NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Case Number:
Student‟s Name:
Date of Birth:
District:
Hearing Requested By: Parent
Dates of Hearing: June 6, 2012
June 19, 2012
June 20, 2012
June 26, 2012
July 24, 2012
Actual Rec Closed Date: October 1, 2012
Hearing Officer: Judith Schneider, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 6, 2012
Attorney — Student
Attorney — Student
Attorney — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 19, 2012
Attorney — Student
Attorney — Student
Parents
Attorney — DOE
Special Education Teacher Assigned (via telephone) — DOE
Assistant Principal (via telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 20, 2012
Attorney — Student
Attorney — Student
Parents
Personnel — Student
Attorney — DOE
Assistant Principal (via telephone) — DOE
Math Teacher (via telephone) — DOE
— DOE
ELA Teacher (via telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 26, 2012
Attorney — Student
Attorney — Student
Teacher-Reading Specialist (via telephone) — Student
Attorney — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 24, 2012
Attorney — Student
Attorney — Student
Parents
Teacher-Supervisor (via telephone) — Student
Attorney — DOE
On June 6, 2012, June 19, 2012, June 20, 2012, June 26, 2012, and July 24, 2012, — DOE
I conducted an Impartial Hearing at the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) Impartial Hearing Office, 131 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, New York, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (“IDEIA”), 20 U.S.C. §1415, and Article 89 of the Education Law of the State of New York, regarding the special education program of XXX (“the student”).
The proceeding was initiated at the request of the parent by correspondence dated March 21, 2012. (Ex. 1) An Amended Due Process Complaint dated March 23, 2012, was thereafter accepted. (Ex. 2 I was appointed Impartial Hearing Officer on April 27, 2012, after rior recusal/s. I was available to conduct a hearing within 14 days. At a telephone conference with the parties conducted on May 7, 2012, the hearing was scheduled for June 8, 2012 and June 12, 2012, the first mutually available date for the parties and the hearing officer. (T. 6, Ex. I)
The parties moved to extend the compliance date on several occasions in light of anticipated testimony, the scheduling of witnesses and submission of evidence, and the submission of closing memoranda after receipt of the transcript. In considering the requests I weighed the cumulative impact of the relevant factors and found that the need of the parties for additional time to prepare and present their positions in acc ance with the requirements of due process was greater than any delay in the resolution of this matter. Acc ingly, the joint requests for extensions of the compliance dates were granted and documentation concerning my decisions was provided. (T.7-8, 13-14,41,52, 407-408, Exs. II, V)
The current compliance date is October 19, 2012. The rec closed on October 1, 2012, upon my receipt of all post-closing memoranda.[1]
BACKGROUND
The student was about at the commencement of the 2011-2012 school year and was entering the grade. (DOE Ex. 4) She is classified as and that classification is not in dispute. For the 2011-2012 school year she was unilaterally enrolled by her parent in the Academy (“ ”). (DOE Ex. 1) She had attended a facility since September 2004, initially in the and subsequently in the . Payment for those programs, each a result of a unilateral placement, was provided by the DOE as a consequence of the impartial hearing process (T. 597-601)
For the 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 school years, the CSE had recommended a 12:1 program and related services in a community school. (Par. Exs. 32, 33)
A evaluation was conducted on January 24, 2007, prior to the development of the IEP for the 2007-2008 school year, the student‟s grade. (DOE Ex. 9, Par. Ex. 21) On May 15, 2007, the CSE convened and recommended for that year a change to a program with related services of . (Par. Exs. 8, 21)
In 2008, the CSE reconvened and recommended for the student‟s grade a month program in a community school with the related service of . (Par. Ex. 20) The same recommendation was made for grades. (DOE Ex. 8, Par. Ex.19)
On May 20, 2011, the CSE reconvened to develop a program for the 2011-2012 school year, the student‟s grade. (DOE Ex. 4) Participating were: (“ ”), as District Representative and Special Education Teacher, a DOE school , a parent member, the student‟s father, ,a staff member, and the student‟s math and ELA teachers. (DOE Ex. 4-2) The resulting IEP recommended a program of five (5) periods a day of special education classes ( ) for “academics” and . (T. 70, DOE Ex. 4-11) All other classes would be in general education classes with the general population of the school and student-teacher ratios. (T. 70-71)
On June 7, 2011, the parent executed an enrollment contract with for the 2011-2012 school year. (Par. Ex. 8) The contract specified that tuition was $48,500 and had various provisions relating to the parent‟s responsibilities with regard to the DOE. (Par. Ec. 8-2) It also specified that if the parent withdrew the student on or before October 31, 2012, he had no financial obligation to . (Par. Ex. 8-2) The parent pad no deposit and has made no payment.
