Impartial Hearing Decision

______________________________________________________________________ In the Matter of the Due Process Hearing

Between The Parents of [REDACTED] And

[REDACTED] SCHOOL DISTRICT

NYSED Case #545819

Pursuant to the Provisions of Article 89 of the Education Law of the State of New York

JAMES P. WALSH, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

381 Delaware Avenue

Delmar NY 12054

APPEARANCES:

[REDACTED]

Attorneys for District

1415 Kellum Place

Garden City, Of Counsel

[REDACTED]

Attorneys for Parents

1600 Stewart Street

[REDACTED], New York 11590

[REDACTED], ESQ, Of Counsel

DECISION

JURISDICTION

This proceeding was commenced by the Parents of [REDACTED], a student residing within the territorial jurisdiction of the [REDACTED] School District and a student previously determined to be a student with a disability, (hereinafter referred to as “Student”), by the filing by their attorneys, the Law Offices of [REDACTED]Associates. on October 26, 2020, of a Due Process Complaint Notice, dated October 23, 2020, with the [REDACTED] School District (hereinafter referred to as “District).

In accordance with the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, the undersigned was appointed as the Impartial Hearing Officer authorized to preside over the above-captioned proceeding on October 27, 2020.

Pre-Hearing Conferences were conducted on November 22, 2020; December 3, 3030; January 4, 2021; January 25, 2021; and March 8, 2021. In the last of such Pre-Hearing Conferences, dates were set for the commencement of hearings.

THE HEARING

All sessions of the hearing were conducted virtually, utilizing a ZOOM platform as well as the services of a Court Reporter. Hearings were held on the following dates:

April 26, 2021

April 30, 2021

May 4, 2021

May 11, 2021

June 9, 2021

July 13, 2021

July 14, 2021 The parties were advised, prior to the commencement of the receipt of testimony, that each would have the right to call witnesses on their behalf, to cross-examine witnesses called by the other party and to offer exhibits into evidence. The parties were further advised that nothing except the sworn testimony of the witnesses appearing in this Proceeding and the contents of the exhibits received into evidence would be considered in my determination of this matter.

In accordance with the provisions of New York State Education Law §4404(1)(c) the burden of persuasion and the burden of proof rested with District The district, in submitting its case-in-chief, presented the testimony of two (2) witnesses. They were:

[REDACTED] Coordinator of Special Education at the Long Beach Middle School – Served as Chairman of the Committee on Special Education Meeting of September 3, 2020 that prepared Student’s I.E.P. for the 2020-2021 School Year.

[REDACTED] School [REDACTED] Employed by District – Served as School [REDACTED] at the Committee on Special Education Meeting of September 3, 2020 that prepared Student’s I.E.P. for the 2020-2021 School Year In addition to the testimony of the above witnesses, District offered twenty-two (22) exhibits into evidence, twenty-one (21) of which were received and considered.

Parents submitted the testimony of four witnesses. They were

[REDACTED] Serves as Head of School of the [REDACTED]

Preparatory School at its Campus at [REDACTED], New York – Described the program at that facility during the 2020-2021 school year.

[REDACTED] Serves as a Teacher at [REDACTED]’s [REDACTED] location – Described Student’s Program at that facility during the 2020-2021 School Year.

[REDACTED] Director of the Center for [REDACTED]-Conducted an Evaluation of Student in the Spring of 2020 – Participated in the Committee on Special Education Meeting of September 3, 2020

[REDACTED] Parent of Student In addition to the testimony of the above witnesses, Parents offered fifty-seven (57) exhibits into evidence, all of which were received and considered.

In Rebuttal, District offered the testimony of one (1) witness. She was [REDACTED] Employed by District as Coordinator of Elementary Special Education and Academic Intervention Services – Described many of the programs District might offer students

No further exhibits were offered.

In Surrebuttal, Parents recalled one (1) witness. She was

[REDACTED]

No further exhibits were offered.

