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: October 26, 2012

December 13, 2012

January 9, 2013

January 30, 2013

February 22, 2013

March 8, 2013

March 12, 2013

April 19, 2013

April 22, 2013

May 15, 2013

Actual Record Closed Date: July 22, 2013

Hearing Officer: Edgar De Leon, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON OCTOBER 26, 2012

Parent (Via Telephone) — Student

EMILY MINARCIK, Attorney (Via Telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON DECEMEBER 13,

2012

ERIKA L. HARTLEY, Attorney/Parent (Via Telephone) — Student

EMILY MINARCIK, Attorney (Via Telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JANUARY 9, 2013

Parents

Principal — Student

District Rep — DOE

DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JANUARY 30, 2013

Parents

EMILY MINARCIK, Attorney — DOE

Dean of Special Services — DOE

(Via Telephone) — DOE

(Via Telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON FEBRUARY 22,

2013

Parents

Parents

EMILY MINARCIK, Attorney — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MARCH 8, 2013

Parents

EMILY MINARCIK, Attorney — DOE

Principal, (Via Telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MARCH 12, 2013

Parents

Parents

EMILY MINARCIK, Attorney — DOE

Dean of Special Services — DOE

(Via Telephone) — DOE

Principal — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL 19 , 2013

Parents

(Via Telephone) — Student

EMILY MINARCIK, ESQ., Attorney — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL 22, 2013

Mother/Attorney — Student

Father — Student

Parent Advocate (Via Telephone) — Student

EMILY MINARCIK, Attorney — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MAY 15, 2013

Mother/Attorney — Student

(Via telephone) — Student

EMILY MINARCIK, Attorney — DOE

On November 7, 2012, I was appointed as the Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) to conduct a hearing pursuant to the Individual with in Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 United States Code, Section 1415(f)(1) and Part 200 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, concerning a dispute between the Parent of a year old student and the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) - District , regarding the Committee on Special Education’s (“CSE”) determination that the student was not “a child with a . I was appointed after the recusal of numerous other IHOs.

After the “resolution period” and having adjournments granted for cause or on consent of the parties, the impartial hearing was held on December 13, 2012, January 9, 2013, January 30, 2013, February 22, 2013, March 8, 2013, March 12, 2013, April 19, 2013, April 22, 2013 and May 15, 2013. The parties written closing statements were due on June 14, 2013. (T-1150) In an e-mail dated June 7, 2013, the DOE requested an extension of time until June 21, 2013 to submit its closing statement. The request was granted over the Parent’s objection. The DOE’s closing statement was received on June 21, 2013 and marked as DOE Exhibit “30”, consisting of (21) pages. The Parent’s written closing statement was received on June 25, 2013 and was accepted over the DOE’s objection. The Parent’s written closing statement is marked as Parent’s Exhibit “PP.” A list of the witnesses who appeared and the documents taken into evidence is annexed to this decision.

BACKGROUND

In a due Process Complaint (“DPC”) filed on or about September 20, 2012, the Parent asserts that the DOE denied the student a for the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years, by failing to completely the student. (DPC) The Parent further alleges that the DOE failed “…to complete testing and hold an IEP (“Individualized Education Program”) meeting within sixty days of the date of the initial request , or after the order of IHO…issued on or about April 4, 2012.” (Id.)

The Parent also alleges that a was done on April 30, 2012, without parental notice. (Id.) The DOE then allegedly held an IEP meeting on May 4, 2012, which the agency refused to postpone. (Id.) The Parent then filed a request for a second impartial hearing on or about May 7, 2012. (Id.) The second impartial hearing determined that the student’s Parents were denied meaningful participation in the May 4th IEP meeting, and ordered that an additional IEP meeting be held to determine whether “classification was appropriate.” (Id.) That third IEP meeting was held on or about August 31, 2012, approximately two weeks after the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year, and “well beyond the time period specified by the order of IHO….” (Id.) According to the Parent, the DOE again failed to consider all of the student’s testing that was available, failed to complete all necessary testing and failed to make an appropriate recommendation. (Id.) As such, the Parent seeks the following relief at this third impartial hearing:

(a) Parental reimbursement tor all unreimbursed parentally initiated testing for the student at the enhanced rate; and

(b) a PR-1 ”; and

(c) A deferment to the “Central Based Support Team” (“CBST”) for nonpublic school placement; and

(d) a P-3 letter for compensatory tutoring at the DOE’s expense at the enhanced rate; and

(e) an order striking the lEP meeting of August 31. 2012 as null and void for failure to comply with IDEA and NYS Education laws; and

(f) an order directing that an lEP meeting be held for the purpose of developing an appropriate educational program and accommodations for the student.

