ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION                      IMPARTIAL DUE PROCESS HEARINGJAMES ISAACSON                        ...
The hearing was initially scheduled for January 14-18, 2008. The school districtasserted that its contractual obligations ...
funding for the student at the Hyde Park Day School for the 2007 extended school yearand the 2007-2008 academic year.     ...
At the 5/13/04 IEP meeting, the IEP team determined that the student had not meet hislanguage arts or mathematics goals. I...
delays in short term auditory memory for numbers, words and sentences, auditorydiscrimination of paired sounds and ability...
In developing a math goal, the student was listed as being able to rote count to at least 19,could identify 2 coins and kn...
•   is slow to switch from one task to anotherThe mother of the student raised no objections to any of these findings orre...
program including but not limited to programs from Orton-Gillingham, Lindamood-Bellor Wilson.The mother of the student sha...
after one year of kindergarten, the student could identify 13 uppercase       letters by name and 11 lowercase letters, co...
intervention (redirection, lessen frustration, prompts, provide visual cues). The IEP teamnoted that the student struggled...
On March 21, 2006 at the end of the student’s 1st grade year, the IEP team met toevaluate his progress on his special educ...
•   Language Arts: Jimmy will increase his ability to apply word analysis skills to               identify words: CVCE dec...
The IEP listed a number of modifications and accommodations which should be used toenable the student to participate in th...
letter dated October 4, 2006 the parent summarized those test results and asserted that herson could not read and was stil...
reviewed previous testing and concluded that the student had significant expressivelanguage delays and required a curricul...
On April 27, 2007, at the end of 2nd grade, the IEP team met to evaluate the student’sprogress on his special education go...
Mrs. Zerebiny recommended 225 minutes per week of special education instruction,presumably focused on the student’s readin...
Ms. Zerebiny was unable to complete the reading comprehension subtest. Apparently noone noted the significance of the stud...
impacted his academic functioning), Mr. Brehn recommended continued social workservices to assist the student with self-es...
Phonological segmentation                                         4             1Phonological blending                    ...
discrepancy between his achievement commensurate with his age and ability in writtenexpression, basic reading skill, readi...
Occupational therapy goal focused on keyboarding as an alternative to writing. 30 mpw       in the regular education class...
•   delayed copying/printing skills   •   has difficulty understanding concepts   •   has difficulty following multiple ve...
The parties were in agreement that Dr. Erenberg is an educational expert including anexpert on psychoeducational diagnosti...
His test of auditory perceptual skills overall is below average; and the       areas that are significantly below, again, ...
grade level at the end of 2nd grade. Based on Dr. Erenberg’s review of the data, Mr.Crame is mistaken.Dr. Erenberg reviewe...
intrasensory instruction and appeared not to understand the concept of multi-sensoryinstruction.Dr. Erenberg was asked to ...
Well, it (the scores) reflects a few things. It reflects, number one, that he       has not made progress; but in effect, ...
In an administrative hearing, the party seeking the relief bears the burden ofproof. Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S.Ct. 528 (200...
The hearing officer has read all of the material presented at the hearing and the materialpresented in prehearing motions....
selected by the mother of the student, is a private therapeutic day school for students withlearning disabilities. Dr. Ere...
(ordering two years of private day school for failing to address dyslexia).       Awards can also include reimbursement fo...
Individual Education Plans developed for the student’s 1st and 2nd grade and       proposed for the student’s 3rd grade di...
officer is not authorized to entertain a request for reconsideration. THE EFFECTIVEDATE OF THIS DECISION IS THE DATE OF RE...
J.I. v CPS, ISBE Case No. 2008-52
J.I. v CPS, ISBE Case No. 2008-52
J.I. v CPS, ISBE Case No. 2008-52
J.I. v CPS, ISBE Case No. 2008-52
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

J.I. v CPS, ISBE Case No. 2008-52

337

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
337
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

J.I. v CPS, ISBE Case No. 2008-52

  1. 1. ILLINOIS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION IMPARTIAL DUE PROCESS HEARINGJAMES ISAACSON ) ) Student )vs. ) Case No. 2008-52 )CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS ) ) Local School District )CAROLYN ANN SMARON, Hearing Officer DECISION AND ORDER PROCEDURAL MATTERS By letter dated August 10, 2007, the mother of the student requested theappointment of a due process hearing officer to resolve her dispute with the schooldistrict. That letter was received by the school district on August 14, 2007 and forwardedto the Illinois State Board of Education. By letter dated August 27, 2007, CAROLYNANN SMARON was appointed to serve as the hearing officer. On August 28, 2007, thehearing officer issued a Scheduling Order and a Notice of Prehearing Conference. The parties elected to participate in mediation but were not able to resolve thematters in dispute. The parties requested additional time to pursue settlement and onSeptember 27, 2007, the prehearing conference was postponed and the matter continuedto October 10, 2007. On October 10, 2007 the parties advised the hearing officer thatthey had been unable to resolve the dispute and a prehearing conference was thenscheduled for October 18, 2007. The prehearing conference was conducted on October 18, 2007. Both partiessubmitted prehearing conference disclosures. The school district was represented byCINDY HANSEN and the parents were represented by NEAL A. TAKIFF. On December 12, 2007 counsel for the parents filed a Motion to CompelObservation by Dr. Shana Erenberg and Motion to limit the evidence that the schooldistrict could introduce at the hearing. Counsel for the school district filed a response.The hearing officer denied the Motion to limit evidence outright by Preliminary Orderissued December 14, 2007. The Motion to Compel Observation or, in the alternative,Motion for Summary Judgment was denied by Preliminary Order issued December 27,2007. 1
  2. 2. The hearing was initially scheduled for January 14-18, 2008. The school districtasserted that its contractual obligations with its employees required that the hearing endat 3:30 p.m. every day. Additional hearing days were scheduled for March 11-13, 2008with a final date of April 4, 2008. All parties received transcripts of the testimonyelicited during the hearing. Due to an unforseen delay in the production of the aforesaidtranscripts, the final date was extended by agreement to April 11, 2008. Both partiespresented closing statement and the record was closed on April 11, 2008. ISSUES IDENTIFIED AND REMEDIES REQUESTED AT THE PREHEARING CONFERENCE ISSUE: The school district failed to provide a free appropriate public educationto the student from August 10, 2005 to the present in that the school district did notprovide an appropriate and individualized evaluation in a timely manner in order toadequately identify the nature and extent of the student’s disabilities. More specifically,the parents allege that the special education and related services provided to the studentduring the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 academic years were not intense enough to providemeaningful educational benefit. In September 14, 20061, parent secured an independentevaluation of the student at Lindamood-Bell and those results were discussed at anIndividual Education Plan meeting on October 4, 2006. No additional services wererecommended by the school district. In November 2006 the parent retained the servicesof a private tutor and the parent alleges that as a consequence, the student improved in hisacademic performance. The parents allege that the re-evaluation of the student in April 2007 and theIndividual Education Plan developed on April 27, 2007 did not provide the specialeducation and related services with enough intensity to provide the student witheducational benefit. The parent alleges that the evaluation completed by the schooldistrict was incomplete and inadequate and as a consequence the parent secured privateevaluations in the areas of intellect and central auditory processing. On May 21, 2007 theparent provided notice to the school district that the student would be enrolled at theHyde Park Day School for the 2007 extended school year and the 2007-2008 academicyear. REMEDY SOUGHT: The parent requests a finding that the IndividualEducation Plan developed on April 27, 2007 did not and could not provide the studentwith a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment in that thetype, level and intensity of services did not and could not provide educational benefit tothe student. The parent further requests a finding that the least restrictive environmentfor the student is a day school for learning disabled students. More specifically the parentrequests an Order that the school district be ordered to pay retroactive and prospective1 Prehearing Conference Report had erroneously identified this date as October 2006. For purposes ofclarity the date has been changed to reflect the actual date of testing. 2
  3. 3. funding for the student at the Hyde Park Day School for the 2007 extended school yearand the 2007-2008 academic year. In addition, and as educational compensation for the failure to provide a freeappropriate public education in the least restrictive environment during the 2005-2006and 2006-2007 academic year, the parent requests that the school district be ordered topay for placement of the student at Hyde Park Day School for the 2008-2009 andreimbursement for the tutoring costs incurred by the parent, reimbursement for theevaluation of the student by Lindamood-Bell, and reimbursement for the privateeducational evaluations in the areas of intellectual functioning and central auditoryprocessing. SCHOOL DISTRICT RESPONSE: At all times the school district hasprovided the student with a free appropriate public education in that the IndividualEducation Plans developed for the student provided the sufficient level of services andsupplementary aids reasonably calculated to allow the student to make educationalbenefits in his current placement. The school district asserts that the student has madeprogress academically and socially. The school district prays for a finding that thestudent has been provided a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictiveenvironment and Order denying the relief prayed for by the parent. Further, the schooldistrict asserts that there is no basis for reimbursing the parent for any of her independenteducational evaluations as the parent has not complied with the procedural requirementsfor securing said reimbursement. FACTSThe recitation of the facts of this case were gleaned by a review of the documents withinthe joint document book and the hearing officer’s notes as to the facts elicited or factsthat could be inferred from the testimony of the school district witnesses, the mother ofthe student and Dr. Shana Erenberg.I. 2003-2004 KindergartenThe student is a nine year old boy with a history of complex learning disabilities. He wasfound eligible for special education at the age of three. His mother moved to NorwoodPark in 2003 and in September 2003, he started kindergarten. The IEP for that year wascreated before the student arrived at Norwood Park Elementary School and is beyond thescope of this hearing. On May 13, 2004 the IEP team conducted a three-yearreevaluation of the student. The student’s progress or lack thereof and theappropriateness of the three year evaluation are also not before this hearing officer.However, the data created by that reevaluation is the “the baseline data” as it informedevery decision made by the IEP team thereafter. 3
