New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number:

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District: 3

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Date of Hearing: August 24, 2010

November 10, 2010

November 17, 2010

November 19, 2010

February 4, 2011

March 1, 2011

April 19, 2011

May 9, 2011

Hearing Officer: Susan C. Lushing, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED AUGUST 24, 2010

Attorney — Student

DOE Attorney — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED NOVEMBER 10, 2010

Attorney — Student

Parents

DOE Attorney — DOE

School Psychologist — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED NOVEMBER 17, 2010

Attorney — Student

Parents

DOE Attorney — DOE

School Psychologist — DOE

A.P. — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED NOVEMBER 19, 2010

Attorney — Student

Parents

at School — Student

Leader Teacher at School — Student

Attorney — DOE

Parent Coordinator — DOE

Classroom Teacher — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED FEBRUARY 4, 2011

Attorney — Student

Attorney — Student

Attorney — Student

Parents

Director of Placement, District (via telephone) — Student and Therapist (via telephone) — Student

DOE Attorney — DOE

Teacher, (via telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED MARCH 1, 2011

Attorney — Student

Parents

Educational Coordinator (via telephone) — Student

Teacher, (via telephone) — Student

Therapist, (via telephone) — Student

Department of Education Attorney — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED APRIL 19, 2011

Attorney — Student

Parents

ABA Supervisor (via telephone) — Student

DOE Attorney — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED MAY 9, 2011

Attorney — Student

Parents

Attorney — DOE

I was appointed as the Impartial Hearing Officer in this matter on July 14, 2010. The impartial hearing began on August 24, 2010 and continued on November 10, 17 and 19, 2010, February 4, March 1, April 19 and May 9, 2011. Esq. represented the Department of Education (DOE) and , Esq. represented the parent. The parent is request reimbursement for the tuition at ’s Center ( ) and for ABA services at home. The compliance date was extended a number of times with a final decision date of June 25, 2011.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S CASE

The DOE presented four witnesses and nine documents as DOE Exhibits 2 and 4-11 in support of its recommendations on the Individualized Education Program (IEP) of March 26, 2010; classification of and placement in a special education class in a specialized school with related services of and 5x30 and

3x30 . (Exh. C). A final notice dated June 22, 2010 offered at (Exh. F).

, school was present as the District representative and at the three-hour CSE meeting that was collaborative and professional. He also prepared a rationale, summarizing the meeting. (Exh. 2). Prior to the meeting he reviewed progress reports sent from and from the home providers at as well as a classroom observation and the student’s cumulative IEP file. The student, diagnosed with , faced very significant challenges in the area of communication. He was minimally vocal and had . His communication was largely with the aid of an assistive technology device. He was delayed in his motor functioning and academic skills and had in the past displayed - and mildly s though these had decreased significantly in the preceding 12 months. His academic management needs included prompting and refocusing and a broadening of his repertoire of objects and activities for frequent immediate reinforcement to keep him motivated. He required a multi-modality approach to integrate and control his responsiveness to the environment because he is - and -sensitive. In terms of his social , he is not yet initiating interaction with peers or adults. The team discussed his past s that included some instances of toward others and more significant incidents of stereotypic motor movements. Because it was reported that these interfering s had been the subject of past plans and had significantly decreased, it was not felt by those present at the IEP meeting, including the home therapist and personnel from , that a assessment ( and a intervention plan (BIP) was warranted at this time.

The goals on the IEP came from three sources and were reviewed at the meeting. Most originated from either as draft goals submitted with their progress reports or as updated goals faxed at the time of the meeting. There were also some goals generated at the meeting: for pragmatic and adaptive living skills such as dressing or buttoning. The goals of identifying letters and numbers reflect his level of pre-academic skills. As suggested by , the goals would be measured for 90% accuracy by learn units – the cuing of the and the response with reinforcements recorded. The team recommended a class in a specialized school with related services of and . Given the student’s issues and need for frequent reinforcement and prompting, this would provide a highly structured setting with individualized instruction in a school milieu for a student on the brink of being school-ready for academic and social reasons. The parent, and home providers requested continuation of his individualized and home-based programs but it was felt that given the reduction in his challenges, his current needs could be addressed within a school setting with peers with the provision of 5x30 and 3x30.

