New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: Student‟s Name: Date of Birth: December 17, 2000 District: 17 Hearing Requested By: Parent Date of Hearing: March 18, 2011

April 6, 2011

May 9, 2011 Hearing Officer: Daniel Ajello, Esq.

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

Attorney — Student

Parents

District 75, Representative — DOE

Teacher — DOE

School Psychologict — DOE

Director IHD — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL 6, 2011

Attorney — Student

Parents

Clinician, Judge Ro berg Educational Center — Student

District 75, Representative — DOE

Director, IHD — DOE

Social Worker — DOE

Assistant Principal — DOE

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

Attorney — Student

Parents

Psychologist — Student

District 75, Representative — DOE

Psychiatrist — DOE

— DOE

INTRODUCTION

On March 2/10/2011, I was appointed the Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) by the Department of Education‟s Impartial Hearing Office to conduct an impartial hearing pursuant to the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1415(f) and Article89 of the Education Law of the State of New York.

On March 18, 2011, April 6, 2011, and May 9, 2011, an impartial hearing was conducted. Appended to the record are lists of persons in at dance and the documents received in evidence.

BACKGROUND

Student was years old at the time of the latest IEP dated January 14, 2011, his classification of disability is Disturbance, recommended to a Special Class in a Specialized School, with a staffing ratio, and provision for twelve month services. Said IEP also initiated a management paraprofessional, indicated Reading and Writing Instructional Levels ranging from PK:4 to a 1:6 Grade Equivalent, and Math Instructional Levels ranging from 1:0 to a 1:7 Grade Equivalent. (Exhibit C)

Student is described as enrolled in a standardized assessment day treatment program at , at 180, receiving related services of Therapy, Therapy (two weekly thirty minute sessions one to one), hearing and educational services (two weekly thirty minute sessions one to one), and / therapy (two weekly thirty minute sessions in a group of three). (Exhibit C)

Findings and Fact and Decision was issued 1/4/11 under Case Number and entered into evidence as Exhibit B. Therein parent sought crises management paraprofessional, evaluations and an IEP review. An Order was issued requiring assignment of crises management paraprofessional, a series of reevaluations to be completed, and IEP review meeting to be conducted. (Exhibit B)

I note that the hearing request had stated the age of the student as , however, the correct age is . (Exhibit A1) (T 31) Additionally, the IEP entered as C1 states grade. However, this appears to be in error and should be grade. (T 26 & T 42)

THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION‟S POSITION

The DOE position is that the Student is in an appropriate setting at the current placement in a District 75 Program at at 180, which is meeting his social, and needs, with reasonable progress. DOE states that they have conducted all appropriate re-evaluations and taken steps in compliance with the Findings of Fact and Decision issued 1/4/2011 under case number 130907. (Transcript 21).

DOE states that deteriorating at home is not required to be addressed by IEP driven services. (T 22)

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WITNESSES

DOE witness , a special education teacher, has taught at K for the last six and a half years. Ms. testified she has taught the student since 12/13/2010. (T 24)

Ms. testified that the student is a hard worker, currently in grade functioning as a grader, as do most of the children in his current class. The witness notes that the student has not had any “write ups“ regarding his placement in her class, though there have been “bus write ups”. (T 26) “Write ups would be whenever they have an incident, they are sent to crises, and they are handled there.” (T 28, Lines 10-12) The witness continued to testify that that the student has not had to be removed from class and has got along very well with his peers, has made a lot of friends, and has been adhering to the rules. (T 27)

Ms. testified that a point system is utilized to encourage the student. The only deficiency noted regarding the student‟s accumulation of points is that the homework and point sheets are not signed as required by the parent. (T 27) Ms. continued to testify that the student does not lose his temper or require use of the conflict resolution room. (T 28)

Ms. testified that the parent did not at d the March 15, 2011 parent teacher conference and did not respond to phone calls. (T 32) Ms. further testified that this was the only communication she attempted to have with the parent since there have not been any problems. The point sheet used for encouragement is sent home each day and comes back to school every day unsigned. (T 33-34)

Ms. testified the crises management paraprofessional is in place since mid February, and the class consists of three girls and two boys ages to , with classifications including ly disturbed, and . (T 38-41) Later in her testimony Ms. confirmed that the start date of the Para was actually 1/18/2011. (T 89)

Ms. testified that the student functions generally on the grade level in reading and mid grade level for math. (T48-49) The witness continued to describe the student by stating, “He understands what is expected of him. He understands what it means to earn something.” (T51, Lines 23-24)

