New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: Student‟s Name: Date of Birth: District: 22 Hearing Requested By: Parent Date of Hearing: December 22, 2010

February 16, 2011

March 16, 2011

March 21, 2011

May 6, 2011

June 23, 2011

July 12, 2011 Hearing Officer: Jean Marie Brescia, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED DECEMBER 22, 2010

Advocate — Student

Parents

Committee on Education Representative — DOE

Committee on Education Teacher — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED FEBRUARY 16, 2011

Advocate — Student

NONE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED MARCH 16, 2011

Advocate — Student

Parents

Committee on Education Representative — DOE

Classroom Teacher — DOE

School Psychologist — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED MARCH 21, 2011

Advocate — Student

Therapist — Student

Therapist — Student

Committee on Education Representative — DOE

— DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED MAY 6, 2011

Teacher — Student

Advocate — Student

Parents

Committee on Education Representative — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JUNE 23, 2011

Advocate — Student

Teacher — Student

Parents

Psychologist — Student

Committee on Education Representative — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JULY 12, 2011

Advocate — Student

Committee on Education Representative — DOE

— DOE

On September 9, 2010, I was designated as impartial hearing officer, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §1415(f), in the matter of .^[1] The parent requested the hearing on September 3 (1) to challenge the alleged failure of the Committee on Education for District 22 (the “CSE”) to provide with a free appropriate public education for the 2010-2011 school year and (2) to seek reimbursement for tuition expenses at the Center. The hearing commenced on December 22, 2010 and was continued on February 16, March 16, March 21, May 6, June 22, June 23, and July 12, 2011.

The district representative subsequently assigned by the Department to this proceeding was unavailable for the initially scheduled hearing date of November 10. The compliance date for the submission of this written decision was therefore extended to December 5 and January 4 in order for the school district‟s and the parents‟ witnesses to be available. The compliance date was then extended to February 3 and March 5 to accommodate school closures due to inclement winter weather. In February, the district representative was involved in an automobile accident (trans. 76-77). As a result the compliance date was extended to April 4. The compliance date was subsequently extended to May 4 in order to accommodate the parent‟s religious observances and then to June 3 due to a personal emergency of the parent‟s advocate. The compliance date was extended finally to July 2 and August 2 in order to permit the remainder of the parent‟s witnesses to be available to testify.^[2] The record closed on July 12 after the parties‟ representatives presented closing statements. Appended to the record are the names of the persons who appeared at the hearing and a list of the documents entered into evidence.

is an year-old boy who attends the Center in Brooklyn. His disability is classified, for the purposes of the IDEA, as disabled.

This classification is not in dispute. has been diagnosed with and (Department Ex. 3). His cognitive functioning and adaptive functioning are low, and he has also been recently diagnosed with an spectrum disorder. The School District‟s Case , a certified education teacher employed by the Department of Education, testified that she was the teacher “assigned” to CSE Region 6 in Brooklyn where she participates in CSE reviews (trans. 18-19). Ms. has participated in several annual reviews for , including a review on March 2, 2010, and has observed him at (trans. 20). Ms. described as a child functioning academically on a level with concerns— ,

, and . He uses a wheelchair and requires assistance for and (trans. 26-27). uses a augmentative communication device and a chair (trans. 28).

At the March 2 review meeting, the CSE recommended that attend a class in a District 75 ized school for the 12 month school year with a full-time health paraprofessional and a transportation paraprofessional and receive the related services of therapy (five 30 minute one-to-one sessions per week), physical therapy (five 60 minute one-to-one sessions per week) and and therapy (five 45 minute one-to-one sessions per week) (Parent‟s Ex. Q). The CSE also recommended the services of a registered nurse as needed due to ‟s seizure disorder and risk of choking (trans. 32-33). The meeting was attended by the parent, Ms.

(as district representative and education teacher), a school psychologist, a school worker, a parent member, ‟s classroom teacher at , a parent advocate and the assistant director of (Parent‟s Ex. Q at p. 2; trans. 151152).

