J.G. v. Rochester Bd. of Ed.

CW-NY-002-001
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
J. G., by his mother and next friend,
Mrs. G.; M. W., by her mother and next
friend, Mrs. W.; A. M., by his mother
and next friend, Mrs. M., and K. M., by
her mother and next friend, Mrs. M;
on behalf of themselves and all persons
similarly situated,

Civil Action No
r.

Plaintiffs,
-vsTHE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE ROCHESTER
CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT; JOHN DELVECCHIO,
ARCHIE CURRY, FRANK WILLIS, IRENE FRUSCI,
JOSEPHINE GENOVESE, KAREN GRELLA, and
GARY SMITH, individually and in their
official capacities as members of the
Board of Education of the Rochester City
School District; LAVAL M. WILSON, in
his official capacity as Superintendent
of the Rochester City Schools; BERNARD
S. GREENBERGER, individually and in his
official capacity as Director of the
Department of Special Education of the
Rochester City Schools; ROBERT LAYS,
individually and in his official capacity
as Assistant Director of the Department
of Special Education of the Rochester
City Schools; JOSEPH SALEMI, individually
and in his official capacity as
Assistant Director of the Department of
Special Education of the Rochester City
Schools; THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION; and GORDON M. AMBACH,
in his official capacity as Commissioner
of the New York State Education
Department,

CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT

(Jury trial demanded)

De fendants.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.

This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief

and damages brought by four handicapped students in the Rochester

ji City

School

District

on behalf of themselves and all

students

similarly situated to challenge the District's failure to provide

I. them with a free, appropriate public education designed to meet their
i-

!j special needs. Plaintiffs allege that the practices and policies of

.,' the Rochester City School District and its agents and employees
! (hereinafter referred to collectively as the "City defendants") with
si regard to evaluation, classification and placement of handicapped
students in appropriate educational programs violate their rights
;! u n d e r :

(a)

;
ji
jj
\i
;

the Education of All Handicapped Children A c t , 20

U.S.C. 1401 et s e q . , and the accompanying r e g u lations at 34 C.F.R. Part 3 0 0 ;

(b) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1 9 7 3 , 29

U.S.C. 7 9 4 , and the accompanying regulations at 34
C.F.R. Part 1 0 4 ;
(c)
(d)
(e)

the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution;

the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 1983; and
Article 89 of the New York Education Law and accompanying regulations at 8 NYCRR Part 200.

Plaintiffs allege that the New York State Department of

Education and its agents and employees (hereinafter collectively
referred to as the "State defendants") have failed to ensure that all
handicapped children in the District are located, evaluated and
: provided with a free, appropriate public education and that appropriate procedural safeguards are available to District students, in
violation of the requirements of the Education of All Handicapped
Children Act, 20 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. and accompanying regulations
at 34 C.F.R. Part 300, and 4402 of the New York Education Law.

- 3 -

Plaintiffs and the class seek declaratory and injunctive

relief against all defendants' continuing violations of federal and
-state law.

The named plaintiffs also seek damages pursuant to 42

; U.S.C. 1983 for physical and emotional harm caused by the City
[defendants' violation of their federal statutory and constitutional
rights.

<:

j'

JURISDICTION

2.

Jurisdiction over plaintiffs' claims is conferred upon

;this Court by 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343(3), and 1343(4) and 20 U.S.C.

1415(e)(4).

Plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief is author-

jiized by 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202. The Court has jurisdiction over
|;
jjthe plaintiffs' state law claims by virtue of the doctrine of pendent
\' jurisdiction .

3.

The named plaintiffs and the members of the plaintiff

iiclass and subclass are suffering immediate and irreparable harm from
-defendants' actions, omissions, practices and policies complained
of herein and will continue to suffer such harm unless defendants are
enjoined and restrained as prayed for below.
^adequate remedy at law.

Plaintiffs have no

- 4 -

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

4.

Pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of :

Civil Procedure, plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a class composed of all other students in the Rochester
City School District (hereinafter "CSD") who have been identified as !
possibly in need of special education and related services by any of j
the following means:

5.

(a)

An oral or written referral for evaluation made by an

agent or employee of the CSD to a school adminis- :
trator, an evaluation team, or to the Committee on
the Handicapped;

(b)

An oral or written request for evaluation made by an ;

agent or employee of the CSD or any other interested I
person to any other agent or employee of the CSD;

(c)

An oral or written request for evaluation and/or

provision of a special program made by the child's
parent to any agent or employee of the CSD.
|

Plaintiffs also seek to represent a subclass composed of \

all students in the CSD who have been identified as handicapped by

any of the following means:
(a)

Oral or written notification of the students' parent

by an agent or employee of the CSD that the student
has been found to have a handicapping condition;

(b)

Placement of the student in a special education

program of the CSD or provision to the student with
special education services by the CSD;

(c)

Obtaining from the student's parent a "consent" to a

handicapped classification and proposed placement by
an agent or employee of the CSD;

(d)

Determination by a CSD Special Educational Services

team (hereinafter "SES team") that the student has a
handicapping condition.

- 5 -

6.

The prerequisites to a class action enumerated in Rule

23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are satisfied in this

case .
7.

On information and belief, the class and subclass are so

numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.

8.

On information and belief, there are over 35,000 children

presently enrolled in the CSD.

9.

On information and belief, over 4,000 of the children

presently enrolled in the CSD have been identified as handicapped or '

potentially handicapped by the City defendants.
10.

On information and belief, over 500 children enrolled in

the CSD were identified as possibly in need of special education and ;

i

related services and/or were referred for evaluation between Sep\ tember, 1980 and February 1981.
11.

There are substantial questions of law and fact presented >

in this action which are common to all members of the class and
subclass.

With regard to the class, these questions include:

(a) Have the City defendants failed to develop and implement a procedure for identifying, locating and
evaluating students thought to be handicapped which
ensures that such students will be evaluated and
classified within thirty days of referral?
(b)

Do the City defendants place students in special

education programs or determine that students are
not handicapped without performing full individual
evaluations meeting the requirements of federal and
state law?
i

(c)

Have the City defendants failed to develop and implement procedures for obtaining parental consent
meeting the requirements of federal and state law
prior to evaluation?

(d)

Have the City defendants failed to develop and implement procedures for giving parents notice when
they intend to find that a student is not handicapped
which meet the requirements of federal and state law?

- 6 -

(e)

Do the City defendants remove students from their

current educational placements and/or refuse to enroll students in school during the pendency of evaluation and placement proceedings?

(f)

Have the State defendants failed to ensure that the

City defendants have established and implemented
identification, referral and evaluation procedures
and procedures for notification of parents of special education decisions meeting the requirements of
federal and state law?

With regard to the subclass, these questions include:

(g)

Do the City defendants fail to place students with

handicapping conditions in appropriate educational
programs within 30 days of their classification as
handicapped students?

(h)

Do the City defendants fail to develop individualized education programs for handicapped students
in the manner and within the time limits prescribed
by federal and state law?

(i)

Do the City defendants fail to provide handicapped

students and their parents with written notice prior
to any proposal or refusal to change or initiate such
students' special education program as mandated by
federal and state law?

(j)

Do the City defendants fail to provide handicapped

students with nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities and physical education in a
manner which affords them equal opportunity for
participation in such activities?

(k)

Do the City defendants afford parents of handicapped

students who complain about their child's classification or placement with impartial due process hearings as required by federal and state law?

(1)

Do the City defendants misinform parents of handicapped students as to the availability of private and
residential placements and fail to make such placements available to handicapped students who require
them?

(m)

Have the State defendants failed to insure that the

City defendants properly develop and implement individualized education programs for each handicapped

- 7 -

child, provide each handicapped child with an appropriate education program in a timely manner, and
establish and implement procedural safeguards meeting the requirements of federal and state law?

12.

The claims of the plaintiffs are typical of the claims of

! the class and subclass and predominate over any questions affecting
only individual members.
13.

The named plaintiffs are presently in need of or will in i

the future need appropriate, individualized special education and

related services, prompt, appropriate, evaluation and re-evaluation
when indicated, full and adequate notice prior to changes in their
placement or programs, prompt appropriate placement when indicated,
. and properly developed and implemented

individualized

education
i

'',

' programs on a regular basis. They will fairly and adequately protect \
the interests of the class and subclass, and, in supporting their own
1

claims, will simultaneously advance the claims of other class and >
subclass members. Plaintiffs are represented by counsel experienced
in civil rights and class action litigation.
14.

Plaintiffs bring this action under Rule 23(b)(2) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the City and State defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable
to the class and subclass, thereby making injunctive and declaratory
relief appropriate with respect to the classes as a whole.

- 8 -

ji

PARTIES

;;
ji

15.

,; United

Plaintiff

3. G. is an e i g h t e e n - y e a r - o l d

S t a t e s who p r e s e n t l y

|i C e n t e r , R o c h e s t e r , New Y o r k .

resides

citizen

in the R o c h e s t e r

of the

Psychiatric

This action is b r o u g h t on h i s b e h a l f

by h i s m o t h e r , M r s . G., who a c t s as his next friend for p u r p o s e s of

"' this l i t i g a t i o n .
New Y o r k .

M r s . G. r e s i d e s at 224 M o r t o n S t r e e t , R o c h e s t e r ,

3. G. and M r s . G. bring this action a n o n y m o u s l y to avoid

'. i n v a s i o n of their p r i v a c y .

