New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 160679

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District:

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Date of Hearing: September 20, 2016

Actual Record Closed Date: October 24, 2016

Hearing Officer: Elise Kestenbaum, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED SEPTEMBER 20, 2016

Advocate — Student

Parents

Dr. (via telephone) — Student

Dr. DOE Representative — DOE

District Representative — DOE

Introduction: — DOE

This case was brought before me upon my designation by the Department of Education (“District”) as an impartial hearing officer pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Act (“IDEA”), 29 USC §1400 [f][1] and Part 200 of the Regulations of the New York State Commissioner of Education. This matter was brought by , the Parent (“Parent”) on behalf of , the student (“Student”), through her advocate,

,by filing a Due Process Complaint dated June 6, 2016 with the

District

The Parent is alleging that her son, , was denied a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the 2016-17school year and is seeking and payment for the evaluation that was conducted.

There was one (1) day of hearing in this matter. A hearing was conducted on September 20, 2016. Extensions were granted in this case making the final compliance date October 31, 2016. 1A list of Exhibits is attached as Exhibit A. The Parent, the District and the Impartial Hearing Officer all submitted exhibits.

Background

This case involved an student. During the 2016-17school year, attended where the Student was unilaterally placed by the Parent.

With respect to the 2015-16 school year, an Individualized Education Services Program (“IESP”) was developed on May 19, 2016. Pursuant to the May 19thIESP, the following recommendations were made:

1.

;

2.

;

3. ; and

1 The Parties moved to extend the compliance date in this matter several times during the course of the hearing. In considering these requests, I weighed the cumulative impact of the relevant factors and found that the requests were in accordance with the requirements of due process. Accordingly requests for extensions of the case compliance date were granted. IHO-II.

4. .

The Parent sent a letter dated February 1, 2016 advising the District that she was taking to a on September 11, 2016 to evaluate his and that as soon as she received the testing results, she would forward them to the District. D-11. Pursuant to a Prior Written Notice dated February 12, 2016, the Parent requested that the CSE provide reimbursement for a evaluation.

In it Prior Written Notice dated

February 12, 2016, the District indicated that “

”. D-10.

The Parent filed a Due Process Complaint on June 6, 2016. P-A. I was appointed as an Impartial Hearing Officer at that time.

Position of the Parties

District’s Case

The District called one (1) witness, ,and placed eleven (11)

documents in evidence. D-1 – D-11.

The witness for the District was . She is the for the New York City Department of Education at and is a New York State certified . Tr. 30. She has conducted multiple reviews for over the past two years. Tr. 31. She was in attendance at his IESP meeting on May 19, 2016. She testified that ’s parents requested a evaluation and . After reviewing the case, she determined that he would benefit from based on the information provided by the Parent. Therefore, they conducted an evaluation and evaluation and then had an IEP meeting to review the information. Tr. 31-32; D-4; D-5.

The IEP meeting was postponed the first time due to the fact that the report was not completed, however, it was then held on May 19, 2016. Tr. 34.

The parties that attended the meeting on May 19 2016 included: Ms. , special education teacher from the District; Ms. , general education teacher; Parent; and

Ms. , and District representative. At first, Ms. testified that the District attempted to reach out to the general education teacher from the private school but she was not available and the Parent wanted to go forward without her, however, later on she was reminded that the general education teacher was present. Tr. 38. They suggested, at the CSE meeting, that the Parent contact the that did the evaluation but the Parent declined. Tr. 35. The Evaluation (D-5), the (D-4) and the ’s Report (D-3) were all reviewed at the IESP meeting. Tr. 36. Ms. stated that has difficulty with not . Tr. 38. Based upon the testing, ’s abilities lie in the . Tr. 39. She indicated that since , it is surprising

. Tr. 40. In fact, he is classified with a

. Tr. 40. In terms of the Report, had

. He also

. Tr. 41. Based upon what the Parent was saying and the referral, there was concern about and and Ms. believed these issues could be addressed by an . Tr. 41.

