New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number:

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District:

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Date of Hearing: September 14, 2011

November 3, 2011

January 17, 2011

January 19, 2012

Record Close Date: February 27, 2012

Hearing Officer: Michael S. Lazan, Esq.

CORRECTION

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2011

Attorney, and Associates — Student

Attorney, (via telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON NOVEMBER 3, 2011

Attorney — Student

Attorney — DOE

Psychologist (via telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JANUARY 17, 2012

Attorney — Student

Mother — Student

DR., Educational Director, — Student

and, — Student

DOE Attorney — DOE

Teacher — DOE

Assistant Principal — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JANUARY 19, 2012

Attorney — Student

Parents

Supervising Teacher — Student

Student

Attorney — DOE

By Complaint dated June 30, 2011, the matter of . came before me as impartial hearing officer pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. Sect. 1415(f)(1). Appended to the record are the names of the persons who appeared.

This is a matter involving an year old boy with (Student). The Complaint alleges 70 different Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) violations (Exh. A) relating to the program offered by the District through the Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) reflecting the meeting date of May 2, 2011. Four allegations were abandoned, at least in part, by the E-mail to this IHO dated January 30, 2012. (IHO Exh.

1) As relief, the parents seek tuition reimbursement for the School for the 2011-2012 school year, including transportation to and from the school, and compensatory education for all services that the Student “was entitled to but did not receive” through stay-put relief.

An amendment request was submitted to this IHO on August 2, 2011. There was no opposition to this amendment request. This amendment request was granted by this IHO on August 3, 2011.

At a hearing date on August 30, 2011, the parties went through subpoena issues and confirmed three hearing dates.

Another amendment request was submitted to this IHO on September 8, 2011. The District opposed this amendment request, but this IHO granted the amendment request after hearing argument on September 14, 2011. (24-49) On such date, the parties also discussed issues relating to subpoenas. The parties also discussed and agreed on stay-put issues.

The matter proceeded to hearing on November 3, 2011. On such date, the parties moved jointly to extend the decision date because of witness availability and the need for additional case preparation. This IHO determined that the applications for extension were consistent with the regulatory requirements in 8 NYCRR Sect. 200.5(j)(5)(ii) and granted the extension through December 20, 2011. (IHO Exh. 1)

Thereafter, hearing dates were set for January 17, 2012; January 19, 2012. On December 8, 2011, the District moved to extend the decision date because of the need for additional case preparation and extensive testimony and issues. There was no opposition from the parent. This IHO determined that the applications for extension were consistent with the regulatory requirements in 8 NYCRR Sect. 200.5(j)(5)(ii) and granted the extension through January 13, 2012. (IHO Exh. 1) On January 8, 2012, the parent moved to extend the decision date because of the need for additional case preparation and witness availability. The IHO determined that the applications for extension were consistent with the regulatory requirements in 8 NYCRR Sect. 200.5(j)(5)(ii) and granted the extension through February 12, 2012. (IHO Exh. 1) Additional witnesses were presented on January 17 and 19, 2012.

The parties sought to present briefs to the hearing officer after reviewing the transcripts. The parties and this IHO set a briefing schedule, and the parties jointly moved to extend the decision date on February 12, 2012 to allow the parties to submit briefs. This application was granted by this IHO, and the timelines were extended one last time to March 12, 2012. (IHO Exh. 1) The briefs were submitted to the IHO on February 27, 2012 (IHO 2), which is the record close date in this matter.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Student is a year old with who currently attends the School through a hearing officer’s decision dated December 17, 2010. (Exh. E)

The Student’s special education needs include the need to manage such as to the , , , , , , other . (299-303; Exh. O) The Student has between environments. (313-317) contact is . (Exh. O) There are delays in , and . (Exh. O) The Student engages in when he is “ .” (318) The Student needs a plan, needs the use individualized reinforcers to perform work, and requires in regard to group work to progress . (377, 313) In terms of and , the Student has and takes up to seconds independently to respond to any demand. He has significant . (335) He will only use to words spontaneously. (335) He has with and required weeks of a after returning to school. (Exh. O)

The District observed the Student on December 14, 2010. (Exh. 13) The Student would follow tasks, but needed a lot of , , . He would , but if something else were offered the would stop. (95)

The District’s IEP recommends a special class in a specialized school with related services and a teacher to student ratio. (Exh. F) Management needs include , breaks, , and , schedule, and prompting, tasks broken down into small steps, materials “ ,” “ , and application,” opportunities to generalize, modeling and hand-over-hand instruction, frequent variation of work tasks and materials, a paraprofessional, and , , frequent task breaks.

