NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
Ma in SD Hs Wher eH Hh Se A: en a ld DN hr es MED eh ny a se i CE ny ah SY vO hhh ts at mie hs ene ete ta ih Nm is yak
In the Matter of the Application of [XXX], a child with a Disability by his parents for a Due Process Impartial Hearing, Petitioners -against- Respondent se ey ca cam ene Baek Sale eh ae ed eo
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Case Number: po
Date of Birth: fF
Dates of Hearing: September 26, 2013
October 16, 2013
October 28, 2013
October 30, 2013
November 12, 2013
December 11, 2013
January 13, 2014
January 28, 2014
January 29, 2014
March 17, 2014
April 28, 2014
May 20, 2014
July 11, 2014
August 17, 2014
August 18, 2014
September 12, 2014
Record Close Date: November 11, 2014
Hearing Officer: Linda Agoston, Esq.
ES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED SEPTEMBER 20 2013
Attorney Parent
Attorney Parent
Parent
Attorney District
Director of Pupil Personnel District
Services, District
Representative
CSE Chairperson District
S OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED OCTOBER 16, 2013
Attorney Parent
Attorney Parent
Parent
Attorney District
Director of Pupil Personnel District
Services, District
Representative
CSE Chairperson District
NAMES AND ILLLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED OCTOBER 28, 2014
Attorney Parent
Attorney Parent
Parent
Attorney District
Director of Pupil Personnel District
Services, District
Representative
School Psychologist District
ES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED OCTOBER 30, 2013
Attorney Parent
Attorney Parent
Parent
Attorney District
Director of Pupil District
Personnel Services, District Representative
School Psychologist District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
NOVEMBER 12, 2013
Attorney Parent
Attorney Parent
Parents
Attorney District
Director of Pupil Personnel District
Services, Representative District
School Psychologist District
Special Education Teacher District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
DECEMBER 11, 2013
Attorney Parent
Attorney Parent
Parents
Attorney District
Director of Pupil Personnel District
Services, Representative District
Special Education Teacher District
Occupational Therapist District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
DECEMBER 16, 2013
Attorney Parent
Attorney Parent
Parents
Attorney District
Director of Pupil Personnel District
Services, Representative District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
JANUARY 13, 2014
Attorney Parent
Attorney Parent
Parents
Attorney District
Director of Pupil Personnel Services, District Representative District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
JANUARY 28, 2014
Attorney Parent
Attorney Parent
Parents
Attorney District
Director of Pupil Personnel District
Services, Representative District
Psychologist Parent
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
JANUARY 29, 2014
Attorney Parent
Attorney Parent
Parents
Attorney District
Director of Pupil Personnel District
Services, Representative District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
MARCH 17, 2014
Attorney Parent
Attorney Parent
Parents
BB Academic Dean Parent
Attorney District
Director of Pupil Personnel District
Services, Representative District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
APRIL 28, 2014
Attorney Parent
Attorney Parent
Parents
Attorney District
Director of Pupil Personnel District
Services, Representative District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
MAY 20, 2014
Attorney Parent
Attorney Parent
Educational Parent
Parents
Attorney District
Director of Pupil Personnel District
Services, Representative District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
JULY 8, 2014
Attorney Parent
Attorney Parent
Educational Parent
Parents
Attorney District
District Representative District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
AUGUST 18, 2014
Attorney Parent
Attorney Parent
Educational Parent
Parents
Attorney District
Director of Pupil Personnel District
Services, Representative District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
AUGUST 19, 2014
Attorney Parent
Attorney Parent
Educational Parent
Parents
Attorney District
Director of Pupil Personnel District
Services, Representative District
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
SEPTEMBER 12, 2014
Attorney Parent
Attorney Parent
Educational Parent
Parents
Attorney District
On June 27, 2013, the parents of [XXX] (hereinafter "student X") filed a request for an impartial hearing in accordance with the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 United States Code§1400 and Article 89 of the Education Law of the State of New York and Section 4404 (Exh. 1). I was appointed on July 2, 2013 to hear this matter (IHO Exh. /). Hearings were held on September 16, 2013, October 16, 2013, October 28, 2013, October 30, 2013, November 12, 2013, December 11, 2013, December 16, 2013, January 13, 2014, January 28, 2014, January 29, 2014 , March 4, 2014, April 28, 2014 and May 20, 2014, August 18, 2014, August 19, 2014 and September 12, 2014.
The hearing was requested by the parent of student X to challenge the August 30, 2012, review and recommendation of the Committee on Special Education ("CSE") to classify student X, residing in the territorial jurisdiction _ = District pe and to request the following: (1) an order finding that the Individualized Education Program ("IEP") for the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years, were not appropriate (2) an order finding that i a private school not approved by the NYS Education Department, located in ae and is an appropriate placement for student; (3) an order that the district reimburse the parents of student X for compensatory education as a remedy for the district's failure to provide a free and appropriate public education ("FAPE") during the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years as required under IDEA and (4) an order that the district shall reimburse the parents for all educational and clinical costs and room and board for student X's attendance at the .. 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years (Exh. 1 at 18). The parent withdrew the | request for item (3) compensatory education (trans. 1181).
The parties moved to extend the compliance dates during the course of the hearing.
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 the consequences of any delay in the resolution of the matter. Accordingly the requests for extensions of the compliance dates were granted (Exhs. J/-XVI]). The current record close date is November 11, 2014 and the compliance date for issuing a decision is November 25, 2014. Appended to the record are lists of persons in attendance and of documents submitted into evidence.
The BEE :esented its case on September 20, 2013, October 16, 2013, October 28, 2013, October 30, 2013, November 12, 2013 and December 11, 2013. The parents presented their case on December 16, 2013, January 28, 2014, January 29, 2014, March 4, 2014, April 28, 2014 and May 20, 2014, July 11, 2014, August 18, 2014, August 19, 2014 and September 12, 2014. The parties were granted until November 11, 2014 to submit post-hearing memoranda (closing statements and legal references).
BACKGROUND
Student X attended a general education class in a BE <<1001 at nell located Li i in the eighth grade for the 2012-2013 school year. Student X began attending the || on August 28, 2012 (Exh. CC at 91). The FA is a college preparatory school, accredited by the BEE | Association of Schools and Colleges, specializing in servicing students with and P| and a population of approximately one hundred boarders (trans. 1819). Student X is classified with 1 by ‘and the classification is not in dispute (Exhs. 10, 11).
The parent provided student X's educational history and explained that prior to the FA student X attended private schools and public schools. She stated her [fattended Re: a private school from Kindergarten through fourth grade (2003-2008) located in (trans. 1196; 2010). Student X then attended the for the fifth and sixth grades in special classes as he lived with his father in] for the 2008-2009 and the 2009-2010 school years (trans. 1214;1359). After student X (iii _ he attended the iE 2 private school located in EEor the 2010-2011 school year where he repeated the sixth grade and part of the 2011-2012 school year. Student X left TB in March 2012 based on his emotional state and from March 2012 until June 2012, student X received private tutoring iii ii po (trans. 1171;1382). The parent placed her son in thefiiiin the summer of 2012 on July 1, 2012 for a summer program lasting two weeks and then he went to a camp in a: three weeks from July 25 until the middle of 2012 (trans. 1395). The parent placed student X at thellfiffon August 28, 2012 (Exh. 135) and he remained at thelr the 2012-2013 school year in eighth grade and the 2013-2014 school year in ninth grade.
Evaluations conducted in 2006 indicated that student X experienced difficulties with fine motor skills, academics and attention (Exh. 14-18). A private evaluation was conducted by ed. on June 2006, when student X was eight years old in third grade. | student X was emotionally sensitive and easily frustrated. (Exh. 17 at 1,4). po reported that his teachers at P| noted student X had trouble paying attention EE recommended a Section 504 plan due to motor coordination as well as preferential seating, nonverbal cuing to address issues with attention (Exh. 17 at 6). P| further recommended [fill
An | | psychological evaluation was conducted in March 2006 when student * was in second grade attending | the ME psychologist EM noted that student X had a full scale | | in the average range on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition ("WISC-IV") (Exh. 14 at 2). She reported the following scores: verbal comprehension score was BE» ¢:centite. placing him in the average range of functioning; perceptual reasoning score was HEE percentile, in the lower end of the average range; working memory score was BE percentile, in the average range and processing speed score was BE 3 <:ccn:itc the average range. (Exh. 14 at 3) TB voted his scores revealed concerns about his learning rate and attention (Exh. 14 at 4). An educational evaluation conducted in March 2006 indicated student X scored on the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Academic Achievement, Third Edition as follows: oral language subtest score of | | better than a: his peers, broad reading score of Mil in the average range, broad math of | in the average range, written language score of i in the Il average range, his mathematics skills were average (Exh. 15 at 3). The HE conducted a|psycho-social history in March 2006 indicated that student X attended ma from Kindergarten through second grade and his mother would like him to receive reading assistance and exh. 16 at 4). An i conducted in October. The evaluator used the Beery Buktenica Development Test of Visual Motor Integration ("VMI") and indicated that student X performed in the average range, in nfl percentile and noi services were recommended (Exh. 18 at3).
the mm the district of location, conducted a psychological evaluation of student X in December 2007 by School Psychologist, when student X was in the fourth grade | (Exh. 23 at 1). assessed his cognitive skills with the WISC-IV and noted that the scores were not easily summarized because his verbal reasoning were much better developed than his nonverbal reasoning abilities (Exh.[23] at 14). | assessed his overall academic learning approach on the Learning Disabilities Diagnostic Inventory as reported by student X's classroom teacher and determined that there were no I except in the area of handwriting (Exh.
BE oncucted an evaluation in April 2008 and indicated that student X was in the [brade iim and was classified as evaluator indicated that student X presents with decreased graphomotor skills and demonstrated significant difficulty with spelling and recommended the use of a graphic organizer (Exh. 25 at 3-4).
When student X was in the fifth grade he was placed in in iddie School and a reading evaluation was conducted in December 2008 and his teacher noted that student X received reading in a small group with a student to staff ratio of 5:1 every other day. The results of the evaluation indicated student X scored in the ee phonological awareness as assessed by the his score in phonological memory was his score in the rapid naming composite was | (Exh. 26 at 1) and his reading rate was slightly po grade level as assessed by the A Exh. 26 at 3).
P| conducted a reading report when student X was in the sixth grade at the PF in January 2010 and the subtests revealed a scatter of scores in the a the MM range in elision, memory for digits, non word repetition, phonological awareness and the pe for phonological memory and yO score in the rapid naming composite (Exh. 29 at 2).
PE cevelopea an IEP on June 14, 2010, and classified student X os , A recommended special educational services for seventh grade of an F PS for English with a staffing ratio of 12:1, a special class in Reading with a staffing ratio of 5:1, a special class in Social Studies with a staffing ratio of 15:1 and a special class in Study Lab with a staffing ratio of 15:1 and receive related services of p once a week for forty minutes in a group no larger than five and recommended management needs of extended time, access to word processor/ spell check and test accommodations for local exams (Exh. 3 at 1, 2, 4). The comments indicated possible declassification (Exh. 3 at 4).
For the 2010-2011 school year, student X was placed at private school located in me he repeated the sixth grade (Exh. 31 at 1). Student X did not receive any special education services at | a 1226); however, the GE Educational Plan provided accommodations of extended time for tests and access to work processing (Exh. 30).
Because IEEE was located in EEE, the district of location, Mec conducted a social history on November 2011 and indicated that student X was diagnosed with iii and EE anc required support in writing, spelling and organization (Exh. at 31 at 2).
a pe School Psychologist, conducted a [RE evaluation on February 2011, when student X was twelve years old and ten months and was repeating sixth grade while attending i noted that student X had received special education services since 2008 and had transferred from {and had previous diagnoses of a and (Exh. 32 at 4). sessed the student’s cognitive functioning on nq and reported the following results: full scale Score ofil in the range, the verbal comprehension score of Ml in the range, the perceptual reasoning score of Wl in the MME range, the working memory score of I in the WE range, and processing speed Score offfff, in the GE ene (Exh. 32 at ?) reported the student’s processing as assessed by the and found scores consistent with a history of difficulty with fine motor skills and a diagnosis ye (Exh. 32 at 3).
PF conducted an educational evaluation on February 2011, and the reporter assessed student X's current levels of academic functioning on the po as follows: his overall reading skills with a subtest score off in the average range, his mathematics skills with a subtest score of ff in the [J range, his score on the writing sample was in the range and his language skills with a listening comprehension score off was in the PE nec (Exh. 33 at 3).
For the 2011-2012 school, the student attendediiiiin the seventh grade and left TT cue to bullying (trans.78) to receive tutoring and move in with his parent who resided in | |
The ff report card narrative dated for the 2011-2012 described student X’s seventh grade performance in English 7 and indicated that student X received a 2+ and he was able to participate more (Exh.34 at 2). The report card detailed the student’s grade in Spanish 7 was lf and his grade in Mati wadllllland Life Science grade was [ff (Exh. 34 at 5,6). The ii grades were rated "on a scale of | to 6, with | a failure"(Exh. 9 at 2).
The csE met on June 15, 2011, the TT o£ student's residence where he resided with his mother in the fbince August 3, 2010. The CSE individual education service plan ("IESP") indicated student X was attending [i in CSE developed an IESP and classified student X afens recommended an fi class for English and Social Studies with a staffing ratio of 12:1; recommended that student X receive testing accommodations of preferential seating, extended time, waive spelling requirement, access to word processor, questions read and clarified and a separate location (Exh. 5 at 2).
The Pt developed an Individualized Service Plan meeting ("ISP") on March 1, 2011 and recommended a special education teacher provide resource room services for one hour per week for academics (Exh. 6 at 2). The ISP indicated that student X had ee: ee: as well as deficits in ee 2nd pe which P| impacted his academics (Exh. 6 at 3).
On January 12, 2012, the Director of Pupil Personnel wrote to the parents to inform them that, as a resident of the school district who placed their child in a nonpublic school, it was the responsibility of the district where the school was located to provide special education services for their child (Exh. 58).
On January 26, 2012, the parent submitted the signed consent forms to obtain all records from the district of location regarding the placement of student X (Exhs. 59, 60).
A private HE, sessment was conducted > Ph.D. on April 2012, when student X was thirteen years old (Exh. 36 at , I noted that the student had a history o pervious assessment in 2006 indicated eS :) ee Vith Iond that he was seeing a however, his therapist did not believe student X was (Exh. 36 at 3). Dr. GR «<viewed the educational and (EMMssessments in February 2011 and found a history consistent with a me and a in math (Exh. 36 at 4). Dr. recommended increased educational, emotional and social support (Exh. 36 at 5).
On May 10, 2012, the CSE in the { met to determine the program and placement for student X's eighth grade placement for the academic year 2012-2013. The IEP team classified student X afl ana recommended student X be placed in a class for English, Social Studies, Science and Math and noted special alerts of f Pe 2nd recommended related services of once a week in a group no larger than five (Exh. 8 at 1). On May 10, 2012, the then curren EEE assroom teacher participated and expressed concerns that student X would engage as his grades indicted he was "achieving a grade level of 2 to 3 (ona scale of | to 6, with | a failure.)" (Exh. 8 at 2) The May 10, 2012 IEP indicated that On June 5, 2012, the parent visited : |. the team would reconvene to finalize placement (Exh. 8 at 3). and the parent expressed her concern that the functional levels in the proposed class (Exh. 1 at 10).
On June 6, 2012, the CSE in hdl me: to discuss the program and placement. The JEP team met again classified student X as hn recommended student X be placed d Math and noted special alerts of m7. CSE recommended related services of PF a week in a group no larger than five (Exh. 9 at 1). The IEP indicated that student X struggled Pe the 2011-2012 school year , ae was since March 2012 (Exh. 9 at 2). The IEP further indicated that based on valuation student X had issues associated with his medical diagnosis of a ee c.). The IEP further indicated that the CSE team would reconvene to allow student X an opportunity to visit , special class with a staffing ratio of 12:1+2 (Id.).
On June 10, 2012, the Wb cse Chairperson emailed the parent to explore possible placements (Exh. P).
