NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF NEW YORK
X
In the Matter of a Complaint Pursuant to Part 200 of the Case No.: 228588
Regulations of the Commissioner of Education Regarding, STUDENT [1], a minor, by and through his/her Parent(s),
Petitioners
-against-
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
Respondent.
X
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This matter came before the hearing officer by way of a due process complaint filed by the Parent on July 5, 2022. No written response was provided by the Respondent, the New York City Department of Education (hereinafter “DOE”, “District” or “Respondent”). A hearing was held in this matter on April 18, 2023, May 23, 2023, May 26, 2023, and June 27, 2023. It was a closed hearing and the Petitioners were represented by [REDACTED]. Respondent was represented by [REDACTED], District Representative. The record was closed on July 13, 2023.
In the due process complaint, the Parent requested tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement at the [REDACTED] (“[REDACTED]”) covering the 2022-2023 school year. Parent also requested an order for reimbursement for Parent’s transportation costs, compensatory services, an independent PT evaluation, a 12-month placement and special education transportation, assistive technology, assistive technology training, and certain related services.
JURISDICTION
The due process hearing was held, and a decision in this matter is being rendered pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (hereinafter “IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., and the New York State Education Law, Educ. Law Art. 89 § 4404 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § Part 200.
BACKGROUND
Student is a [REDACTED]-year-old child mandated for a 10-month school year who is classified as a student with a Learning Disability. The circumstances which gave rise to the current due process complaint involved the alleged failure of the CSE to review the Student’s current IEP, the CSE’s failure to request any updated evaluations for the Student and the CSE’s failure to recommend an appropriate program for the Student for the 2019-2020, 2020-2021, and 2022-2023 school years.
ISSUES
1) Whether Student was denied a FAPE for the 2022-2023 school year by the failure of the CSE to request updated evaluations for the Student, by failing to develop an appropriate IEP for the Student for the 2022-2023 school year and/or by failing to recommend or provide Student an appropriate placement.
2) Whether the Parent’s unilateral placement(s) of the Student for the 2022-2023 school year was appropriate to the Student’s needs.
3) Whether the equities favor reimbursement.
4) Whether the Student is entitled to compensatory services.
5) Whether the Student is entitled to a PT IEE.
6) Whether the Student is entitled to special transportation.
7) Whether the Parent is entitled to reimbursement for transportation costs.
8) Whether the Student is entitled to an extended 12-month school year.
9) Whether the Student is entitled to OT and SLT as related services.
Petitioner requests relief in the form of an order directing the District to fund the tuition at [REDACTED] for the 2022-2023 school year as well as an order for reimbursement for Parent’s transportation costs, compensatory services, an independent PT evaluation, a 12-month placement and special education transportation, assistive technology, assistive technology training, and certain related services.
EVIDENCE SUBMITTED AT HEARINGS
A. DISTRICT’S CASE
The District introduced nine (9) exhibits into evidence which included the following:
D-1: Neuropsychological Evaluation D-2: IEP D-3: Test Grid D-4: Fall Progress Report D-5: OSH Physician Review Form D-6: IEP D-7: PWN D-8: SLL
D-9: Assistive Technology Evaluation Referral
B. PARENT’S CASE
The Parent introduced twenty-three (23) exhibits into evidence which included the following:
P-A: DPC
P-B: Amended DPC
P-C: FOFD
P-D: TDN
P-E: Email from DOE
P-F: Enrollment Contract
P-G: Tuition Affidavit
P-H: Pendency Order
P-I: OT Evaluation
P-J: AT Evaluation
P-K: SLT Evaluation
P-L: Class Schedule
P-M: ELA Test Result
P-N: Q1 Progress Report
P-O: Q2 Progress Report
P-P: Program Description
P-Q: Neuropsychological Evaluation
P-R: Tax Return
P-S: Emails re Transportation
P-T: Affidavit – School Representative
P-U: Affidavit - Parent
P-V: Affidavit – Speech Pathologist
P-W: Affidavit – Occupational Therapist
WITNESSES
The District presented no witnesses.
The Parent presented four witnesses, [REDACTED], Speech Pathologist, [REDACTED], Occupational Therapist, [REDACTED], CSE Liaison for [REDACTED], and the Parent. In lieu of direct examination, the Parent produced affidavits of the witnesses.[2] The District was given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.