The paraprofessional was included to help the Student with and . (118) Paraprofessionals are from a pool from the central offices. (286) The newer paraprofessionals have years of college. (286)

were to be addressed by positive reinforcement. (111-112) A Behavior Intervention Plans (“BIP”) was included in the IEP. (112) No Functional Behavior Assessment (“FBA”) was conducted before the BIP was created. (147) The BIP did not target the Student’s / , , , behaviors. (149-155; Exh. 6) The BIP does not contain , or of the and does not include a baselines measure for the behaviors. (156) The BIP does not include “ .” (157) The IEP does not indicate that there should be a BIP, but it is “probably a typo.” (164) Counseling was considered appropriate for the Student in view of his transition to the public school program. (179)

The District’s review included the head teacher of the Student, who described the Student’s behaviors. (101-103) Parent training would be provided at the child’s home, but it is not mentioned in the IEP. (163; Exh. 6; 258) If a parent needs anything, they can come in. (258)

The recommended specific school location for summer, 2011 was . The class used a visual schedule and employed some ABA principles. (199-201) Reading lessons involves the System, which involves instruction based on levels. (203) The Students will do work in their . (242-243) They will based on in the class in groups. (244) The class tends to be taught in a for the lesson, with students off into smaller groups and completing the work. (245) Students get work in the . (245) It is necessary for the students to be able to do work in the class. (246) The teacher indicated that, based on her review of the IEP, this Student could not do work. (247-248)

Most of the students in the class are more than many students with .

(204) The teacher will do an assessment and if necessary and chart or a assessment. (205) The teacher would be able to implement the IEP in terms of management needs and goals. (205-217)

The Student requires services to work on with , , . (Exh. 14) He benefits from activities.

There was no evidence of an provider being available for the Student over the summer. (213, 222) An Related Services Authorization (“RSA”) would be issued. (255) Occupational therapy is a shortage area. (268) Some parents indicate that such an RSA could not be fulfilled. (269)

The and mandate could not be fulfilled at the school since the mandate was so high. (237; 254) An RSA would be issued. (255) is a shortage area. (279) Before they issue the RSA, they try to find an outside provider themselves. (281) When the parent is issued an RSA, there is a list of providers attached. (281) Sometimes the parents call all the providers on the list and no one will take the rate or no one will provide the services.

(282) This might have happened in this case with this child. (283) These providers would be providing these services after school. (283) The District does not arrange for transportation to these providers. (283)

The BIP would be implemented through a , ,a . (217) This would be carried out in part through the services of the paraprofessional. (217) There is a school-wide system, with , and lights. (222-223) The teacher did not know if this system would work with children who display . (239) Students have charts on their desks and individual data sheets on the wall. (275)

The BIP plan attached to the IEP “are concepts.” (225) It may be problematic if no FBA were attached to the BIP. (227)

In the proposed classroom, are on the . (238) Some students will need , some will have . (238)

The parent was not at any time in the process. (173)

The School administers FBAs. (293) The School Day lasts from to .

(295) The School provides a BIP for Students. (300-308) This has worked to reduce behaviors for the Student. (300) At the school, the Student rotates between different staff to work on generalization. (310-311) The Student gets teaching in school. (312) The Student benefits generally from support. (Exh. 15; Exh. O) He needs to skills.

