New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINIDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER

Case Number:

NYS Case Identifier Number: N/A

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District:

Hearing Requested by: Parent

Date of Hearing: July 13, 2011

November 28, 2011

December 2, 2011

December 15, 2011

January 17, 2012

Record Close: February 3, 2012

Hearing Officer:

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JULY 13, 2011

Advocate — Student

Parents

None — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED NOVEMBER 28, 2011

Advocate — Student

Parents

District Representative — DOE

School Psychologist (Via Telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED DECEMBER 2, 2011

Advocate — Student

Parents

Parents

District Representative — DOE

DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED DECEMBER 15, 2011

Advocate — Student

Parents

(Via Telephone) — Student

District Representative — DOE

(Via Telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JANUARY 17, 2011

Advocate — Student

Parents

General Education Teacher (Via Telephone) — Student

Teacher (Via Telephone) — Student

District Representative — DOE

— DOE

This case was brought before me pursuant to appointment by the New York City Department of Education (DOE) under the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 United States Code §1415(f)(1).

( , also known as or ) is a - -old child who is classified as and recommended for an with related services, although without the individual applied behavior analysis (ABA) services the parents the child had been receiving through the services of a . The parents, and ( , , parents or parent) disputed the recommendation and brought the instant hearing seeking hours weekly of as well as the continuation of mandated related services on a basis.

The parents asked for a pendency order directing continuation of related services, and a pendency hearing was convened on July 13, 2011. A pendency order was subsequently issued on July 14, 2011. (IHO Ex. I) Further hearing in this case was held on November 28, 2011, December 2, 2011, December `15, 2011, and January 17, 2012. Upon the requests of the parent, followed by joint requests of the parties, the decision due date was extended and entered into the record as IHO Ex. III.^[1] The record was closed upon receipt of the transcript on February 3, 2012, making a final due date of February 17, 2012.

DISTRICT CASE

, testified that she was at the review meeting in June 2011, along with the child’s parents, parent advocate, teacher form his school, special education teacher, and

Also participating was the child’s and a parent member. She stated there were teachers for the child, of whom participated in the review via the telephone.

The CSE reviewed the entire file, including a 2009 evaluation, and several progress reports. (Exs. 4-10) She stated that she thought she evaluation at the time of the meeting. She stated that the evaluation showed that to be in the to range , with distributed between and and a fall overall in the . (Ex. 10) She also testified that test showed above at the percentile and at . percentile, for an score. Reports indicated that the child had a high probability of which she stated is characterized by and . She stated that he was in a classroom with students at the he attended, with a full time provider. They were told he was in both reading and math. (Exs. 4-10) In summary, is a child, with some and attending general education program and making .

The CSE created a behavior intervention plan (BIP) because of “major complaints” from his parents and teachers with related to his class room . She didn’t have one at his present school. When asked why a health para was recommended, she stated that he had significant in class; when asked why a para was not recommended for the child, she stated that they could only recommended two types of paras, a health para or a crisis management para, and they decided to keep the recommendation form the prior IEP. She stated that as was functioning in a general education class with the support of a special education teacher, it was thought that an integrated program, meaning a regular size class with two teachers, would provide more support than one teacher in a regular class. On cross examination, she stated that the parents had an opportunity to discuss their concerns. The ) class2 would give the child the benefit of a ratio. The parents thought the child would be overwhelmed by the and wanted the child to receive a She stated that is for students, and there are other options for school age children, including general education with , which the parent refused, or an class, which was also refused. Stressed the similarity of a , both services provided by a special education teacher, a supportive service oriented toward academic support; she

2 The terms and were used interchangeably by the witnesses to refer to the same class structure, and are both used in this decision. emphasized that the particular methodology is chosen by the educator. She stated that all the goals were reviewed sat the CSE meeting.

