Impartial Hearing Decision, No. 527836-20200107-hasting-on-hudson-ufsd

NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

STATE OF NEW YORK

In the Matter of the Application of B.G.., a Child with a Disability, by his parent, for a Due Process Impartial Hearing, Petitioners, FINAL DECISION

-against-

HASTINGS-ON-HUDSON UNION

FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent.

DECISION AND FINDINGS OF FACT

Student’s Name: © B.G.

Date of Birth: Rimepusada,

District: Hastings on Hudson Union Free School District Hearing Requested By: Parents by letter dated August 20, 2019 and amended by letter dated September 13, 2019

Dates of Hearing: October 4, 2019 (PHC via telephone); October 21, 2019 and October 22, 2019

Record Close Date: December 23, 2019

Hearing Officer: Leah L. Murphy, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

OCTOBER 4, 2019 FOR A

PRE-HEARING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

For the Student:

|

M.G., Pro Se Parent

For the District:

—

Stephanie Roebuck, Esq., Counsel

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

OCTOBER 21, 2019

For the Student:

M.G., Pro Se Parent

For the District:

°."

Stephanie Roebuck, Esq., Counsel _

Laura Sullivan, Director of Special Education

Gloria Szeszko, School Psychologist, Hastings High School Louis Adipietro, Hastings High School Prinicpal

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

OCTOBER 22, 2019

For the Student:

M.G., Pro Se Parent

For the District:

Stephanie Roebuck, Esq., Counsel

Laura Sullivan, Director of Special Education

Dr. Scott Tessler; School Psychologist, Farragut Middle School This matter concerns B.G., a fifteen-year-old student born on [Redacted text], who resides within the Hastings-on-Hudson Union Free School District (“District”). B.G. is identified as a student with a disability and has had an accommodation plan pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, since May 2018. B.G. was diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder in 2016. B.G. moved into the District when he was in the second grade. (R-431) and until the 2019/2020 school year, has attended schools within the District. In September 2019, B.G. began attending the Soundview School, located in Yorktown Heights, a college preparatory private school where he was unilaterally placed by his mother.

This impartial hearing was initiated by Ms. G., who is claiming that for the 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 school years the District failed to provide a safe and appropriate educational environment for B.G. Ms. G. essentially alleges that the District violated its child find obligations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) to identify B.G. as a student in need of special education services. Ms. G. further alleges that the District failed to create an appropriate Individual Education Program (“IEP”) for B.G. Ms. G. alleges that as a result of the District's failure to comply with its obligation to provide a free appropriate public education to B.G., he floundered socially and was the target of significant bullying. Rather than have her son continue at Hastings High School, Ms. G. enrolled B.G. at the Soundview School. As relief for the alleged violations, Ms. G. is seeking tuition reimbursement for B.G.’s attendance at the Soundview School as well as transportation to and from school.

The Department presented the testimony of three witnesses to support its position that B.G. was succeeding academically in school and did not demonstrate a need to be referred for special education services. The District contends that there is no evidence to support a finding that B.G. is a student eligible to receive special education. The District further asserts that even if it could be shown that the District had violated the student’s right to a free appropriate pbulci education, Ms. G. has failed to sustain her burden to demonstrate that the private school is appropriate to address the student’s needs. In addition, the District contends that the equities in this matter do not favor an award of tuition reimbursement. Ms. G. removed B.G. from the public school setting before the District had an opportunity to develop a program for the student for the 2019/2020 school year. When asked if she wanted B.G. evaluated for services, Ms. G. indicated that she did not want B.G. to be brough before the Committee on Special Education. Ms. G. had removed her son from Hastings High School because she believed it was unsafe. Ms.

G. presented no witnesses other than herself. Factual Background

The student’s relevant educational history is largely undisputed. In April, 2014, when B.G. was nine years of age, his mother arranged to have B.G. privately evaluated by Dr. Susan S. Adler for a neuropsychological evaluation. The evaluation was sought due to “his emotional and behavioral problems both at home and at school.” (D-2). As reported by Ms. G., B.G. had always been a very capable student who did well in school. Ms. G.’s main concern was B.G.’s social/emotional functioning (D-2). B.G. was assessed as having intellectual functioning within the average range with a full-scale IQ score on the WISC-IV of 105. Dr. Adler noted a relative strength in B.G.’s verbal reasoning abilities. In contrast, B.G.’s visuospatial abilities were deemed to be arelative weakness. B.G. did better with more concrete information than abstract stimull. His processing speed was deemed to be well developed as he worked quickly and accurately on timed pencil to paper tasks. (D-2). B.G.’s academic performance in the areas of writing, reading, mathematics and fluency skills were assessed with the Woodcock Johnson Third Edition. Overall total academic achievement was assessed to be in the Superior range, with a standard score of 122. (D-2).

B.G.’s language and communication skills were assessed by the administration of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals — Fourth Edition (CELF-IV). B.G.’s overall expressive and receptive language skills were found to be in the High Average range for a child his age. (D-2). Inthe area of social-emotional functioning Ms. G. and B.G.’s classroom teacher completed the rating scales of the Behavior Assessment System for Children - Second Edition (“BASC-2”). Ms. G.’s rating revealed “significant” concerns in the area of aggression, depression, somatization, atypicality, withdrawal, adaptability and social skills. (D-2). His classroom teacher rated B.G. as having elevated scores in the areas of hyperactivity, learning problems, atypicality and withdrawal. Dr. Adler surmised that the results indicated a “high probability of an Anxiety Disorder.” Ms. G. also completed a Social Responsiveness Scale — Second Edition to explore B.G.’s social emotional functioning. Ms. G.’s rating ranked B.G. in the severe range. Dr. Adler stated that “scores in this range indicate deficiencies in reciprocal social behavior that are clinically significant and can lead to severe interference with every day social interactions.” (D-2). Dr. Adler also stated that “scores in this range are strongly associated with a clinical diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder.” (D-2).

Dr. Adler concluded that the overall finding of the evaluation was that B.G. “is a capable student with some, well-developed skills.” (D-2). He was noted to work at an appropriate rate but worked more slowly when the information became more abstract. (D-2). He has difficulty making inferences and applying reasoning skills. At times, B.G. may be distracted by his anxiety and internal thoughts. Dr. Adler noted that B.G.’s social emotional functioning was beginning to have more impact on his day-to-day functioning. (D-2). B.G. was diagnosed as having a General Anxiety Disorder for which he was prescribed anti-depressants by his psychiatrist. Dr. Adler diagnosed a non-verbal learning disorder and made recommendations for a “highly structured and supportive environment with a great deal of predictability and individualized attention and encouragement.” (D-2).

