New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

Case #191169

INTRODUCTION

This document constitutes the Decision and Order of the undersigned, the duly designated Impartial Hearing Officer in an Impartial Hearing brought pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the New York State Education laws. The New York City Department of Education will be referred to as District or the DOE and the parents as Parents and the child will be referred to as Student.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This hearing was requested by a Due Process Complaint on November 26, 2019 by Parent (Parent Ex. A). Parent seeks and makes the following claims for this hearing: 1. compensatory speech/language services for the 2018/19 school year; 2. compensatory speech/language services for the 2019/20 school year; 3. reimbursement for speech/language services for the 2018/19 and 2019/20 school years; 4. speech/language evaluation and neuropsychological evaluation by provider of Parent’s choosing; 5. compensatory services (appx. 180 hours of 1:1 tutoring) due to Student’s inability to learn and attend during Covid-19 remote learning period (appx. March 20, 2020 through June, 2020). All but item #5 were articulated in Parent’s Due Process Hearing request.

The undersigned was appointed as Impartial Hearing Officer on May 13, 2020. Hearings were held on numerous dates. The undersigned presided at all hearings.

During the course of the proceedings, the parties moved to extend the case compliance date in this matter on the dates indicated in IHO Ex I, all in order to allow for an examination of all relevant witnesses and documents, and to complete the hearing. In considering those requests, I weighed the cumulative impact of the relevant factors and found that, in allowing for adequate time for such purposes, the delays in the resolution of the matter and the extensions of time for such purposes were in accordance with the requirements of due process. Accordingly, requests for extensions of the case compliance date were granted (IHO Exhibit I). See 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(c); 8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(5).

The hearing record was closed effective November 27, 2020.

Appended to this decision are: a statement of appeal rights; a list of the persons in attendance at the hearings; and a list of the documents received into evidence. See 8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(5)(v).

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Student was, at the beginning of the 2018/19 school year (the first year of review for this hearing), and months of age. She currently has a DOE classification of Autism Spectrum Disorder. During the 2018/19 school year, Student was placed in an ICT class with related services of occupational therapy, 2x30 individually and speech/language therapy, 2x30 individually. Parent asserts the frequency of speech/language therapy was inadequate for Student to make meaningful progress and seeks compensatory speech/language therapy and reimbursement for speech/language therapy provided and paid for by Parent for such school year. During the 2019/20 school year, Student was enrolled in the , in a class setting of 8:1+1. In addition to the inclusion of occupational therapy and counseling, Student was recommended for speech, 1x30 individually and 3x30 in a group (including the social curriculum program). Parent similarly asserts that the frequency of speech/language therapy, and the frequency of individualized speech/language therapy, was once again inadequate for Student to make meaningful progress and seeks compensatory speech/language therapy for such school year and reimbursement for speech/language therapy provided and paid for by Parent for such school year.

Additionally, Parent requested an independent neuropsychological evaluation and speech/language evaluation by written notice dated October 15, 2019 (Parent Ex. B), claiming that the evaluations conducted by the DOE were inadequate to identify and address Student’s educational needs. No response from the DOE was entered into the hearing record. Parent reasserted the request for such evaluations by the instant Due Process Hearing Request dated November 26, 2020; again, no response to such request from the DOE was entered into the hearing record.

Finally, as noted above, during the hearing Parent asserted a claim for compensatory 1:1 tutoring of approximately 180 hours on the grounds that Student was unable to attend remote learning during the period of school closures due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

PARENT’S POSITION

The Parents allege that Student has been denied a FAPE for both the 2018/19 and 2019/20 school years for the reasons set forth above. Parent seeks the provision of compensatory speech/language services for both the 2018/19 and 2019/20 school years, reimbursement for speech/language therapy sessions paid for by Parent, authorization for an independent neuropsychological evaluation and speech/language evaluation, and compensatory 1:1 tutoring for the period of school closure due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

DISTRICTS POSITION

The District asserts that Student was appropriately placed for both the 2018/19 and 2019/20 school years during which time Student made meaningful progress, although no testimony was offered by the DOE concerning the 2018/19 school year (documentary evidence concerning such school year was entered into evidence). The DOE disputes Parent’s request for compensatory speech/language services and reimbursement for speech/language services provided by Parent. The DOE disputes Parent’s entitlement to an independent neuropsychological and speech evaluation. The DOE disputes Parent’s entitlement to 180 hours of 1:1 instruction due to Student’s alleged inability to attend remote learning during the Covid-19 pandemic school closure.

FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Applicable Legal Standards

Two purposes of the IDEA, see 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482, are: (a) 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; and (b) to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities and parents of such students are protected, see 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A)-(B); see generally Forest Grove v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230, 239 (2009); Board of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 (1982) 1.

1. The term “free appropriate public education” means special education and related services that – (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 school, or secondary school education in the State involved; and (D) are provided in conformity with the individualized education program required under section 1414(d) of this title.

20 U.S.C. § 1401(9); 34 C.F.R. § 300.17.

The IDEA requires a school district to have an Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) in effect for each child with a disability at the beginning of each school year. See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(2)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.323(a); see 71 Fed. Reg. 46682 [stating that the IDEA "is clear that at the beginning of each school year, each [district] must have an IEP in effect for each child with a disability in the agency's jurisdiction. Further, An IEP has to be based upon appropriate evaluations. 34 C.F.R. §300.324(a)(iii).

An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that includes a statement of the student's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]; Tarlowe v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 2008 2736027, at *6 [S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2008] [noting that a CSE must consider, among other things, the "results of the initial evaluation or most recent evaluation" of the student, as well as the "'academic, developmental, and functional needs'" of the student]), establishes annual goals designed to meet the student's needs resulting from the student's disability and enable him or her to make progress in the general education curriculum (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][2][i], [2][i][A]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]), and provides for the use of appropriate special education services (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][4]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]).

An IEP has to be based upon appropriate evaluations. 34 C.F.R. §300.324(a)(iii). See also 34 C.F.R. §§300.303-300.311, 300.315; 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.4(f). All reevaluations shall be conducted by a multidisciplinary team, including a specialist in the area of the student’s disability. 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.4(b)(4). Children must be assessed “in all areas of suspected disability” using “a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information.” 20 U.S.C. §1414(d); 34 C.F.R. § 10.

