NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
Impartial Due Process Hearing : 8 N.Y.C.R.R. Parts 200 & 201
In the Matter of a Hearing Pursuant to Part 200 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education,
Parents of a Student with a Disability
and
The District
Decision& Order
In a Due Process Complaint received by the District [District] on July 11, 2011, Parents of a six-year-old student with a disability, challenged the Individualized Educational Program [IEP] recommendation for their child as not providing their child with a Free Appropriate Public Education [FAPE], objecting to his placement in an 8-1-2 class.[1] The Parents request that their child be placed in a 12:1:2 class of verbal students and that he be provided with a teaching assistant.[2]
The District's response to the Complaint alleges that the District offered the student an IEP that is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits and that, to the extent that the Parents alleged any procedural inadequacies, they did not significantly impede the Student's right to a FAPE or the Parents' opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.
The Parents appear by Parents' Attorney's Law Firm (Parents' Attorney of
Counsel) of NY. The District appears by District's Attorney's Law Firm
(District's Attorney of Counsel) of , NY.
The hearing was conducted on September 15 & 16, October 13, 20 and 21, 2011 at the District offices. The following witnesses testified:
Name Title / Position /Occupation Testimony in
Record School Psychologist #1 School Psychologist & CSE Chair pp. 17-259
Speech Teacher #1 Speech Teacher of the Student pp. 270-412
District's Educational Educational Consultant employed by pp. 414-485 Consultant #1
Special Education Teacher Special Education teacher of the pp. 493-710 #1 Student Special Education Teacher Special Education teacher employed as pp. 719-770 #2 a Teaching Assistant in another school district who has been hired by the Parents to accompany the Student at various activities
Student's Mother pp. 770-905
Student's Father pp. 905-914
Nurse Practitioner #1 Nurse Practitioner employed by pp. 921-968nd working with Medical
Doctor #1
Private Psychologist #1, Psychologist and BCBA (Board pp. 968-1050 Ph.D. Certified in Behavior Analysis by the
International Behavior Analysis
Certification Board)
The Student's Early Evaluation and Programs
On November 17, 2007, Nurse Practitioner #1 and Medical Doctor #1,[3] at the
Hospital #1, evaluated the Student, then two years, seven months old, and concluded that the Student suffered from a Disorder. He received Early Intervention services beginning at the age of two which included and ).4On January 14, 2008, the Wechsler Pre-School and Primary Scales of Intelligence – III was administered and the Student obtained a full
scale IQ or a verbal score of and performance score of
2008-2009
The Student was enrolled in the School Program
#1.Beginning in September 2008. He was in an integrated classroom and received
.[6]
2009-2010
In July 2009, the Student enrolled in School Program #2 in a
Pre-Kindergarten class of nine children where he remained for the 2009-2010 school year.[7] He received individual twice a week and group once a week in a group of two children for 30-minute sessions. He also received individual
4
District Exhibit 32, p. 1.
twice a week and individual once a week in 30- minute sessions. Further, he participated in adaptive physical education.8
2010-2011
The Committee on Special Education met on March 26, 2010 for a Transition meeting from the CPSE to the CSE.9 The Committee recommended classification of Autism. Classification is not in dispute.
The CSE recommended a non-integrated placement in a 6:1:2 special class daily and an extended school day four days a week with twice a week in a group for 45 minutes, once a week individually, twice a week individually and twice a week in a group setting, each time for 30 minutes.10 The IEP also provided for Parent Training once a month. The IEP also called for program modifications of Refocusing and Redirection, Picture Cues, use of a token economy,
Obtaining the Student's Attention before presenting or questioning, Sensory Breaks,
Written schedule. The Special Education teacher from the 6:1:2 class participated in the meeting and testified at the hearing. The teachers of an 8:1:2 special class and the 12:1:2 special class did not attend the CSE meeting and did not testify at the hearing. According to the testimony of the Student's Mother, the CSE Chairperson simply announced, at the March 26, 2010 CSE meeting, that “Well, we think he [the Student] should be in this class, the 6:1:2, and that's where [the Student] is going to be.”11
8
District Exhibit 28, p. 1 and District Exhibit 9, Preschool IEP for 2009-2010 school year. 9
District Exhibit 7, IEP for 2010-2011 school year. 10
District Exhibit 7, IEP at pp. 1-2. 11
Tr. 800.
