Impartial Hearing Decision

DECISION ORDER Case Number: Student’s Name: Hearing Requested By: Hearing Officer: 190689 Redacted Parent Martin J. Kehoe UI, Esq.

Introduction This document constitutes the Decision and Order of the undersigned, the duly designated {mpartial Hearing Officer (THO) 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 parent as Parent and the student will be referred to as Student. The hearings were held on January 16, 2020; February 25, 2020; March 25, 2020; and April 3, 2020. [ issued an interim order on December 13, 2019, directing independent educational evaluations (IEEs) as follows: neuropsychological evaluation, speech language evaluation, occupational therapy evaluation; and a functional behavioral assessment (FBA). (Ex. IHO). I issued a pendency order, dated March 6, 2020 directing services per the October 30, 2018 IEP (Ex. C). Parent’s Position Following several years of the Student’s faltering progress at school and several unanswered complaints to the District, the Parent (Ex. P).sought counsel and formalized her grievances in the complaint notice, dated November 4, 2019 (Ex. A). There, the Parent alleged that the District failed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2018-2019 and the 2019-2020 school years,

The Parent is seeking a reconvene of the Committee on Special Education (CSE) to develop an appropriate Individualized Educational Program (IEP). She is requesting the following: updated recommendations for assistive technology (AT) and training; services at the frequency and rate recommended in the [EEs; updated present levels of performance (PLPs); specific, meaningful, and measurable goals; related services recommended by the independent providers; appropriate modifications and accommodations; a 1:1 paraprofessional in the classroom; full day ABA; compensatory education and/or services in speech language therapy, counseling, occupational therapy, assistive technology teacher training, tutoring (or ABA); copies of any evaluations within 30 days and the IEP within 14 days of the date of the meeting; and an order for the District Implementation Unit to authorize any providers or any new placement within 14 days of any interim or final order (Ex. A). District’s Position The District did not submit any evidence or call any witnesses, but the representative did cross examine the Parent’s witnesses. Student History The Student has friends and a good sense of humor. She participates in class (Ex. D). She has a disability classification of learning disability (Ex. B, Ex. C, Ex. D). She has also been diagnosed with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, combined presentation; specific learning disorder with impairment in reading (accuracy, fluency and comprehension), moderate to severe; specific learning disorder with impairment in written expression (spelling, grammar and punctuation, accuracy, Clarity), moderate to severe; specific learning disorder with impairment in mathematics (memorization of math facts, accurate calculations, accurate math reasoning, fluency), severe; persistent depressive disorder (dysthymia) with mixed features, early onset — moderate (Ex. V). The Student was evaluated on July 26, 2019, by the District with the Weschler Individual Achievement Test — third edition, (WIATT — [II). The Student’s reading comprehension, word reading, pseudoword decoding, math problem solving, and written language were all below average. Her numerical operations were in the low average range (Ex. L). The Student made minimal academic progress (Ex. L). On the Weschler Intelligence Scale for children — fifth edition, also administered on July 26, 2019 as part of the District evaluation, the Student tested in the average range on the visual-spatial index; in the low average range in processing speed and verbal comprehension; very low in fluid reasoning and working memory; and her full scale IQ was in the very low range (Ex. L). The private Neuropsychologist (who performed the IEE) who evaluated the Student on February 15, 2020, found that she was functioning two grade levels below her current placement (Ex. T, Ex. V). He noted that the Student had not made meaningful academic progress since he evaluated her in 2016 (Ex. T).

