NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
The University of the State of New York | The State Education Department
In the Matter of the Special Education Due Process Hearing on the Petition of AAA by his Parents, AAA and AAA
Petitioner
Against
HASTINGS-ON-THE -HUDSON USFD
school District Board of Education
School District/Respondent
The undersigned, James A. Monk, a duly certified Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO), having been so designated by the State .Education Department, and heretofore having been duly appointed by the Board of Education of the UFO on School District (Respondent), pursuant to Chapter 853 of the Laws of New York (Section 4404 of the New York State Education Law) and in Accordance with Section 200.5 (c), Regulations of the Commissioner of Education (Subchapter P, Part 200- Children With Handicapping Conditions ) , to conduct a due process hearing upon the petition of AAA (Child) , by his parents, AAA and. (Parents/Petitioners).
In accordance therewith, the undersigned, under date of XX 10, 2019, notified the parties that such hearing was scheduled and would be conducted at 10:00 a.m. on XXX, 2019, at the Central Administration Building, UFO, NY 10706. that the IHO would conduct the hearing in accordance with the regulations of the Commissioner of Education; . 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 AAA. ZZ, Esq. and the District having appeared by AAA. YY, Esq. and said proceedings having been stenographically 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, AAA, having not been in attendance at the hearing
Hearing Officer's Hearing Summary
Case Number.: XXXXX
Dates of Hearing: 11/8/19, 12/19/19, and 12/20/19.
Date of Decision: February 11, 2020
Student’s Name: AAA’
Address: DELETED, NLY.
Most Recent Designation of Handicapping Condition: XXPetitioner's Name: AAA and AA (parents) (for AAA)
Address: N.Y.
Respondent's Name: UFO School District Board of Education
Address: Central Administration Building, UFO, NY 00000 ,
Issue/ Purpose of Hearing: To resolve the parents concern relative to UFO School District providing an appropriate placement and program for AAA |in 2018-2019 and 2019-2020
Committee for Special Education Recommendation: Special Education Program for XXX
Findings of Fact
The record will show that the parents requested a hearing for the following reasons:
1. The parents are seeking to have AAA classified ZZ and remain in a private school placement at in XYZ.
2. The district should determine an appropriate placement for AAA 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 provides an appropriate placement for AAA and the proposed placement for AAAin 2018-2019 and 2019-2020) by the home school district was not appropriate.
3. The parents are seeking reimbursement for the costs associated with the student's present enrollmentin the for |
2018-2019 and 2019-2020. oe The District's response to the due process complaint included:
1. The District feels that the BOCES placement at the XYZ in the YYY for 2019-2020 is and was appropriate. The District feels that the program recommended by!the CSE for 2018- 2019 at UFO
School was appropriate..
2. The District denies the parent's claim that the student could not succeedin the proposed Placement and the in-district program for the years in question.
3. The district maintains that the student should be placed in the regional School for 2019-2020.
‘The hearing provided evidence of the completion of the CSE’s classification consideration for AAA as prescribed by law for 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 (Exhibits 1 and D). At those meetings a determination that AAA was eligibie 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]11][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).
AAAis an year old boy who was diagnosed with 2
ADHD and classified XYX being eligible for special education services EF by the CSE for the 2018-19, and 2019-20 school years. in the 2018- am!
2019 school year the UFO CSE developed a plan that provided ae psychological counseling, Integrated Co-Teaching in English, Language Arts, and Social Studies and Resource Room (5:1), Testing indicates that AAA is a student with XXX needs. AAA 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 School.
Although the Parents claimed that the CSE failed to conduct a Functional Behavioral Assessment or a Behavioral Intervention Plan, | saw no evidence of the parents requesting these evaluations and ampie evidence that the District conducted comprehensive evaluations and were well prepared to address
AAA's disabilities and the programs needed to remedy those disabilities.
