Impartial Hearing Decision

DECISION ORDER

Case Number: 170312

Student's Name:

District:

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Hearing Officer: Martin J. Kehoe III, Esq.

Introduction

This document constitutes the Decision and Order of the undersigned, the duly designated Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) in an Impartial Hearing brought pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the New York State Education Laws. The School District will be referred to as District, the parent as Parent and the student will be referred to as Student.

The Parents filed a complaint notice dated October 13, 2017. A hearing was held on December 19, 2017; January 16, 2018; March 7, 2018; April 18, 2018; May 8, 2018; November 28, 2018; January 29, 2019; March 7, 2019; and April 15, 2019. On January 25, 2018 I issued an interim order for the following independent educational evaluations: a neuropsychological evaluation, a vocational and transition assessment; assistive technology, speech and language therapy, auditory processing, and nonverbal IQ test evaluations. During May 2018 I issued an interim order for tutoring at a private . At the time of the November 28, 2018 hearing, the District was investigating the case for settlement (T. 83-84). However, the case did not settle. The District did not submit any documentary evidence but did call the School Psychologist on March 7, 2019 1•

The Parent submitted substantial documentary evidence and called six witnesses2• After consideration of the full record I make an award of compensatory service for use by the Student over the course of the next three years.

Parent's Position

In the complaint notice, the Parent alleges that the District failed to provide the Student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2016/201 7 and 2017/2018 school years. (Ex. C). The

1 The testimony was interrupted based upon time constraints of the District advocate and legitimate objections to the timing of the disclosure from the District. The matter was adjourned and ultimately abandoned. (Tr. p. 165).

2 The Psychologist (Ex. MMMMM); S/L Pathologist #1 (Ex. NNNNN); Behavior Technician (Ex. 00000 and Tr. April 15, 2019) The Parent (Ex. PPPPP and Tr. April 15, 2019 ); and, The Director of the Private (Ex. QQQQQ and Tr. April 15, 2019); and, SIL Pathologist #2 (Ex. RRRRR) Parent alleged that the District evaluation, IEP meetings, IEP' s, procedures, program and placement were substantively and procedurally flawed, resulting in denial of a F APE (Ex. C, p. 6-

7). Despite the detailed attack of the District's procedures and substantive programming, the parties ultimately agreed to maintain the status quo relative to the placement and litigate the need for additional services (Compensatory education). (Tr. P 166)

The Parent was also seeking funding for independent educational evaluations, assistive technology, transition services and reimbursement for a $6370 outlay for tutoring services in the past. (Ex. 0000) (T. 110).

District's Position

In their due process response, dated November 2, 2017. the District denied the allegations in the Parent's complaint notice (Ex. G). Ultimately, the District accepted the conclusions of The Psychologist (Ex. MMMMM); the S/L Pathologist #1 (Ex. NNNNN) and the S/L Pathologist #2

(Ex. RRRRR) and engaged in only a brief cross examination of the other Parent witnesses.

Student History

At the time the complaint notice was filed, the Student was years old with a long standing history of speech or language impairment (Ex.s D & II). The Student was diagnosed with language disorder - receptive and expressive language delays; Specific Leaming disorder with Impairment in reading; Specific Learning Disorder with Impairment in Written expression; Specific Learning Disorder with Impairment in Mathematics; and Social Pragmatic Communication Disorder. (Ex.

HH). The Student has been diagnosed with auditory processing disorder in the areas of discrimination, figure-ground listening, auditory and temporal integration (Ex. EE). The Student presents with delays in several areas of speech and language as well as literacy (Ex. KK). The

Student was described in his progress report from the learning center as motivated to do well, trying hard, but needing extra support (Ex. QQQQ).

The 2016-2017 School Year

A CSE meeting was held for the Student on May 31, 2016 (Ex. 0). The Student had an instructional/functional level of third grade in reading and fourth grade in math. At the meeting, the Parent expressed concern that the Student was not making sufficient progress. The Parent also thought he needed more counseling services and requested tutoring services. The District recommended a special class 12: 1:3 in a New York State approved nonpublic school; group counseling, two times per week for 30 minutes; and group speech language therapy, two times per week for 30 minutes. (Ex. 0 & BB).

