New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 247591

Student’s Name: [REDACTED]

School District: [REDACTED]

Impartial Hearing Officer: Ramy Louis, Esq.

Date of Filing: 04/19/2023

Hearing Requested by: PARENTS

Dates of Hearing: 07/20/2023, 07/24/2023

Record Close Date: 07/28/2023

Date of Decision: 07/28/2023

NAMES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON 07/20/2023

For the Student and Parents:

[REDACTED]

[REDACTED]

[REDACTED]

[REDACTED] (Parent)

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED]

Witnesses for the Department of Education: None

Witnesses for the Parents: [REDACTED] (Parent) [REDACTED] Board Certified Behavior Analyst [REDACTED] Speech Language Pathologist

NAMES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON 07/24/2023

For the Student and Parents:

[REDACTED]

[REDACTED]

[REDACTED]

[REDACTED] (Parent)

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED]

Witnesses for the Department of Education: None

Witnesses for the Parents: None

BACKGROUND

The Parents, through counsel, filed a Due Process Complaint (“DPC”) on or about April 19, 2023. In the DPC, Parents allege that the New York City Department of Education (“DOE” or “District”) failed to offer Student with a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years. IHO Ex. 1.

Parents allege, inter alia, that the DOE failed to: (i) recommend an appropriate program and placement, (ii) provide appropriate related services, and (iii) comply with certain procedural requirements. Id.

By way of relief, Parents seek: (i) The following bank of compensatory hours: a. 1,768 hours of at-home 1:1 bilingual Mandarin Applied Behavior Analysis (“ABA”) services at market rate;

b. 208 hours of supervision by a Board-Certified Behavior Analyst (“BCBA”); c. 208 hours of bilingual Mandarin Parent Training by a BCBA; and d. 390 hours of at-home direct 1:1 bilingual Mandarin Speech-Language Therapy (“SLT”); and (ii) The DOE to reconvene and develop an IEP that includes the following: a. 17 hours per week of at-home direct 1:1 bilingual Mandarin ABA services; b. 2 hours per week of supervision by a BCBA; c. 2 hours per week of bilingual Mandarin Parent Training by a BCBA; d. Reassessment by a BCBA for every 6 months of service; and e. At-home 1:1 bilingual Mandarin SLT, 3 times per week in 45-minute sessions ^[1]; and (iii) At the Parents’ request, the DOE to replace any of the aforementioned bilingual Mandarin services with English language Services; and (iv) The DOE to provide the following: a. A certified English-Mandarin interpreter at future parent training sessions provided by Student’s school; b. A certified English-Mandarin interpreter at future meetings concerning Student’s educational development, including future meetings concerning his

IEP; and

c. Mandarin translations of future IEPs and documents reviewed at future IEP meetings. Id; see also Tr. 7/20/23.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I was appointed as the Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) on April 20, 2023. On May 24, 2023, the parties appeared for a virtual Pre-Hearing Conference and a virtual Status Conference was scheduled for May 30, 2023. On May 30, 2023, the parties appeared for the virtual Status Conference and a virtual Due Process Hearing was scheduled for July 20, 2023.

On July 20, 2023, the parties appeared for a virtual Due Process Hearing. The Due Process Hearing was continued on July 24, 2023. At hearing, DOE did not seek to admit any exhibits into the record or offer any witness testimony. The Parents sought to admit 13 exhibits (Exhibits A-M) into the record, including three witness affidavits. All of the Parents’ proposed exhibits were admitted into evidence, on consent of the DOE. The parties made oral opening and closing statements. A list of the documentary evidence in this proceeding is appended to this Decision.

LEGAL STANDARDS AND FRAMEWORK

IDEA and the New York Education Law provide that children with disabilities are entitled to a FAPE. 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (d)(1)(A); Education Law §§ 4402(2)(a), (b)(2). A FAPE consists of specialized education and related services designed to meet a student’s unique needs, provided in conformity with a comprehensive IEP. 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(9), (29). 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). 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. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988, 999 (2017). If a procedural violation has occurred, relief is warranted only if the procedural violation affected the student's right to a FAPE. Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381-82 (2d Cir. 2003); W.G. v. Bd. of Trustees of Target Range School Dist. No. 23, 960 F. 2d 1479, 1484 (9th Cir. 1992); J.D. v. Pawlet Sch. Dist., 224 F.3d 60, 69 (2d Cir. 2000); 8 NYCRR § 200.5(4)(ii). School districts are obligated to provide the special education services listed in a student’s IEP. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9)(D); 34 C.F.R. § 300.17(d).

