Impartial Hearing Decision

In the Matter of [A Student], Request for an Impartial Hearing pursuant to the Regulations of the Commissioner of the State Education Department (8 N.Y.C.R.R. §200.5)

Hearing Officer's Findings of Fact and Decision

On April 21, 2010, I was designated as impartial hearing officer by the Board of Education of the School District, pursuant to the Regulations of the Commissioner of the State Education Department (8 N.Y.C.R.R. §200.5), in the matter of [A STUDENT] W. The parent requested an impartial hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1415 (the “IDEA”) on April 16. In her hearing request, the parent challenges the program recommended for [A STUDENT] by the Committee on Special Education for the Schools (the “CSE”) for the 2009-2010 school year and seeks reimbursement for tuition costs incurred by her unilateral placement of [A STUDENT] at the [a non-public school] in .

A pre-hearing conference was conducted on May 18, and the hearing was scheduled for June 17 and 18. The parent requested an adjournment of these dates, and the hearing was rescheduled for July 28 and 30. The parties requested an adjournment of these dates, and the hearing was rescheduled for September 27 and October 4. The hearing commenced on October 4. The hearing was continued on November 16, November 17, November 23 and January 18. The February 2 hearing was cancelled due to inclement weather, and the hearing concluded on February 28. The parties requested permission to submit post-hearing memoranda of law. Permission was granted, and such memoranda were to be submitted by the parties on March 25. The parties requested, and were granted, a one week extension of this date. The record was closed on April 1, upon the receipt by the hearing officer of the parties’ memoranda.

The compliance date for the submission of this final written decision was extended to July 30 at the parent’s request in order to permit the parents’ witnesses to be available, and then to August 29, September 28 and October 28 at the request of both parties in order to permit witnesses from [a non-public school] and retired School District witnesses to be available. The compliance date was again extended to November 27, December 27 and January 27 at the request of both parties in order to permit witnesses to be available, continue the extensive testimony and address the issues in this case. The compliance date was then extended to February 25 at the request of both parties due to delays in the hearing caused by winter snow and ice storms. The compliance date was extended to March 27 and then finally to April 26 in order to permit the preparation of the transcript and the submission of memoranda of law by the parties as well as consideration by the hearing officer of the parties’ submissions. Lists of the persons who appeared in this proceeding and of the exhibits entered into evidence are annexed to this decision.

Background

[A STUDENT] is a sixteen year-old young woman who resides with her family in the School District. Her disability is classified, for the purposes of the IDEA, as [A STUDENT] attended the Schools from preschool through eighth grade and was enrolled in the School District’s gifted and talented program at the [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML]

School. When [A STUDENT] “aged out” of the gifted and talented program at the end of eighth grade, the parents enrolled [A STUDENT] at the [a non-public school] School in for grade. During the 2009-2010 school year, the year at issue in this proceeding, [A STUDENT] attended grade at [a non-public school]. [A STUDENT] continues to attend [a non-public school] and is currently enrolled in grade. The Hearing Request The parents’ hearing request alleged that the School District failed to provide a free and appropriate public education to [A STUDENT] for the 2009-2010 school year for the following reasons: the parents were not permitted to participate meaningfully in the development of the IEP; the CSE failed to develop an appropriate IEP for [A STUDENT]; the recommended classification was inappropriate for [A STUDENT]; the recommended program was inappropriate for [A STUDENT]; and the CSE did not recommend therapy for [A STUDENT] (Parent’s Ex. A). The School District submitted a response dated June 15 denying the allegations in the hearing request and alleging that it had provided [A STUDENT] with a free appropriate public education for the 2009-2010 school year (District Ex. 1).

The School District’s Case

, the School District’s former CSE Chairperson, testified that that she was a special education teacher who had taught classes for multiply disabled students and resource room and supervised college students working on special education degrees (trans. 17-19). She had participated in “at least three CSE’s” for [A STUDENT] (trans. 19). Ms. stated that [A STUDENT] attended the School District’s [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] ^[1] program from pre-kindergarten through eighth grade. She described [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] as the School District’s “gifted progra[a student]” Parents must request admission for their children, and admission is based upon an entrance examination (trans. 19-20).

[A STUDENT] received special education services while at [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML], including resource room (trans. 20). At one of the CSE meetings Ms. attended, the team “recommended” that [A STUDENT] be placed in an inclusion progra[a student] This recommendation was not implemented because the parent was determined to have [A STUDENT] to remain at [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML], which did not have inclusion classes (trans. 20-21). [A STUDENT] left [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] in June 2008, at the end of her grade year. Her parents enrolled her in [a non-public school] for the beginning of in September 2008.

By letter dated February 28, 2009 (and received by the School District on March 3), the parents informed the School District that they planned to sign a contract and place a deposit “to ensure a place” for [A STUDENT] at [a non-public school] for the 2009- 2010 school year (District Ex. 12). The parents indicated that if the District offered an “appropriate program and/or placement” to [A STUDENT], they would enroll her in that program; and, if not, they would enroll [A STUDENT] in [a non-public school]. The parents also requested that a representative of the CSE’s Placement Office attend [A STUDENT]’s CSE meeting.

The parent consented to the CSE’s re-evaluation of [A STUDENT] in spring 2009 (District 3). A School District conducted a update evaluation of [A STUDENT] on April 14 (District Ex. 4). The evaluator noted that [A STUDENT] was “somewhat anxious,” “fidgeted” and yawned but “was able to work hard on all of the presented activities, following the examiner’s directions” and maintained her focus and attention during cognitive testing (District Ex. 4 at p. 2). On the WISC-IV, [A STUDENT] attained the following I.Q. scores: verbal comprehension, h h

(at the percentile/ range); perceptual reasoning, ( t percentile/high range); working memory, percentile/ range); h and processing speed, percentile/ range); for a full scale score of th ( percentile/ range) (District Ex. 4 at p. 2). On the Berry-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, [A STUDENT] scored within the range. The evaluator recommended that [A STUDENT] should continue to receive to “support her [A DISORDER] symptoms within the school setting,” and continue with the classification of The evaluator observed that [A STUDENT] continued to require program and testing modifications (District Ex. 4 at p. 3).

A School District educator evaluated [A STUDENT] in May 2009 (District Ex. 14). At the time of the evaluation, [A STUDENT] was taking [a medication] twice a day. [A STUDENT] “was far more compliant, focused and less anxious” than during a previous evaluation in July 2008 (District Ex. 14 at p. 2).^[2] [A STUDENT] attained the following percentile rank scores on the Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Achievement: broad reading, ; broad math, basic reading skills, ; math calculation skills, ; academic skills, ; academic applications, ; letter word identification, ; reading fluency, calculation, math fluency, spelling, passage comprehension, ; applied problems, ; writing samples, word attack, and picture vocabulary, . The evaluator noted that all [A STUDENT]’s scores ranged from the to the range and that compared to the last evaluation, [A STUDENT] “made progress” in all areas except calculation, passage comprehension and applied problems (District Ex. 14 at pp. 2, 4). On the passage comprehension subtest, which “is inferential in nature and depends on an understanding of written language,” [A STUDENT] read quickly and some responses were impulsive (District Ex. 14 at p. 3).

Ms. attended a CSE meeting for [A STUDENT] on June 15, 2009. The purpose of this meeting was to create an IEP for [A STUDENT] for the 2009-2010 school year (trans. 21). Ms. stated that the meeting had been delayed due to three requests for adjournments from the parent (trans. 21-22). One of these adjournments, however, was at the School District’s request. School district personnel wanted to obtain for review at the CSE meeting evaluations that [a non-public school] personnel were conducting (trans. 94-95). The parents attended the meeting with an advocate, Ms. . The following persons also attended the meeting: , a resource room teacher employed by the School District at [a particular public high school]aratory School, a public high school in the School District; an English teacher from [a particular public high school]; , the School District’s “special ed[ucation] facilitator for placement,” who participated at the request of the parents to describe different placements for [A STUDENT] within the Public Schools; a teacher at [a non-public school], who participated by telephone; “case manager” with the School District who participated at the parents’ request; and a parent member (trans. 24-26; District Ex. 15). According to Ms. , the parents, their advocate and Ms. had the opportunity to ask questions, raise issues and discuss their concerns at the meeting (trans. 25-26, 34-35). Ms. attended the meeting in order to discuss the high school curriculum and the resource room program because the parent had contended that [A STUDENT] experienced a “language based issue” (trans. 26-27). She was able to answer the parents’ questions about [a particular public high school] (trans. 27).

In addition to the reports prepared by the School District’s and evaluator, the CSE considered reports from [a non-public school] and information provided by the parents (trans. 41-42, 80, 84). [A STUDENT]’s teachers at [a non-public school] prepared a “Winter Report” for her in February 2009 (District Ex. 5). [A STUDENT]’s focus teacher, Ms. , reported that [A STUDENT] was a motivated student who participated and “work[ed] diligently on assigned tasks” (District Ex. 5 at p.

