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 22, 2010

January 24, 2010

March 14, 2011 Hearing Officer:

CORRECTED

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED NOVEMBER 22, 2010

-, — Student

Student

Student

DOE

DOE

(via telephone) — DOE

School (via telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JANUARY 24, 2011

-, — Student

Parents

Parents

School (via telephone) — Student

School of School (via telephone) — Student

DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED MARCH 14, 2011

-, — Student

Parents

Parents

DOE

This matter came before me on September 22, November 22, 2010 and January 24, March 14, 2011, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(1). The parents’ request was dated September 16, 2010. The compliance date was extended after each hearing day and for post –hearing submissions. The record closed April 1, 2011. Appended to the record are lists of persons in attendance and of documents submitted into evidence.

BACKGROUND

The student ( ) is a year old , who is classified as and he attends a - school. The Committee on Special Education (CSE) convened a CSE review on April 20, 2010; they recommended a class in a school, with a staffing ratio of , 10 month school year and related services. The services recommended were and , each to be provided 2x30:1 and 1x30:2. The student is in the grade.

The parents requested this hearing (1) to challenge the alleged failure of the CSE to provide their with a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE) for the 2010-2011 school year and (2) to seek tuition reimbursement for the unilateral placement of their at the School.

THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S CASE

The Department of Education’s (DOE) case was presented by , on the second hearing day and for the remainder of the hearing procedure by , , they presented their case through testimonial and documentary evidence.

The DOE’s first witness, , testified that he has dual certification by New York State, to teach general and special education, grades through . He has taught two years as a at a school for children before coming to his current school, . This is his position as a Education . He teaches a , class covering the and grades; he teaches the proposed class recommended for the student. He noted that he has a veteran as his , with whom he meets with weekly, for four to five hours. (Tr. 16-17 and 19-21) The noted that his only familiarity with is based solely on a review of the student’s current IEP. (Tr. At 22)

He recalled that during the first week of school in September, 2010, he had only one student with and , who is a certified elementary general education . Currently, he has students; a year old grader and year old graders. Also, he has a , bringing the total class to four and students. The grader is performing at a grade reading level and a level in math. The two graders are performing at a mid-grade level in reading and math. One student is classified as and the other students are . In the classroom, he uses varied teaching methodologies, including differentiated instruction, direct instruction, a lot of repetition, manipulatives, modeling and scaffolded instruction. He noted that he used assessment, Slosson Math Diagnostic and the Quality of Reading Inventory. (Tr. 24-26 and 27-29)

He described a typical day at the school and stated that the class together. He is available to students and parents on a school day usually to at least 5PM. He referenced the student’s IEP; he stated that the student’s academic performance, academic management needs and social/emotional performance are similar to his students. He is addressing those needs with his current students and employs many of the recommended instructional supports, as noted on ’s IEP. (Tr. 31-33) He discussed in detail exactly how he would address the student’s educational and social/emotional needs. The related services recommended were readily available at his school on a push in/ pull out basis. In addition, mainstreaming opportunities are part of his curriculum, several times a week. His students attend a few classes with general education students, as well as lunch and recess. He opined that the student would have fit in his class and his educational needs would have been met. (Tr. 31-34; 36-38 and 39- 40)

During cross-examination, he acknowledged that he received his Masters in Education in May, 2010. He described the substance of the courses that he studied in the Masters program. (Tr. 43-46) He reviewed the student’s IEP, acknowledged that it lacked testing information, only ’ observations, no other evaluative data. (Tr. 5557; Exh. 2) The class profile indicates all students ( ) were functioning intellectual ability; he explained that he meant they were all grade level. Also, all students had modified criteria for promotion, one had double time and the other had time and a half. And all required questions and directions to be read and reread. of the students had to meet 60% of the criteria and the student had to meet the whole curriculum. He reviewed IEP which indicated standard criteria for the grade. (Tr. 55-57; 58-59 and 60-61) (Exhs. 2 and 13)

