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: August 25, 2011

December 2, 2011

December 13, 2011

January 19, 2012

February 16, 2012

Actual Record Closed Date: March 28, 2012

Hearing Officer: Barbara J. Ebenstein, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON AUGUST 25, 2011

Attorney — Student

Attorney — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON DECEMBER 2, 2011

Attorney — Student

Parents

Attorney — DOE

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

ESQ., Attorney — Student

Parents

ESQ., Attorney — DOE

Social Worker (Via Telephone) — DOE

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

ESQ., Attorney — Student

Parents

ESQ., Attorney — DOE

Social Worker (Via Telephone) — DOE

School Psychologist (Via Telephone) — DOE

Teacher. (Via Telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON FEBRUARY 16, 2012

ESQ., Attorney — Student

Parents

SEIT (Via Telephone) — Student

Director/Teacher (Via Telephone) — Student

Billing & Receiving (Via Telephone) — Student

ESQ., Attorney — DOE

This is New York City case #134414. On August 25, 2011, I conducted a pendency hearing in this matter. On November 28, 2011, December 2, 2011, December 13, 2011, January 19, 2012, and February 16, 2012, I conducted an impartial hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. Section 1415(f)(3), regarding the special education of (nicknamed “ ”) at the New York City Department of Education Impartial Hearing Office at 131 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, New York. , Esq. represented the New York City Department of Education, and the parents were represented by , Esq. of the Law Offices of . A list of witnesses who testified and documents received into evidence is attached to this decision along with transcript corrections.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Parents of . filed an impartial hearing complaint on August 16, 2011. (Ex. 1) On August 23, 2011, the Department of Education issued its response. (Ex. 2) The Parents moved to amend their complaint, and I denied the motion to amend in an interim decision issued on August 25, 2011. On August 25, 2011, I also conducted a pendency hearing. The next day before I could issue my pendency order, the parties entered into a pendency agreement on August 26, 2011. That agreement is not in evidence in this impartial hearing.

The Department of Education consented to the amendment of the initial impartial hearing complaint on October 3, 2011, and the Parents filed their amended complaint on the same date. (Ex. 3) This started the impartial hearing timeline over. The Department of Education issued its response to the amended complaint on October 5, 2011. (Ex. 4)

Both parties moved for an adjournment of a scheduled November 28, 2011 hearing date due to the availability of witnesses, and I did not grant the adjournment. I also denied the Parents’ motion to adjourn the December 5, 2011 hearing date due to a scheduling conflict. I note that there are eighty-five pages of emails between the two attorneys and myself trying to schedule this impartial hearing.

ISSUE

There are two issues in this impartial hearing. The first issue is whether the Department of Education is obligated to reimburse the parents for .’s continued placement in a private general education preschool under a Burlington/Carter analysis. The second issue is whether the ten hours of “special education itinerant teacher” (SEIT) services that now receives under the pendency agreement is appropriate for her.

THE PARENT’S POSITION

The Parents believe that the Department of Education failed to offer a “free and appropriate public education” (FAPE) to . for the 2011 - 2012 school year. They contend that their placement of in , a private general education cooperative preschool, constitutes an appropriate placement for her, and that equity favors their request for reimbursement. The Parents also claim that continued SEIT services are appropriate for

B. (Tr. 508)

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S POSITION

The Department of Education contends that it did offer a “free and appropriate public education” (FAPE) in a for the 2011 - 2012 school year. The Department of Education claims that is an inappropriate school for . for the 2011 – 2012 school year. The Department of Education alleges that equity does not favor the parents’ claim for reimbursement. The Department of Education also claims that a SEIT is no longer appropriate for .

