New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

JUNE 21, 2023

For the Student:

[REDACTED]

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED]

ISSUES

This matter comes before the undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer ("IHO")

through the Parent's Due Process Complaint ("DPC") filed on or about October 28, 2021. In the DPC the Parent asserted that the District failed to provide a free appropriate public education ("FAPE") during the 2021-2022 school year for failure to provide an appropriate program. The Parent requested relief in the form of compensatory education and services. On June 21, 2022, the Parent filed a second DPC asserting that the District failed to provide a FAPE during the 2022-2023 school year by failing to provide an appropriate program. Again, the Parent requested relief in the form of compensatory education and services. An order consolidating these matters was issued on August 1, 2022.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The undersigned Hearing Officer was appointed to the above matter on March 23, 2022. A hearing regarding the Parent's request for compensatory education and services was held on August 4, 2022, September 28, 2022, November 21, 2022, February 9, 2023, March 28, 2023, May 8, 2023, and June 21.

The District presented eight exhibits which were admitted into evidence and two witnesses.^[1] The Parent was given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The Parent presented thirty-four exhibits, which were admitted into evidence, and four witnesses, via affidavit. The District was given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The record closed on July 19, 2023. There were twelve extensions of the compliance date. At the conclusion of the hearing, the District did not submit any closing.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A. The District's Case [REDACTED], Ph.D., School Psychologist, testified on behalf of the District. ^[2] Her primary responsibility is to assess students and she participated in the Student's IEP meeting on May 26, 2021. Initially, Dr. [REDACTED] met the Student at his Turning 5 IEP meeting, and the IEP team met in May 2021 to consider new information that was provided. Everyone's input and all reports were considered. The evaluative data the team considered included a neuropsychological evaluation, progress reports from related services providers, teacher reports, and SEIT provider reports – which Dr. [REDACTED] believed was sufficient to enable the IEP team to make appropriate recommendations for the Student. In addition, the providers were given an opportunity to discuss the Student's strengths and weaknesses.

Based upon the information provided, the IEP team did not believe that the Student required SEIT because that is primarily a pre-school issue and the team felt that all his needs were being provided within the classroom.^[3] According to Dr. [REDACTED], the Student was a bright student who was already achieving at grade standards and needed to be incorporated into the classroom for social reasons and if he needed 1:1 instruction, the special education teacher in the ICT classroom was available to assist him on an as needed basis. In addition, the ICT classroom provided the Student with the LRE with all the supports the Student needed – organization, scaffolding, etc. She also recommended the Student attend the [REDACTED] program – a small ICT class with emphasis on social pragmatic language and social integration which are major issues for children with Autism. The Parent was in agreement with this recommendation and Dr. [REDACTED] followed up with the application process throughout the summer (even though she does not work in the summer).

According to Dr. [REDACTED], the Student does not require a specific class size but needs differentiated instruction which is highly individualized. In addition, the IEP team recommended the following related services: OT, SLT, and Counseling. OT was recommended because the Student had issues with writing, focused attention, etc. SLT was recommended because of his social pragmatic language issues common in ASD children. He also had issues with language comprehension, following directions, staying on topic, putting thoughts together into longer sentences which would serve him academically and socially. Counseling was recommended to help the Student to maintain self-regulation, like deep breathing, asking for help, taking a time out. The counselor worked with the teacher to help him get started and complete assignments. Counseling would also help with his frustration and picking up social cues.

According to Dr. [REDACTED], the Student was basically on grade level but issues were addressed through scaffolding and one-on-one instruction. His processing delays were basically addressed through the related services and with the teacher giving him adequate prompts. The Student really did not have any behavioral issues, but did have some social issues. His teachers liked him quite a lot. All related service providers worked together to help create modifications that would assist the Student throughout the day.

The Student also had access to after school programs.

According to the neurological evaluation, his executive functioning skills were underdeveloped, so they gave him a lot of visual support.

The Student did not require assistive technology as he was doing well enough without them. He did not require an FBA because he did not exhibit behavioral issues that were chartable on an FBA. He also did not require a BIP. In summary, Dr. [REDACTED] believed that the IEP developed for the Student in May 2021 was appropriate because it supported him in every area that the Student had a need. However, in September 2021, the IEP recommended that the Student be placed in the [REDACTED] program and the SLT was modified significantly because many of the services are provided within the classroom in small groups. Again, Dr. [REDACTED] believed the [REDACTED] Program was appropriate for the Student.

