Impartial Hearing Decision

that the parents may be represented by counsel or a person. with special knowledge or training with respect to the problems of the Child or of special education and may be accompanied by other persons of the parents' choice; that the district has the burden of proof with respect to the claims of the parents; that upon the hearing both sides will be given opportunity to be heard and present evidence and to confront and question all) witnesses; and (·

• • that each party shall have the right to prohibit the introduction of any evidence the substance of which had not been disclosed to the other party at least five days before being introduced.

The matter was concluded on December 20, 2019 the Parents having appeared by REDACTED. ZZ, Esq. and the District having appeared by REDACTED. YY, Esq. and said proceedings having been transcribed, constituting a full written verbatim record of the proceedings; and exhibits, 41 in number, having been marked and· received into evidence and made a part of the record herein: and the Child, REDACTED, having not been in attendance at the hearing

Hearing Officer's Hearing Summary

Case Number: 531529

Dates of Hearing: 11/8/19, 12/19/19, and 12/20/19. Date of Decision: February 11, 2020

Student's Name: REDACTED

Address: DELETED, N.Y.

Most Recent Designation Handicapping Condition: OTHER HEALTH IMPAIRED

Petitioner's Name: REDACTED and REDACTED (parents) (for REDACTED)

Address: N.Y.

Respondent's Name: REDACTED School District Board of Education

Address: Central Administration Building, REDACTED, NY

Issue/ Purpose of Hearing: To resolve the parents concern relative to REDACTED School District providing an appropriate placement and program for REDACTED in 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 r;-

;

Committee for Special Education Recommendation: Special Education Program for REDACTED

Findings of Fact:

The record will show that the parents requested a hearing for the following reasons:

• • The parents are seeking to have REDACTED classified REDCTED and remain in a private school placement at REDACTED in REDACTED.
• • The district should determine an appropriate placement for REDACTED that includes among other things a smaller class size with minimal transitions and counseling that will address his mental health issues that affect his ability to attend and benefit from his education. The parents contend that the REDACTED provides an appropriate placement for REDACTED and the proposed placement for REDACTED in 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 by the home school district was not appropriate.
• • The parents are seeking reimbursement for the costs associated with the student's present enrollment in the REDACTED for 2018-2019 and 2019-2020.

The District's response to the due process complaint included:

• • The District feels that the BOCES placement at the REDACTED in the REDACTED for 2019-2020 is and was appropriate. The District feels that the program recommended by the CSE for 2018-2019 at REDACTED School was appropriate.
• • The District denies the parent's claim that the student could not succeed in the proposed Placement and th-e in-district program for the years in question.
• • The district maintains that the student should be placed in the regional REDACTED School for 2019-2020.
• • The hearing provided evidence of the completion of the CSE's classification consideration for REDACTED as prescribed by law for 2018- 2019 an 2019-2020 (Exhibits 1 and D). At those meetings a determination that REDACTED was eligible for classification was made by the CSE for 2018-2019 and 2019-2020.

The parents' attorney argued that a board of education may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private educational services obtained for a student by his parents if:· (1) the program offered by the board of education was inadequate or inappropriate; (2) the services selected by the parents were appropriate; and (3) equitable considerations support the parents' claim. (School Committee of the Town of Burlington, Massachusetts v. Department of Education of Massachusetts, 471 U.S.359 (1985) ("Burlington"); See also Forest Grove School, 129 S. XYZ. 2484; Application of a Child With a· Disability, Appeal No. 06-054; Application of a Child With a Disability, Appeal No. 03-042. The burden of proof is on the school district during an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement. Educ. Law § 4404[1][c]; see M.P.G. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2010 WL 3398256, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2010).

REDACTED is an REDACTED year old boy who was diagnosed with ADHD and classified REDACTED being eligible for special education services by the CSE for the 2018-19, and 2019-20 school years. In the 2018- 2019 school year the REDACTED CSE developed a plan that provided psychological counseling, Integrated Co-Teaching in English,

. Language Arts, and Social Studies and Resource Room (5:1).

• • · Testing indicates that REDACTED is a student with XXX needs. REDACTED continues to struggle to be on time for meals especially breakfast in his residential placement, needs constant reminders to get to places. on time, executive functioning is a difficulty. He often lacks motivation, arrives to class fatigued, needs support with nightly study time., and has been assigned an adult to support his needs at the REDACTED School.