The Parent described the Student’s needs: “My daughter is easily distracted and requires constant redirection. She is unable to focus on tasks she is disinterested in for long periods of time. When [the Student] is confronted with a task she is disinterested in, she will shut down and not engage. Based on teacher reports, this will occur when [the Student] takes exams and when [the Student] is doing homework. She struggles to get her thoughts organized and process new information. [The Student] is academically behind her peers. According to [the Student’s] school grading system, she is beiow grade level.” (Ex. P). The Student also has significant difficulties with static balancing and manual dexterity, secondary to visual—vestibular challenges, poor overall stamina and core large muscle strength, difficulties with auditory, tactile and multisensory processing (Ex. S). The Student presents with global deficits in speech language skills. (Ex. U, Ex. W). She was attending an 8:1:2 program in a nonpublic school during the 2019-2020 school year (Ex. K). Background of the Case A CSE meeting was held for the Student on April 12, 2018 to develop an IEP (Ex. B). The Student’s IEP, dated April 12, 2018, was set to be implemented on July 2, 2018, the beginning of the 2018-2019 extended school year (ESY). That document reflects the CSE recommendation:

1) special class program (8:1:2); 2) related services (1:1 counseling 1 x 45 and, ina group of four, 1 x 45, 1:1 occupational therapy 2 x 45, 1:1 speech language therapy 2 x 45); 3) supplementary aids and services (a full-time 1:1 paraprofessional, Wilson Reading program daily for 45 minutes, home-based ABA 5x60, an individualized reading program 5x30; and OT indirect consultation 1x45); 4) supports for school personnel on behalf of the Student (direct daily ABA instruction “embedded within the school program,” and a behavioral consultation with a BCBA one time per month for 45 minutes for the special education teacher, training in Orton — Gillingham, Wilson, or Lindamood Bell one time per year for special education teachers; and a 12 month program); and testing accommodations (separate location, minimal distractions and having the material read out loud to the Student, “on-task focusing prompts,” and extended time for NYS exams and local tests). (Ex. B) The CSE reconvened on October 30, 2018 to revise the earlier IEP (Ex. B). The JEP dated October 30, 2018, (Ex. C) recommended virtually the same program with only slight modifications to the type of paraprofessional (crisis to behavioral), added assistive technology and 20 hours of training on these services for the Student (Ex. €). The Parent sent a letter to the CSE Chairperson and the Nonpublic School Office of Special Education dated June 21, 2019, requesting that the District evaluate the Student to determine her areas of need and if her current program and placement were appropriate (Ex. M).

During the social history update, dated July 26, 2019, the Parent reported that the Student was not receiving occupational therapy and did not have a paraprofessional as directed by her IEP (Ex. K). The Parent further claimed an implementation problem with AT (Ex. P). The Parent testified that she received the District’s evaluation on September 16, 2019 and was contacted that day for a CSE meeting to be held the following day, which was then canceled. She did not consider the District’s evaluation to be comprehensive enough and said she could not determine the Student’s needs from the psychoeducational evaluation (Ex. P). The Parent sent a letter to the District by fax on September 28, 2019, requesting independent educational evaluations by specific evaluators (a neuropsychological evaluation, an occupational therapy evaluation, a speech language therapy evaluation, an FBA by a BCBA, and if necessary, a behavior intervention plan (BIP) (Ex. N). Prior District evaluations had not been conducted since 2016. The CSE held a meeting on October 8, 2019 (Ex. D). At the meeting, the CSE members told the Parent that the District would provide AT training for the Student, but the Parent stated that the District “has not provided {the Student] with the appropriate AT training even though she required this service.” (Ex. P).

At the October 8, 2019, CSE meeting, the Parent said that she learned that “to the best of my knowledge, the school is not implementing the BIP.” The Parent stated the Principal had asked to remove the 1:1 paraprofessional because the Student did not need that level of support. She stated that the Student needs 1:1 support for redirection and to assist her to focus (Ex. P). The resultant IEP removed the 1:1 paraprofessional and the supplementary aids and services and supports for school personnel, reduced the amount of time of related services and added adaptive physical therapy three times per week and 1:1 AT services (Ex. D). Recommendations The Neuropsychologist recommended placement in a private school specifically for students with learning disabilities, impairments in executive functioning, and associated emotional difficulties. He recommended a very small class (6 to 8 students) with individual or didactic instruction throughout the day, multi-modal instruction by teachers certified in such method of teaching reading, spelling and writing to students with dyslexia, with peers “who are verbal, socially related and approximately of at least average intelligence but who have similar levels of academic functioning.” The school should be a “safe, predictable environment” with an “an interdisciplinary team consisting of a psychologist or BCBA and a speech language pathologist who regularly discuss [the Student’s] progress and consult with classroom staff.”

