NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
MARCH 11, 2022
For the Student:
REDACTED Attorney
For the Department of Education:
REDACTED District Representative
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
SEPTEMBER 28, 2022
For the Student:
REDACTED Attorney
For the Department of Education:
REDACTED Attorney
NAMES AND TITLES OOF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON OCTOBER 7, 2022
For the Student:
REDACTED Attorney
For the Department of Education:
REDACTED Attorney
NAMES AND TITLES WHO APPEAREED ON OCTOBER 21, 2022
For the Student:
REDACTED Attorney
FOR THE DEPARTMEENT OF EDUCATION
REDACTED Attorney
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARE ON JANUARY 11, 2023
For the Student:
REDACTED Attorney
For the Department of Education:
REDACTED Attorney
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
FEBRUARY 15, 2023
For the Student:
REDACTED Attorney
For the Department of Education:
REDACTED Attorney
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
MARCH 6, 2023
REDACTED Attorney
For the Department of Education:
REDACTED Attorney
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
MARCH 22, 2023
For the Student:
REDACTED Attorney
For the Department of Education:
REDACTED Attorney
REDACTED Teacher
REDACTED School Psychologist
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
MARCH 30, 2023
For the Student:
REDACTED Attorney
REDACTED Speech Language Pathologist
REDACTED
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF EDDUCATION
REDACTED Attorney REDACTED School Psychologist REDACTED Special Education Teacher
Teacher Assigned, REDACTED
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL19, 2023
For the Student:
REDACTED Attorney
REDACTED Neuropsychologist
For the Department of Education:
REDACTED Attorney
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
MAY 3, 2023
For the Student:
REDACTED Attorney
REDACTED Clinical director of ABA, REDACTED
For the Department of Education:
REDACTEED Attorney
NAMES AN TITLES OF PERSONS WHHO APPEARED ON MAY 5, 2023
FOR THE STUDENT
REDACTED Attorney REDACTED Parent REDACTED Occupational Therapist
REDACTED Services
FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
REDACTED Attorney
I was appointed to conduct an impartial hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(1), concerning the special education of REDACTED (hereinafter referred to as "Student") for the 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years.
A hearing was held for evaluations and an interim order was issued for a neuropsychological evaluation, occupational therapy evaluation, auditory processing evaluation and ABA skills assessment.
The parties moved to extend the compliance date on many occasions for witness availability, extensive testimony, submission of closing briefs and for time to render the decision after receipt of brief. I weighed the cumulative impact of the relevant factors and found that the need for the extensions was greater than any delay in the resolution in this matter.
Attached is a list of persons who attended the hearing and evidence that was submitted. The record was closed on June 9, 2023.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S CASE
The Department of Education was represented by REDACTED.[1] It is their position that they provided Student with a FAPE for the three years in question. They presented witnesses and submitted evidence as well as a written closing in support of their position. It is their position that Parent's requested relief should be denied in its entirety.
PARENT'S CASE
Parent was represented by their attorney REDACTED.[2] It is their position that Student was denied a FAPE for 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years. They maintain that Student is entitled to compensatory services. They submitted witnesses and evidence as well as a closing brief in support of their position.
BACKGROUND
Student was REDACTED old at the time of the filing of the due process complaint.
Student was diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, anxiety unspecified and ADHD combined type. (Tr. 907) Student is classified with autism.
Student received Early Intervention services. He received ABA, speech and language therapy and occupational therapy. Student had received ten(10) hours a week of SEIT services.
On March 28, 2019 the IEP team convened and created an IEP for Student's REDACTED year. They recommended a 12:1:1 setting with related services of occupational therapy, parent counseling and speech and language therapy for the 2019-2020 school year. (Exhibit 1)
Student had attended REDACTED at REDACTED during the 2019-2020 school year, Student transitioned to remote leaning because of COVID in March 2020. . Parent hired a SEIT during the summer of 2019-2020. (Tr. 930)
On March 24, 2020, the IEP team convened and recommended a 12:1:1 with related services of occupational therapy and speech and language therapy for the 2020-2021 school year. (Exhibit 2)
Student was recommended to attend REDACTED which was remote for the 2020-2021 school year. (Tr. 932)
Parent advised DOE that she was removing Student from public school and sending him to REDACTED .
On September 15, 2020, the IEP team reconvened and created an IESP for the 2020-2021 school year. They continued to recommend occupational and speech language therapy. They added SETSS ten times per week on an individual basis. (Exhibit 3)
Parent removed Student from public setting because he had not been receptive to remote learning. Parent placed him in a general education class in a very small classroom at REDACTED School. (Tr. 934)
Student attended school in person during the 2020-2021 school year.
