New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

CASE NUMBER: 571989 - NYC: 225834

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 225834

Student's Name: REDACTED

School District: REDACTED

Scho Hearing Requested By: Parent

Record Closed Date: December 16, 2022

Hearing Officer: Dora M. Lassinger The student’s parent filed a request for an impartial hearing on April 13, 2022 challenging the student’s educational program for the 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022, and 2022-2023 school years and requesting independent evaluations, a deferral to the Central Based Support Team (“CBST”) for a nonpublic school placement, door-to-door transportation, an individual paraprofessional, and various forms of compensatory education. (Par. Ex. A). I was designated to hear this matter on April 20, 2022, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. Section 1415(f)(1).

On June 9, 2022, I ordered the DOE to fund the following independent evaluations:

1. Neuropsychological Evaluation

2. Speech/Language Evaluation,

3 Assistive Technology (“AT”) Evaluation (if not completed by the Department of Education (“DOE”) by August 8, 2022.^[1] (IHO Ex. 7).

A hearing on the merits was held on September 30 and November 9, 2022.

Parent’s Position The parent is requesting that the student’s placement be deferred to the CBST for placement at the REDACTED School, a state approved nonpublic school, hereinafter also referred to as “the identified NPS” or another private school; with related services consistent with the independent evaluations, including Speech/Language Therapy (“SLT”) three times per week for 40-minute sessions; twice individually and once in a group of three, and twelve-month programming. The parent also requested that the IEP include specialized transportation, and an individual paraprofessional.

The parent also requests the following items of compensatory relief:

690 hours of one-to-one academic instruction

276 hours of SLT

138 hours of psychotherapy and 36 hours of family therapy;

690 hours of applied behavior analysis (“ABA”) skills training from a BCBA.(IHO Ex. 6; Tr. pp. 114-116)).

Department of Education (“DOE”) Position The DOE maintains that the student was provided a FAPE for the school years in question and that the relief requested should be denied in full. (IHO Ex. 5).

Evidence at Hearing The student attended a full-time special education program, as a preschooler, and received a “Turning Five” evaluation in July 2016. His full scale IQ was 89, just one point short of falling within the average range. His scores on academics also fell within the average range. (DOE Ex. 5).

An autism evaluation was also conducted within the same time period. Testing indicated impairment in communication and reciprocal social interaction, and the presence of restricted and repetitive behaviors; and he was found to meet criteria for an Autism Spectrum Disorder (“ASD”), with mild to moderate symptoms. Various referrals were made for school and home services. (DOE Ex. 6).

A psychological evaluation was performed in April 2019, toward the end of the student’s REDACTED grade year, when he was attending an Integrated Co-Teaching classroom (“ICT”) and receiving related services, with a classification of Speech or Language Impairment. The student’s Adaptive Functioning was judged to be low, with a relative strength in communication abilities. His intellectual abilities were in the low average to average range. While he did not meet the criteria for Intellectual Disability, his significant limitations in receptive and expressive language and adaptive functioning were judged to warrant high levels of support. It was recommended that his classification be changed to Autism and that he be transferred to a small class (12:1:1) and placed with students with solid learning abilities and without major issues with behavior management. Related services of Speech and Language Therapy (“SLT”), Occupational Therapy (“OT”) and group counseling to enhance his social skills were recommended. Other recommendations included outside therapy, a social skills group, and parent training. (DOE Ex. 8).

The student’s OT provider submitted a report dated April 10, 2019, indicating that the student was working on self-regulation strategies. (DOE Ex. 7).

An IEP meeting was held on May 16, 2019. The student was classified with Autism and recommended for ICT (20 periods per week) with related services of SLT (2 x 30 in a group of 3) OT (1 x 30 in a group of 2), and Counseling (1 x 30 individually and once in a group of 3), to commence on May 27, 2019. It was reported that the student was functioning on a first-grade level for reading and math. (DOE Ex. 1). Participants in the meeting included the parent, the school psychologist who also acted as district representative, and various related services providers and representatives from the agency which provided services to the student. (DOE Ex. 2; Tr. p. 157). The student had only recently lost his mother at the time of the meeting. (Tr. p. 136).

