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: August 13, 2010
November 19, 2010
December 6, 2010
December 23, 2010
Hearing Officer:
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON AUGUST 13, 2010
for — Parents
for Parent DOE representative — Parents
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON NOVEMBER 19, 2010
for — Parents
for Parent DOE representative of, Department (via telephone), Department (via telephone) — Parents
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON DECEMBER 6, 2010
for — Parents
for Parent — Parents
DOE representative, Department (via telephone), Department (via telephone) — Parents
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON DECEMBER 23, 2010
for — Parents
for Parent (via telephone) DOE representative of Special Education, Department (via — Parents telephone), Department (via telephone)
PARENT’S POSITION
The parent contends that the New York City Department of Education (hereinafter referred to as “Department”), has failed to offer the student an appropriate educational placement/program for both 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years. The parent contends that the recommended placement was not only offered seven months after the Individualized Education Program (IEP) was issued but that the recommended program was never implemented and was not appropriate to meet the needs of this student. The parent further argues that the offers the student with an appropriate education and that the weighing of the equities favors the parent.
The parent argues that the IEP was inadequate and did not contain meaningful and measurable goals. It fails to provide an effective program of services to meet the student’s social, emotional and needs. The IEP does not provide for parent training and . It references an and ( ), both of which were not developed with parent input. The program offered to the student was not reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit.
Thus, as to relief sought, the parent seeks placement at the ,a new, properly developed IEP inclusive of specialized reading instruction, measurable goals and an increase in the duration and frequency of both the and therapies, and services be provided by a certified instructor and of and . The parent also seeks compensatory education in the form corrective special education instructional services, additional sessions, additional and / sessions, additional , parent and training and education with an
DEPARTMENT’S POSITION
The department argues that the student’s program and school placement are appropriate for free appropriate public education (FAPE) purposes. The student would have been appropriately placed in the proposed program of general education with special education ( ). Initially, there was no site offer but the parent was offered a Nickerson Letter.
The department further argues that an appropriate and were developed for the subject student.
Therefore, the relief sought by the parent is not warranted and the parent’s complaint should be denied in its entirety for the subject school year.
The subject IEP of January 12, 2010 classified the student as and a general education class, with five periods per week of , was recommended. The recommended ratio is to be .A school year was recommended. The student was to receive the related services of: thirty periods per week of support; three times per week in fifteen minute sessions, in a group of up to and once a week in a thirty minute session, in a group of up to The student was to participate in state and local assessments with the following accommodations: flexible scheduling and separate location. Evidence presented: On Behalf of the Department;
, of , Department, testified that he did not observe the parent’s name on the visitor’s log (Tr.41). Said witness reviewed the logs from August 19-September 8, 2010 (Tr.41).
On cross examination, said witness testified that he is the of student services (Tr.43). Review of security logs is not part of his job description (Tr.44). Each school has a visitor protocol and he supports the schools in the implementation of such (Tr.44). The department requested his assistance in speaking to at (Tr.45). Said school does not have a (Tr.46). Normally, when a parent comes to the , there is someone at the (Tr.47). It is highly unlikely that a parent could visit the and no one was at the front desk (Tr.47). He does not know if the or work in the summer (Tr.47-48). The school is on during the summer (Tr.48).
On re-direct examination, said witness testified that staff did not return to the building till late August (Tr.49). Between August 19-August 30, 2010, there was no staff and the building was not open (Tr.50).
, , Department, testified that she is the of (Tr.53). The student was offered a placement at at and she does not that program (Tr.54). She is aware of the recommended program (Tr.54-55). Next, she gave a description of the (Tr.55-56). There were similar students with this student’s profile in the program (Tr.56-57). The subject program offered breaks (Tr.57). Concepts could be divided into smaller components (Tr.57). Strategies could be developed to accommodate a student who was overwhelmed (Tr.57). Said program could also address acting out and escape (Tr.58).
