New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 173646

Student’s Name:

Date of Birth:

District:

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Date of Hearing: October 23, 2018

December 5, 2018

Actual Record Closed Date: March 13, 2019

Hearing Officer: Gary D. Peters, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

OCTOBER 23, 2018

Attorney Parent

DOE Designee Department of Education

Executive Director/ Parent

Mother Parent

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

DECEMBER 5, 2018

Attorney Parent

DOE Designee Department of Education

Psychologist Parent

INTRODUCTION

On the above dates, I conducted hearings, pursuant to the Individuals Disability Education Act (IDEA, 20 U.S.C. section 1415 (f)(3) regarding a special education program, Students with Disability, New York City Impartial Hearing Case # 173401. The hearings were conducted at the impartial hearing office, New York City Department of Education, at 131 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, New York. At the hearing, the Department of Education, hereinafter referred to as the “DOE” was represented by its designee and the Parent was represented by their counsel Esq.

BACKGROUND

The Parent filed a due process complaint pursuant to 20 U.S.C. Section 1415 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 (“IDEA”) on behalf of her son (hereinafter “Student or ”). The Parent’s due process complaint alleges that the Department of Education (“DOE”) failed to provide the Student with a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) during the 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 school year. On behalf of her daughter, the Parent seeks the following: to obtain funding for the Student’s Neuro-Psychological Evaluation by Dr. in the sum of $4800.00 and compensatory/tutoring services to remedy the DOE’s failure to provide FAPE.

PARENTS POITION

As per Parent’s counsel he student hereinafter referred to as is a boy in the 6th grade with a 2nd-grade level. Despite having significant difficulty with reading and math, the DOE failed to identify him as a child entitled to special education services and a child with a disability until October 6th, 2017.

Additionally that the DOE was aware that the student wasn't learning, watched him get more upset and fail to engage. Despite the fact that would walk out of the classroom and go to sleep as soon as reading began in class, they failed to evaluate him. It was not until the parent, on May 9th, 2016, requested an evaluation, did any movement begin to happen, and even then it was delayed. It is not until September of the following school year when was in 4th grade that an evaluation was done. Parent asserts that the DOE’s evaluation was insufficient; it failed to explain why with average verbal scores and perceptual scores was not able to learn, and didn't explain why he wasn't able to retain information. Additionally, the DOE was aware that the student’s overall cognitive functioning and his memory fell in a very low range..

The DOE placed in ICT, an integrated co-teaching classroom, with no targeted supports for reading, writing or math and only provided him with one group counseling. After a year in that setting, the DOE held a second IEP meeting and didn't change any services, despite the fact the child failed to make progress.

The Parent, on May 10, 2018, the Parent filed its due process complaint and requested extensive relief including but not limited to independent educational evaluations and tutoring. Allegedly, the DOE failed to respond. The DOE initially suggested speech and language and occupational therapy and a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) as part of a resolution with the Parent. The DOE conducted said evaluations but failed to respond to the Parent's request for an independent neuropsychological evaluation. who is now in 6th grade, in ICT, a general education class, cannot read or write despite attending middle school.

The Parent has requested to withdraw tits request for related services and compensatory relief despite the fact that the DOE acknowledged a need for speech and language services and assistive technology. Instead, the Parent is seeking payment for a neuropsychological evaluation by Dr. at her rate of $4,800.

The Parent is requesting compensatory remedial services in the form of 900 hours of tutoring in reading, writing, and math by a special education provider that can work directly with ; help him with his attention, focusing and anxiety. Parent asserts that her son struggles with early academic skills, which leads to disengagement, and he requires additional time in order to engage and learn. The provider “

99

by Mr. who will review evaluations, explain his observations in the terms of the student's behaviors and whye xplain why requires 900 hours of services at the rate of $150.00 per hour.

PARENTS CASE

after being sworn testified that he is licensed and has Master’s degrees special and general education for children through 6th grade. His professional background included working with children as a SEIT . He currently is the owner of 7 ”. which provides special education SETSS services and tutoring. The agency provides remedial support to children to provide them with whatever services are necessary to help them get back to their grade level and have success either in classroom and in their home life. The agency in a case such as that of would provide a teacher who has a background in reading instruction and credentials in order to help remediate the issues at hand. The DOE has utilized his agency to service children and pays for services at the rate of $150 per hour.

