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: December 10, 2012

January 11, 2013

January 29, 2013

February 11, 2013

February 20, 2013

March 11, 2013

March 13, 2013

Actual Record Closed Date: May 20, 2013

Hearing Officer: Elise B. Kestenbaum, Esq.

Corrected

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED DECEMBER 10, 2012

Esq. Attorney for Parent — Student

District Representative — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JANUARY 11, 2013

Esq. Attorney for Parent — Student

Parents

Esq. Attorney for District — DOE

School Psychologist — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JANUARY 29, 2013

Attorney for Parent — Student

Parents

Attorney for District — DOE

Principal (Via Telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED FEBRUARY 11, 2013

Esq. Attorney for Parent — Student

Parents

Psychologist (via telephone) — Student

Esq. Attorney for District — DOE

Counselor, (via telephone) — DOE

School Psychologist — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED FEBRUARY 20, 2013

Esq. Attorney for Parent — Student

Parents

Parent Representative, — Student

Esq. Attorney for District — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED MARCH11, 2013

Esp. Attorney for Parent — Student

Parents

Dr. Dean of Academics, (via telephone) — Student

Esq. Attorney for District — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED MARCH 13, 2013

Esq. Attorney for Parent — Student

Parents

L.C.S.W. Advisor, (via telephone) — Student

Esq. Attorney for District — DOE

INTRODUCTION: — DOE

This case was brought before me upon my designation by the Department of Education (“District”) as an impartial hearing officer pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Act (“IDEA”), 29 USC §1400 [f][1] and Part 200 of the Regulations of the New York State Commissioner of Education. This matter was brought by the Parent (“Parent”) on behalf of the student (“Student”), through her attorney, Esq., by filing a Due Process Complaint dated October 23, 2012 with the District. The District was represented by , Esq., an attorney for the Department of Education.

The Parent is alleging that her son, ., was denied a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the 2012-13 school year and is seeking tuition for the his unilateral placement at the from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013.

There were five days of hearings in this matter. Hearings were conducted on December 10, 2012 and January 11, February 11, February 20, March 11 and March 13, 2013. Briefs were submitted in this matter. Extensions were granted in this case making the final compliance date June 6, 2013. A list of Exhibits is attached as Exhibit A. The Parent, the District and the Impartial Hearing Officer submitted exhibits.

BACKGROUND

This case involves old student. During the 2012-13 school year, . is attending the where the Student was unilaterally placed by the Parent.

With respect to the 2012-13 school year, a CSE meeting was held on July 31, 2012 and the committee determined that the Student was not eligible for special education services because the child did not have a disability as defined in Part 200 of the Regulations of the Commission of Education. D-4.

. was placed in the program by his Parent on December 16, 2011 and remained there until February 23, 2012 and was then unilaterally placed at the on February 24, 2012. D-8. Prior to that time, the Student attended from September 2010 through the beginning of December 2012 and before that attended the for grades five through eight. D-8.

The Parent signed a tuition and fee agreement for the on February 2, 2012. P-M. The Parent filed a Due Process Complaint with the District on October 23, 2012.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

District Case

The District called three witnesses, and and placed sixteen (16) documents in evidence.

The first witness was . He works at CSE as a school psychologist. Tr. 79. He has a Master’s Degree in education and psychology with a specialty in school psychology and is a New York State certified school psychologist. Tr. 80. He has worked in his present location for two years and prior to that worked in two schools in the Bronx. Tr. 80.

He is familiar with the Student since he participated in a CSE meeting on July 31, 2012 to assess whether . should be considered for special education services. Tr. 80. The parties that were present at the meeting were: Mr. school psychologist; , special education teacher; , general education teacher; Parent; , social worker; , parent member; and , Parent representative from . D-4, Tr. 82-84. The Student was at at the time of this meeting. Tr. 85, D-5. Mr. testified that no one from attended the CSE meeting and he does not recall a request by the Parent to contact them. Tr. 87. The CSE relied on school reports, the Social History (D-8) and a Evaluation (D-7). Tr. 88. They did not conduct an observation since is out of state. Tr. 88. Mr. stated that he had participated in hundreds of CSE meetings involving eligibility for services. Tr. 89. He felt that the documentation available at the meeting was sufficient to make a determination concerning the Student’s eligibility for services since they had documentation regarding his academic and intellectual profile and significant background information to shed light on why the Student’s profile was developing in certain ways. Tr. 89.

Mr. indicated that they reviewed the thirteen classifications and .’s profile and determined that he did not meet the criteria to be classified and therefore was ineligible for services through an IEP. Tr. 90-91. They looked at the classifications that were most appropriate .’s profile by looking at ( ) and a child with a . Tr. 92. He stated that they did not view the Student as falling within the rubric of since the child’s IQ was in the range, did not have delays in his activities of daily living and the disabilities were not onset before age 18. Tr. 93. The reason did not meet the classification of emotional disturbance is because the team felt that his within the school environment were caused by social variables. Tr. 94. He testified inhibited his and when he was and off of the drugs, the reports indicated that he was making significant progress and doing much better. Therefore Mr. stated that “It was determined that it was the cause of the drugs, inappropriate social engagements, there were causing his inability to learn, and that was indicative of the social history and the previous educational background that was provided in the Evaluation. And then when looking ahead at this performance in when he was off, he was achieving a lot better. So it was determined that it was the use of the drugs that inhibited his ability to perform and it wasn’t anything else. And because of that, he didn’t meet the criteria for a child with an .” Tr. 95.

With respect to stated that is an umbrella for all other medical conditions which would be affecting a child’s academic performance. Tr. 95. Since the CSE felt that .’s academic difficulties were caused by use and when he was off it, he is achieving substantially above a child with significant disabilities, he did not meet the criteria for classification under the chancellors guidelines. Tr. 96-97. The team also made the determination that he is not . Tr. 97. Mr. stated that a child with a learning disability typically has a higher intellect and does not perform to their potential. In case, when . was using , he was not performing well intellectually and academically, however when off drugs and alcohol, his scores have increased significantly. Tr. 97

Mr. testified that in the prepared by Dr. (D-7), the clinician gave diagnoses based on the DSM-IV including , Problems, and he stated that they all pertain to medical disabilities, not academic areas. Tr. 98. In addition, in the recommendation section, the clinician recommends counseling for both the Parents and Student, treatment and things of that nature, none of which entail academic remediation. Tr. 99.

On cross examination, Mr. described ’s case as a progression case since the Parent made the referral over the summer and Mr. was assigned to the case to prepare for a CSE meeting for an initial evaluation of whether or not the Student was eligible to receive special education. Tr. 110. Before the CSE meeting, the four District employees who attended the meeting met to review the documents. Mr. stated that “we go in there all on the same page”. He stated that “we explore everybody’s opinions and thoughts, so there are no arguments in front of the Parent”. Tr. 111-112. He indicated that they would make a collaborative decision as to what would be appropriate before the CSE meeting. Tr. 112.

Mr. stated that the District does not use the DSM-IV for classification because the District’s classifications . Tr. 117. He said that you can have through the DSM-IV but if they don’t correlate to the 13 classifications then the District must use its own criteria. Tr. 117. He said the is an academic based classification which lets us know that the child has a . Tr. 121.

Mr. testified that the SEISIS application would reveal the documents that were reviewed at the July 31, 2012 CSE meeting. Tr. 135. He also indicated that the conference with the three other CSE members from the District occurred an hour or two before the CSE meeting. Tr. 135. Mr. stated that at the time of .’s 2010 report card (PD), . . Tr. 139. The the Social History Report and was known to the CSE team at the meeting. Tr. 140; D-7; D-8. The number of card and the number . Tr. 141. Mr. testified that his report card indicated that he wasn’t doing well academically and this could be attributed to his absences, and his . Tr. 148. He stated that when looking at the way he is developing at present, he doesn’t qualify as a child with a disability and the report card only magnifies the fact that at that time the and now that he’s off the drugs, he is doing much better. Tr. 148. Mr. stated that at the conference prior to the meeting, he reviewed the with the three other District CSE meeting and went over the areas of concern and the areas of development. Tr. 154. Mr. testified that the clinician, at no point, made reference to any academic delay. Tr. 155.

In the report, the clinician indicated that he “may show a tendency towards impulsive outbursts of and/or ill advised actions”, however Mr. stated that the District does not give “participatory services. We give services to children who are already deficient”. Tr. 157. Therefore, although he may have relative weaknesses and he may have stimulus overload, however, looking at his grades, the weaknesses he exhibited weren’t significant in relation to a typical child in his grade level. Tr. 157. Mr. indicated that he is not saying that he’s not struggling and it’s not hindering his performance, but with the standards they use for the typical student, it’s not a significant weakness. Tr.

158. Mr. stated that they were diagnosing him as of July 31, 2012, not in 2010. Tr. 160.

Mr. testified that the symptoms that the clinician discussed in the were the result . Tr. 162. He stated that drugs are a depressant and it’s going to make the Tr.