Additionally, 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.4(b)(6) provides that every reevaluation must identify “all of the special education and related services needs, whether or not commonly linked to the child’s classification.” 34 C.F.R. § 303(c)(6).

Parents should be central members of IEP teams. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1414(a)(1)(A), 1414(c), 1414(d)(1)(B)(i); 34 C.F.R. §§300.15; 300.303. Further, regulations provide that the parent must have an adequate opportunity to participate in the development of the child’s IEP Cerra v. Pawling Cent. School District, 427 F.3d 186, 192 (2d Cir. 2005, requiring that the Parent be properly notified of the IEP meeting and that such meeting be scheduled at a “mutually agreed upon time and place.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.322.

An IEP must include a statement of measurable annual goals, including academic and functional goals designed to meet the student's needs that result from the student's disability to enable the student to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum; and meet each of the student's other educational needs that result from the student's disability (see 20 U.S.C. § 1414[d][1][A][i][II]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][2][i]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]). Each annual goal shall include the evaluative criteria, evaluation procedures and schedules to be used to measure progress toward meeting the annual goal during the period beginning with placement and ending with the next scheduled review by the committee (8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii][b]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1414[d][1][A][i][III]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.320[a][3])

Pursuant to the provisions of 8 NYCRR 200.3: Committee on special education and committee on preschool special education:

(a) Each board of education or board of trustees shall appoint:

(1) committees on special education in accordance with the provisions of Education Law, section 4402, as necessary to ensure timely evaluation and placement of students. The membership of each committee shall include, but not be limited to:

(i) the parents or persons in parental relationship to the student; (ii) not less than one regular education teacher of the student whenever the student is or may be participating in the regular education environment; (iii) not less than one special education teacher of the student, or, if appropriate, not less than one special education provider of the student; (iv) a school psychologist;

(v) a representative of the school district who is qualified to provide or supervise special education and who is knowledgeable about the general education curriculum and the availability of resources of the school district, provided that an individual who meets these qualifications may also be the same individual appointed as the special education teacher or the special education provider of the student or the school psychologist. The representative of the school district shall serve as the chairperson of the committee; (vi) an individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results. Such individual may also be the individual appointed as the regular education teacher, the special education teacher or special education provider, the school psychologist, the representative of the school district or a person having knowledge or special expertise regarding the student when such member is determined by the school district to have the knowledge and expertise to fulfill this role on the committee; (vii) a school physician, if specifically requested in writing by the parent of the student or by a member of the school at least 72 hours prior to the meeting; (viii) an additional parent member of a student with a disability residing in the school district or a neighboring school district, provided that the additional parent member may be the parent of a student who has been declassified within a period not to exceed five years or the parent of a student who has graduated within a period not to exceed five years, if specifically requested in writing by the parent of the student, the student or by a member of the committee at least 72 hours prior to the meeting; (ix) other persons having knowledge or special expertise regarding the student, including related services personnel as appropriate, as the school district or the parent(s) shall designate. The determination of knowledge or special expertise of such person shall be made by the party (parents or school district) who invited the individual to be a member of the committee on special education; and

(x) if appropriate, the student.

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). However, the "IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP" (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189). 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, 567 [2d Cir. 1989] [citations omitted]; see Grim, 346 F.3d at 379). Additionally, school districts are not required to "maximize" the potential of students with disabilities (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199; Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132).

However, in the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court, Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. __, 14 (2017), argued January 11, 2017, and decided March 22, 2017, the Court held that, while Rowley declined “to establish any one test for determining the adequacy of educational benefits conferred upon all children covered by the Act”, 458 U. S., at 202, it nevertheless still held that “a substantive standard was “implicit in the Act”. Rowley , 458 U. S., at 193, n. 15. It similarly held that “the statement that the Act did not “guarantee any particular level of education” simply reflects the unobjectionable proposition that the IDEA cannot and does not promise “any particular [educational] outcome.” Id.at 192. Rather, the Court in Endrew held that, “To meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances (emphasis added), as a focus on the particular child is at the core of the IDEA. The instruction offered must be “specially designed” to meet a child’s “unique needs” through an “individualized education program.” §§1401(29), (14) (emphasis added), to reflect the fact that a contemplated IEP must be focused on the “particular child that is at the core of the IDEA”. In such case, the school is still required to ensure the student is given an IEP that requires not just academic but also functional progress and, although the goals may differ for students, each child must have an IEP that includes goals and services to enable a child to make both academic and functional progress. The court further stated that an IEP “is not a form document. It is constructed only after careful consideration of the child’s present levels of achievement, disability, and potential for growth”. §§1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)–(IV), (d)(3)(A)(i)–(iv), and that “a student offered an educational program providing “merely more than de minimis progress” from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all”. The Court in Endrew further stated that “The IDEA demands more. It requires an educational program reaso nably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances”. And although the Supreme Court declined to elaborate on the definition of “appropriate progress” from case to case, it stated that “the adequacy of a given IEP turns on the unique circumstances of the child for whom it was created”. Finally, The Supreme Court in Endrew declined to hold, as it declined to hold in Rowley, that “every handicapped child who is advancing from grade to grade . . . is automatic ally receiving a [FAPE].” Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176, 203, n. 25 (1982).