The IEP includes teacher estimates of ‟s reading and math instructional levels of (Parent‟s Ex. Q at p. 3). The IEP notes that uses a and was working on activating one button in a field of eight icons. His academic management needs include repetition and rephrasing, / therapy and positive reinforcement. The IEP states that “exhibits many that dramatically affect his . Many are , such as his and body, as well as . He also produces self-stimulatory izations and protests. uses a wheelchair and was working on walking with braces and a walker. He was not . The IEP includes goals in the areas of and , skills, skills, and motor skills, activities of daily living, pre-academic skills, and skills.

At the CSE meeting, the personnel stated that needed a one-toone setting (trans. 35). According to Ms. , the CSE rejected such a program because ‟s needs could be met in a class with a full-time health paraprofessional. In such a setting, he would have the opportunity to , and with other children and benefit from modeling (trans. 35-36). The CSE did not prepare a intervention plan for because his were not dangerous and could be addressed by the health paraprofessional or the teacher (trans. 48). The paraprofessional would address ‟s by redirecting him and by reinforcing appropriate (trans. 64).

was observed by CSE personnel in his class at in January 2010 (Department Ex. 2). In the class, used his to communicate, and teachers encouraged him to decrease his inappropriate , such as , himself, and hand and . was working on matching, motor activities and .

A psychoeducational evaluation was conducted in May 2008 (Department Ex. 4). During the evaluation, had difficulty responding to the evaluator or the test items and did not communicate verbally. As a result, the evaluator used the Vineland Adaptive Scales Survey Interview Form with the parent. attained a standard score of

58, in the “low” range.

Testing at in June 2009 showed that ‟s and abilities were at the month to years age equivalent (Department Ex. 5 at p. 2). also had severe , and difficulties (Department Ex. 5 at pp. 5-6). An therapy evaluation described ‟s significant motor developmental delays, poor motor and motor coordination skills, difficulties with processing and delays in skills (Department Ex. 6).

The Department notified the parent of the proposed placement at (Department Ex. 7). The parent visited the school and wrote a note to the CSE that she found the placement “not appropriate” for because the “class was much too busy for him” and “he would not be able to , concentrate or .” In addition, she contended that ed only with ABA therapy, which was not available in the proposed class (Department Ex. 7).

Barry , a certified education teacher employed by the Department at P.S. 37, testified that he had been “an ABA teacher” for the last ten years and was currently teaching a class for disabled students (trans. 85-86). There was a seat available for in the class in September 2010. The students in the class are ages through and are functioning academically on a level (trans. 8687). The class follows a structured schedule which on activities of daily living, literacy, studies, recreational activities and science. May of the student have issues and require one-to-one attention (trans. 87-89). In the course of these activities, Mr. works on attending skills and cooperative skills (trans. 89). Mr. is present during mealtimes with the professionals, the therapist and the school nurses (trans. 89). There are three nurses in Mr. ‟s classroom (assigned to individual students) for the entire day and two nurses stationed outside the classroom (trans. 90). Students eat lunch in the classroom (trans. 92). There is a student in the class who uses a , and other students who use other augmentative communication devices (trans. 93-94). None of the students ambulates independently (trans. 103).

Mr. stated that he had reviewed ‟s IEP and opined that would have been appropriately grouped in his class because he was functioning at the same levels as the students in the class (trans. 95-96). In addition, the students in the class receive much one-to-one attention because there is “almost 1:1 personnel” in the room with the paraprofessionals, nurses and therapists, “so there‟s plenty of personnel that could definitely accommodate him” (trans. 97). Mr. uses ABA therapy with the students in the class, providing 15 to 20 minutes per day individually (trans. 97, 108). Children in the class engage in , and Mr. and the staff address these by following each student‟s plan, positive reinforcements, objects and toys, and redirection (trans. 98-99, 109-110). The goals set forth on ‟s IEP are “close to what” he and the staff were doing in the classroom with the students (trans. 101). Mr. stated that he would be able to work on these goals with (trans. 101, 118).

