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: April 16, 2012

April 27, 2012

May 16, 2012

June 6, 2012

June 13, 2012

Actual Record Closed Date: June 21, 2012

Hearing Officer: Diane Cohen, Esq.

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

Attorney for Parents

Father

District Representative

School — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL 27, 2012

Attorney for Parents

Father

District Representative

Unit Coordinator — DOE

Parents

Clinical Director and — Parents

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

Attorney for Parents

Father

District Representative

Classroom teacher — Parents

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 6, 2012

Attorney for Parents

Father District Representative — Parents

Principal, Director & Founder — Parents

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 13 2012

Attorney for Parents

District Representative

BACKGROUND

On December 15, 2011, I was appointed hearing officer pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(1), in this matter. The Parents requested a hearing on December 14, 2011, with respect to the 20112012 school year. In their hearing request, they asserted that the New York City Department of Education (the “DOE”) had failed to offer the Student a free appropriate Public Education (a “FAPE”), that the Parents had unilaterally placed the Student at Ezra HaTzvy Academy (“ ”) and are requesting reimbursement of the tuition at .

EVIDENCE

The parties each submitted an individualized education program (and “IEP”), dated May 12, 2011, as evidence (Exh. B, 1). The IEP indicated that the Student was classified as having and that the IEP team recommended a specialized class in a specialized school; related services of ( ) in a group of ( ) ( ) and ( ) in a group of and a paraprofessional (Exh. B, p. 1, 18).

The IEP indicated that, according to teacher estimates, the Student was at a level; had significant delays in and ; and and , due in part to and . He also engaged in and in a trial setting (Exh. B, p. 3)

Included on the IEP are goals relating to improving skills, increasing and skills, skills, skills, developing a of self by and ; to task, and ; of skills; appropriately; skills, skills and skills; and with the assistance of a paraprofessional. The IEP also includes a behavior intervention plan to improve , to from an adult when , to focus on an for at least minutes with some supports, and to indicate to the the (Exh. B, p. 19).

The Parents submitted a letter, dated June 14, 2011, advising the CSE that they were placing the Student at and intending to seek tuition reimbursement. They stated that they were making the unilateral placement because the Student’s “ , and can best be addressed” within the classroom. (Exh. D). The Parents submitted a letter, written by the Father, dated August 5, 2011, which indicated that the Parents were rejecting the recommended placement because the Father felt that the Student “requires a full time special education school with small classrooms in a small school setting”. He felt “first and foremost” that the subjects in the class were than what the Student . He also felt that the Student has and was . He felt that in the recommended environment he would get “ ”. (Exh. C, p. 1)

The DOE submitted a Psycho-educational Evaluation (the “Psycho-educational Evaluation”), dated February 23, 2010, as an exhibit. The Psycho-education Evaluation indicated that the Student’s overall intellectual functioning was within the . Academic and language skills were within the . Adaptive functioning was within the . Based on the “ ”, the Student was classified as having . Results of assessment indicate that the Student can be classified as having . His significantly his , , with , and in . Significant require . He requires a structured setting, , and positive reinforcement to enable him to progress in academic, and adaptive spheres. (Exh. 8, p. 4).

The Evaluator stated that “[a]lthough repeated attempts were made to motivate [the Student] to complete the testing, he would not do so. On several occasions, [he] tried to run away. It should be noted that the teacher and paraprofessional said that [he] has , but probably would have been more apt to participate had the testing been conducted by a familiar person” (Exh. 8, p. 2)

The parties submitted teacher and provider logs and reports from May 2011 (Exh. 5, 6 and 7) and from the 2011-2012 school year (Exh. H, I, J, K).

APPLICABLE STANDARDS

A board of education may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private educational services obtained for a student with a disability 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. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993); Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-70 (1985)).

The burden of proof is on the school district during an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement 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)).

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

The Parents requested a hearing in this case, and asserted a variety of reasons why they believe that the placement offered by the DOE was inappropriate.

