New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number:

Student’s Name:

District: 14

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Date of Hearing: March 30, 2015

May 13, 2015

May 21, 2015

May 28, 2015

Actual Record Closed Date: June 15, 2015

: James Walsh, Esq.

’s

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MARCH 30, 2015

Esq. Attorney Associated with Attorneys for Parents — Parents

Mother of Student Representative for New York City — Parents

Department of Education and — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MAY 13, 2015

Esq. Attorney Associated with Attorneys for Parents — Parents

Mother of Student Representative for New York City — Parents

Department of Education and — DOE

School – Assigned to District’s C.S.E. – Attended Student’s C.S.E. meeting of 3-18-14 (by phone) — DOE

Unit Coordinator at @ (by phone) — DOE

Teacher of a Class at @ (by phone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MAY 21, 2015

Esq. Attorney Associated with Attorneys for Parents — Parents

Mother of Student — Parents

Education Director and Analyst at (by phone) — Parents

Clinical Director at Representative for New York City — Parents

Department of Education and ’s — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MAY 28, 2015

Esq. Attorney Associated with Attorneys for Parents — Parents

Mother of Student — Parents

Director of – Representative for New York City — Parents

Department of Education and ’s — DOE

The Matter of , (hereinafter referred to as “Student”) came before me for determination in accordance with the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(1) and Article 89 of the Education Law of the State of New York, on March 30, 2015; May 13, 2015; May 21, 2015 and May 28, 2015. The undersigned had been appointed by the Impartial Hearing Office of the Department of Education of the City of New York to preside over this matter on December 17, 2015. It is noted that on March 30, 2015, District was not ready to proceed due to witness unavailability and sought adjournment. Such adjournment was granted.

District proceeded to submit the testimony of its witnesses on the following scheduled hearing date of May 13, 2015. Parents presented their case on the dates of May 21, 2015 and May 28, 2015. The Record remained open until the receipt of the Transcript of the May 28, 2015 hearing. The Actual Record Close Date is June 15, 2015.

The proceeding was initiated by Parents by the filing, by Parent’s attorneys, of a Due Process Complaint Notice, dated December 16, 2014, which was received by the New York City Department of Education’s Impartial Hearing Office on the same date (Exhibit A). Parents allege in their Due Process Complaint that District and its Committee on (C.S.E.) failed to offer Student a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2014-2015 school year, by failing to properly prepare, on both procedural and substantive bases, an appropriate Individualized Education (I.E.P.) for the 2014-2015 school year. Indeed, my review of that Due Process Complaint discloses that such lists specific areas wherein the Committee allegedly failed to act appropriately. Additionally, Parents claim that District failed to offer Student an appropriate placement in which Student might receive his special education . As a result of District’s alleged failures, Parents unilaterally placed Student at – for the 2014-2015 school year. In this proceeding, Parents seek reimbursement to them of monies paid by Parents for such unilateral placement, as well as an Order directing the direct payment to such facility of any portion of the that Parents were unable to afford on their own (Exhibit A).

Student is presently years months of age, having been born on . However, at the time District’s Committee on (C.S.E) met to ’s plan Student’s for the 2014-2015 school year, that is, March 18, 2014, Student was years months old. Student has been diagnosed as having

( ) , , .

During the 2013-2014 school year, Student had attended , a school for children with special needs (Exhibit 1). There is little else in the Record before me regarding Student’s prior educational experience.

District’s C.S.E. convened on March 18, 2014 to conduct an Annual Review and develop Student’s special education for the 2014-2015 school year. Attending that meeting, according to the unsigned sign-in sheet attached to the Individualized Education (I.E.P. ) developed at that meeting (Exhibit B), were , who served as District Representative and Teacher

.(T.R.46). Participating by phone were personnel from Student’s then- placement at , including then-Classroom Teacher ; Student’s then-