  4. 4. At the 5/13/04 IEP meeting, the IEP team determined that the student had not meet hislanguage arts or mathematics goals. It was reported that while the student worked very tohard to identify his letters, it appeared difficult for him to memorize the letters. It wasreported that he easily became frustrated and then would shut down. It was reported thatwhile he could count to 20 and identify the numbers one through ten with 90% success,the student had limited confidence in this skill.Prior to the 5/13/04 IEP meeting, Joanne Slonim, the school psychologist, completed apsychological evaluation of the student. Ms. Slonim reported that the student’s thenkindergarten teacher reported that the student loved to listen to stories and could answerquestions about the stories but was easily frustrated and at times seemed to be his ownworld. Ms. Slonim administered the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale ofIntelligence-Revised. The student’s standard scores were as follows: Standard ScorePerformance IQ 94Verbal IQ 111Full Scale IQ 103Ms. Slonim also administered the Wide Range Achievement Test 3 (Large Print EditionBlue Form) (WRAT). The student’s standard scores were as follows: Standard Grade Score EquivalentReading 84 PreschoolSpelling 86 Kg.Arithmetic 100 Kg.Ms. Slonim concluded that the student had average to higher than average cognition infavor of the verbal modality, suspected emotional concerns, academic difficulties andspeech anomalies. Ms. Slonim concluded that the student’s academic skills weremarkedly below his kindergarten peers despite his average to above average congition.For all of the foregoing reasons, she recommended continued special education. Ms.Slonim did not testify and no witness was called by the school district to explain orinterpret the foregoing baseline data.Prior to the 5/13/04 IEP meeting, Deborah Koldan, the school district speech pathologist, completed a speech-language assessment of the student. She reported that the student’sdevelopmental milestones were delayed including walking, speech, fine motor skills andtoilet training. She reported that the student’s phonological skills were poor and that hehad difficulty recalling sound association for letters and identifying beginning sounds inwords. Ms. Koldan concluded that the student had a moderate articulation disorder dueto verbal apraxia, a moderate to severe receptive-expressive language delay, severe 4
  5. 5. delays in short term auditory memory for numbers, words and sentences, auditorydiscrimination of paired sounds and ability to recall and follow multi-step directions(possible auditory processing), and severe delay in syntactical usage. Ms. Koldanconcluded that the student’s auditory difficulties caused the student to have difficultyfollowing directions in class and his poor phonological awareness and auditorydiscrimination skills caused the student to have difficulty with reading readiness skills,affecting decoding and invented spelling ability. Ms. Koldan recommended continuedspeech-language services to support the student’s articulation, thinking, writing andlangauge skills and recommended monitoring of the student’s word retrieval skills.Neither Ms. Kolden nor any other witness from the school district testified how thesedeficits impacted the student’s ability to learn to read.At the request of Ms. Koldan, the student’s auditory processing skills were assessed byschool district audiologist Barbara Rezabek on May12, 2004. Ms. Rezabek concludedthat the screening did not suggest the presence of an auditory processing disorder. Shestated that she considered the test results to have fair-to-good reliability due to thestudent’s moderate articulation disorder, inattentive non-compliant test-taking behaviorand the student’s chronological age. Ms. Rezabek recommended certain classroommodifications and accommodations which appear to have been included in the May 13,2004 IEP.Prior to the 5/13/04 IEP meeting, Jennifer Martin, the school district occupationaltherapist, completed an occupational therapy assessment of the student. She notedsensory integration issues in her report and stated that the student “presents with lowlevel of arousal typically and low frustration tolerance which can interfer withperformance and progression with skills”. Ms. Martin recommended continuation ofoccupational therapy services. Neither Ms. Martin nor any other witness from the schooltestified how these sensory integration issues impacted the student’s ability to learn muchless learn to read.After reviewing the evaluations, the IEP team concluded that the student remainedeligible for special education as a student with a learning disability in that there was asignificant discrepancy between the student’s achievement commensurate with his ageand ability in the areas of oral expression, listening comprehension, basic reading skills,math calculation and math reasoning.In developing a language arts goal, the student was listed as being able to identifyuppercase alphabet letters in order but having difficulty recalling letters and theirassociated sounds out of order. Specifically the student was reported to be able toidentify 13 out of 26 uppercase letters by name and 11 lowercase letters. The specialeducation teacher was to work on this area of need for 125 mpw in the regular educationclassroom. 5
  6. 6. In developing a math goal, the student was listed as being able to rote count to at least 19,could identify 2 coins and knew the value of one. The annual goal was that the studentwould “increase his math readiness skills including his math vocabulary.” The specialeducation teacher was to work on this area of need for 100 mpw in the regular educationclassroom.In developing speech goals, the student was listed as having made gains in articulationbut needing continued practice of sounds across a variety of contexts. The student waslisted as being easily confused on 2-3 step directions and needing to be encouraged to useactive listening and ask for clarification or repetition of directions. The student was listedas being able to answer “who, what, where, when” questions and some “why” questionsbut needing to develop critical thinking skills. The student was listed as using a varietyof verbs in spontaneous speech and needing to improve his syntactical speech. Thespeech pathologist was to work on these areas of need for 30 mpw directly in the regulareducation classroom and 120 mpw in a separate setting (“cubicle in the resource room”).In developing occupational therapy goals in the area of independent functioning, thestudent was listed as needing continued practice of scissor and dressing skills. Theoccupational therapist was to work on these areas of need for 60 mpw in her cubicle inthe resource room. There were no goals developed to address the student’s sensoryintegration issues.The IEP listed a number of modifications and accommodations which should be used toenable the student to participate in the general education curriculum including but notlimited to preferential seat, use of visual cues and materials and consultative occupationaltherapy services for handwriting.The IEP team considered placement in a self-contained special education classroom butrejected that placement option as too restrictive for the student. The parties agreed thatthe student would be retained in kindergarten for a second year. The IEP team choseplacement in a regular education kindergarten classroom with the majority of his specialeducation services to be provided in the classroom.The IEP Summary Sheet listed the following as the student’s learning characteristics: • difficulty following directions • processes information slowly • has a short auditory attention span • is distracted easily and loses focus/concentration often • delayed copying/printing skills • has difficulty understanding concepts • has difficulty following multiple verbal requests • is frequently distracted by extraneous noises 6
  7. 7. • is slow to switch from one task to anotherThe mother of the student raised no objections to any of these findings orrecommendations. At this point, all she knew was that her son did not appear ready for1st grade. The mother did not yet understand the import of the test data and theconsequences of the failure to address the student’s sensory integration issues.On May 26, 2004, the IEP team met to discuss the team conclusion that the student’sbehavior impeded his learning and as a consequence assessed the functional nature of thestudent’s crying, pouting, anger, and giving up in the classroom and school wide. Theteam created a behavior intervention plan that focused on changing the student’s responseto teacher’s questions and assignments/task initiation without demonstrating the targetedbehaviors.On June 9, 2004 the IEP team reconsidered its position on extended school year servicesand created goals in the area of speech and occupational therapy. The services were to beprovided in a setting with his disabled peers because the student required a smallersetting.II. 2004-2005 KindergartenAt the recommendation of the student’s private speech therapist, the mother sought anindependent evaluation of the student’s auditory processing. Dr. Jeannane Ferre’s reportwas dated Septembr 30, 2004. The student’s test situation behaviors revealed fairlistening habits. Eye contact was inconsistent and the student had difficulty remainingseated throughout the session. The student was distracted by objects in the test booth butDr. Ferre concluded that her results reliably estimated the student’s auditory skills at thattime. Dr. Ferre concluded that there was evidence of delayed auditory integration skills,consistent with Ms. Rezabek’s evaluation findings and evidence of weak auditoryclosure/decoding skills. Dr. Ferre concluded that the student was working harder than hispeers under normal listening circumstances to analyze and then integrate auditoryinformation. She believed that the student may at times appear to not hear what has beensaid to him. Dr. Ferre believed that the student was at risk for listening difficulties inhighly reverberant environments, when engaged in group activities, when unfamiliar withvocabulary, when contextual and/or visual cues are limited, or in social communicationsituations where signal redundancy may be reduced and/or extraneous noise may maskauditory information.Dr. Ferre was of the opinion that the student needed preferential classroom seating andshould be in an experiential, multisensory learning environment with a teacher who usesrepetition, examples, models, demonstrations and ample visual cues that complement orclarify the target. Dr. Ferre was of the opinion that in order to address goals of improvedacademic skills, the student needed a systematic, explicit, multisensory phonics based 7
