New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 224040

Student’s Name: [Redacted]

Date of Birth: [Redacted]

District: [Redacted]

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Dates of Hearing: May 3, 2022

June 9,2022

July 5, 2022

Actual Record Close Date: July 26, 2022

Hearing Officer: Linda Agoston

On February 28, 2022, I was designated by the New York City Department of Education as impartial hearing officer, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act ("IDEIA"), 20 U.S.C. §1415 and Article 89 of the Education Law of the State of New York on in the matter of [Redacted] (hereinafter "the Student"). The Parent through her attorney initiated this hearing on January 25, 2022. A Prehearing was held on 3/3/2022 and hearings were held on May 3, June 9, 2022, and July 5, 2022. The parents alleged that the DOE failed to provide a free and appropriate public education ("FAPE") for the 2021-2022 school year as the Committee on Special Education ("CSE") failed to develop an appropriate program or offer an appropriate placement for the 2021-20222 school year and failed to recommend appropriate related services and appropriate supports and failed to recommend appropriate goals and failed to implement the Behavior Intervention Plan ("BIP") and to timely appoint an IHO (Exh. A at 5-7).

The parties moved to extend the compliance date during the course of the hearing. In considering the requests I weighed the cumulative impact of the relevant factors and found that the need of the parties for additional time to prepare and present their positions in accordance with the requirements of due process was greater than any delay in the resolution of the matter. Accordingly, the requests for extension of the compliance date were granted (Tr. at 366; Exh. 1-IV). On July 26, 2022, the Parent's representative submitted her brief (Exh. V). The current record close date is July 26, 2022, and the decision due date is August 8, 2022. Appended to the record are the documents submitted into evidence.

The Parent seeks a Final Order for the following: (1) a finding that the Department failed to offer a FAPE for the 2021-2022 school year; (2) a finding that the violations significantly impeded the Parent's opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding a FAPE by failing to provide [Redacted] translated notices, progress reports and the Individualized Education Program ("IEP") to the Parent as the Parent's primary language was [REDACTED]; (3) that the recommendations from independent educational evaluations for speech and language therapy ("SLT"), occupational therapy ("OT"), physical therapy ("PT"), applied behavior analysis ("ABA") and for parent counseling and training ("PCAT") (Exhs. P-V; JJ) be added to the IEP as well as socialization instruction and supports as recommended by [Redacted] be added to the IEP (Tr. at 350). The Parent's attorney requested that the following related services be added to the IEP: (a) individual PT 2 times per week for 30 minutes per session (Tr. at 129); (b) individual SLT 4 times per week for 30 minutes per session; (c) individual OT 4 times per week for 30 minutes per session (d) push-in 30 hours per week of ABA services by an independent provider of chosen by the Parent at the market rate (Tr. at 33;130); (e) 10 hours of home based ABA per week from a board certified behavior analyst ("BCBA") or a licensed behavior analyst ("LBA") at the market rate (Tr. at 58). The Parent further requested that compensatory services be offered to the Parent of PCAT, SLT; OT, PT, socialization skills and music therapy for a bank of 150 hours per week for the failure to provide FAPE (Tr. at 116). The Parent's attorney requested a MetroCard for the Student to ride to and from the related service providers (Exh. A at 8-9; Tr. at 59; 106-107; 356). The Parent's attorney stated that while she did not withdraw the claim for the related service encounter reports, the reports were not an issue (Tr. at 347). She acknowledged that while she did not withdraw the claim for the lack of an iPad mini 5 until late in the year, it was not an issue (Tr. at 353). She further acknowledged that the request for funding for an private school of the Parent's choice was a non-issue as the 2021-2022 school year had concluded and that she was solely seeking compensatory education services (Tr. at 33) and noted that transportation to the private school was a non-issue as the 2021-2022 school year had concluded (Tr. at 347-354).

BACKGROUND

The Student is an [Redacted]-year old boy currently attending a NYC District 75 school, at [Redacted] (hereinafter the "Public School") in a special class with a staffing ratio of 6:1:1 or 6 children and 1 teacher and 1 paraprofessional (Exh. T at 10) and repeated the third grade for the 2021-2022 school year in the same 6:1: placement for the past 3 years (Exh. V at 4), without any benefit (Exh. R at 18).

Per the FBA/BIP Assessment, the Student required constant attention due to his [Redacted] behavior in which he tries to eat and put [Redacted] (Exh. S at 2).

A Neuropsychological Evaluation was conducted on the Student on September 29, 2020, when the Student was 7 years old by [Redacted]., (Exh. T) who diagnosed the Student with Autism Spectrum Disorder ("ASD"), and with intellectual disorder and language impairment (299.00) and [Redacted]).

[Redacted] reviewed the Student's educational history and noted that at the age of [Redacted], the Student was diagnosed with ASD and he had received early intervention services of ABA and SLT at home (Exh. T at 4). [REDACTED] reported that the social history update on February 10, 2017, indicated that the Student " [Redacted] " (Id.). Per the Bilingual SLT Evaluation, at the age of [Redacted] the Student was diagnosed with [REDACTED] (Exh. V at 4) and had [Redacted] that caused him [Redacted] (Tr. at 98).

[Redacted] explained that the Student had attended the Public School in a 6:1:1 classroom since September 2018, with a designated paraprofessional to assist in toilet training and to supervise his eating (Exh. T at 5). She noted that the Student attended in-person and virtual schooling and that the Student was only able to communicate by making noises and by crying. [REDACTED] noted that the school function PT evaluation did not reveal gross motor delays despite the Student's " [Redacted] " and despite the fact that the Student [Redacted] (Id.).

[REDACTED] assessed the Student's behavior on the Behavior Assessment System for Children-Third Edition ("BASC-3") that revealed that the Student had "substantial difficulty performing simple daily tasks in a safe and efficient manner, engaging in social interaction, using receptive and expressive language skills functionally, and making decisions" (Exh. T at 13). The Gilliam Autism Rating Scale-Third Edition ("GARS-3") indicated that the Student spent "his time alone in repetitive/stereotyped behaviors" and made "high pitched sounds" and used "objects inappropriately" and repeated "unintelligible sounds" (Exh. T at 14-15). [Redacted] recommended that the Student be placed in an ABA school and required a 12-month year and a 1:1 health paraprofessional for his [Redacted] issues and to safely access the school environment (Exh. T at 17).

