NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
GLEN COVE SCHOOL DISTRICT
COUNTY OF NASSAU, NEW YORK
x A.S., a minor, by and through her Parent(s),
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
Petitioners,
Case ID: 93278
-against -
Ellen Cutler-Igoe, Esq.
Impartial Hearing Officer GLEN COVE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
Respondent. x
INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the undersigned Hearing Officer on Petitioner’s notice of Due Process Complaint, file on or about October 15, 2015 (hereinafter, “Complaint”) (HO I). By due process complaint dated October 15, 2015, Petitioners pro se Helen and Steven Siracusa
(hereinafter “H.S.” and “S.S.”; or collectively “the Parents”) on behalf of their daughter,
Angelina Siracusa (hereinafter “A.S”.) asserted that the Glen Cove School District (“the District”) failed to provide A.S. with a “free and appropriate public education” (“FAPE”) within the meaning of, inter alia, 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9) for the 2014 - 2015, 2015 - 2016 school years, and therefore entitled to relief pursuant to said federal and state law.
I was appointed as the Impartial Hearing Officer on October 15, 2015. Mr. George
Deabold, Parent Advocate, represented pro se Parents until on or about June 6, 2016, at which time Parents released Mr. Deabold and thereafter elected to proceed without representation (Tr.
292). Parents were duly informed throughout the course of the proceedings that, if at any time during the hearing process, they determined representation was once again needed, to notify this Hearing Officer.
Parents’ due process complaint was inclusive of information and argument relating to a previously filed State Complaint seeking general relief in effect to order the District to “follow the law.” (IHO I). Hearings were held on January 5, 2016 (prehearing telephone conference), February 23, 2016, February 24, 2016, March 8, 2016, May 2, 2016, May 23, 2016, June 6, 2016, June 16, 2016, July 7, 2016, July 19, 2016, July 20, 2016, July 25, 2916 (telephone conference), August 10, 2016, September 13, 2016, September 26, 2016, October 19, 2016 and October 25, 2016.
On November 30, 2016, an additional hearing was held in order to clarify and finalize all evidence admitted into the record. Extensions of the compliance dates were requested and duly granted following consideration of the cumulative impact of the factors enumerated in §200.5
(j)(5)(ii) of the New York State Regulations of the Commissioner of Education (hereinafter
“Commissioner Regulations”), and a determination that there was a compelling reason for each of the extensions, as required by §200.5(j)(5)(iii) of the Commissioner’s Regulations. This was due in large part to school closings as a result of inclement weather, medical conditions of parties and/or representatives, extensive witness testimony, and availability of witnesses.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JANUARY 5, 2016
Telephonic Prehearing Conference
Mr. George Deabold Advocate — Parents
Ms. Carol Melnick, Esq. Attorney — District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON FEBRUARY 23, 2016
Mr. George Deabold Advocate — Parents
Mr. Steve Siracusa Parent — Parents
Dr. Helen Siracusa Parent — Parents
Ms. Carol Melnick, Esq. Attorney — District
Ms. Alison Hernandez Director of Special Ed. — District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON FEBRUARY 24, 2016
Mr. George Deabold Advocate — Parents
Mr. Steve Siracusa Parent — Parents
Dr. Helen Siracusa Parent — Parents
Ms. Carol Melnick, Esq. Attorney — District
Ms. Alison Hernandez Director of Special Ed. — District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MARCH 8, 2016
Mr. George Deabold Advocate — Parents
Mr. Steve Siracusa Parent — Parents
Dr. Helen Siracusa Parent — Parents
Ms. Carol Melnick, Esq. Attorney — District
Ms. Alison Hernandez Director of Special Ed. — District
Ms. Betsy Lashin Asst. Director Special Ed. — District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MAY 2, 2016
Mr. George Deabold Advocate — Parents
Mr. Steve Siracusa Parent — Parents
Dr. Helen Siracusa Parent — Parents
Ms. Carol Melnick, Esq. Attorney — District
Ms. Alison Hernandez Director of Special Ed. — District
Ms. Betsy Lashin Asst. Director Special Ed. — District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MAY 23, 2016
Mr. George Deabold Advocate — Parents
Mr. Steve Siracusa Parent — Parents
Dr. Helen Siracusa Parent — Parents
Ms. Carol Melnick, Esq. Attorney — District
Ms. Alison Hernandez Director of Special Ed. — District
Jennifer Brignati Special Ed. Teacher — District
Daniel Kalberer Special Ed. Teacher — District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 6, 2016
Mr. Steve Siracusa Parent — Parents
Dr. Helen Siracusa Parent — Parents
Ms. Carol Melnick, Esq. Attorney — District
Ms. Alison Hernandez Director of Special Ed. — District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 16, 2016
Mr. Steve Siracusa Parent — Parents
Dr. Helen Siracusa Parent — Parents
Ms. Carol Melnick, Esq. Attorney — District
Ms. Alison Hernandez Director of Special Ed. — District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 7, 2016
Mr. Steve Siracusa Parent — Parents
Dr. Helen Siracusa Parent — Parents
Ms. Monica Dimitrakakis Teacher, Special Ed (ABA) — Parents
(via telephone)
Ms. Carol Melnick, Esq. Attorney — District
Ms. Alison Hernandez Director of Special Ed. — District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 19, 2016
Mr. Steve Siracusa Parent — Parents
Dr. Helen Siracusa Parent — Parents
Ms. Monica Dimitrakakis Teacher, Special Ed (ABA) — Parents
(via telephone)
Ms. Carol Melnick, Esq. Attorney — District
Ms. Alison Hernandez Director of Special Ed. — District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 20, 2016
Mr. Steve Siracusa Parent — Parents
Dr. Helen Siracusa Parent — Parents
Ms. Carol Melnick, Esq. Attorney — District
Ms. Alison Hernandez Director of Special Ed. — District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 25, 2016
Telephonic Conference
Mr. Steve Siracusa Parent — Parents
Dr. Helen Siracusa Parent — Parents
Ms. Carol Melnick, Esq. Attorney — District
Ms. Alison Hernandez Director of Special Ed. — District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON AUGUST 10, 2016
Mr. Steve Siracusa Parent — Parents
Dr. Helen Siracusa Parent — Parents
Ms. Carol Melnick, Esq. Attorney — District
Ms. Alison Hernandez Director of Special Ed. — District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2016
Mr. Steve Siracusa Parent — Parents
Dr. Helen Siracusa Parent — Parents
Ms. Carol Melnick, Esq. Attorney — District
Ms. Alison Hernandez Director of Special Ed. — District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2016
Mr. Steve Siracusa Parent — Parents
Dr. Helen Siracusa Parent — Parents
Ms. Carol Melnick, Esq. Attorney — District
Ms. Alison Hernandez Director of Special Ed. — District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON OCTOBER 19, 2016
Mr. Steve Siracusa Parent — Parents
Dr. Helen Siracusa Parent — Parents
Ms. Carol Melnick, Esq. Attorney — District
Ms. Alison Hernandez Director of Special Ed. — District
Ms. Betsy Lashin Asst. Special Ed. Director — District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON NOVEMBER 30, 2016
Dr. Helen Siracusa Parent — Parents
Ms. Carol Melnick, Esq. Attorney — District
JURISDICTION
This case arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, codified as 20 U.S.C. §§1400 et seq. and corresponding New York State laws, rules, and regulations promulgated thereunder, 34 C.F.R. § 300 et seq., New York State Education Law, Educ. Law § 4404 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 8 NYCRR § 200.5 et. seq.
