Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number:

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District:

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Date of Hearing: March 6, 2013

March 20, 2013

April 11, 2013

Actual Record Closed Date: May 7, 2013

Hearing Officer: Linda Agoston, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED MARCH 6, 2013

Esq. Attorney Mother Father — Parents

Observer — Parents

CSE Representative — DOE

IEP Teacher (via telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED MARCH 20, 2013

Esq. Attorney Intern Mother Father — Parents

CSE Representative — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED APRIL 11, 2013

Esq. Attorney Intern Father — Parents

Director of the Program (via telephone) — Parents

Dean Special Education Teacher (via telephone) — Parents

CSE Representative — DOE

The matter of . came for hearing before me on March 6, 2013, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(2). On November 7, 2012, I was appointed as impartial hearing officer. On December 6, 2012, I scheduled this hearing for January 25, 2013. On January 24, 2013, the Dept. of Education (“DOE”) representative and the parents’ attorney requested an adjournment of this case due to witness unavailability and I granted the joint request. The hearing commenced on March 6, 2013, and continued on March 20, 2013 and concluded on April 11, 2013. The parties moved to extend the compliance dates during the course of the hearing. In considering the requests I weighed the cumulative impact of the relevant factors and found that the need of the parties for additional time to prepare and to present their positions in accordance with the requirements of due process was greater than any delay in the resolution of the matter. Accordingly the joint requests for extensions of the compliance dates were granted (trans. 53;161; Exhs. I-IV). The last compliance date was extended as a result of the request for post-hearing submissions (trans. 161; Exh. IV). The parents’ representative submitted his post-hearing brief dated May 3, 2013 by email on May 7, 2013 Appended to the record are the names of the persons who appeared at the hearing and the documents admitted into evidence.

This proceeding arose under Article 89 of the New York State Education Law and Commissioner’s Regulations as set forth in Part 200 of Title 8 of the New York Code, Rules and Regulations (“NYCRR”). Specifically, Section (“§”) 200.5 of the Regulations provides the mechanism whereby a parent may challenge the validity of the recommendation made by a public school district’s Committee on Special Education (“CSE”). The hearing was initiated by the parents of ., who challenge the April 24, 2012, review and recommendation of the CSE on August 3, 2012.

The parents unilaterally placed their son in the , special education program located in the ). is a private school located in Brooklyn, New York. It is a private entity lacking State Education Department approval. ’s parents funded this placement from September 2012, through the present and now seek tuition reimbursement and retroactive tuition reimbursement for the 2012-2013 school year.

BACKGROUND

year-old boy who is currently in the , with various (“ ”) Disorder, ”) (Exh. B at 5;17). He was classified as LD on a CSE review conducted on April 24, 2012 (Exh. 1 at 1). His classification is not in dispute (trans. 109). experienced in in 2001 at P.S. 185. In April 2002, was evaluated by , Psy,D., who classified with a ( ), and a and reported that had a history language as well as problems with articulation (Exh. 3 at 2). repeated due to poor academic progress despite private tutoring provided by his parents (Exhs. 3 at 1; B at 3). From September 2002 to June 2007, attended The Sterling School, a private school for students with a class size of 8:1 (Exhs. B at 1; C at 4). In September 2007, attended the Bay Ridge Prep (Exh. B at 5). Dr. Piegari reevaluated on various dates in January and February 2011, when was 16.6, who noted that had chronically (Exh. 3 at 3). had , as assessed by the Wechsler Adult Scale of Intelligence and Dr. noted “a significant degree of scatter between ’s subtest scores which ranged from below average (16th %ile) to superior (98th %ile)” (Exh. 3 at 8). Dr. noted that impairments in grapho motor coordination and processing speed difficulty as well as anxiety affected ’s performance (Id.). Dr. recommended a placement in a smaller class size with a highly individualized curriculum in light of ’s uneven profile of strengths and weaknesses (Exh. 3 at 18).

