NY IHO #250590: New York City... | Special Education Law

NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 250590

Student's Name: [REDACTED]

Date of Birth: [REDACTED]

District: [REDACTED]

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Date of Hearing: 08/14/2023

Actual Record Close Date: 08/23/2023

Decision Date: 08/23/2023

Hearing Officer: Daniel Ajello Esq.

Hearing Officer‘s Finding of Fact & Decision

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON 08/14/2023

(All Parties Appeared Via Teleconference)

[REDACTED], ESQ., Attorney — Student

[REDACTED], — Parents

[REDACTED], District Representative — DOE

[REDACTED], ESQ., Attorney — DOE

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

PARENT

Entered 08/14/2023 Ex. Date Description Page(s) A July 5, 23 Impartial Hearing Request/Due Process Complaint (DPC) 5 B June 16, 23 Ten Day Notice (TDN) 1 C June 16, 23 School Contract 3 D July 19, 23 Affidavit of Payment 2 E 2023-2024 School Schedule –Summer 1 F 2023-2024 Summer Program Description 2 G 2023-2024 Upper School Program Description 5 H July 31, 23 Affidavit of [REDACTED] 8 I August 14, 23 Affirmation of [REDACTED] 2

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (DOE)

None

IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER

Entered 08/14/2023

I Notice of Appointment, 07/10/2023, 4 pages

II Teleconference Email, 07/10/2023, 1 pages

III Notice of Appearance, 07/20/2023, 1page

INTRODUCTION

Hearing Officer‘s Finding of Fact & Decision

On 12/16/2022, I was appointed the Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) by the Department of Education’s Impartial Hearing Office to conduct an impartial hearing pursuant to the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1415(f) and Article 89 of the Education Law of the State of New York.

Hearing commenced, on 08/14/2023, to allow an opportunity for the DOE to defend against the allegations contained in the DPC.

The DOE had submitted documents intended to be offered into evidence in the event Pendency was to be determined. A demand to determine the Student’s Pendency during the proceedings was withdrawn, therefore the documents were not entered into the Record. (T 10-11)

Regarding the Parent’s DPC, the DOE opted not to defend any offer of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), and opted not to cross examine any Parent Witness. (T 10 & 14)

Appended to the record are lists of persons in attendance and the documents received in evidence.

Due Process Complaint (DPC), dated July 5th, 2023, alleges a failure of the Department of Education to offer the Student a FAPE for the '23/'24 school year. (Ex A)

Parent seeks relief in the form of DOE funding for the Student’s unilateral placement, at the [REDACTED] School. (UP). (Ex A)

Parent allegations include a brief educational history of the Student:

- Student is a child with [REDACTED] and intellectual deficits attendant with that condition. She has always been an extended school year student who has been provided with specialized transportation;

- Student’s parent withdrew her from public school and enrolled her in [REDACTED] School and Institute (UP) for the 2018-2019 school year. The

District has agreed to pay the child’s tuition to [REDACTED] and to provide transportation since then, i.e. during the 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021- 2022 and 2022-2023 school years, in settlement of Due Process claims initiated by the parents seeking payment of the tuition for each of those years (Ex A 2);

- Parent disagrees with most recent IEP, of 06/01/2023, and its related offered placement, in part due to Student not being evaluated within the last three years.

(Ex A 3) Hearing Officer‘s Finding of Fact & Decision Parent seeks relief to remedy the alleged failure, including, prospective funding for unilateral placement (UP), with specialized transportation, for the 23-24 school year. (Ex A 4-5)

Parent also seeks: “A determination be made that the District is obligated to evaluate the student in all areas of suspected disability or to fund an independent neuropsychological evaluation at a rate of up to $[REDACTED], an independent speech language evaluation at a rate of up to $2,500, an independent occupational therapy evaluation at a rate of up to $[REDACTED] and an independent physical therapy evaluation at a rate of up to $[REDACTED] by evaluators of the parent’s selection.” (Ex A 5)

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 its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300 et seq., and the New York State Education Law, Educ. Law § 4404 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 8 NYCRR § 200.5 et seq.

THE POSITION OF EACH PARTY

The DOE did not defend any offer of a FAPE, for the Student, for the 22-23 school year.