The school psychologist who participated the May 2019 IEP meeting testified that she is a New York State Certified School Psychologist. (Tr. pp. 123, 126). She reviewed the 2019 evaluation, (Dist. Ex. 8) as well as classroom observations, and considered his work, conversations with his teachers and her interactions with him, which she believed was an adequate basis for the IEP. (Tr. pp. 130, 133). The school psychologist testified that a more restrictive setting than ICT would have been too restrictive for the student, as he had average cognitive functioning and did not have severe autism. She felt that he would benefit from modeling mainstream higher functioning peers. (Tr. pp. 139-14). She testified that she disagreed with the results of the Vineland (as reported in the 2019 psychological evaluation), as being inconsistent with observations of the student at school, which indicated that he could perform daily living skills, such as cleaning himself and using the bathroom independently. (Tr. pp. 141-142). The student’s OT provider participated in the IEP meeting and recommended OT to address handwriting and buttoning of small buttons. The school psychologist testified that the OT goals contained in the May 16, 2019 IEP were appropriate and reachable. (Tr. p. 143). She testified that the student’s teachers reported that the student was making progress, during the 2019/2020 school year, and that his teachers were proud of him. (Tr. pp. 148-149). She testified that in subsequent years, no concerns were expressed by school staff about his lack of progress. (Tr. p. 150).

The school psychologist acknowledged that prior to the May 16, 2019 IEP meeting, she did not administer any norm -referenced tests to measure the student’s academic functioning. Nor were any such norm-referenced tests administered to measure his language skills. (Tr. p. 155).

Another IEP meeting was held on May 7, 2020. The student continued to be classified with Autism and recommended for ICT (20 periods per week). Related services of SLT were increased to 3 x 30 in a group of 3. Counseling (1 x 30 individually and once in a group of 3) remained and OT was eliminated from the IEP. It was reported that the student had improved in his ability to self-regulate, that the continued development of his self-regulation skills would best be supported in a classroom setting, and that the student’s daily living skills were similar to those of his classmates. It was reported that the student continued to be functioning on a first-grade level for reading and math. Elsewhere, it was reported that he was reading at a beginning second grade level. (DOE Ex. 9).

Another IEP meeting was held on March 24, 2021, during the student’s REDACTED grade year (DOE Ex. 13). The student’s classification was changed to Speech/Language Impaired. He was recommended for ICT services 22 periods per week. SLT services were reduced to twice per week in a group of three, with a notation that the student had progressed in his S/L skills. Counseling continued to be recommended, once per week individually and once per week in a group of three. A full-time paraprofessional (group service) was added to the student’s IEP to manage his diabetes. It was reported that the student was s reading on second grade level, and performing math on a third-grade level. Elsewhere it was reported that, according to a winter diagnostic, he was performing math on a first-grade level. Special transportation was recommended, from close safe curb location to school with a one-to-one paraprofessional. (DOE Ex. 13).

Another IEP meeting was held on March 17, 2022, during the student’s fifth grade year. (DOE Ex. 15). The student’s classification was changed back to Autism. He was recommended for ICT services 22 periods per week, with related services of SLT twice per week in a group of three. The student’s individual Counseling mandate was removed, and he was recommended to receive Counseling once per week in a group of three. The CSE changed the recommendation for a full-time paraprofessional to an individual service, and added various accommodations, including extra time to complete assignments, math manipulatives and speech to text for writing assignments. It was reported that the student was s reading on a third grade level, and performing math on a second-grade level. Special transportation continued to be recommended, from close safe curb location to school with a one-to-one paraprofessional. (DOE Ex. 15).

A Licensed Behavior Analyst and Board Certified Behavior Analyst ( “BCBA”) employed at an agency which provides Applied Behavior Analysis (“ABA”) therapy and social skills to the student, testified that she has known the student since 2020. (Tr. pp. 179- 189). He began attending a social skills group at the agency in 2017; and has been receiving ABA therapy there since March 2018. The LBA has provided direct services to the student and supervision to his provider. (Tr. p. 189).