Once a parent consents to a district's provision of special education services, such services must be provided by the district in conformity with the student's IEP (20 U.S.C. § 1401[9][D]; 34 CFR 300.17[d]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1414[d]; 34 CFR 300.320). The school district must provide special education and related services to a student with a disability in accordance with the student's IEP and must make a good faith effort to assist the student to achieve the annual goals and, if appropriate, short-term instructional objectives or benchmarks listed in the student's IEP. See 8 NYCRR 200.4(e)(7). With regard to the implementation of a student's IEP, a denial of a FAPE occurs if the district deviates from substantial or significant provisions of the student's IEP in a material way (T.L. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2012 WL 1107652, *14 [E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2012]; D.D-S., 2011 WL 3919040, at *13; A.L. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 812 F. Supp. 2d 492, 503 [S.D.N.Y. 2011]; see A.P. v. Woodstock Bd. of Educ., 370 Fed. App'x 202, 205 [2d Cir. 2010]; Van Duyn v. Baker Sch. Dist. 5J, 502 F.3d 811, 822 [9th Cir. 2007]; Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Bobby R., 200 F.3d 341, 349 [5th Cir. 2000]). In order to show a denial of a FAPE based on a failure to implement an IEP, a party must establish more than a de minimis failure to implement all elements of the IEP, and instead must demonstrate that the school board or other authorities failed to implement substantial or significant provisions of the IEP (see Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 200 F.3d at 349; see also Fisher v. Stafford Township Bd. of Educ., 289 Fed. App'x 520, 524–25 [3d Cir. 2008]; Couture v. Bd. of Educ., 535 F.3d 1243 [10th Cir. 2008]; Neosho R- V Sch. Dist. v. Clark, 315 F.3d 1022, 1027 n.3 [8th Cir. 2003]). Accordingly, in reviewing failure to implement claims under the IDEA, courts have held that it must be ascertained whether the aspects of the IEP that were not followed were substantial, or in other words, "material" (A.P., 370 Fed. App'x at 205; see Van Duyn, 502 F.3d at 822 [holding that a "material failure occurs when there is more than a minor discrepancy between the services a school provides to a disabled [student] and the services required by the [student's] IEP"]; see also Catalan v. Dist. of Columbia, 478 F. Supp. 2d 73 [D. D.C. 2007] [holding that where a student missed a 'handful' of speech-language therapy sessions as a result of the therapist's absence or due to the student's fatigue, nevertheless, the student received consistent speech-language therapy in accordance with his IEP, and the district's failure to follow the IEP was excusable under the circumstances and did not amount to a failure to implement the student's program]).

Section 504 provides that “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . . shall, solely by reason of his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal assistance.” 29 U.S.C. §794(a). Section 504 and the IDEA are often seen as “complementary” statutes that, to a degree, mandate parallel requirements on schools to provide special education and related services. See R.B. ex rel. L.B. v. Bd. of Educ. of City of New York, 99 F. Supp. 2d 411, 419 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (citations omitted). The Section 504 regulations clarify the nature of the prohibited discrimination. 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(b)(ii)-(iii). In addition, the Section 504 regulations place similar and even parallel requirements on schools to provide a FAPE. See 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.33-104.37.

An evaluation means procedures used in accordance with 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.304 through 300.311 to determine whether a child has a disability and the nature and extent of the special education and related services that the child needs. 34 C.F.R. § 300.15; see also 8 NYCRR § 200.1(aa). In conducting the evaluation, the district must use a variety of tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information about the child, including information provided by the parent, to determine whether the child is eligible and, if so, the content of the child’s IEP. 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(b)(1); 8 NYCRR § 200.4(b)(1).

The evaluation must be sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the child’s special education and related services needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category. 34 C.F.R. § 300.304©(6); 8 NYCRR § 200.4(b)(6)(ix).

A reevaluation of a child with a disability must occur when conditions warrant or if the parent or teacher requests a reevaluation. 34 C.F.R. §300.303(a); 8 NYCRR § 200.4(b)(4). The cost of the evaluation must be at public expense. 182 34 CFR § 300.502(d).

Parents have the right to an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) at public expense, upon request. In such case, the Local Educational Agency must either 1) file a due process complaint to request a hearing to show that its evaluation is appropriate or 2) ensure that an IEE is provided at public expense, unless the LEA demonstrates in a hearing that the evaluation obtained by the parent did not meet the LEA’s criteria. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(2)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.502(b)(2)(ii). See also 8 NYCRR § 200.5(g)(v).

The IDEA mandates that an IEP be based on the results of the most recent evaluation of a student. 1 8 NYCRR Section 200.5(g)(2) (Independent Educational Evaluations) provides:

Requests for evaluations by hearing officers. If a hearing officer requests an independent educational evaluation as part of a hearing, the cost of the evaluation must be at public expense.

8 NYCRR Section 200.5(j)(3)(viii) provides:

Initiation of Due Process Hearings. In the event the impartial hearing officer requests an independent educational evaluation as part of a hearing, the cost of the evaluation must be at public expense. ______________________________________________________________________________ 1 M.M. v. District of Columbia, 607 F. Supp. 2d 168, 174 (D.D.C. 2009). independent educational evaluation at public expense.

COMPENSATORY EDUCATION

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., 31F.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"]; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 11-075; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 10- 052). 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"]; S.A. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2014

1311761, at *7 [E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2014] [noting that compensatory education "serves to compensate a student who was actually educated under an inadequate IEP and to catch-up the student to where he [or she] should have been absent the denial of a FAPE"] [internal quotations and citation omitted]; see also Draper v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 518 F.3d 1275, 1289 [11th Cir. 2008] [holding that "[c]ompensatory awards should place children in the position they would have been in but for the violation of the Act"]; Bd. of Educ. v. L.M., 478 F.3d 307, 316 [6th Cir. 2007] [holding that "a flexible approach, rather than a rote hour-by-hour compensation award, is more likely to address [the student's] educational problems successfully"]; Reid, 401 F.3d at 518 [holding that compensatory education is a "replacement of educational services the child should have received in the first place" and that compensatory education awards "should aim to place disabled children in the same position they would have occupied but for the school district's violations of IDEA"]; Puyallup, 31 F.3d at 1497 [finding "[t]here is no obligation to provide a day-for-day compensation for time missed"]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 13-168; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No.12-135; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 11-132; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 11-091).

Compensatory education awards can be drafted under two types of approaches: a quantitative approach and a qualitative approach. With a quantitative approach, courts examine the amount of time during which a child has been deprived of a FAPE, and award compensatory services with an eye towards making up that time. See, e.g., M.C. v. Central Regional School District, 81 F.3d 389, 297 (3d Cir. 1996) (holding generally that subject to equitable adjustment, the “child is entitled to compensatory education for a period equal to the period of deprivation, excluding only the time reasonably required for the school district to rectify the problem.”). Under the facts and circumstances of this case, and given the severe disabilities of the child, the quantitative approach is determined to be the more effective and equitable form of compensatory award.

