The psychologist recommended that the student receive individual cognitive-behavioral psychotherapy ( id.).īy letter dated January 30, 2006, petitioner notified respondent that her son required updated evaluations, a more restrictive placement, and that his classification should be changed from a student having a learning disability to a student with an emotional disturbance (Dist. The psychologist opined that the student had an 'Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct' and that psycho-social stressors included, being away from family and friends while in a military academy, and a history of gang involvement ( id. The student received a psychological consultation on January 9, 2006, while still attending a military school (Dist. Report cards from the latter military school indicate that the student failed to perform the academic work required, did not complete papers, homework or exams, and was late for classes (Dist. In July 2005, petitioner placed the student in another military school where the record shows his status was changed to 'withdrawal' on Janudue to academic deficiencies (Dist. The student then attended one of respondent's high schools until July 2005 ( id.). The student remained in the military school until approximately February 2005, when he was 'asked to leave' ( id.

In summer 2004, the student was withdrawn from respondent's school by petitioner and sent to a private military school, due to petitioner's concerns over his truancy and gang related activities (Dist.

On January 27, 2004, while the student was in respondent's ninth grade, respondent's Committee on Special Education (CSE) met to conduct a requested review and develop an individualized education program (IEP) for the student (Dist. The hearing record shows that the student has a history of truancy and engaging in gang related activities (Dist. The student's eligibility for special education programs and services as a student with a learning disability is not in dispute in this appeal ( see 8 NYCRR 200.1). The cross-appeal must be sustained in part.Īt the commencement of the impartial hearing on November 30, 2006, petitioner's son was attending Top Flight, a private school located in Utah, which has not been approved by the Commissioner of Education as a school with which districts may contract to instruct students with disabilities (8 NYCRR 200.1, 200.7). Respondent cross-appeals from the impartial hearing officer's determinations that it failed to provide an appropriate educational program to the student for the 2006-07 school year, and that petitioner's private placement was appropriate. Petitioner appeals from the decision of an impartial hearing officer which denied her request to be reimbursed for her son's tuition costs at the Top Flight Academy (Top Flight) for the 2006-07 school year.

Woodland hills iep writer