New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number:

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District:

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Date of Hearing: October 11, 2013

December 6, 2013

March 7, 2014

Actual Record Closed Date: April 28, 2014

Hearing Officer: Jeanne Keefe, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON OCTOBER 11, 2013

For the Student:

NO APPEARANCE

For the Department of Education:

NO APPEARANCE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON DECEMBER 6, 2013

Attorney — Student

Parents

Attorney — DOE

Special Education Teacher (Via Telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MARCH 7, 2014

Attorney — Student

Educational advocate (Via Telephone) — Student

DR., Psychologist (Via Telephone) — Student

Parents

Attorney — DOE

Assistant Principal (Via Telephone) — DOE

INTRODUCTION

On September 9, 2013 I was appointed as the Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) to conduct a hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) 20 United States Code, section 1415 (f) (1), concerning a dispute involving the special education program of ”).

BACKGROUND

. The classification is not in dispute. The student attended for (2010-11 school year), (2011-12 school year) and (2012-13 school year). The student currently attends ”) for the 2013-14 school year and is in . The student was in a general education class for . Towards the the teacher had concerns about . In the the school did not have concerns until the end of the year. The school addressed the issue by involving in an extended day program. (t. 179-182, 340) In the continued to have and was discussed by the pupil personnel intervention (“PPT”) team and it was determined that she needed . The Parent voiced concerns about the students’ academic progress in from kindergarten through the 2nd grade. (t. 234-35) was given special education teacher supports services (“SETSS”) 2 times per week in October of 2012 as an at risk student. (t. 21-24) In September of that school year the Parent had a private neuropsychological evaluation done of the student. (Ex. 12). On 2/12/13 the Committee on Special Education (CSE) met and developed an Individualized Education Program (IEP) for the student, classifying her as a student with a learning disability. The IEP recommended a general education program with SETSS 4x per week and ”) 3x per week for 30 minutes in a group of 3. (Ex. 1). The Final Notice of Recommendation (“FNR”) dated 2/12/13 was sent to the Parent with the recommended program as noted in the IEP and the school to continue as PS 40. The Parent returned the FNR on or about 2/28/13 consenting to the recommendation with the caveat “I consent to the services through June 2013. (Ex. 2) At the request of the Parent (Ex. C) the CSE met again on 6/19/13 and another IEP was generated. This IEP increased the SETSS mandate to 5x per week and reduced the SLT group from 3 to 2 with services continuing 3x per week for 30 minutes. (Ex. 21) The Parent asserts that the CSE meetings and the resulting IEP’s are substantively and procedurally flawed and that the student was denied FAPE. The Parent seeks tuition reimbursement for Windward for the 2013-14 school year, transportation costs and the cost of the private evaluation and reevaluation (Ex. G) that the Parent had performed.

The New York City Department of Education (“DOE” or “District”) asserts that the public school placement offered to MG and the CSE meetings were substantively and procedurally sound and the IEP’s were developed and tailored to meet the students’ educational needs and that the operative IEP for the purposes of the 2013-14 school year is the IEP developed on 6/19/13. In addition the DOE asserts that the Parents have failed to show that Windward is an appropriate program and that the equities favor the DOE.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

It is uncontested that the Parent had significant concerns about the student and academic throughout her time at PS40. (t. 24, 44, 183, 234-35) The teachers at the school also noted academic struggles starting in the . The philosophy of the school is that in kindergarten they believe in giving kids time and do not have a lot of intervention at that grade and they did not initially have concerns The Parent had raised the issue with the and was told that for some children it takes . However, by the end of the year the teacher did have concerns about the student. The teacher found needed multiple and was not at quite the same rate as other students in the class. (t. 180-181, 341) The school did not have concerns until the end of the year, though the Parent continued to have concerns. At the beginning of the year the teacher, Ms. , felt that things were beginning to click for and that she was seeing progress. It was at the middle of the year that reached a plateau and needed multiple exposure and the teacher became concerned about ’s reading. The Parent hired a tutor in or around February of the 1st grade for 2 times per week. (t. 181-82, 345-46) As a response to ’s the school suggested participate in an extended day program. The extended day program is a small group of students that stay after school for an additional 37 minutes, 3 days a weeks for intensive academic support for reading as well as small group reading in class. The Parent agreed to the extended day program (t. 182, 198, 347-48) While the Parent testified that the student made slight progress in the first grade, . (t. 346)

