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 2, 2012

August 29, 2012

November 6, 2012

November 16, 2012

December 6, 2012

January 7, 2013

January 11, 2013

Actual Record Closed Date: March 1, 2013

Hearing Officer: Linda S. Agoston, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED AUGUST 2, 2012

via telephone Attorney — Parents

Attorney — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED AUGUST 29, 2012

Attorney — Parents

Attorney — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED NOVEMBER 6, 2012

Attorney — Parents

Parents

Attorney — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED NOVEMBER 16, 2012

Attorney — Parents

Parents

Attorney — DOE

Special Education Teacher, CSE (via telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED DECEMBER 6, 2012

Attorney — Parents

Parents

Attorney — DOE

Special Education Teacher, CSE (via telephone) — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JANUARY 6, 2013

Attorney — Parents

Parents

via telephone Pathologist — Parents

via telephone ABA Supervisor — Parents

via telephone ABA Supervisor — Parents

Attorney — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JANUARY 7, 2013

Attorney — Parents

Parents

Pathologist (via telephone) — Parents

ABA Supervisor ABA Therapist Parent (via telephone) — Parents

Attorney — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JANUARY 11, 2013

Attorney — Parents

Parents

via telephone Teacher — Parents

Dr., via telephone Neuropsychologist — Parents

Attorney On June 28, 2012, I was designated by the New York City Department of — DOE

Education (“DOE”) as impartial hearing officer, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(2) and Article 89 of the Education Law of the State of New York in the matter of . and the parents through their attorney initiated this hearing on June 28, 2012. The hearing was amended on July 13, 2012 and amended a second time on September 4, 2012. Hearings were held on August 2, 2012, August 29, 2012, November 6, 2012, November 16, 2012, December 6, 2012, January 7, 2013 and January 16, 2013. An Interim Order on Pendency was issued by me on August 15, 2012 and based upon the unappealed decision from IHO Findings of Fact and Decision, (Exh. C) dated June 22, 2011, I ordered the funding the placement to the . ”) as well as 46 hours of Special Education Itinerant Teacher (“SEIT”) per week at the rate of $130 per hour and five hours per week of parent training by IBI Associates at the rate of $150 per hour and five hours of ”) until issuance of this final decision.

The parties moved to extend the compliance date in light of anticipated testimony, the scheduling of witnesses and submission of evidence and closing memoranda. 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 their positions in accordance with the requirements of due process was greater than any delay in the resolution of this matter. Accordingly, the joint requests for extensions of the compliance dates were granted and the required documentation provided to the parties (Tr. at 277;330-333;784; IHO Exhs. 1-IV). The current record close date is March 1, 2013 and the decision due date is March 15, 2013. Appended to the record are the names of the persons who appeared at the hearing and the documents admitted into evidence.

BACKGROUND

is an (Exh. 8 at 4). She is currently enrolled in the in . On February 14, 2012, the Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) met and developed an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) for the 2012-2013 school year (Exh. 3) and recommended Integrated Co-Teaching (“ICT”) Services in a general education classroom in math, ELA, Social Studies and Science (Exh. 3 at 7). The February 14, 2012 IEP recommended that also receive related services of five times per week for 30 minutes per session; physical therapy (“ ”) three times per week for 30 minutes per session; occupational therapy (“OT”) three times per week for 30 minutes once a week (Exh. 3 at 7). The February 14, 2012 IEP did not recommend 12-month service and/or program (Exh. 3 at 8). On July 18, 2012, CSE met again and developed an IEP for the 2012-2013 school year that recommended ICT services in a general education classroom in math, ELA, Social Studies and Science (Exh. 4 at 8).

On February 14, 2012, the parent wrote to Ms. , CSE and requested a copy of the February 14, 2012 IEP minutes (Exh. G). On March 7, 2012, the parent again wrote to Ms. and requested a copy of the February 14, 2012 IEP minutes as well as the February 14, 2012 IEP (Exh. H). On March 19, 2012, the parent wrote to Ms. yet again requested a copy of the February 14, 2012 IEP minutes (Exh. I). On April 23, 2012, the parent wrote to Ms. and again requested a copy of the February 14, 2012 IEP minutes and informed Ms. that his daughter had not received for the school year (Exh. J). On May 3, 2012, the parent wrote to Ms. again request the following: (1) the IEP minutes,

(2) the proposed placement for his daughter, and (3) approved forms so his daughter could secure PT and OT in the 2011-2012 school year (Exh. K). On June 15, 2012, the parents wrote the CSE Chairpersons designees and stated that the February 14, 2012 program of ICT services in a general education classroom was inappropriate and the IEP failed to offer a free, appropriate public education (“FAPE”) and that the DOE failed to offer an appropriate placement (Exh. L at 1). Further, the parents claimed that the February 14, 2012 was deficient as there was insufficient teacher intervention, insufficient levels of services, no individualized parent-training and counseling, inappropriate and insufficient , inadequate assessment, inadequate goals and objectives and was not in the least restrictive environment (Id.). The parents further requested reimbursement/prospective funding for 2012-2013 school year for the tuitions and costs of SHS well as 46 hours of SEIT per week and five hours per week of parent training by and five hours of , three times per week for 45 minutes per session; OT three times per week for 45 minutes per session and transportation (Exh. L at 2).

On June 28, 2012, the parents filed the a demand for due process and argued that the DOE failed to offer a FAPE and assert that the February 14, 2012 IEP was procedurally and substantively defective and that the DOE failed to offer an appropriate placement. Further, they claim that the 2012-2013 school year placement and home program they unilaterally provided is appropriate and that equitable considerations warrant reimbursement/prospective funding for tuition and services (Exh B). On July 13, 2012, the parents filed an amended demand for due process (Exh. A)

On July 16, 2012, the parent wrote to CSE 9 informing CSE that her daughter’s was in jeopardy and her daughter did not receive any mandated (Exh. O).

