NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Case Number: 159529
Student’s Name:
Date of Birth:
District:
Hearing Requested By: Parent
Date of Hearing: August 18, 2016
April 6, 2017
May 31, 2017
July 13, 2017
Actual Record Closed Date: September 24, 2017
Hearing Officer: Gary D. Peters, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON AUGUST 18, 2016
Attorney — Parents
Attorney — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL 6, 2017
Attorney — Parents
Mother — Parents
Father — Parents
Attorney — DOE
DOE
DOE
DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MAY 31, 2017
Attorney — Parents
Attorney — DOE
Mother — Parents
Father — Parents
Parents
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 13, 2017
Attorney — Parents
Attorney — DOE
Parents
INTRODUCTION
On the above date, I conducted hearings, pursuant to the Individuals Disability Education Act (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. Section 1415(f)(3) regarding a special education program, Students with Disability, New York City Impartial Hearing . The hearings were conducted at the Impartial Hearing Office, New York City Department of Education at 131 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, New York. The student’s parent submitted a request for an impartial hearing on 2/14/17. At the hearing, the Department of Education, hereinafter referred to as the “DOE” was represented by its Attorney, and the parent was represented by their counsel, .
BACKGROUND
is a . The Parent submitted a request for an impartial hearing on January 11, 2016 in which she disputed the appropriateness of the educational program provided to the student at . The Department of Education, hereinafter referred to as the “DOE” presented testimony by members of the school staff, and the parent’s case included testimony by who administered a
THE DOE’S POSITION
The DOE conceded that it failed to offer a FAPE to , however, that the relief sought by the parent is inappropriate and that was not deprived of services.
THE PARENT’S POSITION
That the DOE denied a FAPE to during the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years; that the DOE conceded that the lacks a current IEP, and that continuation of the student’s placement in an inappropriate program persisted through the 2016-2017
school year.
PARENT’S CASE
completed at , in an
( ) classroom with students. (Tr. 44). Her IEP’s have included a mandate for a and indicates her eligibility for program. Since August, 2016, the DOE concedes that it has failed to provide the student with an IEP. Parent’s Counsel asserts that as per the DOE witnesses, has been deprived of progress reports, of a current IEP, of current annual goals, of an instructional program capable of recognizing and addressing her and of the benefit that would drive from a program of
.
testified that he received a
His
. He is also
. He is
,
; he performs and
. As a , he needs to find all the relevant
background and a complete history. He had an interview with the Parent and reviewed all the information including disclosures (Tr. 169).
The witness testified that many tests are utilized to identify specific areas of
These standardized measures administered for (Tr. 170).
Concededly, he didn’t conduct a classroom observation for and stated that he didn’t consider it to be a necessary component of a if the teacher report is commensurate with the test of the results, and consistent with the parent and the teacher reports (Tr. 172).
has conducted over 18,000 evaluations and has observed students in an array of educational settings in about (Tr. 259, 261, 262).
Whereas a is intended to provide a summary of in areas that comprise
(Tr.
240), a is intended to more comprehensively assess
A evaluation includes
, (Tr. 240-41).
The
evaluation process included two appointments with the student and the parent, an interview with the parent (Tr. 241), (Tr. 242; Ex. DD-11), and (including IEP’s and evaluations) (Tr. 238, 242).
The evaluator submitted a request to the school for additional records, but these were not received prior to the drafting of the October 12, (Tr. 239). Although was in
(TR 247,
252).
(Tr. 255).
(Tr. 255; Ex. DD P. 13).
(Tr.
257).
(Tr. 258).
(Tr. 247).
(TR. 249).
(Tr. 250).
report and testimony included specific recommendations regarding the placement and services necessary in order for to make meaningful (Tr. 258 et seq); see also Ex DD, Page 18 et seq. “
(Tr. 258), .
said ”. (Tr.
259).
recommended an to be conducted by a (Tr. 266). testified that his normal and customary rate of (Tr. 272).
The witness testified that on the , the overall view of that , which is
.
(Tr. 173).
The witness stated that
.
Regarding
Additionally, there were a lot of commensurate with all the things that are in the background information and mother’s report and teacher report (Tr. 178).
Regarding the
(Tr.
179).
DOE’S CASE
The DOE presented testimony by who was the student’s special education teacher during the 2015-2016 school year (Tr. 17) and the student’s , who is a licensed .
On direct examination, (Tr. 25).
