New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 164471

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District:

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Date of Hearing: January 27, 2017

January 31, 2017

June 7, 2017

Actual Record Closed Date: July 21, 2017

Hearing Officer: Linda S. Agoston, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JANUARY 27, 2017

Attorney (via telephone) — Parents

Dept. of Education Representative (via telephone) — District

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JANUARY 31, 2017

Attorney — Parents

Dept. of Education Representative — District

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JUNE 7, 2017

Attorney — Parents

via — Parents

telephone

via — Parents

telephone

via — Parents

telephone

Mother

Dept. of Education Representative (via telephone) — District

On November 15, 2016, I was designated by the New York City Department of Education ("DOE") as impartial hearing officer, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(2) and Article 89 of the Education Law of the State of New York in the matter of and the parent through her attorney, who initiated this hearing on November 15, 2016.

On January 24, 2017, I was informed that the DOE's attorney wanted to a have a telephone conference and I scheduled a pre-hearing telephone conference with the parties for January 27, 2017 and rescheduled the hearing to January 31, 2017, as the parent's attorney required an interim order for an independent evaluation to be conducted at public expense (Tr. at 6). On January 31, 2017, the DOE attorney agreed to fund the evaluation (Tr. at 22). The parties moved to extend the compliance date in light of anticipated evaluation and testimony, the scheduling of witnesses and submission of evidence and closing memoranda. In considering the requests I weighed the cumulative impact of the relevant factors and found that the need of the parties for additional time to prepare and present their positions in accordance with the requirements of due process was greater than any delay in the resolution of this matter. Accordingly, the joint requests for extensions of the compliance dates were granted and the required documentation provided to the parties (Tr. at 28;153-155; IHO Exhs. I-V I). The current record close date is July 21, 2017 and the decision due date is August 4, 2017. Appended to the record are the names of the persons who appeared at the hearing and the documents admitted into evidence.

The hearing in chief commenced and concluded on June 7, 2017. The parent brought this hearing to challenge the recommendation of the Committee on Special Education ("CSE") and to challenge the April 14, 2016 review program and placement for the 2016-2017 school year, as well to challenge the annual goals and objectives, records of progress, and lack of (" ") and seeks a Final Order for the following: (1) funding for a n independent

(" ") including a drafted (" ")

funded by the DOE; (2) that a (" "), such as

, develop the at a rate not to exceed ; (2) that the DOE will conduct an evaluation; (3) that CSE will reconvene and consider all new evaluations and develop an IEP that includes and a such as consistent with 's needs as a learner affected by and services for months; (4) that the DOE fund hours of compensatory educational services at the rate of per hour for the failure to provide with an appropriate program for the 2016- 2017 school years from the date of my order until August 30, 2018 (Tr. at 145;Exh. A at 7-

10). The parent withdrew the request for an independent evaluation as the issue was resolved and withdrew the request for a " " evaluations, a classroom observation, specific present levels of ability for s on the IEP (Tr. at 145-149).

The parent further requests that I order the Department to reconvene upon completion of all evaluations and create an appropriately drafted individualized education program ("IEP") that includes within 's program and and services and a placement in a public or approved non-public school

("NPS") in a small classroom with either (depending on new evaluations) students of similar abilities and deficits and with a teacher experienced instructing students (Exh. A at 10). In the post hearing brief, the parent requested deferring the case to the Central-Based Support Team ("CBST") in a program for , in a specialized non-public school, in a special education classroom with a student-to-staff ratio not greater than (Exh. IX at 20).

BACKGROUND

is a with a history of , who is diagnosed with , requiring

. (Exh II at 12). is presently attending

, a New York City DOE charter school( Tr. at 93). On October 29, 2013, the parent consented to services (Exh. N).

On October 30, 2013, the NYS early intervention ("EI") program developed an as the parent and evaluators identified deficits in Case No. 164471

(Exh. M).

On December 20, 2013, a Psychological Evaluation was conducted and the noted that . The attempted to use the and the . The found and based on the he likely met the criteria for and recommended a evaluation for a formal diagnosis of (Exh. AA at 4).