Upon cross-examination, Dr. [REDACTED] indicated that she met the Student in person in January 2020. She also went to the Student's pre-school and observed him in class. He was in a large class, not special education, and there were no supports in the classroom other than assistant teachers. That was the only time she met him because of COVID. During that meeting, Dr. [REDACTED] spoke to the Student and observed him interacting with other children. She observed a lack of social awareness. She spoke to the teachers who thought the Student had no issues whatsoever. The teachers thought they should remove all the services altogether. She was not able to observe him in the classroom or during any of his related services. They did reach out to them but no one responded.

Based on her observations, Dr. [REDACTED] believed the Student was on the spectrum because he went from one activity to another without purpose or direction and she had to break down her sentences.

She did not follow through with the recommendation for a PT evaluation because, based on her observations, he did not seem to require PT because he was able run around and play. Also, there was no specific reason for the evaluation. She, the OT provider and the teacher all agreed that a PT evaluation was not necessary. The Parent expressed concerns with the Student's fine motor skills but none with his gross motor skills but expressed no concerns that would have led the team to believe the Student required physical therapy.

Auditory processing issues were addressed with the SLT evaluation and she did not feel a separate auditory processing evaluation was necessary. She would recommend that if there was a disconnect between what is heard and what is perceived. There was no information that she was aware of that revealed that the Student had any auditory processing issues. The Parent did not raise any issues about this either. According to the neuropsychologist who conducted the NEPSY-II, there were errors in the Student's recall. And the neuropsychologist recommended that it might be a good idea. However, the team felt that the Student's issues were attentional in nature and not related to auditory processing deficits.

Dr. [REDACTED] did not know if the Student was receiving after school educational services at home. However, during the 2020-2021 school year, the Student was in an ICT classroom with a maximum of 25 students. The IEP team did not consider any home-based service because he was progressing well in school. There is also no mention in the IEP of the Parent making that request either.

She ultimately recommended the Student for the [REDACTED] program for the 2022-2023 school year. He needed to be evaluated first, and she told the Parent to email her. Apparently, according to Dr. [REDACTED], the Parent never followed up. The [REDACTED] recommendation does not go on the IEP but always consists of speech, OT, and other related services.

On the other hand, Dr. [REDACTED] indicated that no [REDACTED] participants get at-home services or outside services of any kind. She firmly believes that everything needs to happen in the school and if a student is not making progress then the Student's in-school program needs to be tweaked. Adding more services at home is counter-productive because now he has to sit more after sitting in school for six hours and that creates a stressful environment for the student. Dr. [REDACTED] further opined that the Student requires physical activity and time to work on his social skills.

Student was getting OT to assist the Student with ADL skills.

In terms of the issues surrounding the Student's lack of safety awareness, the witness is not sure how the IEP addressed that, if at all. [REDACTED], Special Education Teacher employed by the DOE for about 8-9 years was also called as a witness by the District.^[4] Ms. [REDACTED] is a classroom teacher within an ICT classroom. The Student was a student of hers for the 2021-2022 school year. She was also present for two IEP meetings. The first was in September 2021 when she reviewed his prior IEP, and conducted a reading and writing assessment. The Student was being placed in the [REDACTED] program for students with autism. There are two teachers there and the second teacher is there to help with socially unstructured periods.

IEP meeting was held in September 2021, and she attended. She created goals for him based on her assessments. The Student was at or above grade level based on her assessments. Still, he needed supports throughout the day, because of his sensory needs. He had a sensory brush which helps the Student get the sensory input he needs to regulate his emotions and focus on what he is doing. They also used re-focusing prompts. Her only role in the September 2021 IEP meeting was to create the goals and she relied, in part, on the goals in the September 2020 IEP. And the Student did well during the 2021-2022 school year.

