The Wall Street Journal recently broke a story suggesting corruption at the New York State Department of Education, where State Review Officer Paul Kelly’s impartiality appears to be compromised by his relationship with his live-in girlfriend Kate Surgalla, an attorney with the Officer of Counsel of the State Education Department.  Or perhaps we should say that Paul Kelly is the live-in, as the home they reside in together is listed in Surgalla’s name.  Paul Kelly, the State Review Officer, is supposed to be an independent and impartial review officer who decides the fate of special education children.  Yet statistics on his recent decisions in these matters suggest something else is occurring.  Kelly regularly rules in favor of school districts.  Jeff Marcus, an attorney in Williamsville, NY, compiled the following:

“From the beginning of 2006 to present, of the cases that were appealed to the State Review Office, parents prevailed on 43 cases at impartial hearing. Of those 43 cases, the State Review Office reversed in favor of the school district 36 times. Of the remaining 7 cases, the district partially prevailed on 2 of them, leaving only 5 cases in which the State Review Office affirmed a ruling in favor of the parents. 14 out of the last 15 decisions in favor of parents have been reversed by the SRO. The last 19 SRO decisions have favored the district. 37 out of the last 39 SRO decisions have favored the district completely and one of the remaining 2 favored the district in part. Out of the last 47 SRO decisions, 43 favored the district completely, only one favored the parents completely, one the parent prevailed in part, one was remanded for further proceedings and one the parent's petition was dismissed without prejudice. Bottom line, out of the last 47 SRO decisions, the parents have only prevailed once in whole and once in part.

Of cases in which the district prevailed at hearing, there has been only one partial reversal in favor of the parent in the last 52 cases. One must go back 73 decisions to get to a case in which the parent prevailed significantly on appeal to the SRO in a case in which the district prevailed at hearing.”

An article in the New York Sun on Wednesday, July 25^th, indicates that Kelly’s ethics have been called into question, as lawyers have left his office concerned that his conduct violated the law.  Staff members indicated that as many as ten lawyers left Kelly’s office recently, due to his unethical conduct.

Hearing officers, whose decisions on special education cases are appealed to Kelly have voiced their concerns over his review of their decisions.  Lynn Almeley is reported to have said that Kelly’s decisions are “very tortured reasoning to arrive at a predetermined conclusion,” reported the Sun’s Elizabeth Green.  Hearing Officer John Farago reportedly is attempting to orchestrate a vote of no confidence among the hearing officers against Kelly.

Kelly’s agenda appears to be protecting school districts from the costs of special education programs and protecting school districts from having to pay the parents’ attorney fees when parents prevail in special education matter.  An attorney who has worked with Kelly quoted him as saying, “Reimbursement was not meant for poor kids.”  This is a reference to the parents of children who seek reimbursement for private schools when the public schools fail to offer appropriate services.  Kelly is also reported to be opposed to parents who attempt to mainstream their disabled children, and has referred to these parents in a derogatory manner as “inclusionistas.”

Andrew Cuddy, a special education attorney for parents and author of The Special Education Battlefield, requested the state attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, to investigate this situation.  He believes that the actions of those involved in these events may rise to the level of a criminal conspiracy to deprive disabled children of their civil rights.  Other complaints have already been registered by the New York State Office of Investigations and the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Education.

One has to wonder where these investigations will lead?  Certainly, these attorneys that worked with Kelly must be interviewed and convinced to speak openly about the shenanigans at the State Education Department.  We suggest that these investigators talk to Amy Vanden Broeke, who reportedly has been outspoken about Kelly’s agenda and conduct.  Is it true that Kelly has misrepresented quotations from transcripts and evaluations in the decisions he has rendered?  Is it true that he stated he intends to prevent parents’ attorneys from recovering fees in order to “shut down” those attorneys whose names he frequently sees?  Is it true Kelly stated he is ruling against parents because “the Office of Counsel says”?

These investigations should also include an interview with Laurel Bohl.  Ms. Bohl is now an attorney working in Andrew Cuomo’s office.  Did Ms. Bohl leave Kelly’s office because she felt his conduct was so outrageous that it would cause her to loose her license to practice law if she participated in it?  Is it true that she left the office in tears fearing that his actions would cause injury to a child?  Is it true that before leaving the office she secured documentation damaging to Kelly?  Has she already provided this information to Cuomo’s office where she is now employed?