The DOE Representative stated the DOE’s position at Hearing:

“We would just state that the DOE's not going to be defending its provision of FAPE in this matter. However, we just ask that you hold the parent to the appropriateness of their placement. We contend that the placement is not appropriate, and we would state that the equities favor the DOE -- or do not favor the parent.” (T 15)

The DOE opted not to support its contentions with any evidence.

At Hearing, the Parent supported its position via Documentary Evidence and Written Testimony. The Parent’s evidence is found to be credible and supportive of the Parent’s position, as considered below:

A July 5, 23 Impartial Hearing Request/Due Process Complaint (DPC) Hearing Officer‘s Finding of Fact & Decision

Details Parent allegations and sought after relief, related to the 23-24 school year.

B June 16, 23 Ten Day Notice (TDN)

Notifies the District of request for an IEP meeting; intent to continue Student placement, at the UP; and intent to seek District funding for Student 23-24 attendance, at the UP.

C June 16, 23 School Contract

Student 12 month, 23-24 Tuition, is set forth as $[REDACTED]. (Ex C 1)

Parent is obligated to payment via signature upon the Contract. (Ex C 3)

D July 19, 23 Affidavit of Payment

Confirmation of Student 12 month, 23-24 Tuition, in the amount of $[REDACTED].

E 2023-2024 School Schedule –Summer

Student 23-24 Summer Schedule, including Academics and Adaptive Skills.

Adaptive Skills isa class co-treated by a Speech and Language Pathologist, Counselor, and Occupational Therapist.

Additional Related Services are provided on a push-in and 1:1 case as needed.

In addition to the educational experience, students receive:

● Travel Training

● Safety in the Community

● Peer Engagement

F 2023-2024 Summer Program Description

General characteristics of the Summer Program are detailed, including:

o Academic Instruction

o Related Services

o Community Inclusion Opportunities (Ex F 1)

o Extra-Curricular Activities, such as Social Skills and cooking (Ex F 1Hearing Officer‘s Finding of Fact & Decision 2)

o Vocational and Travel Training and Community Service Opportunities (Ex F 2)

G 2023-2024 Upper School Program Description

General characteristics o the UP program are detailed, including:

o Small, multi-age groupings

o Individual daily schedules based on learning profile (Ex G 1)

o Areas of focus include:

• Independence

• Academic Skills

• Critical Thinking ad Problem Solving

• Social Skills

• Emotional Health

• Art and Media

• Preparation for Meaningful Employment

• Citizenship

o Curriculum s aligned with traditional high school model and New York

State Common Core Standards for Learning

o Details Curriculum areas of: English Language Arts, Social Studies (Ex G 2), Math, Science, Creative Arts, Employment Readiness,

Life/Adaptive Skills (Ex G 3), Parent Education and Advocacy, and Related services (Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, Speech and Language and Counseling) (Ex G 4)

o Instructional Strategies include:

• Integrated Academics and Therapeutic Services

• Hands-on Classroom Learning Across Content Areas

• Off-Site Educational Experiences Beyond Classroom Walls (Ex G 4)

• Learning for Living Curriculum

• Service Learning and Internships (Ex G 5) Hearing Officer‘s Finding of Fact & Decision o Staff is an experienced, multidisciplinary team (Ex G 5)

H July 31, 23 Affidavit of [REDACTED]

Witness provided Testimony as Assistant Head of the UP Upper School, which included:

- Her qualifications and employment duties (Ex H 1-2);

- General characteristics of the UP including: designing programs for individualized students and professional development for staff (Ex H 2-3);

- Familiarity with the Student, who has attended since 2018 (Ex H 3);

- Details of Student deficits which interfere with learning, such as intellectual functioning in the extremely low range, significant weakness in vocabulary development, language /communication and executive functioning, and academic delays in reading, writing and mathematics (Ex H 3-4);

- Student program includes:

o Modified academic programming

o Small homogeneous classes

o Multisensory instruction

o Direct teacher support

o Graphic organizers

o Guided questions

o Repetition of learning routines, and

o Checklists

o Class of 10 students, 1 head teacher, 1 assistant teacher, and 3 paraprofessionals

o Group of similarly age students with similar functional levels and needs throughout the day o Academic curriculum, with support (Ex H 4)

o Qualified teachers

o SLT, OT and Counseling

o Adaptive Skills Curriculum designed to teach and promote skills needed Hearing Officer‘s Finding of Fact & Decision for students to function as independently as possible in the world (Ex H 5)

o A review of Student 2023 Summer Program, which included Adaptive

Skills

o Vocational Skills Class and an internship program (Ex H 6)

