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 Number: 150984
Student’s Name:
Date of Birth:
District:
Hearing Requested By: Parent
Date of Hearing: November 19, 2014
February 4, 2015
June 1, 2015
July 14, 2015
December 30, 2015
March 2, 2016
May 3, 2016
September 7, 2016
Actual Record Closed Date: October 12, 2016
Hearing Officer: Ellen Cutler-Igoe, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON NOVEMBER 19,
2014
Esq. Attorney — Parents
Mother — Parents
District Representative — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON FEBRUARY 4, 2015
Esq. Attorney — Parents
Mother — Parents
Esq. District Representative — DOE
(via phone) Teacher — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 1, 2015
Esq. Attorney — Parents
Esq. District Representative — DOE
(via phone) Teacher — DOE
Dr. (via phone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 14, 2015
Esq. Attorney — Parents
Mother — Parents
Esq. District Representative — DOE
Dr. (via phone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON DECEMBER 30,
2015
Esq. Attorney — Parents
Mother — Parents
Attorney — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MARCH 2, 2015
Esq. Attorney — Parents
Mother — Parents
Parents
Parents
Attorney — DOE
Tanisha Gill Representative — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MAY 3, 2016
Esq. Attorney — Parents
Mother — Parents
Phd — Parents
Parents
Attorney — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON SEPTEMBER 7,
2016
Esq. Attorney — Parents
Attorney — DOE
INTRODUCTION
is currently a classified by the New York City Department of Education (DOE) as . At the time of filing, had . Parent filed this Due Process Complaint on June 23, 2014 in accordance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, §1415 (f) (IDEA), New York State Education Law Section 4401 et seq and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act based on Parent’s contention that the New York City Department of Education’s (“DOE”) failed to (a) provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) to F.T. for the 2012 – 2013 and 2013- 2014 school years; (b)
adequately and timely evaluate him; (C) follow the procedural requirements of the IDEA; and (d) follow the mandated of New York State Education Law 4401 et seq and subjected to discrimination based on his disability under Section 504 for the 2011- 2012, 2012- 2013 and 2011- 2012 school years violating the Section 504 statute and regulations. (Ex. 1.1)
Parent demands relief in the form of compensatory education, direct reimbursement for services expenses incurred during the 2011- 2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years, services as provided by Dr. in the amount of less any money Parent may receive from private medical insurance, additional and by means of compensatory banks of the following: (1) less any hours of that was able to purchase, (2) with a private provider selected by ; and, (3) , dismissal of the Parent’s requests for and without prejudice or an award of services based upon IEE evaluators recommendations and toll the Statute of Limitations.
Contrary to the Parent’s declaration that the District failed to offer a FAPE under the meaning of the IDEA, the DOE asserted it did indeed meet this obligation because was recommended an appropriate Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) that was reasonably calculated to meet his needs and contained objective and measurable goals that targeted ’s key deficit areas, goals sufficient, appropriate, and allowed to make meaningful progress across all domains and its IEP teams created IEPs that produced progress not regression all while was in a least restrictive environment.
The District also asserted that Parent meaningfully participated in the IEP process where her concerns were fully heard, considered, and addressed. The DOE posited that the District did not District did not violate section 504 as was offered a 504.
DOE argued, together with the testimony and evidence presented at hearing, the DOE met its obligations to offer a FAPE for the 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years and, as such, the Parent’s request for compensatory education services and reimbursement for other expenses should be denied. The DOE conceded failure to provide with a FAPE for the 2011- 2012 school year.
Hearings were scheduled and held on November 19, 2014, February 4, 2015, June 1, 2015, July 14, 2015, December 30, 2015, March 2, 2016, May 3, 2016 and September 7, 2016. Extensions were requested and granted based on witness unavailability, extraordinary circumstances and extreme weather conditions.
Hearing Officer’s Findings of Facts and Procedural History:
is . Ex. 1. He had and continued to be throughout the hearing process diagnosed with , ,
, and . (T. 731, 759, Ex. N)
was diagnosed with at approximately and thereafter received , and through and CPSE. (T. 775) He started at with and but
. (T. 775)
remained at through the with
. T. 777, 780.
