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: January 13, 2012

February 9, 2012

April 25, 2012

Record Close Date: June 1, 2012

Hearing Officer: Robert L. Nisely. Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

JANUARY 13, 2012

For the Student:

Attorney

parent

parent

For the Department of Education:

Attorney

Psychologist (via telephone)

SETSS Teacher (via telephone)

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

FEBRUARY 9, 2012

For the Student:

Attorney

parent

parent

Specialist

For the Department of Education:

Attorney

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

APRIL 25, 2012

For the Student:

Attorney

parent

parent

For the Department of Education:

Attorney

Parent Coordinator (via telephone)

Social Worker (via telephone)

INTRODUCTION

On October 4, 2011, the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) appointed me to act as the impartial hearing officer (“IHO”) in a case brought under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) [20 USC § 1415(f)(3)] by the parents (Parents) of . (Student). The Parents requested the hearing by filing a due process complaint, dated October 3, 2011, with the DOE (IHO I-1). An amended complaint was subsequently filed with DOE on December 20, 2011 (DOE #1-1). At the hearing both parties were represented by counsel.

BACKGROUND

The Student was born in (DOE #8-1). At all times relevant to this proceeding, he has been classified as (Id). At the hearing, the parties stipulated that his classification is not in dispute (T. at 349). Since 2010, the Student has attended the ( , where he is currently enrolled in the (T. at 269, 284).

Before discussing the positions of the parties, I shall give a brief overview of the Student’s disabilities and the challenges he faces.

In 2010, the Parents referred their son to Pediatric Assessment & Learning Support, located at , for a evaluation. The evaluation was conducted on February 24, March 10, March 20 and March 26, 2010 (DOE #3-1).

After administering the WISC-IV, the two examining found that the Student had a Full-Scale IQ of 105, which placed him in (DOE #3-3). His working Memory Index score , while his Processing Speed was in the , according to the report (Id).

The report’s authors noted that the Student’s were skills, which were in the range (DOE #3-4). “Complex verbal expression continues to be an area of vulnerability,” they pointed out (Id).

After administering the WIAT-III to assess the Student’s academic skills, the concluded that his academic performance was “substantially below his level” (DOE #3-5). In particular, they found that his sight word recognition and phonetic decoding were below the first grade level; that his reading fluency was “marked by severe mispronunciations;” and that his “writing was remarkable for ” (Id).

The also reported that his rote calculation skills were weak, and that he had difficulty with (DOE #3-6).

The acknowledged that their findings were somewhat at odds with the findings of a report prepared in 2009 by a different psychologist (DOE #3-3, 4). This earlier report had found that the Student had “ abilities” and that his academic performance fell in the “ with regard to basic academic achievement” (DOE #3-2).

Also in direct contrast to the 2010 report, the earlier report had concluded that the Student’s (Id).

In the area, the authors of the 2010 report found “no significant themes of , maladjustment” (DOE #3-7). However, they noted that the could “ ” (Id).

At the conclusion of their report, the psychologists diagnosed the Student with of a ” (DOE #3-8). They also recommended that the Student’s teachers use a and that he receive (Id).

In May and June 2011, the private school administered the Stanford 10 test to the Student (Parents G-1). On the reading portion of the test, he scored in the in vocabulary and in the in comprehension (Id).

There results were in marked contrast to September 2010, when his respective scores were in the 16th and 28th percentiles. Likewise, his total performance on the mathematics portion of the Stanford increased from the 25th to the 63rd percentile (Id).

On June 21, 2011, the Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) convened to prepare the Student’s Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) for the 2011-12 school year (DOE #8-1). The Parent attended the meeting in person and a teacher from the private school participated by telephone (DOE #8-2).

The IEP developed at this meeting recommended that the Student be placed in a general education class with Special Education Teacher Support Services. (“SETSS”) The IEP provided that the Student would receive the SETSS instruction for three periods a week either in the classroom or a separate location (DOE #8-9).

The IEP also mandated that the Student receive occupational therapy twice a week for thirty minutes in a setting (DOE #8-11). It further provided for various testing accommodations (Id).

