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: 160333
Student’s Name:
Date of Birth:
District:
Hearing Requested By: Parent
Date of Hearing: June 2, 2016
July 22, 2016
September 12, 2016
October 27, 2016
April 5, 2017
May 1, 2017
June 23, 2017
Actual Record Closed Date: August 18, 2017
Hearing Officer: Jeanne M. Keefe, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 2, 2016
Advocate (via telephone) — Student
Advocate (via telephone) — Student
District Representative (via telephone) — District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 22, 2016
Advocate — Student
District Representative — District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2016
Advocate (via telephone) — Student
District Representative — District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON OCTOBER 27, 2016
Advocate — Student
Parents
(via telephone) — Student
(via telephone) — Student
District Representative — District
IEP Team Member (via telephone) — District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL 5, 2017
Advocate (via telephone) — Student
District Representative (via telephone) — District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MAY 1, 2017
Parents
Parents
District Representative — District
(via telephone) — District
(via telephone) — District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 23, 2017
Parents
Parents
(via telephone) — Student
(via telephone) — Student
District Representative — District
INTRODUCTION
On 4/27/16 I was appointed as the Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) by the New York City Department of Education (“the District” or “DOE”) to conduct a hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) 20 United States Code, §1415 (f) (1) concerning a dispute involving the special education program for (“ ” or “the student”) for the 2015-2016 school year. A decision was rendered dated December 2, 2016. The matter was appealed and remanded by the State Review Officer in a decision dated March 16, 2017 for a determination on the following issues:
The Presence of and need for a regular education teacher at the March 2015 CSE meeting;
A determination of which of the 19 goals and 56 short-term objectives were in dispute and if each of the disputed goals contained in the March 2015 IEP met the standards for measurability; and whether the goals in the IEP adequately addressed the student’s areas of need “in light manner” in which the IEP was drafted as a whole including, but not limited to whether the IEP appropriately addressed the student’s deficits in
;
And lastly, if the March 2015 IEP offered the student a FAPE in the student’s LRE, to what extent, if any, the student could have been educated in a setting.
is a student who is classified as (“ ”) and her classification is not at issue. has been diagnosed with and began receiving early intervention services at .
.
. is described as
. . is
and requires . (t. 71-72, 82, 104-05, Ex. 1)
started attending , a private school, for the 2014-2015 school year. Prior to attending , attended a in a class and received related services from the DOE. The placement at the was not working out, as the school was not equipped to address ’s needs. (t. 105-06, 113-15)
The Parent asserts that the DOE failed to provide a Free and Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) in that the DOE failed to draft an Individualized Education Plan (“IEP”) that was reasonably calculated to confer an educational benefit on for the 2015-2016 school year for the reasons set forth in the due process complaint (“dpc”). The
DOE asserts that has been afforded with FAPE for the 2015-2016 school year.
FINDINGS OF FACT
An IEP meeting was held on 3/12/15 to develop an educational program for for the 2015-2016 school year. testified that she is a employed by the DOE and is assigned to the Committee on Special Education (“CSE”).
Ms. testified that she participated in the IEP meeting, as well as conducted a evaluation and a classroom observation for (t. 43-45, Ex. 1, 2)
The participants at the IEP meeting consisted of Ms. (district representative/other) and (related service provider/
). In addition, staff who worked directly with the student, as well as the
Parent, attended the IEP meeting via telephone. The staff attending the IEP
meeting were identified as ( ), ,
(classroom teacher), ( ),
( ), ( ) and . (t. 45-
46, Ex. 1) Ms. testified that all participants had an opportunity to participate.
The staff and the Parent had the opportunity to ask questions and give feedback. Ms did not recall there being any disagreements with the recommended program.
(t. 58). The CSE team recommended a , which consists of .1 In addition, the team recommended and .
Related services of
. A
At the time of the IEP meeting was in a class at . (Ex. 1)
was also recommended for . The setting
recommended was a program in a special school. (t. 47-48, 57-58, Ex. 1) The team relied on the evaluation, teacher reports, related service provider reports and verbal feedback from the team during the IEP meeting. The team recommended techniques such as to enhance ’s learning and enable her to access the curriculum more effectively.
were also developed. The purpose of is to
. The team developed
goals (i.e. ). The goals were developed with the full committee present. (t. 48-55). Among the goals was an goal whereby
. This goal was
developed with the full committee present based on feedback from the providers as well as reports. (t. 52, Ex. 1) The purpose of the was to
.
