NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
CASE NUMBER: 591012 - NYC: 241893
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Student’s Name [1]: [REDACTED] (“Student”)
Date of Birth: [REDACTED]
School District: [REDACTED]
Hearing Requested by: [REDACTED] (“Parents”)
Request Date/Date Complaint Filed: November 8, 2022
Date(s) of Hearing: March 9, 2023
Actual Record Closed Date: March 30, 2023
Date of Decision: April 12, 2023
Date of Distribution if Different than Decision Date:
Hearing Officer: Lisa S. Rusk, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
MARCH 9, 2023
For the Student:
[REDACTED], Attorney
[REDACTED], Parent Student
[REDACTED], Head of School, [REDACTED]
[REDACTED], Pediatric Neuropsychologist
For the Department of Education:
[REDACTED], Attorney
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter comes before the undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) on Parents’ Due Process Complaint (“DPC"), dated November 8, 2022. (Ex. P-A) [2]. The record does not contain any evidence of a response by the [REDACTED] (hereinafter referred to as “the District”). This IHO was appointed on November 14, 2022. A pre-hearing conference was held on December 9, 2022. Status conferences were held on January 11, 2023 and February 7, 2023 at the request of the parties while the matter was under investigation by the District. Reaching no resolution, the matter was scheduled for hearing on March 9, 2023. [REDACTED] appeared on behalf of the District. [REDACTED] appeared on behalf of the Parents.
The District entered into evidence Exhibits 1-8.[3] The Parents entered into evidence Exhibits A-C and E-W. The District waived an opening statement and did not present any witnesses (T:32). The Parents placed an opening statement on the record and presented three witness, including the Student’s mother. The Parents submitted a written closing statement on March 29, 2023. By email on the evening of March 29, 2023, the District waived the submission of a closing statement.[4] The record was closed on March 30, 2023.
JURISDICTION
The due process hearing was held, and a decision in this matter is being rendered pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (hereinafter, “IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300 et seq., and the New York State Education Law, Educ. Law § 4404 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 8 NYCRR § 200.5 et seq.
BACKGROUND
The Student was [REDACTED] years old at the time of the filing of the DPC. She has been classified by the District’s Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) as a student with Autism. The CSE met on May 17, 2022 to recommend an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) for the Student for the 2022-23 school year. The Parent attended the meeting, along with a District representative, related service provider/special education teacher and psychologist (Ex. D-2-21). The CSE recommended a 12-month 12:1:1 special class for ELA, social studies, science and math. It also recommended the related services of occupational therapy and speech therapy (Ex. D-2-14-16). A prior written notice (PWN) stated that the Student’s 10 month program was located at [REDACTED] (Ex. D-3-1-2).
By letter dated August 31, 2022, the Parents gave notice to the District of their intent to unilaterally place the Student at [REDACTED] (hereinafter referred to as ‘the private school”). The letter referenced an August 9, 2022 email from the Parents to the CSE Chairperson stating that they did not believe that the recommended program was appropriate based upon the grouping of students and lack of focus on ABA (Ex. P-B-4). The record does not contain a District response to either the August 9 or August 31, 2022 correspondence. The Parent testified that the District responded to her August 9th email that it was going to call her or have her do an in person tour, but she never heard anything after that (T:113). By letter dated November 8, 2022, the Parents initiated this due process hearing (Ex. P-A).
ISSUES
The DPC raises the following issues:
• The recommended program is inappropriate.
• The documentation supports her placement in a small, specialized school.
• The team failed to adequately consider the Student’s needs and hindered the Parents’ ability to participate in the decision-making process.
• The District was aware the student required a 5:2 staff ratio.
• The annual goals are improper. They are vague and generic and do not meet all of her needs.
• The IEP’s management needs are insufficient, vague and cannot be implemented in the recommended program.
• The frequency and duration of occupational therapy (“OT”) is improper. [5]
• The CSE did not consider peer-reviewed research-based methods.
• The proposed program does not offer a suitable peer group.
• The CSE did not evaluate the Student in all areas of disability.
• The CSE did not recommend parent counselling and training (“PCT”).
• The Student requires a program that uses the ABA methodology.
