New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 161105

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District: LJ Hearing Requested By: Parent

Date of Hearing: July 19, 2016

September 25, 2017

January 12, 2018

Actual Record Closed Date: March 5, 2018

Hearing Officer: James P. Walsh, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 19, 2016

Esq. Attorney for Parent — Parents

District and New York City Department of Education Representative — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON SEPTEMBER 25, 2017

Father of Student — Parents

Esq. Attorney for Parent — Parents

Director (by telephone) — Parents

District and New York City Department of Education Representative — DOE

Served as Teacher Assigned at District’s C.S.E. (by telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JANUARY 12, 2018

Father of Student — Parents

Esq. Attorney for Parent — Parents

Director (by telephone) — Parents

District and New York City Department of Education Representative — DOE

Assistant Principal at (by telephone) — DOE

Served as Teacher Assigned at District’s C.S.E. (by telephone) — DOE

This proceeding regarding n (hereinafter referred to as “Student”) was initiated by correspondence filed on behalf of Parents by the

_J, dated July 1, 2016 and received by the Department of Education’s Impartial Hearing Office on that date. The proceeding was commenced to address the alleged failure of District’s Committee on Special Education to offer Student a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2016-2017 school year and to seek direct funding or reimbursement for Parents’ unilateral placement of Student at the at (Exhibit A). The undersigned was appointed as the Impartial Hearing Officer authorized to preside over this matter by notice dated July 7, 2016.

A proceeding to determine the Pendency placement to which Student would be entitled until the conclusion of this administrative proceeding was conducted on July 19, 2016. An Interim Order on Pendency was issued on July 20, 2017, which provided that Student receive -~~_ _ L _ _ L _ _ L _ _ J ~_ _J _ _

(I.H.O.

Exhibit I).

Parents, again by the , filed an Amended Due Process Complaint, dated July 11, 2016, which, except for raising a challenge to the appropriateness of certain / Annual Goals, was identical to the originally-filed Complaint, alleging the failure of District’s Committee on Special Education to offer Student a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2016-2017 school year and seeking direct funding or reimbursement for Parents’ unilateral placement of Student at the at (Exhibit F). The Amended Complaint was accepted by District on July 22, 2016. Hearings on the merits were scheduled for October 21, 2016 and November 2, 2016. However, because of scanning errors, Parents’ Amended Complaint was refiled and accepted on October 19, 2016, necessitating the cancellation of those dates. Another

hearing date was scheduled for March 15, 2017 but was cancelled because of snow.

Another hearing date was set for July 26, 2017.

However, Parents, again by the , filed another Due Process Complaint Notice, dated July 3, 2017 and received by the New York City Department of Education’s Impartial Hearing Office on that date. This Complaint was commenced to address the alleged failure of District’s Committee on Special Education to offer Student a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2017-2018 school year and to seek direct funding or reimbursement for Parents’ unilateral placement of Student at the at for that school year (Exhibit U). By Order dated July 12, 2017, I consolidated the two

Complaints and ordered that the matters be heard together, but cancelled the scheduled hearing date of July 26, 2017 (I.H.O. Exhibit II).

Hearings were thereafter conducted on September 25, 20178 and January 12, 2018.

At the conclusion of proceedings on January 12, 2018, the parties requested the opportunity to submit Post=-Hearing briefs for my consideration. Such requests were granted, as long as such briefs were submitted to the Case Manager by the Close of

Business on March 2, 2018. Each party timely submitted Post-Hearing briefs and each has been reviewed and considered. The Record Close Date is March 5, 2018.

