Impartial Hearing Decision

UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

X In the Matter of the Impartial Hearing brought by and , on behalf of , Petitioners, -against-

DISTRICT,

Respondent. X

INTRODUCTION AND POSITION OF THE PARTIES

This hearing is held pursuant to Section 200.5(j) of the Regulations of the New York State Commissioner of Education, 8 N.Y.C.R.R. Section 200.5(j). Petitioners XXXX and XXXX, (the “Parents”), requested an Impartial Hearing on behalf of their child, XXXX, (the “Student”), contesting on procedural and substantive grounds, the appropriateness of IEP and placement recommendations made by the District’s Committee on Special Education (the “CSE”) for the Student for the XXXX school year. The Parents seek annulment of the IEP for the XXXX school year; reimbursement for tuition and related expenses for the Student’s unilateral placement at (“XXXX”), for the XXXX school year; reimbursement for transportation expenses incurred by them; provision of an appropriate IEP; payment of attorney’s fees and expenses associated with their legal representation; and provision of any further relief, including compensatory education, which the Hearing Officer deems just and proper (Ex. IHO-3).

The District asserts denials in its Answer and also asserts that it offered an appropriate educational program, together with appropriate related services and various program modifications for the Student for the XXXX school year which were reasonably calculated to produce meaningful educational benefit in the least restrictive environment (“LRE”). Moreover, that the Parents’ claims that the District failed to conduct a XXXX, and failed to recommend appropriate XXXX was wholly without merit. In addition, that the District was not required to maximize the Student’s potential; that the Student was meeting grade level expectations in all areas with supports recommended on the Student’s previous IEPs; that the CSE properly determined that the supports recommended on the XXXX IEP were reasonably calculated to produce meaningful educational benefit in the LRE; that XXXX was not appropriate and did not constitute the LRE for the Student; that the Student functioned in the XXXX range in all academic skill areas; that there is no evidence that the Student was unable to make progress in a public school setting with supports; that a private school is not required for the Student to make progress; that XXXX is not a XXXX program and did not offer the Student access to XXXX; that the Student had to be removed from XXXX because the school was not able to address XXXX; that XXXX did not provide the Student with access to the New York State common core curriculum or to “highly qualified teachers;” and that XXXX did not offer the Student with access to XXXX. The District also asserts that equitable considerations preclude a recovery of tuition reimbursement (Ex. D-2).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In a Due Process Complaint Notice dated XXXX, the Parents requested an Impartial Hearing to compel payment by the District for tuition and related expenses for the Student’s unilateral placement in XXXX for the XXXX school year (Ex. IHO-3).

In a letter dated XXXX, I was advised of my selection and appointment as Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) in this matter (Ex. IHO-1).

On July 29, 2014, a pre-hearing telephone conference was held for the purpose of clarifying the issues. Tentative hearing dates were also scheduled (Ex. IHO-6). On XXXX, the Parents requested XXXX. On August 1, 2014, their application was denied (Ex. IHO-8).

There were a total of 19 days of hearing in this matter. Hearings commenced on September 23, 2014, and continued on September 29, 2014, October 20, 2014, October 21, 2014, October 29, 2014, November 25, 2014, December 12, 2014, December 15, 2014, December 17, 2014, January 14, 2015, February 17, 2015, May 28, 2015, July 23, 2015, July 24, 2015, November 10, 2015, November 17, 2015, December 2, 2015, December 15, 2015, and December 22, 2015 (Tr. pp. 1-4378) ^[1]. On January 12, 2015, the IHO issued a written Interim Decision and Order on an evidentiary issue raised by the Parents (Ex. IHO-15). The District presented 6 witnesses on its direct case. The Parents presented 10 witnesses on their direct case. The District presented 1 witness on its rebuttal case. The transcript is 4,424 pages in length. The District submitted a total of 46 exhibits. The Parents submitted a total of 88 exhibits. The Impartial Hearing Officer submitted a total of 32 exhibits. The Impartial Hearing Officer granted a total of 20 requests for extension of the 45 day rule. The actual record close date was April 26, 2016. The IHO’s decision was due on May 4, 2016 (Ex. IHO-30). Both parties submitted post-hearing briefs (Exs. IHO-31, IHO-32).

ISSUES

In their Due Process Complaint Notice, the Parents state that the District failed to provide the Student with a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the XXXX school year. They state that the District failed to provide an appropriate program and placement for the XXXX school year which adequately addressed the Student’s XXXX needs; that the District failed to XXXX for the XXXX school year; that it failed to XXXX; that it failed to offer adequate XXXX for the XXXX school year, including XXXX for or during the XXXX school year; that it failed to use an appropriate, scientifically-based methodology and/or strategy based on peer-reviewed research to address the Student’s XXXX for the XXXX school year; that it failed to appropriately address XXXX; that it failed to offer XXXX for the XXXX school year; that it failed to provide appropriate XXXX; that it failed to provide adequate XXXX; that it failed to provide appropriate XXXX; that XXXX was an appropriate placement for the Student for the XXXX school year; and that the equities weigh in favor of reimbursement to the Parents (Ex. IHO-3).

The District asserts that the CSE’s recommendations for the XXXX school year provided a FAPE in the LRE and were reasonably calculated to produce meaningful educational benefit; that the Student made XXXX in the District’s programs during XXXX; that his XXXX scores fell within the XXXX, with the exception of XXXX, which was XXXX; that the CSE’s recommendations for the Student for the XXXX school year, which consisted of placement in XXXX, together with XXXX, together with other program modifications, were appropriate; that the Parents’ claims that the District failed to XXXX are without merit; that the District is not required to maximize the Student’s potential; that the Student was XXXX with supports recommended by the CSE in previous IEPs; that the CSE properly determined that the supports recommended on the XXXX IEP were reasonably calculated to produce meaningful educational benefit in the LRE; that XXXX is not appropriate and does not constitute the Student’s LRE; and that equitable considerations preclude a recovery of tuition reimbursement (Ex. D-2).

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Student, born on XXXX, is currently XXXX years old. ^[2] The Student XXXX.

The Student XXXX. Complete information regarding the Student’s history XXXX.

The Student has been diagnosed with XXXX (Exs. P-A at p. 2; P-QQQ at p. 6; P- ZZZ at pp. 8-11; P-DDDD; D-24 at pp. 15, 17-18; D-26 at p. 63).

In or about XXXX, the Parents referred the Student to the CSE for evaluation during his XXXX (Exs. P-XXX, P-YYY). He received XXXX including XXXX. The classroom teacher reported significant improvements in XXXX (Ex. D-4 at pp. 1-2). The Parents provided XXXX for the Student during the XXXX school year (Ex. P-EEEE at pp. 1-5).

The CSE considered XXXX (Ex. D-4 at pp. 2-3). On XXXX, the CSE found the Student to be XXXX, noting that the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education XXXX. The CSE requested a XXXX evaluation and recommended XXXX (Exs. D-4 at p. 2, P-OOO).

On XXXX, the Parent provided written consent for XXXX to XXXX, a XXXX, who performed a XXXX for the Student (Exs. P-PPP, P-QQQ, P-SSS at p. 1). XXXX, it was noted that XXXX (Ex. P-QQQ at p. 6). XXXX reported that, soon after XXXX. His XXXX – he had to XXXX (Ex. P-QQQ at p. 7). XXXX found that the Student’s background was significant for XXXX (Ex. P-QQQ at p. 8).

Results of cognitive testing by XXXX showed a child with XXXX (Ex. P-QQQ at p. 20).

In the area of XXXX testing, XXXX reported that the Student XXXX (Ex. P-QQQ at pp. 23-24).

The Student’s XXXX skills were comparable to XXXX, entering the XXXX grade. XXXX concluded that the Student’s XXXX. He had the academic foundation to benefit from XXXX with XXXX. Two areas of remediation identified during the academic assessment were XXXX (Ex. P-QQQ at p. 28).

XXXX characterized the Student’s XXXX. The Student had XXXX (Ex. P-QQQ at p. 32).

XXXX recommended classification for the Student as XXXX, as it reflected the XXXX (Ex. P-QQQ at p. 33). He also made specific educational recommendations for the Student regarding XXXX. XXXX also recommended XXXX (Ex. P-QQQ at p. 38). XXXX discounted the validity of a XXXX obtained by the District through XXXX and performed by XXXX (Exs. P-RRR, P-VVV).

On October 21, 2009, the CSE reconvened and reviewed additional evaluations and the Student’s progress. XXXX reviewed his evaluation and made recommendations during the meeting. The Parent reviewed the Student’s XXXX. The XXXX teacher, the XXXX teacher, and the Student’s XXXX discussed the Student’s XXXX. The CSE reviewed a letter from XXXX, regarding XXXX (Ex. P-MMM). The CSE also reviewed a XXXX by XXXX (Ex. P-WWW); a letter from XXXX identified as “XXXX” regarding the Student’s XXXX, his use of XXXX, an additional letter from a XXXX identified as “XXXX” indicating a XXXX; a private XXXX; a report from “XXXX” suggesting XXXX; a private XXXX report; a private XXXX (Ex. P-TTT); and input from the District’s XXXX who reported on the Student’s XXXX (Ex. P-JJJ at p. 6). In addition to XXXX testing in the areas of XXXX (Ex. P-UUU) and XXXX, the Parents arranged for XXXX (Exs. P-JJJ at pp. 6-7, P-QQQ at p. 8, P-UUU). The documentary evidence also includes XXXX (Exs. P-KKK, P-LLL).

Based on all of the information presented, the CSE determined to classify the Student as XXXX. He was placed in XXXX (“XXXX”) in the XXXX grade. His XXXX included XXXX. The IEP contained a notation that XXXX. XXXX included XXXX. XXXX included XXXX. The IEP also contained annual goals in the areas of XXXX (Ex. P-JJJ). In addition, the Parents provided the Student with XXXX, including XXXX (Tr. pp. 3616-3632, 3637, 3639-3644, 3661; Ex. P-EEEE). The Student had XXXX in XXXX and XXXX, and there was discussion about XXXX (“XXXX”) (Tr. pp. 3320-3321, 4365; Exs. P-CCC, P-DDD, P-EEE, P-FFF, P-HHH, P-III). The Student was XXXX on XXXX (Ex. P-BBB).

The record reflects that the Student XXXX. The Parents requested that XXXX. They also requested a CSE meeting to review XXXX (Ex. P-ZZ).

For the XXXX school year, the Student was placed at XXXX. He received XXXX. XXXX included XXXX. XXXX included XXXX (Ex. P-YY).

The CSE meeting minutes reflect that the Parents reported XXXX, which was being addressed through XXXX. The XXXX reported XXXX. The XXXX reported that the Student was XXXX. Implementation of XXXX was discussed but placed on hold until XXXX (Ex. P-YY at p. 6). The IEP contained annual goals in the areas of XXXX (Ex. P-YY at pp. 7-9).

The record reflects that as of XXXX, the Student’s XXXX was XXXX (Exs. P- WW, P-XX). XXXX prepared XXXX (Tr. pp. 408-409; Exs. P-TT, P-XX).

In XXXX, XXXX, together with XXXX and XXXX, met to XXXX (Ex. P-CCCC). On XXXX, the Parent consented for XXXX (Ex. P-VV).

On January 5, 2011, the CSE reconvened for XXXX. The CSE minutes reflect that XXXX (Tr. pp. 408-409; Exs. D-8 at pp. 5-6, P-TT, P-XX).

