Skip to main content
Special Education Law
DECISIONParent PrevailedIHO Case No. 561991

New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

April 17, 2022·Bruce S. Olinger·New York City Department of Education

NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.

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 dated September 16, 2021 by Parent (Parent Ex. A). The nature of the complaint to be addressed in this decision is the Parent’s claim that the DOE failed to provide Student with a FAPE for the 2019/20, 2020/21 and 2021/22 school years. Parent seeks, as compensatory relief, 1200 hours ABA instruction with 240 hours of BCBA supervision, 120 hours of Parent Counseling and Training, 138 hours of Occupational Therapy, 46 hours of Assistive Technology for Student and 46 hours of Assistive Technology Training for Parent, 92 hours of Transitional/Vocational training, and 207 hours of Speech/language therapy. Additionally, Parent seeks a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) and Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) to be conducted by a Board-Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA) and a REDACTED Evaluation due to Student’s diagnosis of REDACTED. Finally, Parent seeks, as programmatic relief, Student’s placement for the remainder of the 2021/22 school year to be deferred to the Central Based Support Team (CBST) to locate and identify an appropriate, small class size non-public school.

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

The hearing record was closed effective April 14, 2022.

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

During the 2019/20, 2002/21 and 2021/22 school years, Student was placed in an ICT class setting with related services, and assigned a DOE classification of Speech or Language Impairment. Parent alleges that such placement failed to address Student’s educational needs, resulting in a denial of FAPE for each such school year, and now seeks the compensatory instruction and programmatic relief noted above to make Student whole. The DOE does not dispute Parent’s claim of a denial of FAPE for the three school years at issue, does not dispute Parent’s claim for relief, and presented no evidence, either documentary or by witness testimony, to defend its placement recommendations for Student for such three school years at issue.

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 WL 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).

§ 300.115 Continuum of alternative placements.

(a) Each public agency must ensure that a continuum of alternative placements is available to meet the needs of children with disabilities for special education and related services.

(b) The continuum required in paragraph (a) of this section must

(1) Include the alternative placements listed in the definition of special education under § 300.38 (instruction in regular classes, special classes, special schools, home instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions); and

(2) Make provision for supplementary services (such as resource room or itinerant instruction) to be provided in conjunction with regular class placement.

Pursuant to the Decision in L.O. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 822 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2016),"[m]ultiple procedural violations may cumulatively result in the denial of a FAPE even if the violations considered individually do not." R.E., 694 F.3d at 190.

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])

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 reasonably 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 automatically 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.

Under New York State law, parents of a New York State resident student with a disability who is placed in a nonpublic school and who seeks to obtain educational “services” for his or her child may file a request for such services in the district of location where the nonpublic school is located on or before the first day of June preceding the school year for which the request for services is made (Educ. Law §3602-c [2]). Such “services” include “education for students with disabilities”, which means “special educational programs designed to serve persons who meet the definition of children with disabilities set forth in Education Law §4401(1); Education Law §3602-c[1][a], [d]. “Boards of education of all school districts of the state shall furnish services to students who are residents of this state and who attend nonpublic schools located in such school districts, upon the written request of the parent” (Education Law §3602-c[2][a]. In such circumstances, the district of the location’s CSE must review the request for services and “develop an [IESP] for the student based on the student’s individual needs in the same manner and with the same contents as an [IEP]” (Education Law §3602-c[2][b][1]. The CSE must “assure that special education programs and services are made available to students with disabilities attending nonpublic schools located within the school district on an equitable basis, as compared to special education programs and services provided to other students with disabilities attending public or nonpublic schools located within the school district”. Additionally, unlike the provisions of the IDEA, section 3602-c provides that a parent may seeks review of the recommendations of the CSE pursuant to the impartial hearing and State-level review provisions of Education Law § 4404. See Application of the Board of Educ., Appeal No. 18-088.

