NY IHO #2015-ih-370: Impartial... | Special Education Law

NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.

i "j

School District Ce; Veg ::

Office og 80d Prog ; ong WUeati on Pan | PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF THE CASE 8 velop enh

The due process complaint notice was filed with the District on December 15, 2014.

(Exhibit SD-1) It alleged FAPE violations under IEPs that came out of CSE meetings on December 14, 2012 and March 22, 2013.’ After hearing dates were scheduled, the District moved to dismiss the due process complaint notice on the ground that the student had graduated in June of 2013. (Exhibit IHO-XII) The Parent cross-moved for permission to amend the due process complaint notice so as to expand the scope of the hearing to include alleged FAPE violations during the 2010-2011 school years and 2011-2012 school years and the earlier part of the 2012-2013 school year on the ground that the Parent had not known of these issues until recently. (Exhibit IHO-XV) I denied the motion to dismiss on the ground that the due process complaint notice had raised factual issues relative to whether a gross violation of FAPE would entitle the student to compensatory education. (Exhibit IHO-

XXII) I denied the cross-motion for permission to amend on the ground that the issues of the earlier time periods were severable without loss of judicial economy. (Exhibit IHO-

XXI) There was some incidental testimony and other evidence bearing on some of the issues of the earlier time periods and some of my findings of fact might possibly relate to some of them. But they were outside the scope of the hearing and the hearing did not afford the parties an opportunity to litigate them.

' These actually were meeting of the Subcommittee on Special Education. However, Sub-CSE meetings were referred to consistently throughout the hearing by the attorneys and the witnesses as CSE meetings and they will be so referred to here. pe School District

THE STUDENT’S LEARNING AND BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS

Staff working with the student had computer access to the student’s IEP and were able to update his present levels of performance between CSE meetings. (Tr. 674-675) The IEP that came out of the March 22, 2013 CSE meeting, which is the student’s most recent IEP, reflected that his reading skills were below grade level, that his vocabulary skills at times gave him trouble and kept him from fully comprehending passages at or near grade level, that he was able to do quite well on multiple choice questions if he took his time, read the questions out loud and eliminated wrong answers, that he did well in discussing readings in class and almost always inputted his opinion, that he enjoyed listening to someone reading to him and occasionally preferred to read out to staff and peers, and that when he did read aloud, his delays in decoding were apparent and appeared to interfere with his comprehension. It stated that his writing was in need of improvement, that at times his rushing through assignments caused his writing to be illegible, that he benefited with discussing the planning of his writing with staff but needed to develop better independence skills, that he needed limits on the ideas he incorporated so he could focus on linking logical ideas, and that he often required several prompts to write more than the minimum necessary. It noted that on occasion, the student became focused on outside issues that he brings into school and that these stresses significantly interfered with his participation, that at times when he felt he could not be successful he would shut down, that he sought out help when he began to struggle academically, and that at times his academic performance was negatively impacted by his inability maintain attention paired with his impulsive nature. It indicated that the student said he learned best when he could see and hear the information presented, that when the student was motivated it was difficult to stop him, that he preferred working alone so he could absorb the information but that he would work with another student who he knew wouldn’t judge his abilities. It said he required daily breaks and teacher check-ins, which could be as simple as reminding him where he was or had left off on an assignment, adult redirection and assistance, repetition and reteaching to assist his working memory, comprehension and vocabulary skills, and minimum distraction in order to complete assignments. It said he needed to take his time with his academic work, especially when it came to reading and writing, re-teaching and one on one attention when learning new math concepts, repetition and practice to retain math skills, and constant positive encouragement to keep him on track. It reflected that at times he struggled with managing his anger and frustration, that when upset he engaged peers in an aggressive manner, that he sought support when necessary to manage stress or conflict during his school day, that he was responsive to adult attention and positive feedback, that he was proud of his good choices and improvement, that his experiencing improved peer relationships contributed to his feeling better about himself, and that he could be impulsive at times and needed support with appropriate social interactions. It stated that periods of transition could be of particular concern for him, that he often displayed high anxiety at the beginning and end of the school day with a resultant lack of focus and need for attention, and that during those times he could become loud and extremely animated. It indicated that he needed a small and structured environment with clear and consistent expectations, constant supervision, especially in social settings with peers, reminders of what is appropriate behavior, and that he had a significant delay in social skills that interfered with his participation in age appropriate activities and interactions and delays in reading decoding, reading comprehension, math calculation, numerical operations, written expression, and attentional skills that significantly interfered with his participation in mainstream academic classes.

Prior to the March 22, 2013 CSE meeting, a school psychologist administered the Woodcock-Johnson Test of Achievement — Third Edition (WJII-A) and the Wechsler Adult

Intelligence Scale — Fourth Edition (WAIS IV) to the student. In terms of grade equivalency, the W4JII]-A assessed his Broad Reading at a (with Letter Word Identification at | Reading Fluency atl and Passage Comprehension at @). his Oral Language at ll (with Story Recall atl and Understanding Directions at]), his Broad Math at Big with Calculation at a. Math Fluency atl and Applied Problems atl), his Broad Written Language at [with Spelling at | Writing Fluency at ll and Writing Samples at HB), his Academic Skills at | his Academic Fluency atl and his Academic Applications at. Within a 90% confidence range, the WAIS IV assessed his Verbal Comprehension at | (falling in the average range), his Perceptual Reasoning at il (falling in the borderline J range), his Working Memory afl (falling in the borderlinePT range), his Processing Speed at [Mj (falling in the average range) and his Full Scale IQ at iB (falling in the borderline J range). The school psychologist considered these test results a valid representation of the student’s true functioning levels. (Exhibit SD-49, page 2)

On October 16, 2013, a few after the student’s graduation, the student’s adaptive daily living functioning was assessed by a predoctoral psychology intern and a licensed psychologist at the request of his therapist, using the Vineland-II Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition: Interview Edition (Vineland-II). Based on a semi-structured interview with the student’s mother and father, the Vineland-II assessed the adaptive levels of his Composite Communications, Composite Daily Living Skills and Composite Socialization as HE. with percentile ranks of J and Mrespectively. His overall adaptive behavior composite was fil with a percentage rank of QJ His age equivalents on the subdomains ranged from Ml on Receptive (a subdomain of Communication) to JJ on Coping Skills (a subdomain of Socialization). (Exhibit P-CCCCC)

In her testimony, the Parent gave the following example of the student’s understanding of how money works: “In my experience if anyone’s ever seen the movie

Rain Man with and he says, ‘How much is a care worth?’ ‘Oh, a hundred dollars.’ “How much is a candy bar worth?’ ‘Oh, a hundred dollars.’ That’s [the student].” (Tr. 988) The Parent gave the following example of the student missing social cues: “Say

Nina and I are good friends, and we walk up and do fist pumps like boys would do. [The student] will come up and, wanting to be friends with these two people, he would come up wanting to fist pump. But because they don’t know him, it’s inappropriate. But to [the student] it’s just I want to be a part.” (Tr. 944) The student has two friends, who have

_ (Tr. 944, 1045) He requires help to maintain those relationships.

(Tr. 1017-1018)

The consultant who worked with the student testified, “I talk about an emotion meter. [The student] goes from zero to 100 very quickly in his emotions and response to things....” (Tr. 473) She also testified, “I think [the student] has great interest in — other people and sharing stories.” (Tr. 485) She also testified, “[The student] is a very caring kid, and he wants people to do well and be well.” (Tr. 508) She also testified, “[The student] is a strong communicator around topics that are of interest to him. He does not always receive how his listener is hearing him or their understanding of what he’s saying.” (Tr. 526) Interpreting the results of the Vineland-II, she testified, “As I said, [the student] is strong at telling stories about things that are of interest to him and sharing information that he likes and knows. He is relatively poor, as the scores point out here, at receiving information for understanding. Expressive is stronger for him; receptive is weaker for him.

When I say that he’s a strong communicator, he has a lot of stories to tell and things to share, and he’s excited about the interaction. But part of that skill in expressing information is knowing when it’s needed and when it’s wanted and how much to share.” (Tr. 529) “He is a charming fella. He’s a friendly fella. But it is, again, easier for [the student] to provide information and share information than to take it in and respond to it.” (Tr. 531)

THE STUDENT OPTING OUT OF THE WORK-STUDY COMPONENT OF THE

PROGRAM THAT THE DISTRICT WANTED TO PROVIDE HIM WITH

The IEPs that came out of the December 14, 2012 and March 22, 2013 CSE meetings classified the student’s disability as = —<- (Exhibit SD-5, p. 2; Exhibit SD-6, p.

2) §200.13(b) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education provides that the length of the school day for students with P| shall be as set forth in §175.5 of the Commissioner’s regulations. §175.5 pertains to all students, not only to students receiving special education or to students with In most relevant part, it provides, “The daily sessions for pupils in grades seven through 12 shall be a minimum of five and one-half hours including time spent by students in actual instructional or supervised study activities, exclusive of time allowed for lunch, and including hourly units of time spent by all teachers and other instructional staff within a grade level or school building attending upon staff development activities relating to implementation of new high learning standards and assessments as authorized by section 3604(8) of the Education Law. Among the Parent’s contentions in the due process complaint notice was that the CSE recommended a three hour school day for the student and that this falls short of the required number of hours. (Exhibit

SD-1, p. 5)

At the hearing this situation proved to have been more complicated. The IEPs provided for the student to receive a special education program, more specifically a therapeutic day program in a 6:1:1 class, for three hours daily. (Exhibit SD-5, p. 8; SD-6, p.

