New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number:

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District:

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Date of Hearing: April 25, 2011

May 2, 2011

May 24, 2011

June 20, 2011

July 6, 2011

September 20, 2011

September 27, 2011

October 4, 2011

January 4, 2012

January 10, 2012

February 2, 2012

Actual Record Closed Date: March 9, 2012

Hearing Officer: Brenda Farrow White, Esq.

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

ESQ., Attorney — Student

ESQ., Attorney — DOE

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

ESQ., Attorney — Student

ESQ., Attorney, Law Offices of — Student

ESQ., Attorney, Law Offices of — Student

Parents

ESQ., Attorney, — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MAY 24, 2011

Attorney — Student

Parents

Parents

DOE Attorney — DOE

Special Education Teacher (Via Telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 20, 2011

Attorney — Student

Legal Intern — Student

Parents

DOE Attorney — DOE

School Psychologist (Via Telephone) — DOE

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

— Student

ESQ., Attorney for Parent — Student

Parents

Legal Intern — Student

ESQ., Attorney for DOE — DOE

A.P., (Via Telephone) — DOE

Special Ed Teacher, (Via Telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2011

Attorney — Student

Director, (Via Telephone) — Student

Parents

Attorney — DOE

Special Ed., (Via Telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON SEPTEMBER 27, 2011

Attorney — Student

Parents

Parents

Consultant (Via telephone) — Student

DOE Attorney — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON OCTOBER 4, 2011

ESQ., Attorney — Student

Parents

Parents

Occupational Therapist (DID NOT TESTIFY) — Student

ESQ., Attorney, Department of — DOE

— DOE

Education — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JANUARY 4, 2012

ESQ., Attorney — Student

Parents

Independent (Via Telephone) — Student

Freelance Musician/Music Teacher (Via Telephone) — Student

Therapist (Via Telephone) — Student

ESQ., Attorney, — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JANUARY 10, 2012

ESQ., Attorney for Parent — Student

Parents

OT Provider (Via Telephone) — Student

(Unavailable) — Student

ESQ., Attorney for DOE — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON FEBRUARY 2, 2012

ESQ., Attorney — Student

( ), — Parents

Director of the (by Telephone) — Student

ESQ, Attorney, — DOE

— DOE

An impartial hearing was convened before me in the matter of (hereinafter referred to as “E”) on April 25, 2011 and continued on the following dates: May 2, 2011, May 24, 2011, June 20, 2011, July 6, 2011, September 20, 2011, September 27, 2011, October 4, 2011, January 4, 2012, January 10, 2012 and February 2, 2012. Post-hearing submissions by the parties, namely, Extension Timeline, Memoranda of Law submitted by the Department of Education (DOE) and counsel for the parent are appended to the record as Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) Exhibits (i), (ii) and (iii), respectively. The hearing was requested by the parents of the child, represented by, Esq. The NYC DOE was represented by , Esq.

All extensions of the timeline and decision date were requested by the parties and are hereby incorporated into the record. The record close date in this matter is March 9, 2012.

Appended to the record are the names of the persons who appeared at the hearing and a list of the documents entered into evidence.

DOE POSITION

The DOE, represented by , Esq., stated its position that it offered a FAPE to E for the 2010-2011 school year. The DOE further asserts that the parents’ home-based program for E is inappropriate and that the equities in this case favor the DOE. The DOE contends that the DOE developed an Individualized Educational Service Plan (IESP) at the parents’ request and that the parent never intended to seek a public school placement for the student and thus was not entitled to free appropriate public education (FAPE) from December 2010 through the remainder of the 2010-11 school year.

The DOE argues that E was parentally placed from December 2010 through July 2011 and is not entitled to funding or reimbursement. (Ex i.-22). The DOE further argues that “if the parents want FAPE, a public school placement and an Individualized Education Program (IEP), and they have chosen to home school as their unilateral placement, then their request is program reimbursement. They are then not entitled to related services because they are challenging the IEP and its recommendations. However, if the parents have truly parentally placed and sought an IESP, then they are not requesting a public school and they are not requesting FAPE. They are then not entitled to funding for the program. They are then entitled to services only. “(i.-23) The DOE presented the testimony of , Special Education Teacher assigned to the CSE District . She stated her educational and professional credentials a bachelor’s degree in liberal arts and science, a master’s in special education and a certification in New York City special education for grades . She was a classroom teacher in special education for eight years and she has worked with the CSE District 9 for seven years. Ms. participated in the IESP meeting in December of 2010, stating that an IESP is used “when parents want to place their child either at a home or a private school and they’re not looking for a public school setting.”(T. 75) She further stated that the parent asked her to make a notation that “parent wants to note that the letter of intent, which is what we call that, says nonpublic school at your expense does not seem appropriate.”(T.81)

Ms. stated that she explained the meaning of an IESP, stating that when a student is parentally placed and an IESP is developed, the parent assumes the financial responsibility of the home school and the DOE would fund the related services. (T.92) The DOE submits that the parent signed a letter of intent (Ex.17), that the parent never expressed a desire to have an IEP (T.79, 84). The DOE noted that the parent sought to delete the language “at your own expense” on the letter of intent, but Ms. explained that the form could not be altered. (T.82) Ms. did not recall the parent asking for tuition reimbursement (T.112-113). The DOE submits that “even if this was stated, it is irrelevant. The process, the IESP and “parentally placed” were all explained to the mother with her attorney present. Additionally, Ms. ’s alleged oral communication that she was going to seek reimbursement from the DOE is meaningless. She signed forms and never told the CSE she was seeking a public school placement from the DOE. She was not seeking FAPE meaning she was only looking for services via the IESP.” (i.26).

, School Psychologist, stated her educational credentials as a bachelor’s degree in elementary education and a master’s degree in educational psychology. She has a professional diploma in school psychology and she is a New York State certified school psychologist. (T.138). She participated in the IEP meeting for in March of 2010 and she observed on November 18, 2009 at the in her classroom.(T.138, Ex 10)

Ms. testified that the IEP developed at the CSE meeting on March 11, 2010, the CSE team classified with and recommended a 12-month placement of a special class in a specialized school with a student teacher ratio with a paraprofessional in the room. A crisis para was recommended for , along with the related services of .

