Impartial Hearing Decision

DECISION ORDER Case Number: 182258 Student’s Name: Redacted Hearing Requested By: Parent Hearing Officer: Martin J. Kehoe HI, Esq.

Introduction This document constitutes the Decision and Order of the undersigned, the duly designated Impartial Hearing Officer (LHO) in an Impartial Hearing brought pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the New York State Education Laws. The School District will be referred to as District, the parents as Parents and the student will be referred to as Student. This action was commenced by a complaint notice, dated March 26, 2019. On April 16, 2019, the parties reached a partial resolution agreement for the District to conduct physical therapy, speech language therapy, and occupational therapy evaluations, and reconvene the Committee on Special Education (CSE) upon completion of the evaluations and also “a consideration form” for an FBA. (Ex. 2). During the pendency of this hearing, the Parent requested an independent neuropsychological evaluation and I issued an interim order for the evaluation. A hearing was held on May 22, 2019; July 25, 2019; September 19, 2019; January 15, 2020; and January 28, 2020, Parents’ Position In the initial complaint notice, the Parent alleged that the District did not provide the Student with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for the 2017-2018 or 2018— 2019 school years. (Ex. A) The Parents filed an amended complaint notice, dated September 4, 2019 for the 2019-2020 school year (Ex. KK). The Parent was secking tuition funding and transportation to the Private School where she unilaterally placed the Student; compensatory services of 1:1 tutoring and ABA; and compensatory related services.

District’s Position The District did not present a case for any of the school years (T. 38). The District submitted the resolution agreement into evidence (Ex. 2) but not did not call any witnesses or cross—examine the Parents’ witnesses (T. 48). Student History The Student has a disability classification of autism (Ex. B). The Student was diagnosed with . (Ex. YY) The Student also was diagnosed with developmental coordination disorder; and autism spectrum disorder, level 3, with intellectual impairment; attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, combined type. (Ex. YY) The Student has severe receptive and expressive language delays. (Ex. MM) The Student presents with difficulties in access/movement, activities of daily living, management of classroom tools and materials, visual motor skills, sensory processing, work behaviors, and social and cmotional learning (Ex. RR). The Student also presents with significant academic delays and behavioral concerns at school and at home. (Ex. YY). Overview This is a reimbursement case for the 2019-2020 school year with a request for compensatory education relative to the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 school years. Regarding the reimbursement/direct [payment portion of the case, I will briefly apply a three-prong analysis, examining first, whether the District met its burden to demonstrate the appropriateness of their program, second whether the Parents met their burden to demonstrate the appropriateness of the placement at Private School, and third whether equitable considerations favor the District or the Parents in this matter. Regarding the compensatory education portion of the case, I will review the record and the position of the parties and summarize the legal standards governing such awards. Analysis A board of education may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private education services obtained for a student by his or her parents, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parents were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parents’ claim. Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter. 510 U.S. 7 (1993); Sch. Comm. Of Burlington vy. Dep't. of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-70 (19835). Background of the Case The Parent testified by affidavit about the Student’s history of delays. He received early intervention services and was found eligible for special education services by the Committee on Preschool Special Education (CPSE) at its initial meeting in January 2016. According to the Parent, the Student did not make progress in preschool (Ex. B). The Committee on Preschool Education (CPSE) held a meeting for the 2017 — 2018 school year on March 22, 2017. (Ex. D) They recommended an 8:1:2 special class with 1:1 speech language therapy 3x30, 1:1 occupational therapy 3x30, and a 12-month program for July and August 2017. The Student remained in the same school for pre—kindergarten where the Parent testificd, “He continued to struggle academically, socially, behaviorally.” (Ex. BBB). A CPSE meeting was held for the Student on January 22, 2018 which recommended a 12-month program for July and August 2018 and added physical therapy 3x30. (Ex. C) The Parent had the Student evaluated by a developmental pediatrician on March 2, 2018 who diagnosed the Student with autism and recommended a small class size, with a low staff/student ratio and social skills training. (Ex. BBB, KF) According to the Parent, the Student did not achieve the annual goals by the end of the school year. (Ex. BBB) The CPSE evaluated the Student to see if he was eligible for one of the District’s autism programs, but he was not found eligible. (Ex. BBB) The CSE held a meeting for the 2018 — 2019 school year (kindergarten) on May 30, 2018. (Ex. B} They recommended a 12:1:1 class in a community school; 1:1 counseling 1x30; 1:1 occupational therapy 1x30; group occupational therapy 1x30; parent counseling and training quarterly. 