Their true n a m e s will be filed under seal

'

I; with this Court.

16.

Plaintiff

M.

W.

is

a sixteen-year-old

citizen

of

the

; United States who resides with her mother at 120 Avenue D, Rochester,
New York.

is
:

Her mother and next friend, Mrs. W., brings this action

on her behalf.

avoid

M. W. and Mrs. W. bring this action anonymously to

invasion of their privacy.

Their true names will be filed

under seal with this Court.

17.

Plaintiff

A. M. is a fourteen-year-old

citizen

of

the

United States who resides with his mother at 1552 St. Paul Street,
j,

i Rochester, New York.

His mother and next friend, Mrs. M., brings

this action on his behalf.

A. M. and Mrs. M. bring

anonymously to avoid invasion of their privacy.

this action

Their true names

will be filed under seal with this Court.

\-

18.

Plaintiff K. M. is a nine-year-old citizen of the United

States who resides with her mother at 1552 St. Paul Street, Rochest'

;; ter, New York.

Her mother and next friend, Mrs. M., brings this

\\ action on her behalf. K. M. and Mrs. M. bring this action anonymously

- 9 -

to avoid invasion of their privacy.

Their true names will be filed

under seal with this Court.

19.

The Board

of Education

of the

Rochester

City

School

District (hereinafter "the Board") is a body corporate charged with

the duty to operate and manage the educational affairs of the City
School District in compliance with federal and state law.

Among

other duties the Board is responsible for providing a free, appro:

priate education to all handicapped students of the District.

It is

!. a "local educational agency" as that term is defined in 20 U.S.C.

1401(8).

For this purpose, and for the operation of its other

educational programs and activities, the Board receives federal

financial assistance.
20.

Defendants John DelVecchio, Archie Curry, Irene Frusci,

Josephine Genovese, Frank Willis, Karen Grella and Gary Smith are the
duly elected members of the above-described Board of Education and
are charged with carrying out the duties of the Board.

They are sued

both individually and in their official capacities.

21.

Defendant Laval M. Wilson is Superintendent of Schools of

the CSD. He is the chief executive officer of the Board, and, in this
capacity, he is statutorily charged with the duty of enforcing all
1

provisions of law and all rules and regulations relating to the

management of schools and other educational activities under the
Board's direction.

i,

22.

He is sued in his official capacity.

Defendant Bernard S. Greenberger is Director of the De-

i! partment of Special Education for the CSD.

In this capacity he is

j responsible for providing a free, appropriate public education to

- 10 -

all h a n d i c a p p e d s t u d e n t s of the D i s t r i c t , in a c c o r d a n c e with both

| federal and state laws and r e g u l a t i o n s .

D e f e n d a n t G r e e n b e r g e r is

j! also C h a i r m a n of the CSD Committee on the H a n d i c a p p e d .

In this
ii
jj capacity he is r e s p o n s i b l e for i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and
j p l a c e m e n t o f all h a n d i c a p p e d children within the D i s t r i c t .
! sued both i n d i v i d u a l l y and in h i s o f f i c i a l
23.

He is

capacity.

D e f e n d a n t Robert Lays w a s at all times r e l e v a n t hereto an

I A s s i s t a n t D i r e c t o r of the D e p a r t m e n t of Special E d u c a t i o n for the

1 CSD.

In this capacity

he w a s r e s p o n s i b l e

for p r o v i d i n g

a free,

i a p p r o p r i a t e public e d u c a t i o n to h a n d i c a p p e d s t u d e n t s of the D i s t r i c t
ij in a c c o r d a n c e with both federal and state laws and r e g u l a t i o n s . He
Ij is sued i n d i v i d u a l l y and in h i s official
ii

capacity.

2 4 . D e f e n d a n t Joseph Salemi w a s at all times r e l e v a n t hereto

a n A s s i s t a n t D i r e c t o r of the D e p a r t m e n t of Special E d u c a t i o n for t h e

\ CSD.

In this capacity

he w a s r e s p o n s i b l e

;; a p p r o p r i a t e public e d u c a t i o n to h a n d i c a p p e d
t r i c t , in a c c o r d a n c e

with

both

for p r o v i d i n g

a free,

s t u d e n t s of the D i s -

federal and state laws and r e g u -

ij l a t i o n s .
[:

He is sued individually and in h i s o f f i c i a l

capacity.

2 5 . D e f e n d a n t New York State E d u c a t i o n D e p a r t m e n t is a state

j agency charged with general m a n a g e m e n t and s u p e r v i s i o n of all p u b l i c

: s c h o o l s and all e d u c a t i o n a l activity in the State of New Y o r k .

It

ij is a "State e d u c a t i o n a l a g e n c y " as that term is defined in 20 U . S . C .

jl 1 4 0 1 ( 7 ) .
As such it is r e s p o n s i b l e for assuring that all e d u ji
ji c a t i o n a l p r o g r a m s for handicapped children w i t h i n the state are

|J| administered

in compliance with federal and state laws. It is a

ii recipient of federal funds for various educational programs, in-

- 11 -

jl eluding funds made available for special education programs and

ji related services.

li

j!

25a. Defendant Ambach is the Commissioner and chief executive

({officer of the New York State Education Department. In this capacity

;! he is responsible for assuring that all educational programs for
:)
i]

handicapped children within the state are administered in compliance

li with federal and state laws. He is sued in his official capacity.

STATUTES INVOLVED
|i
26. The Education of All Handicapped Children Act, 20 U.S.C.
i|
I! 1401, et seq. (hereinafter referred to as the "EAHCA") requires
'that all school districts which receive funds under the Act take
''affirmative steps to identify, locate, evaluate and place in approil

Jjpriate educational programs all handicapped children in their district.

Such children must be provided with a free, appropriate

:.public education, at no cost to the parents, in the least restrictive

';educational environment appropriate to the needs of the child.
is

27.

The

EAHCA

and

the

accompanying

regulations

set

up a

j'detailed mechanism for ensuring that each handicapped child's program is individually designed to meet his/her particular needs and
; to ensure maximum parental input and involvement at every stage of
lithe process.
'\
I:
':
!j
:

The regulations require, inter alia;

(a)

notice to parents and parental consent when evaluative information is being sought regarding a child
thought to be handicapped;

(b)

extensive evaluations by a multidisciplinary team of

professionals, including testing in the area of the
child's suspected disability;
the opportunity for a child's parent to meet with the
multidisciplinary team prior to their making a recommendation as to the child's classification or

:,
(c)

rv 1 * O r% m r~\ n i-

- 12 -

(d)

written notification of parents when a school district proposes to initiate or change or refuses to
initiate or change a child's special education placement, based on the evaluations conducted, including:
i.

a full explanation of all the procedural safeguards available to parents under the Act (see
(e) below );

ii.

a description and explanation of the proposed

action or refusal to act;

iii. a description of any other options considered

by the agency and why they were rejected;

(e)

iv.

a description of each evaluation procedure,

test, record or report used as a basis for the
proposed action or inaction; and

v.

a description of any other relevant factors

considered by the agency in making its recommendation.

extensive procedural safeguards, including:

i.

the right to an independent evaluation at public expense if the parent disagrees with the
agency's evaluation;

ii.

the right to an impartial due process hearing if

the parent disagrees with the proposed classification or placement, including the right to
counsel, the right to present evidence, crossexamine witnesses and compel the attendance of
witnesses, the right to have all evidence proposed to be used by the agency disclosed five
days in advance of the hearing, the right to a
decision within 45 days of the request for a
hearing;

iii. the right to appeal the hearing officer's decision to the State educational agency;
iv.

the right to bring a civil action in federal or

state court to challenge the decision of the
State educational agency;

- 13 -

v.

28.

the right to have the child remain in his/her

then-current educational placement, or, if applying for initial admission to a school, to be
admitted, pending the final resolution of any
administrative and/or judicial proceedings;

(f)

development, with parental involvement, of an individualized education program (hereinafter "IEP") for
each handicapped child, which must be in place before
the child is placed in a special educational program,
and which must include, inter alia, a description of
the specific programs and services to be provided to
the child;

(g)

creation of a continuum of alternative placements

sufficient to provide for the needs of all handicapped students in the District; and

(h)

provision of a scope and range of nonacademic services and activities, including physical education,
equivalent to those provided to nonhandicapped students.

The EAHCA also creates substantial monitoring and enfor-

cement duties for the State education agency and makes that agency
ultimately

responsible

for the provision

of a free

appropriate

education to every handicapped child in the State.

29.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.

794 (hereinafter "Section 504"), states that no otherwise qualified

handicapped

individual

may, by

reason

of his/her

handicap, be

excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be

subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving
federal financial assistance.
30.

Section 504 and its implementing regulations adopt and

incorporate the EAHCA procedures and requirements set forth above as

a means of ensuring that educational agencies do not discriminate
against students on the basis of handicap.

31.

Article 89 of the New York Education Law and the accom- !

i

panying Commissioner's Regulations at 8 NYCRR, Part 200 incorporate i

the substantive and procedural requirements of the EAHCA enumerated j
i

above.

The regulations also set forth specific time limits which !

i

must be observed by school districts when a referral for evaluation !

and placement has been made.
(a)

These time limits require:

the multidisciplinary

team making the evaluations j

and recommendations (known in New York as the district's Committee

on the Handicapped or COH) must make a determination of eligibility i

and classification for placement within thirty days of receipt of a ,
re ferral ;

j
(b)

actual placement of a handicapped child in the ap- I

propriate educational program must occur within an additional thirty

!j days .
32.

