New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACTS & DECISION

Case Number: 185576

NYS Identifier Number

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District:

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Dates(s) of Hearing: 01/16/20

Actual Record Close Date: 06/22/20

Hearing Officer: Edgar De Leon

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

Name Title For Date DOE Representative DOE 01/16/20

School Psychologist DOE 01/16/20 IEP Teacher DOE 01/16/20 Advocate PARENT 01/16/20

Mother PARENT 01/16/20 Pathologist PARENT 01/16/20

On August 21, 2019, I was appointed as the Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) to conduct a hearing pursuant to the Individual with Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 United States Code, Section 1415(f)(1), ), Article 89 of the New York State Education Law and Parts 200 and 201 of the Regulations of the New York State Commissioner of Education and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, concerning a dispute between the Parent of a ( ) year old student attending a private school and the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) - District: , concerning the student’s special education program. I was appointed after the recusal of at least one other IHO.

After adjournments were granted at the request of and with the consent of the parties, or for good cause, the impartial hearing was held on January 16, 2020.. The parties opted to submit written closing statements which were received on February 18, 2020. (D-8 & P-N) A list of the witnesses who appeared and the documents taken into evidence is annexed to this decision.

BACKGROUND

In this case, the Parent alleges that the student was denied a “free and appropriate public education” (“FAPE”) for the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 school years.

At the impartial hearing, the Parent seeks the following relief:

(a) Reimbursement for the tuition costs associated with the student’s placement at the private school for the 2018-2019 school year; and

(b) That the DOE provide the student with the related services recommended on the last agreed upon IEP and/or reimburse the Parent and the school for the cost of the provision of the mandated related services; and

(c) Any further relief as the IHO deems just and proper.

THE DOE’S CASE

The DOE called (2) witnesses to testify on its behalf and submitted (8)

documents into evidence. In sum, substance and relevant part, the testimony and documentary evidence on behalf of the DOE is as follows:

The IEP teacher testified that she has experience in an ICT class and a 12:1:1 class, which she believes would have been age appropriate for the student for the 2018- 2019 school year, as the class consisted of (10) students in the 5th and 6th grade, with functioning levels in both reading and math at the 2nd and 3rd grade respectively, similar to the student’s functioning and academic needs, in a barrier free school (T-33-6)

THE PARENT’S CASE

The Parent called (1) witnesses to testify on her behalf and submitted (12)

documents into evidence. In sum, substance and relevant part, the testimony and documentary on behalf of the Parent is as follows:

On May 30, 2018, the IEP meeting included a special education teacher and district representative, as well as the Parent and a representative from the student’s private school. (P-N citing D-1). The IEP references the student’s full-scale IQ and an OT evaluation that was conducted on December 20, 2017. (Id.) The OT evaluation, did not recommend occupational therapy, but noted that the student held his pencil consistently with his right hand utilizing an inefficient 3-jaw chuck grasp. (Id.) A One

Minute Word Sentence Copying Test is also discussed and reports that while the student should be able to copy at least 55-65 letters per minute, he could only copy 38 letters which were legible but with inconsistent sizing. (Id.)

A psychological evaluation which was administered on June 14, 2018 discusses the student’s cognitive deficits and academic delays. (P-N citing D-3) The IEP also contains a report from the student’s speech teacher which discusses in detail his functioning and highlights areas of difficulty. (P-N citing D-1). The IEP also thoroughly discusses the student’s physical development. (Id.) The occupational therapy evaluation which is evidence and the psychological evaluation discusses the student’s language skills and provide and in-depth discussion concerning student’s functioning, which should have been included in the IEP goals, but instead states that the student did not present with any difficulties relating in a socially appropriate manner and that although he is initially shy, he does not present with any difficulties. (P-N citing D-2 & D-3)

The school psychologist testifying for the DOE could not recall what documents were reviewed during the student’s IEP meeting. (P-N citing T-53) She also testified that there were no goals included in the student IEP for speech. (P-N citing T-64) A New York State licensed speech-language pathologist and a licensed teacher who provided speech-language therapy and was also the related service director and the language curriculum coordinator at the private school testified for the Parent. (P-N citing T-73) She stated that she reviewed a copy of the student’s IEP and testified that occupational therapy was not addressed. (P-N citing T-79). She also testified that speech language therapy was discussed at the IEP meeting, but she was not asked to develop goals. (P-N citing T-80).