On June 22, 2012, the parent informed the lcs that she rejected the June 6, 2012 IEP and informed the CSE that she reserved the right to place her son in private special education at district expense (Exh. 68).
On July 12, 2012, the A CSE Chairperson emailed the parent to explain the placement at the GFMS in a special class taught by (Exh. Q).
On July 13, 2012, the School Psychologist, P| emailed the I Chairperson, and the Director of Pupil Services, ee (0 inform them that the parent and student X intended to visit {Ml (Exh. 69).
On July 16, 2012, the [SE Chairperson emailed the parent to inform her that student X was placed _ oo (Exh. R at 1) and submitted a class profile (Exh. R at 2).
On July 17, 2012, thelICSE Chairperson emailed the parent to inform her that he understood that her visit to ae: class with student X was productive (Exh. S).
On July 17, 2012, the parent emailed thelMICSE Chairperson to inform him that student X was leaving until August 23, 2012 and she would inform him if her son decided whether or not he would like to be we class after meeting the school psychologist C.).
On August 6, 2012, the parent emailed the fF | to alert her that she did not receive any information regarding a rescheduled CSE meeting (Exh. T).
On August 7, 2012, the parent emailed the Director to demand a copy of the May 10, 2012 IEP and the IEP from the June 6, 2012 IEP (Exh. U).
On August 8, 2012, ;, emailed the parent that the CSE Chairperson would rescheduled the CSE meeting (Id.).
On August 10, 2012, the parent through her attorney rejected the current [EP and requested the release of student X's records (Exh. 70).
On August 15, 2012, the School Psychologist, Dr. P| the | | provider and ee. the special education teacher wrote a letter to parents describing the new and unique pilot program including iPads as well as other forms of current technology to strengthen skills in the areas of organization, study skills and transition (Exh. D).
For the 2012-2013 year on August 30, 2012, CSE classified student X with | recommended that he be placed in a ten-month program in a special class in a BE school, the | with a staffing ratio of 12:1+2 and receive an assistive technology evaluation with special alerts of (Exh. 10 at 1) and indicated management needs of a structured environment with clear expectations, extended time for written assignments to complete homework, and access to _ a word processor/spell check (Exh. 10 at 5).
that student X demonstrated the characteristics of A The IEP —_ >: the evaluation as well : i as l and transition needs of a career interest inventories
The August 30, 2012 indicated that student X required l ee and a Level I assessment (Exh. 10 at 6).
The IEP recommended related services of individual Am once a week for thirty minutes in a special location, EEE once a week for thirty minutes in a special location, parent counseling once a week for thirty minutes in a special location in a group no larger than five and parent counseling once a week for thirty minutes (Exh. 10 at 9).
The JEP further required program modifications of preferential seating refocusing, redirection, cuing and prompting, directions clarified and directions repeated and that the special education teacher was to provide precise writing instruction and monitor organization and time management and provide additional time to complete assignments (Id.). Student X was to be given access to a word processor and word prediction as a technology device and an Il consultation meeting was mandated once a quarter for thirty minutes at school (Exh. 10 at 10). The entire team, including the parents and appropriate service providers, was mandated to meet once a month for thirty minutes at school (Id.).
The JEP indicated that the parent informed CSE that she would unilaterally place student X at oo 10 at 2). The IEP indicated that student X required the following evaluations: a Level I assessment, a Career Interest Inventory, an evaluation and an evaluation (Exh. 10 at 2).
On August 30, 2012, the parent informed the I CSE that she would not place her son in the aa for the eighth grade and she intended to enroll him at i a residential boarding school for children with J and (Exh. 73) and on August 31, 2012, the parent requested reimbursement for the Bi exn. 75).
On September 24, 2012, the CSE Chairperson wrote to the parent indicating a ') was not contained in the list of evaluations as the ll could only be done with student X attending the || program (Exh. C).
On October and November 2012, afi update was conducted vy EE School Psychologist, on student X who was fourteen years old. Ms.
a. assessed his adaptive behavior skills by the Adaptive Behavior Assessment System, Second Edition ("ABAS-II") which contained ratings of student X's behavior from both parents and two of the | teachers and noted that student X's adaptive skills (communication, functional academics, school living, self-care, self-direction and socialization) were in the average range (Exh. 40).
On November 2012, an Hl evaluation was conducted by AM ctustc: who found that student X tested the average range in fine motor precision subtest and in the average range in the fine motor integration subtest and in the above average range on the manual dexterity subtest (Exh. 38 at 2). The evalu that student X scored in the overall BE cance in the Third Edition (Exh. 38 at 5), but demonstrated difficulty with graphomotor skills (Id.).
On February 12, 2013, [NMI CSE classified student X withlhna recommended that he be placed in a ten-month program in a special class in aM school with a staffing ratio of 12:1+2 for six classes and noted that the team reviewed the Mand the Bevaluations and reviewed the ABAS-II rating scales and the Level I assessment. The IEP further indicated that BE :< ported on the ways student X was adjusting tot (Exh. 11 at 2). The IEP recommended related services of individual once a week for thirty minutes in a special location, M once a week for thirty minutes in a special location, parent counseling once a week for thirty minutes in a group no larger than five in a special location and individual parent counseling once a week for thirty minutes in a special location (Exh. 11 at 10). The IEP further required preferential seating refocusing, redirection, writing process instruction, support for long-term assignment organization, cuing and prompting, directions clarified and directions repeated and the special education teacher was to monitor organization and time management and provide additional time to complete assignments (Exh. 11 at 11). Student X was to be given program modifications of access to a word processor and word prediction as student X required a device for communication, and writing software as a technology device and access to graphic organizers for writing assignments and reading support software as student X required access to text to speech software to assist him in reading comprehension and editing (Id.). An BF consultation meeting was mandated once a quarter for thirty minutes at school (Exh. 10 at 10). The entire team, including the parents and appropriate service providers, was mandated to meet once a month for thirty minutes at school (Id.).The IEP mandated an assistive technology consultation meeting once a quarter for thirty minutes at school and the entire team, including the parents and appropriate service providers were mandated to meet once a month for thirty minutes at school and a psychological counseling services consultation was mandated once a month to collaborate with outside providers (Exh. 11 at 12). Student X was to receive testing accommodations including: preferential seating, double time; special location, directions clarified, access to word processor, waiver of spelling, flexible school and use of period breaks. (Id.)
Furthermore, pursuant to the JEP, student X had an outside diagnosis of ee. was taking ond updated evaluations including the EMMMvere consistent with an individual with a or with a ‘Exh. 11 atl, 2, 14) The IEP indicated that student X ha in written expression, organization, fluency and math (Exh. 11] at 6). The IEP indicated that student X struggled in effectively and had above average fine motor skills; however his baseline orientation was poor and he had uneven spacing. The management needs included the following: a structured environment with clear expectations, extended time for written assignments, as well as access to word processor/spell check (Exh. 11 at 7). The IEP indicated that the parent informed CSE that student X would remain at the WBexh. 11 at 2).
For the 2013-2014 year, on May 14, 2013 EBM CSE classified student X with | el recommended that student X be placed in a ten-month program in ninth grade in thé program which included five special classes in | high school with a staffing ratio of 12:1+2 and recommended an ‘lass for math once as well related services of individual counseling once a week for thirty minutes in a special location, counseling once a week for thirty minutes in a group no larger than five, in a special location, parent counseling once a week for thirty minutes in a special location and recommended the same program modifications, and testing modifications and the same management needs as listed in the prior February IEP. The IEP indicated that the parent informed CSE that student X would remain at thelffexn. 12 at 2).
THE DISTRICT’S CASE
The District’s case was presented in the testimony of the CS olding multiple degrees and certifications, testified that he had been employed by the aa. eight years as a CSE Chairperson since 2006 (trans. 55) and he had held positions as both general and special education teacher. He reviewed student X's educational history up to the 2011-2012 and noted hat developed an IESP as student X attende rans. 73). He reviewed thei cp for the 2011-2012 school year (Exh. 7) and noted there was no challenge to the 2011-2012 IEP (trans. 74). He recalled that there was a series of CSE reviews to develop an JEP for the 2012-2013 school year (Exhs. 8-10) at d at the May 10, 2012, IEP meeting he became aware that student X was not attending FI but was homeschooled, and Dr. ME formed him that student X had beer EE trans. 78). At the June 6, 2012, IEP because the parent was concerned that the placement might be inappropriate, the CSE team decided reconvene to allow student X an opportunity to visit a 12:1+2 special class (Exh. 9 at 2) in order to "test the waters"(trans. 80). He described that special class y a class designed for students with | .:::-: taught by a special education teacher; the class included a number of social skills programs to support the children in the class with opportunities to mainstream; and there were teaching assistants to accompany children out of the special class to less restrictive environments (trans. 82-83).
He stated that he explored other potential placements such as the EE ©:0 cram and the EE program in May and June 2012 and opined that based on his knowledge of student X's profile, he felt the 12:1+2 special class at
a. recommended by the CSE on August 30, 2013, (Exh. 10) was appropriate (trans. 88-89;300). He described the NYS curriculum used by the special class as appropriate given student X's functional levels and abilities because there were other children with higher cognitive levels and academic abilities in the same program and that in terms of needs student X was very comparable (trans. 90-91). He recalled that another CSE review was held on February 12, 2013, (Exh. 11) for the 2013-2014 school year and that CSE continued to recommend a special 12:1+2 class at Because the team considered the program and placement appropriate (trans. 94). Supports outlined in the August 30, 2012, and the February 12, 2013 JEP's included individual and group counseling and parent counseling to allow the parent to work with the aa. identify solutions for her son's needs (trans. 95).
L) by ee P| of student X at nl. April 30, On cross, stated that there was a written report of the observation (Exh.
2013 (trans. 187). He explained that the ME arr told him that they felt that they had a limited time for twenty minutes to view the program at th trans. 194). He recalled that the learning specialist, Ms who provided services to student X per ne IESP participated by telephone during the May 2012 IEP meeting (trans. 242;260). He recalled that the learning specialist expressed concerns regarding student X's ability to engage in academics (Exh. 8 at 2) and that ee: similar concerns (trans. 262). He described the[f class in 7 as a class with a general education teacher and a special education teacher working together to mainstream no more than twelve special education students (trans. 264). He stated that after the May 10, 2012, IEP meeting there were many questions to answer before determining the appropriate placement (trans. 265). He further stated that during the May 10, 2012, IEP meeting, the parent told the team that student X was not attending but was receiving home instruction (trans. 271). He maintained that there was no placement recommendation during the June 6, 2012 IEP meeting because he wanted the parent and student X to arrange for a trial visit to nd 12:1+2 program (trans. 272). He recalled tha TE «2s not present for the June 6, i, IEP a however, there was a discussion about the diagnosis of mild i and as noted in BE 2021100 (trans. 275-276). He recollected during the June 6, 2012, IEP meeting that student X was described as struggling and that he was not able to stay in school, and he considered student X as (trans. 284). He stated that the special 12:1+2 class for the 2012-2013 school year was a new program (trans. 287); however, there was a special class that he wanted the parent to visit at the in June 2012.
When questioned about the appropriateness of other placements, explained that the program was not appropriate for student X because It was not a diploma bound program (trans. 306). He further explained while there was a discussion about other programs at ee: ne during the June 6, 2012, IEP meeting, no packets were sent to other placements for student X during the 2012-2013 school year (trans. 310;350). He stated that the P| ee. ‘re... similar 12:1+2 staffing ratios; however, over the course of time the team was convinced that the fl vas similar to the | | and BE programs and was the least restrictive environment (trans. 426).
BE opined that profiles of the students listed in the class program (Exh. B) matched the profile of student X because all the children in the special 12:1+2 class for the 2012-2013 school year were male and were classified as either {i o and or had some features that were under the BE (rans. 361). He noted that student X had a similar IQ to the child identified as number nine and in terms of reading and writing level student X was functioning as well as half the children in the proposed class (Id.). He further noted that all the students in the proposed class had similar social and emotional issues (Id.).
BE -s:itica that she had a Master's degree in school psychology and a doctorate in psychology and had been a licensed and NYS certified school psychologist for the past twenty-three years, in private practice for ten years and employed by the since 1997 (trans. 435-437). She stated that she participated in the June 6, 2012, IEP meeting. She recalled that the parent presented information as well as the diagnosis iim (trans. 440). She explained that student X had fit the profile ofQF because of the diagnoses fo ii. i and described student X's history with and pe and his struggles with Po and problems (trans. 442). She stated that students with A | skills, but a well-developed verbal intelligence and (trans. 441). The ABAS-II she used to assess student X in November 2012 (Exh. 40) was a test of rating scales completed by student X's parents and two teachers at thefilang noted the ABAS-II measured adaptive behavior skills (trans. 462). stated that she had attended the August 30, 2012, IEP meeting and that she reported to the team that student X's profile included (trans. 464). She explained the was consistent with the neuropsychological finding of and the parent's report of student X's P| and| of not fitting in (Id.). She explained that the program entitled t the was designed for young adolescents generally diagnosed wit ) (trans. 469). She described the program as a pilot program and the children in the Program as students with average to superior intelligence, but who with fitting into th situations and with and trans. 469). She stressed the support utilized to address the described deficits included individual counseling, group counseling, as well as OT providers pushing into the classroom with assistive technology (trans. 470;490). She related that most of the students had team meetings with outside provider consultations as well as OT providers and school psychologists to provide video modeling to build social skills and problem solve (trans. 471). She explained that the August 30, 2012, IEP provided the same type of supports, individual and group counseling as well as weekly meetings with the parents and assistive technology and psychological consultation meeting (Exh. 10 at 9,10) to allow the teams to build a rapport with student X because he had had past difficulties in various school settings (trans 477).
EE :: 21-3 that she recalled meeting in person with the parent and student X in June 2012 and she discussed the Program and its components of a classroom with classroom teaching assistants and fall providers and herself as psychologist to address executive functioning issues; she recalled discussing the Program in detail with the parent during the August 30, 2012, IEP meeting (trans. 491). She recalled she emailed the CSE Chairperson and the Director of Pupil Personnel an alert, then, that she had a meeting for two hours with student X and the parent in July 16, 2012 (Exh. 112) and recalled that she described the Program and ways the program would develop executive skills; and ways counseling would be provided (trans. 509 After conversing with student X and observing his reaction to leaving he opined that the program would be appropriate to meet student X's needs (trans. 511). She explained that student X's profile included an ability to present high verbal skills and a history of: ras well as a need for executive skills and organizational development that made him a perfect fit thei Program as his profile matched the profiles of the other children in the class (Trans. 512). The August 30, 2012, IEP recommended supports to improve executive functions through assistive technology; and more assessments were recommended to design a more specific program for student X (trans. 516). She explained that while the CSE team felt that the recommended program and placement was appropriate, the team wanted additional evaluations to identify specific adaptive behavior needs (trans. 521).
On cross, stated that prior to meeting student X she reviewed IEPs, and past assessments to understand his diagnosis and classifications (trans. 571). She stated that she based her opinion on placeme ription of student X's learning disability, his history o and his A
a. and his neuropsychological update (trans. 630). She recalled that she was aware of Es it was extensively discussed in the May 2012 and the June 2012 IEP meetings and all this information led to a change in classification from ; | 633). She recalled that student X demonstrated P| EE &vine their meeting in July 2012 when his mother told her the way her son felt | his peers, and she observed student ~ foes he could not talk about " fit in with his peers (trans. 637). She recalled that she participated for the entire August 30, 2012 IEP meeting by telephone and she recalled discussing all the supports listed on the IEP including individual, group counseling, parent consultation, a psychological consultation with outside providers as well as a team meeting to address and issues and his learning needs (trans.
644:748). She further recalled that the parent informed the August 30, 2012, team that she was rejecting the program recommendation and the district placement and was placing her son in a boarding school i o address his needs (trans. 646).
When questioned about the reasons th ratings were not performed earlier than November 2012 EE tata that she did not assess student X with the | when she became aware that student X was not attending in the spring of 2012 (trans. 652). She stated that she did not request the ABAS-II ratings be provided to ne teachers or his tutor because she wanted the rater to assess the ways student X functions in his environment during the day (trans. 662;
666; 713).