On cross examination, she stated there was no classroom observation, and there was no functional behavior assessment (FBA) conducted, as it wasn’t a new BIP that was being done but a continuation of the previous one. The BIP was the one form the previous IEP. When asked d who wrote the BIP, she stated that it was created ruing the meeting; they asked for the ABA data, which the didn’t have. They said there was no BIP, but they were using ABA. When questioned bout the application of ABA, she testified that the didn’t have the data but if they wanted would start collecting it. They kept saying that ABA was very helpful for , as they were using it in and him and helping him to be more flexible. His classroom teacher, Ms. , said he was progressing, although he had some from on to .

When asked why they rejected a general education class with or the child, she conceded that the parents wanted an IEP as opposed to an individual education service plan (IESP), and explained that the IESP is done for children whose parents are willing to keep their children in private school and receive DOE services. She denied that that team would only consider providing f the parent consented to an IESP and waived her right to an IEP. She stated that there was discussion of duration and frequency of either hours. She stated that they considered him staying in his present class, which is why he was offered an IESP. She agreed that an ICT was more restrictive than a mainstream class with support and that it was more restrictive than his current setting. When pressed further to explain why he was not offered a general education setting with , she explained again that the class would be similar to what he was attending but with more help and support, where he would have the support in a regular classroom environment, without answering why he was not offered general education with She stated that she thought a Final Notice of Recommendation (FNR) was supposed to be provided within 10 days of the IEP meeting. (Tr. 43-132)

., a special education unit coordinator at , testified that he covers teachers, attends CSE conferences, oversee paraprofessionals (paras) and their assignments, coordinates bus arrival and dismissal, and often works with the teachers on IEPs. He also teaches two resource room periods a day. There are approximately students in the school, which is grade; the school has special education students with IEPs. There are classes, an integrated coteaching class (ICT) class in every grade from to grade , and three classes. The school has , full-time , and full and , as well as a guidance counselor, social worker, and school .

The school focuses in on the student with the child’s IEP, using multiple approaches. He explained that a new student’s IEP will be reviewed, and the teacher will make determinations using different assessments in order to group the child within the right functional level.

He reviewed June 2, 2011 IEP and the evaluation report of November 22, 2009. After reviewing, he stated that was appropriate for grade class; the school had the availability and space to meet his needs based on the IEP. He had a vague recollection of the parent visiting, but not in the past school year.

He acknowledged that there was in the grade. The classes follow a standard New York State curriculum, grade in this case. He stated that there are teachers Ms. , who is a certified special education teacher, and Ms. , a certified general education teacher. There is a in the room as well. Only special education students are in the class, of a total of about students. Most of the children have been in the class since ; would have been the students in the class. students are classified as and , one as other , and one . Reading and math levels in the class range from to grade in reading; in math, from the of to the end of grade. All the children are between and years old.

The cap is special education students, in a class with not more than percent general education students, which would allow for general education students in a class of . When asked how the differed from general education with resource room, he stated that was more restrictive than a wholly general education classroom. is a general education placement, so the children are mainstreamed. The students eat in the cafeteria; the whole grade eats together with grade, roughly students supervised by school aides plus individual paras for their assigned child. When asked about he stated that there were -free tables in the lunchroom, but could be . He didn’t know if the class was free, but it could have been made to accommodate if needed. The school nurse would train the child’s para and teacher to use .

He was asked about goals on ’s IEP, and stated his opinion that the school could meet them very . He explained the schedule at some length and testified that the school also has several related service providers. When the new children’s IEPs are reviewed, they are divided among therapists. He confirmed that could have received his mandate of and sessions. depends on the IEP; there is guidance counselor, and , and the latter are dedicated for the students with IEPs. He stated that the and therapy providers would be providers, citing their training and expertise. He also testified about outside agencies that partner with the school to provide after school help to children. (Tr. 155-219)

PARENT CASE

,a provider and supervisor of other providers, testified that she is licensed in special education, with a master’s degree in special education and advanced supervision and administration, and is currently doing course week to obtain board certification as a

She is the director of a school for children with and also provides services after hours to private agencies for children receiving services through CPSE.

