New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 157469

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District:

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Date of Hearing: June 2, 2016

June 15, 2016

Actual Record Closed Date: January 18, 2017

Hearing Officer: Amy Lynne Itzla, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 2, 2016

Attorney Mother — Parents

Parents

(via telephone)

Parents

(via telephone)

Chairperson Designee — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 15, 2016

Attorney Mother — Parents

Parents

(via telephone)

Chairperson Designee — DOE

DOE

(via telephone)

INTRODUCTION

I conducted an impartial hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(3), regarding S.G. The hearing was convened at the written request of the Parent by letter dated September 9, 2015. (Parent’s Exhibit

A) A hearing was held on June 2, 2016, and June 15, 2016, at the Department of Education (“DOE”) offices located at 131 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, New York. The parties submitted post-hearing briefs/closing statements. A list of the individuals who appeared at the hearing and a list of the documents received into evidence are attached to this decision.

In scheduling the hearing date, and throughout this proceeding, this Impartial Hearing Officer granted multiple requests by the parties for extensions of the 45-day timeline for the due process hearing, pursuant to 34 C.F.R. §300.515(a). The requests were granted, in accordance with 34 C.F.R. §300.515(c), and after full consideration of the cumulative impact of the following factors: 1) the impact on the child’s educational interest or well-being which might be occasioned by the delay; 2) the need of a party for additional time to prepare or present the party’s position at the hearing in accordance with the requirements of due process; 3) any financial or other detrimental consequences likely to be suffered by a party in the event of delay; and, 4) whether there has already been a delay in the proceeding through the actions of one of the parties. [8 NYCCR §200.5(j)(5)(ii)]

BACKGROUND

is an who attended the (“ ”) for the 2015-2016 school year. She has diagnoses of . In addition, has been diagnosed with . has previously been classified by the DOE’s Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) as . The CSE did not convene in preparation for the 2015-2016 school year and, therefore, there was no Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) developed for and no placement made by the DOE in advance of the school year.

The Parent asserts that the DOE failed to provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) to for the 2015-2016 school year and is seeking tuition reimbursement for the private placement at . is in enrolled in ’s program which is a . In addition, the Parent is requesting reimbursement for the evaluation they privately obtained, due to the DOE’s failure to conduct an evaluation despite the Parent’s repeated requests and its obligation to do so.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

THE DOE’S CASE

The DOE conceded that it did not offer a FAPE to for the 2015-2016 school year. (T. 43; DOE Closing Statement, p. 1) Although there was no direct case presented by the DOE, given its admitted denial of a FAPE, the DOE presented witness testimony in rebuttal to the Parent’s direct case. The DOE’s position was limited to challenging the component of the Parent’s unilateral placement at . The DOE articulated its position several times, as follows:

Well, the central issue in this case is that the Parent has unilaterally placed the child at when more specifically, it’s the portion of that is really, I think, the central issue in this case. (T. 11)

It is the DOE’s position that as a threshold matter that it should not be required reimburse the Parent for the part of the tuition. (T. 44)

The New York City Department of Education respectfully presents this closing statement and requests that Parent’s claim for the portion of the tuition reimbursement of private school tuition for the 2015-2016 school year on behalf of be denied, in particular the portion. (DOE Closing Statement, p. 1)

In this case, the relevant issue is the NYCDOE’s objection to the component of the , as it appears to be an unnecessary overly restrictive setting for this student. (DOE Closing Statement, p. 2)

Indeed, the SRO has held that a unilateral placement can be too restrictive, and while the District is not arguing the educational component is too restrictive, certainly the component would be. (DOE Closing Statement, p. 11)

The DOE did not dispute the Parent’s assertions that she had made numerous written requests to the CSE to conduct a review for , and that the CSE had never responded to those requests.

The DOE did not present any argument regarding equitable considerations that should serve to reduce or bar an award of tuition reimbursement in favor of the Parent.

