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: April 7, 2014

April 30, 2014

July 23, 2014

Actual Record Closed Date: October 25, 2014

Hearing Officer: , Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED APRIL 7, 2014

Name Relationship On Behalf of

Mother of Student — Parents

Father of Student — Parents

Esq. Attorney Associated with the Law Office of Attorneys for Parent — Parents

Esq. Attorney for District and the New — DOE

York City — DOE

School Psychologist Assigned to – Attended Student’s C.S.E. Meeting of 5-8-12 (by phone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED APRIL 30, 2014

Name Relationship On Behalf of

Mother of Student — Parents

Father of Student — Parents

Esq. Attorney Associated with the Law Office of P.C. Attorneys for Parent — Parents

Executive Director (by telephone) — Parents

Program Director (by phone) — Parents

Esq. Attorney for District and the New — DOE

York City — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JULY 23, 2014

Name Relationship On Behalf of

Mother of Student — Parents

Father of Student — Parents

Esq. Attorney Associated with the Law Office of, P.C. Attorneys for Parent — Parents

Educational Coordinator of (by telephone) — Parents

Esq. Attorney for District and the New — DOE

York City — DOE

The Matter (hereinafter referred to as “Student”) came before me for determination in accordance with the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(1) and Article 89 of the Education Law of the State of New York on April 7, 2014, April 30, 2014, and July 23, 2014. 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 June 25, 2013, after the prior recusal by one or more previously-appointed Impartial Hearing Officers. A further heating was scheduled for September 15, 2014 for the purpose of receiving rebuttal testimony from District. However, by notice dated September 12, 2014, District’s attorney advised that the prospective rebuttal witness was not available to provide testimony as scheduled, so that District rested. The respective representatives requested the opportunity to submit Post-Hearing briefs for my consideration. Those requests were granted, so long as such briefs were provided to the Impartial Hearing Office Case Manager by October 10, 2014. At the request of District’s attorney, that date was extended to October 20, 2014 and again to October 22, 2014. Both parties timely submitted a Post-Hearing brief, which I received on October 22, 2014. The Record Close Date was October 25, 2014.

This proceeding was initiated by Parents by the filing by Parents’ attorneys, , P.C., of a Due Process Complaint Notice, dated June 12, 2013, and received by the New York City Department of Education’s Impartial Hearing Office on that date. An initial hearing date was established for October 29, 2013. However, Parents’ attorneys filed an Amended Complaint, dated October 22, 2013 (Exhibit A), pursuant to permission granted. Parents allege in their Amended Due Process Complaint (the only Complaint presently before me) numerous failings on the part of District’s Committee on Special Education when it developed Student’s Individualized Education Program (I.E.P.) for the 2012-2013 school year, including the allegation that:

the Committee had failed to recommend a placement in conformity with the

I.E.P.

the Committee had failed to recommend a placement capable of appropriately implementing the I.E.P.; that the C.S.E. was inappropriately constituted; that it had failed to adequately consider current, sufficient, and appropriate evaluative and documentary material to justify its recommendation; that it did not provide Parents or Student’s then-faculty with a meaningful opportunity to participate in the decision-making process; and that it failed to recommend a placement in the least restrictive environment or with appropriate supported inclusion opportunities.

Student is presently fourteen years eight months of age, having been born on February 25, 2000. However, at the time of the Committee meetings held to prepare Student’s I.E.P. for the 2012-2013 school year, on May 8, 2012, Student was twelve years two months of age. According to the testimony of Parent, Student displayed developmental delays at an early age and had received (T.R. 464). It appears Student received no special education services during her Pre-School years and was enrolled, at the age of five, in a program provided by ). After one year, Student was placed at the ), a placement by District in an approved non-public school, where Student remained until the conclusion (T.R. 464-465). At the conclusion of her Student was placed by Parents Student has remained in such ). At the time of the Committee meeting held on May 8, 2012, Student was (Exhibit 1).