Student is

. According to information contained in a Assessment Report, dated August 10, 2015 (Exhibit 2), Student has a diagnosis of 11

,

. The assessment advises that

The Report noted that

The Report concluded _J LJ ~-~ L_ ~

Student’s family moved to District in early June, 2015. Student was provided by District’s Committee on Special Education (C.S.E.) with a Comparable Service Plan and was enrolled in L_LJ in a class having a staffing ratio of with Related Services. Student’s first day in that program was on July 5, 2015 (T.R.144). A number of incidents during the beginning of the 2015-2016 school year which were of concern to Parents (Exhibit S) resulted in Parents’ removal of Student from in August of 2015 and her placement at ~ - - LJ - - ~ - - ~ - . Thereafter, District’s C.S.E. met and prepared an Individualized Education Program (I.E.P) for Student on August 14, 2015 (Exhibit D). It appears that a Due Process proceeding was thereafter initiated by Parents _ _ J _ ~ which resulted in the execution of a Partial Resolution Agreement, dated August 15, 2015 (Exhibit B). The matter was thereafter fully resolved with a Stipulation of Settlement

(Exhibit C). Thus, there is no issue before me in these proceedings regarding any claims arising during the 2015-2016 school year. However, it appears that those concerns that arose during Student’s brief sojourn at resulted in Parents’ adamant refusal to consider any placement of Student at during either of the school years that are before me in this proceeding.

District’s C.S.E. convened on April 6, 2016 to develop Student’s I.E.P. for the 2016- 2017 school year. As a result of that I.E.P., (Exhibits 1 and G), the Committee recommended Student’s program (Exhibit 6), with the recommendation that Parents await the commencement of the 2016-2017 school year for its implementation. Parents were advised, by virtue of a School Location Letter, dated May 12, 2016, (Exhibit 7), that Student would be provided with her special education program at . As noted, Parents initiated a Due Process proceeding on July 1, 2016 (Exhibit A), seeking direct payment or reimbursement of costs associated with Parents’ unilateral placement of

Student at for the

2016-2017 school year.

It has been established that Boards of Education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a child by the child’s parent, if (1) the services offered by the Board of Education were inadequate or inappropriate; (2) the services selected by the Parent were appropriate and; (3) equitable considerations support the Parent’s claim.

Such prerequisites were established by the United States Supreme Court when considering claims for reimbursement brought by parents who had unilaterally placed their disabled child in a private facility. (School ommittee of the Town of Burlington v.

Department of Education, Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985); Application of a hild with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-052). Further, it was later held that the fact that the facility selected by the Parent to provide special education services to the Child had not been approved as a school for children with disabilities by the State Education Department of the State of New York would not be dispositive of a parent’s claim for tuition reimbursement (Florence ounty School District 4 et al. v. arter by arter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]). However, as the Supreme Court stated in Burlington (ibid):

“…parents who unilaterally change their child’s placement during the pendency of review proceedings, without the consent of state or local school officials, do so at their own financial risk.”

471 U.S. 359 at 374

BURDEN OF PROOF

Generally, in applying the three-prong standard enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in the Burlington and arter decisions above-cited, it is necessary, in my consideration of the issues presented, that I first determine whether or not the School District offered to the student a free, appropriate public education. The burden of establishing that it did so rests upon the District (N.Y.S. Education Law§4404). Under the guidelines established by Burlington and arter, should I determine that District offered Student an appropriate educational program, my inquiry into Parent’s request would cease at that point, for if a district has offered an appropriate program, Parent’s right to the requested relief must be denied. Under the same guidelines, if it is determined that District failed to establish the appropriateness of its program, I must then determine the appropriateness of the Parent’s unilaterally-selected educational facility. The burden of establishing such appropriateness rests upon Parent (N.Y.S. Education Law §4404).

Should Parent fail to establish the appropriateness of the unilaterally-selected facility, Parent’s request for relief must be denied. If the unilaterally-selected educational facility is determined to be appropriate, I must, because the awarding of any relief is possible only by an invocation of the equitable powers inherent in the proceeding, then review the equities in order to determine whether equitable considerations favor an award of any relief to the parent. It is my determination that the burden of establishing that such equities do not favor an award of tuition reimbursement rests upon District.