At the close of proceedings, both parties requested the opportunity to submit Post-Hearing briefs, which requests were granted as long as such were submitted no later than the Close of Business on August 14, 2021. Upon application by District’s Counsel, that submission date was extended to August 20, 2021. Each party timely submitted Closing Briefs and each has been read d considered. The Actual Record Close Date was August 25, 2021.

DISCUSSION

Student is currently [REDACTED] months of age, having been born on [REDACTED]. Student attended District’s [REDACTED] Elementary School from Kindergarten through Third Grade. Student has struggled academically throughout those years, struggling with basic reading and mathematics concepts and developing poor self-worth concepts, leading to and resulting in stress, frustration, self-loathing and a hatred of school. Parents have been intricately involved with Student’s teachers and staff in an attempt to secure additional services for Student.

Parents had retained the services of Dr. [REDACTED] to assist in requesting District’s C.S.E. to find Student eligible to receive special education services. Dr [REDACTED] completed two assessments – the first presented to District’s C.S.E. at a meeting held on August of 2018, at which eligibility was denied – and again in October of 2018 – when eligibility was again denied.

Parents thereafter retained the services of [REDACTED], Psy.D. to assess Student. Such was done in June of 2019 (Parents’ Exhibit G). It was noted in that Report that Student was well below grade level standards in basic reading skills; in decoding; and in written expression skills. [REDACTED] determined that Student while Student had mid-level intellectual potential, he had a Specific Learning Disorder (Dyslexia), as well as a Disorder of Written Expression and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). One of the Report’s suggestions was that Student receive one-on-one Orton-Gillingham (OGI) or an OGI based reading program three times per week for a full dedicated period. [REDACTED]’s Report was provided to District’s C.S.E., which again found Student ineligible to receive special education denial, Parents unilaterally placed Student at [REDACTED]. Student most recently completed Fourth Grade at [REDACTED].

In March of 2020, Parents retained the services of [REDACTED] associated with [REDACTED] of New York. That Report, completed in June of 2020, is in evidence as Parents’ Exhibit E. [REDACTED] diagnosed Student with Specific Learning Disorder with Impairment in Reading, noting that such could be used interchangeably with the term Dyslexia, when the impairment occurs in basic reading skills, as was the case with Student. [REDACTED] also found Student met the criteria for a Specific Learning Disorder with Impairment in Mathematics.

[REDACTED] recommended that Student be classified as having a Learning Disability. It was her recommendation that Student required evidence-based multisensory instruction based on Orton-Gillingham methodology provided by a teacher with training and experience, no less than three times weekly on a one-on-one setting

As the current 2020-2021 school year neared, District scheduled a meeting of the Committee on Special Education (C.S.E.) on August 19, 2020 to determine Student’s eligibility to receive Special Education services and, if necessary, develop Student’s educational program. At the request of Parents, who sought the attendance of personnel from Student’s then-educational placement, such meeting date was changed to September 3, 2020.

On that date, District’s C.S.E. convened. As Student had yet to be found eligible to received Special Education services, such meeting was deemed an Initial Eligibility Determination Meeting. The Committee was composed of [REDACTED] Chairperson; [REDACTED]; [REDACTED]; [REDACTED]; both Parents; [REDACTED][REDACTED]; [REDACTED] [REDACTED]; [REDACTED] described in the I.E.P. as Private Physician; as well as [REDACTED], School Attorney; and [REDACTED], Parents’ Attorney.

The Committee found Student eligible and classified Student as having an Other Health Impairment (OHI). The Individualized Education Program (I.E.P.) proposed by the Committee for the 2020-2021 school year, consisted of Resource Room Program 5:1; 1 x daily, 42 min; Integrated Co-teaching Services 4 x daily, 42 min; and Counseling Services, Small Group, 1 x weekly, 30 min. The Evaluation/Reports relied on by the Committee appear to be all sourced from [REDACTED] and the Report of [REDACTED] as well as District records.

