Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 230189

Student's Name: REDACTED

Date of Birth: REDACTED

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Dates of Hearing: August 9, 2023 and September 26, 2023 Record Closed Date: September 26, 2023

Hearing Officer: Audrey Daniel, Esq.

Names and Titles of Persons who appeared at the August 9, 2023 Hearing For the REDACTED REDACTED, Esq., Agency Attorney

For the Parents:

REDACTED, Esq., Attorney for Parent

Names and Titles of Persons who appeared at the September 26, 2023 Hearing For the REDACTED REDACTED, Esq., Agency Attorney

For the Parents:

REDACTED, Esq., Attorney for Parent

I. Introduction and Procedural History

On August 30, 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”). A prehearing conference was held on October 4, 2022, status conferences were held on November 8, 2022, January 9, 2023, February 6, 2023, April 5,2023, May 8, 2023, and June 6, 2023. Hearings were held on August 9, 2023 and September 26, 2023. The REDACTED (“REDACTED”) was represented by REDACTED, Esq. 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 September 26, 2023.

II. Background

Student presently attends the REDACTED. (“REDACTED”). Parent filed a due process complaint on August 25, 2022, alleging a denial of a Free and Appropriate Public Education for the 2021-2022 school year, and requesting funding and/or reimbursement for related services and secular tuition at REDACTED for the 2021-2022 school year. (Exh. A). There were two days of hearings on the merits. The REDACTED did not put on a case or submit evidence. Parent provided direct testimony of two witnesses by affidavit. (Exh. L and Exh. M). The REDACTED declined the opportunity to cross examine either witness.

III. Discussion

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT

The IEP is not in evidence and the REDACTED did not defend its recommendations.

Student attended the REDACTED for the 2021-2022 school year. REDACTED is a program of self-contained classrooms for children with learning disabilities, language-based disabilities, ADHD, and social skills deficits. The classes are housed within mainstream schools, so students are exposed to their general education peers. (Exh. L, page 1).

Student had significant academic challenges and needed a small class with extensive teacher support and a modified curriculum. (Exh. M, page 2). He had significant language deficits and processing issues. (Exh. M, page 3).

Student’s schedule for the 2021-2022 school year included REDACTED Language, social skills, math, social studies, science and English Language Arts. (Exh. I). Student was in a 12:1:2 class and received full-time special education support throughout the school day, as well as small group instruction. (Exh. J, pages 1, 3, 5). There were five students in Student’s math group, and the GoMath curriculum is modified to work at a slower pace and consistent review. There were four students in his reading group. (Exh. J, pages 1-2). Student presented with expressive and receptive language delays and received speech and language therapy twice per week, once individually and once in a group setting. (Exh. J, page 3 and Exh. M, page 2).

Student made. the 2021-2022 school year. (Exh. J). Student showed improvement in his word analysis skills, comprehension skills, as well as his math skills. (Exh. J and Exh. M, pages 4-5). Student made progress in speech and language therapy, and the end of year recommendation was to decrease services once per week in a group setting. (Exh. K, page 2 and Exh. M, page 4).

The uncontroverted evidence is that the secular portion of the program was 62%, and Parent provided rationale for the calculation; all related services are secular. (Exh. L, page 2).

Parent signed an enrollment contract on or about July 27, 2021, obligating her to pay for tuition and for related services. (Exh. D and Exh. E). The contract provided for withdrawal on or before September 30, 2021 if the REDACTED located an appropriate placement. (Exh. D, page 2). Parent paid a total of $4000 towards tuition (Exh. F, page 1). Parent showed her inability to prospectively fund tuition and seek reimbursement. (Exh. F, Exh. G, and Exh. H).

Parent sent the required Ten-Day Notice on August 16, 2021. (Exh. B). Parent sent a follow up letter on November 27, 2021. (Exh. C). Nothing in the record indicates a response from the REDACTED. Parent filed a due process complaint on August 25, 2022. (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 Endrew F. Douglas County School District RE-1, 580 U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct. 988 (2017), 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 put on a case. Therefore, the REDACTED did not meet its burden of proof and Parent is entitled to relief.

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., 773 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, Parent has met her burden of proof to show the appropriateness of the unilateral placement and is entitled to funding and/or reimbursement for her unilateral placement.

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. B and Exh. C). Parent showed her inability to pay tuition and seek reimbursement under the Carter Analysis. (Exh. H). There are no allegations of obstruction or that Parent was uncooperative. Therefore, Parent is entitled to the entirety of secular tuition for the 2021-2022 school year.

IV. Order

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

1. The REDACTED failed to provide Student a Free and Appropriate Public Education for the 2021-2022 school year.

2. The REDACTED shall fund/reimburse Parent for related services and 62% of tuition at the REDACTED for the 2021-2022 school year within thirty days of receipt of invoice and/or proof of payment.

Dated: September 26, 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

REDACTED

None Parent

Exhibit Date Title # of Pages

A 08-25-2022 Due Process Complaint with Receipt 04

B 08-16-2021 Ten Day Notice Letter with E-Receipt 04

C 11-22-2021 Parent Follow Up Letter with E-Receipt 05

D 07-27-2021 Enrollment Contract 02

E 09-02-2021 Related Services Contract 01

F 07-21-2022 Tuition Affidavit 01

G Various Dates Parent Proof of Payment 10

H 04-01-2021 Parent Tax Documents 03

I Undated Class Schedule 01

J 04-14-2021 Progress Report 05

K 05-11-2022 Progress Report (Speech-Language Therapy) 02

L 09-22-2023 Testimony Affidavit of REDACTED 03

M 09-22-2023 Testimony Affidavit of REDACTED 06

Impartial Hearing Officer

None.