When questioned as to her recollection of the May 14, 2013, IEP meeting, Dr. | | stated that there was a high degree of technological support in the form of laptops, and iPads and that she recalled a discussion during the meeting when the parent indicated her son was comfortable with his own laptop (trans. 716). She stated that access to a word processor and spell check and possession of a laptop computer was discussed extensively during the May 14, 2013, IEP meeting (trans. 717). She further stated that there was a disc a and al during the May 14, 2013, IEP meeting; however, she opined that could not take place without student X being present in the district environment (trans. 719). She recalled a discussion with parent who was concerned with the size of the district high school, and she recalled a discussion with the high school special education — ee the structure of the program with the guidance counselor and the teaching assistant pushing into the class and that the computer lab was twenty feet away from the academic classroom. The pr ll despite the large high school setting with 1600 students (trans. — Cl that the parent informed her that she was troubled about the high school with 1600 students during the May 14, 2013, IEP meeting (trans. 729). She did not recall a discussion regarding residential placements during the May 14, 2013, IEP meeting (trans. 737). She stated that she drafted a document entitled "The Initiative Guide (Secondary Clinicians) Summer Curriculum Work" (Exh. 110), but noted that she did not provide the document to the parent as she only informed the parent the way the counseling services would be delivered in high school (trans. 743). opined that the May 14, 2013, IEP was structured to meet student X's needs by the class size of 12:1+2 at thei sicn School because having three teachers in the classroom provided a lot of personal attention for twelve students (trans. 784; 791). She further opined that, for someone with emotional sensitivities, the small class size combined with other students with similar profiles and similar needs would be appropriate (trans. 785). She explained that the decision to place student X in an was intended to build his self-esteem as student X had strong math abilities and a non-self-contained class provided a challenge (trans. 786; 795). She stressed that the PR occa at the high school was related services of ee: ee o's help student X develop coping skills (Id.). She maintained the program modifications addressed student X's special education needs and the special education teacher was to monitor organization (Exh. 12 at 11) that would have met his needs (trans. 787). She stated that the additional time to complete assignments would help his fluency and organizational needs (trans. 788). She stated that ihe upported included but not limited to individual/group therapy as well as team meetings with outside BE sevvices would address hi needs_ at high school (trans. 789). a... of a Master’s degree, and permanently certified in special education in NYS, testified that he was a teacher at th or four years and that he was employed by the Chairperson for th rogram for the high school for the past ten years (trans. 821). He described th rogram as a transition program for eighth and ninth graders for five core academic subjects: English, science, social studies, math, and a business class (trans. 822). He explained that the rogram was also a transition from the middle school to the high school and that in his experience children who were placed in self-contained classrooms in middle school were able to transition to high school with the supports of the school counselor, the social worker, and the school psychologist (trans. 823). He stated that there was a ninth grade and a tenth grade program (trans 826). He explained that 12:1+2 staffing per special class allowed for individual paraprofessionals for extra individual attention (trans. 825). He stated that as Chairperson he monitored weekly and monthly IEP case management meetings to ensure collaboration with each teacher and service provider and to monitor progress (trans. 827). onfirmed that high school building contained 1600 students with four buildings, but the location of the MBP rogram was within two floors (trans. 831). He stated that he taught ninth grade biology and a career and management class within the | and there were five students in his classes (Id.). He stated that his students were capable academically, but required a small setting with himself and two teaching assistants to provide individual instruction (trans. 832).
BE scrives the visit to theffil on April 30, 2013 and stated that there were seven students in the room with student X and he and EE cote notes of their visit (Exh. L). He and ee. .:. then escorted to the academic buildings on the f-ampus (trans. 840). Mr agg recalled that he spoke to student X's resident counselor and resident dean and was informed that th staff was working on widening student X's social circle (trans. 841). He further recalled that hdl tare told him that math and science were areas of strength for student X as he was capable of advanced pre-calculus and pre-chemistry (trans. 843). explained that he drafted the study skills goals based on the ill staff's description of student X's strengths and weaknesses (trans. 847). He stated that he did not recall any disagreement with the study skills goals, the academic goals, the social/emotional goals or the vocational transition goals (trans. 848-849). He recalled a discussion of the recommendation for the special a... in th Program at the high school and he recalled a discussion regarding the areas of strength for student X in math and science and noted that th Program could provide support in a mainstream class so that student X could function independently. He explained that th class in algebra was recommended in addition to the other core academic subjects in the 12:1+2 special class (trans. 852). He explained that the individual a ..: mandated once a week for thirty minutes to ensure that student X would be able to transition smoothly into th Program as were the additional related services of parent counseling, group counseling once a week for thirty minutes in a group no larger than five, weekly counseling sessions with the high school psychologist and school social worker once a week for thirty minutes (trans. 855). He noted that the recommendation of assistive technology consultation by the fl provider, was mandated to ensure that student X had the correct programs to meet assistive technology needs (trans. 857). He noted that group counseling was mandated to work on student X's social/emotional issues (trans. 858). He stated that the weekly meetings for forty minutes allowed for collaboration with nf ninth and tenth grade teachers and the assistive technology staff (trans. 863). He noted the social clubs and activities available for socialization in the Program included the book club, the rock club, the science club and the —_ club (trans. 866). He stated that there was a "best buddies club" to pair Programs student with a mainstream student to provide support during lunch (trans. 868). He described that assistive technology cart available to st Program had twelve laptops with software loaded for each individual student (trans. 871). He noted that there was collaboration with the OT provider, the special education teacher and the assistive technology provider to ensure that reading and writing programs on the laptops were implemented (trans. 872).
On —_— = a discussion of the daily life at thelfil including morning meeting, team leadership meetings and classroom work during his observation on April 30, 2013 (trans. 884). He recollected that a discussion of the ways the entire program at th met student X's needs (trans. 886). He stated that he learned from the sen that student X's functioning levels were strengths in math and science and weaknesses in writing due to the a: TE... 897).
On cross stated while he att May 14, 2013 IEP meeting, he did not recall a specific discussion of student X' nor did he recall a discussion of any other program except the Program for the 2013-2014 school year (trans. 903). He stated that he did not recall the parent objecting at any point during the May 14, 2013 IEP meeting except that she was concerned about her son's ability to transition to a large class (trans. 913). a certified special education teacher and a possessor of a Master's degree in special education, elementary education and early education, testified that she taught emotionally disturbed children in a self-contained classroom, and she taught in az for court mandated emotionally disturbed children (trans. 949). She stated that she was employed by TM a teacher in nell program, a self-contained program for children and then as a teacher in th program for the past ten years (trans, 950). She stated that she was the special education teacher for the class during the 2012-2013, and her class had two teaching assistants with eight children so that the student to staff ratio was and _ | the maximum class size. She described her class as bright but very seventh and eighth graders (trans. 952). She stressed the structured routine was intended to be a calm environment to support ne children in the class and explained that she used "back mainstreaming" or general education students to push into the class to provide role models and to engage in conversation with her class (trans. 954). She described the various clubs (robotic, Lego, wrestling, basketball, art or government) that her class was encouraged to join to promote social skills (trans. 957). She explained that the social skills class met once a week to practice socialization. She stated that she trained a few general education seventh or eighth graders to join her class during social skills to practice social opportunities at events outside the school like going to the movies (trans. 959). She explained that and psychologist pushed into the class to work 7 UU and | and all the related service providers and she attended transitional disciplinary teams meetings which included the family to meet the needs of le (trans. 961). She related that during the 2012-2013 school year her special class was located in a central area near the library, and for lunch some of the students would go to general lunch, a large, noisy, chaotic environment, and some of her students ate in the classroom. She explained that she used the lunchtime in class as a mainstreaming opportunity and general educational students were present at lunch to converse or to play games (trans. 962). She opined that student X's profile was similar to the students in her class (Id.). She described that she utilized "back mainstreaming" which involved a group of students whom she described as "peer leaders" or high academic achievers with high social skills who socialized with her class for 39 minutes per day (trans. 982;985). She stated that she and the school psychologist trained the "peer leaders" to work with her class (Id.). She noted there were other mainstreaming opportunities for the class at lunch and the specials (art, gym music and technology) as well as club activities (trans. 984).
On cross, stated that she took courses throu to teach children and received certifications in a... models in 1970-1980 (trans. 990). She acknowledged that she had not taken any courses in <gastodeiigazoel ee 993). She explained that the one of the two teaching assistants in her na Class for the 2012-2013 school year was a NYS certified teacher, who had taught in the district for a year, and the other teaching assistant ("TA") had two years of college (trans. 1006). She stressed that both the TAs had training to teach MBehildren through the two superintendent days and she provided training and monthly TA training meetings for 45 minutes (trans. 1007;1009). She noted that the TAs assisted with instruction through the common core as instruction was differentiated (trans. 1010). She stated that she attended the August 30, 2012, IEP meeting, and he 12:1+2 class which was described as a pilot program was recommended for student X (trans. 1013), as the executive functioning program and assistive technology were new to the GR: (trans. 1014-1016).
stated that she discussed student X's present levels of performance at the August 30, 2012, IEP meeting and did not recall if the parent expressed any concerns (trans. 1020). She did not recall if the parent told the August 30, 2012, IEP team that she intended to enroll student X at hf cans 1021). She stated that she did recall that the IEP team requested more evaluations for student X for a functional assessment, an occupation therapy assessment and an assistive technology assessment (trans. 1022). She described the implementation of the assistive technology and the graphic organizers (Exh. E) and listed the computer program her class utilized during the summer of 2013 (trans. 1030).
Ms RE <2 the programs utilized in the 2012-2013 school year including the acronym ROCK (Exh. G) which stood for respect, organize, cooperate, and keep safe (trans. 1035). She explained that ROCK was the philosophy of her class (trans. 1036). She stated she did not recall describing "back mainstreaming" at any of the IEP meetings the parent attended (trans. 1045). She explained that she spent three days training the typically developed students who would be participateng in the "back mainstreaming" prior to bringing the students into her class and she outlined her expectations of the "best buddy" system for five periods prior allowing the students to enter her class (trans. 1048). She explained that the typically developed students were volunteers and she obtained permission from the district for her program to allow her class to have opportunities to socialize with typically developed students (trans. 1049). holder of Master's degrees in ll and special education with a concentration in assistive technology, testified that she was a licensed and certified ee: and that she completed duties for assistive technology and physical psychological management (trans. 1053;1055). She stated that she had worked as an J provider for a school in for nine years and was employed by the 'for the past four years (trans. 1055). She explained that she worked as an provider for the middle and high school, and part of her duties was to conduct evaluations and train staff on the use of assistive technology and push into classes to work with Il d Ms. to determine ways a student's executive function needs affected a Seprofile (trans. 1057). explained that she worked on a so: 108) entitled "Improving through Assistive Technology" which was intended to help students improve their (trans. 1059). She stated that the plan was intended to identify the needs of the students after the assessment was conducted to determine the tools the student would need to achieve a task (trans. 1060). She stated that during the 2012-2013 school year, she pushed into the class for a period of 39 minutes each week to carry out activities associated with the plan (trans. 1061). She described the various software programs she utilized including, "Draft Builder" which provided a visual way of outlining and providing detail that the students seemed to enjoy and "Read and Write Gold," a comprehensive software program that addressed reading, writing and research, and another software program "text-to-speech" was used for students with difficulty reading and decoding (trans. 1062-63). She stated that computers and iPads were available for the students in Ms. ..:: during the 2012-2013 school year (trans. 1066).
Ms TE cescrived the self-management plan designed for each student to assess their weaknesses and obtain the best tool to bypass their difficulties (trans. 1068). She stated that she provided individual OT services for many of the students as well s AT services depending on the specific OT and AT needs (trans. 1070). She described the monthly TDT meetings in which she participated with the team including the parents, support staff, teachers, and psychologist (trans. 1072).
Ms stated that she evaluated student X in the areas of| and AT and also participated in the IEP on June 6, 2012, as student X had visual motor and visual spatial and some reading and writing issues and she thought she could address those issues through AT with a word processor (trans. 1080). She indicated that the June 6, 2012 JEP recommended an AT consultation which she conducted in November 2012 (trans. 1081). She stated that she conducted an OT evaluation on November 26, 2012 (Exh. 36), and used the Bruinink-Osteretsky Test of Motor Proficiency-Second Edition ("BOT 2"), a test of fine motor skills and the Test of Visual Perceptual Skills ("TVPS"), a non-motor test of visual perception (1086). She related that on the BOT-2, student X had average to above average skills in the area of visual motor, fine motor precision and manual dexterity and the TVPS scores indicated that he had a weakness in visual memory as well as visual discrimination (trans. 1086). a = she also assessed the grapho-motor abilities of student X and found his writing was increasingly illegible as he had difficulty closing his letters a... decreased and uneven spacing (trans. 1089). She stressed that based in her evaluation student X did not need OT services, but AT services would benefit student X (trans. 1089). She opined that the "Draft Builder" and "Read and Write Gold" software programs would benefit student X with the deficits she found in her assessment (trans. 1090). She further opined that "Draft Builder" would address his grapho-motor skills and would benefit him within the classroom to support his academics (trans. 1092).
PF recalled that she conducted an AT assessment on student X (Exh. 39) and noted that the AT assessment profiled student X's ability to write including handwriting speed, and keyboard speed and found that student X was able type more quickly than he was able to write (trans. 1097). She stated that as a result of her assessment she opined that student X would benefit from "Draft Builder,” which was used in Ms. a: ::: in the 2012-2013 school year and was a graphic organizer software to create a linear outline and a visual outline with different colors and a bibliography tool for high level research and text-to-speech and spell check (trans. 1102).
<< that she attended the February 12, 2013 IEP meeting and presented the results of her evaluation to the team (trans. 1104). She recalled that "Draft Builder" was added to the list of AT devices (Exh. 11 at 9) in the IEP (trans. 1106). She opined that P| 12:1+2 class would have been an appropriate placement for student X in the 2012-2013 school year because he matched many of the profiles of the students who uso in reading, writing, and e...: were Ktrans. 1107).
Ether opined that the 12:1+2 special class Program at ie: school would have been an appropriate placement for student X as it was a highly structured class which provided academic support and support for the emotional needs of ucents. She noted that all the high school EFclass students have their own laptop and that the teachers incorporate smart board lessons and the AT onto the computers (trans. 1109).
On cross Ms acknowledged that the June 6, 2012 IEP did not indicate that hl quested testing (trans. 1113).
THE PARENT’S CASE
The parent TE» <2ccmic Dean at TM | and Learning Specialized at the [ftestified in support of the parent’s claim for tuition reimbursement for the unilateral placement of student X in the [il The parent maintained that nA cited to provide a FAPE for the 2012-2013 school year and the 2013-2014 school year as CSE failed to offer an appropriate program as the offered program was a new program with no clear curriculum and the placements for the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school year were too large as student X required a smaller environment (trans. 11794). The parent disputed the August 30, 2012, IEP program because student X’s -including but } organizational information as well as a diagnosis of a mild and TE which required a more intense program (Exh. | at 9,12). The parent argued that the WE faited to show the parent ways these could be addressed in the class for the 2012-2013 school year (Id.). The parent asserted that the failed to offer FAPE for the 2013-2014 because the neither the ll class nor the | ES was appropriate and the recommendation of th class and the a as made in opposition to the parent's concerns for a program with very small classes and high levels of support. The parent sought reimbursement for tuition at the ex. 1 at 16-17). The parent believed that the placement at thelfil was appropriate and that the equities favored her.
The parent described student X's educational history and | problems which began in the playground i trans. 1195). The parent stated student X attended for kindergarten as her husband was ill and as her daughter was already attending [i and she needed both children to attend the same school (trans. 1197). She stated that student X attended [a for kindergarten through fourth grade; however, he did poorly academically and he struggled i ... 1211). She stated that student X attended ll for fifth sixth grade as she and her husband separated and student X moved in with his father who was living in TT trans. 1213). She stressed while 7 student X was classified and he received IEPs for both fifth and sixth grades and he made a lot of academic progress (trans. 1214).