With respect to ’s academic deficits, Ms. stated that “In terms of her decoding or ability just to read words out of context was on grade level, which is a positive thing, in terms of a strength.”(T.144) Reading, math and instructional levels were provided by ’s teacher at that time, . (T.146) Reading comprehension was estimated by ’s teacher to be around the mid-first grade level, and writing at the beginning to mid-first grade level. Computation skills were early to , and “she had some difficulty just , and she’s very and that . She could also on objects and things. She has that impact upon her learning. “(T. 145)

Ms. testified that the team developed measurable academic goals with projected accuracy levels (T.1455, Ex 4-8, 4-9) Similarly, goals were developed for occupational therapy needs (TT. 160, Ex 4-14), counseling and management needs.

With respect to ’s sensory needs, Ms. testified that has academic management needs including activities, “so that you’re using movement or that a teacher can utilize movement for learning or during learning, and that will help facilitate learning. “(T. 145) Ms. F also noted that was recommended for ’s sensory concerns. (T. 145)

Ms. further testified that a psychological educational evaluation was performed in 2009 (Ex 9), indicating that was given a Woodcok-Johnson which indicated that s letter word coding was at a late third grade level, “which is a standard score of which is actually above average.”(t. 147) Her passage comprehension, or reading comprehension, and writing was at a level comparable to late first grade. (T.147) Ms. reported that a year later, reading comprehension and writing decreased to and decoding had decreased to a level.

With respect to needs and performance, Ms. stated that the team recommended sensory materials, sensory breaks, individualized support, a , services, and a ). Ms. described the behaviors to be addressed by the BIP, including her tendency to withdraw, her attempts to leave the classroom without permission, and difficulty focusing on tasks, E.(T.150-151) Strategies to described by s teacher included a written schedule, sensory supports, movement breaks during the school day, and “ speaking to and giving her so that she can understand her world better.”(T.151)

With respect to , Ms. stated that the team specifically discussed which is . (T.152) The team recommended that , along with Ms. stated that is exempt from state and local assessments due to her (T.162). She is assessed in alternate assessment participation in which the teacher develops materials to determine her progress. (T.163)

, Assistant Principal at , testified that her educational credentials are a bachelor’s degree and early childhood education and a master’s degree in Early childhood special education. She holds a license in special education and administration and supervision for grades . She provides professional development training including behavior training, looking at data, ABLLS training.(T.277) The school offers parent training at least once a month through a parent coordinator. Topics of the parent training include toilet training, understanding the IEP, connections between the school and the home and how to incorporate related service providers into a student’s program at home. (T. 278)

Ms. testified that she reviewed the IEP of would have been placed in a class in July of 2010. She further stated that the school would have been able to meet the related services mandate of ’s IEP in the summer of 2010 (T.295)

Ms. further testified that the parent visited twice (T.295). During both visits, the parents were informed that all the occupational therapists and physical therapists, four in total, shared an office. (T.337). Regarding parent participation, Ms. testified that parent training is part of the program(T.163) She also stated that ’s parent as well as ’s teacher and other staff at the had the opportunity to participate in the CSE meeting. (T.164)

, special education teacher at at , presented her educational credentials as a master’s degree in special education in reading and certification in special education and . In July of 2010, Ms. taught a class which the DOE submits would have been appropriate for . There six students on the roster; however, the DOE pointed out that only four of those students appeared on the first day of class in July, 2010 and one of the six students left the class on July 22, 2010. (T.282, Ex. 18). Ms. testified that she used an individualized curriculum “but we also use a little everyday math for math. And in reading, ELA is definitely more of a teacher created curriculum. (T. 375) She uses the methodologies of TEACCH and a little Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA), saying that “our classroom is definitely more set up on a TEACCH model.”(T.376, with individual work stations and attempts to minimize distractions, based on each child’s needs and strengths. (T.376)

Ms. further testified that there are strategies in place to help children with transition to the new school, namely, visual cues and communication with the parents. (T.376) She stated that she groups the students functionally, and she would have individualized ’s instruction in reading comprehension and math skills, noting that was higher functioning than the other students in the class in decoding. (T.385) Ms. described how she would have addressed ’s and ’s difficulty sitting and attending to tasks (T.386) would have been provided, and gross motor based activities would have been implemented. (T.387)

With respect to the home based program as a unilateral placement, the DOE’s position is that the home program is inappropriate because it is overly restrictive and the reliability of the used by the parents has not been established. The DOE submits that credibility of and that of the Director of the program is undermined as she was unable to provide details regarding studies supporting the efficacy of the . Further, the DOE submits that the is flawed in that employs a social curriculum in a series of five stages, one of which leads to an academic stage (T.935, 1002). The DOE posits that a child is kept at home without an academic curriculum while moving through four stages and without an estimate of how long the child is kept in a home program that does not focus on academics. (i.17)

The DOE further questions the efficacy of the program’s anticipation that a student can be placed in a general education setting after moving through the stages of the program. The DOE believes that “respectfully, while one would hope that every child could enroll in a general education setting, this is not realistic. And it causes further concern because this program has no data supporting the conclusion that students will move from home to the mainstreamed classroom.(T.1002-1003, Ex i.17) The DOE further points out that none of the providers have special education licenses and no party working with is a special education teacher. (T.874-875, 891, 912)

The DOE submits that ’s home program is overly restrictive in that she has no access to peers as all of her sessions are individualized in the home with no other children involved. (T. 875, 876, 882, 892, 912). The DOE points out that “There is no evidence of how is working on skills in the community and the DOE submits that this is imperative in New York City. (Ex i.18)

The DOE further submits that the testimony of must be disregarded in that he is not qualified and he does not know . The DOE points to Mr. ’s statement that he thought was 11 or 12 when he met her (T.638) when, in fact, she was nine years old. He met once and worked with her for two hours, and he did not take any data during his work with her. (T.607-608, 637) Further, he is not licensed in special education (T.606), nor has he been recertified in the program.(T 602). The DOE further contends that payment to Mr. is suspect. He was paid in cash and checks and the cost of his travel and stay was split amongst other families. (T.613, 615, Ex EE). The DOE submits that the parent did not demonstrate ’s academic functioning levels and her testimony must be disregarded. The parent testified that receives academics almost every day (T.828), but there was no testimony regarding a specific curriculum (T.728-732) nor any assessments used by providers. (T.801, 810). It is the DOE’s position that “ ’s functional levels are then based solely on her own mother’s observations. Ms. is not a teacher or a special education teacher. (T.804, Ex. i.20)

The DOE further contends that ’s home program did not provide appropriate related services. The DOE points out that did not receive ( ), ( ) or from September 2010 – March 2011 (T.811). “White the parent argues that they were seeking the funding of these services from the DOE, the DOE submits although the DOE did not fund these services, this did not prevent the parents from obtaining these services. It is completely inappropriate that a in did not receive these services fully or at all.”(Ex i.21)

With respect to equities, the DOE argues that the equities favor the DOE. The DOE argues that the parents of E had no intention of placing her at the recommended public placement in that the parents’ ten day letter was sent on June 24, 2010, before the start of the school year in July 2010 (Ex H). Further, the DOE contends that because the parent did not take to the recommended placement when she visited, nor did she bring ’s IEP, that “these actions clearly demonstrate a commitment to

PARENTS POSITION

The parents of E contend that the DOE did not offer a FAPE to for the school year 2010-2011. The parents further contend that their program is in fact an appropriate placement for E and that the parents cooperated in all respects with the DOE and are entitled to tuition reimbursement.

