New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number:

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth: District: 13

Requested By: Parent Date of : January 13, 2011

January 21, 2011

February 9, 2011

April 12, 2011

April 13, 2011

May 18, 2011 Actual Record Close Date: July 25, 2011

Officer: Lana S. Flame, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JANUARY 13, 2011

Attorney — Student

Attorney — Student

Mother — Student

Interpreter — Student

Director of Student Services CFN 308 — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON January 21, 2011

Attorney — Student

Attorney — Student

Mother — Student

Director of Student Services CFN 308 — DOE

School Psychologist (via telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON FEBRUARY 9, 2011

Attorney — Student

Parents

Interpreter — Student

Attorney — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL 12, 2011

Attorney — Student

Parents

Interpreter — Student

DR., Director of EBL Coaching (via telephone) — Student

Administrator of Education — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL 13, 2011

Attorney — Student

Parents

Psychologist (via telephone) — Student

Interpreter — Student

Theerapist (via telephone) — Student

Director of Student Services — DOE

Administrator of Education — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MAY 18, 2011

Attorney — Student

Parents

Interpreter — Student

AT Evaluator (via telephone) — Student

and Evaluator (via telephone) — Student

Director of Student Services — DOE

The parents of, through their attorney, filed a request for an impartial on November 9, 2010, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (“IDEIA”), 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400, et. seq., alleging that the New York City Department of Educaton (“DOE”) denied their son a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, and 2010-2011 school years. The parents also alleged that the DOE violated 's rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“Section 504”). Ex. A.

The was held on January 13, 2011, January 21, 2011, January 26, 2011, February 9, 2011, April 12, 2011, April 13, 2011, and May 18, 2011. Lists of the individuals who participated and the documents entered into evidence are included in the decision. A interpreter was present to translate for the parent.

In an interim order dated January 26, 2011, the Department of Education was ordered to pay for independent evaluations including: a) and evaluation; b) assistive technology evaluation; c) therapy evaluation; d) psycho-educational evaluation; and, e) bilingual neuropsychological evaluation. At this time, these evaluations have been completed. also received an processing evaluation and a evaluation. On May 23, 2011, the parties entered into the following signed written agreement:

“Within 10 calendar days of this order being issued, the CSE shall convene an IEP meeting for the purpose of considering the recommendations of 's bilingual neuropsychological evaluation, and evaluation, processing evaluation, therapy evaluation, assistive technology evaluation, and evaluation. At the IEP meeting, the CSE shall also consider recommending a deferral to the CBST for a NPS placement.

This agreement is not intended to supersede any previous interim order nor shall it effect or superseded any final decision for case number .”

In a Interim Order, dated May 25, 2011, the parties were orderd to adhere to this agreement.

In a June 24, 2011, teleconference I was informed by the parties that as of July 5, 2011, would be attending The Child School, a private New York State approved education school, pursuant to DOE funding. The remaining claims pertain to compensatory education. Extension of the Compliance Dates

The parties jointly requested an extension of the time lines on January 21, 2011, to allow time for independent evaluations. The extension was granted to February 22, 2011. On February 9, 2011, the parties jointly requested an extension of the time lines due to the availability of the witnesses and because they still were waiting for evaluation results. The compliance dates were extended to March 24, 2011. The parents requested an extension of the time lines on March 17, 2011, because they still were waiting to obtain results of the independent evaluations. The compliance dates were extended to April 23, 2011. On April 13, 2011, the parties jointly requested an extension of the time lines due to the availability of the witnesses. The extension was granted to May 23, 2011. Due to the extensive testimony regarding the many independent evaluations that were conducted, the parties jointly requested an extension of the time lines on May 18, 2011, and they were extended to June 22, 2011. On June 22, 2011, the parties jointly requested an extension of the time lines in order to allow time to submit post-closing statements and legal memoranda and the extensions were granted to July 22, 2011. On July 20, 2011, the parties jointly requested an extension of the time lines to allow time for the record to be closed and the decision to be written, including time needed by the officer due to a hand injury. The time lines were extended to August 21, 2011.

Background

is years old and was in the grade during the 2010-2011 school year. Tr. 488. ’s parents are from , their native is and it is the main used in ’s home. Tr. 484; Ex. A. His parents speak only limited English. Id. speaks both English and and is bilingual. Tr. 484-85. went to School for during the 2004-2005 school year. Tr. 486. In the spring of 2005 an IEP was drafted for Ex. S. The 2005 IEP recommended a class with twice per week and English as a services ( ). Ex. S. began for grade and attended there during the 2005-2006 school year. Tr. 488. In the spring of 2006 the DOE drafted an IEP which again recommended a class with two times per week and services. Ex. F. returned to for grade and attended there during the 2006-2007 school year. Id.; Ex. E. In the spring of 2007 he was reevaluated in English and the DOE drafted an IEP. Exs. E & L. According to the parents, the 2007 IEP removed services without utilizing bilingual evaluations or a LAB test. Exs. E & L. The DOE changed his spoken to English on the 2007 IEP and again recommended a class with 2 times per week. Exs. E, F. returned to for grade for the 2007-2008 school year and stayed there until the end of the 2009-2010 school year for 5th grade. Tr. 488; Exs. D, C, B. For each of the above years, was recommended for an English class with two times per week. Exs. D, C, B. In the spring of 2010, graduated from and in September 2010 he started in a grade class at , where he was recommended for two times per week. Ex. B. The parents requested the because every year, dating back to 2007, was recommended for the identical program and related services despite his minimal progress. Exs. E, D, C, B. The parents allege that did not receive appropriate or adequate evaluations. His parents have never been provided with any translation services at IEP meetings, and no evaluations, IEP, or procedural safeguards have ever been provided in . Tr. 487-503. Nor were the parents’ rights ever explained in . Ex. A. Selected Documents Entered into Evidence IEP dated May 19, 2005

At his annual review, was classifed as and impaired and recommended for a class in a community school. Ex. S-1. He was recommended to receive individual therapy twice a week for thirty minutes per session. Ex. S-13.

's “ (s) Spoken/Mode of Communication” is noted as “English/ ” 's mother is noted to require an interpreter. The box for “Exception to Bilingual Services – Services Only” was checked. Ex. S-1. was recommended to receive services as he needed “additional support to English” and a management paraprofessional because he needed “an additional adult to complete any task”. 's readiness skills were not yet developed. Ex. S-3.

The meeting was attended by the mother, a district representative, a general education teacher and a education teacher. Noone was indicated as being bilingual. Ex. S-2. IEP dated May 22, 2006 was years old and in the grade. The IEP notes that the s spoken are “English/ ”. The same is noted for his parents. The IEP indicates that an interpreter is not required. Ex. F-1. was classifed as and impaired and recommended for a class in a community school. Ex. F-1. He was recommended to receive individual therapy twice a week for thirty minutes per session. Ex. F-13. The “No” box is checked for twelve month school year. Ex. F-1.

The CSE participants included the parent, the district representative and a education teacher. Ex. F-2. None of the participants were noted as bilingual.

The IEP indicates that no changes were made to the previous IEP recommendations. Ex. F-2 and F-3.

The IEP states that “needs additional help English since is spoken in the home. He needs services.” Ex. F-4. He was noted to be functioning below grade level in all areas and on the results of ECLAS evaluations was at a level in decoding, comprehension and comprehension. His level, based on a teacher observation was pre-K. Ex. F-4. Based on teacher tests he was at a level in computation and problem solving. Ex. F-4.

was noted to often for only “ s at a time”. Ex. F4. Comprehensive Evaluation Report, March 23, 2007

This triennial evaluation notes that the student's is English. Ex. L. It consisted of: a History Update; Classroom Observation, Ex. M; Teacher Report, Ex. O; Teacher Interview; and / Update. Ex. N. All of these documents reflect that had a very short span, an inability to work independently and issues. The twenty minute classroom observation noted that his responses were slow to come and that he had articulation problems. Ex.M. The and progress report indicates that he is in grade while the other reports indicate that he is in grade. The report indicates that he can identify some letters of the alphabet and knows his numbers from 1-10. Ex.N. IEP dated May 23, 2007

The IEP indicates that this was a triennial review for . E-2. As a 7.6 year old grader, was classifed with a impairment and recommended for a class in a community school. Ex. E-1. He was recommended to receive individual therapy twice a week for thirty minutes per session. Ex. E-12. The “No” box is checked for twelve month school year. Ex. E-1. The student and parent are noted to have English as their spoken . Id.

The meeting was atended by the parent a school psychologist and a education teacher, none of whom were indicated as being bilingual. Ex. E-2. The IEP indicates that no modifications were made to the previous IEP. Id.

Based on teacher observation, 's instructional levels were: decoding K7, comprehension K7, computation and problem solving 1.5. Ex. E-3. IEP dated March 13, 2008 is noted to be years old 1 . English is noted to be the mode of communication for him and his mother. Ex. D-1. was classifed with a impairment and recommended for a class in a community school. Ex. D-1. He was recommended to receive therapy, but there is no indication of the group size, the frequency or the duration of the session. Ex. D-12.

was recommended to receive services for a twelve month school year. Ex. D-1.