The New York regulations also provide that a district may

create subcommittees of the COH to perform the duties of the COH.

Such subcommittees must be similarly constituted to the COH, including as members at least a school psychologist, a teacher or administrator of special education, a school physician, and a parent of
a handicapped child residing in the school district.

This compo-

sition of the COH or one of its subcommittees is mandated by federal

law.

- 15 -

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
FACTS PERTAINING TO THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS
PLAINTIFF 3. G.
33.

3. G. is an eighteen-year-old seriously emotionally dis-

turbed student who has been hospitalized on several occasions during

the past two-and-one-half years for chronic paranoid schizophrenia.
34.

3. G. was hospitalized for the first time in August, 1978,

when he was admitted to Strong Memorial Hospital in Rochester, New

York.
35.

In approximately

September, 1978, 3. G.'s

physicians

informed the CSD of his hospitalization and diagnosis and requested

that he be given instruction at the hospital.
36.

On or about October 24, 1978 the CSD assigned a Special

jt Education tutor to 3. G.

A copy of the letter evidencing this

assignment is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference

as plaintiffs' Exhibit "A".
37.

Prior to the initiation of this Special Education program,

the CSD performed no evaluations, gave no written notice to 3. G.'s

parent of his proposed classification, and did not develop an IEP for
him .
38.

In early 1979, after his discharge from Strong Memorial

Hospital, 3. G. attempted to re-enroll in East High School, his home

school in the CSD.
39.

At this time 3. G. was informed that he could not return

i to East High School until he had undergone evaluation by the school

psychologist; instead 3. G. was assigned to a recreational vehicles

- 16 -

jjvocational program at the Whitney Street Annex.

\

40.

Subsequently

a school psychologist determined

that 3.

;;G.'s mental health would not allow his return to East High School;
i;instead a plumbing class was added to

his schedule and he received

jitutoring three to five days per week for approximately one hour each

'Jday.
41.

Prior to the initiation of this new program, 3. G. and his

iimother were never informed that he had the right to enroll in his
(regular school while any evaluations were completed.

No classifi-

cation and recommendation for placement was made by the COH, no

|;notice was sent and no IEP was developed with parental input.
1;

42.

ijno desire

At the time he was placed in the plumbing class, 3. G. had

to receive

training

in plumbing.

He accepted

this

(placement, and attended school sporadically, because CSD employees

:told him it was the only available program.
43.

In March, 1979, 3. G.'s condition deteriorated, and he was

rehospitalized at Strong Memorial Hospital until April, 1979.

^discharge

from

Strong, 3. G. again

resumed

limited

Upon

vocational

education and tutoring three times each week.

44.

In 3une , 1979 a CSD Student Educational Services team

reviewed 3. G.'s placement and determined he should continue to

receive vocational instruction and tutoring.

On information and

belief, this SES team was not a properly constituted subcommittee of

the Committee on the Handicapped, nor did it refer 3. G. to the COH
i|or a subcommittee of the COH. On information and belief, the SES team

- 17 -

made no attempt to evaluate 3. G. prior to making this recommendation, nor did they meet with his parent. The notification sent
i
i! to 3. G.'s mother did not inform her in sufficient detail of the
;i procedural safeguards available to her under the EAHCA or specify
'which evaluations, tests, records or reports were used in reaching
|; their decision. No IEP planning conference was scheduled and no IEP
was developed with parental input.
!

45.

During the 1979-80 school year 3. G. attended one class at

'Edison High School (which replaced the Whitney Street Annex) five
; days per week and received tutoring at Edison for one hour, five
times each week.
:

46.

In October, 1979 3. G. was dropped

from

one

of his

vocational courses and enrolled in another vocational program without SES or COH involvement and without any written notice to his
>parent.
47.

Although

3. G. had

requested

placement

in a regular

physical education class, from the time of his first discharge from
Strong Memorial Hospital until February, 1980, the City defendants
refused to provide him with any form of physical education.
48.

As the result of defendant's failure to provide 3. G. with

an appropriate educational environment, he refused to attend school

and

his condition

deteriorated

to the point where

he required

hospitalization.
;

49.

In approximately November, 1979, 3. G.'s mother, real-

sizing that her son's condition was deteriorating, asked 3. G.'s

- 18 -

counselor whether the CSD would pay for J. G.'s residential placement.

After consulting with a CSD psychologist, the counselor

i\ informed her that it was not CSD policy to pay for residential
) placement.
;

50.

In January, 1980, 3. G.'s deterioration necessitated his

, re-admission to Strong Memorial Hospital, and in February he was

admitted to the Youth Division of Rochester Psychiatric Center

state hospital for mentally ill people.

;;

51.

3. G.'s mother notified his counselor that 3. G. had been

:; rehospitalized

and requested

that tutoring

be continued

at the

Psychiatric Center.
52.

In April, 1980 3. G.'s mother received a letter from Joseph

Salemi, Assistant Director of the CSD Special Education Department,

ji indicating that the CSD would not continue to provide a tutor while
her son was institutionalized.

A copy of this letter is attached

hereto and incorporated herein by reference as plaintiffs' Exhibit

B.
53.

As a result of the City defendants' failure to continue his

tutoring J. G. did not receive appropriate educational services from

March through June, 1980.
54.

In approximately April, 1980, 3. G.'s treating physicians

recommended his educational placement at a residential school.

On

information and belief the City defendants were informed of this

recommendation but they never acted upon it.
ii

55.

During the period complained of herein, the City defen-

, dants did not refer 3. G. to the COH or one of its subcommittees for

- 19 -

ii
{ classification as a handicapped student. They did not notify J. G. 's
j mother of her right to request a due process hearing each time she
j complained about her son's educational placement.
56.

During the period complained of herein, the City defen-

j) dants did not give 3. G.'s mother written notice prior to initiating
ji each change in his educational program. They at no time developed
;:
j; an IEP for 3. G. with appropriate parental input.
i

||

57.

During the summer of 1980, 3. G.'s mother sought assis-

i'j tance from the Monroe County Youth Advocacy Project.

With the

ji assistance of an advocate, she requested re-evaluation of 3. G.'s

!; condition and a meeting with the COH concerning his classification
! and placement.
j,

58.

In September, 1980, 3. G., through his mother, filed an

administrative

complaint with the Office of Special

Education,

United States Department of Education, in which she challenged the

: CSD's failure to grant 3. G. rights arising under the Education of
All Handicapped Children Act, 20 U.S.C. 1401 e_t seq .

No final

j: action has been taken on this complaint.

'<>

59.

As a result of Mrs. G.'s vigorous protests concerning the

I CSD's failure to comply with the EAHCA to federal and state agencies
' and to her legislators, and as a result of the active involvement in
|i her case of her advocate, the City defendants are presently at|1 tempting to provide 3. G. with educational services in compliance
ji with legal requirements.

However, 3. G. has already suffered a

serious and irremediable loss of educational opportunities, as well

ij as emotional distress and deterioration in his condition as a result
1 of the City defendants' failure to provide him with appropriate
;; educational services.

- 20 -

PLAINTIFF M.W.
60.

Plaintiff M. W. is a visually-impaired sixteen-year-old

J!
i'< girl.
i;.

She is blind in one eye and with best correction, has visual

j; acuity of 20/50 in her better eye.

;; congenital cataract condition.

Her impairment stems from a

Furthermore, various tests have

s indicated M. W. has an emotional handicap and that she is mentally

H retarded.
ji
|j

6 1 . During her early y e a r s in the C S D s c h o o l s , M . W . w a s in

'! special classes for visually-impaired students.

62.

On or about May 17, 1978 M. W.'s mother, Mrs. W., consented

';'. to placement of her daughter in a classroom for emotionally handi: capped children.

Prior to consenting to this placement Mrs. W.

,: received no written notice from the CSD.

jj

63.

At the meeting during which Mrs. W. consented to place-

s' merit, members of the CSD Special Needs Committee (predecessor of the
,. SES team) explained her daughter's need for special education. Mrs.
W. signed an otherwise blank form indicating that she consented to
I, the proposed placement.

Mrs. W. was not informed that her consent

'was revocable, nor was she informed of her daughter's rights as a

handicapped student.
64.

On information and belief, neither the COH nor its sub-

: committee reviewed M. W.'s proposed classification or placement

\] because the Special Needs Committee never referred her to the COH.
I;

65.

M. W. was not placed

in a classroom

li
J> handicapped children until October 5, 1978.

for

emotionally

- 21 -

66.

From May, 1978 until at least October, 1978 Mrs. W. was not :

informed of her daughter's right to be placed in an appropriate !

i
i
educational program within thirty days after identification as a !
handicapped child.
67.

M. W. attended an emotionally handicapped class at Fred- '

:; erick Douglass Junior High School from October, 1978 until May, 1979, j
when her family moved to Potsdam, New York. M. W.'s family returned
to Rochester in August, 1979.
68.

In September, 1979 Mrs. W. requested that M. W. be re-

\, enrolled in an emotionally handicapped class in the CSD.

i!

69.

Mrs. W. requested placement at East High School, M. W.'s

home school, or at Frederick Douglass Junior High School.