On July 30, 2021, the IEP meeting was held for the 2021-2022 school year and team recommended a 12:1:1 setting with related services of occupation therapy, parent Counseling and speech and language therapy. (Exhibit 4)
Student continued to attend REDACTED because they had in person learning .
Parent filed a due process complaint for alleged denials of FAPE over the course of three years and requested compensatory services.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The purpose of the IDEA is to ensure that students with disabilities have a free, appropriate public education that emphasizes services designed to meet their unique needs, and prepare them for further education, employment and independent living. 20 USC 1400(d)(l)(A)-(B).
A FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the Department complied with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (f) the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits. (Bd. Of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206, 207 [1982]).
An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP which accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student's needs, establishes annual goals related to those needs, and provides for the use of appropriate special education services. (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-046; The IDEA requires that the CSE include not less than one regular education teacher of such child (if the child is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment) and not less than one special education teacher, or where appropriate not less than one special education provider of such child (20 U.S.C.§ 1414[d][1][B).
Not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate and result in the denial of a FAPE. The procedural error must either 1) impeded the student's right to a free and appropriate public education, 2) significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a free and appropriate education, or 3) caused a deprivation of educational benefits. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); see also Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 210093, at *2 [S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2007]). Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-007.
The appropriate education mandated by the IDEA does not require states to "maximize the potential of handicapped children". Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District, 142 F. 3d 119 (2d Cir. 1998) (citing Rowley), An appropriate public education under IDEA is one that is "likely to produce progress, not regression" Id. (citing Cypress-Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael F. 118 F. 3d 245 248 (3d 245, 248, (3d Cir. 1997).
The burden of proof is on the school district during an impartial hearing, except that parents seeking tuition reimbursement for unilateral placement have the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement. Educ. Law 44049l09c); M.P.G. v. New York City Department of Education (SDNY 2010).
2019-2020 SCHOO YEAR
Bilingual school psychologist provided testimony. She attended the IEP meeting for Student's upcoming REDACTED school year as both the District representative and school psychologist. It was a turning five- meeting. Also in attendance were a special education teacher, general education teacher, parent and social worker.
She had visited Student when he was in REDACTED and spoke with his teacher. She spoke with his providers and reviewed all the records in the system. She reviewed all the evaluations that were done when he was REDACTED years old. She met Student's mother when he was aging out of his REDACTED program. Student went through the evaluation process by the CPSE and they had access to all the reports at the REDACTED meeting. They had speech reports, psychological and social history reports. They had updated progress reports from service providers.
She described how the management needs were created.
On cross-examination she explained that auditory processing evaluations result are very limited for very young children who have problems with attention and concentration. Student was verbal and there was no recommendation from Student's provider for an assistive technology evaluation.
They created goals for all the related services and for the early academic skills.
They recommended a 12:1:1 special class. They provided speech therapy one time a week on an individual basis and two times in a group of three and one session of occupational therapy in a group of two. They provided parent counseling and training.
She was aware of Student's behaviors consisting of tantrums, and even biting children when frustrated. Student already had an FBA and BIP being developed by CPSE. She testified that she spoke with Student's teacher at pre-school who had advised that his behavior was improving. He was not exhibiting severe behavioral problems.
She had observed Student sitting on the lap of his teacher and not participating in the group. They made a recommendation based on what Student would need to make progress within the least restrictive environment. Parent had wanted an ICT class, a less restrictive setting. Witness had explained to Parent that she wanted to recommend a small class to help Student with transition into a larger school setting. She had explained why a self-contained class would be a better option. Parent ultimately agreed with the recommendation.
On cross-examination she reiterated that she discussed the difference between an ICT class and 12:1:1 program. They were all in agreement that a general education setting without supports would not be appropriate.
They recommended a ten-month program. Student would be attending a community school. I find that at the time of the IEP Turning Five meeting there was no reason to recommend a 12- month program.
Parent had requested SEIT services. I find that DOE is not obligated to provide SEIT services to a school age Student. I find no evidence of any discussion about whether Student continued to require support even in the form of SETSS. I find evidence establishes that Student made progress in pre -kindergarten when he was receiving extra support. I find no evidence that he was ready to progress without the extra support. I find that the lack of even a discussion about Student's need for SETSS renders the IEP inappropriate.
