They object to home tutoring as the pendency placement. Petitioners also argue in this appeal that respondent board of education violated their daughter's rights under IDEA by failing to conduct timely evaluations and make a timely recommendation for her classification and placement. Petitioners are correct. In this case, the student was referred for evaluation and placement when she was enrolled in respondent's school district in September 1992. By the end of the 1992-93 school year, the CSE had still not made any recommendation.
Petitioners are correct.
There is no evidence in this record that petitioners were provided notice of the suspension nor were they given an opportunity for a hearing. I find, therefore, that respondents violated this student's right to due process pursuant to Education Law ' 3214. Consequently, all reference to the suspensions must be expunged from her records. In addition, respondents are directed to comply with the requirements of Education Law ' 3214. That argument is spurious at best.