When asked if the student has made educational progress the witness testified that that he has, based on her assessments of the student, which includes a reading level assessment, Fountas and Pinnel. (T 54) Ms. testified that the reading program SRA is utilized in the classroom and that the student has made “continual growth”. (T 61, Line8)

Ms. testified that regarding the FBA entered as Exhibit L, she has not seen any of the antecedent s indicated thereon, which include altercations with classmates which had previously resulted in his removal from the classroom. (T 76)

When asked about the possibility of the student being educated in a less restrictive environment, Ms. testified that the student is on his way to being in a less restrictive environment that would not need to be self contained. (T 81)

, School Psychologist was the next witness for the DOE. Ms. has been employed by the DOE at K for the last four years. (T 92) Ms. conducted Psycho-educational Evaluation entered as Exhibit E. Ms. testified she was present at the January 14, 2011 IEP meeting and concerns were discussed which resulted in initiating the crises para. (T 103) Ms. continued to testify that other services were basically continued as the student was doing well in his new environment, with his new teacher. Ms. testified that a discussion regarding deferring the case to CBST was considered, but the team decided that the initiation of the crises para would address the issues raised. Though the parent felt the child‟s warranted residential placement, Ms. testified that the IEP related to the school day where his was appropriate, and this prompted discussion of possibly providing home services. (T 104-106)

Ms. testified that the evaluation she performed indicated a regression in the student‟s math and reading remained at the same. (T 124-125)

Ms. testified that a discussion regarding home services took place at the January 14, 2011 IEP meeting. Ms. testified that; the parent raised concerns regarding the student‟s at home; the IEP was to provide services for the school day; and IHD was discussing with the parent providing home based services. (T 136)

In response to questions regarding social functioning in school, Ms. testified that from the time the reports were generated and prepared for the IEP meeting, and the time the meeting actually took place, the student had made “significant progress” (T 146-147) The next DOE witness was , licensed clinical social worker, and director at the Board of Family and Children Services, which provides the mental health services component of the K day treatment program. (T 173174)

Ms. described in home services listed on DOE Exhibit 2 as varying in in sity and may result in the child being placed in a community residence. (T 185-186)

Ms. testified that Ms. is encouraged and welcomed to meet with therapists to see how the student is doing and mod plans are sometimes developed, relative to the needs of the family. (T 186) Ms. continued to testify that she believed the parent had accessed community based waiver services, which can provide respite, in in home services, skill building services, family support, and crises response services. (T 187, Exhibit 2) Testimony continued that in case management services were in place for the family and the case manager had come to a meeting with Ms. to meet with the therapists and teacher. (T 202-203) Ms. testified that Ms. continues to indicate that the student was not functioning well at home, which prompted the application for SPOA (Single point of access) services, and stated that if the parent wanted other services she could request them through the case manager. (T 206)

Ms. , testified that the student met the profile of a day treatment child and that he seems to be responding well to the implemented para. (T 208) The witness states that collateral and parent sessions are available but that the parent has not at “for a while”. (T 215) She continued to testify that the collateral and parenting sessions could help develop a plan for the home, where Ms. has described that she has difficulties with the student including , not doing homework, fights with his sister, not and running away. (T 215-216)

The next DOE witness was , licensed social worker, employed by the Board of Family and Children‟s Services, as a therapist and case manager. (T 222-223)

She described the student as entering the program having challenging s, such as arguing with adults, not following directions, oppositional s, , and physical . These occurred throughout the day and were manageable. (T 223-224) At that point in time the witness testified that he would sometimes be taken to her office or to the time out room, or the conflict resolution room. Ms. testified that EMS had to be called three times this school year. (T 225-227)

Ms. testified that things have changed since his new classroom setting and the initiation of the para. She describes a good relationship between student and his teacher and para, and that his s have not occurred since he has started his new classroom with the para. (T 229 - ) Testimony continued that she believes the current placement is appropriate, providing support that the student needs, and that the goals set forth in the IEP are appropriate, with the student making slow and steady progress. (T -237)

Ms. testified that the parent did request residential placement for her son at the 1/14/201 IEP meeting, due to the hard time he was having at home. (T 235)

Ms. testified that she had learned from communication with Ms. that the family as receiving home based services through the Institute for Community Living. (T 241)

Ms. testified that she facilitates the collateral and parenting sessions at the program, and that Ms. has not participated in any long term family therapy sessions. Her testimony went on to state that these services are Medicaid driven by the Board of Family and Children‟s Services treatment plan, goals and objectives. (T 247-249)

Ms. testified that parent and child art therapy has been offered to the student and parent with no response from the parent. (T 249-250)