The Student did not make much progress in his IEP goals. In the progress report dated June 12,

201 7, the Student was progressing gradually in all but two areas which were satisfactory (Ex. C).

In the annual review from his high school, dated February 2017, the Student was described as having difficulty with comprehension, inferences and writing (Ex. MM).

The 2017 - 2018 School Year

A CSE meeting was held for the Student on May 8, 2017. The IEP recommended a special class

12:1:3 in a New York State approved non-public school; group counseling, two times per week for 30 minutes; group speech language therapy two times per week for 30 minutes; and 12 month services (Ex. D). The Student had an instructional/functional level of third grade in reading and a second-grade level in math (Ex. D). The Parents sent a letter dated October 10, 2017 to the District informing the CSE that they disagreed with the District's evaluations and requested independent educational evaluations (Ex. A).

Compensatory Tutoring

The Parent said that she expressed her concerns about the Student at all of the parent teacher conferences and was given suggestions as to what she could do to help him, which she felt was not sufficient (T. 153). She explained, "So they basically said that we don't have those kinds of services available to him, that I would have to seek other things." (T. 153). She said that the Student had below average grades on tests and only passed two Regents exams and has difficulties with writing. She said that she questioned his grades on his report cards because they did not correspond to his performance (T. 154). The Parent testified that she brought the Student to the Private for an educational assessment because she felt the District was not providing enough services to the Student for him to progress to the next grade level (T. 152). She said she wanted to get a better evaluation from the Private (T. 154 - 155). The Parent testified by affidavit that when the Student was recommended for tutoring at the rtt 11am she was not aware that she might have been able to seek direct funding from the District and took out a loan to pay for the services (Ex. PPPPP). The Parent said that the amount taken out on the loan, covered the 245 hours of instruction at the Private (T. 155). The

Parent said that the school was not aware she took out a loan, but they knew that the Student was receiving tutoring at the (T. 162). When asked if the District offered to pay for tutoring or if they informed her of her rights in pursuing an impartial hearing, she said "no" (T. 163). The Director of Educational Services at the Private testified that the Student has been going for tutoring by a special education teacher for four hours on Saturdays, at the rate of $87 per hour (T. 134). The Director of Educational Services at the Private testified by affidavit (Ex. QQQQQ) that the Student has demonstrated some progress since his

2016 assessment on three tests but still scored in the very low levels. The Student has completed

122 hours of tutoring from the May 17, 2018 IHO order. The Student was given a reassessment in February 2019 and recommended for 791 hours of tutoring (6 to 8 hours per week) at a rate of$87 per hour (T. 136)).

Recommendations

The Psychologist who evaluated the Student testified by affidavit that the Student "presents with deficits that have not been addressed by his educational programming and he will require intense remediation to prepare him for further education and employment." He said the Student "will require intensive individual academic tutoring to address academic deficits" and "individual reading instruction in an evidence-based reading program to address his dyslexia" (Ex.

MMMMM).

The S/L Pathologist #2 evaluation recommended classroom and testing accommodations; a personal FM System; speech and language therapy, three times per week: 1: 1 one time per week and in a group of 3: 1, two times per week; and reading instruction with a multisensory phonological awareness approach (Ex. EEE). The Evaluator for the Assistive technology evaluation recommended 15 hours of training and a Google Pixel book and other features (Ex.

FF). The S/L Pathologist # 1 recommended individual speech language therapy three times per week for 30 minutes; individual specialized reading instruction by a certified reading specialist, three times per week for 60 minutes; and daily independent reading for 30 minutes (Ex. KK). The Speech Language Pathologist also recommended a bank of 414 hours of compensatory individual speech language therapy or three hours per week for 46 weeks over the school year (Ex. NNNNN).