Of note, the IEP recites that the CSE considered an 8:1:2 special class program and rejected this option “because the student's current academic skills, social/emotional needs, physical needs and management needs indicate that a more intensive setting with support is needed to address the student's needs.”[12]
The Student was five years, 5 months, old at the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year. The Parents requested a review of the program and the CSE met on December 6, 2010 to examine the goals and the social aspects of the program.[13] The Student's mother testified that in October, the Student was becoming resistant to attending school,[14] which she attributed to the student being isolated because the children in his class placement were not verbal and not interacting with each other.15The Student's teacher reported a March 2011 conversation about the Student's resistance to attending school on some days.16At least three of the children in the Student's kindergarten class used communication devices.17According to the School Psychologist, those three students had limited verbal skills and one additional child was completely non-verbal.[18]
During the school day in the 2010-2011 school year the student received both discrete trial instruction and group instruction with “directives repeated one-to-one.”[19]
15
Tr. 805-807.
16
Tr. 581.
17
Tr. 156-157.
At the conclusion of the 2010-2011 school year, the Student had achieved eighteen of his goals and all of his motor goals. He was progressing satisfactorily on the remainder of the IEP goals.[20]
The IEP and Placement Recommendation in Dispute - 2011-2012
The CSE convened three times, on April 13, 2011,21on June 9, 2011,[22] and on June 30, 2011,23regarding the Student's program and placement for the 2011-2012 school year.24The Chairperson indicated that the Parents requested a program review that resulted in the second meeting, on June 9, 2011, focused on the student's goals.25The third meeting focused on a projected profile of a 12:1:2 special class26 into which the Parents seek to have their son placed.
The CSE recommended an 8:1:2 special class placement daily for 4 hours and 45 minutes, and Extended School Day in an 8:1:2 special class four days a week for 1 hours and 15 minutes. Additionally, the CSE recommended (a) , individually twice a week and in a group twice a week for 30 minute sessions, (b)
Therapy twice a week in a small group for 45 minute sessions and once a week for a 30 minute session and Parent Training once monthly.[27]
The Parents indicated,at the annual review,that they were looking for a less restrictive environment for their son because they said he had regressed socially and the
23
See, District Exhibit 3, IEP for 2011-2012 (Requested Review). 24
Tr. 89 25
Tr. 90.
26
See, District Exhibit 53. 6:1:2 class was too restrictive.28They wanted their son to be with verbal children and the CSE was aware of this desire.29At the April 13 CSE meeting, the District informed the Parents that there would be no 6:1:2 special class for the 2011-2012 school year but that there would be a 12:1:2 special class and an 8:1:2 special class which, according to the
Mother's testimony was basically to absorb the children from the 6:1:2 class.[30]
The Student's progress in attending had increased from 7 ½ minutes to 15 minutes at the end of the year and the Parents felt that he was ready for a less restrictive 12:1:2 class setting31 that they wanted the CSE to consider. The testimony is clear that the Parents sought a placement in which the Student would be exposed to peers with existing language skills who would be language and social models for the Student to emulate.
The Student's Mother indicated that at the June 9, 2011 CSE meeting the CSE could not provide the Parent's with information on the 12:1:2 class and agreed to provide a profile of the class at the end of the year. She reported that at the meeting, the chairperson stated that “We are going to put [the student] in the 8:1:2” and the parents discussed their concerns and awaited more information on the 12:1:2 special class which the CSE could not then provide.32 The parents believed that the Student had been completely isolated in the kindergarten placement in the 2010-2011 school year and that he needed social as well as language role models.33
28
Tr. 824.
29
Tr. 193-194.
The third CSE meeting was held on June 30, 2011.34 The Parents were presented with a class profile of the 12:1:2 special class35 and inquired about the language abilities of the students within the 12:1:2 class. The Chairperson informed the Parents that “yes” the children do have language but she did not elaborate further.36 The hearing testimony confirmed that, with the possible exception of one child, all of the children in the 12:1:2 class were verbal. In contrast, in the District recommended 8:1:2 placement, the Student was highest in language development. All of the other students in the 8:1:2 recommended placement are not verbal and could not reasonably be expected to be language role- models for the Student to imitate and acquire language.
