NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
NUMBER: 616323- NYC: 263173
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Case Number: 263173
Student’s Name[1]: [Redacted] (“Student”)
Date of Birth: [Redacted]
School District: [Redacted]
Hearing Requested by: [Redacted] (“Parent”)
Request Date/Date Complaint Filed: October 2, 2023
Date(s) of Hearing: November 22, 2023; November 27, 2023
Actual Record Closed Date: November 28, 2023
Date of Decision: December 8, 2023
Date of Distribution if Different than Decision Date: December 8, 2023 Hearing Officer: Linda Agoston
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON NOVEMBER 22, 2023
For the Student:
[Redacted], Parent
[Redacted], Parent
For the Department of Education:
[Redacted], Esq., District Representative
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON NOVEMBER 27, 2023
For the Student:
[Redacted], Parent
[Redacted], Parent
[Redacted], CSE Chairperson
[Redacted], School Psychologist
For the Department of Education:
[Redacted], Esq., District Representative
[Redacted], School Psychologist
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter comes before the undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) on Parents' Due Process Complaint (DPC) filed on or about October 2, 2023. (P-Exh. G)[2].
On October 10, 2023, I was designated as impartial hearing officer, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1). The hearing was convened at the request of the Parent which was received on October 2, 2023. A pre-hearing conference was held on November 6, 2023. The Parent requested an order that the Department of Education (DOE) provide the Student with the following program and services: (1) a placement at a nonpublic school (NPS); (2) special education transportation in the form of [Redacted] bus; (3) a transportation paraprofessional both to and from the NPS for safety reasons; (4) an educational paraprofessional to assist the Student with his education in the classroom and (5) compensatory education funded by the DOE for individual speech and language therapy (SLT), occupational therapy (OT) and physical therapy (PT) for the missed services that resulted from the lack of a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) to be used within 5 years of the date of the order (P-Exh. G at 7).
Hearings were held on November 22, 2023 and November 27, 2023. The current record close date is November 28, 2023 and the decision due date is December 12, 2023. The Parents represented themselves and the DOE was represented by [Redacted]. The Parents entered into evidence exhibits (P-Exh. A-M). The DOE entered into evidence exhibits (D-Exh. 1-11)[3]. Appended to the record are the names of the persons who attended and documents submitted into evidence.
The record was closed on is November 28, 2023 and the decision due date is December 12, 2023.
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.
BACKGROUND
The Student is [Redacted] years old, and has been diagnosed with Autism (P-Exh. M at 1). The academic annual review dated August 20, 2021, from the classroom teacher indicated that for the 2021-2022 school year that he attended the [Redacted] and that the [Redacted] program utilized Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) in a class with a student to staff ratio of 6:1:1 and a 1:1 paraprofessional in a 12-month program (D-Exh. 6 at 3).
A Functional Behavioral Assessment dated April 13, 2021, by the licensed behavior analyst, who noted that the Student was diagnosed with "[Redacted] " (D-Exh. 8 at 3) and that the Student exhibited behaviors [Redacted] (D-Exh.8 at 1).
The PT Annual Review from [Redacted] dated August 31, 2022, indicated that the Student received individual PT 2 times a week for 30 minutes per session and required PT to "[Redacted] " (D- Exh. 9 at 4). The PT provider noted that the Student was unable "[Redacted] "(Id.).
The OT Annual Review from [Redacted] dated June 24, 2022, indicated that the Student received individual OT 3 times per week for 30 minutes per session and needed OT to address [Redacted] (D-Exh.10 at 2-3).
On September 8, 2022, the CSE met and developed an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) and classified the Student with Autism and recommended a placement in a special class with a student to staff ratio of 6:1+1 in math, ELA, science, social studies and a daily behavior paraprofessional designated for the Student and related services of individual OT 2 times a week for 30 minutes per session in a separate location; individual SLT 4 times a week for 30 minutes per session in a separate location; SLT therapy once a week for 30 minutes in a separate location in a group; individual PT 2 times a week for 30 minutes per session and parent counseling and training (PCAT) once a month for 60 minutes (P-Exh. N at 29-30). The IEP indicated that the Student performed at [Redacted] level in reading and in math (P-Exh. N at 35) and required 12 months of services (P-Exh. N at 31) and required special transportation for a NYC DOE School Non-Specialized (District 1-32) (P-Exh. N at 37).
