New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

Case Number: 579309 – NYC: 231352

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 231352

Student's Name: [REDACTED]

School District: [REDACTED]

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Record Closed Date: July 11, 2023

Hearing Officer: Dora M. Lassinger

The student’s parent filed a request for an impartial hearing on September 1, 2022. I was designated to hear this matter on September 12, 2022, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. Section 1415(f)(1). An amended due process complaint was filed, and accepted on October 20, 2022. In the amended complaint, the parent challenged the student’s educational program for the 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years, and requested funding for the student’s unilateral placement at the [REDACTED] (“ the private school”) for the 2022/2023 school year, round trip transportation with special transportation accommodations to the private school (curb-to curb busing and limited time travel), compensatory educational services in the form of Applied Behavior Analysis-Special Education Teacher Support Services (“ABA-SETSS”) supervised by a Board Certified Behavior Analysis (“BCBA”), and an assessment of the student’s skills by a BCBA. (Par. Ex. A).^[1] A pre-hearing telephone conference was held on January 6, 2023, and an impartial hearing was held on June 14, 2023. The compliance date was extended several times, to allow for settlement negotiations to occur; and subsequently for trial preparation, with a final compliance date of August 1, 2023. (IHO Ex. I).

Department of Education (“DOE”) Position

The DOE presented documentary evidence only, and argued that it provided the student with a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”), that the parent cannot sustain its burden of proving the appropriateness of the unilateral placement, and that the requested relief should be denied in its entirety. (Tr. pp. 42-43).

Parent’s Position

The parent argues that the student was denied a FAPE during the 2020/2021 school year, as he did not benefit from remote and hybrid learning, during the pandemic; and that the programs recommended for the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years were inappropriate. The parent argues that the unilateral placement was appropriate, and seeks reimbursement/ direct funding for tuition at the private school, limited time travel, compensatory education in an unspecified amount, (based upon a denial of FAPE for the prior to school years), and an additional ABA skills assessment (in the form of a VB-MAPP) to determine the type of home ABA program which would be appropriate. (Tr. pp. 43-50). Although the parent is not seeking a public placement, she requested that the DOE be ordered to amend the student’s IEP, to reflect his need for ABA instruction, during the school day. (Tr. p. 67).

