Source: https://www.sro.nysed.gov/decision/2013/13-036
Timestamp: 2019-10-19 04:09:40
Document Index: 563560126

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1400', '§ 1415', '§ 1414', '§ 1414', '§ 1414', '§ 1415']

Law Offices of Lauren A. Baum, PC, attorneys for respondents, Scott M. Cohen, Esq., of counsel
This proceeding arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law. Petitioner (the district) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which found that it failed to offer an appropriate educational program to respondents' (the parents') son and ordered it to reimburse the parents for their son's tuition costs at the Aaron School for the 2011-12 school year. The parents' cross-appeal from the IHO's finding that the student would have been appropriately grouped at the assigned public school site. The appeal must be sustained. The cross-appeal must be dismissed.
The parties' familiarity with the detailed facts and procedural history of the case and the IHO's decision is presumed and will not be recited here in great detail.[1] Briefly, the student has received a diagnosis of an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (Parent Ex. W at p. 7). With respect to the student's educational history, the student has attended the Aaron School since the 2009-10 school year (see Parent Ex. N at p. 1).[2]
The CSE convened on June 1, 2011, to formulate the student's IEP for the 2011-12 school year (Parent Ex. W). Finding that the student remained eligible for special education and related services as a student with a speech or language impairment, the June 2011 CSE recommended a 12:1+1 special class placement at a community school with related services consisting of two 45-minute sessions per week of individual occupational therapy (OT), one 45-minute session per week of speech-language therapy in a group (5:1), one 45-minute session per week of individual speech-language therapy, and counseling (id. at pp. 1, 18).[3]
By final notice of recommendation (FNR) dated July 14, 2011, the district summarized the special education and related services recommended in the June 2011 IEP, and identified the particular public school site to which the district assigned the student to attend for the 2011-12 school year (Dist. Ex. 7). After visiting the assigned public school site to which the district assigned the student to attend for the 2011-12 school year, the parents had concerns and, as a result, notified the district of their intent to unilaterally place the student at the Aaron School (Parent Ex. E at pp. 1-2).[4] In a due process complaint notice, dated July 31, 2012, the parents alleged that the district failed to offer the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2011-12 school year, challenging the adequacy of the June 2011 IEP and the assigned public school site (see Parent Ex. A).
On September 20, 2012, the IHO conducted a prehearing conference, and on October 9, 2012, the parties proceeded to an impartial hearing, which concluded on December 13, 2012 after four days of proceedings (Tr. pp. 1-320). In a decision dated January 30, 2013, the IHO determined that the district failed to offer the student a FAPE for the 2011-12 school year, the Aaron school was an appropriate unilateral placement, and that equitable considerations weighed in favor of the parents' requested relief (IHO Decision at pp. 5-12). More specifically, the IHO found that the district did not offer the student a FAPE because it would not be able to implement the June 2011 IEP at the assigned public school site based on testimony from the assigned school teacher during the impartial hearing (id. at pp. 6-8). However, the IHO also found that present levels of performance and annual goals in the June 2011 IEP were appropriate and that the student would have been placed with "similarly functioning peers" at the assigned public school site (id. at p. 8).[5] As relief, the IHO ordered the district to reimburse the parents for the cost of the student's tuition at the Aaron School for the 2011-12 school year (id. at p. 12).
The parties' familiarity with the particular issues for review on appeal in the district's petition and the parents' answer thereto is also presumed and will not be recited here. The following issues presented on appeal must be resolved in order to render a decision in this case: (1) whether the June 2011 CSE impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in the development of the June 2011 IEP; (2) whether the CSE had sufficient evaluative information in order to develop the student's IEP; (3) whether the IHO erred in determining that the district failed to offer the student a FAPE based on evidence regarding the assigned public school site.
Although the IHO failed to specifically address the issue of parental participation, it is raised in both the parents' due process complaint notice and petition and, as such, will be discussed herein. The parents allege that the district drafted an IEP prior to the CSE meeting and made "notes" on the draft IEP during the CSE meeting from the input and insight of the student's teachers and parents, but failed to modify the IEP with any of this information, impeding their opportunity to participate in the development of the student's June 2011 IEP.
The IDEA sets forth procedural safeguards that include providing parents an opportunity "to participate in meetings with respect to the identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child" (20 U.S.C. § 1415[b][1]). Federal and State regulations governing parental participation require that school districts take steps to ensure that parents are present at their child's IEP meetings or are afforded the opportunity to participate (34 CFR 300.322; 8 NYCRR 200.5[d]). In addition, districts are permitted to develop draft IEPs prior to a CSE meeting (Dirocco v. Bd. of Educ., 2013 WL 25959, at *18 [S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2013]). Districts may also "'prepare reports and come with pre[-]formed opinions regarding the best course of action for the [student] as long as they are willing to listen to the parents and parents have the opportunity to make objections and suggestions'" (Dirocco, 2013 WL 25959, at *18).