1 With a date of birth of , would have been years old.

The IEP indicates that there were no changes made in the services from the previous IEP. Ex. D-2.

The meeting was attended by the mother, a district representative, a education teacher, and an individual, , who signed in as “other”. Ex. D-2.

The description of 's present academic performance and characteris is identical to the content of the previous IEP. cf. Ex. D-3 and Ex. E-3. 's stated instructional levels based on teacher observation for decoding, comprehension, computation and problem solving all were noted as grade. Ex. D-3.

's / performance was copied from the previous IEP, verbatim. Ex. D-4 and Ex. E-4. 's is reported as sometimes interfering with his instruction. Ex. D-4.

The annual goals and short term objectives for , and are identical to those of the preivious IEP with the exception of a few words. cf. Ex. E- 6, 7, 8 with Ex. D-6 ,7, 8. Comprehensive Evaluation Report, January 8 and 29, 2009

,a grade student, was referred for re-evaluation by his mother due to concerns about his academic progress and to if he met the criteria for an alternative assessment. Ex. G-1.

The background information notes that received a bilingual English/ evaluation in 2002, including the Bayley Scales of Infant Development II, with his results reflecting a “25 month age equivalent which fell more than 3 standard deviations below the mean, indicating significantly delayed performance.” Ex. G-2. A and evaluation revealed significant and . Id. For his “turning ” re-evaluation the results of a Differential Abilities Scale indicated that 's “cognitive skills fell below age expectation with significantly weak skills.” Id. In academic testing the K-SEALS indicated “significant gaps in his early academic skills”. Id.

For this evaluation, 's WISC-IV scores were as follows: Full Scale IQ – / % (Extremely Low); Comprehension Index - % (Extremely Low) and Processing Speed Index- % (Extremely Low). On the subtests within the Comprehension Index performed within the Borderline range on Vocabulary and Similarities, measures of development, word knowledge and fluency. 's Perceptual Reasoning Index was % within the Borderline range. His Working Memory score similarly was % within the Borderline range. On the the Bender Gestalt II, scored % on the Integration test falling in the Borderline range. Also, using the Bender Gestalt II, scored in the Average range on - recall

%. Ex. G-4, G-9

Academic testing was done using the Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Achievement. His scores and instructional levels were as follows: letter-word identification ( ); passage comprehension ( ); fluency ( ); fluency ( ); word attack ( ); calculation ( ); applied problems ( ); fluency ( ); samples ( ); spelling ( ). Ex. G-5, Ex. G-10. The evaluator noted that 's “overall Academic skills fell within the borderline range and at a grade level equivalent.” Ex. G-5.

The evaluator, , wrote that seemed “somewhat immature”. Ex. G-6. He had difficulty working independently and responded well to encouragement and help. He was easily and did not stay on timed tasks, forgetting the directions. Ex. G-7.

The evaluator recommended that continue “in a small class setting to better address his significant academic ”, “multi-modal teaching techniques”, modeling and prompts, praise and encouragement to work independently, and chunking information. Ex. G-8. IEP dated February 13, 2009

,a year month old grade student was classifed as and impaired and recommended for a class in a community school. Ex. C-1. He was recommended to receive individual therapy twice a week for thirty minutes per session. Ex. C-14.

According to the IEP, a “cognitive evaluation using the WISC-IV on 1/08/09” was administered. Ex. C-3. 's full scale IQ ( ), comprehension ( ), and processing speed ( ) are noted to be “Extremely low”. Perceptual reasoning ( ), working memory ( ), and - integration which was tested using the Bender Gestalt II ( ) are noted to be “Borderline” and relative strengths. Also, using the Bender Gestalt II, scored in the Average range on - recall (93). Ex. C-3.

also is noted to have received an academic evaluation on 1/08/09, using the Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Achievement. His scores and instructional levels were noted on the IEP as follows: letter-word identification ( ); passage comprehension

( ); fluency ( ); fluency ( ); word attack ( ); calculation ( ); applied problems ( ); fluency ( ); samples ( ); spelling ( ). Ex. C-4.

was noted as being “very distractible”. Ex. C-3.

The individuals who participated were: the mother; a district representative; a school psychologist; a school worker; and a education teacher. No one was indicated as being bilingual. Ex. C-2. IEP dated February 12, 2010

During grade, when was years old, was classified as and impaired. He was recommended to attend a class in a community school with a student to teacher ratio of . He was recommended to receive individual therapy twice a week for thirty minutes per session.

's , and levels were based on “Running records”, “Teacher observation”, “Portfolio Assessment”, and “Teacher made test”. All of his skills were noted to be at a grade level except decoding which was on a grade level. Ex. B-3. is described as “significantly ” in and , “processes information given very slowly”, in need of a lot of adult super to complete a task, and “easily ”. Ex. B-2.

The meeting participants included the mother, a district representative, a education teacher and a provider. There is no indication that any of the CSE members were bilingual. Ex. B-2. Bilingual Neuropsychological Evaluation, January 12, 2011

The evaluation was conducted in English and in . Dr. , the evaluator, noted that presents with much greater fluency in English. reported that he speaks with his mother, both s with his father and English with other family and friends. “Overall, [ ] presents as bilingual in his interactions and English dominant in his academic skills.” Ex. HH-5.

Dr. administered the WISC-IV. 's scores reflected a Full Scale IQ in the Low Average range. His Comprehension Index is at the Borderline level, Perceptual Reasoning Index is at the Average range, Working Memory Index is Average, and Processing Speed Index is at the Borderline level. Ex. HH-6.

On the Beery-VMI, achieved a score of or at the Below Average level, with an age equivalent of years. On the Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Acheivement was shown to function at the Low level in English in decoding skills. Comprehension skills are at the Very Low level in English. In spelling skills, he functions at the Low level in English. calculation skills are at the Very Low level and problem-solving skills are at the Very Low level. comprehension skills are at the Low level in English and at the Very Low level in . Ex. HH23.

Overall, Dr. found that “presents with a based disability as well as difficulty with and ....[ ] has more difficulty with fine skills and very marked difficulty with and processing speed. He shows marked weakness in memory with context, memory, and associate memory, processing and comprehension, but he shows strengths in many key areas that suggests [sic] markedly great potential, memory as well as spatial, and non reasoning, capacity, and some areas of sematic memory are clearly demonstrated.” Ex. HH-17.

Dr. made several recommendations including: 1) placement in a school and small program with minimal distractions that can address 's , processing speed, and memory; 2) “intensive instruction “ on the development of phonetic processing skills and multi-approaches; 3) an assistive technology evaluation with particular paid to skills, memory and . Ex. HH21.

and Processing Evaluation, January 28, 2011

Dr. administered The Clinical Evaluation of Fundamentals Edition (CELF-4), 9-21 edition. Dr. found:

“Overall skills were deficient in all areas of and skill, which were in the percentile or below. (Core was in the < percentile, as was

Memory.) He had difficulty on all subtests including defining words, understanding paragraphs ( comprehension), formulating sentences, understanding and explaining word classes, semantic relationships and assembling sentences, understanding concepts and following directions and short term memory. Rapid naming was compromised, suggesting word retrieval issues.”

Ex. FF-4.

was performing - years below his chronological age. Id. The results of the Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation-2 showed that 's production is significantly impaired (< percentile), with articulation errors (distortions and substitutions), interdental , thrust, , open posture, issues, difficulty sequencing multi-syllables and like .” Ex. FF-5. Dr. also suspected tht has a “significant processing disorder which should be tested.” Id.

Dr. recommended an increase in therapy to times per week, twice individually and three times in a group of three to one. Exs. FF-5, FF-6. “Goals should address memory, and , word retrieval, vocabulary, , production and training.” Ex. FF-6. Dr. recommended that in school services be supplemented with private therapy. Dr. recommended that receive an processing evaluation “to determine the full extent of [ 's] disability.” Id. She also recommended a medical evaluation to rule out 's syndrome since she observed “ ” and acknowledged that he has this often. Id.

Processing Evaluation, January 28, 2011

's was found to be within normal limits. Dr. found that he “presents with an processing disorder in the areas of discrimination, figureground , and temp processing (timing of acoustic cues). In addition a awareness disorder, affecting is present.” Ex. GG-4. Dr. noted that his discrimination is “fair in quiet and impaired in noise”, implying that will have difficulty the message clearly in a classroom and sorting relevant from irrelevant information. Ex. G-44.

“On formal measures of processing (SCAN-3), the overall composite score is in the percentile, with significant difficulty in figure-ground

( percentile), closure ( percentile) and integration of words

( percentile).” Ex. GG-4, GG-5. “A temp integration deficit is identified on the Time Compressed Sentences subtest of the SCAN-3 (5th percentile). He had trouble discriminating differences in timing. This could impact on his speed of processing”, causing a delayed response and a longer response time. Dr. also noted that his awareness (synthesis and decoding) is deficient.” Ex. GG-5.

Dr. 's recommendations included: 1) placement in a small sized quiet classroom; 2) classroom and testing accommodations such as extended time, preferential seating, questions read and reread, pre-teaching, cues, repetition and notes in advance of class as well as assistance with note-taking; 3) an increase in and therapy from two to times per week, two individually and three in a group; 4) a personal FM system for normal listeners (Phonak In-the-Ear Isense); Earobics Computer program for and , Home Version; 5) a medical evaluation to evaluate for disorder (“ ”); and, 6) multi-instruction with a phonemic awareness approach by a trained instructor, times per week. Ex. GG-5 ,

GG-6.