The Behavior Technician noted that the Student's records "reveal a failure to develop an appropriate post - secondary measurable goals and a failure to implement appropriate interventions to prepare him for life after high school" (Ex. 00000). The Behavior Technician who conducted the transition assessment for the Student recommended 96 hours (four hours per month for 24 months) of transitional coordination services for the Student and his family, and a bank of 600 hours (or six hours per week over 250 weeks school years) of community life skills and travel training on an individual basis with a trained support therapist to develop the necessary life and employment skills (exp. 00000). The Speech language Pathologist/Audiologist who conducted the Student's auditory processing evaluation recommended specific apps, software and programs for the Student (Ex. RRRRR).

The Behavior Technician testified that she recommended 600 hours of services based on the Student's deficits in money management, travel training, and job interests. She recommends 300 hours per year for 50 weeks, at six hours per week. She said it can be done after school (T. 145).

She said that the transition consultant services can be at home or in the community (T. 145). She . said the cost oflife skills training is $145 an hour (T. 149) and transition coordination is 125 per hour (T. 149).

Legal Background

The IDEA is a comprehensive statutory framework established by Congress to aid the states in providing disabled children with a free appropriate public education ("FAPE"). 20 U.S.C. § 612(a)(I). "A [FAPE] is available to all children with disabilities residing in the state between the ages of 3 and 21." 20 U.S.C. § 612(a)(l)(A). The IDEA defines a FAPE as special education and related services that:

(A) have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge,

(B) meet the standards of the state educational agency,

(C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or secondary school education in the state involved, and

(D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education program required under § 614(d) of this title. 20 U.S.C. § 601(9).^[3]

A FAPE is crafted through the collaboration of the disabled student's parents, teachers, and school district administrators and is recorded in an IEP. 20 U.S.C. § 614(d). The "core of the statute ... is the cooperative process that [IDEA] establishes between parents and schools." Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 53 (2005). The IEP is, in brief, a comprehensive statement of the educational needs of a disabled child and the specially designed instruction and related services to be employed to meet those needs. 20 U.S.C. § 601(14). In New York State, the IEP is produced by a committee on special education ("CSE"), whose members are appointed by the board of education or trustees of the school district. N.Y. Educ. Law§ 4402(1)(b)(l) (McKinney Supp. 2005).

The IDEA provides numerous procedural safeguards to protect the due process rights of disabled children and their parents. See generally 20 U.S.C. § 615. These procedures include the opportunity for parents to obtain an independent educational evaluation of the child (20 U.S.C. § 615(b)(I)) and file a complaint with the state or local educational agency (20 U.S.C. § 615(b)(6)).

Any such complaint is resolved through an "impartial due process hearing" in which parents of disabled children have "an opportunity to present complaints with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a [FAPE]

to such child." 20 U.S.C. § 615(b)(6). Parties to an administrative proceeding under the IDEA have the right to written findings of fact and decisions on any complaint about the provision of a FAPE.

Polera v. Board of Education Newburgh, 288 F.3d 478, 482 (2nd Cir. 2002).

In New York State, "[t]he board of education or trustees of the school district or the state agency responsible for providing education to students with disabilities shall have the burden of proof, including the burden of persuasion and burden of production, in any such impartial hearing ... "

N.Y. Educ. Law§ 4404 (l)(c), modifying the rule enunciated in Schaffer where "[t]he burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is on the party seeking relief." Schaffer, 546 U.S. at 537.

· Analysis

The District did not submit any documentary evidence but did call the School Psychologist on March 7, 20194 • The Parties finally reached a partial resolution on December 21, 2018 such that the District asserted that there is no dispute relative to the placement. The only area they contested was the number of hours of compensatory services.

