NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Case Number:
Student’s Name:
Date of Birth:
District:
Hearing Requested By: Parent
Date of Hearing: September 5, 2014
October 14, 2014
Actual Record Closed Date: November 10, 2014
Hearing Officer: , Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON SEPTEMBER 5, 2014
Attorney — Student
District Representative — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON OCTOBER 14, 2014
Attorney — Student
Attorney — Student
Parents
School Psychologist, the (Via Telephone) — Student
Educational Director, — Student
(Via Telephone) — Student
DR., Director (Via Telephone) — Student
IHRO Representative — DOE
- School Psychologist (Via Telephone) — DOE
INTRODUCTION
On 09/02/2014, I was appointed the Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) by the Department of Education’s Impartial Hearing Office to conduct an impartial hearing pursuant to the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1415(f) and Article 89 of the Education Law of the State of New
York.
On 09/05/2014, a pendency hearing was conducted. Order on Pendency issued
09/05/2014. (IHO Ex III)
Appended to the record are lists of persons in attendance and the documents received in evidence.
At hearing of 10/14/2014 parties joined in a request to extend the compliance to allow time to receive the transcript and submit written closing briefs. Motion was granted and compliance date extended through 11/24/2014. (T 127-128, IHO Ex IV)
Insofar as parent hearing request seeks the IHO to address potential failures of the DOE Standard Operating Procedures Manual, those issue are not addressed herein as they do not affect the outcome of the decision and are outside the scope of the authority of the
IHO.
BACKGROUND
This matter was instituted by the impartial hearing request dated 08/27/2014. (Ex A)
Parent raises matters related to 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years. (Ex A 1)
Student was declassified and no IEP was drafted at meeting of 03/07/2014. (Ex
12) Parent alleges the DOE failed to provide prior written notice of its intent to declassify the student, significantly impeded parent’s right to participate in the decision making process by failing to provide adequate notice of meeting, failed to conduct evaluations prior to declassification of student, failed to notify parent of the right to request an assessment to determine if the student continues to have a disability, failed to offer the student support services prior to declassification, predetermined the outcome of the IEP meeting, failed to develop an appropriate IEP for the student for the 2014-2015 school year and failed to offer the student a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for the 2014-2015 school year. (Ex A 6-7)
Parent seeks remedy through an Order directing the DOE to reconvene an appropriate meeting for the 2014-2015 school year, order the DOE to provide an appropriate IEP and placement for the 2014-2015 school year, include specific information in the IEP, place the student in an appropriate ( )
classroom, revise the DOE Standard Operating Procedure Manuel (SOPM), and any other appropriate relief warranted. (Ex A 7-8)
Student, via pendency, is attending the ( ). If successful the parent would then place the student in an . (T 20-21, IHO Ex III)
PARENT POSITION
and , attorneys, appeared at hearing of
10/14/2014, and submitted Post Hearing Memorandum of Law, to present, and support, the parents’ position. (IHO Ex VI)
PARENT WITNESS
( ) reviewed her professional and educational qualifications and testified as a school psychologist at . (T 54-56)
is familiar with the student in that he is the student’s coordinator, and sees the student for a week, and a week in a group of for minute sessions. (T 56)
Student receives due to his difficulty , his , and issues, which include
. (T 57)
Student is diagnosed with ( ) as well as .
(T 58, Ex J)
did not create a ( ) due to the student not exhibiting the when he started attending . (T 59)
began to deteriorate in spring when more , , and began. (T 73)
A support team has been called in to support the student between and times. (T 62) A was not developed. (T 77)
To meet challenges the student need to continue , more focused on a group, support in the classroom with and , to help him and . Student has a tendency to
and
. (T 52-53)
Student should continue his current mandate of an session weekly. (T 64)
communicated with Ms. who conducted the classroom evaluation. They agreed the student was and had not yet finalized its recommendation for the student moving forward for . (T65-67, Ex 10)
staff met and decided to pursue an setting. (T 67)
denies the statement reflected in the observation wherein it states he would “recommend ” (T 68, Ex 10-2)
did prepare a psychological update which included his recommendation for “ setting,
” (T 69, Ex 11-5)
provided a copy of his update to the DOE. (T 70)
testified that it was important for the student to be considered a special education student so that “
” (T 71)
PARENT WITNESS
( ) reviewed his professional and educational qualifications and testified as educational director of . (T 79-80)
is familiar with the student, who began attending in November of 2013, having attended the IEP meeting of 03/07/2014. (T 81)
Discussions were held by the attendees of the meeting regarding the student. (T 82-83)
submitted the educational update from the student’s teacher (Ex D) and the psychological update (Ex 11). (T 83)
After discussion the DOE determined the student no longer warranted special education services. (T 73)
and parent strongly disagreed “
” (T 83-84)
felt the recommendation was determined several minutes into the meeting.