For the remainder of the XXXX school year, the CSE recommended XXXX. He was XXXX. He continued to XXXX (Ex. D-8 at pp. 1-2).

Academically, a review of the Student’s XXXX Report Card reveals that in the area of XXXX (Ex. D-9 at p. 1). Narrative information indicates that XXXX (Ex. D-9 at p. 3). Overall, XXXX (Ex. D-9 at p. 4).

Testing XXXX (Ex. D-12 at p. 2).

A review of the Student’s XXXX. In the area of XXXX. In the area of XXXX. In the XXXX area, the Student XXXX (Ex. D-11 at pp. 9-13).

At a CSE meeting held on XXXX for the XXXX school year, the CSE recommended XXXX. It also continued to recommend XXXX (Ex. D-12 at pp. 1, 10). The Student would also XXXX (Ex. D-12 at p. 2). The CSE continued to recommend XXXX. It also continued to recommend XXXX (Ex. D-12 at pp. 8-11). The CSE minutes indicate that the Parents XXXX (Ex. D-12 at pp. 1-2).

The documentary evidence shows that the Parents XXXX at XXXX during the XXXX school year. It also shows that the Student XXXX. He was XXXX (Ex. D-14). On XXXX, the CSE met at the Parents’ request and they raised a number of concerns, which they identified as: XXXX (Ex. D-13 at p. 2).

The IEP minutes indicate that XXXX, XXXX, stated that she was not previously aware that XXXX. XXXX also stated that XXXX. The XXXX, XXXX, stated that XXXX (Ex. D-13 at p. 2).

The XXXX, XXXX, stated at the CSE meeting that XXXX (Exs. D-13 at p. 2, D- 21).

The Parent stated at the CSE meeting that XXXX. The XXXX stated XXXX. The Parents XXXX. XXXX. (Exs. D-13 at pp. 2-3; P-V at pp. 1-2).

The XXXX. In an e-mail dated XXXX, the Parents XXXX (Ex. D-22). On XXXX, the Parents requested XXXX to the XXXX in XXXX for the XXXX school year. They also stated that they XXXX (Ex. D-23).

The CSE was scheduled to convene to make recommendations for the Student’s educational program for the XXXX school year. The Parents requested XXXX. They also stated XXXX (Ex. P-R).

At a CSE meeting held on XXXX for the XXXX school year, the CSE XXXX (Ex. D-27 at pp. 4, 16).

The CSE XXXX including XXXX. The Student XXXX. The CSE also recommended XXXX (Ex. D-27 at pp. 16-19).

The IEP for the XXXX school year contained XXXX (Ex. D-27 at pp. 13-16). The CSE minutes reflect XXXX (Ex. D-27 at p. 4). The Parents XXXX (Exs. D-26 at pp. 2-3; D-27 at p. 4). The Parents ultimately determined XXXX (Exs. P-G, P-J, P-K, P-N, P-O).

At the time of her testimony, XXXX was the District’s XXXX. She XXXX. (Tr. pp. 98-104).

XXXX testified that the Student XXXX. The XXXX was described to XXXX by the Parents as XXXX. The Student was XXXX in XXXX and was provided with XXXX (Tr. pp. 106-109, 117, 218, 3624; Ex. D-24 at p. 20).

XXXX confirmed that the Parents referred the Student to the CSE in XXXX, prior to the time she was XXXX. The Parents signed consent for evaluation in XXXX. The District requested a XXXX from XXXX, but they XXXX. XXXX referred the District to XXXX, but XXXX. During that time, the Student continued in XXXX, and the District kept in contact with the Parents. When XXXX. The District found out after the XXXX that XXXX. By XXXX, the Student was XXXX. Moreover, he had XXXX (Ex. P-VVV at pp. 6-7). The CSE convened with the Parents in XXXX and determined that XXXX. The Parents XXXX and the CSE agreed. The District XXXX (Tr. pp. 109-113, 218-219, 4348-4350; Exs. P-QQQ, P-RRR, P-VVV).

The CSE XXXX (Tr. pp. 113-114, 221-223; Ex. P-JJJ). The CSE also XXXX (Ex.

P-MMM).

XXXX testified that the CSE XXXX and recommended XXXX. XXXX, the Student XXXX. Although XXXX (Tr. 117-120, 225-227, 415-418; Exs. P-BBB, P-FFF,

P-GGG, P-HHH, P-III).

XXXX testified that the XXXX (Tr. pp. 4364-4370).

XXXX testified that the CSE recommended XXXX. She stated that the Student XXXX. The District started to XXXX (Tr. pp. 120-123; Exs. P-TT, P-XX). XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 122-124, 227-231, 406-408; Ex. P-HH).

The Parent testified XXXX (Tr. pp. 3665-3668).

An XXXX was XXXX (Tr. 231-232; Ex. P-CCCC). XXXX testified that the CSE XXXX (Tr. pp. 125-127, 232-239, 250-252, 3669-3673; Exs. D-8, P-TT, P-XX).

XXXX testified that for the XXXX school year, the CSE recommended XXXX (Tr. pp. 131-134, 248; Ex. D-12).

XXXX testified that the Parents and the Student liked XXXX (Tr. pp. 135-136, 245-248, 371; Ex. D-12 at p. 7).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 137-138; Ex. D-13).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 139-140; Ex. D-13 at p. 2). The Parents also XXXX (Tr. pp. 140-141; Ex. D-13 at p. 2).

XXXX stated XXXX (Tr. pp. 141-142, 255-256; Ex. D-13 at p. 2). The Parents also XXXX (Tr. pp. 142-151, 157-158, 390-391; Ex. D-21). XXXX also reviewed XXXX (Tr. pp. 259-262, 377-384; Exs. D-13 at p. 2, D-31). XXXX stated that the Parent XXXX (Tr. pp. 159-162; Ex. D-13 at pp. 1-2). XXXX also testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 168-169, 3897-3898; Ex. D-22).

XXXX testified that for the remainder of the Student’s XXXX grade year, XXXX (Tr. pp. 162-168, 262-263; Exs. D-15, D-31, P-EEEE at pp. 1-53, 72-73).

XXXX testified regarding XXXX. XXXX stated that XXXX (Ex. D-24 at pp. 17-55), a letter from XXXX dated XXXX (Ex. D-24 at pp. 15-16), and an XXXX dated XXXX by XXXX (Ex. D-24 at pp. 9-14). The CSE XXXX (Ex. D-24 at pp. 2-4) and the XXXX grade report card (Ex. D-24 at pp. 5-8). XXXX confirmed that each of the reports was reviewed by the CSE. She stated that the results on the XXXX were XXXX (Tr. pp. 169- 171; Ex. D-24 at pp. 2-4). XXXX also testified that the XXXX was reviewed by the CSE (Tr. 171-172; Ex. D-24 at pp. 5-8).

XXXX testified regarding the CSE meeting held on XXXX for the XXXX school year. She stated that the Student’s XXXX, XXXX, was “XXXX” about the Student. She stated that XXXX (Tr. pp. 173-174, 3814; Ex. D-27 at p. 3). The CSE also considered the results of a private XXXX evaluation performed by XXXX, who participated in the CSE meeting by telephone and reviewed the Student’s test results (Tr. pp. 174-177; Ex. D-27 at p. 2). XXXX testified that the test results obtained by XXXX were consistent with the results of the Student’s other testing. She saw XXXX. His XXXX were XXXX than his XXXX skills. The Student’s XXXX skills across assessments typically fell XXXX. The Student’s XXXX skills were always an area of XXXX, although there was some XXXX. He displayed the same weakness in XXXX. XXXX also identified difficulty with XXXX. In addition, XXXX reported on the XXXX, noting XXXX. An administration of the XXXX one year later, when the Student was attending XXXX, yielded similar results (Tr. pp. 174-177, 3758-3763; Ex. D-24 at pp. 24-29, 39-41, 44-45, D-26 at pp. 17-20).

XXXX also testified that XXXX, a XXXX, spoke at the meeting about XXXX. He spoke about XXXX. XXXX described the XXXX which were available in her XXXX, such as XXXX. The XXXX conducted by XXXX confirmed that the Student would benefit from XXXX (Tr. pp. 177-179; Exs. D-24 at p. 14, D-27 at pp. 1-2).

XXXX stated that the CSE reviewed a letter from XXXX which recommended XXXX. XXXX stated her agreement with XXXX’s recommendation and her belief that XXXX (Tr. p. 179; Exs. D-24 at pp. 15-16, D-27 at p. 2). XXXX reviewed XXXX that were recommended by XXXX for the Student’s XXXX. She believed that the XXXX was not appropriate for any student who needed XXXX. She also did not believe that the XXXX was appropriate, as it was far more geared to students with XXXX. She believed that the same was true about XXXX. She also stated that XXXX (Tr. pp. 179-187; Ex. D-24 at pp. 15-16).

XXXX testified regarding XXXX’s belief that in a XXXX, the Student may XXXX, which would XXXX (Ex. D-24 at p. 15). However, XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 2509-2510). XXXX stated that the Parents’ allegations of XXXX. She also stated that XXXX. XXXX also stated that the XXXX. She stated that XXXX, and there are “XXXX.” The teacher XXXX (Tr. pp. 187-188, 392-397; Ex. D-24 at p. 15).

XXXX testified that the CSE reviewed XXXX (Ex. D-24 at p. 45); XXXX; that the Parent XXXX; they XXXX; and they discussed XXXX (Ex. D-13 at p. 2). XXXX and the XXXX (Tr. pp. 188-190, 198-199, 384-386, 389, 397-400).

XXXX stated that XXXX addressed the Student’s progress in XXXX, and stated that although he was not yet XXXX. He progressed from XXXX which represents XXXX. The Student XXXX (Tr. pp. 190-192).

XXXX also testified that the CSE XXXX, which was XXX (Tr. pp. 192-194; Ex. D- 27 at pp. 13-16).

XXXX stated that the CSE recommended XXXX. XXXX continued to teach the XXXX for the XXXX school year (Tr. pp. 194-197; Ex. D-27).

XXXX stated her familiarity with XXXX and stated that XXXX. They do not XXXX nor do they have XXXX (Tr. pp. 198-200). She stated that the District conducted the Student’s triennial evaluation during the XXXX school year and a CSE meeting was held on XXXX to make recommendations for the Student for the XXXX school year. The Student’s projected date for reevaluation was XXXX (Exs. D-26, D-27 at p. 1). As part of the triennial review, the Parents submitted XXXX. Some of the documents contained information with respect to XXXX during the XXXX school year. XXXX reviewed a report by XXXX, the Student’s XXXX, who worked with the Parents and Student in XXXX (Tr. pp. 198-203; Ex. D-26 at p. 60).

As part of his XXXX, XXXX stated that the Student’s year at XXXX was constructive, and that they XXXX (Ex. D-26 at p. 60). XXXX testified regarding information she learned at the CSE meeting for the XXXX school year about the Student’s performance at XXXX during the XXXX school year. There was an extensive discussion at the CSE meeting regarding XXXX. XXXX testified that when the Student XXXX, the Parent XXXX. She stated that XXXX, XXXX’s XXXX, and the Parent stated

XXXX. They estimated that XXXX (Ex. P-AAAA at p. 1). XXXX testified regarding her disagreement with the manner in which XXXX used XXXX, in that XXXX (Tr. pp. 204- 212).