They assert that the proposed IEP is not on the proper New York State forms. In addition, they assert that the DOE failed to provide the Parents with proper Prior Written Notice. Ms. testified that the new IEP forms were not required to be used until July

(2011) (T. 68 - 69). Moreover, the Parents do not allege any substantive impact that a failure to use a particular form would have on the Student’s education or the ability of the Parents to participate. Without any specific affect on the provision of FAPE, I cannot find that the use of the wrong form, even if required, would be a per se denial of FAPE. There is no evidence that the DOE failed to provide Prior Written Notice or that any such failure impacted the ability of the Parents to participate in their child’s education or the provision of FAPE.

The Parents also assert that the recommended program is an improper program given the Student’s classification and the extent of his individual needs. I note that although the Student is classified as “ ”, he has been diagnosed with . There was no evidence offered by the Parents that the Student’s ( ) (See Exh 1, p. 6 and Exh. 4) cause the Student to have additional needs which cannot be met in the class or which are not addressed on the IEP. The Psycho-educational Evaluation, dated February 23, 2010 indicates that the (“ ”) is characterized by the in ; and that he has associated with including , , and a range of effects on and . He requires the services of a paraprofessional as he can have which may cause him to . He is also allergic to and requires close supervision as he does not have (Exh. 8, p. 1). Although the Student’s difficulties may have their root in , the IEP team can address the Student’s difficulties by focusing on the Student’s specific needs in the academic, social/emotional, and behavioral realms, as well as with the provision of related services. The Committee on Special Education (the “CSE”) recommended a paraprofessional to address the associated with his .

, the Clinical Director at and the Student’s , testified that the Student’s needs include with his , the fact that he needs , that he is , that he exhibits , and an need to find and in his . He also described that seem to exhibit a seeking of ...” (T. 218)

The Student’s teacher testified that the Student’s greatest are related to . He can get by a variety of and it is to him once he . He also has for (T. 296-297). She also noted that he likes to and

(T. 298)

I note that the IEP provides a goal related to attention (Exh. B, p. 11). In addition, the speech goal related to skills includes a short term objective relating to attending to task (Exh. B, p. 7). The Behavior Intervention Plan includes strategies to address his . It describes behaviors which include various , and in and , among others (Exh. B, p. 19)

The Parents further argue that the IEP team members lacked sufficient familiarity with the program being recommended. There is no evidence that this is the case. Ms. testified that she is familiar with the program recommended by the CSE (T. 39) and has visited some of the programs (T. 40). She further testified that she thought she had visited approximately two such classes in the prior year (T. 55).

The Parents further assert that the IEP Team members did not participate in the selection of a school program but passed that responsibility to a placement officer. I note, however, that it is not the responsibility of the CSE to find the actual placement site, but simply to recommend an appropriate program. The DOE is then required to find a site in which it can provide such a program. The DOE carried out that duty through its placement officer. (See Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 12-026).

The Parents further argue that the DOE failed to include an individual to interpret the instructional implications of the Student’s evaluation results. I note that the IEP indicates that a district representative, a school and a special education teacher signed the sign in sheet (in addition to other members of the IEP team; See Exh. B, p. 2). Ms. testified that , the District Representative at the CSE meeting, would have been able to interpret the instructional implications of the Student’s evaluations (T. 66).

The Parents assert that the information on the IEP regarding the Student’s present levels of functioning are insufficient to describe the Student’s strengths, weaknesses and special education needs. They also assert that the Management needs are insufficient, that the IEP does not indicate a complete list of his then-present levels of behavioral supports, and that the goals and objectives are insufficient. In addition, they assert that the CSE did not have a clear sense of the Student’s needs. A review of the IEP indicates, however, that it describes the Student in abundant detail, provides a variety of specific and appropriate goals, and includes a behavior intervention plan. The Student’s performance is explained and social emotional goals are included on the IEP and in the behavior intervention plan (the “BIP”). The BIP describes the behaviors including , , that he gets and his . It describes strategies and supports to be used to try to change the behavior. The evidence indicates that the CSE relied on the information provided by the Student’s teachers and providers from (T. 23).

The Parents assert that the DOE failed to pro y asses the Student and instead relied on teacher estimates for his skills. There is no evidence, however, that the present levels are incorrect or that the goals are based on incorrect levels. The teachers from the school that the Student attends made these estimates and since the Parents are arguing that that the unilateral placement is appropriate, it would be inconsistent to assert that the grade levels provided by those teachers are incorrect.

