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: 160924
Student’s Name:
Date of Birth:
District: I I
Hearing Requested By: Parent
Date of Hearing: January 17, 2017
February 21, 2017
May 31, 2017
Actual Record Closed Date: June 30, 2017
Hearing Officer: Michael Lambert, Esq.
NAMES AN TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARE ON JANUARY 17, 2017
For the Student
Attorney
(Via Telephone)
For the DOE
DOE Representative
NAMES AN TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARE ON FEBRUARY 21,
2017
For the Student
Attorney
Parent/Mother
Parent/Father
(via Telephone)
For the DOE
DOE Representative
NAMES AN TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARE ON MAY 31, 2017
For the Student
Attorney
Parent/Mother
Parent/Father
(via telephone)
For the DOE
DOE Representative
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The parents of _J initiated the instant due process hearing by due process complaint dated June 29, 2016 (PE-A). Such due process complaint alleged that the Department of Education (hereinafter “DOE”) had denied a free appropriate public education (hereinafter “FAPE”) under IDEA and Section 504 during the 2016-2017 school year by, inter li , failing to adequately evaluate him, failing to develop a legally adequate IEP and placement and failing to follow the procedural requirements of IDEA, including the failure to translate documents into and provide qualified interpreters at meetings. In terms of relief, the parents sought, inter li , an order directing the DOE to provide an , additional compensatory education to cover the time that _J was without a school program and, going forward, a interpreter at all CSE meetings as well as interpretation of key documents into .
On January 17, 2017, a pendency order was issued with the consent of both parties directing that the DOE maintain in a pendency placement in an at the or a comparable program if the seat became unavailable, along with and related services (IHO-I; T: 6-7).
Hearings were thereafter held over the course of three days, after which each of the parties submitted post-hearing briefs. The hearing issues are decided as set forth herein.
THE HEARING EVIDENCE
This is the second hearing that I have handled with respect to The hearing evidence presented during the prior hearing demonstrated that, in the 2014-2015 school year, the DOE recommended that ’s placement be changed from an to a . The parents objected to the proposed educational program on numerous bases. Educational services were thereafter provided pursuant to a January 20, 2015 pendency order. did not miss educational services during the 2014-2015 school year. According to ’s mother, showed some improvement that year.
The DOE’s recommended 2014-2015 placement was no longer available as of July 1, 2015. After having no educational program for September, 2015, the parents unilaterally placed at the for the 2015-2016 school year.
The DOE presented no evidence in support of the appropriateness of its 2015-2016 recommendations for The instant hearing related to the continuation of the placement during the 2016-2017 school year. The DOE, once again, rested its case-in-chief without the presentation of any evidence (T: 7-8). Therefore, many of the issues in this case were uncontested. is a boy who has been diagnosed with (PE-M). He received this diagnosis when he was around of age (T: 116). As a result of his ,
(T: 120-121; PE-M; PE-S).
(T: 123; PE-M; PE-S).
(T: 120).
(T: 120).
.
(T: 68-70).
began receiving Early Intervention (“EI”) services of at around of age (T:118-19). When
transitioned into the jurisdiction of the Committee on Preschool Special Education
(“CPSE”), he attended an program at and received .
Ex. C-11. attended starting in September 2015 and continues to attend today due to the above-referenced pendency order T: 119-120).
The Parent attended an IEP meeting (the “2016 meeting”) to discuss ’s program and placement for the 2016-2017 school year (T: 129). The Parent provided reports at the meeting stating that required and requested (T: 130). The DOE did not include on ’s IEP nor did it offer a placement for him, which left without a placement offer for the summer (T: 137). The placement the DOE did offer for a September 2016 start date not did not have a seat for (T: 137).
Pursuant to an Order on Pendency, attended an program at with related services for the 2016-2017 school year. He continued to receive at and in his program, and the Parent, his classroom teacher and, Dr. all noted progress (T: 84; T: 125; T: 170-172).
The Parents’ first witness was , who identified herself as the
(T: 21). Although Ms. provided some
marginally useful general information regarding the , she was unable to provide any specific information regarding the elements of ’s program at the or the areas in which he made progress within such program, instead testifying only in conclusory, terms that I found not particularly helpful in assessing the appropriateness of the program for I did not place any appreciable weight upon her testimony.