  8. 8. program including but not limited to programs from Orton-Gillingham, Lindamood-Bellor Wilson.The mother of the student shared the evaluation completed by Dr. Ferre with the schooldistrict speech pathologist, Ms. Kolden and Michelle Buttermore, the student’s casemanager shortly thereafter. The kindergarten teacher, Ms. Davis, was also provided acopy of this report. No IEP meeting was called to consider Dr. Ferre’s report. NeitherMs. Kolden nor Ms. Buttermore requested that an IEP meeting be called to discuss Dr.Ferre’s report or her recommendations. Still not understanding the import of the data, themother also did not request an IEP meeting.On April 27, 2005, the IEP team met to evaluate the student’s progress on his specialeducation goals and to create goals for 1st grade. The student’s progress or lack thereofduring his 2nd year of kindergarten is not before this hearing officer. They are recited hereto provide historical context for what transpired during the student’s first and secondgrade experiences.Edris Zerebiny had been the student’s special education teacher for two years at thispoint. Prior to the 4/27/05 IEP meeting, Ms. Zerebiny assessed the student’s presentlevel of performance regarding sight words , Ms. Zerebiny administered the PeabodyIndividual Achievement Test-Revised (PIAT-R). The student was found to have thefollowing scores: Standard Grade Score Equivalent General Knowledge 94 K.9 Reading Recognition 88 K.7 Math 107 1.5Ms. Zerebiny reported the grade equivalent scores to the IEP participants. Ms. Zerebinytestified that she probably used kindergarten norms on the PIAT-R because “that was hisinstructional level”. Ms. Zerebiny testified that she was not sure if the PIAT-R could bestandardized and did not know whether a grade equivalency was a less accuratemeasurement than a standard score as far as determining progress. The testimony of theparent’s expert, Dr. Shana Erenberg, completely contradicted Ms. Zerebiny. Forpurposes of creating data, Ms. Zerebiny’s grade equivalent scores are set forth above.The standard scores were provided by Dr. Erenberg at the hearing.Dr. Erenberg was called by and accepted as an expert in the analysis of test data data. Dr.Erenberg testified that the use of grade equivalencies and use of grade equivalenciesbased on the student’s “instructional level” are problematic. In assessing the student’sability to read, the hearing officer noted that the present level of performance for thestudent’s language arts goal on April 27, 2005 more accurately reflect the student’s“progress”: 8
  9. 9. after one year of kindergarten, the student could identify 13 uppercase letters by name and 11 lowercase letters, could rote count to at least 19, could identify two coins and could identify the value of one of the coins. After another year of kindergarten the student was reported to be able to identify 20 uppercase letter names and 14 sounds and 17 lowercase letter names and 12 sounds. The student could not blend sounds together.The math goal for 1st grade focused on the student’s behavior to-wit: the student’sattending behavior impacted his ability to keep pace with the curriculum The PIAT-Rresults expressed as a grade equivalent of 1.5 was contained within the goal. The annualgoal for 1st grade was that the special education teacher would consult with the generaleducation teacher to monitor math progress.The unequivocal testimony from all school district witnesses was that at the end of hissecond year of kindergarten, the student was still a non-reader, unable to identify all ofthe letters in the alphabet and unable to identify all of the sounds of the letters in thealphabet.The IEP listed a number of modifications and accommodations which should be used toenable the student to participate in the general education curriculum including but notlimited to preferential seating, use of visual cues and materials and consultativeoccupational therapy services for handwriting strategies. The IEP team added a sharedassistant to redirect, prompt or cue the student to maintain focus, to implement thebehavior plan, and assist the student with transitions.The IEP team again rejected placement in a self-contained setting as being too restrictivefor the student and chose resource support in the 1st grade classroom. The student was toreceive 125 mpw of service from the special education teacher in language arts, 240 mpwof services from the speech pathologist in the regular education classroom and 120 mpwof service in her cubicle in the resource room, 30 mpw of services from the occupationaltherapist in the regular education classroom and 30 mpw of service in her cubicle in theresource room, and 30 mpm of service from the social worker in his cubicle in theresource room. Despite the reports about the PIAT-R, the direct service minutes in mathwere eliminated, replaced with a consult goal.The IEP team again concluded that the student’s behavior impeded his learning and as aconsequence assessed the functional nature of the student’s daily constant movement insmall and large groups. The team created a behavior intervention plan that focused onchanging the student’s behavior by decreasing movements and/or substituting moveappropriate ones and decreasing inappropriate attending times.In addition, the IEP team determined that the student required individualized servicesfrom a classroom assistant in the areas of dressing and following basic safety rules and toparticipate in learning activities because the student required a good deal of adult 9
  10. 10. intervention (redirection, lessen frustration, prompts, provide visual cues). The IEP teamnoted that the student struggled behind his class line and due to his questionableattending, teachers were concerned about his safety. Also, the teachers noted that thestudent did not remain in his space, sometimes lying across the floor and causing apotential tripping hazard.The IEP team concluded that the student required extended school year services tomaintain his current skills, with the services to be provided in a setting with no non-disabled peers because the student required a smaller setting.Again, the mother interposed no objections, not then realizing that the data did notsupport the school district’s assertions that her son was meeting his goals and makingprogress.On May 31, 2005 Barbara Rezabek reassessed the student’s auditory processing skills.Her report contained a specific reference to the auditory processing assessmentcompleted by Dr. Ferre in September 2004. It is not clear from the document whetherMs. Rezabek ever reviewed Dr. Ferre’s report. Ms. Rezabek again concluded that thestudent was not eligible to receive services for students who are deaf/hard of hearing andsuggested certain accommodations and modifications that appear again in the student’sIEP for 1st grade.III 2005-2006 1st gradeThe student was placed in Amy Selby’s classroom for 1st grade (2005-2006). Ms.Selby’s memory regarding that school year was not clear. She believed that the studenthad made progress in academics and behavior in 1st grade testifying that “I don’tremember everything specifically from that time, but I do remember just feeling that hehad come a long way in reading and that his attitude had really changed about readingfrom the beginning of the school year.”Dr. Ferre’s completed a second independent evaluation of the student’s central auditoryprocessing skills on March 21, 2006. She reported that the student continued to exhibitself-distracting behaviors during testing including looking around the test booth,impulsive responses and squirming in the chair and concluded that the resultsunderestimated the student’s auditory skill level. Central auditory testing indicatedimprovement across all tasks. Auditory decoding sills taxed by degraded speech tests hadreached age appropriate levels. Performance on tasks taxing auditory integration skillsalso were significant improved with scores within normal limits. Dr. Ferre concludedthat the improvement in the student’s central auditory processing skills were likely due toa combination of maturation and effective intervention todate. She did, however, findthat the student was at risk for secondary difficulties in related language learning skillsthat depend on intact auditory processing. 10
  11. 11. On March 21, 2006 at the end of the student’s 1st grade year, the IEP team met toevaluate his progress on his special education goals and to create new goals for 2nd grade.Michelle Buttermore (case manager), Edie Zerebiny (special education teacher), AmySelby (1st grade teacher), Jennifer Martin (occupational therapist), the social worker,Deborah Koldan (speech pathologist), and the mother were in attendance.To determine the student’s present level of performance, Ms. Zerebiny administered theGates MacGinite Reading Tests – 4th Edition Pre-Reading Form S. The student wasfound to have the following scores: Stanine Grade EquivalentLiteracy Concepts 7Oral Language Concepts 5Letters/Letter Sounds 4CorrespondenceListening (Story Comp.) 6Total 4 1.3Mrs. Zerebiny used Spring of Grade 1 norming data. Ms. Zerebiny reported that sheattempted to administer the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests – 4th Edition but testing wasdiscontinued due to student frustration with item difficulty level. Dr. Erenbergcontradicted Ms. Zerebiny testifying that Ms. Zerebiny had violated the standardizationof the test – a test must be normed based on the student’s age.Ms. Zerebiny believed that the student had made progress in 1st grade because he scored27 out of 30 on the Gates McGinitie test. She had not administered the test at thebeginning of the year and could not explain the basis for her opinion that the student’sscores on the Pre-Reading Gates McGinitie test indicated improvement.At this point in time, the IEP team had the baseline data from 2004, the data from theadministration of the Gates-McGinity Pre-Reading test by Ms. Zerebiny and the data (orlack thereof) from the abandoned Gates-McGinity Reading test. Ms. Zerebiny testifiedthat she scored the Gates-McGinity test using grade level norms. As previously stated,the test should have been normed to the student’s age, not grade level. At that point, thedecisions made by the IEP team were premised upon baseline data from 2004 andinaccurate data from Ms. Zerebiny.Based on the foregoing, the IEP team developed the following goals for the student in 2ndgrade: • Language Arts/Phonics: Jimmy will identify initial consonant blends in words and apply his knowledge of blends to generate rhyming words 11
  12. 12. • Language Arts: Jimmy will increase his ability to apply word analysis skills to identify words: CVCE decoding, contractions with will verbs with –s and –ing (90 mpw) • Speech: continue to improve listening skills while repeating sentences, directions, and answering questions from short paragraphs read to him, given one repetition, 4/5 attempts (10 mpw) • Speech: will reference writer’s dictionary and will continue to develop phonological awareness skills for short vowels and consonants, with 70-80% success • Speech: continue to improve oral expression and word retrieval skills while participating in activities that require him to be more succinct with word, given word retrieval cues and guided questions, 3/5 attempts (20 mpw) • Speech: continue to develop age appropriate syntactical skills for verbs, given cues, with 70% success (20 mpw) • Speech: continue to improve speech intelligibility by self-correcting apraxic errors in words and sentences with 70% success (20 mpw) • Occupational Therapy: Jimmy will construct using several media and participate in typing activities for greater independent in classroom activities (30 mpw) • Occupational Therapy: Jimmy will complete journal and simple printing assignments with cuing as needed, adaptations and modifications as needed (30 mpw) • Social Work: Jimmy will continue to discuss feelings in session to improve anxiety, frustration tolerance and school performance by 80% (30 mpm)The first academic goal in reading indicated that the student was to identify consonantblends in words and apply his knowledge of blends to generate rhymming words. Dr.Erenberg correctly pointed out that there is no indication at what percentage the studentwas expected to perform this skills nor did the goal indicate how many rhymming wordsthe student had to generate to meet the goal.Dr. Erenberg testified that the second academic goal, in the area of word analysis, alsodid not indicate how much the student had to increase his word analysis skills and therewas no measurable present level of performance from which to compare his abilities inthe quarterly benchmarks.The IEP team saw no need to include a math goal because Ms. Selby had advised Ms.Zerebiny that the student was doing “fine” in math. Thus, the student’s consult goal inmath was eliminated. The data, adjusted for proper norming, did not support thesestatements by Ms. Selby. 12
