New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

INTRODUCTION

This document constitutes the Decision and Order of the undersigned, the duly designated Impartial Hearing Officer in an Impartial Hearing brought pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the New York State Education laws. The New York City Department of Education will be referred to as District or the DOE, the parents as Parents and the child will be referred to as Student.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This hearing was requested by a Due Process Complaint dated December 2, 2019 by BO, the parent of student EO (Parent Ex. A). There are three issues to be addressed in this decision: the Parent’s request for continuation of the preschool program for the 2019/20 school year in the absence of an appropriate IESP created for the 2019/20 school year, the request for compensatory SEIT services for the 2018/19 school year, and the receipt of related services for the 2019/20 school year; namely, speech/language therapy, , 2X30, individual (group of 2) and occupational therapy, 2x30, group of two. Parent believes such services are being provided but seeks Related Service Authorizations (RSA’s) in the event that such services are not being provided. Student attends , a New York State non-public school, and was determined eligible for 5 hours per week of Special Education Itinerant Teacher services (SEIT), ; group or 2, pursuant to a Preschool IEP dated December 19, 2018 (Parent Ex. B), the last agreedupon IEP.

The undersigned was appointed as Impartial Hearing Officer on December 6, 2019. A Pendency hearing was held on December 20, 2019; a Decision and Order on Pendency was issued by the undersigned on December 21, 2019 (IHO Ex. I). Thereafter, hearings were held on January 9, 2020 and February 14, 2020. The Parent was represented by , Esq., and the DOE was represented by . The undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer presided during all hearings.

During the course of the proceedings, the parties moved to extend the case compliance date in this matter on the dates indicated in IHO Ex. II, all in order to allow for an examination of all relevant witnesses and documents, and to complete the hearing. In considering the requests, I weighed the cumulative impact of the relevant factors and found that, in allowing for adequate time for such purposes, the delays in the resolution of the matter and the extension of time for such purposes was in accordance with the requirements of due process. Accordingly, the requests for extensions of the case compliance date were granted (IHO Exhibit II). See 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(c); 8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(5).

The hearing record was closed effective February 15, 2020.

Appended to this decision are: a statement of appeal rights; a list of the persons in attendance at the hearings; and a list of the documents received into evidence. See 8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(5)(v).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Student was, at the beginning of the 2019/20 school year, a with a DOE classification of Speech of Learning Disability. In consideration of Student’s disabilities, the aforementioned December 19, 2018 Preschool IEP was developed which authorized 5 periods of SEIT per week, . As indicated earlier, Parent seeks the continued provision of the program contained in the preschool IEP as the appropriate educational placement for Student for the 2019/20 school year, having disagreed with the IESP created for Student for the 2019/20 school year (Parent Ex. C), and seeks compensatory SEIT for a portion of the 2018/19 school year due to the fact that such services were not provided until March 6, 2019. Also at issue is Parent’s request for RSA’s to ensure continuation of the related services contained within the Preschool

IEP.

PARENT’S POSITION

The Parent alleges that Student has been denied a FAPE for the 2019/20 school year due to the failure of the District to create an appropriate IESP for the 2019/20 school year. Parent seeks continuation of the program contained in the Preschool IEP dated December 19, 2019 which provided for SEIT and related services. Parent asserts that the December 19, 2018 Preschool IEP is the last agreed-upon program for Student, and further maintains that the mandates contained in such IEP are the appropriate educational program for Student for the 2019/20 school year. Parent also states that the SEIT provider has been working with Student during the 2019/20 school year and that such provider has achieved meaningful progress for Student. Parent also seeks compensatory SEIT for that portion of the 2018/19 school year in which Student did not receive the mandated SEIT as contained in the December 19, 2018 IEP.

DISTRICTS POSITION

The District presented no evidence to establish that Student’s current educational needs were significantly different from the needs that existed during the creation of the December 19, 2018 Preschool IEP. Additionally, the District presented no evidence or witnesses with respect to the missing SEIT services during the 2018/19 school year. Finally, the DOE did not challenge either the qualifications of the SEIT provider retained by Parent, nor the appropriateness of such provider.

FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Applicable Legal Standards

Two purposes of the IDEA, see 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482, are: (a) to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education (“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 (b) 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); see generally Forest Grove v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230, 239 (2009); Board of Educ.

of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 (1982) 1.

