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: February 28, 2014

April 4, 2014

Actual Record Closed Date: May 5, 2014

Hearing Officer: James P. Walsh, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON FEBRUARY 28, 2014

Mother of Student — Parents

Esq. Attorney for Parents — Parents

Esq. Attorney Associated with the Law Office of Neal H. Rosenberg, Esq., Attorneys for Parents — Parents

District and New York City — DOE

Representative — DOE

Special Education Teacher at Participated in C.S.E. Meeting of 6-18-13 and June 25, 2013 (by phone) — DOE

Network Leader for the New York City Department of Education – Served as District Representative at C.S.E. Meetings of June 18, 2013 and June 25, 2013 — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL 4, 2014

Father of Student — Parents

Mother of Student — Parents

Esq. Attorney for Parents — Parents

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

Clinical Coordinator at School (by phone) — Parents

Fifth Grade Special Education Teacher at – was Student’s Fifth Grade Teacher during the 2013-2014 School Year (by phone) — Parents

District and New York City — DOE

Representative — DOE

Special Education Mathematics Teacher – Taught a 12-1:1 Mathematics Class at – was Student’s Mathematics Special Education Teacher from December 2012 through June 2013 (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 February 28, 2014 and April 4, 2014. The undersigned had been appointed by the Impartial Hearing Office of the Department of Education of the City of New York to preside over this matter, after the recusal by one or more previouslyappointed Impartial Hearing Officers, by notification dated November 8, 2013. After the close of proceedings on April 4, 2014, the representatives of the parties requested the opportunity to submit Post-Hearing briefs for my consideration. Such requests were granted so long as such were submitted no later than April 30, 2014. Such deadline was met by both parties and the submitted briefs have been read and considered. The Actual Record Close Date was May 5, 2014.

The proceeding was initiated by Parents by the filing by the Law Office of Neal H. Rosenberg, Parents’ attorneys, of a Due Process Complaint Notice, dated November 4, 2013, and received by the New York City Department of Education’s Impartial Hearing Office on that date (Exhibit A). Parents allege that District and its Committee on Special Education (C.S.E.) failed to offer Student a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2013-2014 school year, in that it had previously conducted a meeting to consider Student’s program that resulted in a recommendation for deferral to the Department’s Central Based Support Team )CBST), and that District, when it purported reconvened on June 25, 2013, failed to have a properly constituted Committee and failed to prepare a procedurally- or substantively- appropriate Individualized Education Program (I.E.P.) for Student. Parents alleged that the Committee failed to review appropriate documentation and challenged the appropriateness of the Program’s Goals and Objectives. Parents assert that, in light of District’s failure to provide Student was a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2013-2014 school year, Parents unilaterally placed Student at for the 2013-2014 school year. Parents seek an Order reimbursing Parents for the costs incurred by their unilateral placement of Student at such facility for the 2013-2014 school year.

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 Parents were appropriate and (3) equitable considerations support the Parents’ claim (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). In its decision, the Court noted that:

“Parents who unilaterally place a student

in a private educational facility … do so

at their own financial risk”

(see 471 U.S. 359 at 373)

At the time of the challenged Committee meetings of June 18, 2013 and June 25, 2013, Student was ten years seven months of age, having been born on September 20,

2003. According to the testimony of his mother, Student had begun receiving special education services as Student neared the when Student was provided with Special Education Teacher Support Services (SETSS). Such program continued during Student’s Second Grade school year (T.R.218). Student advanced to in September of 2012, where his program was changed to placement in an Integrated Co-Teaching (ICT) class. However, in October of 2012, the teachers from Student’s ICT Class, as well as the Building Principal and the School Psychologist, met with Parent and proposed that, because , Student’s placement be changed to a Special Class having a staffing ratio of 12:1+1 (T.R.219). Parent declined the suggestion (T.R.220). However, at a subsequent meeting, where the same school personnel were in attendance, and discussions centered on the exams and Student’s clear deficits in the area of Mathematics, Parent agreed that Student be placed in a setting for Math for the balance of the school year, but otherwise remain in his ICT placement (T.R.220-221).

