NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Case Number:
Student’s Name:
Date of Birth:
District:
Hearing Requested By: Parent
Date of Hearing: September 27, 2010
October 8, 2010
November 16, 2010
November 30, 2010
December 17, 2010
January 5, 2011
January 18, 2011
February 15, 2011
February 16, 2011
May 9, 2011
June 20, 2011
June 29, 2011
June 30, 2011
July 12, 2011
July 21, 2011
July 28, 2011
Record Close Date: September 20, 2011
Hearing Officer: James McKeever, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON SEPTEMBER 27, 2010
Esq, Attorney — Student
Esq, Attorney — Student
CSE Designee — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON OCTOBER 8, 2010
ESQ., Attorney — Student
ESQ., Attorney — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON NOVEMBER 16, 2010
Attorney — Student
Attorney — Student
Father — Student
Interpreter — Student
Attorney — DOE
School Psychologist for (via telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON NOVEMBER 30, 2010
Attorney — Student
Attorney — Student
Father — Student
Arabic Interpreter — Student
Attorney — DOE
School Psychologist, (via telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON DECEMBER 17, 2010
Attorney for Family — Student
Attorney for Family — Student
Attorney — DOE
School Psychologist, (via telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JANUARY 5, 2011
Attorney — Student
Attorney — Student
Attorney — DOE
School Psychologist (via telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEAREDON JANUARY 18, 2011
ESQ., Attorney — Student
Parents
Interpreter — Student
ESQ., Attorney — DOE
Teacher, (via telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON FEBRUARY 15, 2011
Attorney — Student
Parents
Interpreter — Student
Attorney — DOE
Teacher (via telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON FEBRUARY 16, 2011
Attorney — Student
ESQ., Attorney — Student
ESQ., Attorney — DOE
School Psychologist, (Via Telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MAY 9, 2011
Attorney — Student
Parents
Interpreter — Student
Psychologist (via telephone) — Student
Attorney — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 20, 2011
Attorney — Student
Attorney — Student
Parents
Interpreter — Student
Attorney — DOE
Teacher (via telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 29, 2011
ESQ., Attorney — Student
ESQ., Attorney — DOE
School Psychologist, (via telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 30, 2011
Attorney — Student
Attorney — Student
Mother — Student
Interpreter — Student
SS, Evaluator (via telephone) — Student
Attorney — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 12, 2011
Attorney — Student
(via telephone) — Student
Attorney — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 21, 2011
Attorney — Student
Attorney — Student
Director of (via telephone) — Student
Attorney — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 28, 2011
Attorney — Student
Attorney — Student
Parents
Translator — Student
Attorney — DOE
On the above listed dates, I conducted an Impartial Hearing regarding the due the process request filed by the parent on September 8, 2010. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the student was denied a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) by Department of Education (“DOE”) during the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years because the DOE failed to provide the student with “comparable special education services” when student returned to , in the State of New Jersey, during the summer of 2009. The parent requests an award of compensatory special education services and Independent Education Evaluations (“IEEs”), transportation and costs.
The DOE contends that “comparable services” were provided to the student when student was enrolled in September 2009 and that the parents agreed to the 2009-2010 proposed program. The DOE also contends that the issue of FAPE based on the failure to provide comparable services during the 2010-2011 is moot because at the beginning of hearing the parties agreed to a comparable services program for the 2010-2011 school year.
.”) is an girl who was classified as “ ” by the DOE’s Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) on March 29, 2007. . is diagnosed with and (Exhibit D-1).During the 2006-2007 school year, . lived in and attended . Sometime later in 2007, .’s family moved to , where they remained for one year. Thereafter, and sometime during the 2008-2009 school year, the family moved from , New Jersey. In New Jersey, . had an Individualize Education Program (“IEP”) that recommended special education services in a small setting for part of the day and “mainstreaming” in science and social
1 studies with related services of (Parent’s Exhibit “E”). In July 2009, . returned to Brooklyn. At that time, the parents where she was initially placed in a general education class and then transferred to self-contained class (Tr. 151, 172, 174-76, 21417). In October 2009, .’s family moved to a new location in and asked for busing. The parents’ request for busing was denied (Tr. 223-226). Thereafter, . transferred to , where she was placed in a class (Exhibit (“D-22”).