During the 2014/2015 school year, the CSE reviewed Dr. Adler’s evaluation but found B.G. ineligible for special education services. Ms. G. did not appeal that determination. She did, however, return to the CSE the following school year for a reconsideration of B.G.’s eligibility to receive special education services.

In September 2015, B.G. was referred to the CSE for an evaluation of a disability. In addition to Dr. Adler’s report, the CSE reviewed its own evaluations conducted as part of the referral. Both Ms. G. and school psychologist, Dr. Scott Tessler, claimed responsibility for the referral at the hearing. Dr. Tessler testified that B.G. was brought up frequently at the student support team meetings in the middle school and he was aware of Ms. G.’s concerns. He stated that he initiated the referral because he wanted to make sure they were not missing anything. (R294). It is clear that both parent and school personnel suspected that B.G.’s functioning was being impacted byhis particular learning profile and emotional functioning. The CSE convened to determine B.G.’s eligibility at a meeting held on November 30, 2015. (D-7). The CSE did not find that B.G. met criteria to be classified as a student with a disability in need of special education services. The parent did not appeal the CSE determination regarding ineligibility and it is not before me in this proceeding. (R-454). This may have been a missed opportunity to provide B.G. with the skills he lacked to navigate his middle school environment. Ms. G. testified that she was unaware that she could appeal the CSE determination, but she does not dispute that she was provided with the procedural safeguard notices describing her rights to J . do so. (R-457) Since this determination, B.G. has not been evaluated or reviewed by the District’s CSE to determine if he would benefit from the development of an Individual Education Program. (“IEP”).

In November 2016, when B.G. was beginning his sixth-grade year, he was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. (D-22). Dr. Joelle Mast, a pediatric neurologist, stated the following: | [B.G] has been evaluated by me. I have reviewed his testing and have examined him.

My assessment is that [B.G.] has an anxiety disorder, sensory hypersensitivity disorder and falls on the high end of the autistic spectrum given his need for routine and sameness, difficulty in social relationships and repetitive behaviors, I think he would benefit from counseling, from learning relaxation techniques and from CBT in order to learn how to reframe issues that are stress provoking. (D-23). On Marchi 22, 2018, nearly two years after Dr. Mast’s evaluation, Ms. G. shared her evaluation with the District and submitted a referral to the District to consider B.G. eligible for a Section 504 Plan. (D-24). The stated purpose of the need for an accommodation plan was to obtain testing accommodations. (D-24). In describing the “nature of the problem” Ms. G. stated that [B.G.] “has difficulty completing tests during allotted class time in certain subjects, particularly Earth Science.” (D-24).

The Section 504 Committee met on May 4, 2018 to determine if B.G. was eligible for an accommodation plan. (D-26). The Committee identified B.G. as a disabled student and deemed him eligible for an. accommodation plan. B.G.’s plan provided him with preferred seating in the classroom and testing accommodations of flexible setting and extended time (1.5).. (D-32). The 504 plan was continued into the 2018/2019 school year when B.G. entered the Hastings High School. (D-35).

Throughout B.G.’s middle school years, Ms. G. presented evidence that supported her claims that she had shared her concerns that B.G. was being bullied in school. Ms. G. stated that B.G. had been bullied while enrolled in the District’s schools without any effective intervention. Ms. G. testified to ‘deveral incidents which occurred while B.G. was a student at Hastings Middle School. (R-387). In December 2015, Ms. G. emailed B.G.’s guidance counselor and the school psychologist, Dr. Scott Tessler, to inform them that B.G. was complaining that he was bullied on a regular basis in school. (R-390). In her email, Ms. G. stated that one particular girl “K,” was telling him he was ugly, that his ideas stink and to shut up. (R-391). Another girl, “T,” told him no one likes him. B.G. also complained that a student intentionally kicked him.

School psychologist, Dr. Scott Tessler, testified about his interactions with B.G. while he was a student in the middle school. Dr. Tessler stated that he evaluated B.G. in 2015 and provided him with “some counseling.” (R-287). Dr. Tessler testified that he was aware that B.G. was having social difficulties but he attributed the difficulties as being “for the most part, was pretty typical, kind of like middle school boy kind of things.” (R-309). Dr. Tessler attributed some of B.G.’s social difficulties to his anxiety. Given B.G.’s diagnosis and undisputed difficulties with social pragmatic interactions, what might appear as “typical” for some students could be truly demeaning to B.G. While the incidents may appear isolated, throughout his middle school years and ninth grade, B.G. was clearly being treated poorly by some students. I have no doubt that B.G.’s particular deficits contributed to how he was treated in school. There was no evidence presented that B.G. had successful social/emotional functioning in school. He had no friends, preferred to isolate and had difficulty with his peer interactions.

Dr. Tessler testified that there were a couple of incidents he was aware of concerning bullying. (R-329). He stated on one occasion B.G. was kicked in the hall by another student. Dr. Tessler stated that the other student did not realize it happened but that B.G.’s perception was that it was done intentionally. (R-329). Dr. Tessler testified that he was aware of some complaints relayed by Ms. G. that B.G. was being bullied or harassed but he did not consider what was being described as bullying, harassment or discrimination. (R-354). Dr. Tessler stated that he viewed them as typical middle school stuff. He did not see the incidents as a pattern. (R354). Dr. Tessler did not see B.G.’s social isolation as unusual because it seemed to Dr. Tessler that B.G. really preferred to work alone. (R-354). Dr. Tessler’s view was that B.G. became more social throughout middle school.

Ms. G. testified that she had no knowledge that Dr. Tessler was ever involved in providing B.G. with social skills group assistance or counseling. Ms. G. testified that a lot of the bullying clustered when B.G. was in the seventh grade during the 2016/2017 school year. Ms.

G. sent an email to the school administration on March 24, 2017. In the email, Ms. G. reports that in the presence of B.G.’s therapist, B.G. revealed a pattern of bullying throughout the year and complained that students were still bullying him. (R-393; P-V). B.G. reported that students intentionally bumped into him and would run away. B.G. stated that students called him “SPED” and harassed him to the point of tears. She reported the incidents to Ms. Gail Kipper, the school principal, and she described something that happened to B.G. that same day. (R-393). B.G. told his mother that he could not complete an assignment in Science because his partner was banging on the computer keyboards.