FINDINGS OF FACT

. is a very who has an , . (Tr. 222, 276, 517; Ex. 12 at 1) She has difficulty . (Tr. 457) Yet a private psychological evaluation dated January 4, 2011, reports a standard score of 119 (90%) on the Leiter International Performance Scale – Nonverbal Measure of Intelligence. This is the in the top of the high average range. On the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales – Fifth Edition, obtained a on the 91% (superior range) and a verbal score on the 63% (average range) despite her language delays. This report establishes that has “significant conceptual and intellectual strengths in the nonverbal realm with verbal abilities within the average range.” (Ex. 11 at 2) I note that this evaluation does not report all sub-test scores on the instruments used on , but it establishes that has average to superior cognitive skills in all areas.

The Parents placed , a private general education cooperative preschool, at their own expense for the 2009 - 2010 and 2010 - 2011 school years. (Tr. 518) Parents rotate into the class to serve as parent aides approximately one day per month. (Tr. 455-6) The program serves seventy-two children aged one to five, and it has two classes of twenty children each. (Tr. 450)

uses a curriculum that includes language arts, math concepts, science, and social studies, as well as arts and in “units,” or themes, of curriculum. (Ex. F; Tr. 450-2)

“For example, in doing a unit on “sound,” activities included: taking a “listening walk” around the neighborhood, making and decorating noise makers, thinking of words that describe sounds, experimenting with everyday objects to make sounds and dancing to different kinds of music.” (Ex. F)

The Department of Education “ on ” ( convened on April 23, 2010. It developed a preschool IEP for with a “Special Education Itinerant Teacher” (SEIT) ten hours per week, and related services of , . (Ex. 6; Tr. 493-4) Academically, the IEP reports that the then three and a half year old could:

“. . . retell a favorite story using jargon, words, and sentences. has an interest in math, and therefore, spends time working on math skills and talking about them.

She .”

(Ex. 6 at 3)

A subsequent IEP drafted on June 25, 2011, makes general statements about ’s cognitive skills and academic performance, but it address play skills rather than the kind of pre-academic skills in the previous IEP. (Ex. 7 at 3-4)

During the 2010 - 2011 school year, , and she . (Tr. 457) She was not able to ” as she was . (Tr. 457-8) “did some .” (Tr. 458) I note that there is no individual for .

, Department of Education social worker, conducted an observation of in school that on March 8, 2011. (Ex. 14) During that time, asked not to do it three times, she .” (Ex. 14 at 2) I gave considerable weight to this very detailed three-page observation by Ms. that supports descriptions of ’s behavior in school by Ms. and Ms. . (Ex. 14)

Ms. also conducted a preschool evaluation using a Preschool Evaluation Scale

(PES) dated March 10, 2011. (Ex. 13) This evaluation does not report raw scores, age equivalencies, or percentile ranks. It simply makes vague reports that:

“ ’s early development is significantly below average in the following domains:

gross motor skills, fine , and . Her is within average range when compared to the same-aged peers and her and are significantly delayed.” (Id.)

I gave this one page preschool evaluation scale little weight as it does not adequately report ’s scores.

The Parents signed two contracts with for the 2011 – 2012 school year. The first contract was for the 8:30 to 12:30 morning program, and the second contract was for an extended day for one day per week to help to prepare for a longer full day of . The Parents signed it on March 1, 2011 as they already anticipated keeping in the . (Tr. 464; Ex. H, N) They have made regular payments to the since March 8, 2011. (Ex. G, K, L)

One month later, the Department of Education “Committee on Special Education” (CSE) convened on April 13, 2011 for an initial “turning five” meeting. Participants included: ’s Mother; Ms. , ’s SEIT; Ms. , the social worker who had recently observed ; Ms. , a school ; and ’s and who participated by telephone, (Ex. 5 at 7; Tr. 513-4, 401) At this CSE meeting, the Mother voiced her desire to keep in a preschool program for another school year. The CSE members did not believe that they could place in a preschool as she was turning five years of age. Ms. Schoen had recommended “. . . that ’s placement be that she is in a small size classroom with typically developing peers, with significant support from a special educator.” (Ex. 15 at 8; Tr. 402) She thought that another year of was a good idea for although she did not state that on her “educational progress report” dated January 13, 2011 as her supervisor instructed her not to do so. (Tr. 404-6; Ex. 15)

The CSE found to be IDEA eligible, and it classified her disability as “ ” (SI). The Committee developed an “Individualized Education Program” (IEP) that placed in a community school “integrated co-teaching” (ICT) class with related services of: individual twice per week; in a group of three once per week; individual twice per week; and individual physical therapy twice per week. (Ex. 5) All therapy sessions were for thirty minutes. (Id.) The CSE discontinued the preschool SEIT services.

