New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: Student‟s Name: Date of Birth: District: 20 Hearing Requested By: Parent Date of Hearing: May 26, 2011

June 13, 2011 Hearing Officer: Theresa R. Joyner, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MAY 26, 2011

Attorney, 's Rights — Student

Attorney, 's Rights — Student

Parent/Mother — Student

Interpreter, LIS Services — Student

Medicaid Service Provider — Student

District 75 Representative — DOE

Principal, — DOE

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

Attorney — Student

Parents

Interpreter — Student

Attorney, 's Rights — Student

Law — Student

Sr. Social Worker, NYU Hospital for Diseases — Student

(via telephone) — Student

Medicaid Service Coordinator (via telephone) — Student

Intake Coordinator, United (via telephone) — Student

District 75 Impartial Hearing Designee — DOE

— DOE

This matter came before me on May 26 and June13, 2011, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(1). The applicable timelines were extended for each adjournment, for post hearing submissions and for corrected transcripts. Appended to the record are lists of persons in attendance and documents entered into evidence.

BACKGROUND

The student is a year old boy, who is classified with multiple disabilities and presents with significant global . He has been diagnosed with severe , and . The student is in an ungraded class, in a District 75 school. The Committee on Education (CSE) convened on March 16, 2011, to conduct an IEP meeting. The CSE recommended a class, in a school, with a student to teacher ratio of , and a twelve month school year with related services. The related services were to be provided at a separate location. Hearing education services, 2x30:1; , and therapy, each to be provided 5x30.1. In addition, a transportation services, a climate controlled minibus, limited time travel. The Department of Education (DOE) has started it has fully implemented this IEP.

The parents contend that for the past two years that they have put the DOE on notice of the student‟s medical needs regarding transportation. Specifically, the student‟s travel time on the bus must not exceed thirty minutes. The parents have made numerous calls to various DOE persons and submitted medical documentation supporting their request. (Exhs. A, B, C, D, E, F and I) The parents allege that to date, the student‟s ride to and from school exceeds thirty minutes each way. The DOE has acknowledged that it cannot get the student to and from school, on and off the bus, within thirty minutes each way. The parents argue that the DOE has failed to provide the student with a free, appropriate public education (FAPE). They are seeking placement in a New York State approved school, United School ( ); a RSA for hearing services and to re-convene an IEP meeting to include and to reinstate the 30 minute travel time on his IEP.

THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S CASE

The DOE‟s only witness was Ms. , the principal of site , the student‟s school, it is one of the four sites under . This is her second year as principal; the student started in her school in September, 2010. She is familiar with his program; she has observed him in class and participated in his IEP meetings. She described him as having low cognitive functioning, some vocalization and responsive to people. (Tr. 27-29) She recalled that the December, 2010 meeting was to follow up to see if the child‟s needs were being met. The IEP indicated limited transportation time, 30 minutes. She stated that there were issues regarding the travel time, reducing it to 30 minutes. She contacted the persons who handle pupil transportation, in an effort to reduce the travel time. T he bus routes were changed several times to accommodate the student‟s limited travel time needs. She referred to the daily transportation logs; she stated that recently the travel time was basically kept to 30 minutes. There were no reports to date of any medical issues arising from his bus travel. (Tr. 32-34 and 47-49)(Exhs. 6 and S)

The next meeting was on March 16, 2011, the purpose of it was to get the FM unit on the IEP and to be updated on the child„s progress in the program. She participated by telephone, for part of the meeting. She noted earlier in the year that the student had some attendance issues, but, now the attendance was consistent. The meeting focused on busing, the parents wanted a referral to the Central Based Support Team (CBST) for a private school placement. She believed the student‟s needs were being appropriately served at her school; he was making progress and the travel issues had been addressed. She stated that the March IEP indicated limited time travel, however, the reference to 30 minutes was removed. T he principal stated that the Office of Pupil Transportation