The Parents’ second witness was , ’s classroom teacher at the . Ms. testified that she was a certified teacher and that she had earned a bachelor’s of science degree in c and a master’s of science degree in
(T: 57-58). As a classroom teacher at
, Ms. collects behavioral and academic data from students, creates progress reports, checks in on the data, implements behavior plans, creates lessons, and teaches students (T: 59). She testified that she had worked for since July 2016 and that, prior to her position at , she had been a at , which is a special education school that solely educates (T: 59-60).
Ms. employed the
(T: 60-61). includes
(T: 61-62).
(T: 62-63).
(T: 63).
Ms. ’s background in includes having taken courses for her master’s thesis, participating in , and training under a (T: 95). In addition, employs a who oversees her work and with whom she consults with weekly.
In Ms. ’s classroom, there are in the room (T:
63. The are assigned to specific students by their respective IEPs, so most of the time the works with the student without the aide (T: 66. ). A then rotates between students every
. The students’ ages range from years old to years old (T: 63).
is a student in Ms. ’s classroom. (T: 67). His strengths include
(T: 67-68). ’s weaknesses include
(T: 68-70).
requires
(T: 70-71). Ms. has been trained by a on how to and she incorporates it into her lessons by
(T: 71-72).
(T: 72). reportedly responded very well to
(T: 73). Overall, required
(T: 73-
74).
Ms. addresses ’s delays in her classroom through and
(T: 74). She employed as well, which involves . She has working
on
(T: 74-75).
(T: 75-
76).
The that Ms. specifically runs with include
(T: 76-77).
receives related services in school including
(T: 77). Ms. meets with ’s providers
once a week to discuss concerns, the curriculum so that it can be carried over into the related service sessions, and so that Ms. , the providers, and the are all on the same page (T: 77-78). In addition,
(T: 77).
A typical school day for starts with
(T: 78).
.
(T: 78-79).
(T: 79;
T: 82).
Ms. created goals for in October 2016 (T: 82). His goals include
(T: 82-83). ’s goals were based on the
, which tests
(T: 83).
Altogether, was reportedly making progress towards the goals created for him (T: 84).
(T: 84-85).
(T: 98). That is why Ms. works on
. has reportedly made progress with
. Id. .
Sometimes presents with , because of
, which require
(T: 98-99). Ms. was reportedly working with to create a plan to address using the data that Ms. tracks (T: 99-100).
Ms. ’s knowledge of sessions come from meeting his provider, Dr. , and speaking with ’s parents (T: 100-
01). ’s parents communicate to Ms. their concerns regarding and communicate that still needs a lot of help (T: 102-03). Ms. collects data on all of
(T: 106).
’s mother next testified in the parents’ case-in-chief. She testified that was old and that he had been classified as by the DOE. She agreed with that classification. She first suspected that he may have a disability when he was old. .
. She took him to a doctor and
. The doctor referred her to a specialist. The specialist came to her home and diagnosed him with . He was approximately old at the time of the diagnosis. He began receiving services, including . He thereafter received CPSE services in a school in . When he turned and was entering , the CSE continued to recommend an . He attended , which was also an
.
is currently attending the . He started attending there at the end of September, 2015, when he was . He is attending there pursuant to a pendency order. was not attending school throughout the preceding Summer and in
September.
.
. .
.
.
. . .
.
was recently evaluated. A evaluation was conducted by Dr. , who recommended . was also assessed for by Dr. . Dr. recommended
. .
.
receives services . Such services started in October and, according to his mother, have led to significant progress. .
.
. .
’s mother indicated that her native language is and that she has informed the DOE of this. She acknowledged that she can speak simple English. The
DOE has never translated evaluations or IEPs for her. She has contact with ’s teachers at . has a -speaking teacher. She was told that has made progress in . has shown strong interest in
. .
’s mother testified that she participated in a CSE meeting relating to the 2016- 2017 school year. Goals were discussed. In terms of a program recommendation, the CSE discussed a program with . The CSE did recommended an , but they did not recommend . The
DOE thereafter sent her a letter with the name of 1 school, which did not have a spot for
No school whatsoever was offered for the Summer months. ’s mother testified that he has been attending the since July, 2016.
