Skip to main content
Special Education Law
DECISIONDistrict PrevailedIHO Case No. 523269

Goshen Central School District, Impartial Hearing Decision

March 19, 2020·,

NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.

GRONBACH LAW OFFICES, LLC

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

Vanessa M. Gronbach*

Vanessa@gronbachlaw.com

David R. Gronbach*

David@gronbachlaw.com

*Admitted in CT and NY

25 Mine Hill Road New Milford, CT 06776

T: 860-799-0929

98 Fairway Drive Pawling, NY 12564 T: 914-671-2439

New York State Education Department Office of Special Education

Due Process Unit

89 Washington Avenue, Room EB309 Albany, NY 12234

March 19, 2020

Via Regular Mail

Received

MAR 2 5 2020

Office of Special Education Assistant Commissioner

Re: Bou v. Goshen CSD - #523269 Dear Sir or Madam:

Enclosed please find the redacted Findings of Fact and Decision on the above referenced matter. If you need anything further, please let me know. Thank you.

/

Vanessa M. Gronbach Impartial Hearing Officer

Enclosure

STATE OF NEW YORK

STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

---x

Inth Matter of the Impartial Hearing brought upon the request of S.B and K.B, Parents, for K.B., a Student with a Disability,

Petitioner, vs. Case #523269

Goshen Central School District,

Respondent.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case No.: Student's Name:

Date of Birth:

523269

Kaitlin Bou

(hereinafter referred to as the "Student") 11/15/2004

District: Goshen Central School District (hereinafter referred to as "District")

Hearing Request by: Sean and Kari Bou

(hereinafter referred to as "Parent/s")

Hearing Dates: June 18, 2019

July 10,2019

September 20, 2019

October 2, 2019

November 14, 2019

School: Storm King School

(hereinafter referred to as "Private School") Record Close Date: March 5, 2020

Hearing Officer: Vanessa M. Gronbach, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 18, 2019

For the Student:

Karen Edler, Esq. Attorney Jacqueline Esposito, Esq. Attorney Sean Bou, Parent

Kari Bou, Parent

For the District:

James Drohan, Esq., Attorney Connor Horan, Legal Intern

Heather Hendershot, Director or Pupil Personnel Services

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 10, 2019

For the Student:

Karen Edler, Esq. Attorney Jacqueline Esposito, Esq. Attorney Sean Bou, Parent

Kari Bou, Parent

For the District:

James Drohan, Esq., Attorney Connor Horan, Legal Intern

Heather Hendershot, Director or Pupil Personnel Services Kathleen Higgins, 6th Grade Teacher

Angel Blake, School Psychologist

Sarah McNulty, Speech Language Pathologist

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2019

For the Student:

Karen Edler, Esq. Attorney Jacqueline Esposito, Esq. Attorney Sean Bou, Parent

Kari Bou, Parent

For the District:

James Drohan, Esq., Attorney Connor Horan, Legal Intern

Heather Hendershot, Director or Pupil Personnel Services

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON OCTOBER 2, 2019

For the Student:

Karen Edler, Esq. Attorney Jacqueline Esposito, Esq. Attorney Sean Bou, Parent

Kari Bou, Parent

Dr. Joshua Shifrin, Neuropsychologist Janet Krebs, Private Evaluator

For the District:

James Drohan, Esq., Attorney Connor Horan, Legal Intern

Heather Hendershot, Director or Pupil Personnel Services

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON NOVEMBER 14, 2019

For the Student:

Karen Edler, Esq. Attorney Jacqueline Esposito, Esq. Attorney Sean Bou, Parent

Kari Bou, Parent

Jeanette McMahon, Private School Teacher

For the District:

James Drohan, Esq., Attorney Connor Horan, Legal Intern

Heather Hendershot, Director or Pupil Personnel Services Patricia Capocciamo, Public School Teacher

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the undersigned Hearing Officer based on a due process complaint ("DPC") filed by the Parents on or about February 26, 2019, on behalf of their daughter (hereinafter referred to as the "Student") against the District. In the DPC, the Parents asserted that the District had failed to provide a free appropriate public education ("FAPE") during the 2018/19 school year when it failed to classify the Student for special education services under the Individuals with Disability Education Act ("IDEA") or provide the Student with a 504 plan or supports (Ex. 142)1• The Parents requested that the Student be classified and provided with special education and related services, and/or a 504 Plan, and be reimbursed for tuition paid for their unilateral placement of the Student at the Private School.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The undersigned Hearing Officer was appointed to the above matter on February 27, 2019. There were pre-hearing conferences held on April 5th and April 26, 2019, to discuss the issues in the case and schedule hearing dates (See, Transcripts).2 The hearing began on June 18, 2019, and lasted five days. The District presented five witnesses and the Parent presented four witnesses. Both parties presented joint exhibits (I through 167 and 171 through 177), which were admitted into the record. There were ten extensions of the timelines to allow for settlement discussions, availability of witnesses, submission of briefs, review of the extensive record, and drafting of the decision.

1 All exhibits, although entered as district exhibits, were jointly entered and shall be referred to as "Ex" 2 Reference to the Transcript shall be referred to as "T".

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Student was a 14 year old student at the beginning of the 2018/19 school year and attended the 8th grade at the Private School (Ex. 142). The Student was diagnosed with Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Specific Leaming Disability with impairment in math (Dyscalculia), Mixed Receptive Language Disorder - Unspecified; and Persistent Depressive Disorder (Ex. 104; 142).

In Preschool, the Student was described as having developmental delays, including loss of speech and received special education services (Ex. 58; 142; T. 155). At that time she had been diagnosed as PDD-NOS (Ex. 58; 142; T. 78-79). The Student was declassified prior to entering kindergarten (Ex. 58; 142; T. 155). The Parent voiced her concerns that kindergarten year and requested a 504 meeting, however it does not appear a 504 meeting was ever held (Ex. 59). The Student was then retained for a second year of kindergarten (Ex. 60; T. 154).

During the 2016/17 school year, the Student attended the District's middle school as a 6th grader (Ex. 142). The Parents testified that the Student began having difficulties navigating middle school, having issues with transferring from class to class, and had difficulty with the noise and the chaos in the hallways (T. 292). The Student also began to have social issues and her grades declined (T. 292). The Parents testified that the Student had become withdrawn (T. 293). Sometime in 2016, the Student was prescribed medication for depression, however the Parents opted for therapy instead (T. 372). The Parents did not share this information with the District (T. 372).

The Student's 6th grade teacher for reading, math and homework club, testified that the Student loved reading, writing and acting (T. 835-839). She was appropriate in school and was very happy (T. 835-839). At the beginning of the year the student missed homework assignments in a few classes and the teacher reached out to the Parent and recommended that the Student participate in homework club assignments (T. 840-841). Homework Club was an intervention to give students a quiet place to complete homework or get help with assignments (T. 840-841). The Student participated in homework club, benefited from it, and her grades improved during the year (Ex. 8, 9, 10, II, 15; T. 842).

The Student's 6th grade science teacher ("ST") testified that she had a positive relationship with the Student, her attendance was good and her behaviors were typical for her age (T. 198, 200-20 I). During that year, there were approximately 25 students in that class (T. 200). The Student was described as bubbly, with a good sense of humor, fairly outgoing and liked to participate in class (T. 205-206). The ST did not observe any moods of sadness, observed appropriate relationships with peers, and was able to handle the curriculum (T. 202-203). The ST described that she had some difficulty transitioning at the beginning of 6th grade with attention and organization, but throughout the year she gained skills, used strategies for focus and organization and made progress in her ability to attend to task, and she ended the year positively (T. 203,205,207,210). In science, her grades went from a 65 in the first marking period, to a 90 by the fourth marking period (Ex. 15; T. 204).