Thereafter, said witness testified as to how those would be addressed (Tr.58-59). Testimony was given as to a sensory diet (Tr.59-60). Next, she testified as to how frustration is dealt with (Tr.61-62). A review would be called if the goals needed to be modified (Tr.63). She stated how parents are involved in the program (Tr.63-64). The program has personnel who provide , / and (Tr.64-65). She further testified as to how new would be addressed (Tr.65). Specials, such as art, are provided to the students in the program (Tr.66). She opined that the recommended program was appropriate for this student (Tr.66). The students in the program are in general education for most of the day (Tr.67). The subject student would receive primarily general education academic instruction (Tr.68).
On cross examination, she stated that the grade classes are at and (Tr.69). The classes have more than one grade in them (Tr.71). For homeroom purposes, all of the students with a are grouped together in the homeroom (Tr.72). Any grade class would education students who would be accompanied by a (Tr.73).
Next, she testified as to how is provided to the students (Tr.74-75). An homeroom may have up to students (Tr.76). She was not present at the subject CSE review meeting and has not met the student (Tr.77). She has not met the student’s parents nor spoken with any of the at his current school (Tr.78). She testified as to the documents that she reviewed for this hearing (Tr.78-79). She does not recall reviewing an (Tr.82).
Furthermore, she testified as to the school’s protocol for students (Tr.85-86). The receive ongoing training on working with students (Tr.86-87). She testified as to the training the receive (Tr.87-88). She further testified as to her other responsibilities (Tr.88). This student would have been placed at the site which she does not (Tr.92). Some of the students in the have that are considered (Tr.93). The have been called twice to respond to school s (Tr.94). The has undergone (Tr.95). and is a team effort (Tr.95-96). The school has a who attends to the program (Tr.98). The school assists in the development of the lesson plans (Tr.99). She is not familiar with the background of the subject in regard to her training as to students (Tr.102). Next, she testified as to the data collection that is done (Tr.103).
Thereafter, she testified that the student could read at the grade level which she thought was in one of the psychological reports (Tr.106; 109). None of the students in the class receive remediation from a certified , of which there is one in the (Tr.110; 111). This year, all of the students met promotion criteria in ELA (Tr.113). She does not recall if an was called because of an at the school (Tr.115-116). A team of staff would make the decision as to which class the student would be assigned to (Tr.118). Class profiles are developed for the (Tr.124-125).
On re-direct examination, said witness testified that is a school for students on the , in age from - to years of age (Tr.141). They had the ability to modify the system for any new or additional (Tr.144).
On re-cross examination, said witness testified that she did not participate in the subject CSE review and did not conduct any tests of the student nor develop any for this student (Tr.147).
, School , Department, testified that she is the school at (Tr.155). She testified s to her first contact with the student (Tr.156-157). They complete their evaluations at the school level (Tr.158). She testified that the department never received the outside evaluations (Tr.162). At present, the student has not been at school often and he often would leave the classroom without permission (Tr.162). They attempted to place a into effect (Tr.163).
On cross examination, said witness testified that she has known the student since November of last year (Tr.168). Her initial were for the evaluation process (Tr.168). She has witnessed some of his (Tr.168). She had informal discussions with the student’s , and deans (Tr.168). She did participate in the subject CSE review meeting (Tr.168-169).
Furthermore, she testified that the parent did not complete the with her (Tr.184). The did use positive reinforcement with the student (Tr.186-187). was placed on the subject IEP (Tr.190). The student’s word reading was at level and he is now reading at a grade level (Tr.191-192). His reading comprehension was at level (Tr.192). His computation was at a level and problem solving at level (Tr.196). How often is progress reported is not listed on the subject IEP (Tr.198). Next, she testified as to IEP goals, the lack of end points and who collects the data (Tr.202203).
Moreover, said witness was not involved in the process (Tr.206). There was no manifestation determination (Tr.206). is not an appropriate educational setting (Tr.206). The student does not receive anything listed on the IEP because he is a general education student (Tr.207). The parent was part of the initial part of the (Tr.211). The school is not sure as to what are the students (Tr.214). Next, she testified as to how escape are addressed (Tr.215-216). She felt that once a week was not sufficient for this student (Tr.216-217).