1. The term “free appropriate public education” means special education and related services that — (A) have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge;

(B) meet the standards of the State educational agency;

(C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education in the State involved; and

(D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education program required under section 1414(d) of this title. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9); 34 C.F.R. § 300.17.

A school district offers a FAPE "by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction" (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" (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130; see 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" (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]; see Grim, 346 F.3d at 379). 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; Walcezak, 142 F.3d at 132).

Nonetheless, a school district must provide "an JEP 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 T.P., 554 F.3d at 254; P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 118-19 [2d Cir. 2008]; 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 least restrictive environment (LRE) (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][S][A]; 34 CFR 300.114[a][2][i], 300.116[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[cc], 200.6[a][1]; see 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; G.B. v. Tuxedo Union Free Sch. Dist., 751 F. Supp. 2d 552, 573-80 [S.D.N.Y. 2010], aff'd, 486 Fed. App'x 954 [2d Cir.

2012]; E.G. v. City Sch. Dist. of New Rochelle, 606 F. Supp. 2d 384, 388 [S.D.N.Y. 2009]; 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 includes a statement of the student's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]; Tarlowe v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 2736027, at *6 [S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2008] [noting that a CSE must consider, among other things, the "results of the initial evaluation or most recent evaluation" of the student, as well as the "academic, developmental, and functional needs" of the mt student]), establishes annual goals designed to meet the student's needs resulting from the student's disability and enable him or her to make progress in the general education curriculum (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][2][i], [2][J[A]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][ii]), and provides for the use of appropriate special education services (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][4]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]).

Once a parent consents to a district's provision of special education services, such services must be provided by the district in conformity with the student's IEP (20 U.S.C. § 1401[9][D]; 34 CFR 300.17[d]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1414[d]; 34 CFR 300.320). The school district must provide special education and related services to a student with a disability in accordance with the student's IEP and must make a good faith effort to assist the student to achieve the annual goals and, if appropriate, short-term instructional objectives or benchmarks listed in the student's IEP. See 8 NYCRR 200.4(e)(7). With regard to the implementation of a student's IEP, a denial of a FAPE occurs if the district deviates from substantial or significant provisions of the student's IEP in a material way (T.L. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2012 WL 1107652, *14 [E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2012]; D.D-S., 2011 WL 3919040, at *13; A.L. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 812 F. Supp. 2d

492,503 [S.D.N.Y. 2011]; see A.P. v. Woodstock Bd. of Educ., 370 Fed. App'x 202, 205 [2d Cir.

2010]; Van Duyn v. Baker Sch. Dist. 5J, 502 F.3d 811, 822 [9th Cir. 2007]; Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Bobby R., 200 F.3d 341, 349 [Sth Cir. 2000]). In order to show a denial of a FAPE based on a failure to implement an IEP, a party must establish more than a de minimis failure to implement all elements of the IEP, and instead must demonstrate that the school board or other authorities failed to implement substantial or significant provisions of the IEP (see Houston Indep.

Sch. Dist., 200 F.3d at 349; see also Fisher v. Stafford Township Bd. of Educ., 289 Fed. App'x 520, 524-25 [3d Cir. 2008]; Couture v. Bd. of Educ., 535 F.3d 1243 [10th Cir. 2008]; Neosho RV Sch. Dist. v. Clark, 315 F.3d 1022, 1027 n.3 [8th Cir. 2003]). Accordingly, in reviewing failure to implement claims under the IDEA, courts have held that it must be ascertained whether the aspects of the IEP that were not followed were substantial, or in other words, "material" (A.P., 370 Fed. App'x at 205; see Van Duyn, 502 F.3d at 822 [holding that a "material failure occurs when there is more than a minor discrepancy between the services a school provides to a disabled [student] and the services required by the [student's] IEP"]; see also Catalan v. Dist. of Columbia, 478 F. Supp. 2d 73 [D. D.C. 2007] [holding that where a student missed a ‘handful’ of speech-language therapy sessions as a result of the therapist's absence or due to the student's fatigue, nevertheless, the student received consistent speech-language therapy in accordance with his IEP, and the district's failure to follow the IEP was excusable under the circumstances and did not amount to a failure to implement the student's program]).

