NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Case No. 160685
SED ID No. 97346
Student’s Name:
Date of Birth:
District:
Hearing Requested by: District
Dates of Hearings: July 13, 2016
August 25, 2016
September 13, 2016
September 19, 2016
September 26, 2016
October 28, 2016
November 21, 2016
December 1, 2016
Record Close Date: February 7, 2017
Hearing Officer: Mindy G. Wolman , Esq.
On June 8, 2016, , the parent (the “Parent”) of (the “Student”), filed a due process complaint (IHO Ex. II), under case number 160685, against the New York City Department of Education (the “DOE”) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (the “IDEA”) [20 U.S.C. section 1415(f)] and Section 4404(1) of the New York State Education Law. I was appointed as impartial hearing officer (“IHO”) on June 13, 2016, after the recusal of the prior IHO(s) appointed to hear the case.
Prior to the filing of the due process complaint in the within proceeding ( ), the DOE had filed an IDEA due process complaint against the Parent (IHO Ex. I). That complaint was filed, on May 17, 2016, under case number 160515. I was appointed as impartial hearing officer (“IHO”)
in that proceeding on June 13, 2016, after the recusal of the prior IHO(s) appointed to hear the case.
On June 14, 2016, I issued an order denying consolidation of the two pending cases and directed “that the complaints in case numbers 160515 and 160685 shall proceed separately as individual complaints” (IHO Ex. V at 3). A “Findings of Fact and Decision” (“FOF&D”) was issued in case number
160515 on October 2, 2016 (Parent Ex. WWW). An “Interim Order re Evaluations” was issued in the within proceeding on October 31, 2016 (IHO Ex. XI).
A pre-hearing conference went forward in this case on July 13, 2016, and substantive hearings went forward on August 25, 2016, September 13, 2016, September 19, 2016, September 26, 2016, October 28, 2016, November 21, 2016, and December 1, 2016. Both parties submitted post-hearing briefs in lieu of making closing statements on the Record (IHO Exs. IX and X).
BACKGROUND AND POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES
is a student who is classified as
. His classification and eligibility for special education services is not in dispute. The
Student has
. He also has
. These various issues have a major impact on , and on . The Parent maintains that the DOE failed to provide the Student with a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the 2013-2014, 2014-2015, and 2015-2016 school years (Parent Ex. A). The Parent seeks several different forms of relief in this proceeding: compensatory education, additional evaluations, and a new Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) with placement in a , with , in a New York State approved nonpublic school (“NPS”). The DOE maintains that it provided the Student with a FAPE for all three years in question and requests that the Parent’s request for relief be denied in its entirety.
The Student was enrolled in and attended the
(“ ”) for all relevant times herein. He was not classified as a student with a disability during the 2013-2014 school year. He was initially classified as a student with a disability during the summer of 2014, and his IEPs for the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years called for placement in , with . Both parties presented witness testimony and submitted documentary evidence at the hearing. The DOE presented the testimony of an . The Parent presented the testimony of the Student’s mother and . The parties’ legal and factual arguments are fully set forth in their post-hearing briefs (IHO Exs. IX and X).
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
The IDEA provides that children with disabilities are entitled to a Free Appropriate Public Education ("FAPE") (20 U.S.C. § 1400 [d][1][A]. A FAPE consists of specialized education and related services designed to meet a student’s unique needs, provided in conformity with a comprehensive written IEP (34 C.F.R. § 300.13). A school district has offered a student a FAPE when (a) the board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA; and (b) the IEP is developed through the IDEA's procedures and is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Bd.
of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 [1982]). If a procedural violation has occurred, relief is warranted only if the procedural violation affected the student's right to a FAPE (8 NYCRR §200.5[4]; J.D. v. Pawlet Sch. Dist., 224 F.3d 60, 69 [2d Cir. 2000]).
School districts have the burden of proof, including the burden of persuasion and burden of production, in IDEA due process hearings, except that a parent or person in parental relationship seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral parental placement has the burden of persuasion and burden of production on the appropriateness of such placement ( NYS Educ. Law § 4404(1)(c)). Since this proceeding does not involve a tuition reimbursement claim, the DOE has the burden of proof on all IDEA
issues.