was on her workload when he was in when he was months old, and she stayed with him through and CPSE. After a -year gap, she resumed working with him in July 2011. In the 2011-2012 school year she has worked with him hours a week and supervised other on his case, as well as sitting in on monthly meetings and providing parent training. He has two other eachers, and . She testified that Ms. has a masters in special education and certification as a school administrator/supervisor; she also has completed course work. Ms. also has training in ABA and a masters in special education. They are in contact every day, or three or four times a week, usually about sessions, what findings they have collected, and reports on what happened during the school day or at home, which she uses to make changes or move to next steps. She testified that there are children in his class; the is not in the class all day; if the was not there, she couldn’t tell how he would be. She explained that the program for varies depending on the environment, some in the school classroom, some outside of the school day, with different targets. In July 2011, he was at home and she worked in the home environment, after camp at . After school started in September 2011, a baseline was done within the class by the provider at school to determine where he needed the most intervention. When asked, she said she was not sure of the name of the school, although she has been to it.

lie in his ability and will to , his and , and his . His are and skills. The gets him to stay on task, which decreases latency in the time he takes to respond. They are working on staying with what the classroom teacher is saying. The uses ABA at school, a specific amount of time for to respond, setting it up so he knows what the requirements are. He is given about , and earns as , which is a for him. They are also working on time, deceasing time off task. She receives documentation back from the classroom via the and can adjust things as needed. The services he gets at the school are in a ratio of at the school. He needs a of for and , someone who can understand what need to or , or be . She stated that without the support, he couldn’t change things; and without the data they couldn’t know how to change things. He still requires that level. She stated that within the school, his from one to the next, in him being the , will him and will eventually lead to , which right now they are not . She explained that are caused by his with , and his approach to . She described , with , , of , and , and said that she will in the home environment so she can work with on appropriate . Training in has to be consistent, although her testimony indicated she did not know if the same kind of thing was happening at school. She testified that there are a lot more opportunities at , and she received reports that he has improved at school and is not so rigid. When asked who was doing the work in the classroom, she stated that it was either Ms. or Ms. ; she did not know their schedule. She doesn’t use ABA discrete trials with him. She stated that she works on how get him out of meltdowns with using of , which works with rules and reminders for

reinforcement.

Ms. stated that she has heard from the teachers how he is doing, that he is on in reading and math and with the general education classroom. She testified about the in she has seen with him; he shows that he to be with , which she characterized as a big since the and to September. She cited improvement in his flexibility with his when she is with him on . She explained that sees him hours weekly in the home, working with him for hours, from 1:00 to 6:00 PM when he gets out of school on Sundays. He gets her services from the a private agency that pays her. She doesn’t know the other hours. She stated that she is in touch with the parents twice a week, and that they are involved with and with information and team meetings.

She did not participate in the June 2011 IEP meeting, which recommended a class with special education students in a general education class. She stated that she has seen a number of classes over the years, and she went to with the parent more than a year before, in July 2010. She stated that the recommendation was definitely not appropriate, that although the academic level was correct; requires the support of a special education teacher with training. His needs cannot be met by a special education teacher with students with IEPs; he needs all the time. A health para could not implement the program. She argued that services are not too , as he needs a different level . She also stated that the 10month program that was recommended was not appropriate, that needs and will if things are not done on . (Tr. 229- 321)

, testified she that holds a masters degree in special education, and is a licensed regular education and special education teacher with permanent teaching certification in New York State. At , was in her grade class last year. She teaches studies at the school, from 1:30 to 4.30 in the afternoon, and was not familiar with the morning classes. The class, which had students, had a full time assistant classroom aide plus college students.

She described as being on the , stating that his greatest area of was in . Ms. testified at length about his performance and progress in her class. He was and able to with the he had. By the end of the year, he was just about in most areas, some reading skills, just about , but able to . She stated that his in reading were , sight word , his a bit but he could and out , and as for , he what on, but sometimes was and . In and , he often did or what was .