Findings
The testimony and exhibits support a finding that the District's proposed 8:1:2 special class placement and program do not provide the Student an educational program reasonably calculated to provided educational benefit in the least restrictive environment to which the Student is entitled under the IDEA and the Commissioner of Education's regulations. The 2011-2012 IEP does not provide the Student with a Free Appropriate Public Education [FAPE] in the least restrictive environment.
The record also supports the finding that the 12:1:2 special class into which the Parents seek placement is an appropriate and less restrictive placement. It is one in which the Students' overriding need to be exposed to verbal peers can be met.
Additionally, the evidence presented indicates that,although not requested in the due process hearing request, an appropriate program could be provided to the Student in a 34
District Exhibit 3; Tr. 188-190. 35
See, District Exhibit 53. 36
Tr. 833. more mainstreamed setting with sufficient supplemental aids and services where the Student to verbal peers for language development.
Analysis
The Federal and State standard for a recommended program require that it be in the least restrictive environment. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); 34 C.F.R. §
300.114(a)(2)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.116(a)(2); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.1(cc); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.6(a)(1). This requires that a student with a disability be educated to the maximum extent appropriate with students who are not disabled and that special classes, separate schooling or other removal of students with disabilities from the general educational environment may occur only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a)(2)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.116(a)(2); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.6(a)(1).See, P v. Newington Bd. Of Ed., 5456
F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2008); Oberti v. Clementon Sch. Dist., 995 F.2d 1204 (3d Cir. 1993);
J.G. v. Kiryas Joel UFSD, 777 F. Supp.2d 606 (U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y., 2011).
Critical to this analysis is that the placement of a student with a disability is that the LRE provide the special education needed by the student, that the education of the student is, to the maximum extent appropriate, with students who do not have disabilities, and as close to the student's home as possible. Of particular note here is that this first grade student is entitled to be with age peers in the general education setting all of whom one could reasonable expect to be verbal, able to function in small groups, and to engage in social exchanges – all areas of need for the Student and one which could be naturally addressed even in a general education environment.
As a Student classified with the disability of he Commissioner's regulations specifically provide that to the maximum extent appropriate, provisions shall be made for the eventual inclusion of students with autism into resource room programs or regular education classes. See, 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.12(a)(5) and Application of the Board of Education, SRO Appeal No. 02-081.
In the recommended placement, three of the students were students in the 6:1:2 kindergarten class in which the Student was enrolled in the 2010-2011 school year (two students with and the Student). The three other students in the recommended class are students classified with The School Psychologist testified that it would be reasonable for Parents of a child with a disability on the to want their child to be placed with verbal children because, “They would want them to be with children who can interact with them.”37 The evidence is clear that the Student needs such exposure and interaction with age peers, that he could receive such exposure in the 12:1:2 special class, and that he would not receive that exposure in the 8:1:2 recommended placement.
The primary reason given for the CSE's decision not to place the Student in the 12:1:2 class had nothing to do with addressing the Student's need for such interaction with verbal age peers. Rather, the CSE's decision seems to have been premised on the mistaken view that since the students in the 12:1:2 class were viewed as capable of learning academics in a small group, as opposed to one-to-one instruction, the Student 37
Tr. 156. would not be appropriate for placement in that class – even with the provision of supplemental aids and services.38Yet, although the Student does receive some services on a one-to-one basis, he apparently received instruction as part of small groups in the teacher's class.39The testimony of the School Psychologist suggested that the number of students in the 12:1:2 class might be overwhelming – but there are only eight students in that class40- just four more than in his recommended placement. Further, the offer of the mock schedule - that was created to show the 2011-2012 school year(District Exhibit 54 - tended to highlight the need for the Student to have greater exposure to verbal peers than could not be accomplished within the CSE-recommended placement. Structured times when the Student could be exposed to age peers to participate in verbal and social exchanges would be beneficial.
But, the fact is that at both the March 26, 2010 CSE meeting for the 2010-2011 school year and at the three CSE meetings (April 13, 2011, June 9, 2011, and June 30, 2011) for the IEP recommendation for the 2011-2012 school year, the District believed that a general educational placement was inappropriate in light of the Student's disability and had virtually no discussion with the Parents about providing the Student with as much access to verbal and nondisabled students as possible. Here, the Student's most significant educational need is for the exposure to such peers and supplemental aids and services should enhance the opportunity for the Student's exposure to verbal age peers.