- Witness concludes that the UP is an appropriate placement, for the Student, for the 22-23 school year, providing significantly modified programming to address extensive academic needs and integrate related services into the curriculum to place learning and acquisition of new skills into a meaningful context;

- Student receive support which allows access to the curriculum;

- Student has made progress, during the 22-23 school year (Ex H 7);

- The DOE recommended IEP, and placement, which arose from the 06/01/2023, is not sufficient instructional support to address Student’s complex learning needs (Ex H 7-8); and

- The UP is an appropriate placement, for the Student, for the 23-24 school year, for all domains – social/emotional, academic, adaptive, transitional – and can help Student generalize these skills through school, work and life. (Ex H 8)

I August 14, 23 Affirmation of [REDACTED]

Student’s mother provides Testimony that includes:

- Student’s educational placements over the past several years;

- The Student benefits from the UP placement which provides: “the structure and supports she needs to make progress” (Ex I 1)

- The District held an IEP meeting, on 06/01/2023, which Witness missed, and she sought to have it rescheduled, without success (Ex I 2);

- An enrollment Contract was signed, with the UP (Ex C);

- A Student placement was never received from the District, for the 23-24 school year (Ex I 2);

- Witness income for 2022 was $[REDACTED];

- Witness received no financial support;

- Witness does not have the assets to pay the UP Tuition; and Hearing Officer‘s Finding of Fact & Decision

- Witness directed her Attorney to notify the District o f the intended UP placement and intent to seeks District funding (Ex D)(Ex I 3)

FINDING OF FACTS AND DECISION

Purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400- 1482) are (1) to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living; and (2) to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities and parents of such students are protected (20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A][B]; see generally Forest Grove v. T.A., 129 S. Ct. 2484, )2491 [2009]; Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 [1982]).

A FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07; H.C. v. Katonah-Lewisboro Union Free Sch. Dist., 2013 WL 3155869 [2d Cir. June 24, 2013]; R.E. v. New York City Dep't. of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 189-90 [2d Cir. 2012], cert. denied 2013 WL 1418840 [U.S. June 10, 2013]; M.H. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 685 F.3d 217, 245 [2d Cir. 2012]; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]). "'[A]dequate compliance with the procedures prescribed would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP'" (Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 129 [2d Cir. 1998] [quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206]; see T.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 247, 253 [2d Cir. 2009]). While the Second Circuit has emphasized that school districts must comply with the checklist of procedures for developing a student's IEP and indicated that "[m]ultiple procedural violations may cumulatively result in the denial of a FAPE even if the violations considered individually do not" (R.E., 694 F.3d at 190-91), the Court has also explained that not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (M.H., 685 F.3d at 245; A.C. v. Bd. of Educ., 553 F.3d 165, 172 [2d Cir. 2009]; Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003]; Perricelli v. Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 465211, at *10 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2007]).

Under the IDEA, if procedural violations are alleged, an administrative officer may find Hearing Officer‘s Finding of Fact & Decision that a student did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a) impeded the student's right to a FAPE, (b) significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student, or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 CFR 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 525-26 [2007]; R.E., 694 F.3d at 190; M.H., 685 F.3d at 245; A.H. v. Dep't of Educ., 2010 WL 3242234, at *2 [2d Cir. Aug. 16, 2010]; E.H. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 3930028, at *7 [N.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2008], aff'd, 2009 WL 3326627 [2d Cir. Oct. 16, 2009]; Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 471 F. Supp. 2d 415, 419 [S.D.N.Y. 2007], aff'd, 2008 WL 3852180 [2d Cir. Aug. 19, 2008]).

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). The statute ensures an "appropriate" education, "not 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 Hearing Officer‘s Finding of Fact & Decision

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, 2012 WL 4946429 [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]; Patskin v. Bd. of Educ., 583 F. Supp. 2d 422, 428 [W.D.N.Y. 2008]).

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. Dep't 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]; see also Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 07-018; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-059; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 06-029; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-046; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-014; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 93-9).

The Supreme Court has stated that even if it is unreasonable to expect a student to attend a regular education setting and achieve on grade level, the educational program set forth in the student's IEP "must be appropriately ambitious in light of his [or her] circumstances, just as advancement from grade to grade is appropriately ambitious for most children in the regular classroom. The goals may differ, but every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives" (Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 1000).