162. Mr. stated that generally a child because they are introduced to it . Tr. 162. He doesn’t know why , however he has a history as well and he does not believe it is to self-medicate. Tr. 163. The report of his drug use was obtained from the Parent and the school and it’s anecdotal. Tr. 165. There is no statistical data with respect to this as a result of a blood test, however the clinician diagnosed him with a medical classification of being . Tr. 166.

With respect to eligibility for remediation through a 504 accommodation, Mr. stated that he is not aware if this was discussed at the CSE meeting or at the team meeting before, however, the school typically makes the parent aware of this as an alternative. Tr. 168.

Mr. stated that a letter dated July 31, 2012 was sent to the Parent indicating that was not eligible for special education services after review of the appropriate documentation. Tr. 169. Mr. stated that a was not conducted by the District since they used the one that the psychologist at the wilderness program prepared at the direction of the Parents and no observation was conducted. Tr. 170; D-4. The letter indicated that a summary of their evaluation describing the Student’s present level of functioning was attached, yet it was not made part of Exhibit D-4. Tr. 172. Mr. remembers that the Parent was not happy with the decision at the CSE meeting. Tr. 178. He indicated that the whiteboard is up during the meeting and the page they are discussing is usually up on the board, however, he does not recall the specifics in this case. Tr. 180.

On redirect, Mr. said upon reviewing the documents prior to testifying, he would still make the same recommendation since the child doesn’t meet the criteria to be diagnosed with one of the thirteen classifications so is not eligible for special education services. Tr. 183. Mr. stated that based on the information the District members had, they went into the CSE meeting with the idea . was not eligible but were open to change their mind if additional documentation were presented or the discussion at the CSE meeting changed their recommendation. Tr. 184. Mr. indicated that the Parent’s advocate did not say very much at the meeting. Tr. 186. He also stated that in the Evaluation, the clinician did not diagnose the child which is a criteria on the DSM-IV. Tr. 191; D-7. In addition, if the clinician thought , she could have classified him with some kind of academic delay, but she did not. Tr. 191. Mr. stated that if updated school reports at the meeting had indicated that he , they would have considered changing his eligibility status. Tr. 191.

Mr. was recalled. He testified that the Present Levels of Performance document was prepared after the July 31st CSE meeting when it was determined . was ineligible for special education. Tr. 325; D-11. It was prepared at the same time as Exhibit D-4. Tr.

329. Mr. testified that it was his responsibility to get the document out to the Parent. Tr. 331.

The next witness for the District was . She is the principal at and has been there for three years since it opened. Tr. 212; Tr. 213. Prior to that, she was also an assistant principal for five years and an English teacher for six years. Tr. 213. She has a Master’s degree and a certification in administration. Tr. 214.

She is familiar with . since he was a student at her school during the 2010-11 school year and for the first part of the 2011-12 school year. Tr. 214-215. He was never considered for special education while at the school since he was a fairly successful student academically and teachers were never concerned about his skill levels and she stated that “any dips in his grades seemed to stem from attendance issues”. Tr. 215. was for one day for leaving school without permission while . Tr. 217. Over twenty percent of the students have IEP’s. In order to help identify students who don’t have IEP’s the school has two special education teachers. Tr. 218. Based on referrals from either teachers or the guidance team, the special education teachers meet with the school psychologist to determine whether it’s necessary to do evaluations. Tr. 218-219. Ms. stated that no referral was made . since “No teachers or counselors at any time indicated that they .] needed an IEP for anything”. Tr. 219.

On cross examination, Ms. stated that started as a new high school in 2010 and the application process was to complete a state wide application and an interview. Tr.

220. The school ranks students for admission based on their performance on the interview, their standardized testing, their GPA’s and their attendance record and the DOE matches the students to the school. Tr. 220. There are 295 students in the school presently and there were 100 in the fall of 2010. Tr. 221. Each year another grade is added and the staff is increased. Tr. 221; Tr. 222. During the first year, they had 100 students, a full time guidance counselor and eight teachers including two special education teachers. They are also on a campus where there is a full time school psychologist, a part time bilingual school psychologist, two part time speech therapists and a social worker. Tr. 222. There are five schools on the premises and they all share resources. Tr. 223.

She is familiar with and believes she first met him at his interview. Tr. 224. Since came from private school, his grades came in differently than the students applying from public school. Tr. 225. Ms. testified that the teachers in the classrooms that worked . did not think he had and did not refer him for an evaluation. Tr. 229. She stated that teachers or counselors make a referral for an evaluation if they think a student is . Tr. 230. There is a standard procedure that is followed including the completion of a referral form, a weekly meeting of the administrative staff and counseling staff to review grades, tends, behavior, etc., and identify students that might need support and create intervention plans and if the plan doesn’t work, the student is referred. Tr.

231. The teacher would refer a student if they are failing or if they notice something severe. Tr. 232. These administrative meetings involve the principal, assistant principal, guidance counselors and special education teachers. Tr. 232.

Ms. stated that she recalls at one of these meetings. She believes the counselor had concerns with . The procedure in this circumstance is that the advisor of their advising program contacts the home to see if there and if there are issues, the counselor or teacher investigates it. Tr. 234. are generally handled in house by the counselor or advisor. An investigation would be triggered if there is a pattern or if they are . Tr. 235-

236. Generally, Ms. stated that approximately nine students a year are referred for special education. Tr. 236. Most students that were referred for evaluation were ultimately found to be eligible for special education. Tr. 237. Some have learning issues and some require related services like speech or counseling. Tr. 237. No students have been referred that were eligible as emotionally disturbed. Tr. 238. The staff at are trained in the process by which students are referred to the PBST, which is the team made up of teachers, administrators and counselors that refers kids to the CSE. Tr. 254. Ms. stated that teachers are not required to diagnose, but are required to refer a student for diagnosis by someone else. Tr. 257.

The school presently has a computerized system that indicates every period a student misses class, however, they did not have the same system started in Tr. 242-

243. If, however, a student cuts a class and is in the building, Ms. would be notified. Tr. 243.

Ms. stated that is not average for but significant over the course of a year. Tr.

245. She stated that the average would be six. Tr. 246. The number of indicate the times he did not swipe into the building in time for the beginning of the school day and he was late 93 times which is significant. Tr. 246. The parties that were made aware of his were Ms. the assistant principal and his guidance counselor. Tr. 248. Ms. testified that “we worked a great deal with the family to try to get come to school, both on time and in general, and as far as I know, there were referrals made for outside support for counseling. He has [also] been seen by our counselor without having an IEP service”. Tr. 248. He was being seen by the counselor at school on a regular basis. Tr. 248. Ms. stated that there was constant communication with the Parents. The parties who spoke to the Parents were the guidance counselor, advisor, Ms. and the school secretary. Tr. 248. She does not recall the number of days he was absent or late during the 2011-12 school year. Tr. 249. If the Student has the Parents are always called. Tr. 252.

Ms. stated that “we were in regular contact with the Parents - - and attendance, and our understanding was that there were a lot of things that were happening for outside of school that were impacting his ability to be in attendance, and the [school] counselor was working with the family”. Tr. 252. She said that there were no concerns by the teachers that he was a discipline problem, however, there were concerns around his use of substances in that teachers reported that he seemed altered in class and wasn’t acting like himself. Tr. 261. The Parents were made aware of this. Tr. 262. In January of 2011, Ms. said his counselor was made aware that he was under the care of a physician at the . Tr. 264.

On redirect, Ms. testified that with respect to attendance and lateness, his advisor met with , his guidance counselor had regular contact with the family, and Ms. met with the family a couple of times during the year and a half he was there. Tr. 273. She stated that first she thought it was a transition issue since he went from a private school to a public school, however, then there was suspicion of substance abuse and conversations with the Parents with respect to this. Tr. 274. Ms. stated that based on his diagnostics the teachers expected his grades to be higher but he was not failing. Tr. 274. Ms. testified that he wasn’t referred for special education because academically and they were providing in school was being treated outside of school in a number of ways that the counselor was made aware of. Tr. 275. was referred for transitional as a freshman because the students that are at the beginning are put in groups and/or seen by a counselor. Tr. 276.

The next witness was . She is the school counselor and has been at since September 2010. Her duties are to support students and provide counseling as needed. Tr. 286. She has a Master’s degree in school counseling. Ms. guidance counselor and discussed: his academic barriers with him to help him do better in school; his family issues; his relationship with his girlfriend; and his overall unhappiness with being in the building because he couldn’t be where he wanted to be. Tr. 289. She stated that every student does not have counseling services; they are provided as needed. Tr. 289. There is an advisory program in the school which deals with a lot of the student’s issues before the student gets referred . Tr. 290. The advisor is responsible for 15 to 20 students and they travel with the student from 9th through 12th grade, and they have a class that meets once a week. Tr. 290. The advisor is the first point of contact between the home and the student. Tt. 290.