The witness is familiar with and administered the WIAT assessment test for reading, math, and writing skills After reviewing the documents and conducting the WIAT-III,his impression was that is struggling in many areas. More particularly, he scored poorly... but was able to get through it and was very respectful, was very cooperative and did whatever he could. The witness stated that he found that a lot of the difficulty arises from the fact that the student couldn’t ask the right questions in order to understand the task at hand. Additionally, he was having difficulty with reading and math; his skills were problematic he ( __) told me “that he did not know how to do division. That was right off the bat, he said, I don't know -- I don't know how to do this”. The witness stated that he noticed that when was doing some of the math problems, he was using his fingers for basic tasks. “So some of the skills that he exhibited were definitely on a much lower kindergarten, Ist grade level and his pace was very slow, definitely took a long -- was very deliberate in the way he was doing his work”.

The witness further stated that the student’s writing skills were very challenging. “So when he was supposed to do the essay, he didn't really understand, and that's what I was getting to before, just asking the right questions and understanding directions”.

’s organizational skills were a significant challenge and he was not able to understand how to put even two very simplistic sentences together; he was unable to utilize conjunctions effectively.

Mr stated that he would provide with someone who has a background in either Orton-Gillingham or Wilson; a special education teacher who can understand his challenges. The teacher would be experienced with a child who's a little bit older who has certain social-emotional components of concern... when “clearly he's very low in terms of his ability, but now to make it too childish in that he gets embarrassed as to where he's at’’.

The witness opined that was three to five years behind; he had difficulty with reading words/decoding and comprehension. The tutoring would address both his ability to read words as well as to understand them. In terms of his math, the student’s skills “needs to be stripped down” to be addressed. In conclusion the witness opined that the student requires 900 hours in order to progress to grade level; the billig rate is $150.00 per hour.

Upon cross-examination, the witness stated that it was his expectation is that every day after school, the student would come for a tutoring session for about two hours for three years. He conceded that within that approximately three-year period, the student would also advance in grade level three years during that three-year period, from the 6th grade to the 9th grade. However, at the end of the three-year period, his expectation is that the student would be at grade level, “but it's an impossibility to project that far ahead.”

Upon re direct examination, Mr. stated that he is not providing all of his reading and writing and math services for and that it should also be provide at school. Based upon his special education background, should be receiving reading, writing, and math in his school environment.

In reviewing some of the IEPs, the witness stated that he recognized that been recieving 20 hours a week of ITC with a coteacher, howevr that it's not being effective as he is having a very difficult time being attentive and being present in the classroom. He recommend that the 20 hours of co teaching should be changed to having a SETSS provider who's going to push into the classroom because the student’s levels of reading, math, and writing is receiving little to almost nothing in the classroom. Additionally, as part of the plan, Mr. stated his services be provided in the summer months as well; that the goal is to provide the tutoring over 12 months.

DOE’S POSITION

The DOE declined to present a case and rested without calling witnesses or offering any documents into evidence.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose behind the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is to (20 U.S.C. section 1400-1482) ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE; see Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S. Ct. 528, 531 [2005]; Bd. Of Education v. Rowley 458 S. CT. 176, 179-81 [1982]; Frank G. v. Bd. Of Edu. 459 F. 3d 356 371 92d Cir 2006). A FAPE includes special education and related services designed to meet the student’s unique need provided in conformity with a comprehensive written IEP (20 U.S.C. section 1401 [9] [D] 34 C.F.R. section 300.13 see 210 U.S.C. section 1414 ‘d’; 34 CFR Section 200-347

_; The student’s recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE) (20 U.S.C. section 1412 [a][5][A]; CFR section 300.13 [a][2][i], 200.1.116 [a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.6 [a][1]; see Walczak v. Fla Union Free School Dist. 142 F. 3d 119, 132 [2d cir. 1998].