1 At the hearing I made a finding that the IEP at Exhibit “D-5“ was not the Student’s final IEP from because the document at “D-5“ clearly indicated “Draft” on several pages. Statutory Framework:
The IDEA was enacted "to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a [FAPE] that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living." 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A). It requires all states and the District of Columbia to provide resident children with disabilities a FAPE designed to meet their unique needs. Id. § 1412(a)(1).
The IDEA aims to guarantee children with disabilities a FAPE by requiring states and the District of Columbia to institute a variety of detailed procedures. "'[T]he primary vehicle for implementing'" the goals of the statute "'is the [IEP], which the [IDEA] mandates for each child.'" Harris v. District of Columbia, 561 F. Supp 2d 63, 65 (D.D.C.
2008) (citing Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 311-12 (1988)). An IEP is a written statement that includes, among other things: (i) a statement of the child's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance; (ii) a statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals; (iii) a description of the child's progress in meeting those goals; (iv) a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services to be provided to the child; and (v) an explanation of the extent, if any, to which the child will not participate with nondisabled children in any regular classes. Id. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i). An "IEP Team" -- which consists of the parents of the child with disability, not less than one regular education teacher of the child (if applicable), not less than one special education teacher or provider of the child, and a representative of the local education agency -- is charged with developing, reviewing, and revising a child's IEP. See id. § 1414(d)(1)(B) (defining an IEP Team). Because the IEP must be "tailored to the unique needs" of each child, Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 181 (1982), it must be regularly revised in response to new information regarding the child's performance, behavior, and disabilities, and must be amended if its objectives are not met. See, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1414(b)-(d). In order to be sufficient to confer a FAPE upon a given child, an IEP must be "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits." Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207. Each local educational agency is required to have an IEP in effect for each child with a disability in the agency's jurisdiction at the beginning of each school year. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(2)(A).
The IDEA requires that children with disabilities be placed in the "least restrictive environment" so that they can be educated in an integrated setting with children who are not disabled to the maximum extent appropriate. See § 1412(a)(5)(A). The IDEA also guarantees parents of disabled children the opportunity to participate in the evaluation and placement process. See §§ 1414(f), 1415(b)(1).
Finally, Impartial Hearing Officers have broad discretion to grant such relief as they deem appropriate. See, U.S.C. 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii). 2009-2010 school year:
Section 300.323 (f) of the Code of Federal Regulations, which governs the transfer of IEPs for disabled children who transfer schools from another State, provides:
If a child with a disability (who had an IEP that was in effect in a previous public agency in another State) transfers to a public agency in a new State, and enrolls in a new school within the same school year, the new public agency (in consultation with the parents) must provide the child with FAPE (including services comparable to those described in the child’s IEP from the previous public agency), until the new public agency--: (1) Conducts an evaluation pursuant to Sections 300.304 through 300.306 (if determined to be necessary by the new public agency); and (2) develops, adopts, and implements a new IEP, if appropriate that meets the applicable requirements in sections 300.320 through 300.324. 34 C.F.R. Section 300.323.(f).
Here, the record shows that . was enrolled at the on September 8, 2009.[2] On September 9, 2009, ’s father met with , a school t, and , a worker. During this meeting .’s father provided Ms. with .’s records from New Jersey, which included a “ , dated February 5, 2009 (DOE Exhibit “3). Based on Ms. ’s review of the New Jersey records, she believed that . required a because she believed that were significant. Ms. recommended that . be placed in a class. On the same date, Ms. conducted a social history with .’s father.