DISCUSSION

Essential to any determination of an entitlement to the equitable relief sought by Parents in this proceeding is whether the agency responsible for a student’s education provided that student with a free, appropriate public education (FAPE). It is stated that a FAPE is offered to a student when (a) a 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]). However, such statement is no longer exactly accurate, for, while school districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures, not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (A.C. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 5505470, at *4 [2d Cir. Jan. 16, 2009]; Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003]; Perricelli v. Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 465211, at *10 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2007]). Under the IDEA as amended, if a procedural violation is alleged, an administrative officer may find that a student did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a) impeded the student's right to a FAPE, (b) significantly impeded the Parent' opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student, or (c) caused adeprivation of educational benefits (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; E.H.

v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 3930028, at *7 [N.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2008]; Matrejek v.

Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 471 F. Supp. 2d 415, 419 [S.D.N.Y. 2007] aff'd, 2008 WL 3852180 [2d Cir. Aug. 19, 2008]).

It has been stated that an appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student's needs (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]), establishes annual goals related to those needs (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]), and provides for the use of appropriate special education services (34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][4]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]; see Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 07-018; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-059; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 06-029; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-046; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-014; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No.

93-9).17 The student's recommended program must also be provided in the Least Restrictive Environment (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.114[a][2][i], 300.116[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[cc], 200.6[a][1]; see P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 4509089, at *7 [2d Cir. Oct. 9, 2008]; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 [2d Cir. 2007]; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132). The IDEA directs that, in general, an impartial hearing officer's decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][i]). A school district offers a FAPE "by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction" (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203). However, the "IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP" (Walczak v.

Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 [2d Cir. 1998]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at

189).

The statute ensures an "appropriate" education, "not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving Parent" (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132, quoting Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d 563, 567 [2d Cir. 1989] [citations omitted]; see Grim, 346 F.3d at 379). Additionally, school districts are not required to "maximize" the potential of students with disabilities (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199; Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132). Nonetheless, a school district must provide "an IEP that is 'likely to produce progress, not regression,' and . . . affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere 'trivial advancement'" (Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195, quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130 [citations omitted]; see Perricelli, 2007 WL 465211, at *15). The IEP must be "reasonably calculated to provide some 'meaningful' benefit" (Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 [2d Cir. 1997]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192). The recommended program must be reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances (Endrew

F. v. Douglas ountry School District, __U.S.__).

g to the testimony of Witness , who served as both the District Representative and Special Education Teacher at the Committee’s meeting of April 6, 2016, the Committee considered a Assessment, Teacher’s

Reports, a recommendation for , the input of Student’s Classroom Teacher and that of the Parents. The Committee classified Student as having and proposed that Student receive Education, and receive her special education in a in a Special School ( ) having a staffing ratio of together with the Related Services of

It was specifically noted by the Committee that

“PARENTS EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT THEY DO NOT WANT CITE (sic)

OFFERED AGAIN. PARENTS REPORTED THAT THIS CITE (sic) WAS

ATTEMPTED AND DUE TO SEVERAL INCIDENTS INVOLVING [STUDENT]

PARENTS REJECTED THIS CITE (sic) AND SHOULD NOT BE OFFERRED

AGAIN. PARENTS STATED THATY (sic) WOULD CONSIDER IF A NEW

CITE(sic) IS OFFERED THAT MAY BETTER MEET [STUDENT]’S NEDS (sic)”.

Parents take issue with the provisions of the I.E.P. that recommend that Student receive her special education program in a with a staffing ratio of rather than in a class with a staffing ratio of - the setting that Student had prior to her family’s move the New York City and the setting Student has had since her admission to in August of 2015. Witness explained the Committee’s reasoning regarding its recommended class size, noting that such would afford more staff to attend to Student’s many and academic needs (T.R.63-66). However, Witness was unable to specify the Student’s needs that required such placement. More importantly, Witness confirmed that a class is primarily for , as opposed to a more education-based classroom (T.R. 86-87). While Student certainly has needs, Student has been shown to have the ability to make academic progress at her setting, far beyond habilitation.