In terms of he initiated the counseling and would set up an appointment whenever he needed to check in or work through something that was bothering him. Tr.

291. Ms. eight or ten times, more the first year than the second. Tr. 291. Outside of school, was in a substance abuse program at the end of the 2010-11 school year. She stated that had indicated that it was a 90 day program that he went to after school. Tr. 292.

On cross examination, Ms. testified that there is a health clinic in the building and any mental health issues are referred to the social worker in the clinic. Tr. 293. She is not familiar with how referrals are made to CSE and indicated that one of the special education teachers is responsible to refer students. Tr. 294. The procedure that is followed is that the principal, assistant principal, herself and another counselor, and special education teachers meet once a week and talk about that come up with the students that are failing and try to identify the barriers. Tr. 294. They talk about mostly academic and attendance issues or anything that they feel the student is struggling with. Tr. 295. According to Ms. “ Ultimately, it becomes a number grade, but it can also be failing to participate, engage in class, be at school. If the student is late all the time or if attendance is low, we try to find out what it is we can do to support the student”. Tr. 295.

Ms. stated that she is familiar .’s attendance record and they talked about it during counseling sessions. She also stated that there were discussions issues at the team meeting. Tr. 296. She stated that the advisor reached out to the Parent and there was a lot of communication between the advisor and the Parent. Tr. 296.

Ms. testified that the 90 day after school program was had with the Parents and the Student. Tr. 298; Tr. 300. She indicated that this was the first step they were taking because there were some and if that didn’t work, they were considering program. Tr.

298. Ms. stated that she wasn’t mom and dad were on the same page as far as what was happening . Tr. 298. She testified that . told her he was in a 90 day substance abuse program and that he was resistant to it because he felt there were a lot of people in the program who did a lot than he did. Tr. 300.

On cross examination, Ms. . did mention that he had obsessive traits and so did his mother, but it was very vague. Tr. 303. She indicated that he mentioned that he may have been medicating his obsessive traits with and alcohol use but she wasn’t sure if he thought that or that’s what they mentioned in the program. Tr. 303.

Ms. testified that she wasn’t sure why he left his private school, the information on it was vague, . was resistant to talk about it. Tr. 304. After his time at the 90 day program, to Tr. 318. During the second year it became clear there were other issues going on at home between his Parents and what was . Tr. 319. Ms. Houlihan testified that there was a court case and was taken away from the school. Tr. 319. Ms. testified that . left, she held a meeting ’s mom indicated that she was concerned about problems. Tr. 321. Parent’s Case , and placed twenty-one (21) documents in evidence.

The first witness . Tr. 338. She received a PhD in clinical psychology. She has worked as an independent practitioner since 2008, and has worked with psychological services at the since 2007 for adolescents and adults. Tr. 342. Fifty percent of her practice involved adolescents, and ninety-five percent of her assessments are for adolescents. Tr. 347.

Dr. conducted a psychological assessment . in January 2012, six weeks after he began the . D-7; Tr. 347. She stated that the DMS-IV is a tool that doctors and clinicians use in terms of diagnosing individuals. Tr. 343. Axis one refers to clinical disorders that need to be a focus in terms of treatment; axis two is more long standing difficulties; axis three is medical conditions that impact mental health or coincide with mental health difficulties; axis four is environments that might have an impact; and axis five is a global assessment of functioning scores.

Dr. stated that on axis one the first diagnosis listed is disorder. She testified that it is a type of with it because he and his Parents reported that he engaged in . Tr.

345. She also stated that “he also had , worrying , his . He would engage in these regarding feeling like his Parents’ , his .” Tr. 346. Dr. thought his may have impacted his processing speed. Tr. 346. She gave . the WISC-IV and he got a low processing speed of , which was . Tr. 346. She stated that “a lot of times individuals who struggle with also show an impact in terms of his processing speed. Tr. 347.

The second diagnosis on axis one not otherwise specified. She made that diagnosis based on his reporting and testing that indicated that he had significant symptoms of depression, . These behaviors have been off and . Tr. 348-349.

The third diagnosis . She testified that if you diagnose someone with dependence, it would assume that they already . She testified that he began years of age and regularly He was , twice, for . Tr. 351. She stated that “He reports that his use caused significant impact in his life in terms of his relationship with his Parents, his engaging with a …” Tr. 351.

Dr. stated that there is a relationship between the three diagnoses. Tr. 352. Dr. reported that his and he reported a direct link to as a way to alleviate his . Tr. 352. She stated the may alleviate negative feelings for the moment, but in the long run, it may make the . Tr. 352-353.

The fourth diagnosis on axis one was parent/child relational problems. Tr. 353. Dr. stated that “there was significant difficulty within the dynamics . and his Parents, not just due to separation but individually within their relationships and as a family system as a whole”. Tr. 353. She indicated that his mom’s relationship with the Student had been very strained over the past few years and his Parents had different parenting styles and values and had difficulty Tr. 354. The mother felt she was the only one setting up boundaries and as a result became reactive and defiant towards her; on the other hand, his father enabled some of his . saw him as a friend rather than a father. Dr. felt that both patterns needed clinical intervention. Tr. 354. Dr. indicated that the Parents began seeking treatment for in due to . The Parents stopped treatment and the Student indicated that the symptoms abated and he did better in sixth and seventh grade and in eighth grade the anxiety increased significantly, and began and became more noticeable. She said in eighth grade his substance abuse increased and became more regular. Tr. 355.

Dr. testified that generally individuals who will have a comorbid difficulty in terms of depression, that occurs within are vulnerable in terms of to assist with and even to find a social group that is accepting. Tr. 356.

Dr. stated that there was certain information in her report that discusses clinical issues that do not meet the criteria in terms of diagnosis but need to be considered in terms of treatment including some of his social relationships and other issues. Tr. 357; D-7. Dr. stated in her report . should gain additional therapeutic and residential treatment for his issues. Tr. 357. She testified that he was taken out of his negative peer group, from all of the family stressors and dynamics and the academic stressors. Tr. 358. She said he thrived for six weeks in the , and if he would then go back into his public school with the same family dynamics and the same environmental stressors and difficulties he was having, he would have gone right back into the same patterns. Tr. 358. Dr. testified that needed a program that focused . Tr. 358. She also stated that he needed group and individual treatment in order to have a wide array of coping skills to deal with his . Tr. 360. She indicated that an outpatient program would not be effective since it did not provide him enough support. She stated that “I think that his difficulties were so longstanding and with the difficult family dynamics and environment that were going on that he really needed something more wrap-around and supportive in order for him to make the changes that he needed:. Tr. 361. She further indicated that if he were to go from to his home environment to attend school in a public setting, he would fall into the same patterns “in terms of spending time with a in terms of family dynamics, and turning again to cope with the

On cross examination, Dr. indicated that she is a contractor that provides psychological assessments for the students that are and has worked there since 2007. Tr.

364. She stated she has no relationship with . Tr. 364. She stated that she is familiar with the IDEA but does not have a comprehensive breakdown of all the different classifications in order to meet criteria for services. Tr. 370. The DSM-IV summary is based on Dr. ’s clinical diagnoses . based on her interview ., her testing and her communications with his Parents. Tr. 370. In terms of academics, she has included IQ and achievement scores in her report. Tr. 370. The IQ is broken down into four components and his verbal comprehension is in which is in the high average range, his perceptual reasoning skills are in which is in the high average range, his working memory is in which is the average range and his processing speed is in percentile which is the . Tr. 371-377.

In terms of , there were no significant issues other than ongoing stomach aches related to anxiety. Tr. 376. In axis five which indicated global functioning measure, was given a 50. Tr. 376. Dr. testified that “the 50 to 60 range is moderate symptoms. So they have may be having regular bouts of depression or moderate difficulty in terms of social relationships or social functioning…The severe symptoms range, which he falls in, is 40-50 range, and that’s where they’re having more serious impairment in multiple areas of their life”. Tr. 378. For an adolescent the global assessment looks at family relationships, social relationships, school relationships, behavioral problems and school functioning. Tr. 379. For . she looked at his difficulties with a negative peer group, his intense relationship with his girlfriend, his very difficult family relationships, his truancy at school, his grades dropping, his legal involvement, etc. Tr. 379. She testified that generally, depending on the training of the clinician, can be treated with Tr. 380.

On cross, Dr. testified that the recommendation of residential treatment is a combination of removing him from certain factors that would negatively impact his progress such while at the same time providing him additional supports that would help him to practice the skills that he needs to effectively

Dr. testified that in which the adolescents are in small groups, they have individual therapists as well as other staff that are with them to offer therapeutic interventions and there are ongoing groups offered. Family relationships are also worked on through letter writing and communication. Tr. 386. She determined that made progress based on her meeting and interviewing the Student. Tr. 386. She believes that the fact that he was not involved with may have contributed to his progress. Tr. 387. She testified that the individual therapy or group sessions may center around addictive behavior or substance abuse depending on the needs of the individual or group, however, she does not have specific knowledge regarding ’s treatment at

In Dr. s report, she recommended that treatment should have a strong substance abuse component. She stated that she made this recommendation “because and his depression, and he needed to have not just but needed in order to have the skills to as he moved forward.” Tr. 385.