:

Her .

request was denied by defendant Robert Lays because both programs

I! were filled.

Instead, defendant Lays offered M. W. a placement in i

ij another emotionally handicapped class, farther from her home, which '
; was already filled to capacity with ten boys.

Mrs. W. informed

defendant Lays that the proposed placement was unacceptable because

i the school was not a neighborhood school and because she did not
; think her daughter would adjust to a class in which she was the only
girl.

Defendant Lays informed Mrs. W. that he would seek another

placement for M. W.
70.

At no time did defendant

Lays inform Mrs. W. of her

; daughter's right to contest the proposed placement, of her right to

, return to her last educational placement pending resolution of the
\ matter, or of her other due process rights. At no time did defendant

- 22 -

Lays initiate a hearing or inform Mrs. W. of how she could request j

i

a hearing to contest the proposed placement.

71.

On information and belief, defendant Lays took no af- '

firmative action to place M. W. in an appropriate educational program ;

until March, 1980.
72.

M. W. remained at home without receiving any educational j

services for the entire 1979-80 school year.

73.

In March, 1980, Mrs. W., frustrated by defendants' failure

to place her daughter in an emotionally handicapped class, consented ;

to M. W.'s declassification as a handicapped student and to her
. placement in the Achievement Program, a program for slow learners who
are not considered handicapped.
74.

Mrs. W. received no written notice from the CSD prior to ;

Si consenting to M. W.'s placement in the Achievement Program.

75.

On information and belief, the change in M. W.'s class-

ification was necessitated, not by a change in her handicapping

condition, but by the City defendant's failure to develop a sufficient number of emotionally handicapped classes.
76.

On information and belief, neither the COH nor its sub-

committee reviewed or approved the change in M. W.'s classification.

77.

On information and belief, the City defendants completed

a psychological evaluation of M. W. in April, 1980, after Mrs. W.'s

consent to M. W.'s declassification
already been obtained.

as a handicapped

child had

As a result of this evaluation, M. W. was

determined not to have a handicapping condition.

78.

Despite Mrs. W.'s consent to a non-handicapped placement

in March, 1980, on or about April 17, 1980, defendant Salemi authored

- 23 -

a memorandum in which he stated that M. W. should not be accepted into

the proposed placement because it was so late in the school year.
79.

M. W. was not enrolled in the proposed placement during the

remainder of the 1979-80 school year.

80.

Prior to the beginning of the 1980-81 school year, Mrs. W.

received no written notice of M. W.'s placement for that year.

81.

On or about September 12, 1980, Mrs. W. informed defendant

Lays that her daughter needed placement in a special class.

82.

Defendant Lays failed to inform Mrs. W. of her daughter's i

procedural rights under federal and state law or to initiate a j

hearing on her behalf.
83.

On or about September 24, 1980, Mrs. W. signed a parental I

approval slip authorizing her daughter's placement in the Achievement j

Program, a nonhandicapped placement.
84.

Mrs. W. was not notified

in writing of the available j

procedural rights prior to signing the parental approval slip.

The ]

parental approval slip did not contain a statement that the approval

i
;

was revocable .
85.

In October, 1980 M. W. was placed

in the Achievement

Program at Franklin.
86.

On or about October 27, 1980, M. W.'s doctor, James D. Lee,

requested that M. W. be evaluated for possible handicapping conditions. A copy of this request is attached hereto and incorporated
herein as plaintiffs' Exhibit C.
87.

On or about November 3, 1980, defendant Greenberger wrote

to Dr. Lee stating that M. W. had been evaluated in April, 1980 and

'

- 24 -

that she was found not to have a handicapping condition.

A copy of

this letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference

as plaintiffs' Exhibit D.
88.

On information and belief, neither defendant Greenberger

nor any other employee of the CSD informed Mrs. W. of her procedural
rights, including a right to obtain an independent evaluation, or
initiated a hearing.
89.

M. W. has been attending a slow learners class at Benjamin

Franklin High School since October, 1980. She is failing most of her
courses and is receiving no special education or related services
designed to meet her specific needs.
90.

Mrs. W. has never been

invited

to attend

a planning

conference to develop an IEP for M. W.

91.

On information and belief, no IEP has ever been developed

for M. W.

PLAINTIFF A. M.
92.

Plaintiff A. M. is an eighth grade student in the CSD with

a specific learning disability.

He has a normal IQ, achieves at

close to grade level in mathematics and reads at approximately a

third grade level.
93.

In early 1979, when A. M. was in the sixth grade at School

No. 22, his mother recommended that he be referred for evaluation as

a handicapped child.
94.

In response to this request, A. M.'s teacher referred him

to the Student Educational Services team for testing on or about

- 25 -

!' March 20, 1979.

This referral was "approved" by the School No. 22

;. Vice-principal on or about March 29, 1979.

;

form

is attached

hereto and incorporated

A copy of the referral

herein as plaintiffs'

Exhibit E.
95.

On information and belief, the City defendants did not

evaluate A. M. and he completed the sixth grade without having been

.; identified as a handicapped student and without having been provided
with an appropriate educational program.
;

96.

In September, 1979, A. M . entered

Interim Junior High

ji

'' School.

Interim Junior High School is a special magnet school,

drawing children from throughout the CSD and some suburban districts.

It is an ungraded junior high school and is best described

as a school without walls, in which children contract to perform

|| certain tasks in an open school environment.
97.

At the time he entered Interim, a CSD employee noticed that

, A. M. had not been evaluated pursuant to the March, 1979 referral and
again requested an evaluation.

A copy of this request is attached

hereto and incorporated herein as plaintiffs' Exhibit F.

)'

98.

On or about

September

28, 1979, another

' evaluation was sent to the SES team at Interim.

request

for

A copy of this

request is attached hereto and incorporated herein as plaintiffs'

t

Exhibit G.

,
99. On or about January 16, 1980, Mrs. M. met with two members
j: of the Interim SES team to discuss A. M.'s placement. They informed

i:

!; Mrs. M. that A. M. had a specific learning disability and that he

I;

needed a learning disability placement.

- 26 -

100. At the January

16, 1980 meeting, Mrs. M. was further

informed that no learning disability program existed at Interim and

that A. M would have to transfer out of the magnet school in order

to be placed in a learning disability program.
101. Mrs. M., concerned that her child would not adjust to a
transfer in the middle of the year, requested that A. M. be allowed
to finish the year at Interim.
,.

The SES team members agreed to this.

102. At this conference, Mrs. M. further stated that she did not

': want A. M. to attend the learning disability program at Benjamin

Franklin Junior/Senior High School, his neighborhood school, because she felt a Senior High School atmosphere would overwhelm her
son, who was socially immature and very sensitive to any criticism
about his inability to read.

She also felt that A. M.'s placement

il in a school of over 2,000 students would be extremely inappropriate

for her son .

J
i

103. A team member agreed with Mrs. M. that Franklin was an i

inappropriate placement for A. M., given his psychological make-up.
He recommended that Frederick Douglass Junior High School would be
more appropriate for A. M.'s eighth grade placement.
104. In reliance on the representation that A. M. could transfer to Douglass, Mrs. M. consented to her son's placement.
105. On or about January 22, 1980, Mrs. M. signed the consent
, form attached hereto and incorporated herein as plaintiffs' Exhibit

106. Prior to signing the consent to placement, Mrs. M. re- j

ceived no written notice of the tests and/or reports on which the

- 27 -

proposed classification of A. M. was based; she received no written

or oral notice of her right to obtain an independent educational
evaluation and a list of places where one could be obtained; she
received no oral or written notice of her right to obtain a hearing j
or of procedural safeguards to protect her son's educational rights;
she received no oral or written notice of the availability of free
legal assistance; and she received no written or oral notice that the
-.. aforementioned consent was revocable.

107. On or about January 23, 1980, the SES team recommended a j

learning disability placement for A. M. at Douglass beginning in j
September, 1980.

A copy of this recommendation is attached hereto

and incorporated herein as plaintiffs' Exhibit I.

108. On information and belief, neither the COH nor any of its j
|i subcommittees reviewed A. M.'s evaluations or made a recommendation
concerning A. M.'s placement.

109. On information and belief, A. M.'s referral form went to j

the CSD Central Office, where an employee assigned A. M. to Benjamin .
Franklin Junior/Senior High School.

110. This assignment was made pursuant to a school district ;

policy that handicapped children must,whenever possible, be educated ;
at their neighborhood schools. This policy was applied in abrogation j
of the terms of the consent form signed by Mrs. M., without oral or j
written notice to her and without referring the matter to the COH. \
111. In August, 1980, Mrs. M. received written notification |
i from defendants that A. M. was enrolled at Franklin for the 1980-1981 j
j

school year.

- 28 -

112. Mrs. M. informed employees of the CSD that a mistake had

been made and that, rather than allow A. M. to enter Franklin, she |

i
: would prefer that he return to Interim pending resolution of the j
i

matter .
113. At the beginning of the 1980-1981 school year, A. M. |
returned to Interim, where he attended school until approximately j
September 17, 1980.
114. On or about September 17, 1980, A. M.'s guidance counselor j
informed Mrs. M. that A. M. was attending Interim illegally and that i
he would be removed from school until the matter was resolved.
'

115. On or about September 18, 1980, Mrs. M. requested that the

COH meet to discuss A. M.'s educational placement.