There was no “Prong III” argument asserted by the DOE.

is a with the DOE and participated in the

CSE meeting on November 2, 2015. She described the documents reviewed by the CSE and the recommendation of the CSE that “ .” (T. 222-227) Ms. also expressed that, with regard to a program, “ .” (T. 232) Ms. acknowledged that the CSE meeting was untimely, as it was held two months after the beginning of the 2015-2016 school year, that an IEP and program recommendation has to predate a placement recommendation, and that there was no placement offered to the Parent for the 2015-2016 school year. (T. 233-238) Ms.

stated that, having reviewed the reports of both Dr. and Dr. , she did not question their validity and, in fact, felt that Dr. ’s evaluation was a comprehensive evaluation, which was incorporated into the IEP.

There were no DOE evaluations involved in the CSE process. (T. 251) Ms.

confirmed that Dr. Dr. , the four representatives from who participated in the CSE meeting ( ’s , ,

, and ), as well as the Parent, all supported the placement. (T. 261) The only other participants were Ms. and a DOE special education teacher, neither of whom had worked with or had ever met her. (T.

261) Ms. agreed that ’s needs were being

addressed at . (T. 240-241)

THE PARENT’S CASE

is ’s mother.

. .

. (T. 177-180)

From an early age, , required

. (T. 179-180)

attended the for the four years prior to the 2015-2016 school year. Ms. provided several examples of that demonstrated to the Parent a need for far more intervention, supervision and intensity in her educational program and placement. One involved

.

.

. (T. 185-186)

. .

.

. (T. 182-183) These incidents made it clear to the Parent that . Ms. described this as

(T. 182-183) Ms. stated that (T. 183)

.

. (T. 184, 187)

Ms. testified that after trying a number of , and having such serious concerns about , there was a meeting held with and at the . They mentioned the program. (T. 187) Ms. stated that has been a good fit for and has made a huge difference. She gets the she needs, is making progress, , is , and have improved. has addressed all of ’s needs “ .” In fact, the brought in an to assist. (T. 193-197)

Ms. explained that was evaluated by Dr. in January and February of 2015. had not been evaluated in approximately five years and Ms.

believed . In Dr. ’s report, she

recommended a placement for (T. 197-198, 206; Exhibit H) Ms.

provided the report to the CSE. The DOE has never evaluated (T. 198)

By letters dated February 3, 2015, and March 1, 2015, Ms. requested that the CSE conduct a review for the 2015-2016 school year based on the recommendations of ’s school and that she requires “

” and a “

.” (T. 199; Exhibits 12 and C) By letter dated March 25, 2015, Ms. , with reference to her earlier letter, again requested a CSE review as soon as possible. In that letter, the Parent advised the CSE that she had “ .” (Exhibit D) By letter dated April 9, 2015, Ms. reiterated her request and submitted privately obtained reports for the CSE to consider. She also informed the DOE that she might seek reimbursement for the private evaluations. (Exhibit E) By letter dated August 25, 2015, Ms. stated that, since the CSE did not conduct a review to develop an IEP and to make a program recommendation, she was “ ” and “ .” (Exhibit F) A CSE meeting was finally held on November 2, 2015, approximately two months into the school year, and was already attending . (T. 199) As of June 15, 2016, the date on which Ms. testified in this impartial hearing, she had still not received an IEP following the CSE meeting eight months earlier. (T. 201) Since the Parent did not receive any correspondence or other response form the DOE, was enrolled at for the 2015-2016 school year. (T. 203) Ms. had to secure a placement for at since she was never contacted by the DOE, although she would have still considered a placement from the DOE. (T. 203)

Ms. ’s financial obligation to for the 2015-2016 school year is . (T. 201; Exhibit Q)

Dr. is ’s . She sees approximately

every for . In addition to her practice, she is a . She began treating in August 2014. Dr. described the diagnosis of . Children such as ,

, have the following deficits:

. (T. 48-50) Dr. is in touch with ’s teachers approximately every two to three months, coinciding with upcoming appointments. (T. 53-

54) Dr. stated that during the 2014-2015 school year at , was “ .” (T. 54) Dr. discussed with Dr.

following Dr. ’s testing of in February 2015.

They discussed the need for a placement for (T. 55) In a letter dated June

12, 2015, Dr. stated that, in her professional opinion, “ .” (T. 49; Exhibit J) The recommendation was based on both her needs. Academically, provides .