The parent noted her husband became ill again and moved back to ]j her in
a. she enrolled student X 7 located i for the 2010-2011 school year and noted that student X repeated the sixth grade as , I was more academically rigorous (trans. 1222). She recalled that she attended a CSE meeting for student X ine uwviic Schools; however, despite the fact that student X qualified for special educational services because the IEEE school was a private school, could not offer special educational services (trans. 1223).She stated that student X did not receive special education services for the sixth (2010-2011) grade or the seventh (2011-2012) grade; however, he was able to access assistance from the learning specialist while he was at TE cans. 1226). She stated that student X was very unhappy at as he felt bullied and ostracized, and after a school break in February 2012, she removed her son from BE cans. 1227). She explained that she arranged for to provide the curriculum to a tutoring educational program in a called I Learning where her son received 1:1 tutoring and finished the 2011-2012 school year (trans.1228).
The parent stated that she attended Bh cs: meeting on May 10, 2012, and recalled that the CSE team discussed her son’s academic and EE ccs (trans. 1233).She recalled a discussion of the self-contained class with a staffing ratio of 12:1:1 — (trans. 1235). She recollected that on June 5, 2012, she visited rfl... observe a special class and observed a student, the special education teacher, Ms and a child at lunch time, and she opined that the children she observed were not student X's peers except by age and grade (trans. 1238;1448). She further stated that she attended CSE meeting on June 6, 2012, and recalled that WB tierce the meeting and that suggested alternative programs for BE <tcents in th program 7 and BR cc in a: 2: 1247-1247). She stated that she was not sure if any special 12:1:1 class was appropriate (trans. 1249). She recalled that she told the CSE team that student X had a diagnosis o provided the team the description (Exh. A) and recalled that the CSE team recommended the 12:1:1 special class a and no other placement (trans. 1257;1260;1270;1277). She further recalled a discussion with who told her that the bridge program was new, and she detailed the part of the program (trans. 1263). She related that she attended a CSE meeting in August 30, 2012, and decided to allow student X to decide whether he wanted to attend the special 12:1:1 class at the 2s noted in her email (Exh. S); however, the ultimate decision was hers (trans. 1269). She stated she told the CSE team on August 30, 2012 that she intended to enroll student X at the and that she understood that the 12:2:1 program recommended by the CSE was the program that incorporated the IEPs from May and June 2012 (trans. 1524).
The parent recalled that the CSE team requested her permission to perform assessments (trans. 1277). She explained that the was able to evaluate student X during the Thanksgiving break in November 2012 (trans. 1291). She opined that her son progressed at thdllflbecause the school catered to children with and EE anc
|placement was appropriate as her son was -and required a full-time setting to address his (trans. 1293). She further opined that her son progressed academically, emotionally and socially (trans. 1295).
The parent stated that she attended a MEIEP meeting in February 2013, and recalled a discussion of the evaluation and the Mend GB assessments (trans. 1299).She stated that on April 30, 2013, iniicse scheduled an observation and she received a telephone call from the nurse a. requested that she collect her son who was ill and had trouble breathing (trans. 1305). She stated her son's doctor diagnosed acute bronchitis (trans. 1306).
The parent recalled another: SE meeting on May 14, 2013, and recalled a discussion of the high school Program and the various opportunities to participate in sports (trans. 1310). She recalled that she asked the team about ways the high school BE rogram staff would address the BE: 21<2:cs that her son required and she was told that the children would be removed from the class and sent to the guidance counselor, the principal's office o TT... She did not recall if she received any written material describing the high school 3g Program (trans. 1313). She stated that she was concerned that her son would move from a smaller environment to a large school and was very concerned with the pl ace ed that the high school Program staff did not understand and had no plans for ae... 1314). She stated that the fact that inelf rogram in the high school was located in a small space in a large building so her son would not have to travel a long distance to his classes or gym, did not alleviate her concerns regarding the large size of the high school (trans. 1316). She stated that no one explained to her that her son would attend only one lass instead of all special 12:1+2 classes (trans. 1317). She noted that there was a discussion of ways the high school class would use technology, laptops, iPads; however, she did not recall a discussion of how her son's issues would be met (trans. 1321). She stated that she placed her son at the fl for the 2013-2014 school year because she did not consider the SD high school p program appropriate (trans. 1324). She opined that her son progressed during the 2013-2014 school year because he was learning techniques to address nis and he made academic progress in his writing and research skills (trans. 132531336).
On cross, the parent stated that she placed her son at a private general education facility so that both her son and her daughter could attend the same school (trans. 1349). She acknowledged that she never placed student X OR ie she resided in d that she accepted the 504 Plan with accommodations developed by = . third grade; however, she recalled that her son did poorly in third grade despite the report (Exh. 20) that indicated her son experienced tremendous growth and — academically and socially (trans. 1351). She noted her son became a resident o for fifth grade in a special class (trans. 1359). She further noted that her son continued at BEE «2 ore: however, he I her nosban became 11] so she removed her son fron o: seventh grade (trans. 1360). She stated that her son had a positive experience with the public school a because her son's needs were met, and the school modified and intervened to assist her son's education (Id.). She recalled a discussion of the possibility of A se: declassifying her son (Exh.
3 at 4) because he had met his goals on the IEP meeting on June 14, 2010 (trans. 1363).
On cross, the parent stated that she placed her son at Wooster for the 2010-2011 school year because she wanted her son to attend the same school as his sister (trans. 1365). She stated that her son had to repeat sixth grade ; chat a small private college prep school with small class sizes of twelve to fourteen students (Id.). She related that there were no special education services at BE powever, they had a learning specialist (trans. 1367;1444;1446). She noted that academically her son performed okay during the first year at EE nowever, he felt the children at | ae him (trans. 1370). She stated that she did not ask a support because ae i: not offer special education services and that she did not contact ma School District nor did she conta (trans. 1372). She stated that her son deteriorated a during the seventh grade, that he felt nore i and that had no plan to assist him with his: oncems except to alert the teachers to discuss conflict resolution (trans. 1378). She stated that in late winter or early spring of 2012 she decided to remove her son from TE. ever, she did not alert fo the fact that she placed her son at cans. 1382). She stressed that she did not sive consent to observe her son at a... did she ask thefiicse for a meeting until April of 2012, and she was unsure if her son returned to et: January 24, 2012 (Trans. 1383; 1531).
The parent recalled attending the May 10, 2012 CSE meeting with who presented her evaluation (Exh. 36) and noted that RE commended increased educational, emotional, and social support; however i id not suggest a residential placement (trans. 1442). The parent acknowledged that no report provided to the May 10, 2012 CSE meeting recommended a residential placement (trans.
1447). The parent recalled attending the June 6, 2012, CSE meeting, which occurred one day after her observation o ; Class at lunchtime when she was only able to observe one student, an aide and P| however, the parent did not reschedule another observation of the special class until after June 5, 2012 (trans. 1449). The parent acknowledged that no recommendation for ME otacement was given at the June 6, 2012, IEP meeting (trans. 1450). She stated that she did not recall when she mentioned thei. the tar, but recalled a discussion with ED 0: thin July 2012 (trans. 1452). She could not explain an email dated July 11, 2012, from Ms Mr. ex. 112 at 6), which indicated that the parent did not agree that student X required an outside program (trans. 1454). The parent recalled a visit with vs on July 16, 2012 after reviewing an email dated July 16, 2012, from Ms. (Eo Mr BBB Fexh. 112 at 13), which indicated that Ms spent two hours with the parent and student X; however, she did not recall the discussion except to note that student X would fit into Ms EB ass (trans. 1456;1460). The parent recalled Ms plained the recommended program for fifteen minutes on July 16, 2012. The parent maintained that she would decide whether or not to place student X in Ms as despite the note in the July 16, 2012 email (Exh. 112 at 13) indicating student X would make the decision. The parent maintained that despite her email to Mr dated July 17, 2012 (Exh. S) indicating that student X would decide whether or not he wanted to be in Ms. GE <12ss. she would make the decision regarding placement in Ms elass (trans. 1462). She stated that she and student X were traveling to for student X to attend camp July 18, 2012, through August 23, 2012 (trans. 1467). The parent stated that she attended the August 30, 2012 meeting. The parent stated that no assessment or recommendation for a /placement was presented, nor was any assessment recommending a placement presented to the February 12, 2013, or the May 14, 2013 CSE reviews (trans. 1409-1410).
On cross, the parent stated that she contacted theffil on May 3, 2012 or May 4, 2012 (Exh. 119:trans. 2071), and submitted the application by overnight mail (CC) to the on May 26, 2012. She recalled that she submitted the same material for the application (Exh. 120) to place student X in camp in th in August 2012 and to place student X at the a for the 2012-2013 school year (trans. 2078;2082). She recollected that she completed the parent questionnaire (Exh. 123) for the summer program on June 5, 2012, and assumed student X completed the student questionnaire (Exh. 1243) at the same time (trans. 2090). She noted that the questionnaires were sent t School and Learning on May 28, 2012 (trans. 2092) and the grades from School were provided to the as part of his admission documents (trans. 2103). She recalled that student X was admitted to thei on June 5, 2012 (trans. 2106).She explained that she did not sign the enrollment contract to thefl until July 2012 because she hoped tha would provide options (trans. 2018). She noted that the deadline for admission to the summer program was July 1, 2012 and she faxed the registration to meet the deadline and a paid the tuition amount of $2,700 (Exh. 134) trans. 2110). She further noted that on July 2, 2012 she received the letter from the Director of Admissions of the || (Exh. 135) welcoming student X to thelill for the start of the 2012-2013 school year on August 28, 2012 (trans. 2114-2115). She stated that on June 6, 2012, she sent the fia check in the amount of $75 for a deposit (Exh. 137) and on June 21, 2012, she sent the a check # 864 in the amount of } | the first quarter payment in the amount of aa plus A deposit (Exh. DD at 8;trans. 2140). The parent stated that she mentioned the fll to the at some point prior to the August 30, 2012 IEP meeting, but she could not recall the date (trans. 2146). She stated she might have mentioned thelfiiiko Mr. :: August 30, 2012, but was not sure and she did not invite the Wa siatr to participate in any IEP meeting (trans. 2148).
The parent maintained that she paid in June 2012 because she did not consider the 12:2:1 program offered by BE appropriate for the 2012-2013 school year (trans 2141). The parent further maintained that she paid (Exh. 141) on January 8, 2014 to reserve a spot for the 2013-2014 school year (trans. 2143). She stated that she reserved a spot for the 2013-2014 school year in January 2014 because she did not think the high school program _ appropriate (trans. 2144). testified that she was licensed to practice in NYS in neuropsychology and in private practice for the past twenty-five years (trans. 1559). She stated she was familiar with and had assessed student X since the age of eight in 2006 (trans. 1564). She explained that the complex profile the student presented in her neuropsychological evaluation (Exh. 17) included above average cognitive capacity with a specific strength in Po and PF in visual spatial, social/emotional, executive functioning, working memory, retrieval fluency and processing speed (trans. 1570). She described the — staying on topic and mi. insight (trans. 1571). She recalled that she recommended increased support and educational accommodations as he was ae i a. ae: P| EE ces. 1572). She further recalled that she recommended a 504 plan to obtain BR services as well as extended time for tests, preferential seating, a direct instruction and assistance with organization and study skill (trans. 1572). She recollected that during the 2011-2012 school year the parent told her student X oo ii P| and she conducted another assessment (Exh. 36) in April 2012 and noted that student X continued to demonstrate above average intellectual functioning ond in visual spatial, motor coordination, P| functioning and processing of BE sexciioning (trans. 1577). She stated that student X had a profile consistent with J and PY and was in need of EE anc BE sppor (trans. 1578). She stressed that after six years student X was expressing and EEE 20. his ability to meet expectations of school staff (trans. 1580). recollected that she found student X was unable to ae: <:::: from his peers (trans. 1582). She defined student X's ‘as a tendency to become st or mm: a so that he could not f or EE (20s. 1586). She further explained that student X's | | his BE cant that trumped cognition (trans. 1591). She stated that during the summer of 2012, she recalled a discussion with the parent about 7 0tti(i‘ that student X would develop a pe of | | and (trans. 1598). She stated that the es a school for children with | a mild BR trans. 1599). She opined that aT cctting with small groups of students in a team in the class together and at home together allowed children with Po challenges to form TE cans. 1600). She recalled that she participated in the May 10, 2012, IEP meeting (Exh. 10) and opined that the proposed 12:1+2 in ihe was not appropriate because it would impact his TT and was too large an environment for student X (trans. 1607). She recalled that during the summer of 2012, she did not recommend a day program at th Bh cas. 1613). recollected that she participated in the February 2013 IEP meeting by telephone again and stated that a HE setting provided student X with an opportunity to form peer relationships and provide student X with an opportunity rofl | Ae correct his Eb 0u his BE cans. 1614) She explained that there were two opportunities per day for team meetings with adults, teachers, and seven peers to discuss incidents that had happened and to provide student X with model alternatives and interpretations so student X could reel ic, | | and be available for learning in the classroom (trans. 1616) She reviewed the 2012-2013 report cards (Exh. V) and noted that student X had success academically and success in no actions of others (trans. 1618). She noted that she assessed student X again in September 2013 (AA at 123) and noted that after an occurred student X had Po thoughts to his
2. 1630). She recalled that she spoke to student X's counselor who told her that his parent removed him from thdiJand she interviewed student X who told her that he wi with _ She opined that student X's TE ws evidence of a positive expression of trust in that he could express his Jjto nis (trans. 1631). She recalled that she determined it was a: student X to return to the after a few days away (Id.).
On cross stated that Exhibit AA consisted of her three evaluations and protocols and data from tests (trans. 1648). She stated that she assessed student X in 2006 so that his mother could understand the reasons student X was having in ‘and during her evaluation (Exh. 17) student X demonstrated characteristics of however, she was unsure if student X was taking RR co: AEE cans. 1655). She acknowledged that she assessed student X in 2006 with the Beck Youth Inventory and found his score was statistically within the average range regarding his
- and BR trans. 1657). She further acknowledged that she reported in 2006 (Exh. 17) that student X's issues were primarily attention, motor and a and there was no reference to (trans. 1666). She stated she recommended to address motor deficits and a 504 plan (trans. 1668). She explained that the next time she saw student X was in 2012 when she conducted another neuropsychological assessment (Exh. 36) while that student was attended (trans. 1671). She further explained that in April 2012, student X still enrolled at p but was unable to attend) (trans. 1672). She stated that she was unsure if student X was receiving any special educational services at for the 2011-2012 school year, but believed he was receiving counseling (trans. 1673;1680). She explained that student X's parent requested the evaluation in 2012 because student X had Fo and recalled that she again administered the Beck Youth Inventory and found he scored in the average or normal range great difficulty ood (trans. 1688). She acknowledged that in 2012 report (Exh. 36) had no reference t however, she considered synonymous Wi! IE (rans. 1682;1684;1739). She explained that she recommended increased educational, P| and support as student X was not getting along with peers and had fT mecting academic expectations (Exh. 36 at 5; trans. 1687). She could not recall when the parent communicated the as the placement for student X for the 2012-2013 school year (trans. 1681;1693;1703). She could not recall when she became aware that student X attended the during the summer of 2012 (trans. 1716).
On cross BE s.2:<2 that she could not recall whether she recommended a BE» acement during the May 10, 2012, meeting (trans. 1689). She stated that she did not recall whether she objected to the special class placement at the May 10, 2012 CSE meeting (trans. 1691). She stated that th of student X's father contributed to student x (trans. 1697). She acknowledged that she had never visited and could not recall if she ever visited a high school (trans. 1700). She stated that she again assessed student X in September 2013 (Exh. Y) and acknowledged that the descriptions of student X's functioning in school were similar to the description of his functioning in school as noted in her assessment in 2012 (Exh. 36) as student X continued 7 statements and actions of his peers (trans. 1716-1717). She stated that when student X communicated his thoughts to his {i counselor, it was the first time he expressed his ‘(trans. 1718). She stated that her September 2013 assessment did not contain she found a mild EEE cia gnostic category that includes mrgesemdsmenbskecy, -cnvedewertt p | which was consistent with the meaning of ee 2s. 1740).
