New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number:

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District:

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Date of Hearing: April 8, 2014

May 1, 2014

June 17, 2014

Actual Record Closed Date: July 25, 2014

Hearing Officer: , Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED APRIL 8, 2014

Parent of Student — Parents

Parent of Student — Parents

Esq. Attorney Associated with the Law Office of Regina Skyer and Associates, LLP, Attorneys for Parents — Parents

Esq. Attorney for District and New York City — DOE

School-Based Support Team at and I. - Participated in an I.E.P. Meeting of 5-23-13 — DOE

Special Education Teacher at -was Student’s Special Education Teacher during the 2012-2013 school year (by phone) — DOE

Principal of – Attended, on May 23, 2013, a Reconvene Meeting of the I.E.P. Team (by phone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED MAY 1, 2014

Parent of Student — Parents

Parent of Student — Parents

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

Wendy Federico Admissions Director for (by phone) — Parents

Esq. Attorney Associated with the Law Office of Attorneys for Parents – Attended the I.E.P. Meetings of 5-23-13 and 6-20-13 — Parents

Head Teacher at the -was Student’s home room teacher during the 2013-201 school year – Also Student’s teacher for Reading and Math (by phone) — Parents

Esq. Attorney for District and New York City — DOE

DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JUNE 17, 2014

Parent of Student — Parents

Parent of Student — Parents

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

Ph.D. Neuropsychologist – Conducted a Neuropsychological Evaluation of Student on 1-15-13; Prepared a Neuropsychological Update, dated 5-15-13; Conducted an Observation of Student on 6-7-13; and Prepared a Neuropsychological Evaluation Observation Report (by phone) — Parents

Esq. Attorney for District and New York City — DOE

DOE

Principal of – Attended, on May 23, 2013, a Reconvene Meeting of the I.E.P. Team (by phone) — DOE

The Matter ., (hereinafter referred to as “Student”) came before me for determination in accordance with the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(1) and Article 89 of the Education Law of the State of New York on April 8, 2014, May 1, 2014 and June 17, 2014. The proceeding was commenced by Student’s Parents, by correspondence sent on Parents’ behalf by the Law Offices of to the New York City Department of Education’s Impartial Hearing Office, dated September 11, 2013 and received by said Office on that date. The undersigned was appointed by the Impartial Hearing Office to preside over this matter by notification dated September 12, 2013. At the conclusion of the hearing on June 17, 2014, both parties requested the opportunity to submit Post-Hearing briefs. Such requests were granted so long as the Post-Hearing briefs were submitted by the close of business on July 23, 2014. Each party submitted a timely Post-Hearing brief and each was read and considered. The Actual Record Close Date was July 25, 2014

Parents allege in their Due Process Complaint (Exhibit 8) that District and the New York City Department of Education failed to offer Student a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2013-2014 school year. Parents seek in this proceeding to have the District and the New York City Department of Education ordered to reimburse Parents for the tuition incurred by them for the unilateral placement of Student the Churchill School for the 2013-2014 school year . The Student whose educational program was reviewed in this proceeding is presently having . However, at the time the District’s Committee on Special Education (C.S.E.) convened on May 23, 2013 to develop Student’s special education program for the 2013-2014 school year, Student . Student had moved from a Preschool program at the conclusion of the 2011-2012 school year, and had been transitioned from that Pre-school program, pursuant to his “ Individualized Education Program (I.E.P.), to a where Student was provided with his educational program in an Integrated Co-Teaching (ICT) class. Parent provided background information regarding Student’s development, as early as (T.R.350). Student was services, including various therapies and Special Education Itinerant Teacher (SEIT) services (T.R.351). Thereafter, before starting his Kindergarten program in September of 2012 . Information regarding Student’s academic levels was gleaned from a number of sources. The I.E.P. that was prepared ”, on September 9, 2012 (Exhibit J), indicated that Student was functioning at Pre-Kindergarten Levels in both Reading and Math. It was also noted that Student had been assessed, utilizing the Stanford-Binet Abbreviated Battery, and had achieved , placing Student’s of the Superior Range, as did Student’s scores in both and Vocabulary Knowledge. Janine Pollack, Ph.D. assessed Student in January of 2013 at the request of Parents. The report of (Exhibit 5) indicated that, utilizing the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence – Fourth Edition (WPPSI-IV), the examiner found that Student’s However, Student’s performance on the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals – Fourth Edition (CELF-IV), was less impressive, as Student achieved a that placed Student in the Low Average Range (Exhibit 5). Student was diagnosed by Dr. ;a ); a Math (Exhibit 5). As noted, Dr. concluded on January 15, 2013. Parent testified that she and her husband thereafter met to discuss the results of Dr (T.R.429). In that meeting, according advised that Parents look into a specialized school that dealt with children (T.R.429) and provided Parents with a list of such schools, including (T.R.428). Parents thereafter, in early February of 2013, visited applied for Student’s admission (T.R.435-436). An Enrollment Contract for Student’s attendance at for the 2013-2014 school year, dated February 28, 2013, was entered into by Parents but signed and dated by Parents on March 7, 2013 and by the Head of the Churchill School on March 11, 2013 (Exhibit P). Parent paid to , on May 7, 2013, the sum of Five Thousand ($5,000.00) Dollars and, on April 8, 2013, an additional Fourteen Thousand One Hundred Sixty-Six ($14, 166.00) Dollars (Exhibit Q). Thereafter, by letter dated April 24, 2013, Parents wrote to the C.S.E. Chair, stating that Student’s current educational program was insufficient to meet Student’s documented educational needs and that it was critical that Student receive accommodates bright children with language –based , and requested a CSE Review be scheduled to determine an appropriate special education program (Exhibit B).