The parents received a “final notice of placement” (FNP) dated June 13, 2011 placing in a . (Ex. 8) is a “very small school.” (Tr. 356) Had attended this public school, she would have been in the taught by Ms. , a special education teacher, with a general education teacher. The class has twenty-four students, seven of whom have IEP’s. (Tr. 286-7) School starts at 8:15 am and ends at 2:35 pm on Mondays and Fridays and it ends at 3:25 pm on the other days. (Tr. 377-8) The class works on letter recognition and high frequency sight words at a literacy center. (Tr. 349) They work on letter formation in writing, and work on math and science. (Tr. 350-1) Ms. testified in great detail how she could have implemented the goals and objectives on the April 13, 2011 IEP for B. (Tr. 292-347) I find Ms. ’s very detailed and extensive testimony to be entirely credible. Furthermore, the public placement could have provided all of the mandated related services for at the public school. (Tr. 288-9) I find that the offered public school class could have implemented the April 13, 2011 IEP as a matter of fact.

The parents rejected this proposed public placement in a letter dated July 6, 2011. (Ex. B) They claimed that the proposed class had twenty-five to twenty-eight children in the class, although it actually had twenty-four children in the class. (Tr. 510) The Parents also believed that was small for her age, and that she was not ready for kindergarten. (Ex. B) They further claimed that the offered public school building with three hundred twenty students was too big for .

The Parents continued their placement of at for the 2011 – 2012 school year. I note that there are references in both exhibits and testimony that refers to the that attends during the 2011 – 2012 school year as a “ . Children may enter the classes at as young , . (Tr. 453-4) Based upon the fact that these are mixed age classes, I find that the class . attends ” class rather than a “pre-K” class as a matter of fact.

During the 2011 – 2012 school year, attends the morning preschool class from 8:30 am to 12:30 pm five days per week. The class has twenty students, one lead teacher, two assistant teachers, and one rotating parent aide. The daily schedule includes free play; clean up; first meeting (attendance, a story is read to them and discussed, and one child sets the table for snack); snack; swimming, movement or outdoor time; clean up; and second meeting (stories, songs, discussion). (Ex. J) I note that there is no time during the day devoted to learning pre-academic skills. is the oldest child in this class. (Tr. 435) receives her related services outside of school based upon the pendency agreement. (Tr. 413-4)

This school year, , herself. (Tr. 459) She still prefers solitary play. (Tr. 393-4) Her behavior has improved somewhat:

“This year, is able to sit for the twenty minute meeting without being disruptive. And even though the SEIT will sit next to her, the SEIT does not have to have her on her lap and she can--if starts to get disruptive, she can just place her hand on her or something like that without it getting out of control. She's able to bring Lily back to where she needs to be.” (Tr. 461)

, the SEIT, works with in her on a daily basis totaling ten hours per week. Ms. has a permanent license in special education nursery school through grade 6, a master’s degree in early childhood education, and twenty years of experience work with young children. (Tr. 390) Ms. has been .’s SEIT for over two years, and she testified about what she does with in school. (Tr. 391) Ms. refocused , and encouraged her to model her . (Tr. 392-7, 407-9, 460)

MS. : And her--I mean her play

skills are a huge part of what I work with her, language skills, and some fine--and fine motor as well and large--well, last year we had a lot of large motor goals that we were working on, but not as much. I think socialization is huge.

Language is huge.”

(Tr. 437)

Ms. supports in class, but she only provides direct instruction to her “for ten minutes here, ten minutes there.” (Tr. 441-2) Ms. , the director of , confirmed that:

HEARING OFFICER EBENSTEIN: When the

SEIT is working one-on-one with , is it an activity that you have directed--a teacher-directed activated or is it a SEIT-directed activity?