(OPT) does not permit specific time limitations on the IEP. However, the OPT contract was for 30 minutes each way. She was not able to recall whether the parent was told that the“30 minutes” mandate was going to be removed.(Tr. 55-57 and 58-59( (Exh. R)

On cross examination, the principal admitted that the mother expressed concerns regarding her son‟s medical needs, not to exceed 30 minutes on the bus. She acknowledged that the doctor‟s note addressed the child‟s travel restrictions. Also, she acknowledged that she was aware of three additional doctors‟ notes submitted after the March 16, 2011, IEP meeting. (Tr.62-66) (Exhs. A, B, C and F) She acknowledged that she participated only for a part of the March meeting and was there for the discussion on a CBST referral. (Tr. at 68)

Ms. conceded that the State Education Department (SED) did determine that her school was not in compliance with the student‟s transportation needs. SED directed her school to reinstate the 30 minute time limit on the IEP and implement it. In addition, the SED mandated that the principal provide copies of the bus travel logs for verification of compliance with its directive. Subsequently, the SED wrote in April, 2011 that the school was not in compliance and must take immediate corrective action.(Tr. 79-82) (Exhs. U, V and W) The principal went over the transportation logs; she admitted that as recent as mid-May, the student‟s bus rides have exceeded 30 minutes, in some instances the travel time exceeded 50 minutes. Moreover, it has taken an additional ten minutes in some instances before the student is actually removed from the bus. (Tr.8992 and 93-94)

On redirect, the principal reviewed the bus log section that addressed the condition of the student during the ride and when he got off the bus. The logs indicated on several occasions that he was alert, happy or calm. Also, Ms. testified that the student is the last to be picked up and the first to be dropped off, on his bus route. Furthermore, the principal agreed that if the bus arrives and the student is not there, ready to board the bus, this delay would be added to the travel time.(Tr. 102- 104,105-108 and at 110) She acknowledged that under OPT regulations, travel time means up to one hour.(Tr. at 113)

THE PARENTS’ CASE

, senior social worker at NYU Hospital for Diseases, where the student receives his medical care, testified that she has worked with the student and his family since February, 2010. She works specifically with children who have conditions such as . She sees him every two months; she confers with his family and his doctors. She described the student as suffering from a severe type of -severe . is characterized by excessive involuntary movement of his extremities. He suffers from both type of tone issues, spastic and looseness. He is bound and is . He has profound , bilateral hearing loss and has a pump in place. T he pump delivers medication directly into his . The student has poor , and control; he is totally dependent. (Tr. 124-127 and 128-130)

She explained the student‟s transportation needs are directly related to his medical condition. He needs a bus para because of his poor trunk control, if he drops his head he needs someone to make sure his breathing is not affected. Due to involuntary movement of his and , the para needs to make sure he does not injure the other students. The 30 minute limitation on the bus “is critical” the student cannot tolerate being confined and restricted for a longer period of time. (Tr. at 132) He will become agitated, being strapped in is uncomfortable and may be painful for him. He is , so she has to rely on her observations and doctors reports. She referenced several letters written by his different doctors that clearly state that the student cannot be on the bus longer than 30 minutes and beyond that period of time should absolutely be avoided. She explicitedly stated that more than 30 minutes on the bus, is detrimental to his health and that it does not matter whether the bus is moving or standing still. (Tr. 131-134 and at 135) (Exhs. A and D) During cross-examination, she testified that the mother had reported to the doctors about her son‟s agitation and behavior on the bus and on the ambulate, which he takes for medical appointments.(Tr. at 137)

testified that she is the student‟s Medicaid Service coordinator; she works for the Board of family and Children‟s Services Medicaid Division. She stated that she has to keep her clients records updated and ensure that all services on the IEP are implemented. She advocates on behalf of the student and his mother. She has worked on behalf of the student since October, 2008. Typically she has weekly meetings with the family when necessary she has met with them up to three times a week. The meetings are an opportunity to observe the student and update information on his services and medical needs. She noted since working with the mother she has made most of the contacts with the schools, DOE and other entities on their behalf. S he attends the school meetings and reviews school and medical documents. She is keenly aware of his transportation needs and noted that she has made numerous calls to the DOE, schools and the OPT, in an effort to have his transportation needs met, to no avail. (Tr. 139-142 and 145-145)