The record contains an IEP, dated September 10, 2010 (Exhibit “D-9”), which recommended a placement with related services of and . Ms. testified that the IEP was discussed during a meeting with .’s father and Ms. , a worker. However, Ms. confirmed that the IEP was written sometime after .’s father left their meeting on September 9, 2011. The IEP is signed by Ms. , as the District Representative and the school ; Ms. , who was the school worker, and a whose . The IEP is also signed by .’s mother, who Ms. confirmed was not at the meeting. It is undisputed that neither a general education, nor a special education teacher participated in the development of this IEP.[3] Moreover, the IEP does it indicate that a parent member was in attendance and no waiver was offered at the hearing. Significantly, although these are procedural violations in nature, I find that the absence of these important CSE members and the CSE’s decision to draft the IEP without either parent present, impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in decision making process and resulted in a denial of FAPE for . for the 2009-2010 school year (20 U.S.C. Section 1415(f)). Comparable Services:
Section 300.323 (f) of the Code of Federal Regulations provides that when a student with an IEP transfers from another state, the new LEA must provide “comparable services” until a new IEP is developed. Here, the DOE developed an IEP on September 10, 2009, two days after . was enrolled. However, on the same date, the DOE also generated an “Authorization to Attend a Special Education Program as a Comparable Service,” to wit: the recommended in the IEP (Exhibit D-1). Although the relevant issue for this case is whether the IEP of September 10, 2009 offered Z.K. a FAPE for the 20092010 school, which I found it did not, I also find that the DOE failed to provide . with comparable special education services based on the New Jersey IEP when she enrolled at P.S. 212 in September 2009.
As indicated above, the New Jersey IEP recommended part-time placement in a special education class and placement in a general education class for science and social studies4. When . transferred from New Jersey to , the DOE moved her to a . It is undisputed that a self-contained class is more restrictive than a program that provided for mainstreaming in science and social studies. As such, I find that these programs are not comparable. Accordingly, I find that the DOE failed to offer . a FAPE by not providing her with “comparable services” based the IEP from New Jersey5 pursuant to C.F.R. Section 300.323(f), which resulted in a denial of FAPE for the 2009-2010 school year. Native Language:
It is undisputed that .’s mother’s and that she has very skills. Nevertheless, the record shows that the DOE presented .’s mother with an IEP that was not translated into , nor did the DOE provided an interpreter at the time they asked her to sign the IEP. The record also shows that .’s father has skills, although it is conceded that he possesses some . The DOE’s position that the skills were sufficient to conduct the IEP meeting in . Here, the father testified, through an , that he often does not understand everything that the school has told him because he does not possess sufficient skills. The father also testified that he was unaware that he could have asked the school for an interpreter. Additionally, the DOE’s record confirms that the father has limited skills (See, Exhibit P-K, P-BB). Accordingly, I find that the DOE’s failure to have an interpreter present during the CSE meeting and their failure to translate the IEP into , denied . a FAPE for the 2009-2010 school year because parents inability to understand the an IEP written in (20 U.S.C. Section 1415(f)). 2010-2011 school year:
The parents’ claim with respect to this school year is limited to the issue of whether . was provided comparable services based on the New Jersey IEP6 (See, Exhibit “A”). At the outset of the hearing, the parties stipulated to an Interim Service Plan
4 The “draft” IEP at Exhibit D-4 also reflects this information. 5 Although there was a dispute as to what New Jersey IEP was the “final” IEP, a placement is not comparable to either. 6 The IEP for this school year was developed on September 15, 2010, which was after the parents’ filed their due process request. Therefore the issue as to whether this IEP offered was not before me. (“ISP”), in lieu of a pendency Order that would provide . with comparable services based on the New Jersey IEP (Tr.13). According to the was placed at , which is the school the parent’s initially sought. Accordingly, the issue as to whether comparable services were provided by the DOE during the 2010-2011 school year is moot. Tutoring:
Based on the denial of FAPE for the 2009-2010 school year, . is entitled to compensatory special education services in the form of hours per week at a rate of $125.00 per hour for one school year. (Streak v. Board of Educ. Of the East Green Bush Central School District, 2010 WL 4847481 92nd Cir. 2010). Here, the record shows that . is performing at a grade to grade level in math and reading and that she is currently in the grade. The director of testified that . would benefit for tutoring, using a . Accordingly, based on the denial of FAPE for the 2009-2010 school year, I find that hours per week of tutoring for an entire school year is appropriate. IEE’s:
The parents’ due process complaint requests “a or a , , and an assessment/consultation with by [sic] an expert in .” (Exhibit “A” page 7).