District’s Committee on Special Education (C.S.E.) convened on May 23, 2013, pursuant to Parents’ request, to conduct a Review and to plan Student’s special education program for the 2013-2014 school year. Present at that meeting were Jennine Scirecalabrisotto, Student’s Special Education Teacher in his Integrated Co-Teaching Kindergarten class , Esq.(Exhibit 1). Also participating by telephone, but not listed in the Attendance Page, was Dr. Pollack (T.R.440). As a result of that meeting, an Individualized Education program was prepared for Student for the 2013-2014 school year which classified Student as and recommending that Student receive his special education program in an Integrated Co-Teaching class, together with Special Education Teacher Support Services (SETSS) five periods per week and the services of a full-time paraprofessional, together with the Related once per week, thirty minutes per session, individually; and once weekly, thirty minutes per session, in a group of three; and Therapy twice weekly, thirty minutes per session, individually, and once weekly, thirty minutes per session, in a group of three (Exhibit 1).

It is necessary that I depart from the review of Student’s educational needs and the program recommended by District to address the issue of not what – but when - the program described above was recommended by the C.S.E. According to the testimony of , who had attended the May 23, 2013 meeting on behalf of Parents, there were certain comments made regarding the validity of the opinions there expressed to the Committee by never observed Student in the classroom setting (T.R.324). Witness Cangiano testified that he had made the suggestion that the meeting be tabled so might have the opportunity to conduct a classroom observation and thereafter reconvene to consider the results of that observation (T.R.324) and that the Department of Education employees accepted his suggestion to do so (T.R. 324). According to Witness Cangiano, all of the Committee participants thought that that was a wonderful idea (T.R.324). In fact, through completed a Report of such, dated June 7, 2013 (Exhibit 7). A meeting was scheduled for – and held – on June 20, 2014. However, according to the testimony (T.R.83) or (T.R 245-246), it was not a reconvention of the Committee or the IEP Team,. Rather, it was a meeting to consider whether the had any new information that would require the IEP Team to reconvene (T.R. 246) and, according to Witness Garofolo, there was no new information that would require a reconvention (T.R.246).

Had the IEP Team which had met on May 23, 2013 not reached a decision as to Student’s program, but had held off on making such determination until it could hear as to the results of her observation, there would have been no valid proposed I.E.P., for clearly the District attendees who were present on June 20, 2013 did not constitute a valid Committee. However, it is my finding and determination that the Committee that met on May 23, 2013 did, in fact, conclude its review and prepared an I.E.P. for Student’s program for the 2013-2014 school year. According to the Department of Education staff which attended the meeting of May 23, 2013 and appeared and testified in this proceeding, the Committee recommendations were made and confirmed at the May 23, 2013 meeting. So said (T.R.228); so said (T.R.82-83); and so said (T.R.245). By Notice dated June3 20, 2913, a Final Notice of Recommendation was sent to Parents (Exhibit M).