The District was on notice that B.G. was diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder. While he may have been able to manage the academic demands in school, he was struggling with his social interactions with his peers. Ms. G. stated that B.G. had no friends out of school. One could logically conclude that B.G. was being targeted because of his disability and inability to respond effectively. Ms. G. testified that B.G. had no friends or social contact with any students out of school. (R-406). While the evidence presented was for the purpose of providing background information, the District position that B.G. was not being harassed in school is not supported by the evidence. The District cannot claim that it handled the issue appropriately if the personnel deny that it was even happening. Ms. G. was rightly concerned for B.G.’s wellbeing.

The school principal, Ms. Kipper, told Ms. G. that she would look into the complaints. (P-V). There was no evidence submitted that the District took effective measures to address how B.G. was being treated. On March 28, 2017, Ms. G. sent Ms. Kipper another email attaching a handwritten description from B.G. about an incident that happened that day. (P-W). B.G. recounts that a student accused him of calling the student a “spick” which B.G. denied. Even while B.G. asked the student to stop, the student continued to provoke B.G. (P-W). Ms. G. stated that she met with the principal during the Spring break and was told that all of B.G.’s teachers were made aware of what was happening in their classes. Regardless, the bullying continued. (R-400). In April, 2017 there was another incident in B.G.’s Science class. B.G. reported that a student picked his nose and then kept touching B.G.’s stuff and would not stop despite B.G.’s failed attempts. (P-X). There was evidence submitted during the hearing of B.G.’s rigidity concerning cleanliness. While any person would find mucus being swiped over their belongings Bross, B.G.’s strong reaction may have been enough incentive for a “typical middle school boy” to try and get a rise out of B.G. During this same incident, the student asked B.G. to “whack him” and then hit his own hand and blamed B.G. (R-402). Ms. Kipper states that she will look into this. (P-X). Ms. G. testified that during this period, B.G. reported being the victim of mean comments and being often referred to as “BOCES” or “SPED.” (R-390). In June 2017, Ms. G. testified that there was another incident but she could not recall the specifics.

Ms. G. testified that she was never contacted by the school psychologist, Dr. Scott

Tessler and informed that he had any contact with B.G. while he was a student in the middle school. (R-408). Ms. G. testified that she believed B.G. was being harassed because of his disability. (R-416). During the end of B.G.’s eighth grade year, Ms. G. testified that she was wrong to feel encouraged by B.G.’s participation with a group of boys who met in on-line video game “parties.” Ms. G. now understands that B.G. was not a welcome addition to the games. Ms. G. only later learned that B.G. was being mistreated by this group of boys when she checked messages on his cell phone. Before the beginning of B.G.’s freshman year, a group of the boys who played video games on-line, told B.G. that no one liked him and he should not talk unless spoken to if he is going to be a part of the video game “party.” (R-418). This was the same student who later threatened B.G. in March 2019. (R-418). According to Ms. G., these boys attempted to provoke B.G. into posting nude photos of himself on social media. (R-420). 2018/2019 School Year

When B.G. started at Hastings High School, on September 5, 2018, Ms. G. sent an email to all of his teachers. (D-44). Ms. G. testified that before the 2018/2019 school year began, she introduced B.G. to the High School staff by sending his teachers this email. (R-436). Ms. G. wanted B.G.’s teachers to understand that he was on the autism spectrum. (R-438; P-O). She informed them that B.G. has Asperger’s Syndrome (a neurological disorder that is an autism spectrum disorder), generalized anxiety and sensory sensitivity. She educated B.G.’s teachers that Asperger’s “is a condition characterized by problems with language, communication and social skills.” (D-44). Ms. G. noted that B.G. is a conscientious and good student and made honor roll most of the previous year. She informed them that she had arranged private tutoring for math and psychotherapy outside of school. She goes on to say “[B.G.] requires a highly structured and supportive environment as well as positive reinforcement.” (D-44). Ms. G. described some of B.G.’s challenges as follows:

Because he has Asperger’s, [B.G.] does not react to emotions, words and actions in the way that neurological typical teens would. He often feels uncomfortable, hurt, confused, stressed or worried. He may have a hard time understanding other points of view. With sensory sensitivity, many things that go unnoticed to others are a source of stress to [B.G.]. Changes in routine or schedule can be difficult for [B.G.]. (D-44). Ms. G. informed the teachers that B.G. had no friends outside of school and that he had experienced bullying in the past. She also stated that B.G. was interacting with some of the boys in his grade through the online video games.

Dr. Gloria Szeszko, school psychologist at the Hastings-High-School, testified on behalf of the District. (R-57). Dr. Szeszko, who has been employed as a school psychologist within the District since 2004, testified that she first became aware of B.G. in the beginning of the 2018/2019 school year. B.G.’s guidance counselor, Ms. Sharon Quigley, contacted Dr. Szeszko to discuss concerns being communicated by Ms. G. about B.G.’s transition to the high school. (R-60). Dr. Szesko reached out to Ms. G. and set up an appointment to discuss B.G. on September 13, 2018. (D-44). Dr. Szesko testified that Ms. G. expressed her concerns about B.G.’s speech and language skills, receptive and expressive communication abilities and social pragmatic, adaptive skills. Ms. G. shared the results of Dr. Adler’s evaluation even though it was four years old. (R-62). Ms. Szesko testified that she suggested a “reevaluation through the 504 committee to help transaction B.G.’s transition to the high school.” (R-66).

Ms. G. was thankful for Ms. Szesko’s interest in supporting B.G. at the high school. The day after the met Ms. Szedko, Ms. G. she sent her another e-mail. (D-44). Ms. G. requested that B.G. be given a speech and language evaluation to assess B.G.’s “pragmatic communication skills in order to address his social deficits and adaptive social functioning.” (D-44). Ms. G. confirmed that she had discussed with Ms. Szesko how B.G.’s impairments can adversely impact his ability to successfully perform group work in the classroom. (D-44). Ms. G. set forth what appears to be a plan to help B.G. transition into the high school including the “504 re-evaluation meeting;” school based counseling and psychological support with regard to communication and social skills. Ms. G. was optimistic and acknowledged that a “care conference” with B.G.’s teachers would be arranged to make them aware of B.G.’s deficits in communication skills, group related and collaborative classroom activities including science labs. (D-44).

