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: February 11, 2015
March 30, 2015
March 31, 2015
April 20, 2015
May 21, 2015
Actual Record Closed Date: June 10, 2015
Hearing Officer: Lynn Botwinik Almeleh, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON FEBRUARY 11, 2015
Law Offices of, Esq. — Student
Parents
Dr., Representative — DOE
Special Education Teacher, (via telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MARCH 30, 2015
Law Offices of, Esq. — Student
Parents
Teacher, (via telephone) — Student
Dr., Representative — DOE
Senior Director for Admissions, Office of — Student
Enrollment (via telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MARCH 31, 2015
Law Offices of, Esq. — Student
Parents
Teacher, (via telephone) — Student
Dr., Psychologist (via telephone) — Student
Headm aster (via telephone) — Student
Dr., Representative — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL 20, 2015
Law Offices of, Esq. — Student
Parents
Teacher, (via telephone) — Student
Dr., Representative — DOE
Senior Director for Admissions, Office of — Student
Enrollment — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MAY 21, 2015
Law Offices of, Esq. — Student
Parents
Dr., Representative — DOE
PROCEDURAL CONTEXT
By letter dated October 14, 2014 I was appointed to hear the Matter of pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 US Code Section 1415 (f)(l). Thereafter, on November 11, 2014 a pre-hearing conference was held and a litigation calendar developed. On February 11, 2015, March 30, 2015, March 31, 2015 and April 20, 2015 hearings were held. On May 21, 2015 closing statements were offered. A hearing previously scheduled for June 5, 2015 to enable the Department of Education to examine tuition insurance documents submitted by the Parent was cancelled by the Department’s representative. On this date, the proceedings were closed and the decision date duly extended so that a Findings of Fact could be prepared. It should be noted that subsequent to my appointment, the parties moved to extend the compliance date on various occasions in light of anticipated testimony, scheduling of witnesses, settlement discussions and closing arguments. In considering these requests, I weighed the cumulative impact of the relevant factors and rendered a decision regarding these joint requests consistent with the mandates of 34 C.F.R. Sect. 300.515[c] and 8 NYCRR
200.5[j][5][i]).
Specifically, the Parent asserts that the Department of Education’s (hereinafter the
“Department”) educational placement, as memorialized by the IEP of May 24, 20141 stands in violation of its mandate pursuant to 20 US Code Section 1412 [a][3] and is neither suitable nor appropriate for his child. Exh. 1. As a result thereof, he is seeking tuition reimbursement for the 2014-2015 school year in furtherance of a unilateral transfer to the (hereinafter “ ”), a non-public school setting. As a corollary, the Parent has defended the educational program implemented by and relies upon the rules and principles set forth in Florence County School District Four v.
Carter by Carter, 114 S.Ct., 361 (1993); and Burlington Sch. Comm. v. Dep't of Educ., 471
U.S. 359, 368 [1985].
At the commencement of the 2014-2015 school year, the student was nearly old. I note that is “ ” as that term is defined under the IDEIA,
The IEP is alternately dated May 20, 2014 by the Department. Exhs. 5, B.
20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., and is classified as “ ” as that term is defined by 20 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(1). There is no dispute regarding classification. A list of persons in attendance and of evidence is appended hereto.
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S CASE
testified on behalf of the Department. Ms. is a teacher (hereinafter “ ”) at and has previously taught both and classes. The witness described as a child with deficits in comprehension and , noting that higher order tasks such as inferencing, generating ideas and developing evidence-based arguments were challenging. To support these weaknesses, was provided with the . Tr. at 40. With this assistance, Ms. testified that on grade level in both and .
2
Ms. participated in the child’s CSE convene on May 20, 2014, having served as the child’s teacher during fourth and . Tr. at 37; Exhs. B, 5.
(hereinafter “ ”), the witness
indicated that largely at grade level or above, scores consistent with age-level determinations yielded on both the 5 (hereinafter “ )
and . Exh. 5 at 1. In furtherance thereof, Ms.
observed that the child was a fluent reader whose skills reflected correct punctuation and form. Similarly, although the child’s sample offered minimal detail, his sentences were age appropriate and structured correctly. Tr. at 47.
Nevertheless, by , Ms. acknowledged that the student continued to demonstrate weaknesses in inferential thinking and higher order skills. While the student could produce longer samples when following checklists, he continued to require support with “ ” Tr. at 48-49. To facilitate the child’s ability to submit written work, utilized a along with , thus enabling him to edit work at . In contrast, was
Previously known as independently , re-telling content and answering literal questions at or above grade level. In , Ms. reported that at grade level.
Describing the child’s , the witness noted that the child’s IEP included environmental modifications such as seating proximity, in addition to repetition of directions, and individualized check-lists to facilitate and organize classroom assignments. Tr. at 52-53. These interventions were then reinforced through small group re-teaching and “ ”
“
”
Tr. at 52-53.
Notwithstanding these instructional supports, Ms. observed that the student continued to demonstrate delays in inferential thinking. As a result, the IEP continued to incorporate goals addressing abstract skills such as drawing conclusions, understanding character relationships. Exh. 5 at 8. Addressing ’ struggles with expository , initiating an assignment and generating ideas, the IEP offered pre-tools such as and along with a broad plan to gradually reduce the child’s additional “ ”
Based upon her observations and classroom assessments, Ms. reiterated her recommendation of periods of support within the parameters of a classroom. She based this recommendation upon the student’s intellectual abilities and ’ progress within this paradigm. Beyond this, Ms. opined that would be challenged by the curriculum while benefiting from social opportunities offered by his peers. Tr. at 57. Having observed the child’s upward leap in and skills between , the teacher expected to make similar progress as he articulated from
.
