New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number:

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District: 13

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Date of Hearing: August 19, 2010

September 7, 2010

September 29, 2010

November 2, 2010

December 2, 2010

December 15, 2010

December 16, 2010

December 20, 2010

February 18, 2011

February 28, 2011

March 10, 2011

March 25, 2011

Hearing Officer: Linda Agoston, Esq.

CORRECTED

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON AUGUST 19, 2010

Attorney — Parents

Attorney — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2010

Attorney — Parents

Attorney — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON SEPTEMBER 29, 2010

Attorney — Parents

Attorney — DOE

Attorney — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON NOVEMBER 2, 2010

Attorney — Parents

Father — Parents

Attorney Teacher Department of Education Principal Department of Education (via telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON DECEMBER 2, 2010

Attorney — Parents

Attorney — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON DECEMBER 15, 2010

Attorney — Parents

Attorney — Parents

Mother — Parents

Attorney — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON DECEMBER 16, 2010

Attorney — Parents

Attorney — Parents

Father — Parents

Attorney — DOE

School — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON DECEMBER 20, 2010

Attorney — Parents

Attorney — Parents

Father — Parents

Attorney — DOE

School — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON FEBRUARY 18, 2010

Attorney — Parents

Father — Parents

Attorney ector of Placement Department of Education Education Teacher Department of Education (via telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON FEBRUARY 28, 2011

Attorney — Parents

Attorney — Parents

Attorney — Parents

Father Paraprofessional Parent Therapist Parent Teacher Parent (via telephone) — Parents

Attorney — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MARCH 10, 2011

Attorney — Parents

Mother — Parents

Father — Parents

Attorney — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MARCH 25, 2011

Attorney — Parents

Father District 27 Placement Parent Officer (via telephone) — Parents

District 15, Placement Officer — Parents

Attorney — DOE

On July 12, 2010, I was designated as impartial hearing officer, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, (“IDEA”) 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(1) in the matter of . (“hereinafter ”). The hearing was convened at the request of the parents that was received on July 8, 2010. (Exh. A) On August 8 2010, I scheduled the hearing for August 19, 2010. The hearing was requested by the parents to challenge the June 10, 2010 review and the recommendation of the Committee on Education (“CSE”) for the 2010-2011 school year and to challenge the program and placement and to obtain funding for a unilateral placement and the services of the paraprofessional and Floortime therapy provider. (Exh. A at 10; Exh. C at 6) On August 19, 2010, Parents’ counsel made a motion requesting clarification of the child’s pendency placement during these proceedings. She stated that should receive the services pursuant to an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) dated February 14, 2008 of Education Itinerant Teacher (“SEIT”) for 10 hours per week and related services of therapy (“ ”) in a separate location 3 times per week for 30 minutes per session and and Therapy (“ ”) in a separate location 3 times per week for. (Tr. at 5) The district’s counsel did not object to the motion. (Tr. at 6) On September 17, 2010, I rendered an interim order ensuring that the student receive the above referenced pendency services from February 14, 2008 IEP to the conclusion of the hearing. On September 29, 2010, the parents amended their due process request. Hearings were held on August 19, 2010, September 7, 2010, September 29, 2010, November 2, 2010, December 2, 2010, December 15, 2010, December 16, 2010, December 20, 2010, February 18, 2011, February 28, 2011, March 10, 2011 and March 25, 2011. The parties moved to extend the compliance dates during the course of the hearing. In considering the requests I weighed the cumulative impact of the relevant factors and found that the need of the parties for additional time to prepare and present its positions in accordance with the requirements of due process was greater than any delay in the resolution of the matter. Accordingly the requests for extensions of the compliance dates were granted. The current record close date is May 2, 2011 and the compliance date for issuing a decision is May 16, 2011.

The last compliance date was extended as a result of the request for post-hearing submissions. The parents’ counsel objected to the single spaced post-hearing brief and the district’s counsel objected to the submission of the invoices after May 2, 2011. After considering the requests both parties I accepted both submissions into the record. Appended to the record are lists of persons in attendance and of documents submitted into evidence.

The parents request reimbursement for their costs as follows: (a) tuition and costs for the in the amount of $14, 300; (b) 30 hours per week of paraprofessional services from at the rate of $45 per hour from July 8, 2010 to July 1, 2011; (c) 10 hours per week of Developmental Individual Difference Relationship-Based Model (“ ”) or Floor Time therapy and transportation to and from school as part of a 12-month program. (Exh. C at 6) The parents indicated that they have paid $ 13,100. (Tr. 1331; Exh. AA at 3-10) The parents submitted an affidavit from calculating that 16% to 17 % is the amount of time devoted to instruction. (IHO Exh. XI) The parents’ counsel maintained in the post hearing brief that the parents are entitled to the entire tuition of the even the portion because the portion is de minimus and as taken out a class by his paraprofessional to work on during instruction. (IHO Exh. VIII at 25) The parents submitted proof of payment for the in the amount of 12,542.50. (Exh. X) The parents submitted cancelled checks to in the amount of $22,920. (Tr. at 1336; Exh. AA at 13-33) The parents request prospective payments to from April 8, 2011 to June 30, 2011 for 30 hours of paraprofessional services per week at the rate of $45 per hour. (Tr. at 1344) I note Ms. testified that her rate was $40 per hour. However, the difference in rate may be the rate the agency charges if Ms. used an agency. The parents submitted post hearing invoices dated March 14, 2011 to April 8, 2011 in the amount of $5,240 for Ms. . (IHO Exh. X) The parents request reimbursement in the amount of $210 per hour for 5 hours per week for the services of from July 1, 2010 to April 15, 2011. The parents submitted 8 post hearing invoices totaling $25,200 from Ms . (IHO Exh.

IX) The parents requested prospective payments for 10 hours per week in the amount of $210 per hour from the date of my decision to June 30, 2011.

BACKGROUND

is a year old student diagnosed with by pediatric . has a history of delay, pragma delays as well as difficulties with skills and has received education services throughout his educational career. On June 15, 2008, when he was years old, as referred for an evaluation of a Disorder (“ ”). Dr. noted that exhibited developmental delays. (Exh. L at 1) Dr. noted that as evaluated in at the age of and was diagnosed with delay and integration disorder. Dr. noted that “was later diagnosed with . (Id.) Dr. noted that the parents moved back to the United States in 2007 and enrolled in the , and as placed in a large integrated class which overwhelmed him. (Id.) Dr. noted that did not do well in a large setting, but that as successful that a “Floor Time” therapist who designed a program to treat his . (Id.) Dr. noted that as enrolled in

Center at the age of 5 and he was accompanied by a shadow and received and OT 3 times per week. (Id.) Dr. diagnosed ith ,

Disorder (“ ”) features and and Disorder- Deficits and Fine and Deficits. (Exh. L at 2)

On May 10, 2008, a and evaluation was conducted on when he was . The evaluator noted that had received 3 times a week for 30 minutes per session to address his significant and pragmatic delays in addition to his delay. The evaluator noted that attended school with his mother who acted as shadow. (Exh. M at 1) The evaluator assessed ’s expressive and receptive skills by administering the CELF school-2. The evaluator noted that presented with some delays in various areas of receptive and expressive skills and “significant delays in /pragmatic skills affecting his skills in addition to his ability to interact with peers.” (Exh. M at 3) The evaluator noted teacher reported difficulty in controlling in the classroom. (Id.)