Ms. Assistant Principal at testified that the school approached academic intervention in a 3 tier protocol. Tier one intervention are things done in the classroom to make the student more successful such as preferential seating, a checklist on their desk or inclusion in small group instruction within the classroom. Tier 2 interventions are within the school, but not through an IEP such as having a reading specialist who works with a student one on one or in a small group. Tier 3 is a formal evaluation and IEP. In both 1st and received tier 2 intervention, in the 2nd grade it took the form of the at risk SETSS. (t. 227-29) The school did not believe it was necessary to do an in the first grade as they were trying different interventions with her but did believe that she would probably need more support in the future. The Parent did not request to have the student evaluated in the 1st grade, though the Parent testified that she was unaware that she had that option. (t. 183, 347)

In her 2nd grade at was again had as a teacher. The school encourages teachers to go up to the next grade with their students. The Parents are given the option to keep their child with the same teacher, go to another class or leave the choice up to the school. The Assistant Principal, Ms. was unsure of the reason remained in the class with Ms. She testified that in the time that was in Ms. ’s class no complaints were received about her from the Parents. (t. 184-85) It was in October of 2012 that was brought up at the PPT meeting by Ms. . The PPT team consists of a special education teacher, general education teacher, the Assistant Principal, school psychologist and related service providers for occupational therapy (“OT”) and SLT and school counselor. Ms. explained to the PPT that reading and writing. The PPT discussed the options and decided to have Ms. the SETSS teacher work with her as an at risk student 2 times per week. Working with a student “at risk” is a form of intervention to work with a student before developing an IEP. No evaluation was considered at that time because the team wants to see what progress can be made working with the student as “at risk”. The Parents were informed and agreed. In the SETSS was in a small group of 4 to 6 students that met 2x per week and worked on reading, decoding, spelling, encoding and writing skills as well as organizing her thinking. In working with Ms. used components from a number of programs, one the Wilson reading program is a multi-sensory phonics-based language program based on the principles of Orton Gillingham and it directly teaches phonics skills to students. (t. 22-25) When Ms. started working organizing herself with her writing in the classroom, having problems with spelling and reading. As strengths comprehension skills, was able to understand text literally and a solid understanding os things going on around her. (t. 26-27) The at risk services were on a pull out basis and Ms. with Ms. would meet several times a week and Ms. also leave her notes to let her know what they were working on and what support with. Ms. also met with Parents. (t. 28)

In the summer prior to the Parents continued to be concerned by her struggles in reading, writing and spelling. A family friend advised the Parents to The Parents had by Dr. a Psychologist who did a . (Ex. 12) Upon receiving the report the Parent met with the Principal brought in the evaluation. The Parent testified that the Principal was shocked by the evaluation and was going to speak to the Assistant Principal. There was a further discussion about and whether that was has a negative connotation. Based on the recommendation of Dr. the Parent hired a tutor that used the Orton-Gillingham methodology. Shortly thereafter the Parent requested that the school to commence the process for a CSE meeting. (t. 353-55, 357) It was also at this time that the Parent was concerned academic problems increasing as the demands of the curriculum increased. In addition, became resistant to going to school because she did not feel good about herself, with . (t. 349-51)