XXXX stated that the XXXX at XXXX was XXXX. The XXXX recommended for the Student for the XXXX school was XXXX, meaning that XXXX (Tr. pp. 213-215). XXXX also testified that none of the Student’s XXXX (i.e., XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, or XXXX) contacted the District to inquire about XXXX (Tr. pp. 203-204, 213-215). Finally, XXXX testified that she was aware that the Parents provided information to XXXX about XXXX which was XXXX. XXXX reviewed XXXX (Tr. pp. 216, 4363-4364).

XXXX is a XXXX for the District. Her job duties include XXXX. At the time of her testimony, she was employed by the District and at another public school district for a total of XXXX (Tr. pp. 424-427). She has a XXXX. She also XXXX (Tr. pp. 428-430).

XXXX became familiar with the Student in his XXXX year when his Parents were XXXX. The Parents told her that the Student did not have XXXX (Tr. pp. 430-433).

XXXX evaluated the Student in mid to late XXXX using XXXX (Tr. pp. 433-434).

The Student was administered the XXXX and the XXXX. The Student XXXX (Tr. pp. 433-434; Ex. D-4 at p. 3).

XXXX stated XXXX (Tr. pp. 440-444; Ex. D-19).

XXXX worked with the Student on XXXX. She used XXXX (Tr. pp. 445-461, 465- 490, 494-495, 558-559; Ex. D-19). She stated XXXX (Tr. p. 570).

XXXX testified XXXX (Tr. pp. 498, 576-578).

XXXX stated that XXXX (Tr. pp. 498-499, 505-506).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. p. 516).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 516-518).

XXXX reviewed XXXX. She testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 518-531, 3753-3758, 3930-3932; Ex. D-20 at pp. 8-9).

XXXX also testified regarding her participation in the CSE meeting held on XXXX for the Student’s annual review. She stated XXXX (Tr. pp. 531-535, 3814-3816, 4357- 4358).

XXXX also summarized the Parents’ opinion about the Student’s experiences in XXXX grade. They stated their belief that the Student was XXXX. XXXX stated that XXXX (Tr. pp. 535-536).

XXXX testified that additional evaluations were reviewed at the CSE meeting for the Student’s annual review for the XXXX school year, including XXXX (Ex. D-24 at pp. 17-55). XXXX assessed the Student, in part, in the area of XXXX, by administering the XXXX and the XXXX, even though the Student was previously privately tested by XXXX in the area of XXXX on XXXX, a few months earlier (Exs. D-20, D-24 at pp. 21, 26, 30- 31). XXXX did not administer the same tests as XXXX’s evaluator (compare Exs. D-20 at pp. 1-2 and D-24 at pp. 22-23). XXXX summarized the results of XXXX’s testing (Tr. pp. 537-540). She also XXXX (Tr. pp. 541-547; Ex. D-27 at pp. 2, 14-15).

XXXX stated her belief that the programs and supports recommended for the Student in the IEP for the XXXX school year would enable him to make meaningful progress. She stated that the Student would have XXXX (Tr. pp. 547-548). XXXX described the XXXX class as XXXX (Tr. pp. 627-628).

XXXX testified that in the area of XXXX, the Student was XXXX (Tr. pp. 587- 591). She agreed that the Student XXXX (Tr. pp. 600-601, 3749-3750; Ex. D-18 at pp. 3-7).

XXXX also testified regarding her administration of XXXX, as part of the Student’s reevaluation. She compared the results of XXXX conducted by XXXX one year earlier with her testing and the results were XXXX (Tr. pp. 548-556; Exs. D-20, D- 26 at pp. 31-35).

XXXX was the Student’s XXXX for the XXXX school year. She testified that she XXXX (Tr. pp. 690-697, 709).

XXXX began to work in the District in XXXX. Prior to that time, she was employed by XXXX. All of her XXXX. She is certified in XXXX. In addition to her employment in the District, she XXXX (Tr. pp. 697-703, 1082-1085, 4048-4049, 4051).

XXXX described the XXXX classroom. She XXXX. The classroom is XXXX (Tr. pp. 709-715).

The Student worked on XXXX using XXXX. He also used an XXXX. The Student was XXXX (Tr. pp. 716-720, 743-745, 759-763; Ex. D-28 at p. 1).

In the area of XXXX, the Student progressed from XXXX (Tr. pp. 763-766; Ex. D-28 at p. 1).

A XXXX assessment was administered to obtain a baseline as to where the Student functioned in that area in XXXX. XXXX estimated the XXXX to be at a XXXX grade level, based on the XXXX. The Student had XXXX, which was XXXX (Tr. pp. 775-787, 789-790; Ex. D-29).

The Student had a XXXX, which contained XXXX. It included XXXX (Tr. pp. 790- 798; Ex. D-30).

XXXX compared a XXXX with his initial XXXX from XXXX, and stated that the Student’s XXXX (Tr. pp. 798-807; Ex. D-30 at p. 8).

XXXX testified that XXXX was a XXXX (Tr. pp. 817-818).

During the XXXX school year, the Student XXXX, which XXXX stated could be XXXX. She stated that XXXX. Such XXXX included XXXX (Tr. pp. 822-823).

XXXX testified that there were a number of strategies that were in place in her classroom to address XXXX. With respect to XXXX. She also XXXX (Tr. pp. 823-826).

XXXX described the XXXX which she used in the classroom in XXXX (Tr. pp. 826-830).

XXXX testified that by the end of the school year, the Student was able to XXXX. He sometimes XXXX (Tr. pp. 832-835, 1681-1682).

XXXX stated that in the beginning of the year, the Student XXXX. She testified that she XXXX (Tr. pp. 835-842, 891-893, 4067-4070, 4073, 4080-4081, 4101).

XXXX testified that in the beginning of the year, the Student engaged in XXXX (Tr. pp. 846-855; Ex. D-31).

XXXX testified regarding the instances when the Student needed XXXX during the school day. On XXXX (Tr. pp. 852-854; Ex. D-31 at p. 1).

In XXXX. The Student XXXX (Tr. pp. 855-859, 1097-1098; Ex. D-31 at p. 1).

The Student did not XXXX. He also did not require XXXX, and XXXX (Tr. p. 860; Ex. D-31 at p. 2). In XXXX, the Student did not require XXXX, and XXXX. In XXXX, the Student required XXXX (Tr. p. 861; Ex. D-31 at p. 3). There were XXXX (Tr. pp. 864- 866, 1167-1172; Ex. D-31 at pp. 3-5).

XXXX testified that, although the Student needed XXXX. But the large majority of the time XXXX (Tr. pp. 4226-4228).

XXXX also testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 4228-4229).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 866-870).

XXXX stated that when the Student XXXX (Tr. pp. 1645-1648).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 1661-1662).

XXXX described the Student as XXXX (Tr. pp. 871-872).

XXXX (Tr. pp. 774-775, 872-874; Exs. D-35, D-36, D-37, D-38, D-39, D-40, D-41, D-42, D-43, D-44).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 1687-1685, 1704, 1723-1726, 4146-4147).

The Student participated in XXXX (Tr. pp. 874-876). XXXX also administered the XXXX. The XXXX. He XXXX (Tr. pp. 895-897; Ex. D-24 at pp. 2-4).

XXXX also reviewed the Student’s report card for the XXXX school year. She XXXX (Tr. pp. 898-903; Ex. P-P).

In the area of XXXX, XXXX testified that the Student XXXX (Tr. pp. 898-904; Ex. P-P).

XXXX reviewed the Student’s progress in the area of XXXX and stated that XXXX (Tr. pp. 904-908; Ex. P-P).

XXXX described the Student as XXXX. These XXXX were successful during the XXXX school year, and there are similar XXXX for the XXXX school year (Tr. pp. 909- 910, 1123-1148, 1205-1207, 4112-4115, 4125; Exs. D-27 at p. 10, P-P).

XXXX testified that she does not XXXX (Tr. pp. 1732-1734).

XXXX stated that XXXX (Tr. pp. 1626-1628; Ex. D-19 at p. 1).

The Student was XXXX (Tr. pp. 910-916; Ex. P-P).

XXXX testified regarding the CSE meeting which was held on XXXX for the Student’s annual review for the XXXX school year. She stated that XXXX (Tr. pp. 917- 926; Exs. D-24 at p. 14, D-27).

XXXX testified regarding the Parents’ concerns that the Student was XXXX. She XXXX (Tr. pp. 926-928, 1666-1669, 4159-4160, 4190-4191, 4223-4226, 4229-4231, 4358-4360).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 928-930).

XXXX reviewed each of the goals that were placed into draft form prior to the meeting and reviewed at the meeting. She stated XXXX (Tr. pp. 934-948; Ex. D-27 at pp. 13-16).

XXXX stated that the CSE recommended XXXX (Tr. pp. 948-952; Ex. D-27 at pp. 16-17).

XXXX stated her belief that XXXX (Tr. pp. 952-954). A review of the Student’s XXXX (Ex. D-32).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 957-964, 966-967; Ex. D-26 at pp. 41-47, 60).

XXXX reviewed the XXXX (Tr. pp. 978-984; Ex. D-32).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 984-986; Ex. D-16 at pp. 14-15).

XXXX was the Student’s XXXX (Tr. pp. 1250-1254).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 1255-1257, 1266-1267; Ex. D-10).

XXXX testified that she XXXX (Tr. pp. 1258-1260).

XXXX stated that during class sessions, the Student needed occasional reminders to XXXX. She stated that generally, with occasional XXXX. The Student never needed XXXX (Tr. pp. 1258-1262).

XXXX reviewed the Student’s XXXX (Tr. pp. 1263-1266; Ex. D-15).

XXXX was a XXXX (Tr. pp. 1312-1314, 1317).

XXXX first became familiar with the Student XXXX (Tr. pp. 1318-1325, 1329- 1330; Exs. D-3, D-17).

XXXX reviewed her notes and stated that XXXX (Tr. pp. 1330-1331; Ex. D-17 at p. 7).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 1332-1333, 1392-1396; Ex. D-17 at pp. 7-8).

XXXX reviewed her notes regarding XXXX (Tr. pp. 1336-1337; Ex. D-17 at p. 11).

XXXX commented that in a XXXX, the Student demonstrated XXXX (Tr. pp. 1335-1336; Ex. D-17 at p. 12). She stated XXXX (Tr. pp. 1338-1339).

XXXX testified that she did not observe the Student XXXX. She also stated XXXX (Tr. 1342-1347; Ex. D-21 at pp. 2-4).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Ex. D-18 at pp. 3-6). The record reflects that XXXX (Tr. pp. 3874-3875; Ex. D-18 at p. 6). XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 1333-1334, 1415-1417, 1456-1459; Exs. D-17 at p. 9, D-18).

XXXX stated that the staff at XXXX felt that the Student was XXXX (Tr. pp. 1351- 1352).

XXXX stated that XXXX (Tr. pp. 1353-1366; Exs. D-24, D-27 at pp. 15-16).

XXXX testified that she XXXX (Tr. pp. 1472-1473, 1477-1479, 3801-3802; Ex. D- 24 at p. 47).

XXXX stated her opinion that XXXX (Tr. pp. 1367-1368). XXXX testified that in her opinion, XXXX (Tr. pp. 1479-1484; Ex. D-31).

XXXX is the XXXX (Tr. pp. 1485-1487).

XXXX testified that in the XXXX (Tr. pp. 1489-1493, 1520-1523).

XXXX recalled that XXXX (Tr. pp. 1494-1496).

XXXX testified that on XXXX (Tr. pp. 1497-1498, 1553-1556).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 1498-1499; Exs. P-BB, P-NN).