On cross-examination, Ms. noted that the child’s 2014-2015 mandate for reflected services only, in contrast to the mixed / periods recommended in the child’s 2013-2014 IEP. The altered manner in which services would be provided reflected her belief that had responded well to the format.
Having thus testified, Ms. opined that services had been effective as well, noting that there had been children in ’s group and only in . Tr. at 67. Finally, Ms. noted that the format would be less stigmatizing for the child. Tr. at 76. As had been successful within the paradigm, Ms. saw no need to recommend a more restrictive class.
additionally testified on behalf of the Department. Ms. is the
Senior Director for Admissions in the Office of Student Enrollment. As such, she is responsible for overseeing the admissions process for . The witness described the placement process for students, noting that the Department published directories, put on fairs and generated applications in which a student-school match was facilitated. In addition, certain schools conducted additional events such as auditions or affirmatively requested students based upon published on-line ranking. All students are eligible to attend their -zoned schools. Where there is no
-zoned , students participate in a matching process. Tr. at 98-99. An appeal process exists when parents object to a placement. Tr. at 138. The witness noted that most placement information is “back-packed” as many families fail to update their addresses following a move. Although her office conducts outreach, ultimately it is the responsibility of a parent whose child will be articulating from private to public school to contact the Department. Tr. at 107.
With specific reference to , Ms. noted that the Parents had submitted their enrollment application on December 17, 2013. In response, had not been matched to of his choices, but was offered on May 7, 2014. On May 8, 2014, the Parents opted out of the enrollment process, indicating that would be attending . Thereafter, on May 9, 2014, a welcome letter to was sent directly by . Tr. at 119-121; Exh. L.
THE PARENT’S CASE
Mr. is the father of other children, all of whom attend Department of Education public schools. He offered a brief educational of , noting that the child was evaluated in but began receiving services in second. Since then, had continued to receive the same services of , and along with . has been on various medications for and was taking them at the time of the May 2014 CSE meeting. Tr. at 313-314. Although assigned to a class, the witness testified that the child’s IEP mandate was continuously supplemented after by services (provided by the Department) and private .
The Parent testified that he became particularly concerned as loomed in the future. Based upon his experience with his older children, he did not believe would be able to cope with the greater academic demands and expectations of independence. Tr. at 149. In furtherance thereof, he noted that did not cope well with transitions and still needed an adult to accompany him to school. Tr. at 150.
Notwithstanding this, the Parent began researching public schools for , eliminating the Department’s Delta school, because of its accelerated pace. Although his older child had had a positive experience at the Department’s , Mr. was advised by their personnel that only periods of would be provided while it was unclear if ’ would continue. Tr. at 150- 153. Although the Parent expressed these concerns at the May 20, 2014 convene, he noted that the other Committee members did not share his apprehensions. Moreover, when the Parent indicated that he was considering placement at , the CSE, and more specifically the child’s teacher, supported this idea. Tr. at 155, 158.
On or about May 22, 2014, the Parent received a Notice of Recommendation from the Department. Exh. 6. The document continued to recommend education with related service support. Shortly thereafter, the Parent received placement information for (hereinafter “ ”) Academy. Although he had already enrolled at , Mr. visited the placement in September 2014. As had happened at the , Mr. was again advised that could only offer periods per week, instead of the periods mandated on the child’s IEP. Beyond this, there was only assigned to the school. Tr. at
159. By letter dated September 18, 2014, the Parent shared these concerns with the Department but heard no further from the CSE. Exh. G.
Finally, the Parent testified regarding the circumstances of ’ enrollment at . He noted that there is a registration deadline, and for this reason, he was compelled to leave a deposit in February 2014 in order to reserve a seat. Although the deposit was non-refundable by , the Parent acquired insurance in the event of such a loss. Tr. at 176-
178. Exh. M.
additionally testified on behalf of the Parent. Ms. is employed by as the child’s teacher. She additionally serves as of ’s . Although the witness testified that did not seem to have many deficits, he is assigned to the lower of classes. Tr. at 195. Nevertheless, the witness described as a child with significant attentional deficits which compromised his ability to function within the classroom in terms of following directions and beginning assignments. Tr. at 184-187. She noted that needed frequent
, and in order to complete independent
classroom work. The witness noted that ’s lack of focus occurred both within the classroom and in daily tutorials. Nevertheless, the child had demonstrated greater comfort with self-advocacy, seeking extra help when necessary.
In order to address the child’s needs, Ms. testified that she utilizes a approach which might include . Techniques are first modeled, then practiced with guided support and summarized last at the end of the session. New topics are preceded by “ ” sheets to ensure foundation skills have been acquired. Ultimately, Ms. indicated that fluency is developed through classroom practice, homework and review. Problems are then in the answer keys so that students are specifically directed to their areas of weakness. Finally, homework is facilitated online through . Tr. at 198-202.
Ms. noted that there are other children in the room, a class size with which is comfortable. She has, however, observed the child in larger settings.[3] On these occasions, appears anxious, is reluctant to ask questions and becomes very quiet.