In the “Academic Performance” section of the IEP, the CSE noted that the Student was performing close to grade level in reading and at grade level in mathematics (DOE #8-3). However, it also noted that he needed to improve his The CSE explained that it had rejected placement in a general education class with related services, which was the Student’s prior placement, because it would not address his needs (DOE #8-2, 10). On the other hand, it rejected collaborative team teaching, because it would be too restrictive (DOE #8-10).

On July 21, 2011, DOE issued a Final Notice of Recommendation (FNR), advising the Parents that their son would be placed in a SETSS program at PS 116 in Manhattan for the 2011-12 school year (DOE #10-1). The Parents notified DOE by a letter, dated August 24, 2011, that they were rejecting the proposed placement and intended to place their child at the private school for his third grade year (Parents B-1).

On December 20, 2011, the Parents filed an amended due process complaint with DOE, challenging the IEP on a variety of procedural and substantive grounds (DOE #1-1). As a remedy, the Parents demanded that DOE reimburse them for their son’s tuition expenses at the private school year for the 2011-12 school year (Id).

DOE’S CASE

The DOE’s first witness was , who testified that she is a assigned to CSE #9 (T. at 16-7). She holds a Master’s degree in special education (T. at 16). Ms. identified the participants in the CSE meeting held on June 21, 2011, including herself, a general education teacher from DOE, a special education teacher from DOE, the Parent, who personally attended the meeting, and a teacher from the private school, who participated by telephone (T. at 22). Ms. chaired the meeting and took the minutes (T. at 21).

She testified that the participants discussed the Student’s , which included difficulties in decoding, answering inferential questions and spelling (T. at 34-5). However, Ms. expressed her view that the Student had made “a lot of gains” in reading, writing and mathematics and pointed out that he had scored in the in mathematics on the Stanford test (T. at 26-9). The private school teacher did not dispute these gains, she declared (T. at 31).

When asked why the CSE recommended a general education class with SETSS, she replied that it was “really because the Parent said he [the Student] had a tutor, and [i.e., the private school teacher] said he [the Student] still had ” (T. at 43). Ms. explained that the CSE rejected the private school teacher’s request for a small class, because the Student’s “most recent scores didn’t really indicate any serious academic deficits” (Id). Later in her testimony, she added that the Student’s “deficits do not warrant such a small restrictive setting” (T. at 46).

The general education teacher expressed disagreement with the CSE’s recommendation for totally different reasons from those voiced by the private school teacher, according to Ms. . The general education teacher believed that the Student had no and needed only in addition to his general education program (T. at 24).

On cross-examination, Ms. acknowledged that she had never met, observed or evaluated the Student (T. at 46). When asked whether the CSE had considered a small class, she answered that it had considered and rejected as too restrictive a collaborative team teaching class, (“CTT”) which she described as a small class because the student to teacher ratio is 13:1 (T. at 54-5, 73).

She also acknowledged that the private school teacher told the CSE that the Student was “flourishing” at the private school (T. at 61). And she concurred when asked whether she and the special education teacher were the only two members who agreed with the Committee’s final recommendation (T. at 73).

The DOE’s final witness for its case in chief was , who is the SETSS provider at (T. at 78). She holds a Master’s degree in special education and is also a certified special education teacher (Id).

She testified that SETSS is designed to provide “small group support” to children so they can achieve their academic goals (T. at 79). She described SETSS as being more restrictive than general education, but not as restrictive as CTT (Id).

Ms. testified that: she is the only SETSS provider at ; a typical SETSS period is 45 minutes; SETSS is provided on both a group and individual basis; the groups consist of children working on the same skill; and the groups can range from one to six children, but usually consist of three to four children (T. at 80-3). She currently has 14 SETSS groups and the grade range in those groups at the beginning of the school year was grade, she declared (T. at 84, 88).

Ms. explained that she sometimes pushes into the regular classroom to help her SETSS students and that she collaborates “all the time” with the classroom teacher (T. at 93-4). She also provides curriculum modifications for the general education classes (T. at 109).

Ms. said that she would probably have placed the Student into a Wilson group (i.e. a group that uses the Wilson method to improve reading skills) and a reading comprehension group (T. at 112). Earlier in her testimony she had pointed out that children could be in more than one SETSS group and could transfer from one group to another as their needs dictated over the course of the school year (T. at 84-5).