P| Academic Dean at thell testified she was a holder of Master's degreesin childhood and childhood special education and was certified in NYS grades first through sixth. She stated that she worked as a teaching assistant in home programs with students who were diagnosed with She stated that she worked as teacher with a. students with BE istics and then she worked at the | | as a learning specialist coordinator and Academic Dean (trans. 1808-1809). She stated that part of her duties included meeting with learning specialist, and she signed off on 504 plans (trans. described the school as es children with Eo: boarders (trans. 1816;1819).She
TTI that the teachers atid not have special education ee ::: ee: approximately one hundred certifications because hf vovides the training to educate children on the P| or (trans 1815;1836). She stated that there was a therapeutic component tied into the academic component and explained that the school utilized the team approach and that there were four teams (A to D) consisting of twenty-four students per team with seven professionals consisting of a learning specialist, a residential dean, a counselor, and four teachers (trans. 1838;1903). She described the accommodations or modifications that theffl titizea for the students who had issues included teaching organizational skills for writing a paper and cleaning their room and extended time to complete tasks (trans. 1841-1844). She stressed that OT providers were on staff, and computers were provided for all the students (trans. 1845). She described the individual and community class.as a class that addressed social deficits and provided social skills supports (trans. 1846).She further explained that ind ciass addressed a BE s.-s (trans. 1848), and that hall meetings were an extension of the EM class and were structured time that addressed social behaviors and provided social skills supports and addressed social behaviors (trans. 1853). She stated that the class size was six to seven students (trans. 1867), and there were currently 93 students for a six-day program (trans. 1875). She noted that the community meetings at 8:40 a.m. to 9 a.m. on Monday to Friday to "front load" the students to ensure that everyone in indi was aware of things that were going on within the community (trans. 1881). She stated that student X's file (Exh. DD) contained the 504 plan which the learning specialist created for him (trans. 1891). She stated that student X attended the summer program at the nc described student X's 504 plan with accommodations of alternative seating, assistive technology and dictation software (trans. 1857).
On -— that as Academic Dean she was responsible to sign off on 504 plans for the teams and she supervised the team leaderships once a week (trans. 1902). She stated that she was also an administrator on duty every Thursday night, so she worked with the residential dean who oversaw the campus and the program and she worked with other administrator to supervise the entire program. She acknowledged that her resume (Exh. BB) contained the two expired certificates from NYS to teach students with and without disabilities had expired (trans. 1904). She stated that as the || was not part of the NYS special education system, there was no need to keep those certifications (trans. 1905). She recalled that she spent 30 hours per week performing 1:1 as a teaching assistant for a single family during 2000-2002, and then became a substitute teacher within in system from 2007-2008 and her first full-time position was at thas a learning specialist from 2008-2009 (trans. 1909). She explained that her training in developing 504 plans was derived from her Master's degree program and working with the educational director, the clinical director, and other learning specialists (trans. 1911-1912). She recollected that she worked as a learning specialist at the until the end of the 2011 and then she moved to program support and began to supervise learning specialists and to manage the accommodations for the SAT and ACT as a learning services coordinator (trans. 1913-1914). She stated that she worked as a learning services coordinator for the 2011-2012 and the 2012-2013 school years (trans.
| —_— that she met student X for the summer of 2012 as she was 1915 one of the leadership members of his team (trans. 1918). She could not recall the number of students who attended the summer 2012 program, but recalled there were two summer sessions, each for a two-week period (trans. 1920). She recollected that the sole contact she had with student X was a few conversations about socialization during the two-week summer session in the summer of 2012 (trans. 1921). She acknowledged that she did not administer any assessments to student X or directly instruct student X during the summer of 2012 and could not recall if she provided any instructional supports to student X for the 2012-2013 school year (trans. 1923). She could not recall if she observed student X for the 2012-2013 school year (trans. 1928). She did not recall an understanding of student X's educational or medical profile (trans. 1923;1939). She could not explain the grade rubric for the 2012-2013 school year (trans. 1939-1943). She stated that her understanding of 504 plans was derived from her degree and her training from theffil educational director and the tlinical director, but she could not explain how she was trained (trans. 1951).She reviewed the 2012-2013 504 plan (Exh. CC at 1984-1895) for student X and indicated that the evaluations listed on page one were the basis for the 504 plan and that reading comprehension was an area of strength (trans. 1957;1960). She stated that she was not aware of the evaluations listed on the 2012-2013 504 plan and could not explain the ways the evaluations were used to develop the 504 plan (trans. 1968).
On cross, Ms. | stated that for the 2013-2014 school year, she was the Academic Dean and recalled that she observed student X's teachers, but did not recall if she observed student X for the 2013-2014 school year (trans. 1928). She did recall that as Academic Dean she reviewed student X's 504 plan for the 2013-2014 school year (Exh. 117) to ensure the plan on page two included the accommodations and modifications | embedded into the program were contained in the plan (trans.1960;1962). She could not explain the reason student X's reading comprehension was listed as an area of deficit in the 2013-2014 504 plan (Exh. 117) when it was an area of strength in the 2012-2013 504 plan (trans. 1961). She stated that the accommodations and modifications listed in the 504 plan for 2012-2013 and the 504 plan for 2013-2014 were specific to student X unless the accommodations were alre edded in ih rogram (trans. 196331969). Specialist of School, testified that she was the learning specialist during the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years at the (trans. 2576;2361). She stated that she was studying for her Master’s degree in educational psychology (Exh. EE) and was working towards a certification in behavioral interventions and through Concordia University of Portland online (trans. 2176; 2437). She stated that she had worked with private schools prior to the and had received an associate level certificate for Orton-Gillingham approach in 2003 (trans. 2178). She stated that during the 2012-2013 school year, her role as a learning specialist involved contacting parents and parent training. She stressed that while she had no certificates relating to the teaching profession, she had received training at inefilo understand the role of executive functioning and the ways emotions impact students (Id.). She stated that prior to meeting student X in the summer of 2012, in her role as a learning specialist she reviewed student X's evaluations and worked with student X as she and two colleagues taught a social pragmatics course, I & C and so she worked with student X both on his academics and his emotions to address social issues (trans. 2185). She explained that she was on the floor Friday nights to check in with students and to review their social situations and address social mishaps (trans. 2187; 2324). She noted that the main goal with student X was to provide him with coping tools and provide him with a counseling to reach im P| (trans. 2189). She stated that student X was in Team C (Exh. CC at 23) consisting of eighteen boys with BE obiems for the 2012-2013 school year for grades eighth to eleventh (trans. 2192;2295). She further stated that the 2012-2013 school year was broken into five quints and each quint lasted five weeks (trans. 2197).
«21: that the fil has a 504 accommodation modification plan for each of the students at the | embedded into theffiffprogram and noted she did not work in the summer of 2012; however, student X attended a two-week program at the | i July 2012 (Exh. FF) and noted that while there were no educational plans at thefil (trans. 2245), the did utilize a 504 plan and that 504 plans were developed during the first quint (trans. 2205). She noted that she was responsible for the 504 plan developed in the Fall of 2012 which contained four assessments: the the fF Children JG for teacher rating scale and po for student rating scale (Exh. CC at 10) and that as parent contact she reviewed the four assessments with the family, observed the student in I & C, and used the information contained in student X's 504 plan (trans. 2212). She stated that in her job as learning specialist she reviewed the information contained in ne and cating scales, and she reviewed the 504 conducted in the Spring of 2013 (Exh. CC at 92) and noted that student X continued to have deficits in the area o BE 20s. 2237).
BE «piaines that as there were three teams for the 2012-2013 school year and that each team had a seven member staff including a learning specialist, the residential dean, the team counselor and four academic teachers and the staff met three times per week for two to three hours (trans. 2248). She noted that the Humanities teacher had a Master's degree in special education; the science teacher had a Master's degree in science, and the I & C teacher had a Master's degree in education (Exh. V at 2). She also noted that thelfil required academic teachers to have at least a Bachelor's degree in their specific field (trans. 2251). She stated that each evening a faculty member on duty for the evening session with Team C sent a report to her about the ways each student was performing throughout the day during the residential lesson (trans. 2253). She stated that at evening check-in, student X was tasked to identify some problem behaviors and Team C met each day for thirty minutes Monday through to Saturday to discuss the students (trans. 2285). a ::-« that the students in Team C were auditory learners and many struggled with executive functioning I with high verbal comprehension skills and and also struggled with ES ‘i in 2i (trans. 2259;2296). She stated that student X was TS struggled with eo ith hi mprehension skills and (trans. 2260) and had lO family dynamics and ris have i about the cause of BE within his family and with his peers at the trans. 2277).
PF provided examples of student X's progress during the 2012-2013 school year including passing grades and satisfactory effort as well as positive comments on the present level of performance (Exh. V at 2-5) and student X improved his social study skills (trans. 2270). She indicated that student X's progress was evidenced by student X’s ability to provide a campus tour for potential students exploring the possibility to enrolling in th and that student X improved in his self-advocacy skills, and his ability to meet deadlines (trans. 2267-2268). She opined that th et student X's needs as he required a small school and the classes at the BB were capped at eight students with a slow pace of instruction (trans. 2274). She noted that the grouping of twenty-two students in Team C was homogenous even within the age range of eighth and eleven graders (with a three-year age difference), that the academic class size for student X was very small and thal skins and skills were embedded throughout thelllorogram (trans. 2272;2507;2515).
BE «:12incc that student X received po for the 2012-2013 twice a month for a formal session for thirty to forty-five minutes (trans. 2285) and that student X had a great difficulty with is, experienced | oe the past, and worked with three different counselors during the 2012-2013 school year (trans. 2280;2326). She stated during the evening study sessions at the dorm, the Team C academic faculty ran the session to work on strategies (trans. 2277; 2293). She explained that various techniques that theffiJutilized to assist student X in building nis TT 0 WE in ctuded the following: (1) daily feedback from adults and peers, (2) BEE assistants who modeled appropriate behavior the | | floor, s I conducted in (4), the I & C class, (5) life sports and (6) the RE «experience (trans. 2306-2313). She noted that ize provided student X with opportunities to apply the social skills he learned in the instructional setting to unstructured time in th or the community (trans. 2315). She opined that throughout the 2012-2013 school year student X struggled to express his ER <<:s. and he BE. 252 oc RR snc described him as (trans, 2321-2324; Exh. V at 9). re :::.: that student X’s organization deficits were addressed in multiple ways for the 2012-2013 school year by instituting a reward system for positive behavior during three periods: each day, the week and the quint (trans. 2298). She described I & C class as a way to bridge the connection between social and academic issues for students wh with and the students were provided with tools to help understand their at I & C and during the session (trans. 2301). aE «-::i% regarding the 2013-2014 school and the 504 plan she developed for 2013-2014 which listed both program modifications for all students and also listed modifications unique to student X (trans. 2385). She stated that in the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year, student xi with the new team as a ninth grader as some of the peers from 2012-2013 had "moved on"(trans. 2387). She provided examples of student X's progress during the 2013-2014 school year and noted that he improved his ae «is and skills; however, he continued to
a. meet trans. 2388). She reviewed the present levels of performance for quints 1-4 (Exhs. FF; Il, JJ) and reviewed the grades (Exh. KK), and noted he improved in his ability to request help from his teachers to manage his workload (trans. 2397). recalled that student X's counselor told her that student X was ce ring the 2013-2014 and that student X with specific students (trans. 2406; 2409); however, she recollected that student X was able to with work adults Li = with peers (trans. 2410). She opined that student X improved in his ability to express his feelings when he became P| (trans. 2411). She noted that despite the strategies utilized by thefto help student deal with his TE student X ee i: ii with another student (trans. 2414-2415). She recalled that she spoke to student X's counselor and the parent and the parent MM student X from thefill| meet with and then student X returned to fl She stressed that during the 2013-3024 school year, student X struggled i (trans. 2418).
P| explained that the benefit of a | FS structured community meetings each morning and evening to “frontload” or to provide advance notice of an upcoming event or lesson for the student (trans. 2420-2422). She opined that student i. meet hi during the 2012-2013 school year, and so student X was provided with an organizational chart posted to his door to assist in completing daily chores (trans. 2423). She noted that the benefit of the po program during the 2012-2014 school years was that it allowed P| po with outside of class, and she recalled that student X was a leader as he assisted other students with completing their chores and demonstrated some skill as a twirler (trans. 2423). She opined that student X in working on strategies to live with others and express his frustration in an appropriate manner (trans. 2426).
On cross examination, Je stated that she expected to complete her Master's degree in August 2015 (trans. 2439). She acknowledged she had no experience working with public schools (Id.). She related that she received her initial level in the Orton-Gillingham program (trans. 2448). She stated that she was the Humanities Dept. chair at the a 14 Exh. EE) and that she was responsible to teach history, English or philosophy and administer standardized and informal achievement assessment (trans. 2453). She stated that she was trained by the Director of the to administer the Nelson-Denny reading assessment and the Woodcock-Johnson Test of Achievement; however, she did not assess student X with either test (trans. 2454). She recalled that she did administer the and mm ie completed the rating scales (trans. 2457). She noted that her title changed from learning specialist in 2009 to present (Exh.EE) and noted that she had increased responsibility for teaching the I & C class and providing training for the teachers and that she oversaw the team program (trans. 2459). She related that she provided training in systems and dynamics for the teachers and that she received training from her supervisor at thf ana as her prior supervisor from her prior position as an English teacher in a private school (2001-2005) and from her courses in special education in college (trans. 2462).
~ as to her qualifications to develop a 504 Plan, P| noted that th rlinical director, the special education coordinator, and academic dean provided training (trans. 2465). She reviewed the 2012-2013 504 Plan (Exh. 117) and recalled that she reviewed the neuropsychological report; however, she could not recall the reason she listed reading comprehension as an area of strength for student X, nor could she recall the reasons she determined that reading comprehension and fluency was a deficit in the 2013-2014 Plan (Exh. CC at 93) except to note that the Plans were taken from reports that indicated student X's deficits (trans. 2470-2475). She stated that the 2012-2013 504 Plan contained certain accommodations embedded in the program such as "wait time," she maintained that "oral examination" and "oral reader" were not embedded in nd program and were designed to address student X's deficits. However, she acknowledged that student X did not use the accommodations of oral examination and oral reader (trans. 2479;2774). She further acknowledged that student X did not regularly use dictation software (trans. 2493).
When questioned as to the related services of counseling for the 2012-2013 school year, she stated that student X received a weekly session and "as needed" (trans. 2656). When questioned as to the related services of weekly counseling listed on the 2013-2014 504 va “’ CC at 93), she stated that student X received Ev c<ky and also receive once a week after quint two on an "as needed" basis (trans. 248852656). She stated that student mM and wi and so he left before quint one and quint two ended during the 2012-2013 school year (trans. 2657;2672). She recalled student X requested to leave early for quint three; however, she was unsure if he received permission to leave early (trans. 2673). She stated that she was unsure if student X continued to receive weekly after quint one ended (trans. 2666).
She stated that student X received passing grades as TM ff not use either letter grades or numerical grades (trans. 2492). She stated that shortened assignments or chunking listed on both the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 504 Plans was embedded into the Bb rogram (trans. 2495). She recalled that she provided parent TE twice a week in the 2013-2014 school to teach the parent ways to use the strategy of Po (trans. 2501).
When questioned as to progress, RE «2:0 that during the 2012-2013 school year, student X was with a strong vocabulary, who aE ic: organization, and in the 2013-2014 school year, student X continued oC with prioritizing assignments (trans. 2506). She recalled that student X was placed in Team C for the 2013-2014 school year with eighteen students with four ninth graders, seven sophomores and six juniors (trans. 2518).
