NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
CASE NUMBER: 600154NYC: 9248590
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Case Number: 9248590
Student’s Name: REDACTED
School District: N.Y.C. Dept. of Ed.,
Rep. District REDACTED
CSE REDACTED
Impartial Hearing Officer: Dr. Oren Varnai, Esq.
Date of Filing: 5/26/2023
Hearing Requested by: Parent
Date of Hearing: 6/22/2023
Record Close Date: 7/3/2023
Date of Decision: 7/3/2023
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED AT THE DUE PROCESS HEARING:
1. REDACTED, Esq. for the parent, (hereinafter referred to as “Parent’s attorney”) — Student
2. REDACTED, Esq. — Student
3. REDACTED, legal intern — Student
(“DOE”): — DOE
1. REDACTED, Esq. appeared on behalf of the DOE, (hereinafter referred to as — DOE
“District’s Representative”) — DOE
Identifying Information Term Used in FOFD and/or Exhibit List — DOE
REDACTED — Parents
REDACTED School Psychologist — DOE
REDACTED Director of Student Support Services (or “Director”) — DOE
REDACTED Charter School — DOE
Findings of Fact and Decision — DOE
NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIALS AND HEARINGS (OATH)
SPECIAL EDUCATION HEARINGS DIVISION
REDACTED, a Minor, by and through his/her Parent(s),
PETITIONER FINDINGS OF FACT AND
DECISION - DISCIPLINARY
against Case # 9248590
THE NEW YORK CITY Dr. Oren Varnai, Esq. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Impartial Hearing Officer
RESPONDENT
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
I. Introduction
This proceeding arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482; the federal regulations implementing IDEA, 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.1, et seq.; Article 89 of the New York State Education Law; and the New York State regulations at 8 NYCRR § Part 200, et seq.
The undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) is a certified New York State Special Education Hearing Officer, employed by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (“OATH”) as a Special Education Impartial Hearing Officer, and meets all of the qualifications and requirements outlined in both federal and state statute which grant the IHO the authority to adjudicate this hearing. Furthermore, the IHO is not currently, nor
has ever been, an employee of the NYC Department of Education, and does not have any personal or professional interest or bias that conflicts with his objectivity to hear this matter.
II. Background and Procedural History
A. Due Process Complaint Notice
Petitioner (Parent) is the parent of Student (“Student” or “Child”). On 5/26/2023,
Petitioner filed a Due Process Complaint (“Complaint” or “DPC”) against Respondent, the New York City Department of Education (“NYC DOE” or “DOE” or “District”). The parent alleged that the District’s Manifestation Determination Review (“MDR”) team, which convened on April 27, 2023,[1] decided to expel Student from Charter School for disciplinary reasons. And that the decision was erroneous and should be reversed. Specifically, although
Parent’s Attorney represented that Student will unlikely wish to return to the Charter School, he requested that Student’s expulsion should be expunged from his academic history because Student’s maladaptive behavior that resulted in the expulsion was a manifestation of Student’s disability.
During the school year in which Parent filed the DPC, Student was classified with Other Health Impairment.
The Due Process Hearing (“DPH”) took place on 6/22/2023. As the record reflects, the conduct of the hearing was often contentious, argumentative, and replete with outbursts and obstreperous behaviors that required IHO to actively intervene and warn the Parties and witnesses that the conduct was unacceptable, disruptive, and discourteous. Although the stakes for Student’s education coupled with his potentially severe maladaptive behaviors were high and necessitated zealous advocacy from all involved, caution should be taken in the future to ensure orderly hearings.