Parent took to a during the who
which was maintained through . (T. 778, 779)
’s parents obtained private, at their own expense, starting in the . (T. 779)
After leaving in the , attended , enrolled in the . (T. 781)
Prior to ’s transition to , was said to have been decertified at a meeting held at at the end of . (T. 781)
DOE did not reevaluate prior to terminating his eligibility, services and and not referred to a 504 team at either or .
T.782.
did not have a fluid transition to . (T. 782-83)
Parent testified to participating in several conversations with all of ’s teachers regarding ’s and communicated to them that was
.
Parent provided with in the almost
to help . (T. 791)
Parent requested that be tested via an email dated December 2011. (Ex A-4, T. 192)
Parent followed up with the DOE staff, but did not receive a timely response. (Ex.
E, T. 793) Parent was told that because was recently declassified as per his record, the request for an evaluation was considered an initial evaluation. (T. 793,
Ex. E)
In or around the end of June 2012, the DOE’s , Dr.
assessed
An IEP dated on or about June 2012 recommended
with one goal.
remained enrolled in the program through with support services provided by Parents at their own expense.
’s and during the 2013- 2014 school year
(T. 676-679) although notably . (DOE Ex. 12; Tr. 142)
received private from in the fall and spring of and . (T. 817)
in May of 2014. (T. 822)
Following , Parent request that receive
,
. (T. 697, 680, 685-686, 824, 825. Ex. H-9)
Parents placed in for the 2014-2015; the DOE had not reconvened an IEP team or offer an ISP to for the following year. (T. 827)
started in the yet continued to struggle
with many issues including but not limited to
. (T. 830)
Whether DOE failed to provide a Free and Appropriate Public Education under Section 504 and the IDEA for the following school years: 2011-2012, 2012-2013, 2013-
2014.
Parent’s Witness Testimony of as interpreted and adopted by the
Im partial Hearing Officer:
arranged for to have a evaluation while the hearing was pending. The IHO ordered the DOE to fund the cost of the evaluation. Dr. is a Ph. D., licensed, in New York, and is credentialed through . (T. 727) Dr. conducted a evaluation of in her office without any distractions. (Ex. N, T.
730, 747) Dr. reviewed all prior testing, spoke with his advisor and learning specialist at and obtained questionnaires from his teachers. (T. 731)
Dr. found that ’s was in the however with
. (Ex. N-5, T. 731) exhibited , with s
, as well as in the areas of ,
, . (Ex. N-5, T. 732) ’s
were . Id. in , with a
. Id.
Notably, on the scored in the , which Dr.
stated had implications for . Id. ’s
was his , with a . Id. ’s
in is and .
(T. 733-734) Moreover, ’s was in the , which Dr.
attributed to his , , and . (Ex. N, T. 734-5)
Dr. found that ’s scores reflected a
. (T. 737) Additionally, ’s
. Id. While scored in the for his
(T. 738, Ex N-9), he scored in the , on the
, indicating . Id. The result of a indicated that, (Ex. N, T. 741), he demonstrated . (Ex. N, T. 741-2) In comparison to his , ’s were . (Ex. N, T. 742) Dr.
concluded that his meant that he s
. (T. 742) Further, based on the results of the and the (Ex. N-10, 11, T. 743), Dr. found that has . For example, the indicated that ,
, ,
, , , and
. (Ex N-10, T. 743)
The assessment was given to three of ’s teachers and indicated that has a . (Ex. N-
11, T. 744-5) Further, ’s mother and a teacher reported an . (N-11, T. 745) The results from his teachers indicated that qualified for by 2 out of 3 teachers and ’s mother qualifying him for . (Ex N-11, T. 745)
displayed ,
. He displayed ,
, and . (T. 747) However, Dr. testified that than that administered by Dr. . (T. 751) Moreover, when Dr. administered the with . (T. 748) Most notably, was
; however,
, . (Ex. N, T. 748) Dr.
testified that, ,
. (T. 748)
When comparing the results of the in relation to , Dr. opined that ’s is “ ”, yet not surprised by his and his . (T. 749) Further, Dr. characterized ’s as
, but his was
“ ” and “
”. (T. 750)
Dr. noted that demonstrated on
, however and “
”. (T. 752-3) When Dr. gave an
, he . (T. 754) Dr.
also administered
. (T. 755) Dr. stated that does not have
, and
. (T. 755)
Dr. was unable to measure
and believes that should probably receive an . (T. 756)
’s was described as ,
, however stated that .