(355) He requires support in group to . (313, 355) During a group story, he has maintaining and requires . (Exh. O) He is able to do during times that the is very , though support is still there. (313, 379)

ABA methodology is used at the School. (375) The Student gets hours of center-based ABA per week. (Exh. O) Individualized reinforcers would be used to perform tasks. (377) He would not perform tasks without reinforcers except for naturally activities, such as an . (378) He would not respond to group reinforcers. (378)

There are students in the classroom including the Student. (353) The Student functions on an level and is working on , , , . (362) Teachers rotate from student to student. (368-375) There are certified teachers, teachers, are pursuing a Master’s degree in ABA, one has a degree in . (374)

The Student makes educational progress in the educational setting at the School, which provides a classroom with other students, related services of hour of per day, and minutes of per day. (Exh. O) He makes progress when he gets “a setting when provided with individualized teaching using - instruction, a , , , strategies, and during to shape .” (Exh. O) of Applied Behavioral Analysis is provided to the Student weekly. The Student demonstrates and - , but responds to a nurturing . (Exh. O) Progress has been shown in terms of , , , performance and skills, , , . (Exh. O) He is able to follow a schedule. (Exh. O) He has shown a “very response” to the , and individual teaching methods at the school. (Exh. O)

The Student gets and at the school . (333) This is provided within the classroom, and it him . (337) In terms of , he will toward an calling his name in the room, but not during . (Exh. O) He can use up to word . (Exh. P) He requires to request items. (Exh. O)

FINDINGS AND DECISION

In 2007 the New York State legislature passed a bill that was signed by the Governor which switches the burden from parent to District except for the second criterion in cases for tuition reimbursement or payment. Chapter 583 of the Laws of 2007.

The District may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a student by a student's parent if the services offered by the District are inadequate or inappropriate ("first criterion,") the services selected by the parent are appropriate ("second criterion"), and equitable considerations support the parent's claim ("third criterion"), even if the private school in which the parents have placed the child is unapproved. School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Dep't of Education, Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985); Florence County School District Four et al. v. Carter by Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993).

On the first criterion, the District should show that it offered parents a FAPE. A FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the District complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the Individuals with Disbilities Eduction Act, (“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. While Districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures, not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA. Pursuant to the IDEA, when procedural violations are alleged, an administrative officer may find that a child did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a) impeded the child'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 child, or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits. 20 U.S.C. Sect. 1415(f)(1)(E)(ii); 34 C.F.R. Sect. 300.513(a)(2).

An FBA is “the process of determining why the student engages in behaviors that impede learning and how the student's behavior relates to the environment.” 8 N.Y.C.C.R.R. Sect. §200.1(r). If a child's her or the of others, the CSE must arrange an FBA in order to ascertain the contributing factors and to provide a baseline of the student's problem behaviors. Danielle G. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2008 WL 3286579 (E.D.N.Y. Aug.7, 2008); 8 N.Y.C..R.R. Sect. 200.4(b) (1)(v).

The record reveals that the Student has including , , , . These issues impede the Student’s ability to . The record therefore indicates that the Student requires an FBA to accommodate those pursuant to the state regulations. No FBA was conducted by the District prior to the creation of the BIP annexed to the IEP. Courts have held that a failure to create a required FBA in connection to the IEP can result in a finding of FAPE denial. P.K. ex rel S.K. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 2011 WL 3625317 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); but see A.C. v. Chappaqua Central School Dist., 553 F.3d 165 (2d Cir. 2009)(deferring to administrative ruling). Though courts will overlook the absence of an FBA in situations where alternatives are present, the facts here convince this Hearing Officer that the absence of an FBA was material. In this regard, Counsel for the parent asked Ms. , on cross-examination, whether the absence of an FBA might have been problematic. Her answer was that “(i)t could be.” (227) Though Ms. did suggest that she would create her own FBA, post-hoc witness statements should not override the requirement to create an FBA. R.E. and M.E. v. New York City Department of Educ., 785 F. Supp.2d 28 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) Ms. also did not testify that she would create a revised BIP 1 after formulating the FBA. She also