DOE felt they could manage any concerns raised by and the parent. (T 84-85)
IHO asked what information the DOE offered to manage the concerns he and the parent had raised. “
” (T 86-87)
PARENT WITNESS DR.
Dr. ( ) reviewed his professional and educational qualifications and testified as the clinical director of , and a . supervises
(T 89-91)
is familiar with the student who attended school program and co-signed the psychological update. (T 91-92, Ex 11)
testimony included that even in a classroom of “ ” (T 96) the student “
” (T 98)
recommended the student continue a program with and “
” (T 98)
was “doubtful” the student could even in an class. (T 104)
explained that although ’s initial recommendation in March 2014 was for an class, after witnessing the student’s since then, the team has been considering a , such as a ratio. (T 104-106)
PARENT WITNESS
( ), the student’s mother, testified.
attended the IEP meeting of 03/07/2014. had not met nor communicated with any DOE meeting participants prior to the meeting. (T 112)
At the meeting parties discussed the student and said the student was “disqualified”. (T 113)
did not receive any document explaining why her child was declassified. (T 114)
At the meeting: “The only thing she said was that his IQ was , that he was . That was the only thing she talked about, nothing about his , or anything, none of the reports. I even told her, you know what, I had the experience…in a setting with kids. It's not like I know--I know it wasn't going to be a good idea to put him in a class setting like they were suggesting because I already did that.” (T 114)
believes an class would provide extra support for her child., including teachers to help him and a psychologist. expected such a class to be offered for her child. (T 116)
The first time the parent saw the classroom observation was the day of hearing.
(T 117, Ex 10) Documents was not discussed at the meeting. (T 118)
The only person who spoke at the IEP meeting was the school psychologist. (T 118-119)
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION POSITION
appeared at hearing of 10/14/2014 for the DOE and submitted
DOE Closing Brief. (IHO Ex V)
DOE has no problem conducting new evaluations and holding another IEP meeting to determine if an class is appropriate. However, the DOE is standing by its decision to declassify the student. (T 21)
Student had received special education services as a student and testimony, and evidence, will support the declassification of the student through the turning five process. (T 22)
IHO inquired as to the DOE due process response which notes the student was declassified based upon teacher progress reports. “I don't believe there is any teacher's progress reports, but it was meant to be the general observations and the evaluations presented off that IEP…” (Ex 2-1 & Ex D)
DOE WITNESS -
- ( ) presented her educational and professional background and testified as a DOE school psychologist. Student was assigned to her school as a turning five case. “He was on my…initial social worker's caseload to determine services or recommendations for September.” (T 26-28)
At the IEP meeting of 03/07/2014 information available included the evaluation from the , an updated assessment, a social worker observation and a psychological evaluation. (T 28-29)
Discussion at the meeting included that the student had previously had significant , which had decreased. “
” (T 29)
Parent and special education teacher representative expressed concerns. “Because there wasn't sufficient documentation to support that he required special education services, the team recommended him be…declassified.” (T 30)
Student IQ was in the range. Academic skills were level, there was no formal , and according to his teacher academic skills were not affected. (T 30-31)
Parent and teacher director did not agree with the decision to declassify the student. (T 31)
and social worker agreed with declassification. (T 31)
If declassified there were services that could still be offered to the student. (T 31-32)
Though the CPSE IEP did include reference to a : “
”
(T 41, Ex 3-5)
was directed to the Educational Update, which notes the student is capable of students without , and asked how it was determined he could . referred to the classroom observation. (T 43-44, Ex D 1)
Regarding addressing student characteristics of states “
” (T 47)
This recommendation is included in the declassification rationale submitted to
SESIS. “
” (T 47-48)
“…based on what the teacher was reporting, based on my conversation that I had with the psychologist, his had improved. He is able to . His academic skills were than most kids coming into . So to put him in a classroom, when he has all --has and academic skills would be a disservice to him.” (T 49)
FINDING OF FACTS AND DECISION
Purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) are (1) to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living; and
(2) to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities and parents of such students are protected (20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]-[B]; see generally Forest Grove v. T.A., 129 S. Ct.