IDEA directs that, in general, an IHO's decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(i). A school district offers a FAPE “by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction.” Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203. However, the “IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP.” Walczak v. Florida Union Free School Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 (2d Cir. 1998); Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189. “The adequacy of a given IEP turns on the unique circumstances of the child for whom it was created.” Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 1001. The IDEA ensures an “appropriate” education, “not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents.” Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132, quoting Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d 563, 567 (2d Cir. 1989). Additionally, school districts are not required to “maximize” the potential of students with disabilities. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132. Nonetheless, a school district must provide “an IEP that is likely to produce progress, not regression,’ and . . . affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere ‘trivial advancement.” Cerra v. Pawling Central School Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 195 (2d Cir. 2005), quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130.

While the Second Circuit has emphasized that school districts must comply with the checklist of procedures for developing a student's IEP and indicated that "[m]ultiple procedural violations may cumulatively result in the denial of a FAPE even if the violations considered individually do not" (R.E. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 190-91 (2d Cir. 2012)), the Court has also explained that not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (M.H. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 685 F.3d 217, 245 (2d Cir. 2012); A.C. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Chappaqua Cent. Sch. Dist., 553 F.3d 165, 172 (2d Cir. 2009); Grim v. Rhinebeck

Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 (2d Cir. 2003)). When a school district fails to offer a FAPE, compensatory educational services may be awarded as an equitable remedy that is tailored to meet the unique circumstances of each case. Wenger v. Canastota, 979 F. Supp. 147 (N.D.N.Y. 1997). The purpose of an award of compensatory education is to provide an appropriate remedy for a denial of a FAPE. See E.M. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 758 F.3d 442, 451 (2d Cir. 2014); P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir. 2008); see also Doe v. E. Lyme, 790 F.3d 440, 456-57 (2d Cir. 2015); Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 524 (D.C. Cir. 2005); Parents of Student W. v. Puyallup

Sch. Dist., 31 F.3d 1489, 1497 (9th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, an award of compensatory education should aim to place the student in the position he or she would have been in had the district complied with its obligations under the IDEA. See Newington, 546 F.3d at 123; see also Draper v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 518 F.3d 1275, 1289 (11th Cir. 2008); Bd. of Educ. of Fayette County, Ky. v. L.M., 478 F.3d 307, 316 (6th Cir. 2007); Reid, 401 F.3d at 518. A compensatory education award is a flexible equitable remedy that is often crafted by either a “quantitative” or “qualitative” approach. Under the quantitative approach, the compensatory award is based on the amount of time that comprised the FAPE deprivation (in which a student is entitled to compensatory education for a period equal to the period of FAPE deprivation). Under the qualitative approach, the focus is on a student’s needs and is based on the specific educational deficits that resulted from the FAPE deprivation (with the compensatory award being the specific services needed to correct those deficits). However, the Second Circuit has affirmed the flexible approach adopted by Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 525 (D.C.

Cir. 2005) and declined to specify any particular approach: “[T]he Second Circuit has not articulated a test for determining how such awards are calculated. See, e.g., P. v. Newington, 2008 WL 4509089 (affirming compensatory education as appropriate without discussion of how award was calculated)”. Student X v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 51 IDELR 122 (E.D.N.Y. 2008).

New York State law has placed the burden of production and persuasion at an impartial hearing on the District. Additionally, while allocating an evidentiary burden to the District, a parent nevertheless has a responsibility to identify the compensatory education remedy sought in the same fact-specific manner, and it is insufficient to assert general statements that a student is entitled to an unspecified amount of unidentified compensatory educational services.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

FAPE

Although the DOE did not concede FAPE for the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years, it did not offer any testimony or evidentiary documents in support of their case. Additionally, the DOE did not object to or contest the evidentiary materials submitted by Parents’ counsel in support of Parents’ claims. Moreover, a review of the IEPs (Exhibits F and J) offers no explanation as to how the Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) made its recommendations, or whether the IEPs are meaningfully calculated to confer educational benefit. In short, the DOE did not to “offer a cogent and responsive explanation for their decisions” in creating the IEPs, and it is “through the IEP that [t]he free appropriate public education required by the Act is tailored to the unique needs of a particular child.” Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 1002.

