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: May 23, 2011

June 14, 2011

July 11, 20111

October 20, 2011

December 2, 2011

December 15, 2011

Actual Record Closed Date: February 13, 2012

Hearing Officer: Timothy M. Mahoney, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED MAY 23, 2011

Name Title For

Esq. Attorney — Student

Parent — Student

Parent — Student

Esq. Attorney — DOE

School Psychologist — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JUNE 14, 2011

Esq. Attorney — Student

Parent — Student

Parent — Student

Esq. Attorney — DOE

Special Education Teacher — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JULY 11, 2011

Esq. Attorney — Student

Parent — Student

Parent — Student

Esq. Attorney — DOE

Teacher — DOE

Teacher — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED OCTOBER 20, 2011

Esq. Attorney — Student

Parent — Student

Parent — Student

Director, — Student

Student

Teacher — Student

Esq. Attorney — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED DECEMBER 2, 2011

Esq. Attorney — Student

Parent — Student

Parent — Student

Supervisor — Student

Supervisor of Psychologists — Student

Esq. Attorney — DOE

Assistant Principal — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED DECEMBER 15, 2011

Esq. Attorney — Student

Parent — Student

Parent — Student

Administrative Coordinator — Student

Educational Coordinator — Student

Therapist — Student

Social Worker — Student

Esq. Attorney — DOE

On March 29, 2011 I was appointed to conduct an impartial hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3), Article 89 of the New York State Education Law and Parts 200 and 201 of the Regulations of the New York State Commissioner of Education, concerning a dispute of a old student seeking an appropriate education placement from the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”).

BACKGROUND

This case was initiated as a result of a demand for due process (“Demand”) filed by the student’s Parent through her attorney(s) The Law Offices of , Esq., and received by the Department of Education Impartial Hearing Office (DOE-IHO) on or about March 25, 2011, and identified as NYC Case No. (Demand, See P-A).

A list of hearing dates and witnesses who offered testimony, in addition to a full list of hearing attendees, precedes this decision. A list of exhibits accepted as part of the record follow the body of the decision. The testimony offered by these witnesses and the information contained in such exhibits were relied upon in formulating the instant decision unless expressly stated otherwise.^[1]

I note that the DOE neglected to place their Memorandum of Law concerning the scope of the hearing into the record, notwithstanding our collective intention that it should be part of the record. (Tr. 182) Inasmuch as the Parents’ memorandum is part of the record (see P-P), I expressly make the DOE’s Interim Memorandum a part of this record as IHO-III.

Both IHO-III and P-P were the parties’ arguments concerning resolution of a preliminary issue – what placement or placements would the school district be required to defend. On or about June 8, 2011, I issued a written decision clarifying the issues to be heard at hearing, expressly to resolve what placement or placements the DOE must defend to meet their Prong I burden. I held that:

For the purpose of the instant hearing, the DOE has the legal burden of defending the placement recommendations it made, as shown by the [final notices of recommendation (FNR)]. For instance in SRO Appeal No. 11-015, the SRO[‘s] concern was whether the DOE had a seat for the student on the first day of school in the “first assigned placement.” (See Appeal No. 11-015, pg. 16) Here, the DOE is merely expected to defend the placement recommendations it made through its own administrative process and evidenced by its issuance of two FNRs.

Regarding the question of whether the DOE may submit testimony and evidence demonstrating the appropriateness of for the period of September 2010 through June 2011, I will not accept such into the record unless a showing is made that the DOE offered , or any other setting, as an alternative placement for such period of time. Such a showing should be offered in the form of a FNR or some other documentation that reflections such a placement offer was made to the student’s parents.

(See IHO-I, pg.2). That interim decision is expressly made a part of the instant Findings of Fact and Decision.

STANDARD

The burden of proof is on the school district during an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement, as ’s parents do here, has the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement. Educ. Law § 4404(1)(c); see M.P.G. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2010 WL 3398256, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2010).

The IDEA directs that my decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”). 20 U.S.C. § 415(f)(3)(i). The "IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”)." Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 (2d Cir. 1998). The statute ensures an "appropriate" education, "not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents." Id., 142 F.3d at 132, quoting Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d 563, 567 (2d Cir. 1989). A school district must provide "an IEP that is 'likely to produce progress, not regression,' and . . . affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere 'trivial advancement'" Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130. The IEP must be "reasonably calculated to provide some 'meaningful' benefit." Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 (2d Cir. 1997). The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (“LRE”). 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.114(a)(2)(i), 300.116(a)(2); 8 NYCRR 200.1(cc), 200.6(a)(1); see Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 (2d Cir. 2007); Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132.

