New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

CASE NUMBER: 536839 - NYC: 193679

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 193679

Students Name: REDACTED

Date of Birth: REDACTED

Date of Hearing: 03/23/2021

09/30/2021

11/10/2021

01/06/2022

01/18/2022

03/22/2022

District: REDACTED

Hearing Requested by: Parent

Hearing Officer: Tina Millman

Record Close Date: May 02, 2022

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED 03/23/21

For the Student:

REDACTED, Parent Attorney

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED, DOE Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED 09/30/21

For the Student:

REDACTED, Parent Attorney

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED, DOE Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED 11/10/ 21

For the Student:

REDACTED, Parent Attorney

REDACTED, Parent

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED, DOE Representative

REDACTED, Teacher Assigned

REDACTED, Assistant Principal

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED 01/06/22

For the Student:

REDACTED, Parent Attorney

REDACTED, Parent

REDACTED, Director REDACTED

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED, DOE Representative

REDACTED, DOE Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED 01/18/22

For the Student:

REDACTED, Parent Attorney

REDACTED, Parent

REDACTED, Director, REDACTED

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED, DOE Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED 03/22/22

For the Student:

REDACTED, Parent Attorney

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED, DOE Representative The matter of REDACTED(hereinafter REDACTED or the Student) came before me for determination on March 23 2021, September 30, 2021, November 10th, 2021, January 06, 2022, January 18, 2022, and March 22, 2022 in accordance with the provisions of the Individuals With Disabilities In Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law, for the failure of the New York City Department of Education to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education to the student for the 2019-2020 school year.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The proceeding was initiated at the request of the parent by correspondence dated April 28, 2020. (Ex A) I was appointed as the Impartial Hearing Officer on September 21, 2020.

The compliance date was extended as a result of requests by both parties in light of the possibility of settlement. Appended to the record are lists of persons in attendance and of documents submitted into evidence

At the time of filing, the student was almost REDACTED-old classified by the CSE as a student with REDACTED. The student presented with a complicated profile which is detailed in the DPC. (Exhibit A) The Parents challenge the IEP dated 5/14/19 (Ex. 1)

The Parents amongst many allegations cited in the DPC, maintain that the DOE failed to offer the Student an appropriate program and placement for the 2019-2020 school year. The Parents’ maintain amongst other things that that the IEP is procedurally and substantively flawed, the recommend REDACTED class is too large for the student to address REDACTED academic and social needs, the recommended placement REDACTED would be too overwhelming for the student and when the parent went to visit the school she was informed they did not have a REDACTED class and could not implement the IEP. The Parents seek the following relief:

The Parents seek funding/tuition reimbursement for the student’s placement at the REDACTED for the 2019-2020 school year.

The DOE CASE The DOE offered 3 documents into evidence and presented two witnesses, REDACTED, Teacher Assigned at the IEP meeting and Assistant Principal (“AP”) REDACTED of REDACTED; The DOE asserts that it provided the student with a free, appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the 2019-2020 school year. They maintain the IEP was reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit and progress to the student, the Team was duly constituted and the Team relied on documents and evaluations in making their recommendations They maintain that the Parent was given an opportunity to participate and her concerns were noted. They maintain that the IEP was created in a way that was likely to produce progress and more than some trivial advancement.

The DOE’s first witness REDACTED testifies that the Team made their recommendations by listening to the Parent, teachers and focused on the students’ strength and weaknesses. He recalled the parent felt the REDACTED was too large and notes that the student was in a smaller class which they could not provide in a public school. (Tr. 82-86) On cross examination Mr. REDACTED notes that he wasn’t sure when evaluations were conducted and concedes that the IEP notes the student had REDACTED challenges.(Tr. 95-99) although he notes the Parent expressed concerns the REDACTED class was too large for the student the Team felt it would be sufficient to address REDACTED needs. He notes there are smaller programs such as a D75 but the student did not fit the profile. Mr. REDACTED concedes that the REDACTED evaluation conducted on May 30, 2019 (Ex. 3) was not discussed at the May 14,2019 IEP meeting as it had not been conducted at that time. (Tr. 108-108)

