01-104

        Petitioner appeals from an impartial hearing officer’s decision which annulled the recommendation by respondent’s Committee on Special Education (CSE) that her son’s special education program be changed from resource room services to a self-contained special education class with a 12:1 student-teacher ratio. The appeal must be dismissed.

        Petitioner’s 12-year-old son has been classified as learning disabled since February 1997. He has received resource room services since that time. In March 2001, the student was referred to the CSE because he was reportedly having difficulty in his sixth grade program (Transcript p. 36). His resource room teacher reported that the student’s writing skills were deficient, and that he had difficulty following directions and completing tasks (Exhibit 1). The student’s third quarter report card indicated that he was failing English, enriched reading, and math, and was barely passing his other subjects (Exhibit 6).

        An educational evaluation was completed on May 2, 2001. The evaluator reported that the student had achieved grade equivalent scores of 3.6 for letter-word identification, 5.6 for passage comprehension, 6.7 for math calculation, and 6.3 for problem solving (Exhibit 5). A school psychologist who had evaluated the student on May 4, 2001 reported that petitioner’s son had achieved a verbal IQ score of 93 and a performance IQ score of 82. She noted that all but one of the skills used to establish the student’s performance IQ score had been in the borderline range. A personality assessment indicated that he appeared to be fairly well adjusted to his environment, but he appeared to have low self-esteem (Exhibit 4).

        On May 18, 2001, the CSE met with petitioner to review the evaluation results, and to prepare a new individualized education program (IEP) for the student. The CSE recommended that petitioner’s son continue to be classified as learning disabled, and that he be placed in a self-contained special education class with a 12:1 pupil-teacher ratio to remediate his academic deficits (Exhibit 12). By notice dated June 2, 2001, petitioner was offered a placement for her son in respondent’s P.S. 238 (Exhibit 13).

        Petitioner requested an impartial hearing to review the CSE’s recommendation. The hearing was held on August 2, 2001. In a decision that was rendered on September 26, 2001, the hearing officer found that the matter should be remanded to the CSE to obtain a current physical examination report and a complete social history. She also suggested that the CSE conduct an occupational therapy evaluation.

        The initial question that I must decide is whether petitioner is aggrieved by the hearing officer’s decision. Petitioner opposes the proposed change in her son’s educational program. The CSE’s recommendation to change the student’s program has been set aside by the hearing officer. When the CSE has complied with the hearing officer’s directives, it must make a new recommendation. If petitioner is dissatisfied with the CSE’s new recommendation, she may request a new impartial hearing. Under the circumstances, I must find that petitioner is not aggrieved by the hearing officer’s decision.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.