Under the qualitative approach, the examination should focus on the child’s needs; “some students may require only short, intensive compensatory programs targeted at specific problems or deficiencies” while “[o]thers may need extended programs, perhaps even exceeding hour-for-hour replacement of the time spent without FAPE.” Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 524 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Pursuant to this approach, there must be evidence regarding the child’s “specific educational deficits” resulting from the failure to provide FAPE and “specific compensatory measures” designed to “correct those deficits. Reid, supra at 526.

ANALYSIS

Parent raises several issues, each of which will be addressed separately.

Regarding Parent’s request for compensatory speech/language services and reimbursement for such services for the 2018/19 school year, it is initially noted that the DOE did not present any witness testimony on this particular issue. Although the DOE presented certain documentary evidence regarding the 2018/19 school year (CPSE Psychological evaluation – DOE Ex. 3; CPSE Educational evaluation – DOE Ex. 4; CPSE Behavioral Evaluation – DOE Ex. 5; CPSE Speech/Language evaluation – DOE Ex. 6), no witness testimony was provided by the DOE to explain such evaluations or to testify how the information contained within was utilized in the creation of the IEP for the 2018/19 school year. As the DOE bears the burden of establishing the correctness and appropriateness of the educational program for the 2018/19 school year, the hearing record fails to establish such burden having been met.

Of particular note is the DOE’s Educational Evaluation dated June 4, 2018 (DOE Ex.4) which found Student functioning in the expressive and receptive language domains in the Very Low range, 3.0 Standard Deviations below the mean (DOE Ex. 4-4). The CPSE Speech/Language Evaluation dated June 14, 2018 (DOE Ex. 6) found a Total Language Standard Score of 71 (where a score of 85-100 is considered to be within normal limits). Also reported was the finding that receptive language skills were not age-appropriate, as Student was unable to follow one to two step commands without cues, was unable to identify actions in pictures, and was unable to comprehend pronouns, object function or descriptive concepts (DOE Ex. 6-5). Delays in expressive language were also noted, as Student was unable to combine words or respond to a variety of “wh” questions. She was unable to produce a variety of word combinations to communicate her needs and unable to produce 3-4 word utterances, as would have been age-appropriate (DOE Ex. 6-5,6).

In that regard, Parent’s witness testified on direct examination by affidavit dated July 27, 2020 (Parent Ex. H). The witness, a New York State licensed speech/language pathologist, testified that he provided some private sessions with Student during the 2018/19 school year which were ultimately discontinued due to the prohibitive cost to Parent. The witness testified that he believed the speech/language mandate of 2x30 for Student was inadequate to address her delayed speech needs, particularly in light of her strong cognitive abilities, and stated that he believes 3 hours of speech would have been appropriate for Student for the 2018/19 school year (Parent Ex. H-1,2) and that he also believes Student should have received those services on a 12-month basis due to a significant risk of regression (Parent Ex. H-2).

On cross examination, the witness reiterated, in response to the question as to whether he believed the recommendation of 2x30 for speech during the 2018/19 school year was appropriate, that he did not, adding that such opinion was based on informal assessments he had made after working with Student 4-6 times earlier in the year, plus his understanding of Student’s diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder and 14 years of clinical practice which led to his belief that 2x30 was inadequate for Student for the 2018/19 school year (Tr. p. 385-386).

Parent also testified as to Student’s speech struggles during the 2018/19 school year. He began by testifying about Student’s early language struggles (Tr. p. 428 -429). He further testified that, following an evaluation and the creation of the IEP for the 2018/19 school year, he felt that Student did not make meaningful progress with the provision of 2x30 speech services because Student remained essentially nonverbal entering the 2018/19 school year, and that she made very minimal progress during the school year with the gap between her speech skills and her peers widening with minimal improvement (Tr. p. 441-442). Parent further testified that his application to have Student enrolled in the Program was rejected because she lacked the pragmatic language skills required for acceptance due to her being largely non-verbal (Tr. p. 448).

As the DOE bears the burden of establishing the appropriateness of the educational placement for Student for the 2018/19 school year and, in particular for this hearing, the appropriateness of the speech/language services provided to Student for the 2018/19 school year, and no evidence was presented by the DOE to establish such appropriateness, deference is given to the testimony of Student’s speech/language therapist. Generally, allegations that are left unchallenged are deemed as true “unless found to be inconsistent with the evidence in the record.” See Application of a Student with a Disability, 01-044 (SRO March 27, 2002). In the instant case, no such inconsistency has been established. The testimony of the speech pathologist witness that Student required an increase in speech services, together with the DOE’s own documentation regarding Student’s speech deficits and her accompanying scoring, plus the testimony of the Parent as to Student’s continued non-verbal state, supports the claim that the speech mandate of 2x30 for the 2018/19 school year was inadequate to address Student’s speech needs.

The aforementioned witness testified that a total of 3 hours of speech/language therapy for the 2018/19 school year would have been appropriate, based on a 12-month school year. It is noted, however, that such testimony is somewhat contradicted by later testimony of the witness who stated, in his affidavit noted above, and in reference to an increase in Student’s speech/language mandate for the 2019/20 school year to 1x30 individually and 3x30 group (for a total of 2 hours), “ I still believe that [Student] requires an additional individual 30 minute session of individual SLT” (Parent Ex. H, par. 11), thereby asserting that the appropriate speech mandate for Student would have been 2.5 hours per week, not 3. In that regard, and in the absence of any testimony or evidence to the contrary, it is determined that the appropriate speech mandate for Student for the 2018/19 school year should have been 2.5 hours, based on a 12-month school year. Student shall therefore be awarded, as more fully set forth below, total compensatory speech services for the 2018/19 school year in the amount of 69 hours (1.5 hours x 36 weeks during the 10-month school year plus 15 hours [2.5 hours x 6 weeks] during the summer portion of the 2018/19 school year), or 92 45-minute sessions. However, it is also noted that Parent claims to have paid out of pocket for some of these additional speech sessions. While Parent shall be determined eligible for reimbursement for such privately-obtained speech services, the hearing record fails to identify the exact number of speech services already provided and paid for by Parent during the 2018/19 school year. Any speech services obtained privately by Parent during the 2018/19 school year, upon verification by Parent, shall be reimbursed, as more fully set forth below, and deducted from the 69 hours (or 92 45-minute sessions) otherwise due Student as compensatory services for the 2018/19 school year. The rate for such services shall be at the provider’s rate, as evidenced by such provider’s affidavits of service, required for reimbursement, said rate not to exceed $145.00-155.00 per 45-minute session.