(T. 758) The report included several recommendations, including but not limited to concluding: (a) should receive to address , (Ex. N-15, T. 761); and (b) should
(T. 760); and (c) receive an evaluation. Further, Dr. recommended an evaluation and a evaluation due to . (N-16, T. 763) This IHO previously ordered these assessments; therefore, the Parent was charged with obtaining such. (III, 1-3)
Parent Witness Testimony of Dr. as interpreted by this Hearing Officer:
Dr. was summoned to appear by Parent in her capacity as the . Dr. was asked specific questions relating to any if at all procedures utilized for identifying students with special needs, initiation of the I.E.P. process, application of the I.E.P. and services purportedly offered and provided to Dr. , during direct examination, was unable to answer specific questions relating to ’s interactions with his teachers and peers yet clearly remembered wherein
. Dr. described how
were provided to
DOE’s witness testimony of Ms. as interpreted by the Hearing Officer:
Ms. testified that attended from and that he
entered in September 2011 receiving declassification services as he was declassified from special education services in . (T.104-106) enrolled in a program and received , including . (T. 107) Parent requested for the Student to be evaluated and 504 accommodations were discussed with Parent; however, Parent indicated that she was not interested in pursuing them at that time. (T.
116) On June 26, 2012, an IEP meeting was held to establish an IEP for . (T. 119; DOE Ex. 6) Parent and mandated team members attended the meeting and were able to fully discuss any and all concerns. (T.119) The outcome of this meeting was a recommendation for with in order to “ ” the Student’s ability to . (T.
121,124) was also recommended to receive to include and . (T. 125) Ms. testified that and that for the 2012-2013 school year. (T. 126) Parent did not object to any of the recommendations. (Id.)
During the 2012-2013 school year, was enrolled in a program and received and according to his IEP. (T.
127) On March 7, 2013, an annual IEP meeting was held where the team recommended a program with and . The mandate was corrected on April 10, 2013 at an IEP meeting in order to reflect the recommendation of . (T. 131-133) Parent attended both meetings and did not express any concerns regarding the recommendations. (T. 136)
in and
for the 2013-2014 school year. (T. 135) ’s Final Report Card indicated that he received . (DOE Ex. 12; T. 142)
Ms. testified that an IEP meeting was held on September 27, 2013 where the team again maintained a program recommendation with and to include , , and . (T. 149-150) Parent attended the meeting and did not express concerns regarding the recommendation. (T. 149)
and the Student’s Final Report Card
indicated that he received
. (T. 150; DOE Ex. 13)
Ms. testified that and for the 2012-2013 school year.
(T. 126) During the 2012-2013 school year, was enrolled in a program and received and according to his IEP.
(T.127) On March 7, 2013, an annual IEP meeting was held where the team recommended a program with and . The mandate was corrected on April 10, 2013 at an IEP meeting in order to reflect the recommendation of . (T. 131-133)
Parent attended both meetings and did not express any concerns regarding the recommendations. (T. 136)
and for the 2013-2014 school year. (T. 135)
The Student’s Final Report Card indicated that he received
. (DOE Ex. 12; T. 142)
DOE’s Interpretation for its obligation under the IDEA and New Y ork R egulations:
The DOE proffered, two purposes of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) are (1)
to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living; and (2) to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities and parents of such students are protected (20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]-[B]; see generally Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230, 239 [2009]; Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 [1982].
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; R.E. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 189-90 [2d Cir. 2012]; M.H. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 685 F.3d 217, 245 [2d Cir. 2012]; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir.