. . (t. 72, 104-05, Ex. 1) There are no
specific goals for the , the goals are for the .
However, the would be a
. (t. 60,
64) On or about 6/12/15, a School Location Letter was mailed to the Parent recommending a placement at for for the 2015-2016 school year. 1 The Parent asserts that she did not receive the placement letter. She confirmed that the address on the letter is correct but that in the past she has not received a lot of DOE documents, and that she does not receive a lot of her mail. The Parent states that when she did not receive a school location letter she just assumed that could continue at since she had been there the prior year. (t. 109, 116) However, in a 10 day notice letter dated 8/18/15 written on behalf of the Parent by , Advocate, states
“The parent did not receive the site recommendation until recently and has been unable to observe the specific site and classroom … and does not believe the recom m ended program and site can implement her child’s IEP”. (Ex. D) Further, the dpc does not assert that the Parent failed to receive a school placement. (Ex. A)
is a school for . There are approximately
students in the school encompassing grades in a program. The school works with different diagnosis and disabilities and provides individualized programs to meet the needs of the students. The school has an program and offers a program in which . provides related services and provides opportunities to mainstream at the , a private school located across the street.
has a program which starts when wherein
(t. 68-70, 81-82, 89)
was in a class with students for the 2015-2016 school year. had a who would , as well as providing with . In the classroom, there was a teacher, a teacher’s assistant,
’s and the for the other students. The school would
. allowed for
. The school provides which
, which focuses on
. (t. 73-76, 96) had during the 2015-2016 school year . She had
.
. also took
a , at . There were students in the
, . The students were and the provided
as part of ’s schedule.
. (t. 77, 94, 98, Ex. E)
, at , testified that she believes that made
progress in the 2015-2016 school year. She testified that and increased her ability to . (t. 78, 88) , the for the 2015-2016 school year testified that he believed that made gains her during the year. (t. 100-01) The Parent testified that she has seen improvements in since attending such as and . The Parent believes that is good because and the school can customize a program to meet both
’s strengths and weaknesses. (t. 106-08, 118)
Issue on Remand: The presence of and need for a regular education teacher at the March 2015 CSE meeting
A CSE meeting was held on 3/12/15 to craft an IEP for for the 2015-2016 school year. There were eleven participants, including the Parent. Of the eleven participants were representatives of , the students current school, and two were representatives of the District. 8 NYCRR 200.3 (a) (1) (ii) “requires that not less than one regular education teacher of the student whenever the student is or may be participating in the regular education environment..” A review of the sign in sheet for the CSE meeting reveals that no one signed in as a general education teacher. , for , testified that to the best of her knowledge none of the employees that attended the meeting held a general education license. (Ex. 1, t. 460-62)
signed in as Related Service Provider/
. Ms. testified that she was at the CSE meeting as a but that she also holds a general education certification. (t. 158-163) Ms.
testified that was recommended for a program in a class a school with . Ms.
testified that the other options considered were of related services only, , and a in a community school. She stated that they did not consider the an option because they felt that needed a program.
Ms. acknowledged that it would be good to have a general education teacher present to look at all the possibilities for a student but that in the case of they were looking for a program with . Ms. stated that while she was acting as a she could be considered as a general education teacher if it was needed in the course of the meeting. (t. 164-66, 172, 194, Ex. 1)
Issue on Remand: A determination of which of the 19 goals and 56 short-term objectives were in dispute and whether each of the disputed goals contained in the March 2015 IEP met the standards for measurability; and whether the goals in the IEP adequately addressed the student’s areas of need “in light manner” in which the IEP was drafted as a whole including, but not limited to whether the IEP appropriately addressed the student’s
deficits in
It is the position of the Parent that all 19 goals and 56 short term-objectives were not measurable and that they are not for either or in the areas of
.