On December 16, 2008 and January 19, 2009, another -developmental evaluation was conducted on when he was years old. (Exh. K at 1) Dr.

found had average cognitive skills, but his ability to learn was impacted by his . Dr. diagnosed with the following: combined ,( impulsive); a -based disability; planning deficits; ; low tone; problems and poor skills. (Exh. K at 3) At the time of Dr. ’s assessment attended school at in , New York. Dr. noted that as placed in a class of 22-23 children and 3 teachers at and his SEIT accompanied him for 3 hours per day, 5 days per week. (Exh. K at 1) Dr. noted that the family paid for , therapy (“ ”) and by a pathologist/floor time therapist twice a week. (Id.) Dr. noted that even with a SEIT a class size of 22-23 was not appropriate for his academic needs. Dr. recommended a full time SEIT in the classroom because of his and issues. (Exh. K at 3) Dr. recommended continue with floor time therapy to improve his pragmatics and a skills group and to improve his attention and focus. (Exh. K at 4)

A Evaluation was conducted on June 21, 2009, when as year old, and was attending school. (Exh. J at 1) School , at , New Jersey, assessed ’s general cognitive ability by the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children– Fourth Edition, (“WISC-IV) and found in the low average range and with a verbal comprehension score of , in the percentile, in the high average range, a perceptual reasoning score of , in the percentile, in the average range, a working memory score of , in the percentile, in the average range, a processing speed score of , in the percentile, in the low average range and his yielded a full I.Q. score of , in the average range. (Exh. J at 2) Ms. noted that as extremely distractible and impulsive and was unable to “generalize skills to the real world independently. He experiences mood swings, and disturbances (illogical thinking, hear

, etc.), sleep difficulties, issues, and deficits. His self-help skills are extremely .” (Exh. J at 5) Ms. assessed ’s adaptive functioning was assessed by his mother’s completion of the Vineland Adaptive Scales-2nd Edition. The results indicated that his adaptive skills were low for his age. ’s Daily Living Skills (“ ”), skills, skills, adaptive skills all were in the st th percentile and his communication skills were in the percentile. (Exh. J at 6)

st

On May 28, 2010, when as years old, when as attending grade at , -educational evaluation was conducted by , School . Ms. noted that ’s WISC-IV scores were in the average level. (Exh. I at 1) Ms. assessed his academic functioning by the Woodcock Johnson III and noted that performed in the st mid level in reading and spelling and in the grade level in math. (Exh. I at 3) The CSE developed an Individualized Education Program (IEP) on June 10, 2010. The June 10, 2010 IEP classified as and did not recommend a 12-month program. The June 10, 2010 IEP recommended a placement in an Integrated Co-Teaching (“ICT”) setting with a education teacher and a regular education teacher co-teaching a class with no more than 12 education students and 15 regular education students. (Exh. T at 15) The June 10, 2010, IEP mandated continuing related services of a full-time management paraprofessional; individual 3 times per week for 30 minutes per session; individual 2 times per week for 30 minutes per session; once a week for 30 minutes in a group of 2. The June 2010, IEP initiated related services of once a week for 30 minutes in a group no larger than 3 and individual therapy ( ) twice a week for 30 minutes per session. On July 1, 2010, a Final No e of Recommendation (“FNR”) was made for to attend , the School. (Exh. D) The FNR recommended a placement in a Collaborative Team Teaching (“CTT”) environment and related services , , and a crisis management paraprofessional. (Id.)

THE POSITION OF THE PARTIES

The district’s counsel maintained that District 27’s CSE 8 met on June 10, 2010 with a duly constituted team and developed and an appropriate IEP for and classified as and recommended a placement in an ICT class in a community school (Tr. at 143) The district’s counsel noted that a Intervention Plan (“ ”) was developed to address the deficits in . She noted that , , and was recommended. She noted that ’s parent and child’s current teacher at the School participated at the June 10, 2010 IEP review. The district’s counsel noted that the team considered the most recent evaluations and school reports and considered his strengths, his deficits, his academic, , and concerns of as reported by the educational evaluations, the therapist, Ms. , the parent and the schoolteacher. The district’s counsel noted that the is not in the Least Restrictive Environment (“LRE”) as it was in and was located blocks from ’s home. (Tr. at

144) The district’s counsel noted that studies were taught at the and did not offer related services. (Tr. at 145) The district counsel further noted that the parents never intended to enroll in a publish school as they completed the application for the on February 3, 2010, months before the June 10, 2010 IEP meeting. (Tr. at 146) The parents disagreed with the district’s program and placement and request tuition reimbursement for for the 2010-2011 school year and reimbursement/prospective payment for the /SEIT therapist and paraprofessional for the 2010-2011 school year as they maintain that ’s IEP was not prepared in accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of Federal and State Regulations and the with the paraprofessional and therapist is an appropriate placement. The parents asserted that the following deficits on the June 10, 2010 IEP: (1) CSE failed to consider extended day services; (2) failed to assess ’s present levels of performance; (3) failed to conduct to conduct evaluations or conduct a triennial assessment; (4) failed to consider the recommendations of the private evaluations; (5) failed to develop goals with the participation of the parents; (6) failed to develop appropriate goals and short term objective; (7) failed to offer adequate levels of related services; (8) failed to address ’s generalization deficits; (9) failed to provide parent training and ; (10) failed to develop an appropriate Functional Assessment (“FBA”). (Exh. C at 9)

THE DISTRICT’S CASE

The District’s case was presented in the testimony of , a teacher at and , School . Ms. , a certified licensed education teacher, testified that she taught at since September 2010. (Tr. at 166; 171) She stated that she had taught a self-contained class with a staffing ratio of : since 1994 and was a education teacher for 12 years at where she taught through grades. (Tr. at 169) She described as a building with 3 floors with 15 classrooms. (Tr. at