• The IEP does not contain enough support to address language challenges.
• The IEP does not contain enough support to address her maladaptive behaviors and the District did not conduct a functional behavior assessment (“FBA”).
• The IEP does not contain enough support to address her social communication challenges, frustration tolerance and social and emotional issues.
• The CSE did not consider programs available within the District.
• The recommended placement is not appropriate.
• The IEP does not properly outline the basis of the District’s recommendation.
The District did not respond to the DPC, did not make an opening statement, did not present witnesses, waived cross-examination of the Parents’ witnesses and did not submit a closing summation in support of its recommended program and placement (T:32,69, 98,117).
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Parent testified that the Student was diagnosed with autism at the age of three. As a preschool student, she attended an ICT classroom at [REDACTED]. She received speech therapy and OT. The classroom was very small because of the pandemic. The Parents had the Student evaluated by the neuropsychologist during January, February and June of 2021, as well as observed at [REDACTED] in April of 2021 (Ex. P-C). At age 4, when the class size at [REDACTED] increased, she moved to [REDACTED] where the class size was 12 (T:105-106). She also received speech and OT. The Parents attempted to supplement her program with home ABA (T:107).
Pediatric neuropsychologist [REDACTED], hereinafter referred to as “the neuropsychologist” testified that he was the director of pediatric psychology at NYU [REDACTED] Center for 20 years and simultaneously was on the faculty of NYU [REDACTED] in the department of pediatrics and rehabilitation medicine. For the last 10 years he has had a private practice and joined the faculty of [REDACTED] Medical College in the department of neurological surgery as an adjunct neuropsychologist (T:86). He testified that he has known the Student since he evaluated her a couple of years ago and has been in touch with her parents, school and therapist to consult and make recommendations over the past two to three years (T:87).
The Spring 2021 neuropsychological evaluation found that the Student had a “highly vulnerable profile characterized by pronounced deficits in language and global adaptive skills, self-directed proclivities, rigidities and repetitive behaviors, as well as impaired functional and social communication and attention/self-regulation.” (Ex. P-C-4). Based upon her complex needs, he recommended placement in a 12-month small environment (no larger than 12:1:2) in order to make appropriate progress and avoid regression (Ex. P-C-4).
The neuropsychologist testified that the Student is on the autism spectrum and had struggled significantly with language, communication and socialization. She is very self-directed with a behavioral pattern that has added a great deal of difficulty with her program and progress in general. She has required a significant amount of ABA (T:87-88). She has required a great deal of 1:1 behavioral attention to engage, display joint attention, reciprocal attention and use language and communication. Through the use of ABA, data is collected and analyzed in order to target the maladaptive behaviors that interfere with her functional communication and adaptive skills (T:89).
In February of 2022, the neuropsychologist evaluated the Student in preparation for her Turning-5 meeting and prepared a consultation summary (Ex. D-4). As part of the evaluation, she was observed at school. It was observed that without adult prompting, redirection and scaffolding, there was minimal engagement. In his opinion it was clear that she needed 1:1 ABA (T:90-91). His testing evidenced her deficits in the most requisite skills, actually participating and engaging in the testing. The fact that two doctors, her ABA therapist and sometimes her parent were not able to get her to engage in the testing and demonstrate things she knew and had demonstrated in the past, highlighted her behavioral needs and lack of ability to carry over skills (T:92-93).
His opinion was that the Student required ABA in the classroom, in addition to a smaller classroom ratio (T:94-95, 108). The Parent provided a copy of the neuropsychological evaluation and consultation summary to the CSE (T:109; Ex. P-C; Ex. D-4). The neuropsychologist testified that he was familiar with the private school, had been in touch with its founder and the people that run it and had visited it a few times in its inception. He has also observed the Student there twice this year, while he was observing another student (T:96). He confirmed the Parent’s feeling that the Student was improving in her use of language. He felt that the school was providing the right ratio, modality and specialization to meet her needs (T:96-97).
A District staff member observed the Student in her classroom on March 14, 2022. During the 30-minute observation in the 12:1:2 class, she described the Student’s attention as fluctuating. She was easily distracted, had difficulty staying in her seat, was sensitive, covered her ears and cried and required frequent teacher redirection (Ex. D-5-2, D-6-1).
