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: February 11, 2014

August 18, 2014 (Via E-Mail)

September 11, 2014

January 8, 2015

Actual Record Closed Date: February 24, 2015

Hearing Officer: , Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

Name Title For Date DOE Representative DOE 02/11/14

(Conference Call) 08/14/14 09/11/14 Attorney PARENT 02/11/14

(Conference Call) 08/14/14 09/11/14 Attorney PARENT 09/11/14 - *did not appear* PARENT 09/11/14 01/08/15

On December 11, 2013, I was appointed the Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) to conduct an impartial hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 USC § 1415(f)(3), Article 89 of the New York State Education Law, Part 200 of the Regulations of the New York State Commissioner of Education and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, concerning a dispute between the Parents of a (5) year old student alleged in the Due Process Complaint (“DPC”) to be currently out of school and the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) - District 28, regarding that student’s special education program. I was appointed after the recusal of at least one other IHO. After adjournments were granted on consent of the parties or for cause, the impartial hearing was held on February 11, 2014, September 11, 2014 and January 8, 2015. A request by the Parent to submit a written closing statement was joined by the DOE. (T-106-7) Accordingly, the Parties’ written closing statements were due on February 6, 2015. (Id.) The Parent’s written closing statement was timely received. The

DOE did not submit a closing statement. A list of the persons who appeared at the hearing and the documents received in evidence in annexed hereto.

BACKGROUND

This case involves a ( ) year old student who is alleged to have received based (“ ”). (DPC) In the Spring of 2011, the student received a “social history” “ ” “ ” “ ” (Id.) As part of his “turning five” assessment, the student received a psycho-educational assessment, an “ ” “ ” and a social history update. (Id.) The Parents subsequently obtained an Independent Educational Evaluation (“IEE”) for . (Id.)

The Parents further allege that an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”)

meeting was held for the student on July 22, 2013 which added “related services” but did not provide for services. (Id.) The Parents allege that the resulting IEP is both substantively and procedurally flawed for numerous reasons. (Id.) The Parents also allege that the DOE did not issue a Final Notice of Recommendation (“FNR”) but that they did conduct a “parent visit.” (Id.) The Parents allege that they did not receive “Prior Written Notice” (“PWN”) as required by law and that they service notice of the concerns to the Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) on July 26, 2013. (Id.) At the impartial hearing, the Parents seek the following relief:

(a) An order that the DOE must fund [student’s name] pendency, which consists of the following:

(i) Placement at in a class room that employs the methodology

(ii) ( , );

(iii) ( and );

(iv) , and );

(v) / services; and

(vi) Special Education transportation.

(b) If the [student’s name] pendency placement is not available, the DOE must should order a substantially equivalent program;

(c) A declaration of rights in favor of the Parents that the DOE's policies and actions complained of herein are illegal and should not be applied to [student name] going forward;

(d) A finding that the DOE has failed to provide [student name] with a FAPE for the school years in question;

(e) The DOE must fund the following independent evaluations:

(i) A comprehensive observation and assessment by a ; (ii) An independent evaluation that includes a profile;

(iii) An independent evaluation;

(iv) An independent evaluation; and

(v) Any other evaluations that is necessary to develop a comprehensive picture of the [student’s name] and .

(f) A final order directing the DOE to develop an IEP for [student name] that offers a FAPE and includes, at a minimum, the following:

(i) Placement at (or a substantially similar program, if necessary);

(ii) goals and services;

(iii) goals and services;

(iv) goals and services;

(v) ;

(vi) ;

(vii) Parent training;

(viii) Special education transportation; and;

(ix) A month school year.