By letter dated June 30, 2011, the DOE recommended a program at . (DOE Ex. 6) By the time the parent received the letter, the school program had concluded and he was unable to visit it. (T. 167, 170, 675-676) By letter dated July 27, 2011, through his counsel, the parent notified the CSE that the IEP program was not appropriate and that he intended to reenroll the student at and seek tuition payment and roundtrip transportation from the DOE. (DOE Ex. 1-6)
On October 4, 2011, the parent visited , accompanied by . (T. 326-327) They were given a tour of the school, conferred with staff members and made certain observations. (T. 663-666)
By letter dated November 9, 2011, the parent, by counsel, informed the CSE that he disagreed with the program and proposed placement, and that the student would attend and that tuition funding and transportation would be sought from the DOE. ( DOE Ex 15, 1-6 )
By letter dated March 14, 2012 the parent requested an impartial hearing. (DOE Ex. 1) By letter dated the March 21, 2012, the parents corrected the specified date of birth but did not substantively change the request. (DOE Ex. 1 )
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
The parent asserts that the May 20, 2012 IEP is substantively defective because the IEP program recommended was not reasonably calculated to enable the student to make meaningful educational gains and further asserts that the recommended school was not appropriate. Acc ingly, it is claimed that a FAPE was not provided. The parent claims that was appropriate for this student‟s 2011-2012 school year and that equitable considerations warrant full payment of tuition by the DOE. The parent seeks direct payment to based upon financial inability to pay contractually required tuition and seek reimbursement. The student‟s entitlement to roundtrip door to door transportation was also asserted.[2] (Ex. III)
The DOE claims that it offered the student a FAPE for the 2011-2012 school year by developing an appropriate IEP and offering an appropriate school placement. It asserts that the parent has failed to establish that was appropriate for this student. Further, the DOE asserts that the parent failed to establish a contractual relationship between the parent and , that the parent has failed to establish financial need for direct payment and that the equities favor the DOE. (Ex. IV)
CASES PRESENTED
The DOE presented the testimony of: (“ ”), the May 20, 2012 CSE District Representative and Special Education Teacher who conducted an observation of the student (DOE Exs. 4, 10); , Assistant Principal (“the AP‟); ,a math teacher (“the PS Math” ): ,a ELA teacher (“the PS ELA”)
The parent presented the testimony of: , Education Support Services staff; Beth , teacher and reading specialist (T. 411); , special education teacher and supervisor (T. 521); the student‟s father („the parent”)
A list of documents in evidence in this matter is appended.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A) Facts
With regard to the testimony of the witnesses, I find the testimony of each credible in that I conclude that they each testified truthfully in acc ance with their recollections and as to the opinions they held. The relevant testimony is discussed below.
The information stated in the “Background” section above is specifically included herein as factual findings.
Transcript and Exhibit references not specified below are set forth above.
