NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Case Number:
Student’s Name:
Date of Birth:
District:
Hearing Requested By: Parent
Date of Hearing: September 24, 2014
November 4, 2014
November 5, 2014
November 12, 2014
Actual Record Closed Date: January 12, 2015
Hearing Officer: , Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON SEPTEMBER 24, 2014
District Representative
District Representative
Attorney for Parents
Mother Interpreter
NAMES AND TITLES OFPERSONS WHO APPEARED ON NOVEMBER 4, 2014
District Representative
Attorney for Parents
Attorney for Parents
Mother Interpreter
(T) Supervisor of — DOE
(T) teacher — DOE
(T) School — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON NOVEMBER 5, 2014
District Representative
District Representative
Attorney for Parents
Mother Interpreter
(T) Special Education Teacher — Parents
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON DECEMBER 12, 2014
District Representative
District Representative
Attorney for Parents Mother Interpreter — Parents
(T) Director — Parents
On September 2, 2014, I was appointed hearing officer pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(1), in this matter. We convened for a hearing on September 24, 2014, during the resolution period, to address pendency. I issued a pendency order on September 29, 2014. On September 24, 2014, the parties had agreed that the last agreed-upon placement was set forth in the individualized education program (“IEP”), dated May 19, 2014. That IEP provided for a with a staffing ratio, days per week for hours per day; a dual recommendation for a , hours per week, in the ; , , times per week for ; , , times per week for ; , times per week for ; and a , days per week for hours per day (See Exh. B, p. 17).
I noted that although the program is hours per day, a program may be longer. I noted that the was designed to provide services for the Student for the entire day. It appeared to be the intention to provide the Student with a . I therefore ordered a so that the Student would have full coverage in the event that the school day is longer than the day.
The Parents requested that I order compensatory education for the pendency services which should have been provided as of the date the hearing request was filed. I determined that I would not address that issue at that time, as a determination regarding compensatory education involves a decision regarding the extent of the deprivation and the effect on the Student of the deprivation. In addition, a request for compensatory education due to the failure to provide services must be raised in the hearing request with notice to the other party so that evidence can be presented. Even though the issue arose out of the current hearing (or especially because it did), the issue will be not addressed in this hearing. If the Parents believe that services were not appropriately provided, they can request a hearing on that issue.
I ordered that the Student’s placement during the pendency of these proceedings shall include the following:
1. A class;
2. - , , times per week for ;
3. , , times per week for ;
4. , , times per week for minutes;
5. A ;
6. services hours per week in the .
I scheduled a hearing for November 4, 2014 and November 5, 2014. I granted the Parents’ request to extend the decision date so that the parties would have time to prepare their cases. I noted that the Student would be attending his pendency placement and that this was the first request for an extension. I extended the decision date for 30 days to December 10, 2014.
We convened for a hearing on the merits on November 4, 2014. The parties jointly requested an extension of the decision date so that the hearing could be completed. I granted that request and extended the decision date for 30 days to January 9, 2015, noting that I would be addressing the Student’s pendency placement in the interim.
On November 4, 2014, the Parents indicated that the New York City Department of Education (the “DOE”) had not provided the services ordered. The DOE only had a class available. The Parents asserted that even if I ordered an additional to make the class , it would not be essentially the same as the program the Student had attended. I questioned whether a school age program was required to be precisely the same as a program even when pendency is involved. The nature of and the nature of are different in some respects. I asked the parties to brief me on the pendency issues. In the meantime, I indicated that I would order that an additional be added to the class so that it would comply with my order. The parties agreed that was appropriate until I made a final determination on pendency. I issued an interim order on November 10, 2014, ordering an additional in the classroom.
The parties submitted legal memoranda to support their positions, and the Parents submitted an affidavit which was attached to the parents’ memorandum of law (See IHO Exh.
III and IV). We convened for a hearing on November 5, 2014 and December 12, 2014.
The Parents argued that the public school program offered by the DOE for pendency was a change in placement because a public school placement is not the same option on the continuum of alternative placements. They cite Letter to Fisher, 21 IDELR 992 [OSEP 1994]
to support the assertion that this renders site offer a change in placement. While Letter to Fisher refers to a change in the option on the continuum of alternative placements as one of the factors to consider in determining whether a site offer is a change in placement, it is not solely determinative. In this case, the IEP which serves as the basis for the pendency placement does not indicate the name of the school. It indicates solely that the Student would attend a class with the related services and noted (See Exh. B, p. 17; See also, Exh. C, p. 1). Thus, the CSE did not determine that only a could meet the Student’s needs and that a public school could not. Upon information and belief, the DOE did not operate pre-schools during the 2013-2014 school year, and thus every was a private . It could not be the intention that during the pendency of proceedings to question the appropriateness of a turning five IEP (a
IEP), that a placement in the public schools would automatically fail to meet the requirements of pendency solely because the student had previously been attending a program as a child.