He comes to the agency once per week for a social skills session for one hour, and receives an ABA session, typically for one hour. In ABA sessions, he works on various academic skills. (Tr. pp. 194-196). She testified that he requires individualized programming and repetition. He benefits from visuals, and has difficulty with changes in routines and during transitions. He has interfering behaviors that require redirection, including putting his head down, rubbing his eyes, and falling off task. (Tr. pp. 196-197). She described him as eager to learn, with strengths in learning functional skills, such as tying his shoes and making his own snack. (Tr. p. 227). H needs a lot of help with organization, and is assisted by checklists. (Tr. p. 236).

The BCBA testified that she participated in the March 17, 2022 IEP meeting. She reviewed the 2021 IEP and was concerned about the incorrect classification. (Tr. pp. 199-200). She was also concerned that the goals for math and reading were too advanced for the student. (Tr. p. 202). The parent and his outside providers expressed interest in a different school placement. The student’s attendance was discussed; however, the student’s father was confused as to whether the student should attend school or take the bus if his paraprofessional was absent. (Tr. pp. 215-219). The father also explained that there were absences required due to quarantines related to COVID. (Tr. p. 220).

A neuropsychological evaluation was performed in August and September of 2022. At the time of the evaluation, the student was a REDACTED grade student enrolled in an ICT class. The neuropsychologist diagnosed the student with ASD Level 2, without intellectual impairment but with accompanying language impairment (expressive, receptive and pragmatic). He was also diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”), Combined Presentation, Developmental Coordination Disorder. and Specific Learning Disorders with impairments in written expression, and Math, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder. His full-scale IQ score of 88 was in the below average range. His overall performance on the WISC-V was compromised by impairments in oral expression, verbal reasoning, pragmatic language, attention, working memory, processing speed and planning. On the Woodcock-Johnson tests of Achievement -Fourth Edition, he performed on grade level on tests of reading (Letter-word Identification; Passage Comprehension; Word Attack), but well below grade level in math and writing. His scores on a test of oral reading were below grade level. He scored below grade level on tests of Academic Fund of Information, such as science, social studies and Humanities (Par. Ex. PP; Tr. pp. 274-275).

In reviewing prior evaluations, the neuropsychologist noted that the 2019 psychological evaluation relied upon by the CSE, did not include any educational testing or measures of emotional or behavioral difficulties. (Tr. p. 267). He noted that despite his Autism diagnosis, the student is affable, and desires social attention., but has problems in communicating and with more novel social interactions. (Tr. pp. 270-271).

He noted that the student had experienced several traumatic and stressful events including the death of his mother and two grandparents, and receipt of a Diabetes diagnosis. It was reported that although his behavior difficulties have lessened, he can become oppositional, defiant and agitated when given instructions; although he has not attacked others or engaged in self-abuse. It was further noted that the student has been receiving individual psychotherapy, outside of school, for four years. (Par. Ex. PP at 3).

He noted that the student had strengths of word recognition and spelling. (Tr p. 276). He testified that the student’s language impairment impacts his verbal reasoning, his reading comprehension, and written expression. (Tr. p. 273). The challenges will be even greater for him as he enters middle school and the materials become more complex and nuanced. (Tr. p. 274).

He recommended that the student be placed in highly supportive program for students with high functioning autism, pragmatic language disabilities and ADHD. He recommended that he be placed in a small class with a small student /teacher ratio (no more than 10 students), with opportunities for instruction 1:1 or 2:1 throughout the day. He also recommended behavioral supports, and 12 month programming to prevent regression. (Par. Ex. PP at 22; Tr. pp 277-278). He also recommended that the student receive individual counseling in school at least twice per week; and that the parent be provided with Parent Counseling and Training (“PCAT”) at least twice per month for one hour. (Par. Ex. PP at 25).

He testified that he is not aware of any school within the DOE that would be appropriate for him. Tr. pp. 280-281).