On April 20, 2012, ’s counselor, who had treated since the age of 12, provided a progress report indicating had a about his and noted a class size of was conducive to his being able to focus (Exh. 4 at 1).

On April 30, 2012, conducted a and noted that received psychological support through the and was doing well both academically and socially (Exh. B at 4).

On April 24, 2012, District 20’s CSE classified as and developed an individualized education program (“IEP”) that recommended that be placed in a special class with a staffing ratio of and receive related services of individual occupational therapy (“OT”) once week for 30 minutes; therapy (“ ”) once a week for ^[30] minutes in a group no larger than 4 and individual counseling for 3 sessions per week for on the eleventh grade level (Id.). The Final Notice of Recommendation (“FNR”) dated August 3, 2012, recommended a placement at (Exh. at 2). The parents challenged the April 24, 2012 IEP review and disagreed with CSE’s placement. They maintained that District 20 failed to provide a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) and they placed at Bay Ridge Prep. The parents’ submitted proof of payment of cancelled checks totaling the amount of $ 22,292.50 (Exh. H). They further submitted an Affidavit from Bay Ridge Prep indicating the parents paid $22,292.50 (Exh. G) dated January 9, 2013 (Exh. G). In their post-hearing closing statement, the parents requested reimbursement in the amount of $30,550 for the 2012-2013 school year (Exh V at 14); however, I note the parents did not submitted proof of payment for the outstanding balance of $8,257.50.

THE DOE’S CASE

The District’s case was presented in the testimony of James Slavin, a teacher assigned to CSE 7. Mr. Slavin testified that he was employed by the CSE 7 and he sat on the April 24, 2012 IEP team meeting as both the special education teacher and the district representative. He stated that 2 psychologists and a social worker participated (trans. 16). He recollected that the teacher was the general education teacher who participated by telephone and the parents were present (trans. 18). He recalled that the CSE team recommended a special class with a staffing ratio of and did not recall that any member of the team disagreed with the program recommendation (trans. 19). He stated that the counseling goals were taken from the counseling report and opined that the academic and related service goals would have provided with an educational benefit (trans. 26).

On cross, Mr. acknowledged that he never taught a high school special education class and was not a NYS certified high school teacher and would not have been able to implement the academic goals (trans. 28-29). He further acknowledged that the CSE did not conduct either a classroom observation or a social history (trans. 32). He could not explain why no goals were developed to address ’s coordination and executive functioning issues (trans. 34-35). He recalled that the parent provided the CSE team with the counseling report that indicated receiving counseling for the past 7 years with an outside provider, who recommended a class with a staffing ratio of ; however, he explained that on a high school level the CSE would not consider a class of because in a community school setting the smallest class size was (trans. 44).

THE PARENT’S CASE

Mr. B., 's father, , the Director of the , school psychologist at testified in support of the parents’ claim for tuition reimbursement for the unilateral placement of at . The parents are seeking approximately $30,550 for tuition for the academic year 2012-2013. Ms. B. testified that attended and (trans. 61). She stated that from second to sixth grades, attended the , a private special education school and attended from seventh through twelfth grades (trans. 63). She recalled that she participated at the April 24, 2012 IEP meeting, however, she did not recall a discussion of goal and objectives (trans. 64). The parent stressed that she told the CSE team that the class size of was too large for and that the CSE had made the program recommendation of at for the past 6 years (trans. 65). The parent recalled that she wrote to the CSE chairperson on August 22, 2012 (Exh. A at 2) to reiterate her concerns regarding the program and to request a class profile to determine the appropriateness of the DOE placement and as she was unable to visit the proposed placement she informed CSE that she would place at and seek tuition reimbursement. The parent further recalled that she wrote the CSE chairperson on October 1, 2012, (Exh. 5 at 1) after she visited the proposed class to inform CSE that the proposed class had students with behavior issues and that would remain at where received the individualized special education services required to make both academic and social gains (Exh. 5 at 2; trans. 69). The parent stated that she observed students arguing in the proposed class and opined that her son would have a hard time concentrating in a noisy class (trans. 70). The parent explained that her son had difficulty focusing throughout his life and was seeing both a life counselor and a psychologist after school (trans. 71). The parent further explained that the contained staff with degrees in psychology so her son received emotional support throughout the day (trans. 72). The parent opined that provided positive support and ’s improved during the 2012-2013 school year and was accepted into a college. The parent further opined that her son improved in his organization issues and his anxiety lessoned (trans. 74).

