NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
R.x In the Matter of the Impartial Hearing on Behalf of X,
Petitioner, And
Central School District,
Respondent. x
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Impartial Hearing Officer James McKeever, Esq.
January 27, 2016
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
NYS Case Identifier No.: Student’s Name: District: Central School District Hearing Requested By: Parent Dates Of Hearing: May, 26, 2015, May 29, 2015, July 6, 2015, July 7, 2015, July 28, 2015, July 29, 2015, August 18, 2015, September 1, 2015, September 2, 2015, October 1, 2015, and
October 19, 2015. Hearing Officer: James McKeever, Esq.
Hearing Officer’s Findings of Fact and Decision Case No. _____________________________________________________________
PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MAY 26, 2015
, Esq.: Attorney for the Parents
, Esq.: Attorney for the District S.S.: Director of Special Ed. PARENT: Parent Speech: Teacher
: Speech Pathologist
PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MAY 29, 2015
Esq.: Attorney for the Parents
C , Esq.: Attorney for the District
S. S.: Director of Special Ed. PARENT: Parent Teacher: Teacher Psychologist: Psychologist Clerk: District Clerk
PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 6, 2015
h, Esq.: Attorney for the Parents
, Esq.: Attorney for the District
Director of Special Ed. PARENT: Parent
CSE Chair Dr. : Psychologist-Elementary School
PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 7, 2015
Esq.: Attorney for the Parents
, Esq.: Attorney for the District S.: Director of Special Ed. PARENT: Parent Teacher .: CSE Chair
PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 28, 2015
Esq.: Attorney for the Parents
Esq.: Attorney for the District
Director of Special Ed. PARENT: Parent .: Teacher .: Psychologist-BOCES
PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 29, 2015
, Esq.: Attorney for the Parents
, Esq.: Attorney for the District : Director of Special Ed. PARENT: Parent : Speech Pathologist
PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON AUGUST 18, 2015
, Esq.: Attorney for the Parents
, Esq.: Attorney for the District
Director of Special Ed. PARENT: Parent
.: Psychologist-Private Dr. .: Assistant Superintendent
.: Former Director of Special Ed.
PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON SEPTEMBER 1, 2015
, Esq.: Attorney for the Parents
, Esq.: Attorney for the District
Director of Special Ed. PARENT: Parent : Admissions Director-JRC
Director-Special Ed.
PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON SEPTEMBER 2, 2015
, Esq.: Attorney for the Parents
, Esq.: Attorney for the District
Director of Special Ed. PARENT: Parent
: Social Worker-Private School
: Director of Admission-Private School
PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON OCTOBER 1, 2015
, Esq.: Attorney for the Parents
, Esq.: Attorney for the District
Director of Special Ed. PARENT: Parent
: Social Worker-Private School : Admissions-Private School
PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON OCTOBER 19, 2015
, Esq.: Attorney for the Parents
, Esq.: Attorney for the District
Director of Special Ed. PARENT: Parent : Assistant Superintendent
Procedural History:
The parent filed her Due Process Complaint (“DPC”) on January 9, 2015 challenging the Individualized Education Plans (“IEP”) developed by the District’s Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) for the 2005-2006 school year through the 2011-2012 school year (IHO Exhibit 1).
The District submitted its “response” to the DPC on January 20, 2015 and asserted that the hearing request was barred by the applicable Statue of Limitations (‘SOL”) and barred by the Doctrine of Laches. On February 25, 2015, with the consent of the parent, the District submitted an amended response to the DPC asserting additional affirmative defenses.
On March 2, 2015, the District moved to dismiss the hearing request based on the applicable SOL and based on the Doctrine of Laches. On April 6, 2015, after considering the parent’s Opposition to the motion and the District’s Reply, the undersigned denied the motion, without prejudice, because their was insufficient evidence to support the District’s assertions that the parent “knew or should have known” about her due process rights with respect to the Student’s educational programming.
Thereafter, and throughout the hearing process, the parties made multiple requests to extend the compliance date based on witness availability and in order to prepare for due process. The Orders of extension were served on all parties as per the Commissioner’s Regulations and are included in the record.
Due to a delay in the receipt of transcripts, post-hearing briefs were not received until December 2, 2015. Additionally, the record remained open in order for the parent to submit a complete exhibit (“Exhibit Z”), which was received on or about January 2, 2016. Pleadings:
The impartial hearing was held pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), regarding the parent’s request for a finding that the Central School District (“District”) denied (“Student”), a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) during the 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years.
The parent also contends that the District’s actions violated the Student’s rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”).
With respect to the issues of a denial of FAPE, the parent asserts several allegations which include the following: (1) that the District denied the parent meaningful participation at the CSE meetings beginning in 2006 by overstating the Student’s progress and never providing the parent with a “full picture” of either the Student’s functioning or the continuum of placements- that the District misrepresented the Student’s birthdate, overestimated his functioning and reported and that the Student was making progress, when he was not; (2) that the Student failed to make meaningful educational progress in the District and regressed; (3) that the District failed to place the Student in a residential placement; (4) that the IEPs developed by the District were inappropriate; (5) that the BOCES Hilltop placement was inappropriate; (6) that the District failed to provide transition services or measurable post-secondary goals; (7) that the goals developed by the District’s CSE were not appropriate; and (8) that the speech and language services were not appropriate (Parents post-hearing brief).
The parent submits that based on the District’s denial of FAPE and violations of Section 504, the Student is entitled to compensatory educational services in the form of: (1) funding of an additional year at the which is a residential placement; (2) 1,260 hours of compensatory educational/transition services; (3) compensatory counseling services; (4) parent counseling and training; and (5) any other relief the undersigned deems just and proper (See-Parent’s Post-Hearing Brief). As indicated above, the District asserts parent’s claims must be dismissed by the applicable SOL and under the Doctrine of Laches. The District also asserts that FAPE was provided to the Student for all of the subject school years and that the Student did not require a residential placement. The District further asserts that its delay in the delivery of speech services was appropriate and that its use of a more recent date of birth did not contribute to a misleading picture of the Student’s functioning. Further, the District denies that it provided ESL services at the expense of specialized math instruction and contends that any deficits the Student may now have are not the result of the District’s actions, but are attributable to events that occurred after the Student left the District. Finally, the District submits that the parent has not proven a claim under Section 504 (District’s post-hearing brief). Findings of Fact:
The Student is currently a 20-year old boy who is classified by the Central School District (“ SD”) as a student with an
(Exhibits D-203, D-219 and D-225). The Student moved to the CSD in August 2012 when the parent placed in him a group home through the Office for Persons with Developmental Disabilities (“OPMWDD”). In February 2014, the CSD placed the Student at the , which is a residential school located in and which the Student currently attends. [Dist. 247]. Prior to his placement in the group home in the CSD, the Student was a resident of the District from 2003 until August 2012 [Dist. 177, 247].
During the time period when the Student attended school in the District, he was classified as “ ” which was based on a diagnosis of ”) (Exhibit D164).
The Student was (Tr. 1249). Although many of the details about his early life remain unknown, the record shows that Student had little to no schooling before he entered the School District. Additionally, based on parental reports, the Student was born to alcoholic parents and suffered severe physical and sexual abuse while in the orphanage (Exhibits D-75, I, P; Tr. 937-938). The Student was diagnosed with and ( ”) as well as having a
9 and D-75). During the relevant school years, the Student’s behaviors led to a (2009) and ultimately
2014).
In May of 2003, Dr. Ph.D., a licensed psychologist, conducted a bi-lingual English-Russian evaluation of the Student. Dr. reported that the Student was a victim of “ and educational neglect” and that he was “at risk” educationally (Exhibit D). Dr.
noted that the Student’s educational and social needs were “beyond the second language learning…and that ESL should not substitute for any special education remedial services” (Exhibit D).
In May 2003, the Student entered first grade in District. At that time, the parent completed the District’s “Central Registration” form and reported that the Student’s birth date was April 13, 1995 (Exhibit A). The parent also provided the District with a copy of the letter from Dr. Gindis (Exhibit D, 168, Tr. 1260).
The District initially placed the Student in a general education glass with ESL services and did not screen the Student for special education services (Exhibit A). 2003-2004 School Year:
In September 2003, the Student entered second grade at the District’s elementary school. The school medical report indicates the Student’s date of birth as April 13, 1995.
In October 2004, the Student was referred to the CSE for an initial evaluation to determine whether he was eligible for special education services (Exhibit Psy.D.). Dr. conducted a evaluation on October 2004 using the birth date of April 13, 1997. The cognitive testing revealed a full-scale IQ of 65, which was below the percentile. Dr. noted significant attention deficits as well as impulsivity and a high level of frustration. Additionally, although she noted that the Student was “endearing,” she also reported that during a classroom observation the Student was “distracted, inattentive and confused by tasks.” She also reported that the Student did not understand the most basic tasks, especially those “tapping’ processing skills. (Exhibit C, page 3) Dr. further noted that the Student appeared younger than his speculated age[1] (Exhibit C, page 5).
