New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number:

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District:

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Date of Hearing: January 17, 2013

February 15, 2013

Actual Record Closed Date: February 14, 2013

Hearing Officer: Barbara J. Ebenstein, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JANUARY 17, 2013

Attorney — Student

Mother — Student

Father — Student

Student Support Services at — Student

(Via Telephone) — Student

Attorney — DOE

Assistant Principal (Via — DOE

Telephone) — DOE

School Psychologist CSE (Via Telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON FEBRUARY 15,

2013

Attorney — Student

Parents

Parents

Program Coordinator, — Student

(Via Telephone) — Student

Teacher, (Via — Student

Telephone) — Student

DR., Neuropsychologist (Via Telephone) — Student

Attorney — DOE

This is New York City case #141613. On January 17, 2013 and February 15, 2013, I conducted an impartial hearing concerning the special education of at the New York City Department of Education (DOE), 131 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, New York. Diana Gersten, Esq. from the Law Offices of represented the parents, and Esq. represented the New York City DOE. A list of witnesses who testified and documents admitted into evidence is attached to this final decision.

ISSUE

The sole issue is whether the parents are entitled to reimbursement for their unilateral placement of ) for the 2012 – 2013 school year.

POSITION OF THE PARENTS

The parents contend that the DOE failed to offer . a “free and appropriate public education” (FAPE) for the 2012 – 2013 school year because the June 5, 2012 “Committee on Special Education” (CSE) was not properly constituted, and it developed an “individualized education program” (IEP) for that did not provide an adequate transition plan for him. The parents further claim that the proposed school site is not appropriate for The parents believe that is an appropriate placement for , and that equity favors their claim for reimbursement.

POSITION OF THE DOE

The DOE contends that it offered . a FAPE in an IEP dated June 5, 2012 and in the . The DOE claims that is not appropriate for , and that equities do not favor the parents’ claim.

FINDINGS OF FACT

. (Tr. 359) He is now , and he displays , especially in . (Tr. 340-1, 359). Although , it has slipped below that level.

DR : So although he has pockets of abilities that are within the range, his has fallen--depending on when I've seen him--roughly between the range. (Tr. 340) Despite these , the educational classification of his disability is “ ” ( ). Classification is not an issue in this impartial hearing. (Tr. 11, 359)

has been in special education programs since “ ” ( ). (Tr. 360) He attended a special education preschool, and a series of special education private schools for students ages 5 – 21. At first, the DOE funded his attendance at approved private schools, including the and then the Birch School. (Tr. 360-1) Later when the DOE stopped funding a private school for him, his parents unilaterally placed at the , and they have paid for for the last four years. (Tr. 370-1)

’s Mother believes that as got older, he experienced an increased awareness of his . (Tr. 345, 359-60; Ex. 13 at 1 refers to “anxious”) In this impartial hearing, Dr. a private , made one statement about “trips to , consultations with and . . . significant .” (Tr. 346) There was no written report from Dr. at the June 5, 2012 CSE meeting, and none in this impartial hearing. There is no other evidence of these problems in the documents or other testimony in this impartial hearing. I gave Dr. ’s vague unsubstantiated statement little weight.

The parties stipulated to the fact that the CSE met for on June 5, 2012. (Tr.

13) Ms. , from student support services, attended this meeting. The CSE reviewed reports, including a draft transition plan and draft goals. These documents establish that ’s math skills were at the in May but on the level in September, and his reading skills on the level. (Ex. 4 at 1, Ex. 5 at 1; Tr. 98-99) also had a vocational assessment and a travel training assessment that Ms. did not share with the June 5, 2012 CSE. (Tr. 196)

The June 5, 2012 CSE developed an IEP that placed in a class with a transition plan, and related services of . (Ex. 4) Last year, was in a class at when the June 5, 2012 CSE convened for B. (Ex. F at 1; Tr. 285-6) He had made progress in that setting.^[1] The CSE matched that class size, and the parents did not disagree with this recommendation. The only participant who disagreed with the proposed placement was Ms. who expressed her own opinion. She has never been ’s teacher or service provider. She attended approximately ninety (90) CSE meetings in New York City Region last year, and she did not agree with a District placement in any of them. (Tr.

