JS and JS obo BS v Green Brook Twp BOE | Case 09937-18 | 2019-09-09

New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer State of New Jersey OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW FINAL DECISION OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 AGENCY DKT. NO. 2018-28084 J.S. AND J.S. ON BEHALF OF B.S., Petitioners, v. GREEN BROOK TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent. _________________________________ Lenore Boyarin, Esq. for petitioners (Sussan, Greenwald & Wesler, attorneys) Joseph D. Casetllucci, Jr. , Esq., for respondent Marc G. Mucciolo, Esq., on the brief (Methfessel & Werbel, P.C., attorneys) Record Closed: August 26, 2019 Decided: September 9, 2019 BEFORE TAMA B. HUGHES, ALJ: STATEMENT OF THE CASE In accordance with the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1415, J.S. and J.S. (collectively “petitioners”) have requested a due-process hearing on behalf of their son, B.S., who is classified as eligible for special education and related services. Petitioners contend that t he Green Brook Township

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 2 Board of Education (the “Board ” or District”), failed to timely identify their son as eligible for special-education services, and upon doing so, failed to offer him an Individualized Education Program (IEP) t hat delivered a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for the remainder of the 201 7/2018 school year and 2018/2019 school year . Petitioners unilaterally placed B.S. at Flex School and seek reimbursement for their expenses as well as compensatory education. PROCEDURAL HISTORY The request for due -process was received by the Office of Spe cial Education Programs (OSEP) on May 21, 2018. The matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) w here it was filed as a contested case on July 16, 2018 pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to 15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to 13. A h earing was conducted on February 20, 2019, February 26, 2019, February 27, 2019, March 25, 2019, April 8, 2019, April 9, 2019, April 10, 2019, May 7, 2019, and May 21, 2019 . Closing briefs were submitted and the exhibit list was reviewed on a remaining hear date of August 26, 2019. No further testimony was deemed necessary at that time and the record closed. FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS OF FACT Testimony: Shaune A. Casazza (Casazza) , testifie d that she has been employed by the Board for the past eigh t years as a Guidance Counselor at the Irene E. Fe ldkirchner Elementary School (IEF School). Among her many responsibilities she coordinates standardized testing of the students and is the 504 Coordinato r. She described a 504 Plan as a plan that is devel oped to e nsure that a child who has a diagnosis which impedes or impacts a major life activity, receives accommodations that will ensure their academic success. Over the years, she has participated in ap proximately sixty 504 Plan meetings and has counsele d hundreds of children. Prior to her employment with

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 3 the Board, she was a Middle School teacher in Manchester Township for approximately ten years and before that worked in South Brunswick at the Middle School among other academic settings. In addition to her B. A. in English Communications, she has a Masters in School Counselling. (R-50 at GB1904 – 1905) Casazza is familiar with B.S. as he was a student in the IEF School from kindergarten through fourth grade and he was also in her social skills group from second through fourth grades. When B.S. first sta rted at the IEF School, he was not classified, nor did he have a 504 Plan. Prior to starting kindergarten, however, J.S. (mother) reached out to I EF Principal, Armand Lamberti (Lamberti) seeking a 5 04 Plan for her son. He advised J.S. that she (Casazza) would get back to her at the beginning of the school year to discuss the same. In or around this same time frame, a letter was sent to Lamberti fr om B.S.’s Psychologist, Dr. Stuart Isralowitz (Dr. I sralowitz), who recommended the implementation of a 504 P lan and prov ided some suggested accommodations. (R-10 at GB 0057) When school started back up again in September 2013, she reached out to J.S. (mother) who requested a 504 Plan based upon B.S.’ s diagnosis of Attention- deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). She advised J.S. that it was the sc hool’s practice to wait until the child came into the school setting so that they co uld see how he functioned in the classroom. She also reassured J.S. that many of the suggestions provided by Dr. Isralowitz could be implemented without a 504 Plan. Addit ionally, while a doctor may recommend a certain accommodation, due to the child’s le vel of functioning in the classroom, the accommodation may not be necessary or inc luded in the plan. Casazza recalled that in first grade, she again spoke to J.S. who h ad called to discuss social concerns for her son – specifically the fact that he onl y played with one other little girl. She reassured J.S. that this was not atypica l of children at that age and told her to let it go for the time being. No academic conce rns were raised at that time and she did not recall B.S. having any social issues su ch as disciplinary problems, anger issues or inappropriate conduct. She acknowledged that the lack of a disciplinary

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 4 problem does not mean that a child isn’t struggling. According to Casazza, B.S. was a very amiable bright little boy. At the end of f irst-grade year, at the request of the parents and upon receipt of supporting medi cal documentation, the 504 Commit tee met for an eligibility determination. This resulted in the devel opment of a 504 Plan for implementation in second grade. (R -10 and R -11) Included in the plan were several of the suggestions provided by Dr. Isralowitz. (R-10 at GB0062 – 0063) She never spoke to Dr. Isralowitz, or any of the other doctor s whose reports had been sent over with the exception of Dr. Paul. According to Casazz a, the recommendations by the various doctors, had been made without any input f rom the school. Among the accomm odations implemented were: proximal seating; read and wr ite for Goog le; behavior management – such as free movement as needed; small group; and standardized testing accommodations. (R-11.) Casazza went on to state tha t once a 504 Plan is implemented, it is revisited each year in September to see if any ch anges are re quired. In B.S.’s case, the 504 Plan was reviewed and “tweaked” in Septemb er 2016 for the 2016 -2017 school year (third grade). (R -12.) As part of the re newal process, B.S.’s third -grade teacher, Ms. Pirrone (Pirrone) filled out a SNAP -IV Sy ndrome Ratin g Scale. (R -12.) The scale assists in measuring the extent to which B. S. diagnosis was impacting his performance in the classroom. Based upon Pirrone’s e valuation, it did not appear tha t B.S.’s disability was significantly impacting him in the classroom. Among the “tweaks” was the addition of a “ Talk to Text”. The plan al so provided a behavior component. While B.S. did not have any behavioral issues, th is was included in the plan and allowed B.S. freedom of movement in the classroom as chi ldren with ADHD need to move around more freely than children without ADHD. As the 504 Coordinator, she routinely checked with B.S.’s teachers to ensure that th e 504 Plan was implemented. According to Casazza, B.S.’s teachers did not believe that he required a 504 Plan because he was functioning well in the classroom and never had any signi ficant issues. She went on to state that not all children with

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 5 ADHD require a 504 Plan or need an IEP. In B.S. case, the 504 Plan was put in place because the parents wer e insistent that he required one. It was her recollection that B.S. was also on ADHD medications at the time According to Casazza, J.S. (mother) frequentl y contacted school personnel. (R - 47; R -48; R -49) No matter what the school put in place, it never appeared to be enough for J.S. According to Casazza, B.S. was functioning well in school and his level of achievement and behavior were typical for his age level. Quite often, when she would send home something positive about B.S.’s day, such as an achi evement, J.S. would respond by pointing out where B.S. was still deficient. Petitio ners portrayed B.S. as being a social misfit and academically challenged which was not what the school was seeing. On cross -examination, Casazza was questioned what constituted a “major li fe activity”. In response, she stated that learning was a major life activi ty for a child as was socializing, attentiveness, and organization among other things. In discussing her training to be the 504 Coordinator, Casazza st ated that sh e was trained by the former administrator and ha d attended off -site trai ning run by the State. Training for teaching the social skills group cam e from her years as a teacher, a Masters in School Counselling, and off -site training. The curricu lum used in her social skills group consists of “skill streaming and power solving” and other outside resources. When a child is assigned to her group, either through a 504 Plan or an IEP, she determines how to include them into the group. The curri culum is est ablished for the whole group. So, if a child such as B.S. comes into th e group for social skills, the curriculum is not tailored specifically to B.S., ra ther for the group as a whole. While some lessons may benefit B.S. more than others, the hope is that all of the children will benefit in some way. When questioned about her earlier testimony regarding J.S. (mother) turning a positive communi cation in to a negative response, Casazza acquiesced that it is

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 6 beneficial and appropriate for a par ent to let a teacher know that there may be a deficit that needs working on. She al so acknowledged that certain emails from J.S. were entirely proper such a s when a test was given to B.S. without his accommodations. When questioned whether B.S. took the g roup off topic, Casazza responded that all the children in the group take the discus sion off-topic at one time or another. When a child goes off-topic, she allows them to share their thoughts or what they have learned with the group and then she redirects the group b ack to the original topic. When asked to reconcile her earlier testimon y that B.S. was not the most social of children but that he was an integral part of her social skills group, she provided a lunchroom example where she had to pull B.S. fro m the lunch table where he was playing a game with other children. Other times he p refers his own company which is not atypical of a lot of children. Casazza was also asked how she instructed B.S. on peer perspectives, she provided several examples an d stated tha t they would also do role play. She would follow-up with the group the following week to see if they retained what they had learned. Applying t his to B. S., there were times that she felt that he understood and internalized the perspectives, other times he did not. She did not administer any kind of social skills inventory test. Regarding the decision not to implement a 504 Plan upon B.S. e ntering kindergarten, Casazza testified that it was not a unilateral decision on her part. Rather, it was disc ussed with Lamberti and the Director of Special Services – all of whom thought it was the proper procedure to wait until B.S. entered kindergarten and the y could assess how he functioned. When questioned about the frequency of observation o f B.S. in cl ass in the 2015-2016, Casazza stated that she saw B.S. approximately ten to twelve times in the classroom setting and many times in the cafeteria or at re cess. She recalled several occasions where she either directly implemented or saw the acc ommodations set forth in the 504 Plan implemented. Casazza acknowledged that while Dr. Paul had recommended small group instruction, assistance in note -taking and ac ademic