THE DOE’S CASE

The DOE argues that the issue in this case is whether the student is a child with a entitled to a FAPE. (T-148) On August 31, 2012, the CSE determined that the student is not eligible for services. (Id.) After the Parent’s initial request for an on October 27, 2011, a CSE review was conducted on May 4, 2012 which resulted in a determination that the student was and not eligible for services. (T-149) The timeliness of that review and the CSE outcome were litigated in a previous impartial hearing. (Id.) A previous IHO decision ordered the CSE to conduct a and to consider the student’s privately obtained and reconvene an IEP meeting. (Id.) The agency notes that the order was issued on August 15, 2012 and the student is attending which began on August 16, 2012. (T-150) Thus, it was impossible for the agency to convene a meeting prior to August 16, 2012. (Id.)

The DOE further argues that the student’s IEP meeting was held on August 31, 2012. (T-149-50) The Parent did not cooperate with the scheduling of that meeting. (T150-1) Should this hearing officer find that the August 31st CSE’s determination was not appropriate, the recourse would then be to remand the case to the CSE to and reconvene a meeting because only the CSE can and determine his or her eligibility for services. (T151-2) The Parent in this case did not request private from the CSE prior to having the child privately . (T-152) The Parent sought and then refused to allow the DOE to the student. (Id.) The Parent’s request for a and a deferral to the CBST does not fall within the IHO’s authority to issue. (Id.) Finally, as a child who is not eligible for , the student is not entitled to compensatory education. (T-153)

The DOE called (3) witnesses to testify on its behalf and submitted (30) documents in evidence. In sum, substance and relevant part, the testimony and documentary evidence for and against the DOE’s case is incorporated in the decision below.

THE PARENT’S CASE

The Parent argues that the student started to have challenges in the . (T-155) On October 27, 2011, she contacted the school principal by e-mail and requested that she initiate of the student because she had been receiving complaints about the student’s behavior from his teachers. (Id.) On April 4, 2012, the IHO decided that he could not assess whether the student had a because his had not been completed. (T-156) She did not hear from the DOE and so she initiated a private of the student. (Id.) Then, without giving her notice, the DOE scheduled an of the student on April 27, 2012 but because the student suffers from the test was not done. (T-157) She also told the DOE that the testing was because the student’s had been completed. (Id.) At no time did she withdraw consent for the student to be tested. (T-157-8) The DOE did not postpone the May 4, 2012 IEP meeting and provided the Parent with the results of the student’s after the Parents arrived for the meeting. (T-158) That meeting resulted in a second impartial hearing which determined that the Parents were denied meaningful participation at the meeting because the CSE did not consider the Parents’ . (Id.)

The Parent further argues that the IHO clearly held that a new CSE meeting should have been held no later than August 23, 2012, which did not happen. (T-158-9) Given a , the student’s Parents were unable to participate in any IEP meeting as their old child was in the . (T-159) An IEP meeting was then held on August 31, 2012. (Id.) The only issue considered at that meeting was whether the student should be classified as learning . (Id.) The student’s testing reflects . (T-160) The student’s , in her report dated May 6, 2012, recommended that he be placed in setting and given a number of accommodations, as well as being for issues that were uncovered regarding the student’s . (T-161)

The Parent also argues that the student . (Id.) Her efforts to partner with the school have been unsuccessful and her requests that the student receive have been denied. (Id.) (Id.) She wanted to know what she was consenting to and the information was withheld. (T-161-2) She is entitled to be compensated for the costs of the student’s because the DOE had notice of what the student needed and failed to conduct them. (T-162-3)

The Parent called (4) witnesses to testify on her behalf and submitted (41) documents in evidence. In sum, substance and relevant part, the testimony and documentary evidence for and against the Parent’s case is incorporated in the decision below.