1:1 speech language therapy 1x30; group speech language therapy 1x30; 1:1 physical therapy 1x30 and group physical therapy 1x30 The Parent testified that the Student exhibited disruptive and unsafe behavior in school. The Student also had difficulty with hand — eye coordination, fine motor skills, and focusing in large groups. (Ex. BBB) The Parent sent a letter to the School Psychologist, dated March 1, 2019 regarding a neuropsychological evaluation. (Ex. G) On or about March 25, 2019, the Parent sent another letter to the School Psychologist, requesting additional independent educational evaluations. (Ex. E) The BCBA iestified that she did not find any educational benefits for the student for the 2018 — 2019 school year when reviewing the records (T. 57). An lEP(individualized Education Program) meeting was held for the student on May 2, 2019. The IEP recommended a 12:1:1 special class; 1:1 counseling 1X 30: group occupational therapy 1x30 in the classroom and 1x30 in a separate location; parent counseling and training quarterly; 1:1 physical therapy 1*30; group physical therapy 1x30; 1:1 speech language therapy 1*30 and group speech language therapy 130; a 12 month program; special transportation; and a community school. (Ex. SS). ‘The Parent testified that she found the Private School through her online research for ABA programs (Ex. BB). The Student was accepted into the Private School on August 20, 2019 (Ex. JJ). The Parent testified that she owes $109,300 for tuition and related services for the 2019 — 2020 school year (Ex. BB). Prong I The purpose of IDEA is to provide students with a “basic floor of opportunity” of access to specialized instruction and related services that are individually designed to provide educational benefits. Board of Education, Hendrick Hudson CSD v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 189-190, 102 S. Ct. 3034 (1982); Walczak v. Florida UFSD, 142 F.3d 119 (2nd Cir. 1998). Neither the IDEA, nor Article 89 of the New York State Education Law, requires a school district to provide special education and related services designed to maximize the potential of a disabled student. Nor do federal and state education laws require a school district to provide the best possible educational program and related services, or match those services requested by a parent. Application of a Child With a Disability (City School District of Buffalo), $.R.O. Decision 04-20 (2004), Rather, the goals and mandates of the [DEA and N.¥. Education Law are relatively modest: namely, io provide appropriate specialized education and related services sufficient for the disabled student to benefit from his/her education. Straube v. Florida UFSD, 801 F. Supp. 1164, 1175-1176 (S.D.N.Y. 1992); Moubry v. Independent School District, 9 F. Supp.2d 1086, 1104 (D. Minn. 1998) (citing Rowley) This straightforward obligation of the District is accompanied by the requirement to demonstrate the appropriateness of the program recommended by its CSE. (Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 93-9; Application of a Child with a Handicapping Condition, Appeal No. 92-7; Application ofa Handicapped Child, 22 Ed Dept Rep 487 [1983]). To meet its burden, a board of education must show that its recommended program is reasonably calculated to confer educational benefits (Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 [1982]). The recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (34 C.F.R. § 300.550]b]; 8 NYCRR200.6[aj]1 }). Although the District submitted evidence, (the resolution agreement (Ex. B)) they did not present a case. They did not call any witnesses to defend their program. L.O. v. N.Y. City Dep't of Educ., 822 F.3d 95, 111 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9239. I, therefore, rule for the Parents on Prong I case for the 2019-2020 school year and make a finding that FAPE was denied in the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 school years. Prong il [ must now consider whether the Parents met their burden of proving the appropriateness of the placement of the Student at the Private School. On Prong II, New York federal courts have held that parental placements are “subject to fewer constraints than that applied to the school authorities.” Schreiber v. E. Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist., 700 F. Supp 529 [S.D.N.Y. 2010] The Second Circuit has clearly stated: “| [P]Jarents need not show that a private placement furnishes every special service necessary to maximize their child's potential. They need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs ofa handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction.” Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105 [2d Cir. 2007] quoting, Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. ,459 F.3d 356, 364 [2d Cir. 2006] Moreover, parents "may not be subject to the same mainstreaming requirements as a school board." Frank G. v. Bd. of Ed. of Hyde Park {2d Cir. 2006] quoting M.S. v. Bd. of Ed. of City Sch. Dist. of Yonkers, 231 F.3d 96, 105 [2d Cir. 2000] citing Warren G. v. Cumberland County Sch. Dist., 190 F.3d 80, 84 [3d Cir. 1999] (holding that "the test for the parents’ private placement is that it is appropriate, and not that it is perfect"). The Private School is for students with autism spectrum disorder. The at the School is for students who require a high level of individualized attention and treatment, and uses an ABA approach. Students receive an FBA and a BIP. Classes have a maximum of six students and are taught by a certified special education teacher and an assistant teacher. The program includes multisensory instruction, specialized reading, functional mathematics, language skills development, social skills training, opportunities for integration, transition planning, life skills preparation, and related services. (Ex. WW). The Executive Director/Principal of the Private School testified by affidavit that when the school tested the Student for the admission assessment, they determined his functional academic skills to be at a pre—academic level. (Ex. AAA). The Student is provided with a 1:1 paraprofessional. The Student’s physical therapist sometimes has sessions in the Student’s physical education class, his occupational therapist sometimes works with the Student in art, and the speech language therapist sometimes works with him in the classroom meeting or his social skills class. The Student is provided with ABA and a sensory — and rich curriculum with a behavior management program supervised by a BCBA. The Student takes an adaptive daily living skills class. (Ex. AAA). The Student has an educational and therapeutic team consisting of the teacher, the Teacher assistant, the 1:1 paraprofessional, the speech language therapist, the occupational therapist, the physical therapist, the counselor, and the school psychologist. (Ex. BBB). The Student is given related services on a pull — out and push — in basis (Ex. BBB). The Student is making progress in the school. (Ex. XX) For example, the Student’s related service providers report that they are spending less time redirecting the Student. He can now parallel play and collaboratively play with the other students (Ex. AA). The Parent testified about the Student’s progress. “He is learning the alphabet and how to write his name; and he is beginning to respond to questions asked of him.... 1 have noticed that [the Student] is more focused and attentive to his activities at home.” “[The Student’s Teacher] is always available to me when I have a question about how to carry over what she’s teaching at [the Private School] into the home.” (Ex. BBB). The Private School is an appropriate placement. | credit the testimony of the Executive Director/Principal, the Neuropsychologist, and the Parent that the Private School’s program is appropriate for the Student.

Prong ILI As a final point, a board of education may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private educational services obtained for a student by his or her parents where equitable considerations support the parents' claim (fJorence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]; Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-70 [1985]; R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85; T.P., 554 F.3d at 252). In Burlington, the Court found that Congress intended retroactive reimbursement to parents by school officials as an available remedy in a proper case under the IDEA (471 U.S. at 370-71; see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d ai 111; Cerra, 427 F.3d at 192). "Reimbursement merely requires [a district] to belatedly pay expenses that it should have paid all along and would have bome in the first instance" had it offered the student a FAPE (Burlingion, 471 U.S. at 370-71; see 20 U.S.C. § 1412fa][1Oj[C]fij; 34 CFR 300.148). The burden of proof is on the school district during an impartial hearing, 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]; see R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85; MP.G. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2010 WL 3398256, at 7 [S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2010]). Yuition reimbursement may be reduced or denied if parents do not provide notice of the unilateral placement either at the most recent CSE meeting prior to removing the child from public school, or by written notice ten business days before such removal, "that they were rejecting the placement proposed by the public agency to provide a [FAPE] to their child, including stating their concerns and their intent to enroll their child in a private school at public expense." (20 U.S.C. § 612[a][10]({C]fiii][T] ; sce 34 C.E.R. § 300.148[d]) This statutory provision "serves the important purpose of giving the school system an opportunity, before the child is removed, to assemble a tear, evaluate the child, devise an appropriate plan, and determine whether a [FAPEF] can be provided in the public schools." (Greenland Sch. Dist. v. Amy N., 358 F.3d 150, 160 [1st Cir. 2004]) In this case, the Parent continually contacted the District seeking help for the Student. She had the Student privately evaluated, she attended all of the CSE meetings and shared her concerns. The Parent sent the District a ten-day notice letter, dated August 20, 2019, stating her intention to unilaterally place the Student in the Private school and seek funding (Ex. LL). The Parent