On February 12, 2013 an IEP meeting was held to craft an IEP the current school year with a projected annual review of 2/11/14. (Ex. 1) This was an initial review for the student. Those in attendance included the SETSS teacher, Ms. the classroom teacher via telephone, the Parents, school psychologist, school social worker, SLT provider and OT provider as well as a Parent representative. Also in attendance was the Assistant Principal, Ms (t. 29) She testified that she often attends initial IEP meetings but especially when there is a question about private schools. had mentioned to Ms. and Ms. that she would be attending a new school the following school year. The question was brought up at the IEP meeting because there was concern by the teachers that because she was going to another school that this school did not matter that much. The Parent stated that it was not the case. (t. 60, 187) At the meeting the team considered a number of documents, including but not limited to a classroom progress report, SETSS progress report, , Classroom Observations by , Social History, evaluation, evaluation and Evaluation by an outside evaluator. The evaluations were discussed by the person who wrote them and Dr. school psychologist reviewed the private neuropsychological evaluation. (t. 30-31) At the meeting was classified as a student with . There was no objection to that classification. It was recommended that received SETSS 4x per week . There was no disagreement with the recommendations, though Ms. testified that she felt was making progress with 2x per week and suggested 2 or 3x per week, but the Parents were concerned so after discussion it was agreed that it should be 4x per week. Ms. stated that while was she had only had the intervention of SETSS for a short time but that she was seeing improvements such as starting to use more vowels, and that she knew that words had to have vowels. In addition, she testified was able to take what she learned in SETSS and bring it back to the classroom. (t. 33-36, 189) The team discussed in a less restrictive setting but felt it was not appropriate, and also in collaborative team teaching (“CTT”) but felt that it was too restrictive at the time because was making progress in the small intervention group. (t. 38, 189) Ms. had previously drafted goals based on her assessments Ms. read the goals aloud, discussed why she felt they were appropriate and the Parents agreed to them. Ms. had written a progress report which contained the draft goals which were sent home to the Parents prior to the meeting. The SLT goals were drafted by the SLT therapist. Management goals were also discussed at the meeting and they were based on observations of the classroom teacher, what the SETSS teacher felt were appropriate and the suggestions of the private neuropsychological report such extra wait time and testing accommodations. There was no disagreement by the Parents to the management goals at the meeting. (t. 39-41) The Parent representative participated in the conversation and did not ask that the team consider anything different. (t. 190) At the time of the February IEP meeting Ms. testified that the s reading level was Level J which is considered to be the grade level for December of second grade, when she began working with her in October ’s reading level was I. Ms. assessed both formally and informally. (t. 49-50)

At the request of the Parent an IEP meeting was held on 6/19/14 as a reevaluation meeting. The meeting was held to reevaluate the program was in. At the time of the meeting they reviewed updated reports and updated performance levels for MG. The goals were reviewed but remained the same because of the short amount of time which had passed. Ms. recommended that she continue to receive SETSS four times per week but the Parents expressed concern so they increased it to 5x per week. The Parent representative raised the issue of CTT. Ms. testified that she still believed did not need the CTT class for the same reasons discussed in the February IEP meeting. The team considered the least restrictive environment for , which is one in which a child is making progress and continuing to do well. The Team found that was continuing to make progress in SETSS. While MG was sometimes distracted and fidgety and needed support to participate most of the time she was able to participate. Ms. did not recall anyone stating that the CTT class was full but testified that they look at the child’s needs and will make the recommendation the team feels is appropriate and then make it a possibility. (t. 51-59, 83-84) Ultimately, the IEP developed at the 6/13/14 meeting remained the same with the exception of an increase in SETTS and a reduction in the size of the SLT group. (Ex. 21)

The Parent applied for admission for the 2013-14 school year sometime after attending a special needs fair in January. On March 27, 2013 the Parent sent a letter to the CSE chairperson advising her of her concerns about the February IEP and that she had made a deposit to secure a . (Ex. B) (t. 391, 394-97) An enrollment contract was signed 3/6/13 and a nonrefundable deposit of $4,000 was made via a check dated 3/6/13, received 3/14/13. The remainder of the tuition in the amount of $45,525 was made via a check dated 8/1/13 which was received on 8/21/14. (Ex. P)