On redirect, Dr. indicated that students who have a discrepancy between higher abilities in the verbal and and weaker abilities in processing speed oftentimes . Tr. 390. She stated that this is because it would impact

On recross, Dr. indicated that is another thing in addition to that can impact processing speed. Tr. 393. She also indicated that abuse are things that are often correlated and use can cause

On redirect, Dr. testified that in her professional opinion, came first and then . Tr. 394. On recross, Dr. testified that it is hard to say what going on at home or his genetic predisposition. Tr. 395.

The next witness was . She has a Master’s degree in special education plus 45 additional credits in . She has worked for the District for 31 years. She taught in the public school, was a SETTS teacher, and became an educational evaluator. Tr. 414. She was part of the school based support team and did educational testing, classroom observations and attended IEP meetings. Tr. 415. She then was asked to work in-house with CSE 9 and conducted annual reviews, however did not do the evaluations and testing. Tr. 416. At that time, she worked exclusively with the New York State approved nonpublic schools. Tr. 416. She also worked at CSE 10 with both students attended approved and non-approved public schools. Tr. 418.

She is presently employed at , a private business that helps parents of special needs students navigate through the process. Tr. 419. She stated that Associates is a child advocacy business. Tr. 419. She accompanied the Parent to an initial eligibility CSE meeting . on July 31, 2012. There was a Smart Board (however it was not turned on) (Tr. 431) and the members of the CSE were in a conference room. Tr. 423; Tr. 431. The parties introduced themselves and signed the attendance sheet then the social worker, Ms. proceeded to read her report and go through the Social history. Tr.424; D-8. The psychologist, Dr. then reviewed Tr. 429; D-7. He went straight to the social, emotional, and mental health challenges and and then the numbers on the WISC. Tr. 431-432; D-7. She said the main focus was on the numbers and the statistics and test results. Tr. 435. She stated that at the beginning, the drug usage, lateness to school, the delinquency, the break in and the negative behaviors were discussed as were the diagnoses. Tr. 435.

Mr. testified that Mr. did not review the classification categories but said that “based on the results of this test and the social history and his diagnosis and that he’s done so well in school that we cannot classify him”. Tr. 436. She also said that he stated the diagnoses listed on axis one of (D-8) however he’s able to cope and still does well in school, so he is ineligible. Tr. 417. Ms. indicated that no one was there was anyone there . Tr. 438; Tr. 439. She stated that although the Parent could bring anyone, she did not. Tr. 440. Ms. felt it was the team’s responsibility to contact the schools. Tr. 441.

Ms. said she objected vehemently that they did not classify him. Tr. 441. She said that if it were her case, she would have classified him as a and given him at the . Tr. 441. She said he was high and late and was deteriorating . Tr. 441. She stated that she was aware that although the school counselor was not present, he was receiving counseling. Tr. 442. There was no IEP, no 504 and no counseling goals. Tr. 443. No classroom observation was conducted. Tr. 443. She did not ask any of the members of the CSE questions but neither the special education teacher nor general education teacher spoke. Tr. 444. In addition, the Parent did not say anything. Tr. 444. Ms. said that in her experience in conducting meetings, the psychologist will sometimes ask the members their opinions. Tr. 446. She testified that the meeting was approximately 40 minutes long. Tr. 447.

On cross, Ms. said that although she had stated . failed a class, she didn’t know what class and where she read it. Tr. 448. Therefore, she said she had no personal knowledge of whether he failed a class. Tr. 449. The purpose of Ms. attendance at the CSE meeting was to basically be there to hand hold and be a second pair of eyes and ears for the Parent. Tr. 450. She stated that “[she is] there solely for the Parent”. She said that she asked those questions of the team that the Parent might not have been able to. Tr. 451.

Ms. testified that she would have considered a classification “because he attended school when he could, but he was late, he did not participate in class, he did not do classroom assignments, or if he did them, they were partially done. The same thing with homework…they were not handed in”. She stated that she didn’t have personal knowledge of this, she read it in one of the reports. Tr. 452. On cross, she stated that she made the determination that the Student should be based on the axis one diagnoses of and all of his , etc. Tr. 455-456. She said he had a history ; he didn’t just go to . Tr. 456.

Before a CSE meeting, Ms. reviews what is in the file and the case summary report. Tr. 458. She said a case summary report is the initial report that is derived from the Parents’ meeting with Ms. and the advocate’s review of the file. They will also do a follow up with the Parents. Tr. 458. In this case, she doesn’t remember if she did the case summary report. Tr. 457. She testified that she took notes at the July 31st CSE meeting. Tr. 462. She said she didn’t ask questions at the meeting of the other members because she didn’t feel it was her role since she was there for the Parent. Tr. 466. She also “got the impression” that they weren’t classifying the child as if a decision had already been made. Tr. 467. According to Ms. , the other members may have nodded their heads when Mr. stated that the Student should not be classified or made comments about how bright he was. Tr. 467.

The next witness was Dr. . He is employed at the Dean of Academics. Tr. 498. He has been at this position for six months and previously was a school counselor at a charter high school and an instructor of education at University of Pennsylvania. He has a Master’s degree in Industrial Organizational Psychology & Human Developmental Psychology and a doctorate in Education Leadership. Tr. 498. is located on 200 acres in rural . Tr. 499. He stated that the mission is to educate bright students who have and have gone off the rails in ways that are confusing to their families and to educators. Tr.

500. He stated that “Often times they are , and other manifestations of that they may carry with them”. Tr. 501. There are approximately 80 students ranging from grades nine through twelve. Tr. 501. It should be noted that they do not have traditional grade levels. Tr. 501. They have rolling admissions so they are prepared to take students in any kind of time of struggle outside of normal semester parameters. Tr. 502. They are accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools so they work with them on credits not necessarily grade levels. Tr. 502. A high school student in needs 22 credits in order to receive their high school diploma. Tr. 502. They have an operational board, two co-founders that are the Dean of Faculty and Director of Outreach, Dean of Advising, Dean of Academics and Head of School. Tr. 503. In addition, they have a full time psychiatrist and Dean of Alumni Transition Services. Tr. 504.

Dr. Soto stated that they are usually contacted by educational consultants. They typically require that a student attend a wilderness program prior to coming Tr. 504. They have a variety of tests they require including the workshops, the WISC intelligence test and several others to make sure that students can meet the standards. They do not want to take students with a background that require clinical attention or even diagnosed learning or math disabilities. Tr. 505. He described them as a “very normal boarding school with bright and capable students. Tr. 505. They have a broad range of classes, 18 full time teachers and they try to have Master’s level instructors. They have five nine week terms and each course is one quarter credit. They break down the classes into smaller units which allows for some flexibility in meeting the needs of the students. Tr. 506. Therefore, for chemistry, there would be four different courses that would make up a unit of chemistry. Tr. 507. Each class is 50 minutes. School goes from 8 am to 3:15 pm. Tr. 508. On Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, the students have group therapy after school. On Tuesdays and Fridays they have structured study hall, which they also have in the evenings and on Wednesday, they have clubs and activities. Tr. 509. They also have an academic advisor on Wednesdays with individual attention from teachers they might not have, to make sure things are going well for them academically. Tr. 510. The weekend activities are not very structured and they are not able to leave campus except in an activity. Tr. 511.

Dr. indicated that typically students do not want to stay in the program at the beginning, however, overall, they choose to stay because they recognize that they have the opportunity to turn their lives around. Tr. 512. Dr. stated that the reason for the requirement of a wilderness program is because they have found that in entering a therapeutic program, students who come straight in have a harder time adjusting to the language and the requirements of a psychologically oriented program. Tr. 513. The wilderness programs often ground the students in some of the psychological understandings of themselves that make their transition to our school better and easier for them. Tr. 514. does not have its own and does not have a specific relationship with other wilderness programs. Tr. 514. They are open to taking students from a variety of wilderness programs on referral from their educational consultant or directly from the parents. Tr. 515.

has three graduations a year, one in May, one in August, and one in December. If students have completed the program but have not graduated from high school, some go to a traditional boarding school or go back to public school. They discourage the student going back into the same environment they came from because of the dynamics that resurface. Tr. 518. Ninety to ninety-five percent of students that graduated for Carlbrook attend four year colleges or universities. Tr. 518. Sometimes students do a gap year program. Tr. 518. In order to graduate , you need to complete the therapeutic program so a student may graduate with graduating from high school. Tr. 520.