On July 18, 2012, CSE met again and developed an IEP for the 2012-2013 school year that recommended ICT services in a general education classroom in, math, ELA, Social Studies and Science (Exh. 4 at 8). The July 18, 2012 IEP recommended five times a week for 45 minutes per session three times per week for 45 minutes per session; OT three times per week for 45 minutes per session and once a week for 45 minutes (Exh. 4 at 8). The July 18, 2012 IEP recommended 12-month service and/or program (Id.).

On July 23, 2012, the DOE asserted that the July 18, 2012 CSE complied with procedural requirements in the development of the IEP, designed an appropriate ICT program and asserted that the parents’ claim is not ripe and the DOE was not out compliance because no placement was offered (Exh. 2).

On August 8, 2012, , Dr. found continued to demonstrate developmental delays as well as a diagnosis of , but noted . was able to have a more prolonged verbal interaction and she was able to interact for longer periods of time and recommended that . continue to be placed in a small class with a large amount of individualized attention as she had progressed in this setting (Exh. W).

On August 10, 2012, the DOE offered the parents a placement at in the Final Notice of Recommendation (“FNR”) for a collaborative team teaching (“CTT”) class and individual counseling, SLT, PT and OT (Exh. 13).

On August 16, 2012, the parents wrote to CSE 9 to disagree with the July 18, 2012 IEP program and the reduction of and noted that the proposed CCT class was not in the least restrictive environment as the CTT class was a large classroom with 40 percent of the students were classified as disabled and her current class at with a SEIT did not violate IDEA’s least restrictive environment (Exh.R).

On August 23, 2012, the parent wrote to CSE to alert CSE to his unsuccessfully attempts to meet with classroom teachers at and to inform CSE that placing his daughter in a large CTT class without individual support was not appropriate and was in contradiction of the recommendations of his daughter’s related service providers, teachers and doctors (Exh. S).

On September 4, 2012, the parents filed a second amended demand for due process and asserted that the July 18, 2012 IEP was not reasonably calculated to provide . a FAPE. The second amended demand for due process listed over one hundred deficits in the July 18, 2012 EIP including, but not limited to the following reasons: (1) no assessment reports were used to establish “present levels” and there was no baselining of .’s then-existing functional and skills level including her interfering behaviors; (2) the IEP team was not duly constituted; 3) the IEP team failed to include any DOE related service providers; (4) there was no individualized parent training or counseling; (5) there was no IEP goals for parent training or counseling; 6) the DOE did not conduct independent evaluations; (7) the DOE relied by the private evaluations and assessment, but then did not follow the recommendations made by its own evaluations; (8) the IEP failed to conduct ”) to listed interfering behaviors or develop to individual and unique needs; (11) there was no methodology for measure progress towards goals except observation; (12) no short term goals; (13) no goals to generalize skills; (14) there was no teacher support throughout the day. (Exh D at 18-20) The parents brought the hearing seeking tuition reimbursement/prospective for the 2012-2013 school year. The SHS is a private entity lacking State Education Department approval. The parents brought the hearing seeking tuition reimbursement and prospective payment for non-religious portion of SHS for the 2012-2013 school year. The tuition for for the 2012-2013 school year was $6,250 (Exh. Y at 2). It was undisputed that the religion class at meets for four periods for 45 minutes per period and prayer is approximately five minutes each school day for a total of 205 minutes or approximately three hours and 25 minutes of religious instruction/prayer (Tr. at 618, 647). The parties did not stipulate to the amount of religious instruction. The DOE estimated the amount of religious instruction was 14 percent (IHO Exh. VI at 10). The report card indicated that religious studies was a graded period and there were six academic subjects as well as art, music, a foreign language and physical education (Exh. AA) and the school day starts at 8 am to 3:15 pm (Tr. at 411); therefore, I conclude that the estimated amount of religious instruction is ten percent or a tenth of the SHS program. Therefore, the secular portion of the tuition for the for the 2012-2013 year is $6250 minus $625 and I find the secular portion of the tuition for the 2012-2013 is $5,600.

The parents requested the following relief: (a) that the DOE reimburse the parents in the amount of $1,100 for SHS for the 2012-2013 school year (Tr. at 770;780; Exh. Y) and the DOE directly pay SHS for the balance of the tuition for the 2012-2013 school year; (b) prospective funding for 20 hours per week of SEIT services from IBI Associates from July 1, 2012 to August 30, 2012 in the amount of $130 per hour; prospective funding for 40 to 42 hours per week of SEIT services from September 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013 in the amount of $130 per hour; (c) prospective funding for 5 hours per week of program supervision including individualized parent training from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013 in the amount of $150 per hour; (d) direct funding for three sessions of 45 minutes per session of from the date of my decision until June 30, 2013 and a compensatory award for services that were not provided from July 1, 2012 to the date of my decision at the approved rate for related service providers (“RSA”); (e) direct funding for two sessions of for 45 minutes per session from the date of my decision until June 30, 2013 and a compensatory award services that were not provided from July 1, 2012 to the date of my decision at the approved RSA rate; (f) direct funding for five hours per week of from January 2, 2013 to June 30, 2013 and a compensatory award for not provided from July 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012 at the approved RSA rate (Tr. at 740 to 755). The parents withdrew their request for transportation and any further compensatory award including parent and training (Tr. at 755-757).

The DOE asserts that the CSE complied with procedural requirements to develop the July 18, 2012 IEP, designed an appropriate 10-month program in an ICT classroom that would provide a meaningful educational benefit in the least restrictive environment and that the placement it offered was appropriate. Further, it claims that is not appropriate and that equitable considerations do not support any tuition reimbursement. (Tr. at 105; Ex. VI)

THE DISTRICT’S CASE

The DOE presented the testimony of , a holder of a Master’s degree in special education, and a licensed and certified special education teacher employed by the DOE for 20 years, testified that she was the special education teacher who participated in the July 18, 2012 IEP (Tr. at 120-124;130). She stated that the team considered the 2009 psychological (Exh. 8) and the SLT progress reports (Exh. 9) and the OT progress report (Exh. 10), but no new evaluations were conducted (Tr. at 138). She recalled a discussion of an assistive technology evaluation because J.’s motor skills were very weak (Tr. at 141). She stated that she typed the minutes of the February 14, 2012 IEP meeting (Exh.