She credited the for making a big difference for . At the beginning of the year he wasn’t out , and not participating at all. The encouraged him a few ways, and with , she would get him for that and he could . That as the year went on, as he showed less need to be so prepared to be called on. His skills showed that he basically , which he got on , but he had a with and ; by the end of grade, he had grade. He still knew to do the , but keep up with the of the . The support was not in math but more in getting him to be class, not in the work but in that he to when everyone else does it. Her objective was in him. , at the beginning of year, he had to do with at of class. At the middle of year, the had incorporated child, then a child, into with , to help him to be part of small . Ms. said she saw , conceding that he was still not by the end of the year. He did in ; although he didn’t or his hand, he was not , and took out his and when .

In June 2011, she participated on phone at CSE meeting, which was a long meeting and with at least person clearly pursuing her own agenda, was not interested in what she had to say, and her off. Ms. did say that the current program was very and ; that showed in the regular with was the only student in her class with a or other aide. There was no one else with , although there were other children with IEPs and receiving services, including and

When asked if could have been in classroom without the she stated that he would have just sat there, not doing anything. When asked if a para could have worked with him directly, she stated that a para wouldn’t have had the training necessary, that even she did not have enough training as the did. (Tr. 338365)

( ) testified that she is certified and licensed in general and special education, trained in ABA, BCBA As a she has worked with him this year hours weekly, mostly in school ( hours) and some at home. Starting this year, out of classroom they are working on different goals set monthly in meeting with and . From 1:00 to 1:45, she works with him out of the classroom, on different goals, and from 1:45 to 4:30 PM, they stay in the classroom. One or two days, he stays school with or and they do things. On Fridays, they work with him in his house, at or they go to the or the .

She described for , including very success in getting him to his . He did when asked but in , with , and they out of , so that very morning the teacher reported him his hand on his and in . Another she described was to , and the of . For a long , he was or not , and he would get and the . They practice him getting , and to the and and in .

In reading, he is a the class, but all right at . His because he things “very ,” and has in or ; he and on. To this, they in reading together, and with the addition of he has started to and his has been . In a recent development, he has developed when , which she couldn’t explain. are used with sight , and as he through them , he is with . He is very by , as to by teachers or peers. She cited as him not at a , but it without , a . His writing is , and he needs for his , but he is getting with s work. She testified that Ms. provides hours, and also provides hours; they meet under Ms. direction. His math skills, at the beginning of year, were because his rate of was so . She the material in all subject areas, giving him and , and he finished the work on time. He is not of ; it remains a goal for the future. Last year he had , which improved to the point where he talked in class; he is now more on the periphery watching and his behavior this year has been almost , with only .

In the classroom, she is to him as she needs to see his face as they work on his goals. When asked how she worked with Ms the year before, she explained that she would look at her, sometimes or her head and the would on . By this method, they got him to in class last year. They did co-teach in areas where he was , but mostly she would and give input to the teacher. Her goal is to get him to function in class, through implementing the ABA program, graphing the goals and having consistent and . She is not working with him when he gets related services. She stated that she speaks to the provider, once or twice a month; she does not speak to the counselor. She knows he gets and , but didn’t know he received counseling or that the counselor is working on soft tone in the classroom. (Tr. 368-402)

parent. mother, is a licensed and registered employed by the DOE; she provides services through RSAs as well as early intervention after hours. She first realized when he was months old; he was at months and labeled , for not otherwise specified. He received early intervention services, and when he reached the CPSE, received , , , and services. He received hours of weekly, using ABA, even in early intervention. She testified that he is responsive to ABA, which makes a . When he turned years old, the CSE initially offered general education with hours of and related services; the next year, they offered a placement with services.

testified about a visit to the recommended placement two years before. She went to visit the at with and . She spoke to at the school, whom she described as very . She said the class was not appropriate, and he appeared to be in agreement. She described the classroom and the children in the classroom at some length, stating that they seemed to be on level than and there was “ ” going on.