She further testified that because the Student is a visual learner, she would have used graphic organizers, checklists and color coded sheets to improve his language skills (T. at 104). In addition, Ms. observed that she would have built on his strengths in abstract reasoning to help him with inferential thinking (T. at 103).

Ms. opined that she would have been able to address the and that the SETSS program recommended in the IEP was appropriate for the Student (T. at 101, 119).

On cross-examination, Ms. testified that the SETSS group would have been formed by the third week of the school year (T. at 123-4). She also observed that the school has five third grade classes in the current school year and that each class consists of 22-27 children (T. at 124-5).

She further testified that the IEP was specific enough to allow her to assess the Student’s needs, but acknowledged that she would have administered a WADE test to the Student to determine his decoding strengths (T. at 122, 127).

PARENTS’ CASE

The Parents’ first witness was , who is the director of the for (T. at 158). She is also on the faculty of the and has served as a language consultant to the private school (T. at 161-2).

Dr. holds a doctorate from and is a licensed (T. at 158).

She testified that the school serves children “whose presenting problem is a , and ” (T. at 163). It is a school for children who have and do not have or , she declared (Id).

Dr. pointed out that the private school uses the method to address reading and (T. at 165). She described this method as a “sequential and hierarchical and recursive” system (Id). The private school also uses a to teaching, she added (T. at 166).

Dr. testified that the private school has a total enrollment of 500 students and that the children are grouped “homogenously” for language arts and mathematics and “heterogeneously” for other subjects, such as science and social studies (T. at 121). The language arts classes have 5-10 students and the science and social studies classes up to 12, according to her testimony (T. at 178). For the “most part,” the teachers have Master’s degrees, she noted (T. at 179).

Recounting her observation of the Student in January 2012, Dr. testified that she observed him at the Parents’ request and that the observation lasted for 2¼ hours (T. 182-3). She explained that she observed him both in his “morning meeting,” which she said was intended to facilitate social communication skills, and in two periods of language arts (T. at 181, 186).

Based on her observations, she described the Student as “generally comfortable and a part of the group” (T. at 184). Concerning the language arts class, she stressed that all of the children were “in the same level and situation;” that they received immediate feedback from the teacher; and that nobody was embarrassed by a wrong answer (T. at 192-4).

Relying on her own observations, her conversations with the Student’s teachers and the 2011-12 progress report (Parents K), she testified that the Student was making progress (T. at 205). The Student was decoding and spelling better and was now reading chapter books rather than “formula readers,” she observed (T. at 201, 205).

Dr. opined that the private school offered an appropriate placement, because, among other things, it provided a “small class, direct instruction, time on task, specifically trained teachers, and the homogeneity of the group” (T. at 211-2). She criticized the DOE’s recommended program for not being “effective or efficient for a child with this presentation” (T. at 222).

She questioned the wisdom of pulling the Student out of class for SETSS, because he would then miss instruction in his general education class and would have to “reorient” himself upon return to the class (T. at 223).

On cross-examination, Dr. testified that the Windward Teacher Training Institute and the private school are separate entities, but acknowledged that the Institute is located inside the school (T. at 224, 226). She also allowed that the Parents had asked her to testify before she conducted the observation (T. at 232).

Dr. testified in response to a question from the IHO that her resume (Parents L) incorrectly stated that she was a consultant to the private school, when in fact she had stopped consulting two years ago (T. at 244). She attributed the error to a “typo” (Id).

In response to questions from DOE’s counsel, she said that she had not met the Student’s mathematics teacher and could not recall the scores achieved by the Student on his standardized tests (T. at 237, 241).

At the conclusion of Dr. s testimony, the Parent testified on behalf of herself and her son.

She gave an overview of her , pointing out that he frequently misspelled words, gave inappropriate answers to questions and had difficulty remembering directions. (T. at 270). The Student also has “ ” with or , she added (T. at 274).

The Parent testified that the Student attended and at the British International School in Manhattan (T. at 271-7). However, he encountered problems at both schools, she explained, and so she eventually decided to hire private tutors to help her son with his studies (T. at 277, 283).

The British International School also recommended that her because of his continued , she declared (T. at 279). The results of this testing were discussed earlier in this decision.