Tr. at 191-192. In furtherance thereof, the child receives and participates in a social skills/mentoring class for sixth graders. In sum, Ms. opined that a large class would be inappropriate for as it would be difficult to receive the individualized assistance and he needs. Tr. at 204-206.
additionally testified as the child’s teacher. is placed in the lower of tracks, a track that provides enhanced support for the student’s deficits in . Specifically, the witness noted that has difficulty remaining on task and staying organized. Tr. at 221. As such, the witness provides instruction in a very animated fashion, constantly and the child to remain focused. Mr.
has additionally provided the child with organizational strategies, ensuring is prepared for class, completes assignments in a timely fashion and understands his class responsibilities. The witness noted that struggles with written assignments and benefits from sentence/paragraph modeling, individualized support and visual “ ” In this manner, is able to concentrate on the substance of his work, rather than the organizational structure of a written piece. Tr. at 228. The witness noted that he works collaboratively with the child’s teacher on a regular basis through ongoing communication, and sessions. Tr. at 241-243.
Mr. additionally testified that, as part of his class, was taught how to research a topic, take notes and use key words. Research strategies were broken into small components so that assignments were not overwhelming to the student. Mr. indicated that he kept his classroom routine extremely predictable, noting that this constancy reinforced a sense of comfort for Beyond this, Mr. emphasized the judgment-free nature of his classroom and often shared his own difficult learning experiences with his class. In this manner, he noted that extreme initially experienced at the beginning of the school year had abated. Tr. at 232-234.
Finally, Mr. opined that would not be able to function appropriately in a class, given his need for individualized instruction, and checking-in.
Beyond this, he opined that the child’s organizational deficits and would interfere with his ability to remain focused and on-task. Tr. at 238-239.
, Ph.D. is a clinical psychologist who conducted a evaluation of on May 24, 2012. Exh. F. Testing was conducted over the course of approximately (with periodic breaks and lunch) in order to replicate the academic demands of a full school day. Tr. at 288-289. She described a sensitive and anxious child whose poor self-esteem interfered with peer relationships. Tr. at 267-268. Based upon her assessment, the witness concluded that exhibited a of written expression, including , in addition to weaknesses in inferential comprehension, accuracy and phonological skills. She further confirmed an earlier diagnosis of and noted that the student exhibited
Tr. at 256-261; Exh. F at 16. In furtherance thereof, the witness opined that would struggle academically as more sophisticated educational demands were imposed. As such, Dr. expressed concern that the student would have increasing difficulty comprehending abstract materials and preparing written materials, particularly in subjects such as , and . Tr. at 264; Exh. F at
10. Ultimately, the witness opined that should be placed in a collaborative team-teaching class in which he would receive the of a special education teacher, rather than isolated sessions per week. Tr. at 270-272.
On cross-examination, Dr. noted that additionally exhibited clear cognitive strengths, particularly in the areas of performance, reasoning and perceptual reasoning skills. Moreover, tested at of intelligence and yielded average scores in comprehension. Tr. at 275; Exh. F at 26.
The child’s mathematical abilities in non-timed tasks were age-appropriate. Tr. at 277.
Notwithstanding these strengths, Dr. testified that ’ “ ” Tr. at 289-290. Thus, based upon her 2012 evaluation, she opined that the combination of , deficits in , higher order comprehension skills and expository militated against the appropriateness of a class supported by periods of Simply stated, she did not believe ’ strengths could compensate for his weaknesses.
additionally testified on behalf of the Parent. Mr. is the Headmaster of , having founded the School in . He described as a college preparatory school which, through tracked classes, can accommodate the strengths and weaknesses of students with learning disabilities and unique learning styles. Tr. at 297. With this flexibility, students may participate in both and inclusionary programs so that they may receive the academic support they require in some subject areas without sacrificing their ability to participate in classes in others. is a small intimate school, serving grades. There are approximately who are assigned to of classes in the .
The witness described the program as a special education program which is incorporated into the child’s daily schedule. Approximately third of ’s students participate in the program. As such, it
As the “ ” for the student, the teacher
collaborates with other school personnel, provides , serves as a liaison between and school and provides constant educational oversight so that the child may be supported to the extent necessary. In this manner, educational strategies are shared between both and content area instructors. As such, core subject personnel are not isolated from the special education supports offered by personnel. Rather, through ongoing training, workshops and team communication, staff is able to significantly integrate special education modalities into their curriculum. Techniques such as are incorporated into all classrooms and there is much collaboration between the teachers employed at and the core content instructors. Tr. at 304-305.
THE SCHOOL DISTRICT’S POSITION
The Department maintains that the May 20, 2014 IEP is valid and consistent with its mandate pursuant to both Educ. Law §4402(2)(a) and 8N.Y.C.R.R. §200.6 §(a)(1).Exh.
5. Inherent within this position, the Department asserts that the IDEIA simply requires the School District to provide a free and appropriate public education (hereinafter referred to as a “FAPE”) and is not compelled to maximize or optimize the child's educational benefits. In view of the foregoing, the Department maintains that compliance with its IDEIA mandate is predicated upon the development of an educational program, which accurately reflects the results of evaluations designed to identify the child’s needs, and develops strategies and interventions directed at remediating these educational deficits. Its duty is fulfilled by the implementation of a plan “reasonably calculated to confer an educational benefit upon the child” beyond “mere trivial advancement” (Application of the XXX Central School District, Appeal No. 08-005, citing Cerra v. Pauling Cent. Sch. Dist, 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir.2005]).