5) during the course of the meeting from a laptop computer (Tr. at 150) and the general education teacher typed the minutes of the July 18, 2012 IEP (Tr. at 142). She stated that the July 18, 2012 IEP team recommended an ITC class and the related services of , PT on a 12-month basis to avoid regression over the summer beginning July 1, 2013(Tr. at 155; 167). There was no dispute that . did not receive related services over the summer of 2012 (Tr. at 228). She recalled that the July 18, 2012 IEP team identified J.’s academic weaknesses in decoding, illegible penmanship and spelling (Tr. at 172). She recollected that the July 18, 2012 IEP team considered included pragmatic issues (Tr. at 174). She stated the team did not conduct a FBA or develop a because would be done on an as needed basis on the school level as noted on the parents’ copy of the July 18, 2012 IEP (Exh. Tr. at 177; Exh. P at 18-21). The district’s copy of the July 18, 2012 IEP (Exh. 4) did not contain the . She explained that she developed the academic goals to address academic weaknesses in compliance with common core standards and the related service providers developed the related service goals (Tr. at 186-192). She further explained that differentiated instruction was identified to address deficits (Tr. at 193). She recalled that the parents disagreed with the in a general education setting and maintained the did not provide sufficient support and was not in the least restrictive setting and did not allow access to appropriate peers (Tr. at 197).

On cross Ms. stated that she taught class two years ago and recalled that she never assessed J.(Tr. at 203) She stated that neither the school psychologist or the parent member met J. and that CSE did not conduct an observation after May 3, 2010 (Exh. 11) despite signed consent (Exh. E) dated January 24, 2012 for either the February 14, 2012 or the July 18, 2012 IEP meetings (Tr. at 214). She stressed that the July 18, 2012 IEP team reviewed the classroom observation (Exh. 10) from 2010, progress report of the teacher (Exh. 7), and that no member of the July 18, 2012 team disagreed with anything in the reports or observation (Tr. at 215-217;233). She recalled that she participated in the February 14, 2012 IEP and that all the members of the February 14, 2012 team who worked with J. reported that J. made progress in her setting at SHS and her home program (Tr. at 218). She could not explain why the parent did not receive a copy of the February 14, 2012 IEP minutes (Tr. at 219). She further stated that no member of the July 18, 2012 IEP team disagreed with the classification and the SEIT Supervisor, Ms. and Ms the provider, who participated in the July 18, 2012 IEP meeting stated that J. progressed in her current setting (Tr. at 234). She recalled that the parent requested a copy of the February 14, 2012 IEP meeting minutes sometime in the summer of 2012, but did not recall a request from the parent for the minutes of the July 18, 2012 IEP meeting (Tr. at 242). She further recalled the Ms. told the February 14, 2012 IEP team was making progress with five session of 60 minutes per week per week for twelve months (Exh. 9 at 1) and no other recommended a reduction in and that Ms. that all reports considered by the February 14, 2012 IEP team recommended a 12-month program (Tr. at 250). She recalled that the parent, the SEIT Supervisor, Ms. Frenette and Ms. Schwartz disagreed with the ICT recommendation (Tr. at 258). She agreed that July 18, 2012 recommended related services of and for nine hours per week and that J. would miss a third of her instruction time (Tr. at 260-262) She did not recall if either the parent, Ms. , or Ms. requested related services outside the home (Tr. at 268). She recalled that the PT provider on May 15, 2011 recommended PT for a 12-month program (Exh 4 at 1; Exh. T) in her justification for summer services (Tr. at 295). She further recalled was reading on the level; however the July 18, 2012 IEP indicated she was reading in the grade level in the academic achievement (Exh. P at 1) and her instructional functional level grade (Exh P at 14) due to limitations of the computer program that generated the July 18, 2012 IEP (Tr. at 298). She stated that the box for was typed into the July 18, 2012 by the school psychologist at the request of the parent (Tr. at 302). She further stated that she did not recall if the parent wanted an assistive technology evaluation (Tr. at 303). She acknowledged that there was no grade level listed in the academic goals on the July 18, 2012 IEP because the NY common core standards allowed teachers to modify the goals (Exh. P at 4-7; Tr. at 308). She could not explain why the district copy of the July 18, 2012 IEP did not contain the included in the parent’s copy of the July 18, 2012 IEP (Tr. at 314). She acknowledged that the goals for the February 14, 2012 IEP were pre-drafted before the February 14, 2012 IEP meeting and the February 14, 2012 only partly followed the recommendations of the psychological evaluation (Exh. 8) because the psychological evaluation did not recommend the elimination of the SEIT (Tr. at 321). She further acknowledged that no SLT report recommended a reduction sessions for 60 minutes to SLT sessions for 45 minutes and stated that was reduced because a period was 45 minutes (Tr. at 322). She stated that the general education teacher who participated in the February 14, 2012 IEP was not certified so the team met again on July 18, 2012 (Tr. at 324) She further stated that the February 14, 2012 IEP goals were continued on the July 18, 2012 IEP without objection from any member of the July 18, 2012 IEP team (Tr. at 325).

THE PARENTS’ CASE

The parents’ case as presented in the testimony of the parent, , Language Pathologist; , ABA Supervisor, , ABA Therapist; , SHS teacher and Dr. . The parents maintained that . required a small class without disabled children with SEIT to learn and achieve progress and required both the home-based ABA services and home based related services in addition to the school-based program to progress (Exhs. A, B, D; L).