Evidence at Hearing

The student was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder and received Early Intervention Services. The student was evaluated for services through the Committee on Preschool Special Education (“CPSE”) in 2020. It was estimated that his cognitive skills were well below average. His adaptive behavior composite fell within the low range overall, with global skills delays noted. Ona the CAES2-ST, he demonstrated behaviors consistent with autism spectrum disorder. (DOE Ex. 5 at 19). On the Developmental Assessment of Young Children, Second Edition, his cognitive skills, language, social and adaptive skills were in the very poor range. His motor skills fell in the poor range. (DOE Ex. 5 at 27). A Speech and language evaluation was performed on January 31, 2020. The student presented with a severe delay in his expressive and receptive language skills. (DOE Ex. 5 at 33). An Occupational Therapy evaluation was performed on January 31, 2020. The student presented with low tone and strength; maximum toe walking was noted. He also demonstrated sensory integration deficits and sought self-stimulating/self-soothing behaviors. (DOE Ex. 5 at 38). A Physical Therapy evaluation was performed on January 24, 2020. The student presented with delays in his overall age-appropriate gross motor skills. (DOE Ex. 5 at 42). An IEP meeting was held on April 10, 2020 and the student was classified as a Preschool Student with a Disability and recommended for placement in a Special Class (8:1:2), with related services of Occupational Therapy, 2 x 30 (“OT”), Physical Therapy 2 x 30 (“PT”) and Speech/Language Therapy 2 x 3 (“ SLT”), all individually, with 12-month programming. The parent attended the meeting. Goals were developed to improve his cognitive skills (looking at picture books and pointing, stacking, playing with blocks and building a tower); improving attention and focus; social interactions; demonstrating comprehension of simple questions and concepts; developing an expressive vocabulary and producing two-to three-word utterances; for feeding skills, and for improvement of fine and gross motor skills, and toilet training (DOE Ex. 1). On the same date, a final notice of recommendation was set to the parent, designating a preschool where the IEP would be implemented. (DOE Ex. 4). Another IEP meeting was held on February 24, 2021 and the student was again classified as a Preschool Student with a Disability and recommended for placement in a Special Class (8:1:2), with related services of Occupational Therapy, 2 x 30 (“OT”), Physical Therapy 3 x 30 (“PT”) and Speech/Language Therapy 2 x 3 (“SLT”), all individually. The parent attended the meeting. It was reported that the student was attending school in-person, during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and that he was making steady progress in his current special class 8:1:2. It was reported that he could receptively identify and match primary and secondary colors; identify and match shapes, identify and match all 26 uppercase letters and numbers 1-10 and that he had begun to verbally identify various letters and numbers. It was reported that he has recently become aware of peers in the classroom. Goals were developed for approaching problems flexibly recognizing patters and repeating them, classifying objects, following classroom routines, recognizing feelings of others and responding appropriately, demonstrate understanding of simple sentences and Wh questions, use 1 to 2 words in sentences, in addition to goals of OT and PT. (DOE Ex. 6). On February 25, 2021, a final notice of recommendation was set to the parent, designating a preschool where the IEP would be implemented. (DOE Ex. 8). Another IEP meeting was held on September 1, 2021. It was reported that the student was attending school in-person, during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and that he was making steady progress in his current program. The student continued to be classified as a Preschool Student with a Disability and his program was continued from the prior IEP, with the addition of an Assistive Technology device at school and at home. The parent attended the meeting. (DOE Ex. 10). On September 1, 2021, a final notice of recommendation was set to the parent, designating a preschool where the IEP would be implemented. (DOE Ex. 10). In an annual educational progress report, it was reported that the student’s academic skills were close to being age appropriate. He could identify all 26 upper- and lower-case letters, numbers 1-100, all colors and most 2D shapes. He was able to match words to pictures and verbally county to 10, and could count to five, using one-to-one correspondence. Significant progress was noted in his ability to feed himself and in his diet. Progress was also reported in toileting, and gross motor skills, (DOE Ex. 15). The student’s OT provider reported that the student’s communication skills had improved, and his behaviors had decreased. Improvement was also noted in his ability to remain on task. (DOE Ex. 15 at 4). Good progress was noted in his IEP goals for physical therapy, and it was recommended that he receive two sessions of PT each week. (DOE E. 15 at 8). The student’s SLT provider reported that the student was using his AT device to communicate his wants and needs. He identified various nouns, communicated via gestures, sounds and using his device, and imitating sounds and several words with maximal prompting. His