Ms. [REDACTED] also conducted the annual review for the 2022-2023 school year in June 2022. She had been with him for 10 months at that time and had a lot of familiarity with the Student. In June 2022, there was another IEP meeting and the Parents participated. When they left the IEP meeting, Ms. [REDACTED] indicated that all parties to the meeting agreed on the plan that was developed during the IEP meeting which was a continuation of the [REDACTED] program. Later on, through the DOJO app, the Parent expressed an interest one-on-one special education. The Parent also provided additional evaluations. During the meeting, the Parent did not mention anything about home-based services, but may have later in her message to Ms. [REDACTED]. But at that point the IEP needed to be finalized and a new meeting would have needed to have been held to address any new issues.

Upon cross-examination, Ms. [REDACTED] testified that gave the Student basic assessments – reading and baseline math which occurred in the classroom during first few days of school. No supports were provided. He was above grade level in some areas of math. All the goals she created for the Student were goals she would set for a typical 1st grader. She does not know if the goals for the related services were reviewed in September 2021.

According to Ms. [REDACTED], the Parent did not express any concerns regarding the Student's academic progress during the September 2021 IEP meeting. She did not have any reports from the Student's teachers from the prior school year, although she may have had a portfolio of his prior school year. She is unaware as to whether the Student was receiving 1:1 SEIT services during the 2020-2021 or 2021-2022 school year. She was only tangentially aware of IEEs that were going on. She did not specifically recall if she reviewed the neuropsychological evaluation or the speech evaluation. She did not set any goals for the Student that would have been more challenging than typical 1st grade goals.

Ms. [REDACTED] described the [REDACTED] program to include reading, writing, phonics, and two periods of math, art music, gym, sensory check ins, movement breaks, etc. While in that program, the Student made progress during the 2021-2022 school year. [REDACTED] is different than ICT because the student has the support of the teacher throughout the entire day even in less structured environments. They also do some related services together where they are working on their social skills as well.

During the 2021-2022 school year, the Student's class had 14 students and 2 [REDACTED] students. Other students that populate the class were general education students. The [REDACTED] students are entitled to an extended school year.

In June 2022, the Student was reassessed and found to have made progress with his own editing. She did not consider recommending a neuropsychological evaluation because he was doing well and she felt the program was a good fit for him.

Ms. [REDACTED] did not see any need for one-to-one special education services because the Student was doing well. And she was completely unaware of the fact that the Student was receiving those services throughout the 2021-2022 school year and the Parent, with whom she had frequent contact, never mentioned anything about one-to-one services until after the June 2022 IEP meeting. She made very challenging goals for him because the Student would often do what was asked of him and not more. His report card grades were all "3" or above. He was always able to complete the reading checklists.

B. The Parent's Case

The Parent submitted an affidavit in this matter and was cross-examined by the District.^[5] The Parent indicated that each year since the Student turned five years old, that the Parent has had to litigate with the District to insure the Student continues to receive his home-based 1:1 SEIT services. That claim is borne out by the prior decision rendered on a prior case.^[6] That decision required, among other things, that the Student was entitled to a number of IEEs including an FBA, audiological assessment and a PT evaluation. It is unclear from the testimony of the District's witnesses whether or not the results of these assessments were ever reviewed.

In any case, the Parent testified that the Student was receiving two hours per day of 1:1 SEIT services. It is curious that neither Ms. [REDACTED] nor Dr. [REDACTED] seemed to be aware of this fact and both attributed the Student's progress exclusively to his participation in the [REDACTED] program. However, the affidavit submitted by [REDACTED], the Student's SEIT provider tells a very different story.^[7] Indeed, Ms. [REDACTED] has been working with the Student since September 2020 providing him with 10 hours per week of home-based SEIT/ABA services. This continued throughout the 2021-2022 school year. During the school year, Ms. [REDACTED] indicated that the Student, among other things, took an extensive amount of time to complete homework, needed assistance with emotional regulation, required constant supervision to complete tasks and would often have difficulty maintaining his attention. In fact, Ms. [REDACTED] indicated that without this level of support, the Student would not have been able to complete his homework assignments. Many of the Student's challenges continued during the 2022-2023 school year when Ms. [REDACTED] continued to work with the Student. Ms. [REDACTED] reported that the Student was easily distracted by visual, auditory and tactile stimuli. She also reported that his social and emotional development is delayed.