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 7 enrichment, they were not included in the 504 Plan. She went on to state however t hat in secon d grade, there is not a lot of note -taking which is why it was intention ally excluded from the accommodations. Additionally, a number of Dr. Pau l’s recommendations fall under “good teaching” and are implemented in the classroom by the teacher when possible. Bernadette Szenasy (formally known as Van Pelt) (Szenasy) , testified on behalf of the respondent as an expert Learning Disability Teacher C onsultant (LDTC) and Case Manager. She has been employed by the school district for seven years as the LDTC. In tha t capacity, she performs educational testing of students who are suspected of having learning disabilities and is currently the case manage r for approximately fifty students. She writes IEP’s for students found eligible to receive special education and related services. (R-50 at GB 1869) The IEP contains goals and objectives that are specific to the student and are put in place with the ex pectation that the child will achieve them within a year’s time. Four times a year a progress repo rt is sent home to the parents which outlines their child’s progress in this regard. As a case manager, she is required to hold annual review meetings to di scuss the progress of a student. In that regard, she works closely with the teachers and stays in communication with the student’s parents. The educational tests which she performs look at the different academic areas where a student could have a lea rning dis ability. The test areas include math calculation, math problem solving, written expressio n, reading c omprehension, reading fluency, basic reading skills, and listening comprehension. There are several academic achievement tests that can be use d which include the Woodcock Johnson 4, Wexler Achievement Test, the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Third Editio n (WIAT 3 ) and the Kauffman Test o f Educationa l Achievement (KTEA). She has been trained in the usage and interpretation of all of them a s well as other testing modalities. Over the course of a year, she administers approximately thirty tests.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 8 Szenasy first became involved with B.S. when he was in third grade. He was referred to the Child Study Team ( CST) on December 2016, and she was assigned to be his case manager. At the time of referral, which came through the parent’s attorney, he had a 504 Plan and was receiving accommodations. B.S.'s parents a s well as B.S.’s third-grade teacher, Pirrone were present at the initial planning meeting. T he parents explained their concerns and Pirrone also discussed her classroom concerns regarding B.S. Based upon their discussion, it was decided that evaluations were warranted. She completed an educational evaluation in March 2017. (R -21) As part o f her evaluation, she spoke extensively to Pirrone about B.S.’s classroom performance. Pirrone informed her that B.S. had many strengths in math, science, social studies and reading however had weaknesses in other areas such as spelling, handwriting, basi c reading and math facts (times tables). In general, Pirrone described B.S. as a good student who did not always put forth his best effort. Also, as part o f her evalua tion, she administered three standardized tests: the KTEA; the Test of Auditory Pr ocessing Skills – 3 (TAPS -3); and the Beery -Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual -Motor Integration (Berry -VMI). She also reviewed B.S.’s educational records. Based upon t he tes ting, review of records , and interview with Pirrone, she determined that B.S .’s strengths were in math (problem -solving); writing fluency; and listening comprehension. In a majority of the areas, she felt that B.S. fell within the averag e range and was comparable to his peers. There were other areas that she found weaknesses suc h as oral expression, writing stamina, handwriting, spelling and reading comprehension (inferential questions) – even though he fell within the average range in some of the categories. She also provided, as part of the evaluation, classroom recommendati ons for the teachers. Some of these recommendations included allowing B.S. to use the Chromebook in the classroom because of his handwriting weakness; proper po sitioning in the chair which affects the handwriting; extended time for assignments and testing ; and practicing his math facts. (R-21)

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 9 Upon completion of all the evaluations (educational, psychological, speech/language, occupational therapy, social hi story), an i nitial eligibility meeting was held with the parents. (R -22 through 25) Also revi ewed were other evaluations provided by the parents which included a neurological evaluation. It was determined that B.S. had a variety of issues related to his attention in class; ability to focus; speech- language – specifically pragmatics; social skills; fine motor skills; handwriting skills; and his positioning when sitting in a chair. For her part, she found that, among other things, B.S. had difficulty with oral expres sion. Szenasy went on to state that many of the issues had previously been identif ied and addressed in the 504 Plan and at the time, did not appear to rise to the level of requiring special education. As a result of the evaluations, B.S. w as classifie d as “ Other Health Impaired” (OHI). He was classified as OHI because it was determ ined that B.S.’s medical diagnoses of ADHD and high functioning Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), were impacting him in the classroom setting. An IEP was develope d for B.S. i n April 2017, that was specific to his needs. (R -28) The recommended program was an in-class resource support program. Two teachers would be in the classroom – a general education teacher and a special education teacher, to provide the suppo rt that B.S. needed. The in-class resource support was for reading, language arts, math, science, and social studies. Pull -out supplementary instruction was put in place for basic reading skills such as sounding out words and spelling two times a week. He also re ceived speech-language therapy (once a week, occupational therapy (OT) once a mont h and social skills group. The set -up allowed B.S. to remain in the general education class with his peers. B.S. was also eligible to receive extended school yea r (ESY) program, however, the petitioners sent him to a private camp (Power Solving) which ha d a curriculum that focused on social skills. Szenasy opined that by providing B.S. in -class support, he could have individualized instruction and/or small group instruction. The placement provides a lot of flexibility and allows the student to stay i n the gene ral education class with their

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 10 peers - the least restrictive environment. When there are pull-out resources, the environment becomes more restrictive. A further res trictive environment is a self - contained classroom, such as a language and lea rning disa bilities (LLD) classroom. Even more restrictive than that is an out of district placement because the student is not typically with the same aged non -disabled peers. According to Senzasy, being with the same aged non -disabled peer is important as children learn from their peers and socialize with them. This is particularly important for a child with social difficulties as it is important to keep in an en vironment wh ere the y can see their peers modeling appropriate behavior and social skills. Modifications were also included in B.S.’s IEP to further foster his success in the classroom. (R-28 – GB 0326) Some of the suggested modifications were allowin g B.S. to ty pe his responses rather than handwrite them; provide modeling; provide small group instructions within the general education class; using B.S.’s interests to increase his motivation; and modifying tests among other things. It was Szenasy’s belief that the IEP put in place in April 2017, provided B.S. with FAPE. Based on his testing , he was in the general education classroom, which is the least restrictive environment, with his non-disabled same-age peers. When questioned how B.S. progressed up on implement ation o f IEP, Szenasy stated that the IEP was implemented in the last two m onths of t he school year. B.S.’s progress report for the fourth quarter when it was first implemented marked the goals and objectives as either progressing satisfactori ly or progre ssing gradually in the last quarter. According to Szenasy, this is not unu sual because goals are measured over the course of a year – not just in one marking period. (R -30 – GB0381) By comparison, in looking at the B.S. marks one year later at the end of fourth grade, he was showing progress. (R -32) The score most frequently seen was progressing satisfactorily – meaning he was expected to achieve his goals. There were some areas that he had already achieved the goal. She acknowledged , however, that there were some areas that B.S. was not achieving or progressing slowly such as in the social- emotional area. (R-32 – GB 0407)

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 11 After the end of B.S. fourth grade year and the IEP had been in place for a year, a team meeting was held which c onsisted of herself, B.S.’s teachers, related service providers, and the petitioners. (R-29) T he purpose of the meeting was to determine what type of p rogram would be appropriate for the following school year – whether it should be the same program or if any changes were needed. B.S.’s teachers were positive about B.S. progress over the course of the year, including with his social skills, and had recom mendations for his transition into the middle school (fifth grade). It was their belief that the same type of prog ram with some minor changes would be appropriate for B.S. One of the chan ges included a reduction in reading specialists services. According to Szenasy, when there is a reduction in services, it is typically because the student has achieve d their goal or that the level of support previously in place, was no longer required. A new IEP was offered, a draft of which was provided to the petitioners, however, they did not provide their consent and the proposed IEP was never implemented. (R -29 – GB0345) P etitioners did not speak much at the IEP meeting and made no request to am end the draft IEP. ESY was also offered to B.S. In addition to ac ademics, the 2018 ESY program included a social skill component - Power Solving, which was identical to the one tha t B.S. had been exposed to the previous summer. However, B.S. did not att end the Districts ESY program. The next communication received fro m the petitioner was notice that B.S. had been enrolled in the Flex School. In discussing the draf t IEP, Szena sy stated that an IEP can be amended at any time with the parent’s consent . It is a breathing document. The draft IEP that was provided to petitioners, took into consideration the progress that B.S. had made over the course of the year and re flected his needs as of the end of fourth grade. The goals and objectives were measur able and i n line with B.S.’s needs at that time. Modifications wer e also outlined in the draft IEP as were supplementary aids and services. Some of the supplementary ai ds and servi ces included prompting, cueing and redirecting B.S. This was based upon h is attentional needs. Reinforcing his specific goals, providing gr aphic organizers for writing and provision of study guides