The Parent applied to the District’s 12:1:1 [REDACTED] program, but never received a response despite the District’s school psychologist feeling the program would be a good fit for the Student (T:109-10; Ex. P-F,P-G, P-H and P-L). The Parent testified that she attended the Turning 5 CSE meeting. She spoke with a special education teacher from the District recommended placement and was concerned because the Student would not receive a one-to-one paraprofessional or one-to-one help (T:112). The CSE recommended a 12-month 12:1:1 special class for ELA, social studies, science and math. It also recommended the related services of 1:1 occupational therapy for 30 minutes 2 times per week[6] and speech therapy 1:1 for 30 minutes 2 times per week and in a group of 2 for 30 minutes 1 time per week (Ex. D-2-14-16).
The District’s evidence contains additional documentation, including the neuropsychologist’s consultation summary of 2/19/22, a classroom observation, dated 3/11/22, a social history, dated 1/20/22, quarterly progress reports from November 2021 and an occupational therapy evaluation, dated 1/11/21 (Exs. D-4, D-5, D-6, D-7 and D-8). The IEP describes her ability to follow classroom routines, transitions and peer interactions (Ex. D-2-1,3). The IEP also describes her performance in speech language and OT (Ex. D-2-3-5). The IEP’s current functioning levels were taken verbatim from the November 2021 progress report and February 2022 neuropsychologist’s consultation (Compare Ex.D-2-1-4 with Exs. D-4-1-2 and DD-7-2).
There is no evidence of a District conducted FBA. The IEP states that the Student does not need strategies to address behaviors that impede learning or a behavior intervention plan (Ex. D-2-6). However, on the prior page of the IEP, it is acknowledged that interventions and strategies, including positive reinforcement are needed to increase desirable behaviors (Ex. D-2-5). There is no evidence that the District has conducted a functional behavior assessment (“FBA”). The IEP states that “she requires a small class placement with a low student:teacher ratio that can employ appropriate data-based behavioral interventions for children on the autism spectrum, such as ABA.” (Ex. D-2-3). There is no recommendation for parent counseling and training.
The IEP contains goals for activities of daily living, transitioning to activities, engaging in cooperative play and socially interacting with peers, 3 speech goals to address following directions and expressive language and 2 occupational therapy goals to address her fine motor, visual motor and sensory processing needs (Ex. D-2-7-13). The PWN states that the Student will attend school at [REDACTED]. It states further that the evaluations/assessment/reports used in the decision-making process was the 5/17/2022 IEP (Ex. D-3-2).
The Parents decided to enroll the Student at the private school. The Parents signed a contract with the private school on May 31, 2023 (Ex. P-M). The Parent testified that she has paid the tuition in full (T:116)7. The Parent testified that the Student transitioned well into the program and has made progress this year. She can now cut with scissors fairly accurately, she is starting to decode basic CVC words, she can write her name, she can write numbers and a lot of letters of the alphabet (T:115). In terms of her behavior, the ability to attend, to sit, and read a book or do her homework has improved greatly (T:115-16). Socially, she is opening up a little bit more (T:116). Overall, she believes the program at the private school has been appropriate.
Her instructional day at the private school is 9:00 am to 2:20 pm Monday through Friday. Her weekly schedule includes morning meeting, ELA, math, spelling, fluency training, reading, group game/social, gross motor activity, APE, social studies/science, story time/story Champs, writing, leisure activity/community outing, art/music, end of day journal and BPW(Brain Power Wellness). She also receives speech and OT (Ex. P-N).
[REDACTED], the Head of School at the private school (hereinafter referred to as “the Head of School”) testified that the private school is an applied behavior analysis (“ABA”) school that uses the principles of ABA in teaching, shaping behavior and training staff. During the current school year, twenty-nine students are enrolled in the school (T:39). The students range in age from 5 to 13 and are grouped according to their behavior management and academic readiness skills (T:40). Students at the private school are on the autism spectrum and require clear instruction, contingencies, a structured environment and support to attend to instruction and make meaningful academic progress and social emotional development. The Student’s teacher is dually certified in special and general education. She is also a board certified behavior analyst (“BCBA”) and licensed behavior analyst in New York State. One of her two teaching assistants is in a master’s program to become a BCBA, and both teaching assistants are New York State certified teaching assistants (T:41). The school also provides speech therapy, OT, physical therapy and counseling services (T:42).