The District further maintains that is an inappropriate placement for the student as it does not comport with the notion of furnishing services within the least restrictive environment. Finally, the Department contends that the Parent’s actions militate against his equitable entitlement to relief.
THE PARENT’S POSITION
The Parent asserts that the Department stands in abrogation of its duty to provide with a free and appropriate public education for the 2014-2015 school year in violation of the IDEIA (See 20 U.S.C. § 1412 (a)(1)(1997); 20 U.S.C. § 1401 (11)(1997).
As such, counsel maintains that the IEP generated May 24, 2014 reflects a number of substantive and procedural errors which, in aggregate and alone, compel nullification of the document. Exh. B. Specifically, the Parent maintains that the District’s failure to appreciate the extent of compromised the integrity of its educational planning. Beyond this, even if the Department’s IEP had, in fact, offered a FAPE, the Department was ultimately unable to implement its provisions, and in failing to do so, the Department stands in violation of its mandate. As a result, the Parent was compelled to unilaterally place his child in a non-public school placement (Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District, Westchester County, et al., v. Amy Rowley, by her Parents’, Rowley et el., 58 US l76, at 206; Walczak v. Florida UFSD, 142 F.3d 119 (2d
Cir.1998).
Consistent with this argument, the Parent contends that the constituted an appropriate placement for his son during the 2014-2015 school year and, furthermore, that there are no equitable factors which, pursuant to School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. School District, Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 [1985], militate against an award of reimbursement.
DISCUSSION
It is clear that the legislative intent of 20 US Code § l4l2 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is to provide a free and appropriate public education to all children with disabilities so that these individuals may ultimately lead productive, independent lives as adults, to the maximum extent possible (20 U.S.C.Sx.1400 [d][1][A]; see Ms. W. v. Tirozzi, 832 F.2d 748, 750 [2nd Cir. 1987]). A FAPE consists of specialized education and related services embodied in an IEP. See 34 C.F.R. 300.13. An appropriate program begins with an IEP which accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student's needs, establishes annual goals and short term instructional objectives related to those needs, and provides for the use of appropriate special education services (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-105; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 93-9). The IEP is the "modus operandi" of the IDEA (Burlington Sch. Comm. v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 368 [1985]). Under both state and federal law, an IEP is specifically defined as a "written statement" that addresses the educational needs of a child with a disability (20 U.S.C. 1401(11); 34 C.F.R.
300.340[a]; 8 N.Y.C.R.R. 200.1[y]). The IDEA and its corresponding regulations mandate that at the beginning of each school year, a school district must have an IEP in place for each child with a disability that resides within its jurisdiction. 20 U.S.C. 1414(d)(2)(A); 34 C.F.R. 300.342[a].
In furtherance thereof, a board of education must show (a) that it complied with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) that the IEP developed through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits (Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-207 [1982]). The recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (34 C.F.R. § 300.550[b]; 8 N.Y.C.R.R. 200.6[a][1]).
In determining the “reasonably calculated” standard, the IDEA does not require the best placement for a student, but rather one at which the student may make educational progress. Most recently, the Courts have reiterated the standards upon which the “reasonably calculated” standard of FAPE must be determined. "The requirement that each child be afforded a FAPE does not guarantee that the district provide everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents" ( B.B. and A.P. o/b/o D.P. vs. the NYC Dept. of Ed. 11-CV-2141 (WFK) (MDG) (Jan. 6, 2012), citing, Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d at 567; D.B. ex rel. K.B. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., No. 10-cv-6183, 2011 WL 4916435 [S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2011][Sweet, J], quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132. Nor must the IEP furnish "every special service necessary to maximize each handicapped child's potential." Rowley, supra at 199.
Rather, the IEP must provide a "basic floor of opportunity consisting of services that are individually designed to provide educational benefit to a child with a disability" (Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 379 (2d Cir. 2003); see also Carlisle Area Sch. v. Scott P., 62 F.3d 520, 533-34). Indeed, a school district "fulfills its substantive obligations under the IDEA if it provides an IEP that is likely to produce progress, not regression, and if the IEP affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere trivial advancement" (A.H. ex rel. JH v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 394 Fed. Appx. 718, 721 [2d Cir. 2010]).
Courts have held, furthermore, that the inquiry into whether a particular IEP is "reasonably calculated" to confer a meaningful educational benefit on a particular student must be made prospectively. See D.F. ex rel. N.F. v. Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist., 430 F.3d 595, 598-99 (2d Cir. 2005) (declining to rule whether it is error to consider retrospective evidence, but noting that the First, Third, and Ninth Circuits, as well as district courts within the Second Circuit, had so held); J.G. ex rel. N.G. v. Kiryas Joel Union Free Sch.
Dist., 777 F. Supp. 2d 606, 636 n.26 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (discussing lack of Second Circuit precedent requiring only prospective review, but ultimately conducting review limited to information known at time IEP was crafted to reach "the most equitable result"); J.R. ex rel. S.R. v. Bd. of Educ. of City of Rye Sch. Dist., 345 F. Supp. 2d 386, 395 (S.D.N.Y.
2004) (courts must "consider the propriety of the IEP with respect to the likelihood that it would benefit [the child] at the time it was devised"). Additionally, the IDEA provides that a school district must include and involve the parents of the disabled child in the development of that child's "educational placement." 20 U.S.C. § 1414(e). Parents, however, may only have input in the process; they do not wield "veto" power over a CSE's school choice. See T.Y. ex rel. T.Y. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 584 F.3d 412, 420 [2d Cir. 2009]).