The parent asked for as much individualized instruction as possible and for continuation of the Applied al Analysis (ABA) methodology used by and

Methodology is not something listed on the IEP but is left up to the professionals at the placement. No one brought up the need to develop a specific transition plan to be included on the IEP. There was no discussion of adding a : paraprofessional. The provider and staff at a District school would be able to program and instruct in use of his technology device or could request additional help if necessary as his was not the complicated or unusual type of device that needs to be separately addressed with assistive technology services on the IEP. (Tr. at 49173,187-227).

Three witnesses testified about the proposed placement. is one of three assistant principals of which is located at five sites. Although on Street was listed on the final notice of recommendation, the student is too old for that site as it ends at grade, around age . When the parent contacted the site, he would have been told that his son would attend the main site of on where there are classes for students classified as emotionally and two classes for students with . In July 2010 this student with emerging skills at a to level would have been placed in the one existing class taught by . As for related services during the summer, there was a provider although not the usual one, possibly an but no psychologist on site. In September when the class assignments were reviewed with the arrival of new students, he would have moved to ’s class where the students were functioning.

In September there were students, ages - , in that class. In reading were functioning at the - level and to grade; in math all were at the

- level. students were verbal and the nonverbal student was wor with a device and iPad at home. Ms. received training and assistance from the D supervisor and from the device’s manufacturer. The school uses which is similar to ABA but is less data driven and involves less and more independent work. Both Ms. and have significant expertise in ABA. ally some of the students were cooperative, some oppositional and defiant. Every child has a treatment plan. If they come from another school, the teacher, guidance counselors and school psychologist prepare a Intervention Plan (BIP) during the first week of school. Although the ratio is , there is an extra paraprofessional assigned to the class who works with whichever student needs extra support. The school day begins with instructional breakfast which is -based and includes activities for daily living (ADL) skills and social interaction. There is a parent coordinator to provide ongoing training for parents. In September there were two therapists but no Therapy ( ) until a few weeks before the hearing of November 17, 2010. Students were given Related Services Authorization (RSA) letters to receive the services at home. (Tr. at 229-303).

, parent coordinator, creates about ten workshops per year on topics based on parents’ areas of interest, puts out a school newsletter and helps to facilitate the relationship between parent and school. She holds a parent breakfast at the beginning of the school year and reaches out as well by telephone although she does not provide training in the home. She also works with the assistant principal in charge of related services to secure contract providers, to disseminate RSA’s and to assist those parents receiving them to locate outside services. The school does not have difficulty meeting the students’ mandates but for the last few years and Therapy ( ) have been only partially serviced at the site. In the summer of 2010 the school had a and an provider. Currently there are two therapists and one provider who arrived in October. RSA’s were sent to parents for the unfulfilled mandates starting around October 25, 2010. (Tr. at 312-349).

has been trained in and is currently studying for certification in ABA at In July 2010 there were five students in her class, all between 11 and 14 and classified with . When a new student arrives, she reviews the IEP, observes him, communicates with the professionals who had worked with him before and then does informal and formal assessments such as and Depending on the child’s strengths and interests, she uses for a non-verbal child, modeling, positive reinforcement, repetition and visuals. The day is structured and includes functional groups for some lessons, independent work and : instruction. This student and one other were on a - level in reading and a level in math and he could have worked well in a dyad. The other students were at to grade levels in reading and math. There was one student who needed communication through Related service providers work with students in the classroom or do pullout services. They also collaborate with the teachers on how to reinforce and improve the learned skills.