III. Findings of Fact and Decision
A. Manifestation Determination Review Appeal
The IDEA outlines specific due process requirements when a school district seeks to effectuate a disciplinary change in placement for a violation of a student code of conduct.[2] A change of placement resulting from discipline means a "suspension or removal from a student's current educational placement that is either: (1) for more than 10 consecutive school days; or (2) for a period of 10 consecutive days or less if the student is subjected to a series of suspensions or removals that constitute a pattern because they cumulate to more than 10 school days in a school year."[3] For students with a disability, as defined in the IDEA, the school district must conduct a Manifestation Determination Review (“MDR”) "within 10 school days of any decision to change the placement of a child with a disability because of a violation of a code of student conduct"[4] and determine whether the alleged behavior was a manifestation of the student’s disability.
When a Parent disagrees with the MDR team’s placement determination or the determination that the conduct was not a manifestation of Student’s disability, Parent may request an expedited impartial hearing subject to strict and exacting timelines to ensure expeditious due process review. [5]
The MDR team must include a district representative, the parents, and the "relevant members" of the CSE, as determined by the parent and the district,[6] and they must "review all relevant information in the student's file including the student's IEP, any teacher observations, and any relevant information provided by the parents to determine if: (1) the conduct in question was caused by or had a direct and substantial relationship to the student's disability; or (2) the conduct in question was the direct result of the school district's failure to implement the IEP."[7]
If it is determined that the student's behavior was not a manifestation of his or her disability, "the relevant disciplinary procedures applicable to children without disabilities may be applied to the child in the same manner in which they would be applied to children without disabilities."[8] If, however, it is determined that the student's behavior was a manifestation of his or her disability, the CSE must conduct a Functional Behavioral Assessment (“FBA”) and implement a Behavioral Intervention Plan (“BIP”). If a BIP already exists, the MDR team must review the BIP and modify it as necessary to address the behavior.[9] The district must also return the student to the placement from which he or she was removed or suspended, except for “special circumstances,” and unless agreed otherwise by the parent and district as part of the modification of the BIP. [10]
An Interim Alternative Educational Setting (“IAES”) may be used as an alternative educational setting when a district superintendent removes a student with a disability if the student’s conduct involved serious bodily injury, weapons, illegal drugs or controlled substance.[11] “Additionally, if a district requests an expedited hearing, an IHO may order a placement to an IAES even if the student is not subject to a disciplinary proceeding if the IHO determines ‘that maintaining the current placement of the student is substantially likely to result in injury to the student or to others.’”[12] In the case of IAES placements, the MDR meeting must take place within 10 school days of the placement in such setting by the superintendent or the IHO.[13] A student placed in an IAES shall "continue to receive educational services so as to enable that student to continue to participate in the general education curriculum . . . and to progress toward meeting the goals set out in the student's
IEP." 14
Finally, “[t]he [IDEA] no longer requires that the appropriateness of the child’s IEP and placement be considered when making a manifestation determination. The Act now requires that the LEA, the parent, and relevant members of the IEP Team must, when making a manifestation determination, determine whether (1) the conduct in question was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to, the child’s disability; or (2) the conduct in question was the direct result of the LEA’s failure to implement the IEP” [15]
14 8 NYCRR 201.2[k][1]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1415[k][1][D][i]; 34 CFR 300.530[d][1][i]; 8 NYCRR 201.10[d].
1. The Behavior
Here, there was no dispute that Student’s IEP was implemented in conformity with 8 NYCRR 201.4(c), so the only question to answer was whether “the conduct in question was caused by or had a direct and substantial relationship to the student's disability.” [16]
It was further agreed that on April 20, 2023,[17] while at home late at night, Student threatened to commit a “school shooting” in messages exchanged with other unidentified students.[18] The MDR worksheet indicated that Student then repeated the comment on April 25, 2023, which appears to correspond to Ex. DOE-6-5, the screenshot of Student’s communication.
