New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT, DECISION AND ORDER

Case Number: REDACTED

Student’s Name: REDACTED

(hereinafter known as “Student”)

Student’s Date of Birth: REDACTED

Complaint Filed by: REDACTED,

(hereinafter known as “Parent”)

Date Complaint Filed: 7/1/21

District: REDACTED

Dates of Appearances: 1/24/22, 2/28/22, 3/11/22, 4/19/22, 4/26/22, 5/26/22, 6/2/22

Impartial Hearing Officer: Barbara Jeanne Caravello, Esq.

Date Record Closed: 11/1/22

Finding of Fact, Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order

________________________________________________

NAMES AND TITLES OF THE PERSONS WHO APPEARED:

On January 24, 2022

Appearing for the Parent: REDACTED

Appearing for the District: REDACTED

On 2/28/2022

Appearing for the Parent: REDACTED

Appearing for the District: REDACTED

On 3/11/2022

Appearing for the Parent: REDACTED

Appearing for the District: REDACTED

On 4/19/2022

Appearing for the Parent: REDACTED

Appearing for the District: REDACTED

On 4/26/2022

Appearing for the Parent: REDACTED

Appearing for the District: REDACTED

On 5/26/2022

Appearing for the Parent: REDACTED

Appearing for the District: REDACTED

On 6/2/2022

Appearing for the Parent: REDACTED

Appearing for the District: REDACTED

STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF NEW YORK

_______________________________________________X In the Matter of a Complaint Pursuant to Part 200 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education Regarding,

STUDENT^[1], a minor, by and through his/her Parent(s), HEARING OFFICER

FINDING OF FACT,

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, DECISION AND ORDER

-against-

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

________________________________________________X

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On December 16, 2021, the undersigned impartial hearing officer was assigned to this matter pursuant to appointment by the New York City Department of Education (hereinafter also referred to as the “DOE” or the “District”) under the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (hereinafter also referred to as “IDEA”), 20 United States Code §1415(f)(1) to officiate over a due process hearing requested by the Parent by way of a due process complaint (hereinafter also referred to as a “DPC”) filed against the DOE.

In the due process complaint, the Parent sought various forms of relief, which included but was not limited to an order for an appropriate program for the Student and compensatory relief.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The DPC was filed by the Parent on July 1, 2021. Appearances took place on January 24, 2022, February 28, 2022, March 11, 2022, April 19, 2022, April 26, 2022, May 26, 2022, May 27, 2022, June 2, 2022. A closing brief was submitted by the Parent’s counsel. The District did not submit a closing argument.

IHO’s Findings of Fact and Decision

______________________________

Extensions were requested and granted on or around each court date to keep the matter in compliance, the parties positing and the IHO determining that the extensions would not harm the Student or either party.

ISSUES PRESENTED

• • Did the DOE meet its burden to show that it provided a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) under the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 for the school years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022?
• • Should the DOE compensate the Student for services missed due to the denial of FAPE by the DOE?
• • Is declaratory relief as to the Student’s program appropriate?

DISTRICT’S CASE The District conceded violation of the free and appropriate education (“FAPE”), Tr. 85. The District did not present any evidence or witness testimony either in person or by affidavit.

PARENT’S CASE The Parents filed a due process complaint alleges that the DOE violated the IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (“Section 504) and Article 89 of the New York Education Law, specifically N.Y. Education Law §4401, et seq.

The Parents allege that the DOE denied the Student a FAPE, violating the agency’s responsibility under the federal, state and local requirements.

______________________________ The Parent’s seek declaratory judgments including that a FAPE was denied the Student, that the Student was subjected to discrimination based on his disability, that Section 504 was violated. The Parent’s also seek a declaratory judgment as to the appropriate program for the 2021-2022 school year, and the proper duration of the Student’s school year. The Parents wish an order granting the Student the appropriate assistive technology, and the translation of all IEP meeting documents, report cards and progress reports into the Mandarin language. The Parents ask for compensatory relief due to the denial of FAPE, designed to make-up for the Student’s lack of appropriate education along with any and all other relief that the IHO finds reasonable and appropriate.

Parent’s documentary evidence:

The Parent submitted exhibits A through K, (See attached list).

