New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 169779

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District:

Hearing Requested By: Parents

Dates of Hearing: December 10, 2018

Actual Record Closed Date: August 13, 2019

Hearing Officer: Jeffrey Schiro, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

DECEMBER 10, 2018

For the Student:

Esq., Attorney

Interpreter

parent

Principal at (via telephone)

Teacher (via telephone)

For the Department of Education:

District Representative

Teacher (via telephone)

INTRODUCTION

On the above date, I held an impartial hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (f)(1), regarding the education program of a school-aged child, (the “Student”’). The hearing was conducted at the impartial hearing office of the New York City Department of Education, at 131 Livingston St., Brooklyn, NY. At hearing, the Department of Education (hereinafter referred to as the “DOE”’) was represented by , District Representative, and the Parents were represented by ; Esq., of counsel to the The DOE offered the testimony of , a DOE special education teacher, and offered Exhibits 1-6, of which 2-6 were received in evidence. The Parents offered the testimony of —the Student’s mother, as well as the testimony of , Principal of , and Ja teacher. Parents’ Exhibits A-KK were received in evidence.

testified on direct examination by affidavit but appeared at hearing for cross-examination. The remainder of the witnesses testified via telephone. A list of documents received into evidence is attached to this Decision and Order.

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL POSTURE

On June 23, 2017, the Parents, through their attorney, sent the DOE a ten-day notice (“TDN”) alleging numerous procedural and substantive errors committed by the DOE that constituted a denial of a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”’) and informing the DOE that in the absence of an offer of FAPE they would be placing the Student at for the 2017-2018 school year (Ex. C). The Parents filed an impartial hearing request on September 20, 2017 (Ex. A). A Pendency Order was subsequently issued directing the DOE to pay tuition for the Student’s attendance at retroactive to September 20, 2017 (Ex. E). On June 22, 2018 the Parents, through their attorney, sent the DOE a TDN for the 2018-2019 school year, and on August 1, 2018, the Parents filed an amended request for due process to add claims pertaining to the 2018-2019 school year (Exs. F, G). The Parents allege that the DOE deprived the Student of a FAPE for the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 school years, are requesting an order directing the DOE to fully fund the Student’s placement at for the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 school years, via a combination of direct payment and reimbursement of deposit moneys paid by the Parents to is a student with a disability who resides within the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”’), and who is classified under the category “autism” (Ex. H-1). As of the time of hearing, he was and attending 5“ ”), a private school located at has been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder with accompanying language impairment, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, inattentive type, generalized anxiety disorder, and specific learning disorders in the areas of reading, writing and mathematics (Ex. K-20 to K-21). His intellectual functioning skills fall within the borderline range, with some scores in the low-average range (Ex. K-22). He has strengths in verbal and nonverbal memory, visual spatial reasoning, verbal reasoning, rapid naming, and decoding (Ex. K-22). His weaknesses include vocabulary, processing speed, working memory, reading comprehension, writing, mathematics, attention and receptive, expressive and pragmatic language (Ex. K-22 to K-23). began attending in the fall of October 2015 pursuant to a Findings of Fact and Decision in Case No. 160053 (“Decision”) (Ex. B; GG Aff. 92). That Decision required, inter alia, the DOE to fund an independent neuropsychological evaluation and a speech language evaluation of the Student (Ex. B-15; GG Aff. 93). The Parents obtained these evaluations in the fall of 2016 (the “Neuropsychological Evaluation” and the “Speech Language Evaluation”) and provided them to the DOE’s Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) in November 2016 (Exs.

K, L; GG Aff. 93). The CSE met on December 14, 2016 to develop an IEP for for the 2017-2018 school year, and recommended a 15:1 special class in a community school setting (Ex. H-20; GG Aff. 94). The Parents and personnel disagreed with this recommendation as inconsistent the recommendations made in the evaluations that had been provided to the CSE.

(Ex. H-11; GG Aff. 995-6; Tr. 71-72). The Parents allege that they did not receive a copy of the December 2016 IEP until May 2017, it was submitted as a proposed item of evidence disclosure in another matter (GG Aff. 97). After receiving no response from the DOE to the concerns raised in the June 2017 TDN, the Parents enrolled at for the 2017-2018 school year (Ex. EE; GG Aff. 98).