testified that she is a New York State certified school ; she has worked for the DOE since January, 1997. Some of her duties require her to assess students, interpret outside assessments, conduct observations and participate at IEP meetings. She stated that her familiarity with the student relates back to participating in his IEP meetings in 2009 and 2010 as well as conducting a classroom observation of him. She participated in the April, 2010 IEP meeting as a school ; she identified the other participants. All of the participants remained for the full hour of the meeting. Prior to the meeting, she received the School mid-year report from the parent. In addition, there was a classroom observation and the child’s file was reviewed. She discussed the CSE’s recommendations and explained in detail how the recommendations were targeted to address his weaknesses and buttress his strengths. She reviewed the goals, identified the targeted deficit and explained how the goal addressed that weakness and opined that all the goals were measurable. (Tr. 87-89; 9092 and 96-98) (Exh. 2)

Next, she discussed the other types of program recommendations that the team considered, starting with the and explained why each program considered, such as general education with supports and a was not a good fit. The School was considered; it was rejected because it was “far too ,” the student has no access to the general education population. In addition, it is a for-profit entity and not state approved. (Tr. At 100) The parents fully participated at the IEP meeting; they requested that certain goals be included to address reading, punctuation and social-emotional functioning. The parents also had input regarding the related services goals as well as the academic goals. The parents’ only concern was that the proposed class only had one certified special education and a as opposed to . The parents did not raise any objection to there not being a present. The parents did not indicate that they had entered into a contract with the School. The School participated by providing information regarding the student’s academic levels and made recommendations. The parents did not request that any evaluations be done and posed no objection to using observations under Academic Performance and Learning Characteristics. (Tr. 99-101; 102-103 and 104-105) (Exh. 2)

On cross-examination, she acknowledged that the three pages drafted prior to the meeting and page from the previous IEP were not provided to the parents or to the School participants; the pages were read to them. Both had access to page from the previous IEP. Moreover, she noted that the evaluative material used was derived from a classroom observation conducted by Ms. , on October 28, 2009 and from his . The observation was done during an art class, the observer was not able to obtain any information regarding his reading and math capabilities. However, the school noted that the CSE prior to the meeting reviewed a evaluation from June, 2008, that was conducted over several days. She reviewed the entire report and was able to get information on his cognitive functioning. His scores in testing revealed a wide variability, indicative of his . She discussed the significance in the scores and the recommendations; she viewed the recommendations as another perspective. (Tr. 107-110; 111-114 and 115-116) (Exhs. 2, 9 and 11)

The school stated a parent member is required for a full committee team, not for a subcommittee team. There was no waiver presented to the parent and no discussion regarding a parent member. The April 20, 2010 meeting was an annual review, therefore it was a subcommittee. The IEP reads CSE Review, it does not delineate full committee versus subcommittee. All members attended the meeting except the parent member. (Tr. 120-123, Exh. 2) She acknowledged that at one point, in previous years, the CSE recommended a deferral to CBST for a education school, in a state approved school. However, she testified that his current level of functioning and his areas of disability do not now warrant him to be educated without typically developing peers. (Tr. 127-128)

THE PARENTS’ CASE

The parents’ case was presented by - - , , through testimonial and documentary evidence.

, testified that she is the , for the student’s grade class at the School. She is certified by New York State to teach general and special education and has approximately thirteen years teaching experience. As , her responsibilities include planning and implementing lessons with her curriculum , other classroom and the team. She stated her class has students and two other , . The students range from about to a grade level academically and socially; their ages are and . Their reading and math levels range from a to a grade level; writing skills range from a to a level. ( Tr. 164-165 and 167-169) Reading and math instruction is done in small groups, using a multisensory approach. The children are grouped based on the student’s individual functional skill level, both academically and socially. In her class, there are to different reading and math groups. The School provides and , as well as . (Tr.172-174)