MS : I would say 99 percent

of the time it's an activity that I have set up in the classroom that she's helping her to participate in and maybe 1 percent or 2 percent of the time it's something that she's doing specifically on her own.

HEARING OFFICER EBENSTEIN: So would it

be correct to say that your directing the instruction in the class and the SEIT is in participating in it?

MS : Yes.

(Tr. 480)

The SEIT provided no direct instruction to during the one hour and fifty minute observation conducted by Ms. on March 8, 2011. (Ex. 14) As the SEIT is only in school with ten hours per week, also attends school without the SEIT for ten hours per week. At these times, is able to participate in class activities without her SEIT. (Tr. 479) “Not always well you know, but she can participate.” (Id.)

The parents filed an impartial hearing complaint requesting reimbursement of tuition and continuation of the SEIT dated August 16, 2011. (Ex. 1) They filed an amended complaint on October 3, 2011. (Ex. 3) See “Procedural History” above.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Department of Education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a student by his or her parent, if the services offered by the Department of Education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parent were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parent’s claim. Burlington School Comm. v. Dept. of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (1985). The fact that the private school selected by the parents to provide special education services to the child is not State approved as a school for children with is not dispositive of the parents' claim for reimbursement of tuition. Florence County School District Four et al. v. Carter by Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993).

FIRST CRITERION

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), and establishes annual goals related to those needs. 34 C.F.R. §300.320(a)(2); 8 NYCRR §200.4(d)(2)(iii) An IEP should provide for the use of appropriate special education services. 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(4); 8 NYCRR §200.4(d)(2)(v) See Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 07-018; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-059; 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. The IEP must be "reasonably calculated to provide 'meaningful' benefit" to the child. Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 (2d Cir. 1997); see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192. “Subsequent to its development, an IEP must be properly implemented.” Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 10-103; New York State Commissioner of Education Regulation Section 200.4(e)(7)

The Parents’ chief complaint in this impartial hearing is that the CSE did not offer to place in a general education preschool or universal class. (Tr. 517, 519-20; Parents Closing Argument, pages 10-11)^[1] The Parents argued facts that support their desire to keep in a for another year, but they cite no statute, regulation, or case law that establishes that a CSE may place a five year old child, or even a preschool aged child, in a general education preschool.

First, the CSE is authorized to place children with disabilities in the continuum of services enumerated in the New York State Commissioner of Education Regulations Section 200.6. A private general education preschool and universal are not on the list of options. Second, even the CPSE could not place a child who is less than five years old in a private general education preschool or “If the committee determines that the child has a disability, the committee shall recommend approved appropriate services or special programs . . . “ New York Education Law Section 4410(5)(b)(i) (emphasis added) See also New York State Commissioner of Education Regulations Section 200.16(e)(3) I find that the CSE could not have placed in a general education preschool or universal pre-K.

The Parents made several allegations concerning the composition of the CSE that convened on April 13, 2011. First, they allege that there was no general education teacher present. I find that Ms. was a general education teacher at the meeting. (Tr. 107) Ms. was not ’s general education teacher, but the general education preschool teacher is not an employee under the control of the Department of Education. Ms. , ’s SEIT, is an experienced certified special education teacher who had worked with for a year when she participated in the April 13, 2011 CSE meeting. I find that an appropriate special education teacher participated in the April 13, 2011 CSE meeting for . as a matter of fact. Furthermore, the “providers” participated in the meeting by speaker phone in compliance with 34 CFR Section 300.321(a).^[2] I find that the CSE was properly composed on April 13, 2011.

Any procedural errors at the April 13, 2011 CSE do not rise to the level of a substantive denial of FAPE pursuant to 20 USC Section 1400(f)(3)(E). They did not impede the child’s right to FAPE, did not significant impede the Parents’ opportunity to participate, and did not deprive of educational benefits. To the contrary, the Parents were set on keeping in for another year and the CSE members believed that they could not do that. I find that regardless of the composition of the CSE, the documents reviewed, and other parental allegations, any procedural violations had no substantive impact on ’s education or parental participation.