Parent also testified that, prior to Student entering his Fourth Grade program in September of 2012, Student was , causing Parents to have Student be seen by a psychiatrist (T.R.220). opined that emanated from a and recommended that Parents have Student evaluated by a neuropsychologist. That suggestion was accepted and Student was thereafter evaluated by Dr. (T.R.220). An evaluation was conducted by Dr. on January 14, January 21, and February 11, 2013. The Report of that Evaluation (Exhibit

3) noted that Student was evaluated through a number of assessment devices, including the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fourth Edition (WISC-IV); the BeeryBuktencia Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration; the Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning – Second Edition (WRAM -2); The Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP); the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test – Third Edition (WIAT-III); and the Test of Written Language – Fourth Edition (TOWL- 4).The Report indicated that Student displayed a remarkable range of scores in the General Ability Index, the Verbal Comprehension Index, and the Perceptual Reasoning Index to a Memory Index and Borderline in his Processing Speed Index. The inconsistency of Student’s performances and abilities were reflected in Student’s in Comprehension and , but a in Listening to Borderline in Sentence Formation (Exhibit 3). Other test areas continued the inconsistency of scores, as Student performed Range as well as in the Borderline Range. Significantly, Student’s Phonological Processing scores were equally inconsistent, with Student’s awareness of sound-symbol relationships found to be still emerging, placing Student in . As a result of such lack of awareness of sound/symbol relationships, Student’s Spelling abilities were found to have been consequently . It was Dr. ’ recommendation that Student receive his special education program in a small and structured setting that was capable of addressing Student’s language-based needs. It was recommended that Student receive a multisensory-based reading program; specifically a phonics-based program such as Orton-Gillingham, embedded throughout his instruction (Exhibit 3).

Parent testified that Dr. had explained to her that (T.R.229) and had recommended a number of schools that were specifically programmed such as Student. Those recommended schools included , which was a New York State-approved educational facility (T.R.229). While Dr. Report never mentioned the or noted such as a diagnosis, certainly his findings are consistent with such.

Parent, by correspondence, dated May 30, 2013, to the school’s School Based Support Team (SBST), had requested that Student’s case be re-opened so as to ensure Student’s proper placement by September (Exhibit B). In response, Parents were advised that “The IEP Meeting is scheduled for 06/05/13. O1:38 PM” (Exhibit C). Parents attended that meeting expecting that an Individualized Education Program (I.E.P.) would be prepared at that meeting. However, although it appears that a full committee was present, and the committee accepted Dr. ’ Report, Parents were advised that the meeting was only an “Informational Meeting” and that no I.E.P would be prepared. Another meeting was thereafter scheduled for June 18, 2013. By notice to Parent dated June 6, 2013 – the date following the June 5, 2013 “meeting”, the Committee advised Parent that it had been determined that additional assessments were required as part of a requested reevaluation or mandated three-year evaluation and that Parental consent was required (Exhibit F). In fact, the Committee did no further evaluations or assessments, but simply accepted Dr. Pramataris’ Report (Exhibit 3) (T.R.236).

