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: Parents

Dates of Hearing: June 4, 2014

June 12, 2014

July 7, 2014

Actual Record Closed Date: July 21, 2014

Hearing Officer: Judith Schneider, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 4, 2014

Advocate — Parents

Mother — Parents

Managing Hearing Representative — DOE

School Psychologist — DOE

(via telephone)

Teacher — DOE

(via telephone)

Guidance Counselor — DOE

(via telephone)

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 15, 2014

Advocate — Parents

Mother — Parents

Parent of an IEP student — Parents

(via telephone)

Student’s Psychologist — Parents

(via telephone)

Managing Hearing Representative — DOE

School Psychologist — DOE

(via telephone)

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 7, 2014

Advocate — Parents

Mother — Parents

Intern- Advocate — Parents

Managing Hearing Representative — DOE

On June 4, 2014, June 12, 2014, and July 7, 2014. I conducted an Impartial Hearing at the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) Impartial Hearing Office, 131 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, New York, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (“IDEIA”), 20 U.S.C. §1415, and Article 89 of the Education Law of the State of New York, regarding the special education program of XXX (“the student”).

Procedural History

The proceeding was initiated at the request of the parent by correspondence dated March 17, 2014. (Ex. A) I was appointed Impartial Hearing Officer March 19, 2014. I was available to conduct a hearing within 14 days of appointment. At a telephone conference with the parties conducted on April 1, 2014 after the conclusion of the resolution phase, the hearing was scheduled for June 4, 2014, the first mutually available date for the parties and the hearing officer. (T. 7, Ex. I) Thereafter June 12, 2014 and July 7, 2014 were scheduled.

Subsequent to my appointment, the parties moved to extend the compliance date on various occasions in light of anticipated testimony, the scheduling of witnesses and submission of evidence and closing arguments. 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 my written decisions were given to the parties. (T. 7, 104, 221, 395-396, 401, Ex. II)

The current compliance date is August 11, 2014. The record closed on July 21, 2014, upon my receipt of the final transcript. Positions of the Parties

The parents assert that the student, who has been diagnosed commenced in September 2013 in an Integrated C--Teaching (“ICT”) class, that that he was immediately reported to have behavior issues which continued and by letter dated October 28, 2013, the student’s mother requested a review. Although his teachers reported continuing behavior issues and although the , no review had been conducted by March 17, 2014, the date of the the instant impartial hearing request. The parents alleged that the DOE failed to provide a FAPE by failing to develop an appropriate program, failing to provide adequate support in the program that was provided and failing to conduct a timely review upon the parents’ request. The parents request placement for the 2014-2015 school year in what they refer to as which they assert is appropriate for this student. They also seek, as compensatory services and to support the student’s transition into Nest, for the 20142015 school year one (1) hour per week at the approved rate for counseling services for services to be delivered by the student’s current behavioral specialist. (Ex. A)

The DOE has conceded that it failed to provide a FAPE. With regard to the parents’ placement request, however, it asserts that Nest is not a “program” on the continuum but simply a type of ICT class and that it is not appropriate for this student. Further, the DOE asserts that counseling was provided during the 2013-2014 school year and accordingly compensatory counseling services are not appropriate. (T. 29-29, 31)

Cases Presented

Both parties submitted documents for admission into evidence. A list of documents in the record is appended.

The DOE presented the testimony of ”), a school psychologist in the student’s 2013-2014 placement; ”), one of the student’s general education ICT (“ ”), guidance counselor at the student’s 2013-2014 placement; (“Solomon”), a social worker assigned observed the student.

The parents presented the testimony of: ”), mother of a (“the parent”).

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

Under §§1412 and 1415 of the IDEA, a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) is available to all children with disabilities residing in the State between the ages of 3 and 21, and courts and hearing officers have broad authority to grant such relief as they deem appropriate. 20 U.S.C. §§1412(a)(1), 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii); Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A, 129 S. Ct. 2484, 2492 (S. Ct. 2009); Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 371 (2d Cir. 2006).