Ms. Szesko responded to Ms. G. stating that she had requested a Section 504 re-evaluation meeting to be scheduled. While Ms. Szesko recommended this “reevaluation” no actual new evaluations were conducted. The most recent evaluations which were to be reviewed were from 2015. Ms. G. sent both Dr. Adler and Dr. Mast’s reports to Ms. Szesko. (D-44). Ms. Szesko indicated that she would speak to the speech therapist, Ms. McArdle, about the request for a speech and language evaluation. (D-44). In her testimony, Ms. Szesko perhaps unwittingly altered her suggestion for a “re-evaluation” of B.G. to a “re-evaluation of the 504 plan.” Ms. Szesko testified that the purpose of this meeting was to make sure the plan supported the results of Dr. Adler’s evaluation. (R-67). The reports that Ms. Szesko reviewed, Dr. Adler’s (from 2014) and Dr. Mast’s (from 2016) were out of compliance and did not offer current valid information. While Ms. Szesko testified that she wanted to make sure that the 504 plan was meeting the student’s needs, the evaluations were not current enough to discern what B.G.’s needs were at that time. Given Ms. G.’s notice to the school staff of B.G.’s diagnosis, her request for a speech and language evaluation and her yearly consistent concerns around the bullying issue, B.G. should have been referred to the CSE for a comprehensive evaluation of his current levels of functioning, including an evaluation of the specific area of disability — his autism.

On September 17, 2018, Ms. G. renewed her request for a speech and language evaluation. (D-44). Ms. Szesko told Ms. G. that the speech and language therapist would contact her about this request. (D-44). On September 18, 2018, Ms. G. emailed Ms. Szesko again about the issue of bullying. She cc’ed Ms. Quigley, B.G.’s guidance counselor. Ms. G. reported to Ms. Szesko that she had looked at B.G.’s cell phone and saw the following text message (which she attached to the email): “BRO HONESTLY STOP JOINING THE PARTY NOBODY WANTS U IN HERE u wonder y none of us like u bro ur annoying . . U keep joining the party with multiple accounts it’s annoying . . if ur gonna be in the party then talk when ur spoken to.” (P-M;,D-44). B.G. replied “How didI annoy you I didn’t even talk.” In her email, Ms. G. references their discussion about the many years of bullying and extreme difficulties in social contacts. Ms. G. states that the text message is typical of what she has seen and that B.G. has received messages with inappropriate sexual content. (P-M).

Ms. Szesko thanked Ms. G. for sharing the message and offered to meet with B.G. to assess these situations and problem solve. (P-M). Ms. G. told Ms. Szesko that B.G. had extreme anxiety discussing interactions with peers. Ms. G. stated “[w]ith autism, communication skills are difficult and without additional support it will not improve as I have seen in the past.” (D44). Ms. Szesko also testified that she contacted the principal, Mr. Lou Adipietro, about the text messages. (R-142). Mr. Dipietro met with the student who had sent the text message. The other student stated that B.G. wanted to be a part of the on-line gaming group but they did not want him to join. Mr. Dipietro told the student to stop. (R-142).

The 504 meeting was scheduled for October 2, 2018. (R-67; D-40). In preparation for the meeting, Ms. G. sent Ms. Szesko a copy of the speech and language evaluation which had been conducted in 2015 by Ms. McArdle. Ms. G. provided copies of more text messages to Ms. Szesko to include in the information to be discussed at the meeting. The text messages are just a sample of the cruelty B.G. endured in school. One message says “[C] said you are a retarded pig fucking faggot bobo fet coconut head ass math 8 failings retard.” (D-44). Another text states, ‘Just so you know nobody likes you in the grade That’s all bye now.” (D-44). Ms. G. is entreating Ms. Szesko to include the text messages in the information to be discussed at the meeting. She correctly asserts that they demonstrate the difficulties B.G. has due to his difficulty communicating. (D-44). Ms. Szesko was understandably concerned with the messages. In response to seeing them, she asked Ms. G. if she could meet with B.G. to “problem solve” the texts stating “I am concerned about their content.” (D-44). Ms. G. agreed that Ms. Szesko could speak to B.G. about the texts but told her he was not comfortable talking about them. She also told Ms. Szesko that B.G. was spending his free time in the library because he did not feel comfortable interacting with his class mates. (D-44).

While Ms. Szesko was concerned, she testified that she “didn’t define the behavior as clear bullying.” (R-102). Ms. Szesko stated the text messages were “mean.” (R-102). Ms. Szesko testified that after she received the text messages she contacted Dr. Tessler who did not support that what B.G. experienced in middle school was “bullying.” (R-102). While she did not view them as bullying per se, she did refer the text messages to the school principal. (R102). Ms. Szesko characterized some of the interactions B.G. shared with her as the other student being “silly.” (R-115).

While the 504 meeting was identified as a “reevaluation meeting” the only new information was B.G.’s teacher reports. (D-38; R-70). Ms. Szesko stated that the teacher reports reflect an assessment of the teacher’s experience with B.G. in the classroom. She stated, “these are used to determine impact in the classroom.” (R-70). At the time the teachers completed these reflections, B.G. had been in school for less than one month. B.G.’s history teacher reported that he is attentive and appears to be interested in the study of history. B.G. sits near the front and “seems to have pleasant interactions with the classmates around him.” (D-38). B.G.’s math teacher stated that B.G. is focused in class but “he takes a very long time to process new information,” (D-38). B.G. was noted not to complete his work in the allotted time which could become difficult as the concepts become more abstract. (D-38). B.G.’s English teacher stated that he participates appropriately and has been prepared for class. She stated that B.G. had been a part of partner and group discussions. (D-38). B.G.’s French teacher said he works productively with his peers and he “looks happy and enthusiastic.” (D-38). B.G.’s science teacher also stated that he was engaged in class and worked well with his peers. Not included in the teacher reports was information from B.G.’s art teacher who told Ms. G. that B.G. did not have any partners for a group project.

At the meeting, Ms. Szesko reported that the 504 team discussed B.G.’s teachers “positive observations regarding his interactions within group work with peers.” (R-72). Regarding how B.G.’s disability was impacting him in school, Ms. Szesko said “speed and processing new information.” (R-72). While Ms. Szesko did not testify that B.G.’s autism was impacting his school functioning, the 504 team added school based counseling once in a six day cycle. (R-72). Ms. Szesko’s testimony regarding how to address Ms. G.’s concerns reveals the school personnel’s reluctance to bring B.G. back to the CSE or acknowledge that he was having difficulty with his peers due to his communication challenges. Ms. Szesko stated that the counseling was added to address Ms. G.’s concerns with social pragmatic skills because “. . . we either address that through speech and language with younger students or through psychological school-based counseling and that was the goal that we had determined at that time.” (R-73). Ms. G.’s request for a current speech and language therapy evaluation was ignored. Ms. Szesko also admitted that none of the text messages Ms. G. shared with her and asked to be made a part of the 504 team information were actually reviewed at the meeting. (R-130).

