New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number:

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District: Hearing Requested By: Parent Date of Hearing: November 18, 2010

January 31, 2011

March 3, 2011 Hearing Officer: Gary D. Peters, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED NOVEMBER 18, 2010

Attorney — Student

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JANUARY 31, 2011

Attorney — Student

Father — Student

Teacher — Student

Jump Start Teacher — Student

Department Designee — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED MARCH 3, 2011

Attorney — Student

Father — Student

Headmaster — Student

Teacher — Student

Department Designee — DOE

INTRODUCTION

On November 18, 2010, January 31, 2011 and March 3, 2011, I conducted a hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA) 20 U.S.C. section 1415 (f)(3) regarding a special education program for a student with disability, New City Impartial Hearing Case No. 129143. The hearing was conducted at the impartial office of the New City Department of Education, 131 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, New . The student’s parents made a request for the impartial hearing through their attorney on September 10, 2010. At the hearing, the Department of Education, hereinafter referred to as “the Department” was represented by its Department designee and the Parent was represented by counsel. A list of witnesses and documents received into evidence is attached hereto.

BACKGROUND

The child, hereinafter referred to as . is a year old student who was classified as . He is enrolled as a at the and his deficits include written expression and organizational problems.

The Committee on Special Education (CSE) conducted an Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting on May 19, 2010 and recommended a general education with special education teacher support services ), five periods per week in a separate location with a staffing ratio of .

The Department conceded to Prong I of the Burlington/Carter Test and the only issues to be determined are whether or not Prep School was an appropriate placement and if equitable considerations favor the parent.

THE PARENT’S POSITION

The parents maintain that the evidence indicated that is an school and an appropriate placement. It has small classrooms with a program” which provides support for children with and its classroom teachers also provide special education techniques to address the needs of the children. Additionally, utilizes system, which is beneficial for children with special needs.

Parent’s counsel also stated that Program, which is beneficial for children such as who have organizational issues, as it helps the Parents to “ ” with regard to .

Lastly, the Parent maintains that with respect the CSE process that they attended meetings, provided all documents and visited the recommended school. Accordingly, the Parent is seeking tuition reimbursement for tuition at the .

THE DEPARTMENT’S POSITION

Although the Department conceded that it failed to provide with a FAPE, it was their position that the Parent should be reimbursed only for a portion of the tuition, more particularly, solely for the “ ”.

THE PARENT’S CASE

The first witness to testify was , who stated that she has been employed at the since August 2010 as a “ ”. She possesses a Master of Science in Teaching, has an Advanced Certificate in Special Education and is New Certified in Special Education.

The witness described the as having several components; wherein there is a morning check in time and that she currently has twelve students within her case load. The students meet with her from 8:00 AM to 8:30 AM before the school day begins and in the afternoon from 3:15 to 4:00 PM after the official school day is over. She also meets with each child individually two times per week. (trans. 14) and whenever possible, including during lunch to give them extra help if they require same (trans. 14).

The witness was familiar with s particular learning issues and was provided with evaluation. She discusses her students with the school and Department (trans. 15). Ms. also stated that she has reviewed s IEP and noted that the child had , which interfere with ; he also has (trans. 16).

With reference to the child’s organizational deficits, the witness stated that she reviews ’s planner, which is a first step in organization. She described each student as having a planner wherein he or she writes in during class and that she, the student and the Parents check progress of homework on (trans. 17). She assists to prioritize his needs and to keep his materials organized so that he can find things and know what he needs throughout the day (trans. 18). The students utilize a binder, wherein class materials and the planner are kept in order to write down their tasks and assignments. Organization is stressed so that everything is in the correct order and properly filed so that there is no risk of losing materials (trans. 20).

The witness testified that she assists as needed when he comes in for his and reviews his assignments to make sure that he understands them (trans. 23). She also described techniques that are utilized to assist in . A point illustration explanation is used to aide in the development of a thesis statement, introductory paragraph and structure for an assignment (trans. 24); a “power method” assists the child to edit and revise (trans 25). also uses an “on line flash card maker”, wherein there are words with definitions and quizzes for vocabulary (trans. 26).