The parents testified that they filed all required forms with the NYC DOE to institute a home program for and were told that their proposal had been accepted (T.685-86, 777-78; Ex C. D). The parents then asked the DOE to provide Related Services Authorizations (RSA) for , but never received them. (T.739) They approached the CSE in November, 2010 and were told that an IESP was required in order to obtain RSAs. The parent requested and participated in an IESP meeting held on December 17, 2010 (T.739-41), at which time the CSE insisted that the parent sign a Final Notice of Recommendation designating a parental placement and a letter of intent in order to receive RSAs (T.742, Ex 15, 17). The parent disagreed with the specific language referring to education at the expense of the parent and attempted to modify the form, but was told by the CSE representatives that she could not do so, that the form was a mere formality and the parent was required to sign the form in order for her child to receive related services. (T.742, 773-77) Further, the parent stated that she informed CSE representatives that E had not received an appropriate placement for the fall of 2010 and that the parent intended to seek funding for the home program. Again, according to the parent, the CSE told her that she would not receive related services unless she signed the form. The CSE agreed to note her objection to the “at your expense” language in the meeting minutes, and she was told she would receive RSAs within two weeks. The parent signed the form based upon the CSE’s representation. (T.742-43, Ex 14, 17).

However, the DOE never sent the parent any RSAs.(T.743) and the parent proceeded to identify related service providers for her daughter at her own expense.

The parent contends that the meaning of “parentally placed” was not meaningfully explained to her and that her signature was obtained based on the fraudulent representation of the CSE that she was not waiving her right to seek reimbursement for the home program and that she would only receive RSAs for ’s related services if she signed the form unaltered. (T.742-43, 757; Ex 14, 15, 17).

With respect to the testimony of , School Psychologist, it is the parents’ contention that the CSE relied almost exclusively upon s progress report from the in developing the IEP at the March 11, 2010 meeting (T.263, 268). Parents point out that the CSE failed to conduct a social history in preparation for the IEP meeting, nor did it review any medical documentation (T.660). Further, parents note that the team did not review evaluation or classroom observation (T. 660-661). Parent further contends that Ms. s claim that the CSE reviewed the 2009 evaluation is questionable when a review of the CSE Case Material Checklist and the DOE’s due process response as well as parents’ testimony that no such evaluation was discussed at the meeting and the DOE failed to indicate that this evaluation was considered in developing E’s IEP. (T 140, 147-48, 660-61; Ex 2,7).

Further, with respect to the CSE meeting on March 11, 2010, parents contend that the CSE developed related service goals for without conducting assessments for or consulting ’s therapists (T.174, 225-28, 660-61). The team did not consider the need for a transition plan to transition to a public school placement using different instructional methodologies (T.663). Further, although a was developed for , the team failed to conduct a , which parents feel was necessary to better understand s . (T.152, 250, 662, Ex. 4, 17).

Parents further contend that the DOE did not provide an opportunity for parents and the staff to meaningfully participate in the development of E’s IEP. Parents specifically point to the lack of access to all materials considered by the CSE team, including the classroom observation, the failure of the team to adequately consider sufficient evaluative material and failure to adequately consult the parents and ’s teacher regarding ’s goals at the prior to the end of the 2009-10 school year or the objective measurement of goals for E for the 2010-11 school year (T.174, 205-20, Ex. 4, 9).

Parents further argue that the placement recommended by the CSE for was inappropriate. Parents point out that both the Assistant principal at , , and the classroom teacher, Ms. , stated that the designated class for for the summer of 2010 included six students, five boys and one girl, and that all of these student attended the class during the summer, confirmed by the class profile and attendance record (T.326, 366-67, 437-438, Ex. 18, Ex HH) Although Ms. stated that a variance could have obtained, but she was unsure how long it would take to obtain one and she testified that the school would not have told the parents about the variance during their visit, supporting the parents’ claim that they were told during their visit that there might not be a space for E. (T. 285,317, 324; Ex H)

The parents further argue that the DOE has failed to demonstrate that there would have been space for E in an appropriate class for the remainder of the 2010-11 school year starting in September (T.430, 352-54). Further, the parents argue that Ms. confirmed their concerns regarding the delivery of related services and the settings for breakfast and lunch during the remainder of the school year (T.354-55 Ex E).

Parents contend that the program and class recommended for was not appropriate for in that she would not have been grouped with similarly functioning peers on her academic and social levels. Further, the roster for the summer 2010 class included five boys and only one girl, aged seven to nine (T.374-76,371, 437-38; Ex HH). The only girl in the class was on a pre-primer level academically (T.449-52). Reading levels of students in the class ranged from a to early second grade level and from a level in math. (T.438-439). All of the students were of below average cognitive ability, compared to E. (T.440, Ex.9.2, Ex HH). E could have been the highest functioning student in the classroom and the parents argue that the social skills of the other students in the class were below average and below s level, with only one other student capable of pretend play, and only one other student able to verbally express needs/wants and feelings.(T.391-92) The parents also point out that the class lacked for , repeated information, and yet and required a . (T. 469-70, 48689). The parents further reject the instructional model offered by the proposed placement. The classroom teacher, Ms. , testified that she used the TEACCH method in her classroom, a method that has not proven effective with (T.374-76). Further, the parents contend that would not have received sufficient appropriate sensory support during her school day. When the parents visited the placement, the classroom was small and crowded and visually distracting, an environment that would be overwhelming and over stimulating for E (T.670-71, Ex E. H). The (T.445, 465-67, 532-33, Ex ll, XX).

With respect to the provision of , parents expressed their concern that the proposed placement would not appropriately fulfill ’s related service needs. During both visits, the parents were informed that the shared one therapy room. (T.337, 44344). Ms. on a pullout basis in the therapy room. Parents argue that given . (T. 534).