BACKGROUND
Petitioners (“Parents”) are the parent of a 13-year-old female student. At the time of Parents’ due process complaint, A.S. was attending Robert M. Finley Middle School situated within the Glen Cove School District. As documented in a Neuropsychological Re-Evaluation conducted by Dr. Herman Davidovicz, dated September 28, 2013, A.S. is a child with Trisomy
21, and concomitantly classified with Multiple Disabilities. (SD 6).
Dr. Davidovicz described Parents as being concerned with A.S.’s activities of daily living (“ADL”) skills, yet noted that A.S. was progressing and developing. (SD 6). Dr. Davidovicz’s then-current findings denoted that A.S. presented herself as a pleasant and cooperative child, who in a one-to-one situation was on task but displayed fluctuating attention. During the re-evaluation, A.S. frequently complained of being, and looking tired, but used learned skills and associations; on more complex tasks A.S. reverted to concrete concepts.
Physically, A.S. continued to maintain low muscle tone, exhibited a slow and awkward gait, walked stiffly and with minimal rotational movement and tended to drop her right foot; the last was due to her unequal left leg length, which was not compensated by an orthotic. On occasion A.S. displayed slow beats of nystagmus and a disconjugated gaze; she required many prompts in order to orient fully and properly to visual tasks.
Formal testing found A.S. to have difficulty with sustained attention, and poor results for cognitive flexibility that required A.S. to adjust her problem solving strategies based on a feedback. A.S. attained a Full Scale score of 55 on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- Fourth Edition (“WISC-IV”), which was significantly below the mean (SD 9). A.S. scored best on the Verbal Comprehension scale, but demonstrated significant difficulties with cognitive tasks involving visuoperceptual skills, working memory skills and time. A.S. fared better on tasks that relied on memory and association as opposed to tasks that required complex verbal production and understanding.
Assessment of basic academic skills found that A.S.’s word recognition and phonetic decoding skills fell at an early to mid-second grade level, and that her oral reading fluency scored at a beginning second grade level. Her comprehension on a silent reading test that involved answering open-ended questions was measured at a beginning first grade level.
Spelling, writing and math skills were either below a first grade level or at a beginning first grade level. Dr. Davidovicz found A.S. to be very pleasant, sociable and cooperative overall.
Based on the three-day evaluation, Dr. Davidovicz expressly complimented the Parents and District on their diligence and adaptability in developing a program for A.S., and suggested a consultation with a pediatric physiatrist with regard to managing A.S.’s gait and orthotic issues for optimum physical therapy services. Dr. Davidovicz further advised some level of intervention in order to address A.S.’s anxieties, occupational therapy goals directed towards school-related tasks to complement previously identified ADL goals, along with speech and language goals to improve functionality, intelligibility, semantics and conceptualization. Finally, Dr. Davidovicz recommended setting reading goals consistent with current language levels, decoding and encoding, and placing an emphasis on time, measurement and money. Dr. Davidovicz anticipated that A.S. would not always be able to participate in a mainstream program. (SD 9, page 6). An addendum dated March 31, 2014 recommended speech therapy to further include
PROMPT and Adaptive physical education.
The subsequent Individualized Education Program, or IEP, to be implemented on July 1, 2014 for the 2014 – 2015 school year, agreed to by the Parents, comprised of the following:
• ABA/DT 15 x 60 per week by ABA team leader and trained 1-1 TA • TA 1 - 1 • ABA Team Leader, Consult and Program Developer, 3 hours per week by BCBA • Meeting: 1x monthly for 2 hours (as needed) • Speech and Language 3 x 45, (1G, 2I) • Speech and Language Consult 1x monthly 45 minutes (as needed) • Physical Therapy 3x 30 I, (parent requested APE 5x in lieu of PT) • APE 2/3 times per week • Read 180/alternating with special • PROMPT Therapy Evaluation • HOME: • ABA/DT 5 x 120 weekly • OT 2x 30 weekly • OT Consult 1x monthly • ABA Consult 2x 60 weekly • Home services to continue through extended breaks and holidays • SUMMER: • ABA/DT 5x 180 weekly • OT 2x (1-1) 30 minutes per week • PT 2x (1-1) 30 minutes per week • Speech & Language 2x (1-1) 30 minutes per week • ABA Consult 2x 60 per week. (SD 25)
A.S.’s attendance in the beginning of the 2014- 2015 school year fluctuated due to medical reasons. On or about December 4, 2014, Parents presented the District with a medical note signed by H.S., indicating that A.S. required in-home services due to a series of musculoskeletal disabilities and other health conditions which required care and close supervision. (* H.S. is a chiropractor) (SD 23). A corresponding note on Winthrop Orthopaedic
Associates, PC’s letterhead recorded A.S. with a diagnosis of knee pain and gait abnormality, along with an asterisk notation to “please provide school services at home.” (SD 24). Home instruction was implemented without notable or significant discord at that time. (SD 13). During the time-period in which A.S. was receiving home instruction, the District notified the Parent that application packets were sent to a litany of school districts for out of district placement (SD
42). On or about June 8, 2015, the Bellmore-Merrick School District advised the District that they had an appropriate placement for A.S.; however, Parents declined that placement, as well as a potential placement in Rockville Centre School District. (SD 51, 55). Despite A.S.’s inability to physically attend a placement housed in the District, the District continued to respond to Parent’s requests for additional and/or modified services with repeated attempts to find an acceptable placement. It is undisputed that on or about June 4, 2015, the district conducted an annual review for A.S., with all mandated participants in attendance. A.S. was recommended to attend a 12:1-1 special class with the following related services:
• Resource Room Program 1:1, 3x daily, 45 minutes • Adapted Physical Education: Group 2.5 weekly, 40 minutes • School Speech/Language Therapy: Small group (5:1), 2x weekly, 42 minutes • School Occupational Therapy: 1:1, 2x weekly, 30 minutes • School Physical Therapy: 1:1, 3x weekly, 30 minutes • Home Speech/Language: 1:1, 2x weekly, 45 minutes • Home Instruction, 5x weekly, 2hr • ABA/DT (7/6/2015-8/14/2015): 1:1, 5x weekly, 3hr • Speech/Language Therapy (7/6/2015-8/14/2015): 1:1, 2x weekly, 30minutes • Special Education/ABA/ADLS Fine Motor (7/6/2015-8/14/2015): 1:1,2x weekly, 1 hr
At this time, the IEP designated a series of Special Alerts that included, but were not limited to the following:
• Celiac disease, food and other chemical hypersensitivities (A.S. was therefore only allowed to eat food sent from home, except fresh fruits and vegetables);
• heart defect;
• difficulty regulating body temperature (with the resultant need to avoid exposure to extremes in temperature, especially heat, requirements for air-conditioned rooms, indoor recess, wearing of a coat and hat prior to boarding a bus in temperatures below 50 degrees, provision of fluids and use of air conditioning in the event of flushing with notification to parents if flushing did not resolve within 15 minutes);
• severe anaphylactic allergy to preservatives used in prescription eye drops (providers therefore notified of the requirement to wash hands prior to working with A.S. if using these);
• a bee allergy;
• vestibular dysfunction and visual impairments (i.e. balance, depth perception, tracking and scanning impairments) and poor vision which required assistance on stairs and during transitions to changes in floor gradient and curbs, prevention of any jumping down stairs and using tunnels, and the consistent use of rails while toileting; • low muscle tone which caused A.S. to fatigue easily.