Before the IESP meeting in May 2016, was recommended to receive and , however, he was not receiving those services consistently. Tr. 42. The Parent told Ms. she was giving and declined the service because she was not thrilled with the provider at school and

. Tr. 42. Ms.

testified that she believed that the

. Tr. 42. Although was on his IESP, he received it for from a provider of a friend and then the provider had no room in her schedule. Tr. 43. For the 2015-16 school year, he was recommended to receive and . Tr. 48; IHO-I. For the 2016-17 school year, was increased and was added. Tr. 48.

Ms. testified that she is familiar with because she has had students evaluated for it and students who received it. Tr. 48. She also ndicated that she once gave on an IEP. Tr. 49. She also stated that she has received reports from Dr. many times. Tr. 49. The report was reviewed at the meeting. The Parent indicated that Dr. explained to her why it was necessary and it was too expensive for her to continue paying out of pocket and it was something she thought might help with . Tr. 49. The mandate in the report was for . Tr. 51.

Ms. testified that she reviewed the report at the CSE meeting and although it says that an cannot provide , an can address . Tr. 52. Ms.

believed that the issues raised on the report were vague and did not address anything relating to academics. The goals dealt with his and . Tr. 53. No one disagreed with these goals at the meeting. Tr.

53.

In terms of , Ms. testified that and the CSE increased because it has consistently been shown through assessments that . Tr. 54. She further testified that

. He’s

. Tr. 54.

Ms. believes that has a that is but more importantly, he . Based on testing,

. Tr. 55. Ms.

stated that “

”. Tr. 55. The report actually

indicated that he made gains in , however, he only saw the provider for a few weeks. Tr. 56. Ms. stated that in the agenda, it says that in the providers written report that requires , and that the services ended in March due to the Parent’s decision. Tr. 57; D-8.

On cross examination, Ms. testified that the ’s report and the ’s report were not consistent. Based upon the ’s report, his .

Tr. 60. Dr. also stated that

. Tr. 61. Ms. testified that

. Tr. 61. In the

Report, Ms. stated that it said

. Tr. 62; D-5. It also says that

;

. Tr. 63. In the IEP, Ms. testified that h

was dealt with in the IESP. It specifically stated in the goals section that

. Tr. 64.

Ms. testified that it took 45 days to find a provider to do the evaluation and they are given 60 school days from the date of the request for a re-evaluation. Ms. believed the request was within a couple of days of the February 12th

Prior Written Notice. She indicated that the meeting was supposed to take place on April 14, 2016, however, the evaluation was not finished so they had the IESP meeting in May. The only reason the Student was not receiving services during this time period was because the Parent declined the services and didn’t want to utilize them.

Tr. 68.

Parent’s Case

The Parent called two (2) witnesses, and placed one (1) document in evidence. P

– A.

The first witness was the Parent. The Parent stated that she asked for a evaluation”

”. She also stated they still felt and the

, based on a test, indicated

. Tr. 70. She stated that she faxed a letter dated February 2, 2016 to the District and received a denial and then was told they were re-opening the case and doing their own testing. Tr. 70. She stated that she wanted to start the services immediately and decided to go forward and not wait for the meeting. Tr. 71. The first meeting was scheduled for April 19, 2016 and due to the distance and child care, she asked that . She stated that she understood that they needed to push off ’s meeting and tried to be as accommodating as possible.

Tr. 72. The Meeting Notice (D-6) indicated that an IEP meeting must take place no later than April 2nd. Tr. 74; D-6. Prior to this happening, however, she did request that be conducted on April 14, 2016. Tr. 75.

The meeting did not take place for on April 14, 2016 because the report was not complete. Tr. 76. When the meeting took place, she felt Ms. and Ms.

focused on and , not . Tr. 77. She stated that they based this on the fact that the provider wrote that . Tr. 77. She said that instead of focusing on , they focused on which no teacher ever complained about. Tr. 77.

The Parent testified that the Student received services from the end of November through March . She stated that the teacher’s schedule became too full and she could no longer accommodate the Student. Tr. 78.

