New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

CASE NUMBER: 570079 - NYC: 224544

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 224544

Student’s Name: [REDACTED]

(hereinafter referred to as “Student”)

Date of Birth: [REDACTED]

District: [REDACTED]

Hearing Requested By: [REDACTED]

(hereinafter referred to as “the Grandmother” or “Parent”)

Record Close Date: June 24, 2022

Decision Date: July 8, 2022

Hearing Officer: Lisa S. Rusk, Esq.

__________________________________________________________

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON APRIL 5, 2022

For the Student:

[REDACTED], [REDACTED]

[REDACTED], Grandmother

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], District Representative

Interpreter:

[REDACTED]

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 14, 2022

For the Student:

[REDACTED], [REDACTED]

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], District Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JUNE 17, 2022

For the Student:

[REDACTED], [REDACTED]

[REDACTED], BCBA

[REDACTED], Speech-Language Pathologist

[REDACTED], Physical Therapist

[REDACTED], Psychologist

[REDACTED], Speech-Language Pathologist

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], District Representative

INTRODUCTION

A due process complaint (DPC) dated February 14, 2022 was filed by the Parent on February 16, 2022, alleging a failure to provide the Student with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for the 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 school years. The undersigned impartial hearing officer (IHO) was assigned on March 7, 2022. A prehearing conference was held on March 21, 2022. In the complaint, the Parent requested an immediate hearing on the issue of independent evaluations, including a bilingual neuropsychological evaluation, a bilingual speech and language (S/L) evaluation, an assistive technology evaluation with a translator, an occupational therapy (OT) evaluation with a translator, a physical therapy (PT) evaluation with a translator, a vocational assessment with a translator, a bilingual Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) skills assessment, a bilingual functional behavioral assessment and a behavior intervention plan, if necessary.

In addition to the independent evaluations and specific records requests^[1], the relief requested by the Parents in the DPC, generally stated, is:

• • A FAPE violation for the 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 school years.
• • Designation of an appropriate program and placement.
• • Compensatory education, including but not limited to S/L, OT, PT, parent counseling and training and tutoring.
• • An order that the child be educated until age 23.

On April 1, 2022, I denied the Parent’s motion to preclude the District from presenting testimony or evidence and to grant the requested evaluations on an interim basis as a matter of law.^[2] I permitted the District to enter evidence of prior evaluations and reasonable rates into the record.^[3] A hearing on the interim independent evaluations was held on April 5, 2022. By decision dated April 19, 2022, the following interim evaluations were ordered: a bilingual neuropsychological evaluation, a bilingual speech and language (S/L) evaluation, an assistive technology evaluation, an occupational therapy (OT) evaluation, a physical therapy (PT) evaluation, an Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) skills assessment, a functional behavioral assessment and a behavior intervention plan. The vocational assessment was not ordered as an interim evaluation.^[4] Additional hearing dates were held on June 14, 2022 and June 17, 2022. Each of the ordered evaluations was completed and submitted into evidence.^[5]

DISTRICT’S POSITION The District did not call any witnesses or present any evidence. On June 14, 2022, [REDACTED] stated that the District was “resting and moving to the Parent’s case.” (T:117). Following the Parent’s opening statement, the District responded that the District does not “defer to CBST” and that there are no New York State approved schools that provide full-time ABA programs and that infusing ABA into his current “inappropriate” program is not appropriate. (T:142). [REDACTED] inferred that if the evidence supported it and the IHO were to find the student was entitled to extended eligibility and compensatory services, the order should be for a private program with full-time ABA (T:144).