8 NYCRR 200.4(e)(3) provides in part:

The school district shall ensure that the recommendations on a student’s IEP, including changes to the IEP made pursuant to subdivision (g) of this section, are implemented, including but not limited to:

(i) ensuring that each regular education teacher, special education teacher, related service provider, and/or other service provider, as defined in section 200.2(b)(11)(i)(a) of this Part, who is responsible for the implementation of a student’s IEP, is provided a paper or electronic copy of the IEP prior to the implementation of such IEP or shall be able to access such student’s IEP electronically. If the board of education or board of trustees adopts a policy that the student's IEP is to be accessed electronically, then such policy shall also ensure that the individuals responsible for the implementation of a student's IEP shall be notified and trained on how to access such IEPs electronically; (iii) ensuring that each regular education teacher, special education teacher, related service provider, other service provider, supplementary school personnel as defined in section 200.1(hh) of this Part, and other provider and support staff person has been informed, prior to the implementation of the IEP, of his or her responsibility to implement the recommendations on the student's IEP, including the responsibility to provide specific accommodations, program modifications, supports and/or services for the student in accordance with the IEP;

As provided in 8 NYCRR 200.6(e):

Related services shall be recommended by the committee on special education to meet specific needs of a student with a disability as set forth in the individualized education program (IEP).

(1) The frequency, duration and location of each such service shall be in the IEP, based on the individual student's need for the service.

(2) For students with disabilities determined to need speech and language services, the total caseload of such students for teachers providing such services shall not exceed 65.

(3) When a related service is provided to a number of students at the same time, the number of students in the group shall not exceed five students per teacher or specialist except that, in the city school district of the city of New York, the commissioner shall allow a variance of up to 50 percent rounded up to the nearest whole number from the maximum of five students per teacher or specialist.

(4) A student with a disability may be provided with more than one such service in accordance with the need of the student.

(5) Related services may be provided in conjunction with a regular education program or with other special education programs and services.

200.6 Continuum of services.

(a) A student with a disability shall be provided with appropriate special education.

(1) Students with disabilities shall be provided special education in the least restrictive environment, as defined in section 200.1(cc) of this Part. To enable students with disabilities to be educated with nondisabled students to the maximum extent appropriate, specially designed instruction and supplementary services may be provided in the regular class, including, as appropriate, providing related services, resource room programs and special class programs within the general education classroom.

(2) A student with a disability shall be provided the special education specified on the student’s IEP to be necessary to meet the student's unique needs.

(3) Students with disabilities placed together for purposes of special education shall be grouped by similarity of individual needs as defined in section 200.1(ww) of this Part, in accordance with the following:

(i) The range of academic or educational achievement of such students shall be limited to assure that instruction provides each student appropriate opportunities to achieve his or her annual goals. The learning characteristics of students in the group shall be sufficiently similar to assure that this range of academic or educational achievement is at least maintained.

(ii) The social development of each student shall be considered prior to placement in any instructional group to assure that the social interaction within the group is beneficial to each student, contributes to each student's social growth and maturity, and does not consistently interfere with the instruction being provided. The social needs of a student shall not be the sole determinant of such placement.

(iii) The levels of physical development of such students may vary, provided that each student is provided appropriate opportunities to benefit from such instruction. Physical needs shall be considered prior to determining placement to assure access to appropriate programs. The physical needs of the student shall not be the sole basis for determining placement.

(iv) The management needs of such students may vary, provided that environmental modifications, adaptations, or, human or material resources required to meet the needs of any one student in the group are provided and do not consistently detract from the opportunities of other students in the group to benefit from instruction.

(b) Staffing requirements pursuant to Part 80 of this Title.

(1) When a remedial service is included in the individualized education program, such service shall be provided by appropriately certified or licensed individuals.

(2) When a transitional support service is included in the individualized education program to be provided to teachers of a student with a disability, such service shall be provided by personnel appropriately certified or otherwise qualified in each area of service.

(3) Related services shall be provided by individuals with appropriate certification or license in each area of related service.

(4) Special education instruction shall be provided by individuals appropriately certified or licensed pursuant to Part 80 of this Title.

(5) An administrator or supervisor of special education programs serving more than 25 percent of his or her assignment in such capacity shall hold a certificate valid for administrative and supervisory service pursuant to Part 80 of this Title.

