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

Dates of Hearing: August 23, 2012

October 9, 2012

November 27, 2012

Actual Record Closed Date: January 2, 2013

Hearing Officer: Judith Schneider, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON AUGUST 23, 2012

Esq. Attorney — Parents

Esq. Attorney — Parents

Esq. Attorney — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON OCTOBER 9, 2012

Esq. Attorney — Parents

Esq. Attorney — Parents

Mother — Parents

Esq. Attorney — DOE

Special Ed. Teacher — DOE

(via telephone)

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON NOVEMBER 27, 2012

Esq. Attorney — Parents

Esq. Attorney — Parents

Mother — Parents

Teacher- — Parents

(via telephone)

Student Support Services- — Parents

(via telephone)

Dr. — Parents

(via telephone)

Esq. Attorney — DOE

Assistant Principal — DOE

(via telephone)

On August 23, 2012, October 9, 2012, and November 27, 2013, I conducted an Impartial Hearing at the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) Impartial Hearing Office, 131 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, New York, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (“IDEIA”), 20 U.S.C. §1415, and Article 89 of the Education Law of the State of New York, regarding the special education program of XXX (“the student”) for the 2011-2012 school year.

The proceeding was initiated at the request of the parent by correspondence dated June 21, 2012. (Ex. 1) I was appointed Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) on June 28, 2012, after the recusal of another IHO. I was available to conduct a hearing within 14 days. The hearing commenced on August 23, 2012. By later dated August 23, 2012, filed October 5, 2012, the hearing request was amended. (Ex. J)

The parties moved to extend the compliance date on various occasions in light of anticipated testimony, the scheduling of witnesses and submission of evidence and closing memoranda. 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 present their positions in accordance with the requirements of due process was greater than any delay in the resolution of this matter. Accordingly, the joint requests for extensions of the compliance dates were granted and written decisions with regard to the extensions were provided to the parties. (T. 5, 23, 28-29, 67-68, 72, 300-301, Ex. I)

The current compliance date is January 25, 2013. The record closed on January 2, 2013, upon my receipt of all post-closing memoranda. (Ex. IV)

Background

The student was at the commencement of the 2011-2012 school year and her classification is . (Ex. 4) That classification is not in dispute.

She was diagnosed with a in 2004, the evaluation having occurred after teachers said she was not . (T. 162)

She attended a DOE prseschool. For elementary school she started at a public school, transferred to a charter school and thereafter to a facility. She attended a different facility for junior high school and then the school. (T. 166-168) The DOE has funded prior . (T. 167)

On February 14, 2011, the CSE convened to develop an IEP for the 2011-2012 school year, the student’s 11th grade. The IEP reported the student’s reading, math and writing scores as 1st -2nd grade but reported her listening comprehension at a 5th grade level. It was noted that she also had strong verbal skills. The IEP stated that the student was participating in a community internship program at her private school and receiving travel training and that she generally interacted well with others and was learning how to manage social conflicts with peers. (Ex. 4-3 to 5) The CSE recommended a 12 month program of a Special Class in Specialized School, 12:1:1, with related services (counseling 1x45 and 1x45 ; 2x45 ). (Ex. 4)

By Final Notice of Recommendation dated June 10, 2011, a placement at (“the school”) was offered. (Ex. 11)

By letter dated August 22, 2011 to the CSE, the parent submitted a “10 day notice” stating that she could not make a decision about placement until school opened in September and would notify the CSE thereafter as to her decision but until her determination as to whether the school was appropriate, would place the student at and seek reimbursement from the DOE if the school placement was rejected. The parent also requested information about the recommended class, related services and mainstreaming opportunities. (Ex. A) She never received a response. (T. 178)

The parent visited the school in September 2011. (T. 179)

By letter dated June 21, 2012, the parent requested the instant impartial hearing. (Ex. 1)

