Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number:

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District:

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Date of Hearing: October 21, 2013

December 5, 2013

January 24, 2014

March 26, 2014

Actual Record Closed Date: June 12, 2014

Hearing Officer: Rona Feinberg, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON OCTOBER 21, 2013

Adam Dayan Attorney — Parents

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON DECEMBER 5, 2013

Attorney, Ph.D. School Psychologist/ Department Chairperson’s Designee of Education CSE Mother — Parents

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JANUARY 24, 2014

Attorney, Ph.D. School Psychologist/ Department Chairperson’s Designee of Education CSE Mother — Parents

Educational Consultant — Parents

Sharon O’Neill Special Education Itinerant Teacher — Parents

Dr. Neuropsychologist — Parents

(via telephone)

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MARCH 26, 2014

Attorney, Ph.D. School Psychologist/ Department Chairperson’s Designee of Education CSE Mother Father — Parents

Music Therapist — Parents

(via telephone)

INTRODUCTION

On October 21, 2013 December 5, 2013, January 24, 2014 and March 26, 2014, I conducted an impartial hearing pursuant to the Individuals With Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(1), regarding the education program of a school-aged child, ”). The hearing commenced at 1:20 p.m., 10:27 a.m., 10:32 a.m. and 10:00 a.m., respectively and was held at the Impartial Hearing Office, 131 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, New York. A list of witnesses testifying and documents received into evidence are attached to this Decision and Order.

BACKGROUND

old and is classified . Pursuant to an Order of Pendency dated on or about October 23, 2013, currently receiving 12 month services, specifically: 1) 40 hours per week of Applied Behavior Analysis (“ABA”) Special Education Itinerant Teacher (“SEIT”) services; 2) six 60-minute sessions per week of 3) five 60-minute sessions per week of 1:1 occupational therapy and 3) five 45-minute sessions per week of 1:1 physical therapy. The parents are also receiving two hours per week of parent training and counseling. All of the services are provided on a 12 month basis on weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays at the parents’ discretion.

In a request for an impartial hearing dated September 8, 2013, the child’s parents, by their attorney and Appropriate Education (“FAPE”) for the 2013-2014 school. The parents maintained, among other things, that the services provided pursuant to the Corrected Findings of Fact and Decision of Impartial Hearing Officer dated June 30, 2012 are appropriate for the child and asked that the Department of Education be ordered to provide the child with that program for the 2013-2014 school year (Parents’ Ex. A1-2; Ex. B at 13). The parents also asked that Department of Education be ordered to fund weekly music therapy sessions, the number of which was to be determined at the impartial hearing, and to provide appropriate transportation to and from and reimburse the parents for any private transportation costs that they may have incurred as a result of the Department of Education’s failure to provide such transportation during the current school year (Parents’ Ex. A at 7-9). The Department of Education did not file an Answer.

I was appointed as the Impartial Hearing Officer in this case on September 10, 2013 and the original compliance date was November 25, 2013. On October 17, 2013 at the request of both parties for the availability of witnesses, the compliance date was extended to December 25, 2013, a pendency hearing was scheduled for October 21, 2013 and a hearing date was scheduled for December 5, 2013. At the conclusion of the hearing on that date at the request of both parties for the availability of witnesses the compliance date was extended to January 24, 2014and hearing dates were scheduled for January 14, 2014 and January 24, 2014. On January 9, 2014 the request of the parents for the availability of witnesses and without objection by the District, the compliance date was extended to February 23, 2014. At the conclusion of the hearing on January 24, 2014 at the request of both parties for the availability of witnesses the compliance date was extended to March 26, 2014 and a control date was scheduled for February 11, 2014. At the conclusion of the hearing on March 26, 2014 at the request of both parties for the availability of witnesses the compliance date was extended to April 25, 2014 and a control date was scheduled for April 1, 2014. On that date at the request of both parties for the receipt of transcripts and the submission of closing briefs, the compliance date was extended to May 25, 2014. On May 27, 2014 at the request of the parents for the hearing officer to review the briefs and issue a Decision and Order and without objection by the District, the compliance date was extended to June 26, 2014.

