New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

CASE NUMBER: 571606 - NYC: 225561

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 225561

Student’s Name: REDACTED

Date of Birth: REDACTED

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Dates of Hearing: June 24, 2022, June 29, 2022, November 22, 2022, December 22, 2022, and January 25, 2023 Record Closed Date: January 25, 2023

Hearing Officer: Audrey Daniel, Esq.

Names and Titles of Persons who appeared at the June 24, 2022 Hearing For the REDACTED

None

For the Parent

None

Names and Titles of Persons who appeared at the June 29, 2022 Hearing For the REDACTED

None

For the Parent

REDACTED, Esq., Attorney for Parent

Names and Titles of Persons who appeared at the November 22, 2022 Hearing For the REDACTED REDACTED, District Representative For the Parent REDACTED, Esq., Attorney for Parent Names and Titles of Persons who appeared at the December 22, 2022 Hearing For the REDACTED REDACTED, District Representative For the Parent REDACTED, J.D, for Parent Names and Titles of Persons who appeared at the January 25, 2023 Hearing For the REDACTED REDACTED, Hearing Representative For the Parent REDACTED, Esq., Attorney for Parent

I. Introduction

On June 9, 2022, 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 parents (“Parent” or “Parents”). Pendency hearings were held on June 24, 2022 and June 29, 2022, and hearings were held on November 22, 2022, December 22, 2022, and January 25, 2023. The REDACTED (“REDACTED”) was represented by REDACTED; 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 January 25. 2023.

II. Background and Relevant Facts

Student’s last Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) was developed on February 14, 2022 and recommended three hours per week of group REDACTED Special Education Itinerant Teacher (“SEIT”). (Exh. A). Parent alleges, in her due process complaint, that the REDACTED failed to locate providers to implement the recommendation on the IEP and requests, as relief, enhanced rate and compensatory services. Parent provided direct testimony by affidavit,. (Exh. D). Student has been receiving SEIT services pursuant to a pendency order but requests compensatory services for the portion of the school year not covered by the pendency order. (Transcript).

III. Discussion

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

An IEP meeting was held on May 29, 2018 and recommended SEIT services. (Exh. A). Parent does not disagree with the recommended services but could not locate a provider that would accept the REDACTED’s rate but could locate a provider who take an “enhanced” rate. (Exh. D). Student has been receiving services pursuant to pendency, but Parent is requesting 3 hours per week for 28 weeks of SEIT services as compensatory education. The REDACTED did not object to this request.

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., 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 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, 573-80 (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 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 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, have witnesses or otherwise defend its IEP. Therefore, the REDACTED did not meet its burden of proof that the relevant IEP provided Student a FAPE and Parent is entitled to relief.

RELIEF

COMPENSATORY EDUCATION SERVICES

The Supreme Court has held that “equitable considerations are relevant in fashioning relief in any IDEA action. See Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374; see also, Doe, 790 F.3d at 454. Further, although “[a]n award of damages in available… a court may award various forms of retroactive and prospective relief, including reimbursement of tuition, compensatory education, and other declaratory and injunctive relief. Doe v. E. Lyme Bd. of Educ., 790 F.3d 440, 454(2d

Cir. 2015) (citing Burlington, 471 U.S. at 369; Polera v. Bd. of Educ. of Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist., 288 F.3d 478, 486 (2d Cir. 2002) Compensatory education is an equitable remedy that provides in-kind special education and other related services for denials of a free and appropriate public education (FAPE). Compensatory education is generally defined as educational services above and beyond that normally due a student under his state's education law. Wenger v. Canastota, 979 F. Supp 147, 151 (NDNY 1997); C.G. v. Five Towns Community School District, 513 F.3rd 279 (290) (1st Cir. 2008). Such services are compensation for the education a student would have received “during the periods when his IEP was so inappropriate that he was effectually denied a FAPE.” Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 525 (DC Cir. 2005). “[T]he ultimate award [of compensatory education] 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.” Reid ex rel. Reid v. D.C., 401 F.3d516, 524 (D.C.Cir.2005), cited in E. Lyme Bd. of Educ., 790 F.3d at 457. The Second Circuit concluded, “Whatever its precise form, the remedy must be ‘appropriate in light of the purpose of the Act.’ E. Lyme Bd. of Educ., 790 F.3d at 457 (quoting Sch. Comm. of Town of Burlington, Mass. v. Dep't of Educ. of Mass.,471 U.S. 359, 369 (1985)); see also, Burr by Burr v. Ambach,863 F.2d 1071, 1078(2d Cir.1988) (“if, in this case, we do not allow an award of compensatory education, then [the student’s] right to an education between the ages of three and twenty-one is illusory.”) Where a school system fails to provide special education or related services to a disabled Student, the Student is entitled to compensatory education, "i.e., replacement of educational services the child should have received in the first place." Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 518 (D.C. Cir. 2005). 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., M.C. v. Central Regional School District, 81 F.3d 389, 297 (3d Cir. 1996). 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.

Student received the requested services pursuant to a pendency order from March 30, 2022 to the end of the school year. Parent contends that Student is entitled to eighty-four hours of SEIT for the time period between the beginning of the school year, and the date the due process complaint was filed. (Exh. A and Exh. D). The REDACTED did not object to this request, and it shall be so ordered.

IV. Order

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

• • The REDACTED failed to provide Student a Free and Appropriate Public Education for the 2022-2023 school year.
• • The REDACTED shall provide a bank of eighty-four periods of compensatory Special Education Teacher Support Services to be provided by a licensed provider at a rate not to exceed reasonable market rate. This bank of compensatory hours shall be made available to Student for a period of two years of the date of this Findings of Fact and Decision.
• • Parent’s remaining requests for relief were resolved outside the hearing process.

Dated: January 25, 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 Programs 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

Parents Evidence

Letter

Date

Name of Document

Number of Pages

A

3/30/2022

DPC

6

B

5/29/2018

CPSE IEP

28

C

3/30/2022

TDN

2

D

11/8/2022

Affidavit of Parent

2

REDACTED

None.

Impartial Hearing Evidence

None