Parent’s witness:

Parent submitted the testimony in affidavit form of Dr. REDACTED, Ph. D., the Director of the REDACTED, the program from which the Parents have engaged Applied Behavior Analysis (“ABA”) instructors to work with the Student.

Testimony of Dr. REDACTED:

Dr. REDACTED holds a Master’s Degree in forensic psychology from REDACTED. He also holds an Advanced Graduate Certificate in Applied Behavior Analysis (“ABA”) from REDACTED and a Master’s Degree in Early Childhood General and Special Education, birth to grade 2 from REDACTED.

______________________________

Tr. 96-97. For 2.5 years, Dr. REDACTED was a doctoral student at the Learning Processes and Behavioral Analysis PhD program at the REDACTED Graduate Center, then received his PhD from REDACTED University in Clinical Psychology. Tr. 97. The witness is a board-certified behavior analyst (“BCBA”) and a NYS licensed behavior analyst (“LBA”) in 2013. Id.

The witness is the owner of a private autism treatment company in New York City called REDACTED Services, Inc.(“REDACTED”). Tr.98. REDACTED is an agency that conducts evaluations and assessments and treats children with autism and other severe developmental disabilities through behavioral interventions such as ABA.

Dr. REDACTED first met the Student in 2017 and has worked with him since 2018, when he was approved for 8 hours of SETSS services through the DOE. Tr. 102. From the outset, the Student had marked delays in pragmatic communication, lots of echolalia and impaired joint attention, Tr. 104. He shrieked, covered his ears, cried and eloped. Id. The Student struggled with following a schedule and with inferential thought and social emotional issues regarding friendship formation and playing games with rules. Id.

The witness testified that he began providing additional services once the services for the Student were increased, by a prior hearing officer, Tr. 109-110. Once the additional services started, REDACTED “pushed-in” 20 hours per week of services to school. Tr. 110. This allowed additional focus on academic goals, ensuring that the Student maintained participation in the instructional lessons, maintained communication with the classroom teacher and was able to keep up with note-taking and homework, Tr. 111-112.

______________________________

When the schools moved to remote learning during Covid-19, The Student’s provider worked with him with his remote learning by being present during each of the sessions, teaching how to log on and off and assist in engaging the Student with remote learning. Tr. 113-114.

REDACTED also provided the home-based ABA hours and life skills training hours. Tr.

118. The life skills hours focused on self-care using stimuli in the household personal care, self-care in the form of personal hygiene, using money, navigating into the environment, safety skills and community inclusion, travel training, food preparation, and budgeting of money. Tr. 118.

With the 1:1 ABA hours, the Student is participating in socialization groups, academics, community inclusion, homework, and class projects. Tr. 119. During remote learning, home-based ABA and life skills training hours were used with the Parents and with activities of daily living. Tr. 119.

The transition hours focused on group meetings and working with different community groups to building pre-vocational and vocational skills. Tr. 120.

During the 2020-2021 school year, the Student attended school in person. Tr. 122. He is continuing to receive school-based 1:1 ABA hours where he is working on the continuation of academics. There is a discrepancy between the testimony of the witness and the Parent regarding the exact start date of additional services. See Tr. 109 and Ex, K-5. The Parents seek an accounting from the DOE of the services it funded and as set forth above to provide a bank of compensatory services for hours not provided during the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years, bringing him up to age-level regarding the use of money and pragmatic use of money, budgeting, earning, and planning for use of money. Tr. 123.

______________________________

Other pragmatic skills include taking public transportation such as cabs and subways. The Student is learning to regulate his behavior during travel on public transportation, Tr. 127. The Student is learning, with the assistance of his ABA therapist, to follow train and bus schedules, Tr 130. His instruction also includes communication skills using text and email, Tr. 128.

The Student volunteers at several offices doing computer work, grounds keeping work, and custodial work. Id. He is learning to shred paper, water flowers, feed the fish tank, check expiration date, and sort mail. Tr. 129. He is also able to vacuum and use vinegar to clean doorknobs. Tr. 129. The Student is also learning to use Illustrator and Photoshop to learn how to draw and create different images; a skillset that could bring him future income. Tr. 130.

The Student continues developing skills in reading, writing and comprehension goals such as inferential thought, making predictions, and high level abstract tasks. Tr. 123-124.