I find that the 2019-2020 IEP was inappropriate.
STUDENT'S 2019-2020 SCHOOL YEAR AT RECOMMENDED PROGRAM AND PLACEMENT
It is undisputed that at the time of the IEP meeting, Student was predominately REDACTED speaking. Parent in closing points out that the IEP did not address this issue. DOE's IEP witness explained that Students who speak other languages at home and who are not proficient in English (ENL, English new language) are assessed by ESL (English Second Language) teachers. She described this as a general education service and not an IEP service. She was unaware of any language services that were provided.
Parent explained that it was difficult for Student because he could not properly respond because of his lack of understanding of a lot of the language. He would sit facing with his back towards the classroom and would bite his hands. She opined that it took him a while to warm up to the classroom and benefit from instruction.
Student's teacher during the 2019-2020 school year described the difficulty Student had for s few months. He struggled with English at the beginning of the year. They worked on different accommodations to support him. Student would cry and throw himself on the floor. He would become completely frustrated. After a few months he slowly began using single words. She testified that as Student became more proficient in English, his frustration level went down and he progressed both academically and socially.
It is unclear whose initial responsibility it was to provide language services to Student. Even if the IEP team was not responsible for such decision, once the school year began and it became clear that Student had serious difficulties because of language, there should have been steps taken to explore what services were available to address this issue. It is true that in spite of the difficulties, Student made progress but I find this does not excuse DOE's failure to address his frustration and difficulties for months. I find this in and of itself is a denial of FAPE.
It is undisputed that student was unable to make any progress from remote instruction. DOE's witness DOE's witness described Student's ability to engage in remote learning as "definitely not good" (Tr. 573)
Parent in closing describes Student as having "languished" during the 2019-2020 school year. I find evidence establishes, as discussed above, that Student did make progress in his class setting. His difficulties resulted from COVID and remote-learning.
It is undisputed that Student did not receive any occupational therapy during the 2019-2020. He did receive speech and language therapy until March 2020. I find DOE's failure to implement the related services is a denial of FAPE.
In summary, I find that that the DOE failed to provide Student with a FAPE for the 2019-2020 school year.
2020-2021 School Year
Student's special education teacher during the 2019-2020 school year provided testimony. She attended the IEP meeting on March 24, 2020 as the District representative and special education teacher. They continued to recommend a 12:1:1 placement for a 10- month school year.
She testified that Student had made progress. Parent acknowledged the progress and had wanted Student to be placed in an ICT class, a less restrictive setting.
They had classroom assessments based on skills Student had been learning at the time. She had prior IEPs and explained that most of the information on that IEP was relevant to what she was teaching him at the time. Parent had access to progress reports, and related service reports. There were reports made marking period by the service provider. She had a binder for Student. They created goals based on her assessments and classroom observations. Speech therapist was present at the meeting. She opined that Student did not need an FBA because he was showing progress. They recommended and created goals for speech and language therapy and occupational therapy. They recommended a self-contained classroom setting, 12:1:1 on a ten -month basis.
She testified that Parent agreed with the program. Student had been making progress. She agreed with the class setting and related services.
I find the IEP was appropriate.
SEPTEMBER RECONVENE MEETING TO CHANGE IEP TO IESP
The meeting was held remotely because of COVID. Parent had an advocate present at the meeting. They kept the same related services. The purpose of the meeting to was to change the IEP to an IESP because Parent was placing Student in a private school. They recommended SETSS for ten periods a week on an individual basis.
I find that the IESP was appropriate.
SERVICES DURING THE 2020-2021 SCHOOL YEAR
Student received SETSS services while attending private school during the 2021-2022 school year. Student did not receive occupational therapy or speech and language therapy.
Parent testified that Student did not receive summer services. Student was recommended for a ten-month program. I find Student was not entitled to summer services.
I find that the failure to implement the IESP is a denial of FAPE.
2021-2022 School Year
Witness is a certified special education teacher and works as a teacher assigned to the REDACTED. She attended the IEP meeting as a special education teacher. Parent and Parent advocate were present.
They reviewed the SETSS report and listened to the concerns of Parent and advocate. They created goals.
They recommended a 12:1:1 with related services occupational therapy and parent counseling and training based on provided data. They had considered other programs that they determined were too restrictive.
Evidence establishes that the SETSS report was the main report that they relied on in making recommendations.