The Student began attending the private school on September 12, 2022. The Head of School reviewed the Student’s records, met with the Parents and has observed the Student at the private school. She described the Student as a very sweet, very smart child with lots of interests with language and social/emotional delays which have impeded her academic and social/emotional development (T:42-43). She described her as a mid to high functioning student
According to Ex. S-1, as of January 3, 2023, the Parents had paid $67,578.35 of the total $98,367.52 ten-month tuition. on the autism spectrum 8 with below grade level academic skills (T:72-73). Her current classroom has[8] students aged 5 or 6, 1 head teacher and 2 assistant teachers. The students have similar strengths and challenges related to their behavior and learning abilities (T:44-45). Students often receive one-on-one or one-on-two direct instruction. All instruction is ABA based, and data is taken and analyzed daily (T:46-47). There are biweekly team meetings, and parents are updated by the head teacher weekly (T:47).
After assessing her behavior, the private school decided to target noncompliant behavior, decreasing attention seeking behavior and inappropriate hand-mouthing behavior (T:48-49, Ex. P-T). According to her behavior management plan, she is provided with consistent and clear classroom expectations and responds well. She is now able to follow classroom rules and expectations. A token economy system is used to self-regulate and improve her selfmanagement skills. The token economy provides clear contingencies which help with her selfregulation and attending skills (T:49-50). She has access to numerous reinforcers and is able to take reinforcement breaks (T:52). Her reinforcers are on a variable schedule, and she is working toward more independence (T:53).
She receives speech therapy three times per week, two times individually and one time in a group, either push-in or pull-out depending on the students’ needs (T:53). She receives individual OT two times per week for 30 minutes and sensory breaks within the classroom. The Head of School testified that she is responding well to the sensory integration strategies utilized (T:53-54).
In response to her behavior management plan, she is now able to follow direction and redirection given one verbal reminder. She is making great progress in her vocalization and social interaction skills. She is curious and loves to interact with her peers and has learned by observation or vicarious reinforcement, particularly with regard to appropriate social behaviors (T:56-57). In terms of her activities of daily living, she eats in the cafeteria with her class and may require reminders to consume her lunch rather than engaging in social interactions. She does not currently have issues transitioning from place to place (T:58).
The Head of School testified that the private school reviewed the Student’s IEP and does initial and ongoing assessments. Data is collected to assess where the Student is performing. Additional goals were added for the Student in consultation with the family (T:60-61). She confirmed that the Student was progressing toward her reading goal with the help of Reading Mastery Transformation, which is a direct instruction curriculum that is research and evidence-based and aligned with Common Core standards (T:61). She has made progress in attending to text and with phonemic awareness (T:63-64). With moderate verbal prompting, she is able to sustain working in a group (T:64). For math, the private school utilizes Connecting Math Concept Comprehensive Addition with is a research and evidence-based curriculum aligned with the Common Core and uses a schedule of reinforcement specifically for the Student. She has been responsive to the instruction (T:65-66).
According to her second quarter progress reports, the Student has made progress in all of her academic and related service goals and mastered her ADL goal (Exs. P-T, P-U and P-V). The Student continues to work on her cooperative play and turn-taking skills, mostly in small groups. She is making steady progress, and the level of prompting has faded (T:67). At least one time per week, staff is updated about the Student’s progress, challenges, strategies being used and concerns of the parents or other professionals. There are daily check ins with the teachers and the therapists, and the data taken is analyzed. The communication really supports the Student’s learning and her progress in becoming a more independent learner (T:67-68).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
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). If a procedural violation has occurred, relief is warranted only if the procedural violation affected the student's right to a FAPE. 8 NYCRR §200.5[4]; J.D. v. Pawlet Sch. Dist., 224 F.3d 60, 69 (2d Cir. 2000).