The School Placement Request dated September 8, 2022, indicated that the Student was recommended to be placed in a NYC DOE School Non-Specialized (District [Redacted]) and was to be placed in a special class with a staffing ratio of 6:1+1 and receive individual OT, PT, SLT, SLT group and PCAT (D-Exh. 11 at 2).
The Prior Written Notice dated October 26, 2022, indicated that the Student was recommended to be placed in a NYC DOE School Non-Specialized (District 1-32) and to be placed in a special class with a staffing ratio of 6:1+1 and receive individual OT, PT, SLT, SLT group and PCAT as well as an individual paraprofessional for behavior support and an individual paraprofessional for transportation (D-Exh. 3 at 1).
The School Location Letter dated October 26, 2022, indicated that the proposed school was [Redacted] (D-Exh. 3 at 7).
The DOE's Non-Implementation Notice dated December 13, 2022, indicated that for Case Number 190130, the DOE had failed to timely implement the Order (P-Exh. E at 1-2) and failed to timely implement the Order for Case Number 211245 (P-Exh. F at 1-2).
By letter dated May 30, 2023, the Student's pediatrician stated that the Student required a paraprofessional "[Redacted] " and that the Student required "[Redacted] " (P-Exh. I at 1 ).
On June 15, 2023, the School Psychologist, emailed the Parent to state that there was a clerical error in the IEP completed in September and the error needed to be corrected and to sign a waiver as long as there was no disagreement (P-Exh. J at 1).
On various dates from June 2023 to present, the Parents sent emails to various NPS programs to find a placement for the 2023-2024 school year (P-Exh. L).
On September 12, 2023, the Parent by email requested an IEP meeting (P-Exh. K at 3).
On September 15, 2023, the Parent by email again requested an IEP as the last IEP expired and noted that she was contacted in June of a clerical error on the Student's school placement, but maintained that the Student required a NPS placement (P-Exh. K at 1).
The School Location Letter dated September 26, 2023, indicated that the Student was recommended for a NYC DOE School Specialized School (District [Redacted]) in a special class with a staffing ratio of 6:1+1 and was to receive SLT, SLT group and PCAT and an individual paraprofessional for behavior support and an individual paraprofessional for transportation (D-Exh. 4 at 1-2).
On September 27, 2023, the CSE [Redacted] representative emailed the Parent to stated that the School Location Letter indicated that the Student was placed at a school: [Redacted] (P-Exh. M at 2).
The Parents alleged in the DPC dated October 2, 2023, that they were the prevailing party in the Findings of Fact and Decision (FOFD) for the 2019-2020 school year and the FOFD for the 2020-2021 school year and the FOFD for the 2021-2022 school year and the FOFD for the 2022-2023 school year (P-Exhs. A-D). The Parents alleged that they received the DOE's recommended placement at [Redacted], a District [Redacted] placement on October 26, 2022, despite fact that the prior 4 IHOs had ordered funding for a 12-month placement at a NPS program (P-Exhs. G at 5;H at 1;M at 1). The Parent alleged that the CSE failed to develop an IEP for the 2023-2024 school year and requested an IEP on September 12, 2023 and received an email for a District [Redacted] placement on September 27, 2023 at [Redacted] (P-Exh. G at 5). The Parents alleged that they received conflicting placement notices by email and continued to maintain that the Student required a specialized private school that utilized ABA in a small, structured setting with 1:1 assistance to enable him to learn (P-Exh. G at 6).