Ms. described the concept of breaking down steps which is called “chunking”, wherein a body of material is broken down into more manageable pieces and attacked one at a time (trans. 28). The witness stated that is able to use a laptop in class in order to take notes and to prepare for exams and is provided with time and a half when he takes tests.

Upon further questioning of the witness, she stated that is “doing well” and believes his and stated that it has gone up from the first to the second semester. She described his academic progress in detail and stated that is a most enthusiastic proponent of the methods of study that he has learned (trans. 31).

Lastly, the witness stated that in her opinion, is appropriately placed at and that he is thriving emotionally and intellectually. The program provides necessary , so that he can achieve academically (trans. 32).

Upon cross examination of this witness, it was her opinion that should continue at the as he is able to receive the course content that he requires and the individual support in order to be able to do as well as he is (trans. 33). She also stated that he requires the jump start program and although he might “do ok” without it, he does need the attention to be able to do his best (trans. 34).

The next witness to testify was ’s father, hereinafter referred to a Mr. , who stated that his son is currently in the grade at the School. He first had an “inkling” that had a problem in , as his child was “ ”. (trans. 38). The witness stated that attended ( ) from . Mr. . stated that to the best of his recollection, was classified as “ ” as a and had a neuropsychological examination by Dr. in 2005 (trans. 40).

Mr. stated that would benefit from some type of an program and that he searched within the public and private system for a school that could offer an appropriate setting (trans. 41). was the only school that offered both a certified special education teacher, in the form of program and also integrated the children into a regular classroom with teachers that were familiar with strategies to assist children with needs similar to ’s. (trans. 42). Additionally, the program allowed to be in a remedial track in subjects that were challenging for him and in a normal or advanced track in areas where he had particular strengths (trans. 42).

’s father stated that he is familiar with “ ” and that it was something that used more than his parents. The Parents obtain a report every Thursday with the narrative on assignments which is not only useful to check on the children’s work but it enables the child to have an additional way to check on what he is doing and to determine what to do. (trans. 44). Mr. stated that the classroom teachers at have addressed s’ specific , and in a small class situation, the teacher is able to see the child’s strengths and bring him up to where he needs to be and at the same time instill confidence (trans. 46),

The witness described the annual CSE meeting in May 2010 and stated that he participated and provided documentation. He signed whatever authorizations the school required in order to give whatever tests were appropriate; there was a follow up performed which was provided to the Department (trans. 46).

The witness stated that was recommended to attend School and that he received notification at the end of July 2010. He made numerous attempts to visit the school during the summer but was unable to do so.

Mr. . stated that shortly after he received the placement offer and subsequent to his attempts to look at the program at Kennedy, a letter was written to the CSE stating that he would be enrolling at the School as he was unable to visit the recommended school (trans. 49). The witness identified Parent’s Exhibit “F” and stated that it was a copy of a letter that he wrote to the CSE region 3.

’s father stated that his son has been attending since September 2010 and that in his opinion he has made progress . He described the educational progress at and stated that there was a sense of “something being woven together “and that he never saw that before (trans. 51). He stated that his son is on top of his homework and he believes much success is attributable to the (trans. 52). He also stated that has made friends at and also keeps up with friends from . He described as “fitting in” and that he is beginning to feel a sense of confidence in his ability to do academic work (trans. 53). He described the program and services being offered at , as integrated in everything that the children do from the time they check in in the morning until they come home and do their homework (trans. 54). In conclusion, he stated that was providing his child with an appropriate education.

Upon cross examination of this witness, he agreed that he signed a contract in March, 2010, prior to attending the IEP meeting in May 2010 for his child to attend . However, he researched the process, as he knew that his child was ending grade and that he “needed to have an option in place” for in grade. It was his decision that he needed to at least reserve a spot for so that he would be able to have an appropriate placement (trans. 56). The witness also stated that he paid the full tuition in March upon the signing of the contract; however upon further questioning of the witness, he was uncertain if he paid the full amount in March and that he would have to check his records. He reiterated that he made at least a half dozen attempts to visit the School and never got a call back (trans. 60). He believed that he did not have discussions with the personnel at regarding a refund of tuition if his child were to attend a public school (trans. 60).