Since the DOE bore the burden of proving it provided Student a FAPE, based upon the hearing record, I find that Student was denied a FAPE for the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years. Relief Requested

A. Compensatory ABA Services The hearing record establishes that Student is diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (“ASD”) and has a history of developmental delays. Ex. A; Ex. B; Ex. C; Ex. E; Ex. F; Ex. H; Ex. I; Ex. J. Student is a fifteen-year-old child and resides in a Mandarin-speaking home. IHO Ex. 1; Ex. K; Ex. L; Ex. M. Student is deeply behind where he should be for a student of his age and diagnosis. Ex. L; Ex. M. Student was first diagnosed with Autism in 2010, and began receiving athome ABA and speech services pursuant to a prior behavior treatment plan, but there was a significant gap in his services during the COVID-19 pandemic and during a brief period where a different, non-bilingual BCBA worked with him ^[2]. Ex. K; Ex. L; IHO Ex. 1. During this lapse in services, Student substantially regressed in his education. Ex. K; Ex. L. When the services resumed, after several months, Student made gradual progress. Ex. K.

For the two school years at issue, the Student’s IEPs did not include any ABA or at-home speech services. See Ex. F; Ex. J.

For the 2021-2022 school year, the CSE met on May 20, 2021 and developed an IEP for implementation on June 3, 2021. The CSE classified Student as a Student with Autism. Ex. F. It noted that Student was non-verbal, preferred to engage in solitary play, exhibited delays in expressive, receptive, and pragmatic language skills, struggled expressing his wants and needs with independence, displayed language and cognitive delays, needed intensive instruction and adult supervision, and benefited from a multisensory approach when participating in academic lessons and activities. Id. The June 3, 2021 IEP recommended a 12-month program in a 8:1+2 special class with related services of individual Occupational Therapy (“OT”), in English, two times per week, monthly Parent Counseling and Training, individual Speech-Language Therapy (“SLT”), in English, three times per week, and group SLT, in English, one time per week, as well as daily Paraprofessional Behavior Support, and a Dynamic Display Speech Generating Device.

Id. The Placement Recommendation was a New York State approved Non-Public School. Id. For the 2022-2023 school year, the CSE met on March 10, 2022 and maintained its classification of Student as a Student with Autism. Ex. J. It noted that Student was functioning on a pre-kindergarten level in reading, mathematics, and writing, was delayed in social communication skills, intellectual and adaptive functioning, sensory processing skills, and fine motor skills, and presented with intensive educational needs. Id. The March 10, 2022 IEP recommended a 12-month program in a 8:1+2 special class with related services of individual OT, in English, two times per week, monthly Parent Counseling and Training, individual SLT, in English, three times per week, and group SLT, in English, one time per week, as well as daily Paraprofessional Behavior Support, and a Dynamic Display Speech Generating Device. Id. The Placement Recommendation was a New York State approved Non-Public School. Id. The CSE also noted that Parents inquired about adding ABA services to Student’s IEP but were told that the recommended placement did not have an ABA program, and therefore ABA services will not be included in the IEP. Id.

BCBA testified that she believes that at-home ABA therapy is appropriate in this matter and that Student should have received ABA therapy during the school years at issue. Ex. L. She conducted a Functional Behavior Assessment (“FBA”) of the Student in November 2021. Id. The November 2021 FBA provided an in-depth analysis of the Student’s present levels and needs. See Ex. H. Student exhibited several maladaptive behaviors, including “getting fixated on objects (often); using strange or repetitive speech (often); losing awareness of what [] [is] happening around him (sometimes); repeating physical movements over and over (often); engaging in compulsive behavior (sometimes); aggression, mostly in the form of kicking others (sometimes); and wandering or darting away without regard for safety (sometimes).” Ex. L; see also Ex. H. Based on her review of Student’s IEPs, progress reports, homework assessments, reports from his parents and classroom teachers, and her observations, BCBA developed a treatment plan that includes ABA services that focuses on the same skills that Student learns in school.

BCBA also testified that she believes ABA services should be ongoing until a reassessment indicates that Student has made sufficient progress to meet the discharge criteria and that any unplanned interruption in the therapy would result in regression, as was the case in 2020 when Student’s services were interrupted. Furthermore, given Student’s regressions in previous years, BCBA recommends additional hours of ABA to help Student make up for his lack of services and believes that the recommended services will prevent the Student from losing the skills he has already mastered, generalize the skills he learns at school, and allow Student to meaningfully progress in his education. Ex. L.

BCBA believes that Student should have received 17 hours per week of at-home direct intervention 1:1 ABA services, 2 hours per week of supervision by a BCBA, and 2 hours per week of bilingual Chinese parent training by a BCBA for each school year at issue and therefore recommends that he receive a compensatory bank of hours equal to the services that he did not receive. Id; see also Testimony of BCBA. She stated, “[m]ultiplied by 52 weeks in the school year, over two years, is a total of 1,768 hours of ABA, 208 hours of supervision by a BCBA, and 208 hours of bilingual Mandarin parent training.” Id.