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 Hearing Officer‘s Finding of Fact & Decision 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 burden of proof is on the school district during an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement (Educ. Law § 4404[1][c]; see R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85). A private school placement must be "proper under the Act" (Carter, 510 U.S. at 12, 15; Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370), i.e., the private school offered an educational program which met the student's special education needs (see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, 115; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 129). A parent's failure to select a program approved by the State in favor of an unapproved option is not itself a bar to reimbursement (Carter, 510 U.S. at 14). The private school need not employ certified special education teachers or have its own IEP for the student (Carter, 510 U.S. at 13-14). Parents seeking reimbursement "bear the burden of demonstrating that their private placement was appropriate, even if the IEP was inappropriate" (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; see M.S. v. Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of Yonkers, 231 F.3d 96, 104 [2d Cir. 2000]). "Subject to certain limited exceptions, 'the same considerations and criteria that apply in determining whether the [s]chool [d]istrict's placement is appropriate should be considered in determining the appropriateness of the parents' placement'" (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, quoting Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356, 364 [2d Cir. 2006]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207). Parents need not show that the placement provides every special service necessary to maximize the student's potential (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65). When determining whether a unilateral placement is appropriate, "[u]ltimately, the issue turns on" whether the placement is "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits" (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364; see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115; Berger v. Medina City Sch. Dist., 348 F.3d 513, 522 [6th Cir. 2003] ["evidence of academic progress at a private school does not itself establish that the private placement offers adequate and appropriate education under the IDEA"]). A private placement is appropriate if it provides instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a student (20 U.S.C. § 1401[29]; Educ. Law § 4401[1]; 34 CFR 300.39[a][1]; 8 NYCRR Hearing Officer‘s Finding of Fact & Decision

200.1[ww]; Hardison v. Bd. of Educ. of the Oneonta City Sch. Dist., 773 F.3d 372, 386 [2d Cir. 2014]; C.L. v. Scarsdale Union Free Sch. Dist., 744 F.3d 826, 836 [2d Cir. 2014]; Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 114-15; Frank G., 459 F.3d at 365).

The Second Circuit has set forth the standard for determining whether parents have carried their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of their unilateral placement. 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. Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, quoting Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65).

The final criterion for a reimbursement award is that the parents' claim must be supported by equitable considerations. Equitable considerations are relevant to fashioning relief under the IDEA (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374; R.E., 694 F.3d at 185, 194; M.C. v. Voluntown Bd. of Educ., 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"]; L.K. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 674 Fed. App'x 100, 101 [2d Cir. Jan. 19, 2017]). 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] [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 Hearing Officer‘s Finding of Fact & Decision scholarships or other financial aid from the private school, and any fraud or collusion on the part of the parent or private school]; 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"]).

Reimbursement may be reduced or denied if parents do not provide notice of the unilateral placement either at the most recent CSE meeting prior to their removal of the student from public school, or by written notice ten business days before such removal, "that they were rejecting the placement proposed by the public agency to provide a [FAPE] to their child, including stating their concerns and their intent to enroll their child in a private school at public expense" (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][iii][I]; see 34 CFR 300.148[d][1]). This statutory provision "serves the important purpose of giving the school system an opportunity, before the child is removed, to assemble a team, evaluate the child, devise an appropriate plan, and determine whether a [FAPE] can be provided in the public schools" (Greenland Sch. Dist. v. Amy N., 358 F.3d 150, 160 [1st Cir. 2004]). Although a reduction in reimbursement is discretionary, courts have upheld the denial of reimbursement in cases where it was shown that parents failed to comply with this statutory provision (Greenland, 358 F.3d at 160; Ms. M. v. Portland Sch. Comm., 360 F.3d 267 [1st Cir. 2004]; Berger v. Medina City Sch. Dist., 348 F.3d 513, 523-24 [6th Cir. 2003]; Rafferty v. Cranston Public Sch. Comm., 315 F.3d 21, 27 [1st Cir. 2002]); see Frank G., 459 F.3d at 376; Voluntown, 226 F.3d at 68).

DOE offer of FAPE for the 2023-2024 School Year The DOE opted not to present a defense to the Parent’s allegations.

The district has presented no witnesses in this matter.