James Whitney is an honorable man who managed the Office of State Review prior to Kelly’s takeover. (The scuttlebutt is that Surgalla orchestrated her boyfriend’s appointment.)  Whitney has been outspoken in the office against Kelly’s agenda, and as a result was relegated to a back room.  What does Whitney know of the violations of law that occurred at Kelly’s command?  Has Kelly really announced his intent to violate parents’ rights to due process?  Has Kelly really ridiculed Whitney and told him that he could render decisions in any manner he chose, as he was “exercising his discretion?”  Was Whitney relegated to the sidelines in the office because of his integrity and because Kelly did not want an honest witness to this scandal?  As Whitney nears retirement, has he taken steps to remedy this situation and bring the scandal to the attention of the proper investigatory authorities in order to protect his own reputation for integrity?

Schoolwatch has a number of sources on this story, and there will be more to follow.  We will keep you posted as this story develops. Stay tuned…

More... 7-28-07

DOES STATE REVIEW OFFICER PAUL KELLY VALUE THE LIVES OF SPECIAL EDUCATION CHILDREN, OR ARE HIS INTERESTS SOLELY ON PROTECTING SCHOOL DISTRICTS FROM FINANCIAL CLAIMS?

The State Review Officer, Paul Kelly, is in the heat of a controversy and multiple parties are questioning his independence and impartiality.  As the State Review Officer, Kelly is required to review the decisions of Impartial Hearing Officers that are appealed to his office addressing the needs of special education students.  The law requires that his office be operated independently and with impartiality.  The Wall Street Journal named Kelly in a story on July 24, 2007, breaking the news that Kelly lives with a senior attorney of the State Education Department, suggesting this compromises his independence from the State Education Department.  Staff members working under Kelly have anonymous reported to both the WSJ and the New York Sun that Kelly has an agenda aimed at protecting school districts from the cost of the services these children need.

SchoolWatch has uncovered cases that Kelly has overturned regarding students with disabilities that indicate he has little regard for their safety or lives.  In a case in the Allegany-Limestone Central School District, the parents complained of the unsafe restraints being employed against their child with autism.  Dr. John Miller and his wife Carole expressed their continuous objection to the inhumane and dangerous conduct of untrained staff against their child in middle school.  Impartial Hearing Officer Joan Alexander heard the matter and ruled largely in favor of the parents. 

“The parents proved that District staff members were trained in prone physical restraints on and after 04/26/05, and that they engaged in at least six prone restraints before that date.  Furthermore, all of the prone restraints involved the student being face down rather than face to the side, which is entirely inappropriate.”

“I agree with the parents that the IEP has never authorized use of physical restraints and that the student's clinicians have recommended against it, and instead advised use of a "safe" room.  This matter is capable of repetition and, therefore, is not moot.”

“Between 03/18/05 and 06/02/05, the student was physically restrained at the middle school on approximately ten occasions, and each of the restraints involved two or three middle school staff members holding the student prone and face down (rather than face on its side) on a mat.”

“The mother testified that the physical restraints had a severe negative effect on the student and resulted in, among other things, teeth grinding and nightmares.  The parents arranged for counseling for the student and themselves to help the student work through the problems that arose because of the restraints.  The student was still upset about the restraints in 01/06.”

Repeatedly throughout her decision, the IHO identified misrepresentations and inconsistencies in the evidence of the District.

“NOTE:  By email dated 10/19/05, the District superintendent denied that staff ever used a two-person prone restraint on the student and forbid its future use.  Said email contradicted the testimony of the student's sped teacher, the student's counselor and the middle school principal.”

“Said letter and the School Psychologist's 2003 evaluation show that the CSE Chair was aware of the student's Autism spectrum diagnosis as of 2003, despite her testimony that she was unaware of it until the spring of 2005.”

“The CSE Chair testified that the student was to receive language instruction specific to the needs of an Asperger student in groups no larger than 2, 5x/week, 30 min. /day, but the IEP does not support her testimony. D111.  Here, I find the documents more reliable than the testimony.”

