Source: https://www.sro.nysed.gov/decision/2002/02-056
Timestamp: 2019-10-15 16:38:10
Document Index: 405319965

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 300', '§ 300', '§ 300', '§ 300', '§ 300', '§ 300', '§ 300']

The district contends that the hearing officer exceeded his jurisdiction because the state complaint procedure (8 NYCRR 200.5[k]), rather than an impartial hearing, is the exclusive process for challenging the alleged denial of services to a student with a disability privately enrolled in a nonpublic school. Relying upon 34 C.F.R. § 300.457, petitioner asserts that respondent has no right to invoke the impartial hearing provisions of either the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or Article 89 of the New York State Education Law. Petitioner's argument iswithout merit. 34 C.F.R. § 300.457 identifies procedures available to resolve "complaints" and reads as follows:
​The procedures in §§ 300.504-300.515 [including due process hearings] do not apply to complaints that an LEA [board of education] has failed to meet the requirements of §§ 300.452-300.462 [relating to children enrolled by their parents in private schools], including the provision of services indicated on the child’s services plan.
​The procedures in §§ 300.504-300.515 do apply to complaints that an LEA has failed to meet the requirements of § 300.451 [child find requirements], including the requirements of §§ 300.530-300.543 [evaluation requirements].