175) She described her class and noted that there were 2 teachers and 27 students as of November 2, 2010 in the class and 8 students had IEPs. (Tr. at 176) She recalled that she started with 23 children in the class in September 2010. (Id.) She further recalled classifications of her students in the class with IEPs were not written in the IEPs, but included issues, issues, and therapy issues. (Tr. at 178) She stated that the reading levels of her students ranged from pre-primer to beginning grade. (Tr. at 179) She stated that she taught 2 groups of lower level readers from pre-primer to first grade. She noted that she taught 6 education students and 2 general education students. (Tr. at 180) She explained that she did not teach all the education students only the lower functioning education students and that the higher functioning students were taught by the regular education teacher. (Tr. at 181) She noted that the regular education teacher broke down her children into color coded groups to provide small group instruction. She further noted that she also used color coded groups and her red group consisted of 2 children at the lowest level and her blue group consisted of 4 children. (Tr. at 182) She recollected that the math levels of her children in the class were below grade level ranging from upper to higher . (Tr. at 188) She explained that she taught her education children in a corner of the room at a small table and she used the Wilson Reading (“Wilson”) program and Guided Reading to teach reading and she used Everyday Mathematics to teach math. (Tr. at 157; 194) She stated in addition to math and reading her class was taught science, writing, studies, art, computers and gym. (Id.) She noted that the related services are provided in the school. (Tr. at 195) She maintained that would have been appropriately placed in her class based on his academic performance levels listed his IEP. (Tr. at 198; Exh. 3) She noted she had 2 other students with the same processing and perceptual reasoning score as and she opined that those students progressed. (Id.) She explained that was a multi-approach and she also used stickers and praise and encouragement. (Tr. at199) She explained that she sent home a chart of her student’s to their parents each day and maintained that with encouragement she managed the of her students. She opined that with a “good” paraprofessional she could have managed ’s and needs. (Tr. at 201) She maintained that required consistency and with a s management paraprofessional he could be in her class. (Tr. at 202) She further maintained that the paraprofessional would be responsible to calm and make the other students use acceptable choices. (Tr. at 203) She reviewed his goal to add, subtract 8 out of 10 2 to 3 digit examples. She stated that goal was a goal that she could implement and was appropriate for her class. (Tr. at 207) She reviewed to goal to increase in his site vocabulary and maintained she could implement that goal. (Tr. at 208) She maintained that based on ’s reading level and grade math level that he would have been appropriately placed in her class and in her group. (Tr. at 705;707) She explained that she wrote a log for her students each day to communicate with the parents of her students and she also telephoned the parents. (Tr. at 705) She recalled that the school offered workshops to the parents for parents who required additional assistance. (Tr. at 707)

On cross Ms. stated out of her 29 children 6 to 9 required individual time with her. (Tr. at714) She could not state the exact amount of minutes either she or the regular education teacher spent providing individual instruction to the 29 students in the class. (Tr. at 717) She noted that she spent 90 minutes providing small group instruction in reading. (Tr. at 719) She stated that she could not provide the amount of individual instruction that she would like to provide given the amount of students in her class. (Tr. at

720) She allowed that she might spend 20 to 30 minutes if she deemed it necessary. (Tr. at 721) She further allowed that if her class consisted of 12 to 13 children then she could provide a greater amount of individual attention. (Tr. at 723) She noted that 2 children in her class were classified as disturbed, (Tr. at 732) and she stated that she last taught an student in 1994. (Tr. at 734) She stated that the Department of Education (“DOE”) did not offer any training for intervention for students. (Tr. at 735) She maintained that despite the wide range of reading levels from pre- to grade and despite a large class of 29 students she and the regular education teacher provided the best instruction they could in the CTT class. (Tr. at 738; 740) She explained that she paired the higher readers with the lower readers. (Tr. at 741) She further explained that would fit into her lowest groups of reading and math. (Tr. at 744) She stated that sometimes Related Service Authorizations (“RSA”) were offered to those students who were not provided with related services at the school. (Tr. at 747) She could not state whether would require RSA for his related services had he attended her school. (Tr. at 752) She explained that only had a written in his IEP and no other student had a written on his IEP. (Tr. at 754) She noted that if a child had interfering then she would walk up to the child and make eye contact or if necessary remove the child. (Tr. at 756) She further noted that there were no CTT classes offered in the summer of 2010 only in September 2010. (Tr. at 760) She stated that based on her review of the June 10, 2010 IEP required a 12-month program to meet his deficits. (Tr. at 761) She could not answer questions regarding parent training or for student. (Tr. at

762) She explained that she used positive reinforcement to control and she did not recall if any other student had an IEP that indicated that seriously interferes with instruction as ’s IEP indicated. (Tr. at 765) She opined that that despite the fact that ’s IEP indicated that he required 10 months of instruction that he could progress in her class; however, she qualified her answer in that she did not know . (Tr. at 770)

, school with a Master’s degree for CSE Region 8 for 3 years, testified she was present for the June 10, 2010 IEP. (Tr. at 376; 379) She recalled that she, a parent member, a education teacher, ’s parent were present and ’s then current teacher at the School participated by telephone at the June 10, 2010 IEP review. (Tr. at 380) She stated the team considered the most recent progress reports from the school reports, report cards, the -educational evaluations, and a few - s and a report from the Floor time therapist. (Tr. at 384; 396) She recalled that in May 2010 she observed in his then current class at . (Tr. at 387) She recalled that she observed in the hall with his Floor time therapist who was calming him because he was crying and she observed at lunch and she observed in class engaged in study for about 20 minutes and observed state he was 7. (Tr. at 387; 397; Exh. 8) She recalled that looked happy and was engaged in appropriate . (Id.) She recalled that the Floor time session in the hall lasted about 7 minutes. (Tr. at 390) She indicated that the followed a methodology. (Tr. at 394) She maintained that the method was a multi-approach and was “hands-on” and followed the students’ basic interests. (Tr. at 395) She opined that sat on the floor in the hallway during the Floor time therapy. (Id.) She recalled that the Floor time therapist report (Exh.

G) indicated that had difficulty in modulating his . She noted that the evaluation indicated that had above average cognitive scores and his Vineland scores were delayed. (Tr. at 400-403) She reviewed the progress report from dated May 2, 2010 and compared ’s reading and math abilities with the WJ-III results on the evaluation by Ms. and found similar results in reading and math. She noted that the Progress report indicated that progressed in reading, prayers and studies. (Tr. at 410)

Ms noted that the June 10, 2010 IEP team meeting classified with and recommended a 10-month program with related services of , , and . (Tr. at 411) She maintained that the team considered ’s strengths and weaknesses and developed a program to serve his needs. (Tr. at 414) She maintained that the IEP met his academic needs by using a multi-approach and using repetition and rewording and encouragement and praise. She further maintained that the IEP met his and needs by recommended a full-time crisis management paraprofessional and developing a on his IEP. (Tr. at 416) She noted that on page 4 of the IEP (Exh. 3) it was noted that frustrated easily and had difficulty in his ability to self-regulate, but she maintained that the paraprofessional and could address those needs. (Tr. at 419) She explained that the on page 19 of the IEP targeted s of break downs, frustration and poor self-regulation and developed strategies of positive rewards to change those targeted s. (Tr. at 432) She stated that the was based on her observation and the reports. (Id.) She maintained that the ICT recommendation with 2 teachers was appropriate because as mildly and had an average IQ and required exposure to typically developing peers and a challenging environment. (Tr. at 433) She noted that the team considered a selfcontained : setting in District 75 or in a community school too restrictive and a selfcontained : was appropriate for only severe delayed students. (Tr. at 435) She maintained that because had some academic and some / difficulties that the ICT placement was appropriate because he would benefit from 2 teachers. (Tr. at