203) I consider her to be a fact witness reporting some facts because she serves as a conduit for information from the various teachers and related service providers at to Region . I gave no weight to her personal opinion.

On June 15, 2012, the parents sent a letter to the DOE rejecting the placement before they received the “final notice of recommendation” (FNR) from the DOE. (Ex. B) The parties stipulated to the fact that the DOE sent the parents a “final notice of recommendation” (FNR) that placed at , the ). BTC is a District 75 special education school. (Tr. 13-4) The parents unilaterally placed in the Program (Cooke) for the 2012 – 2013 school year.

The parents visited the , the who has worked with the family for roughly twelve years, on June 25, 2012 after they had already rejected the offered placement and then later received the FNR. (Tr. 339, 341) Dr. believes that the students at BTC have similar profiles to although may have better reading skills than the students there. (Tr. 342) But he thought that the students were more advanced than in terms of transition and their ability to participate in field placements. (Tr. 343)

“So that was my main concern here, was that there was the push to go into placements, and I do not feel that that was an appropriate push and placement for at this time.” (Tr. 343)

The parents filed an impartial hearing complaint through their attorney on October 16, 2012. (Ex.1).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Department of Education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a student by his or her parent, if the services offered by the Department of Education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parent were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parent’s claim. Burlington School Comm. v. Dept. of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (1985). The fact that the private school selected by the parents to provide special education services to the child is not State approved as a school for children with is not dispositive of the parents' claim for reimbursement of tuition. Florence County School District Four et al. v. Carter by Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993).

FIRST CRITERION

The Department of Education has the burden to establish that it has offered a “free and appropriate public education” (FAPE). The appropriateness of an IEP shoud be reviewed prospectively as of the time it was written. R.E. v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 187 (2d Cir. 2012) An appropriate special education program begins with an IEP which accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student's needs, establishes annual goals and short-term instructional objectives, when applicable, related to those needs, and provides for the use of appropriate special education services. “A school district fulfills its substantive obligations under the Individuals with Disabilties Education Act (IDEA) if it provides an IEP that is likely to produce progress, not regression, and if the IEP affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere trivial advancement.” T.P. ex rel. S.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 247, 254 (2d Cir. 2009) This is a low standard that does not quantify the amount of advancement needed to establish educational benefit.

The often quoted Rowley standard is that an “appropriate” education includes:

“. . . personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction. . . and if the child is being educated in the regular classroom, should be reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing s and advance from grade to grade.”

Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982)

Yet the Rowley standard should not be read out of context. The United States Supreme Court made it clear that it was the intent of the High Court to apply this standard only to the education of children who are in the regular education classroom and pursue the general education curriculum:

“The Act requires participating States to educate a wide spectrum of handicapped children, from the marginally hearing-impaired to the profoundly retarded and palsied. It is clear that the benefits obtainable by children at one end of the spectrum will differ dramatically from those obtainable by children at the other end, with infinite variations in between. One child may have little difficulty competing successfully in an academic setting with non-handicapped children while another child may encounter great difficulty in acquiring even the most basic of self-maintenance skills. We do not attempt today to establish any one test for determining the adequacy of educational benefits conferred upon all children covered by the Act. Because in this case we are presented with a handicapped child who is receiving substantial specialized instruction and related services, and who is performing above average in the regular classrooms of a public school system, we confine our analysis to that situation.”

