New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACTS & DECISION

Case Number: 189161

NYS Identifier Number N/A

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District:

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Dates(s) of Hearing: 01/30/20, 03/27/20 & 05/06/20

Actual Record Close Date: 07/13/20

Hearing Officer: Edgar De Leon

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

Name Title For Date DOE Representative DOE 01/30/20 03/27/20 (T) 05/06/20 (T)

School Psychologist DOE 03/27/20 (T) Attorney PARENT 01/30/20 03/27/20 (T) 05/06/20 (T)

Mother PARENT 01/30/20 03/27/20 (T) 05/06/20 (T) Witness PARENT 05/06/20 (T)

On September 24, 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”) - concerning the student’s special education program. 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 30, 2020, March 27, 2020 and May 6, 2020. 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 2019-2020 school year. At the impartial hearing, the Parent seeks the following relief:

(a) Reimbursed for the student’s unilateral placement at the private school for the entirety of the 2019-2020 school year.

THE DOE’S CASE

The DOE called (1) witness to testify on its behalf and did not submit any documents into evidence. In sum, substance and relevant part, the testimony and documentary evidence on behalf of the DOE is as follows:

The first and only witness for the DOE is a licensed school psychologist. (T-41-2)

She testified that the special education teacher, a general education teacher and a representative of the student’s private school attended the student’s IEP meeting. (T-45-

6) She “believes” that they received a speech and language report for the meeting and is not sure about any other documents. (T-46-7) She could not affirm that every document listed on the IEP was actually received and reviewed at the student’s IEP meeting. (T-47) Later, after a leading question on direct examination, the witness testified that a psychological report was received. (Id.) She does not recall the specific needs of the student’s academic functioning without reviewing the IEP. (T-48) The information in the IEP would not help her recall the information that was received from “the email.” (T-49) She has no independent recollection of the student’s IEP meeting.

(T-50-1)

THE PARENT’S CASE

The Parent called (2) witnesses to testify on her behalf pursuant to 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][3][xii][f] and submitted (13) documents into evidence. (P-I & P-M) In sum, substance and relevant part, the testimony and documentary on behalf of the Parent is as follows:

The first witness for the Parent is the Director of the private school’s lower division. (P-I) Via affidavit, she testified on direct examination that:

6. [ ] School is an independent pre-kindergarten, elementary and middle school setting for bright students with learning differences. The school has been a leader in the field of educating students with learning disabilities for more than 50 years. Our mission is to provide a rich, rigorous and nurturing environment for bright students with learning disabilities, so that they can gain skills and confidence. We strive to mediate curriculum to meet children where they are and move them forward. We use special education techniques, including explicit, sequential, direct, multisensory instruction. Essentially, we work with children who have good academic potential, but need a curriculum tailored to their needs to learn.

7. [ ] School is officially ungraded. Overall, [ ] has students as young as three years old through 14 years old. There are about 387 students at [ ] School in academic year 2019-20. Students range in age from six through eleven in the Lower School, for a total of about 176 students.

8. All of [ ] School's classroom faculty have at least 30 hours of training in Orton Gillingham. Orton Gillingham is a structured, sequential, systematic approach to reading, which involves multisensory instruction and a strong emphasis on phonics and morphology.

10. The students' needs vary, but they primarily have language-based learning disabilities. They range from expressive and receptive language problems, to dyslexia, dyscalculia, or ADHD.

11. Lower School classes have 11 students with one head teacher and one assistant or co-teacher.

14. [ ] is of average overall cognitive development, with a significant difference between her strong verbal skills and weak visual spatial abilities. [ ] also has borderline processing speed.

15. [ ] struggles with expressive and receptive language skills, which impact her academic performance. These struggles are predominantly in the areas of processing multi-step directions, listening comprehension, difficulty with word finding and overall organization and formulation of expressive language.

16. [ ] demonstrates significant deficits in visual tracking, visual motor integration, visual construction skills, and visual motor processing speed. These deficits have a deleterious impact on [ ]'s ability to read words and words in sentences, her ability to express herself through writing, and her ability to perform math calculation problems where she must line up numbers. Visual processing affects her ability to complete a simple worksheet without a teacher explicitly explaining how to work through the items on a page.

19. [ ] is in a homeroom class that has a total of eleven students with one head teacher, , and one assistant teacher, . has a Master's Degree in Education from Bank Street Graduate School of Education (Childhood General and Special Education Grades 1-6). has a Master of Science Degree in Special Education from .

20. [ ] is in a reading group of six students with one teacher. Her reading teacher is , a reading specialist.

has a Master's Degree in Behavioral Science, Reading Specialist Program from Teachers College, .

25. Reading material for [ ] is modified using word processing fonts that make reading more accessible to struggling learners, such as ball and stick. Moreover, visual information must be widely spaced on a page to avoid visual confusion. She often needs one-to-one support to understand how to approach worksheets that have more than one section.

27. [ ] is provided with scaffolding, opportunities to be asked to demonstrate the task, and monitoring to ensure that she is properly completing tasks.

33. To support her language processing and to enable her to develop a stronger understanding of the content being taught, [ ] is provided with kinesthetic, visual, and auditory cues, as well as visual and kinesthetic cues as strategies, which have helped [ ] recall information and express herself with increased independence.

41. [ ] receives push-in occupational therapy to address fine motor and handwriting difficulties that impact her education. Her occupational therapist is . [ ]'s occupational therapy goals address her fine motor deficits, which challenge her fluidity, control, and stamina, as well as handwriting challenges.