Ms. , testified that the goals in question were developed with input from the representatives of . She testified that she remembers the meeting specifically because it was her first year at the CSE, there were so many participants and she had assessed There were progress reports from the school and the representatives discussed their reports. Ms. went to each participant and asked them to talk about the student and what they are working on and working towards with in the following school year. The goals were developed with the discussions during the meeting and they discu ssed whether they were still appropriate. Ms. testified that while she did not receive pre-written goals from she did use the progress reports noting that some of the language might mirror what the reports state and reviewed the goals with the staff. Ms.
stated that she did not hear any disagreement from the staff regarding the goals. Ms. took the information gathered at the CSE and wrote the goals based on the collaboration with the representatives of . (t. 198-99, 201, 214-218)
Ms. testified that overall the goals are measurable and are appropriate for and address her needs. There are goals to . However, Ms. acknowledged that she was unsure of how some goals would be implemented because it would depend on ’s placement; that some of the goals could have been more specific as in one instance where the short-term goals did not seem to go with the long terms goal; and that interpretations on goals can differ. (t. 203-215, 256, 263, 270-71, 279, 300, Ex. 1)
Ms. , at testified at length regarding the 19 goals and
56 short term goals contained in the March 2015 IEP and found each and every goal to be vague, lack functionally for and was not measurable. Ms. testified about all long and short-term goals as to functionality and measurability with the exception of the goals and the goals. Ms. testified that the and the goals in the IEP were vague, limited and not functional. Ms.
testified as to the measurability of the goals but declined to speak to the functionality of the goals because she is not an , even though she had testified to the goals in both measurability and appropriateness despite there being no indication that she is a . (t. 373-441) Ms. testified that the overarching goal at is to improve a student’s independence and they look to develop goals and , when appropriate, to . (t. 359-60) Ms. testified in the original hearing on October 27, 2016 that offers and offers a program in which students . Ms. , in her testimony about ’s schedule, specifically her class, that the students at are exposed to . The students learn about . They also work on and and . The is . Ms. testified that is an acronym for . (t. 75-76, 369)[3] Ms. testified
that is a .
;
; an
. (t. 373-374) , a at and has worked with since started at . She testified that she found the goals for to be vague, not functional and not measurable. (t. 497-510)
Issue on Remand: whether the March 2015 IEP offered the student a FAPE in the student’s LRE and to what extent, if any, the student could have educated in a setting. [4]
Testimony was adduced at the original hearing that had attended a in a setting and received related services from the DOE prior to attending in the 2014-2015 school year. The Parent testified that the , which she attended since the , was not equipped to address ’s needs relating to special education. (t. 105-06, 113-15) The Parent argues on remand that the recommended is for in the and that she requires a smaller environment to be the least restrictive environment to be able to learn . In , such as , the Parent contends that can participate and progress in a . (t. 447)
Ms. testified that needed a to afford her more because that is how she learns best. Ms. stated that and it inhibits her learning. is described as . (t. 449) Ms. testified at the original hearing that was in a class with for the 2015-2016 school year. The March 2015 IEP notes that was currently in a class at that had and that she was taking . In addition, the class profile for the 2015—2016 school year shows that was in a class with which had and two openings. During the 2015-2016 school year took a at with support and passed the class. (t.
73-74, 77, 94, 98, Ex. 1, E, F) Ms. testified that being in the classes is a good opportunity for to practice her . also participated in an . These were again, a good opportunity for to practice her . Ms.
described as and characterized it as both a strength and a challenge for because
. (t. 454-58)
Ms. testified that the recommendation at the IEP meeting was for a . She did not recall any discussion of mainstreaming or any type of programs with access to typically developing peers at the IEP meeting. While Ms. testified that a lot of programs work with she could not point to anything in the IEP that would provide that. Ms. testified that but based on her evaluation and observations of she did not think that mainstreaming would be appropriate for based on her and . Ms. testified that while participation could benefit socially she did not believe that would be able to participate, even in an based on her and the multiple levels of instruction going on in a classroom. Ms. acknowledged that but was unable to show anything in the IEP which provided that type of access. (t. 222-26, 228-230, 234-35) Ms. testified that it would not be a big setback for if . Her observations and testing led her to the conclusion that year after year the same issues continue to persist. Ms.
testified that
. (t. 241-42, 310)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §1400-1482) has as its core tenet the assurance that students with disabilities have available to them a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) (20 U.S.C. §1400 (d) (1) (A); see Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 51 (2005); Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179-81, 200-01 (1982); Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 371 (2d Cir. 2006). A FAPE includes special education and related services designed to meet the student’s unique needs, provided in conformity with a written IEP (20 U.S.C. §1401 (9) (D); 34 C.F.R. 300.17 (d); see 20 U.S.C. §1414 (d); 34 C.F.R. 300.320).