The Parents assert that no was offered from the current program to the recommended program. There was no evidence offered, however, that the Student would require a plan.

The Parents assert that the DOE failed to consider the full continuum of programming and services that might be appropriate. There is no evidence to support this. The CSE considered the programs on the continuum of services. If they had considered that the Student required a program not specifically listed on the continuum, they could have either recommended additional services in the class (they did add a health paraprofessional) or a non-public school placement. The fact that they did not do so, does not mean that they did not consider those possibilities or that the recommended placement was inappropriate.

The Parents also assert that the DOE did not meaningfully consider the requests of the Parents and the from and failed to indicate their reasons for rejecting such requests. They also assert that they failed to treat the Mother and as full and equal team members. Ms. testified that she attended the CSE meeting and that at the meeting she reported that he needs a very individualized setting; that he needs more of a . He does “ ” in a learning situation (T. 170). She testified, however, that she did not recall the response that was given (T. 171).

The Parents assert that the IEP fails to offer the Student sufficient services, including related services. The IEP provides for sessions per week of and sessions per week of ; of such sessions and are There is no evidence that this is inadequate. , one of the Student’s providers at testified that she provides the Student with per week minutes primarily in a group of , but sometimes as a push-in with the entire class (T. 144). She further testified that the other provides him with services time per week for minutes, also primarily (T. 144-145). The Progress Report, dated May 11, 2011, indicates that Ms. recommended that continue time per week individually (Exh. 6, p. 2). Mr. testified that he works with the Student times per week for minutes each session, ; and that works with him for a total of additional sessions (T. 219). One of those sessions is . (T. 224-225). Aside from the , the frequency and duration of the related services provided by are very similar. There is insufficient evidence that the Student requires to receive a FAPE. There is no evidence that the related services recommended by the DOE are inadequate or inappropriate.

The Parents assert that the IEP fails to offer the Parents any individualized parent counseling and training, despite their need for these services. Regulations of the Commissioner of Education in New York provide that the CSE must recommend an appropriate special education program and related services. 8NYCRR §200.4(d). Such services must be designed to address the unique needs of the Student. Included among such related services are parent counseling and training. 8NYCRR §200.1(qq) and 8NYCRR §200.1(ww). Parent counseling and training means “assisting parents in understanding the special needs of their child; providing parents with information about child development; and helping parents to acquire the necessary skills that will allow them to support the implementation of their child's individualized education program” 8NYCRR §200.1(kk). Parent training and counseling is specifically required for children with 8NYCRR §200.13. The fact that the Student is classified as does not negate that requirement, since the Student is also as having .

The testimony indicates that parent counseling is offered by the school; the parent coordinator arranges training, sends out flyers to the school and they send them home to the parents (T. 108). However, there is no evidence that this type of parent training would be sufficient for the Parents, whose child may have needs that may be outside the mainstream. Moreover, there is no evidence of the availability of parent counseling.

The Parents also assert that the recommended class would not have provided the Student with the level of individualized support and instruction that he requires. In addition, they assert that the IEP fails to offer sufficient supports, including behavioral supports. Finally, The Parents assert that the DOE failed to conduct a functional behavioral assessment.

The testimony from the Student’s current provider and the director of indicate that the Student requires a significant amount of instruction, and that he would have in a group context. , the Student’s testified that she reported to the CSE that the Student needs a very individualized setting; that he needs more of a ; that he does best in learning situation (T. 170). She testified that “I don’t know” if a would meet his needs, “I can’t see him learning in a group setting. He’s not ready for that yet”. (T. 171). She testified on cross examination: “I said that he would have a learning in a setting. I can’t see it. I didn’t’ say he can’t. I think he – I – the way I see him and the way we operate, I just – he needs a – he definitely needs a in order to learn.” (T. 193). She testified that she has never visited a DOE class (T. 195). She testified that “when the other children are around, he’ll tend to . He needs . of instruction. I’ve seen him in group situations. You need to be , him, and he does need that.” (T. 194)

, the Principal/Director of testified that the children in the class are . If one would try to do a group lesson “ . He would be . He doesn’t yet...” (T. 437-438).