Although the Parents claimed that the CSE failed to conduct a Functional Behavioral Assessment or a Behavioral Intervention Plan, I saw no evidence of the parents requesting these evaluations and ample evidence that the District conducted comprehensive evaluations and were well prepared to address REDACTED's disabilities and the programs needed to remedy those disabilities.

The district first produced REDACTED's Special Education Teacher in Grade Nine, Dr. REDACTED, who was assigned to REDACTED in a collaborative REDACTED class in the 2016-2017 school year. She testified that he was very capable in the classroom but needed frequent reminders to refocus during class along with help in organizing his work. That year REDACTED received an 84 on the Algebra Regents with extra time (1.5) for the exam. In 2017-2018 REDACTED. BB served as REDACTED's Resource Room Teacher and Case Manager. t;r:

.:.

. ' r;:

other teachers would assist REDACTED towards achieving the goals on his IEP during the 2017-18 school year. In resource room, REDACTED would be prompted to look at Google Classroom to remind REDACTED of assignments and he was encouraged to go see his general education teachers when he was having trouble. REDACTED used a Chromebook for writing assignments, which addressed his graphomotoric difficulties. Dr. REDACTED indicated that REDACTED was proficient enough so that the use of this technology did not hinder his abilities in class.

The district REDACTED next produced Dr. REDACTED, School Psychologist, who evaluated REDACTED in grade nine on 1/9/17. Dr. REDACTED sat on the CSE on 5/22/17 for REDACTED's grade ten program and placement determination. In her 1/9/17 evaluation she administered the Woodcock Johnson Test of Cognitive Ability, 4th Edition. REDACTED tested average to above average on all the subtests however when there was a time limit on some· subtests where he had difficulty and Dr. REDACTED indicated that there were ·obvious processing speed concerns. Dr. REDACTED recalled that in January 2018 she was approached by a male peer of REDACTED who informed her of REDACTED's expressing an intent REDACTED to REDACTED. She thoroughly investigated the claims and informed REDACTED's parents who immediately sought therapy and had a physician evaluate medication. (see District Exhibit 24). Dr. REDACTED continued to monitor REDACTED throughout the remainder of the 2017-2018 school year. Dr. REDACTED made certain at the June 2018 CSE that REDACTED had social and emotional goals for grade eleven to address REDACTED's needs.in those areas. Dr. REDACTED was confident that the program offered REDACTED in 2018-2019 and 2019- 2020 by REDACTED School District met REDACTED's needs and were appropriate. ·

On 4/3/19 the Parents requested that the CSE send out applications to explore out of district programs for REDACTED for the i;

;-,

;.

2019-2020 school year: REDACTED was accepted into the REDACTED Program run by the BOCES, housed at the REDACTED School as well as the REDACTED Program run by

BOCES. The CSE met on REDACTED, 2019. The district pointed out that the Parents had paid the full tuition to send REDACTED to the School_ for the 2019-2020 school year; though Dr. REDACTED did not notify the CSE of this fact until after the meeting.

Dr. REDACTED, a psychologist from BOCES, participated on7/16/19 and described the REDACTED program at the REDACTED High School. The parent expressed her fears that REDACTED would not succeed if he returned to REDACTED School, and that his year at the REDACTED School was successful. A discussion of how REDACTED could be serv· iced at the REDACTED.program, in REDACTED of class size, mainstreaming opportunities, and executive functioning support took place. She· made it clear that she was not interested in pursuing the BOCES program Or REDACTED also made clear that her present concerns were not about therapeutic support for her son, but rather how his REDACTED concerns could be addressed.

Therefore, the CSE recommended the REDACTED School program. Ultimately, the Parents rejected the recommendations made by the CSE for the 2019-2020 year and returned REDACTED to the School.

The district produced REDACTED, who described the Integrated Co-Teaching program in great detail, which she felt would have addressed REDACTED's needs along with their Resource Room had he remained in REDACTED for 2018-2019. REDACTED. REDACTED was also asked about the results of a 2018 Special Education Services Audit overseen by a third-party evaluator, Dr. REDACTED. She indicated that this comprehensive review helped to improve and confirm the quality of the REDACTED Special Education Programs.

The Parents introduced REDACTED a School Academic Reading Teacher. She described the School as College Prep Residential School for grades 9-12 with 230 students. in 2018-2019 he was often late to breakfast and lacked commitment to his classes. She went on to testify that "his first major progress in 2019-2020 is he's going to breakfast every

• • morning".

