NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Case Number: 170275
Student’s Name:
Date of Birth:
District:
Hearing Requested By: Parent
Date of Hearing: February 12, 2018
December 3, 2018
Actual Record Closed Date: January 9, 2019
Hearing Officer: Elise B. Kestenbaum, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
FEBRUARY 12, 2018
For the Student:
Esq. Attorney
For the Department of Education:
District Representative
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
DECEMBER 3, 2018
For the Student:
Esq. Attorney
M.S.Ed., Inc. (via telephone)
For the Department of Education:
District Representative
Introduction:
This case was brought before me upon my designation by the Department of Education (“District”) as an impartial hearing officer pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Act (“IDEA”), 29 USC §1400 [f][1] and Part 200 of the Regulations of the New York State Commissioner of Education. This matter was brought by J, the Parent (“Parent”) on behalf of , the student (“Student”), through their attorney, , Esq. from the . by filing a Due Process Complaint dated March 8. 2017 with the District. The impartial hearing office that was appointed at that time was . t She held a hearing on February 12, 2018, however, after Parent’s evidence was submitted into evidence (P-A-P-W), the matter was adjourned. [HO Farrow recused herself from this case on October , 2018. I was then appointed as the impartial hearing officer on October 29, 2018, over a year after this matter began. I scheduled a prehearing conference for November 9, 2018 so that I could determine the specifics of what occurred over the past year. The hearing was then scheduled for December 3, 2018. I received a Closing Statement from the Parent on December 13, 2018 and a transcript for the December 3, 2018 hearing on January 4, 2019.
The Parent is alleging ; , was denied a free and appropriate public education (““FAPE”) for a portion of the 2014-15 school year, the 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 school years and are seeking an , areconvene of the CSE meeting to develop an IEP, and compensatory hours to remedy the denial of FAPE.
There were two (2) days of hearings in this matter. Hearings were conducted on February 12, and December 3, 2018. Extensions were granted in this case making the final compliance date January 25, 2019.'[1] A list of Exhibits is attached as Exhibit A. The Parents and the Impartial Hearing Officer submitted exhibits.
Background:
This case involves
With respect to the 2014-15 school year, the Student was not eligible for until December 9, 2015. At that time, an Individualized Education Program was developed on December 9, 2015 (IEP) for the Student and . P-C. Pursuant to the December 9, 2015 IEP, the following recommendations were made: With respect to the 2015-16 school year, an IEP was developed for the Student on December 9, 2016. P-B. Pursuant to the December 9, 2016 IEP, the following recommendations were made: The Parents filed a Due Process Complaint on October 17, 2017. P-A. I was appointed as an Impartial Hearing Officer on October 29, 2018.
A hearing was held on February 12, 2018, at which time, the Parent submitted exhibits P-A--P-Y. On December 3, 2018, a second day of hearing took place. Subsequent to this, a Closing Statement was submitted by the Parent. IHO-I._ Position of the Parties Parent’s Case The Parent did not call any witnesses to appear at the hearing, however, included the testimony of two witnesses through affidavit. The affidavits that were provided were for (P-X) and (P-Y). The Parent placed - (25) documents in evidence (P-A — P-Y). District’s Case The District did not call any witnesses and did not place any documents in evidence.
Findings
Two purposes of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. §§1400-1482) are (1) to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE that emphasizes designed to meet their individual needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living; and (2) to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities and parents of such students are protected (20 U.S.C. 1499[D][1][A]-[B]; see generally, Forest Grove v. T.A., 129 S. Ct. 2484, 2491 [2009]; Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 [1982])
The main focus of the IDEA is to ensure that all children with disabilities have available a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) which addresses their unique needs and to ensure that their rights and the rights of Parents are protected. 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 206-07; T.M. v. Cornwall Cent. Sch. Dist., 752 F.3d 145, 151, 160 [2d Cir. 2014]; R.E. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 189-90 [2d Cir. 2012]; M.H. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 685 F.3d 217, 245 [2d Cir. 2012]; Cerra _v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]). “[A]dequate compliance with the procedures prescribed would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP” (Walczak
v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 R.3d 119, 129 [2d Cir. 1998], quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206; see T.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 247, 253 [2d Cir. 2009]). The Supreme Court has indicated that “[t]he IEP must aim to enable the child to make progress. After all, the essential function of an IEP is to set out a plan for pursuing academic and functional advancement” (Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S., 137 S. Ct. 988, 999 [2017]). While the Second Circuit has emphasized that school districts must comply with the checklist of procedures for developing a student’s IEP and indicated that “[m]Jultiple procedural violations may cumulatively result in the denial of a FAPE even if the violations considered individually do not” (R.E., 694 F.3d at 190-91), the Court has also explained that not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (M.H., 685 F.3d at 245; A.C. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Chappaqua Cent. Sch. Dist., 553 F.3d 165, 172 [2d Cir. 2009]; Grim _v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003]). Under the IDEA, if a procedural violation is alleged an administrative officer may find that a student did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a) impeded the student’s right to a FAPE, (b) significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student, or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits (20 U.S.C. §1415[f][3][E][i]; 34 CFR 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][11]; Winkleman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 525-26 [2007]; (R.E., 694 F.3d at 190; M.H., 685 F. 3d at 245).
