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: March 31, 2014

April 21, 2014

June 5, 2014

June 20, 2014

July 16, 2014

July 18, 2014

August 6, 2014

August 15, 2014

Actual Record Closed Date: October 18, 2014

Hearing Officer: , Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MARCH 31, 2014

Attorney — Parents

DOE Designee — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL 21, 2014

Attorney — Parents

DOE Designee — DOE

Mother Interpreter — Parents

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 5, 2014

Attorney — Parents

Attorney — Parents

DOE Designee — DOE

Mother Interpreter — Parents

Hearing Rep (observing) — DOE

IEP Teacher — DOE

Provider — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 20, 2014

Attorney — Parents

DOE Designee — DOE

Hearing Rep) (observing) — DOE

Provider — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 16, 2014

Attorney — Parents

DOE Designee — DOE

OT Provider-Mngr — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 18, 2014

Attorney — Parents

Attorney — Parents

DOE Designee — DOE

Hearing Rep (observing) Interpreter — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON AUGUST 6, 2014

Attorney — Parents

Attorney — Parents

Mother — Parents

DOE Designee — DOE

Hearing Rep (observing) Interpreter — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON AUGUST 15, 2014

Attorney — Parents

DOE Designee — DOE

INTRODUCTION

On the above dates, I conducted hearings, pursuant to the Individuals Disability Education Act (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. section 1415 (f)(3) regarding a special education program, Students with Disability, New York City Impartial Hearing The hearings were conducted at the impartial hearing office, New York City Department of Education, at 131 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, New York. The student’s parent submitted a request for an impartial hearing on February 22, 2014. At the hearing, the Department of Education, hereinafter referred to as the “DOE” was represented by its designee

BACKGROUND

and has significant . She is currently in the , where she has attended since kindergarten.

Ex. B-1); diminished ability e not yet fully understood, are thought to contribute to

Additionally ic skill acquisition and shows an ability to make more.

The child and her Parent, hereinafter referred to as the impartial hearing alleging, inter alia, that their daughter was denied access to a FAPE by the “DOE” through the actions of the Committee on Special Education (“CSE”); Parent’s attorney alleges that the CSE failed to offer a valid and appropriate IEP and service recommendations for the 2013-2014 school year. More particularly, that the DOE failed to I issued an order at a pendency hearing on April 21, 2014, wherein after reviewing briefs and hearing oral argument, I directed that the DOE pay for the following based upon the June 13, 2013 IEP, which was the last agreed upon IEP: The order provided that the DOE issue RSA’s for the following services, effective the date of the filing of the due process complaint.

1. 3 times per week for 30 minutes individually after school

2. 3 times per week for 30 minutes individually after school; 2 times per week in school and 2 times per week after school

3. , 5 times per week for 30 minutes individually; 2 times per week after school and 3 times per week in school

Thereafter, I issued an interim order on August 15, 2014, wherein I directed that the DOE pay for the following from the beginning of the September 2014-2015 school year until a final determination is made

1. 3 times per week for 30 minutes individually after school

2. 3 times per week for 30 minutes individually after school; 2 times per week in school and 2 times per week after school

3. , 5 times per week for 30 minutes individually; 2 times per week after school and 3 times per week in school

THE DOE’S POSITION

The DOE’s position is that the Student was provided a FAPE with regards to the implementation of related services.

THE PARENT’S POSITION

That the DOE failed to provide a FAPE for the child for at least the two years preceding the filing of the hearing request filed on February 22, 2014.

Parent alleges that the DOE’s failures are both procedural and substantive in nature. More particularly, from February 23, 2012, to February 22, 2014, the DOE failed to fully and timely evaluate failed to provide an appropriate placement and/or program to with adequate supports, services, and goals; failed to modify its placement and/or program in response to ; said placement and ; and substantially and unjustifiably modified .’s mandate and placement, without the participation or consent of the Parent and in

As a result, the IEP developed by the DOE and applicable to the abovespecified time frame were inadequate. Over at least the last two has made no more than trivial progress since at least February 2012.