  13. 13. The IEP listed a number of modifications and accommodations which should be used toenable the student to participate in the general education curriculum including but notlimited to preferential seating, use of visual cues and materials and consultativeoccupational therapy services for handwriting strategies. The IEP team again added ashared assistant to redirect, prompt or cue the student to maintain focus, to implementbehavior plan, and assist the student with transitions.The IEP team again rejected placement in a self-contained setting as being too restrictivefor the student and chose resource support to address the student’s deficits in languagearts. The student was to receive 90 mpw of service from the special education teacher inthe resource room, 45 mpw of services from the speech pathologist in the regulareducation classroom and 45 mpw of service in her cubicle in the resource room, 30 mpwof services from the occupational therapist in the regular education classroom and 30mpw of service in her cubicle in the resource room, and 30 mpm of service from thesocial worker in his cubicle in the resource room.The IEP team again concluded that the student should receive the services of aparaprofessional because the student required intervention/support to redirect, prompt orcue and encourage task completion, especially for activities to be completedindependently rather than in small or large groups.The IEP team concluded that the student required extended school year services tomaintain his current skills, with the services to be provided in a setting with no non-disabled peers because the student required a smaller setting.While Ms. Selby is apparently a gifted teacher, it is uncontroverted that at the end of 1stgrade the student was still a non-reader. While the IEP team apparently concluded thatthe student had met his goals and objectives for 1st grade, it is uncontroverted that at theend of 1st grade the student’s case manager knew that the student was still a non-reader.At this point, it would appear that the mother was becoming concerned that the glowingreports at Norwood Park Elementary School were at odds with her experiences with thestudent. The mother of the student testified that at the end of 1st grade, the student couldnot read menus, could not read signs, could not read the instructions to games – in short,was a non-reader. Ever polite, the mother expressed no objections at the end of the4/21/06 IEP meeting.The student was placed in the 2nd grade classroom of Fitz Crame. There were 23-24students in the classroom.IV 2006-2007 2nd gradeContinuing to investigate the student’s inability to read, the mother had the student’sreading skills assessed at the Lindamood-Bell testing center on September 14, 2006. By 13
  14. 14. letter dated October 4, 2006 the parent summarized those test results and asserted that herson could not read and was still at the stage of acquiring basic phonemic awareness skillssuch as associating sounds with vowels and letter blends. The parent requestedsubstantial time in intense one-on-one reading instruction based on an Orton-Gillingham,Lindamood-Bell or other research-based systematic reading program. The parentrequested an IEP meeting to discuss the situation. That IEP meeting was held on October4, 2006 and was attended by the special education teacher, Edris Zerebiny, theoccupational therapist, Jennifer Martin, the speech pathologist, Deborah Kolden, theassistant principal in the absence of the case manager, and a representative fromLindamood Bell. There was no one at this IEP meeting who could understand thesignificance of the testing and interpret the results for the rest of the IEP team. None ofthe school district participants who attended that meeting felt competent to interpret theresults of the Lindamood Bell testing. All of them testified to the expertise of the schoolpsychologist but she did not attend the meeting. Apparently, no one suggested that theIEP meeting be rescheduled so that Ms. Slonim could attend.By all reports, the meeting lasted fifteen minutes. The mother of the student testified thatthere was no discussion of the test scores. There were no comments made by the IEPparticipants questioning the test conditions or the name of the person who administeredthe tests. The members of the IEP team in attendance apparently believed that theLindamood Bell testing was consistent with school district data. At this point, the motherwas starting to realize that the data was inconsistent. None of the IEP participantsquestioned the validity of the tests. Despite pleas for changes, no changes were made inthe student’s IEP for 2nd grade. At the conclusion of the meeting, the mother testified thatshe was shocked and frightened, stating that she felt a bit, like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz when the curtain is pulled aside and she sees, you know, there isn’t a wizard. There’s a man behind the curtain, just with some knobs and levers. But there wasn’t any---any response that Jim was at zero in reading, after three full years of Norwood Park School; and no one was blinking. No one was suggesting any alternatives….Dr. Erenberg compared the Lindamood Bell testing data with the school district data.The student’s standardized scores on the reading portion of the WRAT had dropped froman 84 to a 69. In spelling, the student’s score dropped from an 86 to a 68. In math, thestudent’s score had dropped from 100 to 83.After the IEP meeting on October 4, 2006, the mother testified that she hired MarciaWeiss, a multi-sensory reading tutor to work with the student four days a week afterschool. She also retained the services of a Barbara Resnick, an educational consultant, tovisit Norwood Park Elementary School and make recommendations for the student’sprogram. Shortly before the Christmas 2006 break, the mother of the student providedthe school district with Ms. Reznick’s written recommendations. Ms. Resnick had 14
  15. 15. reviewed previous testing and concluded that the student had significant expressivelanguage delays and required a curriculum that would focus on his individual needs andallow him to maximize his strengths in cognitive ability and receptive language whilecompensating for his weaknesses in expressive language and fine and gross motor skills.She recommended a learning environment that was sequential and systematic andprovided visual, auditory, kinesthetic and tactile pathways in instruction. Ms. Resnickrecommended a multisensory approach in reading that included lessons in phonemicawareness, decoding, spelling, drill and reinforcement of skills e.g. Lindamood-Bell,Wilson, Project Read.On December 11, 2006 the mother, still in search of information, secured an independentintellectual evaluation from Dr. Leslie Baier Cohen, a licensed clinical psychologist. Thestudent was referred for evaluation by Barbara Reznick, the parent’s educationalconsultant. Cognitive testing revealed overall intellectual abilities in the average range.Relative to overall abilities, Dr. Cohen found a distinct weakness on tasks assessingauditory working memory. Administration of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale forChildren-4th Edition (WISC-IV) revealed the following scores: Standard Score DescriptionFull Scale IQ 95 AverageVerbal Comprehension Index 100 AveragePerceptual Reasoning Index 110 High AverageWorking Memory Index 74 BorderlineProcessing Speed Index 91 AverageDr. Cohen found relative weaknesses in tasks assessing auditory working memory,sequencing, vocabulary, expressive language and rapid graphomotor speech andsuggested that the difficulties might impact the student’s performance relative to reading,oral expression, direction following, keeping the sequence of instructions in proper orderand handling multiple information inputs.The school district argued in its closing statement that Dr. Cohen does not hold acertification as a school psychologist and is not on the Illinois State Board of Education’sapproved list of independent evaluators. The school district apparently relies on Section226.850 of the Illinois Administrative Code. There is no requirement that Dr. Cohen becertified as a school psychologist nor does it state that only individuals on the “approvedlist” can complete evaluations of the student. Clearly, a hearing officer can make anindependent determination whether to accept or reject the opinions of a licensed clinicalpsychologist.V April 27, 2007 – The re-evaluation 15
  16. 16. On April 27, 2007, at the end of 2nd grade, the IEP team met to evaluate the student’sprogress on his special education goals and thereafter determine whether the studentremained eligible for special education on a going-forward basis. All of the schooldistrict members of the IEP team were present including the student’s classroom teacher.The mother attended the meeting accompanied by Marcia Weiss (student’s private tutor)and Barbara Reznick (her educational consultant).The IEP indicates that the school district again reported that student met his two languagearts goals, his five speech goals, his two occupational therapy goals, and his social workgoal. Edris Zerebny prepared a review of the student’s progress on his language artsgoals. She noted that the student continued to have memory weaknesses during hisreading activities e.g. the student would decode a word in one sentence but if the sameword appeared in the next paragraph, the student would not necessarily recall the word;the student can describe the decoding rules, but requires additional practice in applyingthem in his daily reading activities.Prior to the 4/27/07 IEP meeting, Ms. Zerebny administered the Gates-MacGiniteReading Tests, Fourth Edition, Level BR (Beginning Reading), Form S. Using WinterGrade 2 norms, the student’s achievement fell within the following stanines: StanineInitial Consonants/Clusters 1Final Consonant/Clusters 1Vowels 1Basic Story Words 1Total 1Again, Ms. Zerebiny normed the test to what she believed to be the student’s instructionallevel - first grade. Ms. Zerebiny testified that because the student had been unable to takethe beginning reading version of the test in 2006 but was able to take that version in2007, the student had made progress.Ms. Zerebiny also administered the Peabody Individual Assessment Test-Revised (PIAT-R). Again the student’s scores were reported in grade equivalents but Dr. Erenberg wasable to provide the student’s standard scores: Standard Grade Score EquivalentReading Recognition 80 1.4Reading Comprehension 79 1.3 16