(g) If any of the above-referenced pendency or IEP services must be provided by outside providers (through RSAs or otherwise) the Parents should be authorized for enhanced rates as may be necessary to ensure that [student name] receives the services;

(h) The DOE must fund any transportation costs that the Parents may incur in order for [student name] to receive his pendency or IEP services (through direct payment or reimbursement, if applicable);

(i) The Parents are entitled to prospective funding for a non-public school program;

(j) The Parents are entitled to compensatory education, additional and/or make-up services based on the denial of a FAPE for the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years and any failure to implement [student’s name] pendency. Such relief should include, at a minimum, instruction, services,

;

(k) The IHO should order additional relief that may be warranted and appropriate as of the time that the impartial hearing officer is ready to issue a final order, but which may not have been known to the Parents as of the time of filing.

A “pendency hearing” was held on February 11, 2014. The DOE was represented by Mr. . The Parent was represented by the law office of , LLP, attorney assigned. Both sides made oral arguments on the record concerning the issue of pendency. A motion schedule was then set as follows:

Parents’ motion papers to be served and filed by February 18, 2014, the DOE ’s opposition papers by February 24, 2014 and the Parents’ reply papers, if any by February 28, 2014. On February 17, 2014, counsel for the Parents sent the following e-mail:

I am writing to inform everyone that I

. I know I had agreed to submit a memo

of support for interim order for related services tomorrow. I will not be able to meet the deadline we previously agreed to. will be temporarily covering the case while I am . I am asking on her behalf for the case to be rescheduled for a date and time that is convenient for her and for her to be extended time on the memo for the interim order by one week.

The Parents’ application was granted and a “Motion for Pendency” and a Memorandum of Law regarding the same was received from the Parent on February 28, 2014. No opposition papers were submitted or received from the DOE.

On February 28, 2014, the following Order on Pendency was issued in this case:

ORDERED that the DOE shall continue the student's pendency placement and related services pursuant only to the student's IEP dated April 17, 2013 (P-B); and it is further

ORDERED that a copy of the student's IEP dated April 17, 2013

(P-B) shall accompany this decision for reference.

Pursuant to a telephone conference call held on August 14, 2014 and the parties’ subsequent agreement via e-mail, the following “amended” Order on Pendency was issued on August 24, 2014:

ORDERED that the DOE shall continue the student’s pendency placement and related services pursuant only to the student’s IEP dated April 17, 2013 (P-B); and it is further

ORDERED that a copy of the student’s IEP dated April 17, 2013 (P-

B) shall accompany this decision for reference; and it is further

ORDERED that pursuant to the parties’ agreement on August 18, 2014 (IHO-01), the Order on Pendency issued on February 27, 2014 is herewith amended on consent of the parties and the student shall additionally receive “ ” services ( , and , ) and “ ” services ( , and , ), throughout the pendency of this matter, the costs of which shall be paid by the DOE upon its receipt of reasonably satisfactory proof that said services have been rendered.

On or about August 22, 2014, the Parent filed a new DPC for the student’s 20142015 school which assigned New York City (“NYC”) Case # , alleging the same factual denial of a “free and appropriate public education” (“FAPE”) and seeking almost identically the same relief sought in the DPC for Case # . (T-43, P-A & P-N)

On September 11, 2014, the parties appeared to begin the impartial hearing. The agency conceded that it denied that it denied the student a FAPE for the 2012-2013, 2013- 2014 and 2014-2015 school years. (T-41, 46-7 & 53) The DOE also conceded that “ ” is an appropriate placement for the student. (T-56) The DOE further stated that the case has been submitted for settlement. (T-56-7) Because the DOE has conceded the aforementioned and the student has received services under pendency going back to October of 2013, as well as the DOE’s concession in its own evaluations and IEPs that the student requires “ ” “ ” (P-B, P-C, P-D, P-E & P-L), the dispute in the case solely revolves around the Parent’s request for services for the student. (T-56)

The DOE argued that the Parent’s two DPCs should not be consolidated because the cases involve different Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) meetings, with different persons attending and different documents reviewed. The Parent argued that in both cases she alleges the same continuous depravation of FAPE and requests the same relief. After consideration, the following “Order of Consolidation” was issued on September 11, 2014:

ORDERED that the Parent’s DPCs filed under Case # and Case # are herewith consolidated before the undersigned IHO.