The CSE developed an IEP on January 12, 2021, and classified the Student with Autism and recommended a program of a special 6:1+1 class in a District 75 class for a 12-month school year (Exh. C at 1; 15-16) and recommended related services of individual OT 2 times per week for 30 minutes per session; group or individual PCAT for 4 times per year for 30 minutes per session; individual SLT 2 times per week for 30 minutes per session and a full-time health paraprofessional for [Redacted] and other health needs (Exh. C at 15).

The Student's Independent Bilingual Speech Language Evaluation dated January 14, 2021, was conducted when the Student was 8 years old, and indicated that the Student was highly distracted and could not respond to questions with words or gestures and that his pragmatic language and play skills were severely below average (Exh. V at 3). The SLT evaluator noted that the Student's language was assessed in [Redacted] and that his language skills were "severely delayed" as he could not communicate and could not read or write per the results on the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Fourth Edition ("CELF-4") and recommended that the Student receive 4 hours of bilingual [Redacted] per week and recommended a bank of 368 hours (Exh. V at 7).

On January 22, 2021, an independent OT evaluation was conducted when the Student was 8 years old, and the OT evaluator indicated that the Student presented "with low muscle tone throughout his trunk and extremities" and presented "with fleeting attention and eye contact" (Exh. P at 2). The OT evaluator concluded that the Student was unable to participate in formal testing of fine motor, visual motor or visual perceptual skills (Exh. P. at 3) and that the Student was unable to use buttons, zippers or snaps and required maximal assistance with dressing and undressing and was [Redacted] and was [Redacted] (Exh. P at 7) and recommended that the Student receive individual OT 4 times per week for 45 minutes per session on a 12-month basis to prevent regression (Exh. P at 16).

On January 22, 2021, an independent PT evaluation was conducted, when the Student was 8 years old and the PT evaluator indicated that the Student had a PT evaluation done in 2019 and was diagnosed with [Redacted] and global developmental delay (Exh. Q at 1). The PT evaluator assessed the Student at home and found that the Student was unable to follow directions and so she was unable to assess the Student with standardized testing (Exh. Q at 2). The PT evaluator assessed the Student's current functioning and noted that he was an independent ambulator and was able to walk back and forth down a short hallway (Exh. Q at 6). The evaluator used the Miller Function and Participation Scales observation checklist and noted that the Student scored far below average and demonstrated weakness in the sit-to-stand test and recommended that the Student receive 2 hours of individual PT per week for 30 minutes per session to address his low gross motor skills (Exh. Q at 9).

On January 29, 2021, an independent assistive technology ("AT") evaluation was conducted when the Student was 8 years old, and the AT evaluator observed that the Student had "many deficits in the areas of speech and language" and "demonstrated limited seated attention" and that he "made fleeting eye contact" and "presented with extremely limited expressive language"(Exh. U at 3). The evaluator concluded that the Student required AT to communicate and recommended the iPad mini 5 with Snap + Core First and a speech generation device ("SGD") to "interact with family, medical staff, peers, staff at school and community members" (Exh. U at 7).

The CSE developed an IEP on June 18, 2021, classified the Student with Autism and recommended a program of a special 6:1+1 class in a District 75 class for a 12-month school year (Exh. D at 1; 18), with related services of individual OT 2 times per week for 30 minutes per session and individual SLT 2 times per week for 30 minutes per session and a full-time health paraprofessional for [Redacted] and other health needs and an AT device of an individual iPad mini and a SGD (Exh. D at 18). The IEP indicated that the Student was able to ambulate and use the stairs appropriately and his attributed his " [Redacted] " (Exh. D at 7). The IEP indicated that "per impartial hearing order (#[Redacted]), the DOE shall convene to defer the Student to the CBST for placement in a 12-month program that provides full time ABA instruction in a 6:1:1 class with related services and a full-time health paraprofessional, such placement should incorporate the recommendations made in the neuropsychological evaluation and shall include transportation to and from the placement" (Exh. D at 8).

THE DISTRICT’S CASE The District's case was presented in the testimony of the CSE District representative who stated that she would not present witnesses to contest the Parent's allegations that the District failed to provide a FAPE for the student for the 2021-2022 school year. She maintained that FAPE was provided for the 2021-2022 school because various IEEs were conducted and argued that the CSE had deferred the Student's case to the CBST and as mandated on the IEP per NYC Case # [Redacted] (Exh. D at 8) but stressed that the Parent rejected the multiple NPSs that were offered (Exh. 4; Tr. at 42). She further asserted that the CSE discontinued the PT because the Student had no gross motor deficits that school-based PT could address (Tr. at 124).

THE PARENT'S CASE

The Parent's case was presented in the testimony of the Parent, the NYS licensed and certified PT provider, the Music Therapist, the NYS licensed and certified psychologist, and the BCBA/LBA.

The Parent's attorney stated that while the IEEs were conducted the CSE did not consider their recommendations. She asserted that the CSE did not mandate the intensive OT recommended for 4 times per week for 45 minutes per session on a 12-month basis to prevent regression (Exh. P at 16), as the IEP recommended OT only 2 times per week for 30 minutes per session (Tr. at 72). The Parent's attorney stated that the Student wore a foot brace and could not walk for long periods of time and requested that PT be added to the IEP (Tr. at 73). She stated that the IEEs recommended ABA and a BIP; however, the IEP did not include a BIP to address the Student’s maladaptive behaviors and significant and severe delays (Tr. at 73).