The CSE next convened on November 29, 2017 to develop an IEP for for the 2018-2019 school year (GG Aff. 913). At the meeting, the CSE again a 15:1 special class in a community school setting, and mother and personnel disagreed with this recommendation (GG Aff. 913; and see Ex. T-4). According to mother, the Parents never received an IEP nor a Prior Written Notice (“PWN”) from the DOE arising out of the November 29, 2017 meeting, although she requested it twice from the CSE (GG Aff. 914; Tr. 53-55). The DOE was further informed that the Parents had not received the IEP in the TDN mailed on June 22, 2018 (Ex. F-2), and in the Amended Hearing Request dated August 1, 2018 (Ex. G-4). The DOE did not submit a copy of the IEP or a PWN pertaining to the 2018-2019 school year as evidence in this hearing.

THE PARENTS’ REQUEST

The Parent requests findings that the DOE deprived the Student of a FAPE for school years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, impeded the Parents’ procedural and substantive rights under the IDEA, and deprived the Parents of their independent right that their son receive a FAPE (Exs.

A, G). They are requesting an order directing the DOE to fully fund the Student’s placement at for the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 school years, via a combination of direct payment and reimbursement of deposit moneys paid to (Exs. A, G and see Tr. 27-31). The DOE contends that was offered a FAPE for the school years in issue (See Tr. 26-27).

ANALYSIS

The IDEA mandates that districts provide students with disabilities with an educational program that meets the unique needs of the student and is reasonably calculated to “enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F. v. Douglas

Cty. Sch. Dist., 580 U.S., 137 S.Ct. 988, 999 (2017); Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982). To meet the IDEA’s requirements, a school district’s program must provide special education and related services that are “‘specially designed’ to meet a child’s ‘unique needs’” and are reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. Endrew F., 137 S.Ct. at 999 (emphasis in original); M.H. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 685 F.3d 217, 224 (2d. Cir. 2012) (quoting Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 107 (2d Cir. 2007) and citing 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9)). “The Act contemplates that this fact-intensive exercise will be informed not only by the expertise of school officials, but also by the input of the child’s parents or guardians.” Endrew F., 137 S.Ct. at 999.

A denial of FAPE can be one that is substantive or results from violations of the procedural protections enumerated in the IDEA and its regulations. Procedural violations result in denial of FAPE “if they ‘impeded the child’s right to a [FAPE],’ ‘significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision-making process,’ or ‘caused a deprivation of educational benefits.’” 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(3)(E)(Gi); 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(a)(2); 8 NYCRR

200.5(j)(4)(i1); A.C. ex rel. M.C. v. Bd. of Educ. of Chappaqua Cent. Sch. Dist., 553 F.3d 165, 172 (2d Cir. 2009); see also Werner v. Clarkstown Cent. Sch. Dist., 363 F. Supp. 2d 656, 659 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (“Multiple procedural violations may cumulatively result in the denial of FAPE even if the violations considered individually do not.”). “[P]rocedural inadequacies that individually or cumulatively result in the loss of educational opportunity or seriously infringe on a parent's participation in the creation or formulation of the IEP constitute a denial of a FAPE.” W.S. ex rel. CS. v. Rye City Sch. Dist., 454 F.Supp.2d 134, 138 (S.D.N.Y.2006). Parents need not allege any substantive harm they suffered as a result of the procedural violation—the statute provides that the fact of the procedural violation, if it significantly impedes the parents' opportunity to participate in the decision-making process, is a harm unto itself that results in the denial of a FAPE. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(]ii). K.R. ex rel. Matthew R. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 107 F. Supp. 3d 295, 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2015).

Reimbursement of tuition is a remedy made available to parents of children with disabilities by the United States Supreme Court, see Florence Cty. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993); Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359 (1985); D.C.

ex rel. E.B. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 950 F.Supp.2d 494, 497-498 (S.D.N.Y. 2013), and by the IDEA. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)). Under the Burlington-Carter test for tuition reimbursement, parents are entitled to reimbursement of private school tuition if (1) the DOE failed to offer the student a FAPE, (2) the private schooling obtained by the parents is appropriate to the child's needs, and (3) equitable considerations support the parent(s). See

Forest Grove v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230 (2009); Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356 (2d Cir. 2006); 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C).

The burdens of production and persuasion fall upon the school district for all matters at issue at the hearing other than the appropriateness of the parental placement (if applicable), for which the burden of proof lies with the parents. N.Y. Education Law § 4404(1)(c). Thus, other than the appropriateness of a parental placement, the DOE’s burden of proof and persuasion applies to every contested issue in the hearing See SRO Appeal No. 17-105 at 8-9 (January 22, 2018) (holding that the DOE’s burden also extends to compensatory education issues). The SRO has also found that allegations that are left unchallenged are deemed as true “unless found to be inconsistent with the evidence in the record.” Appeal No. 19-038 at 28 (SRO July 1, 2019); Appeal No., 01-044 (SRO March 27, 2002); see also Appeal No. 12-006 at 8 (SRO February 8, 2012).