2484, 2491 [2009]; Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 [1982]).
A student is offered a FAPE when (a) the board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]).
An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that includes a statement of the student's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]; Tarlowe v. Dep't of Educ., 2008 WL 2736027, at *6 [S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2008] [noting that a CSE must consider, among other things, the "results of the initial evaluation or most recent evaluation" of the student, as well as the "'academic, developmental, and functional needs'" of the student]), establishes annual goals designed to meet the student's needs resulting from the student's disability enabling him or her to make progress in the general education curriculum (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][2][i][A]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]), and provides for the use of appropriate special education services (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][4]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]; see also 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).
A board of education may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private educational services obtained for a student by his or her parents, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parents were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parents' claim (Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]; Sch. Comm. of Burlington
v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-70 [1985]). The burden of proof is on the school district during an impartial hearing. (Educ. Law § 4404[1][c]).
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).
ELIGIBILITY
The IDEA defines a "child with a disability" as a child with a specific physical, mental or emotional condition, "who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services" (20 U.S.C. § 1401[3][A]; Educ. Law § 4401[1], [2][k]). In order to be classified, a student must not only have a specific physical, mental or emotional condition, but such condition must adversely impact upon a student's educational performance to the extent that he or she requires special services and programs (34 C.F.R.
§ 300.8[a], [c]; see 8 NYCRR 200.1[zz]; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 09-
087; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 07-086;
Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 07-042; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 07-003.
Whether a student's condition adversely affects his or her educational performance such that the student needs special education within the meaning of the IDEA, is an issue that has been left for each state to resolve (J.D. v. Pawlett Sch. Dist., 224 F.3d 60, 66 [2d Cir. 2000]). Although some states elect to establish further, more explicit definitions for these terms, often through regulation or special education policy (see, e.g., Mr. I. v.
Maine Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 55, 480 F.3d 1, 11 [1st Cir. 2007]; J.D., 224 F.3d at 66-67;
Johnson v. Metro Davidson County Sch. Sys., 108 F. Supp. 2d 906, 918 [M.D.Tenn.
2000]), others do not and instead resolve the issue on a "case-by-case" basis (R.B. v.
Napa Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 2028132, at *9 [9th Cir. July 16, 2007]; see, e.g., Yankton Sch. Dist. v. Schramm, 93 F.3d 1369, 1375-76 [8th Cir. 1996]; Greenland Sch. Dist. v. Amy N., 2003 WL 1343023, at *8 [D.N.H. Mar. 19, 2003]). Cases addressing this issue in New York appear to have followed the latter approach (Corchado
v. Bd. of Educ. Rochester City Sch. Dist., 86 F. Supp. 2d 168, 176 [W.D.N.Y. 2000]
[holding that each child is different and the effect of each child's particular impairment on his or her educational performance is different]; see Maus v. Wappingers Cent. Sch. Dist., 688 F. Supp. 2d 282, 294 [S.D.N.Y. 2010]; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No.
08-042; Application of a Student Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 08-023;
Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 07-086; see Muller
v. E. Islip Union Free Sch. Dist., 145 F.3d 95, 103-04 [2d Cir. 1998]; A.J. v. Bd. of Educ., East Islip Union Free Sch. Dist., 2010 WL 126034 [E.D.N.Y. Jan. 8, 2010]).
In order to qualify as a "student with a disability" under the IDEA, the student must:
Meet the definition of one or more of the categories of disabilities which include:
, a (including ), a
, a (including ), a
(referred to in this part as " "), an , ,
, another , a specific learning disability, - , or multiple disabilities; and need special education and related services as a result of his disability or disabilities. 34 CFR 300.8(a)(1).
and may qualify as disabling conditions under the IDEA.
However, the student is not a "child with a disability" unless those conditions have an adverse impact on educational performance. C.B. v. Departm ent of Educ. of the City of New Y ork, 52 IDELR 121 (2d Cir. 2009).