A board of education may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private educational services obtained for a student by his or her 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 parents' claim Florence County Sch. Dist. v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993); Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-70 (1985). In Burlington, the Court found that Congress intended retroactive reimbursement to parents by school officials as an available remedy in a proper case under the IDEA. 471 U.S. at 370-71. "Reimbursement merely requires [a district] to belatedly pay expenses that it should have paid all along and would have borne in the first instance" had it offered the student a FAPE. Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370-71; see 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][ii]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.148.

A private school placement must be "proper under the Act." Carter, 510 U.S. at 12, 15; Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370. This has been interpreted to mean that the private school must have offered an educational program which met the student's special education needs. See Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 112 and 115 (2d Cir. 2007). Parents seeking reimbursement "bear the burden of demonstrating that their private placement was appropriate, even if the IEP was inappropriate" Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; see M.S. v. Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 104 (2d Cir. 2000). Parents need not show that the placement provides every special service necessary to maximize the student's potential. Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d at 364-65. When determining whether the parents' unilateral placement is appropriate, "[u]ltimately, the issue turns on" whether that placement is "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits" Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364.

The Second Circuit has set forth the standard for determining whether parents have carried their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of their unilateral placement.

No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining whether parents' unilateral placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. Grades, test scores, and regular advancement may constitute evidence that a child is receiving educational benefit, but courts assessing the propriety of a unilateral placement consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child's individual needs. To qualify for reimbursement under the IDEA, parents need not show that a private placement furnishes every special service necessary to maximize their child's potential. They need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction.

Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; see Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65.

PRONG I

The Appropriateness of the Committee on Special Education’s (“CSE”) IEP and the DOE’s Recommended Placement The DOE has the burden of demonstrating it offered FAPE to student in the first instance. FAPE starts with an IEP: one that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student's needs (8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]), establishes annual goals related to those needs (8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]), and arranges for the provision of appropriate special education services (8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]). I am constrained by federal and State regulations from finding that a procedural violation rose to the level of a denial of a FAPE unless the procedural inadequacy 1) impeded the student's right to a FAPE, 2) significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE, or 3) caused a deprivation of educational benefits. 20 USC § 1415(f)(3)(ii); 34 CFR § 300.513(a)(2); 8 NYCRR 200.5(j)(4)(ii).

The parents’ demand for due process challenges the May 7, 2010 IEP on a variety of grounds, including “the CSE team was invalidly constituted, did not fully evaluate in all areas of suspected disability, and failed to consider current, sufficient, and appropriate evaluatory and documentary material to justify their recommendations and goals.” (See P-A, pg.1)

I find, as more fully discussed below, that the DOE had insufficient information to formulate an education plan for for its failure to consider and recommend a performance of a functional behavior assessment and development of a behavior improvement plan.

I note that the CSE was properly comprised under the act, and included s current classroom teacher, , and social worker, , both from the (the unilateral placement). (See D-7, pg. 2)

The IEP contains a description of identifying the student has difficulty making transitions and requiring minimal adult supervision outside the classroom, and presents generally with an unregulated state of arousal. (D-7, pg. 3) Her academics are described as . (Id.) Socially, the IEP describes as eager to engage with adults but is easily distracted, requiring redirection, and also has shown a recent (as of the time of the IEP) increase in interacting with her peers. (D-J, pg. 5) spends a large part of her day selfregulating. (Id.)

The Progress Report describes , as of December 2009, as a 6 year 4 month old child attending a class with six other students, two teaching assistants, two paraprofessionals, and one head teacher. (D-4, pg. 1) has difficulty with transitions, but appears to transition between activities with minimal adult support while in school.

Dr. was the District Psychologist present at ’s May 2010 CSE. (Tr. 31) She testified that the goals set forth in the IEP were developed from the Progress report from December 2009. Regarding goals and short term objectives, the IEP contains annual goals and, in some instances, corresponding short-term objectives. After reviewing the offered, each item appears to correspond with the s present levels of performance or the Progress report. (See Tr. 43, 82; D-7 as compared to D-4). However, Dr. a medical assessment. (Tr. 60, 62).

The parents argue that exclusive reliance on teacher assessments is not an acceptable method of determining a student’s current functional levels. (Citing 34 C.F.R. pt. 300, Appx. A) I agree and find such an absence constitutes a procedural violation, and that the CSE should have had more recent information to rely upon in formulating its recommendations for ’s 2010-2011 school year. While I applaud the DOE’s efforts to incorporate the information offered from a student’s unilateral placement, as was done here, the CSE has an independent duty to make its recommendations for the student and not merely rubber stamp the information offered by the unilateral placement.