FAPE

The December 14, 2016 IEP recommends that be placed in a 15:1 community school classroom. I find that this placement recommendation is inconsistent with the recommendations made in the Neuropsychological Evaluation, which was obtained via the prior Decision, and which was to inform the new IEP. (Ex. K). That evaluation recommended as follows: Given [ ]|’s set of strengths and weaknesses, he requires a small, specialized school that provides a self-contained, small classroom environment with teachers who are specially trained to work with students with developmental differences and attention deficits. [ | needs a placement that will provide a high teacher/student ratio in a small classroom with teachers trained in using a multi-sensory approach, cueing, and scaffolding, to address his ASD and AD/HD. He also needs pragmatic language instruction to be part of the daily curriculum so that he can develop his social communication skills. Given the effect of his executive functioning and attention deficits, [ | needs a small class with a lot of individual attention and adult support in order to develop his skills. Otherwise, he will feel lost and struggle to keep up with his peers. [ ]’s current academic placement meets all of these needs. It is essential that he continue to receive a placement at this type of school as they provide the services and supports he requires throughout his school day.

(Ex. K-23). The Speech Language Evaluation similarly recommended: [ | should remain in a small class setting with a low student to teacher ratio in a school setting with teachers and related service providers and support staff who are trained and experienced in working with adolescents with language disorders and social pragmatic difficulties. [ ]’s work should be adapted and modified to reflect his difficulties with receptive and expressive language, inferential use of language, language organization and the numerous areas of difficulty noted in the present report. While addressing and recognizing [ ]’s areas of need, [ |’s areas of relative strength, such as being able to engage in simple discourse, use language for a variety of pragmatic functions, create simple narratives and use language for basic social purposes should be reinforced and expanded with opportunities for these areas to be used across environments.

(Ex. L-12).

The December 2016 CSE’s placement recommendation of a 15:1 community school program is inconsistent with these recommendations and the DOE’s evidence and proffered testimony did not provide any explanation for these inconsistencies (Tr. 33-50). Rather, the DOE witness offered only a conclusory and superficial explanation for the CSE’s 15:1 recommendation as “the least restrictive environment for [the Student] to have access to the general education curriculum,” in light of the fact that he was “social,” “able to communicate,” “funny” and did not “severe aggressive behaviors or anything like that” (Tr. 39, 51). She provided a similarly conclusory explanation as to why other settings were rejected, namely, that the CSE believed the ICT class “would not meet his needs, and the more restrictive would be too restrictive” (Tr. 41).

She was also unable to explain why the IEP did not acknowledge or mention the Speech Language Evaluation (Tr. 45-46). She acknowledged, however, that the Parents expressed their disagreement with the 15:1 recommendation as too large of a class for (Tr. 40; Ex. 3-2). I therefore find that the December 2016 CSE did not appropriately consider the [HO-ordered evaluations or the Parents’ concerns, and did not recommend an appropriate educational program for The DOE also did not address any of the other substantive issues with the December 2016 IEP raised by the Parents at hearing, including the IEP’s lack of information pertaining to the Neuropsychological Evaluation, as well as its failure to acknowledge several of the Student’s diagnoses including his severe mixed expressive/receptive language disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, inattentive type, generalized anxiety disorder, or specific learning disorders in the areas of reading, writing and math. The DOE also did not explain why almost the recommended strategies, techniques and accommodations listed in the Neuropsychological Evaluation or the Speech Language Evaluation were not incorporated into the IEP, nor did the DOE address any of the other alleged deficiencies of the December 2016 IEP enumerated in the hearing request, including the truncated summer program. There was also no explanation as to why the CSE failed to consider recommending deferral to the DOE’s central based support team (“CBST”) for placement in an appropriate non-public school. I therefore find that the DOE did not meet its burden to prove that the December 2016 IEP was appropriate for the Student, and, accordingly, the DOE did not demonstrate that it offered an appropriate educational program to the Student for the 2017-2018 school year.

