NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Case Number:
Student’s Name:
Date of Birth:
District:
Hearing Requested By: Parent
Date of Hearing: September 8, 2011
November 1, 2011
November 2, 2011
January 10, 2012
January 18, 2012
January 25, 2012
Record Close Date: March 23, 2012
Hearing Officer: Michael S. Lazan, Esq.
SECOND CORRECTED
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON SEPTEMBER 8, 2011
Attorney — Student
Attorney — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON NOVEMBER 1, 2011
Attorney — Student
Parents
Parents
Attorney — DOE
Special Education Teacher (via telephone) — DOE
School Psychologist (via telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON NOVEMBER 2, 2011
Attorney — Student
Parents
Parents
Attorney — DOE
Special Education Teacher, (via telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JANUARY 10, 2012
Attorney — Student
Parents
Parents
Speech Language Pathologist (via telephone) — Student
Lead Teacher (via telephone) — Student
Legal Intern — Student
Occupational Therapist (via telephone) — Student
Education Coordinator (via telephone) — Student
DOE Attorney — DOE
Principal Administrative Assistant, CSE- (via telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ONJANUARY 18, 2012
Attorney — Student
Parents
Parents
ABA Supervisor (via telephone) — Student
Attorney — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JANUARY 25, 2012
Attorney — Student
Para Professional (via telephone) — Parents
Attorney — DOE
Assistant Principal (via telephone) — DOE
By Complaint dated July 12, 2011, the matter of . (“Student”) came before me as impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, (“IDEA”) 20 U.S.C. Sect. 1415(f)(1). Appended to the record are the names of the persons who appeared.
This is a matter involving a (Student). The Complaint alleges 65 different Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) violations (Exh. A) relating to the program offered by the District through the Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) reflecting the meeting date of February 10, 2011. As relief, the parents seek tuition reimbursement for the for the 2011-2012 school year, including transportation to and from the school, fifteen hours per week of home and community-based (“ ”) therapy, three and one half hours of home and community-based , two hours per week of home and community-based , four hours per month of parent training and counseling, and compensatory education for all services that the Student “was entitled to but did not receive” through stay-put relief.
At a hearing date on September 8, 2011, the parties went through stay-put issues, scheduling and subpoena issues. On such date, the parties jointly moved to extend the timelines for a decision because of witness availability. (14) This Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) determined that the applications for extension were consistent with the regulatory requirements in 8 NYCRR Sect. 200.5(j)(5)(ii) and granted the extension through October 25, 2011. On October 25, 2011, the parties again moved to extend the decisional timelines because of witness availability. This IHO determined that the applications for extension were consistent with the regulatory requirements in 8 NYCRR Sect. 200.5(j)(5)(ii) and granted the extension through November 24, 2011.
The matter proceeded to hearing on November 1 and 2, 2011. On November 18, 2011, the District moved to extend the decision date because of the need for additional case preparation. There was no objection from the parent. This IHO determined that the applications for extension were consistent with the regulatory requirements in 8 NYCRR Sect. 200.5(j)(5)(ii) and granted the extension through December 27, 2011. (IHO Exh. 1)
Thereafter, hearing dates were set for January 10, 2012; January 18, 2012; January 25, 2012. On December 27, 2011, the parties moved to extend the decision date because of the need for additional case preparation and witness availability. This IHO determined that the applications for extension were consistent with the regulatory requirements in 8 NYCRR Sect. 200.5(j)(5)(ii) and granted the extension through January 26, 2012. (IHO Exh. 1) On January 24, 2012, the parents moved to extend the decision date because of additional witness availability and case preparation. This IHO determined that the applications for extension were consistent with the regulatory requirements in 8 NYCRR Sect. 200.5(j)(5)(ii) and granted the extension through February 26, 2012. (IHO Exh. 1)