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 12 were also included. B.S. would have continu ed access to the Chromebook which all of the District fourth graders had access to. Szenasy is familiar with the Flex School and in fact went there t o observe B.S. in the classroom setting on January 29, 2019. (R -55) The visit lasted approximately an hour. The class observed was social sciences. The classroom setting was loose in that the children could sit where ever they wanted – on the floor, on top of the desk or on a couch. Some of the children had their shoes off. One of the teachers in the room was talking about the Salem Witch Trials. It appeared to be an interactive lesso n and involved a higher order of thinking, however , at the same time there was no individualized instruction. Some of the children at times were socially inappropriate without correction by the teaching staff of which there were a couple. To Szenasy, thi s was not a teachable moment. There also appeared to be an inconsi stency in how the children were treated – specifically, one child allowed to do one thing while anothe r was not. She watched as an unleashed dog wandered in and out of the classroom. One of the children jumped out of their chair in the middle of the less on to “cuddle” with the dog and this was allowed. When B.S. attempted to do the same thing, he was to ld to go back to his seat. The dog was not a therapy dog and appeared to be a distrac tion which is not good for children with attention issues. Another teacher was attempting to play a jeopardy game , however, she was not prepared to teach the children a nd took quit e a lot of time drawing on the whiteboard instead of having the material ready. T he children had the option of whether they wanted to partici pate or not. At one point she observed a couple of the children leave their seat in the middle of the lesson to g o to the back of the classroom to play legos. This appeared to be permissible. B.S. was observed moving around the room. He appeared to enjoy participating in the Salem Witch Trial’s activity and engaged in the jeopardy game. When the do g

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 13 came in, however, he jumped up out of his chair to go to the dog. There did not a ppear to be any individualized instruction. According to Szenasy, the program was in one of the most restrictive environments because the children were not with non -disabled peers in a general education environment. Structure was lacking which was s ignificant because students thrive when there is structure. They under stand and know what to expect and what the rules are. This is particularly important for children wit h autism. F rom her understanding, the school outsources for service providers. Th ey do not have qualified in-house related service providers. She also found this significant because when a school has in -house service providers, they have the ability to have increas ed communications with the teachers and allows them to observe the chil dren in th e classroom regularly. Based upon her observations at the Flex School, it was her belief that the most appropriate program for B.S. was in the District’s middle school where he could be in a general education classroom with his peers. On cross-examination, Szenasy acknowledged that B.S. was referred to the CST after petitioner ’s attorney had sent the District a letter requesting a referral. Included with the letter were several evaluations that petitioner ’s had obtained from outside professionals - one of which was from Tatyana Elleseff (Elleseff). In discussing the evaluations that were performed i n the eight academic areas, she stated that the purpose of t he evaluations was to see if a child has a Specific Learning Disability (SLD) and analyzed to see if there is a discrepancy. To determine if there is a discrepancy, they look to see if there is a twenty-one-and-a-half-point discrepancy between the full -scale IQ and the area tested. Additionally, the scores must be below average. I n B.S.’s case, his I Q, as tested by Dr. M uglia, the school’s psychologist, was a composite score of 115 – the high average range.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 14 She acquiesced that if B.S. had made progress under the 504 Plan, the servi ces would have been tapered off, adding more su pport in the form of an IEP. When asked to reconcile he r findings t hat B.S. was weak in oral expression but that his reading comprehension was very high, she stated that his oral weakness had to do with the expression of his ideas verbally as opposed to t aking in , listening and being able to respond to questions. She went on state that based upon B.S.’s score in oral testing in comparison to his full-scale IQ, he was not performing commensurate with his c ognitive ability. Based upon the evaluations, a nother area of weakness that was identified was phonological seg mentation. Under the IEP, B.S. was recei ving support from the reading specialist. When questioned wh y, under the draft IEP, this service was terminated, she stated that B.S. had been re -tested by the reading specialist at the end of fourth grade and the results showed progress. Regarding the i nstructional implications at the end of her evaluation and whe ther any were remedial, Szenasy stated that other than the math facts which was in a way remedial, there was no oth er remedial instruction recommended. When questioned about B.S.’s handwriting and the recommended continued use of the Chromebook, she state d that while B.S. handwriting was extremely sloppy, handwriting was not actually worked o n in the district and was not a large focus once students get to third and fourth grade. Regarding the recommendation that B.S. receive OT once a month she stated tha t there was discussion on this point, however, she deferred to the occupational therapist who observed and evaluated him in that area. She was also familiar with the ESY that was offered to B.S. in the summer of 2017. The program was five days a week for four hours a day. There was math, reading, language arts, arts, and social skills. Students also received related services per their IEP – both individual and group instruction. The progr am was also attended by neuro-typical peers that year. Szenasy was also questioned about B.S.’s progress report for the school year 2017-2018 (fourth grade), specifically, his marks for Goal 4 and the Objectives wherein

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 15 he progressed gradually throughou t the school year. In response, she stated that that Goal would have been carried over into the next IEP which is not uncommon. The scores did not mean that he could not achieve the goal. The same with Goal 5 and the Objectives, adding that sometimes di fferent strategies have to be implemented and things to ha ve be changed to progress. Regarding Goal 19, Objective 19.2, she reiterated her comments th at while it’s a concern that B.S. was progressing gradually in some areas such as Objective 19.2, at the same time what has to be taken into consideration was B.S. ’s diagnosis of ADHD, therefore the goal and objective would need longer than a year to address. Regarding her test imony regarding petitioner’s lack of comment at the IEP meeting regarding B.S.’ s progress and the proposed IEP, she acknowledged that pri or to the IEP meeting, the parents sent over private evaluations performed by Dr. Petty, Dr. Dranoff, and Elleseff. She acquiesced that the reports in and of themselves voiced the petitioner’s concern over B.S.’s progress or lack thereof. Also questione d was her report on the Flex School observations – specifically the lack of formality in the report. Accor ding to Szen asy, her educational evaluations are more formalized but the report in question was not an educational evaluation. Additionally, given t he timetable within which she was required to perform the observation and generate a report, which was extr emely short, there was insufficient time to put together a more polished report. Regarding her comments that there was no individual instruction, she stated that the class size she observed was small – having only seven students. However, a t the IES school, a small group would be three or four students. Depending on the subject, a small group at the IES school could meet every day or every other day . It depends on the student’s needs. When the observers came in to see B.S. at the IES school, they obser ved B.S. in speech/language – a related service, which was a small group. They did not obs erve a small group in the classroom setting. Regarding her comments surrounding the dog not being a therapy dog, she acquiesced that she did not know that for a fact.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 16 Szenasy was also questioned about her understanding of a community of learners. Sh e responded that she was familiar with the concept and agr eed that children struggling with the same issues could become a community of learners. Meghan Deutsc h (Deutsch) , a School Psychologist and Behaviorist for respondent for approximately a year a nd half, testified as an expert on behalf of the respondent, in school psychology, case management and behavior analyst. She has been a school psychol ogist for app roximately t welve years, is a Certified Elementary School Teacher and a Board-Certified Behavior Analyst. (R-50 – GB 1913) As a School Psycholog ist, she conducts student psychological evaluations and counseling. She also writes IEP’s and is a case manager as well. In that capacity, she frequently performs classroom observations, consultati ons with teachers and interacts with parents. As a Behav iorist, she also conducts teacher consultations and behavioral observations of students. She administers f unctional be havior assessments (FBA) which involves a lot of observations and data collectio n and writes behavior intervention plans. In describing functional behavior, Deutsch stated that the functions of behavior are to escape. It could be escape from a stimulus, a person, a demand, to attain something such as attention. She is also train ed to administer cognitive assessments (Wechsler Intellig ence Scale for Children (WISC), Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Adults (WAIS), Woodcock Johnson Tests, Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (KABC)). She can also do behavioral rating scales (Beha vior Assessment for Children (BASC), Connors Behavior Scales) and is qualified to identify different learning disabilities. Deutsch is familiar wi th B.S. throu gh his recor ds and having observed him on one occasion at the Flex School. Among the record s that she reviewed, was the Psychological Evaluation by Dr. Muglia – her predecessor. The Psychological Evaluation evaluates an individual’s overall performance i n comparison to similarly aged peers. It evaluates overall cognitive functioning. Dr. Muglia’s evaluation included

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 17 a review of records, previous eva luation data, B.S. educational history, classroom observations, interview of B.S., formal teaching rating scale and formalized testing. The formalized testing was the WISC-5. According to Deutsch, the WISC-5 is broken down into five different areas wh ich make up the Full-Scale IQ score: verbal comprehension index; visual-spatial index; fluid reasoning inde x; working m emory index; and processing speed index. Currently, the average score is between ninety and 109. The mean score is based upon the scores of a majority of similarly aged peers nationally. In breaking down the testing grid and how the assessmen t is read, D eutsch opined that the first column “Composite Scores Summary” itemizes the subcategories tested. The second column, “Composite Score”, is the age -adjusted score. The raw score on the assessment is adjusted by comparing the score to similarly aged peers. The third column – “Percentage Rank”, relate the individual’s result to t hose of all similarly aged peers who took the same test. The fourth column is a reliability indicator – “95% Confidence Interval”. This indicates whe re the true score would fall f or that individual ninety-five percent of the time. The fifth column, “Qua litative Description” is a categorical description. The test itself, WISC -5, is the fifth edition of the assessment and came out in 2014 with the norm ative data obtained in 2013. According to Deutsch, usage of a prior edition would be invalid as the normative data would be different. In looking at B.S.’s score on the WISC -5, it was determined that for Verbal Comprehension, his score was 124 which f ell into the ninety-five percent range for his age. (R -24) Verbal Comprehension assesses an individual’ s ability to think using words, respond to questions using words and appropria tely put words together. The subtests used to compile this information a re a vocabulary test and a similar ity test. The “95% Confidence Interval” was 114 -130 and the qualitativ e description was “very high” which meant he did significantly well. On V isual Spatial, which was a new indices on the WISC -5, B.S.’s score was 114 which fell into the eighty -second percent ra nge for his age. (R -24) Visual Spatial