FINDINGS OF FACTS & DECISION

The central issue in this case is whether the student is or is not a child with a If so, he is entitled to a FAPE. If not, the DOE is not obliged to provide the student with services. In order to be classified as a child with under federal or state law, a student must have a . (See 20 U.S.C. § 1401[3] [defining a child with a as one who, by reason of their and related services”]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.8[a][1], Educ. Law § 4401[1]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[zz] [defining a student with a as one who “requires & SRO No. 05-047) In order to be classified as a child with a , a student must not only have a specific (SRO No. 00-009) Education Law §4401 (1) defines a student with a as “a person…who, because of can only receive appropriate educational opportunities from a program of means specially designed instruction which includes ….” (Id.)

There are two critical that were available to the student’s CSE team on August 31, 2012. They are the student’s privately obtained dated May 6, 2012 and the performed by the DOE and dated April 30. 2012. (D-4, D-6 & P-F)

The DOE found that suggests that [student name] evidences (Id.) The completed by the student’s classroom teacher was deemed “invalid” “due to some inconsistent responses.” (Id.) The concludes as follows:

Hearing officers have authority to determine appropriate expert testimony. (See Analysis & Comments to the Regulations, Federal Register, Vol. 71, No. 156, Page 46691 (August 14, 2006)) Here, both the DOE gave credible expert testimony. The DOE evaluator did not diagnosis the student as having because “Overall responses indicate that according to [student name] teacher, specific symptom criteria were not met for (D-6)

(See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1), Love v. Law Sch. Admission Council, Inc., 513 F. Supp. 2d 206, 224 (E.D. Pa. 2007)[citing Rothberg v. LSAC, 300 F. Supp. 2d 1093 (D. Colo. 2004)], Bartlett v. N.Y. State Bd. of Law Exam’rs, 2001 WL 930792 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2001) and Price v. Nat’l Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 966 F. Supp. 419 (S.D.W. Va. 1997)) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) regulations consider “major life activities” to include “interacting with others.” (See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)) The EEOC regulations define “

In regard to . (See Warshaw v. Concentra Health Servs., 719 F. Supp. 2d 484, 495 (E.D. Pa. 2010)) Interacting with others qualifies as a under the when “an individual’s socialization is ‘characterized on a regular basis by (See Peter v. Lincoln Technical Inst., Inc., 255 F. Supp. 2d 417, 433 (E.D. Pa. 2002)[quoting Olson v. Dubuque Cmty. Sch. Dist., 137 F.3d 609, 612 (8th Cir. 1998))

Here, it is unquestionable that a “major life activity” for the student is to attend school and “interact with others.” (Supra) The Parent testified that throughout the school year, the student has been reprimanded for 1141) On June 8, 2012, the DOE issued a The Second Circuit held as follows in Fink v. New York City Dept. of Personnel, 53 F.3d 565, C.A.2 (N.Y.),1995:

Section 504 prohibits the exclusion of an otherwise qualified individual with from participation in any federally funded program by reason of these , and discrimination against any such individual by any Executive

Agency receiving federal funding. As the Act has been interpreted, it requires the employer to make a reasonable accommodation of the plaintiff's . See Gilbert v. Frank, 949 F.2d 637, 642 (2d Cir.1991). It does not require the perfect elimination of all disadvantage that may flow from the ; it does not require a lowering of standards, Southeastern

Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, 413, 99 S.Ct. 2361, 2370, 60

L.Ed.2d 980 (1979), nor that the employer “make ‘fundamental’ or ‘substantial’ modifications” in order to eliminate the disadvantages flowing from the . Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 300, 105 S.Ct.

712, 719-20, 83 L.Ed.2d 661 (1985). It does not require the employer to provide every accommodation the employee may request, so long as the accommodation provided is reasonable. See Carter v. Bennett, 840 F.2d

63, 67 (D.C.Cir.1988). (emphasis added)

Thus, it is logical that for the DOE to recognize the student as one who qualifies for a “504 Plan”, the agency also recognizes that the student has a ” In September 1991, the Department of Education issued a Policy Clarification Memorandum directing schools to include under the IDEA. For all of the reasons stated above, I find that the student in this case, is a student with a .