The Parties also agreed that this standard relates directly to Student’s IEP and the language therein, which is critically important at reaching a decision, and therefore included below:
There have been numerous incidents both within the 2021-2022 school year as well as this school year in which [Student] has used inappropriate language towards his classmates and staff. [Student] has had numerous suspensions including one this year due to these incidents. During his counseling sessions, incidents and reasoning behind comments and inappropriate languages are discussed. While [Student] needs continuous counseling in efforts to work on social skills and socially appropriate behaviors, [Student] has made the active effort to remove himself from social media in order to avoid being “tempted to send messages when bored.” The setting where the problem behavior most frequently and consistently occurs is when [Student] is at home when he is not doing anything and nothing is catching his attention. What occurs immediately before the problem behavior is [Student] being alone and away from adult attention, peer attention, sensory stimulation. [Student] will then verbally harass, threaten, and/or bully the individual target. For example, [Student] will warn peers to "watch out" or call them slurs. [19]
2. MDR Team
DOE Ex. 3 is the MDR teams Manifestation Determination Review worksheet
(“Worksheet”). At first glance, the Worksheet is incomplete as several questions remain unanswered. First, the DPH record reflects that the MDR team reviewed teacher reports, yet none were included on the Worksheet, the check-off box was unfilled, and no explanation was given.[20] Second, the ‘documents provided by the parent’ field was similarly blank, and it remains unclear whether Parent provided any documents because Parent did not testify.
Third, question 2 of the Worksheet 21 was left blank even though there was testimony that there were teacher reports used during the MDR, and one teacher report was included in DOE’s disclosures as Ex. DOE-15. Fourth, question 3 on the worksheet 22 was left blank, which, in my view, was a critical omission as that question specifically required the MDR team to determine whether:
21 Ex. DOE-3-4. 22 Id.
“Based on your review of the documents and any other information about the students [sic] behavior that was discussed, describe the student's disability and how it affects the student's behavior (i.e., disability-related behavior). The Team must look beyond the disability classification and generalizations about the classification to discuss how the specific characteristics of the disability are evidenced with this student.”
3. School Psychologist’s Testimony
The testimony of School Psychologist’s revealed several deficiencies in the DOE’s procedural unfolding of the MDR team’s conduct. Psychologist stated that not all the documents presented during the MDR were included in the DOE’s worksheet, to include the Student’s psychiatric and psychoeducational evaluations, and that “I did not put it in the worksheet. However, it was discussed in the MDR meeting.”[23] She testified that Student engages in “behavior could be described as impulsive,”[24] and that impulsivity involves behavior that is not thought out.[25] She agreed that “[Student] was trying not to go on to social media because when he's bored, he makes unwelcome comments at least,”[26] and that “those comments, they tended to happen when [Student] was at home.”[27] As a result, Student “does engage inappropriate language towards his classmates and staff,”[28] and “engages in these
behaviors over social media.”[29] Student “verbally harasses, threatens and bullies individual targets.” [30]
Psychologist Testified in her affidavit that the first item she looked at was Student’s
IQ in order
“[t]o determine if the student has a cognitive capacity to understand and differentiate, you know, the difference between right and what's wrong.” 31 “Well, I, I see the cognitive capacity of the student, and if he's able to make that differentiation, and I do see if there's a pattern if, if -- it -- to see that there is a pattern of behavior that led to these specific incidents. Regarding these incidents specifically, he was able to understand that it was wrong when he made the off comment that he was joking afterwards. And it wasn't -- and according to the information that we discussed in the
I-, in the MDR meeting with the psychiatric, the psychological evaluation as well as the IEP, that it wasn't a pattern of behavior that the team felt, which led him to make an -- that statement of committing a school shooting specifically, to, to the nor-, it's out of the normal pattern of behavior that he exhibited.” 32
Psychologist’s testimony aligns with the Worksheet in question 8 where the MDR team explained that Student “was able to differentiate right and wrong as evidenced by his remark ‘I’m joking [by the way]’ after saying that he will commit a school shooting.” 33
The IEP’s language that “[Student] will then verbally harass, threaten, and/or bully the individual target” 34 appeared to be the greatest area of contention between the Parties as there was a disagreement as to the meaning of the word ‘threaten.’ If we were to take the expansive, and literal, definition of the word, Student’s behavior was a manifestation of his disability because it was contemplated in the IEP as a predicted behavior; if we were to take a narrower interpretation as proposed by DOE, then the threat of violence was not an expected behavior of uttering threats.