The Neuropsychologist also recommended individual reading and writing remediation as compensatory education in the form of 10 hours per week of special education instruction (preferably Orton-Gillingham) from a certified teacher. He also suggested compensatory services of one year of weekly individual psychotherapy with monthly family sessions by a licensed psychotherapist trained in cognitive behavioral therapy; a psychiatric evaluation after placement in an appropriate educational program His recommendations continue and include the use of a computer for written assignments; individual tutoring in math; completing homework with a tutor, homework assignments “individually tailored to address [the Student’s] specific learning needs”; accommodations for testing; speech language therapy in school and compensatory services from a licensed speech language pathologist; an AT evaluation; individual psychotherapy sessions in school twice per week from a licensed mental health professional (a cognitive behavioral therapist); and extracurricular activities (Ex. T). The Speech Language Therapist who evaluated the Student recommended individual speech language therapy two times per week for 30 minutes; multisensory reading instruction (i.e. Orton Gillingham, Lindamood Bell) by a reading specialist; and compensatory services in the form of a bank of 80 speech language therapy hours (approximately two hours per week for 40 weeks) (Ex. U). She also recommends incorporating the Student’s speech goals in the IEP (Ex. W).

The Speech Language Therapist was cross-examined about her affidavit (Ex. W). She explained her reason for recommending compensatory speech language services. “I feel that she is still delayed even though she has made progress.” (T. 83). The Speech Language Pathologist who conducted the AT evaluation recommended a Google Pixel book and accessories; Read and Write Literacy Software; A C — Pen Reader; Bookshare; Google Docs; Read and Write; Google Keep; and 20 hours of training (Ex. J). In her affidavit, the Speech Language Pathologist confirmed the Student’s need for the AT devices she recommended in her evaluation and the Student’s need for 20 hours of training. “Her training will enable her to understand the use of the software and hardware and increase her independence was presented with various tasks” (Ex. QO). The LBA recommended: “enrollment in a socialized school with a BCBA on staff and one-to— one instructional format. [The Student] requires a school that is specialized in working with students who have specific needs like [the Student’s] and have trained professionals to use behavior analytical approaches to ensure behavior change and can collect behavioral data, use data to assess the function[s| of the [the Student’s] behaviors, and design and implement a Behavior Invention Plan to facilitate reliable reduction of interfering behaviors.” She recommended “a full- time nonpublic or private ABA program which is equivalent to about 35 hours per week of full- time 1:1 ABA support...”. Additionally, she recommended 10 hours per week of home—based ABA therapy, and two hours per week of parent training by the home ABA provider. (Ex. Q). She also recommended implementing the BIP she created and adding it to the Student’s IEP. (Ex. Q).

The Licensed Behavior Analyst LBA testified by affidavit about the FBA and BIP she conducted for the Student. She observed the Student at school, interviewed her parents, and talked to school staff. She reviewed the Student’s IEP, social history, evaluations, FBA/BIP, classroom observations, and recommendations from previous providers. She testified that she did not see any evidence that the Student’s FBA from 2016 was implemented. In her observation, the Student engaged in target behaviors including non—compliance, off — task behaviors, and disruptive behaviors (Ex. Q). She concluded, “When [the Student] wants attention, or does not want to do something, she engages in target behaviors.” She found that the school was not an appropriate environment for the Student because of the level of noise, the number of people in the setting, because the Student was disruptive to peers, and was not getting the support she needed. The Student’s school also was not individualized to meet her needs (Ex. Q). The Occupational Therapist who evaluated the Student recommended continuing 1:1 occupational therapy two times per week for 45 minutes sessions (Ex. S). Legal Background The IDEA is a comprehensive statutory framework established by Congress to aid the states in providing disabled children with a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”). 20 U.S.C. § 612(a)1). “A [FAPE] is available to all children with disabilities residing in the state between the ages of 3 and 21.” 20 U.S.C. § 612(a)(1)(A). The IDEA defines a FAPE as special education and related services that: 1]