The District has submitted nether an IEP nor Student placement, for the 23-24 school year.

I conclude that the district has not met its burden to establish that it offered the Student a FAPE, for the 23-24 school year.

The DOE offered no evidence that the Parent in any way frustrated any attempt of the DOE to offer a FAPE for the 23-24 school year.

I find the DOE failed to offer the Student a FAPE for the 23-24 school year. Hearing Officer‘s Finding of Fact & Decision

UP Placement for the 23-24 School Year

Testimony and documentary evidence, as reviewed above, support UP as an appropriate Student placement for the 20-21 school year.

The credibility of the documentary and testamentary evidence was not controverted by the DOE and the evidence is relevant and material to the issues to be determined. I find that the documentary evidence on behalf of the Parent credible and persuasive in favor of the Parent.

Evidence sets forth areas of Student special education need, services to address those needs, and notes progress. (Ex A, E, F, G, H & I)

I find that the UP provides special education services specifically tailored to meet the needs of the Student.

I find UP provides an appropriate education and program for the Student for the 23-^[24] school year.

TUITION FUNDING 23-24 School Year

I find the Parent is entitled to Student’s UP Tuition funding, via the DOE, for the UP, 23Hearing Officer‘s Finding of Fact & Decision instance where a private school is willing to enroll the student and take the risk that the parents will not be able to pay tuition costs—or will take years to do so—parents who satisfy the Burlington factors have a right to retroactive direct tuition payment relief" (Mr. and Mrs. A., 769

F. Supp. 2d at 428). The Mr. and Mrs. A. Court relied in part on dicta from earlier cases in which similar claims seeking direct retroactive payment to a private non-approved school were asserted (see Connors v. Mills, 34 F. Supp. 2d 795, 805-06 [N.D.N.Y. 1998] [opining that such financial disputes should be resolved within the administrative hearing process]; see also S.W., 646 F. Supp. 2d at 358-60). The Mr. and Mrs. A. Court held that in fashioning such relief, administrative hearing officers retain the discretion to reduce or deny tuition funding or payment requests where there is collusion between parents and private schools or where there is evidence that the private school has artificially inflated its costs (Mr. and Mrs. A., 769 F. Supp.2d at 430).

Parent needs to meet the burden of production and persuasion with respect to whether they have the financial resources to "front" the costs of a unilateral placement and whether they are legally obligated for the student's tuition payments (Application of the Dep't of Educ., 12132; Application of a Student with a Disability, 12-036; Application of a Student with a Disability, 12-004; Application of the Dep't of Educ., 11-130; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 11-106; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 11-041).

In this matter the Parents choose to continue Student placement at UP, without any DOE alternative.

I find the Parent established an inability to fund Student’s 23-24 UP Tuition and await reimbursed.

I find Parent in no way frustrated any attempt of the DOE to offer the Student a FAPE and is entitled to direct DOE funding of the UP tuition, for the 23-24 school year.

I find the Parent is entitled to direct UP funding as Ordered below.

TRANSPORTATION

The IDEA specifically includes transportation, as well as any modifications or accommodations necessary in order to assist a student to benefit from his or her special education, in its definition of related services (20 U.S.C. § 1401[26]; see 34 CFR 300.34[a], [c][16]). In addition, State law defines special education as "specially designed instruction . . . and transportation, provided at no cost to the parents to meet the unique needs of a child with a Hearing Officer‘s Finding of Fact & Decision disability," and requires school districts to provide disabled students with "suitable transportation to and from special classes or programs" (Educ. Law §§ 4401[1]; 4402[4][a]; see Educ. Law § 4401[2]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[ww]).

Specialized transportation must be included on a student's IEP if required to assist the student to benefit from special education (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 16035). If a CSE determines that a student with a disability requires transportation as a related service in order to receive a FAPE, the district must ensure that the student receives the necessary transportation at public expense (Transportation, 71 Fed. Reg. 46576 [Aug. 14, 2006]; see 8 NYCRR 200.1[ww]).

