New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number:

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District: Hearing Requested By: Parent Date of Hearing: August 9, 2010

October 15, 2010

November 23, 2010

January 20, 2011

February 2, 2011 Hearing Officer: , Esq. Case No.: 127638

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON AUGUST 9, 2010

Parents

Parents

-, — Parents

Parents

Chairperson’s Designee — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON OCTOBER 15, 2010

Parents

Parents

-, — Parents

Parents

Chairperson’s Designee — DOE

District Administrator — DOE

of (via telephone) — DOE

and (via telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON NOVEMBER 23, 2010

Parents

Parents

Chairperson’s Designee (via telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JANUARY 20, 2010

Parents

Parents

-, — Parents

Parents

Parents

Chairperson’s Designee (via telephone) — DOE

District Representative — DOE

Education (via telephone) — DOE

(via telephone) — DOE

(via telephone) — DOE

School (via telephone) — DOE

(via telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON FEBREUARY 2, 2011

Parents

-, — Parents

Parents

Parents

School (via telephone) — Parents

Chairperson’s Designee — DOE

District Representative — DOE

On June 9, 2010 I was appointed as Hearing Officer pursuant to the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(2) and Article 89 of the Education Law of the State of New York, regarding the special education program of . (hereinafter referred to as “the student”). A list of persons in attendance and documents received in evidence are appended hereto.

The proceeding was initiated at the request of the parents by correspondence dated June 8, 2010 and received by the Impartial Hearing office on June 8, 2010 (Exh. YY). The parents submitted their amended request by correspondence dated November 11, 2010 (Exh. EEE). The district representative did not object to the amendments. The amended request dated November 11, 2010 by the parents through their alleged that a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) was not provided for the 20092010 and the 2010-2011 school years. The amended request challenged the March 23, 2010 annual review and the April 27, 2010 review and the recommendation of the Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) and to challenge the program and to obtain funding services for 15 hours per week of Special Education (“ ”) for the provision of (“ ”) from the student’s current at in the student’s at the an enhanced rate of $ per hour and to obtain funding an from for and in the student’s at the rate of $ per week and to add 2 additional and therapy (“ ”) session for 30 minutes per session in a group no larger than 2. The parents further requested to remand this case to CSE to immediately reconvene within 10 days to develop an appropriate Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) with meaningful and measurable goals, appropriate special education and appropriate related services (Exh. FFF).

The parties moved to extend the compliance dates during the course of the hearing. In considering the requests I weighed the cumulative impact of the relevant factors and found that the need of the parties for additional time to prepare and present its positions in accordance with the requirements of due process was greater than any delay in the resolution of the matter. Accordingly the requests for extensions of the compliance dates were granted. The current record close date is March 11, 2011 and the compliance date for issuing a decision is March 25, 2011.

BACKGROUND

The student is a year old who was classified as . The classification and the related service of (“ ”) is not in dispute (trans. 28, 33). The student is currently placed in a class in a school at at .

For the 2006-2007 school year, the Committee for Education (“ ”) met and placed the student in a class with a staffing ratio of at the and recommended that he receive related services of at a separate location twice a week for 30 minutes per session; twice a week for 30 minutes per session at a separate location and (“ ”) twice a week for 30 minutes per session at a separate location and 10 hours of Education (“ ”) services (Exh. K at 17).

For the 2007-2008 school year on August 8, 2007, when the student was CPSE recommended the same program, but discontinued the related services of (Exh. U at 29)

For the 2008-2009 school year when the student fell into the jurisdiction of CSE and on March 11, 2008, the student was classified with the disability of and CSE recommended a class with a staffing ratio of and 10 hours of and a air and recommended related services of at a separate location twice a week for 30 minutes per session and at a separate location once a week for 30 minutes in a group no larger than 2; twice a week for 30 minutes per session at a separate location and a full time (Exh. HH at 17). The March 11, 2008 IEP did not recommend nor did the IEP recommend a (“ ”)(Exh. YY at 2). On August 4, 2008, the parents requested an impartial hearing seeking an enhanced rate for and the matter was resolved (Exh. YY at 2).