Psychologist explained that she “did not see a specific threatening pattern that the student, you know, exhibited from that to this statement specifically,” 35 and “it doesn't matter where the incidents occurred, right [] [a]s long as it's relevant to [Student’s]
disability.” 36 Further, “the turning point here in terms of [Student]'s behavior is the type of threat that was made, specifically, committed shooting,” 37 and that the “concern here is really the severity of the behavior” 38 because it “also wasn't consistent with the other socially inappropriate remarks that he, he said, you know, prior.” 39 Although Student tended “to say inappropriate verbal language or usage [it was] never towards an extent, where it's that more of an egregious statement of him saying that he will commit a school shooting.” 40
Psychologist further agreed that “the watch out threat that was made well before this incident is a form of bullying…” and “is a threat,” 41 which reinforces that notion that Student
34 Ex. DOE-2-4. 35 Tr. p. 58. 36 Tr. p. 63. 37 Tr. p. 71. 38 Id. 39 Id. 40 Tr. p. 72. 41 Tr. p. 78.
makes threats, but there is no clear definition in the IEP despite DOE’s witnesses testifying that threats Student engaged in were of a specific character. She further testified that the example of Student verbalizing the words ‘watch out’ is “…conceived more of a warning compared to like an actual threat.” 42 Therefore, although the IEP team had information of one of the ways Student would preempt a threat with a warning, similar information related to specific types of threats Student engaged in in the past were not included. Had the IEP team been more specific as to the types of threats Student made, or expected to make in the future, they should have included those examples in the IEP to avoid the general catchall
‘threat,’ which is expansive.
In response to IHO’s questioning, Psychologist testified that “…the statement that [Student is] going to commit a school shooting [is] a threat.” 43 Nevertheless, Psychologist insisted that Student’s threat to commit a school shooting “is a more of an egregious threatening statement that he would have made. It doesn't again seem to be something that is a pattern or I would have expected of him,” 44 but again agreed that a “threat to commit a school shooting fall[s] under this description of, of threatening behavior.” 45 Despite this wavering, it seems clear that the focus of the MDR team was on the severity of the threat, which appears to be a subjective interpretation of Student’s IEP and a moving target. Had the CSE been more precise in the IEP or provided some examples or parameters of Student’s prior or expected behavior, there contours of Student’s disability would have been more defined.
42 Tr. p.82. 43 Tr. p. 83. 44 Tr. p. 83. 45 Tr. p. 84.
4. Director’s Testimony
As an initial matter, the record reflects that Director’s testimony was sometimes evasive, non-responsive, and dismissive. Although I find her testimony at the hearing credible for the most part, I find that her affidavit testimony cannot be relied upon for the purposes of the record. Specifically, Director’s affidavit reads that “[w]e had no way to anticipate that [Student]’s maladaptive behavior would escalate as it did or that we would have to expel him;” 46 “we felt it was most appropriate to expel [Student].” 47 Director’s live testimony contradicted her testimony in the affidavit, and the record is clear that Director did not make any statements in, or contribute anything in writing to, the MDR team while the review meeting was taking place. Director’s “…level of participation was in consultation with the executive director in review of the level of the infraction,” 48 and Director did not “…say anything during the MDR with respects to whether [Student] should be expelled…”49
In fact, other than Psychologist, neither Director, nor Student’s counselor, 50 nor the assistant principal, 51 made any recommendations during the MDR meeting, and there was no indication that any member of the MDR team made any contribution to the determination.