The Parent offered evidence and called three witnesses: The Director of the Private and the Parent. The Director testified by affidavit about the students need for hundreds of hours of instruction (1,200 hours) (Ex. NN). The Director also testified that the student has made progress with tutoring since he began the services in March 2019 (Ex. NN). The parent testified by affidavit that the student has been engaged in tutoring, is learning to understand how to decode words, and is more motivated to learn since he. began tutoring (Ex. 00). I credit the neuropsychological evaluation, the testimony of the Director of the Private , and the testimony of the Parent about the Student's academic deficits. The Student was denied a FAPE for many years and failed to make meaningful progress. Even if placed in an appropriate school setting, he may still need additional instruction to remedy his academic deficits and enable him to learn at grade level. The Student would benefit from continued after school 1: 1 tutoring.

Compensatory Education

Regarding the remedy of compensatory education, I find guidance in Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, (D.C. Cir. 2005) (finding that compensatory education is not a "form of damages" because the courts act in equity when remedying IDEA violations and must "do equity and...

4 The testimony was interrupted based upon time constraints of the District advocate and legitimate objections to the timing of the disclosure from the District. The matter was adjourned and ultimately abandoned .(Tr. p. 165) mould each decree to the necessities of the particular case") (quoting Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321,329 (1944)); See also, 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 ifthere has ~een 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].

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][l][B]; Educ. Law§§

3202[1], 4401[1], 4402[5]). Within the Second Circuit, compensatory education relief in the form of supplemental special education or related services has been awarded to such students if there has been a denial of a F APE (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]"]; 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 home instruction]; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 13-236 [upholding an additional service award of physical therapy]; Application ofa Student with a Disability, Appeal Nos. 13-226 & 13-228 [awarding additional services in the form of tutoring or other direct support from a special education 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 tutoring in math and reading]; Application of the Dep 't of Educ., Appeal No. 13-048 [awarding the student with 1: 1 counseling services and 1: 1 speech-language therapy 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" adenialofaFAPE]; see also Reidv. 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 special education 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 lndep. Sch.

Sys., 518 F.3d 1275, 1289 [l Ith 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 ofIDEA"];_Parents of Student W v. Puyallup Sch.

Dist. 31 F.3d 1489, 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). See, specifically, Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 14-014.

I have reduced requested award regarding the remaining requests for compensatory education for three reasons. One, I am confident in the CSE and their ability, guided by the recent evaluative materials and the other evaluations developed over time, to make good decisions about the Student's needs and related services going forward. I am emboldened by the parties agreement over the propriety of the current placement. Two, I am persuaded by testimony that the Student's placement together with the compensatory awards will enable the Student to make progress. lbree, I recognize there are a finite number of hours per week, and the demands of the Student's school year along with significant hours of tutoring, may be daunting. Inherent limits of stamina, pace, concentration and the like could easily place an unintended burden on the Student and the family.

I attempt to mitigate these unintended consequences with my order.

In conclusion, I issue the following orders:

ORDERED that the DOE shall fund a bank of 600 hours at in the amount of$87.00 per hour; (EX. QQQQQ) (EX. LLLLL). Said bank of hours shall be utilized within three years of this order.

ORDERED that the DOE shall fund a bank of 300 hours of compensatory Speech to be provided by an independent provider of the parent's choosing at a reasonable market rate; (EX NNNNN)

Said bank of hours shall be utilized within three years of this order.

ORDERED the DOE shall provide assistive technology recommended in 's assistive technology evaluation, including recommended hardware and applications; (EX FF)

ORDERED that the DOE shall fund 15 hours of assistive technology training, to be provided by and independent provider of the parent's choosing at a reasonable market rate; (EX NNNNN)

ORDERED that the DOE shall fund a bank of 400 hours of Community Life Skills and Travel

Training to be provided by an independent trained support therapist of the parents choosing at a reasonable market rate; (EX 00000) (EX LL) Said bank of hours shall be utilized within three years of this order.

ORDERED that the DOE shall fund 76 hours of Transition Coordination services to be provided by an independent provider of the parent's choosing at a reasonable market rate; (EX 00000)

(EX LL) Said bank of hours shall be utilized within three years of this order.

ORDERED the DOE to reimburse the parent in the amount of$6370 and for any additional interest accrued on the loan that was taken to fund tutoring services. (EX 0000) (EX PPPPP).