(Tr. 88).
during the 2015-2-16 school year, and that (Tr. 27). did not receive the services mandated by her IEP until January, 2016 (Tr. 27). testified that quarterly progress reports were issued to the parent regarding the student’s and acknowledged that she had not created any information progress reports regarding the student’s (Tr. 101 and 102).
The witness confirmed that was the only student in her class on the (Tr. 65). She confirmed that the student’s teacher had very limited experience and training in the instruction of children :
(Tr. 64). Approximately
students in the class had IEP’s; only or were at ”s level at the beginning of the year, and only by the end of the year (Tr. 45-46). The witness sought to explain the failure of the program to provide ’s advancement with her …..
(Tr. 46). She acknowledged
that would benefit from (Tr. 50, 51) and stated that (Tr. 53-54). The school found it necessary to recommend to the parent for the student (Tr. 55). acknowledged that (Tr. 56). She indicated that were provided in the expectation that students would advance approximately (Tr. 59-60). She did not believe that (Tr. 63) and she did not have a (Tr. 64). She testified that during the 2015-2016 school year, , (Tr. 29); (Tr. 35).
(Tr. 36-37). She was unable to provide information about ’s current (Tr. 38). She recalled conversations with the parent about the staff’s concerns about including , , and (Tr. 41-42. testified as to staff conversations with the parent about whether would be better serviced by a different placement; “that conversation has been had and it’s kind of been debated” (Tr. 112). recalled that “they [the parents] definitely spoke with about it. I think they spoke with about it” (Tr. 113).
Despite the student’s struggles in , her teacher, denied that (Tr. 133).
testified that she was presently providing instruction to based on annual goals established by the IEP which expired on or about August 16, 2016 (Tr. 140). Since the IEP expired, no IEP meeting has been convened (Tr. 14). Although she is working with new goals for , they have not been developed or approved by the IEP team, acknowledged that those goals have yet to be shared with the parent (Tr. 142). She testified as to her efforts to contact the parent by phone and learned from the student that (Tr. 146). As the informally established “goals” are not in the SESIS electronic records system, the teacher was unable to provide quarterly progress reports regarding ’s academic progress – except as they pertain to the annual goals on an IEP that expired in a previous year (Tr. 147).
acknowledged that the school had issued a at the end of the school year for (Tr. 91). According to
, (Tr. 114).
. ” (Tr. 115).
(TR. 115).
, the teacher, testified that she ” in ’s
performance in (Tr. 146). In the present school year, she said, (TR. 157). Additionally, noted that (Tr. 158). In response to an inquiry regarding whether
She was also “note sure” if ’s educational records contain such information (Tr. 104). When asked whether met the the replied, (Tr. 105), however, ” (Tr. 105). She
could not say whether a had been offered to (Tr. 107; see Ex. Ex.
22, P. 20). She didn’t know “how it works” that students in a school may receive services during the summer months (Tr. 109).
confirmed that members of the school staff knew of , (Tr. 63), however, the school doesn’t have a specific program that I’m aware of”. She confirms that the parent attended regularly scheduled parent teacher meetings (Tr. 61).
testified as to ’s record of absences and late arrivals during the 2014-2015, 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 school years (Tr. 19-22; on cross-examination, she conceded that the student received and that her late arrival could be a matter beyond her control (Tr. 34).
confirmed difficulty with , with ,
, and that these issues remained unresolved by the end of the school year (Tr. 22-23). She also that were not resolved by year’s end, including , , (Tr. 87). She stated that services were provided to despite the failure to include any annual goals for those services for the 2015-2016 school year (Tr. 93); see Ex.22, p. 6. She recounted a conversation with the school’s about the IEP’s lack of annual goals for , and stated that no effort was made to amend the IEP to include such goals (Tr. 95-96).. She conceded that although formal classroom observation of is that she didn’t create a written observation report for inclusion in her file or for consideration by the Student’s IEP team, or for the purposes of documenting her (Tr. 97). She was unable to recall when the observation occurred, what kind of lesson was observed, or any details regarding ’s or participation during the lesson (Tr. 98).
opined that neither a nor a were warranted as the were not (Tr. 25).
described a as something to be undertaken to address (Tr. 88).
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The purpose behind the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is to (20 U.S.C. section 1400-1482) ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE; see Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S. Ct. 528, 531 [2005]; Bd. Of Education v.