The second witness to testify for the DOE was AP REDACTED from the REDACTED a. In contrast to the Parents assertion that there was not a REDACTED class he testifies there were three REDACTED all Bridge classes. He maintains there was an opening in the REDACTED class and the school would have been able to provide the related services mandated on the 5/14/19 IEP. (Tr. 126-129) On cross-examination Mr. REDACTED concedes that although there are REDACTED classes he does not recall what grades those classes were for the 2019-2020 school year and mentioned numerous times that he does not remember as it was a long time ago. (Tr. 135)

THE PARENTS CASE

To support that the student was denied a FAPE for the 2019-2020 school year the Parent offers 14 pieces of evidence (A –N) and calls 2 witnesses REDACTED, Director of the REDACTED, ( REDACTED or the School), and the Parent REDACTED.

The Parent asserts the district failed to meet is burden to prove that it provided REDACTED. REDACTED a free, appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the 2019-20 school year because:

• • The district failed to show that the May 14, 2019 IEP was procedurally adequate. The record shows that the DOE failed to fully evaluate REDACTED and ensure that it had adequate understanding of her needs in developing her IEP, and failed to afford REDACTED parent a full and meaningful opportunity to participate in the creation of REDACTED IEP since it failed to seriously consider the concerns of REDACTED parent and school regarding the proposed program, failed to share documentation relied upon to create the IEP with her parents, made decisions regarding recommendations for REDACTED unilaterally, and failed to adequately consult REDACTED parent and school regarding its recommendations for REDACTED.
• • The district failed to prove that REDACTED IEP was substantively adequate. The testimony of the district’s IEP witness was insufficient to provide a cogent and responsive explanation for the CSE’s decision-making. The evidence failed to show that the IEP was tailored to REDACTED individual needs and would have afforded REDACTED with educational benefits. The record shows the recommended REDACTED program was inappropriate for REDACTED and the IEP: fails to adequately describe REDACTED needs, fails to include appropriate management needs, fails to include appropriate behavioral supports for REDACTED, and fails to include adequate goals.
• • The district failed to show that its proposed placement for REDACTED: The REDACTED, could have implemented REDACTED IEP or that it was otherwise appropriate to meet her needs for the school year.

With regard to Prong II and III, the Parents’ assert their unilateral placement of REDACTED at the REDACTED is appropriate to meet REDACTED needs as the placement was able to address the students’ academic and social-emotional needs and is reasonably calculated to enable REDACTED to receive educational benefits. They maintain there are no equitable considerations which would bar funding of this placement as they cooperated in the CSE review and placement process at all relevant times.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Two purposes of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. sect. 1400-1482) are (1) to ensure that 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 (2) to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities and parents of such students are protected. (20 U.S.C. sect. 1400 (d) (1) (A)-(B); see generally Forest Grove v. T.A., 129 S. Ct. 2484, 2491 (2009); Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 (1982).

“The IDEA directs that, in general, an IHO’s decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE (Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 21-019 at p. 6; 20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][i]).  “A school district offers a FAPE ‘by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction’” (Appeal No. 21-019 at p. 6, quoting Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 203 (1982)). “However, the ‘IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP’” (Appeal No. 21-019 at p. 6, quoting Walczak v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 (2d Cir. 1998); see also Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189)).  “An IEP’s adequacy turns on the student’s unique circumstances” (Appeal No. 21-019 at p. 6; Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S. __, 137 S. Ct. 988, 1001 (2017)).  “The IDEA ensures an ‘appropriate’ education, ‘not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents’” (Appeal No. 21-019 at p. 6, quoting 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]). Moreover, the DOE is not required to “maximize” the potential of students with disabilities (Appeal No. 21-019 at p. 6; Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132).  “The DOE must provide ‘an IEP that is “likely to produce progress, not regression,” and... affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere ‘trivial advancement’” (Appeal No. 21-019 at p. 6, quoting Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 195 (2d Cir. 2005), quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130 [citations omitted]).  “The IEP must be ‘reasonably calculated to provide some “meaningful” benefit’” (Appeal No. 21-019 at p. 6, quoting Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 (2d Cir. 1997); see Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 1001; Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192).

