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 24, 2014

March 21, 2014

May 9, 2014

May 20, 2014

June 20, 2014

July 16, 2014

Actual Record Closed Date: September 1, 2014

Hearing Officer: , Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

Name Title For Date Attorney DOE 02/24/14 03/21/14 05/20/14 06/20/14 07/16/14 - School Psychologist DOE 05/20/14 (T) Assistant Principal DOE 05/20/14 (T)

Principal DOE 07/16/14 (T) Advocate PARENT 03/21/14 05/20/14 06/20/14 07/16/14

Mother PARENT 05/20/14 06/20/14 07/16/14 Stepfather PARENT 05/20/14 06/20/14 07/16/14 Private School PARENT 05/20/14 (T) 06/20/14 (T)

Teacher PARENT 06/20/14 (T)

On November 27, 2013, I was appointed as the Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”)

to conduct a hearing pursuant to the Individual with Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 United States Code, Section 1415(f)(1), ), Article 89 of the New York State Education Law and Part 200 of the Regulations of the New York State Commissioner of Education and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, concerning a dispute between the Parent of an student attending a private school and the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) - District: concerning the student’s special education program. After adjournments were granted on consent or for cause, the impartial hearing was held on February 24, 2014, March 21, 2014, May 9, 2014, May 20, 2014, June 20, 2014 and July 16, 2014. The parties opted to submit written closing statements which were due and received on August 15, 2014. (T-244-5) A list of the witnesses who appeared and the documents taken into evidence is annexed to this decision.

BACKGROUND

In this case, the Parent alleges that the student’s Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) for the 2013-2014 school year is procedurally and substantively flawed.

(See Parent’s Due Process Complaint - “DPC”) Accordingly, the Parent unilaterally placed the student at a private school for the 2013-2014 school year. (Id.) The Parent seeks either tuition reimbursement or direct payment to the private school by the DOE for the student’s tuition and bus transportation for the 2013-2014 school year.

THE DOE’S CASE

The DOE argues that the main crux of the Parent’s complaint is that she disagrees with the DOE’s recommendation to place the student in a in the public school in a setting. (T-48) The Parent also disagrees with the program site. (Id.)

The DOE further argues that it reviewed the agreed upon documents and drew very reasonable conclusions from the same. (T-49) The agency made a reasonable offer of a “free and appropriate public education” (“FAPE”). (Id.) The Parent’s issues regarding placement are retrospective and speculative. (Id.)

The DOE called (3) witnesses to testify on its behalf and submitted (23)

documents into evidence. In sum, substance and relevant part, the testimony and documentary evidence for and against the DOE’s case is incorporated in the decision below.

THE PARENT’S CASE

The Parent argues that she is challenging the contents of the stud ent’s

Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) and that said IEP could not be implemented by the agency because the recommended DOE school did not have a space for the student.

(T-50)

The Parent called (3) witnesses to testify on her behalf and submitted (15)

documents into evidence. In sum, substance and relevant part, the testimony and documentary evidence for and against the Parent’s case is incorporated in the decision below.

FINDINGS OF FACTS & DECISION

Two purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) are (1) to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living; and (2) to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities and parents of such students are protected. (See 20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]-[B] and Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 [1982])

A FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the DOE 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. (See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07 and Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]) While school districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures, not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA. (See A.C. v. Bd. of Educ., 553 F.3d 165, 172 [2d Cir. 2009]; Grim v. Rhinebeck

Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003] and Perricelli v. Carmel Cent. Sch.

Dist., 2007 WL 465211, at *10 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2007])

Under the IDEA, 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. (See 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] and 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])

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. (See 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." (See 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." (See Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 [2d Cir. 1998] and 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." (See 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] and Grim, 346 F.3d at 379)

Additionally, school districts are not required to "maximize" the potential of students with disabilities. (See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199; Grim, 346 F.3d at 379 and 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.'" (See Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195, quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130 [citations omitted]; P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 118-19 [2d Cir.

2008] and Perricelli, 2007 WL 465211, at *15) The IEP must be "reasonably calculated to provide some 'meaningful' benefit." (See Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 [2d Cir. 1997] and Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192) The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (“LRE”). (See 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.114[a][2][i], 300.116[a][2]; 8 NYC RR

200.1[cc], 200.6[a][1]; Newington, 546 F.3d at 114; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 [2d Cir. 2007]; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132; E.G. v. City Sch. Dist.

of New Rochelle, 606 F. Supp. 2d 384, 388 [S.D.N.Y. 2009] and Patskin v. Bd. of Educ., 583 F. Supp. 2d 422, 428 [W.D.N.Y. 2008])

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. (See 34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][4]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]; SRO No.