The witness further testified that the classes at the private school are divided by subject, with a different teacher for each subject as well as a different number of students in each subject class. (P-N citing T-81) A small class is extremely important for the student, who tends to be overwhelmed by learning new information, but always participates in groups during recess breaks and during lunch breaks. (P-N citing T-91-

3) At the end of the 2018-2019 school year, the student was reading at a 3rd grade level and in math was able to regroup and start working on multiplication tables. (P-N citing T-

94) Additionally, at the beginning of the 2018-2019 school year, the student’s letters were unevenly spaced, but by the end of the year he could write clearly defined words and sentences, with improved vocabulary and using compound sentences. (Id.)

FINDINGS OF FACTS & DECISION

Two purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C.

§§ 1400-1482) are (1) to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living; and (2) to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities and parents of such students are protected. (See 20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]-[B] and Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley,

458 U.S. 176, 206-07 [1982])

A FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the DOE complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits. (See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07 and Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]) While school districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures, not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA.

(See A.C. v. Bd. of Educ., 553 F.3d 165, 172 [2d Cir. 2009]; Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003] and Perricelli v. Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 465211, at *10 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2007])

Under the IDEA, 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 parents' opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student, or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits. (See 20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][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] and Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. Sch.

Dist., 471 F. Supp. 2d 415, 419 [S.D.N.Y. 2007] aff'd, 2008 WL 3852180 [2d Cir. Aug.

19, 2008])

The IDEA directs that, in general, an impartial hearing officer's decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE. (See 20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][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." (See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203) However, the "IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP." (See Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 [2d Cir. 1998] and Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189) The statute ensures an "appropriate" education, "not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents." (See Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132, quoting Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d 563, 567 [2d Cir. 1989] [citations omitted] and Grim, 346 F.3d at 379)

Additionally, school districts are not required to "maximize" the potential of students with disabilities. (See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199; Grim, 346 F.3d at 379 and Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132) Nonetheless, a school district must provide "an IEP that is 'likely to produce progress, not regression,' and . . . affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere 'trivial advancement.'" (See Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195, quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130 [citations omitted]; P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 118-19 [2d Cir. 2008] and Perricelli, 2007 WL 465211, at *15) The IEP must be "reasonably calculated to provide some 'meaningful' benefit." (See Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 [2d Cir. 1997] and Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192) The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (

“LRE”). (See 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.114[a][2][i], 300.116[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[cc], 200.6[a][1]; Newington, 546 F.3d at 114; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent.

Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 [2d Cir. 2007]; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132; E.G. v. City

Sch. Dist. of New Rochelle, 606 F. Supp. 2d 384, 388 [S.D.N.Y. 2009] and Patskin v.

Bd. of Educ., 583 F. Supp. 2d 422, 428 [W.D.N.Y. 2008])

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. (See 34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][4]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]; SRO No.

07-018; 06-059; 06-029; 04-046; 02-014; 01-095 and 93-09) Subsequent to its development, an IEP must be properly implemented. (See 8 NYCRR 200.4[e][7] and

SRO No. 08-087)

The DOE may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private educational services obtained for a student by his or her parents, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parents were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parents' claim.

(See Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993] and Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-70 [1985]) In Burlington, the Court found that Congress intended retroactive reimbursement to parents by school officials as an available remedy in a proper case under the IDEA. (See Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370-71; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 111 [2d Cir. 2007] and Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]) "Reimbursement merely requires [a district] to belatedly pay expenses that it should have paid all along and would have borne in the first instance" had it offered the student a FAPE. (See Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370-71; 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][ii] and 34 C.F.R. § 300.148)

The New York State Legislature amended the Education Law to place the burden of production and persuasion upon the school district during an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of production and persuasion regarding the appropriateness of such placement. (See Educ. Law § 4404[1][c], as amended by Ch. 583 of the Laws of 2007) The amended law took effect for impartial hearings commenced on or after October 14, 2007; therefore, it applies to the instant case. (See SRO No. 08-016)

A private school placement must be "proper under the Act." (See Carter, 510 U.S. at 12, 15 and Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370), i.e., the private school offered an educational program which met the student's special education needs. (See Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, 115; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 129 and Matrejek, 471 F. Supp. 2d at 419)

A parent's failure to select a program approved by the State in favor of an unapproved option is not itself a bar to reimbursement. (See Carter, 510 U.S. at 14) The private school need not employ certified special education teachers or have its own IEP for the student. (See Carter, 510 U.S. 7; SRO No. 08-085; 08-025; 08-016; 07-097; 07-038; 02-

