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 2, 2014

June 3, 2014

Actual Record Closed Date: July 31 , 2014

Hearing Officer: Gary D. Peters, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL 2, 2014

Attorney — Parents

DOE Designee — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 3, 2014

Attorney — Parents

Mother Director/ — Parents

School — Parents

Teacher/ School — Parents

DOE Designee — DOE

INTRODUCTION

On the above dates, I conducted hearings, pursuant to the Individuals Disability Education Act (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. section 1415 (f)(3) regarding a special education program, Students with Disability, New York City Impartial Hearing Case . The hearing was conducted at the impartial hearing office, New York City Department of Education at 131 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, New York. The student’s parents submitted a request for an impartial hearing through their attorney on October 17, 2013. At the hearing, the Department of Education, hereinafter referred to as the “DOE” was represented by its designee, , and the parent was represented by their attorneys,

BACKGROUND

The student is child who is classified as “ ”. On May 21, 2013, the Committee on Special Education (CSE) met to discuss the educational needs to develop an individual educational program, (IEP) for the child, hereinafter referred to as “ The CSE team classified the child as stated above, and recommended placement in an integrated coteaching classroom and related services including counseling, speech and occupational therapy.

THE PARENT’S POSITION

The parent counsel maintains that the DOE has failed to offer a FAPE in this matter. Additionally, as the DOE has failed to provide witnesses, parent’s counsel maintains that the DOE could not meet its burden to establish that an appropriate program and placement were offered.

More particularly, parent maintains that the recommended classroom was “too large” for the student given his . Furthermore, counsel argued that the child was previously in an ICT class and that it was unsuccessful.

Furthermore, the parent alleges that the recommended placement will demonstrate that the proposed program failed to offer appropriate functional grouping. Regarding Prong II of the Burlington/Carter test, it is the parent’s position that the child was appropriately placed at in a small class with full time special education instruction to address his social, attentional and academic needs. Lastly, parents maintain that the equities favor the parents in this matter.

THE DEPARTMENT’S POSITION

The DOE maintains that it has offered the child a FAPE. More particularly, an IEP meeting was held with all the appropriate members and a final notice of recommendation (FNR) was sent recommending an appropriate placement. Additionally, the DOE maintained that the parent’s unilateral placement at School was not appropriate.

THE DEPARTMENT’S CASE

As stated above, the DOE has not presented witnesses in this case.

THE PARENT’S CASE

, after being duly sworn, stated that she is the Director of the elementary school at Prior to that she was a School Social Worker and also had prior experience as a Teacher. Her responsibilities include “day to day functioning” for the elementary school. She conducts faculty meetings, assists in the developing of curriculum, supervises teachers, reviews classroom budgets and works with children and their families (TR Page 16).

The witness stated that the age range for children at through 11 and a typical class consists of 10-12 students. The children are grouped according to age and social compatibility; subjects taught in smaller groups for reading and math. Additionally, social studies and writing are also broken into smaller groups within the classroom and art/music is often taught in a half group (TR Page 17). With respect to reading and math, students are assessed for their functional and instructional levels and then grouped according to those levels in order that the groups are geared towards each student’s needs (TR Page 18).

The witness stated that there were 2 full professional development days during the school year; workshops and conferences are presented throughout the year wherein every faculty member is allotted a certain amount of money for professional development outside the school (TR Page 19). Furthermore, all teachers who join the are trained in Orton-Gillingham, teacher basis writing skills. Additionally, a speaker comes to the school to address the faculty about issues disabilities and a variety of different strategies that would be helpful in the classroom (TR Page 20).

Ms. stated that she was familiar with the background of the child’s instructors and that Master’s Degrees in Special Education and certifications in the State of New York has a Bachelor’s Degree in General and Special Education and is also certified in the State of New York (TR Page 21).

The witness testified that the children and with therapists who are certified and licensed in their fields. She testified that the therapy twice a week for 30 minutes and Occupational Therapy once a week for 30 minutes. It was her recollection that he did not receive counseling and that in her opinion it was not necessary for him to receive same. She stated that if a child required counseling, there’s a school psychologist and school Social Worker on staff who are involved in the classes and work closely with the teachers (TR Page 23).