The CSE recommendations of March 26, 2010, April 13, 2011, June 9, 2011 and June 30, 2011 each and all failed to satisfy the two-prong test for placement in the Least
38
Tr. 109. 39
Tr. 608. 40
Tr. 109 & 201; District Exhibit 53 (12:1:2 class profile). Restrictive Environment as enunciated by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in P. v.
Newington Bd. Of Ed., 546 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2008). That test requires that:
Pursuant to that test, a court should consider, first, ‘whether education in the regular classroom, with the use of supplemental aids and services, can be achieved satisfactorily for a given child,' and, if not, then ‘whether the school has mainstreamed the child to the maximum extent appropriate.' [citations omitted] We today explicitly endorse the two-pronged test, as elucidated and augmented by Judge Becker for the Third Circuit in Oberti [v.
Clementon Sch. Dist., 995 F.2d 1204, 1215 (3d Cir. 1993)].”
546 F.3d at 120.
The reason for the Second Circuit's adoption of the two-prong test and the significance of the second prong is that:
to hold otherwise would be to minimize the burden on the district to ‘take creative steps to provide [the Student] as much access to nonhandicapped students as it can,' Daniel R.R. [v. State Bd. Of
Educ.], 874 F.2d at 1050, in light of Congress's goal of maximizing the time that children with disabilities spend among their typically developing peers.
777 F.Supp.2d at 651.
The evidence supports the conclusion that the District did not meet the LRE tests, particularly the second prong of the test and that requires that the Parents' request for relief be granted.
A comparison to of the recommended 8:1:2 placement [see, District Exhibit 52]
and the 12:1:2 placement [See, District Exhibit 53] is informative. The School Psychologist indicated that the IQ information would have little weight in determining the appropriateness of the placement. The recommended 8:1:2 class had 6 students, four with one and one Two children in the 8:1:2 class had average academics. Four children in the 12:1:2 class had average academics. Five children in the 8:1:2 class had low social skills whereas only three children in the 12:1:2 class had low social skills. The remainder of the children were in the low average range. Two children in the 8:1:2 class were identified as having low physical attributes and five children so rated in the 12:1:2 class. Six children in the 12:1:2 class were reported as a low in management needs and four in the low average range. In the 8:1:2 class three children were reported in the low range for management needs and three in the low average range. There are no children classified as autistic in the 12:1:2 class. Separating out the IQ scores, there are other children in the 12:1:2 class with the same ratings as those for the Student.
As far as staffing is concerned, there are four aides in the 12:1:2 class in addition to the teacher with eight children.41The staffing in the 8:1:2 class consists of three aides and one teacher.42 According to at least one witness, the District has teacher aides but no teaching assistants, a matter relevant to compliance with Commissioner of Education regulation at 8 N.Y.C.R.R. §200.6(b) discussed below.
The children in the 8:1:2 class and the children in the 12:1:2 class spend thirty minutes a day with typically developing peers although they are kindergarteners and not first graders because the schedules of the classes do not match.43
On examination, the School Psychologist acknowledge that the Student's study skill goals on his IEP could be addressed in the 12:1:2 class and the reading goals as well.
41
Tr. 201. 42
Tr. 201-202. 43
Tr. 642-643. Similarly, all of the goals could be addressed in the 12:1:2 class and the Student could make progress.44
Regarding the central issue of exposure to verbal children, all of the children placed in the 12:1:2 class were and are verbal except one. The School Psychologist conceded, necessarily, that the Student would be more likely to be a verbal response from the children in the 12:1:2 class, if he had been placed there, than from his recommended
8:1:2 class placement.45
Further, while the Student has received discrete trial instruction over the years and currently, it is not the only way he learns and he could be taught in a small group setting.46 According to his IEP, the Student, during one-on-one instruction, can perform a three-step command accurately and without delay. In math, he requires one-on-one instruction, teacher modeling and the use of manipulatives.47The Student is the highest functioning child motor wise within his class and on the playground he attempts to interact.48
In balancing the evidence, there seems to be no real dispute that the Student benefits from and would reasonably be expected to benefit from exposure to verbal children to the greatest extent possible. This is where the application of the second prong of the LRE test from P. v. Newington Bd. Of Ed.,supra, might lead to even greater participation in a general education setting than sought by the Parents in their hearing request.