The DOE did not offer any witness testimony or documentary evidence to explain why it made the program recommendations contained in the IEPs it developed for each of Student’s 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years and did not present any evidence to challenge or rebut the BCBA’s recommendations.

I find BCBA’s testimony to be credible. However, a 12-month school year generally consists of 42 weeks, not 52 weeks. This is based on the 180 instructional days in a 10-month school year, plus an additional 30 days during the 12-month portion of the school that occurs over a summer, typically during a six-week program. See Educ. Law § 3604(7); 8 NYCRR 200.1(eee); see e.g., Application of a Student with a Disability, SRO No. 23-019; Application of a Student with a Disability, SRO No. 21-213. Accordingly, to make up for at-home ABA services that should have been provided to the Student, and mandated on his IEPs during the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years, I find that that Student is entitled to a bank of 1,428 hours (17 hours per week x 42 weeks x 2 school years) of at-home 1:1 bilingual Mandarin ABA services, 168 hours (2 hours per week x 42 weeks x 2 school years) of supervision by a BCBA, and 168 hours (2 hours per week x 42 weeks x 2 school years) hours of bilingual Mandarin Parent Training by a BCBA.

B. Compensatory Speech and Language Therapy

The Parents also requested an Order directing the DOE to provide Student with 390 hours of compensatory at-home direct 1:1 bilingual Mandarin SLT, at market rate, to make up for the DOE’s failure to provide Student with at-home SLT during the two school years at issue. See IHO Ex. 1.

The November 2021 Speech and Language Evaluation, conducted by Speech Language Pathologist, as well the Pathologist’s testimony, indicate that Student’s speech is intelligible and limited to repeated single words and short phrases. See Ex. M; Ex. G. At the beginning of the assessment, Student was very dysregulated and had difficulty maintaining attention. As the session continued, Student became better regulated and was able to show understanding of basic objects and body parts but still demonstrated profoundly limited verbal expression and communicated largely via non-verbal means. Id.

Speech Language Pathologist testified that she began to provide Student with at-home SLT services in November 2021 and noticed gradual progress, most notable in his ability to focus and participate. She stated that Student’s joint and sustained attention to tasks increased, and his behavior and participation improved. For example, initially, Student would leave his seat every five minutes and run away but in the most recent sessions, he only left the table once per session, at most, except for established breaks. Ex. M. Speech Language Pathologist indicated that these skills are precursors to successful communication and attention skills. Id.

Additionally, since beginning to receive at-home SLT, Student’s communication skills improved. At first, Student was unable to communicate even his most basic needs, was not making verbal requests at all, and was not using his augmentative and alternative communication device. Now, he is starting to make verbalizations, repeat words and short phrases, and use language to request a desired object, such as his iPad. Id. He also used his communication device more frequently, can now identify items with high accuracy, and can request basic needs using his augmentative and alternative communication device, which has resulted in increasing his independence, self-sufficiency, and sense of engagement and willingness to learn. Id.

Speech Language Pathologist also testified that while Student has been responding well to SLT, he is deeply behind where he should be for a student of his age and diagnosis and is so far from his typical age level that he cannot participate in standard tests designed for students of his age with language delays. Id. Pathologist believes Student is delayed because he did not receive consistent services in previous years and that at-home SLT is an important supplement to the SLT he receives in school because the presence and engagement of his parents and other family members help him learn. Therefore, Pathologist recommends that Student continue to receive direct, at-home, bilingual, 1:1 SLT and a bank of compensatory hours to make up for the services he should have received. She believes that given Student’s needs during the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years, Student should have received five 45-minute sessions per week of direct, athome, bilingual, 1:1 SLT (3.75 hours per week), and therefore recommends that he receive a compensatory bank of 390 hours (3.75 hours per week x 52 weeks x 2 school years). See Id.

The DOE did not offer any evidence to challenge or rebut the Speech Language Pathologist’s recommendations.

I find Speech Language Pathologist’s testimony to be credible and her November 2021 Speech Language Evaluation of Student to be comprehensive and thorough. However, since a 12-month school year generally consists of 42 weeks, and not 52 weeks, I find that Student is entitled to a compensatory bank of 315 hours (3.75 hours per week x 42 weeks x 2 school years) of athome direct 1:1 bilingual Mandarin SLT.