It is well established that compensatory education may be awarded to students still eligible for services who have not received a FAPE. P. v. Newington, 546 F.3d 111(2d Cir. 2008) Further, “[i]f the student has become ineligible for special education by reason of age or graduation, compensatory education has been awarded if there has been a gross violation of the IDEA resulting in the denial of, or exclusion from, educational services for a substantial period of time (see Somoza v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 538 F.3d 106, 109 n.2, 113 n.6 [2d Cir. 2008]; Mrs. C. v. Wheaton, 916 F.2d 69 [2d Cir. 1990]; Burr v. Ambach, 863 F.2d 1071 [2d Cir. 1988]; Cosgrove v. Bd. of Educ., 175 F. Supp. 2d 375, 387 [N.D.N.Y. 2001]).” Appeal No. 11-027 “…[C]ompensatory education is an equitable remedy that is tailored to meet the unique circumstances of each case (Wenger v. Canastota, 979 F. Supp. 147 [N.D.N.Y. 1997]).” Appeal No. 11-027

In this matter the COE has conceded that it failed to provide a FAPE for the 2013-2014 school year. Accordingly, the sole remaining issue whether the requested relief is appropriate.

With regard to the testimony of the witnesses, I find the testimony of each credible in that I conclude that they testified in accordance with their recollections and as to the opinions they held. My conclusions as to the relevant facts are specified below.

A) Findings of Fact

For the 2012-2013 school year the student was attending a general education preschool with related services. (T. 413) He had initially been NOS and thereafter Ex. 4) The student was also diagnosed with functioning” in November 2012 after an independent evaluation obtained by the parents. That evaluator recommended placement in a kindergarten program suitable for children on the autism spectrum where he could continue to thrive academically and also support. It was noted with regard to his skills that scores for academic skills could not be obtained because his for this age and the test. It was noted that the teacher’s questionnaire with regard to behaviors that was obtained at that time did not significant range in any of the behavioral clusters. The student had average or above but was at that time observed to with behavior characteristic of ASD. (Ex. 4)

Psychological testing was in preparation for the student’s “turning 5 review” to develop a program for the 2013-2014 school year. It was reported that the student was cognitively functioning overall on the Superior range with some areas in the Very Superior range, that he presented as an alert, friendly child and he completed all evaluation activities with a minimal need for encouragement or redirection. (Ex. S)

conducted Update in January 2013. (Ex. D) He concluded that the student was functioning at a very significantly high level above expectancy but had difficulty paying attention to what was a simple task so he was either unable to pay attention to it or was not sufficiently interested in it. (T. 57-58, Ex. D)

The parent had of the diagnosis prior to the turning 5 review but did not submit at that time and had not been asked for the evaluation. (T. 407 acknowledged in this proceeding that a request should have been made. (T. 77) The parent at that time stated that she thought the student should be in Nest and was informed that that determination could not be made by the CSE and that she could apply for it. Although she did so and the student was observed for Nest, she never received any response despite inquiries. (T. 408-410, 416)

During the 2012-2013 school year the student’s teacher had reported that he functioned independently, was cooperative and participated. (T. 414) The student “loved” school during that school year. (T. 413)

For the 2013-2014 school year the was appropriate told her that he thought SLI would look better for the student and also indicated that a general education non ICT program might be appropriate. (T. 411-412) testified with regard to the classification that the student was having his greatest difficulties with pragmatic speech. (T. 72) The CSE recommended an ICT class for most subject areas with related services. (Ex. R) Although had been provided in 2012-2013, it was not recommended for the 2013-2014 school year because it was considered not necessary for this student at that time since the counseling progress report had recommended discontinuation and teacher did not indicate any need. (T. 41-43, 79, 412, Ex. 3) There was therefore no discussion of a BIP at the review. (T. 412)