THE DEPARTMENT’S CASE

During the 2013-2014 school year, the child was enrolled in program and received three times per week for 30 minutes, four times per week for 30 minutes, and five times per week for 30 minutes, as well as an . On October 8, 2013, the school held a meeting to discuss the Parent’s request RSA’s . The Parent attended and participated in the meeting. (TR. 53).

On June 18, 2014, the DOE conducted and recommended —twice per week in the classroom and once in a separate location. (DOE Ex. 24). The DOE maintained that the IEP provided for OT three times per week for 30 minute sessions and that she received her mandated services consistently during the school day. (DOE Ex. 18).

Ms. from the DOE, after being duly sworn, testified that RSAs are only issued if there is no DOE provider available at the school level; RSA’s should not provided as there was “nothing about her ability or disability that would indicate a need for the DOE to provide and the school- to in a different context.

Ms. testified that based on her conversations with the worked on strengthening and in the same environment as her peers and made some progress. (TR. 268-269). Therefore, an RSA would not be appropriate in this case because received her mandated during the school day from a DOE provider and made progress.

The Parent requested that the child receive a that during the 2012-2013 school year, times per week for 30 minutes—3 sessions in school and 2 sessions in a private doctor’s office. (TR. 131). Ms. , testified that she worked with her in school during the 2012-2013 . (TR. 134). She stated that that year, especially in “ of the time by the end of the school year, whereas she the beginning of the year. (TR. 145). She also noted that , which for 30 minutes during the 2013-2014 school year. (TR. 150).

Ms. testified that she pushed-in , such as gym, to , which was beneficial because it allowed her to practice similar skills in a different context. (TR. 152). Ms also stated that she strategies and , and balance with her. (TR. 162). Ms. testified that ” during the 2013-2014 school year and was able to achieve her mandated services in school. (TR. 167). She also explained that in school more than 60 (DOE Ex. 326). The Parent alleges that the 30 minute limited travel time accommodation on the June 20, 2012 IEP was unjustifiably changed to 60 minutes. (DOE Ex. 6-24). Mr. , the IEP teacher and that the 30 minute travel time was a clerical error and that it would not be practical as . (TR. 65). He stated that the 30 minute travel time restriction is only used if it is one student and a nurse and that where 30 minutes would be used. (TR. 66).

Mr. stated that the DOE requires specific documentation for bussing accommodations and that the Parent was sent the necessary paperwork but failed to return it. (TR. 68; DOE Ex. 23). The DOE asserts that Parent testified that she never submitted documentation for transportation accommodations during the 2013-2014 school year.

(TR. 279); therefore, the District’s position is accommodations are appropriate.

DOE’s counsel maintained that the Parent alleges that she was not given notice or explained the reasons for holding a meeting at the school on October 8, 2013. Mr. testified that the request and explained why the requests were denied. (TR. 53). He stated that the PT and OT supervisors believed the school was able to provide the services in school and that “school therapy is for a specific educational purpose.” (TR. 58). Mr. Salvio explained to the Parent some of which are related to classroom issues and that the most appropriate place to deliver the services would be in the classroom. (Id.). The Parent was informed as to the DOE’s “cascade of services” , there was no justification for RSAs. (TR. 62).

THE PARENT’S CASE

The Parent testified that at the June 2013 IEP meeting she asked about the RSAs for the fall and the team told her they will talk in September “as usual.” (Tr. 47.) She stated that at the beginning of every school year she asks as had been the practice in previous years, and that he would then “ was issued and mailed to me.” (Tr. 47.) In June 2013, prior to the IEP meeting, the Parent received a phone call from Ms. who informed her that (Tr. 48.) Ms. told her that , the DOE supervisor, put a note in the computer about it, and that the Parent better agree to this and other changes or else Ms. will cut all . (Tr. 48.)

that she agreed to this program change at the June 2013 IEP meeting only because of the phone call she had had and her fear that the DOE would cut all services if she did not agree. (Tr. 49.) Additionally, that at the June IEP meeting, no one asked her how she felt about the IEP or gave her a chance to say how she felt about the program changes. (Tr. 51.) There was no discussion of the IEP goals at the June 2013 meeting, though . is aware that it contains many goals. (Tr. 52.) She stated that at IEP meetings “they” , what their recommendation is for the following year. (Tr. 52.) They did not look at any documents or test scores or anything during the meeting. They just told her superficial things such as ” or “she tries to communicate with her peers but,” or “she tries to help her peers .” (Tr. 52.)

testified that she did not ask for the 10/18/13 meeting (Tr. 55.) In the middle of September she . (Tr. 55.) At a certain point during that same time period she stated had spoken to , who told her that RSAs would be just like it was the previous year. (Tr. 55.) , the , told her over the phone that there would be another IEP meeting on October 8, 2013 (Tr. 55.)