On re-direct examination, said witness testified that she had conversations with the parent about the student’s and developing a (Tr.218). The parent frequently came by to talk about the student and his (Tr.219).
On re-cross examination, she was aware that the student was being taken daily at (Tr.222).
, of Special Education, Department, testified that she is the borough for schools (Tr.249). She is familiar with the subject student (Tr.249). She testified as to her office’s involvement in the placement process (Tr.249-251). She further testified as to the regulations concerning P-1R letters (Tr.251252). She feels that the student requires some special needs services (Tr.253). She opined that it would be a good idea to reevaluate this case, possibly with a different team (Tr.255).
On cross-examination, she agreed that a Nickerson letter is issued when there is a procedural error (Tr.257). None of the New York State approved non public day schools have a general education component (Tr.258). She did not participate in the subject CSE review meeting (Tr.264). She did not assist in the development of the subject IEP and has not met the student (Tr.265). Her office does not keep the attendance records of students (Tr.266).
Thereafter, she described the process as to a P-1R letter (Tr.272). The CSE team could have met again to discuss the case (Tr.276). She testified as to the documents included in a case referral (Tr.277). On Behalf of the Parent:
, of , , Parent, testified that she is currently involved in the admissions process (Tr.306). Her school serves children with various classifications, grades through (Tr.307). The decision to accept the student was made by another person (Tr.309). She described the school (Tr.309-310). All of their are trained in (Tr.310). There is a assigned to each child (Tr.311). They have who primarily serve their population (Tr.312).
Hence, she testified as to how would handle the student the classroom (Tr.313). Students are grouped according to ability (Tr.313). The school does provide and services (Tr.314). The school also provides specials, like art, and gym (Tr.315). There are a total of - students in the school (Tr.315). Said witness is a and has a master’s degree in social work (Tr.316). All of the have master’s degrees and are certified in special education (Tr.317). They develop their own IEP which is based upon the department IEP (Tr.319). Her prior role was as a (Tr.320). Next, she described her responsibilities (Tr.320-321). The school is able to develop both and ’s (Tr.321).
On cross examination, said witness testified that her position is new for her and the school (Tr.323). Currently, no parent workshops and training are offered (Tr.323324). The school has no general education students (Tr.324). She was not involved in the issuance of the admission letter (Tr.325).
On re-direct examination, said witness testified that as to admissions, she is covering for another person until March (Tr.325). She is not aware of the student’s classification (Tr.327). Each parent may speak to a about their child (Tr.330).
On re-cross examination, said witness testified that she has no administration credentials (Tr.330). She gave the name and qualifications of the admissions person (Tr.331). All of the in her school have master’s degrees (Tr.331). There is one school on staff (Tr.331).
, Parent, testified that she is the of the subject student (Tr.333). During the school years of 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, she never received any parent training or (Tr.334). She never saw the that was created and which she was did not participate in (Tr.334-335). During the 2009-2010 school year, the student did not receive (Tr.335). She did participate in the subject CSE review meeting (Tr.335). From September 2010, there is no work posted in the student’s notebook (Tr.339). The student does have in the classroom (Tr.341). There were the student was taken from school to the (Tr.341). is not an appropriate environment for the student (Tr.342). She discussed two s with the current (Tr.343).
Next, said witness explained why the student requires (Tr.345). The student was first sent to the on January 8, 2010 and she further testified to the events of that (Tr.346-348). From January to March, the student the school at (Tr.350). The student was not receiving either or ; academic instruction; or home tutoring during the afternoon (Tr.350-351). The hearing had no bearing on his daily departure from school (Tr.351). Said witness feels that the student requires a setting (Tr.352). Hence, she testified as to the events of the student’s (Tr.352-353). The school could not substantiate any academic work for the student until after November 29 (Tr.353-354).
On cross examination, said witness testified that she attended the subject CSE review meeting (Tr.355). The parent never saw exhibit eight before (Tr.364). For the month of September 2010, the student was at (Tr.367). The parent was not aware that the therapist was consulting with the classroom (Tr.370). The school never provided the student with any breaks (Tr.375). The witness was told to take the student at daily (Tr.377). The parent never saw exhibit seven (Tr.388). The student was also at home during the period (Tr.393). The parent did obtain additional evaluations and did not share all of said evaluations (Tr.395).
