/17 District 61 2 Personal Intervention Report, dated 4/3/17 by District
REDACTED
62 2 Personal Intervention Report, dated 3/23//17 by District
R. BLANK
63 6 Student’s Elementary School Summary Report District for 2016-2017 School Year 64 6 Student’s Elementary School Summary Report District for 2015-2016 School Year 65 1 Compilation of Students Projected for BLANK District
Middle School 8-1-1 Program – Jeremy Barkley
Special Education Teacher – Providing
Classification; Age; Grade; Cognitive Level,
Reading Level and Math Level 66 1 Student’s Academic Progress – April 2016 - District April 2017 67 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 6/12-6/15 District 68 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 6/5-6/9 District 69 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 5/29-6/2 District 70 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 5/22-5/26 District 71 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 5/1-5/5 District
72 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 4/24-4/ District 73 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 4/17-4/21 District 74 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 4/3-4/7 District 75 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 3/27-3/31 District 76 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 3/20-3/24 District 77 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 3/13-3/16 District 78 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 3/6-3/10 District 79 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 2/27-3/3 District 80 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 2/7-2/10 District 81 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 1/30-2/3 District 82 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 1/23-1/27 District 83 2 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 1/17-1/20 District 84 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 1/9-1/13 District 85 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 1/2-1/6 District 86 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 12/19- District 12/23 87 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 12/5-12/9 District 88 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 11/28-12/2 District 89 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 11/14- District
11/18 and 11/21-11/23 90 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 11/7-11/11 District 91 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 10/31-11/4 District 92 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 10/28 District 93 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 10/17- District
10/21 94 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 10/3-10/7 District
95 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 9/26-9/30 District 96 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 9/19-9/23 District 97 1 Student’s Weekly Update – week of 9/12 District 98 21 Report of Evaluation of Student by REDACTED District
M.S. Ed of START Educational Services
Structured Literacy, dated 3/8/18 99 5 Speech/Language Evaluation of Student, dated District REDACTED SLP CCC of BLANK BLANK Center 100 3 Assistive Technology Report, undated District 101 10 Child Support Team Summary, BLANK BLAN District
Elementary School -2014-2015 School Year
102 NOT RECEIVED
103 5 Student’s Ecosystems Unit Test, dated 2/16/17 District 104 4 Student’s Electrical Circuits Unit Test, undated District 105 1 Student’s Counting Coins Test, undated District 106 6 Progress Report – Reading (1); Writing (1); District
Mathematics (1); Speech/Language (2);
Motor Skills (1) – 2015-2016 School Year 107 6 Progress Report – Reading (1); Writing (1); District
Mathematics (1); Speech/Language (2);
Motor Skills (1) – 2016-2017 School Year 108 3 Prior Written Notice, dated 4/27/18 (2); District
Consent Form for Reevaluation, dated 4/27/18, Unsigned (1)
. . . .
. .
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD ON APRIL 30, 2019
No.: # of Pages Description Offered by
NONE
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD ON MAY 30, 2019
No.: # of Pages Description Offered by
98 1 Copy of Envelope from District to Parents, Parents dated 9/20/17
102 1 Release of I.E.P. to Parent – 9/19/17 Parents
109 5 Sign-in Sheet for Attendance at Phonics First District
Training by REDACTED 10-18-16(1); on
10-19-16 (1); on 10-20-16 (1); on 1-5-17 (1); and on 1-6-17 (1)
I 2 Letter from I.H.O. J. Walsh to Attorney I.H.O.
REDACTED and Attorney REDAC , date 5/17/19 TED .
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD ON MAY 31, 2019
No.: # of Pages Description Offered by
95 3 Williamsville Teachers’ Association Parents
Elementary School Tutoring List – 2015-2016
103 1 Summary by REDACTED Ed. D, Director of Parents
BLANK BLANK School, dated 5/22/19
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD ON JUNE 26, 2019
No.: # of Pages Description Offered by
NONE
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD ON JUNE 27, 2019
No.: # of Pages Description Offered by
NONE
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD ON JULY 8, 2019
No.: # of Pages Description Offered by
97 2 Prior Written Notice, dated 8/25/17 Parents
100 1 Account Transactions – 5/1/17 to 5/22/19 - Parents
BLANK BLANK School Inc
\
OTHER DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD
No.: # of Pages Description Offered by
II 39 Parents’ Closing Brief, dated September 9, 2019 IHO III 48 District’s Post-Hearing Brief, dated September 6, IHO 2019 IV 12 Parents’ Rebuttal Brief IHO V 6 Rebuttal Brief Submitted on Behalf of the District IHO dated September 19, 2019 VI 1 Judicial Subpoena Issued to blank blank IHO VII 1 Judicial Subpoena Issued to Dr. BLANK BLANK IHO VII-1 1 Judicial Subpoena Issued to REDACTED IHO
REDACTED
VIII 2 Judicial Subpoena Issued to BLANK BLANK IHO IX 1 Judicial Subpoena Issued to balnk blank, MS IHO X 2 Judicial Subpoena Issued to Phonics First IHO