From the time Ms. RSA’s would be no problem at or about Sept 2013 until the October 8, 2013 meeting, no one it was not until the October 8, 2013 meeting that she received information. (Tr. 56.) K.F. did not receive written notice of the meeting, and she did not know what the purpose of the meeting would be or who “they” were (the callers of the meeting), or who was going to be there. (Tr. 56-57.)

. testified that because they told her it was going to be another IEP meeting, that she assumed the following persons would be present: , as was customary (Tr. 57). When she arrived she found about 12-15 people, some of whom she didn’t know even though they work at the school. She stated with her The Parent stated that “I tried to explain and I did (Tr. 58

Finally, stated her belief that the participants of the Oct 8, 2013 meeting did understand what she was trying to say, but “it was like a wall.” (Tr. 61). She was not provided with any raised as an option. (Tr. 61.)

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The evidence established that . The Regulations of the Commissioner of Education § 200. l (zz)(6) defines a involved in understanding or in 0.l (zz) (6). In this case, the parent's witnesses provided extensive testimony about

Section 200.40)(3) states, a student may be determined to the student does not one or more of the following areas: and: (i) The student either: (a) Does not make sufficient progress to meet age or State-approved grade level standards in one or more of the areas identified in this paragraph when using a process based on the student's response to scientific, reached-based intervention pursuant to section 100.2(ii) of this Title; or (b) Exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, State(ii) The CSE determines that its findings under this paragraph are not primarily the result of a

As was a student with a disability under the IDEA; the DOE is responsible for providing a FAPE to address her specific needs. The failure of the team to consider the documentation before them and develop an appropriate program for the child has resulted in a denial of FAPE.

The IDEA directs that 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. § l415 (f) (3) (E) (i). An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of observations and evaluations to identify the child's needs, and provides for the use of appropriate special education services to address those needs. Application of a . Appeal No. 98-71. A school district provides 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.

This hearing was requested pursuant to, inter alia, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §1404 et. seq. (“IDEA”). The IDEA mandates that participating states such as New York provide students with disabilities with a free, appropriate public education (“FAPE”) that is tailored to meet the unique needs of the student and is reasonably calculated to enable a student to receive educational benefits. Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982). “Congress enacted the IDEA ‘to ensure that … the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are protected.’” M.H. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 685 F.3d 217, 223 (2d. Cir.

2012) (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d) (1) (A)-(B)).

To meet the IDEA's requirements, a school district must administer such uniquely tailored “special education and related services” according to an individualized education program (“IEP”) which school districts must implement each year for each student with a disability. Id. at 224.

The IEP is one of the cornerstones of special education, and sets forth the child's present educational performance, establishes annual and short-term objectives for improvements in that performance, and describes the specially designed instruction and services that will enable the child to meet those objectives. Id. (quoting D.D. ex rel. V.D. v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ., 465 F.3d 503, 507–08 (2d Cir.2006). The IEP is only considered adequate when it is likely to produce progress, not regression, and provides the student with an opportunity greater than mere trivial advancement. Id., quoting T.P. ex rel. S.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 247, 254 (2d Cir. 2009).

A school district can also be found to have denied a student a FAPE if procedural violations took place that (a) impeded the student’s right to a FAPE, (b) significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student, or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); 34 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).

The DOE bears the burden of proof on all matters in this hearing, including the burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of the IEP. “As the governing New York State statute explains: The board of education or trustees of the school district or the state agency responsible for providing education to students with disabilities shall have the burden of proof, including the burden of persuasion and burden of production, in any […] impartial hearing.” M.H., supra, 685 F.3d at 224-25. (quoting N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404(1)(c)).

