NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Case Number: 173646
Student’s Name:
Date of Birth:
District:
Hearing Requested By: Parent
Date of Hearing: October 23, 2018
December 5, 2018
Actual Record Closed Date: March 13, 2019
Hearing Officer: Gary D. Peters, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
October 23, 2018 December 5, 2018
Attorney Parent
DOE Designee Department of Education
DOE Designee Department of Education
Director/ Parent
Mother Parent
Attorney Parent
DOE Designee Department of Education
Psycologist Parent
INTRODUCTION
On the above dates, I conducted hearings, pursuant to the Individuals Disability Education Act IDEA, 20 U.S.C. section 1415 (f)(3) regarding a special education program, Students with Disability, New York City Impartial Hearing Case # 173646. The hearings were conducted at the impartial hearing office, New York City Department of Education, at 131 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, New York. At the hearing, the Department of Education, hereinafter referred to as the “DOE” was represented by its designee and ; the Parent was represented by their counsel Esq. and
BACKGROUND
The Parent filed a due process complaint pursuant to 20 U.S.C. Section 1415 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (“IDEA”) on behalf of her daughter, hereinafter referred to as the “Student of ”. The Parent due process complaint alleges that the Department of Education (“DOE”) failed to provide the Student with a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) during the 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 school years.
PARENTS POITION
The Parent alleges that the DOE failed to locate —_ as a Student with a disability prior to January 2018 under its Child Find obligation, and therefore failed to appropriate provide her a program. requires a non public therapeutic school, with the expertise to work with students with learning disabilities, emotional and behavioral needs, social skills needs, and language needs. The DOE’s decision to place ina program, the failure to provide: targeted reading services; an appropriate multisensory reading methodology; appropriate therapeutic supports; social skills training; BIP; parent counseling and training; and speech language skills all contributed to a violation of the student’s right to a FAPE.
PARENTS CASE
On November 21, 2017, the DOE conducted a psych educational evaluation. Ex. L. According to the results of the evaluation, full scale IQ fell in the Extremely Low level, as did her Working Memory and Processing Speed, while her Verbal Comprehension and Fluid Reasoning Skills fell in the Very Low level. /d. Her Visual Spatial skills score was the only cognitive score that fell within the Low Average range.
Id. An academic achievement skills assessment determined that her Listening Comprehension, Math Problem Solving, and Numerical Operation skills all fell in the Low range, at the 1* percentile. Jd. Her Word Reading, Spelling, and Reading Fluency and Expression skills fell in the Below Average range, at the 5th and 6" percentile rank.
Id. However, her reading comprehension scores fell within the Average range. Id.
The evaluator administered the BASC-3, parent rating scales, which reported concerning scores in the areas of hyperactivity, aggression, conduct, emotional difficulties resulting in health related concerns, as well as odd behaviors disconnected from her surroundings and difficulties with attention. Jd. She was also found to be at risk for difficulties in the areas of daily living. Jd. A BASC-3 assessment provided to , revealed concerns regarding school difficulties, teacher relations, risky behaviors, atypical thoughts, difficulty establishing relationships and feelings of isolation and loneliness, substantial worry and nervousness, depression, poor sense of adequacy, health difficulties, inattention/hyperactivity, strained relationships with parents, and poor confidence in self reliance. /d. As indicated in the report, all of these areas of concern required follow-up evaluation. Jd. The evaluator recommended a psychiatric evaluation, as well as social skills groups, therapeutic intervention, and classroom management strategies to assist her in mastering taught information. Jd. The evaluator failed to make any recommendations as to an appropriate educational program. /d.
On January 3, 2018, the Dr. conducted a psychiatric evaluation for the DOE Ex. K. Dr. diagnosed with: Learning Disorders, Depressive Disorder; Oppositional Defiant Disorder; Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, combined; as well as with rule outs for Bipolar Disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorder, and Psychotic Disorder. Jd. Dr. recommended that be provided with a therapeutic school that had the resources to treat °s cognitive and emotional challenges, as well as her social skills deficits. Jd. She further recommended a neuropsychological evaluation and further evaluation to rule out a diagnosis of Autism. /d. However, the DOE failed to arrange for the recommended evaluations.