The Parents indicated that they were unable to find a comparable program to the program in a private school They assert that they have been looking (T. 7). At the same time, the Student has aged out of the program he had been attending at (“ ”) (T. 7). Thus, although the Parents asserted that the DOE program is not comparable, they stated that they know of no private school program that would be comparable either. It appears that what the Parents are actually seeking is a full day of services (T. 8). This, however, would in no way be comparable to what the Student had been receiving in . Finally, I note that the Parents asserted at the pendency hearing that they would welcome the offer of a public school program with a to (T. 12, 15). The Parents agreed that the Student would not be entitled to a private school if the District had a public school setting that met the requirements of pendency (T. 15-16).
The Parents asserted that the pendency program offered by the DOE did not offer related services and only has for students. I note that the DOE stated at the hearing that it had offered three pendency placements (T. 9). It is not clear that the to student ratio at all schools would have been the same.
The Parents asserted that the pendency program offered by the DOE would not have included related services on site. The DOE was unable to guarantee that all of the related services would be provided on site. However, the DOE has agreed to provide RSA’s so that the Parents can arrange for these services on their own (See IHO Exh. V, p. 8). The Parents assert, however, that this is not comparable to services provided in school and that they are unable to arrange for such services after the leaves the Student’s at . At the hearing on December 12, 2014, I asked the DOE whether it was possible for the DOE to arrange for providers to provide services in school, during the school day, pursuant to RSA’s.
They indicated that it was. I therefore directed that the DOE arrange for such services.
The IDEA and the New York State Education Law require that a student remain in his or her then current educational placement, unless the student's parents and the board of education otherwise agree, during the pendency of any proceedings relating to the identification, evaluation or placement of the student (20 U.S.C. § 1415(j); Educ. Law §§ 4404(4), 4410(7)(c); 34 C.F.R. § 300.518[a]; 8 NYCRR 200.5(m). The purpose of the pendency provision is to provide stability and consistency in the education of a student with a disability and "strip schools of the unilateral authority they had traditionally employed to exclude disabled students . . . from school" (Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 323 (1987); Evans
v. Bd. of Educ., 921 F. Supp. 1184, 1187 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), citing Bd. of Educ. v. A mbach, 612
F. Supp. 230, 233 (E.D.N.Y. 1985)). Under the IDEA, the pendency inquiry focuses on identifying the student's then current educational placement. Although not defined by statute, the phrase "then current placement" has been found to mean the last agreed upon placement at the moment when the due process proceeding is commenced (Murphy v. Bd. of Educ., 86 F.
Supp. 2d 354, 359 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) aff'd, 297 F.3d 195 (2002); A pplication of a Student with a Disability , Appeal No. 08-107; A pplication of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-
013; A pplication of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 00-073). The U.S. Department of Education has opined that a student's then current placement would "generally be taken to mean current special education and related services provided in accordance with a child's most recent (IEP)" (Letter to B augh, 211 IDELR 481 [OSEP 1987]; see Susquenita Sch. Dist. v. Raelee, 96 F.3d 78, 83 [3d Cir. 1996]). A prior unappealed impartial hearing officer's decision may establish a student's current educational placement for purposes of pendency (Student X , 2008 WL 4890440 at *23; Letter to Hampden, 49 IDELR 197 (OSEP 2007); A pplication of a Student with a Disability , Appeal No. 08-107; A pplication of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 08-050; A pplication of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 08-009; A pplication of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 07-140; A pplication of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 07-134).
Based upon the fact that there was no private school setting comparable to the pendency placement, the DOE had no choice but to offer a public school setting and tailor it to be as near to the pendency placement as possible.
The Parents asserted that site offered for pendency does not have a sufficient to student ratio. It is, of course, paramount that the Student be safe in any school setting.
Therefore, I noted that if the Parents have a need for a to student ratio or for other services, the Parents may submit a prescription from a physician to the district, may request another hearing date to address that as a pendency issue, may send an email to me and the DOE representative requesting that specific services be added to the pendency placement to address that need, or may request another hearing on that issue.