Lastly, stated in her opinion, is providing an appropriate environment for during the current school year.

Upon cross-examination, the witness stated that she has a role in the creation of small classes and/or groups in Literacy and Math ; the goals were created around the instructional levels of the students (TR Page 24).

describes ranges in the children’s independent levels as close and slightly lower as in their functional levels . . .they are very closely matched and intentionally grouped (TR Page 25). More particularly, the children had levels in the mid to late second grade range. The instructional level would be slightly higher than that, more similar to an end second grade level following the Orton Gillingham levels (TR Page 26). is in a group of 6 children and they are in a “very tight range, so it is the end of third grade independent level”. The teacher is working from a fourth grade Haughton Mifflin Curriculum (TR Page 27).

The next witness to testify who testified that she has a Bachelor’s Degree in Psychology from in Childhood General and Special Education from Bank Street; she is certified to teach general education grades 1 through 6 and students with disabilities (TR Page 29).

Ms. testified that she is the Head Teacher at and her duties include cooperating with the Assistant Teacher for development, teaching curriculum, simulating and creating a caring, nurturing and stimulating environment to meet the needs of the children. She also communicates with outside therapists, teachers and parents and does CSE reviews (TR Page 30).

Ms. stated that she meets weekly with and on an as needed basis. She is familiar with and stated that he is one of her students. She testified that the class has 12 students including She described his strengths and weaknesses as follows: is a “really kind and interesting student”; he enjoys the learning process and is artistic and very social. Additionally, he and expressive language skills; he struggles to decode, spell, and comprehend information (TR Page 31-32).

Ms. testified that she teaches Social Studies, Writing and Current Events and generally teaches him everything except for “Specials, Reading and Math” (TR Page 32). In her classes, the children are grouped in a class of 12; there are smaller break-out groups for Reading, Math and Art. She also communicates with the other teachers on a consistent basis.

Ms. testified that when entered her class in September, she assessed his needs by observation, rating previous reports and evaluations, speaking to previous teachers and making her own observations. At that time she required significant amount of support to manage his attention and impulsivity, to understand directions, to understand materials and new skills. (TR Page 34). Ms. Reading Instructor. She believed he was placed in a group similar to where he left off on the previous year with four students including

She also stated that expression and sensitivity to punctuation. Additionally, he has difficulty in comprehension and struggles to utilize his clinical thinking skills to understand a text and requires a lot of scaffolds such as page numbers, repeated reading of text, graphic organizers, summarizing, re-telling and making predictions (TR Page 35).

Upon further questioning of the witness, she testified she had a mid-second grade reading level. As stated above, she emphasized that it is extremely important for him to be in a class size of 4 to help maintain his attention and impulsivity so that he can focus and learn new schools (TR page 36). She stated that the group utilized a second grade curriculum throughout the year and was moving towards the end of the second grade level. She re-emphasized the students of the group experienced similar difficulties to (TR Page 37).

Ms. testified that the group uses Orton Gillingham-PAF Program 2 days a week and read trade books 2 days per week. The Orton Gillingham curriculum provides systematic instruction with decoding and coding. It was described as a multi-sensory curriculum that allows a student to practice reading, writing and spelling through movement as well as writing (TR Page 38). Additionally, she testified that the teacher modifies materials for the children and creates most of the key words that he used or most of the activities that are created or modified.

Ms. has made progress in reading during the course of the year and has been better able to read words and other consonant blends and more vowel sounds. He began to carry over his skills much more easily through his writing and other areas and he is showing greater understanding of text (TR Page 39). Ms. stated that she measures progress through teacher observations, class work, homework, Orton Gillingham proficiency tests. His current reading level was end of second grade.

The witness stated that is the child’s Math teacher and that with “mental math”. More particularly, he struggles to recall multiplication tables, struggles to learn new concepts and requires one on one support and direct instruction using manipulatives to understand a new concept (TR Page 40). As in reading, the witness stated his his ability to learn new skills in math (TR Page 41).

