NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Case Number:
Student’s Name:
Date of Birth:
District:
Hearing Requested By: Parent
Date of Hearing: April 4, 2013
June 26, 2013
July 19, 2013
Actual Rec Closed Date: September 11, 2013
Hearing Officer: James P. Walsh, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED APRIL 4, 2013
Name Relationship On Behalf of
Lilliana Diaz-Pedrosa, Esq. Attorney Associated with Advocates For Children of New York, Parent Attorneys for Parent (by phone)
Brittania Stewart, Esq. Attorney for District and New York City DOE (by phone) Department of Education
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JUNE 26, 2013
Parent of Student — Parents
Lilliana Diaz-Pedrosa, Esq. Attorney Associated with Advocates
For Children of New York, Attorneys for Parent — Parents
(by phone) — Parents
Brittania Stewart, Esq. Attorney for District and New York City DOE
Department of Education
Employed by DOE - DOE (by phone)
Eddy Rodriguez Interpreter IHO
Juan Arevalo Interpreter IHO
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JULY 19, 2013
Parent of Student — Parents
Lilliana Diaz-Pedrosa, Esq. Attorney Associated with Advocates
For Children of New York, Attorneys for Parent — Parents
Parents
Brittania Stewart, Esq. Attorney for District and New York City DOE
Department of Education
Juan Arevalo Interpreter IHO
The Matter of ., (hereinafter referred to as “Student”) came before me for determination in accance with the provisions of the Individuals with Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(1) and Article 89 of the Education Law of the State of New York, first on April 4, 2013 for the purpose of conducting a Pre-hearing Conference and, thereafter, on June 26, 2013 and July 19, 2013 for the hearing on the merits. The undersigned had been appointed by the Impartial Hearing Office of the Department of Education of the City of New York to preside over this matter on December 14, 2012. As a result of the Pre-Hearing Conference of April 4, 2013, Parent caused to be filed an Amended Due Process Complaint, dated April 9, 2013. On the first day of the hearing on the merits, June 26, 2013, the attorney for Parent had concerns regarding the sufficiency of the services of the interpreter assisting Parent in her participation of the hearing. A recess was taken and the services of another interpreter obtained. At the commencement of the hearing on July 19, 2013, counsel for the District and the New York City Department of Education expressed concerns as to the completeness of the Transcript of the June 26, 2013 hearing, noting that such had substantial instances in which dotted lines replaced the testimony being transcribed. It was requested that a new – and hopefully more complete – Transcript be ered. Such was done. However, little benefit in doing so was realized, as the number of instances wherein testimony was replaced by dotted lines, diminished but little. After the conclusion of the hearing on July 19, 2013, both attorneys requested the opportunity to submit Post-Hearing briefs for my consideration. Those requests were granted and a submission date of August 12, 2013 established. However, concerns regarding the completeness of the Transcripts continued to be expressed. On September 2, 2013, both attorneys were advised that they were free to submit references to the page and line of any inaccurate or incomplete testimony appearing in the Transcript and I would consult my notes to seek a possible completeness, but that such had to be done by September 9, 2013, as the Rec would be closed as of that date. No further complaints or reference4s to the Transcript were received. On September 11, 2013, the Rec was closed.
The proceeding was initiated by Parent by the filing by Parent’s attorneys, Advocates for Children of New York, of a Due Process Complaint Notice, dated December 12, 2012 and received by the New York City Department of Education’s Impartial Hearing Office on December 13, 2012 (Exhibit 1). Thereafter, as previously noted, Parent, by Parent’s attorneys, Advocates for Children of New York, filed an Amended Due Process Complaint Notice, dated April 9, 2013 (Exhibit 2), which was accepted by the District. It is the latter Due Process Complaint that is before me in this proceeding.