There is a boys dorm and girls dorm and the school places an emphasis on student leadership so there are roles students play in the dorms, they can be a prefect or dorm head. Tr. 521. Dr. testified that “We do try to be as much of a student driven culture as we possibly can while also acknowledging the limitations of that model”. Tr. 527.

For drug rehab, they have a 12 step program on campus, there are also off campus meetings students may attend and they give a required behavior course that ties neurological functioning to some of the behaviors that got . Tr. 522. Therefore, drug and alcohol substance abuse rehabilitation is something that is in the general fabric of the . Tr. 523.

Dr. is familiar with . He is well respected by his teachers academically and made Dean’s list this semester. Tr. 525. At first, ’s grades were low and he was struggling academically but his grades improved as did his willingness to take academics more seriously. Tr. 526.

On cross examination, Dr. testified that progress report, he repeated Algebra 2 because he needed to take that class again to make sure that he had the fundamental knowledge to move on to the next level and be able to receive full credit for a unit of Algebra 2. Tr. 529. Since . received a n Algebra 2 in term 2, he got a credit, but did not receive credit in term 3 or 4 since he got , respectively. Tr. 530. In term 5, . got an so he got a credit for that still needs two more credits to get a unit credit. Tr. 531; P-R. The instructors come up with a grade by calculating grades on the assignments, tests and quizzes, and class participation. Tr. 535. The tests are not standardized but handcrafted by the teachers. Tr. 536. There could be between two and 15 students in a class but they usually range from six to eight. Tr. 535.

Dr. testified that he cannot say there are no students with however, he stated that “we carefully vet our students to make sure that if there are or have in the past, they are not serious enough along the continuum to end up impacting their performance [at ] negatively”. Tr. 540.

Dr. stated that he is “somewhat” familiar with the IDEA and the classifications that students can be associated but is not sure whether any of the students fall within any of the categories. Tr. 541. Dr said that of the students that come with diagnoses from psychologists, a very high percentage and he believes some but he is not sure. Tr. 542. He also testified that a large percentage have . Tr. 542. Dr. also stated that in every situation there are family issues or the student would not have come to them. Tr. 543. Dr. stated that “These are students who often come with pretty significant drug histories and so, of course, it comes up organically through the context of the advisors and ”. Tr. 550.

There are 18 full time teachers but none are certified to teach special education students. Tr. 543. The students have a student handbook where the rules they are supposed to follow are laid out. Tr. 543. They also have a Student Honor Council when rules are broken. Tr. 544. There are no organized sports, although there are intramurals. Tr. 546. The students do not work but participate in making sure the cafeteria, commons and dorms are clean. Tr. 547.

Based on ’s testing (P-H; D-7) Dr. indicated that . would make an appropriate candidate for admission since they average around 115 for their admitted students. He said that most of their successful students have high verbals like . Tr. 552. In analyzing the processing speed, Dr. testified that this fits their profile in a lot of ways especially when you look at the drug history of the students. Tr. 553. He stated that the students are “coming from a place of recovery and their grades have suffered and they have not had the same kind of attention to detail based on their drug use, sometimes on their ”. Tr.

553. He said that as a result, their processing speeds are usually disproportionally low in comparison to other scores. Tr. 553.

The next witness was the Parent. She has three children, ., 17, and two other sons, 14 and 9. Tr. 563. She is not married. Tr. 563. She testified that the meeting that was held on July 31, 2012 was requested by the Parent pursuant to a letter dated May, 2012. Tr. 570; D-3. At the time of the meeting Z . Tr. 571. The Parent never requested a CSE meeting prior to July 2012. Tr. 571. office accompanied her to the meeting. Tr.

572. Prior to the meeting, she spoke to her on the phone. Tr. 572. The Parent testified that at the meeting she was told did not qualify for an IEP, that he wasn’t failing out of school, and there were some good grades and he seemed to have a problem. Tr. 573. At the meeting, the Parent testified that Mr. went through the Social History and the Pscyhoeducational Evaluation. Tr. 574.; D-7; D-8. The Parent does not remember that much about the meeting. Tr. 574. She said that besides Mr. spoke and so did Mr. Tr.

575. The Parent recalls Mr. telling her that if she doesn’t agree with the decision she can pursue it further. Tr. 576. She testified that after the meeting, she received a copy of the attendance sheet and a copy of a letter (D-4), however, she did not receive a copy of the Present Levels of Performance. D-11. The Parent indicated that Ms. was upset at the meeting because she thought the would qualify him for services. Tr. 578.

The Parent testified that ’s problems started in 2009 and in the late summer of 2011, he was in a bad place and she decided to send him to Program. Tr. 578. In the summer of 2009, they discovered that he was smoking pot and he from , a private school He he had seen in fifth grade, was by the school and . Tr. 579. By the end of the 2009-10 school year, he . In addition to the , there were and girls. Tr. 579. The Parent testified that continued when he in the fall of 2010. By January, she was very concerned about and decided to enroll him in an program called Tr. 580. It was at this program that she became aware of . Tr. 580. She testified that he first had an evaluation at the out-patient program, met with and was supposed to meet with a psychiatrist . told her the night before about the . Tr. 580. She stated that “that’s when we kind of started to get a clear idea was helping him with easing these thoughts”. Tr.

580. She thought did well in the program. Tr. 580.

During this whole period, she was in touch with the school. Tr. 581. She was very close with the guidance counselor, the woman . Tr. 581. The Parent stated that was a small school and they were very close with Ms. and the staff was really involved with her family and very supportive. Tr. 582. She spoke with Ms. a couple of times a month. Tr. 582. At the end of May 2011, he was discharged from and told he needed higher care. Tr. 581. She testified that he was discharged from the program because he did not comply with the 90 day sobriety and was recommended for a wilderness therapy program. The Parent testified that “there was a lot of family dysfunction at the same time with parental disunity on what should be ] treatment”. Tr. 581-582.

The Parent did not ask for an evaluation . was attending the . She stated that “she was kind of taking care of it outside of school”. Tr. 587. At the beginning of tenth grade, after was , and was to his mother. Tr. 585. had discovered at this point that his Parents were . She stated that he and and he was using the Tr. 585. He had been seeing a therapist since and had begun . Tr. 585. She stated that “he was really spiraling downwards in school to the point where the school was worried about him and contacted us that he was physically appearing very poorly…”. Tr. 585. She testified that he was and . Tr. 585. The teachers were concerned that he was no in school and he was no out the counselor there either. Tr. 586.

The school had a meeting with her, her ex-husband, the principal, his guidance counselor and his advisor after he received an in November 2011 and they expressed their concerns about him. Tr. 587. They also talked a lot with his advisor and his teachers and how it was affecting him. She did, however, indicate that he actually “did pretty decently considering”. Tr. 587. The Parent testified that the school was trying to support the Parent in whatever she was doing to get him help at that point. Tr. 588. Although the suggested more serious intervention, they did not pursue it due to the nonparental unity. Tr. 588.

until December 14, 2011 at which point he went to Tr. 585. She said he was clearly not doing well in every way and it was for him to be at home. Tr. 589. Since he did not think he had a problem, they had to resort to having him taken by intervention people. Tr. 590.

The Parent testified that she found out about the program and she also heard it from an educational consultant she started working with in the fall of 2011. ’s best friend’s parents sent their child there as well. Tr. 590. The Parent stated was a life changing experience for Z.R.. Tr. 591. During that time, he was evaluated by Dr. (D-7) who indicated that he couldn’t go back to his old life and old school and needed a therapeutic boarding school. Tr. 592; Tr. 593. The Parent indicated that based on her discussion with Dr. , had a issues. Tr. 592. She found out through her educational consultant. Tr. 593. In addition to it being a therapeutic boarding school, with a lot of structure and a strict environment, it was academically challenging.

After the , they reached out to an educational consultant to start considering an alternate placement. They considered both rehab and a wilderness therapy program, with the latter being the most extreme option. Tr. 595. They weren’t considering these options seriously until September because his therapist wanted to have him go back to school and assess how he was doing. Tr. 595. The therapist was and did not give him a diagnosis and was working on . Tr. 596. When the Parent took , the school was very supportive and told the Parent he was always welcome back. Tr. 597.

started out great when he finished but when the reality set in that he would be away for 15 months, he was upset and while. Tr. 598. He gets a lot of support from the adults who are all trained to work with kids . and a lot of support from his peers through the group therapy model. Tr. 599. He began on February 23, 2012. The Parent testified that he has been on the honor roll for the last two terms and is applying himself academically. Tr. 600. He has become more accepting of the fact that he is there and is doing well therapeutically. Tr. 600. They have weekly telephone . and letter writing back and forth as well as e-mails. In addition, at the beginning she talked to the therapist every week and now she speaks with her every week. Tr. 600. He has had three visits home. She said that in his last visit, he and is extremely proud of himself and the work that he’s done. He is very . He struggles with , but does not because he wants to be . Tr. 601. He was also able to see his friends again and have a little freedom in the neighborhood. Tr. 601. In terms of his relationship with his siblings, before he left he was his brother and there was . Tr. 602. Now it is very nice and the relationship is really close and loving and they are sad he is away. Tr. 603. Her relationship with has also improved even though they both acknowledge that their relationship is not going to be easy. He is happy with the divorce and he is not angry at her any longer and accepts the things that she has done and understands they were in his best interest. Tr. 603. He still struggles with the shame he put his family through, that he missed out on the years at home, and he still . Tr. 604. He is presently participated in the brain class, the family brain defense weekend and RBT. Tr. 605. He didn’t do because he did a little at the and he never really took to it. Tr. 605.