The Parent asserted in her affidavit that the Student received in a at the ; that the issued a . The Parents also asserted that the staff paid close attention to and issues, that the Parent discussed the issues with the school, and that the classroom teacher and attended a clinic to receive training on how to feed the Student using a protocol developed by the . She asserted that the trained the classroom teacher and on how to feed the Student using the protocol. The Mother was told by the classroom staff that they had implemented the protocol and that it had worked well and that the . The Parent asserted that Ms. at told her that the school does not provide and would only implement a special protocol if it was written on the IEP. She asserted that this was confirmed by the assistant principal (See IHO Exh. IV, pp. 12-18).
I noted that the pendency IEP includes a goal relating to improving his skills.
Short term goals include
(Exh. B, p. 12). It also includes a goal that the
Student will
(Exh.
B, p. 14). I note that the pendency IEP does not include any goals, strategies or needs relating to a , a . If the P arent wishes the school to follow the protocol or receive any specific training in working with the Student on or if the Parents wish additional goals or needs to be incorporated into the IEP, such as those relating to a , the Parents may request an IEP meeting to make those changes to the IEP. I note that the current IEP recommended by the DOE includes needs relating to
(Exh. D,
p. 3). Thus, these needs should be provided in the pendency setting.
We convened for a hearing on December 12, 2014, and completed the hearing on that date. The parties requested an extension of the decision date to allow time for the submission of closing memoranda. I granted that request and extended the decision date for 30 days to February 8, 2015. However, I intended to address the ongoing pendency issue prior to issuing my final decision.
On December 19, 2014, I issued a second pendency order, ordering that the DOE immediately arrange for related services to be provided in school as per the Student ’s pendency IEP. I ordered that if the DOE did not have providers in school, they must engage providers from an agency (i.e. through the RSA process), and arrange for such services to be provided during the school day.
I further ordered that the DOE immediately take all necessary steps to provide the coordination among staff, teachers and providers to ensure that the DOE provides the services set forth on the pendency IEP in a way that meets the Student’s and needs.
The Parents request compensatory education for the failure of the DOE to provide pendency services. My findings and my orders regarding pendency indicate that the DOE developed a program that would most closely meet the program which the Student had now aged out of and could no longer attend. There was no private school program which was similar to the program. With the Student’s , the class which the DOE offered was a suitable pendency placement. If the Parents believe that such services were delayed, the DOE will require notice of this issue and evidence will need to be submitted and testimony take. A finding of compensatory education also requires evidence on the effect of any deprivation of services on the Student. The DOE did not have notice of this issue, since it arose during the hearing, and could not have been raised in the hearing request. Therefore, if the Parents wish to raise this issue, they may file another hearing request on this issue. I will therefore not address this issue in my decision below.
Closing memoranda were submitted on January 12, 2015, which was the record close date. My decision is therefore due on January 26, 2015.
ISSUES
(1) Is the program offered by the DOE for the 2014-2015 school year reasonably calculated to provide educational benefits?
APPLICABLE STANDARDS
Two purposes of the 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 (20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A)-(B); see generally Forest Grove v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230, 239 (2009); Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 (1982)). 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; R.E. v. New York City Dep't. of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 189-90 (2d Cir. 2012); M.H. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 685 F.3d 217, 245 (2d Cir. 2012); Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 (2d Cir. 2005)). "'(A)dequate compliance with the procedures prescribed would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP'" (Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch.
Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 129 (2d Cir. 1998), quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206; see T.P.
v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch.. Dist., 554 F.3d 247, 253 (2d Cir. 2009)).
An evaluation shall include a variety of assessment tools and strategies, including information provided by the parent, to gather relevant functional, developmental and academic information about the student that may assist in determining whether the student is a student with a disability and the content of the student’s individualized education program, including information related to enabling the student to participate and progress in the general education curriculum (or for a preschool child, to participate in appropriate activities) (8NYCRR§200.4(b)(1)).
An IEP must include a statement of the student's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (see 34 CFR 300.320(a)(1); 8 NYCRR 200.4(d)(2)(i); Tarlowe v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 2736027, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2008) (noting that a CSE must consider, among other things, the "results of the initial evaluation or most recent evaluation" of the student, as well as the "'academic, developmental, and functional needs'" of the student)), establish annual goals designed to meet the student's needs resulting from the student's disability and enable him or her to make progress in the general education curriculum (see 34 CFR 300.320(a)(2)(i), (2)(i)(A); 8 NYCRR 200.4(d)(2)(iii)), and provide for the use of appropriate special education services (see 34 CFR 300.320(a)(4); 8 NYCRR 200.4(d)(2)(v); see also Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 07-018; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-059; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 06-029; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04- 046; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No.
02-014; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 93-9).
The burden of proof is on the school district during an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement (Educ. Law § 4404(1)(c); see M.P.G. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2010 WL 3398256, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2010)).