The Parents informed the school that the Student had anxiety and requested that they let her know where she stands each week (T. 296-298). The Parent appeared to testify that the math teacher had recommended testing, which led the Parent to reach out to the Student's doctor and resulted in the a letter from the doctor dated January 22, 2017, indicating that the Student had been diagnosed with Generalized Anxiety Disorder (Ex. 61; T. 299, 304-306). The letter also indicated that the Student should be provided with accommodations including additional time for tests, less pressure for work, and clear expectations (Ex. 61). The doctor indicated that at some point, it may be appropriate to consider a 504 classification (Ex. 61; T. 101).

During that school year, the Student received a separate AIS math class and the AIS math teacher also pushed into the regular math class throughout the year (Ex. 69; T. 90, 847). In the AIS class, classroom material was reviewed, the Student was assisted with assignments and the teacher helped prepared the Student for exams (Ex. 69). It was noted that the Student was easily distracted and frequently off task but could return to the task with redirection (Ex. 70). By the end of the year, it was noted that the Student had shown improvement in effort and class participation (T. 71). The Student's math teacher also provided accommodations, such as I: I support, preferential seating, working during lunch, breaks, and access to homework club, to help with the Student's anxiety (T. 300, 410). Although her grades fluctuated, the Students grades improved from the first semester to the second semester (Ex. 15).

On her State testing, the Student scored a 316 in her ELA State assessments in 6'11 grade, which was the equivalent of a level 2 (Ex. 34). The Level 3 cut off was 320 (Ex. 34). Level 2 meant that the Student's performance was partially proficient in standards for her grade (Ex. 34). She did the same or better than 64% of students in her grade and in her District (Ex. 34). In math, the Student scored a 286, also a level two (Ex. 35; T.

119). The level one cut off was 283 (Ex. 35; T. 119). The Student did the same or better than 21% of students in her grade and District (Ex. 35).

During the 2017/18 school year, the Student attended the District's middle school as a 7th grade student (T. 86). She did not received AIS services while in 7th grade (T. 90, 302). The Parent testified that she had difficulty getting the Student to school, she would drag her heels and give her a hard time about going to school (T. 293). Based on this difficulty, the Student would be late to school on a number of occasions (Ex. 62; T. 294). In order to help her get to school on time, the Parents would help her get organized the night before, which helped to a degree (T. 294-295). The Parents did not share these difficulties with the school (T. 295).

The Director of Pupil Personnel Services ("DPPS") testified that there were no attention issues noted in 7th grade (Ex. 16, 17, 18, 19; T. 152). The Student had some missing homework assignments in the first marking period, but then no other concerns were noted (Ex. 16; T. 152-153). Her academic grades fluctuated between B's to A's to C's throughout the year (Ex. 23; T. 89).

The State assessments for 7th grade in ELA, the Student scored a 619, which was the equivalent ofa level three, proficient (Ex. 36; T. 86-87). The cut off for Level 4 was 623, and the Student did the same or better than 86% of students in her grade in the District (Ex. 36). In math, the Student scored a 604, level two (Ex. 37; T. 87). The cut off for Level 3 was 606 and the Student scored better than 63% of students in her grade in the District (Ex. 37; T. 87-88). The DPPS testified that the 7th grade state tests were more rigorous than the previous years testing, because it was changed to align with common core learning standards (T. 72, 160).

In December of 2017, the Student had a discipline incident where she drew a swastika and gave it to a Jewish student (Ex. 126; T. 315-316, 623). It was after this incident, the Parent testified, that they had concerns with the Student's safety and began looking for other school placements, exploring other options for education and the need for transportation (Ex. 83; T. 312-313, 319). The Parent first reached out to the Private School in late winter of 2018 (T. 413). The Parent testified that she had requested that the District provide the Student with transportation to the Private School and she was directed to the DPPS for transportation services (Ex. 83; T.312-313, 367). The DPPS explained to the Parent that if the Student was suspected of having a disability that impacted her ability to learn, that she could request a special education evaluation and put the request in writing (Ex. 83; T. 312-313). The Parents sent a letter to the District dated May 31, 2018, requesting that the Student be referred for special education services as well as 504 accommodations (Ex. 64; T. 74-75, 125,312,327, 437-439). The Parent testified that she placed a deposit on the Private School in the Spring of 2018, when she toured the school (Ex. 155; T. 411,430). The Parents had decided to have the Student privately evaluated when they began looking for other schools and had reached out to the neuropsychologist ("NP") in the Spring of2018 (T. 333,500). Although the Parents were obtaining private evaluations, they signed consent for the District to conduct its own evaluations on June 12, 2018, and the District received the consent on July 3, 2018 (Ex. 52; 64; T. 74-75, 125, 312, 327, 437-439).

The District's Committee on Special Education ("CSE") met on August 22, 2018, to review the evaluations conducted by the District, as well as the private evaluations (T. 75, 78). The CSE was attended by the DPPS who acted as the CSE chairperson, the school psychologist, a special education teacher, speech language therapist, a general education teacher who had taught the Student in 6th grade, and the Parents who brought a family friend (T. 75-76, 222). The Student's records, evaluations submitted by the Parents, and prior diagnoses were all considered (T. I 05, 128, 148).

The psycho-educational evaluation conducted by the District described the Student as talkative and friendly (Ex. I05-2). The report noted that the Student had stated that she was supposed to wear glasses for reading, but she did not have them because she does not wear them (Ex. I 05-2). The Student demonstrated good concentration and attention to task (Ex. 105-2). The report indicated that the Student's general intellectual ability was in the average range (Ex. 105-3). The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales were provided to the Parent to assess the Student's personal and interpersonal competence (Ex. 105-4). On the Vineland, the Student scored moderately low in adaptive behavior, communication and socialization, meaning that the Student had some difficulties, but they were not significant (Ex. I 05-4; T. 238, 240). Her daily living skills were adequate (Ex. I 05-4). She scored in the clinically significant range for internalizing problems, which could have a negative effect on the Student (Ex. I 05-5; T. 240-241). In the informal Student interview, the Student reported that she had feelings of anxiety that got in the way of everything, that she would get nervous about going to school, big tests and had social difficulties (Ex. I 05-5). She described herself as a hot mess in 6th grade, but she got her grades back on track in 7th grade (Ex. 105-5). Socially, she described herself as a hot mess in 7th grade because she was hanging out with kids who were not making good choices, but she found a new group of friends and things were getting better (Ex. 105-5; T. 147). The Student also reported that she was looking forward to going to a new school (Ex. 105-5).

The School psychologist ("SP") reported on the private neuropsychological evaluation at the CSE meeting (T. 220). The private neuropsychological evaluation was completed in July 2018 (Ex. 104; T. 334, 500-501). As part of the evaluation, the neuropsychologist ("NP") interviewed the Parent, the Student and the Student's private therapist (T. 502-503). The report revealed that the Student's cognitive testing was in the average range, with processing speed a bit higher than some of her other scores (Ex. 104- 10; T. 224; 516-518). Academic testing was also in the average range (Ex. 104-26; T.

224). Compared to the District's evaluations, the cognitive and academic results were consistent (Ex. 104; 105; 106; T. 86,224).

The NEPSY assessed academic, social, and behavioral difficulties (Ex. 104-19).