Finally, there was repeated reference during the hearing to Director’s affidavit testimony that Student never exhibited “threats of violence or aggressive use of slurs” 52 prior to the MDR meeting. ‘Threats of violence’ aside, ‘aggressive use of slurs’ has no practical
46 Ex. DOE-18 para 25; emphasis added. 47 Ex. DOE-18 para. 28; emphasis added. 48 Tr. p. 134. 49 Tr. p. 137. 50 Tr. p. 139. 51 Tr. p. 139. 52 Ex. DOE-18-5.
meaning; it appears to be a term of art (and it is not) but conveys no useful information otherwise. As to the definition of the word ‘threat,’ DOE’s attorney insisted that Director “has also told [IHO] what threats meant. She has also told [IHO] what violent threats meant. She has also told [IHO] what each of these words are. So if you're asking her to find another interpretation, she's just not going to be able to do it.” 53
There are a few problems with Director’s testimony and DOE’s explanation. If
Director—and by extension DOE—knew the types of threats Student engaged in, or expected to engage in, that information should have been included in the IEP. The IEP provided an example of Student’s warning to “watch out” 54 before he would behave maladaptively, but despite Director’s testimony of specific knowledge of the types of threats Student was known to engage in, or limitation to non-violent threats, they were not included in the IEP.
I am also not convinced that the adjective ‘violent’ attached to the word ‘threat’ in
Director’s affidavit was adopted by Director in her testimony. It is certainly acceptable, and encouraged, 55 for an attorney to draft an affidavit for an affiant’s review and adoption of the substance of the affidavit following corrections, if any. In this case, however, it is Director who must explain any discrepancies between her affidavit and the live testimony she provided during the hearing. I do not find any issue with the fact that DOE Attorney was “the one who drafted” 56 Director’s affidavit after consulting with Director and having her affirm to the testimony. The problem arises when an attorney attempts to explain the affidavit’s
53 Tr. p. 148. 54 Ex. DOE-2-4. 55 Affidavit testimony is an integral part of Due Process Hearings as it promotes efficiency in the conduct of the proceeding, allows the Parties to prepare for hearings in advance, and defines the scope of the evidence to be presented. Nevertheless, these affidavits are the testimonies of the affiants; they are sworn to; they are a vital part of any hearing’s official record. As such, these affidavits must be treated with the utmost care and sanctity to preserve the integrity of the testimony, specifically, and the record, generally. 56 Tr. p. 148.
substance or the choice of words and adjectives the Attorney selected. Director’s adoption of the language in the affidavit means that it is her testimony; it is her responsibility to answer
IHO’s questions related to that testimony; it is her obligation to explain the meaning.
B. The MDR Team’s Determination is Reversed
As an initial procedural matter, I am troubled by the manner in which the MDR team conducted the review.
First, it seems clear that, although all the necessary individuals attended the meeting, there was little discussion as to whether Student’s behavior was a manifestation of his disability. The focus of the meeting was on the severity of Student’s behavior, and not whether DOE needed to address the behavior instead of expelling Student. To be clear,
Student’s behavior was egregious with a potential for disastrous results if acted upon, but that is not the standard in evaluating whether this conduct was a manifestation of Student’s disability. Students present with a panoply of complex behavioral and emotional needs that must be addressed appropriately.
Second, the Worksheet is woefully incomplete, and despite testimony that the MDR meeting lasted between 45 minutes and one hour, the documentation in this case is concerning.
Third, although unclear, it seems that Director had a conversation with the Charter
School’s Executive Director prior to the MDR, when the decision to expel Student took place.
The purpose of the MDR meeting is to decide at the meeting whether Student’s behavior was a manifestation of his disability, and not whether Student should be expelled; that is a
second step that must take place after a determination at an MDR that the Student’s behavior was not a manifestation of his disability.
Fourth, the Executive Director’s role in expelling Student was unclear. He did not participate in the MDR meeting, yet Director testified that the Executive Director reached a conclusion at some point regarding Student’s expulsion. This issue could rise to a predetermination problem, which although has significant caselaw vis-à-vis the creation of an IEP, has no analogous standard in MDR decisions. As indicated above, Director’s testimony was evasive, and I find that the MDR team conducted a pro-forma review of Student’s disciplinary history with the decision to expel him already reached beforehand.