However, a child with a is not automatically eligible and related services under IDEA. The key phrase in the law is “who, by reason thereof, needs and related services.” (Supra) Section 4401 (1) of the Education Law defines “ ” as specially designed instruction which includes special services or programs to meet the individual needs of a child . “Special services or programs” as defined in Section 4401 (2) of the Education Law include special classes, transitional support services, transition services, home instruction, and special teachers. Related services include These definitions are based upon the definitions set forth in IDEA regulations. (See 34 CFR § 300.17 & 300.16)

The Parent submitted in evidence an “ ” dated June 29, 2012. (P-Q) The is comprehensive. In the “ ” section, the reports that the student’s “

Having found a denial of FAPE, I turn to the question of the Parent’s requested relief in this case. The Parent’s DPC request for relief is decides as follows:

(a) Parental reimbursement tor all unreimbursed parentally initiated testing for the student at the enhanced rate. (DPC)

If the Parent disagrees with obtained by the school district, the Parent has a right to obtain an independent at public expense. (See Regulations of the Commissioner of Education § 200.5(g)) Under 8 NYCRR § 200.5, If the Parent request an , the school district must, without unnecessary delay, either ensure an is provided at public expense or initiate an impartial hearing to show that its is appropriate or that the obtained by the parent does not meet the school district criteria. 8 NYCRR § 200.5(g)(iv).

Additionally, 34 C.F.R. 300.502(d) and 8 NYCRR 200.5(i)(3)(vi) provide that if a hearing officer requests an independent as part of a hearing, the cost of the must be at public expense.

The Parent asserts that on October 27, 2011, she requested a “full battery of for the student including an FBA and a BIP. (T-1132 & DPC) As a result of the DOE’s failure to conduct the requested testing, the Parent filed a DPC, which resulted in an impartial hearing and an order directing the DOE to the student. (T-84, DPC & P-G) At a second impartial hearing decided on or about August 15, 2012, the Parent essentially asked for the same relief. (T-85) The decision in the second impartial hearing held in relevant part that the CSE did not assess all areas of the student’s , did not review the student’s privately obtained report and ordered a “ of the student and reimbursement to the Parent for the she had obtained. (T-85-6 & P-H) Accordingly, I find that the Parent’s request for reimbursement has been previously decided.

(b) The Parent has requested “a PR- .” (DPC)

Here, the DOE has correctly argued that jurisdiction over class action suits and consent orders (and by extension, stipulations containing injunctive relief) issued by the lower federal courts rests with the district courts and circuit courts of appeals. (See 28 U.S.C. § 1292[a][1], Fed. R. Civ. P. 65; see, e.g., Weight Watchers Intern., Inc. v. Luigino's, Inc., 423 F.3d 137, 141-42 [2d Cir. 2005], Wilder v. Bernstein, 49 F.3d 69 [2d Cir. 1995], Pediatric Specialty Care, Inc. v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services, 364 F.3d 925 [8th Cir. 2004], M.S. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 734 F. Supp. 2d 271, 279 [E.D.N.Y. 2010] and E.Z.-L. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 763 F. Supp. 2d 584, 594 [S.D.N.Y. 2011]) No provision of the IDEA or the Education Law confers jurisdiction upon a state educational agency or a local educational agency to sit in review of or resolve disputes over injunctions or consent orders issued by a judicial tribunal. Consequently, neither the IHO, nor the SRO, have jurisdiction to resolve a dispute regarding whether the student is a member of the class in Jose P. stipulation, the extent to which the DOE may be bound or may have violated the consent order issued by a district court, or the appropriate remedy for the alleged violation of the order. (See R.K., 2011 WL 1131492, at *17 n.29 ; W.T., 716 F. Supp. 2d at 289–90 n.15, see M.S., 734 F. Supp. 2d at 279 [addressing the applicability and parents’ rights to enforce the Jose P. consent order], Levine v. Greece Cent. School Dist., 2009 WL 261470, *9 [W.D.N.Y. 2009] [noting that the Second Circuit has consistently distinguished systemic violations such as those in Handberry v. Thompson (436 F.3d 52 [2d Cir. 2006]) and Jose P. to be addressed by the federal courts, from technical questions of how to define and treat individual students' learning , which are best addressed by administrators], SRO No. 10-115, R.E., 2011 WL 924895, at *12; E.Z.-L., 763 F. Supp. 2d at 594 and Dean v. School Dist. of City of Niagara Falls, 615 F. Supp. 2d 63, 70 [W.D.N.Y. 2009])

However, courts have also repeatedly recognized the “broad discretion” that hearing officers and reviewing courts must employ under the IDEA when fashioning equitable relief, and as noted recently, courts have also “repeatedly rejected invitations to restrict the scope of remedial authority provided in Section 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii).” (See, e.g., Mr. and Mrs. A V. New York City Dep't of Educ., 769 F. Supp. 2d 403, 422-23, 427-30 [S.D.N.Y. 2011] and Forest Grove v. T.A., 129 S.Ct. 2484 [2009])