As further precautionary measures, liquid and lotion Benadryl and an Epinephrine Auto-
Injector EpiPen would be located in the nurse’s office, and A.S. was determined to require the
Safeguard STAR Special Needs inclined car seat with padded head rest, and extended services over all breaks other than legal holidays.
A program review meeting was scheduled by the District for July 6, 2015. However, prior to that date, Parents elected to contact Assistant Director of Special Education Betsy Lashin; the meeting was not held at that time. (SD. 60-61). As duly documented by the District, the Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) reconvened for the rescheduled program review on July 16, 2015. At that time, Parents requested transition training for the Teacher Assistant, the inclusion of an ABA special education teacher for A.S.’s 2015- 2016 school year, and five hours of in-school transition training, which were added to the revised IEP. (SD 68).
The IEP recommended A.S.’s placement in the District’s Middle School special 15:1 class for Social Studies, Science and English, three daily periods of 1:1 ABA, Adapted Physical Education, Music and Art or Health classes, and 1:1 T.A. for periods three through eight to follow through on ABA. Further procedural safeguards included notification by the District to Parents regarding proposed amendments to the IEP, including changes to summer
Speech/Language instruction from 30 minutes 2x weekly to 45 minutes 2x weekly and a change in location. (SD 71)
Thereafter, the District mailed a Prior Written Notice to inform Parents of corrections inclusive of the Speech/Language location and time, and Resource Room and Math class; an IEP Amendment (without CSE meeting) notice dated August 24, 2015 was generated. On September 22, 2015, Parents waived the otherwise necessary CSE meeting, and consented to the inclusion of the IEP amendment provision for Speech/Language 2x weekly for 45 minutes in A.S.’s home
(SD.79, 85). A subsequent “Amendment No Meeting IEP” dated October 26, 2015 reflecting the change in speech/language services’ location from school to home was generated. An inconsequential typographical error was noted for the Math class size. (Tr. 1983, SD 72).
Accordingly, the October 26, 2015 IEP was stipulated to be the pendency placement.
ISSUE
The issue is whether the Glen Cove City School District failed to provide A.S. a FAPE during the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years.
District Position
The District’s position is that A.S. was provided a FAPE during both the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 academic school years. Through testimony and evidence, the District detailed the process and procedure of how the CSE determined the services designated per the IEP dated July 1, 2014, for the 2014-2015 and August 24, 2015 for the 2015-2016.
On or about July 20, 2016, after the District rested and subsequent to Parent’s witness testimony of Monica Dimetrakakis set forth below, and a portion of parent H.S.’s testimony took place, this Hearing Officer determined and accordingly issued an interim order which ruled that that the District did fail to provide A.S. with a FAPE for the 2015-2016 school year, and granted foreseeable relief in the form of compensatory education services, 30 hours of ABA Consultant services and 10 hours of Parental Training. ABA consultant hours were to be furnished prior to and continued throughout the 2016 – 2017 for programming purposes at the District’s discretion.
(SD 85).
Such relief was deemed by this Hearing Officer to be necessary in order for the District to prepare and be ready to comply with A.S.’s IEP prior to and throughout the 2016- 2017 school year. As noted above, the hearing process was marked by many conflicting personalities and unforeseen delays. For the educational benefit of A.S., this Hearing Officer determined it was imperative that compensatory services be awarded prior to the close of hearing; the District rejected my authority to issue said interim order, relying on inapposite precedent.
District’s rejection of this Hearing Officer’s authority to issue the interim order derives from its misplaced reliance on the State Review Officer’s (“SRO”) Decision in Application of the Board of Education of the Clarkstown Central School District, Appeal No. 16-069
(hereinafter “Clarkstown”). In Clarkstown, the SRO found that the Hearing Officer lacked authority to independently raise issues not raised in the due process complaint. In the instant matter, however, the District should have accepted Parents’ allegations contained in the Due Process Complaint, including that A.S. was denied a FAPE based on the District’s lack of coordination for all ABA service providers to include Parents. As per the ABA model, parents are a necessary component of successful ABA programs, which necessitates full coordination.
The District contends that it provided A.S. with a proper FAPE and was neither then nor currently obligated to provide any further services other than those which had been provided, excluding compensatory services provide pursuant to the interim order.
In defense of its position that A.S. was provided a FAPE, the District presented several witnesses throughout the hearing process. Betsy Lashin, Assistant Director of Special Education, testified that she first became acquainted with A.S. when she became employed by the District in July 2015. Ms. Lashin summarized her review of the IEPs in issue, participation in securing ABA providers for the ensuing summer and the District’s compliance with A.S.’s
IEP. Ms. Lashin further testified that although at was necessary for A.S. to have ABA consultation during the summer of 2015 to effectively coordinate services in the home program when A.S. was not in school, such services were no longer required once A.S. returned to a school-based program. (Tr. 2158). Ms. Lashin further testified that Ms. Jennifer Brignati was responsible for serving as A.S.’s case manager and overseeing the management of her IEP and coordination of school and home services. (Tr. 2160). Ms. Lashin continued that the District made the decision that consulting hours were not necessary once A.S. returned to school, since this service was integral with the general responsibilities of the ABA teacher/case manager and would have been duplicative and unnecessary. Ms. Lashin stated that the District endeavored to conduct program reviews but despite District’s attempts to schedule such meetings, Parents unilaterally cancelled the meetings, either with or without offering explanation. (Tr. 424-430,
501-503).