- (A) have been provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge, - (B) meet the standards of the state educational agency, - {C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or secondary school education in the state involved, and - (D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education program required under § 614(d) ofthis title. 20 U.S.C. § 601(9).! A FAPE is crafted through the collaboration of the disabled student’s parents, teachers, and school district administrators and is recorded in an JEP. 20 U.S.C. § 614(d). The “core of the statute ... is the cooperative process that [IDEA] establishes between parents and schools.” Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 53 (2005). The IEP is, in brief, a comprehensive statement of the educational needs of a disabled child and the specially designed instruction and related services to be employed to meet those needs. 20 U.S.C. § 601(14). In New York State, the IEP is produced by a committee on special education (“CSE”), whose members are appointed by the board of education or trustees of the school district. N.Y. Educ. Law § 4402(1)(b)(1) (McKinney Supp. 2005). The IDEA provides numerous procedural safeguards to protect the due process rights of disabled children and their parents. See generally 20 U.S.C. § 615. These procedures include the opportunity for parents to obtain an independent educational evaluation of the child (20 U.S.C. § 615(b)()) and file a complaint with the state or local educational agency (20 U.S.C. § 615(6)(6)). “Special education” is defined by the IDEA as specially designed instruction, at no cost to parents or guardians, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, including (A) instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and institutions, and in other settings; and (B) instruction in physical education. The term “related services” is defined as transportation, and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services (including speech pathology and audiology, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, recreation, including therapeutic recreation, social work services, counseling services, including rehabilitation counseling, and medical services, except that such medical services shall be for diagnostic and evaluation purposes only) as may be required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education, and includes the early identification and assessment of disabling conditions in children. 20 U.S.C. § 601(26).

Any such complaint is resolved through an “impartial due process hearing” in which parents of disabled children have “an opportunity to present complaints with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a [FAPE]| to such child.” 20 U.S.C. § 615(6)(6). Parties to an administrative proceeding under the IDEA have the right to written findings of fact and decisions on any complaint about the provision of a FAPE. Polera v. Board of Education Newburgh, 288 F.3d 478, 482 (2nd Cir. 2002). In New York State, “[t]he board of education or trustees of the school district or the state agency responsible for providing education to students with disabilities shal! have the burden of proof, including the burden of persuasion and burden of production, in any such impartial hearing ...” N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404 (1){c), modifying the rule enunciated in Schaffer where “[t]he burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is on the party seeking relief.” Schaffer, 546 U.S. at 537. Analysis There is a disagreement between the parties as to why the Student failed to make progress between 2016 and 2019. The Parent argues that the Student’s lack of progress is because the District failed to follow the academic and related services recommendations of the neuropsychological evaluation made in 2016 and during subsequent school years. The District argues that the Student failed to make progress because the Parent ignored the recommendations of the Neuropsychologist to seek a medical consult for possibie medication for ADHD for the Student, and to have her treated with psychotherapy to address her psychological and emotional issues.