On November 3, 2004, the District administered a evaluation in English2 (CELF-IV), using the birthdate of April 13,
1997. The Student achieved a core language score of which placed him “significantly below the average range” (Exhibits D, page 2). The evaluator noted that the Student had significant receptive and expressive language delays. Nevertheless, speech and language services were not recommended because the District determined that ESL services were more appropriate (Exhibit D).
On October 13, 2004, the District conducted an Educational Evaluation using the birth of April 13, 1997. The results of the academic testing showed that the Student was functioning well below grade level (Exhibit E). Specifically, the evaluator, who administered the WIAT-II, noted that the Student was at the “pre-reading” stage and that he displayed significant difficulty with all aspects of written expression. Additionally, it was noted that the Student’s math skills were in the range” (Exhibit E, page 6). Consequently, the evaluator recommended that the Student be placed in a “small structured setting,” with “intensive one-to-one teaching…” for reading, writing and math. The evaluator also recommended that the Student be taught using an Orton-Gillingham based reading program as well as visual models, among others (Exhibit E).
On December 16, 2004, the District’s CSE classified the Student as and placed the Student in general education class with a modified curriculum throughout the school day (Exhibit 164).[3] The CSE also provided consultant teacher services in Language Arts, once a day for 40 minutes, and Consultant Teacher services in math, once a day for 20 minutes (Exhibit 164, page 1). The CSE also recommended a behavior Intervention Plan (“BIP”) (Exhibit 164).
2
It was not explain why a bilingual evaluation was not utilized (Tr. 130).
On March 22, 2005, the District administered the WIAT-II for a second time. A comparison of the Standard Scores from October 2004, showed, with the exception of a slight improvement in math, regression in Word Reading, Reading Comprehension and Spelling (Exhibit G). 2005-2006 School Year:
On April 5, 2005, the CSE reconvened and developed an IEP for the 2005-2006 school year (Exhibit 143) (third grade). At this time, the CSE recommended that the Student be placed in a 15:1 class special class for the entire school day with services, once a week in a group of five (Exhibit 143). The Student also received ELS for 90 minutes per day. 2006-2007 School Year:
On April 6, 2006, the CSE developed an IEP for the Student’s fourth grade year (Exhibit 135). The CSE continued 15:1 special class and added a reading class (Exhibit 135). 2007-2008 School Year:
On March 26, 2007, the CSE developed an IEP for the Student’s fifth grade year when the Student entered Middle School (Farley) (Exhibit 135). The CSE continued the same 15:1 special class that the Student attended in fourth grade (Exhibit 128).
At this time, the CSE reported that the Student was still on a “primer” level in reading. However, they also reported that the Student “demonstrate[d] good comprehension” and “good vocabulary” (Exhibits 128, page 3). Regarding math, the CSE reported that although the Student demonstrated a weakness in understanding math concepts and had difficult time with “money” and “time,” the Student improved in math computation. Specifically, the CSE reported that the Student could now solve two digit addition and subtraction problems with and without regrouping. They also reported that he could solve single digit multiplication and division problems by using manipulatives and making groups. Additionally, the CSE reported that the Student improved his writing and that he was able to write complete sentences and short paragraphs with support. Nevertheless, it was noted that he had difficulty with spelling (Exhibit 128, page 3).
Regarding his social skills, the CSE reported that although he still appeared to be younger than his “speculated” chronological age, he had made “remarkable” progress. Specifically, the CSE noted that the Student was developing coping strategies and social skills and that he made progress with interpersonal relationships. Nevertheless, the CSE also noted that the Student still engaged in “parallel” play more than actually engaging others students (Exhibit 128, page 4). However, the CSE stated that the Student had made “nice progress” and that he matured since September.
In September 2007, the Student entered the fifth grade at Middle School. A review of the “Progress Report on the IEP Goals” indicates that the Student made “some progress” on almost all of his goals (Exhibit 130).
In January and February 2008, the District conducted a re-evaluation using the correct birthdate of April 13, 1995. The results of the WISC-IV indicated that the Student was functioning in the “ ” to “ ” range (Exhibit 115). On the WIAT-II, the Student’s Standard Scores where either in the “ range,” or the “ ” range for reading, writing and math (Exhibit 114). Nevertheless, the Student’s report card dated February 25, 2008, reported that the Student received a “ ” in math, an ” in social studies, and a “ ” in Language Arts (Exhibit 113).
A Social History conducted with the parent indicated that the parent told the District that this was the first time the Student was in a math class because he had been pulled-out for ESL services during the previous school years (Exhibit 116). The parent also reported that Student was struggling and “stressed out” in school (Exhibit 116).
A report dated February 27, 2008, indicated that the Student continued to be impulsive, aggressive and immature, and that he had great difficulty regulating his emotions. Additionally, it was reported that the Student’s behavior in the classroom was “inappropriate and problematic” (Exhibit D-111). Nevertheless, a classroom observation conducted by Psychologist, the school psychologist, on January 17, 2008, reported that the Student “required little to no behavioral intervention” and that the Student “interacted well with his peers” (Exhibit 118). Ms. M., who was the Student’s teacher in fifth grade, testified that her classroom was more of a general education special class and at the time and that the Student needed of a more therapeutic setting because he struggled. She also opined that “academics” were the least of the Student’s problems (Tr. 490, 493). Additionally, socially, she noted that the Student seemed unsure of what was going on around him and that he misread social cues. Thereafter, Ms. M. reported that that Student’s academic and behavioral deficits did not improve during the course of the year (Exhibit 114, Tr. at 500).
The parent testified that this was a turning point for the Student “toward a downward slide,” because the Student did not get the support he needed and because the recommended program was inappropriate (Tr. 14521453). 2008-2009 School Year: On March 10, 2008, the CSE developed a new IEP for the Student and continued the Student’s placement in a 15:1 class with once a week (Exhibit 109). Although the CSE noted that the Student struggled both academically and behaviorally, there was no significant changed in the Student’s program. Additionally, although it was noted that the Student was often resistant and ran away and hid, there was no behavior plan developed and his services remained the same. Further, although it was noted that the Student exhibited significant receptive and expressive language difficulties, the CSE did not conduct a speech and language evaluation and failed recommend speech and language services (Exhibit 109).
The Student’s Report Card for the third quarter of this school year indicated that the Student was “meeting standards” in Science, Art and Physical Education, and “Making Progress” towards the Standards in reading, English, math and social studies (Exhibit D-121). Additionally, the Progress Report regarding the Student’s IEP goals indicated that, with the exception of one math goal, the Student was “progressing satisfactorily,” and that he made “some progress” toward all of his other goals (Exhibit 122).
On May 5, 2008, Ms. M. reported that the Student’s academic progress was challenged and limited by his significant emotional, psychological and social issues. She also reported that he required intensive and continuous direct teacher intervention in a structured program with a small teacher-tostudent ratio in order to complete any academic task (Exhibit 107). Ms. M. further reported that when the Student was redirected or counseled, his immediate response was to run away and hide, or punch himself in the head. She also stated that the Student threw things and, at times, would refused to speak and curled up into a ball (Exhibit 107, page 1).
On May 22, 2008, the District developed a behavior intervention plan with two behavioral goals (Exhibit 106).
On June 5, 2008, the District conducted a Screening (Exhibit 105). The examiner administered the CELF-III, which indicated “numerous areas of language weakness” (Exhibit 105).
The Student’s report card, dated June 9, 2008, which was for the third marking period, reported that the Student earned a in Math, a in social studies and a in Language Arts. The comments on the report card indicated that the Student was “working up to his ability” (Exhibit 103).
On or about June 10 2008, the District made a referral for an “out of District placement” (Exhibit 101).
On June 11, 2008, the Student was suspended from school for hitting two students in the face with his lunchbox. It was reported that that Student was not provoked at the time (Exhibit 99).
On June 11, 2008, the CSE chair, M. S., referred the Student to the Middle School Program (Exhibit 98).
On June 17, 2008, the District held a CSE meeting and developed an IEP to begin on July 7, 2008 (the Student was now in sixth grade). The CSE recommended an 8:1:1 class at and offered, for the first time, Extended Year Services (“ESY”). However, the Student was not offered speech and language services (Exhibit 97). According to the Present Levels of Performance, the Student was still reading at a “ level” and had significant deficits in writing and math (Exhibit 97, page 3).
On June 16, 2008 the District conducted a Functional Behavioral Assessment (“FBA”) regarding the Student’s “escape” and “avoidance” behavior” (Exhibit 92). 2008-2009 School Year: On November 19, 2008 the Student was suspended for pulling the fire alarm (Exhibit 91).