The extensions were granted after considering the cumulative impact of the factors enumerated in Section 200.5(j)(5)(ii) of the New York State Regulations of the Commissioner of Education (“Commissioner’s Regulations”) and a determination that there was a compelling reason for each of the extensions as required by Section 200.5(j)(5)(iii) of the Commissioner’s Regulations. Specifically, (a) the child was receiving her program under an Order of Pendency, and thus there was no negative impact on the child’s educational interest or well-being as a result of the delay; (b) in accordance with due process the parties were entitled to the opportunity to secure witnesses to appear at the hearing in support of their position and the parties were entitled to issue closing statements based on the transcript and have this hearing officer review the transcript and consider the evidence and the closing briefs prior to the issuance of a Decision and Order; (c) although the child is receiving services pursuant to pendency the District joined in all but the third extension request and did not object to that request by the parent, and the Department of Education representative asked for additional time to file her Closing Statement; thus there is no reason to conclude that there were any financial or detrimental consequences likely to be suffered by either party by the delay; and (d) for the reasons indicated above any prior delays due to the unavailability of witnesses did not require the denial of a subsequent extension request.

THE PARENTS’ POSITION

Adam Dayan, Esq. represented the parents at the hearing. The parents alleged that the Department of Education did not provide with a FAPE for the 2013-2014 school year, that the child’s program pursuant to the Corrected Findings of Fact and Decision of Impartial Hearing Officer Mindy Wolman dated June 30, 2012 is appropriate (Parents’ Ex. A1-2; Ex. B at 13), and that music therapy is also program.

THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S POSITION

, Ph.D., and represented the Department of Education at the hearing and he conceded that the Department of Education did not provide with a FAPE for the current school year. The Department of Education did not present any witnesses but submitted documentary evidence.

ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

1) Whether 40 hours of ABA SEIT services are part of an appropriate remedy for the denial of FAPE for the 2013-2014 school year and 2) Whether music therapy is part of an appropriate remedy for the denial of FAPE for the 2013-2014 school year.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The only remaining issues in contention at the conclusion of the impartial hearing were whether the Department of Education should be ordered to pay for 40 hours of ABA SEIT services and weekly sessions of music therapy (DOE Closing Brief at 1). These Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law relate only to these two issues.

The purpose behind the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482 is to is to ensure that students with disabilities have available them a FAPE, a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment (“LRE”). 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A); see Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S. Ct. 528, 531 (2005); Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179-81, 200-01 (1982); Frank G v. Board of Education of Hyde Park, Central School District, 459 F.3d 356, 371 (2d Cir. 2006); Application of the Board of Education of the Colton Pierrepont Central School District, Appeal No. 08-005. A FAPE includes special education and related services designed to meet the student's unique needs, provided in conformity with a comprehensive written individualized education program. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9)(D); 34 C.F.R. § 300.13; see 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d); 34 C.F.R. § 300.347; Rowley at 181-182. A school District offers a FAPE by “providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction.” Rowley, 458 U. S. at 203. I begin by stating that I credit all of the witnesses who testified at the hearing.

A. The Department of Education did not provide the child with a FAPE for the 2013-2014 school year. The Department of Education conceded that it did not provide with a FAPE for the 2013-2014 school year.

B. The SEIT services is currently receiving are part of an appropriate remedy for the failure of the Department of Education to provide with a FAPE for the 20113-2014 school year.

The burden of proof in an impartial hearing is on the Department of Education except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement. Educ. Law §4404(1)(c); Application of a Student With a Disability, Appeal No. 11-053. Here, the parents did not unilaterally place the child in a private school and they are not asking for tuition reimbursement. Rather, the parents are asking the Department of Education to provide different services from those on the July 26, 2013 IEP, namely the services ordered by the Corrected Findings of Fact and Decision of Impartial Hearing Officer Mindy Wolman dated June 30, 2012 (Parents’ Ex. A1-2; Ex. B at 13), and that she currently receives pursuant to an Order of Pendency (IHO Ex. II). In addition, they ask that the Department of Education be required to pay for Music Therapy as part of that program. Under this circumstance, the parents are not required to prove that the services sought for the student are appropriate. Rather, based on the evidence presented at the hearing the hearing officer must determine what remedy is appropriate for the denial of a FAPE. Application of a Student With a Disability, Appeal No. 11-053; see IHO Ex. V.I find that the evidence presented by the parents supports a finding that the child’s current program that she is receiving pursuant to the Order of Pendency is an appropriate remedy.

As noted above, ’s current program includes 40 hours of ABA SEIT services a week provided and at home.