The next DOE witness was , Assistant Principal, K, testified that the student came to his program in 2009 and at that time exhibited a variety of difficulties, including, being very impulsive, aggressive, unable to focus, oppositional, having poor impulse control and was self abusive. (T 256-257) Presently, the witness testified that the student has come a long way and is no longer self abusive, can focus, gets along with his classmates, and that he comes to school and wants to learn. The witness attributes this change to the institution of the January 14, 2011IEP services and the bus para. (T 257)

Dr. was the final witness for the DOE. Dr. is a doctor of osteopathy, psychiatrist, and board certified child psychiatrist, and the treating psychiatrist of the student, serving the student monthly, and as needed, since May

2009. (T 353-354)

In reviewing her report (Exhibit M) Dr. , noted that the student had came into the program impulsive, with anger outbursts, poor judgment, , and , however, he is currently more stable without any current major outbursts. Dr. testified that episodes of and poor continue, trips to the time out room have diminished, and she does not receive “…any reports of severe outbursts or any outbursts to the level of needing any additional interventions.” (T 354 - 355)

Dr. testified that the student has been stable since January 2011. Dr. continued to testify that at the most recent IEP meeting she felt the current placement was correct, that the student was not a candidate for residential placement, and recommended more home-based services, such as a big brother program and respite care, to be provided by the waiver program. (T 357 - 358)

THE PARENT‟S POSITION

Parent alleges that the student has not made reasonable progress in the past school year and requires a more restrictive setting, in a 24 hour supervised, structured residential placement in a New York State approved residential school. (T 19) Parent requests placement at , or issuance of a P-1 Nickerson Letter. (Exhibit A)

In the alternate the Parent is seeking home based services of a Board Certified Analyst for or twenty hours weekly so that the child can make progress in different setting. (T 20)

THE PARENT‟S WITNESSES

appeared as the witness for the Parent. Mr. testified that he is a Board certified analyst, licensed as a psychologist, employed by the Center as a clinician, whose duties include, in part, a caseload of about twenty students, working with individuals and families to develop a functional assessment and oversee the implementation of a intervention program, and . (T 270-272)

Mr. testified that the is a residential school for children with special needs serving about two hundred twenty individuals with difficult s and psychiatric diagnoses, serving the children of Massachusetts and out of state students, including students from New York State as an approved residential school. (T 272 - 273)

Mr. testified that the facility could serve the needs of the student, in part, due to the student‟s recent history of aggressive , at school, at home and on his bus. (T 276-277) He described the classroom for the student would have a ratio not to exceed , with a population of students with diagnostic profiles such as , disturbance, similar academic levels and similar histories, such as and non-compliance. Mr. testified that the could provide the services mandated on the current IEP.(T 285 - 287)

Mr. testified that, in his opinion, the FBA was not comprehensive enough for use in developing a good intervention plan, as it did not contain any frequency data, interval data, charting of such data, record review or standardized assessment measurements. (T 291)

Mr. testified that his review of the records indicated that the student has regressed to some degree in mathematics and reading, caused by the student having struggled with aggressive and impulsive that “…must have absolutely caused reduced contact with educational services and reduced learning, as well as, noncompliance and not following rules and authority figures. So these things, in my experience, typically do interfere with an individual‟s learning in the classroom.” (T 304 - 305)

Mr. testified that the student is an appropriate candidate for which would help improve the student‟s and the student could make educational and progress at . (T 305-306)

The next parent witness was Dr. , board certified, licensed psychologist. (T 382) The witness testified that, in his opinion, the Psycho educational evaluation (Exhibit E) was not complete due to not having administered all sub tests of the Wexler Intelligence Scale for Children 4th Edition, which would be needed to calculate the working memory index, processing speed index and full scale IQ.. (T 386-389)

Dr. continued to testify that the FBA was insufficient as it did not contain specific observable and measurable terms, and therefore an appropriate intervention plan could not be formulated. (T 401 - 402) , the student‟s biological mother, testified as the final witness. Ms. testified that she has three children, the student and an year old daughter reside with her, she is divorced and unemployed. (T 420 - 421) Ms. testified that the student displayed difficulties at age , received early intervention services, and was initially placed in a general education community school, briefly at ded school in Florida, briefly at ded , and in May 2009 was placed into his current program. (T 421 - 422)

Ms. testified that the current placement was prompted by her son getting older and s changing to be more aggressive and harder to get under control, stating that she was “…unable to support whatever he was going through at home being that I don„t have a support system.”. (T 423) At the last IEP meeting Ms. requested residential placement since she did not see any change in his at home or at school. (T 424)