He also recommended compensatory services, for five hours per week, on a twelve-month basis, for three years (690 hours of academic remediation) to compensate for the student’s lack of appropriate services, and to address his academic deficits,. He also recommended one hour per week of counseling for three years (138 hours), and one hour per month for a family session for three years (36 hours). (Par. Ex. PP at 25; Tr. p. 281). The neuropsychologist testified that based upon his review of the past IEP’s, the student’s emotional needs had not been addressed. He testified that in school therapy is not typically from a licensed mental health provider, and would be focused on more pragmatic day-to-day issues, rather than family issues and the therapy model (Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy) that the neuropsychologist feels would be beneficial. (Tr. pp. 293-294). He testified that as the student is higher functioning, he does not require a classical ABA program; but would benefit more from protocols which expand his conversational and social skills. (Tr. p. 296).

In his written report, the neuropsychologist also recommended that the student receive 690 hours of ABA therapy, from a BCBA, to address his obsessive-compulsive behavior, avoidance of tasks, distractibility and emotional reactivity, and to help the student generalize the skills he must acquire, in order to cope with academic and social challenges. This was computed based upon five hours per week, for three years. He recommended that these hours include PCAT to help the father learn how to reinforce more adaptive and mature behavior in the student. (Par. Ex. PP at 26).

An independent speech/language evaluation was performed on July 24, 2022. On the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals- 5th Edition, the student was delayed in 4 out of 11 subtests, with deficits in word definitions, semantic relations and reading comprehension; and borderline deficits in structured writing. It was recommended that the student receive SLT three times per week (two times individually and once in a group of three), with services provided on a 12-month basis to prevent regression. It was also recommended that he receive 276 hours of compensatory SLT (3 hours per week for 46 weeks for approximately two years), to make up for past deficits in his SLT including lack of individual SLT. (Par. Ex. GG). In her affidavit, the evaluator wrote that the student is functioning several years behind in various receptive, expressive and pragmatic skills. (Par. Ex. QQ).

On May 19, 2022, the student was accepted into the identified NPS, for placement in a class with a staffing ratio of 8:1+2, (eight students, one teacher and two teaching assistants) with the related services according to his most recent IEP. (Par. Ex. KK). The director of admissions at the identified NPS testified that the identified NPS services students on the autism spectrum, with a range of functioning, as well as students with other classifications. (Tr. p. 303). The identified NPS employs certified teachers and teaching assistants, as well as reading specialists, teachers of other specials, and providers of SLT, OT and counseling. There is a nurse on staff and a psychiatric consultant. The NPS also employs a director of technology who can assist teachers with AT. (Tr pp. 307-310, 312). The identified NPS implements a Positive Behavior Intervention Supports program, where students earn points for positive behaviors, which can be traded for prizes and activities. (Tr. p. 313).

The student’s classroom would be very structured, with visual aids and graphic organizers. The student was accepted for a 12-month program. The student would receive his own individual health paraprofessional, and he would be grouped by age and grade, taking into account his other needs. (Tr pp. 315-316, 326). The student would be given an individualized reading program, depending on his needs. (Tr. p. 321). Reading and writing instruction (ELA) is provided two periods per day, individually and in small groups. If the student’s SLT mandate were increased, the school could accommodate the change. SLT is provided in 30-minute sessions. PCAT can be provided, typically, once per month for up to 60 minutes. (Tr. pp. 327-329).

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order The school district bears the burden of proving the appropriateness of the recommended program. Education Law 4404(1). The school district must comply with the procedural requirements of the Individual with Disabilities Education Act. (IDEA), and the IEP developed through its CSE must be reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive meaningful educational benefits. (Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 192 [1982]. The instruction offered must be specially designed to meet the child’s unique needs through an individualized education program. Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017). The IEP must be reasonably calculated to enable the child to make progress appropriate in light of the student’s circumstances. Id. at 1002.

I find that the DOE failed to meet its burden of proving the appropriateness of its recommendations and programs for any of the school years at issue. The DOE failed to conduct triennial testing in preparation for the 2019 IEP meeting and relied upon a psychological evaluation provided by the parent, which did not include academic testing. Nevertheless, the DOE rejected the recommendation in that evaluation for the student to be placed in a small class. For all of the years in question, the student was placed in ICT classes, where he failed to make academic progress commensurate with his abilities. Furthermore, despite the student’s significant language impairment, he was never provided with individual SLT; and his mandate was reduced from three sessions to two sessions per week. The parent was not provided with PCAT for any of the school years in question, even when the student was classified with Autism. Finally, due to the nature of his disability, the student required 12 month programming to prevent regression.