Fifth, I am concerned that the Psychologist’s role as the sole arbiter of the Student’s
MDR determination, which might be appropriate, did not include the participation of all the members of the MDR team. I find DOE’s position troubling, especially in response to IHO opining to DOE Attorney that “if [Director] didn't speak [at the MDR], she didn't participate” whereby DOE Attorney responded “[t]hat's not true.” 57 There was no evidence or testimony that anyone at the MDR ‘participated’ in the review other than to provide documents (at the hearing or before), 58 and DOE Attorney agreed that that Director’s presence at the MDR team was not necessary simply to provide documents. 59 In sum, if members of the MDR team attend, but do not engage in the deliberative function of the review, they cannot be said to have participated, even if Psychologist was the one determining the outcome. Returning to the Executive Director’s nebulous role into the analysis, I am also not convinced that
Psychologist was the MDR team member who made the final determination.
57 Tr. p. 103. 58 Tr. p. 104. 59 Id.
Aside from the validity of the procedural deficiencies outlined above, based on the evidence provided at hearing, I find that the MDR team was incorrect in its determination that Student’s maladaptive behavior was not a manifestation of his disability. Student’s behavior was caused by and had a direct and substantial relationship to his disability, and therefore a manifestation of his disability. Student engaged in conduct that was specifically contemplated in his IEP, to wit, that he may “threaten, and/or bully the individual target.” 60
DOE’s position that “we don't know that [Student] was bored at home when he sent these messages,” 61 which was a preceding element of Student’s behaviors as indicated in his IEP, was an issue for DOE to prove in the negative.
A threat to commit a school shooting is a threat. The Oxford dictionary defines a threat as “a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done." It is a common term that is sufficiently expansive to include a threat to commit a school shooting. To attempt to create a sub-category of ‘violent threat’ when such sub-category is not in Student’s IEP is an attempt to justify a disciplinary act after the fact.
The severity of the threat is something that is certainly an important consideration, but DOE should have considered the consequences of inartfully drafting an IEP when it is evident it had information (not documented anywhere in the record) that Student’s threatening behavior meant something else. I do not find the post facto explanation that threats did not include ‘violent’ threats.
60 Ex. DOE-2-4. 61 Tr. p. 157.
IV. Orders
NOW, THEREFORE, IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF FACT, IT IS HEREBY:
1. ORDERED that the DOE’s MDR determination is reversed, and that Student’s behavior was a manifestation of his disability.
2. ORDERED that Student’s expulsion from Charter School be expunged from his record.
3. ORDERED that the CSE shall reconvene within 15 days of the date of this order and develop an IEP consistent with this Order, conduct a Functional Behavior Assessment (“FBA”), and create a Behavior Intervention Plan (“BIP”) if appropriate.
4. ORDERED that the CSE shall consider whether Student’s current classification must be changed, including Emotional Disturbance.