On January 19, 2018, the committee on special education (“CSE”) finally convened to develop an individualized education program (“IEP”), despite having failed to conduct the specifically recommended evaluations. Ex. B. According to the IEP, S instructional functional reading skills were at a 4" grade level and her math skills were at a 3TM grade level, placing her 2-3 years below her current grade, even further behind considering that she had also repeated two grades. Jd. The IEP reviewed the results of the psychoeducational cognitive and achievement testing, and noted her school avoidance, but failed to institute all the recommendations of the evaluator, including no provision of social skills groups, therapy, and no specific classroom management needs supports. /d. The CSE also failed to include the diagnostic picture and recommendations by Dr. , only utilizing the diagnosis in the report for classification determination.
Id. The DOE recommended a 12:1:1 classroom in a school, with only one time a week individualized counseling sessions for 30 minutes. /d.
, Center Director of the (“ »), testified her recommendations for compensatory tutoring services based upon an evaluation conducted at the on January 31, 2018. Tr. 8-38; Ex. H, I, and J. Ms. testified that required 860 hours of compensatory tutoring services based upon a detailed, individualized curriculum develop to specifically address the gaps in = ’s knowledge as determined by the results of evaluations. Tr. 19; Ex. I.
Ms. explained that the _’s ability to confidently read known words was at a 3nd grade level; but that she required phonics instruction introduced all the way back to Pre-Kindergarten/Kindergarten level,with mastery expected by the end of 1“ and 2TM grade. Tr. 11, 13; Ex. H, p.1. Her independent reading level, based upon her ability to read fluently and comprehend a passage, was determined to be at a 2TM grade level, requiring tutoring to begin at that level, and to build from there. Tr. 15-16; P. H, p. 1. ’s writing piece was also very insufficient, and would not be considered even acceptable in a 2TM grade classroom. Tr. 17; Ex. J, p. 17.
’s math skills demonstrated deficits in basic foundations of arithmetic, without any mastery in any area of mathematic instruction. Tr. 17- 18; H, p.2-3.
Ms. testified to the appropriateness of the program for _ , noting that: the curriculum utilizes a multisensory approach based upon OrtonGillingham research; the program is geared to move at the student’s pace; instruction at is provided by certified teachers, and also has special education teachers on staff; has an expertise in working with student with a wide range of disabilities, including those diagnoses provided to —_; and continually evaluates students to ensure that progress is being made. Ex. 20-22, 29, 30. Ms. explained that the fee for instruction is $100 per hour, with a testing fee of $295 and a registration fee of $100. Tr. 20.
On November 2, 2018, Dr. completed her neuropsychological evaluation of Ex. M. Based upon her evaluation, Dr. diagnosed with: Specific Learning Disorders in reading, written expression and mathematics; Language Disorder; and Attention Deficit Disorder, combined type. /d. She noted that presented with a language-based learning disability and that was emotionally distressed because her learning deficits had not been appropriately addressed. Id.
Dr. recommended that receive a therapeutic educational program that specialized in the education of children with emotional issues secondary to learning disabilities, that included: a structured and predictable environment; behavioral counselors, social workers, and outreach coordinator; a therapeutic environment and a well-developed, coordinated therapeutic milieu; conducted and utilized a functional behavioral assessment (“FBA”) and _ behavioral intervention plan (“BIP”); and utilized a multisensory methodology, such as a Wilson Reading program. /d. She further recommended specific management need supports in the classroom, social skills groups at school, parent training and counseling, speech language services, a speech language evaluation conducted by a speech language pathologist, and compensatory tutoring services of at least 800 hours. Jd.
On December 5, 2018, Dr. testified that during the evaluation she found to be very verbal, but socially immature. Tr. 56. She noted that when spoke she made frequent grammatical errors, mispronounced words, and without proper vocabulary. /d. Dr. testified that °’s learning disabilities was clearly evidenced, and that — presented with a dyslexic pattern, but that there were no barriers to her ability to learn within an appropriate program developed to address her specific learning and emotional needs. Tr. 57, 58. Dr. further testified that ’s learning needs had been “unmet for so many years” and had led to _’s poor self-esteem and “shattered” sense of hope; noting that had “given up on the system” and was now avoidant of “approaching academic tasks,” “feeling that she would fail” and that she was “not cut out for it.” Tr. 57-58.