The parties sought to present briefs to the hearing officer after reviewing the transcripts. The parties and this IHO set a briefing schedule, and the parties jointly moved to extend the decision date on February 16, 2012 to allow the parties to submit briefs. This IHO determined that the applications for extension were consistent with the regulatory requirements in 8 NYCRR Sect. 200.5(j)(5)(ii) and granted the extension to March 23, 2012. (IHO Exh. 1) The briefs were due on March 13, 2012. The parents submitted their brief on this date. (IHO Exh. 4) The District did not submit a brief on this date and instead sought additional time to submit their brief. (IHO Exh. 1) The District also moved to extend the decision date to allow the District to submit the late brief. The parent objected to the late submission but not to the extension of the decision date. This IHO granted the application to allow the late submission of the brief after requiring the District to submit an affidavit to the effect that the District had not read the brief of the parents while writing its brief. This IHO granted the extension of the decision date after determining that the application was consistent with the regulatory requirements in 8 NYCRR Sect. 200.5(j)(5)(ii). The final timelines extension was through April 22, 2012. (IHO Exh. 1) The District submitted its brief with an affidavit to the IHO on March 23, 2012, which is the record close date in this matter. (IHO Exh. 4)
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Student is . (152) He has . (Exh. 6)
He demonstrates . (Exh. 6) He can . (Exh. 6)
The Student does not benefit from . (449)
An evaluation from the on April 29 and 30, 2010 indicates that the Student presented with some intervals of on-task work but frequently left the test table, particularly as the demands got greater. (Exh. 5) He engaged in a high rate of and had to be . At one point in the assessment, he . (Exh. 5) The assessment recommended the to learn and maintain skills and regular, ongoing support. (Exh. 5)
The District observed the Student in December, 2010 and noticed a high number of , low , . (154-155; Exh. 9)
The progress report from dated December 1, 2010 indicated that the Student was in school for a six hour day with five hours of individualized instruction. (Exh. 6) In terms of class-wide group instruction, he participates in morning meeting, music, and art. (Exh. 6) This is characterized as “ . (Exh. 6) He also participates in group and participates with minimal prompting. (Exh. 6) He has made progress in many of his , including in his verbal behavior programs. (Exh. 6) He had difficulty with some of his , mostly due to his . (Exh. 6) He is working on identifying colors, lowercase letters, recall, SRA Reading Mastery, Edmark Reading, matching pictures to words, identifying numbers, rote counts, identifying opposites, tracing lines. (Exh. 6)
A ”) was written by on February 8, 2011. (Exh. 9) This indicates that the Student’s occurs most frequently when he requires or access to a preferred activity. (Exh. 9) Also motivating the Student were escape, attention, and “tangible.” (Exh. 9)
The District’s IEP reflecting the meeting dated February 10, 2011 was based on evaluations from and reports from including an . (150) Instructional levels were determined from these documents. (151) Academic management needs were movement breaks, prompting, redirection, modeling. (152-153) Goals were sent by the school and discussed one by one at the meeting. (156-165) A is required because the Student is distractable and continually needed to be redirected. (173) The paraprofessional in the IEP was to work on “safety.” (Exh. 4)
A was attached to the IEP. (175) This BIP was based on the FBA and BIP. (175; Exh. 11) The will be modeled and immediately reinforced by child chosen reinforcement.” (Exh. H) had determined that the behaviors were primarily driven by the need for . (176) The way to address these behaviors was to The ’s recommendation for physical redirection would make worse for the Student. (376)
The District sent a FNR to the parents on June 20, 2011. ( 324-327)
Assessments would have been appropriate to determine which ABA variant the Student would have benefitted from. (78)
The behavior management paraprofessionals are provided with an overview by the District and are trained by the teacher. (79) Assistants in the classroom do a lot of the instruction with the children, as well as the behavior modification. (67) The assistants rotate so that everyone takes turns with different children. (82-87) There is a assigned to a particular Student who implements the program for most of the day. (87) During the and the workstation period of the day, Students will rotate to other assistants. (90) The paraprofessional assigned to the Student’s proposed class for summer, 2011 and the current school year is not schooled in TEACCH. The paraprofessional has had limited training in applied behavioral analysis, is not aware of discreet trial teaching. (688-689, 664, 693) His training with respect to behavioral management is limited. (695)
Parent training is done by workshops. (59)
The District’s IEP would have been implemented at the , . (668) The Student would have been in class. (668) The summer class contained five students who would be working on very similar levels to the Student. (36-41) None of the Students in the fall classroom . (278) Age range was . (69) The Student would be assessed through the ABLLS in class. (41) There is group and individual instruction in the classroom. (42) There is “quite a bit” of group instruction, which is all the children. (42) For a few periods a day, they are divided into two groups. (42) To manage the students, they use . (43-44, 47) Goals in the IEP could be addressed in the classroom. (47-49, 51-56) The goal relating to identification of letter-sound correspondence using a phonics-based reading program could not be worked on since the school does not use a phonics-based reading program. (264) The goal relating to identification of sight words would not be worked on except in individual instruction because there is no sight word program in the classroom. (266)