The School program uses a multisensory approach and focuses on targeting the individual needs of each of its students. The class size is no larger than and then after whole class instruction, the children are grouped based on their individuals skill levels. The recalled that her initial introduction to the student was last year, when he signed up for an after school program called . There are several school offered to assist students academically and socially. In addition, at the end of every school year, each writes a report on their students, which is maintained as an internal document and forwarded to the for the current year. After reviewing the report, the new meets with the previous to discuss strategies that were used and which ones worked. Also, they discuss the child’s future needs and the same type of meeting is held with the related service providers.(Tr. 176-178)

Based on those meetings, she found the student to be friendly, but, very shy. He requires lots of facilitation to assist him in academically and socially. He is very critical of his own performance and needs support to boost his self esteem and to help him to follow through on an idea, comment or social interaction. The student is very sensitive to and will retreat when a level is difficult for him to handle. She noted that at lunch there are no more than students in the lunchroom at anytime and that is the largest group he ever has to contend with at school. When the level is more than he can , he puts his down, and when a approaches him, he will say that it’s too . The will then flick the lights or do something else to get the level lowered so that the student is comfortable. The student fits well in her class because the other students have similar challenges academically and socially. (Tr. 180-184)

The stated that the student currently is reading and decoding at a grade level. His reading comprehension is about a grade level. Math is one of his greatest areas of deficit since there are many rules with math and concepts that you learn and then move on to another set of rules and concepts, not related to the former set. He has with retention. His math level is about a grade level and his writing is approaching grade. Another significant weakness is his inability to express himself properly or clearly. The student needs a small structured environment with constant support and he needs an environment with good role models. Presently, he is in the middle of his class, there are students who are more advanced than him academically and socially, which helps to motivate him. On the other hand, there are students who are on his level; they require the same the same type of support. The student struggles with attention issues, he sometimes has internal . Another area of concern, are his organizational and spelling deficits.(Tr. 186-188)Some of the materials and methods used to instruct him are a Smart Board, , previewing lessons and repetition.(Tr. 190193)

The student has shown progress in several areas; he is able to better for . His reading skills have improved as well as his spelling. He is making progress in math. In general, he is progressing and his confidence is growing. (Tr. 199-200) Ms. stated that the student’s progress and challenges are discussed at their weekly team meetings. Also, every two weeks the meet with therapists so that everyone who works with the student is able to discuss their observations, plans and strategies. She discussed in detail what each therapist was working on with the student. (Tr. 199-200 and 203-205)

On cross examination, she stated that the and meet every other Thursday and that all the therapists are full time. (Tr. 229-230) She stated that she reviews the student IEP and follows it. She also, has her own system of planning for the student and does ongoing assessments of his work. There are several parent- conferences every year and there are progress reports to communicate to the parents on their child’s progress. (Tr. 234-236; Exh. 2)

On re-direct examination, she discussed the goals that she developed in social studies, arts, writing, social functioning and study skills. She started that the student made progress in all of the aforementioned areas. (Tr. 239-240) More specifically, she noted that comparing his skill levels from last year to this year, he improved in decoding from to She opined that some of the goals as written on his IEP were vague and inappropriate. (Tr. At 243 and 246- 249) (Exh. 2) subsequently, when she was queried again by opposing counseling, she stated that the student’s reading comprehension remained unchanged from the prior year. However, his writing had been at and now was at his math computation previously was at and now was (Tr. 251-252)

The parents’ next witness, testified that she is the of the School and has 35 years experience in the field of special education. She started the program in 2002 and is involved in every aspect of the program, from organizing the space, selecting the furniture, hiring the and the curriculum. The school’s population consists of students, from through grade. Next year the school will add a grade and will progress to eighth grade. Typically, there are two classes for each grade, up to students per class with one Masters- degree in special education and an assistant , who is working on their Masters. The students, who are accepted at her school, are cognitively average or better and have the potential to learn. They need a small, structured, multisensory approach with support. (Tr. 255-257)

There are mainstreaming opportunities in the grade through their integrative program with another , general education school. Her students go to the other school for one and a half hours and vice versa, the students socially interact and play games. Some of the school’s goals are to promote independence and to develop the ability of the students to better interact in a large social network. A large portion of the population is . The program offers a based approach to teaching.(Tr. 259261)