In January 2009, BOCES issued a 90-Day review, which indicated that that Student had eloped from the classroom 10 to 20 times per day (Exhibit 83). The report also noted that the Student had to be removed from his homeroom class each day because of conflicts.
On January 26, 2009, the District amended the Student’s IEP in order to move the Student back to 5th grade as recommended by the BOCES principal. The parent agreed (Exhibit 81).
On March 5, 2009, BOCES administered a Level I Vocational Assessment. The report noted that the Student required “extensive training” in order to be able to develop pre-vocational skills (Exhibit 78).
On March 25, 2009, when the Student was twelve years old and attending the 5th grade for the second time, BOCES conducted a evaluation. The evaluation determined that the Student had “moderate” to “severe” deficits in most language related areas and that intensive speech and language therapy was necessary (Exhibit 77, pages 3, 4).
On April 5, 2009, the Student was hospitalized at after jumping out of a second story window (Exhibit 9, 58). The Student remained in the hospital for over a month. In April 2009, the Student underwent a evaluation at . The evaluation indicated that the Student met the criteria for: (1) ”); (2)
among others (Exhibit 75). The evaluator recommended that the Student be placed in a small, structured classroom with a high teacher to student ratio. She also opined that the Student would require a paraprofessional in the classroom and the provision of speech and language services, among other services (Exhibit 75).
On April 30, 2009 the District developed a new IEP for the remainder of the 2008-2009 school year (Exhibit 74). The new IEP continued the BOCES special 8:1:1 class with services. The IEP also included a full-time paraprofessional. Under the “Functional Performance,” the CSE indicated that the Student “ha[d] shown remarkable improvements in the areas of reading, vocabulary and comprehension skills” (Exhibit 74, page 3).
On May 18, 2009, the CSE reconvened and added services to the IEP (Exhibit 72). 2009-2010 School Year:
On September 23, 2009, the Student was suspended from school for “fighting” (Exhibit 66).
In October 2009, a speech progress report indicated that the Student had made “minimal” progress due to [his] interrupting behaviors.”
At or about the same time (October 2009), the Student was (Exhibit 58, Tr. 1513).
In November 2009, BOCES conducted and FBA to target the Student’s “elopement, work avoidance and aggression” behaviors (Exhibit 64).
On November 19, 2009, BOCES issued a progress report and noted that the Student was regressing in his current placement. The report also noted that the Student was still reading at a grade level and only working on basic math computation (Exhibit 58).
On November 23, 2009, the CSE developed a new IEP and transferred the Student from BOCES to BOCES School ( ”) (6th Grade). At BOCES , the Student was placed in an 8:1:2 special class (Exhibit 56). Nevertheless, the IEP continued to state that the Student was making “remarkable progress” in reading and “significant” progress in math (Exhibit 56, page 3).
A speech report from February 2010 indicated that the Student was willing to come to speech and was compliant when seen in the classroom (Exhibit 52).
On April 10, 2010, BOCES conducted another Level 1 Vocational Assessment (Exhibit 48).
On April 30, 2010 BOCES generated another FBA, which targeted the Student’s elopement behavior (Exhibit 47).
On May 3, 2010 the CSE develop an IEP for the 2010-2011 school year, which continued the same program from the year before. The “Comments” indicated that the Student adjusted well to the transfer to BOCES Hilltop and that his behavior had improved. The CSE also noted that the Student functioned better in a small environment with less stimulation (Exhibit 46). The Student was now 15 years old and entering the 7th grade. Nevertheless, there were no transition goals on the Student’s IEP (Exhibit 46).
The Progress Report for the Student’s IEP goals during the 2009-2010 school year indicated that the Student had either achieved his goals or was “progressing satisfactorily” (Exhibit 69).
A 2009-2010 Summary and Academic Report stated that the Student had transitioned well to the new program (Exhibit 85). It was also reported that the Student was reading novels such as “Tom Sawyer” and “The Prince and the Pauper,” as well as short stories by T.S. Elliot and E.B. White, among others. Additionally, it was reported that while reading the above, the Student had worked on identifying and interpreting figurative language, such a similes and metaphors”… and that “he had identified ways in which authors tr[ied] to influence the reader and find evidence in the text to support ideas” (Exhibit 85, page 2).
Thereafter, the Student’s Report Card for the 2009-2010 school year indicated that the Student was “Meeting Standard[s]” in reading and math (Exhibit 84).
On August 10, 2010 the Student was suspended for ” (Exhibit 42).
A teacher report, dated August 2010, stated that the Student continued to require individual instruction (Exhibit 44).
A progress report dated August 15, 2010 regarding the goals for the 2010-2011 school year was blank (Exhibit 41). During this school year, the parent reported that she was concerned about the appropriateness of the BOCES program because she believed the Student had been bullied at the school and because she would hear “yelling” when she visited the school” (Tr. at 1506-1509).
Additionally, at about this time, a video was taken by a teacher’s aide at BOCES which showed the principal (“Ms. Principal”) screaming and cursing at students (Exhibit Z). 2010-2011 School Year:
The Student continued at BOCES for the 2010-2011 school year.
A “G-RADE” assessment dated October 7, 2010 indicated that the Student was performing at the percentile in reading and the percentile math (Exhibit 40).
In March 2011 the CSE conducted cognitive and academic achievement testing as part of the Student’s triennial review (Exhibit 30). The results of the WISC-IV revealed a Full-Scale IQ of ”). The results of the Woodcock-Johnson III- showed a Broad Reading Standard Score (“SS”) of with a Grade Equivalent (“GE”) of and a Broad math SS of , with a GE of (Exhibit 30) Range”). Additionally, the results of the Behavior Assessment System were “extremely low” for all domains except that the teacher scored the social domain in the “below average” range (Exhibit 30). Nevertheless, the Student’s teacher also noted that the Student was in the “At-Risk” range for aggression and conduct problems, among others (Exhibit 30, page 70).
A classroom observation was not conducted by the District’s CSE as part of its evaluation (Exhibit 38).
Another, Vocational Assessment was conducted on April 19, 2011 (Exhibit 28).
In February 2011, the Student while traveling on the school bus (Tr. 1529).
In April 2011, the parent received an anonymous letter stating that the Student was being bullied at school (Exhibit G).
On May 2, 2011, the CSE discontinued the Student’s 1:1 aide because they believed that he had improved both academically and behaviorally over the 2009-2010 school year (Exhibit 27).
On May 11, 2011, the parent made a written request for an emergency CSE meeting because she was concerned for her son’s safety and because she was concerned by his lack of progress at school (Exhibit 26).
By letter dated May 23, 2011, the Student’s private recommended that the Student be placed in a residential setting (Exhibit 25). Ms. M. also opined that the bullying incidents at school exacerbated the Student’s anxiety, and (Exhibit 25).
On May 24, 2011, the CSE held a meeting with serving as the CSE Chairperson (Exhibit 24).
At this time, the parent was requesting that the CSE place the Student in a residential program (Tr. 1538). The CSE refused. Ms. S. testified that she told that parent that she could request an impartial hearing if she did not like the CSE’s decision (Tr. 331).
, a student advocate from the which is s residential, special education school in Massachusetts, attended the meeting on behalf of the parent. Mr. A. testified that the Student required a residential placement (Tr. 1171). He also stated that Ms. S. stated that the District would never recommend a residential placement and that the Student’s current placement was appropriate (Tr. 1171). Mr. A. further testified that Ms. S. did not tell the parent that she had a right to request a hearing (Tr. at 1171). The parent testified that she asked Mr. A.’s to help her with the process and that he was knowledgeable about the law and that “he educated [her] a little bit about what [her son’s] rights were (Tr. 1543). Despite the parent’s objections, the CSE determined that the Student should continue to attend the BOCES program (Exhibit 24).
A update, dated May 2, 2011, from BOCES stated that the Student is seeing a , and Ms. M.. It also stated that the parent is very involved in the Student’s educational planning (Exhibit 33).
In June 2011, the Student’s conducted a assessment. Dr. noted that the Student had severe symptoms of impulsivity and hyperactivity (Exhibit H). His diagnostic impressions included . Dr. also opined that the Student was at grave risk for serious harm to himself and strongly recommended that the Student be placed in a residential placement (Exhibit H).
By letter dated June 21, 2011, the advised that the Student was at risk and should be under 24-hour supervision (Exhibit 22).
At the end of the 2010-2011school year the Student’s Report Card indicated that he earned an in reading and a in math (Exhibit 53). 2011-2012 School Year:
In September 2011, the Student continued at BOCES
A G-RADE assessment administered in October 2011 by BOCES indicated that the Student was still functioning at the grade level in math.
On or about January 13, 2012, BOCES issued a “Regression Statement” stating that it takes the Student 3-4 weeks to re-establish his skills after a long vacation (Exhibit 13).