  17. 17. Mrs. Zerebiny recommended 225 minutes per week of special education instruction,presumably focused on the student’s reading.Dr. Erenberg reviewed the PIAT-R test protocols from the assessments given by Mrs.Zerebiny in 2005 and 2007. She testified that she examined the raw data and was able toconvert the grade equivalency scores to standard scores. Dr. Erenberg testified that in2005, the student’s standard score in word recognition was 88 and the student’s standardscore in reading comprehension score was 86. These scores support her conclusion thatin 2005, the student was not reading to be able to comprehend. In 2007 the student’sstandard scores drop – 80 in word recognition and 79 in reading comprehension. Dr.Erenberg testified that these standard scores show that the student made no progress overthat two-year period.Joanne Slonim completed her Psychological Evaluation on March 23, 2007. Shedescribed Dr. Cohen’s impressions and findings as follows: friendly, engaging child with language difficulties evidenced (immature syntax, fluency and articulation as well as problems with word retrieval) His overall activity level was greater than the norm. He was fidgety at times; he stood up to complete work; and he was sometimes sidetracked from the task at hand. He was easily frustrated when unable to complete a task; yet, he was easily redirected.Ms. Slonim interviewed the student’s teacher and was told that the student was showingimprovement in behavior as well as in academics yet continued to lag behind in readingand spelling. Ms. Slonim interviewed the student’s mother and was told that the studentwas currently taking Lexapro (mood management), Concerta (attention/activity) andLamictal (impulse control).Ms. Slonim administered the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-II and recorded thefollowing scores: Standard ScoreNumerical Operations 97Math Reasoning 88Math Composite 91Word Reading 68Reading ComprehensionThe reading comprehension subtest could not be completed due to the student’s limitedsight vocabulary. The Word Reading and Reading Comprehension subtests wereadministered by Ms. Zerebny and the results included within Ms. Slonim’s evaluation. 17
  18. 18. Ms. Zerebiny was unable to complete the reading comprehension subtest. Apparently noone noted the significance of the student’s inability to complete that subtest.Ms. Slonim administered the Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration and thestudent received a standard score of 10. Ms. Slonim described that score as borderlineand noted that the student experienced difficulty with directionality and seeing the wholeon more complicated figures.Ms. Slonim described the student as follows: an anxious, loquacious, active boy with a low frustration tolerance. He alternatively sat and/or stood during the evaluation. More difficult tasks seemed to agitate the boy. He appeared to cooperate to the best of his ability in the structured testing situation; therefore, test results are considered representative of his ability at this time. Unstructured figure drawings looked immature. Geometric figures suggest visual motor perceptual problems...Prior psychological intelligence testing indicated overall average ability and the results of this psychological is in general agreement.Ms. Slonim administered the BASC Parent and Teacher Rating Scales. The parent’sresponses indicated that the student was at risk for withdrawal and anxiety. The teacherrating scales indicated the following clinical scales were also within the At Risk range:hyperactivity, internalizing problems composite, depression, school problems composite,learning problems, behavior symptom index, study skills and functional communication.Additionally, atypicality fell within the Clinically Significant range. Ms. Slonim statedthat prior and current psychological test findings were in general agreement and revealedan anxious boy with overall average cognition, an irregular learning patterns, suspectedemotional concerns and academic difficulty and a need for continued special educationservices.Stephen Brehm completed a social assessment of the student. Mr. Brehm interviewed thestudent’s 2nd grade teacher, Fitz Crame, who reported that the student had demonstratedimprovement in showing effort (work ethic) and his socially inappropriate behaviors haddecreased markedly. Mr. Crame also reported that the student was well below gradelevel in language arts and articulation and performed better in math when the assignmentwere read to him. Mr. Crame testified that the student was reading at the 1st grade levelat the beginning of 2nd grade and at the end of 2nd grade, the student was reading moretoward the later 1st grade level. Mr. Crame also testified that the student wasexperiencing behavioral breakdowns in the morning when he was receiving readinginstruction. Both parents reported that the student could be obsessive about things, aviewpoint echoed by Mrs. Zerebny. After concluding that the student demonstrated asocial-emotional disorder that negatively impacted the ability to benefit from theeducational program (student displayed significant self-esteem issues that negatively 18
  19. 19. impacted his academic functioning), Mr. Brehn recommended continued social workservices to assist the student with self-esteem, self-awareness and self-advocacy issues.Prior to the 4/27/07 IEP meeting, Ms. Kolden completed a speech-language assessmentsummary. She considered the auditory processing assessment by Dr. Jeanane Ferre inSeptember 2004 and March 2006. She considered the Lindamood-Bell readingassessment in September 2006. She considered Dr. Leslie Baer Cohn’s evaluation inDecember 2006. She agreed that these reports had significant findings. Although thestudent was then completing 2nd grade, Ms. Kolden reported that the student’s readingand writing were approximately at the 1st grade level. She reported that the student haddifficulty with decoding, reading fluency and reading comprehension. She reported thatthe student’s ability to use invented spelling for writing was impaired by decodingdifficulties. She reported that the student had poor memory skills affecting spelling andsight word recall. She reported that the student could write simple sentences with somespelling assistance but it was a laborious process. She reported that when dictating astory idea, the student would produce a much longer product with an excellentimagination but he required assistance with editing for syntax, sentence combining andorganization.Ms. Kolden interviewed the student and reported that the student continued todemonstrate good concept knowledge and a good imagination for story idea. Shereported that the student had poor self-monitoring skills for correcting hisarticulation/syntactical errors and had difficulty with word retrieval andorganization/formulation of spoken message, using an excess number of words to conveyhis idea.Ms. Kolden concluded that the student had receptive language skills within the average toabove average range and the student’s oral expression demonstrated difficulties withsyntax, word retrieval and organization/formulation of spoken messages. Ms. Koldenadministered a variety of testing instruments: Standard ScoreExpressive Vocabulary Test(word retrieval delays noted frequently) 114Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III 104Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language 113Ms. Kolden administered the Test of Auditory Processing Skills which resulted in thefollowing scaled scores: Scaled (means=10) Score StanineWord discrimination 1 1 19
  20. 20. Phonological segmentation 4 1Phonological blending 11 5Number Memory Forward 10 5Word Memory 6 2Sentence Memory 2 1Auditory comprehension 12 6Auditory reasoning 11 5Phonological Index: Standard Score: 77Ms. Kolden recommended continued speech/language services focused on self-monitoring/self-correcting articulation/syntax; word retrieval (initial phoneme/graphemecue, imagery, synonym development, word association, reflective pausing, syllabication,rehearsal); short-term auditory memory (memory pegs, chunking, rhyming, paraphrasing,categorization, listening for key words, imagery, graphic organizers) and improvingstructure of spoken/written message use (use of a variety of sentence types, use ofparaphrasing, critical thinking questions).Prior to the 4/27/07 IEP meeting, Jennifer Martin prepared an occupational therapyassessment of the student. She administered a variety of assessments including theBeery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration (VMI). 2007 2004 Standard Standard Score Score VMI 73 95 Visual Perception 85 97 Motor Coordination 99 91The VMI is a developmental sequence of geometic forms to be copied with paper andpencil. On the Visual Perception, the student was required to match shapes. On theMotor Coordination, the student was required to trace forms without going outsidedouble-lined paths. Ms. Martin concluded that the student had visual motor and visualmatching weaknesses. In summary, Ms. Martin recommended continued occupationaltherapy in the school setting focused on cursive handwriting acquisition and keyboardingskills with on-going consultation with classroom teachers and staff regardingindependence with organization and strategies to promote optimal arousal for learning.There was no goal to address the student’s sensory integration issues and there was notestimony that the IEP participants were made aware of the signifiant drop on the varioussubtests.The IEP team concluded that the student’s educational difficulties could not be attributedto a lack of adequate instruction in reading including the essential components of readinginstruction which include explicit and systematic instruction in phonemic awareness,phonic, vocabulary development, reading fluency including oral reading skills andreading comprehension. The IEP team concluded that the student had a significant 20
  21. 21. discrepancy between his achievement commensurate with his age and ability in writtenexpression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, and math reasoning. The IEPteam concluded that the student still had a speech/language impairment.The IEP team developed the goals based upon an assessment of the student’s then levelof academic achievement as follows: Language Arts/English/Reading premised on statements that the student can identify the letters of the alphabet and has learned letter-sound associations for the consonants and short vowels. The student can decode CVC words and recognize l, r and s blends in initial positions in a word. The student can recognize initial diagraphs sh, th, ch and wh. The student can read words with a and ing endings at his instructional level (1st grade). Goal: the student will increase his ability to apply word analysis skills to identify unfamiliar words in his daily reading activities. The student will increase his ability to decode words with r controlled vowel sounds. 105 mpw in the regular education classroom. Language Arts/English/Reading premised on statements that the student was receiving reading instruction at a first grade level. Goal: the student will improve his ability to read text fluently. 120 mpq in the regular education classroom. Language Arts/English/Reading premised on statements that the student can identify the letters of the alphabet and has learned letter sound associations for consonants and short vowels. Goal: the student will increase his ability to apply word analysis skills to identify unfamiliar words in his daily reading activities and increase his ability to decode words with the final consonant blends. 105 mpw in the regular education classroom. Language Arts/English Reading premised on statements that the student can write a simply sentence with awareness of capitalization and punctuation; students attempts to sound out words but needs assistance with spelling; student can dictate story but requires help to organize content and correct the syntax. Goal: the student will compose a well- organized composition at least three paragraphs in length that include clear topic sentences as well as appropriate supporting sentences. 90 mpw in a separate classroom. Math Reasoning premised on a 22 statistically significant discrepancy on the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-II. Goal: student will increase his ability to demonstrate understanding of math concepts and applications. The student will increase his ability to solve number story problems involving operations of addition, subtraction and multiplication as well as money concepts. 225 mpw in a separate classroom. Speech goal focused on articulation. 25 mpw in a separate classroom. Speech goal focused on word retrieval. 25 mpw in a separate classroom. Speech goal focused on syntactical usage: 20 mpw in the regular education classroom Speech goal focused on clarity of oral expression: 20 mpw in the regular education classroom. Occupational therapy goal focused on cursive writing. 30 mpw in the regular education classroom 21