The Record also displayed other deficits in the program afforded at for the 2016-2017 school year. It was stated by Student’s Parent that in the Public School system,

, which resulted in

. Parent contended that

Student’s

Upon a review of the I.E.P. that was prepared by District’s C.S.E. on April 6, 2016 (Exhibits 1 and G), it is my finding and determination that, while such I.E.P. may be criticized for particular faults and omissions, on the whole it offers an appropriate program capable of meeting Student’s needs. While Parents might have preferred a setting as Parents had in Student‘s former placement, District’s policy of utilizing such setting for students with is not unreasonable when considering the vast scope of its educational demands. Indeed, it appears that Parents had acquiesced with the provisions of that I.E.P. when Parents indicated that what they wanted – and would consider –was not adifferent I.E.P., but aplacement other than .

However, in addition to an appropriate I.E.P., District was also obliged to place Student in an appropriate setting in which Student would receive her program. Parents have, I find, established that they had ample bases to reject the proffered placement at . Parent detailed the trouble they encountered from almost the very first day of Student’s placement at from what appears to be a very uncooperative or unyielding . Thereafter, Parents noted marks on Student’s body that were not accurately or satisfactorily explained to Parents. Parent testified regarding their extreme concern, as Student was unable, , to tell her parents what was occurring at school (T.R.159-162). Parents frustration resulted in Parent’s detailed correspondence, dated July 28, 2016 (Exhibit S), in which Parent explained at length her frustrations with the school’s actions. No response was made to Parent’s correspondence until October 1, 2016, which essentially was a simple dismissal of Parents’ concerns (Exhibit T).

It is, then, my finding and conclusion that, in advising Parents that Student’s program for the 2016-2017 school year would be offered at (Exhibit 7)– when it knew well that Parents had specifically stated to the Committee that they would not – for good cause - accept placement of Student at for the 2016-2017 school year, failed in its obligation to offer Student a free, appropriate public education for the 2016- 2017 school year.

Having found that District has failed in its burden, it is necessary that I determine the appropriateness of Parents’ unilateral placemen of Student at . Parents bear the burden of establishing that such placement (N.Y.S Education Law §4404-1(c)). The standard for determining whether such burden has been successfully borne was stated by the Court in Gagliardo v.

Arlington ent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105 at 112 (2d Cir. 2007, wherein it was stated that:

“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 to 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.”

The program that was afforded to Student during the 2016-2917 school year was described by Witness . testified that she was the Director of the School Program at , . testified that she holds a Doctorate in and has served at the since 2012 and, prior to such, was a professor of special education at . described the program at the as having classrooms serving atotal enrollment of - students between the ages (T.R.99). All of its teachers are New York State-certified Special Education Teachers, who meet both weekly with its Director and daily in groups to address specific issues. described her daily program afforded to Student, referencing Student’s program as set out in Exhibit P. Witness also testified that the students in the program travel to another building on the campus of the facility – - which serves non-disabled students, to lunch with non-disabled students. explained that Student receives instruction during the day from not only the classroom teacher, but also the Assistant Teacher and other staff who visit the classroom in order to provide such (T.R.107).

Witness also confirmed that Student receives all of her mandated Related Services at the school from providers contracted by the Department of Education and who work closely with Student’s classroom teacher (T.R.113-114). described the ways staff are implementing the goals the School established for Student and the manner in which it was utilizing to implement those goals (T.R. 115-

117). also detailed the areas in which Student had made progress, especially with in her use of (T.R.118).

I found testimony clear, precise and credible. Such has established that Student is appropriately placed and that her program is capable of meeting her special education needs. Thus, it is my finding and determination that Parents have successfully borne their burden of establishing the appropriateness of their unilateral placement of Student at for the 2016-2017 school year.

Having made such determination, I must now examine whether Equitable Considerations warrant an award of reimbursement to Parents. District has offered no evidence that Parents have not fully cooperation with District or its C.S.E. in developing Student’s program. Parents have been forth-coming in declaring at the April 6, 2016 meeting and thereafter that they would not accept any program at . Parents have attended all committee meetings. I find nothing in the Record before me to warrant any denial or diminishment of Parents’ request for reimbursement or direct payment to for he unilateral placement of Student at that facility for the 2016-2017 school year.