The student had difficulties from the first day of school in September 2013 when the parent noticed that he was not able to read the cues from the teacher and the teacher was unaware of that. (T. 417-419) Teachers reported concerns regarding his behavior in class within the first week and repeatedly reported to her that the student had behaved badly in the presence of the student and in the hearing of other parents and students. (T. 419-420, 428-429, 435) However, although the parent expressed concern, she was told that the teachers thought he needed time. (T. 421, 430) The teachers utilized a class wide behavior strategy requiring students to characterize their own behavior with the use of color codes which she thought that would not be effective and the student was had become very reluctant to go to school and it was a struggle to get him there. (T. 421-422, 425, Exs. A, P) Further, the student was aware that other students thought he was bad and he believed that they were happy when he was absent. (T. 430) He was not invited to play dates and birthday parties and was aware of and distressed by that. (T. 431-432)

A sticker system providing a reward for sufficient instances of good behavior as well as noting bad behaviors, which results the student was required to present to the parent was proposed by but that was not effective. (T. 421-422, 425-427, Ex. P) The parent’s request for the development of a BIP was not acted on. (T. 428) However, atrisk counseling was provided commencing in October-November. (T. 428 432, 69) The student initially received sessions one per week but since March receives two if possible. . (T. 178, 188) On October 28, 2013, after many , the parent filed a request to reopen the case. (T.438-440, Ex. I) On November 13th, the teachers filed a disciplinary referral form stating that a behavior meeting need to be scheduled by the end of the week but that was not done. (T. 436-438, Ex. Q-3) Further, the teachers never referred the student to the PPT team in the school to consider additional services. (T. 81-82)

The student had begun to at home not observed the previously. (T. 496) In November, the student commenced receiving services a social worker with very substantial expertise with regard to children on the autism spectrum, because of the student’s behaviors at home and school. (T. 364-365, 366) , initiated a behavior system to reward and reinforce good behaviors which utilized coins/chips. (T.

368) That system was quickly effective with regard to at home behaviors. (T. 368) Commencing January 2014 made numerous attempts to communicate with the teachers concerning the student and to inform them, among other things, with regard to the student’s difficulties and what she believed were effective techniques but was unsuccessful until March. (T. 368-369) At that time she was informed by the student’s special education teacher that the parent had communicated concerning the behavior system instituted , that it had been tried by the teachers and found to be ineffective and they were returning to the system they had used previously because it seemed more reliable. (T.369-372) was unable to determine whether targets or variables utilized by the teachers for the chip system was specific enough to be effective. (T. 372-373) Although she left contact information and invited consultation at any time, she had no further contact with the teachers. (T. 385)

With regard to the student’s behaviors in the class testified that he got very upset when things did not turn out as desired, that he but , including in response to using the color coded behavior plan. (T. 109-110) Early in the school year it became apparent that that plan was not working for him. (T. 110) acknowledged that it “exacerbated” his behaviors but was continued because that was what they were doing with the class. (T. 127-128) Although she testified that the sticker system helped a little bit more, the evidence shows the student was upset about it and would rip it off his table and eventually it was moved to the teachers’ desk. (T. 112, 129)

The record is unclear with regard to the dates of use of the various behavior systems. The evidence shows that the class-wide color system was in effect from the beginning of the school year at least through January and was also utilized in March and that the sticker system developed for this student continued from October without interruption until at least March. (T. 110-111, 198-199, Ex. P) testified that that what she believed system has been utilized since the March meetings. (T. 114, 117, 130,

156) Although the student continued to “act out” every day, she has seen progress with regard to behaviors. (T. 150, 155) Based upon information provided to her, Reich believed the “chip” system proposed was working for the student to some extent. (T. 185, 194, 202) The occupational therapist had provided a “sensory box” for the student which the teachers utilized as a reward for testified that there had been no discussion of the sensory box in relation to the student’s sensory needs. (T. 116-117, 135) She understood a sensory diet to relate to food. (T. 133-134)

By letter dated January 23, 2014 the parent had been informed that a meeting was scheduled for February 5. (T. 441-44, Ex. J) acknowledged that the meeting should have been held by December 27 and the DOE was not in compliance with timelines. (T. 440, 60,Ex. J) That meeting was cancelled because of snow, the meeting was rescheduled to February 10 and that meeting was also cancelled for the same reason and rescheduled to March 5. (T. 444, 445, Ex. K, L) Although observations had been required for development of an FBA/BIP by the CSE, no observations had been conducted prior to February 11. (T. 444, 46, Exs. E, F)