When questioned as to the scores, I stated that she was not familiar with the examiner's manual, nor was she certified for that assessment. She stated that she could not explain the meaning of a T score (trans. 2529;2598), and agreed that she had no expertise to interpret the a. scores (trans. 2606). She noted that the BE sco on the 2012-2013 504 Plan was not accurate because the counselor may have under reported student - 6 OS (trans. 2537). She stated that she completed the for the 2013-2014 504 Plan based on her observation of student X for the prior year; however, she was unable to explain that ways that student X progressed or functioned in terms of the il scores (trans 2542;2596-2600). She acknowledged that she was unable to determine from th scores if student X's ability to regulate his emotions decreased significantly from the fall of 2012 to the fall of 2013 (trans. 2602), nor could she explain thelilfi scores or his present levels of performance (trans.2605). pe acknowledged that she was unable to explain theffil erade rubric or the ways the teachers at the PB pica the criteria of the rubric (trans. 2609-2618;2626). She acknowledged that the teachers at the developed their own curriculum (trans. 2624), and she was unaware of tests or quizzes the teachers administered (trans. 2626). She acknowledged that student X | Oo meet P| for on time in the 2012-2013 school year and the 2013-2014 school year (trans. 2637). ee ::::: that she was unsure if student X accessed the learning center to assist his academics (trans. 2687) and stated that student X continued to have po with TRE «:0v2nout the entirety of the 2013-2014 (trans. 2729). She acknowledged that student X continued to to accurately report his experiences (trans. 2732). She noted that at some point during 2013-2014, the parent reported that student X was P| and felt im and wa TE ich his environment (trans. 2733). fe cxplained that Dragon Speech was a software program with voice recognition and that student X used Dragon Speech during 2012-2013 as an AT device (trans. 2778). She noted that all the core classes at the high school level were capped at eight; however, the larger groups of students attended I & C class (trans. 2777). She acknowledged that for 2012-2013, it was possible for student X to be in a class with a student who was fi years older than student X; however, she maintained that grouping was appropriate in terms of similar development and skill sets (trans. 2783). related that that only two other students besides student X carried over from the 2012-2013 school year into the 2013-2014 school year and there werea total of five students with student X in his team (trans. 2784). She stated that student X struggled to maintain throughout the five weeks of the quint; however, an accommodation was developed so that student X was allowed to leave early (trans. 2814-2816). She acknowledged that student X had conflicts with a peers and presented with anxiety for 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school year (trans. 2900).
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Under IDEA, New York State law and both the federal and State regulations, the right toa FAPE is guaranteed. There is no obligation on the part of the school district to provide the best education for the student but that education must be appropriate so that there is an opportunity for the student to make progress in his education. States receiving federal funds are required to provide "all children with disabilities" a "free and appropriate public education" (20 U.S.C. Section 1400[d][1][A]).(Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 122 [2d. Cir. 2007]). FAPE consists of specialized education and related services designed to meet a student’s unique need, provided in conformity with a comprehensive written IEP (34 C.F.R. Section 300.13).
To meet its burden of showing that it had offered to provide a FAPE to a student, the board of education must show (a) that it complied with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) that the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206, 207 [1982]). As for the program itself, 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. ex rel. SS. V. Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of Yonkers, 231 F.3d 96 at 103 (2d Cir. 2000); see Walezak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 at 130 (2d Cir. 1998). This progress, however, must be meaningful; i.e., more than mere trivial advancement (Id. at 130). The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][S5][A]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.550[b]; 8 NYCRR 200.6[a][1].
The Court in Rowley also observed that states are not required under IDEA to maximize every disabled child’s potential (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 198). The Second Circuit further observed that the IDEA is not intended to "secure the best education money can buy” or “guarantee any particular level of education” (Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 [2d Cir. 1998]) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
In Application of the New York City Dept. of Educ., Appeal No.12-087, the SRO held that 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 and enable him or her to make progress in the general education curriculum (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][2][i], [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)."
For tuition reimbursement cases a board of education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a child by the child’s parent, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parent were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parent’s claim. (School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Dept. Education, Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 [1985]; Florence County School District Four et al. v. Carter by Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]; see also, Frank G. and Dianne G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356 [2d Cir. 2006] cert denied, Board of Educ. of Hyde Park Cent. School Dist. v. Frank G., 2007 WL 2982269 [Oct. 15, 2007]). The burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing challenging the appropriateness of an JEP is on the Department of Education. N.Y. Educ. Law §4404[1][c].
The parent's attorney alleged in his due process complaint that BF is:oricany failed to provide student X with FAPE as the district failed to identify student X as a child with disabilities and failed to engage in Child Find activities (Exh. 1 at 1). The record is replete with evaluations conducted by and A com 2006 through 2009 (Exhs. 13-28) and I find no evidence that failed to engage in Child Find activities. The record indicated that student X attended fi private school located in ine for Kindergarten through fourth grades (2003-2008) (trans.1196;2010) I note that the third grade report dated June 2007, (Exh. 20) indicated that student X experienced tremendous growth and progressed academically and socially. The record indicated that student X attended or the fifth and sixth grades in special classes as he lived with his P| in a fo the 2008-2009 and the 2009-2010 school years (trans. 1214;1359). I note the parent acknowledged that while AMT cucent X was classified and he received IEPs for both fifth and sixth grades and he made a lot of academic progress (trans. 1214).
The parent's attorney argued in his post hearing brief tha did not classify student X despite s neurological report on August 7, 2006 (Exh. XVII/ at 4). I note that I recommended a Section 504 plan due o i .; well as preferential seating, nonverbal cuing to address issues with attention (Exh. 17 at 6) and I find the parent acknowledged that she accepted the 504 Plan with accommodations as developed by hell cans. 1351).
The parent's attorney asserted tha failed to identify student X as a child with a disability during the 2010-2011 school year pursuant to its Child Find obligations (Exh. 1 developed an IEP on June 14, 2010, and classified student X —_— at 7); however, I find student X was classified for the 2010-2011 school year.
recommended special educational services for seventh grade of an class. The parent's attorney r that because
-_: to identify student X the parent was com to pay for and the at her own expense (Id.). I note that i and were located mL The record indicated that student X left and attended | Og repeat sixth grade as his mother wanted student X to attend the same private school as his sister (trans. 1365). The record indicated student X cr in March 2012 based on his ae from March 2012 until June 2012, student X received at Ps in P| Connecticut (trans. 1171;1382). There was no evidence presented that indicated that the parent placed student X at a. any other reason than to be with his sister and I note the parent's acknowledged that she never placed student X in TE ite she resided in BE ans. 1351) and that she did not give consent to observe her son at po nor did she ask th CSE for a meeting until April of 2012 (Trans. 1383; 1531).
I note that when the parent withdrew the request for compensatory education as a remedy for the district's failure to provide a FAPE during the 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 school years as required under IDEA (trans. 1181), the statutory limitations of two years applied. Accordingly, I will only consider claims under the 2012-2013 school year and the 2013-2014 school years.
2012-2013
For the 2012-2013 school year, the parent’s attorney asserted that the CSE failed to consider other programs besides the self-contained 12:1+2 at as student X required a specialized | due to his social functioning (Exh. 1 at 9). The parent's attorney asserted that was not equipped to deal with student ‘i _ and did not have a Po gcam (Exh. 1 at 10) and the proposed TT observed by the parent was not appropriate as it did not provide the type of BR functioning that student X needed (Exh. 1 at 11). The parent's attorney asserted that the parent presented literature on the June 6, 2012 IEP meeting about and the seriousness of student X's needs for increased a (Exh. 1 at 12) as outlined on a: neuropsychological evaluation. The parent's attorney asserted that the parent disagreed with the special class 12:1+2 program recommendation at the August 30, 2012 IEP a. and unilaterally placed her son at the fil as the special class 7 was not equipped to deal with student X’s needs and the special class program recommendation was made in contradiction of the parent who stressed that her son be placed in a PE «sing due to m0 (Exh. 1 at 9). The parent’s attorney asserted that nel the parent observed in April 2012 was not the proposed class for student X for the 2012-2013 as the parent's attorney asserted that the pe did not provide the type ofBM that student X required (Exh. | at 10).
The SRO considered the type of procedural flaw which would result in a denial of FAPE in Application of the New_York City Dept. of Educ., Appeal No.12-087. The SRO noted that not all procedural flaws automatically require a finding of a denial of FAPE. A hearing officer “may find a student did not receive FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies: (a) impeded the student’s right to FAPE; (b) significantly impeded the parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision making process regarding the provision of FAPE for the student; or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits.” (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E] [ii]; 34 CFR 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 525-26 [2007]; R.E., 694 F.3d at 190; M.H., 685 F.3d at 245; A.H. v. Dep't of Educ., 2010 WL 3242234, at *2 [2d Cir. Aug. 16, 2010]; E.H. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 930028, at *7 [N.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2008], aff'd3, 2009 WL 3326627 [2d Cir. Oct. 16, 2009]; Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 471 F. Supp. 2d 415, 419 {S.D.N.Y. 2007] affd 2008 WL 3852180 [2d Cir. Aug. 19, 2008]).The IDEA directs that, in general, an IHO'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).”
The parent’s attorney assert t the CSE ignored the concerns of the parent as she was concerned that neither a |program or the special class at P| and was appropriate and that student X required a class to appropriately address his séwmer-and | se and did not address the deficits outlined on P| neuropsychological evaluation (Exh. | at 11). The parent's attorney asserted that the CSE ignored the parent's request for an out of district program (Id.). The SRO has ruled on the participation requirements of the parent in Application of the New York City Dept. of Educ., Appeal No.12-087, and held "although school districts must provide an opportunity for parents to participate in the development of their child's IEP, mere parental disagreement with a school district's proposed IEP and placement recommendation does not amount to a denial of meaningful participation (see P.K.v. Bedford Cent. Sch. Dist., 569 F. Supp. 2d 371, 383 [S.D.N.Y. 2008] ["A professional disagreement is not an IDEA violation."]; Sch. for Language &Commce'n Dev. v. New York State Dep't of Educ., 2006 WL 2792754, at *7 [E.D.N.Y. Sept. 26, 2006] ["Meaningful participation does not require
5/7 deferral to parent choice"]; Paolella v. District of Columbia, 2006 WL 3697318, at *1 [D.C. Cir. Dec. 6, 2006])"”
Claims concerning parental participation
I find that testimony adduced at the hearing revealed substantial parental participation in the May 10, 2012 and the June 6, 2012 IEP meeting in her request for non-district placements. I find the parent recalled that she told the CSE team that student X had a diagnosis eC provided the team the description (Exh. A) and recalled that the CSE team recommended the 12:1:1 special class at FE (cans. 1257;1260;1270;1277). I find the CSE Chairperson reported that he explored other potential placements such as the PE220 ons oe program in May and June 2012; however, based on his knowledge of student X's profile that he opined the 12:1+2 special class a as recommended by the CSE on August 30, 2013 (Exh. 10) was appropriate (trans. 88-89;300). I find testimony adduced at the hearing revealed parent participation in the May 10, 2012 and the June 6, 2012 IEP meetings as I credit that the parent visited the special class in July 2012. I credit the testimony that the parent recalled a discussion with school psychologist on July 16, 2012 and credit her testimony that the school psychologist spent two hours with the parent and student X (trans. 1456;1460). I credit the testimony that the parent who recalled that Pp explained the recommended program for fifteen minutes on July 16, 2012. There was inconsistent testimony regarding whether the parent or student X would decide in light of the July 16, 2012 email (Exh. 112 at 13) indicating student X would make the decision and the parent's email to Mr dated July 17, 2012 (Exh. S at 1) indicating that student X would decide whether or not he wanted to be in the (trans. 1462). I find that the record established that on August 30, 2012, the CSE team considered the parent’s concerns about student X° and functioning. I find that the CSE team considered how the student’s GE issues impacted his po and recommending ili GE services from a special education teacher to support the student throughout the day as well as substantial related services including individual and crourn 1 find the parent participated in the CSE meeting and in the development of the IEP.
Claim concerning the programs considered:
The allegation that CES failed to consider other programs besides the self-contained 12:1+2 " && student X required aR setting due to his functioning (Exh. 1 at 9) was not supported by the record. Testimony adduced at the hearing established the Chairperson considered other programs and explored other potential placements such as mm —t—<i and the rogram in May and June 2012. Claims concerning the } class placement I find that thd class was described at the IEP meeting on May 10, 2012 as I credit the testimony of the Chairperson who recalled that the learning specialist, who provided services to student X per m ioe participated by telephone during the IEP meeting (trans. 242;260), and that the learning specialist expressed BS «¢ garding student X's ability ofin academics (Exh. 8 at 2) and tha EG bac similar concerns (trans. 262). However, th class recommended in the IEP dated June 6, 2012 was not the final IEP as there were many questions to answer before determining the appropriate placement (trans. 265) and the parent and student X were scheduled to visit the special 12:1 + 1 class. Claims concerning the residential program and lack of social functioning The parent's attorney asserted _ @ not equipped to deal with student X's ae: did not have SEE oo cram (Exh. | at 10) and the proposed special class observed by the parent was not appropriate as it did not provide the type of re... student X needed (Exh. 1 at 11). I credit the parent’s testimony that that no report provided to the May 10, 2012 CSE meeting recommended a residential placement (trans. 1447). I find that no assessment recommending a residential placement was presented to the August 30, 2012 review (trans. 1409-1410). I find that Dr. ae. does not recommend placement in a small school or even a small class, but merely recommendation "increased ee: ae:
36 at 5). I credit the parent's testimony that she did not recall when she mentioned the to hl scare but recalled a discussion with the district representative about th in July 2012 (trans. 1452); however, I note the parent could not explain an email dated July 11, 2012, (Exh. 112 at 6), which indicated that the parent did not necessarily agree that student X required aT rogram (trans. 1454). I credit the testimony of he teacher for the {4M class during the 2012-2013 and find that nf class had two teaching assistants with eight children so the student to staff ratio was 8:1+2 and not 12:1+2, the maximum class size. I credit her testimony that student X would fit within her class of bright, but very seventh and eighth graders (trans. 952). I credit her testimony that the structured routine was intended to be a calm environment to support the EE <biteren in the class and explained that she used "back mainstreaming" or general education students to push into the class to provide role models and to engage in conversation with her class (trans. 954). I credit the Chairperson's testimony that based on his knowledge of student X's profile, he felt the 12:1+:2 special class a as recommended by the CSE on August 30, 2013, (Exh. 10) was appropriate (trans. 88-89;300). I credit the Chairperson's testimony that the special class was appropriate given student X's functional levels and abilities because there were other children with higher cognitive levels and academic abilities in the same program and that in terms of needs student X was very comparable (trans. 90-91). I find the parent's assertion that the proposed special class observed by the parent was not appropriate as it did not provide the type of social functioning student X needed (Exh. 1 at 11) was speculative and not supported by the testimony of the district's special education teacher and the district's school psychologist.
I find that NYS regulations mandate that the recommended special education programs and services are selected in order for the student to advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals in the student’s IEP, to be involved and progress in the general education curriculum to the extent appropriate, and to be educated and participate with other students with disabilities and non-disabled students in academic and non-academic activities. 8 NYCRR 200.4(d)(v)(a)(1-3); 34 CFR § 300.114, 300.209(a)(4). I find there was no evidence in the record to support a conclusion that student X was unable to learn in the special class in the community middle school. I find the special class provided a smaller, more nurturing environment for students grades 7-8 and that the special class was designed to function as a school within the middle school for the 2012-2013 school year (trans. 85; 292) and I find the supports including the school psychologist, social worker and school resource officer were located near the special 12:1+2 class and near the sensory room where the children in the special 12:1+2 class would receive OT and PT (trans. 104-108).
After reviewing the testimony and evidence in this case, I find that the district has met its burden of proof under the first prong and that the 2012-2013 IEP (Exh.10) provides FAPE for student. I find the IEP meets the Rowley standard, because it was reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive an educational benefit. I find the August 30, 2012, IEP provided for staffing ratio of 12:1+2 and receive an assistive technology evaluation with special alerts of Pe ond (Exh. 10 at 1) and indicated management needs of a structured environment with clear expectations, extended time for written assignments to complete homework, access to word processor/spell check (Exh. 10 at 5) which corresponded with the recommendation of a ex. 36 at 4) to address the student an find the IEP indicated that student X demonstrated the characteristics of a a... the neuropsychological evaluation as well as processing in visual motor spacing, motor coordination, executive processes, processing speed, and processing of P| information again consistent with report. I find the recommended related services of individual once a week for thirty minutes, group P| once a week for thirty minutes in group no larger than five and parent a ©: a week for thirty minutes in a special location (Exh. 10 at 9) was consistent with the evaluations and input from the parent ond TE 3 would help him deal with his ae... fs
The IEP further required program modifications of preferential seating refocusing, redirection, cuing and prompting, directions clarified and directions repeated and the special education teacher was to provide precise writing instruction and monitor organization and time management and provide additional time to complete assignments and I find these modifications addressed the student's) 2s noted 7 fo that indicated that the student required consistent support to complete tasks and structure his time (Exh. 36 at 4). I find the IEP addressed the student's special education problems in a small learning environment with a large and varied amount of supports and services, and provided mainstreaming opportunities.