1

Based on the results of the FBA, the District should then create a BIP to manage the behaviors. 8 N.Y.C.R.R. Sect. 200.22(b). The BIP must include a measure of the , strategies, and a schedule to measure the effectiveness of the . 8 N.Y.C.R.R. Sect. 200.22(b)(4). Merely describing and then listing several goals are not adequate substitutes for an FBA/BIP. R.K. ex rel R.K. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 2011 WL 1131492 (S.D.N.Y.) Moreover, the BIP characterized the existing BIP as “concepts” rather than a bona fide BIP. There is also no requirement in the IEP for the teacher to do her own BIP or to revise the existing BIP as necessary, as there could have been. While there was a assigned to the Student, the existence of such a paraprofessional does not always allow the District to sidestep the statutory requirement of an FBA. R.E. and M.E. v. New York City Department of Educ., 785 F. Supp.2d 28 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)

The IEP in this matter does indicate that the Student should get and , in a separate location. (Exh. 6) The parent claims that the District was unable to implement this portion of the IEP. (Complaint, allegation #24)

"[A] party challenging the implementation of an IEP must show more than a de minimis failure to implement all elements of that IEP, and, instead, must demonstrate that the school board or other authorities failed to implement substantial or significant provisions of the IEP." Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Bobby R., 200 F.3d 341, 349 (5th Cir. 2000)(cited in A.P. v. Woodstock Bd. of Educ., 370 Fed. Appx. 202, 204 (2d Cir.

2010)).

The testimony of the indicates that the full mandate of this Student greatly.

The Student has great with , taking up to seconds to process demands . He is also only able to make at . I find that satisfying the and mandate is material to the implementation of this Student’s IEP.

While the District bears the burden of proof on the first criterion, it did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that the Student would get his mandated and .

Ms. from the school indicated that she had never seen a and mandate as large as the Student’s. (237) When asked by District counsel about whether her school was able to meet the and mandate, Ms. from the school indicated that “our speech isn’t usually 60 minutes, it’s usually 30 minutes. So I don’t know how to answer did not target the Student’s / , , , . Courts have held that it is the CSE’s duty to perform an FBA and a BIP. R.K., at *19. The FBA and BIP should be incorporated into the IEP, which should then be handed to the parents in advance of the commencement of the school year. R.K. at *20. that question.” Counsel asked again: “(a)nd if you have a student who attends your school and is recommended for minute sessions, what would you do?” Ms. answered: “we don’t usually have someone recommended for minute sessions.” Finally, counsel asked Ms. if they provide “RSAs” for . Ms. said yes, but later indicated that and (among other areas) is a “shortage area” in New York City. She indicated that the RSA might not be satisfied since parents must select providers from an “RSA list” and that sometimes no providers are available. Cf. R.K., at *21 (student with denied daily group services per then-statutory requirement; District offered sessions individually; Court found FAPE denial in part because of violation).

The same is true for at this school, at least in regard to services provided over the summer. The Student is scheduled to receive sessions of . There was no evidence of an provider being available for the Student over the summer. When Parent’s counsel asked Ms. whether the students had their mandates unfulfilled over the summer of 2011, she indicated: “as far as I know, yes.” was also considered a shortage area where providers are sometimes not available. I find that the Student would not have received his mandate over the summer were he to have attended the school.

In this connection, I note that there is nothing in the record to suggest that this IEP would be implemented at another school at the District. I find that the IEP would have been implemented at were the parent to have agreed to send her child there.

In regard to academics, the record indicates that the Student has benefitted from teacher support. Along these lines, the record indicates that the Student only learns when he benefits from individualized reinforcers in connection to learning. That is, the Student is ready for learning when he is provided with a particularized reward for a positive response. He makes progress when he gets “a setting when provided with individualized teaching using nstruction, a consistent routine, reinforcement, strategies, strategies, and guidance during to shape individual responses.” (Exh. O) The Student’s teacher at the school Ms. testified that the Student would not learn without except for activities such as . Though the IEP refers to a “Consistent, Positive Reinforcement Schedule,” there is nothing in the record to explain what this means or whether this refers to reinforcers referenced by Ms. . And while Ms. did indicate that she would use charts to assist students (209) and did use some ABA techniques, the record does not suggest she would use this sort of strategy in her classroom. Rather, the record indicates that the classroom would be largely taught through the System, which involves instruction based on levels, with Students then completing individual work.