FINDINGS OF FACT
After considering all of the evidence, as well as arguments of both sides, this Hearing Officers Findings of Fact are as follows:
1) The Student was a [REDACTED]-year-old child entering the 2022-2023 school year.[3] The Student was classified as a student with a Learning Disability. [4]
2) The District appeared at the hearing of this matter and while they presented some documentary evidence, they called no witnesses. Moreover, the documentary evidence submitted by the District in no way demonstrated that the District had provided a FAPE for the Student in any of the 2022-2023 school year. As a result, the District more or less conceded that it did not conduct an appropriate review, that it failed to conduct relevant evaluations, failed to develop an appropriate IEP, and/or did not offer the Student an appropriate placement for the 2022-2023 school year.[5] As a result, there is no question that the Student was denied a FAPE for the 2022-2023 school year.
3) On June 15, 2022, the Parent sent the District a ten-day notice stating their intention to unilaterally place the Student at [REDACTED].[6] Other than confirming the receipt of that ten-day notice, there is no evidence in the record that the District ever responded to the Parent’s ten-day notice. [7]
4) During the 2022-2023 academic school year, Student attended [REDACTED]. [8]
5) The Parent submitted ample documentation that demonstrated that the Student made progress while attending [REDACTED].[9] This documentation, together with the testimony of the school representative and the Parent, demonstrated that the Student did well, academically and otherwise, while attending [REDACTED]. [10]
6) The Parent submitted documentation which amply demonstrated that [REDACTED] was an appropriate placement for the Student.[11] The documentation, together with the testimony of the school representative, set forth the various ways in which [REDACTED] had created a program which was specifically tailored to address the Student’s unique needs.[12] The District scarcely challenged any of this evidence. As a result, there was no evidence presented, or argument offered, that [REDACTED] was anything other than an appropriate school for the Student.
7) For the 2022-2023 school year, the Parent provided documentation that verified that the Parent was contractually obligated to pay the tuition at [REDACTED] which totaled sixty-seven thousand nine hundred twenty-five dollars ($67,925.00). [13]
8) [REDACTED] was an appropriate placement for Student for the 2022-2023 school year. The small class sizes allowed the Student to get more individualized attention and support from her teachers.[14] In addition, all of the Student’s related services were received at [REDACTED].[15] In addition, Student had access to numerous individual and small group sessions where she received additional support from teachers within the school. [16]
9) The Parent also presented testimony that the Student’s transportation required a trip that lasted between an hour and a half and two hours.[17] Specifically, the Student had been previously determined to be entitled to special education transportation and the District continued to failed to provide that transportation until February 27, 2023.[18] As a result, the Parent was required to transport the Student to and from [REDACTED] from the beginning of the school year until February 26, 2023.[19] The Parent seeks reimbursement for the cost of transporting the Student. The District did not challenge any of this evidence.
10) The Parent also presented documentation and testimony from an occupational therapist that the Student requires ongoing Occupational Therapy, individual, twice per week for 30 minutes.[20] Based on the District’s failure to provide that service, the Parent seeks a bank of forty (40) hours of compensatory occupational therapy.[21] In addition, the occupational therapist also recommended a complete physical therapy evaluation to address the Student’s challenges with speed, gait, and body strength, among other challenges. The District did not challenge any of these claims.
11) The Parent also presented documentation and testimony from a speech pathologist that the Student requires Speech and Language Therapy, individual, twice per week for forty five minutes.[22] The speech pathologist also recommended a bank of compensatory speech and language therapy in the amount of one hundred thirty-eight (138) hours.[23] This bank of hours was based upon a deprivation of speech and language therapy for the past two years.[24] However, the Parent’s claims regarding the 2021-2022 school year were previously litigated and a determination regarding the Student’s entitlement was already rendered.[25] Thus, the Parent’s claim regarding the denial of speech and language therapy is limited to the amount the Student was deprived in during the 2022-2023 school year, or sixty nine (69) hours.