The NEPSY also assessed brain behavior based functioning, such as language and memory and learning (T. 521). The NEPSY revealed that some parts of the Student's language based functioning and memory fell within the average to below average range (Ex. 104-25; T. 522). Attention and executive function she fell in the average to above average range (Ex. 104-25; T. 225).

The BASC assessed the Student's social emotional and behavioral functioning (Ex. 104-31; T. 524). The Student completed the form on a computer at the NP's office (T. 525). On the BASC, the Student scored in the clinically significant range in attitude toward school, anxiety, depression, sense of inadequacy, somatization, attention, and self esteem (Ex. 104-31; T. 241, 525-526). The NP observed some anxiety from the Student in the form of answering quickly or giving up quickly (T. 523).

The NP also had the Parent complete an intake regarding issues the Student was struggling with the most (Ex. 103; T. 370, 503). Regarding the Student's mental health, the Parent reported that the Student struggled with poor attention to detail, paying attention for long periods, poor organization, easily districted, failed to finish work, often lost things, was forgetful, had some test anxiety and some social anxiety (P-Ex. 103-3). The Parent did not report low self esteem or sadness most of the day (Ex. I 03-3).

Regarding social skills, the Parent reported few close friends, but also reported that the Student could make and maintain friendships easily and was very outgoing (Ex. 103-4).

The NP diagnosed the Student with Generalized Anxiety Disorder, a Specific Learning Disability in Math (dyscalculia) and Persistent Depressive Disorder (Ex. 104- 41; T. 505). The NP also noted that the Student had previous diagnoses of Sensorineural Hearing Loss and Mixed Receptive Language Disorder (Ex. 104-41; T. 505). The NP testified that the Learning Disability in Math was based on the Student's math scores, which were at the bottom of the average range (math problem solving =86, numerical operations =89, math fluency addition =91, math fluency subtraction =91, math fluency multiplication =88), but the confidence interval would bring the Student's scores to between average to below average (Ex. 104-26; T. 510). The NP testified that with the discrepancy between her ability and her IQ, the Student demonstrated an unexpected underachievement based on her aptitude (Ex. 104-26; T. 510). The NP testified that scores alone were not sufficient, but one should also take into account the way a student takes a test, the length of time on the test, and her history on standardized testing (T. 511- 512, 516-517). The NP had reviewed the Student's progress reports from 6th grade and observed that in general, her math scores were an area of weakness (Ex. 8; 9; 10; 11; T.

536-538). The NP also reviewed the Student's progress reports for 7th grade and testified that she had scores in the 70's, which was an unexpected underachievement (T. 539). The

NP did not reach out to anyone from the District because he testified that he had enough data (T. 524).

The SP testified that although the private evaluation diagnosed the Student with a specific learning disability with impairment in math, she did not believe that the Student actually exhibited a learning disability because her scores fell in the average range in both the private and the District testing (T. 226, 228). It should be noted that in 6th grade the Student's math scores ranged from 74, 75, 84, 80; and in 7th grade they ranged from 81, 76, 74, 76 (Ex. 15; 19).

Regarding the NP's finding that the Student had language based difficulties, the

NP testified that based on the two subtests on the NEPSY that fell below average and the speech reports, the Student demonstrated language based difficulties (T. 679). However, the testing on the TOWL and the WIAT-III did not demonstrate any deficits, as those scores were in the average range (Ex. 104; T. 676).

Regarding the diagnosis of persistent depressive disorder, the SP testified that the BASC did report some scores in the at-risk or clinical significant range, but the BASC only relied on the Student's self reporting, where it can also include teacher and parent rating scales, but did not (T. 228-230, 580-581). Despite these results, the SP testified that the Student was not eligible under any classifications because her educational performance and grades fell within the average range (T. 245). The SP testified that the more information one obtained about the Student, the better able a decision can be made about that area of concern (T. 230).

The speech language pathologist ("SLP") who was present at the August 2018 CSE meeting testified that she reviewed and rep01ied on the testing that was relevant to speech,completedbytheENT(Ex.109; 110; 111; 112; 113; 114; T.248,249). The audiological testing revealed normal bilateral hearing (Ex. 114; T. 249-250). The Test of Auditory Processing ("TAPS"), which looked at language related skills and processing related skills, revealed scores in the average range except for one subtest, sentence memory, which was below average (Ex. 112-1; T. 251). Sentence memory assessed the Student's ability to listen to a sentence and recall it to see if the Student could retain the information and repeat it back (T. 255). At the meeting, it was not reported that she had difficulty remembering information in the classroom (T. 257). To measure the Student's receptive and expressive language skills, the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals ("CELF") was administered and revealed scores in the average range except for one subtest, following directions, which fell in the below average range (Ex. 112-1; 113; T. 251-252, 261). The testing revealed that the Student's overall receptive and expressive language skills were found to be within normal limits, with the exception of difficulty with sentence imitation and following directions (Ex. 112-2; 113-2; T. 264- 265). This contradicted the diagnosis of mixed receptive/expressive language disorder (Ex. 112-3; T. 99, 265-266). Based on the testing results, the SLP testified that she did not see the need for additional testing (T. 252).

The NP recommended that the District create an IEP with a classification of Emotional Disturbance and/or Specific Learning Disability; busing to and from school to assist with socialization; a private school equipped to meet the Student's needs; an in school counselor and/or out of school therapist to address her social emotional issues; several accommodations and techniques to address her dyscalculia and inattention; positive reinforcement; and a speech language pathologist and/or audiologist to address her hearing and language issues (Ex. 104-41; T. 90-91, 541-542). The NP testified that he recommended an out-of-district or private placement due to the severity of the Student's social emotional issues affecting her ability to learn (T. 542, 665). He testified that he was worried about the Student's self esteem, depression, anxiety, self harm, suicidal ideation or making really bad decisions (T. 542). Based on his recommendations, the NP testified that the Private School the Student attended during the 2018/29 school year was appropriate (T. 543). The NP also testified that no other public schools or state approved schools in New York State could offer the Student a small class and/or therapeutic program (T. 702-706).

Regarding the classification of ED, the CSE found that there was no disability or any factors that would impact her learning or her ability or have relationships with peers or adults at the time (T. 91-92). The CSE discussed whether the Student exhibited inappropriate types of behaviors or feelings under normal circumstances (T. 92-93). The CSE also reviewed the prior disciplinary incident (T. 92-93). The CSE did not find that the Student demonstrated a tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems, to a marked degree, over a long period of time, or that it was having an adverse effect on her ability to access instruction (T. 92-93, 231). Also, the private evaluation did not indicate any depression, anxiety or clinically significant issues with socialization (T. 96-98). According to the NP's own testing, the Student did not meet the criteria for emotionally disturbed since she did not have the inability to form appropriate relationships with teachers, the Parent did not endorse that the Student was sad most of the time, she was not diagnosed with depression, or dysthymia, and was not at risk for suicidal behavior (T. 619-621).

Regarding the classification of hearing impaired, which the Parent had asked the CSE to consider, the SPL reviewed and discussed the most recent ENT and audiological reports, which demonstrated that the Student's hearing was within normal limits and her receptive and expressive language testing was within the average range, therefore the Student was not eligible for a classification of hearing impaired (Ex. 114; T. 90-91, 94, 252-253, 390-391).

