Source: https://www.sro.nysed.gov/decision/2013/13-102
Timestamp: 2019-10-20 16:13:12
Document Index: 429447402

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1400', '§ 1414', '§ 1414', '§ 1415', '§ 1415', '§ 300']

Law Offices of Lauren A. Baum, PC, attorneys for respondents, Richard A. Liese, 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 the costs of the student's tuition at the Cooke Center for Learning and Development (Cooke) for the 2011-12 school year. The parents cross-appeal from the IHO's determination that the annual goals in the March 2011 IEP were sufficient. 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. The CSE convened on March 28, 2011, to formulate the student's IEP for the 2011-12 school year (see generally Dist. Ex. 1). Finding that the student remained eligible for special education and related services as a student with an intellectual disability, the March 2011 CSE recommended a 12:1+1 special class placement and related services consisting of counseling, speech-language therapy, and occupational therapy (OT) (Dist. Ex. 1 at pp. 1, 13, 15).[1] By final notice of recommendation (FNR) dated June 10, 2011, the district summarized the special education and related services recommended in the March 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. 3). In a letter dated August 4, 2011, the parents disagreed with the particular public school site to which the district assigned the student to attend for the 2011-12 school year and, as a result, notified the district of their intent to unilaterally place the student at Cooke (Dist. Ex. 4; see Dist. Ex. 3). In a due process complaint notice, dated October 3, 2012, the parents alleged that the district failed to offer the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2011-12 school year (Parent Ex. A at pp. 1-5).
An impartial hearing convened on December 19, 2012 and concluded on April 15, 2013 after three days of proceedings (Tr. pp. 1-365). In a decision dated May 9, 2013, the IHO determined that the district failed to offer the student a FAPE for the 2011-12 school year, that Cooke was an appropriate unilateral placement, and that equitable considerations weighed in favor of the parents' request for an award of tuition reimbursement (IHO Decision at pp. 9-11). As relief, the IHO ordered the district to reimburse the parents for the cost of the student's tuition at Cooke for the 2011-12 school year (id. at p. 11).
The parties' familiarity with the particular issues for review on appeal in the district's petition, the parents' answer and cross-appeal, and the district's answer to the cross-appeal thereto is also presumed and will not be recited here. The gravamen of the parties' dispute on appeal is whether the annual goals and transition services in the March 2011 IEP were sufficient, and therefore, offered the student a FAPE for the 2011-12 school year.
A. March 2011 IEP
Turning first to the annual goals in the March 2011 IEP, the parents contend that the IEP failed to include sufficient, appropriate, and objectively measureable annual goals and short-term objectives to address the student's needs, and that the IHO erred in finding that the annual goals were sufficient. As detailed below, a review of the hearing record does not support the parents' assertion, and therefore, there is no reason to disturb the IHO's determination that the annual goals were appropriate and designed to meet the educational needs of the student.
An IEP must include a written statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals designed to meet the student's needs that result from the student's disability to enable the student to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum; and meet each of the student's other educational needs that result from the student's disability (see 20 U.S.C. § 1414[d][1][A][i][II]; 34 CFR 300.320[a][2][i]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]). Each annual goal shall include the evaluative criteria, evaluation procedures and schedules to be used to measure progress toward meeting the annual goal during the period beginning with placement and ending with the next scheduled review by the CSE (8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii][b]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1414[d][1][A][i][III]; 34 CFR 300.320[a][3]). Short-term objectives are required for a student who takes New York State alternate assessments (8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iv]).