44
Tr. 209-214. 45
Tr. 212. 46
Tr. 257. 47
See, District Exhibit D3, at p. 3. 48
Tr. 618.
Additionally, a psychologist who is Board Certified in Behavior Analysis by the International Behavior Analysis Certification Board, Dr. Private Psychologist #1, testified that he had evaluated the Student in January 2011 and he opined that the student “should be placed with the highest functioning peers possible, where he can have extensive language models and observe appropriate social behavior.”49 He stated that his recommendation was based, in part, on observations that the Student was learning by imitation, even with his brother and “we want him to be in a place where he is going to be able to do that to maximize his own good functioning and thus having appropriate language models and appropriate social models would be necessary if he is going to be capitalizing on these imitation skills.”50His testimony is credible and consistent with the Student's well documented needs. Dr. Newman opined that the current placement was not appropriate simply because there “would not be enough language on the part of the other students.”51 That exposure to verbal peers is the essence of the Student's right to an education in the least restrictive placement to address his needs.
The concern expressed by the District that the Student would need prompting and would become prompt dependent in the 12:1:2 class is not credible particularly in light of testimony that such can be faded out and the 12:1:2 class is less likely to generate such dependency than the 8:1:2 class.52
49
Tr. 984; District Exhibit 19, p. 4. 50
Tr. 985. 51
Tr. 988. 52
Tr. 1044.
In addition to the school program, the Student did participate in activities outside of school with typically developing peers and he interacted with those peers.53
Finally, I do not conclude that the parents were effectively denied meaningful participation in the development of the IEP because they were able to make suggestions about the IEP, particularly relating to the goals and interventions that were adopted by the CSE. Even though, on the central issue of exposure of their child to verbal age peers, the CSE did not yield to their requests, the decisional law indicates that a finding that the CSE “predetermined the placement” would not be applicable. See, J.G. v. Kiryas Joel
UFSD, 777 F.Supp.2d at 648-649.While the participating staff acted on good faith in making their recommendations at the CSE meetings, clearly the Parents had no influence whatsoever,from the outset, on a placement of their child with verbal age peers.
After hearing all of the testimony and weighing the well-intentioned position of the parties and witnesses, I must conclude that the 2011-2012 IEP recommended program and placement for the Student in the 8:1:2 class is inappropriate under the IDEA and the Commissioner of Education regulations and fails to offer the Student with a Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment and that the 12:1:2 placement does offer a less restrictive placement with verbal age-peers to address the Student's needs. The inappropriateness of the 2010-2011 placement on LRE grounds is moot.
The Issue of the Teaching Assistant
53
Tr. 727-730.
The Parents' hearing request seek placement of the Student with verbal peers in the 12:1:2 placement and a well-trained teaching assistant.54In addition to placement with verbal peers, the Parents are entitled to a teaching assistant to support his program.
The Commissioner's regulations, at 8 N.Y.C.R.R. §200.6(b), Staffing requirements pursuant to Part 80 of this Title, provide, at subdivision (4), that “Special education instruction shall be provided by individuals appropriately certified or licensed pursuant to Part 80 of this Title.” Pursuant to these regulations, the person or persons in the 8:1:2 class providing support to the students in the class under the direction of the teacher, should be a teaching assistant and not a teacher aide.
The lack of any teaching assistant in the recommended program and placement is one legal impediment to an offer of a FAPE to the Student. In the 2010-2011, the teacher aides were, under the supervision of the certified teacher, providing “review, not instruction,”55 and “reviewing of skill [the Student] needs constant revisitation,”56and, according to the Student's teacher, “they are guiding [the Student].”57 The teacher indicated that some of the aides were “revisiting skills, not teaching.”58
The Commissioner's regulations identify a teacher aide as a person assigned to nonteaching duties such as managing, records, materials and equipment, attending to the physical needs of children, and supervising students and performing such other services when such services are determined and supervised by a teacher.59 The regulations also
54
District Exhibit 1. 55
Tr. 605. 56
Tr. 606, and 608. 57
Tr. 605. 58
Tr. 609-610. 59
8 N.Y.C.R.R. §80-5.6(a). provide that a teaching assistant, “under the general supervision of a licensed or certified teacher, direct instructional service to students”60 such as “working with individual pupils
. . . on special instructional projects”61 or “assisting pupils in the use of available instructional resources”62 or “assisting in related instructional work”63 or “working with small groups of children so the teacher can work with a large group or individual children.”64
In light of the undisputed testimony about the scope and nature of the teacher aide's duties in the Student's 2011-2012 class and the contemplated services for the 2011-2012 school year, I find that the services performed, and clearly appropriate to be performed with the Student, are those of a teaching assistant and not a teacher aide.