At the time of the IEP meeting of 03/07/2014 the student in question had been diagnosed with ( ) and ( ). (Ex 3-4, 4-1, 11-1, & H 1, & T 58)
DOE points to the following as indicating a lack of impact upon the student’s educational performance. Due process response indicates the student was declassified due to teacher progress reports. No such reports were presented at hearing. The DOE concedes the lack of reports and contends: “I don't believe there is any teacher's progress reports, but it was meant to be the general observations and the evaluations presented off that IEP…” (Ex 2-1 & Ex D)
General observations included the classroom observation 10/07/2013, included:
“
”, and a recommendation for a setting, a and
. (Ex 8-2)
General observations also included classroom observation of 03/05/2014, included, while in a class with students a teacher and aides, that the student did not demonstrate any , was and
. (Ex 10-1)
Also include was a statement allegedly made by that he would “ ” Statement attributed to
“
” (Ex 10-2)
Upon completion of the administration of assessments and other evaluation measures:
(1) A group of qualified professionals and the parent of the child determines whether the child is a child with a disability, as defined in 34 CFR 300.8 , in accordance with 34 CFR 300.306 (b) and the educational needs of the child; and
(2) The public agency provides a copy of the evaluation report and the documentation of determination of eligibility at no cost to the parent. 34 CFR
300.306(a).
In this case no evaluative measures were provided. testifies that at the IEP meeting of 03/07/2014 information available included the evaluation from the , an updated assessment, a social worker observation and a psychological evaluation. Each with insufficient information to declassify the student. (T 28-29)
evaluation indicates appropriate (Ex 4-2) and range (Ex 4-4 & 4-5) and notes student can become ,
“ “, (Ex 4-7)
Updated assessment, Psychological Update, included a recommendation to continue and special education support. (Ex 11-5).
Observations include in a setting, outside the parameters of the recommended placement (Ex 10-1) and a somewhat confusing statement by , which he denies. (Ex 10-2, T 68, Ex 10-2)
DOE witness on one hand testifies the student was properly declassified, yet contends, services could still be offered to the student. (T 31-32)
Regarding addressing student characteristics of states “
” (T 47)
Witness felt the student should be “
” (T 47-48)
Under the circumstances the student should have remained classified and received the services alluded to by the witness to whatever degree the team felt appropriate.
Without a degree of service the student cannot be reasonably expected to progress.
Witness relies, in most part, on the students . (T 47-48)
In interpreting evaluation data for the purpose of determining if a child is a child with a disability under 34 CFR 300.8, and the educational needs of the child, each public agency must:
(i) Draw upon information from a variety of sources, including aptitude and achievement tests, parent input, and teacher recommendations, as well as information about the child's physical condition, social or cultural background, and adaptive behavior; and (ii) Ensure that information obtained from all of these sources is documented and carefully considered. 34 CFR 300.306(c)(1).
A students' continued receipt of good grades may constitute evidence indicating that the students' performance in school was not adversely affected by their emotional problems, but it is not necessarily conclusively. See C.B. v. NY C D ep't of E ducation, 322
F. App'x 20 (2d Cir. 2009) (unpublished) ("continuity of [student's] successful performance" was one piece of evidence indicating no adverse impact on education); N.C.
v. Bedford Central School Dist., 300 F. App'x 11 (2d Cir. 2008) (unpublished) (evidence that student's grades had dropped only slightly indicated that student would not qualify as emotionally disturbed). But grades are not the only way to evaluate public education.
Education must be opened for a disabled child in a 'meaningful' way." W alczak v. Florida
Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 (2d Cir. 1998) (quoting Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist., W estchester Cnty. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 192
(1982)). The government must find ways to open the school house doors, by helping children who suffer from emotional problems to attend school. [63 IDELR 156 114 LRP
27413, M.M. and I.F. v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION]
Parent witnesses contend the student still required special education services.
Testimony and evidence included:
-the student need to continue …support in the classroom with and , and .
Student has a tendency to and
. (T 52-53)
-Student should continue his current mandate of an individual and a
. (T 64)
-psychological update which included his recommendation for “ ” (T 69, Ex 11-5)
-that it was important for the student to be considered a special education student so that “
” (T 71)
-“
” (T 83-84)
-even in a classroom of “ ” (T 96) the student
“
”
(T 98)
- recommended the student continue a program with and “
” (T 98)
- was “ ” the student could even in an class. (T 104)
Parent testimony and evidence support the parent was not properly apprised of the purpose of the 03/07/2014, which was to declassify the student. Parent believed the IEP team would develop services and recommend an appropriate classroom for the student’s upcoming year. (T 116)
Parent position is supported by uncontested testimony that only one person from the DOE, , spoke at the meeting. (T 118)
Parent position is also supported by the failure of the DOE to notify the parent of the intent to declassify the student. Parent correctly asserts that the Regulations require that the DOE provide prior written notice:
…to the parents of a student with a disability a reasonable time before the school district proposes to or refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, educational placement of the student or the provision of a free appropriate public education to the student. 8 NYCRR 200.5 (a)(1)-(4); 8 NYCRR 200.5(C)(2)(i)).
