NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
NYS Department of Education Hearing Officer Melinda G. Gordon , a minor, by and through her Parent, AD Findings and Decision
Case#188400
Petitioners, -against- NYC Department of Education
Respondent.
Petitioner is the parent of ("Student"), a student with disabilities. On September 8, 2019, Petitioner filed a Due Process Complaint ("Complaint") against the New York City Department of Education pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"). Exhibit P-A.[1] This Hearing Officer was appointed to preside over this case on October 24, 2019. Petitioner was represented by , an advocate of . Respondent was represented by , Impartial Hearing Representative, Impartial Hearing Representation Office, New York City Department of Education ("District" or "DOE") at the pendency hearing. At the Due Process hearing on this matter the DOE was represented by , Impartial Hearing Representative, Impartial Hearing Representation Office.
Petitioner asserts that for the 2019-2020 school year, the DOE has failed to provide the student with 10 periods of Special Education Teacher Support Services ("SETSS") as provided for in last agreed-upon IESP, dated April 8, 2019. P-B. Petitioner also alleges that she cannot find a special education provider to impart the SETSS services at the DOE’s standard rate and requests that the SETSS services be paid at an enhanced rate. P-A. As such, Petitioner argues that these failures by the DOE constitute a denial to of a Free Appropriate Public Education ("FAPE") for the 2019-2020 school year.
Respondent did not present a case in chief at the due process hearing, and did not submit any documents into evidence. Tr. 58.
The parties are in accord that the IESP is not in dispute, that the student is entitled to the services denoted in the IESP, and that the District has failed to provide the SETSS services to the student. Petitioner has obtained the SETSS services from a private agency for the 2019-2020 school year at an enhanced rate.
On January 22, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., a pendency hearing was held on the above matter. Both parties concurred that the IESP mandating SETSS services was not in dispute.[2] On June 3, 2020, a due process hearing was held on this matter. Petitioners submitted the telephonic testimony of mother and of , a Supervisor for , the private agency providing SETSS services to Petitioner entered into evidence Exhibits A through E and submitted a written closing argument on June 23, 2020. Respondent declined to submit a closing statement. Tr.
58. The record was closed on June 23, 2020.
Jurisdiction
This proceeding was invoked in accordance with the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), as amended in 2004, codified at 20 U.S.C. Sections 1400, et seq.; the federal regulations implementing IDEA, 34 C.F.R. Sections 300.1 et seq.; and the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, Part 200 & 201.
Findings of Fact
The parties are in accord that the IESP is not in dispute, that the student is entitled to the services denoted in the IESP, and that the District has failed to provide the SETSS services to the student. Petitioner has obtained the SETSS services from a provider for the 2019-2020 school year at an enhanced rate.
The parent testified of the steps she took to find a provider. Tr. 84. She testified that she reached out to the school, but the school did not have a provider. Tr. 84. She also researched the DOE’s website and made telephone calls to the DOE to obtain a provider. Tr. 84, Exhibit P-C.. The Parent testified that she did not hear from the DOE and was put in touch with based on a recommendation from her other daughter’s school. Tr. 85, 87. The parent testified about the progress her daughter has made as a result of receiving SETSS. Tr. 85, Exhibit P-E.
Conclusions of Law
The DOE failed to provide a SETSS provider to and no provider was ever assigned to this student. The DOE cannot be absolved of its statutory obligation to implement a special education services program for a privately placed student by authorizing the student to receive such services, and then failing to provide a provider. Application with a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 17-034. If it fails to do so and forces the parents to find a special education provider on their own, then the DOE must fully fund the cost of such services. Id. at 8. The parent was forced to find a provider on her own, and the provider costs $135 per hour.
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby ordered: (1)The DOE failed to provide SETSS to since the commencement of the 2019-2020 twelve (12) month school year. Based on the April 2019 IESP in place for this student, should have received SETSS services (2)The DOE is ordered to pay or reimburse Petitioner for all SETSS service expenses to date. Upon receipt of this order the DOE is ordered to provide any outstanding SETSS services due to for the 2019-2020 school year. If the DOE fails to provide SETSS services to upon receipt of this order, the DOE shall have a continuing responsibility to reimburse Petitioner for any additional SETSS expenses at an enhanced rate.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 23, 2020 Melinda G. Gordon
Melinda G. Gordon
HEARING OFFICER
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Within 40 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the Public School District has a right to appeal the decision to a State Review Of®cer (SRO) of the New York State Education Department under section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The regulations governing appeals 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.
As those Regulations detail, before filing an appeal, if either party intends to appeal the decision, a Notice of Intention to Seek Review shall be personally served upon the opposing party before the Appeal itself is filed, no later than 25 days after the date of the decision sought to be reviewed.
The Appeal itself must be personally served upon the opposing party within 40 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. An appealing party shall ®le the notice of intention to seek review, notice of request for review, request for review, and proof of service with the Of®ce 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.
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 Of®cers. Such service is made at 1 00 Church Street, New York, NY 1 0007 at the Messenger Center.
Footnotes
[1] Exhibits of the Parent is denoted by P followed by the exhibit’s alphabetical designation.
[2] The District contested that the implementation of the recommended 10 periods of SETSS services at an enhanced rate should be decided after a hearing on the merits.