The district first produced AAA's Special Education Teacher in _ a Grade Nine, Dr. _, who was assigned to AAA in a collaborative ACC _ class in the 2016-2017 school year. She testified that he was very capable in the classroom but needed fréquent reminders to refocus during class along with help in organizing his work. That year AAA received an 84 on the Algebra Regents with extra time (1.5) for the exam. In 2017-2018 AAA. BB served as AAA's Resource Room Teacher and Case Manager. Dr. _ testified to how she and AAA's other teachers would assist AAA towards achieving the goals on his IEP during the 2017-18 school year. In resource room, AAA - would be prompted to look at Google Classroom to remind AAA of assignments and he was encouraged to go see his general. _ education teachers when he was having trouble. AAA used a EF Chromebook for writing assignments, which addressed his . 7 graphomotoric difficulties. Dr. indicated that AAA was , Bo proficient enough so that the use of this technology did not hinder ; his abilities in class. | : Re
The district XYZ next produced Dr. , School _ _ Psychologist, who evaluated AAA in grade nine on 1/9/17. Dr. sat | on the CSE on 5/22/17 for AAA's grade ten program and placement determination. In her 1/9/17 evaluation she administered the of Cognitive Ability, 4°° Edition. AAA tested Woodcock Johnson Test average to above average on all the subtests however when there was a time limit on some subtests where he had difficulty and Dr. indicated that there were obvious processing speed concerns. Dr. recalled that in January 2018 she was approached by a male peer of AAA who informed her of AAA's expressing an intent NNN to BBB. She thoroughly investigated the claims and informed AAA’s parents who immediately sought therapy and had a physician evaluate - medication. (see District Exhibit 24). Dr. continued to monitor AAA throughout the remainder of the 2017-2018 school year. Dr. made certain at the June 2018 CSE that AAA had social and emotional goals for grade eleven to address AAA’s needs in those areas. Dr. was confident that the program offered AAA in 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 by UFO School District met AAA’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 AAA for the 2019-2020 school year. AAA was accepted into the XYZ Program run by the BOCES, housed at the XX School as well as the YY Program run by BOCES. The CSE met on MMM, 2019. The district pointed out that the Parents had paid the full tuition to send AAA to the School for the 2019-2020 school year; though Dr. did not notify _ the CSE of this fact until after the meeting.
Dr. GGG, a psychologist from BOCES, participated on 7/16/19 and described the MMM program at the OOO High School. The parent expressed her fears that AAA would not succeed if he returned to UFO School, and that his year at the School was successful. A discussion of how AAA could be serviced at the FFF program, in AAA 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. Dr. DDD also made clear that her present concerns were not about therapeutic support for her — son, but rather how his YYY concerns could be addressed.
Therefore, the CSE recommended the UFO School program. Ultimately, the Parents rejected the recommendations made by the CSE for the 2019-2020 year and returned AAA to the School. , The district produced EEE, who described the Integrated CoTeaching program in great detail, which she felt would have addressed AAA’s needs along with their Resource Room had he ~ remained in UFO for 2018-2019. AAA. EEE was also asked about the results of a 2018 Special Education Services Audit overseen by a third-party evaluator, Dr. She indicated that this comprehensive review helped to improve and confirm the quality of the UFO Special Education Programs.
. The Parents introduced AAA a Schoo! Academic
Reading Teacher. She described the School as College —
Prep Residential School for grades 9-12 with 230 students. The — ~ school is for academically and emotionally challenged students.
The courses are teacher developed and approved by the Headmaster. She described AAA’s disabilities and indicated that 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 2019-2020is he’s going to breakfast every ~ morning”. :
| saw no evidence as to what staff provided to AAA o£ so that he could overcome his inability to attend class on time. Co testified that in 2019-2020 “He’s been late. He’s really late to bs : class. So when you are talking about HHH deficit you are looking ~ at one of AAA’s area of weakness along with PPP.” At UFO School this was not an issue. In addition | saw no evidence from the Parents as to how staff assisted AAA in managing his anxiety and emotions. bk. AAA offered a description of AAA's grades, which she described as “mostlyin the B’s and. this year he has A’s and B's. in AAA of social and emotional progress, AAA. ZZZ said AAA was happy and comfortable. She conceded that AAA needs a great | deal of assistance meeting deadlines and organizing his work. AAA provided an overview of the curriculum. My examination of AAA’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, Dr. lil who testified that she evaluated AAA 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 AAA. On cross examination Dr. Ill indicated that she had not met with any UFO School District Staff to discuss AAA. Evidence from several medical sources indicated that AAA was at times suffering from extreme anxiety and depression. (D. Exhibit 7). Dr. SI] determined that AAA’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 NelsonDenny, 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, AAA 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. IH only noted a few weaknesses, his WWW. Despite this, for a program recommendation, she recommended a residential school, exactly the type of school the Parents had enrolled AAA in prior to contracting with her to evaluate their son.