The Parent's attorney stated that the June 18, 2021, IEP recommended AT devices of an individual iPad mini and a SGD (Exh. D at 18) and yet the Student was not provided with any AT devices until April 2022 and for a non-verbal student who needed AT to communicate the lack of AT devices for more than half a school year was a denial of FAPE (Tr. at 77). She stated that because the CBST did not offer a placement in a 12-month program that provided full time ABA instruction in a 6:1:1 class the Student was entitled to compensatory ABA services for 30 hours per week in the Public School and 10 hours per week of at-home ABA for the denial of FAPE for the 2021-2022 school year. She stressed that the ABA services were able to be provided by an ABA provider or a BCBA paid by a rate from [Redacted] to address the Student's severe delay (Tr. at 43;54;82;102). She asserted that the CSE received IEEs conducted in January 2021, that all recommended increased OT, SLT and PT, yet the June 18, 2021, IEP reduced SLT from 3 times per week to 2 times per week despite the fact that the Student was non-verbal and despite the recommendation that the Student receive 4 hours of bilingual [Redacted] therapy per week (Exh. V at 7; Tr. at 102). She stated that the IEP did not recommend PT despite a letter from the Student's pediatrician and an independent PT evaluation (Tr. at 101) and requested that PT be added to the IEP and requested that the Student receive compensatory PT for the lack of PT during the 2021-2022 school year (Tr. at 109). She stated that the Student had made minimal progress as the IEP indicated pre-Kindergarten skills in reading and math and that the Student required an appropriate placement as the current placement was unsafe as the Student had returned home with a [Redacted] (Tr. at 104).

The Parent's attorney stated that the IEEs included a FBA and BIP (Exh. S) conducted by a BCBA, who indicated that the Student required an BIP to address interfering behaviors and required a full-time ABA in school and required 10 hours of ABA at home as well as PCAT (Tr. at 102). She argued that the CSE team removed PCAT on the June 18, 2021, IEP, a direct violation of Part 200.13(d) of the New York Regulations, and that the reduction of related service was also a denial of FAPE (Tr. at 103). She asserted that the CSE was required to provide the Student with push-in 1:1 ABA services until an appropriate placement could be found by the CBST (Tr. at 104) and that the Student was not appropriately placed at the Public School and had failed to make any meaningful progress academically, socially or emotionally in his current program (Tr. at 105).

The NYS licensed creative arts therapist and board-certified music therapist testified that she was in private practice to serve mostly autistic children and provided 1:1 music therapy (Exh. DD;Tr. at 140), and that she had conducted a music therapy evaluation for the Student on April 25, 2022 (Exh JJ) on zoom (Tr. at 141). She stated that her evaluation assessed the Student's deficits based on 11 activities and that she spoke with the Student's mother and teacher (Tr. at 145). She recalled that the Parent told her that the Student was responsive to music as he had taken a music class at the age of 6 and was calmed by music (Tr. at 146). She stated that the Student teacher told her that the Student [Redacted] but was responsive to music and video (Tr. at 148). She described the Student who was very engaged and remained seated and had vocalized as he imagined playing different instruments (Tr. at 149) and had actively participated for the hour-long session (Tr. at 161). She stated that the Student [Redacted] while she played a guitar (Tr. at 152) and noted that the Student had sustained eye contact and appeared very relaxed (Tr. at 153), and that he was able to relate to her in a non-verbal way (Tr. at 155). She recalled that the Student got up and ran away partially hid his body when the session was concluding and that she interpreted his action as his reluctance to end the session (Tr. at 158). She explained that she had recommended 150 music therapy sessions to boost his level of functioning and to access his IEP goals (Tr. at 168; Exh. JJ at 14) and recommended 30 minutes of consultation with the school staff once per month as well as consultation with the home team and the Parent for 30 minutes once per month (Tr. at 176).

On cross the creative arts/music therapist stated that she had data to support the progress as a result of music therapy with other children with the similar deficits as the Student and she stressed that music therapy helped those children make gains in the classroom setting (Tr. at 181) and she explained that her recommendation of 150 hours of music therapy was based the lack of music therapy for 3 years (Tr. at 182).

The PT provider, a holder of a doctorate in PT and a NYS licensed PT provider (Exh. DD; Tr. at 192), testified that she had worked with children who had cerebral palsy, Down's syndrome and ASD as well general developmental delays (Tr. at 193). She stated that she had evaluated the Student on January 2021 at home, when he was 8 years old, while attending the Public School, and that she had learned that PT was discontinued in 2018 despite the fact that the Student wore [Redacted] and had poor functioning (Tr. at 195). She stated that the evaluation lasted for an hour and that she used the Miller Function test to determine his functional abilities and that the Parent informed her that the Student did not walk well [Redacted] (Tr. at 202). She stated that she observed that the Student had difficulty getting up from a chair and did not easily walk across the room without crawling and had a hard time bringing his hands to midline (Tr. at 205). She stated that the Parent completed a questionnaire that indicated that the Student was unable [Redacted] (Tr. at 206).

The PT provider stated that she had recommended school-based PT because the Student demonstrated severe functional delays in his [Redacted] (Tr. at 208;214). She stated that the Student had poor bilateral coordination as he [Redacted] (Tr. at 209). She recommended individual PT 2 times per week for 30 minute per session to increase his PT skills and recommended 46 hours of compensatory PT to address strength, leg and core strength, balance, bilateral coordination and motor accuracy skills (Tr. at 211). She stated that she disagreed with the elimination of PT on the IEP (Exh. D at 7) despite the Student's limitation in functioning (Tr. at 213). She stated that she disagreed with PT therapist who discharged the Student from PT because his limitations were the result of [Redacted] rather than gross motor limitations (Tr. at 214). She explained that she observed that the Student required the Parent to [Redacted] and that the Student did not use a reciprocal pattern (Tr. at 215).

On cross the PT provider stated that she recalled the Student attempted to climb 3 or 4 stairs outside the front door (Tr. at 217) and that the Student [Redacted] (Tr. at 218). She stated that she asked the Student to run and that he did not comply, and she attributed his refusal to move from a walking to a running gait to his lack of physical ability rather than to his inability to understand her direction (Tr. at 219). She maintained that the Student required PT as she observed decreased strength in his legs as evidenced by his inability to [Redacted] or use the stairs independently and did not attribute his gross motor deficits to behavior issues (Tr. at 222).