I turn then to the question of whether this failure denied FAPE. The absence of a social history or medical assessment does not rise to a FAPE violation. I note that the CSE minutes note the parents’ health and medical concerns regarding the student (see D6), and that the IEP reflects the parents’ concerns regarding ’s dietary and health needs, as reflected by the handwritten additions to the document. (See D-7, pg. 7) Thus, I find that the failure of the CSE to consider a social history or a medical assessment does not, absent other factors, rise to the level of a deprivation of FAPE, or a significant impediment to the parents’ ability to participate in the formulation of their daughter’s IEP.

Conversely, the absence of a classroom observation would have been of great benefit to the CSE in this instance. As noted above, the CSE took wholesale the description of from the as well as the IEP’s goals and objectives. While the CSE should certainly accept such input into the IEP formulation process, the progress reports (including recommended goals) were made in the context of the . Such items cannot be seen as proposals for inclusion in the IEP – they serve different functions. District’s Exhibit 4 is a document given to the parent to describe a student’s progress, not a letter of recommendation to a committee on special education. Had the DOE conducted a classroom observation, district personnel would have been in a far better position to interpret the offered Progress report. I find that the failure to conduct a classroom observation constitutes a failure to offer FAPE.

The parents argue that the CSE should have discussed to necessitate conducted a functional behavioral assessment (“FBA”) and develop a (“BIP”). A BIP is defined as "a plan that is based on the results of a and, at a minimum, includes a description of the problem behavior, global and specific hypotheses as to why the and intervention strategies that include and services to address the behavior." 8 NYCRR 200.1(mmm); 8 NYCRR 201.2(a). An FBA is defined as "the process of determining why a student engages in behaviors that impede learning and how the student's behavior relates to the environment." 8 NYCRR 200.1(r).

A careful review of the record reveals demonstrates significant behaviors that interfere with her education. The uncontradicted evidence presented at the hearing was that presents with behaviors that interfere with her education. In fact, the IEP at issue in this hearing identifies as quite significant. (See D-7, pgs. 3-6; D-4) The CSE should have at the very least considered whether to recommend the performance of an FBA, and in light of the fact that was recommended to start a new program – both for her and the school – an FBA was certainly warranted. Moreover, the CSE should have been cognizant of the fact that in recommending attend a less restrictive program than her then-current program, as well as her documented difficulties with transitions, ’s behaviors in a new placement would likely be problematic. In conducting an FBA and developing a BIP, the CSE would have been ensuring the placement could meet its needs. By not even having the discussion at the meeting – and thereby denying s parents the ability to contribute meaningfully on this topic – the CSE failed to meet its duty. I find that the CSE’s failure to recommend an FBA and BIP constitutes a failure to offer FAPE.

The parents argue in their brief that the CSE should have recommended a 1:1 paraprofessional to address . I note that the request for this service was not contained in the parents’ Demand. (See P-1) A party requesting an impartial hearing may not raise issues at the impartial hearing that were not raised in its original due process complaint notice unless the other party agrees. 20 USC § 1415(f)(3)(B); 34 CFR § 300.511(d); 8 NYCRR 200.5(j)(1)(i). An exception to this occurs if the demand is amended prior to the hearing, either on agreement of the parties or per permission given by the impartial hearing officer at least five days prior to the Hearing. 34 CFR § 300.508(d)(3); 8 NYCRR 200.5(i)(7)(b); see Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 11-096. Since neither exception occurred here, I decline to consider this issue.

In light of the above, I find that the IEP does not contain an adequate description of the student’s present levels of performance or her needs due to the DOE’s failure to conduct an FBA or classroom observation. I further find that the CSE’s failure to recommend a BIP denies access to FAPE. I find that the DOE has failed to meet its burden in demonstrating was offered FAPE. In finding that the May 7, 2010 IEP failed to offer FAPE, I decline to address whether the recommended placement could adequately address ’s needs. PRONG II: The Appropriateness of the Parents’ Unilateral Placement

Following a review of the DOE’s IEP and proposed placement, the burden shifts to the parent to show the appropriateness of their unilateral placement.

I find that the parents have met their burden in showing that the Rebecca School is an appropriate placement for during the 2010-2011 school year.