Rowley, 458 U.S. at 202 (emphasis added)

In the instant matter, . is a child with global developmental delays who has never been in general education classes and he is not pursuing a general education curriculum. The Rowley standard does not apply to

There is no case law from the United States Supreme Court or from the Second Circuit that clearly establishes a standard of “appropriateness” for a child who is not in general education classes or curriculum. The reasoning and analysis of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Deal v. Hamilton Department of Education is instructive in this matter. In that case, the Sixth Circuit reviewed the history of educational benefit standards and it developed a standard for a young child with autism who was not in the general education classroom nor pursuing the general education curriculum.

“IDEA requires an IEP to confer a meaningful educational benefit gauged in relation to the potential of the child at issue . . . the intent of Congress appears to have been to require a program providing a meaningful educational benefit towards the goal of self-sufficiency, especially where self-sufficiency is a realistic goal for a particular child.“

Deal v. Hamilton Department of Education, 392 F.3d 840, 862, 864 (6th Cir. 2004)

There is further support for the application of this “self-sufficiency” standard for a child who is not in general education program in the language of the Congressional findings in the reauthorization of the IDEA 2004. Congress found that the education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by:

“having high expectations for such children and ensuring their access to the general education curriculum in the regular classroom, to the maximum extent possible, in order to meet developmental goals and, to the maximum extent possible, the challenging expectations that have been established for all children; and, to be prepared to lead productive and independent adult lives, to the maximum extent possible.” (emphasis added)

20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400(c)(5)(A)(i) and (ii)

This higher standard and reasoning was reviewed by the United States District Court for the Southern District in A.D. and M.D. v. The New York City Department of Education, 08 Civ. 9424 (DLC) in footnote 7. In footnote 7, the Court described the reasoning of the New York State Impartial Hearing Officer who applied the Rowley standard in a case involving a child with autism:

“In reaching this decision, the Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) concluded that the standard set forth in Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 207 (1982) -- that the IEP be “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits” -- did not apply because defendants recommended placing E.D. in a full-time special education classroom. The IHO relied instead on Deal v. Hamilton

Board of Education, 392 F.3d 840 (6th Cir. 2004), which held that an IEP for a student who is not placed in a regular- education classroom should aim to “provid[e] a meaningful educational benefit towards the goal of self-sufficiency. Id.

at 864.”

The Court left the applicable standard unresolved, but reversed the State Review Officer’s decision for other reasons leaving the Impartial Hearing Officer’s decision without comment on the legal standard of “appropriateness.”

In the case before me, there is ample evidence that B. can achieve some level of self-sufficiency and independence. He has some scattered cognitive skills in the borderline range, and he reads on a second grade level. Therefore, I find the reasoning of Deal to be persuasive in this matter. It is this standard of a meaningful educational benefit toward the goal of self-sufficiency and an independent adult life that I apply in this case.

The parents contend that the June 5, 2012 CSE was not properly constituted for several reasons. (Ex. 1) First, there was no general education teacher at the June 5, 2012 CSE meeting. A general education must be a member of the CSE when the student “is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment.” 20 U.S.C. 1414[d][1][B][ii] was not participating in the general education environment, and it was not an option for him. I find that a general education teacher was not needed. Second, the parents claim that a parent member was necessary at the June 5, 2012 CSE. I find that the parent member was not necessary because the annual review did not consider a more restrictive environment. (Tr. 92) Even if a parent member should have been at the June 5, 2012 CSE, it was a procedural error with no substantive impact. (See R.E. v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 694 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2012) I note that the current regulations of the New York State Commissioner no longer require a parent member unless the parents request one in advance of the meeting. I find that a parent member was not necessary.

It is more troubling that was not a member of the June 5, 2012 CSE meeting. School districts must invite students to attend their own CSE meetings when transition will be discussed:

if the purpose of the meeting is to consider the postsecondary goals for the student and the transition services needed to assist the student in reaching those goals, the school district shall invite the student. If the student does not attend, the district shall take steps to ensure that the student's preferences and interests are considered. To the extent appropriate and with parental consent or consent of a student 18 years of age or older, the school district must invite a representative of any participating agency that is likely to be responsible for providing or paying for transition services. If an agency invited to send a representative to a meeting does not do so, the district should take steps to involve the other agency in the planning of any transition services.