She discussed the October, 2009 IEP. She recalled that Dr. filled out the DOE Medical Accommodations Form regarding the student‟s transportation needs. The October IEP detailed his travel needs; he did not receive any of the services while at his prior school. She discussed his travel problems in detail, relating back to September, 2009 and then addressed the SED complaint and findings. She noted that the December, IEP had the time limitation on it. In January, 2011 a meeting was held with the principal and assistant principal, not an IEP meeting, to discuss his related services and transportation issues. A doctor‟s note was given to the principal regarding travel needs. After the meeting, she faxed over his psychological evaluation with a cover sheet) (Tr. 146147 and149-152 ) (Exhs. T, I, U, S, F, P and G)

Ms. stated that at the March IEP meeting there was much discussion regarding the FM unit, his therapists gave reports and there was no mention of removing the travel time. After that meeting additional doctor notes were sent to the school and to Mr. . (Exhs. D, E, F, O and

N) Additional doctor notes were sent from his NYU clinic doctors. (Exhs. A, B, C and M) She and the mother visited the United School ( ) with ; he was accepted. is the closest school to his home and offers an appropriate placement. (Tr.156-158 and159-160) On cross examination, she acknowledged that his current school was good, the only problem is the transportation. (Tr. at 163)

The mother testified that her son has involuntary movement of his hands, feet and head. He becomes very agitated sitting on the bus and his spasms increase; he sweats profusely and his head drops. These reactions to the bus occur whether the bus is moving or standing still. Besides the doctors and the transportation para telling her about his reaction on the bus, she has witnessed it firsthand. She accompanies the student to his medical appointments, in the ambulate. His spastic movements are much more pronounced and severe when he is in the medical vehicle; the trip is about 20-25 minutes. Sometimes he perspires so much that she has to change his clothes. When he is home, he is much quieter. She stated that when he is placed on the school bus he becomes so spastic that it requires two persons to strap him down in his wheelchair. When he is on the bus he often cries, makes sounds and sweats profusely. She is able to see him on the bus and observe him. (Tr. 164-166 and 167-169)

The mother stated she is not aware of anytime that the DOE transported her son in 30 minutes or less. The principal and other school officials have told her many times that they cannot accommodate his travel needs. She has spent a substantial amount of time with Ms. , speaking to school officials and transportation staff trying to resolve the problem. She has observed when the bus comes, when it leaves and arrives at his school as well as the time it takes to remove him from the bus. She has taken cab service on several occasions to check the amount of time that he is actually on the bus. She referenced dates in May, 2011 where her son‟s transportation time, on the bus, exceeded more than a hour. In fact, on May 26, after leaving this hearing, her son arrived home around 5 PM. Usually he gets home within a hour at 3:30 PM.(Tr. 170-173 and 175-179)

As a last resort, the mother started looking at schools that were closer to home. One of the student‟s doctors recommended CPU which is about five blocks from her home. She provided with the student‟s documents and he was accepted. The school is able to meet all of his education needs. (Tr. 179-186) On cross-examination, she stated that she had nothing against the current school. (Tr. at 187)

The parent‟s final witness was , the intake coordinator for . Ms.

stated that in March, 2011 she lead the mother on a tour of her school and reviewed documentation on the student. The school accepted the student. (Exh. Z) She described the population of children that caters to and educational services they provide. She stated that can provide all of the related services he needs except the hearing service. He can obtain hearing services via a RSA, outside of school. She discussed the technologies available at the school. Also, the coordinator testified that all the students who attend her school are approved and placed at her school by the DOE. She noted that school owned three buildings in his area; the school had made substantial improvements to the buildings and had no intention of changing its location. (Tr. 188-190 and 191-193) When questioned by the District, the coordinator described the classroom set up and the children. She stated that there are two full time Registered nurses on staff and a psychologist. The school does not provide vision services.(Tr. at 196 and 198-199)

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Two purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C.§§1401482) are (1) to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education (FAPE)4 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]; Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 [1982]).