437) She recalled that the parent did not disagree with the IEP and the teacher par ipated and discussed ’s functioning levels in every subject. (Tr. at 440) She recalled there was no discussion of the 10-month program, but no one disagreed with the recommendation of the ICT class in a 10-month program and there was a discussion of the goals and no one disagreed with the goals discussed. (Tr. at 441-442)

On cross Ms. acknowledged that there were no copies of the reports discussed during the June 10, 2010 IEP meeting to provided to the members and all reports and documents discussed were kept in a file on the table. (Tr. at 448) She further acknowledged that ’s then current teacher who participated by telephone did not have copies of the reports discussed. (Tr. at 449) She did not recall a discussion regarding the provider’s progress report (Exh. G) that indicated that required /Floor time therapy to improve logical thinking and abstract reasoning. (Tr. at 451) She recalled there was no discussion of therapy and there was no recommendation for therapy. (Tr. at 453) She did not recall a discussion of ’s self-stimulatory such as pacing back and forth noted in the district’s evaluation (Exh. I at 1) at the IEP meeting. (Tr. at 459) She did recall a discussion of ’s echolalia noted in the evaluation by Ms. (Exh. I at 1) at the IEP meeting, but stated that ’s then current teacher noted it did interfere with . (Tr. at 462) She then acknowledged there was no discussion of his . (Tr. at 466) Ms. noted there were no related service providers present at the June 10, 2010 IEP meeting, but the team had the related service providers reports. (Tr. at 470) She acknowledged that there was no discussion of his adaptive skills or listed on Ms. ’s evaluation (Exh. I at 5) and no goals for his adaptive deficits. (Tr. at 400-475) Ms. did not recall a discussion of the recommendation from Dr. (Exh. L at 2) to place in a small integrated classroom with an aide. (Tr. at 487) Ms. noted that the IEP was written after the June 10, 2010 IEP and was sent to the parent sometime between June 10, 2010 and June 30, 2010. (Tr. at 494) Ms. stated data collection was required to develop a FBA, yet no data collection was done on ’s and no FBA was developed for . (Tr. at 527-529) She acknowledged that there was no discussion of the frequency of ’s inability to self-regulate nor was there a discussion to develop a plan to lesson his breakdowns. (Tr. at 530-532) She allowed that praise and a reward system was the outline of a plan. (Tr. at 533) She explained that the teacher and paraprofessional would implement the . (Tr. at 534) She acknowledged that there was no parent training or on the June 10, 2010 IEP. (Tr. at 535) She further acknowledged that while the June 10, 2010 IEP listed the staffing ratio of 12:1 there was no discussion of the total class size to ’s mother. (Tr. at 538) She recalled that ’s then current class at had a small class size of 12 to 14 students in the class and she did not discuss ’s placement in a CCT class of 12 education students or 40 percent of the class and 60 percent of the class were regular education students with a maximum of 26 students. (Tr. at 540;

593) She acknowledged that there was no agreement for a CTT placement at the June 10, 2010 IEP meeting. (Tr. at 541) She further acknowledged the mistaken date of May 10, 2010 and the mistaken age of on page 6 of the June 10, 2010 IEP and noted that he was years old on June 10, 2010. (Tr. at 547) She further acknowledged the mistake of checking both boxes indicating yes and no under the heading of oral medication on page 6 of the June 10, 2010. (Tr. at 550) She stated that her observation (Exh 8) of at the on May 24, 2010 was not provided to the ’s mother or ’s teacher during the June 10, 2010 IEP meeting. (Tr. at 576) She stated that the June 10, 2010 IEP measured progress by informal assessment for ’s goal to be more verbalized. (Tr. at

600) She explained that a final version of the would have been completed with the paraprofessional, the teacher and the parent working in collaboration. (Tr. at 612) She explained that the parent did not request an Assessment of Basic and Skills (“ABLLS”) or the presence of the paraprofessionals at the June 10, 2010 IEP meeting. (Tr. at 581; 635)

THE PARENTS’ CASE

, therapist, , paraprofessional, , teacher and the parents testified in support of the parents’ claim for reimbursement for the and the therapist and paraprofessional and prospective payment of the therapist and paraprofessional. The parents argued that the District failed to offer a Free and Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) for the 2010-2011 school year and the summer of 2010 and that the parents had unilaterally placed at the and the paid for the services of the therapist and the paraprofessional and the equities favor the parents.

Ms. testified that she had an associate’s degree in liberal arts and had been a Floor time player for 5 years. (Tr. at798) She stated that she received training from Ms. in the or Greenspan method. (Id.) She further stated that she worked with Ms. once a week and worked with both in and outside the classroom. She further stated that she was with from 8:30 am to 3:15 pm. (Tr. at 799) She noted that she was paid at the rate of $40 dollars per hour. (Tr. at 800) She explained that she worked with for the past 2 years. She further explained that she worked with ’s teacher, Ms.

, for the 2010-2011 school year and planned a work schedule with his teacher and she reviewed the schedule with Ms. and with . (Tr. at 801) She noted that Ms. was ’s teacher for the 2009-2010 school year. She explained that Ms. ’s involvement with her was very beneficial as they communicated a few times a week regarding ’s progress. (Tr. at 802) She recalled that had many interfering s and that this year (2010-2011) he developed ’s syndrome (“ ’s”). She noted that his ’s manifested in a that the affected his because his stopped his and he required refocusing. (Tr. at 804) She explained that Ms. came to ’s class in September 2010 and presented a video to ’s class to learn and understand ’s and ’s ’s symptoms. (Id.) W. had difficulties sitting and attending, but he progressed. Ms. stated that the ’s isolated him from the class and because of Ms. ’s work with his class as able to . (Id.) She explained that Ms. and herself and Ms. worked out cues to help focus. (Tr. at 805) She explained that she facilitated by repeating statements other children would say to so that he would respond. (Tr. at 807)She further explained that benefitted from being with typically developing peers because he looked up to his peers and he was able to play with his peers. (Tr. at 810) She noted that math was particularly hard for so his teacher developed the lesson and she took him into the hall to work in lessons. She further noted that she used manipulatives like beads to help count. (Tr. at 811) Ms. explained the system she and Ms. and Ms. worked out for involved a warning, then consequences. (Tr. at 812) She opined that ould not be able to function without her. She explained that she promoted his independence by the use of chart which Ms. developed. She stated that if completed the work chart, then he would have choice of a playing with his friends. She explained that read the chart and worked to complete the chart so he could play with the children. (Tr. at 814) She noted that participated in circle time. She noted that both she and Ms. worked out cues to help attend, e.g., she points to her eyes and could understand to pay attention. (Tr. at 816) Ms. described ’s was very disturbing because he made a loud sound. (Tr. at 817) She noted that Ms. gave her insight regarding dealing with ’s s and the Ms. trained her to deal with ’s . Ms. further described the progress that made with his , his academics and noted that he progressed by 2 reading levels. She maintained that progressed this year so that he was able to maintain a close friendship with a student and she brought both and his friend for Floor time. She maintained that progressed in his this year because he had less trantrums. (Tr. at 820)