In addition to the emotional effect of having failed to receive appropriate services for so long, Dr. then testified that also has mood disturbances, and Dr. , psychiatrist, raised “concern[] about her judgment and her cause and effect reasoning.” Tr. 65. Dr. explained that the appropriate program for would have to be a therapeutic special education program that provides “therapeutic support,” as well as an “educational program that is specific to children with learning disabilities, such as the Wilson program,” an expertise for working with children with language based learning disabilities, and appropriately address students with the emotional, behavioral, and psychiatric difficulties is experiencing. Tr. 58, 65, 66. This therapeutic program must: appropriately respond to her emotional needs; immediately address behavioral issues and school avoidance behaviors while it was happening; provide social groups; have behaviorist, counselors, therapists, social workers, and outreach coordinators on staff; provide parent training and counseling, as well as coordinate responses to inappropriate behaviors with the family. Tr. 58-60. Dr. also reasserted her recommendation for a FBA and BIP following placement in a therapeutic program, as well as speech and language interventions. Tr. 60. Dr. further testified that required academic remediation in a program such as , and endorsed the recommendation of 860 hours of tutoring. Tr. 61.
Dr. testified that °s current educational program is not appropriate for her, nor was it appropriate to leave her without support for so many years. Tr. 58, 62, 64. She testified that the determination by the DOE not to provider her support because “she understood what was going on” was wrong, instead it would be “a testimonial to the fact she has potential to learn, [it] doesn’t rule out a learning disability.” Tr. 62. According to Dr. , It is the “fact that her learning disability wasn’t addressed [that] was the most significant variable preventing her from being educated,” the lack of appropriate services meant that she could not progress, and it impacted her emotional well-being. Tr. 62-63. “[W]hen human beings can’t success, they avoid. And that’s what began to happen here.” Tr. 63.
Dr. testified that the fee for her evaluation is $4,800, and that it is on the lower end of the community rate for such an evaluation. Jd.
DOE’S POSITION
The DOE conceded that it failed to provide a FAPE to the student and declined to present a case. The DOE rested without calling witnesses or offering any documents into evidence.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
The purpose behind the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is to (20 U.S.C. section 1400-1482) ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE; see Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S. Ct. 528, 531 [2005]; Bd. Of Education v. Rowley 458 S. CT. 176, 179-81 [1982]; Frank G. v. Bd. Of Edu. 459 F. 3d 356 371 92d Cir 2006). A FAPE includes special education and related services designed to meet the student’s unique need provided in conformity with a comprehensive written IEP (20 U.S.C. section 1401 [9] [D] 34 C.F.R. section 300.13 see 210 U.S.C. section 1414 ‘d’; 34 CFR Section 200-347
_; The student’s recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE) (20 U.S.C. section 1412 [a][5][A]; CFR section 300.13 [a][2][i], 200.1.116 [a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.6 [a][1]; see Walczak v. Fla Union Free School Dist. 142 F. 3d 119, 132 [2d cir. 1998].
This hearing was requested pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §1404 et seg. (“IDEA”). “Congress enacted the IDEA ‘to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education...designed to meet their unique needs... [and] to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are protected.’” M.H. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t. of Educ., 685 F.3d 217m 223 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1)(A)-(B)). The IDEA mandates that students with disabilities must be provided with a FAPE tailored to meet their unique needs and one that is reasonably calculated to “enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. — U.S. __, 137 S.Ct. 988,999 (2017); Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982); SRO 17-007, p. 10. A focus on the particular child is at the core of the IDEA. Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 999. To meet the IDEA’s requirements, a school district’s program must provide special education and related services that is “‘specifically designed’ to meet a child’s ‘wnique needs and is reasonably
6 999
calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. Endrew F., 137 S.Ct. at 999 (emphasis in original); M.H., supra, 685 F.3d at 224 (quoting Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 107 (2d Cir. 2007)).