In his treatment summary of 6/5/18, Dr. UUU, Psychiatrist confirmed many of Dr. Ill’ findings. | Additionally, in another treatment summary of 6/5/18, Dr. BBB, Clinical Psychologist also confirmed Dr. III's findings.
The district argues that there is no justification provided in Dr. lll’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 XXX’s IEPs for the two years in question -address all of the needs indicated in Dr. MMM’s evaluation. Dr. MMWM’s report was done at the request and expense of the _ parents who were attempting to justify their decision to place XXX ina residential out of district setting such as the School. The district relied heavilyin its brief on the findings of Dr. MMM. to justify that School was an appropriate placement for XXX.
The parent testified that AAA had significant recognizable concerns at age three. He received OT services and had significant attention problems according to his third grade teacher. AAA had per Smithce proble AAA 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 UUU.
In grade ten AAA 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 AAA’s friends indicated that he had talked of RRR. Subsequent to that a physician, Dr. BBB, diagnosed a tumultuous time for AAA with medication changes resulting in ???. By the end of Grade Ten AAA was extremely down on school and again RRR. The Parents decided to look for alternative | residential placements and for 2018-2019 sent AAA to the Schoolin XYZ. , The parents contend that AAA has made measurable - progress at the School with his cognitive abilities and ro ” emotional needs. The student's clinical psychologist indicated that AAA no longer presented himself with manifestations of anxiety or a mood disorder. |
SUMMARY and CASE LAW
This hearing officer was appointed by the UFO School District on May 2, 2019. The parents requested an impartial hearing on ???, 2019. The hearing was convened on ??? 2019.
The héaring 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 AAA 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 XXX with regard to academic ability and his social emotional concerns. In fact, those same findings were considered during the formulation of the [EPs for 2018-2019 and 2019-2020.
_ Parents seeking reimbursement “bear the burden of demonstrating that their private placement was appropriate, even if the lEP was inappropriate.” Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. D., 489 F.3d 105 at 112 (2d Cir. 2007); See MLS. v. Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 104 (2d Cir. 2000).
An appropriate educational program begins with an JEP 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[al[2]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]), and provides for the use-of appropriate. special education services (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[al[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 AXYZ (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]).
‘Htegkane.|uetr
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
$1400(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 2" 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 | see any evidence of any violation of the parents’ rights to participate in _ fhe 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
AAA eligible for Special Education XXX Classification.
Two purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
AXYZ.(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)}). : .
Additionally, school districts are not required to "maximize" the potential of students with disabilities (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199; | eer
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 Walezak,.142 F.3d at 130 [citations omitted]; see —_ Perricelli, 2007 WL 465211, at *15). The IEP must be "reasonably c 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[al[5][A]; 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.114{al[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: | (1) provide the special education needed by the student; (2) 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 (3) be as close as possible to the student's home. 8N.Y.C.R.R. 200,I(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 U.S., 137 S. XYZ. 988, 998-1001 (2017). As the — Supreme Court held, “for most children, a FAPE will invoive — integration in the regular classroom and individualized special _ education calculated to achieve advancement from grade to 7 grade. Endrew 137 S.CT. at 1000. _
The district, in its brief, suggested several possible placements to address AAA's needs from 2018-2020 and | concur. e that any of these placements would have addressed the special — -_ education needs of AAA at this time.
DECISION OF THE IHO-
It 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 AAA 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 AAA attended the UFO School District. The [HO finds that the District had both the intention and the resources to offer AAA 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 AAA’s attention and organizational needs. In addition, the IHO finds that the School placement for AAA 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 and 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 School for AAA’s varied disabilities. The record also shows ample proof of School's failure to provide an appropriate educational. program.
7 ~The record before me does not warrant placement of AAA in a full time residential special education setting such as the School. AAA'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 nave continued to progress in his home school district.
Itis the decision of this Hearing Officer that the UFO Union Free School District did, in fact, offer an appropriate program and placement for AAA during the two years in question. The © testimony from district witnesses was consistent in explaining the intentions of the district in addressing AAA’s specific academic needsin each of the two years in contention. Even though the ween 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 AAA each of the two years as described by district personnel was appropriate and, in all likelinood would _ have benefitted AAA. .
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 fBreirsege 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 AAA was offered a FAPE in the LRE, including whether the UFO 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. AAA’s deficits were specifically addressed in the UFO IEPs including the need to improve organization, self correct and refocus.