On cross Ms. stated that she was trained by Ms. and she came to work with through Ms. . (Tr. at 824) She explained that she worked with a typically developed student and to help during Floor time, (Tr. at 831) for about 30 minutes per day 5 days a week. (Tr. at 832) She recalled that she removed from the class to work on Floor time during times when the class worked on independent study. (Tr. at 833) She further recalled that she worked on Floor time with either in the hallway or in a resource room. (Id.) She explained that she worked on lessons with using Floor Time therapy for 90 minutes per day 5 days per week. (Id.) She noted that the worked with during English and subjects. (Tr. at 837) She noted that received during “ ” time 3 times a week. (Tr. at 838) She further noted that prayer occurred every morning for 10 minutes. She explained that when ’s worsened during prayer she took him out of class for work. (Tr. at 839) She explained that she took out for Floor time sessions during “ ” instruction. (Tr. at 841) She further explained that the class studied a chapter in the , but she took out of class because that study brought out his s. (Tr. at 844) She recalled that she worked on ’s skills by doing yoga positions, running and balancing all skills that Ms. taught her to use with . (Tr. at 845) She estimated that the class spent about 40 minutes of the day on instruction, but as only able to handle 30 minutes of instruction for 2 or 3 days a week and the rest of the instruction she used the time to work on his skills. (Tr. at 849) She noted that it was important for to work on his skills with other children during his Floor time sessions when he was removed from the class. (Tr. at 851)

Ms. testified that she had a Master’s degree in pathology for 14 years and was a New York State certified pathologist and she had a level 3 certificate from the institute. (Tr. at 855) She stated that she worked with for 4 years since 2007. She noted that for the 2009-2010 school year she supported him at school and worked with his teacher to develop an academic program to enable to succeed. (Tr. at 856) She recalled that developed ’s towards the end of September 2010. She stated that presented with uncontrollable s that started with body movements and proceeded to vocal movements involving . (Tr. at 857) She stated that the s advanced to , and affected his ability to with friends. (Tr. at 858)

Ms. stated that she involved Ms. and ’s teacher to develop a program to meet his needs. She explained that there were activities that could participate in class and during times when his worsened he would be taken out of class with another peer so he could engage and with a peer. (Tr. at 859) She explained that because she had her certificate in level 3 in / Floor time she was able to develop an approach to help communicate and interact with people. (Tr. at 861) She opined that was extremely effective and he had improved his ability to be a logical thinker and improved his abstract thinking. She opined that improved in his ability to engage in spontaneous flow of interaction with his peers. (Id.) She stated that she provided 10 hours per week of services to for the 2009-2010 school year and provided phone consultation to the parents twice a week. (Tr. at 863) She further stated that she trained Ms. so that Ms. could work with on the days was not able to provide services. (Id.) She explained that for the 2010-2011 school year she provided 5 hours per week of therapy because the parents could not afford to pay for her services for more than 5 hours per week. (Tr. at 865) She further explained that she was provided therapy at ’s school once a week to discuss ’s issues of sensitivity, academic and issues with his teacher. (Tr. at 867) She explained that she provided strategies for parents to implement the Floor time sessions at home with ’s siblings. (Tr. at 869) She stated that she received $210 per hour for her therapy for the past 4 years. (Tr. at 870) She explained that she worked with ’s class to discuss their feelings of discomfort about his s and problem solved with ’s classmates to make him feel less alienated. (Tr. at 872) She maintained that the method was appropriate for because focused on his skills and development. (Tr. at 873) She opined that progressed for the 2010-2011 school year in his ability to stay engaged in peer reactions and his ability to self-regulate despite his s. (Tr. at 876-878)

On cross Ms. stated that to when she finished her written case she would have completed all the certifications for . (Tr. at 884) She stated that she recommended the to the parents and she recommended a approach. (Tr. at

890) She explained that when she worked on Floor time she worked in a naturalistic way and worked on ’s pragmatic skills as well as his other skills. (Tr. at 897)

, teacher employed by the for 3 years, testified that she held a Bachelor’s degree in was working on a Master’s degree in childhood literacy. She stated that she had completed the course work for certifications in education, education and literacy. (Tr. at 903) She explained that Ms. was ’s paraprofessional for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 years. (Tr. at 906) She explained that ’s ’s manifested in loud noises that disrupted his thinking process and his ability to focus. (Tr. at 909) She explained there were 15 students in her class and there were 2 paraprofessionals in her class. She noted that besides Ms. there was another paraprofessional for another classmate. (Tr. at 910) She explained that 2 or 3 times a week as removed from class during the daily 20 minutes of instruction. (Tr. at

912) She further explained that Ms. took to the hallway or to the therapy room during instruction 2.5 times per week. (Tr. at 913) She stated that Ms. was very helpful in working with I with his classmates. (Tr. at 916) She opined that progressed because he had a very hard time and making friends. She opined he progressed in his ability to listen and he improved in his ability to respond appropriately to his classmates. (Tr. at 917) She stated that the ages of her class was to years old. She further stated that progress academically because at the beginning of the year he was reading on a pre-level and he moved to reading level B independently. (Tr. 920) She maintained that progressed in math from simple operations to abstract numbers. (Id.) She further maintained that Ms. and Ms. worked on ’s problems and that would not be able to attend her class without their help. (Tr. at 922) She noted that Ms. often took from her class with another student to work on lessons that she herself had planned.