I saw no evidence as to what staff provided to REDACTED so that he could overcome his inability to attend class on time. testified that in 2019-2020 "He's been late. He's really late to class. So when you are talking about REDACTED deficit you are looking at one of REDACTED's area of weakness along with REDACTED." At REDACTED School this was not an issue. In addition I saw no evidence from the Parents as to how staff assisted REDACTED in managing his anxiety and emotions..

REDACTED offered a description of REDACTED's grades, which she. described as "mostly in the B’s and this year he has A's and B's. lh REDACTED of social and emotional progress, REDACTED. ZZZ said REDACTED was happy and comfortable. She conceded that REDACTED needs a great deal of assistance meeting deadlines and organizing his work.

REDACTED provided an overview of the curriculum. My examination of REDACTED's 2018-2019 classes included courses titled Literature and Film, Writing Club, Photography, Community Service, Executive Functioning (once per week), Creative Darkroom Techniques, Health Wellness Leadership, The Ingenuity Program, Sailing, Algebra 2, and American Sign ·

Language.

The Parents produced Psychologist, REDACTED who testified that she evaluated REDACTED and as a result recommended that he needed small class sizes required adequate time for verbal responses, needed extended time for testing, needs a keyboard for writing assignments, required initial prompts to start tasks, and would benefit from continued medication and therapy. She observed heightened anxiety in REDACTED. On cross examination Dr. REDACTED indicated that she had not met with any REDACTED School District Staff to discuss REDACTED.

Evidence from several medical sources indicated that REDACTED was at times suffering from extreme anxiety and depression. (D. Exhibit 7).

;...

.:..:

Dr. REDACTED determined that REDACTED's academic functioning was found to be in the average range, with weaknesses on assessments that were timed, such as the Reading Rate subtest of the Nelson­ Denny, and the Rate subtest of the Gray Oral Reading Test. D.

Ex. 7. No reading deficits were seen on either of these tests, rather, his rate of reading was slow. T. 199-203.

When administered the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, REDACTED was found to be in the average range, except in the area of writing fluency, which measures his speed of writing. T.201-02. On the Test of Written Language-4, he was above average in Sentence Combining, with lower scores in Contextual Conventions and Story Composition. Dr. Ill indicated his graphomotor skills impacted his scores, but that he did also have difficulty developing more details into his writing. Exhibit D.

. Ex. 7.

The District noted that in contrast to his myriad of strengths,

Dr. REDACTED only noted a few weaknesses, his REDACTED. Despite this, for a program recommendation, she recommended a residential school, exactly the type of school the Parents had enrolled REDACTED in prior to contracting with her to evaluate their son. In his treatment summary of 6/5/18, Dr. REDACTED, Psychiatrist confirmed many of Dr. REDACTED’s findings.

Additionally, in another treatment summary of 6/5/18, Dr. REDACTED, Clinical Psychologist also confirmed Dr. REDACTED's findings.

The district argues that there is no justification provided in Dr. REDACTED's report as to why a student with graphomotor issues that can be addressed through using a computer, ADHD and processing speed concerns that can be addressed through extended time, chunked assignments, and organizational and teacher supports, and emergent self-esteem issues that can be addressed through school-based counseling, requires a residential special education school to be appropriately educated.

A careful review of REDACTED's IEPs for the two years in question

. address all of the needs indicated in Dr. REDACTED's evaluation. Dr. REDACTED's report was done at the request and expense of the parents who were attempting to justify their decision to place REDACTED in a residential out of district setting such as the School.

The district relied heavily in its brief on the findings of Dr. REDACTD to justify that School was an appropriate placement for REDACTED.

The parent testified that REDACTED had significant recognizable concerns at age three. He received OT services and had significant attention problems according to his third-grade teacher. REDACTED had per REDACTED problems in grade six when he began the need to switch classes and was prescribed medication. Eighth grade brought on serious social adjustment problems. Ninth grade, his problems increased, and he was classified REDATED.

In grade ten, REDACTED was enrolled in a general education program, receiving a period of Resource Room- as special education support, placement in an Integrated Co-Teaching

Classroom for English and Social Studies and counseling. Tenth grade seemed to be going well until REDACTED's friends indicated that he had talked of REDACTED. Subsequent to that a physician, Dr. REDACTED diagnosed a tumultuous time for REDACTED with medication changes resulting in REDACTION. By the end of Grade Ten, REDACTED was extremely down on school and again REDACTED. The Parents decided to look for alternative residential placements and for 2018-2019 sent REDACTED to the School in REDACTED.

