I. Introduction

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 parent) appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied her request to be reimbursed for the costs of her son's tuition at the Rebecca School (Rebecca School) for the 2023-24 school year.  The appeal must be dismissed.

II. Overview—Administrative Procedures

When a student in New York is eligible for special education services, the IDEA calls for the creation of an individualized education program (IEP), which is delegated to a local Committee on Special Education (CSE) that includes, but is not limited to, parents, teachers, a school psychologist, and a district representative (Educ. Law § 4402; see 20 U.S.C. § 1414[d][1][A]-[B]; 34 CFR 300.320, 300.321; 8 NYCRR 200.3, 200.4[d][2]).  If disputes occur between parents and school districts, incorporated among the procedural protections is the opportunity to engage in mediation, present State complaints, and initiate an impartial due process hearing (20 U.S.C. §§ 1221e-3, 1415[e]-[f]; Educ. Law § 4404[1]; 34 CFR 300.151-300.152, 300.506, 300.511; 8 NYCRR 200.5[h]-[l]).

New York State has implemented a two-tiered system of administrative review to address disputed matters between parents and school districts regarding "any matter relating to the identification, evaluation or educational placement of a student with a disability, or a student suspected of having a disability, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such student" (8 NYCRR 200.5[i][1]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1415[b][6]-[7]; 34 CFR 300.503[a][1]-[2], 300.507[a][1]).  First, after an opportunity to engage in a resolution process, the parties appear at an impartial hearing conducted at the local level before an IHO (Educ. Law § 4404[1][a]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j]).  An IHO typically conducts a trial-type hearing regarding the matters in dispute in which the parties have the right to be accompanied and advised by counsel and certain other individuals with special knowledge or training; present evidence and confront, cross-examine, and compel the attendance of witnesses; prohibit the introduction of any evidence at the hearing that has not been disclosed five business days before the hearing; and obtain a verbatim record of the proceeding (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][2][A], [h][1]-[3]; 34 CFR 300.512[a][1]-[4]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][3][v], [vii], [xii]).  The IHO must render and transmit a final written decision in the matter to the parties not later than 45 days after the expiration period or adjusted period for the resolution process (34 CFR 300.510[b][2], [c], 300.515[a]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][5]).  A party may seek a specific extension of time of the 45-day timeline, which the IHO may grant in accordance with State and federal regulations (34 CFR 300.515[c]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][5]).  The decision of the IHO is binding upon both parties unless appealed (Educ. Law § 4404[1]).

A party aggrieved by the decision of an IHO may subsequently appeal to a State Review Officer (SRO) (Educ. Law § 4404[2]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1415[g][1]; 34 CFR 300.514[b][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[k]).  The appealing party or parties must identify the findings, conclusions, and orders of the IHO with which they disagree and indicate the relief that they would like the SRO to grant (8 NYCRR 279.4[a]).  The opposing party is entitled to respond to an appeal or cross-appeal in an answer (8 NYCRR 279.5).  The SRO conducts an impartial review of the IHO's findings, conclusions, and decision and is required to examine the entire hearing record; ensure that the procedures at the hearing were consistent with the requirements of due process; seek additional evidence if necessary; and render an independent decision based upon the hearing record (34 CFR 300.514[b][2]; 8 NYCRR 279.12[a]).  The SRO must ensure that a final decision is reached in the review and that a copy of the decision is mailed to each of the parties not later than 30 days after the receipt of a request for a review, except that a party may seek a specific extension of time of the 30-day timeline, which the SRO may grant in accordance with State and federal regulations (34 CFR 300.515[b], [c]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[k][2]).

