New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number:

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District:

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Date of Hearing: May 18, 2015

Actual Record Closed Date: July 3, 2015

Hearing Officer: Elise Kestenbaum, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MAY 18, 2015

Advocate for Parent — Student

Parents

Director, — Student

(via telephone) — Student

Curriculum Coordinator, — Student

(via telephone) — Student

Clinical Director, — Student

(via telephone) — Student

District Representative — DOE

INTRODUCTION: — DOE

This case was brought before me upon my designation by the Department of Education (“District”) as an impartial hearing officer pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Act (“IDEA”), 29 USC § 1400 [f][1] and Part 200 of the Regulations of the New York State commissioner of Education. This matter was brought by and , the Parents (“Parents”) on behalf of , the student (“Student”) through their advocate, , by filing a Due Process Complaint dated March , 2015.

The Parents are alleging that their son, , was denied a free and appropriate public education (“ ”) for the 2014- school year and are seeking tuition for his unilateral placement at the (“ ”) for said year.

There was (1) day of hearing in this matter. The hearing was conducted on

May 18. 2015.

Extensions were granted in this case making the final compliance date July 29, 2015. A list of Exhibits is attached as Exhibit A. The Parent and the District submitted exhibits.

BACKGROUND:

This case involved a ( ) year old student. During the 2014- school year, attended .

With respect to the 2014- school year, no Individualized Education Program (“ ”) was developed for the Student. The last IEP that was developed by the CSE was dated October 22, 2013 for the 2013-14 school year. D-1.

The Parents entered into an Enrollment Contract for with on September 10, 2014. P-B.

The Parents filed a Due Process Complaint on March , 2015. P-A. I was appointed as an Impartial Hearing Officer on March , 2015.

POSITION OF THE PARTIES

Parents’ Case

The Parents called four (4) witnesses, , ,

and the Parents and placed eighteen (18) documents in evidence. P-A – P-R.

The Parents’ first witness was . She is a and has a New York State license and certification. She is the founder and director of . The name of the school reflects a program that integrates a variety of methodologies including . They have a natural teaching environment,

, and and all of these approaches are integrated into the student curriculum on a daily basis. Tr. 27. All the teachers have master’s degrees in special education and are licensed. Tr. 28. They also have a , , , and , and an , all licensed and certified, on staff. Tr. 28. They also have a . Tr. 29. In addition, they have a clinical director who supervises the . Tr. 30. There are in the school and it goes from age to . The

. Tr. 30.

has classrooms in a beautiful state of the art building with brand new

. Tr. 31.

Ms. is specifically involved with screening students and is involved with developing contracts for students. Tr. 31.

The teachers, and specialists have scheduled team meetings a week where they meet about specific students. Tr. 32. In addition, the staff stays every day from with the , , and administrators. Tr. 32. They have staff members who are . Tr. 32. There is no instruction. Tr. 33.

Ms. is familiar with because he was registered for the program for this year. Tr. 33. They have a mixed population including children on the

,

, etc. Tr. 33. The students are grouped according to age level and level of function. Tr. 33-34.

The tuition at is . Ms. developed and signed

the contract pertaining to Tr. 34; P-B. The tuition includes all of the related services and a - . Tr. 34. The Parents have not made any payments towards tuition this year. Tr. 37. If reimbursement isn’t granted in this case, the Parents are responsible to either take a loan or borrow the money in order to pay the tuition. Tr.

38.

In ’s class there are students ranging in age from . Tr. 38. There are students who are is and another student is . For the most part, the students have disorders. Tr. 39. Every child has a - in addition to a licensed and certified special education teacher in each classroom. Tr. 39. The works with the students to provide a very individualized protocol for each student. Tr. 40. Whatever skills are worked on are transferred into the natural environment. Tr. 40. They also use through - instruction that is very data driven. Tr. 39. When they structure the classroom, they are looking to make sure the students can function in a cohesive group. Tr. 41.