XXXX thereafter testified XXXX (Tr. pp. 1499-1501, 1584-1585).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 1501-1507, 1523-1524; Ex. D-21 at p. 1).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 1507-1511, 1530, 1568-1569).

XXXX testified regarding XXXX (Tr. pp. 1514-1518, 1580-1583; Ex. D-27).

The Student XXXX (Tr. pp. 1751-1753).

The Student XXXX (Tr. pp. 1753-1757).

The Student XXXX (Tr. pp. 1727, 1759-1763, 1846).

The Student XXXX (Tr. pp. 1763-1783, 1794-1799, 4372).

The Student XXXX (Tr. pp. 1783-1784, 1794-1796).

The Student XXXX (Tr. pp. 1785-1789, 1814, 4216).

The Student XXXX (Tr. pp. 1790-1793).

The Student XXXX (Tr. pp. 1803-1805, 1807-1808).

The Student XXXX (Tr. pp. 1809-1813).

The Student XXXX (Tr. pp. 1817-1822).

The Student XXXX (Tr. pp. 1828, 1846).

XXXX is a XXXX. She XXXX (Tr. pp. 1882-1887, 1896).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 1897, 1900-1904; Ex. D-26 at pp. 48-57).

In XXXX, XXXX performed XXXX (Tr. pp. 1908-1935).

XXXX also reviewed the results of a XXXX by XXXX in detail. She reviewed XXXX’ recommendations and stated her opinion that they were appropriate (Tr. pp. 1935-1942; Ex. P-QQQ).

XXXX reviewed XXXX (Tr. pp. 1957-1962; Ex. D-19).

XXXX reviewed the levels of XXXX recommended for the Student for the XXXX school year and stated her opinion that XXXX (Tr. pp. 1969-1974, 2102-2104, 2107- 2108; Ex. D-27 at pp. 14-15).

XXXX testified that she XXXX (Tr. pp. 1974-1975; Ex. D-24 pp. 17-55).

XXXX compared XXXX conducted by XXXX in XXXX and XXXX in XXXX using the XXXX and stated that XXXX (Tr. pp. 1979-1982; Exs. D-24 at p. 52, P-UUU at p. 5).

In the subtest of XXXX, the Student XXXX. The results show XXXX (Tr. pp. 1983-1988; Exs. D-24 at p. 52, P-UUU at p. 5).

XXXX also compared the XXXX (Ex. P-TTT at p. 2) with XXXX’s report (Ex. D-24 at p. 52) in the areas of XXXX (Tr. pp. 1989-1994).

XXXX stated that XXXX’s report demonstrated XXXX (Tr. pp. 1998-2001, 2100; Ex. D-27 at p. 3).

XXXX did not dispute that the Student XXXX (Tr. pp. 2002-2004; Exs. D-24 at p. 3, D-27 at p. 7).

XXXX testified that the XXXX (Tr. pp. 2005-2008; Ex. D-27 at pp. 7, 14-15).

XXXX testified about her knowledge of XXXX. She described it as XXXX (Tr. pp. 2034-2041).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 2065-2071, 2079, 2112-2115; Ex. P-MMM).

XXXX acknowledged that XXXX (Tr. pp. 2072-2076, 2078, 2082, 2085-2086, 2144-2145).

XXXX testified XXXX (Tr. pp. 2121-2123, 2125-2126).

XXXX, is a XXXX. She was XXXX (Tr. pp. 2251-2262; Ex. P-A).

XXXX reviewed the tests she administered to the Student and the results of testing in detail. She stated her opinion that the Student she evaluated in XXXX had much improved since XXXX (Tr. pp. 2268-2281, 2287-2289).

XXXX reviewed the results of XXXX’s testing in XXXX with the results of her testing administered in the XXXX. She stated that his test results in XXXX. The same was true in the areas of XXXX. She also stated that a comparison of XXXX and XXXX showed consistency (Tr. pp. 2291-2294, 2294-2295, 2301-2306, 2344-2348; Exs. D-24 at pp. 50-52, P-A at pp. 6, 12-16).

XXXX testified XXXX (Tr. pp. 2331-2344, 2346-2347, 2361; Exs. D-24 at p. 23, D-26 at p. 9).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 2306-2307).

The Student was XXXX (Exs. D-24 at p. 3, D-26 at pp. 21, 25).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 2295, 2301-2302).

XXXX testified regarding XXXX (Tr. pp. 2307-2310, 2321-2323).

XXXX testified XXXX (Tr. pp. 2355-2356).

XXXX was aware that XXXX (Tr. pp. 2356-2359).

XXXX stated her opinion that XXXX (Tr. pp. 2365-2366).

XXXX concluded that XXXX (Tr. pp. 2310-2311).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 2316, 2328).

XXXX stated her understanding that XXXX (Tr. pp. 2295, 2330-2331).

XXXX, is the Student’s XXXX. XXXX presented direct testimony by two affidavits and he appeared at the Impartial Hearing for cross-examination by the District (Exs. P- ZZZ, P-DDDD). XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. p. 2396). XXXX has been the Student’s XXXX, when XXXX (Tr. pp. 2405-2407, 3764-3767; Ex. P-ZZZ at p. 6).

XXXX conducted an XXXX (Tr. pp. 2407-2410, 2411-2412, 2419, 2430-2431, 2510-2511; Ex. P-ZZZ at p. 7).

Based on his examination, Parent reports, and a review of a number of evaluations, XXXX’s initial impressions were XXXX (Ex. P-ZZZ at pp. 7-8). XXXX testified XXXX (Tr. pp. 2421-2424, 2430-2431). He also acknowledged that XXXX (Tr. pp. 2401-2405, 2417-2421; Exs. D-24 at pp. 15-16, P-MMM).

In XXXX, XXXX diagnosed the Student with XXXX. In a letter dated XXXX, XXXX set forth XXXX (Tr. pp. 2432-2433, 2440-2441; Exs. P-MMM, P-ZZZ at p. 9, P- DDDD at pp. 2-5).

During the XXXX school year, XXXX (Ex. P-DDDD at pp. 5-7).

XXXX provided XXXX (Ex. P-ZZZ at pp. 9-11).

XXXX testified that during the XXXX (Exs. P-ZZZ at p. 11, P-DDDD at pp. 8-9). XXXX (Tr. pp. 213, 920, 1353, 1516).

XXXX also stated XXXX (Tr. pp. 2499-2500, 3779; Exs. D-26 at p. 58, P-DDDD at pp. 6-9). XXXX stated that the Student XXXX. He did not offer any information regarding XXXX (Ex. P-DDDD at p. 9).

XXXX wrote a second letter on XXXX, in which he XXXX (Tr. pp. 2458-2459; Ex. D-24 at pp. 15-16). He stated that XXXX (Ex. P-ZZZ at pp. 11-12). The evidence shows that on XXXX, XXXX (Ex. D-22). XXXX then testified XXXX (Tr. pp. 2490-2494). XXXX did not recall seeing XXXX (Tr. pp. 2459-2460, 2462-2463; Ex. D-27 at p. 1).

XXXX recommended XXXX (Ex. D-24 at pp. 15-16). XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 2482-2487, 2489).

XXXX concluded that XXXX (Tr. pp. 2457-2458; Ex. P-ZZZ at p. 12).

XXXX also recommended XXXX (Ex. P-ZZZ at p. 12). In addition, he recommended XXXX (Ex. P-ZZZ at p. 13).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Ex. P-ZZZ at p. 13).

XXXX testified that based on XXXX (Tr. pp. 2329-2320, 2448, 2496-2497, 2499- 2500; Exs. P-ZZZ at p. 14, P-DDDD).

XXXX also testified that XXXX (Ex. P-ZZZ at p. 14).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 2494-2497, 2499-2500).

XXXX is the XXXX. She is XXXX (Tr. pp. 2557-2558, 2589; Ex. P-AAAA at p. 1).

XXXX described her duties as XXXX (Tr. pp. 2571-2572; Ex. P-AAAA at p. 2).

XXXX described her duties as XXXX (Tr. pp. 2574-2576, 2590-2592; Ex. P- AAAA at pp. 2-4).

XXXX does not XXXX (Tr. pp. 2576-2578).

XXXX first met the Student in or about XXXX (Tr. pp. 2592-2594, 2595-2596; Exs. D-24 at p. 52; P-AAAA at pp. 4-5).

XXXX testified that the Student was XXXX (Tr. pp. 2579-2589, 2694-2695; Ex. P- AAAA at p. 6).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 2599-2605).

XXXX assisted the Student with XXXX (Tr. pp. 2613-2614, 2616-2628, 2693, 2703-2707; Ex. P-AAAA at pp. 6-8).

XXXX stated that in the beginning of the year, XXXX (Tr. pp. 2607-2610).

XXXX testified that the Student had a major weakness in XXXX (Ex. P-AAAA at pp. 8-9).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. p. 2708; Ex. P-AAAA at p. 9).

XXXX stated that the Student had difficulty with XXXX. He also had XXXX (Tr. pp. 2699-2700, 2703-2707; Exs. D-24 at p. 51, D-25 at p. 4, P-AAAA at pp. 7-10).

XXXX also testified that the Student’s XXXX (Tr. pp. 2628-2631; Ex. P-AAAA at p. 10).

XXXX’s affidavit does not contain any information about the Student’s XXXX (Tr. pp. 2632-2644, 2647-2651; Ex. D-24 at p. 51).

XXXX compared the Student’s test results on the XXXX administered on XXXX with the XXXX that was re-administered by XXXX on XXXX. On the XXXX (Tr. pp. 2657-2661, 2703; Exs. D-25 at pp. 2-3, D-33).

XXXX testified that in the area of XXXX, the Student had difficulty XXXX (Tr. pp. 2661-2664; Ex. P-AAAA at pp. 10-11).

XXXX also reviewed the Student’s grades for the XXXX school year. She testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 2664-2669, 2696; Exs. P-C, P-AAAA at p. 10).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 2692-2694; Ex. P-AAAA at pp. 11-12).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. p. 2708; Ex. P-AAAA at p. 12).

XXXX testified that in the beginning of the XXXX school year, the Student was XXXX (Tr. pp. 2691-2692).

XXXX also created XXXX (Ex. P-AAAA at p. 13).

In or about XXXX, the Student XXXX (Ex. P-AAAA at pp. 13-14).

However, XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 2669-2677).

XXXX testified that by the XXXX, the Student was XXXX (Tr. pp. 2678-2688; Ex. P-AAAA at p. 11).

XXXX testified that XXXX had no XXXX (Tr. pp. 2708-2710).

In her affidavit, XXXX stated that XXXX (Tr. pp. 2688-2691; Ex. P-AAAA at p. 14).

XXXX, is a XXXX. She testified by affidavit and appeared at the Impartial Hearing for cross-examination by the District. XXXX was XXXX (Tr. pp. 2796-2797, 2804-2808; Exs. P-BBBB at pp. 1, 4; D-34).

XXXX described XXXX (Ex. P-BBBB at pp. 2-3).

XXXX met the Student on XXXX after a telephone consultation with the Parent on XXXX. She did not XXXX (Tr. pp. 2810-2813, 2817-2818; Ex. P-BBBB at p. 6).

XXXX stated her belief that the Student exhibited XXXX (Tr. pp. 2883, 2982- 2984; Exs. P-BBBB at pp. 6-7, P-CCCC at pp. 1-2).