Parent alleges that District and its Committee on Special Education (C.S.E.) failed to offer Student a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2012-2013 school year, by failing to properly Student; by failing to create an appropriate Individualized Education Program (I.E.P.); and by failing to offer Student an appropriate placement (Exhibit 2). Purportedly because of such failures, Parent unilaterally placed Student at the for the 2012-2013 school year Student is presently of age, having been born on . However, at the time that the convened to plan Student’s program for the 2012-2013 school year on June 15, 2012, Student was old. Accing to the testimony of Parent, Student had at the age years, and was provided services. Student has continued to receive services since that time, always in a private school setting (T.R.196). At the age of years, accing to the testimony of Parent, Student was placed at (I presume it was ), where Student remained until “they ” (T.R. 197). Student has attended the for the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years (T.R.134). Accing to the testimony of , a consulting teacher at , Student has significant , especially in the area ), but also experiencing
District’s C.S.E. conducted an Annual Review of Student’s program on May 15, 2012 in er to develop an Individualized Education Program (I.E.P.) for Student for the 2012-2013 2chool year. Present at that meeting, accing to the testimony of Witness was School , who also served as District Representative, Teacher and Parent Member Parent did not attend the meeting, but had attend for her. Participating in the meeting by telephone was Teacher at and Ms. Student’s then- . No General Education Teacher attended for, as explained by Witness , general education services were not considered (T.R.89).
As a result of that meeting, an I.E.P. was issued, (Exhibit 18) which continued Student’s classification as having a and recommended that Student receive per week in a in a Community School having a staffing , namely ;
Thereafter, by a Final Notice of Recommendation dated August 2, 2012, Student was offered placement at the High School for Teaching and the Professions (Exhibit 19). Parent’s attorneys advised the District, in correspondence dated August 24, 2013 (Exhibit
20) that Parent would visit the recommended placement, but that Parent was deeply concerned about the appropriateness of such placement and that, unless, upon visiting the proffered placement and determining that such was appropriate, Parent would be placing Student at the and would seek public funding for such placement
It has been established that Boards of Education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a child by the child’s parent, if (1) the services offered by the Board of Education were inadequate or inappropriate; (2) the services selected by the Parent were appropriate and; (3) equitable considerations support the Parents’ claim (School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985); Application of a Child with a , Appeal No. 01-052). Further, the fact that the facility selected by the parents to provide services to the Child had not been approved as a school for children with by the State Education Department of the State of New York is not dispositive of a Parents’ claim for tuition reimbursement (Florence County School District 4 et al. v. Carter by Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]). In both decisions, the Court noted that:
“Parents who unilaterally place a student
in a private educational facility … do so
at their own financial risk”
(see 471 U.S. 359 at 373)
I find that the reasoning behind such decisions applies equally to Parent’s application for retrospective funding for the services Parent has obtained for Student (see Mr. A. ex rel.
D. A. v. NYCDOE, Lexis 9475 (February 2011). However, the availability of direct retrospective payments now permitted by Mr. A. ex rel. D. A. v. NYCDOE, Lexis 9475 (February 2011), still requires the establishment of the Burlington Prerequisites.
BURDEN OF PROOF
In applying the three-prong standard enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Burlington and Carter decisions above-cited, it is necessary, in my consideration of the issues presented in this proceeding, that I first determine whether or not the School District offered to Student a free, appropriate public education. The burden of establishing that it did so rests with the District, pursuant to the provisions of New York State Education Law §4404(1). I will review and consider whether District has successfully borne such burden. Should I determine that District has successfully established that it offered Student an appropriate educational program, my inquiry into Parent’s request for direct retrospective payment will cease at that point, for if a district has offered an appropriate program, Parent’s right to direct retrospective payment must be denied. If it is determined that District has failed to establish that it offered Student an appropriate program, I must then determine the appropriateness of the Parent’s unilaterally-selected educational services. The burden of establishing such appropriateness rests upon Parent (New York State Education Law §4404(1). Should Parent fail to establish the appropriateness of the unilaterally-selected services, Parent’s request for direct retrospective payment must be denied. If the unilaterally-selected educational services are determined to be appropriate, I must then review the equities in er to determine whether equitable considerations favor an award of direct retrospective payment. It is my determination that the burden of establishing that such equities favor an award of direct retrospective payment rests upon District.
It has been often stated by the State Review Officer (see Application of the Blank, Appeal No. 11-105), that 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]). However, that is not exactly accurate. For, 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., 2008 WL 5505470, at 4 [2d Cir. Jan. 16, 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 as amended, 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 Parent’s 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 C.F.R. § 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; 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]).
