NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
CASE NUMBER: 603914 - NYC: 251694
Case No.: 251694
Student’s Name: REDACTED (hereinafter referred to as “Student”)
Date of Birth: REDACTED
District: REDACTED
Hearing Request by: REDACTED (hereinafter referred to as “Parent”)
School: REDACTED (hereinafter referred to “Private School”)
Hearing Dates: November 21, 2023, December 14, 2023
Actual Record Close: December 28, 2023
Hearing Officer: Marisa Carbone, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON NOVEMBER 21, 2023
REDACTED, Esq., Parent Attorney — Student
REDACTED — Parents
REDACTED, District Representative — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON DECEMBER 14, 2023
REDACTED, Esq., Parent Attorney — Student
REDACTED — Parents
REDACTED, REDACTED School — Student
REDACTED, District Representative — DOE
ISSUES
This matter comes before the undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) through the Parent’s Due Process Complaint (“DPC”) filed on July 14, 2023, regarding the 2022/2023 school year (P-Ex. A) [1]. The DPC alleged that the New York City Department of Education (“District”) denied the Student a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) by not providing an appropriate IEP and placement for the 2022/2023 school year (P-Ex. A). The Parent has requested tuition reimbursement/direct funding and transportation for the unilateral placement of the Student at the Private School during the 2022/2023 school year. (P-Ex. A).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The undersigned Hearing Officer was appointed to the above matter on or about July 14, 2023. A prehearing conference was held on August 18, 2023. Status conferences were held on September 25, 2023 and October 25, 2023. A hearing on the merits was held on November 21, 2023 and December 14, 2023 (See, Transcripts).[2] The District presented exhibits, which were entered into evidence, but no witnesses. The Parent presented exhibits, which were entered into evidence[3] and presented two witnesses. The record closed on December 28, 2023. There were three extensions of the timelines to allow for settlement investigation and to accommodate witnesses.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Student was a REDACTED who attended the Private School for the 2022/2023 school year where he was unilaterally placed by his Parent. The Student is diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Developmental Motor Coordination Disorder, and Language Disorder (D-Ex. 1, P-Ex. M) The Student presents with deficits in attention, fine motor coordination, receptive language, functional communication, executive functioning, reading comprehension, writing and math (P-Ex. M). The Student is identified as a student with a disability, Other Health Impairment, and his classification is not in dispute (D-Ex. 2).
The Committee on Special Education held an IEP meeting on January 20, 2022 for the 2022/2023 school year (D-Ex. 2). The IEP team recommended a general education class with group Special Education Teacher Support Services (“SETSS”) for ELA, Math, Executive Functioning, and individual counseling (D-Ex. 2). The IEP referenced a neuropsychological evaluation from 2019 and a speech and language evaluation from 2021 as documents used to formulate the recommended placement for the 2022/2023 school year (D-Ex. 2). The IEP specifically states that “there is not enough evidence to reflect a speech and language deficit at this time. Speech and language services are not recommended to continue” (D-Ex 2). This is in complete contradiction to the neuropsychological evaluation from 2019 that diagnosed the Student with a Language Disorder and recommended speech and language therapy (D-Ex. 1).
The Parent attended this IEP meeting and did not agree with the recommendation that the Student attend a general education class (P-Ex. M). Parent testified that the District was aware of the recommendations of the neuropsychological evaluation and did not follow them (P-Ex. M). Parent had a neuropsychological evaluation conducted on the Student in 2019 (D-Ex. 1). The evaluator recommended a small full-time small class in a small special education school immersed in multisensory instruction throughout the day (D-Ex. 2). The evaluator stated that the Student required an environment that can adequately address the functional impact of attention and language disorders on his academic performance and that an ICT class in a public school would be too large and distracting for the Student (D-Ex 2).