Rowley 458 S. CT. 176, 179-81 [1982]; Frank G. v. Bd. Of Edu. 459 F. 3d 356 371 92d Cir 2006). A FAPE includes special education and related services designed to meet the student’s unique need provided in conformity with a comprehensive written IEP (20 U.S.C. section 1401 [9] [D] 34 C.F.R. section 300.13 see 210 U.S.C. section 1414 ‘d’; 34 CFR Section 200-347_; The student’s recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE) (20 U.S.C. section 1412 [a][5][A]; CFR section 300.13 [a][2][i], 200.1.116 [a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.6 [a][1]; see Walczak v. Fla Union Free School Dist. 142 F. 3d 119, 132 [2d cir. 1998].
This hearing was requested pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §1404 et seq. (“IDEA”). “Congress enacted the IDEA ‘to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education…designed to meet their unique needs… [and] to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are protected.’ ”
M.H. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t. of Educ., 685 F.3d 217m 223 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting 20 U.S.C.
§1400(d)(1)(A)-(B)). The IDEA mandates that students with disabilities must be provided with a FAPE tailored to meet their unique needs and one that is reasonably calculated to “enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist., __ U.S. __, 137 S.Ct. 988,999 (2017); Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982); SRO 17-007, p. 10. A focus on the particular child is at the core of the IDEA.
Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 999. To meet the IDEA’s requirements, a school district’s program must provide special education and related services that is “ʻspecifically designed’ to meet a child’s ‘unique needs’ ” and is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. Endrew F., 137 S.Ct. at 999 (emphasis in original); M.H., supra, 685 F.3d at 224 (quoting Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 107 (2d Cir. 2007)).
A denial of FAPE can be one that is substantive or results from violations of the procedural protections of the IDEA and its implementing regulations. Procedural violations result in the denial of FAPE “if they ‘impeded the child’s right to a [FAPE},’ ‘significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision-making process,’ or ‘caused a deprivation of educational benefits.’ ” 20 U.S.C.
§1415(f)(3)(C)(ii); A.C. ex rel. M.C. v. Bd. of Educ. of Chappaqua Cent. Sch. Dist., 553 F.3d 165, 172 (2d Cir. 2009); see also Werner v. Clarkstown Cent. Sch. Dist., 363 F.
Supp. 2d 656, 659 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (“Multiple procedural violations may cumulatively result in the denial of FAPE even if the violations considered individually do not.”) In sum, Rowley stands for a two-part entitlement: eligible families are entitled to an IEP that both (a) affords a placement that, substantively, is “reasonably calculated” to afford meaningful educational benefit to the child, and (b) is developed in procedural accordance with the requirements of federal law.
In New York State, school districts bear the burden of proof and persuasion for all issues in hearings convened under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, except in cases in which a parent seeks reimbursement for tuition for a unilateral school placement. Educ. Law. 4404(1)(c); see R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85; M.P.G. v. New York City Department of Education, 2010 WL 3398256, at *7 (SDNY 2010).
In this case, the issues to be resolved by the hearing officer include the relief sought by the Parent, including school placement, . I agree with Parent’s Counsel that this is not a unilateral placement case and that the DOE bears the burden of proof and persuasion on each of those issues.
With respect to each of those issues, I find that the DOE has not met its burden of proof and persuasion. The DOE failed to offer convincing evidence to rebut the testimony of regarding the ’s needs for appropriate placement and services. The testimony of the DOE’s witnesses regarding ’s education at
(e.g., progress reports not issued, no current IEP in place, instruction according to goals not established with parent participation or approval of the IEP team, no offered or provided) established that a FAPE had been denied to the for a two-year period, however failed to establish that the Parent’s request for relief was inappropriate.
I agree that to continue to educate the in an , wherein she is the only child , and with students with different abilities and needs with regard to is not appropriate for and a violation of the spirit of IDEA.
By failing to educate the with students with similar abilities and needs, the DOE deprived the Student of a FAPE.
8 NYCRR 200.6(h)(2).
8 NYCRR
200.6(h)(3). In the instant case, the DOE has failed to present evidence of its offer or provision of educational placement and services consistent with these mandates.
The Regulations of the Commissioner of Education include express provisions for the education of students with . 8 NYCRR 200.13. Those provisions include the requirement that “in those instances where a student [with ] has been placed in programs containing students with other disabilities, or in a regular class placement, a special education teacher with a background in teaching students with shall provide transitional support services in order to ensure that the student’s special education needs are being met.” 200.13(a)(6). Neither the program mandated for the Student by her previous IEPs, nor the program actually provided to her at , were sufficient to meet this requirement.
is entitled to an on an IEP with annual goals developed by an IEP team that includes the Parent. During the past has demonstrated that it is either unable or unwilling to meet its obligations in these regards.