(6) When specially designed reading instruction is included in the individualized education program, such instruction may be provided by individuals qualified under section 80-2.7 or sections 80-3.3, 80-3.7(a)(3)(iv) and 52.21(b)(3)(xi) of this Title as applicable. For purposes of this paragraph, specially designed reading instruction shall mean specially designed individualized or group instruction or special services or programs, as defined in subdivision 2 of section 4401 of the Education Law, in the area of reading and which is provided to a student with a disability who has significant reading difficulties that cannot be met through general reading programs.

(c) Transitional support services prescribed in the individualized education program (IEP) shall be provided for a teacher upon the recommendation of the committee on special education, and shall be specified in the student's IEP. When the provision of a transitional support service is under consideration by a committee on special education, the teachers of the student for whom the service is being considered shall be given the opportunity to participate in the meeting of the committee for the purpose of advising the committee of the extent to which such services are needed.

A board of education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a student by his or her parent, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parent were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parent's claim (Burlington School Comm. v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 [1985]). The failure of a parent to select a program known to be approved by the state in favor of an unapproved option is not itself a bar to reimbursement (Florence County School Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]).

The purpose of an award of compensatory educational services or additional services is to provide an appropriate remedy for a denial of a FAPE (see E.M. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 758 F.3d 442, 451 [2d Cir. 2014]. 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 WL 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 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.

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.

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to applicable law, case law and regulations cited above, the burden is on the DOE to establish that it has provided the Student with a FAPE and that it has effectively and materially implemented the provisions of a Student’s educational placement. In that regard, it is noted that the DOE did not present a case, did not present documentary evidence, and did not present witness testimony. Accordingly, it is determined that the DOE has denied Student a FAPE for the 2019/20, 2020/21 and 2021/22 school years.

Parent seeks compensatory and programmatic relief, as noted above, to make Student whole as a result of the FAPE denial of the three school years noted above.

Uncontested documentation was provided by the BCBA, who conducted an Autism Skills Assessment Report (Parent Ex. I), and a Neuropsychological Evaluation (Parent Ex. J), which noted Student’s diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, REDACTED, REDACTED, ADHD, REDACTED Disorder, Social (Pragmatic) Communication Disorder and Childhood onset fluency Disorder. Recommendations included a change of Student’s classification to Autism, as its presence represents Student’s greatest educational challenges, a change of school placement to a private non-public school with resources to treat adolescents struggling with autism spectrum disorder and the accompanying anxiety, mood problems and cognitive and academic problems present, an FBA and accompanying behavioral plan to address Student’s behavioral issues, a Sensory Based Feeding Evaluation, and the compensatory relief sought by Parent. As all such recommendations were based on numerous independent evaluative materials contained in the hearing record, which need not be reiterated here, and not disputed by the DOE, it is determined that such relief will be as recommended.

The rates sought by Parent for the compensatory services, also not disputed by the DOE, are determined to be reasonable and within the market rate for such services.

Regarding Parent’s request for the requested evaluations, it is noted that, once Parent requests such evaluation, the DOE may either 1) file a due process complaint to request a hearing to show that its own 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). In the instant case, the DOE did neither. Based on documentary evidence and affidavit testimony presented by Parent of the many areas of Student’s deficits and struggles, the requested evaluations are determined to be fully necessary to identify Student’s educational needs and to create an appropriate educational placement for Student. Authority is conferred upon a hearing officer to order evaluations necessary to determine the functioning of a student and the appropriate educational placement to address such functioning. Parent shall therefore be entitled to such evaluations as requested, at the rates sought, without contest from the DOE, as such rates are determined to be well within the market value range for such evaluations in this jurisdiction, all as more fully set forth below.

Regarding Student’s appropriate educational classification, as the DOE presented no evidence in support of the classification of Speech or Language Impairment, and demonstrated no evaluations to support such classification, and in light of the comprehensive evaluations submitted by Parent, undisputed by the DOE, which find the appropriate classification to be Autism, Student shall be so properly classified as a Student with Autism.