In January 2012, BOCES administered another Level I Vocational Assessment (Exhibit 12).
On January 26, 2012, Ms. M. conducted a Psychosocial History/Assessment (Exhibit 9). Ms. M. again opined that the Student required a therapeutic residential setting (Exhibit 9). In February 2012, BOCES Hilltop change the Student’s track to “alternate assessment” to “meet his cognitive, learning and emotional needs…” (Exhibit 7).
On February 9, 2012, the CSE held a meeting to develop an IEP for the 2012-2013 school year. The Student was now entering high school (Exhibit 6). The CSE recommended that the Student attend a Life Skills program at BOCES High School with therapy and services. was the CSE Chairperson. Ms. M. attended the meeting and advised the CSE that the Student required a residential placement and that the BOCES was not appropriate because it was a program for students with emotional disabilities (Tr. at 959).
The parent again requested a residential placement (Tr. 1585).
Ms. H. testified that she did not recall a discussion about a request for a residential placement (Tr. 529-530).
A Prior Written Notice (“PWN”) was sent to the parent but it did not contain a Procedural Safeguards Notice (Exhibit 5).
The Student’s father died in the spring of 2012, which affected the Student’s behavior (Tr. 964). At this time, the Student eloped from his home and the police were involved (Tr. 1603). The Student was also exhibiting inappropriate behavior in the home (Tr. 1644).
The parent testified that she called the District several times to discuss the Student’s status but no one returned her calls (Tr. 1631).
On or about June 11, 2012, the parent contacted Private Attorney, Esq., a special education attorney who has attended CSE meetings on behalf of other students in District [Tr. 1641-1642]. At the time the parent met with Mr. Private Attorney, she was seeking a residential placement for the Student [Tr. 1759]. Nevertheless, the parent testified that even after having spoken with Mr. Private Attorney on the telephone, and then met with him in person, during which time she gave him a copy of the Student’s IEP and a “bunch of other documents,” she still did not understand that she had a right to due process (Tr. 1641-1642).
The Progress Report for the IEP Goals at the end of the 2011-2012 school reported that the Student was making progress (Exhibit 4).
The Student’s report card at the end of the 2011-2012 school year indicated that he earned an in Language Arts an in math (Exhibit 53). The Progress Report for IEP goals for the 2011-2012 school year indicated that the Student had either “achieved” his goals or was “progressing satisfactorily” (Exhibit 19). 2012-2013 School Year:
In September 2012, the parent placed the Student in a group-home in the CSD. The placement was made through OPWDD. The parent testified that she placed the Student in the group home because the District refused to consider a residential placement and because the parent did not believe the BOCES High School placement was appropriate (Tr. 965). 2013-2014 School Year:
In January 2014, the Student eloped from the school bus and entered a neighbor’s house unlawfully. Thereafter, he was for three (3) months (Exhibit X).
In September 2014, the Student returned to for another two months because he failed to comply with probation. (Exhibit X).
The Family Court Judge overseeing the Student’s incarceration, recommended that the Student attend a therapeutic residential facility.
In November 2014, the parent filed a due process complaint against the CSD (IHO Exhibit 1, Tr. 1659). In February 2015, the CSD placed that Student at the (“Private School”), a therapeutic residential program that serves students with developmental disabilities (Exhibits W, X, 972). The program provides a 3:1 staff to student ratio (Tr. 1414). The Student has adjusted well to and has obtained an educational benefit since his placement (Tr. 972, 1662, Exhibits Y, CC, DD). Procedural Safeguard Notice:
a former clerk with the District, testified that between 2004 and 2010, she enclosed a PSN with each invitation that was sent to a parent to attend a CSE [Tr. 279-281]. She also testified that invitations for CSE annual reviews went out annually and included PSN’s up to 2010 [Tr. 282]. Additionally, Ms. testified that it was the District’s procedure to enclose a copy of the PSN with each IEP [Tr. 282-283].
Ms. the former Director of Special Education at the District, confirmed Ms. ’s testimony, stating that until late 2010, PSN’s were mailed with every notification that left the special education office, including evaluations, CSE meeting results, and invitations to CSE meetings [Tr. 10691070, 1114-1115].
The District changed its procedure in 2010 and only sent PSN’s to a parent when a student was being re-evaluated and with the notice of an annual review (Tr. 1079).
The parent testified that although she might have received a PSN in the early years, she had no recollection of ever receiving the PSN during the years when she was contesting the CSE’s recommendations. Statute of Limitation (SOL) for IDEA claims:
The IDEA requires that, unless a State chooses to set a different limitations period under State law, a party must request a due process hearing within two years of when the party knew or should have known of the alleged violation (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][C]; see also 20 U.S.C. § 1415[b][6][B]; N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404[1]). The IDEA was amended in 2004 and the present two-year statute of limitations became effective in July 2005 (id.). Prior to July 2005, the statute of limitations in New York for alleged violations of IDEA was one year (M.D. v. Southington Bd. of Educ., 334 F.3d 217, 221-22 [2d Cir. 2003]; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 02-119; see Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-013).
As indicated above, the District’s initial motion to dismiss based on the SOL defense was dismissed, without prejudice. The reasoning at the time was that there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the District’s claim that statute should not be tolled in favor of the parent. Additionally, based on the reasoning in K.H. v. New York City Dept. of Education, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108393, 2014 WL, and the parent’s assertions that she had been misled by the District’s false reporting of the Student’s progress over the subject school years, and that the District failed to provide her with the PSN during each of the subject school years, the undersigned determined that the parent’s claims were tolled back to 20052006 school year. Moreover, at the time the undersigned’s decision regarding the District’s motion was made, there was no persuasive offer of proof that a limited hearing on this issue would have resolved the matter. Thus, the District’s motion was denied without a hearing. Nevertheless, the undersigned advised the parties that the issue could be revisited in the event new facts were revealed during the hearing process.
At the conclusion of the hearing, the District renewed it motion to dismiss the parent’s IDEA claims based on the SOL. District’s Position Regarding the Parent’s Request to Toll the SOL:
First, the District asserts the parent’s claims are time barred because the complaint, which is dated January 9, 2015, can only include claims that have taken place no earlier than January 9, 2013. The District notes that because the Student left the District in August of 2012, the parent’s claims would have been limited to any action that occurred after August 2010, which is two years before the Student left the District. Thus, the District asserts that the parent’s failure to file the complaint on or before August 2014 precludes all claims under both IDEA provisions because more than two years have elapsed.
The District also asserts that the parent’s placement of the Student at the group home in the CSD amounted to the procedural equivalent of withdrawing the child from the District and that such action amounts to an accrual for purposes of the SOL. (See, M.D. v. Southington Bd. of Educ., 334 F.3d 217, 221 [2d Cir. 2003). Birth Date:
With Respect to the issue of the District’ using the wrong birthdate, the District claims that the parent was always aware of the Student’s date of birth and that any discrepancy in the District’s testing due to the date of birth was based on information in the parent’s possession [Exhibit D-163]. Additionally, the District notes that multiple witnesses testified regarding the District’s practice of holding a pre-CSE meeting with a parent of a student with a disability in order to help the parent understand the testing and evaluative instruments utilized by the District. Specifically, the District notes that the District staff would have reviewed the evaluations with the parent, which contained the Student’s date of birth. Further, the District’s points out that the Student’s date of birth would also have been discussed with the parent when the Student was initially evaluated 2004 and then reevaluated in 2008 and 2011, respectively. As such, the District submits that the parent was on notice of the date of birth the District was using prior to August 2012 and therefore cannot claim that she was misled. Specific Misrepresentation Exception:
The District contends that the “Specific Misrepresentation” exception does not apply to this case because beginning in the spring of 2011 and continuing through the May 24, 2011, the District expressly disagreed with the parent’s request for a residential placement [Exhibit 24; Tr. 329-330, 1170-1171, 1586]. Additionally, the District also points out that on February 9, 2012, the District again rejected the parent’s request for a residential placement [Exhibit 6; Tr. 1611]. Withholding of Information Exception:
With regard to the “Withholding Of Information” exception, the District contends that this exception is narrow and only applies when a school district fails to provide the parent with the PSNs required under the IDEA (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][D][ii]). Here, the District points to the testimony of Ms. Clerk and Ms. Rendich in support of its assertion that the parent received multiple PSN’s advising her of her due process rights during the school years at issue. The District also asserts that there is nothing in the record to indicate that the District promised and/or later recanted any promise to place the Student in a residential program [Exhibits 3, 5, 23]. Accordingly, the District contends that SOL should not be tolled through the misrepresentation exception. (See, R.B. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106273 [S.D.N.Y. 2011]; see, also, SRO Dec. 12-125 [citing D.K., 696 F.35 at 246; Tindell v. Evansville-Vanderburgh Sch. Corp., 805 F.Supp.2d 630, 644-45 [S.D. Ind. 2011]; El Paso Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Richard R., 567 F. Supp. 2d 918, 943, 945 [W.D. Tex. 2008]; Evan H., 2008 WL 4791634, at *7].