“The student’s recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment” (“LRE”) (Appeal No. 21-019 at p. 7; 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 CFR 300.114[a][2][i], 300.116[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[cc], 200.6[a][1]. “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]), 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” (Appeal No. 21-019 at p. 6; see 34 CFR 300.320[a][2][i], [2][i][A]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]). “A FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA’s procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits” (Appeal No. 21-019 at p. 6, quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07; T.M. v. Cornwall Cent. Sch. Dist., 752 F.3d 145, 151, 160 [2d Cir. 2014]; R.E. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 189-90 [2d Cir. 2012]; M.H. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 685 F.3d 217, 245 [2d Cir. 2012]; Cerra, 427 F.3d at 192).  “‘[A]dequate compliance with the procedures prescribed would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP’” (Appeal No. 21-019 at p. 6, quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 129, quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206; see T.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 247, 253 [2d Cir. 2009]).  “The Supreme Court has indicated that ‘[t]he IEP must aim to enable the child to make progress.  After all, the essential function of an IEP is to set out a plan for pursuing academic and functional advancement’” (Appeal No. 21-019 at p. 6, quoting Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 988, 999).

“While the Second Circuit has emphasized that school districts must comply with the checklist of procedures for developing a student’s IEP and indicated that ‘[m]ultiple procedural violations may cumulatively result in the denial of a FAPE even if the violations considered individually do not’ (R.E., 694 F.3d at 190-91), the Court has also explained that not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA” (Appeal No. 21-019 at p. 6, quoting M.H., 685 F.3d at 245; A.C. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Chappaqua Cent. Sch. Dist., 553 F.3d 165, 172 [2d Cir. 2009]; Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003]).  “Under the IDEA, if procedural violations are alleged, an administrative officer may find that a student did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a) impeded the student’s right to a FAPE, (b) significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student, or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits” (Appeal No. 21-019 at p. 6; 20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 CFR 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 525-26 [2007]; R.E., 694 F.3d at 190; M.H., 685 F.3d at 245).

Under the IDEA and New York State law, the parent bears the burden at hearing of demonstrating that the unilateral placement is appropriate (see School Committee of Town of Burlington, Massachusetts v. Department of Education of Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359, 370 (1985); M.H., 685 F.3d at 225; Gagliardo v. Arlington Central School District, 489 F.3d 105, 112 (2d Cir. 2007)). The U.S. Supreme Court has held that a parent who unilaterally places her child in a private school without the consent of the school district is “entitled to reimbursement only if a federal court concludes both that the public placement violated IDEA and that the private school placement was proper under the Act” (Florence County School District v. Carter, 510 US 7, 15 (1993)). While it is not necessary that the unilateral placement “meet the IDEA definition of a free appropriate public education,” it is necessary that the placement is appropriate for the student (Frank G. v. Board of Education of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356, 364 (2d Cir. 2006)). “Subject to certain limited exceptions, ‘the same considerations and criteria that apply in determining whether the school district’s placement is appropriate should be considered in determining the appropriateness of the parents’ placement…” (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112). In this regard, based on the ruling in Gagliardo, the unilateral placement’s program must be one 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). A “private placement is only appropriate if it provides ‘education instruction specifically designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child” (Id. at 115 (citing Frank G., 459 F.3d at 365 (quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 188-89)). The Second Circuit has set forth the standard for determining whether parents have carried their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of their unilateral placement:

No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining whether parents’ unilateral placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. Grades, test scores, and regular advancement may constitute evidence that a child is receiving educational benefit, but courts assessing the propriety of a unilateral placement consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child’s individual needs. To qualify for reimbursement under the IDEA, parents need not show that a private placement furnishes every special service necessary to maximize their child’s potential. They need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction.

(Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; see, Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65 (emphasis added)). New York State regulation defines specially designed instruction, in part, as “adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible student under this Part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction to address the unique needs that result from the student’s disability (8 NYCRR 200.1[vv])” (see Application by the New York City Department of Education, Appeal No. 21-105; Application by the New York City Department of Education, Appeal No. 20-062). Parents seeking reimbursement “bear the burden of demonstrating that their private placement was appropriate, even if the IEP was inappropriate” (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; see M.S. v. Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 104 (2d Cir. 2000)).