The parents’ final witness was Dr. (hereinafter “DR.
”). Dr. is the at
, supervises t
and operates his own called , and is a doctorate-level (T: 156). has worked with for 15 years. He has earned a master’s degree in from , a master’s degree in , an advanced certificate in , and a Ph.D. in from
(T: 154). He is a New York State certified teacher, a doctorate-level and aNYS licensed (T: 157).
Dr. ’s certification is a designation earned through completing accredited and approved coursework, 1500 hours of mostly supervised field work, and passing a national certifying test (T: 155). is the
. Id.
In addition to his work with disabled students, Dr. is also a published author, a researcher, and a peer-reviewed journal reviewer (T: 156-57). He has been published as a first author in the first-tier, international scientific journal called the and has been published in the . Id. Dr. ’s work has been cited in over 100 scientific journals and published in over 13textbooks. Id.
is one of the students that provides
, which started for him about 12 to 18 months ago (T: 157-58; T: 164). Dr.
oversees ’s hours of (T: 158). Although Dr. would like to to receive more hours of , is only provided with hours of so as not to deplete the bank of hours, from which receives his currently, too quickly. Id. Dr. supervises ’s treatment, monitors his progress, dictates all his treatments, assigns goals for him, collaborates with the family and school to make sure everyone is on the same page, and facilitates communication between all parties involved in ’s services (T: 158-59). Dr. also supervises the provision of (T: 159).
, when Dr. first met him, presented as
(T: 160-61). Regarding
,
(T: 161). Now,
(T: 162).
is having trouble , but he is
(T: 162-64).
When Dr. first met , (T: 164).
(T: 164-165).
may suffer from , in addition to , which is
(T: 165). So, Dr. and his team have been working with to improve
. Id.
The members of ’s team include , his provider who is sitting for her exam in a few weeks, , his provider who left recently, and , his . Id. Dr. works with these providers by monitoring them, supervising them, reviewing their daily session notes and any videos they create, and helping them with any issues (T: 165-66). In addition, Dr.
personally provides service to afew times a year and/or observes the providers in the home and he meets with the Parents at least three or four times a year (T: 166).
The programs that Dr. is running for include
(T: 167-169).
has made progress with
(T: 170).
is making progress with
(T: 170-171).
Regarding , is making progress
because
(T: 171).
is another area of progress for because
(T: 171-172).
is making progress in
(T: 172-173).
Dr. and ’s team provide with
(T: 173-174). has progressed in this area because
(T: 174).
A typical session of for consists of
. Id.
(T: 174-175). There are also
sections of (T: 175).
Dr. and his team use with during his sessions including . Id.
(T: 176).
. Id.
. Id.
(T: 176-177).
(T: 177).
. Id.
(T: 177-
178).
.
Id. Right now, is working on
(T: 179).
(T:179-180). Dr. also has a that responds well to (T: 180).
Dr. and his team only provide with hours of from a bank of hours so that can consistently receive for as long of a period as possible (T: 181). However, Dr. recommends that should be receiving
(T: 181-182).
Dr. also recommends that continue for because
(T: 182-183).
Dr. communicates with ’s teacher to facilitate goal sharing, to share progress, and to deal with any issues (T: 199).
Dr. further opined that needs in addition to his because
(T: 201-202).
The major goals of the program are to
(T: 204-205).
THE LEGAL STANDARDS
Pursuant to the IDEA, all children with disabilities are entitled to a “free appropriate public education” (“FAPE”) which must include “special education and related services” tailored to meet the unique needs of the child and be “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.” Bo rd of Educ tion of the Hendrick Hudson Centr l School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 207 (1982); (20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]; Sch ffer v. We st, 126 S. Ct. 528, 531 [2005]; Fr nk G. v. Bo rd of Educ tion, 459 F.3d 356, 371 [2nd Cir. 2006]). A FAPE is offered to a student when
(a) the board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA’s procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07; Cerr v. P wling Centr l School District, 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2nd Cir.