  22. 22. Occupational therapy goal focused on keyboarding as an alternative to writing. 30 mpw in the regular education classroom. Social work therapy goal focused on self-acceptance, self-advocacy and self expression. 30 mpw in a separate classroom.Ms. Zerebiny testified that the language arts goals did not contain baseline data for thestudent’s present level of performance. While Ms. Zerebiny believed that readingfluency was an important goal for 3rd grade, she testified that the goals was broad andunmeasurable. There was no goal in the area of reading comprehension despite data thatthe student could not complete the reading comprehension subtest on the WRAT and thespeech pathologist’s findings that the student had difficulty with reading comprehension.There was no goal in the area of spelling despite the student’s drop in achievement on theWRAT in spelling. The math goal did not contain a present level of performance thatrelated to the goal. Instead it listed a statistically significant discrepancy on the WechslerIndividual Achievement Test. Neither Ms. Zerebiny nor Mr. Crame understood themeaning of the term “significant discrepancy”.The IEP listed a number of modifications and accommodations which should be used toenable the student to participate in the general education curriculum including but notlimited to preferential seating, use of visual cues and materials and consultativeoccupational therapy services for handwriting strategies. The IEP team again added aclassroom assistant to redirect, prompt or cue the student to maintain focus, to implementbehavior plan, and assist the student with transitions.The IEP team again recommended placement in a regular education 3rd grade classroomwith pull-out resources services. At that point, it was rumored that there would be 30-40students in that classroom.The student was found to require extended school year services for 4 weeks for thefollowing specific reasons: Integral part of the student’s ability to retain or acquire askills. Communication and language skills are at a critical point where ongoing work todevelop communication and memory skills are essential in the student’s educationalprogress. Again, the extended school year services would be provided in a setting withhis disabled peers.The IEP Summary Sheet listed the following as the student’s learning characteristics: • difficulty following directions • processes information slowly • has a short auditory attention span • is distracted easily and loses focus/concentration often • spells poorly • has trouble putting ideas on paper 22
  23. 23. • delayed copying/printing skills • has difficulty understanding concepts • has difficulty following multiple verbal requests • is frequently distracted by extraneous noises • in disorganized and often misplaces things • has difficulty copying from the board.The mother of the student testified that she brought two individuals to the IEP meeting onApril 27, 2007 – the student’s tutor, Marcia Weiss, and her educational consultant, Ms.Reznick. With the exception of the principal of Norwood Park Elementary School, noneof the other IEP participants could recall their names or if they had said anything. Dr.Meuer testified that the mother’s concerns were noted but there are no notes or statementsattributed to any of them in the IEP other than the December 2006 report from Ms.Reznick. The mother testified that she asserted that the student could not read andrequired a more intense placement. She specifically requested a private day placement.She specifically requested Hyde Park Day School. None of the other IEP participantscould recall anything said by the mother or even if she had said anything. None of theother IEP participants could recall anything said by Ms. Reznick or even if she had saidanything. Inexplicably Ms. Reznick’s December 2006 recommendations were attachedto the 4/27/07 IEP. Dr. Meuer, on the other hand, was one of the last school districtwitnesses called to testify. He had sat in the hearing room for a majority of thetestimony. Dr. Meuer recalled that the specific day school was mentioned but he couldnot recall who raised the issue of Hyde Park Day School. He testified that the mother’sconcerns were “noted” but the IEP contains no such notations. Believing that the 4/27/07was an offer of more of the same, the mother unilaterally placed the student at Hyde ParkDay School with proper notice to the school district.As previously stated, Dr. Shana Erenberg testified on behalf of the mother of the student.Dr. Erenberg has a doctorate from Northeastern University in communication sciencesand disorders in the field specifically of learning disabilities and her doctorate has aneuropsychological component. Dr. Erenberg also holds a masters degree in specialeducation and a bachelors degree in elementary and special education from NortheasternUniversity. She is certified to teach elementary and special education. Dr. Erenberg hasworked as a consultant to numerous schools including this school district, private schools,suburban public schools, both here and in many cities across the country. She hasprovided teacher training on aspects of curriculum development, differentiatedinstruction, best practices in special education, remediation, classroom structure, andinclusion. In her private practice Dr. Erenberg conducts diagnostic testing for studentswith learning, attention and behavior disorders and then provides recommendationsregarding school programs for students with learning disabilities and recommendation forremediation of those disabilities. 23
  24. 24. The parties were in agreement that Dr. Erenberg is an educational expert including anexpert on psychoeducational diagnostic evaluations of students with learning disabilities.In addition the parties were in agreement that Dr. Erenberg is an expert in the analysis oftest data regarding academic and cognitive profiles and the presence and nature oflearning disabilities. The parties could not reach agreement as to whether Dr. Erenberg isan expert regarding school programs for students with learning disabilities and theremediation of those disabilities. Dr. Erenberg testified that she has testified in otheradministrative proceedings and has been certified as an expert regarding school programsfor students with learning disabilities and remediation of those disabilities. Based uponher experience working with public school districts, based upon her experience as adiagnostician, based upon her experience making recommendations and her backgroundas a teacher, the hearing officer ruled that she would accept Dr. Erenberg as an expertregarding school programs for students with learning disabilities and remediation of thosedisabilities and would accept the parties agreement that Dr. Erenberg is an expert onpsychoeducational diagnostic evaluations of students with learning disabilities and is anexpert in the analysis of test data regarding academic and cognitive profiles and thepresence and nature of learning disabilities. Dr. Erenberg was credible and persuasive.She was the only qualified professional who testified concerning the student’s specificdiagnostic profile and deficits as revealed in his 2004 reevaluation and identified theappropriate academic instruction that would address those deficits and provide thestudent with educational benefit.Dr. Erenberg reviewed the records and evaluations from the student’s Spring 2004triennial evaluation. When asked for her diagnostic impressions of the student after herreview, Dr. Erenberg testified as follows All right, well, he is a child of average to above average intelligence, with some significant scattering noted in his sub-test scores, which is indicative of a profiled learning disabilities. Based on the Wide Range Achievement Test 3, he is scoring significantly below average in reading, borderline scores in spelling, and in the average range for arithmetic. His visual motor skills score-wise are slightly below average; but the report of the individual that conducted that test indicates that his skills were lagging markedly below his kindergarten peers, his fine motor and his motor skills. He’s referred to as an immature child, severe expressive and receptive language problems, problems with auditory processing and discrimination, which were very, very significant. In terms of language development, auditory memory is severely impaired and word discrimination is severely impaired. So those are things that are going to affect listening, comprehension skills, phonemic awareness, reading skills as you move into first grade. 24
  25. 25. His test of auditory perceptual skills overall is below average; and the areas that are significantly below, again, are things like auditory memory, both for sentences and words and numbers, and again auditory processing delays. And the comments of the individual that conducted that test include things like word finding delays, mild to moderate delays in thinking and reasoning skills... In Jimmy’s case the problems that he was experiencing at this time have to do with several factors: one is an auditory decoding. So when you are speaking to him he doesn’t – he hears what you’re saying...but he doesn’t process everything you’re saying. So he’s going to miss important words, he’s going to miss important concepts. The rate at which he processes auditory information is off...He’s lacking in what we cal phonemic awareness, which is again due to the problem he’s having with auditory discrimination...Jimmy, according to these records, was having great difficulty with auditory discrimination. The auditory processing, the auditory word memory, the auditory discrimination – they impact on the ability to develop phonemic awareness skills...you need to have adequate phonemic awareness skills to move forward in terms of reading, particularly with conventional reading methods that are in use today. For Jimmy all of those problems combined mean that he’s not going to learn the sounds of the letters, he’s not going to be able to learn the sight words, he’s not going to be able to remember the rules that he’s being taught in terms of the reading, he’s not going to pick up the reading.Dr. Erenberg also testified that the student’s has sensory integration problems: Dr.Erenberg described the impact of the deficit: the issue is how well Jimmy can process information that’s coming at him from his senses and how well he reacts to the over stimulation of noise in a classroom, background noises, visual stimulation, tactile stimulation, how his clothes are feeling on him at the time, how his fingernails are bothering him...the sensory integration deficit ...impact his ability to attend, to stay focused and to pay attention, his ability to sit in his chair for any length of time, his writing skills, his frustration tolerance.At the hearing, the student’s 2nd grade teacher, Fitz Crame, testified that the student wasreading at the first grade level at the beginning of 2nd grade and reading at the ending first 25