C. Parents’ Requests Regarding Development of an IEP and Mandarin Translations at Future Meetings.

The Parents requested an Order directing the DOE to reconvene and develop an IEP that includes at-home ABA and SLT services, provide a certified English-Mandarin interpreter at future parent training sessions provided by Student’s school and at future meetings concerning Student’s educational development, including meetings concerning his IEP, and provide Mandarin translations of IEPs and documents reviewed at future IEP meetings. See IHO Ex. 1; see also Tr. 7/20/23.

The 2022-2023 school year has concluded, and thus these requests are for the Student’s education planning during future school years, of which I do not have jurisdiction. See IHO Ex. 1. Moreover, these requests are speculative in nature because they rest upon contingent future events. In theory, the CSE could convene and develop an IEP for the Student, and provide an interpreter and translations of documents, which could cure the prospective injury to the Student in whole or in part.

Accordingly, I am denying Parents’ requests that the DOE reconvene and develop an IEP that includes at-home ABA and SLT services, provide a certified English-Mandarin interpreter at future parent training sessions provided by Student’s school and at meetings concerning Student’s educational development, and Mandarin translations of future IEPs and documents reviewed at future IEP meetings. If during future school year(s), the Parents feel it is appropriate to add services to Student’s IEP or still seek to have an interpreter present at certain meetings or translations of certain documents, and the District does not provide them, Parents can move for Due Process seeking appropriate relief at that time.

No equitable considerations against the Parents were presented by the DOE or considered by this tribunal.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY, ORDERED:

1) The District shall fund the following bank of compensatory educational services:

a. 1,428 hours of at-home 1:1 bilingual Mandarin Applied Behavior Analysis (“ABA”) services; b. 168 hours of supervision by a Board-Certified Behavior Analyst (“BCBA”); c. 168 hours of bilingual Mandarin Parent Training by a BCBA; and d. 315 hours of at-home direct 1:1 bilingual Mandarin Speech-Language Therapy (“SLT”).

2) These compensatory services are to be provided outside of school hours so as to not interfere with the delivery of the Student’s regular school day and shall be provided by independent providers of the Parent’s choosing at reasonable market rate, consistent with rates that have been paid by the Implementation Unit of the DOE’s impartial hearing office for comparable services within the six (6) month period prior to the date of this Order.

3) The Parents may replace any of the aforementioned bilingual Mandarin services with English language Services and continue to receive funding from the DOE for such services.

4) The DOE shall authorize any services or payments within thirty (30) days of the final Order, and issue authorized payments within fifteen (15) days of invoice submission to the DOE.

5) The bank of compensatory hours for at-home ABA and SLT services shall expire within seven years of this Order.

SO ORDERED. /s/Ramy Louis

Dated: 7/28/2023 Ramy Louis, Esq.

Impartial Hearing Officer

DISTRICT EVIDENCE

None

PARENT EVIDENCE

A. Speech/Language Evaluation 10/11/2018 (5 pages)

B. Functional Behavior Assessment 10/17/2018 (19 pages)

C. Neuropsychological Evaluation 01/25/2019 (20 pages)

D. /03/2019 (11 pages)

E. Functional Behavior Assessment 10/22/2020 (22 pages)

F. Individualized Education Program for the 2021-2022 School Year 06/03/2021 (20 pages)

G. Speech/Language Evaluation 11/14/2021 (4 pages)

H. Functional Behavior Assessment 11/22/2021 (19 pages)

I. Neuropsychological Evaluation 11/23/2021 (20 pages)

J. Individualized Education Program for the 2022-2023 School Year 03/10/2022 (32 pages)

K. Affidavit of [REDACTED] 07/06/2023 (6 pages)

L. Affidavit of [REDACTED] 07/11/2023 (9 pages)

M. Affidavit of [REDACTED] 07/11/2023 (7 pages)

IHO EXHIBITS

1. Due Process Complaint 04/19/2023 (11 pages; IHO)

2. Email from Parents’ counsel containing caselaw cited in Closing Statement. 07/24/2023 (1 page; IHO)

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

---

Footnotes

[1] Parents initially requested, via their DPC, 5 sessions per week of at-home 1:1 bilingual Mandarin SLT. See IHO Ex. 1. However, at hearing, Parents’ counsel modified the request to seek 3 sessions per week of at-home 1:1 bilingual Mandarin SLT.

[2] It is undisputed that during the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years, Student received at-home ABA and SLT services pursuant to a bank that was funded by the DOE that was provided at the conclusion of litigation separate and apart from the instant DPC which did not include claims regarding the school years at issue. See Tr. 7/20/23.