FINDINGS OF FACTS & DECISION

IDEA ensures that students with disabilities are afforded a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”). (20 U.S.C. § 1400 & Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S.Ct. 528 (2005)) A FAPE includes special education and related services designed to meet the student’s unique needs, provided in conformity with a comprehensive written IEP. (20 U.S.C. 1401(8) & 141(d) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.13) The burden of proof in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief. (Schaffer, 126 S.Ct. 528, 537)

The DOE may be required to reimburse Parents for their expenditures for private educational services obtained for a student, if the services offered by the DOE were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the Parents are appropriate and equitable considerations support the parent’s claim. (Sch. Comm. Of Burlington v. Dept.

of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (1985), Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993), Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 (2nd Cir. 2005))

The first step is to determine whether the DOE offered to provide the student a FAPE. (Mrs. C. v. Voluntown, 226 F.3d 60, 66 (2nd Cir. 2000)) A FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the DOE complies with procedural requirements set forth in IDEA and

(b) the IEP developed by the CSE through the procedures set forth in IDEA, is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits. (Bd. Of Educ. V.

Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-7 (1982)) The student’s recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (“LRE”). (20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A), 34

C.F.R. § 300.550(b), 8 NYCRR §200.6(a)(1))

The Parent bears the burden of showing that the private school placement selected is appropriate. (SRO Nos.: 95-57, 94-29 & 93-34) The Parents must show that the private school placement offers an educational program that meets the student’s special education needs. (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370 & SRO No. 94-20) The private school need not be approved by the state educational agency to provide instruction to children with disabilities. (Florence County School District Four et. al. v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993)). It is also not required that the private school employ certified special education teachers, or have its own IEP for the student. (SRO No. 94-20)

Finally, the IHO must consider whether equitable considerations favor the Parents' request for tuition reimbursement. State Review Officer (“SRO”) Decision 06-004 holds:

Equitable considerations are relevant to fashioning relief under the IDEA (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374; M. C. v. Voluntown Bd. of Educ., 226 F.3d 60, 68 [2d Cir. 2000]; see Carter, 510 U.S. at 16 ["Courts fashioning discretionary equitable relief under IDEA must consider all relevant factors, including the appropriate and reasonable level of reimbursement that should be required"]). Such considerations "include the parties' compliance or noncompliance with state and federal regulations pending review, the reasonableness of the parties' positions, and like matters" (Wolfe v. Taconic Hills Cent. Sch. Dist., 167 F. Supp. 2d 530, 533 [N.D.N.Y. 2001], citing Town of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 736 F.2d at 773, 801-02 [1st Cir. 1984], aff'd, 471 U.S. 359 [1985]). With respect to equitable considerations, a parent may be denied tuition reimbursement upon a finding of a failure to cooperate with the CSE in the development of an IEP or if the parent's conduct precluded the CSE's ability to develop an appropriate IEP (Warren G. v. Cumberland Co. Sch. Dist., 190 F.3d 80, 86 [3rd Cir. 1999]; see Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 04-

102; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 04-026). In the absence of evidence demonstrating that petitioners failed to cooperate in the development of the IEP or otherwise engaged in conduct that precluded the development of an appropriate IEP, or failed to give proper notice, equitable considerations generally support a claim of tuition reimbursement. (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-

049).

As stated above, the DOE 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 DOE were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the Parents were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the Parents' claim.

(Carter and Burlington, supra)

In Burlington, the Court found that Congress intended retroactive reimbursement to Parents by school officials as an available remedy in a proper case under the IDEA.

(Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370-71, Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 111 [2d Cir. 2007] and Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186 at 192 [2d Cir.

2005]) “Reimbursement merely requires [a district] 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, 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][ii] and 34

C.F.R. § 300.148)

The DOE concedes that it did not offer the student a FAPE for the 2012-2013, 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years. (T-53-6) The agency did not call any witnesses nor did it submit any documents in evidence. The DOE offered no substantive rebuttal to the Parent’s claims.