Parent and entered into an Enrollment

Contract for Student’s attendance, dated October 10, 2016 by Parent and October 13, 2016 by School Executive M. Hughes (Exhibit Q). The Contract requires payment of by Parent for the program into which Student was placed. There has been no explanation as to why the Contract was signed in October of 2016 when Student was enrolled and attended for the entire 2016-2017 school year (T.R.171). The Contract (Exhibit Q) refers to being subject to a Payment Schedule attached as Addendum A – but such is not attached. Parent

testified that Parents had made a down payment (T.R.173) in 2016 – but fails to state the amount of such. Parent also testified that Parents were making monthly payments of – but fails to state the number of moths such payments were made.

It is my finding and determination that Parents’ unilateral placement of Student at was appropriate for the 2016-2017 school year and that Parents are entitled to be reimbursed or have direct payment made to for the 2016-2017 school year in the total amount of Parents and are directed to jointly file a sworn statement setting forth the amounts to be paid to Parents and the amounts to be paid to , with the proviso that the total of such amounts not exceed the sum of

The 2017-2018 School Year

District’s Committee convened on May 18, 2017 to prepare Student’s I.E.P. for the 2017-2018 school year. That I.E.P (Exhibit V) made the same recommendations for Student’s program as it did in April of 2016 (Exhibits 1 and G). Some Annual Goals were modified from the previous school year’s I.E.P., but nothing of great significance. I note that the I.E.P. for the 2017-2018 school year did not contain the reference to Parents’ adamant refusal to consider as did the 2017-2017 I.E.P. Indeed, while Parents’ counsel advised the District that Parents would not consider any placement at (Exhibit W), there was, in fact, no recommended placement ever made by District for the 2017-2018 school year. That alone constitutes a failure by District to offer Student a free, appropriate public education for the 2017-2018 school year.

Parents had the same obligation to establish that the unilateral placement selected by Parents for the 2017-2018 school year was appropriate as Parents did for the 2016- 2017 school year. Parents’ Witness provided testimony similar to that which she had provided regarding the prior school year, but with emphasis on certain aspects of the program. Witness testified that Student continued to make progress in its program. I find it unnecessary to review Witness testimony in more specific areas.

It is my finding and determination that Parents have satisfactorily borne their burden of establishing the appropriateness of their unilaterally-selected placement of Student at for the 2017-2018 school year.

In similar manner, I find that Parents cooperated fully with District’s Committee and that there is no reason to diminish or deny reimbursement to Parents on Equitable

Considerations.

Parent executed an Enrollment Contract, dated July 18, 2017 relating to Student’s attendance at for the 2017-2018 school year (Exhibit Z). The terms of the Contract are virtually identical with that executed for the 2016-2017 school year (Exhibit Q), but Exhibit Z has been signed only by Parent. There is nothing in Parent’s testimony to indicate that Parents have made any payments to for the 2017-2018 school year. Tuition charged pursuant to the Contract (Exhibit Z) for that year is in the amount of

As before, I find the amount reasonable.

ORDER

Based upon the above review, it is

HEREBY ORDERED that and the New York City Department of Education pay Parents and or direct payment for the unilateral placement of Student at for the 2016-2017 school year, in the total amount of as such interests may appear pursuant to an Affidavit setting forth the amounts to be paid to Parents and the amounts to be paid to , with the proviso that the total of such amounts not exceed the sum of

; and it is

FUIRTHER ORDERED THAT and the New York City Department of Education pay direct payment for the unilateral placement of Student at for the 2017-2018 school year, in the total amount of

; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that and the Department of Education continue to provide to Student all Related Services as are set forth in my Interim Order on Pendency dated July 20, 2016 for the remainder of the 2017-2018 school year, at District and Department expense.

Dated: March 16, 2018

JAMES P. WALSH, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

PL AS TAK NOTIC

The parent and/or the New York City Department of ducation has a right to obtain a review of this decision by a State Review Officer of the New York State ducation Department under Part 200.5(k) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of ducation, Section 4404 of the ducation Law, and the Individuals with Disabilities ducation Act.