The DOE did not present a case with respect to the 2018-2019 school year, and did not even produce an IEP in evidence pertaining to that school year. (See 8 NYCRR §200.4(e)(1)(i1), which requires school districts to “ensure that each student with a disability has an IEP in effect at the beginning of each school year.”). The DOE’s witness also had no recollection of the meeting during with the 2018-2019 school year was discussed (Tr. 43). I further find that the November 2017 CSE’s recommendation of a 15:1 classroom setting for was inconsistent with the Neuropsychological Evaluation and the Speech Language Evaluation, for the same reasons as the December 2016 CSE’s recommendation ofa 15:1 classroom setting. Moreover, mother disagreed with the recommendation, as did his teachers who attended the meeting.

(Tr. 118; Ex. T-4). “They felt it was inappropriate, that he would not be able to focus,” that “he would get lost in the shuffle,” and that it would “be too much of an overwhelming environment for him” (Tr. 118). This testimony was uncontested. I therefore find that the DOE did not meet its burden to prove that it offered an appropriate educational program to the Student for the 2018-2019 school year.

The evidence contained in the hearing record demonstrates that the DOE failed to offer a FAPE to the Student during the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 school years as alleged by the Parents, impeded the Student’s and the Parents’ substantive and procedural rights under the IDEA, and significantly impeded the Parents’ opportunity to participate in the provision of a FAPE to their son.

APPROPRIATENESS OF THE PRIVATE SCHOOL PLACEMENT

The Parent presented a significant amount of testimonial and documentary evidence to support their position that was appropriate for during the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 school years. , the principal of since 2012, testified at hearing (Tr. 56-95). She possesses a New York special education teaching license, as well as teaching and administrators licenses in New Jersey (Tr. 60). She also holds dual master’s degrees in special education and educational leadership (Tr. 59). Her employment experience includes fourteen years of teaching—eight and a half of which were spent in the MS4 setting which she described as equivalent to the DOE’s current District 75 program—followed by ten years as a principal of a public elementary school (Tr. 59). , a 14-year teacher at , also testified at hearing (Tr. 96-123). has been teaching for three years (Tr. 100). I find that that both and testimony was credible.

is a small a private school for students aged 5-21 with disabilities, including, particularly, those on the autism spectrum (Tr. 60; Ex. CC-3). Classes are small, with six to eight students and two teachers (Tr. 61). offers three programs: BASE Institute, which is for students with some intellectual impairments, (“ ”), which is for students who are intellectually average or above average and who have the capacity to attend college, and a blended program where higher-level BASE students attend classes and sometimes move up to the full program (Tr. 61-62). Teachers receive ongoing training and professional development at (Tr. 62). There are also weekly staff meetings and regular meetings with the related services providers to ensure students are meeting their goals (Tr. 67-68, 113).

and both opined that has been appropriate for during the relevant time period (Tr. 87, 120). Parents shared this belief (Ex. GG Aff.

418). The educational program that receives at clearly meets his educational needs, both as outlined in the evaluations obtained as a result of the prior hearing, and as understood by his educators at . The small class setting is particularly suited to his needs arising out of his various learning disabilities and provides him with 1:1 instruction throughout his school day (Tr. 66, 73, 76-77, 85). Techniques such as reducing the amount of questions, 1:1 pre-reading, help with planning and organizing his thoughts, breaking assignments into smaller parts, using visual models, and other 1:1 support have helped him to access the curriculum (Tr. 80-81, 110-12). He has also been given additional time to learn more difficult subjects, such as taking

Algebra I over two school years instead of one (Ex. N-3).

The intensive supports and individual interventions receives at have enabled him to make appropriate educational progress (Tr. 110, 119-20). When began attending three years ago he was severely academically delayed (Ex. B-5, B-6), and was initially placed in BASE program, but by the end of the school year he was given the opportunity to attend earth science class (Ex. B-6; Tr. 65, 66, 82—-83, 101-02). This motivated to advocate to become and student himself, and he aspires to attend college and to “align himself to more of an academic world” (Tr. 83). became a blended student in the 2016-2017 school year (Ex. J-3), taking high school level classes for credit, and is nowa full student at . He is currently an eleventh grade student, and his academics are aligned with New York educational standards, while remaining individualized and modified to match his learning style (Tr. 79-80).

also benefits “tremendously” from the Social Thinking program at , which was developed to help students on the autism spectrum self-regulate and the learn social skills (Tr.

63-64, 74). The program helps raise students’ awareness of their verbal and non-verbal communication skills (Tr. 75). According to ; has “definitely developed his social skills” while at , and “has become socially appropriate with his peers and adults” (Tr. 65). He has learned to monitor and regulate himself, and no longer impulsively makes inappropriate comments at school (Tr. 65, 74-75). He is “a different student today, and he is extremely well-liked by his peers” (Tr. 75). He also enjoys attending school at (Tr. 87, 119).