Finally, while both the Supreme Court and Congress place great importance on the procedural provisions of the IDEA (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 205 ["the importance Congress attached to these procedural safeguards cannot be gainsaid"]), nevertheless, adequate compliance with the procedures prescribed [by the IDEA] would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP" (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206; M.S. v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Yonkers, 231 F.3d at 102).
Still, the initial procedural inquiry is no mere formality (Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 129 [2d Cir. 1998]). These detailed procedural provisions "lie at the heart" of the statute (Evans v. Bd. of Educ. of the Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 930 F.
Supp. 83, 93 [S.D.N.Y. 1996]). They are not mere procedural hoops through which Congress intended state and local educational agencies to jump, rather the procedures are themselves a safeguard against arbitrary or erroneous decision making (Daniel R.R. v.
State Bd. of Educ., 874 F.2d 1036, 1041 [5th Cir. 1989]; Engwiller v. Pine Plains Cent. Sch. Dist., 110 F. Supp. 2d 236, 247 [S.D.N.Y. 2000]; Evans, 930 F. Supp. at 93).
Having said this, procedural flaws alone do not automatically translate into a denial of FAPE. A violation of FAPE may only be determined when these procedural inadequacies, individually or cumulatively, result in the loss of educational opportunity, or seriously infringe on a parent's participation in the creation or formulation of the IEP (Shapiro v.
Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 317 F.3d 1072, 1079 [9th Cir. 2003]; Knable v. Bexley
City Sch. Dist., 238 F.3d 755, 766 [6th Cir. 2001], cert. denied 533 US 950 [2001]; Heather S. v. State of Wisconsin, 125 F.3d 1045, 1059 [7th Cir. 1997]; W.G. v. Bd. of Trustees of Target Range Sch. Dist. No. 23, 960 F.2d 1479, 1484 [9th Cir. 1992]; Burke Co. Bd. of Educ. v. Denton, 895 F.2d 973, 982 [4th Cir. 1990]; W.A. v. Pascarella, 153 F.Supp. 2d 144, 153 [D.Conn. 2001]; see Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. v D.K., 2002 WL 31521158 [S.D.N.Y Nov. 14, 2002]; see also J.D. v. Pawlet Sch. Dist., 224 F.3d 60, 69-70 [2d Cir. 2000] [relief is warranted only if the procedural violation affected the student's right to a FAPE]).
The instant matter additionally presents the question of whether a court may order reimbursement for parents who unilaterally withdraw their child from a public school that provides an inappropriate (emphasis ours) education under the IDEA and enroll the child in a private school of their choice. The Supreme Court has established a three-pronged test under School Committee of Burlington v. Department of Education of Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985), which defines those circumstances in which a Board of Education may be compelled to reimburse a parent. Under these guidelines, a unilateral placement may be reimbursed where 1) the CSE's IEP is inappropriate; 2) the parent's placement is educationally appropriate and 3) equitable factors compel a finding of fairness. There is, moreover, no requirement that the placement be state approved or even that it generate IEPs as part of its educational strategy. Florence County School District Four v. Carter by Carter, S.Ct. 361 (1993).
Point 1: Consistent with Burlington v. Department of Education of Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985), was the May 24, 2014 IEP reasonably calculated to confer an educational benefit upon during the 2014-2015 school year?
Federal regulation requires that an IEP include a statement of the student's present levels of educational performance, including a description of how the student's disability affects his or her progress in the general curriculum (34 C.F.R. § 300.347[a][1]; see also 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]). School districts may use a variety of assessment techniques such as criterion-referenced tests, standard achievement tests, diagnostic tests, other tests, or any combination thereof to determine the student's present levels of performance and areas of need (34 C.F.R. Part 300, Appendix A, Section 1, Question 1).
An IEP must also include measurable annual goals, including benchmarks or short-term objectives, related to meeting the student's needs arising from his or her disability to enable the student to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum, and meeting the student's other educational needs arising from the disability (34 C.F.R. §
300.347[a][2]; see 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]). In addition, an IEP must describe how the student's progress towards the annual goals will be measured and how the student's parents will be regularly informed of such progress (34 C.F.R. § 300.347[a][7]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][x]).
Clearly, the IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP. The Supreme Court, however, has specifically rejected the contention that the "`appropriate' education" mandated by IDEA requires states to "maximize the potential of handicapped children." 458 U.S. at 196 n.21, 189.
The purpose of the Act was "more to open the door of public education to handicapped children on appropriate terms than to guarantee any particular level of education once inside" as the IEP (Rowley at 192). Indeed, "proof that loving parents can craft a better program than a state offers does not, alone, entitle them to prevail under the Act"
(Kerkham v. McKenzie, 862 F.2d at 886). Similarly, failing grades are not dispositive evidence of a denial of educational benefit (Sherman v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch.
Dist., 340 F.3d 87, 93 [2d Cir. 2003]). And, even if the record revealed a lack of progress under a particular IEP this too does not automatically render that IEP inappropriate
(Antonaccio v. Bd. of Educ., 281 F. Supp. 2d 710, 724 [S.D.N.Y. 2003]).
A. W ere the student’s present levels of perf orm ance appropriately incorporated into the May 20, 2014 IEP? W as the May 2014 CSE duly composed?
Turning to the question of ’s IEP, I find, ab initio, that the CSE was duly composed.
It is clear that the child’s teacher participated, as did a teacher, district representative, , guidance counselor as well as both Parents.