Further, the District notes that the parent’s statements that she did not read the PSNs or that the PSN’s were not relevant to her until 2011 does constitute any exception under the IDEA [Tr. 1783-1784]. J.P. v. Enid Pub. Sch., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 87813, *15. The District further notes that the parent’s receipt of a PSN when she enrolled the Student in the CSD on August 28, 2012, should be deemed notice of her due process rights against the District [Dist. 245; Tr. 1820-1821]. Assistance from Advocate and Consult with Attorneys:
Finally, the District points to the evidence that in either 2010 or 2011, the parent attended a special education legal seminar by the “ founder wherein he explained the concept of FAPE [Tr. 1876]. The District also notes that the parent was advised by Mr. A., a special education advocate who is employed by a special education residential school in Massachusetts, to seek legal counsel [Tr. 1858]. Additionally, the District notes that the parent actually sought legal counsel from of the and then from Private Attorney, Esq., an attorney who practices in the area of special education law, in the spring of 2012, which was before she enrolled the Student in the CSD [Tr. 1748-1749]. Thus, based on these facts, the District asserts that the parent was aware or should have been aware of her procedural due process rights with respect to the District. Parent’s Position Regarding the Tolling of the SOL:
In opposition to the District’s request for an Order dismissing the parent’s claims under the applicable SOL, the Parent contends: (1) that the her claims against the District are not time-barred because the Parent was prevented from requesting the impartial hearing due to specific misrepresentations by the District that it had resolved the problem forming the basis of the complaint and that the District withheld of information from the Parent that was required under the statute. 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.5(j)(1)(i); see also 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 201; 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(D)(1).
Specifically, the parent asserts that the SOL does not bar the complaint because the parent did not have reason to know about the District’s violations and her rights until, at the earliest, November 2014, but more likely, February 2015, when the Student was placed at Private School. Additionally, the parent claims that she did not realize the extent of the District’s violations and misrepresentations until the Student was placed in a residential school that met the Student’s needs. The parent also contends that prior to the Student’s placement at Private School, the District withheld information by incorrectly advising the parent that it did not have the authority to place the plaintiff in an out-of-district, therapeutic, residential school. And that is wasn’t until placement in Private School and the Student’s subsequent progress, that the parent concluded that the Student might have made some progress if he had been given the proper interventions such as those that exist at Private School earlier. As such, the parent submits that the SOL did not begin to run until February 2015 when the Student was placed in the Private School Academy. (See, Somoza v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Educ., 475 F. Supp.2d 373, 386 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).
Additionally, the parent asserts that the District misrepresented essential facts regarding the Student’s academic program and the Student’s progress, such that “matters appeared resolved.” Specifically, the parent asserts that the District adopted an approach that significantly underestimated the Student’s level of needs and informed the parent that this was the best that they could do and that Student was making progress (Tr.1271-1273). (G.L. v. Ligonier Valley Sch. Dist. Auth., 802 F.3d 601, 624 (3d Cir. 2015).
In particular, the parent alleges that the District misrepresented key facts about Student’s level of functioning, which effectively prevented the parent from requesting the impartial hearing sooner. Consequently, the parent claims that the misrepresentations and omissions obscured the parent’s understanding of her son’s needs and of the District’s obligations. The parent contends the misrepresentations included the following: (1) the failure to use the Student’s correct birthdate when conducting his educational testing; (2) the failure to report the seriousness of the Student’s behaviors at school; (3) the misrepresentation that the Student was actually making progress; (4) the misrepresentation of the Student’s language needs; (5) the misrepresentation that BOCES was a “therapeutic environment;” (6) the District’s failure to investigate the parent’s allegation of bullying; and (7) the misrepresentation of the District’s obligation to at least consider residential placements. PSNs:
With regard to PSNs, the parent claims that the District failed to provide the her with the PSNs every year, which deprived her of the required information to understand her rights (20 U.S.C. § 1415(d)(1)(A); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.504(a). The parent asserts that this failure alone is sufficient to allow the tolling of the SOL (See, Jenkins, 984 F. Supp. 2d 1368). The parent also asserts that District staff had told her that she had “no recourse” and that Ms. S., the former CSE chair, told her that there was nothing she could do and that the CSE could do what it wanted. (Tr. 1553). Participation in the CSE Process:
Finally, the parent contends that her participation in the CSE process does not mean that she understood rights. Specifically, the parent notes that given the District’s repeated misrepresentations that the proffered programs were appropriate for the Student, the parent did not become aware of the fact that the programs were inappropriate until she observed her son regressing and failing to make progress. The parent also notes that the District never notified the parent of more intensive placements to help the Student make meaningful educational progress. Discussion:
First, after hearing all the evidence, I do not find that the parent was provided with PSNs for all of the school years at issue. Although the District witnesses testified with the respect to the District’s protocol for mailing the PSNs, no witness actually confirmed that they sent a PSN to this parent. Thus, I cannot sustain the presumption of delivery with respect to any mailing. Additionally, based of the above findings of fact, I agree with the parent the District misrepresented the Student’s level of functioning, his alleged progress, as well as his behaviors in school. Specifically, as referenced above, the evidence shows that the Student made minimal progress during his time in the District (academically and behaviorally), yet the District often reported that the Student was making appropriate progress. Thus, I find that for several years the parent was misled to believe that the Student was appropriately placed. Note, however, I find that the evidence shows that the District’s use of the wrong date birth date for part of the time the Student was enrolled in the District did not significantly impact the Student’s academic and/or social/emotional profile because the difference in the reported functioning levels using either birth date was de minimis (Tr. 403). Further, I note that although Ms. S. claimed that she told that parent that she could request an impartial hearing if she did not like the CSE’s decision during the meeting held in May 2011, I do not credit her testimony on this point, or any other point. Significantly, at the hearing, Ms. S. testified that the parent requested a residential placement because she wanted to get rid of her son. She also portrayed the parent as someone who was not concerned about her son’s well-being [Tr. 331, 336, 387, 392]. I note that no other witness corroborated her assertions regarding the parent. To the contrary, the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that the parent was very involved with her son’s education and the evidence clearly shows that parent was concerned that the District was not offering her son an appropriate program. Additionally, the record must reflect that Ms. S. was very reluctant to answer the questions posed to her by the parent’s counsel at the hearing, and her hostility toward the parent and the hearing progress was more than palpable. Accordingly, I will credit any of her testimony.
However, despite my findings above, I find that the evidence produced at the hearing supports the conclusion that the parent either knew, or should of known, what her due process rights were at the time she engaged the services of Mr. A., the student advocate from and when consulted with Private Attorney, Esq., the special education attorney. As indicated above, Mr. A. attended a CSE meeting on behalf of the parent in May 2011 and advocated for the Student’s placement in residential setting. Although Mr. A. did not expressly state that he advised the parent of her right to request a hearing, the parent testified that he told her that she should obtain legal counsel and, assuming the parent wanted the Student placed at the parent assumed that retaining an attorney was the “next step” (Tr. 18581859). Further, the parent also testified that she asked Mr. A.’s to help her with the process and that he was knowledgeable about the law and that he had educated her about what her son’s rights were (Tr. 1543).
Thereafter, the parent testified that she contacted and that she had a spoke with a special education attorney who had actually participated at other CSE meetings at the District for other Student’s (Tr.1748). Although the parent testified that she did not retain the attorney and that she still did not know what her rights were, I find that these facts support a finding that as of this date, which was the spring of 2012, the parent should have known that she could have pursued a claim against the District. Thus, based on the new evidence presented at the hearing, I now find that the parent’s claim cannot be tolled and that the parent’s claims are time barred because she did not request a hearing within two years from the spring of 2012, when she should have known that she had a right to contest the District’s program recommendations. Accordingly, the parent’s due process complaint with respect to the IDEA claims must be dismissed 504 Claims:
Section 504 has a three (3) SOL. The District contends that parent’s claims under Section 504 are also time barred because any claim under Section 504 must have occurred no earlier than January 9, 2012. (See, e.g., Putowski v. Warwick Valley CSD, 363 F.Supp.2d 649 [SDNY 2005]. The District notes that the only action taken after January 9, 2012 was the February 9, 2012 CSE meeting, which was an annual review to develop a program for the 2012-2013 school year [Exhibit 6]. The District also notes that the record shows that the parent is not seeking relief for the 2012-2013 school year. As such, there is no claim under Section 504 that parent can assert on behalf of the Student against the District. I disagree. Specifically, I find that the District’s inaction from January 2012 through June 2012 denied the Student a FAPE under Section 504 by failing to provide the Student a residential placement.