The parents further raised the issue of safety of the school building in which the proposed placement is housed. Ms. testified that the school is housed in a large building that houses three schools. The settings for breakfast lunch and recess at the placement was of concern, as the students in Ms. ’s class ate breakfast and lunch with 84 other students and had recess as after lunch with the same number of students (T.302304). Parents contend that DOE has failed to demonstrate that there would be sufficient adult supervision at these times to ensure (T. 302-304, 672, Ex E. H).

Parents presented the testimony of , program director at the . Ms. stated her educational background as a Master’s degree in social work, a Master’s degree in education, a School Administration Supervisory certification and a School District Administrator Certification, all from New York State. She is a licensed clinical social worker. Ms stated that she worked for the Williamsburg Developmental School as a social worker beginning in 1993 for two years, then an for three years, then program director of the school in 1998 to 2005. In July of 2005, Ms. started the . (T.497)

Ms. described the as “a school for children with in relating and communicating, which includes children diagnosed on the . We work with children from the ages of 4 through 21, and we are a therapeutic school, so we have related services here on staff— (T. 498) The school is ungraded, and there are 109 students, many students classified by the DOE with . There are also children classified as other . (T.501-502)) The building is housed in an office building in Manhattan with over five floors, two elevators with stairs connecting the floors. There is a gym, two art rooms, two music therapy rooms, two sensory gyms. There are 14 classrooms. All therapists have offices; there is a nurse’s office and a conference room. (T. 502) Ms. stated that the school employs the Developmental Individual Difference Relationship (DIR) based model as an overriding methodology, “based on typical child development and where children with neurodevelopment delays in relating and communicating sort of go off track in their development.”(T.499) She further explained that the “Developmental” looks at each child’s developmental level and strengths, limitations and “we want to meet the child at their developmental level and move them up the developmental ladder.”(T.499) “I” for Individual Differences is primarily looking at their sensory processing, how they take in sensory information from their environment, process it, and then use it functionally. And the R for Relationships is that we want to build on the relationships that the child has with the staff members, but also within the family.”(T.499)

Ms. stated that the curriculum includes, but is not limited to the use of the models of DIR, Floor Time and academics. She explained that DIR is the basis, but the school has different academic curricula. (T.500-501) There are fourteen classrooms in the school, and every classroom has one adult to two students. There are 105 staff members employed by the school. (T.50) Staff training is provided throughout the year (T.503-504), and training and support of parents and siblings is provided as well. (T.5024)

Ms. stated that her responsibilities at the as “really anything to do with the day to day running of the school. I meet with the supervisors once a week. I’m involved in the process of interviewing, hiring and training of staff. I meet with families. I’m involved in the intake and placement of children in classrooms. I oversee the educational supervisors for the curriculum that is used and adapted at the school. I’m involved again with parent training and any requirements by the DOE, Department of Daycare, Department of Health.(T. 497-498).

Ms. stated that was a student at the from February 2009 through August of 2010, and during that timeframe, Ms. saw her once a week and informally throughout the school. (T.506) She spoke to ’s teachers and related service providers once a week, and had meetings every week with a team comprised of the social worker, psychologist, occupational therapist, physical therapist, speech and language therapist, creative arts therapist. During the summer of 2010, the staffing ratio of ’s class, was . (T. 507) The head teacher possessed a Master’s Degree in Special Education and is a licensed special education teacher. Each of the assistant teachers is required to have a bachelor’s degree and experience working with children with special needs. (T.508)

Ms. described “as a child with

Ms. strength is her reading, but “there would be kind of a (T.512)

Ms. described equipment available in the sensory gym to address a child’s sensory system, including “swings of all different kinds. There are hooks that hang from the ceiling. There’s balancing equipment. There are trampolines. There is tactile materials. There is weighted desks and blankets and vibrating massagers. There’s sand. There is thera-putty.”(T.531). In the classroom, available equipment includes a beanbag chair, swing, trampoline “and again some of the smaller sensory things, so thera-putty, weighted blankets, pads that help children sit on a chair, beans, rice, and sand.(T.532). Ms. need for sensory breaks, stating that “ , but because of her auditory participate in the activities.”(T. 532)

Ms. further testified that in the …”(T.534)

Ms. testified that the had goals set up for and she made progress towards those goals, including being more spontaneous in her (T.535-536).

in the form of music therapy, which Ms. described as a better modality for her as opposed to play and talk therapy, which were difficult given ’

Ms. did not have a one to one paraprofessional assigned to her at the and that an individual para would not be appropriate for . She noted that “I think she would become very dependent on a para. She She really needs to be sort of motivated and encouraged to make her own decisions, to make her own way.”(T. 538)

Parents presented the testimony of and the which has been in existence since 1983. (Ex VV-2). She described her credentials as a bachelor’s degree in education and music, and she is a certified and certified . She stated that in order to obtain those certifications, she had a in which , “where I was going into a of different ages on the . And I would be watched and observed by senior teachers and then given feedback on that.”(T.962) Ms. also had a three year training “to be able to teach the principles of the to parents and families.”(T.963) She has been employed by the for twenty years, twelve of those years spent teaching and the past eight spent as director of the program. She has worked with well over a thousand students ranging in age from 18months to 56 years old. (T.963-964)

Ms. described the as “a parent directed home based child-centered program, and you help all people on the flourish in all areas of social development.”(T.964) She further stated that there is a developmental model describing the goals of the program. Primarily we focus on social interaction. And that goes into four different areas. One is my contact on , and then the other one is verbal communication, as well as interactive attention span, and helping an be flexible. “(T.965, Ex.VV). She described five stages in the developmental model leading to preparing a child for a school environment. are introduced into the program at that point. “Before that point, it’s not a focus of the program at all, because we don’t believe that the children are ready for that yet. “(T. 967)

Ms. stated that there are some therapies that are not advisable to combine with the , for instance, a behavioral program, “because they’re polar opposites. However, if a child had difficulties hearing their program, or if they had trouble seeing, there are other different therapies that would work nicely with the program.”(T. 968)

Ms. described a (T.969-970). She further stated that there is research supporting the efficacy of the , and it is under peer review through Northwestern University and the University of Lancaster working in combination with one another. (T. 973)

Ms. stated that in June 2011 and was worked with for approximately 35 hours individually with trained staff facilitators. “And while that was happening, a teacher was with her parents, working with them one on one. “(T.974) staff worked with E eight hours a day on all the four fundamentals of the developmental model (Ex VV). “And then with the parents, we would observe them playing with , and we would give them feedback and help them really know how to respond to her and how to help her in all the areas of the model. And we would also train her parents to be able to train other people to be with her, because creating volunteers for a is really important, because it helps the child form different relationships, and it also helps the parents be able to give more available therapy hours.”(T.975)

Ms. described the model as focusing on , , , and flexibility, with the ultimate goal of enabling them to function (T.933-935). The engages with the student and progressively develops the student’s by following the student in a structured playroom setting that is “specifically designed to lower sensory stimulation.”(T.589-90, 958-61, Ex GG, VV). Ms. testified that once students have learned skills in the playroom environment without , they are usually able to generalize those skills outside of the playroom (T.619-20).