Therapy Evaluation, March 2, 2011

The evaluation consisted of assessing 's fine skills, -perceptual skills, - skills, skills, and self-help skills. Ex. EE-4. The evaluator found 's skills in all of these areas to be “significantly below age level at this time”.

's standard score of on The Beery VMI Developmental Test of Integration, 5th Edition, placed him in the percentile. On The Beery VMI Developmental Test of Perception, 5th Edition he scored in the percentile. On th The Beery VMI Developmental Test of Coordination, 5 Edition, [ ] scored 53 in the percentile. Ex. EE-3.

The evaluator recommended that receive three thirty minute sessions of therapy per week and a bank of 35-40 hours of therapy to increase his academic functioning. Ex. EE-5. She also recommended that receive an evaluation of his skills when he is scanning and tracking as they may affect his processing skills. Id. Evaluation of and Perceptual Develoment, May 11, 2011

Dr. administered the Developmental Movement test which indicated that “has difficulty moving his quickly and accurately in a task that simulates the demands of .” Ex. JJ-4. “The testing revealed that [ ] has reduced binocular accommodative and skills.” Id.

Dr. diagnosed with Convergence Excess, Convergence Insufficiency, Accommodative Infacility, and Dysfunction.” Ex. JJ-4. Dr. found that is “significantly farsighted and needs glasses to help him relax the stress.” Ex. JJ-5. He recommended that begin a Therapy Rehabilitation program provided by an in a clinical setting. Id.

Dr. concluded that his findings correlate with the findings of the therapy evaluation. He wrote that 's lags “need to be eliminated so that” “can more easily concentrate and function at academics.” Ex. JJ-5. The Department of Education's Witness

Ms. , a school psychologist, administered a psychoeducational evaluation to (Ex. G) and was a member of the CSE team that developed his February 13, 2009, IEP. Tr. 104-105. Ms. s testified that the parent asked for the reevaluation “because at the time [ ] was really performing far below grade-level expectation, and there was some concern as to whether he would be able to take the New York State exams, the ELA and exams, and so we wanted to really take a deeper look at his overall skills, both cognitive and academic in order to determine whether he was eligible for the New York State alternate assessment.” Tr. 100; Tr. 111-112. Since was found to have some strengths, he was not found to be eligible for the NYSAA. Tr. 100-101. Ms. later acknowledged that the parent was concerned that was not progressing and wanted to know what kinds of services would be appropriate for him at that time. Tr. 112.

Ms. testified that after “inquiring a little bit” with the assistant principal, teacher and mother about the reason for the referral she alone made the deciciosn about which assessments to conduct and administered them, with the exception of a progress report. Tr. 115-116. She testified about her findings on the psychoeducational evaluation and the IEP meeting. See Ex. G and Ex. C. Ms. s testified that she did not recommend that a and evaluation be done “because it is not my field of expertise.” Tr. 118. She explained that it was at the option of the service provider to conduct an evaluation or “fill out the progress report”. Tr. 118. Upon review of the December 19, 2008, and Progess Report she testified that no testing was done. Tr. 123-124. Ms. did not recall when, prior to the 2009 re-evaluation, last had a evaluation conducted. Tr. 119. Referencing a comprehensive evaluation report dated March 23, 2007, Ms. testified that the last triennial was done at that time, and that no standardized testing was part of that evaluation. Tr. 121-123; Ex. L.

Ms. acknowledged that had been evaluated in English and in 2002 and that she reviewed that evaluation. Ex. G-2; Tr. 124-126. She did not conduct a bilingual evaluation. In her view, was not eligible for a bilingual evaluation because he did not receive services. Tr. 126, 129, 203. Ms. did not review a LAB score for nor did she see one in his academic file. Tr. 127.

According to Ms. , there was no indication that required a bilingual evaluation at the time she evaluated him. Tr. 128. Acording to Ms. , the mother requested an English evaluation, Ms. communicated with the family in English, including the interview, spoke English in the classroom and he never was in a bilingual program. Tr. 130, 178. she testified that she reviewed all of the student's previous IEPs but that she was uncertain to what degree and then she did not recall if she reviewed the IEP from May 2006 that stated needed services. Tr. 132-133; Ex. F.

Ms. administered the Bender Gestalt to look at 's skills and his memory. Tr. 137. scored in the % on the test, or borderline range. She did not recommend an therapy evaluation for because the score was consistent with his cognitive skills. Tr. 136. His fine skills were not an area of concern. Tr. 142. There was no deficit in 's skills or abilities that led the CSE to believe that an assistive technology evaluation was necessary. Tr. 191-195.

Ms. thought that was capable of making progress, but that it would be slow and that the IEPs in evidence, as written, did not reflect the progress he made in specific skill areas. She noted that he progressed in decoding to the grade level. Ex. B-2.

Ms. stated that she recommended individual instruction for when possible for phonemic awareness specific activity, but she had no idea how much individual instruction he actually received. Tr. 158-159.

Ms. testified that 's needs were addressed more specifically in the goals of the IEP she drafted in collaboration with 's teacher. She reviewed several of the , and goals from the 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 IEPs, and acknowledged that they were, for the most part, identical. Tr. 168-176; Exs. C, D, E, F. She also confirmed that if an IEP repeats a goal from a previous year it can be assumed that the student did not meet that goal in the prior year. Tr. 171.

Ms. testified that the 2008 IEP indicated, in error, that was to receive a 12 month school year. The CSE eliminated the 12 month school year from the 2009 IEP. Tr. 183-184, 214-215. In her view, only students who are recommended for District 75 programs due to their severe disabilities are eligible for a 12 month program. Tr. 186.

At the time she evaluated , Ms. had been a school psychologist for the DOE for about or months. Tr. 111. She is not certified to conduct bilingual evaluations. Id.

The Parents' Witnesses

, 's mother, testified that she is from . She speaks English and with her children, but stated that she speaks and writes best.2 Tr. 483-484. The parent testified that she has attended every IEP meeting since 2007 in person or by telephone. Tr. 489. No translator was ever provided or offered. Tr. 490, 501, 513. No or written translation of any IEP was ever given to her. Tr. 490, 502. No one ever advised her of her options if she disagreed with the CSE's recommendations. Tr. 490, 495-496,

502. The parent stated: “If there was a person there to translate my then I would be able to express myself better and more.” Tr. 502. The parent never was informed that she could have a parent member present at the CSE meetings. Tr. 518.

The parent stated that she received documents, in English, about the IEP process. Tr. 502. She never received any information about the actual IEPs or the process in . Tr. 502-505. Nor did anyone tell her that she was entitled to have this information translated. Tr. 503-504. She never was told about her due process rights. Tr. 506-508. She never was told about Section 504 rights. Tr. 508-509. The parent testified that another parent from 's school, , told her about requesting an impartial some time during the previous school year. Tr. 508. If she had known sooner, she would have requested a sooner because her son “needed additional programs.” Tr. 512.

The parent testified that from the time she filed her request in November 2010 to the time of her testimony, the DOE has not provided any documents regarding her son, in , nor have they provided a translator for any meetings. Tr. 511.

Dr. evaluated in January and February 2011. Tr. 290. Dr. is a board certified bilingual neuropsychologist who in bilingual -English evaluations. Tr. 288-89. Dr. has a Ph.D. in clinical psychology, with post-doct training and a post-doct certificate in neuropsychology. Tr. 286-87. With 30 years as a practitioner, he has been a contract provider for the DOE for the last ten to fifteen years. Tr. 287. In preparation for his evaluation of , Dr. reviewed ’s IEPs and pervious DOE evaluations. Tr. 290; Ex. HH1-5.

Dr. administered a series of tests to assess ’s cognitive potential in English and , academic achievement, , processing, - , processing, executive functioning, and memory 3 . Tr. 291; Ex. HH. Dr. determined that is currently English dominant. Tr. 328; Ex. HH7. Although he is English dominant, he is still bilingual and “clearly knows ”, but for academic purposes services should be provided solely in English. Tr. 329.

Using the WISC IV, Dr. found that was performing on a lowaverage level intellectually, with a Full Scale IQ of or %. Tr. 292, 302; Ex. HH6. This score was almost twenty points higher than the DOE’s testing. scored in the average range in both perceptual reasoning and working memory, but his performance was borderline in areas assessing comprehension ( - percentile) and processing speed. Tr. 292, 294-295; HH6. Dr. determined that is a significant problem for and his ability to his , his word knowledge, and his ability to generalize and ideas are all very delayed. Tr. 295; Ex. HH17-18. did “somewhat better in reasoning than in word knowledge, which suggests a little bit greater potential.” Tr. 295. scored an average or low average level (15th - 20th percentile) on the perceptual or non-reasoning assessments which means “there is a much greater potential to his functioning in that there is not...a delay in reasoning, per se, but a delay in the of the reasoning....” Tr. 296- 298; HH17. 's scores also indicated “[v]ery good potential” in the area of working memory, about percentile. Tr.