The DOE did not offer evidence to contradict that. According to the testimony of the DOE’s school , the class offered would have provided instruction “if the student is recommended...an individual paraprofessional...” (T. 25). I note that the Student’s IEP recommends a Paraprofessional. There is no evidence that a paraprofessional has the skills or training to provide one to one instruction to the Student. Nor is it sufficient to say that if other children in the class are provided paraprofessionals, that there will be enough adults in the class to offer one to one services. There is no guarantee that the other children in the class will have paraprofessionals. The mandated services must be included on the IEP or built into the program. The nature of the services must be such that they are reasonably calculated to provide educational benefits.

Given the severe delays described by the Psycho-Educational Evaluation and the challenges described by the teacher and providers, I find that the DOE has not met its burden of proof that the recommendation is appropriate. The DOE did not meet its burden of proof that the recommended placement would have afforded the Student an adequate amount of appropriate one to one services to address his academic and social/emotional needs or that the Parents would have been provided appropriate parent counseling and training. There is no evidence that the DOE has performed a functional behavioral assessment (See T. 29). It is not clear that the Student’s behavior is understood or that the BIP would have been sufficient or appropriate without conducting a functional behavioral assessment.

Having found that the DOE did not meet its burden that it offered the Student a FAPE, I will now turn to the unilateral placement.

The program at provides periods of per week, periods of per week, a full time paraprofessional, time per week and behavioral academic instruction hours per week. The total of the related services and the behavioral academic instruction is hours per week. The Director of testified that the behavioral instructor might sometimes provide instruction at the same time as a related service provider. Even with this overlap, there appears to be little time for classroom instruction or individual time with the teacher. The testimony also indicated that the classroom teacher was responsible for classes and only spends afternoons in the Student’s class (plus some additional time when she can get away from the other class). There was testimony that there was an assistant teacher or a consultant teacher in the class when the classroom teacher was not attending. (T. 352) The testimony also indicated that nearly all instruction was other than circle time. The Student’s schedule indicates that there is circle time for up to hour per day days per week and hour per day days per week, for a total of hours of group instruction per week. There was testimony that the Student has the opportunity for peer play daily (T. 147).

The classroom teacher testified that the Student has this year in on and about the (T. 306). She further testified that he has made in his (T. 307). In he has in (T. 310). His has (T. 314). He has in his , in his (T. 320).

The classroom teacher testified that she has a B.A. in psychology and is working on her M.A. in special education, early childhood education and childhood education in both general and special education (T. 277). She testified that she has worked with children with severe and multiple disabilities for more than ten years (T. 281). Her experience was first as a volunteer and later as a paraprofessional at Imagine Academy, working on ABA and Floor time-based activities as directed by instructors (T. 282). She worked at (“ ”; T. 282). She received some training at and provided by s and teachers in how to help students with disabilities and to address their behaviors. (T. 282-283). She testified that she bases much of what she does in the class on ABA methodology (T. 283). The speech provider testified that the classroom teacher sets the academics and demonstrates to the paraprofessionals how to “organize it” with the child and how to “go through it” with the child (T. 201). She testified that the paraprofessionals have a diploma and that they are trained at the school (T. 200).

I find that the Parents did not meet their burden of proof that the unilateral placement is appropriate. The Student is attending a class in a in which he is working nearly all the time, and at times, he is working with adults. While the testimony is that the Student requires a good deal of instruction, there is no evidence that the Student cannot gain benefits from classroom or group learning. The classroom teacher does not have a degree in special education or general education and is not licensed in those areas. She divides her time between the Student’s class and another class. , the Student’s classroom teacher at , testified that she teaches two classes: is in the Student’s class in the afternoons and in a different class in the mornings

(T. 335). She did not testify as being fully trained in ABA or in Floor time, yet she testified that she is using these techniques and instructing the paraprofessional to use them with the Student.

