New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number:

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District:

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Date of Hearing: October 8, 2014

November 10, 2014

December 11, 2014

Actual Record Closed Date: January 9, 2015

Hearing Officer: , Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON OCTOBER 8, 2014

ESQ., Attorney — Student

Parent/Mother — Student

Teacher, (Via Telephone) — Student

Headmaster, (Did Not Testify) — Student

Teacher, (Did Not Testify) — Student

(Did Not Testify) — Student

District Representative — DOE

Special Education Teacher, Committee — DOE

on Special Education (Via Telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON NOVEMBER 10,

2014

Attorney — Student

Parents

Psychologist (Via Telephone) — Student

Teacher (Via Telephone) — Student

District Representative — DOE

Psychologist (Via Telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON DECEMBER 11,

2014

Attorney — Student

Parents

Teacher Via Telephone) — Student

District Representative — DOE

I. Introduction — DOE

On August 26, 2014, I was appointed to conduct an impartial hearing pursuant to 20 U.S.C. §1415 to determine the special education program of (" "); the hearing was held on October 8, November 10, and December 11, 2014. Lists of persons in attendance and documents received in evidence are appended to the record.

The decision deadline was extended at the parties’ request on October 8,

November 10, and December 11, 2014, because of the unavailability of witnesses and the requirements of due process, in order for the parties to present and complete their case.

Before granting the extension requests, I noted that the hearing concerned a school year already concluded and that the student was placed in and attending a program, and determined that granting the extensions would have no adverse impact on the child’s educational interest or well-being, and no adverse financial or other detrimental consequences for both parties. I also determined that the extension requests were not based on school vacations, or scheduling conflicts of the parties or their representatives.

II. Background

is a year-old student not currently classified with a disability.

attended public school from through , and a non-public program from through grades. In September 2013, entered the (“ ”), a non-public program that has not been approved by the State Education Department ("SED") to provide education to students with disabilities.

also attends ’s program. On November 15, 2013, , ’s parent, referred to the Committee on Special Education (CSE), and gave consent to evaluate (Exh. D). On January 7, 2014, the parent wrote to the CSE that she had no response to her referral (Exh. H). The CSE conducted a Social History and Evaluation on March 6, 2014 (Exhs. 6, 10), and held a review on May 7, 2014, at which they determined that was not eligible for special education services (Exh. 2). On May 19, 2014, the parent informed the CSE that she did not agree with the decision not to classify with a disability, and requested another review with a different CSE team (Exh. G). On July 7, 2014, another CSE team concluded that is not eligible for special education services (Exhs. 16, 17).

, the parent’s advocate, requested the instant hearing on August 20, 2014 (Exh. B), alleging that: the department failed in its obligation to identify and evaluate as a child with a disability during 2011/12, 2012/13, and 2013/14; the parent referred to the CSE on November 15, 2013 and January 6, 2014, and the CSE did not meet until May 7, 2014; the May 7, 2014 meeting was procedurally flawed because the team was not properly constituted, did not consider independent evaluations, failed to conduct a classroom observation, and inappropriately determined not to classify with a disability; is an appropriate placement; equities favor tuition reimbursement. The request seeks compensatory education, reimbursement for / tuition for 2013/14, cost of evaluations, and reimbursement and/or RSAs for related services.

III. The CSE’s Case

, a Special Education Teacher assigned to CSE , testified (T. 27-78) that his duties include participation in an Individualized Education Program (IEP)

team that holds reviews for students in certain non-public schools, students who have received initial evaluations, non-attending students, and students receiving instruction. Mr. participated in ’s May 7, 2014 CSE meeting as special education teacher/district representative; other participants were the parent, the parent’s advocate, a school psychologist, and a CSE coordinator. The team reviewed the Social History (Exh. 6), (Exh. 7), department of education

Evaluation (Exh. 10), Classroom Observation (Exh. 9), a letter from ’s (Exh. E), a Educational Update (Exh. C), and a Report card (Exh. 12). The department’s evaluation noted that ’s IQ scores ranged from , the educational update indicated that his scores ranged , and his report card grades ranged from . The CSE discussed ’s he was a public school student. The CSE Coordinator told the IEP team that ’s and were level, but he required

; Mr. stated

that the information provided by during the IEP meeting was inconsistent with ’s evaluations and report card. did not present with . He was diagnosed with , but . The

CSE considered classifying with other (“ ”), but ultimately determined that was not eligible for classification with a disability, because his . The IEP states that ’s needs include

(Exh. 2, p. 3). Mr. characterized this information as “advice” or “suggestions” from the CSE to ’s teachers. He said that ’s parent was cooperative during the IEP meeting, and that she, her advocate, and the Coordinator objected to the CSE’s decision not to classify . Mr. stated that has , and the CSE informed ’s parent that his weaknesses could be addressed with a Section 504 plan. Mr. did not have any knowledge of ’s evaluation process, and did not know why the IEP meeting was scheduled two months after the evaluations.