Upon redirect examination, the witness clarified his prior testimony and stated that he paid a non refundable reservation fee of five thousand ($5,000.00) dollars when he signed the contract and that he did in fact pay the balance of the tuition prior to the beginning of the school year. There was a 5%-7% reduction in tuition if the entire amount was paid which he opted to do.

The Parent stated that in his opinion, his child did not make progress during the middle school years. He also described efforts made to visit other schools in the summer and was told that he would have to wait until September. Lastly, the witness reiterated that he cooperated with the Department at all times as his child was transitioning to high school and that if the Department had offered a public placement that was appropriate he certainly would have accepted same (trans. 67).

, after being duly sworn stated that he is a teacher at , is in his third full year and is currently an teacher and . He described his educational experience in the work place and stated that he has a Bachelor of Arts in English/Educational studies and is earning his Masters Degree at .

The witness stated that is currently in his English Class and that he is “not on the highest track” (trans. 71). To the best of his recollection, there were 30 to 40% of the students in his class with processing issues, either reading or writing and had IEP’s (trans. 72).

Mr. described ’s and in writing, spelling and elaborating. He also has (trans. 75).

The witness stated that he is able to address ’s organizational issues; he checks his notes and reviews them in order to make sure his thoughts are in right sequential order and that he is following the format that is provided. He also assigns work to in his notebook, which he described as “purpose questions” to give him an objective for his reading. He described “purpose questions” as an active reading strategy by requesting the student to make predictions about what they think is going to happen in their reading (trans 79). The goal is for the child to become clearer as to what they are looking for while they are reading (trans. 79).

Mr. described additional techniques to address ’s organizational deficits including modeling and note taking. The witness also described as a “lifeline” at and that it also assists in terms of organization (trans. 81).

With respect to ’s difficulty in writing, Mr. addresses same by utilizing various techniques such as “ ” (trans. 81). The “ techniques” assist the student to develop a process to plan their ideas. Brainstorming is also utilized as a way to assist a student to figure out what he is going to write about (trans. 82). The witness also described how he utilizes “scaffolding” so that the student gets the structure that he requires in terms of understanding what his responsibilities are as he moves forward (trans. 83)

Mr. described the utilization of graphic organizers to provide a road map for how to go about writing an actual draft in an essay. He also utilizes “inspiration” which is a computer program which provides students with different diagrams they can use in order to organize their ideas and that it is a “great pre writing tool” (trans. 86).

The witness stated that classes end at about 3:15 P.M. and that he is available until about 4:00 P.M. to provide extra help for students. He stated that takes advantage of this opportunity to meet with him after class (trans. 90). Additionally, Mr. communicates with ’s on a daily basis.

Mr. stated that ’s organizational and processing issues have improved dramatically, and that he is able to process information more efficiently, as he has been provided with the framework to organize information (trans. 92). In conclusion the witness stated that is an appropriate placement for and that there are many children with similar issues to his. He stated that is able to self advocate, which indicates real progress and that with the strategies that he was taught to implement, he has been much more successful.

Upon cross examination, the witness stated that is a student with a and attends the to provide him with additional opportunity and guidance to practice the strategies that he has been given in school. He strongly advocated a continuation of the Jump Start program as it has real value.

The next witness to testify was , who testified after being duly sworn that he is the and that he founded the school in 1969. He received his formal education at and has various degrees in . He described the mission statement of Prep. School as “offering an environment of compassion, warmth, structure, and a small classroom that would provide success and opportunity to his students”. (trans. 104).

The witness stated that his experience indicated that some students are better at some subjects than other students and that the school implemented “ ”. Although the small class would have some sort of commonality in terms of grade achievement, ideally the school tries to foster an environment wherein if the student worked that they could be successful and in order to do that, they need to be “tracked”. More particularly, if a child was strong and could take the challenge that he or she would do well, and if they were weak in an area of study, that they would be supported and move up in tracks. Typically, as the year progressed, the higher tracks would in fact get larger (trans. 105).

The witness stated that he was on the admissions committee and knew . He recalled that his and that his (trans. 107). He stated that a child like required extra time, extra help; however with learning strategies to overcome issues and the right support, he could become successful (trans. 108).

