NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Case Number:
Student’s Name:
Date of Birth:
District:
Hearing Requested By: Parent
Date of Hearing: February 6, 2014
March 26, 2014
Actual Record Closed Date: May 1, 2014
Hearing Officer: Dora Lassinger, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON FEBRUARY 6, 2014
ESQ., Attorney for Parent — Student
Parents
ESQ., Attorney for DOE — DOE
School Psychologist (Via Telephone) — DOE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON MARCH 26, 2014
ESQ., Attorney — Student
Parents
Head of (Via Telephone) — Student
Teacher (Via Telephone) — Student
ESQ., Attorney — DOE
School Psychologist (Via Telephone) — DOE
Ms. C., the mother of ., requested an impartial hearing on October 30, 2013 for the purpose of seeking funding for her unilateral placement 2013/2014 school year.
I was designated to hear this matter on October 30, 2013 pursuant to 20 U.S.C. Section 1415(f)(1). A hearing on the merits was held on February 6 and March 26, 2014. The compliance date was extended on four occasions, due to the unavailability of witnesses, and to allow the parties to submit closing briefs. The final compliance date is May 10, 2014. (IHO Ex. I. II. III, IV).
Tristian is a five year old boy with a . His classification is not in dispute. (Par. Ex. A). He has attended since October 28, 2013. (Tr. p. 158).
Ms. mother, testified received early intervention services and attended a . (Tr. p. 131). For preschool (ages three to five), he attended the . He received twelve month programming. (Department of Education (DOE) Ex. 1; Tr. pp. 133-134). became at school, which his teachers thought he may have learned from the other children. (Tr. pp. 135-136), In his second , he began to progress. (Tr. p. 134).
As part of a “turning five evaluation”, the DOE conducted a Social History Update, a , a Classroom Observation and received reports from Education teacher and related service providers. (DOE Ex. 1-8). At the time of the evaluation, was attending the , in a class with a 8:1:2 staffing ratio and with a one- to- one paraprofessional. (DOE Ex. 7). It was reported that an Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) Plan (BIP) were developed in March 2012 due to an increase in maladaptive behaviors. It was reported that he had made a lot of progress this year; but that he struggles to sit with a group, and with changes in routine. It was reported that he needs positive behavioral supports, a small class size and visual supports throughout the day. It was further reported that he responds well to Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) methods used. (DOE Ex. 7).
, a school psychologist who conducted the observation and the psychoeducational evaluation, testified that in her he required redirection from his paraprofessional and . (Tr. p. 29). On academic tasks, Tristian was able to identify letters; but had difficulty identifying words which began or ended with the same sound. He was able to label shapes and numbers but his counting skills were inconsistent. (Tr. p. 34). His teacher reported concerns that , but that his behaviors were improved with a BIP and his one-to-one paraprofessional. (Tr. pp. 35-36).
An Individualized Education Program (IEP) meeting was held on March 12, 2013, resulting in a recommendation to place Tristian in a class with a staffing ratio and a[2] one-to-one paraprofessional. The parent disagreed with the recommendation to place in a District 75 school, and requested that the IEP meeting be postponed. (DOE Ex. 12). At the meeting, the specific concern she expressed was with regard to the type of students in the District 75 programs. (Tr. p. 93). Ms . testified that she was concerned that Tristian would not be grouped according to his ability. (Tr. pp. 139-140). She wrote a letter to request that the CSE reconvene to review its recommendation.
The Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) reconvened on April 15, 2013. The parent, Ms. a District , who was Tristian’s pre-school teacher, and , who was a school psychologist, and a parent representative , all participated in the meeting. (Tr. pp. 57-58; DOE Ex. 15, p. 14). The recommended program was a special class (8:1+1), with related services of three times per week individually. A full-time, one-to-one paraprofessional was also recommended. (DOE Ex. 15). The recommended program is
3
; and is provided in a community school. Both the parent and Tristian’s teacher wished to pursue this recommendation; however, after the staff from the program observed Tristian at his school, it was determined that he was not eligible for the program due to his behavior and his need for a one-to-one paraprofessional. (Tr. pp. 59-60, 78, 143).