Ms. speaks with the parents as does the and she is eager to carry over whatever they are working on in the classroom. Tr. 41. The school participates in the student’s IEP meetings. Tr. 42. The school cooperates with the District and has already composed comprehensive folders for each student with all of their updated goals, evaluations, observations, etc.

has made progress this year. When he arrived he had limited means of communication and is now using a lot more and not with the educational director create the goals for the students. has limited

. Tr. 46. He also works with the on using specific and also on his articulation. Tr. 46.

of the students in ’s classroom are fully and use a . Tr. 47.

There are no girls in ’s classroom, though the school is co-educational. Tr. 47. The receive extensive training before the school year starts in , devices, natural environment training, etc. Tr. 48. of the have a Bachelor’s degree in special education and has a Master’s degree. Tr. 48. In terms of the , there is a rotating schedule and the

Tr. 48.

The next witness is . She is the and Educational Director at the school. Tr. 53. This is her second year. Tr. 53. She has a Master’s degree in special education and New York State teacher certification and has done all course work for the but hasn’t taken the exam. Tr. 52. She is responsible for all the children’s academics, their program books, lesson plans, the plans and programs and all of their protocols, social interactions, natural environment teaching, etc. Tr. 53. She analyzes data. They have team meetings for specific students and all their teachers and related service providers as well as the clinical director, and Ms.

. Tr. 54. Informally, she is in the classroom on a daily basis. Tr. 54.

She is familiar with When he first came to in September, he had limited . He had a few scripted sentences. He wanted to interact with peers but didn’t know how and had some that he used when he wanted something (i.e. bread). Tr. 56. He was that he wasn’t understood and had a . He wasn’t able to express himself and would tantrum and cry for long periods of time over trivial things. Tr. 58. It would also take him a long time to calm down. He would exhibit negative like

. Tr. 59.

is

Tr. 60.

At the beginning of the year, he could count from to and knew the days of the week but didn’t understand other qualitative or quantitative concepts. He could not complete a pattern. He could identify letters of the alphabet but couldn’t repeat any sight words, not even his name and also had trouble with skills, tracing lines and geometric shapes. Tr. 61.

. Tr. 62.

With respect to each student they have a (P-H). Their goal is to fill in all the skills on each level before moving to the next level so that they have a solid foundation. Tr. 64. For instance, they will not add addition and subtraction until he knows how to count objects and to understand - correspondence. Tr. 65.

Therefore, they do assessments for each child, create the and transfer all of that into the program book so they can help each child learn. Tr. 65.

As far as ’s requesting skills, he has made progress. With the use of his

Tr. 67.

In the tasking area,

,

. Tr. 68.

His play skills have also shown tremendous improvement. On the , he has gone from the middle of level to the completion of level . Tr. 69. He can play with different toys in creative ways. He can assemble toys with different parts. He can engage in arts and crafts independently and doesn’t need . Tr. 69.

With respect to social skills, he has also made tremendous progress. He can spontaneously request from peers times. He can engage and sustain social play with peers for minutes without adult prompts or reinforcement. Tr. 69-70. He can cooperate with peers to get a specific outcome times. He can inter-verbally respond to different questions or statements from peers times, on different topics.

Tr. 70.

In , he attends to a book when a story is read to him of the time and he is able to read his own name. Tr. 71. He is able to sort objects and differentiate features and functions of objects. He knows A, B, and C. This area is slow. He is able to write basic words by copying them and he is able to move on skills on a level . For he is able to now count to . He can label numbers through and his - correspondence is emerging. He can follow a pattern and understands qualitative concepts. Tr. 76. He knows calendar concepts, morning and evening, today, tomorrow, and yesterday. He understands his schedule and what he has on each day.

In terms of ’s , at the beginning of the year, he would say no and not comply; he would grab toys and throw things; run from his environment and swear and cry. He had a and harder . They beefed up his reinforcement level and would reinforce him every or times instead of every time. Tr. 80. He can now do more learning with less reinforcing. Ms. testified that she has seen tremendous progress in his . Tr. 82. An example would be that at the beginning of the year any transition was a tantrum and now he can understand and move on. Tr. 82-83. There is also an improvement in terms of his refusal and ignoring demands. He is also much better in terms of grabbing toys and throwing items as a result of helping him use appropriate . Tr. 86. His interactions with his peers have also improved because he is learning ways to interact and the staff is helping facilitate his interactions. Tr. 86.