At ; receives related services of speech language therapy twice per week in a group, and once per week individually, and counseling twice per week in a group (Tr. 68. 119; Exs. V-1; W-1). has also provided him with vocational training on-site and outside of school, which has helped improve his practical and pragmatic skills (Tr. 75-76, 83). He is able to follow directions, self-advocate and ask for clarification when needed, and has thus become a desired worker (Tr. 76).

The record also demonstrates that has made steady progress across in all areas over the last two school years (Exs. O, P, Q, U, V, W, X Y). He achieved all of his annual goals during the 2017-2018 school year (Ex. Z), and, as of the time of hearing, was progressing through his 2018-2019 goals (Ex. AA). His writing became more organized and structured; and he was able to handle longer writing assignments as well as research assignments (Tr. 114-15). He also earned good grades and received full credit for all of his classes and is working towards earning a local diploma and, eventually, attending college (Ex. BB-1, BB-2, Tr. 65-66, 79, 83-84). His educators were impressed by his motivation and work ethic, which included his attempting various Regents exams—some of which he has passed with the DOE’s safety net scoring for children with disabilities (Ex. BB-1; Tr. 67, 81-82, 102, 105-109).

I find that has provided with an environment that provides appropriate, individualized supports and services to enable him to access his education, while allowing him to pursue appropriately ambitious educational goals (Tr. 109, 120). I therefore find that was appropriate for during the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 school years and that, as a result, he made meaningful educational progress.

EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS

Parents who do not obstruct their school district’s placement process will not be precluded from receiving reimbursement for equitable reasons. See C.L. v. Scarsdale Union Free Sch. Dist., 744 F.3d 826, 840 (2d Cir. 2014) (equities weighed in favor of the Parents, as they attempted to find an appropriate placement within the DOE, attempted to make contact with the recommended placement site, and did not enroll the child in the private school until after they were unsuccessful at the CSE meeting); R.B. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 713 F.Supp.2d 235, 248-

249 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); see also A.R. v. N.Y.C Dep’t of Educ., 2013 WL 5312537, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 23, 2013)(“there was no evidence that Plaintiff ever failed to cooperate with the DOE, declined to visit any proposed placement, or notify the DOE of her dissatisfaction with its proposal. Therefore, the court [found] that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrate[d] Plaintiff's cooperation with the DOE’s placement process and that equitable considerations weigh[ed] in favor of granting her relief’). Where the parents “cooperate with the District in its efforts to meet its obligations under the IDEA . . . their pursuit of private placement [is] not a basis for denying their tuition reimbursement... .” C.L., supra, 744 F. 3d at 840. Further, a finding or concession of FAPE deprivation necessarily tips the equity of private tuition reimbursement by the DOE in the Parents’ favor. N.R. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 2009 WL 874061, *7 (March 31, 2009). The DOE did not raise any issue concerning the equities at hearing. Moreover, the equities are clearly in the Parents’ favor.

There is no evidence that the Parents obstructed the DOE during the relevant time period.

The Parents appropriately shared information with the DOE including the [HO-ordered evaluations and numerous progress reports from , participated in the December 2016 and November 2017 CSE meetings, and complied with notice requirements to the DOE before unilaterally placing him at (Exs. C, F, K, L, N, O, P, Q, T, U, V, W, X and Y). In contrast, the DOE failed to appropriately consider the Parents’ concerns, failed to provide the Parents with an IEP prior to the beginning of the 2018-2019 school year and deprived of a FAPE for each of the two school years at issue. I therefore find that there are no equitable considerations which would support a reduction or denial of tuition funding in this matter.

ENTITLEMENT TO DIRECT PAYMENT

The Student’s parents are low income earners, with a combined 2017 income under

$25,000, who lack the ability to directly pay tuition, which is over $80,000 per year, and then seek reimbursement (Exs. EE, FF, GG, II, JJ; GG Aff. $18). I therefore find that they are entitled to have the DOE pay all remaining outstanding tuition balances for both the 2017-2018 and the 2018-2019 school years directly to

ORDER

In light of all of the foregoing findings and conclusions, including but not limited to my findings that the DOE failed to provide the Student with a FAPE for the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, school years and deprived the Parents of their independent rights under the IDEA, I therefore order the DOE to: 1) Directly fund the Student’s attendance at for the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 school years.