When a parent requests an IEE at public expense, the school district must, without unnecessary delay, either ensure an IEE is provided at public expense or initiate an impartial hearing to show that its evaluation is appropriate or that the evaluation obtained by the parent does not meet the school district criteria. If the impartial hearing officer finds that a school district's evaluation is appropriate, a parent may not obtain an IEE at public expense (34 C.F.R. § 300.502; 8 NYCRR 200.5[g]; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 05-009; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-082; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-027). In this case, the parent did not request an IEE until the due process complaint was filed on September 8, 2010. Nevertheless, the record shows that at the time the 2009 IEP was developed, the DOE failed to conduct any additional evaluations. Although the record contains a “Learning Re-Evaluation” from West New York, New Jersey, this evaluation did not contain any testing (Exhibit D-4). Accordingly, I find that the parent’s request for reimbursement for evaluation conducted by Dr. is appropriate.
The parent is also entitled to reimbursement for the evaluation conducted . As indicated above, , was diagnosed with and . As such, the DOE was on notice the . was a student who could possibly benefit from (20 U.S.C. Section 1400 (c)(5)(H).
Based on the unrebutted testimony of Mr. regarding the recommendations for ., the parents’ request for an Order directing the DOE to provide the recommendations set forth in the evaluation by Mr. is granted. :
The Due process complaint does not contain any allegation with respect to and services. As such, these issues are beyond the scope of the hearing.
ESY
On July 12, 2011, the DOE was directed to issue a P3 letter from summer services that were comparable to the services provided on the New Jersey IEP at Exhibit “E“. After the hearing concluded, the parent alleged that the DOE failed to issue a timely P3 letter for the summer services. As I cannot make any findings on this issue. However, nothing in this decision prevents the parents from filing another due process complaint on this issue. The parents’ claims with respect to ESY services for 2009 are without merit as the record shows that the DOE was not on notice that the student had moved here from New Jersey during that time.
ORDERED
The Department of Education is directed to reimburse the parents for conducted by Dr. and the evaluation conducted by .
The Department of Education is directed to fund a bank of tutoring services for ., for , at a rate of $125.00 per hour for one school year. The bank of hours may be used for up to three years from the date of this Order.
The Department of Education is directed to provide all the services recommend in the assistive conducted by , The Department of Education is directed translate all the student’s IEPs into the Arabic and is to provide an Arabic translator at all IEP meetings.
The Department of Education is directed provide the student with a Metrocard for transportation to and from school and any related service. Dated: September 22, 2011
________________________________
JAMES MCKEEVER, ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer
JM: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.