For the 2009-2010 school year, on March 11, 2009, the CSE convened and conducted an annual review for a 12-month school year. The March 11, 2009 IEP drafted by the CSE recommended a class with a ratio of and a recommended related services of at a separate location twice a week for 30 minutes per session and at a separate location once a week for 30 minutes in a group no larger than 2; twice a week for 30 minutes per session at a separate location and a full time (Exh. PP at 15) On March, 2009, the parents filed an impartial hearing request and as a result of the resolution session on April 28, 2009, CSE reconvened and added to the March 11, 2009 program 10 hours of to be provided outside the school from May 1, 2009 to September 9, 2009; 15 hours of outside the school from September 9, 2009 to September 10, 2010 (Exh. QQ at 1; Exh. YY at 3) On April 28, 2009 a Final Notice of Recommendation (“FNR”) was sent to the parent for a placement at @ (Exh. RR at 1) The parents alleged that the April 28, 2009 IEP did not recommend (Exh. YY at 3).

On May 12, 2010, CSE reconvened and classified the student as and recommended a placement in a class with a staffing ratio of in a school with 15 hours of outside of the school from September 9, 2009 to August 10, 2010 and related services of at a separate location twice a week for 30 minutes per session and at a separate location once a week for 30 minutes in a group no larger than 2; twice a week for 30 minutes per session at a separate location and a full time . (Exh. 4) On June 8, 2010, the parents requested a due process hearing and alleged that the DOE failed to provide FAPE for the student because the mandated services for children with per Part 200.13 of the Regulations of Commissioner of NYS was not provided and requested that the student receive 15 hours per week of based at an enhanced rate. The parents alleged without the program their would not progress as the student had received the program of 15 hours per week of using . The parents further requested CSE conduct a (“ ”) to develop an appropriate and (Exh. YY at 4). On September 16, 2010, I issued a pendency order to continue the 15 hours of at and I amended the pendency order to reflect the enhanced rate on November 24, 2010 and ordered payment at the enhanced rate of $ per hour from July 1, 2010 through the pendency of this hearing.

THE POSITON OF THE PARTIES

The parents’ asserted that DOE failed to provide the student a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the 2010-2011. The parents seek an Order for the following: (1) that the DOE that pay services for 15 hours per week of for the provision of in the student’s at the rate of $ per hour,(2) an additional 2 sessions of must be added to the IEP so the student receives 5 sessions of per week, (3) that and per Regulations of the Commissioner of Education be placed on the IEP and the DOE provide funding for the and ; (4) that CSE develop an appropriate and . (Exh. EEE at 9; IHO Exh. II at 27-28) The district representative opposed the parents’ request for at services and maintained the student progressed (trans 34). The district representative maintained that the DOE developed an appropriate IEP on May 12, 2010 and appropriate related services and that the services for 15 hours were services pursuant to a prior impartial hearing resolution agreement from the 2009-2010 school year and was in effect for a single school year (IHO Exh. II at 2). The district representative agreed that the student was entitled to 5 sessions of per week pursuant to Part 200.13 of the Commissioner’s Regulations (trans. 297) and the February 12, 2010 IEP mandated 3 session of (trans. 301). The services were not in dispute (trans. 302).

THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S POSITION

The DOE representative submitted 10 documents and presented 2 witnesses. The DOE opposes the parents’ request for 15 hours of at- services and and . The DOE maintained that the recommended with related services are appropriate and was tailored to meet the student’s educational needs. The DOE representative presented an from District who testified that the student was at for the past 3 years in a class with a ratio of and the was used throughout the day (trans. 130) She also stated that the method was also used (trans. 132). She stated that she could not recall if any was provided for the 2009-2010 school year (trans. 134). She described the token economy system was used for the 2009-2010 (trans. 148). She stated that the student participated in (trans. 151). She noted the he was assessed through alternative assessments (trans. 153). She acknowledged that her certification for was from the of (trans. 160). She maintained that despite the fact that neither the student’s nor the student’s had a certificate in that was provided to the student throughout the day (trans. 161-162; 172;174). She could not explain the specific amount of time that the student received individual per days (trans. 163). She stated that the purpose of the May 12, 2010 IEP meeting was to continue the services (trans. 167). She acknowledged that there was coordination between the atand the school. She further acknowledged that she did not share with the parent at the May 12, 2010 IEP meeting the reason the at- services were discontinued after August 2010 (trans. 168). She maintained the reason that atservices were discontinued was because the student progressed (trans. 169). She maintained that that the student’s progress was accessed through Assessment of Basic and Learning Skills (“ABLLS”) testing in April which indicated progress (trans. 171).