Positions of the Parties

The parent asserts that the February 14, 2011 IEP (“the IEP”) is defective in that the recommendation of a 12 month program was not reasonably calculated to result in meaningful educational gains in that it was not necessary to prevent “substantial regression” and did not consider the effects on the student’s other needs, specifically transition goals and the need for an internship. It is also claimed that the recommended placement was not appropriate in that it could not implement the student’s IEP with regard to , and and further that it was not the least restrictive environment. The parent claims that that her unilaterally selected placement at the (“ ”) is appropriate for this student and that equitable considerations favor the parent and do not warrant denial or limitation of DOE funding for that placement. Direct payment to is requested based upon the claim that the parent is financially unable to pay the tuition and seek reimbursement.^[1] (Ex. II)

The DOE asserts that the recommendation of a 12 month program was appropriate and, further, its implementation was optional at the election of the parent and therefore it was not material and there was no harm to the student even if not appropriate. Further, the DOE asserts that the placement offered was appropriate and that parent’s objections are speculative and/or barred from consideration because not raised in her amended hearing request or consented to by the DOE. The DOE also asserts that was not an appropriate placement because in all academic areas the student has shown trivial or no progress and/or regressed . With regard to the equities in this matter, the DOE claims that DOE payment is not warranted because the parent’s 10 Day Notice does not comply with statutory requirements and, further, the parent had not acted in good faith because she never intended to accept a public school placement. (Ex. III)

Cases Presented

Lists of documents admitted into evidence and persons who appeared are appended.

The DOE presented the testimony of the following witnesses: (” ”), who had observed the student in her classroom, and participated in the CSE review that resulted in the IEP as the district representative and special education teacher (T. 46-47, 51-52, Exs. 4-2, 7); ”) Assistant Principal of the recommended public school (T. 77)

The parent presented the testimony of the following witnesses: (“ ”) s Assistant Head of School who taught the student in the (T. 116-117) ; (“ ), Student Support Services staff who visited the recommended school (T. 232); Dr. (“ ”), who was the student’s counselor (T. 275); the student’s mother (“the parent.)

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

The information stated in the “Background” section above is specifically included herein as factual findings.

***********************

The legal standard applicable to a request for reimbursement for educational services is well established. Reimbursement is granted if: (1) the services offered by the Board of Education are inadequate or inappropriate (Prong 1); (2) the services selected by the parent are appropriate (Prong 2) ; and (3) equitable considerations support the parent's claim (Prong 3). Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993); School Comm. of Burlington v. Department of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359 (1985). In New York State the DOE bears the burden of proof with regard to Prong 1 and the parent bears the burden of proof with regard to Prong 2. Educ. Law 4404[1][c] Prospective payment for tuition may be ordered by an impartial hearing officer when a child would otherwise be denied a free appropriate education and the parent can show financial inability to pay the tuition and then seek reimbursement. Mr. & Mrs. A v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 769 F. Supp. 2d 403 (S.D. N.Y. 2011). See also, Connors v. Mills, 34 F. Supp 2nd 795 at

806, n.7 (N.D. N.Y. 1998)

Prong 1

An appropriate educational program begins with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) which 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 Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-046; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-014; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 93-9). While school districts are required to comply with all Individuals with Disabilities Education Act procedures, not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F. 3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003]) If a procedural violation has occurred, relief is warranted only if the violation affected the student's right to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) (J.D. v. Pawlet Sch. Dist., 224 F.3d 60, 69 [2d Cir. 2000]). A denial of a FAPE occurs when procedural inadequacies either result in a loss of educational opportunity for the student, seriously infringe on the parents' opportunity to participate in the IEP formulation process (see Werner v. Clarkstown Cent. Sch. Dist., 363 F. Supp. 2d 656, 659 [S.D.N.Y. 2005]; W.A. v. Pascarella, 153 F. Supp. 2d 144, 153 [D. Conn. 2001]), or compromise the development of an appropriate IEP in a way that deprives the student of educational benefits under that IEP (see Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. v. D.K., 2002 WL 31521158 [S.D.N.Y. 2002]). In evaluating the substantive program developed by the CSE, 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. v. Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 103 [2d Cir. 1998]). This progress, however, must be meaningful; i.e., more than mere trivial advancement (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130). The IDEA, however, does not require school districts to develop IEPs that maximize the potential of a student with a disability (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 197 n.21, 199; see Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132. The student's recommended program must also be provided in the Least Restrictive Environment (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.550[b]; 8 NYCRR 200.6[a][1]).