The 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). However, the "IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP" (Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 [2d Cir. 1998]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189).

The statute ensures an "appropriate" education, "not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents" (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132, quoting Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d 563, 567 [2d Cir. 1989] [citations omitted]; see Grim, 346 F.3d at 379). Additionally, 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). Nonetheless, 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, 427 F.3d 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]; Perricelli, 2007 WL 465211, at *15). 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]; see Newington, 546 F.3d at 114; 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]; Patskin v. Bd. of Educ., 583 F. Supp. 2d 422, 428 [W.D.N.Y. 2008])

Also, a FAPE must be available to an eligible student "who needs education and related services, even though the [student] has not failed or been retained in a course or grade, and is advancing from grade to grade" (34 C.F.R. § 300.101[c][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[c][5]). program for the next school year" (34 C.F.R. § 300.324[b][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[f]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1414[d][4][A][i]; Educ. Law § 4402[1][b][2]). A district must have an IEP in effect at the beginning of each school year for each student in its jurisdiction with a disability (34 C.F.R. § 300.323[a]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[e][1][ii]; Cerra, 427 F.3d at 194; Tarlowe, 2008 WL 2736027, at *6 [stating "[a]n education department‟s delay does not violate the IDEA so long as the department 'still ha[s] time to find an appropriate placement … for the beginning of the school year in September'"]; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 10-006; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 09-111; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 08-157; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 08-088). ]). As a matter of State law, a school year runs from July 1 through June 30 (Educ. Law § 2[15]). Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 471 F. Supp. 2d 415, 419 [S.D.N.Y. 2007] aff'd, 2008 WL 3852180 [2d Cir. Aug. 19, 2008]).

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]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]), and provides for the use of appropriate 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; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 06-029; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-046; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-014; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 93-9). Subsequent to its development, an IEP must be properly implemented (8 NYCRR 200.4[e][7]; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 08-087).

A FAPE is offered to a student 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]). While school districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures, not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (A.C. v. Bd. of Educ., 553 F.3d 165, 172 [2d Cir. 2009]; Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003]; Perricelli v. Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 465211, at *10 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2007]). Under the IDEA, if a procedural violation is alleged, an administrative officer may find that a student did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a) impeded the student's right to a FAPE, (b) significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student, or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; E.H. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 3930028, at *7 [N.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2008].

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 parent, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parent were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parent's claim (Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 [1985]; Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]). In Burlington, the court found that Congress intended retroactive reimbursement to parents by school officials as an available remedy in a proper case under the IDEA (id.). "Reimbursement merely requires [a district] to belatedly pay expenses that it should have paid all along and would have borne in the first instance had it developed a proper IEP" (Burlington, at 370-71; see Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 05-073). The parent's failure to select a program approved by the state in favor of an unapproved option is not itself a bar to reimbursement (Carter, 510 U.S. at 14). This relief was extended to prospective payment for services. Connors v. Mills, 34 F. Supp. 2d 795(NDNY 1998)