For his second grade year, the Parent testified that she transferred the Student to the private school, which he still continues to attend (T. at 284). She reported that the Student was making “much progress” and had “ ” (T. at 285-6). She also noted that his (T. at 285-6). Concerning the June 21 CSE meeting, she described the tone of the meeting as “ ” and “ ” (T. at 292-3). She testified that she “ ” to the final recommendation, which she felt was contrary to the results of the evaluation (T. at 297).

The Parent testified that she had “tried very hard” to visit , but was rebuffed (T. at 302). During the hearing, she played on her cell phone a voice mail from a DOE employee, later identified as , in which Mr. informed her that she could not view a SETSS group, because it is not “an all-day classroom program” (T. at 305, 329). Note: the tape was played twice at the hearing, because of audio problems with the first playback.

The Parent also quoted another DOE employee, later identified as as telling her that “ was not equipped to handle a ” (T. at 302).

On cross-examination, the Parent testified that the alleged conversation with occurred during the prior school year (T. at 309). She also acknowledged that, as of July 1, 2011, she was obligated to pay the full tuition for the 2011-12 school year at the private school (T. at 314).

DOE’S REBUTTAL CASE

On rebuttal, testified by telephone that she is the parent coordinator for and denied ever telling the Parent that was not equipped to (T. at 332-4). also testified by telephone that he is a social worker at (T. at 342). Mr. declared that in a telephone call with the Parent following the voice message, he explained to her that SETSS is “not a particular class to go visit,” because of the way it operates (T. at 345). He also pointed out that the school only provides group tours, not individual tours (T. at 346).

This is a tuition reimbursement case and is, therefore, governed by the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in Burlington School Comm. v. Dept of Education (471 U.S. 359 [1985]). That case sets forth a three-prong test for deciding questions of tuition reimbursement, under which reimbursement is warranted if (1) the services offered by the school district were inadequate or inappropriate; (2) the services selected by the parents were appropriate; and (3) equitable considerations support the parents’ claim. Recently enacted state legislation puts the burden of proof for the first prong on school district and for the second prong on the parent (Chap. 583 of Laws of 2007).

To determine whether the DOE has provided a fair and adequate public education (“FAPE”) under the first prong, it is necessary to examine the Court’s earlier decision in Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) [hereinafter Rowley]. In Rowley the Court said that, in cases brought under IDEA, the courts (and by implication the IHO) must ask themselves whether “the individualized program developed through the Act’s [i.e., the IDEA’s] procedures [is] reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.” The Court in Rowley also observed that states are not required under IDEA to maximize every disabled child’s potential (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 198). The Court also warned that the review of CSE decisions “is by no means an invitation to the courts to substitute their own notions of sound educational policy for those of the school authorities which they review.” (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206).

To the same effect are decisions of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. For example, in D.F. Ex. Rel. N.F. v. Ramapo Cent. School Dist., 430 F.3d 595 (2nd Cir. 2005), the Court held that, for an IEP to meet the Rowley test, “it must be likely to produce progress, not regression” and must provide for “more than trivial advancement.” (430 F.3d at 598) [internal citations and quotation marks omitted]. In an earlier case, the Court observed that IDEA is not intended to “secure the best education money can buy” or “guarantee any particular level of education.” [(Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 1998)] (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

After reviewing the testimony and evidence in this case, I find that the DOE has met the burden of proof under the first prong and that the 2011-12 IEP (DOE #8) provides FAPE for the Student. In my opinion, the IEP meets the Rowley standard, because it is reasonably calculated to enable the Student to receive an educational benefit.

The DOE’s proposed program represents a thoughtful and balanced approach to the Student’s learning problems, since it will allow him to receive intensive instruction from a certified special education teacher, in a small group setting, for three periods a week, in those areas where he needs , while affording him opportunities to associate with mainstream children in his general education class. Thus, the program fulfills the IDEA’s twin goals of “providing an education suited to a student’s particular needs and its goal of educating that student with his non-disabled peers as much as circumstances allow” (P.v. Newington Bd., 546 F. 3d 111, 119) (2d. Cir. 2008).

I concur with the opinion of Ms. , who holds a Master’s degree in school psychology, that the Student’s deficits are not serious and do not warrant the high level of intervention advocated by the Parents (T. at 16, 43, 46).