  26. 26. grade level at the end of 2nd grade. Based on Dr. Erenberg’s review of the data, Mr.Crame is mistaken.Dr. Erenberg reviewed the testing done at Hyde Park Day School in June 2007 withinless than thirty days after Mr. Crame’s glowing assessments of the student’s readingprogress. For example, on the Wilson Reading Assessment (WADE), the studentrecognized 38 out of 120 sounds, decoded 12 out of 120 phonetically regular anddecodable words e.g. cat, and decoded 8 out 60 phonetically irregular nonsense words,and could recognize only 4 out of 100 sight words. After her review of all of the reportsand evaluations, Dr. Erenberg concluded that the student had not made the progress thathas been reported by the school district – that the student is not reading at the 2nd gradelevel, that he’s not really reading well at a first grade level and he’s pretty much at a pre-primer or pre-reading level, not really reading words but recognizing a handful of soundsand maybe a sight word or two or three but not enough to support functional reading at 1stgrade.Dr. Erenberg testified that the student could not learn to read utilizing conventionalmethods. Typically children apply their knowledge of correct syntax to predict what aword might be, what a sentence might say, or use picture cues to help them understand.The data shows that the student does not have the syntax rules in place. Consequently thestudent is not able to use the meaning that is carried in syntax and the strategies of syntaxin order to help him with his reading skills and communication. Dr. Erenberg testifiedthat the student required and still requires a multisensory approach to instruction acrossall areas: …this is a child that, again, is average to above average intelligence. He has very significant receptive and expressive language delays. He has problems with auditory processing. He’s lacking phonemic awareness skills. He has problems with fine motor development. He has verbal apraxia. He has sensory integration problems. He has attention problems. And a child that has this severe and complex of a profile of learning disabilities is not going to be able to pick up reading, writing, spelling by conventional curriculum, by conventional first grade methods, and possibly, likely not even by conventional remediation methods.”Dr. Erenberg testified that the student requires both bottom up multisensory readinginstruction e.g. Orton Gillingham and its progeny and top down multisensory instructione.g. Fernald. The student needs the Fernald approach because of his significant auditoryprocessing issues and expressive language deficits. However, Dr. Erenberg testified thatthe student actually requires multisensory instruction i.e. the ability to use a wide varietyof multisensory techniques across the curriculum and across content areas. EdrisZerebiny testified that she uses one modality at a time and characterized this approach asmulti-sensory instruction. Dr. Erenberg testified that Edris Zerebiny was describing 26
  27. 27. intrasensory instruction and appeared not to understand the concept of multi-sensoryinstruction.Dr. Erenberg was asked to explain the difference between a standard score and a gradeequivalency score. She testified that a standard score is a normed score, with 100 beingyour average. The score is a very stable score statistically and can be used to makecomparisons across tests. In contrast, grade equivalencies are not reliable statistically toshow growth over time. Edris Zerebiny testified that she normed her assessments of thestudent based on his grade level. Dr. Erenberg testified that there is a standard protocolto handle students who have been retained – you use the test norms based on their age,not their grade level.Dr. Erenberg reviewed the results of the various Gates-MacGinitie Tests administered byMrs. Zerebiny in 2006 and 2007. Dr. Erenberg testified as follows: Q. What do the results of these three tests suggest as to Jimmy’s ability to read? A. He can’t read. The bottom line is that when you look at the Gates- MacGinitie tests in March of ’07 and he is in the first stanine for beginning reading skills and this is a grade two and he’s already been retained a year, so that’s already further behind, he cannot read. He is, effectively, a non-reader.Dr. Erenberg reviewed Ms. Zerebiny’s progress report dated April 2, 2007and noted thatMs. Zerebiny had normed the Gates-MacGinitie Tests to the student’s instructional levelwhich was 1st grade. Dr. Erenberg testified that Ms. Zerebiny violated thestandardization procedures of the test – you do not norm based on a student’s readinglevel. Dr. Erenberg testified that the data illustrates that as of April 2, 2007 the studenthad made no type of meaningful progress in terms of his reading. But Dr. Erenberg wentfurther in her testimony: Of bigger concern to me is that if someone were to make a statement like this, that I normed the data on the wrong norms and, therefore, I assume the child has made progress, it indicates that the data has been misinterpreted and, therefore, there’s a misunderstanding of what that child actually has done and is capable of doing.Dr. Erenberg reviewed the scores obtained on the WRAT in 2004 and 2007 and thescores on the Lindamood-Bell testing discussed at the October 2006 IEP meeting. In2004 the student’s standard score on the reading subtest was 84. In 2006 the scoredropped to a 69 – a drop of one entire standard deviation and more than two standarddeviations below the mean. When asked to comment on these scores, Dr. Erenbergtestified as follows: 27
  28. 28. Well, it (the scores) reflects a few things. It reflects, number one, that he has not made progress; but in effect, his learning disability has become more exacerbated, as reflected by the fact that he is now further below the mean than he was in 2004. So the problems are getting worse and he’s not making progress.Dr. Erenberg reviewed the Lindamood Bell testing and testified that a summary review ofthose tests would indicate that the student has a severe reading deficit which she wouldcharacterize as dyslexia. Dr. Erenberg testified that the prognosis for true dyslexia isvery poor unless the student receives highly intensive, appropriate structured remediation,typically multisensory in nature.In conclusion, Dr. Erenberg testified that the student requires a multisensory approach allday, infused into his curriculum, and delivered in a very highly structured directed type ofsetting. The setting should be a small structured classroom to address the student’ssignificant sensory integration problems. The level of individualization required for thisstudent cannot be provided within a typical regular education classroom filled with 30-40students. There are too many distractions which could exacerbate his sensory integrationissues. Dr. Erenberg also testified that use of a resource classroom for some subjectswould be equally inappropriate as the student requires multisensory instruction across allsubjects. Dr. Erenberg testified that a cross-categorical special education classroomwould be equally inappropriate as the student requires peers that are similar in intellectualprofile and degree of their learning needs.Dr. Erenberg reviewed the goals and objectives contained within the IEP’s for 1st and 2ndgrade. She testified that the goals are not measurable and they are predicated uponquestionable data. She testified that none of the student’s IEP’s contains any mentionthat the student will be receiving or should receive multisensory instruction. While someof the school district witnesses asserted that they utilized multisensory instruction, Ms.Zerebiny testified that she used one modality at a time and conceded that she does nothave a “big background” in multi-sensory instruction. APPLICABLE LAW The law applicable to the facts in this case is set forth in the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 USC §1401 et seq., the federal regulations toIDEA, 34 CFR Part 300, the School Code of Illinois, 105 ILCS §5/14-8.02 et seq., andthe applicable state regulations, 23 Ill.Admin.Code Part 226. The local school districtbears the burden of proof that at all times relevant it properly identified the nature andseverity of the students suspected disabilities and if appropriate, that it offered thestudent a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment, consistentwith procedural safeguards. 28
  29. 29. In an administrative hearing, the party seeking the relief bears the burden ofproof. Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S.Ct. 528 (2005). In the instant case, the school districtbears the statutory burden that at all times relevant it properly identified the nature andseverity of the students suspected disabilities. The parents bear the burden of proof thatthe school district did not provide the student with Individual Education Plans whichprovided him with any educational benefit and that the Individual Education Plandeveloped on April 27, 2007 did not represent an offer of a free appropriate publiceducation in the least restrictive environment and thus the unilateral placement wasappropriate. In Board of Education, Hendrick Hudson Central School District. v. Rowley,. 458US 176 (1982) ("Rowley"), the Supreme Court set forth a two pronged test for evaluatingwhether or not the school district has complied with applicable special education laws -there must be compliance with statutory procedures and then the individualized educationprogram (IEP) developed through such procedures must be reasonably calculated toenable the student to receive educational benefit. APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE FACTSIn Kevin T. v. Elmhurst Community School District 205, 2002 WL 433061 (N.D.Il 2002)the court restated the basic tenets of Rowley, supra: IDEA seeks to assure that all children with disabilities have available to them...a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”). To assure that disabled children receive a FAPE, the IDEA requires that school districts cooperate with the parents in creating an “individualized education program (“IEP”) which sets forth the child’s educational goals. To determine whether the school district has provided a FAPE. courts must determine whether the school: (1) complied with the IDEA’s procedural requirements; and (2) developed an IEP that is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits... However, while the procedural requirements of IDEA have great importance, Congress implemented them to achieve “full participation of concerned parties throughout the development of the IEP. Therefore, where the parents fully participate in the plan to develop the IEP, the first prong of Rowley is usually met.In the instant case, the mother does not raise any issue regarding procedural irregularities.The mother challenges the substance of the IEP’s and whether or not they provided anyeducational benefit to the student. The student’s IEP for his 1st and 2nd year ofkindergarten are beyond the reach of this hearing officer. However, the data containedwithin those documents provide a baseline for an assessment of what transpired in 1st and2nd grade and what was offered for 3rd grade. 29