2 As noted in the introduction, the parent had a speaking interpreter for the . The parent appeared to require the services of the interpreter to fully participate in the . 299-300. In the areas related to processing speed, scored in the borderline or percentile. Tr. 301, 311-312.

Academically, using the Woodcock Johnson III Test of Achievement, Dr. ’s testing found that is significantly below grade level and is performing on the borderline to deficient levels in every area. Tr. 303; HH7; HH17. He testified that ’s academic skills are “much lower” than his cognitive potential would indicate. Tr. 305. skills are also problematic for ; he was performing on the low-average level with an age equivalent of a 7.6 year old. Tr. 305-06; HH17. Dr. also tested 's skills finding significant . Tr. 309-310. On the Continuance Performance Test 2, 's scores reflected “extreme in difficulties.” Tr. 309-310; HH-11, HH-12. In the areas related to and processing 's scores ranged from very low to borderline, showing an area of “marked problems”. Tr. 311. In tests addressing executive functioning skills, had variable scores ranging from very low to average, showing similar strengths in tests of non reasoning and greater difficulty with sequencing or information. Tr. 313-314.

Looking at or factors, the “ problems come out to be the most problematic areas.” Tr. 315. The most elevated scores were for , inattentive and impulsive type. Id.

Dr. ’s diagnostic impressions were extensive. Among other things, Dr. concluded that has a Based Disorder, Deficit Disorder, Surface , , , and Procedural . He also has in short term memory and has slow processing speed. Tr. 300-01; HH20.

In sum, Dr. explained that “ based problems combined with ...are problematic, but there's a lot of potential in non and spatial reasoning as well as memory areas.” Tr. 317. has “more academic and cognitve potential, but the various weaknesses interfere with his ability to ...unless they're addressed on a more specific basis.” Id.; see Tr. 325.

3 Dr. explained that in bilingual evaluations the actual number scores appear in the appendices and not in the body of the report where descriptions of the levels are used. Tr. 292-293.

Dr. reviewed and explained the diagnoses he made: disorder not otherwise specified; communication disorder; cognitive disorder not otherwise specified; deficit disorder combined type. Tr. 318; HH-20.

Dr. made recommendations for ’s program which include a small program in a school to address his complex issues and an environment with minimal distractions to address his complex , processing speed, , and memory issues. Tr. 320-21; HH20-21. Dr. explained that he a program with a student to teacher ratio of or at most, with a homogeneous student body in terms of difficulties and expertise to monitor and address , processing and processing speed isuues. Tr. 327. He also recommended an intensive program that es on phonetic processing skills and multi-approaches, such as or Orton-Gillingham. Tr. 321; HH20. He also suggested that receive a program to address mixed , which on spatial, procedural and aspects of and problem solving. Tr. 320-321; HH20. Services should be provided by a familiar with and processing speed difficulties. Tr. 320-21; Ex. HH20-21. Dr. also recommended an assistive technology evaluation to address 's , memory, and issues. Tr. 321-22; Ex. HH21.

Dr. , the Director of the and Center at St. John’s University (Tr. 433), evaluated in the areas of and processing and processing. Exs. FF & GG. She also testified concerning her findings. Dr. has a Ph.D. in audiology, masters in and pathology, is certified in and pathology and audiology. Tr. 432. She testified further about her extensive qualifications. Tr. 433-434.

As part of her evaluation, Dr. reviewed the DOE’s 2008 and Progress Report and 2007 and Progress Report. Tr. 437; Exs. N; Ex. J. She testified that her review of those reports provided her with little information about ’s areas of need because neither contains standardized or normed referenced testing or adequately describes ’s performance levels or functioning. Tr. 439-40; Exs. J, N.

Dr. testified regarding her findings and recommendations consistently with the report. (See evaluation description above.) She also noted having “grunt-like ” which could be affecting his articulation and need to be addressed. Tr. 453-54; Ex. GG4-5. Dr. testified she was concerned about the tic disorder and suggested needs to be evaluated by a pediatric neurologist or developmental pediatrician to rule out ’s Syndrome. Tr. 455; Exs. FF5, GG4-5.

, an therapist, testified that she gave an therapy evaluation on March 2, 2011. Tr. 337-338. Ms. testified that she looked at 's “neuro-muscular status, his fine skills, his skills and perceptual skills and his skills.” Tr. 340. She used clinical observation, informal parent interview, the Beery VMI Developmental Assessment of Integration with subtests, and the Beery VMI Developmental Assessment of Coordination.

Ms. explained that 's scores in the area of fine skills, the equivalent of year old, might affect his academic performance by affecting his ability to follow the pace of the classroom if he is unable to write as quickly as his classmates and falls behind. Tr. 342. She noted that his and perceptual skills are much lower than his peers. Tr. 344. This would affect his skills, skills, ability to copy from a board or to look from his desk to a board. Tr. 345. also displayed unnecessary body movements indicating that he was not processing the stimuli within his environment correctly. Tr. 345-346.

Ms. recommended therapy three times per week because she believes has the potential to develop more age appropriate skills in his deficit areas, including determining what inputs he may need to control his unnecessary movements, if he has that amount of additional support. Tr. 347. She explained that “missed out on crucial time where he could have been developing these skills” and recommended a bank of 35-40 hours to give him the most support that he needs at this time to help him to develop and retain the skills. Tr. 347-348; 349-350. The weekly sessions are to further develop, practice and maintain the skills. Ms. thinks that it would be most helpful for to receive the weekly sessions of therapy during the school day on a pull out basis because of the opportunities for collaboration between the teacher and therapist. Tr. 351-352. The bank of hours would be used outside of school as the parent could schedule them. Tr. 353.

Dr. , the president of EBL Coaching (“EBL”), testified that EBL is an organization that in providing one-on-one tutoring for specific needs of education students. Tr. 246. Dr. has a Masters Degree and Doctorate in education. Tr. 246. She is the author of a 13-part research based, multi-workbook series for testing taking, organization, note taking, , comprehension, and skills. Tr. 247. All of the tutors at EBL are licensed in education (Tr. 247-48) and their curriculum and strategies are developed using multi-teaching approaches and the Orton-Gillingham methodology. Id. Dr. and her staff at EBL measure progress and set benchmarks for success. Tr. 256. As part of EBL’s program, Dr.

testified that she would be in regular contact with ’s teachers, therapists, parents, and to ensure all are working together in terms of the services provided to and to continually monitor his progress. Tr. 253, 256.

Dr. met and assessed his skills on January 5, 2011. Ex. II-1. She also reviewed his IEPs, the 2009 evaluation by Ms. , and Dr. ’s report. Tr. 248-50; Ex. II-1. Dr. administered the Wide Range Achievement Test (“WRAT”), which assesses , decoding and , the Test of Written (“TOWL”), and the Qualitative Inventory. Tr. 250, 260-261; Ex. II. Based on the results of the WRAT, she determined that was on the low academic level in his core skills. Tr. 250-51, 261-262. struggled significantly in all areas of : sentence structure, grammar, developing topic sentences, concluding sentences, as well as the basic mechanics of . Tr. 263. Dr. ’s assessments and review of 's records led her to conclude that was performing “well below” his potential. Tr. 251. Dr. felt strongly that ’s biggest need is remediation on very fundamental decoding skills. Tr. 258. She feels Orton-Gillingham would be an ideal program for him to work on his fundamentals. Tr. 259-60. She stressed that remediation is urgent for at this stage because, as he transitions into middle and high-school, the and academic demands are increasing exponentially. Tr. 255.

Dr. testified that she feels requires an average of 10 hours per week of services for at least one and one-half years. Tr. 252-53. Dr. recognized that the number of hours per week he needs is “fluid.” Tr. 267. Dr. feels the 10 hours per week of EBL needs to be in addition to any services he is receiving in school and his related services because EBL will on skill remediation of core academic skills, fundamental skills, and application of those skills. Tr. 254. She testified that he needs approximately 600 hours to “potentially” reach grade level. Tr. 265. Without remediation in these fundamental skills, he will continue to struggle and is at risk of further regression. Tr. 252. Dr. en s the 10 hours per week on building core skills in the areas of decoding and encoding using Orton-Gillingham, multiapproaches to . Tr. 254. The remediation EBL provides would also support ’s ongoing school curriculum. Tr. 254. Dr. testified EBL charges $110 per hour and has a ist available to provide services immediately. Ex. KK; Tr. 254.

assessed for assistive technology support, software, and hardware. Tr. 374. Mr. has a Master’s in Applied Psychology, Bachelor’s in Engineering and Life Sciences, is certified as an assistive technology teacher and as an assistive technology professional. Tr. 367-71. He has provided AT evaluations and services for 20 years for school districts, private schools and universities, and non-profits, and has worked for manufacturers of AT. Tr. 367-371. For the last 14 years, he has been an independent provider of AT for the NYC DOE and his AT evaluations are used by the NYC DOE for IEPs. Tr. 370-372. He has a consulting company where he provides AT training, evaluations, consulting, services, and professional development for teachers. Tr. 368-69. As part of his evaluation, Mr. reviewed ’s education documents. Tr. 374; Ex. DD1-2.