The DOE therefore has the burden of establishing that it provided Student with a FAPE. In order to provide FAPE, a Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) must develop an IEP which reflects the results of current evaluations and which is reasonably calculated to allow a student to receive meaningful educational benefits. In developing a student’s IEP, the CSE “must consider the results of the [student’s]
initial or most recent evaluations” (8 NYCRR 200.4(d)(2)). A school district is obligated to perform an evaluation that is “sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the student's special education needs” (8 NYCRR 200.4(b)(6)(ix). The purpose of the comprehensive evaluation is to “provide relevant information that directly assists persons in determining the educational needs of the student” (8 NYCRR
200.4(b)(6)(xi). An evaluation must include a physical examination, a psychological evaluation, and educational evaluation, a social history, a classroom observation and “other appropriate assessments or evaluations” (8 NYCRR 200.4(b)(1)).
As more fully set forth below, I find that the DOE did not establish that it offered the Student a FAPE or that its CSE performed sufficient evaluations during the 2013-2014, 2014-2015, or 2015-2016
school years.
The 2013-2014 School Year
. He started
in the 2013-2014 school year.
. By the time that he started the in the 2013-2014 school year, the DOE was, or clearly should have been, on notice that the Student should be evaluated in order to determine it he should be classified as a student with a disability. It is clear from the testimony of the DOE witnesses that school staff at was well aware of the Student’s difficulties and had concluded that he needed to be evaluated by the CSE. The IEP process was started at the “very beginning” of the Student’s year (2013-2014) (Tr. 122) by staff. However, the Student was not evaluated during the 2013-2014 school year.
staff appear to have placed the whole responsibility for the CSE referral on the Parent, without ever having provided her with written notice of a referral or need for a referral, or any information regarding her parental due process rights or about the actual referral process. staff, and the DOE, place the blame for the failure to evaluate the Student squarely on the Parent based on the difficulty in contacting her and her alleged “disinterest” in pursuing a special education referral. Despite the DOE’s current allegations to the contrary, it is clear from a review of the testimony of the Student’s mother and sister that the Student’s family was concerned about , and that they wanted him to have .
Despite the fact that the school started the IEP process by seeking a teacher report “at the very beginning of the year . . . towards October” (Tr. 122), the school did not start trying to contact the Parent about the issue until March 21, 2014 (DOE Ex. 39; Tr. 275). The initial attempts at contact (which were primarily by telephone) were unsuccessful, and “ ” (Tr. 274; DOE Ex. 39). On April 9, 2014, staff
(Tr. 276-278).
(Tr. 278).
I find that the school’s attempt to coerce the Parent into appearing at school by to be outrageous. The IDEA and Article 89 call for appropriate and detailed written notices. The IDEA and Article 89 call for due process and envision collaborative processes.
are neither in line with IDEA and Article 89 procedures, nor conducive to the collaborative process envisioned by the IDEA, Article 89, and the related regulations.
I note that the DOE took the position through its witness testimony that “ ” (Tr. 333). That is not correct. Students (whether they attend a public school, charter school, or private school) who reside beyond a defined distance from their schools are entitled to transportation. It is not a revocable privilege. Even charter schools must abide by it. It is certainly not the type of thing that
.
(Tr. 319-321; 331). The testimony of staff reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the CSE referral and evaluation process, and of parental due process rights (which are set forth in 8 NYCRR §§200.4 and 200.5). If school staff believes that a student needs to be evaluated, school staff can make a referral. Written notice of that referral and a notice regarding parental due process rights is then provided to the parent. If the parent declines to provide consent for an evaluation, a school district may commence a due process proceeding in order to obtain an order authorizing evaluation without parent consent. There is nothing in the IDEA, Article 89, or in any of the regulations thereunder, that authorizes as a means of compelling a parent to attend a meeting or to consent to an evaluation.
On April 25, 2014, the Parent referred the Student to for a CSE evaluation (DOE Ex. 4). The
Parent appeared for a on May 12, 2014 (DOE Ex. 5). Although the date upon which the 1 Parent signed consent to evaluate is not clear, the implication from the testimony of the who performed the is that consent was signed at the May 12, 2014 (Tr. 9/9/16) . Despite the urgent need for the evaluation (based upon
1
Consent to Evaluate documentation is not included in the documentary evidence and the DOE’s SESIS Log (DOE
EX. 3) does not include an entry memorializing the signing of consent.