On cross the parent maintained that SLT and OT were incorporated in the classes at and had licensed and certified OT and SLT providers (trans. 78). The parent stated that she placed a deposit with in case the DOE did not provide an appropriate placement for her son (trans. 85).

, Director of the , a possessor of a doctorate in psychology and employed by Bay Ridge Prep since 2001, testified that he was a NYS licensed psychologist (trans. 96; 150). He stated that was a private school in Brooklyn for grades K through 12 (Id.). He noted the high school had 200 students and that the was designed for student with with smaller classes than the mainstream classes (trans. 97). He explained that the offered a variety of support services with regular communication with the families and the staff, altered curriculum and provided counseling in a mainstream setting (trans. 98). He stated that he was familiar with for past 4 years in high school at and the counseling team was very involved with (trans. 99). He stressed that ranging including and was a highly anxious child, who was (trans. 100). He explained that was very intelligent and very fragile. He related that ’s intellect and academic abilities were in the superior range and he had a straight in high school; however, due to his fragile emotional state, required a tremendous amount of during the 2012-2013 school year from himself, as well as 2 additional full-time school psychologists and 2 interns (trans. 104). He further related that received daily and met with his mentor in the Achieve Program for 5 to 10 minutes prior to school to touch base (Id.). He noted that had access to and received more counseling than most students at Bay Ridge Prep and was highly anxious this year because he was leaving (trans. 105;110-111). He further noted that received extended time and support for assignments as he was highly disorganized (trans. 114). He related that ’s were addressed by the staff in , who assisting in editing his papers and provided organizational techniques for his written expression issues (trans. 115). He recalled that ’s teacher indicated that was doing extremely well with a lot of accommodations and (Id.).

On cross Dr. stated that did not require special education as much as he required accommodations because he had a high intellect (trans. 118). He maintained that despite ’s depression and anxiety, maintained a as a result of the accommodations provided to in the (trans. 120). He explained that was provided with preferential seating and coaching to interact in social situations (trans. 126). He further explained that was provided with a set of class notes to accommodate his grapho-motor issues (trans. 127). He noted that was frequently discussed at the faculty meetings so that his teachers were aware of his anxiety issues and provided alternative testing and extra time (trans. 129).

, school psychologist and mentor in the employed by for 15 years, testified that he was a NYC certified special education teacher and had a NYS permanent certification as a school psychologist (trans. 133). He stated that he provided mentoring and counseling for every day (trans. 134). He explained that he was the editor emeritus of the school newspaper and was the senior editor of the newspaper and he provided both written expression support for and emotional support because was very anxious (trans. 135). He noted that often excused himself to spend time with his primary mentor, the school psychologist, with whom he met every morning and several times per week. Mr. opined that ’s anxiety issues were addressed by sessions with himself, Dr. and ’s primary mentor, another school psychologist (trans. 134). He stressed that the mentor part of the Achieve Program provided a morning check-in which ranged from a few minutes to an entire period depending on ’s level (trans. 136). He further stressed that the provider a binder system to their students to organize their folders for daily, weekly and monthly assignments and used flash cards to improve vocabulary (trans. 138). He maintained that the entire faculty staff was aware of the needs of the students and created a sensitive environment and this environment assuaged ’s (trans. 139). He opined that the met the academic goals and counseling goals listed on the April 24, 2012 IEP (trans. 140-143). He further stated that ’s schedule included BC Calculus, the highest math class offered at in a class with a staffing ratio of advanced physics with a staffing ratio of , world history, a class on Shakespeare and playwrights, English Composition and psychology with Dr. (trans. 148-149). He further stated that had dropped computer science and added a study period so could receive additional counseling to (trans. 147). Mr. opined that progressed in the because of the flexibility and extended deadlines in his academic work and progressed emotionally in light of his crippling anxiety and depression (trans. 154).