It was further noted by the State Review Officer in the above-cited Decision that 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. § 300.320[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]), establishes annual goals related to those needs (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]), and provides for the use of appropriate special education services (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][4]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]; see Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 07-018; Application of a Child with a , Appeal No. 06059; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 06-029; Application of a Child with a , Appeal No. 04-046; Application of a Child with a , Appeal No. 02-014; Application of a Child with a , Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a , Appeal No. 93-9).17 The student's recommended program must also be provided in the (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.114[a][2][i], 300.116[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[cc], 200.6[a][1]; see P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 4509089, at *7 [2d Cir. Oct. 9, 2008]; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 [2d Cir. 2007]; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132). A school district may be required to belatedly pay expenses that it should have paid all along and would have borne in the first instance had it offered the student a FAPE (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370-71; see also20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][ii]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.148). The IDEA directs that, in general, an impartial hearing officer'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]). A school district offers a FAPE "by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction" (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203). However, the "IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP" (Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 [2d Cir. 1998]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189). The statute ensures an "appropriate" education, "not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving Parent" (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132, quoting Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d 563, 567 [2d Cir. 1989] [citations omitted]; see Grim, 346 F.3d at 379). Additionally, school districts are not required to "maximize" the potential of students with (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199; Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132). Nonetheless, a school district must provide "an IEP that is 'likely to produce progress, not regression,' and . . . affs the student with an opportunity greater than mere 'trivial advancement'" (Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195, quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130 [citations omitted]; see Perricelli, 2007 WL 465211, at *15). The IEP must be "reasonably calculated to provide some 'meaningful' benefit" (Mrs. B. v. Milf Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 [2d Cir. 1997]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192). While such benchmarks, garnered from different sources and different courts dealing with various factual presentments, appear to establish varying standards for the basis of determining whether a particular program meets the obligation imposed upon districts to provide a free, appropriate public education, I shall employ, in my review and determination of the issues raised in Parent’s Due Process Complaint, the of whether the program offered to Student by District was reasonably calculated to provide Student with some meaningful educational benefit.
According to the testimony of Witness , the Committee that met to determine Student’s program for the 2012-2013 school year had obtained much of its information regarding Student’s educational performance from and its staff (According to the testimony of , all of it came from the (T.R.139). Information regarding Student’s performance at came from who, according to the testimony of District Representative provided information regarding Student’s performance in his class (T.R.60), and from Student’s teacher, both of whom participated by telephone. The Committee also relied on assessments that had been completed by , as well as Progress Reports from (Exhibit 15). Witness also testified that the Committee was aware that Student had been s (T.R. 100-101, 103) (Exhibit 16) – although it appears that such were not stated in Student’s of 2012 (Exhibit 8) and Witness had little recollection of the source of such information (T.R.99). I note, in the I.E.P. (Exhibit 18), there is a statement under Physical Development, that “The parent states the he was - a statement that only raises more questions about the accuracy of the , as it had been confirmed by Witness that Parent was not at the meeting. However, despite such reference to such conditions, no further testing or accommodations were deemed necessary.
In fact, I have serious concerns regarding the Committee’s preparation of Student’s without having sufficient information regarding Student . There is in evidence the report of a of Student conducted on August 2, 2010 (Exhibit 8). Yet, on October 12, 2011, Parent was advised that, after a review of Student’s current educational and information, it had been determined that additional assessments were required (Exhibit 3). It asked Parent to give her consent to . This Parent did, dated October 25, 2011. Yet, no testing pursuant to Parent’s consent was ever done – although more than six months elapsed between the provision of Parent’s consent and the Committee meeting of May 15, 2012. All of my review of the appropriateness of Student’s program as set out in Student’s including the appropriateness of Annual Goals, which must be based on Student’s current functioning levels, and the appropriateness of the program recommendation itself, are infected with what I perceive to be a lack of current information regarding Student. The District itself has said that additional were required. It is my finding and determination that the failure of the District to obtain those additional assessments render Student’s I.E.P. inappropriate, to a degree sufficient to find that such failed to offer Student a free, appropriate public education.
I also note that the program offered to Student pursuant to the provisions of his required that Student receive his core subject per week in a having a of There appears, however, no provision as to where Student is to receive the remaining portion of his school day. It can only be surmised that Student would be placed in a General Education class for the remainder of the day (T.R.141). If such was to be Student’s program, then it was required by the provisions of Commissioner’s Regulations that a General Education Teacher be a member of the Committee. I find it impossible to reconcile the testimony of Witness that no General Education Teacher was made a part of the Committee because general education services were not considered (T.R. 89) with the only twenty period program set out in Student’s I.E.P. Again, it is my finding and determination that the absence of a General Education Teacher at the Committee meeting is a procedural error that rises to the level of depriving Student of a free, appropriate public education.