B) Analysis
The legal standard applicable to a request for reimbursement for educational services is well established. Reimbursement is granted if: (1) the services offered by the Board of Education are inadequate or inappropriate (Prong 1); (2) the services selected by the parent are appropriate (Prong 2) ; and (3) equitable considerations support the parent's claim (Prong 3). Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993); School Comm. of Burlington v. Department of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359 (1985). In New York State the DOE bears the burden of proof with regard to Prong 1 and the parent bears the burden of proof with regard to Prong 2. Educ. Law 4404[1][c] Prospective payment for tuition may be ered by an impartial hearing officer when a child would otherwise be denied a free appropriate education and the parent can show financial inability to pay the tuition and then seek reimbursement. Mr. & Mrs. A v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 769 F. Supp. 2d 403 (S.D. N.Y. 2011). See also, Connors v. Mills, 34 F. Supp 2nd 795 at
806, n.7 (N.D. N.Y. 1998)
Prong 1
An appropriate educational program begins with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) which accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student's needs, establishes annual goals related to those needs, and provides for the use of appropriate special education services (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-046; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-014; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 93-9). While school districts are required to comply with all Individuals with Disabilities Education Act procedures, not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F. 3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003]) If a procedural violation has occurred, relief is warranted only if the violation affected the student's right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) (J.D. v. Pawlet Sch. Dist., 224 F.3d 60, 69 [2d Cir. 2000]). A denial of a FAPE occurs when procedural inadequacies either result in a loss of educational opportunity for the student, seriously infringe on the parents' opportunity to participate in the IEP formulation process (see Werner v. Clarkstown Cent. Sch. Dist., 363 F. Supp. 2d 656, 659 [S.D.N.Y. 2005]; W.A. v. Pascarella, 153 F. Supp. 2d 144, 153 [D. Conn. 2001]), or compromise the development of an appropriate IEP in a way that deprives the student of educational benefits under that IEP (see Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. v. D.K., 2002 WL 31521158 [S.D.N.Y. 2002]). In evaluating the substantive program developed by the CSE, the Second Circuit has observed that “for an IEP to be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, it must be likely to produce progress, not regression” (Weixel v. Bd. of Educ., 287 F.3d 138, 151 [2d Cir. 2002], quoting M.S. v. Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 103 [2d Cir. 1998]). This progress, however, must be meaningful; i.e., more than mere trivial advancement (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130). The IDEA, however, does not require school districts to develop IEPs that maximize the potential of a student with a disability (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 197 n.21, 199; see Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132. The student's recommended program must also be provided in the Least Restrictive Environment (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.550[b]; 8 NYCRR 200.6[a][1]).
The parent asserts no procedural challenge with regard to the IEP but claims that it is substantively defective because the program for five academic periods a day was not appropriate. , who participated as District Representative and Special Education Teacher, was the sole DOE witness with regard to the CSE review and the IEP.
The IEP described the student as reading at a from late grade level, depending on whether she was or had teacher support (T. 442-443) and with math at grade equivalent of during the year in both areas as well as in writing. (DOE Ex. 4-3) Various academic management needs were specified including small group instruction, direct teacher modeling, directions and questions read, rephrased and reread as needed. ( DOE Ex. 4-4) It specified management needs but reported that she at times group work but will and that her teachers were concerned about insufficient participation. (DOE Ex. 4-5) Goals were developed based upon teacher input and various testing accommodations were specified (T. 68, 70)
The evidence shows that in developing the IEP, the team relied upon input from the student‟s then current ELA and math teachers who participated by phone for part of the meeting, a progress report which had been submitted to the CSE (DOE Ex. 6), the February 2008 social history update (DOE Ex. 8), the January 2007 evaluation (DOE Ex. 9) and the IEP from the prior year as well as November 2010 observation (DOE Ex. 10) (T. 63, 65) opined that the recommended program would adequately address the student‟s needs. (T. 68) She described the class as a small class that could be broken down into smaller groups by the teacher, that the student would be with peers would have made progress (T. 109) and that the community school would provide an opportunity to interact with typically developing peers. (T. 110) stated with regard to the program recommended, that a program would not be appropriate for this student because her academic functioning levels, cognitive levels and social skills were for that program and that the recommended was the next less restrictive option available in a high school program. (T. 84, 86, 90, 92) Although had expressed concerns about the proposed program (T. 93-95, DOE Ex. 5), stated that was the representative and said the same at all meetings she attended. (T. 94)
It is the DOE‟s burden to establish that the recommended program was supported by sufficient evaluative material. See 8 NYCRR 200.4[b][4][5][6] “Any evaluation of a student with a disability must use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information about the student, including information provided by the parent, that may assist in determining, among other things the content of the student's IEP (20 U.S.C. § 1414[b][2][A]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.304[b][1][ii]; see Letter to Clarke, 48 IDELR 77 [OSEP 2007]).” Appeal No. 11-025.