IHO Alexander emphasized that the District failed to comply with the recommendations of the child’s physician or the wishes of the parents.  She pointed out that the District actions “(1) caused the behaviors to escalate and (2) endangered the student.” [Bold added]

The IHO concluded:

“The District has maintained that its actions were appropriate. I disagree.  In light of the District’s position, the appropriateness of the restraints is neither “academic” nor moot.  These same unrepentant individuals might again engage in this same misconduct!  Fortunately, the student's negative behaviors have become sporadic.  Nevertheless, the following are all “capable of repetition": the impropriety of the physical restraints employed during 2005; the inappropriate delay in developing the FBA and BIP; the inadequacy of the FBA in that, among other things, antecedents to negative behaviors were not identified and the parents' participation was limited; and the District's denial of parents' requests to halt the 2 - person prone physical restraints.”

Kelly dismissed the parents’ concerns, suggesting that the District that had repeatedly provided false testimony and lied to the parents and the hearing officer should not be held accountable for the conduct.  Kelly said:

“Petitioner [the District] argues that the impartial hearing officer should not have made a determination on respondents' claim regarding physical intervention techniques because it will have no actual impact on the parties. Under the circumstance presented in this appeal, I agree.”  State Review Officer Decision 07-028.

Other hearing officers have expressed their outrage with Kelly and his handling of the IHO decisions that come before him.  John Farago, a special education law professor and part-time hearing officer stated Kelly is “rewriting the rule book,” according to Dan Golden, the WSJ reporter.  Another IHO Lynn Almeleh called Mr. Kelly's decisions "a very tortured reasoning to arrive at a predetermined conclusion."  There is scuttlebutt that the 300 hearing officers in New York State are attempting to orchestrate a “no confidence” vote in the performance of Kelly.

Kelly and his paramour Surgalla have declined comment, and when SchoolWatch attempted to reach them on Friday, July 27, we were told that they were out of town.  It is a frequent occurrence that when scandals break in education stories that those involved “leave town.”  The public should know that the spokesperson referred to in the WSJ, Kathy A. Ahearn is the stand-in Commissioner as Dick Mills is out on a medical leave for prostate treatment.  Ahearn however, is Kate Surgalla’s immediate supervisor in the Office of Counsel, the office that is linked in this scandal as being involved in compromising Kelly’s independence and dictating his agenda. Could Ms. Ahearn be covering for her own involvement in this scandal?

SchoolWatch is investigating further the decisions of Paul Kelly.  It is obvious in reviewing the Limestone-Allegany CSD matter that Kelly values little the safety of our children with disabilities.  It is also apparent that no matter what lies that District staff tell parents and Impartial Hearing Officers, Kelly will find some twisted reasoning to protect the District at the expense of the disabled child. 

Be certain that SchoolWatch is on top of this matter, and will be reporting further.  The contact information for the Millers is available through SchoolWatch, and they are more than willing to share their story with the press.  The decision of Kelly is being appealed to the U.S. District Court of the Western District of New York. 

More... 7-30-07

It has been reported to SchoolWatch that Paul Kelly, the State Review Officer who is being investigated by multiple public and private agencies regarding his handling of the claims of the parents of special education children, has added a new member to his staff. 

Attorney Bethany Mattone was hired this past week to a position where she will be reviewing the work of other attorneys in the office and “editing” the drafts of decisions that they prepare.  Previously, this was a task that Kelly engaged in directly, where he reportedly changed the outcomes of these drafts in order to protect schools from incurring the financial costs of services for the children.  Ms. Mattone will be “supervising” the work of the other attorneys in the office.

Attorneys that were in the office prior to Kelly’s appointment seem to have been driven from their positions by Kelly for speaking out against his agenda.  One must wonder about the appointments that Kelly himself is making.  Are they hired to support his agenda?  Must they express a willingness to participate in his office shenanigans that put children in danger?  Is these individuals highly qualified attorneys capable of the legal analysis that special education matters require?

SchoolWatch has developed some information regarding Ms. Mattone.  She is a graduate of SUNY at Stonybrook, attended Brooklyn Law School .  She was admitted to practice in 2004.  Her first job as an attorney was working for the New York City Department of Education handling special education matters.  (Wow, if there is one district intent on denying children appropriate services, it is NYC!) It is not surprising that someone who reportedly stated “reimbursement was not meant for poor children” would be hiring attorneys from the NYCDOE.

Indications from the attorneys inside Kelly’s office are that they are outraged.  Some of the attorneys that were in the office prior to Kelly have been admitted to practicing law for over 14 years.  Ms. Mattone’s only has two years of experience which is limited to representing the worst special education school district in the state.  And Mattone is being hired to supervise them?  Wow!  Is this the formula for more departures from the office?  It appears that is Kelly’s desire -- cause all those that are resisting his agenda to leave and replace them with inexperience, impotent minions that will comply with his dictates without objection.