She explained the admissions process in detail and noted that services are provided on a push in/pull out basis. Each class has a , Smart Boards and in the grade, each student has a computer. (Tr. 262-264)She opined that the student was a good fit because his profile mirrors other student at her school. He is a friendly child who has and and needs work on his pragmatics as well as handling larger social gatherings. (Tr. At 268)

When queried by the DOE’s regarding tuition and payments, Ms. stated payments are usually done in four payments. The installments start in February, a non-refundable $ deposit is required to hold a seat for the student. The the next three payments are made in May, August and December and each payment is one-third of the remaining balance. The tuition for this year was approximately $ and the parents have paid it in full for the current school year. If the school is notified by May 15th that the parents have accepted a public school placement, the parents are entitled to get 50% of the May payment returned to them. If the parents notify them after the 15th, payment depends on if the seat is filled. In any event, the school will not pursue any additional tuition payments. She stated that the outcome of this impartial hearing was not going to affect in any way the tuition or agreement between the parents and the school.(Tr. 278-281 and 283-285)

The testified that in the student’s year of pre-K, he started exhibiting developmental issues. He had problems recognizing his boundaries, his place in space. Oftentimes, he would lean against someone/wall to be upright. He had troubles manipulating his fingers to paint, draw or write. His memory was faulty, he couldn’t remember classmate and names without prompting and he had difficulty with tasks that required sequencing. The parents had him evaluated and started services for him. The student attended public school in a general education placement, for and grade. She spoke with the regarding her and was told his age grow out of those issues. His magnified in the grade, the grade informed her that the student required more individual attention than she could provide in a class of 20 plus students. (Tr. 296-298 and at 300)

The requested that be evaluated and an IEP meeting was conducted in January, 2008, when he was in grade year. The CSE classified him as recommended a non-public school placement and deferred the matter to the CBST, for his grade placement. , the school , who tested him and participated at the initial CSE meeting, recommended the School and The School accepted him; after school started two state approved schools contacted the family for a visit. However, both schools were too restrictive. One school only had a twelve month program, the student was not recommended for an extended school year. The second school had only a placement; the student was recommended for a placement. The parents researched approved state schools, but, they concluded the schools were inappropriate since those schools’ programs were inclusive of students. (Tr. 302-304 and 305307)

The stated that she attended the April 21st, 2010 IEP meeting and identified her signature on the IEP. The CSE recommended a placement in a school and continued the related services. The matter was deferred to CBST for placement. She recalled that the school and special education directed the dialogue from prepared sheets containing goals and objectives from his school. She did not think that the school participants remained on the telephone long enough to hear the program recommendation. She recalled having a lengthy conversation after they hung up, regarding clarification on the class. She objected to the program and stated he needed special education in the class with students. There was no parent member at the CSE and no related service providers at the meeting. The and goals were read off the prepared sheets; neither the parents nor telephone participants had a copy of the sheets. (Tr. 308-310 and 314-316)

In mid-August, 2010, a notice of placement for arrived, she visited the school. She met with the parent representative and Mr. , the for the proposed class. She found the placement to be inappropriate for several reasons, which was detailed in a letter to the CSE Chairperson. The recommended class had a ratio; the building has two schools, approximately students and has no . The class was mainstreamed into a much larger class ( students) for music, lunch and gym. There was limited opportunity for her to model since one student was two years behind him academically and socially. The student has and needs an environment that requires minimal sensory input, he needs to learn how to cope with his own sensory needs. He would not be able to negotiate such a and the constant from a class of o mainstreamed classes with students or more. Also, the student has , and tires ; he would not be able to and several of , to reach the gym on the floor and back down to the classroom. The is inadequate, lacks a sensory gym and is a makeshift gym, the related service providers are part time and are shared with the general education population. The school is a hour away, not a zoned school and offers minimal social interaction opportunity. In addition, the art and music class is taught by a general education , who are not trained to deal with special education students’ needs.(Tr. 319-320; 323-325 and 327-329) (Exh. J) There was no response from the CSE or anyone from the school to her letter. (Tr. At 330)