A denial of FAPE can be one that is substantive or results from violations of the procedural protections of the IDEA and its implementing regulations. Procedural violations result in the denial of FAPE “if they ‘impeded the child’s right to a [FAPE},’ ‘significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision-making process,’ or ‘caused a deprivation of educational benefits.’” 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(3)(C)(i); A.C. ex rel. MC. v. Bd. of Educ. of Chappaqua Cent. Sch. Dist., 553 F.3d 165, 172 (2d Cir. 2009); see also Werner v. Clarkstown Cent. Sch. Dist., 363 F. Supp. 2d 656, 659 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (“Multiple procedural violations may cumulatively result in the denial of FAPE even if the violations considered individually do not.”) In sum, Rowley stands for a two-part entitlement: eligible families are entitled to an IEP that both (a) affords a placement that, substantively, is “reasonably calculated” to afford meaningful educational benefit to the child, and (b) is developed in procedural accordance with the requirements of federal law. I find that the DOE has conceded that it denied a FAPE to Once it has been determined that a student has been denied a FAPE, hearing officers have broad equitable powers to fashion a remedy that is appropriate to address the student’s needs, based upon the unique facts of the case. SRO 08-052, at pp. 17-
18. It is well settled that “compensatory education is an equitable remedy that is tailored to meet the unique circumstances of each case.” SRO 11-065, at p.2 (citing Wenger v. Canastota, 979 F. Supp. 147 (N.D.N.Y. 1997)); Mr. and Mrs.
A. ex rel. D.A. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 769 F.Supp.2d 403 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (holding that such equitable powers extend to prospective payments for educational instruction where parents cannot afford the financial outlay required by reimbursement cases). Compensatory education relief may be awarded to a student with a disability who remains eligible for instruction under the IDEA. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(3), 1412(a)(1)(B); N.Y. Educ. Law §§ 3202(1), 4401(1), 4402(5)).
When calculating a compensatory services award, some courts examine the amount of time during which a child has been deprived of a FAPE and award compensatory services with an eye towards making up that time. See, e.g., M.-C. v. Central Reg. Sch. Dist., 81 F.3d 389, 297 (3d Cir. 1996) (holding generally that, subject to equitable adjustment, the “child is entitled to compensatory education for a period equal to the period of deprivation, excluding only the time reasonably required for the school district to rectify the problem.”’). Some other courts focus on the child’s needs; “some students may require only short, intensive compensatory programs targeted at specific problems or deficiencies” while “[o]thers may need extended programs, perhaps even exceeding hour-for-hour replacement of the time spent without FAPE.” Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 524 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Pursuant to this approach, there must be evidence regarding the child’s “specific educational deficits” resulting (4 from the failure to provide a FAPE and “specific compensatory measures” designed to “correct those deficits.” Jd. at 526. The goal of a hearing officer in awarding compensatory education is to make the child educationally whole. G.L. v. Ligonier Valley Sch. Dist. Auth., 802 F.3d 601, 624 (3d Cir. 2015) (“compensatory education must cover the entire period and must belatedly provide all education and related services previously denied and needed to make the child whole.”) (quoting 150 Cong. Rec. S11851 (daily ed. Nov. 24, 2004) (statement of Sen. Tom Harkin)).
In fashioning a compensatory award, "the inquiry must be fact-specific” and the award must be “reasonably calculated to provide the educational benefits that likely would have accrued from special education services the school district should have supplied in the first place.” Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 524 (D.C. Cir. 2005); see also Parents of Student W. v. Puyallup Sch. Dist., 31 F.3d 1489, 1497 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that "[a]ppropriate relief is relief designed to ensure that V.D.is appropriately educated within the meaning of the IDEA"). That is, a compensatory should aim to “place the student in the position he or she would have been in had the district complied with its obligations under the IDEA.” Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 13-208; see also Newington, 546 F.3d at 123 (holding that compensatory education awards should be designed so as to "appropriately address[] the problems with the IEP"); Draper v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 518 F.3d 1275, 1289 (11th Cir. 2008)(holding that "[c]ompensatory awards should place children in the position they would have been in but for the violation of the Act"]); Bd. of Educ. v. L.M., 478 F.3d 307, 316 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that "a flexible approach, rather than a rote hourby-hour compensation award, is more likely to address (the) educational problems successfully"]; Reid, 401 F.3d at 518, 525 (holding that compensatory education is a "replacement of educational services the child should have received in the first place"). The Parents did not need to establish that a “gross” violation of the IDEA occurred in order for the IHO to award compensatory education. See, e.g. Newington, 546 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2008) (finding that the "gross violation" standard only applies to compensatory education awarded to students over the age of 21). Even when Courts have applied a “gross” standard, the term has not been clearly defined; at a minimum, “it appears that exclusion of the student from school for a substantial period of time would suffice” to meet the standard. Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 13-208 (citing Mrs. C. v. Wheaton, 916 F.2d 69, 75 [2d. Cir. 1990]; V.M. v. Colonie Sch. Dist., 2013 WL 3187069, at *19).