[Redacted], a holder of a doctorate in applied developmental psychology (Exh. Z) and a NYS licensed and certified school psychologist, testified that she conducted the evaluation on the Student in September 2020 (Exh. T), remotely on 2 dates for an hour per session and recalled that she was unable to conduct any standardized testing. She recalled that she had provided the Parent with behavior and adaptive rating scales to assess the Student's behavior and adaptive skills (Tr. at 240). She further recalled that she had spoken with the Student's teacher to obtain her understanding of the Student's current academic functioning (Tr. at 241). She stated that the Student's teacher described him as a [Redacted] child who had [Redacted] relationships and required a large amount of hand-over-hand assistance and who struggled with his behavior and [Redacted] himself on the floor and engaged in avoidant behaviors and that the Student was not [Redacted] and put [Redacted] (Tr. at 243).

[Redacted] stated that the Student was non-responsive over the camera and noted that he was non-verbal and was easily frustrated and had difficulty following directions (Tr. at 244). She stated that the Parent had received multiple telephone calls informing her that her son was hurt and noted that the Parent stated that her son came home with injuries and had not had his diaper changed (Tr. at 245).

[Redacted] confirmed the Student's ASD diagnosis based on the GARS-3 and reports from the Parent and teacher and she noted that the Student's ASD interfered with his ability to access the curriculum (Exh. T at 16), and that his maladaptive behaviors necessitated frequent redirection and intervention to address his [Redacted]. She opined that the Student was failing to make adequate progress as in his current program. She further opined that as an ASD non-verbal child with intellectual and motor impairments the Student required specialized ABA instruction to address his academic and sensory impairments and interfering behaviors. She recommended that the Student be placed in an ABA school in a highly supportive special education classroom in a 12-month year and required a 1:1 health paraprofessional for Redacted] and as well as to safely access the school environment (Exh. T at 17; Tr. at 246-248).

On cross [REDACTED] stated that she observed the Student in September 2020 and that her recommendations were based on her observation at the time (Tr. at 251).

The BCBA/LBA, a holder of a Master's degree in special education focusing on ABA and a licensed and certified BCBA who used dated collection to monitor behaviors and to implement procedures to reduce maladaptive behaviors and to teach social behaviors, testified that he was employed as a BCBA/LBA at [Redacted] (Exh. BB; Tr. at 259-261). He stated that he conducted FBAs and BIPs and as well as ABA skills assessments and that he also provided 1:1 service for ASD or developmentally disabled students and that he provided PCAT to teach his procedures to the parents (Tr. at 262). He stated that he conducted an ABA assessment for the Student (Exh. R), and an FBA and BIP for the Student (Exh. S), in January 2021, and that he observed that the Student did not respond to his name and that the Student's teeth were broken (Tr. at 268). He described the targeted behaviors (Exh. R at 12), of the Student that included getting out of his seat and distracting other students in the class as well distracting the bus driver (Tr. at 270).

The BCBA/LBA explained that without functional communication the Student resorted to other methods to meet his needs (Tr. at 271). He stated that the Student's general adaptive functioning was extremely low across all domains (Exh. R at 23) and that he observed the Student elope when presented with a task (Tr. at 275), and he observed that the Student [Redacted] (Tr. at 276). The BCBA/LBA stated that per his assessment (Exh. S at 14), the Student was off topic 90 % of the time while in class and had walked around the room 70% of the time (Tr. at 277). He stressed that the Student required a BIP in place at home and at the Public School for skill acquisition generalization across different settings (Tr. at 280). He stressed that he recommended a specialized school with a BCBA on staff with 1:1 instruction to target the Student's behaviors and to collect data and recommended that the Student receive 25 hours per week of fulltime ABA program in school to acquire skills and to decrease negative behavior (Tr. at 282).

The BCBA/FBA stated that the ABA program with a BIP would ensure that the Student's distraction was minimized so that he could acquire skills and that he recommended 10 hours of home-based ABA by a BCBA or LBA to continue the ABA program at home so that the Student was able generalize at home the skills he learned in school (Tr. at 283). He stated that he recommended PCAT by a licensed BCBA so that the Parent would be able to understand the ABA program and would be able to collect data so that the Student would not tantrum as frequently (Tr. at 286). He opined that based on his observations of the Student in his school that he was not appropriately enrolled in the Public School (Tr. at 287).

On cross the BCBA/LBA stated that he observed the Student elope and walk around the round and that he did not observe the Student fall (Tr. at 292).

The Parent testified that her son was diagnosed with autism, Pica and global delays and feet deformities (Tr. at 299). She stated that the Student received ABA in from the age of 2 to 4 years old but did not receive ABA after early intervention (Tr. at 300). She stated that she requested ABA at the Public School and that her son had attended the Public School since 2018 and opined that her son did not progress as he was non-verbal and only communicated through crying (Tr. at 301).

The Parent stated that her son required [Redacted] that her son [Redacted] (Tr. at 303). She stated that her son struggled with all daily living skills and opined that PT would improve his mobility issues (Tr. at 306). She stated that she had attended the June 2021 IEP meeting and noted that the team did not follow the recommendations of the IEEs (Tr. at 307), and that she requested ABA and PT in school, and ABA and PCAT at home, but these services were not added to the IEP (Tr. at 309).

The Parent stated that she had recently received the recommended communication device and that the CBST was supposed to refer the Student's case to a NPS for a fulltime ABA program in school and that she had researched the 4 placements in the spring of 2020, [Redacted] ("[Redacted]") [Redacted], ("[Redacted]") [Redacted], ("[Redacted]") and the [Redacted] school (Tr. at 311). She stated that neither [Redacted] nor [Redacted] School provided ABA therapy and [Redacted] did not provide PT (Tr. at 314).