The Student would have attended this classroom were he to have accepted the District’s offer of school. (72-73)
Some techniques are used in the classroom such as (64) Some TEACCH techniques are used. (63) Students use independent work stations. (63, 253) Mastered tasks are used in the work stations. (253-254) Work stations last 10-15 minutes once a day. (254) TEACCH is recommended for Students with basic behavioral skills. (254) Students receive between 10-15 minutes of individual instruction daily. (263)
Probe data is done once a week to determine the programs to be worked on. (259) Graphs are used in the classroom. (259-260)
Discrete trial teaching happens about three to four times a week for minute periods on a basis. (65)
In the workstation, they work on tasks that they have mastered in the setting. (90)
The program at provides a six hour -based program. (458-459) One hour a day is spent in a dyad. (458-459) The program at does a good job with ABA. (172) There are five students in the classroom with five instructors. (439) Data is collected in connection to the Student’s goals. (384) The Student has made progress in this program in terms of counting, reading, managing his time. (382-383)
The school tried to provide a classroom over the summer, 2011, which program sought to “fade” the Student from a direct teaching program. (462) This program had seven students in it. (440) The goal of this class was to “fade” the instruction out so that the Students would be able to work in dyads. (440) Instruction in this classroom was not limited to ; there was instruction through the SRA Reading Mastery and Connecting with Math Concepts, among other programs. (442) However, the school determined that the direct teaching program was more appropriate for the Student because he requires a lot of redirection and cannot benefit from group instruction. (442449)
The Student also receives two group speech sessions per week, three 30 minute individual sessions of . (344-345) The Student also receives twice a week. (427)
The Student receives home services under the supervision of Dr. . (567) This is eight hours of ABA support and two hours of supervisory support. (567) Two therapists deliver these services, and services are also delivered to the parents. (576) The home program is to work on skills to become a member of the and to manage the home life.
(603) The therapists work with issues surrounding bathroom use and generalize skills learned in school. (585, 605) She works with . (584-586) They work on noncompliance and using inappropriate behaviors, social skills in the community. (587-593) The instructors include one who has a master’s degree in special education and another who has several years of experience as an ABA aide. (598)
The school offers parent training, opportunities for the Student to go into the community. (457-460)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In 2007 the New York State legislature passed a bill that was signed by the Governor which switches the burden from parent to District except for the second criterion in cases for tuition reimbursement or payment. Chapter 583 of the Laws of 2007.
The District may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a student by a student's parent if the services offered by the District are inadequate or inappropriate ("first criterion,") the services selected by the parent are appropriate ("second criterion"), and equitable considerations support the parent's claim ("third criterion"), even if the private school in which the parents have placed the child is unapproved. School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Dep't of Education, Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985); Florence County School District Four et al. v. Carter by Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993).
On the first criterion, the District should show that it offered parents a FAPE. A FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the District complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits. While Districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures, not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA. Pursuant to the IDEA, when procedural violations are alleged, an administrative officer may find that a child did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a) impeded the child's right to a FAPE, (b) significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in the decision making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the child, or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits. 20 U.S.C. Sect. 1415(f)(1)(E)(ii); 34 C.F.R. Sect. 300.513(a)(2).