III. Facts and Procedural History

Given the disposition of this matter on procedural grounds, a detailed recitation of the facts relating to the student's educational history is not necessary.  Briefly, a CSE convened on March 3, 2023, and finding that the student remained eligible for special education as a student with autism, recommended the following: 12-month programming; an 8:1+1 special class placement; and related services consisting of two 45-minute sessions per week of individual occupational therapy (OT), one 45-minute session per week of OT in a group, two 45-minute sessions per week of individual physical therapy (PT), two 45-minute sessions per week of individual speech-language therapy, one 45-minute session per week of speech-language therapy in a group, and one 60-minute session per week of parent counseling and training services in a group (see Dist. Ex. 1 at pp. 1, 24-26, 31).  The March 2023 IEP included recommendations for various strategies to address the student's management needs, annual goals, a coordinated set of transition activities and measurable postsecondary goals, and special transportation services (id. at pp. 7-24, 27-28, 30).

On June 8, 2023, the parents executed an "Enrollment Contract" with the Rebecca School for the student's attendance during the 2023-24 school year from July 5, 2023 through June 21, 2024 (Parent Ex. H at pp. 1, 4, 6).

In a letter dated June 20, 2023, the parent notified the district of her intentions to unilaterally place the student at the Rebecca School for the 2023-24 school year and to seek reimbursement from the district for the costs of the student's tuition (see Parent Ex. D at p. 1).

Evidence in the hearing record reflects that the student began attending the Rebecca School on or around July 5, 2023 (see Parent Exs. L-M).

A. Due Process Complaint Notice

In an undated due process complaint notice sent to the district via email on November 18, 2024, the parent—with the assistance of a lay advocate—alleged that the district failed to offer the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2023-24 school year (see Parent Ex. A at p. 1, 3-4).  As relevant to the instant appeal, the parent asserted that the district failed to: "administer evaluations that could form the basis for the development of an appropriate IEP" for the student; "consider current, sufficient, adequate and appropriate evaluative and documentary material that might justify its recommendations"; and "adequately identify [the student's] present levels of performance or deficit areas" (id. at pp. 2-3).  As relief for the alleged violations, the parent sought an order directing the district to fund the costs of the student's tuition at the Rebecca School for the 2023-24 school year and provide round-trip transportation services for the student (id. at p. 3).

B. Impartial Hearing Officer Decision

On December 23, 2024, the parties proceeded to an impartial hearing convened before an IHO with the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) (see Tr. p. 1).  The impartial hearing concluded on February 3, 2025, after two days of proceedings (see Tr. pp. 13-71).  In a decision dated April 18, 2025, the IHO found that the district offered the student a FAPE for the 2023-24 school year, and alternatively, found that the parent sustained her burden to establish the appropriateness of the student's unilateral placement at the Rebecca School for the 2023-24 school year and that equitable considerations weighed in favor of the parent's requested relief (see IHO Decision at pp. 5-12).

In finding that the district offered the student a FAPE for the 2023-24 school year, the IHO indicated that, based on the district school psychologist's (psychologist's) testimony, the March 2023 CSE was properly composed, the parent had "multiple opportunities to be heard at the meeting," and the recommendations in the student's IEP were "largely based on the [December 2022 progress report]" the parent provided from the Rebecca School, "as well as input" from the parent and the Rebecca School representative who attended the CSE meeting (IHO Decision at pp. 5-6).  Next, the IHO pointed to the psychologist's testimony with respect to the strategies incorporated into the student's management needs in the March 2023 IEP, including the need for a "structured academic environment with consistent positive reinforcement," "teacher check in[s]," "auditory cues and visual aids and schedules," "access to a sensory diet and sensory tools," "multi-sensory learning opportunities," "small group instruction," and "direct teaching modeling from adults in the classroom" (id. at p. 6).  According to the psychologist, the student required these supports and strategies to "make progress during the school day" and to "access the curriculum" provided in the 8:1+1 special class placement in a district specialized school (id.).

The IHO also indicated that the psychologist testified about the annual goals in the March 2023 IEP, noting that each annual goal had a "specific criteria, method and schedule to measure," and "short term objectives [to] help the student truly grasp, understand and master these goals" (IHO Decision at p. 6).  According to the IHO. the psychologist also testified that the IEP included annual goals "'that would have been targeted in the classroom as well as goals specifically recommended to be worked on in related service sessions'" (id.).