She stated that the meeting of the CSE in June 2011 was “ ,” and said she was not asked what she thought. When she ventured to say needed to stay in general education, she was told it was not an option. Two people did most of the speaking, the and the special education teacher; there was a parent advocate, who did very little talking. She said she wasn’t allowed to give an opinion, then clarified that they allowed her to give her opinion but told her it was not up to her and general education was not an option. She very much disagreed with the recommendation of with related services and without , and stated her disagreement very clearly. She stated that her son was doing , he could and since he was , and had been since he was , but has with other parts of , and doesn’t belong in a class geared more for children with . She argued that many of the children on the general education side in a class also and could in a regular education program, so they are put in a class. She cited her experience of classes in the school where she worked, as well as others she has observed over the years. At the meeting, she said she thought he belongs in general education with his provider. She stated she has observed the working with at home; also one or two times, she has watched them at school from afar. She also said was too for a class, and he needed to be or his will .

stated that at home this year, he has been working on transitioning, of , and being more with so his would lead to . She stated that the and appears in a lot of areas of his life, including , skills, and doing his homework. She stated that his depended on his state and at the time. He will , and in , , and or . He used to be more , which has decreased, although his provider will sometimes him, setting up to help him past his . When asked, she explained that both Ms. and Ms. will set up and help him using and the token economy rules. She stated that Ms. doesn’t really work in that aspect with him.

She was also in touch with the school, the , who is his teacher, the Assistant Principal, and the teacher, as well as the teachers. She stated that he has a way, and is doing very this year. She has been told that you almost can’t tell he is different from other child. He is up , but he needs support because he a lot “especially over breaks and times of non-routine.” She said that the recommendation for 10-month service, as opposed to an extended year of 12-month services, is an issue, because is with him and he if he is not in school for more than a week, much less eight weeks. She stated that after she said disagreed with the CSE recommendation, she asked for a quick placement recommendation to look at the site. Nevertheless, she didn’t receive the FNR until late August 20 or 21, 2011. She brought a letter declining the placement to the CSE in person a couple of days later, probably August

25 or 26, 2011. (Exs. 1, D) On cross examination, she agreed that the meeting lasted more than hours, stating that it started off, first 20 minutes team fixated on and special education teacher, after which the special educator left the room to research whether a conflict of interest was presented by Ms. position at . She agreed that she told the team she wanted to remain in his current school with ABA and related services. The year before he received a recommendation for general education with hours of and related services, but the CSE meeting in June 2011 did not consider general education with She testified that it was not discussed as an option; it was only discussed when she brought it up, as “not an option.” (Ex. 2) agreed that when the hearing complaint was filed, she had not visited the school and had not even been offered a school site yet. She had only visited for the 2010-2011 school year. She stated that cannot in of students in a environment. She discussed the difference between and citing the similarity in that they both deliver services, but the providers has worked with are trained in ABA methodology. (Tr. 403-465)

FINDINGS

The purpose of the IDEA is to ensure that all children with disabilities have available a free appropriate public education (FAPE) which addresses their unique special education needs and to ensure that their rights and the rights of their parents are protected. An appropriate program is one which is reasonably calculated to allow the student to receive educational benefits and that the recommended program is offered in the least restrictive environment for the child. 34 C.F.R. 300.550(b); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. 200.6(a)(1); see also Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).

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 special education services. Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-008, Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 06-076; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-059; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 06-029; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-046; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-014; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 93-9.

In this case, the district failed to sustain its burden that it had provided FAPE to . The parties were in general agreement that the child, whose cognitive abilities were good, belonged in a general education setting. As acknowledged by both Ms. and Mr. , the ICT class for which the child was recommended is a more restrictive placement than a mainstream class with support; it was also undisputed that it was more restrictive than his current setting. The previous year’s IEP recommended general education with , and the only explanation given by Ms. for why it was not recommended was that the parents didn’t want it. Instead she defended the more restrictive ICT setting Ms. conceded that the parents wanted an IEP as opposed to an individual education service plan (IESP), which she explained as the plan for children whose parents are willing to keep their children in private school while receiving services. She denied that that team would only consider providing if the parent consented to an IESP and waived her right to an IEP. Her testimony in this regard, however, is clearly contradicted by the language on the IEP, which clearly details consideration of only two programs: general education without support (deemed insufficient) and general education program with “special education teacher support services on the IESP [which] was rejected by the parents and the advocate.” (Ex. 2) There was no indication that a general education program with or any other program was considered by the CSE.