For the 2019/20 school year, Parent requests not only compensatory speech services and reimbursement for privately-obtained speech during the portion of the school year in which the school was open, but compensatory speech services for the period of time in which the school was closed and operating only in remote mode due to the Covid-19 pandemic school closure. Parent also seeks compensatory 1:1 tutoring during the period of remote learning on the grounds that Student was unable to attend remote learning and received no benefit whatsoever during such time period.

The DOE presented first as a witness the Director of the ASD who is also a licensed speech pathologist. She described the as a small class setting in a community school with an 8:1:1 placement. The program is an academic program where students access the curriculum on grade level, designed to specifically support students with autism. Such students typically have receptive and expressive language deficits (Tr. p. 175-178). The witness described, in addition to the speech/language mandates for each student, the Social Curriculum provided in the as a weekly speech and language mandate of 30 minutes that is worked on by the speech-language pathologist to help to support social communication within the classroom and which allows for generalization of social concepts to students throughout the day (Tr. p. 185). The witness stated that the program addresses the speech/ language deficits of students in the areas of social pragmatic, social functioning, and social communication by supporting social communication development and allowing for the speech pathologist to work collaboratively with the classroom teacher and paraprofessional to deliver the service while also allowing for the ability to then generalize the supports in the classroom, as opposed to having the speech pathologist provide sessions in a speech room where such skills would not get generalized into a larger setting (Tr. p. 189-192). When asked how Student presented at the beginning of the 2019/20 school year, the witness testified that she had no personal direct knowledge but could only opine based on evaluations of other members of her team, but further stated that Student likely had receptive and expressive language delays, as well as social pragmatic delays as well (Tr. p. 194-195). When asked how the program for Student for the 2019/20 school year addressed her needs, the witness stated that the individual and group speech sessions were targeted for receptive and expressive language deficits, with the addition of the 30 minutes session within the classroom that allowed Student to work on her receptive, pragmatic and expressive language skills, the combination of which the witness claimed “has been widely successful throughout the city”(Tr. p. 207-208). The witness concluded her direct testimony by stating that, in her professional opinion and based on her 25 years of experience as a speech-language pathologist, she “would absolutely think that a one time a week individual session certainly could target any specific deficits or challenges one-to-one. The group -- small-group setting, certainly, is in the -- with the group of three would provide an opportunity for her to receive services, maybe without students within it. So that could be a great mechanism for her to have a -- a child from another classroom, say, like a general education classroom, an ICT, participate in that small-group class, where they could practice receptive and expressive, while also working on the social, because of the small group of three. And also, looking at the one time a week push-in social curriculum mandate, where that would really specifically target the social curriculum, meaning teaching the -- the social communication skills that are necessary to -- for students to be successful in making friends, in understanding working on cognitive flexibility, working on perspective taking in the larger classroom where there's the opportunity for the teacher and the paraprofessional to carryover those strategies and supports and concepts throughout the entire week” (emphasis added). The witness further opined, when asked if Student required additional speech therapy during the 2019/20 school year, “Based upon the fact that there is a specific mandate that looks like -- this looks like a very healthy and robust recommendation for a child -- we have some individual. We have some small group. And we have a larger group social mandate that is really specifically designed to help the social communication for students and students specifically with autism, I think that this is --these are good recommendations. And certainly, for a child of her age, meaning that she's a kindergartener, our goal is always to frontload services, meaning that they can benefit from services -- a variety or a larger mandate of services as they progress, and as they mature, likely require less restrictive or less frequent mandates” (emphasis added) (Tr. p. 209-210).

On cross examination, the witness acknowledged that she does not know Student, has never observed her and has never evaluated her (Tr. p. 224).

Much of the testimony of said witness centered around the efficacy of the , which Parent is not contesting or claiming to be an inappropriate setting for Student. Parent does seek, however, compensatory speech services as a supplement to the program, which provided a total of 2 hours of speech therapy to Student (1x30 individually, 3x30 in a group, including the social curriculum program). In that regard, it is noted that the witness conditioned a great deal of her testimony regarding the adequacy of speech services provided to Student, stating at one point that such program “has been widely successful throughout the city”, a generalization that, absent specific application to Student, has no relevance to her, and additionally using terms such as “I would absolutely think”, “ could be a great mechanism ”, “looks like a very healthy and robust recommendation”, all of which are merely conjecture; i.e., what the witness expected might have occurred, rather than what did specifically occur with this Student. In fact, when asked whether she was able to state whether or not Student made progress in the program throughout the 2019/20 school year, the witness acknowledged that she was not able to so state, saying instead that she did not hear anything from the school or from the family that progress was not being made, but had no independent knowledge of the degree of progress, if any, made by Student during the 2019/20 school year (Tr. p. 205-206). It goes without saying that the absence of specific knowledge about a lack of progress does not thereby establish that progress has, in fact, occurred.