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Committee on Special Education (the “CSE”) convened on March 13, 2014, to develop an IEP for the 2014-2015 school year. The CSE recommended a class in a program. It also recommended (“ ”) times per week, , , times per week for , parent and times a year for ; , , times per week for ; - , , times per week for , and - of , time per week for (Exh. D, pp- 8-9). The CSE recommended services (Exh. D, p. 14).
The Student is old boy, who has been classified as having .
He exhibits . He
. He can and can . He
and wants with and is able
. He is . He is
. He is . He is
. He is able
(Exh. D, p. 2; Exh R, p. 1).
(Exh. U).
During he will
. He is
. He is
. He is beginning (Exh. D, p. 1).
The Student is
. He . If
an activity becomes , he
(Exh. T, p. 1).
During the 2013-2014 school year, the Student was
. He . He
. He . He
. He
. He .
. The Student
(Exh. U).
The Student is also . He has
. Until recently,
. He is . His
. As a result it takes a long time . He
(Exh. D, p. 2).
(Exh. D, pp. 4-9).
On May 9, 2014, the Student was offered a placement at in , (Exh. E). On August 11, 2014, the Student was offered a placement at , (Exh. F). On September 23, 2014, the Student was offered a placement at in , (Exh. G).
As a student, during the 2013-2014 school year, the Student was recommended to attend a class ( hours per day) with - times per week for , times per week for , ; times per week for , ; and a full time to (See Exh. B, p. 17). He was also provided a dual recommendation in the of services, hours per week (Exh. B, p. 17).
The IEP, dated May 14, 2014 notes that the Student had that interfered with learning, including and . The IEP notes that expected changes included , . Strategies for addressing these included
Supports included continuing the to
(Exh.
B, pp. 5-6).
The Student has with the
(Exh. H, p. 2). His progress is
(Exh. K, p. 2).
The program that the Student was recommended to attend uses the approach (T. 118). is very similar to (T. 294).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The recommended setting with a staffing ration is reasonably calculated to meet the Student’s needs. That setting will provide the Student with a . He is likely to do better in that setting, with children, than in his setting, which had children, since he is and does better in instruction. I find that the Student does not require services. He is able to participate in school activities and is able to make progress in that setting. I note as well that the evidence indicates that the Student has not made significant progress with his services. While the testified that the Student is unable to participate in instruction (T 292), this was contradicted by the documentary evidence from (See Exh. U). Moreover, the then testified that the Student should have instruction or (T. 292). I find the ’s testimony lacked credibility on that issue. The was and had no way of knowing how the Student in school. She also testified that she did not collaborate with the Student’s classroom teacher since she was providing services in the summer (T. 291).
The Parents assert that the goals are inappropriate. I find, however, that the academic goals are consistent with the Student’s current . The IEP includes a goal to . Although the IEP indicates that the Student is already (See Exh. D, p1 and p. 5), the teacher indicated that he knows (T. 282). The IEP also includes a . Although the IEP indicates that the Student is (Exh. D, p. 1 and 6), the teacher testified that the Student knows his numbers inconsistently from to and has a
(T. 277).
The IEP does not include a goal relating to although the IEP indicates that the Student has difficulty
(Exh. D, p. 2). I will therefore order that a goal be added .
The IEP does not specifically include a goal to . He currently . and goals include goals relating to
(Exh.
D, pp. 7-8). It is not clear that additional goals are needed. The IEP makes the Student’s needs clear. is provided and the IEP informs the teacher of the Student’s needs. Nevertheless, I see no harm in specifically including and will so order the CSE
below.
The IEP does not include a goal relating to although it indicates that (See Exh. D, p. 2).
However, I am reluctant to include a goal without evidence that it is appropriate at this time. I will therefore order that the CSE consider whether such a goal would be appropriate.
I will also order the CSE to include , as the Student does not
.
. The Student also . I disagree with the
CSE’s rationale for (T. 128). Although the program has to help children who require it
(T. 131), the Student requires
. In addition, the Student relied on the support of his during throughout the day. While the Student has the Student still .
The Parents allege that the goals do not comply with all the requirements of law.
Goals must be measurable and must identify when periodic reports on the progress the student is making toward the annual goals will be provided to the student’s parents. Each goal must also include the evaluative criteria, evaluation procedures and schedules to be used to measure progress toward meeting the annual goal during the period beginning with placement and ending with the next scheduled review by the CSE (See 8 NYCRR§(d)(2)(iii)). The goals on the IEP each set out measurable criteria, indicate how progress will be measured, and indicate when progress will be measured (See Exh. D, pp. 4-9). However, they do not specifically state when the progress reports will be provided to the Parents. I will order that the goals will be revised to so indicate, and that any additional goals developed by the CSE pursuant to my order below shall so comply.