1). In particular, [A STUDENT] was “committed to improving her reading and writing skills,” and her positive attitude “has helped her develop friendships with peers and positive working relationship with teachers.” The purpose of [A STUDENT]’s focus class during the 2008-2009 school year was to “target” reading comprehension, decoding, spelling, writing, organization and problem solving skills. Ms. used two programs, Preventing Academic Failure and Words Their Way, to work with [A STUDENT] on decoding and spelling. [A STUDENT] also worked on reading comprehension skills, and she improved her ability to identify main ideas without prompting (District Ex. 5 at p. 1). With respect to writing, [A STUDENT] learned paragraph structure and prewriting strategies and “steadily improved her ability to generate an organized outline.” [A STUDENT] found graphic organizers helpful in organizing her written work, and her writing showed improvement (District Ex. 5 at p. 2).

In her language and Literature class, [A STUDENT]’s “academic performance and effort [were] in the range” (District Ex. 5 at p. 4). [A STUDENT] completed her homework but was “inconsistent with understanding and following through on directions at home” and required “very explicit instructions with sequential steps written out and copied verbatim into her planner.” [A STUDENT] participated in class but “sometimes” engaged in “off-task behavior,” such as chatting, and could be “difficult to redirect” (id). The teacher noted that [A STUDENT]’s vocabulary and reading comprehension was at an early grade level. [A STUDENT] had improved her word attack skills. The teacher also observed that [A STUDENT]’s “short term memory issues make constant repetition and reintroduction of material an essential component to [[A STUDENT]]’s internalizing of what she’s learned” (District Ex. 5 at p. 5).

[A STUDENT]’s math teacher reported that [A STUDENT] “consistently produced to work” (District Ex. 5 at p. 6). The class covered pre-algebra. The teacher observed that [A STUDENT]’s “greatest weakness” was in the area of retaining material. [A STUDENT] “d[id] well with mathematical concepts, but forg[o]t them when [the class] progress[ed] to the next unit. Constant review and repetition is helpful for” [A STUDENT] (District Ex. 5 at p. 6). The science teacher explained that the class focused on reading comprehension with emphasis on “active reading strategies” (District Ex. 5 at p. 7). [A STUDENT] worked diligently throughout the semester. The social studies teacher noted that [A STUDENT] earned “proficient grades on tests and quizzes,” consistently completed her homework, was “easily distracted by her classmates,” and “respond[ed] to adequate teacher repetition and muli-media presentations” and graphic organizers. The teacher noted that “with adequate support and exposure to different teaching modalities, M[.] display[ed] retention of historical facts” (id).

[a non-public school] personnel administered standardized testing to [A STUDENT] in April 2009 (District Exs. 10, 20). On the GORT-4 (form A), [A h STUDENT] attained the following scores: passage rate— %ile, grade equivalent; h d passage accuracy— %ile, grade equivalent; fluency— %ile, grade d equivalent; and comprehension— %ile, grade equivalent. On the Gates h MacGinitie Reading Test, [A STUDENT] scored at the %ile, grade equivalent, d on vocabulary and %ile, grade equivalent on comprehension. [A STUDENT] h scored the following on the WIAT-II: word reading— %ile, grade equivalent; t reading comprehension— %ile, grade equivalent; pseudoword decoding— th h

%ile, grade equivalent; spelling— %ile, grade equivalent; written h h expression— %ile, grade equivalent; numerical operations— %ile, grade h equivalent; math reasoning— %ile, grade equivalent; listening comprehension— th d

%ile, grade equivalent; and oral expression— %ile, grade equivalent.

The parents had provided to the CSE a letter from a Dr.

, dated October 2008 (District Ex. 21). The letter states that [A STUDENT]’s “longstanding issue with a language-based learning issue” is “no longer a proble[a student]” also stated that [A STUDENT] came to his office for “reevaluation of her medication but no longer reevaluation of her program as she has began [sic] [a non-public school], which is obviously an outstanding school as evidence by M[.]’s success but more importantly the return of her self-estee[a student]” [A STUDENT] would have been attending [a non-public school] for approximately four weeks as of the date of Dr. ’s report (trans. 82). Ms. opined, as an educator with 25 years experience, that any improvements would be attributable to the services [A STUDENT] received at [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] in (trans. 83).

The CSE recommended that [A STUDENT]’s disability be classified as , attend resource room for five 42 minute periods per week and receive for one 30 minute period per week and services for 15 minutes per day (District Ex. 15). The CSE recommended placement at [a particular public high school]. The IEP created at that meeting included the following program modifications, accommodations and aids: additional time to complete tasks in the classroom; checks for understanding; copies of class notes; homework sheets (if needed); modified homework assignments (if needed); a positive reinforcement plan; preferential seating; refocusing and redirection; and reteaching materials (District Ex. 15 at p. 2). The IEP included the following testing accommodations: administration of tests in a small group; extended time (1.5); special location; revised test directions; directions read and explained; and questions read.

The IEP described [A STUDENT]’s academic achievement, functional performance and individual needs. In addition to summarizing the results of the April and May evaluations, the IEP notes that [A STUDENT] was functioning grade level in writing, vocabulary and reading comprehension, with particular difficulty with inferential and critical thinking, and states that she did “not demonstrate conceptual knowledge in content areas appropriate to grade level” and had difficulty “integrating and synthesizing materials” (District Ex. 15 at p. 3). [A STUDENT] needed extra time to complete class assignments. Regarding [A STUDENT]’s academic needs, the IEP states that [A STUDENT] must complete class assignments, improve verbal and written communication skills, improve literal and inferential reading comprehension and learn to apply reading and writing skills to content area courses as well as decrease her anxiety and become more comfortable relating to peers and adults (District Ex. 15 at pp. 3-4). [A STUDENT]’s management needs include special education support to improve her attention to task (District Ex. 15 at p. 5).

The meeting description includes the statement that [A STUDENT] had a diagnosis of [A DISORDER] and was prescribed [a medication] (District Ex. 15 at p. 6; see also District Ex. 16).3 School reports noted that [A STUDENT] engaged in “off-task”

The social history notes that [A STUDENT] continued to visit a on a monthly basis for monitoring her medication (District Ex. 16).

behavior and was difficult to redirect. In addition, repetition and reinforcement of material was an important part of her learning (District Ex. 15 at p. 6). [a non-public school]’s WIAT results showed that all [A STUDENT]’s scores were within the range except for scores in the reading composite, word reading and pseudoword decoding. Reading comprehension and written expression were grade level (id). Results on the WISC administered by the School District’s were in the to range with the exception of a score in working memory. [A STUDENT]’s overall verbal skills “fell within the limits of the range” (id). The parents did not agree with CSE’s determination to continue [A STUDENT]’s classification as .

The IEP reports that the CSE meeting included “a lengthy discussion of the programs [within the School District] that would be suitable” for [A STUDENT] (District Ex. 15 at p. 7). Since [A STUDENT] “was able to maintain passing grades and graduate in spite of the fact” that she had been enrolled in the “challenging and competitive environment” of the gifted and talented [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] program, the CSE “felt” that [A STUDENT] should be placed in a “resource room program in a small, innovative school” such as [a particular public high school]. The parents were invited to visit this program as well as other high schools within the School District (District Ex. 15 at p. 7).

At the meeting, the IEP for the 2008-2009 school year was reviewed point by point (including each goal and the transition plan), and the parents and other meeting participants discussed and interjected information which was incorporated into the document (trans. 32-34, 36-38, 40).

The IEP includes goals in the areas of study skills, reading (both decoding and comprehension), writing, mathematics (calculation, word problems and concepts) and social and emotional (District Ex. 15 at pp. 7-12).

Ms. stated that [A STUDENT]’s placement was not decided upon before the meeting. At the meeting, Ms. informed the parents that they could discuss various schools with Ms. and visit those schools (trans. 28-29). [At the meeting, Ms. provided information to the parents about different placements within the School District for [A STUDENT] (trans. 23).] If [A STUDENT] were to attend [a particular public high school], the two individuals from the school who attended the meeting from the school were likely to have been responsible for implementing the IEP (trans. 30).

Ms. explained that the CSE recommended that [A STUDENT]’s disability be classified as because the material available at the meeting indicated that an “ disorder” was “the main reason” that [A STUDENT] “was having some issues in learning” (trans. 42). School district personnel “did not agree with the parents’ feeling that she should be” classified as (trans. 43). Academic testing available at the meeting, specifically results on the WIAT, showed that [A STUDENT] attained scores on listening comprehension, oral expression score and written expression; Ms. observed that “a child with a language based problem would not be scoring that way” (trans. 51). Dr. found that [A STUDENT] no longer had a language based learning problem, and the CSE considered his conclusion (trans. 81; S.D. Ex. 21).

The parents stated at the CSE meeting that they wanted [A STUDENT] to attend a small, special education school (trans. 48-49). Ms. and School District personnel at the meeting “felt” that such an environment was “much, much too restrictive” for [A STUDENT] because she had “pass[ed] everything” in the [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] gifted program for eight years (trans. 48-49). Ms.

noted that [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] was a “pressurized” school. The parents were offered options to the program, but they “chose to keep [[A STUDENT]] in” [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] (trans. 86). [a particular public high school] is a new school—the first “ School” in (trans. 45). During the 2009-2010 school year, the school included only 60 students in the ninth grade. One grade would be added each year (trans. 45-46). Ms. opined that none of [A STUDENT]’s testing results or evaluations indicated that [A STUDENT] needed to attend a self-contained special education program in order to learn (trans. 59-60).