), the CSE did not perform a evaluation until July 14, 2014 (DOE Ex. 7). The
CSE finally convened a meeting on July 29, 2014 (DOE Ex. 14).
As a result of the manner in which addressed the Student’s need for a CSE referral and special education services, the Student did not receive any special education services at all during the 2013-2014 school year. The responsibility for this lies with and the CSE, not (as the DOE alleges) with the Parent. staff appear to have been operating under the misapprehension that only a parent may refer a student to the CSE for an evaluation. A Parent may certainly refer a student to the CSE. However, as noted above, school staff may do so as well. When a school is aware that a student is a “student suspected of having a disability,” a referral may also be made by “a professional staff member of the school district in which the student resides, or the public or private school the school legally attends” (8 NYCRR §200.4(a)(2)). In a situation such as this, when it was clear that the Student was a student suspected of having a disability (school staff had actually started working on the referral in October 2014), referral by a professional staff member of the school was actually required (see 34 C.F.R. §300.311). In fact, State regulations actually require school districts to “initiate a referral and promptly request parental consent to evaluate a student to determine if the student needs special education services and programs if a student has not made adequate progress after an appropriate period time when provided instruction as described in section 100.2(ii) of this Title” (8 NYCRR
§200.4(a)).
The failure to refer the Student for an initial evaluation as of the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year constituted a “Child Find” violation under the IDEA and Article 89.
acknowledged that the Student required a referral and evaluation as of the beginning of the school year. It had even been evident as of the prior school year (at the very least, as of the second time the Student was held over in grade).
In addition, once the evaluation process was started with the , it took over two months to complete the evaluation process and schedule an CSE meeting. For all the foregoing reasons, I find that the DOE failed to provide the Student with a FAPE during the 2013-2014 school year. As a result, he did not receive appropriate special education services for that entire school year.
The 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 School Years
There were three different IEPs in effect for the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years.
The IEP for the 2014-2015 school year was prepared at a CSE meeting held on July 29, 2014 (DOE Ex. 14). That IEP called for placement in classes (for a total of 26 periods per week) for ,
, , and Sciences, and (“ ”) for and for a total of periods per week.
The first IEP for the 2015-2016 school year was prepared at a CSE meeting held on September 1, 2015 (DOE Ex. 17). That IEP called for placement in classes (for a total of 17 periods per week) for , , , and Sciences, and for and for a total of periods per week.
The second IEP for the 2015-2016 school year was prepared at a CSE meeting held on October 22, 2015 (DOE Ex. ). That IEP called for placement in classes (for a total of 18 periods per week) for , , , and Sciences, and for and for a total of periods per week, with -minute sessions per week of .
In addition, prepared a series of and (DOE Exs. 12, 13, 15, 16, 25, and 26). The Parent requested a reevaluation on September 1, 2015 (DOE Ex. 20), and an independent educational evaluation (“IEE”) on April 26, 2016 (DOE Ex. 1).
The Parent has raised a variety of procedural and substantive challenges to the IEPs and that were in effect for the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years. The challenges include the challenges to the sufficiency of the CSE’s evaluations and to the adequacy of the IEPs themselves. The CSE’s evaluations for the IEPs in effect for these two years included
(DOE Exs. 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 15, 21, 22, and 25).The evaluations were not sufficiently comprehensive, because the CSE did not evaluate the Student all areas of his suspected disability. Based upon the issues with which the Student was presenting and the difficulties that he was having, the CSE should have performed an evaluation and a evaluation. The failure to perform and consider comprehensive and sufficient evaluations constitutes a FAPE deprivation. I also note that one of the evaluations performed, , was not performed until after the CSE met and made its recommendations for the 2014-2015 school year.
The testimony presented as the hearing leads me to conclude that despite various efforts by staff, the school was unable to develop an appropriate and for the Student. It was not, at any time, able to address . As a result, during the course of his time at the school and, as of the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years
.
and did not make any meaningful educational progress. One of the DOE’s witnesses acknowledged that the school did not find any way of adequately addressing (Tr. 185).