In New York State, school districts have the burden of proof, including the burden of persuasion and burden of production in IDEA due process hearings, except that a parent or person in parental relationship seeking tuition reimbursement or payment for services for a unilateral parental placement has the burden of persuasion and burden of production on the appropriateness of such placement (NYS Educ. Law § 4404(1)(c)). It is well settled that an appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that includes a statement of the student's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]), establishes annual goals designed to meet the student's needs resulting from the student's disability and enable him or her to make progress in the general education curriculum (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][2][i], [2][i][A]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]), and provides for the use of appropriate special education services (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][4]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]).(Application of a Child with a Disability, SRO Appeal No. 22-154).
A board of education may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private educational services obtained for a student by his or her parents, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parents were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parents' claim (School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 [1985]; Florence County School Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 US 7 [1993]).
If the District is unable to prove that it met its burden under Prong I of the three prong Burlington/Carter test, the Parent in order to meet her burden must establish by a preponderance of the evidence, that the unilateral placement provided “educational instruction specifically designed to meet the unique needs of the student” (Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 112 [2d. Cir. 2007]. However, the private school placement “need not meet the IDEA definition of a free and appropriate public education” or “state education standards or requirements” (Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 364 [2d. Cr. 2006]. The private placement need not provide certified special education teachers or an IEP. Parental placements are not subject to the same mainstreaming requirements as a school district placement. The private school placement must be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, and must be likely to produce progress, not regression.
The standard to apply is whether "[the] unilateral private placement ... provides educational instruction specifically designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child" Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115):
“No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining whether parents' unilateral placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. Grades, test scores, and regular advancement may constitute evidence that a child is receiving educational benefit, but courts assessing the propriety of a unilateral placement consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child's individual needs. To qualify for reimbursement under the IDEA, parents need not show that a private placement furnishes every special service necessary to maximize their child's potential. They need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction.” Gagliardo,489 F.3d at 112 (quoting Frank G , 459 F.3d at 364-65).
Finally, under the third prong of the Burlington/Carter test, equitable factors must weigh in the favor of the parents in order to qualify for an award of tuition reimbursement.
ANALYSIS
As stated above, it is the District’s burden to demonstrate that it has offered the Student a FAPE. The Parents claimed numerous procedural and substantive deficiencies resulted in a denial of a FAPE for the 2022-23 school year. The District made no effort to defend its recommendations other than introducing exhibits with no context or explanation.[9] There was no testimony regarding the discussion of any reports at the May 17, 2022 CSE meeting. Most importantly, there was no testimony as to why the CSE adopted the current functioning levels and needs from the neuropsychologist’s consultation report and her progress reports, but failed to implement the recommendations of the neuropsychologist. The IEP states that “she requires a small class placement with a low student:teacher ratio that can employ appropriate data-based behavioral interventions for children on the autism spectrum, such as ABA.” (emphasis added), but there is no indication in the record that the current IEP/placement offers that level of service (Ex. D-2-3). There is no description in the record how the recommended program could have provided the Student with the kind of individualized instruction she required. The record evidence does not support the District’s burden that the IEP was reasonably calculated to enable the Student to attain her IEP goals and achieve meaningful educational benefit. I find that the District failed to offer the Student a FAPE for the 2022-23 school year. [10]
Turning to the private school program selected by the Parents, based upon a thorough review of the testimony and evidence, I find the Parents met their burden that the private school provided the Student with specific instruction to meet her unique special education needs during the 2022-23 school year. The testimony of the Parent, the neuropsychologist and Head of School was uncontroverted and unquestioned. The testimony and evidence reflects that the private school provided her with specific strategies to help regulate her behaviors so that she was available for learning and able to progress academically. The BIP in place targeted her interfering behaviors and lessened their severity, frequency and duration. It is undisputed that he Student has made steady progress in speech-language, reading, writing, social interactions, socialemotional development, self-regulation and self-management skills (T:69).
With regard to equitable considerations, the record is devoid of any evidence that the Parents failed to cooperate with the District or acted in any way to thwart the CSE process. I find that the private school was an appropriate unilateral placement, and the equitable considerations weigh in favor of the Parents.