Also presented by the DOE was the speech language improvement teacher who worked with Student during the 2019/20 school year. In describing both the individual as well as group speech therapy sessions provided to Student during the 2019/20 school year, the witness stated that there were benefits with both types of sessions. Individual sessions provided for greater focus specifically in the areas of receptive language skills, while group sessions provided for focus on social skills and communication skills. The witness further stated that, at the beginning of the 2019/20 school year, Student remained very much to herself with very little interaction with her peers, struggled with transitions resulting in tantrums, had low attention, struggled with receptive skills and comprehending questions, and struggled with self-expression, some of which she has made improvement with (Tr. p. 79-81). As for specific deficits that were worked on during individual sessions, the witness testified that such deficits included auditory comprehension and reading comprehension skills, as well as expressive language (Tr. p. 83), while in group sessions, deficits worked on included social skills, peer interaction, conversation initiation and responses to questions (Tr. p. 84). The witness stated that progress was measured through SESIS notes that are inputted daily and report cards (Tr. p. 85). As for specific progress during the 2019/20 school year, the witness stated that Student made a lot of progress, in the areas of transition and resulting tantrums, which have reduced, her increased willingness to be open to share her feelings if something's bothering her, her improved engagement with peers, although still not where she should be, her improved response to comprehension questions, and her somewhat improved inferential thinking and answering “why” and “how” questions (Tr. p. 87-89). The witness stated that in the domain of reading comprehension (receptive language), Student made significant improvements, likely meeting grade level, but with room for improvement (Tr. p. 92-93). In the domain of expressive language, the witness stated that Student met her goals (Tr. p. 93). In the area of social pragmatic language, the witness stated that while Student has made some improvement, she has not met her goals in that area (Tr. p. 93). The witness was unable to provide firsthand information as to how the classroom addressed Student’s language needs, as she is in the classroom only 1 hour per week. Regarding individualized speech therapy, the witness stated that it has been great for Student as it allows targeted therapy in areas of specific need, such as reading comprehension (Tr. p. 100). She stated group speech therapy has also been helpful for improved communication with peers (Tr. p. 101).

On cross examination, the witness acknowledged that, with respect to the speech goal as contained in the 2019/20 IEP that stated: “within one year, given prompts and cues, [Student] will demonstrate improved pragmatic skills as evidenced by her ability to maintain conversations and so on”, such goal was not met (Tr. p. 11-112). With respect to the speech goal that stated: “Within one year, given verbal and visual cues, [Student] will improve her expressive language skills, as evidenced by her ability to answer W-H questions”, the witness stated that Student did not meet that goal either (Tr. p. 112-113). The witness also acknowledged that Student continues to struggle with engagement with peers, occasionally requires prompting to socially engage with peers, and still struggles with inferential questions (Tr. p. 114-116).

The witness then testified that, although she feels Student has made progress in a number of areas, she requires more speech and language services in receptive, higher functioning skills, and social pragmatic skills, though not in an individual setting. But the witness then stated that she felt Student would not benefit from additional group therapy sessions, as twice a week was adequate. When asked to clarify her apparently inconsistent and contradictory statements, the witness, upon questioning from the undersigned as to whether Student would in fact benefit from an additional session or sessions of that same type of group therapy, the witness stated “Sure”, but then stated, once again inconsistently, that she believed the three sessions provided Student were adequate to address her needs (Tr. p. 121-123).

On redirect, the witness stated that, despite struggles alluded to earlier, Student has nevertheless made progress in her receptive language skills, answering simple W-H questions, being able to hold conversations with peers, improved expressive language in utterance length and being able to better express her feelings, and at least partially met some of her goals (Tr. p. 146- 147). On recross, the witness acknowledged that Student’s inferential thinking was below grade level for a typical kindergarten peer (Tr. p. 150).

Parent’s witness, the speech pathologist noted above, testified by his aforementioned affidavit regarding the 2019/20 school year that he believed an additional 30-minute individual speech language session was appropriate for Student due to Student’s pragmatic language issues, stating that Student is very self-directed and learns best when engaged one-on-one. He further stated that, as the size of a group increases, she is more likely to withdraw (Parent Ex. H).

On cross examination, the witness agreed that Student’s main language deficits are predominantly within the social communication or social pragmatic domain, yet he nevertheless recommended the additional 30 minute period of an individual speech/ language therapy, despite not having conducted any formal assessments or formal evaluations or Student and not having reviewed any of Student’s educational documents related to speech, nor having spoken with any of Student’s speech pathology therapists at her school (Tr. p. 391 -393). The witness stated that his basis for recommending an additional 30 minutes of individual speech therapy was also based on reporting from Student’s mother, who indicated that Student had made more progress when in receipt of individual therapy, even though Student presents with profound social pragmatic deficits. He stated that such deficits are not appropriately addressed in a small group setting in the public school because in such small groups, each child actually has his own set of goals and therefore quite challenging for a clinician to provide the same level of attention and service for several children, even in the context of social pragmatic deficits. When asked if this is the case even where the same goal is applied for all students in the small group, such as all students working towards the same social pragmatic goals, the witness stated that he has never seen such a situation where the same goals with the same materials are effectively targeted for each child in a group (Tr. p. 398-400).

Parent testified that Student, during the 2019/20 school year, made “a little progress”, although he couldn’t say with certainty if such progress was due to the program or a “natural development” of being one year older, but that she was still well below other children her age in terms of her speech abilities (Tr. p. 455). He further stated he brought Student back to the private speech therapist because he felt that Student still had deficits in her speech abilities and that Student has been improving with such private speech sessions as she’s been receptive to the private instructions and appears a bit more verbal, which he attributes to Student responding to certain techniques utilized by the private speech therapist (Tr. p. 457-458). When asked about entries in the IEP dated June 11, 2020 (DOE Ex. 39) that state that Student has made progress in the areas of expressive language skills, pragmatic language, control of emotional outbursts, responding when called upon and transitioning between activities, Parent stated that he did not necessarily agree with such findings, based on his own observations in the classroom on at least 5 occasions, but that any progress alleged, if at all, has been minimal (Tr. p. 498-502).