fully cooperated with the District and the equities favor the Parent (Ex. BBB). Compensatory Education Regarding the remedy of compensatory education, ! find guidance in Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, (D.C. Cir. 2005) (finding that compensatory education is not a “form of damages” because the courts act in equity when remedying IDEA violations and must “do equity and... mould each decree to the necessities of the particular case”) (quoting Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U.S. 321, 329 (1944)); See also, Wenger v. Canastota, 979 F. Supp. 147, 150-51 [N.D.N.Y. 1997]. Within the Second Circuit, compensatory education has been awarded to students who are ineligible by reason of age or graduation if there has been a gross violation of the IDEA resulting in the denial of, or exclusion from, educational services for a substantial period of time (see Somoza v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 538 F.3d 106, 109 n.2, 113 n.6 [2d Cir. 2008]; Mrs. CL v. Wheaton, 916 F.2d 69, 75 [2d Cir. 1990]; Burr v. Ambach, 863 F.2d 1071 [2d Cir. 1988]; Cosgrove v. Bd of Educ., 175 F. Supp. 2d 375, 387 [N.D.N.Y. 2001]. Compensatory education relicf may also be awarded to a student with a disability who remains eligible for instruction under the IDEA (see 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401[3], 1412[aj[1][B]; Educ. Law §§ 3202[1], 4401[1], 4402[5]). Within the Second Circuit, compensatory education relief in the form of supplemental special education or related services has been awarded to such students if there has been a denial of a FAPE (see P. v. Newington Bd. of Edue., 546 F.3d at 123 [2d Cir. 2008] [stating that "[t]he IDEA allows a hearing officer to fashion an appropriate remedy, and . . . compensatory education is an available option under the Act to make up for denial of a [FAPE]"]; see generally 2.C. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 9731053, at 12-13 [S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2008], adopted at 2008 WL 9731174 fJul. 7, 2008)). Likewise, SROs have awarded compensatory "additional services" to students who remain eligible to attend school and have been denied appropriate services, if such deprivation of instruction could be remedicd through the provision of additional services before the student becomes ineligible for instruction by reason of age or graduation (Bd. of Educ. v. Munoz, 16 A.D.3d 1142 [4th Dep't 2005] [finding it proper for an SRO to order a school district to provide "make-up services" to a student upon the school district's failure to provide those educational services to the student during home instruction]; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 13-236 [upholding an additional service award of physical therapy]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal Nos. 13-226 & 13-228 [awarding additional services in the form of tutoring or other direct support from a special education teacher]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 13-208 [upholding an additional service award of 100 hours of compensatory one-to-one tutoring in math and reading|; Application of the Dep’t of Educ., Appeal No. 13-048 [awarding the student with 1:1 counseling services and 1:1 speech-language therapy in compensatory additional services}). In fashioning an appropriate award of compensatory education, one must be mindful that the central purpose of such award is to provide a remedy for a specific denial of a FAPE (see Newington, 546 F.3d at 123 [holding that compensatory education is a remedy designed to "make up for" a denial of a FAPE}; see also Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 524 [D.C. Cir. 2005] [holding that, in fashioning an appropriate compensatory education remedy, "the inquiry must be fact-specific, and to accomplish IDEA's purposes, the ultimate 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"|; Parents of Student W. v. Puyallup Sch. Dist., 31 F.3d 1489, 1497 (9th Cir. 1994] [holding that "[a]ppropriate relief is relicf designed to ensure that the student is appropriately educated within the meaning of the IDEA”}). Accordingly, an award of additional services 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 {sce Newington, 546 F.3d at 123 [holding that compensatory education awards should be designed so as to "appropriately address the problems with the IEP"]; see also Draper v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 518 F.3d 1275, 1289 filth Cir. 2008] [holding that "[clompensatory awards should place children in the position they would have been in but for the violation of the Act"]; Bd. of Educ. vy. 