Ms. credibly testified that the student had scored in range in reading and mathematics on the Stanford test administered in May 2011 (T. at 26-9; Parents G). Even the Parents’ expert witness, Dr. , testified that the Student was performing at a second to level in the language arts classes that she observed (T. at 233-5). She also described the Student as an “adequate” decoder (T. at 242-3).

Thus, the record in this case hardly presents a portrait of a child on the brink of academic disaster.

Ms. , who has been a SETSS provider at for 10 years and whom I found to be a credible and knowledgeable witness, testified at length about how SETSS instruction is provided at . She explained that a typical SETSS period is 45 minutes; SETSS is provided on both a group and individual basis; the groups consist of children working on the same skill; and the groups can range from one to six children, but usually consist of only three to four (T. at 80-3).

Ms. , who is also a certified special education teacher, went beyond generalities to explain specifically how she would have addressed the Student’s needs, by, for example, placing him in a Wilson group and using a multisensory approach to teach reading (T. at 78, 102, 112 and 139). I found her opinion that she could adequately address the Student’s needs in the SETSS program to be persuasive and amply supported by her detailed testimony (T. at 101).

Even though the evidence in this case shows that the Student does not have any social and emotional needs, Ms. also detailed how she could address the Student’s sensitivity to noise in the general education class by providing special seating arrangements for him or providing him with a study carrel (T. at 110; DOE #3-7).

To counter the DOE’s case, the Parents rely heavily on the 2010 psychoeducational evaluation and Dr. ’s testimony. However, both the evaluation and suffer form serious flaws.

The 2010 evaluation only provides a snapshot of the Student as he presented himself in March 2010. The results of the Stanford test, which was administered approximately a month before the CSE meeting, show the Student performing at a much higher academic level than he performed in 2010 (Parents G).

However, there is an even more fundamental problem with the evaluation, since it does not answer the critical question posed under Rowley – i.e., is the IEP reasonably calculated to provide the Student with an educational benefit? Although the psychologists recommended a small class in a small therapeutic school, this recommendation does not necessarily rule out the possibility that the Student could have made non-trivial progress in a less restrictive program, such as the one developed by the CSE.

Once again, the issue under Rowley and its progeny is not whether the Student will make maximum progress in the public school program, or whether the private school is a “better” school than the public school, but whether the IEP will provide the Student with an opportunity for non-trivial advancement (D.F. Ex. Re. N.F. v. Ramapo Cent. School Dist., 430 F.3d 595, 598) (2nd Cir. 2005).

Dr. ’s testimony suffers from a similar flaw. Although she opined that the Student would not “make sufficient progress for his abilities” in a general education class with SETSS, the test under Rowley is not whether the progress is “sufficient,” but whether it is non-trivial (T. at 266).

Moreover, her testimony shows that she had a sketchy knowledge of how the SETSS program functions. For example, she testified that SETSS classes are not homogenously grouped (T. at 263). However, this assertion is contradicted by Ms. ’s credible testimony that she groups children together who are working on the same skill and are at the same instructional level (T. at 82).

Dr. also testified that placement in a SETSS groups would be appropriate only if the SETSS teacher “coordinated with the classroom teacher” (T. at 265). However, in making this comment, the witness did not seem to be aware that the IEP specifically mandated that the special education teacher consult with the general education teacher (DOE #8-9). The comment also shows that she was unaware of Ms. ’s detailed testimony about how she works within the general education class to make curriculum modifications (T. at 92, 109-11).

Therefore, I find that Dr. ’s lack of familiarity with the SETSS program undermines the validity of her opinion about its inappropriateness for the Student.

I shall now address various issues raised by the Parents in their due process complaint and at the hearing.

(1) In his closing statement, the Parents’ counsel alleged that the CSE lacked “requisite members” (T. at 353). However, the Parents never identified the missing member or members and my own review of the attendance sheet in the IEP shows that the CSE was properly constituted (DOE #8-2).