The IDEA directs that, in general, an IHO’s decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE (20 U.S.C. § 1415 [f][3][E]f4]). A school district offers FAPE by “providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction” (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203). However, the “IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP” (Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 [2d Cir. 1998]; see, Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189). “The adequacy of a given IEP turns on the unique circumstances of the child for whom it was created.” (Endrew_ F., 137 S. Ct. at 1001). The statute ensures an “appropriate” education, “not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents” (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132, quoting Tucker
v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d 563, 567 [2d Cir. 1989] [citations omitted]; see, Grim, 346 F.3d at 379). Additionally, school districts are not required to “maximize” the potential of students with disabilities (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199; Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132). Nonetheless, a school district must provide “an IEP that is ‘likely to produce progress, not regression,’ and ...affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere ‘trivial advancement’ (Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195, quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130 [citations omitted]; see, P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 118-19 [2d Cir. 2008]; Perricelli, 20007 WL 465211, at *15). The IEP must be “reasonably calculated to provide some ‘meaningful’ benefit” (Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 [2d Cir. 1997]; see Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 1001 [holding that the IDEA “requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances” ]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192). The student’s recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (20 U.S.C. § 1412 [al[S5][A]; 34 CFR 300.114[a][2]f], 300.116[a][2];8 NYCRR 200.1[cc], 200.6[a][1]; see Newington, 546 F.3d at 114; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 [2d Cir.2007]; Walcezak, 142 F.3d at 132).
An appropriate education begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the students’ needs (34 CFR 300.320[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]; Tarlowe v. Dep’t of Educ., 2008 WL 2736027, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2008), establishes annual goals related to those needs (34 CFR 300.320[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i1i1]), and provides for the use of appropriate services. (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][4];8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]; see Application of the Dep’t of Educ., Appeal No. 07-018; Application of a 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 New York State Legislature amended the Education Law to place the burden of production and persuasion upon the school district during an impartial hearing except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of production and persuasion regarding the appropriateness of such placement (Educ. Law §4404[1 ][c], as amended by Ch. 583 of the Laws of 2007).
Prior to continuing with the testimony at the December 3, 2018 hearing, the parties reviewed the Due Process Complaint dated October 12, 2017 and resolved and clarified several of the issues raised in said complaint. Failure to Provide FAPE
First, the Parent agreed to confine the issue of FAPE to the two year period that is within the statute of limitations. Tr. 15. In this regard, the District has conceded FAPE from October 12, 2015 through the end of the 2017-18 school year. Tr. 19. The District also stated that there are no equity issues with respect to the Parent. Tr. 15.
Independent Educational Evaluation
With respect to Parent’s request for an , It is clear from the documentary evidence that the Parent requested that be obtained on August 18, 2017. P-S. In that letter, the Parent stated that she disagreed with the rt dated November 4, 2015 conducted by the District and requested that of her daughter be conducted at public expense by an evaluator of her choosing, at the respective customary rate for the chosen evaluator evaluation. P-M. A request for an IEE was also made by the Parent in the Due Process Complaint. P-A. The District did not approve the Parent’s request for an IEE nor did they initiate a due process hearing to defend their contested evaluation.