On cross Ms. stated that she had 4 adults in her room besides the 2 paraprofessionals there was a co-teacher. (Tr. at 928) She noted that her class functioned from a level to a second grade level in reading, writing and math. (Tr. at 931) She further noted that she rated ’s progress by informal assessments as a school did not utilize formal assessments. (Tr. at 937) She explained that participated in instruction inconsistently. (Tr. at 939) She further explained that the co-teacher taught the lessons. (Tr. at 941) She noted that ’s related service providers for and give ’s his related services in the therapy room. (Tr. at 944)

The parent testified that she was present at the June 10, 2010 IEP meeting and she recalled that she told the CSE that progressed at the during 2009-2010 year and she was told that could not be put on the IEP. (Tr. at 984) She stated did not recall a discussion of the ICT class or a 12-month program. (Tr. at 985) She further stated that there was no discussion of goals. (Tr. at 986) She recalled that she was not asked to participate in the development of the . (Tr. at 990) She stated that after the IEP meeting she wrote on June 18, 2010 to both Region 5 and Region 8 to inform the CSE Chairperson that unless she received a placement offer then she would place at the for the 2010-2011 school year and request reimbursement/Connor Funding for for a 12-month program and /Floor time Therapy for 10 hours a week and a paraprofessional for 30 hours per week. (Tr. at 1005; Exh. F) She recalled that when she received the FNR during the summer for a placement at P.S. 197, she contacted the school, but was told was closed for the summer. (Tr. at 1008) She further recalled that she wrote to the CSE Chairperson on July 12, 2010 to inform CSE that she spoke with the principal of and noted in her letter that the class size of a ICT class of 18 regular education students and 8 education students was too large and over-stimulating for ’s system and the style of lecture teaching was not appropriate for his . (Tr. at 1015; Exh. R) She stated that she signed the contract for the on February 3, 2010 as a back-up placement. (Tr. at 1019;1104) She opined that progressed in academics in reading and progressed ly because the children in his class accepted him even with his spitting s. (Tr. at 1026) She stated that as a parent of an child parent training and was important. (Tr. at 1031) She further stated that at no time did any Department of Education staff discuss parent training and . (Tr. at 1032) She maintained that she consented to all evaluations and observations. (Id.) She stated that had the Department of Education offered FAPE she would have foregone the tuition she had already paid the (Tr. at 1129) The parent explained that an appropriate placement would have saved her the expense of the other services which would out way the money she would have lost. (Tr. at 1130)

On cross the parent stated that she ran over to the as soon as she received the FNR. (Tr. at 1041) She stated that she was aware that Ms. was not fully certified at the institute because she (the parent) also attended the institute. (Tr. at 1046) She explained that she was a beginning level student at to help . (Tr. at 1047) She further explained that Ms. was a Floor time player so she did not need to acquire any certifications. (Tr. at 1050) She noted that Ms. recommended the school at for children with integration dysfunction. (Tr. at 1070) She opined that was great for to and to sit on the floor instead of a desk and the attitude of the school was calm and peaceful and ’s meltdowns lessoned. (Tr. at 1078) The parent stated that she paid Ms. $40 per hour. (Tr. at 1125; 1127) The parent stated that the household income on the 2009 tax return was between $40, 000 and $48, 000 (Tr. at 1136) The parent stated that ’s grandfather pays for ’s educational expenses and the grandfather will be repaid. (Tr. at 1132)

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The legal standard applicable to a request of reimbursement for educational services, such as in this case, is well established. Reimbursement is granted if: (1) the services offered by the Board of Education are inadequate or inappropriate; (2) the services selected by the parent are appropriate; and (3) equitable considerations support the parent’s claim. (School Committee of Burlington v. Department of Education of Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 [1985]) The district bears the initial burden of prong one pursuant to legislation. See Chapter 583 of the Laws of 2007. The district must establish prong one, that it appropriately ascertained the child's educational needs and prepared an IEP in accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of Federal and State regulations. (see, e.g., IEP in accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of Federal and State regulations. (34 CFR 300.343-346, 8 NYCRR 200.3, 200.4 and 200.5)

To meet its burden, the district must show that the recommended program is reasonably calculated to allow the child to receive educational benefits (Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 [1982]), and that the recommended program is the LRE for the child.

The parent asserted many procedural flaws in the June 10, 2010 IEP. The parents maintained they were denied meaningful input in the development of the June 10, 2010 IEP and the program was predetermined and the parents were denied the ability to participate in the development of the program and that the recommended program did not confer an educational benefit. The parents maintained that the staff at the proposed school was ill-prepared to handle ’s significant and needs and the parents were deprived of the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the development of the educational program which would address his needs. The parents further maintained that the last IEP dated February 14, 2008 recommended a 12-month program and they expected a 12-month program recommendation for the 2010-2011 school year and no placement was offered for a 12-month program. (Tr. 148 to 153) The parents alleged CSE failed to conduct evaluations and failed to consider the recommendations of the private evaluations. The parents alleged that the CSE failed to develop appropriate goals and failed to provide parent training and and failed to develop a FBA and resultant . (Exh. C at 9) While school districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under IDEA (Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. School District, 346 F.3d 377 at 381 [2d Cir. 2003]) If a procedural violation has occurred relief is warranted only if it affected the student's right to a FAPE. ( J.D. v. Pawlet School District, 224 F.3d 60 at 69 [2d Cir. 2000]) (IHO Exh. II at 4) The denial of FAPE occurs when procedural inadequacies result in either a loss of educational opportunity for the student or seriously infringe on the parents’ opportunity to par ipate in the IEP formation process. Werner v. Clarkstown Cent. School District, 363 F. Supp. 2d, 656 at 659, [S.D.N.Y., 2005]) The district asserted that the proposed ICT class provided the LRE in which could make gains and have access to a mainstream community and the district must place the student in the LRE. I find the district is not required to maximize the potential of students with disabilities. I find the district is not required to maximize potential. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) and Walczak v. Fla. Union Free School District, 142 F.3d 119, [2d Cir. 1998]) Instead the school district must merely provide an IEP that is likely to produce progress not regression. Cerra v. Pawling Cent. School District, 427 F.3d 186,[2d Cir. 2005]).

The State Review Officer (“SRO”) considered the type of procedural flaw which would result in a denial of FAPE in Application of the New York City Department of Education, Appeal No. 08-037. The SRO noted that not all procedural flaws automatically require a finding of a denial of FAPE. A hearing officer “may find a student did not receive FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies: (a) impeded the student’s right to FAPE; (b) significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decisionmaking process regarding the provision of FAPE for the student; or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits.”(Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. School District, 471 F.Supp.2d 415, 419 [S.D.N.Y. 2007]) The parents asserted that there was no discussion of goals. I find that testimony adduced at the hearing established that the parent and ’s teacher from the did not participate in developing the IEP goals. I credit the parent’s testimony that there was no discussion of goals during the June 10, 2010 IEP meeting. I find CSE had ample evidence of ’s processing problems and pragmatic problems noted in the evaluation (Exh. M) and his and -based disability in Dr. s’ developmental evaluation (Exh. K). I find the district’s noted that as very distractible and impulsive and unable to generalize skills. (Exh. J at 5) I credit the district’s own witness who stated based on her review of the June 10, 2010 IEP required a 12-month program. (Tr. at 761) I find CSE had ample evidence of ’s fragile state as the district’s assessed the majority of his adaptive skills were assessed in the 1st percentile. (Exh. J at 6) I find that CSE presented no evaluation presented to justify the elimination of a 12-month program. I find the hearing record is devoid of evidence supporting the appropriateness of a reduction in services from a 12month program in a 10-month program. I find no evidence to support the lack of adaptive education. I find no appropriate academic goals to address his processing, his pragma problems, his , his inability to generalize skills. I find the district’s program was pre-determined. I find there was no consideration of ’s current placement at the . I find this pre-determination deprived ’s right to FAPE and significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision making process regarding the provision of FAPE.