Directions and sample forms for filing an appeal are included with this decision. Directions 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
PARENT
A. Impartial Hearing Request 9/8/10 7 pages
B. IEP 9/10/09 11 pages
C. IEP 3/29/07 12 pages
D. . Evaluation 3/10/07 9 pages
E. IEP West New York 3/6/09 20 pages
F. Learning Reevaluation West New York 2/5/09 7 pages
G. Eval. West New York 2/2/09 5 pages
H. Eval. West New York 1/26/09 3 pages
I. SOP NYC DOE Feb. 2009 153 pages
J. Attendance Report 4/26/10 1 page
K. Social History 6/6/10 6 pages
L. IEP 9/15/10 16 pages
M. Psych-Ed Report 6/6/10 6 pages
N. Correspondence various dates 3 pages
O. Authorization to Attend 10/1/10 1 page
P. Notice of IEP Meeting 8/12/10 1 page
Q. Correspondence with Parents Various dates 2009 6 pages
R. Student Profile 11/5/10 5 pages
S. Assistive Technology Guidebook 2008-2009 51 pages
T. NYC DOE webpage 11/16/10 2 pages
U. NYC DOE Assessment Memo 8/2/10 18 pages
V. NYC DOE Manual for Winter 2010 62 pages
W. NYC DOE Spec. Ed. Service Review December 2008 25 pages
X. NYC DOE Letter undated 1 page
Y. NYC ID undated 2 pages
Z. NYC DOE English Language Learners undated 35 pages
AA. Initial Referral 1/10/07 1 page
BB. Initial Referral with Doctor’s Ltr 1/4/06 4 pages
CC. IEP 5/15/07 18 pages
DD. IEP West New York 3/6/09 20 pages
EE. Letter to WNY 1/11/11 1 page
FF. Application for DOE undated 4 pages
GG. Feb/April 2011 20 pages
HH. Appendices . Feb/April 2011 53 pages
II. Eval. 4/27/01 9 pages
JJ. Progress Report 4/18/11 2 pages
KK. Letter re promotion 1/31/11 1 page
LL. Eval. 3/27/07 10 apges
MM. Invoice 5/17/11 1 page
NN. Coaching Ltr 7/7/11 1 page
OO. Appointment Notice 7/2/09 2 pages
PP. Chancellor Regs A-663 6/26/09 5 pages
QQ. NYC COE Continuum of Services undated 29 pages
RR. NYC DOC Spec. Ed. Service Review 12/08 13 pages
SS. Email WNY 6/13/01 30 pages
TT. RSA-1 12/1/10 1 page
UU. Email various dated 4 pages
VV. Newman Invoice 5/9/11 1 page
WW. Letter 1/11/11 5 pages
XX. Notice of IEP Meeting 4/6/11 2 pages
YY. Letter Re Evaluations 6/14/11 5 pages
ZZ. Appointment Letter 7/5/11 2 pages
AAA. DOE Disclosure Packet Case #127059 5/27/10 58 pages
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
1 Letter from , M.D., 12/27/05, 1 page 2 WNY Initial Evaluation, 1/26/09, 3 pages 3 WNY Initial Evaluation & Goals, 2/02/09, 5 pages 4 WNY Learning Re-Evaluation, 2/5/09, 7 pages 5 WNY IEP, 3/6/09 - 3/6/10, 16 pages 6 Authorization for WNY to Release Records to by: , 9/9/09, 1 page 7 Consent for Initial Evaluation 9/9/09, 1 page 8 Social History, 9/9/09, 5 pages 9 IEP 2009-2010, 9/10/09, 11 pages 10 Report, 9/10/09, 1 page 11 - Authorization to Attend a Special Program as a Comparable Service, 9/10/09, 1 page 12 Request from to Open Case by , CSW, 9/11/09, 1 page 13 Notice of Referral (Initial), 9/14/09, 1 page 14 Authorization to Attend, 9/15/09, 1 page 15 FNR, 9/15/09, 1 page 16 Consent Letter to Change Class at , 1210/5/09, 1 page 17 Letter Requesting Transfer from to , 10/22/09, 1 18 Correspondence Re: Placement at , 10/22/09, 2 pages 19 Authorization to Attend, 10/22/09, 1 page 20 Student Historical Profile Report, 11/5/10, 3 pages 21 Student’s Dates of Attendance at , 11/4/10, 1 22 Letter