PARENTS’ POSITION The Parent in its case on the merits presented the affidavits of seven witnesses (Parent Exhibits SSS, TTT, YYY, ZZZ, AAAA, BBBB and CCCC). The Parent also introduced the recent evaluative information: an assistive technology evaluation, PT evaluation, neuropsychological evaluation, S/L evaluation, OT evaluation, FBA and BIP and ABA skills assessment (Parent Exhibits KKK, LLL, MMM, UUU, VVV, WWW and XXX). The Parent argues that based upon the gross FAPE violations of the District, including a total lack of service from July 2019 to October 19, 2021 and an inappropriate 6:1:1 program through June 30, 2022, the IHO should find the District denied the Student a FAPE for the 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 school years. The Parent seeks:

• • District funding of a vocational assessment from [REDACTED] Speech Services at a rate of $3,500.
• • An order for two additional years of extended eligibility. The CSE to reconvene within 15 days and review the program and service recommendations of the IEES, including present levels of performance, goals, related services as recommended in the IEEs, 25 hours per week of at home ABA, a BIP, appropriate class size, a sensory diet, one-to-one paraprofessional, parent counseling and training (PCT), assistive technology and 40 hours of training, 12 month services, deferral to the CBST for placement in a full-time ABA program. If the District cannot find an appropriate program in 30 days, the Parent may unilaterally place the Student at District expense.
• • The Parent also seeks compensatory education and services as follows:
• • 690 hours of S/L, 207 hours of OT, 104 PT hours, 1,380 ABA hours, 276 hours of PCT, 23 hours of counseling.
• • If no extended eligibility is awarded, the Parent seeks the purchase of the recommended AT devices and 40 hours of training.
• • Services and payment should be authorized within 14 days and payment for tuition or services should be authorized within 30 days. (T:134-139).

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Student is [REDACTED] years old, has severe Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), global developmental delays, cognitive deficits and significant behavioral issues. The District does not dispute the Parent’s contention that the Student was denied a FAPE for the 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 school years. The District also does not refute the Parent’s assertion that the Student was not provided any services from July 2019 – October 21, 2021, or that the denial of services was the failure of the District to provide a transportation paraprofessional and/or any services during COVID. The question for this IHO is what shall the remedy be for this gross violation.

INDEPENDENT EVALUATIONS:

Psychologist [REDACTED] diagnosed the Student with ASD, severe with profound intellectual and language impairment (Parent Exhibit MMM-9). She was not able to administer testing to the Student, but conducted a thorough review of his records, interviewed his Parent to complete rating scales/checklists, spoke with the Student’s special education teacher and paraprofessional and observed him remotely. [REDACTED] reports that his teacher reported the “he has essentially been without instruction or related services since July 2019. He currently receives speech language instruction in the classroom and has made little progress. He has not been provided with an AAC or AT device of any kind.” (Parent Exhibit MMM-7). His teacher and paraprofessional have never heard him utter an intelligible word. He is able to follow 1 to 2 step instructions but needs prompting to complete tasks. He is unable to write or identify any letters or numbers. Although he is no longer eloping from class or masturbating in class, he frequently spits on others, has a history of self-injurious behaviors, compulsively cleans the classroom, screams often, will sometimes throw himself on the floor and will urinate on himself if he does not adhere to a toileting schedule. (Parent Exhibit MMM-8).

Among her recommendations, [REDACTED] opines that the Student requires a full time ABA-based day program with appropriate supports. She recommends two years of extended eligibility or two years of compensatory instructional services for a total of 3,220 hours (35 hours times 92 weeks).

The FBA of BCBA [REDACTED] found that the Student’s historical lack of appropriate services and lack of communication skills has resulted in the reinforcement of negative behaviors with no effective way to replace them. The FBA and BIP analyzed and targeted the following behaviors: elopement, aggression, screaming, spitting, non-compliance, off-task behavior, self-injurious behavior, PICA (putting non-edible items in his mouth) and repetitive behavior.

The report recommended: enrollment in a specialized school with a BCBA on staff and 1:1 instructional format, utilization of the BIP developed, a predictable and quiet environment, 25 hours per week of home-based ABA, ongoing PCT, 1380 hours of compensatory ABA services (10 hours times 46 weeks times 3 years), and 276 hours of PCT (2 hours times 46 weeks times 3 years) and regular meetings between the Student’s parent, home provider and provider. He recommended the compensatory hours to put the Student in the position he would have been had appropriate services been provided. (Parent Exhibit WWW 14-16).