Furthermore, with regard to the sufficiency of the IEP, the Commissioner’s regulations require that: The IEP shall report the present levels of academic achievement and functional performance and indicate the individual needs of the student according to each of the four areas listed in section 200.1(ww)(3)(i) of this Part, including: a.how the student’s disability affects involvement and progress in the general education curriculum….§ N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.4(d)(2)(i); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.20(a). In turn, section 200.1(ww)(3)(i) provides, in relevant part that the areas to be considered shall include:
(a) academic achievement, functional performance and learning characteristics which shall mean the levels of knowledge and development in subject and skill areas, including activities of daily living, level of intellectual functioning, adaptive behavior, expected rate of progress in acquiring skills and information, and learning style;
(b) social development which shall mean the degree and quality of the student’s relationships with peers and adults, feelings about self, and social adjustment to school and community environments;
(c) physical development which shall mean the degree or quality of the student’s motor and sensory development, health, vitality, and physical skills or limitations which pertain to the learning process; and
(d) management needs which shall mean the nature of and degree to which environmental modifications and human or material resources are required to enable the student to benefit from instruction. Management needs shall be determined in accordance with the factors identified in each of the areas described in clauses (a)-(c) of this subparagraph.
§ N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.1(ww)(3)(i):
With regard to the sufficiency of the IEP’s annual goals, the Commissioner’s regulations require that:
The IEP shall list measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals, consistent with the student’s needs and abilities. The measurable annual goals must relate to:
(1) meeting the student’s needs that result from the student’s disability to enable the student to be involved in and progress in the general education curriculum; and
(2) meeting each of the student’s other educational needs that result from the student’s disability.
The IEP has been described as the “centerpiece” of the IDEA system. See
Murphy v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 297 F.3d 195, 197 (2d Cir. 2002); Endrew, 137 S.Ct. 1t 994. This key document “sets out the child’s present educational performance, establishes annual and short-term objectives for improvements in that performance, and describes the specially designed instruction and services that will enable the child to meet those objectives.” D.D. v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ., 465 F.3d 503, 507-08 (2d. Cir. 2006)
(internal quotations omitted). Under the IDEA, for a child’s IEP to be adequate, it must be likely to produce progress, not regression, and must afford the student with an opportunity greater than mere trivial advancement. The IDEA “requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress in light of the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 1001; M.H., supra, 685 F.3d at 224 (quoting T.P. ex rel. S.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 247, 254 (2d Cir. 2009)
(internal quotations and citations omitted). For a student who is fully integrated in a regular general education classroom, a child’s unique needs are typically met when the school provides “a level of instruction reasonably calculated to permit advancement through the general curriculum.” Endrew F., 137 S.Ct. at 1000. When a child is not fully integrated into a regular classroom and not able to achieve on grade level, an “IEP need not aim for grade-level advancement. But [the student’s] 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 a regular classroom. The goals may differ, but every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives.” Id.
An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student’s needs, establishes annual goals related to those needs, and provides for the use of appropriate special education services.” SRO
080052; SRO 08-060 (citations omitted). The goals must be “sufficiently specific and measurable” (SRO 07-108, p. 12) and the IEP must contain goals to address identified needs. Id.; SRO 08-060; see also SRO 05-049. The goals must be “sufficiently described so as to allow the student’s teacher or therapists to understand the CSE’s expectations with respect to each goal.” SRO 07-108, p. 12.
Part 200.4(d)(2)(iii) of the New York State special education regulations requires than an IEP contain:
(iii) Measurable annual goals. (a) The IEP shall list measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals, consistent with the student’s needs and abilities. The measurable annual goals must relate to:
(1) meeting the student’s needs that result from the student’s disability to enable the student to be involved in and progress in the general education curriculum; and
(2) meeting each of the student’s other educational needs that result from the student’s disability.
(b) Each annual goal shall include the evaluative criteria, evaluation procedures and schedules to be used to measure progress toward meeting the annual goal during the period beginning with placement and ending with the next scheduled review by the committee.