Mr. observed in his current class and spoke with ’s teacher and educational team and conducted a evaluation using various software and hardware. Tr. 374; Ex. DD1-2. According to Mr. , as a result of ’s significant difficulties, he requires more AT support than an average student. Tr. 393-94. Mr. strongly recommended that receive a laptop and various software for , and remediation and access. Tr. 375-287, 401-02; Ex. DD8-9. Mr. also recommended an FM unit to improve ’s in class and screen out distractions as well as Time Timer, which displays for a child how much time has elapsed and how much time is remaining. Tr. 388-90; DD7-8. AT training will ensure AT supports are adapted, modified, integrated, and implemented adequately by , his family, his teachers, and therapists. Tr. 391-92; 419-20. Absent AT training/services, the recommended AT will likely not be adequately implemented by , his teachers and services providers. Tr. 392. Mr. charges $125 per hour for AT training. Ex. DD8-9.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

The parents' claims for the 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 school years are not timebarred.

As a preliminary matter, the parents claims for the 2007-2008 and the 2008-2009 school year are not barred by the statute of limitations pertaining to claims under the IDEIA or Section 5044. , the DOE has not raised a statute of limitations defense. The IDEIA requires that a party must request a due process within two years of when the party knew or should have known of the alleged violation. See 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(3)(c). This analysis requires a detailed, fact specific inquiry as to each specific claim raised by a parent or student.

In general, a statute of limitations defense is considered an affirmative defense. Courts have recognized that school districts have the initial burden of proof and must establish the date the claim accrued; once the date of accrual is identified, the parent has the opportunity to establish any exceptions to the statute of limitations under the IDEIA. J.L. v Ambridge Area School District, 50 IDELR 219 (W.D. PA 2008).

The statute of limitations is not triggered until the parent can be deemed to be on notice of her claims. In a recent Circuit case, for example, the court found that the parent was not deemed to have been placed on notice that her child had been denied FAPE for her educational career until the child was no longer eligible for education, at which point the parent had observed her child make significant gains in a program and was advised by the same program that the child had previously been denied FAPE. Somoza v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 538 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2008). See also K.P. v. Juzwic, 891 F. Supp. 703, 716-717 (D.Conn.1995) ("This action did not accrue until K.P.'s substantial gains at Brown-Sullivan indicated that he had the capacity to develop life skills, and vocational skills and attain academic goals previously thought impossible."). As a result, the statute of limitations on any claims involving those items would not run until such time as a diagnosis is made. Accord, Draper v. Atlanta Independent School System, 518 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2008). In Draper, the school district originally determined the child had a very low IQ and placed him in classes with students with “mild intellectual abilities”; later, when the student was , it was discovered that he had a disability and a low-average IQ. 518 F.3d at 1282. The 11th Circuit declined to accept the district’s argument that the statute of limitations barred the parent’s claims concerning earlier years of the student’s misdiagnosis and placement, since “the family did not know enough to realize that [the child] had been injured by his misdiagnosis and misplacement” and the court declined “to conclude, as a matter of law, that [the child’s] family should be blamed for not being experts about disabilities.” 518 F.3d at 1288.

Nor has the DOE established a date on which ’s claims accrued, as is their burden. Like in Draper, the parents' claims that the DOE failed to properly identify and address ’s many issues could not have accrued until the parents became aware of the diagnoses and issues included in the independent evaluations, including his disabilities, processing disorder, severe dysfunction, and his grossand fine deficiencies. Additionally, until receiving Dr. ’s neuropsychological evaluation, the parent was unaware that ’s cognitive functioning is actually significantly higher than the DOE lead her to believe. As Dr. testified,

4 Under Section 504 the only year possibly in dispute would be the 2007-2008 school year since that there is a significant difference in the cognitive potential of a child with a borderline IQ compared to a child with a low-average IQ. Tr. 302-03. The expectations of what can academically achieve based on a low-average IQ is different from the expectations of a child with a borderline IQ. Additionally, the DOE significantly underestimated the complexity and extent of ’s and issues and failed to conduct any standardized and testing since 2002. Tr. 119-21. The parent was unaware of these additional needs until was evaluated by Dr. . Tr. 432-512.

Moreover, the parent has established that she fits into both of the IDEIA exceptions to the application of the timelines. There will be no bar to a parent’s claims if “the parent was prevented from requesting the due to (i) specific misrepresentations by the local educational agency that it had resolved the problem forming the basis of the complaint; or (ii) the local educational agency's withholding of information from the parent that was required under this part to be provided to the parent.” See 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(3)(c). “This part” refers to 20 U.S.C. §1415. Id. Both exceptions apply here.

With respect to the exception, the DOE failed to comply with 20 U.S.C. §1415. The district was required to distribute adequate due process notices and procedural safeguards. Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 [1982] (Districts must comply with IDEIA’s procedural safeguards). The IDEIA requires school districts to provide Prior Written Notice to the parents of a child with a disability a reasonable time before the public agency: (1) proposes to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child or the pro of FAPE to the child; or (2) refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child or the pro of FAPE to the child. 34 C.F.R. § 300.503(a). The IDEIA requires school districts to provide copies of legal safeguards to parents one time per year or when a parent requests a reevaluation. Safeguards must include a full explanation of all of the procedural safeguards relating to: (1) independent educational evaluations; (2) prior written notice; statute has a three year statute of limitations.

(3) parental consent; (4) access to education records; (5) opportunity to present and resolve complaints through the due process complaint and State complaint procedures, and must include the time period (statute of limitations) in which to file a complaint. (300.503(c)(1)). Prior Written Notice and Safeguards must be understandable to the general public… in the native of the parent. 34 C.F.R. § 300.503(c)(1); 34 C.F.R. §300.504(a).

The DOE failed to establish that it provided Procedural Safeguards that advised the parent of the statute of limitations and met the requirements of the IDEA. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(d)(2)(E). Further, the parent’s testimony was proof that she did not receive documents required under Section 1415. As discussed above, the parent’s native and preferred is . supra, at 11.

The parent testified she did not receive adequate Prior Written Notice under the IDEIA. Tr. 502-10. The parent testified she has never been provided with written notice of her rights by the DOE in English or translated into , nor has anyone from the DOE ever explained her rights or ’s rights to her in . Tr. 502-505. No Prior Written Notices regarding the decisions made by the DOE or from ’s school have ever been provided. Tr. 504-505. No one from the DOE ever explained, in or English what an impartial is, the impartial process, or her right to challenge decisions made at an IEP meeting. Tr. 507-508. She only ed she could bring an impartial when another parent told her in 2010. In fact, no one from the DOE ever explained to her, in or English, her rights or ’s rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (or the IDEA) or any education law. Tr. 505-509. Moreover, the parent was never informed of her right to have a parent member attend IEP meetings with her nor was a parent member in attendance at any of the IEP meetings. Tr. 518; see also Ex. B2, C2, D2, E2. The DOE failed to rebut the testimony that the parent was never provided with notice of her, or ’s rights, in her native , or in any for that matter. Tr. 502-510. Furthermore, no one from the DOE ever explained, in English or , that the parent had two years to bring a , if she disagreed with the DOE or that there was a two year statute of limitations under the IDEIA. Tr. 509-510.

In addition, this was also filed under Section 504 (Ex. A-1, 8, 9) for which there is a three year statute of limitations. See M.D. v. Southington, 334 F.3d 217 (2nd Cir. 2003); Morse v. University of Vermont, 973 F.2d 122, 127 (2d Cir. 1992) (“We now hold that actions under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act are governed by the state statute of limitations applicable to personal injury actions”). There is no evidence in the record that anyone explained to the parent the applicable statute of limitations with respect to Section 504. The Department of Education failed to provide with a FAPE for the 2007-2008, 2008-2009, 2009-2010, and 2010-2011 school years.^[5] Legal Framework

Two purposes of the IDEIA (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) are (1) to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE that emphasizes education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living; and (2) to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities and parents of such students are protected (20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]-[B]; see generally Forest Grove v. T.A., 129 S. Ct. 2484, 2491 [2009]; Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 [1982]).

The DOE had the burden of proof that it provided a FAPE to during all school years in question. N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404(1)(c). FAPE means “ education and related services that have been provided at public expense, under public super . . . and without charge; meet the standards of the State educational agency; include an appropriate . . . , or school education in the State involved; and are provided in conformity with the individualized education program required under section 1414(d) of the IDEIA.” Sec. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9).