Ms. sent the draft goals to the parents on June 19, 2009 (District Ex. 7). Ms.

followed up on June 22 with a draft IEP (District Ex. 13).

Prior to the CSE meeting, Ms. had attended a “team meeting” at which School District personnel (including Ms. , the Director of Special Education and school psychologists), discussed [A STUDENT]’s “case,” reviewed evaluation reports to determine if material was “missing,” and “felt” that [a particular public high school] “was a school that [[A STUDENT]] might thrive in, but could not make a decision until we had the meeting and discussed it” (trans. 98-100). Ms. denied that [A STUDENT]’s placement was “predetermined” at this meeting (trans. 118). At the CSE meeting, “all” the high schools in the School District were discussed for [A STUDENT] because “every high school has a resource program” (trans. 101). Ms. explained:

The parents were happy with [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML]. [[A STUDENT]] had resource [room] at [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML]. She was a college bound student.

I felt, considering the fact that this was a smaller environment, I felt that between the academics and the fact that she had some self-esteem issues that [ ]

might be a good connection for such a child as per what the parents described their daughter to be like (trans. 106).

, a licensed psychologist employed by the School District as a school psychologist, testified that she was assigned to [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] (trans. 124). Ms. has known [A STUDENT] since kindergarten because Ms. was the CSE “liaison” at [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] ensuring that children received the services mandated on their IEPs. Ms. also provided to [A STUDENT] and participated in [A STUDENT]’s annual review meetings (trans. 126-127).

Ms. described [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] as a gifted and talented school enrolling approximately 1,200 students in pre-kindergarten through grade eight (trans. 125, 126). Children are admitted based on assessments of “cognitive abilities” (trans. 125). Instruction “is a very fast pace and is a rapid program for children who easily pick up information, absorb information. There’s lots of transitions that go on during the day because it is a rapid progra[a student] . . . We move from topic to topic rapidly. Students are expected to absorb information and be able to move on to the next set of lessons that have been planned for them on a daily basis” (trans. 125-126). The school “follow[s] the new York State curriculum, but because it’s an accelerated program, a lot of the lessons are expanded” in order “to engage the children in higher level thinking skills” (trans. 131-132). The school does not include any special education or inclusion classes but does provide special education services such as speech, occupational and physical therapies and resource room (trans. 127-128, 141-142). [A STUDENT] received resource room services, therapy and while attending [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] (trans. 129).4

During the years that [A STUDENT] attended [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML], there were student support team meetings and parent-teacher conferences to discuss teacher concerns about “inconsistencies” in [A STUDENT]’s test scores and [A STUDENT]’s classroom performance regarding completing work and functioning levels (trans. 130; see also 140-141). Ms. testified that “various teachers thought that the program may have been too difficult” for [A STUDENT] and that these concerns were communicated to the parents (trans. 130). Teachers suggested, and implemented, extra remedial supports for [A STUDENT] in the classroo[a student] School personnel also suggested to the parents “at various points over the years” that [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] might not be “conducive to [A STUDENT]’s learning style” (trans. 131). However, the parents were never asked to remove [A STUDENT] from the program (id). Ms. explained that the “parents would have to remove their child[] from the program;” the School District does not “remove children from the program” (trans. 142-143). Children are “screened into the progra[a student] And then at any point the parents are allowed to take their child out of the progra[a student] We do not tell a parent that they have to take their child out of the program” (trans. 143). In short, parents apply for their children to be admitted to [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML], then children

The appropriateness of [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] is not at issue in this proceeding. However, testimony with respect to [A STUDENT]’s performance at [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] with resource room support was permitted because such evidence would shed light on whether the CSE’s recommendations for [A STUDENT] for the 2009-2010 school year were “reasonably calculated” to enable [A STUDENT] to make meaningful educational progress.

are “screened,” and “parents make a decision as to whether they would like to have their child attend the program or not” (trans. 146, 150).

During eighth grade, [A STUDENT] attended “ ” classes in science, math, social studies and English (trans. 133-135; Parent’s Ex. O [ signifies the honors classes]). These classes were “the more accelerated” and “honors” classes within the school (trans. 133). [A STUDENT] passed all her eighth grade classes (trans. 134). There were “non-honors” classes available which [A STUDENT] could have taken instead of the “honors” classes (trans. 135). [A STUDENT] was enrolled in the “honors” English class for eighth grade even though she attained of final grade of in seventh grade “honors” English (trans. 137). The parents never requested that [A STUDENT] be removed from “honors” classes (trans. 151).

According to Ms. , the purposes of resource room at [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] were “to help provide remediation to students” and “extra time to complete assignments or maybe a test based on their IEP” (trans. 142).

, the resource room teacher at [a particular public high school], testified that he was a special education teacher employed by the School District (trans. 160). He explained that for the 2010-2011 school year [a particular public high school] included grades seven through eleven, with approximately 80 students per grade, in a well-maintained and spacious building5 (trans. 159-161). A twelfth grade is planned for the 2011-2012 school year (trans. 166). There is no entrance examination for the school (trans. 173). [a particular public high school] includes students with a range of abilities, “just like a regular high school” (trans. 174). The school has a “comfortable environment” in which the students “feel safe” in small classes taught by adults from whom they can seek assistance (trans. 175-176).

Mr. described his resource room progra[a student] He assisted students with their academic class work by providing instruction in concepts and skills (including organizing and editing written work), assistance with organization, and guidance and “encouragement” with testing strategies and test taking (trans. 162). He works with

This was in contrast to Mr. ’s testimony concerning his previous assignment in the School District, which he stated was in an “older building and not in good condition” (trans. 161).

students both individually and in small groups (trans. 163). Mr. “probably spends more time on” English language arts “than the other subjects combined” because reading and writing are “in practically everything” (trans. 172). He collaborates with the classroom teachers to ensure that he supports his students in their class assignments (trans. 177).

Mr. stated that a student with test results such as those set forth in [A STUDENT]’s IEP could be served in his resource room program even though [A STUDENT]’s scores “would be higher than most of the students” (trans. 168; see School District Ex. 15) . Mr. opined that resource room would address [A STUDENT]’s weaknesses. He would be able to work with [A STUDENT] on strategies, such as using context clues and vocabulary development, to address her comprehension issues (trans. 169). In addition, he would address her weaknesses with working memory with organizational strategies, test preparation strategies, flash cards and mnemonic devices (trans. 169-170). He also works with students on lack of confidence and anxiety issues that might impede their performance (trans. 170-171).

The program at [a particular public high school] was “rigorous” in terms of “expecting the students to learn, to excel, and to do the best that they can” (trans. 165). Students are not required to take Advanced Placement courses (trans. 166).

Mr. opined, based upon his review of [A STUDENT]’s IEP, that [A STUDENT] had the academic skills to succeed at [a particular public high school] and would “fit” within his resource room (trans. 174, 193).

During the 2009-2010 school year, [A STUDENT]’s schedule at [a non-public school] included math, gym, art, science, history, focus, literature and writing (District Ex. 6). [A STUDENT]’s fall semester 2009-2010 school year report card listed the following grades: literature, writing, math, history, science, art, and focus, (District Ex. 8). [A STUDENT]’s spring semester 2009-2010 school year report card listed the following grades: literature, ; writing, math, history, ; science, art, and focus, (Parent’s Ex. I). [A STUDENT]’s fall semester 2008-2009 school year report card listed the following grades: literature and language skills, ; writing, math, ; history, science, art, ; and focus, (District Ex. 9). [A STUDENT]’s 2008-2009 spring semester report card listed the following grades:

literature and language skills, writing, ; math, history, science, ; art, and focus, (District Ex. 11). The Parents’ Case The parent testified that [A STUDENT] attended the [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] gifted and talented program from pre-kindergarten through eighth grade (trans. 200). [A STUDENT] manifested delays in preschool, and the School District provided her with therapy. [A STUDENT] was “declassified” before entering kindergarten (Parent’s Ex. D at p. 2). When [A STUDENT] was in grade, she was diagnosed with [A DISORDER]. The CSE created an IEP for her recommending a classification of and the related services of therapy (Parent’s Ex. D at p. 3). At some point, the classification of [A STUDENT]’s disability was changed to . Evaluations during [A STUDENT]’s elementary school years indicated that [A STUDENT] had “uneven cognitive skills,” with “superior” visual problem-solving abilities, “excellent” perceptual reasoning and visual processing speed, average verbal abilities and limitations in her short term memory skills (Parent’s Ex. D at pp. 3-4). Evaluators also noted [A STUDENT]’s anxiety, and teachers noted her poor attentional skills (Parent’s Ex. D at pp. 3-5).

