M.W. ex rel. S.W. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 11–CV–5846.
| Decision Date | 13 June 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 11–CV–5846.,11–CV–5846. |
| Citation | 869 F.Supp.2d 320 |
| Parties | M.W., by his parents, S.W. and E.W., Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Gary S. Mayerson, Tracy Spencer Walsh, Mayerson & Associates, New York, NY, for the Plaintiff.
Michael A. Cardozo, John Buhta, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, New York, NY, for the Defendant.
I. Introduction
S.W. and E.W. sued the New York City Department of Education (the “Department”) on behalf of their son, M.W., who has learning disabilities. They contend that the Department failed to offer M.W. a free appropriate public education, as it was required to do by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (the “IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
Plaintiffs seek partial reversal of the decision of a state review officer (“SRO”). The SRO found that the Department had offered M.W. an appropriate public school education. On review, the SRO overruled an order of the impartial hearing officer (“IHO”), see id. § 1415(f), who had granted to the parents full funding for special education in a religious school. SeeApplication of the New York City Department of Education, No. 11–70 (“SRO Opinion”), M.W. et al. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., No. 11–CV–5846 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2012), CM/ECF No. 11–3.
Both plaintiffs and the Department have filed motions seeking summary judgment. Putting aside sympathy for the plaintiffs' plight and the constitutional question posed by the IHO's inclusion of the costs of religious education in the initial reimbursement order, the facts, the law, and the deference given to administrative expertise require that the case be dismissed. The Department's motion is granted and plaintiffs' motion is denied.
Attached as Appendix A is a glossary of the acronyms used in this opinion and in documents pertinent to the case.
II. Facts and Procedural HistoryA. M.W.'s Background and Education
M.W., a nine-year-old boy, is autistic. See Defendant's Local Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“Def. 56.1 Stmt.”) ¶ 1, M.W. et al. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., No. 11–CV–5846 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2012), CM/ECF No. 18. He also suffers from a variety of other ailments, including Tourette's syndrome and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. See Findings of Fact and Decision (“IHO Opinion”) 6, M.W. et al. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., No. 11–CV–5846 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2012), CM/ECF No. 11–2. M.W. and his parents have worked with a private therapist for years so that they can integrate into their lives lessons M.W. absorbs at school, as well as strategies to help him regulate his behavior. See Def. 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 3.
The child attended the Luria Academy of Brooklyn (“Luria Academy”), a private school that offers religious instruction, during the 2009–2010 school year. See id. ¶¶ 2, 57, In January 2010, M.W.'s mother sent an email to a Luria Academy representative. In it, she stated that she was “very interested” in M.W.'s reenrolling at Luria during the following school year, and that she wanted to “secure a spot for him” there. Id. ¶ 34. Shortly thereafter, she submitted an application—including a tuition contract—for returning students, reenrolling M.W. at the Luria Academy for the 2010–2011 term. See id. ¶ 35.
During the summer of 2010—since the Luria Academy offered a ten-month program—M.W. attended the religious Simcha Day Camp, which did not offer academic instruction. See id. ¶¶ 38–40.
B. The June 2010 IEP Meeting and the Placement Offer
In June 2010, a meeting was held by the committee on special education (“CSE”) responsible for devising M.W.'s Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) for the 2010–2011 school year. See id. ¶ 5. Participants in the meeting (the “IEP Team”) included M.W.'s mother and his Luria Academy teacher, as well as a school psychologist and a special education teacher from the Department. See id. ¶ 6. Testimony offered before the IHO indicates that the Luria Academy teacher actively participated in the meeting; M.W.'s mother emphasized at the meeting the importance of in-school therapy for M.W, and the positive effect that the environment of Luria Academy had had on her son. See id. ¶¶ 7–8. A number of program options were considered in light of M.W.'s needs. See id. ¶ 10. M.W.'s mother had the opportunity to state her concerns. She did not object to any aspect of the IEP at that time. See id. ¶ ¶ 23–24.
Ultimately recommended for M.W. by the IEP team was a placement in one of the Department's integrated co-teaching (“ICT”) classes—one in which a special education teacher assists the teacher normally placed in the classroom—on a ten-month basis; the recommended class had a 12:1 student-teacher ratio. See id. ¶ 11 & n. 2; IHO Opinion 8–9. The IEP Team also recommended that M.W. receive the services of a full-time individual behavior management paraprofessional—an educational assistant responsible for providing concentrated help to a student—and that M.W. have (1) one thirty-minute session weekly of counseling in a group of three, (2) three thirty-minute sessions per week of individual occupational therapy, (3) two thirty-minute sessions weekly of individual physical therapy, (4) two thirty-minute sessions per week of individual speech and language therapy, and (5) one thirty-minute session each week of speech and language therapy in a group of two. See Def. 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 13–14.
The proposed IEP contained goals in a number of subject areas; it offered M.W. the opportunity to work with a variety of school personnel. See id. ¶¶ 17–18. The IEP Team also developed a behavior intervention plan (“BIP”) for M.W. to assist his teachers and paraprofessional in meeting some of his behavioral difficulties; M.W.'s mother had not requested such a plan. See id. ¶¶ 19–22.
Offered to M.W. in July 2010 by letter was a placement in an ICT class at a public school located a short distance from the family home. Included in the letter were the school's address and the phone number of a placement officer with whom the parents could discuss the placement offered or request another IEP meeting. See id. ¶ 25. The ICT class offered to M.W. was to be co-taught by a special education teacher with thirty years of teaching experience; she communicates daily with the parents of her students. See id. ¶¶ 26–27. During the 2010–2011 school year, the school at which M.W. was offered a placement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S.W. ex rel. P.W. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.
...before the IHO unless other evidence or the record as a whole compels a contrary conclusion. See M.W. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 869 F.Supp.2d 320, 330 (E.D.N.Y.2012)aff'd, 725 F.3d 131 (2d Cir.2013) (citing Carlisle Area Sch. v. Scott P., 62 F.3d 520, 529 (3d Cir.1995) ). Although pl......
-
C.R. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.
...argument, intended to be de novo. T.L. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 938 F.Supp.2d 417, 431 (E.D.N.Y. 2013) ; M.W. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 869 F.Supp.2d 320, 330 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). The situation here is simply the commonplace occurrence where the IHO and SRO reviewed the same record and testimo......
-
F.L. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Great Neck U.F.S.D.
...does not mean that the placement was not reasonably calculated to provide educational benefits." M.W. ex rel. S.W. v. New York City Dep't of Educ. , 869 F.Supp.2d 320, 335 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). Although Plaintiffs requested that R.C.L. be placed in a smaller classroom for the 2013–14 school year......
-
T.L. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.
...an independent decision upon completion of such review.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(g)(2) (emphasis added). See M.W. ex rel. S.W. v. N.Y.C. Dep't. of Educ., 869 F.Supp.2d 320, 330 (E.D.N.Y.2012) (“[T]he SRO's review of the IHO's determinations is essentially de novo.”). The relevant New York statute,......