; Teacher from (but not Student’s

teacher) ; and Parent (Exhibit B). While I note the absence of a listed School , I note that testified that she is a certified school (T.R.30). The Committee prepared an I.E.P. that Student as having and proposed that Student receive his special education for the 2014- 2015 school year in a in a Specialized School having a staffing of , with the of Service , together with the Related Services of / per week, minutes per session, and time per week, minutes per session, in a group of , with of Service ; per week, minutes per session, , with the of Service ; and , times per week, minutes per session, , with the of Service , as well as the services of a in a (Exhibit 1). The Committee noted Student’s Present Levels of Performance in Academic

, noting Student’s inability to consistently and accurately identify letters or numbers and exhibited significant processing difficulties, that Student had

(Exhibit 1). The I.E.P; also noted that Student was predominantly a learner

’s

(Exhibit B). The Committee also noted in the I.E.P. that Student had significant delays in his intelligibility The Committee also reflected appropriate information regarding Student’s performance levels in his Social Development, Development and Management Needs.

District thereafter, according to the testimony of Parent, and by review of Parent’s letter dated August 20, 2014 (Exhibit D), offered Student placement in a at , together with the recommended Related Services Parent testified that she visited the proffered placement, after which Parent wrote to District’s Committee, noting that the at such facility had no classrooms nor -speaking and was otherwise deficient and thus that she found such proffered placement to be inappropriate for Student (Exhibit D). Parent, while rejecting such placement, noted in her letter (Exhibit D) that Parents would be interested in other options, but that, failing any other options, would place Student at and would look to the Department of Education for the , costs and expenses of such . As noted, on December 16, 2014, Parents commenced this proceeding, again requesting payment by the Department of Education for their unilateral placement of Student at

.(Exhibit A).

It has been established that Boards of Education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a child by the child’s parent, if (1) the services offered by the Board of Education were inadequate or inappropriate; (2) the services selected by the Parent were appropriate and; (3) equitable considerations support the Parent’s claim.

Such prerequisites were established by the United States Supreme Court when considering claims for reimbursement brought by parents who had unilaterally placed their disabled child in a private facility. (School Committee of the Town of Burlington v.

Departm ent of Education, M assachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985); A pplication of a Child with a Disability , Appeal No. 01-052). Further, it was later held that the fact that the facility selected by the parent to provide special education services to the child had not been approved as a school for children with disabilities by the state agency would not be dispositive of a parent’s claim for reimbursement (Florence County School District 4 et al. v. Carter by Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]). In both decisions, the Court noted that:

’s

“Parents who unilaterally place a student

in a private educational facility … do so

at their own financial risk”

(see 471 U.S. 359 at 373)

Further pronouncements made thereafter by various courts expanded the concept of reimbursement to one of prospective authorization (Connors v. Mills, 34 F. Supp

2d 795 (N.D.N.Y. 1998) and even to retrospective payment (Mr. and Mrs. A. v.

New York City Department of Education, Civ. 09-5097 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). However, in all of the decisions expanding on reimbursement, the Burlington Prerequisites were maintained.

Burden of Proof

Generally, in applying the three-prong standard enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Burlington and Carter decisions above-cited, it is necessary, in my consideration of the issues presented, that I first determine whether or not the School District offered to the student a free, appropriate public education. The burden of establishing that it did so rests upon the District (N.Y.S. Education Law§4404). Under the guidelines established by Burlington and Carter, should I determine that District offered Student an appropriate educational , my inquiry into Parents’ request would cease at that point, for if a district has offered an appropriate , a parent’s right to the requested relief must be denied. Under the same guidelines, if it is determined that District failed to establish the appropriateness of its , I must then determine the appropriateness of the Parents’ unilaterally-selected educational facility. The burden of establishing such appropriateness rests upon Parents (N.Y.S. Education Law §4404).

Should Parents fail to establish the appropriateness of the unilaterally-selected facility, Parents’ request for relief must be denied. If the unilaterally-selected educational facility is determined to be appropriate, I must, because the awarding of any relief is possible only by an invocation of the equitable powers inherent in the proceeding, then review the equities in order to determine whether equitable considerations favor an award of any relief to the Parents. It is my determination that the burden of establishing that such equities favor an award of reimbursement or, as here, other relief, rests upon

Parents.