. , a component was needed for

to .

. One of the reasons Dr. recommended the program was due to the “ .” In the fall,

Dr. spoke with who described the difficulties with and . In response to those issues, , and an was brought in to assist. (T. 55-59)

In Dr. ’s opinion, the program is appropriate for because it has “

.” (T. 60)

, Ph.D., is a who conducted a evaluation of in January and February of 2015. (Exhibit H) Dr.

’s sworn affidavit was entered into evidence and the DOE’s advocate had the opportunity to cross-examine her. (T. 142-176; Exhibit I) Dr. had first met and evaluated in November and December of 2010, when she was a . Dr. described the results of the 2015 re-evaluation. She explained that can be “ .” Dr. stated that she and Dr. discussed ’s needs in February 2015, and agreed that they are

“

.”

“

.” Dr.

further emphasized that:

is a . Ms.

’s sworn affidavit was entered into evidence and the DOE’s advocate had the opportunity to cross-examine Ms. . (Exhibit K) Ms. described as a program with a mission to . It is an program for , who are grouped on the basis of instructional needs, with teachers holding state certification in . During the 2015-2016 school year, the school had approximately , . Ms. described the following: the admissions process; the physical layout of the school; the related services provided; the components, including ’s

; and the academic curriculum in .

Ms. stated that

. .

. The and oversee the program.

.

.

.

.

. .

.The program includes , designed to meet the individual needs of each student. “

.”

Ms. ’s affidavit described ’s progress in all areas during the 2015-2016 school year, based on her observations and her discussions with ’s teachers, , , and a . For each of ’s classes, Ms. provided the teacher’s certifications, ’s difficulties, and the techniques and strategies employed by the teacher to address ’s needs.

. ’s teachers have reported progress in all areas. Ms. described ’s needs and how they are addressed by her , and teachers, and supported by her “ ” . In addition, her arranged for an to work with the staff to

.

Ms. explained that benefits from the because “

.” “

.” has made progress

over the course of the 2015-2016 school year and is meeting ’s unique special education needs.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The central purpose of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) is to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a Free Appropriate Public Education (20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]; see Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S. Ct. 528, 531 [2005]; Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179-81, 200-01 [1982]; Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 371 [2d Cir. 2006]). A FAPE includes special education and related services designed to meet the student's unique needs, provided in conformity with a written IEP (20 U.S.C. § 1401[9][D]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.17[d]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1414[d]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.320). A FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]).

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 parent, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parent were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parent's claim (Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 [1985]; Florence County Sch.

Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]). 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 (id.). "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 developed a proper IEP" (Burlington, at 370-71; see Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 05-073).

The DOE has conceded its failure to offer a FAPE to for the 2015- 2016 school year. Therefore, the first prong of the analysis, under the Burlington and Carter decisions, supports the Parent’s case.

The Parent has the burden of establishing the appropriateness of the program she has provided to (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 95-57; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-093) In order to meet that burden, she must demonstrate that the services provided offer an educational program which meets the student’s special education needs. [Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 94-29; Frank G. v. Board of Education of Hyde Park, 459 F. 3d at 363; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.

3d 105 (2d Cir. 2007)] The standard used to measure the appropriateness of the Parent’s placement is “not perfection.” (M.S. ex rel S.S. v. Bd. of Ed., 231 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2000)

“The issue turns on whether a placement - public or private- is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.” (Gagliardo, 489 F. 3d at 112) The 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. 7 [1993])

The DOE has not challenged the appropriateness of the day program at for for the 2015-2016 school year. Specifically, the DOE objects to the component of the program as overly restrictive for The DOE’s rebuttal witness, Ms.

, provided testimony virtually irrelevant to this matter. She stated her opinion, which was formed two months after the school year began, and after the Parent requested an impartial hearing, as a participant in an untimely CSE meeting. Ms. ’s “ ,” for which her testimony was offered, is given no more weight than would any random reviewing a file and having no personal knowledge of the child. No persuasive evidence has been offered to dispute the shared recommendation of the medical and educational professionals who have treated and worked with The arguments made by the DOE’s representative are not supported by any of the evidence in the record.