In the instant matter, the only personal knowledge of this student claimed by was her conduct of the observation during which there were students in the class at that time and the student appeared to be okay. (T. 57-76, DOE Ex. 10) could not recall conducting any other evaluations (T. 61, 80, DOE Ex. 10) and although she had also participated in prior reviews for this student, she indicated no specific recollection as to those reviews. (T. 61, 78 DOE Ex. 12, Par. Ex. 19) There was no testimony that the school , the only other DOE staff member who participated in the review, had any personal knowledge of the student. Further, the evaluation had been conducted in January 2007, more than four years earlier. (DOE Ex. 9) Rather, the evidence shows that the CSE relied virtually exclusively upon the input, documentary and through the participation at the hearing, from staff to determine the student‟s current levels and needs and to evaluate progress which, I conclude, indicates that the CSE concluded that that contribution was reliable. Indeed, opined that is a“ ” “ ” school” (T. 80-81, 96) which gives additional weight to its staff‟s opinions.
However, at the review, had expressed concerns about the program (T. 9395, 321) as had the parent. (T. 313, 621) testified that she has known the student since she has (T. 306, 339) and she routinely observes in classes and collaborates with staff in connection with the IEP process (T. 309-310, 346-347) The fact that it is part of her responsibility to participate in CSE reviews, and as a result to testify in impartial hearings (T. 351) does not require a conclusion that her testimony is unreliable. In this matter persuasively testified that in a program the student would not be able to access the program as a consequence of difficulties with initiating and that her was an . (T. 324, 326)
The testimony of the student‟s teachers is consistent with ‟s conclusions about a program. , a special education teacher who was the student‟s ELA and social studies teacher in the grade and has supervised the student‟s teachers in the subsequent years, testified that the student needs support and on a daily basis to pull information from her and .. (T. 522, 540) core academic classes have no more than students with a teacher and an assistant teacher and that ratio is typical of all classes at . (T. 529-531, 572) , whose experience with the student was over many years, opined that a placement would , she would not be able her to meet her goals and that she . (T. 549)
, student‟s 2011-2012 ELA and social studies teacher, who is also a reading specialist, stated that the student‟s current class has students a teacher and an assistant teacher and there is support which the (T. 435, 438, 471-473, 475, 476) Although she acknowledged that was possible when students are broken into groups and that familiarity helps to overcome initial (T. 489), she opined that a would be a classroom to enable this student to make appropriate progress. (T. 477) I note that this has been reported. (See, Par. Exs. 19,20)
Moreover, in considering the weight of testimony in support of the proposed program that appropriate progress by this student could be made in a class ( periods a day) it is noteworthy that she believed that typically provided classes T. 109) and that gains were made in that environment. However, the evidence shows that the student had been receiving and significantly more classroom support.
I conclude, based upon the foregoing that the DOE had failed to establish that its recommended program was reasonably calculated to enable this student to make meaningful educational gains.
, I do not address the parent‟s other claims concerning the DOE‟s recommended placement and program except to note that the fact that classes in the recommended school actually had fewer students retrospective evidence and may not be considered to bolster the claim that the staffing was appropriate. R.E., M.E., et al v. NYC Dep’t of Education, 11-1266-cv, 11-1474-cv, 11-655-cv (2d Cir.), September 20, 2012.
Prong 2
When a public school system has failed to provide FAPE, the program and services chosen by the parent are “proper under the Act” if the education provided is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.” Carter, 510 U.S. at 14. The parents bear the burden of proof with regard to the services obtained by the parents for the student. However, parents are not barred from reimbursement if their program does not meet the IDEA definition of a FAPE. See 20 U.S.C. §1401(9), Frank
G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park., 459 F. 3d 356 (2nd Cir. 2006). It is not required that the provider of the services be State-approved to provide instruction to children with disabilities. Carter, 510 U.S. at 10. The student need not be the least restrictive environment. Frank G, 459 F. 3d at 364.. “Ultimately the issue turns on whether a placement…is „reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.‟ [internal citations omitted] …”, Frank G, 459 F. 3d at 130. No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining that. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 207 (1982). Parents 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. Id. at 364-365. See also Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F 3d. 105, 115 (2d Cir. 2007).