Federal and State regulations provide that, subject to certain limitations, a parent has the right to an IEE at public expense if the parent disagrees with an evaluation obtained by the school district (34 CFR 300.502[a], [b]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[g][1];_see R.L. v. Plainville Bd. of Educ., 363 F. Supp. 2d. 222, 234-35 [D. Conn. 2005] [finding parental failure to disagree with an evaluation obtained by a public agency defeated a parent's claim for an IEE at public expense]). A parent, however, is only entitled to one IEE at public expense "each time the public agency conducts an evaluation with which the parent disagrees" (34 CFR 300.502[b][5]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[g][1]; see R.L., 363 F. Supp. 2d at 234-35). If a parent requests an IEE at public expense, the school district must, without unnecessary delay, ensure that either an IEE is provided at public expense or initiate an impartial hearing to show that its evaluation is appropriate or that the evaluation obtained by the parent does not meet the school district criteria (34 CFR 300.502[b][2][iJ-[11];10 8 NYCRR 200.5[g][1][iv]; see, e.g., A.S. v. Norwalk Bd. of Educ., 183 F. Supp. 2d 534, 549 [D. Conn. 2002] [upholding order of reimbursement where the district failed to demonstrate that its evaluation was appropriate]; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 09-109; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 08-101). If a school district's evaluation is appropriate, a parent may not obtain an IEE at public expense (34 CFR 300.502[b][3]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[g¢][1][v]; DeMerchant v. Springfield Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 2572357, at *6 [D. Vt. Sept. 4, 2007]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 08-039; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-126; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-10.
In the instant matter, the District did not provide an evaluation at public expense and did not initiate an impartial hearing to defend the November 5, 2015 . P-M. At the hearing, did not object to the admission of the dated July 31, 2018 (P-V) and the regarding said evaluation and did not cross examine with respect to either document. Since the District did not proceed with an impartial hearing once the Parent made her requests (P-A; P-S) and is not disputing the need for the evaluation, I hereby order the District to Compensatory Educational Services
With respect to Parent’s request for compensatory education services, compensatory education is an equitable remedy that is tailored to meet the unique circumstances of each case (Wenger v. Canastota, 979 F. Supp. 147, 150-51 [N.D.N.Y. 1997]). Within the Second Circuit, compensatory education has been awarded to students who are ineligible by reason of age or graduation if there has been a gross violation of the IDEA resulting in the denial of, or exclusion from, educational services for a substantial period of time (see Somoza v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 538 F.3d 106, 109 n.2, 113 n.6 [2d Cir. 2008]; Mrs. C. v. Wheaton, 916 F.2d 69, 75 [2d Cir. 1990]; Burr v. Ambach, 863 F.2d 1071 [2d Cir. 1988]; Cosgrove v. Bd. of Educ., 175 F. Supp. 2d 375, 387 [N.D.N.Y. 2001]; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 03-078 [awarding two years of instruction after expiration of IDEA eligibility as compensatory education]). Compensatory education relief may also be awarded to a student with a disability who remains eligible for instruction under the IDEA (see 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401[3], 1412[a][1][B]; Educ. Law §§ 3202[1], 4401[1], 4402[5]). Within the Second Circuit, compensatory education relief in the form of supplemental or has been awarded to such students if there has been a denial of a FAPE (see P. v._ Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d at 123 [2d Cir. 2008] [stating that "[t]he IDEA allows a hearing officer to fashion an appropriate remedy, and... compensatory education is an available option under the Act to make up for denial of a [FAPE]"]; Student X. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2008 WL 4890440, at *24 [E.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2008] [finding that compensatory education may be awarded to students under the age of -one
|; see generally R.C. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 9731053, at *12-*13 [S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2008], adopted at 2008 WL 9731174 [Jul. 7, 2008]). Likewise, SROs have awarded compensatory "additional services" to students who remain eligible to attend school and have been denied appropriate services, if such deprivation of instruction could be remedied through the provision of additional services before the student becomes ineligible for instruction by reason of age or graduation (Bd. of Educ. v. Munoz, 16 A.D.3d 1142 [4th Dep't 2005] [finding it proper for an SRO to order a school district to provide "make-up services" to a student upon the school district's failure to provide those educational services to the student during instruction]; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 13-236 [upholding an additional service award of iF Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal Nos. 13- 226 & 13-228 [awarding additional services in the form of or other direct support from a teacher]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 13-208 [upholding an additional service award of 100 hours of compensatory