Dr. testified that he received a Doctorate in Clinical Psychology and was a NYS licensed neurologist (Tr. at 651). He stated that he was employed by NYU Medical Center as the Associate Director of Pediatric Psychology and Neuropsychology (Tr. at 652). He stated that he . since she was in preschool and he observed her at the end of the 2011-2012 school year (Tr. at 654). He explained presented with difficulties consistent with a child on in terms of reciprocity, reciprocal attention, eye contact, communication skills and behavior and self-regulation (Tr. at 655). He opined that J. was making meaningful progress at SHS with the SEIT (Tr. at 657). He further opined that based on his observations of the SEIT personnel working with J. and his observation of J. that J. progressed by the ABA/SEIT support she received over the course of the years (Tr. at 658). He opined should receive related services after school in order . to progress (Tr. at 659). He further opined that SEIT services should be provided in school because the SEIT worked in communication skills and pragmatic language skills in the classroom with J. during the school day and required the SEIT to meaningfully partake in her education at SHS (Tr. at 660). He stressed that required individualized support to progress in her reciprocal attention, engagement, self-regulation and functional communication skills (Id.), He opined that she benefited from peer modeling from typically developing peers (Tr. at 661). He explained that the ability to generalize was important for autistic children to progress in their maladaptive behaviors (Tr. at 663) He stated that generalization was the ability to perform skills in different environments. He opined that 40 hours of SEIT was appropriate for J. to develop independence and selfsufficiency (Tr. at 665). He opined that an ICT class was not appropriate . and he was familiar with an ICT class as he had observed ten ICT classes per year for the past twenty years (Tr. at 668). He explained his understanding of an ICT class was co-teaching with a general education teacher and a special education teacher with a general education curriculum modified for thirty percent of the class (Tr. at 667). He stressed that an ICT class contained twenty to thirty students which was . was unable to negotiate such a large and chaotic environment in her class or a large community school (Tr. at 669). He further stressed . required her SEIT or she would disrupt her class and her SEIT helped J. focus and attend and (Tr. at 670). He opined that SHS with SEIT support was an appropriate placement to make progress (Tr. at 671).

On cross Dr. stated that he did not conduct an observation of class for the 2012-2013 school year, but he treated her in November 2012 (Tr. at 675). He opined that would not progress in a self-contained class with a special education teacher without her SEIT (Tr. at 677). He explained required a full-time SEIT to gain independence and that her SEIT was well trained to back away so . was able to generalize and model independence (Tr. at 682). He noted that the SEIT who assisted . in class and the SEIT who assisted J. after class were constantly evaluating . and observing her to gather data for generalization and that the SEIT sessions were able to be reduced as a result of progress (Tr. at 684).

Ms. , certified general education teacher employed , testified that was a private Catholic mainstreamed school and she ’s homeroom teacher and science teacher since September 2012 (Tr. at 595). She stated that she taught in an inclusion class in the public middle school and thirty percent of the students in the inclusion class had IEPs (Tr. at 594). She further stated that the SHS followed the NYS core standards (Tr. at 596). She noted that there were nine students ’s class and as well SEIT (Tr. at 597). She explained that the SEIT was able to and ensure understood the science class (Tr. at 599). She related that he communicated with ’s SEIT every day and the SEIT used her special education skills to ensure that did not distract the class (Tr. at 600). She further related that the nine children were peer models for in social and academic skills (Tr. at 601). She recalled that a student in his class also had an IEP and . was able to guide that student in social situations (Tr. at 603). She further recalled . was able to socialize with her typically developed peers (Tr. at 604). She opined that the SEIT did not and that her classmates realized that the SEIT helped . to progress (Tr. at 605-607). She stated that J. progressed in socialization in her lab and that . progressed in science class in answering questions (Tr. at 609). She opined that . would not be able to progress in her class without her SEIT as she would not be able to focus (Tr. at 610;620). She reviewed the first quarter report card (Exh. NN) and noted in science (Tr. at 613). She opined that without her SEIT then . would not be or write her ideas or stay in (Tr. at 614;621). She further opined improved in her self-control and listening skills (Tr. at 615).

On cross Ms. stated that there were no certified special education teachers in (Tr. at 627). She further stated that she differentiated her instruction by using a SMART board for her visual learners and hands-on activities and musical topics to help her students learn (Tr. at 628). She explained that she did not differentiate instruction because it was not necessary (Tr. at 631). She further . was removed from the class and took tests and quizzes in a separate room (Tr. at 632). She related that she questioned the SEIT about the test and quizzes (Tr. at 634).She further related that the SEIT acted as a scribe and that the SHS did not use any assistive technology tools besides a computer that the entire class used (Tr. at 636). She stressed that she did not need to redirect J. because the SEIT redirected her on a daily basis (Tr. at 639;645). She opined that J. was able to cognitively understand the science material and she progressed with her nine classmates (Tr. at 640). She further opined . was able to move from class to class only with the assistance of the SEIT would wander the halls without her SEIT (Tr. at 649).

Ms. Pathologist and a NYS licensed speech therapist with an American Speech and Hearing Association certification employed by the DOE for two years, testified that she wrote the progress report (Exh. 9) and drafted the annual goals dated February 13, 2012 (Tr. at 339-345). She stated that she worked until the summer of 2012 (Tr. at 346). She further stated that she worked for five sessions for 60 minutes per session (Tr. at 348). She stated that she to at home since the age of two because it was important to keep in her school and engage in peer interaction (Tr. at 350). She explained of language, (Tr. at 352). She described .’s progressed in her ability to slow the point where she was fluid and intelligible (Tr. at 353). She further included with herself SEIT and parents (Tr. at 355). She explained that was reduced by removing a favorite activity (Tr. at 356). She recalled that she participated in the February 2012 IEP meeting and she reported progress and recommended goals to the team (Tr. at 357). She recalled that she recommended to the IEP team continue in her current placement and . receive away from the classroom to enable to close the gap with her peers (Tr. at 358). She further recalled she was told that the must be reduced, but no reason was given for the reduction (Tr. at 360). She opined that push-in would not be appropriate because it was draw attention to and (Tr. at 361). She opined that working on articulation goals would be distracting in push-in SLT session (Tr. at 362). She recollected that she participated in the July 2012 IEP meeting and opined that a CTT was not appropriate because J. currently functioned well in a mainstreamed classroom in the least restrictive environment (Tr. at 362). She related that she communicated by email and telephone with the SEIT and she communicated with parents who explained progressed at with SEIT during the 2011-2012 school year (Tr. at 364;370). She further related that she communicated parents to teach them her strategies so the parents could carry over skills to enable to meet goals (Tr. at 374).