’s

DISCUSSION

Essential to any determination of an entitlement to reimbursement is whether the agency responsible for a student’s education provided that student with a free, appropriate public education (FAPE). But what, exactly is a free, appropriate public education?

Courts on various levels and quasi-judicial officers have, through the years, expressed differing guidelines for determining exactly what FAPE is and how such is to be determined. It has been stated that a FAPE is offered to a student when (a) a board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07; Cerra v.

Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]). However, such statement is no longer exactly accurate, for, while school districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures, not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (A.C. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 5505470, at *4 [2d Cir. Jan. 16, 2009]; Grim v.

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

Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 465211, at *10 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2007]). Under the IDEA as amended, if a procedural violation is alleged, an administrative officer may find that a student did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a) impeded the student's right to a FAPE, (b) significantly impeded the Parent' opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student, or (c)

caused a deprivation of educational benefits (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; E.H. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 3930028, at *7 [N.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2008]; Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 471 F. Supp. 2d 415, 419 [S.D.N.Y. 2007] aff'd, 2008 WL 3852180 [2d Cir. Aug. 19, 2008]).

It has also been stated that an appropriate educational begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student's needs (34 C.F.R.

§ 300.320[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]), establishes annual goals related to those needs (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]), and provides for the use of appropriate special education services (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][4]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]; see Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 07-018; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-059; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal

’s

No. 06-029; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-046; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-014; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No.

93-9).17 The student's recommended must also be provided in the Least Restrictive Environment (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.114[a][2][i], 300.116[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[cc], 200.6[a][1]; see P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 4509089, at *7 [2d Cir. Oct. 9, 2008]; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 [2d Cir. 2007]; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132). A school district may be required to belatedly pay expenses that it should have paid all along and would have borne in the first instance had it offered the student a FAPE (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370-

71; see also20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][ii]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.148). The IDEA directs that, in general, an impartial 's decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][i]). A school district offers a FAPE "by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction" (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203). However, the "IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP" (Walczak v.

Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 [2d Cir. 1998]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189). The statute ensures an "appropriate" education, "not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving Parent" (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132, quoting Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d 563, 567 [2d Cir. 1989] [citations omitted]; see Grim, 346 F.3d at 379). Additionally, school districts are not required to "maximize" the potential of students with disabilities (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199; Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132). Nonetheless, a school district must provide "an IEP that is 'likely to produce progress, not regression,' and . . . affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere 'trivial advancement'" (Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195, quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130 [citations omitted]; see Perricelli, 2007 WL 465211, at *15). The IEP must be "reasonably calculated to provide some 'meaningful' benefit" (Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 [2d Cir. 1997]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192). It is this last requirement – that the IEP must be "reasonably

" - that will guide my review in this matter.

As noted, District bears the burden of establishing that it offered Student a free, appropriate public education (N.Y.S. Education Law §4404(1)(c). District presented the testimony of , the Committee’s School , who had presided over the meeting of March 18, 2014 in which the contested I.E.P. was developed, as well as the testimony of Witness , the Unit Coordinator at and Witness , a Teacher of a class at .

District introduced into evidence only exhibits; the I.E.P. under review; a Report of a Classroom Observation; and a Conference Checklist from the Committee Meeting of March 18, 2014.

testified that the Committee had relied, in its preparation of Student’s , on its review, conducted prior to the meeting, of progress reports that had been received from Student’s teacher, his and his , and that those reports, as well as the input at the meeting from Parent, his teacher and his (T.R.38-39) were considered at the meeting (T.R.38). I note, however, that, according to the unsigned sign-in sheet for that meeting (Exhibit B), only

Student’s had participated. Also, I note that none of the reports, except for the Classroom Observation (Exhibit 2), was placed in evidence. I also note that no cognitive assessment of Student had been conducted for a number of years (T.R.38) and that no assessments of any kind were done by District in preparation for the meeting of March 18, 2014 (T.R.34). In explaining the reason why the Committee recommended Student’s placement in a with a staffing ration of rather that a more intensive setting, such as with a staffing of , testified that the children in a setting are often not as as those in a setting and that:

” It is very important; very critical for him to have positive role models, as well as – as well as exchanges and participating in exchanges.”