Mr. stated that although students have IEP’s a greater emphasis is based upon the evaluations which are more helpful as they are more concrete (trans. 108). He described the school as having and that approximately of them are in , all of whom have profiles and or IEP’s. (trans. 108).

The witness described the multiprong attack on children with wherein the school emphasizes collaboration and prides itself on being an school. Additionally, the school will provide the least restrictive environment to assist children who have to work in a mainstream school (trans. 109).

Mr. stated the “ began in 1977 and that Jump Start Teachers are Certified Special Education Teachers who meet their groups which range from 10 to 12 students in the morning before school starts and in the afternoon when classes end. (trans. 110). Additionally, twice a week the children are pulled out of non academic subjects, as there are double periods of music, drama, physical education and art so that one of these periods may be utilized for a one on one session with a (trans. 111).

At the end of each week, the parents receive “ ” which is an open grade book, wherein they can see every quiz, homework, grade and comments from the child’s teacher (trans. 111). Additionally, the teacher is able to see other teacher’s comments and will act, mentor or advocate as necessary, to ensure and effectuate that the child is learning (trans. 112). Disorganized students are channeled to being organized through the use of and his feedback is that the parents, teachers and students love the program. The witness further stated that the goal of tracking is to move children up, just as the goal of jumpstart is to eventually move the child out of (trans. 118). He discussed former students who participated in and were accepted to Harvard and Johns Hopkins. He described as “almost a poster child for this type of dynamic” meaning a bright boy who has not achieved success. (trans. 119).

Mr. described “scaffolding” as building on information in an organized and structured way with repetition, chunking, breaking pieces of knowledge into small management pieces and that these techniques become engrained in the schools culture (trans. 123). He reiterated that the school is not a special education school but rather an school which should be the model of the future (trans. 124).

The last witness to testify was who stated that she is a teacher in her first year at and previously taught for three years at a school in . She is a Teacher and possesses a Masters Degree in Science from Indiana University and has a Masters in General and Special Education from Touro College. She also has a license as a New York State Special Ed Teacher.

Ms. stated that is a member of her class. She described the tracking system at which is a three track system, wherein track three is the lowest and mostly comprised of students with (trans. 130). The witness described ’s deficits as having difficulty processing information quickly and accurately; also that he has difficulties with organizational skills (trans. 131).

The witness stated that she is able to address his deficits and utilizes much repetition in his classroom. She described a lot of redirecting and refocusing of ’s attention so that he is on task at all times. Additionally, he row, and that when she sees him , she calls on him to make sure he . (trans. 131).

At other times, she stands at ’s desk in order to redirect or refocus him and that he benefits from same. The witness also provides with “guided notes” so that he does not have to , which takes the emphasis off getting the notes written down on paper versus what is being understood. (trans. 134). Guided notes are generally typewritten, wherein the child just has to fill in certain blanks. She believed that greatly benefits by utilizing this process as he can visualize and then write it down versus having to hear it and then copy it (trans. 135).

Vocabulary lists are put on colored paper with two columns so that they can stand out in the child’s binder. Additionally, the words are chunked by topic; as an example the witness stated that she is teaching the food unit so that all of the breakfast words are chunked together (trans. 138). She also utilizes scaffolding so that the child understands basic vocabulary before moving on to learning new things.

Ms. stated that she that is available by appointment and after school until 4:00 PM and at other times during the day. (trans. 140).

In conclusion, the witness stated that has made a lot of academic progress since the beginning of the school year, and that the most important thing is that when he recognizes he doesn’t understand a topic he is able to (trans. 140). She also stated that he is a new student and has made friends and becoming more social (trans. 141). ’s homework assignments at the beginning of the year were not complete; however he has progressed and does know if there is a question he can ask and get assistance.

The witness described as a student centered school, wherein there is focus on the individual needs of the student. There are smaller class sizes with a tracking system so that the child gets individualized attention which would help him progress (trans. 142).