Tr. at 38; Exh. 5 at 16.
The CSE generated its recommendations based upon October 2013 testing on the , and levels set by . It is unclear whether a private assessment conducted on May 24, 2012 was addressed although it had been provided by the Parent.
Tr. at 41-48; Exh. F. As a result, the Department’s IEP assessments are strictly reflections of achievement and do not address the child’s ,
, or . In the absence of any
, there is no context for understanding and appreciating the child’s achievement. Although I believe this is a significant omission, I do not believe it rises to the level of a procedural defect which has compromised the due process rights of the child.
Moreover, while scoring on sub-tests yielded a range of average and in some cases, above average abilities, the manner in which testing was performed is significant.
Given within a structured setting, these results reflect extensive testing accommodations inconsistent with the manner in which materials are presented to students within the classroom. Indeed, the standardized scores essentially present an achievement profile reflective of an alternate test reality rather than based upon actual classroom performance and protocol. As such, the child’s achievement scores must be viewed within this context. Thus, scores yielded within a structured and modified test environment are not necessarily dispositive of actual ability within a large classroom setting. This is especially true where, as with , deficits in and interact synergistically with other such as . In contrast, the assessment of , Ph.D. was expressly performed in a manner which would more accurately replicate the classroom experience. When tested over the course of several hours, many of the child’s considerable strengths were compromised by “the combination of his problems related to , attention and executive . His difficulties with and his were really placing -- and also the difficulties he was showing at that point with inferential
, comprehension and expository had me very concerned about how he would function in the later part of school with the increasing demands being put on skills that really stressed his areas of specific weakness. . . ” Tr. at 289-290.
Having said this, Dr. ’s assessment was nearly years old at the time of the May 2014 CSE convene.
More persuasive regarding the child’s current level of performance, however, was the testimony of whose observations of the child were gleaned over a period of years as ’ teacher during . The witness noted that while ’ comprehension fell at the , many of ’ skills reflected concrete abilities and an ability to simply re-tell the facts. In contrast, the student demonstrated clear deficits in those skills associated with higher order thinking.
Tr. at 42, 50.
For example, in , the child’s fluency and accuracy were above grade level. Ms. testified that was able to answer quick fact-based questions which reflected literal knowledge of written content rather than any depth of comprehension. Tr.
at 50. Indeed, Ms. testified that as comprehension demands became more sophisticated, the child struggled with, “ ”
“complicated, multi-part questions. Similarly, as struggled with “ ” “ ”
“ ”
“ ” ”
While the child’s writing skills reflected grade level skills with grammar and capitalization, again noted that minimal details and elaboration. Tr. at 47. Although the child had shown significant progress with the
“
” Tr. at 49. Thus, grade level performance was more reflective of grammar and punctuation, than an ability to provide age appropriate substance and content.
Although the CSE should have incorporated into its review, I find that the child’s present levels of performance were reasonably described during the May 2014 CSE convene.
B. Are the recom m endations articulated in the IEP of May 2014 reasonably calculated to confer a meaningful educational benefit upon ?
While the IEP observes that benefits from small group instruction whenever possible, the CSE ultimately recommended a classroom supplemented by daily periods of Even Ms. credited ’ progress to and .” Tr. at 56. Nevertheless, there was no testimony as to how this would happen in a class. In contrast, personnel at uniformly opined that a large class would be inappropriate for , even for , a strong subject in which performed at grade level.
A review of the 2013 IEP indicates that many of the child’s goals remain the same and there is some question as to whether the child is truly making progress, notwithstanding Ms. ’s testimony. For example, the child’s goal - including criteria for success- has remained identical since October 17, 2013. Exh. J at 4; Exh. 5 at 7. Similarly, goals addressing the child’s ability to employ inferential reasoning are identical. Exh. J at 4; Exh. 5 at 8. In fact, the child’s goal and even his goals are stated verbatim. Exhs. J, 5, passim . Consistent with the Department’s findings, Dr. noted that even as a , test scores on the indicated that was “generally successful at answering the literal questions, earning at least partial credit on of those asked, he struggle[d] when answering inferential questions.” On these questions, earned credit for of the questions asked. Many responses reflected partial credit only and were obtained after looking back and actively the passages. Exh. F at 9. While much of Ms. ’s testimony regarding the child’s current levels of progress was persuasive, these facts undermine the value of her testimony regarding ’“ ”
“ ”
“Consistent with this , displays marked difficulties with
.” Exh. F at
17. He was additionally observed to function in a restless and impulsive manner. Ibid.
Although the student’s IEP incorporates many educational accommodations and , it is unclear how they will be incorporated into the child’s academic day in a meaningful manner. Under these circumstances, the supports offered by the child’s IEP may or may not be illusory.
It should be noted, moreover, that pupil/personnel ratio is not the only factor which may determine the level of distraction within a class. It does not address the issue of , the occasioned by the mere increase in student enrollment or the plurality of ideas, some of which may be conflicting.
It does not consider the distractions inherent within providing instruction for mixed abilities. The importance of transition issues, such as packing up materials, navigating the building efficiently and regaining focus, are marginalized. More significantly, it does not address the increased cognitive challenge to prioritize and filter material presented.
Clearly, the delayed feedback, inherent within a larger class, would impact negatively as a child with . For a student such as , instruction may advance at a pace which his ability to keep up. As a result, the student is always struggling to develop foundation skills while others are moving on to more advanced materials. None of this was addressed by personnel at the placement.