The District has a duty to assess students in all areas of suspected disability, including, where appropriate, “ ,” “ 8 NYCRR Sect. 200.4(b)(6)(vii). The District also has a duty to review existing evaluation data on the child, including current classroombased, local or State assessments, classroom based observations, and observations by teachers and related services providers. 34 CFR Sect. 300.305(a)(1)(i)-(iii)
A review of the record here indicates that the District in effect chose to assess the Student by reviewing the reports from the parents’ school, evaluators and providers. However, the District then failed to credit the substance of these reports, which recommend a and do not support the District’s program recommendation. The reports do not suggest that the Student can should be placed in a classroom where “quite a bit of the instruction” is provided through group lessons. On the contrary, these reports indicate that the Student requires extensive individualized teaching support to make any academic gains. R.K. ex rel R.K. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 2011 WL 1131492 (S.D.N.Y.) (IEP team improperly recommended where all reports and evaluations except the District observation recommended significant amount of ABA support); R.E. and M.E. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 785 F. Supp.2d 28 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)(all the reports before the IEP team indicated that the Student required support); Cf. E.S. v. Katonah-Lewisboro School Dist., 742 F. Supp.2d 417 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)(Chief Judge Preska held FAPE denial because District did not adequately consider student’s progress in private placement).
The District suggests that the assignment of the paraprofessional addresses issues relating to individualized instruction. Ms. testified that such paraprofessional is so important to students in her class that it is the paraprofessional who implements the student’s program for most of the school day. (87)
However, the IEP team recommended the paraprofessional for the purpose of redirecting the Student, not teaching the student. Further, there is nothing in the record to establish that such paraprofessionals are qualified to be teachers throughout the school day. The paraprofessional who testified at the hearing indicated that he did not have a college degree and had never heard of TEACCH, one of the methodologies employed in the subject classroom. There is nothing in the record to suggest that replacing the 1:1 teaching at with teaching by such an aide would be an effective educational strategy for this Student1. R.E., 785 F. Supp.2d 28 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)(ruling that addition of 1:[1] management paraprofessional does not cure inappropriate placement where IHO found the student needed 1:1 teaching support).
In this connection, I note that the record clearly indicates that this IEP would be implemented at the . I find that the IEP would have been implemented at were the parent to have agreed to send her child there.
The District also contends that the paraprofessional will address the Student’s behavioral concerns. However, even where a paraprofessional is assigned, Districts may still be required to conduct an for Students. R.E. and M.E. v. New York City Department of Educ., 785 F. Supp.2d 28 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
Districts are required to consider behavioral supports such as BIPs when a Student “exhibits persistent behavior that inhibits learning.” 8 NYCRR Sect. 200.22(b)(1)(I).
Here, the District relied on the of the , and then created its own . While this Hearing Officer finds it appropriate for the District to use the , the District had a corresponding responsibility to create a that meets regulatory requirements. This is especially true for this Student, who has . A must include a baseline measure of the problem behavior, intervention strategies, and a schedule to measure the effectiveness of the interventions. 8 N.Y.C.R.R. Sect. 200.22(b)(4). The annexed to the IEP is basically a checklist. Merely describing problematic behavior and then listing several goals are not adequate substitutes for a BIP. R.K. ex rel R.K. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 2011 WL 1131492 (S.D.N.Y.) Further, there is nothing in the IEP requiring the teacher to update the upon meeting the Student, as there could have been.
Finally, the District also failed to show that could meet the required mandate of related services. When asked whether the school would be able to provide the related services on the IEP, Ms. answered: “I wouldn’t know.” (59) The District bears the burden of proof on the first criterion, but did not present any additional testimony to establish that the Student would receive related services at the school 2 . The record indicates that related services are material to this Student’s educational progress, particularly therapy.
In sum, I find that the cumulative effect of the above violations denied the Student a FAPE for 2011-2012. R.K., at *5.[3]
2
" FAPE denial can be premised on a failure to materially implement substantial or significant provisions of the IEP. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Bobby R., 200 F.3d 341, 349 (5th Cir. 2000)(cited in
A.P. v. Woodstock Bd. of Educ., 370 Fed. Appx. 202, 204 (2d Cir. 2010)).