Substantively, the Parents do not contend that the related services on the challenged IEP were not appropriate. (Tr. 522-4) They did allege that the proposed IEP is inappropriate because it does not provide “extended year services” (ESY). ’s occupational therapist, , wrote a “request for 12 months of services” dated March 2011. (Ex. 18) She wrote: “According to the Peabody Developmental Motor Scales (PDMS-II), demonstrates a greater than 40% delay of combined fine and visual motor skills. is at a . . . “ (Ex. 18 at 2) The legal standard for ESY is “substantial regression.” It is not based upon a score on a standardized test. There is no evidence of “substantial regression” in this impartial hearing. To the contrary, all evidence and testimony reported some progress.

The Parents contend that the recommended placement would not provide sufficient one-to-one instruction and support for . I find that Ms. did not provide with oneto-one direct instruction. Instead, she served as an overly qualified paraprofessional who supported instruction by the classroom teacher “99% of the time.” During the ten hours per week that did not have the SEIT in school, she did participate in class. Based on the record, I find that does not need instruction to receive FAPE.

The student's recommended program must also be provided in the “least restrictive environment” (LRE).

“To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, . . . are educated with children who are not disabled and special classes, separate schools or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular education environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that the education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieve satisfactorily. 20 USC §1412(a)(5)(A)

See also 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) The LRE is determined on a case-by-case basis.

In the instant case, I find that the LRE for B is the co-teaching class that permits her to work with age appropriate and cognitively appropriate peers while receiving constant special education support. This is the kind of placement suggested by Ms. Schoen. (Ex. 15 at 8; Tr. 402)

The IDEA encourages high expectations for all children with disabilities. 20 USC Section 1400(4)(A). In the instant matter, I find that the academic goals on the April 13, 2011 IEP are appropriate for B. The Department of Education offered an ICT kindergarten class with related services provided in the public school. A careful review of the goals established that the proposed public placement could have been implemented the goals and objective on the April 13, 2011 IEP for B.

I find that the Department of Education offered FAPE in the LRE to B. for the 2010 - 2011 school year.

SECOND CRITERION

Having found that the New York City Department of Education has carried its burden on the first criterion, I do not have to consider the second or third criteria. See Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-092 But I will do so to complete the record in this case.

With respect to the second criterion for an award of tuition reimbursement, the parents bear the burden of proof with regard to the appropriateness of the services obtained for the child. Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 95-57; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No., 94-29 In order to meet that burden, the parents must show that the services were "proper under the Act", (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, 471 U.S. 359 (1985), i.e., that the private school offered an educational program which met the child's special education needs. Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 94-29; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 96-85 The private school need not be approved by the state educational agency to provide instruction to children with disabilities Florence County School District Four et al. v. Carter by Carter, 510 U.S.7 (1993), nor must it employ certified special education teachers, or have its own IEP for the student. Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 94-20. To qualify for reimbursement under the IDEA, parents need not show that a private placement furnishes every special service necessary to maximize their child’s potential. See M.S. ex rel. S.S. v. Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 105 (2d Cir. 2000) (“the test . . . is not perfection.”) See also F. G. v. Board of Education, 459 F.3d at 364 (2d Cir. 2006)

The parents continued to place in the general education with children who are as much as . I note that although evidence establishes that may have been developmentally one year behind her age appropriate peers in some areas, it also establishes that has very strong age appropriate cognitive skills and superior cognitive skills in some areas. The program provided a that did not challenge ’s strengths with appropriate pre-academic experiences.

Furthermore, the provides no special education, no , no , no individual behavior intervention plan to address ’s , and no physical therapy. The only special education services or related services that receives are provided by the Department of Education. Although a unilateral placement does not have to address all of a student’s needs for the parents to be eligible for reimbursement, it must address some of them. I find that met none of .’s individual needs during the 2011 – 2012 school year. I find that the Parents’ unilateral placement of preschool for the 2011 – 2012 school year is not “proper under the Act.” The parents have not carried their burden on the second criterion.