They never found a provider after this; this provider was a . Tr.

77. The Parent testified that she doesn’t have a provider presently, but is still in the process of trying to find one. Tr. 80. The Parent testified that he got in 2014-

15, but not in 2015-16. Tr. 81. The in the school is in her first year out of college and completely unqualified to deal with her son’s issues. She also felt that , when he was already getting , which was specifically focusing on , was not to his benefit. Tr. 81. She asked for an RSA for and the District declined. Tr. 82. She said she had to call the agency to have the case released before she could go to the District and they refused to release him. They said she had no right to refuse and

. Tr. 82. .

Tr. 83. She stated that on the IESP for 2015-16 it indicates that his issues on the and that he does not have . IHO-I; Tr. 84.

The Parent indicated that he does have but the question is . Tr. 85. The Parent stated that she is fighting for based upon what the said .Also she indicated that the provider indicated that and , or . Tr. 86. The Parent also testified that based upon the evaluation that (“

”).

. Tr. 87. The

Parent testified that she has begun with Tr. 88. The Parent testified that she asked an whether in her practice she could deal with and she stated that an would have to be trained in the same thing that a would be train to do, and that this was not the case. Tr.

90. did from February through May and has not started up for this year yet. Tr. 97.

The Parent stated on cross examination that she wanted to keep because she felt that the average provider was more qualified to deal with than the average provider. Tr. 97. At the IESP meeting, the Parent agreed to the related services offered. Tr. 98.

The last witness was Dr. . She is a and she does evaluations as well as , mostly for children who have issues with . Tr. 101. She deals with and they work hand in hand together. She stated that a looks at and .

Tr. 102. She is familiar with , evaluated him and started to provide him with . Tr. 106. She testified that . This means that . Tr. 106. He also has

and

. Tr. 108. They have for and .

.

. In addition, he also had

. With respect to the fact that , he

. Tr. 110. In ’s case, she noticed

that . She stated that and

. Tr. 110.

With respect to the , Dr. said that

. D-3; Tr. 112. She stated that

. Tr. 116. She did, however, say that

. Tr. 111.

In terms of discussing the differences between a and an , a has much more training in terms of from an . Tr.

113. An deals with

. Tr. 113. A deals with t

.

cannot . cannot

as can . Tr. 115. Dr. said she like

working with but some are more amenable to than others. Tr. 114.

In Dr. ’s opinion, needs . She believes he will need if and . Tr. 119. Dr.

indicated that she saw him for last year from February through May 2015. She also ,

.

. Tr. 121-122. It also helped with . Tr. 122.

. Tr. 123. She said that you need

the .

Although there was a difference in the results of the on and the , she said that she would have to see the results to figure out why . She also was made aware that and she indicated that but . Tr. 126. Dr. felt that the way was measured by the was not proper since and it’s not sustainable since it’s done in very quick testing. Tr. 130. Although an can , they cannot do it in the way a can because they lack the training. Tr. 131. Dr. believes the goal on the IESP which stated “ ” is not something an can do because she doesn’t see what they will be using to measure this since . Tr. 132. Another goal on the IESP was that . Dr. stated that together with an , this would be something they can work on together. Tr. 133. In terms of this is something a provider can do provided . Tr. 135. Dr. testified that the cost of the evaluation was .

Findings

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 individual 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.

1499[D][1][A]-[B]; see generally, Forest Grove v. T.A., 129 S. Ct. 2484, 2491 [2009]; Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 [1982]).

The purpose of the IDEA is to ensure that all children with disabilities have available a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) which addresses their unique special education needs and to ensure that their rights and the rights of Parents are protected. 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]). 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., 553 F3d 165, 172 [2d Cir. 2009]; Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent.

Sch. Dist., 346 F3d 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, 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 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]; Winkleman v. Parma CitySch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 525-26 [2007]; A.H. v. Dep’t of Educ., 2010 WL 3242234, at *2 [2dCir. Aug. 16, 2010]; 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]).

A school district offers 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 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, P. v.

Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 118-19 [2d Cir. 2008]; Perricelli, 20007 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 student’s recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (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; E.G. v. City Sch. Dist. Of New Rochelle, 606 F. Supp. 2d 384, 388 [S.D.N.Y. 2009]; Patskin v. Bd. Of Educ., 583 F. Supp. 2d 422, 428 [W.D.N.Y. 2008]).

An appropriate education begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the students’ needs (34 CFR 300.320[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]; Tarlowe v. Dep’t of Educ., 2008 WL 2736027, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2008), establishes annual goals related to those needs (34 CFR 300.320[a][2]; 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]; see Application of the Dep’t of Educ., Appeal No. 07-018; Application of a Childwith 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).

The New York State Legislature amended the Education Law to place the burden of production and persuasion upon the school district during an impartial hearing except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of production and persuasion regarding the appropriateness of such placement (Educ. Law §4404[1][c], as amended by Ch. 583 of the Laws of 2007).

First, the Parent alleges that the District did not comply with the procedural requirements of the IDEA. The Parent is specifically asserting that the IESP meeting for the 2016-17 school year was not timely held. Specifically, the Parent asked for a evaluation due to the Student’s issues with in February 2016..

Based upon these issues and Parent’s request, the District requested that the CSE complete a full battery of assessments including a evaluation and an evaluation in order to develop an appropriate IESP. The Parent consented to these evaluations ad a evaluation was conducted on March 2, 2016 (D-4) and an evaluation was conducted on April 1, 2016. Although the IEP Meeting Notice form indicated that the CSE meeting was supposed to take place on April 2, 2016, the Parent asked that the meeting be postponed so that . Accordingly, the IESP meeting was scheduled to take place on April 14, 2016.

Therefore, although the Notice indicated a required date of April 2nd, by asking for a postponement, the Parent waived the requirement. As of April 14th , however, the report had not been issued. Accordingly, the parties agreed to adjourn that meeting date to give the time to complete the report so that it could be used at the IESP meeting. The meeting then took place on May 19, 2016. Based on the foregoing, the parties consented to the adjournment of the meetings, and there was no procedural violations.

Substantively, I have reviewed all of the testimonial and documentary evidence in this matter. Clearly the central issue is whether the District provided the child with FAPE.

The Parent is challenging the Student’s IESP based on their decision not to provide . The Parent indicated in her Due Process Complaint dated June 6, 2016 (P-A) that the Student was given an IESP by the District due to .

On his May 19, 2016, IESP (D-9), his teacher stated that , , and . On the IESP, it states that ,

.

. Under , it states that

“

” D-9.

As a result of the evaluation conducted on March 2, 2016 (D-

4),

. Based upon the testimony of Ms. , , but

. Tr. 38. Ms. attributed this to

. I credit Ms. ’s

testimony. She testified that she has conducted multiple reviews of the Student over the past two years. Tr. 31. In this regard, Ms. stated that “ .” Tr. 54. She further indicated that . She stated that “

. Tr. 55.

The CSE, on the IESP for the 2015-16 school year (IHO-I), stated that “ .” In this regard, he was provided with ( ),

; and

, , . Both the Parent and Ms.

testified that the Parent declined during the 2015-16 school year and has not received to date for the 2016-17 school year. Although

, and

, the Parent refused the service in school, and, as a result, the Student was not receiving his mandated services. I do not credit the testimony of the Parent that the in the school was not qualified to handle the Student’s issues. In addition, the Parent received for a period of time during the 2015-16 school year, but not throughout the year. In fact, it ended in March, and although he made progress at that time, he has not received between last March and at any time during the beginning of the 2016-17 school year. Due to his , was recommended to receive additional time this year, however, has not again been receiving any in school. I credit Ms. ’s testimony that when the Student was receiving he was making progress and the is necessary for him to receive academic benefit since and the addition of will help .