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 student's] 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" and that compensatory education awards "should aim to place disabled children in the same position they would have occupied but for the school district's violations of IDEA"); Parents of Student W. v. Puyallup Sch. Dist. 31 F.3d 1489, 1497 ["There is no obligation to provide a day-for-day compensation for time missed"]; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 11-132; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 11-091). See, specifically, Application ofa Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 14-014. Recommendations The Neuropsychologist who evaluated the Student recommended “A highly — structured learning environment with instructors who are trained to teach children with autism.” He explained that it should be a specialized autism program with an ABA component. He also recommended integration of related services in the curriculum; a multisensory curriculum: individualized attention; continued speech language therapy with a therapist who has training and experience with autistic children; continued occupational therapy with a therapist who has training and experience with autistic children; continued physical therapy with a therapist who has training and experience with autistic children: a social skills program for children with on the autism spectrum; a sensory diet; and assistive technology (Ex. YY). He considered the Student’s current placement at the Private School appropriate. (Ex. YY) The Neuropsychologist testified: “Due to the complexity of [the Student’s] cognitive profile in current academic functioning, he cannot access the general education curriculum in a community school at this time. Although he is highly motivated to learn and interact with others, [the Student] lacks the foundational skills, executive functioning, and attentional acumen to attend to a regular curriculum. Therefore, a 12:1:1 classroom and non—specialized neighborhood school would not be an appropriate setting for [the Student].” (Ex. ZZ). Additionally, the neuropsychologist recommended home-based and community—based ABA after school and on the weekends “to practice adaptive living skills and social pragmatic communication.” (Ex. ZZ), The BCBA testified about her recommendations for compensatory education. 18 hours per week of ABA, for 46 weeks, for a total of 920 hours (T. 53 — 54); 92 hours of BCBSA supervision (T. 55); and 46 hours of parent training (one hour per week) (T. 55-56). While [ acknowledge the unopposed testimony and recommendations of the experts, I have reduced requested award regarding the remaining requests for compensatory education for three reasons. One, I am confident in the CSE and their ability, guided by the Neuropsychological Evaluation and the other evaluations developed over time, to make good decisions about the Student’s needs and related services going forward. Two, I am persuaded by testimony that the Student’s placement in the proper learning environment, called for in my order, will enable the Student to make progress. Three, I recognize there are a finite number of hours per week, and the demands of the Student’s schoo! year along with significant hours of tutoring, may be daunting. Inherent limits of stamina, pace, concentration and the like could easily place an unintended burden on the Student and the family. | attempt to mitigate these unintended consequences with my order. In conclusion, I issue the following orders: 1. The District shall make direct payment to the Private School for the Student’s tuition and related expenses for the 2019-2020 school year (September 2019 through June 2020) in the amount of $109,300. 2. The District shail pay for or provide door-to-door special education transportation for the Student to and from the Private School. 3. The District shall provide additional (compensatory, or make- up) ABA services for its failure to provide appropriate instructional services during the 2017-2018, 2018-2019 school years. Specifically, a bank of 750 hours of one-to-one instruction provided by a specialized provider, at an enhanced rate. The District will also fund a bank of 75 hours of BCBA supervision(compensatory, or make-up) of the ABA services by a specialized provider at an enhanced rate. 4. The District shall provide additional (compensatory, or make- up) parent counseling and training services for its failure to provide appropriate services during the 2017-2018, 2018-2019 and 2019- 2020 school years. Specifically, a bank of 75 hours of one-to-one parent counseling and training will be provided by a specialized provider, at an enhanced rate.

- The above referenced compensatory, or make-up services shall be utilized within three years from the date of this order or they shall be forfeited. Dated: April 17, 2020 So Ordered, Martinf’. Kehoe IT, Esq. Impartral Hearing Officer

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Within 40 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the Publie School District has a right to appeal the decision to a State Review Officer (SRO) of the New York State Education Department under section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Ifeither party plans to appeal the decision, a notice of intention to seek review shall be personally served upon the opposing party no later than 25 days after the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. An appealing party's request for review shall be personally served upon the opposing party within 40 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. An appealing party shall file the notice of intention to seek review, notice of request for review, request for review, and proof of service with the Office of Stale Review of the State Education Department within two days after service of the request for review is complete. The rules of procedure for appeals before an SRO are found in Part 279 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education. A copy of the rules in Part 279 and model forms are available at http://www.sro.nysed.gov.