Student was evaluated on April 16, 2012 – less than a month prior to the Committee meeting of May 8, 2012 - by School Psychologist Fuks. The Report of that evaluation (Exhibit 8) indicates that Average range, as Student was able to correctly spell only three words. The Report concluded with the observations that Student was able to converse in full sentences, Report prepared in January of 2012 (Exhibit 9) notes that Student presented with Student’s overall ability to communicate, but that progress in such areas was being made.

District’s C.S.E. convened on May 8, 2012 to prepare Student’s I.E.P. for the 2012-2013 school year. Present at that meeting were both of Student’s who served as District Representative, but who is also a Special Education Teacher (T.R.33); General Education (T.R.327). Also participating at that meeting by telephone Schonbach, Student’s classroom (T.R. 31); Therapists. The Committee prepared an I.E.P for Student that continued her classification a Impairment and recommended that Student receive her special education program in a Special Class having a staffing ratio of all of her subjects - English Language Arts, Math, Social Studies, Science and Art, Gym or Computers - together with the Related Services of times per week, thirty minutes per session, individually, and two times per week, thirty minutes per session, in a group; and once weekly, thirty minutes per session, individually; all to commence on September 6, 2012. Thereafter, District forwarded to Parent a Final Notice of Recommendation proffering Student a placement for the 2012-2013 school year (Exhibit 4)

Parents sent correspondence to the C.S.E., dated May 25,2012 requesting that services be provided to Student at during the 2012-2013 school year, as Student would be enrolled at that facility for the 2012-2013 school year should District not offer Student a free, appropriate public education (Exhibit 10). Parents sent another correspondence, received by District on August 3, 2012, detailing Parent’s visit to the proffered school and Parent’s dissatisfaction with the environment of such (Exhibit 11). Parents sent another correspondence to the C.S.E., dated August 14, 2014, expressing Parents’ willingness to consider any appropriate program or school offered by District (Exhibit 12). Parents sent another correspondence to the C.S.E., undated, but describing Parent’s visit to the proffered placement on September 12, 2012, in which Parents detailed Parent’s displeasure with the facility, rejecting the proffered placement, stating Parents’ continued willingness to consider any appropriate program or placement the District might offer, but advising that Student would placing Student , signed by one Parent only, dated August 29, 2012, was received in evidence as Exhibit S. As previously noted, Parents, by their attorneys, filed a Due Process Complaint Notice, dated June 11, 2013 (Exhibit B) seeking reimbursement for such unilateral placement, which claim was continued in Parents’ Amended Due Process Complaint dated October 22, 2013 (Exhibit A)

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 Parent’s claim. Such prerequisites were established by the United States Supreme Court when considering claims for reimbursement brought by Parent who had unilaterally placed their disabled child in a private facility. (School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985); Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-052). Further, it was later held that the fact that the facility selected by the parent to provide special education services to the child had not been approved as a school for children with disabilities by the state agency would not be dispositive of a parent’s 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)

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, that I first determine whether or not the School District offered to the student a free, appropriate public education. The burden of establishing that it did so rests upon the District (N.Y.S. Education Law§4404). Under the guidelines established by the Supreme Court in Burlington and Carter, should I determine that District offered Student an appropriate educational program, my inquiry into Parents’ request would cease at that point, for if a district has offered an appropriate program, a parent’s right to the requested relief must be denied. Under the same guidelines, if it is determined that District failed to establish the appropriateness of its program, I must then determine the appropriateness of the Parents’ unilaterally-selected educational facility. The burden of establishing such appropriateness rests upon Parents (N.Y.S. Education Law §4404). Should Parents fail to establish the appropriateness of their unilaterally-selected facility, Parents’ request for relief must be denied. If the unilaterally-selected educational facility is determined to be appropriate, I must, because the awarding of any relief is possible only by an invocation of the equitable powers inherent in the proceeding, then review the equities in order to determine whether equitable considerations favor an award of any relief to the Parents. It is my determination that the burden of establishing that such equities favor an award of tuition reimbursement rests upon District.

DISCUSSION

Essential to any determination of an entitlement to reimbursement is whether the agency responsible for a student’s education provided that student with a free, appropriate public education (FAPE). What, however, is a free, appropriate public education? That such is free – that is, of no cost to Parents - and is public, is a given. Thus, the issue is one of determining the appropriateness of the program offered.