With respect to the evaluation and report (D-3), it is true that there is a discrepancy between some of the findings in Dr. ’s report and the ’s report (D-5) . However, it is clear that both parties believed

. Although the and disagreed as to whether or not there is , I believe that the can meet the Student’s goals on the IESP related to this and that the related services that are on the IESP and mandated for the Student will provided academic benefit and that IESP provides the Student with FAPE.

Although additional services and are always helpful, I believe that the May 19th

IESP is appropriate to meet this Student’s needs and provide him with educational benefit. The IDEA guarantees an "appropriate" education, "not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents" (Tucker, 873 F.2d at 567

[internal quotation omitted]; see Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132).

The Parent also requested that the Parent be reimbursed for the cost of the evaluation conducted by the private , Independent Educational Evaluations (IEEs ) 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]).

Once the parent has requested an IEE at public expense, the district must, "without unnecessary delay," either provide an IEE at public expense or file a due process complaint notice to defend its evaluation as appropriate at an impartial hearing (34 CFR

300.502[b][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[g][1]; see C.W. v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., 2012 WL 3217696, at *6 [C.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2012] [finding that a request for an impartial hearing made 41 days after the parental request for an IEE did not constitute an unnecessary delay]; see also Letter to Anonymous, 56 IDELR 175 [OSEP 2010] [stating that the phrase "without unnecessary delay" permits school districts "a reasonably flexible, though normally brief, period of time that could accommodate good faith discussions and negotiations between the parties over the need for, and arrangements for, an IEE"]). If the school district's evaluation is determined to be appropriate by an IHO, the parent may still obtain an IEE, although not at public expense (34 CFR 300.502[b][3]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[g][1][v]). However, both federal and State regulations provide that "[a]

parent is entitled to only one [IEE] at public expense each time the public agency conducts an evaluation with which the parent disagrees" (34 CFR 300.502[b][5]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[g][1]).

In the instant matter, the Parent first stated in a letter dated February 1, 2016 that

“

” This did

not appear to be a request for an IEE, however, following this, on February 12, 2016, the District sent a Prior Written Notice to the Parent.D-10. In that Notice it stated that “ .” D-10. In explaining their reason for not conducting an evaluation they indicated that the assessment was unnecessary and that the and/or assessments will provide the CSE with sufficient data to write an IESP. Since the District did not provide for an IEE at public expense or bring a due process complaint, both in a timely manner, they are responsible at this point to pay for the cost of the evaluation. Dr. testified that the cost of the evaluation was . Tr. 129.

Based upon the foregoing, I find that the District provided FAPE to for the 2016-2017 school year and that services are not appropriate at this time.

The District shall , however, reimburse the Parent for the cost of the evaluation and report dated February 11, 2016 in an amount not to exceed , upon presentation of a bill and proof of payment by the Parent.

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED, that:

The District shall reimburse the Parent for the cost of the evaluation and report dated February 11, 2016 upon presentation of a bill and proof of payment in an amount not to exceed .

All other matters shall be dismissed at this time.

Dated: October 31, 2016

ELISE B. KESTENBAUM, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer EK:

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

Parent Exhibits

No. Date Document Pages

A. 6/6/2016 Impartial Hearing Request 2

Impartial Hearing Officer’s Exhibits

No. Date Document Pages

I. 2/24/2015 IESP 7

II. 1/23/2015 Notice of Appearance 1

III. Misc. dates Compliance Decisions 2

District Exhibits

No. Date Document Pages

1. misc. dates SEISIS Events 3

2. 9/18/2015 Notice of Intent to Parentally Place 1

3. 2/11/2016 Report 13

4. 3/2/2016 Report 7

5. 4/1/2016 Report 10

6. 4/6/2016 IEP Meeting Notice 3

7. 5/6/2016 IEP Meeting Notice 3

8. 5/19/2016 IEP Meeting Agenda 5

9. 5/19/2016 IEP 9

10. 2/12/2016 Prior Written Notice 3

11. 2/1/2016 Request for Re-Evaluation 1

Impartial Hearing Officer’s Exhibits

No. Date Document Pages

I. 2/14/2016 Subpoena 1

II. misc. dates Compliance Decisions