On May 29, 2013, CSE again met to recommend a program for for the 2013/2014 school year. The IEP team included the parent, Ms. who acted as school psychologist and District Representative, pre-school teacher), and a parent representative. The team reviewed the Social History Update, Evaluation, the Classroom Observation and reports Special Education teacher and related service providers. (Tr. pp. 62-65). The IEP summarizes the results of those reports. (DOE Ex. 19). The IEP includes goals for academics (sorting objects by size; counting with 1:1; correspondence); maintaining focus; and improving writing skills. It also includes three goals for PT, six goals for SLT; and four goals for OT. One of the PT goals is for to improve his balance and coordination to ascend and descend stairs with alternating feet. (DOE Ex. 19, pp. 4-5). ). His OT goals address improving sensory processing skills and attention. (DOE Ex. 19, p. 6). An FBA and BIP were developed at the March and April 15, 2013 IEP meetings. (Tr. pp. 67-69). The FBA describes the targeted inappropriate behavior as yelling out, hitting, pushing, biting or throwing objects. As interventions, it recommends the use of a paraprofessional, frequent positive reinforcement for Tristian enjoys verbal positive reinforcement and pats on the back. (DOE Ex. 16). The BIP includes one target behavior, as follows: “Tristian will behave appropriately in class for at least 70% of the school day). The expected behavioral will sit in his seat; interact appropriately with others; ; and use ; and . The method/criteria for outcome measurement are teacher/provider and paraprofessional observations. (DOE Ex. 17).
’s program recommendation was a special class (12:1+1) in a community school, OT three times per week individually, PT twice per week individually and SLT five times per week (three times individually and twice in a group). He was also recommended for a full-time crisis management paraprofessional. Twelve month programming was not recommended. (DOE . Ex. 19). The CSE recommended placement in a community school due to the parent’s prior rejection of a District 75 program. (Tr. p. 70). Ms. believed that the parent were in agreement with this recommendation. (Tr. pp. 71, 88). She does not recall the parent expressing disagreement need for 12 month programming. (Tr. p. 90). She testified that she believed this staffing ratio was supported by the teachers’ reports progress. (Tr. pp. 87-88).
Ms. testified that she did not agree with the staffing ratio; and teachers felt he should not be in a community school. (Tr. p. 145). Following the meeting, she received a final notice of recommendation, recommending a class at the School for Future Leaders, which was her zoned school. She observed that the students were well-behaved and sitting for long periods of time. She felt that in light of , would not do well in the recommended class, which was much too advanced for him. (Tr. p. 146).
Following the meeting, on June 24, 2013, the parent sent Ms. a letter stating that she disagreed with the May 29, 2013 recommendation because the class and building are too large, and because it is only a ten month program. She requested another CSE review to consider new data regarding s needs, and stated that if an appropriate placement is not found, she will unilaterally place and seek funding. (Par. Ex. E).[4] The independent neuropsychological evaluation was provided to Ms. Farrell for the first time, with the June 24, 2013 letter. (Tr. p. 73). [5]
Pursuant to the parent’s request, the CSE reconvened on July 15, 2013. The CSE review team included , a school psychologist who also acted as District Representative, the parent, , a (employed by the DOE); a general education teacher, a special education teacher, a parent member and a social worker and a “parent representative” who accompanied the parent. (Par. Ex. C at 13; Tr. pp. 107-110). Ms. testified that the student’s present levels of performance and needs (as described in the IEP) were based upon the earlier IEP. The team also reviewed the neuropsychological evaluation (Par. Ex. H) and teacher and related service providers’ progress reports. (Tr. p. 111, 119). The team did not feel that the goals from the prior IEP needed to be changed. (Tr. p. 113). The team recommended placement in a Special Class, District with a staffing ratio of , with all of the same related services recommended in the May 29, 2013 IEP, and a one-to-one paraprofessional based upon Tristian’s need for a small setting. Twelve month programming was recommended. The IEP notes that a BIP; however the BIP is not attached to the IEP. The IEP also makes reference to the use cues to facilitate attention, and to Tristian’s difficulty with unexpected changes in his routine. The IEP provides for special transportation; but does not describe the nature of the special transportation. (Par. Ex. C; Tr. pp. 113-114).
Ms. did not recall whether the parent agreed with the recommendation. (Tr. p. 128).
Ms. testified that she attended the July 15, 2013 CSE review. She asked the review team how much time the special education teacher would spend in the recommended 6: program; but could not get answer. She provided the CSE with a letter from Blue Feather , and requested that the case be deferred to the Central Based Support Team (CBST), but was told they could not, and that his needs could be met in a District 75 school. She was told that within the District 75 program, the children are grouped according to their age, not their abilities. (Tr. pp. 149-150). Goals were not discussed. Although she did not agree with the recommendation, she agreed to look at the recommended site. (Tr. pp. 151-152).