In order to show a violation of Section 504 in the context of providing an education to a child with disabilities, plaintiffs must show that a school district acted with “bad faith or gross misjudgment.” (Pinn v. Harrison Central School District, 473 F. Supp. 2d 477, 483 (S.D.N.Y. 2007); cf., Maus v. Wappingers Cent. Sch. Dist., 688 F. Supp. 2d 282 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). As indicated above, the District new, as far back at 2004, that the Student required a “small structured setting,” with “intensive one-to-one teaching…” for reading, writing and math (Exhibit E), yet there was no evidence that this level of support was ever provided to the Student (See record generally). The District was also aware that the Student was treated by Dr. a and Ms. M., both of whom strongly opined that the Student required a residential placement, not only to obtain an educational benefit, but in order to keep him safe (Exhibit 33, Exhibit H, Exhibit 9). Additionally, the District was also aware of the parent’s concerns about bullying at BOCES and about his failure to obtain an educational benefit from his placement. Although the record does not conclusively support a finding that the bullying actually occurred, the evidence shows that the District was aware of the allegation and failed to investigate. The District was also aware of the parent’s concerns that the Student was not making progress at BOCES , and there is no objective evidence to support the District’s assertions to the contrary. Finally, it must be noted the despite being on notice of the above concerns, District also failed to observe the Student at the BOCES to confirm whether the placement was meeting the Student’s needs. Accordingly, for these reasons, I find the District’s failure to remove the Student from BOCES between January and June of 2012 was a “gross misjudgment” and resulted in a violation of the Student’s rights under Section 504. Compensatory education:
Compensatory education is an equitable remedy for the failure of a school district to provide that which it was obligated to provide, but failed to provide. Doe v. East Lyme Bd. of Educ. 790 F. 3d 440 (2d Cir. 2015). I find that based on the above, the evidence clearly shows that the District failed to meet to Student’s academic and social/emotional needs and that the Student actually regressed in the placements recommended by the District. I also find that the Private School Academy is an appropriate placement for the Student. Thus, I concluded that the appropriate remedy for the District’s violations of the Student’s rights under Section 504 is funding for an additional year at the Private School Academy.
ORDERED
The parent’s IDEA claims referenced in the Due Process Complaint are time-barred as per the Statute of Limitations and are hereby dismissed, with prejudice.
ORDERED
The District shall fund the Student’s placement at the for one additional year as remedy for violating the Student’s rights under Section 504. Dated: New York, New York
January 27, 2016
James McKeever, Esq.
James McKeever
Impartial Hearing Officer
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
Within 35 days of the receipt of this decision, the parent and/or Board of Education has a right to appeal the decision to the State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The notice of intention to see review shall be served upon the school district not less than 10 days before service of a copy of the petitioner for review upon such school district, and within 25 days from the date from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. The petition for review shall be served upon the school district within 35 days from the dated of the decision sought to be review. If the decision has been served by mail upon petitioner, the date of mailing and the four days subsequent thereto shall be excluded in computing the 25- or 35-day period. (8NYCRR279.2[b]). Failure to file the notice of intention to seek review is a waiver of the rights to appeal this decision.
Directions and sample forms can be found in the Office of State Review website: www.sro.nysed.gov/appeals.htm
Parent Exhibits: A 9.1.03 School Medical Record (2 pages). B 2.4.08 Psychological Re-evaluation (4 pages). C 5.18.03 Summary of Bilingual Psychological and Developmental Evaluation and Consultation (7 pages). D 8.14.03 Letter from Dr. to Parent (1 page). E 1.31.05 Grade 2 Report Card (1 page). F undated Teacher Progress Note, 2004-2005 school year (1 page). G 4.15.11 Anonymous Letter to Parent (1 page). H 6.30.11 Assessment (2 pages). I 8.7.11 Psychosocial History/Assessment (6 pages). J 8.14.11 Letter from M., LCSW, ACSW (2 pages). K 5.9.12 Email from (2 pages). L 5.24.12 Email from parent to M.R. (4 pages). M 6.13.12 Email from Y(2 pages). N 6.14.12 Email from M.R. (4 pages). O 9.12.12 NYS Testing Program Report for ELA (2 pages). P 3.3.14 Psychosocial History/Assessment (8 pages). Q 7.31.14 Letter from, MD (1 page). R 11.3.14 Risk Management Plan (4 pages). S 2.9.15 “Investigators Exclusive: Principal Recorded
Cursing at, Threatening Students,” WABC Eyewitness
News (5 pages). T 2.10.15 “ County principal berated and bullied special ed students, suit alleges,” NY Daily News (5 pages). U 2.25.15 “BOCES names principal’s replacement amid abuse suit,”
The Journal News/lohud.com (2 pages). V 5.25.15 “Former principal of BOCES School faces new lawsuit claiming verbal and physical abuse”,
County Times/rocklandtimes.com (1 page). W 11.17.14 Letter to Honorable (4 pages). X 11.14.14 Letter to Esq. (3 pages). Y 6.22.15 First Quarter Report, Private School Academy (14 pages). Z 2.9.15 Video recording at http://7online.com/education/exclusive- rockland-principal-recorded-cursing-at-threatening- students/510037/ AA Undated J M. CV (1 page). BB Undated Memorandum from R.A. (2 pages). CC Undated Brochure for the (17 pages). DD Undated Additional Information regarding the 12 pages). EE 9.1.15 Email from R.A. (3 pages). FF 11.20.08 Document dated 11.20.08, 9.23.09, and 8.11.10 (3 pages).
DISTRICT’S EXHIBIT’S
| 1 | Special Education Form M. to A. 9/7/12, 1 p; |
| 2 | Letter from I. dated 9/2012, 1 p.; |
| 3 | CSE Prior Written Notice, dated 7/2/12, 2 pp.; |
| 4 | Progress Report, dated 6/19/12, 8 pp.; |
| 5 | CSE Prior Written Notice, dated 2/24/12, 2 pp.; |
| 6 | IEP, dated 2/9/12, 17 pp.; |
| 7 | Justification for Alternate Assessment, dated 2/8/12, 2 pp.; |
| 8 | Pre-Review Summary Sheet, dated 1/30/12, 1 p. |
| 9 | Psychosocial History Assessment, dated 1/26/12, 7 pp.; |
| 10 | CSE Mtg Notice, dated 1/23/12, 3 pp.; |
| 11 | Summary, dated 1/16/12, 4 pp.; |
| 12 | Vocational Assessment Report, dated 1/16/12, 5 pp.; |
| 13 | Regression Statement, dated 1/13/12, 2 pp.; |
| 14 | Parent Report, English, Grade 8, Spring 2012, pp.; |
| 15 | Parent Report, Science, Grade 8, Spring 2012, pp.; |