Thus, the question for any Hearing Officer is not simply whether the DOE provided a FAPE but whether it met its burden in presenting its case. Here, the DOE has clearly . The Parent’s Hearing Request alleges multiple instances of the DOE’s substantive and procedural failures to provide a FAPE to .,I agree with Parent’s counsel that most of which the testimony and evidence presented by the DOE at hearing failed to address. The DOE’s case focuses almost entirely on the issue of RSAs.

At hearing the DOE offered three witnesses: the school’s IEP supervisor and an . Most of the testimony was in support of the DOE’s position on RSAs. progress. or classroom teacher was offered.

As per the DOE also presented no evidence or testimony to refute several of the Parent’s procedural allegations, such as: that the DOE failed to in response to her lack of meaningful progress; that it failed to provide the Parent with written notice of the date, purpose, and attendees for the 10/8/13 meeting.

In opening statements, the DOE conceded several of the Parent’s contentions and requests for relief. Specifically, it did “not contest that [triennial] evaluations should have been completed” but were not and stated that the DOE would therefore provide such evaluations such that same would not need to be ordered by the Hearing Officer. (Tr. 42.) Parent maintained that this concession admits procedural violations and furthermore, to the extent that fresh evaluative and diagnostic data are inherently necessary to the substantive sufficiency of a child’s IEP warrants a finding of deprivation of FAPE. Additionally, during opening the DOE stated that it would evaluation in and that, after the evaluations are completed, the school will reconvene the IEP team to determine the appropriate program recommendation determine if the physical therapy mandate needs to be increased per the parent’s requested relief. (Tr. 42.) “Therefore these evaluations and do not need to be ordered by the Hearing Officer.” (Tr. 42.) Finally, the DOE stated that it was also in agreement with the parent’s request for claiming that it would be recommending for those services and again stating that such relief therefore did not need to be ordered. (Tr. 42-43)

As per Parent’s counsel the DOE’s concessions have not amounted to “actual action” on the DOE’s part, other than to conduct brief “function” evaluations through DOE therapists using DOE pre-printed forms. (Exhibits 24 through 26.)

I find that .’s IEP was deficient from 2/23/12 to 2/22/14, thereby depriving of a FAPE. As set forth above, the IEP is considered adequate only when it is likely to produce progress, not regression, and provides the student with an opportunity greater than mere trivial advancement. M.H. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 685 F.3d 217 (2d. Cir. 2012).

An IEP must contain the student’s “present levels of academic achievement and functional performance.” 34 C.F.R. §300.320(a) (1). An IEP must also include measurable annual goals, including benchmarks or short-term objectives, related to meeting the student's educational and related needs arising from his or her disability. 34 C.F.R. §300.347(a) (2); see 8 NYCRR §200.4(d) (2) (iii). In addition, an IEP must describe how the student's progress towards the annual goals will be measured and how the student's parents will be regularly informed of such progress. 34 C.F.R. § 300.347(a) (7); 8 NYCRR § 200.4(d) (2) (x). Part 200.4(d)(2)(iii) of the New York State special education regulations provides further that “Each annual goal shall include the evaluative criteria, evaluation procedures, and schedules to be used to measure progress toward meeting the annual goal during the period beginning with placement and ending with the next scheduled review by the committee.”

annual IEP was created without the benefit of updated formal evaluative data, and therefore they were not sufficiently based on her current, unique needs. Under the IDEA, the DOE must establish the nature of a U.S.C. § 1414(a) (1) (A) and (a) (1) (C). Thereafter, the student must be re-evaluated a minimum of every three years. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a) (2) (B) (ii); 8 NYCRR §200.4(b) (4).1 In so doing, the DOE must assess the student in all areas of suspected disability using a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information which may assist in determining the content of the child’s IEP. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b) (2) and (b) (3). Further, it must assess the relative contribution in addition to physical or developmental factors, upon the child’s ability to access his education. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(2)(C).

As indicated above, the procedural requirement that a CSE obtain periodic, updated evaluative information for use in the review and revision of an IEP has substantive significance in that, without such information, its contents will be based on stale, inappropriate, inadequate, and/or inaccurate information. Updated evaluative material becomes periodically necessary to fully and accurately report a child’s present levels of academic achievement and development; to identify what additional data, if any, are needed to determine the child’s current educational needs; and to assess whether any additions or modifications to the special education and related services are needed to enable the child to meet the measurable annual goals set out in the IEP. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(c)(1)(B).