  30. 30. The hearing officer has read all of the material presented at the hearing and the materialpresented in prehearing motions. All of the test protocols and Individual Education Plansand test results were considered. The reality in this case is that, after four years atNorwood Park Elementary School, this student could not read. The hearing officer hascarefully reviewed the closing statement by counsel for the school district which ask thatthe hearing officer give due deference to decisions made by educational professionals.In Board of Educ. of Murphysboro Community Unit School Dist. No. 186 v. Illinois StateBoard of Education, 41 F.3d 1162 (7th Cir.1994) the parents rejected the placementoffered by the school district and unilaterally placed the student in an out-of-stateresidential facility. In that case, the school district argued that the court was required togive deference to the educators. However, the court noted that requiring a court to deferto the educator’s decisions would make it very difficult for parents to prevail in situationswhere they disagreed with the educator’s IEP, a result contemplated by IDEA. I find thatI cannot defer to decisions predicated upon faulty data and anecdotal-based conclusionsthat this student received educational benefit during 1st and 2nd grade and would continueto receive educational benefit with a continuation of more of the same.Counsel for the school district cites School Dist. of Wisconsin v. Littlegeorge, 295 F.3d671 (7th Cir.2002) for the proposition that courts “must defer to the judgment ofeducation experts who craft and review a child’s IEP so long as the child receives someeducational benefit and is educated alongside his non-disabled peers to the maximumextent possible”. The court stated that the critical issue before a hearing officer waswhether the school professionals were unreasonable in their determination as to theappropriate services and placement to be provided to the student. The evidence in thiscase supports a conclusion that the student received no educational benefit from theservices provided to the student during 1st and 2nd grade. In fact the evidence supports aconclusion that the student regressed during 1st and 2nd grade.With respect to the issue of educational benefit and regression, the hearing officer foundthe testimony of Dr. Shana Erenberg to be truthful, highly experienced and competent.She was a compelling and persuasive witness. Dr. Erenberg was qualified as an experton psychoeducational diagnostic evaluations of students with learning disabilities, anexpert in the analysis of test data regarding academic and cognitive profiles and thepresence and nature of learning disabilities and an expert regarding school programs forstudents with learning disabilities and remediation of those disabilities.Dr. Erenberg testified that the goals and objectives in the IEP’s developed for studentduring 1st and 2nd grade were not measurable and were predicated upon questionable data.Dr. Erenberg testified that the student requires a multisensory approach all day, infusedinto his curriculum and delivered in a highly structured directed type of setting. Thesetting should be a small structured classroom to address the student’s significant sensoryintegration issues. The parties stipulated that Hyde Park Day School, the placement 30
  31. 31. selected by the mother of the student, is a private therapeutic day school for students withlearning disabilities. Dr. Erenberg testified that the IEP proposed for the student 3rd gradeyear contained goals and objectives that were not measurable and were predicted uponquestionable data and the placement offered was completely inappropriate. In short, theschool district did not offer the student a free appropriate public education in the leastrestrictive environment. Under School Committee of Town of Burlington, Mass.Department of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359 (1985) the mother of the student is entitledto reimbursement for the student’s placement at Hyde Park School for the summer of2007 and the 2007-2008 school year if the proposed IEP for 3rd grade would not haveprovided the student with any educational benefit. That is precisely the opinion of Dr.Erenberg and it is precisely the finding of this hearing officer.Compensatory services are well-established as a remedy under IDEA. In EvanstonCommunity Consolidated Sch.Dist.65 v. Michael M. and Christine M. ex rel John M., 356F.3d 798 (7th Cir.2004) the court repeated its description of the statute: The only specific remedies that it mentions are attorneys’ fees and interim relief...But it authorizes the court to “grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate...and these courts have assumed, consistent with the Supreme Court’s generous reading of the provision in School Comm. of Town of Burlington v. Department of Education...that this authorization encompasses the full range of equitable remedies and therefore empowers a court to order adult compensatory education if necessary to cure a violation There is substantial evidence in the record that the student was denied a freeappropriate public education for at least two years. The student regressed in all academicareas tested and his learning disability worsened. Counsel for the parents has includedthe following statements within his closing statement: “The usual remedy under IDEA for a student who has been denied an appropriate education is an award of compensatory educational services to put him in the same position [he] would have occupied, had the District complied with the IDEA.” Sanford School Department, 47 IDELR 176 (Maine State Educational Agency, October 31, 2006). Compensatory awards should compensate, meaning they should provide more than what is required under an IEP. Reid ex rel. Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 525 (C.A.D.C. 2005) Compensatory educational services can include an award of additional time at an appropriate residential or day placement, Sanford School Dept. at 16 (ordering payment of 1 year of LD residential placement); Draper v. Atlanta Independent School System, 480 F.Supp.2d 1331 (N.D. Ga. 2007)(ordering 3 years of private school for students with learning disabilities); Carbondale Elementary School District 95, 23 IDELR 766 (Illinois State Educational Agency, 1996, 31
  32. 32. (ordering two years of private day school for failing to address dyslexia). Awards can also include reimbursement for the costs of private educational tutoring. Heather D. v. Northhampton Area School District, 48 IDELR 67 (E.D. Penn June 19, 2007)(awarding 2428 hours of compensatory education at $75 an hour, creating a $182,100 compensatory education fund).The hearing officer has read each and every cited case and finds them persuasive as to thetype of compensatory relief available in this matter. In the instant matter, I found themanner in which the members of the IEP team dismissed the concerns of the mother ofthe student particularly egregious. Of particular note was the fifteen minute IEP meetingto discuss testing in October 2006 – a textbook example of dismissive behavior. Evenwhen the school district had accurate data, they eliminated services e.g. elimination of amath goal when a need clearly existed; failure to create a goal for reading comprehensionwhen a need clearly existed.There is substantial evidence in the record that the parent of this student expended moniesfor the evaluation of the student by Dr. Jeanane Ferre, the testing at Lindamood Bell, theprivate tutoring by Marcia Weiss, and the assessment of the student’s educational recordsby Dr. Shana Erenberg. With the exception of the tutoring and the commentary by Dr.Erenberg, the mother presented all of these documents to the IEP team. I find thatappropriate compensation for the failure to provide the student with an education for twoyears requires reimbursement of all of the mother’s expenses – tutoring, testing, analysisof data.The evidence is clear that the student requires specialized placement. The uncontrovertedtestimony of Dr. Erenberg is that the student cannot receive educational benefit in anysetting less restrictive than an appropriate nonpublic day school. In Board of Educ. ofTownship High Sch.Dist.No.211 v. Ross ex rel Ross, 486 F.3d 267 (7th Cir.2007) theSeventh Circuit used a common sense approach to the issue of “least restrictiveenvironment” – if the student’s education could be satisfactory, then the student cannotbe removed into a more restrictive setting. Rather than adopt any sort of multi-factor testfor assessing whether a child may remain in a regular school, the court looked at whetherthe education in the regular education school was satisfactory and if not, whetherreasonable measures would have made it so. In Ross, the school district successfullyargued that it could not make placement at the regular education high school satisfactory.Here, the evidence persuades this hearing officer that there is nothing that the schooldistrict could do to make a regular education classroom satisfactory for this student. Herequires specialized placement. DECISIONA. The school district failed to establish that at all times relevant it properly identified the nature and severity of this student’s disabilities and that as a consequence the 32
  33. 33. Individual Education Plans developed for the student’s 1st and 2nd grade and proposed for the student’s 3rd grade did not and would not provide the student with a free and appropriate public education at Norwood Park Elementary School.B. The student is in need of intensive remediation as a result of the aforesaid failure.C. The program offered at the Hyde Park Day School is appropriate to serve the student’s needs and will provide him with a meaningful education benefit because it is both the least restrictive viable option and because no other option is available.D. The school district is ordered to reimburse the mother of the student for all appropriate tuition and transportation costs associated with her unilateral placement at Hyde Park Day School from June 2007 to the present.E. The school district is order to reimburse the mother for the tutoring provided by Marcia Weiss and the cost of testing at Lindamood Bell. The hearing officer cannot order reimbursement for the expert witness fees due Dr. Shana Erenberg but can order and does order the school district to reimburse the mother for the cost of Dr. Erenberg’s independent analysis of the school district data. No reimbursement is order for that portion of Dr. Erenberg’s testing in December 2007.F. The school district is ordered to place the student at Hyde Park Day School (including transportation) for the remainder of the 2007-2008 school including the extended school year as recommended by both the school district in the past and Hyde Park Day School on a prospective basis.G. Hyde Park Day School is the “stay-put” placement in this matter.H. As compensatory services for the failure to provide a free appropriate public education to the student during 1st and 2nd grade, the school district shall pay for two additional years at Hyde Park Day School including extended school for the 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 school years. RIGHT TO REQUEST CLARIFICATION Either party may request clarification of this decision by submitting a writtenrequest for such clarification to the undersigned hearing officer within five (5) days ofreceipt of this decision. The request for clarification shall specify the portions of thedecision for which clarification is sought and a copy of the request shall be mailed to theparty and to the Illinois State Board of Education, Program Compliance Division, 100North First Street, Springfield, Illinois 62777. The right to request such a clarificationdoes not permit a party to request reconsideration of the decision itself and the hearing 33
  34. 34. officer is not authorized to entertain a request for reconsideration. THE EFFECTIVEDATE OF THIS DECISION IS THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF ANYCLARIFICATION OF THIS DECISION. RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION This decision shall be binding upon the parties unless a civil action iscommenced. Any party to this hearing aggrieved by this decision has the right tocommence a civil action with respect to the issues presented in the hearing. Pursuant toILCS 5/14-8.01(i), that civil action shall be brought in any court of competent jurisdictionwithin 120 days after a copy of this decision was mailed to a party. ISSUED this 17th day of April 2008. ___________________________________ CAROLYN ANN SMARON Impartial Due Process Hearing Officer 34

×