It is also not clear that the Student will receive sufficient in a classroom without a to . Thus, I will order that the CSE provide a . I will also order that the CSE develop specific and instructions with the , the and . I also note that the CSE did not develop an or a although the Student that impact his learning. While there was testimony that an and a are not needed because the program “ ” (T. 120), I find that it would be beneficial for the team to consider specific strategies to target the Student’s long standing and . I will therefore order that an and a be developed. I will order that the DOE provide a placement offer at a site that can meet all the goals and management needs set forth on the IEP.
ORDER
I THEREFORE ORDER that the CSE shall reconvene within two weeks of the date hereof, with all mandated participants, and including the Student’s , the , the , and any medical professional needed to develop the goals:
(1) to include ;
(2) to include a
(3) to include a ;
(4) to determine whether a
IEP;
(5) to provide for a ;
(6) to develop specific instructions (to be included on the IEP in the needs section) for the to implement during . Such instructions shall be developed with the participation of the , the and any necessary professional as well as the mandated members of the IEP team;
(7) to ensure that all the goals on the IEP indicate when reports indicating progress on the goals will be provided to the Parents.
I FURTHER ORDER that the CSE shall develop an and a within one month of the date hereof;
I FURTHER ORDER that the DOE shall provide a placement offer, within three weeks of the date hereof, at which all the, services, goals and management strategies set forth on the IEP can be implemented.
Date: January 23, 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 RECORD ON SEPTEMBER 24, 2014
Parents’ Exhibits Date of Exhibit No. of Pages
A. Impartial Hearing request 8/27/14 9
B. IEP 5/19/14 21
C. Summary Student Information 5/20/14 1
D. IEP 3/13/14 16
E. FNR 5/9/14 1
F. FNR 8/11/14 1
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD ON NOVEMBER 4, 2014
Parents’ Exhibits Date of Exhibit No. of Pages
G. School Location Letter 9/23/14 4
And prior written notice
H. Progress Report 8/15/14 2
I. Letter from 7/18/14 1
J. Authorization of IEP Change 5/20/14 1
K. Progress Report 4/26/14 2
L. Request for Increase in Services 4/20/14 1
M. Report 4/14/14 2
N. Progress Reports 4/14/14-5/16/14 11
O. Letter from Dr. 3/20/14 1
P. Letter with attached and 3/17/14 4
Q. Assessment 2/14/14 5
R. IEP 1/14/14 17
S. Progress Report 1/25/14 4
T. / Evaluation 1/23/14 4
U. Report 12/20/13 5
V. Progress Report 12/19/13 3
W. 10/8/13 6
X. 5/19/13 2
Y. 5/29/12 3
Z. IEP 5/11/12 11
AA. Photos of at Undated 6
BB. Email from 10/29/14 2
CC. Email from 10/30/14 4
DOE Exhibits Date of Exhibit No. of Pages
1. IEP 7/21/14 18
2. Report of 2/14/14 1
3. 3/14/14 2
4. Classroom observation 2/12/14 2
5. Social history update 1/23/14 1
6. Annual Report 3/18/13 1
7. Annual Report 3/16/13 2
8. Educational Progress Report 3/1/13 3
9. Progress Report 3/1/13 2
10. FNR1 9/23/14 4
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD ON DECEMBER 12, 2014
Parents’ Exhibits Date of Exhibit No. of Pages
DD. Undated 1
By
EE. Undated 1
By
FF. Team Recommendation 9/2/14 1
By
GG. Undated 12
HH. Log 2/28/14-4/11/14 25
II. Excerpt from printed 12/5/14 19
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION
IHO Exhibits Date of Exhibit No. of Pages
I. Order on Pendency 9/29/14 7
II. Interim Order 11/10/14 5
III. DOE Memorandum of Law 11/21/14 5
IV. Parent’s Memorandum of Law 11/24/14 18
(including attachments:
Parents’ Affidavit 11/24/14
V. Emails among IHO and parties 10/29/14 – 11/26/14 11
VI. Second Order on Pendency 12/19/14 12
VII. DOE’s Closing Brief 1/12/15 12
VIII. Parents’ Closing Brief 1/12/15 30
IX. Emails among IHO and parties 9/18/14-9/29/14 8
Footnotes
[1] Originally entered into evidence on September 24, 2014 as Exhibit 3. Changed from Exhibit 3 to Exhibit 10 on November 4, 2014.