The March 2011 IEP included approximately 10 annual goals with corresponding short-term objectives (Dist. Ex. 1 at pp. 7-12). The hearing record reflects that in creating the annual goals for the March 2011 IEP, the CSE considered the student's progress report, a November 2010 IEP, and the input by the parents and the student's then-current teachers at Cooke (Tr. pp. 17, 40-41, 284-85, 307; Dist. Ex. 2 at pp. 1-2; see Dist. Ex. 5; Parent Ex. B). To address the student's identified needs in problem solving and analysis, the March 2011 IEP included math annual goals addressing calculations, word problems, and problems that related to real-life situations (compare Dist. Ex. 1 at pp. 3-4, with Dist. Ex. 1 at pp. 7, 12). The March 2011 IEP included English language arts (ELA) annual goals to address the student's weaknesses in reading comprehension, focusing on a topic, and writing more complex sentences (compare Dist. Ex. 1 at p. 3, with Dist. Ex. 1 at pp. 7-8). The speech-language annual goals in the March 2011 IEP targeted the student's identified needs in the areas of reading fluency, comprehension, spontaneous speech, and conversational skills (compare Dist. Ex. 1 at p. 3, with Dist. Ex. 1 at pp. 8-9). The OT annual goal targeted the student's needs in improving fine and gross motor skills, pencil grasp, and self-care tasks (compare Dist. Ex. 1 at p. 6, with Dist. Ex. 1 at p. 10). The transition annual goal in the March 2011 IEP addressed the student's need to improve conversational skills and his ability to travel independently (compare Dist. Ex. 1 at pp. 3, 5, with Dist. Ex. 1 at p. 11). The March 2011 IEP also included a counseling annual goal to foster growth in the student's peer and adult interactions (id.).
Consistent with regulations, all of the annual goals in the March 2011 IEP specified the evaluative criteria (i.e., 4 out of 5 trials with 80 percent mastery), evaluation procedures (i.e., as observed by teacher), and schedules to measure progress (i.e., 3 reports of progress this school year) (Dist. Ex. 1 at pp. 7-12). Further, consistent with the March 2011 CSE's determination that the student participate in the alternate assessment, all of the goals included short-term objectives (id.).
Additionally, the parents claim that the CSE "effectively photo-copied" the annual goals and short-term objectives from the student's prior IEP. Although a review of the two IEPs reveals that the nine annual goals in the November 2010 IEP were continued in the March 2011 IEP, the March 2011 IEP included an additional math annual goal involving solving problems that related to real life situations (compare Parent Ex. B at pp. 7-11, with Dist. Ex. 1 at pp. 7-12).[2] Further, most of the annual goals in the March 2011 IEP contained additional short-term objectives (id.). For example, one speech-language annual goal included two additional short-term objectives involving producing accurate written responses to "wh" questions and following multi-step verbal and written directions (compare Parent Ex. B at p. 8, with Dist. Ex. 1 at p. 8). Also, the written expression annual goal in the March 2011 IEP included additional short-term objectives involving describing the character, setting, and the story's problem and solution and applying new vocabulary in written samples (id.). The March 2011 IEP's OT annual goal included eight additional short-term objectives (compare Parent Ex. B at p. 10, with Dist. Ex. 1 at p. 10).
Finally, the parents assert that the annual goals in the March 2011 IEP were not appropriate for the 2011-12 school year because, according to the student's 2011-12 school year mathematics teacher at Cooke, the student mastered some of the math annual goals by September 2011 (Tr. pp. 135, 149). In this case, the IHO correctly determined that the March 2011 CSE could not know what annual goals may be mastered or accomplished by the student before the end of the 2010-11 school year and that the March 2011 IEP must be an "accurate snapshot" of the student at the time of its creation (see IHO Decision at pp. 9-10). Therefore, as detailed more fully below, the evidence in the hearing record supports a finding that the IHO correctly determined that the annual goals on the March 2011 IEP were sufficient.