On cross Mr. related that had done very well on the Regents and received the testing accommodations listed on the April 24, 2012 IEP (trans. 157). He stated that ’s were met through his mentor and through the binders and the reinforcement from the teaching staff (trans. 158).

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Under IDEA, New York State law and both the federal and State regulations, the right to a FAPE is guaranteed. There is no obligation on the part of the school district to provide the best education for the Student but that education must be appropriate so that there is an opportunity for the student to make progress in his education. States receiving federal funds are required to provide “all children with disabilities” a “free and appropriate public education.” See 20 U.S.C. Section 1400(d)(1)(A). Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 122 (2d. Cir. 2007). FAPE consists of specialized education and related services designed to meet a student’s unique need, provided in conformity with a comprehensive written IEP (34 C.F.R. Section 300.13). To meet its burden of showing that it had offered to provide a FAPE to a student, the board of education must show (a) that it complied with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) that the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206, 207 (1982). As for the program itself, the Second Circuit has observed that "'for an IEP to be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, it must be likely to produce progress, not regression'" Weixel v. Bd. of Educ., 287 F.3d 138, 151 (2d Cir. 2002), quoting M.S. ex rel. SS. V. Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of Yonkers, 231 F.3d 96 at 103 (2d Cir. 2000); see Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 at 130 (2d Cir. 1998). This progress, however, must be meaningful; i.e., more than mere trivial advancement Id. at 130. The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.550(b); 8 NYCRR §200.6(a)(1). Also, a FAPE must be available to an eligible student “who needs special education and related services even though the [student] has not failed or been retained in a course or grade, and is advancing from grade to grade.” See 34 C.F.R. § 300.101( c)(1); 8 NYCRR § 200.4(c)(5).

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 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. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(a)(2); 8 NYCRR 200.5(j)(4)(ii).

An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student’s needs, 34 C.F.R. § 300.32(a)(1); 8 NYCRR § 200.4(d)(2)(i), establishes annual goals related to those needs, 34 C.F.R. § 300.321(a)(2); 8 NYCRR § 200.4(d)(2)(iii), and provides for the use of appropriate special educational services, 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(4); 8 NYCRR § 200.4(d)(2)(v).

The burden of proof is on the school district during an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement. N.Y. Educ. Law §4404[1][c].

For tuition reimbursement cases a board of education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a child by the child’s parent, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parent were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parent’s claim. See School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Dept. Education, Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985); Florence County School District Four et al. v. Carter by Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993).

The parent’s attorney asserted many procedural flaws in the April 24, 2012 IEP: the meeting was not properly constituted because the special education teacher, Mr. Slavin had never taught a high school class in violation of § 8 NYCRR 200.1, 200.3(c)(2)(iii) requiring the special education teacher be a person charged with implementing the IEP or someone qualified to do so (Exh. V at 5); the goals were not formulated with regard to ’s present level of performance and the goals were not reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit and did not address ’s unique social and emotional needs (Exh. VI at 1); the goals were not developed with appropriate evaluative (Exh. VI at 1) and did not reflect ’s anxiety issues (Exh. V at 6), or executive functioning issues (Exh. V at 8). It was uncontested that no special education teacher who taught high school participated in the April 24, 2012 IEP despite the 15:1 special class program recommendation. I find there was insufficient information as to how the special education teacher would have been able to implement the proposed program. The parents’ counsel asserted CSE failed to conduct the necessary evaluations (Exh. VI at 1). Under 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.4(b)(3), CSE was required to conduct additional evaluations to appropriately assess the student in all areas related to the suspected disabilities. Testimony and evidence adduced at the hearing established that required many supports for his emotional issues (Exhs. 3, 4) and yet CSE possessed no social history, not a classroom observation to assess his emotional issues. (trans. 31-32). I find the CSE had ample evidence of diagnosis and and I credit the testimony of the parent who told the CSE team that had required a small class size and his need to continue with his consistent routine (Exh. 3 at 18; A at 2). The parents’ counsel alleged that CSE failed to provide an appropriate program and placement (Exh. VI at 1).