Following the meeting, she received a final notice of recommendation, recommending . (Par. Ex. D).6 She went to visit the site on September 2, 2013. She observed four students. One of the students climbed up the window sill; but the teacher did not redirect him. Ms. did not observe any language being used in the class. The teacher stated that only one of the students was verbal; but that he was longer going to be in the program. She was informed that the rest of the children were either non-verbal or did not speak English. Ms. concluded that the program was not appropriate She was also concerned that there were no pictures in the room accompanying the schedule, and that the room was small and very cluttered, with two therapists sharing the room. The room was also very crowded with two therapists working with children in very close proximity. (Tr. p. 154; Par. Ex. E). By letter dated September 18, 2013, she communicated these concerns to the CSE and stated that she would be enrolling the student at the ”)and seeking funding. (Par. Ex. E).
Ms. did not receive a response to the September 18, 2013 letter. In the meantime, she learned that Blue Feather would not without DOE permission. Tristian was then offered a placement at , effective October 28, 2013. (Tr. p. 158; Par. Ex. E-4). On October 15, 2013, she wrote to the CSE informing her that as was not enrolled at school, she would be enrolling him at the and seeking funding if she did not receive a response to her letter within five business days. (Par. Ex. E-4).
She testified is able to read some sight words and try to sound out words. He is verbal. She has seen significant progress since his placement at . His ceased, and his gross motor skills have improved, including being able the stairs, alternating feet. He also wants to play with his peers.( Tr. pp. 158-159).
The parent is seeing prospective funding for Center. (Tr. p. 160). She is also seeking reimbursement for her privately obtained neuropsychological evaluation; although she never asked the DOE for an independent educational evaluation. (Tr. p 160). She presented evidence that her adjusted income in 2012 was $19,856. (Par. Ex. K).
On October 22, 2013, the parent signed a contract January 2, 2014, she had not made any payments toward the tuition. The contract provides for an additional payment of $28,500 for the services of a paraprofessional; in the event the paraprofessional is not funded by the DOE Related Services Authorization (“RSA”). (Par. Ex. J).[7] The parent’s adjusted gross income for 2012 was $18,950. (Par. Ex. K).
, the head of the , testified that he has a been a special education teacher and administrator for the DOE. (Tr. p. 169). The serves students aged five though fourteen in a separate building. Tristian is in a kindergarten class, in a classroom consisting of ten students, two teachers and three paraprofessionals. (Tr. pp. 169-171). He testified that the school provides Tristian with an individual paraprofessional. While he initially stated that the DOE provided an RSA to fund the paraprofessional; he later testified that he does not know if the paraprofessional is funded directly by the DOE. (Tr. pp. 172-174).
6 The final notice of recommendation is dated August 30, 2013. (Par. Ex. D).
Tristian receives instruction in English language arts, math, science and social studies. He also receives instruction in social skills, language skills and adaptive skills (which includes fine and gross motor development, self-regulation, self-care, health and safety). (Tr. p. 176).
He receives related services of , as recommended in the DOE’s IEP, from licensed and certified professionals. He also Tr. pp. 177-179). Tristian’s teacher is a certified early childhood teacher. The assistant teacher in the class has an undergraduate degree in early childhood education and a graduate degree. Instruction is provided in small groups, and to the class as a whole. (Tr. pp. 179-180). Mr. testified presented with difficulty . (Tr. p. 182). He engaged in the classroom activities; but there were frequent outbursts, during transitions or when he wasn’t able to do what he wanted. The school working with the paraprofessionals in the room, and there has been a tremendous reduction in his outbursts and behaviors. (Tr. p. 183). His language has also improved since he arrived at the program. Academically, he is engaged. (Tr. pp. 191-192).
His program includes sensory breaks within the classroom or in a sensory gym, as well as yoga, as part of behavioral reduction strategies. (Tr. p. 185). Technology available in the school, including the iPad, helps duration Science instruction includes hands-on work and is project based, with a lot of science experiments. (Tr. pp. 188-190).
Mr. testified that the program recommended by the DOE is not appropriate for Tristian because the program is designed for students impairments. He testified is very capable of academic progress and social development within a group of students who can reciprocate language and learning events. He feels that would be very restrictive and inappropriate . (Tr. p. 192).
classroom teacher, testified that within the class, has been assigned a one-toone paraprofessional . Initially, her role was to be physically near him to control his throughout the day, including encouraging him to play with other kids. During transitions, she is not right with him, but near him, and trying to make but staying with the group. (Tr. pp. 195-196). Initially, he frequently , particularly if a teacher or student touched the trains he liked to play with. These to four times per hour. He has now progressed in his ability to share and be part of the classroom community. He has begun n to make friends and no longer screams or uses swear words. Now his once each week. (Tr. pp. 197200).