pragmatic skills were emerging. His receptive, expressive and pragmatic skills were severely delayed. (DOE Ex. 15 at 15). Another IEP meeting was held on February 17, 2022. It was reported that the student was attending school in-person, during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and that he was making steady progress in his current program. The student continued to be classified as a Preschool Student with a Disability and his program was continued from the prior IEP, with the addition of Family Training and Counseling, 4 hours per year. In addition, PT was reduced to 2 x 30. The description of the student’s skills reflected progress from the prior IEP. The parent also reported that the student was identifying and labeling many things. She was concerned with his ability to use functional speech. Progress was also noted in his play skills and social interactions. Tantruming and crying behaviors were reported to have greatly decreased. His communication reportedly had greatly increased. His mother reported progress in his eating and drinking. The parent attended the meeting. (DOE Ex. 13). On February 23, 2022, a final notice of recommendation was set to the parent, designating a preschool where the IEP would be implemented. (DOE Ex. 14). An autism diagnostic observation schedule, second edition (ADOS-2), and other testing was performed in March and April 2022. The student was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder with accompanying intellectual and language impairment, Level 3, requiring very substantial support. His level of functioning ranged from the 13 month to the 33-month-old level, and his nonverbal skills were stronger than his language-based skills. His overall adaptive functioning fell within the low range. It was recommended that he receive 35 to 40 hour per week of intervention, including Applied Behavior Analysis (“ABA”), speech, therapy, occupational therapy and physical therapy, in a setting with a small student to teacher ratio; and that his program be developed and supervised by a Board- Certified Behavior Analyst. (“BCBA”). It was further recommended that he receive speech and language intervention, five times per week individually. PROMPT therapy was recommended. It was further recommended that he receive socialization/play skills training. It was suggested that a Functional Behavior Assessment (“FBA”) be conducted at home to determine target behaviors to increase compliance and decrease off-task behaviors. (Par. Ex. D). The student’s mother testified that she did not see much progress while the student attended preschool, during the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years. During the 2020-2021 school year, there were also building shutdowns, due to the pandemic. (Par. Ex. Q). The parent testified that the student learned more effectively in person, than at home; and that it was difficult for him to sit still. During the 2021-2022 school year, he performed better when he received more one-to-instruction. The teacher had to calm him down during transitions, which took up school time. (Tr. p. 62). She chose the private school, based upon recommendations that he should receive an ABA program. (Par. Ex Q). A “turning five” IEP meeting was held on June 13, 2022. The student was classified Autism and recommended for placement in a Special Class (12:1+1), with related services of OT, 2 x 30, individually, PT 2 x 30, individually and SLT 1 x 30 individually and 1 x 30 in a group of 2, and Parent Counseling and Training, 4 hours per year, individually and in a group, and a Speech Generating Device, Dynamic Display, at home or school, on a 12-month basis. The parent reported concerns with the student’s difficulty with transitions and distractibility. It was noted that he is imitating inappropriate behaviors of peers. Progress was noted in OT and PT. The parent attended the meeting. (DOE Ex. 16). On June 30, 2022 prior written notice was sent to the parent, designating a school where the IEP would be implemented. (DOE Ex. 23). The parent disagreed with the recommendation, due to the large size of the program; and because the site coordinator of the recommended site stated that the school did not have the support to keep her son safe. (Par. Ex. Q). A Neuropsychological Evaluation was performed in August and September of 2022. The student was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder with accompanying language and intellectual impairment, Attention Deficit Disorder and Intellectual Developmental Disorder (mild). It was recommended that he be provided with a structured, multisensory special education program with a limited student-to-teacher ratio, social skills counseling; and counseling. The evaluator also recommends specific methodologies to address language reading and math difficulties. It was further recommended that a BCBA evaluate the student to assess the suitability for a program and home-based ABA therapy as needed, and that parent training at home also be provided, as needed. (Par. Ex. F). The parent testified that while the neuropsychological evaluation was provided to the DOE, no IEP meeting was held to review the evaluation. (Par. Ex. Q). On August 18, 2022, the parent signed a contract guaranteeing to pay $121,550.00 for the student’s tuition at the private school for the 2022-2023 (ten month) school year. (Par. Ex. G). The parents presented proof that she is unable to front the tuition and seek reimbursement.