A review of the Student’s IEPs reveals that they were not reasonably calculated to enable him to make meaningful educational progress. The Student requires . The program recommended by the CSE, even with the , was not adequate for meeting the Student’s needs and to enable him to make meaningful educational progress. The , which wasn’t even offered until October of 2015, was woefully inadequate in light of . Even if I accept the DOE’s contention that the services had to be , as opposed to , due to parental concerns, the Student required than could possibly be provided in a . As such, it appears that the Student had no whatsoever during the 2014-2015 school year and seriously inadequate during the 2015-2016 school year.
The IEPs were also insufficient due to the lack of appropriate related services. The IEPs should have, but did not, include and . As noted above, the IEPs were not based upon sufficient evaluations and the programs recommended therein were not sufficient to enable the Student ( ) to make meaningful educational progress. In addition, the Student did not receive because the school did not have (it only provided
) (Tr. 544-5, 582, 605). As such, the Student never received his mandate. His
IEPs were never fully implemented at . Moreover, the CSE was aware when it wrote the IEPs that would not be implementing the IEPs as written and would not be providing the Student with a substantial portion of his mandated services. The DOE’s witnesses at the hearing appear to be of the view that it was the Parent that opted to . This is incorrect. Once again, staff and the DOE seek to blame the Parent for their having been remiss in their obligations to the Student. Charter schools are required to provide all IEP services and are further required to make arrangements with the CSE to provide the services that are not available at a charter school:
Special education programs and services shall be provided to students with a disability attending a charter school in accordance with the individualized education program recommended by the committee or subcommittee on special education of the student's school district of residence. The charter school may arrange to have such services provided by such school district of residence or by the charter school directly or by contract with another provider. Education Law §
2853(4)(a)
It is clear from the testimony of the staff that testified on behalf of the DOE that the Student and required .
He required . His IEP include
. Despite these factors, neither the CSE nor staff took the steps that were required to ensure that the Student received the full amount of his mandated services.
Based on the foregoing, I find that the DOE failed to provide the Student with a FAPE for the 2014-2015 and 2015-2016 school years. Based on this finding, I need not address the Parent’s remaining procedural and substantive FAPE challenges.
The Relief Requested
Having found that the DOE failed to provide the Student with a FAPE for the school years at issue herein, I now turn to the relief requested in this proceeding.
The Parent requests the following additional evaluations: evaluation, evaluation, and . She further requests that the evaluations be performed by independent providers chose by the Parent at the providers’ customary rate. Based on the testimony presented at the hearing by the Parent’s expert witnesses, I find that an evaluation and an evaluation are necessary and appropriate at this time. As such, I will grant the Parent’s request for an IEE consisting of those two evaluations. The request that the IEE include an and is, however, denied. The Parent was granted an IEE that included an and in the
FOF&D issued in a prior case on October 2, 2016 (Parent Ex. WWW). There is no reason to grant an additional and at this time.
The Parent seeks the following services as compensatory education for the 2013-2014, 2014- 2015, and 2015-2016 FAPE deprivations:
; and reimbursement for services previously
obtained, by the Parent, from and . The Parent further requests that the services be provided by individuals chosen by the Parent at the customary rates charged by providers, that the services be provided either after school or on weekends, and that the DOE provide for compensatory services.
A hearing officer may award compensatory education relief in the form of supplemental special education or related services when there has been a denial of FAPE (see P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 123 [2d Cir. 2008]. Compensatory education may be awarded to students under the age of twenty-one (see Student X. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2008 WL 4890440,[E.D.N.Y.Oct. 30, 2008]. An award of compensatory services may be appropriate if a student has been denied appropriate services for an extended period of time and if such deprivation of instruction can be remedied through the provision of additional services before the student becomes ineligible for instruction by reason of age or graduation. (See Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-109; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 08-054). An award of additional services should aim to place a student in the position he or she would have been in had the district complied with its obligations under the IDEA (P. v.
Newington, 546 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir. 2008)).
The Student was clearly denied appropriate services for an extended period of time, and is entitled to a considerable amount of compensatory education for the three year deprivation of services (one year with no special education services whatsoever, and two years with inadequate and inappropriate services).