In addition to -on- time, they have group lessons for , literacy, social groups and they also do natural environment teaching where they are working with or in close proximity with their peers. Tr. 88.

The next witness was . She is a licensed and is presently clinical director of and has been there since September 2014. Tr. 91. She develops the treatment program at the school and supervises the other , , , and . Tr. 91. She

helps organize and takes part in all interdisciplinary meetings between all the , teachers and administrators, observes and supervises direct treatment, and personally treats students as well. Tr. 91.

Ms. is familiar with all students at including

When he first came to the school, his fine motor skills were delayed and he had range restrictions with his hands. In this regard, there are certain deformities that he has, tightness in the joints that impede his fine motor performance. He had trouble holding a pencil or crayon; he wasn’t able to feed himself neatly with a spoon and had trouble with clothing fasteners. Tr. 92. He also had trouble with his attention and was easily distracted. Any kind of noise, sound or movement would distract him. Tr. 93. He also had ; his balance and general .

Tr. 93. He also had low tone and his posture was poor. Tr. 94. In terms of , she collaborated with the . She indicated that at the beginning of the year, he had a difficult time with stating his needs and would instigate some using certain phrases that wouldn’t apply to the situation at hand.

Ms. treats as his . She has seen a lot of progress. In terms of gross motor skills, he is able to get up from the floor without support most times, walk on a balance beam without hands for support, catch and throw a ball with accuracy. Tr. 98. In terms of fine motor skills, he is able to hold a pencil more consistently and able to make lines more consistently and closer to the proper placement on a page.

. Tr. 99.

In ,

. Tr. 99 – 100.

The last witness was the Parent. When was and a months, they told the Parent that had a . He also had and was treated for it. Tr.

101. He received . Tr. 102. After

this, he attended a bilingual special needs program at . There were and had a .

On October 22, 2013, an IEP meeting was held for the Student for the 2013-14 school year. Tr. 104. She never heard from the District again to have an IEP meeting for the 2014- school year nor did she receive a placement for him. Tr. 104-105. At

, they told her, could not return there since he was the oldest kid in the school.

Tr. 105. At some point in September 2014, she enrolled in . Tr.

105. The contract she signed provides that she is responsible for tuition in the amount of . Tr. 106. Her income is a month and she has children. Tr. 106. If she doesn’t prevail, she stated that she will have to borrow the money to pay it back. Tr.

107.

For tuition purposes, his related services are included and he is receiving transportation. Tr. 110.

The Parent stated that the Student is making progress at . He came into the school with a and he had a hard time being understood.

Tr. 108. He is trying very hard to make himself understood and feels confident about himself. Tr. 109. In addition to ’s and hip , he is diagnosed with . Tr. 110.

District’s Case

The District called no witnesses and placed (1) document in evidence. D-1.

FINDINGS

Two purposes of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. §§1400-1482) are (1) to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their individual needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living; and (2) to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities and parents of such students are protected (20 U.S.C.

1499[D][1][A]-[B]; see generally, Forest Grove v. T.A., 129 S. Ct. 2484, 2491 [2009]; Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 [1982]).

The decision in this case rests on a determination of the three-pronged test set forth by the United States Supreme court in School Committee of the Town of Burlington

v. Dep’t of Educ. of Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 [1985]. A of education may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private educational services obtained for a student by his or her parents, if the services offered by the of education were inadequate or inappropriate (Prong 1), the services selected by the Parent were appropriate (Prong 2), and equitable considerations support the parent’s claim (Prong 3). Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 92d Cir. 2005]).

Prong 1 – Appropriateness of District Program The purpose of the IDEA is to ensure that all children with disabilities have available a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) which addresses their unique special education needs and to ensure that their rights and the rights of Parents are protected. A FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the 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]). 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., 553 F3d 165, 172 [2d Cir. 2009]; Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent.

Sch. Dist., 346 F3d 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, if a procedural violation is alleged an administrative officer may find that a student did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a) impeded the student’s right to a FAPE, (b) significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student, or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits (20 U.S.C. §1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 CFR 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; Winkleman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516 , 525-26 [2007]; A.H. v. Dep’t of Educ., 2010 WL 3242234, at *2 [2d Cir. Aug. 16, 2010]; 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]).