On re-direct examination, said witness stated that she has a college degree with a major in accounting (Tr.398). The Nickerson letter did not provide for compensatory services for lost instructional time (Tr.401). The classroom did not schedule a meeting with her to discuss accommodations for the student (Tr.403-404). She did utilize the Nickerson letter and did not use it to enroll the student in the (Tr.405). The Nickerson letter was personally given to her and she did not read it (Tr.407; 409).
Thereafter, closing written remarks were made by both parties’ representatives post-hearing.
FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
I find that the evidence clearly establishes that the student is an ( ) year and ( ) month old student who is classified with . He presents with / , of ; and reading skills. The student does have decent skills. The school reported challenges, involving , and requiring involvement and to the . Prior to this hearing, an occurred whereby the student was for a period of time. During the period, the student remained at and received no academic instruction or services. During the month of September 2010, the student was kept home per the testimony of the parent. Also, there was another period of time when the student left the school midday daily and received no further academic instruction and/or services.
Further, the IEP of January 12, 2010 was not implemented and the student never received the mandated services. Moreover, the parent did not receive a recommended placement until late August 2010. Exhibit eight, the final notice of recommendation, is dated August 19, 2010. The department issued the parent with a Nickerson letter, exhibit seven, dated June 1, 2010.
Normally, prior to addressing the substantive issues, I must address and/or review the procedural issue of whether the CSE review team was duly comprised of the proper team members. Here, there is no challenge raised in the due process complaint (exhibits X, Z & CC) as to the composition of the CSE review team. Therefore, on the basis of the record and the due process complaint and amended complaints, the undersigned finds that the subject CSE team was duly constituted.
The Board of Education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a child by the child’s parents, if the services offered by the Board of Education were inadequate or inappropriate; the services selected by the parents were appropriate; and equitable considerations support the parent’s claim. (School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 [1985]). The Board of Education bears the burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of the program which it’s CSE has recommended (Matter of Handicapped Child, 22 Ed. Dept. Rep. 487; Application of a Child with a Handicapping Condition, Appeal No. 92-1; Application of a Child with a Handicapping Condition, Appeal No. 93-9).
Further, pursuant to Florence County, et. al. v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7, 114 S.Ct. 361, the principles of the Burlington test apply and reimbursement may not be barred to a parent who chooses a private school to provide a free appropriate education for their child.
Furthermore, under the Second Circuit’s recent decision in Frank G. v. Board of Education of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356(2nd Circ. 2006), the standard as to prong II is appropriateness. To be reimbursable under prong II of the Burlington/Carter test, the services for which reimbursement is being sought need not be perfect, meet all of the child’s needs, or even be delivered in the child’s least restrictive environment, but merely be appropriate. Pursuant to the Frank G. case, the parents need to demonstrate with “objective evidence”, and that the private placement provides specially designed instruction to meet the student’s unique needs to permit the student to receive educational benefit. A FAPE (Free Appropriate Public Education) is offered to the student when (a) the Department complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (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.
Here, under this record, I find that the department has failed to establish that a FAPE was offered to the subject student. The subject IEP of January12, 2010 (Exhibit two) is not reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefit. Said IEP lacks meaningful and measurable goals, as supported by the testimony of the witnesses. It fails to provide for sufficient services, fails to provide parent training and/or . Said IEP refers to an and which both had no parent involvement as testified to by both Ms. and the parent. Said deficiencies constitute a denial of FAPE.
Furthermore, an IEP, once in effect, must be implemented as soon as possible, after the IEP meeting. 8 NYCRR 200.4(e) (1) provides …that within sixty days of the referral for review of a student with a disability, the board of education shall arrange for appropriate special programs and services… Here, the subject IEP was never implemented and the department did not provide the parent with a Nickerson letter until June 2010, well over sixty days from the CSE review meeting. Moreover, the parent was not given a recommended placement until August 2010, which is also more than sixty days from the date of the subject CSE review meeting.