According to the Parent, the District failed to send a school location letter prior to the start of the 2022/2023 school year P-Ex. M). At the hearing, the District failed to offer any evidence that it sent the Parent a school location letter or that a school placement was offered for the 2022/2023 school year. On August 24, 2022, Parent notified the District by letter that the Student would be attending the Private School for the 2022/2023 and would be seeking tuition reimbursement/direct funding and transportation (P-Ex. B).
The Parent presented two witnesses at the hearing. REDACTED, the Student’s father, and REDACTED, Committee on Special Education Liaison at the REDACTED. The District did not present any witnesses to testify at the hearing. REDACTED testified that during the 2022/2023 school year the Student attended 7th grade in the Upper School (P-Ex. L). She testified in great detail regarding the Private School’s program and the classes the Student attended during the 2022/20223 school year (P-Ex. L). She further testified that the Student made progress, academically and socially/emotionally, as a result of the support and services provided by the Private School (P-Ex. L).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Individuals with Disability Education Act (“IDEA”) is comprehensive statutory framework established by Congress to ensure that students with disabilities are afforded FAPE. See, 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1)(A); Schaffer v. Weast, 546 US 49 (2005). A “free appropriate public education consists of educational instruction that is designed to meet the unique needs of the handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from the instruction.” Bd. of Ed. Hendrick Hudson CSD v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 188 (1982). In order to demonstrate that FAPE is being provided, the school district must show “that it complied with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and that the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits.” See, Application of Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 05-061, quoting, Rowley at 206. The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment with non-disabled peers. See, Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dt., 142 F.3rd 119 (2nd Cir. 1998).
Two purposes of the 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]; Rowley, at 206-07).
An appropriate program begins with an IEP which accurately reflects the results of the 1) student’s present levels of performance; 2) provides for the use of appropriate special education services to address the child's special education needs; 3) establishes annual goals which are related to the child's educational deficits; 4) identifies transitions services; 5) provides a start and end date to the recommended program and services; and 6) criteria and evaluation procedures for the measurement of goals. See, Walzczak, supra; Id., Appeal No. 00-005. “The initial procedural inquiry is no mere formality.” Walczak, at 129. “Adequate compliance with the procedures prescribed [by IDEA] would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP.” Rowley at 206. For an IEP to be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, it must be likely to produce progress, not regression. This progress, must be meaningful; i.e., more than mere trivial advancement. Walczak, supra.
In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. __, 14 (2017), the Court held that, “[t]o 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, as a focus on the particular child is at the core of the IDEA. The instruction offered must be “specially designed” to meet a child’s “unique needs” through an “individualized education program.” §§1401(29), (14) (emphasis added), to reflect the fact that a contemplated IEP must be focused on the “particular child that is at the core of the IDEA”. In such case, the school is still required to ensure the student is given an IEP that requires not just academic but also functional progress and, although the goals may differ for students, each child must have an IEP that includes goals and services to enable a child to make both academic and functional progress. The court further stated that an IEP “is not a form document. It is constructed only after careful consideration of the child’s present levels of achievement, disability, and potential for growth” §§1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)–(IV), (d)(3)(A)(i)–(iv), and that “a student offered an educational program providing “merely more than de minimis progress” from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all.”
The Court in Endrew further stated that, “[t]he IDEA demands more. It requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Although the Supreme Court declined to elaborate on the definition of “appropriate progress” from case to case, it stated that, “the adequacy of a given IEP turns on the unique circumstances of the child for whom it was created.” Finally, The Supreme Court in Endrew declined to hold, as it declined to hold in Rowley, that “every handicapped child who is advancing from grade to grade . . . is automatically receiving a [FAPE].” Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176, 203, n. 25 (1982). A Student’s “IEP need not aim for grade-level advancement. But his educational program must be appropriately ambitious in light of his 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. v. Douglas 580 U.S. ___ (2017). “It cannot be the case that the Act typically aims for grade-level advancement for children with disabilities who can be educated in the regular classroom, but is satisfied with barely more than de minimis progress for those who cannot.” Id.