one-to-one in and ]; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 13-048 [awarding the student with 1:1 services and 1:1 - in compensatory additional services|). In fashioning an appropriate award of compensatory education, one must be mindful that the central purpose of such award is to provide a remedy for a specific denial of a FAPE (see Newington, 546 F.3d at 123 [holding that compensatory education is a remedy designed to "make up for" a denial of a FAPE]; see also Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 524 [D.C. Cir. 2005] [holding that, in fashioning an appropriate compensatory education remedy, "the inquiry must be fact-specific, and to accomplish IDEA's purposes, the ultimate award must be reasonably calculated to provide the educational benefits that likely would have accrued from services the school district should have supplied in the first place"]; Parents of Student W. v. Puyallup Sch. Dist., 31 F.3d 1489, 1497 [9th Cir. 1994] [holding that "[a]ppropriate relief is relief designed to ensure that the student is appropriately educated within the meaning of the IDEA"]). Accordingly, an award of additional services should aim 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 Newington, 546 F.3d at 123 [holding that compensatory education awards should be designed so as to "appropriately address[] the problems with the IEP"; see also Draper _v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 518 F.3d 1275, 1289 [11th Cir. 2008] [holding that "[c]ompensatory awards should place children in the position they would have been in but for the violation of the Act"]; Bd. of Educ. v. L.M., 478 F.3d 307, 316 [6th Cir. 2007] [holding that "a flexible approach, rather than a rote hour-by-hour compensation award, is more likely to address [the student's] educational problems successfully"]; Reid, 401 F.3d at 518, 525 [holding that compensatory education is a "replacement of educational services the child should have received in the first place" and that compensatory education awards "should aim to place disabled children in the same position they would have occupied but for the school district's violations of IDEA"]; Puyallup, 31 F.3d at 1497 ["There is no obligation to provide a day-for day compensation for time missed"]; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 11-132; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 11-091).
Where there has been a violation of FAPE, hearing officers have broad authority to grant such relief as they deem appropriate, including compensatory education. 20 U.S.C. 1412 (a)(1), 1415(@)(2)(C) (iii), 34 C.F.R. 300.51 (c)(5); P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir. 2008). A hearing officer should thus award compensatory education in the form of education or services where such an award is necessary to make up for a FAPE deprivation.
P., 546 F. 3d at 123 (citation omitted). In evaluating a claim for compensatory education, a hearing officer must engage in a factspecific inquiry to fashion an award that is “reasonably calculated to provide educational benefits that likely would have accrued from...services the school district should have supplied in the first place.” Reid . v. Dist. Of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 524 (D.C. Cir 2005).
The District clearly stated at the December 3, 2018 hearing that they failed to provide with a FAPE for the years in question. The relief sought by the District was not challenged by the District. Tr. 20. The District did, however, request a clarification from of the basis for the compensatory hours and clearly stated that the is based on the failure to provide FAPE to the Student during the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years. She also stated that the Student was demonstrating a . Tr. 31. Although in the Affidavit, references the deprivation of educational benefits from 2014-15 through 2017-18, she testified and indicated in her Affidavit that her calculation of compensatory hours was only for the two year period (2016-17 and 2017-18). In the Parent’s Closing Statement, the Parent stated that “The compensatory education should be awarded to in order to help place the Student where she would have been academically had the Department provided her with FAPE during the 2016/17 and 2017/18 school years (P-T; P-Y).” state in her Affidavit and in her testimony that she reviewed the Student’s academic and educational records including Parent exhibits P- A--P-Y prior to making any recommendations. Tr. 32. In addition, she conducted at Parent interview, and tried to make contact with the Student’s teachers. Based upon this, she prepared an Academic Record Review setting forth the Student’s educational background and needs and what her professional recommendations should be for remediating the educational benefits she was deprived of due to the District’s denial of FAPE. P-T; P-Y. She stated that the She indicated in her Affidavit
She indicated that these hours should be She specifically stated that . P-T. also indicated in his evaluation that requires outside . P-V. Both of the documents prepared by the dated November 31, 2018 and the Academic Record Review prepared by dated April 8, 2018 clearly set forth the Students’s deficiencies and gaps and her needs. P-T; P-V. Based on analysis of these documents, the compensatory educational services proposed by are calculated to place the Student in the position she would have been in academically had the District provided her with FAPE for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 school years.