The Parent presented several witnesses who testified about the appropriate level of compensatory services for the Student. The testimony of the Parent’s witnesses was credible and convincing. Having considered their testimony regarding the negative educational impact of the deprivation and the level of services that would be necessary to remedy that deprivation, I find that the requested services would constitute an appropriate compensatory education award, with the exception of the request for funding for prior services that the Parent obtained from and . As such, the Parent’s request for compensatory services, with the exception of the request for reimbursement for services previously provided by and , is granted.
The Parent also requests that the CSE be directed to reconvene a CSE meeting in order to prepare a new IEP with appropriate goals, based on recommendations contained in the Student’s recent evaluations, that the IEP contain a variety of related services to be provided outside of school ( ), and that the CSE recommend placement in either an or class with . The Parent further requests that placement be deferred to the CBST and that the Parent be allowed to place the Student in a private school if the DOE hasn’t placed the Student in an appropriate approved nonpublic school within fifteen (15) days of CBST deferral.
The Parent’s documentary evidence and the testimony of her expert witnesses addressed the appropriate class size for the student and the appropriate scope and level of the related services that he requires. The Student clearly needs a new IEP and needs to be placed in a with . In light of his and the extent to which during the past three years, he needs to have a . He also needs to have . However, I am not going to micro- manage the specific level of services that the CSE must recommend (although it must take the Student’s most recent evaluations into account). I will not direct the CSE to include as a related service as such services are beyond the scope of what is necessary for the DOE to provide in order for the Student to receive a FAPE. I will also leave it up to the CSE to determine whether the various related services should be provided in school or after-school. The Record does not support a finding that the services need to be provided outside the school setting (as the Parent requests) in order to receive a
FAPE.
In addition, I see no reason to grant an immediate deferral to the CBST at this point, as the Record does not support a finding that the Student’s needs cannot be met in a public school setting. However, if an appropriate placement is not made in a timely fashion, then the Student will need to be placed in an NPS program.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the New York City Department of Education is directed to fund the following independent evaluations by licensed evaluators chosen by the Parent, at the rates normally charged by the evaluators: an evaluation and an evaluation; and is further
ORDERED that the Department of Education is directed to fund the following services as and for compensatory education for the failure to provide the Student with a FAPE during the 2013- 2014, 2014-2015, and 2015-2016 school years:
; the services shall be provided by duly licensed providers chosen by the Parent at the customary rates charged by providers, the services may be provided either after school or on , and the DOE shall provide the Student and the Parent with who will be providing the compensatory education services; and it is further
ORDERED that the Committee on Special Education is directed to convene a CSE meeting to develop a new IEP which includes placement in a , with , and with as related services, and is further directed to offer the Student an appropriate placement in accordance with the new IEP within thirty (30) days of the date hereof; and it is further
ORDERED that in the event that the CSE does not prepare a new IEP and offer the Student placement in an appropriate with within thirty
(30) days of the date here, the Parent may place the Student in an New York State approved NPS program at the DOE’s expense.
Dated: February 20, 2017 Corrected: February 21, 2017 MINDY G. WOLMAN
Impartial Hearing Officer
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Within 35 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 the parent plans to appeal the decision, a notice of intention to seek review shall be personally 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 so that a certified copy of the hearing record may be prepared for submission by the school district. If a school district plans to appeal the decision, the district shall file a certified copy of the hearing record together with its petition.
An appealing parties' petition for review shall be personally served upon the opposing party 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.
(8 NYCRR § 279.2(b))
The rules of procedure for proceedings before a SRO are found in Part 279 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education available at http://www.sro.nysed.gov/part279home.html.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 13, 2016
Attorney (by telephone) — Parents
IHRO Representative (by telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON AUGUST 25, 2016
Attorney — Parents
Attorney — Parents
Parents
* IHRO Representative — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON SEPTEMBER 13, 2016
Attorney — Parents
Attorney — Parents
Parents
IHRO Representative — DOE
Observer — DOE
Observer — DOE
* (by telephone) — DOE
* (by telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON SEPTEMBER 19, 2016
Attorney — Parents
Attorney — Parents
Attorney (Observer) — Parents
Parents
IHRS Representative — DOE
* (by telephone) — DOE
* (by telephone) — DOE
* (by telephone) — DOE
* Testified at Hearing — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2016
Attorney — Parents
Attorney — Parents
Parents
* — Parents
* (by telephone) — Parents
IHRS Representative — DOE
* (by telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON OCTOBER 28, 2016
Attorney — Parents
Attorney — Parents
Parents
* (by telephone) — Parents
IHRS Representative — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON NOVEMBER 21, 2016
Attorney — Parents
Attorney — Parents
Parents
* (by telephone) — Parents
IHRS Representative — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON DECEMBER 1, 2016