District’s C.S.E. met on June 18, 2013. Present at that meeting, according to the testimony of Witness Santoro, were herself as Special Education Teacher; General Education Teacher Susan Choinski (identified on the sign-in sheet of June 18, 2013 (Exhibit 5) as Susan Shanley); Network Leader ; and , Student’s Special Education Teacher in the setting for Math (T.R.22-23). Also appearing on the sign-in sheet for the June 18, 2013 meeting, but not identified by as attending the meeting until later in her testimony (T.R.47), were Parents, Parent ; Social Education Teacher Bernadette Alvarez. There was confirmation by Witness Santoro, however, that no School attended the June 18, 2013 Committee meeting (T.R.49). Witness testified that the Committee had utilized the results of a running from Fountas and Pinnell, as well as the results of weekly assessments in Student’s Journeys reading program (T.R.28). An examination of the proposed I.E.P. (Exhibit 1) contains much information that was contained Report, including the Recommendations had included a specific reference to the need of an Orton-Gillingham-type of program for Student. However, according to the testimony of Witness Santoro, Student, at some time prior to the date of the meeting, had been assessed for inclusion in the Wilson Reading Program - an Orton-Gillingham-based program - at the school, but was found not to qualify for such program (T.R.28). Indeed, Committee Member Special Education was identified as the person who had so evaluated Student for the Wilson Program (T.R.28). Witness Santoro, who had been the Special Education Teacher in Student’s ICT class during the 2012-2013 school year, testified that she had written Student’s academic Goals that appeared in the proposed I.E.P. (Exhibit 1) prior to the meeting, with the collaboration of the team that was working with Student , but that such Goals had been discussed at the meeting (T.R.31). Witness Santoro testified that the Committee at the June 18, 2013 meeting recommended that Student attend a Special Class in a Community School with a staffing ratio of for English Language Arts, ten periods per week; for Math five periods per week; for Sciences, three periods per week; and Social Studies two times per week., as well as the provision of the Related Service Therapy two times per week, thirty minutes per session, in a group of three (Exhibit 1). The program also provided that Student receive Extended Time; On-Task Focusing Prompts; Separate Location for all State exams; Revised Test Format in all class and State exams except those that assessed reading comprehension; and Revised Test Directions in all class and State exams. (Exhibit 1).Witness Santoro stated that the team recommended the self-for Student as it felt the pace of the ICT class was a little too fast and the curriculum a little too demanding for Student and that Student would benefit from small group instruction (T.R.32). Witness Santoro stated that Student would not be appropriately placed in an ICT for the 20132014 school year, but that Parents’ request that Student be referred to CBST for placement in a private school would not be the least restrictive setting for him and was, therefore, rejected (T.R.32). Witness also testified that the other team members agreed with recommendation (T.R34). Although acknowledged that Parent had sought a deferral to CBST so as to secure a private school placement for Student, Witness Santoro explained that the team had rejected that request, as a private school would not have placed Student in the least restrictive environment and that an appropriate program was available to Student within (T.R.34).

District also presented Witness Scovazzo, who had been Student’s Mathematics Teacher in a 12:1+1 class from December of 2012 to June of 2013. testified that Student had made progress while in her class, both academically and socially (T.R.118119), although he was unable to pass any tests and was required to attend a Summer School program for Math (Exhibit R). attended the Committee meeting of June 18, 2013 as Student’s Special Education Math stated her agreement with the recommendation as contained in Student’s I.E.P (Exhibit 1) that Student spend his entire day in setting (T.R.123-124), also testified that she did not remain at the meeting until its conclusion (T.R. 128-129) and that she did not recall that there was a final decision on any program recommendation (T.R.123). Indeed, stated that “I know that at the end of the meeting, there was no decision made …and, from what I remember, had invited the parents to come back for another meeting.” (T.R.128-129). I note, however, that as Witness stated that she did not remain until the end of the June 18, 2013 meeting, the source of her knowledge as to what transpired at the end of the meeting is uncertain.

Parent, on the other hand, was quite clear in her testimony as to how the June 18, 2013 meeting concluded. Parent testified that, as the meeting went on to discuss a program recommendation, Parents had made clear they wanted a non-public school program to meet the Student’s needs as had been established in Dr. evaluation. Parent further testified that District Representative agreed to give Parents a non-public school placement and had advised Parents that Parents had to come to the school to pick up the nonpublic school placement on June 25, 2013 and to bring in an acceptance letter from The Lowell School (T.R.237-238). Parents obtained the requested letter from The Lowell School on June 24, 2013 (Exhibit H) and went to the school as scheduled on June 25, 2013 (T.R.238-239). According to Parent, after presenting the requested letter to Ms. left them for a significant period of time, returned and ushered Parents into the SBST Room, where a team had been assembled for what, according to Parent, was an impromptu meeting (T.R.240). Parents were then advised by that the team was recommending placement and that she would not go against her team (T.R.241), Parent confirmed that there was no discussion of the Report by the team (T.R.241) and that the attendees simply restated their belief that Student would do well in the recommended placement.