Ms. Jennifer Brignati, who holds a permanent certification in special education K-12 and earned an advanced certificate in ABA, testified as to her interactions with A.S. during the school day. Ms. Brignati worked with A.S. for three periods a day, two of which were considered resource room and another for math. (Tr. 13-14) During that time, Ms. Brignati ran programs in a
Discreet Trial format based upon the goals for benchmarks listed on the IEP (Tr. 14). Ms.
Brignati utilized manipulatives, visuals, different forms of packets she created, and a wealth of material in order to provide A.S. with assistance. (Tr. 15-16). Data of the outcome of each session was collected daily. (Tr. 19). At times, Ms. Brignati worked with the Teacher Assistant
(TA) during one of the three periods so that the TA could become competent and comfortable with the programs provided to A.S. (Tr. 27-28)
Ms. Brignati further testified that there was near-daily communication with the Parents by means of a communication log. (Tr. 28-29). A.S.’s progress in her academic skills fluctuated, exhibiting peaks and dips in her advancement, though there was observed growth in her independence, responsibility and in her daily living skills. Ms. Brignati continued her testimony to explain that A.S.’s Social Studies and Science teachers modified lessons to correlate with
A.S.’s ability. Communication with A.S.’s previous and current home providers was maintained to discuss A.S.’s progress and to schedule classroom observations. (IHO I pg. 26). On cross-examination, Ms. Brignati was unsure if the TA modified her program outside of the classroom.
(Tr. 125)
Mr. Daniel Kalberer, a Special Education Teacher, testified on behalf of the District. He testified that he first taught A.S. prior to her medical leave from school during the 2014 -2015 school year and subsequently taught A.S. in the course of implementing the Read 180 program for her reading instruction during the 2015 -2016 school year. (Tr. 26). Mr. Kalberer testified that he teaches five reading classes using the Read 180 and System 44, with A.S. participating in the Read 180 program. (Tr. 162 – 163). Mr. Kalberer clarified that Read 180 is a reading program tailored to each student’s individual reading level, comprised of reading, spelling and comprehension components, and subsequent implementation of a writing zone following completion of the three components by the student. (Tr. 163-164). With respect to A.S., Mr.
Kalberer testified that there are two groups in her class for which he leads on a rotating basis, but a TA is always working directly with A.S. Mr. Kalberer explained that A.S. both answered and posed questions, but that sometimes her answers would be totally off topic, sometime it would be on, “but a lot of time at the beginning of the school year she was raising her hand just kind of saying anything that came to mind and now she’s doing better.” (Tr. 173). A.S. demonstrated improved scores for comprehension and vocabulary but did not advance to lexile two, as students with multiple disabilities do not generally experience immediate progress in their lexile levels.
(Tr. 181). On cross-examination, Mr. Kalberer indicated that A.S. did not need individualized reading services as the service she was receiving was “working.” (Tr. 200). He anticipated that
A.S. would advance to the next level, and out of Beginning Reading, within two weeks of his testimony. (Tr. 202). Mr. Kalberer is not a certified reading teacher. (Tr. 236).
Parent’s Position
In their post-hearing submission, Parents asserted the following allegations:
1. The District failed to properly evaluate A.S. regarding all areas of her suspected disability or disabilities.
2. The District failed to offer and conduct proper evaluations.
3. The District failed to perform evaluations in a timely manner, or in some cases, ever (i.e.
ABBLES, OT, PT, APE, Assistive Technology, Prompt Therapy, Speech Language Therapy, Reading, Writing, Life Skills and ADLs)
4. The IEPs were deficient with respect to the level of related services, programming, creation of properly created goals and benchmarks, and goals to address all areas of
A.S.’s disability; that present levels failed to include all areas of her disabilities as noted above.
5. The IEPs were deficient in that they were created outside of a legally convened meeting.
6. The District modified the IEPs without having a signed IEP amendment or CSE meeting prior to the due process complaint.
7. The District failed to implement several aspects of the IEPs.
8. The District did not meet its obligation and burden of demonstrating how all of A.S.’s needs were met under IDEA.
9. The District failed to give A.S. any ABA DT services as listed on the IEP for services received by Debbie Rubin, Catherine Stephanie, Jane Reilly, Jennifer Brignati, Linda
Yablan, and Emily Miracola.
10. The District did not demonstrate that it delivered any substitute service during the 2014- 2015 and 2015-2016 school years.
11. The District did not demonstrate that it delivered any of the designated summer ABA services for ADLs and fine motor development.
12. The District failed to provide appropriate instruction in reading services, or any goals.
13. The District failed to supply proper and accurate prior written notices that complied with the regulations of the Commissioner and IDEA.
14. The District failed to supply and create either an appropriate initial IEP, or IEPs that accurately reflected the recommendations made at subsequent CSE meetings.
15. The District staff made educational decisions outside of CSE and changed A.S.’s IEPs in violation of applicable regulation.
16. The District failed to supply the Parents with the opportunity to review A.S.’s file prior to CSE meetings as required by the regulations.
17. The District failed to report to the Parents any progress or information regarding the selfcontained classes.
18. The District failed to properly list the Parents’ concerns on the IEPs
19. The District violated A.S.’s IEPs
20. The District failed to provide appropriate services and supports in the home, school, and community settings.
21. The District failed to provide A.S. with the required Least Restrictive Environment
(“LRE”).
22. The District failed to give a copy of A.S.’s IEP to all staff, either at all, or within a timely manner.
23. The District failed to supply the appropriate level of ABA and OT consultation service to the Parents and its own staff members/contractors.
24. The District did not meet A.S.’s assistive technology needs.
25. The District failed to alternatively assess, or to properly alternatively assess, A.S.
26. The District failed to meet A.S.’s needs in mathematics, reading, and all subject matters.
27. The District failed to provide modifications to the curriculum and/or access to the curriculum.
28. The District failed to provide A.S. with necessary large print books for all subjects.
29. The District failed to perform a visual evaluation of the building in order to assist navigation.
30. The District failed to provide vision impairment accommodations.
31. The District provided improper adaptive gym without any goals; testing, instruction and services were performed by improperly trained certified staff, employees or contractors.
32. The level of services does not provide an acceptable placement and level of service, and does not offer FAPE in the spirit of IDEA.
33. The District failed in its obligation to supervise and monitor A.S.’s progress, and failed to take any steps to ensure that she could progress even though…she was not meeting goals, or goals were not being addressed.