Directions and forms can be found on the Office of State Review website: http://www.sro.nysed.gov/RevisedRegulationsOverview.html

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD JULY 19, 2016

A. Parents’ Due Process Complaint Notice, dated 7-1-16 (8 pages; Parents)

B. Partial Resolution Agreement, dated ` 8-19-15 (2 pages; Parents)

C. Stipulation of Settlement and Agreement, dated 3-28-16 (6 pages; Parents)

D. I.E.P. created by District’s C.S.E., dated 8-14-15 (21 pages; Parents)

E. Progress Report, undated, for 2015-2016 school year (5 pages; Parents)

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD SEPTEMBER 25, 2017

F. Parents’ Amended Due Process Complaint Notice dated 7-11-16 (7 pages; Parents)

G. Student’s I.E.P. as developed by District’s C.S.E., dated 6-3-16 (15 pages; Parents)

H. Student’s I.E.P. as developed by District’s C.S.E., dated 9-8-16 (15 pages; Parents)

I. Teacher Report by, dated 2-24-16 Parent (5 pages; Parents)

J. Report by, dated 2-24-16 (2 pages; Parents)

K. // Report by, dated 2-25-16 (4 pages; Parents)

L. / Recommendation, dated 7/7/26, by (1 page; Parents)

M. Correspondence from Parent to C.S.E., dated 6-17-16 (2 pages; Parents)

N. Correspondence from Parent to C.S.E., dated 6-21-16 (2 pages; Parents)

O. Document: Program Description (4 pages; Parents)

P. Classroom Schedule (1); Class Student Profile (3) (4 pages; Parents)

Q. Enrollment Contract, dated 10-10-16 by Parent and dated 10-13-16 by School (4 pages; Parents)

R. Parents’ Federal Income Tax Return for 2015 (4 pages; Parents)

S. Correspondence from Parent to C.S.E., dated 7-28-15 (3 pages; Parents)

T. Correspondence from Principal of to Parent, dated 10-1-15 (1 page; Parents)

1. Student’s I.E.P. as prepared by District’s C.S.E. on 4-6-16 (21 pages; DOE)

2. Assessment, dated 8-10-15, by (5 pages; DOE)

3. Evaluation, dated 8-14-15, by (2 pages; DOE)

4. Progress Report, dated 3-25-16, by (3 pages; DOE)

5. Progress Report, dated 3-25-16, by (2 pages; DOE)

6. Notice of Recommendation, dated 5-12-16 (4 pages; DOE)

7. School Location Letter, dated 5-12-16 (2 pages; DOE)

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD JANUARY 12, 2018

U. Parents’ Due Process Complaint Notice, dated 7-3-17 (7 pages; Parents)

V. Student’s I.E.P. as prepared by District’s C.S.E., dated 5-18-17 (15 pages; Parents)

W. Correspondence from Parents’ Attorney to District dated 6-17-17 (3 pages; Parents)

X. Class Student Profile for the 2017-2018 school year Parents (3 pages; Parents)

Y. Student’s Class Schedule for the 2017-2018 school Parents year (2 pages; Parents)

Z. Enrollment Contract, signed by Parent, dated 7-18-17 –not signed by School AA 2 Parents’ Federal Tax Return for 2016 Parents BB 3 Student Annual Progress Report by, Parents Undated (2); blank page (1) CC 3 Student Progress Report – /, dated Parents 4-6-17, by DD 2 Student Progress Report –, dated Parents 4-3-17, by EE 2 Student Progress Report –, Parents dated 4-3-17, by FF 3 Prior Written Notice (Notice of Recommendation) Parents dated 5-28-17 (5 pages; Parents)

OTHER DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD

I. Interim Decision Regarding Pendency, dated IHO 7-20-16 II 4 Order Regarding Consolidation, dated 7-12-17 IHO III 24 Memorandum of Law in Support of Petitioner’s IHO Application for Relief IV 9 District’s Closing Statement IHO (9 pages; Parents)