Parents, by correspondence on their behalf from Parents’ Counsel, dated September 8, 2020, advised District that the proposed program failed to offer Student s free, appropriate public education (FAPE) to which he was entitled, and that Parents intended to place Student at [REDACTED] for the 2020-2021 school year and to seek tuition reimbursement.

It has been established that Boards of Education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a child by the child’s Parents, if (1) the services offered by the Board of Education were inadequate or inappropriate; (2) the services selected by the Parents were appropriate and; (3) equitable considerations support the Parent’s claim. Such prerequisites were established by the United States Supreme Court when considering claims for reimbursement brought by parents who had unilaterally placed their disabled child in a private facility. (School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985); Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-052). Further, it was later held by the same Court that the fact that the facility selected by the parents to provide special education services to the child had not been approved as a school for children with disabilities by the state agency would not be dispositive of a parents’ claim for tuition reimbursement (Florence County School District 4 et al. v. Carter by Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]). The Court noted that parents who unilaterally decide to place their child do so at their own financial risk.

Burden of Proof

Generally, in applying the three-prong standard enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Burlington and Carter decisions above-cited, it is necessary, in my consideration of the issues presented, that I first determine whether or not the School District offered to the student a free, appropriate public education. Under the guidelines established by Burlington and Carter, should I determine that District offered Student an appropriate educational program, my inquiry into Parents’ request would cease at that point, for if a district has offered an appropriate program, a parent’s right to the requested relief must be denied. Under the same guidelines, if it is determined that District failed to establish the appropriateness of its program, I must then determine the appropriateness of the Parents’ unilaterally selected educational facility. The burden of establishing such appropriateness rests upon Parents (N.Y.S. Education Law §4404). Should Parents fail to establish the appropriateness of the unilaterally selected facility, Parents’ request for relief must be denied. If the unilaterally selected educational facility is determined to be appropriate, I must, because the awarding of any relief is possible only by an invocation of the equitable powers inherent in the proceeding, then review the equities in order to determine whether equitable considerations favor an award of any relief to the Parents.

DISCUSSION

Essential to any determination of an entitlement to reimbursement is whether the agency responsible for a student’s education provided that student with a free, appropriate public education (FAPE). However, exactly what criterion is employed to determine if – or whether – a free, appropriate public education has been provided? It has often been stated that a FAPE is offered to a student when a 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 (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]). The mandate that a Board comply with all procedural requirements set forth in IDEA ofttimes resulted in courts and reviewing officers concluding the negative – that is, that if all procedural requirements were not fully complied with, it necessarily had to follow that a free, appropriate public education had not been provided. Courts and reviewing officers, as well as the United States Congress itself, were concerned with such outcome. Courts considering that issue therefore ruled that, while school districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures, not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (A.C. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 5505470, at *4 [2d Cir. Jan. 16, 2009]; Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003]; Perricelli v. Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 465211, at *10 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2007]). Such also resulted in the United States Congress amending IDEA, so as to now require that if a procedural violation is alleged, an administrative officer may find that a student did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a) impeded the student's right to a FAPE, (b) significantly impeded the Parent’s' 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 (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii];

It has been stated that a FAPE is offered to a student when (a) a board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) the IEP developed by its CSE through those procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]). However, such statement is no longer exactly accurate. For, while school districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures, not all procedural errors will render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (A.C. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 5505470, at *4 [2d Cir. Jan. 16, 2009]; Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003]; Perricelli v. Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 465211, at *10 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2007]). Under the IDEA as amended, if a procedural violation is alleged, an administrative officer may find that a student did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a) impeded the student's right to a FAPE, (b) significantly impeded the Parent' 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 (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; E.H. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 3930028, at *7 [N.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2008]; Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 471 F. Supp. 2d 415, 419 [S.D.N.Y. 2007] aff'd, 2008 WL 3852180 [2d Cir. Aug. 19, 2008]).

