New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number:

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District:

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Date of Hearing: January 4, 2013

Record Close Date: February 1, 2013

Hearing Officer: Laura Fieber, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JANUARY 4, 2013

Attorney — Student

Attorney — Student

Parents

Prevention Worker (via telephone) — Student

General Education Teacher, — Student

District Representative — DOE

Assistant Principal, (via telephone) — DOE

Bilingual School Psychologist (via telephone) — DOE

On June 11, 2012, and by amended complaint dated June 28, 2012, the parent of — DOE

”) (“Student”) requested an impartial hearing pursuant to the Individuals with — DOE

Disabilities Education Act, 20 United States Code, Section 1415 (f)(1), claiming a denial of a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. I received an appointment as Impartial Hearing Officer on November 9, 2012, due to the recusal of the previous hearing officer. A hearing took place on the date indicated above, with the parties agreeing to extensions of the timeline within which to render a decision. Lists of people who attended the hearing and documents received in evidence are attached to this decision. represented the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”); Esq. represented the parent. At the request of the parties the record was kept open until February 1, 2013 to submit closing memoranda. The parent’s attorney met the deadline with its submission. The DOE advised that no memorandum was forthcoming.

Background

This case concerns an eight-year-old child who currently attends an class at . At the times pertinent to the parent’s due process complaint he was enrolled at for the entirety of the 2010-2011 school year and then at from the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year until April 16, 2012 when he began at . The parent requested an evaluation of the Student on October 10, 2010. On November 1, 2011, a Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) convened and developed an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) that classified him with and recommended a program in a special class with related services of for thirty minutes once a week in a group of and once a week in a group of . The DOE placed him in an class on April 16, 2011.

The parent initiated this hearing to seek compensatory services based on the DOE’s delays in identifying the Student as needing special education services as well as finding him an appropriate placement.

Department’s Case

testified that she knew the Student during the 2010-2011 school year when she served as principal at . Within the first month of school they realized he was having difficulty in his , which . Tr. 69. She did not recall when the mother made the request for an evaluation, which could have been around October 2010. Tr. 80. But she recalled that they had conversations with the mother about having him evaluated. Tr. 63, 69-71. The , between December 13, 2010 through 30, 2010 and February 28, 2011 through March 18, 2011, delayed the process, as did the parent’s missing of appointments. Tr. 66, 72, 76. She did not recall the letter from after the December hospitalization, indicating that he would benefit from an evaluation “for appropriate placement according to his needs in an education setting, although it could have been given to the guidance counselor. Tr. 108; DOE Ex. 7. In February 2011, she helped draft a letter to his mental health provider requesting that they evaluate the Student so the school could understand what he was going through. Tr.109. She also recalled that the mother indicated that she would have him evaluated privately, which she did not do. Tr. 72, 81. Ms. felt remiss in not getting this in writing. She did not know what efforts were made after the first hospitalization to have him evaluated. Tr. 89. As a result there were no evaluations done during the 2010-2011 school year.

Ms. recalled seeing a checklist that detailed some of the , which were discussed with his teachers. Tr. 91-96; P. Ex. F. She was also aware of the daily behavior log and the behavior checklist, which showed the difficulty he was experiencing prior to the first hospitalization. Tr. 97-98; P. Exs. D, F. She spoke with the teachers about his behaviors. Tr. 100. They all agreed that he was not making the kind of progress he should be making. She agreed that he should have had a functional behavior assessment (“FBA”), although she understood that that was done once a child had an IEP. Tr. 102. Although was his community school, given his difficulties, she conceded that it was probably not an appropriate setting for him and that his . Tr. 105-106, 120.

was the bilingual school psychologist at who opened a case for the Student after his mother wrote a letter on September 19, 2011, requesting an evaluation. The school social worker performed a social history, she and Ms. did classroom observations, and she performed a , and completed an ”). After the observation, Ms. concluded from his that he required a different educational setting since they were impeding his learning. Tr. 128, 132. She also determined that his academics were below grade level and that he had a . Tr. 133. At the time he was in the general education component of an integrated co-teaching class. A CSE met on November 1, 2011, which resulted in an IEP that recommended an class and . Once the team made its recommendation, he began receiving ; they had three working with him daily, as well as a lot of from the special education teacher in his class. Tr. 130. The also had the BIP in place in the classroom, which used different interventions to help him behaviorally and academically. Tr. 131. The Student was not transferred out of until April 2012 because they were waiting for a placement. Tr. 137. She did not know why it took so long to find the placement, but she acknowledged that the ICT class was not appropriate and had a negative impact on his ability to learn. Tr. 138. Parents’ Case The parent claimed that the DOE failed to properly identify the child as in need of special education, failed to conduct timely evaluations, and failed to offer a timely placement, thereby denying him a FAPE for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. She sought as a remedy, compensatory services in the amount of 440 hours of Special Education Teacher Support Services (“SETSS”)^[1] and 110 hours of 2. The DOE did not dispute how these hours were calculated. Tr. 274.