This hearing was requested pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §1404 et seg. (“IDEA”). “Congress enacted the IDEA ‘to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education...designed to meet their unique needs... [and] to ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are protected.’” MH. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t. of Educ., 685 F.3d 217m 223 (2d Cir. 2012) (quoting 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1)(A)-(B)). The IDEA mandates that students with disabilities musbe provided with a FAPE tailored to meet their unique needs and one that is reasonably calculated to “enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist., — U.S. __, 137 S.Ct. 988,999 (2017); Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982); SRO 17-007, p. 10. A focus on the particular child is at the core of the IDEA. Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 999. To meet the IDEA’s requirements, a school district’s program must provide special education and related services that is “‘specifically designed’ to meet a child’s ‘unique

6

needs’” and is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. Endrew F., 137 S.Ct. at 999 (emphasis in original); M1H., supra, 685 F.3d at 224 (quoting Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 107 (2d Cir. 2007)).

A denial of FAPE can be one that is substantive or results from violations of the procedural protections of the IDEA and its implementing regulations. Procedural violations result in the denial of FAPE “if they ‘impeded the child’s right to a [FAPE},’ ‘significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision-making process,’ or ‘caused a_ deprivation of educational benefits.’” 20 USC. §1415()3)(C)Gi); A.C. ex rel. MC. v. Bd. of Educ. of Chappaqua Cent. Sch. Dist., 553 F.3d 165, 172 (2d Cir. 2009); see also Werner v. Clarkstown Cent. Sch. Dist., 363 F. Supp. 2d 656, 659 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (“Multiple procedural violations may cumulatively result in the denial of FAPE even if the violations considered individually do not.”) In sum, Rowley stands for a two-part entitlement: eligible families are entitled to an IEP that both (a) affords a placement that, substantively, is “reasonably calculated” to afford meaningful educational benefit to the child, and (b) is developed in procedural accordance with the requirements of federal law.

Furthermore, with regard to the sufficiency of the IEP, the Commissioner’s regulations require that: The IEP shall report the present levels of academic achievement and functional performance and indicate the individual needs of the student according to each of the four areas listed in section 200.1(ww)(3)() of this Part, including: a. how the student’s disability affects involvement and progress in the general education curriculum....

§ NY.C.RR. § 200.4(d)(2)(i); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.20(a). In turn, section 200.1(ww)(3)(i) provides, in relevant part that the areas to be considered shall include: (a) academic achievement, functional performance and learning characteristics which shall mean the levels of knowledge and development in subject and skill areas, including activities of daily living, level of intellectual functioning, adaptive behavior, expected rate of progress in acquiring skills and information, and learning style; (b) social development which shall mean the degree and quality of the student’s relationships with peers and adults, feelings about self, and social adjustment to school and community environments; (c) physical development which shall mean the degree or quality of the student’s motor and sensory development, health, vitality, and physical skills or limitations which pertain to the learning process; and (d) management needs which shall mean the nature of and degree to which environmental modifications and human or material resources are required to enable the student to benefit from instruction. Management needs shall be determined in accordance with the factors identified in each of the three areas described in clauses (a)-(c) of this subparagraph.

The IEP has been described as the “centerpiece” of the IDEA system. See Murphy v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 297 F.3d 195, 197 (2d Cir. 2002); Endrew, 137 S.Ct. 1t 994. This key document “sets out the child’s present educational performance, establishes annual and short-term objectives for improvements in that performance, and describes the specially designed instruction and services that will enable the child to meet those objectives.” D.D. v. N.Y.C. Bd. of Educ., 465 F.3d 503, 507-08 (2d. Cir. 2006) (internal quotations omitted). Under the IDEA, for a child’s IEP to be adequate, it must be likely to produce progress, not regression, and must afford the student with an opportunity greater than mere trivial advancement. The IDEA “requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress in light of the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 1001; MH., supra, 685 F.3d at 224 (quoting T.P. ex rel. S.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 247, 254 (2d Cir. 2009) (internal quotations and citations omitted). For a student who is fully integrated in a regular general education classroom, a child’s unique needs are typically met when the school provides “a level of instruction reasonably calculated to permit advancement through the general curriculum.” Endrew F., 137 S.Ct. at 1000. When a child is not fully integrated into a regular classroom and not able to achieve on grade level, an “IEP need not aim for grade-level advancement. But [the student’s] educational program must be appropriately ambitious in light of his circumstances, just as advancement from grade to grade is appropriately ambitious for most children in a regular classroom. The goals may differ, but every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives.” Jd.