| 16 | Parent Report, Spring 2012, 2 pp.; |
| 17 | NYS Math Test 2012, Grade 8, 3 pp.; |
| 18 | NYS Intermediate Level Science Test, 2012, Grade 8, 2 pp.; |
| 19 | Progress Report 2011-20102, 4th Marking Period, 5 pp.; |
| 20 | Session Notes, dated from 9/20/10 to 10/26/10, 11 pp.; |
| 21 | Educational Summary, dated 10/4/11, 4 pp.; |
| 22 | Letter from , dated 6/21/11, 1 p.; |
| 23 | CSE Continuation of Services, dated 6/17/11, 1 p.; |
| 24 | IEP,dated 5/24/11, 15 pp.; |
| 25 | Letter from , dated 5/23/11, 2 pp.; |
| 26 | Letter from Parent, dated 5/11/11, 1 p.; |
| 27 | Dismissal Request For Aide, dated 5/2/11, 2 pp.; |
| 28 | Vocational Assessment, Level 1, dated 4/19/11, 5 pp.; |
| 29 | Social History Updated, dated 3/7/11, 3 pp.; |
| 30 | Psycho-Ed. Re-Evaluation 3/7, 3/8, 3/15 & 3/22/11, 8 pp.; |
| 31 | Summary dated 1/5/11, 5 pp.; |
| 32 | Summary, Triennial, dated 1.5.11, 4 pp.; |
| 33 | Summary, 2011 Annual Review Packet, 2 pp.; |
| 34 | Parent Report, 2011-2012, Grade 8, 2 pp.; |
| 35 | K-8, 2011-2012, Grade 8, Marking Period 4, 3 pp.; |
| 36 | NYS English Arts Test 2011, Grade 7, 3 pp.; |
| 37 | NYS Math Test 2011, Grade 7, 2 pp.; |
| 38 | Classroom Observation Evaluation, dated 12/6/10, 2 pp.; |
| 39 | Evaluation Notice and Consent, dated 10/18/10, 1 p.; |
| 40 | Educational Summary, dated 10/7/10, 4 pp.; |
| 41 | Progress Report - 2010-2011, dated 8/15/10, 5 pp.; |
| 42 | Letter from C. to Mr Mrs Parent, dated 8/10/10, 1 p.; |
| 43 | Progress Summary, 8/2010, 1 p.; |
| 44 | Summer School, 8/2010, Grade 7, 2 pp.; |
| 45 | CSE Continuation of Services, dated 6/29/10, 1 p.; |
| 46 | IEP, dated 5/3/10, 2010-2011, 10 pp.; |
| 47 | FBA - Behavioral Support Plan Worksheet, dated 4/30/10, 5 pp.; |
| 48 | Vocational Assessment Report, Level 1, dated 4/19/10, 5 pp.; |
| 49 | CSE Annual Review Meeting, dated 4/15/10, 1 p.; |
| 50 | Related Services from 4/1/10 to 4/30/10, 2 pp.; |
| 51 | Related Services Annual Review Summary, dated 3/10/10, 4 pp.; |
| 52 | Related Services from 2/1/10 to 2/26/10, 1 p.; |
| 53 | K-8, 2010-2011, Grade 7, Marking Period 4, 1 p.; |
| 54 | Related Services from 12/1/09 to 12/31/09, 2 pp.; |
| 55 | CSE Continuation of Services, dated 11/30/09, 1 p.; |
| 56 | IEP, dated 11/23/09, 11 pp.; |
| 57 | Letter waiving five day written notice, dated 11.23.09, 1 p.; |
| 58 | Academic and Counseling Report, dated 11/19/09, Grade 6, 5 pp.; |
| 59 | CSE Notice of Subcommittee, dated 11/18/09, 1 p.; |
| 60 | CSE Meeting, dated 11/18/09, 1 p.; |
| 61 | Related Services from 11/1/09 to 4/13/09, 1 p.; |
| 62 | Prescriptions, dated 10/15/09 & 9/19/02, 2 pp.; |
| 63 | Medication Log from 10/7/09 to 6/2010, 1 p.; |
| 64 | FBA and Behavioral Support Plan Worksheet, dated 10/3/09, 6 pp.; |
| 65 | Related Services from 10/1/09 to 4/13/09 1 p.; |
| 66 | Letter from K. Principal to Mr Mrs Parent, dated 9/23/09, 1 p.; |
| 67 | Related Services from 9/1 to 4/13/09, 1 p.; |
| 68 | Progress Report 2009-2010, dated 8/12/09, 1st Marking Period, 4 pp.; |
| 69 | Progress Report 2009-2010, 3rd Marking Period, 4 pp.; |
| 70 | CSE Continuation of Services, dated 6/22/09, 1 p.; |
| 71 | CSE Continuation of Services, dated 6/10/09, 1 p.; |
| 72 | IEP, dated 5/18/09, 9 pp.; |
| 73 | CSE Annual Review Meeting, dated 5/5/09, 1 p.; |
| 74 | IEP, dated 4/30/09, 9 pp.; |
| 75 | dated 4.22-5-6Grade 5, 19 pp. |
| 76 | CSE Annual Review Meeting., dated 4/9/09, 1 p.; |
| 77 | Evaluation, dated 3/25/09, 5 pp.; |
| 78 | Vocational Assessment, Level 1, dated 3/5/09, 6 pp. |
| 79 | Amended Formal Committee Meeting., dated 1/26/09, 1 p.; |
| 80 | CSE Amend IEP without Formal Meeting, dated 1/26/09, 1 p.; |
| 81 | IEP, dated 1/26/09, 7 pp.; |
| 82 | CSE Request to Amend IEP dated, 1/23/09 1 p.; |
| 83 | Support Program, 90 Day Review, dated 1/8/09, Grade 6, 4 pp.; |
| 84 | Grading Key, 2009-2010, Grade 6, 2 pp.; |
| 85 | and Academic Report, 2009-2010, Grade 6, 5 pp.; |
| 86 | NYS English Arts Test 2009, Grade 6, 2 pp.; |
| 87 | NYS English Test, Grades 5 & 6, Spring 2009, 1 p.; |
| 88 | NYS Math Test, Grade 5, 2009, 2 pp.; |
| 89 | Transportation Request Form, 2009-2010, 1 p.; |
| 90 | NYS English Test, Spring 2009, 2 pp.; |
| 91 | Letter from K. Principal to Mr Mrs Parent, dated 11/19/08, 1 p.; |
| 92 | FBA and Behavioral Support Plan Worksheet, dated 9/16/08, 5 pp.; |
| 93 | Dental Form, dated 7/15/08, 1 pp.; |
| 94 | CSE Continuation of Services, dated 6/25/08, 1 p.; |
| 95 | Physical Examination Clarkstown Pediatric, dated 6/19/08, 3 pp.; |
| 96 | CSE Declination of Parent Member, dated 6/17/08, 1 p.; |
| 97 | IEP, dated 6/17/08, 7 pp.; |
| 98 | Letter from M. S. to, dated 6/11/08, 1 p.; |
| 99 | Suspension Letter, dated 6/11/08, 1 p.; |
| 100 | Intake Sheet, dated 6/11/08, 1 p.; |
| 101 | Referral Out of District Placement, dated 6/10/08, 1 p.; |
| 102 | Classified Special Education Referral Form, dated 6/10/08, 1 p.; |
| 103 | Student Report Card, dated 6/9/08, Grade 5, 1 p.; |
| 104 | CSE Annual Review Meeting, dated 6/6/08, 1 p.; |
| 105 | Speech and Language Screening Report, dated 6/5/08, 2 pp.; |
| 106 | Behavioral Intervention Plan, dated 5/22/08, 1 p.; |
| 107 | Teacher Report, dated 5/5/08, Grade 5, 2 pp.; |
| 108 | CSE Continuation of Services, dated 4/28/08, 1 p.; |
| 109 | IEP, dated 3/10/08, 9 pp.; |
| 110 | CSE Annual Review Meeting, dated 2/28/08, 2 pp.; |
| 111 | Counseling Report Summary, dated 2/27/08, Grade 5, 1 p.; |
| 112 | WIA Individual Performance dated 2/14/08, Grade 5, 1 p.; |
| 113 | Student Report Card, dated 2/25/08, Grade 5 1 p.; |
| 114 | Educational Re-evaluation, dated 2/8/08, Grade 5, 3 pp.; |
| 115 | Tables and Graphs Report -WISC-IV, 2/4/08, Grade 5, 7 pp.; |
| 116 | Social History Update, dated 1/31/08, 4 pp.; |
| 117 | Social History Information, dated 1/23/08, 1 p.; |
| 118 | Classroom Observation, dated 1/17/08, 2 pp.; |
| 119 | CSE Consent for Reevaluation, dated 1/2/08, 1 p.; |
| 120 | Social History Information, dated 1/2/08, 1 p.; |
| 121 | Academic and Development Grading Key, 2008-2009, 2 pp.; |
| 122 | Progress Report 2008-2009, 4th Marking Period, 4 pp.; |
| 123 | Progress Report 2008-2009, 3rd Marking Period, 3 pp.; |
| 124 | Progress Report, 2008-2009, 2nd Marking Period, 3 pp.; |
| 125 | Re-evaluation, dated 12/20/07, 1 p.; |
| 126 | CSE Continuation of Services, dated 4/18/07, 1 p.; |
| 127 | CSE Declination of Parent Member, dated 3/26/07, 1 p.; |
| 128 | IEP, dated 3/26/07, 9 pp.; |
| 129 | CSE Annual Review Meeting, dated 3/9/07, 1 p.; |
| 130 | Progress Report, 2007-2008, 4th Marking Period, 4 pp.; |
| 131 | Progress Report 2007-2008, 2nd Marking Period, 5 pp.; |
| 132 | CSE Continuation of Services, dated 5/17/06, 1 p.; |
| 133 | Social History Update, dated 4/28/06, 3 pp.; |
| 134 | Social History Information, dated 4/17/06, 1 p.; |
| 135 | IEP, dated 4/6/06, 8 pp.; |
| 136 | Counseling Report, dated 4/2/06, 2005-2006, 1 p.; |