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 18 assesses non-verbal problem-solving skill ability. The two subtests used to compile this information was block design and visual puzzles. The “95% Confidence Interval” was 105-121 and the qualitative description was high average. On Fluid Reasoning, also a new indices on the WISC-5, B.S.’s score was ninety- four which fell into the thirty -four percent range for his age. (R -24) Fluid Reasoning is another non -verbal test which assesses problem -solving skills. There is some mathematical knowledge required and some patterns that need to be recognized and fill in the matrices. The “95% Confidence Interval” was 87 –102 and the qualitative description was average. On Working Memory, B.S.’s score was 103 which fe ll into the fifty -eight percent range for his age. (R -24) W orking Memory assesses short term memory. The subtests used to compile this information is a digit span assessment and a picture span. The “95% Confi dence Interval” was 95 -110 and t he qualitative description was high average based upon his scaled score. On Processing Speed, B.S.’s score was 111 which fell into the seventy -seven percent range for his age. (R -24) Processing Speed assesses an indivi dual’s ability to process visual information in a timely and accurate manner and involves two timed tasks. The “95% Confidence Interval” was 101 -119 and the qualitative description was high average range. B.S.’s Full -Scale IQ was determined to be 115 which fell into the eighty -four percent range for his age and fell within th e high average. (R -24) Deutsch went on to state that the next classifications above high average were “very high”. These are individuals performing within the top five percent of their age group and “extremely high” is the classification above that and consists of individuals perfo rming in the ninety-eight to ninety -ninth percentile of their age group. Individuals with a Full -Scale IQ of 130 would be considered a “genius”. Indi viduals in the top one to two pe rcentiles ar e typically gifted and talented. Conversely, individuals in the 120–129 range typically are not.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 19 In looking at B.S.’s results as a whole, she found that he had many positive, solid skills. He was above avera ge in most areas. While he was weak in some areas such as visual short-term memory and fluid reasoning, he was still within the average range. There was no stand out concerns Deutsch went on to discuss how a student gets classified stating that there a re fourteen different areas of c lassification. Therefore, a determination m ust be made as to what area n eeds to be assessed (i.e. communication, behavioral, educational, etc.). While a particular assessment may show strengths and weaknesses, a student ca nnot be classified based upon on e test alone – a comprehensive evaluation ne eds to be done in order to classify or provide appropriate interventions. In looking at B.S.’s progress report for third grade, while not particularly familiar with the District 's grading format, from her curs ory review, he appeared to be progressing. Deutsch also reviewed Dr. P aul’s April 2015, evaluation. His report as well as any other report that the parents provided would have been reviewed and taken into consideration by the CST when they met and were developing B.S.’s IEP. One of the things s he noted was that Dr. Paul di d not utilize the most recent WISC test, having administered the WISC -4, not the WISC -5 which was available at the time of testing. Nor did he provide a disclaimer that the results m ay be over -inflated given the edition used. She went on to state that us age of an older edition does not provide the most accurate representation of an IQ compared to today’s peers. Dr. Paul compared B.S. results to 2003 n orms - which may have resulted i n an inflati on of scores – the Flynn Effect. Deutsch went on to opine that the Flynn Effect suggests that over time, generations of individuals' intelligence increase. If you compare intelligence today based on old norm s, it would higher because the c omparison would be with an older generation. As such, there could be up to a six-point range difference. She also noted

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 20 that Dr. Paul did not report the confidence intervals – which does not provide anyone looking at the e valuation, an appropriate repres entation of the student’s abilities. She also pointed out that there wer e no behavior scales from school and that he had not reached out to the school for their input. In looking at the tests and B.S.’s results in both the WISC-4 and WISC -5, she stated that you c ould not compare the two tests b ecause they are different assessments that assess different skills based off of different normative samples of data. Additionally, age makes a difference. When B.S. took the test with Dr. Paul, he was seven -and-a-half-years-old and his Full -Scale IQ was placed at 133. When the school tested him, he was 9.4 -years-old and his Full -Scale IQ was placed at 115. Deutsch went on to state that IQ’s start to stabilize when a child is ove r the age of seven. When a chi ld is young, there is more of an opportunity for a false high score as the assessment tasks are more concrete than at an older age. As the child gets older, the assessment has, for instance, more abstract tasks, therefore we aknesses or deficits observed. In discussing the differential between th e WISC -4 Full-Scale IQ of 133 an d the WISC-5 Full -Scale IQ of 115, Deutsch asserted that they were two different assessments, based upon two different normative sample groups - therefore there was going to be a discrepancy. In discussing other aspects o f Dr. Paul’s evaluation, Deutsch noted the various testing that he performed which were the “Disruptive Behavior Rating Scale” and “Barkley Screening Checklist”. The tests involved a series of questions which the parents answe red. From Dr. Paul’s notes, it appears that the reported beh aviors (restlessness, distractibility, difficulty engaging in activities quietly, etc.) occurred primarily at home. Dr. Paul did not observe B.S. in school. According to Deutsch, when you are l ooking at a function of behav ior, the parents should not be t he sole source of reporting. The school setting should be observed which did occur and the teachers and staff should be spoken to which did not occur.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 21 Deutsch also reviewed Dr. Dranoff’s p sychological evaluation, dated February/March 2018, when B. S. was 10.3 years old. She noted all of the records he reviewed and evaluations performed. While it appeared that he performed an observation at the scho ol, he did not i nterview the staff or requested that a staff behavior assessment scale be completed. Additionally, the evaluation had discrepant scores for the WISC -5 Full Scale IQ – which made her question the reliability of his findings in that regard a nd the lack of c onsistency a nd/or error was contrary to best practices. Deutsch went on to talk about the classification of “emotionally disturbed” which she noted was an educational classification, not a medical diagnosis. For this classification, she looks to see i f there is d ocumentation that a particular behavior, has been going on for a long period of time and whether it has been disrupting the educational performance of the student to a marked degree. She does not view a student, who is well like d by staff and peers, who at times is viewed as a leader and who has never had a behavior pro blem or outbursts – internally or externally, as a child that is emotionally disturbed. Examples of external outburst or inappropriate behavior could be the teach er saying good morning and the stu dent cursing and throwing something at the teacher. An int ernal outburst could be a child with severe social anxiety which affects them to the point that they will not get out of bed or go to school. According to Deutsch , a child that is a le ader in a gr oup or in safety patrol is not typically a student with severe anxiety. While she could not speak to Dr. Dranoff’s diagnosis of Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD), she did note that in the Diagnostic and Statistical M anual (DSM) the behavior had to be e xhibited in multiple settings. Dr. Dranoff’s diagnosis a ppeared to be based on a review of records and the parental and student rating scales - no educational setting. Even the testing environment was not best practice s as the testing occurred at the res idence. Additionally, while he was not a school psycholo gist, he made academic programming recommendations for B.S. without ever speaking to the school personnel. While she would have reviewed and considered Dr. Drano ff’s

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 22 evaluation, given t he inconsistencies and lack of teacher feedback, Dr. Muglia’s report would carry greater weight given the scope of her evaluation. Deutsch also observed B.S. at the Flex School on January 29, 2019, along with Senazi. (R-55) The observation was an hour long and took place in B.S.’s classroom. The age group of the class was fifth and sixth graders. While not completely familiar with the Flex School program, she was aware that the school was a private setting for twice exceptional children – students that are gifted and had a learning disability. The program was very unstructured with the students having the choice of whether to participate or not. Their observation took place during social studies. Some students were playing legos, others were on the floor with a dog that was present in the classroom. The kids sat all over - on the floor, in rolling chairs, bean bag chairs and even on the table. There was little to no prompting or cues for attention or participation. While the academic co ntent that w as being presented was appropriate for that level, there was no expectation of engagement by the students. For a student that has ADHD and is emotionally disturbed, among other things, significant structure is needed, boundar ies should be set, social modeling should occur as well as prompting. She did not see any of this during the observation period. According to Deutsch, based upon his score on the WISC -5, B.S. was high average. While he was a good student, he did not f all within the category of gifted and talented. Given B.S.’s issues, the Flex School would not be an appropriate environment for him given the lack of structure and social modeling. The District on the hand had programs that could provide such an environ ment. In going through the draft IEP for B.S., given the programming that was propos ed, it was her belief that it would provide him with FAPE. On cross -examination, Deutsch acknowledged that she never had any direct contact with B.S., perform any asse ssments on B.S. o r spoke to a ny school staff about him. When questioned about B.S.’s composite scores on the WISC -5 for Verbal