An IEP must include a statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals designed to meet the student’s needs resulting from his or her disability, and to enable the student to progress in the general education curriculum. 20 USC 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(II); 34 CFR 300.320(a)(2)(i); 8 NYCRR 200.4(d)(2)(iii). Each annual goal must include the evaluative criteria, evaluation procedures, and schedules to be used to measure progress. 20 USC 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(III); 34 CFR 300.320(a)(3); 8 NYCRR 200.4(d)(2)(iii)(b). The Parent has asserted and demonstrated that the Department of Education has failed to provide measurable, meaningful annual goals for the 2015-2016, 2016-2017 and for the upcoming for 2017-2018 school year.
provided extensive and specific written recommendations regarding the Student’s educational needs (Ex. DD), and testimony regarding those recommendations. The DOE has failed to successfully rebut his findings and recommendations. stated unequivocally that a school specializing in the instruction of , with an program of , is the only way by which will receive meaningful educational benefit from her school “The only type of setting that can address that [ is a non-public school setting, that has a setting, that has expertise in ,
…, .” Tr. 258
(emphasis supplied). “That is what she needs. There is just no other way that she will
.” Tr. 259.
Additionally, by its failure to consider and or recommend parent and by the failing to provide , the DOE denied a FAPE to . has yet to be included in the Student’s . I agree with Parent’s counsel that the IEP team convene to add parent on the Student’s IEP and to consider a school placement at which an of for the parents of is available.
As per , the Parent’s contentions regarding this issue are based on state regulations requiring that “[p]rovision shall be made for as defined in section 200.1(kk) of this Part for the purpose of enabling parents to provide appropriate follow-up intervention activities at home.” 8 NYCRR 200.13(d).
“Parent counseling and training means assisting parents in understanding the special needs of their child; providing parents with information about child development; and helping parents to acquire the necessary skills that will allow them to support the implementation of their child’s individualized education program.” 8 NYCRR 200.1(kk).
“Provision shall be made for parent counseling and training as defined in Section
200.1(kk) of this Part for the purpose of enabling parents to perform appropriate follow-up intervention activities at home.” 8 NYCRR 200.6(h)(8).
The DOE failed to dispute the Parent’s contentions regarding the need for additional as a compensatory service, and at the hearing presented no evidence to dispute those contentions; clearly, the DOE failed to meet its burden of proof on the issue of as a compensatory educational services.
Compensatory education is an equitable remedy that is to be tailored to meet the circumstances of the particular case. Wenger v. Canastota, 979 F.Supp. 147 (NDNY
1997). Compensatory education may be awarded to a student with a disability who remains eligible for instruction under the IDEA. Within the Second Circuit, relief in the form of supplemental special education or related services may be awarded in cases in which FAPE has been denied. See P. v. Newington Board of Education, 546 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir. 2008). IN Newington, the court declared that “The IDERA allows the hearing officer to fashion an appropriate remedy and… compensatory education is available as an option under the Act to make up for the denial of a [FAPE].” The State Review Officer has likewise upheld such relief, including the award of 1:1 reading instruction as compensation for the denial of FAPE. State Review Officer, Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 09-035 (2009).
noted the “immediate” need for additional (Tr. 266-67), which he indicated could best be provided during vacations periods and on in (Tr. 268). His findings regarding the Student’s his findings regarding the inadequacy of current instruction, and his recommendations regarding additional services, support the Parent’s request for compensatory instructional services.
I find that an award of compensatory education in mandated based upon the documentary and testimonial evidence as stated above.
The Parent’s request for an is based
on provisions of the federal regulations that implement the IDEA as amended. Those regulations establish a parent’s right to request an at public expense when in disagreement with a . 34 CFR 502(b)(1).
A school district’s evaluation of a student must be sufficiently comprehensive to assess a child in all areas related to the disability, and to identify all of the child’s special needs. 34 CFR 300.4304(c)(4) and (6). Even when a child has not been assessed in a particular area, a parent has a right to request an independent evaluation to assess the child in that area, to assist in determining the nature and the extent of the special education and related services that the child needs. Letter of Baus, United States Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services,
February 23, 2015, p. 2. (See appended Letter of Baus.) The school district must, without unnecessary delay, either initiate a hearing to defend the adequacy of its own evaluation of the Student or ensure that the requested evaluation is provided at public expense.
In the instant case, the Parent submitted a written request for an independent and obtained the evaluation from , that he is otherwise qualified to conduct , that his normal and customary rate for such , and that he has not received payment for the evaluation of Case No. 159529 the Student. The addressed numerous areas of not addressed by the DOE’s evaluations that were not considered by the Student’s IEP team, including the Student’s underlying .