(Par. Ex. H). She testified that she paid $50.00 toward the student’s 2022/2023 tuition. (Tr. pp. 60-61) On the same date, the parent, through her attorney, sent a 10- day notice, setting forth her disagreement with the program recommended by the DOE and stating that she intended to enroll the student at the private school and seek funding. (Par. Ex. B). The student began attending the private school in September 2022. He was assessed using the Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills (ABLLS).^[2] It was determined that he had splintered skills across all domains. He could expressively and receptively identify upper-case, lower-case letters and numbers. He had some reading and math abilities. He was not potty trained, but was working on being conditioned to sit on the toilet. Goals were established for educational readiness, reading, math, writing and daily living skills, with the use of ABA methodologies. (Par. Ex. I). The student’s language needs were also assessed. The student communicated using gestures, vocalizations and verbalizations, and using his alternative communication device (“AAC”) device. He was observed to both imitate one-to-three-word utterances, and produce spontaneous utterances of one to two words. He could independently respond to greeting/farewells using a gesture paired with a verbalization; and could request for items using a 3-word verbalization, following the clinician’s models. He was recommended to receive SLT four times per week for 30-minute sessions. (Par. Ex. J). The principal testified that the student is learning to pair sign language with verbal approximations. (Par. Ex. P).

In an OT progress report dated October 28, 2022, it was reported that the student tolerates most sensory input, presents with fair eye contact, is typically compliant during OT and can follow simple 2 step verbal commands. In terms of self-help skills, he was unable to independently manage large buttons, zippers, snaps or don his shoes; but had the ability to doff his shoes and manage his clothing without fasteners. He was able to open most food and beverage packages with minimal assistance, could utilize utensils, but preferred to eat with his hands to be fed. Goals were developed for self-feeding with a spoon, imitating vertical and horizontal strokes for increased graphomotor skills and for visually attending for up to two minutes. (Par. Ex. K). The principal testified that the student is working on toileting, putting on and taking off his coat and packing his belongings. (Par. Ex. P). In a PT report dated October 17, 2022, it was reported that the student was verbal, but required additional prompting to express his needs. He could follow simple and 1 step directions. He transitioned to and from PT without complaints. He demonstrated decreased overall muscle strength and endurance. He ambulated independently, was able to jump, walk along a 4-inch wide and 8-foot-long balance beam. He had delayed ball manipulation skills. It was recommended that he continue to receive PT two times per week individually. (Par Ex L) An FBA was conducted to evaluate the student’s non-compliance, hitting, spitting, and dropping to the floor. A Behavior Intervention Plan (“BIP”) was developed to be implemented on December 16, 2022. (Par. Ex. N). In a progress report dated April 4, 2023, it was reported that the student made gradual progress in his tolerance for new food items, and significant progress in following one-step directions during structured and unstructured language tasks. Significant progress was also noted in his ability to use total communication to identify and label 20 nouns, to communicate his wants and needs. The student also demonstrated improvement in self-feeding while utilizing eating utensils, in his prewriting skills, in his ability to attend, descend stairs, perform sit-ups, catch a ball, and match sight words. Progress was also noted in his academic skills (naming letters in four letter words, math concepts), packing his belongings, toilet training, (Par. Ex. O).

The principal of the private school testified that she is licensed as a special education teacher. The private school serves students, on the autism spectrum, aged 5 to 21 years old. The majority of the teachers are certified (or provisionally certified) in special education. The school has on staff BCBA’s, a licensed mental health counselor and licensed providers of OT, PT and SLT. Paraprofessionals are highly trained. All staff receive ongoing training in ABA and Collaborative and Proactive Solutions, (“CPS”), and Real Time Functional Therapy (RTFT). The program at the school includes Social Thinking classes, to provide students with the skills necessary to form and maintain relationships. At the campus which the student attends, there are 69 students, with a BCBA who is in the student’s class on a daily basis. (Tr. p. 53) Parent counseling and training is provided formally once per month, and more often, if needed. (Tr. p. 54). The school day starts at 8:30 AM, and ends at approximately 2:45 PM, for busing; and he receives ABA programming throughout the school day. (Tr. p. 59). The student was offered a seat in the school’s [REDACTED] program, which provides 1:1 discrete trial instruction and a full-time one-to-one paraprofessional trained in ABA and supervised by a BCBA. The student was also provided SLT four times per week, and OT and PT, twice per week, all individually. He responds to the ABA based methodologies, including discrete trial teaching. (Par. Ex. P)

