How to write
Jacob Conley not mean that an educational plan is only appropriate if it maximizes a child’s potential. Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F. 3d 119, 122 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189). An appropriate education must be meaningful, but a school district is not legally obligated to provide the best possible education available. Id.; see also Watson v. Kingston City School Dist., 325 F. Supp. 2d 141, 144 (N.D.N.Y. 2004). Furthermore, both the IDEA and the Commissioner’s Regulations express a strong preference for mainstreaming, i.e., education provided in the least restrictive environment. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A) and 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.1(cc). See Oberti v. Bd. of Educ., 995 F.2d 1204, 1206 (3rd Cir. 1993). A. Both the March 24, 2008 and August 18, 2008 IEPs must be presumed valid.
As a threshold matter, it is important to note that the parents’ hearing request, dated June 24, 2008, fails to object to the CSE’s decision to classify X with mental retardation, nor do the parents dispute the CSE’s recommendation to defer the matter to the Central Based Support Team. See Parent’s Ex. A. Moreover, the parent’s hearing request does not challenge the appropriateness of either the March 2008 IEP or the August 2008 IEP at all. See Parent’s Ex. A. Although the parents allege at hearing that the August 2008 IEP is invalid, this argument must be precluded based upon the failure to raise these issues in the hearing request. Regarding the subject matter of the impartial hearing, the Commissioner’s Regulations provide that “[t]he party requesting the impartial due process hearing shall not be allowed to raise issues at the impartial due process hearing that were not raised in the notice filed under subdivision (i) of this section, unless the other party agrees otherwise.” 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.5(j)(1)(ii). Thus, the DOE respectfully requests that the hearing officer refuse to consider such issues in reaching her final decision and
As a threshold matter, it is important to note that the parents’ hearing request, dated June 24, 2008, fails to object to the CSE’s decision to classify X with mental retardation, nor do the parents dispute the CSE’s recommendation to defer the matter to the Central Based Support Team. See Parent’s Ex. A. Moreover, the parent’s hearing request does not challenge the appropriateness of either the March 2008 IEP or the August 2008 IEP at all. See Parent’s Ex. A. Although the parents allege at hearing that the August 2008 IEP is invalid, this argument must be precluded based upon the failure to raise these issues in the hearing request. Regarding the subject matter of the impartial hearing, the Commissioner’s Regulations provide that “[t]he party requesting the impartial due process hearing shall not be allowed to raise issues at the impartial due process hearing that were not raised in the notice filed under subdivision (i) of this section, unless the other party agrees otherwise.” 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.5(j)(1)(ii). Thus, the DOE respectfully requests that the hearing officer refuse to consider such issues in reaching her final decision and