The typical day includes instructional breakfast and lunch - always supervised by the teacher and paraprofessionals and with the participation of the therapist seven meals a week - where there is emphasis on communication, socialization, following directions and turn-ta . There is morning meeting and a schedule that besides academic skills includes writing in a journal, identifying emotions, socialization, coo and other ADL skills, yoga for flexibility, strength and integration and structured recess play. There are rotating classes for art, science, computers and adaptive gym. For this student’s - and s, she would assess why they occurred and then have a treatment plan to address them through avoidance and redirection. She would use redirecting to more appropriate activity, positive reinforcement and possibly equipment like a weighted vest, chewy toys or a basket. To aid in transition she would not make demands initially and would communicate with the parent so that to the extent possible, she could duplicate the child’s prior setting. (Tr. at 468-578). PARENT’S CASE:

The parent called nine witnesses and introduced 46 documents in evidence as Exhibits A-TT.

is the placement director for District She described the process when a referral form or IEP is received and the selection of a school and class nearest the student’s home that fits the recommendation and the child’s age and academic levels. The CAP form for this student was prepared on June 17, 2010 (Exh. 11 and Exh. NN) and placement offered at on June 22, 2010. The placement officer does not specifically determine whether a proposed site is an ABA site or can implement a student’s device. Her office has no discretion to add a paraprofessional to the IEP and it trusts an appropriate site to provide related services at the school or by RSA’s and to handle all the needs of the student, including transition. (Tr. at 581-617).

is the educational director of ,a -month special needs school using a model for children with ages to with a tuition of $ The teaching philosophy is applied analysis with collaboration between teachers and related service providers. For interfering s, there is first data collection and if necessary a functional assessment, followed by a team meeting to plan and implement strategy in a intervention plan. Goals and objectives are created for each student using the assessment in conjunction with the school’s criterionbased curriculum and NYS alternative standards. There are currently nine classrooms. It was decided to move this student from the class taught by Ms. to that of Ms. for two reasons. First he has the potential to learn from peer models and while there are some students similar in academic skills and the use of assistive technology, there are others who have more advanced skills and who communicate with . Second the new class provides a quieter environment with fewer students with challenging noisy s. There was a gradual transition plan to make him ready and comfortable with the schedule of a new class and his s remained at a level when he actually entered in September 2010.

Because of his needs, generalization issues and intensive needs, he requires an educational program with as the core component but with services beyond the school day. Otherwise the intensity of his unaddressed s is likely to result in serious injury and he will regress in his acquired skills as happened with toilet training. A class would not provide the level of prompting for and support for his disruptive and s unless there were someone with ABA skills to collect and analyze data and to provide and supervise a plan. This placement would impede his progress in mastering his IEP goals as well as interfere with his need to be taken to the bathroom every 15 minutes for toilet training. (Tr. at 669-745).

Two teachers from testified. has been the lead teacher in the student’s classroom since September 2010. There are six students, ages to , and six additional instructors, all with bachelor’s degrees, who rotate among the students during each day. of the students are nonverbal and use devices; are at the level in reading and math. When the student who has a hard time with a change in routine transitioned from his former class, it was expected there would be an increase in his maladaptive s. So during the summer the transition was phased in over weeks with his familiar instructor accompanying him to the new class. During 2009-2010 he had a plan in place, using procedure that required someone well trained in the field of ABA to implement it properly, with reinforcement for engaging in appropriate on-task for increasing time periods. This was successful in decreasing the interfering s to a manageable level though not in extinguishing them. The plan had to be re-implemented in October when there were problems due to an illness and changes in his routine and it succeeded within two weeks in again reducing s such as , his chin or glasses, staff, clearing materials off the table and objects. He uses a computerized device with buttons, similar to a but called a to communicate and training was provided to the teachers by the and therapists. The student needs after-school ABA support for consistency, structure and to promote retention and generalization of skills. Without such support, there would be an increase in maladaptive s and a loss in skills, especially over weekends and school breaks. The supervisor has visited to observe and coordinate and to discuss progress and transitions.