8) However, that was only one of two components of the overall instructional program that the District meant to provide the student with. The other offered component was to have been a work-study program. The student had participated in a vocational training program during the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years and a work-study program was a natural progression. (Tr. 548-549;

557) There are references to the half-day vocational training program and to exploration of a work-study experience in the student’s 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 IEPs (Exhibit P-G, p. 2; Exhibit P-F, p. 1), but they are not listed as components of his special education programs and services because they do not have any special education pieces and are considered general education. (Tr. 165-166, 582-583) The IEP for the student’s 2012-2013 school year that came out of a CSE meeting on March 26, 2012 stated that the student would attend a vocational training program for half-days (Exhibit SD4, p. 1) but the parties understood that this actually would be a work-study program. (Tr. 581-583, 924; Exhibit SD-19) In fact, the student began the 2012-2013 school year Se participating in a work-study program. (Tr. 583-584) (Work-study is now called work-based learning. [Tr. 742]) He was required to be at school at 7:30 A.M. to 10:30 A.M. and when he attended both the academic and work-study portions of his program, he would be in one place or the other for the entire school day. (Tr. 652) But early in November, the student refused to continue to participate in the work-study portion of his program. (Tr. 298-299, 583- 584, 926)

The work-study portion of the program had two components, one involving actual work and one involving participating in the - (Tr. 584) The student refused continued participation in both portions. (Tr. 585) The work portion involved assembling eyeglass frames. (Tr. 412) The career skills portion involved a program that helped students build the career skills they needed to be successful (Tr. 48), such as “how to be punctual, how to have good attendance, social skills, communication skills, how to check your work for error, how to report in detail what you’ve done on your job to a supervisor.” (Tr. 261) The transition specialist who worked with the student during the 2012-2013 school year in the academic component of his program testified “That particular work program was recommended for any student who needed very close supervision, extra job coaching, extra instruction on the soft skills of work, which are how to respond to a boss, how to respond to negative criticism. The goal of that particular work site was to prepare students to be able to do something else in the work-study department.” (Tr. 412) The student’s English and Language Arts (ELA) teacher testified that the student told her, not in these exact words, that he was “better than the job”, “smarter than the job”, “smarter than the other kids in there” (Tr. 51). The Parent testified that the job wasn’t geared towards anything the student wanted to do, that the manipulation of small objects was difficult for him and that he was bullied and picked on daily by the other kids on account of his inability to do the work as quickly as they could, among other things. (Tr. 926-927) The ELA teacher acknowledged that the student had expressed to her that he found the fine motor work very tedious and that he also didn’t like having to work in a small room. (Tr. 138) Investigations of the bullying complaints came to nothing. (Tr. 795-796, 1058-1059) However, the transition specialist acknowledged that the student had told her that some of the other students at the work site were either picking on him or bullying him. (Tr. 413) The staff of the District engaged in brainstorming to try to find a way to get the student back into the program. (Tr. 592-593; Exhibit SD-34, SD-51) The IEP that came out of the December 14, 2012 CSE meeting memorialized that the student currently participated in a half day academic program, that the student and his family recently had removed him from a vocational training program and that alternatives would be explored based upon the student’s interests. (Exhibit SD-5, p. 3)

Efforts to get the student back in work-study continued as late as March 2013. (Tr. 309-312; Exhibit SD-46)

There seems little room for doubt that the student had justifiable grievances with the work portion of the work-study program. However, the student would have been able to continue going to the ' , even if he wasn’t being employed and he refused that too. (Tr. 703) A transition specialist who worked with the student at the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year in the work-study component of his program tried unsuccessfully to convince him to stay. (Tr. 265-267) And it appears that the student’s grievances related to the particular work he was initially assigned and would not necessarily have carried over to subsequent work assignments. But the student’s homeroom teacher’, who also was his

Participation in Government teacher and then his Economics teacher, testified that other work-study sites were put on the table for the student and he refused them (Tr. 190) and that there was follow-up with the student after a meeting with the Parent and the student on January 17, 2013 that the student walked out on and that “He remained adamant that he didn’t want any work-study that we would procure for him”. (Tr. 222-226; Exhibit P-N)

The homeroom teacher could not remember what work opportunities were available for the student at the time, but gave three examples of what currently was available and added, “the list is pretty long”. (Tr. 213) The student’s instructor at the : _. gave three examples of other work opportunities available then and three other examples of other work opportunities currently available. (Tr. 277)

THE DISTRICT GIVING THE STUDENT EXTRA HELP TO PASS HIS RCTS

Running through the Parent’s case is the theme that the District was ill-motivated in the intensity with which it prepared the student for his RCTs. The Parent’s attorney put it thus in her opening statement: “[The student]’s education during the 2012-2013 school year consisted primarily of practicing over and over to pass a test that would enable the District to wash its hands of [the student] and disregard any further responsibility for him.” The Parent’s Closing Brief says, among other allusions to this issues, “The record supports the ? The homeroom teacher testified, “Because [the student] was a student in my homeroom, I was in charge of his — his IEP and making sure the IEP was implemented for that school year.” “I was in charge of making sure that the things that were in his IEP were implemented, and it was followed.” (Tr. 166) He testified that people sometimes referred to that role as being the caseworker. (Tr. 167) parent’s testimony that the sole academic service [the student] was receiving during his senior year was practicing to take exams, namely the RCT exams. Tr. 936-937.”

This theme has a somewhat familiar sound to it. There are educators and parents who currently question the value of the time schools in general devote to administering standardized tests, preparing students to take them, and otherwise “teaching to the test”.

This impartial hearing officer does not understand the Parent to be raising such issues.

Those controversies, which are the subject of much public debate, involve matters of educational philosophy and policy and do not factor into this case. That having been clarified, I can find no fault in the District’s approach to preparing the student to pass his

RCTs. What happened was that the student not attending work-study, a situation which the District had not sought to bring about, freed up a large amount of time in which the District could work with the student to maximize his chances of graduating at the end of the 2012-2013 school year, a goal that was important to him. The Director of Special Education testified, “So, knowing he wanted to graduate, knowing that he had significant difficulty on the Regents exams, and knowing that he had that, I offered — plus, to balance this fact that he wasn’t attending work-study, I offered tutoring for the other half of his day.” (Tr. 633-634) On December 14, 2012, she requested two hours daily of RCT writing preparation starting January 2, 2013 and ending January 24, 2013. (Exhibit SD-43) On April 8, 2013, she requested two hours daily of Science RCT preparation and U.S. History preparation starting Apnl 22, 2013 and ending June 14, 2013. (Exhibit SD-40) Attendance records document that these services were provided for as long as the student availed himself of them. (Exhibit SD-41; Tr. 637-638) As for the possibility that time could have been found during the student’s senior year for him to take regular academic courses beyond what he needed to graduate, the student also was vocal, after he had completed his three-year math requirement, that he didn’t want to take any more math. (Tr, 625-626)

The entire record reflects that finishing school at the end of the 2012-2013 school year was important to the student. The student’s English Language Arts teacher testified that the student could have postponed his graduation past the end of his senior year “[i]f he wanted to, I guess.” (Tr. 98-99) The student’s homeroom teacher, who also was his Participation in Government teacher and then his Economics teacher, testified that he attended the student’s graduation and that both the student and the Parent were very happy that the student had graduated. (Tr. 177-178) The student attended the March 22, 2013 CSE meeting and it was discussed that he was on track to graduate in June. (Exhibit SD-6,

p. 1; Tr. 255-256) At the same time the student was adamant that he didn’t want any workstudy that the District would procure for him, he was adamant that he was going to be done with school in June. (Tr. 226) In October of 2012, he contemplated dropping out of school altogether. (Tr. 268) When the instructor at the explained to the student that he would have to attend college for further schooling in order to pursue one of his career goals, his reaction was “not good”. (Tr. 283-284) The autism consultant testified, “{The student] was pretty clear with me, as the year went on, that he really wanted to finish his work at school, to get his diploma, to take those two tests.” (Tr. 479) “I think [the student] was very focused at that point on finishing school and passing those two tests and getting out of school to get a job.” (Tr. 479) The Director of Special Education testified that at the time of the December 14, 2012 CSE meeting, she thought that changing the student’s classification to in the middle of his senior year might help him in his goal of graduation (Tr. 597-598) and that at the time of the March 22, 2013 CSE meeting, the student was staying the course to achieve graduation. (Tr. 628) Asked why she provided so much support to help the student pass his RCTs, she testified, “[The student] and [the Parent] were — definitely wanted him to graduate and made that very clear to me, you know, we have to do whatever it takes to get him to be able to graduate, because he wants to be done. He repeatedly would say, ‘I’m not coming back.’” (Tr. 641) At the December 14, 2012 CSE meeting, the student was adamant that he wanted to be done in June and wanted to graduate. (Tr. 723-724) At the CSE meetings, the student’s and the Parent’s request was to finish in three years and they made that very clear, because he was not willing to stay.

(Tr. 730) The work incentive counselor of the advocacy organization sought out by the Parent testified that during her first meeting with the Parent and the student in October 2012, the Parent told her that the student “was in his senior year” she learned that he “was possibly not going to be able to graduate”. (Tr. 860-864) A counselor who worked with the student from September of 2010 until he aged out of his clinic in June of 2014 testified that the student was nervous about graduating because he was uncertain about his future and what he would be doing. (Tr. 882, 885-886) The Parent testified that whether the student was on track for graduating was discussed at the December 14, 2012 CSE meeting. (Tr. 935-936)

There is an abundance of evidence that the District’s aim of graduating the student in June of 2013 was driven by the student and was not contrived by the District for ulterior motives.

THE TYPE OF DIPLOMA THE STUDENT RECEIVED

The student graduated on June 21, 2013 with a local diploma. (Exhibit SD-8) The Parent dropped out of school in seventh grade. When she was twenty-seven, she got a GED.

(Tr. 951) She testified that she did not know the difference between a Regents diploma and a local diploma when she received the student’s transcript with “Local Diploma” stamped on it in July or August of 2013. (Tr. 953-954) She testified that she did not realize that the student’s diploma wasn’t a Regents diploma until a friend of hers saw the student’s diploma and remarked on it. (Tr. 952-953) I find this testimony credible, in view of the fact that all but one of IEPs in evidence — or more precisely, in most but not all cases, the “Student Information Summary” on their cover sheets — including the IEPs that came out of the December 14, 2012 and March 22, 2013 CSE meetings (Exhibit SD-5; Exhibit SD-6), prominently stated “Diploma Type Expected: Regents Diploma”. (Exhibit SD-4; Exhibit

SD-5; Exhibit SD-6; Exhibit P-G, p. 3; Exhibit P-H, p. 3) The exception was the IEP that came out of the April 4, 2011 CSE meeting, which said nothing about the student’s expected diploma type. (Exhibit P-F) Shortly before the student’s graduation, an ambiguously headed, as far as the intendment of the word “or” and was concerned, “Prior Written Notice” of “Proposed Receipt of a Local High School or Regents Diploma” was sent to the Parent, stating, ambiguously in the same respect, “I am pleased to inform you that [the student] will be recommended to the Board of Education to receive a local high or Regents diploma”, “Upon the recommendation of the school principal, [the student] is able to meet the requirements to earn a local high school or Regents diploma,” and “Your child is not eligible to receive a free appropriate public education after graduation with the receipt of a local or Regents diploma.” (Exhibit SD-52) It is ambiguous as to whether a local diploma and a Regents diploma are two different kinds of diplomas or whether a local diploma and a Regents diploma are two different names for the same kind of diploma.