The Parent testified that she thinks is meeting the social, emotional and behavioral need Tr. 607. She stated that it was very difficult to understand was going through until she learned how complicated these issues are and how there is not a lot of understanding until a lot of work is done and they can decipher what is causing these behaviors and separate them. Tr. 606.

The Parent testified that she pays $7300 per month for . She sent an impartial hearing request several months after he started because she didn’t know that the Board of Education could potentially contribute to his school tuition until her friends told her otherwise. Tr. 609.

The last witness was . She works at the as senior advisor. She has been a therapist for the past seven years and does group, individual, and family therapy. Tr. 619; Tr. 620. In addition, she does treatment plans for the students’ main therapeutic link and support. Tr. 619. She has a Master’s degree in social work and is a licensed clinical social worker in the State of Virginia. Tr. 619.

, each student is assigned an advisor at least once a week for therapeutic sessions. The advisors also have communications with the parents during that time to give updates and discuss the therapeutic process. Students also have group sessions three times a week. There is also experiential workshops where the students have milestones and progress through the program and there is also access to substance abuse treatment – AA or 12 step meetings on campus. Tr. 621. They also engage in recovery maintenance groups towards the last several months that they are and they are similar to an outpatient setting and the students are given skill sets on different levels for them to be able to use when they graduate. “ Tr. 621.

Ms. testified that most of the students did not volunteer to on their own. She said “other programs have not really worked for them or school settings, and so there is the process of helping them grieve for what normalcy they are missing from home and what normalcy they either felt entitled to and…also helping them understand their accountability for what their current situation is. There are presently approximately 88 students and 15 advisors with caseloads from 6 to 15. Tr. 621. Group sessions are put together by putting new students with older students or with their peer class, or based on their living situation or gender based. Tr. 624.

When a student begins the student has to build up and earn privileges. They are limited to one phone call every other week’ they are limited in their interactions with other new students, they cannot go off campus to events for 60 days; etc. Tr. 626. As they progress, the students are given more privileges. Tr. 627. In their dorms they can become a dorm head in training or join a committee and earn a position on the committee. Tr. 627. There are also leadership committees where the students are seen as mentors to newer students and there are student government positions. Tr. 628.

There are five experiential workshops that are seen as milestones for the students. The first workshop is based on integrity and it sets the foundation for the therapeutic work as they go through the program. Tr. 629. The second workshop is based on friendship and compassion. Tr. 629. The third workshop looks at what the students fears are, , how they can change that, and how their home life affected it. Tr. 630. The fourth workshop looks at the students gaining more understanding of the negative thought process that they get caught in based on their and also look at more positive aspects, tapping into the positive memories of their childhood and when they decided to start making changes. The final workshop wraps up their experience by looking at some of the things they may struggle with, the concept of forgiveness, understanding the positive tools they will need when they graduate. It also focuses how they will deal with them with therapy after they completed the program. Tr. 634. If they pass the third milestone they are moving into the upper school therapeutically. Ms. stated that “lower school is more about understanding what you have to start taking on or start addressing behaviorally and as they move towards upper school therapeutically, it would also mean that they’re engaging more in what they have to work on internally, not just their external interactions. Tr. 631.

The decision as to which workshop to offer to a student is made by the clinical team that is made up of Ms. , the other advisors, and supervisors, and the deans of the advising department. Tr. 632. The clinical team meets typically weekly but also communicates through e-mails and one-to-one through supervision. Tr. 633. The advisory staff communicates with the academic staff to track how a student is doing by using an electronic system whereby the grades are entered as well as the assignments that are handed in. The student also meets with an academic liaison once a week where the students talk about their academic progress and any additional supports they need. Tr. 638.

In order to help transition students and help to prepare them to graduate, Ms. Litwin testified that as they go through the program they do treatment plans to deal with the needs that require addressing and there are goals and steps that are required to indicate improvement. Tr. 639.

Ms. testified that she is familiar with . since she has been his advisor since he enrolled. Tr. 640. She stated that when the he experience a lot of from being away from his family. She stated that because of his false ego, he had a tendency to over of why he and what he needed to do to develop and what he needed to do to develop better relationships with his family. Tr. 642. ’s in his motivation to do well academically and in his desire to engage positively in environment, however over time has been able to find motivation in academics. Tr. 642. She testified that “He’s actually improved in the last two terms and he’s gaining more confidence in his ability to do well academically”. Tr. 642.

Ms. said she was aware of the Student’s diagnoses since part of the admissions process is for them to look at the testing that was done at the . Tr. 643. She stated that she believes the diagnoses were consistent with what she observed. She testified that “Yes, he exhibited . We’ve had a lot of conversations about how became part of his coping at home to not have to manage the that he was feeling or Tr. 644. She testified that and the inability has given him the ability to face what his , and to be able to communicate his family, etc. Tr. 645.

Ms. testified that in the experienced more She stated that “[ .] has stated numerous times that he understands how his life academically, his family life, his peer relationships, I would say within society as a whole”. Tr. 645.

Ms. testified that since February of 2012 until now, has shown progress. He is able to express his emotions and do so in an appropriate manner; he has developed a work ethic in academics and has gained confidence which gives him positive ego strength; he has developed better relationships with his Parents; he has learned about his codependency in relationships and understands how it is problematic for him; he has learned to have a good appropriate independent thought process from his Parents and is working towards gaining his own identity outside the family system. Tr. 646-647.

. has completed four of the experiential workshops and will start preparing for the fifth in June since his graduation is at the beginning of August. Tr. 648. He will be experiencing the fourth workshop again with his peer class, not because he did anything wrong but to give him a different experience and help him bond with a different friend base. Tr. 648. Ms. testified that .’s graduation was extended until August because “there were consistent moments with [ .] not following standards or boundaries set by either the school or his mother and needing accountability for [his] actions and addressing them…” Tr. 648. . will have finished his eleventh grade year and is currently looking at school options for his senior year. Tr. 679.

Ms. testified that she did not think that would have been successful living at home in a day program. She also indicated that however, they do therapeutic work around his . Tr. 652. If were enrolled in a regular school setting he would experience difficulty because, among other things, he looks for mentors amongst the adults in his life that can offer a healthy role model or offer him assistance with with. Tr. 653. She testified that this would be different in a public school setting because the classrooms are bigger and the relationships are different at where he has access to a lot more staff than he would have at a regular school. Tr. 654. Ms. stated that ’s unique needs and he has gained both positive peer relationships and positive adult relationships. He has developed more skills to deal with his obsessive compulsive thinking and depression since he arrived and seeks out support for his anxiety. He has also found more self-confidence and passion in his academics and is driven to improve his overall GPA and has achieved around a for the last two terms. Tr. 655.

On cross examination, Ms. stated she thought he needed a more residential type setting to be able to support what he with and to have from , that he would typically go into, etc. Tr. 660. She felt that his was one of the reasons he needed a residential setting. Tr. 660. She also indicated that his familial situation at home was another reason he needed an academic setting. Tr. 660. She felt that based on what he was , he needed a residential program in order to make progress. Tr. 662.

Ms. indicated that has earned a leadership position in the dorms and is also a member of and is a mentor to newer students. Tr. 664. He is also being considered as an older student support for newer students in the workshops and tutors other students academically. Tr. 665.

Ms. that the therapeutic program could not be considered a stand alone component since it is integrated throughout the student’s time on campus. Tr. 665. The students start class at 8:00 am and are done by 3:15 pm. On Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, has group session after school for about an hour and 45 minutes to 2 hours and they have clubs. Then they have dinner and then appointment time and then study hall and they are in their dorms by 9:30 pm and lights out by 11:00 pm. Tr. 667. On Tuesdays they have study hall until 5:00 and then dorm time and on Fridays they have study hall until 5:00. The students do not have mandatory activities on the weekend, however, there are athletic activities, designated clean up time, etc. Tr. 667.

Ms. testified that she meets with once individually and once in a group. Tr.

669. He also has group sessions on Mondays and Thursdays with someone else. Tr. 670. He also can attend 12 step meetings that are offered three times a week on campus. Tr. 670.