I find that the Parent has prevailed with respect to the second criterion for reimbursement under the Burlington and Carter decisions. Those who are familiar with , and who provide direct services to her, have all determined and agree that ’s program, including the component, was appropriate for for the 2015-2016 school year. Dr. Dr. , Ms. , and provided persuasive testimony and evidence to this effect. The testimony provided by the witnesses strongly affirms the appropriateness of the program. The entire program, including the components, was reasonably calculated to allow to make meaningful progress and to address ’s individual needs. In fact, made meaningful progress through her participation in the program.

The final criterion for an award of funding or reimbursement is whether the Parent’s claim is supported by equitable considerations. Equitable considerations are relevant to fashioning relief under the IDEA (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374; M. C. v.

Voluntown Bd. of Educ., 226 F.3d 60, 68 [2d Cir. 2000]; see Carter, 510 U.S. at 16 ["Courts fashioning discretionary equitable relief under IDEA must consider all relevant factors, including the appropriate and reasonable level of reimbursement that should be required"]). Such considerations "include the parties' compliance or noncompliance with state and federal regulations pending review, the reasonableness of the parties' positions, and like matters" (Wolfe v. Taconic Hills Cent. Sch. Dist., 167 F. Supp. 2d 530, 533 [N.D.N.Y. 2001], citing Town of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 736 F.2d at 773, 801-02 [1st Cir. 1984], aff'd, 471 U.S. 359 [1985]). With respect to equitable considerations, a parent may be denied reimbursement upon a finding of a failure to cooperate with the CSE in the development of an IEP or if the parent's conduct precluded the CSE's ability to develop an appropriate IEP (Warren G. v. Cumberland Co. Sch. Dist., 190 F.3d 80, 86 [3rd Cir. 1999]; see Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 04-102; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 04-026). In the absence of evidence demonstrating that a parent failed to cooperate in the development of the IEP or otherwise engaged in conduct that precluded the development of an appropriate IEP, or failed to give proper notice, equitable considerations generally support a claim of reimbursement (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-049).

The DOE did not offer any equitable consideration that would preclude an order in favor of the Parent. The record reflects the Parent’s repeated, yet futile, requests for the DOE to conduct a review in order to create a program to provide with appropriate special education services. Despite the Parents’ efforts, the DOE did nothing. The DOE failed in its obligations to and concedes such failure. The record clearly reflects the Parent’s cooperation, especially in light of the DOE’s complete disregard of the Parent’s numerous letters requesting a CSE review. The DOE was entirely unresponsive to the Parent. The DOE was obligated to convene the CSE, irrespective of the Parent’s request.

As noted in the prepared by the DOE, dated May 6, 2015, under

“ ,” it states that, “

”

(Exhibit 5) The DOE was well aware that was to be evaluated by the DOE. In further failure of its responsibilities, the CSE convened two months into the school year, after was already attending and the Parent had timely filed her request for an impartial hearing. The purpose of the belated meeting is unclear. The IEP developed by the CSE was never even provided to the Parent, and there was no placement offered to The inexcusable and disrespectful manner in which ’s special educational needs were addressed resulted in the DOE’s concession that it had failed to offer a FAPE to

Wisely, the DOE did not add insult to injury by presenting a prong III argument.

The Parent is seeking reimbursement for the privately obtained evaluation conducted by Dr. in January and February 2015. She had previously evaluated in 2010. There was no dispute that has never been evaluated by the DOE. The DOE relied upon Dr. ’s evaluation during the CSE process and in the creation of an IEP. While the CSE process did not result in an offer of a FAPE to , the DOE admittedly accepted the evaluation as comprehensive and accurate, as is reflected in its adoption of the evaluation for its purposes, and as confirmed by Ms. in her testimony. Therefore, the DOE failed in its obligation to evaluate and then relied upon the privately obtained evaluation funded by the Parent.

This evaluation was initiated by the Parent prior to her initial request to the CSE for a review. The Parent’s first request to the CSE was dated February 3, 2015. (Exhibit 12). The first of the two dates on which Dr. evaluated was January 31, 2015, and the second date of evaluation was February 12, 2015. (Exhibit H) Her report was issued after both her post-evaluation conference with the Parent, held on February 26, 2015, and her post-evaluation discussion with Dr. on February 27, 2015.

