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: February 14, 2013

March 11, 2013

March 20, 2013

April 30, 2013

Actual Record Closed Date: May 17, 2013

Hearing Officer: Dora M. Lassinger, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON FEBRUARY 14, 2013

ESQ., Attorney — Student

DOE Representative (Via Telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MARCH 11, 2013

Attorney — Student

Chairperson's Designee — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MARCH 20, 2013

Attorney — Student

Parents

Parents

Director (Via Telephone) — Student

Psychologist (Via Telephone) — Student

CSE designee — DOE

School (Via Telephone) — DOE

School (Via Telephone) — DOE

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

ESQ., Attorney — Student

Parents

Parents

(Via Telephone) — Student

DOE Representative — DOE

The parents of . filed a request for an impartial hearing on December 11, 2012 seeking funding for ’s placement at the for the 2012-2013 school year, as well as Related Services Authorizations (“RSA’s), reimbursement for the cost of an independent , and pendency services. (Par Ex. A).

I was designated to hear this matter on December 12, 2012 pursuant to 20 U.S.C. Section 1415(f) (1). An impartial hearing commenced before me on February 14, 2013, on the issue of pendency. Both parties agreed that during the pendency of all due process proceedings, would continue to receive the program recommended in his February 7, 2012 Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) (Parent’s Ex. B).1A hearing on the merits was held on March 11, March 30 and April 30, 2013. The compliance date was extended on three occasions, due to the unavailability of witnesses, and the extensive testimony and issues. The final compliance date is May 28, 2013. (IHO Ex. II, III, IV).

is a year old boy with a classification of . (DOE Ex. 1). His classification is not in dispute. (Tr. p. 45). He attended the ( ) from the age of . (Par. Ex. E, p. 1). Prior to that time, he received Services that included (“ ”). (DOE Ex. 2, p. 2).

As part of a “ ” , a certified school conducted a of on March 14, 2012, and two classroom observations in February 2012 (DOE Ex. 2). He also conducted a teacher interview at the . On February 15, 2012, Mr. observed in both and an sessions. During the session responded to teacher - and of some skills, including . (Tr. p. 34). Based upon the he was able to ( ), he concluded that has in at least the range. His basic skills and skills were also intact, and he was performing at the level, with the possibility of . (Tr. pp. 38-39). His performance on academic scales was , indicating the ability to and , , and and . (DOE Ex. 2, p. 5). Mr. reported that based upon teacher and a teacher interview, classroom and observations, is a and who understands

1

’s pendency placement consists of Placement in a Class at the ( ) preschool; Services, hours per week; / (“ ”) times per week for - minute sessions at school and times per week, individually, for minute sessions, in a separate location; (“ ”) times per week for minute sessions at school; (“ ”) times per week individually for minute sessions, in a separate location. (Interim Order on Pendency). classroom rules and routines and transitions easily; that he engaged in and or . He exhibits and . (DOE Ex. 2, p. 5).

In a report dated January 17, 2012, ’s provider reported that presented with , that he and and that his . She recommended that he receive services times per week for minute sessions. Attached to her report were five proposed IEP goals, including short-term objectives. (DOE Ex. 4).

On April 16, 2012, the (“ ”) met to recommend a program for for the 2012/2013 school year. Mr. , a school , the parents, ,a teacher who also served as the District Representative, - , a school , , the Director of the , and 2 both parents participated in the meeting. (DOE Ex 1, p. 16). Mr. testified that the CSE reviewed a teacher indicating that had significant , including . (Tr. p. 42).

’s IEP includes the results of Mr. ’s , as well as information provided by his teacher. It was reported that recognizes, labels and sorts colors and shapes. That he recognizes his name in print, all the letters of the alphabets, counts by 1’s and enjoys books and understands stories read in class. It also includes information provided by his / . (DOE Ex. p. 1). The IEP states that functions on a level for and . (Id. p. 13). According to Mr. , there was no dispute about the reported levels. (Tr. p. 50).