The Parent stated that the Public School did not provide sufficient supervision as her son came home from school with bruises and he [Redacted] and no staff member could explain to her how her son was hurt (Tr. at 315;318) and that her son had not progressed academically during his years at the Public School (Tr. at 316) and that while her son was supposed to have an 1:1 paraprofessional to help him[Redacted] that no one at the school was able to tell her the name of the paraprofessional or when the paraprofessional helped her son (Tr. at 318).

On cross the Parent stated that her son started wearing braces at the age of 2 and because of her son's growth that [Redacted] had to be replaced so that there were times when her son was not [Redacted] (Tr. at 324). She stated that the [Redacted] took 3 weeks to a month to arrive because the [Redacted] (Tr. at 324). The Parent stated that she did not accept the [Redacted] school because the school did not provide PT (Tr. at 328). The Parent stated that the [Redacted] was not appropriate for her son because she was told that it was an old building with many stairs and no elevator (Tr. at 341). The Parent stated that she had no recollection if the IEP team mandated a barrier-free school on the current IEP in June 2021 (Tr. at 343). The Parent further stated that she was not aware if the Public-School building that her son attended was a barrier-free school (Id.).

FINDING OF FACT, CONCLUSION OF LAW

Under IDEA, New York State law and both the federal and State regulations, the right to a FAPE is guaranteed. There is no obligation on the part of the school district to provide the best education for the student, but that education must be appropriate so that there is an opportunity for the student to make progress in his/her education. States receiving federal funds are required to provide "all children with disabilities" a "free and appropriate public education" (20 U.S.C. § 400[d][1][A]).(Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 122 [2d. Cir. 2007]). FAPE consists of specialized education and related services designed to meet a student’s unique need, provided in conformity with a comprehensive written IEP (34 C.F.R. § 300.13). "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…." and "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" (Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), 2017 WL 1066260 [March 22, 2017]). To meet its burden of showing that it had offered to provide a FAPE to a student, the board of education must show (a) that it complied with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) that 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]). As for the program itself, the Second Circuit has observed that "'for an IEP to be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, it must be likely to produce progress, not regression'" (Weixel v. Bd. of Educ., 287 F.3d 138, 151 [2d Cir. 2002], quoting M.S. ex rel. SS. V. Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of Yonkers, 231 F.3d 96 at 103 (2d Cir. 2000); see Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 at 130 (2d Cir. 1998).  This progress, however, must be meaningful, i.e., more than mere trivial advancement (Id. at 130). The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.550[b]; 8 NYCRR 200.6[a][1]).

The Court in Rowley also observed that states are not required under IDEA to maximize every disabled child’s potential (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 198). The Second Circuit further observed that the IDEA is not intended to "secure the best education money can buy" or "guarantee any particular level of education" (Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 [2d Cir. 1998]) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).

The burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing challenging the appropriateness of an IEP is on the Department of Education. N.Y. Educ. Law §4404[1][c].

For tuition reimbursement cases a board of education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a child by the child’s 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. (School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Dept. Education, Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 [1985]; Florence County School District Four et al. v. Carter by Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]; see also, Frank G. and Dianne G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356 [2d Cir. 2006] cert denied, Board of Educ. of Hyde Park Cent. School Dist. v. Frank G., 2007 WL 2982269 [Oct. 15, 2007]).

Further, I note with regard to issues presented here that a FAPE includes special education and related services designed to meet a student’s unique needs and prepare the students for further education, employment and independent living. 20 U.S.C.1400[d]. A FAPE must include any developmental and supportive service as may be required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education, including instruction conducted in the home. 20 U.S.C. 1401[26] [29]; 34 C.F.R. 300.39(a).

Prong 1 In this matter the Parent's attorney alleged substantive and procedural defect claims (Exh. A at 5).

The Parent's attorney asserted that the June 18, 2021, IEP, (Exh. D) did not provide the Student with a FAPE because the Parent never was provided with notices, progress reports in [Redacted] and never provided the Parent with [Redacted] translated IEP (Exh. A at 6). This assertion was not disputed. The Parent's attorney argued that the IEP did not recommend an appropriate program and did not provide for in-school ABA or home-based ABA and did not recommend PT, while the IEP noted significant deficits and asserted that the CBST did not locate an approved NPS as mandated in the IEP. She further argued that the Student had not progressed in the Public School for the 2021-2022 school year and had not "[Redacted]. Exs. C & D" (Exh. V at 8).

The Parent's attorney asserted that IEP failed to recommend appropriate related services as recommended by the IEEs and the SLT mandate and OT mandate were reduced from the January 12, 2021, IEPs without justification given the Student's delays, and that the CSE eliminated PCAT and PT completely and failed to recommend appropriate ADL supports or appropriate goals (Exh. A at 7).

The Parent's attorney asserted that despite historic [Redacted] behaviors and attention issue the DOE failed to conduct an appropriate FBA and resultant BIP. She noted that the CSE was in receipt of the privately conducted FBA and BIP and failed to implement the BIP (Exh. A at 8). The Parent's attorney argued that the DOE failed to appropriately educate the Student since he was placed at the Public School as he was not provided with an appropriate program despite the June 2021 mandate that the CBST find a placement for a 12-month program with full time ABA instruction in a 6:1:1 class (Exh. V at 8). This assertion was not disputed.

Under the IDEA, if a procedural violation is alleged, an administrative officer may find that a student did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a) impeded the student's right to a FAPE, (b) significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student, or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]).

I find that the Parent was never provided with any explanations of why the DOE failed to provide ABA in the Public School as recommended by the IEE nor was the Parent provided with an explanation as to why the CBST did not continue to search for an ABA school in a highly supportive special education classroom for a 12-month year and a 1:1 health paraprofessional for his [Redacted] issues and to safely access the school environment (Exh. T at 17). I find that the District representative failed to establish that any of the 4 NPS schools that the Parent visited had offered the Student a placement for the 2021-2022 school year. I find that the District representative merely submitted 4 documents regarding the NPS referral: a letter from [Redacted] (Exh. 4) dated July 26, 2021, that did not offer a placement (Exh. 4 at 4); a Response Form from [Redacted] dated August 29, 2021, that indicated that the Parent declined to screen due to the distance from her home (Exh. 4 at 3); a Response Form from [Redacted] dated March 4,2021, that rejected the Student (Exh. 4 at 2), and a letter from [Redacted] School dated July 21, 2021, that rejected the Student (Exh. 4 at 1). The District representative submitted an e-mail dated April 22, 2022, (Exh. 3), that indicated that the CBST "exhausted all possible NPS placements... due to 1) the school's inability to meet student's needs 2) Parent's refusal to interview at a school due to distance and interest solely on an ABA program"(Exh. 3). I find that the CBST did not continue to search for an ABA school in a highly supportive special education classroom for a 12-month year and I find that this lack of effort to find an appropriate NPS was a denial of a FAPE.