To prove it offered a FAPE, the DOE must show that (a) it complied with the procedural requirements of the IDEIA; and, 2) the educational plan developed by its CSE was “reasonably calculated to confer education benefits to the child” (Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 (1982)). The importance of IDEA's procedural pro s was highlighted by the Rowley Court when it stated: “[t]he initial procedural inquiry is no mere formality” Id. “Adequate compliance with the procedures prescribed [by IDEA] would, in most cases assure much, if not all, of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP” (Rowley, 458 U.S. At 206). Although procedural flaws do not automatically require a finding of a denial of FAPE, procedural inadequacies that individually or cumulatively result in the loss of educational opportunity, or seriously infringe on a parent's participation in the creation or formulation of the IEP, do constitute a denial of FAPE. (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 03-061, citing Shapiro v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 317 F.3d 1072, 1079 [9th Cir. 2003]; W.G. v. Bd. Of Trustees of Target Range Sch. Dist. No. 23, 960 F.2d 1479, 1484 [9th Cir. 1992]; Burke Co. Bd. of Educ. v. Denton, 895 F.2d 973,982 [4th Cir. 1990]; W.A. v. Pascarella, 153 F.Supp. 2d 144, 153 [D.Conn. 2001]; see J.D. v. Pawlet Sch. Dist., 224 F.3d 60,69-70 [2d Cir. 2000] [relief is warranted only if the procedural violation affected the student's right to a F APE]). A school district “fulfills its substantive obligations under the IDEA if it provides an IEP that is likely to produce progress, not regression, and if the IEP affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere trivial advancement.” T.P. ex rel S.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 247, 254 (2d Cir. 2009).

A FAPE consists of education and related services embodied in an IEP. 34 C.F.R. § 300.13. “ education” is defined as “ designed individualized or group instruction or services or programs… provided at no cost to the parent, to meet the unique needs of students with disabilities.” 34 CFR §300.39; 8 NYCRR § 200.1(ww). It “includes but is not limited to instruction conducted in classrooms, homes, hospitals, institutions and in other settings.” Id. designed instruction “means adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child”, the “content, methodology, or delivery of instruction.” 34 CFR §300.39. For purposes of education planning, the child’s needs in the following areas must be considered: (a) academic achievement, functional performance and characteris which shall mean the levels of knowledge and development in subject and skill areas, including activities of daily living, level of intellectual functioning, adaptive , expected rate of progress in acquiring skills and information, and style; (b) development which shall mean the degree and quality of the student's relationships with peers and adults, feelings about self, and adjustment to school and community environments; (c) development which shall mean the degree or quality of the student's and development, health, vitality, and skills or limitations which pertain to the process; and (d) management needs which shall mean the nature of and degree to which environmental modifications and human or material resources are required to enable the student to benefit from instruction. 8 NYCRR §200.1(ww)(3)(i)(a)-(d).

The IDEA mandates that prior to the development of an IEP and to determine eligibility, a "full and individual" evaluation must be conducted and children must be assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1)(A) & §1414(b)(3)(B); 8 NYCRR § 200.4(b)(6)(vii). The evaluation must be sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the child's education needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in which the child has been identified. 8 NYCRR §200.4(b)(6)(ix). The evaluation must “use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information.” 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b); 34 CFR §300.304. Such tools and strategies must “provide relevant information that directly assists persons in determining the educational needs of the child are provided.” Id. Tests must be “selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis” and the district is to use “technically sound instruments that may assess the relative contribution of cognitive and factors, in addition to or developmental factors.” Id. The evaluations are supposed to be “used for the purposes for which the assessments or measures are valid and reliable.” Id.

Thus, an appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of appropriate evaluations to identify the student's needs, establishes annual goals related to those needs, and provides for the use of appropriate education services. Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-046; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-014; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-095. The IEP must contain an accurate statement of the student's present levels of educational performance, including a description of how the student's disability affects his or her progress in the general curriculum. 34 CFR § 300.347(a)(1). An IEP must include measurable annual goals related to meeting the student's needs arising from his or her disability to enable the student to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum, and meeting the student's other educational needs arising from the disability. 34 CFR § 300.347(a)(2). The IEP team’s recommendations should include “a statement of the education and related services and supplementary aids and services, based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practicable, to be provided to the child.” 34 CFR § 300.320(a)(4).

Here, the DOE failed to prove that it provided a FAPE for all of the years in question. 2007-2008

The DOE did not put on any witnesses or submit any documentary evidence to defend its recommendations for the 2007-2008 school year or rebut the parents' evidence regarding this school year. As stated earlier, the DOE also did not raise the statute of limitations as a bar to the parents' claims for this year. While the parents were not required to provide testimony or submit documentary evidence, they developed a record that unequivocally shows that the DOE failed to provide with a FAPE for the 20072008 school year.

The IEP for the 2007-2008 school year, Ex. D, developed on May 23, 2007, was procedurally and substantively defective, and denied a FAPE for that school year. was to receive a triennial review, yet in contravention of the IDEIA and New York Commissioner's regulations cited above, no actual testing was done, despite noted areas of concern in the few reports gathered. Exs. L, M, N, O. Without adequate testing, the student's needs or levels could not have been accurately or sufficiently identified and appropriate goals could not have been written, thereby depriving of educational opportunity in the most basic sense. The IEP inexplicably changes the to English when the previous IEP explicitly states that the student has difficulty with English and needs services, noting that is spoken in the home. The DOE offered no proof that it legitimately removed 's services or in any way adequately assessed his dominance. On the record before me, I find that the DOE removed the services in violation of 's rights. Additionally, in violation of 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1414(d)(1)(B)(iv) and 8 NYCRR 200.3(a)(1)(v)and(viii), there was no district representative or parent member present, individuals who might have noted the deficiencies in the CSE's actions and recommendations.

Additionally, the IDEIA mandates that a school district “must take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the parent understands the proceedings of the IEP team meeting, including arranging for an interpreter for parents… whose native is other than English.” 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.322(e). Here, the mother was almost fully excluded from participation as her native is and the DOE did not provide adequate translation and interpretation or documents to the mother in her native . In violation of 20 U.S.C. § 1415(d)(2)(E), 34 C.F.R. 300.503(c) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.504(a) et seq., the DOE did not prove that it provided Procedural Safeguards that advised the parent of her rights in any . No one informed the parent of her rights, gave her the procedural safeguards or provided translation of any aspect of her son's educational program, yet the mother is a native speaker. Tr. 502-508. The parent was denied the ability to participate meaningfully in the IEP process. Individually and cumulatively, the DOE's procedural violations were a gross denial of FAPE.

The IEP also was not reasonably calculated for to make educational progress. The documents show that had made little to no progress from the previous year, yet the CSE recommended the exact same program and took away his services, with no justification or documentation. Exs. E, F. Given the nature of his disability and his signifcant , the mandate was insufficient and was not reasonably calculated for him to receive educational benefit. Additionally, the IEP states that his s sometimes interfere with his academic progress yet no FBA or BIP were created. Give

's minimal progress, all efforts should have been made to support the student in the classroom. The fact that the IEP mentions that the student responds well to postive reinforcement barely makes up for the lack of consideration given to the student's needs. See R.K. ex rel R.K. v. N.Y. City Dep't of Educ., 2011 WL 1131492 E.D.N.Y.). For the 2007-2008 school year, the DOE failed to provide with a FAPE. 2008-2009

Again, the DOE did not put on any witnesses or submit any documentary evidence to defend the 2008-2009 school year or rebut the parents' evidence regarding this school year. Similarly, the DOE also did not raise the statute of limitations as a bar to the parents' claims for this year.

The IEP for the 2008-2009 school year (Ex. D), developed on March 13, 2008, effective until March 13, 2009, was procedurally and substantively defective, and denied a FAPE for that school year. In violation of the statutes and regulations cited above, no standardized testing or normed assessments were given, and no school psychologist, therapist or parent member were present. supra. Again, the parent did not receive any educational information in , was not offered an interpreter at the CSE review and was given no meaningful information regarding procedural safeguards. Separately and cumulatively these violations were a gross denial of FAPE. The student was deprived of educational opportunity and the parent was denied the ability to participate in the development of her son's educational program.

was recommended to receive therapy, but there is no indication of the group size, the frequency or the duration of the session(s). Ex. D-12. Most of 's IEP was copied from the 2007-2008 IEP verbatim. While a student's goals might remain similar from one year to the next if he has not reached the prior year's goals, here the similarity of the recommendations reflects a gross indifference to this student's disabilities and needs. The IEP is the only proof of 's levels in the grade, indicating that 's computation and problem solving skills regressed from a 1.5 grade level the previous year to a grade level. cf. Ex. E-3 with Ex. D-3. The 2008-2009 IEP states that he is at a grade level. Ex. D. Additionally, was recommended to receive services for a twelve month school year and did not receive the services. Ex. D. Ms. 's explanation that the ESY services were offered in “error”, if true, is unjustifiable, and in violation of the IDEIA regulations. Tr. 184-186; 34 CFR 300.106(a)(3)(i). The DOE failed to implement its own IEP for a student who clearly needed ESY services in order to be provided with a FAPE. In conclusion, the DOE did not provide a FAPE for for the 2008-2009 school year. 2009-2010

The DOE put forth one witness, the school psychologist, , to defend the 2009-2010 IEP, but the record again shows that the DOE failed to provide with a FAPE for this school year. Despite his classification of and impairment, only was given a progress report in and a therapist did not even participate in the CSE meeting or of his goals which are sorely deficient to address his significant and . Ms. did not consider requesting a and evaluation because it was not her area of expertise, even though 's last and evaluation was done in 2002. Tr. 118, 125; Ex. G. Instead of having the IEP team review evaluative data for to determine whether additional information was needed in order to make appropriate recommendations, Ms. unilaterally made the determinations and ignored or missed key areas of 's needs. She failed to follow up on 's previous designation as a student who received ; nor did she think it was her responsibility. Tr. 111, 126-128, 130, 132, 201-202. Additionally, she did not consider having evaluated for assistive technology and was unaware whether there were services that could assist . Tr. 190-191, 195. She did not consider an therapy evaluation because, in her view, his borderline score on skills testing was consistent with his cognitive abilities. Tr. 138-141. Her decisions and handling of 's evaluation and review were misguided, at best. The results of recent testing in these areas supports the parents' position that these all were areas of need in the 2009-2010 school year, not a sudden development. All of these omissions resulted in a denial of FAPE.