One has to wonder if Ms. Mattone was the best selection for Kelly in carrying out his agenda.  Sure, she is a petite young girl, naïve perhaps in the ways of the world, who Kelly might have seen as one easy to manipulate to cooperate in his brazen agenda.  Perhaps he imagines the wiles of an older man could seduce her to his will.  But Ms. Mattone is also known on a personal level to be something of a compassionate individual.  She is known to listen to NPR, to meditate, to be something of an artist.  Can an individual like Kelly bring an individual like Mattone to heel?  Or might she too join the outspoken attorneys in the office that are rebelling against the agenda of the NYSED that Kelly is carrying out.

Ms. Mattone has some of her writing posted on-line.  She spends a great deal of her time engaged in introspection.  She wrote:

“I realize now that the fact that I just can't understand those who voted for Bush is based in a fundamental misunderstanding in what it is I believe this society should be. So, it's time to get back to that--define it, narrow it down, and hopefully, be better able to convey it in another 4 years, when--how lucky is this--we get another chance!”

-Bethany Mattone

It will be extremely interesting to watch Ms. Mattone define, narrow down, and convey what her fundamental understanding of what this society should be as she performs her duties at the Office of State Review.  Will she conform to the views that the NYSED administration apparently has regarding the needs and rights of disabled students?  Or will Ms. Mattone’s introspection cause her to be one of those voices of opposition crying out about the injustice that the office is meting out?  Is it possible for Ms. Mattone to be seduced into conforming her view of society to the view of Kelly, which disregards the law, disregards due process, and disregards the needs and safety of the disabled?  Stay tuned as SchoolWatch continues to investigate and report on this matter...

More Evidence of Kelly’s Indifference to the Safety of Children with Disabilities?

            SchoolWatch is continuing its investigation into the shenanigans at the Office of State Review.  We have just recently been able to obtain a copy of the underlying decision of Impartial Hearing Officer Aaron Turetsky, which was overturned by Paul Kelly in State Review Officer Decision 07-047.  The hearing largely focused on the services being provided to a child with cerebral palsy and whether those services were being provided by qualified and competent staff.  IHO Turetsky found that the aide for the student was a danger to the child. Turetsky wrote:

“I find the entirety of her testimony unworthy of belief and further find that provision of services by her would endanger the student.  Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED that school district shall not provide the student with the services of the monitor or aide who was assigned to the student in September and October of 2005…”

[SchoolWatch providing the emphasis.]

What did Kelly do to address the danger posed by this aide to the student?  Read on.

The parents in the proceeding sought services by a properly trained one-to-one aide.  The IHO determined that the aide was not qualified to provide services to the student, and was not truthful during the hearing.  In fact, he found that this aide as the service provider would “endanger the student.”  In its appeal to the State Review Officer the District indicated its desire to continue to use the aide.

“Petitioner appeals and requests an annulment of that portion of the impartial hearing officer's decision which found that the provision of services by petitioner's aide would endanger the child and ordered petitioner not to provide the child with her services. Petitioner argues that the aide is qualified and trained to serve as the child's one-to-one aide, and in the event that the child returns to petitioner's elementary school, she will continue to receive additional training on a frequent and ongoing basis. [SchoolWatch providing the emphasis.]

Kelly dismisses the parents’ claim because the hearing continued past the end of the school year, with a specious suggestion that the matter is moot, even in the face of the District’s expressed intentions of continuing the services with this same individual!

Oh, and Kelly does not finish there.  He chastises these concerned parents as if he was bothered to have to hear this issue.

“Lastly, the crux of respondents' concerns at the impartial hearing focused on the propriety of petitioner's staff assignments and training. If future disputes arise despite the previously mentioned new evaluations and IEP, I remind respondents of the availability of mediation (8 NYCRR 200.5[h]) and the state complaint procedures of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education (8 NYCRR 200.5[l]) as alternative dispute resolution procedures which may also address IEP implementation issues.”

Parents employ the requests for due process because these alternatives he suggests are widely known to be impotent.  The State Education Department does little or nothing when parents bring complaints before it.  Mediations are seldom successful and only cause delay to the child’s programming and cause the parents additional expense for the assistance of an attorney. Now that the SED has its puppet Paul Kelly carrying out their agenda in the Office of State Review, parents will have only one option, proceed through this sham of an administrative proceeding and then bring the matter to court.