The Parent argues that the District failed to provide a FAPE for the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 school years. The Parent alleges that the District never provided AT training for the Student, leaving the Student unable to access her AT device over the last two years. The Parent alleges that the Student’s school is not meeting her educational and behavioral needs, that the School is not implementing her behavior intervention plan, and that it has terminated the Student’s 1:1 paraprofessional. The Parent is seeking the remedy of enrollment in a full-time ABA program in a private or nonpublic school with a BCBA on staff and all the services recommended in the [the Student’s] independent evaluations (See T. 118 — 121). The District argues that the Parent’s request for a large amount of tutoring should be denied or reduced. They maintain that the Student will not be able to learn unless attentional and psychological problems are first addressed. They also argue that compensatory services are not warranted in speech and language therapy because the evaluation noted that the Student had received services and made progress. They point to the testimony by the Speech Language Therapist whose reason for recommending compensatory education was because the Student still has delays (See T. 121-126). The District did not submit documentary evidence or call any witnesses to defend their program. I credit the Parent’s evidence and witnesses that establish that the Student did not make progress during the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 school years and that the program and placement did not adequately address her academic and behavioral needs. Nevertheless, I agree with the District that the recommended amount of services is excessive and would be difficult for a student with such attentional issues. I also agree with the District that compensatory services in speech language therapy is not warranted. The Student received her speech language services and made progress. However, the Student still needs a program and placement that will better address her needs. Compensatory Education Regarding the remedy of compensatory education, I 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. C. vy. 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 relief 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[a][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 Educ., 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 &.C. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 9731053, at 12-13 [S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2008], adopted at 2008 WL 9731174 [Jul. 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 remedied 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 relief 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 (see 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 y. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 518 F.3d 1275, 1289 [11th Cir. 2008] [holding that "[c]Jompensatory awards should place children in the position they would have been in but for the violation of the Act"|; Bd. of Educ. v. L.M., 478 F.3d 307, 316 [6th Cir. 2007} [holding that "a flexible approach, rather than a rote hour- by-hour compensation award, is more likely to address [the student's] educational problems successfully]; Reid, 401 F.3d at 518, 525 [holding that compensatory education is a "replacement of educational services the child shouid 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 of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 14-014. ] have reduced the requested award regarding compensatory education because J am confident in the CSE and their ability, guided by the Neuropsychological Evaluation (Ex. V) and the other evaluations developed over time, to make good decisions about the Student’s needs and related services going forward. Two, I recognize there are a finite number of hours per week, and the demands of the Student’s school 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. I attempt to mitigate these unintended consequences with my order. As a backdrop to the reduction in hours, I am keen to the assertion of the District that interventions had been recommended in the past but were not pursued. (See District brief IHO #1)). During the examination of the Neuropsychologist, he recommended a psychiatric evaluation to consider medication, he explained that medication “might be able to help, but... it has to be done within the context of also giving her... an appropriate education and other interventions.” (T. 94). When asked about the Student’s ability to attend two hours of academic tutoring after being in school all day and a one hour bus ride, he said that if the Student is receiving a more appropriate education, getting counseling and outside psychotherapy, and possibly medication, and was working with someone who could appropriately teach her, she could learn in that situation (T. 95 — 96). He stated that part of the Student’s depression is from her awareness of how delayed and deficient her skills are, and that tutoring could benefit her. “Gaining a sense of mastery and seeing that she’s capable of making progress, I would hope, would have a positive effect on her mood and self — image.” (T. 96). When asked if the Student should try medication for attention before tutoring, he said that the Student could first try tutoring and that if the Student still had difficulty focusing, then the Parent could look into medicine as an alternative (T. 97-98). When asked if his recommendations might have been different if the Student had been on medication, he said that not all parents agree that medications are right for their children so it is not something he would insist on, and that his recommendations are appropriate (T. 98). When asked how the Student’s attention difficulties could have been addressed in the classroom, he spoke of the benefits of more one—on—one instruction, consideration of an FM unit, and appropriately certified teachers to instruct her (T. 99-100). It is therefore ORDERED based upon the finding that the District denied the Student a FAPE for the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 school years, I remand this matter to the CSE with the direction to reconvene an create an appropriate IEP to include the recommendations and goals from the independent evaluations. A. Specifically, the CSE shall consider: A. A private school specializing in students with learning disabilities as well as associated emotional difficulties; with a full time ABA program which is equivalent to about 35 hours per week of full time 1:1 ABA support; enrollment in a socialized school with a BCBA on staff and one-to-one instructional format in a small classroom (6-8 students) as recommended in the record herein (See, Ex. Q-7; R-28; Ex. T-17; V-3-4); B. 10 hours a week of home-based ABA therapy (See, Ex. Q-8; R-28) by a provider of the Parent’s choosing at their normal and customary rate. C. Individual speech twice a week for 30-minute sessions(See, Ex. W-4; U- 12). D. Multi-sensory reading instruction (Orton Gillingham, Lindamood-Bell, ) be provided by a reading specialist (Ex. W-4; U-12).