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 23 Comprehension and Fluid Reasoning, she stated that while there was a discrepancy, it was not significant. She also did not beli eve that Dr. Mugl ia’s comment that B.S.’s current IQ score was an underestimate of B. S.’s true cognitive ability, supported Dr. Paul’s findings. It was her position that the two assessments were different and could not be compared. Deutsch was also que stioned whether o r not a stud ent with ADHD should have their executive functioning ex amined if there is feedback from the teachers that the child is not organizing himself or his materials. In response, she stated that it was rare for a school district to assess for execu tive functio ning. The assessments for ADHD account for organization and distractibility and the traditional behavior scales as well. Thereafter, the strategies imposed in the classroom would address them understanding that each child is different and may have separate needs. In questioning Deutsch about Dr. Paul’s rep ort, specifically his commentary on how B.S. approached each subtest, she stated that there is always some value in having a professional’s comments. However, Dr. Paul’s observations were not significant to B.S.’s performance on the tests and were in fact consistent with the ADHD diagnosis - therefore not informative. Regarding Dr. Dranoff’s evaluation and her testimony that he did not evaluate in two environments, she ac quiesced that Dr. Dranoff did observe B.S. at both school and at home - therefore two environments. (P-83) Deutsch was also asked about the lack of formality in the report that she and Szenasy generated after their observations at the Flex School. In response, she stated that she did not consider it a report. She observed B.S. for a n hour at the Flex School and provided a tour of the facility. The staff was cooperative and answered the questioned that were asked. She did not question the staff abo ut the lack of dis cipline that she had observed. When questioned about her testim ony regarding typical peer models, she stated that children learn from their environment. If there are peers in a child’s environment, they will learn from them and model their behavior. The more exp osure on a regular

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 24 basis, the more the child will learn to generalize skills more efficiently and effectively. This approach does not negate the need for a more restrictive environment – it depends on the skills that need to be addressed. Michelle Ritter-Lodato (Lodato), an Occupational Therapist for the past fifteen years, testified as an expert in school -based OT. She has been employed by the respondent intermittently over the years, returning full time in 2013. (R -50) As a school-based occupational therapist, she assists students in their school -based roles – to achieve their full function in their environment. Using children that have learning disabilities as an example, she will use the child’s strengths to help in their weaknesses. She looks at student’s fine motor, visual motor, visual perceptua l and self -help skills. She reviews IEP’s and looks at all the goals so that she is aware of what is getting worked on in the classroom. In this regard, she focuses a lo t on the physical therapy and speech goals to ensure that a collaborative effort put in place. If an IEP calls for modifications or accommodatio ns, she will incorporate them into her practice and will also see that they are carried over into the classr oom. She works wi th approxima tely fifty students a year. In her capacity as the occupational therapist for the school, she conducts evaluations. There are different tests depending on the age of the student. Among the tests that she is qualified to administer are visual motor skill s test; fine motor and coordination (Bruininks -Oseretsky Test “BOT” ); sentence copy test and at times gross motor assessments. Lodato evaluated B.S. in February 2017. (R -23) As part of her evaluat ion process, she perform ed, among other things: a recor d review; classroom observation; teacher interviews; tests of v isual perceptual skills; test of visual motor skills; sensory profile and a BOT-2. In assessing B.S.’s gross motor skills, she noted th at B.S. slouched in his chair which impacts his fine mo tor skills. One of the goals which she identified was for B.S. to sit upright in his chair. The objectives were to increase core stability; improve

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 25 sensory awareness; and improve his fine motor skills utilizing a proper grasp pattern for writing. (R-23 – GB 0205) To assess his fine motor skills, B.S. was given the BOT -2. He scored in the thirty-seventh percentile for manual control. On visual motor perceptual skills, his overall score was in the eightieth percentile which was above average for his age. The testing was broken down into subtests to see if ther e was a particular area of weakness. In B.S.’s case, his lowest score was in visual closure wherein he scored in the twenty-fifth percentile. On testing his v isual motor skills, B.S. scored in the fiftieth percentile which was average for his age. A S ensory Profile was also performed by B.S.’s teacher. There were a couple of areas (auditory and visual), where there was a pr obable diffe rence. (R-23 – Pages GB0214- 0218) Lodato explained t hat the probable difference is just a few points higher than t he typical performance. A timed handwriting test (Wold Sentence Copying Test) was also given. (R-23 – GB0209 - 0267) The findings from all the evaluations and observations were compiled and placed in her report. (R-23) Thereafter, based upon his s cores, she determined what services were required and in what frequency. She attended the June 2018, IEP meeting and provided her findings and proposed goals for t he upcoming school year. (R -23, Page GB0342) The proposed IEP offered OT once a month for thirty minutes. B.S. had also received OT over the past school year (2017 -2018). Once a month, she would meet with B.S. an d another st udent in her office to perf orm their activities. Typicall y, the services are offered in a small group setting as the children work well together and achieve the goals and activities. Even in a small group setting, she attends to each child’s individual needs as she did with B.S. When she met with B.S., they wo uld start by working on his core exercises, then move on to fine motor tasks. She would also work on his visual motor skills.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 26 According to Lodato, B.S. did well and completed most o f his tasks quicker than the other stud ents in the group. When this o ccurred, he was given additional tasks to complete. It was her belief that B.S. had made progress over the year – using as an example his ability to complete his core exercises with gr eater ease. There was improvement on how he held a pencil; in complet ing tasks; and manipulating his hands. Additionally, B.S.’s teachers did not report significant concerns on B.S.’s handwriting because it was legible, and he was also using the Chrome b.ook. In the proposed IEP, she recommended that the services continue due to his fatigue with fine motor skills. It was her beli ef that B.S. would have reached a point where OT services would not be required. Regarding Sheila Smith -Allen’s (Allen) OT Eval uation of B. S., she felt that the scores on the BOT -2 were invalid. S he had given him the same test two months prior and the test should not be given more than once within a year. She also questioned the age levels referenced in Allen’s report believing them to be i n error as well as the low score on bilateral coordination and balance as that evaluation is typically performed by physical therapy, not an occupational therapist. (P -68, Page 13) Lodato also felt that Allen’s recommendation that B.S. receiv e OT every d ay as excessive as such services are typically reserved fo r children with severe disabilities. Additionally, the OT that B.S. requires is not medically based, it is school based. Lodato testified that she reviewed Allen’s observation rep ort and noted that Allen did not ob serve B.S. in her classroom setting . She was also concerned with Allen’s comments regarding her observation of B.S. in physical education and his difficulties in throwing the football. Allen concluded that B.S. had moto r planning c oncerns. According to Lodato, the fact that B.S. had neve r previously learned how to throw a football and had difficu lty initially in grasping the technique, did not mean that he had a motor planning issue. Quite the contrary as he had mastered the technique by the end of the gym class. Taking this further, Lodato cited the fact that B.S. p lays the piano – such activity requires motor planning between the hand, foot, and body upper body movement.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 27 On cross -examination, Loda to was questioned about her report wherein she stated that B.S. needed cues to sit upright to work on his core strengt h. More specifically, whether seeing him once a month was sufficient to work on this area of weakness. In response, she stat ed that once a month was not enough which was why she spoke with his parents and provided a home exercise program to them. She al so implemented a strategy with B.S. teacher to work on proper positioning in the classroom. Lodato was also questioned abo ut the senso ry profile findings, specifically the probable diffe rence and need for movement. In response, she stated that to addr ess the issue, B.S. was provided flexible seating in the classroom and she worked with him on self -monitoring. While acknowle dging that A llen performed more testing than herself, she contin ued to disagree with Allen’s recommendation that B.S. receive OT three times a week, as it was excessive; causes the student to miss class as it is a pull - out service and may cause the student to fall behind. Amy Berger (Berger) – a Speech-Language Specialist, testified as an expert on behalf of the respondent in speech and language pathology. She has been employed by the respondent for the past twenty -one years and prior to that worked in v arious school districts for approximately sixteen years. She is familiar with B.S. having evaluated him in March 2017, over three sessions. (R -25) As part of her evaluation process, she gathered background information, conducted formal and informal ob servations, obtained teacher information, and testing, specifica lly the CASL-2. The CASL -2 has six core tests and fourteen subtests. (R-25, Pages GB 0285 – GB 0286) The testing showed that B.S. scored anywhere from average to exceptional in the vari ous indexes and subtests. His strengths were in expressive rece ptive semantic/and syntactic indexes. Relative weaknesses were also found in some of his higher-level skills such as his ability to pick up on social cues or understand the perspective of ano ther person. Another relative weakness which was noted was in h is