The Parent in this case has already had (2) IEP meetings (May 4, 2012 and August 31, 2012) and participated in two impartial hearings, resulting in (2) decisions (April 2, 2012 and August 15, 2012)(P-G & P-H), which have in large part remanded the case back to the CSE. The Parent is essentially caught in a “Catch-22” situation. To direct the DOE to re-convene another CSE meeting to create a new program and placement for the student, under the circumstances, would appear to constitute an appropriate equitable remedy. It is feared that such a directive would not ameliorate the situation and would amount to an abdication of the responsibility to at least attempt to do so.

Nevertheless, the Parent’s request for relief encompasses the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years. (DPC) The relief in this case is limited to those two school years as the impartial hearing may not address issues that were not raised in the original DPC notice, unless the other party agrees (See 20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][B]; 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.507[d][3][i], 300.511[d]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][1][ii]), or the original DPC is amended prior to the impartial hearing per permission given by the hearing officer at least (5) days prior to the impartial hearing. (See 20 U.S.C. § 1415[c][2][E][i][II]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.507[d][3][ii]; SRO No. 08-037, 06-065; & 06-139) such is not the case here.

The DOE rightfully argues that two impartial hearings have already been held addressing the Parent’s claim for the 2011-2012 school year. (D-30) However, it has been previously decided in this case that the Parent’s request for “compensatory tutoring” was not addressed in the previous IHO decisions. (T-87-9) However, the record is devoid of the specific nature and amount of compensatory tutoring the student should receive. Additionally, the 2012-2013 school has passed and I find it inappropriate to direct the issuance of a for the 2013-2014 which is not the subject of this impartial hearing.

(c) The Parent has also requested a deferment to the “Central Based Support Team” (“CBST”) for non-public school placement. (DPC) Here, I agree with the DOE’s assertion that only the CSE is empowered under the IDEA to classify students and recommend appropriate services. (D-30) The Parent cites no authority for the proposition that an IHO may order the CSE to make a specific recommendation, i.e., a deferral to the CBST in this case. Conversely, I know of no authority that allows the CBST to “remand” a case back to the CSE.

(d) The Parent requested a “P-3 letter for compensatory tutoring at the DOE’s expense at the enhanced rate.” (DPC) State regulations provide in relevant part that “[t]he decision of the impartial hearing officer shall be based solely upon the record of the proceeding before the impartial hearing officer, and shall set forth the reasons and the factual basis for the determination. The decision shall reference the hearing record to support the findings of fact.” (See 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][5][v]) Because record is devoid of the specific nature and amount of compensatory tutoring the student should receive I cannot grant this request on behalf of the Parent.

(e) The Parent requests “an order striking the lEP meeting of August 31, 2012 as null and void, for failure to comply with IDEA and NYS Education laws.” (DPC) For all of the reasons stated herein, the Parent’s request is granted.

(f) The Parent’s final request for “an order directing that an lEP meeting be held for the purpose of developing an appropriate educational program and accommodations for the student.” (DPC) For all of the reasons stated herein, the Parent’s request is granted.

NOW therefore, it is hereby

(a) ORDERED that the Parent’s request for reimbursement for all unreimbursed parentally initiated testing for the student at the enhanced rate is DENIED; and it is further

(b) ORDERED that the Parent’s request for a PR-1 is DENIED; and it is further

(c) ORDERED that the Parent’s request for a deferment to the “Central Based Support Team” (“CBST”) for non-public school placement is DENIED; and it is further

(d) ORDERED that the Parent’s request for a P-3 letter for compensatory tutoring at the DOE’s expense at the enhanced rate is DENIED; and it is further

(e) ORDERED that the Parent’s request for an order striking the lEP meeting of August 31, 2012 as null and void for failure to comply with IDEA and NYS Education laws is GRANTED in that it is found that the student qualified as a “ entitled to “ for the 2012-2013 school year and that the DOE’s failure to classify the student as such amounted to a denial of FAPE; and it is further

(f) ORDERED that the Parent’s request for an order directing that an lEP meeting be held for the purpose of developing an appropriate educational program and accommodations for the student for the 2013-2014 school year is GRANTED. Dated: August 1, 2013

_____________________________

EDGAR DE LEON, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer EDL;mv

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

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

“The notice of intention to seek review shall be served upon the school district not less than 10 days before service of a copy of the petition for review upon such school district, and within 25 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. The petition for review shall be served upon the school district within 35 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. If the decision has been served by mail upon petitioner, the date of mailing and the four days subsequent thereto shall be excluded in computing the 25- or 35-day period.”