Mr. benefited from the sensory breaks built into the daily schedule, and from being spoken to in a calm manner. (Tr. pp. 200-201). He also benefited from being exposed to students who have more developed social and emotional skills, excelled academically. (Tr. p. 208). Department of Education Position
The Department of Education’s (“DOE’) position is that it offered Tristian a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) through a series of IEP meetings and placement offers; that the parental placement is not appropriate and that equitable considerations do not support the parent’s request for funding. (Tr. pp. 13-15). The DOE did not present any evidence regarding IEP would be implemented at the recommended site. It argues that the parent’s testimony regarding the functional levels of the other students was speculative, where the student never attended the public school placement. (IHO Ex. VII, p. 15).
PARENT’S POSITION
The parent’s position is that the final July 15, 2013 IEP was inappropriate because (1) it did not reflect the results of the parent’s independent neuropsychological evaluation; (2) goals were not discussed at that meeting and (3) because the CSE failed to consider the parent’s request for placement at a private school. The parent further argues that the recommended site is inappropriate; that an appropriate placement, and that equitable considerations support the parents’ request for funding. (IHO Ex. V, VI).
FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER
The school district bears the burden of proving the appropriateness of the recommended program. Education Law 4404(1). The school district must comply with the procedural requirements of the Individual with Disabilities Education Act. (IDEA), and the IEP developed through its CSE must be reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits. (Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 [1982]. Special education and related services must be provided in the least restrictive setting consistent with the child’s needs. Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District, 142 F. 3d 119 (2d Cir. 1998).
A Board of Education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a child by the child’s parents, if the services offered by be Board Of Education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parents were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parents’ claim. (School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts, 471 U. S. 359 (1985). The fact that the facility selected by the parents to provide special education services to the child is not approved as a school for children with Florence disabilities does not preclude an award of reimbursement. (Florence School District Four et al. V. Carter by Carter , to 510 US. (1993).
An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student’s needs, establishes annual goals related to those needs and provides for the use of appropriate special education services. Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 11-162 (citations omitted). An appropriate public education under IDEA is one that is “likely to produce progress, not regression”. Id. (citing Cypress-Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael F., 118 F. 3d 245, 248 (3d Cir. 1997). The school district must also implement the IEP, which includes offering placement in a school that can fulfill the requirements set forth in the IEP. D.C. ex rel, E.B., v. New York City Department of Education, 61 IDELR 25 (U.S.D.C., S.D.N.Y. 2013); See T.Y., K.Y. on behalf of T.Y., v. New York City Department of Education, 584 F. 3d 412 (2d Cir. 2009).
APPROPRIATENESS OF IEP
Although evidence was presented regarding four separate IEP meetings, I find that the only relevant IEP is the last IEP that was developed, after the parent submitted her private neuropsychological evaluation. While the parent is correct, that the IEP does not reflect any new information from the neuropsychological evaluation, the CSE’s recommendation of program, with related services with the recommendations contained in that evaluation. The IEP also makes reference to the use of visual, verbal and tactile cues to facilitate attention, and with unexpected changes in his routine, which were also identified in the neuropsychological evaluation. The IEP includes goals for academics, maintaining focus; improving writing skills, three goals for PT, six goals for One of the PT goals is for Tristian to improve his balance and coordination to ascend and descend stairs with alternating feet, an area of particular concern to the parent, which she described at the hearing. The OT goals address his need for improved sensory processing and attention. The IEP includes , including increasing pragmatic language, as recommended in the neuropsychological evaluation.
Tristian’s behaviors were a significant concern. While a BIP is not attached to the IEP, the IEP makes reference to a BIP which is part of the record. The FBA in the record describes the targeted inappropriate behavior and recommends the use of a paraprofessional, frequent positive reinforcement for appropriate behavior, and expanding expressive language skills. It was reported that Tristian enjoys verbal positive reinforcement and pats on the back. ’s IEP provides for a one-to-one paraprofessional to implement the BIP. The BIP includes as targeted behaviors that Tristian will behave appropriately in class for at least 70% of the school day. The expected behavioral changes are that Tristian will sit in his seat; interact appropriate with others; refrain from physical behaviors; and use his words ; and wait his turn. The method/criteria for outcome measurement are teacher/provider and paraprofessional observations.
