NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
FINDINGS OF FACTS & DECISION
Case Number: 189225
NYS Identifier Number N/A
Student’s Name: [“Confidential”]
Date of Birth:
District:
Hearing Requested By: Parent
Dates(s) of Hearing: 02/26/20
Actual Record Close Date: 06/22/20
Hearing Officer: Edgar De Leon
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
Name Title For Date Attorney DOE 02/26/20
School Psychologist DOE 02/26/20 Attorney PARENT 02/26/20
Father PARENT 02/26/20
Mother PARENT 02/26/20 Private School Founder PARENT 02/26/20
On September 30, 2 019, 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 (9) 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 February 26, 2020.. The parties opted to submit written closing statements which were received on March 18, 2020. (D-21 & P-K)
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 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 school years. At the impartial hearing, the Parent seeks the following relief:
(a) An order directing the DOE to make direct payments to the private school for tuition owed, extended day services and reimbursement to the Parent for any monies paid for the 2019-2020 school year; and
(b) An order providing the student with limited time transportation, including a transportation paraprofessional, to and from her school placement; and
(c) An order to provide the student with compensatory services with a provider selected by the Parent at their normal and customary rate based upon evidence presented of the DOE’s failures; and
(d) Attorney’s fees and expenses; and
(e) Any and all other relief that may be warranted based upon the evidence adduced at hearing and as deemed appropriate by the IHO.
THE DOE’S CASE
The DOE called (1) witness to testify on its behalf and submitted (9) documents into evidence. In sum, substance and relevant part, the testimony and documentary evidence on behalf of the DOE is as follows:
The DOE argues that the student was unilaterally placed at the private school for the 2019-2020 school year after a psychosocial evaluation dated April 19, 2019 recommended a small structured setting to address the student’s “significant emotional and behavioral needs”, including engaging in aggressive or antagonizing behaviors to her peers, being overstimulated, and difficulties interacting with her peers. (D-21 citing D-3 & P-F)
The licensed school psychologist who testified for the DOE has extensive experience conducting IEP reviews and evaluating students with disabilities, worked at public school the student attended school during the 2018-2019 school year and participated in the student’s IEP review on March 15, 2018 and in November 2018, after having reviewed the student’s neuro psychological evaluation, progress reports and a speech-language evaluation, and determined that the 1:1 program implemented by the private school was inappropriate. (D-21 citing T-35-6, 43 & 46-7)
The student’s psychosocial evaluation states that her main deficits was her aggressive behavior in her peer to peer interaction, but the private school program was not designed to improve the student’s emotional and social behavior. (D-21 citing D-3)
The DOE psychologist testified that the one to one program at the private school is too restrictive for the student because “if she’s with an adult all-day I don’t see how she’s going to make progress socially.” (D-21 citing T-48.) However, the DOE does conceded that the private school administrator acknowledged that the student was in a class of six students and four staff members and teachers, and for other classes she was in a class of seven students and five staff members/teachers. (D-21 citing T-65)
The DOE further argues that the Parent is not entitled to compensatory services because she did not submit any affidavit or testimony as to the duration or frequency of compensatory services that should be awarded, which provider would provide the compensatory services, and how much the compensatory services would cost. (D-21)
Extending the argument, the DOE further states that equitable consideration bar an award on behalf of the Parent because she conceded that she had not contacted anyone from the DOE to obtain speech-language services or occupational therapy for the student while the student was being home schooled, never contacted the DOE’s Office for Contracting and Related Services to obtain assistance with finding a provider or for a related service authorization (RSA) to be issued, never contacted the DOE’s Office of Home Instruction for assistance with finding a provider and only spoke with the principal of the student’s previous non-public school. while not contacting anyone in the DOE for assistance with obtaining a provider or for services to be provided to the student. (D-21 citing T-79-94)
THE PARENT’S CASE
The Parent called (2) witnesses to testify on her behalf and submitted (8)
documents into evidence. In sum, substance and relevant part, the testimony and documentary evidence on behalf of the Parent is as follows:
At the hearing, the Parent withdrew her request for compensatory services. (P-K)
The Parent argues that the student is diagnosed with Autism, Developmental Coordinator
Disorder, Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Social (Pragmatic)
Communication Disorder, and Acute Stress Disorder (ODD), and that her academic performance is strongly affected by her psychological and emotional status. (P-K citing
D-11, T-55, 64 & 76-7) The student’s Neuropsychological Evaluation dated January of 2018 concluded that she presents primarily with “high functioning autism with particularly problematic difficulties with prosody” and “obsessive compulsive disorder and anxiety over and above typical ASD symptomology”, with “splitting,” i.e. seeing things as black and white, good and bad, without being about to understand shared of gray in interpersonal interaction”, a conclusion that is is consistent with the Parent’s observation that the student lacks self-awareness and believes she is never wrong. (P-K citing D-11
& P-J)
The Parent notes that in March 2018 the DOE deferred the student’s case the “Central base Support Team” (“CBST”), but then failed to offer the student an approved non-public school placement. (P-K citing P-J) It was not until the summer of 2018, that the CBST arranged for a visit with an approved non-public school, where the Parent observed a student having a meltdown who managed to run out of the main entrance and determined that the school did not have enough structure or a behavioral system in place to address the student’s needs. (Id.)
In September of 2018, the student returned to a public school where the Parent was called almost daily about her unpredictable behavior and was frequently asked to pick her up from school. (Id.) In February of 2019, the DOE conducted an FBA and a BIP that concluded the student’s behavioral needs were significant warranting a non-public school setting and 1:1 trained behavioral support (i.e. a crisis paraprofessional).