The student has made some progress academically in reading and math and can find and match the letters “A” and “B” and the number 1. He will use his device with less prompting and sometimes independently to make a request and participate in conversation. He has learned to tap someone’s shoulder for attention instead of . He can attend to group activities with the class and follow group instructions with his behind him to keep him focused. He will play board games with his instructor and wait for his turn. He continues to need instruction by someone with a background in ABA as he has no independent work skills and without constant redirection and prompting will wander around and pick things up from the floor and pull materials apart. There is also a safety reason for this close supervision as he lacks great awareness of his environment. He is receiving the maximum number of sessions of related services provides: 3x30 plus a session for students using devices and 2x30 . (Tr. at 351-432).

, his teacher at in 2009-2010, discussed the adverse effect on the student’s from even a minor change in his environment. She described the planning and implementation of a slow gradual transition with a aide over the course of a month to his new classroom. (Tr. at 747-756).

Three related service providers testified. , therapist at , has received training from her supervisor and the manufacturer about the springboard device the student uses throughout the school day. She and the home therapist coordinate their efforts and use prompt, a tactile kinesthetic method of giving cues with hands and fingers on the mouth, to facilitate sound production. Both last school year and this year, the student has periods of relative calm and periods of heightened agitation. He can go weeks or months before there is a spike in , chin and noncompliance. They have been wor on following one and two step directions, responding to yes/no questions, expanding his toy and leisure skill repertoire, sustaining attention longer, using instead of gestures, initiating and responding to greetings, improving his motor planning and sound production. There has been improvement, inconsistent in certain areas, in his use of the device to answer or initiate social interaction with adults but he has not yet used it with peers. (Tr. at 433-456).

was his former provider at and currently works with him 1x30 in the home for $ per session. She coordinates with the provider to address the same goals involving his severe , and pragmatic deficits and his motor- issues. Since July 2010 he has made progress at a rate of acquisition and with much repetition. He is better able to navigate his springboard device and is starting to use it without prompting. Sometimes his i.e, hand and pic at things, or - s, will interfere with his attention to the task at hand and they have to take a break for a calming activity. She is in constant contact with through the home log and with his ABA home therapist so there is consistency in the al interventions. (Tr. at 619-661).

since September 2010 has provided to the student at 2x30 in the fine motor room, therapy gym and classroom. The classroom staff attends one session in order to carry on the work in the classroom; they provide him with breaks throughout the day. The student’s limited ability to regulate his system, limited attention span and high levels interfere with his completion of fine and gross motor activities. He has improved his ability to sit at a table for a longer time when given tactile input, to control his prewriting skills and to be engaged. She was aided initially by the staff who were aware of and had strategies for his high levels of stereotypy and some s. (Tr. at 757-767).

is currently the supervisor for the -week home ABA program supplied by four therapists. She runs clinic meetings for all his therapists to review and modify his program, coordinates with to promote consistency and instructs the parent and nannies on management strategies and on how to implement the programs being used to teach skills. The student has intensive needs and challenging s such as short attention span, impulsivity and self-stimulation as well as a severe difficulty with producing vocal sounds. His primary mode of communication is through a device that s. He has learned to request new things that are motivating to him and she has updated the pictures on the communication device to generalize to the iPad and iPod. He needs direction to stay on as he cannot activity for a period of . So while he can do many activities of daily living independently such as , brushing, table , he needs someone in proximity to prevent . He needs attention and structure to be proactively taught new play skills and then to be redirected if he engages in s that are automatically reinforcing like his hands or jumping up and down. When or in discomfort, he displays , chin pushing or .

Since July 2010 he has made progress in using his device with less prompting to tell what he wants, acquiring play skills, following a play schedule and in terms of his . The four therapists are currently providing 19 hours per week at home including weekends and evenings. Four extra hours were added specifically to work on some of the self-help living skills that are part of his night routine to increase his independence and to help his care givers structure activities for him on weekends during free time so as to prevent regression before he returns to school on Monday. They have started to do more natural environment teaching of safety skills and proper in the community such as when visiting a store, crossing the street, going to the park or riding a scooter on the street.