The District relies heavily on the paraprofessional here, suggesting that such a paraprofessional would be able to provide same sort of assistance to the Student that the School has provided. (Brief, at 20) This paraprofessional is not in the school to teach students. The paraprofessional was to have been assigned to this student to assist with transitions in the class and to help the student stay on task. It should be noted that there is nothing in the record to indicate that such paraprofessional would have any knowledge whatever of , or that the school or District was arranging to train the paraprofessional along these lines.

The District also did not offer the Student any plan to help the student adjust from the private school setting to a public school setting. The record indicates that the Student has between environments and would benefit from a plan. The IEP should have contained meaningful language on how the Student could effectively complete the leap from a ABA-style program with rotating teachers to the entirely different environment of a class with a paraprofessional. Application of the Board of Education of the East Ramapo Central School District, Appeal No. 07-058 (FAPE denial; “the IEP did not specifically address the student's and during his to a new program”)

In sum, I find that the cumulative effect of the above violations 2 denied the Student a FAPE for 2011-2012. R.K., at *5.

2

I have considered the parents’ other allegations in the Complaint, and find that I need not reach them given my determinations herein. Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 09-072.

On the second criterion, the test for a parent’s placement is “not perfection.” M.S. ex rel S.S. v. Bd. of Ed., 231 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2000). Parents may not be held to certain requirements that Districts are held to such as teacher licenses or LRE requirements. Frank G. v. Bd. of Ed., 459 F.3d 356, 364-365 (2006). The inquiry should be focused on whether the placement is an appropriate setting that provides specially designed services to address the Student’s special education needs. Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2007).

The record shows that the Student has been maintained in the parental placement for several years, and that the Student responds to the program and has had made meaningful progress in the program. The program meets the Student’s special education needs, including the need for a model of instruction, small class size, related services providers that can provide an appropriate mandate of related services and can work with the teachers, an individualized approach to teaching that includes the ABA methodology, use of individualized reinforcers, appropriate assessments including an FBA, a behavior plan. The reports from the school indicate that the Student has responded very well to the School’s methodology and instruction, and gains have been noted in and language, , student independence. The District argues that the School is too restrictive for the Student, but the record shows that the School is not substantively different from the District’s offering in terms of restrictiveness. Both programs are small class special education programs within a special education school. It should be noted that the parent does not have the same burden as the District in terms of least restrictive environment, though restrictiveness can be considered in deeming whether an award is appropriate. M.S. v. Yonkers, 231 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2000).

The District also contends that the School is because it does not provide teaching support through certified teachers. However, there is no requirement that teachers be certified when awarding relief pursuant to Carter. Frank G. v. Bd. of Ed., 459 F.3d 356, 364-365 (2006). I find that the parents prevail on the second criterion.

On the third criterion, the IDEA allows that tuition reimbursement may be reduced or denied when parents fail to raise the appropriateness of an IEP in a timely manner, fail to make their child available for evaluation by the district, or upon a finding of unreasonableness with respect to the actions taken by the parents. 20 U.S.C. Sect. 1412(a)(10)(C)(iii). With respect to a parent’s obligation to raise the appropriateness of an IEP in a timely manner, the IDEA provides that tuition reimbursement may be denied or reduced, if parents neither inform the CSE of their disagreement with its proposed placement and their intent to place their child in a private school at public expense at the most recent CSE meeting prior to their removal of the child from public school, nor provide the school district with written notice stating their concerns and their intent with remove the child within ten business days before such removal. 34 CFR Sect. 148(d)(i), (ii). Under 20 U.S.C. Sect. 1412(a)(10)(C)(iii), a denial or reduction in reimbursement is discretionary.

The District argues that the parents never really considered a public school placement.