Attorney — Parents
Attorney — Parents
* — Parents
* (by telephone) — Parents
IHRS Representative — DOE
* Testified at Hearing — DOE
DOCUMENTS ENTERED INTO THE RECORD
Department of Education Exhibits
1. Parent’s request for IEE, 4/26/16, 1 p.
1. DOE Response to IEE Request, 4/17/16, 5/16/16, and 5/17/16, 12 pp.
2. SESIS Events Log, 5/1/14 to 5/24/16, 8 pp.
3. Parent Request for Evaluation, 4/25/16, 1 p.
4. , 5/12/14, 2 pp.
5. , 8/15/14, 10 pp.
6. , 7/14/14, 8 pp.
7. , 5/20/14, 2 pp.
8. , 4/8/14, 3 pp.
9. Report Card for , 2013-2014, 2 pp.
10. Teacher Report, 6/12/14, 4 pp.
11. , 6/5/14, 7 pp.
12. , 6/5/14, 6 pp.
13. IEP, 7/29/14, 13 pp.
14. , 1/14/15, 5 pp.
15. , 1/14/15, 5 pp.
16. IEP, 9/1/5, 18 pp.
17. IEP Meeting Minutes, 9/1/15, 4 pp.
18. , 9/2/14 - 6/2/15, 15 pp.
19. Parent Request for Re-evaluation, 9/1/15, 2 pp.
20. , 9/11/15, 3 pp.
21. , 9/29/15, 2 pp.
22. Report, 9/30/15, 5 pp.
23. Teacher Report, 10/21/15, 9 pp.
24. , 10/1/15, 7 pp.
25. , 10/19/15, 8 pp.
26. IEP, 10/22/15, 23 pp.
27. Prior Written Notice, 11/6/15, 3 pp.
28. MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION ONLY
29. MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION ONLY
30. , 8/20/15 to 6/15/16, 12 pp.
31. , 12/10/16, 2 pp.
32. , 9/8/14, 1 p.
33. , 6/10/15, 1 p.
34. 2011-2012 Enrollment Contract, 6/11/11, 4 pp.
35. Emails from to , 9/23/13, 2 pp.
36. Emails between and , 10/22/13, 1 p.
37. Email, re meeting, to , 4/9/14, 1 p.
38. Letter from to Parent, 5/13/14, 2 pp..
39. Letter from to Parent, 5/13/14, 2 pp.
40. Emails between and , 6/5/15 to 6/11/15, 3 pp.
41. Transcript, Case Number 160515, 94 pp.
42. Transcript, Case Number 160515, 6/20/16, 122 pp.
Parent’s Exhibits
A. Parent Hearing Request, 6/7/16, 16 pp.
B. OMITTED
C. OMITTED
D. OMITTED
E. OMITTED
F. 2014-2015 Academic Scores, 10/2014-6/2015, 1 p.
G. OMITTED
H. OMITTED
I. OMITTED
J. OMITTED
K. OMITTED
L. OMITTED
M. Report, 8/15/14, 10 pp.
N. 2014-2015 , 9/30/14-6/18/15, 24 pp.
O. OMITTED
P. OMITTED
Q. OMITTED
R. OMITTED
S. OMITTED
T. OMITTED
U. Teacher Report, 10/21/15, 8 pp.
V. OMITTED
W. , 8/26/16, 115 pp.
X. OMITTED
Y. IEE Letter with Fax Confirmation, 4/22/16, 4 pp.
Z. MARKED FOR IDENTIFICATION ONLY
AA. OMITTED
BB. IEP Attendance Page, 10/22/15, 1 p.
CC. Resume, undated, 2 pp.
DD. Resume of , undated, 5 pp.
EE. Resume of , undated, 3 pp.