The ABA skills assessment was also administered by [REDACTED]. The report includes a lengthy list of absent, weak or defective repertoires and skills. For example, the Student exhibits many negative behaviors, he is non-verbal and makes no attempts at vocalizations, cannot write his name, does not possess any social skills, is prompt dependent for all tasks and makes no eye contact. He needs to be taught skills to interact socially with others, communicate appropriately and reduce maladaptive behaviors. The report reiterates the recommendations of the FBA and recommends additionally an augmentative communication device (Parent Exhibit XXX).

Speech language (S/L) pathologist [REDACTED] conducted a bilingual Spanish/English speech evaluation. At the time, the Student was receiving speech two times per week for 30 minutes in a group of 3. The evaluation found the Student to be profoundly delayed in expressive and receptive language with below average pragmatic language skills and no pre-literacy skills. (Parent Exhibit UUU-14). He suffers from both a language disorder and a language gap due to missed instruction. She recommended that the Student receive 5 hours of S/L therapy per week (4 x 1:1 and 1 x 2:1), as well as 609 compensatory hours (Exhibit UUU-16).

S/L Pathologist [REDACTED] conducted an assistive technology evaluation (Parent Exhibit KKK). The Student is nonverbal and has not been provided with any low-tech or high-tech communication device by the District. He communicates by pointing, using gestures or using behavior. The evaluator introduced several programs to the Student. She recommends that he be provided with the Via Pro form PRC Saltillo device with case, strap and keyguard along with the LAMP Words for Life speech application. She also recommends 40 hours of training for the Student and staff (Parent Exhibit KKK-9-10).

Physical Therapist [REDACTED] conducted a PT evaluation on May 19, 2022. She notes that his IEPs from 2016 and 2017 recommended PT one time per week for 30 minutes. His 2019 IEP does not mention PT, and in 2020 his IEP recommended discharge from PT. Due to his lack of access to physical movement through adaptive PE or PT during the past year, he has regressed in his physical abilities and gained considerable weight placing him in the severely obese category. She recommends he receives PT for 45 minutes one time per week. To compensate him for the lack of PT during the past three years, she recommends a bank of 104 compensatory PT hours (1 hour per week for 52 weeks for 2 years).

OTR [REDACTED] evaluated the Student on June 3, 2022. She also conducted a thorough review of his educational records. [REDACTED] stressed the Student’s deficiencies in activities of daily living (ADL)/self-care skills. (Parent Exhibit VVV). For example, he has not mastered toileting, is unable to do many household chores, he cannot fold or put away clothes or select appropriate clothing and does not know how to make any food for himself (Parent Exhibit VVV-8). [REDACTED] recommends a bank of 207 OT hours (1.5 hours per week for 46 weeks for 3 years) based upon his current needs, the time needed to makeup for inadequate intervention and the Student’s significant ADL needs.

S/L pathologist and Director of [REDACTED] Speech Services, [REDACTED] averred in her affidavit that her firm can conduct a Vocational Assessment of the Student (Parent Exhibit SSS). He was administered a Level I Vocational Assessment by the District in June of 2019. Based upon a review of her affidavit, I find it would be appropriate for the Student to be administered a Level II Vocational Assessment at this time. [REDACTED] states that the rate for a vocational skills assessment is $3,200 but her affidavit is not clear if that includes a Level III assessment. Given the Student’s current functional levels, I find a Level III assessment would not be appropriate for this Student at this time.

DECISION

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provides that children with disabilities are entitled to a FAPE (20 U.S.C. § 1400 [d][1][A]). A FAPE consists of specialized education and related services designed to meet a student’s unique needs, provided in conformity with a comprehensive written IEP (34 C.F.R. § 300.13). A school district has offered a student a FAPE when (a) the board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA; and (b) the IEP is developed through the IDEA's procedures and is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits Bd. of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 (1982). In order to meet its substantive FAPE obligations, a district must offer a student an IEP that is “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances” Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S.Ct. 988 (2017).

The Student has profound deficits, however, there is no dispute that the Student did not receive a FAPE for the 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 school years. I find that the District committed gross violations of the IDEA in failing to ensure that the Student received appropriate special education and related services for a substantial period of time. The issue of an appropriate remedy is complicated by the fact that the Student’s needs are significant and he has aged out of special education under the IDEA, thereby limiting the availability of programs and services for him.