On cross Ms. stressed that push-in SLT would not be appropriate because goals could not be worked on in class and would be distracted (Tr. at 376). She maintained that the SEIT did not provide the same distraction as a SLT provider who pushed into the class because the SEIT had a different role as a shadow (Tr. at 379). She described a CTT class with two teacher comprised of both regular education and special education students and opined that SHS was a less restrictive environment than a CTT class (Tr. at 384). She further opined . required modeling from children (Tr. at 385). She explained that J. required 60 minutes per session instead of 45 minutes per session as she had difficulty greeting and saying goodbye so the extra 15 minutes was crucial (Tr. at 398).

Ms. , NYS certified in special education and conducting post graduate work for a certification in ABA with over 21 years of experience as a SEIT, testified that she was the Director of the IBI Associates (Tr. at 401-403). She stated that IBI was a group of special educators and board certified behavior analyst (“BCBA”) SEITs and speech pathologists (Tr. at 406). She stated that the head SEIT for . was a BCBA (Tr. at 407). She explained that IBI provided instruction in the form of SEIT services during the school day from 8 am to 3:15 pm and after school from 3:15 to 4:00 pm (Tr. at 410-412). She stated that the 2012 summer SEIT provider, Mr. , a licensed and certified ABA provider and certified special education teacher with a Master’s degree in early childhood special education (Exh. PP) and the , was a NYS licensed special educator with a graduate degree in special education (Tr. at 412). She further stated that in September 2012, the SEIT providers were Ms. who was a BCBA and possessed a graduate degree in psychology and education, Mr. (Tr. at 413). She stated that she supervised Ms. over the summer to ensure the progressed towards her goals (Tr. at 416). She further stated that she charged $150 per hour for her supervision and $130 per hour for SEIT services (Tr. at 418). She described the progress she observed over the past six years that IBI provided ABA as well as SEIT services (Tr. at 421). She described . progressed from a refusal to in preschool to a placement with was able to model appropriate behavior from typically developed peers (Tr. at 422-425). She explained that through ABA services was able to increased communication and articulation (Tr. at 427). She noted that progressed during the 2012-2013 school year by improved her reading fluency, speech skill, sustained attention and socialization (Tr. at 459). She further noted improved with peers (Tr. at 428). She explained programming charged daily to address her focusing deficits (Tr. at 430), and the SEITs were authority and picking her hair or her eyelashes (Tr. at 433;459).She further explained that she worked with . to transition from going to one class to changing classes for each subject in the 2012-2013 (Tr. at 434). She stressed that through she was able to decrease the amount of SEIT services over the years and the 2012 summer services decreased from 46 hours per week to 20 hours per week (Tr. at 436-438). She further stressed the benefits of SEIT to successfully and address her deficits across all domains (Tr. at441). She explained that she worked with the SHS staff so that with the help of the SEIT J. was able to keep up with the workload of SHS (Tr. at 442). She stated classmates treated her in a positive way and were very respectful to her (Tr. at 444). She opined that a CTT class would not be appropriate because J. would have too much stimuli in a large class and a large public school (Tr. at 451). She further opined required services for the 12-month school year (Tr. at 454).

On cross Ms. stated that required many SEITs to respond to different people (Tr. at 469). She explained that only required four hours of SEIT services per week to progress in academics and socialization over the summer when . was not in school (Tr. at 478). She further explained that the ensured that the SEITs did when she socialized with her peers (Tr. at 483). She noted that no staff at SHS was certified in special education (Tr. at 487). She stressed that . required SEIT and a special education teacher in an ICT class would not be able to provide the same amount of attention (Tr. at 505).

Ms. a BCBA SEIT, testified that she had worked with autistic children since 2001 (Tr. at 519). She stated that she worked with . as her SEIT since September 2012 (Tr. at 521). She explained her role was to promote independence (Tr. at 522). She further explained that she communicated with Mr. through a communication book and data was collected on . She stated that Ms. supervised her ABA SEIT work (Tr. at 524; 551). She described a strategy she used to address in and was by a token economy system (Tr. at 527;538). She explained that she took notes dictated by could listen to the teacher (Tr. at 533). She further explained that she ensure was engaged socially and by reinforcements and visual reminders (Tr. at 536). She noted modeled typically developed peers (Tr. at 540). She recalled was o in art class with over twenty children (both fifth and sixth graders) and attending the art class (Tr. at 543). She explained that she assisted . in art and gym by encouraging her to participate (Tr. at 545). She further explained that she was able to fade in her use of prompts over the 2012-2013 year. She opined not feel stigmatized by her presence .’s self-confidence improved (Tr. at 550). She further opined would have a difficult time managing in a ICT class with special education students who comprised forty percent of the class (Tr. at 554).

On cross Ms. stated that data was collected to progressed (Tr. at 558), and she used ABA and to address deficits (Tr. at 569).

The parent testified that he participated in the February 14, 2012 IEP meeting and he repeatedly requested a copy of the minutes, but he only received the IEP (Tr. at 693). He further stated that he participated in the July 18, 2012 IEP which was convened as the result of a resolution agreement (Exh. N) after the due process request was filed (Tr. at 697). He recalled that he disagreed with the July 2012 IEP recommendation of pull-out related services during class time and requested related service be provided after school (Tr. at 700). He recalled that he requested SEIT services and was told SEIT services could not be provided (Tr. at 701). He stated that the amount of SEIT services was reduced from 46 hours to 37.5 hours in school and 45 minutes after school (Tr. at 703). He related that only the CSE staff agreed with the ICT recommendation in the July 2012 IEP meeting and Ms. Ms. and he disagreed with the ICT recommendation (Tr. at 708;710). He recalled that he told the ICT team that every report the team considered recommended a continuation of her current program (Tr. at 711). He further recalled that no related services were recommended for the summer of 2012 (Tr. at 713). He recollected that he considered the BIP to be part of the July 18, 2012 IEP (Tr. at 715).He further recollected that after he received the FNR for a placement at , he attempted to visit the proposed school to see if the proposed ICT class was appropriate and he was unable to enter the school (Tr. at 721). He recalled that he placed his daughter in a mainstream class in without any support and it (Tr. at 732); however, he attempted to lessen the SEIT services over the 2012 summer to 20 hours to promote independence (Tr. at 733). He stated that he used his credit cards to pay for related services and requested prospective funding for the SHS tuition, and home program (Tr. at 740).