The IEP includes a description of ’s development, as described by his classroom teacher and observed by Mr. . It was noted that with and skills. It was reported that ’s management needs can be met in the recommended program with the recommended related services. (DOE Ex. 1, p. 2) It was reported that receives inside and outside of school, and that he presents with and . ’s outside / reported that receives a specialized - approached aimed at and ( ) that he has made and that he believes it should be continued. (DOE Ex. 1 p. 1).

The validity of the composition of the review team is not disputed. (Tr. p. 48).

’s IEP includes goals for skills (to a level); increasing his ability to follow classroom routines; increasing his ability to attend to tasks at the level; level; demonstrate mastery of reading on a level by in the - code; and and / skills on a level; and developing / / skills to a level. The IEP also includes 4 goals for (including a goal for to input) , 3 goals for and six goals for , including goals for increasing range and and improving the . All of the goals include short-term objectives, and set a criteria of % accuracy to be measured by teachers or providers, on a quarterly basis. (DOE Ex. 1, pp. 3-9).

The recommended program is a class with a staffing ratio of , with related services of ( times per week , in a / room); ( times per week in a / room) and ( times per week individually in a / room). All sessions are for a duration of minutes. was also recommended for a full-time . (DOE Ex. 1, at 10). Twelve month programming was also recommended (Id. at 11). was recommended for alternate . (Id. at 12).

Mr. did not recall any disagreement with the recommended class placement. (Tr. p. 52). He recalled that the parent had a concern about continuation of as part of ’s . (Tr. p. 55). He did not recall a dispute about the frequency or the duration of any of the related services. (Tr. p .56). He recalled that the parents stated their desire for to continue to receive instruction. (Tr. pp. 69-70). He testified that the goals were not created at the meeting; although there may have been a discussion of the goals which were in the . (Tr. p. 57).

Dr. , a state certified school , testified that the , which was recommended for , is a free-standing building located close to School. It is a citywide program, with a twelve month school year. (Tr. p. 83). classes are housed in the same building. (Tr. p. 104). The school has a bell and a loud speaker. (Tr. p. 107).

The school has classes and provides related services of , and , either through DOE employees or independent contractors, who provide the services on site. In September 2012, all of the students were receiving their recommended mandates, and a seat was available for in each of the classes. (Tr. pp. 84-85). Related services are provided on a - and - basis. (Tr. p. 86). would have been provided with a , as provided in his IEP. (Tr. p 97).

could have been assigned to either of the classes, both of which have an age range of and year olds. (Tr. p. 87). testified that the other students in the classes are also ; and were functioning on or about the same level as academically. (Tr. pp. 90-91). He testified that the academic program follows the - to curriculum, including and , , and and . He described the program as being one of . (Tr. p. 91).

testified that while all of the teachers at the program are trained in , the program is not an program. He testified that staff use techniques throughout the day with positive reinforcement for correct answers, or successive approximation toward the correct answer but not at the level of to hours per week, which would be regarded as the level of an program. (Tr. pp. 97-98, 119).

The teachers utilize the and and (“ ”) method. described the daily routine which includes an , , , , and , which is aligned to the common core standards for the DOE. They also have skills, , , , and . (Tr. pp. 98-100, 119). He testified that ’s goals could have been implemented at the recommended site. (Tr. p. 100). The students in the classes range in their functioning from through at or above the level. (Tr. pp.116-117).

On cross-examination, testified that he did not know how many students attend school at the recommended site; but he stated that all of the classes are on the ground floor. (Tr. p. 104). He was not familiar with the gym at the site. The children receive in the class and in the halls. (Tr. pp. 109-110). Related services are provided in a , within the classroom, bordered by bookshelves. (Trp. 111-112). Another area, with , and is . (Tr. p. 113).