(2) The Parents allege that the CSE was dismissive of the Parents’ views and that the results of the meeting were predetermined (DOE #1-1;

T. at 292). However, the Parent’s own testimony shows that she was afforded an opportunity to present her views (T. at 297). Furthermore, the CSE did not totally reject the opinions of the Parents and the private school teacher, but in response to their views, actually increased the level of intervention from general education with related services, which was the prior year’s recommendations, to general education with SETSS and related services (DOE #8-2;

T. at 43).

(3) The Parents allege that the IEP goals are generic and vague (DOE #1-2). However, I have reviewed the goals in the IEP and find that they provide specific and quantifiable metrics by which to evaluate the Student’s future progress (DOE #8-7,8). Moreover, there is no evidence in the record that the Parents or the private school teacher voiced any objection to the goals at the meeting.

(4) The Parents complain that the IEP did not provide a staffing ratio for the SETSS class (T. at 351). However, Ms. credibly testified that the maximum number of children in a SETSS group for the current school year is six (T. at 83). This is largely consistent with the testimony of Dr. , who described SETSS a “smaller group setting” with “up to” eight children (T. at 262).

Since the parties do not have a serious disagreement about the size of a SETSS class, I find that the omission of a staffing ratio was at in the IEP.

(5) The Parents allege that the IEP does not address the Student’s management needs (DOE #1-2). However, as mentioned above, the 2010 psychoeducational evaluation found that the Student did not have any problems (DOE #3-7).

(6) The Parents allege that the IEP does not list academic levels for listening comprehension and writing. However, the 2010 evaluation does not identify listening comprehension as a problem area. As for the writing level, Dr. herself testified that the Student was at grade level in writing (T. at 233).

Therefore, it is difficult to see how the omission of these levels would have adversely affected DOE’s ability to implement the IEP.

(7) The Parents complain that they were not allowed to visit and view a SETSS group (DOE #1-4). However, even if the Parents’ version of events is fully credited, it does not provide grounds for nullifying the IEP. The SRO has ruled that, although school districts should try to cooperate with parents who wish to observe a special education class, they are not legally required to grant such a request. (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-013)

Therefore, for all reasons discussed above, I find that the DOE has met its burden of proof under prong 1 of the Burlington test. Therefore, it is not necessary to address prongs 2 and 3.

ORDER

The Parents’ request for tuition reimbursement for the 2011-12 school year is denied and their due process complaint is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice.

Dated: June 6, 2012

ROBERT L. NISELY, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

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

“The notice of intention to seek review shall be served upon the school district not less than 10 days before service of a copy of the petition for review upon such school district, and within 25 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. The petition for review shall be served upon the school district within 35 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. If the decision has been served by mail upon petitioner, the date of mailing and the four days subsequent thereto shall be excluded in computing the 25- or 35-day period.” (8NYCRR279.2[b]) Failure to file the notice of intention to seek review is a waiver of the right to appeal this decision.

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

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON JANUARY 13, 2012

PARENT

A Parent Letters to DOE, 7/22/11 & 9/8/11, 4 pages

B Notice of Unilateral Placement, 8/24/11, 2 pages

C Student Schedule, Undated, 1 page

D Progress Report, 2011-2012, 14 pages

E Tuition Affidavit, 11/8/11, 1 page

F Contract, 2/17/11, 2 pages

G Standardized Testing Scores, 5/6/10 - 6/1/11, 2 pages

H Parent's Emails, 8/1/2011 - 8/23/11, 5 pages

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

1 Amended Due Process Complaint, 12/20/11, 5 pages

2 Notice of IEP Meeting, 6/9/11, 1 page

3 Evaluation, 3/26/10, 13 pages

4 Social History Report, 3/31/09, 4 pages

5 Classroom Observation, 2/11/10, 2 pages

6 School Progress Report, 2010-2011, 17 pages

7 Therapy Evaluation, 6/2/09, 5 pages

8 IEP, 6/21/11, 11 pages

9 Minutes from IEP Meeting, 6/21/11, 4 pages

10 Final Notice of Recommendation, 7/21/11, 1 page

11 Due Process Response, 1/12/12, 4 pages

IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER

I Notice of Appointment, 10/4/11, 2 pages

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON APRIL 25, 2012

PARENT

I Withdrawn

J Withdrawn

K Report of School Observation, 1/12/12, 7 pages

L CV, Undated, 3 pages

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

None