2005]). "'[A]dequate compliance with the procedures prescribed would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP'" (Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 129 [2d Cir. 1998], quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206; see T.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. D., 554 F.3d 247, 253 [2d Cir. 2009]). While the Second Circuit has emphasized that school districts must comply with the checklist of procedures for developing a student's IEP and indicated that "[m]ultiple procedural violations may cumulatively result in the denial of a FAPE even if the violations considered individually do not" (R.E., 694 F.3d at 190-91), the Court has also explained that not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (M.H., 685 F.3d at 245; A.C. v. Bd. of Educ., 553 F.3d 165, 172 [2d Cir.
2009]; Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003]). Under the IDEA, if procedural violations are 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 parents' opportunity to participate in the decision making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student, or (c)
caused a deprivation of educational benefits (20 U.S.C.§ 1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 CFR 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S.
516, 525-26 [2007]; R.E., 694 F.3d at 190; M.H., 685 F.3d at 245).
The IDEA directs that, in general, an IHO'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, 142 F.3d at 130; 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 parents" (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 T.P., 554 F.3d at 254; P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 118-19 [2d Cir.2008]). 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 student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE) (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 CFR 300.114[a][2][i], 300.116[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[cc], 200.6[a][1]; see Newington, 546 F.3d at 114; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 [2d Cir. 2007]; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132). An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that includes a statement of the student's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]), establishes annual goals designed to meet the student's needs resulting from the student's disability and enable him or her to make progress in the general education curriculum (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][2][i], [2][i][A]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]), and provides for the use of appropriate special education services (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][4]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]).
The DOE asserted that it complied with its obligation to offer a FAPE in a program designed to meet his needs during the 2012-2013, 2013- 2014 school years in that the IEP teams assessed .s needs, developed annual goals based on those needs, and wrote complete, measurable, and attainable goals designed for to make progress. The Student in June 2014 (DOE Ex.
13) and the IEPs created produced progress, not regression, in a least restrictive environment.
The DOE posited that the testimony presented throughout the defense of its position proved that everyone who attended the IEP meetings, including the Parent, had an opportunity to participate in a meaningful way.
Consequently, the DOE concluded, based on its rendition of witness testimony and perusal of the evidence, was afforded a FAPE and his dispositive of the issue.
Parent’s Legal Analysis as Deemed Relevant by Hearing Officer:
The DOE bore the burden of proof of both production and persuasion as to (a)
whether a FAPE was provided to and (b) to questions relating to relief because the Parent was not seeking tuition for a unilateral placement in a private school. N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404; see also L.O. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., No. 15-1019, 2016 WL 2942301 (2d Cir. May 20,
2016); Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. (“SRO No.”) 11-032; SRO No. 11-053; SRO No. 11-091. A FAPE under the IDEA is offered to a student when (a)
the DOE 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. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179-181, 200-201 (1982). FAPE must “approximate the grade levels used in the State's regular education” and, if the child is being educated in the regular classrooms of the public education system, should be reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade. Id.
During the years in question, was entitled to a FAPE that includes, inter alia, “an appropriate . . . elementary or secondary education in the state.” 20 U.S.C. §§1401(9),
1414(d)(2)(A). A FAPE must include special education and related services that are “designed to meet [the child’s] unique needs and prepare [him or her] for further education, employment, and independent living.” 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1)(A). His IEPs were supposed to “ensure access” to “the general curriculum” so that T.F. “can meet the educational standards within the jurisdiction…that apply to all children.” 34 C.F.R.
§300.39(b)(3); 34 C.F.R. §300.320(a)(1)(i) (“general education curriculum” is “the same curriculum” that applies to “nondisabled children.”). The United States Department of Education (“U.S. DOE”) has recently clarified that IEP goals and services must be “aligned with State academic content standards for the grade in which a child is enrolled.”
Further, the U.S. DOE stated that IEPs must not merely provide access to the general curriculum; when, as here, a child’s “present levels of academic performance are significantly below the grade in which the child is enrolled,” the IEP goals and services should be “sufficiently ambitious to help close the gap” between the child’s skills and the applicable standards. Id. (Emphasis added)
Additionally, Parent opined, the IDEA mandates that IEPs contain special education, related services, and supplementary aids and services for the child “to participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities” and to “be educated and participate with other children with disabilities and nondisabled children in [those]
activities.” 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(IV). Nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities “may include counseling services, athletics, transportation, health services, recreational activities, special interest groups or clubs sponsored by the public agency.”