A school district offers 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 parents” (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, P. v.

Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 118-19 [2d Cir. 2008]; Perricelli, 20007 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). The student’s recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (20 U.S.C. § 1412 [a][5][A]; 34 CFR 300.114[a][2][i], 300.116[a][2];8 NYCRR 200.1[cc], 200.6[a][1]; see Newington, 546 F.3d at 114; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 [2d Cir.2007]; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132; E.G. v. City Sch. Dist. Of New Rochelle, 606 F. Supp. 2d 384, 388 [S.D.N.Y. 2009]; Patskin v. Bd. Of Educ., 583 F. Supp. 2d 422, 428 [W.D.N.Y. 2008]).

An appropriate education begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student’s needs (34 CFR 300.320[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]; Tarlowe v. Dep’t of Educ., 2008 WL 2736027, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2008), establishes annual goals related to those needs (34 CFR 300.320[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]), and provides for the use of appropriate special education services. (see 34 CFR 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 Childwith a Disability, Appeal No. 06-059; Application of the Dep’t of Educ., Appeal No. 06-029; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-046; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02- 014; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No.93-9).

The New York State Legislature amended the Education Law to place the burden of production and persuasion upon the school district during an impartial hearing except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of production and persuasion regarding the appropriateness of such placement (Educ. Law §4404[1][c], as amended by Ch. 583 of the Laws of 2007).

The Parents allege that the District did not comply with the procedural or substantive requirements of the IDEA. The Parents further that a CSE meeting did not take place for the 2014-15 school year, no IEP was developed, and no placement recommended for for the 2014-15 school year. In addition, the Parent testified that the Student had aged out of Although the District did not concede Prong 1, they did not present any witnesses and only entered an IEP from the 2014-15 school year into evidence. D-1.

For all of the foregoing reasons, I find that the District did not provide FAPE to for the 2014-15 school year.

Prong 2 – Appropriateness of Parent Placement

Under the second prong of Burlington, the Parents bear the burden of proving the appropriateness of the Parents’ unilateral placement of at . In order to meet that burden, the Parent must show that offered an educational program designed to meet ’s special education needs. Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370; M.S. v. of Education of the City of Yonkers, 231 F.3d 96, 104 (2d Cir.

2000). The Second Circuit has explained that “Subject to certain limited exception, the same consideration and criteria that apply in determining whether the school district’s placement is appropriate should be considered in determining the appropriateness of the parents’ placement…” (Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d at 364 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207 and identifying exceptions). The issue turns on “whether a placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefit. A private placement meeting this standard is one that provides progress not regression.

Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112. “To qualify for reimbursement under the IDEA, Parents need not show that a private placement furnishes every special service necessary to maximize their child’s potential. They need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction.” Gagliardo, 489 R.3d at 112, See, Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65). See also, A.D. and M.D. v. Bd. of Educ., 690 F. Supp. 2d 193 (2d Cir. 2010). It should be noted, however, that while evidence of progress is relevant, it does not in and of itself establish that a private placement is appropriate (Gagliardo, 489 F 3d. at 115 [citing Berger v.

Median City Sch. Dist., 348 F3d 513, 522[6th Cir. 2003][stating that evidence of academic progress at a private school does not establish that the private placement offers adequate and appropriate education under the IDEA”].

The Parents have met their burden in showing that was an appropriate placement for All of the teachers and service providers are New York State certified. The staffing in ’s class with a special education teacher for the class and for each student allows for individualized instruction throughout the day. The school provides a therapeutic environment that is appropriate for utilizing a number of methodologies including and natural environment learning as well as . For related services, they are an in house specialist, a specialist, , , and on staff. There are gyms, an program, a music program, and a .

The program that is created for is individualized and is appropriate to meet his unique special education needs and provide him with educational benefit. He is in a classroom with students and he is taught by a , , and since he is . Tr. 59. He receives , , times per week, and time in a group, for each time; ,

, times per week, and times in a group for , for each time; , , times pewr week, each time; , , time per month;

, times per week in a group, each time; and

. P-F. He has a

plan to specifically deal with the issues that he presents based on an that was conducted. P-G.

has made substantial progress during the 2014-15 school year. He is able to communicate his needs and interact with his peers, his frustration has gone down significantly and his have improved. Tr. 44. He is able to express his wants and needs using at this time. He has learned some and uses an to help with communication. He can now create longer sentences using the and can sustain conversation for longer durations.