There was also disagreement as to the nature and amount of support the child needed. In that regard, the district failed to show that an ICT or class, which might be otherwise appropriate, provided the necessary support for this child to function in the classroom. I question also the addition of a health para for the child, one expressly designated to deal with the child’s health issues as set forth in detail on the IEP and not tasked with the instructional support the child needed to stay focused on and on task during the class. Ms. insistence that the health para could work on the child’s needs for attention and refocusing and appropriate participation in activities was again contradicted by the plain language of the IEP, which indicated only healthrelated duties for the para.

I note that although the parent argued there was no parent member present, Ms. said one was there and the parent offered no evidence to the contrary. Indeed she testified that a “parent advocate” was present at the meeting but spoke little.

I note the district’s argument that the parent cannot be heard to complain, as she did receive a FNR in late August and she never went to the school to visit it. I note that her objection to a class with a health para and without the hours stands. Her objection, as articulated in her demand and in her testimony, was to the model. I discount entirely her testimony about classes in general or the class she saw in a visit two years prior, all of which was lacking in foundation. Yet her objection the model for , particularly to the more restrictive setting and the lack of needed support had more than sufficient credence. It should be noted that in this case, the parent is not requesting tuition for the school the child attends, just the hours of ABA services. The case involves the simple inquiry as to whether the district provided a FAPE, a burden the district did not sustain.

The child’s need for additional services still needs additional discussion concerning the amount of services needed, the providers and pay for those services, and the duration of their provision.

The parent’s argument it that the child requires hours a week of a and specifically a special education teacher trained in ABA. I credit the testimony of his teachers, Ms. , Ms. , and Ms. , that he needs the support of a trained teacher, and I agree that the child requires a trained educator, and one trained in ABA. As Ms. stated when asked if could have been in classroom without the he would have just sat there, not doing anything.

I credit in particular Ms. testimony about the training needed and the difference the made for in the classroom, and Ms. description of her work with in the classroom and the results she has seen. I note, however, that is in a school that provides studies for only a day, as testified to by the who accompanies him during that period, and her in-school services amount to probably and no more than hours a week, with after school hours work both with a and also in the raising Ms. total hours to hours.

I cannot credit the additional hours requested by the parent. Ms. testimony about the work she is doing in improving behavior was limited to her weekend direct services with , and I acknowledge the improvement she cited in his flexibility with play. Yet her lack of knowledge of the child’s school day was striking: she did not know the name of the school, she did not know which teachers were providing work in the classroom, and she did not know their schedules. Moreover, she was not sure about the behaviors exhibited in the classroom; I note Ms. testimony that he was not . There was no testimony from anyone about his in the other portion of the school day, nor were there any reports of his need for support during that time. Ms. statements about the effect his would have on his and in the were purely . Reports of his academic performance showed that he was in reading and math and able to with the general education population. There was also no evidence concerning Ms. work, other than that she had credentials and supplied hours of unspecified services to the child.

Thus, I am ordering services to be provided or funded for hours a week for . I also note there was no evidence as to the rate of pay. The parent referenced her experience that educators trained in ABA often command greater pay, but there was no evidence concerning payment for providers for .