In R.E. v. New York City Department of Education, 694 F. 3d 167 (2d Cir. 2012), the Court held that FAPE was not denied, where an FBA and BIP were created, but did not meet state-imposed criteria, and where the problem behaviors were identified and the IEP included “numerous specific strategies to address those behaviors, including the use of a 1:1 aide to help him focus”. (Id. at 193). While I find that the BIP does not conform with the requirements of 8 NYC200.22 (4), as it does not include a baseline measure, intervention strategies and a schedule to measure the effectiveness of the interventions, it does identify Tristian’s problem behaviors, and the IEP includes strategies to address his behaviors, including a full time crisis management paraprofessional. For the foregoing reasons, I find that the failure of the BIP to conform with state regulations does not rise to the level of a denial of FAPE. R.E. v. New York City Department of Education, supra.
I do not find that the failure to consider the parent’s request for a private school constituted a denial of FAPE, where the school district could offer an appropriate placement in a public school. Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District, supra. Overall, I find that the IEP was reasonably calculated to enable Tristian to receive educational benefits.
RECOMMENDED SITE
The DOE failed to present any evidence that the recommended program could be implemented at the recommended site, as required by D.C. ex re. E.B. v. New York City Dept. of Educ , supra ; See T.Y., K.Y. on behalf of T.Y., v. New York City Department of Education, supra. Furthermore, the DOE failed to prove would be appropriately grouped at the recommended site, as required by 8 NYCRR 200.6(a)(3)(i). Mr. testified that the program recommended by the DOE is not appropriate for because the program is designed for students with autism and language impairments. He is very capable of academic progress and social development within a group of students who can reciprocate language and learning events.
The parent’s observation of the recommended site is consistent with Mr. testimony. Ms. testified that she did not observe any language being used in the class. The teacher stated that only one of the students was verbal; but that he was longer going to be in the program.
Based upon the DOE’s failure to present any evidence that the IEP could be implemented at the recommended site, or regarding the appropriateness of the grouping at the recommended site; and based upon the testimony of Mr not be appropriately grouped at the recommended site, I find that the DOE failed to meet its burden of proving the appropriateness of the recommended site.
APPROPRIATENESS OF PARENTAL PLACEMENT
To qualify for funding under the IDEA, the parents must demonstrate that the parental placement provides “educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction.” See Frank G. v. Bd. Of Educ. Of Hyde Park, 459 F. 3d 356, 365 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing Rowley). cert. denied, Board of Educ. Of Hyde Par, v. Frank G. 128 S. Ct. 436 (2007).
I find that the parent demonstrated that is an appropriate educational program designed to meet s unique needs. is educated in a small class, with ten students, two teachers and three paraprofessionals. The school with an individual paraprofessional. His program also includes related services . The school provides a sensory gym. His program includes sensory breaks within the classroom. There has been a tremendous reduction in his has also improved since he arrived at the program. Tristian benefited from being placed in a class with students with more skills.
EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS
In determining whether equitable considerations support a request for reimbursement, the courts will consider whether the parent has cooperated with the school district throughout the process to ensure that their child receives a FAPE. Bettinger v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 2007 WL 4208560 [S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2007].
The record indicates that the parent cooperated with the CSE by participating in four CSE reviews, providing an independent evaluation, and expressing her specific concerns regarding Tristian ’s educational needs. She provided notice of her intent to place Tristian at a private school and seek funding.
The parent demonstrated that she was unable to pay the tuition School tuition, and seek reimbursement .
I find that the tuition charged is reasonable in light of the fact that the school provides Tristian with a high staffing ratio and a great deal of specialized services, including
EVALUATION
Parents are entitled to an Independent Education Evaluation (“IEE”) at public expense if they disagree with the DOE’s evaluation. 8 NYCRR 200.5(g) (1). If a parent requests an IEE at public expense, the school district must, without unnecessary delay, ensure that either an IEE is provided at public expense or initiate an impartial hearing to show that its evaluation is appropriate or that the evaluation obtained by the parent does not meet school district criteria. 8 NYCRR 200.5[g][1][iv]. Application of a Student with a Disability, 11-001. As the parent failed to present any evidence that she requested an IEE at public expense, her request to be reimbursed for the independent neuropsychological evaluation is denied.
TRANSPORTATION
Tristian’s IEP provides for special transportation. Although the parent requested door-to-door special education transportation/suitable transportation in her due process request, there was no evidence presented at the hearing that Tristian has not been appropriately transported to and from school. Nor did the parent request any order regarding transportation in her summation. (IHO Ex. V, VI).