The parent stated that [A STUDENT] struggled during her grade year at [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] (trans. 204). [A STUDENT] “managed to barely pass most of the subjects” because “teachers always [had] a second or third way to let you elevate your scores” (trans. 204). [A STUDENT] also worked with a private reading specialist one time per week for remediation (trans. 205). [A STUDENT] struggled particularly with reading comprehension (trans. 206-207). The parent acknowledged that [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] was a “gifted and talented” program (trans. 223).

In past years, the CSE had recommended an inclusion program for [A STUDENT] The parent did not accept this program (trans. 225). The parent explained that she kept [A STUDENT] at [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] (rather than transferring her to the inclusion or other program in the City School District that was not a gifted program) because she worked with school personnel at [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] who “usually [came] up with solutions or ideas of how to help [A STUDENT] along” (trans. 210). In addition, she did not want to “pull” [A STUDENT] out of [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] “after grade” and send [A STUDENT] to another school for eighth grade and then a new school for ninth grade (trans. 211).

The parent contended that resource room did not help [A STUDENT] during and grades. Due to [A STUDENT]’s expressive and receptive language difficulties and the course material becoming “harder,” the resource room teacher was not able to help [A STUDENT] with the homework from all her subjects and, as a result, [A STUDENT] continued to “miss more” work (trans. 211-212). [A STUDENT] did poorly on tests because “she never understood the instructions correctly” (trans. 213).

The parent submitted [A STUDENT]’s report cards from [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] for the 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 school years (Parent’s Ex. O). [A STUDENT]’s final averages in grade were: art, English honors ; Spanish, ; health, math honors, ; music, science honors, and history honors, [A STUDENT]’s final averages in eighth grade were: computer, ; English honors, ; Spanish, health, ; math honors, ; science honors, ; and history honors,

The parent attended the CSE meeting for the 2009-2010 school year with an advocate (trans. 201). The meeting had been delayed for [a non-public school] to complete an evaluation of [A STUDENT] (trans. 203). At the meeting, Ms. “went through all the materials,” including testing conducted both privately and by School District personnel (trans. 214). The parents objected that Ms. did not “take into consideration [[A STUDENT]’s] language issue” and contended that [A STUDENT] should be classified as (trans. 214). There “was no dialogue” on this issue (trans. 215). Next, they “read through everything the IEP had from the year before” and “went through the goals”—the parent stated that there were some goals that she did not understand (trans. 215). During the meeting, individuals from [a particular public high school] explained that the school was small and had a resource room program which could “accommodate” [A STUDENT] (trans. 216). The parent informed the meeting participants that resource room had not worked for [A STUDENT] in the past

(trans. 216). At the end of the meeting, Ms. told the parent to visit [a particular public high school] because it was the “recommended school” (trans. 215). There was no discussion about [a particular public high school] as an appropriate placement for [A STUDENT] or other programs for her (trans. 217-218).

The parent testified that [A STUDENT] could not have been “successful” at [a particular public high school] with resource room because [A STUDENT] was “still struggling” and “grade level” at [a non-public school] with one-to-one instruction for one period per day (trans. 218-219). [A STUDENT] was “still struggling with a lot of issues of processing information” and needs “someone to sit there and explain to her how it’s done . . . the strategies” (trans. 219). The parent believed that a program such as [a particular public high school], in which students were taught on a “standard grade level,” would not be able to address [A STUDENT]’s lower academic functioning and language difficulties (trans. 219). [A STUDENT]’s report cards from [a non-public school] indicated that [A STUDENT] attained grades ranging from through during the 2009-2010 school year (Parent’s Ex. I). The parent acknowledged that these grades do not indicate that [A STUDENT] is functioning grade level (trans. 232).

The parent acknowledged that [a non-public school] was a college preparatory program and that this was one of her reasons for choosing the school for [A STUDENT] (trans. 231).

The parents executed a [a non-public school] Student Enrollment Agreement on March 10, 2009 (Parent’s Ex. K). Tuition at [a non-public school] for the 2009-2010 school year was $ 00 (trans. 221; Parent’s Ex. K). The parents have paid this tuition (trans. 221; Parent’s Ex. L). The School District provides door-to-door bus transportation to [A STUDENT] (trans. 227).

testified that she was an certified teacher employed in a part-time capacity by the Public Schools as a teacher trainer and maintained a private tutoring practice for children with disabilities (trans. 244, 260). She is an attorney6 and is working on her doctoral degree in education at Columbia Teachers College. Ms. is also a certified Orton-Gillingham practitioner (trans. 243-244). In addition, Ms.

It is unusual to accept testimony from an attorney. The School District did not object to Ms. testifying.

consulted with Associates, a special education advocacy firm which assists parents. Ms. attended CSE meetings with parents and “evaluat[ed] different school programs” for students (trans. 244).

Ms. attended [A STUDENT]’s June 2009 CSE meeting as “an educational advocate” with both [A STUDENT]’s parents (trans. 245, 247, 262). The meeting lasted approximately three hours because documents were “read word for word” and there were delays caused by reasons unrelated to discussions about [A STUDENT] (trans. 245, 248- 249). Individuals from [a particular public high school] were present at the meeting (trans. 247). One of the topics of discussion at the meeting was the absence of a classroom observation of [A STUDENT] (trans. 249-251). Ms. reported that the parent informed the CSE that a classroom observation would have shown that [A STUDENT] did not need and did not have “emotional issues” “when she’s in the right environment and she’s learning properly . . . . The emotional issues come up when she’s not in the right environment” (trans. 250).

At the meeting, [a non-public school] personnel discussed [A STUDENT]’s performance at the school (trans. 265-266). School District personnel described [a particular public high school] as a “lovely new school” with a college preparatory curriculum and passed out brochures about the school (trans. 252, 255). No other schools were discussed. The parents were invited to visit [a particular public high school] (trans. 254). Ms. had the opportunity, and did, raise issues and discussed [A STUDENT]’s needs at the meeting (trans. 258). In particular, when School District personnel “wanted to classify [[A STUDENT]] with because she had [A DISORDER],” the parents and Ms. “kept saying that she has a language based and if they had gone in for a classroom observation they would have seen that she has a language based

” (trans. 267). Ms. stated that School District personnel seemed unwilling “to look in [the] direction” of classifying [A STUDENT] as a student with a (trans. 268).

who was employed as a dean at [a non-public school] and had a doctoral degree in social psychology, testified that she had been [A STUDENT]’s dean for the past two years, “supervising” her teachers and “monitoring her progress” (trans. 274, 277). Ms. described [a non-public school] as “a preparatory school for bright children who have unique patterns of strengths and weaknesses” (trans. 264-275). It is not a New York State approved special education school (trans. 300). ’s “goal” is to “provide individualized education that acknowledges each student’s strengths and weaknesses, and tries to use those strengths to teach the skills to compensate for the weaknesses in order to get children ready for like after high school” (trans. 275). Most of the school’s graduates (approximately 90%) attend college (trans. 275-276). The school is “definitely preparing [[A STUDENT]] for college” (trans. 301).

Some of the teachers at the school are special education teachers (trans. 288, 302). The “school-wide” student/teacher ratio at the school is “about” three to one; content area classes are “never more than twelve or thirteen students for one teacher” (trans. 276). “Focus program” classes have a one-to-one ratio. In these Focus classes, “every student meets one on one for 45 minutes per day with an individual instructor, [the] focus teacher, who helps coordinate their planning and helps target their areas of greatest need every day” (trans. 276). The focus classes provide both “content support” and an independent “curriculu[a student]” During the time that [A STUDENT] has attended , her focus curriculum “has ranged from . . . really targeted work on her decoding and her syllable recognition and her . . . letter sound pairings. She also can work on reading comprehension” (trans. 276-277). In her focus class, [A STUDENT] has been working on “instructional and independent reading,” written expression, study skills, managing daily assignments and planning for long term assignments (trans. 277).

The school does not follow the New York State curriculum (trans. 304). [A STUDENT]’s program, which is typical for the school, includes a literature and writing skills class (which is a double period), history, science, math, the focus class, art and gym (trans. 279). For the 2009-2010 school year, [A STUDENT] studied earth science, algebra, and American History (from post World War II to the present) in her science, math and history classes (trans. 280-282). In each of her content area classes, material was presented at the “appropriate grade level” with “the emphasis . . . on receptive and expressive language. And across the board and across all content areas the skills that they were working on were understanding complex text, particularly things like parsing complex sentences” (trans. 282). In literature class, [A STUDENT] was “working on things like understanding language and metaphorical speech, multiple meanings of words.

Piecing together the narrative or the plot when because it’s fiction it’s been presented out of order” (trans. 282-283).

Ms. explained that [A STUDENT]’s strengths are in the visual/spatial area—“she is a very visual thinker” (trans. 283). When material is presented to her visually or she is able to “translate” the verbal material “into visual terms,” “she can show very good comprehension and understanding” and “make connections” (trans. 283). Without a visual/spatial aid, [A STUDENT] “struggles much more” (trans. 283). [A STUDENT] has “made good progress” with basic comprehension, extracting who, what, where, when and why from a text (trans. 283). [A STUDENT] is working on “higher order critical thinking”—inferencing, predicting and synthesizing information (trans. 283).