116. On or about September 29, 1980, Mrs. M. met with the COH.
jj

117. On or about October 1,

1980, the COH issued its recom-

mendation that A. M. be placed in a seventh grade learning dis- i

abilities program at Frederick Douglass Junior High School. A copy i
of this recommendation is attached hereto and incorporated herein as
I: plaintiffs' Exhibit J.
118. On or about October

11, 1980, Mrs. M. took A. M. to

Douglass to attempt to enroll him

disabilities program

in an eighth grade

because he had completed

learning

seventh grade at

Interim.
119. At this time Mr. Glasier, a dean at Douglass, informed Mrs.
M. that there were no seventh or eighth grade learning disabilities >
j; placements at Douglass and that the COH erred when it recommended :
that A. M. attend Douglass.

- 29 -

jl

120. Mrs. M., through her attorney, secured A. M.'s return to

! Interim. At the time he returned to Interim, A. M. had already missed I

i'

(approximately three weeks of school.

121. With the assistance of counsel, Mrs. M. appealed from the I

COH's recommendation that A. M. be placed in the seventh grade at ,

Douglass.
122.

j
After an impartial hearing, A. M. was placed in an eighth i

: grade learning disabilities program at Douglass and began attending ;

i: classes there on or about November 2, 1980.
i

123. On or about January 15, 1981, Mrs. M. received a letter ;

it from A. M.'s learning disabilities teacher, along with a partially j

completed Individualized Education Program.

Copies of the letter

and IEP are attached hereto and incorporated herein as plaintiffs'

jj Exhibits K and t.
124.

This was the first IEP which Mrs. M. had seen for A. M. She

was never invited to attend any meetings to develop this IEP, and she
did not participate in its development.

PLAINTIFF K. M.
125.

K. M. is a nine-year-old who presently attends fourth

grade at School No. 42.

Her mother suspects she has a specific

: learning disability similar to that of her brother, plaintiff A. M.

I

126. On or about September 30, 1980, Mrs. M. requested in

\\ writing

- 30 -

i!

hthat defendants evaluate K. M. for a suspected handicapping con-

i!
ii d it i o n .
;,

127. Defendants performed a psychological evaluation of K. M.,

jjand in November 1980, the Student Educational Services team deterijmined that K. M. did not have a handicapping condition.
!

128. In December

1980, the

SES team

reconsidered

K. M.'s

hclassification , decided that she was a handicapped child and recomjimended that she be placed in a learning disabilities program.
i',

ij

129. At that time the SES team recommended that K. M. be placed

;j in a learning disabilities program beginning in September, 1981.

j;

130. Mrs. M. received

no written notice of her daughter's

:', rights under the EAHCA prior to evaluation of K. M.

;

131. On or about December 4, 1980, despite the recommendation

||of the SES team, a CSD employee informed Mrs. M. that K. M. had been j
j; found not to have a handicapping condition.
I;

132. On information and belief, K. M. was never referred to the

COH or any of its subcommittees for classification and placement.

\.

133. Mrs. M. received no written notice of the tests and/or

reports on which the SES team's recommendation

'received

no written

or oral

was based; she

notice of her right

to obtain an

independent educational evaluation and a list of places where one

'could be obtained; she received no oral or written notice of her
>right to obtain a hearing or of procedural safeguards to protect her :
i daughter's educational rights; and she received no oral or written \
notice of the availability of free legal assistance.

'

- 31 -

FACTS PERTAINING TO THE CLASS AS A WHOLE

\
jj

134. On information and belief, the CSD has elected to comply

(with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794,

ii
jj through

compliance

with

the requirements of the EAHCA and its

ii

jj implementing regulations.
j!

135. The City defendants have failed to adopt and implement

-policies and procedures to ensure that students

thought

to be

I; handicapped and handicapped students needing modifications in their

j) educational programs are promptly evaluated and classified.
136. Referrals and requests for evaluation are delayed, igjinored or improperly routed due to the City defendants' failure to
ji implement an effective procedure for timely action on such requests
I; and/or referrals.
137. On information and belief over 500 students in the CSD were
-.referred for evaluation between September 1980 and February 1981.
\

138. On information and belief over 500 students in the CSD who

were referred for evaluation between September 1980 and February

I-1981 were not evaluated within 30 school days after referral.
:

139. The City defendants have failed to adopt and implement

^policies and procedures to ensure

that students who

have

been

'classified as handicapped and recommended for placement in appropriate educational programs are promptly placed in such programs.
140. The City defendants have also failed to develop an adequate
jinumber of programs to provide needed services to handicapped stu-

- 32 -

l!

ij dents and

to recommend

private

and

residential

placements

for

handicapped students when indicated.

141. As a result of the policies and practices of the City
ij defendants, handicapped students and students thought to be handicapped in the CSD go for months after identification as potentially
ij handicapped without appropriate educational programs and services,
ij and some such students go without any educational program for a month

ii
Ii or more .
142. On information and belief, over 100 students whom the City
j| defendants classified as handicapped between September

1980 and

l;
i

Ij February 1981 were not provided with special education and related
ii services within 30 school days after classification.
,i

'

143. The

City

defendants

remove

handicapped

students

from

their current educational programs before placement in another more

lj appropriate program has been determined and arranged.
ii

144. Parents are occasionally

offered

inappropriate alter-

j natives for temporary placement of their handicapped children. They

ij are not informed of their children's legal right to remain in their
!! then-current educational programs while the COH evaluation/placement process occurs.
145. Similarly, handicapped students attempting to enroll in
i school are prevented from doing so.

Parents are not informed that

their handicapped children have a legal right to enroll in school

while COH procedures are pending.

- 33 -

146. On information and belief, the City defendants have esta- I

i blished a system for evaluating students which prevents most stu|
\ dents from ever being evaluated and classified by a properly consti-

! tuted COH.
II
I
147. Each CSD school has an SES team.

Each SES team does not

j| include all of the following: a parent, a special education teacher

ij or special education administrator, and a physician.
ji

148. On information and belief the CSD evaluation and classification policy for students thought to be handicapped operates as

i
I follows:
(a)

The SES team decides what tests and other evaluations

should be performed.

(b)

The tests and other evaluations are performed.

(c)

The SES team reviews the results of the tests and i

evaluations and recommends whether classification as
a handicapped student is appropriate, and, if so,
make a recommendation as to placement of the student.

(d)

When classification and placement as a handicapped

student are recommended a member or members of the
SES team meet with the parent, explain the proposed
classification and placement, and obtain parental
consent.

(e)

Where the SES team has obtained parental consent to

a proposed classification and placement, neither the
COH nor any subcommittee of the COH reviews the
classification or placement. The proposed placement
is then implemented by CSD administrators.

(f)

When classification and placement as a handicapped

student are not recommended by the SES team, no
further action is taken. The matter is referred to
neither the COH nor any of its subcommittees.

149. The City defendants do not give parents written notice of

- 34 -

their procedural rights prior to initiating evaluations of students i

> thought to be handicapped or of handicapped students thought to j
i; require a change in placement or program.
|l

'

150. The City defendants do not give parents written notice of I

;: their procedural rights when they propose to or refuse to initiate j

i
or change the program or placement of a handicapped student or a j
student thought to be handicapped.
;;

151. Such notices must inform parents of their right to obtain

| an independent evaluation, possibly at public expense; their right

i- to an impartial hearing on the SES or COH recommendation and the
|; names of organizations which provide free representation in such ;
. matters; their child's right to remain in his/her

then-current

educational placement pending resolution of the matter', and numerous

j! other procedural rights of which parents are generally unaware.
i

152. Instead of giving parents written notices of their rights,

the City defendants routinely obtain parental signatures agreeing to
a proposed placement on a "checklist" type of form.

;'

153. This "consent" form does not fully inform parents of their

;: rights

(see, e.g., plaintiffs' Exhibit H ) .

Sometimes parental

signatures are obtained while the form is still otherwise blank.

; Even when the "blanks" are checked to indicate that certain inforn
j! mation has been provided to a parent, often such information has not
! in fact been provided.
ij
i
1 5 4 . As a result

of this

practice, parents

are given the

j i m p r e s s i o n that the option chosen for their child is the only o p t i o n

j;
;( a v a i l a b l e and that they are p o w e r l e s s to a f f e c t the d e c i s i o n b e i n g
II made .

- 35 -

155. Even when a parent does protest a proposed classification

or placement, CSD officials do not give written notice to the parent
of his/her procedural rights, nor do CSD employees initiate a hearing
on the parental complaint.
156. Only when a parent on his or her own initiative enlists the
aid of an advocate or attorney do the City defendants respond to
parental protests by providing written notice of procedural rights I
and impartial hearings.

Efforts by advocates and attorneys gen- :

i

erally result in a successful resolution of the individual student's

situation, but because the City defendants refuse to alter the j
practices complained of herein, hundreds of unrepresented CSD stu- j
I
dents are denied appropriate educational services every school year. !
157. The City defendants have failed to adopt and implement \
'! policies and procedures to obtain required parental input before
students' Individualized Education Programs are developed.
fically, they

fail to hold meetings to develop

Speci-

IEPs within

30 j

calendar days after students are classified as handicapped.