| 137 | CSE Annual Review Meeting, dated 3/20/06, 2 pp.; |
| 138 | Social History Information, dated 2/23/06, 1 p.; |
| 139 | Progress Report 2006-2007, 2nd Marking Period, 3 pp.; |
| 140 | Progress Report 2006-2007, 3rd Marking Period, 4 pp.; |
| 141 | Student Report Card, 2006-2007, Grade 4, 1 p.; |
| 142 | CSE Continuation of Services, dated 4/27/05, 1 p.; |
| 143 | IEP, dated 4/5/05, 7 pp.; |
| 144 | Progress Report dated 4/5/06, 2005-2006, 4 pp.; |
| 145 | Narrative Summary, dated 3/31/05, Grade 2, 3 pp.; |
| 146 | WIA-II Achievement Sub-Test Scores, dated 3/22/05, 2 pp.; |
| 147 | CSE Annual Review Meeting, dated 3/13/05, 1 p.; |
| 148 | Progress Annual Review, dated 3/10/05, 2 pp.; |
| 149 | Progress Report, dated 3/2/05, Grade 2, 3 pp.; |
| 150 | CSE Continuation of Services, dated 12/21/04, 1 p.; |
| 151 | CSE Attendance Sheet 12/16/04, 1 p.; |
| 152 | CSE Consent, dated 12/16/04, 1 p.; |
| 153 | CSE Meeting, dated 12/1/04, 2 pp.; |
| 154 | Teacher Report, dated 11/19/04, Grade 2, 2 pp.; |
| 155 | Reading Specialist Assessment, dated 11/8/04, 2 pp.; |
| 156 | Initial Evaluation, dated 11/3/04, Grade 2, 4pp.; |
| 157 | Letter from Dr. dated 10/29/04, 3 pp.; |
| 158 | Psychological Evaluation, dated 10/04 5 pp.; |
| 159 | Educational Evaluation, dated 10/13/04, Grade 2, 7 pp.; |
| 160 | Consent Form, dated 10/12/04, 2 pp.; |
| 161 | Referral Form, dated 10/8/04, 2 pp.; |
| 162 | Letter. W. -dated 4/26/04, 1 p.; |
| 163 | Letter from Dr. dated 3/4/04, 1 p.; |
| 164 | IEP, dated 1/16/04, 2004-2005, 6 pp.; |
| 165 | Student Report Card, 2004-2005, Grade 2, 1 p.; |
| 166 | Progress Report, 2004-2005, 4th Marking Period, 4 pp.; |
| 167 | dated 5/9/03, 1 p.; |
| 168 | Screening Form, dated 5/9/03, 1 p.; |
| 169 | NYS English Test, Grade 8, 3 pp.; |
| 170 | Parent Report, Grade 8, 1 p.; |
| 171 | NY State-English and Second Language Test, Grades 7 & 8, |
| 3 | pp.; |
| 172 | Middle School Permanent Record Card, Grades 5,6,7,& 8, 1 p.; |
| 173 | State Test Scores, Grade 5, 1 p.; |
| 174 | Permanent Record Card, K-5, 2 pp.; |
| 175 | Permanent Record Card, K-4, 2 pp.; |
| 176 | Authorization for Administration of Medication in School, 2 pp.; |
| 177 | Central Registration Form, 1 p.; |
| 178 | CSE Consent for Reevaluation, no date, 1 p.; |
| 179 | Evaluation, 6 pp.; |
| 180 | Extended School Yr. Eligibility Review Form, 2 pp.; |
| 181 | Immunization and Vaccination Records from Dr. 2 pp.; |
| 182 | Immunizations and Tests, from , 1 p.; |
| 183 | IEP Amendment Agreement and Consent Form, 1 p.; |
| 184 | Ltr from M. to Parents and Guardians, 1 p.; |
| 185 | Ltr from R. to Parents and Families, 1 p.; |
| 186 | Medical Records, 2 pp.; |
| 187 | Physical Examination by Dr. Quinn, 3 pp.; |
| 188 | Attendance Logs, 42 pp.; |
| 189 | Part B Procedural Safeguard Notice, 46 pp.; |
| 190 | Special Education, A Parents Guide, 50 pp.; |
| 191 | Tables and Graphs Report for WISC-IV, 6 pp.; |
| 192 | Placement Agreement, 11 pp.; |
| 193 | Letters A4/29/15 seeking residential placement, 12 pp.; |
| 194 | Release Central School District for Confidential Information, dated 4/17/15, 1 p.; |
| 195 | Letter fA. to N. Parent re 30 Day Assessment and Private School Academy Individual Education Plan, dated 4/14/15, 2 pp.; |
| 196 | Letter Parent to A. 3/30/15 with 30 Day Assessment and Individual Education Plan, 21 pp.; |
| 197 | 30 Day Review Meeting, dated 3/25/15, 2 pp.; |
| 198 | Letter K. 3/25/15 with Residential Placement System Notification of Acceptance/Rejection/Termination, 2 pp.; |
| 199 | Classroom Observation, dated 3/13/15, 1 p.; |
| 200 | Request Commissioner's Approval Students with Disabilities, dated 2/10/15, 2 pp.; |
| 201 | CSE Review, dated 2/5/15, 2 pp. |
| 202 | Private Placement Certification, dated 1/8/15, 5 pp.; |
| 203 | IEP, dated 1/8/15, 13 pp. |
| 204 | Evaluation for Speech and Language Services, dated 12/24/14, 5 pp. ; |
| 205 | CSE Meeting Notice, dated 12/23/14, 2 pp.; |
| 206 | Student Change of Status Form, dated 12/19/14, 1 p. |
| 207 | Letter from A. to A., dated 12/18/14, 2 pp.; |
| 208 | CSE Invitation for Resolution Session, dated 12/16/14, 2 pp.; |
| 209 | Progress Report 10/4/14 to 12/12/14, 2 pp.; |
| 210 | Release Form of Confidential Information, dated 11/17/14, 1 p.; |
| 211 | Consent for Audio Recording, dated 11/5/14, 1 p.; |
| 212 | CSE Prior Written Notice, dated 11/5/14, 2 pp.; |
| 213 | CSE Meeting Notes, dated 11/5/14, 4 pp.; |
| 214 | Risk Management Plan, dated 11/3/14, 4 pp.; |
| 215 | Request/Authorization-Release-dated 10/27/14, 2 pp.; |
| 216 | CSE Meeting Notice, dated 10/24/14, 8 pp.; |
| 217 | CSE Review, dated 10/7/14, 2pp.; |
| 218 | Referral, dated 9/5/14, 1 p.; |
| 219 | IEP, dated 9/5/14, 13 pp.; |
| 220 | CSE Meeting Notice, dated 9/3/14, 4 pp.; |
| 221 | CSE Review, dated 7/1/14, 2 pp.; |
| 222 | Letter from A., dated 6/30/14, 1 p.; |
| 223 | Memo A. to A. dated 6/20/14 BOCES, 9 pp.; |
| 224 | Authorization Form, dated 5/20/14, 1 p.; |
| 225 | IEP, dated, 5/20/14, 12 pp.; |
| 226 | Affidavit Physician-Licensed Psychologist, dated 4/30/14, 4 pp.; |
| 227 | Letter C. M-Parent-A. -e-mail 4/6/14, 2 pp.; |
| 228 | Psychoeducational Reevaluation Report, dated 3/27/14, 8 pp.; |
| 229 | Psychosocial History Assessment, dated 3/3/14, 8 pp.; |
| 230 | BIP- letter from D., dated 11/7/13, 2 pp.; |
| 231 | Functional Behavioral Assessment, dated 11/7/13, 2 pp.; |
| 232 | Consent for Reevalutation , dated 7/22/13, 1 p.; |
| 233 | CSE Review, dated 4/23/13, 2 pp.; |
| 234 | CSE Prior Written Notice, dated 2/13/13, 4 pp.; |
| 235 | IEP, dated 2/13/13, 12 pp.; |
| 236 | Student Discipline Referrals, 2013-2014 & 2012-2013, 12 pp.; |
| 237 | Transportation Request Form, 2012-2013, 1 p. |
| 238 | Consent-Release Confidential Info., 11/20/12, with T.E.E.N. Works Application, 11 pp.; |
| 239 | CSE Review, dated 10/25/12, 2 pp.; |
| 240 | Student Change of Status Form, dated 9/6/12, 1 p. |
| 241 | CSE Prior Written Notice, dated 9/5/12, 4 pp.; |
| 242 | IEP, dated 9/5/12, 16 pp.; |
| 243 | CSE Prior Written Notice, dated 9/5/12, 4 pp.; |
| 244 | CSE Meeting Notice, dated 8/29/12, 2 pp.; |
| 245 | Consent for Reevaluation, dated 8/28/12, 1 p.; |
| 246 | Registration Form, dated 8/28/12, 3 pp.; |
| 247 | Consent to Release Confidential Information, dated 8/24/12, 1 p.; |
| 248 | Psychiatric Assessment, dated 6/2011, 2 pp.; |
| 249 | Discharge Summary and Service Plan, dated 5/7/09, 9 pp.; |
| 250 | Authorization for Mental Health, 2 pp.; |
| 251 | Grade Report, Grade 12, 1 p.; |
| 252 | Tech High School, Report Card, 11 Grade, 1st Semester,1 p.; |
| 253 | Progress Report 2010-2011, 4th Marking Period, 6 pp.; |
| 254 | Letter dated 6/22/15, with Stipulations of Settlement 14 pp.; |
Footnotes
[1] The birth date on the evaluation is 4/13/97. However, there was a “?’ next to the date.
[3] The IEP indicates a birthdate of April 13, 1995.