The ELA teacher testified that she decided that the student, among the students in her class, was at the local diploma level and not at the Regents diploma level “probably from his transcript, that he was taking local exams and not Regents.” (Tr. 92) The student’s homeroom teacher, who also was his Participation in Government/Economics teacher, testified that at the CSE meeting on March 22, 2013, the CSE was committed to the student graduating with a local diploma. (Tr. 255) The autism consultant testified that she could not recall when she first learned that the student was going to receive a local diploma, but that she believed she knew it at the December 14, 2012 CSE meeting. (Tr. 521) The Director of Special Education testified that the student was moving toward a local diploma by taking the RCTs when the IEPs continued to say that the type of diploma expected was a Regent’s diploma. (Tr. 652-653) She testified that at the time of the December 14, 2012 CSE meeting, the student was “on track ... for a local diploma”. (Tr. 723-726)

The Director of Special Education acknowledge that it probably shouldn’t have been put on the IEP that the student’s expected diploma was a Regents diploma. (Tr. 728) But she explained, “It’s a standard practice to keep Regents diploma on the IEP. The State Education Department wants us to keep it on there....” (Tr. 727) She further explained, “It says “expected”. It doesn’t mean that’s actually what happens. (Tr. 728) The ELA teacher similarly characterized “Regents diploma” as “New York State expectation”. (Tr. 97) She explained, “That’s standard procedure, I guess. I — that ~— that’s not unusual for use to see that. I — part of the thing is that they never want to take away that opportunity. [The student] had the opportunity, anytime he wanted to resit for Regents and try to get a Regents diploma.” (Tr. 96-97)

It takes one’s breath away that the State Education Department, according to the testimony, requires a school district to place on documents intended for the information of a parent that a student with a disability is expected to receive a Regent’s diploma when everyone at the school district expects the student to receive a local diploma, especially when it easily could be placed on the documents that a student who is expected to receive a local diploma is not foreclosed from attempting to receive a Regents diploma. Perhaps a representative of the State Education Department could have explained this policy better than the District’s witnesses did. But the State Education Department was not a party to this impartial hearing and didn’t send anyone to testify.’

The student, asked whether he knows what kind of high school diploma he has, testified, “Yes, I have a local.” (Tr. 1048) Asked whether he is aware that there are other kinds of diplomas, he testified, “I think so, yes. I heard that there was like college diplomas, degrees such as lawyering and doctoring and all that.” (Tr. 1048-1949) Based on this testimony, I find that the type of high school diploma the student was to receive upon graduation was not a concern of his. I do find that the student was aware that he was taking

RCT exams and not Regents exams after he failed three Regents exams in June of 2011 (Exhibit SD-7; Tr. 711-712) NS two Regents exams in June of 2012. (Exhibit SD-7) The ELA teacher testified that at the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year when she had to fill out the exam schedule, she asked the student whether he wanted to resit for the English Regents exam, which he had failed with a grade of 33 percentile, or whether he wanted to take the English RCT and the student told her that he didn’t want to take the English Regents exam. (Tr. 104-105) The Director of Special Education testified that at the March 22, 2013 CSE meeting, which the student attended, it was discussed that he had recently passed the RCT writing and RCT reading exams and that the exams he had left were the 3 J don’t recall the exact circumstances, but the State Education once did that, and sent a lawyer with the individual too, in an impartial hearing I conducted when it felt its prerogatives were implicated. RCT science and RCT U.S. history exams. (Tr. 623) The Director of Special Education testified that the decision that the student was going to switch from Regents exams to RCT exams was a careful decision made with the student and that RCTs were being pursued “because of the student’s anxiety around testing and because he was not successful on the Regents exams” and because he was “not the type of student that you would repeatedly give him Regents diplomas [sic]; put something in front of him that you know is going to set him off emotionally.” (Tr. 727-730) I note that the ELA teacher testified that she thought the student “would have had a shot at passing” the English Regents exam either in January or June of 2013 (Tr. 110-112) and that the student’s homeroom teacher, who also was his

Participation in Government/Economics teacher, asked by the Parent’s attorney to “guess” whether the student could have passed all the Regents examinations starting in September of 2012 and ending in June of 2013, testified that he doubted it, but that he believed the student possibly had the skills to. (Tr. 235-256)

Contrary to how it might sound, a local diploma is not a diploma which is issued by a particular school district or which is umique to a particular locality. It is a statewide diploma and the requirements for a local diploma are the same across New York State. (Tr.

654-655) Questions that the Parent’s attorney asked two of the District’s witnesses seemed to presuppose that the student receiving a local diploma would put him at a disadvantage in his future employment or education. (Tr. 459-460, 452-453) However, the Parent presented no evidence that this has been the case.

THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE STUDENT’S DISABILITY

In 2007, when the student was in sixth grade, he was evaluated by a center for developmental disabilities on referral from the school district that he then attended. The teaching staff had reported that the student bolted out of the classroom when he became frustrated with work or peers, that he had difficulty attending to the teacher and was often disruptive during class, and that he had difficulty reading social cues and often misinterpreted the behavior of his peers. (Exhibit P-QQQ, p.1) Assessment instruments and methods included behavioral observations, conversation with the student, interviews with school staff, _ Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS): Module 3, Gilliam

=cale (GADS), and Child Behavior Checklist for Ages 6-18 (CBCL). (Exhibit P-QQQ, p. 2) The behavioral observations were 60 minutes in duration and took place during a group lesson on multiplying and during a phonetics based ELA lesson in which students were asked to recite vowel sounds they had memorized. (Exhibit P-QQQ, p.

2) Both observations took place in the morning. (Exhibit P-QQQ, p. 2) At the time of the observations, the student had an aide. (Exhibit P-QQQ, p. 2) During the math lesson, it was observed that the student was extremely distractible and had difficulty remaining on task during seatwork, that he yelled out “Done. Got it.” whenever he completed a math problem, that he blurted out answers rather than waiting to be called on when the teacher was reviewing answers with the class and then covered his mouth and said “oops” and yelled

“hooray” for every answer that he got correct, and that he had a high anxiety level and had difficulty remaining still in his seat, jumping up and down, shaking his leg and rapping his hands. (Exhibit P-QQQ, p. 2) During the ELA lesson, it was observed that the student was highly distractible and had difficulties attending to the teacher or to other students, that the student displayed off-track behaviors including playing with a mechanical pencil, puffing his cheeks out and blowing air through his lips, making high-pitched vocalizations, clapping his hands, drumming on his desk, singing to himself, yelling out answers and then covering his mouth to indicate that he didn’t mean to yell out, and imitating disruptive behavior of others in the classroom, such as another student pretending to punch himself, that when classmates looked at him when he was disruptive, he stated that his medication was wearing off and that he “couldn’t help it”, that he appeared anxious when asked to recite the vowel sounds in front of the class and refused to, that he didn’t listen to other students reciting the phonics lesson, that he added sound effects when he imitated the other student punching himself, and that he didn’t return to the classroom at the end of a 4-minute class break.

(Exhibit P-QQQ, p. 2) Outside the classroom, it was observed that the student did not walk appropriately in the hallway, but pretended he was an airplane, made loud vocalizations, and ran into lockers, and that the student showed behavior of a much younger child while in an office, pretending he was a soldier, shooting with pretend guns, shooting staples out of a stapler, and drawing war paint on his face with markers. (Exhibit P-QQQ, p. 3) On the CBCL, the student’s classroom teacher rated him with clinically significant concerns related to anxiety (e.g., fears making mistakes, worried), somatic complaints (e.g., headaches, stomach aches), social problems (e.g., does not get along with others, not liked), thought problems (e.g., can’t get his mind off things, strange behavior), attention problems (e.g., messy, inattentive) and aggressive behavior (defiant, stubborn). (Exhibit P-QQQ, p. 4) On the ADOS: Module 3, the student scored clinically significantly in the domain of Reciprocal

Social Interaction with a score of 5 (the cutoff-score for . being 4) and nearly clinically significantly in the domains of Communication with a score of 2 (the cutoff-score for : spectrum being 2) and Communication plus Social Interaction with a score of 7 (the cutoff-score for -—s spectrum being 7). (Exhibit P-QQQ, p. 5) On the

GADS, a behavior rating scale normed on children previously diagnosed with ° , so that an average score was one that indicated behaviors similar to children previously diagnosed with —_, the student’s score (mean = 100, standard deviation = 15) was 112, suggesting a high/probable likelihood of an. . The GADS was completed by the student’s teacher and the findings were corroborated by the student’s aide, (Exhibit P-QQQ, p. 5) The evaluation yielded the diagnosis of a ~ . — (P-QQQ, p. 6) It concluded with the recommendations including the following: “[The student]’s success in the school setting will require systematic and instruction and support in at least three key areas: development of self-management skills, using appropriate requests for breaks and development of coping behaviors, and social skills instruction. These and other supports will require careful implementation and oversight, most probably by a dedicated team that includes case manager, a special education specialist, and a speech and language therapist and/or a counselor who can implement and oversee supports, as well as a person with expertise in persons with | _ ” (Exhibit P-QQQ, p. 6)

The Director of Special Education reviewed the report of this evaluation, dated May 19, 2007 (Exhibit P-QQQ, p. 1), before the December 14, 2012 CSE meeting. (Tr. 695)

She testified that she never previously saw it. (Tr. 693) The Parent testified that the report was among the papers that she provided to the District’s registrar when she enrolled the student in approximately July of 2009. (Tr. 894-895) Additionally, she testified, she brought the report to the first CSE meeting she attended in the District in September 2009 and the Director of Special Education made copies of it. (Tr. 896-897) The narrative concerning the Level/Ability of the Physical Development of the student in the IEP that came out of the September 25, 2009 CSE meeting makes reference to the evaluation, its place, its date, and the . and — . diagnosis. (Exhibit P-H, p. 5) However, the report is not among the documents listed as “Based Upon” in the Committee Meeting or Agreement Information which appears on page 7 of 9 of the IEP. (Exhibit P-H, p. 7) The information concerning that the student “has received the medical diagnoses of _ _ .” also appears in on a Report of School Psychologist, dated May 13, 2010. (Exhibit P-JJJ, p.2) These references, however, do not establish the report of the evaluation of the student in May of 2007, dated May 19, 2007, was in the possession of the District prior to the time that the Director of Special Education testified that she first saw it, as the Parent’s attorney sought to establish through cross-examination of the Director of Special Education. (Tr. 778-780) In my opinion, it is more likely that these references found their way into the District’s documents via references to the evaluation in a report of a school psychologist of the student’s previous school district concerning her administration of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children ~ Fourth Edition (WISC-IV), a Parent Questionnaire and a Record Review in May of 2007.