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 28 inability to pick up on an individual’s body language or facial expression. While B.S. showed certain areas of relative weakness, most of his scores were in the average to above average range. (R-25, Page GB0286) Also reviewed and taken into cons ideration in her recommendation for B.S. and the development of goals, was Elleseff’s evaluation of August 2016. While acknowledging that there may be some overlap in disciplines, Berger not ed that som e of the testing performed by Elleseff would have bee n done by other specialists in the District who were trained in those specific fields. One example provided was the tests for reading comprehension and phonological processing. These tests w ould have been done by the District’s learning consultant. Anot her example was the working memory test which would have been performed by the District’s psychologist. Also noted was the fact that some of Elleseff’s observations were not atypical for a th ird grader – using B.S.’s lack of greeting upon entering the room as an example. While Elleseff did not perform the same testing as herself, their findings for the most part were consistent with similar concerns in B.S. higher level language, flexibili ty of thoug ht and problem solving, and the ability to understand non-verbal cues. Elleseff’s goals and recommendations relative to her expertise and discipline, were in line with what she would have implemented in the District with the other remaining goals and objectives being met through the other disciplines within the District. Berger went on to state that she found B.S. very focused and cooperative. She did not observe the behavior described in Elleseff’s evaluation that had been reported to her by the parents (i.e. nonstop talking, hyper focus). When he sta rted to lose focus, she broke off the session. Each session was approximately forty minutes. Among the recommendations that she made for B.S. was to provide visual supports that would help him with retelling a story/ event sequentially; role playing whic h would work on his nonverbal communication; and inferencing to mention a few. (R -25, Page GB 0287) Thereafter goals were set, and B.S. started therapy in April 2017, in accordance with the IEP.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 29 The services provided to B.S. included ST in a small grou p. The small group focused on high level skills such as understanding cues from other people and flexibility in thinking. The small group setting was important b ecause working on social skills is difficult to do in an individual se tting. It was her belief that the goals and objectives that were set forth in the IEP, implemented her recommendations; were measurable; individualized; and provided B.S. with a FAPE. On cross-examination, Berger was questioned why she did not include examples of some of t he issues which she identified and testified to but were not in her report – such as how B.S. responded to open ended questions. In response, she stated that normally she does include examples and agreed that it would have been helpfu l to the treating Speech Language Pathologist to have such information. Regarding reports that she reviewed at the time of evaluation, Berger stated that she had only received Ellese ff’s evaluat ion. She was not provided the psychological evaluation and was unaware of his i ntellectual ability. She went on to state that as a speech/language pathologist, she does not usually look at a student’s IQ. Berger was also questioned about t he first speech/language goal in the IEP (“B.S. will improve phonologic al awareness …”) and whether she herself assessed for this. (P -28, Page GB0323) In response, she stated that she did not assess this because it would have been done by the reading per son. However, she was aware of the concerns and the school would have worked on this area a s needed. She acquiesced that in Elleseff’s evaluation, B.S.’s scores in this area were not average to exceptional but went on to explain that she did not look at B.S.’s score s in E lleseff’s report, rather took her conclusions. Upon further questioning, Berger acknowledged that she did not collaborate with the LDTC to write the IEP goals or observe B.S.’s ST. Linda Flora (Flora), testified as an expert Reading Specialist on behalf of the respondent. She has been employed by the respondent for the pas t twenty-five years. She started with the District as an English Language Arts teacher and in 2013 bec ame the Reading Specialist for the Middle School. She has a Teacher Ce rtification for K –

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 30 Eighth Grade; a Masters as a Reading Specialist, a Supervisor Certificate and also has a Practitioner Certification to Teach the Wilson Program. (R -50, Pages GB1915 A-C). As a reading specialist, she specializes in working with childr en who have various reading problems. In describing the Wilson Program - which the District started using five years prior, Flora stated that it was a multisensory phonetic program wh ich has decoding and encoding. She is familiar with B.S. having work ed with him for two years in third and fourth grade as a support class twice a week. B.S. required support with his phonic skills – decoding and encoding. Flora went on to explain th at from kind ergarten into fourth grade, the classroom program provided t o the students is Fundations – a multisensory phonics program. In the second h alf of fourth grade, the program becomes the Wilson Program. In describing what was meant by multise nsory, Flora stated that the program utilizes whatever modalities availa ble (i.e. touch, sound, sight) in the learning process so that the child can le arn better. The more modalities utilized, the better the child learns. There are eight steps in the pr ogram which is very structured. Using as an example the first step - a magnetic board would be used. Also used is sky writing which uses muscle movement and muscle memory. Half of the program is decoding, and the other half is encoding. In describing d ecoding, Flora explained that it is the breaking up of the words - sounds, symbols, the blending and segmenting of words and encoding is the spelling of the words. Thereafter, she then went on to describe the various techniques used in the program. Flora went on to testify that she kept in touch with B.S.’s teacher throughout the year who would provide her feedback on what area he was struggling in. She never personally observed B.S. in his Fundations class. She started working with B.S. in third grade a nd twice a week she would pull him out of class to provide extra help – reinforcing what was being taught in the classroom by incorporating the area that he was struggling in, into her lesson. She called this a “double dose”. The lessons were

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 31 approximately forty minutes long. It was her impression that B.S. had very few areas of weakness, however, the testing (Word Identification Spelling Test “WIS T”), which was done in May 2017, at the end of B.S.’s third grade year, showed that he was still struggling a little bit. (R52, Pages GB192-GB1930) More specifically, under the Norm - Referenced Assessment – Descriptive Rating, for Word Identification and Spelling, B.S.’s rating was “average”. He was “below average” in Pseudo Words and Letter Sounds. Unde r th e Record of Inf ormal Assessment, B.S. was determined to be functioning at or above a third -grade level but in looking at his level of functioning fo r Pseudo Words and Letter Sounds, he was below his grade level. Flora did not believe that there was a major issue going on with B.S. His raw score for “Read Regular Words” placed him reading at a fifth -grade level. His raw score for “Read Irregul ar Words” placed him at the sixth -grade level and for “Spell Regular Words”, he was at a fifth -grade level. His “Spell Irregular Words” placed him exactly in third grade. In Pseudo Words he scored twenty -six which placed him at a second - grade level. Flora pointed out, however, that one more point would have placed him at the third -grade level. B.S.’s “L etter Sound” raw s core was fifty -nine, which was his lowest score. According to Flora, if a child doesn’t know his letter sounds, they would have troub le later on decoding bigger words. Overall, it was Flora’s belief that B.S. scored well, however, due to his results in the Pseudo Words and Letter Sounds, it was determined that B.S. should continue in the program into fourth grade to work on his sound and symbol relationships. In May 2018, at the end of his fourth-grade year, B.S. was again tested to s ee if he needed to continue with the Wilson Program. (R -52, Pages GB1931 –1938) Under the Norm -Referenced Assessment – his Descriptive Rating was “averag e” across the board. His score went up in several areas such as in Read Regular Words, Spell Regular Words, Spell Irregular Words. He also increased his score in Pseudo Words and Letter Sounds. He went from below average in third grade to above average in fourth grade in Sound and Symbol Knowledge. Based upon these results, which showed a marked improve ment in all of the categories, it did not appear that B.S.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 32 needed to continue in the phonics program as he had all that he needed to be successful with reading. On cross-examination, Flora was questioned about her program. In response, she stated that because of her ba ckground in the Wilson Program and Fundations Program, she and the District’s other reading specialist, pull a lot of techniques from t he Wilson Program into the Fundations Program. This is to make the program more multisensory and a lit tle bit diff erent than the classroom. The program is the same however the approach is different as far as the steps are concerned. She was not aware that B.S. had an IEP in third grade. When questioned about B.S.’s 2017 WIST scores in the sound -symbol subtests, she s tated that it was not unusual for a child who was otherwise capable, to be weak in that area. Expanding upon this answer and citing to the testing material for third grade, Flora stated that when B.S. was tested at the end of third grade , he had not been taught many of the sounds. (R -52, Page GB1925) This is why the Fundations Program is extended into the beginning of the fourth-grade year because the students are taught the second half of the book at that time. She went on to add that just becaus e a ch ild can read an entire word, it does not follow that they know the sound symbol relationship. Jennifer Stetz (Stetz) , testified tha t she has been employed by the respondent for the past eight years. She is currently the Kindergarten Special Education Teacher, however, last year, she taught the Academic Enrichment class which is similar to a gifted and talented class. Stetz is fam iliar with B.S. having taught him in her fourth-grade academic enrichment class the year prior. The class met once a week with the curriculum being pre-set. When the children came into her classroom, they worked on different projects. The projects varied – sometimes they were a group pro ject and other times the project consisted of independent research. The students are given multiple options on how to present their work and different learning modalities were also employed. Children had