On cross, Ms. testified that extending ’s graduation date was based on a pattern of engaging in to fully engage in a process of taking accountability and honesty and learning from that process so . would be more productive when he graduated. Tr. 671. An example of not following a specific rule might be calling a friend during a local visit. Tr. 673.

Since he has had seven or eight visits with his family and three of them were home visits. Tr. 679. now speaks to his Parents individually every week and his siblings every other week. Tr. 680. The students are not allowed to leave campus unless it’s a structured activity. Tr. 685. Ms. stated that staying on campus enables the students to have fewer stressors, less access to their old coping patterns; less access to look for or engage . Tr. 681. She said their time off campus is more structured so it is more productive. Tr. 690. In terms of the things that she would have a concern about were , etc. Tr. 690.

Ms. testified that although substance abuse was addressed in the wilderness program and he gained an understanding that he wanted to do something different, he did not gain all of the skills needed to cope with his underlying emotions and be able to appropriately manage what he needed to go through. The just set the foundation. Tr.

691. At . has addressed his in individual therapy, group therapy and in his experiential workshops. He also has started to attend ) groups and has attended some of the 12 step on campus meetings. Tr. 693. The clinicians that work on the RBT groups are subcontractors from Tr. 693.

Ms. testified that . reported that he has since the end of elementary school and the ecame something he used as , however, things did increase and deteriorate more with the use and it’s hard to say which impacted more on the other. Tr. 698. When asked about how the family stressors impacted , she said they “all had a negative impact on him at the same time”. Tr. 699.

FINDINGS

Two purposes of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. §§1400-1482) are (1) to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their individual needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living; and (2) to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities and parents of such students are protected (20 U.S.C. 1499[D][1][A]-[B]; see generally, Forest Grove v. T.A., 129 S. Ct. 2484, 2491 [2009]; Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 [1982]).

The decision in this case rests on a determination of the three-pronged test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ. of Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 [1985]. A board of education may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private educational services obtained for a student by his or her parents, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate (Prong 1), the services selected by the Parent were appropriate (Prong 2), and equitable considerations support the parent’s claim (Prong 3). Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 92d Cir. 2005]).

The purpose of the IDEA is to ensure that all children with disabilities have available a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) which addresses their unique special education needs and to ensure that their rights and the rights of Parents are protected. A FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA; and (b) the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA’s procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]). While school districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures, not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (A.C. v. Bd. Of Educ., 553 F3d 165, 172 [2d Cir. 2009]; Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F3d 377, 381[2d Cir. 2003; Perricelli v. Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 465211 at *10 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2007]). Under the IDEA, if a procedural violation is alleged an administrative officer may find that a student did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a) impeded the student’s right to a FAPE, (b) significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student, or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits (20 U.S.C. §1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 CFR 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; Winkleman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516 , 525-26 [2007]; A.H. v. Dep’t of Educ., 2010 WL 3242234, at *2 [2d Cir. Aug. 16, 2010]; E.H. v. Bd. Of Educ., 2008 WL 3930028, at *7 [N.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2008]; Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 471 F. Supp.2d 415, 419 [S.D.N.Y. 2007] aff’d 2008 WL 3852180 [2d Cir. Aug. 19, 2008])

A school district offers FAPE by “providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction” (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203). However, the “IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP” (Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 [2d Cir. 1998]; see, Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189). The statute ensures an “appropriate” education, “not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents” (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132, quoting Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d 563, 567 [2d Cir. 1989] [citations omitted]; see, Grim, 346 F.3d at 379). Additionally, school districts are not required to “maximize” the potential of students with disabilities (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199; Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132). Nonetheless, a school district must provide “an IEP that is ‘likely to produce progress, not regression,’ and …affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere ‘trivial advancement’ (Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195, quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130 [citations omitted]; see, P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 118-19 [2d Cir. 2008]; Perricelli, 20007 WL 465211, at *15). The IEP must be “reasonably calculated to provide some ‘meaningful’ benefit” (Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 [2d Cir. 1997]; see, Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192). The student’s recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (20 U.S.C. § 1412 [a][5][A]; 34 CFR 300.114[a][2][i], 300.116[a][2];8 NYCRR 200.1[cc], 200.6[a][1]; see Newington, 546 F.3d at 114; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 [2d Cir.2007]; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132; E.G. v. City Sch. Dist. Of New Rochelle, 606 F. Supp. 2d 384, 388 [S.D.N.Y. 2009]; Patskin v. Bd. Of Educ., 583 F. Supp. 2d 422, 428 [W.D.N.Y. 2008])

An appropriate education begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student’s needs (34 CFR 300.320[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]; Tarlowe v. Dep’t of Educ., 2008 WL 2736027, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2008), establishes annual goals related to those needs (34 CFR 300.320[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]), and provides for the use of appropriate special education services. (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][4];8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]; see Application of the Dep’t of Educ., Appeal No. 07-018; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-059; Application of the Dep’t of Educ., Appeal No. 06-029; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-046; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02014; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No.93-9).

The New York State Legislature amended the Education Law to place the burden of production and persuasion upon the school district during an impartial hearing except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of production and persuasion regarding the appropriateness of such placement (Educ. Law §4404[1][c], as amended by Ch. 583 of the Laws of 2007).

The first issue that must be considered is the Parent’s position that the CSE should have classified the student as a student with a disability and that the District violated its “child find obligations.” For the reasons set forth below, I find that the District did not violate its “child find” obligations that the CSE appropriately found ineligible for special education services.

The purpose of the “child find” provisions of the IDEA are to identify, locate, and evaluate those students who are suspected of being a student with a disability and thereby may be in need of special education and related services, but for whom no determination of eligibility as a student with a disability has been made(see Handberry v. Thompson, 436 F.3D 52m 65 [2d Cir. 2006] [holding that the purpose behind the “child find” provisions is to locate children with disabilities who are eligible for special education services who might otherwise go undetected]; see also 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.111; 8 NYCRR 200.2[a][7]). The IDEA places an affirmative duty on state and local educational agencies to identify, locate, and evaluate all children with disabilities residing in the state (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][3]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.111[a][1][i]; 8 NYCRR 200.2[a][7]; New Palz Cent. Sch, Dist. v. St. Pierre, 307 F. Supp.2d 394, 400, n.13 [N.D.N.Y. 2004]) The “child find” requirement applies to “children who are suspected of being a child with a disability…and in need of special education, even though they are advancing from grade to grade” (34 C.F.R. § 300.11[c][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.2[a][7]). To satisfy the requirements, a board of education must have procedures in place that will enable it to find such children (Application of a Student Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 09-132; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-062; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 05-090)

The Parents contends that the District should have suspected that the student had an emotional disturbance and should have A student with must meet one or more of the following five characteristics:

(A) An inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors.

(B) An inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers.

(C) Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances,

(D) A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression.

(E) A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems. (34 C.F.R. § 300.8[c][4]; see 8 NYCRR 200.1[zz][4]). Additionally, the student must exhibit one or more of the five characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree that adversely affects the student’s educational performance (see N.C. v. Bedford Cent. Sch. Dist., 2008 WL 4874535 [2d Cir. Nov. 12, 2008]; see also Maus v. Wappingers Cent. Sch. Dist., 688 F. Supp. 2d 282 [S.D.N.Y. 2010]; A.J. v. Bd . of Educ., 679 F. Supp. 2d 299[E.D.N.Y. 2010]).

In this matter the hearing record reflects that the District was aware of the Student’s , and was working closely with the Parent to monitor the situation. If at any time the District thought there was a need to refer the Student to the CSE, they would have done so. The Student was seeking out , Ms. during the 2011-12 school year and she had to the Student. In addition, the Parent was in close contact with Ms. and was aware ’s enrollment in the and was also aware that following that, they were obtaining the services of an outside therapist. It is clear from the record that the Student had an ongoing relationship with Ms. , which only changed released from the for due to his inability to stay sober and his continued drug usage. In November 2011 they had a meeting following an and discussed how the school could help and what measures the Parents were taking at that point. The Parent, in her Brief even stated that “The staff at [ ] did not turn a blind eye toward [ the record is clear they cared for and was concerned about him and his well-being.” IHO-II. To say that the reason he was not classified was because he either was not failing out of school or that the staff at did not know the eligibility requirements for students with disabilities is simplistic. It is true that at the time of evaluation in February of 2012 he was diagnosed with Problems, yet there is no indication that he should be classified as emotional disturbed under the Commissioners Regulations based on these diagnoses .These are medical diagnoses under the DSM-IV and are not criteria for classification. In addition the law is clear that “Eligibility for special education services requires proof that a child’s condition has adversely affected his or her academic performance”. Maus v. Wappingers Cent. Sch. Dist., 688 F. Supp. 2d 282 [S.D.N.Y. 2010]. Based on the Student’s academic performance at , and his subsequent academic performance at , the Student is not a child with a disability.