2005]). The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in W lcz k v. Florid Union Free School District, 142 F.3d 119 (2nd Cir. 1998) held that the IDEA does not articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP. The Court citing to the Supreme Court ruling in Rowley reiterated that the IDEA does not require the states to maximize the potential of disabled children, but was meant “more to open the door of public education to handicapped children on appropriate terms than to guarantee any particular level of education once inside” (at pg. 192). The Second Circuit in W lcz k also cited to a D.C. Circuit Court decision by now Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg which held that 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” (Lunceford v. District of
Columbi Bd. of Educ., 745 F.2d 1577, 1583 [D.C. Cir. 1984]). The Third Circuit has held that an appropriate education under the IDEA is one that is “likely to produce progress, not regression” (Cypress-F irb nks Indep. Sch. Dist. V. Mich el F., 118 F.3d 245, 248 [3rd Cir. 1997]; cert denied 522 U.S. 1047 [1998]; Cerr , 427 F.3d at 195, quoting W lcz k, 142 F.3d at 130 [citations omitted]; see Perricelli v. C rmel Centr l
School District, 2007 WL 465211, at *15). The statute ensures an “appropriate” education, “not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents” (W lcz k, 142 F.3d at 132, quoting Tucker v. B y Shore Union Free School District, 873 F.2d 563, 567 [2nd Cir. 1989][citations omitted]; see Grim, 346 F.3d at 379). The IEP must be “reasonably calculated to provide some ‘meaningful’ benefit” (Mrs. B. v. Milford Bo rd of Educ tion, 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 [2nd Cir. 1997]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192). The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that an appropriate IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances (Endrew F. v. Dough s County). Objective factors such as the attainment of passing grades and regular advancement from grade to grade are generally accepted indicators of satisfactory progress and one important factor in determining educational benefit (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207, n.28, 203-04; W lcz k, 142 F.3d at 130;
Viol v. Arlington Centr l School District, 414 F. Supp. 2d 366, 382 [S.D.N.Y. 2006]).
The student’s recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE) (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.114[a][2][i], 300.116[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.6[a][1]; see W lcz k, 142 F.3d at 132). The LRE is defined as “one that, to the greatest extent possible, satisfactorily educates disabled children together with children who are not disabled, in the same school the disabled child would attend if the child were not disabled” (C rlisle Are Sch. V. Scott P., 62 F.3d 520, 535 [3rd Cir. 1995]). The IDEA mandates that all students with disabilities may only be removed to a more restrictive environment when the nature and severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily (20 U.S.C. 1412[a][5][A]; 34 CFR
300.550[a][2]; Oberti v. Bd. of Educ., 995 F.2d 1204, 1213 [3rd Cir. 1993]; Briggs v. Bd.
of Educ., 882 F.2d 688, 691 [2nd Cir. 1989]; D niel R.R. v. St te Bd. of Educ., 874 F.2d 1036, 1044 [5th Cir. 1989]).
“The fact that a student with a disability might make greater academic progress in a special education class may not warrant excluding the student from a regular education program (Oberti v. Borough of Clementon Sch. Dist., 995 F.2d 1204
[3rd Cir. 1993]). The CSE must also consider the unique benefits, academic and otherwise, which a student may receive by remaining in regular classes such as language and role modeling with nondisabled peers” (Greer v. Rome City Sch.
Dist., 950 F.2d 688 [11th Cir. 1991]).
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the Oberti LRE test in P. v.
Newington Bo rd of Educ., 546 F.3d 111 (2nd Cir. 2008) requiring the consideration of whether the school has made reasonable efforts to accommodate the child in a regular classroom, the educational benefits to the child with appropriate supplementary aids and services versus a special class and the possible negative effects of the inclusion of the child on the education of the other students in the class.
Federal district courts have upheld the appropriateness of an IEP “given what the CSE knew about [the child] at the time it was developing the … IEP” E.S. v. K ton h-
Lewisboro School District, 742 F.Supp.2d 417 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). In J.R. v. Bo rd of Educ tion of the City of Rye School District, 345 F.Supp.2d 386 (S.D.N.Y. 2004), the Court held that in reviewing the appropriateness of an IEP that:
“This determination is necessarily prospective in nature; we therefore must not engage in Monday-morning quarterbacking guided by our knowledge of
S.R.’s subsequent progress at Eagle Hill, but rather consider the propriety of the IEP with respect to the likelihood that it would benefit S.R. at the time it was devised. See Anton ccio, 281 F.Supp.2d at 724 (noting that this issue has not yet been addressed by the Second Circuit and holding that ‘the …IEP…must be evaluated at the time the CSE devised the IEP, on June 15, 1999, and the IHO and SRO erred by regarding any information about [the student’s] education after that date’).”