Dr. REDACTED recommends the continuation of his current mandate as ordered pursuant to case number 181451 and currently mandated under pendency. Tr. 134. He explained that services at his current level only just started a few years ago [after July 10, 2020] and more time is needed to transition to adulthood. Tr. 133-134.

The witness has had success with other students who are eventually able to maintain income-producing employment and believes this Student can do the same, Tr. 135.

The program has submitted progress reports which attest to the growth that REDACTED has provided to the Student, Ex. P-G and P-H.

______________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT,

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISCUSSION

At the time of the Amended DPC filing, the Student was REDACTED-years-old. The Student was diagnosed with REDACTED during his evaluations for Early Intervention, Tr. P-K.

Through Early Intervention, The Student received ABA, physical therapy (“PT”), occupational therapy (“OT”), and speech therapy (“SLT”). Id. He then attended REDACTED for preschool, and continued to receive ABA, OT, PT, and SLT there. Since kindergarten, the Student has been in a District 75 DOE program.

The Student is currently REDACTED years old. Ex. K-1 and is a chronological twelfth grader in a District 75 program at REDACTED at REDACTED High School (“PREDACTED”). Ex. K-2. It is an ungraded program.

The Student enrolled at REDACTED at REDACTED High School in September 2018. His skills are average or above in some areas although the REDACTED diagnosis creates delays in some areas of functioning. He can play classical songs on the piano from memory, can do math calculations, and is very good with computers. Id. He is also a talented artist and in fifth grade, placed second in the District 75 spelling bee.

An important area of weakness is the difficulty the Student experiences with respect to transitions or breaks in routine. The Student does not like movies to end and will turn off the television when anticipating an ending. If a phone is not answered when ringing, the Student becomes agitated. If a radio program that he is interested ends, the Student engages in tantrums.

______________________________

Maladaptive behaviors such as these often deprive the Student from important learning opportunities.

The Student has been attending a community school and, since about early 2017, has been receiving full-time one-to-one (“1:1”) instruction using the principles of Applied Behavior Analysis which is to be utilized at school as well as at home, (see Exhibit P, Par. 19). The DOE does not, on its own, offer ABA and other services to the Student. Instead, the 1:1 instruction has been awarded annually, after reinstatement of both ABA instruction and other services as a result of annual due process hearings, filed for by the Parent.

• • Issue I: The DOE did not meet its burden to show that it provided a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) under the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 for the school year 2020-2021 and 2021-2022.

The IDEA was legislated in order to “ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them, a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs,” Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179-91 (1982). To determine these needs, it is necessary for the IEP developed by a procedurally proper meeting of the CSE to be reasonably calculated to enable a student to receive educational benefits, id.

It is the responsibility of the DOE to provide the Student with the services and/or placement that will bring him up to a level of learning that is not only sufficient to confer some educational benefit upon the ‘handicapped’ child, Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176,

______________________________

179-91 (1982), but emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet the Student’s needs and prepare him for further education, employment and independent living as well as ensure that the rights of students with disabilities and parents of such students are protected, (20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]-[B]; see generally, Forest Grove v. T.A., 129 S.Ct. 2484, 2491 [2009]; Rowley, at 206-07.

A student’s IEP must be evaluated based on the child’s ability to make appropriate progress and be appropriately ambitions in light of the child’s unique circumstances, Endrew F. v. Douglas Counry School District, 580 U.S., (2017). The progress contemplated by the IEP “must be appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances,” be more than de minimus and include academic and functional progress, Id.

It is clear that ABA services are necessary for this Student to function independently and to learn to be a contributing member of Society. The Student has the capacity to continue to decrease his disruptive and non-productive behaviors and develop his academic and vocational skills. This has been accomplished with the assistance of his ABA and BCBA providers.

Additionally, the DOE agreed that the Student’s pendency was found in an un-appealed Findings of Fact and Decision, dated July 20 2020, which ordered ABA, Ex. P-B.

Significant progress has been made academically, since the principles of ABA have been utilized at home and at school. The Student has been afforded significant training in life and vocational skills by the ABA instructor under the supervision of a BCBA. I find that these educational experiences are essential for the Student to achieve an acceptable level of independence going forward.