Having made such determinations, I will not review the other areas of claimed by Parent regarding the inappropriateness of District’s proffered program.
It is my determination that District has failed to bear its burden of establishing the appropriateness of its program or that it had offered Student a free, appropriate public education.
Having made the determination that District failed to sustain its burden of establishing the appropriateness of it program, it is now necessary that I conduct a review of the appropriateness of the program unilaterally selected for Student by Parent at . It is unquestioned that Student, because of , requires a class setting to learn. Consultant Teacher testified that she has worked at the since 2005, first as a classroom teacher, then as a curriculum consultant, and presently in the program (T.R.131-132). Witness Testified that she was quite familiar with Student and his academic performance while at (T.R.115-116). Witness noted that Student displayed a severe and that his in were below (T.R.116-117). He required, in the opinion of Witness , supports such as Student’s social as Student by his to advance (T.R.117). Witness also noted Student’s need for assistance and intervention in his , his Witness the Assistant Head of School at , testified that the is a modified high school program, where students have academic experiences with different content areas of The program offers life skills, vocational counseling, self-advocacy programs and a transition component (T.R. 211). The has an enrollment of (T.R.211). Accord ing to the testimony of Witness , the offers a tenmonth program, but also has a six week program during the summer months.(T.R.213) Classes have a staffing ration of with a Teacher and an Assistant Teacher (T.R.214), but with classes breaking into or instruction . The employs a approach, with all material matched to the particular student’s current functional level (T.R.216). Classes are formed by age, but, within the group, students are placed into based particular student needs, where instruction can be differentiated (T.R.217). are taught at least weekly, always cotaught by an The utilizes technology, including , where technology is taught at least weekly (T.T.220-221).Witness was familiar with Student, having been his classroom teacher during the 2011-2012 school year. Witness reported that student still struggles with , but has made progress. In the area of , it was reported that, while Student was unable to travel between home and school at the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year, he was able to do so by the end of the year (T.R.230).
I find that the program being offered to Student at during the 2012-2013 school year was more than sufficient to meet his documented needs. Parent has successfully borne the burden of establishing the appropriateness of the unilaterally-selected program at for the 2012-2013 school year.
Having made such determination, it is necessary that I consider whether equitable considerations favor an award of retrospective tuition to for Student’s attendance at that facility for the 2012-2013 school year. Equitable considerations can involve many or few elements in resolving such issue. Often, a determinations is based on whether a parent cooperated with District and its Committee on in seeking an appropriate program and placement for the student whose program is being developed. It often boils down to whether a parent attended Committee meetings and visited a proposed placement. In this matter, Parent did not attend the Committee meeting of May 15, 2012. Rather, Parent sent a to attend for her. Not surprisingly, that , while in attendance, offered nothing to the Committee in terms of developing a program (T.R.65). It had been reported to District Representative by that Parent had gone shopping with Student, as it was his birthday (T.R.42). Parent’s testimony vacillated; first stating that she had trouble walking that morning because of her hip (T.R.182-183); and thereafter that she didn’t attend the meeting because she was in the hospital (T.R.197). Parent also testified that she had visited the proposed placement in May of 2012 – months before District issued a Final Notice of Recommendation in August of 2012 (Exhibit 19). Further, although Parent’s Due Process Complaint states that “By letter dated August 24, 2012, [Parent] informed the DOE that she had serious concerns about the school recommended…” (Exhibit 2), Parent directly testified, when asked if she believed the school she had visited was appropriate for Student, responded that she didn’t “know if it was good or bad” (T.R.193). It is my finding and determination, after reviewing Parent’s testimony and observing Parent during the hearing, that Parent had very little, in any, input into Student’s educational programs or placement. In describing Student’s educational history, Parent testified that Student had been at the , “And after the , they passed him on to ”. (T.R.178). No one inquired as to who “they” were, but it appears Parent felt she had little input in such decision.
Parent testified that her only source of income is a government program, where Parent receives a check in the amount of per month. On March 20, 2012, Parent signed an Enrollment Package for Student (Exhibit 6) and, on April 18, 2012 – almost a full month prior to the Committee Meeting of May 15, 2012 – signed an Enrollment Contract for Student to attend for the 2012-2013 school year in the amount of (Exhibit 6). Parent, by such Contract, agreed to pay such tuition and was responsible for the full payment of such. However, when directly asked by her attorney if Parent was responsible for payment to , Parent responded “I can’t pay it. I don’t work.” (T.R.192). It is my finding and determination that the Contract executed by Parent was totally non-binding on Parent and the was fully aware that Parent, with a sole income of in the amount of Dollars per month, did not possess the wherewithal to enter such Contract or even consider such a Contract as binding. It is my further finding that is the sole entity interested in the outcome of this proceeding.