The student’s testified that she had extensive training and utilized strategies for training and need (trans. 188). She stated that the student required visual cues and verbal prompts (trans. 191). She maintained that the first annual goal to identify objects was measured by data collection (trans. 193). She further maintained that the student progressed in his second goal to demonstrate targeted spatial concepts, but it was a challenge (trans. 194). She maintained that the services of twice weekly individual sessions for 30 minutes per session and for a session for 30 minutes in a group of 2 were adequate to meet his and articulation, expressive and receptive needs (trans. 217). She stated that she was present at the May 12, 2010 IEP meeting and she developed the goals and that she reviewed the report from the at- (trans. 226) She recalled that she had met with the at- for the 2009-2010 school year and communicated via the student’s notebook (trans. 227). She recalled the student’s stated that the May 12, 2010 IEP meeting that she wanted to continue with the at- services, but there was a procedural reason why the at- services could not be placed on the May 12, 2010 IEP (trans. 233).

The student’s education for the 2009-2010 year testified that the student was in her class with a staffing ratio of (trans. 312). She stated that she received professional development days in during the 2009-2010 school year (trans. 213). She could not recall the exact number of days (Id.). She stated that in the beginning of the 2009 school year the student was exhibiting some and had not mastered basic skills like (trans. 314). She stated that he had a time following , being and was from his , and not with tasks (trans. 315). She noted his was his to his wants and needs (Id.). She recalled that the student was assessed by the ABLLS in September 2009 and again in April 2010 and there was progress in his receptive developments (trans. 317). She stated that she provided discrete trial training to the student to work on his goals (trans. 329). She noted that there was a (“ ”) and she wrote a for the student for the 2009-2010 year (trans. 337). She stated that she was present at the May 12, 2010 IEP meeting with the parents and the (trans. 344). She recalled that Mr. , School , told the parents that he did not have the authority to continue the atservices beyond August 10, 2010 (trans. 345). She further recalled that she communicated with the at- during the 2009-2010 and that she had no formal training in administering the ABLLS (trans. 350-353). She stated that she provided 20 minutes of individual for the student per day (trans. 354). She agreed that the at- were in constant communication and collaboration with the classroom and this greatly increased impacted his continued academic success and progress and this fact was reflected on page 4 of the April 27, 2010 IEP (trans. 379; FFF at 4). She further recalled that Mr. told the parents that it was beyond his authority to place the at- services on the May 12, 2010 IEP (trans. 386).

THE PARENTS’ POSITION

It is the parents’ position the DOE failed to offer the Student a FAPE because the DOE removed the at- from the April 27, 2010 and the May 12, 2010 IEP without any assessment or evaluation indicating he no longer needed the services as required by Part 200.4(f)(1) of the Commissioner’s Regulations (IHO Exh. III at 7); the parents were not given the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the May 12, 2010 IEP meeting because the decision to terminate the after-school atservices was predetermined and due to policy not pursuant to the student’s individual needs (Id.); that the mandate of 3 sessions of was a violation of Part 200.13(a(4) of the Commissioner’s Regulations which mandated daily (Exh. EEE at 8); that and was not included on the April 27, 2010 and May 12, 2010 IEPs as required for a student with a classification of (Id.); the and were not developed with input from the parents in violation of Part 200.22(a)(2) Commissioner’s Regulations which mandated that the be based on multiple sources including information obtained from the parent; (Id.) and stated present levels of performance and the stated goals and objectives on the student’s April 27, 2010 and May 12, 2010 IEP are not appropriate without the atservices (Exh. EEE at 8). The parent asserts that the student’s were known to CSE and no was developed to address the the student required the program to progress.