Ms. had presented testimony on the first day of hearing. testified that she had served as District Representative at the June 18, 2013 meeting (T.R.85). testimony was sparse, simply noting that she had agreed with the team recommendation of a program for Student (T.R.86). testified that she recalled Parent’s request for a private school placement and noted that Parents had obtained an acceptance letter School – “so we said that would be fine – we would take a look at it” (T.R.87). When questioned on crossexamination as to why another meeting would be held if the Committee had already determined Student’s program for the 2013-2014 school year testified that “I was trying to or we were trying to give the parent the opportunity …to have another discussion (T.R.95).

In assessing Parents’ request for reimbursement for a unilateral placement, it is, as noted previously, necessary to determine whether District offered an appropriate program to Student for the 2013-2014 school year. I have reviewed the actions of the Committee in preparing what District purports to be the Individualized Education Program it established for Student. I note, initially, that the Committee that met on June 18, 2013 failed to have a present as a member of the Committee. District had not had Student evaluated since 2010, so that Student was due a triennial evaluation. The District did not obtain such, but decided to rely on Evaluation performed by Dr. Pramataris. I find no fault with such reliance. However, a School Psychologist was needed to interpret the results of such Evaluation for the Committee members. testified that school psychologists are not required at all meetings, such as an Annual Review, but did acknowledge that a school psychologist was required “At the CSE meeting where a triennial or a reeval” (T.R.90). Indeed, the provisions of Commissioner’s Regulations are clear that even for subcommittees, it is mandated that the subcommittee include:

“ a school psychologist whenever a new psychological evaluation is reviewed or a change to a program option with a more intensive staff/student ratio, as set forth in section

200.6(h)(4)) of this Part is considered”

8 NYCRR 200.3(c)(2)(v))

Not only was a new psychological evaluation scheduled to be reviewed at the June 18, 2013 meeting, but it was to be the only psychological that had been done since Student had been . Moreover, the Evaluation completed by Dr. had far-reaching findings that clearly could not be comprehended by the Committee members without the assistance . The testimony provided by the team members of the June 18, 2013 meeting clearly established that they believed that it was only necessary to reduce the class staffing ratio for Student in order for Student to succeed. The school had placed Student in an ICT class for – an improvement over a general education class – and, when it was clear that Student still failed to progress, sought to move Student into a smaller class of 12:1+1. However, had determined that, while Student’s program had to be presented in a small class, it was the nature of the program – one that offered an Orton-Gillingham approach to Student’s dyslexic issues – that would finally permit student to make appreciable academic gains. It is, therefore, my finding and determination that the I.E.P. prepared by District’s Committee on June 18, 2013, was inappropriate and insufficient because of its failure to have a school psychologist present.

I also find that the failure of District to have a school psychologist present at the June 18, 2013 contravened the Commissioner’s Regulations, in that such person was required as a change to a program option with a more intensive staff/student ratio, as set forth in section 200.6(h)(4)) of this Part was considered. Indeed, not only considered, but effectuated, as the team sought to move Student to the more restrictive setting of a

While either of these failures might be considered to be only procedural in nature, I find and determine that such rose to the level of denying Student a free, appropriate public education (8 NYCRR 200.5(j)(4)(ii)).

I also find the I.E.P. inappropriate, as it only addresses twenty hours of a thirtyfive hour school week. noted in her testimony that she believed the recommendation was for Student to be in setting for the entire school day. Witness Santoro confirmed that understanding (T.R.75). However, there is nothing in the I.E.P. that states the setting in which Student is to receive his special education program when not in the specific classes described in the I.E.P.

I also note that, while the Committee members who testified stressed that the Committee recommendation for Student’s placement in a was because such was the least restrictive placement for Student, as opposed to Parent’s request for placement in a non-public facility, the Committee’s decision to recommend placement in setting was more restrictive that a placement in a class with a staffing ratio each capable of placing Student in a smaller class than an ICT but not as restrictive as appeared that the recommendation emanated from the fact that the school did not have anything but a program available.