(Exhibits H, I) By letter dated April 9, 2015, the Parent submitted Dr. ’s report to the CSE. (Exhibit E) By letter dated April 17, 2015, the DOE requested the Parent’s consent to testing and assessments of , which the Parent provided in on May 6, 2015. (Exhibit 10) As this chronology shows, the Parent began the evaluation process prior to requesting a review by the CSE, and the evaluation was completed after that request had been made. However, the complete process, resulting in the

Re-evaluation, had concluded only three weeks after the Parent’s first request to the CSE.

The CSE failed to conduct any form of evaluation, testing, or assessments following the Parent’s request. The only steps taken were to obtain parental consent and prepare a on May 6, 2015. (Exhibits 5, V) However, when the Parent proceeded with the Re-evaluation, the Parent could not have known whether the CSE would conduct an evaluation. An Independent Educational Evaluation (“IEE”) is not only reimbursable if it is sought in response to a CSE-obtained evaluation with which a parent disagrees, but can also be reimbursable under the circumstances of a CSE failing to ever conduct an evaluation, which is, in fact, a worse situation. The Parent did not obtain the evaluation based on the former and, since the latter is applicable when the DOE has failed to evaluate prior to the expiration of its time to do so, that scenario is equally inapplicable. However under the unique circumstances of this case, the Parent is entitled to reimbursement.

The IDEA and State and federal regulations guarantee parents the right to obtain an IEE (see 20 U.S.C. § 1415[b][1]; 34 CFR 300.502; 8 NYCRR 200.5[g]). IEE’s are defined by State regulation as "an individual evaluation of a student with a disability or a student thought to have a disability, conducted by a qualified examiner who is not employed by the public agency responsible for the education of the student" (8 NYCRR 200.1[z]; see 34 CFR 300.502[a][3][i]). In addition to having an IEE considered by the CSE, parents have the right to have one IEE conducted at public expense if the parent disagrees with an evaluation conducted by the district (34 CFR 300.502[b]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[g][1]). The United States Education Department's Office of Special Education Programs has stated that it would be consistent with federal regulation to allow reimbursement for an IEE when the district failed to provide an evaluation in compliance with the IDEA (see Letter to Anonymous, 55 IDELR 106 [OSEP 2010]). State regulations require school districts to complete the individual evaluation of a student within 60 calendar days from the date of receipt of parental consent to evaluate the student (8 NYCRR 200.4[b][1]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1414[a][1][C][i][I]; 34 C.F.R. §

300.301[c][1][i]). There is no dispute that the CSE did not evaluate within the prescribed time limits, in violation of the IDEA's procedural requirements (20 U.S.C. §

1414[a][2][B][ii]; 34 CFR 300.303[b][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[b][4]). As noted above, the chronology indicates that the Parent was not responding to a failure of the CSE to conduct an evaluation at the time they obtained the Re-evaluation.

The DOE did not dispute the evidence that it had never conducted an evaluation of , despite being classified as a student with a disability for several years. In addition, the DOE acknowledged its obligation to conduct a “ ” in the of May 6, 2015. (Exhibit V) Apparently, that was as far as the mandatory three-year evaluation process went. There were no steps taken after the .

While it may seem that the Parent prematurely obtained the

Re-evaluation, instead of waiting to see if the CSE would conduct a timely evaluation, and, if so, whether the Parent would be in agreement with its findings, the totality of the circumstances, as clearly represented in the record, warrant an order of reimbursement to the Parent. The DOE failed to provide an evaluation after the Parent’s request to the CSE.

However, the DOE also failed to provide an evaluation for all the years prior to the Parent’s request at issue here. Therefore, the IEE was, in fact, obtained following the DOE’s repeated failure to provide an evaluation.