XXXX reviewed the Student’s IEP dated XXXX for the XXXX school year and acknowledged that the IEP indicated XXXX (Tr. pp. 2985-2992).

XXXX acknowledged information contained in the IEP at the end of the XXXX school year that the Student’s ability to XXXX (Tr. pp. 2991-2993).

XXXX stated her belief that the Student’s XXXX (Tr. pp. 2993-2995; Ex. P-BBBB at p. 11).

XXXX described XXXX (Tr. pp. 2819-2825, 2830-2835).

XXXX also believed that the XXXX (Exs. P-BBBB at pp. 7-10, P-CCCC at p. 3)

XXXX testified that XXXX (Ex. P-BBBB at p. 11).

XXXX stated that XXXX (Tr. pp. 2841-2845, 2877-2878, 2906-2907; Ex. P-BBBB at p. 11).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 2997-2999).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 2859-2862).

XXXX stated that XXXX (Tr. pp. 2912-2915; Ex. P-BBBB at p. 11).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 2945, 2948-2951).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Ex. P-BBBB at p. 12).

XXXX also testified that XXXX (Ex. P-BBBB at p. 12).

XXXX testified that based upon her discussions with the Parents about XXXX (Ex. P-BBBB at pp. 12-14).

XXXX testified that her conclusions XXXX (Tr. pp. 3004-3006).

XXXX conducted her FBA in XXXX. She testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 3006-3008, 3010-3012; Exs. D-34, D-36 at pp. 15-20).

XXXX (Tr. pp. 3022-3027; Ex. D-34 at p. 6).

XXXX did not know whether the Student was XXXX. She stated XXXX (Tr. pp. 211, 3028-3029).

XXXX conducted XXXX. She stated that the Student XXXX (Tr. pp. 3030-3039; Ex. D-34 at pp. 10-11).

XXXX and XXXX (R. 3039-3041; Ex. D-34 at p. 10).

XXXX also XXXX (Tr. pp. 3053-3061; Ex. D-34 at p. 11).

XXXX testified XXXX (Tr. pp. 3088-3091; Ex. D-34 at pp. 12-13).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 3091-3096).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 3098-3113).

XXXX stated XXXX (Tr. pp. 3107-3117; Ex. D-34 at pp. 15-17).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 3111-3113).

XXXX is XXXX. He testified regarding XXXX (Tr. pp. 3249-3255).

The Parents XXXX (Tr. pp. 3255-3257).

The Parent testified XXXX (Tr. pp. 3258-3267, 3613-3615, 3625-3626).

The Parent testified that XXXXX (Tr. pp. 3267-3274, 3616-3620; Ex. P-EEEE at pp. 1-5).

The Parent testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 3275-3278).

The Parent stated that XXXX (Tr. pp. 3278-3285; Ex. P-EEEE at pp. 6-7).

After initiating XXXX with XXXX, the Parents sought XXXX. She introduced XXXX (Tr. pp. 3626-3633, 3637-3638; Ex. P-EEEE at pp. 8-10).

In or about XXXX, the Parents XXXX (Tr. pp. 3286-3294; Exs. P-VVV, P-YYY).

The Parent testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 3295-3308, 3697-3702; Ex. P-EEEE at pp. 72-73).

Beginning in or about XXXX, the Parents sought XXXX (Tr. pp. 3673-3675; Ex. P-EEEE at pp. 21-22).

The Parent testified XXXX (Tr. pp. 3316-3321, 3643-3647; Ex. P-EEEE at pp. 19, 29, 31-32, 43-44, 54, 56-58).

Also in or about XXXX, the Parents XXXX (Tr. pp. 3323-3330, 3661-3665; Ex. P- EEEE at p. 20).

The Parent testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 3321-3332, 3639-3642; Ex. P-EEEE at pp. 14-15).

In or about XXXX, the Parents XXXX (Tr. pp. 3335, 3675-3679, 3686-3687; Ex. P-EEEE at pp. 23-25, 30, 39).

Also in or about XXXX, the Parents XXXX (Tr. pp. 3683-3684; Ex. P-EEEE at pp. 37-38).

The Parent testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 3334-3338).

The Parents requested XXXX (Tr. pp. 3339-3345).

The Parent testified that they were aware that the Student had been XXXX (Tr. pp. 3346-3356; Exs. P-TT, P-WW, D-8).

XXXX testified that the Parents requested XXXX. However, she stated that XXXX (Tr. pp. 4360-4362; Ex. D-24 at p. 46).

Commencing in or about XXXX, the Parents XXXX (Tr. pp. 3687-3688; Ex. P- EEEE at p. 40).

Commencing in or about XXXX, the Parents XXXX (Tr. pp. 3644-3646, 3680- 3682, 3684-3685, 3690-3692, 3696-3697, 3856-3858; Ex. P-EEEE at pp. 33-36, 45-48, 55-58, 71).

The Parent testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 3357-3363, 3688-3689; Exs. P-CCCC, P- EEEE at p. 41).

The Parent stated that XXXX (Tr. pp. 3363-3365; Ex. D-12).

The Parent stated XXXX (Tr. pp. 3366-3370).

The Parent testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 3370-3374).

The Parent stated that XXXX (Tr. pp. 3374-3377; Exs. D-35, D-36, D-37, D-38,

D-39, D-40. D-41, D-42, D-43, D-44).

The Parent also testified that from the XXXX (Tr. pp. 3377-3380).

The Parent testified that XXXX. The Parent wrote the letter and it was placed in his file (Tr. pp. 3380-3389; Ex. P-BB).

The Parent stated that on XXXX, they met with XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and an XXXX to discuss XXXX (Tr. pp. 3388-3391, 3393-3395, 3771-3772, 4190, 4201-4202, 4362-4363).

The Parent stated XXXX (Tr. pp. 3397-3401, 3780-3790, 3879-3880, 4133-4135, 4138, 4167, 4194, 4221-4223, 4358; Exs. D-35, D-36, D-37, D-38, D-39, D-40, D-41, D- 42, D-43, D-44).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 3852-3856, 3862-3865, 3879-3880; 4353- 4354; Exs. D-36 at pp. 36-40, 51, D-42 at pp.49-52).

The Parent testified that the Student had XXXX (Tr. pp. 3405-3408).

With respect to XXXX, the Parent testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 3409-3415, 3843- 3844, 3885-3888).

The Parent XXXX (Tr. pp. 3416-3421; Ex. D-19).

The Parent testified that XXXX (Ex. D-24 at pp. 15-16). The Parents XXXX (Tr. pp. 3442-3448).

The Parent testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 3713-3717, 3750-3752, 3758; Ex. D-20).

XXXX participated in XXXX (Tr. pp. 3448-3450; Ex. D-24 at pp. 17-55).

There was also discussion about the Student’s XXXX (Tr. pp. 3452-3454).

The CSE also discussed the Student’s XXXX (Tr. pp. 3454-3461, 4149-4151, 4174-4176, 4197-4199, 4206-4212, 4215-4216, 4354-4357; Exs. D-17 at p. 7, D-21, D- 27).

The Parent testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 3461-3471, 3779-3780, 3791-3793, 3884- 3885; Exs. D-23, D-42 at p. 24, P-N, P-O).

The Parent described XXXX (Tr. pp. 3471-3489, 3539-3541, 3692-3695; Exs. P- H, P-I, P-J, P-EEEE at pp. 52-71).

The Parent testified regarding XXXX (Tr. pp. 3541-3542, 3907).

The Parent testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 3542-3547).

The Parent testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 3547-3549).

At home, the Student was XXXX (Tr. pp. 3550-3552).

The Parent testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 3553-3554, 3695-3696; Ex. P-EEEE at p. 70).

The Parent testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 3556-3573, 3702-3712).

The Parent stated that XXXX, in the beginning of the XXXX school year, the Student did not XXXX (Tr. pp. 3573-3576).

The Parent stated that XXXX (Tr. pp. 3576-3579).

The Parent testified that as of XXXX (Tr. pp. 3581-3584).

The Parent stated that XXXX (Tr. pp. 3584-3592, 3657-3660; Ex. D-26 at p. 60).

The Parent testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 3592-3593, 3657-3660; Ex. D-26 at p. 60).

At the end of the XXXX school year, the Parent testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 3646- 3657; Ex. D-26 at p. 60).

XXXX is XXXX. She was familiar with XXXX (Tr. pp. 3959, 3961, 3968, 3973, 3980).

XXXX is the XXXX. She provided testimony by telephone. She has XXXX (Tr. pp. 4239, 4244-4245, 4248-4249, 4253, 4266-4267, 4286).

XXXX described XXXX (Tr. pp. 4253-4256).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 4256-4257).

XXXX described XXXX (Tr. pp. 4260-4265, 4268).

XXXX described XXXX (Tr. pp. 4279, 4285-4286).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 4290-4292, 4295).

XXXX described XXXX (Tr. pp. 4296-4297).

XXXX confirmed that XXXX (Tr. pp. 4297-4298).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Two purposes behind the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) [20 U.S.C. Sections 1400-1482] are (1) to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique 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.

Section 1400(d)(1)(A)-(B); see generally Forest Grove v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230, 239 (2009); Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-207 (1982)].

A FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the 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 206-207; R.E. v. New York City Department of Education, 694 F.3d 167, 189-190 (2d Cir. 2012); M.H. v. New York City Department of Education, 685 F.3d 219, 245 (2d Cir. 2012); Cerra v. Pawling Central School District, 427 F.3d 186, 192 (2d Cir. 2005)]. Multiple procedural violations may cumulatively result in the denial of a FAPE even if the violations considered individually do not [R.E. v. New York City Department of Education, 694 F.3d at 190-191]. While school districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures, not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA [M.H. v. New York City Department of Education, 685 F.3d at 245; A.C. v. Board of Education of the Chappaqua Central School District, 553 F.3d 165 (2d Cir. 2009); Grim v. Rhinebeck Central School District, 346 F.3d 377, 381 (2d Cir. 2003); Perricelli v. Carmel Central School District, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9873 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)]. Under the IDEA, if procedural violations are 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. Section 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); 34 C.F.R. Section 300.513(a)(2); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. 200.5(j)(4)(ii); Winkelman v. Parma City School District, 550 U.S. 516, 525-526 (2007); R.E. v. New York City Department of Education, 694 F.3d at 190; M.H. v. New York City Department of Education, 685 F.3d at 245; A.H. v. Department of Education, 394 Fed. App’x 718, 720, 2010 WL 3242234 (2d Cir. August 16, 2010); E.H. v. Board of Education, 2008 WL 3930028, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. August 21, 2008), aff’d 361 Fed. App’x 156, 2009 WL 3326627 (2d Cir. October 16, 2009); Matrejek v. Brewster Central School District, 471 F.Supp.2d 415, 419 (S.D.N.Y. 2007), aff’d 293 Fed. App’x. 20, 2008 WL 3852180 (2d Cir. August 19, 2008)].