Ms. [REDACTED]'s affidavit is replete with examples of the progress the Student has made while working with her. Some of that progress has been incremental while some progress has been quite significant. Either way, Ms. [REDACTED] explains in extensive detail the many challenges that the Student still faces and why he requires continued 1:1 support. Despite all the information provided in Ms. [REDACTED]'s affidavit, the District elected not to cross-examine her, essentially conceding the points Ms. [REDACTED] was called for. Specifically, Ms. [REDACTED] indicated that the Student continues to require 1:1 home-based SEIT/ABA services as well as ABA therapy.

As to the ABA therapy, the Student underwent an FBA conducted by Dr. [REDACTED], Psy.C., BCBA.^[8] Initially, and in line with the testimony of Ms. [REDACTED], Dr. [REDACTED] concluded, that a "specialized Integrated CoTeaching classroom, such as the ASD [REDACTED] Program, remains appropriate if he is also provided with individual (1:1) special instruction to reinforce learning concepts and the BIP is implemented consistently in school and at home with oversight by an LBA/BCBA." (emphasis added). Dr. [REDACTED] also recommended that the Student receive a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation. Finally, Dr. [REDACTED] recommended the Student receive a bank of 800 hours of compensatory ABA services representing the two years the Student was denied that service.

While the Parent requests, in their closing, compensatory ABA and SEIT instruction totaling 1600 hours, it is entirely uncertain how this number was arrived at. For example, in the Parent's affidavit, for the 2021-2022 school year, there is a request for 1150 hours of compensatory 1:1 special instruction with ABA based on a claim of 25 hours per week for 46 weeks, less the hours actually provided by Ms. [REDACTED]. The Parent makes the same claim for the 2022-2023 school year. However, no where is there support for the claim that the Student is entitled to 25 hours per week of home-based special instruction. Rather, Dr. [REDACTED] specifically recommended 10 hours per week of home-based special instruction. The 10-hour period is also reflected in the pendency agreements between the parties. ^[9]

Nonetheless, the Parent, in their closing, intimates that Dr. [REDACTED]'s testimony suggests that the Student should receive 10 hours per week of ABA services and 10 hours per week of special instruction. I do not read her affidavit that way and neither does the Parent, who specifically (in her affidavit) requested the compensatory "special instruction with ABA," as opposed to "in addition to." As a result, I read Dr. [REDACTED]'s recommendation to be that the Student should have received 800 hours of 1:1 special instruction with ABA services, for both school years, not per school year. Moreover, this amount should be reduced by what has already been provided by Ms. [REDACTED] unless to the extent that Ms. [REDACTED] was providing services pursuant to a prior award of compensatory services.

The Parent also submitted the affidavit of [REDACTED], Physical Therapist. Ms. [REDACTED] made a recommendation that the Student should receive a bank of 70 hours of physical therapy based upon the assessment conducted in which she felt the Student required one session per week of physical therapy for 45 minutes and the District's failure to provide any physical therapy.^[10] Aside from the statements made by the District's witnesses, that they did not believe the Student required PT, statements neither was qualified to make, the District did not challenge any of Ms. [REDACTED]'s claims. In fact, the District even elected not to cross-examine the witness. Based upon the above, the District is deemed to have conceded that the Student is entitled to PT.

As to Parent's claim for compensatory speech and language therapy, the Parent indicates that the Student missed a lot of speech and language therapy during the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years. The Student nonetheless continued to receive SLT under pendency during both school years. To the extent that the Student is entitled to compensatory speech and language therapy, he is only entitled to missed dates. For the two school years at issue, the Student was entitled to a total of one hundred and eightyfour (184) of SLT (4x30; 1:1; 46 weeks), less the group SLT which the Student was receiving.

As to the Parent's claim for counseling services, the District indicated that this related service was inadvertently left off the September 2021 IEP.^[11] However, the June 2021 IEP recommended the Student receive counseling services once a week for 30 minutes.^[12] Thus, the Student's mandate for the school years at issue is a total of 46 hours of counseling services. It is unclear how the Parent arrived at the number of ninety-two hours which they requested in their closing. Also, there is no evidence in the record before me that the Student received any counseling services during either school year at issue. As a result, the record before me indicates that the Student should receive a bank of 46 hours of compensatory counseling services.