On cross-examination Witness acknowledged that the report recommended the continuation of Student's recommended SETSS. Witness could not remember if this was even considered. She could not recall if Student had been receiving individual or group SETSS at the time of the meeting. Witness points out that Parent was placing Student in a private school. I find that his placement in a private school does not remove DOE's obligation to provide SETSS. Witness acknowledged that there was no speech and language therapist at the meeting and there was no progress report. She could not recall if counseling was considered.
I find that the IEP was both procedurally and substantively inappropriate.
SERVICES DURING THE 2021-2022 SCHOOL YEAR
There is no evidence that Student was provided with RSA for any of the recommended services. I find DOE's failure to implement the IEP is a denial of FAPE.
COMPENSATORY SERVICES
Once it has been determined that a student has been denied a FAPE, hearing officers have broad equitable powers to fashion a remedy that is appropriate to address the student's needs, based upon the unique facts of the case. See SRO 08-052, at pp. 17-18; see also Student
X. v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ., 2008 VT 4890440, at *23 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2008) (finding that compensatory education may be awarded to students under the age of twenty-one).
Given the circumstances, the only remaining issue for the hearing officer is the matter or relief. The DOE's burden of proof and persuasion applies to every contested issue in the hearing, including the appropriateness of compensatory relief.
Compensatory education is an equitable remedy that is tailored to meet the unique circumstances of each case. (Wagner v. Canasota, 979 F. Supp. 147 [N.D.N.Y. 1997])
The purpose of compensatory education is not to guarantee a particular result or level of student achievement, but to fashion a remedy that attempts to place a student in the position he or she would have occupied had the district complied with its obligations under the IDEA. However, the Hearing Officer retains substantial discretion as to when equities warrant an award of compensatory services. See Suffield Bd. of Ed v. L.Y., 3:12-CV-1026, 2014 WL 104967, *11 (D. Conn. Jan. 7, 2014) ("(c)ourts have substantial discretion under the IDEA to award appropriate relief").
DOE is not required to "maximize the potential of handicapped children". Walczak v. Florida Union Free School District, 142 F. 3d 119 (2d Cir. 1998) (citing Rowley), An appropriate public education under IDEA is one that is "likely to produce progress, not regression" Id. (citing Cypress-Fairbanks Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Michael F. 118 F. 3d 245 248 (3d 245, 248, (3d Cir. 1997).
With respect to the number of hours a one-to one calculation is not required and most courts seek to ascertain the child's needs at the time the relief is sought. See, e.g., Reid ex rel. Redi V. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516 (C.A>D.C. 2005).
TWELVE MONTH SCHOOL YEAR
All requests for compensatory services are based on a twelve -month school year. Parent witness recommended a 12 -month school year in order to avoid regression. This explanation does not specifically address Student. I find no evidence in the record that Student regressed after any break in services. Parent presented no evidence establishing that after a break, after the summer, or short period of missed school that he lost skills. If Student lost skills after COVID, I find it was because he was not able to successfully access all the online instruction (for which he is entitled to compensatory services) and not because he required an extended school year. It is unknown if Parent unilaterally placed Student in a 12- month school.
I find that that absent any evidence to the contrary, a ten-month school year was appropriate during the years at issue.
NUMBER OF HOURS REQUESTED
Student is a young child. In general, any compensatory services must be balanced with Student's need for socializing, extra -curricular activities and down-time. Parent is requesting 7,590 hours of 1:1 compensatory ABA, 1380 hours of special instruction, 552 hours of BCBA instruction, 138 hours of Parent instruction, Occupational therapy 120 hours, counseling 69 hours and Speech and language for 276 hours. It is beyond excessive and totally incomprehensible to understand how Parent expects Student to attend these services.
I had advised Parent on the record that I would not be recommending a program going forward. This impartial hearing request involved the 1919-1920. 1920-2921, and 2021-2022 school years. There is absolutely no information as to what type of school that Student attended in the 2022-2023 school year. It is not my role as a hearing officer to create a program for a future year that is not in front of me at this hearing. The IEP team consists of people who have expertise in various fields and any persons that Parent may wish to participate. They are in the position and it is their job to create a program that would enable Student to receive educational benefit. The IEP team did not have any of the recommendations that were created during the course of the hearing. They need to have the opportunity to review and consider any recommendations. Any request for changes to an IEP or a new program is denied.
Parent's requests for compensatory services would provide Student with the program that they want going forward. This is not the role of compensatory services. I find that compensatory services should not be provided for an unlimited period of time.