34. The District has not met A.S.’s needs in the area of writing and writing instruction.
In consideration of the Interim Order, Parents seek:
• 50 hours of ABA Consultant hours;
• 25 hours of ABA Training for a consultant to transition and train the new home ABA provider that will be taking over for “Nicole” starting in January or before;
• 40 hours of 1:1 ABA hours to be delivered on weekends and extended breaks and 1:1
Certified Reading Specialist to utilize a reading program using a sequential and structured phonics approach;
• 10 hours of Parent Training (awarded in interim order); and
• A directive for Special Education Administrators to receive appropriate training as to the regulations of CSE and IEP development and training on the development of objective, measurable goals or an encouragement to do so. (IHO II pg. 45).
Monica Dimetrakakis testified on behalf of the Parents. At the time in which she provided ABA services to A.S., Ms. Dimetrakakis was a New York State Certified Teacher eligible to teach first through sixth grade in general and special education, and possessed a Certificate in Literacy for first through twelfth grades. Ms. Dimetrakakis earned a Master’s Degree in Literacy from first to twelfth grade (Tr. 1037). In her role with the District, Ms.
Dimetrakakis initially worked with A.S. in the home as an ABA provider from February 14, 2014 to September of 2015, responsible for providing six hours a week of ABA services. A.S.
was reported to have made progress during the 2014 – 2015 school year (Tr. 1057). During the time period in which she worked with A.S., Ms. Dimetrakakis worked collaboratively with other providers, including a Ms. Blackshaw and Ms. Kristen Weber - both home providers - and
Danielle Slater, an in-school provider.
Ms. Dimetrakakis testified that she participated in CSE meetings throughout her tenure with the District, while providing ABA services to A.S. (Tr. 1095 – 1096). Ms. Dimetrakakis further testified that from February 2014 through September 2015 the goals which she worked on attaining were not appropriate for A.S. but that [she] based the program on the goals that were in place. (Tr. 1105). Ms. Dimetrakakis testified that the District altered many of the goals that she and H.S. had worked on. (Tr. 1105). Specific to the beginning of the 2015 -2016 School Year,
Ms. Dimetrakakis believed that only approximately three programs were being run, in contrast to the ten programs that had been designed. (Tr. 1121 – 1122). Ms. Dimetrakakis asserted that there was insufficient time allotted to train in-school providers on A.S.’s transitioning programs for the 2015 -2016 School Year. (Tr. 1149)
Parent H.S. testified, and at times provided anecdotal remarks about her experience with the District over the course of several years. This Hearing Officer gave great latitude to H.S.’s presentation considering that the emotional task of representing one’s self at a hearing defending a child’s right to be provided a FAPE requires leeway not ordinarily granted to other parties not so situated. With that said, several unfounded allegations relating to an alleged lack of care by the District for A.S.’s educational needs were noted; therefore this Hearing Officer redirected
H.S.’s testimony on several occasions in order to ensure testimony was consistent with the due process complaint, and not otherwise further complicated by unfounded or extraneous allegations.
Specific to the Due Process Complaint, H.S. opined that the District’s failure to comply with procedural safeguards relating to a series of IEPs, lack of professional training for service providers and noncompliance with an ABA program recommended by authorities in ABA effectively precluded A.S.’s ability to be provided a FAPE (IHO II, 1 - 49). H.S. testified that pursuant to her conversation with the District’s Superintendent sometime before the CSE dated July 15, 2014, (Tr. 1217-1218). H.S. believed that A.S.’s program developer would be a certified BCBA. To her stated chagrin, a certified Behavior Certified Behavior Analyst (“BCBA”) was not hired by the District to develop programs for A.S. H.S.’s extensive testimony reiterated much of what occurred leading up to the 2014- 2015 and 2015 – 2016
School Years, with respect to delineation of the program books with IEP goals.
H.S. voiced her concern regarding the ability of the District’s service providers and requested that the “same person run at least five hours of the ABA programs so that they were in a position to be able to tweak and make revisions, [it] was declined.” H.S. discounted Ms.
Brignati’s specialized skills set for running ABA programs and on many occasions stated that Ms. Brignati was the basis for the District’s alleged denial of FAPE for A.S. (Tr. 1541, 1544).
As noted above, the District expressed concern that this Hearing Officer was allegedly acting outside of her scope of authority and offered Ms. Lashin as a rebuttal witness. However, the regulations grant the Hearing Officer to grant any relief as deemed appropriate once a determination that a student was denied a FAPE. Moreover, fashioning an equitable remedy is well with the Hearing Officer’s broad authority. See, e.g., SRO Decision Appeal No. 14-014 at 9, internal citations omitted.
H.S. further testified that the District, among other alleged procedural failures, did not adopt necessary policies in order to enable parents to access the child’s IEP records, improperly limited the amount of information provided to a parent seeking information special education, stripped them of their rights to advocate, and stripped A.S.’s right to have her parents and teachers participate in a CSE meeting to plan an appropriate IEP.
The District Failed to Provide AS with a Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment in the 2015-2016 school year.
The Purpose of IDEA is “to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs.” 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d) Implicit in both case law and statutory purpose is the intent that a student’s access to a FAPE be an education program that confers some educational benefit to a child with a classified disability.
The IDEA mandates that students with disabilities be provided a FAPE. An appropriate
FAPE for each student requires special education and related services to be tailored to meet the unique needs of each particular student with a disability, and reasonably calculated to enable each student to receive educational benefits. Board of Education v. Rowley, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 3037-3038 (1982). The law dictates that the services required to meet the needs of a student with a disability be set forth annually in a written Individual Educational Plan (IEP) which states present levels of performance, annual goals, specific services to meet those goals, the extent to which the student will participate in regular education, transition services needed for when a student leaves a school setting, the initial date and duration of services, and objective criteria for determining whether goals and objectives are being achieved. Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District, 142 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 1998).
Two purposes of the IDEA relevant to the herein due process complaint 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 specifically 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]).
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, M.P.G. v. New
York City Dep't of Educ., 2010 WL 3398256, at *7 [S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2010]). Furthermore, a school district that knows or should know that a child has an inappropriate IEP or is otherwise not receiving more than a de minimis educational benefit must correct the situation. If it fails to do so, said child is entitled to compensatory education for a period equal to the period of deprivation, excluding only the time reasonably required for the school district to rectify the problem. MC v. Central Regional School District 81 F.3d 389, 391-392 (6th Cir. 1996).
A District that imposes restrictions upon IEP team discretion and/or utilizes factors other than a child’s individual needs in the course of the decision-making process violates the IDEA and constitutes an improper determination. Deal v. Hamilton County Bd. Educ., 392 F.3d 840 (6th Cir. 2004). See also Spielberg ex rel. Spielberg v. Henrico County Public Schools, 853 F.2d
256 (4th Cir. 1998) (finding that a denial of FAPE and improper predetermination when the evidence showed that the district had decided to change the child’s placement prior to development of an IEP to support the change).
The Second Circuit has conclusively determined that, in enacting the IDEA, Congress did not intend to create a right without a remedy. Streck v. Bd. Educ of the E. Greenbush Cent. Sch.