E. Daily independent reading for 30 minutes (See, Ex. W-4; U-12). F. Individual OT, two times a week for 45 minutes (See, Ex. S-12). G. 20 hours of AT training (See, Ex. J-7; O-5) I also order the District to fund the following compensatory services: A. 40 hours of compensatory speech and language services (See, Ex. W-4; U-12) (To be utilized within 18 months of this order or the unused portion of the services shall be forfeited). B. 690 hours of tutoring services by special education instruction from an appropriately certified teacher (i.e., preferably Orton-Gillingham) (See, Ex.T-18;V-4) (To be utilized within 36 months of this order or the unused portion of the services shall be forfeited). C. 52 individual psychotherapy with monthly family sessions (12 sessions) from a licensed psychotherapist trained in cognitive behavioral therapist (See, Ex T-20; V-6) (To be utilized within 18 months of this order or the unused portion of the services shall be forfeited). The following evaluations be funded by the Department and conducted by an independent evaluator of the Parent’s choosing at the provider’s normal and customary rate A. An Assistive Technology evaluation (See, Ex T-20; V-6) B. A psychiatric evaluation once the Student has been placed in an appropriate educational program (See, Ex.T-21; V-6) o Jf Martin -Kehte IN; Esq. impartial ‘Hearing Officer

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Within 40 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the Public 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. If either 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 State 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) Hearing Dates: 1/16/20; 2/25/20; 35/20; 4/3/20 1, 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 of the original documents submitted in this matter. = Pd (a / ra Fal Yd Ly J bg 09/25/2020 pe oe we = Le iS Signature of Impartial Hearing Officer Date Signed Comments/Notes: March 2620

Parent Exhibit list New York City Exhibit Number Number Exhibit Date of Pages P-A Parent’s Impartia! Hearing Request 11/04/19 10 INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM P-B Individualized Education Program (IEP) 04/12/18 3] P-C Individualized Education Program (IEP) 10/30/18 31 P-D Individualized Education Program (IEP) 10/08/19 23 EVALUATIONS/PROGRESS REPORTS P-E Independent Occupational Therapy Evaluation 07/09/16 5 P-F Independent Speech and Language Evaluation 07/15/16 10 P-G Independent Neuropsychoiogical Evaluation 10/01/16 24 P-H Independent Functional Behavioral Assessment 10/21/16 20 P-I Independent Behavioral Intervention Plan 10/21/16 13 P-J Independent Assistive Technology Evaluation 04/26/18 7 P-K Department Social History Update 07/26/19 1 P-L Department Psychological Evaluation 07/26/19 4 CORRESPONDENCE P-M Letter from Parent re: Requesting Department 06/21/19 2 Evaluations and Fax Confirmation P-N Fax confirmation from Parent re: Requesting 09/28/19 ] Independent Educational Evaluations

P-O P-P P-Q P-R P-T P-U p-V P-W SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE Affidavit and Resume of 1/21/20 Affidavit of Parent 2/7/20 Affidavit and Resume of 2/10/20 Independent Functional Behavioral Assessment 1/20/20 and Independent Behavioral Intervention Plan SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE Occupational Therapy Evaluation 1/26/20 Neuropsychological Evaluation 2/15/20 Speech and Language Therapy Evaluation 1/28/20 Affidavit and Resume of Dr. 3/18/20 Affidavit and Resume of 3/17/20 30 13 26 14 12