______________________________ The United States Department of Education (“DOE”) issued a follow-up guidance to Endrew F, which underscore the fact that each IEP must be individualized.

The Student’s IEP’s did not contain results of recent evaluations, accurately identifying the Student’s unique needs. The failure of the DOE to properly investigate and identify the Student’s educational needs is a denial of FAPE, 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(a)(1); 8 NYCRR § 200.4(d)(2)(i); Tarlowe v. Dep’t of Educ., 2008 WL 2736027, at *6 (SDNY, July 3, 200*) and a violation of Section 504. The DOE was required to ensure that comprehensive evaluations were administered by a multidisciplinary team (including a specialist in the area of the Student’s disability) and reviewed in order to assess the Student’s unique educational needs. The DOE did not live up to its requirement to assess the Student “in all areas of suspected disability” using “a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information,” 20 USC 1414(d); 34 CFR 300.304; 8 NYCRR 200.4(b)(6). As the DOE conceded a denial of FAPE, this analysis is not necessary but included to support the reasoning that follows.

Every student, determined to have a “handicapping condition” shall be offered an opportunity to receive the benefits of an appropriate public education^[2] N.Y. Educ. Law §3204, 4-a. The IDEA actually favors the inclusion of a disabled Student with his or her non-disabled peers, to the maximum extent possible, 34 CFR 300.114. This Student is able to attend a special education classroom in a community school but I find that this will continue to succeed only with the assistance of individually delivered ABA and BCBA.

______________________________

A local educational agency (“LEA”) may be required to reimburse parents where it does not meet its burden to provide a free and appropriate public education and the only burden borne by the parent is in the case of unilateral placement, where it must be proven that the placement is appropriate, N.Y. Educ. Law §4404(1)(c). The denial of FAPE was not only conceded but proven by the Parent. The remedy requested is compensatory education, which I find to be appropriate. The Student missed services from July 1, 2020 and July 10, 2021 when the pendency program was determined by an FOFD submitted on July 10, 2021.

Issue II: The Student is entitled to be compensated for the DOE’s denial of FAPE

Compensatory education is defined as educational services above and beyond that normally due to a student under his state’s education law. The purpose is to place the student in the position that the student would be in had the district provided the appropriate services in the first place, Reid v. Dist. Of Columbia, 43 IEDLR 32 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

Compensatory education may be awarded to a student who remains eligible for special education services if he or she was denied a FAPE. 20 U.S.C.§§ 1401(3)l 1412(a)(1)(B); P v. Newington, 546 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir. 2008), (stating that the “IDEA allows a hearing officer to fashion an appropriate remedy” and that “compensatory education is an available option under the Act to make up for a denial of a FAPE”), Student v. New York City Dep’t Of Educ., 2008 WL 4890440, at *23 (E.D.N.Y., 1/30/2008); Streck v. Board of Educ. of the East Greenbush Central School Dist., 408 Fed Appx 411 (2d Cir. 2010); Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 17-015. Doe v. East Lyme Bd. of Educ., 790 F.3d 440; P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ.,546 F.3d 111, 122 (2d Cir.2008); Reid ex rel. Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516.

______________________________

Further, students denied pendency are entitled to make-up services. Doe v. East Lyme, supra; Student X. v. New York City Dept of Educ., 2008 WL 4890440 (E.D.N.Y. October 30, 2008). See also Application of the Dept of Educ., Appeal No. 12-135; Application of the Dept of Educ., Appeal No. 11-132; SRO No. 19-093.

This Student has been receiving the needed ABA services, but they do not derive from the Student’s IEP recommendation as I find they should. The services the Student receives are from ongoing pendency awards. These awards carry over as the Student’s pendency in the 2021-2022 school year but I will find below that an award of ABA is in fact, necessary for a free and appropriate education for this Student.

Beginning in September of 2020, the Student received 20 hours of ABA during school hours, 10 hours of ABA after school,10 hours of life skills training and 6 hours of transition planning. The Parents received 2 hours per week of parent training, Exs. P-B 1-2, P-C. It was the ABA provider who achieved success with the Student’s participation in class. The skills needed for classroom instruction were taught individually in the classroom and reinforced at home. This is an ongoing process and the Student needs to continue to overcome the self-regulation that will allow him to respect the space of others.