I conclude that the parent has established that the program unilaterally provided by the parent is appropriate for this student.
The evidence shows that the instructional methods and curriculum are aligned with the specifications of the IEP. (T. 527-528) . teachers create individual unit plans for classroom instruction by incorporating the specific needs and goals of their students with the class curriculum (T. 433, 435, 436, 496, 524, 526, 527, 582) and instruction is the classroom is modified to the needs of the student (T. 497). The academic management needs specified on the IEP are employed by staff. (T. 452-
456) Staffing ratios of no more than in all academic classes as well as similar ratios typically in all other classes provide the opportunity for one to one attention and support this student requires to participate and make academic gains. (T. 435, 477, 529) Individual , mandated by the IEP, is provided and is also provided and addresses, among other things, the need for the use of socially appropriate language in a work setting (T. 335, 361, 399, Par. Exs. 9,10) and there are counselors and speech/language therapists assigned to every class to work with teachers and provide services if needed. (T. 335, 361) Grouping for academic and other subjects is appropriate in view of this student‟s needs and students meet with others during lunch and recess. (T. 566, 579-580) The student is assessed routinely by a variety of assessment instruments. ( T, 356, 444, 496, 477) Parental involvement is encouraged and facilitated. (T. 552, 615, 617)
Transition needs and the IEP goals with regard to transition are addressed by a program that focuses on life skills and employability. (T. 314, DOE Ex. 4, Par Exs. 9,
10) The student participates in an internship program, a goal of the IEP, in which she receives which takes into account her interests and through which she receives necessary training . (T. 331-332, 336, 526, 528 )
The CSE acknowledged the progress made at during the 2010-2011 school year. (DOE Ex. 4) Further, the persuasive evidence shows that progress during the 20112012 school year in core subject areas has been significant. (T. 388. 447, 470-471) She has also made gains with regard to her timidity in class and attitude to school. (T. 546,
613) Although the IEP requires only an IEP , the student is evaluated for her readiness to take exams, the necessary preparation and support is provided and she has taken some this year. (T. 388, 537) Successful completion of a sufficient number will enable her to obtain a local diploma and qualify her for certain post secondary school programs. (T. 533, 616, 618)
The DOE claims that the parent has not established that was an appropriate placement and asserts that it has not been shown how the program was tailored to this student‟s unique needs, that there was no objective evidence of the student‟s progress and that it was not provided in the least restrictive environment (“LRE”). (Ex. IV) However, as discussed above, I conclude that the program was appropriately tailored to meet this student‟s needs. The fact that it may also meet the needs of other students with whom she is grouped does not rebut that. Further, the credible evidence, testimonial and documentary, shows that the student was assessed using objective instruments and her progress was systematically . (T. 356, 444, 496, 577, Par. Exs. 14, 16) Lastly, parents are not held as strictly to LRE requirements as a district and that is simply one factor to be considered. Frank G. In the circumstances here, I conclude that the parent has met his burden to establish that the unilaterally selected program is reasonably calculated to enable the student to make meaningful educational gains.
Prong 3
In the instant matter, the DOE does not assert that the parent failed to cooperate with the CSE in the development of the IEP and, further, I find that there is no evidence to support such a claim. (T. 643, Ex. IV) Rather, the evidence shows that he participated and communicated his objections then and thereafter to the program and later about the school. (T. 73, 97, 167, 312-314, 602-603, 650, 654, DOE Exs. 1-6, 5) Rather, the DOE asserts that the parent had no genuine desire to consider any public school program offered because he preferred . (Ex. IV) However, a parent‟s preference for a private school and even the signing of a contract prior to an IEP review is not dispositive of a claim for DOE payment. Appeal No. 05-087. The evidence shows that he could have removed the student without financial penalty or obligation prior to October 31 and that signing the contract was necessary to secure a place.