As a final point, the IHO indicated that the psychologist testified that "'all of the skills the student was working on at his unilateral placement'" could have been worked on at a district public school (IHO Decision at p. 6).  The IHO noted that, according to the psychologist's testimony, the March 2023 IEP included information to "'guide teachers'" and "'included all [the] necessary supports for the student to grow and make progress'" (id.).

Next, the IHO turned to what she characterized as the parent's contention that the "key factor contributing" to the district's failure to offer the student a FAPE: the failure to "consult directly with [the s]tudent's actual service providers or conduct independent evaluations," and relying primarily on the December 2022 progress report from the Rebecca School to develop the student's March 2023 IEP (IHO Decision at p. 6).  The IHO noted that the district had asserted that the documents relied on to develop the IEP were "'sufficient'" and it had "'no reason to believe that any documents provided by [the p]arents were inaccurate or insufficient'" (id.).  The IHO further noted that the hearing record was devoid of any other evidence to indicate that the December 2022 progress report was "not an accurate depiction of [the s]tudent's present levels of performance" (id.).

The IHO found that, "[w]hen a progress report [wa]s thorough and 'sufficiently comprehensive,'" the district was not "required to 'exhaustively perform every assessment that the parent could point to in order to prevail'" (IHO Decision at p. 6).  The IHO further found that, since the December 2022 progress report "contained uncontroverted facts" about the student and "was 'sufficiently comprehensive,'" the district was "not obligated to perform new evaluations" of the student when the "information contained within the progress report was enough to make a determination about what program and goals [the s]tudent would need" (id.).

Turning to the parent's assertion that the March 2023 IEP failed to include transition goals and services, the IHO pointed out that a review of the IEP reflected that it included transition information—and more specifically, measurable postsecondary goals—related to the student's education and training, employment, and independent living skills (see IHO Decision at p. 7).  The IHO also noted that the March 2023 IEP included a coordinated set of transition activities related to the student's community experience, development of employment and other post-school adult living objectives, the acquisition of daily living skills, and a functional vocational assessment (id.).  Additionally, the IHO indicated that, within the present levels of performance, the March 2023 IEP included information provided by the parent, such as working with the Office for People With Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD), the student's upcoming "'life plan meeting'," attempting to secure internships for the student, and that the parent was "'looking into [a] guardianship'" (id.).  The IHO also noted that, according to the March 2023 IEP, the student could "'independently navigate his school environment'" and he would go out into the community (i.e., grocery store); however, the student was not yet working on his money skills (id.).  For these reasons, the IHO concluded that the March 2023 CSE addressed transition goals and services, which were included in the IEP (id.).

Finally, the IHO indicated that, when asked about the March 2023 IEP, the parent "stated that they were not 'unhappy' with any specific portion of it and that they agreed with its recommendations specifically as it pertained to [the s]tudent's needs for sensory breaks" (IHO Decision at p. 8).

In light of the foregoing, the IHO concluded that the March 2023 IEP offered the student a FAPE, as the district sustained its burden to provide a "'cogent and responsive explanation for their decisions' in developing the 2023 IEP'" for the 2023-24 school year (IHO Decision at p. 8).

Having found that the district offered the student a FAPE for the 2023-24 school year, the IHO nonetheless discussed the parent's unilateral placement of the student at the Rebecca School for the 2023-24 school year (see IHO Decision at pp. 8-10).  Based on the evidence, the IHO found that the Rebecca School was an appropriate unilateral placement for the student (id.).  The IHO also addressed equitable considerations, and determined that, based on the evidence, the parent timely notified the district of her intention to unilaterally place the student and "detailed specific concerns" (id. at pp. 10-11).  However, with regard to the assigned public school site, the IHO determined that she must "disregard" the parent's testimony that the school site she visited failed to have a sensory gym, because the parent had "either visited a different school than the one recommended or [had] incorrectly identified the school's name" during the impartial hearing and failed to correct or to clarify this error (id. at p. 11).  Therefore, the IHO determined that a "reduction by 10 [percent] would have been warranted as this issue sp[oke] directly to [the p]arent's conduct and cooperativeness during this process" (id.).  Otherwise, the IHO found that the cost of the Rebecca School tuition was not unreasonable, and indicated that the parent would have been entitled to an award of reimbursement for the costs of the student's tuition less the 10 percent reduction noted (id. at pp. 11-12).