A) The IEP

The parent’s sole claim with regard to the IEP concerns the recommendation of a 12 month program which the parent asserts was not reasonably calculated because 1) a 12 month program was not necessary to prevent “substantial regression” and 2) the effect of a 12 month program on other needs was not considered. was the DOE’s sole witness with regard to the IEP . She did not specifically recollect this IEP meeting but testified based upon her review of the documents, including the IEP and comprehensive minutes and her knowledge of her routine practice at reviews she chaired. (T. 64-66) I find her testimony credible and note her experience as a special education teacher assigned to the CSE for four years prior to her retirement. (T. 44-45)

stated that because the student’s academics were very low and consistently below grade level for three years, reinforcement of academic skills during the summer to maintain what she had was warranted. (T. 52-53) The fact that there was no objection to a 12 month program specified in the minutes demonstrated to her that none had been made at that time. (T. 65) With regard to that claim, I note that there has been no testimony that there had been any objection and the parent stated that she had had no concerns about a 12 month program. (T. 173 ) Further, I conclude that the evidence shows regression which took an inordinate time to make up. 8 NYCRR 200.6(k). (T. 147-151, Exs. 15, 17) I note with regard to the issue of regression that acknowledged in discussing the student’s apparent loss of skills over the summer that it was not uncommon to have regression over the summer especially for students who need repetition and constant practice of skills. (T. 148) I note that the CSE was aware of the student’s area of strength which was discussed at the review and referenced in the IEP but it was also aware of the student’s very significant and . (Exs. 5, 4, 7)

Further, I give no weight to ’s acknowledgement that there was no consideration by the CSE of the effect of a summer program on other student needs. (T. 62) The evidence shows that the CSE recommendation did not preclude summer employment, although that did not in fact occur. (T. 62) Rather, the 12 month program was simply an option requiring parental consent to implement and I conclude that the parent was aware of that. (T. 54-55, Ex. 10) No evidence of parental consent has been submitted and, indeed, the parent’s subsequent actions are consistent with her awareness that it was entirely voluntary. I note in this regard the fact that there is no claim that any objection to a 12 month program was made until the hearing request was filed, that the 10 day notice letter was not sent until after the summer term had concluded and that the parent did not visit the school offered until September. (T. 161, Ex. A ) In these circumstances any defect in arriving at the recommendation was not material. R.C. v. Byram Hills Sch. Dist., 2012 WL 5862736 (S.D. N.Y. 2012);

In the foregoing circumstances, I find that the DOE has established that the IEP was reasonably calculated to enable the student to make meaningful educational progress.

B) The Placement

With regard to the placement, , the school’s AP for 14 years, was the DOE’s sole witness. (T. 78) She testified that there was space available for the student in July and in September (T. 81, 83, 84), that there were about 15 classes at the site and that students are grouped functionally based on academic performance, learning characteristics and age (T. 81) after reviews of IEPs and the staff has gotten a feel for the student (T. 105) She stated based upon review of the IEP that this student is typical of students in the school. (T. 81)

, whose specific areas of responsibility include related service delivery compliance credibly testified that and mandates were deliverable at the school in 20112012 and that no related service authorizations were required. (T. 78, 87, 93-95) She explained that the related service delivery reports, as a consequence of a systemic problem, did not accurately reflect the actual situation and because of ongoing IEP reviews and reporting recording failures, although services were delivered as mandated, it was sometimes reported that that was not the case. (T. 92)

With regard to areas of instruction in the school, testified that intensive travel training was available for students who were ready for it and that social skills and life skills were addressed throughout the day and not in separate classes because it was believed that it was most effective to teach that in context and integrated with real life situations. (T. 98-100) Off site vocational training is available, however the school prefers before students are sent off site that they are assigned to in-house programs which also provide an opportunity for academic instruction. (T. 102) New students and younger students would likely be assigned to in-house programs. (T. 103)

The parent asserts that the DOE has failed to establish that the proposed placement could implement the IEP appropriately and testimony with regard to that issue was presented.