On January 9, 2014, an evaluation was conducted and the reporter noted that were evaluated for and that had a diagnosis of and received , and and services were approved, but not started (Exh. BB at 1) and that and (Exh. BB at 4).

On January 9, 2014, a evaluation was conducted and the reporter noted that (Exh. CC at 3).

On January 17, 2014, a Evaluation was conducted and the noted that " " (Exh. DD at 5).

On January 17, 2014, the Evaluation was conducted and the reporter noted and that had " " (Exh. EE at 5).

On March 13, 2014, the rated

and the reporter found that

(Exh. FF at 6-7).

On February 27, 2014, Committee on Preschool Special Education ("CPSE") met and developed an initial IEP that classified as a , and recommended be placed in a with a staffing ratio of and receive related services of (Exh. O at 12). The IEP did not recommend that receive of education and related services (Exh. 0 at 16).

On December 2014 the Progress Report indicated that was attending the in a class with a staffing ratio of in which was utilized and that received and that his were delayed (Exh. MM at 1).

On April 17, 2015, the Educational Progress Report indicated that were delayed and he presented "

" and he required "

"(Exh. OO at 1) .

On April 17, 2015, the Progress Report indicated that

(Exh. PP at 2).

On April 17, 2015, the Progress Report was conducted on and the reporter noted that

(Exh. QQ at 3).

On April 17, 2015, the Report indicated that

(Exh. RR at 1).

On December 15, 2015, the Progress Report noted that

(Exh. SS at 3).

On May 19, 2015, the CPSE met and developed an IEP and classified as , who demonstrated delays in "

" (Exh S at 1). The IEP recommended a with a staffing ratio of placement and related services of Case No. 164471

and receive

of education and related services (Exh. S at 17).

On January 4, 2016, the Educational Progress Report indicated that was placed in a with a student to staff ratio of and received related services of and was enrolled in a classroom that utilized to address the needs and learning style of students who (Exh. UU at 1), and whose were delayed

(Exh. UU at 4).

On April 14, 2016, the CSE classified with and recommended be placed in a with a staffing ratio of in and receive related services of (Exh. T at 14), in a school year (Exh. U at 1).

, , conducted a evaluation on various days in March 2017, when was and noted that

(Exh. II at 1). She

noted assessed his by the and reported the following scores:

(Exh. II at 5). She assessed his education levels with and noted that his and were consistent with . She noted that had "

" (Exh. II at 9) and

(Exh. II at 11). Dr. observed in the classroom and found he presented with "

"(Exh. II at 9). Dr. concluded that had and " " and needed "

" (Exh. II a 11). She recommended a program for , in a , with student-to-staff ratio of Case No. 164471 with , such as and a and and as well as a program of services or services ("EYS") and (Exh.II at 12).

THE DOE'S CASE

The DOE presented the testimony of , who presented no witnesses and no evidence to defend the parent's attorney's assertion that the DOE failed to provide a FAPE for the 2016-2017 school year. However, he asserted that a DOE funded ,

, evaluation and were problematic (Exh. VIII at 3).

Further, the DOE attorney disputes Impartial Hearing Officer authority to order placements not on the IEP, claiming that it improperly circumvents CSE consideration.

(Exh. VIII at 3), and argued that the relief of a class size of specific number of students such as or or a specific methodology, such as specific methodology circumvented the "statutorily mandated CSE process. See 8 NYCRR 200.4 etseq.; see also Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 15-077; Appeal No. 16-016"

(Exh. VIII at 4). He maintained that because the 2016-2017 school was over "any dispute over modifications to the 2016-2017 IEP regarding methodologies or class size is moot

(Exh. VIII at 6). He did not object to the amount of hours requested for compensatory educational services (Exh. VIII at 9-10).

THE PARENT'S CASE

The Parents' case was presented in the testimony of the parent, ,

, , , and

, .