John Paul Sylvester was the general education teacher in the Student’s ICT class during 2010-2011 school year. At the beginning of the year, he described the Student as energetic. He moved around the class even when he . Tr. 154. As the year progressed the behaviors escalated to more . Tr. 145, 149-150. There were no patterns to his behaviors or what set him off. Tr. 150. The often prevented him from doing or competing his work, and took him away from listening to teachers during instruction. Tr. 154. His . Tr.

170. Often it would be when he was working by himself or with another student or group of students. He also recalled that and paying attention and sitting still. Tr. 174. The behaviors interfered with his ability to learn.

2 Calculated as follows: The Student was denied 55 weeks of education services. Multiplying this times 2 hour per week of , the total comes to 110 hours.

Mr and his special education co-teacher, Ms. kept daily records of his behaviors. Tr. 148; P. Exs. D, E. He believed they had been shown to Ms. and Ms , the social worker, who were aware of these . Tr. 151. They also kept a learning checklist, which they did for students who were struggling, to help identify his learning needs. Tr. 156; P. Ex. F. They determined that he had of math, not with identifying groups or numbers. Tr. 158-160. He also had difficulty with reading. He could not identify numbers, discriminate between upper and lower case letters. He did not know his letters or sight words. Without letter knowledge, he could not decode or use phonics skills. It was hard for him to try to read and impacted his spelling and reading. He frequently needed to have questions repeated. He had trouble articulating sounds, which interfered with his ability to create words. He believed the Student’s academic skills were atypical of a and below where he should have been. Tr. 170.

Once they identified the Student’s , they moved him to a smaller group working specifically with Ms. . He believed the mother wrote a letter requesting an evaluation for special education services. Tr. 166. He spoke with the parent a lot, about the academics and .

a preventative caseworker at the met the Student’s mother in 2011 on a referral to help her advocate for the Student’s educational needs. The Student had no issues at home. He was very respectful and friendly. Tr. 182. She knew of his for his school behaviors and his , ”). The mother had requested an evaluation but nothing was being done about it. Ms. called the school but did not get a response. Tr. 185. Ms. saw the letter from that recommended that the Student be evaluated for a day treatment program. Tr. 200; DOE Ex. 8. He did not receive this because she was told he had to follow protocol of going first to District . Tr. 201. She also recalled that the hospital gave the mother a letter after he was discharged requesting an evaluation and placement in an class. Tr. 187-189; DOE Ex. 7. She believed he needed the extra attention of a small class, which would help with his . He did not receive special education while at or at 11, which he attended for the 2011-2012 school year when the family relocated to the . Tr. 190. In September 2011, the mother made another request for an evaluation at . Tr. 191; DOE Ex. 6-2, 6-3. Ms. went to the school to advocate for his IEP and find out what was being done. She attended the IEP meeting with the mother on November 1, 2011. The IEP placement was not implemented at that time, only the was. Tr. 205. The Student changed schools in April 2012 to , which she and the mother visited and agreed to. Tr. 204.

Ms. was aware of the phone calls the mother received from the school about her . Tr. 195. After an incident in 2011, the principal or assistant principal indicated they did not have the manpower to give him a paraprofessional, so they asked if the mother would come sit with him for a couple of hours in the morning so he would be and then she . Tr. 196. The mother did not agree to this.

The mother testified that before the Student started school she was aware of his difficulties with shapes, letters, numbers and colors. Tr. 212-213. His at home have been fine. Tr. 222. He began in 2010, at the start of year. She spoke with his teacher Ms. in the middle of September and explained the problems. Ms. suggested that she write a letter asking for an evaluation. On October 12, 2010, she wrote the letter and gave it to Ms. who kept a copy of it. Tr. 214; DOE Ex. 6. The mother noted that the handwritten part of the letter other than the cursive was not hers but appeared on the letter after Ms. turned it back to her. She received no other response from the DOE. Tr. 217. Her son began to act out a bit more so she spoke with Ms. who responded that he had to wait for the IEP. In November Dr. who was part of the IEP team told her that it takes time since there was a waiting list of kids who have already been in school and have been on the list since the summer. Tr. 218. Ms. also told her the same thing. The . That is when she started interacting with Ms. who became aware that she was looking for him to be evaluated. Tr. 245. The mother never offered to get an outside evaluation for the Student. Tr. 220. Nor did she ever say she did not want him evaluated. She just wanted him to get the help he needed. She has received many calls from the school but no requests for a formal meeting.