Dist., 408 F. App’x 411 (2d Cir. 2010). Thus, an IHO can award compensatory education as an equitable remedy to students who have been denied a FAPE. DOE v. E. Lyme Bd. Of Educ., 790 F.3d at 457; P. ex rel. Mr. & Mrs. P v. Newington Bd. Of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir.
2008); Student X v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 2008 WL 4890440, at *23 (E.D.N.Y. Oct.
30, 2008); R.C. v. Bd of Educ., 108 LRP 49659 (S.D.N.Y. March 6, 2008), adopted at 50 IDELR 225 (July 7, 2008). The foremost federal administrative appellate court has similarly determined that the fact-finder in a special education case has broad discretion to provide a remedy appropriate to the equitable demands of the specific facts in the particular case. Reid ex rel. Reid
v. D.C., 401 F.3d 516, 524(D.C. Cir. 2005) (hereinafter “Reid”).
Courts in the Second Circuit have not yet settled on a clear and readily applicable formula for calculating compensatory education. The calculation can, but does not necessarily, include an hour-for hour return of lost time or services. Doe v, E. Lyme Bd. Of Educ., 790 F.3d at 457; Student X. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 2008 WL 4890440, at *23(E.D.N.Y. Oct.
30, 2008). Some courts have endorsed the qualitative standard in Reid, supra, as the formula for calculating compensatory education in that the ultimate award must be reasonably calculated to provide the educational benefits that likely would have accrued from special education services the school district should have supplied in the first place. Doe v. E. Lyme Bd. of Educ., 790 F.3d at 457 (citing Reid ex rel. Reid v. D.C., 401 F.3d at 524). The Reid court emphasized that compensatory education “should aim to place disabled children in the same position they would have occupied but for the school district’s violations of IDEA” and provide the services that the student “needs to elevate him to the position he would have occupied absent the school district’s failures.” Reid, supra, at 524; see also Parents of Student W. v. Puyallup Sch. Dist., F.3d 1489, 1497 (9th cir. 1994)(“(a)ppropriate relief is relief designed to ensure that the student is appropriately educated within the meaning of the IDEA”); Draper v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 518 F.3d 1275, 1289 (11th Cir. 2008)(holding that “[c]ompensatory awards should place children in the position they would have been in but for the violation of the Act”).
Following a thorough review of the considerable evidence, testimony, closing briefs, and statement, I reaffirm my interim order. The District’s lack of appropriate goals consistent with
A.S.’s functioning and performance levels deprived A.S. of a FAPE for the 2015-2016 School Year. A.S.’s school work as documented in the “books” generated by the District was devoid of a cohesive plan for A.S. that could be reasonably considered equivalent to the goals documented on a significant number of IEP goals. Of particular significance is the lack of data addressing
A.S.’s activities of daily living goals. It did not go unnoticed that toileting skills had become an issue, yet the IEP did not include and/or provide for realistic goals for such. As stated in Deal, the intent of Congress in 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1)(A) appears to have been to require a program providing a meaningful educational benefit towards the ultimate goal of self-sufficiency, especially where self-sufficiency is a realistic goal for a particular child. In evaluating whether an educational benefit is meaningful, logic dictates that the benefit “must be gauged in relation to the child’s potential.”
The District Provided A.S. with a Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment in the 2014-2015 school year.
With reference to Parents’ due process complaint for the 2014-2015 School Year, there was not a scintilla of evidence presented to support Parents’ assertions that A.S. was denied a FAPE. A.S. did not physically attend classes within a school building but received home instruction for most of the school year. In fact, the District did indeed foster many forms of educational options consistent with their mandate to provide a FAPE. The requirement that a student remain at home due to medical limitations cannot be used against the school district in relation to educational needs provided when the services provided offered the student a FAPE within the limitations of the student’s ability to learn. Moreover, Parents did not establish any procedural violations 1.
Parents request for additional relief beyond the interim relief ordered is denied. Any and all due process complaints for the 2016-2017 cannot be considered as the herein due process complaint encompassed the 2014 – 2015 and 2015 -2016 school years.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Parents are awarded 30 hours of ABA consultant services and 10 hours of parent training the scope of which to be determined by the
Glen Cove School District.
Dated: January 31, 2017
Ellen Cutler-Igoe, Esq.
__________________________
Ellen Cutler-Igoe, Esq.
Impartial Hearing Officer
1 The Hearing officer gave great consideration that the parents were appearing pro se, and were experiencing a very emotional process in advocating for their daughter. However, this officer could not guide the hearing process as their legal representative.
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Within 35 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the Public School District has a right to appeal the decision to the State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act.
The notice of intention to seek review shall be personally served upon the school district not less than 10 days before service of a copy of the petition for review upon such school district, and within 25 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. The petition for review shall be personally served upon the school district within 35 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. If the decision has been served by mail upon petitioner, the date of mailing and the four days subsequent thereto shall be excluded in computing the 25- or 35-day period. 8 NYCRR § 279.2(b). Failure to file the notice of intention to seek review is a waiver of the right to appeal this decision.
The rules of procedure are found in Part 279 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education (http://www.sro.nysed.gov/part279home.html).
Hearing Officer Exhibits
EXHIBIT DATE DESCRIPTION NUMBER OF
NUMBER PAGES
HO I 10/15/15 Parent’s Complaint 19
HO II 12/12/16 District’s Post- 41
Hearing
Memorandum of Law HO III undated Parent’s Written 46
Closing Statement
Parent Exhibits
EXHIBIT DATE DESCRIPTION NUMBER OF
NUMBER PAGES
A 6/19/03 Report Grade 4: 2012-2013 School 6
year including reading level
B 6/2013 Report of “Current Reading Level 1
for June 2013”: Grade 4
C 12/5/14 Progress report: Grade 5 including 28 existing reading level located within reading goals for IEP and level.