During the current school year, the witness stated is in a group with 5 other children and utilize a modified Haughton Mifflin curriculum. The teacher uses a third grade curriculum but also uses (TR Page 41). Ms. stated that in the beginning of the school year, was at a beginning and he is currently at a . She stated the Haughton Mifflin program is multi-sensory and specific in the ways that it teaches. It breaks instruction down to small steps, by using specific manipulatives and by it being able to break it down into smaller step by step processes (TR Page 43).

With reference to writing, stated the school utilizes the program. It’s a writing program that teaches fundamentals of writing and also includes a step by step process wherein instruction is broken down into smaller manageable steps (TR Page 44). In the beginning of the school year, the witness writing difficulties was as follows: he was very simplistic, did not write in complete sentences, and was unable to elaborate or expand sentence or details and struggles with capitalization and punctuation (TR Page 45). She described the instruction as follows: they have the children fill out a quick outline which is a graphic organizer with one topic sentence supporting details including sentence. The next day they write it or type it into a paragraph; transition words are introduced and scaffolds utilized (TR Page 46). Additionally, a smart board and videos are used and incorporated into instruction.

Ms. Small described MS’ as having made progress in writing during the course of the year. He is able to write with greater detail with less support from the teacher. He is also able to utilize a quick outline more independently in order to write a sample paragraph (TR Page 47).

The witness stated that at the current time, therapy 2 times a week in a group of 3 and occupational therapy once week in a group of 2. She described these sessions as being “pull-out” and stated that each session lasts 30 minutes; he also received typing for 15 minutes (TR Page 48). Ms. stated that in speech and works on expressive, skills they work on individual perception skills and typing. The witness stated that in her class, the child’s language skills have improved. He is able to follow directions more easily and his written expression and expressive language has strengthened where he is able to express himself in a written format with more detail. His general education has improved (TR Page 49).

Ms. stated that with respect to addressing his difficulties, he utilized an F.M. unit. Questions were repeated more than once and he was requested to repeat directions back to the instructor. He also used which has ; he also has charts and a schedule in full view. He would be given verbal and visual reminders and taught to model behaviors (TR Page 51). She as being able to stay seated, raise his hand quietly before speaking and more easily processes information. Ms. testified that information is presented to , visually, auditorily and in writing. Things are reinforced and repeated and lessons are taught more than one time. The repeated information and repetitiveness and being able to manipulate things in his hand helps him understand this modality such as a project and gives him the ability to understand what is being taught.

Regarding social and emotional learning, these skills are taught twice a week for 30 minutes. Discussions are held such as “feelings or how to be in a friendship and things like that”; modeling and role-playing are utilized (TR Page 53). Lunch is offered in the school cafeteria and there are anywhere from 24-36 students at one time in the facility with at least 3 teachers (TR Page 54).

Ms. stated that in her opinion, was an appropriate placement that he needs to be in a small Special Education classroom in a structured environment where there are 12 students and 2 teachers, in order for him to really learn and be successfully academic and social.

Upon cross-examination of this witness, she testified she examined the IEP at issue and stated that she believed the goals that were listed were appropriate for the child. She testified that in addition to the goals on the IEP, different goals were added and/or adjusted at the beginning of the school year (TR Page 60). She also stated that at the beginning of the school review from what he learned in the prior school year in order to remember the skills and make progress. She reiterated that at the beginning of the school year he was at mid-second grade level and at the end of the school year he was at the end of second grade level with respect to decoding and comprehension (TR Page 62).

The witness was referred to Parent’s Exhibit “H”, the mid-year report and believed it was generated sometime towards the end of January, 2014; it was confirmed that the child’s independent grade level for literacy, more particularly decoding and encoding skills were in the mid-second grade level. She believed that it would be a mischaracterization that the child did not make progress from September, 2013 to January, 2014 as whatever was on the IEP did not reflect what his progress was and that he absolutely made progress in reading (TR Page 67). More particularly, she stated the child made progress but required review at the beginning of the school year and that’s why he was still at the mid-second grade level at mid-term (TR Page 67). The witness further stated that with respect to the other children in her classroom, the reading levels ranged from a high first grade to a mid/low third grade level (TR Page 69). She also conceded she did not observe the child around typically developing children and did not see him outside of school (TR Page 70).

also stated that she had student taught at a charter school in Harlem and had children with and without IEP’s. She also visited several ICT classes, including one that is just a couple of blocks (TR Page 71).