The FNR was dated June 30, 2011 and received thereafter. (DOE Ex. 3) It is undisputed that the parent could not visit during the summer because the school was closed. (T. 167, 170, 644-645) He credibly testified that repeated phone calls seeking to arrange a visit were not returned prior to his October 4 visit. (T. 644-648) The parent‟s testimony concerning ‟s participation was credible and her provision of support to an unsophisticated parent does not undermine his claim. (T. 664) Further, I note that she was knowledgeable concerning the student‟s functioning levels and deficits and able to provide information about the student to the AP during the course of the visit. The parent articulated various reasons why he believed the proposed school was not appropriate. (T. 607-612) ‟s testimony supported his. (T. 327-330, 341) The DOE‟s disagreement with those conclusions does not constitute a basis for finding that they were not genuine.
Upon consideration of the foregoing, I find no basis for denying or limiting DOE funding on equitable grounds.
Financial Need and Standing
The DOE also argues that the parent has not established financial hardship and therefore is not entitled to direct payment. I find credible the parent‟s testimony that he could not pay tuition and seek reimbursement. (T. 625-628, 637-638, 671-673 Par. Exs. 16, 31) Although the parent may have been initially imprecise in his testimony, I give that no weight. I note that he was initially imprecise concerning when he received the FNR (T. 675-676 ) as well as about not initially mentioning a 1099 he provided to his attorney for disclosure to the DOE. (T. 627)
Further, I credit the parent‟s testimony that he considers the contract a debt for which he is legally liable (T. 657, Par. Ex. 8) and find no basis for denying payment because he may not be confident of his ability to pay it in view of his limited income.. See also Mr. & Mrs. A v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 769 F. Supp. 2d 403 (S.D. N.Y. 2011).
The student was entitled to attend for the 2011-2012 school year at DOE expense. The DOE shall immediately pay $48,500 for tuition for that school year.
Dated: October 10, 2012
______________________________
JUDITH SCHNEIDER, 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 REC
PARENT
1-7 OMITTED
8 Enroll. Contract 2011-2012 Academic Year, dated 6/17/11, 3 pages 9 for Learning and Development Mission Statement and Description of the
Independence Program, 5 pages 10 Daily Schedule, Center, 2011-2012, 1 page 11 Student Progress Report, December 2011, 15 pages 13 Student's Progress Report, 2012, 16 pages 14 G-Made, dated 5/14/12, 1 page 15 G-Rade, 5/8/12, 1 page 16 Parent's Proof of Income 2011, 1 page 17 Special Education Service Delivery Report of Recommended School, 2010-2011
& 2011-2012 School Years, 2 pages
18 OMITTED
19 Students IEP, dated 6/30/09, 12 pages 20 IEP, dated 5/5/09, 14 pages 21 IEP, dated 5/25/07, 12 pages
22-24 OBJECTION SUSTAINED-ADMISSION DENIED
25-27 OMITTED
28 Visitor's Log, 10/4/2011, 1 page 29 School Brochure, Undated, 2 pages 30 Unit Maps, 2011-2012, 24 pages 31 Parent's 1099 Forms 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 4 pages 32 IEP, 7/13/06, 13 pages 33 IEP, 3/11/04, 12 pages
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
1 Amended Due Process Complaint, dated 3/21/12, 7 pages 2 Amended Due Process Response, dated 3/23/12, 3 pages 3 Final Notice of Recommendation, dated 6/30/11, 1 page 4 IEP, dated 4/20/11, 15 pages 5 Minutes from IEP Meeting, dated 5/20/11, 2 pages 6 Progress Reports, dated March 2011, 16 pages 7 Notice of IEP Meeting, dated 5/10/11, 2 pages 8 Social History Update, dated 2/3/08, 2 pages 9 Evaluation, dated 1/24/07, 5 pages 10 Classroom Observation, dated 11/3/10, 1 page 11 OPT People Transportation, dated 4/23/12, 1 page 12 Individualized Education Program, dated 3/12/10, 13 pages 13 DOE Subpoena to Center, dated 5/16/12, 3 pages
IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER
I Prehearing Conference Memo II Decisions re Extension of Compliance Date III Parent‟s closing memorandum IV DOE‟s closing memorandum V E-mails concerning transcript and resubmission of closing memoranda
Footnotes
[1] The record closed upon receipt from the parties of memoranda referencing the corrected transcript. The transcript was received by me on September 24, 2012. (Ex.V)
[2] There is no claim that transportation during the 2011-2012 school year was not provided by the DOE and reimbursement for transportation is not sought by the parent.