D reference A-Z Correlation chart 3
E reference Reading correlation chart 1
F 2/7/14 Vision screening by Health Office 1
of school district
G (ID only) 6/2016 Mindy Simon Reading specialist 1 H 2015 1st Q First Quarter progress report 6th 1
grade
I 2015 1st Q First quarter report card 6th grade 1 J 7/15/15 Follow up Annual Review Meeting 1
report
K 3/26/15 Michael McGuirk, MS Speech 1
Pathologist CCC-SLP progress
report
L 12/10/15 Michele Bruzga Tritschler, MS 1
CCC-SLP progress report
M 5/15/16 Michele Bruzga Tritschler, MS 5
CCC-SLP progress report
N 6/2/12 Bell Curve copy provided by Glen 1
Cove Deasy School at CSE meeting
O 1/15/14 Monica Dimetrakakis Report 7
P 3/19/15 IEP for 3/19/15 CSE meeting 28
Q 3/26/15 2015 Vision recommendations for 4
A.S. submitted by parent
2014-2015 ABA attachment to IEP
submitted by ABA team
R (ID only) 3/26/15 and 2013 Vision attachments to IEP 4
2011 Vision attachments to IEP
previous years
T NYS Investiation results for ID
purposes only
U 9/2014 Debbie Rubins ABA binder and 142
data
V 2015-2016 A.S. Social Studies binder provided 22 by district for samples of work
school year
W 2015-2016 A.S. Science binder provided by 28
district
school year
X: ID 6/5/16 Email from Monica Dimetrakakis 20
Y 2015-2016 ABA DT Guide for parent 4
testimony
school year
Z 4/29/15 Skill Tracking Sheet 4 AA 2015-2016 ABA books created by Jane Reilly Pgs 1-75; 80-93
BB 4/15/16 3rd Quarter progress report 42
CC Following District Books 595
Pendency order
DD 2015-2016 Brookdale Data sheets in binder 597 school year Feb-
April 2016
EE 2015-2016 Book prepared by Emily Miracola Pgs 369-590 with data sheets school year up to
Feb-April 2016
FF 2015-2016 Program books created by Jennifer 641
Brignati
school year post
initial team
meeting on or about 9/21/15
GG 2015-2016 Book 2 created by Jennifer Brignati 457
school year
HH 2015-2016 Book 3 created by Jennifer Brignati 444
school year
PQQ 9/3/15 to 6/24/16 Student Diagnostic report Daniel 9
Kalberer, Teacher PRR 9/3/15-6/24/16 Student Diagnostic report Daniel 18
Kalberer PSS Reference Lexile Grade Conversion Charts 4
PTT Reference Read 180 teachers booklet 6 PUU Reference “I Do Not Eat Worms” Lexile 6
Sample PVV Reference “It’s a Dog’s Life” Lexile Sample 11
PWW 6/28/16 Year End Progress Report 44
PXX 1st Quarter school Felicia Brown Phonic Examples 3
year 2015-2016
PYY Reference Applied Behavior Strategies 6
website
www.appliedbehaviorstrategies.com
District Exhibits
EXHIBIT DATE DESCRIPTION NUMBER OF
NUMBER PAGES
1 12/10 - 1/8/09 Psychological Report 15
Psychologist: C. Peralta
2 10/12/09 Letter from Dr. Michele 1
Bessler
Pediatric Vision Care
9/12/09
Student Vision Report 3
Dr. Michele Bessler
3 10/3/12 Letter from Nassau BOCES 4
To Mary Murphy
9/21/12 Orientation and Mobility
Evaluation
4 2012-2013 NYSAA Itinerant 1
Session Notes
IEP School Year 2012-
2013
5 5/6/13 Nassau BOCES 6
Hearing and Vision Services
-
Vision Program
School Year: 2013-14
6 6/27/13 Withdrawal Form
2013-2014 1 7 10/22/12 Prior Written Notice 2
Proposed re-evaluation and request for Consent - 2nd
12/18/12 Notice
1
Letter from Helen Siracusa
to Mary Murphy 8 1/29/13 Memo from Mary Murphy 1
to
New York Therapy
Placement Services
9 8/29, 9/24, Neuropsychological
9/28/13 Re: Evaluation 11
Dr. Herman Davidovicz 10 4/1/14 3rd Quarter Progress Report 3
Therapist: Kerianne
Blackshaw
11 5/16/14 Occupational Therapy 3
Review Summary 2013-
2014 Therapist Lorraine
Brown 12 5/15/14 Meeting Notice CSE 2
5/29/14
13 5/29/14 IEP Annual Review 2014- 25
2015
14 5/29/14 Consent/Agreement to CSE 2
Recommendations
Attendance Sheet
15 5/29/14 Prior Written Notice
16 6/2/14 Prior Written Notice 2
Proposed Re- 1
6/2/14 evaluation/Speech/Language
Additional Assessment &
Request for Consent
1
Request for Re-evaluation
Form
Consent for Re-evaluation/Additional
Assessment Form 17 6/4/14 CSE Quarterly Progress 2
Report
All About Kids
Provider: Karen Chanda
18 7/15/14 CSE 2014-2015 1
Follow up Annual Review
Parent Meeting 7/15/14
19 8/25/14 Email from Nelson Iocolano 1
to Joe Solmito - Building
Mods
20 2014/2015 Homeroom - 504 1
1:1 Shari Abramson
Emergency Contact and
Alerts 21 9/27/14 Speech Language 3
Evaluation /Prompt
Evaluator: Michele Bruzga
Tritschler
22 11/1/14 CSE Quarterly Progress 3
Report
Gayle Kligman Therapeutic
Resources
Therapist: Kerianne
Blackshaw - Cassidy
23 12/4/14 Letter from Dr. H. Finn- 1
Siracusa
Medical Home Instruction
24 12/12/14 Fax from Dr. H. Finn- 2
Siracusa
Winthrop Orthopaedic
Associates
Diagnosis 11/25/14
Home Service Request
25 11/25/14 Winthrop Orthopaedic 4
Associates, PC
Order Form Panel
26 12/15/14 Prior Written Notice 8
Proposed Amendments to
IEP
Without a Committee
Meeting
Add: OT Goals
27 1/8/15 Progress Summary 2
Therapist: Lorraine Brown
28 1/9/15 2 29 1/6/15 2
1/15/15 28 30 1/15/15 Pro Performance Physical 1
Therapy Wellness
Therapist: Jonathan Venegas
31 1/15/15 Meeting Notice CSE 2
IEP - Program Review
2014-2015
32 1/20/15 Letter from Martin Nelson 1
to parents
33 1/22/15 Letter from Martin Nelson 4
to parents
Release for Records Form
34 1/29/15 Letter from Mary Murphy to 3
parents
PT Services
35 2/13/15 Letter from Mary Murphy to 3
parents
PT Services
36 2/13/15 Meeting Notice - CSE 3
(2/26/15)
37 3/6/15 Meeting Notice - CSE 2
(3/19/15)
38 3/16/15 Letter from Mary Murphy to 2
parents
Prompt Services 39 3/26/15 Speech and Language 1
Progress Report
Speech Language
Pathologist: Michael
McGuirk
40 3/26/15 2015 Vision [1]
recommendations submitted
by parent
41 3/27/15 APE Evaluation 5
Evaluator: Mark Checola
42 3/31/15 Letter from Mary Murphy
To parents (Applications)
43 3/19/15 Consent/ Agreement to CSE 2
Recommendation
Attendance Sheet (Meeting held 3/19/15)
44 3/19/15 Prior Written Notice 2
45 3/23/15 Meeting Notice CSE 3
(3/26/15)
46 3/26/15 IEP - Draft 2014 - 2015 30
School Year
47 3/26/15 Consent/Agreement to CSE [1]
Recommendations
consideration for student
placement w/certified
receipt
Bellmore-Merrick, Franklin
Square, Herricks, Lawrence,
New Hyde Park-Garden
City Park, North Shore,
Oyster Bay- East Norwich,
Rockville Centre, Seaford,
Sewanhaka, Baldwin,
Locust Valley, Roslyn,
Levittown, Jericho
51 4/14/15 Letters of Response from 24
Schools:
Sewanhaka, Seaford,
Herricks, Baldwin, New
Hyde Park-Garden City
Park, Lawrence, Locust
Valley, Oyster-Bay-East
Norwich, Franklin Square,
Roslyn, Jericho, Bellmore-
Merrick, Levittown, North
Shore
52 4/27/15 Letter from Mary Murphy to 2
Parents
Re: Request for Medical
Update
53 4/27/15 Letter from Mary Murphy to
Parents
54 5/7/15 North Shore Children's 1
Healthcare
55 5/13/15 Letter from Mary Murphy to 1
parents regarding responses
from school districts.