(P-K citing D-5) The Parent again tried and placed the student at the previously recommended New York State approved non-public school, but she received reports from the teachers regarding the student having frequent tantrums, eloping, and difficulty interacting with peers and teachers. (P-K citing P-J)
In April 2019, another meeting was held where it was recommended that the student continued to need more support than a public school could offer and that she should attend a 12-month NYSED-Approved Non-Public School Day program with related services. (Id.) Although the DOE agreed to provide home instruction pending placement, the student did not receive any related services or have the opportunity to work on her social skills during the time she was without a school placement. (Id.) However, the student was rejected by numerous schools and upon recommendation of the Home Instruction Assistant Principal, the Parent explored other options and subsequently enrolled the student at her current public school. (Id.)
The student’s current private school is a small, special education school that offers
1:1, 2:1 and 5:1 support in a group setting ranging from six to eight students, with a teaching model that emphasizes transdisciplinary education which incorporates expertise from a number of disciplines and specialties, including: Special Education, Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), Speech and Language Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, Mental Health Services, Social Skills Instruction, Extended Day
Services, and Family Training. (P-K citing P-E)
The Parent notes that it is uncontested that the DOE did not offer the student an approved non-public school placement for the 2019-2020 school year or provide the student with related services after the April 2019 IEP, because the DOE conceded that it did not provide the student with a FAPE for the 2018–2019 and 2019-2020 school years.
(P-K citing P-J and SRO 13-147 - “Since the district conceded that it failed to offer the student a FAPE for the 2012-2013 school year, it is unnecessary to address this issue further in this decision .”)
The private school provides a 1:1 program consisting of a full-time behavioral analyst which was necessary to increase (not isolate) her class participation and interactions with peers, which the DOE’s own evidence supports. (P-K citing T-64 & 67)
Even the DOE school psychologist testified that a 1:1 behavioral specialist to work with the student on her behavior was “absolutely necessary.” (P-K citing T-54) She further opined that a classroom of eight student and a one-to one behavioral therapist would be good for the student. (P-K citing T-53-4)
For the 2019-2020 school year, at the private school, the student was placed in a class of (7) other students, (1) lead teacher, (1) lead behavior therapist, and (2) teaching assistants/behavior therapists. (P-K citing T-64 & P-I) The student’s private school educational program includes instruction in ELA, math, writing, history & social studies, science, arts, music & performing arts and physical education, community outings, social skills group, mental health group, art therapy, counseling, speech and occupational therapy and she also has a behavior plan that is implemented by her behavioral therapist utilizing the principles of ABA (P-K citing T-76, P-H & P-I) The student also has access to assistive technology via a Chromebook to facilitate writing, preferential seating, frequent movement breaks, and graphic organizers to build reading comprehension and writing skills and her February 2020 progress report indicates she is making steady progress toward her goals of (1) referring to details and examples in a text when explaining what the text says explicitly and drawing inferences from the text; (2)
determining the theme of a story, drama or poem and summarizing the text; and (3)
composing an informative or explanatory text containing up to three paragraphs. (P-K citing P-H & P-I)
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];
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 evidence as cited above establishes that the DOE concedes that it denied that student a FAPE for two consecutive school years and that the private school is appropriate to address the student’s emotional and behavioral problems, while providing her with an educational benefit. (Supra) 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 her to benefit from instruction. (Gagliardo & Frank G., Supra)
The DOE has tried to make the argument that the student’s private school placement is too restrictive. (Supra, see also 8 NYCRR§200.6(a)[1]) However, Parents are not held as strictly to the standard of placement in the LRE as school districts are, even though the restrictiveness of the parental placement may be considered in determining whether the parents are entitled to an award of tuition reimbursement. (See Rafferty v. Cranston
Pub. Sch. Comm., 315 F.3d 21, 26-27 and M.S. v. Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d at 105) The requirement of instruction in the LRE must be balanced against the requirement that each student with a disability receive an appropriate education. (See Briggs v. Bd. of Educ., 882 F.2d 688, 692 [2d Cir. 1989]) The DOE conceded that the private school administrator acknowledged the student was in a class of six students and four staff members and teachers, and for other classes she was in a class of seven students and five staff members/teachers. (D-21 citing T-65) Under the circumstances and the student’s description as cited above, I do not find the private school overly restrictive for the student.
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 that the DOE shall provide the student with 60-minute limited time transportation and a transportation paraprofessional to and from her private school placement in accordance with her April 2019 IEP; 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: June 30, 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 DPC 09/17/19 DOE 06
02 IEP 04/29/19 DOE 19
03 Psychological Update 04/19/19 DOE 03
04 Withdrawn / Not Received N/A DOE N/A
05 FBA 02/01/19 DOE 09
06 BIP 02/07/19 DOE 06
07 Withdrawn / Not Received N/A DOE N/A
08 CSE Minutes 04/29/19 DOE 02
09 Acceptance Letter 01/30/19 DOE 01
10 Withdrawn / Not Received N/A DOE N/A
11 Neuropsychological Evaluation 01/20/18 DOE 25
12-20 Withdrawn / Not Received N/A DOE N/A
21 Closing Statement 03/18/20 DOE 06
A 10-Day Notice 08/26/19 PARENT 04
B-D Withdrawn / Not Received N/A PARENT N/A
E Enrollment Contract undated PARENT 01
F Enrollment Contract 2019-2020 PARENT 06
G Schedule 2019-2020 PARENT 04
H Progress Report 2019-2020 PARENT 14
I Affidavit of 02/25/20 PARENT 06
J Affidavit of Parent 02/25/20 PARENT 06
K Closing Statement 03/18/20 PARENT 14
N/A N/A N/A IHO N/A
Footnotes
[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-