07-018; 06-059; 06-029; 04-046; 02-014; 01-095 and 93-09) Subsequent to its development, an IEP must be properly implemented. (See 8 NYCRR 200.4[e][7] and

SRO No. 08-087)

The DOE may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private educational services obtained for a student by his or her parents, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parents were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parents' claim. (See Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993] and Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-70 [1985]) In Burlington, the Court found that Congress intended retroactive reimbursement to parents by school officials as an available remedy in a proper case under the IDEA. (See Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370-

71; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 111 [2d Cir. 2007] and Cerra

v. Pawling Cent. Sch. 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 it offered the student a FAPE. (See Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370-71; 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][ii] and 34 C.F.R. § 300.148)

The New York State Legislature amended the Education Law to place the burden of production and persuasion upon the school district during an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of production and persuasion regarding the appropriateness of such placement. (See Educ. Law § 4404[1][c], as amended by Ch. 583 of the Laws of 2007) The amended law took effect for impartial hearings commenced on or after October 14, 2007; therefore, it applies to the instant case. (See SRO No. 08-016)

A private school placement must be "proper under the Act." (See Carter, 510 U.S.

at 12, 15 and Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370), i.e., the private school offered an educational program which met the student's special education needs. (See Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, 115; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 129 and Matrejek, 471 F. Supp. 2d at 419) A parent's failure to select a program approved by the State in favor of an unapproved option is not itself a bar to reimbursement. (See Carter, 510 U.S. at 14) The private school need not employ certified special education teachers or have its own IEP for the student. (See Carter, 510 U.S. 7; SRO No. 08-085; 08-025; 08-016; 07-097; 07-038; 02-014 and 01-

105) Parents seeking reimbursement "bear the burden of demonstrating that their private placement was appropriate, even if the IEP was inappropriate." (See Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112 and M.S. v. Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 104 [2d Cir. 2000]) "Subject to certain limited exceptions, 'the same considerations and criteria that apply in determining whether the [s]chool [d]istrict's placement is appropriate should be considered in determining the appropriateness of the parents' placement….'" (See Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d at 364 [2d Cir. 2006] [quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207 and identifying exceptions]) Parents need not show that the placement provides every special service necessary to maximize the student's potential. (See Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65) When determining whether the parents' unilateral placement is appropriate, "[u]ltimately, the issue turns on" whether that placement is "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits." (See Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364; see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115 [citing Berger v. Medina City Sch. Dist., 348 F.3d 513, 522 [6th Cir. 2003] [stating "evidence of academic progress at a private school does not itself establish that the private placement offers adequate and appropriate education under the IDEA"]]) A "private placement is only appropriate if it provides 'education instruction specifically designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child.'" (See Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115 [emphasis in original], citing Frank G., 459 F.3d at 365 quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 188-89)

The Second Circuit has set forth the standard for determining whether parents have carried their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of their unilateral placement.

No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining whether parents' unilateral placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. Grades, test scores, and regular advancement may constitute evidence that a child is receiving educational benefit, but courts assessing the propriety of a unilateral placement consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child's individual needs. To qualify for reimbursement under the IDEA, parents need not show that a private placement furnishes every special service necessary to maximize their child's potential. They need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction. (See Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; see Frank G., 459 F.3d at

364-65).

The IDEA allows that tuition reimbursement may be reduced or denied if parents do not provide “notice” of the unilateral placement either at the most recent CSE meeting prior to removing the child from public school, or by written notice ten business days before such removal, "that they were rejecting the placement proposed by the public agency to provide a [FAPE] to their child, including stating their concerns and their intent to enroll their child in a private school at public expense." (See 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][iii][I] and 34 C.F.R. § 300.148[d][1]) This statutory provision "serves the important purpose of giving the school system an opportunity, before the child is removed, to assemble a team, evaluate the child, devise an appropriate plan, and determine whether a [FAPE] can be provided in the public schools." (See Greenland Sch.

Dist. v. Amy N., 358 F.3d 150, 160 [1st Cir. 2004]) Although a reduction in reimbursement is discretionary, courts have upheld the denial of tuition reimbursement in cases where it was shown that parents failed to comply with this statutory provision. (See Greenland, 358 F.3d at 160; Ms. M. v. Portland Sch. Comm., 360 F.3d 267 [1st Cir.