The mother further testified that the Student was first in December 2010 when he was . Tr. 223. During 2010-2011 he was , in December, February and June, and also during the 2011-2012 school year. Tr. 227. When she brought him back, she spoke with the school about his for an class, and gave them all her paperwork. Tr. 229-236; DOE Exs. 13, 14. No one made any effort to pursue the request for the evaluation. She just had to wait. She called the special education office on who was surprised nothing had been done but advised that the school had to push it. Tr. 232. The only things the school did were when in February and June 2011 the principal wrote a letter to “ ” making a referral for a evaluation. Tr. 241, 243; DOE Ex. 15; P. Ex. J.

When the Student transferred to the mother brought his file with her and spoke with Ms about her concerns. Ms. had her generate two letters. DOE Ex. 6-2, 6-3. The Student’s ; he and . The mother gave her consent to evaluate on October 4, 2011 and the school started the testing. Tr. 253; DOE Ex. 10, 12; P. Ex. M, O, P. She did not recall receiving a booklet called Procedural Safeguards or anyone explaining to her about her rights as a parent. Tr. 259, 266. The IEP meeting took place on November 1, 2011 and she accepted the results. Tr. 263. Between November 1st and April 2012, the Student remained at He was then where he is doing better and they are able to deal with him. Tr. 264. She is not getting as . He is still adjusting, but he .

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Two purposes of the Indiviuals with Disabilities Education Act (“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 unique 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. § 1400[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]).

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 F.3d 165, 172 [2d Cir. 2009]; Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 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]; Winkelman 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]).

The IDEA directs that, in general, an IHO's decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][i]). 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 (Educ. Law § 4404[1][c]; see M.P.G. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2010 WL 3398256, at *7 [S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2010]).

The fundamental issues raised by this case concern the DOE’s failure to properly identify the Student as a child in need of special education services and its failure to meet the timelines within which evaluations must be conducted, an IEP developed and a placement found.

A school district must provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to students who have met the criteria for identification as students with disabilities under the IDEA and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law (34 C.F.R. § 300.307; 8 NYCRR 200.1[zz]). Local educational agencies also have an affirmative duty to identify, locate, and evaluate all children with disabilities residing in the state (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][3]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.125[a][1][i]; see 8 NYCRR 200.2[a][1]).2 A board of education must have procedures in place that will enable it to find such children (Application of a Child with A Disability, Appeal No 04-054; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 93-41). The "child find" duty requires referral for an evaluation when the district "has reason to suspect a disability and reason to suspect that special education services may be needed to address that disability" (Dept. of Educ. v. Cari Rae S., 158 F. Supp. 2d 1190 [D. Haw. 2001]; see 8 NYCRR 200.2, 200.4). The provision applies to children who are suspected of being a student with a disability and in need of special education, even though they are advancing from grade to grade (34 C.F.R. § 300.125[a][2][ii]; see 8 NYCRR 200.4).

The mother credibly testified that she recognized the Student’s academic and behavioral difficulties even before he started Within a month into the school year, when his energetic and hyperactive behaviors began to , , all of which interfered with his ability to learn, it was the parent, not the DOE, who formally requested an evaluation. The DOE did not follow up with the request. Due to the level of his behaviors and selfinjurious ideations, the Student required over the course of the 2010-2011 school years, which kept him out of class for weeks at a time. When he did return to class, Ms. was well aware of how had not abated and continued to impact his education. At one point they suggested an , although Ms. did not seem to know if he could get one without having an IEP. Still, the DOE did not seek to obtain the parent’s consent to evaluate the Student or administer or obtain any of the necessary evaluations that would have helped isolate the problems that underlay his . Whether or not the parent suggested that she would obtain a private evaluation, which I am not convinced she did, that does not entitle the DOE to standby and wait. With the documented of this child, and the letters from the doctors who attended him at recommending placement in an class or day treatment program, this was a child who did not have to luxury of this time. Yet, it took a year, with a move to another school, before the evaluation process began. But again, only after the DOE asked that the parent make the request, which occurred in early September 2011. It then obtained her consent on October 4, 2011 and testing began shortly thereafter. Once the results of the testing came in, and the CSE met on November 1, 2011, there was no dispute that the Student had an , the more predominant being , although he clearly had a as well. It developed an IEP with which the parent agreed.