(T.R.49)

’s

As has been previously noted, the recommendation of the Committee under review required that Student receive his special education , as well as his , in (Exhibit B). When interrogated as to the basis for such requirement, testified that Student spoke at and that: “

” (T.R.86).

I deem it unnecessary to review each and every of the objections to the creation of Student’s I.E.P. as are put forth in Parents’ Due Process Complaint (Exhibit A). Certain challenges to the appropriateness of the Committee‘s actions at the March 18, 2014 meeting I find to be without merit or, even if established, would not rise to the of denying Student a free, appropriate public education (8 NYCRR

200.5(j)(4)(ii)). I further find that a review of the remaining concerns is not warranted, as it is my determination that whatever my findings and conclusions might be, such would not alter the outcome of this proceeding in light of the placement recommendation made by District.

District never placed in evidence any School Location Letter or Final Notice of Recommendation. However, Parent notes in her letter to the Committee Chair, dated August 20, 2014 (Exhibit D) that District had recommended that Student be placed in a at at , located at

Indeed, District presented Witness , who testified that she is a Teacher at and teaches a class with a population at that facility (T.R.105-106). I therefore conclude that such was the recommended placement of Student for the 209145-2015 school year.

Parent testified that she had visited the recommended placement and was provided a tour by a Ms. . District offered the testimony of Witness , the Unit Coordinator at , who disputed that Parent had ever tour the site, as Parent’s name did not appear on any sign-in sheet, which is required for any person entering the building. (T.R.96-97). However, such witness also testified that Parent Coordinator also did tours of the school (T.R.97). I find and determine that Parent indeed was provided with a tour of during the summer of 2014.

Witness testified that she taught the only class at that would have been appropriately aged for Student and that, had Student attended that ’s facility, he would have been placed in her class (T.R.117). While never asked by either party, I conclude that Ms does not provide instruction to her class in . I note that Student’s I.E.P. as prepared by District’s C.S.E. on March 18, 2014 (Exhibit B)

contains a provision that:

“If there is no provider available in this language, provide interim services in English pending availability of a bilingual provider” – with a box marked “Yes” with a check-mark placed therein; and a further provision that:

“The student should be placed in an interim monolingual class”

- again with a box with a check-mark therein

-

It appears, however, that such provision of the I.E.P. had never been discussed or agreed to during the Committee meeting of March 18, 2014 (T.R.319). Moreover, it is clearly inappropriate to provide Student with his services in when his mandates that such services be provided in . It was the testimony of Witness that, while a usually helps children who are not -speaking and could communicate with the student in his/her and translate all instructions in their , there were no -speaking at the school (T.R.111) that might offer Student such assistance. Whether the facility could have – as suggested by Witness – been able to obtain a -speaking from another site or hire (T.R.111) – is not relevant, as the District cannot depart from the I.E.P. to establish what District might be able to do as opposed to what it is required to do pursuant to the provisions of its I.E.P. More importantly, I find it inappropriate to place Student in an -speaking class where there are not other

-speaking students (T.R.117) in light of the testimony of that:

” It is very important; very critical for him to have positive role models, as well as – as well as exchanges and participating in exchanges.”

(T.R.49)

’s

I also note that, according to the testimony of Witness , had no on staff at (T.R.117), although his I.E.P. required that he receive such Related Service in .

,Based upon District’s failure to establish that it provided Student with an appropriate placement at which Student might receive an appropriate special education, it is therefore, my finding and determination that District has failed to establish that it offered Student a free, appropriate public education for the 2013-2014 school year.