(Exhibit P-PPP, pp. 1, 3) Based on the inclusion of the names of the evaluators in the latter references, and the last testing date of May 21, 2007 that the school psychologist reported

(Exhibit P-PPP, p. 1), I believe it is more likely that the student’s previous school district either had access to the report of the evaluation of the student in May 2007, dated May 19, 2007, or had more information about the evaluation, than that the District had the report of the evaluation prior to when the Director of Special Education testified she first saw it. The work incentive counselor testified that when she did intake on the student in October 2012, she learned from the Parent about the diagnosis right away through what the Parent expressed, but that the advocacy organization had to go through a process to get it.

(Tr. 860, 865) That the Parent apparently did not have the evaluation to give to the advocacy organization suggests that the Parent may be mistaken in her recollection that she provided the evaluation to the District on two occasions in 2009.

Notwithstanding her knowledge of the student’s _ diagnosis, the school psychologist at the student’s previous school district recommended that he “continue receiving special education services under the classification of — (Exhibit P-PPP, p.6) That classification continued uninterruptedly until December 14, 2012, when the CSE changed the classification of the student’s disability to ', added 15 hours of . Consultant Services to his IEP, and added “~ :

” as Special Alerts to the Student Information Summary. (Exhibit SD-5, pp. 1-2, 8)

The CSE continued the _ Classification, the. = Consultant Services and the Special Alerts in the IEP that came out of its meeting on March 22, 2013. (Exhibit SD-6, pp. 1-2, 8)

Asked by the Parent’s attorney what type of disability would indicate a classification of , the Director of Special Education testified, “There’s a difference between the medical thing and the educational. So, the educational piece for is taking a look at prior assessments that have been completed on students, characteristics of the student, taking a look at the characteristics of —.._ It’s a wide spectrum.” (Tr. 673) Asked then what she meant by saying there’s a difference between medical and educational, she testified, “The — the educational piece is that we can make that decision in looking at the information that we have. We always like to have the medical piece because it gives us, you know, better information on a student, but it’s a CSE decision.” (Tr. 673) She then testified that stands for and that ; ; ; means “That a student in somewhere on the spectrum, but they may not have all of the characteristics of a student with , but they exhibit some of them. But it can’t be specific enough to say it’s full .” (Tr. 674) Asked then “But they are under the - spectrum; is that correct?”, she answered, “Yes, but on the milder side.” (Tr. 674)

. is no longer in use as a medical diagnosis since the publication of DSM-^[5] in May 18, 2013, but it was in use as a medical diagnosis at the times the CSE met during the 2012-2013 school years. (Tr. 468) Most studies report that DSM-5 criteria, compared to DSM-IV-TR criteria, result in fewer individuals diagnosed with _ , however DSM-S specifies that individuals with a well-established DSM-IV diagnosis of _ Should be given the diagnosis of The IDEA definition of _ is similar to the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for. in that both definitions include symptoms in the areas of social interactions, nonverbal communications, repetitive activities, stereotyped movements, resistance to change, and unusual sensory responses and in that both definitions indicate that symptoms need not apparent before age 3. The IDEA definition of is different from the DSM-stereotyped activities than for social impairments, suggesting an emphasis on the former,

IDEA specifies that the symptoms must adversely affect the child’s educational performance while DSM-5 requires impairments in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning, DSM-5 requires the specification of severity levels for the two behavioral subdomains, and DSM-5 uses “specifiers” to describe co-morbidities, such as language and intellectual impairment. - ~~ and Comparison of the Diagnostic Criteria for ‘ 7 _.¢ Across DSM-5, DSMIV-TR, and the Individuals with Disabilities Act Definition of . © , University of Washington READi Lab (Research on Early a Detection and Intervention) (September 2014).

To the extent that the student’s prior BE ciagnosis was a factor in the classification of the student’s disability as . , It is conceivable that a CSE might not classify the student’s disability as . today, if the student were not diagnosed as having

___ ‘under current diagnostic criteria. However, to the extent that the student’s prior diagnosis was a factor in the classification of the student’s disability as. © _—«, I find the. classification to have been appropriate, because the CSE was aware of the prior

. diagnosis when it met on December 14, 2012 and March 22, 2013. I also find appropriate the addition of | — consultant services, which conform with one of the recommendations in the evaluation of the student conducted in May of 2007 (“as well as

THE STUDENT’S CAREER AMBITIONS

(a) Police Officer

The student’s longest standing and most often expressed career ambition has been to become a police officer. In a Level 1 Vocational Assessment dated March 5, 2009, in response to the question “Has the student acquired career specific knowledge/skills necessary to progress toward gainful employment and success in post-secondary programs?”, the interviewer wrote, “He has researched on careerzone.org, but was so focused on that fact that he wanted to become a police officer that he did not answer the interest inventory truthfully so his options were limited. It is difficult to talk to [the student] about the skills he needs because he lacks self-awareness. In his mind he wants to become a police officer and that is that. He is not willing to discuss the skills required.” (Exhibit PNNN, p. 3) The consultant testified, “I know that he has some restrictive interests, and a history of that with things he likes, like Boy Scouts, or dinosaurs, and some things that I think led to his career choices with — or wanting to work in a museum or wanting to work with police or military. (Tr. 468-469) No one else involved in the student’s education at seems to have thought about whether the student’s focus on the idea of becoming a police officer might not to any extent be a fixation symptomatic of his before consultant services were added to his IEP. However, with respect to “needed transition services/activities to facilitate the student’s movement from school to post-school activities”, the IEPs that came out of the meetings of the CSE on May 17, 2000 and April 4, * “Highly restricted, fixated interests that are abnormal in intensity or focus; (such as strong attachment to or preoccupation with unusual objects, excessively circumscribed or perseverative interests” is one of the diagnostic criteria for 1 DSM-5. It need not always be present for an diagnosis. There were similar diagnostic criteria for in DSM-IV, which similarly needed not always to be present for those diagnoses. 2011 stated, “Due to his emotional issues, [the student] will identify necessary social skills required to be a police officer. He will then compare his social strengths/needs to what will be required.” (Exhibit P-G, p. 7, Exhibit P-F, p. 12,) and the IEPs that came out of the meetings of the CSE on March 26, 2012, December 14, 2012 and March 22, 2013 stated, “Due to his emotional issues, [the student] will identify necessary social skills required to be in law enforcement. He will then compare his social strengths/needs to what will be required.” (Exhibit P-E, p. 11, Exhibit P-D, p. 10-11, Exhibit P-C, p. 11) This seems to suggest a consistent awareness on the part of those involved in the student’s education that his career ambition of becoming a police officer was in need of a reality check.

Notwithstanding that possible reservation, the IEPs that came out of the December 14, 2012 meeting was expressly supportive of the student’s career ambition of becoming a police officer. With respect to “the degree (extent) and quality of the student’s motor and sensory development, health, vitality, and physical skills or limitations which pertain to the learning process, the IEP that came out of the December 14, 2012 CSE meeting stated, “{The student] does not have PE this year but stays active if he earns enough outside privileges during lunch or through PBIS. He continues to need to develop his gross as well as fine motor skills in order to become a police officer. His impulsivity impacts his ability to control his body especially in unstructured times. [The student] has difficulty focusing on a task for more than 10 minutes and requires constant redirection. He requires breaks from his academics to help decrease frustration on given tasks.” (Exhibit SD-5, p. 5) With respect to “physical development needs of the student, including consideration of student needs that are of concern to the parent”, the IEP stated, “[The student] needs the following skills to help him be successful in school as well as in his chosen career: *Development of fine and gross motor skills “Ability to recognize physical and emotional indicators of anxiety * Reminders and strategies to help with his impulsivity”. (Exhibit SD-5, p. 5)

With respect to “the nature (type) and degree (extent) to which environmental and human or material resources are needed to address needs identified above”, the IEP stated, “In order for the student to achieve his stated career goal as a police officer, he will need the following modifications and resources to benefit from academic instruction: * Access to aide or adult assistance * Reminders about appropriate comments and actions * Positive reinforcement *Strategies to decrease frustration & anger” * Strategies to build school and work related interpersonal skills * Provide opportunity for breaks * Clear expectations academic and behavior * Pre-reading and pre-writing strategies * Preferential seating to minimize distraction * Routine schedule * Access to word processor * Use of calculator” (Exhibit SD-5, p. 5-6) As long term goals for living, working and learning as an adult, the IEP listed, “[The student] will attend a police academy to become a police officer....”, “[The student] will be employed as a police officer....”, and [The student] wants to explore careers in law enforcement. He will need to look into training at the . To provide job exploration and skill development, his courses of study should include career and technical education courses in Criminal Justice.” (Exhibit SD-5, p. 7) Under “needed activities to facilitate the student’s movement from school to post-school activities, the IEP listed, “[The student] will continue to pursue courses of study in Vocational programming in order to achieve a career in law enforcement. He will research requirements necessary for attendance in the * (Exhibit SD-5, p. 10) There was ample testimony from —_ the District’s witnesses concerning their working with the student specifically toward fulfillment of his career ambition of becoming a police officer or other law enforcement officer. (Tr. 55, 139-140, 240-241, 243-244, 269, 283-284, 389, 426-427, 430-431, 523)

Apart from the retained statement that “Due to his emotional issues, [the student] will identify necessary social skills required to be in law enforcement. He will then compare his social strengths/needs to what will be required” (Exhibit P-C, p. 11), there are no references to the student becoming a police officer or other law enforcement officer in the IEP that came out of the March 22, 2013 CSE meeting. At that point, according to the testimony of a transition specialist who worked with the student in the academic component of his program and the Director of Special Education, the student was not actively interested in a police or other law enforcement career. (Tr. 445, 627) A Post-Exit Summary Report completed on February 8, 2013 makes no reference to the student wanting to work as a police or other law enforcement officer. (Exhibit P-TTT, p. 2)