Thus, the evidence credibly supports the parent’s claim that the DOE failed to meet its Child Find obligation to refer the Student to the CSE for a determination of eligibility for special education programs and services (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 05-040; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-058; Application of the Board of Educ., Appeal No. 00-052). A district's ignorance of a student's possible disability and need for special education will not relieve it of its "child find" obligation if it should have suspected the student had a disability (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 05-040; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 01-082). Because the "Child Find" obligation is an affirmative one, the IDEA does not require parents to request that the district evaluate their child (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 05-040; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 01-082).

The evidence also supports the parent’s argument that the DOE failed to comply with the Section 200.4(a) of Title 8 of the Commissioner’s Regulations, which obligated the DOE promptly to obtain seek parental consent to evaluate. Despite the parent’s request in October 2010 and the doctors’ letters in December 2010, the DOE did not obtain parental consent for almost a year after the parent wrote her first letter to the DOE. Meanwhile, the , which significantly impacted his ability to learn.

With regard to the implementation of a student's IEP, a denial of a FAPE occurs if the district deviates from substantial or significant provisions of the student's IEP in a material way and thereby precludes the student from the opportunity to receive educational benefits (A.P. v. Woodstock Bd. of Educ., 2010 WL 1049297 [2d Cir. Mar. 23, 2010]; see Van Duyn v. Baker Sch. Dist. 5J, 502 F.3d 811 [9th Cir. 2007]; Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Bobby R., 200 F.3d 341 at 349 [5th Cir. 2000]). Moreover, Section 200.4(e) of Title 8 of the Commissioner’s Regulations obligates the DOE to arrange for the appropriate special education programs and services to be provided to the student with a disability within 60 school days of the receipt of consent to evaluate. A delay in implementing an otherwise appropriate IEP may form a basis for finding a denial of a FAPE only where the student is actually being educated under the plan, or would be, but for the delay in implementation (see E.H., 2008 WL 3930028, at *11). It took four and a half months from when the CSE developed an IEP and six months from when the parent gave consent to evaluate, until the DOE implemented the IEP by placing the Student in an class, denying the Student significant educational benefits.

On the foregoing, I find that the evidence credibly demonstrates that the DOE failed to meet its Child Find obligations to the Student; that it failed to promptly seek the parent’s consent to evaluate after the parent and then the Student’s doctors requested that the Student be evaluated; and that the DOE significantly delayed the implementation of the Student’s program until April 16, 2012. For these reasons, individually and cumulatively, which caused a significant deprivation of educational benefits, I find that for the 2010-2011 school year and the 2011-2012 school year through April 16, 2012, the DOE denied the Student a FAPE.

Within the Second Circuit, compensatory education for a student after he or she is no longer eligible because of age or graduation to receive IDEA services has been awarded if there has been a gross violation of the IDEA resulting in the denial of, or exclusion from, educational services for a substantial period of time (see Somoza v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 538 F.3d 106, 109 [2d Cir. 2008]; Mrs. C. v. Wheaton, 916 F.2d 69 [2d Cir. 1990]; Burr v. Ambach, 863 F.2d 1071 [2d Cir. 1988]; see also Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 03-078 [awarding two years of instruction after expiration of IDEA eligibility as compensatory education]). In New York State, a student with a disability is eligible for services under the IDEA until he or she receives either a local or Regents high school diploma (8 NYCRR 100.5[b][7][iii], [vi-vii]; see 34 C.F.R. § 300.122[a][3][i]; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 05-084; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 05-037), or until the conclusion of the school year in which he or she turns twenty-one (Educ. Law §§ 3202[1], 4401[1], 4402[5][b]; see 8 NYCRR 200.1[zz]; see also 8 NYCRR 100.9[e]; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-100). Compensatory education is an equitable remedy that is tailored to meet the circumstances of the case (Wenger v. Canastota, 979 F. Supp. 147 [N.D.N.Y. 1997]).