The SRO has consistently considered the IEP “at the time it was formulated” to determine if it was reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefit (Applic tion of Student with Dis bility, SRO Appeal Nos. 11-154, 09-034, 09-
013).
A board of education may be required to pay for educational services privately obtained by a parent if the educational services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parent were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parents’ claim. Burlington School Comm v.
Dep rtment of Educ tion, 471 U.S. 359 (1985). The fact that the school selected by the parent is not state-approved is not a bar to reimbursement. Florence County School Dist.
Four v. C rter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993).
In terms of other available remedies in cases where a district has failed to meet its obligation to offer an educationally disabled child FAPE, IHO’s have substantial discretion. Since P. ex rel. Mr. nd Mrs. P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 122 (2d Cir.2008), the courts of the Second Circuit have ceased to limit eligibility for “compensatory education” to those over 21. In P, the Second Circuit ruled that “compensatory education” can be awarded to an elementary school student. Further, even the “gross violation” requirement, which is applicable to a claim for compensatory education by someone over 21 is not clearly established in this Circuit to be applicable to a student under 21. That standard was not relied upon in P.
In S.A. ex rel. M.A.K. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 12-CV-435 (RMM)
(MDG), 2014 WL 1311761 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2014), the Court held:
The IDEA allows a hearing officer to fashion an “appropriate remedy, and ...
compensatory education is an available option ... to make up for denial of a [FAPE].” P. ex rel. Mr. nd Mrs. P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 122 (2d Cir.2008) (affirming compensatory education award for elementary school student); see lso Student X v. New York City Dep't of Educ., No. 07
CV 2316, 2008 WL 4890440, at *24 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2008) (awarding compensatory education to student younger than twenty-one). Such an award serves “to compensate a student who was actually educated under an inadequate IEP” and “to catch-up the student to where he should have been absent the denial of a FAPE.” Brenn n v. Region l Sch. Dist. No. 1 Bd. of Educ., 531 F.Supp.2d 245, 265 (D.Conn.2008). Before awarding compensatory education for a student older than twenty-one, a court must find a gross violation of the student's right to a FAPE; however, whether the same prerequisite exists to awarding compensatory education for a younger student is an open question. See Student X, 2008 WL 4980440, at *24. P. v.
Newington, 512 F.Supp.2d 89, 112 n. 3 (D.Conn.2007) (“The Court disagrees with the defendant's argument that compensatory education is warranted only if there is a ‘gross' violation of the IDEA. The requirement of a gross violation
... has been applied only to cases involving claimants over the age of 21.”), ff'd, 546 F.3d 111 (2d Cir.2008); but see J.A. v. E. R m po Cent. Sch. Dist., 603 F.Supp.2d 684, 690 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (finding that five-year-old student was not entitled to compensatory speech therapy, reasoning that parents failed to show gross violation because child “was not excluded from school for any period of time.”).
Also, Reid ex rel. Reid v. D.C., 401 F.3d 516, 522-26 (D.C. Cir. 2005) seems to stand for the proposition that “compensatory education” can be prospective educational services to compensate for a past deficient program and that a hearing officer, as well as a court, can fashion flexible “compensatory education” relief through the application of “equitable considerations.” Reid is cited by, for example, the Second Circuit in P., 546 F.3d at 123, for the proposition that “[t]he IDEA allows a hearing officer to fashion an appropriate remedy, and we have held compensatory education is an available option under the Act to make up for denial of a free and appropriate public education.”
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The appropriateness of the placement for which reimbursement is sought must be looked at in the context of what choices the parents had at the time they chose to place their child in the program for which reimbursement is sought. Where, as here, the hearing evidence suggests that the parents were, once again, offered no DOE alternative to the unilateral placement that they ultimately selected for their child, the parents’ burden for purposes of meeting their Prong II obligation is not a very onerous one1.