It has been stated that a FAPE is offered to a student when (a) a board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) the IEP developed by its CSE through the those 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, such statement is no longer exactly accurate. For, while school districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures, not all procedural errors will 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' 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 has also been stated 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 Disability, Appeal No. 06-059; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 06-029; 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).17 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. §§ 300.114[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 37071; 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 disabilities (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 . . . affords 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. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 [2d Cir. 1997]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192).

It is my determination that the standard to be imposed upon District in this review is whether the program it offered to Student was one that was reasonably calculated to offer Student educational benefit.

As noted, District bears the burden of establishing that it offered Student a free, appropriate public education (N.Y.S. Education Law §4404(1)(c). District presented the testimony of assigned to District’s Committee on Special Education. Witness Fuks testified that she had attended the Committee meeting of May 8, 2012. Witness Fuks identified the participants at that meeting (T.R. 30-36), noting that she was familiar with Parents as she had previously participated in prior meetings of the Committee that had cause to review Student’s educational program in prior school years. According to , the Committee reviewed the prepared by Student’s Occupational Therapist Isaacs (Exhibit

6) and also received input from who was participating by telephone in the meeting. The information provided incorporated into Student’s I.E.P. (T.R.38). Witness Fuks also testified that the Committee reviewed the Report (Exhibit 7) that had been prepared by Student’s then-current classroom , who, it is noted, also participated by telephone at the meeting. Witness Fuks testified that the Committee had also considered the results of her Educational Evaluation of Student had conducted on April 18, 2012 (Exhibit 8). The Committee also considered, according to the testimony the Report submitted by (Exhibit 9), noting that while her (ms Fuks’) name appeared on the Report, such was in error, as it was Ms. Report (T.R.42). The Committee also considered, according a Classroom Observation that had been conducted on May 2, 2012 (Exhibit 18). I note that Ms. Schwartz was a participant in the meeting.

Witness Fuks testified regarding the meeting of May 8, 2012 and the procedure that the Committee followed in reviewing and discussing Student’s educational needs and deficits, as well as her progress as identified in the Reports provided by Student’s thencurrent classroom teacher and that teacher’s participation in the discussions of the Committee. The Record has also benefitted from the completeness of the Minutes of the May 8, 2012 meeting, which, kept according to has since retired. I note that Parent, in her testimony, conceded that she had no recollection of any of the details of that meeting (T.R.466).

Again according to the testimony of Committee proceeded to prepare Student’s I.E.P; for the coming school year. The Committee described Student’s Present Levels of Performance primarily relying on the input from Student’s then-classroom teacher (T.R.47), although it also had the Reports listed above. I find the description contained in the I.E.P. to be both accurate and complete. In the area of Management Needs, the Committee noted Student’ need for a Graphic Organizer; for an Editor’s Checklist; for the use of a highlighter; multiplication tables as needed; visual and verbal prompts and cues; and that Testing Accommodations would include Extended Time, Separate Location, Directions read/re-read and such accommodations appropriate to address proceeded to develop Annual Goals for Student, addressing the deficits discussed.

Witness Fuks stated Goals and Objectives had been created by Student’s and were contained in that , but were discussed by the Committee with the therapist before being placed in Student’s I.E.P. (T.R 51). The Goals were developed in similar fashion, that is, that such were contained in the Report Therapist but discussed by the Committee before placement in the I.E.P. Similar testimony was provided by Witness Fuks regarding the creation and review of Goals and Objectives that were placed in Student’s I.E.P. after discussion addressing Student’s deficits in Math Computation; Math Reasoning and Feltheimer had confirmed those deficits as areas of primary concern for Student.

The Committee had also discussed Student’s Goals and Objectives contained in Student’s prior year’s I.E.P. (T.R.371).