, the director of the , testified that she is a certified teacher. (Tr. pp. 128-129). The program is located on the campus of . The program consists of classes, with a total of - students are aged through , with a range of student with significant . (Tr. pp. 130-131). The building consists of three floors. ’s program is located on the second floor. The room is also on the second floor. The , and areas are on the lower level. There is a , and a with equipment, including an obstacle course. The area has rooms; one for and one for . The area has separate work areas for three different , to prevent and to of the sounds. The has and . (Tr. pp. 143-134).

is placed in a class of children with born in and . (Tr. pp. 134, 138 ). Their curriculum is the ( ) students. The classroom also uses the Assessment of and ( ). (Tr. p 135). ’s teacher is a certified teacher. The assistant teacher is a teacher , which requires some college credit. does not have a management plan. His is managed through the use of and level. of the students have ; however an is not assigned to . (Tr. pp. 137-138, 157, 162). The teacher and rotate throughout the children to assist them with activities which are laid out on the desk. (Tr. p. 139). The children all function at about a level for reading; and from a - to level for math. (Tr. p. 140).

The children’s day starts with , and , , , and beginning to work. (Tr. p. 139). They also have a which includes and skills. Afterward, they work on programs, and on some days they might have or . After lunch, they do math and then more . They have or , , , and finally they , where the students work on . At the end of the day, the students pack up their belongings, and . , , , and in centers. (Tr. pp. 141-142).

can attend for to in a ; and approximately minutes during - instruction. (Tr. p. 143). He receives approximately -and - to hours per day, usually in a . (Tr. p. 144). Lunch takes place . is beginning to show . He will walk and during recess. He is also starting to . (Tr. p. 146). In reading, he has . He is also and is working on . (Tr. p. 148). He has also learned , and his . He is . Expressively he . He is and requesting a few times and . (Tr. pp. 148-150).

testified that tends to be , but he does not . She testified that he has and and tasks, and the reinforcement provided in the program. (Tr. pp. 159, 167). During , he ; but he can be and with the teacher or the teaching . (Tr. p. 160).

, a certified , testified that she is the at the . (Tr. p. 170). As part of her duties, she creates and designs programs for the students. (Tr. p. 171). She testified that staff performed the , to create a baseline for programs. (Tr. p. 174). Goals were then created for and , to be used by ’s teacher. (Tr. p. 175). She testified that data is recorded throughout the day by a teacher or assistant. (Tr. p. 176). She testified that is making progress in all areas; specifically in his (from making and ); in (from making a or ) in , and in reading. (Tr. pp. 178179). He is also making progress in . (Tr. p. 180) She described the classroom environment as quiet. During time, students are . (Tr. p. 180).

,a , performed an evaluation of in December 2012 and January 2013. 3She observed in his classroom at the and and . (DOE Ex. E). She testified that he was , even in a - room; and was only able to maintain . (Tr. P. 245). ’s full scale IQ was in the range. His was in the range. He performed well on , with and skills were in the range. (Tr. p. 246). His performance on other academic measures was , but still good, given his IQ score. Within his classroom, he was and appeared to be . (Tr. p. 247). She described the environment in his classroom as quite quiet. (Tr. p. 249). She opined that requires an environment with , such as provided at the . (Tr. p. 252).

Reviewing the April 16, 2012 IEP, she disagreed with a goal for to attend to tasks at the level, because level, and by the end of the year. (Tr. pp. 254, 256).

Mrs. ., ’s mother testified that is very and . He is and . When he is and . He is prone to . (Tr. p. 197). is easily . He is

3 By letter dated November 19, 2012, the mother informed the CSE that she disagreed with the DOE’s , which was performed in February /March 2012, that she was arranging for an - , and that she reserved the right to seek reimbursement for the independent evaluation “at the DOE’s expense”. (Par. Ex. D). No evidence was presented regarding the cost of the . There is no indication in the record that the DOE ever initiated an impartial hearing to show that its was appropriate or that the parent’s does not meet the school district criteria. . He has to wear and . He needs to work in a . (Tr. p. 198). cannot tolerate and and has a . (Tr. p. 199). She testified that during , was receiving , , and and had a . (Tr. p. 199). Services were provided at school and at centers. methodology was used to instruct and he made progress in his , , and . (Tr. p. 200).

During , received each week at a , where he used , , and and practiced . (Tr. p. 201). He received at school times per week and outside, at a center each week. (Tr. p. 202).