”) is the child’s mother ( : 197-198). At the time of the impartial hearing was .” She is through the training has learned to interact with her ( ” 198, 231-232; DOE Ex. 1 at 1).

her loving nature, her ability to learn and her newly developing when working with the occupational therapist ( 198-200). Her chews only with her front teeth, she has an disorder, .” also has , so that she would not is unable to communicate effectively because she “ child and is . Since July 2013 the number of has increased from about . where FA: 200-204, 246).

ABA SEIT services five days a week.^[1] Ms. worked from 2010 to August 2012 providing 25 of the 28 hours SEIT was receiving at that time.2 She used ABA and discrete trial teaching : 113-115, 153). then attended a center-based program through the Department of Education but Ms. kept in close touch and on an informal basis. Pursuant to the increase in SEIT hours following an impartial hearing in 2013 Ms. during the 2013-2014 school year and also provides the parents with two hours of parent training a week. Throughout the 2013-2014 school year she has worked with ’s entire team of providers on support and on her curriculum ( 116-117, 168). Ms. provides with two hours of SEIT a week ( : 126). also receives SEIT from two providers and a third provider divides her time between and the home. In addition, there is a provider that is solely home-based ( : 126; FA: 225). The providers are not BCBAs but the two supervisors are ( : 159). The home SEIT provider is not a BCBA but is licensed and certified in special education ( : 163). received a total of 40 hours of SEIT ( : 163-167).

In July 2013, at the beginning of the 2013-2104 school year, Ms. reviewed the most recent Progress Reports providers. She also administered the Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills (“ABLLS”), an informal assessment to determine what skills : 117-118, 153-154, 157). The results the category of “ indicating a child as well ( : 117-121). The results of the ABLLS were not reduced to a formal document but were discussed with the parents and with : 154).

By the end of August 2013 a total of five SEIT providers including Ms. : 127). Ms. worked with but “revamped” the program also narrowed the number of programs working on so that she would have the opportunity to become more precise in fewer programs ( : 122-123). Ms. twice and attended team meetings there ( 131, 159). There were two team meetings with the home SEIT providers during the summer of 2013 when setting up the program; one of the providers attended both of those meetings ( : 161-162). She is working with FA weekly to train her to “carry over” the skills when she is : 123-124, 160). The team members communicate and on occasion conduct joint sessions. The agreed that they would all use sign language of :124-125). Every member of the team coordinates with the others so that the program they provide to and that the materials they use with her is consistent ( : 134, 137).

Ms. described the program that she has coordinated the 2013-2014 school year. She described a typical two-hour session with one of SEIT providers. She explained why repetition is crucial and why 80% of the session is spent on mastered skills and 20% on acquisition ( :125-127). When is not engaged with a therapist or someone sitting an interacting with her she tends to roam in a circular pattern with her fingers in her mouth. She will not play independently and Ms. explained that unstructured time is wasted time because she ( : 131-133). She explained that in the past, any day that went by without services resulted in regression. However, with the 40 hours of SEIT services is able to work with a provider every day. Her retention skills are measured by the data collected by all of the SEIT providers (O’Neill: 139-140; FA: 219-221). The additional hours have also enabled the providers to more signs. At the beginning of the 2013-2014 school Now she has She is therapists do not “get a lot of vocalizations” but some therapists hear some approximation. When the providers sing to her or use a “rhythmic type of voice” or when music , and the providers “tend to hear more vocalizations from her ( : 130-131).

Ms. opined that the 40 hours of SEIT is receiving is the minimal requirement for her progression and is appropriate. The parent training enables the parents to participate to continue with it when the providers are not there ( : 141-142, 147). She believed that the program is she is starting to “make gains” which Ms believes are attributable to the intensity of her program ( : 176-177).

Since August 2013 when the team was “solidified,” discrete trials and trials of repetition show . For example, while not yet consistent, is beginning to discriminate between she has great difficulty with ( : 127-129, 171). Another sign of progress is that while, at the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year NAH was not able to insert a puzzle piece into a puzzle board with a matching picture behind, over the few months prior to Ms. at the impartial hearing the providers have been able to move her into a puzzle with connecting pieces where multiple pieces have to be placed together to create a picture, a “huge” accomplishment an understanding of “more logical thinking” (Sudman-O’Neill: 129-130; FA: 227). FA has also seen improvements since the services to 40 hours a week (FA: 198-200). Specifically, begun to generalize, for example using the sign for “all done” after working for a while on a difficult fine motor task with her occupational therapist. The parents can now see and acquire new skills (FA” 199). she is only progressing now with the team helping her ( : 206). in that she is watching a about a person’s reaction and expression. However, she ” and there is no real social interaction ( : 207). FA believed that the methods the providers have which described, are proving to be successful and have helped her ( : 205-206).