She went with the father to visit the proposed placement when school was not in session. The classrooms were small, they did not use ABA and there was limited teaching, some of it done by aides who would not receive the needed training from the DOE to work with this student. The program uses visual schedules to transition from different locations rather than direct instruction and immediate redirection. This student then is likely to engage in self-stimulatory and be until it would be very to get him back on task. To change schools successfully, he would need a transition plan that would assist the new educators to follow his successful plan. He would also need assistance and practice in traveling to a new school. Ms. provides four hours per week at $ per hour. The other ABA providers range from $ per hour to $ with teaching certification. (Tr. at 783-860).

The father attended the CSE meeting on March 26, 2010 and asked for continuation of the instruction in school and at home that had been effective in reducing if not eliminating his son’s interfering ’s but at the end of the meeting he was told the recommendation would be a program. When he got the final notice, he tried calling and finally went to the address on where he was told it would be the site on It was just after the school year ended when he went there with Ms. . They met with the assistant principal and had a tour of the empty building. He then wrote a letter giving his reasons for rejecting the placement as inappropriate: inadequate supervision and support for safety and , shortage of instruction time, reliance on (Exh. E). The tuition at monthly is $ for a total of $ from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011. (Exh. V). He has noticed improvements since July 2010 in better management of interfering s, in his son’s willingness to socialize in class and to spontaneously greet others, in his which has become clearer and louder and his more fluid and spontaneous use of his device to express emotions. An ABA therapist currently comes each weekday for 2-3 hours and on weekends for 3-4 hours for a total of 19 hours per week. (Tr. at 863-893).

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

A Board of Education may be required to reimburse a parent for costs if the placement and/or services offered by the Board are inappropriate, the services selected by the parent are appropriate and equitable considerations support the parent’s claim. School Committee of Burlington v Department of Education of Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985), Florence County School District Four v Carter by Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993).

Turning to prong 1, the IEP meeting on March 26, 2010 was lengthy, had a large complement of participants and resulted in detailed goals and objectives. As the SRO has so often said, an appropriate educational program begins with an IEP which accurately reflects the evaluations to identify the student’s needs, establishes annual goals and shortterm instructional objectives related to those needs and provides for the use of appropriate special education services. (Appeal No. 02-014, Appeal No. 04-058). The DOE bears the burden to prove the IEP process was procedurally and substantively in compliance with the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and provides the student with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) .

The DOE did no evaluations or observations of the student in preparation for the IEP meeting and relied completely on the written reports of his teacher and providers from and (Exh. 4-8 and 10) as well as on their comments at the meeting. These providers and the parent urged continuation of existing arrangements, i.e., teaching supplemented by home ABA services. The DOE members instead recommended a class with a generous amount of related services but with no other support. While this student has substantial deficits in , socialization and academic areas, the predicate for a program to be reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit is one that will manage and decrease his interfering s. These were described by multiple witnesses as self-stimulatory movements such as hand and manipulating objects, and , actions such as chin and occasional towards adults. A key issue at the hearing is the educational impact of these s, i.e., their frequency and duration, at the time of the IEP meeting in March 2010.

In support of the placement, Mr. referenced various reports from prepared in December 2009 that document progress and suggests elimination of certain s. [When he feels comfortable with new adults’] he will sit during instruction and comply with all directions.” (Teacher Report Exh. 4-3). “In addition his s have improved drastically. [The student] now sits appropriately during individual and group instructions.” (Teacher Report Exh. 5-3). Ms. also noted in her report that through the use of a plan and a timer, the intervals between instances of to himself and others had been lengthened, with some setbacks, to as long as five days as of the date of the report. These reports were not uniform however and indicate that these s were not extinguished but rather inconsistent. At the same time the provider wrote: “[His] ability to sustain attention to tasks is impacted by his impulsivity and stereotypy.” (Exh. 6-2). I agree with the parent that the IEP team significantly and fatally understated the student’s educational needs and overstated his progress.