testified that he did not know if was utilized in the student’s classroom for the 2009-2010 school year (trans. 416).He stated that he was present at the April 27, 2010 IEP meeting, but did not recall a discussion about the atprogram (trans. 419). He further stated that he was present at the April 28, 2009 IEP meeting (Exh. QQ) and recalled a discussion of adding the atprogram for the 2009-2010 school year due to a resolution meeting. He recalled that he was also present at the April 27, 2010 IEP meeting that the parents wanted to place the atprogram on the April 27, 2010 IEP (trans. 421). He further recalled that the decision to remove the at- program from the April 27, 2010 IEP was made despite the assessments from the parent recommending the need for the at- IEP (trans. 423). He stated that he was present at the May 12, 2010 IEP meeting and that the parents wanted to continue the at- program after August 10, 2010 for the 2010-2011 school year, but he could not so he advised the parents to seek an impartial hearing (trans. 431). He recalled that the parents presented the May 12, 2010 IEP team with 2 assessments (Exh. WW, XX) He noted that the Evaluation from , dated January 2010 described the student , with delayed , social relatedness, repetitive , , , and recommend that the student would benefit from 30-40 hours of at or at school (trans. 433;Exh.WW at 8).

He further stated that the May 12, 2010 CSE had the letter from the dated November 27, 2007 and the letter recommended to progress (trans. 434; Exh.

X) He agreed that the parents provided the Follow-Up Evaluation dated April 14, 2010 (Exh. GGG at 3) and the evaluation recommended that the student continue to receive 15 hours of per week at to improve his functioning (trans. 437). He maintained that despite the evaluations (Exhs. GGG, X, WW) provided by the parents to the May 12, 2010 IEP team, the CSE did not continue the atprogram. He noted the at- program was discontinued after August 10, 2010 because of school policy (trans. 437).

The student’s at- special education testified that she provided to the student for 10 hours per week at for 3 years and maintained that the student progressed because of the she provided. She stated that she was in contact that the student’s classroom and and she tried to reinforce the work done at school (trans. 447). She further stated that the student had problems with and when she developed a plan the student was able to master concepts and programs (trans. 448). She explained that there was collaboration through a communication log book that daily goes to school and and that she did not duplicate the work done at school, but helped him generalized the work done at school (trans 450). She stated that the student had with , , and in 2009, but after the plan was instituted the student’s negative decreased. She noted that she improved the plan after there was . She further noted that after a vacation she observed (trans. 454). She maintained that the at- individual helped the student progress academically in his ability to sit, to master his letters and to progress in his daily living skills (trans. 456-461). She maintained that the classroom could not provide the individual during the class because the rest of the class had special education needs (trans. 461).

On cross, the at- that she provided (trans. 464). She further stated that she provided 10 hours of and another atprovided 5 hours of (trans. 473).

The student’s at- , a certified special education , testified that she worked with children with for 4 years (trans. 480). She stated that she worked with and to provide to children (trans. 481). She stated that she had worked with the student since September 2009 for 6 hours individually (trans. 484) She maintained that the student required individual on a daily basis to improve his expressive . She maintained that she was in contact with the classroom and his through a communications log (trans. 488). She recalled that the student had a lot of and , but that the plan implemented allowed her to work with the student for with a single (trans. 490). She maintained that the student required an individual atprogram to generalize skills learned from the school and without the structure of the atprogram he could not progress. She maintained that the at- program did not duplicate the school work (trans. 497).

The parent testified that had received the atprogram for 4 years since through grade (trans. 519). She noted that provided that at- and that the at- communicated with his classroom through the log (trans. 521). She noted that his also communicated with the at- through the log (trans. 525). She maintained that to the best of her knowledge received 20 minutes of in the classroom per day at (trans. 526). She opined that was learning to generalize skills only by the at- (trans. 528). She maintained it was an emerging skill (trans. 529). She maintained that he required a throughout the day for the 2009-2010 school year to avoid (trans. 531). She recalled that she attended the April 27, 2010 IEP meeting, but she did not agreed to remove the atprogram from the IEP (trans. 544). She recalled that Mr. stated that he did not have the authority to place the at- program at either the April 27, 2010 IEP meeting or the May 12, 2010 IEP meeting (trans. 549).