In addition to her weakness in comprehending material presented to her verbally, [A STUDENT] has a weakness with working memory (trans. 284). School personnel have worked with [A STUDENT] to make progress in comprehension by using visual aids and note taking in order for her to “capture” information in written form before she “loses it” and teaching her to “organize the material visually so that it makes more sense to her so she can make the connections more easily” (trans. 284). In addition, multi-modal, hands-on learning works with [A STUDENT]. For example, in science, she engages in activities (such as hands-on labs) and in literature, she might act out a scene from a written work (trans. 284-285). Using concept webs and a double-column note-taking format, in which she can separate main ideas from details, are especially helpful to her (trans. 285-287).

[A STUDENT] receives and therapy as part of her focus class (trans. 304). It is not provided by a therapist (trans. 329).

Ms. has observed [A STUDENT] in her classes. [A STUDENT] is a well-behaved student who is respectful of her teachers and classmates (trans. 289). Her attentional issues “are sometimes evident in the classroom,” and she “occasionally” requires “redirection from her teachers” (trans. 289-290). Sometimes, [A STUDENT] struggles with socializing in groups (trans. 291). Ms. opined that this difficulty was due to [A STUDENT]’s “misperce[ption] of linguistic cues” (trans. 291).

Students at [a non-public school] are grouped by skill levels and “patterns of strengths and weaknesses” (trans. 292). Teachers are selected for a group based on the teachers’ experiences with “working on those kinds of issues with those kinds of groups” of students (trans. 292). For the 2009-2010 school year, [A STUDENT] was placed in a group “where the focus [was] really on breaking down of language, understanding complex language. And so she got a very language focused team” (trans. 292-293; see also 301). There are monthly team meetings in which all personnel in [A STUDENT]’s group collaborate and discuss methodologies and techniques they are using and make adjustments when necessary (trans. 293-294).

Ms. opined that [A STUDENT] has made progress at [a non-public school] in the area of reading comprehension, moving from “factual comprehension” to making inferences (trans. 295-296). [A STUDENT] has also made “some good progress in her written expression” (trans. 297). She has improved her ability to write complex sentences and is working on multi-paragraph essays with strong theses and supporting details (trans. 297-298). Ms. concluded that [a non-public school] was an appropriate placement for [A STUDENT]. has “been working very well for” [A STUDENT] . . . “she’s been making good progress . . . she’s engaged and working hard at what she does, and feeling success” (trans. 298).

a certified special education teacher (grades one through six), testified that she was enrolled in a program for reading specialists at Columbia Teachers College (trans. 309-310). She is employed by [a non-public school] as a focus teacher. She works with students individually for 42 minutes per day (27 minutes on Wednesdays) “in their areas of greatest needs” in order “to teach them skills and give them support that then gets generalized to their content area classes” (trans. 311). Ms. develops goals for each students based upon reports, her observations and informal assessments (trans. 311). She adjusts goals during the school year based upon reports from teachers that a student has a “gap in [her] learning” or is “missing a skill” (trans. 311-312). On occasion, she will do group work on study skills, social skills or language (trans. 312). She communicates with the classroom teachers and attends monthly team meetings (trans. 312, 322).

Ms. has been [A STUDENT]’s focus teacher for the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years. During the 2009-2010 school year, [A STUDENT]’s strengths included visual thinking, perceptual organization and visual processing speed (trans. 313). [A STUDENT] has “good” literal reading comprehension and number sense. She also “wants to do well and she’s willing to do most of her homework and is a hard worker” (trans. 313). [A STUDENT]’s weaknesses are in the areas of receptive and expressive language, working memory, decoding, word attack skills, blending words, sentence structure, grammar, organizing her writing, reading comprehension and attention (trans. 314). She also has “executive functioning” weakness, which affects her “overall organization” including keeping her planner, breaking down assignments, study skills and note taking (trans. 314-315).

Ms. addresses [A STUDENT]’s weaknesses in reading comprehension and fluency through one-to-one instruction in decoding (specifically syllabification types and rules) and in generalizing these skills to her independent reading (trans. 315). Ms.

is also working with [A STUDENT] on note taking while reading because her working memory deficits make it “hard for her to keep track of” everything she is reading (trans. 315-316). She has been working with [A STUDENT] on learning to take margin notes, two-column notes and outlining. To address reading comprehension, Ms.

has worked with [A STUDENT] on breaking down complex language and rereading material (trans. 316). In writing, Ms. has worked with [A STUDENT] on developing graphic organizers to organize her ideas, revising her written work and then editing (trans. 316-317).

The focus class also includes some group work in which [A STUDENT] talks about critical thinking problems in order to improve her verbal expression (trans. 317). The group also works on study strategies (which address her executive functioning deficits); how to break down long term assignments into manageable chunks and how to use her planner and take notes (trans. 317-318).

According to Ms. [A STUDENT] made progress at during the 2009-2010 school year and, in particular, has benefitted from the daily one-to-one work on skills and the way material was broken down in her content area classes (trans. 327- 328, 330). Ms. opined that [A STUDENT] has made progress in decoding, in paragraph writing (and by the end of the school year was able to work on short essays), in completing an outline, in revising and editing and in note taking (trans. 319). Ms.

opined that [A STUDENT] did not have “the skills yet to succeed in an environment that’s rigorous college prep” (trans. 325).

testified that she was a licensed psychologist with a private practice as a . Her practice consists of conducting assessments of children from ages five through 21 years. She also worked on a part-time basis for the New York State (trans. 342-344).

conducted a evaluation of [A STUDENT] (Parent’s Ex. D). Testing occurred in April, August and September 2007, when [A STUDENT] was about to enter grade7 (trans. 371). has not assessed [A STUDENT] since that time. This evaluation included a meeting with [A STUDENT]’s parents, review of [A STUDENT]’s history, a classroom observation and testing (trans. 346). explained that at the time of the evaluation, [A STUDENT]’s parents reported to her that [A STUDENT] “was still struggling a great deal” in school even though she was receiving special education services and wanted explore the possible sources of [A STUDENT]’s difficulties (trans. 346- 347).

During testing, [A STUDENT] was cooperative but “clearly anxious” and “fidgety” (trans. 349). [A STUDENT]’s “distractibility” was evident during the testing (Parent’s Ex. D at p. 5). Since [A STUDENT] had recently been tested, did not conduct I.Q. testing 8 but did administer testing to focus on [A STUDENT]’s language, attentional, anxiety and memory issues (trans. 347). Tests administered included the Woodcock-Johnson (“WJ-III”). Many of [A STUDENT]’s scores on this assessment were “in the low end of the range” (trans. 349; see also Parent’s Ex. D at p. 6). [A STUDENT] attained the following percentile and grade equivalent scores on the WJ-III subtests as she was about to start eighth grade: letter-word identification, report indicates that [A STUDENT] was entering grade (Parent’s Ex. D at p. 2). This is incorrect. [A STUDENT], in fact, was entering grade. On the WISC-IV administered by School District personnel in January 2006, [A STUDENT] attained the following scores: verbal comprehension, ; perceptual reasoning, working memory, ; processing speed, and a full scale I.Q. score of (Parent’s Ex. D at p. 17).

%ile, g.e.; passage comprehension, %ile, g.e.; reading fluency, %ile, g.e.; word attack, %ile, g.e.; reading vocabulary, %ile, g.e.; calculation,

%ile, g.e.; applied problems, %ile, g.e.; math fluency, %ile, g.e.; quantitative concepts, %ile, g.e.; spelling, %ile, g.e.; writing samples, %ile, g.e.; and writing fluency, %ile, g.e. (Parent’s Ex. D at p. 18). On various composite measures, [A STUDENT] scored as follows: broad reading, %ile, g.e.; basic reading, %ile, g.e.; broad math, %ile, g.e.; academic skills, %ile, g.e.; and academic applications, %ile, g.e. (Parent’s Ex. D at p. 18).

also administered the Gray Oral Reading Test. She found that [A STUDENT] (who was about to start grade) had a grade reading comprehension level (trans. 350; Parent’s Ex. D at p. 18). On the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, [A STUDENT]’s phonological fluency skills were She h h scored at the percentile in rapid fluency skills, percentile in phonological memory skills, and although her phonological awareness “was just in the range,” her h “ability to hear particular phonemes and blend them together” was in the percentile (trans. 351). This indicated to that “the phonological basis underneath reading was quite problematic for [A STUDENT]” (trans. 351). However, [A STUDENT]’s reading fluency was “solidly within limits;” at the same time, [A STUDENT]’s reading rate and accuracy, when reading passages aloud and timed, were, at and g.e. levels (respectively), “significantly ” expected grade level (Parent’s Ex. D at p. 6). However, M’s ability to remember and integrate the information in these passages was in the range and, “when asked to read words and supply synonyms, antonyms, and word analogies,” her “word comprehension was solid” (Parent’s Ex. D at p. 7). st

On the Test of Written Language, [A STUDENT] scored in the percentile (trans. 352; Parent’s Ex. D at p. 18). [A STUDENT]’s writing skills on “very structured measures” were average, and her spelling (as measured by the WJ-III) was also average (Parent’s Ex. D at p. 7). [A STUDENT] had difficulties producing simple sentences rapidly, creating narratives, formulating complex sentences and demonstrating “thematic maturity” and a “mature vocabulary” (Parent’s Ex. D at p. 7).