The Parents seeks a Final Order for the following: (1) that the DOE has failed to provide the Student with a FAPE for the 2023-2024 school year; (2) that the Student is entitled a NPS placement; (3) that the Student is entitled to specialized transportation of a [Redacted] bus with a bus paraprofessional as he is diagnosed as a runner; (4) that the Student is entitled to an educational paraprofessional for the classroom and (5) that the Student is entitled to compensatory services for the lack of FAPE and lack of an appropriate program and placement over the 2019 to 2024 school years to be used for 5 years of 1:1 SLT, OT, PT with transportation, if applicable, for a number of hours to be determined by the related service providers (P-Exh. G at 6;T.52;147-151).
The DOE's representative stated that the IEP dated September 8, 2022, was valid through September 8, 2023 (T.32;58-59). The DOE's representative explained that the IEP mailed to the Parents, (P-Exh. N) was the correct IEP that reflected the participants on September 8, 2022 and the revised IEP (D-Exh. 2) corrected a clerical error and listed individuals who did not participate in the September 8, 2022 IEP meeting on the attendance page (T.54). The DOE's representative maintained that the September 8, 2022 IEP and school location letter provided a FAPE for the 2023-2024 school year as the IEP was valid up to September 8, 2023 and the 2023-2024 school year started on July 1, 2023 for a 12-month program (T.58-59). The DOE's witness, a School Psychologist, stated that she had received this case in the beginning of September, 2023 and was alerted that the Student was not in school and noted that records had indicated that the Student was recommended for District [Redacted] program (T.69;152) and that she had attempted to contact the Parent by telephone and that she had emailed a school location letter on September 27, 2023 (T.77), despite the fact that the IEP expired on September 8, 2023 (T.61). The Parent's witness, a Chairperson of the CSE, stated that she was aware that no IEP was developed for the 2023-2024 school year; however, she explained that when a school location letter was offered, then the school would conduct the updated IEP meeting (T.84). The Chairperson stated that she was aware that prior IHOs had decided that the District [Redacted] placement was not appropriate (T.91), yet she opined that a NPS placement would be too restrictive (T.103;107). The Parent's witness, a School Psychologist, stated that any IEP could be revised without the participation of the Parents as long as the Parents were notified of the changes (T.132), and that her name appeared on the attendance page on the District's IEP dated September 8, 2022 (D-Exh. 2 at 35) despite the fact that she did not attend the September 8, 2022 IEP meeting (T.133). She explained that because the IEP contained an error and had recommended a community school instead of a specialized school the only way that the computer could adjust the IEP was to place her name on the attendance page of the IEP despite the fact that she had not attended the September 8, 2022 IEP meeting (D-Exh. 2 at 39;T.135).
ISSUES
Did the DOE fail to provide a FAPE for the 2023–2024 school year and was the request for a NPS placement with specialized transportation and a transportation paraprofessional and an educational paraprofessional and compensatory services appropriate and did the equities favor the Parents?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Under IDEA, New York State law and both the federal and State regulations, the right to a FAPE is guaranteed. There is no obligation on the part of the school district to provide the best education for the student but that education must be appropriate so that there is an opportunity for the student to make progress in his/her education. States receiving federal funds are required to provide "all children with disabilities" a "free and appropriate public education" (20 U.S.C. § 400[d][1][A]).(Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 122 [2d. Cir. 2007]). FAPE consists of specialized education and related services designed to meet a student's unique need, provided in conformity with a comprehensive written IEP (34 C.F.R. § 300.13). In order to meet its substantive FAPE obligations, a district must offer a student an IEP that is "reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances"(Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. RE-1, No 15-827, 2017 WL 1066206, 137 S.Ct. 988, 69 IDELR 174 [U.S. Mar 22, 2017]).
To meet its burden of showing that it had offered to provide a FAPE to a student, the board of education must show (a) that it complied with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) that the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206, 207 [1982]). As for the program itself, the Second Circuit has observed that "'for an IEP to be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, it must be likely to produce progress, not regression'" (Weixel v. Bd. of Educ., 287 F.3d 138, 151 [2d Cir. 2002], quoting M.S. ex rel. SS. V. Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of Yonkers, 231 F.3d 96 at 103 (2d Cir. 2000); see Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 at 130 (2d Cir. 1998). This progress, however, must be meaningful; i.e., more than mere trivial advancement (Id. at 130). The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.550[b]; 8 NYCRR 200.6[a][1]).