On further cross-examination, testified that generally gets along with his peers, …he struggles to navigate social situations when it comes to expressing himself to another child. When something is bothering him he tends to come to the teacher to report it (TR Page 73).

Upon further re-direct examination, the witness stated that she did not participate in the IEP meeting in May, 2013, however, she still believes he requires a small classroom setting (TR Page 75).

The last witness to testify was the child’s parent, hereinafter referred to as RG who described him as a very happy boy, helpful and very loving. She described his struggles in reading and that he does relatively alright in science, math and social studies (TR page 78).

The witness stated that her child in a general education class. He went to public school in the first grade and was held back. It was during his initial year at first grade, the teacher recommended evaluations and therapy. She child had his regular teacher and a paraprofessional. She believed the teacher who was teaching first grade would “scold him” and that he began to fall further back (TR Page 80).

The parent stated that her child began 2 or 3 years ago. She recalled a May 21, 2013 IEP meeting and stated that she attended. She recalled discussions about her child’s academics, class levels, therapy and his struggles. She also recalled that recommendations were made for an ICT class and that she had concerns that such a class had too many children (TR Page 82). She also stated that prior to the IEP meeting she had seen ICT classes and expressed her concern at the IEP meeting. She also believed that her child’s teacher expressed concern at the meeting (TR Page 83). The witness was directed to Exhibit “1” which she identified as the FNR and received it in July, 2014. She went to the school and was told that as it was summer session she could not observe an ICT class. She was told to come back the first or second week of school or more towards the middle of September in order to observe the class.

The parent testified that she visited the school and that this was not the only time as she was previously recommended to observe the school. During her visit she saw at least 25 children and possibly more in the classroom. It was her opinion that her son would not do well there, especially “seeing that his old teacher was there, the teacher that didn’t treat him well” (TR Page 86). She also went to the gym and saw children running back and forth with a lot of screaming. She felt her She also stated she that she had concerns about the recommended placement and never received a response to her letter. (TR Page 87).

Upon further questioning of the witness, she stated that if the CSE had offered an appropriate placement that she would have considered it. The witness was referred to school contract and stated the tuition was $51,390.00. She also identified her 2013 tax return which indicated that she made $36,000.00 per year. (TR Page 87). She is seeking direct payment to the school as a result of the instant hearing, however, understood that she is obligated to pay the tuition to the school pursuant to the contract (TR Page 88). On cross examination of the witness, she stated that the IEP meeting was contentious wherein both sides were discussing the recommendations. She also stated that a smart board was at the meeting and being utilized; a teacher participated by telephone. She commented that she had the opportunity to give her own opinions regarding her child’s needs. She told the team that she was in disagreement with the ICT program (TR Page 90).

The witness was directed to Exhibit “C” which was her letter dated July 17, 2013 wherein she confirmed that she stated that the IEP failed to appropriately provide for her child’s needs. (TR Page 91). Additionally, her letter stated that based on her concerns, she is unwilling to accept the IEP and program offered to her child. She also stated that even though she disagreed with the program in her letter prior to seeing the recommended placement, she had been there to visit and also cooperated and returned to this recommended placement again. The witness also stated that she would accept a placement which was appropriate for her son, one that would assist with his processing needs and occupational therapy and wherein he could be receiving services as he is receiving currently.