The is a small, structured special education school designed to address the needs of students who have neuro-developmental delays in relating and communicating like . (Tr. 447) The school has a staffing ratio of 1 adult to every two students in order to offer significant opportunities of individual support. (Tr. 456) The implements a methodological approach called “Developmental, Individual Differences, RelationshipBased” (“DIR”, an approach which identifies deficits in a child’s development and tailors a plan to address such deficits through a combination of academics, Floortime sessions, and other related and support services. (Tr. 447-50, 453).

The parents showed that the Rebecca School staff received training throughout the school year, as well as a four-day session at the start of the school year, in the DIR method and other topics relevant to reaching the needs of the school’s population. (Tr. 450-53, 504, 507-08)

had a supervised team work with her, who collaborated with one another, to provide a comprehensive approach addressing s needs. (Tr. 505-06) was in a classroom with eight other students, a head teacher 2 , three teaching assistants, and one health paraprofessional assigned to another student. (Tr. 460-61, 464-65) The students ranged from , and all of the students were presented at a four or five year developmental level. (Tr. 465) The students appeared to be on be same level of as (either ), and had classifications of impairment, or other health impaired. (Tr. 466, 494). All the students struggled with self-regulation and attention. (Tr. 467).

2 Jill Leino was the head teacher for both the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years. (D-4 and 7, Tr. 461, 713)

The record showed that received academic instruction primarily on an individual basis during the 2010-2011 school year, except during periods of generalization. required this level of instruction due to her attentional issues, impulsivity, near inability to maintain regulation over any significant period of time. (Tr. 467-469, 483-84; see also PC and E). had a difficulty engaging in her lessons unless such were embedded with her interests. (Tr. 718-19). The record showed that received and benefitted from floortime sessions. (P-J)

Regarding reading or ELA instruction, worked on pre-reading readiness skills. These included activities such as identifying sight words and responding to simple comprehension questions based books read aloud by one of the adults in the class. (Tr. 702-03) required visual supports to answer reading comprehension questions. (Tr. 469)

For math was on building her visual/spatial skills, including rote counting, identifying numbers, and understanding positional concepts, and time. (Tr. 475-76, 704) received her math instruction in purely a settings in ten minute blocks throughout the day due to her attentional capacity and regulatory abilities. (Tr. 705-06).

The record showed that were appropriately addressed at the .(See P-J) and her in small groups during sack time. The students also received twice-weekly group music instruction in addition to physical education or gym class. (Id., see also Tr. 472-73) testified that could not handle large groups due to her (Tr. 481).

The parents offered evidence that the offered opportunities for students to engage with the community through weekly field-trips out of the school building, such as to the playground, the supermarket, or the museums. The students were almost always accompanied by an adult in a adult-to-student ratio. (Tr. 477-78, 485-86) required support during these instances due to her propensity to become overwhelmed. (Tr. 48687).

received a significant number of related services while at the . I note at the outset that I do not consider the mandates contained in a student’s IEP as controlling on a unilateral placement. For therapy, received 3x30 minutes sessions during the summer and 2x30 and one session in group during the regular school year for the year in question. (Tr. 728-29, 734-35) focused on increasing the length of her spontaneous utterances, using language to support her self-regulation, and following directions (Tr. 733-37). I note that the testimony presented at hearing was therapy while in the due to . (Tr. 734-35)

services to address her which included provision of a , continual access to the even during class time, and the availability of in the classroom. (Tr. 434-35, 701-02) also presented with issues concerning motor planning and with visual spatial processing. (Tr. 416-17) provided with three thirty minute OT sessions weekly from licensed occupational therapists. (Tr. 407-08, 426)

received counseling services in the context of music therapy. (Tr. 532-33) The evidence showed that music therapy also helped stay regulated during her school day and handle transitions. (Tr. 535-36)

In this context, I find that received educational benefit from her unilateral placement. The individuals involved in ’s education all testified that appropriately addressed her needs and that she made progress, as reflected by the 2010-2011 progress reports. (P-C and D). I note that it appears the instruction received at the to reach a point where she was able to transition to a public school environment for the following school year. (Tr. 841-42)

specifically showed an increase in her ability to reciprocate communication with her peers, and showed increase persistence in initiating communication. (P-C, pg. 6) also showed gains in independently self-regulating or seeking out adult assistance to assist her. (Id.) She showed an increasing ability to remain attentive during group activities (P-C, pg.7) number identification (Id. at 8), and to transition between in-school locations – such as to the from the classroom. (Id.) The student has also increased her ability to follow directional cues, improved her engagement with her peers with adult scaffolding, and improved her ability to maintain interaction with her peers in increasing numbers of circles of interaction. (Id. at 9-10) Her ability to spontaneously make expressive utterances has increased, as well as use simple adjectives to modify her requests. (Id. at 11) Overall, demonstrated generalized improvement in increasing her independence and ability to function with her . In comparing her May 2011 progress report to the one available to the DOE for the May 7, 2010 CSE meeting (D-4), the record shows clear improvement over time.