from , 11/4/10, 1 page 23 Letter from Mrs. , 11/4/10, 1 page 24 Letter from Mrs. , 11/4/10, 1 page 25 Letter from , 11/5/10, 1 page 26 Letter from , 11/8/10, 1 p. 27 Letter from LCSW, 11/8/10, 1 p. 28 NYC DOE Parent/Guardian Home Language Identification Survey, 9/9/09, 4 pp. 29 Correspondence Re: Placement , 9/10/09, 2 pp. 30 , 9/10/09, 1 p. 31 NYC Public Schools School Report Card – , 10/30/09, 1 p. 32 Interim Progress Report from , 1/2010, 1 p. 33 NYS Application for Benefits Teacher Questionnaire, 3/11/10 & 3/25/10, 13 pp. 34 NYC DOE Schools Pupil Reading Record Card – , 6/2010, 1 p 35 Student Profile, 5/20/10, 1 p. 36 NYC Public Schools School Report Card – Including placement for 2010-2011
& Annual Goals Progress Report, 9/16/10, 5 pages 37 Summary, 5/28/10, 2 pages 38 Social History, 6/6/10, 7 pp. 39 -Educational Report, 6/6/10, 6 pp. 40 Progress Report from 2009-2010, 1 p. 41 Pupil Progress Report – , 6/21/10, 1 p. 42 Pupil Progress Report for School Assessment Team, 6/22/10, 1 p. 43 Notice of IEP Meeting: Reevaluation, 8/3/10, 1 p. 44 Notice of IEP Meeting: Reevaluation, 8/12/10, 1 p. 45 M-2 Meeting Notice for EPC/CSE Review, 9/8/10, 1 p. 46 Authorization to Attend , 9/15/10, 1 p. 47 IEP 2010-2011, 9/15/10, 16 pp. 48 FNR, 9/16/10, 1 p. 49 Student’s Attendance at , 2009-2010 & 2010-2011, 1 p. 50 Ms Personal Notes & Correspondence with Mr. , 2009-2010, 11 pp. 51 Writing and Reading Assessment Profile, 10/27/09, 2 pp. 52 Writing and Reading Assessment Profile, 5/20/10, 7 pp. 53 Summary Report, 3/24/10, 1 p. 54 Summary Report, 5/25/10, 1 p. 55 Classroom Teacher Version, 5/25/10, 4 pp. 56 Student’s Curriculum at , 2009-2010, 2 pp. 57 Vowel Power – Level 1 by , Undated, 63 pp. 58 Phonics 2 – Rule Charts, Undated, 24 pp. 59 Cumulative Record, Undated, 2 pp. 60 Related Service Attendance Sheets and Progress Report from , 6 pp. 61 Related Service Attendance Sheets and Progress Report from , 5 pp 62 FNR, 10/1/10, 1 p. 63 Attendance Information 2010-2011, 6/28/11, 1 p. 64 Attendance Information 2010-2011, 2/28/11, 1 p. 65 Attendance Information 2010-2011, 11/30/10, 1 p. 66 Attendance Information 2010-2011, 2/28/11, 1 p. 67 Attendance Information 2010-2011, 12/1/10, 1 p. 68 Report by , 09/2010 to 06/2011, 2 pp. 69 Mid-Year Goal Sheet ., 1/17/11, 1 p. 70 Graduation Program, 6/22/11, 2 pp. 71 Letter to Parents Re: Summer School Program, 06/2011, 2 pp. 72 Certificates for ), 6/21/11, 1 p. 73 Certificates for , 6/21/11, 1 p. 74 Certificates for , 6/21/11, 1 p. 75 Certificates for , 6/21/11, 1 p. 76 Certificates for , 6/21/11, 1 p. 77 Certificates for ), 6/22/11, 1 p. 78 Certificate for ), 2/1/01, 1 p. 79 -1 Form: , Undated, 1 p. 80 -2 Independent Provider Approval, 12/20/10, 1 p. 81 Email Correspondence, 3/14/11, 2 pp. 82 Email Correspondence, 4/27/11, 5 pp 83 Email Correspondence, 6/16/11, 11 pp.
Footnotes
[2] Parent’s counsel’s assertion that the “ ” at the school should have alerted the DOE to the Student’s special education needs based on its during the summer of 2009 is without merit.
[3] Although Ms. testified that “Ms. a special education teacher was there for part of the IEP meeting (Tr. 273), Ms. confirmed that the IEP meeting consisted of herself, Ms and Mr. (Tr. 274).