Accordingly I find that the DOE denied a FAPE to during the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years; that the DOE conceded that the lacks a current IEP, and that continuation of the student’s placement in an inappropriate program persisted through the 2016-2017 school year. Accordingly, I order the following:
1. That the DOE convene an IEP meeting in order to develop an IEP that includes the following components:
a. Deferral to the Central-Based Support Team (CBST) for identification of, and enrollment in, an appropriate non-public school with expertise in the instruction of .
b.
c.
d. Annual goals in all areas of need, including , that reflect the IEP team’s consideration of all current and new evaluations including the of October 12, 2016.
2. An award of compensatory instructional services to include to be provided by a selected by the DOE or, in the alternative, by a and arranged by the parent and to be paid at an enhanced hourly rate not to exceed $120.
3. Compensatory education in the form of hours ( hours per year, or two hours per month of each of the two school years) of parent and training.
4. That the DOE paid the sum of to for the independent conducted on October, 2016. Dated: October 12, 2017
GARY D. PETERS, ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer GP:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
The parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to obtain a review of this decision by a State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Part 200.5(k) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, Section 4404 of the Education Law, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Directions and forms can be found on the Office of State Review website: http://www.sro.nysed.gov/RevisedRegulationsOverview.html.
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD
DOE’S EVIDENCE
EXHIBIT DATE NAME PAGES
1 January 11, 2016 Due Process 8
Complaint
2 Due process 3
complaint
3 August 20, 2013 18
Individualized
Education Program (IEP)
4 January 30, 2014 Educational Progress 5
Reports
5 January 30, 2014 3
Progress
Report
6 January 30, 2014 & 2
Progress Report
7 March 17, 2014 Social History 2
Update
8 March 4, 2014 Meeting Notice CSE 3
9 March 17, 2014 Classroom 1
Observation
10 March 11, 2014 Individualized 17
Education Program (IEP)
11 Undated Report 3
Card – Trimester 3 -
2014-2015
12 June 9, 2015 3
Progress
Report
13 June 24, 2015 CSE Teacher Report 5
14 June 29, 2015 & 3
Progress Report
15 July 20, 2015 8
16 July 20, 2015 1
Appointment Letter
17 July 22, 2015 1
Appointment Letter
18 July 29, 2015 4
Parent
Checklist
19 July 29, 2015 10
Evaluation
20 June 12, 2015 4
21 August 3, 2015 Meeting Notice CSE 3
22 August 13, 2015 Individualized 25
Education Program (IEP)
23 August 13, 2015 CSE Review 2
Meeting Minutes
24 Undated Session Note 23
2015-2016
25 September 16, 2015 & 3
Progress Report
26 Undated Session 7
Notes 2015-2016
(Part II)
27 Undated Permanent Student 1
Attendance Record
2014-2015
28 Undated Permanent Student 1
Attendance Record
2015-2016
29 Undated Daily Attendance [2]
History
30 May 9, 2014 Final Notice of 4
Recommendation
31 Various Related Services 7
Authorization (RSA-
34 Undated Report Card 2016- 4
2017 Trimester 2
35 Undated 2015-2016 Goal 3
Tracker for Progress
Monitoring – Cycle 1
36 Undated 2015-2016 Goal 10
Tracker for Progress
Monitoring Cycle 2
37 Undated 2015-2016 Goal 10
Tracker for Progress
Monitoring Cycle 3
PARENT’S EVIDENCE
Exhibit Name Date
Pages
A Hearing Request 01/11/2016
8
B Request for Educational Records (School) 12/09/2015
2
C Request for Educational Records (CSEE) 12/09/2015
2
D Request for Independent Evaluation (School) 12/10/2015
3
E Request for Independent Evaluation (CSE) 12/10/2015
3
F Due Process Response 01/19/2016
G Individualized Education Program 03/11/2014
13
H Individualized Education Program 08/13/205
14
I Social History 10/12/2012
2
10/12/2012
6
K 10/12/2012
5
L - 11/30/2012
5
M Classroom Observation 03/17/2014
1
N Social History Updated 03/17/2014
2
O Letter of 02/19/2015
2
P 07/20/2015
6
Q 07/24/2015
8
R 10/10/2016
7
S Quarterly Progress Report 06/0/2014
4
T Report Card 01/21/2014
2
U IEP Progress Report undated
V Report Card 01/23/2015
1
W Report Card 10/13/2015
1
X IEP Progress Report 10/29/2015
3
Y Assessment Report 11/02/2015
2
Z Report Card 11/25/2015
Footnotes
[2] Provider Approval Letter and Billing Forms 32 Undated Report Card 2014- 3 2015 Trimester 3 33 Undated Report Card 2015- 4 2016 Trimester 3