The independent evaluators have recommended that the student be placed in an appropriate NPS, with related services of Counseling twice per week individually; SLT three times per week (twice individually and once in a group), PCAT two hours per month, and 12 month programming. The student has been accepted into an appropriate NPS, and the placement should be facilitated as soon as possible, as the record indicates that there is no appropriate placement for him within the DOE.

In addition, the CSE should review the AT evaluation; when it becomes available and recommend such additional AT as the student requires.

Compensatory Remedy In P. v. Newington Board of Education, 546 F. 3d 111 (2d Cir. 2008), the Second Circuit held that upon a finding of a denial of FAPE, a hearing officer may fashion an appropriate remedy, including compensatory education to make up for a denial of FAPE. The ultimate award must be reasonably calculated to provide the educational benefits that likely would have accrued from special education services the school district should have supplied in the first place. See Doe v. East Lyme Bd. of Educ., 790 F.3d 440 (2d Cir. 2015) (quoting Reid ex rel. Reid v. D.C., 401 F.3d 516, 524 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

I find that the following items of compensatory relief will provide the educational benefits that likely would have accrued from special education services the school district should have supplied in the first place.

Academic Remediation The request for 690 hours of compensatory tutoring is granted. The student’s placement in an ICT setting, over a three and one-half year period, was not consistent with the 2019 psychological evaluation and contributed to his slow progress in academics. The requested compensatory tutoring will compensate the student for his lack of academic progress, resulting from his inappropriate placement.

SLT

The requests for 276 hours of compensatory SLT is also granted. Even though the student was identified with a significant language impairment, he was not provided with individual SLT during any of the school years in question. Furthermore, despite having a classification of Speech/Language Impairment, for a period of time, he was recommended for only two sessions per week of SLT.

Compensatory Counseling

A service must be provided as a related service if it is necessary to assist the child with a disability to benefit from special education. Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-060, citing Irving Independent School District v. Tatro,, 468 U.S. 883 (1984). I find that for all of the school years in question (except the 2022-2023 school year, when the individual counseling mandate was removed from the student’s IEP), the student was provided with adequate levels of counseling.

I do not find that the request for 138 hours of compensatory counseling, as recommended by the neuropsychologist, is supported by the record. The DOE was not required to provide the specific methodology which the neuropsychologist feels would be more beneficial. Nevertheless, I find that an award of 14 hours of compensatory counseling is warranted, to make up for the removal of individual counseling in the student’s IEP, from July 2022 through January 2023. (7 x 2 hours per month).

ABA Therapy/PCAT The neuropsychologist testified that the student is not intellectually impaired, and does not require ABA therapy in order to learn. Nor is there any evidence that home ABA therapy was ever requested or recommended, prior to the recent independent neuropsychological evaluation. The award of compensatory tutoring and SLT will address past deficiencies in the student’s academic programming. While I find that the recommendation for 690 hours of compensatory ABA therapy is not warranted; I find that the student should be awarded 250 hours of compensatory ABA therapy to help make up for past deficiencies in his program, including the lack of coordination between home and school (through PCAT), and to help the student generalize skills at home and in the community.

The student will also be awarded 86 hours (2 hours x 43 months) of compensatory PCAT, with a BCBA, to make up for the total lack of PCAT in any of the school years in question.

ORDER

For all of the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ordered as follows:

• • The CSE shall reconvene by January 10, 2023, to review the AT evaluation, if it is then available, and to recommend the following program:
• • Defer the student’s placement to the Central Based Support Team for placement at the REDACTED School or another an appropriate NPS, in a class with no more than 10 students;
• • SLT three times per week for 30 minute sessions, twice per week individually; and once in a group;
• • Counseling twice per week for 30 minute sessions, individually;
• • PCAT two hours per month, individually;
• • One-to-one health paraprofessional
• • Special transportation (curb to school) with a one-to-one paraprofessional
• • Twelve month programming for the above program.

h.. Such additional AT as the student may require in order to receive a FAPE.