Transportation must be provided to a student with a disability if necessary for the student to benefit from special education, a determination which must be made on a case-by-case basis by the CSE (Tatro, 468 U.S. at 891, 894; District of Columbia v. Ramirez, 377 F. Supp. 2d 63 [D.D.C. 2005]; see Transportation, 71 Fed. Reg. 46576 [Aug. 14, 2006]; "Questions and Answers on Serving Children with Disabilities Eligible for Transportation," 53 IDELR 268 [OSERS 2009]; Letter to Hamilton, 25 IDELR 520 [OSEP 1996]; Letter to Anonymous, 23 IDELR 832 [OSEP 1995]; Letter to Smith, 23 IDELR 344 [OSEP 1995]). If the student cannot access his or her special education without provision of a related service such as transportation, the district is obligated to provide the service, "even if that child has no ambulatory impairment that directly causes a 'unique need' for some form of specialized transport" (Donald B. v. Bd. of Sch. Commrs., 117 F.3d 1371, 1374-75 [11th Cir. 1997] [emphasis in original]). The requested transportation must also be "reasonable when all of the facts are considered" (Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Educ., 790 F.2d 1153, 1160 [5th Cir. 1986]).

Student has received specialized transportation previously, and the current demand is unopposed. (Ex A)

The DOE raises no objection to continuing special education transportation.

I find evidence supports the provision of a special education transportation for the Student for the 23-24 school year. Hearing Officer‘s Finding of Fact & Decision

INDEPENDENT EDUCATIONAL EVALUATIONS

The IDEA provides parents with a number of procedural safeguards. Among them is the "right . . . to obtain an independent educational evaluation of the child," which in turn means "an evaluation conducted by a qualified examiner who is not employed by the public agency responsible for the education of the child in question" (34 CFR 300.502[a][1], [3][i]). Parents who express a disagreement with an evaluation conducted by the district also have the right to seek an IEE conducted at public expense in some circumstances (34 CFR 300.502[b]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[g][1]; see K.B. v. Pearl River Union Free Sch. Dist., 2012 WL 234392, at *5 [S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2012] [noting that "a prerequisite for an IEE is a disagreement with a specific evaluation conducted by the district"]; see also Lauren W. v. DeFlaminis, 480 F.3d 259, 275 [3d Cir. 2007] [explaining that parents do not have the right to an IEE at public expense where parents actually agreed with the school's evaluation]; Edie F. v. River Falls Sch. Dist., 243 F.3d 329, 335 [7th Cir. 2001] [explaining that parents do not have the right to an IEE at public expense where their disagreement was with the result of the child's IEP not with a particular diagnosis or methodology of evaluation]; M.C. v. Katonah/Lewisboro Union Free Sch. Dist., 2012 WL 834350, at *11–12 [S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2012]; M.V. v. Shenendehowa Cent. Sch. Dist., 2013 WL 936438, at *6 [N.D.N.Y. Mar. 8, 2013]; R.L. v. Plainville Bd. of Educ., 363 F. Supp. 2d. 222, 234-35 [D. Conn. 2005] [finding parental failure to disagree with an evaluation obtained by a public agency defeated a parent's claim for an IEE at public expense that was sought for additional information]). "If the parent obtains an independent educational evaluation at public expense or shares with the public agency an evaluation obtained at private expense, the results of the evaluation [m]ust be considered by the public agency, if it meets agency criteria, in any decision made with respect to the provision of FAPE to the child" (34 CFR 300.502[c])

If a parent requests an IEE at public expense, the school district must, without unnecessary delay, either (1) ensure that an IEE is provided at public expense; or (2) initiate an impartial hearing to establish that its evaluation is appropriate or that the evaluation obtained by the parent does not meet the school district criteria (34 CFR 300.502[b][2][i]-[ii]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[g][1][iv]). If a school district's evaluation is determined to be appropriate by an IHO, the parent may still obtain an IEE, although the district will not be required to provide it at public expense (34 CFR 300.502[b][3]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[g][1][v]; see A.H. v. Colonial Sch. Dist., 2019 WL 3021232, at *3 [3d Cir. July 10, 2019]). Additionally, both federal and State regulations Hearing Officer‘s Finding of Fact & Decision provide that "[a] parent is entitled to only one [IEE] at public expense each time the public agency conducts an evaluation with which the parent disagrees" (34 CFR 300.502[b][5]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[g][1]). The time period for asserting claims based upon a disagreement with a school district's evaluation can be shorter than the mandatory three-year reevaluation period in some cases (see D.S., 357 F. Supp. 3d at 179).