New York State Commissioner regulation Section 200.4(d)(4)(c)

There is no evidence that the DOE invited to the June 5, 2012 CSE meeting. Although did not participate in the CSE meeting, the regulation gives school districts a legal “out” if it takes steps to ensure that the student’s preferences and interests are considered. In this case, ’s Mother testified that the CSE “talked again a lot about his likes and dislikes.” (Tr. 279) I find that the DOE complied with New York State Commissioner regulation Section 200.4(d)(4)(c)

Lastly, the Mother testified that the only agency works with is the and it is unclear whether it will provide adult services to him in the future. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the parents disclosed ’s involvement with the Birch Center to the CSE prior to the June 5, 2013 meeting. I find that the June 5, 2012 CSE was properly constituted.

The parents contend that the June 5, 2012 CSE did not provide an appropriate transition plan. The CSE placed in a small special education program of twelve students to one teacher and one paraprofessional ( ) class with related services of and . It is a twelve-month extended year program with a transition plan. The transition plan provides twenty-two short-term instructional objectives, including technology, leisure activities, cooking, healthy food, and activities of daily living. (Ex. 6 at 7) I find that the June 5, 2012 IEP offered a FAPE for the 2012 – 2013 school year.

The question is whether the DOE offered a school site in which the June 5, 2012 IEP could be implemented. A basic principle of the IDEA is the development and implementation of an IEP for each eligible student. Subsequent to its development, an IEP must be properly implemented. 8 NYCRR 200.4(e)(7); Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 08-087, Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 09-

111. The Second Circuit established:

“The Department’s practice is to provide general placement information in the IEP, such as the staffing ratio and related services, and then convey to the parents a final notice of recommendation, or FNR identifying a specific school at a later date. The parents are then able to visit the placement before deciding whether to accept it.

We have held, however, that the term “educational placement” refers “‘only to the general type of educational program in which a child is placed.’” (cites omitted)

The Department may select the specific school without the advice of the parents so long as it conforms to the program offered in the IEP.

R.E. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, (2d Cir. 2012). (emphasis added)

Ms. , the assistant principal at the , described how the June 5, 2012 IEP would be implemented there and how the school conforms to the program offered in the IEP. (Tr.

55-7) The offers two programs: a special education high school and a transition program. (Tr. 50) could have been placed in either program because he years old, but the June 5, 2012 IEP suggests that he be in the program. (Ex. L at 2; Tr. 79, 50, 53)

In the high school, students begin each day with an academic period in the school.

(Tr. 81) They also work on prevocational skills in the classroom, and each student follows an individual schedule that is either written or pictorial based upon his ability. (Tr.

42) The high school students are at work sites part-time. Some of the work sites are

Walgreens, St. John’s Thrift Shop, a food pantry, Trader Joe’s, Methodist Hospital, a nursing home, , and other sites and in a classroom the rest of the time. (Tr. 55, 39-40)

There is a teacher and at least one paraprofessional at the work site with the students. (Tr.

42) The also develops person centered plans that address future plans, registration with

SSI and Medicaid, recreational activities, and other aspects of transition to adult life. (Tr. 44)

Some of the parents’ arguments concerning the reason. First, the parents contend that the students at the are more capable of working at community work sites than .

Then the parents placed at where he is the in his cohort and every other student there is more capable of working at community work sites than . is old, and he does not even have a vocational interest yet.

MS. 's vocational interests are--he's still developing them. He does not have a clear sense of what he'sinterested in and what he likes to do. He did identify that he likes participating in the school store and that he likes shopping, which is how his internship was formed. (Tr. 268)

Shopping is generally not a vocation. Ms. s notes from the June 5, 2012 CSE include a statement that “has time to figure out vocational interests." (Tr. 205-6) She testified that either she or the Mother made that statement at the CSE meeting. (Id.) was then nineteen years old and approaching his final year of special education eligibility.