• • If the AT evaluation is not available by January 10, 2023, the CSE shall again reconvene within 15 days of receipt of the AT evaluation to determine whether the student requires additional AT; and to add such additional services and supports for the student, which the student requires.
• • 3. The DOE shall fund the following compensatory services, with qualified providers of the parent’s choosing and at the market rate, to be used within three years of this order:

a. 276 hours of SLT; b. 250 hours of ABA therapy with a BCBA; c. 86 hours of PCAT with a BCBA; d. 14 hours of Counseling;

(e) 690 hours of tutoring by a certified special education or reading teacher;

(f) Metro Cards for the student and parent to access all compensatory services.

Dated: December 27, 2022 Dora M. Lassinger

DORA M. LASSINGER, 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 Office (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.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

Impartial Hearing Officer Exhibits

1. Motion for Interim Relief, 5-16-22, 62 pp.

2. DOE’s Brief in Opposition, 5-26-22, 5 pp.

3. District’s Memorandum of Law, 5-26-22, 43 pp.

4. Parent’ s Brief in Opposition, 6-23-22, 11pp.

5. District’s Closing Brief, 12-12-22, 14 pp.,

6 Parent’s Post-hearing Brief, 12-12-22, 31 pp.

7. Interim Order, 6-9-22, 2 pp.

8. Order on Motion to Dismiss, 9-12-22, 2 pp.

9. Third Interim Order, 9-12-22, 1 p.

10. Orders of Extension, various dates, 5 pp.

Department of Education

EXHIBIT #

DOCUMENT

DATE

PAGES

Individualized Education Program (IEP)

5/16/19

23

Attendance Sheet

5/16/19

1

Prior Written Notice (PWN)

5/24/19

4

PWN

9/12/19

4

Psychoeducational Evaluation Report

7/14/16

5

Autism Evaluation REDACTED

6/20/16

6

OT Clinical Guide

4/10/19

2

Psychological Evaluation, REDACTED

4/17/19

8

IEP

5/7/20

19

OT Clinical Guide

5/4/20

2

PWN (referencing OT Progress Report)

5/12/20

4

PWN (referencing Classroom Observation)

5/12/20

4

IEP

3/24/20

21

PWN

3/25/21

5

IEP

3/17/22

21

Attendance Sheet

3/17/22

1

PWN

3/22/22

5

Parent’s Exhibits

Exhibit Letter Exhibit Date Number of Pages

A Parent’s Hearing Request April 12, 2022 12

INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAMS

E Individualized Education Program May 15, 2017 22

F Individualized Education Program May 16, 2018 25

G Individualized Education Program May 16, 2019 20

H Individualized Education Program May 7, 2020 19

I Individualized Education Program March 24, 2021 21

J Individualized Education Program March 17, 2022 21

CORRESPONDANCE

O Three Year Reevaluation Notice September 12, 2018 2

P DOE Assessment Planning July 26, 2019 1

Q Special Ed Remote Learning Plan April 13, 2020 2

R DOE Request for Reevaluation March 10, 2021 1

S Request for 504 Accommodation March 12, 2021 5

T DOE Prior Written Notice March 15, 2021 3

U Transportation Accommodation March 16, 2021 1

V Special Ed Recovery Services November 19, 2021 3

W Parent Request for IEEs March 2, 2022 1

DOE EVALUATIONS

X Social History Update March 15, 2016 2

Y Total Language Assessment June 30, 2016 1

Z Speech/Language Evaluation June 30, 2016 6

PRIVATE/INDEPENDENT EVALUATIONS

BB Speech/Language Progress Report October 5, 2015 3

CC Educational Progress Report October 13, 2015 4

DD OT Progress Report October 23, 2015 3

EE REDACTED Psychological Evaluation March 23, 2016 4

FF NAC Psychological Evaluation April 17, 2019 10

GG Speech/Language Evaluation July 24, 2022 18

MISCELLANEOUS redacted

Footnotes

[1] A subsequent order was made on September 12, 2022, confirming that the DOE must fund the independent AT evaluation. (IHO Ex. 9). The AT evaluation was not completed as of the time of hearing. The parent requested that it be reviewed by the CSE when it becomes available. (Tr p. 331).