After the 504 Team meeting, Ms. G. contacted the director of special education, Ms. Laura Sullivan to request more assistance for her son. (D-44). Ms. G. asked once again for a speech and language evaluation. In her email, she refers to the evaluations which had been previously conducted and requests more assistance for B.G. regarding his pragmatic social skills. (D-44). In response, Ms. Sullivan explained the “process of a parental referral.” Ms. Sullivan told Ms. G. the process begins with a building administration meeting to determine if there are building level supports and if after such meeting she wanted to move forward with a speech and language evaluation it would be considered at an initial CSE referral with other evaluations being conducted. Without explanation, Ms. G. did not move forward with this process.

Ms. Szesko testified that her counseling with B.G. was to use very concrete strategies but it was difficult because B.G. did not acknowledge his own deficits. This is where the lack of information about B.G.’s autism and an understanding of how it may impact his functioning becomes important. It also is clear that the staff working with B.G. did not have the expertise to truly assist B.G. on his “social pragmatic goals” which were not understood or spelled out in a the 504 plan. Ms. Szesko acknowledged that B.G. demonstrated difficulty working in a group. (R-77). Despite little evidence to support B.G.’s progress, Ms. Szesko testified that she felt B.G. was making progress in his social interactions in school. Ms. Szesko testified that she observed him sitting a table with other students during lunch “not interacting, but sitting at the table and together with them. ...” (R-81).

Dr. Szesko continued to have frequent contact with Ms. G. about her concerns throughout the school year. Ms. G. shared her concern about B.G.’s expressive and receptive language deficits which she believed was contributing to her son’s inability to manage the social interactions. Dr. Szesko testified that she did not think the offensive text messages amounted to “bullying” — which she defined as an attempt to inflict harm physically or emotionally on another student. She did not think they were egregious enough to. rise to that level. Dr. Szesko made a not so successful effort to downplay the “mean” text messages, but she thought they were egregious enough to share with the school administration. In the meantime, Dr. Szesko also recommended a reevaluation through the Section 504 Committee to address B.G.’s transition to the high school.

The Section 504 Committee met on October 2, 2018. (D-43). Dr. Szesko testified that the Committee reviewed the pediatric neurologist report (D-2), updated teacher reports (D-38), current progress report (D-39), B.G.’s attendance report and Ms. G.’s concerns at the meeting. (R-) Dr. Szesko testified that the Committee agreed to add individual counseling once on a six day cycle to B.G.’s plan. She would be the provider of the counseling which was going to address social pragmatic skills for B.G. Dr. Szesko testified that when she began seeing B.G., he did not have “a lot of ownership” of the goal. B.G. had no motivation to learn pragmatic skills and did not perceive his interactions with students to be problematic. Dr. Szesko testified that she would speak to B.G. about feedback from teachers of his interaction with peers to provide “real life example” of his interactions. B.G. would agree to implement some of the skills being discussed if it would further his academic achievement. Pragmatic skills worked on included eye contact, reciprocity, difficulty working within a group, rigidity, not accepting other’s opinions and difficulty compromising. Dr. Szesko testified that the skills were being addressed specifically in Art and Science Lab, where B.G. was doing group work.

Dr. Szesko took other actions to address B.G.’s social functioning. She arranged to have B.G. paired with a peer mentor who was part of the Chess Club. She also attempted to pair B.G. with a student similar to him who had a board game club. B.G. was on the Chess Club but not interested in socializing with the other students.

Dr. Szesko testified that she communicated regularly with Ms. G. about B.G.’s progress either over the phone or through e-mail correspondence. Ms. G. was a very involved parent. Dr. Szesko felt that B.G. was making progress over the first two semesters. She stated B.G. was engaged in the Chess Club, and he did the group work in Art and Science. Dr. Szesko also was impressed that B.G. sat at a table with other students during lunch. Given B.G.’s diagnostic profile his lack of engagement while sitting at the lunch table, serves to support Ms. G.’s claims that B.G.’s social/emotional functioning was not being appropriately addressed in school.

In the Spring, Dr. Szesko testified that she had some concerns about B.G.’s behavior. She was being told that he spent an excessive amount of time on technology and that he was becoming increasingly anxious about his room being contaminated. He would ask anyone who entered to take off their shoes. Dr. Szesko then insisted that B.G. be seen outside of school. Dr. Szesko recommended Dr. Phillips and she had Ms. G.’s permission to speak to Dr. Phillips. Dr. Szesko testified tha Dr. Phillips informed her that Ms. G. was having a parenting issue with B.G in that she was finding it difficult to set limits. March 28, 2019 Incident

What occurred on March 28" is the precipitating factor for Ms. G.’s removal of B.G. from his public school. Because of this incident, Ms. G. believed that Hastings High School was not a safe environment. Dr. Szesko testified that on this day, B.G. told her about something that occurred during Peer Leadership class with another student “D.H.” Apparently D.H. was a student who B.G. had prior interactions with. Dr. Szesko stated that she worked with B.G. to “empower him to manage it,” unless the severity warranted bringing the interaction to the attention of guidance counselors and administration. In the beginning of the school year, B.G. told her that D.H. had made comments to him during a field day for peer leadership about B.G.’s address. Dr. Szesko then shared this with the principal who got involved.

Dr. Szesko testified that the Principal had gotten involved prior to March 2019, with the same student, when D.H. had made comments about B.G.’s address. On March 28", B.G. told Dr. Szesko that D.H. told B.G. he was going to get his “ruger” and shoot him. Dr. Szesko then told B.G.’s guidance counselor, Ms. Shaw who interviewed B.G. Dr. Szesko then reported the incident to Mr. Adipietro, the school principal.

Mr. Adipietro conducted his own investigation. Mr. Adipietro testified that he first spoke to a student “J” who was a witness to the incident. Mr. Adipietro also spoke to D.H. Mr. Adipietro contacted Ms. G. , D.H.’s parents and the Hastings Police. Officer Brecker arrived and met with B.G., Dr. Szesko, Ms. G. and Mr. Adipietro.

D.H. was suspended out of school for a period of one month, was mandated to engage in counseling in school: and was required to be screened by a psychiatrist prior to his return to school. D.H. was denied participation in any extra-curricular activities and taken out of B.G.’s peer leadership class. In addition to the disciplinary actions, the school initiating a “safety plan.”

Dr. Szesko testified that she continued to meet with B.G. after this incident. B.G. shared with her that he thought his mother was overreacting and he did not want to leave Hastings.