Second, the parents believe that the is too vocationally oriented for . The fact that does not participate in the internship program outside the school does not mean that it is not a focus of the program. It simply means that cannot access the full vocational program at

In this case, the DOE offered the program as the school site. The program includes instruction in functional ELA and math with varied supported work experiences and related services. Ms. established that the June 5, 2012 IEP could be implemented there.

I find that the Department of Education has offered a FAPE . for the 2012 - 2013 school year because the offered public program is reasonably calculated to provide a meaningful educational benefit toward the goal of self-sufficiency and an independent adult life.

SECOND CRITERION

Having found that the New York City Department of Education has carried its burden on the first criterion, I do not have to consider the second or third criteria. See Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-092 But I will do so to complete the record in this case.

With respect to the second criterion of a Burlington/Carter analysis, the parents bear the burden of proof with regard to the appropriateness of the services obtained for the child. Frank G. and Dianne G. v Bd. of Education of Hyde Park, 459 F3d 356 (2d Cir. 2006) In order to meet that burden, the parents must show that the services were "proper under the Act", (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, 471 U.S. 359 (1985), i.e., that the private school offered an educational program which met the child's special education needs. "The standards for determining whether a private school placement is 'appropriate' under the IDEA closely resemble, but do not mirror, the standards for assessing the adequacy and appropriateness of the proposed public placement." A.D. v. Bd. of Educ., 690 F. Supp. 2d 193, 206 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). The Second Circuit has set forth the standard for determining whether parents have carried their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of their unilateral placement.

No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining whether parents' unilateral placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. . . . but courts assessing the propriety of a unilateral placement consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child's individual needs. To qualify for reimbursement under the IDEA, parents need not show that a private placement furnishes every special service necessary to maximize their child's potential. They need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child . . . “

Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 112 (2d Cir. 2007)

The parents unilaterally placed at , which is an unapproved post-secondary school special education program for thirty-four students ages eighteen to twenty-one. (Tr. 220) uses a theme approach to teach functional English Language Arts (ELA) and functional math. For example, one theme has been clothing. Students learned thematic vocabulary, how to price tags, practice purchasing clothing, and other related skills. (Tr. 226)

students are divided into two cohorts. is in a cohort of twenty students. (Tr.

275) The entire cohort of twenty students is in a daily adaptive class together working in smaller groups. (Tr. 276) The students are grouped according to their academic and functional abilities and needs, and is the in . (Tr. 328. 222)

places all its students in off-campus internships to work on vocational skills, except .

MS. : And are there other students in your program that actually work at a worksite, as opposed to working in your building?

MS. : Yes. All of our students work--all of our students have internships that are not located in the building, so they go-- internships vary from--they can be in mail rooms. They can be at CVS Pharmacy, stocking. They can be in libraries. They can be working with maintenance. They could be working with animals. It all depends on the student's interests, the student's skills, what skills they're developing, and what their interests are. So that the way the students' internships are determined, we have an internship coordinator, and it's a combination of meeting with the student and also sometimes meeting with families to talk about vocational goals.

MS. : And so is the only student that works within your school building as part of his internship?

MS. : Well, he's at . You mean in terms of like when he gets back and putting the list together? We have a messenger, but other than that--we have a messenger, but that's pretty much--yeah, everyone else is offsite. The point is that they are out in the community participating and developing those skills. (Tr. 240-1)

Although has an internship program, is not able to participate in this program. Instead, goes to twice a month with a “community inclusion assistant,” who is a paraprofessional, and they shop for the school store. (Tr. 206, 239-40) is not his work site. He just shops there. He does not work in the community at all. Ms. explained that the is different from s work-study program, although she did not explain how they differ, (Tr. 186-7) She also admitted that she has not visited any of the public school work-study sites. (Tr. 188)

The parents recognize that does not provide sufficient academic or vocational support for .