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Under IDEA, New York State law and both the federal and State regulations, the right to a FAPE is guaranteed. There is no obligation on the part of the school district to provide the best education for the Student but that education must be appropriate so that there is an opportunity for the student to make progress in his education.

In this case the request is for payment for a program for educational services. The applicable legal standard is well established. It consists of three prongs; the first level of inquiry asks whether the services offered by the DOE are adequate and appropriate. If it is found that the services are inadequate or inappropriate, then the second prong is reached. The second prong is asks whether the services selected by the parent are appropriate; and the third prong ask whether equitable considerations support the parent’s claim. School Committee of Burlington v. Department of Education of Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 [1985]

The DOE must establish that it appropriately ascertained the child’s educational needs and prepared an IEP in accordance with the procedural and substantive requirements of federal and New York State Regulations. The parents asserted that the school district failed to offer a FAPE in that the CSE failed to offer an appropriate program for the 20092010 school year. The State Review Officer (SRO) has ruled on the issue of the type of procedural violation that would render an IEP invalid. The State Review Officer (SRO) has ruled on the issue of the type of procedural violation that would render an IEP invalid. In Appeal No. 09-096, the SRO ruled that ”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 F.3d 165, 172 [2d Cir. 2009]; Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003]; Perricelli v. Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 465211, at *10 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2007]). Under the IDEA, 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 decisionmaking 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 C.F.R. § 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; E.H. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 3930028, at *7 [N.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2008]; Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 471 F. Supp. 2d 415, 419 [S.D.N.Y. 2007] aff'd, 2008 WL 3852180 [2d Cir. Aug. 19, 2008.” The SRO in 06080 also ruled the Second Circuit held that “a school district fulfills its obligations under the IDEA if it provides an IEP that is “likely to produce progress, not ” and if the student’s IEP affords him an opportunity greater than mere “trivial” advancement. Cerra v. Pawling CSD, 427 F.3d 186, 195, quoting Walczak v. Florida UFSD, 142 F.3d 119 130 [2d Cir. 1998] and that the student’s IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits. Bd. Of Educ. v. Rowley, 485 U.S. 176, 206-207 [1982] Cerra v. Pawling CSD, 427 F. 3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005] and the IEP is likely to provide some “meaningful” benefit to the student. Mrs. v. BOE, 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 (2d Cir. 1997).”

The parents alleged the first procedural violation was that CSE failed to consider her request for services as part of the student’s program. The parent alleged that the May 12, 2010 IEP was developed without her input or the input of the reports of at- and report from Follow-Up Evaluation.

The Supreme Court has held that parental participation was a central principle of the IEP process. The Court held that “the importance Congress attached to these procedural safeguards cannot be gainsaid. It seems to us no exaggeration to say that Congress placed every bit as much emphasis upon compliance with procedures giving parents and guardians a large measure of participation in every stage of the administrative process); Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 at 205-206 (1982). The Court held that the “core of the statute, however, is the cooperative process that it established between the parents and the schools” Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S. Ct. 528 at 532 (2005). I find the parent established that she was denied meaningful participation in the May 12, 2010 IEP review.

The parents further alleged that the decision to terminate the program was made prior to May 12, 2010 CSE meeting with no consideration of the student’s actual needs. I find further, pursuant to 34 CFR 300.513(a)(2)(ii), a hearing officer’s determination whether a child received FAPE must be made on substantive ground only if the procedural inadequacies significantly impeded the parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. I find the parent was not allowed an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. In addition, I find the parent established that the decision to terminate the program from the student’s IEP was made prior to the May 12, 2010 CSE meeting and this decision “impeded the student’s right to a free appropriate public education” and “caused a deprivation of educational benefits” because the decision was made without any discussion as to the appropriateness of the removal of the program for the student. I further find that the CSE did not fulfill the “reasonably calculated” standard because it did not conduct any deliberations or engage in any considered determinations for the student’s education at the May 12, 2010 meeting. I find that testimony adduced at the hearing from the district’s own witnesses established that several current assessments (Exh. GGG, WW) recommended the program and the decision to terminate the at- was made without any assessment or evaluation recommended termination.