014 and 01-105) Parents seeking reimbursement "bear the burden of demonstrating that their private placement was appropriate, even if the IEP was inappropriate." (See Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112 and M.S. v. Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 104 [2d Cir. 2000])

"Subject to certain limited exceptions, 'the same considerations and criteria that apply in determining whether the [s]chool [d]istrict's placement is appropriate should be considered in determining the appropriateness of the parents' placement….'" (See Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d at 364 [2d Cir. 2006]

[quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207 and identifying exceptions]) Parents need not show that the placement provides every special service necessary to maximize the student's potential. (See Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65) When determining whether the parents' unilateral placement is appropriate, "[u]ltimately, the issue turns on" whether that placement is "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits."

(See Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364; see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115 [citing Berger v. Medina

City Sch. Dist., 348 F.3d 513, 522 [6th Cir. 2003] [stating "evidence of academic progress at a private school does not itself establish that the private placement offers adequate and appropriate education under the IDEA"]]) A "private placement is only appropriate if it provides 'education instruction specifically designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child.'" (See Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115 [emphasis in original], citing Frank G., 459 F.3d at 365 quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 188-89)

The Second Circuit has set forth the standard for determining whether parents have carried their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of their unilateral placement.

No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining whether parents' unilateral placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. Grades, test scores, and regular advancement may constitute evidence that a child is receiving educational benefit, but courts assessing the propriety of a unilateral placement consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child's individual needs. To qualify for reimbursement under the IDEA, parents need not show that a private placement furnishes every special service necessary to maximize their child's potential. They need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction. (See Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; see Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65).

The IDEA allows that tuition reimbursement may be reduced or denied if parents do not provide “notice” of the unilateral placement either at the most recent CSE meeting prior to removing the child from public school, or by written notice ten business days before such removal, "that they were rejecting the placement proposed by the public agency to provide a [FAPE] to their child, including stating their concerns and their intent to enroll their child in a private school at public expense." (See 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][iii][I] and 34 C.F.R. § 300.148[d][1]) This statutory provision "serves the important purpose of giving the school system an opportunity, before the child is removed, to assemble a team, evaluate the child, devise an appropriate plan, and determine whether a [FAPE] can be provided in the public schools." (See Greenland Sch. Dist. v. Amy N., 358 F.3d 150, 160 [1st Cir. 2004]) Although a reduction in reimbursement is discretionary, courts have upheld the denial of tuition reimbursement in cases where it was shown that parents failed to comply with this statutory provision.

(See Greenland, 358 F.3d at 160; Ms. M. v. Portland Sch. Comm., 360 F.3d 267 [1st Cir. 2004]; Berger v. Medina City Sch. Dist., 348 F.3d 513, 523-24 [6th Cir. 2003]; Rafferty v. Cranston Public Sch. Comm., 315 F.3d 21, 27 [1st Cir. 2002]); SRO No. 07-

133; 07-120; 07-115; 07-098; 07-079; 07-075; 07-038; 07-032; 06-122; 06-069; 06-057; 06-042; 06-041; 06-035; 05-092 and 04-022)

The final criterion for a reimbursement award is that the parent's claim be supported by equitable considerations. Equitable considerations are relevant to fashioning relief under the IDEA. (See Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374; M.C. v. Voluntown, 226 F.3d 60, 68 [2d Cir. 2000] and Carter, 510 U.S. at 16 ["Courts fashioning discretionary equitable relief under IDEA must consider all relevant factors, including the appropriate and reasonable level of reimbursement that should be required"]) Such considerations "include the parties' compliance or noncompliance with state and federal regulations pending review, the reasonableness of the parties' positions, and like matters." (See Wolfe v. Taconic Hills Cent. Sch. Dist., 167 F. Supp. 2d 530, 533 [N.D.N.Y. 2001], citing Town of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 736 F.2d at 773, 801-02 [1st Cir. 1984], aff'd, 471 U.S. 359 [1985]) With respect to equitable considerations, the IDEA provides that tuition reimbursement may be reduced or denied when parents fail to raise the appropriateness of an IEP in a timely manner, fail to make their child available for evaluation by the district, fail to engage with potential placements offered by the district, or upon a finding of unreasonableness with respect to the actions taken by the parents. (See 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][iii]; Thies v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 344728 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2008]; M.V. v. Shenendehowa Cent. Sch.