The above-noted facts are quite compelling and clearly establish that FAPE was not provided to this student under this record. There is no need for further analysis of the other facts which would only further corroborate the lack of FAPE. Therefore, as to prong I, the Department has not met its burden and FAPE has not been provided to the subject student, for the subject school year. Moreover, the undersigned orders that the CSE team reconvene and a validly legal IEP be developed and implemented.
The parent bears the burden of proof with regard to the appropriateness of the services they seek for the student during the 2010-2011 school year. (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 94-29; Application of the Board of Education of the Monroe-Woodbury CSD, Appeal No. 93-34; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 95-57). In order to meet that burden the parent must demonstrate that the services were proper under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA, 20 United States Code Sec. 1415(f)(1); (School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts, Supra 370).
In this case, I find that the parent has not met her burden and has submitted insufficient evidence to substantiate the appropriateness of the School, for the student, for the subject school year. Under Frank G., the parent has to establish with objective evidence that the is appropriate. The parent’s key witness, Ms. , refused to substantiate the appropriateness of her school for this student. She was not involved in the admissions decision for this student (Tr.309). She was not familiar with the student’s classification (Tr.327) which further establishes her lack of personal knowledge of the subject student and her inability to substantiate the appropriateness of her school to meet the student’s unique special needs. The parent fails to submit any other documentary evidence, to further establish the appropriateness of , except exhibit NN which is an acceptance letter.
Therefore, the parent has presented insufficient objective evidence to substantiate the specially designed instruction of the program at that the student will be provided with.
As to prong III, I also find that the equitable considerations support the parent’s claim. The Department presents no evidence that the parent has not been cooperative in the process and/or development of the IEP. In fact, the department did not always seek the input of the parent such as her lack of involvement in the development in the and . The school district has not demonstrated that the parent acted with the requisite level of unreasonableness or misconduct such that reimbursement should be denied on equitable grounds. The record shows that the parent has cooperated with the Department and has attended all prior meetings, including the CSE review meeting of January 12, 2010. The parent also visited the recommended site.
Again, this record reflects that the parent was cooperative and performed no acts which reach the requisite level of unreasonableness or misconduct that reimbursement should be denied on equitable grounds.
Therefore, I find the equities favor the parent who has met the third element of the Burlington/Carter standard.
Furthermore, the parent seeks compensatory services relief under this record. Compensatory education may be awarded to provide educational benefits that likely would have accrued from the special education services that the school district should have provided in the first place. Here, the late or lack of implementation of the subject IEP; the deficiency of the subject IEP; along with the student missing academic instruction and/or services all warrant the awarding of compensatory education.
Therefore, the undersigned awards the following in terms of compensatory education: one hundred-twenty hours (120) of special education academic instruction to compensate for the academic instruction missed by the student and to be provided before August 31, 2012; eleven and one quarter hours (11.25) of additional to be provided to the student, for services missed and to be provided by August 31, 2011; one hundred and eighty-three (183) hours of / to be provided to student, for missed / services missed and to be provided by August 31, 2012; forty-six (46) hours of services to be provided to student for services missed and to be provided by August 31, 2012; and forty hours
(40) of and to be provided to student’s parent for and services missed and said services to be provided by August 31, 2012. Said compensatory relief is to be included in the newly drafted IEP.
After carefully considering the entire record and the applicable law and for the reasons stated herein, I find that the Department has failed to meet its burden at prong I and that the parent has failed to met her burden at prong II of the Burlington/Carter standard. A weighing of the equities favors the parent.
Therefore, the department is to reconvene the CSE team, within two-three weeks, and draft a validly legal IEP for the subject school year. CSE team to consider specialized reading instruction; IEP to include measurable goals; CSE team to reconsider the frequency, duration and group size of sessions; CSE team to reconsider the frequency, duration and group size of sessions; CSE team to consider if / should be delivered by a certified instructor; IEP to include parent training and ; CSE team to reconsider special education transportation with an adult matron; and an appropriate to be completed within thirty (30) days after student’s placement.