The parents’ counsel asserted that there were substantive flaws in the proposed placement within proposed special education class and that FAPE for 2012-2013 was not provided because was capable of following the mainstream curriculum and did not require a modified curriculum (Exh. V at 8).

While school districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under IDEA Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377 at 381 (2d Cir. 2003). A procedural violation has occurred relief is warranted only if it affected the student's right to a FAPE. J.D. v. Pawlet School District, 224 F.3d 60 at 69 [2d Cir. 2000]) The denial of FAPE occurs when procedural inadequacies either result in a loss of educational opportunity for the student or seriously infringe on the parent's opportunity to participate in the IEP formation process. Werner v. Clarkstown Cent. Sch. Dist., 363 F. Supp. 2d, 656 at 659, (S.D.N.Y., 2005). The district representative asserted that the special class at was appropriate, yet did not call a witness from K490. The parents’ attorney argued that only providing the parent with an FNR “would result in the same ‘bait and switch’ that the Court of Appeals condemned in R.E. D.C., o/b/o E.B. v. New York City of Dept of Ed., 1:2012-cv-01394, slip op., S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2013; see also R.E. v. New York City Dept. of Ed., 604 F.3d 167 (2012)”(Exh. V at 9).

The SRO considered the type of procedural flaw which would result in a denial of FAPE in Application of the New York City Dept. of Educ., Appeal No. 08-037. The SRO noted that not all procedural flaws automatically require a finding of a denial of FAPE A hearing officer “may find a student did not receive FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies: (a) impeded the student’s right to FAPE; (b) significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision making process regarding the provision of FAPE for the student; or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits.”Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. School Dist., 471 F.Supp.2d 415, 419 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).

The parents’ attorney asserted that the April 24, 2012 IEP goals were drafted without parent participation and were not formulated with regard to ’s present level of performance and neither the goals nor the IEP were reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit and did not address ’s unique social and emotional needs (Exh. V at 6). I credit the parent’s testimony that the goals were not discussed and I find the goals were developed without regard to ’s present level of performance and were developed without the parent’s participation. I find the related service goals were developed without regard to ’s present level of performance and were developed without the parent’s participation.

I credit the parent’s testimony that she voiced her concerns that required a small class at the IEP meeting and strongly disagreed that the special class placement was appropriate for the 2012-2013 school year (trans. 65). I do not credit the testimony of the district representative who stated that both the parent and the Bay Ridge Prep representative agreed with the special class recommendation (trans. 19). I find that CSE ignored Dr. Piegari’s recommendation of a small class with a highly individualized curriculum (Exh 3 at 18). I find the special class program recommendation was made by CSE staff and contrary to the evidence and parent’s stated concerns and significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision making process regarding the provision of FAPE.

I find CSE had ample evidence of ’s , slow processing problems, and his needs as the team reviewed evaluation (Exh. 3). I find ’s and were not addressed on the April 24, 2012 IEP.