There is no evidence that the teachers or providers understand why the Student engages in the that his or relates to the environment (See, e.g. T. 246247, 374), or that a functional behavioral assessment has been done (T. 334). There is no evidence that they have developed a consistent plan to address the behaviors, or that any such plan has been developed by personnel trained and skilled in the development of any such plan or provided by providers trained and skilled in the provision of any such plan. The evidence suggests a plan or plans that could create confusion and impede progress in the Student by having conflicting and changing approaches. Ms. testified that his behavioral plan “is continuously changing, depending on the needs of [the Student] in whichever area that he’s working...[He] is not a type of child that has one plan. I believe that different plans are used throughout the day. When he’s doing academics, when he’s in an session, when he’s in a session, when he’s going to recess, when he’s in lunch, when he’s doing peer play, because of his impulsivity and his behaviors, basically it would depend on who is with him at the time.” (T. 404).

Ms. testified that he has a strict behavioral plan, but it is not clear how it was developed, how it is being implemented, or whether it is appropriate (T. 374, 404; see also 227). Nor is it clear how any such strict behavioral plan would coordinate with the DIR or Floor Time approach or the approach of the related service providers. Mr. testified that the behavioral goals were not met (T. 260). In sum, the evidence does not show more than minimal progress in the Student’s . The classroom teacher testified that the Student is by and “ ” on them. (T. 296). She testified that they have tried different methodologies to “attempt to find” what would work best for him. She did not offer any testimony that indicated that they had a strategy to avoid having him perseverate on , but only that they use the he craves as “a ” on his boards (T. 297-298) or that they will have him use such items in an and activity, or that they will him (T. 298). The teacher testified that in order to keep him in his seat longer, they use a or minute timer and allow him to run around for seconds after the timer goes off (T. 298-299). She testified that she uses a because “people in general” need to learn delayed gratification (T. 300).

The amount of progress made by the Student in academics appears to be minimal as well. Moreover, the teacher’s testimony is somewhat inconsistent. She testified that “he’s between kind of the and ” and that on days when he is able to and better he is more on the (T. 304). However, she did not indicate any abilities that would appear to place the Student at that level. The IEP developed by the CSE includes a goal relating to (Exh. 1, p. 13). Ms. testified that the goals were discussed at the IEP meeting (T. 35). There is no evidence that the staff from disagreed with them, and the teacher testified that she follows these goals (T. 334). She did not point to any progress in the goal including , like in , recognizing the , , , , or . She testified only that he had “ ” and that he could (T. 305 - 306). Ms. testified that his was his , but did not point to any specific (T. 376; 449). The Father testified that he is working on how to “ ” (T. 458). I note that the Educational Progress Report, dated May 9, 2011, indicated that the Student was then – one year ago—able to to “ to a and ” and was working on in sequence (Exh. 5, p. 2).

The Parents also did not meet their burden of proof that the amount of the Student is receiving is necessary. They do not point to any strategies that are being used in this individual time that are helping the Student progress or that necessitate this amount of individual attention. Nor is it clear that this level of restrictiveness is appropriate to meet his social/emotional needs since it is not clear what his .

For all the reasons set forth above, there is therefore insufficient evidence that the program being offered at is designed to meet the Student’s needs. I therefore find that the Parents did not meet their burden of proof that the unilateral placement is appropriate.

I will now address the equitable factors in this case. The IDEA allows that reimbursement may be reduced or denied if parents do not provide notice of the unilateral placement either at the most recent CSE meeting prior to removing the student from public school, or by written notice ten business days before such removal, "that they were rejecting the placement proposed by the public agency to provide a [FAPE] to their child, including stating their concerns and their intent to enroll their child in a private school at public expense" (20 U.S.C §412(a)(10)(C)(iii)(I); see 34 C.F.R. § 300.148(d)(1)). This statutory provision "serves the important purpose of giving the school system an opportunity, before the child is removed, to assemble a team, evaluate the child, devise an appropriate plan, and determine whether a [FAPE] can be provided in the public schools" (Greenland Sch. Dist. v. Amy N., 358 F.3d 150, 160 (1st Cir. 2004)).