Compensatory education is an equitable remedy that is tailored to meet the unique circumstances of each case and may be awarded to a student with a disability who no longer meets the eligibility criteria for receiving instruction under the IDEA (Wenger v. Canastota, 979 F. Supp. 147 [N.D.N.Y. 1997]; (see 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401[3], 1412[a][1][B]; Educ. Law §§ 3202[1], 4401[1], 4402[5]).  The Second Circuit has held that compensatory education may be awarded to students who are ineligible for services under the IDEA by reason of age or graduation only if the district committed a gross violation of the IDEA, which resulted in the denial of, or exclusion from, educational services for a substantial period of time (see Doe v. E. Lyme Bd. of Educ., 790 F.3d 440, 456 n.15 [2d Cir. 2015]; French v. New York State Dep't of Educ., 476 Fed. App'x 468, 471 [2d Cir. Nov. 3, 2011]; Somoza v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 538 F.3d 106, 109 n.2, 113 n.6 [2d Cir. 2008]; Mrs. C. v. Wheaton, 916 F.2d 69, 75-76 [2d Cir. 1990]; Burr v. Ambach, 863 F.2d 1071, 1078-79 [2d Cir. 1988], aff'd on reconsideration sub nom., Burr v. Sobol, 888 F.2d 258 [2d Cir. 1989]; Cosgrove v. Bd. of Educ. of Niskayuna Cent. Sch. Dist., 175 F. Supp. 2d 375, 387 [N.D.N.Y. 2001]). As stated above, the record is clear in this case that the District has grossly violated the IDEA and that the Student has consequently been denied a FAPE over an extended period of time.

The purpose of an award of compensatory education is to “make up for” a denial of a FAPE and place the student in the position he would have been had the IDEA not been violated (see E.M. v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 758 F.3d 442, 451 & n.12 [2d Cir. 2014]; P. v. Newington Board of Educ., 546 F.3d 111,123 [2nd Cir. 2008] [holding that compensatory education is a remedy designed to "make up for" a denial of a FAPE]). Accordingly, an award of compensatory education should aim to place the student in the position he or she would have been in had the district complied with its obligations under the IDEA (see Newington, 546 F.3d at 123).

The Second Circuit has described compensatory education as "prospective equitable relief, requiring a school district to fund education beyond the expiration of a child's eligibility as a remedy for any earlier deprivations in the child's education" (Somozav, New York City Dept, of Educ., 538 F.3d at 109 n.2[2nd Cir 2008]).   New York State law does not require school districts to provide students with a free public education past the age of 21 (Educ. Law § 3202[1]), yet compensatory education may be awarded to a student with a disability who no longer meets the eligibility criteria for receiving instruction under the IDEA (see 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401[3], 1412[a][1][B]; Educ. Law §§ 3202[1], 4401[1], 4402[5]).

The Parent’s attorney pointed out via email that on June 13, 2022, the Governor signed into law Senate Bill S7866A:

“…a school district may provide educational services in the 2022-23 and 2023-24 school years to a student who turned twenty-one years old during the 2021-22 school year and was enrolled in the school district and receiving special education services pursuant to an individualized education program. Such student may continue to receive such educational services until the student completes the services pursuant to the individualized education program or turns twenty-three years old, whichever is sooner.” The law does not create a mandate but gives District’s the option to consider extended eligibility in light of the COVID pandemic.

[REDACTED] recommended in her neuropsychological evaluation two years of extended eligibility to make up for the two school years he was not provided service. In the alternative, she recommends two years’ worth of compensatory instructional services (35 hours per week x 92 weeks)^[6]. (Parent Exhibit MMM-11). When questioned, she clarified that she made those recommendations in the alternative (T:209).^[7]

In addition to enrollment in a specialized ABA school and home-based ABA program with PCT, BCBA [REDACTED] recommended a bank of 1380 ABA hours (10 hours x 46 weeks x 3 years) and 276 hours of PCT (2 hours x 46 x 3). He recommended these hours to put the Student in the position he would have been had he received appropriate services over the last 3 years.