I find that it was the height of irresponsibility for the Committee to have recommended in its I.E.P.; of March 18, 2014, that Student receive his special education instruction and his / in . As noted, the representatives of the District placed such requirement in Student’s I.E.P. “because the school ( ) insisted upon it.” (T.R.86). While not before the Committee when it created the I.E.P. of March 18, 2014, I note, in Student’s Initial / Assessment prepared in September of 2014 (Exhibit R) that “[Student[ is bilingual who utilizes as his preferred .”. As District Representative at the March 18, 2014 Committee meeting, Ms was charged with having a knowledge of the programs available. Whether there is any special education programs having a staffing that provide instruction in was never addressed.

Having made such determination that District failed to establish that it had offered Student a free appropriate public education, it is necessary that I review the educational unilaterally selected by Parents for Student for the 2014-2015 school year . That was described by Witness , the director and founder of the school. Witness described the school – also known as the

- as being a special education that seeks to integrate a variety of methodologies, including ( ), (T.R.267-268). It serves a population of children, both boys and girls, and , with classifications of and (T.R.269), with a population totaling . The school also offers most

Related Services, with on staff. Many students and many staff speak .

The school is located on the top

’s

for aquatic On the fifth floor are classrooms, staffed by teachers. Each student in each class has a assigned to work with the student, which does most of the -on- instruction (T.R. 275), as well as

(TY.R.275). The school is equipped with

Student began at the facility in September of 2014. Student was placed in a class of , including Student.

(T.R.288). Student was reported to be challenged when first enrolled, even in a setting of , but Student has displayed progress in his setting(T.R.294) and is even capable of carrying on a conversation with a peer (T.R. 294), although will still display signs of shutting down if additional students are in the room.

Student has increased his vocabulary and his , although still prone to display negative if the environment becomes too stimulating (T.R.293).. The Record is replete with reports showing progress in all significant areas (Exhibits K,L,M,N,O and P).

Also received was the testimony of Witness , the educational director and

Analyst at . Witness described the implementation of its As a part of its

((T.R.141). Witness provided detailed description of the interrelationship of staff, and providers in a collaborative to meet students’ needs. Witness described Student as having . Witness reviewed many of the reports showing growth in all areas during the 2014-2015 school year (T./R. 154-164). A review of the various Related Service providers’ reports and assessments established that Student received all of his required and made progress.

It is clear from a review of all exhibits and the testimony received that Student was appropriately placed at and that the at that facility was capable of providing Student with meaningful educational benefit. It is, therefore, my finding that Parents have sustained their obligation of establishing that the bu7nilaterally- selected for Student for the 2014-2015 school year was appropriate.

’s

Having made such determination, I now must consider whether equitable considerations favor an award of reimbursement to Parents or direct payment to the selected facility for the costs associated with such unilateral placement.

It is clear that equitable considerations are relevant to fashioning relief under the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (See Burlington v.

Board of Education, 471 U.S.at p. 374). Parents did, indeed, attend the meeting of the Committee which fashioned the I.E.P. under review. Parent also responded promptly to the notice recommending placement and visited in a timely manner. While Parents are clearly of limited income and perhaps unwise in obligating themselves to repaying the sum of Dollars to were they to be unsuccessful in this proceeding, they cannot be faulted for doing so when faced with the failure of District to offer an appropriate placement. I shall, therefore, grant Parents’ request for reimbursement to the extent appropriate. Parent testified that payments were made by Parents during the school year as appear on Exhibit H in the amount of

Dollars, as well as a recent payment of

Dollars (T.R.326-327). Payments shall be ordered to Parents by the New York City Department of Education to the extent that Parents have made payments to for the 2014-2015 school year, but only upon the following conditions;

Parents shall secure and provide to the New York City Department of Education copies of all checks made payable to , including checks Numbered 268, 269, 270, 271, 272 and 273, as well as any checks made thereafter; and that all checks bear the signature of one parent.