ORDER
For all of the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ordered as follows:
(1) The DOE shall fund Tristian’s tuition at the 2013-2014 school year, by paying the pro-rated tuition ($43,312.50) directly to the school.
(2) If the DOE has not previously issued an RSA assigned one-to-one paraprofessional, it shall pay $28,500( as an additional fee charged for that paraprofessional) pro-rated to reflect the time period that Tristian actually attended the school.
(3) The parent’s request to be reimbursed for the independent evaluation is denied.
(4) The DOE shall provide special transportation to and as provided in Tristian’s
IEP. Dated: May 2, 2014
Dora Lassinger mv
DORA LASSINGER, ESQ.
Impartial Hearing Officer DL;mv
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
A Hearing Request, 10/30/13, 9 pages B Meeting Notice, 7/5/13, 2 pages C IEP, 7/15/13, 13 pages D FNR, 8/30/13, 1 page E Correspondence various dates 9 pages F First Progress Report, 2013/2014, 7 pages G Classroom Schedule 2013/2014, 1 page H Eval, April to May 2013, 13 pages I Classroom Observation, 4/30/13, 2 pages J Contract and Proof of Payment 2013/2014, 7 pages K Tax Return 2013/2014, 2 pages L E-mail, 4/17/13, 1 pages M Letter of Acceptance by Blue Feather, 6/13/13, 2 pages N FNR, 6/17/13, 1 page O Progress Report, 2013-2014, 19pp
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
1 Social History Update, 1/29/13, 2 pages 2 Special Ed Teacher Report, 1/21/13, 4 pages 3 Related Service Provider Report, 1/25/13, 2 pages 4 OT Report, 1/21/13, 3 pages 5 PT Report, undated, 2 pages 6 Consent for Evaluation, 1/22/13, 1 page 7 -ed Eval, 1/30/13, 5 pages 8 Classroom Observation, 1/30/13, 1 page 9 Child Outcome Summary, 3/12/13, 1 page 10 IEP Meeting, 4 pages 11 Signature page, 3/12/13, 1 page 12 Letter from Parent, 3/14/13, 1 page 13 Letter from Parent, 3/14/13, 2 page 14 IEP Meeting, 3/22/13, 4 pages 15 IEP Meeting, 4/15/13, 14 pages 16 FBA, 4/15/13, 2 pages 17 BIP, 4/15/13, 1 page 18 IEP, 5/21/13, 4 pages 19 IEP, 5/29/13, 13 pages
HEARING OFFICER
I Pre-Hearing Conference Summary, 12/2/13, 2 pages II Case Follow-Up Sheet, 2/6/14, 1 page III Case Follow-Up Sheet, 2/27/14, 2 pages IV Case Follow-Up Sheet, 3/26/14, 1 page V Parent’s Summation, 4/27/14, 19pp VI Parent’s Brief, 4/27/14, 16pp VII DOE Closing Bried, Undated, 18pp
Footnotes
[1] In her complaint, the parent alleged, among other things, that the IEP is substantively and procedurally deficient because (1) the recommended staffing is inadequate and fails to provide enough opportunity for 1:1 instruction ; (2) because the IEP goals were insufficient and were not appropriately developed ; (3) because the CSE failed to develop a Functional Behavioral Assessment (“FBA”) and an appropriate Behavioral Intervention Plan (“BIP”); and because the IEP could not be implemented at the recommended site . (Par. Ex. A). The parent also requested door-to-door/suitable transportation and reimbursement for the cost of evaluations.
[2] The March 12, 2013 IEP was not offered into evidence by either party. (Tr. p .55). Program was not written on the IEP. (DOE Ex. 15; Par. Ex. L).
[4] Ms. testified that as she was dissatisfied with the recommended public school placement, she took the initiative to look , a New York State approved private school; and was accepted to the program. (Tr. pp. 148-149).
[5] A neuropsychological evaluation was conducted in April and May 2013. s intellectual functioning was reported to be in the Borderline Range. He f to peers. He also exhibited deficits in His academic functioning was solidly in the average range. On a standardized questionnaire were noted in adaptive functioning. He was diagnosed with Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS). It was recommended that he be placed in a full-time special education environment with a small classroom, with other students who do not .It was further recommended that he continue to receive related services (“SLT”) three times each week, with a focus on pragmatics. Specific recommended techniques included the use of visual cues and tactile cues (using light taps) to help
[7] There is no indication in the contract that this amount has been pro-rated to reflect the actual date of Tristian’s enrollment at the school.