However, it is my finding that –whatever the participants at the June 18, 2013 Committee thought they had recommended – the determination had been made by the District Representative that the matter would be deferred to the CBST for placement in a private school. When consensus cannot be reached by the participants of a Committee meeting, as was the case on June 18, 2013 when Parents contended for a deferral to CBST for a private school placement, it is the District Representative who determines the program that the District shall offer. testified that she had concurred with the team on June 18, 2013 as to the recommendation of a program for Student (T.R.75). However such testimony was contradicted by Parent, who stated testimony as being factual and correct. I reject the testimony of , as such is totally inconsistent with the request that Parents obtain and present an Acceptance Letter from to her on June 25, 2013. Although stated in her testimony that Parents “had gotten an acceptance letter and we said we would take a look at it” T.R.87), the evidence is clear that Parents only obtained that Acceptance Letter from on June 24, 2014 – the day before the meeting but well after the meeting of June 18, 2013.

I give no weight whatsoever to the meeting of June 25, 2013. The meeting was never scheduled. Parents had no notice of the meeting or of a committee there purportedly to validate its findings of June 18, 2013. The fact that this “committee” had a School in attendance gives no weight to the “committee’s” actions, as that school psychologist never attempted to provide a review Evaluation (T.R.241).

It is, therefore, my finding and determination that District has failed to bear its obligation of establishing that it offered Student a free, appropriate public education.

On the date that Parents to obtain its Acceptance Letter, June 24, 2013, Parents also signed an Enrollment Contract for Student’s attendance at that facility for the 2013-2014 school year. I conclude that Parents did so, secure in the representation from , if Parents secured an Acceptance Letter, the matter would be deferred to CBST for placement in a New York State-approved private educational program. Student has, in fact, attended at that facility for the 2013-2014 school year was described by Witness Joseph, its Clinical Coordinator, as a New York State-approved and funded nonpublic school serving students with special needs (T.R.146) The School provides instruction in small class settings of a multisensory approach for its student population of one hundred fourteen special needs students. The School also offered a one-to-one reading program to Student and others, in which students are seen for pull-out reading instruction twice weekly with a reading specialist. Approximately eighty-five per cent of the School’s students are funded by New York State.. Student was found to meet the criteria for the School, , but with (T.R. 155). opined that, although Student was found to be a few years behind in reading and his , Student would be able to advance with the School’s multisensory learning environment, while also addressing . Student was placed in the programs’ , according to , he is with peers who are within Student’s range in both reading and Math, as well as age (, T.R. 167-168). Student’s Special Education Teacher in a class with eleven students, herself and an Assistant Teacher. The students in the class are classified as either . His teacher opined that Student appears to be in the middle of his classmates as far as his (T.R.188). Student’s Math class has nine students and meets five times each week. There are also two Academic Intervention Services (AIS) periods each week that provides Student to the others in his Math classes. Moreover, according to his teacher, Student has adjusted well to the School and has developed confidence, so that, while at first Student was reluctant to volunteer or participate in classes, he now displays exuberance and an eagerness to do so. Student is also provided at the School with the Related Services of . From the testimony of Student’s teacher, it is clear that the School has offered Student a program that is tailored to meet Student’s specific needs. I note that such program is in full conformity with the recommendations made by Dr. Pramataris in his Evaluation (Exhibit 3). Student’s Parent testified that Student is now “doing awesome”. Parent described Student as a whole new person, with no signs of anxiety, with a new sense of confidence, and with new skills in reading (T.R.240-241) – all attributable – according to Parent - to Student’s placement at .

It is my finding and determination that Parents have more than borne their burden of establishing the appropriateness of their unilaterally-selected placement of Student at The Lowell School.

It is also my finding that equitable considerations favor an award of tuition reimbursement to Parents. District challenges the seriousness of Parents in considering a public placement. However, it was District’s personnel that mislead Parents by agreeing to defer its recommendation to the CBST for placement in a private school, only to attempt to deny that recommendation at its June 25, 2013 meeting. Indeed, my finding of all lack of credibility regarding the testimony requires no consideration for District’s contention. I also note that Parents were not opposed to having Student receive a public education, so long as it was capable of providing Student with an appropriate multisensory Orton-Gillingham type program.