The Parent, however, testified that the student never lost his interest in police work and still very much wants to be a police officer. (Tr. 912, 985) The student testified that law enforcement has been among his career interests since he was a little kid and is a career interest of his today. (Tr, 1040-1941) The student has no firsthand knowledge of police work but knows about police work from television shows like “Cops” and movies and is confident that he would be able to handle confrontational situations and make quick life or death decisions. (Tr. 1051)

Perhaps it is not my judgment to make, but I believe that it follows from a comparison of the necessary social skills required to be in law enforcement with the student’s social strengths and needs that the obstacles to the student becoming a police officer are too great for him to overcome within a realistic time frame. As I previously reported, on October 16, 2013, a few after the student’s graduation, the student’s adaptive daily living functioning was assessed by a predoctoral psychology intern and a licensed psychologist at the request of his therapist, using the Vineland-II Adaptive Behavior Scales,

Second Edition: Interview Edition (Vineland-I]). Based on a semi-structured interview with the student's mother and father, the Vineland-II assessed the adaptive levels of his

Composite Communications, Composite Daily Living Skills and Composite Socialization as || with percentile ranks ofBE «spectivety. His overall adaptive behavior composite was fill with a percentage rank of i His age equivalents on the subdomains ranged from Mon Receptive (a subdomain of Communication) a on Coping Skills (a subdomain of Socialization). (Exhibit P-CCCCC) A series of Student Incident Forms from the student’s senior year fleshes out this picture. On July 9, 2012, the student used racially inappropriate language as he exited his ELA classroom into the hallway, calling another student a “ _ ass”. (Exhibit P-AAAAA, p. 12) On July 20, 2012, at the end of the day, the student left a room without permission, refused to return after staff direction, and responded with pervasive profanity and continued refusal. (Exhibit PPAAAAA, pp. 10-11) On July 23, 2012, at the end of the day, when the student was reminded to stay in the classroom due to his previous behavior, he left the class through the social worker’s office, entered the hall through the other classroom, and continued outside while refusing to adhere to staff direction. (Exhibit PPAAAAA, p. 8-9) On July 25, 2012, while playing catch outside with other students, the student ran full speed and tried to tackle another student, ignored staff directions, thought it was funny, and stated that he didn’t need to listen to staff.

(Exhibit PPAAAAA, p. 7) On October 15, 2012, in his PE class, the student went after another student with the sharp end of an object, walked out of the class and walked home. (Exhibit PPAAAAA, p. 3) On October 18, 2012, after the student had gotten into a shouting match with another student in gym, the student kept coming up to the classroom window flipping off the student and yelling profanity towards him and when a teacher told him to stop and to go wait for his bus, he started a profanity tirade towards the teacher yelling at the top of his voice, threatened to punch the teacher and also told the teacher to punch him.

(Exhibit P-AAAAA, p. 12) Regardless of whether or not there were extenuating in any of these incidents, they demonstrate that it is beyond the reach of the student to keep his cool in the unpredictable situations that police and other law enforcement officers encounter in their work.

(b) Fast food

The “Meeting Information” section of the cover sheet of the IEP that came out of the March 22, 2013 CSE meeting stated, “[The student] hopes to work someday at a job that involves working with people. He has mentioned a greeter or tour guide position in a museum as he loves history.” (Exhibit SD-6, p. 1) Because of the word “someday”, it was not necessarily contradictory that “EDUCATION/TRAINING: - [The student] will participate in on the job training. He currently has applied for positions in the field of fast food, retail sales or museum guide” and “EMPLOYMENT: [The student] will seek, gain and maintain employment in the field of fast food, retail sales or museum guide.” appeared as long-term goals for living and working as an adult in the IEP. (Exhibit SD-6, p. 7)

The references to the student working in the fast food industry in the IEP that came out of the March 22, 2013 CSE meeting apparently were lifted from the Post-Secondary

Student Exit Summary Report completed on February 8, 2013. (Exhibit P-TTT, p. 2) The transition specialist who worked with the student in the academic component of his program testified that she put that information in the Post-Secondary Exit Summary Report based on what the student told her. (Tr. 454-458) The Parent testified that at the CSE meeting, she was looking at the student’s grade equivalents of the scores of the student’s academic abilities on the WJIII-A in a recent report of a school psychologist (Exhibit P-FFF, p. 3) and that “I believe I said something like they were setting him up to be nothing more than a janitor or flipping burgers if they set him up to do that [i.e., to graduate with those scores].” (Tr. 970) Asked if she recalled what the comments were or what the discussion was, she testified, “It was basically agreeing that [the student] was not going to be doing anything meaningful with his life. Flipping burgers or a janitor.” (Tr. 971) Asked whether the ELA teacher, whom she had particularly named as having “made comments” in response to her original statement, agreed with her that the student was going to be flipping burgers, she testified, “Yes, that was my understanding of looking at the people around the table and the nodding of their heads and my understanding based on what these grades were saying, based on his desires. And yes, that they had given up on my son.” (Tr. 971) In her testimony, the Director of Special Education denied that either she or anyone else at the meeting had “said” that the student could only work in fast food or. or or anything like that. (Tr. 603, 767-768, 1058) I credit the Director of Special Education’s testimony and I believe that the Parent misread people nodding their heads to indicate that that they were hearing what the Parent was saying for people nodding their heads to indicate that they agreed with what the Parent was saying.

Although, in the opinion of this impartial hearing officer, working in the fast food industry is not to be disparaged and would not be beyond the student’s capabilities, I find based upon the testimony of the Parent and the student that the student has no interest in it.

(Tr. 888, 985-986, 989-990, 1041)

The student’s homeroom teacher, who also was his Participation in Government/Economics teacher, testified that after the student opted out of the work-study component of the program in which he had been placed (Exhibit P-U, p.3), the autism consultant went to a science museum and came up with a plan where the student could possibly work there as one of the tour guides and that the student rejected the plan. (Tr.

189) He testified that plan was discussed at the March 22, 2013 CSE meeting and the student did want any work-study position that the District would find for him and said, “Ill get my own job.” (Tr. 247) The transition specialist who worked with the student in the academic component of his program testified that in early January 2013, the student expressed to her an interest in becoming a museum tour guide, that she contacted the museum and they had a program that required a student to come in with a job coach, that the work-study component of the student’s program would have provided the student with a job coach, but the student was not willing to work with a job coach. (Tr. 307-308) The student did not explain why he was not willing to work with a job coach, except to say he didn’t need one. (Tr. 308) The transition specialist testified that she had at least two telephone conversations with the parent about the opportunity at the museum and the student’s lack of interest because of the job coach requirement. (Tr. 417) The consultant testified that her son worked at the museum and that he discovered that there was a program there for special needs students to work as docents and that she and the transition specialist spent some time reaching whether that might be an option for the student but that the museum said anybody who worked as a docent had to have a job coach and that the student refused to have a job coach with him. (Tr, 486) She testified that she talked with the student about the opportunity of practicing as a docent at the museum. (Tr. 523) That the student previously had expressed interest in becoming a museum tour guide is reflected in the IEPs that came out of the March 22, 2012 and December 14, 2012 CSE meetings, which stated that “being a tour guide for a local museum based around history” was the student’s “other interest”, his primary interest being working in law enforcement (Exhibit SD-4, pp. 7, 10; Exhibit SD-5, pp. 7, 10) even though education, training and employment in both fields of interest were listed as alternatives. The IEP stated, “In that case, he will need to take courses in history as well as training in public speaking” (Exhibit SD-4, p. 7; Exhibit SD-5, p. 7) and that “he would need to work on his communication skills.” (Exhibit SD-4, p. 10; Exhibit SD-5, p.

10) Notwithstanding the student’s rejection of the District’s plan, the career goal of being a museum tour guide featured somewhat more prominently in the IEP that came out of the March 22, 2013 CSE meeting, in which the references to a career in fast food appeared and most of the references to a career in law enforcement were dropped. (Exhibit SD-6, p. 1, 7)

The student testified that no one at school ever proposed to him that he could work at the museum with a job coach, but that the Parent “says she has a friend in the museum and that she could probably help me get a job there.” (Tr. 1042-1043) Inasmuch as the Parent and her friend surely would have the student get a job at the museum if that were the case, I find the student’s recollection confused. The Parent also testified that she was never told about the opportunity at the museum and about the student refusing the services of a job coach. (Tr. 950) However, inasmuch as the transition specialist and the consultant corroborated each other in their testimony, I find their testimony credible.

The student expressed his continuing interest in the career goal of becoming a museum tour guide in his testimony. (Tr. 1050) Of the career interests discussed herein, and including others that have been more fleeting, I believe that a museum tour guide or docent is the one for which the student is best suited. History is a longstanding passion of his. (Tr. 159; Exhibit P-HHH-2 [“I love history.”], Exhibit P-HHH-3 [“love of history”])

He has an ability to remember things and memorize things, expecially when it comes to history or anything like that. (Tr. 592) Going into his last two RCTs, science was very strong for him. (Tr. 637-639) He described the museum at which he might have had the internship as a science and history museum. (Tr. 1050) He testified, “I went there several times to see dinosaur bones and see how our past and how we came to coming here today, and I’ve just loved it ever since.” (Tr. 1050) Asked what he would like to do at the museum, he testified, “Work as a tour guide. Be one of those guys that would talk about the history and how it formed and all that.” (Tr. 1050) In my observation, the students showed more enthusiasm in talking about being a museum tour guide than he did in talking about being a law enforcement officer, concerning which he testified, “that’s always been since I was a little kid” (Tr. 1040) and “all my life”. (Tr. 1040) In addition to building on the student’s passion for history, being a museum tour guide would build upon his wanting to help people (Tr. 283, 918) and his liking tell stories to people and to share things with people. (Tr. 529) During his testimony, I observed the student to have an engaging personality. I take notice that the job of a museum tour guide involves memorization of a script, a consistent and predictable routine and interaction with people who, for the most part, are inclined to be attentive, composed and respectful. While the student’s skills can use improvement across the board, I believe that had he not been resistant to working with a job coach, he might very well have worked himself into a position as a museum tour guide with the skills he has.

(d) Retail sales

Retail sales is an area of interest referenced in the Post-Secondary Student Exit Summary Report completed on February 8, 2013 (Exhibit P-TTT, p. 2) and in the IEP that came out of the March 22, 2013 CSE meeting (Exhibit SD-6, 1,7) in which the student has had employment which he has enjoyed and which has been a source of income and self-esteem. However, his short term work experiences in retail have been on a relatively low level and that is the level in retail on which the student likely would remain without an improbable improvement in his skills. While still in school, he worked with his grandfather at the public market selling sunglasses, work which he obtained through his own devices.