Mrs. . testified that she participated in the April 16, 2012 IEP meeting. She brought the report to the meeting; but it was not reviewed, and that ’s needs were not discussed.^[4] Nor was there a discussion of goals. (Tr. pp. 205, 208). She informed the committee that was a program that worked for . Following the meeting, Mrs. . called Mr. to discuss her concerns about the being placed on the IEP, and about the mandates that were discussed at the meeting. (Tr. pp. 205207). She testified that other than her concerns about the , she agreed with the IEP; and felt that the class was a good framework which worked for . (Tr. p. 225). She also agreed with the recommended amount of , and the need for a - - . 5She informed the that she had visited a District , program; and that she was concerned that ’s needs would not be met there. (Tr. p. 228). She did not discuss the possibility of attending the for September 2012 at the review. (Tr. p. 220).

She received a final notice recommending and went to visit the recommended site on June 6. (Tr. p. 227). Mr. , the teacher she met with, told her there would be a class; however he was unable to show it to her, as he was teaching a grade class at the time. (Tr. pp. 208-209). She described the classroom as , with desks scattered about; and an area in the back, cut in half by the bookshelves, where the therapies were taking place. Mr. told her that the would take place in the classroom, as described by Dr. , and sometimes in the hall. (Tr. p. 211). She saw a . The bathroom was down the hall from the classroom. She was told that the students had to . (Tr. p. 212). She believes there were to students in the building. The building did not have a gym. Mr. informed her that they do not do . (Tr. pp. 212-213).

On June 7, 2012 , Mrs. . wrote to Ms. , the Chairperson, rejecting the recommended placement stating that she was placing at the . She stated that she was requesting pendency, all related services and transportation; and that she planned to invoke her due process rights. The letter does not indicate why she was rejecting the recommended site, or that she planned to seek tuition reimbursement. (Par. Ex. C; DOE Ex. 8). At the hearing, she expressed her concerns that the site , that there were a lot of children going up and down the hallway, for ; that the classroom, which would be for and that he would , when he was . (Tr. pp. 214-215). She described his progress at the . (Tr. p. 215).

She testified that receives all of his therapies, on site, at the , and outside of school, pursuant to RSA’s, in the amount provided in the Order of Pendency . The does not provide the related services. (Tr. pp. 216-217). attends school from AM to PM. (Tr. pp. 276-277).

On September 5, 2012, the parent signed a contract enrolling at the for Learning for the 2012/2013 school year, with an annual tuition of $36,000. (Par. Ex. G). The parents presented proof of payment of $9,000.00, as of the hearing; and Mrs. . testified that they are up to date in their tuition payments (Par. Ex. G; Tr. p. 227).

PARENT’S POSITION

The parents’ position is that the April 16, 2012 IEP is inappropriate because the goals were not discussed at the meeting and because the failed to consider ’s sensory needs, depriving the parents of meaningful discussion during the meeting. The parents also argue that ’s IEP, which recommended that all of his related services be provided at a room could not be implemented at the recommended site, where he would receive the within the classroom. They state that the school environment would be a “ ” for . (Tr. pp. 279-281). Finally, the parents argue that the fact that the did not provide related services (but did provide for to receive his services from outside providers) is not dispositive. (Tr. p. 283).

The hearing request includes a claim for compensatory related services, however no evidence was presented in support of this claim. In their hearing request, the parents also requested reimbursement for the cost of an ; however, no evidence was presented regarding the cost of the obtained by the parents.

DOE POSITION

The DOE’s position that it satisfied the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA and that the proposed placement would have been able to meet ’s needs. (Tr. p. 286). The DOE also argues that the recommended program is inappropriate and that equitable considerations do not favor the parent, as they never intended to place the child in a public school environment. (Tr. pp. 287-288).

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER

The school district bears the burden of proving the appropriateness of the recommended program. Education Law 4404(1). The school district must comply with the procedural requirements of the Individual with Disabilities Education Act. (IDEA), and the IEP developed through its CSE must be reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits. (Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 [1982]. A Board of Education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a child by the child’s parents, if the services offered by be Board Of Education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parents were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parents’ claim. (School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts, 471 U. S. 359 (1985). The fact that the facility selected by the parents to provide special education services to the child is not approved as a school for children with Florence disabilities does not preclude an award of reimbursement. (Florence School District Four et al. V. Carter by Carter , to 510 US. (1993).