Finally, in the absence of any evidence or testimony to support an ICT placement, and in light of the recommendations arising out of the comprehensive evaluations submitted by Parent, including the evaluation of the BCBA, undisputed by the DOE, all of which recommend a non-public school placement, Student’s placement going forward shall be deferred to the Central Based Support Team (CBST) for a non-public school placement for student’s with Autism.

ORDER

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

  1. The DOE shall change Student’s disability classification to Autism to reflect the findings of the comprehensive evaluations which support such classification.
  2. The DOE shall create a “bank” of compensatory services as follows, all to be furnished by providers of Parent’s choosing, at such respective providers’ regular rates for such services, to be utilized over a period of 36 months at the discretion of each respective provider:
    1. ABA services, 1200 hours, @ $150.00/hour;
    2. BCBA supervision, 240 hours, @ $200.00/hour;
    3. Parent Counseling and Training, 120 hours, @ $200.00/hour;
    4. Occupational Therapy, 138 hours, @ $180.00/hour;
    5. Assistive Technology, 46 hours, @ $180.00/hour;
    6. Assistive Technology training for Parent, 46 hours, @ 180.00/hour;
    7. Transitional/Vocational training, 96 hours, @ $180.00/hour;
    8. Speech language therapy, 207 hours, @ $180.00/hour.
  3. The DOE shall provide Parent with an assessment authorization for the following evaluations to be conducted by the practitioner of Parent’s choice:
    1. Functional Behavioral Assessment, by BCBA, @ $1500.00;
    2. Behavior Intervention Plan, by BCBA, @ $450.00;
    3. REDACTED Evaluation, @ $2,000.00.
  4. The DOE shall defer Student’s placement to the CBST for placement in a non-public school, small class placement for the remainder of the 2021/22 school year.
  5. The DOE shall comply in all respects with this Decision and Order.

Dated: April 17, 2022 ______________________

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

  1. Demand for Due Process Hearing, dated 09/17/21 (13 pages)
  2. IEP, dated 06/16/21 (14 pages)
  3. IEP, dated 06/22/20 (20 pages)
  4. IEP, dated 04/10/19 (14 pages)
  5. IEP, dated 04/09/18 (23 pages)
  6. IEP, dated 06/02/17 (21 pages)
  7. Independent Level II Vocational Evaluation, dated 03/08/22 (10 pages)
  8. Independent Assistive Technology Evaluation, dated 01/28/22 (7 pages)
  9. Independent Autism Skills Assessment, dated 01/22/22 (12 pages)
  10. Independent Neuropsychological Evaluation, dated 01/18/22 (29 pages)
  11. Independent Occupational Therapy Evaluation, dated 12/26/21 (10 pages)
  12. Independent REDACTED Evaluation, dated 11/17/21 (17 pages)
  13. Independent Speech Language Evaluation, dated 10/26/21 (10 pages)
  14. REDACTED Report, dated 04/13/21 (4 pages)
  15. Report Card for 2019-2020 Marking Period #2, Term 1, dated 01/08/20 (1 page)
  16. NYC DOE Speech/Language Evaluation, dated 03/09/17 (4 pages)
  17. NYC DOE Psychoeducational Evaluation, dated 02/14/17 (8 pages)
  18. NYC DOE Social History Evaluation, dated 02/14/17 (3 pages)
  19. Affidavit of Parent, dated 03/22/22 (3 pages)
  20. Affidavit of REDACTED, dated 03/19/22 (8 pages)
  21. Resume of REDACTED, Undated (2 pages)
  22. Compensatory Service Plan, dated 03/23/22 (48 pages)
  23. Affidavit of REDACTED, dated 03/23/22 (5 pages)
  24. Resume of REDACTED, Undated (2 pages)
  25. Resume of REDACTED, Undated (4 pages)
  26. Resume of REDACTED, Undated (2 pages)

DOE

NONE

IHO

  1. Interim Order, dated 10/25/21 (6 pages)
  2. Extension Orders, various dates (6 pages)