With respect to mathematics, [A STUDENT] was functioning one to two years grade level. [A STUDENT] “clearly struggled to meet the language demands inherent in” mathematical problem solving and became “quite distracted and nonresponsive” during the WJ-III math problem subtest (Parent’s Ex. D at p. 7). While [A STUDENT] understood underlying mathematical concepts, written arithmetic calculations, including calculations with fractions, long division, multiplying decimals as well as quickly solving simple addition subtraction and multiplication problems, were difficult for her (Parent’s Ex. D at pp. 7-8).

On the Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning, which tests verbal memory, visual memory, attention and concentration, [A STUDENT] did “quite well” when the test permitted her to “learn through repetition” (trans. 352). This showed that repetition and context were important “learning strateg[ies]” for [A STUDENT] (trans. 352-353). When testing tasks did not permit repetition or contain a context for remembering information, such as the number letter memory test, [A h STUDENT] scored in the percentile—“because it’s only given on one shot . . . and there’s nothing for her to hang on and it’s not repeated” (trans. 353). [A STUDENT] demonstrated “a good capacity to remember . . . narrative information in an organized fashion” (Parent’s Ex. D at p. 8). On the visual memory span subtest of the WRAML, h [A STUDENT] scored in the percentile, which showed that it was “hard” for [A STUDENT] to “take in information” due to attentional and language-based issues (trans. 353; see also Parent’s Ex. D at pp. 8-9).

On testing with regard to attentional issues (portions of the Delis-Kaplan Executive Functioning Scale and parents’ questionnaires to measure executive functioning and attention), [A STUDENT]’s “profile of responses reported problems with inhibition, shifting, self-monitoring . . . that are typical of [A DISORDER] children” (trans. 354; see also Parent’s Ex. D at p. 10). At the same time, [A STUDENT]’s ability to “employ categorization skills and use feedback to guide problem-solving behavior indicated to above skills,” and she “performed solidly on a visual-motor sequencing task which involved visual scanning, number and letter sequencing, and motor speed” (Parent’s Ex. D at pp. 9, 20 [D-KEFS 20 questions and trail making subtests]).

explained that academic testing revealed that [A STUDENT]’s “perceptual organizational skills [were] significantly better than her verbal skills” and that her verbal deficits “keep getting in her way over time” (trans. 358). concluded that [A STUDENT] “deserved a diagnosis of

,” which meant that “[A STUDENT] has a great deal of difficulty taking in information that is presented orally, particularly complex information” and “hold it, integrate it, process it [and] be able then to respond and use her own wealth of language skills to respond” (trans. 358-359). As a result, [A STUDENT] had difficulty “hanging onto information” presented in class and in expressing herself orally and in writing (trans. 359).

opined that [A STUDENT]’s deficits made it “very difficult” for her to perform at [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] because “her difficulties with language covered all the academic domains” (trans. 362). As a result, the resource room support at [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] was not sufficient to address [A STUDENT]’s difficulties because “it was a tremendous amount of work to try and decipher and help her learn how to respond, take in, integrate . . . . [[A STUDENT]] was fighting an uphill battle” (trans. 362).

did not recommend that [A STUDENT] be pulled out of [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] (trans. 374).

diagnosed [A STUDENT] was disorder, disorder, an disorder with and a disorder and a disorder of (trans. 362, 364; Parent’s Ex. D at pp. 12-14). She explained that [A STUDENT] was not “naturally anxious or even depressed” but, at the time of the evaluation, school “was such a struggle for her . . . she was so verbally awkward with her peers, she was trying hard, very hard to fit in . . . but she was clearly nervous and in some distress” (trans. 363; see also Parent’s Ex. D at p. 11). As a result, “diagnosed her at that point in time with an with and ” (trans. 362). School was a “stressor” for [A STUDENT] because she experienced attentional difficulties, a language based disorder and reading and written expression disorders and “she was operating in a gifted program and so the bar was high” (trans. 363-364).

described [A STUDENT]’s strengths. [A STUDENT] had the “persistence” to continue to attend school even though it was difficult for her to keep up and perform among her peers (trans. 382). [A STUDENT] also had “relative strengths” in mathematics and ability to learn with repetition and “excellent visual-perceptual skills” (trans. 382; Parent’s Ex. D at p. 16).

A Public Schools brochure describing [a particular public high school] states that the school provides “a rigorous instructional program that supports all learners” with “a clear focus on maintaining high expectation” and requires students to take “at least two Advanced Placement Program” courses (Parent’s Ex. P).

opined that a “rigorous instruction program” would not be appropriate for [A STUDENT] (trans. 365). recommended that [A STUDENT] attend a program with “much more comprehensive supports that challenged her strengths but addressed her weaknesses and helped her bring those weaknesses up” (trans. 365-366). She also opined, based upon her 2007 evaluation, that [A STUDENT] “would have had a tremendous amount of difficulty” handling Advanced Placement courses. While had never visited [a particular public high school], she stated that the school, based upon the description set forth in the brochure in evidence (Parent’s Ex. P), would not have been a “good placement” for [A STUDENT] (trans. 368-369).

The CSE educational evaluator prepared an updated educational evaluation of [A STUDENT] in April 2010 (Parent’s Ex. F). [A STUDENT] described to her “life” at [a non-public school] to the evaluator and appeared “highly verbal and much matured” since the last evaluation in 2009 (Parent’s Ex. F at p. 1). The evaluator noted that [A STUDENT] completed all the testing tasks “with ease.” [A STUDENT] continued to be prescribed [a medication]. On the WJ-III, [A STUDENT] attained the following percentile rank scores: broad reading, %ile; broad math, %ile; basic reading skills, %ile; math calculation skills, %ile; academic skills, %ile; academic applications, h

%ile; letter-word identification, %ile; reading fluency, %ile; word attack,

%ile; passage comprehension, %ile; calculation, %ile; math fluency, %ile;

The report does not include grade equivalent scores.

applied problems, %ile; spelling, %ile; and writing samples, %ile (Parent’s Ex. F at p. 2). The evaluator noted that [A STUDENT]’s reading scores were in the range. However, on math fluency, a timed task, [A STUDENT] “often lost her focus and would stop and look around before refocusing,” and her score fell within the range (Parent’s Ex. F at p. 3). On the calculation subtest, [A STUDENT] had difficulties with fractions, addition of positive and negative integers and algebraic expressions. The evaluator concluded that [A STUDENT] “presented as a verbal, motivated adolescent who has shown significant growth both academic and emotional” and “appears far more focused and on task than previously observed” (Parent’s Ex. F at p. 3).

[A STUDENT]’s [a non-public school] 2009-2010 year end narrative report states that [A STUDENT] continued to “develop positive relationship with her peers” and make progress in her Focus class in reading comprehension (Parent’s Ex. I at p. 2). However, “this progress was limited as M[.] struggled to generalize strategies used in Focus to her content classes. She often completed only the bare minimum of assignments, rather than pushing herself to complete her best work.” [A STUDENT] also “was often distracted . . . by focusing on social issues rather than the tasks at hand” (id). [A STUDENT] improved her decoding by learning syllabification rules (but was unable to use them independently) and her writing by learning to add details and to edit. In the Focus class, [A STUDENT] worked on breaking down complex language in assigned readings, finding the main idea, forming predictions and making inferences (id). [A STUDENT] also made progress in writing by concentrating on proofreading and editing skills and on learning to add details to her written work (Parent’s Ex. I at p. 3).

In her literature and writing class, [A STUDENT] “focused on improving her ability to process language, developing her reading comprehension and written expression, and strengthening her critical thinking skills” and made improvements in all these areas (Parent’s Ex. I at p. 5). [A STUDENT] improved her reading comprehension by focusing on language analysis and inference-based exercises. [A STUDENT] was also taught note-taking strategies, which also helped improve her comprehension and vocabulary.

In algebra, the curriculum reinforced addition, subtraction, multiplication and division of whole numbers, fractions and decimals and introduced algebraic concepts. [A STUDENT] was able to solve problems with support but sometimes “struggled” when doing problems independently. She benefitted when the teacher provided her “scaffolding” or guided steps to break down problems into more manageable steps. The teacher also needed to redirect [A STUDENT] when she “frequently allowed herself to be distracted by and distract other students” (Parent’s Ex. I at p. 5).

[A STUDENT] worked on reading comprehension and study skills in her earth science and social studies classes. Her teachers in these classes used scaffolding and guided questioning. [A STUDENT] benefitted from these strategies (Parent’s Ex. I at pp. 7-8). The School District’s Rebuttal Case , the principal of [a particular public high school], testified that the school includes approximately 400 students in grades seven through eleven. There are 80 students per grade. Grade twelve will be added for the 2011-2012 school year (trans. 397).