The parent testified that James White, identified as unit administrator by showed her the site when she visited. (T.82, 179-180) The parent had previously visited the school in connection with the 2010-2011 recommendation and met at that time. (T. 177, 179-180) showed her one class, which had at that time six students present, and she formed the impression that they were lower functioning than her daughter. (T. 179-180) However, told her that there were other students who were not so and that the student might have been placed in another class. (T. 181, 225-226) With regard to related services, she was told that and group were then available but that at the time of her visit they were seeking an additional counselor and individual could not be provided to the student. (T. 181)

testified that she visited the school in the third week of September 2011 in connection with a different student of the same age. (T. 250) White told her that in that school the students’ classifications were mostly intellectual disability with some learning disability and some and he described levels for each of the classes as a wide range, including in functioning levels. (T. 233, 238, 259, 264) White spoke with her about the challenges of differentiating instruction and materials for each class. (T. 264-266, Ex. I) She was told that students from 16 to 18 years old attend one of two “entrepreneur” classes which consist of an on-site workshop (either a print workshop, working on basic office skills, or a woodshop) and core curriculum classes at the site. (T. 233-235, 253254, 255-256) She estimated that she spent about five to 10 minutes in each of the about six classes she observed and described a “limited” observation of the classes and school but said that the students’ social interactions seemed less mature than this student’s. (T. 238, 258) She described activities of daily living training as using very basic equipment and with no full time access by most students. (T. 240-241) With regard to travel training, was informed that it was not programmatic but rather was provided at the recommendation of the teacher with priority given to worksite students and students who needed help getting to and from school. (T. 240-241) described this student as having some high functioning skills in listening and but needing a lot of support in academics, community based skills like money managing and budgeting, and with and communicating her needs. (T. 245-247)

Dr. is a New York State certified school psychologist and a New York State licensed psychologist. (T. 270) She has provided both group and individual sessions to the student since her entry as a . (T. 275) She testified that to make meaningful progress the student would need a small structured class with a high student to teacher ratio and instruction at her academic functioning levels with support from related services. (T. 288-289) She stated that the student is aware of and about her academic weaknesses and she opined that if she was in a class with students she perceived to be functioning at a lower level it would negatively impact her and affect her motivation to learn. (T. 291-

292) However, she acknowledged that if there were students with whom she could relate and engage, a class which included students could still be a positive experience. (T. 296)

Based upon the foregoing, the parent makes a number of claims in purported support of a finding that the DOE has not met its burden to establish that the IEP could be appropriately implemented at the recommended placement.

I find credible the testimony of the parent and with regard to their recollections of their communications with White and their observations at the school. With regard to that finding, I note that the parent qualified and limited her answers and did not appear to embellish although her claims would have been strengthened had she done so. Further, ’s testimony was detailed and consistent. ’s testimony is not inconsistent with that testimony, as discussed below, and I find her testimony credible. Further, I find that the testimony of and the parent concerning the student’s needs and the program at was credible that they each testified truthfully in accordance with their observations and recollections and as to the opinions they held.

However, I find that the DOE has met its burden in the circumstances here.

Initially, I conclude that the student was enrolled in prior to the rejection of the placement. The evidence shows the parent re-enrolled the student at by contract executed May 21, 2012. (Ex. B) The parent claims that this was solely to maintain a place and points to the provision allowing withdrawal without penalty until October 31 if a DOE placement is accepted. (Ex. B-2) However, I conclude that her subsequent actions were inconsistent with the notion that the student was not in her mind actually enrolled in for the 2011-2012 school year. I note that the parent received the FNR dated June 11, 2011 and although the school was open in July made no attempt to visit it so that its appropriateness from her point of view could be considered and another placement sought it necessary. Further, her 10 day notice letter was not submitted until the school was closed. (Ex. A) No explanation for the delay was provided. Further, although informing the CSE that the student would be attending until she could assess whether the offered placement was appropriate, I note that she did not thereafter inform the CSE of her conclusion or make further inquiry.