Testimony adduced at the hearing established that ’s mother and the teacher from the who participated by telephone were not provided with copies of the CSE assessments; including the evaluation and the classroom observation that the CSE team relied on to develop the June 10, 2010. SRO decisions have held that a member who participates by telephone must have the same materials as the members of the CSE team. (Application of the New York City Department of Education, Appeal No. 00-069) I find that the district failed to establish that the parent and ’s teacher meaningfully participated in the decision-making process. The lack of CSE evaluations to support the reduction of a 12-month program significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision making process.

The parent asserted that the placement at was not appropriate because CSE did not rely on any assessment or evaluation to decide that the ICT placement with a large class size was appropriate. I find the district presented no documentary evidence to support the appropriateness of the ICT placement in light of the and pragmatic delays Testimony adduced at the hearing established that had deficits, pragmatic deficits, attention issues, difficulties with integration, as well as delays in his fine development and was . The district failed to present any evidence that an ICT program with a large class size of 27 provided sufficient education support for in the classroom. I further find that the failure for CSE to consider the parent’s and ’s classroom teacher’s recommendation that required a small class size setting significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.

I find that related services under the IDEA are supportive services and are to be provided a student with a disability to assist the child to benefit from his or her education program pursuant to 34 C.F.R. Section 300.34. I find the parent and training is required and I find the June 10, 2010 IEP was inadequate because it omitted parent training and . I find the parents presented ample evidence of the need for parent training to enable the parents to perform follow-up therapy at home to develop , skills, pragmatic skills and generalization skills. The district’s counsel’s position is that the “recommended placement offered parent training opportunities consistent with New York regulations. (SRO Decision at 13.) Parent training can be done individually or in groups at that the school and can be on an as needed basis. See M.N., 700 F. Supp. 2d at 368 (finding that failure to include parent training and on a child's IEP did not result in denial of FAPE given that defendant's proposed placement provided parent training); K.Y. ex rel. T.Y. v. N.Y. City Department of Education, 07 Civ. 3199, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89827, at *20-21 (E.D.N.Y. July 2, 2008) (same), aff'd, 584 F.3d 412 (2d Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3277 (2010).” (IHO VIII at 17) I do not agree with the district’s position. I do not find that workshops provide sufficient or training to the parents to enable the parents to perform appropriate follow-up interventions at home.

Lastly, I find there was no FBA developed and the was developed without parent or teacher involvement and I find the was not appropriate.

Based on the foregoing, I find that the District failed to demonstrate the appropriateness of the student’s program for the 2010-2011 school year and I find the parents prevailed on the first prong. Chapter 583 of the Laws of 2007 created an exception for impartial hearings in which the parent seeks tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement in a private school. The parents have the burden to prove that the services they obtained for the student was appropriate to his needs. The fact that the facility selected by the parent to provide educational services to the child is not State-approved as a school for children with disabilities is not dispositive of the parent’s claim for tuition reimbursement. Florence County School District Four et al. v. Carter by Carter, 510 U.S.

7 (1993). The parents must prove that the student received an appropriate educational benefit from the program at the non-public school, and the parents offered substantial evidence to meet their burden. The evidence presented demonstrated that the student’s placement at the with the paraprofessional trained in and the services of the therapist was appropriate and met his education needs. I find his current homebased program was appropriate to meet the child’s educational needs. Ms. and Ms. established that the student has progressed with his communication, his pragmatic skills and his and issues. ’s classroom teacher in the established that the educational program at the was appropriate for the student. Testimony adduced at the hearing established that the approach of small class size and an informal class of sitting on the floor was appropriate to ’s education needs. The teacher and Ms. and Ms. worked with the classmates to accept ’s s and established that the was uniquely appropriate to his needs. Testimony adduced at the hearing established that the and the approach focused on his individual needs and improved his skills, his pragmatic skills, his academic skills and his skills. I find addressed his integration disorder and his and made the student more available for and . I, therefore, find that the parents have met their burden regarding the placement at the and the services of Ms. and Ms. from July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011. I further find the parents established the appropriateness of the at-home program. I find the parents established the appropriateness of their home program from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011.

Tuition reimbursement to be reduced or denied if the parent (1) did not provide no e of the unilateral placement either at the most recent CSE meeting prior to removing the child from the public school or by written notice 10 business days before such removal

(2) did not make the student available for an evaluation requested by the district prior to his “removal”, (3) took actions determined to be unreasonable. 28 U.S.C. Section 1412(a)(10)(c)(iii). I find the parent informed the district that she intended to enroll at the for the 2010-2011 school year on June 18, 2010 as soon as she did not receive a placement and was seeking Connors funding. (Exh. F) I find the parent informed the district that she intended to enroll at the after visiting the proposed placement and speaking with the principal on July 12, 2010. (Exh. R) and complied with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. Section 1412(a)(10)(c)(iii). I find the parents signed the contract for the on February 3, 2010 as a back-up placement and I credit her testimony that she would have considered a public school placement had FAPE been offered. I find the equitable considerations do support the parent’s claim for reimbursement. In this case, the parent fully cooperated with the district to the best of her ability and made available for evaluations. I find that the equities favor the parents’ position.

ORDER

I therefore order reimbursement upon appropriate proof of payment acceptable to the Department of Education for tuition for in the amount of $14, 300. I credit the testimony that as receiving therapy from his paraprofessional during instruction and while I note 16.5 percent of the instruction at the was instruction I decline to reduce the amount of reimbursement for instruction as I am unable to determine the exact time, if any, that received instruction. I order reimbursement upon appropriate proof of payment acceptable to the Department of Education for Ms. in the amount of $25,200 for services from July 2010 to April

2011. I order reimbursement upon appropriate proof of payment acceptable to the Department of Education for Ms. in the amount of $22, 920 from October 2010 to March 2011 and $ 5,240 from March 14, 2011 to April 8, 2011. I order ’s funding or prospective payment from the date of my decision until July 1, 2011: (1) 10 hours per week of services from Ms. at the rate of $210 per hour and (2) 30 hours per week of the services of a paraprofessional, Ms. at the rate of $40 per hour as I credit Ms. ’s testimony that her rate is $40 per hour or at the rate of $45 per hour if that rate is the agency rate. I further order transportation to and from the upon proof of payment acceptable to the Department of Education. Dated: May 16, 2011 Corrected Date: June 8, 2011 Correction made to the Evidence List on page 34.