158. Rather than being invited to attend

IEP planning con- I

ferences, parents are often sent a completed or blank IEP for their i
child and instructed to sign on the dotted line (see, e.g., plaintiffs' Exhibits K and L ) .
159. The City defendants knew or should have known that their ,
conduct and policies failed

to comply with the requirements of

\ federal and state law.

j;
!;

160. The State defendants have failed to undertake sufficient

, monitoring and evaluation activities and to develop adequate pro- ;

':

j
I

- 36 -

cedures for monitoring and evaluation to insure that handicapped

students in the Rochester City School District are provided appropriate educational programs meeting the requirements of federal law
and the educational standards of the State Department of Education
and that the funds received by the CSD for the education of handicapped children are spent in the manner required by federal and state

law.

161. The State

defendants

have

failed

to

insure

that

all j

i
handicapped children in the CSD are identified, located and evalu- |
ated in a timely manner and that an IEP is developed and promptly :
implemented for each handicapped child.
162. The State defendants have failed to insure that the City
defendants are able to establish and maintain programs of sufficient j
\' size and scope to effectively meet the educational needs of handicapped students.
163. The State defendants have failed to insure that the City
defendants have established

and

implemented

all the

procedural

safeguards guaranteed to handicapped students by federal and state i

law.

They have also failed to insure the implementation of evalu- '

ation procedures, the development of a continuum of alternative

placements based on properly developed IEPs, and the provision of
academic, nonacademic and extracurricular services which meet the |
i

requirements of federal and state law.

164. Exhaustion of any administrative remedies would be futile
;

in this matter.

- 37 -

165. This action challenges as inadequate the very procedures

by which administrative
Plaintiffs

allege herein

review takes place at the local level.

that the administrative

review

rights

accorded to handicapped students and those students thought to be

i

handicapped are both inadequate as designed and administered by the j

City defendants.

Particularly, the plaintiffs

allege

that the I
i

inadequate notice of procedural rights given to parents precludes

them from ever invoking these rights.

The administrative remedies !

which do exist are also inadequate in that theydo not accord the full '
scope of relief sought by plaintiffs.

Those plaintiffs who have

participated in the administrative process have achieved some lim- ;

ited individual relief but have been unable to achieve any meaningful
changes in the system. The administrative process also cannot offer
ji
i the injunctive and compensatory relief sought herein.

j
Finally the
i

administrative process is excessively time consuming for students !

who have only a limited time during which they are entitled to a free,
appropriate public education.
166. All named plaintiffs and all members of the plaintiff
class and subclass remain subject to the operation of the policies
and practices complained of herein. Handicapped students must have
their IEPs reviewed annually and must be fully re-evaluated every
three years.

Their placement and program must be reviewed whenever

a parent or school employee has reason to believe review and revision

may be necessary.

The procedures and practices complained of herein

are implicated in every such review or re-evaluation.

- 38 -

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

167. By failing to develop and implement polcies and procedures ;

'which insure that plaintiffs and the class are referred to the COH, |
and evaluated and classified by the COH within thirty days after \
request for referral, the City defendants have violated and continue \
to violate the EAHCA, 20 U.S.C. 1412, and implementing regulations |
at 34 C.F.R. 300.220, 300.300; 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
I
::1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, and implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. :
i! 104.32, 104.33 and 104.35; 42 U.S.C. 1983; the Fourteenth Amendment

to the United

States Constitution; 4402 of the New York i

(Education Law and implementing regulations at 8 NYCRR 200.5.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

168. By placing plaintiffs and the subclass in special education

programs without

performing

appropriate

evaluations

and

without developing IEPs with required parental participation, the

City defendants have violated and continue to violate the EAHCA, 20
U.S.C. 1414, and implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. 300.300,
300.4, 300.340-300.346, 300.503, 300.531-300.534, 300.550-300.554;
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, and imple- ;
menting regulations at 34 C.F.R. 104.33, 104.34, 104.35, 104.37; \
| 42 U.S.C. 1983; the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

States |

Constitution; 4402 of the New York Education Law and implementing

regulations at 8 NYCRR 200.3, 200.4 and 200.5.

- 39 -

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

ij

169. By failing to give plaintiffs and the class and their

i parents written notice containing: a full explanation of all of the

| procedural safeguards available to them by law; a description of the
i! action proposed or refused by the COH and the reasons for such action
jj including alternatives considered; a description of each evaluation
procedure, test, record or report used as a basis for the proposal
or refusal; and a description of any other relevant factors, prior
jj to initiating an evaluation or changing or refusing to change a
i child's educational placement the City defendants have violated and
j! continue to violate the EAHCA, 20 U.S.C. 1415, and implementing
j! regulations at 34 C.F.R. 300.504, 300.505; 504 of the Rehabil|| itation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, and implementing regulations at
i

t 34 C.F.R. 104.36; 42 U.S.C. 1983; the Fourteenth Amendment to the

United States Constitution; 4402 of the New York Education Law and
; implementing regulations at 8 NYCRR 200.5.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

;;

170. By obtaining consent from the parents of plaintiffs and

', the class prior to initial evaluation

!' without

fully

informing

and/or

initial

placement

parents of their procedural rights and

j[ without informing parents that their consent is revocable, the City

- 40 -

i
Ij de f endants have violated and continue to violate the EAHCA, 20 O.S.C.
i>1401, et seq. , and implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. 300.i!

j 500 , 300.504; 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 29 U.S.C. 794,

jand implementing

regulations at 34 C.F.R. 104.35, 104.36; 42

O.S.C. 1983; 4402 of the New York Education Law and implementing
'[{regulations at 8 NYCRR 200.5.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

171. By removing plaintiffs and the class from their thencurrent educational placements or refusing to place them in school
;i upon application for admission while the COH evaluation, classification and placement process occurs, the City defendants have
violated and continue to violate the EAHCA, 20 U.S.C. 1415, and
'! implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. 300.513; 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, and implementing regulations at
i] 34 C.F.R. 104.33, 104.36; 42 U.S.C. 1983; the Fourteenth AmendI
'
f^
ijment to the United States Constitution; 4404 of the New York

I!

'Education

Law and

implementing

regulations

at

8 NYCRR

200.5.

- 41 -

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

172. By failing to act upon recommendations for placement, by

failing to provide plaintiffs and the subclass with special edu1 cation and related services without undue delay, and by failing to
develop a sufficient number of alternative placements to meet the
li educational needs of plaintiffs and the subclass, the City defenidants have violated and continue to violate the EAHCA, 20 U.S.C.
1412-1415, and implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. 300.220,
1300.300, 300.551; 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.
(I

j 794, and implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. 104.33, 104.34,

104.35, 104.37; 42 U.S.C. 1983; the Fourteenth Amendment to the
|United States Constitution; 4402 of the New York Education Law and
implementing regulations at 8 NYCRR 200.4 and 200.5.

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

j:
;:

173. By failing to provide plaintiffs and the subclass with

academic, nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities

i

in a manner which affords them an equal opportunity for participation

;dn such services and activities, the City defendants have violated
"and continue to violate the EAHCA, 20 U.S.C. 1412, and implementing
(^regulations at 34 C.F.R. 300.305, 300.306, 300.307, 300.553; 504
jjof the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, and implementing
^regulations at 34 C.F.R. 104.34, 104.37; 42 U.S.C. 1983; and the
^Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

- 42 -

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

174. By failing to develop Individualized Education Programs

for plaintiffs and the subclass before special education and related
ij services are provided to them and by failing to include their parents
!in meetings at which their IEPs are developed, reviewed or revised,
ji the City defendants have violated and continue to violate the EAHCA,

i
|20 U.S.C. 1414, and implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. 300.J340-300.349, 300.533, 300.534, 300.552, 300.4; 504 of the Rehabil11
i1 itation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, and implementing regulations at
J34 C.F.R. 104.33; 42 U.S.C. 1983; 4402 of the New York Education
i

SjLaw and implementing regulations at 8 NYCRR 200.4.

ij

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

175.

By failing to inform plaintiffs and the class and their

j,
jjparents of their right to present complaints, to have an impartial

ji
jdue process hearing and of other procedural rights when the parents
disagree with a proposed classification or placement, and by failing
to initiate a hearing themselves when they become aware that parents
disagree with a proposed placement, the City defendants have violated

and continue

to violate

the EAHCA, 20 U.S.C. 1415, and

^implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. 300.504-300.513; 504 of the

'Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, and implementing regulations

at 34 C.F.R. 104.36; 42 U.S.C. 1983; the Fourteenth

;!Amendment to the United States Constitution; 4404 of the New York

Education Law and implementing regulations at 8 NYCRR 200.5.

- 43 -

TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

176. By failing to make placements available to plaintiff 3. G.

and other members of the plaintiff subclass who may require placement
in private schools or in public or private residential schools, and
by misinforming parents of the availability of such placements, the
City defendants have violated and continue to violate the EAHCA, 20
U.S.C. 1412, 1413, and implementing

regulations at 34

C.F.R.

300.300, 300.302, 300.400-300.402, 300.550-300.556; 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 29 U.S.C. 794, and implementing regulations

at

34 C.F.R.

104.33; 42 U.S.C. 1983; the

Fourteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution; 4401, 4402, 4405,

4407 of the New York Education Law and implementing regulations at
8 NYCRR 200.8, 200.9 and 200.10.

ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

177. As a result of the above-described deprivations of their

federal constitutional and statutory rights by the City defendants,
the named plaintiffs have been damaged as follows:
(a)

J. G. in the amount of $75,000;

(b)

M. W. in the amount of $50,000;

(c)

A. M. in the amount of $35,000; and

(d)

K. M. in the amount of $2,000.

- 44 -

TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

\
178. By failing to undertake and implement adequate monitoring i
and enforcement activities to correct and/or prevent the violations ;
enumerated

in the first ten causes of action

above, the State j

defendants have violated and continue to violate the EAHCA, 20 L). S . C. !

1412-1415, and implementing

regulations at 34 C.F.R. 300.2, !

300.128, 300.130, 200.138, 300.146, 300.190(b)(2 ) , 300.300, 300.305, 300.306, 300.307, 300.341-300.346, 300.501, 3OO.53O(a), 300.534(a), 300.555, 300.556, 300.600, 76.101, 76.104, 76.770-76.772,
76.780; 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, and j
implementing regulations at 34 C.F.R. 104.32-104.36; 42 U.S.C.
1983; the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; \
i
'and 4403 of the New York Education Law.

- 45 -

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court:

1.

Assume jurisdiction over this action;

2.

Certify this action as a class action pursuant to Rules

23(a) and (b ) (2) on behalf of the class and subclass described in 11",! 4
and 5 herein;
3.

Declare

that the defendants' actions

and

failures or

refusals to act have violated and continue to violate plaintiffs'

constitutional and statutory rights as alleged herein;
4.

Enjoin the defendants from continuing to engage in the

practices complained of herein;

5.

Order the City defendants to develop and present to the

Court within 90 days a detailed plan, suitable for immediate implementation upon approval, to correct the improper practices addressed i
herein.

The plan should include at least the following elements:

(a)

a method of insuring that a request for evaluation of

a student believed to be handicapped which is received at any level and in any form is immediately
communicated to the building administrator, SES team
and COH;

(b)

proposed guidelines to be distributed to all District staff delineating staff responsibilities for
implementation of the methods set forth in subsection (a) ;

(c)

a method of insuring that evaluations and classifications are completed by the COH within 30 days of
receipt of request;

- 46 -

(d)

a specific delineation of the duties of the SE5 team

and the COH and a method of ensuring that each entity
performs those functions which are assigned to it;

(e)

a method of insuring that when a recommendation for

placement is made, placement in the recommended
program is accomplished within 30 days;

(f)

a method for ensuring that students being evaluated

for placement or change in placement will be maintained in their current educational program or enrolled in an appropriate C.S.D. school pending conclusion of the COH process;

(g)

a method for insuring development of IEPs, both prior

to initial placement and at regular intervals thereafter, which includes parental participation to the
fullest extent required by law;

(h)

a set of forms to be used to give parents notice prior

to collecting evaluative information, prior to a
proposal or refusal to initiate or change a child's
educational placement, prior to an impartial hearing
and prior to development or revision of an IEP;

(i)

a method for insuring that all notices to parents

will be sent as required by law;

(j)

a method of insuring that a parent who complainswith

respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation or educational placement of his/her child or the provision of a free, appropriate
public education to such child shall be notified in
writing of all available procedural rights;

(k)

a method of insuring that students are placed in

private schools or public or private residential
schools when necessary;

(1)

a training schedule which will insure that District

personnel, including classroom teachers, special
education teachers, counselors, school psychologists, administrators, SES team members, COH members,
are fully informed of their duties and responsibilities with respect to class members;

- 47 -

(m)

a procedure for receiving, processing and acting

upon complaints concerning failure of District staff
to follow proposed guidelines and procedures, including identification of staff members responsible
for monitoring compliance;

(n)

an assessment of the nonacademic, extracurricular

and physical education opportunities which are currently made available to handicapped students in
each special education setting in the District, \
including students attending school part-time and i
those receiving home or hospital instruction, and a !
method of making such opportunities available to
handicapped students as fully as they are available
to nonhandicapped students;

(o)

an assessment of the projected special education

placement needs of class members for the next two
school years and an estimate of the number and types
of special classes, placements and additional staff
necessary to effectuate placements within legal time
limits ;

(p)

an estimate of the cost of each element of the plan;

(q)

proposed methods of financing the plan from local, i

state and/or federal funding sources.
!

.
'.

,.
(
i

6.

Order the State defendants to assist the City defendants i

in the development of the plan described above and to develop and

present to the Court, within 90 days, a detailed plan, suitable for
immediate implementation upon approval, for correcting the monitoring, evaluation and enforcement deficiencies complained of herein.

Such plan should include at least the following elements:

(a) a thorough evaluation of the City defendants' record-keeping and information-transmitting systems
to determine where changes must be made in order to
insure complete and accurate reporting of information ;
(b)

a complete audit of the City defendants' expenditures of state and federal funds for the education

- 48 -

of handicapped children for the past two years with

recommendations for reallocation of funds where necessary ;

!|
ii
!j
[i
ij
[j

(c)

a detailed schedule for transmission of data by the

City defendants, including specification of State
Education Department employees who will be responsible for evaluating such data;

;
j!
i|

(d)

a detailed procedure for determining when violations of legal requirements have occurred, for
requiring immediate compliance, and for imposing
sanctions in the event of continuing noncompliance ;

;i
j:
jj
i|

(e)

a method for disseminating copies of "Your Child's

Right to an Education:
A Guide for Parents of
Handicapped Children in New York S t a t e " to the p a r ents of all class m e m b e r s .

ii

iji

7.

Allow plaintiffs to submit to the Court and to the d e f e n -

jj dants in writing any objections to the plans required by s u b p a r a 1

graphs 5 and 6 within 60 days of p l a i n t i f f s 1 receipt of said p l a n ;

8.

Convene a hearing, if n e c e s s a r y , on any objections to the

;i plan that plaintiffs may r a i s e ;

|:

9.

After

such

hearing, order

immediate

implementation of

such plan as amended and approved by the C o u r t ;

10.

Require the defendants to submit to the plaintiffs every

six months a report on the implementation of the above-described

1

plans and allow the plaintiffs to petition the Court for any relief
which may be appropriate and n e c e s s a r y ;

1 1 . Retain jurisdction over this matter pending full i m p l e -

I; mentation of all orders issued and plans approved by the C o u r t ;

:;

1 2 . Grant the named plaintiffs damages in the following a-

'! mounts :

- 49 -

13.

a.

3. G. in the amount of $75,000;

b.

M. W. in the amount of $50,000;

c.

A. M. in the amount of $35,000; and

d.

K. M. in the amount of $2,000;

Award the plaintiffs their costs and disbursements herein

|| and reasonable attorneys' fees, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988 and 29

li
i| U . S . C . 7 9 4 a ; and
ij

1 4 . Grant

such o t h e r , further

and d i f f e r e n t

relief

as the

jj Court deems just and p r o p e r .

I!
h D a t e d : March 6, 1 9 8 1
/ '

jj
!;

MONROE COUNTY LEGAL ASSISTANCE

20RP0RATI0N
BETSEY B. SWAN
80 West Main Street
Rochester, New York 14614
Tel: 716-325-2520

CiuJdl L.
(

GREATER UPSTATE LAW PROJECT

ELIZABETH L. SCHNEIDER
80 West Main Street
Rochester, New York 14614
Tel:
716-454-6500
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

L:
;
:

^ ^

CITY

-:;

'-.I/-1.

SCHOOL

DISTRICT

13 SOUTH FITZHUCH

""

STREET

ROCHESTER, NEVT YORK U61*

. .'

Home Instruction
Divisior. o?. Instruction
Stude.it Sducatio:jil Services
Department of'Special Education
October 2k, 1973

Mrs.

."

G-

22U Morton Street

Rochester, NY 1
Dear Parent(s):
Your child, v;ho ir ^naV-i.e to attend r^h'icl. has 'neen recoirmendea for Home Instruction. O.;r teac':ier(s) assiftne.1. by tn? Deprirtnent of Special Education, vill be
callng on you -,o arranne a tutori:;.". schedule.
Tne" Board of Education requires that an adult be in the no:je during the teaching:
period. It is also necessary that a pleasant, quiet, and veil lighted place be
provided for insT,r:.:ctio.n.
Your cooperation vill be appreciated so yo'.:r chili may best gain from this service.
'
Sincerely,

"

v ; i "-/' 7 -A'--y ?Robert F. Lays,

'
Project Supervise:.
DeparL:f.enL of Special Education
UlO Alexander Street
'
Rochester, NY lU6(YJ

' RFL/yo .

cc^

M. Maxey

.
-

/- 'V

;
. .
"
;
V
.

'

'"

"

ExM(6lT A

. ;;
.'
'
"'.' .''.:;'
. : . ;p
'\
.'

.-;.

:\

^Rochester
^General
ospital
October 2 7 , 1980

Bernard Greenberg
Chairman of the Convni ttee for the Handicapped
Rochester City School District
131 West Broad Street
Rochester, NY U 6 O 8

RE: W

, h;

Deer Kr. Greenberg:

I am'writing in regard to M
W
, a 15 year old ninth grader at
Franklin High School w h o is under my care at the Rochester General
Hospital Pediatr.ic Clinic. M, is known to have a number of handicapping conditions which were acquired congenitally. This includes
congen i tal cataracts from which she is blind in her left eye and has
limited vision in her right and non-progressive hydrocepha1 us , for
which she required a ventricular shunt as an infant.
As a consequence, K.
has had a long term learning impairment. She
had been in special sight-saving classes as an elementary school student
here in Rochester but apparently moved from the area for a period o f
U-S years and was placed in a special education class upon her return
two years ago. That class proved totally unsatisfactory and when I
first became involved in h e r care this past July, she had been out of
school for over a y e a r .
M
has been back to Franklin since the beginning of the school y e a r .
She is not involved in any specialized teaching at this time. From
reviewing h e r medical record and in discussion with H' , 1 feel that
H.-. would benefit from a more specialized, individualized teaching
program.
.
Under PL. 9^-1^2, I request that M.
W
be evaluated for her
handicapping condition and appropriate placement b e made. Your prompt
attention to this matter would be appreciated.