An IEE must use the same criteria as the public agency's criteria (Seth B. v. Orleans Par. Sch. Bd., 810 F.3d 961, 973–79 [5th Cir. 2016]). Informal guidance from the United States Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) indicates that if a parent disagrees with an evaluation because a child was not assessed in a particular area, the parent has the right to request an IEE to assess the child in that area (Letter to Baus, 65 IDELR 81 [OSEP 2015]), however recent caselaw clarifies that parents may not demand a comprehensive IEE at public expense while at the same time refusing to consent to the school district's offer to conduct the same assessments (D.S. v. Trumbull Bd. of Educ., 357 F. Supp. 3d 166, 178 [D. Conn. 2019], citing N.D.S. v. Acad. for Sci. & Agric. Charter Sch., 2018 WL 6201725, at *5–*7 [D. Minn. 2018] [explaining that where parents request an IEE to challenge an obsolete evaluation, they are entitled to a due process hearing limited only to whether the evaluation was appropriate at the time it was completed; if parents wish for a publicly funded IEE with respect to their child's current condition, then they must allow the school district to conduct a current reevaluation and then request an IEE if they disagree]).

Additionally, an IHO is vested with the authority to direct that a student be evaluated at district expense (34 CFR 300.502[d]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[g][2]; [j][3][viii]). IHOs are "granted broad authority in their handling of the hearing process and to determine the type of relief which is appropriate considering the equitable factors present and those which will effectuate the purposes underlying IDEA" (Warren Consolidated Schs., 106 LRP 70659 [LEA MI 2000]).

A district must conduct an evaluation of a student where the educational or related Hearing Officer‘s Finding of Fact & Decision services needs of a student warrant a reevaluation or if the student's parent or teacher requests a reevaluation (34 CFR 300.303[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[b][4]); however, a district need not conduct a reevaluation more frequently than once per year unless the parent and the district otherwise agree and at least once every three years unless the district and the parent agree in writing that such a reevaluation is unnecessary (8 NYCRR 200.4[b][4]; see 34 CFR 300.303[b][1]-[2]). A CSE may direct that additional evaluations or assessments be conducted in order to appropriately assess the student in all areas related to the suspected disabilities (8 NYCRR 200.4[b][3]).

An evaluation of a student must be sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the student's special education and related services needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in which the student has been classified (34 CFR 300.304[c][6]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[b][6][ix]; see Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 07-018).

Under 200.5 (g) of the New York regulations and 34 CFR § 300.502 (b) (1) of the federal regulations, if a Parent disagrees with a district’s evaluation or re-evaluation of her child, she has the right to request an IEE at public expense. Upon Parent IEE request the public agency must, without unnecessary delay, either:

(i) File a due process complaint to request a hearing to show that its evaluation is appropriate; or

(ii) Ensure that an independent educational evaluation is provided at public expense, unless the agency demonstrates in a hearing pursuant to §§ 300.507 through 300.513 that the evaluation obtained by the parent did not meet agency criteria. 34 CFR 300.502(b)(2). 8 NYCRR § 200.5 (g)

A school has the right in the first instance to obtain a comprehensive evaluation upon which to structure a student's IEP, and only if the child's parents believe that the evaluation is insufficient can they seek an IEE at public expense for the school's additional consideration. The publicly funded IEE protects parents' ability to contribute and have their voices heard; but this right arises in response to school action, it does not preempt it. Nor does it give parents the first and final word. The school, as a beneficiary of federal funds, has the right and obligation to Hearing Officer‘s Finding of Fact & Decision conduct an evaluation in the first instance and to prove that its evaluation was appropriate. Only when those established procedures fall short does a parent get an IEE at public expense. See Schaffer, 546 U.S. at 60-61.

It is noted that a parent’s DPC may serve as a demand for an IEE. A Parent may file a DPC notice with respect to "any matter relating to the identification, evaluation or educational placement of a student with a disability, or a student suspected of having a disability, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such student" (8 NYCRR 200.5[i][1]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1415[b][6]-[7]; 34 CFR 300.503[a][1]-[2], 300.507[a][1]).

A sought after IEE may be a proper remedy for disagreement with a District's evaluation. Absent any requirement that the parent express her disagreement with the results of a district evaluation in a specific format, there is no reason why a DPC may not serve the function of expressing the parent's disagreement to the district.

Additionally, the DPC may serve as a basis for an IEE request when the District has failed to evaluate the Student in an area of suspected disability. The District, through a written response, or Resolution Process, can respond with whatever mechanism it has available to dispute the Parent request, or consent to an evaluation of some sort.