Mr. explained that the [a particular public high school] brochure (Parent’s Ex. P) was created using a “template” provided by the College Board (trans. 399). Public Schools are in a “partnership” with the College Board and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation with respect to funding [a particular public high school] (trans. 399-401). There are no academic requirements nor an “application process” to “get in” to [a particular public high school]. Students in the Public Schools can choose (trans. 402). Mr. explained that the “rigorous college preparatory curriculum” referred to in the brochure (Parent’s Ex. P) is “synonymous with high expectations. It’s meant that the classes that are taught . . . at a high expectation level. We tell kids they’re going to college from the day they walk in. . . . if we have high expectations of all our students they tend to meet those expectation” (trans. 403). Teachers at [a particular public high school] are required to use strategies such as differentiation, scaffolding and “backward planning” from assessments in order to “get kids from where they are to college readiness” (trans. 404, 409, 412-413).

[a particular public high school] includes some students who were “not very successful” in elementary or middle school and “have been successful” at [a particular public high school] (trans. 405). There are students at [a particular public high school]

who attend resource roo[a student] There are two eleventh graders who attend resource room; both students are “on track” to graduate at the end of twelfth grade (trans. 406-407).

Students at are not required to take any Advanced Placement classes (trans. 407, 417). Mr. stated that such a requirement would contravene New York State law (trans. 407-408). 10 There are students who will be graduating from [a particular public high school] next year with Regents diplomas who will not have taken any AP courses (trans. 407-408). There are “regular” English courses in all grades, and “the lion’s share of eleventh grades are taking regular English” (trans. 420).

Findings of Fact and Decision

A 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 parents’ clai[a student] School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985). The fact that the school selected by the parents is not approved as a school for children with disabilities by the State Education Department (as in the instant case) is not dispositive of the parents’ claim for tuition reimbursement. Florence County School District v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993). I. The Appropriateness of the School District’s Program The central purpose of the IDEA is to ensure: (1) that students with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living; and (2) that the rights of students with disabilities and their parents are protected. 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1)(A); Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 51 (2005); Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179-181 (1982). The first step in the inquiry is to determine whether the school district offered a free appropriate public education to the student. See, e.g., Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-008; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06- 121. A free appropriate public education includes special education and related services

Mr. did not cite a specific provision of the Education Law.

designed to meet the student’s individual needs, provided in conformity with a written IEP. See 20 U.S.C. §1401(9); 20 U.S.C. §1414(d). A school district offers a student a free appropriate public education when (1) it complies with the procedural requirements of the IDEA and (2) its CSE develops an IEP reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits. Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson S.D. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-207 (1982). While school districts are required to comply with all procedures set forth in the IDEA, not all procedural errors result in an inadequate IEP. See, e.g., Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-121. If a procedural violation is alleged, a hearing officer may find that a student did not receive an appropriate special educational program only if the procedural inadequacy: (1) impeded the student’s right to a free appropriate public education; (2) “significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decisionmaking process regarding the provision of a free appropriate education” to the student; or (3) “caused a deprivation of educational benefits.” 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); see also Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-007. The School District bears the burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of the program recommended by its CSE.

A recommended special educational program must be reasonably calculated to allow the student to receive an educational benefit and be the least restrictive environment for the student. Board of Education Hendrick Hudson S.D. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982). A school district fulfills its obligations under the IDEA when it provides a child an IEP that is “’likely to produce progress, not regression” and that affords the child the opportunity for more than “mere ‘trivial advancement’”—in short, likely to provide some “’meaningful’” benefit. Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-121 [quoting Cerra v. Pawling Central School District, 427 F.3d 186, 195 (2d Cir. 2005) and Mrs. B. v. Milford Board of Education, 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 (2d Cir. 1997)]. A school district thus satisfies this standard “by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction.” Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203. However, the “IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP.” Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District, 142 F.3d 119, 130 (2d Cir. 1998); see also Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189. The statute ensures an “appropriate” education, “not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents.” Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132 (quoting Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free School District, 873 F.2d 563, 567 (2d Cir. 1989) [citations omitted]).

An appropriate educational program “begins with an IEP which accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student’s needs, establishes annual goals related to those needs, and provides for the use of appropriate special education services.” Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-010. The IEP prepared for [A STUDENT] accurately and comprehensively set forth her testing results, described in detail her current levels of performance and identified her special education needs. The next step is to examine the IEP to determine whether it sets forth a program that sufficiently addresses [A STUDENT]’s identified special educational needs.

The School District’s program for [A STUDENT]’s ninth grade year included the following special education services and supports. The IEP mandates participation in a general education program with the support of daily resource room and weekly

. The IEP also included the following program modifications: additional time to complete tasks in the classroom; checks for understanding; copies of class notes; homework sheets; modified homework assignments; a positive reinforcement plan; preferential seating; refocusing and redirection by her teachers; and reteaching materials. The IEP included testing accommodations such as extended time and directions read and explained.

Contrary to the parent’s assertions at the hearing that resource room had not worked for [A STUDENT], the evidence demonstrates that a general education program with resource room support had worked for [A STUDENT] for many years at [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML], the School District’s gifted and talented progra[a student] For example, [A STUDENT] had passed all her grade classes, including four honors courses in the core academic subject of English, math, science and history. For [A STUDENT]’s grade program, resource room would continue to provide the support with respect to organization and review and repetition of material. As a result, a general education program with the support of daily resource room was “reasonably calculated” to enable [A STUDENT] to make meaningful progress in ninth grade.

It was also reasonable for the CSE to conclude that [A STUDENT] would be able to function (and do well) at [a particular public high school]. [A STUDENT] had performed on grade level in honors classes at [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] in and grades (with the exception of honors English in seventh grade) with the support of resource roo[a student] [A STUDENT] was not required to remain in [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML]—the School District’s rigorous and demanding program for gifted students—nor was she required to “take it up a notch” by enrolling in honors courses at [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML]. As a result, the CSE reasonably offered [a particular public high school] as a possible placement for [A STUDENT] [a particular public high school] was a high school in the School District with a general education program and resource room services with, according to school personnel, high expectations for its students.

Furthermore, the classification of recommended by the CSE for [A STUDENT] was appropriate. Dr. [A STUDENT]’s

, concluded that a “language-based learning issue” was “no longer a problem” for [A STUDENT] [A STUDENT]’s scores on language testing were within the range and did not indicate that [A STUDENT] experienced language difficulties While Dr. diagnosed a disorder in 2007, this diagnosis was one of a number of diagnoses—including [A DISORDER]. As Ms. pointed out, (1) [A DISORDER] was the “main reason” for [A STUDENT]’s learning difficulties and (2) a student with a language impairment would not have attained average score in listening comprehension, oral expression and written expression.

Moreover, the School District complied with the IDEA’s mandate that it provide special education services in the least restrictive environment. The IDEA requires that students with disabilities be educated “to the maximum extent appropriate with students who are not disabled and that special classes, separate schooling or other removal of students with disabilities from the general 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)(A); 34 C.F.R. §§300.114(a)(2)(i), 300.116(a)(2); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. §§200.1(cc),

200.6(a)(1); P. v. Newington Board of Education, 546 F. 3d 111, 114 (2d Cir. 2007). The Second Circuit has set forth a two-pronged test for determining whether an IEP places a student in the least restrictive environment: (1) whether education in the general education classroom, with the use of supplemental aids and services, can be achieved satisfactorily for the student; and, if not, then (2) whether the school has mainstreamed the student to the maximum extent appropriate. P. v. Newington Board of Education, 546 F. 3d at 119-120. In order to determine whether a student with a disability can be satisfactorily education in a general education class with supplemental aids and services, a hearing officer should consider additional factors, such as whether the school district has made reasonable efforts to accommodate the student in a regular classroom, the educational benefits available to the student in the regular classroom as compared to the benefits provided in a special education classroom, and the possible negative effects of the inclusion of the student on the education of the other students in the class. P. v. Newington Board of Education, 546 F. 3d at 120.

At the time of the CSE meeting, [A STUDENT]’s most recent scores on cognitive testing were in the to high ranges, with one score, working memory, in the low range. The School District’s and [a non-public school]’s academic testing had resulted in scores in the high to low ranges. None of [A STUDENT]’s evaluation results indicated that [A STUDENT] needed to be removed from the general education environment in order to learn. Furthermore, [A STUDENT] had functioned in the general education environment since preschool. Not only that, but this general education program was the School District’s gifted progra[a student] With the support of resource room and testing and other accommodations, [A STUDENT] had learned and made meaningful progress in this educational environment.

There is nothing in the record to indicate that [A STUDENT] should be removed from general education classes. Given the descriptions of the program at [a particular public high school] provided by Mr. and Mr. , [A STUDENT]’s IEP could be implemented at [a particular public high school]. [a particular public high school] teachers use a variety of general and special education techniques (such as differentiated instruction, scaffolding and lesson planning driven by learning and assessment goals) to meet the needs of their students. [A STUDENT] would have benefitted from these techniques. As a result, the School District demonstrated that it had offered [A STUDENT] an appropriate educational program in the least restrictive environment.