Despite the restrictiveness of the , I find that benefitted from this program. I am persuaded by the testimony in particular of her parents, as well as the extensive progress reports generated by the . I note again that the DOE appeared to be sufficiently satisfied with the progress reports (specifically D-4) to the extent of relying on it wholly in generating ’s 2010-2011 IEP.

Based on the above, I find that the parents met their burden in demonstrating that the provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a , and is supported by such services as are necessary to permit her to benefit from instruction during the 2010-2011 school year. Balancing of the Equities

I decline to reduce or diminish any tuition reward in this matter. I find that the record is barren of any hint that the parents failed to cooperate with the DOE, or denied the DOE access to for testing or other matters. The DOE has argued in its brief that the parents had no intention of placing in a public program after signing a tuition agreement for the for the year in question. I find the father’s testimony persuasive when he states he was prepared to forgo the deposit should the DOE have offered an appropriate placement (Tr. 839), and further am persuaded by the fact that the parents did just did for the subsequent school year. (Tr 840-41)

Now, therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that if the DOE has not already done so, the CSE is to reconvene to consider whether would benefit from the performance of an FBA and creation of a BIP in her present school setting; and it is further

ORDERED that the DOE shall reimburse the parents for the cost of ’s tuition for her attendance at the for the 2010-2011 school year, not to exceed the sum of ninety-two thousand, one hundred dollars and no cents ($92,100.00); and is further

ORDERED that the DOE shall reimburse the parents as directed above within forty-five days of the date of this decision upon submission of all appropriate and necessary documentation. Dated: February 27, 2012

______________________________

TIMOTHY M. MAHONEY, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

TMM: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.

DOCUMENTAION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

STUDENT

A Impartial Hearing Request 3/23/11 5 pgs. B DOE’s Due Process Response 3/30/11 4 pgs. C Interdiscip Report of Progress May 2011 13 pgs. D Interdiscip Report of Progress December 2010 13 pgs. E Letter to 7/30/10 4 pgs. F Affidavit of 5/19/11 2 pgs. G Attendance Report 5/19/2011 1 pg. H Enrollment Contract and Payment Schedule 4/7/2010 4 pgs. I Cancelled Checks (Proof of Payment) misc. 4 pgs. J ’s Class Schedule undated 1 pg. K IEP 6/3/2009 13 pgs. L Progress Report May 2010 14 pgs. M Social History Report 9/24/2010 2 pgs. N Classroom Observation 11/8/2010 3 pgs. O Psychological Evaluation Report 6/22/2010 3 pgs. P Memorandum of Law 6/3/2011 12 pgs. Q NYC DOE Progress Report 2010-11 7 pgs. R Special Education Service Delivery Report 4/30/11 1 pg.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

1 Evaluation 4/5/2009 4 pgs. 2 Evaluation 5/9/2009 4 pgs. 3 Consent for Evaluations misc. 3 pgs. 4 Report December 2009 12 pgs. 5 Case Material Checklist undated 1 pg. 6 DOE CSE minutes 5/7/2010 1 pg. 7 IEP 5/7/2010 1 pg. 8 12-month School Year Consent Form 5/7/2010 1 pg. 9 District Placement Office Referral 5/7/2010 1 pg. 10 Final Notice of Recommendation 6/14/2010 1 pg.

IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER

I Interim Order 6/9/2011 5 pgs. II E-mail to Parties re: 6/27/2011 5 pgs. III DOE Memorandum of Law on Scope 6/3/2011 6 pgs.

Footnotes

[1] For example, I accepted Parent’s Exhibits Q and R into the record on the reasoning the documents contained information that was arguably relevant to the question of the appropriateness of the DOE’s proposed placement. After a review of those documents, I find that the information contained therein is not probative to the question of whether the specific classroom recommended for would have been appropriate. I note that the parents did not rely on the information contained in these documents, nor were they likely available to the parents at the time their 10-day Notice was sent to the DOE (or June 30, 2010, See P-E). While the documents remain in the record for completeness, I do not rely upon them in any way in making my determination.