Ms. G. testified that she initiated this impartial hearing on August 20, 2019 because her son “is a student with a disability and he received a violent threat to his life on March 28, 2019.” (R-384).

Ms. G. testified that after the incident that occurred in March, she felt that the school was not taking sufficient action to address her concerns. (R-426). Ms. G. testified that she had heard about Soundnview Prep School located in Yorktown Heights. She visited the school. (R-431).

Ms. G. stated that she was told that Soundview Prep would be including social/emotional learning in its curriculum starting in the Fall. (R-431). Ms. G. was told that most of the students who attend Soundview have anxiety issues. (R-432). B.G. was accepted into the Soundview

School at the end of July. (R-434). Ms. G. testified that she contacted the Superintendent of Schools because she was interested in having the District transport B.G. to Soundview during the 2019/2020 school year. (R-434). She indicated that she was sending B.G. to Soundview because she did not believe it was safe for B.G. to go to school at Hastings High School. The District refused Ms. G.’s request for busing to Soundview. (R-435; P-J).

Ms. G. confirmed that during a meeting with the Superintendent of Schools, Dr.

Henning-Piedmonte and the Director of Special Education over the Summer of 2019, there was a discussion about a referral to the Committee on Special Education for B.G. Ms. G. stated that she believed that a referral to the CSE for consideration for an IEP was inappropriate. (R-461). Ms. G. testified that she had determined it was not safe for B.G. to go to school at Hastings and she did not think it was appropriate to have him evaluated by the CSE. Legal Framework

The Individuals with Disability Education Act (“IDEA”) is a comprehensive statutory framework established by Congress to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment and independent living. The IDEA also ensures that the rights of students with disabilities and their parents are protected. See, 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1)(A)-(B); Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230, 239 (2009); Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 538, 126 S. Ct. 528 (2005); Bd. of Educ, Of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Distr. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-207 (1982). A free appropriate public education consists of educational instruction that is designed to meet the unique needs of the handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from the instruction. Board of Educ. Of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. V. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 188-189 (1982). To demonstrate that FAPE is being provided, the school district must show that it complied with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and that the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits. See, M.S. v. Board of Educ. Of the City Sch. Dist. Of the City of Yonkers, 231 F.3d 96, 102 (2d Cir. 2000); Application of Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 05-061, quoting, Rowley at 206. The Supreme Court has indicated that “[t]he IEP must aim to enable the child to make progress. After all, the essential function of an IEP is to set forth a plan for pursuing academic and functional advancement.” Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S.__, 137 S.Ct. 988, 999 (2017).

In determining whether a school district has complied with the IDEA, courts engage in a two-part inquiry, procedural and substantive. R.E., v. New York City Dep’t of Education, 694 F.3d 167, 189-90 (2d Cir. 2012) In evaluating the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, a petitioner is entitled to relief if identified procedural violations “impeded the child’s right to a FAPE, significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of FAPE to the child, or caused a deprivation of educational benefits.” Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 525-26 (2007); L.O. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 822 F.3d 95, 109 (2d Cir. 2016); 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (H(2)(E). While the Second Circuit has emphasized that school districts must comply with the checklist of procedures for developing a student’s IEP and indicated that “multiple procedural violations may cumulatively result in the denial of a FAPE even if the violations considered individually do not.” (R.E., 694 F.3d at 190-91). The Court has also explained that not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA. A.C. v. Bd. of Educ. Of the Chappaqua Cent. Sch. Dist., 553 F.3d 165, 172 (2d Cir. 2009); Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 (2d Cir. 2003).

When determining the appropriateness of a school district’s actions, Congress also requires that a hearing officer render a decision on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student’s education plan is reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate to that individual child’s needs. A school district offers a FAPE by “providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction.” (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203). The IDEA does not articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP. “The adequacy of a given IEP turns on the unique circumstances of the child for whom it was created.” (Endrew F., 137 S.C.t at 1001). The statute ensures an “appropriate” education, “not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents.” (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132, quoting Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d 563 (2d Cir. 1989). A school district must provide an IEP that is “likely to produce progress, not regression,” and affords the student an opportunity greater than mere trivial advancement. (Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 195 quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130). The student’s program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment

(“LRE”). (20 U.S. C. §1412 (a)(5)(A); 34 CFR 300.114 (a)(2)(i), 300.1 16(a)(2); 8 NYCRR

200.1(CC), 200.6(a)(1); see Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 (2d Cir. 2007)). Child Find Obligation

The purpose of the "child find" provisions of the IDEA are to identify, locate, and evaluate students who are suspected of being a student with a disability and thereby may be in need of special education and related services, but for whom no determination of eligibility as a student with a disability has been made (see Handberry v. Thompson, 446 F.3d 335, 347-48 [2d Cir. 2006]; E.T. v. Bd. of Educ., 2012 WL 5936537, at *11 [S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2012]; A.P. v. Woodstock Bd. of Educ., 572 F. Supp. 2d 221, 225 [D. Conn. 2008], aff'd, 370 Fed. App'x 202 [2d Cir. 2010]; see also 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][3][A]; 34 CFR 300.111; 8 NYCRR 200.2[a][1], [7]). The IDEA places an ongoing, affirmative duty on State and local educational agencies to identify, locate, and evaluate students with disabilities residing in the State "to ensure that they receive needed special education services” (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][3]; 34 CFR 300.111 [a][1)[i]; Forest Grove, 557 U.S. at 245; E.T., 2012 WL 5936537, at *11; see 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10}[A]) [ii]; see also 8 NYCRR 200.2[a][1], [7]; New Paltz Cent. Sch. Dist. v. St. Pierre, 307 F. Supp. 2d 394, 400 n.13 [N.D.N.Y. 2004]). The "child find" requirements apply to "children who are suspected of being a child with a disability . . . and in need of special education, even though they are advancing from grade to grade" (34 CFR 300.11 1[c][1]; see 8 NYCRR 200.2{a]f

1], [7]; D.K. v. Abington Sch. Dist., 696 F.3d 233, 249 [3d Cir. 2012]; LS. v. Scarsdale Union Free Sch. Dist., 826 F. Supp. 2d 635, 660 [S.D.N.Y. 2011]). To satisfy the requirements, a board of education must have procedures in place that will enable it to identify, locate, and evaluate such children (34 CFR 300.111 [a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.2[a][1], [7]).