The witness also stated that pursuant to Exhibit “I”, she did not pay a nonrefundable deposit of $500 and has not made any payments to School.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The purpose behind the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is to (20 U.S.C.section 1400~1482) ensure-that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE-see Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S. Ct. 528,531 [2005]; Bd. Of Education v, 'Rowley 458 S.CT. 176, 179-81 [1982]; Frank G. v. Bd. Of Edu. 459 F. 3d 356371 92d 2006). FAPE includes special education and related services designed to meet the student's unique need provided inconformity with a comprehensive written IEP (20 U.S.C. section 1401 [9] [D] 34 C.F.R. section 300.13 see 210 U.S.C. section 1414 'd' ; FR Section 200-347. The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE) (20 U.S.C. section 1412 [a] [5] a; CFR section 300.13 [a] [2] [i], .200. 1.116 [a] [2]; 8 NYCRR 200.6 [a] [IJ; see Walczak v. Fla. Union Free School Dist. 142 F. 3d 119, 132[2d cir. 1998]

The legal standard applicable to request for payment for educational services such as in this case is well established. A Department of Education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a child by the child's parents if: 1. the services offered by the Department of Education were inadequate or inappropriate, 2, the services selected by the parents were appropriate and 3. equitable considerations support the parent's claims (Sch. Comm. Of Burlington v. Dept. of Educ. 471 U.S. 359 [1985]; Florence , County Sch. Dist-Foru v. Carter, 510U.S; 7 [1993]; Cerra v. Pawling Center. School Dist. 427:F. 3d 186, 192 ,[2d Cir. 2005] "reimbursement merely requires a district to; belatedly pay expenses; that it should have paid all along and would have borne in the first-instance had developed a proper IEP;

Under the second criteria of the legal standard, the child's parent bears the burden of proof with regard to appropriateness of the services which the parents obtained for the child for the current school year (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 9429; Application of the Bd. Of Education of the Monroe-Woodbury CSE, Appeal No. 9334; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 95-57, in order to meet that burden, the parent must show that the services were "proper under the act", (IDEA) (Buriingto~47-l U.S. at 370) i.e. that the private school-offered an educational program this met the child’s special educational needs (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal NO. 94-29). The test for the parent's private placement is that it is “appropriate” not that it is-perfect (M.S. v Bd. Of Educ. 231 F. 3d 96, lQ5 [2d Cir. 2000] cert. denied 532 U.S. 9422001. The private school need not employ certified special education teachers, nor have its own IEP for the student.

The final criterion for an award of tuition reimbursement is that the petitioners' claim .is supported by equitable considerations (Carmel Centre Sch. Dist. V.V. P. 373 F..Supp. 2d 402; 4]6 [S.D.N.Y. 2005] affd2006 W]. 23341.2d cir, 2096); Frank G.-.459

F. 3d at 363-64). Equitable considerations are relevant to fashion relief under the IDEA (Burlington 471 U.S. at 374; Mrs. c: v. Voluntown Bd. Of Edu. 226 F. 3d 60,68 [2d Cir. 2000]; see Carter, 510 U.S. at 16 [noting that [c]ourts fashioning discretionary equitable relief under IDEA must consider all relevant factors, including the appropriate and reasonable level of reimbursement that should be required). Such considerations include the parties, compliance or non-compliance with state and federal regulations pending review the reasonableness of the parties' positions and like matters (Wolfe v Taconic Hills Cent. Sch. Dist. 167 F. Supp 2d 530, 533 [N.D.N.Y. 2001] citing Town of Burlington v. Dept, of Educ. 736 F.-2ds at773, 801.-02[1st Cir...1984] aff';l471U.S 359 [1985]; with respect to equitable considerations, tuition reimbursement may be reduced or denied when parents fail to raise the appropriateness of an IEP in a timely manner, fail to make their child available’ for evaluation by the district or upon fining of unreasonableness with respect other-action taken by the parents 20 D.S.C. section 1412 (a)(lO)(C)(iii) Warren G. v.-Cumberland Co. Sc. Dist. 190 F. 3d 80, 86 (32d Cir. 1999); see Application of the Bd. Of Edu. Appeal No. 04-102; Application of the Bd. Of Educ. Appeal No. 04-026) However, reimbursement may not be denied or reduced for failure to provide such 'notice where compliance with the notice required would likely result inphysical or emotional harm 20 U.S.C. 14122 (a) (C) (iv) (I) (cc) (II) (bb)" Parents maintain that the Department failed to offer a FAPE that was "reasonably calculated to meaningfully address unique and individual needs, that the unilateral placement of amply conformed to the second circuit’s “reasonably calculated” test for Prong II and that there are no compelling equitable considerations that would operate to preclude or even to diminish a reimbursement award (Prong III). Accordingly the Parents maintain that for the 2013-2014 they met the recognized test for Burlington/Carter reimbursement relief.