On the second criterion, the test for a parent’s placement is “not perfection.” M.S.
ex rel S.S. v. Bd. of Ed., 231 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2000). Parents may not be held to certain requirements that Districts are held to such as teacher licenses or LRE requirements.
Frank G. v. Bd. of Ed., 459 F.3d 356, 364-365 (2006). The inquiry should be focused on whether the placement is an appropriate setting that provides specially designed services to address the Student’s special education needs. Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2007).
The record shows that the Student has made meaningful progress in the program at . The program meets the Student’s special education needs, including the need for a , and a . The reports from the school indicate that the Student has responded very well to the School’s methodology and instruction, and gains have been noted in handwriting, following one-step direction, letter identification, number identification, counting. (Exh.
L) It should be noted that , the District’s witness in connection to the IEP, testified without prompt that practices instruction “very well.” (172)
The District argues that the parent’s request for home services beyond the services provided at undermines the parents’ claims on the second criterion. I have reviewed the caselaw cited by the District in support. The cited caselaw does not directly support this contention. Instead, the cited caselaw supports the proposition that a school that fails to provide necessary school-based related services should not be the subject of an award by a hearing officer. R.S. v. Lakeland Cent. Sch. Dist., 56 IDELR 211 (S.D.N.Y. 2011).
Here, there is no dispute that the can provide the necessary school-based related services. In this matter, the parents seek reimbursement for the Student’s home program, which allows for, inter alia, generalization of skills. West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School Dist. v. M.F., 56 IDELR 106 (D. N.J. 2011). The testimony and evidence support the notion that the home-based services were of significant educational benefit to the Student. Though the parents did not provide sufficient support on this record for the need for additional home-based and parent training in addition to the services provided by , the parents prevail on the second criterion in regard to services provided by and home-based “supervisory” services.
On the third criterion, the IDEA allows that tuition reimbursement may be reduced or denied when parents fail to raise the appropriateness of an IEP in a timely manner, fail to make their child available for evaluation by the district, or upon a finding of unreasonableness with respect to the actions taken by the parents. 20 U.S.C. Sect.
1412(a)(10)(C)(iii). With respect to a parent’s obligation to raise the appropriateness of an IEP in a timely manner, the IDEA provides that tuition reimbursement may be denied or reduced, if parents neither inform the CSE of their disagreement with its proposed placement and their intent to place their child in a private school at public expense at the most recent CSE meeting prior to their removal of the child from public school, nor provide the school district with written notice stating their concerns and their intent with remove the child within ten business days before such removal. 34 CFR Sect. 148(d)(i), (ii). Under 20 U.S.C. Sect. 1412(a)(10)(C)(iii), a denial or reduction in reimbursement is discretionary.