On August 2, 2013 the Parent sent a letter to the CSE chairperson expressing her belief has not made progress , her disagreement with the reading level and attaching proof. In addition, she states that she is the CSE. (Ex. D). In a letter dated August 14, 2013 (mailed 8/15/13) the Parent sent a letter to the CSE chairperson detailing her disagreement with the program , reminding her that she had secured a spot at and that if the DOE was unable to provide an appropriate program for the student she would send her to Windward at public expense. (Ex. E). In a letter dated August 15, 2013 (mailed 8/16/13) the Parent references her letters of 8/2/13 and 8/15/13 and gives the DOE 10 day notice of her intent to at public expense. (Ex. F) In a letter dated August 27, 2013 the Parent sent a letter to the CSE, enclosing a copy of Dr. Epstein’s reevaluation, asking for a reconvene to review the updated evaluation and noting that she has (Ex. G) Entries in SESIS Events Log (Ex. 25) state that the District received the letter on 9/10/13 but the neuropsychological report was not included. The Parent was contacted on or about 9/20/13 but could not talk at that time. On 9/23/13 the Parent agreed to send a copy of the report by fax or email. On 10/21/13 the Parent was called again by the District as the report was not received. The reevaluation was noted as received on or about 11/1/13.

began in September of the 2013-14 school year. is a school for children with language based disabilities of average or above average intelligence. (t. 296, Ex. I, J) Dr. did an observation of MG at Windward on December 16, 2013 (Ex. M) at the request of the Parent. She observed MG in homeroom and ELA class. She noted that the students were all 3rd graders, the ratio in homeroom was 13:2 and in ELA/Math was 9:2. She described as somewhat self-direct, easily distracted, fidgety and that MG needed a lot of support. She testified that needed a lot of support in her ELA class. (t. 298-301) Dr. Sheiken spoke to two teachers and they told her is very bright but has significant learning needs that are language based and she requires a lot of support and needs to learn in an individualized manner. (t. 312) After reading Dr. ’s evaluation Dr came to the conclusion and has to be educated in a school that has extensive experience in children with her type of learning needs and that her needs could not be met elsewhere. (t.

317) Dr. and had not reviewed any documents regarding functioning at the time of the observation. (t. 322-23) The Parent testified that and is happier. (t. 372-74)

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. 1400-1482) has as its core tenet the assurance that students with disabilities have available to them a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) (20 U.S.C. 1400 (d) (1) (A); see Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 51 (2005); Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179-81, 200-01 (1982); Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 371 (2d Cir. 2006). A FAPE includes special education and related services designed to meet the student’s unique needs, provided in conformity with a written IEP (20 U.S.C. 1401 (9) (D); 34 C.F.R. 300.17 (d); see 20 U.S.C. 1414 (d); 34 C.F.R. 300.320).

There is a three prong test that is the legal standard applicable in a request for reimbursement for educational services: (1) were the services offered by the Department of Education inadequate or inappropriate; (2) if so, were the services selected by the parent appropriate; and (3) if so, are there equitable considerations to support the parents. School Committee of Burlington v. Department of Education of Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985). Pursuant to N.Y. Education Law Section 4404 (1) (c) the burden to proceed on prong 1 is that of the School District. I find that based on the testimony adduced at the hearing the District provided the student with FAPE for the 2013-14 school year. The Parent argues that the District failed both procedurally and substantively to offer MG FAPE for the 2013-14 school year in that it failed to offer n appropriate program for the 2013-14 school year or establish the appropriateness of the recommended placement.