Ms. evaluation , charting exclusive and repetitious activities as well as the most effective way of joining. (T.975, Ex. SS). She explained that the evaluation was created to chart and document the different areas worked on, including eye contact, how much E was interactive, what techniques would be used that seemed most effective for and that she was responding to.(T.976) The also created an intensive social development evaluation in which the data from the experience with was applied to the model to ascertain what stage was in and to “see what are the most relevant goals for us to work on, and how to help work on her so she can become more sociable, basically. “(T.977)

Ms. further stated that there are five to six people working with (T.980), and they meet as a team on a weekly basis. Ms. observes and trains her staff, and there are advanced, ongoing classes for every staff member. (T.981)

Ms. described ’s progress in the area of “exclusivity” in that she became more interactive “and the way that that manifested was that she, at one point in the week, she had a 15-minute game with one of our facilitator, where she wasn’t exclusive at all, where she interacted the whole time.”(T.982). She also started to communicate in more complex sentences.(T982-983)

, trained child facilitator, testified that he has worked for ten years in and other relationship based therapies, mainly Floortime DIR. Prior to his ten years with he used discrete trial, . (T. 576) He stated that he obtained a child facilitator certification from in 2003 following an 18-month training. He recertified twice, his last certification in 2010. (T.577) He explained that he is not currently certified because “I had , and felt that there was a conflict there and they asked me to choose between continuing to work with that colleague and be certified with them. So I chose not to.

(T578) He completed a six week online training course in the Floortime methodology and received his certification on June 12, 2011. He has a Bachelor’s degree in education, he currently works as an autism consultant and has worked with approximately 600 students. (T.582,584)

Mr. testified that he did a one day, seven hour outreach session with the family, spending two hours of that session with , during which time “she was basically socially connected with me, that there was a back and forth of interaction. She was sort of informing our play directly to me .”(T. ) He observed the parents, staff members, taking notes on technique (T.587). He stated that “the purpose of the session is to help develop social skills, to help , , helping a child understand how to initiate social interaction. Once they’ve developed those skills, we can move on to the more sophisticated skills, like . But essentially giving them a tool box of so that they can .” (T.588) He stated that he gives feedback to the parent and the therapists, then demonstrates concepts with the child. At the end of the session, he conducts a wrapup, setting goals for the child and answering questions about those goals. (T.588) For E, Mr. set goals of “sustaining reciprocal interaction, looking at faces, and I think initiating-- her initiating interaction.”(T. 589)

, , stated her credentials as a master’s degree in occupational therapy and training in the . She was trained over two years from 2007-2009 at the . She holds a professional license in pediatric occupational therapy and sensory integration and is licensed by the State of New York. (T.930)

Ms. weekly, every Tuesday for two hours on a one to one basis. She sees her at her home “and she has a specific playroom where I play with her in her special environment where she’s very safe.”(T.931) Ms. described ’s needs as processing, giving an example as . Because .”(T.932) To address this, Ms. offers her “specific exercises that provide , provide and I do that with a therapy ball. Sometimes I do that with my own hands.”(T.932) Ms. explained her use of the (T.933-36), addressing physical goals as well as social goals. Further, she testified that she saw progress on the physical and social goals during the 2010-11 school year (T.939-40) She testified that there is a team meeting once a month to discuss observations, “what main interests and motivations that has so we can create things around it to help her, related to the goals and help her expand her repertoire. We also talk about things that are effective for her and things that are not effective. “(T.941)

, Independent , stated her educational credential as a double Master’s degree in education, one master’s degree a specialization in curriculum and instruction, the other a concentration in special education. She is currently working on her doctorate in psychology. She worked with during the 2010-11 school year two times a week individually for two to three hours per session. All sessions were held in the play room of her home, using the methodology. (T.864)

Ms. described the as “based on a social curriculum and they focus on five specific areas: games, eye contact, interactive…, verbal and non verbal communication, and flexibility.”(T.867, Ex. W) Ms. developed specific goals for and also met with a team monthly.

, music teacher, testified that she worked with during the 2010-11 school year beginning in March 2011 approximately three to four times a week for two hour sessions individually. She explained that she basically volunteered her time and that the parent paid her $15 an hour. She had ongoing training in the by ’s mother. (T.884) Ms. described her sessions with and the use of a variety of techniques designed to address through music and movement (T.890-194)

, , testified extensively regarding ’s home program. She stated that she was trained in the for approximately one month. She attended training sessions in at the for one week in February, 2010, one week I May, 2010, two weeks in July 2010, and again in June, 2011 for another week. (T.712-13) To further enhance her knowledge of the methododogy, she received further training the from , the in March 2011 to . (T.718) She also viewed lectures on webcasts, and got support from other parents during the year.(T.718) Further, she had an outreach training with .(T.719)

Ms. testified that the parents created a playroom environment at home for , specifically designed to follow the (T.720-21). The parents installed a double door to have , and they double padded their floor. The mirror allowed parents and providers to . (T.720-21) Ms. stated that playroom has a trampoline, fitness balls, and bounce balls, because there is a lot of floortime activity. She further described the room as looking like a typical classroom, with a table and two chairs, one for the teacher and one for , and a shelf with all ’s things organized on the shelf. The room has a mirror and a locked storage room. (T.721)

Ms. described ’s daily schedule Monday through Friday as typically a morning session from 9-11am, and a session from 11am to 1pm. Afterwards would go to for an program. In the evening there is another two-hour session. Saturdays and Sundays are more flexible, with ’s father spending a lot of time with doing reading and games. (T.722) The related services of are also conducted by providers identified and paid by the parent.(T.723)