Dated: June 14, 2019

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

The parent and 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.S(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.nvsed.gov/RevisedRegulationsOverview .html

PARENT EVIDENCE

Student's Name:

-- Case Number: /-:JO.Ji'Z.

Date of Hearing: I i//4 /1 i ,:Jj l1t>h'8 o,/o-, Ii 8 ()/.JhHl1~ o.{/a0/1e,, ti /z 6/r.3, 0 ilt'il i c,, O.J/o 7/19, 0'1 /isl,1

(use separare sheer ror eacn uare or nesrtngJ

Enter Exhibit No, No. of Date Date Date

+ Brief Description of Exhibit:

Marked for ID ,•,. Pages Qffered Admitted Withdrawn

--:

~ t,£ A -r, A f' J~ FI) ~

---·-

I

Jo/at Parent &Q~en}of Educatlon exhibits: marked wlfh lower case letters (e-z)

I certify that the evidence listed her1 ~Fawn on the date Indicated above. .

Impartial Heoring Officer: 2/2014

/

/

! 6'f;;f,,~b , ~ '

(s1g ture .

Date:

I t-1/

,k )

/ If!_

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK

IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICE

In the Matter of

(DOB Case No. 170312

LIST OF EXHIBITS

A	IEE Letter 10/10/2017 1
B	USPS Certified Mail Receipt 10/10/2017 1
C	Filed DPC 10/13/2017 9

D IEP 5/8/2017 16

!

E DPC 10/13/2017 8

F Tuition Billed Various Dates 3

G DPR 11/2/2017 3

H Corrected Interim Order 2/6/2018 3

I IEP 3/1/2011 4

J IEP 4/30/2012 18

K IEP l l/19/2013 11

L IEP 10/29/2014 12

M IEP 10/27/2015 14

N IEP 1/27/2016 4

0 IEP 5/2017 15

p IEP Goais 2/12/2015 4 Q IEP Checklist 3/10/2011 1 R IEP Goals Undated 4 s P!ogress Re~ort for IEP Goals 11/22/2011 5 T Progress Report for IEP Goals 2/7/2012 5 u Progress Report for IEP Goals ___ 5/1/2012 5 V Pro_gress Report for IEP Goals 6/19/2012 6 w Progress Report for IEP Goals 8/15/2012 5 X Progress Report for IEP Goals 4/22/2016 5 y Progress Report for IEP Goals 11/21/2016 6 z Progress Report for lEP Goals 6/12/2017 5

AA PWN -·

10/27/2015 5

BB PWN 6/2/2016 4

cc PWN 6/6/2017 3 DD Auditory Processing Report 5/14/2012 6 EE Independent Auditory Processing Report 4/6/2018 9 FF AT Evaluation 3/24/2018 7 GG Pediatric Neuro Exam 10/1/2010 13 HH Neuropsychological Evaluation 4/20/2018 38 II Psychological Educational Evaluation 4/27/2010 3 JJ Psychometric Evaluation 11/12/2015 16 KK Speech and Language Evaluation 3/24/2018 10

LL IEP 10/29/2014 12

MM Annual Review 2/29/2017 4 NN Annual Review 1/27/2016 4 00 Annual Review Classroom Report 1/2012 3 pp Annual Review Classroom Report 3/6/2015 8 QQ Annual Review Counseling Report 2/26/2013 1 RR Annual Review Counseling Report 3/4/2015 1 ss Annual Review Counseling Report 3/9/2016 2 TT Annual Review Counseling Report 3/4/2017 2 uu Annual Review Speech and Language 2/13/2012 4 vv Annual Review Speech and Language 12/10/2012 7 WW Annual Review Speech and Language 11/5/2014 18 xx Annual Review Speech and Language 2/9/2016 7 yy Annual Review Speech and Language 1/31/2017 4 zz Annual Review Physical Therapy 11/28/2011 2 AAA Annual Review Occupational Therapy 1/17/2017 2 BBB Social Medical and Educational History Form 5/11/2011 10 CCC Speech Referral 9/16/2011 3 DDD Transition Plan: Special Education Teacher 10/3/2014 6 Report EEE Transition Plan: Student Report 10/3/2014 7 FFF Transition Plan: Parent Report 3/25/2018 4 GGG Testing Accommodation Recommendations Undated 1 HHH Testing Accommodation Recommendations 2017-2017 1 III ~ nnual Review 12/6/2017 4 JJJ Annual Review Speech/Language 3/4/2018 4 KKK Annual Review Counseling 3/9/2018 2 LLL CSE Recommendations 2/7/2018 2 MMM Least Restrictive Environment 2018-2019 2