The State Review Office (“SRO”) considered the type of procedural flaw which would result in a denial of FAPE in Application of the New York City Dept. of Edu., Appeal No. 08-037. The SRO noted that not all procedural flaws automatically require a finding of a denial of FAPE. A hearing officer “may find that a student did not receive FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies: (a) impeded the student’s right to FAPE; significantly impeded the parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision making process regarding the provision of FAPE for the student; or caused a deprivation of educational benefits.” (Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. School Dist., 471 F. Supp 2d 415, 419 (S.D.N.Y. 2007). FAPE is offered “by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction” (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203). In Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist, 142 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 1998) the Court observed that the “[Individuals with Disabilities Education Act] does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefit that must be provided through an IEP. The Supreme Court has… specifically rejected the contention that the “ ‘appropriate’ education” mandated by IDEA requires states to ‘maximize the potential of handicapped children’ Board of Educ. V. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 197 n.21, 189, 102 S.Ct. at 3046 n.21, 3042. the purpose of the Act was ‘more to open the door of public education to handicapped children on appropriate terms than to guarantee any particular level of education once inside.’ Id. At 192, 102 S.Ct at 3043; accord Lunceford v. District of Columbia Bd. Of Educ., 745 F.2d 1577, 1583 (D.C.Cir 1984) (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, J.) (because public ‘resources are not infinite,’ federal law ‘does not secure the best education money can buy; it calls upon government, more modestly, to provide an appropriate education for each [disabled] child’)…An appropriate public education under IDEA is one that is likely to produce progress, not regression.’ Cypress-Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael F., 118 F.3d 245, 248 (5th Cir.1997) (internal citation omitted), cert. denied, ---U.S.---, 188 S.Ct. 690, 139 L.Ed.2d 636 (1998). Id., at 130, 132. An IEP must be reasonably calculated to produce educational benefit, not necessarily to maximize potential. See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189 (1982). A public school district is not required to provide essentially “everything that might by thought desirable by loving parents.” See Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132. The testimony elicited at the hearing revealed that the DOE offered appropriate program for the 2013-14 school year and that the two CSE meetings were both procedurally and substantively sound. While there was no parent member at either of the CSE meetings, the Parent was accompanied by a representative to the meetings. The Parent also asserts that they was not notified of their procedural safeguards. The record is devoid of any testimony to this point. The Parent also asserts that they were not given prior written notice of a change to the IEP but it is unclear in both the due process complaint and the record as to what notice of change they are referring to. However, I do not find that even if this is true that this lack led to a denial of FAPE or impeded the Parents ability to participate in the decision making process as the Parent had a representative with them when they attended the meetings and they fully participated in the meetings. I find the testimony of the Ms. and Ms. credible. The testimony reveals that at the 2/12/14 meeting Dr. ’s report was discussed, that there were draft goals, which had been previously sent to the Parent, and that the goals were discussed and agreed to. I further credit that as making progress, albeit slow progress. The team discussed options it was the opinion of the teachers that least restrictive environment where could make progress would be in a general education classroom with SETSS and SLT. The CTT class was discussed and rejected making progress. Ms. testified that they look at what would be best for the child in making their recommendation. As to the CSE meeting on 6/19/14 I find that the relevant evaluations and documentation was reviewed, the goals remained the same as they had been in place for only a short time and programs were considered and it was determined that program recommendation would remain essentially the same. An additional day of SETSS was added based on the continued concerns of the Parent, though Ms. Olshever testified that was making progress with SETSS 4x per week.

The Parent asserts that the failure of the District to reconvene after the Parent sent a letter requesting a reconvene on 8/27/13 is a denial of FAPE. However, the DOE did not receive the letter until after the due process complaint in this matter had been filed, and the evaluation was not included in with the letter. When the District reached out to the Parent on or about 9/20/13 and let her know the reevaluation was not included the Parent did not provide a copy until on or about 11/1/13.

The student had been attending and had been struggling. In response academic struggles the school implemented a tiered protocol to address the academic issues and began working as an at risk student and giving her 2x per week SETSS. Ms. Olshever testified was making progress. The Parent testified that she had hired tutors to work with the student and this may well have make progress but it would be impossible to determine whether one or the other was contributing to the progress .