, a department of education School Psychologist testified (T. 118-

146) that she is assigned to CSE ; her duties include testing, CSE reviews, and developing IEPs. Ms. participated in ’s July 7, 2014 CSE meeting as district representative/school psychologist; other participants were a special education teacher, general education teacher, and the parent’s advocate. Ms. stated that the meeting was held because the parent did not agree with the May 7, 2014 determination not to classify Tyler. The meeting was originally scheduled for June 23, 20914 (Exh. 14).

Ms. said that ’s parent refused to attend the July 7, 2014 meeting. (Exh. 16,

p. 4). The CSE decided not to classify , because his scores range.

The department of education Evaluation done March 6, 2014 (Exh.

10) reports that on the , achieved a score in the , a score range, a score range, a score range, and score i range. The report notes a discrepancy scores. ’s ability to , which makes it for to

.

, M.D., a who has been ’s treating physician for about years, wrote on May 5, 2014 (Exh. E) that is diagnosed with , which manifests as

.

IV. The Parent’s Case

’s parent testified (T. 149-159) that exhibited in . He attended public school from through , the , a private program, from through grades, and entered in September, 2013, as a student. On November 15, 2013, Ms. wrote to the CSE (Exh. D) requesting special education services and consenting to evaluations. On

January 6, 2014, the parent wrote to the CSE (Exh. H) that she had no response to her request for evaluation. A January 28, 2014 department of education notice scheduled a social history for February 11, 2014 (Exh. 4); Ms. did not know why this meeting was cancelled. On February 11, 2014, the social history was re-scheduled to March 6, 2014 (Exh. 5), when Ms. and appeared at the CSE for evaluations. Ms.

participated in the May 7, 2014 CSE review, and did not agree with the decision not to classify with a disability. On May 19, 2014, Ms. wrote to the CSE (Exh. G)

that she did not agree with the determination not to classify , that the district representative behaved in a hostile manner and refused to provide a copy of the meeting minutes, and that she wanted another CSE review with a different team. Ms. did not remember if she received a department of education notice dated June 4, 2014, which scheduled a CSE review for June 23, 2014 (Exh. 14). On July 3, 2014, Ms. notified the CSE that she would be out of the country and unable to participate in the July 7, 2014 CSE review (Exh. M).

Ms. signed the enrollment contract on February 15, 2013; tuition for exclusive of fees, is , plus for . (Exh. J).

The parent submitted a Assessment done by ,

Ph. D., in September and October , 2011 (Exh. B). On the test of , achieved a score range, score range, and scores

. The full-scale IQ score was not reported, because it was not representative of ’s overall , given the “ ” achieved scores ( ) on tests of

. ’s

. :

achieved a , and a

. The evaluation states that this indicates

. ’s performance level on tasks that ranged from . On tests of , achieved scores ranging from . On the test of , achieved a score in . In , achieved

, and a

. His skills and achieved scores range. Dr. diagnosed

with .

Dr. re-tested in December 20, 2013 (Exh. C). In , achieved

. He achieved scores range in the received scores in , but his score

. He

. Dr. stated that based upon teacher and parent reports, continued to meet the criteria for a diagnosis of , and that he . The report recommends

Dr. testified (T. 160-178) that was referred to her because of . He has , which . ’s

.

requires . Dr. stated there is a

The parent submitted an affidavit from , Headmaster of (Exh. L). Mr. founded in ; it is an accredited school. is an program; part of the , there are tracks in the , and tracks in the . classes students, and classes average students. The school day lasts from offers supports and accommodations, such as . Classroom teachers modify instruction according to students’ needs, and use special education instruction strategies,

Mr.

stated that the program was started in ; students in that program must have an IEP or a evaluation. About of students are in the program. students are assigned to a teacher with certification in special education or a remedial specialty, and meet with the in a group of at the of each school day, and per week . and classroom teachers collaborate regarding students’ programs and progress, and classroom strategies. The School Psychologist and Head of the program review the IEP and/or evaluation of potential candidates for ; they prepare goals for students in the program.

teachers and the school psychologist advise classroom teachers about implementation of accommodations. teachers are also classroom teachers, and “ ” to classes for teaching. Mr. stated that the program . uses the to communicate with students and parents regarding assignments, program, progress, and other concerns.