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.” SRO 080052; SRO 08-060 (citations omitted). The goals must be “sufficiently specific and measurable” (SRO 07-108, p. 12) and the IEP must contain goals to address identified needs. Id.; SRO 08-060; see also SRO 05-049. The goals must be “sufficiently described so as to allow the student’s teacher or therapists to understand the CSE’s expectations with respect to each goal.” SRO 07-108, p. 12.

Accordingly, I find that the DOE has effectively conceded that it denied a FAPE to . Once it has been determined that a student has been denied a FAPE, hearing officers have broad equitable powers to fashion a remedy that is appropriate to address the student’s needs, based upon the unique facts of the case. SRO 08-052, at pp. 17-18. It is well settled that “compensatory education is an equitable remedy that is tailored to meet the unique circumstances of each case.” SRO 11-065, at p.2 (citing Wenger v. Canastota, 979 F. Supp. 147 (N.D.N.Y. 1997)); Mr. and Mrs. A. ex rel. D.A. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 769 F.Supp.2d 403 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (holding that such equitable powers extend to prospective payments for educational instruction where parents cannot afford the financial outlay required by reimbursement cases). Compensatory education relief may be awarded to a student with a disability who remains eligible for instruction under the IDEA. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(3), 1412(a)(1)(B); N.Y. Educ. Law §§ 3202(1), 4401(1), 4402(5)).

When calculating a compensatory services award, some courts examine the amount of time during which a child has been deprived of a FAPE and award compensatory services with an eye towards making up that time. See, e.g., MC. v. Central Reg. Sch. Dist., 81 F.3d 389, 297 (3d Cir. 1996) (holding generally that, subject to equitable adjustment, the “child is entitled to compensatory education for a period equal to the period of deprivation, excluding only the time reasonably required for the school district to rectify the problem.”’). Some other courts focus on the child’s needs; “some students may require only short, intensive compensatory programs targeted at specific problems or deficiencies” while “[o]thers may need extended programs, perhaps even exceeding hour-for-hour replacement of the time spent without FAPE.” Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 524 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Pursuant to this approach, there must be evidence regarding the child’s “specific educational deficits” resulting from the failure to = provide a FAPE and “specific compensatory measures” designed to “correct those deficits.” Jd. at 526. The goal of a hearing officer in awarding compensatory education is to make the child educationally whole. G.L. v. Ligonier Valley Sch. Dist. Auth., 802 F.3d 601, 624 (3d Cir. 2015) (“compensatory education must cover the entire period and must belatedly provide all education and related services previously denied and needed to make the child whole.”) (quoting 150 Cong. Rec. $11851 (daily ed. Nov. 24, 2004) (statement of Sen. Tom Harkin)).

In fashioning a compensatory award, "the inquiry must be fact-specific” and the award must be “reasonably calculated to provide the educational benefits that likely would have accrued from special education services the school district should have supplied in the first place.” Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 524 (D.C. Cir. 2005); see also Parents of Student W. v. Puyallup Sch. Dist., 31 F.3d 1489, 1497 (9th Cir.

1994) (holding that "[a]ppropriate relief is relief designed to ensure that 9s appropriately educated within the meaning of the IDEA"). That is, a compensatory should aim to “place the student in the position he or she would have been in had the district complied with its obligations under the IDEA.” Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 13-208; see also Newington, 546 F.3d at 123 (holding that compensatory education awards should be designed so as to "appropriately address[] the problems with the IEP"); Draper v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 518 F.3d 1275, 1289 (11th Cir. 2008)(holding that "[c]ompensatory awards should place children in the position they would have been in but for the violation of the Act"]); Bd. of Educ. v. L.M., 478 F.3d 307, 316 (6th Cir. 2007) (holding that "a flexible approach, rather than a rote hour-by-hour compensation award, is more likely to address (the) educational problems successfully"]; Reid, 401 F.3d at 518, 525 (holding that compensatory education is a "replacement of educational services the child should have received in the first place").