There is a three-prong test that is the legal standard applicable in a request for reimbursement for educational services: (1) were the services offered by the Department of Education inadequate or inappropriate; (2) if so, were the services selected by the parent appropriate; and (3) if so, are there equitable considerations to support the parents.
School Committee of Burlington v. Department of Education of Massachusetts, 471 U.S.
359 (1985). Pursuant to N.Y. Education Law § 4404 (1) (c) the burden to proceed on prong 1 is that of the School District.
I find that based on the testimony and evidence adduced at the hearing, on remand, that the District failed to provide with FAPE for the 2015-2016 school year in that the IEP did not offer the student FAPE in the least restrictive environment thereby causing a deprivation of educational benefit to the student. On remand, the issues to be addressed were a determination on the presence of and need for a regular education teacher at the March 2015 CSE meeting;
A determination of which of the 19 goals and 56 short-term objectives were in dispute and whether each of the disputed goals contained in the March 2015 IEP met the standards for measurability; and whether the goals in the IEP adequately addressed the student’s areas of need “in light manner” in which the IEP was drafted as a whole including, but not limited to whether the IEP appropriately addressed the student’s deficits in ; and
Whether the March 2015 IEP offered the student a FAPE in the student’s LRE and to what extent, if any, the student could have been educated in a setting.
The State Review Office (“SRO) considered the type of procedural flaw which would result in a denial of FAPE in Application of the New York City Dept. of Edu., Appeal No. 08-037. The SRO noted that not all procedural flaws automatically require a finding of denial of FAPE. A hearing officer “may find that a student did not receive FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies: (a) impeded the student’s right to FAPE; significantly impeded the parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of FAPE for the student; or caused a deprivation of education benefits.”
(Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. School Dist., 471 F. Supp 2d 415, 419 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
FAPE is offered “by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction”. (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203)
In Endrew F. v. Douglas Sch Dist., 580 U.S. __ (2017) the Court found that an IEP should be “reasonably calculated to enable the child to make progress appropriate in light of his circumstances.” The Court in R.E. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, at 191 (2d Cir. N.Y. 2012) emphasized that “even minor violations may cumulatively result in a denial of FAPE”. See also Application of a Student With A Disability., Appeal No. 15-001 where the aggregate effect of procedural violations resulted in a denial of
FAPE.
FAPE is offered “by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction” (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203).
In Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist, 142 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 1998) the Court observed that the “[Individuals with Disabilities Education Act] does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefit that must be provided through an IEP. The
Supreme Court has… specifically rejected the contention that the “ ‘appropriate’ education” mandated by IDEA requires states to ‘maximize the potential of handicapped children’ Board of Educ. V. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 197 n.21, 189, 102 S.Ct. at 3046 n.21, 3042. the purpose of the Act was ‘more to open the door of public education to handicapped children on appropriate terms than to guarantee any particular level of education once inside.’ Id. At 192, 102 S.Ct at 3043; accord Lunceford v. District of Columbia Bd. Of Educ., 745 F.2d 1577, 1583 (D.C.Cir 1984) (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, J.)
(because public ‘resources are not infinite,’ federal law ‘does not secure the best education money can buy; it calls upon government, more modestly, to provide an appropriate education for each [disabled] child’)…An appropriate public education under IDEA is one that is likely to produce progress, not regression.’ Cypress-Fairbanks Indep.
Sch. Dist. v. Michael F., 118 F.3d 245, 248 (5th Cir.1997) (internal citation omitted), cert.
denied, ---U.S.---, 188 S.Ct. 690, 139 L.Ed.2d 636 (1998). Id., at 130, 132. An IEP must be reasonably calculated to produce educational benefit, not necessarily to maximize potential. See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189 (1982). A public school district is not required to provide essentially “everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents.” See Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132
I find the testimony of Ms. credible. She testified that the IEP meeting was attended by herself and another DOE employee, the Parent and 7 staff members/related service providers from . The participants all had the opportunity to contribute to the discussion and the resulting IEP was based on reports and feedback from the people who worked directly with Ms. testified that she did not recall any disagreement during the meeting and that the resulting IEP was a collaborative effort. The
Parent has not rebutted, contradicted or refuted the testimony of Ms. . Ms.