The department of education representative declined the opportunity to cross-examine Mr. (T. 116).

, Director of the program, testified (T. 203-217)

that she is a certified specialist, and has been ’s for years. During 2013/14, ’s group had students, and Ms. met with them daily from to per week.

’s issues

. Ms. addressed

She communicated with ’s classroom teachers concerning progress and program modifications. progressed during 2013/14: he became more

.

, a Teacher, testified (T. 80-109) that he has a

M.S and certification in special education. was in Mr. ’s 2013/14 class; was placed in the , based on his evaluations,

The class had students, most of them

level. The instruction was

. ’s issues included

” Mr. addressed ’s issues with via

reviewing ’s

Mr.

had frequent communication and collaboration with ’s .

Mr. stated that because of his , requires a setting . He stated that progressed, and had improved . achieved level score on a standard test of skills.

,a History Teacher, testified (T. 180-196) that he has a M.S., was formerly certified in , and has taught for 7 years. was in Mr. -s 2013/14 class, which was the

. has

, which Mr. addresses with , via and , , ,

.

progressed; he can

.

’s 2013/14 Report Card (Exh. F) indicates end of semester grades in all subjects between ; .

V. Findings of Law and Fact

I find that is not eligible for classification as a student with a disability, and that the parent’s requests for tuition reimbursement, compensatory services, and the cost of evaluations must be denied.

A central purpose of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) is to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) (20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]; Bd. of Educ.

v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179-81, 200-01 [1982]; Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 371 [2d Cir. 2006]). A FAPE includes special education and related services designed to meet the student's unique needs, provided in conformity with a written IEP (20 U.S.C. § 1401[9][D]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.17[d]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1414[d]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.320). 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). While school districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures, not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003]). 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 (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.513[a][2]). 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]). 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). Additionally, school districts are not required to "maximize" the potential of students with disabilities (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199). 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'" (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130). 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). The student's recommended program must also be provided in the LRE (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 Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132). 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 (Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 07-018).

In Florence County School District Four at al. vs. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993)

("Carter"), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a court may order reimbursement for parents who unilaterally withdraw their child from a public school that provides an inappropriate education under IDEA and put the child in a private school that provides an education that is otherwise proper under IDEA but is not approved by the state education agency pursuant to IDEA (20 U.S.C. §1402(8)(B)). In Carter, the Court held that a parental placement is proper if the private school is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. To win reimbursement under Carter, it must be shown that

(1) the public placement violates the IDEA, (2) the private placement is proper and is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, and (3) equitable factors, such as the appropriate and reasonable level of reimbursement, communication and cooperation between the parents and the CSE, and the parents’ knowledge of and timely exercise of their due process rights, support the payment award.

The standards for determining whether a unilateral private school placement is "appropriate" under the IDEA are similar but not identical to the standards for assessing the adequacy and appropriateness of a proposed public placement. Subject to certain limited exceptions, the same considerations and criteria that apply in determining whether the school district's placement is appropriate should be considered in determining the appropriateness of the parents' placement." Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 112 (2d Cir. 2007). The issue turns on whether a placement -- public or private -- is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. A private placement meeting this standard is one that is likely to produce progress, not regression.

Parents are not barred from reimbursement where a private school they choose does not meet the IDEA definition of a free appropriate public education, and an appropriate private placement need not meet state education standards or requirements. Frank G. v.

Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 364 (2d Cir. 2006). A private placement need not provide certified special education teachers or an IEP for the disabled student. The test for the parents' private placement is that it is appropriate, and not that it is perfect. A student's academic progress in a unilateral private placement is relevant, but not dispositive, of the determination of whether it is appropriate. 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. The

Second Circuit has cautioned: progress does not itself demonstrate that a private placement was appropriate. Indeed, even where there is evidence of success, courts should not disturb a state's denial of IDEA reimbursement where ... the chief benefits of the chosen school are the kind of educational and environmental advantages and amenities that might be preferred by parents of any child, disabled or not. A unilateral private placement is only appropriate if it provides education instruction specifically designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child. Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115.