Dist., 2008 WL 53181 at *5 [N.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2008]; Bettinger v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 2007 WL 4208560, at *4 [S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2007]; Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist. v.

V.P., 373 F. Supp. 2d 402, 417-18 [S.D.N.Y. 2005], aff'd, 2006 WL 2335140 [2d Cir.

Aug. 9, 2006] and Voluntown, 226 F.3d at n.9)

In the absence of evidence demonstrating that petitioners failed to cooperate in the development of the IEP or otherwise engaged in conduct that precluded the development of an appropriate IEP, or failed to give proper notice, equitable considerations generally support a claim of tuition reimbursement. (SRO No. 04-049)

The uncontroverted testimony on behalf of the Parent establishes that the goals on the student’s IEP are deficient in addressing the student’s speech and occupational therapy needs. (Supra) Parents are not to be deprived of the opportunity to discuss the draft goals at the CSE meeting. (See 34 C.F.R. Part 300, Appendix A, Section IV, Question 32, SRO Nos.: 01-073 & 90-13) Here, the school psychologist testifying for the DOE could not recall what documents were reviewed during the student’s IEP meeting and conceded that there were no goals included in the student IEP for speech. (P-N citing T-53, 64 &

80) This amounts to a denial of FAPE.

The Parent only needs to demonstrate that the private school provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of the student, supported by such services as are necessary to permit him to benefit from instruction. (Gagliardo & Frank G., Supra) Here, the uncontroverted testimony indicates that the student has progressed in math and writing at the private school. (P-N citing T-94) The record also indicates that the student participates in groups during recess breaks and during lunch breaks at the private school, indicating that he is developing socially and emotionally. (P-N citing T-91-3)

There is nothing in the record that sustains a finding that the Parent has not cooperated with the CSE. Therefore, I find that equitable considerations do not bar an award of tuition reimbursement to the Parent. For all of the reasons stated herein, I find that the Burlington/Carter test is satisfied in favor of the Parent and that she has met her burden under Schaffer to prevail in her request for tuition reimbursement.

NOW therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that upon its receipt of reasonably satisfactory proof of services having been rendered, the DOE shall either reimburse the Parent and/or directly pay the cost of the student’s tuition and related services at the private school for the entirety of the student’s 2018-2019 school year; and it is further

ORDERED that the DOE shall also conduct a re-evaluation of the student in all areas of his suspected disabilities, not evaluated within the last two years, for the 2020- 2021 school year; and it is further

ORDERED that the CSE shall forthwith reconvene after the completion of the student’s evaluations and consider all of the student’s evaluations and any other relevant information and produce a new IEP for the student’s 2020-2021 school year; and it is further

ORDERED that any of the other relief sought by the Parent not addressed by this decision is found to be either agreed upon by the parties, withdrawn by the Parent, outside the scope of the IHO’s authority or unsupported by the record. DATED: June 25, 2020 _____________________________

New York, New York Edgar De Leon - I.H.O.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

The parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to obtain a review of this decision by a State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Part 200.5(k) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, Section 4404 of the Education Law, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Directions and forms can be found on the Office of State Review website: http://www.sro.nysed.gov/RevisedRegulationsOverview.html

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD

Number/Letter Title Dated For # of Pages

01 IEP 05/30/18 DOE 17

02 Psychoeducational Evaluation 06/14/18 DOE 10

03 OT Evaluation 12/20/17 DOE 05

04 PWN 07/11/18 DOE 03

05 Location Letter 07/16/18 DOE 02

06 DPC 04/05/19 DOE 05

07 CSE Minutes 05/30/18 DOE 02

08 Closing Statement 02/18/20 DOE 03

A IHR 08/05/19 PARENT 04

B FOFD 05/02/19 PARENT 08

C 10-Day Notice 08/20/18 PARENT 02

D Class Schedule 2018-2019 PARENT 02

E Progress Report 2018-2019 PARENT 06

F Progress Report 2018-2019 PARENT 06

G Withdrawal / Not Received N/A PARENT N/A

H Enrollment Contract 09/03/18 PARENT 02

I Affidavit of School 12/26/19 PARENT 01

J Attendance Report 2018-2019 PARENT 01

K Program Description undated PARENT 11

L Corrected Schedule 2018-2019 PARENT 02

M Withdrawal / Not Received N/A PARENT N/A

N Closing Statement 02/18/20 PARENT 12

N/A N/A N/A IHO N/A