The Parent is not entitled to reimbursement for the privately obtained neuropsychological evaluation. 8NYCRR 200.5 (g) states that a parent may request an independent educational evaluation at public expense if the parent disagrees with an evaluation done by the school district. There was no evaluation done by the District, nor did the Parent notify the District of her intent to . As to the reevaluation, the Parent testified that she did not ask the District to do a reevaluation. (t. 391)

The Parent is not entitled to reimbursement for transportation. Pursuant to Education Law Section 4404 (4) (d) the District must provide free transportation to disabled students attending nonpublic schools that are enrolled in a similar program to that recommended by the CSE. In the instant case the CSE recommended a general education class with SETSS the student attends a nonpublic special education school. Under the aforementioned section the District is not obligated to provide transportation.

I find that based on the testimony adduced at the hearing that the DOE has crafted a procedurally and substantively sound IEP and recommended an appropriate program for the 2013-14 school year thereby providing However, though the District has prevailed on Prong 1 I will address Prong 2 and Prong 3.

I find that the parental placement at issue has not been reasonably calculated to confer an educational benefit to the student. The Parent has the burden to prove that the services provided were “proper under the Act” Florence County School District v. Carter 510 U.S.7 at 12, 15 (1993); Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370, that the private school offered an educational program that met the child’s special education needs. There is a paucity of evidence regarding the appropriateness of the parental placement at Windward. The testimony of Dr. as to the appropriateness of the program is based on single visit to observe the student which was a few hours in length and a very short discussion with two of her teachers. The evidence contains literature from the school and a progress report, none of which supports the parent’s burden that the placement has been reasonably calculated to confer an education benefit to the student.

The third prong of the test for tuition funding is whether the equities favor the Parent’s position. I find that the while the Parent complied with all requests for information and appeared at all meetings and evaluations made by the CSE this was superficial cooperation. The teachers at PS 40 were made she would be going to a different school the following year prior to the February 12, 2013 CSE meeting. When the Parent was asked about saying at the meeting she said it was not true and would speak However, the Parent testified that at some point between January and March 6, 2013 when the Windward contract was signed they applied In addition, the Windward contract requires a nonrefundable $4,000 down payment and further states that the obligation to pay the full tuition “…is unconditional and that no portion thereof will be refunded or canceled despite the subsequent…withdrawal…of the student from the School for any reason whatsoever.” The contract does give the option to withdraw without full payment, but with the forfeiture of the $4,000 deposit, if they advise by July 1, 2013. In addition, the Parent chose, out of several options to pay the full tuition due July 15. The Parent sent a check dated 8/1/13 to Windward to pay the full tuition of $48,650 which was received by Windward on 8/21/13. A letter dated 8/14/13, but mailed on 8/15/13 was sent to the CSE advising the District of the Parents intention to unilaterally place the student if an appropriate placement is not made. On the same day, in a letter dated 8/15/13 was mailed to the CSE referencing the letter of 8/14 and a letter of 8/2 (though the letter of 8/2/13 did not reference placement at Windward or request an appropriate placement) as well as a letter of 3/27/13 and that she has not received a response to her letters. The letter of 8/2/13 did not call for a response, the letter of 8/14/13 was mailed the same day as the letter of 8/15 so it would be impossible to receive a response and the letter of 3/27/13 was sent months previously and there had been an intervening CSE meeting. The 8/14/13 letter was received at the CSE on 8/19/13. Two days later the full tuition payment was find that the letters were written for the purpose of making a record of compliance not actual compliance.

ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby ordered that the Parent’s Due Process Complaint is dismissed Dated: May 9, 2014

Jeanne Keefe mv

JEANNE KEEFE, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer JK;mv

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

Within 35 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to appeal the decision to the State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

“The notice of intention to seek review shall be served upon the school district not less than 10 days before service of a copy of the petition for review upon such school district, and within 25 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. The petition for review shall be served upon the school district within 35 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. If the decision has been served by mail upon petitioner, the date of mailing and the four days subsequent thereto shall be excluded in computing the 25- or 35-day period.”