In addition, the : L 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 AAAs specific academic and special education needs during the time period in contention. AAA's academic and behavioral record indicate serious, persistent and concerning problems. AAA struggles with FFF 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 AAA remain in the UFO School District is and was an inappropriate placement for AAA. The School is obviously more restrictive and convincingly ineffective which obviously contradicts the P | educational mandate to assist AAA in progressing academically and mentally. The record before me shows that AAA continues to exhibit abnormal behavior and has 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 School - was unduly restrictive, and therefore, not an appropriate placement for AAA. Based on the evidence presented to me I find that the public school district successfully classified AAA as TTT for 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 and the CSE developed an appropriate special education placement and program for AAA.
‘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 C School Comm, of Town of Burlington, Mass. Dept of Educ., 471 | a _ 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 L : attempting to thwart prescribed procedures. Tucker v. Bay Shore | Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d 563. The IDEA has a specific provision requiring, inter alia, that parents act reasonably asa . condition to obtaining reimbursement. 20 U.S.C, §§1412(a)(10)(C)(iii) (I)-(II). The Parents determined to send XXX to School prior to the June 19, 2018 CSE. They signed the contract with on May 23rd 2018, submitting a non-refundable deposit of $7,919. They then contracted with Dr. MMM to.assess XXX. Dr. MMM states specifically in her evaluation that the evaluation was done to justify the placement at. For the 2019-2020 school year, the Parents made the commitment to return XXX to in January of 2019, weil 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 XXX to a program recommended by the UFO.CSE. The rationale for these conclusions. are made clear throughout this decision. | : , 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 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 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
This Bedision randelege dpruary 14, 2020. Impartial Hearing Officer
Dr. James A.
1HO
LAW OFFICE OF
|
22N° FLOOR
_ NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10001 |
TELEPHONE: | :
TELECOPIER: a
JNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT :
PETITIONER DISCLOSURE DOCUMENTS
Exhibit ~ Description ~~ “Date Pages _ A Due Process Complaint | September 25, 2019 19 ° B | Psychological Evaluation January 9, 2017 9 Cc Individualized Education Program . May 22, 2017 12 D Individualized Education Program March 28, 2019 , 14 ~ a) Parent Letter 10-Day-Netioe with atachments —| August 30; 3015aa Ornrbted | F CSE Meeting Notice - Faly 10, 2019 2 m G "| Individualized Education Progam | July 16,2019 ~~ 14 H School Program Description - Undated | 2 7 J School Progress Report - Sl. 2018.2019 4 ; J School Progress Report ~ $2 2018-2019 “K - School Year End Report Card_ 2018-2019 —SS~*«*S'S -_ L - | Cntentionally Blank) : )- : M a oe w © 7 Conyac 20S+ 2.019 Z N . GL ip : embacr | 409 - A020 a 0) — Invoices 201 8-2019/2019-2020 | 4 “~ P Emails between the District and the Parent Various } V4
Q | Review of Recommendations
December 2018 62
Exhibit List v. UFSD
Exhibit # Description Date | Page # :
1 EP June 19, 2018 B E
2 _ TEP | Match 3, 2018 12 7
3 | TEP : June 7, 2016 12 : 4 FP October 21, 2016 B a oe
5 Progress Report July 18, 2018 3 -6 : Progress Report | April 24, 2017 3
7 Neutopsychological Evaluation | July 31, 2018 10
8 - Letter from Dr. March 25, 2018 2 gq Transcript Undated 1 10 Health Examination Undated : 2
1 Summary Report and Report 2017-2018 3 7
Catd _.
12 Teacher Reports June 2018 5 i) LT Teacher Reports: April 2018 3 14 |” Sammary Report, Transcript April 2018, 3 7
| and Report Card iE
15 Summaty Report, Transcript May 2017 4 :
and Report Card | ~ 16 Teacher Reports | May 2017 3 _
17 Summary Report, Transcript October 2016 3
4 _ aad Report Card a 18 _ Teacher Reports October 2016 6 7
19 Email from Parents to April 3, 2019
20 Letter from Parents tc August 23, 2019
21 _ BOCES “Jone 18, 2019 letter
22, July 16, 2019
BOCES lettex
23 Email and form regarding September 10, 2018
_ withdrawal |
24 Emails | Vatious Dates 27 f
Email frorn May 4 , 2019