The Parent's attorney stated that the "DOE had never located an appropriate ABA based placement for the Student, as mandated by his IEP. Ex. D. Tr. 28, 29. At hearing, the DOE failed to present any witnesses to defend its position that a FAPE was provide to [the Student] for the 21/22 school year" (Exh. V at 6). I agree. I credit the Parent's testimony that she told the team members that her son required ABA in school and ABA and PCAT at home, but these services were not added to the IEP (Tr. at 309).

The Parent's attorney asserted that "Part 200.13(d) of the New York Regulations states that for students with autism, parent counseling and training services must be provided. However, on the June 2021 IEP, the DOE failed to recommend any PCAT services" (Exh. V at 14) I agree.

I credit the testimony and find that the Parent informed the CSE that her son required ABA to reduce negative behavior and to understand instruction (Tr. at 309). I find that the CSE team ignored the Parent's request for ABA significantly impeded the Parent's opportunity to participate in the decision-making process.

I find the Public School 6:1:1 program did not provide Student with sufficient support, and I find that the June 18, 2021, IEP reduced the Student's special education services and related services without evaluations to justify the reduction and that the Parent was never provided with any explanation for the reduction of the related services of OT and SLT despite the significant deficits in language and adaptive skills. I find that the CSE reduced the related services of OT and SLT without any evaluation to support the reduction and in contradiction of the IEEs. I further find that the Student was not provided with any individualized special education instruction support for the 2021-2022 school year. Moreover, the DOE had documentation of Student's continued, significant speech and behavior needs at the time of the CSE meetings and I find that the CSE was on notice of the deficits in cognition and behavior by the BASC-3 scores and the GARS-3 scores (Exh. T at 14), and the Student's deficits in speech and language skills based on the CELF-4 scores that indicated that he was [Redacted] and could not [Redacted] (Exh. V at 7). I find that the CSE was on notice that the Student had difficulty understanding social interactions (Exh. T at 10) and was on notice of the Student's negative behavior (Exh. R at 17). I find that the CSE was on notice that the Student required individual ABA support in school over the years for his [Redacted] autism by the letter from medical doctor in December 6, 2019, (Exh. E at 1), the Neuropsychological Evaluation in September 2020 (Exh. T at 17), and the ABA Skills assessment in January 2021 (Exh. R at 24) and I find that the Student required ABA and more related services than the CSE was willing to provide.

The Parent's attorney argued that "the Department completely removed PT from [the Student's] IEP. From 2019 to present, [the Student's] physicians have written multiple letters on his behalf recommending he receive PT services in school. Exs. E-H, & KK. However, the DOE has continued to deny [the Student] PT services, contributing to his denial of FAPE. Exs. C, D" Exh. V at 15). I find that District representative merely stated that the CSE discontinued PT because the Student had no gross motor deficits that school-based PT would address (Tr. at 124). I find that the District representative did not submit any current evaluation of the Student's current PT functioning. I find that the IEP indicated that the Student was able to ambulate and use the stairs appropriately and his attributed his "decreased participation within the school environment... [Redacted] impairments and [Redacted]... outside the scope of school based physical therapy" (Exh. D at 7). The IEP indicated that PT was removed in 2018 based on clinical observation and assessments and the school function assessment ("SFA") and I find that no observation assessment or SFA was submitted into the record. I find that the IEP's conclusion that the Student's difficulty to participate in the school environment was solely due to the cognitive and behavioral impairments (Exh. D at 7), was not supported by any evidence submitted into the record.

I find that the Parent provided repeated requests for PT from the Student's pediatrician (Exhs. E, H, KK) and independent PT evaluation (Exh. Q). I find that there was no dispute that the Student's required [Redacted] and I find there was no dispute that the Student had difficulty climbing stairs and no dispute of the Student's had an "[Redacted]" (Exh. T at 5). I find that the Student's pediatrician (Exhs. E, H, KK) and an independent PT evaluation (Exh. Q) recommended that PT be added to the IEP.

The Parent's attorney argued that the "DOE representative claimed that the DOE’s own PT evaluation revealed [the Student] did not require any PT supports. Tr. 117. However, the DOE failed to produce this DOE PT evaluation or have the evaluator testify to this point" (Exh. V at 16). I agree. I credit the testimony of the PT provider who stated that the Student required PT per the SFA conducted in 2018, that indicated poor results (Tr. at 194). I find the PT provider recommended school-based PT as she observed decreased strength in his legs as evidenced by his [Redacted] or use the stairs independently and did not attribute his gross motor deficits to behavior issues (Tr. at 222). The Parent's attorney asserted that the PT provided noted that the Student's "' [Redacted].' Tr. 209" (Exh. V at 16). I credit the testimony of the PT provider who opined that she asked the Student to run and that he did not comply. I credit her testimony and find that she attributed his refusal to move from a walking to a running gait to his lack of physical ability rather than to his inability to understand her direction (Tr. at 219). I credit the testimony for the recommended PT sessions and find that the Student required individual PT 2 times per week for 30 minute per session to increase his PT skills and recommended 46 hours of compensatory PT to address strength, leg and core strength, balance, bilateral coordination and motor accuracy skills (Tr. at 211).