(34 CFR §300.107).
To the extent that the DOE has failed to respond to the allegations in the DPC, the deficiencies alleged in the IEPs, along with all other allegations, should have been deemed admitted. See, e.g., SRO No. 01-044, SRO No. 14-179. Further, the evidence established that the DOE’s violations of the IDEA and Section 504 were substantial and, in several cases, committed pursuant to infirm procedures and policies. T.366 – 411.
CONCLUSION
Upon due consideration, a thorough review of the evidence, testimony (including that which was not summarized), controlling case law and closing briefs, I am persuaded that the DOE failed to provide a FAPE for the 2011-2012, 2012 – 2013, 2013-2014 school years. The record is clear that procedural components of the I.E.P process in conjunction with the lack of compliance to conform therefore with the intent of the IDEA as interpreted in Rowley where in the Court explicitly held, “[not] every handicapped child who is advancing from grade to grade in a regular public school system is automatically receiving a free appropriate public education” was not persuasively argued by the DOE. Parent’s willingness and deep desire to work within the boundaries of the DOE’s institutional standards and procedures were overlooked or given insufficient consideration by those responsible for ’s education. (T.781 – 839). Although ’s advancement facially appears to confirm that the DOE complied with its obligation under the controlling regulations, this Hearing Officer holds that Parent’s supplemental services at her expense triggered such advancement. It should be noted, however, Parent’s total number of hours sought for was not supported by the record and as such, a determination on the merits including witnesses’ recollection and current needs for were considered.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, Parent is entitled to the following relief:
for the 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 school years consistent with such services defined as compensatory education as pled by Parent in the amount of and/or that amount substantiated by Parent for the aforementioned timeframe; pursuant to Dr. ’s recommendation totaling less any costs reimbursed by ’s private insurance; such that should have been provided during the years in issue equivalent to this Hearing Officer’s analysis of ’s needs totaling ( ) less the sessions Parent was able to provide herself. The provider of services need not be associated with any one corporation; totaling ( ).
Claims for Compensator and are denied
in the entirety. IHO I, 25. Although Parent argued that the DOE’s inactions resulted in an incomplete record relating to such, Parent did not seek an extension of time to complete her record.
Dated: November 3, 2016
ELLEN CUTLER IGOE, ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer ECI:
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.
EXHIBITS ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON NOVEMBER 19, 2014
Description Date Pages
DOE
1 DPC 06/23/2014 10
2 Due Process Response 11/06/2014 4
3 Evaluation 06/25/2012 3
4 Evaluation 06/22/2012 3
5 05/31/2012 1
6 IEP 06/26/2012 10
7 Final Notice of Recommendation 06/26/2012 1
8 IEP 03/07/2013 11
9 Report 02/05/2013 2
10 IEP-Revision 04/10/2013 11
11 IEP 09/27/2013 12
12 Report 2012-2013 6/2013 1
13 Report 2013-2014 6/2014 1
14 Letter to from Parent 08/05/2013 2
15 Recommendation Upon Declassification 3
(un-signed attendance sheet)
16 SESIS Events 3
Parent
A 2011 Correspondence between the Parent and DOE various 6
B NYC DOE 2008/2009 51
C NYC DOE IEP Manual undated 93
D Motion to Compel and Email Cover Sheet 09/29/2014 4
E 2012 Correspondence – Parent and DOE Various 26
F 05/24/2012 2
G DOE Email Correspondences 2012/2013 – re: Various 29
H DOE Email Correspondences 2013/2014 Various 21
I Consent 05/24/2013 1
J Proposed Amendment 2012 1
K 2013 IEP Meeting Notice 04/10/2013 5
L DOE Email Correspondence re: 2014/2015 28
M Omitted
N Evaluation 08/20/2015 20
09/02/2015
09/15/2015
O Parent Proof Payments Various 3
P Parent Payments Various 5
Q Parent Receipts Various 7
IHO
I Parent Closing Brief 06/24/2016 27
II DOE Closing Brief 06/24/2016 10
III Interim Order 01/20/2016 3