The CSE also was not properly constituted. There was no parent member present, a more egregious omission when, as here, the DOE failed to provide any information to the parent in her native about her son's educational program or her due process rights. Cumulatively, the DOE's procedural violations deprived of a FAPE for the 2009-2010 school year.

The IEP was not reasonably calculated to provide with educational benefit as it only offered the same deficient program he had been offered for the previous three years with remarkably similar goals. Tr. 169-175. It also was deficient since it did not provide any recommendations for therapy or therapy, and the recommendations were sorely insufficient. These services were necessary for to benefit from his educational program and without them the IEP can not be found to have been reasonably calculated to provde with educational benefit. Indeed, progressed from a level to an average grade level (Ex. G-5) from 2005 to 2010, yet repeatedly was not tested in areas that the DOE should have suspected were areas of disability and repeatedly was recommended for the same program. 2010-2011

The DOE did not present any evidence regarding the pro of a FAPE to for the 2010-2011 school year, failing to meet its burden that it met it legal obligations to do so. The DOE developed another IEP for on February 12, 2010. Ex. B. No testing for this school year is in evidence despite the fact that the IEP notes slow processing skills and 's lack of progress. The 2010 IEP, once again, failed to offer or seemingly consider assistive technology, therapy, , processing issues, or twelve-month services. Ex. B; Tr. 499-505. Again, the 2010 IEP recommended the identical class and twice weekly services as had been recommended since 2006. Exs. F, E, D, C. The performance levels on the 2010 IEP indicate regressed in comprehension, comprehension, , computation, and problem solving since the 2009 IEP. Compare Exs. B with C. All of the performance levels on the 2010 IEP, except for decoding, are identical to the performance levels on the 2008 IEP. Compare Exs. B with D.

Again the parent testified that she was not offered or provided with any translation during the CSE review or for any documents related to 's educational program. Tr. 501-503. She was not offered any information about her due process rights in her native as well. These failures deprived the parent of any meaningful opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding her son's educational program. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(a)(2); Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 471

F. Supp. 2d 415, 419 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). Both procedurally and substantively the DOE failed to offer a FAPE for the 2010-2011 school year.

In conclusion, the DOE failed to offer a FAPE for all of the school years in question.

is entitled to compensatory services.

Compensatory education may be awarded to students still eligible for services but who have not received FAPE. P. v. Newington, 546 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2008). As fully discussed above, the DOE failed to provide with a FAPE for the four years claimed by the parents. Based upon the documents in evidence and the testimony of the witnesses, the parents have established that was denied FAPE for all of the years in question and that the denial was extensive. He failed to progress, the DOE underestimated his cognitive potential, provided him only the minimum amount of services possible, neglected to identify his processing disorder and , failed to identify that he has disabilities and repeatedly violated the IDEIA.

Compensatory education is an “equitable” remedy that should be designed to “compensate” a student for missed services. Student X v. New York City Dep’t. of Educ., 2008 WL 4890440, at 26 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). Although the Circuit has yet to determine the standard to be used, other courts have found that compensatory education should provide services to try to place the student in the same position s/he would be in if the denial of FAPE had not occurred. Id. Further, in determining an award of compensatory education or make-up services, most courts seek to ascertain the child’s needs at the time the relief is sought. Reid ex rel Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 43 IDELR 32 (D.C.Cir. 2005). In this case, the parent has proven that will require both a reserve of services to boost his current levels coupled with an increase in ongoing services. As described by the parents in their Closing statement:

“ is going to be in the grade starting in the 2011-2012 school year and he is still at the lower school level in all academic areas. He has also just been identified as having , , and severe processing and

- . Because of ’s severe in - functioning, processing, fine skills, and and his disabilities that were completely unaddressed by his IEPs and services, was essentially denied access to educational instruction for four full years. Further, contrary to the DOE’s cognitive scores, he actually has the capacity to meet standards, if he is just provided appropriate services.” Parents' Closing Statement, p. 21.

Individual Tutoring/Instruction

Dr. , Dr. and Dr. all recommended multi instruction grounded in research. Dr. , who saw before he was diagnosed by Dr. and

SUNY, suggested one and one half years’ worth of ten hours per week of services. Tr.

252-253. Dr. and Dr. did not provide a specific number of hours.

Dr. , the parents' expert, testified that she met with , tested him, and reviewed his IEPs and evaluation results. In her opinion, required intensive individualized multi-instruction to develop core skills, support his continued academic development, and prevent regression during this critical developmental time.

She stated that has the potential to reach grade level with the pro of 10 hours per week of tutoring for one and a half school years in conjunction with all related services. Tr. 252-253. Given a 42 week school year, the total number of weeks for one and a half years is 63 weeks which is the equivalent of 630 hours of tutoring.

The DOE did not rebut the student's need for compensatory instruction nor the number of hours proposed by the witness. The parents' request for 4455 hours of tutoring is not supported by their own witnesses. There is no doubt that is entitled to the number of hours he would need to put him back where he would have been if he had been provided the services he should have received. The record supports an award of relief for

630 hours of services to be used at the discretion of the parent over the next four years.

As per the parents' request in their Closing Statement, the services may be obtained by the parent from either EBL, any licensed education teacher or , and/or a tutor(s) from either (a) one of the two well-established tutoring centers frequently used by the NYC DOE to settle impartial requests for compensatory services or which are order by officers, such as and Huntington Center or (b)

the New York State Education Department’s list of Supplemental Educational Service providers approved by NYSED to provide tutoring under No Child Left Behind, which is published at: http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/nyc/SES/ApprovedProviders/AlphaList.html.

Coupled with the student's now appropriate placement at an approved non-public school and all of the services setforth below, will have the opportunity to reach his potential.

Therapy

Given 's severe in and as well as his processing issues as set forth in Dr. 's evaluations, needs much more than two thirty minute sessions per week, the deficient amount he has received since at least 2005. Despite the fact that the student's area of disability is impairment, unbelievably, there is not one single related testing measurement in the entire record save that done by Dr. pursuant to an order in this case. Dr. testified ’s and services need to be increased to times per week, with two sessions provided outside of school, on an individual basis. Tr. 468; Ex. FF5-6. is entitled to receive two private one hour individual sessions per week pursuant to an RSA, as well as three sessions in a group up to three, in school.

Therapy

As found by , the therapist who evaluated , the record supports a finding that has severe yet never was evaluated by the DOE in this area or provided services to address his disabilities. Ex. EE. Dr. 's findings in the areas related to skills support this finding as well. Tr. 306; Ex. HH.The parent is entitled to the recommended services of three individual therapy sessions per week for thirty minutes per session and the bank of 40 hours recommended by Ms. to help catch up and to increase his skills as they impact on academic functioning. Tr. 347; Ex. EE-5.

Therapy

The DOE had never previously identified the student as having a severe dysfunction. Dr. Eugene concluded that has a “severe” dysfunction in the areas of “ , eye teaming and tracking.” Ex. JJ5. He is also farsighted and requires glasses. Id. Dr. recommended that begin a Therapy Rehabilitation with an in a clinic or office setting to address the lags to improve his concentration and functioning in academics. Id.

therapy is a service available under the IDEA. The DOE is obligated to provide such related services "as are required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from education.‖ 34 C.F.R. §300.34(a); 8 NYCRR 200.1(qq); see also 20 U.S.C. §1401(26)(A). therapy falls within the range of related services that a board of education can provide, and, in some cases, to be necessary in order to afford a student FAPE. See, e.g., Kanawha County Sch. Dist., 20 IDELR 192 (1999) (School district failed to provide FAPE and violated Section 504 where it denied parent’s requests for therapy and did not properly assess or consider student’s therapy needs.); Dekalb County Sch. Dist. v. M.T.V., 2006 WL 197338 (11th. Cir); San Marcos Unified Sch. Dist., 44 IDELR 148 (2005) (make-up therapy services ordered where IEP did not afford FAPE, for reasons including the fact that it did not take student’s therapy needs into account); Bd. of Edu. of the Starpoint Cent. Sch. Dist., 37 IDELR 120 (2002) ( therapy services ordered, to be paid for by school district, where parent demonstrated appropriateness of services through progress made by the student, and a continued need for the services in the future); Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 05021.

Dr. 's findings are supported by the therapist's observations. The DOE did not offer any evidence to challenge his findings. Given the DOE's utter failure to assess in suspected areas of disability and the uncontroverted and credible evidence that has the conditions diagnosed by Dr. , is entitled to receive therapy either from an experienced DOE therapist in a clinical setting or if such an individual does not exist or is unable to begin working with promptly, the DOE should fund therapy privately.