I find that there has been a clear “gross” violation of FAPE as the agency concedes that it has not offered the student a FAPE for three consecutive years. Equitable considerations also do not favor the agency. It is unconscionable that the DOE would take this case to a hearing only to concede that is has denied the student a FAPE for three consecutive years.

A gross violation of the IDEA may result from the denial of, or exclusion from, educational services for a substantial period of time. (See SRO Decision 04-074, citing Mrs. C. v. Wheaton, 916 F.2d 69 (2d Cir. 1990), Burr v. Ambach, 863 F.2d 1071 (2d Cir.

1988) and SRO Decision 02-047) In Burr, exclusion from educational services for a substantial period of time was defined as “almost two years.” (See SRO Decision 02-033 citing Burr) Here, the denial of FAPE is conceded to be three years. As such, I find that the DOE concession that is has failed to afford the student a FAPE for three consecutive school years constitutes a gross violation of IDEA.

In SRO Decision 05-062, the State Review Officer addressed the remedy for a gross violation of FAPE in the context of compensatory/additional educational services follows:

I agree with respondent’s contention, given the facts of this case, that the Burlington analysis is not the most appropriate analysis for petitioner’s request for , as the essence of petitioner’s claim is that respondent did not provide a FAPE to the student at and that additional services at are an appropriate remedial remedy….Compensatory education is instruction provided to a student after he or she is no longer eligible because of age or graduation to receive instruction. It may be awarded if there has been a gross violation of the IDEA resulting in the denial of, or exclusion from, educational services for a substantial period of time (Mrs. C. v. Wheaton, 916 F.2d 69 [2d Cir.

1990]; Burr v. Ambach, 863 F.2d 1071 [2d Cir. 1988])….Here any deprivation of instruction can be remedied through the provision of additional services before the student becomes ineligible for instruction (Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 04-016; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 03-075; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-094). State Review Officers have awarded equitable relief in the form of additional educational services to students who remain eligible to attend school and have been denied appropriate services, if such deprivation of instruction could be remedied through the provision of additional services before the student becomes ineligible for instruction by reason of age or graduation (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-042; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No.

02-030). In general, the award of additional educational services, for a student who is still eligible for instruction, requires a finding that the student has been denied a FAPE (Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 04-085; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 02-047)

Having already found a gross violation of FAPE in this case, I look at the first criteria to determine what additional services may be warranted here. I find that the record in this matter does contain sufficient information to determine the student needs.

The DOE’s own evaluations recommend that the student receive both “ ” “ ” services. (P-D & P-E) The agency also stated the following: “The district holds that it has indeed conceded FAPE for the 2014-2015 school year, and the District still holds that affords [student name] all that is needed for a free and appropriate education - -

I’m sorry, an appropriate education for [student name]. However, the District does not hold that services are needed for this child.” (T-56) Accordingly, there is no dispute that the student’s placement at is appropriate.

The Parent submitted in evidence a “ - Assessment Report” dated July 19, 2014, supported by the provider’s testimony. (T-63-90 & P-R) The resulting recommendations are as follows:

[Student’s name]

. Therefore, due to [student’s name]

(e.g., I PAD).

[Student name] displays symptoms of

. Therefore it is highly recommended

that [student name] receive - services in the and . These should include a

.

In addition, the use of

. For example, during a typical - session, [student name] would

.

The quality and amount of - services should be guided by empirically-supported research published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. For example, numerous studies have demonstrated that children with services show higher gains and better overall functioning in important domains when compared to who do not receive this amount of services. Therefore, based on the severity of , it is strongly recommended that [student name] be considered for at least hours of - to address the noted issues. [Student’s name]

mother reports that due to [student’s name] school schedule, she would most likely accept between hours of - in the and

.

[Student’s name] frequent display of

. Teaching [student

name]

During the provider’s cross examination by the DOE, he sated that he observed the student at for approximately . (T-92) He further testified that he student . (Id.) The report provider also confirmed that the student is diagnosed with “ ” (T-95)

He also testified that he observed the student at school for approximately ( ) minutes.