Ultimately, the Student was found to be ineligible for special education services, or 504 accommodations at that time (Ex. 74; T. 217,345). The DPPS testified the Student was not eligible for a classification under 504 despite the Student's diagnosis of Generalized Anxiety Disorder, as it did not substantially limit her ability to learn or access the general education curriculum at that time (Ex. 74; T. 101,243). The team made recommendations for supports to be put in place, such as counseling, to see if she would respond, and if not, then a referral to the 504 would be made in the Fall of 2018 (Ex. 74; T. 126, 217-218, 264,346). The team also recommended school based counseling to address some of the concerns raised in the BASC report and not showing up in school (T. 145,346). Regarding the NP's recommendation for the Student to ride the bus for greater exposure to and experience with socialization, the Student was already using the bus (T. 98-99). Regarding the NP's recommendation for classroom accommodations, the DPPS testified that those accommodations could be provided through RTI interventions (T. 108). The Parent disagreed and indicated that they would be retaining an attorney (T. 345). The Parent testified that that at the conclusion of the CSE meeting, they had made the determination to place the Student at the Private School where she attended for the 8th grade, the 2018/19 school year (T. 351).

The Private School was described as a school for students who struggle in the public school (T. 791). It is a coeducational, nonsectarian, independent college preparatory boarding and day school for grades 8th through 12'h (Ex. 137; T. 792). The Private School is set up like a campus with different buildings (T. 791-792). The Private School has approximately 200 students and class sizes range from 8 to 16 students (T.

791-792). During the 2018/19 school year, the school was set up with block scheduling, meaning each class was one hour and 15 minutes long (T. 793). The Private school offered the Student an academic support program ("ASP") to work on organization, executive functioning, time management, test-taking skills and reducing stress (Ex. 155; 175; T. 362, 429). ASP was offered to student's who had difficulty learning in a general classroom setting and provided extra support for executive functioning, organization, and study skills, to help alleviate testing anxiety (Ex. 136; T. 401-402). According to the Parent, the ASP program offered by the Private School was essentially the same as the 504 accommodations within the classroom setting (T. 429-430). However, the Parents declined placing the Student in ASP (Ex. 155-10).

The Parent testified that at the Private School the Student was engaged, no longer required checklists, prompts, or reminders, was working independently, was speaking with friends, and participated in school activities (T. 351-352). She was provided with extra time for tests, received 1:1 tutoring, and had preferential seating (T. 352,441). The Parent reported that the Student was happy to be in school at the Private school and she had not seen the Student be depressed (T. 353-354).

The Student's Private School math teacher ("PST") testified that she provided the Student with additional support in math because she struggled at the beginning of the 2018/19 school year (T. 794-795, 799-800). She described the Student as insecure in math (T. 794). Based on a math placement test given at the beginning of the year, she determined that the Student should remain in the pre-algebra class (Ex. 175; T. 796-797). The PST testified that in order to provide additional support to the Student she conferred with the ASP teacher who was trained in teaching student with disabilities and with IEPs (T. 800-801). The PST provided the Student with help on tests, extra time and refocusing in the classroom (T. 801, 814). She did not provide any differentiation in the content (T. 811-812). Socially, the Student was described as being unsure of herself but as the year progressed she was able to get along with people (T. 805-806). The PST also observed that the Student demonstrated some anxiety with test taking and provided her with breathing exercises and meditation, which she provide to the entire class (T. 870-808) The PST testified that attendance was an issue and that the Student missed more than the average amount of classes (T. 822). The PST testified that with the extra help and time, the Student's grades improved and she no longer had concerns at the end of the year (T. 803). However, at the end of the 2018/19 school year, the PST was asked by the Private School to provide the names of students that she had concerns about, she provided the Student's name (Ex. 175-5). The PST further testified that the Student's ability to perform basic math operations was at the bottom of class and remained at the bottom by the end of the year (T. 825). The PST refeJTed the Student to the ASP program based on the problems she was having, and indicated that ASP would have been perfect for her to gain academic abilities and strengths (T. 827-828).

The Student was reevaluated during the summer of 2019 by the same NP who conducted the private neuropsychological evaluation the year before (Ex. 143; 159; T.

356, 557, 563). The reevaluation included an updated BASC that was provided to the Student, but not the teacher nor Parents; updated academic scores in math; and a school observation (Ex. 143; 159; T. 582). The evaluation revealed that the Student was still struggling socially/emotionally with anxiety and sense of inadequacy, which had increased from the previous testing, but her attitude toward school, teachers, social stress and self esteem had improved (Ex. 143; 159-8; T. 356-357, 564). In math, the Student had made significant improvements (Ex. 143; 159-6; T. 356-357, 564). In the updated evaluation, the NP recommended the ASP program, even though the Student had done better academically, however the NP testified that socially and emotionally the Student was still struggling (Ex. 143; 159-11; T. 402-403, 646-647). According to the reevaluation the Student's social emotional functioning had declined from 2018 to 2019

(T. 404).

The NP observed the Private School at the end of 8th grade, in an art and math class (Ex. 143; 159-2; T. 544-545). In art, the Student was observed to be attentive and calm (Ex. 159-2; T. 545). In math, the Student was observed to read with confidence and asked a few questions, but also struggled (Ex. 159-2; T. 547). There were 14 students in the math class and about 7 to 10 students in the art class (Ex. 159-2; T. 548). According to the NP, the Private School was appropriate because it met the Student's social, emotional and academic needs (Ex. 159-10; T. 565). The NP testified that the Student's mental health difficulties were at risk if they were not addressed (T. 565). The NP further testified that it did not appear any public school or state approved school in New York could meet the needs of the Student (T. 572, 704-706).

20 The Student was also evaluated by a private speech language pathologist ("PSLP") in June 2019 (Ex. 144; T. 718-719). She reviewed previous reports including the previous speech evaluation, the audiological and ENT reports (T. 719). The PSLP administered the evaluation and testified that she was concerned about the range of mid to high average scores in certain areas (Ex. 144-2; T. 720). The results of the evaluation indicated weak sentence memory skills, which were done in an auditory fashion (T. 721). It also indicated an average score for auditory figure ground subtest, which required the Student to listen to one syllable words with background noise (Ex. 144-2). In the NP's report she noted concerns with listening skills as well as weaknesses with working memory, which was also an auditory test (T. 722). The PSLP testified that the speech evaluation showed weaknesses in following directions, which required listening skills (T. 723). The PSLP testified that the evaluation revealed that she did have weaknesses and recommended a central auditory processing ("CAP") evaluation (Ex. 144-4; T. 723-725).

Although the PSLP did not conduct the CAP evaluation, she testified regarding its findings that revealed that the Student did have an auditory processing disorder in the area of auditory closure and tolerance fading memory (Ex. 145-7; T. 724-725). The PSLP testified that students with CAP disorder can have difficulty socially and feel anxious about being in auditory environments (T. 742). The report indicated that the findings would indicate, that the Student would have difficulty in the classroom, especially in the presence of background noise (Ex. 145-7; T. 726). The evaluation recommended that the Student be provided with study sheets, sit in the front of the class to be close to the teacher, an FM system, a training program, additional I: I suppo1i, therapies, additional time for completing assignments, testing in a separate location, and pre-teaching of material (Ex. 145-7; T. 727-728). Auditory therapy was also recommended to remediate CAP disorder, as well as other programs, like Fast Forward, which could be used in school (Ex. 145-7; T. 741-742). The PSLP testified that although the CAP report recommended an FM unit, that in her opinion the FM unit was not necessmy since the Student was in a small class setting (T. 728, 732).