Parents entered into a for the payment of a monthly payment of Three Thousand One Hundred Eighty Three and ten/one hundredths ($3.183.10) Dollars – a rate set by the New York State Education Department. For Student’s ten-month school year, Student’s tuition amounted to Thirty-One Thousand Eight Hundred Thirty-One ($31,831.00) Dollars (Exhibit N). Parent has submitted cancelled checks establishing a total of six payments of $3,183.10 each to , totaling Nineteen Thousand Ninety-Eight and sixty/one hundredths ($19,098.60) Dollars. Parents are therefore entitled to reimbursement immediately in the amount of Nineteen Thousand Ninety-Eight and sixty/one hundredths ($19,098.60) Dollars. Parents shall hereafter be entitled to payment from the New York City Department of Education in the amount of Three Thousand One Hundred Eighty Three and ten/one hundredths ($3.183.10) Dollars for each of the four months yet to be paid by Parents for the 2013-2014 school year. Such payment shall be made by the New York City Department of Education to Parents upon presentation by Parents of proof of payment of such sums to for the months of March, April, May and June of 2014.Such proof of payment shall be in the form of a cancelled check, an Affidavit, or other convincing proof.

ORDER’

Based upon the above review, it is

HEREBY ORDERED that the New York City Department of Education pay immediately to Parents the amount of Nineteen Thousand Ninety-Eight and sixty/one hundredths ($19,098.60) Dollars; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the New York City Department of Education pay to Parents the sum of Three Thousand One Hundred Eighty Three and ten/one hundredths ($3.183.10) Dollars for each of the four months yet to be paid by Parents, upon presentation by Parents of proof of payment of such sums to for the months of March, April, May and June of 2014, whether in the form of a cancelled check, Affidavit, or other convincing proof. Dated: May 14, 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 FEBRUARY 28, 2014

B. Letter from Parent to SBST, dated 5-30-13 Parents (1 page; Parents)

C. Letter from C.S.E. to Parents regarding the Parents Scheduling of a C.S.E. Meeting for 6-5-13 (4 pages; Parents)

D. Letter from Parent to SBST et alia, dated 6-7-13 (1 page; Parents)

E. Parental Consent to Reevaluation, dated 6-10-13 – with comment (1 page; Parents)

F. Letter to Parents from Mss. and Choinski, dated 6-11-13 (1 page; Parents)

G. Final Notice of Recommendation, dated 6-25-13 (1 page; Parents)

H. Letter to Parents, dated 5-24-14 from The Lowell School regarding Student’s Acceptance (1 page; Parents)

I. Letter – “Promotion in Doubt” to Parents From Principal of, dated 6-19-13 (1 page; Parents)

J. Performance Indicators – Math – dated June – 2013 (3 pages; Parents)

K. Performance Indicators – English – undated Parents (6 pages; Parents)

L. Progress Report for Parents 2013-2014 school year (2 pages; Parents)

M. Counseling Progress Report, dated 11-2013 Parents (2 pages; Parents)

N. Enrollment Contract between Parents and The Lowell School, dated 7-24-13 (1 page; Parents)

O. The Lowell School Program Description Parent (1 page; Parents)

P. Student’s Daily Schedule at Parents School (1 page; Parents)

Q. Progress Report from, dated November 2013 (6 pages; Parents)

R. Summer School Information from District dated 6-25-14 (1 page; Parents)

S. Letter to Parents from and Parents Choiski, dated May 3, 2013 (1 page; Parents)

T. Copies of checks made payable by Parent to – various dates (7 pages; Parents)

1. Student’s I.E.P. for the 2013-2014 School Year, dated 6-18-13 (14 pages; DOE)

2. Letter to Parents from District scheduling Meeting for 6-18-13 (4 pages; DOE)

3. Evaluation of Student, dated 2-11-13, by, Psy.D. (18 pages; DOE)

4. Letter from Parent to SBST, dated 5-30-13 DOE (identical to Exhibit B) (1 page; DOE)

5. Sign-in Sheet for Meeting – undated (12 pages; DOE)