As parents, we in New York must express our outrage.  SchoolWatch encourages each of you to take the time to write the Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and your State representatives.  Express your concern over this situation.  We believe that this is nothing less than a criminal conspiracy intended to deprive children of the free, appropriate public education to which they are entitled, and intended to interfere and deprive parents of their due process rights.

SchoolWatch will continue its reporting on this situation, stay tuned…

More 8-28-07 …

Could Kelly be any more obvious in his unwillingness to ensure that children with disabilities in NY State receive a FAPE than to deny them goals and objectives that address all the areas of need and are meaningful and measurable?  SchoolWatch analyzes State Review Officer Decision 06-052 in which Kelly ignores the fact that the district’s IEP did not address the child’s needs – AND STATES IT RIGHT IN HIS DECISION!

Our “esteemed” State Review Office, in his efforts to discourage parents from pursuing a FAPE for their child, created a decision upon which districts can rely in defending the indefensible – denial of meaningful and measurable goals and objectives that address the child’s unique needs.  It is common knowledge in the special education community that an Individual Education Plan for a child is developed after the child’s needs are determined by comprehensive evaluations of those needs.  Once the needs are identified, goals and objectives are included in the IEP so that the child’s progress can be measured and parents can be informed of progress, or lack of progress.  Addressing the needs of the child is the PURPOSE of the IEP.

Apparently, part of Kelly’s agenda is to undermine the child’s right to have these needs addressed.  In a Niskayuna Central School District case, which the parent won before the impartial hearing officer, Kelly overturned the IHO decision by blatantly ignoring the law and even had the audacity to state this in the decision!  Why would he be so reckless as to brazenly include in a decision his unwillingness to uphold the special education regulations?  It is clear, and has been reported, that Kelly has an agenda of creating a pattern of decision intended to discourage parents and advocates from pursuing claims.  By posting a decision on the State Education Department website, those advocating for children will be discouraged from pursuing claims regarding missing or deficient goals and objectives.  As nearly every special education case involves the appropriateness of the goals and objectives on an IEP, nearly every parent’s case is impacted by this decision.  A posted decision such as this also emboldens districts to approach goals and objectives in a half-assed manner, knowing that they will not be held accountable at the SRO level.  And if goals and objectives are rendered meaningless in New York, so to is every report made to parents regarding their child’s progress.  In fact, by eliminating any meaningful tracking of progress, District’s can win every hearing just be making oral and unsupported claims of progress.

Susan T. Johns represented the School District in this matter.  Ms. Johns is from a Syracuse law firm, which just happens to be in the same town that Kelly resided in before he shacked up with his paramour in Albany.  We are currently looking into whether any personal relationship existed between Kelly and Johns while he resided in Syracuse.

SRO decision 06-052 involved a 12 year old child whose parent believed he was not receiving a FAPE from Niskayuna.  The child needed a program that addressed the needs of students that were "socially unskilled" and who need support, structure and stability.  The child’s many diagnoses include an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)-combined type, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD). The private psychologist of the student reported that the student was competitive, aggressive, and at times violent at home. She also reported the student exhibited a sleep disorder. There was a history of psychiatric commitments of the student. It was recommended that the student be placed in a smaller, more self-contained classroom or day treatment program "where he could receive the level of psychotherapeutic services he needs in an integrated manner." It was recommended by that the student’s psychologist that the student be placed in a small group setting with staff trained in addressing mental heath problems and trained teachers.  She opined that a regular public school environment with supports could not meet his needs at that time, and recommended that the student be placed in a day treatment setting.  The student's psychiatrist stated that, because of the complexity of his psychiatric condition and multiple changes in his medication, the student needed a psychoeducational focus with therapeutic interventions in his program. 

The parent requested that her son be placed in a therapeutic day program.  The CSE recommended that the child remain in the public school with minimal supports and no therapeutic component.  The program was neither a small self-contained nor a day treatment program. The psychiatrist for the student again stated the student needed a small, full-time self-contained classroom with a high teacher to student ratio or a day treatment program as recommended by the independent psychological evaluation report, but the District only provided minimal support with regular education classes for Social Studies, Science, English, Math, Spanish, Art and Physical Education with the support of a teaching assistant.