FINDING OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A central purpose of the IDEA is to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE (20 US;C. 1400 [d) [1]; Board of Educ. v. Rowley. 458 U.S. 176, 179-181, 200-01. FAPE includes special education and related services designed to meet the student's, unique, needs, provided in conformity with a comprehensive written IEP (20 U.S.C.1401 [9] [D]; 34, RCNY 300.17. A board of education may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private educational services obtained for a student by his or her parent; if the services by the parent were appropriate and equitable considerations support the parent's claim (School. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep 't of Education, 471 U.S. 359 [1985]; Florence County School. District Four v, Carter, 510 D'S. 7 [1985]). The first step is to determine whether the district offered to provide a FAPE to the student. FAPE is offered to a student when(a) the board of education complies with the procedural requirements in the IDEA, and (b) the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Rowley at 206-07). Under the IDEA, if a procedural violation is alleged, an administrative officer may find that a child did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a) impeded the child's right to FAPE, (b) significantly impede the parents opportunity to participate in the decision making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the child, or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits (20 U.S.C 1415 [f] [3] [E] [iii].

An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student's. needs, establishes .annual goals related .to those needs. (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-008, Application of the Ed. of Educ., Appeal No. 06-076). The IDEA. "expresses a strong preference for children with disabilities to be educated to the maximum extent, appropriate with their non disabled peers" See Walczak v. Union Free Sch. Dist.; 142F.3d 119, 122 (2ndCir. 1998).A FAPE must be provided to a child with disabilities in the "least restrictive setting consistent with the child's needs (see Perricelli v. Carmel Cent School. Dist., 2007 WL 465211, at 10* [S;D.N.Y. Feb. 9,2007], citing Walczak. 2 F.3d at 122).

In determining an appropriate placement in the LRE, the IDEA requires that .children with disabilities be educated to the maximum extent appropriate with children who are disabled and ·that special classes, separate schooling or other removal of children" with. disabilities from the regular educational environment may occur only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily (20 U.S.C.1412 [a][5][5J [AJ; 8 NYCRR 200.6 [a] [1];see also Bay Shore Union Free School. Dist. T. 0SF.Supp. 2d 230, 239-40 (E.D.N.Y. 2005.) In determining whether a student can be educated in regular classes, it is not necessary to establish that the student will learn at the same rate, or master as much of the regular education curriculum as his or her disabled peers (Daniel R.R. v. State Bd. of Educ .. 874 F.2d 1036. 1044 [5th Cir, I]. The fact that a student with a disability might make greater academic progress in a special education class may not warrant excluding the student from a regular education program (Oberti v .Bd of Educ 995 F. 1204, J213 [3rd Cir. 1993]).

The Daniel R.R Oberti test for determining whether a school district has complied with the LRE requirement consists of two prongs: 1) whether the student can be educated in a general education class with the aid of supplemental aids and services; and

2) whether the school district has mainstreamed the student to the maximum extent appropriate (Daniel R.R. at 1048). In determining whether a student with a disability can be educated satisfactorily in a regular class with supplemental aids and services, several factors should be considered including: 1) whether the school district has been reasonable in trying to accommodate the child in a regular classroom; 2) the educational benefits available to the child in a regular class, with appropriate supplementary aids and services, as compared to the benefits provided in a special education class and 3)the possible negative effects of the inclusion of the child on the education of the other students in the class (Oberti, at 121-128).

The CSE must a also consider the unique benefits, academic and otherwise, which a student may receive by remaining in regular classes, e.g. language and role modeling with no disabled peers (Geer v. Rome City School, Dist., 950 F.2d 688 [11th Cir, 1991]). In order for this hearing officer to determine whether the District provided a FAPE, it is necessary to review the composition of the IEP Committee. An IEP prepared by an invalidly composed CSE is a nullity, and the school district cannot meet its burden of that its recommended program was Application. of a Child with a Disability. Appeal No. 01'096).

I agree with Parent’s counsel that when the Department concedes prong one, that it well settled law that the Department should be precluded from asserting a defense that the Parent’s claim should be barred if equitable considerations do not favor the Parent. (M.H. and E.K. v. NYC Department of Education, reported at 2010 U.S. LEXIS 45400, S.D. of New .)

However, in this case, if I were to make a determination as to whether the Parent was cooperative with the Department as it relates to the requests for evaluations and placement of and if there are any equitable considerations that would be a bar to an award supporting the Parent, I find that the Parent was cooperative.