12) The Parent also presented documentation and testimony from a speech pathologist that the Student requires assistive technology support.[26] That support included a)
Microsoft Surface 3, 13.5”; b) Microsoft Surface Pro Pen; c) EarPods; d) Read and Write literacy software by Texthelp; e) Epic! Books; f) Google Docs; g)
Typing club.com; h) Microsoft OneNote Exhibit V- 5 6; i) MindView by Matchware; j) Microsoft Sticky Notes; and, k) AutoDesk Sketchbook.[27] The speech pathologist also indicated that the Student would require fifteen (15) hours of training for both the Student and the Parent to become familiar with how to utilize these tools.[28] The District did not challenge these claims.
13) It is also clear that the Student should be mandated for a 12-month school year. This recommendation was contained in the neuropsychological evaluation conducted of the Student.[29] The District presented no evidence to dispute this claim.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISCUSSION
Denial of FAPE
The purpose of the IDEA is “to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs.” Bd. Of Educ. V. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179-91 (1982). Implicit in the congressional purpose of providing access to a free and appropriate public education (hereinafter “FAPE”) is the requirement that the education to which access is provided be sufficient to confer some educational benefit upon the handicap child. (Id.)
Pursuant to 20 U.S.C. §1401(9) and 34 C.F.R. §300.17 FAPE is defined as follows:
Special Education and related services that are provided at public expense under public supervision and direction and without charge; meet the standards of the SEA… include an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school education in the State involved; and are provided in conformity with the individualized education program (IEP).
In deciding whether the Respondent provided a student with a FAPE, the inquiry is typically: (1) whether the Respondent complied with the procedures set forth in IDEA; and (2) whether the student’s IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefit (Rowley, supra.). Under the second prong, a school district need not maximize the potential of child but must open the door of public education in a meaningful way, and the IEP must provide the opportunity for more than only a “trivial advancement” P. v. Newington Bd. Of Educ., 546 F.3d. 111 (2nd Cir. 2008).
The IEP is “the centerpiece of the statute’s education delivery system for disabled children” Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 311 (1988). An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student's needs, establishes annual goals related to those needs, and provides appropriate specialized instruction and related services. See 34 C.F.R. §300.320 (a). For an IEP to be “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits,” it must be “likely to produce progress, not regression” Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 (2d Cir. 1998).
Additionally, each public agency must ensure that, as soon as possible following the development of an IEP, special education and related services are made available to the child in accordance with the child’s IEP. In order to implement the IEP, a team that includes the child's parents determines where the child should be placed based on the child's IEP. Thus, the placement should not dictate the IEP but rather the IEP determines whether a placement is appropriate. Rourke v. District of Columbia, 460 F.Supp.2d 32, 44 (D.D.C. 2006).
The DOE must ensure that the IEP team reviews a student’s IEP periodically, but not less than annually, to determine whether the annual goals for the child are being achieved. Moreover, the DOE must ensure that the IEP team revises the IEP, as appropriate, to address any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals; and the results of any reevaluation or information about the child provided to, or by, the parents. Additionally, if the parent obtains an independent educational evaluation (“IEE”) at public expense, or shares with the public agency an evaluation obtained at private expense, the school district must consider the results of the evaluation, if it meets agency criteria, in any decision made with respect to the provision of FAPE to the child. The IDEA mandates that an IEP be based on the results of the most recent evaluation of a student.
In determining the appropriate placement for a child, preference is given to the least restrictive environment and the appropriate schools nearest the child's home (Id.). The IDEA requires that unless the IEP of a child with a disability requires some other arrangement, the child is to be educated in the school that he or she would attend if the student was otherwise not disabled. In selecting the least restrictive environment, consideration is given to any potential harmful effect on the child or on the quality of the services that he or she needs. A child with a disability is not removed from education in age-appropriate regular classrooms solely because of needed modifications in the general education curriculum. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.116.