, a school psychologist employed by the Department at the CSE, testified that she participated in ‟s March 2010 annual review and has observed him at (trans. 132). Ms. stated that the CSE recommended that attend a program because this program was “specifically designed for children with problems,” particularly medical issues, and “provides a lot of supervision,” nursing services and support for students and their parents (trans. 137). Ms. opined that this program was appropriate for because it would address his “ problems” in the areas of health, and , ambulation, , and (trans. 139). She stated that the CSE concluded that did not require 1:1 full-time academic instruction, particularly considering the health paraprofessional and nursing services he would receive pursuant to the IEP (trans. 140-141). The CSE did not create a BIP for because it determined that his were “a result of his problems;” as such, these did not “serve a significant purpose, ” and therefore “it wouldn‟t be beneficial to create a plan.” Instead, the CSE recommended supports of the health paraprofessional and nursing services (trans. 143-144, 153-154).

Ms. reported that at the CSE meeting, personnel “insisted on a [instruction recommendation] for this child” (trans. 147). Ms. opined that would not benefit from “fast-paced instruction” because he “suffers from global developmental delays, problems, significant verbal problems” and is not “capable of paying attention during fast-paced instruction . . . . it would be just too overwhelming” (trans. 147-148). The Parent‟s Case

,a education teacher employed by , testified that she had a master‟s degree in administration and supervision and had completed an advanced certificate in ABA, which would allow her to take the examination to become a board certified analyst (trans. 240). She is employed by as its educational director (trans. 242). “is a small school dedicated to children on the spectrum” enrolling students “as early as three years” of age “for as long as they need the direct, individualized, one-to-one teaching” (trans. 242). There are 25 students in the program with 35 staff members (trans. 244-245). Every student in the program receives ABA instruction from an ABA therapist, five 45 minute periods of therapy per week, and and therapy for five 60 minute periods per week from a and pathologist in the classroom. Program staff meets weekly to discuss the students (trans. 243).

Each classroom includes a teacher for each student, a teacher‟s assistant, and a and pathologist (trans. 26-247). Consultants from the School in Manhattan assist school staff on a monthly basis, and a DIR consultant has also been hired (trans. 247-248). The program provides parent training and assistance for families in the home environment (trans. 249). At the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year,

‟s class consisted of three students; at the time of the hearing, the class consisted of and one other student (trans. 308).

Ms. described as wheelchair-bound with “a lot of maladaptive , which include his with his hand, or his ear with his , his , .” According to Ms. , “is compliant at points during work, and at certain times is non-compliant and will throw objects or swipe objects off of his table” (trans. 250). is “non-verbal” but does produce “some sounds;” he is able to label some objects with a augmentative communication device (trans. 309). His adaptive functioning is “low” (trans. 315-316).

has “made progress” in academics “at a slow pace,” increased his and approximations,” and improved his matching skills, skills, activities of daily living and skills (trans. 250-251, 332-333). A paraprofessional attends to on the school bus and throughout the day in the classroom, and assists him with getting in and out of his wheelchair, , and “ him from himself” (trans. 252). personnel prepared a intervention plan for targeting , thrusts and protesting (Parent‟s Ex. D). It was created as a result of an FBA conducted at the program and uses interventions such as physically blocking interfering and working on skills at a rapid pace with a low frustration level and with “very high rates of reinforcement (trans. 255-259). There has been “some decrease” in and thrusts in conjunction with a medication plan (trans. 260). protesting has also been reduced as has become more successful in using the (trans. 261).

‟s school day consists of ABA work sessions, mealtimes and work on ADL skills, group activities, movement, art, cooking and and services (trans. 263-268). There are two students in ‟s class; for group activities he joins students in another class (trans. 268). is able to initiate interactions with adults by tapping them on or grabbing their arms; he does not try to gain the attention of his peers (trans. 269). is able to “stay in a group setting for approximately five minutes” (trans. 319). He “ needs a lot of hand over hand assistance” to engage in activities and “frustrates very easily” (trans. 319). When engaged one-to-one by his teacher, his attention span is 30 to 60 seconds, and he “needs o be reinforced about” every 30 seconds or less (trans. 321).

Personnel at the program created an IEP for which includes the goals they are working on with him (trans. 271). It is a detailed written plan of goals and objectives for in the areas of and , pre-academic skills, and skills, activities of daily living, and skills (Parent‟s Ex. C). Ms. described the document in detail (trans. 272-290).