The CSE convened on March 5 but the parents were informed that at that time there was no draft FBA/BIP or IEP. (T. 446) The observations had been conducted but not written up. (T. 64) After substantial discussion, it was determined that the CSE would reconvene. (T. 458) The parents also provided various documents, one from who recommended a full time para at that time. (T. 50-52, Ex. 10) The CSE also received the 2012 independent evaluation and concluded that the classification should be changed to Autism. (T. 77, Ex. 4)

The parent filed her impartial hearing request by letter dated March 17, 2014. (Ex. A)

The CSE reconvened on March 21st. (T. 464, Ex. M) The CSE provided copies of a draft IEP, FBA and BIP and the reports of the structured observations conducted on February 5 and March 3. (T. 464, Exs. 11, 12, E, F) It was determined that another reconvene was required because of a number of unresolved issues. (T. 470, 66-68)

At the CSE meetings, Nest was discussed. (T. 85) Nest is an ICT class designed to support high functioning children on in classes, at the 1st grade level of no more than eight typically developing students and . (T. 226-227, 230, Ex. T) The parent had also previously obtained information from the DOE website concerning Nest and understood it to be a program with specialized teachers for which an application was required and had filed an application prior to her impartial hearing request. (T. 463) The school thereafter also filed a request but the date of that is not in the record. (T. 86) screening observation was conducted by Solomon, a school psychologist on the central ASD team, on April 25. (T. 223, 255) Solomon concluded that Nest was not appropriate for this student. (T. 263) At the time of the observation, Solomon spoke with the student’s ICT teachers and formed the impression that the teachers either did not know the student was on the autism spectrum or did not accept the idea. (T. 325-326)

Various unsuccessful efforts to reschedule were thereafter made. (T. 71) The CSE reconvened on June 17 to develop a program for the 2014-2015 school year and recommended placement in an ICT class with the addition of a . It was acknowledged that training in handling a child on the autism spectrum was required and it was indicated that the CSE would reconvene at the beginning of the school year to enable the parents’ advocate to provide the information necessary. (T. 474-476) The parent raised the issue of providing autism coaches but was told that it would have to be requested. (T. 476, 490)

B) Requested Relief

The parents seek a placement in Nest which they assert is appropriate for this student and the additional support of one hour per week from the student’s current provider through issuance of RSAs at the authorized rate for counseling service.

The testimony of various DOE witnesses supports the parent’s claim that the attributes of Nest would benefit this student. (T.92-94, 147-148, Ex. T)

The DOE claims, however, is not appropriate for him. It relies solely upon the testimony , the school psychologist who conducted an observation on April 25, 2014 and recommended against admission into Nest. With regard to the weight to be given to that testimony, I note that the had commenced less than five months before. (T. 224) She has not received training teachers and was not familiar with the strategies and techniques they used and there was no evidence presented as to any training she received specifically from or in connection with Nest. (T. 289) Although she has experience in evaluating children on the autism spectrum, there was no evidence presented as to the relevance of that experience for a determination as to this student’s ability to participate Further, there was no evidence presented as to any training she has received either with regard to autism generally or to high functioning children on . (T. 223-226, 270-272)

She had never evaluated or previously met this student. In making her recommendation, she conducted an observation in two classes totaling approximately 1 ½ hours, spoke with the student’s ICT special education teacher and his general education science teacher and reviewed the psychological evaluations . (T. 248, 255, 324-326, Exs. D, S)

A substantial part of her observation was in the science class which was a general education non ICT class with one teacher. (T. 259) That teacher provided little input with regard to this student. Further, with regard to the insight to be gleaned from the input of the ICT special education teacher, it is noteworthy that Solomon formed the impression that she knew nothing about autism, or simply was unwilling to accept it, and Solomon what was “wrong with him” even after the CSE review in which Nest and autism was discussed. (T. 126) in this proceeding supported a conclusion that she knew nothing about autism. (T. 124, 133-134, 159) Although she was the general education teacher, I conclude that the special education teacher was similarly uninformed and note the use to which the sensory box was limited in the ICT class. (T. 116-117, 135 )

concluded that the student lacked necessary level of ability to work independently without substantial prompts and would therefore be unable to cope with the demands of . (T. 263-264) I note, however, that aspects of his behavior were acknowledged to be found in Nest students. (T. 285-286, 319) testified that her conclusion was based upon the combination of her observation and only one evaluation.^[1] (T. 275. 3-4. Ex. D) That evaluation was conducted midway in the 2013-