(Tr. 48, 285) Since he finished school, he has worked at a store, work which he obtained through the services of (Tr. 954-955, 1011, 1043) Based on his poor mathematical skills and his poor understanding of how money works (Tr. 988), he could not sell a major appliance or explain to a customer the terms of a warranty or a return policy.

WAS THERE A GROSS VIOLATION OF THE STUDENT’S RIGHT TO FAPE?

At the conclusion of the hearing, I asked the attorneys to brief the question of what are the responsibilities of a school District as far as a student actually being able to walk out the door with a diploma of any kind and find a job the student desires or the student is suited for immediately after graduation? (Tr. 1072) The Parent’s Closing brief argues that the upon exiting high school, the student was incapable of employment and that the District’s failure to provide him with a full school day and any math instruction during his senior year contributed mightily to this. I have extensively discussed the circumstances of the student not having a full school day and any math instruction during his senior year and how the student not having a full school day and any math instruction during his senior year were the student’s deliberate choices. I don’t think it has been shown that the student is incapable of employment. I agree that he is unready for the kind of employment which he would most desire and which he would have been best suited for. I have extensively discussed the circumstances of the student being unready for the kind of employment which he would most desire and which he would have been best suited for and how that also resulted from the student’s deliberate choices. I have considered the Parent’s argument that I should disregard all of these circumstances and determine whether or not there was a gross FAPE violation during the part of the student’s senior year that is within the scope of the due process complaint notice solely on the face of the IEPs that came out of the December 14, 2012 and March 22, 2013 CSE meetings. In support of this argument, the Parent has cited

RE. v. NYCDOE, 694 F.3d 167 (2° Cir. 2012); 4.K. v. Alexandria City School Bd., 484 F.3d 672 (4" Cir. 2007), cert. denied 128 S.Ct. 1123 (2008); County School Bd. of Henrico

County, Virginia v. Z.P., 399 F.3d 298 (4% Cir. 2005); Sytsema v. Academy School Dist. No.

20, 538 F.3d 1306 (10% Cir. 2008); and Union Sch. Dist. v. Smith, 15 F.3d 1519 (9% Cir.

1994). I find the facts of those cases to be inapposite. I believe that District is correct that under Board of Education of Henrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S.

176 (1982) and its progeny, New York State is not required to establish procedures and a School District standards for the award of a regular high school diploma to a student with a disability that ensure the student’s employability.

I denied the District’s motion to dismiss on the ground that the due process complaint notice had raised factual issues relative to whether a gross violation of FAPE would entitle the student to compensatory education. I do not believe there was a gross violation of FAPE during the time period within the scope of the due process complaint notice.

Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED that the relief requested by the Parent is denied.

Dated: June 1, 2015

al eet 2

Sateen) on AARON TURETSKY, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

The parents and the board of education are hereby advised of the right of any party involved in the hearing to obtain a review of this decision by the State review officer in accordance with subdivision k of section 200.5 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education.

EVIDENCE ENTERED INTO RECORD POST-HEARING

{HO-I Letter from Parent’s attorney 1/14/15 [HO-II Letter from IHO 1/15/15 2 pp.

IHO-HI E-mail from Parent’s attorney 1/16/15 3 pp.

IHO-IV E-mails from District’s and Parent’s attorneys 1/19/15 3 pp.

[HO-V Letter from THO 1/19/15

ITHO-VI Letter from THO V/27/15 2 pp.

IHO-VII E-mails from Parent’s and District’s attorneys various 3 pp.

IHO-VIT E-mail from District’s attorney 2/3/15 3 pp.

JHO-IX E-mails from Parent’s and District’s attorneys various 4 pp.

IHO-X Letter from IHO with signed subpoena 2/4/15 2 pp.

THO-XI Letter from District’s attorney 2/4/15 I p.

IHO-XH Motion to dismiss and affidavit 2/4/15 65 pp.

THO-XII E-mails among Parent’s attorney, IHO and various

District’s attorney

IHO-XIV Letter from Parent’s attorney 2/18/15 I p.

IHO-XV Proposed Amended Due Process Complaint, 10/30/08 114 pp. affidavits, and memorandum of law

IHO-XVI E-mails among Parent’s attorney, District’s various 3 pp. attorney and JHO

THO-XVII Letter from District’s attorney 2/25/15 1 p.

THO-XVIU Reply Affidavit and Reply Memorandum various 64 pp.

THO-XIX E-mail from Parent’s attorney with affidavit 2/25/15 3 pp.

THO-XX E-mails among Parent’s attorney, District’s various 6 pp. attorney and IHO IHO-XX] Letter from IHO 2/25/15

THO-XXII Letter from [HO 2/26/15 [HO-XXII E-mails between Parent’s attorney and IHO 2/27/15 [HO-XXIV E-mail from THO 3/5/15

THO-XXV Letter from IHO 3/11/15

IHO-XXVI Letter from THO 3/13/15

IHO-XXVII E-mails among Parent’s attorney, IHO and various

District’s attorney

THO-XX VIII E-mails among District’s attorney, Parent’s various attorney and IHO

{HO-XXIX E-mails among Parent’s attorney, District’s various attorney and IHO

THO-XXX E-mails among District’s attorney, Parent’s various attorney and IHO

THO-XXX] E-mail from [THO 5/18/15

THO-XXXII Letter from District’s attorney 5/18/15

IHO-XXXIII District’s Closing Brief 5/18/15

IHO-XXXTV Letter from Parent’s attorney 5/18/15 [HO-XXXV Parent’s Closing Brief 5/18/15 21 pp.

EX HIBIT Ss

School

Demand for a Due Process Hearing (dated 12/13/14), received

12/15/14, 11 pages

EXH 2 hetter:

(THO appointment), dated 12/16/14, 2 pages

10 EXH 3 Letter: : (Other

Party Response), dated 12/22/14, ii 4 pages

12 EXH 4 Student Information Summary and IEP (for 2012-2013 - from 13 3/26/12), dated 3/26/12, 12 pages (ll pages are the IEP) 14

EXH 5 Student Information Summary and 15 TEP (for 2012-2013 - from 12/14/12), dated 12/14/12, 12 16 pages (11 pages are the IEP)

17 EXH 6 Student Information Summary and TEP (for 2012-2013 - from 18 3/22/13), dated 3/22/13, 12 pages (ll pages are the IEP)

193

EXH 7 Academic Worksheet, dated 20 6/27/13, 1 page

21 EXH 86 Transcript, dated 2/3/15, 1 page

EXH 9 Related Service Summary (Counseling), dated 2/7/13, 23 Ll page 3 3 24 (Index to Exhibits continuing on next page)

ALLIANCE

COURT REPORTING, INC

Video Conferencing and Videography Center

585.546.4920 . www.alliancecourtreportinnet

g. 800.724.0836 iwOM

EX HIBI?T s§

(Continuing)

School

Consult), dated 3/18/13, 1 page

EXH il Observation Summary (Autism

Consult), dated 11/27/12, 2 pages

16 EXH 12 Post~Secondary Student Exit

Summary Report, dated 2/8/13, 1i 3 pages

12 EXH 13 Level I Vocational Assessment, dated 2/27/12 (& 2/28/12), 13 4 pages

14 EXH 14 Level I Vocational Assessment, dated 2/2011, 3 pages 15

EXH 15 Parent Level One Assessment, 16 dated 2/2010, 5 pages

17 EXH 16 Student Level One Assessment, dated 2/3/10, 5 pages 18

EXH 17 Level I Vocational Assessment 193 Student, dated 3/5/09, 1 page

20 EXH 18 Level I Vocational Assessment

Teacher, dated 3/5/09, 2 pages

EXH 19 Work Study Program Training Ze Responsibilities for the 2012-2013 School Year, dated 23 3/26/12 & 5/4/12 & 5/15/12, 1 page 24 25 (Index to Exhibits continuing on next page)

ALLIANCE

COURT REPORTING, INC.

Video Conferencing and Videography Center

585.546.4920 ‘ www.alliancecourtreporting. net 800.724.0836

EXHIBITS

It. (Continuing) School District Description Marked Rec'd me Sree tah eee merle ams mi rue eee cater a AO Fy OE Ht le rem ang emmys YR ate ch wept ad te eminem nee env id in eh omer melee eee em th ine oe et met yee au "Dear Work Study Students," dated Spring 2012, 1 page EXH Form 1-9, dated 9/6/12, 1 page EXH IT-2104, dated 5/8/12, 1 page 10 EXH Form W-4 (2012), dated 5/8/12, page 1 page

12. E XH 24 Employment Recommendation, dated 6/30/13 & 7/6/13, 1 page 13 EXH 25 Work Study DOE

14. Program/2012-2013 School Year (and attached Work Study and DOE

15. Evaluation Form} (first listing is Sept. 2), dated DOE

16. various weeks 6 pages DOE

17. EXH 26 Email string (most recent date 1/5/15) (first email is 18 and last is 12/19/14), dated 1/5/15, DOE

13. pages 2 pages DOE

20. EXH 27 Letter:._, dated 6/26/13, 1 page 21 EXH 28 Letter: to Dear 22 Parent/Guardian {re October ^[23], 2012), undated, 1 page EX HIBIT S (Continuing) School District Description Marked Rec'd STE STE mink aerate ie snc merry mn ie te sr pet “hte ine ernie mySAP ME ddl meee mie ahem certs mami wert wt tills eles nee ee ese i EXH 30 Cover Sheet and College and Career Ready (re March 5, 2013), undated, 3 pages EXH 31] Cover sheet and Agency Fair (re April 24, 2013), undated, 2 pages 3 16 EXH 32 Email: dated 3 pages DOE

12. Li 9/26/12, 1 page 3 3 EXH 33 Email:, dated 11/9/12, 1 page 3 13 EXH 34 Email string 14 (and others), dated 11/6/12, 3 pages 3 3 15 3 pages DOE