In New York, the school district must carry the burden of proving that its recommended program provides the student with a FAPE. Ed. Law § 4404(1)(c). Here, the Parent raised numerous allegations that the DOE failed to identify the Student with a disability, failed to appropriately evaluate, and failed to address the Student’s speech, emotional, and behavior needs. The Parent alleged and presented evidence showing the Student failed to make any meaningful progress over the last three school years. Yet, the Department failed to present any evidence to disprove the Parent’s allegations or refute the Parent’s evidence. Although the Department initially disputed the Parent’s right to an IEE, the Department failed to show that it exercised one of its statutory obligations under 8 § NYCRR 200.5 (g) by either authorizing the IEE or initiating a hearing as required under the state regulations when a Parent requests an IEE. Overall, the DOE failed to meet its burden that it provided FAPE, therefore, the Student should be entitled to relief.
Under the IDEA federal regulations, 34 CFR § 300.111, “the State must have in effect policies and procedures to ensure that—(i) All children with disabilities residing in the State... regardless of the severity of their disability, and who are in need of special education and related services, are identified, located, and evaluated; and (11) A practical method is developed and implemented to determine which children are currently receiving needed special education and related Services.
Here, the DOE failed to identify the Student with a disability for the school year in dispute See record generally. The DOE’s failure to identify the Student and its failure to immediately develop a special education program for him once the Parent identified his disability, deprived the Student of special education services she should have received and this deprived him of a FAPE.
The DOE having not put on a case, has failed to met its burden. Therefore, the student is deemed to have not been provided FAPE for the school years that the Parent is contesting.
In this matter, the DOE did not find as a child with a disability, despite the Parent’s stated concerns and the Student’s lack of progress, until mid 2017-2018 school year. The DOE did not evaluate until November of 2017 or do a psychiatric evaluation until January 2018, but even then, the Parent was not aware of the full picture of her daughter’s needs or the appropriate program and services until the recent neuropsychological evaluation until November 2018. The DOE should not be protected from the harms it caused by hiding behind its failure to: inform the Parent that was a student entitled to special education services to: determine the Student’s deficits and needs; evaluate appropriately; provide the Parent with the information that has a disability, met the criteria for special education services and supports, or had rights with regard to her daughter’s program. In fact, still does not have a speech language evaluation and so that Parent does not know what __ requires in this area. The DOE engaged in a gross denial of FAPE during the 2016-2017, 2017-2018, and 2018-2019 school years, first under its child find obligation, and then out of a failure to appropriate evaluate the student and develop a program to meet all of her needs. Due to these failures, , student, is very far below grade and age level. testified that | requires 860 hours of compensatory academic tutoring to address the severe holes in her reading skills, writing, and math skills. Ex. H and I; Tr. 11, 13, 14, 15-16, 17-18,19. There is no evidence in the record to the contrary and no alternative compensatory program in the record offered.
I agree with Parent’s counsel that compensatory speech language services are clearly warranted, however, since the speech language evaluation has not yet been conducted, it is unclear as to the amount of remediation that is required. As this issue has not been litigated Parent is not barred from raising it after such evaluations are conducted.
New York State Education Law § 4404 (1)(c) places the burden of proof in an impartial hearing, both persuasion and production, on the District. (Educ. Law § 4404(1)(c). The District stated it is “conceding we failed to offer this student a FAPE for the school years in question,” and would not be “putting on a case.” Tr.
7. The District chose not to offer an alternative relief or provide any evidence as to what relief it believe would be appropriate to rectify the harms caused by the acknowledged FAPE violation. The District further failed to offer any defense for the failure to respond to the Parent’s IEE request, put on any evidence to support its own evaluations, or challenge the appropriateness of the $4800 fee for the evaluation. I also agree with Parent’s counsel that Dr. should paid for a neuropsychological evaluation in the sum $4,800.00.