The Board of Education may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private educational services, obtained for students by his or her parents, if the services offered by the Board of Education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the Parent were appropriate and equitable considerations support the parent’s claim (Florence County School District No 4 v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]’ School Commissioner of Burlington v. Department of Education , 471 U.S. 359, 369-70.

As principle relief, the parent is requesting an order, directing that the Department pay for tuition and for the “ at the . The Department is seeking that an order be issued that only the portion of the tuition be paid as it is the program that relates specifically to the child’s disabilities. The Parent’s attorney maintained that has slow processing issues and other organizational deficits. Additionally, there is no dispute that suffers from a and that the Parent is in agreement with the Department’s classification of same.

After hearing all the evidence, including testimony from and two classroom teachers, I find that is an appropriate placement for . is an school with approximately 110 students out of 350 students with IEP’s. The typically has ten to twelve students and meets twice a day in the mornings and afternoons and twice a week individually. The headmaster also described a seamless integration between the jump start programs, the classrooms and all teachers. The acts as a point person in assisting the child with throughout the school. Mr. described the tracking system, small classes and particularly how the small classes and tracking system is beneficial for a child like with a .

The evidence described the and how its value was profound for children with organizational deficits such as , as it allows the Parents to remain informed as to their child’s education as well as the progress or lack thereof.

, the described how she works with in great detail to help him with his organizational deficit including binders, planners, and homework folders and how she individualized them for each child. There was testimony from all the witness about the use of graphic organizers, chunking and scaffolding in order to break down and build time learning materials.

The evidence established that is allowed to use a laptop at school and receives extended time for test taking. It is uncontroverted that has made progress and that his grades have gone up. Additionally, he has made progress and has become somewhat of a

As stated above, I agree with Parent’s counsel the equities in the instant case favor the Parent. The father’s testimony was credible that although he executed a contract for enrollment at the prior to the IEP meeting, it was to secure a placement for his child. He was ready, willing and able to send his child to a public school if the appropriate program was offered. The parent participated in the CSE meeting and freely exchanged information and produced documents requested. I also find that he made reasonable efforts to investigate the recommended placement and find his testimony to be credible that there was an economic benefit from paying the tuition in full at an earlier time.

In conclusion, the evidence demonstrated that the had awareness of s needs and provided an individually tailored program to meet his and with an appropriate class grouping, an appropriate class size/staffing ratio, a close range of chronological age and academic functioning, use of and hands on approaches and a highly individualized plan to meet the child’s needs. The evidence established that there was considerable progress made by and that the placement at appropriate as the child has made meaningful educational progress.

Accordingly, based on the weight of the credible evidence, I find that the Parents have met their burden with respect to prong two of the , that the program they have provided for is uniquely devised to address his need in the and therefore appropriate under IDEA. The Department’s position that the Parent had predetermined that he would not send his child to a public school was successfully rebutted by Mr. . Accordingly, I find that the Parent has prevailed with respect to analysis, although Justice in her decision in the Matter of M.H. and E.K. v. NYC Board of Education finds that same is no longer necessary and award full reimbursement for the for tuition and for the Dated: May 4, 2011

_______________________

GARY D. PETERS. ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

GDP:jj

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

Within 35 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the New City Department of Education has a right to appeal the decision to the State Review Officer of the New 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 NOVEMBER 18, 2010

PARENT

A Psycho Educational Evaluation Update, 6/14/09, 7 pp. B IEP, 5/19/10, 10 pp. C Parent Letter to School, 6/4/10, 3 pp. D Parent letter to Committee on Special Education, 7/6/10, 1 p. E Final Notice of Recommendation, 7/27/10, 1 p. F Parent Letter to CSE, 8/23/10, 3 pp. G Impartial Hearing Request, 9/10/10, 5 pp. H School 1st Quarter Academic Report, 10/29/10, 1 p. I Proof of Payment, 2/5/10, 3 pp. J Student Enrollment Contract, 3/16/10, 3 pp. K Diagnostic Evaluation Proof of Payment, 4/22/10, 1 p. L 2nd Quarter Report Card, 1/6/11, 1 p. M Proof of Payment for , 5/3/10, 1 p.