On cross the parent stated that the ICT program was offered every year including the July 18, 2012 IEP program (Tr. at 760). He further stated that he was told during the July 18, 2012 IEP meeting that parent was not authorized (Tr. at 762). He explained that he observed the proposed ICT class to see if the class was appropriate and if the class was appropriate, then he would have requested that a SEIT accompany his daughter in the proposed ICT class (Tr. at 768). He further recalled that his daughter was able to perform in a play with her classmates and without her SEIT (Tr. at 769). He further stated that he was not offered an ICT program with a SEIT (Tr. at 778).

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

The District 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 parent asserted that the school district failed to offer a FAPE in that the CSE failed to offer an appropriate program for the 2012-2013 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 regression” 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. B. v. Milford BOE, 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 (2d Cir. 1997).” The burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing challenging the appropriateness of an IEP is on the Department of Education. N.Y. Educ. Law §4404[1][c].

For tuition reimbursement cases a board of education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a child by the child’s parent, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parent were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parent’s claim. School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Dept. Education, Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 [1985]; Florence County School District Four et al. v. Carter by Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993].

The parents claim that the IEP was substantively and procedurally defective. I find the DOE’s attorney’s claims that the July 18, 2012 program was appropriate was not supported by the district’s witness or the district’s evidence. The DOE attorney asserted the February 14, 2012 IEP recommended a 10-month ICT program and the July 18, 2012 IEP recommended a 12-month program (Exhs. 3 at 8; 4 at 8) and that no related services were recommended for the summer of 2012 (IHO Exh. VII at 10). Testimony adduced at the hearing established that the CSE recommended summer services on the July 18, 2012 IEP to prevent regression and that the July 18, 2012 IEP team recommended an ITC class and the related services of SLT, OT, PT on a 12-month basis to avoid regression over the summer beginning July 1, 2013(Tr. at 155; 167). There was no dispute that J. did not receive related services over the summer of 2012 (Tr. at 228). The parents’ attorney asserted that the CSE, who acknowledged that J. required a 12-month program, neglected to provide related services for the summer beginning on July 1, 2012 (IHO VII at 3). I find all the reports CSE reviewed in the February 14, 2012 IEP meeting and the July 18, 2012 IEP meeting recommended a 12-month program. I credit the testimony of the Speech Pathologist, who participated in both in the February 14, 2012 IEIP and the July 18, 2012 IEP and recalled that the PT provider on May 15, 2011 recommended PT for a 12-month program (Exh 4 at 1; Exh. T) in her justification for summer services (Tr. at 295). I find that the OT provider in the OT progress report dated May 22, 2011 recommended . continue “maintain her 12-month IEP to target work behaviors, sensory processing issues, gross and fine motor skills and coordination” (Exh. 10 at 2). I find the lack a summer program for the summer beginning on July 1, 2012 was in contraction of the reports and evaluations that the CSE considered and the request of the parent, who requested related services for the 2011-2012 school year and for summer services beginning on July 1, 2012. On May 3, 2012, the parent wrote to CSE to request approved forms so his daughter could secure in the 2011-2012 school year (Exh. K). The SRO had held the a 10-month program is not sufficient if the student required a 12-month program in Application of the New York City Dept. of Educ., Appeal No. 11-057. I find that J. required a 12-month program beginning on July 1, 2012 and the lack of a summer services for a student who required a 12-month program established that the July 18, 2012 program was not sufficient. Accordingly, I find that the DOE failed to provide J. a FAPE for the 2012-2013.

Because I find the IEP is substantively defective and FAPE was not provided for the 2012-2013 school year I could end my inquiry; however, I note the parents’ attorney made several claims of procedural defects, including, but not limited to the following deficits: the lack of support; the lack of sufficient related services; insufficient FBA/BIP on the parents’ copy of the July 18, 2012 IEP and no FBA/BIP on the district’s copy of the July 18, 2012 IEP; and no individualized parent training (IHO Exh. VI at 3). The parents’ attorney asserted that the July 18, 2012 IEP was not reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefit because the IEP lacked or after-school support (IHO Exh. VI at 3). I credit the testimony of the Director of IBI and that the head SEIT for (Tr. at 407). I credit classroom’s teacher’s testimony that required instruction to generalize, to focus and transition (Tr. at 649). I credit the testimony of the teacher that her was redirected by her SEIT (Tr. at 610-620) and could not function without her SEIT. I find credible and persuasive the testimony of the SEIT and the Neurologist concerning the J.’s deficits and needs, including .’s need for a SEIT during school and after-school to learn new skills at school and to (Tr. at 659660). I find the July 18, 2012 CSE team was aware of the need for SEIT by the progress reports from the teacher (Exh. 7 at 2) and the related service providers (Exhs. 9, 10). I credit the testimony of the and I find the CSE reduced the SLT services without any explanation or evaluation to warrant the deduction. I find the failure to provide support and resulted in a lack of FAPE. I find that the DOE failed to a FAPE for 2012-2013 because she required a more intense program than the DOE was willing to provide. I conclude that the evidence presented by the district does not establish that its program would provide the instruction required and that the IEP is substantively defective. (see P.K. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 819 F. Supp. 2d 90, 57 IDELR ¶ 139 (E.D.N.Y. 2011.) The parent’s attorney asserted that despite the fact that for years J. had received SLT after school and that both the parent and the Speech Pathologist notified the CSE of her speech deficits, the CSE failed to consider any extended day services “see Deal v. Hamilton County Bd. of Educ.,392 F.3d 840(6th Cir. 2004; T.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 247 (2d Cir. 2009).” (IHO Exh. VI at 7). I find the July 18, 2012 IEP is not reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefit. Accordingly, I find that the DOE failed to provide . a FAPE for the 2012-2013.