In further support of reimbursement to the Parent for the IEE, is the DOE’s reliance upon it as the basis for the majority of the information it included in the IEP created on November 2, 2015. (Exhibit 2) The DOE had already failed in its obligation to conduct an evaluation, as well as in its obligation to have a program and placement identified for in advance of the beginning of the school year. It would be inequitable to allow the DOE to breach its responsibilities and then benefit from the evaluation privately obtained by the Parent, which she shared in an effort to work cooperatively with the DOE. Therefore, the Parent is entitled to reimbursement of paid to Dr.

for the evaluation. (Exhibits T, U)

ORDER

1. The DOE failed to offer a FAPE to for the 2015-2016 school year.

2. The Parent’s unilateral placement of in was appropriate for the 2015-2016 school year.

3. There are no equitable considerations which would reduce or bar an award of reimbursement.

4. The DOE shall reimburse the Parent for the full cost of tuition paid to for ’s enrollment in for the 2015-2016 school year, in the amount of . Reimbursement shall be made immediately upon the Parent’s submission of proof of payment. Partial proof of payment has already been established, through December 2015. (See Exhibits R and S).

5 The Parent’s request for reimbursement for the evaluation conducted by Dr. in January and February 2015 is granted. The DOE shall immediately reimburse the Parent for the cost of the private evaluation in the amount of . Proof of payment has already been established. (See Exhibit U).

Date: February 2, 2017

AMY LYNNE ITZLA, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

ALI:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

Within 35 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to appeal the decision to the State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

“The notice of intention to seek review shall be served upon the school district not less than 10 days before service of a copy of the petition for review upon such school district, and within 25 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. The petition for review shall be served upon the school district within 35 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. If the decision has been served by mail upon petitioner, the date of mailing and the four days subsequent thereto shall be excluded in computing the 25- or 35-day period. ” (8NYCRR279.2[b]) Failure to file the notice of intention to seek review is a waiver of the right to appeal this decision.

Directions and sample forms for filing an appeal are included with this decision. Directions and forms can also be found in the Office of State Review website: www.sro.nysed.gov/appeals.htm.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

IHO Exhibits

Exhibit Date Description Pages

i 5/26/16 Email from 1

to the Parent

DOE Exhibits

Exhibit Date Description Pages

1 9/9/15 Hearing Request 6

2 11/2/15 IEP 17

3 6/2015 End Year 11

Report Card 2014-2015

4 6/2014 End Year 13

Report Card 2013-2014

5 5/6/15 2

6 1/26/15; 2/4/15 3

7 6/12/15 Letter from 2

8 3/1/15 Letter from Parent to CSE 1

9 4/9/15 Letter from Parent to CSE 1

10 4/17/15 Parent Consent for Evaluation 1

11 8/25/15 Parent 10-Day Notice- Letter to CSE 1 12 2/3/15 Letter from Parent to CSE 1 13 10/27/15 Fax Coversheet and 12

2014-2015 School Report

14 11/2/15 CSE Review Minutes 1

15 various dates SESIS Events 7

Parent Exhibits

Exhibit Date Description Pages

A 9/9/15 Hearing Request 6

B 9/12/13 IEP (2013-2014 SY) 12

C 3/1/15 Parent letter to CSE with proof of delivery 3

D 3/25/15 Parent letter to CSE with proof of delivery 3

E 4/9/15 Parent letter to CSE with proof of delivery 2

F 8/25/15 Parent letter to CSE with proof of delivery 2

G 11/3/15 Parent letter to CSE with proof of delivery 2

H 1/31/15; 2/12/15 18

I 5/24/16 Affidavit from 8

with C.V. attached

J 6/12/15 Letter from 2

K 5/25/16 Affidavit from with C.V. 18

attached

L Undated Program Description 36

M 2015-2016 SY Class Schedule 1

N Dec. 2015 Progress Report 15

O Dec. 2015 1

P 12/2015; 6/2016 2

Q 2/2/15 Enrollment Contract 1

R 12/18/15 Affidavit of Tuition 2

S Various dates Parent Proof of Tuition Payments 9

T 3/12/15 Statement of payment for 1

U 3/6/15 Parent Proof of Payment for 1

V 5/6/15 2

W 11/18/15 Due Process Response 3

X 12/22/15 Subpoena to with Proof of Delivery 3