16. EXH 35 Academic Support Information for Program Information Report (PIR) 2012-2013 School Year, dated DOE

17. school year, 1 page 3 2012-2013 3 pages DOE

18. EXH 36 Email:, dated 12/14/12, 1 page 3 19 EXH 37 Email: {and 3 pages DOE

21. 20 others), dated 4/26/13, 1 page 3 3 EXH 38 Email: (and, dated 6/7/13, DOE

22. page 3 3 1 page DOE

23. EXH 39 Email string ris the most recent one (and others), 24 dated 4/26/13, 2 pages 3 25 (Index to Exhibits continuing on next page) ALLIANCE COURT REPORTING, INC. Video Conferencing and Videography Center 585.546.4920 www.alhiancecourtreporting. net 800.724.0836 EX HISBtIéT S (Continuing) School District Description Marked Rec'd nelaneadlleteme cadence eel etenl center neat ct ata ne ee a ce a ce a rn re re ee ee a OT 3 pages DOE

is. EXH 40 Request for Tutoring Service, dated 4/8/13, 1 page BXH 41 Weekly Summary and Attendance Sheet(s), dated various - first re 1/2/13 to 1/4/13 10 EXH 42 Email: 8 pages

11. dated 1/14/13 1 page DOE

12. EXH 43 Request for Tutoring Service dated 12/14/12, 1 page

13 EXH 44 Email string 14 is the most recent one (ana others), dated 6/20/13, 1 page

15 BXH 45 Progress Report for IEP Goals 16 2012-2013, dated 2012-2013, 3 pages

17 EXH 46 Email string - latest is 3/6/13 18 from (and others), dated 3/6/13, 3 pages

19 EXH 47 Student Information Summary and DOE

20. IEP - from 4/4/2011 (for 2011-2012), dated 4/4/11, 13 pages DOE

21. pages (12 pages are the IEP) 22 EXH 48 TEP 2010-2011 from 5/17/10 (for 2010-2011, dated 5/17/10, 9 pages

23 EXH 49 Report of School Psychologist 24, dated 3/1/13, 5 pages 3 25 (Index to Exhibits continuing on next page) ALLIANCE COURT REPORTING, INC. Video Conferencing and Videography Center 585.546.4920 www.alliancecourtreporting.net 800.724.0836 —& X HI BIT s (Continuing) School District Description Marked NN ee tei: seem ty mtg pene iy tee wth shi aby mii meh ne mtn ANN re seth mn eh le te att kar ike in meine tee ere nme hy! alt Sail cede ee my pte i ay ate IEP Amendment Written Agreement (and related documents), first document dated 11/12/12, 3 pages 3 pages DOE

10. EXH 51 Special Education IEP Proposed Amendment, dated 11/9/12 6& 12/14/12 1 page DOE

11. EXH 52 Prior Wri tten Notice Proposed Receipt of a Local High School or 12 Regents Diploma, dated 6/7/13, 2 pages 13 EXH 53 Report of School Psychologist, DOE

14 dated 5/13/10

15 EXH 54 Functional Behavorial Assessment and Behavior Intervention Plan 16 and Behavior Intervention Plan Progress Monitoring Meeting, 6 pages DOE

19 1? dated 1/11/12, 1/25/12 and 3/22/12, ll pages 18 EXH 55 Student Social History, dated 9/9/09

20 4 pages DOE

23. 2) Parent's Description 22 ae cme care cme ma Ree ema lh ih etme me meee my Sy my EL Fu Min crim ih tty eR Sm Nakamichi mT Ry inline MP mit BWR lle ich gum ee ee ne Demand for Due Process Hearing dated 12/13/14, 11 pages 24 25 (Index to Exhibits continuing on next page) ALLIANCE COURT REPORTING, INC. Video Conferencing and Videography Center 585.546.4920 www.alliancecourtreporting. net 800.724.0836 EXHIBITS (Continuing) Parent's Description Marked Rec'd. seems sem isnt sae nee am oe ny my mer at aie cae mee mae ene ele ene he ei EXH B District Due Process Response, dated 12/22/14, 4 pages DOE

Cc. IEP, dated 3/22/13, 13 pages

D. IEP, dated 12/14/12, 13 pages

E. IEP, dated 3/26/12, 13 pages

10 EXH F IEP, dated 4/4/11, 14 pages

li EXH G IEP, dated 5/17/10, 10 pages

12 EXH H IEP, dated 9/25/09, 10 pages

13 EXH TI IEP, dated 3/31/09, 8 pages

14 EXH J Prior Written Notice, dated

15. 6/7/13 2 pages DOE

16. EXH K Request for Tutoring Service dated 4/8/13, 1 page 17 EXH L Prior Written Notice, dated DOE

18. 3/27/13 2 pages DOE

19. EXH M CSE Meeting Notice, dated 3/1/13 3 pages 20 EXH N Placement Recommendations for DOE

21. Next Year, dated 2/14/13 1 page DOE

22. EXH O Consent Form for Reevaluation dated 2/11/13, 1 page 23 24 (Index to Exhibits continuing on next page) 25 ALLIANCE _ COURT REPORTING, ENC. Video Confer and Videography encing Center 585.546.4920 « www.alliancecourtreporting.net 800.724.0836 EX H IBdITS (Continuing) Parent's Description Marked Recid na aie seem came me ny me Gime kit i iy els bill iad iy eer, may nhs fees ari Sen amp, ASN is GAAS nim orn dey muh; AMAA oben emir tee cee itl ca iene aiid nui eee nee wee me ee nie Prior Written Notice, dated 2/6/13, 3 pages Reevaluation Referral to District, dated 2/4/13, 3 pages EXH Notice of BOE Review, dated 1/25/13, 1 page 10 EXH Letter to Parent from DOE

11. dated 12/20/12 1 page DOE

12. EXH Request for Tutoring Service dated 12/14/12, 1 page 13 EXH Addendum Request, dated 12/14/12, DOE

14. pages 3 pages DOE

15. EXH Prior Written Notice, dated 12/14/12, 2 pages 16 DOE

BE. XH CSE Meeting Notice, dated

17. 12/10/12 3 pages DOE

18. EXH Request for Support Services Evaluation, dated 12/6/12, 1 page 19 EXH CSE Meeting Notice, dated DOE

20. 11/30/12 3 pages DOE

21. EXH CSE Meeting Notice, dated 11/28/12, 3 pages 22 EXH AA Email to oo DOE

23 ‘+, Gated 11/20/12

24 29 {Index to Exhibits continuing on next page) ALLIANCE COURT REPORTING, INC. Video Conferencing and Videography Center 585.546.4920 www.alliancecourtreporting.net 800.724.0836 BX HIBIT S$ (Continuing) Parent's Description ee re ey Stale ret ids eer meee smn Nm emty OE HE/ n neeh nbd ey arr mmr sami A er dng hie ir AS men HN tv aly) lee neh coder min: cnr ene ple mer tl ws nl ls IEP Amendment Agreement Signed by Parent, dated 11/12/12, 1 page TEP Amendment Written Consent Request, dated 11/9/12, 2 pages 1 page DOE

11. EXH DBD Notice of BOE Review, dated 4/19/12, 1 page

10 EXH KE Prior Written Notice, dated 4/3/12 2 pages DOE

12. EXH RE CSE Meeting Notice, dated 3/12/12, 3 pages 13 XH GG Placement Recommendations for DOE

14. Next Year, dated 3/1/12 1 page DOE

XH. 15 EXH HH Recommendations for ESY Services, dated 2/27/12, 4 pages 16 Td Consent Form for Reevaluation 17 Signed by Parent, dated 12/1/11, 1 page 18 EXH JTS Prior Written Notice, dated

13. 10/27/11 3 pages DOE

20. EXH KK Request for Support Services Evaluation, dated 10/26/11, 21 1] page 22, EXH LL Notice of BOER Review, dated 4/27/i1, 1 page EXH MM CSE Recommendation, dated 4/4/11, 24 Il page 25 (Index to Exhibits continuing on next page) ALLIANCE COURT REPORTING, INC, Video Conferencing and Videography Center 585.546.4920. www.alliancecourtreportinet ng 800.724.0836 EX H I BIT § (Continuing) Parent's Description Marked Rec'd EXH NN Notice CSE Meeting, 3/14/11, 2 pages

3 EXH OO Placement Recommendations for Next Year, dated 3/3/11, 2 pages

3 EXH PP Recommendation for ESY Services, dated 3/1/i1, 3 pages 3 10 3 pages DOE

12. EXH OO Notice of BOF Review, dated Li 6/24/10, 1 page

3 EXH RR Student Accident Report, dated 6/9/10, 1 page

13 EXH SS CSE Recommendation for 14 Continuation of Services, dated 5/26/10, 1 page 3 15 3 pages DOE

17. EXH TT Placement Recommendations for 16 Next Year, dated 5/12/10, 1 page

3 EXH UU Recommendation for ESY Services, dated 5/10/10, 4 pages

18 EXH VV CSE Meeting Notice, dated 5/5/10, 2 pages 20 EXH WW Reevaluation Referral to District, dated 5/4/10, 2 pages 21 EXH XX CSE Consent for Reevaluation 22 Signed by Parent, dated 5/4/10, 1 page 23 EXH YY CSE Notice of Reevaluation, dated 24 4/29/10, 3 pages 3 29 (Index to Exhibits continuing on next page) ALLIANCE COURT REPORTING, INC. Video Conferencing and Videography Center 585.546.4920 www.alliancecourtreporting.net: 800.724.0836 EX HTIBIT S§ (Continuing) Parent's Description Marked Rec'a a ae tary mg ek ily nam om is ne eM Ral meh lg ny meme cath eR eGR ahh waver et sh li ne el lh tle th cae can ial cael is ul me es Notice of BOE Review, dated 10/28/09, 1 page 3 pages DOE

10. EXH AAA CSE Recommendation for Continuation for Services, dated 10/6/09, 1 page EAH BBB CSE Meeting Notice, dated 9/17/09 2 pages DOE

11. EXH Ccce Notice of Review of Referral Packet by BOCES 2, dated 9/10/09, DOE

12. page 1 page DOE

13. EAH DDD Transfer Request, dated 9/2/03 1 page 14 EXH BEE Common Referral Form, dated DOE

15. 8/31/09 1 page DOE

16. EXH PEE Report of School Psychologist dated 3/1/13, 5 pages 17 EXH GGG Social History Update, dated DOE

18. 2/14/13 3 pages DOE

21. 19 EXH HHH Level I Vocational Assessment, dated 2/27/12, 4 pages 20 EXH ITT Level I Vocational Assessment, dated EXH JIT Report of School Psychologist, dated 5/13/10, 6 pages 2/2011 23 EXH KKK Parent Level I Assessment, dated 24 February 2010, 5 pages 3 3 25 (Index to Exhibits continuing on next page) ALLIANCE COURT REPORTING, INC. Video Conferencing and Videography Center 585.546.4920 www.alliancecourtreporting.net 800.724.0836 EX HIBtI?T & (Continuing) Parent's Description Marked Me ne te at, Meer tk Mindat mm Semen semper, AOE tiem thet Mg: mm, li be tenga eet em iret inti A ts enka a aN nh lr ees et ee) end ne ete wes Student Level I Assessment, dated 2/3/10, 5 pages EXH Student Social History, dated 9/9/09, 4 pages H 3 pages DOE