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby:
1. ORDERED that the District shall reimburse the Parents for tuition paid to the private school for the 2022-23 school year upon presentation of proof of payment.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 12, 2023
Lisa Rusk, Esq. IHO
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.
APPENDIX B – DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD
PARENT EXHIBITS
A. Due Process Complaint 11/8/22 7 pages
B. Notice of Unilateral Placement (10-Day Notice) 8/31/22 5 pages
C. Neuropsychological Evaluation Summary 1/23/21; 2/10/21; 4/28/21; 6/9/21 6 pages
D. Consultation Summary 1/15/22; 2/19/22 4 pages
E. Email Exchange – Re: IEP Meeting for [REDACTED] Update 5/2/22; 5/5/22 2 pages
F. Email Exchange – Re: [REDACTED] -242214294 5/20/22 2 pages
G. Email Exchange – Re: [REDACTED] 1/27/22; 3/10/22; 3/11/22; 6/9/22; 6/10/22; 6/11/22 7 pages
H. Email Exchange – Re: [REDACTED] School Reports 6/22/22 2 pages
I. Email Exchange – Re: [REDACTED] 2022-2023 Kindergarten registration 6/16/22 1 page
J. Email Exchange – Re: Question about Self-Contained Class 5/31/22 2 pages
K. Email Exchange - Request for tour or information about self-contained classroom 5/31/22; 6/1/22, 6/8/22; 6/12/22, 6/21/22 5 pages
L. Email Exchange – Updates on IEP Meeting for [REDACTED] 5/18/22 1 page
M. Enrollment Contract 5/31/22 2022-2023 14 pages
N. [REDACTED] Schedule 9/20/22 1 page
O. Quarterly Progress Report Cover Page 11/30/22 1 page
P. Quarterly Progress Report – Education 11/17/22 2 pages
Q. Quarterly Progress Report – Occupational Therapy 11/18/22 2 pages
R. Quarterly Progress Report – Speech Therapy 11/17/22 2 pages
S. Tuition Payment Affidavit 1/3/23 1 page
T. Quarterly Progress Report – Education 1/31/23 6 pages
U. Quarterly Progress Report – Occupational Therapy 1/30/23 2 pages
V. Quarterly Progress Report – Speech/Language Therapy 1/28/23 2 pages
W. Curriculum Vitae – [REDACTED] multiple dates 9 pages
DOE’S EXHIBITS
1. DPC 11/8/22 7 pages DOE
2. IEP 5/17/22 21 pages DOE
3. PWN and school location letter 6/30/22 6 pages DOE
4. Consultation summary 2/19/22 4 pages DOE
5. Classroom observation 3/11/22 2 pages DOE
6. Social history 1/20/22 3 pages DOE
7. Progress reports 11/15/21 7 pages DOE
8. OT evaluation 1/11/21 6 pages DOE
Footnotes
[1] Personally identifiable information is attached as Appendix A, “Redaction Identification Page,” to this decision and must be removed prior to public distribution.
[2] Exhibits shall be referred to as follows: “P” for Parents’ Exhibit; “D” for District’s or Department’s Exhibits; and “IHO” for Impartial Hearing Officer’s Exhibits. Exhibits will be followed by the exhibit number and page numbers as needed and appropriate.
[3] A more detailed list of the admitted exhibits is attached as Appendix B, “Documentation Entered Into the Record,” to this decision.
[4] The IHO stated to the District’s attorney that she was interested in hearing argument from the District as to how the IEP met the Student’s needs (T:118-19).
[5] The Parents withdrew their claim regarding the frequency of the OT services (T:120).
[6] The parties stipulate that the “2 minutes” per week listed on the IEP was a typo.
[8] The neuropsychologist said he would describe her autism as mild to moderate overall (T103). Although she does not display acting-out behaviors, the neuropsychologist described the Student’s level of self-direction and distracted behavior as moderate to severe without appropriate programming (T:102-103).
[9] The PWN does not indicate that any evaluations or reports were considered by the CSE (Ex. D-3).
[10] Based upon the finding that the District did not meet its burden, I do not find it necessary to address every claim raised in the DPC.