The PSLP also testified that she observed the Student at the Private School, in her physics class, which had eight students in the class (T. 729). The Student was observed to be comfortable, focused on a test, and involved in a lesson (T. 729-731). She did not observe any anxiety (T. 740). In her opinion, based on the information from the evaluations completed, the District should have conducted a speech language evaluation (T. 736). The PSLP testified that the discrepancy on the one low score on the TAPS was a concern that was statistically significant, and the same with the one subtest on the CELF (T. 737-738). In her opinion, this indicated that there is some area of language or communication that needs to be further explored (T. 739). The PSLP recommended that the Student receive small group learning, study guides, help with note taking, and speech language therapy at least once a week (T. 742-743). The speech and audiological reports were not provided to the District, but were shared with the Private School (T. 360, 400). The Parent testified that upon shming it with the Private School, the Student was provided with front row seating, written material, check-ins, and breaks (T. 361). The Private School did not provide the FM sound system for the classroom, but instead the Student was seated up front (T. 401).

The DPPS and SP also visited the Private School in September 2019 (Ex. 160; 161; T. 284-285). The Student was observed in her geometry classroom of ten students, and one teacher, for about one hour and twenty minutes (Ex. 160; T. 284,286). The DPPS testified that she did not observe any assistive technology devices, special education interventions or differentiation of instruction being used (T. 285). Despite the lack of interventions, the Student was able to participate and keep up with the class, answer questions, and be an active participant in a class that was taught in a lecture format (Ex. 160; T. 286). The classroom teacher described the Student as a "rock star" who participated well in class and did not report any concerns (Ex. 160).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Individuals with Disability Education Act ("IDEA") is comprehensive statutory framework established by Congress to ensure that students with disabilities are afforded FAPE. See, 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(l)(A); Schaffer v. Weast, 546 US 49 (2005). A "free appropriate public education consists of educational instruction that is designed to meet the unique needs of the handicapped child, supported by such services as ai-e necessary to permit the child to benefit from the instruction." Bd. of Ed. Hendrick

Hudson CSD v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 188 (1982). In order to demonstrate that FAPE is being provided, the school district must show "that it complied with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and that the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits." See, Application of Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 05-06 I, quoting, Rowley at 206. The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment with non-disabled peers. See, Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dt., 142 F.3rd 119 (2nd Cir. 1998).

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 special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living; and (2) to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities and parents of such students are protected (20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][l][A]-[B]; see generally, Forest Grove v. T.A., 129 S. Ct. 2484, 2491 [2009]; Rowley, at 206-07).

An appropriate program begins with an IEP which accurately reflects the results of the 1) student's present levels of performance; 2) provides for the use of appropriate special education services to address the child's special education needs; 3) establishes annual goals which are related to the child's educational deficits; 4) identifies transitions services; 5) provides a start and end date to the recommended program and services; and

6) criteria and evaluation procedures for the measurement of goals. See, Walzczak, supra; Id., Appeal No. 00-005. "The initial procedural inquiry is no mere formality." Walczak, at 129. "Adequate compliance with the procedures prescribed [by IDEA] would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP." Rowley at 206. For an IEP to be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, it must be likely to produce progress, not regression. This progress, must be meaningful; i.e., more than mere trivial advancement. Walczak, supra.

A Student's "IEP need not aim for grade-level advancement. But his educational program must be appropriately ambitious in light of his circumstances, just as advancement from grade to grade is appropriately ambitious for most children in the regular classroom. The goals may differ, but every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives." Endrew F. v. Douglas 580 U.S._ (2017). "It cannot be the case that the Act typically aims for grade-level advancement for children with disabilities who can be educated in the regular classroom, but is satisfied with barely more than de minimis progress for those who cannot." Id.

Under the IDEA, a procedural inadequacy results in the denial of a FAPE only if it "(I) impeded the child's right to a [FAPE]; (II) significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in the decision making process regarding the provision of a [FAPE] to the parents' child; or (III) caused a deprivation of educational benefits." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); see also, Pe1Ticelli v. Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist., No. 06 Civ.

2114, 2007 WL 465211, *10 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2007) (noting that, although the procedural inquiry is not a formality, not every procedural error renders an IEP inadequate under the IDEA) (citations omitted). The Second Circuit has described the procedural side of the inquiry as "focus[ed] on whether the [student's parents] had an adequate opportunity to participate in the development of [the] IEP.'' Cerra, 427 F.3d at 192. Parental participation requires an opportunity to examine records, to participate in meetings, and to obtain an independent evaluation. Id. (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(l)).

Here, I find that the CSE's determination that the Student was not eligible for special education services was reasonable and supported by the information reviewed by the District's CSE on August 22, 2018. I also find that the CSE was appropriately staffed as per New York State regulations.

An initial evaluation of a student must include a physical examination, a psychological evaluation, a social history, a classroom observation of the student and any other "appropriate assessments or evaluations," as necessmy to determine factors contributing to the student's disability (8 NYCRR 200.4[b][I]). A district must ensure that a student is appropriately assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, where appropriate, social and emotional status (20 U.S.C. § 1414[b][3][B]; 34 CFR 300.304[c][4]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[b][6][vii]). In this case, at the August 2018 CSE meeting, the CSE had and reviewed it's own psychological and educational evaluation, a social history, as well as documents provided by the Parents, specifically a neuropsychological, ADHD testing, and a speech/hearing evaluation from the prior year (Ex. 52, 74). Although the Parent claimed that no physical exam or observation were included, the physical examination is typically provided by the Parents. There was medical documentation in the record and it appeared that some medical information was reviewed by the CSE, at least as it related to the Student's ADHD and Anxiety (Ex. 61). Although there was no formal observation in the record, the Student's 6th grade teacher was present at the meeting and reported on her informal observations of the Student in the classroom. Based on the evidence presented I find that the CSE had the proper information before it in order to make an appropriate determination.

The IDEA defines a "child with a disability" as a child with specific physical, mental, or emotional conditions, including a learning disability, "who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services" (20 U.S.C. § 1401[3][A]; Educ. Law§ 4401[1]). One must consider whether a student's condition adversely affects his or her educational performance such that the student needs special education within the meaning of the IDEA. See, Maus v. Wappingers Cent. Sch. Dist., 688 F. Supp. 2d 282, 294, 297-98 (S.D.N.Y. 2010); Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 11-152.

Here, the Parent/NP requested that the Student be classified as Emotionally Disturbed, Hearing Impaired or with a Leaming Disability in Math. Regarding the classification of Emotionally Disturbed, the record showed that the Student had a diagnosis of Generalized Anxiety Disorder. The question before the CSE was whether that diagnosis alone was sufficient to classify the Student as a student with a disability. At the time of the CSE meeting, I agree with the District, that the diagnosis alone did not impact her ability to learn or her ability to have relationships with peers or adults, at the time. Her 6th grade teachers testified that the Student had appropriate relationships with peers and adults (T. 201-202; 205-206; 834-835, 838), did not present as unhappy or have moods of sadness, or displayed any inappropriate behaviors (T. 202, 837). The Student was described as happy, bubbly and fairly outgoing (T. 206, 837). The Parent's own reporting of the Student indicated that the Student maintained friends easily, was very outgoing, had many friends and a few close friends (Ex. 103; T. 607-608). The Parent specifically did not report that the Student was sad most of the day, refused to attend school, had frequent mood changes, or many other symptoms she was asked about (Ex.

103; T. 79-82). Moreover, the NP's testing did not establish a classification of emotionally disturbed since there was only one administration of the BASC, the BASC was not presented to the Parent or a teacher, and there was no evidence that there were any adverse effects on the Student's education since her grades were all in the average range (Ex. 15; 19; 104; T. 229-231).