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 33 to test to get into the class. The year she taught the class , there were nine children including B.S. B.S. was an average student in her class. He comp leted his wo rk but did not really contribute anything over and above that. Given the nature of the class, she expected the students to contribute and partic ipate more which was not the case with B.S. She did not see any analytical thinking from B.S. duri ng the class. He typically presented his projects online – usually a Power Point presentation with nothing additional. On cross -examination, Stetz was qu estioned about her qualifications to teach academic enrichment. In response, she stated that while she had nev er tau ght the class prior to that year, she held certifications in elementary, special education a nd early childhood. Regarding her comment t hat B.S. expresses himself in one modality (Power Point), Stetz was asked if she ever attempted to encourage hi m to e xpand his expression to which she said yes, however, B.S. was resistant. She went on to not e that in group projects that involved a Power Point presentation, B.S. would only present the slide he had prepared. He would refuse to present any other sl ide th at was prepared by one of his group/classmates. Stetz was aware that B.S. had an IEP and had reviewed it, however , never asked any ques tions about implementing the accommodations or modifications in her classroom. Theodore A. Petti, M.D., M.P.H. (Dr. Petti), a Board-Certified Child Adolescent Psychiatrist and General Psychiatry, Psychiatri st, was accepted as an expert in adolescent psychiatry. (P-66) In 2016, B.S. was referred to him by Dr. Paul and he has since been treating him for medication management as well as counselling.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 34 In March 2017, the CST requested a copy of his psychiat ric evaluation of B.S. as they were i n the process of evaluating B.S. Believing that a psychiatric evaluation would be inadequate given the purpose of the request, he offered to and thereafter provided a report to the CST to be used as part their evaluation process. (P-65.) His rep ort was broken up into sections: Pertinent History; Past Psychiatric History; Neurodevelopmental Eval uation; Neur ological Evaluation; Psychological Evaluation; Language Evaluation; Medical History; Family History; Social His tory; Mental Status Examination; Standardized Assessment Scales; Child Study Team Evaluations; Diagnostic Impressions and DSM Diagnosis; and Recommendations. In explaining the breakdown of his report and findings, starting with B.S.’s Pertinent History, Dr. Petti stated that that section provides the reader an understanding of his (Dr. Petti’s) perspective in terms of his findings a nd recommend ations. Regarding B.S. Past Psychiatric History , the significance of his findings in that section was the fact that B.S. had been having probl ems long before he saw him a nd that he (B.S.) was not really responding to what was being offered to him. Neurodevelopmental Evaluation – He reviewed the Neurodevelopmental Evaluation performed by Kapila Seshadri, M.D. (Dr. Seshadri) and the Neurological Evaluation by L ewis Milrod, M.D. (Dr. Milro d) to see what the basis was for their diagnoses of ADHD and ADS and the medications prescribed. Additionally, he wanted to see if there were any medical issues that would be ge rmane to the clinical picture and to see what rating scales had previously been used as a baseline. In a review of Dr. Seshadri’s evaluation, B.S. did not appear to have any medical issues, however, she did determine that he met the criteria for psych iatric illness. In the review of Dr. Milrod’s evaluation, it appeared that Dr. Milrod had made similar findings as his own. Psychological Evaluation - For this section, he reviewed Dr. Paul’s report. His takeaway was that B.S. had a complex set of str engths and deficits. Due to B.S.’ s

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 35 intellectual capacity, he has been able to remain in the normal range of achieve ment but at some p oint, this would hit a ceiling and thereafter his achievements would decrease. Language Evaluation - Dr. Petti’s commen ts as it relates to this section w ere based on his review of Elleseff’s report. He felt that her report supported h is findings as it related to B.S.’s strengths and weaknesses. He went on to state that one of the recommendations that he had made was a la nguage evaluation so that B.S. cou ld get the services he needed. Medical History - This section is always include d in his rep orts a nd includes information regarding how the mother’s pregnancy progressed, if there were any risk factors, developmental mil estones, eating and/or sleeping co ncerns and ph ysical growth. Family History - Similar to Medical History, Dr. P etti stated that h e always includes a family history in his reports as it provides a backdrop. In this case, there appeared to be a signifi cant family history of psychiatric illness whic h was a combination of genetic predisposition, physiologic changes, a nd psycho -social stressors among other things. Social History - According to Dr. Petti, the information, if available, provides him an opportunity to see where the child’s strengths are. It also allows him to see if there are social pressures that are i mpinging on the child’s ability to function which may be related to the presenting psychiatric symptoms. In B.S.’s case, he was not operati ng similarly at school and at home . The teache rs at school reported, on a standardized scale which they had complet ed for him, minimal problems with attention and well below clinical levels of hyperactive impulsive behavior. The family on the other hand reported the opposite. Mental Status Exam - In his examination of B.S., among other findings, he noted that B.S. made few ey e contact and that his speech was pedantic and stilted at times.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 36 B.S. reported that he was always sad. His thinking was around material things, but he was socia lly oriented to an extent. He was creative, likes to invent and likes to be precise. His re cent memory was intact as was his immediate and short -term memory for three objects which some children with ADHD have problems w ith. Serial 3’s was done without error to neg ative 1, and he was able to spell forward and in reverse without erro r. B.S. was also able to generalize a full range of similarity pairs which, according to Dr. Petti, was above what a normal nine and a quart er year old could do. B.S.’s “Dra w a Person ” score was below a child of his chronological and mental age which meant that he had s ome visual motor difficulties. It was Dr. Petti’s impression that B.S.’s social orientation did not fit in with somebody diagnosed with ASD. Standardized Assessment Scales - The Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham (SNAP) are standardized asse ssments whic h are always included in his evaluations. B.S.’s parents reported significantly higher levels of inattentive behavior, hyperactive /impulsive behavior and opposition al/defiant behavior than B.S.’s teachers. B.S.’s teachers' assessments in both second and third grades were unremarkable and oppositional/defiant behavior was scored at a zero. According to Dr. Petti, it was rare to see a zero for oppositional/defiant be havior for a child with ADHD and the problems B.S. was presenting with. This m ade him beli eve that the demands on B.S. must not have been very great. Child Study Team Evaluations - Dr. Petti testified that when these a re available, he reviews them as p art of his assessment. In this case, among other things, he was provided and r eviewed the OT Evaluation, the Psychological Evaluation, the Speech/Language Evaluation among other things. Based upon his review of the evaluations, it was his opinion that th e District was not totally measuring what the difficulties were. Based u pon his entire evaluation, it was his opinion that the current school environment was not meeting B.S. academic, cognitive, social and psychological needs and that did not app ear able to provide the range of academic and related interventions recommended in the reports reviewed.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 37 According to Dr. Petti, B.S. used so much psychic energy to be able to function in school, not to be an outcast, and try to please his teachers th at there was not much left at home. It was his expectation that even tually the school would see the same type of problems that were occurring at home and that eventually he was going to be disruptive influence at school. DSM Diagnosis - A DSM diagnosis is alw ays included in his repor ts. Anyone looking at his report can go to the DSM and know exactly what the criteria is for making a particular diagnosis. His listing of multiple diagnoses for B.S. is not out of the ordinary. Recommendations - In going through his recommendations, Dr. Petti stated that his first recommendation was to implement the recommendations made by Dr. Paul and Elleseff regarding B.S. significant learning, language and communication deficits. He reviewed B.S.’s IEP for the 2016 -2017, 2017-2018 (third and fou rth grade) and did not feel that it provided what he had recommended and what B.S. needed. In discussing his recommendation for a Therapeutic Day School, it was his belief that children such as B. S. require special services. If t he services are not provi ded, the pro blems will become magnified. He also recommended a smaller class size for B.S. It was his recollection that B.S.’s IEP did not provide for that. He felt that B.S. has multi ple strengths and weaknesses and that the sc hool was not building on his strength s or addressing his weaknesses. Instead, the school was accentuating the positives and minimalizing the deficits he was experiencing. Dr. Petti went on to testify that he continued to treat B.S. subsequent to his March 2017, evaluation/repo rt. He saw B.S. i n August 2018, and at that time was asked to provide an update. (P -91) He found B.S. to be animated and enthusiastic about the summer program that he was attending and was looki ng forward to attending the same s chool in the fall. This was importan t beca use B.S. had never previously expressed anything positive. Overall, he found a marked improvement in B.S. who made good eye contact and didn’t fidget as much. B.S. told him that he wasn’t getting up in the middl e of the night to watch T V and that h e did not have as much anxiety,