“Equitable considerations are relevant to fashioning relief under the IDEA (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374; R.E., 694 F.3d at 185, 194; M.C. v. Voluntown Bd. of Educ., 226 F.3d 60, 68 [2d Cir. 2000]; see Carter, 510 U.S. at 16 [“Courts fashioning discretionary equitable relief under IDEA must consider all relevant factors, including the appropriate and reasonable level of reimbursement that should be required.  Total reimbursement will not be appropriate if the court determines that the cost of the private education was unreasonable”]; L.K. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 674 Fed. App’x 100, 101 [2d Cir. Jan. 19, 2017]); see Appeal No. 20-169). To prevail on a claim for tuition reimbursement, “equitable considerations [must] support the parents’ claims” (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370, 374; Carter, 510 U.S. at 16). “When engaging in a review of equitable considerations under the third prong of Burlington, the court enjoys “broad discretion” (D.C. ex rel. E.B. v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 950 F.Supp.2d 494, 515 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), quoting Carter, 510 U.S. at 16, quoting Burlington, 471 U.S. at 369) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Tuition reimbursement may be “reduced or denied... upon a judicial finding of unreasonableness with respect to actions taken by the parents” (20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(c)(iii)(III)).

The first step is to determine whether the DOE offered to provide the student a FAPE. (Mrs. C. v. Voluntown, 226 F. 3d 60,66 (2nd Cir. 2000) (1982)). The student’s recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (“LRE”). (20 U.S.C. sect. 1412 (a)(5)(A), 34 C. F.R. sect. 300.550 (b), 8 NYCRR sect. 200.6(a)(1))

The DOE maintains that 05/14/19 IEP provided the student with a FAPE; I do not concur.

Evidence and testimony support the students’ REDACTED challenges impeded REDACTED academics as well as REDACTED well -being. The IEP did not address REDACTED. At the time the IEP was created the student was in a much smaller program and still needed constant support. The DOE failed to support their reasoning for placing the student in a larger setting with less supports.

The Parents witnesses credibly testify that the recommended placement was too large for the student and the IEP did not address REDACTED. (Tr. 172-173) Ms. REDACTED credibly states that the IEP does not reflect the students’ needs in that it is not supportive enough, REDACTED requires small group instruction and needs a REDACTED. (Tr. 242)

Ms. REDACTED and the Parent believe the recommended placement would be too large and overwhelming for the student.

Regarding the conflicting testimony of the Parent and the DOE’s witness REDACTED, the parent states she was told the school did not have a REDACTED grade class whereby REDACTED initially states there was one however on cross conceded that he was not positive as it was a long time ago. (Tr. 135)Nothing was submitted to support the existence of the REDACTED class and there was no reason to doubt the credibility of the Parent.

For the aforementioned reasons, I find the DOE denied the student a FAPE for the 2019-2020 school year.

Prong II

Having found a denial of FAPE, I will now address the appropriateness of the Parents placement.

The Parent testifies that she is happy with REDACTED as they offer the student support and REDACTED has made progress. Ms. REDACTED notes that she sees the student on a daily basis and that the student is in a class with 6 students ages REDACTED with 1 teacher and 2 assistants. (Tr. 201) They look at the academic and social functional levels of the students in determining how to group them.(Tr. 202)

The student came in as a REDACTED with REDACTED. REDACTED uses an REDACTED and presented with REDACTED deficits that affected REDACTED academically and socially. REDACTED had difficulty following multi step directions and needs things to be broken down. Initially REDACTED was disrespectful to teachers and staff and had issues with personal space as REDACTED was touching things that did not belong to REDACTED. (Tr. 212)

Ms. REDACTED notes the school addresses these issues by providing small individualized instruction using a multi-sensory approach. They provide onsite therapy for REDACTED and have ongoing collaboration between the teachers and the providers.

At the beginning of the year the student was Reading on an early 2nd grade level. REDACTED was taught Reading in a group of 2. The school provided a lot of structure and used a multisensory approach targeting comprehension. By the end of the year REDACTED went up a grade. The same is true for writing. REDACTED started the year at an early 2nd grade as REDACTED impeded REDACTED ability to write. In addition to using graphic organizers, they had a teacher sit with the student to motivate REDACTED to stay on task and complete the paragraph. By the end of the year REDACTED wrote on a mid 3rd grade level. (Tr. 214-216)