The School District correctly argues that the parents fully participated in the CSE meeting and in the development of the IEP. School District’s Post-Hearing Brief at pp. 17-18. The parents’ disagreement with the IEP and the placement does not constitute a School District’s denial of meaningful participation to the parents. Application of a School District, Appeal No. 10-070 at p. 13. Similarly, the CSE did not deprive the parents of meaningful participation in the IEP process by School District personnel considering, prior to the CSE meeting, [a particular public high school] as a possible placement for [A STUDENT] See T.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free School District, 554 F.3d 247, 253 (2nd Cir. 2009). Ms. testified that she thought about a possible placement for [A STUDENT] in light of the concerns the parents had expressed during [A STUDENT]’s nine-plus years as a student in the School District’s gifted and talented general education [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] progra[a student] In light of the fact that the parents had, over the entirety of [A STUDENT]’s school career, demonstrated their determination to keep [A STUDENT] enrolled in [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] with its rigorous academic program, it was reasonable for Ms. to conclude that might be a program that the parents would find acceptable for [A STUDENT] Ms. stated at the CSE meeting that any high school in the School District could be considered for [A STUDENT] and that the parents could visit any school. Furthermore, the School District’s special education placement officer attended the CSE meeting in order to describe to the parents the different placements available for [A STUDENT] in the School District. The School District’s argument that the [a particular public high school] placement was not impermissibly “pre-determined” by School District personnel is therefore proper. See School District’s Post-Hearing Brief at pp. 18-19.

The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the School District did offer [A STUDENT] a free appropriate public education for the 2009-2010 school year. As a result, the School District prevails with respect to the first prong of the Burlington/Carter analysis for the 2009-2010 school year.

II. The Appropriateness of [a non-public school]

The parents bear the burden of proof concerning the appropriateness of the [a non-public school] program for [A STUDENT] See, e.g., Frank G. v. Board of Education of the Hyde Park Central School District, 459 F. 3d 356, 364 (2nd Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 169 (2007). To meet this burden, the parents must show that the educational services provided at [a non-public school] addressed [A STUDENT]'s identified special education needs. See G.B. and L.B. on behalf of N.B. v. Tuxedo Union Free School District, 09-CV-859 (S.D.N.Y Sept. 30, 2010); Application of the Bd. of City School District of the City of New York, Appeal No. 95-79, at pp. 6-7; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 96-1. The Second Circuit instructs that:

No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining whether parents’ unilateral placement is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive education benefits.” Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207. Grades, test scores, and regular advancement may constitute evidence that a child is receiving educational benefit, but courts assessing the propriety of a unilateral placement consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child’s individual needs . . . . To qualify for reimbursement under the IDEA, parents need not show that a private placement furnishes every special service necessary to maximize their child’s potential. They need only demonstrate that the placement provides “educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child; supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction.” Frank G., 459 F. 3d at 364.

Considering the “totality of the circumstances,” the evidence supports a finding that the program at [a non-public school] was not appropriate for [A STUDENT] [a non-public school], as a self-contained special education school, is so overly restrictive, given [A STUDENT]’s average functioning and her special education needs which do not require that she be removed from the general education environment, that it is not appropriate for her. Furthermore, while [A STUDENT]’s teachers at use a variety of general and special education techniques and language-focused methodologies to instruct [A STUDENT], there is no evidence that [A STUDENT] requires one-to-one instruction, such as that provided daily by her Focus teacher. Given the overwhelming evidence that [A STUDENT] had secured meaningful educational benefits in the general education environment at [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML], the parents’ unilateral placement in a self-contained special education school which incorporates one-to-one instruction is not appropriate for [A STUDENT]

According to her teachers at , [A STUDENT] made progress in her academic classes. However, this, by itself, does not demonstrate that was an appropriate setting under the IDEA for [A STUDENT] See Gagliardo v. Arlington Central School District, 489 F.3d 105, 115 (2d Cir. 2007) (reimbursement denied where “the chief benefits of the chosen school are the kind of educational and environmental advantages and amenities that might be preferred by parents of any child, disabled or not”).

As a result, the School District prevails on the second Burlington/Carter criterion with respect to the appropriateness of the [a non-public school] progra[a student] III. Equitable Considerations

With respect to the third Burlington criterion, whether equitable considerations support the parents’ claims, the evidence establishes that the parents cooperated with the CSE by, over the years, enrolling [A STUDENT] in the School District’s program for kindergarten through eighth grade, having [A STUDENT] participate in the CSE’s evaluation process, attending CSE meetings, and communicating and working with School District personnel to obtain appropriate services for [A STUDENT]

There is another equitable factor that ought to be considered in this case. Much has been made of the allegation that Ms. “predetermined” [A STUDENT]’s proposed placement at [a particular public high school]. However, I view the evidence as demonstrating that School District personnel were attempting to collaborate with the parent. The parent requested that a District “placement officer” attend the CSE meeting. The School District granted this request. School District personnel invited individuals from to the CSE meeting to discuss the school. This invitation was tailored to address the parents’ concerns expressed (and acted upon by the parents) during the entire course of [A STUDENT]’s nine-plus year history attending school in the District that [A STUDENT] attend a rigorous academic progra[a student] Trying to locate a possible placement that School District personnel believe—based upon a nine- plus year history with a family—will be acceptable to that family is not “predetermination” and does not deprive the parents of meaningful participation in the IEP process. This is particularly true here—[a particular public high school] was not forced upon the parents at the CSE meeting. Ms. informed the parents that there were other available placements for [A STUDENT] within the School District.

Therefore, for all the above reasons, it is ordered, that:

The parents’ request for tuition reimbursement for the 2009-2010 school year is denied.

Dated: April 14, 2011

______________________________

A, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

Within 35 days of the receipt of this decision, the parent and/or Board of Education has a right to appeal this 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.” 8 N.Y.C.R.R. §279.2(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 can be found at the Office of State Review website:

www.sro.nysed.gov/appeals.htm

List of Persons Appearing at the Hearing October 4, 2010 Parent

Esq. Attorney for Parents

, Esq. Attorney for School District

Director of Special Education

retired CSE Chairperson November 16, 2010 Parent

Esq. Attorney for Parents

, Esq. Attorney for School District

Executive Director of Special Education

retired CSE Chairperson School Psychologist November 17, 2010 Parent

Esq. Attorney for Parents

, Esq. Attorney for School District

Director of Special Education

teacher, [a particular public high school] November 23, 2010 Parent

Esq. Attorney for Parents

educational advocate

teacher, [a non-public school]

teacher, [a non-public school]

, Esq. Attorney for School District School Psychologist

Director of Special Education January 18, 2011 Parent

Esq. Attorney for Parents

, Esq. Attorney for School District School Psychologist February 28, 2100 Parent

Esq. Attorney for Parents

, Esq. Attorney for School District

Principal, [a particular public high school] School Psychologist

List of Exhibits Entered into the Record The following documents were entered into evidence as School District Exhibits: Number Description Date Pages 1 School District Answer 6/15/10 4 2 Request for CSE Cancellation 4/1/09 1 3 Consent to Re-Evaluation 3/10/09 1 4 Update 4/14/09 3 5 [a non-public school] Winter Report 2/11/09 8 6 [a non-public school] schedule 2009-2010 1 7 Letter to parents 6/19/09 1 8 [a non-public school] report card Fall 2009 1 9 [a non-public school] report card Fall 2008 1 10 [a non-public school] testing report Spring 2009 1 11 [a non-public school] academic record 4/7/10 1 12 Letter from parents 2/28/09 1 13 Draft goals 6/22/09 16 14 Educational Evaluation 5/27/09 5 15 Individualized Education Program 6/15/09 12 16 Social History Update 3/27/09 1 17 [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] report card 11/9/07 1 18 Request for CSE Cancellation 4/2/09 1 19 Evaluation 6/20/08 1 20 Letter from [a non-public school] 5/11/09 1 21 Letter from 10/13/08 1 The following documents were entered into evidence as Parents’ Exhibits: Letter Description Date Pages A Impartial Hearing Request 4/12/10 5 B IEP 5/21/10 9 C Update 4/14/09 3 D Evaluation 9/4/07 20 E Social History Update 4/8/10 2 F Educational Evaluation 4/16/10 3 G Educational Evaluation 5/27/09 5 H Classroom Observation 4/19/10 1 I [a non-public school] report card 7/1/10 11 J Attendance 6/28/10 1 K Student Enrollment Agreement 3/10/09 2 L Tuition checks 6/09-2/10 10 M Letter from parents 7/14/10 1 N Letter from parents 2/28/09 1 O [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] report cards P [a particular public high school] brochure 2008 1 (folded)

Footnotes

[1] [A PARTICULAR PULIC SCHOOL GIFTED PROGRAML] stands for “ ” (trans. 125). It is an entire school, not a program within a school (trans. 125-126). 3

[2] The report does not include grade equivalent scores. This report is also in evidence as Parent Ex. G. It is an inadvertent duplication of exhibits. 4