Here, the District did not present any testimony or documentary evidence to prove that it offered the Student a FAPE during the 2022/2023 school year. The District has therefore, failed to meet its burden of proof in this proceeding. Based on all of the evidence above, I find that the District did not provide the Student with FAPE for the 2022/2023 school year.
PARENT’S BURDEN
Parents seeking reimbursement “bear the burden of demonstrating that their private placement was appropriate, even if the IEP was inappropriate” Gagliardo, at 112; see M.S. v. Bd. Of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 104 [2d Cir. 2000]). “Subject to certain limited exceptions, ‘the same considerations and criteria that apply in determining whether the school district's placement is appropriate should be considered in determining the appropriateness of the parents’ placement…’” Gagliardo, at 112, quoting Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 364 (2d Cir. 2006). 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 the parents' unilateral placement is appropriate, ultimately, the issue turns on whether that placement is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits” (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364; Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115). A private placement is only appropriate if it provides education instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a student (20 U.S.C. § 1401[29]; 34 CFR 300.39[a][1]; Educ. Law § 4401[1]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[ww]; Rowley, 458 U.S. at 188-89).
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 must provide an educational program which meets 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 (id. at 14). The Second Circuit has set forth the standard for determining whether parents have carried their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of their unilateral placement.
“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).
Finding that the District did not provide FAPE to the Student during the 2022/2023 school year, the burden now shifts to the Parent to prove the appropriateness of the unilateral placement. The Parent presented extensive affidavit testimony and documentary evidence in support of their position that the Private School was appropriate (P-Ex. C, E, H, I, J, K, L, M). The evidence established that the Private School was appropriate and provided the Student with educational and supportive services that is specifically designed to meet the Student’s unique special education needs, supported by such services that are necessary to permit him to benefit from instruction.
EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS
Equitable considerations are relevant in determining relief “because the authority to grant reimbursement [under the IDEA] is discretionary.” Frank G., 459 F.3d at 363-64 (quoting, Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374). In balancing the equities, I find in favor of the Parent. To the extent possible, the Parent has participated in all aspects of the special education process.
DECISION
Based on a review of the record and the facts mentioned above, I find that the District failed to provide the Student FAPE during the 2022/2023 school year. I further find that the Parent’s unilateral placement at the Private School was appropriate.
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby
1. ORDERED, that the New York City Department of Education shall reimburse the Parent for all tuition and related costs and fees for the Student’s unilateral placement at the Private School for the 2022/2023 school year within two (2) weeks of the date hereof.
SO ORDERED
DATED: December 29, 2023
Marisa Carbone
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.
DISTRICT EVIDENCE
Ex. Description Date Pages 1 Neuropsychological & Educational Eval. 12/20/19 35
2 IEP 1/20/22 29
3 Speech and Language Evaluation 12/3/21 8 4 Educational Evaluation 1/19/22 5
PARENT EVIDENCE
Ex. Description Date Pages A Due Process Complaint with Receipt 7/13/23 4
B Ten Day Notice 8/24/22 2
C Program Description Undated 1
D Enrollment Contract Multiple dates 1
E Class Schedule Undated 1
F Attendance Record 6/16/23 1
G Tuition Affidavit 7/18/23 1
H 1st Quarter Report Card Undated 5
I Mid Year Report Card Undated 13
J 3rd Quarter Report Card Undated 5
K End of Year Report Card Undated 14
L Affidavit of REDACTED Undated 9
M Affidavit of Parent 12/13/23 4
IHO’s EVIDENCE
Ex. Description Date Pages None
Footnotes
[1] Exhibits shall be referred to as follows: “P” for Parent Exhibit; “D” for the District’s or Department’s Exhibits; and “IHO” for the Impartial Hearing Officer’s exhibits. The date in the record for the exhibit is in error.
[2] Reference to the Transcript shall be referred to as “T”.
[3] A more detailed list of exhibits is attached.