MS. .: is working with . He's very active in their vocational programs. He's very active in--they have a program. They have a program. So we don't rest .

We have other foundations that we have gone to to try to get assistance for . And we continue to have private tutors for to boost his functional academics. (Tr.

409) Meanwhile, is not registered with any other public or private agencies other than . (Tr. 410) Although is twenty years old, the parents do not know when he will age out of special education because his birthday is over the summer.

Although does not individualize its community based internship program sufficiently to permit to work in the community, it does provide him with appropriate functional ELA and math instruction. The Gagliardo standard for reimbursement is a low standard in that the parents must establish that the private school addresses some of the student’s needs. Although is not in a community internship and his reading level has not progressed this year , he has acquired new functional reading words. (Tr. 324-5,

345) I find that is an appropriate school for .

THIRD CRITERION

The third criterion for an award of tuition reimbursement is whether equitable considerations support the parent's claim. Again, I will consider the equity issues in this matter to complete the record in this case.

The DOE claims that the parents did not provide proper ten day notice. Reimbursement may be reduced or denied if parents do not provide proper notice that they are rejecting the proposed placement and seeking reimbursement of a unilateral placement in a private school. 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(10)(C); 34 C.F.R. §300.148(d) The parents sent a letter dated June 15, 2012. (Ex. B) Although it does not reject a specific school site, it does reject the program set out in the June 5, 2012 IEP.

I find that the parents participated in the June 5, 2012 CSE meeting, visited the recommended program, and provided the DOE with sufficient legal notice in their June 15, 2012 letter. Although the parents may have failed to disclose medical information suggested by Dr. , ’s involvement in the vocational program at , and his tutoring, I find that the requirements of equity are minimal and that equity supports the parents’ claim.

SUMMARY

The DOE established that it offered . a FAPE for the 2012 – 2013 school year. The parents carried their burden to establish that is appropriate for . Equity does favor the parents’ claim for reimbursement.

ORDER

There is no order.

I remind the DOE to invite students of transition age to IEP meetings when they invite their parents. Dated: March 19, 2013

_________________________

BARBARA J. EBENSTEIN, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer BE;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

Parents

A Impartial Hearing Request dated 10/16/11, 7 pages

B Notice, dated 6/15/12, 3 pages

C Summer Academy Description, undated, 3 pages

D Summer Academy Curriculum Outline for 2012, 5 pages

E Summer Academy Progress Report, 2012, 4 pages

F Skills Program Description, undated, 5 pages

G .'s Schedule 2012-2013, 1 page

H Progress Report, November 2012, 18 pages

I Payment Affidavit 1/2/13, 2 pages

J Class Profile from Class V-34, 6/14/12, 1 page

K Enrollment Contract 8/30/12 and 6/14/12, 4 pages

L Brochure, undated, 4 pages

M Email, 5/29/12, 2 pages

DOE

1 Due Process Complaint, dates 10/16/12, 7 pages 2 Due Process Response, dated 10/26/12, 4 pages 3 Amended Due Process Response, dated 1/9/13, 3 pages 4 IEP, 6/5/12, 15 pages 5 Official CSE Minutes dated 6/5/12, 4 pages 6 IEP, dated 3/28/11, 14 pages 7 Final Notice of Recommendation, dated 6/15/12, 1 page 8 Classroom Observation, dated 11/2/11, 2 pages 9 Classroom Observation, dated 11/8/10, 1 page 10 Comprehensive Neuropsychological Evaluation, January 2008, 13 pages 11 Program Report, 2011-2012, January 2012, 14 pages 12 Consent Form dated 10/15/11, 1 page 13 IEP Annual Report Review Report, 6/5/12, 5 pages

IHO

I Photo of Dog's Identification Tag for (a work site)

Footnotes

[1] During the 2012 – 2013 school year, made a programmatic decision to sub-divide some classes into smaller groups. (Tr. 234) This was not a decision individualized to ’s needs.