Statement NNN I ITest Accommodation 2018-2019 1

Recommendations 000 I - I 3/22/2011 11

Letter PPP I I January to June 39

Daily Logs 2012 QQQ I April and May 3

IDaily Logs 2012

RRR I 2011-2012 47

IDailv Logs sss !Profile Undated 3

TTT I 2016-2017 2

ILeast Restrictive Environment

Statement uuu I 2017-2018 2

!Least Restrictive Environment

Statement vvv IProfile 2017-2018 l WWW BOE Observation of Student I 0/19/2010 1 XXX Annual Goals Progress Report 3/1/2011 7 yyy IEP 10/20/2010 4 zzz Psvchoeducational Report 10/6/2014 6 AAAA Teacher Questionnaire 1/27/2016 3 BBBB CSE Review 2010 with I I 4/23/2009 7

Attachments 2007 and 2009 cccc CSE Recommendations 1/8/2012 2 DDDD CSE Recommendations 2/26/2016 3 EEEE CSE Recommendations 3/8/2017 2 FFFF CSE Minutes 10/27/2015 2 GGGG CELF-4 Summary Report 11/28/2011 5 HHHH CELF-4 Summary Report 1/7/2012 5

IIII CELF-5 11/27/2017 12

JJJJ Si1med Subpeona (NYC DOE) 1/16/2018 2 KKKK Signed Subpeona d D 1/16/2018 1 LLLL Woodcock-Johnson Score Report 1/17/2011 2 MMMM Woodcock-Johnson Score Report 1/27/2016 l NNNN Woodcock-Johnson Score Report 12/6/2017 1 0000 Loan for Tutoring. Services 4/24/2018 6 pppp Emails re: [ !Report January 2017 9 QQQQ Progress Report 1/2/2018 l RRRR Program Map 6/15/2018 2 ssss Student 5/18/2016 4 Evaluation Results TTTT High School Transcript 6/2/2016 2 uuuu High School Transcript 1/5/2017 I vvvv Report Card Marking Period 2 2014-2015 1 wwww Report Card Marking Period 3 2015-2016 I xxxx Report Card Final 2015-2016 l yyyy Report Card Marking Period l 2016-2017 1 zzzz Attendance Record 2011 l AAAAA Cumulative Record Undated 2 BBBBB Consent Form 4/12/2017 2 ccccc Health and Physical Development 10/20/2010 10 DDDDD Health and Physical Development 3/1/2011 5 EEEEE Request for Education Records 1/13/2017 4 FFFFF Parent Letter to CSE Regarding OT Removal 8/14/2012 1 GGGGG Prescription Regarding Hearing 4/27/2012 1

Loss HHHHH Rationale for Counseling January 2012 1 IIIII Measureable Annual Goals Undated 4

---

Footnotes

[3] "Special education" is defined by the IDEA as specially designed instruction, at no cost to parents or guardians, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, including (A) instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and institutions, and in other settings; and (B) instruction in physical education. The term "related services" is defined as transportation, and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services (including speech pathology and audiology, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, recreation, including therapeutic recreation, social work services, counseling services, including rehabilitation counseling, and medical services, except that such medical services shall be for diagnostic and evaluation purposes only) as may be required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education, and includes the early identification and assessment of disabling conditions in children. 20 U.S.C. § 60 l (26).