The parents alleged that the CSE failed to conduct an appropriate despite the interfering of , and non-compliance. Pursuant to 8 NYCRR 200.4(b) (1)[v] of the Regulations of the Commission of Education, a must be completed for a child “whose impedes his or her learning or that of others, as necessary to ascertain the , , and emotional factors which contribute to the suspected .” Testimony adduced at the hearing failed to establish that CSE completed a before removing program from the student’s program. I find that the and were not developed with input from the parents in violation of Part 200.22(a)(2) Commissioner’s Regulations which mandated that the be based on multiple sources including information obtained from the parent.

I further find that and was not included on the April 27, 2010 and May 12, 2010 IEPs as required for a student with a classification of . Based on the foregoing, I find that the April 27, 2010 IEP and the May 12, 2010 IEP were not valid. Therefore, I find there was no FAPE for the 2010-2011 school year.

Having found that the DOE failed to provide a FAPE for the 2010-2011 school year, I now consider whether the parents have met its burden that program offers an educational program which is appropriate to meet the education needs of this student, and that equitable considerations support the parents’ claim.

The parent has the burden to prove that the services they obtained for the student is appropriate to meet his needs. In order to meet that burden, the parent must show that the services provided were "proper under the Act" (Carter, 510 U.S. at 12, 15; Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370), i.e., that the school offered an educational program that met the child's special education. The fact that the facility selected by the parent to provide special educational services to the child is not State-approved as a school for children with disabilities is not dispositive of the parent’s claim for tuition reimbursement. Florence County School District Four v. Carter by Carter, 114 S.Ct. 361 [1993] The parent must prove that the student will receive an appropriate educational benefit from the program at the - school at . The SRO held in No. 06-013 that “the private school placement must be "proper under the Act" (Carter, 510 U.S. at 12, 15; Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370), i.e., the private school offered an educational program which met the child's special education needs (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-108; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-010). The private school need not employ certified special education teachers or have its own IEP for the student (Carter, 510 U.S. 7; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-014; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-105).”

I find that the parents offered substantial evidence to meet their burden of the appropriateness of the placement. The evidence presented demonstrated that the student’s program with with specialized training and expertise in and certified education supports his , social interaction and self-help skills. Further, testimony adduced at the hearing established that the student’s program addressed his academic, social and needs and the student could not progress in his IEP goals without the program.

The third prong of the test for tuition reimbursement is whether the equities favor the parents’ position. I find the equitable considerations do support the parents’ claim for reimbursement. In this case, the parents fully cooperated with the district to the best of their ability and made the student available for evaluations. I find that the equities favor the parents’ position.

Order

I order this case be remanded to CSE to develop a procedurally and substantively valid IEP and develop a new and . I further order that the DOE provide 15 hours of at - weekly at the rate of $ per hour until the conclusion of the 2010-2011 school year. I further order and be provided by at the rate of $ per hour per hour until the conclusion of the 2010-2011 school year. Dated: March 22, 2010

_______________________

ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

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 ON AUGUST 9, 2010

PARENT

A school Student Evaluation Summary Report, 5/06, 6/06, 2 pp. B Evaluation by , 5/18/06, 6 pp. C Child Outcome Summary Form, 5/18/10, 4 pp. D Letter from Parent to , 5/16/06, 1 p. E Survey, 5/16/06, 1 p. F Consent for Initial Evaluation, 5/25/06, 1 p. G Social History and Non-Testing Observation by , 5/25/06, 5 pp. H and Evaluation by , 6/1/06, 5 pp. I Evaluation by , 6/1/06, 5 pp. J Initial Evaluation by , 7/6/06, 2 pp. K IEP, 8/8/06, 17 pp. L Determination for Ineligibility, FNR, 8/8/06, 4 pp. M 2006-2007 Independent Agreement, 9/6/06, 2 pp. N Documents dated September-November 2006, 11 pp O and Progress Report by , 5/8/07, 2 pp. P Educational Progress Report by ,

5/10/07, 3 pp. Q Progress Report Update by , 6/11/07, 2 pp. R Documents, 6/27/07, 3 pp. S Educational Progress Report by , 7/25/07, 3 pp. T Education Itinerant Progress Report by ,