I find that the testimony supports a finding that continuing the 40 hours of ABA SEIT NAH is currently receiving is part of the appropriate remedy for the failure of the Department of Education to provide a FAPE for the 2013-2014 school year. Ms. since 2010 except for a break during the 2012-2013 school year received 28 hours of SEIT at Ms. and explained that failed to make progress during that period and that experienced regression because she did not have services every day. However, since the 40 hour program was instituted in July 2013 has shown improvement. Specifically, as detailed above, the testimony by Ms. demonstrated that since July 2013 when the 40 hour SEIT program was instituted covering seven days a week, has shown progress, incremental or otherwise, in that she has started to be able to discriminate, which has been an area of substantial difficulty for her, her communication skills have improved, she has learned and she is requesting more often. In addition, as made significant progress with puzzles, sorting, and matching, she has started to enjoy coloring and she has improved in the area of logical thinking. is also beginning to notice toys and begin to engage with them and she is beginning to use some signs to communicate.

The difference between ’s regression prior to the 40 hour program and the slow but real signs of her progress since the 40 hour program was instituted, show that the expanded hours and ABA method are proving successful and are providing with educational benefits. Thus, I find that the 40 hours of ABA SEIT services are part of the appropriate remedy for the denial of a FAPE.

In its Closing Statement the Department of Education implicitly asserts that the parents have not shown that the 40 hours of ABA SEIT are more appropriate than the 6:1:2 program recommended by the Department of Education (IHO Ex. II at 1, 6, 7-9). Since, as noted, the Department of Education conceded that it failed a FAPE for the 2013-2014 school year and did not present a case defending that program, this argument is totally without merit. The remaining arguments posited by the Department of Education throughout its Closing Statement are unavailing as well (IHO Ex.II).

C. Music Therapy is not required as part of the appropriate remedy for the failure of the Department of Education to provide with a FAPE for the 20113-2014 school year In addition to the program described above, the parents are requesting that the Department of Education provide weekly music therapy sessions that they maintain are required in order to “achieve progress, growth and development” (Parent’s Ex. A at 8-9; see IHO Ex. III).

The parents presented testimony , a board certified music therapist and a licensed creative arts therapist (Sacca: 263). In July 2013 Ms. administered a music therapy evaluation to NAH at home (Parents’ Ex. C). Ms. described how, became accustomed to her in the home, NAH began touching and shaking some of the instruments. Ms. used a cookie for an edible reinforcer to keep her in the area. Ms played the guitar when was shaking the instruments. When stopped shaking Ms. stopped playing. looked in Ms. direction. started to walk away from the area Ms. stopped then returned to the area. Ms. believed that as the session began to understand the correlation between her leaving and the music . Eventually , touched the . When Ms. Sacca sang to simple phrases , she waved to Ms. any prompting (Sacca: 272, 276-278, 288-290). seemed to enjoy the of the guitar : 278).

Ms. made peripheral eye contact with her. with her at one point she made “complete, ” with her or about three or four seconds when Ms. held the lollipop drum and handed the mallet told Ms. that was unusual in that if she looks at something she does so “sideways.” play the drum, waited and then tapped the drum again. Ms. also testified that play skills in that she with Ms. . When ” and when she she would say “[ ’s]” turn.” When Ms. “Twinkle Twinkle Little Star” and the ABC song, vocalized a bit with a phrase, particularly if Ms. Ms characterized that vocalization as a “purposeful interaction,” as were the reciprocal play on the drums and the correlation between Ms. ’s playing the guitar ( 274, 276, 288-289, 293-296, 298-299).

As Ms. the repeated was eventually . She was also eventually able to imitate Ms. ’s sounds and movements when singing familiar songs ( : 283-284, 297). Ms. Sacca testified that there was a significant increase to task from the time she arrived at the house until she left ( : 300-301).