Reimbursement or direct payment may be limited if the cost of a unilateral placement is excessive. It is my finding that such is the case in this proceeding, While I find that the at is appropriate for Student, it is my finding that of for Student’s attendance is excessive. While

Witness , the founder and director of the , opined that other facilities providing services to multiply handicapped students charge as much or more (T.R.300-

301) as that that charged by , such opinion alone does not justify the cost of its . No other evidence or testimony was submitted to substantiate the appropriateness of such charged amount. I find it appropriate to reduce the amount of ’s direct payment to by Dollars, thus finding an appropriate charge for the 2014-2015 school year of

Dollars. As has already received payments

totaling at least Dollars, I shall order that the New York City Department of Education make direct payment to of

Dollars.

ORDER

Based upon the above review, it is

HEREBY ORDERED that District and the New York City Department of Education pay to Parents to the extent that Parents have made payments to for the 2014-2015 school year, but only upon the following conditions;

Parents shall secure and provide to the New York City Department of Education copies of all checks made payable to , including checks Numbered 268, 269, 270, 271, 272 and 273, as well as any checks made thereafter; and that all checks bear the signature of parent; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that District and the New York City Department of Education pay to as and for Student’s attendance at such facility during the 2014-2015 school year, the sum of

Dollars.

Dated: June 29, 2015

JAMES P. WALSH, ESQ.

Impartial

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

’s

reviewed. The petition for review shall be served upon the school district within 35 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. If the decision has been served by mail upon petitioner, the date of mailing and the four days subsequent thereto shall be excluded in computing the 25- or 35-day period. ” (8NYCRR279.2[b]) Failure to file the notice of intention to seek review is a waiver of the right to appeal this decision.

Directions and sample forms for filing an appeal are included with this decision. Directions and forms can also be found in the Office of State Review website: www.sro.nysed.gov/appeals.htm.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD ON MARCH 30, 2015

None

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD ON MAY 13, 2015

A. Parents’ Due Process Complaint Notice, dated 12-16-14 (6 pages; Parents)

B. Student’s I.E.P. as developed by District’s C.S.E. on 3-18-14 C Not Offered (19 pages; Parents)

D. Letter from Parent to and dated 8-20-14 (4 pages; Parents)

E. Students’ Daily Schedule to ’s for the 2014-2015 school year (2 pages; Parents)

F. Overview of (2 pages; Parents)

G. Contract between Parents and, dated 9-7-14 (3 pages; Parents)

H. Affirmation by A., dated 3-23-14 (4 pages; Parents)

I. Student’s Attendance Record at for the 2014-2015 school year (2 pages; Parents)

J. Parents’ Federal Income Tax Return for 2013 (1 page; Parents)

K. Summary of Clinical at, dated 3-23-15 (2 pages; Parents)

L. Mid-Year Progress Report by, dated 3-23-15 (1 page; Parents)

M. Part III Activity Performance – Tasks for Period 9-3-14 through 3-23-15 (5 pages; Parents)

N. and Progress Report by Parents, MS,, dated 1-25-15 (3 pages; Parents)

O. Progress Note – Education, by, dated 1-5-14 (3 pages; Parents)

P. Parents (2 pages; Parents)

Q. , dated 9-29-14 (4 pages; Parents)

R. Initial and Assessment, dated 8-18-14, by, MS, (4 pages; Parents)

S. Initial Assessment, dated 9-16-14, by MS, (2 pages; Parents)

T. Initial Educational Evaluation, dated 9-14-14, by (3 pages; Parents)

U. Initial Evaluation, dated 9-3-14, by, (2 pages; Parents)

V. Annual Goals for the 2014-2015 school year (3 pages; Parents)

1. Student’s I.E.P. as created by District’s C.S.E. on 3-18-14 ’s (15 pages; DOE)

2. Classroom Observation Report by, dated 2-26-14 (1 page; DOE)

3. Conference Checklist, dated 3-18-14 (2 pages; DOE)

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD ON MAY 21, 2015

None

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD ON MAY 28, 2015

X. Parents’ Form 1040 – Federal Income Tax Return for 2014 (14 pages; Parents)

Y. Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Notification, dated 4-22-15 (2 pages; Parents)

Z. for Student for Midyear Evaluation AA 1 Student’s Schedule Parent BB 4 Modification Plan, dated 1-20-15 Parents (1 page; Parents)