In the instant case, the district school psychologist, who attended the June 2011 CSE meeting, testified that a draft IEP was prepared prior to the June 2011 CSE meeting using the evaluative information provided by the parents and the student's teachers (see Tr. pp. 128, 134, 168). The district school psychologist further testified that the draft IEP was read verbatim to the parents and to the student's Aaron school teacher during the CSE meeting and there was no disagreement by the parents or the Aaron school teacher to his knowledge (see Tr. pp. 211-12). Additionally, the district school psychologist testified that "very little" changed from the draft IEP, however, certain handwritten notes were made to portions of the draft IEP, such as "needs extra break time," "frequent breaks," "clear expectations," "repetition and rephrasing of directions," and "questions read aloud" (Tr. pp. 208-10; Dist Ex. 8 at pp. 4, 6, 12, 18). The district school psychologist also acknowledged that the handwritten notes were not on the IEP provided to the parents (Tr. p. 209). However, I note that the parents do not dispute the substantive adequacy of the IEP they received. Instead, the parents argue that their participation was impeded because they did not receive the June 2011 IEP with the handwritten notes. First, the district was not obligated to include on the finalized IEP the handwritten notations as these were merely a recordation of the suggestions provided by the parents and the Aaron school teacher. Next, an independent review of the hearing record reveals that the handwritten notes were not substantive or material modifications to the student's needs, but rather explanations of certain of the student's management needs already addressed in the IEP specifying particular strategies to be used for the student (compare Dist. Ex. 8 at pp. 4, 6, 12, 18, with Parent Ex. W at pp. 4, 6, 12, 18). Next, the hearing record reflects meaningful and active parental participation in the development of the student's June 2011 IEP. With respect to the June 2011 CSE meeting, the parents attended the CSE meeting in person and the student's special education teacher from the Aaron school participated via telephone (Parent Ex. W at p. 2). Most notably, during the impartial hearing, when asked by counsel for the district whether the parents had an "opportunity to weigh in on the discussion about what [the student] was like and how he was progressing or not progressing in different areas," the student's father responded "where we felt that we could shed some light on [the student], the person, the student, we did" (Tr. p. 310). Moreover, contemporaneous meeting minutes reveal substantial input by the parent and the student's teacher at the Aaron School (Dist. Ex. 4). Accordingly, the record demonstrates that the parents and the student's special education teacher at the Aaron School had an opportunity to participate in the creation of the student's June 2011 IEP and that the student was not denied a FAPE in that regard.
The parents also argue on appeal that the June 2011 CSE did not review or discuss the student's most recent evaluation. A review of the hearing record reveals that the CSE had sufficient evaluative information to develop the student's June 2011 IEP.
A district must conduct an evaluation of a student where the educational or related services needs of a student warrant a reevaluation or if the student's parent or teacher requests a reevaluation (34 CFR 300.303[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[b][4]); however, a district need not conduct a reevaluation more frequently than once per year unless the parent and the district otherwise agree and at least once every three years unless the district and the parent agree in writing that such a reevaluation is unnecessary (8 NYCRR 200.4[b][4]; see 34 CFR 300.303[b][1]-[2]). A CSE may direct that additional evaluations or assessments be conducted in order to appropriately assess the student in all areas related to the suspected disabilities (8 NYCRR 200.4[b][3]). Any evaluation of a student with a disability must use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information about the student, including information provided by the parent, that may assist in determining, among other things the content of the student's IEP (20 U.S.C. § 1414[b][2][A]; 34 CFR 300.304[b][1][ii]; see Letter to Clarke, 48 IDELR 77 [OSEP 2007]). In particular, a district must rely on technically sound instruments that may assess the relative contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors, in addition to physical or developmental factors (20 U.S.C. § 1414[b][2][C]; 34 CFR 300.304[b][3]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[b][6][x]). A district must ensure that a student is appropriately assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, where appropriate, social and emotional status (20 U.S.C. § 1414[b][3][B]; 34 CFR 300.304[c][4]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[b][6][vii]). An evaluation of a student must be sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the student's special education and related services needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in which the student has been classified (34 CFR 300.304[c][6]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[b][6][ix]).