Based on the evaluation Ms should receive music therapy twice a minutes. She explained why music therapy works well for children who have autism and how she arrived at the two 45-minute ( : 280-281-282, 284-286). Ms. explained how she would develop goals objectives for the sessions and testified that she believed the goals would include attention to task and sustaining focus. She explained that the evaluation showed that understanding that she enjoyed the stimulus of music and that the sessions would incorporate the concept that when staying on task, the music would continue. Thus, music would become a reinforcer ( : 282-283). Ms. what a typical music therapy session with : 287-288).

A school district is not required to furnish "every special service necessary to maximize each handicapped child's potential," provide the optimal level of services, or even a provide level of services that would confer additional benefits. Cerra v. Pawling Central School District, 427 F.3d 186, 195 (2d Cir. 2005); D.B. v. New York City Dep't. of Educ., 2011 WL 4916435, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 12, 2011). Although the hearing record shows that NAH may have benefitted from music therapy, it does not show that NAH required it in order to receive educational benefits during the 2013-2014 school year. Application of a Student With a Disability, App. No. 11-164.

is currently receiving 54.75 hours of individual services over the course of seven days a week, 365 days a year (IHO Ex. III). The program includes 40 hours per week of ABA SEIT services. Ms. testimony indicated that the SEIT providers sing , play music and use rhythmic voices during their sessions, and that they are able to elicit vocalizations from in response. Ms. also detailed how the ABA SEIT services are enabling to receive educational benefits. In addition to the SEIT receives six 60-minute sessions per week of , five 60-minute sessions per week of and five 45-minute sessions per week of physical therapy. And, the parents are provided with two hours per week of parent training and counseling. The evidence and testimony at the impartial hearing demonstrated that this program is sufficient to meet ’s specific special education needs and that it provides her with an educational benefit that is likely to produce progress and not regression during the 20132014 school year. Thus, I find that the parents are not entitled to have the Department of Education pay for music therapy services as part of the remedy for the failure to provide NAH with a FAPE for the 2013-2014 school year.

D. The Appropriate Remedy for the Department of Education’s

Failure to Provide With a FAPE for the 2013-2014 School Year

Based on the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing I find that having the Department of Education continue to provide the child with the program she is currently receiving pursuant to pendency -- 40 hours per week of ABA SEIT services, six 60-minute sessions per week of therapy; five 60-minute sessions per week of occupational therapy, five 45-minute sessions per week of physical therapy and two hours per week of parent training and counseling.-- is the appropriate remedy for the failure of the Department of Education to with a FAPE for the 2013-2014 school year.

For these reasons, even if my determination in this case was governed by the three-prong Burlington/Carter analysis, which would require the parents to demonstrate that the “placement” they provided for the child was appropriate and a finding that the equities favor the parents, Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993); Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dept. of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-370; the result would be the same since I find that that the parents met their burden of showing that the program is appropriate for the child for the current school year in that it is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.” Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207, Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364.

E. The Equities

While a consideration of the equities is not required in this case, even under the Burlington/Carter analysis I would find that the equities favor the parents. There is no evidence to support a finding that the parents failed to cooperate with the Department of Education in any way. While in its Closing Statement the Department of Education alleges that the parents “did not put forth a good faith effort in considering the NYSED Approved non-public school placements that were possible” (IHO Ex. IV at 8-9), as noted, the Department of Education conceded that it did not with a FAPE for the 2012-2013 school year and it put forth no evidence of any placement recommendations. However, on cross-examination Ms. why she did not to a follow-up interview at the Center for Developmental Disabilities in Woodbury, New York. responded that she went on a tour of the school, that she did not believe that the school was appropriate for and that the school did not offer her a follow up interview ( : 259-260). Thus an allegation that the parents failed to cooperate in any way is entirely unavailing.

ORDER

In light of the above findings of fact, it is hereby ordered that for the 2013-2014 school year:

The Department of Education is to continue to provide:

1) 40 hours per week of ABA SEIT services to be paid at the rate currently being charged for those services;

2) six 60-minute sessions per week therapy;

3) five 60-minute sessions per week ;

4) five 45-minute sessions per week

5) two hours per week of parent training and

6) All of the services in this Decision and Order are to be provided on a 12 month basis on weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays at the parents’ discretion.