The Parent's attorney challenged the goals in the 2021 IEPs (Exhs. C-D) and asserted that the DOE failed to develop a [Redacted] goal and argued that the lack of a toileting goal for the Student who was [Redacted] was an example of the inappropriate goals and a denial of FAPE (Exh. V at 19). I agree and find that the CSE was on notice by the neuropsychological evaluation (Exh. T at 4) that indicated in the social history update on February 10, 2017, that the Student "was [Redacted]" and I find the lack of a [Redacted] goal was a denial of a FAPE.

The Parent's attorney asserted that the DOE failed to implement the BIP (Exh. V at 19). I find that the Student had a history of interfering and eloping behaviors and required a large amount of behavior support. I find the IEP should have included the results of the FBA and I find that the CSE should implemented the BIP dated January 2021 (Exh. S). I credit the testimony of the Parent regarding the deficiencies of June 18, 2021, IEP because it failed to include the results of the FBA and BIP. I credit the testimony and evidence and find that the Student required the BIP to address his interfering behaviors and I find that the June 18, 2021, IEP failed to provide sufficient support to address the Student's interfering behavior. I further find the failure to implement the BIP was a denial of a FAPE. I further find as the Parent's attorney asserted that removal of PCAT on the June 18, 2021, IEP was a direct violation of Part 200.13(d) of the New York Regulations.

I find that the Parent communicated her disagreement with the CSE recommendation (Exhs. J, L, M, N, O) and I find the Public School 6:1:1 program did not provide Student with sufficient support, and I find that the June 18, 2021, IEP reduced the Student's special education services and related services without evaluations to justify the reduction.

I note that the District representative presented no witnesses for the June 18, 2021, IEP. I find that that documentary evidence, unsupported by any testimony, is not sufficient to establish that a school district offered the Student a FAPE. I find that without a DOE witness testimony to explain how Student's deficits were addressed within the IEP and other DOE documents as well as to explain the CSE's rationale in recommending the disputed program, the DOE was unable to meet their burden. The SRO has found that allegations that are left unchallenged are deemed as true. (See Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-044). I find the evidence in the record is consistent with the allegations and I find that the DOE could not establish a FAPE was provided based on its evidence for the 2021-2022 school year.

Accordingly, I find that a FAPE was not offered for the 2021-2022 school year, and I further find that the deprivation of a FAPE for the 2021-2022 school year impeded the Parent's substantive and procedural rights under the IDEA, and significantly impeded the Parent’s opportunity to participate in the provision of a FAPE to her son.

Prong 2

When a public school system has failed to provide FAPE, the program and services chosen by the parent are “proper under the Act” if the education provided is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.” Carter, 510 U.S. at 14. The parents bear the burden of proof with regard to the services obtained by the parents for the student. However, parents are not barred from reimbursement if their program does not meet the IDEA definition of a FAPE. See 20 U.S.C. §1401(9), Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park., 459 F. 3d 356 (2nd Cir. 2006). It is not required that the provider of the services be State approved to provide instruction to children with disabilities. Carter, 510 U.S. at 10. The student need not be the least restrictive environment. Frank G, 459 F. 3d at 364. “Ultimately the issue turns on whether a placement…is ‘reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.’ [internal citations omitted] …”, Frank G, 459 F. 3d at 130. No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining that. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 207 (1982). Parents need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction. Id. at 364-365.

The testimony and evidence presented by the Parent was credible and uncontroverted. The testimony of the witnesses, supported by documentary evidence, established the substantial academic, related service and social/emotional special education needs and included addressing his medical diagnoses of [Redacted] and ASD.

I credit the testimony of the Neurologist who opined that as an ASD [Redacted] child with intellectual and motor impairments the Student required specialized ABA instruction to address his academic and sensory impairments and interfering behaviors and recommended that the Student be placed in an ABA school in a highly supportive special education classroom for a 12-month year with a 1:1 health paraprofessional for his Pica issues and to safely access the school (Exh. T at 17; Tr. at 246-248). I further credit the testimony of the BCBA/LBA who stated that an ABA program with a BIP would ensure that the Student's distraction was minimized so that he could acquire skills. I further credit this testimony and find that the Student required 10 hours of home-based ABA to be provided by a BCBA or LBA to implement the home program so that the Student was able generalized at home the skills he learned in school (Tr. at 283). I credit his testimony and find that the Parent required PCAT from a licensed BCBA so that the Parent would be able to understand the ABA program and would be able to collect data so that the Student would not [Redacted] as frequently (Tr. at 286). I further find that the rate of $250 to $300 per hour was consistent with rates charged by similarly qualified, skilled, appropriate ABA and BCBA service providers in the NYC.

I credit the testimony of the music therapist who recalled that the Student partially hid his body when the session was concluding and that she interpreted his action as his reluctance to end the session (Tr. at 158). I further credit her testimony and find that she had data to support the progress as a result of music therapy with other children with the similar deficits as the Student and had helped those children make gains in the classroom setting (Tr. at 181) and I find that she had recommended 150 music therapy sessions to boost his level of functioning and to access his IEP goals (Tr. at 168; Exh. JJ at 14) and recommended 30 minutes of consultation with the school staff once per month as well as consultation with the home team and the Parent for 30 minutes once per month (Tr. at 176).

I find that the Student is entitled to compensatory services for the denial of a FAPE for the 2021-2022 school years. I find compensatory education is available as an appropriate remedy under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"). P. ex rel. Mr. and Mrs. P. v. Newington Bd. of Ed., 546 F. 3d 111 (2nd Cir. 2008). “…[C]ompensatory education is an equitable remedy that is tailored to meet the unique circumstances of each case (Wenger v. Canastota, 979 F. Supp. 147 [N.D.N.Y. 1997]).” Appeal No. 11-027. Compensatory education, as with other forms of available remedies, serves the purpose of ensuring that the student is appropriately educated within the meaning of the IDEA. Newington, 546 F.3d at 123, quoting Parents of Student W. v. Puyallup Sch. Dist., 31 F.3d 1489, 1497 (9th Cir.1994). 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) as cited in Newington, 546 F.3d at 123.

The Parent's attorney argued that the "[Redacted] (Exh. V at 24). She asserted that the BCBA/LBA "testified that until an appropriate placement is located for the Student he should receive 25 hours per week of push-in ABA therapy, by a trained professional. Tr. 281 (Id). I agree.