The IDEA directs that, in general, an Impartial Hearing Officer’s decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE [20 U.S.C. Section 1415(f)(3)(E)(i); 34 C.F.R. Section 300.513]. 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 School District, 142 F.3d 119, 130; 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 School District, 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 195, quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130 [citations omitted]; see T.P. v. v. Mamaroneck Union Free School District, 554 F.3d 247, 254 (2d Cir. 2009); see P. v. Newington Board of Education, 546 F.3d 111, 118-119 (2d Cir. 2008); Perricelli, 2007 WL 465211, at *15]. The IEP must be “reasonably calculated to provide some ‘meaningful’ benefit” [Mrs. B. v. Milford Board of Education, 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 (“LRE”). In determining an appropriate placement in the LRE, the IDEA requires that children with disabilities be educated to the maximum extent appropriate with children who are not disabled and that special classes, separate schooling or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment may occur only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily [20 U.S.C. Section 1412(a)(5)(A); 34 C.F.R. Sections 300.114(a)(2)(i), 300.116(a)(2); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. Sections 200.1(cc), 200.6(a)(1); see P. v. Newington Board of Education, 546 F.3d at 114; Gagliardo v. Arlington Central School District, 489 F.3d 105, 108 (2d Cir. 2007); Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132; G.B. v. Tuxedo Union Free School District, 751 F.Supp.2d 552, 573-580 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) aff’d 486 Fed. App’x 954, 2012 WL 4946429 (2d Cir. October 18, 2012); E.G. v. City School District of New Rochelle, 606 F.Supp.2d 384, 388 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Patskin v. Board of Education, 583 F.Supp.2d 422, 428 (W.D.N.Y. 2008)]. Also, a FAPE must be available to an eligible student “who needs special education and related services, even though the [student] has not failed or been retained in a course or grade, and is advancing from grade to grade” [34 C.F.R. Section 300.101(c)(1); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. 200.4(c)(5)]. The proper inquiry as to the appropriateness of an IEP is whether the IEP was reasonably calculated to confer educational benefit at the time the CSE devised the IEP. Antonaccio v. Board of Education of the Arlington Central School District, et. al., 281 F.Supp.2d 710, 724-725 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); Application of the Board of Education of Harrison Central School District, Appeal No. 04-034.

The IDEA permits education in more segregated settings such as dedicated special education classrooms, the home, hospitals and private institutions ‘when the nature or severity of a child’s disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily’ [Viola v. Arlington Central School District, 414 F.Supp.2d 366, 376 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); Board of Education of Poughkeepsie City School District v. O’Shea, 353 F.Supp.2d 449, 454 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) [quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d 119, 122 (2d Cir. 1988)].

An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that includes a statement of the student’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance [see 34 C.F.R. Section 300.320(a)(1); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. Section 200.4(d)(2)(i); Tarlowe v. New York City Board of Education, 2008 WL 2736027, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2008) (noting that a CSE must consider, among other things, the “results of the initial evaluation or most recent evaluation: of the student, as well as the “academic, developmental, and functional needs” of the student), establishes annual goals designed to meet the student’s needs resulting from the student’s disability and enable him or her to make progress in the general education curriculum [see 34 C.F.R. Section 300.320(a)(2)(i), (2)(i)(A); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. Section 200.4(d)(2)(iii)], and provides for the use of appropriate special education services [see 34 C.F.R. Section 300.320(a)(4); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. Section 200.4(d)(2)(v); see also Application of the Department of Education, Appeal No. 07-018; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-059; Application of the Department of Education, 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]. Subsequent to its development, an IEP must be properly implemented [8 N.Y.C.R.R. Section 200.4(e)(7); Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 08-087].

A board 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 board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parents were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parents’ claim [Florence County School District Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993); School Committee of Burlington v. Department of Education, 471 U.S. 359, 369-370 (1985); R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-185; T.P., 554 F.3d at 252]. 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 [471 U.S. at 370-71; see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 111; Cerra, 427 F.3d at 192]. “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 370-371; see 20 U.S.C. Section 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii); 34 C.F.R. Section 300.148].

The burden of proof is on the school district during an Impartial Hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement [Education Law Section 4404(1)(c); see R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-185; M.P.G. v. New York City Department of Education, 2010 WL 3398256 at *7 (S.D.N.Y. August 27, 2010)].

A private school placement must be “proper under the Act” [Carter, 510 U.S. at 12, 15; Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370], i.e., the private school offered an educational program which met the Student’s special education needs [see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, 115; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 129; Matrejek, 471 F.Supp.2d at 419]. A parent’s failure to select a program approved by the State in favor of an unapproved option is not itself a bar to reimbursement [Carter, 510 U.S. at 14]. The private school need not employ certified special education teachers or have its own IEP for the student [Carter, 510 U.S. 7; Application of the Board of Education, Appeal No. 08-085; Application of the Department of Education, Appeal No. 08-025; Application of the Board of Education, Appeal No. 08-016; Application of the Board of Education, Appeal No. 07-097; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-038; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-014; Application of a Child with a Disability, 01-105]. Parents seeking reimbursement “bear the burden of demonstrating that their private placement was appropriate, even if the IEP was inappropriate” [Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; see M.S. v. Board of Education, 231 F.3d 96, 104 (2d Cir. 2000)]. “Subject to certain limited exceptions, ‘the same considerations and criteria that apply in determining whether the [s]chool [d]istrict’s placement is appropriate should be considered in determining the appropriateness of the parents’ placement ...” [Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; Frank G. v.

Board of Education, 459 F.3d at 364 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207 and identifying exceptions)]. Parents need not show that the placement provides every special service necessary to maximize the student’s potential [Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364; see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115 (citing Berger v. Medina City School District, 348 F.3d 513, 522 (6th Cir. 2003) (stating “evidence of academic progress at a private school does not itself establish that the private placement offers adequate and appropriate education under the IDEA”)]. A “private placement is only appropriate if it provides ‘educational instruction specifically designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child’” [Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115 (emphasis in original), citing Frank G., 459 F.3d at 365 quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 188-89].

The Second Circuit has set forth the standard for determining whether parents have carried their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of their unilateral placement:

No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining whether parents’ unilateral placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. Grades, test scores, and regular advancement may constitute evidence that a child is receiving educational benefit, but courts assessing the propriety of a unilateral placement consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child’s individual needs. 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 F.3d at 112; see Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65].

The final criterion for an award of tuition reimbursement is whether the parent’s claim is supported by equitable considerations. Equitable considerations are relevant to fashioning relief under the IDEA [Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374; M.C. v. Voluntown Board of Education, 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 Central School District, 167 F.Supp.2d 530, 533 (N.D.N.Y. 2001), citing Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, 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 County School District, 190 F.3d 80, 86 (3d Cir. 1999); see Application of the Board of Education, Appeal No. 04-102; Application of the Board of Education, Appeal No. 04-026.

The IDEA provides that reimbursement may be reduced or denied if parents do not provide notice of the unilateral placement either at the most recent CSE meeting prior to removing the student from public school, or by written notice ten business days before such removal, “that they were rejecting the placement proposed by the public agency to provide a [FAPE] to their child, including stating their concerns and their intent to enroll their child in a private school at public expense” [20 U.S.C. Section 1412(a)(10)(C)(iii)(I); see 34 C.F.R. Section 300.148(d)(1)]. This statutory provision “serves the important purpose of giving the school system an opportunity, before the child is removed, to assemble a team, evaluate the child, devise an appropriate plan, and determine whether a [FAPE] can be provided in the public schools” [Greenland School District v. Amy N., 358 F.3d 150, 160 (1st Cir. 2004)]. Although a reduction in reimbursement is discretionary, courts have upheld the denial of reimbursement in cases where it was shown that parents failed to comply with the statutory provision [Greenland, 358 F.3d at 160; Ms. M. v. Portland School Committee, 360 F.3d 267 (1st Cir. 2004); Berger v. Medina City School District, 348 F.3d 513, 523-24 (6th Cir. 2003); Rafferty v. Cranston Public School Committee, 315 F.3d 21, 27 (1st Cir. 2002); see Frank G., 459 F.3d at 376; Voluntown, 226 F.3d at 68; Lauren V. v. Colonial School District, 2007 WL 3085854, at *13 (E.D. Pa. October 22, 2007)].

Courts must evaluate the adequacy of an IEP prospectively as of the time of the parents’ placement decision and may not consider “retrospective testimony” regarding services not listed in the IEP. R.E. et.al. v New York City Department of Education, 694 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2012). However, the Second Circuit rejected a rigid “four-corners rule” that would prevent a court from considering evidence explicating the written terms of the IEP. While testimony that materially alters the written plan is not permitted, testimony may be received that explains or justifies the services listed in the IEP. Id. at 186.

The SRO has held that educational programs from prior school years can be reviewed to determine the appropriateness of a program recommendation for a current year, even if a parent did not request an impartial hearing with respect to the prior school years. Application of the Board of Education of the Red Hook Central School District, Appeal No. 00-053 (November 15, 2000). The SRO has also held that educational programming for prior years is useable as a frame of reference for an IHO’s determination even if the parent did not request an impartial hearing in those prior years. Application of the Board of Education of the Pine Plains Central School District, Appeal No. 00-072 (November 6, 2000).

The IDEA requires that, unless a state establishes a different limitations period under state law, a party must request a due process hearing within 2 years of when the party knew or should have known of the alleged action that forms the basis of the complaint [20 U.S.C. Section 1415(f)(3)(C); see also 20 U.S.C. Section 1415(b)(6)(B); Educ. Law Section 4404(1)(a); 34 C.F.R. 300.511(e); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. 200.5(j)(1)(i); Somoza v. New York City Department of Education, 538 F.3d 106, 114 n. 8 (2d Cir. 2008) (noting that the Second Circuit applied the same “knows or has reason to know” standard of IDEA claim accrual both prior to and after codification of the standard by Congress); M.D. v. Southington Board of Education, 334 F.3d 217, 221-222 (2d Cir. 2003); G.W. v. Rye City School District, 2013 WL 1286154, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. March 29, 2013), aff’d 554 Fed. App’x 56, 57 (2d Cir. February 11, 2014); R.B. v. Department of Education, 2011 WL 4375694, at *2, *4 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); Piazza v. Florida Union Free School District, 777 F.Supp.2d 669, 687-688 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)]. Exceptions to the timeline to request an impartial hearing apply if a parent was 1) prevented from filing a due process complaint notice due to a “specific misrepresentation” by the district that it had resolved the issues forming the basis for the due process complaint notice or 2) the district withheld information from the parent that the district was required to provide [20 U.S.C. Section 1415(f)(3)(D); Education Law Section 4404(1)(a); 34 C.F.R. Section 300.511(f); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. Section 200.5(j)(1)(i); R.B., 2011 WL 4375694, at *6].

The hearing record shows that the Parents filed their due process complaint notice on June 17, 2014 (Ex. IHO-3), and therefore, barring either of the aforementioned exceptions, any of the Parents’ claims that accrued on or before June 16, 2012 are time-barred [see 20 U.S.C. Section 1415(f)(3)(D); Education Law 4404(1)(a); 34 C.F.R. Section 300.511(f); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. Section 200.5(j)(1)(i); R.B., 2011 WL 4375694, at *6].

The Parents raise a number of legal issues in their Closing Brief that were not raised in their Due Process Complaint Notice. As such, I do not make any findings with respect to any alleged violation of Section 504, the ADA, or Education Law Section 3214. See 20 U.S.C. Section 1415(f)(3)(B); 34 C.F.R. Sections 300.508(d)(3)(i) and 300.511(d); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. Section 200.5(j)(1)(ii). For the same reason, I make no findings with respect to multiple issues raised in the Parents’ Closing Brief involving the XXXX [compare Ex. IHO-3 with Ex. IHO-32]. The Due Process Complaint Notice in this matter was filed on June 17, 2014, just one day prior to the expiration of the two-year statute of limitations for challenging the CSE’s recommendations for the Student made on XXXX for the XXXX school year. Any of the Parents’ claims that accrued on or before June 16, 2012 are time-barred [See Ex. IHO-3 and Ex. D-27 at p. 1].