In response to questioning on cross examination regarding a component of ’s program entitled “Fast Forward,” Ms. explained that “ is developed by a scientific learning, and for learning differences. Typically children who have and benefit from it. So, for , . (T.745) She explained that there is provided by , and participated from April of 2010 until December, 2010

Ms. testified that she and ’s father were primarily responsible for ’s academic instruction. They usually work with in the early morning, with ’s mother focusing on math skills and ’s . (T.728) Ms. stated that she did not follow a particular curriculum for math and reading. ’s reading level is second grade, but her comprehension is lower. Ms. described ’s math as “very rudimental” (T.729) E can count to 100, and she is interested in the concept of money. Ms. stated that “ ’s . Because her . (T.730) Ms. sees progress in her comprehension skills, and stated that ’s fine motor skills are very good. “ . (T.733)

Ms. testified that in 2010-11, . She stated that “we were waiting for the Board to give us a . And then in March we were told no. “(T.738) Ms. then contracted the services of who worked with for a year but was not available after that time. When Ms. home program, it was her expectation that the DOE would provide related services, and she requested said services of the DOE; however, she never received them. (T.739)

With respect to the parents’ request for related services from the DOE, Ms. Zhang testified that in September, 2010, she asked the DOE to provide OT, PT, counseling and speech and language therapy. She stated that she spoke to a DOE representative, Fung Ye, and was told that she needed an IESP to get related services, and that the parents would be offered related services; however, no services were ever offered. (T.739-40). Ms. further stated that an IESP meeting was scheduled and held on December 17, 2010 , at which time the parents advised the CSE that they were seeking reimbursement for the home program for as well as related services. “We very clearly said it again and again. We are suing the Board for her funding. We made that very clear to them.”(T.741) Ms. stated that the team’s response was “they said yes, and regardless, we have the meeting and we will offer you the they were very aware that we were still seeking funding from the Board.”(T.741)

Ms. further testified that at the IESP meeting held on December 17, 2010, she was asked to sign a parentally placed Final Notice of Recommendation and a letter of intent (Ex.14), and she asked for permission to modify the document. She stated that the meaning of “parentally placed” was not fully explained to her and she had no intention of waiving her right to seek reimbursement for the home program. She further stated that the CSE representative informed her that if she did not sign the document, related services could not be provided by the DOE. The CSE representative wrote a note on the second page of the FNR, noting the parents’ concerns. (T.742, Ex.14) Once Ms. agreed to sign the forms, she was told that it would be one or two weeks maximum before related services were provided. No related services were ever provided. (T. 743)

Ms. testified that she visited a school recommended by the CSE, namely, several times, the first visit taking place on June 18, 2010. She stated that she spent 45 minutes to one hour at the school and was shown . On June 23, 2010, the parent sent a letter to the DOE rejecting the placement, stating her reasons for the rejection and notifying the DOE that the parent would be seeking reimbursement for the (Ex H). On August 30, 2012, the parent sent another letter to the DOE advising that the parents would seek reimbursement for the or home program if appropriate and warranted.(Ex G). On September 10, 2010, the parent sent a letter to the DOE advising them that parents would seek reimbursement.(Ex F). On September 27, 2010, parent forwarded a letter to the DOE advising that the program offered by the DOE was inappropriate, that the parent was initiating a home program for , and that the parent would seek reimbursement from the DOE. (Ex.E)

Ms. further testified that she submitted an application to the DOE to provide a home program for E (Ex.D) and was approved. She sent quarterly progress reports to the DOE (Ex.JJ, Ex. RR) through the . (T.829) as well as provider’s affidavits of service (Ex. YY,EEE,FFF,GGG). Ms. stated her educational credentials as a bachelors’ degree and a master’s degree in chemical engineering. However, she works full time with providers. She explained that she was trained in ABA but held no certifications. She and her husband have undergone extensive training through the of America, (T.712-715) as well as ongoing training at home with ’s licensed providers. She described the construction of the playroom in her home and installation of equipment to effectuate the (T.720), including a double door for observation as well as double padding of the floor. She further described the ABA strategies she used with , to focus on expressive . She also noted her use of discrete trial, picture teaching, and incidental teaching. (T.781)

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Parents who unilaterally place their child in a private school can be reimbursed for the tuition is (a) the DOE did not make a valid and timely placement offer, (b) the private placement is appropriate, and (c) equitable considerations favor the parents. A board of education may be required to pay for education services obtained for a child by the child’s parents if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parents were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parent’s claim (School Comm. Of Burlington v. Dept of Ed of Mass 471 US 359, 105 SCt1996, 85 Led2d 385 (1985). The parents are entitled to reimbursement even if the private school is not an approved school of the State. The fact that the services selected by the parents do not consist of a facility approved as a school for children with disabilities by the State Education Department is not dispositive of the parent’s claim for tuition reimbursement or payment of services (Florence County School district Four v. Carter ___US___,114 SCt361 (1993).

The central purpose of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education. 20 USC Sec1400(d)(1)(A) Schaffer v. Weast, 126 (cite)(2005); Board of Education v. Rowley, cite (1982). A free appropriate public education includes special education and related services designed to meet the student’s individual needs, provided in conformity with a written IEP. See 20 USC Sec. 1401(9); 20 USC Sec. 1414(d). A school district offers a student a FAPE when (1) it complies with the procedural requirements of the IDEA and (2) its CSE develop an IEP reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits. (Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson S.C. v. Rowley, 458 US 176, 206-207 (1982). In the present case, the DOE did not meet its burden to provide FAPE. The parents determined the placement to be inappropriate based on the location of the program in a large building housing several schools and s . be in a class comprised entirely of boys. Further, it was unclear if the school would be able to meet the related service mandates of E's IEP without issuing RSA’s for services outside the school.

Regarding the substantive adequacy of the IEP, a school district complies with the IDEA’s substantive requirements if a student’s IEP is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.” Rowley, 458 US at 207. “A school district is not, however, required to furnish every special service necessary to maximize each handicapped child’s potential” Cerra, 427 F3d at 195). A school district fulfills its substantive obligations under the IDEA “if it provides an IEP that is likely to produce progress, not regression and if the IEP affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere trivial advancement.” Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195. In the present case, the IEP developed for at the CSE meeting on March 11, 2010 was created without a social history, nor was s most recent psycho educational evaluation or classroom observation discussed at the meeting, according to the parent. Further, the parent testified that the CSE did not discuss a , , or . Related service goals were developed by the CSE without benefit of consultation with ’s related service providers and without adequate discussion with the parents and participants from the where .