When developing the IEP, the District will have evaluations of the child, as a procedural safeguard the parents are entitled, as a matter of Law, an independent education evaluation (IEE) at public expense. 34 CFR § 300.502
Where a school system fails to provide special education or related services to a student with a disability, 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 (D.C. Cir. 2005). An award of compensatory education “should aim to place the disabled children in the same position they would have occupied but for the school district’s violations of IDEA” (Id.). Compensatory education is a remedy for “past deficiencies” therefore a finding as to whether a student was “denied a FAPE in the relevant time period is a necessary prerequisite to a compensatory education award.” Peak v. District of Columbia, 526 F. Supp. 2d 32 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
Pursuant to New York Education LAW § 4401(c)(1) the DOE shall have the burden of proof, the burden of persuasion, and the burden of production in impartial hearings except for instances where the parent is seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral parental placement and in those cases the parent shall have the burden of persuasion and the burden of production as to the appropriateness of the placement. The burden of proof in matters such as this shall only be met upon a fair preponderance of the evidence. The preponderance of the evidence standard requires that the trier of fact to find that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence. Concrete Pipe & Products of California, Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California, 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993).
Unlike other standards of proof, the preponderance-of-evidence standard allows both parties to share the risk of error in a roughly equal fashion, except that when the evidence is evenly balanced, the party with the burden of persuasion must lose. Director, Office of Worker’s Compensation Programs v. Greenwich Collieries, 512 U.S. 267, 281 (1994).
In the instant matter, the Respondent presented no evidence whatsoever that indicated that it had provided Student with a FAPE for the 2022-2023 school years. The District presented no witnesses whatsoever that could testify as to the either appropriateness of the IEPs developed for the Student regarding the 2022-2023 school year or the appropriateness of any proposed placements. It is also clear that the IEP team never reconvened to consider numerous recommendations made for the Student in the IEEs obtained by the Parent. Finally, the evaluations submitted by the Parent, which the District did not contest in any fashion, patently demonstrate that the Student is far behind her peers to the extent that she requires extensive amount of services and remediation. As a result, there can be little question that the Student was denied a FAPE for the 2022-2023 school year.
Moreover, in assessing the propriety of the family’s effort to rectify the district’s failing, the decision-maker must take into account the limited range of options available to the family, the degree to which they possessed technical/professional educational expertise, the urgency of the placement timetable, and their natural desire to maximize the student’s potential. The family is under no obligation to seek out a program that skirts just barely above the Endrew minimum, and the district that comes to the table with unclean hands is not in a strong position to argue that, notwithstanding its own derogation of duty, the family should be barred from seeking to remedy the deprivation of FAPE because the program they initiated was too good. One of the fundamental tenets of equity jurisdiction is that ‘he that hath committed iniquity shall not have equity.’
Reimbursement for Unilateral Placement
A court or a hearing officer may order a district to reimburse the parents of a student with a disability for the student’s unilateral private placement if the district failed to make a FAPE available in a timely manner and the unilateral private placement is appropriate, 34 CFR 300, 148 (c); Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 20 IDELR 532 (US 1993). Parents seeking tuition reimbursement as a remedy cannot simply speculate that the assigned school will fail to provide one or more services the student needs to receive FAPE; they must show that the school is not capable of implementing the student’s IEP, M.O. and G.O. v. New York City Department of Education, 65 IDELR 283 (2nd Cir. 2015); Y.F. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 68 IDELR 92 (2d Cir. 2016, unpublished).
It is true that a unilateral private placement does not need to meet state standards for public education programs to be “appropriate” for reimbursement services, 34 CFR 200.148 (c). However, a unilateral private placement is appropriate for reimbursement purposes if it offers instruction that is specially designed to meet the student’s unique needs as well as the support services the student requires to benefit from that instruction, M.N. v. State of Hawaii, Dep’t of Educ., 60 IELR 181 (9th ir. 2013, unpublished); Ward v. Board of Education of the Enlarged City Sch. Dist. Of Middletown, NY , 63 IDELR 121 (2d Cir. 2014, unpublished).
In the instant matter, the District did not meaningfully contest the appropriateness of the unilateral placement. Moreover, there was a clear demonstration that the unilateral placement chosen by the Parent was appropriate. Specifically, the evidence demonstrated that [REDACTED] engaged Student in classes and programs which were specifically tailored to address Student’s needs and challenges. Student was provided with numerous accommodations and afforded the opportunity to engage in both individual and small group instruction, and related services providers that collaborated with her classroom teacher.
It is for this reason that I find that the District is directed to fund the cost of the Student’s summer 2022-2023 placement at [REDACTED] in the amount of $67,925.00.