James D. Lec.-'H.D.
Pediatric Ambulatory Care Center
CC:

Mrs. Josephine Genovese

Mr. Kenneth Kelbaugh

EL _ X H ( 6 | T

'

( i n scJiooi. DISTHKT
1.M W l S I H K i l . M ) S I K t . i : !
KIK I I K S I K R . M W

U ) H K UhllX

April 16", I960

Mrs.
C
224 Morton St. .
Rochester, MY 14609

RE:

DOB: 11/5/62

Dear Mrs. G
This letter is in regard to your son 3
home instruction program.

C,

and his

We have been informed by Mr. Albanese, 3=

's tutor, that your
son now resides at the Rochester Psychiatric Center. Since the Rochester
Psychiatric Center provides an educational program we will terminate
his home instruction program as of April 15. 19S0.
Should 3" " be returned to home and the tutoring program to be
continued, please call me at 325-4560, extension 2477.
Sincerely,

'

3oseph F. Salemi
Assistant Director
Special Education Department
3FS:kmm
CC:

Mrs.Kehoe

E XHI6IT 6

c
d i v sc imut. DisruK i
I.'I H I S I K H O - U ) S I K I M
IUH I I I . S U U. M W \ O K K

1-lbOX

November 3 , 1980

}). l.CC,

M.I).

I'cdiatric Ambulatory Care Center

Rochester General Hospital
1425 Portland Avenue
Rochester, New York 14621
Denr Dr. Lcc,
This Jet tor is in response to your request for evaluation of M
W'
., 15 voar old student presently assigned to the program for slow
learners nt Ken Franklin Jr.-St. High School.
M
W
was reviewed and evaluated by Dr. Harold Schwartz,
school psychologist, on April 3, 1980. Included with his evaluation is
the medical, social and educational report. The final recommendation by
the Student Educational Services Team indicated that M
W." :
does
not possess a handirappinj; condition which would qualify her for special education
placement under the present Commissioner's Regulations.
However, she d>es nu.i 11 fy ;is a slow learner and was so placed in a class
for students who are non-handicapped but slow learners at Ben Franklin,
September 19H0.
Sinr.o M
W
'
has had a complete recent evaluation (4/80) it is
the district's belief that we have complied fully with P.L. 94-142. However,
as a concerned person, you may inform parents of their rights to an outside
(non City School District) evaluation and subsequently request a review by the
Committee on the Handicapped.
Sincerely,

Bernard Clrecnbcrger
Director, Special Education Department
Chairperson, Committee on the Handicapped
BG:kmm

CC:

Mr. Sah-tni
Dr. Schwartz

1ifecch

,<<aent of School Psychological'

''end Social Vor> Services
-""

ester,
/

"

XuD3TT ?Z-7ZH?.A
Date, of Birth

^~ /P.Gr

J a.

-ess

;st Substitute
ent or Parent Substitute h*s bee- notified by the referring person of L"bB, y-ef m
In Person

27 Phone

By L e t t e r _

cber isti=s.te of Grade l e r e l

S0>? ?O?, PZTZ?.?^.!:

_^

Date of Kotif i c a t l o 3 _ j A s g 7 - : *?? ^ - A ^ : ^

fuactio=ins:

Zxtir l e s of behavior irsclud-E a t t i t u n e "Lo%--ai

been t&i.en t o s e e t

:: ^ ^ W f i f f l l S S f f i

c'^ild' r>eec_E?

C^>DT
DTt\-^

-^JKITY HZALTH KC^E:

V i s u t i EXE^:.

Date

/ / 7 ,

^Vjer b&^-ltb factors,

]?GU-.GZ; -SPZZCH
Articuletioa,
CL(ZL/

V*~S

~-ZB ACTIVS SCHOOL FZPSOhTCEX:

Attend_ace Teacher

.'.'.:c-:=;.-r..-:-.-:-otiti

'-

- > ;

- - - .

" - ..

_-T:-r.v"

Cornselcr
Beading Teacher

Other Steff
br
/

(D

-c)

'

'

- S
School

<

&

- !

'

'

z .

. - *

Acn\.r.'i iTct

'

'

CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

DIVISION OF IN'STRUGIOW

ROCHESTER. NEW YORK

'STUDt-VT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES

02034

REQUEST FOR'S.E.S. REVIEW

1A.SI

I*S1

-.no.:

ntETluj

5-12-65

3153657

jw CO.

Avenue D.

>

14621

544-2717

T e a . - Kicholsdnf"" **
:. Mr
^ n r p i i n IPX*-** ["") i n n

:9tr p i .

o?

S-28-79

[~| -

c /SOOA:

6.0

2.1

J O'-<

J-O?

:erej.y lew Bracing Level

lj
=ars to becrrre ex>tionally vpset if ctner
?tio-) cr beccrre c-zre cf t h i s .
i n scrre classes

is

."C; T!.C-i?r

t M w C

-^

K !

t X l <,,,, T e a c h e r '

~5

TLS;

5 c-

TK: AEOVi S I U K N T

K A V t A KAv'vDICA.^ri.vG
>Tv' AND DIAGNOSIS

is
TO >'KIT^.: C U M U L A T I V E

RICOIC

; A r ^ o M i A T C S.C.S. ^CKSOW

Piw:: S.C.I. *-T C O .

>. TEAM REVIEV^D I K t A5OVE STUDENT .AS REQUES1 10. RESULTS AND PROPOSED ACTIONS
JSSE-D WITH YOU BY:

LL

51
-

E XM16IT F

7. '}'

a.

EYHI6IT

'(p-

. -

City .-School District

13 South Fjiihvch Street
Rochester, Kew. York !<i<"

S-'

;s.ic.n of Instruction
ent Educational Services
:rt~.ent cf Special Education

(i\'c~.e of student)

'7

I rv=t with my c h i l d ' s school s t a f f on

r^^

uate Is))
the following was discussed.

Please ctiftk:

V.y c h i l d ' s educctionci needs and the r.tec for Specie! Eo'-jc'cticn placerr.ent and
services.
h/Y c h i l d ' s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and the reason why t h i s is needed.
The t e s t s .and/cr reports upon which t h i s was based.
The a v a i l a b i l i t y of my c h i l d ' s school f i l e s , records and r e p o r t s .
The r i c h t t o obtain an independent educational evaluation and a l i s t where .

t h i s rr.ay be obtained.
The' right to obtain hearing.
Procedures for appeal, if desired.

I accept the schQqps reco^T.enGation for-Special Education pla-cement of ;ny child

I do/do not wish a.n inror^ai hearino to consider this reconTTiendation.

H
VV

(Parent's s~.encture)
:c:

Parent
Cumulative Record
,
-^>

P-C^vV -^

~^'

13 S^uth 71tzi-rb tr-e

Ior> lUSll

of
d-wcetiOEtl S e r v i c e s
t 'or SjeciE-L SeJCE-t

trlev,
c

s t v sst is

E"DO\-2

cc

rt ID:

rec

(c'

Orthopedi
Yisv^llv
Dtber S t

- . " c ;

f - -

~-'^ C N~J o

OD

of D o ^
y

jnta or EZS T
School Psycb
School'Social Vorls

^SC,

Principal:

Sp-eccb,

CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT

1.11 WLST BROAD STHKKT
ROCHKSTKR/NKW YORK

October 1, 19S0

Krs

'

K ""

1552 St. Paul Street

Rochester, New York 14621
Dear Mrs. M

Re: A.
M :
D/B: 9/12/66

It was the recommendation of the Committee on the Handicapped

vhich.net on September 29, 1980, and which meeting you attended, that
A
be placed at Douglass Jr. High School in the Learning Disabilities
Program along with 7th Grade placement. This arrangement you approved.
This arrangement was made since your address is within the
Douglass Jr. High optional district.

truly yours

BERNARD GREENBERGER
Director, Special Education Department

-and-

Charrman, Conniittee on the Handicapped

BG/IDC

:c:

Mr.
Mr,
Mr.
Ms.

Tka-.h, Principal, Douglass Jr, High School

Raul Fernandez, Program Administrator, Interim Jr. High School
Joseph Salemi, Asst. Director, Special Education Dept.
Betsy Swan, Monroe County Legal Assistance Office

V]

V
r

0
JLl

\C ; V

/'I

/
^

".!) , - ^ r

EX K 1 6 1 T K

INDIVIDUAL EDUCATION PROGRAM

Student's Name

Subject/
Skili/
Supportive
Service

School

Current
Instructional
Skill Level

Short Term Goals:

Instructional/Specific
Skills

7,9
Person
Writing
Goals

.Teachor(s) Conducting Conference.

Materials
and/or

Strategics

When
Initiated

Estimated
Duration

Evaluative
Method or
Device

0
/->

.s

150C.1')

Goal Achiev
ir.cn t
(yes-no)
Comment