His class consists of six students, one teacher, a teacher’s assistant and five one-to-one paraprofessionals. The student’s teacher has a bachelor’s degree in psychology, and is a registered behavior technician who is in the process of obtaining a BCBA.(Tr. p. 55). The principal testified that academic goals were developed for the student, using the ABLLS; and that he is working on coloring within lines areas, tracing lines and shapes, adding, counting and identifying numbers receptively. (Par. Ex. P). During the current school year, the student has progressed in his ability to follow directions, and sit and attend for longer periods of time. Academically, he has progressed in identifying letters and words, and in his handwriting. His maladaptive behaviors have reduced, and he transitions with greater ease. He verbalizes with approximations, in addition to using his AAC device. His vocabulary has increased, and he is able to ask for his needs and wants. (Tr. p. 57-58). She testified that the student has progressed with the ABA methodology and discrete trials he receives at school; and that he would benefit more if he received home services, to carry over and teach in the naturalistic environment. (Tr. p 58). The student’s mother has observed progress in his ability to follow simple directions, follow a visual schedule and verbally request. She testified that she is unable to pay the tuition and seek reimbursement, because her family receives public assistance. She requested an order for tuition funding at the private school; and a BCBA evaluation to determine what type of ABA services the student requires after school. (Par. Ex. Q).

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. What the statute guarantees is an “appropriate” education, “not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents.” Walczak, 142 3d 119 (2d Cir. 1998) quoting Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sc. Dist. 873 F. 32d 563 (2d Cir. 1989). A Board of Education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a child by the child’s parents, if the services offered by be Board of Education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parents were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parents’ claim. Forest Grove School District v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230 (2009); School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts, 471 U. S. 359 (1985). The fact that the facility selected by the parents to provide special education services to the child is not approved as a school for children with disabilities does not preclude an award of reimbursement. Florence School District Four et al. v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7(1993).

I. 2020-2021; 2021-2022 School Years/ Request for Compensatory Education

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). In these proceedings, the parent does not seek any specific amount of compensatory relief. Rather, she requests further assessment, to determine the student’s need for ABA home programming. Although the DOE did not present any witnesses, the documents in evidence demonstrate that the student was provided a comprehensive special education program, including related services of SLT, OT and PT within a special class (8:1:2) during the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years. While there were interruptions in the student’s schooling, as a result of the pandemic; the student demonstrated progress in academics, communication (with the support of his AT device), behavior, daily living skills, and in his fine and gross motor skills. Therefore, I do not find any basis for an award of compensatory education.

II. 2022-2023 School Year- Request for Tuition Funding

I find that the DOE failed to meet its burden of proving the appropriateness of its recommendations and programs for the 2022/2023 school year. The CSE’s decision to increase the student’s class size, and decrease the student to teacher ratio has no support in the record and is inconsistent with the recommendations in the parent’s private evaluations. While the student progressed in his prior placement; it was within a smaller class, with a higher staffing ratio. Therefore, I find that the DOE failed to meet the burden of proving the appropriateness of its recommendations.

Appropriateness of Parental Placements

To qualify for funding under the IDEA, the parents must demonstrate that the parental 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.” See Frank G. v. Bd. Of Educ. Of Hyde Park, 459 F. 3d 356, 365 (2d Cir. 2006) (citing Rowley). cert. denied, Board of Educ. Of Hyde Par, v. Frank G. 128 S. Ct. 436 (2007). I find that that the parent demonstrated that the program at the private school met the student’s need for ABA programming, a high level of support throughout the day, social skills instruction, and related services of SLT, OT and PT. The private school also provides monthly parent counseling and training, and additional support for the parent, as needed. The record indicates that the student progressed in his academic, behavioral and communication skills.