As noted previously, the Committee continued Student’s classification as having a Speech/Language Impairment and recommended that Student receive her special education program in a Special Class having a staffing ration (Exhibit 1). Parents challenge the sufficiency of the actions of the Committee and the I.E.P. that it generated on a number of bases. Parents accurately note that the I.E.P. (Exhibit 1) does not state that its recommended placement is in . Witness Fuks conceded such and attributes that omission to input error. I find that he Committee clearly made known to all participants that it was recommending . The Minutes of that meeting (Exhibit 3) clearly stated that the “New Recommendation w Related Services”. The last page of those Minutes (page

8) reviews the Committee’s recommendations, again noting “small class of those minutes was provided to Parents at the conclusion of the meeting(T.R. 46-47). Witness that the recommendation of the Committee ” (T.R.377).

It is my finding and determination that the error that omitted the class designation was but harmless error that confused no one.

Parents have also alleged that the Committee that convened on May 8, 2012 was improperly constituted (Exhibit 1). I have reviewed the members who were participating at that meeting and find the Committee was properly constituted.

Parents have also alleged that the Committee failed to adequately consider current, sufficient, and appropriate evaluative and documentary material to justify its recommendation. I have previously reviewed the Reports that were before the Committee at its May 8, 2012 meeting and find that such were more than appropriate and sufficient to provide the Committee with a clear picture of Student’s deficits and needs. It additionally had the participation of Student’s then-current classroom teacher and a number of therapists who were able to describe Student’s needs, as well as the progress Student displayed in those areas. who had participated in person at the meeting, clearly was able to describe the areas of Student’s deficits, as she did in this proceeding (T.R.339-340).

Parents also have alleged that the Committee did not provide Parents or Student’s then-faculty with a meaningful opportunity to participate in the decision –making process. described the Committee’s interaction with Student’s then-classroom teacher and in discussing Student’s needs and Student’s performance at Student’s private placement. However, as previously noted, Parent testified that she had no recollection of that meeting (T.R.466). I simply find such allegation to be without foundation or merit.

Parents have also alleged in their Due Process Complaint that the Committee failed to recommend a placement in the least restrictive environment or with appropriate supportive inclusion opportunities (Exhibit 1). Parents emphasized that, at Parents’ unilaterally-selected facility, Student is afforded opportunities to interact with nondisabled peers. According to the students receive general education. Student’s class is taken to assemblies with the (T.R.399), where Student sits with her class. Also, Student attend lunch in the Lunch Room, where she, again, sits with her class but has the opportunity to see or interact with the non-disabled (T.R.401). According to and a portion of her class also attends Computer Class and Physical Education with nondisabled peers (T.R. 402). While such may add something to Student’s program, I find it minimal. I also find that the Committee’s determination to place Student in a , even without providing for – or discussing - mainstream opportunities for Student. The Committee, I find, appropriately determined that Student needed a small class setting with students whose management needs interfered with the instructional process to the extent that an additional adult was needed to assist in the instruction of the students. As such, the recommended placement is in full accord with Commissioner’s Regulations 200.6(g)(4)(i)). I also find that such placement was sufficient to meet Student’s needs.

Finally, I note that Parents allege that the Committee failed to recommend a placement capable of appropriately implementing the I.E.P. It was unclear whether Parents were contending was incapable of doing so, or that the proffered placement stated in the Final Notice of Recommendation (Exhibit 4) as Class E3 at I. #53 was incapable of doing so. However, by Parents’ counsel clarified that it was the latter objection that was the focus of Parents’ complaint. Parent testified that she had visited the proffered placement and was so offended by the presence of metal detectors and security personnel that “ I never – I couldn’t imagine sending my child to such a place.” (T.R.471).

However, District chose not to offer testimony regarding the ability of the proposed placement to implement the recommendations of the Committee as set forth in its I.E.P. and, I find correctly did so. As has been oft repeated by the Courts and reflected in the decisions of the State Review Office: “where a parent enrolls a child in a private placement before the time that the district would have been obligated the implement the IEP placement, the validity of the proposed placement is to be judged on the face of the IEP, rather than from evidence introduced later concerning how the IEP might have been or allegedly would have been implemented”. (A.M. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 2013 WL 44056216 at *13 [S.D.N.Y. Aug 9, 2013]. Such position was confirmed as recently as October 22, 2014 by the State Review Officer in deciding Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 13-042 and as even more recently confirmed by the State Review Officer, on October 30, 2014, in Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No.13-017. Thus, I find that Parents’ allegations are speculative in nature as Parents did not accept the I.E.P. containing the recommendations of the Committee or the program offered by District.