The parents contend that REDACTED has made measurable

• • progress at the REDACTED School with his cognitive abilities and emotional needs. The student's clinical psychologist indicated that REDACTED no longer presented himself with manifestations of anxiety or a mood disorder.

SUMMARY and CASE LAW

This hearing officer was appointed by REDACTED the REDACTED School District on May 2, 2019.

The parents requested an impartial hearing on REDACTED, 2019. The hearing was convened on REDACTED 2019.

The hearing was concluded on December 20, 2019. Briefs were submitted by the parties and the record closed on January 31, 2020. The issues originally before me have remained constant.

The dispute centered around the appropriate placement and program including related services for REDACTED whom the CSE classified Other Health Impaired during the 2018-2019 and 2019- 2020 school years. No one disputes the findings resulting from the many evaluations of REDACTED with regard to academic ability and his social emotional concerns. In fact, those same findings were considered during the formulation of the IEPs for 2018-2019 and 2019-2020.

Parents seeking reimbursement "bear the burden of demonstrating that their private placement was appropriate, even if the IEP was inappropriate." Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. D., 489 F.3d 105 at 112 (2d Cir. 2007); See M.S. v. Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 104 (2d Cir. 2000).

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 (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][4]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]; see Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 07- 018;11 Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-059.

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 (20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]-[B]; see generally Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 [1982]).

Under IDEA all children with special needs are entitled to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) and it must include special education and related services which meet the needs of the student and they must be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. Hendrick Hudson CSD v Rowley (20 USC s1400(d)(1)(A).

A FAPE has been defined as an education offered to a student when 1. A board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA and 2. The IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits. (again Rowley)

In Walczak v Florida UFSD, NY (142 F.3d 119- 1998 2nd Cir) it was determined that the IDEA does not articulate any specific level of· benefits that must be provided by an IEP.

I did not see any indication of procedural violations, nor did I see any evidence of any violation of the parents' rights to participate in the decision-making process.

The school district convened an IEP meeting for each of the two years in question, listened to parent concerns, and each year declared REDACTED eligible for Special Education REDACTED Classification.

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 t::.

C""•

-

,:..._

(20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]-[B]; see generally Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 [1982]).

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

Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 114 [2d Cir. 2008].

The Regulations of the Commissioner of Education define LRE as:

That placement of students with disabilities in special classes, separate schools or other removal from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that even with the use of supplementary aids and services, education cannot be satisfactorily achieved. The placement of an individual student with a disability in the least restrictive environment shall:

• • provide the special education needed by the student;
• • provide for education of the student to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of the student with other students who do not have disabilities; and ·
• • be as close as possible to the student's home. 8 N.Y.C.R.R. 200,l(cc).

Ultimately, the IEP must be "reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances. Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch.

Dist. RE-1, 580 0.S., 137 S. XYZ. 988, 998 1001 (2017). As the Supreme Court held, "for most children, a FAPE will involve integration in the regular classroom and individualized special education calculated to achieve advancement from grade to grade. Endrew 137 S.CT. at 1000.

The district, in its brief, suggested several possible

; placements to address REDACTED's needs from 2018-2020 and I concur. that any of these placements would have addressed the special education needs of REDACTED at this time.

DECISION OF THE IHO-

lt is the decision of this hearing officer as follows: After careful review of the record before me I am issuing a final decision. The issues originally before me have remained constant. The dispute centered around the appropriate placement and program including related services for REDACTED for two school years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020.

The District has sustained its burden to demonstrate that it was fully prepared to provide a FAPE for the challenged school years. There is no reason to doubt that an improved level of progress would have resulted had REDACTED· attended the REDACTED School District. The IHO finds that the District had both the intention and the resources to offer REDACTED a FAPE for the 2018-2019 and 2019- 2020.school years.

The IEP developed for the 2019-2020 school year was appropriate and offered a daily resource room period, counseling, and accommodations and modifications to address REDACTED's · attention and organizational needs. In addition, the IHO finds that The School placement for REDACTED is not the LRE. It does not, in fact, meet any of the criteria as outlined for the Least Restrictive Environment. The IDEA requires all students with disabilities only be moved to a more restrictive _school setting when "the nature and severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids n_d services cannot be achieved satisfactorily". 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(5)(A).