(8NYCRR279.2[b]) Failure to file the notice of intention to seek review is a waiver of the right to appeal this decision.

Directions and sample forms for filing an appeal are included with this decision. Directions and forms can also be found in the Office of State Review website: www.sro.nysed.gov/appeals.htm.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

1. IEP dated 2/12/13, 20 pages District

2. Final Notice of Recommendation, dated 2/12/13, 1 page District

3. Student Progress Report by , dated 1/10/13, 3 pages District

4. Student Progress Report by , dated 2/8/13, 3 pages District

5. Letter from re: , dated 2/7/13, 2 pages District

6. Classroom observation by , dated 2/7/13, 2 pages District

7. Classroom observation by , dated 1/18/13, 1 page District

8. Occupational Therapy Evaluation, dated 1/30/13, 9 pages District

9. Letter from , M.D., dated 1/29/13, 1 page District

10. Physical Examination, dated 1/29/13, 4 pages District

11. Revised Physical Examination, dated 2/4/13, 4 pages District

12. Evaluation, dated 9/18/12 through 10/4/12, 7 pages District

13. Evaluation, dated 1/17/13, 9 pages District

14. Social History Evaluation, dated 12/6/12, 6 pages District

15. Evaluation Report, dated 12/6/12, 1 page District

16. Student Progress Report by , dated 6/3/13, 3 pages District

17. Student Progress Report by , dated 6/6/13, 4 pages District

18. Hearing Evaluation Report dated 2/28/13, 2 pages District

19. Letter from S. Epstein, dated 2/11/13, 1 page District

20. Student Progress Report by , dated 6/18/13, 3 pages District

21. IEP, dated 6/19/13, 20 pages District

22. Grade 2 Progress Report, dated 11/14/12, 2 pages District

23. Grade 2 Progress Report, dated 3/12/13, 4 pages District

24. Progress Report Notes, undated, 1 page District

25. SESIS Events Log, 11/26/12 through 11/6/13, 14 pages District

26. Due Process Response, dated 9/25/13, 4 pages District

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON MARCH 7, 2014

A. Impartial Hearing Request, dated 9/3/13, 9 pages Parent

B. Parent Correspondence to CSE w/proof of mailing, dated 3/27/13, 3 pages Parent

C. Parent fax of dated 5/20/13, 3 pages Parent

D. Parent correspondence to CSE w/proof of mailing, dated 8/2/13, 7 pages Parent

E. Parent correspondence to CSE w/ proof of mailing, dated 8/14/13, 3 pages Parent

F. Parent correspondence to CSE w/proof of mailing, dated 8/15/13, 4 pages Parent

G. Parent correspondence to CSE w/proof of mailing and Dr. reevaluation, dated Parent

8/27/13, 8 pages

H. Psychological evaluation invoice from Dr. w/proof of payment, dated Parent

11/1/12, 3 pages

I. The Program Description, undated, 13 pages Parent

J. The Academic Program, undated, 2 pages Parent

K. Class Schedule, Semester 1 2013-14, 1 page Parent

L. Progress Report, dated 2/2014, 17 pages Parent

M observation, Dr. , dated 12/16/13, 6 pages Parent

N. Enrollment contract, The , dated 3/6/13, 2 pages Parent

O. Proof of tuition payment, dated 3/6/13 & 8/1/13, 2 pages Parent

P. Proof of tuition payment, dated 12/4/13, 1 page Parent

Q. Transportation Contract, undated, 2 pages Parent

R. Proof of Transportation Payment, dated 9/3/13, 1 page Parent

S. progress report, Manhattan’s public school, , dated 11/4/12, 3 pages Parent

POST HEARING SUBMISSION BY IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER

I. Statement of Adjournments and Extensions, undated, 1 page IHO

II. Parent’s Memorandum of Law and Closing Statement, dated 4/16/14, 16 pages Parent

III. Closing Brief for the Department of Education, dated 4/16/14, District