The District argues that the parents should not receive reimbursement for the home-based services because such cost – when combined with the cost of Manhattan
Children’s Center – is “unreasonable” and excessive. However, the District does not provide any on point cases to support its proposition that additional home-based services amount to unreasonable relief in a tuition reimbursement case. In view of the expense of the services to be ordered, this IHO has deliberated extensively on this issue. However, I have reviewed the record and I find that the parents actions are reasonable in view of the difficulties they have had with the child in the home environment. The parents prevail on the third criterion and are awarded reimbursement or prospective payment for all services provided by and at and 8 hours of home-based ABA with 2 hours of “supervisory” services for 2011-2012. Dated: April 5, 2012 Corrected Dated: April 16, 2012 (Corrected minor errors in the document) SECOND Corrected Dated: May 1, 2012 (2nd Correction by IHO Last Paragraph on the last Sentence, Exh. I and Reimbursement Order)
_______________________________
MICHAEL S. LAZAN, ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer
ML:dl
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 SEPTEMBER 8, 2011
PARENT
A Demand for Due Process Complaint dated 07/12/2011, 11 pages B Findings of Fact and Decision by IHO M. Diamond, dated 12/01/2009, 11 pages
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
None
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON NOVEMBER 1, 2011
PARENT
C Updated Report, 4/30/10, 2 pages D Progress Report By 4/30/10, 2 pages E Educational Progress Report by 4/30/10, 4 pages F Evaluation and Test Glossary by , 4/29/10 and 5/20/10, 25 pages H IEP, 2/10/1, 20 pages I Letter from Parents, 6/15/11, 3 pages J Enrollment Contract for 2011-2012, 7/1/11, 2 pages L Educational Progress Report from 105, 8/9/11, 4 pages M Update, 8/11/11, 2 pages N Progress Report by 105, 8/18/11, 3 pages O Form 8879 Tax Form, 9/1/11, 2 pages P Affidavit by , 10/25/11, 1 page Q Class Schedule by , 2011-2012, 1 page R Program Offerings by , 2011-2012, 5 pages S Website Information, 2011-2012, 9 pages T Attendance Records from , 2011-2012, 3 pages U Invoices by , July, August, September 2011, 3 pages V Invoices , July, August, September 2011, 3 pages W Invoices by , July, August, September 2011, 3 pages X New York State Education Department Document Indicating About Use of Time Out Rooms, 5/2011, 2 pages Y New York City DOE Document Regarding The TEACCH Methodology, 2/7/11, 3 pages Z New York State Education Department Document Relating to
TeachingParaprofessionals or TeachingAssistants, Undated, 2 pages AA Jose P Stipulation, 7/22/88, 69 pages BB Blank E-1 Request Form, Undated, 1 page CC Document from New York City DOE 107 114 Regarding Methodologies, 3 pages DD Standard Operating Procedure Manual, February 2009, 309 pages EE New York State Education Department Document Relating to Functional Behavioral Assessments, May 2011, 2 pages FF District Placement Office Referral Form Blank, Undated, 1 page GG New York State Education Department Document Relating to Behavior Intervention Plans, May 2011, 2 pages HH Progress Report from , 9/1/10, 4 pages II Progress Report from , 10/1/11, 5 pages JJ Proof of Payment to , 6/11 to 10/11, 5 pages KK Postal Service Quarterly Performance for a Single Piece First Class Mail, 4/1/11
to 6/30/11, 3 pages LL Graphs, 2010-2012, 14 pages
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
1 Complaint, 7/12/11, 10 pages 2 Response from the District 2/14/11, 4 pages 3 IEP, 2010-2011, 19 pages 4 Rationale, 2/10/11, 3 pages 5 Evaluation, 4/29/10 and 5/20/10, 9 pages 6 Educational Progress Report, 12/1/10, 2 pages 7 Speech Progress, Update 12/1/10, 2 pages 8 Therapy Progress Report, 12/10/10, 2 pages 9 Classroom Observation, 12/13/10, 1 page 10 Social History Evaluation, 5/19/09, 4 pages 11 Functional Behavioral Assessment, 2/8/11, 9 pages 12 IEP, 6/6/10, 25 pages 13 Final Notice of Recommendation, 6/20/11, 1 page
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON JANUARY 10, 2012
PARENT
None
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
14 District Placement Office Referral Form, 2/10/11, 1 page
15 D Referral Form, 3/22/11, 1 page
DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON JANUARY 18, 2012
PARENT
None
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
None
IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER
I Notice of Extensions and Emails Relating to Timelines, 7 pages II Subpoena of Classroom Paraprofessional, 1/10/12, 2 pages III Graph from School to Mr. , 2 pages VI Closing Statement, 56 pages
Footnotes
[1] It should be noted that the tried out a “less restrictive” 8-1-3 classroom during the summer, 2011. This classroom contained more individualized support than the classroom at the , but was designed to “fade” instruction. While the student only made modest gains in this classroom, the then switched the Student to the current environment where the Student was provided support for the large part of the school day.
[3] I have considered the parents’ other allegations in the Complaint, and find that I need not reach them given my determinations herein. Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 09-072.