“Emotional and behavioral troubles are not the proper measure of ‘educational performance.’” A.J. v. Bd. of Educ., 679 F. Supp. 2d 299, 309 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) . The

District, in its brief correctly stated that there is a difference between emotional disturbance and having other underlying social or emotional problems and that both state and federal regulations make clear that a student is not to be classified as emotionally disturbed merely because of inappropriate behavior that is not connected to an emotional disturbance. See Springer v. Fairfax County Sch, Bd., 134 F.3d 659, 664 (4th Cir, 1998); accord N.C. ex rel M.C. v. Bedford Cent. Sch, Dist, 473 F. Supp. 2d 532, 544 [S.D.N.Y.

2007] aff’d sub nom, Mr. N.C., 300 Fed. Appx 11. In addition, a district is not responsible for treating a Student’s substance abuse problems. See C.T. v. Croton-Harmon Union Free Sch. Dist., 812 F. Supp.2d 420, 434 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)(“while a residential placement may have been the most effective way to treat [the student’s] substance-abuse problem, that treatment was not the District’s responsibility.”)

I credit the testimony of Mr. that the reason the CSE found that he did not meet the classification because the team felt that any academic deficits were caused by the drugs and the alcohol usage and once he was off the drugs , he was making significant progress academically. Tr. 97. In addition, Dr. testified that depression and substance abuse are highly correlated and therefore marijuana use can cause depression. Tr. 393.

Even Dr. recommended for both the Parent and Student, and things of that nature, none of which entail academic remediation. With .’s low processing speed, Dr.

testified that this fits that profile at where a lot of the students have significant drug histories based on drug usage and typically have low processing speeds and high verbal scores. Tr. 553. In addition, Ms. indicated that use could have had an effect on any anxiety issues he may have had. Tr. 698. Although, the evidence provided indicates that have helped ., the District is not responsible for paying tuition to treat and issues.

There is no question that the Evaluation that was conducted in February 12, 2012, indicates that on the DSM-IV scale, that in addition to and Parent- , the Student is diagnosed with not otherwise specified. It is also clear that the Parent indicated that he suffered beginning in fifth grade. Yet, the record is clear were responsible for and that even if these other conditions existed, have There is no question that throughout the Student’s enrollment there was a constant dialogue with the Parent about his and the steps that were being taken to deal with it. Even if there were an indication of emotional disturbance, which there is not, there is no evidence that such a classification adversely educational performance. See P.K. ex rel. P.K. v. Bedford Cent. School Dist., 569 F. Supp. 2d 371, 386 [S.D.N.Y. 2008]; P.C. v. Oceanside Union Free School Dist., 818 F, Supp. 2d 516 [E.D.N.Y. 2011].

The Parent further alleged that the District should have considered classifying .

The definition of OHI has two components: chronic or acute health problems and an adverse effect on the child’s educational performance, 8 NYCRR 200.1[22][10]. It is the causal connection between the health impairment and educational difficulties that mandates a recommendation of a classification and a need for special education and related services. A.J. v. Bd. of Educ., 679 F. Supp 2d 299 [E.D.N.Y. 2010]. In this case there is no health impairment, no causal connection and no special education services necessary.

In addition, based on the testimony of Ms. , the principal and Ms. , the District did have policies in place to identify, locate and evaluate children with suspected disabilities. Tr. 231-232 S’s case, Ms. indicated that he was discussed at a referral meeting as a result of , however, the committee felt that the procedures that were being followed were appropriate for him and that he did not require a referral to the CSE. The school had no reason to suspect that the Student was a child with a disability. . was not failing his classes and had successfully completed two Regents. P-D. In addition, since was aware of the Student’s ongoing issues with , they offered the Student and provided him with as needed.

In addition to the foregoing, the Parent alleges that the District did not comply with the procedural requirements of the IDEA. The Parents allege that the CSE was improperly constituted since there was no one from or t the meeting. The Notice to the Parent regarding the CSE meeting indicated that the Parent was entitled to bring individuals that have knowledge or expertise regarding their child. In this regard, the Parent brought the Parent representative, from and could have brought any of the teachers or administrators at , where she had unilaterally placed her child. At the July 31, 2012 CSE meeting, all legally mandated members attended including a general education teacher, a special education teacher, a social worker, psychologist, the Parent and a Parent member. Accordingly, the CSE consisted of all legally mandated members as required by Federal and State regulations. (see 34 CFR 300.321[a]; 8 NYCRR 200.3[a][1].

The Parents further allege that the CSE failed to perform adequate and appropriate evaluations and failed to collect adequate and necessary data. It is clear from the record that the CSE relied on the Evaluation that the Parent brought to the committee (D-7), the Social History prepared with the Parents(D-8), the Vocational Assessment prepared by the Student (D-6) , and the School Reports, when making a determination regarding his eligibility for services. They did not do an observation of him since he was out of town. In this regard, I find that the documentation that the CSE had available to them was sufficient and that the absence of an observation did rise to the level of deprivation of FAPE in light of the other information available to the CSE at the meeting. Perricelli v. Carmel Cent. Sch, Dist., No. 06 CIV 2114, 2007 WL 465211[S.D.N.Y. 2007].

The District alleged that a negative inference should be drawn from the failure of Ms. , the Parent representative from the office of , to produce her notes as a result the service of a subpoena. IHO-I. The District further alleged that the notes should not be subject to a privilege. Even though Ms. did not produce her notes, there was sufficient evidence in the record for me to make a determination in this matter, including the testimony of Ms. Accordingly, there is no adverse impact with respect to the failure to produce the notes, and no negative inference will be drawn.

In view of the evidence above, I find that at the time of the July 31, 2012 CSE meeting, the Student was ineligible for special education services since the child did not have a disability under the IDEA. As such, tuition reimbursement is only available if a school district fails to offer a student FAPE. (see Burlington, 471 U.S.359; Carter, 510 U.S.7). However, FAPE extends only to students who meet the criteria under the IDEA. (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) and Article 89 of the Education Law. Accordingly, since the Student is not eligible to receive special education programs and services as a child with a disability under the IDEA, the Parent is not entitled to tuition reimbursement and I need reach the issue of whether is an appropriate placement. M.C. v. Voluntown Bd of Educ., 226 F.3d 60, 66 [2d Cir. 2000] Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130[2d Cir. 1998].

Based upon the foregoing, I find that the District appropriately determined that is ineligible for classification as a child with a disability. Hence, the Parent’s request for tuition reimbursement is hereby denied.

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the Parent’s application for tuition reimbursement School from July 1, 2012 through June 30, 2013 and all other relief requested is hereby denied. Dated: June 4, 2013 Corrected Date: June 6, 2013 (Correction made on page 47)

_______________________________

ELISE B. KESTENBAUM, 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 RECORD

District Exhibits

No. Date Document Pages

1. 10/23/2012 Impartial Hearing Request 5

2. 11/2/2012 Due Process Response 3

3. 5/2/2012 Letter from Parent to District 1

4. 7/31/2012 Letter from District 2

5. 6/4/2012 Consent for Evaluation 1

6. 6/4/2012 Vocational Assessment 2

7. 2/1/2012 Assessment 24

8. 6/4/2012 Social History Report 6

9. 4/18/2012 Letter to Parent 2

10. 7/19/2012 Letter to Parent 6

11. undated Present Levels of Performance 2

12. 2/29/2013 E-mail to IHO 2

13. undated Misc. Cases 86

14. misc. dates E-mails between and 5

15. misc. dates E-mails between and

&

& 2

16. misc. dates SEISIS Record of Events and

Letters 4

Parent Exhibits

A 10/23/2012 Impartial Hearing Request 5

B 11/2/2012 Due Process Response 3

C undated Letter from Middle School Director 1

D 4/13/2012 Ninth & Tenth Grade Report Cards

for . 3

E 5/2/2012 Letter from Parent to District 2

F 6/4/2012 Social History Report 6

G 11/9/2011 Suspension Notice

H 2/1/2012 Assessment –

Second Nature 24

I 1/24/2011 Center for Living Intake 6

J 4/6/2012 Letter from

Advisor 3

K 4/18/2012 Psychiatric Feedback 2

L 10/23/2012 Daily Schedule & Attendance

Record at 2

M 2/12/2012 Tuition & Fee Agreement at and Proof of Payment 10

N 8/28/2012 Letter from Parent to CSE 1

O 5/13/2011 Middle School 1

P 12/9/2011 Attendance Record 1

Q 12/9/2012 Information for Teachers and Principals

Re: Special Education Referrals 9

R misc. dates Report Cards from 4

S undated Resume of 8

T 7/19/2012 Notice of IEP Meeting 8

U 7/19/2012 Notice of IEP Meeting 3

IHO Exhibits

I 1/20/2013 Subpoenas and Fax Cover 9

II Undated Parent’s Due Process Impartial

Hearing Closing Brief 16

III April 5, 2013 District’s Post Hearing Closing

Argument 25