Equities
Pursuant to 20 U.S.C.A. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(iii), the cost of reimbursement described in clause (ii) may be reduced or denied if:
(I)(aa) at the most recent IEP meeting that the parents attended prior to removal of the child from the public school, the parents did not inform the IEP Team that they were rejecting the placement proposed by the public agency to provide a free appropriate public education to their child, including stating their concerns and their intent to enroll their child in a private school at public expense; or
(bb) 10 business days (including any holidays that occur on a business day) prior to the removal of the child from the public school, the parents did not give written notice to the public agency of the information described in item (aa); (II) if, prior to the parents' removal of the child from the public school, the public agency informed the parents, through the notice requirements described in section 1415(b)(3) of this title, of its intent to evaluate the child (including a statement of the purpose of the evaluation that was appropriate and reasonable), but the parents did not make the child available for such evaluation; or
(III) upon a judicial finding of unreasonableness with respect to actions taken by the parents.
A school district may not argue that the “equities are in its favor once it has failed to provide a FAPE or concedes that it has not.” N.R. v. Department of Education of the City of New York, 2009 WL 874061 (S.D.N.Y. 2009). In any case, in the instant matter, the Respondent offered no evidence or argument on the subject of the equities. I therefore find that the District has conceded the that there are, in fact, no equitable considerations which would mitigate against full reimbursement. In addition, a review of the evidence in the record reveals that no such equitable considerations exist.
Compensatory Education/Services
Compensatory education is an appropriate remedy under the IDEA. P. v. Newington, 546 F.3d. 111 (2nd Cir. 2008). The aim of compensatory education services is to place the student in the position he or she would have been in had the district complied with its obligations under the IDEA. See, Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 518 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (finding that compensatory education is not a form of damages because the courts act in equity when remedying IDEA violations and must “do equity and …mold each decree to the necessities of the particular case”). When fashioning a compensatory award, it is appropriate to look at the specific educational deficits resulting from a child’s loss of FAPE, in order to ascertain what compensatory measures are appropriate to make the child whole. Id.; Mrs. C. v. Wheaton, 916 F.2d 69 (2d Cir. 1990).
Compensatory education is an equitable remedy that is tailored to meet the unique circumstances of each case. See, Wenger v. Canastota, 979 F. Supp. 147 (N.D.N.Y. 1997); SRO Appeal 14-179. Within the Second Circuit, compensatory relief in the form of supplemental special education or related services has been awarded to students if there has been a denial of a FAPE. See, Newington, 546 F.3d at 123 ("[t]he IDEA allows a hearing officer to fashion an appropriate remedy, and . . . compensatory education is an available option under the Act to make up for denial of a [FAPE]"). Likewise, SROs have awarded compensatory "additional services" to students who have been denied appropriate services, if such deprivation can be remedied through the provision of additional services before the student becomes ineligible for special instruction by reason of age or graduation. See, Bd. of Educ. v. Munoz, 16 A.D.3d 1142 (4th Dep't 2005) (finding it proper for an SRO to order a school district to provide "make-up services" to a student upon the school district's failure to provide those educational services to The Student during home instruction); see also, Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 13-048; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 11-091). The purpose of an award of additional services, like compensatory services, is to provide an appropriate remedy for a denial of a FAPE and accordingly, aim to place the student in the position he or she would have been in had the district complied with its obligations under the IDEA. See, Newington, supra.
In the instant matter, it is overwhelmingly obvious from the evaluations that the Student underwent that the Student requires extensive remediation. There is no evidence in the record before me that the District ever either considered the recommendations of those evaluations or even provided the related services that the IEP recommended. As a result, I find that the Student is entitled to compensatory services.
ORDER:
Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and all evidence before the IHO, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. That the New York City Department of Education is directed to reimburse and/or fund the cost of the Student’s 2022-2023 placement at [REDACTED] in the amount of $67,925.00;
2. As to the tuition reimbursement/funding, all payments shall be made directly to the non-public, unilateral placement(s) upon a showing by the Parent that tuition has not been paid out-of-pocket by the Parent. If the Parent can show that out-of-pocket payment to the placement(s) was made by the Parent, then the Parent shall be reimbursed by the District;
3. The Student is entitled to special education transportation as a related service;
4. The District shall reimburse the Parent for any costs incurred during the 2022-2023 school year for transportation at the IRS approved rate for gas and mileage;
5. The Student shall be mandated for a 12-month school year;
6. The Student was entitled to the following services for the 2022-2023 school year: a)
Speech and Language Therapy, 1:1, twice per week for 45 minutes; and, b)
Occupational Therapy, 1:1, twice per week for 30 minutes. To the extent that the Student did not receive those services during the 2022-2023 school year, the Student is entitled to a bank of sixty-nine (69) hours of compensatory speech and language therapy, and a bank of forty (40) hours of occupational therapy. Said services are to be provided by a provider of the Parent’s choosing with said provider to be compensated by the District at a reasonable market rate. Said services shall be utilized on or before August 31, 2025.