The Individuals with Disability Education Act ("IDEA") is comprehensive statutory framework established by Congress to ensure that students with disabilities are afforded FAPE. See, 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1)(A); Schaffer v. Weast, 546 US 49 (2005). A "free appropriate public education consists of educational instruction that is designed to meet the unique needs of the handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from the instruction." Bd. of Ed. Hendrick Hudson CSD v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 188 (1982). In order to demonstrate that FAPE is being provided, the school district must show "that it complied with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and that the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits." See, Application of Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 05-061, quoting, Rowley at 206. The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment with non-disabled peers. See, Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dt., 142 F.3rd 119 (2nd Cir. 1998).

Two purposes of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) are (1) to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a 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 (2) to 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, Forest Grove v. T.A., 129 S. Ct. 2484[2009]; Rowley, at 206-07).

An appropriate program begins with an IEP which accurately reflects the results of the 1) student's present levels of performance; 2) provides for the use of appropriate special education services to address the child's special education needs; 3) establishes annual goals which are related to the child's educational deficits; 4) identifies transitions services; 5) provides a start and end date to the recommended program and services; and

6) criteria and evaluation procedures for the measurement of goals. See, Walzczak, supra; Id., Appeal No. 00-005. "The initial procedural inquiry is no mere formality." Walczak, at 129. "Adequate compliance with the procedures prescribed [by IDEA] would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP." Rowley at 206. For an IEP to be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, it must be likely to produce progress, not regression. This progress must be meaningful; i.e., more than mere trivial advancement. Walczak, supra.

A Student's "IEP need not aim for grade-level advancement. But his educational program must be appropriately ambitious in light of his circumstances, just as advancement from grade to grade is appropriately ambitious for most children in the regular classroom. The goals may differ, but every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives." Endrew F. v. Douglas 580 U.S. ___ (2017). "It cannot be the case that the Act typically aims for grade-level advancement for children with disabilities who can be educated in the regular classroom, but is satisfied with barely more than de minimis progress for those who cannot." Id.

Compensatory education is an appropriate remedy under the IDEA. P. v. Newington, 546 F.3d. 111 (2nd Cir. 2008). The aim of compensatory education services is 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, Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 518 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (finding that compensatory education is not a form of damages because the courts act in equity when remedying IDEA violations and must "do equity and …mold each decree to the necessities of the particular case"). When fashioning a compensatory award, it is appropriate to look at the specific educational deficits resulting from a child's loss of FAPE, in order to ascertain what compensatory measures are appropriate to make the child whole. Id.; Mrs. C. v. Wheaton, 916 F.2d 69 (2d Cir. 1990).

Compensatory education is an equitable remedy that is tailored to meet the unique circumstances of each case. See, Wenger v. Canastota, 979 F. Supp. 147 (N.D.N.Y. 1997); SRO Appeal 14-179. Within the Second Circuit, compensatory relief in the form of supplemental special education or related services has been awarded to students if there has been a denial of a FAPE. See, Newington, 546 F.3d at 123 ("[t]he IDEA allows a hearing officer to fashion an appropriate remedy, and . . . compensatory education is an available option under the Act to make up for denial of a [FAPE]"). Likewise, SROs have awarded compensatory "additional services" to students who have been denied appropriate services, if such deprivation can be remedied through the provision of additional services before the student becomes ineligible for special instruction by reason of age or graduation. See, Bd. of Educ. v. Munoz, 16 A.D.3d 1142 (4th Dep't 2005) (finding it proper for an SRO to order a school district to provide "make-up services" to a student upon the school district's failure to provide those educational services to The Student during home instruction); see also, Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 13-048; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 11-091). The purpose of an award of additional services, like compensatory services, is to provide an appropriate remedy for a denial of a FAPE and accordingly, 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, supra.

In the instant matter, the District's witnesses seemed wholly unaware of the fact that the Student had been receiving 1:1 special instruction (with ABA features) throughout large portions of the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years. This lack of knowledge regarding something the parties were actively litigating calls into question the District's understanding of the reasons for the Student's progress. Indeed, Ms. [REDACTED]'s affidavit make abundantly clear the number of challenges that she works on with the Student and how it would be virtually impossible for him to complete his homework without her assistance. The Parent confirmed as much. Moreover, Dr. [REDACTED]'s blanket statement that she does not believe in at-home services were ever appropriate essentially conceded that the District made a pre-determination regarding this issue.