The obligation to perform appropriate evaluations, and, at a minimum, to reevaluate a student every three years, is thus critical to the development of an IEP that is truly individually tailored and reasonably calculated to enable the student to make more than trivial progress. While these obligations are not without reasonable limits, the requirement to actually perform such a review, and to make appropriate determinations informed by said review, cannot be dispensed with, performed in a perfunctory or superficial manner, or delegated to others.

It is uncontroverted that the DOE did not administer the evaluations, in due in approximately 2010. The June 2011, June 2012, June 2013, and October 2013 IEPs’ descriptions the goals designed to address said needs cannot be deemed appropriate and “flawed”.

In addition to having been created without the benefit of any updated formal assessments of , the 6/20/12 IEP failed to address some of the needs subjectively identified . I agree with Parent’s counsel that there are no goals to to count past the number 10, to understand concepts such as more or less, to continue patterns more . (Compare Needs, Ex B-1-3, to Goals, Ex. B-5 through B-14.)

The IEP contains too many goals which are written as extreme generalities, with only the interim short term objectives to give any indication at all as to what specific skills are to be attained over the course of the year.

Lastly, many of the methods for measuring progress are subjective, and make it difficult for anyone but the author of the goal to know if progress is achieved. Therefore, the 6/20/12 IEP fails to actually set out defined goals with concrete attainment criteria, and it furthermore provides the foundation for substantially unreliable and valueless progress reports.

I find that the modifications for the 2013-2014 school year were completely unjustified, inappropriate and deprived of a FAPE.

special class at . As part of her individualized special education, tailored to her unique needs, she has consistently received a related services mandate of 3 weekly – or, a total of 13 related service sessions per week in addition to her ordinary academic and FAPE schedule. This related services program has been determined to be necessary to address ’s substantial needs in these areas. From approximately September 2009 until September of 2013, the DOE had authorized . to spread the services mandate over a longer day and week than the ordinary school day by issuing RSAs for the private provision of a portion of the services in the evenings after school and/or on weekends. Additionally, the DOE issued RSAs in order for certain of the services to be continued through the summer, per the IEP mandates. (See chart, above.)

However, the DOE without a reasonable explanation or notice refused to issue the RSAs for September 2013. I find that ’s special education program has been so substantially diminished as to violate her right to a FAPE under the IDEA and related state regulations.

Notably, as per , in the spring of 2013 the DOE informed that the DOE would no longer issue RSAs . for the 2013-2014 school year. Furthermore, though the June 13, 2013 IEP team essentially maintained the quantity and frequency of related service mandate for 2013-14 (it ; remained the same at 3 and 5, respectively), it did not offer, suggest, or provide any other method or program or placement . could continue to receive a portion of her services over an extended day, whether via RSA or any other reasonable accommodation. Instead, the team decided to load the full mandate into ” to certain class periods where necessary to reach the required number of therapy sessions.

The Parent voiced her objections to the 2013-14 recommendations at the June 2013 IEP meeting. In September of 2013 she contacted , the IEP “teacher” (i.e., the general IEP supervisor or ), and inquired after RSAs for the year, as was her usual practice. At some a phone call from inviting her to a school meeting on October 8, 2013, to discuss the issue.

appeared at the 10/8/13 meeting, she was surprised to find approximately 12-15 DOE staff members, some of whom she had never met, who stated very plainly that the RSAs

A meeting with the regular IEP team was scheduled for October 28, 2013, to formalize the changes described above. that meeting as well and continued to voice her objections, but the team was firmly decided. did not sign the Final Notice of Recommendation (“FNR”), instead noting her concerns and objections to the program recommendations at the bottom of the form. (Exs. F-3, G-5.)

On or about 10/30/13 . submitted a request for mediation to the DOE through the . (Exs G-5, H.) Within days her request was denied. (Ex. G-5.) She was told that the 10/8/13 meeting had not at any time prior to that meeting, nor had anyone previously stated or explained to her that the purpose for . (Ex. G-5.)