Equitable Considerations

In determining whether equitable considerations support a request for reimbursement, the courts will consider whether the parents have cooperated with the school district throughout the process to ensure that their child receives a FAPE. Bettinger v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 49 IDELR 39 [S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2007]. The Courts must consider all relevant factors, including whether the parent participated in the IEP meeting, visited the proposed placement and provided timely notice of her intent to place the student in a private school. See M.H. and E.K. v. New York City Dept of Education, 685 F 3d 217 (2d Cir. 2012). Direct funding of tuition is an available remedy where equitable considerations favor an award of the costs of private school tuition; but the parents, though legally obligated to make tuition payments, have not done so due to a lack of financial resources. Application of a Student Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 15-038 (citing Mr. and Mrs. A. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ. 769 F. Supp. 2d 403 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); See Connors v. Mills, 34 F. Supp. 2d 794 (N.D.N.Y. 1998

The record indicates that the parent participated in the challenged IEP meeting, and provided 10-day notice of her intention to unilaterally place the student and seek funding for the private school. The parent presented evidence that she was unable to pay the tuition and seek reimbursement (except to the extent already paid). For the reasons set forth above, I find that the parent is entitled to reimbursement, and direct funding for the balance owed for tuition at private school 2022-2023 school year.

III. Request for VB Mapp or ABA Skills Assessment

I find that there is no basis in the record for me to award the requested assessment. A similar skills assessment was performed by the private school, upon the student’s arrival. The student’s program is supervised by a BCBA, and support is available for the parent, through the school. The record indicates that the student is making progress at school without home services. While the student would likely benefit from additional support at home; the school district is not required to provide “every special service necessary to maximize the student’s potential”. Application of the New York City Department of Education, Appeal No. 22-176 (quoting Mr. P. v. W. Hartford Bd. Of Educ. 885 F. 3d 735, 756 (2d Cir. 2018, cert den. sub nom., 139 S. Ct. (2018).

IV. Transportation; Other Amendments to IEP

The record supports the parent’s request that limited time travel be added to the student’s transportation accommodation, and the DOE does not oppose the request. Therefore, I will direct the CSE to amend the student’s IEP to add limited time travel to the student’s IEP. The request for the CSE to modify the student’s IEP, to reflect his need for ABA instruction, is denied. The student was unilaterally placed for the 2022-2023 school year, and by this decision, I have awarded tuition funding, rendering moot any request for a change to the student’s IEP for the 2022-2023 school year.^[3]

ORDER

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

1. The DOE shall, by August 1, 2023, fund the student’s tuition at the private school as follows:

(a) Reimburse the parent $50.00, on account of tuition paid for the student’s private school for the 2022-2023 school year;

(b) Directly fund the balance owed to private school ($121,500.00), on account of the student’s tuition for the 2022-2023 school year;

2. The CSE shall, by August 1, 2023, amend the student’s IEP to add limited time travel to the student’s special transportation accommodations.

Dated: July 18, 2023

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

Exhibit	Description	Pages
I	Orders of Extension, various dates	7 pp.
II	Due Process Complaint, 251082, 7-5-23	3 pp.
III	Order Denying Consolidation, 7-11-23	2 pp.

NYC DOE Exhibits

[REDACTED]

PARENT’S EXHIBITS

[REDACTED]

---

Footnotes

[1] Special transportation, consisting of closest safe curb location to school is already part of the student’s IEP. The DOE did not oppose the parent’s request to add limited time travel to the student’s accommodations, based upon the recommendation of his physician. (Tr. pp. 41-42; Par. Ex. E; DOE Ex. 16).

[2] The principal of the private school testified that she believes the ABLLS is similar to the V-MAPP which the parent is requesting as part of the relief in this hearing. (Tr. p. 60).

[3] I also take administrative notice that on July 5, 2023, the parent filed another due process request (Case No. 251082), seeking funding for a unilateral placement for the 2023-2024 school year (IHO Ex. II). The new case was not consolidated with these proceedings, as the hearing had already been held in these proceedings, and a decision was due, when the new complaint was filed. (IHO Ex. III).