FF. OMITTED
GG. OMITTED
HH. OMITTED
II. Emails Regarding Subpoenaed Documents, 8/1/16 and 8/8/16, 2 pp.
JJ. Emails from re document disclosure, 8/19/16, 8 pp.
KK. , undated, 1 p.
LL. , undated, 1 p.
MM. Letter from , 12/10/13, 1 p.
NN. Letter from , 9/2/15, 2 pp.
OO. Letter from , 9/3/15, 1 p.
PP. Letter from , 9/8/15, 2 pp.
QQ. Letter from , 4/21/15, 2 pp.
RR. Letter from , 5/5/15, 2 pp.
SS. Letter from , 5/14/15, 2 pp.
TT. Letter from , 2/25/16, 2 pp.
UU. Letter from , 3/22/16, 2 pp.
VV. 2015-2016 , 8/27/15 to 6/2/16, 4 pp.
WW. IEP Goal Progress Report, 10/26/15, 4 pp.
XX. IEP Goal Progress Report, 3/17/16, 4 pp.
YY. IEP Goal Progress Report, Trimester Review 2, March 2016, 1 p.
ZZ. 2011-2012 Report Card, undated, 1 p.
AAA. 2012-2013 Report Card, undated, 1 p.
BBB. 2013-2014 Report Card, undated, 2 pp.
CCC. 2014-2015 Report Card, undated, 1 p.
DDD. 2015-2016 Report Card, undated, 1 p.
EEE. Letter from , 6/16/15, 1 p.
FFF. by , 9/19/16, 33 pp.
GGG. Transcript from Hearing in Case Number 160515, 8/1/16, 181 pp.
HHH. Transcript from Hearing in Case Number 160515, 105 pp.
III. NYC Department of Education Description of Class Staffing Ratios, undated, 1 p.
JJJ. Summary of 9/19/16 by undated, 12 pp.
KKK. Email to and from , 9/16/16, 2 pp.
LLL. Email from , 10/14/16, 2 pp.
MMM. IEP Progress Report, 03/2016, 1 p.
NNN. IEP Progress Report, 06/2016, 1 p.
OOO. , 11/23/15-6/17/16, 4 pp.
PPP. Letter from School to Parent, 6/1/16, 1 p.
QQQ. for 2016-2017 School Year, 8/2016, 2 pp.
RRR. , 9/6/16-108/13/16, 6 pp.
SSS. SESIS Log of Events, 5/1/14-10/5/16, 9 pp.
TTT. , 10/7/16, 1 p.
UUU. , 10/14/16, 2 pp.
VVV. Resume of , undated, 2 pp.
3
WWW. Finding of Facts and Decision, Case Number 160515, 10/2/16, 11 pp.
WWW. Resume of , undated, 13 pp.
XXX. Curriculum Vitae of , undated, 13 pp.
YYY. , 11/7/16, 6 pp.
ZZZ. Resume of , undated, 6 pp.
AAAA. , 11/10/16, 8 pp.
IHO Exhibits
I. District Request for an Impartial Hearing, Case No. 160515, 5/16/16, 13 pp
II. Parent’s Request for an Impartial Hearing, , 6/7/16, 16 pp.
III. Motion to Consolidate, 6/14/16, 2 pp.
IV. DOE Opposition to Consolidation, 6/13/16, 1 p.
V. Order Denying Consolidation, 6/14/16, 4 pp.
VI. Subpoena, 8/16/16, 1 p.
VII. Subpoenas, 8/22/16 and 10/5/16, 4 pp.
VIII. Emails from IHO re compliance date extensions, 7/13/16, 7/13/16, 8/25/16, 9/21/16, 9/27/16, 10/28/16,
11/21/16, 12/20/16, 8 pp.
IX. NYC Department of Education Closing Statement, undated, 19 pp.
X. Parents’ Closing Brief (including cover-page and table of contents), undated, 31 pp.
XI. Interim Order re Evaluations, 10/31/16,[3] pp.
Footnotes
[2] Section 100.2(ii) addresses “ ” (“ ”). The Student received and did not make adequate progress. In addition, .
[3] Two different documents were marked and entered into Evidence as Parent Ex. WWW in this case. The first, a findings of fact and decision from a prior impartial hearing proceeding, was marked and entered into Evidence on 10/28/16. The second, a resume, was marked and entered into Evidence on 12/1/16.