The parents have met their burden of establishing the appropriateness of the services. A "major consideration in deciding whether [equity] is satisfied is whether the parents have cooperated with the City throughout the process to ensure that their child receives a FAPE." See N.R., on behalf of T.R., v. City of New York. 2009 WL 874061 (S.D.N.Y. March 2009). In this regard, the Court looks at whether the parents obstructed the Department's placement process or its ability to provide the student with a FAPE. See id. at 16. "In the absence of evidence demonstrating that the parents failed to cooperate in the development of the IEP or otherwise engaged in conduct that precluded the development of an appropriate IEP, equitable considerations generally support a claim of tuition reimbursement." See SRO Decisions 05-030, 04-091, 04-049.

The DOE provided no documentary evidence that it provided . with any of the information described above. It furthermore presented no witness who could or did testify credibly or from personal knowledge that the DOE supplied . with any of the above information, either in writing or otherwise. Therefore, the Parent’s assertions as to this matter must be accepted as fact.

In this case, the equities favor the parent and there is no evidence to the contrary.

For the foregoing reasons, I find that the DOE failed to provide with a FAPE for the 2013-2014 school year and order that the DOE

After hearing and reviewing all the evidence, I order that the DOE reconvene and amend the IEP to include the following:

A) issue RSA’s for the following:

1. 3 times per week for 30 minutes individually after school

2 3 times per week for 30 minutes individually after school; 2 times per week in school and 2 times per week after school

3. , 5 times per week for 30 minutes individually; 2 times per week after school and 3 times per week in school Dated: October 29, 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.

PARENT’S EVIDENCE

Document Date Pages

A. Impartial Hearing Request/fax receipt 2/22/14 11

B. IEP 6/20/12 22

C. IEP 6/13/13 14

D. SESIS Events for 11/12/13 4

E. IEP 10/28/13 16

F Prior Written Notice 10/28/13 3

G. Affidavit of re Pendency 4/20/14 6

H. E Mail from 10/30/13 4

I. Current Class schedule undated 1

J. Main class schedule 2013-14 1

K. Progress Report “ 6/12/13 4

L. Progress Report ” 6/10/13 2

M. Progress Report “ 6/21/12 2

N. classwork 2013-14 4

O. Annual Review Plan by DOE 6/13/13 3

P. Letter for Summer 5/28/13 2

Q. Letter from 10/30/13 1

R. RSA-2 for October 2012 2

S. Progress Report (DOE) 6/20/12 2

T. IEP 6/23/11 23

U. report 2/10/09 3

V. Social Update 1/19/11 2

W. Bi-Lingual Report 12/22/08 2

X. INTENTIONALLY OMITTED

Y. Report to Parent 2013-14 5

Z. Spring IEP Progress Report 2014 11

AA. Work Sheets undated 5

DOE’S EVIDENCE

1. Due Process Complaint 2/24/14 9

2. Due Process Response 2/28/14 3

3. IEP 10/28/13 29

4. IEP (amended) 6/13/13 18

5. IEP 6/13/13 20

6. IEP 6/20/13 28

7. IEP 6/23/11 29

8. Prior Written Notice 10/28/13 3

9. FNR 6/13/13 1

10. DOE 2/10/09 3

11. Educational Progress Report 1/7/09 3

12. Student Progress Report 6/20/13 2

13. Session Notes 3/6/12-5/22/14 21

14. Letter for Summer PT Services 3/6/14 4

15. Annual Review Plan 10/28/13 4

16. Annual Review Plan 6/13/13 3

17. Annual Review Plan 6/20/12 3

18. Annual Review Plan 9/16/13-3/21/14 8

19. Annual Review Plan 2/27/14 1

20. Annual Progress Report 6/11/12 2

21. . Session Notes 3/6/12-5/28/14 30

22. Bilingual Report 12/22/08 2

23. Request for Medical Accommodations undated 3

24. DOE Evaluation 6/18/14 6

25. DOE Evaluation 6/11/14 10

26. Comprehensive Eval. 6/23/14 5

IHO’S EVIDENCE

I. Parent’s Memo of Law 8/13/14 12

II. DOE Memo of Law 8/13/14 14