The Parent requested compensatory services for the following: (a) 1,150 hours of ABA therapy, at a rate not to exceed $300/hour; (b) 92 hours of PCAT, at a rate not to exceed $300/hour; (c) 184 hours of SLT services, at a rate not to exceed $250/hour; (d) 46 hours of PT services, at a rate not to exceed $250/hour; (e) 92 hours of OT, at a rate not to exceed $250/hour; and (f) 150 hours of music therapy, at market rate (Exh. V at 21).

I find that the Parent has met her burden of proof with respect to the request for compensatory services for the lack of FAPE for the 2021-2022 school year for all services and I note that the district representative did not dispute the amount as calculated by the Parent for the lack of FAPE for the 2021-2022 school year for the ABA, PCAT, SLT, PT or OT as the district representative did not submit a closing statement.

Order

• • I order that the DOE fund compensatory services for the Student in the following areas: (a) 1,150 hours of ABA therapy, at a rate not to exceed $300/hour; (b) 92 hours of PCAT, at a rate not to exceed $300/hour; (c) 184 hours of SLT services, at a rate not to exceed $250/hour; (d) 46 hours of PT services, at a rate not to exceed $250/hour; (e) 92 hours of OT, at a rate not to exceed $250/hour; and (f) 150 hours of music therapy, at market rate;
• • I further order that the DOE to fund the Student's home-based program of: (a) 10 hours per week of ABA therapy, and (b) 2 hours per week of PCAT for the 2022-2023 school year;
• • I further order that the DOE shall provide to the Parent transportation to and from all compensatory services by issuing the Student a special education MetroCard’s within 14 days of this Order;
• • This matter is remanded back to CSE to consider the results of the IEEs and to develop a procedurally valid IEP and to recommend an appropriate placement at a non-public school and including, but is not limited to a 12-month placement in an ABA program in a small, supportive, specialized class, with a 1:1 health paraprofessional, and with socialization instruction and supports and specific and measurable goals tailored to the Student's individual needs as well as the implementation of the BIP to consider adding to the IEP individual SLT 4 times per week for 60 minutes per session and SLT in a group of 2 once per week for 60 minutes as well as individual OT therapy 4 times per week for 45 minutes per session; individual PT two times per week for 30 minutes and individual music therapy in school 2 times per week for 30 minutes per session, the duration and frequency of the related services as recommended by the IEE.

_/S/ Linda Agoston____________

LINDA AGOSTON, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

Dated: August 8, 2022

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.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON MAY 3, 2022

A Impartial hearing request, 1/25/22, 11 10 pp. Parent

B IHO case assignment sheet, 2022, 2 pp. Parent

C IEP, 1/12/21, 21 pp. Parent

D IEP, 6/18/21, 24 pp. Parent

E Letter recommending PT and ABA, 12/6/19, 1 p. Parent

F Letter recommending PT services, 6/4/20, 2 pp. Parent

G Letter recommending PT services, 3/5/21, 1 p. Parent

H Letter recommending PT services and school response,

5/6/21- 5/7/21, 2 pp. Parent

I Letter from DOE acknowledging CBST 24 deferral, 3/4/21, 3 pp. Parent

J Parent email to school regarding summer session concerns, 7/19/21, 3pp. Parent

K Email from the Department, regarding 5 CBST deferral, 7/25/21, 3 pp. Parent

L Email to OPT regarding transportation issues, 9/26/21, 1 p. Parent

M Parent emails to school regarding safety concerns, 3/14/22, 2 pp. Parent

N Parent email to school regarding AT device, 12 3/18/22, 1 p. Parent

O Email to school regarding AT device, 4/4/22, 1 p. Parent

P Independent OT evaluation, 1/22/21, 19 pp. Parent

Q Independent PT evaluation, 1/22/21, 11 pp. Parent

R Independent ABA skills assessment, 1/10/21, 28 pp. Parent

S Independent FBA and BIP, 1/13/21, 28 pp. Parent

T Independent neuropsychological evaluation, 9/29/20, 19 pp. Parent

U Independent AT evaluation, 1/29/21, 9 pp. Parent

V Independent bilingual SLT evaluation, 1/14/21, 9 pp. Parent

W NY State Education Department State complaint acknowledgement letter, 3/25/22, 3 pp. Parent

X Subpoena for related service encounter records and delivery receipts,

3/16/22, 5 pp. Parent

Y RSEA records, 2021-2022 school year, 13 pp. Parent

Z Resume of [REDACTED], Psy.D, undated, 4 pp. Parent

AA Resume of [REDACTED], undated, 2 pp. Parent

BB Resume of [REDACTED], BCBA, undated, 3 pp. Parent

CC Resume of [REDACTED], undated, 1 p. Parent

DD Resume of [REDACTED], DPT, undated, 2 pp. Parent

EE Withdrawn

FF Resume of [REDACTED], undated, 6 pp. Parent

GG Rate sheet of [REDACTED] Psychological Group, undated, 1 p. Parent

HH Rate sheet of [REDACTED] Speech Services, undated, 1 p. Parent

II Withdrawn

JJ Independent music therapy evaluation, 4/25/22, 14 pp. Parent

1 Impartial hearing request for 206406, 14 1/29/21, 9 pp. District

2 Findings in fact and decision, case 206406, 10/1/21, 8 pp. District

3 Email from CBST, 43 51 undated, 1 p. District

4 NPS rejection letters, undated, 4 pp. District

I Decision on Extension, 3/3/22, 1 p. IHO

II Decision on Extension, 5/3/22, 1 p. IHO

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON JUNE 9, 2022

KK Pediatrician's letter regarding PT, 5/13/22, 2 pp. Parent

III Decision on Extension, 6/9/22, 1 p. IHO

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON JULY 5, 2022

IV Decision on Extension, 7/5/22, 1 p. IHO

POST HEARING SUBMISSION

V

Parent's Closing Order, 7/26/22, 30 pp.

IHO