An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student’s needs, establishes annual goals related to those needs and provides for the use of appropriate special education services. Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 11-162 (citations omitted). An appropriate public education under IDEA is one that is “likely to produce progress, not regression”. Id. (citing Cypress-Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael F., 118 F. 3d 245, 248 (3d Cir. 1997).

In evaluating whether a school district has complied with the procedural requirements of the IDEA, a hearing officer may find that a child did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (I) impeded the child’s right to a free and appropriate public education, (II) significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision making process regarding the provision of a free and appropriate education, or (III) caused a deprivation of educational benefits. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1415(f) (3) (e) (ii).

An IEP must include a statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals designed to meet the student’s needs that result from the student’s disability and to enable the student to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum. Application of the Board of Education, Appeal No. 11-007, p. 21 (citing 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]). Although the record indicates that ’s IEP goals were not discussed at the meeting, the parent testified that when she reviewed the IEP, she did not disagree with the recommended goals or program. Her only concern was that the IEP did not specifically provide for continuation of .

I find that the goals are appropriate and consistent with ’s needs, with the exception of the goal that increase his ability to attend at the level, which was not consistent with ’s abilities. Although the goals do not specifically mention , the IEP notes that has benefited from this type of therapy. The IEP includes goals, consistent with those recommended by his , including two goals addressed to his ability to ; and one goal which specifically addressed .

For all of the foregoing reasons, I find that any in ’s goals did not rise to the denial of FAPE. I further find that the recommended program is substantively appropriate because (1) the parent agreed with the recommended program and (2) the recommended staffing ratio is similar to what actually receives, and which I find to be appropriate.

RECOMMENDED SITE

I find that the DOE failed to demonstrate that the recommended program could be implemented at the recommended site. See T.Y., K.Y. on behalf of T.Y., v. New York City Department of Education, 584 F. 3d 412 (2d Cir. 2009). ’s IEP provides that all of his related services are to be provided in a “ ”. The record indicates that at the recommended program, would receive all of or in the . I find that this constitutes a significant deviation from ’s IEP, which provides for sessions of related services per week. The record indicates that is extremely distractible, and that the school’s inability to provide him with a for his related services, as provided in his IEP, resulted in a denial of FAPE.

APPROPRIATENESS OF PARENTAL PLACEMENT

To qualify for funding under the IDEA, the parents must demonstrate that the parental placement provides “educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction.” See Frank G. v. Bd. Of Educ. Of Hyde Park, 459 F. 3d 356, 365 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing Rowley). cert. denied, Board of Educ. Of Hyde Par, v. Frank G. 128 S. Ct. 436 (2007).

I find that the parent demonstrated that the provides with an appropriate educational program designed to meet his unique needs. is educated in a class, with support from a teacher, and a teacher’s , utilizing an , including . The school provides and a . The school program combined with the related services recommended in the April 16, 2012 IEP provides with an appropriate educational program. The school environment is and with ’s needs. During the current school year, has progressed in his , , and skills. M.H. and E.K. v. New York City Dept. of Education, 685 F. 3d 217, 254 (2d Cir.

2012) supports the parents’ position that the fact that the school is not the provider of related services does not mean that it is inappropriate.

EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS

In determining whether equitable considerations support a request for reimbursement, the courts will consider whether the parents have cooperated with the school district throughout the process to ensure that their child receives a FAPE. Bettinger v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 2007 WL 4208560 [S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2007].