He is now able to ask peers to play with him and to use his when he is upset instead of . He no longer struggles with transitions. His skills have improved and he enjoys doing vocational skills. Cognitively he still struggles in all areas but can now count to and

Accordingly, the Parents have met their burden in proving the appropriateness of

.

Prong 3 – Equitable Considerations

The third prong of the Burlington decision requires a balancing of the equities in determining whether reimbursement should be granted.

The IDEA provides that an award of tuition reimbursement may be reduced or denied if notwithstanding they’re being advised that they should do so, parents never inform the CSE of their disagreement with its proposed placement and their intent to place their child in a private school at public expense at the most recent CSE meeting prior to their removal of the child from public school, nor provide the school district with written notice of such information ten business days before such removal. 20 USC 1412

(a)(10)(C)(ii).

Based upon their actions, in terms of equitable considerations, I find that the Parents cooperated with the District and analysis of equitable considerations offers no basis to rule against them.

Based upon foregoing I find that the District did not provide FAPE to for the 2014-2015 school year (Prong 1); that the Parents have met their burden in proving that is an appropriate placement for (Prong 2); and the equities weigh in favor of the Parents (Prong 3).

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the District shall pay the cost of ’s tuition at for the 2014- school year in accordance with the terms of the Contract dated September 18, 2014, in an amount not to exceed - ( ) Dollars for the 2014-15 school year, upon proof of ’s attendance at the for said school year.

Dated: July 13, 2015

ELISE B. KESTENBAUM, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

Within 35 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to appeal the decision to the State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

“The notice of intention to seek review shall be served upon the school district not less than 10 days before service of a copy of the petition for review upon such school district, and within 25 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. The petition for review shall be served upon the school district within 35 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. If the decision has been served by mail upon petitioner, the date of mailing and the four days subsequent thereto shall be excluded in computing the 25- or 35-day period. ” (8NYCRR279.2[b]) Failure to file the notice of intention to seek review is a waiver of the right to appeal this decision.

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

Appendix A

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD

Parents’ Exhibits

No. Date Document Pages

A. 3/15/2015 Parent’s Impartial Hearing Request 3

B. 9/18/2014

( ) Contract 3

C. 5/3/2015 Affidavit 1

D. 2014-2015 Class Schedule 1

E. undated Program Overview 2

F. 2014-2015 Schedule 1

G. 2014-2015 3

H. 9/15/14, 4/30/15 1

I. 9/28/1014 Initial Evaluation 4

J. 5/5/2015 Summary of Educational Progress 2

K. 5/7/2015 Summary of Clinical Progress 3

L. 9/3/2014 Initial Assessment 2

M. 3/30/2015 Midyear Progress Update 2

N. 9/3/2014 Initial Assessment 2

O. 5/5/2015 Progress Report 2

P. 9/18/2014 Assessment 3

Q. 1/ /2015 and Progress Note 3

R. 2014-2015 Annual Goals 4

A. 3/ /2015 Parent’s Impartial Hearing Request 3

B. 9/18/2014

( ) Contract 3

C. 5/3/2015 Affidavit 1

D. 2014-2015 Class Schedule 1

E. undated Program Overview 2

F. 2014-2015 Schedule 1

G. 2014-2015 3

H. 9/ / , 4/30/ ^[1]

I. 9/28/1014 Initial Evaluation 4

J. 5/5/2015 Summary of Educational Progress 2

K. 5/7/2015 Summary of Clinical Progress 3

L. 9/3/2014 Initial Assessment 2

M. 3/30/2015 Midyear Progress Update 2

N. 9/3/2014 Initial Assessment 2

O. 5/5/2015 Progress Report 2

P. 9/18/2014 Assessment 3

Q. 1/ /2015 and Progress Note 3

R. 2014-2015 Annual Goals 4

District’s Exhibits

Footnotes

[1] 10/22/2013 IEP 16