The Second Circuit has recently held that speculation that a school district will not adequately adhere to the IEP is not an appropriate basis for a unilateral placement. R.E. v. New York City Dept. of Educ. 694 F. 3d 167 (2d Cir 2012) Many of the parent’s claims require speculation about what might have happened had the district been required to implement the IEP.

I conclude that the allegations relating to the classroom placement are speculative. Although the DOE has not presented evidence as to the specific class the student would have been in, I conclude that it is not required to do that. See R.C. v. Byram Hills Sch. Dist., 2012 WL 5862736, at *16 (S.D. N.Y. 2012); See also Appeal No. 11-016. Further, Arroyo persuasively testified that that there was an appropriate class and that students are grouped functionally within the classroom. I note that the IEP on which relied specified the student’s strengths as well as well as her deficits. Further, a classroom is not inappropriate because some differences are demonstrated. See Walczak, 142 F. 3rd. at

133. White did not contradict Arroyo’s testimony. Although the parent expressed concern that the few students she observed were more severely disabled, she was told that there were other students and, further, that the student could be placed in another class. I give little weight to ’s observations regarding the levels of the other students generally in view of her acknowledged limited observation.

Although White acknowledged that differentiation of instruction was a challenge when there was a wide range of abilities and a quality review report (Ex. I) indicates that the school had some difficulties in that area, the conclusion that that would have occurred in this student’s class and/or that she would not make appropriate progress as a result is similarly speculative and not a basis for a conclusion that a FAPE has been denied.

Similarly, the parent’s claims based upon inadequate travel training are also speculative. testified that travel training is available. I note that she did not specifically assert that it was provided intensively to all students and was informed that the travel training was prioritized with regard to degree and based upon the recommendation of a teacher. It is not possible to determine before the student entered the school the nature and degree of the travel training that would have been provided to her or to evaluate its sufficiency.

The parents also assert that the DOE has failed to establish that the student’s social and emotional needs as discussed in the IEP would be properly addressed and specifically reference the absence of a social skills class, issues resulting from being placed with much students and an alleged unavailability of . With regard to social skills training, testified that that was addressed during the school day and at work sites because it had been concluded that it was a more natural environment. A determination upon a different methodology for addressing an issue does not support a conclusion that a FAPE had been denied. With regard to the issues asserted, I note that testified that it was affected by whether there were some other students with whom the student could relate and engage and that too is speculative. With regard to related services, persuasively testified that all mandated services were provided in the school during the 2011-2012 school year and that no RSAs were issued. She explained an apparently contradictory Special Education Service Delivery Report (Ex. H). The fact that at the beginning of the school year individual counseling was not available to all students, does not demonstrate that the effect of the temporary staffing deficiency was not made up or that only a de minimis failure occurred. See R.C. v. Byram Hills Sch. Dist., 2012 WL 5862736 (S.D. N.Y. 2012. See also F.L.v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 2012 WL 4891748 (S.D.N.Y Oct. 16, 2012) In this connection , I note that here was no testimony as to the precise date of the parent’s visit.

The parent also makes various claims that the student’s transition and independence needs would not be addressed. However, I conclude that the evidence shows that the specific school goals relating to independence would have been adequately addressed. With regard to the acknowledged absence of a life skills class, the evidence shows that that area is integrated into the regular program. The parent’s reliance on the transition goals, including community internship and independent travel, is misplaced as that is a part of a long term plan and not a specific mandate for the 2011-2012 school year or an IEP mandate. (Ex. 4-13-14) The fact that may earlier or more intensively provide programs referenced in the transition section of the IEP is not a basis for concluding that the DOE’s placement was not appropriate. The DOE is only required to provide a program that will enable the student to make meaningful progress, not the best possible program. Walczak, 142 F. 2d at 132. Similarly, I conclude that the fact that the program provides opportunity for interaction with non-disabled peers that it is likely would not be available at the recommended placement during the 2011-2012 school year is not a basis for concluding that the DOE’s placement was not appropriate.

The parent did not accept the program offered by the DOE. I find that the evidence presented, “… in its entirety, does not support the conclusion that, had the student attended, the district would have deviated from substantial or significant provisions of the student’s IEP in a material way and thereby preclude the student from the opportunity to received educational benefits. [citations omitted]” Appeal No. 11-016 Accordingly, I find that the DOE has established that it offered a FAPE for the 20112012 school year. Therefore, I do not address Prong 2 and Prong 3 of the Burlington/Carter analysis.