With respect to the DOE’s contention that the parents waived their right to seek reimbursement for the home program when she signed a parentally placed FNR and a letter of intent at the IESP meeting in December 2010, I disagree. The parent made it clear to the CSE that she was seeking tuition reimbursement for the home program, and it was not her intention to waive the right to seek said reimbursement. It is clear that her intention was to seek related services because was in a home based program. However, if the IESP would be considered a valid contract such that the parent waived ’s right to FAPE, the DOE never provided RSAs to the parent and thus failed to perform under that contract, therefore rendering that contract null and void. (See 3 Corbin Sec.580).

I find that the parents have met their burden with respect to the first prong of the Burlington criteria. I find that the DOE failed to provide a FAPE for E for the 2010-11 school year.

With regard to the second criterion for an award of tuition reimbursement, the child’s parent bears the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of the services which the parent obtained for the child. See Application of the Bd. of City School District of the City of New York , Appeal NO. 975-9. The parents of the child are required to demonstrate that the combination of educational services they have obtained address the child’s special education needs. See Application of the Bd of City School District of the City of New York, Appeal No. 95-79; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 96-1. The record reflects that for the 2010-11 school year, was instructed in a one to one setting, with substantial collaboration between her providers and meaningful supervision. The parents of were trained in the developmental model and created a program for E approved by the NYC Department of Education, using licensed providers to meet ’s special education needs.

With respect to the parents’ placement of for July and August of 2010, I find that the appropriately addressed ’s special education needs. The record established that the comprehensively addressed ’s special education needs through an array of services and a team approach. The director of the testified regarding the history, mission, methodology and approach to learning at the school. She described the research-based DIR approach, Floortime session and related and support services. The classroom staffing at the includes a ratio of two students to every one adult, with all teachers having a master’s degree and assistant teachers required to possess a bachelor’s degree at a minimum. The employs a team approach which includes regular . The school provides extensive, ongoing staff training in the school as well as additional support from educational consultants.

’s teacher at the offered credible testimony regarding the composition of the class, and how they were addressed through a balanced literacy approach, and grouping with students with similar needs and abilities.

.

With respect to the home program developed by the parents of for the remainder of the 2010-11 school year, namely, September 2010 through June of 2011, I find that the parents did not sustain their burden of proving the appropriateness of the home-based program.

, the director of the and the ) described a program that is parent directed and home based for people on the . She explained that the focus of the is on social, not academic development and that the program focuses on four areas of social interaction, implemented in five stages that develop students’ skills in those areas with the ultimate goal of enabling them to function in the world. However, Ms. made scant references to studies supporting the reliability and efficacy of the without supporting detail. Further, testified that he spent two hours working with but he did not collect any data on . He is not currently certified in the , nor does he have any special education licensing. Further, I agree with the DOE that the form of payment to Mr. is suspect. The parents presented no bills for Mr. , and the parents testified that Mr. was paid in cash and checks and the cost of his travel was split amongst several families.

The mother of , testified that she could not afford the tuition at the School, and after cooperating with the DOE, investigated its recommended placement and determined it to be inappropriate for After communicating her concerns and rejection of the placement and receiving no response from the DOE offering any further placements, the parents instituted a home program for with DOE approval. The parents attended a week long training session in the , during which time a team of trained worked with individually for eight hours a day. The parents created a special room in their apartment for that was equipped with equipment to address ’s , including a . The licensed therapists credibly testified that they assessed through observation and session notes, and met regularly with the parent regarding ’s progress. I find that the related services provided were appropriate.

The evidence does not support a finding that the home based program was reasonably calculated to provide a meaningful and appropriate . Having considered the testimony and documentary evidence submitted, I find that was and did not meet E’s special education needs. The program was based on a social curriculum designed to address . However, academics were not addressed by the program, and as pointed out by the DOE and the parents, E has a reading ability. The parents provided academic instruction for E, but there was no testimony regarding curriculum, books, and assessments. The mother of testified that she received training in the methodology; however, she did not present any evidence of qualification, training or licensing as a special education teacher.

Although one of ’s goals was navigation of , the was operated in with no access to other children and no evidence that is working outside the home on any community skills. The parents testified that had I find this environment to be overly restrictive and not reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit.

The parent does not prevail on the second prong of the Burlington/Carter criteria for reimbursement for tuition with respect to provision of a home school program. However, the parent prevails on the second prong of the Burlington/Carter criteria for reimbursement for tuition with respect to the for the period July and August, 2010.

With respect to the third criterion for tuition reimbursement, whether equitable considerations for the relief requested support the parents’ claims, parents must show that a weighing of equities supports an award for tuition reimbursement, as “equitable considerations (regarding the reasonableness of the actions taken by the parents) are relevant in fashioning relief. “Frank G 459 F.3d, at 356, citing Burlington 471 US at 374 (1985). The evidence and testimony establish that the parents cooperated fully with the DOE. They demonstrated their willingness to consider a public placement for , attending CSE meetings, visiting the recommended placement on two occasions, and advising the CSE in writing of their rejection of the placement and their reasons for the rejection. Further, they informed the CSE that they would enroll for the summer of 2010, and continued to indicate their willingness to consider appropriate public school placements.

The parents of for July and August of 2010 after visiting the proposed public placement. The contract that the parents signed with the contained a clause allowing the parents to withdraw in the event they accepted a placement from the DOE.

Further, the parents embarked upon a in the fall of 2010 after visiting the recommended placement of the DOE for a second time and giving due notice of their rejection of said program to the DOE. Testimony and evidence establish that the parents developed a after considering the placement and determining it to be inappropriate. The parents gave notice to the DOE but received no response. Moreover, the parents gave the DOE notice of their intent to seek reimbursement for the home program, and they attempted to secure RSA’s for . The DOE did not respond to the parents’ rejection of the recommended placement, nor did the DOE ever provide RSA’s to the parent. The parent submitted the appropriate forms to the DOE seeking approval of a home school program, and the DOE approved the parents’ program without RSA’s. The parents submitted the requisite progress reports to the DOE throughout the . Although I agree with the DOE that the home school program created by the parents was overly restrictive for E, I find that the parents acted in good faith in their dealings with the DOE.

I disagree with the DOE’s position that the parents did not show an intention to consider the public placement. To the contrary, the mother of visited the recommended placement twice and gave due notice of her rejection of the placement and reasons for said rejection. The parents’ contract with the contained an express provision for exiting the in the event that the parent received and accepted an appropriate offer of placement from the DOE.