2014 school year when the student had already deteriorated. Further, it is noteworthy that she did not discuss the evaluation and acknowledged that there was nothing to indicate that the issues he raised were considered by him to be significant and that she lacked sufficient information about the test and the student to come to a conclusion about the meaning of certain test results. (T. 251-252, 255, 261, 295-298, 324)

With regard to her observation, I note that it was in the afternoon and that testified that time of day was an important issue for this student, that he had less tolerance and endurance in the afternoon and was more likely to have difficulties and that an observation during a time when he was more attentive would be “more fair.” (T. 380,

383) There was no indication that the student was provided with the “good sensory input” that indicated would be generally appropriate at that time of day. (T. 380) Further, I find persuasive the parent’s testimony concerning some of the behaviors described and conclude that the evidence is insufficient to conclude with regard to those that they demonstrated inability to accept help as . I also note that the parent testified credibly concerning his independence and the lack of need for prompts at testimony concerning her experience with him in her office was consistent. (T. 477-479, 484)

Finally, I find persuasive the evidence that the student deteriorated very substantially commencing immediately upon entering school. I acknowledged “progressive” deterioration and the teacher acknowledged that the rather than ameliorated by behavior systems continued even after the knowledge that that was occurring. (T.43, 80) acknowledged that it was possible that the preceding eight months in the school could have accounted for difficulties she reported. (T. 277) I conclude in the circumstances here that that was likely. Accordingly, I find the evidence does not support ’s conclusion that the student would not succeed in class. Rather, I find testimony that he would be “terrific” in it and be the best choice. (T. 377, 382) I is both familiar and with this student. (T. 276)

With regard to the DOE’s claim that other available possibilities would be appropriate, I find insufficient evidence that the addition of a to a standard ICT preparation for this hearing supported her conclusion. (T. 338) That IEP is not in evidence and there was therefore no way to test the accuracy of her recollection or the reliability of her conclusion. program would meet this student’s needs. I find testimony about the skills that para would require in the circumstances here and the unlikeliness that such a person would be available for him and conclude the effectiveness of a para is speculative. (T.382) ’s recommendation concerning a para related to the 2013-2014 school year and her hope that a para might at least somewhat ameliorate his difficulties. (T. 489) Moreover, the DOE acknowledges that appropriate training for all staff, including teachers and para, would be required. (T. 474-476) I note that the extent of any training that would be provided is speculative as is the willingness of school staff to request and/or receive it.

(T. 245, 268)

Finally, the DOE asserts ” on the continuum but simply an ICT class. Accordingly, it claims that I may not order the student’s placement therein. However, I find substantially different programmatically from other ICT classes, conclude it is a sufficiently distinctive “program” and note that it is so identified by the DOE. (T. 241244, Ex. T) The fact that it is noted on IEPs, claimed by the DOE to be mistakes, indicates that various CSE staff have come to a similar conclusion. (T. 229-230, 356-357) I find no basis for the preclusion that the DOE asserts.

The parents also request the provision of after school counseling from McCarthy to support the student’s transition in view of his experiences in his kindergarten class. I find that the evidence supports the inclusion of that service for the 2014-2015 school year. I note that he will be entering into a different environment both programmatically and physically and that he has been substantially detrimentally affected by his prior placement. He is familiar and she has appropriate expertise to enable her to provide necessary support. I conclude that the addition of that service is appropriate as an exercise of my equity jurisdiction in view of the denial of FAPE acknowledged by the DOE.