Dr. testified that she has a Ph.D. in and was a NYS certified and had worked with for 25 years (Tr. at 54). She stated that she observed in his school environment in over 3 days and in an setting and noted that (Tr. at 59). She recalled that had consistent with and utilized the to assess and found that his scores in were splintered. She explained that (Tr. at 62). She

recalled that she assessed his by the and found that (Tr. at 64). She stressed that and that (Tr. at 65). She diagnosed with and diagnosed with and recommended a program proven to be effective with with with (Tr. at 68;72). She stressed that exhibited , such as (Tr. at 70). She opined that a should be conducted by a to determine (Tr. at 73) and opined that was a research-based methodology and would be most effective to ameliorate (Tr. at 75). She opined that the methodology was not effective for as and that should receive to ensure and prevent regression (Tr. at 76;88). She recommended for 's mother and assistive technology for communication (Tr. at

79).

Ms. , a possessor of the master's degree in and certified in NYS , employed by the , a charter school for 4 years, testified that was a school with students for (Tr. at 95).

She stated that was in an with in the 2016-

2017 school year (Tr. at 96). She explained that students in the class had IEPs and and another student was also classified with . She opined that presented with and required placement with (Tr. at 98). She related that she assigned a to for (Tr. at 100). She listed 's that included . She

explained that and that she requested an assessment and assessment because (Tr. at 104). She further explained that and and so she requested to CSE that receive an assessment and assessment, but did not receive a response (Tr. at 106).

, a possessor of a master's degree and a certification in employed by the as a , testified that she worked with and his teacher and his to address (Tr. at 117). She opined that made progress in (Tr. at 118), but that (Tr. at 119;122). She further opined that required to (Tr. at 124).

The parent stated that her son was placed in an for the school year 2016-2017 because she was forced to find a placement for him (Tr. at129). She recalled that she brought her son to the school on her son's placement letter at , his home zoned school, and was told that there were no and to go back to the district (Tr. at 130). She stressed that as her daughter attended the ,a school, she placed her son at the (Tr. at 132). She stated that she requested CSE evaluate her son in 2015-2016 and that she had brought her son to CSE for the evaluation, but that CSE lost the evaluation (Tr. at 133). She recalled that she requested an assessment and an assessment in from the DOE, but did not receive a response (Tr. at

135). She opined that during the 2016-2017

school year (Tr. at 136).

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Under IDEA, New York State law and both the federal and State regulations, the right to a FAPE is guaranteed. There is no obligation on the part of the school district to provide the best education for the student but that education must be appropriate so that there is an opportunity for the student to make progress in his education. States receiving federal funds are required to provide "all children with disabilities" a "free and appropriate public education" (20 U.S.C. § 400[d][1][A]).(Gagliardo v. A rlington Cent.

Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 122 [2d. Cir. 2007]). FAPE consists of specialized education and related services designed to meet a student’s unique need, provided in conformity with a comprehensive written IEP (34 C.F.R. § 300.13).

To meet its burden of showing that it had offered to provide a FAPE to a student, the board of education must show (a) that it complied with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) that the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206, 207 [1982]). As for the program itself, the Second Circuit has observed that "'for an IEP to be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, it must be likely to produce progress, not regression'" (Weixel v. Bd. of Educ., 287 F.3d 138, 151 [2d Cir. 2002], quoting M .S . ex rel. SS. V . Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of Y onkers, 231 F.3d 96 at 103 (2d Cir. 2000); see W alczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 at 130 (2d Cir. 1998). This progress, however, must be meaningful; i.e., more than mere trivial advancement (Id. at 130). The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.550[b]; 8 NYCRR 200.6[a][1]).

The Court in Rowley also observed that states are not required under IDEA to maximize every disabled child’s potential (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 198). The Second Circuit further observed that the IDEA is not intended to "secure the best education money can buy” or “guarantee any particular level of education" (W alczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 [2d Cir. 1998]) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

In A pplication of the New Y ork City Dept. of Educ., Appeal No.12-087, the SRO held that 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 CFR 300.320[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i];Tarlowe v. Dep't of Educ., 2008 WL 2736027, at *6 [S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2008] [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 CFR 300.320[a][2][i], [2][i][A]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]), and provides for the use of appropriate special education services (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][4]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]; see also Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 07-018; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-059; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 06-029; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-046; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02- 014; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 93-9)."

The burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing challenging the appropriateness of an IEP is on the Department of Education. N.Y. Educ. Law §4404[1][c].

The parent's attorney argued that the of the proposed placement at , the , (Exh. W) listed on the Prior Written Notice dated April 21, 2016, told the parent that there was no (Exh. IX at 6). I find that CSE had a obligation to notify the 's parent as parents of the recommended class under Jose P. v. Sobol, (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 1988). I credit the testimony of the parent who visited , and was told there was no (Tr. at 130). I find that the April 18, 2016 IEP could not be implemented because there was no .

The parent's attorney alleged that the IEP dated April 14, 2016 recommended program of the , in a program with no , and no , and no and that the recommendation was not appropriate (Exh. IX at 14). I find that the April 14, 2016 IEP indicated that 's was approximately and did not recommend an (Exh. T at 2, 6), and that , but did not recommend (Exh. T at 5). I find the IEP indicated that became "

"(Exh. T at 3), but did not recommend a (Exh. T at 6). I find IEP failed to adequately address 's as outlined in April 2015 Education Evaluation that noted and that presented "

" and he required "

"(Exh. OO at 1) . I find the witnesses credibly testified that 's included and (Tr. at 70, 104, 117), and I conclude that the April 14, 2016 IEP did not adequately address 's .

The parent's attorney stated that the IEP team that met on "April 14, 2016, failed to conduct and to consider all necessary and appropriate evaluations of the Student. For example, the team did not consider a psychological, psycho-social, or psycho-educational evaluation of the Student, a social history report, or an or evaluation. Although the Parent and the charter school in October 2016 submitted to the Committee on Special Education a request for an evaluation (Tr. 105, 135), and requested an evaluation and an evaluation in April 2017 (Tr. 106, 108, 111, 135), the Department of Education did not conduct the evaluations (Tr. 107)" (Exh. IX at 4). I

agree.

I find that the CSE recommended that be placed in a with a staffing ratio of and receive related services of , in a program. I find that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that this program would enable to make meaningful educational gains and caused a deprivation of educational benefits. I find that the DOE failed to provide a FAPE for 2016-2017 because he required a more intense program than the DOE was willing to provide. I find there was no evidence presented that required a less restrictive setting than the in a class with a staffing ratio of as the record was replete with (Exh. EE at 5; FF at 6,7; MM at 1; RR at 1; UU at 4)

and (DD at 5).

I find the DOE failed to provide an appropriate placement for under 8 N.Y.C.R.R. §200.13. I find under 8 N.Y.C.R.R. §200.13(a)(6) a student with must have "

"

(Id). I find that DOE failed to establish that was grouped appropriately and failed to establish that was educated by someone with a background in teaching

. I find that the failure to offer mandated by §

200.13 was a denial of FAPE.

The parents' attorney further argued that the IEP team did not conduct the necessary assessments including a or a (Exh. IX at 14). I find that under 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.4[b][1][v] an was required as and I find the record was replete with examples that .

The parent's attorney asserted that the goals were insufficient and inappropriate and there was no goal to address (Exh. IX at 18). I agree and find that the DOE failed to establish that FAPE was provided to for the 2016-2017 school year.

The parents' attorney alleged that the failure to conduct appropriate evaluations including a and and evaluations caused a denial of FAPE

FAPE and requested a and evaluation at public expense (Exh. IX at 12).

I find that a school district must pay for a parent's independent educational evaluation under the following circumstances: (1) if the district files for a due process hearing without unnecessary delay, and either (2) shows that its evaluation is appropriate, or (3) shows that the evaluation obtained by the parent does not meet school district criteria 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.5(g)(1)(iv). I find the parent is entitled to an independent and and as school district neither filed a due process hearing or asserted that the evaluation obtained by the parent was did not meet school district criteria.

I find compensatory education is available as an appropriate remedy under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). P. ex rel. M r. and M rs. P. v.