11. FX NNN Level I Vocational Assessment, dated 3/5/09, 3 pages 10 BAH O00 Clinical Attention Problem Scales, dated 1/27/09 6 pages DOE

12. E XH PPP Psychological Report, dated 5/21/07, €@ pages i3 EXH Q00 Initial Psychological 14 Consultation, dated 5/19/07, 6 pages 15 EXH RRR Educational Report, dated DOE

16. 2/28/06 4 pages DOE

193. L? EXH ssS Related Service Summary ~ Autism Consult, dated 3/18/13, 1 page

18 EXH TTT Post Secondary Exit Summary Report, dated 2/8/13, 3 pages

20 EXH UUU Related Service Summary Counseling, dated 2/7/13, 1 page

21 ExH VVV Observation Summary, dated DOE

22. 1i/17/l2 2 pages DOE

23. EXH WWW ESY Progress Record, dated 8/16/12, 2 pages 24 25 (Index to Exhibits continuing on next page) ALLIANCE COURT REPORTING, INC. Video Conferencing and Videography Center 585.546.4920 www.alliancecourtreporting.net 800.724.0836 EX HI BIT Ss (Continuing) Description Marked Rec'doe at eam ey an ollie emmy Cary nana many ad tin my wed EY mun ata Am ily, iS nS, atly vty wh hwo ee Gam ee stn eh lls teins AES lsh nh ety an tte lily wh cane ee en et ee te EXH XXX Related Service Summary Counseling, dated 12/18/09, 2 pages EXH YYY Post-Secondary Exit Summary Report, dated 9/10/09, 3 pages EXH 222 Summary, dated June DOE

LO. 2007 2 pages

11. EXH Academic Worksheet, dated AAAA 6/27/13, 1 page EXH Student Report Card, dated DOE

13. BBBB 6/26/13 1 page DOE

14. EXH Email to cece from |, Adated 6/20/13, DOE

15. page 1 page DOE

16. EXH Academic Worksheet, dated 2/8/13, DDDD 1 page 17 EXH Student Report Card, dated DOE

18. EEEE 4/17/13 1 page DOE

19. EXH Student Report Card, dated FPEF 2/8/13, 1 page

20 EXH Student Report Card, dated yal GGGG 1/31/13, 1 page EXH Student Report Card, dated HHHH 11/20/12, 1 page

23 EXH Academic Worksheet, dated 24 Iiit 6/28/12, 1 page 3 25 (Index to Exhibits continuing on next page) ALLIANCE COURT REPORTING, INC. Video Conferencing and Videography Center 585.546.4920 www. alliancecourtreportinnet g. 800.724.0836 34] Ex HIBI TS (Continuing) Parent's Description EXH student Report Card, dated 3 pages DOE

LLLL. IITT 6/26/12, 1 page EXH Student Report Card, dated KKKK 4/4/12, 1 page EXH Student Report Card, dated 2/9/12 10 1 page

E. XH Student Report Card, dated

11. MMMM 11/16/11 1 page DOE

12. EXH Therapeutic Day Program Report NNNN dated 7/6/11, 1 page 13 EXH Report Card, dated June 2011, DOE

14. O000 1 page DOE

15. EXH Therapeutic Day Program Report PPPP dated 6/30/10, 1 page 16 EXH Report Card, dated June 2010, DOE

17. Q000 1 page DOE

18. EXH Unofficial School Transcript RRRR dated 6/26/06, 1 page 19 EXH Monthly Discipline Report, dated DOE

20. SSSS 4/10/13 1 page DOE

21. EXH Behavioral Intervention Plan TTTT Progress Monitoring Meeting DOE

22. dated 3/22/13 23 EXH Functional Behavior Assessment, UUUU dated 2/27/12, 2 pages 24 29 (Index to Exhibits continuing on next page) ALLIANCE COURT REPORTING, INC. Video Conferencing and Videography Center 585.546.4920; www.alliancecourtreporting net 800.724.0836 BE xX HI BIT Ss (Continuing) 2 pages DOE

VVVV. Parent's Description Marked Rec'd he ey Meet abe Hamme etn meld incl eth rnin ew Rr Mees ab ed SA RRS ly Rr Mk re an te a th mint atttty iti itd wn itn eth ny SY gh My ste eniy cee cle Un ier fin teh ie oe EXH Functional Behavior Assessment, dated EXH Behavior Intervention Plan, dated WWWW 1/25/12, 4 pages 1/30/12 2 pages

11. EXH Functional Behavior Assessment, XXKX dated 1/11/12, 5 pages

10 EXH Functional Behavior Assessment YYYY Worksheet, dated 2009 2 pages DOE

14. 12 EXH Behavior Intervention Plan, dated LLL2 3/9/06, 2 pages

13 EXH Student Incident Forms/Suspension AAAAA Letters 13 pages DOE

15. EXH District Response to Demand for BBBBB Due Process Hearing, dated DOE

16. 12/22/14 4 pages DOE

17. EXH Assessment, dated ccece LO0/16/13, 6 pages 18 EXH Progress Report for IEP Goals DOE

19. DDDDD dated June 2013 3 pages DOE

20. EXH Variance Request Worksheet, dated REEEEB 2012-2013, 2 pages 21 23 25 ALLIANCE COURT REPORTING, INC. Video Conferencing and Videography Center 585.546.4920 www. alliancecourtreporting.net 800.724.0836 BX HIBiIiT Ss School District Description Marked Rec'd me mee meee meee mt mame te tht nm nme, nt ag, erm idm yh vot iene a un Se rs ms senate i der meee Re met ne eee iy a GR di wee EXH 17 Level I Vocational Assessment Student, dated 3/5/09, 1 page EXH 18 Level I Vocational Assessment Teacher, dated 3/5/09, 2 pages

385 EXH 28 Letter: _ to Dear Parent/Guardian (re October 23, 10 2012), undated, 1 page

346 li EXH 29 Facts About for High School Students, undated, 2 pages 12 EXH 30 College and Career Ready 13 (re March 5, 2013), undated, 2 pages 14 EXH 31 Agency Fair (re April 24, 2013), 15 undated, 1] page 360 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 ALLIANCE COURT REPORTING, INC. Video Conferencing and Videography Center 585.546.4920 www.alliancecourtreporting.net 800.724.0836 BEX H IBI#T Ss School District Description Marked EXH 19 Work Study Program Training Responsibilities for the 2012-2013 School Year, dated 3/26/12 & 5/4/12 & 5/15/12, 1 page

613 EXH 20 “Dear Work Study Students," dated Spring 2012, 1 page 616 10 li * * * 12 13 385 pages DOE

16. 14 Parent's Description Marked 15 EXH H IEP, dated 9/25/09, 10 pages DOE

17. EXH PPP: Report, dated 5/21/07, 6 pages

18 EXH QQQ Initial iy 19 Consultation, dated 5/19/07, 6 pages 20 EXH Student Incident 21 ARAAA Forms/Suspension Letters, 13 pages 22 EXH Application, dated 23 FREPEF 6/7/13, 1 page 540 540 24 * * k 25 ALLIANCE COURT REPORTING, INC. Video Conferencing and Videography Center 585.546.4920 www.alliancecourtreporting.net 800.724.0836 L075 ExHIBIT § Parent's Description Marked Rec'd SA Reet ai ant ae mir she ema etiny sate sn mo ly ont Sty gm eat Sem nm itil comme em ie me pet A SAME Mm vite dh dyin EXH. Special and GGGGG Alternative Education Program Information Booklet 2013-2014 1008 778 pages DOE

EXH

LITIt Copy of diploma 360

10 ii

ALLIANCE

COURT REPORTING, INC.

Video Conferencing and Videography Center

585.546.4920 www.alliancecourtreporting.net 800.724.0836 Se ey afOgtk Sy aeSOereieameflA”an mHUaH,p97agdya)p|Aafdra9eeIe-h0%o.04|] ~

MLE

9L11-C-SS8|[jOwAeSp]m|s[A[BOUAsO]YBj8IUeQOUJIosuIsasessyyUSPS0610027Z//£S0//EZS{

|tit~ }|AanTdHPC

|4PLPC

|<PRE~AN-o

pOIT-LI7-GS

~—sa1E-S|JacgyoyspueAous8yey04)[Edy‘pz(E107porepug_

ZI-9-1

€r-dsjsanboyJoy|,SuLIONSOIAIDSZI-vI-Z1 sp-S|.seworgwodsay10jdy]STeOH€107-Z10Z

€107-Z10Z[OYISIBATeak

9OI-EI-SistBoroyoAsgJOoyoSJopodsy€S-ds

1ZTIU-6T-TEIFejteeras)ailSujLusOuMrOpuWsuSrSyO1pGeO0sIogdUoBl[ggqUaO]NuMoSyAIssoIn]pyJjoevlyedosg|7I¢-ds49na

_ZLIOZ|-ZI-11PEPW:efeMWO0RE2ET-9-Yd¢4SGsIjs)?ay—e]dD—°ISuWmsF4preur1y4-9A-wmaWOud-pnnutnp”

>ZI-vI-ZIpuewpmedpSCe-el-or-t ireMereADvier WW~¢ iaSW"4IOLARYgADonUsArDyO]guelpueTI-S7-1

¢s-dsJuaprasg[eIOgAIOISTFY60-6-6v

CESLDZLABLGE

pMUAtyemordiqaz)_(siaqjo

€wz[isIpYeoJdjOZN-iSnsLyo0aBdOAHcgs\N-dae’Yoy9]rg EP

Footnotes

[5] diagnostic criteria for in that DSM-5 presents more detailed behavioral descriptions for each symptom, DSM-5 provides an algorithm for how many symptoms in each behavioral domain are required for a diagnosis, IDEA provides more detailed description for persons with expertise in persons with ”). (Exhibit P-QQQ, p. 6)

[23] BAH 29 Facts About for High 24 School Students, undated, 2 pages 3 25 (Index to Exhibits continuing on next page) ALLIANCE COURT REPORTING, INC. Video Conferencing and Videography Center 585.546.4920 www. alliancecourtreporting.net 800.724.0836

Impartial Hearing Decision