Student X was to receive testing accommodations including: preferential seating, double time; waiving spelling requirements; questions read and clarified, access to a word processor, flexible schedule and use of period breaks (Exh. 10 at 11) and I find that the testing accommodations would have addressed anxiety noted in pe evaluation (Exh. 36 at 4).
I find that the CSE relied on sufficient current evaluative data, including information from multiple documentary sources from student X's teachers, including the learning specialist and the private psychologist and parent when it developed the student’s August 30, 2013 IEP. Testimony adduced at the hearing established that CSE reviewed and relied on the PE «-:0:: (Exh. 34 and 35), the April 2012 Neuropsychological assessment (Exh. 36) andI find that the August 30, 2013 CSE reviewed and utilized them. The SRO has held the in Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 12-087 that while "State regulations require that an IEP report the student's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, State regulations do not mandate precisely where that information must come from (see Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 11-137; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 11-043). Nor is there any support for the proposition that "teacher estimates" or "teacher observations" cannot, as the parents suggest, be relied upon as a source of information for developing a student's IEP or determining the student's skill levels (S.F., 2011 WL 5419847, at *10; A.S. v New York City Dep't of Educ., 10-cv-00009 [E.D.N.Y. May 26, 2011]." I credit the testimony of the district witnesses who attended the IEP meeting on August 30, 2012 and find that the CSE team obtained the student current levels of academic and social and emotional functioning based on sufficient information to support its special class recommendation and the recommendation was reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits.
I credit the testimony of the CSE Chairperson who stated that special class at _ as a class designed for student = Fe taught by a special education teacher and that there were a number of social skills programs to support the children in the class with opportunities to mainstream; and that there were teaching assistants to accompany that children out of the special class to a less restrictive environment (trans. 82-83). I credit the testimony of the Chairperson and find that the ...:: was designed to function as a school within the school for the 2012-2013 school year (trans. 85) and there was a separate set of teachers and a separate set of administrators to make the students in the new program feel more like a community (trans. 292). I further find the building for the TTT class was located near the sensory room where the children in the special class would receiv and [ll (trans. 104-108).
I credit the testimony of the special education teacher for the special class during the 2012-2013 and find that her special class had two teaching assistants with eight children so the student to staff ratio wad nd not the maximum class size. I credit her testimony that student X would fit within her class of bright, but i seventh and eighth graders (trans. 952). I credit her testimony that the structured routine was intended to be a calm environment to support the children in the class and I credit that she explained that she used "back mainstreaming" or general education students to push into the class to provide role models and to engage in conversation with her class (trans. 954). I find the IEP provided a structured environment with substantial program medications to meet student X's needs.
I further credit the testimony of nl school psychologist who had attended the IEP meeting on August 30, 2012 and that she reported to the team student X's profile fragility (trans. 464). I credit her explanation that social was consistent with the neuropsychological finding of ae... the parent's report of student X's social and (RE of not fitting in (1d.). I further credit her testimony and find that the special class at the aM was designed for young adolescents generally diagnosed with | | or ATE rans. 469). I credit her description of the students of average to superior intelligence, but who struggled with into the ee: reading A and who wit
The parent's attorney asserted in his post-hearing brief that he was able to raise issues in his brief that were not raised in the due process request. I note that the SRO held in Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 11-134: "It is well settled that a party requesting an impartial hearing may not raise issues at the impartial hearing that were not raised in its original due process complaint notice unless the other party agrees (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][B]; 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.507[d][3] fi], 300.51 1[dJ; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][1][i1]) or the original due process complaint is amended prior to the impartial hearing per permission given by the impartial hearing officer at least five days prior to the impartial hearing (20
U.S.C. § 1415{c][2][E]
[i] [1]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.507[d][3] [ii]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[1][7][b]; see MLR. v. South Orangetown Cent. Sch. Dist., 2011 WL 6307563, *12-*13 [S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2011]; C.D. v. Bedford Cent. Sch. Dist., 2011 WL 4914722,*13 [S.D.N.Y. Sept. 22, 2011]; R.B. v. Dep't of Educ. of City of New York, 2011 WL 4375694, at *6 [S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2011]; W.M. v. Lakeland Cent. Sch. Dist., 2011 WL 1044269, *8 [S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2011]; M.P.G. v. New York City Dep't. of Educ., 2010 WL 3398256, at *8 [S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2010]; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 11-111; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 11-100; Application of a Student with as Disability, Appeal No. 11-008; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 11-042; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 11-038)."
I note that the parent's attorney asserted that he amended the due process complaint twice in his post hearing brief (Exh. X/7// at 19). I find there was no amended due process complaint because the district did not consent and the resolution period did not restart. I further note that the parent's attorney asserted throughout the hearing and in his post hearing brief that 20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][B] did not require issues to be explicitly spelled out in a specific section of the complaint and allows for broad language to encompass more specific complaints.
However, I find that I need not address the allegation regarding the failure to conduct An raised in the parent's attorney's post hearing complaint (Exh. XVI// at 8) as I find credible testimony and evidence presented at the hearing that th could not take place without student X being present in the district environment (trans. 719; Exh. C). Further, I find that while the Second Circuit has held that the failure to conduct an is a serious procedural violation for just this reason. R.E. v. NYC Dept. of Educ. 694 F.3d 167, 190 (2d. Cir. 2012), not every failure to conduct an FBA will rise to the level of a denial of FAPE, the failure must have been mitigated by other information regarding the — and supports to appropriately accommodate them. Id. I further find that the IEP considered the student's behavioral and provided appropriate support services of individual fe a week for thirty minutes in a special location, ae: a week for thirty minutes in a special location, parent JM once a week for thirty minutes in a special location (Exh. 10 at 9) and the entire team, including the parents and appropriate service providers, was mandated to meet once a month for thirty minutes at school (Exh. 10 at 10). I find that the record established that the August 30, 2012 CSE team reviews considered the parent’s concerns about the student’s social and emotional functioning, including that the parent did not believe that the student was socializing sufficiently insid setting. I find that the CSE team considered how the — Ol impacted his functioning and recommending special education services from a special education teacher to support the student throughout the day as well as individual and group counseling, parent training, weekly team meetings to enhance staff communication and consistency to meet student X's needs (trans. 95-96). Accordingly, I find that the IEP provided appropriate supports to accommodate student X's issues.
I find the August 30, 2012 IEP provided a higher level of interventions in related services and in special education aids and support services than the prior public school programs that the student attended where student X had demonstrated improvement. | credit the parent's testimony that her student X had a positive experience with the public school because the school met the needs of student X and modified and intervened to assist student X there was the possibility of declassifying student X (Exh. 3 at 4) because student X met the goals on the IEP meeting on June 14, 2010 (trans. 1363).
I find that the CSE established that it can implement the August 30, 2102 IEP at the proposed placement in the community middle school as I credit the testimony of the district witnesses. I credit the testimony of district witnesses and find that their classes would have provided a nurturing environment in the recommended placement. I find that the parent failed to establish that special class in the community middle school was not reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits in the least restrict environment. I credit the special class provided a smaller, more nurturing environment for students grades 7-8 and that the special class was designed to function as a school within the middle school for the 2012-2013 school year (trans. 85; 292) in the supports including the school psychologist, social worker and school resource officer were located near the special 12:1+2 class and near the sensory room where the children in the special 12:1+2 class would receive ‘2 (trans. 104-108). I credit the testimony of the school psychologist and I find that the August 30, 2012, IEP provided the supports including individual and group counseling as well as weekly meetings with the parents and assistive technology and psychological consultation meeting (Exh. 10 at 9,10) to allow the teams working with student X to build a rapport because he had had past difficulties in various settings (trans 477).
Based on the foregoing, I find that FAPE was provided during the 2012-2013 school year and I find the CSE offered an appropriate program and placement for the 2012-2013 school year.
2013-2014
For the 2013-2014 school year, the parent's attorney asserted that the May 14, 2013 IEP recommended that student X be placed in a special class 12:1+2 .::: for the 2013-2014 school year with _ o- class with related services despite the parent's statement that this program was not an appropriate environment as student X was overwhelmed in a large environment and had gotten into physical alterations (Exh. 1 at 13).
After reviewing the testimony and evidence in this case, I find that the district has met its burden of proof under the first prong and that the 2013-2014 IEP (Exh.12) provides FAPE for student. I find the IEP meets the Rowley standard, because it was reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive an educational benefit.
I find that testimony adduced at the hearing established that math and science were areas of strength for student X as he was capable of advanced pre-calculus and pre-chemistry (trans. 843). I credit the testimony of the Chairperson and find that because student X was so strong in math (trans. 795), that when the team met on May 14, 2013 to develop the 2013-2014 IEP for student X, he was recommended to be placed in the special a... for four periods and an class in math i high school (trans. 110). I further credit the testimony of the school psychologist and find that the 12:1+2 program in high school was similar to the special 12:1+ 2 class in the (trans. 538).
The IEP recommended that student X be placed in a ten-month "i in ninth grade in the program which included five special classes in the high school with a staffing ratio of 12:1+2 and recommended an BB class for math once as well related services of weekly individual counseling and group counseling as well as weekly parent counseling and recommended program modifications of access to a word processor and word prediction as student X required a device for communication, and writing software as a technology device and access to graphic organizers for writing assignments and reading support software to assist in reading comprehension and editing (Exh. 12). The IEP recommended an AT consultation meeting once a quarter for thirty minutes and a monthly team meeting with the parents and appropriate service providers as well an AT consultation meeting once a quarter for thirty minutes at school and a psychological counseling services consultation was mandated once a month to collaborate with outside providers. I credit the testimony of the Chairperson and find the supports in addition to individual and group counseling included psychological counseling services once a month for thirty minutes to allow the school psychologist to work with the outside professionals working with student X to better help hf sas to understand and work with student X (trans. 114). I credit the testimony of the school psychologist who attended the IEP meeting on May 14, 2013 and recalled a discussion of student X's present levels functioning in terms of academics, cognition, and social/ emotional skills (trans. 527) and I find that the staff members reported that student X had highly adaptive behavior skills and that student X was doing very well using assistive technology with his academics in reading, writing, math and science. I find the IEP team considered the results of the evaluation (Exh. 40) and the AT assessment (Exh. 39) and Level I Assessment (Exh. 37) the IEP reflected the updated information as well as the input from the members who observed student X. I find that the IEP provided assistive technology to address student X's special needs with word processing software and graphic organizers.
Claims concerning the large environment and possible physical altercations
I credit the testimony of the Chairperson who opined that the rogram with ine fl tas in math in the fM nign school was appropriate and was not too large an environment for student X because the physical location of the BE >: cam was up a flight of stairs and the first class was on the second floor and all the academic classes and elective classes were nearby (trans. 116). I credit the testimony of the school psychologist who attended the IEP meeting on May 14, 2013 and recalled a discussion of student X's present levels functioning in terms of academics, cognition, and social/emotional skills (trans. 527). I credit the testimony of the school psychologist who noted that due to the layout of the rogram that fM students were placed in classrooms close together with teacher assistants to accompany them (trans. 540), and who recalled a discussion with parent who was concerned with the size of the district high school. I credit the testimony of the school psychologist who she recalled a discussion with the high school special education teacher, regarding the structure of the program with the guidance counselor and the teaching assistant pushing into the class and that the computer lab was twenty feet away from the academic classroom andI find that the program was small despite the large high school setting with 1600 students (trans. 722;727). I further find in Connor v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2009 WL 3335760 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2009) the court considered the claim the that a large public school was inappropriate and found that the child’s classes would be small and he would be taught by experienced special education teachers (Connor at 7).
I find nell program in 2013-2014 addressed the student special education needs in a small learning environment within a large high school and provided substantial supports and services and offered him mainstreaming opportunities.
I find that FAPE was provided during the 2013-2014 school year and that the CSE offered an appropriate program and placement for the 2013-2014 school year. Having found that FAPE was provided for the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school year, I could stop my inquiry; however, I find that the placement at the ..s not appropriate. The parent has the burden to prove that the services they obtained for the student is appropriate to meet his needs. In order to meet that burden, the parent must show that the services provided were "proper under the Act" (Carter, 510 U.S. at 12, 15; Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370), ie., that the private school offered an educational program that met the child's special education. The fact that the facility selected by the parent to provide special educational services to the child is not State-approved as a school for children with disabilities is not dispositive of the parent’s claim for tuition reimbursement (Florence County School District Four v. Carter by Carter, 114 S.Ct. 361 [1993]). The parent must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the unilateral placement provides “educational instruction specifically designed to meet the unique needs of the handicapped child.” (Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 122 [2d. Cir. 2007).
To meet the second prong, the parents must show that the services provided were "proper under the Act" (Carter, 510 U.S. at 12, 15; Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370), 1-e., that the private school offered an educational program that met the child's special education needs. However, parents are not barred from reimbursement if their program does not meet the IDEA definition of a FAPE. See 20 U.S.C. §1401(9), Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park., 459 F. 3d 356 (2 Cir. 2006). It is not required that the provider of the services be State-approved to provide instruction to children with disabilities (Carter, 510 U.S. at 10). The student need not be the least restrictive environment (Frank G, 459 F. 3d at 364). “Ultimately the issue turns on whether a placement...is ‘reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.’ [internal citations omitted] ...”(Frank G, 459 F. 3d at 130). Parents need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction. (Id. at 364-365). (See also Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. 489 F 3d. 105, 115 [2d Cir. 2007)).
I find there was insufficient evidence to establish that because student X regressed at BR witrou special education supports and services that student X required a residential placement for the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years. While parents are not held as strictly to the standard of placement in the least restrictive environment as school districts are, the appropriateness of the parental placement may be considered in determining whether the parents’ placement is appropriate.(See M.S. v. Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d 96 [2d Cir. 2000)]).
I find that there was no evidence presented by the parents to establish how the | met the unique academic, social and emotional needs of the student. The testimony of the staff did not establish that the student’s program was tailored to the student’s unique special education needs over the 2012-2013 and the 2013-2014 school years as required (Gagliardo v, Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist, 489 F 3d. 105, 115 [2d Cir. 2007]).
Testimony established that the student continued to struggle with organization and the interventions of the 504 plans were to the all the students at the Moreover, I find the record was replete with exampled of limited progress in the social and emotional problems exhibited by student X. I find that testimony adduced at the hearing established that student X continued to struggle socially and emotionally despite the interventions at ihe fil Bi rans. 2488;2656; 2787;2814-2816;2900).
Based on the foregoing, I find that that the parents have not met their burden regarding the unilateral placement of the student at ihe flor the 2012-2013 school year and the 2013-2014 school year.
Having found that the parent's placement is not appropriate, I do not need to determine the third prong of the test for tuition reimbursement, whether the equities favor the parent's position. (see M.C. v. Voluntown, 226 F3.d 60, 66 [2d Cir. 2000]; Walezak, 142 F.3d at 134: Application of the Dept. of Education, 12-069). However, I note it was undisputed that the parent did not tell the CSE until August 30, 2012, that the student attended a residential placement and that she disagreed with the special class at the community middle school. I find that the parent did not cooperate with the CSE’s efforts to provide FAPE for the 2012-2013 school year because the parent was not forthcoming regarding the need for a residential placement. I find that during the summer of 2012 she did not inform the CSE that ine had accepted her son on August 5, 2012 (Exh. 131) and I find that the parent failed to inform the CSE on August 30, 2012 that student X had completed the summer session at ine July 2012 and had started the fall session at the Mon August 28, 2012. I credit the parent's testimony that she mentioned inelfll to the at some point prior to the August 30, 2012 IEP meeting, but she could not recall the date (trans. 2146). She stated she might have mentioned theffiffon August 30, 2012, but was not sure and I credit her testimony that she did not invite inelll staff to participate in any IEP meeting (trans. 2148). I credit the testimony that the parent who stated that she and student X were traveling of co: student X to attend camp by July 18, 2012 through August 23, 2012 (trans. 1467). I further credit her testimony that student X was at thdfiss of August 28, 2012 and at the August 30, 2012 meeting, she provided no assessment or recommendation for a residential placement. Having found that the equities did not favor the parent, I do not need to address the issue of the grandmother's payment of the tuition.