The parents have taken the position that this is not a Burlington/C rter case and that they have no prong
When the arents’ choices are limited to an arguably a ro riate educational rogram or no educational rogram, the arguably a ro riate educational rogram must revail 10 times out of 10.
In this case, it is once again clear that is a child who needs . The program for which reimbursement is sought, although not perfect, addressed ’s basic educational needs. It provided . It offered appropriate related services. It offered an appropriate from which is clearly benefitting. The educational program and services provided to at are appropriate and I direct, to the extent not already done pursuant to the previously-issued pendency order, the DOE pay for them.
As to the , it is clear that is in need of such services to . Once again, the DOE had offered no alternative to what the parents are seeking in terms of providing supports in these other domains. By failing present any evidence in its case-in-chief, the DOE failed to meet its burden as to any issues concerning which they bore the burden of proof. I specifically find as follows:
1. That the DOE failed to establish the appropriateness of any educational program offered to during the 2016-2017 school year and, as such, failed to offer FAPE during such school year.
2. That the DOE failed to appropriately evaluate during the 2016-2017 school year. II burden to demonstrate the appropriateness of the placement at the . However, for the reasons set forth herein, I determine that I need not decide whether the relief sought by the parents is available under a Burlington/C rter analysis or simply by virtue of pendency. I find that the parents have met their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of the relief being sought (funding of the placement at the ) under either theory.
3. That is entitled to compensatory education services for all time periods during the 2016-2017 school year that they were not offering pendency services consistent with the pendency order issued in this matter.
4. That the hearing evidence supports ’s entitlement to additional compensatory education services in the form of additional hours.
In this regard, I am persuaded that cannot be appropriately oreffectively met without also addressing . However, I am unpersuaded that it is either reasonable or appropriate to add on top of a program for a year old boy, particularly in light of the demonstrable gains that made with the provision of . The fact that may make additional gains with additional does not provide a legal justification for directing the DOE to provide the greater number of hours.
5. That the hearing evidence fails to support the parents’ request that all of ’s educational records be translated into . However, the DOE is once again reminded of the parents’ right to be meaningful participants in the IEP development process, which may necessitate the presence of interpreters at
CSE meetings.
6. That the hearing evidence supports the conclusion that the provided with appropriate educational services during the course of the 2016-2017 school year. I now so find. I also note that the parents have not maintained that there is any outstanding reimbursement issue that needs to be addressed in this matter.
7. That an educational program consisting of the following services was appropriate for during the 2016-2017 school year:
a. Placement at ;
b. ;
c. ;
d. ;
e. ;
f. ; and
g. .
8. That there are no equitable considerations that make an order of tuition reimbursement, or a reduction in the amount of tuition reimbursement, appropriate.
ORDER
1. That, to the extent not already done, the DOE provide any compensatory education services as described in the pendency order issued in this matter.
2. That, to the extent the parents have incurred any tuition costs for their placement of at the during the 2016-2017 school year, the DOE reimbursement the parents for such tuition costs within 30 calendar days of being presented with appropriate documentation demonstrating such unreimbursed tuition costs.
3. That the DOE establish a bank of to be offered , as determined by the parents, at an hourly rate not to exceed . Such services shall be exhausted within 12months of the date of this Order.
4. All other claims set forth in the due process complaints are hereby dismissed. Dated: January 5, 2018
MICHAEL K. LAMBERT, ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer MK:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
The parent and/or the New York City epartment of Education has aright to obtain areview of this decision by a State Review Officer of the New York State Education epartment under Part 200.5(k) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, Section 4404 of the Education Law, and the Individuals with isabilities Education Act.
irections and forms can be found on the Office of State Review website: http://www.sro.nysed.gov/RevisedRegulationsOverview.html
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD
Parent Exhibits
None[2]
DOE Exhibits:
None
IHO Exhibits:
I. 1/17/17 Pendency Order, with attachments (37 pages)
II. 6/16/17 Parents Post Hearing Brief (29 pages)
III. Undated DOE Post Hearing Brief (2 pages)
Footnotes
[2] Although anumber of exhibits were marked for identification on the first day of the hearing, none were thereafter offered into evidence.