______________________________

LINDA AGOSTON, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

LG:dl

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

Within 35 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to appeal the decision to the State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

“The notice of intention to seek review shall be served upon the school district not less than 10 days before service of a copy of the petition for review upon such school district, and within 25 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. The petition for review shall be served upon the school district within 35 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. If the decision has been served by mail upon petitioner, the date of mailing and the four days subsequent thereto shall be excluded in computing the 25- or 35-day period.”

(8NYCRR279.2[b]) Failure to file the notice of intention to seek review is a waiver of the right to appeal this decision.

ections and sample forms for filing an appeal are included with this decision. ections and forms can also be found in the Office of State Review website: www.sro.nysed.gov/appeals.htm.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON AUGUST 19, 2010

PARENT

A Due Process Request, 8/8/10, 10 pp. B IEP, 2/14/08, 18 pp.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

None

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON SEPTEMBEER 29, 2010

PARENT

C Amended Due Process Request, 9/29/10, 8 pp

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

None

IMPARTIAL HEARINGOFFICER

I District's Brief, 09/23/2010, 5 pp. II Parent's Brief, 09/23/2010, 3 pp.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON NOVEMBER 2, 2010

PARENT

D DOE Fundamentals of Recommendation, 7/1/10, 1p. E Education Service Delivery Report, 27197 P.S. 197

The School, 4/30/08, 5/20/09, 4/30/10, 3 pp. F Letter to Regions 5 and 8, 6/18/10 1 p. G Progress Report /Floor Time , 6/10/10, 2 pp. H Resume of , undated, 1 p. I -Educational Report, 5/28/10, 3 pp. J Evaluation, 6/21/09 6 pp. K developmental Evaluation, 12/16/08, 1/19/09, 4 pp. L Evaluation, , M.D., 6/15/08, 2 pp. M and Evaluation, All Children's Therapy,

M.S./C.C.C./S.L.P., 5/1/08, 6 pp. N Paraprofessional Qualification, Undated, 2 pp. O . Consent Order, 8/3/88, 69 pp. P DOE Answer, 6/15/10, 5 pp.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

1 No e of IEP meeting, 5/3/10. 1 p. 2 IEP Conference Summary, 6/10/10, 2 pp. 3 IEP for 2010-2011, 6/10/10, 19 pp. 4 Final No e of Recommendation, 7/1/10, 1 p. 5 Evaluation, 6/27/09, 7 pp. 6 -Educational Report, 5/28/10, 3 pp. 7 developmental Evaluation, 12/6/08, 1/18/09, 4 pp. 8 Classroom Observation, 5/ 24/10, 1 p. 9 Classroom Observation, 5/24/10, 1 p. 10 Progress Report, /Floor Time, 6/10/10, 2 pp. 11 Therapy School Function Tracking Form and Evaluation,

8/26/09, 9/7/09, 6 pp. 12 Progress Form 2009-2010, 5/26/10, 8 pp. 13 Mid-Year Progress Form, 1/2010, 3 pp. 14 School/Camp Examination Form, 5/26/10, 1 p. 15 Class Profile 2-218 at , 2010-2011, 1p. 16 Class Schedule for 2-218 at , 2010 - 2011 1 p. 17 Matrix for Responsibility for 2-218, 2010-2011, 1 p. 18 Parent Training and Workshops, Various Dates, 1 p. 19 Professional Development Courses, Workshops, and Classes, 2009-2010,

& 2010-2011, 1p. 20 Related Service Provider NPS197Q, 2010-2011, 1p. 21 School's Curriculum Applicable to Student, 2010-2011 22 Leaders Classes, , 9/29/10, 10/6/10, 10/13/10, 2 pp. 23 Parent Association Meeting No e, 9/20/10, 1 p. 24 School Calendar , 9-10/10, 1 p. 25 Parent Meeting Reminder, , 5/5/10, 2 pp. 26 Discipline Code No e, 2010-2011, 2 pp. 27 Notice of Positive Interventions and Supports,

PBIS, , 9/16/10, 2 pp. 28 Student Contract, Undated, 2 pp. 29 Back to School Night No e, , 9/21/10, 2 pp. 30 Mighty Milers No e, , 9/14/10, 2 pp. 31 Application 2009-2010, 10/30/08, 8 pp. 32 Payments to , 10/12/10, 1 p. 33 Statement of Intent for Student to Attend for 2010-2011,

1/30/10, 1 p. 34 Application 2010-2011, 2/3/10, 5 pp. 35 Statement of Payments to , 10/12/10, 1 p. 36 Correspondence Regarding Tuition for , 8/27/10, 1 p. 37 Correspondence Regarding Incident at , 12/23/09, 1 p.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON DECEMBER 2, 2010

PARENT

None

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCUTION

None

IMPARTIAL HEARINGOFFICER

III Subpoena (C) requesting Appearance and Production of Documents by the

Placement Officer, Undated, 1 p.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON DECEMBER 15, 2010

Q Subpoena Duces Tecum, 9/29/10, 9 pp.

R Parent Letter to Region 5 and Region 8,7/12/10, 4 pp.

S SOPM, 2/09, 6 pp.

T IEP, 6/10/10, 19 pp.

U Omitted

V Omitted

W Subpoena, 12/14/10, 5 pp.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCUTION

None

IMPARTIAL HEARINGOFFICER

IV Parent Brief, 12/15/10, 6 pp. V Subpoena, 12/14/10, 2 pp.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON FEBRUARY 18, 2011

PARENT

None

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCUTION

None

IMPARTIAL HEARINGOFFICER

VI District's Response, 1/4/11 12 pp.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON FEBRUARY 28, 2011

PARENT

None

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCUTION

None

IMPARTIAL HEARINGOFFICER

VII Parent Request Letter, 2/24/11, 1 p.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON MARCH 10, 2011

PARENT

X Bank Statements/Proof of Transfer, Various Dates, 10 pp. Y Subpoena, 3/3/11, 5 pp.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCUTION

None

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON MARCH 25, 2011

PARENT

Z Tax Return W-2 for 2010, 1 p. AA Spreadsheet/invoices/Proof of Payment, 33 pp. BB 2009 1040 NYS Tax Return, 4/12/2010, 2 pp. CC Detailed Placement Inquiry Screen, 4 pp. DD Detailed Placement Inquiry Screen, 1p.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCUTION

None

POST HEARING SUBMISSIONS

IMPARTIAL HEARINGOFFICER

VII Parents’ Closing Brief, 5/2/11, 210 pp. VIII District’s Closing Brief, 5/2/11, 27 pp. IX Ms. ’s invoices, Various Dates, 8 pp. X Ms. ’s invoices, Various Dates, 6 pp. XI Affidavit of , Undated, 1. p.