It has also been stated that an appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student's needs (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]), establishes annual goals related to those needs (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]), and provides for the use of appropriate special education services (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][4]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]; see Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 07-018; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-059; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 06-029; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-046; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-014; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 93-9).17 The student's recommended program must also be provided in the Least Restrictive Environment (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.114[a][2][i], 300.116[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[cc], 200.6[a][1]; see P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 4509089, at *7 [2d Cir. Oct. 9, 2008]; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 [2d Cir. 2007]; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132). The IDEA directs that, in general, an impartial hearing officer's decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE (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" (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 v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 [2d Cir. 1998]; 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 Parent" (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; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132). Nonetheless, a school district must provide "an IEP that is 'likely to produce progress, not regression,' and... affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere 'trivial advancement'" (Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195, quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130 [citations omitted]; see Perricelli, 2007 WL 465211, at *15). The IEP must be "reasonably calculated to provide some 'meaningful' benefit" (Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 [2d Cir. 1997]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192). Most recently, the United States Supreme Court, in deciding Endrew F. v. Douglas City Sch. Dist. 137 S. Ct. 1001; 197 L. Ed 2d 335 (2017), held that the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) “requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.”

DID DISRICT OFFER STUDENT A FREE,

APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION FOR

THE 2020-2021 SCHOOL YEAR?

As indicated previously, the burden of establishing that District offered Student a free appropriate public education rests with District. And such burden rests upon the sufficiency of the Individualized Education Program District offered to Student for the 2020-2021 school year. The I.E.P. for the 2020-2021 school year was prepared by District’s Committee on Special Education on September 3, 2020 (District’s Exhibit 11).

The Committee was composed of [REDACTED], Chairperson; [REDACTED]; Special Education Teacher Sofield; General Education Teacher [REDACTED]; both Parents; [REDACTED]; General Education Teacher [REDACTED]; [REDACTED] Administrator[REDACTED]; [REDACTED] described in the I.E.P. as “Private Physician”; as well as [REDACTED] School Attorney; and [REDACTED], Parents’ Attorney.

The Committee found Student eligible and classified Student as having an Other Health Impairment (OHI). The Individualized Education Program (I.E.P.) proposed by the Committee for the 2020-2021 school year, consisted of Resource Services, Small Group, 1 x weekly, 30 min. The I.E.P. also included Measurable Annual Goals, and Supplemental Aids and Services. It also noted as Special Alerts that Student had been diagnosed with dyslexia and ADHD.

The Meeting was described as being long, with much discussion. I am compelled to wonder just who composed the “Committee” which rendered the final provisions of the I.E.P. I count among those who might have been in favor of the provisions as Chairman [REDACTED]; [REDACTED] General Education Teacher [REDACTED]; Special Education Teacher [REDACTED]; and District’s Attorney [REDACTED] – five persons. Those clearly opposed to the provisions established by the “Committee” are the two Parents; the two representatives from the [REDACTED] - [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]; [REDACTED]; and Parents’ Attorney [REDACTED] – six persons. Thus, the decisions of the “Committee” were not by consensus. Failing consensus, the decisions appear to have been made by the Chair.

And what information did the “Committee” have before it in deciding the educational program that would be recommended for Student??

It had the Report authored by [REDACTED] in June of 2020, which had been provided to District. It had the review of that Report at the Meeting in the discussions by [REDACTED] as to the unqualified need of Student to receive three hours per week of one-on-one Orton-Gillingham Methodology to address Student’s Dyslexia and Dysgraphia.

It had the input of two of the people associated with Student through his attendance at [REDACTED] during the 2019-2020 school year and the progress Student had made at such placement.

It had the input of Student’s Parents, who addressed the happiness that Student had experienced in attending [REDACTED] and being able to begin to read, as well as the recovery of his self-esteem and being rid of his feelings of being “dumb” and “stupid”.

With all such input, the “Committee” proceeded to recommend that Student receive his educational program at District’s [REDACTED] School, to receive Resource Room Program 5:1 for one time daily, 42 minutes; Integrated Co-teaching Services, four times daily for forty-two minutes; and Counseling Services, one time weekly for thirty minutes.

I unhesitatingly find District’s proposed educational plan for Student to be insufficient and inappropriate. [REDACTED]s finding and recommendation that Student absolutely needed instruction through the provisions of three hours of one-on-one training using Orton-Gillingham Methodology if he was ever to be able to overcome his Dyslexia – yet no provision was made in Student’s I.E.P. for such. Placement of Student in ICT classes without such would simply continue the ineffective programs Student had endured in prior District schools. And while Counseling might be appropriate and required to address the damage to Student’s confidence due to District’s past failures, it is not enough to salvage the proposed program.

I again repeat my amazement of the distain and lack of acknowledgement shown by the “Committee” to the importance and significance of the information provided to it by [REDACTED] – input which [REDACTED] acknowledged impressed District staff at the meeting – by referring to [REDACTED] in the I.E.P. – prepared after the meeting had concluded – as a “Family Physician”.

It is my finding and conclusion that District has failed in meeting its burden of establishing that District offered a free, appropriate public education to Student for the 2020-2021 school year.

WAS PARENTS’ UNILTERAL PLACEMENT OF

STUDENT AT THE [REDACTED] PREPARTORY

SCHOOL FOR THE 2020-2021 SCHOOL YEAR

APPROPRIATE?

Having found that District has failed in its burden, it is necessary that I determine the appropriateness of Parents’ unilateral placemen of Student at [REDACTED] for the 2020-2021 school year. Parents bear the burden of establishing that such placement was appropriate (N.Y.S Education Law §4404-1(c)). The standard for determining whether such burden has been successfully borne was enunciated by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Gagliardi v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105 at 112 (2d Cir. 2007, wherein it was stated that:

“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 to 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.”

Parents provided the testimony of [REDACTED], who serves as Head of School of the [REDACTED] campus in [REDACTED, [REDACTED]. Witness [REDACTED] described [REDACTED] as a diagnostic assessment placed driven school for capable students with diagnosed learning disabilities, including language-based learning disability such as dyslexia. The school has a total of forty-two students, each of whom has his/her own program. Each student has a Focus Teacher s one-on-one for a full period of instruction. Staff receive instruction in the various methodologies employed by the School both prior to the commencement of the school year and each Wednesday, when school closes at mid-day. One of the instructors is an Orton-Gillingham certified reading specialist, who assist staff in providing Orton-Gillingham and Orton-Gillingham-type (e.g., Wilson) methodologies to its students. Witness [REDACTED], a teacher and dean at [REDACTED], testified regarding the School’s organization more from the standpoint of having been Student’s teacher than in the abstract. Indeed, it is pointless to examine the programs offered by [REDACTED] in the abstract when the fact is that Student attended [REDACTED] during the 2019-2020 school year. Thus, the record is clear from a review of Student’s Reports (District Exhibits 4, 5,6 and 7) from that school year that Student made extensive progress when provided with a special class of six, all of whom had Dyslexia and were provided Orton-Gillingham instruction – not only in a particular class or session, but in every class or session.

I also note from an examination of belatedly-entered District 15 that District settled Parents’ Due Process proceeding seeking reimbursement from District for Parents’ unilateral placement of Student at [REDACTED] for the 2019-2020 school year, by paying Parents their full cost of having Student attend that facility during the 2019-2020 school year – something District would not have done were [REDACTED] not an appropriate facility.

It is my finding and determination that Parents have successfully established the appropriateness of their unilaterally selected placement of Student at [REDACTED] for the 2020-2021 school year. Thus, Parents have successfully borne that burden.

EQUITQBLE CONSIDERTIONS

The third of the Burlington Prerequisites is whether Equitable Considerations favor an award of reimbursement to Parents. Such is to be gleaned not from any particular act or acts of Parents, but upon a full examination of the Record.

It is my finding and determination that there simply is nothing in the Record before me to indicate that Parents were at any time uncooperative or unwilling to meet with District representatives or in any manner delayed or impeded District or its Committee on Special Education in carrying out its functions.

FINDINGS

In evidence as Parents’ Exhibit YY is a copy of the Enrollment Agreement between Parents and [REDACTED] for the enrollment of Student at that facility for the 2020-2021 school year, indicating the cost of tuition as Seventy-One Thousand Two Hundred ($71,200.00) Dollars. I find such amount as fair and reasonable.

I therefore ORDER District to reimburse Parents, as and for the costs associated with Parents’ unilateral placement of Student at [REDACTED] for the 2020-2021 school year, in the amount of Seventy-One Thousand Two Hundred ($71,200.00) Dollars.

Parents have also requested in their Due Process Complaint (Parents’ Exhibit A) that District reimburse Parents for the cost of [REDACTED]’s psychoeducational evaluation (Parents’ Exhibit E). That request is HEREBY DENIED.

Parents have also requested in their Due Process Complaint (Parents’ Exhibit A) that District reimburse Parents for Roundtrip transportation services from the student’s home to the private school located at [REDACTED], N.Y. That request is HEREBY DENIED.

Dated: September 20, 2021 ______________________

JAMES P. WALSH

Delmar, New York

NOTICE OF APPEAL

The above constitutes my decision that in accordance with the provisions of Article 89 of the New York State Education Law.

Within 40 days of the date of this Decision, Parents and/or the [REDACTED] School District have a right to appeal this 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 serve 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 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

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD

No.: # of Pages Description Offered by

1 22 District’s Response to Parents’ Request for District

Hearing

2 30 Report of Psychological Evaluation by [REDACTED] of Psychological Diagnostic

Evaluations of New York, dated 6/8/20

3 9 Social History prepared by R. Lonergan, dated District

7-16-20

4 9 Fall Semester Report 2019-2020, by District

[REDACTED]

Preparatory School for Student

5 9 Spring Semester Report 2019-2020, by District

[REDACTED]

Preparatory School for Student

6 3 QSIL Report by [REDACTED] District for Student

7 3 [REDACTED] Spring Testing District

Report regarding Student, dated June 2020

8 7 [REDACTED] Fall 2019 Testing District

Report regarding Student

9 8 [REDACTED] Winter 2020 District

Testing Report regarding Student

10 8 [REDACTED] Spring 2020 District

Report regarding Student

11 16 Student’s I.E.P. for the 2020-2021 School District

Year, dated 9/3/20

12 6 Prior Written Notice to Parents, dated 9/14/20 District

13 13 Letter from Parents’ Counsel, dated 9/8/20 District

Rejecting C.S.E. determination

14 1 Letter from Parents’ Counsel to District’s District Counsel, dated 9/23/2020

17 2 Meeting Notice to Parents, dated 8/25/20 District

18 1 Email from [REDACTED], Esq. to District

[REDACTED], Esq. dated 8/17/20

19 1 Email from [REDACTED], Esq. to District

[REDACTED] Esq. dated 8/18/20

20 1 Email from [REDACTED], Esq. to District

[REDACTED] Esq., dated 8/18/20

21 1 Email to [REDACTED] Esq. from District

[REDACTED], Esq., dated 8/18/20

A 23 Due Process Complaint Notice, dated 10/23/20 Parents

B 1 Letter from Parents’ Counsel to District’s Parents

Counsel, dated 9-23-20

C 2 Letter from Parents’ Counsel to District Parents

Executive Director, Pupil Personnel Services, dated 9-8-20 re: Rejection and Unilateral Placement

D 1 Letter from Parent to [REDACTED] dated Parents

7-13-2020

E 30 Psychoeducational Evaluation by Psychological Parents

Diagnostic [REDACTED] of

New York, by [REDACTED], dated 6-1-2020

F 2 Teacher Observation by Julie [REDACTED], Parents dated 8/3/19

G 36 Neuropsychological Assessment Report, dated Parents

6/25/19, by [REDACTED]

H 35 Revised Educational Evaluation, dated 9/21/18, Parents by [REDACTED]

I 33 Educational Evaluation, dated 8/22/18, by Parents

[REDACTED]

J 1 Letter to District, dated 9/12/18, from William Parents

[REDACTED], Winthrop Hospital

K 3 Educational Evaluation by G. [REDACTED] Parents

Dated, 3-18-18

L 1 Teacher Observation by [REDACTED] dated Parents

3/16/18

M 8 Confidential Psychological Report by Parents

[REDACTED] [REDACTED], dated 3-15-18

N 6 Social History by Parent, dated 3/7/18 Parents

O 6 Prior Written Notice, dated 9/14/20 Parents

P 16 Individualized Education Plan for the 2020- Parents

2021 School Year

Q 14 Writing Samples – 2018-2019 School Year Parents

R 3 Math Test, dated 7/16/19 Parents

S 10 Samples of Student’s Work, dated 6/23/19 Parents

T 1 Math Test, dated 3/18/19 Parents

U 8 2018-2019 Writing Samples Parents

V 3 Prior Written Notice, dated 8/7/19 Parents

W 7 Committee on Special Education Ineligibility Parents

Document, dated 8/7/19

Y 5 Committee on Special Education Ineligibility Parents

Document, dated 3/22/18

Z 2 Committee on Special Education Meeting Parents

Notice, dated 7/23/19

AA 1 Committee on Special Education Meeting Parents

Notice, dated 6/12/19

BB 3 Student’s 2018-2019 Report Card for Parents

Trimesters 1, 2 and 3

CC 2 Committee on Special Education Meeting Parents

Notice, dated 2/8/19

DD 2 Prior Written Notice, dated 11/26/18 Parents

EE 5 Committee on Special Education Ineligibility Parents

Document, dated 9/5/18

FF 2 Committee on Special Education Meeting Parents

Notice, dated 9/12/18

GG 3 Prior Written Notice, dated 8/28/18 Parents

HH 2 Committee on Special Education Meeting Parents

Notice, dated 8/17/18

II 3 Student’s 2017-2018 Report Card for Parents

Trimesters 1, 2, and 3

JJ 1 Section 504 Committee Recommendation for Parents

Services and Consent, dated 4/20/18

KK 2 Emails between Ms. [REDACTED] and Parents

Parents, dated 6/26/19

LL 2 Email from Parents to Ms. [REDACTED], Parents

Dated, 4/22/19

MM 2 Email from Parents to Ms. [REDACTED], Parents

Dated, 4/10/19

NN 2 Email from Parents to Ms. [REDACTED], dated Parents

3/24/19

OO 1 Email from Ms. [REDACTED] to Parents, dated Parents

3/22/19

PP 1 Email from Parents to Ms. [REDACTED], dated Parents

3/13/19

QQ 2 Email from Parents to Mrs. deBruin, dated Parents

3/7/19

RR 1 Emails between Parent and Ms. Castro, dated Parents

3/1/19

SS 2 Emails between Mrs. deBruin and Parents, dated Parents

3/1/19

TT 2 Email from Parent to Ms. Liguori, dated Parents

11/29/18

UU 9 [REDACTED] – Winter Progress Parents

Report – 2021

VV 1 [REDACTED] Fall Report Card - Parents

2020-2021

WW 7 [REDACTED] Fall Report – 2020 Parents

XX 1 [REDACTED] Fall Progress Parents

Update – 2020-2021

YY 5 Enrollment Agreement – 2020-2021 Academic Parents

Year

ZZ 4 [REDACTED] – Parental Parents

Statement, dated 1/13/19

AAA 8 [REDACTED] Spring Report - Parents

2020

BBB 9 [REDACTED] Spring Semester Parents

Report

CCC 9 [REDACTED] Fall Semester Parents

Report

DDD 2 Email from Parent to Ms. [REDACTED], dated Parents

3/13/19 (1); with attached letter to Parents from [REDACTED], dated 3/11/19

EEE 1 Statement from [REDACTED] of Parents

Tuition Payments by Parents for the 2020-2021

School Year

---

Footnotes

[15] 16 2 Meeting Notice to Parents, dated 8/12/20 District