The parents’ attorney argued that the July 18, 2012 IEP contained a on the parent’s copy of the IEP, but not on the district’s copy of the IEP (IHO Exh. VI at 11). The district’s witness credibly stated the team did not conduct because the would be done on an as needed basis on the school level as noted on the parents’ copy of the July 18, 2012 IEP (Exh. Tr. at 177; Exh. P at 18-21). The district’s copy of the July 18, 2012 IEP (Exh. 4) did not contain the FBA/BIP. The DOE attorney did not explain the discrepancy. I find the July 18, 2012 team did not conduct the necessary assessments including a as required under 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.4[b][1][v] as impeded and no assessment was conducted to ascertain that contribute to her disability. The team was required to conduct to manage the as required under 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.22[b]. It was undisputed that no FBA was developed pursuant to state and federal law. The Second Circuit differentiated between serious (FBA) and minor (parent counseling) procedural violations based on state standards for FAPE analysis and found the “failure to conduct an FBA will not always rise to the level of a denial of FAPE, but when an FBA is not conducted, the court must take to care to ensure that the IEP adequately addresses the child’s problem behaviors.” (R.E. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 59 IDELR ¶ 241 (2d Cir. 2012.) I find the July 18, 2012 CSE team was aware of the interfering behavior exhibited by J. as documented by the undated teacher’s report of presenting resistance to following along (Exh. 7 at 2). I find IEP failed to adequately address outlined in the teacher’s report. I conclude the IEP did not adequately address the student’s behaviors and in these circumstances, I find the lack of a FBA was a denial of FAPE.

The parent’s attorney further asserted that the July 18, 2012 IEP team did not provide for mandatory parent counseling and training to promote generalization of skills as required under 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.13[d] and that the July 18, 2012 IEP team did not create social and behavioral goals (IHO Exh. VI at 12-13). It is undisputed that no parent counseling and training was specified on the IEP. Although, this is a minor violation, the lack of IEP specification of parent training and counseling provides support for a conclusion that FAPE was not provided due to procedural violations. (see R.E. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 59 IDELR ¶ 241 (2d Cir. 2012).

The parents’ attorney asserted that the July 18, 2012 IEP failed to recommend a program in the least restrictive environment (IHO Exh. VI at 9). This assertion was not contested as testimony adduced at the hearing established . was satisfactorily educated in a regular education classroom with the SEIT and the ICT program was not in the least restrictive environment.

The parents’ attorney maintained that the DOE failed to prove the appropriateness of its placement decision as required by the Second Circuit in R.E. and asserted that the DOE must prove that the proposed placement was appropriate. R.E. at 188. (IHO Exh. VI at 9).

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 decision-making 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].

I find the parents established that they expressed the continued need for schoolbased and home-based ABA/SEIT instruction at the July 18, 2012 IEP and the team’s decision to deny services was made without consideration of the parent and the IBI Director. I find the CSE team was aware of the behavior exhibited by . as documented by the teacher’s progress report and ignored the parents’ request for SEIT which significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision making process. I find the decision to deny school-based and home-based SEIT services and sufficient related services caused a deprivation of educational benefits. Accordingly, I find FAPE was not provided to during the 2012-2013 school year. I find the parents established the need for extensive SEIT and provided substantial evidence of data collection and progress report by the SEIT providers and documented her need 1:1 SEIT after school in conjunction with the school program. I note that the Second Circuit of New York ruled in M.H. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 685 F.3d 217, 59 IDELR ¶ 62 (2d Cir. 2012)and upheld $80,000 tuition reimbursement for kindergarten child with autism based on finding that child needed extensive 1:1 discrete-trial ABA services, which district’s proposed placement did not provide.

I note that the parents provided substantial evident to establish that the SEITs were qualified to provide appropriate services of SEIT to meet her unique needs and the provider was qualified to provide speech therapy. I find SEIT providers and provider had extensive credentials in special education and ABA including experience teaching children on the autism spectrum. Having reviewed documentary evidence submitted by the parent and the unrebutted and credible testimony of the witnesses of the parent, I find the record supports a finding that . required SEIT in school and after-school services and increased related services of after school. Accordingly, I find the parents are entitled to 20 hours per week of SEIT services from July 1, 2012 to August 30, 2012 and 40 to 42 hours per week of SEIT services from September 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013 as well as five hours per week of program supervision including individualized parent training from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013 and five hours per week of from January 2, 2013 to June 30, 2013.

The parent must establish that the proposed parental placement is appropriate under the IDEA, i.e., that the private school is offering an instructional program that meets the child’s special education needs. Testimony adduced at the hearing clearly demonstrates that the is providing a small regular education environment that allowed . to receive a regular education with a SEIT. The classroom further stated that she differentiated her instruction by using a SMART board for her visual learners and handson activities and musical topics to help her students learn (Tr. at 628). The classroom teacher established that had made progressed socially and in her ability to answer questions (Tr. at 609) and that was able to model appropriate behavior from typically developed peers (Tr. at 601).

I find testimony adduced at the hearing established that ’s special education needs were met by her teachers and SEITs at and she received individual attention to address her disability by the classroom teacher and the SEIT. I find that the provided educational instruction that was specifically designed to meet .’s unique needs and I credit the testimony of the classroom teacher of progress academically and socially during the 2012-2013 school year.

The DOE attorney asserted that was not appropriate did not have related services (IHO Exh. VII at 15). The Second Circuit had repeated refused to find the lack of a recommended related service alone rendered a student’s private placement inappropriate. G.R. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., No. 07 Civ. 4711 (TPG), 2009 WL 2432369, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 7 2009)(‘[The parent] was no required to establish that WPS offered speech and language therapy in order to prevail. Rather, when the program and .’s deficiencies are examined in their totalities, it is clear that the program was well designed to serve ’s needs.’); Gabel v. Bd. of Educ., 368 F.Supp. 2d 313, 32 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)(finding unilateral private placement appropriate even though the school did not provide student with recommended on IEP).

I find that the unilateral placement need not meet all the standards that would be expected of a public program under prong one. Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 364 ([2d Cir. 2006]. I find that is reasonably calculated to make meaningful academic and social emotional progress. Therefore, I find that the parents met their burden regarding the unilateral placement . at for the 2012-2013 school year.