In this case, although the student's math teacher at Cooke testified that the student had already met some of the short-term objectives in the March 2011 IEP as of September 2011, he also testified that at the time of the March 2011 CSE meeting, the student had not yet mastered the annual goals (Tr. pp. 149-51). The ELA teacher who attended the March 2011 CSE meeting testified that she did not participate in the creation of the annual goals, yet she did share some ideas for annual goals and discussed the student's progress and current performance (Tr. pp. 181-82). The district special education teacher indicated that the Cooke staff at the March 2011 CSE meeting were involved in the creation of the annual goals for the March 2011 IEP, and she further testified that neither the Cooke staff nor the parents indicated that they wanted additional annual goals in the March 2011 IEP (Tr. p. 41).[3]
In light of the above, consistent with the IHO's determination, the annual goals in the March 2011 IEP, together with their corresponding short-term objectives, were sufficiently designed to meet the student's needs and to enable the student to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum.
Turning next to transition services, the IHO found that the transition services in the March 2011 IEP were "fatally deficient" in the areas of transition and vocational goals. Further, the parents contend in their cross-appeal that the transition services were generic and that the March 2011 CSE failed to conduct vocational assessments of the student. However, for the reasons detailed below, the evidence in the hearing record indicates that the IHO erred in finding that any deficiencies regarding the transition services in the March 2011 IEP rose to the level of a denial of a FAPE. Accordingly, the IHO's conclusion must be reversed.
While there is no indication in the record that the March 2011 CSE conducted a formal vocational assessment of the student, the head of Cooke (headmaster) testified that the student's transition needs were assessed, although he also stated that he did not know what the assessments indicated as far the student's needs (Tr. pp. 207, 226-27). Further the headmaster testified that while Cooke staff generally provided the CSE with "extensive" transition planning and goals, in this case "it wasn't done" (Tr. pp. 245-46).
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the evidence in the hearing record indicates that in developing the transition services, the March 2011 CSE obtained information about the student's strengths and interests, needs, current vocational experiences and long-term outcomes from the parents and Cooke staff (Tr. pp. 34-37, 67-68, 70-72, 303-06; Dist. Ex. 2 at p. 2). The present levels of performance in the March 2011 IEP identified the student's needs in the areas of problem solving, language, spontaneous speech, conversational skills, frustration, socially appropriate behavior, and self-care skills (Dist. Ex. 1 at pp. 3, 5-6). In addition, the present levels of performance in the March 2011 IEP indicated that the student participated in a transition program to support his long-term goal toward independence and a school internship at the school for the visual arts (id. at p. 5). The March 2011 IEP also noted the student's interest in sports, computers, and electronics (id.).
The headmaster testified that it was hard to know vocational outcomes for ninth graders and since interests often changed dramatically for students of this age, it would not be "prudent" to make decisions in this area too early (Tr. pp. 239-40). Further, in discussing transition services, the headmaster also testified that transition planning depended upon when a student would exit school and would vary depending on the student's age (Tr. p. 241). At the time of the March 2011 CSE meeting, the student was 15 years old and in the ninth grade (Tr. pp. 204-05, 249; Dist. Ex. 1 at p. 1). In this case, although the March 2011 CSE failed to conduct a functional vocational assessment of the student when developing the March 2011 IEP, the hearing record fails to contain sufficient evidence to find that such procedural inadequacy (a) impeded the student's right to a FAPE, (b) significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student, or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 CFR 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]).
Regarding transition goals, the district special education teacher who attended the March 2011 CSE meeting indicated that the CSE developed the IEP's long-term outcomes and post-secondary goals based on information provided by the parents and Cooke staff (Tr. p. 35; see Dist. Ex. 1 at pp. 2, 16). Although the IHO opined—and the special education teacher agreed—that the March 2011 IEP included only "very general" vocational goals, a review of the IEP reveals that it included long-term adult outcomes in the areas of community integration, post-secondary placement, independent living and employment supported by measureable annual goals (Tr. p. 81; Dist. Ex. 1 at pp. 7-12, 16). For example, the March 2011 IEP included long-term goals that the student would integrate into the community with support and be competitively employed with supports, which were augmented by the following annual goals: improving the student's pragmatic language skills and intelligibility, improving independent travel, improving appropriate interactions with peers and adults, and improving the student's ability to solve math problems that related to real life situations (compare Dist. Ex. 1 at p. 16, with Dist. Ex. 1 at pp. 7-12).