It is hereby:
So Ordered,
I order that the CSE team reconvene, within two-three weeks, and draft an appropriate legal IEP for the subject student for the subject school year. CSE team to consider specialized reading instruction as part of the program; IEP to include measurable goals; CSE team to reconsider the frequency, duration and group size of sessions; CSE team to reconsider the frequency, duration and group size of sessions; CSE team to consider if / should be delivered by a certified instructor; IEP to include parent training and ; CSE team to reconsider education with an ; and an appropriate to be completed within thirty (30) days after student’s placement. Said compensatory relief is to be included in the newly drafted IEP. Dated: February 16, 2011
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
A Report Card, undated, 1 pg. Parent
B Report Card, undated, 2 pgs. Parent
C Evaluation 12/1/08, 7 pgs. Parent
D Social History by 12/1/08, 4 pgs. Parent
E and Report by Parent
12/11/08, 5 pgs.
F Classroom Observation by Parent
12/12/08, 2 pgs.
G IEP, 1/8/09, 5 pgs. Parent
H Profile Narrative, Iowa Test, 3/2009 and 4/2008, Parent
2 pgs.
I School Report Card, 2008-2009, 2 pgs. Parent
J Evaluation by , Parent
10/28/09, 4 pgs.
K Social History Update by , 12/15/09, Parent
7 pgs.
L Report, 12/21/09, 1 pg. Parent
M Evaluation by Ms. Parent
12/22/09, 4 pgs.
N Log to , multiple dates, 27 pgs. Parent
O Evaluation by , Parent
Department of and ,
1/5/10, 3 pgs.
P Report, 1/6/10, 1 pg. Parent
Q Report by , 1/7/10, Parent
5 pgs.
R Parent
and
S by Ms. Parent
1/12/10, 2 pgs.
T IEP, 1/12/10, 13 pgs. Parent
U Request for Examination, 1/15/10, Parent
2 pgs.
V Release and Request for Parent
Accommodations, 1/25/10, 2 pgs.
W School Report Card, 3/20/10, 2 pgs. Parent
X Initial Complaint, 4/1/10, 1 pg. Parent
Y Notice of Educational Related Support Services Parent
4/15/10, 1 pg.
Z Addendum to the Impartial Hearing Request Parent
4/16/10, 2 pgs.
AA Letter from Ms. to Ms. ,6/3/10, Parent
1 pg.
BB School Report Card, 6/9/10, 1 pg. Parent
CC Request for Due Process, 6/29/10, 18 pgs. Parent
DD Letter from , 3/29/10, 1 pg. Parent
EE Team Conference Summary Form from the Parent
, 7/14/10, 1 pg.
FF Evaluation by Parent
3/29/10, 9 pgs.
GG Report by Parent
6/14/10 to 6/28/10, 4 pgs.
HH and Evaluation by Parent
3/15/10, 6 pgs.
II Evaluation by , 4/28/10, Parent
5 pgs.
JJ Hearing Evaluation at the Parent
6/23/10, 1 pg.
KK Email from Ms. to Ms. , Parent
11/4/10, 1 pg.
LL Evaluation by , Parent
9/21/10,[5] pgs.
MM Special Education Notice, 11/5/10, Parent
12 pgs.
NN Acceptance Letter from Parent
11/8/10,1 pg.
OO Emails Regarding Scheduling For Impartial Hearing, Parent from 11/2008 to 9/2010, 1 pg.
PP Report Card, 11/20/10,[2] pgs. Parent
QQ Email from Ms. to Parent
9/1/10,[1] pg.
4 evaluation, Department
four pages, December 22, 2009
7 Nickerson Letter, two pages, Department
June 1, 2010
8 Final notice of recommendation, One page, Department
August 19, 2010
9 Email correspondence, one page, Department
September 30, 2010
10 Standard Operating Procedures Maual-Sec.7, Department
February 2, 2009, twenty-four pages
11 , two pages, January 12, 2010 Department
Footnotes
[1] Due Process Complaint, three pages, Department April 1, 2010
[2] IEP, January 12, 2010, 13 pages Department 3 Omitted
[5] CSE Social History Update, seven pages, Department December 15, 2009 6 Omitted