Adding does not alter the pacing of instruction, the level of instruction or the degree of distraction associated with increasing class size. A class, supplemented by a range of educational supports, is not necessarily a paradigm which can supplant the need for special education instruction. Indeed, the opportunity to interface with his peers in a “ ” environment, a rationale offered by the Department in support of its recommendation, has not necessarily been a positive experience for Rather, the record indicates that he receives mandated for the poor self-esteem and he experiences as a result of his academic struggles in class. In the absence of any testimony from personnel regarding its ability to implement the services recommended on the child’s IEP, I am not persuaded that a FAPE was provided.
Point II: Was an appropriate educational placement for during the 2014- 2015 school year?
Specifically, the Second Circuit has set forth a stringent standard for demonstrating the appropriateness of a parent’s unilateral placement. "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…” (Gagliardo v. Arlington
Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 111 [2d Cir. 2007]; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]; Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356 [2d Cir.2006]).
Parents need not show that the placement provides every special service necessary to maximize the student's potential (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" (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364; see also Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112).
While evidence of progress at a private school is relevant, it does not itself establish that a private placement is appropriate (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'" (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115 [citing Frank G., 459 F.3d at 365 [quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 188-89] [emphasis added]]).
The Gagliardo Court further specified that no one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining whether a unilateral placement is appropriate. While grades, test scores and regular advancement may constitute evidence that a child is receiving educational benefit, it is clear that “the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child's individual needs” will be considered in determining the appropriateness of a unilateral placement. To qualify for reimbursement under the IDEIA, 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. (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; see Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65; see also A.D. and H.D. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 06 Civ. 8306 [S.D.N.Y. April
21, 2008]). The private school need not employ certified special education teachers, nor have its own IEP for the student (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-
111).
Although it is clear that the District’s placement must comport with its LRE requirement, this is not the Parents’ burden. While parents are not held as strictly to the standard of placement in the least restrictiv e environment as local educational authorities are, the restrictive nature of the parental placement may be considered in determining whether the parents are entitled to an award of tuition reimbursement (J.C., 231 F.3d at 105; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-111; com pare Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 99-44.
I find, at the outset, that the academic program offered at correlates well with the student’s academic needs, as identified in the IEP. Moreover, the small group instruction and specialized program by instructors trained in both and methodology is entirely appropriate for the student. Although the District maintains that is not an appropriate placement, "[u]ltimately, the issue turns on" whether that placement is "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits" (Frank G. at 364, supra; see also Gagliardo, supra, at 112).
Enrolled at for approximately months at the time of these proceedings, many of its witnesses opined that had made substantive and meaningful progress. Turning to the question of whether placement at was appropriate, the parent bears the burden of proof with regard to the appropriateness of the educational program for which they seek reimbursement during the 2002-03 school year (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-111). In order to meet that burden, the parent must show that offered an educational program, which met her daughter’s special education needs (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-
111). The private school need not employ certified special education teachers, nor have its own IEP for the student (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-111).
While parents are not held as strictly to the standard of placement in the least restrictive environment as local educational authorities are, the restrictive nature of the parental placement may be considered in determining whether the parents are entitled to an award of tuition reimbursement ( , 231 F.3d at 105; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-111).
Clearly, has demonstrated a long of academic difficulty which has been addressed through special education and high risk Departmental interventions as well as private . Despite these interventions, this well-behaved but emotionally fragile child continued to struggle academically. is aware of his academic shortcomings and has been stigmatized by this previously in his classes. The affidavit of , the child’s teacher at , provides a current description of how the child’s issues translate into his ability to function within the classroom. Exh. K.
I find that is, in fact, appropriate, for several reasons. At the outset, is tracked with similarly profiled students. Individualized instruction is programmatically incorporated into the child’s schedule. Witnesses testified that they utilize
. Classroom instruction additionally includes . New materials are preceded by “ ” sheets, reinforcement and constant repetition to ensure that foundation skills have been acquired.
Beyond this, computer programs such as are utilized as a bridge between school and .
Although the child functions at grade level in , the child’s teacher testified regarding ’ significant attentional deficits in following directions and beginning assignments. Tr. at 184-187. This compromises his ability to remain on task and follow through on classwork. She noted that he needed frequent
, and in order to complete
independent classroom work. These interventions occur within the classroom and in daily tutorials with the child. While is often unable to articulate what he doesn’t understand, the child has demonstrated greater comfort with self-advocacy and seeking extra help.
Along with the individualized special education instruction receives through , the testimony reflects the fact that special education supports are incorporated into ’s entire day. Tr. at 241. This occurs through the direct intervention of the child’s teacher who interfaces with the child’s core content instructors, offering special educational guidance and instructional insights into the student’s learning needs across different environments.
Mr. ’s testimony regarding ’s program was additionally persuasive in terms of the special education strategies it incorporates throughout the child’s day. This includes support for deficits and . Clearly, ’s teacher serves as a liaison between and school and provides constant oversight with content area instructors so that educational issues may be identified and addressed in a timely fashion. In this manner, educational strategies are shared between both and content area instructors, ensuring instructional continuity within the day. While the Department argues that ’s failure to provide with in the form of a laptop renders the School inappropriate, I find that the plethora of educational supports offered by more than compensates for this.