Thereafter, Parent’s counsel sent correspondence to District, dated August 23, 2013, advising that Parents intended to place Student at for the 2013-2014 school year and seek reimbursement for such placement from the Department of Education (Exhibit

A) and, by correspondence dated September 11, 2013, commenced this Due Process proceeding, alleging that District failed to offer Student a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2013-2014 school year and requesting that Parents be reimbursed for the unilateral placement of Student at

It has been established that Boards of Education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a child by the child’s parent, if (1) the services offered by the Board of Education were inadequate or inappropriate; (2) the services selected by the Parent were appropriate and; (3) equitable considerations support the Parent’s claim. Such prerequisites were established by the United States Supreme Court when considering claims for reimbursement brought by parents who had unilaterally placed their disabled child in a private facility. (School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985); Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-052). Further, it was later held that the fact that the facility selected by the Parent to provide special education services to the child had not been approved as a school for children with disabilities by the State Education Department of the State of New York would not be dispositive of a parent’s claim for tuition reimbursement (Florence County School District 4 et al. v. Carter by Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]). The Court noted that Parents who unilaterally decide to place their child do so at their own financial risk.

It is noted that the Courts in each of the above-cited cases dealt with requests for tuition reimbursement.

Burden of Proof

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

DISCUSSION

It is stated that a FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]). However, that is not exactly accurate. For, while school districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures, not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (A.C. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 5505470, at *4 [2d Cir. Jan. 16, 2009]; Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003]; Perricelli v. Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 465211, at *10 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2007]). Under the IDEA as amended, if a procedural violation is alleged, an administrative officer may find that a student did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a) impeded the student's right to a FAPE, (b) significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student, or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; E.H. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 3930028, at *7 [N.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2008]; Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 471 F. Supp. 2d 415, 419 [S.D.N.Y. 2007] aff'd, 2008 WL 3852180 [2d Cir. Aug. 19, 2008]).

It has been stated that an appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student's needs (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]), establishes annual goals related to those needs (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]), and provides for the use of appropriate special education services (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][4]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]; see Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 07-018; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-059; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 06-029; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-046; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-014; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 93-9).17 The student's recommended program must also be provided in the Least Restrictive Environment (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.114[a][2][i], 300.116[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[cc], 200.6[a][1]; see P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 4509089, at *7 [2d Cir. Oct. 9, 2008]; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 [2d Cir. 2007]; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132). A school district may be required to belatedly pay expenses that it should have paid all along and would have borne in the first instance had it offered the student a FAPE (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 37071; see also 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][ii]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.148). The IDEA directs that, in general, an impartial hearing officer's decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][i]). A school district offers a FAPE "by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction" (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203). However, the "IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP" (Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 [2d Cir. 1998]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189). The statute ensures an "appropriate" education, "not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents" (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132, quoting Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d 563, 567 [2d Cir. 1989] [citations omitted]; see Grim, 346 F.3d at 379). Additionally, school districts are not required to "maximize" the potential of students with disabilities (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199; Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132). Nonetheless, a school district must provide "an IEP that is 'likely to produce progress, not regression,' and . . . affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere 'trivial advancement'" (Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195, quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130 [citations omitted]; see Perricelli, 2007 WL 465211, at *15). The IEP must be "reasonably calculated to provide some 'meaningful' benefit" (Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 [2d Cir. 1997]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192). It is this last requirement that will guide my review in this matter.