Although this young child is not eligible for compensatory education, State Review Officers also have awarded compensatory "additional services" to students who remain eligible to attend school and have been denied appropriate services, if such deprivation of instruction could be remedied through the provision of additional services before the student becomes ineligible for instruction by reason of age or graduation (Bd. of Educ. v. Munoz, 16 A.D.3d 1142 [4th Dep't 2005] [finding it proper for a State Review Officer to order a school district to provide "make-up services" to a student upon the school district's failure to provide those educational services to the student during home instruction]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 08-072 [awarding after school and summer reading instruction as compensatory services to remedy a denial of a FAPE]; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 08-060; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 06-074; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 05-041; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04054). Accordingly, I find the hours requested by the parent reasonable to compensate the Student for the educational benefits lost as the result of the denial of FAPE. Therefore, I grant the parent’s request for relief in the amount of 440 hours of SETSS and 110 hours of counseling. I will also suggest, since this is not a part of the parent’s request for relief, that further evaluations, such as a neuropsychological, be done to investigate more fully his learning disability in conjunction with his

Order

I hereby order that as compensation for the denial of a FAPE for the 2010-2011 and the 2011-2012 school year through April 16, 2012, the DOE shall

1. Authorize the parent immediately to obtain for the Student at DOE expense 440 hours of special education teacher support services to be used in whatever increment the parent, in collaboration with the duly licensed special education teacher, deem appropriate.

2. Authorize the parent immediately to obtain for the Student at DOE expense 110 hours of to be used in whatever increment the parent, in collaboration with the duly licensed provider, deem appropriate.

3. The SETSS and referred to in paragraphs one and two above are compensatory and shall not be considered when developing an appropriate program for the Student. The Student has two years from the date of he commences the SETSS and two years from when he commences the to use all the respective services. Any unused compensatory SETSS and compensatory counseling that remain at the end of the twoyear period shall be deemed forfeited. Dated: February 7, 2013

_____________________________

LAURA FIEBER ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

LF:dl

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 JANUARY 4, 2013

Parent’s

Subject Date # Pages

Exhibits

A Omitted (See DOE Ex. 1)

B Omitted (See DOE Ex. 1)

C Omitted (See DOE Ex. 6.1)

12/6-

D Daily Behavioral Log 5

12/10/12

E Behavior Checklist 12/13/10 6

F Learning Checklist 12/13/10 6

G Omitted (See DOE Ex. 7)

H Omitted (See DOE Ex. 7)

. Div: Child/Adolescent Discharge After-Card 3/14-

I 5

Plan 3/18/2011

J Letter to Mental Health Provider from Principal 6/20/11 1

K . Center Visit Notes 7/20/11 1

Letter from re: referral for Special Education

L 10/3/11 1

services

M Request for Physical Examination 10/3/11 3

N Omitted (See DOE Ex.12)

10/18/11-

O Evaluation by 5

10/24/11

10/17/11-

P Classroom Observation 1

10/18/11

Q Behavior Intervention Plan 10/19/11 1

R FBA 10/19/11 2

S Omitted (See DOE Ex. 2) T Omitted (See DOE Ex. 2)

Letter “To Whom It May Concern” from Ass’t U 11/9/11 1

Principal V Meeting Notes by Undated ^[1] W 2012 Summer School Report Card: Chapter 8/13/12 9 X Request for IEP Meeting and Fax Confirmation 9/28/12 4

DOE’s

Subject Date # Pages Exhibits

2 IEP 11/1/11 13

3 Student Progress Report 4/18/12 2

4 Events For the Student Various 2

5 2011-2012 Student Attendance Report 6/15/12 1 6 Letter From Parent Various 3

7 Letter to CSE from 12/29/12 1

8 Letter to Special Education Commissioner 12/5/11 1 9 District Placement Officer Referral Form 11/2/11 1 10 Letter to Parent re: Evaluations 10/4/11 1 11 Letter to Parent re: IEP Meeting 10/19/11 1 12 Confidential Psychosocial Assessment 10/4/11 5 13 Letter from Physician and Discharge After-care Plan 3/18/11 5 14 Summary 3/8/11 4 15 Letter to Mental Health Provider 2/17/11 1 16 Email from 2/9/12 1 17 Conversations Re: the Student 3/12/12 6

18 FNR 3/16/12 1

IHO’s

Subject Date # Pages Exhibits None

---

Footnotes

[1] Calculated as follows: The Student was days of FAPE during the 2010-2011 school year and 91 days during the 2011-2012 school year, which of education. Multiplying this times per week of math per week of reading and vocabulary, and per week of core academic subjects, the total comes to ours.

[1] Amended Impartial Hearing Request 6/28/12 8