Because the child find obligation is an affirmative one, the IDEA does not require parents to request that the district evaluate their child (see Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 518 [D.C. Cir. 2005] [noting that "[s]chool districts may not ignore disabled students’ needs, nor may they await parental demands before providing special instruction"]; see also Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 11-153; Application of a Student Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal Nos. 11-092 & 11-094).[10] A district's child find duty is triggered when the district has "reason to suspect a disability and reason to suspect that special education services may be needed to address that disability" (LS., 826 F. Supp. 2d at 660, quoting New Paltz Cent. Sch. Dist., 307 F. Supp.

2d at 400 n.13). Additionally, the "standard for triggering the child find duty is suspicion of a disability rather than factual knowledge of a qualifying disability" (Reg'l Sch. Dist. No. 9 Bd. of Educ. v. Mr. and Mrs. M., 2009 WL 2514064, at *12 [D. Conn. 2009]). To support a finding that a child find violation has occurred, "the [d]istrict must have 'overlooked clear signs of disability’ or been ‘negligent by failing to order testing,’ or there must have been 'no rational justification for deciding not to evaluate” (J.S., 826 F. Supp. 2d at 661, quoting Bd. of Educ. v. L.M., 478 F.3d 307, 313 [6th Cir. 2007]; see A.P., 572 F. Supp. 2d at 225).

Concerning the 2018/2019 school year, the District failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that it had complied with its obligation to offer to B.G. a free appropriate public education. There was ample evidence in the record to suggest that B.G. was struggling unnecessarily due to his obvious social/emotional impairment due to his autism and related disorders. The District failed to comply with its duty to identify B.G. under the “child find” provisions of the IDEA. In addition, the District failed to allow Ms. G. to be a meaningful participant in addressing B.G.’s needs. From the first day of the 2018/2019 school year, Ms. G. was requesting that school personnel take notice of B.G.’s social emotional needs which were clearly impacting his ability to navigate the educational environment appropriately.

I can imagine many options which could have been taken to address B.G.’s needs, but chief among them would be to start with current evaluative information about B.G.’s disability from professionals with expertise in autism. While the school staff opined that B.G. “preferred” to be alone and that he was making progress sitting at a table “not interacting” with other students, a skilled behavior specialist may have been able to not only assist B.G. but guide school staff with how to address his isolation. Perhaps Dr. Adler’s recommendation for a more structured learning environment should have been considered. The development of goals and a plan for B.G. did not occur because of the school staff’s unexplained reluctance to have him evaluated and brought before the CSE. Even Ms, Sullivan’s description of the referral process was tinged with gate keeping. When it was clear that Ms. G. was seeking a speech and language evaluation for B.G. and repeatedly expressed a desire for assistance to B.G. for his impaired functioning, telling Ms. G. that she would have to go back to the building to determine whether the CSE referral was necessary was inappropriate. The referral should have been immediate. For these reasons, the District is found to have violated B.G.’s right to a free appropriate public education during the 2018/2019 school year.

Despite my finding, I am mindful that Ms. G. did not ultimately follow-up with the referral to the CSE when offered by Ms. Sullivan in October of 2018. Nor did Ms. G. pursue the CSE referral offered to her over the Summer of 2019. Nevertheless, the District is directed to provide Ms. G. with consent forms to refer B.G. to the CSE for a determination of his eligibility. Since Ms.

G. has previously indicated that she does not want B.G. to be brought before the CSE, she can decide herself whether she wants to seek services for B.G. through the District’s CSE process. Ms.

G. should also be apprised of her nght to seek an Individual Education Services Plan from the District of the location of B.G.’s private school. Should Ms. G. consent to this referral, comprehensive evaluations should be conducted including the speech and language therapy evaluation Ms. G. asked for several times last year.

Since the District staff demonstrated resistance to appropriately considering B.G.’s needs for special and related educational services, I am including in this order an independent evaluation of B.G. in his area of disability. The District is directed to provide Ms. G. with an independent neuropsychological. evaluation by a provider of her choosing, who is knowledgeable in autism spectrum disorders and has expertise in methods to address behavioral and social pragmatic impairments. Ms. G. may choose the evaluator to conduct the evaluation which shall be funded by the District at a cost not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) which is customary in the region. Upon completion of the evaluations, the District shall arrange for a CSE meeting to review all the information. to determine B.G.’s eligibility and address B.G.’s needs through an Individual Education Program.

Tuition Reimbursement

In this matter, the specific relief that Ms. G. is seeking is tuition reimbursement for her unilateral placement of B.G. at the Soundview School for the 2019/2020 school year. There are situations where a district may be required to fund a private school placement, but this is not one of them. Ms. G.’s request for tuition reimbursement and transportation is denied for the 2019/2020 school year.

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, 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 v. Dep’t of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-79 (1985); R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85). In Burlington, the Supreme Court found that Congress intended retroactive reimbursement to parents by school officials as an available remedy in a proper case under the IDEA. “Reimbursement merely requires [a district] to belatedly pay expenses that it should have paid all along and would have borne in the first instance” had it offered the student a FAPE. (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370-71; see 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii); 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).

As correctly pointed out by the District’s counsel, there was absolutely no evidence concerning the Soundview School other than the unsupported statements of Ms. G. that Soundview was appropriate. Ihave no means by which to determine whether B.G.’s needs can be appropriately met at Soundview. No witnesses from the school were asked to testify, no documents relative to B.G. were submitted and no statements from B.G.’s teachers concerning his progress was presented. Ms. G. failed to meet her burden to prove that Soundview is appropriate to meet B.G.’s needs. Furthermore, even if I could find Soundview appropriate, Ms. G.’s request would still be denied because the balancing of the equities do not support a finding for tuition reimbursement.

For the 20 19/2020 school year, B.G. was not a student classified with a disability. There was no program in place for the student, not because of the District’s actions but because Ms. G.

herself refused the referral to the CSE. Ms. G. did not follow up with the referral offered to her by Ms. Sullivan in October 2018 and she refused to move forward with the referral to the CSE when it was offered to her in the Summer of 2019. Ms. G. testified herself that she believed it would be “inappropriate.” While Ms. G.’s frustration with the District is understandable, there was no evidence presented to me that for the 2019/2020 school year, the District failed to offer B.G. a free appropriate public education. Ms. G. was adamant that she did not want B.G. to go to Hastings

High School because she believed it was unsafe. Ms. G. also did not want to return to the CSE for consideration of a special education program. The District cannot be faulted here when it did offer

Ms. G. the opportunity to return to the CSE for the 2019/2020 school year. Ms. G. did not cooperate with the District to proceed with the referral process. Ms. G. cannot request that the District fund her preferred private placement when she herself prohibited the District from the opportunity to offer a free appropriate public education for the 2019/2020 school year.