ORDER
I therefore deny the parent's request for tuition reimbursement for the unilateral placement of student X at the jfor the 2012-2013 and the 2013-2014 school years.
Dated: November 22, 2014 .
N
LINDA AGOSTON, 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 MMFS State Education Department under section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
lf 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. Ifa 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:/Avww.sro.nysed.gov/part279home.html.
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2013
l. Complain Letter, 6/27/13, 20 pp. District
2. Answer to Complaint, 9/29/13, 3 pp. District DOE
3. IEP, 6/14/10, 6 pp. District DOE
4. Draft IEP, 6/14/13, 6 pp District DOE
5. IEP, 6/15/10, 7 pp. District DOE
6. IEP, 3/1/11, 9 pp. District 7 JEP, 6/15/11, 10 pp. District 8 JEP, 5/10/12, 11 pp. District DOE
9. IEP, 6/6/12/ 12 pp. District DOE
10. IEP 8/30/12, 13 pp. District DOE
11. IEP, 2/12/13 14 pp. District 12 JEP, 5/13/14, 14 pp. District 13 Classroom Observation, 3/3/06, 1 p. District DOE
14. Psychological Evaluation, 3/27/06, 5 pp. District DOE
15. Educational Evaluation, 3/28/06, 6 pp. District 16 Psycho-social History, 3/28/06, 4 pp. District DOE
17. Comprehensive Neuropsychological Evaluation, 8/7/06, 20 pp. District DOE
18. Occupational Therapy Evaluation, 10/6/06, 3 pp. District DOE
19. Teacher Input Form, 6/20/07, 1 p. District DOE
20. Progress Evaluation, 6/07, 3 pp. District 21 Occupational Therapy, 11/30/07, 2 pp. District DOE
22. Speech and language Evaluation, 10/29/07, 4 pp. District DOE
23. Psychological Evaluation, 2/25/08, 19 pp. District 24 WIAT-II Test Scores, 1/24/08, 2 pp. District DOE
25. OT/ AT Evaluation, 4/3/08, 4 pp. District DOE
26. Reading Evaluation, 12/16/08, 3 pp. District DOE
27. Individual Performance Summary Report, 12/15/08, 3 pp. District DOE
28. Individual Performance Summary Report, 12/15/09, 2 pp. District DOE
29. ino Report, 1/19/10, 7 pp. District DOE
30. Educational Plan, 9/23/10, 21 pp. District DOE
31. Social Work Report, 11/15/10, 2 pp. District DOE
32. Psychological Evaluation, 2/18-11, 4 pp. District DOE
33. Educational Evaluation, 2/28/11, 4 pp. District DOE
34. School Semester Report, 2011-2013, 8 pp. District DOE
35. School Marking 3 Period Report, 2011-2012, 4 pp. District 36 Neuropsychological Assessment, 4/12, 5 pp. District 37 Student Interview, 11/26/12, 2 pp. District DOE
38. Evaluation, 11/26/12, 6 pp. District 39 Assistive Technology Assessment, 11/26/12, 6 pp.7 District DOE
40. Psychological Update, 11/30/ pp. District DOE
41. Letter from Parent to 7/3/1/10, 1 p. District DOE
42. Letter from Parent to District 8/5/10, 1 p. District DOE
43. Letter from District to Parent, 8/24/10, 1 p. District DOE
44. Letter from Parent to District, 8/30/10, Ip. District DOE
45. Consent Form, 8/31/10, 1 p. District DOE
46. Letter fro to District, 9/7/10, 1p. District DOE
47. Letter fromiMIto Parent, 9/8/10, 1 p. District DOE
48. Letter from District to Parent, 9/10/10, 1p. District DOE
49. Registration Form, 9/17/10, 3 pp. District 50 CSE Consent for Revaluation, 9/21/10, 3 pp. District DOE
51. CSE Consent for Reevaluation, Second Notice, 3/1/11, 3 pp. District 52 Parents who Place their Children in Nonpublic Schools, 3/4/10, 3 pp. District DOE
53. Parent Nonpublic School Placement Acknowledgement Consent Form, 4/12/11, Ip. District DOE
54. Letter from District to Parent, 4/12/12, 1 p. District DOE
55. CSE Annual Review Meeting, 6/5/11. 1 p. District DOE
56. Prior Written Notice, 8/13/11, 2 pp. District DOE
57. Notice of Board of Education Review for Special Education 9/2/11, 1 p. District 58 Parents who Place their Children in Nonpublic Schools, 1/12/12, 3 pp. District DOE
59. Consent Form, 1/26/12, 1 p. District 60 Parents who Place their Children in Nonpublic Schools, 1/26/12, 1 p. District DOE
61. Meeting Notice CSE, 4/12/12.2 District DOE
62. Email ron a 5/8/12, 1 p. District DOE
63. Prior Written Notice Proposed Continuation for Special Education 5/29//12, 1 p. District DOE
64. Meeting Notice CSE, 5/30/12 1 p. District DOE
65. Notice of Board of Education Review for Special Education 6/5/12, 1 p. District DOE
66. Written Notice Proposed Continuation of Special Education 6/13/12, 2 pp. District DOE
67. Notice of Board of Education Review for Special Education 6/19/12, 1 p. District DOE
68. Letter from Parentto District, 6/22/12, 1 p. District 69 Emil from to District, 7/13/12. 1 p. District DOE
70. Letter from to District, 8/10/12, 6 pp. District DOE
71. Meeting Notice CSE 8/27/12, 2 pp. District DOE
72. Prior Written Notice Proposed Continuation for Special Education 8/30/12, 2 pp. District District Letter from i 8/30/12, 2 pp.
73 Letter from 74 District rE, 2, 1 page DOE
75. Letter from Parent to District, 8/31/12. 1p. District 76 District DOE
77. Notice of Board of Education Review for Special Education 9/4/12, 1 p. District DOE
78. Letter from Parent to District, 9/7/1//2, 1 p. District DOE
79. Letter from Parent to District, 9/19/12, 1 p. District DOE
80. Letter from District to Parent, 9/24/12, 1 p. District 8] Prior Written Notice Proposed Reevaluation and Request for Consent, 9/25/12, 1 p. District DOE
82. Consent Form for Reevaluation, 9/25/12, 4 pp. District DOE
83. Email with attachments from Lisa Ferrearo to multiple recipients 10/3/12, 2pp. District DOE
84. Email from to Parent, 1/15/13, 1 p. District DOE
85. Email from Parent to 1/19/13, 2 pp. District DOE
86. Meeting Notice CSE, 2/5/13, 2 pp. District DOE
87. Meeting Notice CSE Revised, 2/6/13, 2 pp. District 88 Parents Who Place their Children in Non-public Schools, 2/11/13, 3 pp. District DOE
89. Consent Form, 2/16/13, 3 pp. District DOE
90. Letter from Parent to District, 2/20/13, 2 pp. District 9] Prior Written Notice Proposed Continuation for Special Education, 2/25/13, 2 pp. District DOE
92. Notice of Board of Education Review for Special Education 2/27/13, 1 p. District DOE
93. Email from EE 10 Parent, 4/1/13, 1 p. District DOE
94. and unsigned Consent Form, 1 p. District Undated DOE
95. Consent Form, 4/1/13, 1 p. District _ DOE
96. Student Meeting Notice CSE, 4/3/13, 2 pp. District DOE
97. Meeting Notice CSE, 4/3/13, 2 pp. District DOE
98. Student Meeting Notice CSE Cancelled, 4/3/13, 2 pp. District DOE
99. Meeting Notice CSE Cancelled, 4/3/13, 2 pp. District DOE
100. Student Meeting Notice CSE, 4/22/13, 2 pp. District DOE
101. Meeting Notice CSE, 4/22/13, 2 pp. District DOE
102. Meeting Notice CSE Revised, 4/30/13, 2 pp. District DOE
103. Student Meeting Notice CSE Revised, 4/30/13, Revised, 2 pp. District DOE
104. Prior Written Notice Proposed CSE, 6/7/13, 2 pp. District DOE
105. Notice of Board of Education Review for Special Education 6/18/13, 1 p. District 106 om parent to distri /13, 1p. District DOE
107. HS Curriculum (Pilot Program) 2010-2012, 5 pp. District DOE
108. Improving Executive Functions through AT (Pilot Program) 2012-2013, 3 pp. District 109 Teacher-Clinician Social/Emotional/Behavioral Plan, 8/11, 6 pp. District 110 Summer Curriculum Work, undated, 6 pp. District 111 Class Profile GFMS, 7/6/12, 2 pp. District 112 Class Profile and emails, 5/12 through 8/12, 16 pp. District A Non-Verbal Learning Differences Profile, undated, 1 p. Parent | Appointment Letter, 7/2/13, 1 p. THO IT Decision on Extension, 8/29/13, 1 p. IHO DOE
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON OCTOBER 16, 2013
C. B Special Class Profile GFMS, 8/20/12, 2 pp. Parent Letter from Re: FBA, 9/24/13, 1 p. Parent
D. Dear Parents Letter, 8/15/12, 1 p. Parent
E-1. Collaboration Document, 2012-2013, 3 pp. Parent
E-2. Document, undated, 3 pp. Parent F GFMS Curriculum Work, Summer 2013, 5 pp. Parent G Rock Grid, Ms. Rosenbaum-Altman, undated, 1 p. Parent
H. Schedule for 6th to 8th grade Bridge program, undated, 3 pp.
Parent
J. Schedule & Expectations, 6th & 7th grade Bridge program undated, 3 pp.
Parent
J. Schedule & Expectations, 8th & 7th grade Bridge program undated, 3 pp. Parent K Summer Curriculum work FP Grade 6, undated, 5 p. Parent L the FA Observation, 4/30/13, 2 pp. Parent M 8, various dated, 3 pp. Parent N | Emails Re: Observation, various dates, 2 pp. Parent O Emails, 9/27/13, 2 pp. Parent II Decision on Extension, 8/29/13, 1 p. THO
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON NOVEMBER 12, 2013
IV Decision on Extension, 11/12/13, 1 p. THO
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON DECEMBER 11, 2013
V Decision on Extension, 12/11/13, 1 p. THO
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON DECEMBER 16, 2013
R. P Emails, 6/10/12, 1 p. Parent Q Series of Emails, 7/12, 2 pp. Parent Email, 7/16/12, 1 p. and Class Profile, undated, 2 pp. Parent S Emails, various dates, 2 pp. Parent T Emails, various dates, 2 pp. Parent
Vv. FA Documentation regarding progress, various dates, 20 pp. Parent WwW Emails, 4/13, 3 pp. Parent
x. Quint-1 progress report, 2012-2013, 5 pp. Parent Y Neurological Assessment, 9/13 10 pp. Parent
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON JANUARY 13, 2014
115. VI Decision on Extension, 1/13/14, 1 p. IHO 113 Student Questionnaire, undated, 2 pp. District 114 Parent Questionnaire, undated, 2 pp. District School Questionnaire, undated, 2 pp. District DOE
116. | | School Records Release, undated, 1 p. District DOE
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON JANUARY 28, 2014
Z CV o 3 pp. Parent
AA Fileo 130 pp. Parent
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON JANUARY 29, 2014
Vii Decision on Extension, 1/29/14, 1 p. THO
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON MARCH 17, 2014
BB WiResume. 2 pp. Parent
CC FA's File on Student X, 164 pp. Parent
DD Invoices, 8 pp. Parent
117. FA 504 Plan for 2012-2013, 3/16/14, 2 pp. District
118 Grade Rubric from FA, fax date 3/17/14, 3 pp. District
VIII Decision on Extension, 3/7/14, 1 p. IHO
IX Decision on Extension, 3/17/14, 1 p. IHO
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON APRIL 28, 2014
119. X Decision on Extension, 4/28/14, 1 p. IHO Letter from parent to undated, 1 p. District DOE
120. ‘Letter from parent t |, undated, District 121 from parent to undated, 1 p. District 122 chool Records Release, undated, 1 p. District 123 nt Questionnaire for the FA Application, undated, 2 pp. District 124 oe Questionnaire, undated, 2 pp. District 125 FA Questionnaire, undated, 2 pp. District 126 FA Parent Questionnaire, undated, 2 pp. District 127 FA Student Questionnaire, undated, | p. District 128 FA Emergency Contact Information, undated, 1 p. District 129 FA Student X Health Record, 6/12/12, 13 pp. District 130 Grade for Student X, | p. District DOE
131. FA Letter from Director of Admissions to Student X, 6/5/12, 1 p. District DOE
132. Letter of Enrollment Contract and invoice, 6/6/12, 3 pp. District 133 Cover Sheet, 6/7/12, 1 p. District DOE
134. [HR Invoice for Summer Program, 6/8/12, 1 p. District DOE
135. Wii Letter from Director of Admissions to Parent, 7/2/12, 1 p. District DOE
136. Letter from Parent to the FA Admissions, 7/21/12, 1 p. District 137. Check Number 826, 6/712, 1 p. District 138 Invoice from FA, 6/6/12, 1 p. District 139 Check Number 864, 6/21/12, 1 p. District 140 [tnoice, 8/31/12, 1 p. District 14] >ck Number 836, 1/8/13 District 142 Invoice, 9/3/13, 1 p with copy of check dated 9/11/13, District 143. FInvoice, 3/18/14, District DOE
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON MAY 20, 2014
FF. XI ision on Extension, 5/20/14, 1 p. THO EE CV, various dates, 3 pp. Parent of 2012 program "Skills Form," undated 2 pp. Parent Summer
GG. Letter from Clinical Director regarding | 1/14, lp. Parent
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON JULY 8, 2014
KK. XII Decision on Extension, 6/13/14, 1 p. THO XIII Decision on Extension, 7/8/14, 1 p. IHO HH Chain of emails, various dates, 10 pp. Parent 3 Quint Four Intersession for 2013-2014, 4 pp Parent JJ Invoices, 8 pp. Parent — Grade for the 2013-2014 school year, various dates, 18 pp. Parent
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON AUGUST 18, 2014
XIV Decision on Extension, 8/18/14, 1 p. IHO
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2014
XV Decision on Extension, 9/3/14, 1 p. IHO
XVI Decision on Extension, 9/12/14, 1 p. THO
a
POST HEARING SUBMISSIONS
XVII Decision on Extension, 10/20/18/14, 1 p. THO
XVII Parent's brief, 11/11/14, 30 pp. [HO
XVI District's brief, 11/11/14, 30 pp. [HO
XX Motions and subpoenas, various dates, 22 pp. THO
Footnotes
[23] at 6). RR used the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Second Edition ("WIAT-II") and reported that student X's handwriting was poorly formed and demonstrated P| There was a scatter of achievement was found among the subtests: a very MM score in listening comprehension; a pe score in reading comprehension score; ancore in reading and a borderline score in decoding (Id.). The WIAT-II scored indicated similar scatter of scores in reading, math and writing (Id.). BE founc that student X had difficulties with attention (Exh. 23 at 10). BE « conducted TEE | 2121100 in October 2007, as the parent requested CSE evaluations to assess her son's special education needs (Exh. 22). The P| Pe measured student X’s receptive and expressive language and reported average skills in articulation, auditory memory skills and above average skills in receptive language, expressive language and very superior receptive and expressive vocabulary skills (Exh. 22 at 4). An | | evaluation was conducted in November 2007, when student X was 9 years old and the evaluator found his scores were in the with low muscle tone and recommended fi once a week to improve hand strength and writing skills (Exh. 21 at 2). eported the results of ihe scores in December 2008 and the subtests revealed as scatter of scores with a very superior score mo his reading score was in the average and his math score was in the) ex. 24 at 2).