I further find the lack of appropriate academic goals and the related therapy predrafted goals significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision making process regarding the provision of FAPE. I find that the district failed to establish that the parent meaningfully participated the decision making process. I find the lack of CSE evaluations to support the special class program significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision making process. Therefore, I find the district failed to establish that FAPE was provided during the 2012-2013 school year The private placement must be reasonably calculated to enable a child to receive educational benefits and must be likely to produce progress, not regression. The standard to apply is whether “[the] unilateral private placement … provides education instruction specifically designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child” Gagliardo, 489 F.3d 115. Testimony by the parent and the staff at and evidence submitted by the parents established that the parents have met their burden regarding the unilateral placement of . I find his small class settings, the use of multi-sensory tools such as the binders and the experienced teachers, as well as the mentoring component of individual counseling addressed ’s unique and his . I credit the testimony of the testimony of the psychologists at who ensured that all people involved in 's education had an understanding about his disability and made adjustments in the class to meet his needs. I find the provided the appropriate program that Dr. recommended to address ’s needs and achieved success in improving his organization issues and his emotional issues. I find his special education needs were addressed in the and the provided educational instruction that was specifically designed to meet his academic and emotional needs (trans. 154-154;105;110-111). I find made meaningful progress in his academic, social and emotional needs. I credit the testimony of the Director of the and the psychologist and I find the parents established the second prong of the Burlington/Carter analysis.

I find that the equitable factors supported the parents’ claim for reimbursement. The record was replete with the parents’ efforts to cooperate. The parents participated and attended all meetings and repeatedly requested an appropriate placement (Exh. A, 5). I find the parents established the third prong of the Burlington/Carter analysis. Therefore, I find the parents are entitled to reimbursement for $22,292.50.

Direct retroactive payment is an appropriate remedy in proceedings under IDEA Mr. and Mrs. A. v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Educ., 09 CIV-5097 (PGG)(S.D.N.Y. February 1, 2011). I find the parents are entitled to an Order directing the DOE to pay for the 20122013 tuition by issuing direct payment.

ORDER

I order that the DOE shall provide tuition reimbursement to the parents for the 2012-2013 school year in the amount of $22,929.50, upon proof of payment acceptable to the DOE and provide reimbursement in the amount of $8,257.50 upon proof of payment acceptable to the DOE. In the event the parents are unable to submit proof of the payment in the amount of $8,257.50, the DOE shall be directed to remit payment in the amount of $8,257.50 within thirty days of the submission of proof of attendance. Dated: May 13, 2013

_____________________________

LINDA AGOSTON, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer LA:gc

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

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

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

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

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

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON MARCH 6, 2013

A Letter from The Parent To CSE And Fax Transmittal Receipt Parents

8/22/12, 3 pp.

B Evaluation, 4/30/12, 6 pp. Parents

C Enrollment Contract, 4/25/12, 1 p. Parents

D School Parents

Description, 2012-2013, 3 pp.

E Grade 12 Class Schedule, undated, 1 p. Parents

F Official Attendance Record, Parents

1/7/13, 1 p.

H Copies of Parents' Cancelled Checks for Tuition Payment, Parents various dates, 2 pp.

I Letter from Dr. , 3/1/13, 1 p. Parents

1 IEP, 4/24/12, 10 pp. District

2 Final Notice of Recommendation, 8/3/12, 1 p. District

3 Neuropsychological Evaluation, 3/31/11, 26 pp. District

4 Counseling Report, 4/20/12, 1 p. District

5 Letter from Parent, 10/1/12, 2 pp. District

I Decision on Request for Extension, 1/22/13, 1 p. IHO

II Decision on Request for Extension, 2/21/13, 1 p. IHO

III Decision on Request for Extension, 3/6/13, 1 p. IHO

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON APRIL 11, 2013

IV Decision on Request for Extension, 4/11/13, 1 p. IHO

POST HEARING SUBMISSIONS

V Closing Statement, 5/3/13, 15 pp. IHO

VI Due Process Complaint, 11/8/12, 2 pp. IHO

---

Footnotes

[30] minutes per session (Exh. 1 at 8). The IEP indicated that ’s reading and math were