The Court in Rowley also observed that states are not required under IDEA to maximize every disabled child’s potential (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 198). The Second Circuit further observed that the IDEA is not intended to "secure the best education money can buy" or "guarantee any particular level of education" (Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 [2d Cir. 1998]) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). FAPE is delivered by a school through the implementation of an appropriate IEP. See Endrew F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist., 137 S.Ct. 988, 994 (2017).
Under the IDEA, if a procedural violation is alleged, an administrative officer may find 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 decisionmaking 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 C.F.R. § 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; E.H. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 3930028, at *7 [N.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2008]; 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]); Bd. of Educ. v. Schaefer, 923 N.Y.S.2d 579, 56 IDELR ¶ 234 (App. Div. 2011).
The burden of both production and persuasion in an administrative hearing challenging the appropriateness of an IEP is on the Department of Education. N.Y. Educ. Law §4404[1][c].
The DOE has the burden of proof of both production and persuasion as to (a) whether FAPE was provided to the Student and (b) questions relating to relief, as the Parent was not seeking tuition for a unilateral placement in a private school. N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404; see also L.O. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., No. 15-1019, 2016 WL 2942301 (2d Cir. May 20, 016);see also Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 11-032 Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 11-053; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 11-091.
The DOE representative asserted that the September 8, 2022 IEP was a valid until September 8, 2023; therefore, there was an valid IEP for the 2023-2024 school year (T.32). I find that the sole DOE witness who testified did not participate in the September 8, 2022 IEP meeting and there was no witness to state what documents were discussed at the review. I find that there was no testimony to explain how the IEP team recommended the program of a 6:1+1 special class in a community school (P-Exh. M at 1) and then changed the placement to a specialized school (D-Exh.2). I find that the Parent requested a NPS placement at the September 8, 2022 IEP meeting (T.78). I find that without a DOE witness to explain how the Student's deficits were addressed within the IEP and other DOE documents as well as to explain the CSE’s rationale in recommending the disputed program, the DOE was unable to meet their burden. I find the lack of participation of the Parent significantly impeded the Parent's opportunity to participate in the decision making process regarding the provision of FAPE. I find that the DOE representative failed to establish that the Parent and the then-current Principal from the prior school meaningfully participated in the decision making process. There was no testimony to establish that the Parent and the Student's Principal participated at the September 8, 2022 IEP meeting. The SRO has found that allegations that are left unchallenged are deemed as true. (See Application of a Student with a Disability, 01-044). I find that the DOE representative did not establish that a free and appropriate program was offered to the Student during the 2023-2024 school year.
Moreover, I find that the IEP expired in September 8, 2023. I find that the CSE team must review the Student's IEP at the beginning of each school year (34 CFR 300.323(a) and the IEP must be reviewed at least annually (34 CFR 300.324(b)(1)(i)). I find that the September 8, 2022 IEP was in effect in July 1, 2023, in the beginning of the 2023-2024 school year, but was not reviewed annually as the IEP expired on September 8, 2023. I find that the IDEA provides that the IEP must be reviewed annually "to determine whether the annual goals for the child have been achieved" (Id.). I find that there was no IEP review to govern the 2023-2024 school year after September 8, 2023 and the lack of a current IEP for the 2023-2024 school year to examine the changing needs of the Student was a denial of a FAPE. Further, I find that there was inconsistent testimony regarding the revisions of the September 8, 2023 IEP without convening a meeting. I find that the District representative failed to establish that the Parents and the District agreed to the type of revision without a meeting. Lastly, I find that the District was required to schedule an IEP meeting after the Parental requests on September 12, 2023 and September 15, 2023, soon after the IEP expired (P-Exh. K at 3) and the failure to conduct and IEP meeting upon request was a denial of a FAPE.