            In a decision dated April 17, 2006, the impartial hearing officer determined that that petitioner failed to recommend an appropriate placement for the student for the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years, that HCS was an appropriate placement, and that equitable considerations supported an award of tuition reimbursement.  Specifically, the impartial hearing officer found that the IEPs for the 2004-05 and 2005-06 school years failed to include testing results, failed to identify the student's needs and how to address them, and failed to include an adequate behavioral intervention plan or sufficient goals.  He further held that petitioner's recommendation was predetermined prior to a May 2004 CSE meeting.  He concluded that petitioner's recommendation was not appropriate because it was not a small, self-contained structured environment.  The impartial hearing officer awarded tuition reimbursement at HCS for the portion of the 2004-05 school year in which the student attended HCS, as well as for the 2005-06 school year, and also awarded the expenses of sending the student to HCS.

In this case, Kelly outlines how the child is regressing behaviorally, emotionally and socially.  He focuses entirely on the child having passed academic courses.  We all know however, that special education is required to address the social/emotional, management, physical and academic needs of the child.  Kelly apparently wants to ignore those other components.  In this case, the child’s program was so inadequate to address those social and emotional issues that the child’s classification had to be changed from Other Health Impairment to Emotional Disturbance!  The issues surrounding this change of classification alone should be evidence of a program not meeting the child’s needs.  Kelly goes on to state the standard:

“An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP which accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student's needs, establishes annual goals and short-term instructional objectives related to those needs, and provides for the use of appropriate special education services (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-046; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-014; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 93-9).  An IEP must include a statement of the student's present levels of educational performance, including a description of how the student's disability affects his or her progress in the general curriculum (34 C.F.R. § 300.347[a][1]; see also 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]).  School districts may use a variety of assessment techniques such as criterion-referenced tests, standard achievement tests, diagnostic tests, other tests, or any combination thereof to determine the student's present levels of performance and areas of need (34 C.F.R. Part 300, Appendix A, Section 1, Question 1).

An IEP must also include a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services to be provided to or on behalf of the student, as well as a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided to the student (34 C.F.R. § 300.347[a][3]; see 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iv]).  Such education, services and aids must be sufficient to allow the student to advance appropriately toward attaining his or her annual goals (34 C.F.R. § 300.347[a][3][i]; see 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iv][a]).”

But then Kelly goes on to render that language meaningless by stating that a district can ignore some of the child’s needs, have in place unclear goals and objectives, and not have any meaningful means of reporting progress to the parents.  In fact, it appears that reports of progress, in Kelly’s mind, can be made in hearing rather than in writing to the parents at regular and timely intervals.  Here is Kelly’s language that ignores the regulatory requirements of goals and objecting, ignores the requirement to report progress to the parents, and substitutes hearing testimony for the requirement of regular reports that parents are entitled to under the law.

“The written IEPs in question do contain certain deficits, although under the circumstances of this case, I do not find that these deficits rise to the level of a denial of FAPE.  Upon review of the IEPs and supporting information in the record, I find that the IEPs contain sufficient information to allow for measurement of progress in most of the student's areas of need.  Those goals and objectives, which lack clarity and specificity, are supported in part by testimony and by narrative progress reports.  The inadequacies in the goals and objectives do not rise to the level of requiring a conclusion that the child was not offered a FAPE; however, I strongly encourage petitioner to ensure that all service providers work to develop more specific language for describing measurement criteria for IEP goals and objectives.

Oh, parents, keep in mind, that with this SRO, the penalty for a district not addressing all of the identified needs of the child and only reporting progress to parents during the hearing is the “heavy handed” admonishment of Mr. Kelly – no reimbursement for you!

In this matter, the IHO is the trier of fact.  He is the one, who in our legal system, determines the credibility of witnesses. Over and over again, this IHO determined the District witnesses not to be credible.  Kelly, the reviewing authority, oversteps his role and substitutes his judgment regarding credibility for the judgment of the IHO.  This is a “foul” and Kelly knows it, but he is acting knowing that he is only accountable to the Commissioner and the paramour that secured him this job and that is pulling his strings.

All those concerned with the rights children with disabilities need to contact Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, in writing, and demand a full investigation into what we believe is criminal activity at the Office of State Review that is intended to deprive children of their civil rights.  Please take the time to write the Attorney General today.

Stay tuned as SchoolWatch continues to investigate and report on this matter...