Moreover the CSE had no rational basis for deciding that the student’s progress was divorced from the intensive instruction using ABA techniques that he had been receiving and hence that progress was likely to be achieved in the less supportive setting with unknown modalities. It is true that there is a commonality in both settings in the use of multi-materials, prompting and redirection, repetition and motivating reinforcers. It is also true that the proposed class had a second paraprofessional for a ratio of and that the classroom teachers had familiarity with ABA. However this was not known to nor played a part in the CSE’s decision and hence is irrelevant to the appropriateness of its recommendation.

The CSE favored a school setting, an understandable and not unreasonable choice for a year old student, but it gave insufficient weight to this student’s prior educational history in a full-time intensive setting, past severe interfering s and to safety concerns. It failed to make appropriate adjustments to the standard placement such as a paraprofessional or continuation of the home ABA therapy for transition purposes. In isolation in terms of academic instruction and related services, the placement at may well be appropriate but without sufficient support and supervision to be proactive in managing interfering s, there was a significant risk of regression. Regardless of the qualifications of the teacher and the characteristics of the students, a placement did not provide “special education and related services tailored to meet the unique needs of a particular child, and be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.” Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 122 (2d Cir. 1998). Hence I find that the DOE did not provide a FAPE for this student for the 2010-2011 school year.

I note that the parent raised other issues under prong 1, none of which I find amount to a denial of FAPE. The absence of a parent member was not a serious deficiency as the parent was knowledgeable about the IEP process and had the assistance and support of personnel. The IEP did not include a FBA and a BIP; however there was a successful one available from and the school personnel testified that one would have been done promptly had the student attended Similarly the school rather than the CSE would have a better understanding of resources and would have been better suited to consult with the parent to draft a transition plan. The student’s communicative device was not so complicated and unusual that it had to be separately referenced for services on the IEP. The method used by the DOE to select a placement site is not relevant to the hearing, only the appropriateness of the ultimate choice. The use of RSA’s for related services, in past years or the current school year, does not in itself make the placement inappropriate.

Turning to prong 2, I find that the parent has proved that “provides education instruction specifically designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child.” Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist, 489 F.3d 105, 115 (2d Cir. 2007). He is in a class of six students and seven adults. He gets attention throughout the school day from all six of the teacher aides to promote generalization. He receives related services, 3x30 and 2x30, although in lesser quantities than recommended on the IEP. As described by the parent and providers, he has made progress in communication, and above all . The intervention has been reduced in its intrusiveness as he has increased his ability to attend to group instruction, to work in a dyad and to do some things independently. He has detailed academic goals for reading, writing and math as well as goals in the communication, / , health and organization areas.

The DOE argues that cannot be appropriate since the parent is requesting a substantial number of hours of outside services. The parent has proved that as the student is severely affected by , he requires an program that extends beyond the school day, on weekends and weeks a year. The IDEA primarily requires individualization of services to reflect the needs of the specific student. This student has intense needs and I find that 19 hours of ABA services plus four hours for supervision and parent training are appropriate, in conjunction with his program at during the school day, to promote generalization and prevent regression. In addition he should receive the additional and session to address his and to program his communication device. Hence I find that the parent has satisfied prong 2.

Finally as to the equities, I find that the parent has been cooperative with the CSE throughout the IEP process: attending the IEP meeting, providing prompt notice and visiting the proposed placement as soon as was practicable. Therefore on this record I find no equitable impediment under Burlington and Carter to bar the parent’s request.

THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that the DOE shall reimburse the parent

1) for any tuition costs at for the 2010-2011 school year to the maximum amount of $

2) for up to 19 hours of direct ABA services per week at a maximum of $ per hour, 2 hours of supervision at $ per hour and 2 hours of parent training;

3) for one 30-minute session of per week at $ per session. Dated: June 15, 2011

SUSAN C. LUSHING, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

SCL:gc

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

Within 35 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the 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 DESCRIPTION

A Demand for Due Process and Fax Confirmation, 7/14/10, 10 pgs. B Finding of Facts and Decision Corrected- IHO , 5/8/09, 21 pages C BOE IEP, dated 3-26-10, 24 pages D DOE Due Process Response, , Paralegal dated, 7-12-10,

5 pages E Letter to Region 10 w/Fax Confirmation, dated 7-1-10, 2 pages F Final Notice of Recommendation, dated 6-22-10, 1 page G Special Education Service Delivery Report, 04M102 (P>S. Jacques Cartier)

4/30/10, 5/20/09, 04/30/08, 3 pages H Quarterly Report from the Center for and Related Disorders,

By , M.A., M.S., , M.S. dated 10-11-10, 8 pages I Educational Progress Report, The s Center By: , M.A., B.C.B.A, dated August 2010, 4 pages J Therapy Progress Report, The s Center, By: , OTR/L dated 8-6-10, 2 pages K Progress Update, The s Center, By: M.S., CCC/SLP, dated 8-3-10, 2 pages L Quarterly Report, Center for and Related Disorders, Inc., By: , M.A., M.S., , dated 7-15-10, 6 pages M Educational Progress Report, The s Center, By: , M.A., B.C.B.A., dated 5-4-10, 4 pages N Appointment Letter for CSE Review, dated 3-11-10, 1 page O Notice of CSE Review Meeting, dated 3-10-10, 1 page P Therapy Progress Report, The s Center, By: , OTR/L dated 8-5-09, 3 pages Q Progress Update, The s Center, By: , M.S., CCC/SLP dated 8-5-09, 2 pages R Educational Progress Report, The s Center, By , M.A., B.C.B.A., dated 8-3-09, 3 pages S Classroom Observation DOE, By , dated 1-12-10, 3 pages T Attendance Record, The s Center 2010, 2 pages U Providers Affidavit of Services by , '10-'11 school year, 3 pages V School Affidavit, The s Center, 10-'11 school year, 1 page W Subpoena Duces Tecum w/Fax Confirmation, dated 11-1-10, 9 pages X Paraprofessional Qualifications, undated, 2 pages Y Organizational Directory, DOE District 04M102 (P.s. )

dated September 09/2009, 3 pages BB Progress Update, By , 11/9/10, 2 pages CC Related Service Status Information for School Age Students in Public School,

11/16/10, 1 page DD . and . Staff Organization, 7 pages GG Subpoena to 11/10/10, 4 pages HH District Placement Office Referral Form (Blank), 1 page II Therapy Progress Report, The s Center By: , OTR/L 12/10/10, 2 pages JJ Classroom Observation, NYCDOE, By: , School Psychologist,

M.S.Ed., 12/8/10, 2 pages KK Education Progress Report, the s Center By: , MA, BCBA,

12/6/10, 4 pages LL Progress Report, The s Center, By: , M.S., CCC/SLP,

12/1/10,2 pages MM Invoices and Canceled Checks, Center for and Related Disorders, Inc.

2010/2011,^[4] pages NN CAP form, 6/17/10,^[2] pages OO Invoices, 10/11 school year, 12 pages PP Methodologies, 3 pages QQ ABA Methodologies, 3 pages RR E-1 Request Form (blank) SS Invoices, 10-11 12 pages TT Data Analysis Graph, 33 pages

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DESCRIPTION

5 Progress Report, dated 12-17-09, 3 pages 6 Progress Report, dated 12-23-09, 2 pages 7 Progress Report, dated 12-21-09, 3 pages 8 and Progress, dated 12-29-09, 1 page 9 - dated 4-1-08, 2 pages 10 Report for CSE Meeting, dated 3-22-09, 7 pages 11 District Placement Referral Form, dated 3-26-10, 1 page

HEARING OFFICER DESCRIPTION

I Parent Brief dated, 5/18/11, 31 pages

Footnotes

[2] Rationale, dated 3/26/10, 3 pages

[4] Teacher Report, dated 12-21-09, 4 pages