2004]; Berger v. Medina City Sch. Dist., 348 F.3d 513, 523-24 [6th Cir. 2003]; Rafferty

v. Cranston Public Sch. Comm., 315 F.3d 21, 27 [1st Cir. 2002]); SRO No. 07-133; 07-

120; 07-115; 07-098; 07-079; 07-075; 07-038; 07-032; 06-122; 06-069; 06-057; 06-042; 06-041; 06-035; 05-092 and 04-022)

The final criterion for a reimbursement award is that the parent's claim be supported by equitable considerations. Equitable considerations are relevant to fashioning relief under the IDEA. (See Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374; M.C. v. Voluntown, 226 F.3d 60, 68 [2d Cir. 2000] and Carter, 510 U.S. at 16 ["Courts 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 noncompliance with state and federal regulations pending review, the reasonableness of the parties' positions, and like matters."

(See Wolfe v. Taconic Hills Cent. Sch. Dist., 167 F. Supp. 2d 530, 533 [N.D.N.Y. 2001], citing Town of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 736 F.2d at 773, 801-02 [1st Cir. 1984], aff'd, 471 U.S. 359 [1985]) With respect to equitable considerations, the IDEA provides that 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, fail to engage with potential placements offered by the district, or upon a finding of unreasonableness with respect to the actions taken by the parents.

(See 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][iii]; Thies v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 344728 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2008]; M.V. v. Shenendehowa Cent. Sch. Dist., 2008 WL 53181 at *5 [N.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2008]; Bettinger v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 2007 WL 4208560, at *4 [S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2007]; Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist. v. V.P., 373 F. Supp. 2d 402, 417-18 [S.D.N.Y. 2005], aff'd, 2006 WL 2335140 [2d Cir. Aug. 9, 2006] and Voluntown, 226 F.3d at n.9)

In the absence of evidence demonstrating that petitioners failed to cooperate in the development of the IEP or otherwise engaged in conduct that precluded the development of an appropriate IEP, or failed to give proper notice, equitable considerations generally support a claim of tuition reimbursement. (SRO No. 04-049)

The following facts were stipulated and agreed to by the parties at the beginning of the impartial hearing:

(1) The student’s IEP meeting was held on May 21, 2013; and

(2) The student’s IEP team was duly composed under law and consisted of on a special education teacher and district representative, the student’s teacher, a general education teacher, the Parent, the school psychologist; and

(3) There is no dispute concerning the student’s classification and what related services were offered as indicated on the IEP; and

(4) The Parent did receive the recommended DOE placement offer in a Final Notice of Recommendation (“FNR”) dated June 19, 2013 and the Parent visited the recommended placement on or about September 9, 2013; and

(5) There is no disagreement that the IEP team reviewed the student’s psycho-educational evaluation (D-3), the social history (D-4), the private school progress reports (D-

5, D-6 & D-7), the and report (D-6), and the student’s report (D-

7), although the parties may dispute whether those reports were all sufficient; and

(6) The Parent attended the IEP meeting and visited the recommended Doe school. (T-42-6)

I first turn to the question of whether the student was offered a FAPE for the 2013- 2014 school year. As stated above, a FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the DOE 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. (See Rowley and Cerra, supra) Additionally, an appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student's needs, establishes annual goals related to those needs, and provides for the use of appropriate special education services. (Supra)

Subsequent to its development, an IEP must be properly implemented. (Id.)

Here, there is no dispute that the student’s Committee on Special Education (“CSE”)

team was duly composed under law. (T-42-6)

A CSE is required to review the IEP of each student with a disability at least once every year. (See 8 NYCRR 200.4[f]) A CSE is also required to arrange for an appropriate reevaluation of each student with a disability if conditions warrant, but at least every three years. (See 8 NYCRR 200.4[b][4]) Here, the documents relied on by the CSE complied with the statutory requirement. The IEP meeting was held on May 21, 2013 and the student’s psycho-educational evaluation and social history are dated December 20, 2012, his private school progress reports and and report are dated January 18, 2013 and his report is dated May 21, 2013. (D-3, D-4, D-5, D-6 & D-7)

The student’s psycho-educational evaluation made the following findings:

[Student name] was referred for a year evaluation due to academic difficulties. [Student name] is currently classified with and recommended for a with and . Based on cognitive testing, he is within the range. He manifested in . and skills also fell with the range. On the other hand, [student name] manifested significant weakness in tasks related to .

Academically, [student name] is in the .Based on academic testing, [student name] scored within range. He manifested performance across all areas. Areas of relative strength were noted in and . He manifested some delays in , ,

, and . was noted to level. (D-3)

The student’s social history report states that “ ” (D-4) His private school progress report states that the student is in an class in and struggles with , , , and needs . (D-5) The report also notes that the student is , but is . (Id.)

The student’s and report states the following:

[Student name] benefits from throughout the day to help him . [Student name] realizes the most success in that provide . On going support and accommodations in the classroom have proven to be helpful for [student’s name] success. {Student name] benefits from . He demonstrates and when a approach is used. He

needs

.