Order

This matter is DISMISSED.

Dated: January 16, 2013

_____________________________

JUDITH SCHNEIDER, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Within 35 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the Public School District has a right to appeal the decision to a State Review Officer (SRO) of the New York State Education Department under section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

If the parent plans to appeal the decision, a notice of intention to seek review shall be personally 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 so that a certified copy of the hearing record may be prepared for submission by the school district. If a school district plans to appeal the decision, the district shall file a certified copy of the hearing record together with its petition.

An appealing parties' petition for review shall be personally served upon the opposing party 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. (8 NYCRR § 279.2(b))

The rules of procedure for proceedings before a SRO are found in Part 279 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education available at http://www.sro.nysed.gov/part279home.html.

DOCUMENTS ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

A. Day Notice, 8/22/11, 1 pg. Parent B educational contract, 5/21/11, 2 pgs. Parent C Access to Independence Programs Description, 5 Parent pgs. D 2011-2012 schedule, 1 pg. Parent E 2010 tax return & SS income letter, 4/2/12, 1 pg. Parent F 2011 tax return, 18 pgs. Parent G Social Security Income letter, 4/2/12, 1 pg. Parent H NYC DOE special education service delivery report, Parent 2010-2011, 12/31/11 & 1/20/12, 1 pg. I NYC DOE quality review report, 2010-2011, Parent 5/25/11, 7 pgs. J Amended Hearing Req, 8/23/12, 5 pgs. Parent 1` Due Process Complaint, 6/21/05, 5 pgs. Department of Education 2 Due Process Response, 3 pgs. Department of Education 3 Notice -IEP mtg, reeval, annual rev., 1/14/11, 1 pg. Department of Education 4 IEP, 2/14/11, 14 pgs. Department of Education 5 IEP mtg. min., 2/14/11, 2 pgs. Department of Education 6 Vocational assessment, 3/7/09, 2 pgs. Department of Education 7 Classroom observation, 11/29/10, 1 pg. Department of Education 8 March 2011 Acad. prog. rpt, 13 pgs. Department of Education 9 Notice of Rec. Deferred Place., 1 pg. Department of Education (10 pages; Parents)

10. mo. school year consent form, 1 pg. Department of Education 11 FNR, 6/10/11, 1 pg. Department of Education 12 2011/2012 Class schedule Department of Education 13 2011/2012 Attendance Detail Department of Education 14 Student Assessment Portfolio, undated, 1 pg. Department of Education 15 GRADE history, 1 pg. Department of Education 16 STARMATH history, 1 g. Department of Education 17 GMADE Standard Scores and Grade Equiv., 1 pg. Department of Education 18 2011 Fall and Spring Norms GRADE, 2 pgs. Department of Education 19 2011 Fall and Spring Norms GMADE, 2 pgs. Department of Education 20 Certification report, 12/8/11, 2 pgs. Department of Education 21 Certification Report, 7/6/11, 2 pgs. Department of Education 22 Certification Report, 9/12/11, 2 pgs. Department of Education 23 Resume, 1 pg. Department of Education 24 Progress Report, 6/2012, 18 pgs. Department of Education 25 2011-2012 Enrollment Package, 3/4/2011, 5 pgs. Department of Education I Compliance Date Extension Decisions Impartial Hearing Officer II Parent Closing Memorandum Impartial Hearing Officer III DOE Closing Memorandum Impartial Hearing Officer IV E-mail re record Close Date 1/2/2013, 1 pg. Impartial Hearing Officer V E-mails re availability of witnesses Impartial Hearing Officer VI Amend. Hear. Req. filing 105/12, 6 pgs Impartial Hearing Officer (12 pages; DOE)

Footnotes

[1] The parent initially sought transportation but that claim was withdrawn. (T. 41) Further, the parent initially asserted that she was told that there were no available classrooms that fit the student’s but that claim is withdrawn. (T. 16)