As noted, District bears the burden of establishing that it offered Student a free, appropriate public education (N.Y.S. Education Law §4404(1)(c). Such inquiry initially must focus on the I.E.P. prepared for Student for the 2013-2014 school year on May 23, 2013, which proposed that Student receive his special education program in an Integrated Co-Teaching class, together with Special Education Teacher Support Services (SETSS) five periods per week and the services of a full-time paraprofessional, together with the Related Services of Occupational Therapy once per week, thirty minutes per session, individually; and once weekly, thirty minutes per session, in a group of three; and Speech/Language Therapy twice weekly, thirty minutes per session, individually, and once weekly, thirty minutes per session, in a group of three (Exhibit 1). However, as the recommended placement for Student is in an Integrated Co-Teaching classroom, it is appropriate to review Student’s program and progress during the 2012-2013 school year, when Student was also in an Integrated Co-Teaching class. Indeed, Parents’ position in this proceeding was that, while in such setting during the 2012-2013 school year, Student failed to make adequate progress. However, District witnesses clearly testified otherwise. Student’s classroom Special Education that Student made a lot of progress in reading, being able, at the close of the school year, to read twenty-five of the thirty-fives sight words needed to reach the end (T.R.138-139). In Math, according to his teacher, Student started the 2012-2013 school – but by the end of the year, Student was able to count to seventy and, while unable to answer any problem solving questions in September of 2012, was able to or subtraction in June of 2013 (T.R. 139) – and not only in Math, but across the board (T.R.140). also testified that Student made significant progress socially (T.R.140), and advanced in his writing, which was difficult to read in September of 2012, but, by the end of the school year, had advanced to the point that Student could write simple sentences across pages and with writing that was more clear and legible (T.R.141). also explained the entries in (Exhibit 3) and how those entries showed the progress that Student had made during the 2012-2013 school year (T.R.144-155). Witness that Student, during her observation, appeared very engaged in his work and happy (T.R.29-30). In speaking with Student, Student related that he liked school, liked learning and liked his teachers (T.R.30). that she relied on information provided by the classroom teachers as to how Student was progressing academically, as they were the staff most involved with Student (T.R.30). also stated that she had reviewed the evaluation reports provided found them thorough, although she disagreed with some of finding that Student was of superior intelligence but with a language-based learning disorder

Parents, having and findings that Student required a small, homogeneous environment that would accommodate bright children with language learning disabilities, sought, at the meeting of May 23, 2013, to have the Committee recommend Student’s placement at , to which Student had already been accepted and which was a New York State-approved Non-Public School. Both Special Education Teacher Scirecalabrisotto and School Psychologist Gordon testified that Student functioned well and made appropriate progress in the less-restrictive environment of an Integrated Co-Teaching Class. I find that such is fully consistent with the mandates of both federal and New York State law requiring that students be placed in more restrictive settings only if or when such students cannot be afforded a proper education in a less restrictive setting.

I have given much weight to the recommendations of the Committee that conducted the May 23, 2013 meeting and made the recommendations for Student’s program for the 2013-2014 school year. In most instances within the New York City Department of Education’s special education process, it is rare for a student’s classroom teacher to be part of the Committee planning a student’s program, although a student’s classroom teacher knows the student and his needs far better than those reading and reviewing reports and making program recommendations. In this proceeding, both of Student’s two classroom teachers were actively involved in creating Student’s program. Also, although unusual in a New York City Department of Education proceeding, the classroom teacher provided detailed testimony in this proceeding regarding Student, his progress, his disabilities and his needs.

However, although a review of Student’s progress during the 2012-2013 school year was relevant to Parents’ contention that their unilateral placement of Student at the Churchill School was necessitated by the failure of Student to make any progress during the 2012-2013 school year, it is the I.E.P. of May 23, 2013 that is under review. It is significant that the Committee in fact implemented a number of Dr. Pollack’s recommendations in preparing Student’s I.E.P. for the 20130-2014 school year. Dr. reading and writing challenges (Exhibit 5). Student’s I.E.P. now provides Student with five periods per week of Special Education Teacher Support Services (SETSS), utilizing by (T.R.54) and by (T.R.262 in Student’s one-on-one language therapy (Exhibit 5). In response, the Committee increased Student’s from twice weekly in a group of three (Exhibit J) to twice weekly, individually and once weekly in a group of three (Exhibit 1).

Thus, it is my finding and determination that the special education program established by the Committee in its I.E.P. of May 23, 2013, was appropriate to meet Student’s special education needs in a placement that was reasonably calculated to provide Student with meaningful educational benefit. Thus, the obligation of District to Student has been met. District has successfully borne its burden of establishing that it offered Student a free, appropriate public education for the 2013-2014 school year.