Order

1. The District failed to provide B.G. a free appropriate public education for the 2018/2019 school year;

2. The District is directed to seek the consent of Ms. G. for a referral to the District’s Committee on Special Education and consent for comprehensive evaluations;

3. As part of the evaluation, the District shall arrange for a speech and language therapy evaluation;

4. As part of the evaluation, the parent is entitled to an independent neuropsychological evaluation to be conducted by a person of her choosing, who is knowledgeable in autism spectrum disorders and has expertise in methods to address behavioral and social pragmatic impairments;

5. Ms. G. may choose the evaluator to conduct the evaluation which shall be funded by the District at a cost not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) which is customary in the region;

6. Upon completion of the evaluations, the District shall arrange for a CSE meeting to review all the information to determine B.G.’s eligibility and address B.G.’s needs through an Individual Education Program;

7. The request for tuition reimbursement for the Soundview School is denied.

8. The request for transportation is denied.

9. The Department met its burden that it did not deny B.G. a free appropriate public education for the 2019/2020 school year because the parent refused referral to the Committee on Special Education for a determination of the student’s eligibility and need for an IEP;

10. The parent did not meet her burden to demonstrate that the Soundview Prep School was appropriate to meet B.G.’s needs;

11. The equities do not balance in favor of an award for tuition reimbursement.

Dated: January 7, 2020

LEAH L. MURPHY, ESQ.' \_)

IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER

IHO EXHIBIT LIST

I. Correspondence dated September 30, 2019 (3 pages) II. Order on Sufficiency dated September 6, 2019 (26 pages) IIL. Extension Orders

DISTRICT EXHIBIT LIST

11. Report Case and Transcript June 2019 (2 pages) Neuropsychological Report April 28, 2014 (43 pages) CSE Attendance List September 24, 2014 (1 page Referral to the CSE Septemer 30, 20154 (9 pages) Prior Written Notice September 30, 2015 (2 pages) Correspondence to L Bauer October 4, 2015 (1 page). Meeting Notice October 14, 2015 (3 pages) Consent for Evaluation October 4, 2015 (1 page) Social History November 18, 2015 (6 pages)

10. Classroom Observation November 18, 2015 (1 page) Psychological Update November 10, 2015 (8 pages) DOE

12. Occupational Therapy Evaluation November 18, 2015 (4 pages) DOE

13. Speech and Language Evaluation November 23, 2015 (9 pages) DOE

14. Educational Evaluation November 23, 2015 3 pages) 15. Teacher Reports November 2015 (3 pages) DOE

16. Report Card 2015/16 (2 pages)

17. Health Record (2 pages) DOE

18. Prior Written Notice November 30, 2015 (2 Pages)

19. Ineligibility Determination November 30, 2015 (5 pages) DOE

20. CSE Attendance List November 30, 2015 (1 page) DOE

21. Notice of Board Review January 12, 2016 (1 page)

22. Patient Plan November 7, 2016 (5 Pages)

23. Medical Notes November 7, 2016 (1 page) DOE

24. Parent Request for 504 Plan March 22, 2018 (5 pages) DOE

25. Section 504 Referral Letter April 11, 2018 (2 pages) DOE

26. Meeting Notice April 17, 2018 (2 pages) DOE

27. Consent for Evaluation April 14, 2018 (1 page)

28. Grade Book Information May 2, 2018 (4 pages)

29. Teacher Reports May 2018 (2 pages) DOE

30. Report Card 17/18 (1 page) DOE

31. Section 504 Attendance List May 4, 2018 (1 page)

32. Section 504 Plan May 4, 2018 (2 pages) DOE

33. Section 504 Letter May 10, 2018 (2 pages)

34. Consent for Accommodations May 11, 2018 (1 page) DOE

35. Letter transmitting Section 504 July 32, 2018 (3 pages) DOE

36. Meeting Notice September 18, 2018 (2 pages) DOE

37. Email Respons form September 23, 2018 (2 pages)

38. Teacher Reports September 2018 (5 pages) DOE

39. Grade and Attendance Report September 2018 (5 pages) DOE

40. Attendance List October 2, 2018 (1 page) DOE

41. Correspondence October 5, 2018 4 pages) DOE

42. Annual Review Form April 20, 2019 (3 pages) DOE

43. Section 504 Plan Letter August 6, 2019 (4 pages)

44. Emails (72 pages)

45. Documents relating March Incident (7 pages) Emails Counsel (6 pages) DOE

PARENT EXHIBIT LIST

DATE DOCUMENTS PAGES

P-A. Amended Demand for Due Process 4 Pages September 3, 2019

P-Al. Undated Description of Soundview 1 page

P-B. Demand for Due Process 1 Pages August 20, 2019

P-B1. Police Report March 28, 2019 1 Page

P-C. Police Complaint 3 Pages March 30, 2019

P-D. WITHDRAWN

P-E. Police Report. 1 Page April 3, 2019

P-F. = April 1, 2019 Emails R. Asher 1 page

P-G. March 29, 2019 Emails C. Wilson 1 page

P-H. — July 24, 2019 Emails 1 page

P-I. Email 1 Page August 1, 2019

P-J. August 16, 2019 Emails Transportation 1 page

P-K. WITHDRAWN

P-L. WITHDRAWN P-M_ September 18, 2018 Emails 3 Pages

P-N. WITHDRAWN

P-O. September 5, 2019 Emails to Szesko Withdrawn 1 page

P-R. P-Q March 17, 2018 Emails 1] Page WITHDRAWN

P-S. WITHDRAWN Pp-T December 7, 2015 Emails 2 Pages October 16, 2017 Note to S. Horowitz 2 Pages March 24, 2017 Email to Ms. Kipper 4 Pages March 28, 2017 Email to Ms. Kipper 2 Pages April 18, 2017 Email to Ms. Kipper 4 Pages Withdrawn Withdrawn June 22, 2017 Email to Ms. Kipper 2 Pages

P-BB. 13/14 Narrative 1 page

P-CC. WITHDRAWN

THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

In the Matter of the Application of B.G., a Child with a Disability, by his Parent, for a Due Process Impartial Hearing,

NOTICE

Petitioners,

-against-

NEW HYDE PARK -GARDEN CITY PARK

UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Respondent.

NOTICE OF APPEAL TO STATE REVIEW OFFICER

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

Within 35 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or board 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. 8 NYCRR 270.2(b). Failure to file the notice of intention to seek review is a waiver of the right to appeal this decision.

Directions and forms for filing an appeal can be obtained from the local school district or State Education Department and can also be found in the Office of State Review website: www.sro.nysed.gov/appeals.htm.