The DOE did not provide the Parent with notice “of a proposal to change the identification or educational placement” at any time. (T 112-113)
DOE submitted into evidence a “Prior Written Notice of Recommendation” dated March 18, 2014. Document again refers to a teacher report, which has not been presented into evidence. Without the document claimed as the basis of declassification of the student it is not possible for the parent to understand how the DOE made its determination. Document does continue to note the student receives outside and should be placed in an class, which is the placement sought after by the parent.
(Ex 15 & A)
Parent contends the Notice of Recommendation does not include “any support services for the Student or any indication that these services were discussed at the Turning 5 meeting or any other time. Though insufficient in this instance the document does indicate student continued and placement in an class. (Ex 15)
I find the student, at the time of the IEP meeting of 03/07/201, remained a "child with a disability" and as a child with a specific physical, mental or emotional condition, "who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services" (20 U.S.C. §
1401[3][A]; Educ. Law § 4401[1], [2][k]).
Therefore the DOE must reconvene a meeting, review available information and make appropriate recommendations.
Specific recommendations, such as those sought by the parent, are to be determined by the CSE. I note that as some time has passed additional information, not then available to the CSE, is also to be reviewed at the IEP meeting. Evidence at hearing does support at least a minimum of services that are to include Classroom settings to be considered include an classroom and a classroom with no more than other students with access to a curriculum.
ORDER
1. The DOE shall reconvene a CSE team, conduct an appropriate IEP meeting, and deliver a written IEP and placement offer to the student within 30 days of the date of this Order.
2. Said IEP shall include and classroom settings to be considered shall include an classroom and a classroom with no more than other students with access to a curriculum.
3. This decision is subject to appeal and review by the State Review Officer.
Dated: November 24, 2014
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- o r 35-day period.”
(8NYCRR279.2[b]) Failure to file the notice of intention to seek review is a waiver of the right to appeal this decision.
Directions and sample forms for filing an appeal are included with this decision. Directions and forms can also be found in the Office of State Review website: www.sro.nysed.gov/appeals.htm.
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD
PARENT
ENTERED 09/05/2014
A Hearing Request, dated 8/27/14, 9 pages
B Motion for Pendency Order, 3 pages, dated 9/2/14
C IEP, dated 10/22/13, 14 pages
D updated, dated 3/13/14, 3 pages
ENTERED 10/14/2014
E Excluded duplicate
F Excluded duplicate
G Excluded duplicate
H Initial Evaluation Diagnosis Meeting, dated 10/12/13, 1 page
I Psychological Update dated 3/7/14, 5 pages
J Psychological Update dated 5/30/14, 2 pages
K Excluded duplicate
L DOE Records Request, dated 6/6/14, 3 pages
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
ENTERED 10/14/2014
1 Duplicate Due Process Complaint
2 Due Process Response, dated 10/6/14, 3 pages
3 CPSE IEP dated 10/22/14, 14 pages
4 Psychological Evaluation, dated 7/24, 13 pages
5 Observation, dated 7/24/13, 1 page
6 Social History, dated 7/24/13, 4 pages
7 Letter from dated 7/30/13, pages
8 Classroom Observation, dated 10/7/13, 2 pages
9 Consent to Evaluate, dated 1/27/14, 1 page
10 Classroom Observation, dated 3/7/14, 2 pages
11 Psychological Update, dated 3/7/14, 5 pages 12 Notice of IEP Meeting, dated 3/7/14, 3 pages
13 Excluded duplicate
14 IEP Meeting Attendance Page, dated 3/17/14, 1 page
15 Prior Written Notice dated 3/18/14, 3 pages
16 Final Notice of Recommendation dated 5/9/14, 1 page
HEARING OFFICER
ENTERED 10/14/2014
I Notice of Appearance, dated 9/10/14, 1 page
II Notice of Appointment to Parties, dated 8/30/14, 3 pages
III Order on Pendency, dated 9/5/14, 8 pages
ENTERED 11/10/2014
IV Grant of Extension of Time, 10/14/2014, 3 pages
V DOE Closing Brief, 11/10/2014, 5 pages
VI Parent’s Post Hearing Memorandum of Law, 11/10/2014, 31 pages