The testimony and information produced in the record does not demonstrate adequate accommodations at REDACTED School for REDACTED's varied disabilities. The record also shows ample proof of

School's failure to provide an appropriate educational. program.

The record before me does not warrant placement of REDACTED in a full time residential special education setting such as the School. REDACTED's ability to function in a mainstream setting was well established up through his grade ten school year and with the appropriate support system he likely would have continued to progress in his home school district.

It is the decision of this Hearing Officer that the REDACTED Union Free School District did, in fact, offer an appropriate program and placement for REDACTED during the two years in question. The testimony from district witnesses was consistent in explaining the intentions of the district in -addressing REDACTED's specific academic needs in each of the two years in contention. Even though the parents were of the opinion that the written IEP's did not include a sufficient amount of instruction or use the right methodology the program to be offered REDACTED each of the two years as described by district personnel was appropriate and, in all likelihood would have benefitted REDACTED.

·, t" ' "'

. c.

.;

After carefully reviewing the entire record, I have determined that the district's recommended program and placement for the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020.school years were reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit and thus, offered the student a FAPE in the LRE, and further, that the parents are not entitled to reimbursement for the costs of the private school services obtained during those school years. My decision was guided by my intention to apply the proper legal standard in · determining whether REDACTED was offered a FAPE in the LRE, including whether the REDACTED School District complied with the procedural requirements in the IDEA and whether the recommended special education programs and services were reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit. REDACTED's deficits were specifically addressed in the REDACTED IEPs including the need to improve organization, self-correct and refocus in addition, the IEPs offered small group classes, individualized attention, specialized teaching strategies and multisensory techniques.

The testimony from district witnesses was consistent in explaining the intention of the district in addressing REDACTEDs specific academic and special education needs during the time period in contention. REDACTED1·s academic and behavioral record indicate serious, persistent indicators concerning problems. REDACTED struggles with REDACTED and those concerns were clearly addressed the past two years in his proposed IEPs. The parents have not met their burden of proving that having REDACTED remain in the REDACTED School District is and was an inappropriate placement for REDACTED. The REDACTED School is obviously more restrictive and convincingly ineffective which obviously contradicts the educational mandate to assist REDACTED in progressing academically and mentally. The record before me shows that REDACTED continues to exhibit abnormal behavior and as difficulty with meeting deadlines and. focusing which the present residential program offered clearly fails to address successfully.

I have determined that the student's placement on the REDACTED School was unduly restrictive, and therefore, not an appropriate placement for REDACTED. Based on the evidence presented to me I find that the public school district successfully classified REDACTED as redacted for 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 and the CSE developed an appropriate special education placement and program for REDACTED.

• • Equitable considerations must support the parents claims. Applications of Bd. of Educ. of Albion Cent. Sch. Dist. and Child with a Disability, Appeal Nos. 97-042 & 043, at p. 8, Citing School Comm, of Town of Burlington, Mass. Dept of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (1985). While Federal and State laws and regulations accord the parents of disabled students significant substantive and procedural rights in the classification and placement of their children, parents have a concomitant obligation to reasonably cooperate with school staff and refrain from attem_pting to thwart prescribed procedures. Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 73 F.2d 563. The IDEA has a specific provision requiring, inter alia, that parents act reasonably as a condition to obtaining reimbursement. 20 U.S.C, §§1412(a)(1 0)(C)(iii) (1)-(111). The Parents determined to send REDACTED to REDACTED School prior to the June 19, 201_8 CSE. They signed the contract with REDACTED on May 23rd 2018, submitting a non-refundable deposit of $7,919. They then contracted with Dr. REDACTED to assess REDACTED. Dr. REDACTED states specifically in her evaluation that the evaluation was done to justify the placement at REDACTED For the 2019-2020 school year, the Parents made the commitment to return REDACTED to in January of 2019, well in advance of the annual review meeting. The attitude the parent, displayed towards the out-of-district search further demonstrates that the Parents had no intention of returning REDACTED to a program recommended. b y the REDACTED- CSE:

The rationale for these conclusions are made clear throughout this decision.

• • ,'.

(.

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 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 par(y 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 a 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 a11ailable at http:www.sro.nysed.gov.

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 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 par(y 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 a 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 a11ailable at http:www.sro.nysed.gov.