The State Review Officer (SRO) has attempted to distinguish an award of compensatory services with an award of extended eligibility (SRO Appeal Nos. 21-127 and 21-198). The Parent in this case seeks both an award of compensatory services and prospective placement into a full-time ABA school for two additional years. The District argued that a State approved full-time ABA day program does not exist. The Parent did not propose a specific placement. There is no evidence in the record of an appropriate school that has accepted the student or would even consider a student 21 years of age or older. [REDACTED] testified that he was not aware of a school off the top of his head and stated it could be difficult to find a school given his age (T:171, 177). He also testified that his current school program was not proper (T:172). [REDACTED] listed some schools/programs that might be appropriate, but she also questioned whether they would accept students aged 21 or over. The extended eligibility placement the Parent seeks, runs a substantial risk of not being able to be implemented (see Application of a Student with a Disability, SRO Appeal No. 21-032.

I find given the particularly egregious nature of the violations, the Student’s lack of meaningful progress, the District’s failure to defend any of its actions and the State’s recognition that special education students may have not received FAPE due to the COVID pandemic even without a finding of a gross violation, that this Student is entitled to both 2 years of extended eligibility and compensatory services.

However, relief in the form of the prospective placement of a student in a particular type of program and placement such as a full-day ABA program with related services, such as the order sought by the Parent in this matter, have the effect, in most circumstances of circumventing the statutory process, pursuant to which the CSE is tasked with reviewing information about the student's progress under current educational programming and periodically assessing the student's needs (see Adams v. Dist. of Columbia, 285 F. Supp. 3d 381, 393, 396-97 [D.D.C. 2018] [noting with approval the hearing officer's finding "that the directives of IDEA would be best effectuated by ordering an IEP review and revision, rather than prospective placement in a private school"]; see also Student X v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 2008 WL 4890440, at 16 [E.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2008] [noting that "services found to be appropriate for a student during one school year are not necessarily appropriate for the student during a subsequent school year"]). Application of a Student with a Disability, SRO Appeal No. 21-207.

The District’s CSE has not yet convened to review the IEEs. The CSE shall reconvene, review the IEEs and develop an appropriate IEP for the Student for the 2022-23 school year. The Student shall be entitled to an annual review and IEP for the 2023-24 school year as well.

For compensatory services, I find the Student is entitled to a bank of 1380 1:1 ABA instructional hours, as well as 138 hours of PCT.^[8] The speech language evaluation recommends a bank of 609 S/L therapy hours (5 hours per week x 46 weeks x 3 years) to minimize the gaps in his severely deficient expressive, receptive and pragmatic language skills (Parent Exhibit UUU-16). The evaluator recommends that the service be provided by a bilingual Spanish/English clinician and have no expiration date. The Student lacks a means to communicate, and one of the most egregious denials has been the lack of any assistive technology to assist the Student in effectively communicating his wants and needs. The assistive technology or devices section on each of his IEPs for 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 is blank (see Parent Exhibits B-13, D-14 and F-19). I find the Student is entitled to 609 compensatory hours of S/L therapy, as well as the provision of a Via Pro form PRC Saltillo device with case, strap and keyguard along with the LAMP Words for Life speech application and 40 hours of training for the Student and staff.

The PT evaluation recommended a bank of 104 physical therapy hours (1 hour per week x 52 weeks x 2 years) without expiration. The hours would allow him to make up for the time when he did not receive adequate PT services to address his skill regression and are qualitative in nature (Parent Exhibit LLL-9). Based upon the 45-minute sessions currently recommended and a 46 week 12 month program, I find the Student is entitled to a bank of 69 PT hours (45 minutes x 46 weeks x 2 years).

The OT evaluation of [REDACTED] recommended a bank of 207 OT hours (1.5 hours per week for 46 weeks for 3 years). [REDACTED] determined the 207 hours based upon the District’s inappropriate discontinuation of OT services in 2019 and the inadequate OT consultant services provided in 2020 and 2021. In addition, he never received the OT life skills program listed on his 2020 IEP. The Student requires a significant amount of ADL skills. No expiration date was recommended. (Parent Exhibit VVV-11). I find the Student is entitled to a bank of 207 OT hours to address his significant deficits.