Ms. testified that according to her recollection, the Parents did not disagree with the recommendation at the CSE meeting (T. 38). She noted that any such disagreement would usually be set forth on page eight of the IEP. She pointed out that it was noted on page eight that the parents and the school rejected a barrier free site as unnecessary, which supported her assertion that any concerns of the parents would have been noted on page eight. (T. 38) A review of the IEP indicates that a barrier free site was discussed and rejected by the parent and the school as unnecessary, but that there is no reference to the Parents having objected to the program recommended (Exh. B, p. 17).

A review of the correspondence from the Parent to the District indicates that the Parents sent a letter to the CSE Chairperson on June 14, 2011, indicating that they were placing the Student at and intending to seek tuition reimbursement. They explain that they believe that the Student’s can best be addressed within the classroom, and that will support his development in these areas with a , and manner. (See Exh. D) In a letter, dated August 5, 2011, and sent by the Father to the Chairperson, the Father indicates that he visited the recommended placement and was rejecting the placement because he felt that the Student requires a full time special education school with small classrooms in a small school setting. He noted, “[f]irst and foremost” that the subjects in the class were than what the Student was . He felt that in that “type of environment” he would get and not be . He further asserted that the he met on the tour said that the other students in the class him and and would be peer role models for him. He states, finally, that he does not agree with the placement or the process by which the IEP was developed and intends to continue the Student at and to seek reimbursement unless an appropriate placement is offered. (Exh. C)

The letter on June 14 does not indicate that the Parents believed that the recommendation of the CSE was inappropriate, but rather, that they believed that will “best” address the Student’s needs. They did not point to any specific reason that they disagreed with the recommendation of the CSE; or that they had asked for any particular type of program or services which the CSE refused to offer. The CSE was therefore not given an opportunity to offer a program that would have been acceptable to the Parents before the Parents placed the Student at . The letter on August 5, 2011 was written after the Student was enrolled at and is beyond the time for the required correspondence. I note that the contract signed by the Parents is dated July 5, 2011 (See Exh. N). Even if it were timely, the letter dated August 5, 2011, does not, in any case, make clear that the Parents are contesting any of the specifics of the recommendation, such as the program recommendation, the amount of to services or the provision for parent counseling and training.

For all the above reasons, I therefore find that the equitable considerations do not support the Parents’ claim for tuition reimbursement. (See the Opinion of the State Review Officer in Application...Appeal No. 11- 015)

I therefore deny the Parents’ request for reimbursement of the tuition at for the 2011-2012 school year. Date: June 26, 2012

_______________________

DIANE COHEN, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

DC: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 RECORD ON APRIL 16, 2012

Parent Exhibits Date of Exhibit No. of Pages

A.Hearing Request 12/14/11 4

B. IEP 5/12/11 19

C. Letter from Father to 8/5/11 2 (with fax confirmation)

D. Letter from Parents to 6/14/11 1

E. FNR 6/4/11 1

F. Daily Schedule 2011-2012 3

G. Program Description Undated 1

H. progress notes 9/2011 - 2/2012 22

I. service logs 9/2011 – 2/2012 12

J. Progress Report 2/28/12 2

K. Teacher Progress Report Undated 2

L. Attendance 7/2011 – 3/2012 1

M. Affirmation of Tuition 3/15/12 1

N. Tuition Contract 7/5/11 5

O. Parents’ Tax Return 2010 2

P. Check Details 2011-2012 3 District Exhibits Date of Exhibit No. of Pages

1. IEP 5/12/11 19

2. FNR 6/4/11 1

3. Notice of Rec. Deferred placement 5/12/11 1

4. letter 11/4/10 1

5. Educational Progress Report -- 5/9/11 2 (unsigned)

6. Progress Report -- 5/11/11 2 (unsigned)

7. Report -- 5/9/11 3 (unsigned)

8. Psychoeducational Evaluation 2/23/10 4

9. Classroom observation 1/11/11 2

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD ON APRIL 27, 2012

Parent Exhibits Date of Exhibit No. of Pages

Q. Progress Notes March/ April 2012 4

R. Progress Report 1/13/12 2

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD ON JUNE 6, 2012

Parent Exhibits Date of Exhibit No. of Pages

S. Affirmation of Tuition 5/29/12 1

T. Proof of Tuition Payment May 2012 1