Since compensatory education services is an equitable remedy and requires compensatory services tailored to meet ’s individualized needs I believe that based on ’s deficiencies and gaps, and the District’s failure to provide FAPE, the program set forth by , appears to remediate her deficits and allow her to progress academically and make meaningful progress. Based upon the testimony and documentary evidence, I believe that this remedy will prove effective in placing her in the position she would have been in had FAPE been provided.
It should be noted that also testified to to provide educational services. She stated that “they utilize certified teachers and would be able to provide services at the Student’s or an agreed upon setting outside of the Student’s school day. . would further be capable of providing services during evenings, weekends, and periods of school vacation.
P-Y. In this regard, the District offered no evidence to refute the recommendations from nor
As a result of the foregoing, the Student shall receive funding
. P-Y. The Student shall have years from the date of this Order to complete said hours. Reconvene of CSE Meeting to Review Evaluations and Develop a New IEP The Parent is requesting a reconvene of the CSE in order to review all of the evaluations submitted by the Parent, including but not limited to S dated July 31, 2018 and ’s Academic Record Review dated April 8, 2018 to develop an IEP with appropriate recommendations for educational Program that address all of her disabling conditions. At the hearing dated December 3, 2018, the District stated that although there was a reconvene on November 30, 2018, based on the recent levels of performance on the IEP and the prior written notice, it does not appear that was utilized at that IEP meeting. Tr. 31. Accordingly, the District is in agreement that a new IEP meeting needs to be reconvened so that the District can , and their recommendations, as well as any other evaluations provided to the District, in order to develop a new JEP that provides the Student with an appropriate program with sufficient support services to permit the Student to benefit educationally from the instruction. The CSE meeting shall reconvene within days of issuance of the decision in this matter.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby
ORDERED, that the District shall do the following:
3. The CSE shall reconvene a CSE meeting within days of this Order to review the evaluations submitted by the Parent, including but not limited dated July 31, 2018 and Academic Record Review dated April 8, 2018. At the time of the CSE meeting, the CSE shall develop an IEP with appropriate recommendations for S educational program that address all of her disabling conditions. The IEP shall include accurate present levels of performance and appropriate, meaningful and measurable goals in all areas of need.
Dated: January 14, 2019
ELISE B. KESTENBAUM, 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 Officers. Such service is made at 100 Church Street, New York, NY 10007 at the Messenger Center.
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD
DISTRICT’S EXHIBITS
None
No. Parents’ Exhibits Date Document Pages District
A. Due Process Complaint 10/12/2017 11 pages District
B. IEP 12/9/2016 12 pages District
C. IEP 12/9/2015 14 pages District
D. Prior Written Notice 12/6/2016 4 pages District
E. CSE Meeting Notice 12/5/2016 3 pages District
F. Consent for Initial Provision of Services 1/5/2016 1 page District
G. Prior Written Notice 12/22/2015 4 pages District
H. CSE Meeting Notice 12/1/2015 3 pages District
I. 9/5/2017 25 pages District
J. 3/18/2017 6 pages District
K. 3/6/2017 6 pages District
L. 1/24/2015 10 pages District
M. 11/4/2015 6 pages District
N. 10/7/2015 1 page District
O. 3/3/2015 5 pages District
P. Teacher Questionnaire undated 3 pages District
Q. 2015/2016 Report Card Marking Period 2 2 pages District
R. Teacher Progress Report 12/9/2015 4 pages District
S. Request for With Fax Confirmations 8/18/2017 3 pages District
T. Academic Record Review 4/8/2018 15 pages District
U. Final Report Card 2017-18 2017-18 2 pages District
V. 7/31/2018 27 pages District
W. Teacher Questionnaire 7/7/2018 3 pages District
X. Affidavit of 8/8/2018 5 pages District
Y. Affidavit of 8/14/18 5 pages District
DISTRICT’S EXHIBITS
No. Date Document Pages None IHO’s Exhibits District No. Date Document Pages District
I. dates Compliance Decisions misc. 2 pages District
PARENT
I. Closing Statement undated 8 pages District
Footnotes
[1] The Parties moved to extend the compliance date in this matter two times during the course of the hearing (once I was the impartial hearing officer). In considering these requests, I weighed the cumulative impact of the relevant factors and found that the requests were in accordance with the requirements of due process. Accordingly requests for extensions of the case compliance date were granted. IHO-II