Parents, in their Due Process Complaint, alleged a number of procedural errors in the preparation of Student’s I.E.P., noting the absence of any meaningful academic or management needs, the sufficiency of the Annual Goals contained in the I.E.P., and the failure of the Committee to consider all available programs. I will forego any review of such, noting simply that, even if established, none would rise to the level of depriving Student of a free, appropriate public education. . It is noted that, where a procedural error is found, Commissioner’s Regulations provide that:

“In matters alleging a procedural violation, an impartial hearing officer may find that a student did not receive a free appropriate public education only if the procedural inadequacies impeded the student’s right to a free appropriate public education, significantly impeded the parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a free appropriate public education to the parent’s child, or cause a deprivation of educational benefits”

8 NYCRR 200.5(4)(ii))

It is, therefore, my finding and determination that District and the Department of Education have borne the burden of establishing that a free, appropriate public education was offered to Student for the 2011-2012 school year.

Having made such determination, it is unnecessary that I review the further issues of the appropriateness of Parents’ unilateral placement or equitable considerations.

I recognize that Parents had concerns regarding Student’s which prompted them to secure the services . I recognize further having completed her evaluation, made her recommendation that Student required a small, homogeneous educational environment that accommodated bright children with language-based learning difficulties. Indeed, it is probable that can better address than could the , such does not mean that District had the obligation to provide Student with all that could or provide Student with the best educational environment. District’s obligation, as noted, is only that it offers Student an educational program that is reasonably calculated to offer educational benefit. This, I find, it has done.

ORDER

Based upon the above review, it is

HEREBY ORDERED that Parents’ Due Process Complaint be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED. Dated: August 12, 2014

James P. Walsh, Esq. gc

JAMES P. WALSH, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer JPW:gc

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

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

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

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

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

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD ON APRIL 8, 2014

A. Notice and Request for Transportation, dated 8-23-13, filed by Parents’ counsel (8 pages; Parents)

B. Letter from Parents to C.S.E. dated 4-24-13 (2 pages; Parents)

C. Letter, dated 4-25-13 (1 page; Parents)

D. Letter from, dated 4-30-13 Parents (1 page; Parents)

E. Student’s Kindergarten Report for the 2012-2013 school year (4 pages; Parents)

F. Notice to Parents from undated (1 page; Parents)

G. Letter from Parents to, dated 7-1-13 (4 pages; Parents)

H. Student’s Kindergarten Progress Report -Third Quarter (5 pages; Parents)

I. Student’s Kindergarten Progress Report -Fourth Quarter (4 pages; Parents)

J. I.E.P., dated 9-11-12 (12 pages; Parents)

K. Form Letter from to Families for 9-2012 Parents (2 pages; Parents)

1. I.E.P., dated 5-23-13 (13 pages; DOE)

2. Functional Behavior Assessment Plan, dated 3-16-12 (3 pages; DOE)

3. Assemblage of Student Assessments and Progress Charts, various dates (23 pages; DOE)

4. Student’s Related Services Progress Charts, undated (5 pages; DOE)

5. Evaluation Report by Ph.D., dated 1-15-13 (27 pages; DOE)

6. Evaluation Update by, Ph.D., dated 5-15-13 (13 pages; DOE)

7. Neuropsychological Evaluation Observation DOE Report by, Ph.D., dated 6-7-13 (6 pages; DOE)

8. Parents’ Due Process Complaint Notice, dated 8-23-13 (9 pages; DOE)

9. District’s Due Process Response, dated 9-18-13 (3 pages; DOE)

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD ON MAY 1, 2014

L. Copy of Email Chain beginning on 6-11-13 and concluding on 8-2-13 (3 pages; Parents)

M. Final Notice of Recommendation, dated 6-20-13 (1 page; Parents)

N. Student’s Classroom Schedule (Room 201) (1 page; Parents)

O. Cover Letter, dated 3-2014 (1); Mid-Year Report Card for Student, dated January 2014 (10) (11 pages; Parents)

P. Enrollment Contract between Parents and the, dated 2-28-13, but signed by Parents on 3-7-13 and by School on 3-11-14 (2 pages; Parents)

Q. Affidavit by, sworn to on 3-6-14 (4 pages; Parents)

R. Student’s Attendance Report School (2 pages; Parents)

10. Copy of Email between Parent and Classroom Teachers from 5-7-13 through 5-8-13 (3 pages; Parents)

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD ON JUNE 17 , 2014

S. Copy of Check from Parent to School, dated 5-16-14 OTHER DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD (1 page; Parents)

I. Closing Brief on Behalf of Parents I.H.O. II 26 Closing Brief on Behalf of Department of I.H.O. Education III 2 Subpoena, dated4-25-14 I.H.O. (18 pages; Parents)