Under New York State law, parents of a New York State resident student with a disability who is placed in a nonpublic school and who seeks to obtain educational “services” for his or her child may file a request for such services in the district of location where the nonpublic school is located on or before the first day of June preceding the school year for which the request for services is made (Educ. Law §3602-c [2]). Such “services” include “education for students with disabilities”, which means “special educational programs designed to serve persons who meet the definition of children with disabilities set forth in Education Law §4401(1); Education Law §3602c[1][a], [d]. “Boards of education of all school districts of the state shall furnish services to students who are residents of this state and who attend nonpublic schools located in such school districts, upon the written request of the parent” (Education Law §3602-c[2][a]. In such circumstances, the district of the location’s CSE must review the request for services and “develop an [IESP] for the student based on the student’s individual needs in the same manner and with the same contents as an [IEP]” (Education Law §3602-c[2][b][1]. The CSE must “assure that special education programs and services are made available to students with disabilities attending nonpublic schools located within the school district on an equitable basis, as compared to special education programs and services provided to other students with disabilities attending public or nonpublic schools located within the school district”. Additionally, unlike the provisions of the IDEA, section 3602-c provides that a parent may seeks review of the recommendations of the CSE pursuant to the impartial hearing and State-level review provisions of Education Law § 4404. See

Application of the Board of Educ., Appeal No. 18-088.

8 NYCRR 200.4(e)(3) provides in part: The school district shall ensure that the recommendations on a student’s IEP, including changes to the IEP made pursuant to subdivision (g) of this section, are implemented, including but not limited to: (1) ensuring that each regular education teacher, special education teacher, related service provider, and/or other service provider, as defined in section 200.2(b)(11)()(a) of this Part, who is responsible for the implementation of a student’s IEP, is provided a paper or electronic copy of the IEP prior to the implementation of such JEP or shall be able to access such student’s IEP electronically. If the board of education or board of trustees adopts a policy that the student's IEP is to be accessed electronically, then such policy shall also ensure that the individuals responsible for the implementation of a student's IEP shall be notified and trained on how to access such IEPs electronically; (1i1) ensuring that each regular education teacher, special education teacher, related service provider, other service provider, supplementary school personnel as defined in section 200.1(hh) of this Part, and other provider and support staff person has been informed, prior to the implementation of the IEP, of his or her responsibility to implement the recommendations on the student's IEP, including the responsibility to provide specific accommodations, program modifications, supports and/or services for the student in accordance with the IEP;

As provided in 8 NYCRR 200.6(e): Related services shall be recommended by the committee on special education to meet specific needs of a student with a disability as set forth in the individualized education program (IEP).

(1) The frequency, duration and location of each such service shall be in the IEP, based on the individual student's need for the service.

(2) For students with disabilities determined to need speech and language services, the total caseload of such students for teachers providing such services shall not exceed 65.

(3) When a related service is provided to a number of students at the same time, the number of students in the group shall not exceed five students per teacher or specialist except that, in the city school district of the city of New York, the commissioner shall allow a variance of up to 50 percent rounded up to the nearest whole number from the maximum of five students per teacher or specialist.

(4) A student with a disability may be provided with more than one such service in accordance with the need of the student.

(5) Related services may be provided in conjunction with a regular education program or with other special education programs and services.

200.6 Continuum of services.

(a) A student with a disability shall be provided with appropriate special education.

(1) Students with disabilities shall be provided special education in the least restrictive environment, as defined in section 200.1(cc) of this Part. To enable students with disabilities to be educated with nondisabled students to the maximum extent appropriate, specially designed instruction and supplementary services may be provided in the regular class, including, as appropriate, providing related services, resource room programs and special class programs within the general education classroom.

(2) A student with a disability shall be provided the special education specified on the student’s IEP to be necessary to meet the student's unique needs.

(3) Students with disabilities placed together for purposes of special education shall be grouped by similarity of individual needs as defined in section 200.1(ww) of this Part, in accordance with the following:

(1) The range of academic or educational achievement of such students shall be limited to assure that instruction provides each student appropriate opportunities to achieve his or her annual goals. The learning characteristics of students in the group shall be sufficiently similar to assure that this range of academic or educational achievement is at least maintained.

(11) The social development of each student shall be considered prior to placement in any instructional group to assure that the social interaction within the group is beneficial to each student, contributes to each student's social growth and maturity, and does not consistently interfere with the instruction being provided. The social needs of a student shall not be the sole determinant of such placement.

(iii) The levels of physical development of such students may vary, provided that each student is provided appropriate opportunities to benefit from such instruction. Physical needs shall be considered prior to determining placement to assure access to appropriate programs. The physical needs of the student shall not be the sole basis for determining placement.