In regard to the parent’s demand for a 12-month year of services, I note that there was no evidence provided as to his need for a 12-month program. His previous IEP, dated July 16, 2010, also specified a 10 month period for , with the only service for the summer period. The parent argued that they were asking for summer services as part of pendency, and it was included in the pendency order that was issued in this case, but pendency is not a relevant consideration for a determination as to the underlying claim. (IHO Ex. I) Ms. said he needed services, but it was unstated and unclear what skills she thought might if he did not receive services during the summer. I note also that the evidence indicated that did not attend school in the summer months, that in July 2011, he was at home and Ms. worked with him in the home, after camp. The parent also testified that he would , repeating the word like a mantra, but without any specific description as to how he would or in what way. The statements by itself, conclusions without any accompanying basis, were not enough to demonstrate his need for a 12-month program. Given his academic progress and the lack of any evidence concerning possible ,I decline to order a 12-month program for the child. I will however order the CSE to consider a 12-month program when reviewing his IEP.

Finally, the pendency order in this case included an order to provide the related services on the child’s IEP. (IHO Ex. I) As I noted in that decision, a public agency is required to

“provide those special educations and related services that are not in dispute between the parent and the public agency.” Application for Review of a Determination of a Hearing Officer, Appeal No. 10-112, citing 34 CFR 300.518(c); Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 10-064. There was no dispute by the district concerning continued provision of those related services, and I include them in my order to ensure their continued provision to by the DOE.

ORDER

1. The DOE shall provide with hours per week of Special Education Itinerant Teacher services, by a teacher with training in ABA, for the remainder of the 2011-2012 school year. Services may be provided directly by the DOE, by direct payment to a qualified provider at a reasonable rate, or by reimbursement to the parent upon submission of proof of service and payment.

2. The DOE shall continue to provide related services to as specified on his IEP for the remainder of the 2011-2012 school year, specifically (a) minute sessions per week of , (b) minute sessions per week of ;

(c) -minute sessions per week of ; and (d) minute sessions per week of and .

3. In developing an IEP for the 2012-2013 school year, the CSE shall consider the need for a 12–month program for the .child. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 13, 2012

_________________________________

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.

EXHIBITS

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION EXHIBITS *

1 Final Notice of Recommendation, 8/17/11, 1 page

2 IEP, 6/2/11, 25 pages

3 Contact Sheets, 4/1/11 - 6/2/11, 2 pages

5 Progress Report, 4/27/11, 1 page

6 Progress Report, 4/14/11, 1 page

7 Integrated Treatment Services Progress Report, 3/11/11, 3 pages

8 Integrated Treatment Services Progress Report, 6/1/11, 2 pages

9 Teacher Progress Report, 5/15/11, 1 page

10 Evaluation, 11/2/09, 13 pages

11 Progress Report, 5/23/11, 1 page

12 Meeting Notice with Parent Letter, 5/24/11, 2 pages

13 Meeting Notice with Parent Letter, 4/15/11, 2 pages

14 Meeting Notice with Parent Letter, 4/1/11, 2 pages

15 Meeting Notice with Parent Letter, 2/22/11, 2 pages

16 Notice of Recommended Deferred Placement, 6/6/11, 1 page

* The document marked for identification as Exhibit 4 was not admitted into evidence.

PARENT EXHIBITS

A Impartial Hearing Request, 6/15/11, 4 pages

B IHO Findings of Fact and Decision,.12/6/10, 11 pages

C IEP, 9/4/08, 25 pages

D Parent Letter, 8/24/11, 1 page

E Integrated Treatment Services Report, 6/6/11, 7 pages

F Integrated Treatment Services Progress Report, 8/16/11, 7 pages

G 2010-2011 Report Card, 2 pages

IHO EXHIBITS AND DOCUMENTS IN THE RECORD

I Order on Pendency, 7/14/11, 7 pages

II IEP, 7/16/10, 24 pages

III Extension decisions, 9/12/11 - 12/30/11, 5 pages

Footnotes

[1] The extensions in this case were entered in the record of this case using forms required by the DOE’s Impartial Hearing Office. In all extensions in this case I considered the cumulative impact of the following facts: (1) the impact on the child’s interest or well-being, (2) the need for additional time for a party to present their case in accordance with the requirements of due process, (3) any financial or detrimental consequences caused by delay, and (4) whether there had already been a delay through the action of one of the parties. In this case, there were no financial or detrimental consequences to the delay and there was no impact on the child’s well-being.