As to the balance of the Parent's requests, it was incumbent upon the District to demonstrate that it had provided the Student with the requisite amount of SLT and Counseling Services, a burden that they District failed to meet. Finally, the District did not challenge in any way the Parent's claim for PT.

DECISION

Based on a review of the record and the details mentioned above, I find that the District failed provide FAPE to the Student for the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years.

ORDER

Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby ordered:

A) That the District shall forthwith, upon reasonable notice to the Parent, reconvene the CSE to create a program for the Student for the 2023-2024 school year. At that meeting, the District is directed to specifically consider the independent evaluations obtained by the Parent (FBA, PT, SLT, OT, assistive technology).

B) The District shall fund the a complete independent neuropsychological evaluation by a provider of the Parent's choosing with said providers to be compensated by the District at a reasonable market rate. Upon completion of said evaluation, the District shall reconvene the CSE, upon reasonable notice to the Parent, to consider the results of the aforementioned evaluations and to determine what, if any, modifications need to be made to the Student's IEP.

C) It is Ordered that the Student shall be entitled to the following: 1) A bank of 800 hours of compensatory individual SEIT/ABA services less the amount of hours already provided by [REDACTED] [REDACTED] except to the extent that Ms. [REDACTED] was providing services pursuant to a prior award of compensatory services; 2) A bank of 46 hours of compensatory counseling services; 3) A bank of 70 hours of compensatory individual physical therapy; and, 4) A bank of 184 hours of compensatory individual speech and language therapy; less any hours of individual SLT already provided by the Student's school; It is further Ordered that the above services are to be provided by a provider of the Parent's choosing with said provider to be compensated by the District at market rate. The above services shall be utilized on or before August 31, 2026.

SO ORDERED:

DATED: July 25, 2023

_Steven P. Forbes____

Steven P. Forbes

Impartial Hearing Officer

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Within 40 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the Public-School District has a right to appeal the decision to a State Review Officer (SRO) of the New York State Education Department under section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

If either party plans to appeal the decision, a notice of intention to seek review shall be personally served upon the opposing party no later than 25 days after the date of the decision sought to be reviewed.

An appealing party's request for review shall be personally served upon the opposing party within 40 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. An appealing party shall file the notice of intention to seek review, notice of request for review, request for review, and proof of service with the Office of State Review of the State Education Department within two days after service of the request for review is complete. The rules of procedure for appeals before an SRO are found in Part 279 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education. A copy of the rules in Part 279 and model forms are available at http://www.sro.nysed.gov. District Evidence List

1. IEP

2. Attendance Page

3. PWN

4. Assistive Technology Evaluation

5. Social History Update

6. IEP

7. IEP

8. PWN

Parent Evidence List

A. DPC

B. FOFD

C. Pendency Agreement

D. Pendency Agreement

E. DPC

F. DOE Documents

G. Order of Consolidation

H. Subpoena

I. PWN

J. PWN

K. PWN

L. Placement Notice

M. Letter Regarding IEP Change

N. CSE Meeting Notice

O. IEP Progress Reports

P. OT Evaluation

Q. SLT Evaluation

R. PT Evaluation

S. Neuropsychological Assessment

T. DOE Assistive Technology Assessment

U. SLT Attendance

V. SEIT Report

W. SEIT Service Hours

PARENT

X. Email to CSE

Y. Parent Email to CSE

Z. Letters from Related Service Providers

AA. Parent Email to Related Services Team

BB. Consent for Additional Assessment

CC. Social History Update

DD. FBA

EE. Affidavit FF. Affidavit GG. Affidavit HH. Affidavit

Footnotes

[1] The list of exhibits is attached.

[2] T., pages 157-252; 266-349.

[3] As discussed more fully below, and apparently unbeknownst to Dr. [REDACTED], all the Student's needs were apparently not be provided within the classroom as the Student was receiving 10 hours a week of home-based special instruction.

[4] T., pages 362-495.

[5] P-FF.

[6] P-B. In that case, the District was found to have failed to offer the Student a FAPE for the 2018-2019, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 school years.

[7] P-HH.

[8] P-DD; P-GG.

[9] P-C; P-D.

[10] P-R; P-EE.

[11] D-6, page 25.

[12] D-1, pages 30-31.