, the at , testified regarding the program at and ’s progress there but despite being present at the 3/12/15 IEP meeting, no testimony was elicited from her about the IEP meeting. Similarly, the Parent did not address the IEP meeting at all in her testimony. While the Parent asserts that a is not appropriate for , that is essentially the class she was in at . One of the reasons that is stated in the dpc as to why the class is inappropriate, is because it would be to meet ’s needs. However, this flies in the face of testimony from Mr. , the at , who testified that participated in a class with , with support, did well and passed the class.
I find that the lack of a general education teacher at the CSE meeting held on 3/12/15 to be a harmless error. While the regulations require the presence of a general education teacher when a general education program is being considered, and it appears from the testimony and the IEP that it was nominally considered, the fact is that present at the meeting were the representatives of who worked with on a daily basis and were able to give more insight in to her needs and abilities then having present a general education teacher for the sake of checking off a box on the attendance sheet.
I find that as a whole the goals, both short term and long term, as well as the , were appropriate and measurable. I credit the testimony of Ms.
when she testified that the goals were developed in collaboration with the representatives of and based in large part on their input. While she acknowledged that some of the goals could have been more specific, and that some may be open to interpretation, I find that the goals in the IEP adequately addressed the student’s areas of need when taken together with how the IEP was drafted as a whole and the IEP appropriately addressed the student’s deficits in . In Re:
Student with a Disability 11-073; BH and SH v. New Y ork City Dept. of Ed. No. 14 Civ
1822 (S.D.N.Y . Dec. 3, 2014; W S v. Rye City School D istrict 454 F. Supp. 2nd 134, 147 I did not find the testimony of Ms. and Ms. credible. It appears that they were viewing the IEP from the standpoint of what would be appropriate, functional and measurable for a program that followed , which is, from the testimony elicited from Ms. , the very program that is followed at . When the District stated that the IEP was for a public school placement the Parent argued that the IEP is supposed to be able to be implemented anywhere and by anyone. While that may be so, it is clear from the testimony of Ms. that she was viewing the goals as to what would be appropriate and measurable for the program at . It is also clear from her testimony that is a .
I find that the IEP developed at the March 2015 IEP meeting did not offer the student FAPE in the least restrictive environment. 20 U.S. C. §1412 (a)(5)(A) requires “ To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or priv ate institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily”. See also; NYCRR
§200.1 (cc), 200.6 (a) (1) had been educated up until the in a environment, and while at she participated in a with support and participated in an . The position of the Parent appears two-fold and contradictory: one that a program is not restrictive enough for because she needs a more restrictive setting for and despite the fact that the program at was a ; and two that can participate in classes for other subjects, including . The testimony and evidence supports a finding that while there were in the class it was a class with two open seats and further that participated in the class with the . It is clear from the testimony and evidence that requires
. I find
that the IEP as written does not provide
. While Ms. testified that a lot of programs work with she did not say all, and there was no description of what that partnership would look like. While I credit the testimony of Ms. regarding ’s slow progress in
I do not see that as a reason to foreclose her from in favor of a . I credit the testimony of the witnesses from the original hearing regarding
.
The Parent has the burden of proof, that the services provided were “proper under the Act” Florence County School District v. Carter 510 U.S.7 at 12, 15 (1993); Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370, that the private school offered an educational program that met the child’s special education needs. The Second Circuit has held that a “private placement is only appropriate if it provides ‘education instruction specifically designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child’” Gagliardo v Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F3d 105, 115 (2d Cir. 2007) (emphasis in original) is a program which, based on the testimony of the staff, provides . The staff at was able to provide with the level of support she required in order to participate in a setting for an and provided her with . This and allows to work on her and . was able, through the program at to engage in and . At , was provided with a whose role
is
.
is a student who has and the school focuses on teaching her
.
A parent must show that the unilateral placement afforded the student with an educational benefit but need not “meet the IDEA definition of a FAPE…or meet state education standards” and it need not “furnish every special service necessary to maximize their child’s potential.” Frank G v. Board of Education of Hyde Park., 459 F3d 356, at 364-65.