Tuition reimbursement may also be reduced or denied, if the parents neither inform the CSE of their disagreement with the proposed placement, including stating their concerns and their intent to place their child in a private school at public expense at the most recent CSE meeting prior to their removal of the child from public school, nor provide the school district with written notice of such information ten business days before such removal. 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1412[a][10][C][iii][I]; Application of the BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appeal No. 08-084. The purpose of the notice requirement is to give the district a meaningful opportunity to minimize its expenses by developing its own IEP that would provide the child with a FAPE within the School District. J.S. and A.G. v. Scarsdale Union Free School District, 111 LRP 73958 (U.S.D.C, S.D.N.Y., 2011) (citing W.M. o/b/o O.M. v .Lakeland Central School District, 783 F. Supp. 2d 497 (U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y. 2011).

The record indicates that while the parents participated in the review and went to view the proposed site, they did not communicate their concerns regarding the recommended site or their intention to enroll at the at public expense either at the most recent review, or in their letter to in June 2012. While they notified the that they were placing at the and requested related services and transportation, they never informed the why they disagreed with the placement; and that they were seeking public funding for their placement. Contrary to the DOE’s argument, however, there is no evidence that the parents never intended to place in a school environment.

I find that the foregoing equitable considerations warrant a 10% per cent reduction in tuition reimbursement Wood v. Kingston City School District, 55 IDELR 132 (N. D.

N. Y. 2010).

I find that the tuition charged by is appropriate, taking into account the small class size and the specialized nature of the instruction provided.

REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT FOR INDEPENDENT EVALUATION

Parents are entitled to an independent education evaluation (“IEE”) at public expense if they disagree with the DOE’s evaluation. 8 NYCRR 200.5(g)(1). If a parent requests an IEE at public expense, the school district must, without unnecessary delay, ensure that either an IEE is provided at public expense or initiate an impartial hearing to show that its evaluation is appropriate or that the evaluation obtained by the parent does not meet school district criteria. 8 NYCRR 200.5[g][1][iv]. Application of a Student with a Disability, 11-001. As the DOE never initiated an impartial hearing to challenge the parent’s request for an IEE, the parent was entitled to an IEE at DOE expense. Nevertheless, inasmuch as no evidence was presented regarding the cost of the parents’ IEE, or the reasonableness thereof, I find that reimbursement should be limited to the DOE rate for independent psychoeducational evaluations.6

ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby ordered that the DOE shall:

(1) Reimburse the parents for ’s tuition at the for Learning, for the 2012-2013 school year reduced by ten (10%) upon presentation of proof of payment thereof.

(2) Continue to provide with the related services recommended in the April 16, 2012 IEP, pursuant to RSA’s, for the balance of the 2012-2013 school year.

(3) Reimburse the parents for the cost of their IEE, up to the amount allowed by the DOE for such evaluations, upon presentation of proof of payment thereof.

The parents’ claim for compensatory related services is denied.

In her letter requesting the , the parent stated that she was seeking an - . Dated: May 28, 2013

DORA M. LASSINGER, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

DML: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

PARENT

A , dated 12/11/12, 8 pages B , dated 4/16/12, 15 pages 16 16 C , dated 6/12/12, 1 page D , dated 11/19/12, 2 pages E , dated 12/12 and 1/13, 12 pages F , dated 2/1/13, 4 pages G , 9/5/12., 4 pages H , 1/2/12, 10 pages I , 1/2/12, 5 pages J , 2/1/12, 2 pages K , 2012/2013, 1 page L , 2/7/12, 2 pages ( )

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

1 , 4/16/12, 16 pages 2 - , 3/14/12, 6 pages 3 , 2/17/12, 1 page 4 , 1/17/12, 6 pages 5 , 1/26/12, 3 pages 6 , 1/16/12, 3 pages 7 , 5/21/12, 1 page 8 , 6/13/12, 1 page

IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER

1 , 1/15/13, 1 page 2 , 2/14/13, 1 page 3 , 3/20/12, 1 page 4 , 4/3013, 1 page

---

Footnotes

[4] , the author of the , recommended continuation of times per week for minute sessions, , with access to large pieces of equipment for and various media for . (Par. Ex. H). The IEP includes a summary of the , and a statement that the parents are particularly concerned about his and . (DOE Ex. 1, p. 2). When school started, however, she found that he was able to function very well . (Tr. p. 226).