Accordingly I find that a FAPE was not offered for the 2023-2024 school year and I find that the deprivation of FAPE for the 2023-2024 school year impeded the Parent's substantive and procedural rights under the IDEA, and significantly impeded the Parent's opportunity to participate in the provision of a FAPE to her son.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The DOE must take immediate steps to place the Student in an appropriate NPS program. The DOE shall issue whatever other documentation or authorization necessary to enable the Student, to attend, at public expense, a New York State approved non-public school appropriate for the 2023-2024 school year.
The Parents seek compensatory services of " [Redacted] " (P-Exh. G at 6). The Parents seek compensatory services to be provided for 5 years after the date of my order by a number of hours to be determined by the providers. I conclude that I am unable to award an unspecified amount of hours; however, I am able to award compensatory services based on the record (PExhs. A,B, C, M) and given the DOE’s long history of significant and unlawful delays in implementing IHO orders, I conclude that 5 years of compensatory services after the date of my order is reasonable. See LV v. N.Y.C. Dep’t. of Educ., 2021 WL 663718, at *3–4, *7–8(discussing the DOE’s long history of failing to timely implement IHO orders, along with the DOE’s attempts to excuse these failures); see also Jose P. v. Ambach, 669 F.2d 865 (2d Cir. 1982)(addressing the DOE’s violations of the rights of thousands of disabled children would overwhelm the state administrative agency and foreclose timely relief), 612 F.Supp. 230 (E.D.N.Y. 1985).
Compensatory education is an appropriate remedy when a student does not receive a FAPE. P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 122 (2d Cir.2008); Streck v. Board of Educ. of the East Greenbush Central School Dist., 408 Fed. Appx. 411 (2nd Cir. 2010) (citing Burr v.
11 Ambach, 863 F.2d 1071, 1078 (2d Cir.1988)); parent of Student W. v. Puyallup Sch. Dist., 31 F.3d 1489, 1497 (9th Cir.1994); Reid ex rel. Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516 (C.A.D.C. 2005); Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 12-135; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 11-132. Further, students denied pendency are entitled to make-up services. Student
X. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2008 WL 4890440 (E.D.N.Y. October 30, 2008).
The Second Circuit has previously endorsed the 1:1 approach and awarded compensatory relief equivalent to the length of the FAPE deprivation. See Melvin v. Bolton, 100
F.3d 944 (2d Cir. 1996)(awarding three years of compensatory education; recognizing '[a]lthough ‘[t]here is no obligation [under IDEA] to provide a day-for-day compensation for time missed,’ courts routinely do so, in the absence of evidence that such relief would be inappropriate or over-compensatory.'); Burr, 863 F.2d at 1075–76 (awarding compensatory relief under a similar analysis and finding student was denied FAPE for approximately 1½ years and therefore was entitled to 1½ years of compensatory education); accord., M.C. v. Sch. Dist., 81 F.3d at 391–92, 396–97 (3d Cir.1996) (holding a student "is entitled to compensatory education for a period equal to the period of deprivation").
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 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]).
Accordingly, I conclude that the Parents have met their burden of proof with respect to the request a NPS placement and for an educational paraprofessional and a transportation paraprofessional and single bus transportation as well as compensatory services and for the lack of a FAPE for the 2023-2024 school year.
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby ordered:
- That the DOE has failed to provide the Student with a FAPE the 2023-2024 school year and that the Parents acted reasonably and the equities favor the Parents;
- That the DOE issue a P-1 or a Nickerson letter or whatever other documentation or authorization necessary to enable the Student, to attend, at public expense, a New York State approved non-public school appropriate for the 2023-2024 school year and the DOE must immediately start the NPS placement process;
- That the Student is provided with both transportation in the form of a [Redacted] bus service and a transportation paraprofessional to travel to and from the NPS when the Student is placed in a NPS program funded by the DOE;
- That the Student is provided with an educational paraprofessional when the Student is placed in a NPS program funded by the DOE;
- That the CSE shall reconvene and shall include in its review all updated evaluations as all potential NPS programs will need to review the evaluation reports as part of the application process;
- That the Student is entitled to additional and make-up ABA and special education teacher support services (SETSS), and related services based on the DOE’s failures to provide FAPE, failures to offer/provide appropriate instruction for the 2023-2024 school year and the DOE will fund the following compensatory education from July 1, 2023 until such time as he is placed in an appropriate NPS program, through the 2023-2024 school year as follows: individual SLT 5 times per week for 30 minutes per session; individual OT 4 times per week for 30 minutes per session; individual PT 2 times per week for 30 minutes per session; individual ABA/SETSS instruction for 2 hours per day for 5 days per week and these services must be provided by licensed and certified providers of the Parents' choice at the market rate and these services are to be used no later than 5 years from the date of issuance of this order.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 8, 2023
/s/ Linda Agoston
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.