The testimony and evidence support a finding that made progress at for the 2015-2016 school year. The District did not address the curriculum at in a substantive way or controvert the testimony of Mr. , Ms. and the Parent regarding that curriculum and the progress made . I find that was afforded an individualized program at which met her unique special education needs and provided her with the related services on her IEP.
The third prong of the test for tuition funding is whether the equities favor the Parent’s position or the District. I find that the Parent cooperated with the District in that she made available for an evaluation and for observations by the District and appeared and participated in the CSE meeting. I do not credit the Parent when she testified that she never received the placement recommendation and therefore was unable to visit the recommended placement. It is clear from the second ten-day notice, dated August 15, 2015, that the Parent had received the school location letter. While the ten-day letter asserts that the Parent had only recently received the school location letter it is unclear in view of her testimony when she actually received the school location letter and throws in to question whether she had any intention of sending to a public school placement.
While the equities favor the Parent in part I find that a reduction is warranted as her failure to view the public school placement frustrates the Districts ability to address any concerns that she may have had about the actual placement. In view of the foregoing I find the equities favor the Parent but a reduction in the direct payment to of tuition and related services is warranted. Therefore, the total tuition (including related services) of is reduced by for a total direct payment to of
.
ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ordered that the New York City Department of Education pay directly to the amount of for the tuition and related services at for the 2015-2016 school year.[5]
Dated: August 24, 2017
JEANNE M. KEEFE, ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer JK:
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 ON OCTOBER 27, 2016
1. Individualized Education Program (IEP), dated 3/12/15, 21 pages District
2. Evaluation Report, dated 9/29/14, 2 pages District
3. Social History Update, dated 9/29/14, 4 pages District
4. Progress Report, dated 1/26/14, 3 pages District
5. School Progress Reports, dated 11/3/14, 8 pages District
6. Classroom Observation, dated 2/11/15, 3 pages District
7. Prior Written Notice (Notice of Recommendation), dated 6/12/15, District
4 pages
8. School Location Letter, dated 6/12/15, 1 page District
9. WITHDRAWN District
A. Impartial Hearing Request, dated 4/26/16, 4 pages Parent
B. Individualized Education Program, dated 3/12/15, 16 pages Parent
C. Ten Day Notice, dated 6/15/15, 2 pages Parent
D. Ten Day Notice, dated 8/18/15, 2 pages Parent
E. Class Schedule, 15/16, 1 page Parent
F. Class Profile, 15/16, 1 page Parent
G. Progress Report, 15/16, 3 pages Parent
H. Progress Report, dated 1/16, 4 pages Parent
I. Report, 15/16, 2 pages Parent
J. Report, 15/16, 2 pages Parent
K. Report, 15/16, 2 pages Parent
L Report, 15/16, 2 pages Parent
M. Enrollment Contract, 15/16, 2 pages Parent
N. School Affidavit, dated 6/28/16, 2 pages Parent
O. Attendance Record, 15/16, 1 page Parent
P. Related Services Invoices, 15/16, 1 page Parent
Q. Parent 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, 2014, 2 pages Parent
R. Program Description, undated, 2 pages Parent
POST HEARING SUBMISSION BY IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER
I. Statement of Adjournments and Extensions, undated, 1 page IHO
Footnotes
[2] It should be noted that Parent’s due process complaint did not raise an issue relating to . The State Review Officer remands this issue on the basis that though “The parent’s due process complaint notice does not articulate these issues and the IHO made no specific findings with respect to these issues: however, the district does not challenge these issues as being outside the scope of the due process complaint notice in its answer, and instead asserts that the…IEP addressed the student’s deficits in these areas: therefore these issues are in the scope of review… Application of a Student With A Disability No.17-004
[3] The Parent asserted that Ms. had testified regarding in the original hearing and that Ms. had stated at the time that she believed was appropriate for Ms. testified that she did not remember that testimony, that she is does not believe would be appropriate for because of the number of work hours required and that she wasn’t sure how the program worked. (t. 286- 88) A review of the record for the original hearing held on October 27, 2016 reveals that Ms. did not testify at all about .
[4] While the Parent did not explicitly raise the issue of LRE in the due process complaint the SRO determined (over the objection of the District) that because the issue of whether the recommended placement was in a school or a community school this opened the door to inquiry on LRE.
[5] The parties were advised to be sure to address all issues set forth in the remand by the SRO or they would be deemed abandoned. (t. 141)