Those services should have been provided by a duly certified teaching assistant, not an aide, in the 2010-2011 school year and certainly should be provided by a teaching assistant in the 2011-2012 school year.
Remedy and Order
It is hereby:
60
8 N.Y.C.R.R. §80-5.6(b)(1)(i). 61
8 N.Y.C.R.R. §80-5.6(b)(1)(ii)(a)(1). 62
8 N.Y.C.R.R. §80-5.6(b)(1)(ii)(a)(3). 63
8 N.Y.C.R.R. §80-5.6(b)(1)(ii)(a)(5). 64
8 N.Y.C.R.R. §80-5.6(b)(1)(ii)(b)(1).
ORDERED, that the 2011-2012 IEP for the Student failed to offer the Student a Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment for having failed to place the Student with nondisabled students to the maximum extent possible and specifically with verbal peers throughout the day who have verbal abilities at or above the Student's verbal abilities from which he can imitate and develop his communication skills and for failing to provide the Student with a duly certified Teaching Assistant to provide the educational support services necessary to meet the Student's needs; and it is
ORDERED, that the Student be immediately placed in the 12:1:2 special class with his verbal peers with a full-time, duly certified, Teaching Assistant; and it is
ORDERED, that the CSE shall convene within 30 calendar days to prepare an IEP to conform to this Decision and Order and provide the Student with placement with nondisabled students to the maximum extent possible.
December 7, 2011 _________________________________________________
Jerome D. Schad
Impartial Hearing Officer
Garden City CSD Exhibit List – Case # 64681
Exhibit Date Description Pages No. District 1 7/11/11 Due Process Complaint Notice 4 District 2 7/21/11 District's Response to Parents' Due Process Complaint 14 District 3 6/30/11 IEP 2011-2012 13 District 4 6/9/11 IEP 2011-2012 12 District 5 12/6/10 IEP 2010-2011 10 District 6 3/26/10 Preschool IEP (h/w notation: finalized 5/14/10) 8 District 7 3/26/10 IEP 2010-2011 (h/w notation: finalized 4/8/10) 10 District 8 3/26/10 Committee Information and Attendance 1 District 9 4/21/09 Preschool IEP 2009-2010(h/w notation: revised 5/28/09) 15 District 10 12/9/09 Preschool IEP 2009-2010(h/w notation: 12/16/09) 17 District 11 5/20/08 Preschool IEP 2008-2009 (h/w notation: 10/23/08) 13 District 12 2010/11 Progress Report for IEP Goals 2010-2011 with 4 quarters 8 reported (undated) District 13 3/11/11 Educational Evaluation by Special Education Teacher 8
3/15/11 Special Education Teacher #1 District 14 Kindergarten Report Card 2010-2011 4 District 15 3/18/11 Confidential School Psychologist's Report – School 7
Psychologist School Psychologist #1 District 16 3/2/11 Evaluation Report – 5 Teacher #1, MA-CCC,
SLP
District 17 11/16/10 Consent for Annual Review Testing 1 District 18 3/1/11 Annual Review (1 pg.) with attached 3
Functional Skills Assessment for School Based Physical Therapy (2 pg.) District 19 1/25/11 Evaluation by Private Psychologist #1, 5
Ph.D. District 20 1/13/11 Annual Review – Elementary 9
Summary (1 pg.) with attached
Functional Skills Assessment for School Based
(3 pg.)
Summary of Educational Performance (3 pg.)
recommendations to CSE for
2011-2012 (1 pg.)