Regarding the NP's diagnosis of a Learning Disability, there was a discrepancy between the NP's testimony and the District's regarding whether or not a learning disability in math actually existed. The NP based his diagnosis on the Student's math scores on the academic testing which ranged from an 86 to a 91 (Ex. 104-26). The NP originally characterized the Student's math scores as slightly below the average range, when in fact they were in the average range (T. 583-585, 588-589). He testified that her performance was an unexpected underachievement compared to her IQ score, which was average (FSIQ=lO0) (Ex. 104; T. 510). However, the NP admitted that scores alone were not sufficient and that one should take into account other factors (T. 511-512, 516-517). Although the NP did review the Student's repmi cards, he never spoke directly to any District staff who had knowledge of the Student (T.524). Interestingly, the NP never recommended any special education program to address the concerns indicated in his reports, only accommodations, which were similar to those provided when the Student received AIS services in the District (Ex. 104; T. 594-595).

The District did not agree with the NP that the Student had a Learning Disability because her scores fell in the average range in both the District's and the NP's testing; the Student's math grades in 6th grade fluctuated from a 74 to 84 and in 7th grade fluctuated from a 74 to an 8l(Ex. 15; 19); the Student made progress in school; her State test scores from 6th to 7th grade increased (Ex. 35, 37); and she did not display any inappropriate behaviors in school (T. 201-202, 206, 226-228, 607-608, 837). Given the Student's grades, performance on state testing, standardized test scores, all in the average range, I do not find that her education was adversely affected.

Regarding the classification of hearing impaired, which the Parent had asked the CSE to consider, the SLP had reviewed and discussed that the ENT and audiological reports demonstrated that the Student's hearing was within normal limits and her receptive and expressive language testing were within the average range (Ex. 114; T. 90- 91, 94, 252-253, 390-391). Therefore, I agree with the CSE's determination that the Student was not eligible for a classification of hearing impaired.

Based on a totality of the evidence before me, I find that information before the CSE on August 22, 2018, supported the CSE's determination that the Student did not meet the criteria for any classification and that the Student was not eligible for special education.

504 SERVICES

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act defines an individual with a disability as

"... any person who: (i) has a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; (ii) has a record of such an impainnent; or (iii) is regarded as having such an impairment" 34 C.F.R. section 104.3(i)(l). Looking at the two school years before me, the Parent requested a 504 plan with their request for special education services, in May 2018.

I find that the District did not violate section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act based on the same reasons I found that the CSE appropriately denied the Student with special education services. Diagnosis alone was not sufficient. There was nothing in the record that the Student's diagnosis of Generalized Anxiety Disorder substantially limited or impaired one or more of the Student's life activities. The Student's grades ranged from the 70' s to 90's, she demonstrated progress in her academics, as well as her State testing, her cognitive and academic testing were in the average range, she had appropriate relationships and interactions with peers and adults, and did not demonstrate any inappropriate behaviors, except for one incident in December 2017, in which the Student acknowledged she was hanging out with the wrong crowd, and found new friends.

Moreover, the District's CSE did not make an ultimate determination at the time of the CSE meeting, but instead made recommendations for supports to be in place, such as counseling, and agreed to revisit the Parent's request for 504 acconunodations in the Fall of2018 (Ex. 74; T. 126, 145, 217-18, 264,346). By September 2018, the Student was discharged from weekly private therapy sessions due to improvement in her anxiety symptoms (Ex. 172).

PARENT'S BURDEN

A board of education may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private educational services obtained for a student by his or her parents, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parents were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parents' claim (Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]; Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-70 [1985]; R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85; T.P., 554 F.3d at 252). In Burlington, the Court found that Congress intended retroactive reimbursement to parents by school officials as an available remedy in a proper case under the IDEA (471 U.S. at 370-71; see, Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 111; Cerra, 427 F.3d at 192).

"Reimbursement merely requires [a district] to belatedly pay expenses that it should have paid all along and would have borne in the first instance" had it offered the student a FAPE (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370-71; see 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][ii]; 34 CFR 300.148). Parents seeking reimbursement "bear the burden of demonstrating that their private placement was appropriate, even if the IEP was inappropriate" Gagliardo, at 112; see, M.S. v. Bd. Of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 104 [2d Cir. 2000]). "Subject to ce1iain limited exceptions, 'the same considerations and criteria that apply in dete1mining whether the school district's placement is appropriate should be considered in determining the appropriateness of the parents' placement... "' Gagliardo, at 112, quoting Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 364 (2d Cir. 2006). Parents need not show that the placement provides every special service necessary to maximize the student's potential (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65). When determining whether the parents' unilateral placement is appropriate, ultimately, the issue turns on whether that placement is "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits" (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364; Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115. A private placement is only appropriate if it provides education instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a student (20 U.S.C.

§ 1401(29]; 34 CFR 300.39[a][l]; Educ. Law§ 4401[1]; 8 NYCRR200.l[ww]; Rowley, 458 U.S. at 188-89.

A private school placement must be "proper under the Act" (Carter, 510 U.S. at 12, 15; Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370), i.e., the private school must provide an educational program which meets the student's special education needs. See, Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, 115; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 129. A parent's failure to select a program approved by the State in favor of an unapproved option is not itself a bar to reimbursement (Carter, 510 U.S. at 14). The private school need not employ certified special education teachers or have its own IEP for the student (lei_. at 14).

The Second Circuit has set forth the standard for dete1mining whether parents have carried their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of their unilateral placement.

"Grades, test scores, and regular advancement may constitute evidence that a child is receiving educational benefit, but cmuts assessing the propriety of a unilateral placement consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child's individual needs. To qualify for reimbursement under the IDEA, parents need not show that a private placement furnishes every special service necessary to maximize their child's potential. They need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction."

(Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, quoting Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65).

Finding that the District did not violate FAPE and appropriately concluded that the Student was not eligible for special education services, I do not have to make a finding regarding the Parent's unilateral placement. However, I will note that although the Private School had services to address special education needs, ie. the ASP program and cognitive behavioral therapy, the Parent opted not to place the Student in the ASP program for help, despite several recommendations3 that the Student needed the program; and there was no evidence in the record that the Student used the therapy services at the Private School (T. 429-430). The Private School appeared to provide the Student with same level of accommodations as a regular education program. Therefore, if the Student had been classified, the program provided by the Private School would not have been appropriate.

EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS

Equitable considerations are relevant in determining relief "because the authority to grant reimbursement [under the IDEA] is discretionary." Frank G., 459 F.3d at 363-64

  • • The administration recommended ASP prior to the Student starting at the Private School, as did the NP and the teacher who testified at the hearing.

(quoting Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374). Again, finding that the District did not violate PAPE and appropriately concluded that the Student was not eligible for special education services, I do not have to make a finding regarding equitable considerations. However, I will note that although the Parents participated in all aspects of the special education process including procuring its own evaluations of the Student, the Parent did not request that the District's CSE evaluate the Student until months after the Parent had applied to the Private School. An admission inquiry form for the Private School was filled out by the Parent on January 3, 20184 (Ex. 173-19); the application was submitted on February 28, 2018 (Ex. 173); the Student was accepted to the Private School on April 25, 2018; the contract was signed on May 7, 2018 (Ex. 153); and a $3,600.00 deposit was made on May 8, 2018 (Ex. 152). The Parent did not reach out to the District until on May 21, 2018, and at that time they were looking for transportation, not special education services (Ex. 83). The request for an evaluation was made on May 31, 2018 (Ex. 64).