The testified that her is making slow and steady progress, he is able to read on a grade level; his self-esteem has improved. He is comfortable at his school and has made friends. His offer the necessary support to help him and to for . The provide the parents with monthly reports, so they know what he is working on and how to assist him at . The tuition for the School is $ .and has been paid in full for the current school year. (Tr.331-332)

On cross-examination, the acknowledged that she had attended three IEP meetings and that no was at any of those meetings. She admitted that she did not raise the issue of a parent member at any of the meetings, despite knowing that she was entitled to have said member present. Also, the failure of the CSE to have a at the IEP meetings was raised in each hearing request. She conceded that at no point during the IEP meeting did she request a copy of the prepared document with the goals and objectives nor did she request that additional reports/evaluations be conducted. (Tr. 339-341 and 344-345) The parent acknowledged that by the April, 2010 IEP meeting, she had paid a $ deposit to the school and continued making installment payments as scheduled. The parents did not inform the CSE of the payment made prior to the IEP April meeting. (Tr. 355-356)

The student demonstrated progress in most areas, his ability to decode and recognition of words improved. He has become more fluent with word endings and beginnings. In math he was able to improve his computation skills and monetary skills. His handwriting skills improved as did his grasp to hold writing utensils. The biggest area of improvement is in reading, he is able to pick up a book to read just for pleasure. The attributed the progress made due to the integrated approach used at his school. Everyone who works with the child meets every two weeks, including all the , therapists, and library members of his team. (Tr. at 379; 390-391) (Exh.

H) The recalled during her visit to the proposed school that Mr. accompanied his class to chorus and remained with them, except to step out to talk to her. (Tr. at 395)

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

The purpose behind the IDEA (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 - 1487) is to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education (FAPE) (20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]). A FAPE consists of special education and related services designed to meet the student's unique needs, provided in conformity with a comprehensive written individualized educational program. The board of education bears the burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of the program recommended by its CSE (M.S. v. Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 102 [2d Cir. 2000], cert. denied, 532 U.S. 942 [2001]; Walczak v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 122 [2d Cir. 1998]; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-043).

An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP which accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student's needs, establishes annual goals and short-term instructional objectives related to those needs, and provides for the use of appropriate special education services (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-046; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-014; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 93-9). Federal regulation requires that an IEP include a statement of the student's present levels of educational performance, including a description of how the student's disability affects his or her progress in the general curriculum (34 C.F.R. § 300.347[a][1]; see also 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]). School districts may use a variety of assessment techniques such as criterion-referenced tests, standard achievement tests, diagnostic tests, other tests, or any combination thereof to determine the student's present levels of performance and areas of need (34 C.F.R. Part 300, Appendix A, Section 1, Question 1). If a student’s behavior impedes his or her learning or the learning of others, the CSE must “consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports, and other strategies, to address that behavior” when developing,, reviewing and revising an IEP ( 20 U.S.C. §1414[d][[3][B][i]; see 34C.F.R. §300.324[a][2][i]; 8 NYCRR [d][3][i]).

The burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing challenging the IEP is on the party seeking relief. Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S.Ct 528,537[2005] In New York, it is the local educational agency (the DOE) that has the burden to establish that it appropriately ascertained the child’s educational needs and prepared an IEP in accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of federal and New York State Regulations.

While both the Supreme Court and Congress place great importance on the procedural provisions of the IDEA (Bd. Of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 US 176, at 205[“the importance Congress attached to these procedural safeguards cannot be gainsaid”]), nevertheless, adequate compliance with the procedures prescribed [by the IDEA] would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP” (Rowley, 458 US at 206; M.S. v. Bd. Of Educ. of the City of Yonkers, 231 F.3d at 102).Still, the initial procedural inquiry is no mere formality (Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 129[2d Cir. 1998]) These detailed procedures “lie at the heart” of the statute ( Evans v. Bd. Of Educ. of the Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 930F. Supp.83, 93 [S.D.N.Y. 1966]) They are not mere procedural hoops through which Congress intended state and local educational agencies to jump, rather the procedures are themselves a safeguard against arbitrary or erroneous decision making (Daniel R.R. v. State Bd. Of Educ., 874 F.2d 1036, 1041 [5th Cir. 1989]; Engwiller v. Pine Plains Cent. Sch. Dist., 110 F. Supp. 2d 236, 24 [S.D.N.Y. 2000]; Evans, 930 F.Supp. at 93).