When a parent initiates a request for an impartial hearing by filing a DPC notice the IDEA provides for a resolution process that must be followed before a parentally requested hearing can proceed (34 CFR 300.510[a]). The parent cannot unilaterally waive the resolution meeting because the regulation requires both parties to waive a resolution meeting (34 CFR 300.510[a][3]). Accordingly, the District would have up to 30 days to consider and resolve any DPC, including any request for an IEE, before being required to proceed to an impartial hearing to defend its own evaluation, or IEP process which has been undertaken, for a student (see 34 CFR 300.510[b]). During that period, the District could agree to a parent's request for an IEE or seek further information from the parent.

In this case the DOE does not disagree with the Parent request for evaluations.

The DOE does not dispute the Parent’s allegation that: “The Student has not been evaluated within the last 3 years. Thus, the District denied the student of a FAPE in the development of the IEP for the 2023-2024 school year and has violated its child find obligation.” (Ex A 2)

Parent seeks the DOE act appropriately and evaluate the Student. Hearing Officer‘s Finding of Fact & Decision

Relief sought includes:

“A determination be made that the District is obligated to evaluate the student in all areas of suspected disability or to fund an independent neuropsychological evaluation at a rate of up to $[REDACTED], an independent speech language evaluation at a rate of up to $[REDACTED], an independent occupational therapy evaluation at a rate of up to $[REDACTED] and an independent physical therapy evaluation at a rate of up to $[REDACTED] by evaluators of the parent’s selection;” (Ex A 5)

The DOE present no evidence that the Student has ever been evaluated.

In this case I find it appropriate to direct the DOE to evaluate the Student in all areas of suspected disability. In the event the DOE cannot fulfill its obligation then the Parent shall be authorized to obtain Independent Educational Evaluations, as Ordered below. Hearing Officer‘s Finding of Fact & Decision

ORDER

1. The Department of Education (DOE) failed to offer the Student a FAPE for the 23-24

school year.

2. The at [REDACTED] School and Institute (UP) provides Student with an appropriate program and placement, for the 23-24 school year.

3. The DOE shall directly fund Student, 12 month, 23-24 Tuition at [REDACTED] School and Institute (UP) in the amount of $[REDACTED].

4. The DOE shall provide the Student with special education transportation for the 23-24 school year, to and from [REDACTED] School and Institute (UP).

5. The DOE shall evaluate the Student in all areas of suspected disability, and deliver the results of each completed evaluation, to the Parent by 10/30/2023. In the event evaluations are not completed, and delivered by 10/30/2023, then for each uncompleted evaluation the DOE shall authorized the Parent to obtain Independent Education Evaluations, at reasonable market rate(s).

Evaluations to include: Psychological Evaluation, Speech Language Evaluation Occupational Therapy Evaluation and Physical Therapy Evaluation.

6. The DOE shall provide Parent with any documents or forms necessary to facilitate payment under this Order, within ten days of the date of this Order.

7. This decision is subject to appeal and review by the State Review Officer.

DATED: AUGUST 23, 2023

DANIEL AJELLO

Impartial Hearing Officer Hearing Officer‘s Finding of Fact & Decision

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.

Footnotes

[24] school year. The DOE has denied a FAPE to the Student for the 23-24 school year. Parent provided appropriate TDN. (Ex B) Parent evidenced obligation to the UP 23-34 Student Tuition Contract. (Ex C 3) Student 12 month, 23-24 Tuition, is evidenced to be $[REDACTED]. (Ex C 1 & Ex D) Parent testimony includes an inability to pay the UP tuition based on her limited income. (Ex I 3) With regard to fashioning equitable relief, one court has addressed whether it is appropriate under the IDEA to order a school district to make retroactive tuition payment directly to a private school where: (1) a student with disabilities has been denied a FAPE; (2) the student has been enrolled in an appropriate private school; and (3) the equities favor an award of the costs of private school tuition; but (4) the parents, due to a lack of financial resources, have not made tuition payments but are legally obligated to do so (Mr. and Mrs. A. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 769 F. Supp. 2d 403, 406 [S.D.N.Y. 2011]). The court held that "[w]here . . . parents lack the financial resources to 'front' the costs of private school tuition, and in the rare

New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision