Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED AT THE JULY 14, 2023 HEARING

For The [REDACTED] [REDACTED], Esq., Agency Attorney

For the Parents:

[REDACTED], Esq., Attorney for Parent

[REDACTED], Parent Parent

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED AT THE AUGUST 22, 2023 HEARING

For The [REDACTED] None

For the Parents:

[REDACTED], Esq., Attorney for Parent

[REDACTED], Parent Parent

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 7, 2021, I was appointed to conduct an impartial hearing pursuant to 20 U.S.C. §1415, regarding the special education program of [REDACTED] ("Student") brought by his Parent ("Parent" or "Parents"). There were numerous status conferences scheduled in an attempt to facilitate settlement, and a one-day hearing was held on August 22, 2023. The [REDACTED] ("[REDACTED]") was represented by [REDACTED], Esq. ^[1], and Parent was represented by [REDACTED], Esq.. During the course of the proceedings, the parties moved to extend the case compliance date in this matter, all in order to allow for settlement negotiations and an examination of all relevant witnesses and documents, and to complete the hearing. In considering those 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 extensions of time for such purposes were in accordance with the requirements of due process. Accordingly, requests for extensions of the case compliance date were granted. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(c); 8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(5). The hearing record was closed effective August 22, 2023.

II. BACKGROUND

Parent filed a due process complaint on May 6, 2021, alleging a denial of Student's right to a Free and Appropriate Public Education ("FAPE") for the 2019-2020 school year and requesting reimbursement for tuition at [REDACTED]. (Exh. A). The [REDACTED] did not put on a case. Parent provided direct testimony by affidavit of two witnesses; both witnesses were available for cross examination at hearing. (Exh. I and Exh. J).

III. DISCUSSION

An Individualized Education Program ("IEP") meeting was held on May 10, 2019. (Exh. I, page 1). The IEP is not in evidence and the [REDACTED] did not defend its recommendations. Student is classified as a Student with a Learning Disability. (Exh. I, page 1).

Student attended [REDACTED] for the entire 2019-2020 school year. [REDACTED] operates approximately ten self-contained classrooms on campuses of various mainstream schools and provides full-time intensive special education programming while still providing appropriate social mainstreaming opportunities. (Exh. F). Classes have between six and eight students, with one teacher and one assistant and are grouped based on academic, social and learning needs. (Exh. J). Related services are available provided by licensed providers. Each student's program is individually tailored to meet their needs. (Exh. F and Exh. J). Students typically struggle with learning disabilities, speech and language impairments, and attention and social issues. (Exh. F). Classes are grouped by academic, social and learning needs. (Exh. J). Professional development is offered to staff throughout the year. (Exh. J, page 1). A remote learning plan was developed and implemented during the Covid-19 pandemic. (Exh. G).

Student presents with significant learning challenges and language deficiencies which affect his cognition, comprehension and social communication. (Exh. J, page 2). He was in a class with seven students, one teacher, and one assistant. (Exh. J, page 2). Student's schedule included phonics development, reading groups, spelling drills, fluency development, structured play, sight words, counting, encoding and function of numbers, calendar and weather, and physical exercise. Student also received related services including occupational therapy and counseling. (Exh. D, page 1). Student needed a significant amount of individualized instruction and emotional support. (Exh. J, page 2. Prayer and bible portion were also part of the curriculum and the school witness testified credibly regarding the percentage of Student's day devoted to religious instruction. (Exh. D and Exh, J, page 6). Formal meetings of Student's providers and teachers occurred monthly. (Exh. J, page 6).

Student made progress during the 2019-2020 school year. Parent testified that Student gained self-confidence both academically and socially and made improvement in reading and math skills. (Exh. I, page 2). The school's witness testified that student mastered the alphabet and phonics, critical thinking and math skills, as well his with his sensory processing and modulation. (Exh. J, pages 6-7). Student also made progress towards his social emotional goals and interpersonal relationships. (Exh. J, page 5).

Parent signed a contract for the 2019-2020 school year on or about August 20, 2019 for related services and tuition. (Exh. B). Parent did not pay anything towards tuition or charges for related services. (Exh. C, page 1). Parent showed her inability to pay tuition and seek reimbursement. (Exh. E and Exh. 1).

Parent sent a Ten-Day Notice on or about November 4, 2019 notifying the [REDACTED] of her concerns and her intent to unilaterally place Student and seek funding. (Exh. H). There is nothing in the record to indicate a response. (Exh. L, page 2). Parent filed a due process complaint on May 6, 2021. (Exh. A.)

FAPE

The IDEA was enacted to "to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education" ("FAPE") and to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are protected." 20 U.S.C. sec. 1400(d)(1)(A), (B). See also, Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 2330, 239-40 (2009). Under this statute is the requirement that the education to which access is provided be sufficient to confer some education benefit upon the disabled child. In deciding whether the school district provided as student a FAPE, the inquiry is limited to (a) whether the school district complied with the procedures set forth in IDEA; and (b) whether the student's IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive education benefit. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179-191 (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 (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, 142 F.3d at 130; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189). In the recently decided Endrew F. Douglas County School District RE-1, No. 15-827, 2017 WL 1066260, the Supreme Court held that in or order "to meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances. Id. At *10. While the statute ensures an "appropriate" education, it does not guarantee "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., 893 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 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)(5)(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, 593-80 (S.D.N.Y. 2010), aff'd, 486 Fed. App'x 954 (2d Cir. Oct. 18, 2012); E.G. v. City Sch. Dist. of New Rochelle, 606 F. Supp. 2d 384, 388 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).

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 2936027, 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 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)(i)(A); 8 NYCRR 200.4(d)(2)(iii)) and provides for the use of appropriate special education services. (See 34 CFR 300.320(a)(4); 8 NYCRR 200.4(d)(2)(v).

BURDEN OF PROOF

The burden of proof is on the [REDACTED] to show that the provided IEP provided FAPE, except in cases involving a unilateral placement, where the parent must prove the appropriateness of the unilateral placement. N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404(1)(c); see also Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 12-062; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 11-053; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 11-091.

The [REDACTED] did not submit evidence, provide testimony, or otherwise argue that the IEP provided FAPE for the 2019-2020 school year. Thus, the [REDACTED] has not met its burden of proof and Parent is entitled to relief.

RELIEF REQUESTED

FUNDING FOR STUDENT'S UNILATERAL PLACEMENT

APPROPRIATENESS OF THE PRIVATE SCHOOL

Once it is determined that the student has not been provided a FAPE, under New York law, the burden of proof shifts to the parents to show that their unilateral private placement was appropriate. A.D. v. Bd. of Educ. of City Sch. Dist. of City of New York, 690 F. Supp. 2d 193, 206 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Schaffer, 546 U.S. at 58; N.Y. Educ. L. § 4404(1)(c)). Under the IDEA, parents who unilaterally place their child in a private school do so at their financial risk. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, §§612(a)(1)(A), 614(d).

A board of education may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private educational services obtained for a student by his or her parents, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parents were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parents' claim (Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]; Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-70 [1985]; R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85; T.P., 554 F.3d at 252). In Burlington, the Court found that Congress intended retroactive reimbursement to parents by school officials as an available remedy in a proper case under the IDEA (471 U.S. at 370-71; see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 111; Cerra, 427 F.3d at 192). "Reimbursement merely requires [a district] to belatedly pay expenses that it should have paid all along and would have borne in the first instance" had it offered the student a FAPE. (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370-71; see 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][ii]; 34 CFR 300.148).

The appropriateness of the parents' choice turns on whether the chosen school "is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits." Gagliardo v. Arlington Central School District, 489 F.3d 105, 112. A private placement meeting this standard is "one that is 'likely to produce progress, not regression.'" Id. (quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130). The parents' choice must be "appropriate," "not . . . perfect." Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356, 364 (2d Cir. 2006). An appropriate private placement "need not meet state education standards or requirements." Id. (citing Carter, 510 U.S. at 14). Ultimately, the standard to be applied is to determine whether "[the] unilateral private 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 115. The Second Circuit in Frank G, 459 F.3d at 364-5 held: "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." the private school must provide an educational program which meets the student's special education needs (see Hardison v. Bd. of Educ., 793 F.3d 372, 386 [2d Cir. 2014]; Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, 115; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 129; Matrejek, 471 F.Supp. 2d at 419).

Parent has shown, through testimony, and documentation, that [REDACTED] understands Student's unique educational needs and designed a program to address these needs. Therefore, Parents has met their burden of proof to show the appropriateness of the unilateral placement and are entitled to funding and/or reimbursement.

BALANCING OF THE EQUITIES

The IDEA also provides that reimbursement may be reduced or denied when parents fail to challenge the appropriateness of an IEP in a timely manner, fail to make their child available for evaluation by the district, or upon a finding of unreasonableness with respect to the actions taken by the parents (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][iii]; 34 CFR 300.148[d]; see E.M. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 758 F.3d 442, 461 [2d Cir. 2014] [identifying factors relevant to equitable considerations, including whether the withdrawal of the student from public school was justified, whether the parent provided adequate notice, whether the amount of the private school tuition was reasonable, possible scholarships or other financial aid from the private school, and any fraud or collusion on the part of the parent or private school]). The final criterion for a reimbursement award is that the parents' claim must be supported by equitable considerations. (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374; M.C. v. Voluntown, 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"]). With respect to equitable considerations, the IDEA also provides that reimbursement may be reduced or denied when parents fail to raise the appropriateness of an IEP in a timely manner, fail to make their child available for evaluation by the district, or upon a finding of unreasonableness with respect to the actions taken by the parents (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][iii]; 34 CFR 300.148[d]; E.M. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 758 F.3d 442, 461 [2d Cir. 2014]; C.L., 744 F.3d at 840 [noting that "[i]mportant to the equitable consideration is whether the parents obstructed or were uncooperative in the school district's efforts to meet its obligations under the IDEA"]).

There is nothing in the record indicating a need to change the balancing of the equities. Parent contacted the Committee on Special Education to voice concerns regarding the IEP and proposed placement and sent the required Ten-Day Letter. (Exh. H, and Exh. I). The uncontroverted evidence is that Parent was cooperative. (Exh. I). Parent credibly demonstrated her inability to pay tuition and seek reimbursement. (Exh. E and Exh. I). There are no allegations of obstruction or that Parent was uncooperative. Parent contends that 93% percent of tuition was secular and provided justification for these calculations. (Exh. J). Therefore, Parent is entitled to the entirety of the cost of related services at 93% of tuition at [REDACTED] Program at Yeshiva Imrei Yosef Spinka for the 2019-2020 school year.

IV. ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

1. The [REDACTED] failed to provide Student a Free and Appropriate Public Education for the 2019-2020 school year.

2. The [REDACTED] shall directly fund the costs of related services and 93% of the tuition at the [REDACTED] for the 2019-2020 school year within fifteen days of receipt of this Findings of Fact and Decision.

Dated: August 31, 2023

AUDREY DANIEL, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Within 40 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the Public-School District has a right to appeal the decision to a State Review Officer (SRO) of the New York State Education Department under section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

If either party plans to appeal the decision, a notice of intention to seek review shall be personally served upon the opposing party no later than 25 days after the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. An appealing party's request for review shall be personally served upon the opposing 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.

EXHIBITS ADMITTED AT HEARING

A. Letter Date Name of Document # of Pages DPC 5/6/21 3 pages

B. Contract 19-20 2 pages

C. Payment affidavit 4/28/23 1 page

D. Schedule 19-20 1 page

E. Federal 1040 form 2018 2 pages

F. Program description N/A 1 page

G. Remote learning plan 2020 3 pages

H. Parent letter 11/4/19 2 pages

PARENT

I. testimony affidavit 8/16/23 2 pages

J. School testimony affidavit 8/16/23 7 pages

[REDACTED]

None.

Impartial Hearing Officer

None.

Footnotes

[1] There was confusion regarding scheduling, and the [REDACTED] did not appear for the second day of hearing. Although the [REDACTED] requested another opportunity to cross-examine the witness, which I declined, the [REDACTED] was provided the opportunity to provide further arguments in support of its position. The [REDACTED] did not submit evidence.