8/8/07, 2 pp. U IEP, 8/8/07, 29 pp. V Final Notice of Recommendation/ Modification of IEP and Authorization of IEP,

8/8/07, 2 pp. W Evaluation by 7/15/07, 3 pp. X Letter from , , 11/27/07, 1 p. Y Annual Progress Report by ,

1/2/08-1/15/08, 3 pp. Z Update by , 1/4/08, 2 pp. AA Letter from , 1/11/08, 1 p. BB Educational Progress Report from ,

1/15/08, 1 p. CC and Progress Report from , 1/15/08, 2 pp. DD Vineland Social/ Scales, 2/28/08, 2 pp. EE Aging Out Report by ,3/3/08, 2 pp. FF Child Outcome Summary Form, 3/4/08, 4 pp. GG Notice of CSE Review Meeting,3/4/08, 1 p. HH IEP, 3/11/08 and Amended 3/28/08, 17 pp. II Letter from Parent, 3/11/08, 1 p. JJ Detail Placement Inquiry Screen Email by , 3/13/08, 3 pp. KK Documents, 3/17/08-3/27/08, 5 pp. LL Placement Letter and Authorization to Attend 6/11/08, 6/12/08, and 6/17/08, 3 pp. MM CSE Screening Sheet, 8/16/08, 1 p. NN Memo from , 23 231/5/09, 1 p. OO Notice of IEP Meeting and Parent's Response,2/26/09, 2 pp. PP IEP, 3/11/09, 16 pp. QQ IEP, 4/24/09, 16 pp. RR Final Notice of Recommendation: Annual Review or Reevaluation,4/28/09, 1 p. SS Follow-Up Evaluation, 10/26/09, 4 pp. TT Letter from Parent to , 11/5/09, 2 pp. UU work Packet, 12/7/09, 7 pp. VV Communication Book Pages, 2009-2010, 4 pp. WW Evaluation from , 1/27/10, 9 pp. XX Annual Review by , 3/23/10, 5 pp. YY Impartial Hearing Request, 6/8/10, 5 pp. ZZ Answer to Impartial Hearing Request from DOE, 6/25/10, 3 pp. AAA Authorization for Independent for ,6/25/10,13 pp.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD FOR ID OCTOBEER 15, 2010

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

1 Parent Workshop & Activities for 2009-2010 School Year, 3 pp. 2 Omitted 3 , 5/12/10, 1 p. 4 IEP, 5/12/10, 17 pp. 5 , 4/27/10, 6 pp. 6 Omitted 7 Omitted 8 Student Progress Report, various dates, 2 pp. 9 Ed Summary Sheet Reading Program, various dates, 2 pp. 10 Individual Data Sheet, various dates, 21 pp. 11 and Report, 10/8/10, 2 pp. 12 Report, 10/8/10, 4 pp.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON JANUARY 20, 2011

PARENT

BBB Update, 5/10/10, 2 pp. CCC Communication Log, 10/14/10, 2 pp. DDD Affirmation, 9/14/10, 2 pp. EEE Amended Due Process Request, 11/11/10, 10 pp. FFF IEP, 4/27/10, 17 pp. GGG of of Evaluation and , Follow-up

Evaluation, 4/14/10, 3 pp.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

1 Parent & Activities for 2009-2010 School Year, 3 pp. 2 Omitted 3 , 5/12/10, 1 p. 4 IEP, 5/12/10, 17 pp. 5 , 4/27/10, 6 pp. 6 Omitted 7 Omitted 8 Student Progress Report, various dates, 2 pp. 9 Ed Summary Sheet Reading Program, various dates, 2 pp. 10 Individual Data Sheet, various dates, 21 pp. 11 and Report, 10/8/10, 2 pp. 12 Report, 10/8/10, 4 pp. 13 Omitted 14 Omited 15 Update Annual Goals for 5/12/10 IEP, 11/1/10, 9 pp. 16 Omitted 17 Omitted 18 Omitted 19 Omitted

POST HEARING SUBMISSIONS

IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER

I IEP, 4/27/09, 2 pp. II District’s Post Hearing Closing Statement, 3/7/11, 3 pp. III Parent’s Post Hearing Closing Statement, 3/7/11, 29 pp.