(T-99) The report provider agreed that there is at “ ” “ ”, but instead, using sessions. (T-100-1) As far as he knows, nobody was providing “ ” to the student at . (T-103) The report provider’s findings and recommendations were uncontroverted during his cross examination by the DOE. (T-91-104) Accordingly, I adopt his findings and recommendations. I find that there is sufficient evidence in the record to determine that the student requires services. The DOE cross examination did not establish that additional services are inappropriate for the student.

As noted above, compensatory education is instruction provided to a student after he or she is no longer eligible because of age or graduation to receive instruction. It may be awarded if there has been a gross violation of the IDEA resulting in the denial of, or exclusion from, educational services for a substantial period of time. (Supra)

Compensatory education is an equitable remedy that is tailored to meet the circumstances of the case. (Id. citing (Wenger v. Canastota, 979 F. Supp. 147 [N.D.N.Y. 1997]) While compensatory education is a remedy that is available to students who are no longer eligible for instruction, State Review Officers have awarded "additional services" to students who remain eligible to attend school and have been denied appropriate services, if such deprivation of instruction could be remedied through the provision of additional services before the student becomes ineligible for instruction by reason of age or graduation. (Id. citing SRO Nos. 02-047, 02-042 & 02-030) I hold that evidence sustained a finding of a gross violation of FAPE and that the student is entitled to additional services.

The Parent herein also requests numerous “Independent Educational Evaluations” -

“IEE”.) (P-A & P-N) If the Parent disagrees with an evaluation obtained by the school district, the Parent has a right to obtain an independent evaluation at public expense.

(Regulations of the Commissioner of Education § 200.5(g)(“NYCRR § 200.5”)) If the Parent request an independent educational evaluation at public expense, the school district must, without unnecessary delay, either ensure an independent evaluation is provided at public expense or initiate an impartial hearing to show that its evaluation is appropriate or that the evaluation obtained by the Parent does not meet the school district criteria. (8 NYCRR § 200.5(g)(iv)) Additionally, 34 C.F.R. 300.502(d) and 8 NYCRR 200.5(i)(3)(vi)

provide that if a hearing officer requests an independent educational evaluation as part of a hearing, the cost of the evaluation must be at public expense.

Here, the DOE clearly did not initiate an impartial hearing to show that its evaluation is appropriate or that the evaluation obtained by the Parent does not meet the school district criteria. The - assessor has recommended that the student should be considered for an . (P-R) The Parent asserts that the student’s and evaluations were conducted during the summer, and as such that information was not garnered from actual classroom observations of the child. (P-Y) In accordance with the aforementioned, I find that the Parent is entitled to receive the requested IEEs at costs to the agency.

In this matter, equitable considerations strongly favor the Parent in that the DOE did not comply with the City’s new policy to settle cases like this one, and instead protracted the litigation of this matter unnecessarily. On June 24, 2014, the Mayor of the City of New York announced the new policy which was implemented on September 1, 2014. The new policy is as follows:

Expedite Decisions: Where settlement is appropriate, DOE will seek settlement within (15) days of receiving notice of parent intent to unilaterally place their child in a school.

Reduce Extended Legal Battles: The DOE will refrain from re-litigating settled or decided cases, unless there is a change in the IEP placement recommendation.

The DOE will avoid unnecessary litigation in cases where the agency is unable to offer a placement, or when a child is about to enter the final grade of a school.

Reduce Paperwork: Instead of requiring parents to submit full documentation every year, the DOE will only require that paperwork every three years, allowing for income eligibility updates to be made each year, as needed.

Expedite Payments: DOE will make tuition payments on a monthly basis when required by a program, and it will provide a payment schedule to parents following any settlement. Once parents win a claim for tuition reimbursement, the DOE will pay the tuition while the DOE appeals that decision to a higher level of review.