Twice, his accidental touching of strangers on the subway came close to causing physical retaliation. The Student could not communicate that he was not intending to assault or interfere with others. For his safety, the Student is no longer allowed the independence of traveling via public transportation, though he was formerly deemed capable of doing so. The loss of this independence is upsetting to the Student who attempts to elope from the school grounds to take a public bus rather than the school bus. Because his ABA therapist was only

______________________________ mandated for 20 hours, and not present at dismissal, the Student had to be forcibly restrained from leaving the premises, Id. These hours must be increased, as it is the ABA therapist who is able to keep the Student from eloping from class and is able to successfully remind the Student to avoid triggers and keep his behavior regulated when frustrated, Id.

Of course, the student must receive meaningful benefit from general education services, Quabbin Reg’l Sch. Dist., 119 LRP 12616). I find that the Parent has shown that the benefit attained by the services requested have substantially improved the Student’s academic progress in a meaningful way. I take a negative inference from the DOE’s decision to decline a defense of the allegation of FAPE denial with any more than “de minimis progress” by omitting the 1:1 ABA and other services. This failure fell short of the standard set by Endrew F. Douglas County Sch. Dist., 137 S. Ct. 988, 999 (2017), which posited that an IEP must be “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.”

Compensatory education is a remedy grounded in equity without any statutory formula for calculating an award. The Second Circuit has approved the individualized approach adopted by the Reid v. District of Columbia, which found that compensatory education should serve as a “surrogate for the education that a student should have received” during periods of FAPE denial.

See Doe v. East Lyme Bd. of Educ., 790 F.3d 440 (citing Reid, 401 F.3d 516). However, the Second Circuit also found that where there is a violation of pendency, the compensatory services should be equal to the services that were lost, although they can be tailored to the student’s needs at the time the award is developed. Id. See also, Melvin By and Through Martell v. Town of

Bolton School Dist., 100 F.3d 944 (2nd Cir. 1996) (it would be a “rare situation” where

______________________________ compensatory education would not be warranted and while the IDEA does not compel a day-for-day or an hour-for-hour compensation for time missed, that type of relief is appropriate absent any evidence that it is “over-compensatory.”)

A compensatory award should aim to place the student in the position he or she would have been in “but for the violation of” the IDEA. Draper v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 518 F.3d 1275, 1289 (11th Cir. 2008). The award must be “reasonably calculated to provide the educational benefits that likely would have accrued from special education services the school district should have supplied in the first place.” Reid, 401 F.3d at 524 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

The SRO has held that when the DOE does not offer an alternative award, the DOE cannot simply fault the Parents’ request and, in general, has upheld such awards requested by the Parents. See, e.g., Application of a Student with a Disability, No. 11-091; Application of a School District, No. 14-014.

It is undisputed that the DOE did not offer this Student a FAPE for the SYs at Issue. DOE did not present any testimony or witnesses demonstrating an appropriate award for the deprivation of FAPE as alleged. I agree with the Parent that virtually all of the Parents evidence and witness testimony is unrebutted both as it pertains to FAPE and remedy.

The IHO has broad authority in crafting an appropriate equitable remedy, Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369 (1985), (recognizing that the IDEA “confers broad discretion on the court” in granting appropriate relief, 20 U.S.C. 1415 (i) (2)(C) (iii).

In fashioning compensatory relief, “the inquiry must be fact-specific and the award must be “reasonably calculated to provide the educational benefits that likely would have accrued

______________________________ from special education services that the school district should have supplied in the first place,” Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, 401 F. 3d 516, 524 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

The Parent requests “make-up” hours for the period between July 1, 2020 and July 10 2021. The Parent also seeks an award of any additional hours that were not provided under pendency. The pendency program was based on an award of an FOFD for case number 181451 but was not implemented due to the fact that the FOFD was not submitted until July ł0, 2021.

This Student is designated to receive a twelve-month program. The time missed consists of 46 weeks. The Parents should have the discretion to use this time during or after school and on holidays, at their discretion due to the need of the Student to have the consistency of the ABA program during holidays and on weekends. Some of the time should be in the school setting as well and as the Student has a history of attempting to elope at dismissal, it is important to have an ABA instructor to assist him at this time of day.