“Child Find”

I dismiss the parent’s allegation that the department of education failed in its obligation to identify and evaluate as a child with a disability during 2011/12, 2012/13, and 2013/14. The department is responsible for identifying students with disabilities in public and non-public programs (8 NYCRR 200.2(a)), but apart from the parent’s vague and conclusory testimony that she noticed had difficulties in , there is nothing in the record to indicate that the department of education knew or should have known that was a student with a disability during his first years in school. Furthermore, as set forth below, I find that the CSE correctly determined that was not eligible for classification as a student with a disability.

Failure to Timely Evaluate

I sustain the parent’s allegation that the department of education did not timely evaluate . 8 NYCRR 200.4(b) provides that an initial evaluation shall be completed within 60 days of receipt of parental consent. I find that on November 15, 2013, the parent referred to the CSE and gave consent to evaluate. The department did not evaluate the student until March 6, 2014, about 130 days after the parent gave consent. I find the department had no credible reason for the delay, and that the parent did not cause the delay. The department was also late in meeting to determine whether was eligible for special education services, which was required to have been done within 60 school days of the referral to the CSE (8 NYCRR 200.4(d)(1)), and was not done until May 7, 2014, about 100 school days after the initial referral. Once again, I find the department had no credible excuse for their delay, and that the parent did not cause the delay.

Procedural Defects in the May 7, 2014 CSE Review

Several of the parent’s alleged deficiencies in the May 7, 2014 CSE review are baseless: contrary to the impartial hearing request, the CSE did conduct a classroom observation (Exh. 2), and the IEP clearly reflects that the team considered the independent

(Exh. 2, p. 1). The parent correctly alleged that the CSE team was not properly constituted: there was no general education teacher or parent member.

However, this deficiency did not deprive the parent of the right to participate or deny

FAPE to the student, because I find that the CSE correctly determined that was not eligible for classification as a student with a disability, as set forth below.

Classification

I find that both the May 7 and July 7, 2014 CSE teams appropriately determined that was not eligible for classification as a student with a disability. The IDEA defines a "child with a disability" as a child with a specific physical, mental or emotional condition, "who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services" (20 U.S.C. § 1401[3][A]; Educ. Law § 4401[1], [2][k]). In order to be classified, a student must not only have a specific physical, mental or emotional condition, but such condition must adversely impact upon a student's educational performance to the extent that he or she requires special services and programs (34 C.F.R. § 300.8[a], [c]; see 8 NYCRR

200.1[zz]; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 11-021. ’s parent argues that should be classified with an (“ ”) because he is diagnosed with , which affects his . (T. 220). A child with a disability having an means a child determined by evaluation to have an which necessitates special education and related services" (34 C.F.R. § 300.8[a][1]). is defined as:

“

.” (34 C.F.R. § 300.8[c][9]; see 8 NYCRR 200.1[zz][ ]).

Whether a student's condition adversely affects his or her educational performance such that the student needs special education within the meaning of the IDEA, is determined on a "case-by-case" basis. (Corchado v. Bd. of Educ. Rochester City Sch.

Dist., 86 F. Supp. 2d 168, 176 [W.D.N.Y. 2000]; see Maus v. Wappingers Cent. Sch.

Dist., 688 F. Supp. 2d 282, 294 [S.D.N.Y. 2010]; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 08-042; Application of a Student Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 08-023; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 07-086; see Muller v. E. Islip Union Free Sch. Dist., 145 F.3d 95, 103-04 [2d Cir. 1998]; N.C. v.

Bedford Cent. Sch. Dist., 473 F. Supp. 2d 532, 543 [S.D.N.Y. 2007], aff'd 2008 WL

4874535 [2d Cir. Nov. 12, 2008]; C.B. v. Dep't of Educ., 2009 WL 928093 [2d Cir. April

7, 2009]; New Paltz Cent. Sch. Dist. v. St. Pierre, 307 F. Supp. 2d 394, 399 [N.D.N.Y

2004]; K.M. v. Wappingers Cent. Sch. Dist., 2010 WL 451046 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2010]; A.J. v. Bd. of Educ., East Islip Union Free Sch. Dist., 2010 WL 126034 [E.D.N.Y. Jan. 8,

2010]).