I recognize that I have found the District and the New York City Department of Education failed to offer Student a free, appropriate public education for the 2012-2013 school year. I further recognize that I have found that did provide Student with an appropriate education for the 2012-2013 school year. However, unless the Third Prong of the Burlington Prerequisites is to be discarded and given no meaning at all, I simply cannot rule that equitable considerations favor an award of retrospective tuition payment to in this instance. On the other hand, I find it may be equally inequitable to deny any recovery at all for the expenses incurred in providing Student with his educational program during the 2012-2013 school year.
Therefore, it is my finding and determination that District and the New York City Department of Education pay to the sum of Dollars in full payment of any retrospective tuition to which the may be entitled for Student’s attendance at such institution during the 2012-2013 school year. ER
Based upon the above review, it is
HEREBY ERED that District and the New York City Department of Education pay to the sum of Dollars in full payment of any retrospective tuition to which the may be entitled for Student’s attendance at such institution during the 2012-2013 school year. Dated: September 23, 2013
___________________________
JAMES P. WALSH, ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer
JPW: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 REC ON APRIL 4, 2013
None
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO REC ON JUNE 26, 2013
A. Student’s Schedule at Parent for the 2012-2013 school year (2 pages; Parents)
B. Statement of Mission and Objectives for Parent (5 pages; Parents)
C. Information Letter to Parent from Social Security Parent Administration Regarding Parent’s Supplemental Security Income Payments, dated 3-21-12 (1 page; Parents)
D. Affidavit of, President of the Parent for, sworn to on 3-22-13 (1 page; Parents)
E. Student’s Attendance Report from Parent for Period 9-10-12 through 3-21-13 (1 page; Parents)
F. Parent’s Amended Due Process Complaint Notice, Parent dated 4-9-13 (3 pages; Parents)
G. Letter from Parent’s Attorneys to District, dated Parent 8-24-12 (2 pages; Parents)
1. Parent’s Original Due Process Complaint Notice, dated 12-12-12 (2 pages; DOE)
2. Parent’s Amended Due Process Complaint Notice dated 4-9-13 (Same as Exhibit F) (3 pages; DOE)
3. Parent’s Consent to, dated 10-25-11 (1 page; DOE)
4. Report, dated 11-1-11, by A. (1 page; DOE)
5. Informational Regarding Enrollment by Parent for DOE for, dated 3-20-12 (4 pages; DOE)
6. Enrollment Contract between Parent and for the 2012-2013 school year, dated 4-18-12 (2 pages; DOE)
7. Notice to Parent of Meeting to Develop Student’s I.E.P., dated 6-4-[12] (4 pages; DOE)
8. Report of of Student by, dated 8-2-10 (9 pages; DOE)
9. Transition Goals for Student’s ’s I.E.P. (3 pages; DOE)
10. ’s Draft Discussion ` Document of Student’s I.E.P. in for June 2012 Review (3 pages; DOE)
11. ’s Draft Discussion ` Document of Student’s I for June 2012 Review (3 pages; DOE)
13. ’s Draft Discussion ` Document of Student’s I.E.P. in area of for June 2012 Review (2 pages; DOE)
14. Report on Administration of - by, dated 9-30-10 (2 pages; DOE)
15. Student’s Progress Reports from for Third Review – June 2012 (20 pages; DOE)
16. Minutes of Committee Meeting of 6-15-12 (6 pages; DOE)
17. I.E.P. Annual Review Report by S. of, dated 6-15-12 (4 pages; DOE)
18. Student’s I.E.P. as Prepared by District’s Committee on June 15, 2012 (20 pages; DOE)
19. Final Notice of Recommendation to Parent, dated 8-2-13 (1 page; DOE)
20. Letter from Parent’s Attorney to C.S.E. Chair, dated 8-24-13 (Same as Exhibit G) (1 page; DOE)
21. Student’s Assessment Portfolio as Prepared by, (17 pages; DOE)
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO REC ON JULY 19, 2013
None
Footnotes
[12] 2 ’s Draft Discussion ` DOE Document of Student’s I.E.P. in area of for June 2012 Review