56 5/26/15 Meeting Notice 2
CSE
57 6/4/15 Prior Written Notice 2
Attendance Sheet 1 58 6/4/15 IEP 2015-2016 School Year 28
Annual Review
59 6/9/15 Prior Written Notice 2
Proposed Revaluations 1
Additional Assessments
Request for Consent
Request for Evaluation 1
Form
60 6/30/15 Meeting Notice 2
CSE
61 6/30/15 Meeting Notice 3
CSE
with record of parental
contact
62 7/8/15 Letter from Betty Lashin to 2
parents
Re: Service Providers
63 7/8/15 Meeting Notice CSE - 3
Revised
Program Review
64 Summer 2015 Service Attendance Sheets 14
7/1/15 Provider: Kristen Weber
65 2015 Service Attendance Sheets 7
7/3/15 Provider: Speech/Prompt
Provider: Michele Tilschler
66 Summer 2015 Service Attendance Sheets 19
7/10/15 Provider: Monica
Dimitrakakis
67 7/15/15 Progress Report 1
Speech Language
Pathologist
Pathologist: Michele
Bruzga- Tritschler 68 7/16/15 IEP School Year 2015-2016 28
69 7/16/15 Prior Written Notice 2
70 7/16/15 Consent/Agreement 1
To CSE recommendations
71 8/4/15 Prior Written Notice 5
Proposed Amendment to
IEP
Without a Committee
Meeting with
IEP/IESP Amendment
consent form
72 8/6/15 Prior Written Notice 4
Proposed Amendment to
IEP
Without a Committee
Meeting
73 8/24/15 Prior Written Notice 3
74 8/24/15 IEP -2015-2016 28
(Amendment No Meeting)
75 No date Attending Plan 2
76 9/14-12/10/15 Session Notes - Mike 2
McGuirk
77 9/14-11/30/15 Daily Treatment Notes
Extraordinary Pediatrics, PC 13
Provider: Shaina Halegoua 78 9/14-11/25/15 Daily Treatment Notes 8
Extraordinary Pediatrics, PC
Provider: Donna Covello
79 9/22/15 IEP Amendment Consent [2]
Form 80 9/24/15 Meeting Notice CSE record 3
of parental contact 81 9/30/15 Student Diagnostic Report 6
Teacher: Daniel Kalberer
Grade: 5
82 10/8/15 Letter from Allison 2
Hernandez
to parents regarding 10/8/15
Meeting
Adjourned 83 10/16/15 Student Diagnostic Report 5
Teacher: Daniel Kalberer
Grade: 5
84 10/21/15 Letter from Allison 2
Hernandez
To parents regarding resolution session
85 10/26/15 IEP 28
Amendment - Agreement no meeting
86 10/26/15 Student Schedule for 2015- 1
2016
Robert M. Finley Middle
School
87 10/29/15 rec'd Resolution Session Form 1
Signed
88 10/30/15 Meeting Notice 3
CSE
With record of parental
consent
89 11/2/15 Prior Written Notice 2
90 11/2/15 Student Diagnostic Report 4
Teacher: Daniel Kalberer
Grade: 5
91 11/2/15 Letter from Allison 1
Hernandez
To parents regarding resolution session
Held on 10/29/15
92 11/5/15 Progress Report 2
Extraordinary Pediatrics, PC
Provider: Shaina Halegoua
93 11/8/15 November Progress Note 2
Occupational Therapy
Extraordinary Pediatrics, PC
Provider: Donna Covello 94 11/13/15 Meeting Notice CSE 2
95 11/19/15 Student Diagnostic Report 2
Teacher: Daniel Kalberer
Grade: 5
96 11/20/15 Progress Report for Goals 28
and & Objectives
2015-2016
97 11/20/15 Meeting Notice 2
CSE with record of parental
contact
98 12/3/15 Meeting Notice 3
CSE (12/14/15)
with record of parental
contact
99 12/15/15 Meeting Notice 2
CSE
100 1/5/16 Student Diagnostic Report 5
Teacher: Daniel Kalberer
Grade: 5
101 1/6/16 Invoice for Records Request 1
102 1/7/16 Meeting Notice 2
CSE
103 9/12/15-11/6/15 Data Sheets (Spelling) 11
Providers
Monica D., Felicia Brown 104 11/4/15-1/19/16 Graphs/Data Sheets 46
(Handwriting/Vocabulary)
Jenn B 105 11/6/15-1/19/16 Graphs/Data Sheets 97
(Math, Social
Studies/Science) 106 8/11/15 E-mail correspondence from 2
District to Parents
Re: IEP amendments 107 12/23/15-2/11/15 E-mail correspondence 27 between District and parents re: home services 108 1/25/16 Correspondence from 3
George Deabold to C.M. re:
audio and transcript of audio 109 9/24/15 Attendance 1 110 9/2014 Hofstra University 2
Transcript
Jennifer Brignati ABA 111 9/3/15 READ180 - Grading Report
11/13/15 and
1/30/16-4/15/16 112 2015-2016 Make-up hours 13
Invoice #1 May 17. 2016
Invoice #2 June 22, 2016
Invoice #2 July 8, 2016
Invoice #4 August 23, 2016
113 September 1, 2016- Natural Supports: Meetings 2
October 7, 2016 114 August 31, 2016- Correspondence between 1
October 6, 2016 District and Parents
Footnotes
[1] Attendance Sheet
[1] Agreement to Continue CSE meeting 48 3/26/15 Prior Written Notice 2 49 3/26/15 Prior Written Notice 2 Proposed Continuation for Special Education With certified receipt 50 3/31/15 Letters requesting 26
[2] Prior Amendment Notice Proposed Amendment to IEP Without Committee Meeting