, a certified teacher of the and hearing handicapped, testified that she had received training in augmentative communication, PROMPT therapy, the Kaufman approach to motor planning for production, procedures and sign (trans. 177-179). She is employed by as its pathologist supervisor (trans. 180). She and another therapist, Ms. , are ‟s therapists for the 2010-2011 school year (trans. 181). Ms. treats for three 60 minute sessions per week. Ms. sees him for two 60 minute sessions per week.

Ms. explained that has difficulties in all areas of and , production, skills, pragmatics, , motor skills and reading. He is able to produce word approximations; the is his “most functional form of communication” (trans. 183). During therapy sessions, Ms. works with on identifying pictures, objects and action words to enhance ‟s vocabulary; one and two-step directions; novel vocabulary; recognizing different members of his family; matching activities; using verbal approximations; labeling concepts; PROMPT therapy; pragmatics and skills; maintaining attention; and (trans. 187-188). During therapy sessions, engages in the of and himself, swiping things off the table, throwing items and in order to “escape the task at hand” or gain attention (trans. 189-191). Ms. implements ‟s plan (trans. 191).

Ms. stated that has improved his abilities and was able to identify an increased number of pictures and objects, can follow one-step directions, understands more action words, increased his attention to tasks and matching skills, improved his use of the , skills and (trans. 194-196).

, an therapist employed by , testified that she has been ‟s therapist since September 2005 (trans. 215). She sees him for three 45 minute 1:1 sessions per week, usually in the gym. Another therapist sees him for an additional two 45 minute sessions per week. During the therapy sessions, she works with on climbing, mounting and dismounting equipment, ball , using suspended equipment, writing activities, and other motor activities (trans. 216). uses a wheelchair for ambulation and can use leg orthotics with a walker (trans. 216). Ms. works with on walking with the orthotics to build his strength, his posture, and his upper body (trans. 219). During therapy sessions, engages in noncompliant , which Ms. addresses with the plan (trans. 220). has made progress this year in his posture, core and arm strength, endurance and activities of daily living and motor skills (trans. 224-225).

Dr. ¸ a licensed clinical psychologist and certified school psychologist,

^[3]

testified that he has observed both clinically and at (trans. 342, 348). At , he noted that “there was a very meticulously executed al intervention that was taking place” (trans. 343). Staff implemented this plan to engage him in activities, prevent self-abuse and get him to listen to requests (trans. 343). responded positively to the plan (trans. 344). Dr. opined that required a “ al approach in order to ” (trans. 344).

The parent described ‟s medical history and explained that he was “homeschooled” between the ages of and years by an ABA therapist (trans. 356-358). After one week of ABA therapy, “started ” and was making eye contact and “copying sounds” (trans. 356). now communicates through a and a communication book (trans. 360). personnel has instructed her in al techniques to reduce ‟s such as his and (trans. 360).

The parent stated that the Department has recommended for every year since . She has visited the school and found it not appropriate for because “there was a lot going on” with all the adults and children in the room (trans. 362, 366). would be unable to in this setting and “would start himself” (trans. 366-367). The parent disagreed that ‟s were “ ” and asserted that they were a function of his “frustration” and, at times, a way to express discomfort (trans. 369). was recently evaluated by Dr. , a psychiatrist, who diagnosed with an spectrum disorder (trans. 382-383; Parent‟s Ex. W).

The parent signed an enrollment contract with for the 2010-2011 12 month year, commencing on September 1, on September 12, 2010 (Parent‟s Exs. T, Y). The tuition is $89,000.00. A charge of $26,000.00 was added to cover the cost of a oneto-one health paraprofessional for . The parents had paid $2,000.00 towards the tuition (Parent‟s Exs. U, V).

Findings of Fact and Decision

A board of education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a child by the child's parents if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parents were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parents‟ claim. School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985). The fact that the school selected by the parents is not approved as a school for children with disabilities by the State Education Department (as in the instant case) is not dispositive of the parents‟ claim for tuition reimbursement. Florence County School District v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993).