Additionally, in the winter of2017/18 school year, the Parent had actually told District staff that they were looking for smaller classes because the Student was having difficulty navigating the social aspect of middle school and that they were pleased with all aspects of the middle school, including the exceptional teachers (Ex. 151; T. 420, 426-427).

DECISION

Based on a review of the entire record and the details in the findings of fact, as mentioned above, I find that the District appropriately evaluated the Student and correctly found the Student ineligible for special education services and/or 504 accommodations, at the time of the CSE meeting.

  • • The document says 2017 but I believe that is in en-or since it indicated interest for the Fall 2018.

ORDER

Based upon the Findings of Pact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby ordered:

1). ORDER THAT, the Parnnts/Student is not entitled to tuition reimbursement for the unilateral placement of the Student at the Private School.

DATED: March 19, 2020

Vanessa M. Gronbach Impartial Hearing Officer

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Within 40 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the Public School District has a right to appeal the decision to a State Review Officer (SRO) of the New York State Education Department under section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

If either party plans to appeal the decision, a notice of intention to seek review shall be personally served upon the opposing party no later than 25 days after the date of the decision sought to be reviewed.

An appealing party's request for review shall be personally served upon the opposing party within 40 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. An appealing paiiy shall file the notice of intention to seek review, notice of request for review, request for review, and proof of service with the Office of State Review of the State Education Department within two days after service of the request for review is complete. The rules of procedure for appeals before an SRO are found in Part 279 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education. A copy of the rules in Part 279 and model forms are available at http://www.sro.nysed.gov.

Hearing Officer's Findings of Pact and Decision

No. Description Pages Dates

  • • Report Card Grade K (Term 3), 2pp.
  • • Report Card Grade K, 2pp.
  • • Report Card Grade 1 (Term 3), 2pp.
  • • Report Card Grade 2 (Term 3), 2pp.
  • • Report Card Grade 3 (Term 3), 2pp.
  • • Report Card Grade 4 (Term 3), 2pp.
  • • Report Card Grade 5 (Term 3), 2pp.
  • • Progress Report Grade 6 (Quarter 1), lp.
  • • Progress Report Grade 6 (Quarter 2), lp.
  • • Progress Report Grade 6 (Quarter 3), lp.
  • • Progress Report Grade 6 (Quarter 4), lp.
  • • Report Card Grade 6 (MP 1), lp.
  • • Report Card Grade 6 (MP 2), lp.
  • • Report Card Grade 6 (MP3), lp.
  • • Report Card Grade 6 (MP 4), lp.
  • • Progress Report Grade 7 (Quarter 1), lp.
  • • Progress Report Grade 7 (Quarter 2), lp.
  • • Progress Report Grade 7 (Quarter 3), lp.
  • • Progress Report Grade 7 (Quarter 4), lp.
  • • Report Card Grade 7 (MP 1), lp.
  • • Report Card Grade 7 (MP 2), lp.
  • • Report Card Grade 7 (MP3), lp.
  • • Report Card Grade 7 (MP 4), lp..
  • • Report Card SY 2012-2013, lp..
  • • Middle School Transcript (Grade 6-7), lp.
  • • Red Team Conference Report, lp.11.15.2017.
  • • Red Team Meeting (Progress Report Time), lp. 3.14.2018
  • • ELA Score Report SY 2013-2014 Grade 3, 2pp. 9.2.2014.
  • • ELA Score Report SY 2014-2015 Grade 4, 2pp. 8.13.2015
  • • Mathematics Score Report SY 2014-2015 Grade 4, 2pp. 8.13.2015.
  • • Science Report Grade 4, 2pp. (May 2015)
  • • ELA Test Results SY 2015-2016 Grade 5, 2pp.
  • • Mathematics Test Results SY 2015-2016 Grade 5, 2pp.
  • • ELA Test Results SY 2016-2017 Grade 6, 2pp.
  • • Mathematics Test Results SY 2016-2017 Grade 6, 2pp.
  • • ELA Test Results SY 2017-2018 Grade 7, 2pp.
  • • Mathematics Test Results SY 2017-2018 Grade 7, 2pp.
  • • Woodcock Johnson IV Test of Cognitive Abilities, 20pp. 7.20.2018.
  • • Woodcock Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities, 10pp. 7.20.2018.
  • • Woodcock Johnson IV Score Report, 3pp. 8.20.2018.
  • • Woodcock Johnson IV Test of Achievement Form A - 28pp. 8.20.2018.
  • • Woodcock Johnson IV Test of Achievement Form A, 13pp. 8.20.2018
  • • Assessment on Student, 3pp.
  • • Dial 3 Record Form, 3pp.
  • • Standardized Test Results, lp.
  • • Vineland-3 Domain-Level Parent Caregiver Form, 16pp.
  • • Summary of Attendance - Grade K, lp. (2010-2011).
  • • Summary of Attendance - Grade K, 2pp.
  • • Summary of Attendance - Grade 1, lp. (2011-2012).
  • • Summary of Attendance - Grade 6, lp. (2016-2017).
  • • Summary of Attendance - Grade 7, lp. (2017-2018).
  • • Consent for Initial Evaluation signed, lp. 6.12.2018.
  • • HIPPA-Authorization for Release of Medical Info. 2pp. 6.12.2018.
  • • Receipts of Documents Form signed, lp. 6.12.2018.
  • • Consent for Release of Confidential Information signed, lp. 7.10.2018.
  • • Informed Consent signed, lp. 7.10.2018.
  • • Patient Consent for Use and Disclosure (Acknowledgment) lp. 7.10.2018.
  • • Developmental Pediatrics Letter -A. Malone to D. Doraisamy, lp. 8.21.2007.
  • • Scotchtown Avenue Elementary Letter -M. Jankowski to Parent, lp. 9.25.2009.
  • • Scotchtown Avenue Elementary Letter - D. Murphy to Parent, 1p. (lune 2010).
  • • Washingtonville Pediatrics Letter from P. Mangan, lp.1.22.2017
  • • CJ Hooker Middle School Letter from W. Rolon to Parent, lp. 1.26.2018.
  • • CJ Hooker Middle School Letter from W. Wee to T. Scherrer, lp. 4.18.2018
  • • Letter from Parent, 2pp. 5.31.2018.
  • • Letter from Parent to Goshen CSD, 3pp. 6.12.2018.
  • • CPSE Declassification Document SY 2008-2009, 2pp. 3.23.2009
  • • CPSE Recommendation for Declassification, lp. 5.15.2009.
  • • Scotchtown Avenue Elementary School Evaluation, lp. (May 2009)
  • • Response to Intervention Services Progress Report, 2pp. 12.19.2016.
  • • Response to Intervention Services Progress Report, 2pp. 3.7.2017.
  • • Response to Intervention Services Progress Report, 2pp. 5.23.2017
  • • Prior Written Notice Proposed Referral for Evaluation and Request for Consent, 3pp. 6.1.2018
  • • CSE Meeting Notice, 2pp. 8.15.2018.
  • • CSE Ineligibility Document 2018-2019, 5pp. 8.22.2018.
  • • CSE Meeting Attendance, 2pp. 8.22.2018.
  • • Prior Written Notice Proposed Ineligibility for Special Education, 3pp. 8.22.2018.
  • • E-mail thread from K. Kurpick to H. Hendershot, lp. 2.28.2019
  • • E-mail thread from Registrar to W. Wee and J. Blake, 2pp. 4.17.2018
  • • E-mail thread from W. Wee to Parent, lp. 4.17.2018
  • • E-mail from H. Hendershot to D. Post and K. Wells, lp. 5.21.2018.
  • • E-mail thread from H. Hendershot to D. Post, lp. 5.21.2018.
  • • E-mail thread from H. Hendershot to D. Post, 2pp. 5.22.2018.
  • • E-mail thread from H. Hendershot to A. Monti, 4pp. 5.24.2018 (917 pm)
  • • E-mail thread from H. Hendershot to A. Monti, 4pp. 5.24.2018
  • • E-mail from H. Hendersot to A. Monti, lp. 6.1.2018.
  • • E-mail thread from Parent to H. Hendershot, 2pp. 7.3.2018.
  • • E-mail thread from J. Shifrin to Parent, lp. 7.11.2018.
  • • E-mail thread from K. Kurpick to Parent, lp. 7.19.2018.
  • • E-mail thread from H. Hendershot to K. Kastner and K. Kurpick, lp. 7.27.2018
  • • E-mail thread from K. Kurpick to H. Hendershot, lp. 8.6.2018.
  • • E-mail thread from Parent to H. Hendershot and W. Rolon, lp. 8.6.2018.
  • • E-mail from H. Hendershot to K. Kastner, lp. 8.15.2018.
  • • E-mail from H. Hendershot to K. Kurpick, lp. 8.16.2018.
  • • E-mail thread -H. Hendershot to K. Kastner and M. O'Donnell, 2pp. 8.16.2018.
  • • E-mail thread from H. Hendershot to M. O'Donnell, 2pp. 8.16.2018
  • • E-mail thread from J. Carter to H. Hendershot, lp. 12.17.2018 (759 am).
  • • E-mail thread from J. Carter to H. Hendershot, lp.12.17.2018 (807 am).
  • • E-mail thread from J. Carter to H. Hendershot, 2pp. 12.17.2018.
  • • E-mail thread- Carter to Hendershot with weekly updates, 60pp. 12.17.2018.
  • • E-mail from J. Carter to J. Blake, 2pp.
  • • Washingtonville Pediatrics Summary of Visit with P. Magnan, 4pp. 12.5.2016.
  • • Social, Developmental Medical History Form, 8pp. 6.12.2018.
  • • Minor Background History, 9pp. 7.13.2018
  • • Neuropsychological Evaluation done by J. Shifrin, 45pp. 7.13.2018.
  • • Psychosocial Evaluation done by K. Kurpick, 6pp. 7.20.2018
  • • Educational Evaluation done by M. O'Donnell, 3pp. 8.20.2018
  • • ADHD System Report, 2pp. 12.5.2016.