I have reviewed all the testimonial and documentary evidence in the record. Clearly, the issue here is whether the Department of Education failed to provide the student with a FAPE when it failed to transport the child to and from school, and get him on and off the bus in 30 minutes or less. The record is replete with both testimonial and documentary evidence establishing that the DOE has not been able to do so, as far back as October, 2009. Tr. 136-137; 146-147and 170) (Exhs. 6, U, V, Wand BB) This failure to properly transport the child is an ongoing fatal violation of both federal and state law. The IDEA specifically identifies transportation in its definition of related services as an important element of a child‟s ability to secure a free appropriate public education. 20 U.S.C.A. §1401(26)(A) New York state references transportation as a component of education and requires school districts to provide “suitable transportation.” (Educ. Law §§ 4401[[1], 4402[4][a] “The nature of the transportation required for a particular child depends on the child‟s unique needs , and it must be provided in the .” App.of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 03-053 at 5)(34 C.F.R.§§300.306, 300.533) There is an abundance of evidence in the record establishing that the student‟s transportation needs, specifically 30 minutes or less on an air conditioned bus, are directly related to his medical needs and are critical to his well being.(Exhs. A, B, C, D, E and F) In addition, the CSE‟s arbitrary removal of the 30 minute time limit on the student‟s IEP denied the parent an opportunity to participate in the decision making process, regarding a critical element, of her son‟s education needs. (8 N.Y.C.R.R. §200.5(d)(4) Accordingly, I find that the District failed to provide the student with a FAPE.

The evidence in the record supports the parent‟s selection of as an appropriate placement for the child and that the school is able to meet the child‟s education needs. The school is close to his home and has accepted him. The school is a New York State approved school and only accepts applicants placed by the DOE. It offers the same student to teacher ratio as the CSE recommended. (Tr. at 180; 190-192 and 196-198) The equities requirements weighed in favor of the parent. The parent has given the CSE more than two years to properly resolve the transportation problem and the school despite its‟ best efforts, has not been able to do so.

ORDER

a) The Department shall approve and fund the student‟s education at the United

School; and b) The Department shall issue a RSA for hearing services, twice a week, 30 minute individual sessions; and c) The Department shall revise the student‟s IEP to reflect his ongoing need for 30 minutes limited travel time on the bus and add placement at .

Dated: July 26, 2011

__________________________

THERESA R. JOYNER, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

TRJ: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 Doctor's Note, 5/12/11, 1 p. B Doctor's Note, 3/30/11, 1 p. C Doctor's Note, 3/29/11, 1 p. D Doctor's Note, 2/23/11, 1 p. E Prescription for Limited Bus Ride, 2/9/11, 1 p. F Prescription for Limited Bus Ride, 1/19/11, 1 p. G Comprehensive Psychological Evaluation, 1/5/11, 4 pp. H Comprehensive Psycho Social Evaluation, 1/4/11, 4 pp. I Medical Accommodation Form, for Limited Bus Ride, 10/7/09, 1 p. 0J Board of Family and Children's Services Medical Form, 2/24/09, 4 pp. K Board of Family & Children's Services Medical Form, 3/24/08, 4 pp. L Bilingual Social History, 4/25/08, 5 pp. M Letter to , 3/30/11, 1 p. N Letter to , 3/17/11, 2 pp. O Letter to Principal , 3/16/11, 1 p. P Fax to Marlene Green, 2/7/11, 1 p. Q Amended Impartial Hearing Request, 3/31/11, 9 pp. R IEP, 3/16/11, 16 pp. S IEP, 12/3/10, 16 pp. T IEP, 10/28/09, 13 pp. U State Education Department Complaint Findings, 11/17/2010, 4 pp. V SED Compliance Assurance Plan Update Letter, 4/6/11, 1 p. W SED Compliance Assurance Plan Status Report, 4/6/11, 2 pp. X Information Request sent to Gary Heck, 3/1/11, 2 pp. Y PS 141 Bus Logs, dated 12/2010 to 2/2011, 6 pp. Z Acceptance Letter from , for Immediate Enrollment upon Department of Education Approval, 3/14/11, 1 p. AA United School Age Program Prescription, 1 p. p.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

1 Notice of IEP Meeting Annual Review Re-Evaluation, Undated, 1 p. 2 Final Notice of Recommendation, Undated, 2 pp. 3 Omitted 4 Omitted 5 Omitted 6 Daily Log Transportation Paraprofessional, Various Dates, 6 pp.