In this case, ’s diagnosis with was made as early as the October, 2011 private Assessment, and confirmed in the December, 2013

Update, the May, 2014 letter from ’s , and the testimony of Dr. , the evaluating . The department of education did not dispute this diagnosis. (The October, 2011 also diagnosed with , but this diagnosis was not confirmed by the December, 2013 Update or the ’s letter; I therefore conclude that no longer meets the criteria for this diagnosis). ’s causes problems with . I conclude that meets the first part of the criteria for classification as a student with an .

However, I find that ’s does not have did not have such an adverse impact on his educational performance that he is eligible for classification as a student with a disability and a special education program. The results of the academic testing in , and in the December, 2013 were mostly in the

( , ,

); some scores were in the ( ,

, , ), but were level or above. (Exh.

C, p. 5). ’s 2013/14 Report Card reflects in areas, even during the first quarter of the year, when he had just entered , and had limited exposure to any of its special education supports. During the department’s classroom observation of , he was . (Exh. 9). The results of ’s IQ testing in December, 2011 and March, 2014 are consistent: both reports note the significant discrepancy between

’s

. Dr. testified there is a significant

discrepancy between ’s

with a disability. The record indicates performs and is not merely “advancing from grade to grade." (34 C.F.R. § 300.101[c][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[c][5]). There was no claim made that ’s

. The

May, 2007 reflects that staff reported that was well to , and . (Exh. 2, p. 2). I find that the type and level of assistance required to address ’s , such setting. I conclude that ’s and that he was not eligible for classification as a student with a disability or special education programs and services during the 2003/14 school year. This conclusion does not preclude possible eligibility for services under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which was not at issue here.

Cost of Evaluations

I find that the parent is not entitled to the cost of the December 20, 2013 independent . Regulation provides that if a parent disagrees with an evaluation obtained by the school district, the parent has a right to obtain an independent educational evaluation (“IEE”) at public expense (8 NYCRR 200.5(g),

200.16(d)(3)). The evaluation was done after the initial referral, but before the CSE’s time to conduct its own evaluation expired. Had the parent requested an IEE at the time of the initial referral, or after the CSE’s failure to timely evaluate , there may have been a valid claim for reimbursement, but that is not the case here. I conclude that the parent is not entitled to reimbursement for the independent l and and evaluations.

Remaining Allegations/Claims for Relief

Having concluded that the department of education did not fail in its obligation to identify and evaluate as a with a disability, and that is not eligible for classification as a student with a disability, I conclude that is not entitled to compensatory services, or to tuition reimbursement for the unilateral placement in . This conclusion makes it unnecessary to determine if is an appropriate placement for , or if equitable considerations would support a reimbursement award.

I find that no evidence or testimony was introduced regarding ’s need for reimbursement and/or RSAs for related services, and make no ruling on that issue.

I have considered the parties’ remaining arguments, and find it not necessary to address them in light of the foregoing decision.

VI. Order

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: a) is not eligible for classification as a student with a disability; and b) the parent’s requests for compensatory services, tuition reimbursement, and cost of independent evaluation are denied.

Dated: January 29, 2015

, 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 THE RECORD

PARENT

A Hearing Request, August 20, 2014, 7 pages with proof of transmission

B , September to October , 2011, 14 pages

C Update, December, 2013, 9 pages

D Parent Letter, November 15, 2013, 3 pages with proof of delivery

E Letter from , M.D., May 5, 2014, one page

F Report Card for 2013-14 school year, dated 6/10/14, 1 page

G Parent Letter, May 19, 2014, 6 pages

H Parent Letter, with proof of delivery, January 7, 2014, 2 pages

I , March 6, 2014, 3 pages

J Contract for 2013-14, February 15, 2013, 4 pages

K Proofs of Payment, 4 pages

L Affidavit of , dated 11/3/14, 4 pages

M Letter from parent, dated 7/3/14 1 page

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

2 IEP, dated May 7, 2014, 4 pages

4 Social History Appointment Letter, 1/28/14, 1 page

5 Social History Appointment Letter, 2/11/14, 1 page

6 Social History, dated March 6, 2014, 4 pages

7 Medical, dated May 28, 2013, 6 pages

9 Classroom Observation, May 5, 2014, 1 page

10 Psych Eval, March 6, 2014, 3 pages

12 Report Card dated April 3, 2014, 1pp

14 Meeting Notice, June 4, 2014, 3 pages

15 Meeting Notice, June 25, 2014, 3 pages

16 IEP dated July 7, 2014, 4 pages

17 Prior Written Notice, July 7, 2014, 3 pages