Ms. testified that every day the student physically hits his sister, runs out of the apartment, yells and screams, and destroys property. (T 424) The witness testified that she does not receive any type of services besides his services in school, yet she does receive intermediate case management services, whereby someone comes to the home, weekly, to see how her son is doing. (T 425 - 426)

At the most recent IEP meeting Ms. asked for home services as they relate to skill building, someone to come in and work with her son, his s, and show the parent how to work with his s. (T 429) Specifically, the parent testified that she was seeking three hours a day of someone to work with her son and his s through such programs as ABA or TEACCH. (T 431)

Ms. testified that a para was initiated on the bus for her son in March, due to his on the bus, whereby her son hit the bus matron. (T 432 - 433) Ms. testified that her son continues to have incidents on the bus, and that she feels he is not making progress as he does not bring material home, and only receives homework once a week, and that she did not participate in the last parent teacher conference. (T 435 - 437) As of the date of the hearing the student had not been suspended from the bus. (T 460)

Ms. acknowledged speaking to the audiologist after the audio logical evaluation (Exhibit 4) confirming stopping use of the FM unit, and the recommendation of a follow up visit that has not yet been kept. Ms. testified that she raises concerns by calling the teacher and the assistant principal, but she does not receive a response. (T 441 - 442)

Ms. testified that had assisted her in contacting the agency which provides intermediate case management services, however, she has not been successful in obtaining respite and other services which she expects to receive, stating “…there‟s a lot of confusion around it, and when I address it, it‟s the school that keeps pushing it back in my lap to do everything, so I am at times confused as to what I‟m supposed to be doing as a parent.” (T 448) Case management services have been in place for about six weeks. (T 448)

Ms. testified she was somewhat familiar with services available through the agency assigned to her for case management services, such as res hab, whereby it is her understanding that someone would come in the home, take the student out, work on skill building and social skills. (T 451-452) Ms. testified that she has difficulty with the paperwork and determining who is responsible for filling out paperwork regarding her son. (T 451)

Ms. testified that she has looked into the Big Brother program, but has not yet applied. (T 456)

Ms. testified that she is seeking residential placement because she has exhausted all options with the student at home, trying different ways to get services and has not been successful. (T 458)

Ms. testified that she had not had to call 911 this year for her son, but had to call 911 regarding her son eight or nine times in 2010, due to her son‟s

. (T 461 - 462)

FINDING OF FACTS AND DECISION

Purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) are (1) to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE 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) 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]; Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 [1982]).

A student is offered a FAPE when (a) the board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]).

IDEA directs that, in general, an impartial hearing officer's decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][i]). A school district offers a FAPE "by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction" (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203). The "IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP" (Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 [2d Cir. 1998]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189). The statute ensures an "appropriate" education, but school districts are not required to "maximize" the potential of students with disabilities (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199; Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132). A school district must provide "an IEP that is 'likely to produce progress, not regression,' and . . . affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere 'trivial advancement'" (Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, at 195, quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130 [citations omitted]; see P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 118-19 [2d Cir. 2008]). The IEP must be "reasonably calculated to provide some 'meaningful' benefit" (Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 [2d Cir. 1997]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192). The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE) (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.114[a][2][i], 300.116[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[cc], 200.6[a][1]; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 [2d Cir. 2007]; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132; E.G. v. City Sch. Dist. of New Rochelle, 606 F. Supp. 2d 384, 388 [S.D.N.Y. 2009]).

An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student's needs (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][1]; ^[8] NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]; Tarlowe v. Dep't of Educ., 2008 WL 2736027, at *6 [S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2008]), establishes annual goals related to those needs (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][2];

A board of education may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private educational services obtained for a student by his or her 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' claim (Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]; Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-70 [1985]).

The burden of proof is on the school district during an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement (Educ. Law § 4404[1][c]; see M.P.G. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2010 WL 3398256, at *7 [S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2010]).

The IEP created on 1/14/2011, in response to Findings and Fact and Decision was issued 1/4/11 under Case Number 130907 (Exhibit B). This IEP is based, in part, upon information from recent evaluations conducted, and entered into evidence, including, Psycho-educational Evaluation, 1/5/11, Progress Report, 1/5/11, Progress Report, 1/12/11, Teacher‟s Report, 1/4/11, Therapy Report, 1/11/11, Counselor‟s Report, 1/7/11, Psychosocial Update, 1/12/11, FBA, 1/7/11, and Psychiatric Re-Evaluation, 1/10/11.

I find the student‟s current placement for the 2010-2011 school year to be appropriate, and the IEP created 1/14/2011 to be addresssing the educational needs of the student and that the IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefit. Though prompted by the Order of January 14, 2011, this does not diminish the adequacy of the IEP. Testimony reflects the parent took part in the meeting, and services being added to the IEP to reflect the individual needs of the student, such as the management paraprofessional.