Ms. REDACTED notes improvement in REDACTED math skills and adds that the students’ worksheets were modified so REDACTED would not get overwhelmed. Overall REDACTED language improved so REDACTED comprehension improved as well. REDACTED made “nice progress” in both receptive and expressive language skills. (Tr. 218-222)

The school implemented a REDACTED which was divided into two aspects. One part was a structured plan to teach REDACTED proper classroom behavior such as raising REDACTED hand and staying on task. The other part addressed REDACTED social skills such as conversation and not touching other people’s things. Overall, REDACTED made improvement in REDACTED social interaction skills and made friends which improved REDACTED confidence. (Tr. 226)

The witness testifies that due to Covid the school transitioned to remote learning and the student continued to receive instruction and all REDACTED related services during that time. (Tr. 240-241)

She believes the REDACTED was an appropriate placement for the student as it identified REDACTED challenges and chose strategies and methodologies to address them and that the student made “significant improvement” (Tr. 249)

• • In addition to the credible testimony, Exhibits H,I and J support that the student has made meaningful progress while at REDACTED. For the aforementioned reasons, I find the Parents have satisfied their burden of showing that their unilateral placement was appropriate.
• • I will now address the equities, Prong III
• • The determination of whether or not equitable factors support a parent’s claim for tuition reimbursement hinges, in large part, on whether or not the parent cooperated with the CSE. The record fails to show that REDACTED parents acted unreasonably such that tuition reimbursement should be denied on equitable grounds.

Here, the record shows that REDACTED parents fully cooperated with the CSE’s efforts to develop educational recommendations for REDACTED and that they were willing to consider an appropriate public program and placement for REDACTED for the 19-20 SY. REDACTED mother participated in the May 2019 IEP meeting and advised the CSE of her concerns regarding the REDACTED program. Despite her misgivings, she visited REDACTED in September, and after determining that it was not appropriate for REDACTED, promptly advised the CSE in writing of her concerns. (Tr. 177-80; Ex. D)

• • Here, REDACTED parent notified the DOE of her concerns regarding the CSE’s recommendations for REDACTED for the SY at the IEP meeting and in writing on two separate occasions, but the district failed to respond.

Based on the foregoing, I find that equitable factors support the Parents’ claim for tuition reimbursement for the 2019-2020 school year. The Parents have therefore met the third of the three Burlington/Carter criteria for tuition reimbursement. Having met all three of the Burlington/Carter criteria, the Parents are entitled to funding for the cost of the Student’s 2019-2020 placement at the REDACTED.

The cost of the students’ tuition and related services at REDACTED is $55,700 broken down as follows.: $48, 500 for tuition and $7,200 for related services. The Parents claim the religious portion of the students’ program should not be deducted however I do not concur nor do I concur with their estimation of only 6% of the program being devoted to religion. My calculation supports approximately 10% of the students’ program is devoted to religious studies. The students’ week comprises of 30 hours of school and based on my calculations 3 hours and 15 minutes are devoted to religion. I based this on adding the time designated to REDACTED Studies, REDACTED and half of the time designated for REDACTED as Ms. REDACTED noted REDACTED is comprised of learning about American and REDACTED Holidays. (Tr. 232) Based upon a reduction of 10% of the tuition devoted to Religious studies I find the DOE should reimburse the students tuition for the 2019-2020 school year in the amount of $50,850 which represent $43,650 for the students’ tuition less 10% and $7200 for related services.

ORDER

Upon proof of payment and the student’s attendance the DOE must reimburse the Parents for the cost of the students’ tuition at the REDACTED for the 2019-2020 school year in the amount of $50,850.

Dated:May 3, 2022

Tina Millman Esq.

Impartial Hearing Officer

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

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 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 parties' petition for review shall be personally served upon the opposing party within 40 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. An appealing party shall file the notice of intention to seek review; notice of request for review, request for review, and proof of service with the Office of State Review of the State Education Department within two days after service of the request for review is complete.

The rules of procedure for appeals before an SRO are found in Part 279 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education. A copy of the rules in Part 279 and model forms are available at http://www.sro.nysed.gov

EVIDENCE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

DOE EXHIBTS

REDACTED

PARENTS EXHIBITS

REDACTED

IHO EVIDENCE

• • DOE Closing Brief, 3/21/22, 5pp.
• • Parent Closing Brief, 3/18/22, 29pp.