The remedial authority of administrative hearing officers in fashioning equitable relief is broad. Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230, 237 (2009). An administrative hearing officer may order a district to place a student in a nonpublic school where either the school has been approved by the Commissioner of Education or where the officer has made a finding that the school constitutes an appropriate placement for the student. SRO 14-077 at 8. Here, the Parent is simply requesting placement in an appropriate, state-approved non-public school. A state-approved nonpublic school is a permissible placement for a school district to make on a student’s IEP. 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.64). The Department has a specific unit of specialists, the Central Based Support Team (“CBST”) who locate and place students in New York State approved non-public schools (“NPS”) when the Department has failed to provide an appropriate placement or program. In light of these authorities, the IHO should find that he has authority to order direct deferral to the CBST for an appropriate NPS placement as recommended by Dr. and Dr.
After considering all of the evidence, I find and order a follows:
1. That the DOE failed to offer a FAPE for the schools years in dispute.
2. That the DOE pay for the independent educational evaluation/ neuropsychological evaluation by Dr. in the sum of $4,800.
3. That the DOE provide payment for an independent Speech Language Evaluation, chosen by the Parent, at a cost not to exceed $1,500.00.
4. That the DOE pay for compensatory tutoring services for the failure to provide FAPE for the school years in dispute as follows: 860 hours of tutoring by at a rate of $100 per hour, along with a one time testing fee of $295 and a one time registration fee of $100.
5. That the DOE provide Metro cards for the Student and Parent to travel to and from the tutoring.
6. That the CSE reconvene the CSE to develop an appropriate program for __ that incorporates the recommendations in the neuropsychological evaluation, including deferral to CBST to locate placement in an appropriate NPS.
Date: March 28, 2018
Original Decision Rendered: March 27, 2019
GARY D. PETERS, ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer
GDP:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
The parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to obtain a review of this decision by a State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Part 200.5(k) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, Section 4404 of the Education Law, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Department of Education has designated the New York City Law Department to accept service of papers on its behalf, including appeals of decisions of Impartial Hearing Officers. Such service is made at 100 Church Street, New York, NY 10007 at the Messenger Center.
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD
Exhibit
P-A. Number Number Exhibit Date of Pages Demand for Due Process Hearing 06/13/17 [14] INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM
P-B. IEP Hearing Officer’s Amended Findings of Fact and Decision SERVICE ORDER PAY ORDER Hearing Officer’s Amended Findings of Fact and Decision Dated: 11-Mar-18 So Ordered: GARY PETERS Impartial Hearing Officer Name Fé Wot’ Impartlai Tv” Officer Signature 01/19/18 19 pages
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
Within 35 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to appeal the decision to the State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
“The notice of intention to seek review shall be served upon the school district not less than 10 days before service of a copy of the petition for review upon such school district, and within 25 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. The petition for review shall be served upon the schoo! district within 35 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. If the decision has been served by mail upon petitioner, the date of mailing and the four days subsequent thereto shall be excluded in computing the 25- or 35-day period.” (8NYCRR279.2[b]) Failure to file the notice of intention to seek review is a waiver of the right to appeal this decision.
Footnotes
[14] COMMITTEE ON SPECIAL EDUCATION & SCHOOL CORRESPONDENCE P-C IEE Request Letter/Confirmation 06/13/18 2 P-D Recommendations Letter 02/09/18 1 P-E School Location Letter 01/24/18 2 P-F Prior Written Notice 01/24/18 2 P-G Consent for Initial Provision of Services 01/24/18 2 EVALUATIONS & REPORTS P-H Student Academic Testing Results 01/31/18 3 P-I Student Program Map 01/31/18 3 P-J Student Testing Packet 01/31/18 46P-K Psychiatric Evaluation 01/03/18 5 P-L Psychoeducational Evaluation Report 11/21/17 16 P-M Neuropsychological Evaluation 11/02/18 27 Directions and sample forms for filing an appeal are included with this decision. Directions and forms can also be found in the Office of State Review website: www.sro.nysed,.gov/appeals.htm.