CERTIFICATION OF IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER In the Matter of: {Name of Student) 5/22/19: 7/25/19: 9/19/19; 1/15/20 &1/28/20 182258 Hearing Dates: Case Number: |, Martin Kehoe , Impartial Hearing Officer in this matter DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached Evidence and attached Index of Exhibits itemize the entire record before me in the above entitled matter as of this date. 1 FURTHER CERTIFY that the materials submitted herewith are either the original or true copy 04/16/2020 17 — {i = sighature of infaal Hearing Officer Date Signed Comments/Notes: March 2020

Corinne Retlo-Anselmi, Deputy Chancellor mn nt of : Division of Specialized Instruction and Student Support Education Chancellor Richarg 4. Carranza Special Education Office and District 75 Citywide Programs Student’s Name: Date of Hearing: May 22, 2019 NYC DOE DISCLOSURE LIST Number Date Document Number of Pages 1 04/09/16 Due Process Response 4 2 04/16/19 Resolution Agreement 4 Parent Exhibit List New York City Exhibit Number Number Exhibit Date of Pages P-A Demand for Due Process Hearing 03/26/19 12 INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM P-B IEP 05/30/18 15 P-C IEP 01/22/18 20 P-D JEP 03/22/17 19 COMMITTEE ON SPECIAL EDUCATION & SCHOOL CORRESPONDENCE P-E IEE Request Letter 03/25/19 1 P-F Request for Reevaluation 03/08/19 1 P-G IEE Request Letter 03/01/10 1 P-H Prior Written Notice 06/15/18 5 P-] Prior Written Notice 05/30/18 5 P-] Assessment Planning 03/09/18 2 P-K Preschool Acceptance Letter 01/22/18 1 P-L Final Notice of Recommendation/Auth toTEP Changes 01/22/18 2 P-M Order for School Related Support Services 01/17/18 1 P-N Assessment Planning 12/22/17 2 P-O Eligibility for PT Services 10/31/17 1 P-P Consent for Reevaluation 09/08/17. 1 P-Q Authorization of the IEP Change 03/22/17 1 P-R Preschool Acceptance Letter 03/10/16 1 EVALUATIONS & REPORTS P-S Report 02/05/19 2 P-T Child Outcomes Summary Form 05/30/18 2 P-U Psychoeducational Evaluation Report 04/19/18 6 P-V Classroom Observation 04/19/18 2 P-W Social History Update 11/28/17 3 P-X OT Progress Report 11/28/17 9 p-Y Educational Update 11/20/17 7 P-Z SL Pathology Progress Report 11/09/17 7 P-AA PT Evaluation for CPSE 10/02/17 = 6 P-BB Educational Update 12/22/16 6

P-CC P-DD P-EE P-FF P-GG P-HH P-Il P-J) P-KK P-LL P-MM P-NN P-OO P-PP P-QQ P-RR P-SS P-TT P-UU P-VV P-WW P-YY P-ZZ P-BBB Social History Update OT Progress Report SL Pathology Progress Note ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION Autism/ADHD Diagnosis Letter Dr. Referral for Physical Therapy , Psy. D., NCSP Affidavit OD, FAAO, FCOVD,FNAP Affidavit Provisional Acceptance Letter Amended Demand For Due Process Letter of Unilateral Placement/Confirmation Speech-Language Evaluation Functional Behavior Assessment Behavior Intervention Plan Classroom Observation Physical Therapy Evaluation Occupational Therapy Evaluation IEP Parental Guarantee 2019-2020 Attendance Report Class Schedule Program Description Academic 45 Day Report Neuropsychological Evaluation Ph.D. Affidavit - , Affidavit Affidavit EMENDED HEReiNe REGVEST- 12/19/16 11/23/16 02/08/16 03/02/18 09/14/17 05/16/19 05/21/19 08/20/19. 09/04/19 08/20/19 06/20/19 06/10/19 06/28/19 05/29/19 05/16/19 05/09/19 05/02/19 08/30/19 2019-2020 2019-2020 No Date 41/01/19 08/13/19 01/21/20 01/22/20 01/28/20 i) ol © POWKMWNRRENPONPBONBHRWWHR0