(8NYCRR279.2[b]) Failure to file the notice of intention to seek review is a waiver of the right to appeal this decision.

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

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

Number/Letter Title Dated For # of Pages

1 Due Process Response WITHDRAWN

2 IEP, Attendance Page 08/31/12 DOE 01

3 Ineligible for Special 09/07/12 DOE 07

Education Services

4 05/06/12 DOE 17

5 WITHDRAWN

6 DOE 04/30/12 DOE 09

7 WITHDRAWN

8 WITHDRAWN

9 WITHDRAWN

10 2010 DOE 01

11 Notes from 08/31/12 DOE 06

12 08/31/12 DOE 02

13 Appointment Letter 08/10/12 DOE 01

14 E-Mail 08/24/12 DOE 04

15 E-Mail 08/10/12 DOE 02

16 E-Mail 08/16/12 DOE 02

17 E-Mail 08/20/12 DOE 02

18 E-Mail 08/21/12 DOE 01

19 E-Mail 08/27/12 DOE 01

20 E-Mail 10/10/12 DOE 04

21 Two Cassettes, IEP Meeting 08/31/12 DOE N/A

22 DOE’s Motion to Dismiss 08/08/12 DOE 37

23 Report Card 2011-2012 DOE 02

24 04/04/12 DOE 03

25 04/04/12 DOE 03

26 Teacher’s Report 04/30/12 DOE 04

27 E-Mail 08/24/12 DOE 01

3 Amended Letter of Intent 09/17/12 DOE 08

28 Memo Regarding Common Core 11/28/13 DOE 01

Standards

29 Memo Regarding Implementation 03/2013 DOE 09

Of Common Core Standards

30 Closing Statement 06/21/13 DOE 21

A Impartial Hearing Request 09/20/12 PARENT 02

B E-Mail to the DOE 10/02/12 PARENT 05

C Report Cards 2011/2012 PARENT 08

D Interim Assessment Scores Various PARENT 06

E 11/12/11 PARENT 02

F 05/16/12 PARENT 17

G Impartial Hearing Order 04/02/12 PARENT 09

H Impartial hearing Order 08/08/12 PARENT 13

I 06/14/12 PARENT 03

Report

J 09/2012 PARENT 08

K E-Mail Communications with Undated PARENT 53

Achievement First

M 06/08/12 PARENT 01

N 07/20/12 PARENT 68

O 07/02/12 PARENT 04

P Receipt for 09/12/12 PARENT 02

Q 07/06/12 PARENT 04

R Documents 9/12-12/12 PARENT 19

S Initial Request for 10/27/11 PARENT 01

T Recording of IEP Meeting 08/31/12 PARENT

U 12/2012 PARENT 09

Log

V Ineligibility for 10/12/12 PARENT 07

W Students Test Various PARENT 13

X Parent’s Opposition to DOE Undated PARENT 08

Motion to Dismiss

Y Interim Assessment Score 02/2013 PARENT 01

Z Current Student Graded Test 02/07/13 PARENT 06

AA Student 504 09/27/12 PARENT 02

BB Student Report Card Undated PARENT 02

CC E-Mail Communications with 8/10/12 PARENT 11

CSE

DD Letters from School Regarding 09/16/12 PARENT 02

EE Undated PARENT 01

FF

GG E-Mail Communications Various PARENT 14

HH Student 01/31/13 PARENT 09

II 02/06/13 PARENT 01

K E-Mail Communications from Various PARENT 53

Parent to Student’s School

JJ E-Mail Correspondence from 01/28/13 PARENT 10 Parent to Student’s School

KK E-Mail Regarding 8/12 Meeting Various PARENT 11

LL Acceptance Letter 01/30/13 PARENT 01

MM OMITTED

NN Categories Undated PARENT 02

OO Transcription of IEP Meeting 08/31/12 PARENT 106

PP Closing Statement 06/25/13 PARENT 27