7) The Department of Education must provide the child with transportation to and from with all of the necessary special transportation accommodations including a minibus, air conditioning, limited time travel not more than sixty minutes, and a five-point harness car seat. In the event that the Department of Education has not provided with appropriate transportation for any portion of the 2013-2014 school year, the Department of Education is to reimburse the parents for the cost of such transportation upon receipt of an invoice and proof of payment. Dated: June 24, 2014

Rona Feinberg, Esq. gc

RONA FEINBERG, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

RF: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

Parent:

Exhibit A Due Process Complaint/Impartial

Hearing Request dated September 8,

2013, 10 pages

Exhibit B Findings of Fact and Decision of

Impartial Hearing Officer Mindy

Wolman dated June 30, 2013, 17

pages

Exhibit C Updated Evaluation by Dr. dated

September 25, 2013, 9 pages

Exhibit D Parents’ letter to the Committee on Special Education dated August 29,

2013, 4 pages

Exhibit E Music Therapy Assessment by Jamie

M. Sacca dated July 24, 2013, 3

pages

Exhibit F Parents’ letter to the Committee on Preschool Special Education dated

December 6, 2012, 3 pages

Exhibit G Sensory Therapy Report dated

February

2013, 12 pages

Exhibit H Sensory Addendum to Progress

Report dated March 29, 2013, 1 page

Exhibit I Sensory Report dated January 11,

2013, 8 pages

Exhibit J Sensory Report dated

December/January 2012, 11 pages

Exhibit K Intensive Behavioral Treatment for :

Four “Year Outcome and Predictors”

dated November 2005, 22 pages

Exhibit L “Intensive Behavioral Treatment at

School for 4 to 7 Year-Old Children

dated January 2002, 20 pages

Exhibit M Mental Health Report of the Surgeon

General dated 1999, 16 pages

Exhibit N “Long Term Outcome for Children

Who Received Early Intensive

Behavioral Treatment dated 1993, 5

pages

Exhibit O Curriculum Vitae undated, 3 pages

Exhibit P Letter dated March 31, 2013, 2

pages

Exhibit Q Integrated Treatment Services

Quarterly SEIT Progress Report

dated August 18, 2012, 4 pages

Exhibit R Progress Report dated November

2013, 4 pages

Exhibit S Progress Report dated November

2013, 2 pages

Exhibit T Therapy Progress Report dated

January 5, 2014, 5 pages

Exhibit U January 7, 2014, 7 pages

Exhibit V dated

January 8, 2014, 5 pages

Exhibit W Dr. Curriculum Vitae undated, 5

pages

Exhibit X Credentials various dates, 4 pages

Exhibit Y Request for Medical

Accommodations Completed by Dr.

dated July 12, 2013, 1 page

Exhibit Z Medical Letter Completed by Dr.

dated July 12, 2013, 1 page

Department of Education:

Exhibit 1 Individualized Education Program

Revision dated August 2, 2013, 18

pages

Exhibit 2 Individualized Education Program

dated July 26, 2013, 18 pages

Exhibit 3 Classroom Observation dated

February 20. 2013, 2 pages

Exhibit 4 Physical Therapy Report dated

January 11, 2013, 4 pages

Exhibit 5 Report undated, 4 pages

Exhibit 6 Occupational Therapy Report dated

February 2013, 5 pages

Exhibit 7 School Report dated March 31, 2013,

1 page

Exhibit 8 Social History Update dated March

19, 2013, 3 pages

Exhibit 9 Evaluation dated October 2, 2012,

8 pages

Exhibit 10 Individualized Education Program

dated August 15, 2012, 14 pages

Impartial Hearing Officer

Exhibit I Documents Related to Compliance

Date Extension various dates. 7

pages

Exhibit II Department of Education Closing

Statement undated, 9 pages

Exhibit III Parents’ Closing Brief dated May 21,

2014, 17 pages

Exhibit IV New York State Education

Department, Office of Special

Education, Letter to dated August

8, 2013, 2 pages (submitted by parents with their Closing Brief).

Exhibit V Petitioners’ Interim Brief Regarding the Issue of the Burden of Proof in this Matter dated January 3, 2014, 6

pages

Footnotes

[1] Ms. has a Master’s Degree in special education and in administration and supervision. She is a licensed special education teacher and has gone for advanced certification in ABA; she has completed 15 credits and 1100 hours of supervision. Ms. is also being certified by the Academy of Orton-Gillingham for reading and language disabilities ( : 112, 150). Citations to pages 152-179 refer to Dr. Meagher’s cross-examination of Ms. .