I. The Appropriateness of the School District‟s Program The central purposes of the IDEA are to ensure: (1) that students with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living; and (2) that the rights of students with disabilities and their parents are protected. 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1)(A) & (B); Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 51 (2005); Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179-181 (1982). The first step in the inquiry is to determine whether the school district offered a free appropriate public education to the student. See, e.g., Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-008; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-121. A free appropriate public education includes education and related services designed to meet the student‟s individual needs, provided in conformity with a written IEP. See 20 U.S.C. §1401(9); 20 U.S.C. §1414(d). A school district offers a student a free appropriate public education when (1) it complies with the procedural requirements of the IDEA and (2) its CSE develops an IEP reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits. Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson S.D. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-207 (1982). While school districts are required to comply with all procedures set forth in the IDEA, not all procedural errors result in an inadequate IEP. See, e.g., Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-121. If a procedural violation is alleged, a hearing officer may find that a student did not receive an appropriate educational program only if the procedural inadequacy: (1) impeded the student‟s right to a free appropriate public education; (2) “significantly impeded the parents‟ opportunity to participate in the decisionmaking process regarding the provision of a free appropriate education” to the student; or (3) “caused a deprivation of educational benefits.” 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); see also Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-007. The School District bears the burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of the program recommended by its CSE.

A recommended educational program must be reasonably calculated to allow the student to receive an educational benefit and be the least restrictive environment for the student. Board of Education Hendrick Hudson S.D. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982). A school district fulfills its obligations under the IDEA when it provides a child an IEP that is “‟likely to produce progress, not regression” and that affords the child the opportunity for more than “mere „trivial advancement‟”—in short, likely to provide some “‟meaningful‟” benefit. Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-121, quoting Cerra v. Pawling Central School District, 427 F.3d 186, 195 (2d Cir. 2005) and Mrs. B. v. Milford Board of Education, 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 (2d Cir. 1997). A school district thus satisfies this standard “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 School District, 142 F.3d 119, 130 (2d Cir. 1998); see also 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 School District, 873 F.2d 563, 567 (2d Cir. 1989) [citations omitted]).

An appropriate educational program “begins with an IEP which accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student‟s needs, establishes annual goals related to those needs, and provides for the use of appropriate education services.” Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-010. The IEP prepared for sets forth information accurately describing his current levels of performance and identifying his education needs. The IEP includes goals in ‟s undisputed areas of need— and , skills, skills, and motor skills, activities of daily living, pre-academic skills, and skills.

The next step is to examine the IEP to determine whether it sets forth a program that sufficiently addresses ‟s identified educational needs. As explained credibly and in detail by the Department‟s witnesses, the recommended program with a health paraprofessional, nursing services and extensive related services provides adult support sufficient to address ‟s health, ADL, , al, and communication needs and for redirection and positive reinforcement to address ‟s distractibility and maladaptive in order to enable him to make meaningful progress. A greater level of adult support in a setting with fewer students might be desired by the parents and might optimize ‟s progress. However, this level of support is not required by the IDEA. As Ms. testified, did not require full-time academic instruction, particularly considering the health paraprofessional and nursing services he would receive pursuant to the IEP.

The Department contends that did not require an individual BIP because his are -based. As a result, a BIP would not be appropriate. Rather, the Department argues, the strategies to address ‟s are “programmatic” within the recommended program for handicapped students, that his could be addressed by the teacher and health paraprofessional through redirection and positive reinforcement, and that ‟s were similar to those of the classmates in the proposed program. The parent argues that ‟s are not -based, but rather are deliberate efforts by to express frustration or discomfort. Whether ‟s maladaptive are -based or deliberate, the Department presented a educational plan to address these in the classroom in a manner to enable to benefit from instruction in his areas of need.

The evidence presented at the hearing establishes that the Department offered a free appropriate public education for the 2010-2011 school year. As a result, the Department prevails with respect to the first prong of the Burlington/Carter analysis.