Although the evaluators did not recommend an expiration date on the banks of compensatory services. I find that it is reasonable and appropriate to place a limit on the time the Student may continue to receive special education and related services from the District. I find that the compensatory services shall expire after three years if not used in full.

Given the Student’s current functional levels and significant transition needs, I find that the Student shall be provided a Level II Vocational Assessment by [REDACTED] Speech Services.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Student shall continue to be eligible to receive special education and related services from the District for an additional two years and that the [REDACTED] shall convene a meeting of the CSE within 15 days, review the IEEs and develop an IEP with updated functioning levels, goals, related services and program for the Student for the 2022-23 school year. The CSE shall conduct an annual review and develop an IEP for the 2023-24 school year; and it is further

ORDERED that the [REDACTED] is directed to provide the following compensatory services: one thousand three hundred eighty (1380) hours of ABA; and it is further

ORDERED that the [REDACTED] shall provide the following compensatory services: one hundred and thirty-eight (138) hours of PCT; and it is further

ORDERED that the [REDACTED] is directed to provide the following compensatory services: six hundred and nine (609) hours of speech language therapy; and it is further

ORDERED that the [REDACTED] is directed to provide the following compensatory services: two hundred and seven (207) hours of occupational therapy; and it is further

ORDERED that the [REDACTED] is directed to provide the following compensatory services: sixty-nine (69) hours of physical therapy; and it is further

ORDERED that the [REDACTED] is directed to provide the Student with the use of a Via Pro form PRC Saltillo device with case, strap and keyguard along with the LAMP Words for Life speech application and 40 hours of training for the Student, Parent and staff; and it is further

ORDERED that the [REDACTED] shall provide transportation, if necessary, along with a 1:1 transportation paraprofessional whenever the Student must travel to such compensatory services, and it is further

ORDERED that the compensatory services shall expire three years from the date of this decision if the Student has not used them by such date; and it is further

ORDERED that the [REDACTED] shall fund an independent Level II Vocational Assessment by [REDACTED] Speech Services.

Dated: July 8, 2022

_____________________

Lisa S. Rusk, Esq.

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.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