Issue III: Declaratory relief as to the Student’s ongoing program is appropriate.

The districts are charged with the development of “appropriately ambitious” programs for students with disabilities, Endrew F. V. Douglas County School District RE-1, 69 IDELR 174 (2017).

The means of determining which services meet the child’s needs and are necessary to permit the benefit of instruction for the child is the Individualized Education Program, (hereinafter also referred to as “IEP”). An IEP or an IESP is considered to be appropriate if it a) accurately reflects the student’s level of performance, b) provides for the use of appropriate special education services to address the child’s special education needs,

______________________________ c) establishes annual goals which are related to the child’s educational deficits d) identifies transition services e) provides a start and end date to the recommended program and services and f) utilizes appropriate criteria and evaluation procedures for the measurement of goals, Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dt., 142 F. 3rd 119 (2nd Cir. 1998).

For a child with a designation of autism to be denied, these extremely important related services mandated in his IEP, seems unconscionable and an impermissible blanket policy. The IEP team must not ignore the findings of this and previous due process decisions.

I agree with the Parent that the Second Circuit has found that an IEP team must consider whether a child requires ABA on an IEP and that an IEP must contain methodology where a child requires it. A.M. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 845 F.3d 523, 545 (2d Cir. 2017); R.E. v. N.Y.C. Dept’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 194 (2d Cir. 2012).

The IDEA defines special education services to be those that include “instruction provided in the home,” as well as in school, 20 U.S.C. §1401(29). Further, the IDEA requires the district to at least consider after-school and extended school day services. 34 C.F.R §§ 300.106, 107, 117. By adopting a blanket policy that does not offer ABA or home-based extended-day services, the DOE has made it a policy to ignore the mandates of IDEA. I do agree with the Parent that remanding the decision to consider ABA and/or home-based services will be an ineffective decision, given the DOE’s position that it will not offer these services, Ex.,P-V and that declaratory relief, describing the program of FAPE that the Student is entitled to be made.

______________________________

DECISION AND ORDER:

Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and all evidence before the IHO and the many sound arguments of counsel, it is hereby ordered that:

• • The DOE failed to provide the Student with a FAPE for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school year and therefore violated the IDEA and Section 504 of the N.Y.S. Education Law.
• • The undersigned finds that DOE subjected the Student to discrimination based on his disability;
• • The District violated Section 504;
• • The District shall fund the following compensatory education hours at reasonable market rates in a bank of hours with no expiration date:
• • 25 hours per week of individually delivered (“1:1”) Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) by a Licensed Behavior Analyst, (“LBA”) and/or Board-Certified Behavior Analyst, (“BCBA”) of the Parent’s choosing at the market rate, to be used in school or after school at the Parent’s discretion, (except that at least 3 hours per day shall be in the classroom setting and at least 1 of those hours each school day shall be used just prior to dismissal and until the Student is on the bus)
• • 10 hours per week of individually delivered (“1:1”) in-home or in-community ABA by an ABA therapist under the regular supervision of an LBA or BCBA of the Parent’s choosing at the market rate;

______________________________

• • 10 hours per week of Life Skills Training by ABA therapist under the regular supervision of an LBA or BCBA of the Parent’s choosing at the market rate;
• • 6 hours per month of Transition Coordination;
• • Occupational Therapy: 3 hours per week of individual service and 1.5 hours per week in a group no greater than 2;
• • Speech/Language Therapy: 2.5 hours per week of individual service;
• • 12 month school year including all services;
• • The Student is to be provided with Assistive Technology, including an iPad Mini and a Google Pixel (with hardware as referenced in the AT evaluation;
• • The District must provide translation of all IEP’s, notes to IEP meetings, report cards and progress reports into the Mandarin language.
• • A free and appropriate public education for this Student would have consisted of all of the services listed in paragraph 4.
• • The district must immediately upon receipt, enter this order on a system that is used to keep track of such orders.

SO ORDERED:

Dated: November 9, 2022

______________________________________

Barbara J. Caravello, Impartial Hearing Officer

ATTACHMENT A

______________________________

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.

Footnotes

[1] Personally, identifiable information is attached as a cover sheet to this decision and must be removed prior to public distribution.

[2] As prescribed in article eighty-nine of chapter 3204 of the NY Educ. Law.