IEP Direct Goal Collection Form (1 pg.) District 21 5/20/10 District –Physical Examination Report 2 District 22 10/1/10 Committee on Special Education – Social History for 3
Triennial Evaluation (3 pg.) District 23 3/26/10 Evaluation / Reports List 1 District 24 2/23/10 Progress Report by 2
Assistant Assistant #1 (2 pg.) District 25 2/1/10 Report by 3 Teacher #1, M.S., CCC-SLP (3 pg.) District 26 1/25/10 Annual Progress Report by District Staff Member #1 1 District 27 1/25/10 Therapy Progress Note by OT #1, OTR/L 2 District 28 1/22/10 Annual Review Progress Report by District Staff 4
Member #2 District 29 1/15/10 Annual Review Progress Report Related Service by 1 District Staff Member #3 District 30 11/23/09 Observation Summary by District Staff Member #4 1 District 31 1/20/10 Classroom Observation by School Psychologist #1 1 District 32 8/18/09 – Research 9
Summary District 33 3/30/09 Letter from Provider #1 to District Staff Member #4, 1
CPSE Administrator, District District 34 3/12/09 Educational Comprehensive Progress Report by District 3
Staff Member #5, M.S., Ed. District 35 3/12/09 Discussion of Additional Services by District Staff 1
Member #5, M.S., Ed. District 36 3/1/09 Comprehensive Progress Report by 3 Teacher #2, M.A., CCC-SLP District 37 3/10/09 Comprehensive Progress Report 3
by OT #2, M.A., OTR/L
District 38 3/16/09 #1 [ICCD] 1
“Recommended Change in Related Servicers,
Clinician: Related Services Provider #1-Voigt, M.S. District 39 3/12/09 Comprehensive Progress Report, 2
Related Services Provider #1, M.S. District 40 3/30/09 #1 10 IEP Direct Version7 Goal Worksheets District 41 2007/08 CSE Reports (Pre-K – checklist by date) re Initial 1
Review District 42 1/16/08 Educational Evaluation 3 Educational Evaluator #1, MS, Ed. – Educational
Evaluator District 43 Undated Classroom Observation 1
Educational Evaluator #1, MS, Ed. – Agency Therapy Provider #1 District 44 1/18/08 CPSE Therapy Evaluation 4 L – Agency Therapy Provider #1 District 45 1/16/08 Evaluation 5
#3 MA, SLP
District 46 1/14/08 Evaluation 5
Psychologist #2, Ph.D., School Psychologist District 47 1/14/08 Social History 2
Psychologist #2, Ph.D., School Psychologist District 48 1/14/08 Preschool Student Evaluation Form - Agency Therapy 4
Provider #1 District 49 11/13/07 Evaluation 3
Nurse Practitioner #1&Medical Doctor #1 District 50 1/24/08 Infant and Toddler Interventionists – Evaluation 6
Summary with attached Psychological Evaluation District 51 1/2001 Positive Behavior Support Plan 2 District 52 Undated Projected Profile for 8:1:2 class at Locust 1 District 53 Undated Projected Profile for 12:1:2 class at Locust 1 District 54 2011- Sample Week of a First Grade Schedule 5
2012 District 55 9/2010- Marble composition Notebook 55
6/2011 District 56 2010- Student's Portfolio [in separate volume]
2011 District 57 2011- IEP 2011-2012 12
2012 ***** ***** ************************************** ****
Parent I 7/31/11 Behavioral Observation of Student by Private 3
Psychologist #1, Ph.D., B.C.B.A.
Footnotes
[1] Exhibit 1 pp. 2-3.
[2] Exhibit 1, p. 3.
[3] District Exhibit 490
[5] District Exhibit 48 at p, 2. See also, District Exhibit 42, the Educational Evaluation of January 16, 2008 by Educational Evaluator #1, M.S., Ed., and District Exhibit 50, the Psychological Evaluation by Psychologist #1, Ph.D. of January 21, 2008.
[6] District Exhibit 34 p. 1, and District Exhibits 38 & 39.
[7] District Exhibit 32, pp. 1-2.
[12] District Exhibit 7 at p. 5 of 10.
[13] District Exhibit 5.
[14] Tr. 807.
[18] Tr. 157-159.
[19] Tr. Pp. 602-603.
[20] Tr. 390 & District Exhibit 12.
[21] See, District Exhibit 57, IEP for 2011-2012 (Annual Review).
[22] See, District Exhibit 4, IEP for 2011-2012 (Program Review).
[27] See, District Exhibit 57, p. 1.
[30] Tr. 825. 31 Tr. 825-826. 32 Tr. 826-827 and 6-9-11 IEP, District Exhibit 4. 33 Tr. 834.