The District contends that the parent sat in on the IEP review but withheld any complaints concerning the review process until filing the Complaint. The District cites to the recent J.P. v. New York City Department of Educ., 58 IDELR 96 (E.D.N.Y. 2012), where Judge Edward Korman concluded that the parents tried to “game the system” by failing to speak up at the CSE review. However, in this case, there is no testimony from the District witness who appeared at the review to this effect. On the contrary, Ms. from the District indicated that there was no time that the parent was uncooperative with the members of the team. (173)

The District also contends that the parent failed to raise all the issues in the Complaint in the ten-day notice. However, this provision applies in regard to the initial removal of the student, not to a student who is subsequently enrolled at a placement after a prior removal. Letter to , 55 IDELR 293 (OSEP Letter May 5, 2010). Further, the District cites to no authority requiring a parent to raise eacn and every issue in the Complaint in the ten day notice.

The parents prevail on the third criterion and are awarded tuition reimbursement for 2011-2012. Dated: March 12, 2012 Corrected Dated: March 14, 2012 (Correction on Adding IHO Exhibits)

______________________________

MICHAEL S. LAZAN, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

ML:dl

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

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

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

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

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

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2011

PARENT

A Third Amended Demand for Due Process, with Fax Confirmation, dated 9/7/11,

10 pages B Second Amended Demand for Due Process, with E-mail Confirmation, dated

8/12/11, 10 pages C Amended Demand for Due Process and Fax Confirmation, dated 7/13/11, 11

pages D Demand for Due Process and Fax Confirmation, dated 6/30/11, 11 pages E Findings from , dated 12/17/10, 8 pages

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

None

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON NOVEMBER 3, 2011

PARENT

F Findings of Facts & Decision, 12/17/10, 8 pages G Final Notice of Recommendation & Mailing, 11 pages H Letter from Parent, 6/15/11 I Letter from Parent, 6/17/11 J Response to 6/30/11 Demand 9/22/11, 4 pages K Amended Response to 8/3/11 Demand, 9/22/11/ 4 pages L Special Delivery Report, 2010/2011, 1 page M NYC DOE ABA Site Report, 2010/2011, 3 pages N School Reduction Plan, 2011/2012, 22 pages O School Educational Report, 7/5/11, 7 pages P School Report 7/11, 3 pages Q School Report, 6/11, 7 pages R School Contract Affidavit & Attendance Record, 2011/2012, 5 pages S Subpoena from School, 86 pages T E-1 Request Form, 1 page U District Placement Referral Form, Undated, 1 page V Paraprofessional Employment Qualifications, Undated, 3 pages W Methodology, 2/7/11, 3 pages X ABA Methodology, 2/7/11, 3 pages Y Stipulation, 2/2009 Z Standard Operating Procedures Manual, 2/2009, 305 pages AA Parent Subpoena Response, 9/21/11, 10 pages BB Letter from & Associates, 7/22/11, 3 pages CC NY State Department of Ed Document, 3 pages DD NY State Department of ED Functional Behavior Assessment, 5/22/11, 2 pages EE NY State DoE Timeout Room, 5/11, 2 pages

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

1 Due Process Complaint, 6/30/10, 9 pages 2 First Amended Due Process Complaint, 7/13/11, 9 pages 3 Second Amended Due Process Complaint, 8/2/11, 9 pages 4 Third Amended Due Process Complaint, 9/7/11, 9 pages 5 Pendency Order, 11/2/11, 3 pages 6 IEP, 5/2/11, 24 pages 7 IEP, 5/18/10, 26 pages 8 Progress Report, 12/2010, 4 pages 9 Progress Report, 12/2010, 2 pages 10 Meeting Minutes, 5/2/2011, 3 pages 11 Notice of IEP Meeting, 4/14/11, 1 page 12 Letter to , 6/15/11, 1 page 13 Observation, 12/14/2010, 1 page 14 Progress Report, 1/2011, 7 pages 15 Educational Progress Report, 1/28/11, 6 pages 16 Daily Attendance Report, 2011/2012, 1 page 17 Final Notice of Recommendation, 6/15/11, 1 page 18 Annual Review Notice, 9/30/10, 1 page 19 School Classroom Composition, 1 page

IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER

1 IHO Notices and E-Mails, 5 pages 2 Briefs of Parties, 2/27/12, 55 pages