Newington Bd. of Ed., 546 F. 3d 111 (2nd Cir. 2008). Compensatory education, as with other forms of available remedies, serves the purpose of ensuring that the student is appropriately educated within the meaning of the IDEA. Newington, 546 F.3d at 123, quoting Parents of Student W . v. Puy allup Sch. Dist., 31 F.3d 1489, 1497 (9th Cir.1994).

The aim of compensatory education services is to place the student in the position he or she would have been in had the district complied with its obligations under the IDEA. See

Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 518 (D.C.Cir. 2005) as cited in Newington, 546 F.3d at 123. I credit the testimony of Dr. regarding the amount of services that required. The parents' attorney asserted that required based on per the testimony of Dr. (Tr. at 76;88).

The DOE attorney did not dispute the denial of FAPE for the 2016-2017 school year and acknowledged that hours of compensation is warranted based on Dr.

's testimony (Exh. VIII at 10). I credit the testimony of Dr. and find that is entitled to hours of compensatory services at the rate not to exceed per hour.

With regard to the provision of , I find that the evidence is persuasive that requires (Exh, II at 12). I find credible the testimony of parent's witnesses and find that would progress with (Exh. 68;72;124). I find the record was replete with and I find that the DOE attorney did not dispute the deficiencies described and did not rebut the testimony with regard to the efficacy of . The DOE attorney's sole claim was that the "CSE need not require specific methodology on an IEP and the teaching methodologies used are determined by those implementing the IEP. Rowley at 204; R.B. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 2014 WL 5463084 at *4 [2d Cir. 2014]"

(Exh. VIII at 6). I find that received and made limited gains and I credit the testimony of Dr. 's regarding in 's inability to benefit from (Tr. at 68).

The parents' attorney maintained that the parent was entitled to an appropriate and resultant . I find the parent communicated her disagreement with the CSE recommendation and I find the DOE failed to produce evaluations sufficiently comprehensive to identify all the student’s special education needs and to ascertain the physical, mental, behavioral, and emotional factors which contribute to the suspected disability. 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.4(b)(6)(xi), § 200.4(b)(1)(v) § 200.4(b)(5)(iii). See, 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(2)(A); 34 C.F.R. 300.305(c); See also, A .D. v. Ed. Of Educ., 690 F.Supp.2d 193 (S.D.N.Y . 2010).

With regard to the request for services the DOE attorney argued that services were already provided for the school year in question (Exh. VIII at 9). I find that a program is warranted if a student will suffer substantial regression in the absence of the services. 8 N.Y.C.R.R. 200.4(d)(2)(x); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.6(k)(1)(v). I credit Dr. 's evaluation and find that required a program ( Exh. II at 12). With regard to the request for a specific NPS placement the DOE attorney asserted that "testimony elicited from Parent’s witnesses does nothing to further clarify whether the Parent seeks a public or non-public placement or the size of the program parent seeks or what program recommendation would be supported by the evidence and would provide the Student with an educational benefit in the least restrictive environment" and that a specific placement

"order would be a circumvention of the normal process—Parent’s request for an order requiring a specific program recommendation on the IEP should not be granted" (Exh.

VIII at 8). I find that the CSE has already had an opportunity to consider the evidence presented, except for the evaluation, submitted in this proceeding.

Further, I find that should the parent disagree with the CSE's recommendation and request another hearing this action would result in substantial delay which would be detrimental for Accordingly, I find that a deferral to the CBST for a NPS placement is ordered if no public school placement in a special education classroom with a student-to-staff ratio not greater than with using a research-based methodology such as is offered to the parent.

ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby ordered that the DOE shall fund the following: (1) an independent including a ; (2) the to be conducted by at a rate not to exceed ; (3) hours of compensatory educational services at the rate not to exceed per hour for the failure to provide with an appropriate program for the 2016- 2017 school years from the date of my order until August 30, 2018.