With respect to related services, parents attempted to with the DOE to obtain related services for . The DOE represented to the parents that it would provide RSA’s, but it never delivered the RSA’s.

The DOE claims that was parentally placed in a home school program, they are entitled to services only and not reimbursement for the program. It is the DOE’s position that the parents are not entitled to reimbursement for the home program and related services. The DOE represented to the parents that RSA’s would not be forthcoming from the DOE unless the parents signed a form which would essentially prevent the parents from seeking tuition reimbursement. The parents credibly testified that the CSE representatives did not fully and adequately explain the “letter of intent” form, and the parents testified that they clearly informed the CSE that they would seek tuition reimbursement for the home program. The parents also requested that the CSE make a notation in the meeting minutes regarding language on the form authorizing RSA’s that made reference to payment at the expense of the parents, notably because the parents had advised the CSE of their intention to seek tuition reimbursement. The parents relied on the representation of the DOE that it would provide RSA’s to the parents, and the DOE never provided any RSA’s. I agree with the parents that any possible agreement to forgo an application for reimbursement at the IESP meeting was rendered null and void by the DOE’s failure to provide RSA’s as agreed. The parents arranged for related service providers privately after the DOE advised them that it would not provide the services.

Accordingly, I find that the equities support the parents’ claim for reimbursement for related services as well as the cost of tuition at the for the period July and August, 2010.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT

1. The New York City Department of Education shall reimburse the parents for the cost of the tuition at the for the period July and August of 2010 in the amount of $15,350.00, subject to appropriate proof of payment;

2. The claim of the parents of . for the cost of the home school program, including the , is denied;

3. The NYC DOE shall reimburse the parents for the cost of occupational therapy provided during the 2010-11 school year at a rate of $125 per hour upon appropriate proof of payment;

4. The NYC DOE shall reimburse the parents for the cost of art therapy provided during the 2010-11 school year at a rate of $85.00 per hour upon appropriate proof of payment. Dated: March 29, 2012 Original Decision Rendered: March 27, 2012

BRENDA FARROW WHITE, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

BFW: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

PARENT DESCRIPTION

A Impartial Hearing Request, dated 2/7/11, 6 pages B Impartial Hearing Request, dated 12/22/10, 6 pages C DOE Office of Home Schooling Intake Form, dated 9/28/10 D Letter dated 9/28/10, 1 page E Letter dated 9/29/10, 3 pages F Letter dated 9/10/10, 3 pages G Letter dated 8/30, 2 pages H Letter dated 6/24/10, 4 pages I 2009/10 DOE Progress Report, 2 pages J January 2011 School Profile, 3 pages K Special Education Service Delivery Report dated 12/18/10, 1 page N IEP dated 6/11/09, 15 pages O Affidavit dated 2/3/11, 1 page P Enrollment Contract and Payment Schedule, dated 5/19/11, 4 pages Q Proof of Payment, 2 pages R Summer 2010 Attendance Record, 1 page S Response to Subpoena, dated 5/5/11, 2 pages T Mission Statement, 1 page U Curriculum, 3 pages V Behavior Management and Discipline Policy, 1 page W Summer 2010 Class Schedule, 1 page X List of Teachers, Therapists, Credentials, 18 pages Z Resume, 1 page AA Resume, 2 pages BB Resume, 2 pages CC Miscellaneous Invoice, 1 page DD Miscellaneous Invoices, 8 pages EE Aaron Deland Outreach Day Invoice, 3/6/11, 1 page FF Proof of Payment, 17 pages

GG Empirical Research Supporting the Summarized Program, 31 pages HH Class Profile, P811M 2nd – 3rd Grade, 7/20/10, 3 pages II NYC DOE Due Process Response, 5/9/11, 4 pages JJ Quarterly Reports, misc. 21 pages KK Resume, , undated, 1 page LL Resume, , undated, 3 pages MM Resume, , undated, 2 pages NN Resume, , MA, undated, 4 pages OO Resume , undated, 2 pages PP Resume, , undated, 4 pages QQ Session Notes, misc, 64 pages RR Quarterly Reports, 6/30/11, 8 pages SS Evaluation, 6/10/11, 8 pages TT Social Development Evaluation, 6/10/11, 8 pages UU Program Goals, June 2011, 2 pages VV 3rd Edition Development Model, undated, 25 pages WW Development Model, undated, 17 pages XX Interdisciplinary Progress Report Update, May 2010, 14 pages YY Invoice , 6/6/11, 1 page ZZ Invoice , 3/6/11, 1 page AAA Invoices, DIR Foortime Consultation Services, misc., 10 pages BBB Cancelled Checks/Proof of Payment, 17 pages CCC Session Notes, misc, 41 pages DDD Goals for , undated, 5 pages EEE , Provider’s Affidavit and Parent’s Affidavit, and Parent’s Sworn Verification of Provider’s Affidavit, Jan 2012, 3 pages

FFF , Provider’s Affidavit and Parent’s Affidavit and

Parent’s Sworn Verification of Provider’s Affidavit, 1/3/12, 3 pages

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

1 Amended Due Process Complaint, dated 4/22/11, 6 pages 2 Amended Due Process Complaint, dated 1/6/11, 4 pages 3 CCP-9 Minutes of CSE Meeting, dated 3/11/10 4 IEP dated 3/11/10, 18 pages 5 Notice of IEP Meeting, dated 2/10/10, 1 page 6 Notice of IEP Meeting, dated 1/19/10, 1 page 7 2010/11 Case Material Checklist, 1 page 8 Notice of Recommended Deferred Placement, dated 3/11/10, 1 page 9 Evaluation, dated 3/17/09, 4 pages 10 Classroom Observation, dated 11/18/09, 2 pages 11 Interdisciplinary Report of Progress, dated 12/9/09, 16 pages 12 12-Month School Year Consent Form, dated 3/11/10, 1 page 13 Final Notice of Recommendation, dated 6/14/10, 1 page 14 CCP-9 Minutes of CSE Meeting, dated 12/17/10, 1 page 15 Temporarily Placed Final Notice of Recommendation, dated 12/17/10, 1 page

16 IESP dated 12/17/10, 15 pages 17 Parental Advice Letter, dated 12/17/10, 2 pages 18 July/August Attendance Sheets, 2 pages

IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER

I Extension Timeline II DOE’s Closing Brief, 3/7/12, 27 pages III Parents’ Memorandum of Law, 3/7/12, 31 pages