(iv) The management needs of such students may vary, provided that environmental modifications, adaptations, or, human or material resources required to meet the needs of any one student in the group are provided and do not consistently detract from the opportunities of other students in the group to benefit from instruction.

(b) Staffing requirements pursuant to Part 80 of this Title.

(1) When a remedial service is included in the individualized education program, such service shall be provided by appropriately certified or licensed individuals.

(2) When a transitional support service is included in the individualized education program to be provided to teachers of a student with a disability, such service shall be provided by personnel appropriately certified or otherwise qualified in each area of service.

(3) Related services shall be provided by individuals with appropriate certification or license in each area of related service.

(4) Special education instruction shall be provided by individuals appropriately certified or licensed pursuant to Part 80 of this Title.

(5) An administrator or supervisor of special education programs serving more than 25 percent of his or her assignment in such capacity shall hold a certificate valid for administrative and supervisory service pursuant to Part 80 of this Title.

(6) When specially designed reading instruction is included in the individualized education program, such instruction may be provided by individuals qualified under section 80-2.7 or sections 80-3.3, 80-3.7(a)(3)(iv) and 52.21(b)(3)(x1) of this Title as applicable. For purposes of this paragraph, specially designed reading instruction shall mean specially designed individualized or group instruction or special services or programs, as defined in subdivision 2 of section 4401 of the Education Law, in the area of reading and which is provided to a student with a disability who has significant reading difficulties that cannot be met through general reading programs.

(c) Transitional support services prescribed in the individualized education program (IEP) shall be provided for a teacher upon the recommendation of the committee on special education, and shall be specified in the student's IEP. When the provision of a transitional support service is under consideration by a committee on special education, the teachers of the student for whom the service is being considered shall be given the opportunity to participate in the meeting of the committee for the purpose of advising the committee of the extent to which such services are needed.

A board of education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a student by his or her parent, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parent were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parent's claim (Burlington School Comm. v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 [1985]). The failure of a parent to select a program known to be approved by the state in favor of an unapproved option is not itself a bar to reimbursement (Florence County School Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S.

7 [1993]).

COMPENSATORY SERVICES

The purpose of an award of compensatory educational services or additional services is to provide an appropriate remedy for a denial of a FAPE (see E.M. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 758 F.3d 442, 451 [2d Cir. 2014]. Compensatory education is a remedy designed to "make up for" a denial of a FAPE]; see also Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 524 [D.C. Cir. 2005] [holding that, in fashioning an appropriate compensatory education remedy, "the inquiry must be fact-specific, and to accomplish IDEA's purposes, the ultimate award must be reasonably calculated to provide the educational benefits that likely would have accrued from special education services the school district should have supplied in the first place"]; Parents of Student

W. v. Puyallup Sch. Dist., 31F.3d 1489, 1497 [9th Cir. 1994] [holding that "[a]ppropriate relief is relief designed to ensure that the student is appropriately educated within the meaning of the IDEA"]; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 11-075; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 10- 052). Accordingly, an award of additional services should aim to place the student in the position he or she would have been in had the district complied with its obligations under the IDEA (see Newington, 546 F.3d at 123 [holding that compensatory education awards should be designed so as to "appropriately address[] the problems with the [EP"]; S.A. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2014 WL 1311761, at *7 [E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2014] [noting that compensatory education "serves to compensate a student who was actually educated under an inadequate IEP and to catch-up the student to where he [or she] should have been absent the denial of a FAPE" [internal quotations and citation omitted]; see also Draper v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 518 F.3d 1275, 1289 [11th Cir. 2008] [holding that "[c]ompensatory awards should place children in the position they would have been in but for the violation of the Act"]; Bd. of Educ. v. L.M., A478 F.3d 307, 316 [6th Cir. 2007] [holding that "a flexible approach, rather than a rote hour-by-hour compensation award, is more likely to address [the student's] educational problems successfully"]; Reid, 401 F.3d at 518 [holding that compensatory education is a "replacement of educational services the child should have received in the first place" and that compensatory education awards "should aim to place disabled children in the same position they would have occupied but for the school district's violations of IDEA"]; Puyallup, 31 F.3d at 1497 [finding "[t]here is no obligation to provide a day-for-day compensation for time missed"]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 13-168; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No.12-135; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 11-132; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 11-091).