In the instant case, a review of the hearing record indicates that the June 2011 CSE had before it a sufficient amount of current evaluative information regarding the student's functional, developmental, and academic needs in order to develop the June 2011 IEP. The record reveals that in developing the IEP, the CSE relied on a December 2010 Classroom Observation report conducted by the district social worker who participated in the June 2011 CSE meeting (district social worker), a February 2011 progress report from the Aaron School, an October 2010 Aaron School speech-language report, and an October 2010 Aaron School OT report (Tr. p. 136; Dist. Exs. 2; 5; 6; 12). Cumulatively these documents contained information regarding the student's deficits in the areas of sensory regulation, fine motor skills, self-regulation, executive functioning, and social/emotional flexibility which are reflected in the June 2011 IEP (Dist. Exs. 2; 5; 6; 12). In addition, although the student's father testified that a private psychoeducational evaluation was conducted within the last two to three years of the June 2011 CSE meeting (Tr. pp. 288-89), despite the lack of evidence of a psychoeducational evaluation report in the hearing record, the June 2011 CSE had sufficient evaluative information from which to determine the student's present levels of performance, create measurable annual goals to assess the student's progress, and recommend a program that sufficiently met the student's described needs and was reasonably calculated to help him make appropriate educational gains. In particular, I note that a district required may rely on information obtained from the student's private school personnel, including sufficiently comprehensive progress reports, in formulating the IEP (see D.B. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 966 F. Supp. 2d 315, 329-31 [S.D.N.Y. 2013]; G.W. v. Rye City Sch. Dist., 2013 WL 1286154 at *23 [S.D.N.Y. March 29, 2013]; S.F. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2011 WL 5419847, at *10 [S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2011]). Furthermore, while the failure to consider the results of the student's most recent psychoeducational evaluation would constitute a procedural violation (34 CFR 300.324[a][1][iii]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2]), even assuming such a violation the parents assert no resultant deficiency in the June 2011 IEP such that the procedural violation rose to the level of a denial of a FAPE (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 CFR 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]).
B. Assigned Public School Site
On appeal, the district argues that the IHO erred in finding that it failed to offer the student a FAPE based on testimony from the assigned school public teacher during the impartial hearing. The district further argues that the parents' contentions regarding the assigned public school site are speculative because the student never attended the school.
With respect to the parents' claims relating to the assigned public school site, similar to the reasons set forth in other decisions issued by the Office of State Review (e.g., Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 14-025; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 12-090; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 13-237), the parents' assertions are without merit. More specifically, the parents' claims regarding the assigned public school site turn on how the June 2011 IEP would or would not have been implemented and, as it is undisputed that the student did not attend the assigned public school, the parents cannot prevail on such speculative claims (R.E., 694 F.3d at 186-88; see F.L. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 553 Fed. App'x 2, 9 [2d Cir. 2014] [citing R.E. and explaining that "[s]peculation that [a] school district will not adequately adhere to [an] IEP is not an appropriate basis for unilateral placement" and that the "appropriate forum for such a claim is 'a later proceeding' to show that the child was denied a [FAPE] 'because necessary services included in the IEP were not provided in practice"]; K.L. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 530 Fed. App'x 81, 87 [2d Cir. 2013]; P.K. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 526 Fed. App'x 135, 141 [2d Cir. 2013]; see also C.F. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 746 F.3d 68, 79 [2d Cir. Mar. 4, 2014]; C.L.K. v. Arlington Sch. Dist., 2013 WL 6818376, at *13 [S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2013]; R.C. v. Byram Hills Sch. Dist., 906 F. Supp. 2d 256, 273 [S.D.N.Y. 2012]). I find that the IHO erroneously relied upon evidence of the assigned public school site based on retrospective testimony given by a teacher from the assigned public school in order to determine whether the district offered the student a FAPE. As reliance on this testimony is impermissibly retrospective in view of the Second Circuit's adoption of the prospective IEP analysis principle in R.E., the IHO's finding on this matter must be reversed.
In summary, having determined the IHO erred in concluding that the district failed to offer the student a FAPE by erroneously relying on retrospective testimony, the necessary inquiry is at an end and there is no need to reach the issues of whether the student's unilateral placement at the Aaron School was an appropriate placement or whether equitable considerations supported the parent's requested relief (see Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370; M.C. v. Voluntown Bd. of Educ., 226 F.3d 60, 66 [2d Cir. 2000]).
I have considered the remaining contentions and find it is unnecessary to address them in light of my determinations herein.
IT IS ORDERED that the IHO's decision dated January 30, 2013 is modified, by reversing those portions which found that the district denied the student a FAPE for the 2011-12 school year and directed the district to pay for the costs of the student's tuition at the Aaron School.
[1] Any additional facts necessary to the disposition of the parties' arguments will be set forth below as necessary for resolution of the issues presented in this appeal.
[2] The Commissioner of Education has not approved the Aaron School as a school with which school districts may contract for the instruction of students with disabilities (see 8 NYCRR 200.1[d]; 200.7).
[3] The student's eligibility for special education programs and related services as a student with a speech or language impairment is not in dispute (see 34 CFR 300.8[c][11]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[zz][11]).
[4] The parents entered into an enrollment contract with the Aaron School on February 9, 2011 for the student's attendance during the 2011-12 school year (Parent Ex. S).
[5] The parents did not appeal the IHO's determinations that the present levels of performance and annual goals in the June 2011 IEP were appropriate. Accordingly, these determinations have become final and binding on the parties (34 C.F.R. 300.514[a]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][5][v]; see C.H. v. Goshen Cent. Sch. Dist., 2013 WL 1285387, at *9-*10 [S.D.N.Y. Mar. 28, 2013]; M.Z. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2013 WL 1314992, at *6, *10 [S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2013]).
13-036.pdf