Recommendations continue to include placement in a supportive environment that provides , while maintaining flexibility and consideration for [student’s name] unique learning needs. Particular should be paid to classroom seating, in addition to additional time . and support should be embedded in this academic program, as well as provided in individual and small group sessions, in order to afford [student name] every possible opportunity to realize success. (D-6)

Finally, the student’s report states only the following: “[Student name] is a very pleasant young man who is currently a . Socially, he has . Academically, [student name] has . Areas being addressed in include , and the .” (D-7)

The student’s IEP dated May 21, 2013 recommends that he be placed in a setting and that he receive related services of and and . (D-1)

The IEP’s management needs state that the student should receive , and , g, , use of , , and . (Id.) The uncontroverted testimony is that these “ ” provide the extra support within the classroom to assist the student to succeed. (T-77)

Repeating and reinforcing will address the student’s and issues. (Id.) The IEP’s mandate of “ ” “ ” (T-79 & D-6) The IEP also calls for the student to receive “ ”

“

” (T-81, D-1 & D-6)

The IEP recommends to continue to address the student’s , and the . (D-1 & D-7) The IEP goals were specifically drafted to address the Parent and teacher’s concerns, as well as the information gleaned from the student’s testing and reports. (T-87) The IEP goals to address , are “ ” goals but also address other aspects of and . (T-90-1) The IEP goals are said to be “ ” “ ” (T-92) The goals indicate a ( to ( )

measure to determine accuracy and indicate that progress will be measured by teacher and provider observations. (D-1) The goals are sufficiently specific to negate their dismissal as “vague.”

Consistent with the and report’s request that the student receive , the IEP provides for him to receive testing accommodations as follows: ( ),

(

), (as per directions in the testing manual), (

). (D-1 & D-6)

The school psychologist testified that the student is able to . (T-

98) She also testified that the Parent did not ask for transportation services. (T-96-7) The IEP also includes numerous “ ” to assist the student in completing the requirements of a secondary education program and to develop the academic, social and/or vocational skills necessary in order to become competitively employed. (D-1) The CSE considered an “ ” class for the student but found it was not enough to address the student difficulties, and also considered a in a community or specialized school setting, but found that to be too restrictive. (Id.)

The IEP designates the student for “ ” promotion criteria. It is important to note that the student was in a program at the private school and did graduate. (T-178-9) In his year at the private school, the student’s class might have been as large as a . (T-198) “ ” “ ” at the private school from class to class. (T-202) The uncontroverted testimony of the assistant principal is that the recommended DOE class did have a placement in the recommended setting for the student. (T-126)

The law charges the DOE only with producing an educational program for the student that is “reasonably calculated to provide some ‘meaningful' benefit.” (See Mrs.

B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., and Rowley, supra) The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (“LRE”). (Supra) I find that the IEP produced for the student in this case is reasonably calculated to provide the student an educational benefit in that it reflects and addresses the student’s needs as identified in his evaluations and reports, and as were identified at the CSE meeting held

May 21, 2013. Accordingly, I find that the DOE did offer the student a FAPE for the 2013-2014 school.

Having found that the DOE offered the student a FAPE, the necessary inquiry is at an end and I need not assess the appropriateness of the student’s private school placement for the 2013-2014 school year, or whether equitable considerations bar an award on behalf of the

Parent.

NOW therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that the Parent’s request for tuition reimbursement and bus transportation for the student’s 2013-2014 school year at the private school must be denied.

Dated: September 9, 2014

, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

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

Number/Letter Title Dated For # of Pages

01 IEP 05/21/13 DOE 11

02 FNR 06/19/13 DOE 01

03 Psycho-Educational Eval. 12/20/12 DOE 05

04 Social History 12/20/12 DOE 02

05 Progress Report 01/18/13 DOE 03

06 & Report 01/18/13 DOE 02

07 Report 05/21/13 DOE 01

08 DPC 11/26/13 DOE 05

09 Due Process Response 12/21/13 DOE 04

A Impartial Hearing Request 11/26/13 PARENT 06

B Program Description undated PARENT 01

C IEP 05/21/13 PARENT 09

D FNR 06/19/13 PARENT 02

E 10-Day Notice 08/12/13 PARENT 02

F Enrollment Contract 09/10/13 PARENT 02

G Affidavit of Payment 03/25/14 PARENT 01

H Tax Return 2013 PARENT 02

I Attendance Record 2013-2014 PARENT 01

J Class Schedule 2013-2014 PARENT 01

K 2nd Qtr. Report Card 2013-2014 PARENT 02