48. [ ] has made progress in Reading and Writing since the start of the 2019-2020 school year in the following areas: phonological awareness, sound/symbol correspondence, blending to read words, attempting to spell using taught phonetic rules and understanding that a full sentence is comprised of a "Who" and a "did What." She has progressed from reading word, phrase and sentence lists to reading short decodable stories and is now much more willing to tackle short writing tasks.

55. [ ] receives push in and pull out speech and language therapy at [ ] School, which targets multi-step directives, word finding, organization/formulation, simple narratives, grammar/syntax and perspective taking. [ ]'s speech-language pathologist is . is a New York State certified speech-language pathologist.

62. [ ] is motivated by the token reward system used by

[ ] School, which supports her attention in the classroom.

63. [ ] benefits from the small class size at . Her academic needs are well addressed from being in a class of 11 students, with two teachers. (P-I)

The DOE’s cross examination of the witness did not controvert her direct testimony by affidavit. (T-82-7) The second and final witness for the Parent is the student’s mother. She testified on direct examination via affidavit that:

11. In anticipation of [ ]'s transition to the Committee on Special Education, and to gain insight into [ ]'s needs to properly prepare for kindergarten and beyond, my husband and I referred

[ ] for a Neuropsychological evaluation in May 2018.

12. The results of the Neuropsychological evaluation demonstrated that [ ] meets criteria for diagnosis of Visuospacial Deficit, which has considerable impact on [ ]'s reading, writing, and math skills.

13 . Based on the results of the evaluation, the Neuropsychologist recommended that [ ] attend a small, supportive, nurturing special education school for students of average or above average intelligence who have learning disabilities that affect reading, writing, and math, and where she can receive individualized instruction on a daily basis.

14. I provided the results of the 2018 Neuropsychological evaluation to the NYC Department of Education in anticipation of [ ]'s

Turning Five Review Meeting in the spring of 2018.

17. [ ] School provided appropriate, individually tailored support in a small homogeneous setting, which addressed

[ ]'s special education needs over the 2018-2019 school year. [ ] made demonstrable progress in reading, writing, and math; and in language development over the 2018-2019 school year.

[ ] also gained confidence and was less anxious as a result of her placement at [ ] School.

25. [ ] School continues to appropriately address all of [ ]'s education needs for the 2019-2020 school year through a highly individualized program. The benefits that [ ] received from the support and structure of [ ] School over the 2018-2019 school year led my husband and I to believe that [ ] would continue to benefit [ ] for the 2019-2020 school year.

26. For academic year 2019-2020, [ ] continues to benefit from the small group size where she receives immediate feedback, as well as explicit and repeated instruction that is broken down into manageable chunks, which she can manage.

27. [ ] has benefited significantly from -and requires manipulatives, text accompanied with visuals, and connection to real world experiences.

34. [ ] has made significant progress since the start of the 2019-2020 school year in writing, reading, math, organization, and selfadvocacy. It is my opinion that [ ]'s progress is due - in whole - to his placement at [ ] School. We can't thank the team there enough for their incredible work.

35. [ ] made progress during the 2019-2020 school year as a result of the small, highly structured, yet nurturing, and specialized environment where she received instruction that is explicit, recursive, and broken down into more manageable chunks, and where the pace was modified to enable [ ] to process and internalize concepts. The school has been transformative for [ ].

38. Tuition for [ ]'s enrollment at [

] School for the 2019-2020 school year is $68,550 and we have paid that amount in full.

39. I was able to withdraw from the contract and would be relieved of the financial obligations if I accepted a program at the recommendation of the CSE. If an appropriate program was offered, I would have exercised this option.

40. I have also incurred transportation costs for the 2019-2020 school year in connection with transporting [ ] to school each morning and home from school each school afternoon.

41. From September 4, 2019 (the first day of the 2019-2020 school year) through March 11, 2020 I have incurred $3,252 in expenses in connection with taxis/Ubers to take [ ] to school in the morning from our apartment located at and to return home from school in the afternoon. I have not included any expenses incurred in connection with any rides during which [ ] was not present. (P-M)

The DOE declined to cross examine the student’s mother. (T-73) Accordingly, the mother’s testimony is completely uncontroverted.

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 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 DOE did not provide substantive or credible evidence that it provided the student with a FAPE. (Supra) The completely uncontroverted record as recited above clearly establishes the appropriateness of the private school placement and 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 2019-2020 school year; and it is further

ORDERED that the DOE shall also conduct a re-evaluation of the student in all areas of her 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: July 20, 2020 _____________________________

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

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Within 40 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the PublicSchool District has a right to appeal the 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 served 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 the 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. (Rev. 07/09/20)

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD

Number/Letter Title Dated For # of Pages

N/A N/A N/A DOE N/A

A DPC 09/16/19 PARENT 05

B 10-Day Notice 08/21/19 PARENT 04

C School Location Letter 05/03/19 PARENT 01

D Enrollment Contract 01/29/19 PARENT 07

E Report Card 2018-2019 PARENT 09

F Speech Report 01-06/2019 PARENT 03

G OT Report 01-06/2019 PARENT 03

H Neuropsychological Evaluation 05/25/18 PARENT 16

I Affidavit of 01/29/20 PARENT 06

J Mid-Year Report 2019-2020 PARENT 23

K S & L Report 2019 PARENT 02

L OT Report undated PARENT 03

M Affidavit of unknown PARENT (?)

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