Compensatory education awards can be drafted under two types of approaches: a quantitative approach and a qualitative approach. With a quantitative approach, courts examine the amount of time during which a child has been deprived of a FAPE, and award compensatory services with an eye towards making up that time. See, e.g., MC. v. Central Regional School District, 81 F.3d 389, 297 (3d Cir. 1996) (holding generally that subject to equitable adjustment, the “child is entitled to compensatory education for a period equal to the period of deprivation, excluding only the time reasonably required for the school district to rectify the problem.”).

Under the qualitative approach, the examination should focus on the child’s needs; “some students may require only short, intensive compensatory programs targeted at specific problems or deficiencies” while “[o]thers may need extended programs, perhaps even exceeding hour-for-hour replacement of the time spent without FAPE.” Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 524 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Pursuant to this approach, there must be evidence regarding the child’s “specific educational deficits” resulting from the failure to provide FAPE and “specific compensatory measures” designed to “correct those deficits. Reid, supra at 526.

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to applicable law, case law and regulations cited above, the burden is on the DOE to establish that it has provided the Student with a FAPE and that it has effectively and materially implemented the provisions of an agreed-upon IESP. The DOE did not present any documentary evidence at the hearing, nor did it present any witness testimony. Additionally, no challenge was made by the DOE to the SEIT’s credentials, nor did the DOE assert that such SEIT provider was in any other manner inappropriate. As no evidence was presented by the DOE to establish that Student’s current educational needs are significantly different than those needs that existed at the time of the creation of the Preschool IEP, the last agreed-upon IEP, and as the DOE conceded that no new assessments or evaluations were conducted prior to the creation of the 2019/20 IESP with which Parent disagrees, it is determined that the provision of 5 hours of SEIT per week, , group of 2, together with the related services contained within the December 19, 2018

Preschool IEP, remain the appropriate educational placement for Student for the 2019/20 school year.

With respect to the related services at issue, no challenge was made by the DOE to Student’s entitlement to same, as contained in the same Preschool IEP dated December 19, 2018.

Finally, with respect to compensatory SEIT for the 2018/19 school year, Parent’s attorney represented that SEIT services for Student did not begin until March 6, 2019; as Student was entitled to such services effective December 19, 2018, Student shall be eligible for 10 weeks of SEIT, 5 hours per week, , group of up to 2 (allowing for approximately two weeks of school vacation), subject to confirmation, by affidavit of services provided or other method of verification approved by the DOE, to be provided at the standard SEIT market rate not to exceed $125.00 per hour.

ORDER

NOW, THEREFORE, IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF FACT, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The DOE shall provide payment to Student’s SEIT provider, at the market contracted rate not to exceed $125.00 per hour, for the provision of SEIT, a) hours per week, group of up to 2 students.

2. Said payment authorization shall be retroactive to the beginning of the 10-month

2019/20 school year, upon verification by such provider (or by such provider’s Agency, as the case may be), by affidavit or otherwise, of such services provided, and continue throughout the remainder of the 2019/20 school year.

3. Such payment shall be reduced by any amounts already paid to such provider under the Pendency Order, noted above, dated December 21, 2019, or any other Pendnency Order issued for Student for the 2019/20 school year.

4. The DOE shall issue Related Service Authorizations for the following related services, retroactive to the beginning of the 10-month 2019/20 school year, and continuing throughout the 2019/20 school year, in the event that such related services have not been provided to Student since the beginning of the 2019/20 school year:

a. Speech/language therapy, 2x30, , group of up to 2;

b. Occupational therapy, 2x30, group of up to 2.

5. The DOE shall provide compensatory SEIT in the amount of 50 hours (10 weeks,

5 hours per week), , group of up to 2, upon receipt of confirmation, by affidavit or other method acceptable to the DOE, that such SEIT services did not commence for Student for the 2018/19 school year until on or about March 6, 2019.

6. Such compensatory SEIT shall be placed in a “bank” to be utilized, as the SEIT provider sees fit, in her/her best judgment, for a period of 6 months from the date of this Order.

7. The DOE shall comply in all respects with this Decision and Order.

Dated: February 18, 2020

BRUCE S. OLINGER, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

APPEAL RIGHTS

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 the 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.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

PARENT

A. Due Process Complaint, dated 12/2/19 (3 pages)

B. Preschool IEP, dated 12/19/18 (16 pages)

C. IESP, dated 5/29/19 (16 pages)

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

NONE

IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER

I. Decision and Order on Pendency, dated 12/21/19 (11 pages)

II. Extension of Compliance Period, dated 2/14/20 (1 page)

II. Attendance Sheet, dated 1/9/20 and 2/14/20 (2 pages)