Finally, I note that the child’s instructors uniformly indicate that has made progress at . While evidence of progress at a private school is relevant, it does not itself establish that a private placement is appropriate (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'" (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115 [citing Frank G., 459 F.3d at 365 [quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 188-89] [emphasis added]]). In this sense, I find that ’s program includes a variety of interventions which are specifically designed to meet ’s needs.
Point III: Are the Parents entitled to equitable relief pursuant to Burlington, supra, for the 2014-2015 school year?
Prong of Burlington, supra, provides that equitable considerations may be considered when fashioning relief under the IDEA (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374; M.C. v.
Voluntown, 226 F.3d 60, 68 [2d Cir. 2000]; see 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.
Total reimbursement will not be appropriate if the court determines that the cost of the private education was unreasonable"]). With respect to equitable considerations, the IDEA also provides that reimbursement may be reduced or denied when parents fail to raise the appropriateness of an IEP in a timely manner, fail to make their child available for evaluation by the district, or upon a finding of unreasonableness with respect to the actions taken by the parents (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][iii]; see S.W. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 646 F. Supp. 2d 346, 362-64 [S.D.N.Y. 2009]; 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]; Werner v. Clarkstown Cent. Sch. Dist., 363 F. Supp. 2d 656, 660-61 [S.D.N.Y. 2005]; see also Voluntown, 226 F.3d at n.9; Wolfe v. Taconic Hills Cent. Sch.
Dist., 167 F. Supp. 2d 530, 533 [N.D.N.Y. 2001]; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 07-079; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 07-032).
In furtherance thereof, the IDEA permits the denial or reduction of reimbursement when parents do not provide notice of the unilateral placement either at the most recent CSE meeting prior to removing the student 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" (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][iii][I]; see 34 CFR 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" (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 reimbursement in cases where it was shown that parents failed to comply with this statutory provision (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]); see Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 376 [2d Cir. 2006]; Voluntown, 226 F.3d at 68; Lauren V. v. Colonial Sch. Dist.; 2007 WL 3085854, at * 13 [E.D. Pa. Oct. 22, 2007]).
Consistent with 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][iii][I]; see 34 CFR 300.148[d][1], it is clear that the Parent articulated his concerns about ’s program as early as the May 2014 CSE. Beyond this, a letter detailing the Parent’s concerns was forwarded by certified mail on September 18, 2014. Exh. G. In this regard, I find that ample notice, both constructive and actual, was offered to the Department. The record further indicates that the Parent participated cooperatively during the CSE proceedings, shared private evaluations with the Department and made site visits to various schools in an effort to assist with the identification of an appropriate placement. Finally, the testimony indicates that the parties worked collaboratively in the absence of hostility and negativism. Tr. at
72.
The Parent submitted an enrollment application to the Department as early as December 17, 2013. Although it is clear that the Parent had reserved a seat at as early as March 3, 2014, long before the May 2014 CSE convene, it is equally clear that he continued to pursue the possibility of a public placement by participating in the placement process and making site visits. His testimony regarding ’s registration deadline is credible. As the Parent’s other children had always attended Department schools as had , there is no reason to believe the Parent would not have placed in the recommended school had it offered an appropriate education. I find that ’ enrollment at as early as March 2014 was an exercise in caution, a prudent effort to ensure a seat should it be necessary.
Having said this, the Parent’s testimony regarding an insurance policy from is unsupported by the evidence. In furtherance thereof, I note that the contract specifically indicates that the Parent would remit a non-refundable deposit of and, would additionally not participate in the tuition reimbursement refund plan. Exh. C at 3.
In contrast, Mr. testified that he had taken out an insurance policy which would enable him to receive some reimbursement of his initial deposit in the event attended public school. Beyond this, an invoice dated September 12, 2014, prepared after the student had commenced classes at , is equally confusing as it references a “late re-enrollment fee of .” Exh. C at 3. Regrettably, this inures to the Parent’s actual intent regarding a placement a and militates against the Parent’s right to equitable relief.
CONCLUSION
The Parent’s request for relief is granted for the 2014-2015 school year but must be reduced based upon the equitable issue discussed above.
W herefore, it is hereby ordered that:
Within sixty (60) day s of the date of this Order, the District shall make direct pay m ent of to f or reimbursement of all tuition expenses incurred by during the 2014-2015 school year at the . This amount shall represent the District’s total liability pursuant to the Parents’ Due Process
Complaint.
Dated: June 11, 2015
LYNN BOTWINIK ALMELEH, 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
PARENT
B IEP, dated 5/24/14, 15 pages
C School Contract, dated 2/22/12, 4 pages
D Credit Card Proofs of Payment to , 2 pages
E Withdrawn
F eval Report, 32 pages
G Parent Correspondence to CSE, dated 9/18/14, 5 pages
H Affidavit, dated 12/18/14, 2 pages
I Report Card, dated 1/6/15, 1 page
J 2013-2014 IEP
L Placement Letters, dated May 2014, 2 pages
M Invoice for Tuition Insurance, dated 9/12/2014, 1 page
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
1 Due Process Response, dated 10/13/14, 11 pages
2 Annual Review Plan, 5/2014, 2 pages
3 Eval, 3/2014, 4 pages
4 Recommendation, dated 6/11/12, 1 page
5 IEP, dated 5/201/4, 17 pages
6 , dated 5/22/14, 4 pages
7 Parent Letter, dated 9/1/14, 3 pages
8 Computer Screens on Placement, undated, 2 pages
IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER
I Closing
Footnotes
[3] i.e. non-academic periods in which both classes are together or when entering her study hall