Having found that the district offered the student a FAPE for the 2023-24 school year, the IHO dismissed with prejudice the parent's request to be reimbursed for the costs of the student's tuition at the Rebecca School for the 2023-24 school year (see IHO Decision at p. 12).

IV. Appeal for State-Level Review

The parent—with the assistance of a lay advocate—appeals, arguing that the IHO erred by finding that the district offered the student a FAPE for the 2023-24 school year.  Specifically, the parent contends that the IHO overlooked the fact that the December 2022 progress report from the Rebecca School, which the district relied upon to develop the March 2023 IEP, was "uniquely tailored to the context" of the Rebecca School, which "heavily incorporate[d] the proprietary DIRFloortime®('DIR') methodology" (Req. for Rev. ¶¶ 3-5).  Therefore, the parent contends that the student's performance at the Rebecca School could not be "generalized to other educational settings" and the district's reliance on the December 2022 progress report did not "substitute for a comprehensive evaluation" by the district and could not be used as "objective data" (id. ¶ 5).  The parent contends that the district's failure to evaluate the student impeded her ability to participate and denied the student a FAPE.  The parent also asserts that the IHO erred by finding that the March 2023 CSE addressed transition goals and services and argues that the parent was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to participate in the development of the coordinated set of transition activities.  More specifically, the parent alleges that the transition services could not be implemented at a district public school because the transition plan included in the March 2023 IEP was largely contingent on the student attending the Rebecca School.  As relief, the parent seeks to reverse the IHO's finding that the district offered the student a FAPE for the 2023-24 school year and to award reimbursement for the costs of the student's attendance at the Rebecca School.[1]

V. Discussion—Compliance with Form

In this matter, the parent initially filed a request for review, dated May 22, 2025, with the Office of State Review on May 27, 2025.[2]  However, the parent's request for review did not conform to practice regulations governing appeals before this tribunal because the parent's lay advocate "signed" the request for review.  As this is not permitted under State Regulation, which requires that "[a]ll pleadings shall be signed by an attorney, or by a party if the party is not represented by an attorney" (8 NYCRR 279.8[a][4]), the Office of State Review simultaneously rejected the parent's request for review and granted the parent leave to file a request for review with instructions to serve and file the pleading with the Office of State Review no later than June 19, 2025 at 4:30 p.m.  In the letter to the parent setting forth these instructions, the Office of State Review further indicated that, if the parent served a "new request for review," the district could serve an answer to the "new request for review" within the timeframes set forth in State regulations.

Thereafter, on June 20, 2025, the parent filed a request for review, dated May 22, 2025, with the Office of State Review.  However, the parent's newly filed request for review also does not conform to practice regulations, as it continues to bear the signature of the lay advocate, rather than the parent's signature.  As noted above, State regulation requires that "[a]ll pleadings shall be signed by an attorney, or by a party if the party is not represented by an attorney" (8 NYCRR 279.8[a][4]).  Here, as the parent is not represented by an attorney and is, instead, being assisted by a lay advocate, the parent was required to sign the request for review (id.).  Having failed to avail herself of the opportunity to correct this irregularity, this discrepancy is in violation of the practice requirements of Part 279 of State regulations, and, as such, I will exercise my discretion and will dismiss the parent's request for review for the failure to comply with practice regulations (see 8 NYCRR 279.8[a]; see also 8 NYCRR 279.7[b]).

VI. Conclusion

Having found that the parent's request for review failed to comply with the practice regulations as explained above, the parent's appeal must be dismissed.

THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.