APPENDIX A – REDACTION IDENTIFICATION PAGE
Student’s Name: [Redacted]
Date of Birth: [Redacted]
School District: [Redacted], ESQ.
Parent’s Name: [Redacted]
Enter additional text as needed to identify witness titles and names using above format. Press “enter” after each entry.
SUBMIT THIS PAGE TO THE PARENT AND SCHOOL DISTRICT ONLY. DO NOT SUBMIT
TO THE NYSED.
APPENDIX B – DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD
PARENT EXHIBITS
| Exhibit | Document | Date | Pages |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Findings of Fact & Decision Case No. 190130 | 07/16/2020 | 10 |
| B | Findings of Fact & Decision Case No. 204760 | 06/22/23 | 18 |
| C | Findings of Fact & Decision Case No. 211245 | 04/22/2023 | 10 |
| D | Findings of Fact & Decision Case No. 228998 | 09/09/2023 | 22 |
| E | Non-Implementation notice LV v. New York City Department of Education Case number 190130 | 12/13/2022 | 2 |
| F | Non-Implementation notice LV v. New York City Department of | 10/13/22 | 2 |
| G | Impartial Hearing Request for the 2023-2024 school year | 10/02/2023 | 7 |
| H | Pendency Request for the 2023-2024 school year & response | 10/02/2023; 10/04/2023 | 3 |
| I | Letter from [Redacted] regarding c single school bus as well need for a bus paraprofessional | 05/30/2023 | 1 |
| J | Email from [Redacted] to parents about a clerical error on IEP | 06/15/2023 | 1 |
| K | Emails from parents to [Redacted] Chairperson of CSE [Redacted] and NYC DOE staff members to request an IEP meeting for the 2023/2024 school year and to request an appropriate program | 9/12/2023 | 4 |
| L | Emails between parents and NPS seeking a Placement | 06/23/ to present | 15 |
| M | DOE Response to Parents IEP request | 09/27/2023 | 2 |
| N | IEP | 09/08/2023 | 39 |
DOE’S EXHIBITS
| Exhibit | Document | Date | Pages |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | withdrew | ||
| 2 | IEP | 9/8/2023 | 39 |
| 3 | Prior Written Notice | 10/26/2023 | 18 |
| 4 | School Location Letter | 09/26/2023 | 3 |
| 5 | [Redacted] Discharge Letter | 06/14/2023 | 1 |
| 6 | Academic Review | 2022-2023 | 4 |
| 7 | Behavior Intervention Plan | 09/02/2022 | 3 |
IHO’S EXHIBITS
| Exhibit | Document | Date | Pages |
|---|---|---|---|
| I | Subpoena | 11/15/2023 | 2 |
Footnotes
[1] Personally identifiable information is attached as Appendix A, “Redaction Identification Page,” to this decision and must be removed prior to public distribution.
[2] Exhibits shall be referred to as follows: “P” for Parents’ Exhibit; “D” for District’s or Department’s Exhibits; and “IHO” for Impartial Hearing Officer’s Exhibits. Exhibits will be followed by the exhibit number and page numbers as needed and appropriate.
[3] A more detailed list of the admitted exhibits is attached as Appendix B, “Documentation Entered Into the Record,” to this decision.