7. The District shall fund an independent physical therapy evaluation. Said evaluator will be a provider of the Parent’s choosing and will be compensated by the District at market rate. Upon completion of said evaluation, the CSE shall reconvene, upon reasonable notice to the Parent, to determine what, if any, modifications need to be made to the Student’s IEP. At that meeting, the CSE shall, as stated above, mandate the Student for a 12-month program and special education transportation. The CSE shall also consider deferral of the Student’s case to the CBST. The CSE shall also consider the results of the prior IEEs in assistive technology, occupational therapy and speech and language therapy;
8. The Student is also entitled to the following assistive technology: a) Microsoft Surface 3, 13.5”; b) Microsoft Surface Pro Pen; c) EarPods; d) Read and Write literacy software by Texthelp; e) Epic! Books; f) Google Docs; g) Typing club.com; h) Microsoft OneNote Exhibit V- 5 6; i) MindView by Matchware; j) Microsoft
Sticky Notes; and, k) AutoDesk Sketchbook. In addition, the Student shall be entitled to fifteen (15) hours of training to become familiar with the above assistive technology, with the District to fund the cost of the above technology as well as a provider of the Parent’s choosing to provide the aforementioned training.
9. The District must immediately upon receipt, enter this order on a system that is used to keep track of such orders.
SO ORDERED:
Dated: July 15, 2023
_Steven P. Forbes
Steven P. Forbes
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.
STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF NEW YORK
X
In the Matter of a Complaint Pursuant to Part 200 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education Regarding, STUDENT, a minor, by and through his/her Parent(s),
Petitioners
-against-
NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
Respondent.
X
CERTIFICATION OF RECORD
The record before me as the Hearing Officer in this matter of the following:
1. Administrative Due Process Complaint dated July 5, 2022.
2. Notice of Hearing and Appointment dated July 18, 2022.
3. District’s Exhibit 1-9 totaling ninety-seven (97) pages.
4. Parent’s Exhibits A-W totaling two hundred sixty-four (264) pages.
5. The written transcript of the hearing totaling eighty (80) pages.
6. Findings of Fact and Decision dated July 15, 2023.
I, Steven P. Forbes, the Hearing Officer in this matter, do hereby certify that the attached record is accurate and encompasses the entire record in the above-entitled matter as of this date.
I further certify that the materials forwarded herewith are the original or a true copy of the original documents and/or other tangible items that constitute the record in this matter.
EXECUTED this 15th day of July, 2023.
__Steven P. Forbes_______
STEVEN P. FORBES
Impartial Hearing Officer
Footnotes
[1] Personally, identifiable information is attached as a cover sheet to this decision and must be removed prior to public distribution.
[2] P-T; P-U; P-V; P-W.
[3] D-6.
[4] Id.
[5] In its closing brief, the District did not offer any argument that it had afforded the Student a FAPE and only took issue with the scope of potential compensatory services that the Student was entitled to.
[6] P-D.
[7] P-E.
[8] P-U.
[9] P-M; P-N; P-O.
[10] Id.; P-T; P-U.
[11] P-P.
[12] Id.; P-T.
[13] P-F; P-G.
[14] P-T.
[15] Id.
[16] Id.
[17] P-C.
[18] P-S; P-U, page 4.
[19] P-U.
[20] P-I; P-W, page 5.
[21] Id.
[22] P-K; P-V, page 3.
[23] P-V, page 3.
[24] P-K, page 17-18.
[25] P-C.
[26] P-J; P-V.
[27] P-V, pages 4-5.
[28] P-V, page 5.
[29] P-Q, page 9.