SPEECH AND LANGUAGE THERAPY
Witness is a New York State registered and licensed speech-language pathologist. She conducted a bilingual speech-language evaluation (English and REDACTED) for Student over the course of two and a half hours during one day. (Exhibit N) She described the assessments that she had administered.
Evaluation consisted of both formal and informal testing. She reviewed his prior IEPS and his prior bilingual educational evaluation.
Student had "mildly delayed" language skills. His receptive language skills were moderately delayed and his expressive language skills were average. He had moderate pragmatic language deficits and mild articulation deficits. Student had difficulties making inferences and had poor listening comprehension.
Witness opined that Student's current recommendation is not sufficient. Student had originally been recommended for speech and language once a week for thirty minutes on an individual basis and twice a week in a group. In 2021-2022 sessions were reduced from two group sessions to one group session. I find that there was no explanation as to the reason for the reduced sessions.
Witness recommended 276 hours of compensatory speech and language therapy. Witness recommended that services be provided with either both an English and REDACTED provider or at least a REDACTED interpreter. She explained that Student's REDACTED is decreasing as his English is increasing. The purpose of Speech and Language therapy is to help Student with deficits in that area. Witness acknowledged that Student was better in English than in REDACTED. I find Student would have no problem accessing and making gains in his therapy in English.
I find Student is entitled to some compensatory services for the decrease in services and missed services. I find the number of hours requested in excessive.
OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY
Witness is a New York licensed occupational therapist who conducted an evaluation on Student in August 2022. (Exhibit O) The evaluation consisted of formal and informal assessments as well as interviews with Parent and ABA therapist. She also reviewed prior IEPs.
Witness described the various tests that she conducted. Overall, she described students delays and needs in areas of occupational therapy. These included but were not limited to visual-motor integration, executive functioning skills, attention, transitioning, fine motor skills, and sensory processing.
She recommended 120 hours of compensatory services.
Student did not receive any occupational therapy in 2020-2021 school year or the 2021-2022 school year.
I find Student is entitled to compensatory service but the request number of hours is excessive.
ABA
A licensed psychologist and board-certified neuropsychologist testified. She conducted a neuropsychological evaluation. She recommended a bank of ABA hours for forty (40) hours per week for three years as compensatory services.
The recommendation is based on the premise that Student had required a full time ABA program for the prior three years.
Board Certified Analyst provided testimony in support of Student's need for an ABA program. She conducted an assessment of Student on March 27, 2023 and produced a report. (Exhibit BB)
She describes the tests that she administered. She explained that the results indicated that Student has strong maladaptive behaviors. Witness recommended that Student receive an ABA program and behavior plan which should focus on reducing his maladaptive behaviors.
Parent had been providing Student initially with thirty-five (35) hours a week of ABA through her insurance since the Spring of 2021. She testified that it has recently been reduced to fifteen (15) hours a week. Parent argues that this does not remove DOE's obligation to provide ABA.
Parent chose not to have the ABA therapist testify. It is unknown what Student is doing during his sessions or if he is making any progress from ABA. What is known is that Student continues to display some of the same behaviors that were initially seen during pre-school.
Parent's speech and language evaluator testified that at times during the evaluation in June 2022, Student covered his head, hit his hands with his head, REDACTED.
Parent testified that her primary concern was Student's struggle with his behavior. She spoke with his SEIT from 2021-2022 who advised her that Student has issues with impulsivity and anger.
I find that DOE is not obligated to provide ABA. I find DOE was not obligated to place Student in a full time ABA program.
I find that evidence establishes that even with the ABA services that Student had received, he is still displaying very disturbing behavior. I find evidence establishes that ABA is not the solution for this Student with respect to his issues with behavior and anger. I find no grounds to award any additional ABA.
SEIT SERVICES
Board certified analyst recommended that Student receive 2,070 hours of SEIT services to account for three years of inappropriate services. Her evaluation indicated that most of Student's issues were caused by maladaptive behaviors. It appears that the recommendation is based on the premise that Student should have received 15 hours a week of SEIT services for the past three years. I find no basis for the recommendation. Student was awarded and received 10 hours of SETSS as a result of the September 15.2020 reconvene. It was explained that Student had problems during COVID. I find that this served as compensation for the 2019-2020 school year.
Parent testified that Student had received his services. I do find that Student was entitled to some SETSS during the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school year. I find Student is entitled to 10 hours per week for the ten-month school year. I find student is entitled to 720 hours of SETTS.
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL EVALUATIONS
Witness recommended an FBA and BIP. I find that this recommendation is warranted.