The Parents did not need to establish that a “gross” violation of the IDEA occurred in order for the IHO to award compensatory education. See, e.g. Newington, 546 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2008) (finding that the "gross violation" standard only applies to compensatory education awarded to students over the age of 21). Even when Courts have applied a “gross” standard, the term has not been clearly defined; at a minimum, “it appears that exclusion of the student from school for a substantial period of time would suffice” to meet the standard. Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 13-208 (citing Mrs. C. v. Wheaton, 916 F.2d 69, 75 [2d. Cir. 1990]; V.M. v. Colonie Sch. Dist., 2013 WL 3187069, at *19).

In New York, the school district must carry the burden of proving that its recommended program provides the student with a FAPE. Ed. Law § 4404(1)(c). Here, the Parent raised numerous allegations that the Department failed to identify the Student with a disability, failed to appropriately evaluate, and failed to address the Student’s speech, emotional, and behavior needs. Ex. Ex. A-1 — A-8. The Parent alleged and presented evidence showing the Student failed to make any meaningful progress over the last three school years. Ex. A-1 — A-8, Ex. II, Tr. 193. Yet, the Department failed to present any evidence to disprove the Parent’s allegations or refute the Parent’s evidence. Although the Department initially disputed the Parent’s right to an IEE, the Department failed to show that it exercised one of its statutory obligations under 8 § NYCRR 200.5 (g) by either authorizing the IEE or initiating a hearing as required under the state regulations when a Parent requests an IEE. Ex. X. Overall, the Department failed to meet its burden that it provided FAPE. Therefore, the Student should be entitled to relief.

Under the IDEA federal regulations, 34 CFR § 300.111, “the State must have in effect policies and procedures to ensure that—(i) All children with disabilities residing in the State... regardless of the severity of their disability, and who are in need of special education and related services, are identified, located, and evaluated; and (11) A practical method is developed and implemented to determine which children are currently receiving needed special education and related services.

Here, the Department failed to identify the Student with a disability for the school year in dispute See record generally. The Department’s failure to identify the Student and its failure to immediately develop a special education program for him once the Parent identified his disability, deprived the Student of special education services she should have received and this deprived him of a FAPE.

In evaluating whether an IEP was substantively adequate, the IHO shall determine whether the IEP was “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-/, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017). “In other words, the school must implement an IEP that is reasonably calculated to remediate and, if appropriate, accommodate the child's disabilities so that the child can “make progress in the general education curriculum,” Jd. at *4 (citation omitted), commensurate with his non-disabled peers, taking into account the child’s potential. M.C. by & through M.N. v. Antelope Valley Union High Sch. Dist., No. 14-56344, 2017 WL 1131821, at *6 (9th Cir. Mar. 27, 2017).

Overall, the evidence demonstrated that the Student was capable of achieving grade level progress, but the Department consistently failed to appropriately classify him and provide him with the supports needed to make progress. Therefore, the Department deprived the Student of FAPE.

I apply the statutory standard in 20 U.S.C § 1415(f)(E) (which was recently reiterated in Newington) and find that is entitled to compensatory services.

The equities, they clearly favor the Parents. A parent must act with a high level of “unreasonableness or misconduct” in order for such conduct to raise an equitable bar to relief. N.R. ex rel. T.R. v. Department of Educ. of City School Dist. of City, 2009 WL 874061 (S.D.N.Y.). In the absence of evidence demonstrating that the Parent failed to cooperate with the CSE, or otherwise engaged in conduct that precluded the development of an appropriate IEP, equitable considerations generally support an equitable remedy sought by the Parents. /d. Further, the notion of equities requires a balancing of both parties’ conduct and interest. Wolfe v. Taconic Hills Central School District, 167 F.Supp.2d 530 (N.D.N.Y. 2001); SRO No. 04-045 (balancing the cooperation of the parents and the significant extent to which district failed to offer a FAPE, reimbursement was awarded).