In New York State, full-time compulsory education begins at age six. New York Education Law Section § 3205:

Attendance of minors upon full time day instruction.

1. a. In each school district of the state, each minor from of age shall attend upon full time instruction.

is as her . Her Parents may delay ’s entrance into kindergarten or skip kindergarten entirely. The Parents certainly may keep in a general education preschool at their own expense for the additional school year.

THIRD CRITERION

The third criterion for an award of tuition reimbursement is whether equitable considerations support the parent's claim. Again, I will consider the equity issues in this matter to complete the record in this case.

The Parents attended CSE meetings, and they stated that they wanted to keep in preschool for the 2011 – 2012 school year. I find that they did not interfere with the workings of the CSE.

I find that equity favors the reimbursement of the parents.

SUMMARY

The Department of Education offered a “free and appropriate public education” to

B. for the 2011 - 2012 school year. The Parents did not establish that they provided an appropriate education for at the private preschool. Equitable considerations favor the parents’ request. I find that the Department of Education is the prevailing party. Should this case be appealed, it would not be moot as it establishes on-going pendency rights to a SEIT or similar from “special education teacher support services” (SETSS) for .

ORDER

There is no order. Dated: April 2, 2012

BARBARA J. EBENSTEIN, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

BJE:gc

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

Parents:

A Amended Impartial Hearing Request dated 10/3/11, 5 pages

B Letter from parent to 7/6/11, 4 pages (exhibit is out of sequence)

C dated 9/16/11, 1 page

D Invoice dated 9/29/11, 1 page

E Invoice dated 10/14/11, 1 page

F Description of , undated, 1 page

G Affidavit of dated 11/11/11, 1 page

H Contract dated 3/3/11, 2 pages

I Attendance Reports for 9 to 11/10/11, undated, 3 pages

J Class Schedule, undated, 1 page

K Affidavit from dated 8/24/11, 1 page

L Series of cancelled checks, 8 pages

M Quarterly Progress Report, 11/30/11, 6 pages

Contract, 3/8/11 & 4/1/11, 2 pages

O Cancelled Checks, 2 pages

Department of Education:

1 Due Process Complaint dated 8/16/11, 5 pages

2 Due Process Response dated 8/23/11, 3 pages

3 Amended Due Process Complaint dated 10/311, 5 pages

4 Amended Due Process Response dated 10/5/11, 4 pages

5 IEP dated 4/13/11, 7 pages

6 IEP dated 4/23/10, 2010, 22 pages

7 IEP dated 6/23/11, 22 pages

8 Final Notice of Recommendation, dated 6/13/11, 1 page

9 Final Notice of Recommendation Modification of IEP dated 6/23/11, 1 page

10 Authorization of IEP Change dated 6/23/11, 1 page

11 dated 1/4/11, 5 pages

12 Social History Update dated 3/4/11 and 3/16/11, 2 pages

13 dated 3/10/11, 1 page

14 Narrative Analysis Observation dated 3/8/11, 3 pages

15 Educational Progress Report dated 1/3/11, 8 pages

16 Service Student Progress Report dated 12/10, 3 pages

17 Report, undated, 2 pages

18 Request for 12 months of Service dated 3/11, 2 pages

12 Month Justification dated 4/21/11, 2 pages

20 Related Service Student Progress Report dated 3/31/10, 2 pages

21 Annual goals and objectives related to the April 13, 2011 IEP, 8 pages

22 Undated conversion of raw score to standard score, 10 pages

23 Email between the attorneys and the IHO scheduling this case, 85 pages

Footnotes

[1] There is no evidence or testimony in this impartial hearing to establish that the parents ever wanted a special education preschool for for the 2011 – 2012 school year.

[2] I note that all of the Parents’ witnesses, except the Mother, testified in this impartial hearing by speaker telephone. It is a disingenuous argument to suggest that it was inappropriate for members of the CSE to participate in the meeting by speaker telephone.