Further, I conclude that the student would be entitled to the requested relief as compensation. I conclude, in the circumstances here, that the student’s experience during the 2013-2014 school year was a gross violation of the IDEA and that the period of violation was substantial in view of this student’s needs. However, I note that it is not required that the denial be gross when occurring as here during the age range of student eligibility. See, e.g., Appeal No. 13-048, Appeal No. 12-235, Appeal No. 12-209.

Order

The DOE shall place the student in a Nest class for the 2014-2015 school year. The DOE shall issue such authorizations as are necessary to enable the student to receive one hour per week of counseling from during the 2014-2015 school year at the authorized rate for counseling service.

Dated: July 31, 2014

Judith Schneider, Esq. gc

JUDITH SCHNEIDER, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Within 35 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the Public School District has a right to appeal the decision to a State Review Officer (SRO) of the New York State Education Department under section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

If the parent plans to appeal the decision, a notice of intention to seek review shall be personally 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 so that a certified copy of the hearing record may be prepared for submission by the school district. If a school district plans to appeal the decision, the district shall file a certified copy of the hearing record together with its petition.

An appealing parties' petition for review shall be personally served upon the opposing party 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. (8 NYCRR § 279.2(b))

The rules of procedure for proceedings before a SRO are found in Part 279 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education available at http://www.sro.nysed.gov/part279home.html.

DOCUMENTS ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

1 Due Process Complaint, 3/17/14, 12 pgs. Department of Education

2 Due Process Response, 3/21/14, 3 pgs. Department of Education

3 Progress Report, undated, 2 pgs. Department of Education

4 Medical Evaluation, 11/30/12, 3 pgs. Department of Education

5 SL Progress Report, 1/11/13, 3 pgs. Department of Education

6 Classroom Observation, 2/12/13, 4 pgs. Department of Education

7 WITHDRAWN Department of Education

8 WITHDRAWN Department of Education

10 , LCSW letter, 1/30/14, 1 pg. Department of Education

11 Draft FBA, 2/7/14, 5 pgs. Department of Education

12 Draft BIP, 2/7/14, 5 pgs. Department of Education

13 Structured Observation Report 2/11/13, 1 pg. Department of Education

14 Structured Observation Report, 3/3/14, 2 pgs. Department of Education

15 IEP Signature Page, 3/5/14, 1 pg. Department of Education

16 Parent letter, undated, 1 pg. Department of Education

A Impartial Hearing Request, 3/17/14, 12 pgs. Parents

B First “Draft” IEP (pre-meeting), 3/5/14, 11 pgs. Parents

C Second “Draft” IEP (post-meeting), 3/5/14, 14 pgs. Parents

D Evaluation, 1/16/14, 5 pgs. Parents

E Structured Observation, 2/11/2014, 1 pg. Parents

F Structured Observation, 3/3/14, 2 pgs. Parents

G WITHDRAWN

H WITHDRAWN

I Parent letters opening the case with rcpt., 10/28/13 Parents

J IEP meeting notice for 2/5/14, 1/23/14, 2 pgs. Parents

K IEP meeting notice for 2/10/14, 2/3/14, 2 pgs. Parents

L IEP meeting notice for 3/5/14, 2/12/14, 2pgs Parents

M IEP meeting notice for 3/21/14, 3/11/14, 2 pgs. Parents

N Student Report Card, 1/29/14, 2 pgs. Parents

O 1st IEP Goal progress report, 1/31/14, 9 pgs., Parents

P Table Top Behavior Charts, 10/4/13-3/4/14, 4 pgs. Parents

Q Disciplinary refs., 10/24,10/23& 11/12/2013, 4 pgs Parents

R IEP (turning 5), 3/22/13, 4 pgs. Parents

S Eval, 2/7/13, 4 pgs. Parents

T Brochure- DOE website, undated, 2 pgs. Parents

U Email exch - parent & school psych., 2/5.6/14, 1 pgs. Parents

I Prehearing conference memo Impartial Hearing Officer

II Compliance date extension decisions Impartial Hearing Officer

Footnotes

[1] She agreed that the 2013 evaluation, conducted before the student entered the school, provided no support whatever for her conclusion. (T. 277) I give no weight to the testimony that a preschool IEP reviewed in