I have reviewed all the testimonial and documentary evidence entered into the record. The record reveals the student required a small, supportive specialized education placement, within a small classroom, with strong role models ( Tr. at 187;Exh.11) The CSE recommended a , class in a school. However, the class recommended and what materialized is contrary to the IEP recommendation. The proposed class, in fact, has a ratio , which is far too restrictive. The parties agree a small class of students is required; they disagree on whether the class should have one or education . Also, the students are functioning academically below . The grader is functioning on a grade and level in reading and math. The graders are functioning on a - grade level in reading and math. The class profile indicates all students are ability and one student’s intellectual functioning is from the other students. He exhibits much lower expressive and receptive abilities.(Exh. 13) The school’s class consist of students, and an ; his reading and math skills are, respectively, and His classmates academic skills range from 2.5 – grade level. His academic and social skills place him in the middle of his current class, offering students to model. (Tr. 184-185 and 187- 188) Based on the foregoing, I find that in this case, the Department of Education has not satisfied its burden of establishing that its recommended placement is appropriate and reasonably calculated to confer an educational benefit.

Having determined that the DOE has failed to provide the student with a FAPE for the 2010-2011 school year under the Burlington/Carter test, I must consider the program selected by the parents. The student has progressed across the board academically. He is socially and emotionally comfortable in his current placement and has made progress in those areas as attested to by his , and documentary evidence. (Tr. 198-200; 330-331 and 379-380.(Exh. H) Accordingly, I find that the parents have met their burden of showing that the services obtained for their addressed his special education needs. Also, it should be noted that the DOE argues that the School is not eligible for tuition reimbursement because it is a private for profit school; the DOE’s argument is without merit. Courts have consistently found that a school’s for profit status is not an impediment to tuition reimbursement under IDEA. A.D. and M.D. v. the Board of Education of the city School District of New York, 690 F.Supp. 2d 193, 215.See Forest Grove, 129S.Ct. at 2493.

The final criterion is whether equitable considerations favor the parent, in this case it does. The parents cooperated with the CSE and nothing in the record would prevent the parents from receiving tuition reimbursement, upon reasonable proof of payment.

ORDER

The Department of Education shall reimburse the parents for tuition paid at the School for the 2010-2011 school year, upon reasonable proof of payment. Dated: April 8, 2011

Corrected Date: May 11, 2011 (corrections made to Parent’s evidence)

_________________________

Impartial Hearing Officer

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

PARENT

A Notice of Unilateral Placement, 8/24/10, 2 pp. B and Plan, 10/10, 2 pp. C , 10/10, 1 p. D , 10/10, 1 p. E Fall Report, 10/10, 8 pp. F Parent Reponse to 8/6/11 FNR, 8/11/10, 1 p. G Parent Letter Re: School Visit to , 9/15/10, 2 pp.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

1 Hearing Request, 9/16/10, 5 pp. 2 IEP, 4/20/10, 16 pp. 3 IEP Minutes, 4/20/10, 1 p. 4 Notice of IEP Meeting, 3/25/10, 1 p. 5 Notice of Deferred Placement, 4/20/10, 1 p. 6 Therapy Evaluation Report, 1/2/08, 5 pp.\ 7 School Midyear Report, 2/10, 10 pp. 8 Evaluation, 11/14/10, 7 pp. 9 Classroom Observation, 10/28/09, 2 pp. 10 Social History Report, 10/19/07, 3 pp. 11 Evaluation, 6/5/10, 14 pp. 12 Final Notice of Recommendation PS 212, 8/6/10, 1 p. 13 Class Profile, 2010-201, 3 pp.