The Parents timely raise a number of issues in their Due Process Complaint Notice (Ex. IHO-3), and I will address each issue in seriatim.

1. Failure to provide an appropriate program and placement for the XXXX school year which adequately addressed [the Student’s] academic, physical, social, and emotional needs.

The Parents assert that the program and placement offered by the District for the XXXX school year did not include any appropriate methods and/or strategies to adequately address the Student’s XXXX or XXXX (Ex. IHO-3 at p. 5).

An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student’s needs. The evidence shows that

XXXX

A review of the IEP for the XXXX school year shows that the Student’s strengths and weaknesses in the areas of academic achievement, social development, physical development, and management needs accurately reflect the results of evaluations to identify the Student’s needs. Academically, the Student is XXXX (Exs. D-24 at p. 47, D- 27 at p. 7). XXXX administered the XXXX in XXXX. In the area of XXXX, the Student scored XXXX (Exs. D-24 at p. 3, D-27 at p. 7). In the classroom, the Student was XXXX (Tr. pp. 716-720, 743-745, 759-763; Exs. D-24 at pp. 5-7, 46, D-27 at p. 7, D-28 at p. 1).

Other components of the Student’s XXXX program were XXXX (Tr. pp. 3871- 3872; Exs. D-24 at pp. 5-7; D-27 at p. 7, D-41 at p. 8).

In XXXX, an area of strength, the Student XXXX (Tr. pp. 817-818; Exs. D-24 at pp. 5-7; D-27 at pp. 2, 7).

In the area of XXXX, the Student XXXX (Tr. pp. 775-787, 789-798; Exs. D-29, D- 30).

In the area of XXXX, the Student XXXX (Tr. pp. 763-766; Exs. D-24 at pp. 5-7, D- 27 at p. 8, D-28 at p. 1).

In the area of XXXX, the Student’s XXXX (Exs. D-20, D-27 at pp. 2-3, 9).

In the area of XXXX, the Student was XXXX (Ex. D-27 at p. 9).

XXXX, the XXXX (Ex. D-27 at pp. 9-10).

The Student’s ability to XXXX (Exs. D-24 at pp. 39-40, D-27 at p. 10).

Continuing needs in the area of XXXX included XXXX (Exs. D-24 at pp. 35, 38- 40, D-27 at p. 11).

With respect to XXXX, the Student has XXXX (Exs. D-24 at pp. 9, 15, 17-18, D- 27 at pp. 11-12). He is XXXX (Exs. D-24 at p. 41, D-27 at p. 12). At the time of his annual review for the XXXX school year, he had a daily XXXX (Exs. D-24 at pp. 13, 41, D-27 at p. 12).

In the area of XXXX (Exs. D-24 at pp. 46-49, D-27 at p. 12).

The Student also needed XXXX as follows: XXXX (Exs. D-24 at pp. 46-49, D-

27 at p. 12).

The Student also needed XXXX as follows: XXXX (Exs. D-24 at pp. 46-49, D-27

at p. 13).

I find that the IEP for the XXXX school year accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the Student’s needs.

An IEP must also establish annual goals related to a student’s needs. A review of the IEP for the XXXX school year includes XXXX (Tr. p. 936; Ex. D-27 at p. 14).

The IEP for the XXXX school year includes XXXX goals. Goals XXXX. XXXX agreed that the XXXX goals were appropriate (Tr. p. 2006).

The IEP for the XXXX school year contained XXXX goals in the area of XXXX. The goals were recommended by XXXX, with input by XXXX (Tr. p. 941). Goal XXXX (Tr. pp. 2006-2008).

The IEP for the XXXX school year contained XXXX goals in the areas of XXXX. XXXX recommended these goals in conjunction with XXXX (Tr. pp. 941-942). Goal XXXX (Tr. p. 948; Ex. D-27 at p. 16).

The IEP for the XXXX school year also contains XXXX goals. Goal XXXX (Exs. D-24 at pp. 9-14, D-27 at pp. 3, 16).

Neither XXXX (Tr. pp. 192-194, 546-547, 933, 1359-1366; Ex. D-27 at pp. 13- 16). XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 1974-1975, 2005-2008).

I find that the IEP for the XXXX school year contained appropriate annual goals related to the Student’s needs.

In addition, the IEP must provide for the use of appropriate special education services. At the CSE meeting held on XXXX, the Committee recommended that the Student continue to receive XXXX. XXXX would have been the teacher for the XXXX school year.

XXXX described the XXXX. She XXXX (Tr. pp. 709-715).

The CSE also recommended XXXX (Tr. pp. 948-949; Exs. D-24 at p. 46, D-27 at pp. 16-17).

XXXX testified that the Student needed XXXX (Tr. pp. 1962-1964, 1970, 1973, 2065-2071, 2112-2115; Ex. D-20 at p. 9).

XXXX testified that during the XXXX school year he found that much of the Student’s XXXX. The record reflects that XXXX (Ex. D-22).

XXXX made specific recommendations for XXXX (Tr. pp. 2481-2490; Ex. P-ZZZ at p. 13).

The IEP also includes XXXX (Tr. pp. 949-950; Ex. D-24 at pp. 46-49).

XXXX testified that XXXX. The recommended XXXX are consistent with what was recommended by XXXX in her evaluation (Tr. pp. 950-952; Ex. D-24 at pp. 46-49).

The IEP for the XXXX school year also included XXXX (Exs. D-24 at pp. 46-49, D-27 at p. 18).

XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX all testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 194-197, 547-548, 952-954, 1367-1368, 1514-1518; Ex. D-27 at p. 4).

The Student’s recommended program must also be provided in the LRE. In determining an appropriate placement in the LRE, the IDEA requires that children with disabilities be educated to the maximum extent appropriate with children who are not disabled and that special classes, special schooling or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment may occur only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.

During the XXXX (Tr. pp. 910-916; Ex. D-24 at pp. 5-8).

The record reflects that XXXX (Tr. pp. 173-174, 3814; Ex. D-27 at p. 3). The Student was also XXXX (Tr. pp. 194, 3871-3872; Exs. D-27 at p. 13, D-41 at p. 8).

The CSE determined that the Student had XXXX.

The evidence shows that the Student XXXX. I find that the CSE’s recommendations are appropriate and consistent with its legal obligation to provide an educational program for the Student in the LRE.

In sum, I find that the CSE’s recommended program for the XXXX school year was reasonably calculated to confer meaningful educational benefit in the LRE. The evidence shows that XXXX.

2. Failure to conduct a XXXX to determine XXXX for the XXXX school year; and 3. Failure to develop and implement an appropriate XXXX.

Under the IDEA, a CSE may be required to consider special factors in the development of a student’s IEP. Among the special factors XXXX [20 U.S.C. Section 1414(d)(3)(B)(i); 34 C.F.R. Section 300.324(a)(2)(i); see 8 N.Y.C.R.R. Section 200.4(d)(3)(i); see also E.H. v. Board of Education, 361 Fed. App’x 156, 160-161, 2009 WL 3326627 (2d Cir. October 16, 2009); A.C. v. Board of Education, 553 F.3d 165, 172 (2d Cir. 2009); J.A. v. East Ramapo Central School District, 603 F.Supp.2d 684, 689 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); M.M. v. New York City Department of Education, 583 F.Supp.2d 498, 510 (S.D.N.Y. 2008); Tarlowe v. New York City Board of Education, 2008 WL 2736027, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2008); W.S. v. Rye City Central School District, 454 F.Supp.2d 134, 149-150 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). To the extent necessary to offer a student an appropriate educational program, an IEP must identify the supplementary aids and services to be provided to the student (20 U.S.C. Section 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(IV); 34 C.F.R. Section 300.320(a)(4); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. Section 200.4(d)(2)(v)(a), (b)(3); Piazza v. Florida Union Free School District, 2011 WL 1458100, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. April 7, 2011); Gavrity v. New Lebanon Central School District, 2009 WL 3164435, at *30 (N.D.N.Y. September 29, 2009); P.K. v. Bedford Central School District, 569 F.Supp.2d 371, 380 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).

In New York State, policy guidance explains that XXXX.

State regulations call for XXXX.

The special factor procedures set forth in State regulations further require that

XXXX.

The evidence shows that XXXX.

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 1359, 1482-1484; Ex. D-31).

XXXX testified that in her XXXX classroom, the Student XXXX (Tr. pp. 1260- 1262).

XXXX described the Student as requiring XXXX (Tr. pp. 909-910, 1123-1148, 1205-1207, 4112-4115, 4125; Exs. D-27 at p. 10, P-P).

XXXX testified that she does not XXXX (Tr. pp. 1732-1734; Ex. D-31).

The Parents argue in their Closing Brief that XXXX (Tr. pp. 1627-1628).

The evidence shows that the Student’s XXXX and the evidence supports the CSE’s findings in that regard (Exs. D-27 at pp. 9-13, D-31).

4. Failure to offer adequate alternative XXXX services for the XXXX school year, i.e., XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, XXXX, or XXXX; and 5. Failure to use an appropriate, scientifically-based methodology and/or strategy based on peer-reviewed research pursuant to Section 200.4 of the Regulations to address [the Student’s] XXXX for the XXXX school year.

The Parents assert that XXXX (Ex. IHO-3 at p. 5).

The Parent testified that the Student had XXXX (Tr. pp. 3407-3408).

XXXX testified that the Student XXXX (Tr. pp. 4197-4199; Ex. D-41 at p. 19).

XXXX made a XXXX recommendation that the Student receive XXXX. She also stated that XXXX could also address XXXX (Ex. D-24 at p. 45).

The evidence shows that XXXX (Ex. D-18).

The evidence shows that XXXX (Tr. pp. 1318-1325, 1329-1330; Exs. D-3, D-17).

The evidence also shows that XXXX (Tr. p. 445). In the area of XXXX (Tr. pp. 600-601, 3749-3750; Exs. D-18 at pp. 3-7, D-27 at pp. 14-16).

A review of the XXXX.

The evidence shows that the Student was XXXX (Tr. p. 134; Ex. D-13 at p. 2).

The evidence shows that XXXX.

State regulations require that XXXX

The Parent testified that, although they asked the District for XXXX, the District did not XXXX. The evidence shows that the CSE considered XXXX (Tr. pp. 3351- 3352).

XXXX testified that the Parents requested XXXX (Tr. pp. 4360-4362; Ex. D-24 at p. 46).

XXXX testified that although XXXX would have been advantageous, she did not believe that it was needed in order for the Student to be successful in school (Tr. pp. 1703-1704). The Parent testified that in XXXX, they obtained XXXX (Tr. pp. 3325- 3327), and in the XXXX, they XXXX (Tr. p. 3335).

In sum, I find that the District offered appropriate XXXX services for the Student that were reasonably calculated to confer meaningful educational benefit during the XXXX school year; that the Student would have received appropriate XXXX when needed, through his placement in the XXXX; and that XXXX were not required for the Student to receive a FAPE.

6. Failure to appropriately address XXXX.

The IDEA requires that, unless a state establishes a different limitations period under state law, a party must request a due process hearing within 2 years of when the party knew or should have known of the alleged action that forms the basis of the complaint.

The Parents assert XXXX (Ex. IHO-3 at p. 6).

The evidence shows that the Parents filed their Due Process Complaint Notice on June 17, 2014, more than 2 years after the time that they knew or should have known of the alleged action which formed the basis of their complaint with respect to XXXX. I find that their XXXX claim is time-barred.

