Decision No. 15,453
Appeal of a STUDENT WITH A DISABILITY, by his parent, from action of the Board of Education of the Sachem Central School District regarding special education services.
Decision No. 15,453
(August 28, 2006)
Ingerman Smith LLP, attorneys for respondent, Christopher Venator, Esq., of counsel
MILLS, Commissioner.--Petitioner appeals the individualized education plan (“IEP”) developed for her son for the 2005-2006 school year by the Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) of the Board of Education of the Sachem Central School District (“respondent”). The appeal must be dismissed.
During the 2005-2006 school year, petitioner’s son was a ninth grade student in respondent’s school district. He was classified as a student with a learning disability by respondent’s CSE and had an IEP for the 2005-2006 school year. Petitioner contends that her son was unable to attend school since November 2005 because respondent did not amend his 2005-2006 IEP to reflect his most recent diagnoses and incorporate a multi-phase psychoeducational plan recommended by his doctors.
Respondent contends that the appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Respondent further contends that the petition is moot because the CSE amended the IEP on March 7, 2006 to include home-teaching services for 30 days as recommended by petitioner’s son’s doctors and petitioner has agreed to this amended IEP.
The appeal must be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. The CSE must, in the first instance, determine the special education services to be included in the IEP. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (“IDEA”) and Education Law �4404 provide parents with the right to an impartial hearing regarding a complaint on any matter relating to the identification, evaluation or educational placement of a child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child (20 USC �1415).
Because petitioner contends that the CSE failed to provide an appropriate IEP, the proper avenue of redress is to request an impartial hearing (Education Law �4404(1); 8 NYCRR �200.5; Appeal of a Student Suspected of Having a Disability, 44 Ed Dept Rep 12, Decision No. 15,079; Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 40 id. 170, Decision No. 14, 451; Appeal of a Student with a Disability, 39 id. 354, Decision No. 14,257). Parties dissatisfied with the decision of an IHO may appeal such decision to the State Review Officer pursuant to Education Law �4404(2).
In light of this disposition, I need not address the parties’ remaining contentions.
THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
END OF FILE