II. The Appropriateness of the School

The parents bear the burden of proof concerning the appropriateness of the School program for . See, e.g., Frank G. v. Board of Education of the Hyde Park Central School District, 459 F. 3d 356, 364 (2nd Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 169 (2007). To meet this burden, the parents must show that the educational services provided at addressed 's identified education needs. See G.B. and L.B. on behalf of N.B. v. Tuxedo Union Free School District, 09CV-859 (S.D.N.Y Sept. 30, 2010); Application of the Bd. of City School District of the City of New York, Appeal No. 95-79, at pp. 6-7; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 96-1. The Second Circuit instructs that:

No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining whether parents‟ unilateral placement is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive education benefits.” Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207. Grades, test scores, and regular advancement may constitute evidence that a child is receiving educational benefit, but courts assessing the propriety of a unilateral placement consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child‟s individual needs . . . . To qualify for reimbursement under the IDEA, parents need not show that a private placement furnishes every service necessary to maximize their child‟s potential. They need only demonstrate that the placement provides “educational instruction ly designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child; supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction.”

Frank G., 459 F. 3d at 364.

Considering the “totality of the circumstances,” the evidence supports a finding that the program at is appropriate for . provides with an individualized program that addresses his educational needs: health, ADL, preacademic, communication and al. The witnesses from described in detail the methods and strategies school staff use with to address each of these areas of need. has made slow progress in the areas of , matching skills, attention, ADL and skills. also provides with related services.

As a result, consistent with the Frank G. standard, the parents prevail on the second Burlington/Carter criterion.

III. Equitable Considerations

With respect to the third Burlington criterion, whether equitable considerations support the parents‟ claims, the evidence establishes that the parents cooperated with the CSE by attending the CSE meeting, visiting the proposed placement and then communicating their concerns to the CSE.

Therefore, for all the above reasons, it is hereby ordered that:

1. The parents‟ request for tuition reimbursement is denied.

2. Any claims with respect to the period commencing July 1, 2011 are dismissed without prejudice. Dated: July 14, 2011

____________________________

JEAN MARIE BRESCIA, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

JMB:jj

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

A Impartial Hearing Request, 9/3/10, 5 pp. B Mission Statement, Undated, 1 p. C School IEP, 10/2011, 14 pp. D Staff Report, 10/11/10, 1 p. E Intervention Plan, 9/2010, 2 pp. F Educational Progress Report, 6/13/10, 3 pp. G and Evaluation, 6/9/10, 7 pp. H and Goals, 10/2011, 17 pp. I Evaluation, 6/14/10, 6 pp. J Goals, 10/2011, 6 pp. K Assessment of Basic and Skills Grid, Undated, 3 pp. L Applied Analysis Programs and Graphs, 10/2011, 11 pp. M ‟s Motor diet, 10/2011, 1 p. N Class Profile, 10/2011, 1 p. O Class Schedule, 10/2011, 1 p. P Correspondence Between Parent and School, 10/2011, 3 pp. Q Board of Education IEP, 3/2/10, 20 pp. R Final Notice of Recommendation, 3/17/10, 2 pp. S Ten Day Notice, 8/18/10, 1 p. T Enrollment Contract, 10/2011, 3 pp. U Affidavit of Payment, 10/2011, 1 p. V Parent Proof of Payment, 10/2011, 2 pp. W Letter from Dr. , 4/5/11, 1 p. X Omitted Y Enrollment Contract, 9/12/10, 3 pp.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

1 Omitted 2 Classroom Observation, 1/29/10, 2 pp. 3 Medical Evaluation, 12/20/09, 2 pp. 4 Psychoeducational, 5/6/08, 4 pp. 5 / Annual Evaluation, 6/11/09-6/15/09, 5 pp. 6 Evaluation, 7/14/09, 5 pp. 7 Final Notice of Recommendation, 3/17/10, 1 p. 8 District #75 Summer FNR, 6/8/10, 1 p. 9 Final Notice of Recommendation, 6/15/10, 1 p. 10 DOE Letter to Parent, 2/9/10, 1 p. 11 Meeting Notice, 2/9/10, 1 p.

Footnotes

[1] . is referred to as in this decision.

[2] This proceeding was protracted as the result of a combination of factors: an accident, personal emergencies of representatives, unavailability of both school district and parent witnesses, as well as respect for the family‟s religious observances.

[3] Dr. did not prepare a written report. The parent did submit in evidence a letter from another doctor, a Dr. , who did not testify (Parent‟s Ex. W). There is no indication in Dr. ‟s letter of the doctor‟s familiarity with or of the basis of his opinions. I do not credit the contents of Dr. ‟s letter.