Even if the Parents’ XXXX, the evidence shows that XXXX.

XXXX testified that (Tr. pp. 187-188, 392-397).

When the Parents told XXXX (Tr. pp. 188-189, 384-386, 389, 397-400; Exs. D-13 at p. 2, D-27 at p. 2).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 866-870).

XXXX stated that XXXX (Tr. pp. 1645-1648).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 1661-1662).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 1499-1501, 1585).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. p. 1584).

XXXX testified that XXXX (Tr. pp. 1333-1334, 1415-1417, 3874-3875; Exs. D-17 at p. 9, D-18 at p. 6, D-21 at pp. 2-4).

The evidence shows that XXXX (Exs. D-13 at p. 2, D-21, D-27 at p. 2).

XXXX indicate that XXXX (Tr. pp. 381, 1753-1757; Ex. D-19 at p. 6).

I find that the District acted appropriately in responding to the Parents’ and Student’s complaints about XXXX, and that there was no procedural violation of FAPE as a result.

7. Failure to offer XXXX with a qualified provider for the XXXX school year.

The Parents allege that, despite the Student’s XXXX, as set forth in the IEP for the XXXX school year, at no time did the CSE recommend a XXXX for the Student (Ex. IHO-3 at p. 6). The evidence shows that XXXX (Tr. pp. 690-697, 709; Ex. D-27 at pp. 1, 3, 9-11, 16).

XXXX provided the Student with XXXX (Tr. pp. 1318-1325, 1329-1330; Exs. D-3, D-17).

XXXX confirmed that during the XXXX school year, the Student received XXXX (Tr. pp. 498, 576-578, 601).

The evidence shows that XXXX is a XXXX (Tr. pp. 697-703, 1082-1085, 4048- 4049, 4051).

XXXX possesses XXXX (Tr. pp. 1312-1314, 1317).

XXXX possesses XXXX (Tr. pp. 428-430).

The evidence shows that the Student was able to demonstrate XXXX. A review of the IEP for the XXXX school year confirms that he would have continued to receive the same level of XXXX had he attended school in the District for the XXXX grade (Tr. pp. 587-591, 600-601; Exs. D-18 at pp. 3-7, D-27).

I find that the Student benefitted from the XXXX that he received during the XXXX school year by qualified providers, and the XXXX that he would have continued to receive in the XXXX school year was reasonably calculated to confer meaningful education benefit.

8. Failure to provide appropriate XXXX services.

The Parents allege that at the CSE meeting held in preparation for the Student’s program for the XXXX school year, they raised their concerns about the Student’s XXXX (Ex. IHO-3 at pp. 6-7). The evidence shows that during the XXXX school year, XXXX provided XXXX. They worked on XXXX (Tr. pp. 1318-1325, 1329-1330; Exs. D- 3, D-17).

XXXX stated that XXXX (Tr. pp. 1338-1339).

A review of the XXXX (Ex. D-32 at pp. 4-6).

The IEP for the XXXX school year contained XXXX goals in the areas of XXXX. XXXX recommended these goals in conjunction with XXXX (Tr. pp. 941-942). Goal XXXX (Tr. p. 948; Ex. D-27 at p. 16).

The IEP for the XXXX school year also contained a notation regarding the Parents’ concerns with respect to XXXX; that XXXX was implemented during the XXXX school year; and that XXXX seemed to have ameliorated the issue (Ex. D-27 at p. 3).

I find that the Student benefitted from the XXXX services that he received during the XXXX school year, and the XXXX that he would have continued to receive in the XXXX school year was reasonably calculated to confer meaningful education benefit.

9. Failure to provide adequate XXXX services.

The Parents allege that the IEP goals and services provided for the Student in the area of XXXX for the XXXX school year are inadequate to address the Student’s unique needs (Ex. IHO-3 at p. 7). The evidence shows that XXXX provided XXXX to the Student at the beginning of the XXXX school year. He received XXXX (Tr. pp. 440- 444; Ex. D-19).

The Student worked on XXXX (Tr. pp. 445-461, 465-490, 494-495, 558-559; Ex. D-19).

During the XXXX, the Student demonstrated XXXX (Tr. pp. 498, 576-578).

A review of the Student’s XXXX (Ex. D-32 at pp. 3-4).

With respect to standardized testing, XXXX (Tr. pp. 433-434).

The Student was administered the XXXX (Tr. pp. 433-434; Ex. D-4 at p. 3).

XXXX compared the XXXX testing conducted by XXXX in XXXX and XXXX in XXXX using the XXXX and stated XXXX (Tr. pp. 1979-1982; Exs. D-24 at p. 52, P-UUU at p. 5).

In the subtest of XXXX (Tr. pp. 1983-1988; Exs. D-24 at p. 52, P-UUU at p. 5).

XXXX stated that XXXX’s report demonstrated that the Student was XXXX (Tr. pp. 1998-2001, 2100; Ex. D-27 at p. 3).

XXXX reviewed the results of a XXXX evaluation conducted by XXXX on XXXX, which was obtained privately by the Parents. She testified that the results of independent testing in XXXX were expected, given her observation of the Student’s performance in school on his XXXX goals during that same period. The Student had XXXX (Tr. pp. 518-531, 3756--3757; Ex. D-20 at pp. 8-9).

XXXX also reviewed the results of XXXX’s testing to assess the Student’s XXXX. The XXXX (Tr. pp. 537-540; Ex. D-24 at p. 52).

XXXX compared the XXXX (Ex. P-TTT at p. 2) with XXXX’s XXXX report (Ex. D- 24 at p. 52) in the areas of XXXX (Tr. pp. 1989-1994).

The IEP for the XXXX school year contains XXXX goals in the area of XXXX (Tr. pp. 545-546; Ex. D-27 at p. 15).

XXXX testified that the XXXX goals contained in the IEP for the XXXX school year were appropriate for the Student, but that they were deficient in that they did not include goals to address XXXX. She also stated that the XXXX goals were clearly addressing XXXX and were appropriate. The evidence indicates that the Student received XXXX (Tr. pp. 1974-1975; Ex. D-24 pp. 17-55).

XXXX reviewed the levels of XXXX recommended for the Student for the XXXX school year and stated her opinion that it does not meet the Student’s need for XXXX, which she believed he required (Tr. pp. 1962-1964). She stated that XXXX is appropriate for the Student in terms of his XXXX goals, identified by her as goals 12 and 14 on the IEP. However, given the XXXX, she did not believe that XXXX would provide him with appropriate intervention to work on his XXXX. XXXX stated that XXXX (Tr. pp. 1969-1974, 2102-2104, 2107-2108; Ex. D-27 at pp. 14-15).

XXXX testified that an appropriate level of XXXX for the Student for the XXXX school year would have been XXXX. She then stated that the instruction could have focused on XXXX some days and some days for XXXX. She stated her belief that XXXX was not appropriate, although she acknowledged that XXXX was appropriate for XXXX. She also stated that she did not believe the Student’s XXXX goals could be implemented in XXXX. XXXX acknowledged that none of the reports of the XXXX she reviewed recommended XXXX. She disagreed with XXXX’s recommendation for XXXX. She acknowledged that XXXX (Tr. pp. 2065-2071, 2079, 2112-2115; Ex. P- MMM).

The evidence shows that the Student progressed in the area of XXXX during the XXXX school year with the levels of service provided by the District. The CSE’s recommended levels of XXXX for the XXXX school year are the same as that which he received during the XXXX school year, and I find that the XXXX recommended for the XXXX school year were reasonably calculated to confer meaningful educational benefit.

10. Failure to provide appropriate XXXX.

The Parents allege that at the XXXX CSE meeting, XXXX raised her concerns about the Student’s weakness in XXXX (Ex. IHO-3 at p. 7).

The evidence shows that during the XXXX school year, the Student worked with XXXX on XXXX using XXXX. He also used XXXX. The Student was able to keep pace with the rest of the XXXX grade classes. XXXX was. Students were grouped according to ability level. During the XXXX school year, the Student progressed in XXXX. The Parent testified to his belief that XXXX (Tr. pp. 716-720, 743-745, 759-763, 3655-3657; Ex. D-28 at p. 1).

A review of XXXX shows that XXXX (Ex. D-32 at pp. 1-2, D-27 at pp. 7, 9, 14).

A review of standardized testing shows XXXX (Ex. D-24 at pp. 6-7).

The IEP for the XXXX school year includes XXXX goals. Goals numbered XXXX (Tr. p. 940; Ex. D-27 at p. 14). XXXX agreed that the XXXX goals were appropriate (Tr. p. 2006).

The evidence shows that the Student progressed in the area of XXXX as part of XXXX, and the CSE’s recommendations for the Student’s continuation in that program for the XXXX school year was reasonably calculated to confer meaningful educational benefit.

In sum, I find that the District has met its burden of proving the appropriateness of its recommended placement. Having found that the District met its burden, I need not make a determination as to the appropriateness of the Student’s private placement in XXXX or whether the Parents’ claim is supported by equitable considerations. The necessary inquiry is at an end [See Burlington, 471 U.S. 359 (1985); see also Gagliardo, 489 F.3d 105, 115 (2d Cir. 2007); M.C. v. Voluntown Bd. of Education, 226 F.3d 60, 66 (2d Cir. 2000); Application of the Board of Education, Appeal No. 10-005].

ORDER

Based upon the above, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the Parents’ application for annulment of the District’s IEP for the XXXX school year is hereby denied; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Parents’ application for tuition reimbursement for the Student’s full tuition and related expenses at XXXX for the XXXX school year is hereby denied; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Parents’ application for payment for transportation related expenses regarding travel to and from XXXX every day until such time as the District first made transportation available to the Student between his home and XXXX is hereby denied; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Parents’ application for payment of attorney’s fees and expenses associated with representation in this matter is hereby denied; and it is further

ORDERED, that the Parents’ application for any further relief, including compensatory education, which the Hearing Officer deems just and proper is hereby denied.

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Within 35 days of the date of this Decision, the Parents and/or the Harrison Central School District have a right to appeal this Decision and any interlocutory decision to a State Review Officer (SRO) of the New York State Education Department under Section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

If the Parents plan to appeal the Decision, a Notice of Intention to Seek Review shall be personally served upon the School District not less than 10 days before service of a copy of the Petition for Review upon the School District, and within 25 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed, so that a certified copy of the hearing record may be prepared for submission by the School District. If the School District plans to appeal the decision, the District shall file a certified copy of the hearing record together with its Petition.

An appealing parties’ Petition for Review shall be personally served upon the opposing party 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 4 days subsequent thereto shall be excluded in computing the 25- or 35-day period [8 NYCRR Section 279.2(b)].

The rules of procedure for proceedings before a SRO are found in Part 279 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education available at http://www.sro.nysed.gov/part279home.html.

DATED: May 4, 2016

New City, New York

____________________________________

WENDY K. BRANDENBURG, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

Footnotes

[1] There were 16 additional scheduled dates of hearing that were canceled by the parties for various reasons, including but not limited to XXXX. 3

[2] XXXX, the District’s XXXX, testified that she had a lengthy conversation with the Parent regarding the accuracy of XXXX. She stated that she was told that XXXX (Tr. pp. 105, 4345-4347). A XXXX by XXXX, included a discussion of XXXX (Ex. P-WWW at p. 3). The Parents also questioned XXXX (Tr. p. 3613). 6