A comprehensive review of the 2019/20 school year, then, establishes that Student has made some measurable, if incomplete, progress during the 2019/20 school year in the realm of speech, the apparent result, at least partially, of an increase in her group services to 3x30. However, also provided Student (though not part of her IEP of ) was additional private speech/language therapy sessions by Parent’s provider. It is not clear, however, to what extent such progress was the result of the additional group therapy services, Student’s emerging maturity, Parent’s provision of private supplemental speech therapy, or a combination of all three. Compounding the uncertainty was the inconsistent testimony of Student’ speech provider in the , who both recommended but then apparently retracted her suggestion that Student receive additional speech therapy as an appropriate service. What is determined, however, is that progress has been attained through both the as well as the private speech therapy. Once again, deference is given to the private speech provider, whose testimony that Student continues to benefit from private instruction appears to be consistent with the results seen for Student during the 2019/20 school year. Such deference recommended the addition of one 30- minute session of private speech therapy, based on a 12-month school year, to complete and round out Student’s educational placement for the 2019/20 school year. Thus, Student shall be eligible for total compensatory speech/language therapy for the 2019/20 school year in the amount of 21 hours, comprised of 18 hours for the regular school year (36 weeks x.5) plus 3 hours for the summer portion of such school year (6 weeks x.5), for a total of 21 hours, or 28 45-minute session sessions. However, it is also noted that Parent claims to have paid out of pocket for some of these additional speech sessions. While Parent shall be determined eligible for reimbursement for such privately-obtained speech services, the hearing record fails to identify the exact number of speech services already provided and paid for by Parent during the 2019/20 school year. Any speech services obtained privately by Parent during the 2019/20 school year, upon verification by Parent, shall be reimbursed and deducted from the 21 hours (or 28 45-minute sessions) otherwise due Student as compensatory services for the 2019/20 school year. The rate for such services shall be at the provider’s rate, as evidenced by such provider’s affidavits of service, required for reimbursement, said rate not to exceed $145.00-155.00 per 45-minute session, depending on the date of service.

With regard to Parent’s claim for compensatory 1:1 tutoring during remote learning due to the Covid-19 pandemic school closure, the DOE raised the objection that such relief was not an appropriate area for review for this hearing. Although testimony in that regard was permitted, the DOE’s objection on the record was duly noted with the hearing officer’s reservation to consider such testimony as appropriate. It is noted that Parent’s claim for compensatory speech and 1:1 tutoring was never included in the original hearing request (as well it could not have been, as school closure due to the pandemic was never contemplated, nor could it have been, at the time of the filing of the hearing request in November, 2019). It is also noted that Parent never amended the hearing request to include such relief, nor did Parent file a second hearing request and seek consolidation, nor did the Parent withdraw the hearing request without prejudice and refile to include these new claims. It is undisputed that Parent retains a right to have these issues concerning the alleged lost instruction during remote learning addressed; indeed, a recent class action filing in the United Stated District Court, Southern District, seeks compensatory services for such students similarly affected by the Covid-19 school closures. However, and upon further reflection and consideration, to adjudicate Parent’s claim for 1:1 compensatory instruction resulting from an alleged failure to engage during remote learning here, where the DOE was never notified of such claim and never advised that such claim would be pursued until well into the hearing, constitutes a significant prejudice to the DOE’s ability to prepare and defend against such claim. No such prejudice applies to Parent, however, as Parent is free to pursue such claims in a subsequent Due Process Hearing request for such issues not addressed in this Decision, and nothing in this Decision shall preclude Parent from pursuing such claims in the future. A directive to that effect will be included in this Decision.

Regarding Parent’s request for an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) in the areas of speech and a neuropsychological evaluation, it is noted that Parent initially requested such evaluation October 15, 2019 (Parent Ex. B) and, thereafter, by the Due Process Hearing request dated November 26, 2019. See D.S., By and Through his Parents and Next Friends, M.S. and R. S., Plaintiff-Appellant v. Trumbull Board Education, Defendant-Appellee (975 F.3d 152, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit) which affirms the holding that parents may only seek an “evaluation” independently and at district expense when they disagree with a previously provided “evaluation” conducted by the DOE, and that individual assessments or “evaluations” in a particular subset of the student’s needs are not what the statute means by “evaluation”; parents may only seek an “evaluation” independently and at district expense when they disagree with a prior similar evaluation”. In that regard, it is noted that the DOE did conduct a psychological evaluation, an educational evaluation, a behavioral evaluation and a speech evaluation. Parent seeks, as noted above, a neuropsychological evaluation and a speech evaluation at the present time, arguing that Student, who was previously significantly non-verbal, is now able to be more fully and accurately evaluated due to her emerging speech. The Parent argues that, based on the request for an IEE in October, 2019, and reiterated in the Due Process Hearing Request in November 19, 2019, the DOE was required to either fund such evaluations being sought or initiate its own Due Process Hearing request to defend its own evaluations. The DOE argues that no such evaluation as being sought by Parent had ever occurred, and therefore the DOE is not subject to such requirement to defend such evaluation, and further argues that Parent cannot seek a new neuropsychological evaluation following having obtained one independently the previous year. While it is arguable as to whether the evaluations conducted by the DOE, noted above, constitute a comprehensive evaluation subject to defending, the failure of which would give rise to Parent’s award of such IEE at public expense, as per the holding in D.S. v. Trumbull, the provisions of 8 NYCRR Section 200.5(j)(3)(viii), cited above, nevertheless confers authority on the Impartial Hearing Officer to order such evaluations, as deemed necessary, the cost of which will be at public expense. In the instant case, given Student’s history of being non-verbal with just recent verbal skills having emerged, and given that the DOE’s last comprehensive evaluations of Student were conducted prior to Student’s preschool year, during which time Student was significantly non-verbal, thereby rendering such evaluations largely ineffective, Parent shall be entitled to a neuropsychological and speech evaluation as more fully set forth below.

ORDER

NOW, THEREFORE, IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF FACT, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The Student shall be entitled to compensatory speech/language services in the total amount of 90 hours (69 hours for the 2018/19 school year and 21 hours for the 2019/20 school year), converted to 120 45-minute sessions, to be placed in a “compensatory bank” and utilized for a period of 12 months from the date of this Decision, to be utilized as Parent’s speech provider shall see fit, in the best interests of Student, and to be paid at a rate not to exceed $155.00 per 45- minute session.