A Department of Education (DOE) Committee on Special Education (CSE) is charged with providing students a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). A FAPE is comprised of full evaluations an informed review where the parents is given a meaningful opportunity to participate, an appropriate classification, an appropriate program recommendation in the least restrictive environment, and a timely and appropriate sit offer, 34 C.F.R. section 300.110.

I concur with Parent’s counsel that it’s the DOE’s burden to demonstrate that they offered a FAPE to MS for the 2013-2014 school year. I also agree that the DOE failed to establish that it offered a FAPE based solely on their documents and evidence. There was no testimony as to how the IEP was developed, as to what documents were relied upon by the team. I also concur with parent’s counsel that the observation from the DOE confirmed that the child had impulsivity and attention difficulties in a small group and failed to establish that an ICP recommendation was appropriate.

Regarding Prong II, testified about the progress that the child had made in the school year at issue. It is . Clearly, the small class setting with individualized instruction, tailored to meet his needs is appropriate.

Lastly, I find that the parent cooperated with the School District and that there were no equitable considerations to bar her recovery. She attended the IEP meeting, expressed her concerns, and visited the recommended placement.

I will not repeat the details of evidence where but the support and basis for my findings of fact and decision are grounded in that testimony as it appears above. I have considered the testimony of all of the witnesses who testified at the .hearing. With respect to the issues presented at the-hearing, I make the following findings of fact: (1) that the Department failed to provide a FAPE for the reason as stated above (2) that the Parents have met their burden in proving that the they have unilaterally chosen for MS is appropriate. The testimony from witnesses provided detailed information about the school and the testimony was credible regarding the educational services provided to MS and explained how the services meet his identified needs. The Parents have established that the implemented educational program was appropriate and that the child is making meaningful educational progress as stated more particularly above. (3) Equitable considerations for the fact finder to consider in determining whether reimbursement andrelated relief is appropriate "include the parties" compliance or non-compliance with state and federal regulations pending review, the reasonableness of the parties' positions and like matters." See Application of a Child with a Disability Appeal NO.05: 9~7 (quoting Wolfe v. Taconic Hills Cent. Sch. Dist. 167 F. Supp. 2d 530,533 (N.DE.N.Y. 2001), in turn citing Town of Burlington v. Dept. of Educ. 736 F. 2d 773, 801-02 (1st Ci9r. 1984) aff'd 471 U.S. 359 (1985).

As the State Review Officer has expressly recognized in the absence of evidence demonstrating that the parents failed to cooperate in the development of the IEP or otherwise engaged in conduct that precluded the development of an appropriate IEP, equitable considerations generally support a claim of tuition reimbursement." See supra, Appeal No. 05-087 (referencing Application of the-Board of Edu. Appeal No. 05-030; Application of the Board of Educ. Appeal No. 04-091; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-Q49).

Accordingly, the DOE is directed to pay directly to the sum of $51,390.00 for tuition. Dated: July 30, 2014

Gary D. Peters, Esq. gc

GARY D. PETERS, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer GDP: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 THE RECORD

PARENT

Exhibit Name of Document Date Pages A Due Process Complaint 10/17/13 2

B IEP 05/21/13 19

C Letter to CSE and Fax

Receipt 07/17/13 2 D Letter to CSE and Fax

Receipt 10/25/13 3 E Affidavit of Payment 01/15/14 1 F Psychoeducational

Evaluation 10/2011 12 G

Evaluation Addendum 01/31/12 2 H Classroom Observation Undated 2 I Contract with s 02/05/13 2 J Class Schedule 13-14 school year 1 K Description of undated 3 L Attendance Report 03/14/14 1 M Mid-Year Report 2013/2014 19 N 1040 Tax Return 2013 2 O 1040 Tax Return 2013 2 P Parent letter to CSE 10/10/13 2

DEPARTMENT’S EVIDENCE

None