I further order that the CSE will reconvene and (1) defer this matter to the CBST for an approved NPS placement with no more than and with if no public school placement in a special education classroom with a student-to-staff ratio not greater than with using a research-based methodology such is available; (2) conduct an evaluation and (3) upon the completion of all evaluations create an IEP that includes and a research-based methodology such as consistent with 's needs as a and services for .

Dated: July 27, 2017

LINDA S. AGOSTON, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer LA:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

The parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to obtain a review of this decision by a State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Part 200.5(k) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, Section 4404 of the Education Law, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Directions and forms can be found on the Office of State Review website: http://www.sro.nysed.gov/RevisedRegulationsOverview.html

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON JANUARY 27, 2017

I Decision on Extension, 1/13/17, 1p. IHO

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON JANUARY 31, 2017

I Decision on Extension, 1/13/17, 1p. IHO

II Decision on Extension, 1/31/17, 1p. IHO

A Due Process Complain, 11/15/16 10 pp. Parent

YY 's documents, 1/31/17, 2 pp. Parent

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON JUNE 7, 2017

B Request for evaluation, 10/16/16, 1 p. Parent

C Request for educational records, 11/10/16, 1 p. Parent

D Request for educational records, 11/14/16, 1 p. Parent

E Request for educational records, 11/14/16, 1 p. Parent

F Request for independent evaluation, 11/15/16, 4 pp. Parent

G Due process response, 11/22/16, 3 pp. Parent

H Attorney's letter regarding due process response, 11/22/16, 1 p. Parent

I Certificate of educational records, 12/1/16, 2 pp. Parent

J Omitted

K Omitted

L Omitted

M , 10/29/13, 3 pp. Parent

N Consent for services, 10/29/13, 1 p. Parent

O Individualized education program, 2/27/14, 17 pp. Parent

P Individualized education program, 6/25/14, 17 pp. Parent

Q Approval and authorization to receive Parent special education services, 6/25/14, 1 p. Parent

R Final notice of recommendation, 6/25/14, 1 p. Parent

S Individualized education program, 5/19/15, 18 pp. Parent

T Individualized education program, 4/14/16, 16 pp. Parent

U Prior written notice, 4/19/16, 4 pp. Parent

V Individualized education program, 4/21/16, 22 pp.

W Prior written notice, 5/27/16, 4 pp.

X Omitted

Y Omitted

Z Omitted

AA evaluation, 12/20/13, 4 pp. Parent

BB evaluation, 1/9/14, 4 pp. Parent

CC evaluation, 1/9/14, 4 pp. Parent

DD evaluation, 1/17/14, 6 pp. Parent

EE evaluation, 1/17/14, 5 pp. Parent

FF Child outcome summary report form, 2/13/14, 9 pp. Parent

GG Physician's letter regarding diagnosis, 4/11/16, 1 p. Parent

HH , 8/24/16, 1 p. Parent

II evaluation, 5/29/17 13 pp. Parent

JJ Omitted

KK Omitted

LL Omitted

MM Quarterly progress report, December 2014, 5 pp. Parent

NN Quarterly progress report, March 2015, 6 pp. Parent

OO Educational progress report, 4/17/15, 4 pp. Parent

PP annual progress report, 4/17/15, 2 pp. Parent

QQ annual progress report, 4/17/15, 3 pp. Parent

RR annual progress report, 4/17/15, 2 pp. Parent

SS annual progress report, 12/22/15, 3 pp. Parent

TT Quarterly progress report, December 2015, 7 pp. Parent

UU Educational progress report, 1/4/16, 4 pp. Parent

VV annual progress report, 1/6/16, 2 pp Parent

WW annual progress report, 1/28/16, 2 pp. Parent

XX update, 11/4/16, 2 pp. Parent

IV Decision on Extension, 4/19/17, 1p. IHO

V Decision on Extension, 4/28/17, 1p. IHO

VI Decision on Extension, 6/7/17, 1p. IHO

POST HEARING SUBMISSIONS

VII Decision on Extension, 7/7/17, 1p. IHO

VIII 's Closing Brief, 7/21/17, 10 pp. IHO

IX 's Closing Brief, 7/20/17, 21 pp. IHO