2. For any private speech services provided Student during the 2018/19 and 2019/20 school years, Parent shall be entitled to reimbursement, at a rate of either $145.00 for services provided in 2019 or $155.00 for services provided in 2020, upon proof, by affidavit or other means acceptable to the DOE, provided by Parent. For any such private speech services already provided Student during the 2018/19 and 2019/20 school years for which Parent seeks and obtains reimbursement, pursuant to this Order, such services will be deducted from the compensatory award of 90 hours (or 120 45-minute sessions) as being duplicative.

3. The DOE shall conduct, within 20 days of this Order, a speech/language evaluation of Student. In the event that such evaluation is not conducted within the specified time period, the DOE shall issue to Parent an assessment authorization for such evaluation to be conducted by a pathologist of Parent’s choice, the amount of which shall not exceed $950.00. The Parent must cooperate with the DOE in scheduling such evaluation.

4. The DOE shall conduct, within 20 days of this Order, a neuropsychological evaluation of Student by a qualified pediatric neuropsychologist. In the event that such evaluation is not conducted within the specified time period, the DOE shall issue to Parent an assessment authorization for same for such evaluation to be conducted by a qualified pediatric neuropsychologist of Parent’s choice, the amount of which shall not exceed $5, 000.00. The Parent must cooperate with the DOE in scheduling such evaluation.

5. The DOE shall reconvene upon completion of each evaluations noted above to consider the results in the creation of an appropriate educational plan for Student.

6. Parent’s request for compensatory 1:1 tutoring for alleged lost instruction during remote learning due to the Covid-19 pandemic school closures is denied. Nothing contained in this Order, however, shall preclude Parent from filing a subsequent Due Process Hearing request for the 2019/20 school year to address the specific issue of an alleged denial of FAPE directly resulting from a failure to implement Student’s IEP during remote learning following the closing of school due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

7. The DOE shall comply in all respects with this Decision and Order.

Dated: December 7, 2020

_______________________

BRUCE S. OLINGER, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

APPEAL RIGHTS

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 the 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.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

PARENT

A. Impartial Hearing Request with Delivery Confirmation, dated 11/26/19 (7 pages.) B IEE request and fax confirmation, dated 10/15/19 (1 page) C Report on Speech-Language Goals, dated 6/18/20 (2 pages) D Special Education Remote Learning Plan, dated 4/3/20 (2 pages) E. NY State Education Department Complaint with Consent, dated 4/3/20 (2 pages) F. Affidavit of Dr. , dated 7/15/20 (2 pages) G. Affidavit of Dr. , Neuropsychologist, undated (2 pages) H. Affidavit of , Speech-Language Pathologist, undated (3 pages.)

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

1. Consent for Evaluations, dated 3/15/18 (1 page) 2. Home Language Survey, dated 6/4/18 (1 page) 3. CPSE Evaluation - Psychological, dated 6/4/18 (6 pages) 4. CPSE Evaluation – Educational, dated 6/4/18 (6 pages) 5. CPSE Evaluation – Behavioral, dated 6/4/18 (1 page) 6. CPSE Evaluation – Speech Language, dated 6/14/18 (6 pages) 7. CPSE Preschool IEP, dated 7/10/18 (21 pages) 8. Email Correspondence – Parent and Speech provider, dated 12/10/18 (1 page) 9. OT Clinical Guide, dated 1/8/2019 (3 pages) 10. – Education Progress Report, dated 3/8/2019 (2 pages) 11. – Social History Update, dated 3/8/2019 (2 pages) 12. – Classroom Observation, dated 3/12/2019 (2 pages) 13. – Teacher Interview, dated 3/12/2019 (2 pages) 14. Independent/Private Neuro by Dr. , dated 3/20/2019 (7 pages) 15. – Speech Language Progress Report, dated 4/1/2019 (4 pages) 16. Notice of IEP Meeting, dated 4/4/2019 (3 pages) 17. CSE IEP, dated 4/12/2019 (15 pages) 18. – Student Observation Report, dated 4/30/2019 (8 pages) 19. – Student Observation Report, dated 5/16/2019 (4 pages) 20. Email Correspondence; Parent and Speech Provider, dated 5/20/2019 (2 pages) 21. Prior Written Notice, dated 5/22/2019 (3 pages) 22. Notice of IEP Meeting, dated 6/14/2019 (3 pages) 23. School Location Letter, dated 6/17/2019 (5 pages) 24. CSE IEP – ASD , dated 6/25/2019 (15 pages) 25. Prior Written Notice, dated 6/26/2019 (3 pages) 26. School Location Letter, dated 7/24/2019 (6 pages) 27. 2018-2019 Student Attendance, 2018-2019 SY (1 page) 28. 2018-2019 Speech Session Notes, 2018-2019 SY (13 pages) 29. Speech Language Referral/Authorization, dated 9/10/2019 (2 pages) 30. Parent Training and Counseling Invitation, dated 1/9/2019 (1 pages) 31. Remote Learning Plan, dated 3/19/2019 (3 pages) 32. Parent Training and Counseling Invitation – Webinar Series 1, dated 4/8/2019 (1 page) 33. Parent Training and Counseling Invitation – Webinar Series 2, dated 4/23/2019 (1 page) 34. Parent Training and Counseling Invitation – Webinar Series 3, dated 5/7/2019 (1 page) 35. Email Correspondence; Parent’s Attorney and DOE Representative, dated 3/23/2020 (1 page) 36. 2019-2020 School Year Grades Marking Period 1, dated 9/5/2019 –11/1/2019 (3 pages) 37. 2019-2020 School Year Grades Marking Period 2, dated 11/4/2019 –1/30/2020 (3 pages) 38. 2019-2020 School Year Grades Marking Period 3, dated 2/3/2020 –3/27/2020 (3 pages) 39. CSE IEP, dated 6/11/2020 (21 pages) 40. SESIS Events Log re: Remote Learning Plan and Parental Consent, dated 4/3/2020 (1 page) 41 Email Correspondence re: Declining Summer Services; Parent and Speech Provider, dated 7/13/2020 (1 page) 42. SESIS Events Log re: Parent Correspondence Declining Summer Program, dated 7/13/2020 (1 page)

IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER

I. Extension Orders, various dates (5 pages)