The DOE bore the burden of proof regarding equities. Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 13-200; N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404(1)(c). In this case, the DOE provided no evidence demonstrating lack of cooperation on the part of the Parent

PARENT CLOSING

The burden of persuasion

5 and production is completely on the Department, and 6 the Department, having not put on a case, has not

7 met its burden. Therefore, the child should be

8 deemed to have not been provided FAPE for all the 9 years that the Parent is contesting, the Child 10 Find, as well as the last couple of years, where 11 he's not been provided the correct service. To 12 remediate that student, he needs a lot of services. 13 As we've just discussed, 900 hours, while 14 appearing to be a large number, is not enough to 15 make up for his educational career, but we believe 16 will allow him to make growth, especially once 17 placed in the appropriate setting. 18 Mr. talked about potentially if 19 the Department could provide an interim reading and 20 math support while waiting for that setting, it 21 would at least try to stem some of the harms. But 22 given the extent of the FAPE failures here, 900 23 hours is not a significant amount. The Department 24 has not offered any other remediation program, and 25 the Parent feels very strongly that the 900 hours 34

1 at $150 per hour is appropriate.

2 In addition, we're just requesting that

3 Dr. be able to do this evaluation at

4 $4,800 for the neuropsychological. Thank you.

In light of the foregoing, the Parents request that I find in their favor as to each and every allegation in the DPC and discussed herein; I order the following:

That the DOE reconvene an JEP meeting to review the IEEs and recommend a deferral to the Central Based Support Team to identify a private learning disability program consistent with Dr. *s recommendations. The possible programs should include ; , and per Dr. ’s recommendations.

The IEP should classify the Student with a Learning Disability or Speech and Language Impairment The IEP should recommend speech and language services individually twice a week for 60 minutes and in a group of two one time per week for 60 minutes, OT individually for 60 minutes, twice per week , a 1:1 full time health paraprofessional to address the Student’s The IEP should include the Student’s BIP The IEP should include an AT device and 20 hours of AT training to learn how to the recommended AT device The DOE to fund one hour per week of cognitive behavior therapy for the 2018-2019 school year, to be provided by a trained therapist of the Parent’s choosing at his or her customary rate.

The DOE to fund compensatory educational services in the form of: a. 1,000 hours of LMB services (minus the 250 hours of interim services previously ordered); b. 120 hours of compensatory speech and language therapy

100 hours of compensatory OT d. 500 hours of compensatory tutoring in writing to be provided by a special education tutor; e. 40 hours Parent Counseling and Training to be provided by an ABA provider All Payments to be made within 30 days of receipt of invoices by the DOE in a form acceptable to the DOE.

Date: March 27, 2018

GARY D. PETERS, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

GDP:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

The parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to obtain a review of this decision by a State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Part 200.5(k) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, Section 4404 of the Education Law, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Department of Education has designated the New York City Law Department to accept service of papers on its behalf, including appeals of decisions of Impartial Hearing Officers. Such service is made at 100 Church Street, New York, NY 10007 at the Messenger Center.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

PARENT’S EVIDENCE

P-A. Exhibit Number Number Exhibit Date of Pages Hearing Request 5/1018 12 pages

P-B. Individualized Education Program 10/6/17 11 pages

P-C. Individualized Education Program 10/6/16 17 pages

P-D. IEE Request Letter/Confirmation 5/9/18 2 pages

P-E. WIAT — III Score Report 10/13/18 6 pages

P-F. Observation report 10/11/18 3 pages

P-G. Assistive Technology Evaluation 8/13/18

P-H. Speech/language Evaluation 7/12/18 8 pages

P-J. P-] Functional Behavior Assessment 6/20/18 6 Behavior Intervention Plan 6/20/18 26 pages

P-K. OT Evaluation of Function & Participation 05/31/18 11 pages

P-L. Report 11/29/17 3 pages

P-M. Psycho-Educational Evaluation 9/21/16 8 pages

P-N. Report Card Final MP 2017-18 2 pages

P-O. Report Card MP 2016-17 2 pages

P-P. Audiological Evaluation 7/12/18 8 pages

P-Q. Service Records various 3 pages

P-R. Affidavit 10/15/18 3 pages

DOE’S EVIDENCE

Parent’s consent 6/15/16

Partial Resolution 5/29/18

Intentionally Omitted

Meeting Notice T/12/18

IEP 7/20/18 11