The IEP contains goals and services which provide personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction. The classroom teacher, Ms. , testified that that the student has made progress, based on her assessments of the student, which includes a reading level assessment, Fountas and Pinnel. (T 54) Ms. began instructing the student in December 2010 and has instituted a specific reward system for the student. She confirms that since she has been teaching the student he has not had to be removed from class, has got along very well with his peers, has made a lot of friends, and has been adhering to the rules. The students improved reflects progress towards his goals as indicated in the IEP (Exhibit c, p10)

Ms. , in reviewing the record testified that the evaluation she performed indicated a regression in the student‟s math and reading remained at the same. (Exhibit E, T 124-125) The student is not making progress in all areas, however, the District is not obligated to maximize the student‟s progress.

Two IEPs were entered into evidence, each reflecting instructional levels. (Exhibits C & N) The earlier IEP, Exhibit N, dated 4/9/2010 reflects reading instructional levels of to beginning grade with Math instructional levels of mid grade to beginning grade. The current IEP, dated 1/14/2011 IEP, reflects reading instructional levels from to mid grade and math levels of to about mid grade. In the nine months time that passed between IEPs it is not surprising that the levels were only varied slightly. The previous IEP of 4/9/2010 was ordered to be amended, and updated based on new evaluations and directed the initiation of a para professional. (Exhibit B) Since the current IEP has been instituted, the witnesses for the DOE all testify to progress of the student, in one form or another.

In the instant case it appears that only limited progress academically could be expected, until the issues were under control. The parent‟s witness, Mr. , in his review of the student‟s progress testified that the student has regressed to some degree in mathematics and reading, caused by the student having struggled with aggressive and impulsive , that “…must have absolutely caused reduced contact with educational services and reduced learning, as well as, noncompliance and not following rules and authority figures. So these things, in my experience, typically do interfere with an individual‟s learning in the classroom.” (T 304 - 305)

Though not obligated by the IEP, several witnesses assisted the parent in obtaining Medicaid case management services in an effort to assist the parent at home with her difficulties in dealing with the student‟s at home. This service, if properly followed through, appears to be able to provide assistance for the parent‟s household and the student, outside the scope and obligation of the school district. The parent does indicate a familiarity with the services available, and admits her difficulty in accessing the services and completing paperwork. The school district personnel do appear to continue to be available to assist the parent, at her request, and making available any in school services that are available, such as reviews at parent teacher conferences and family art therapy.

As the District has met its burden of providing an appropriate placement for the 2010-2011 school year, I need not reach the issue of whether or not the is an appropriate placement for the student, or decide the equitable considerations of the Parent‟s request. The necessary inquiry is at an end. (See SRO 04-009, citing M.C. v. Voluntown Bd. Of Educ., 226 F.3d 60, 66 [2d Cir.2000]; Walczak, 142 F. 3d at 134; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 03-058).

ORDER

The parent‟s request for residential placement, a Nickerson Letter (P-1), and BCBA therapy services are denied. DATED: June 13th, 2011

_____________________

DANIEL AJELLO, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

DA: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

PARENT

A Amended Impartial Hearing Request, 2/7/11, 3pp B Findings of Fact and Decision, 1/4/11, 6pp C IEP, 1/14/11, 19pp,

D FNR, 1/14/11, 1p

E Psycho-Educational Evaluation, 1/5/11, 5pp F Progress Report, 1/5/11, 1pp G Progress Report, 1/12/11, 1p H Teacher‟s Report, 1/4/11, 1p I Therapy Report, 1/11/11, 1p J Counselor‟s Report, 1/7/11, 1p K Psychosocial Update, 1/12/11, 2pp

L FBA, 1/7/11, 1p

M Psychiatric Re-Evaluation, 1/10/11, 2pp N IEP, 4/9/2010, 18pp O Psycho-Educational Evaluation, 3/15/10, 4pp P Educational Procedures at , Undated, 7pp Q Distinguishing Features, Undated, 11pp R Positive Programming, 5/2002, 16pp

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

1 Day Treatment Program Report, 2/16/11, 1p 2 Mental Health Services Information, 2/16/11, 1p 3 Counselor‟s Report, 1/7/11, 1p 4 Evaluation, 2/14/11, 2pp 5 Reading Report, 2011, pp11 6 Math Report, 2011, 6pp

Footnotes

[8] NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]), and provides for the use of appropriate special education services (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][4]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]; see Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 07-018; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-059.