The third prong of the test for tuition reimbursement is whether the equities favor the parent’s position. I find that the equitable considerations do support the parents’ claim for reimbursement. In this case, the parents fully cooperated with the district and made J. available for evaluations. I credit the parent’s testimony that he would have considered an appropriate public school placement. I find that the parent provided detailed and uncontradicted information (QQ) as to his income and financial resources. I find the cost of the SHS and the SEIT services exceeded the parent’s income and under Mr. and Mrs. A v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 769 F. Supp. 2d 403 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), the court has broad discretion to "grant such relief as . . . is appropriate" including direct payment of private school tuition. Mr. and Mrs. A v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 769

F. Supp. 2d 403, 427-429 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). A court may require a school district to pay a private school directly and prospectively for special education. 20 U.S.C. 1415[i][2][C][iii].

ORDER

I order the following: (a) that the DOE reimburse the parents in the amount of $1,100 for SHS for the 2012-2013 school year upon proof of payment acceptable to the the DOE and the DOE directly pay for the balance of the secular tuition of $5,600 for the 2012-2013 school year; (b) prospective funding for 20 hours per week of SEIT services from IBI Associates from July 1, 2012 to August 30, 2012 in the amount of $130 per hour; prospective funding for 40 to 42 hours per week of SEIT services from IBI Associates from September 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013 in the amount of $130 per hour; (c) prospective funding for five hours per week of program supervision including individualized parent training from July 1, 2012 to June 30, 2013 in the amount of $150 per hour; (d) direct funding for three sessions of 45 minutes per session of from the date of my decision until June 30, 2013 and a compensatory award for services that were not provided from July 1, 2012 to the date of my decision at the approved rate for RSA; (e) direct funding for two sessions of for 45 minutes per session from the date of my decision until June 30, 2013 and a compensatory award for PT services that were not provided from July 1, 2012 to the date of my decision at the approved RSA rate; (f) direct funding for five hours per week of from January 2, 2013 to June 30, 2013 and a compensatory award for not provided from July 1, 2012 to December 31, 2012 at the approved RSA. The DOE is further ordered to reinstitute . Dated: March 13, 2013

_______________________

LINDA S. AGOSTON, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

LSA:gc

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 2, 2012

A 7/13/12 Amended Demand for Due Process, 14 pp. Parent

B 6/28/12 Demand for Due Process, 15 pp. Parent

C 6/22/11 Findings of Fact and Decision, 16 pp. Parent

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON NOVEMBER 6, 2012

D 9/4/12 Second Amended Demand for Due Process, 23 pp. Parent

E 1/23/12 NYC DOE Consent Form, 1 p. Parent

F 2/14/12 NYC DOE IEP, 14 pp. Parent

G 2/14/12 IEP Minutes Request, 2 pp. Parent

H 3/7/12 IEP Minutes Request Follow-Up, 2 pp. Parent

I 3/19/12 Letter from Parents to District, 2 pp. Parent

J 4/23/12 IEP Minutes Request, Second Follow-Up, 2 pp. Parent

K 5/3/12 Letter from Parents to District, 2 pp. Parent

L 6/15/12 Letter from Parents to District, 4 pp. Parent

M 7/3/12 NYC DOE Due Process Response, 4 pp. Parent

N 7/11/12 Resolution Agreement 5 pp. Parent

O 7/16/12 Letter from Parents to District, 2 pp. Parent

P 7/18/12 NYC DOE IEP, 21 pp. Parent

Q 8/10/12 NYC DOE Final Notice of Recommendation, 1 p. Parent

R 8/16/12 Letter from Parents to District, 2 pp. Parent

S 8/23/12 Letter from Parents to District, 2 pp. Parent

T 5/15/11 Related Service Progress Report and Goals, 5 pp. Parent

U 6/1/11 Incidental Behavior Intervention, 4 pp. Parent

V 2/13/12 Annual Progress Report, 3 pp. Parent

W 8/8/12 Report,1 p. Parent

X 8/20/12 Incidental Behavior Intervention, 5 pp. Parent

Y 9/6/12 Enrollment Contract, 2 pp. Parent

Z 3rd Quarter Progress Report for 11-12 school year, 2 pp. Parent

AA 11-12Report Card, 1 p. Parent

BB 5/11 Plan, 2 pp. Parent

CC 5/11 Assessment, 2 pp. Parent

DD 6/11 Use of Time-Out Rooms, 2 pp. Parent

EE Omitted Parent

FF Omitted Parent

GG ABA Methodologies, Undated, 3 pp. Parent

HH Omitted Parent

II Omitted Parent

JJ Omitted Parent

KK Omitted Parent

1 Omitted District

2 7/23/12 Due Process Response, 4 pp. District

3 2/14/12 IEP, 13 pp. District

4 7/18/12 IEP, 14 pp. District

7 Teacher Report, undated, 3 pp. District

8 6/2009 Evaluation, 7 pp. District

9 2/13/12 Progress Report, 5 pp. District

10 5/22/11 Progress Goals, 2 pp. District

11 5/3/10 Classroom Observation, 2 pp. District

12 Omitted District

13 Omitted District

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON NOVEMBER 16, 2012

5 2/14/12 IEP Meeting Minutes, 7 pp. District

6 7/18/12 IEP Meeting Minutes, 1 p. District

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON DECEMBER 6, 2012

I Decision on Extension, 11/6/12, 1 p. IHO

II Decision on Extension, 11/16/12, 1p. IHO

III Decision on Extension, 12/6/12, 1p. IHO

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON JANUARY 7, 2013

MM CV of Dr. David Salsberg,8 pp. Parent

NN First Quarter Report Card, 2012/2013 1 p. Parent

OO Credentials of , 3 pp. Parent

PP Credentials for , 4 pp. Parent

QQ 2011 Income Tax Return, 2 pp. Parent

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON JANUARY 11, 2013

IV Decision on Extension, 1/11/13, 1p. IHO

POST HEARING SUBMISSIONS

V Decision on Extension, 2/26/13, 1 p. IHO

VI Closing Brief, 2/21/13, 31 pp. IHO

VII Closing Brief, 2/21/13, 21 pp. IHO

VIII Reply Brief, 3/1/13, 2 pp. IHO

VII Reply Brief, 3/1/12, 1 p. IHO