The agency’s failure to adhere to the Mayor’s new policy, to force this matter to a hearing, to produce no evidence whatsoever for its case, or against the Parent’s case and to protract the litigation only to then concede that it has not offered the student a FAPE for three consecutive years is unconscionable and plainly unfair. Equitable considerations in this case run strongly against the agency and in favor of the Parent.

NOW therefore, hereby

ORDERED that the student shall continue his placement at in a “ ” class room that employs the methodology and receive the following related services of for the remainder of the 2014-2015 school year and that upon its receipt of reasonably satisfactory proof of services having been rendered, the DOE shall pay the costs for the same, either retroactively, prospectively or by directly funding the student’s services, and it is further

ORDERED that the student’s 2014-2015 school year is extended to include the 2014-2015 session; and is further

ORDERED that the student shall receive special education transportation for the remainder of the 2014-2015 school year, including the session, the costs of which shall be paid by the DOE; and it is further

ORDERED that the Parent shall receive the following Independent Educational Evaluations the cost of which shall be paid by the DOE upon its receipt of reasonably satisfactory proof of services having been rendered: (1) a comprehensive observation and assessment by a (here already performed - see P-R), (2) an independent evaluation that includes a , (3) an independent evaluation, and (4), an independent evaluation; and it is further

ORDERED that upon its recent of the student’s Independent Educational Evaluation and the conduct of any other evaluations it deems appropriate, the CSE shall immediately reconvene and produce a new IEP for the student’s 2015-2016 school year that encompasses the results and recommendations of the student’s evaluations; and it is further

ORDERED that upon its receipt of reasonably satisfactory proof of services having been render, the DOE shall pay the costs of the student’s receipt of ( ) hours per week of after-school/ instruction in a “ ” ratio; and it is further

ORDERED that upon its receipt of reasonably satisfactory proof of services having been render, the DOE shall pay the costs of the Parent’s receipt of , in an amount commensurate with the student’s receipt of services at and at school to be recommended by the student’s providers and and at school; and it is further

ORDERED that if any of the above-referenced services must be provided by outside providers (through RSAs or otherwise) the Parent is authorized to receive payment from the DOE at an enhanced rate as may be necessary to ensure that the receives the services; and it is further

ORDERED that the student shall receive any of the services order herein, the costs of which shall be paid by the DOE, in an amount retroactive to the begin of the 2014-2015 school year and inclusive of any sessions he missed from the beginning of the school year to date, as an award of compensatory educational and/or additional services to make-up services he has missed.

Dated: February 24, 2015

, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

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

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

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

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD

Number/Letter Title Dated For # of Pages

N/A N/A N/A DOE N/A

A DPC - Case # 10/01/13 PARENT 12

B IEP 04/17/13 PARENT 17

C IEP 07/22/13 PARENT 14

D Report 07/15/13 PARENT 04

E Evaluation ` 07/15/13 PARENT 05

F & Evaluation 05/29/13 PARENT 05

G Parent Letter 07/13+08/13 PARENT 03

H DPC - Case # 08/22/14 PARENT 10

I Program Mastery Sheet 2013-2014 PARENT 22

J Curriculum List 2013-2014 PARENT 03

K Progress Note 03/14/14 PARENT 06

L IEP 06/19/14 PARENT 26

M Memorandum of Law 02/08/14 PARENT 09

N Impartial Hearing Request 08/22/14 PARENT 10

O Progress Report 3rd Qtr. 06/27/14 PARENT 03

P Rationale 07/03/14 PARENT 01

Q School Observation 08/04/14 PARENT 03

R Observation 07/19/14 PARENT 05

S List for Student 10/13-01/14 PARENT 03

T Order on Pendency - Amended 08/26/14 PARENT 12

U C.V. - 2014 PARENT 06

V Progress Note 08/15/14 PARENT 03

W IEP 06/25/12 PARENT 18

X Quarterly Progress Note 12/23/14 PARENT 11

Y Closing Statement 02/06/15 PARENT 27

I E-Mail - DOE Agrees to 08/18/14 IHO 07

II E-Mail - DOE Rest on Record 02/10/15 IHO 02