The Cooke headmaster did acknowledge in his testimony that the transition goals in the March 2011 IEP were "general" and written by the CSE for "just about every student" at Cooke (Tr. p. 230). Moreover, the assistant principal of the assigned public school site noted that the transition services did not fully describe what the student's interests were or what the student would be working toward (Tr. p. 118). However, although some parts of the transition services in the March 2011 IEP could be considered generic, a closer review of the IEP—as compared with the student's November 2010 IEP—revealed that in response to input from the March 2011 CSE members, the CSE made additions to the transition services to address the individual needs of the student (compare Dist. Ex. 1 at p. 16, with Parent Ex. B at p. 15; see Tr. pp. 37, 70-72). Specifically, in response to the parents' request at the March 2011 CSE meeting, the March 2011 IEP's coordinated set of transition activities included learning about finance and budgeting and shopping (Tr. p. 37; Dist. Exs. 1 at p. 16; 2 at p. 2).
In consideration of the foregoing, while the evidence in the hearing record supports the IHO's finding that certain aspects of the transition services in the student's March 2011 IEP did not entirely comport with statutory or regulatory requirements, the evidence in the hearing record does not demonstrate that the any inadequacies present in the recommended transition services impeded the student's right to a FAPE, significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student, caused a deprivation of educational benefits, or otherwise caused substantive harm which rose to the level of a denial of a FAPE (see 20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 CFR § 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4]).
With respect to the parents' claims relating to the assigned public school site, in this instance, 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. The parents' claims regarding the functional grouping of the students in the proposed classroom and the vocational opportunities at the assigned public school site turn on how the March 2011 IEP would or would not have been implemented and, as it is undisputed that the student did not attend the district's assigned public school site (see Tr. 204-05; Dist. Ex. 4), 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, 2014 WL 53264 [2d Cir. Jan. 8, 2014]; K.L. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 530 Fed. App'x 81, 87, 2013 WL 3814669 [2d Cir. July 24, 2013]; P.K. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 526 Fed. App'x 135, 141, 2013 WL 2158587 [2d Cir. May 21, 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]).
Having determined that the evidence in the hearing record demonstrates that the district sustained its burden to establish that it offered the student a FAPE for the 2011-12 school year, the necessary inquiry is at an end and there is no need to reach the issues of whether the student's unilateral placement at Cooke was an appropriate placement or whether equitable considerations weighed in favor of the parents' request for relief (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370; see M.C. v. Voluntown, 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 above.
IT IS ORDERED that the IHO's decision dated May 9, 2013 is modified by reversing that portion which found that the district failed to offer the student a FAPE for the 2011-12 school year; and,
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the IHO's decision, dated May 9, 2013, is modified by reversing that portion which ordered the district to reimburse the parents for the costs of the student's tuition at Cooke for the 2011-12 school year.
[1] While the IEP uses the term mental retardation, State regulations were amended in October 2011 to replace the term mental retardation with the term intellectual disability while retaining the same definition (compare 8 NYCRR 200.1[zz][7], with 34 CFR 300.8[c][6]). The student's eligibility for special education programs and related services as a student with an intellectual disability is not in dispute (34 CFR 300.8 [c][6]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[zz][7]).
[2] In addition, the November 2010 IEP was created just 4 months before the March 2011 CSE meeting (compare Parent Ex. B, at p. 1, with Dist. Ex. 1 at p. 1).
[3] Moreover, the evidence in the hearing record does not reflect that the parents objected to the timing of the March 2011 CSE meeting, requested to meet later in the school year to update the student's performance levels or to otherwise update the student's March 2011 IEP or the annual goals in the March 2011 IEP, or that the district thereafter denied any request by the parents for another CSE meeting.
13-102.pdf