It is, therefore, my finding and determination, after a full review of the evidence submitted in this proceeding, that District has more than sufficiently borne its burden of establishing that it offered Student a free, appropriate public education for the 2012-2013 school year, in that it offered Student an educational program that was reasonably calculated to provide Student with meaningful educational benefit. Such was the extent of its obligation to Student..

Having made such determination, it is unnecessary that I review or determine the appropriateness of the program and placement unilaterally selected by Parents, nor need I decide whether equitable considerations favor one party or the other.

ORDER

Based upon the above review, it is

HEREBY ORDERED that Parents’ Due Process Complaint be, as the same hereby is, DISMISSED Dated: November 14, 2014

, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

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 RECORD ON APRIL 7, 2014

A. Parent’s Amended Due Process Complaint Parents Notice, dated 10-22-13 (10 pages; Parents)

B. Parents’ Initial Due Process Complaint, dated 6-11-13 (7 pages; Parents)

C. Letter from Parent to Ms. Parents dated 8-14-13 (1); Fax Confirmation (1) (2 pages; Parents)

D. Letter from Parents undated (4); Fax Confirmation (1) (5 pages; Parents)

N. Teacher Report by, dated 5-7-13 (6 pages; Parents)

O. Student’s Report Card for the 2012-2013 School Year (1 page; Parents)

P. Description – undated (1 page; Parents)

Q. Student’s Class for Parents 2012-2013 School Year (2 pages; Parents)

R. Student’s Attendance Record for the 2012- Parents 2013 School Year (1 page; Parents)

S. Tuition Contract between Parents and dated 8-29-12 (2 pages; Parents)

T. Affidavit by, sworn to on 4-2-14 (1 page; Parents)

U. Copies of by Parent dated 4-5-13 and 9-1-13 (2 pages; Parents)

1. Student’s I.E.P. as prepared by District’s C.S.E. on 5-8-12 (15 pages; DOE)

2. Attendance Page of I.E.P. prepared on ` 5-8-12 (1 page; DOE)

3. Conference Agenda Sheet of C.S.E. Meeting of 5-8-12 (8 pages; DOE)

4. Final Notice of Recommendation, dated 5-9-12 (1 page; DOE)

5. Parent’s Waiver of Parent Member, dated 5-8-12 (1 page; DOE)

6. Student Progress Report, dated 4-30-12, by DOE (2 pages; DOE)

7. Teacher Report, dated 5-8-12 (5 pages; DOE)

8. Educational Evaluation of Student, dated 4-18-12 by, M.S. Ed. (4 pages; DOE)

9. Student Progress Report, dated 5-2-12 by (3 pages; DOE)

10. Letter from Parent to Ms., dated 5-25-12 (1 page; DOE)

11. Letter from Parents to Ms. undated, but stamped “Received” on 8-3-12 (3 pages; DOE)

12. Letter from Parent to Ms. undated but stampede “Received 8-22-12” (1 page; DOE)

13. Letter from Parents to Ms. undated (4 pages; DOE)

14. Letter to Parent from Dr., Undated (1 page; DOE)

17. District’s Due Process Response, dated 6-23-13 (3 pages; DOE)

18. Observation by, dated 5-2-12 (2 pages; DOE)

19. Student Progress Report, dated 6-17-12, by DOE (2 pages; DOE)

20. Letter to Parent from C.S.E., dated 4-17-12 DOE (1 page; DOE)

21. Letter to Parent from C.S.E., dated 4-17-12 DOE (1 page; DOE)

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD ON APRIL 30, 2014

None

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD ON JULY 23, 2014

V. Student’s I.E.P. as developed by District’s C.S.E., dated 5-19-11 OTHER DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD No.: # of pages Description: (17 pages; Parents)

I. Subpoena submitted by District, dated 8-30-13 IHO II 31 Closing Brief Submitted on Behalf of Parents, dated IHO 10-20-14 III 21 Closing Brief Submitted on Behalf of District, dated IHO 10-21-14 (3 pages; Parents)