DATED: SO ORDERED
7/3/2023
Dr. Oren Varnai, Esq., IHO
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 proceedings 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
PARENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit Document Date Pages
A. Due Process Complaint 05/26/2023 4
B. Individual Education Program 10/18/2022 28
C. MDR Worksheet 4/27/2023 6
D. Psychiatric Evaluation 5/1/2023 7
DOE’S EXHIBITS
Exhibit Document Date Pages
1. Due Process Complaint 5/26/2023 5
2. Individualized Education Program (IEP) 10/18/2022 30
3. Manifestation Determination Review Worksheet 4/27/2023 6
4. Manifestation Determination Attendance Sheet 4/27/2023 3
5. Results of Manifestation Determination Review (MDR) 4/27/2023 1
6. Expulsion Hearing Evidence 4/25/2023 22
7. Correspondence from School to Parent 4/20/2023 11
8. MDR Appointment Ltr. 4/25/2023 2
9. Out of School Suspension Notice 10/12/2022 2
10. In School Suspension Notice 11/14/2022 1
11. In School Suspension Notice 1/6/2023 2
12. Student Handbook September 57
2022
13. Psychological Update 1/16/2015 4
14. Psychiatric Evaluation 11/21/2014 2
15. Teacher Report 10/12/2022 2
16. Prior Written Notice (Notice of Recommendation) 10/21/2022 12
17. Affidavit in lieu of Direct Testimony of School 6/20/2023 7
Psychologist
18. Affidavit in lieu of Direct Testimony Director of Student 6/20/2023 6
Support Services
IHO’S EXHIBITS
Exhibit Document Date Pages
I. None None None
Footnotes
[1] Ex. DOE-3.
[2] See 20 U.S.C. § 1415[k]; Educ. Law §§ 3214[3][g]; 4404[1]; 34 CFR 300.530-300.537; 8 NYCRR Part 201; State Appeal No. 23-040.
[3] 8 NYCRR 201.2[e]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1415[k][1][B]; 34 CFR 300.530[b][2], [c].
[4] 20 U.S.C. § 1415[k][1][E][i]; 34 CFR 300.530[e][1]; 8 NYCRR 201.4[a]
[5] 20 U.S.C. § 1415[k][3][A]; 34 CFR 300.532[c]; 8 NYCRR 201.11[a][3]-[4]; see Coleman v. Newburgh Enlarged City Sch. Dist., 503 F.3d 198, 201-02 [2d Cir. 2007].
[6] 20 U.S.C. § 1415[k][1][E][i]; Educ. Law § 3214[3][g][2][ii]; 34 CFR 300.530[e][1]; 8 NYCRR 201.4[b]
[7] 8 NYCRR 201.4[c]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1415[k][1][E]; 34 CFR 300.530[e][1].
[8] 20 U.S.C. § 1415[k][1][C]; 34 CFR 300.530[c]; see Educ. Law § 3214[3][g][vi]; 8 NYCRR 201.7[d].
[9] 20 U.S.C. § 1415[k][1][F][i]-[ii]; 34 CFR 300.530[f][1][i]-[ii]; 8 NYCRR 201.3.
[10] 20 U.S.C. § 1415[k][1][F][iii]; Educ. Law § 3214[3][g][3][viii]; 34 CFR 300.530[f][2]; 8 NYCRR 201.4[d][2][ii].
[11] 20 U.S.C. § 1415[k][1][G][i]-[iii]; 34 CFR 300.530[g]; 8 NYCRR 201.7[e].
[12] State Appeal No. 23-040 citing 8 NYCRR 201.8[a], [c]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1415[k][3][A]-[B]; Educ. Law § 3214[3][g][3][vii]; 34 CFR 300.532[c]; 8 NYCRR 201.11.
[13] 8 NYCRR 201.4[a][1]-[2].
[15] Federal Register Vol. 71, No. 156 (Aug. 14, 2006); see Pocono Mountain School District Pennsylvania State Educational Agency, 109 LRP 26432, 2008; M.R. v Philadelphia School District, Special Education Opinion No. 1918 (2008).
[16] 8 NYCRR 201.4[c]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1415[k][1][E]; 34 CFR 300.530[e][1].
[17] Ex. DOE-3.
[18] Ex. DOE-6-10.
[19] Ex. DOE-2-4.
[20] Ex. DOE-3-3.
[23] Tr. p. 22.
[24] Tr. p. 48.
[25] Tr. p. 28.
[26] Tr. p. 33.
[27] Tr. p. 33.
[28] Tr. p. 34.
[29] Tr. p. 35.
[30] Tr. p. 35. 31 Tr. p. 50. 32 Tr. p. 57. 33 Ex. DOE-3-5.