There is no evidence in the record regarding the length, frequency or duration for a therapy program. The CSE shall convene to establish the appropriate number of sessions per week and the length of the session, with input from Dr. . Assistive Technology

Based on the results of the processing assessments done by Dr. and the consistent recommendations of Dr. and Adam , should be given a personal FM unit to help him access his education. Exs. GG, DD-7. The very low scores indicate that requires support to help him and distinguish among stimuli. Training on its use also will be necessary.

Adam recommended numerous other assistive technology devices and programs to address both content and 's skill areas. Ex. DD. However, at this time an additional award of this assistive technology is premature because will be attending a new school with a program more tailored to his needs and he will be receiving many hours of tutoring and other remediation services that should be addressing his areas of deficit. There is no evidence about what AT is available to at the new school since he was not placed until after the . Nor is it possible to assess which remediation programs, if any, will be useful or redundant given the hours of remediation will be receiving pursuant to this decision. After has been in his new program and has received the outside services for three or four months, the need for AT should be reconsidered by the CSE, particularly if the teachers at the Child School and related services providers recommend additional support that requires the use of a laptop or specific programs. Additional Relief

The DOE did not request an impartial to challenge the parents' request for IEEs or defend its evaluations. Nor did it offer to conduct any of the evaluations prior to the on January 13, 2011. Tr. 36-37, 39, 41-42.The parents are entitled to have the costs of the independent educational evalautions (“IEEs”) paid by the DOE.

A parent is entitled to request an independent educational evaluation (IEE) at public expense each time the public agency conducts an evaluation with which the parent disagrees. 34 C.F.R. 300.502(b)(5). Once an IEE is requested, a district must either file for a due process to establish its evaluation was appropriate or provide the IEE at public expense without “unnecessary delay.” 34 CFR 300.502(b)(2); 8 NYCRR 200.5(g). Additionally, an impartial officer may order an IEE in the course of an impartial . 34 CFR 300.502(d) As written in the Interim Order:

“In the instant case, the parent requested IEEs. The DOE has not provided them, and did not offer to do so until the commenced. Since the parent asserted that the DOE failed to properly assess her son, the DOE had the burden of proof to establish that it did. Here, the DOE failed to defend its assessments in any manner. The parent is entitled to IEEs, at DOE expense, for a and evaluation, an assistive technology evaluation, therapy evaluation, a psycho-educational evaluation and a bilingual neuropsychological evaluation. If these evaluations identify an additional area of disability, the parent may request additional evaluations.” IHO Ex. VIII. The IDEA mandates that a “full and individual” evaluation must be conducted and children must be assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1414(a)(1)(A) and Se. 1414(b)(3)(B); 8 NYCRR 200.4(b)(6)(vii). The evaluation must be sufficiently comprehensive “to identify all of the student's education needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in which the student has been identified.” 8 NYCRR200.4(b)(6)(ix). The evaluation must “use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information.” 20 USC Sec. 1414(b); 34 C.F.R. 300.304. Such tools and strategies must “provide relevant information that directly assists persons in determining the educational needs of the child are provided.” (Id.)

The DOE failed to establish that it followed any of the appropriate measures required by 20 U.S.C. 1414(b); 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1414 (c)(1); 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1414(a)(2); 8 NYCRR 200.4 (b)(5). In fact, the DOE did not defend its evaluations or challenge the parents' request.

Accordingly, the DOE already was under the obligation to pay for the evaluations under the terms of the Interim Order and must do so promptly if it has not already done so. Additionally, the parents request for payment of the Processing Evaluation, recommended as a a result of the and Evaluation, is granted. The DOE failed to evaluate in and for at least years despite his classification of and impairment. The DOE might have understood 's significant processing issues and addressed them had it conducted the evaluations it was obligated to provide. Similarly, had the DOE evaluated in the suspected area of disability related to his deficient skills by conducting an therapy evaluation, 's need for therapy could have been addressed. If it has not already done so, the DOE also promptly must pay for the Therapy assessment that was provided through an Assessment Authorization.

In her evaluations and subsequent testimony regarding , Dr. raised credible concerns about “ ” she observed. The DOE should pay the costs of an evaluation by a pediatric neurologist or developmental pediatrician to rule out 's Syndrome. Ex. FF-6. Accordingly, it is ordered:

1. For as many weeks as school is in session for the 2011-2012 school year, commencing July 1, 2011, as compensatory services for those missed the prior four years and consistent with the recommendations contained in the evaluation, the DOE shall amend 's IEP to provide an increase of and therapy from 2 individual thirty minute sessions per week, to 2 individual 60 minute sessions per week, through a Related Services Authorization (“RSA”)

provided to the parent, and 3 group sessions for thirty minutes per week with a provider at school.

2. The Department of Education shall issue a RSA for therapy for three individual thirty minute sessions per week.

3. The Department of Education shall issue an RSA for an additional 40 hours of therapy to be used at the discretion of the parent in consultation with the service provider.

4. The Department of Education shall pay for 630 hours of individual tutoring from the parents' choice of providers as specified above.

5. For the 2011-2012 school year, as compensatory services for the DOE's failure to evaluate and provide necessary services, the DOE shall provide for weekly therapy sessions to address 's . The CSE shall reconvene to determine the number of sessions per week and the length of the sessions and shall affirmatively seek out the input of Dr. regarding this issue. The parents shall facilitate obtaining Dr. 's assistance.

6. The DOE shall provide with a personal FM system for normal listeners

(Phonak In-the-Ear Isense) and the necessary training to ensure that the student, his parents, teachers and providers know how to make effective use of it.

7. The DOE shall pay for a medical evaluation to rule out 's Syndrome by a pediatric neurologist or developmental pediatrician.

8. The parent and student shall receive transportation to and from the ordered services in the form of a metro card each and reimbursement for any out of pocket transportation costs associated with using these services, upon showing proof of payment.

9. To the extent it has not already done so, the DOE shall pay for the following independent education evaluations within 15 days of the date of this order: and evaluation; processing evaluation; assistive technology evaluation; therapy evaluation; a psycho-educational evaluation; bilingual neuropsychological evaluation; and the therapy assessment.

10. The DOE shall provide the parent with English/ interpreters for the parent at every meeting to discuss the education needs of her son, as well as translations of all IDEIA notices, safeguards, IEPs, and evaluations. Dated: August 11, 2011

_____________________

LANA S. FLAME, ESQ.

Impartial Officer LF:jj

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

Within 35 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to appeal the decision to the State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

“The notice of intention to seek review shall be served upon the school district not less than 10 days before service of a copy of the petition for review upon such school district, and within 25 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. The petition for review shall be served upon the school district within 35 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. If the decision has been served by mail upon petitioner, the date of mailing and the four days subsequent thereto shall be excluded in computing the 25- or 35-day period.”

(8NYCRR279.2[b]) Failure to file the notice of intention to seek review is a waiver of the right to appeal this decision.

Directions and sample forms for filing an appeal are included with this decision. Directions and forms can also be found in the Office of State Review website: www.sro.nysed.gov/appeals.htm.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON JANUARY 13, 2011

PARENT

A Letter Containing Due Process Complaint, 11/9/10, 11 pp.

IMPARTIAL OFFICER

I Subpoena to children Network, 12/29/10, 3 pp. II Subpoena to Committee on Education 8, 12/29/10, 3 pp. III Subpoena to New York City Department of education, 12/29/10, 3 pp. IV Subpoena to , 12/29/10, 3 pp. V Subpoena to , 12/29/10, 3 pp. VI Subpoena to New York City Department of Education of Students

With Disabilities, OFEA, TIU, 12/29/10, 3 pp. VII Memo of Law, Undated, 5 pp.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON JANUARY 21, 2011

PARENT

B IEP, 2/12/10

C IEP, 213/09

D IEP, 3/13/08

E IEP, 3//23/07

F IEP, 6/22/06

G Comprehensive Evaluation Report, 1/8/09 and 1/29/09 H Classroom Observation Report, 2/9/09 I History Update, 2/13/09 J and Progress Report, 12/19/08 K Teacher Report, 12/19/08 L Comprehensive Evaluation Report, 3/23/07 M Classroom observation, 3/23/07 N and Report O Teacher Report, 1/12/07 P Web Page Q Letters Regarding R Home Survey

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

1 Resume of

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON APRIL 12, 2011

PARENT

D-D Assistive Technology Evaluation, 3/25/11, 10 pp. E- E Therapy Evaluation, 3/2/11, 5 pp. F-F and Process Evaluation, 1/28/11, 7 pp. G-G Processing Evaluation, 1/28/11, 7 pp. H-H Biwin Neuropsycholgical Evaluation, 1/12/11, 30 pp. I-I Letter from , 1/6/11, 1 p.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON APRIL 13, 2011

PARENT

S Individualized Education Program, 5/19/05, 13 pp.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON MAY 18, 2011

PARENT

DD Evaluation of and Perceptual Development

---

Footnotes

[5] The parents alleged a denial of FAPE under both the IDEIA and Section 504 of the Rehaiblitation Act. Since the parents' requests for relief all have been addressed under the IDEIA, apart from the statute of limitations question, a determination under that statute was not reached.