2) Reimburse the Parents for any amounts paid to for the 2017-2018 and 2018

2019 school years, including the $250.00 deposit paid by the Student’s mother to for the 2017-2018 school year.

IT ISSO ORDERED

Dated: August 14, 2019

Jeffrey Schiro, Esq.

Impartial Hearing Officer

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. The Department of Education has designated the New York City Law Department to accept service of papers on its behalf, including appeals of decisions of Impartial Hearing Oricers. Such service is made at 100 Church Street, New York, NY 10007 at the Messenger enter.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

PARENT

A Due Process Complaint Notice, 9/20/17, 6 pages

B Findings of Fact and Decision in Case Number 160053, 8/1/16 19 pages

C Ten-Day Notice, 6/23/17, 4 pages

D Due Process Response, 10/10/17, 3 pages

E. Interim Order on Pendency, 3/5/18, 9 pages

F Ten-Day Notice, 6/22/18, 4 pages

G Amended Due Process Complaint Notice, 8/1/18, 7 pages

H IEP, 12/14/16, 20 pages

I Prior Written Notice, 1/24/17, 4 pages

J IEP Meeting Summary, 12/14/16, 10 pages

K Neuropsychological Assessment, Fall of 2016, 35 pages

L Speech Language Evaluation, Fall of 2016, 12 pages

M Auditory Processing Evaluation, 9/30/16, 8 pages

N Academic Annual Review 10/7/16, 3 pages

O Social Emotional Annual Review, 10/5/16, 2 pages

P Occupational Therapy Evaluation, 5/17/17, 4 pages

Q Transition Report, 10/11/16, 3 pages

R Final Progress Report for 2016-2017, 6/24/16, 4 pages

S Attendance Report for 2017-2018, 6/1/18, 4 pages

Annual Review Program Review Worksheet, 11/29/17, 4 pages

~-GA<£*c

Academic Annual Review, 11/7/17, 4 pages

Speech Language Annual Review, 11/7/17, 3 pages

Social Emotional Annual Review, 11/7/17, 2 pages

FBA, 11/29/17, 6 pages

Transition Report, 11/7/17, 2 pages

N Final Progress Report for 2017-2018, August 2018, 7 pages

First Quarter Progress Report for 2018-2019, July 2018, 6 pages

BB Student Transcript, 7/24/2018, 1 page

CC Brochure, unidentified date, 4 pages

DD Website Pages, unidentified date, 10 pages

EE Affidavit with Contract and Schedule for 2017-2018,11/27/17, 6 pages

FF Updated Affidavit for 2017-2018, 7/25/18, 1 page

GG Affidavit with Contract and Schedule for 2018-2019, 7/25/2018 various dates, 5 pages

HH Parent Bank Statement, 8/17/2017, 1 page

II 201 Tax Return, 4/17/18, 3 pages

JJ 2017 Tax Return, 1/31/18, 2 pages

KK Affidavit of , 12/7/18, 4 pages

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

l. [Reserved]

2. Notice of IEP Meeting, 11/29/16, 5 pages

3 Meeting Minutes, 12/14/16, 2 pages

4 Prior Written Notice 1/24/17, 7 pages

5 School Placement Letter 1/25/17, 2 pages

6 School Placement Letter 1/24/17, 3 pages

IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER

l. Confirmation of Extension, 11/14/17, 1 pg.

2. Confirmation of Extension, 1/3/18, 1 pg.

3. Confirmation of Extension, 1/29/18, 1 pg.

4. Confirmation of Extension, 2/22/18, 1 pg.

5. Confirmation of Extension, 4/3/18, 1 pg.

6. Confirmation of Extension, 5/3/18, 1 pg.

7. Confirmation of Extension, 6/1/18, 1 pg.

8. Confirmation of Extension, 7/5/18, 1 pg.

9. Confirmation of Extension, 10/12/18, 1 pg.

10. Confirmation of Extension, 11/15/18, 1 pg.

11. Confirmation of Extension, 12/13/18, 1 pg.

12. Confirmation of Extension, 1/14/19, 1 pg.

13. Confirmation of Extension, 2/13/19, 1 pg.

14. Confirmation of Extension, 3/15/19, 1 pg.

15. Confirmation of Extension, 4/14/19, 1 pg.

16. Confirmation of Extension, 5/14/19, 1 pg.

17. Confirmation of Extension, 6/13/19, 1 pg.

18. Confirmation of Extension, 7/13/19, 1 pg.

19. Confirmation of Extension, 8/12/19, 1 pg.