Witness recommended that a mental health professional evaluate Student because of his very disturbing comments during the evaluation. I find it most disturbing that Student continues to display such inappropriate behavior. I am not in a position to determine who would be best to evaluate Student. An FBA and BIP is certainly required but I find that is insufficient to address Student's underlying needs. I am not persuaded that ordinary counseling is sufficient. I find an evaluation by a mental health professional such as a psychiatrist is warranted.
It is unknown what if any evaluations have been conducted since the filing of the due process request. Evaluations were conducted at the beginning of the hearing. I find no grounds to award any other additional evaluations at this time.
In summary, I find that DOE failed to provide a FAPE for the 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years. I find Student does not require a 12-month school year. I find Student is entitled to compensatory services for Speech and Language, Occupational therapy, Counseling and SETSS. I find no grounds to award any compensatory ABA.
SECTION 504 Violations
I find that the record does not support DOE's violation of Section 504. I find no evidence of any type of discrimination based on Student's disability or "illegal conduct".
Any requests not granted in the order have been denied.
ORDER
DOE shall fund a bank of hours for the following compensatory hours to be provided by provider of Parent's choice, at market rate. The hours are valid for three years after the date of this decision.
1) 720 hours of 1:1 special instruction
2) 70 hours of Occupational Therapy
3) 100 hours of Speech and Language Therapy
4) 50 hours of Counseling DOE shall fund the cost of an independent FBA AND BIP at market rate.
DOE shall fund the cost of an evaluation conducted by a mental health professional chosen by Parent. Parent shall share evaluation and CSE shall reconvene within two weeks after receipt of said evaluation to consider any recommendations.
Sharyn Finkelstein June 17, 2023
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE
Within 40 days of receipt of this decision, the parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to appeal the decision to the State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
"The notice of intention to seek review shall be served upon the school district not less than 10 days before service of a copy of the petition for review upon such school district, and with 25 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. The petition for review shall be served upon the school district within 35 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. If the decision has been served by mail upon petitioner, the date of mailing and the four days subsequent thereto shall be excluded in computing the 25- or 35-day period." (8NYCRR279.2 [b]) Failure to file the notice of intention to seek review is a waiver of the right to appeal this decision.
EVIDENCE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD
PARENT
A Impartial hearing request with cover sheet
And email 9/13/22 15
B Pendency agreement 10/21/21 3
C. Request for record sent via fax 9/7/21 (6 pages)
D. Bilingual psychological evaluation 4/9/17 (6 pages)
E Records from REDACTED 2/27/28 5
F Functional behavior assessment 11/13/18 10
G. Classroom observation 3/6/19 (1 page)
H consent for additional assessments 1/3/19 1
I. Parent letter requesting IEP reconvene 6/28/21 (2 pages)
J. REDACTED SEIT report Undated (4 pages)
K Service record 9/2019-6/2020 8
L. School student summer evaluation report various in 2017 (33 pages)
M Event log 10/2018-12/20/21 13
N REDACTED Speech Services/ speech
Language diagnostic evaluation 6/20/22 31
O REDACTED Speech Services Occupational
Therapy evaluation 8/17/22 13
P. Email to parent regarding RSAs for pendency 1/7/22 (2 pages)
Q Related service authorization forms 1/7/22 18
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION [3]
1. IEP 3/28/19 (22 pages; DOE)
2. IEP 3/24/20 (25 pages; DOE)
3 IESP 9/15/20 16
4 IEP 7/30
5. Prior written notice 4/15/19 (7 pages; DOE)
6. Prior written notice 5/21/19 (9 pages; DOE)
7. Prior written notice 3/31/20 (4 pages; DOE)
8. Prior written notice 9/15/20 (6 pages; DOE)
9. Prior written notice 8/18/21 (11 pages; DOE)
10. SETSS progress report 6/14/21 (4 pages; DOE)
IHO EVIDENCE
I. DOE closing Brief 6/2/2023 15 pages
PARENT
II. Closing Brief 6/2/2023 31 pages
Footnotes
[1] Other persons appeared on initial hearing dates. Ms. REDACTED appeared at the hearing dates which included DOE witnesses and Parent witnesses.
[2] Ms. REDACTEED appeared at the initial hearing dates which covered request for evaluations, evidence and openings. REDACTEED appeared for the majority of the hearing which included DOE witnesses as well as Parent witnesses.
[3] On February 15, 2023 Ms. REDACTED appeared for the DOE and submitted evidence. After learning that a different representative had already entered evidence she later withdrew her evidence.