108 Washingtonville Pediatrics Summary of Todays Visit, 2pp. 12.5.2016.

  • • ENT Specialty Care, 2pp. 12.8.2016.
  • • ENT Specialty Care, 2pp. 12.14.2016.
  • • ENT Specialty Care, 2pp. 12.15.2016.
  • • ENT Speciality Care, 4pp. 1.3.2017.
  • • ENT Specialty Care, 3pp. 1.4.2017
  • • ENT Specialty Care, 2pp. 1.6.2017
  • • Child Client Information Form, lp.
  • • Handwritten Note Timeline, lp. (2007-2014).
  • • Comment Log re Student, 2pp (August 2007-December 2018).
  • • Handwritten Note Timeline, lp. (2009-2017).
  • • Handwritten Note Timeline, lp. (2017-2018)

120. Notes Log, lp. 9.22.2014.

  • • Notes from O'Donnell for Heather H, lp. 3.26.2019
  • • Red Team Missing Assignments-Extra Help Log 2017-2018, lp.
  • • Red Team Students Allergies and Other Concerns 2017-2018, 2pp.
  • • Red Team Weekly Updates 2017-2018 E-mail, lp.
  • • Registration Packet, 8pp..
  • • Student Referral (Grade 7), lp. 8.21.2018.
  • • Consent Form for Accommodations Request signed, lp. 10.6.2018.
  • • PSAT- Grade 8, 4pp. (Fall 2018)
  • • Report Card SY 2018-2019 Grade 8, lp. (MP 1).

130.

Report Card SY 2018-2019 Grade 8, 1p. (MP 2).

131.

Report Card SY 2018-2019 Grade 8, 1p. (MP 4).

132.

Report Card SY 2018-2019 Grade 8, 1p. (MP 5)

133.

Report Card SY 2018-2019 Grade 8, 1p. (Semester 1).

134.

Report Card SY 2018-2019 Grade 8, 1p. (Semester 2).

135.

Transcript SY 2018-2019 Grade 8, 1p. 6.29.2018.

136.

The Storm King - ASP Guidelines, 4pp.

137.

The Storm King School 2018-2019 Mission Statement, 1p.

138.

Horizon Family Medical Group Letter from M. Castro, 1p. 2.5.2019.

139.

Daily Absence Analysis (Grade 8), 3pp. (January-May 2019)

140.

The Storm King School Letter from I. Ciunga, 1p. 6.12.2019

141.

2018-2019 Health Form with Medical Card, 8pp.

142.

Due Process Complaint, 11pp. 2/26/19.

143.

Supplemental Neuropsychological Evaluation by Dr. Shifrin 9.9.19, 12pp.

144.

Speech-Language Evaluation done by Janet Krebbs 7.5.19m 4pp.

145.

Audiological Evaluation done by Judy Lvitan 7.5.19, 7pp.

146.

DSM-V Description of Learning Disorders, 22pp.

147.

ELA Writing sample 5.1.17, 3pp.

148.

Email thread among CSE participants regarding 8.22.18 meeting, 19pp.

149.

Ms. Higgins Grade book 7.17.19, 26pp.

150.

CSE Meeting Agenda for 8.22.18, 3pp.

151.

Emails between Parent and Lisa Nardone re: Recommendation for SKS, 3pp.

152.

Checks and Credit Card Statements, 7pp.

153.

Tuition Agreement for SKS 4.25.18, 6pp.

154.

Medical Records from Dr. Mangan 1.22.17, 42pp.

155.

Emails between Parent and SKS, 22pp.

156.

Emails between Parent and Patty Capocciamo, 2pp.

157.

Emails between Parent and Patty Capocciamo, 3pp.

158.

Emails between Parent and Dr. Shifrin, 18pp.

159.

Amended Supplemental Report done by Dr. Shifrin 9.26.19, 12 pp.

160.

Observation ofSKS done by Angela Blake, 1p.

161.

Observation of SKS done by Heather Hendershot, 13pp.

162.

CV of Dr. Shifrin, 4pp.

163.

Draft 1 of Supplemental Report done by Dr. Shifrin, 6.11.19, 6pp.

164.

Draft 2 of Supplemental Report done by Dr. Shifrin, 6.19.19, 7pp.

165.

Draft 3 of Supplemental Report done by Dr. Shifrin, 8.6.19, 9pp.

166.

Draft 4 of Supplemental Report done by Dr. Shifrin, 9.3.19, llpp.

167.

Draft 5 of Supplemental Report done by Dr. Shifrin, 9.9.19, 12pp.

171.

CV of Janet Krebbs, 2pp.

172.

Letter from Ms. Sheriffa Gallwey, 7.9.19, 1p.

173.

SKS Application, 2.28.18, 20pp.

174.

Storm King Statements for 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, 5pp.

175.

Emails from Ingrid Ciunga, 5pp.

176.

Storm King MP1 grade report 2019-2020, 1p.

177.

College Board accommodations Letter, 11.5.18, 4pp.