PARENT

P-A Impartial Hearing Request with Due Process 02/16/21 11

Cover Sheet

P-B Individualized Education Program 06/21/19 21

P-C Prior Written Notice 09/01/19 7

P-D Individualized Education Program 04/28/20 20

P-E Prior Written Notice 05/05/20 7

P-F Individualized Education Program 04/23/21 27

P-G Prior Written Notice 04/29/21 12

P-H Letter from DOE regarding Re-Evaluation 03/17/20 2

P-I Parent’s Request for an Independent Education 12/13/21 2

Evaluation

P-J Special Education Remote Learning Plan 03/30/20 2

P-K Special Education Remote Learning Plan 04/03/20 2

P-L Consent for Tele-Therapy 09/20/21 1

P-M Medical Accommodation Forms 06/21/19 4

P-N Custody Agreement 07/03/19 1

P-O Attendance for the 2019-2020 School Year 01/15/20 1

P-Q Report Card, 2019-2020 School Year, Term 1 Undated 1

P-R Rate Sheet of [REDACTED] 09/03/21 1

P-S Rate Sheet of [REDACTED] Speech Services Undated 1

P-T Rate Sheet of [REDACTED] Undated 1

P-U Resume of [REDACTED] 12/23/21 4

P-V Resume of [REDACTED] Undated 2

P-W Resume of [REDACTED] Undated 1

P-X Individualized Education Program 03/03/16 18

P-Y Individualized Education Program 06/22/17 24

P-Z DOE Psychoeducational Evaluation Report 02/24/16 3

P-AA DOE Classroom Observation 02/26/16 1

P-BB DOE Vocational Teacher Assessment 03/03/16 2

P-CC DOE Progress Report 02/27/17 2

P-DD DOE Vocational Teacher Assessment 03/01/17 4

P-EE DOE Assessment Planning 03/22/17 1

P-FF Teacher Request for FBA 03/22/17 1

P-GG Consent for Assessment 03/23/17 2

P-HH DOE Functional Behavioral Assessment 05/23/17 10

P-II DOE Behavior Intervention Plan 06/22/17 11

P-JJ DOE Vocational Teacher Assessment 10/25/17 6

P-KK DOE Special Education Remote Learning Plan 09/30/20 8

P-LL Affidavit of [REDACTED] 04/01/22 2

P-MM Affidavit of [REDACTED] 04/01/22 3

P-NN Affidavit of [REDACTED] 03/31/22 2

P-OO 19-20 Period 3 Final Report Card Undated 1

P-PP Baseline Data Summary of Frequency, Intensity 05/20/19-

Duration and/or Latency 06/06/19 1

P-QQ Motivation Assessment Scale 06/06/19 1

P-RR Level 1 Vocational Assessment 06/10/19 6

P-SS FBA and BIP Need Consideration Form 06/12/19 3

P-TT Classroom Observation 06/21/19 1

P-UU Individualized Education Program 06/21/19 27

P-VV Individualized Education Program

(Amended Transport Para) 06/21/19 27

P-WW Student Progress Report 06/21/19 2

P-XX Teacher’s Report 06/21/19 3

P-YY Speech and Language Triennial Report 06/24/19 2

P-ZZ Attendance Reason Code Report 09/05/19-

03/13/20 1

P-AAA Prior Written Notice 12/06/19 7

P-BBB 20-21 Period 3 Final Report Card Undated 1

P-CCC Prior Written Notice 05/05/20 7

P-DDD 21-22 Period 3 Final Report Card Undated 1

P-EEE Meeting Notice Committee on Special Education 04/05/21 5

P-FFF Individualized Education Program 04/23/21 29

P-GGG Signed Subpoena 03/31/22 2

P-HHH 2019-202 Attendance Report 04/06/22 1

P-III 2020-2021 Attendance Report 04/06/22 1

P-JJJ 2021-2022 Attendance Report 04/06/22 1

P-KKK Assistive Technology Evaluation 05/13/22 11

P-LLL Physical Therapy Evaluation 05/19/22 10

P-MMM Neuropsychological Evaluation 05/26/22 12

P-NNN Resume of [REDACTED] M.S., CCC-SLP,

TSHH-BE, SBL/SDL Undated 3

P-OOO Resume of [REDACTED], OT Undated 1

P-PPP Resume of [REDACTED], BCBA Undated 3

P-QQQ Resume of [REDACTED] PT Undated 2

P-RRR Resume of [REDACTED], MS, CCC-SLP Undated 6

P-SSS Affidavit of [REDACTED] 06/06/22 4

P-TTT Affidavit of [REDACTED], MS, CCC-SLP 06/07/22 8

P-UUU Bilingual Speech-Language Evaluation 05/14/22 18

P-VVV Occupational Therapy Evaluation 06/03/22 13

P-WWW Functional Behavior Assessment and Behavior

Intervention Plan 06/03/22 22

P-XXX ABA Skills Assessment 06/06/22 22

P-YYY Affidavit of [REDACTED] 06/09/22 5

P-ZZZ Affidavit of [REDACTED], BCBA 06/10/22 8

P-AAAA Affidavit of [REDACTED] PT 6/13/22 9

P-BBBB Affidavit of [REDACTED], CCC-SLP 06/14/22 14

P-CCCC Affidavit of [REDACTED], OT 06/15/22 11

Footnotes

[1] A subpoena for records was signed by the IHO on 3/31/22.

[2] See Order on Motion, dated April 1, 2022.

[3] Despite this ruling the District offered no testimony or evidence.

[4] See Interim Order on Evaluations, dated April 19, 2022.

[5] The Parent made a motion on April 20, 2022 for a pendency placement which was denied by Order on Pendency, dated May 26, 2022.

[6] The record does not contain a clear explanation for the recommendation of 3,220 hours. The Student’s school day would contain non-instructional time and time for related services. It is also not clear if this is inclusive or exclusive of ABA hours.

[7] [REDACTED] report does not make a recommendation for counseling, and I do not find that the Student is entitled to compensatory counseling services.

[8] The recommendation for PCT for 2 hours per week is excessive. There will also be training provided for the AT device.