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 38 sadness or irritability. Dr. Petti also learned that B.S. had reached out to welcome a new student in the cla ss. This was significant because he previo usly did not have that the skills to do that. B.S.’s pro gress reinfo rced h is hypothesis that B.S. needed a smaller program that was integrated and would to allow him to be able to function better in the classro om setting and not have to spend all of his energy just trying to fit in. In such an environment he w ould be able to le arn and participate more actively. In Dr. Petti’s opinion, the negative cycle which he noted in his earlier opinion, was broken because the environment that B.S. was currently operating in was supportive rather than toxic. On cross -examination, Dr. Pe tti acknowledged that he never went to visit the Flex School, nor does he know the specifics of the programs that were offered. What he knows about the school came from the paren ts. He subsequently modified this statement stating that h e does have some i dea what the program offers because he saw B.S. report card and what they were doing. What he wrote in his report was a generalization of what B.S. needed - not a recommendation for a particular school. It appears from B.S.’s report car d and from what his parents were saying that the current program is meeting his needs. He was getting more individualized attention; functioning at a higher level than a year ago, and was doing better at home now that he didn’t have to expend as much energy to fit into the classroom setting. When pressed to provide further explanation as to how the program at the Flex School was meeting B.S. needs, he stated t hat it was a smaller class size for one and the teachers were trained to deal with children such as B. S. This las t poin t was speculation on his part based upon B.S.’s report card and what he was told by B.S. and the parents. He later changed this stateme nt by indicating that he came to th at conclusion based upon literature, the A cademy of Child and Adole scent Psychi atry practice parameters and the American Academy of Pediatric practice guidelines. He was unsure whether B.S.’s teachers were certified special education teachers.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 39 Dr. Pett i was also questioned how the Flex School was meeting B.S.’s social needs. In response, he reiterated his earlier testimony about B.S. bringing in a new student and introducing him to the class which he had never done in his old school. On this last poin t, he admittedly has never spoken to B.S.’ s teachers at the IEF school, therefore he could not say that last statement with certainty. Regarding his reports, Dr. Petti testified that they were not formal reports. If they had been formal evaluations, he would have spoken to B.S.’s teachers at the IEF School. He went on to state that whi le he did no t speak to B.S.’s teachers at the IEF School, they filled out the standardized scales that he had sent them, and he also reviewed the CST eval uation reports. His reports/evaluations addressed what was currently happening - whether or not the m edications B.S. was on met his needs and whether the parents were providing the appropriate structure at home. When questioned about his personal obse rvations of B.S. ’s hyperactivity, Dr. Petti he stated that while he saw some fidgetiness, he did not see hyperactive impulsive behavior or minimal inattentive behavior. He went on to state that that was normal in children with ADHD who are in their doctor ’s office. He a cquiesced that it was also normal in children of the same age who don’t have ADHD to f idget when t hey were bored. Dr. Petti was also asked about his various diagnoses of B.S. Regarding his diagnosis of ODD, it was his belief that B.S. met the DSM crit eria. B.S. was defiant, highly sensitive and didn’t take re sponsibility for his actions. He never personally observed the behavior nor was it reported in the school setting – either in the District or at the Flex School. The behavior occurred in the hom e setting as reported by the parents on the SNAP. According to Dr. Petti, only one setting is needed to make the diagnosis and it supports his hypothesis that B.S. does not have much self -control left by the time he gets home. He felt that this issue had improved since he has been at the Flex School. This was ba sed upon his interview of B.S. and what he was being told.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 40 He was also asked about his testimony that B.S. was not getting the required services in the District. In response, Dr. Petti stated that he based this statement upon the fact that the District did not pro vide B.S. with the services that were recommended by not only himself but other professionals such as Elleseff. While B.S. did well in school, it was his opinion that it came at a pri ce on a psychic and intellectual level – citing to B.S. lowe r score on the Wechsler Test. His conclusions were based upon the totality of the information that was both reported and provided to him. He went on to state that to get to a differential dia gnosis, you want objective data as well as subjective data w hich is what he believes he had in this case. He received objective data from B.S.’s teachers, from the reports and from the family. It was his position that there is a difference between truth and fact. Truth is the way people perceive something and fa ct is actual data or observations of what is going on. It was his belief, based upon his training and experience, that his interpretation of the material balanced the subjective and objective. Dr. Petti is not familiar with the Flynn Effect , however, indicated that there were a number of reasons that B.S.’s IQ would have gone down such as paying attention, motivation, environment, relationship to the e xaminer and even due to aging. He agreed that B.S. could have regressed to the norm given the fact th at he was aging up - but it could have also been because he was not being challenged in school and unable to reach his potential in that particular classr oom setting. He based the latter statemen t on his experience and literature on the subject. He is familiar with the WISC-4 and WISC-5 stating that the tests are a continuum over time. In explaining why B.S.’s score went down when he took the WISC -5, he theorized that it could have been due to the school failing to provide him the environment necessary to continue to grow and develop. When questioned if the first test could have possibly been a high score and the second test was the norm score, he acquiesced that that was also a possibility.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 41 According to Dr. Petti, he continues to see B.S. as a patient and mo nitors his medications of which there are several. The medications help him across all environments – home and in school. B.S. has been on his present m edications since 2017. The medic ations in question could cause weight loss and affect one’s sleep however, the ef fects typically stabilize within three years of taking the medications. In B.S.’s case, between the medications and his finicky eating habits , weight loss would not be unexpected. B.S. also had sleep issues before starting the medications - so it was hard to say whether his sleep issues were a result of the medications or his ADHD. According to the parents, the current regime appears to be helping B.S. who has had no majo r reported issues. Dr. Petti has not reached out to the Flex School because there does not appear to be any problems at school, and he is doing well. Additionally, he has provided the parents with recommendations on how to handle B.S. at home due to each parent having a different parenting style - Mom being more open and dad more structured. This has the potential to give mixed signals where one thing could be acce ptable by one parent and not with the other. According to Dr. Petti, this was where t he oppositional defiance came into play with B.S. because he was not always doing what was asked from him or what he agreed to do. Mom handled the issues more frequently , however, she was not as structured as her husband. It was his belief that B.S.’s is sues at home were directly related to what was happening at school. W hen pressed on these comments, Dr. Petti acknowledged that, while a remote possibility, B.S. may be do ing well in school now because the parents are implementing a different parenting st yle at home. He felt that the latter was unlikely because when B.S. s tarted the Flex School in the summer, his behavior and demeanor immediately changed. When question ed whether B.S. ever expressed anything negative about either the IEF School or the Flex School, Dr. Petti said “no”. He reiterated that B.S. was having major problems at the IEF School – using so much energy at school to control

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 42 himself and to fit in tha t by the time he got home, he had nothing left in the “psychic tank”. Based upon what he is seeing and hearing, this is not currently the case. Regarding B.S.’s social skills, he based his opinion on what had been reported to him. He believed that a s mall class size was important for B.S. This would allow for more individualized attention and the ability to pull together resources – whether its OT, physical therapy (PT), language therapy or counseling all together. He went on to state that what is le arned in the classroom can be then generalized in the home setting. When questioned about modeling and whether it was important to have non -disabled peers to model be havior off of, he stated that it would be a reasonable model to consider. However, there are many ways of modeling behavior and not all children learn from watching their p eers. In discussing B.S.’s deficits, he determined that B.S. had defi cits in his a bility to attend in that he was easily distracted; not be impulsive, difficulty with sens ory processing, receptive and expressive language, problems with reading verbal and nonverbal clues and cues, and in his ability to express himself appropriately in terms of social communication. Tatyana Elleseff (Elleseff) , a Speech Language Pathologist , testified as an expert on behalf of the petitioners in speech language pathology a nd literacy – in so far as it represents language in print form and he r assessment skills, and as a therapist. (P-50) She first met B.S. in 2016 when J.S. (Mother) call ed and requested a comprehensive language and literacy evaluation of him. (P -47) She met with him five times and established a good rapport with him. W hen she condu cts her evaluations, she has a set format. In going through each section of her report, she stated the following: Formal Testing Results - This section is always include d in her evaluation as they provide a snapshot of the standardized sco res for the reader. For B.S., it provided information on his standardized strengths and weaknesses wh ich in turn were used to create a comprehensive treatment plan.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 43 Background Infor mation - Background information on the child that is obtained provides insight into the client and may also provide relevant information on the family history. Quite often the information is useful to the clinician who may question whether a child require s a specific diagnosis or treatment. In B.S.’s case, a red flag went up when the p arent informed her that B.S. frequently engages in non -stop talking; is frequently hyper-focused and perseverates to the point that his classmates ask that he stop repeating himself. This was a red flag to her as it indicates an individual wi th a social c ommunication difficulty which is causing a rift in how his peers socialize with him. Elleseff went on to state that normal conversations between people go back and forth. When you speak to someone frequently, particularly on a topic that doesn’t interest them, they start giving the other person a lot of non -verbal body language and signs of disinterest. If that doesn’t work, they walk away from the person or cut the conversation short. This would be an example of poor socialization and t he child would not be accepted by their typically developing peers. Another red flag in the family history was that there was a family history of ASD. This meant that the student may display social communication difficulties. Included in the gathe ring of backg round information, was a review of the prior assessments that were performed. One of the assessments that she reviewed was Dr. Paul’s report. His report determined B.S. to be a highly intelligent child who was having pervasive social communication deficits. A child who should be functioning better than he was. Elleseff went on to state that the ADHD in and of itself was not the reason for B.S.’s social communication problems. Other factors contributed to the issue such as a very p ertinent fami ly hi story of psychiatric difficulties, and a pattern of behavior from early childhood which presented differently socialization wise. Adaptive Behavior - According to Elleseff, this section was important particularly for children who disp lay social co mmunication difficulties. It provides the reader an

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 44 understanding of what the child is d oing during the assessment that may be atypical or noteworthy and indicative of a social comm unication deficit. As an example, Elleseff talked about B.S. ’s excessive fidgetiness which she noted in her report. When he was given “thinking putty”, he was ab le to appropriately use it throughout the assessment to reduce his inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. Classroom Observation - She conducts a classroom ob servation to better understand what was happening with B.S. in the classroom setting. Sh e visited his school in November 2016, for approximately an hour and a half. The class had nineteen students. She noted that B.S. had several modificati ons and accommodations and she was perplexed as to their purpose. Among the activities that she obser ved was a discussion of a particular book. The children were broken down into groups of three and told to discuss it amongst themselves and share their t houghts. Whi le the other two children in B.S.’s group conversed, B.S. sat silently in his chair and d id not face the other children. He had to be redirected a couple of times to participate. To Elleseff, this showed that B.S. was having difficulty so cializing in an academic setting. He was asked to complete a group assignment and he did not. Later, when the teacher read the book out loud and asked questions, B.S. did not appear to comprehend the book or what was being asked of him. His answers were vague and pragmatically inappropriate to the question asked. To Elleseff, his responses meant that h is difficulties were not just social, but academic as well because he was not comprehending w hat he was reading so his responses reflected his social communication difficulties. As an aside, she also noted that B.S. had a history of using words that he was unable to explain or define. When this occurs, the person is essentially speaking “gibberish”. According to Elleseff, this will be judged adversely by not only the teacher but his typically developing peers. Regarding the quality and mechanics of B.S. writing, she found that it was variable. He was able to make grossly accurate prediction s with respect to select questions however his sentences were run-on, and the pu nctuation was improper. At other times, his response was immature and imprecise. Elleseff went

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 45 on to state that this was consistent with what the parents had informed her - that he was acting as the rule police, requiring rigid adheren ce to the rul es and constantly reminded the other students of the rules. According to Elleseff, this is a weakness, not a strength in light of his social communication difficulties. When B.S . left the room, he bumped into her and walked out the door w ithout any sign of recognition or acknowledgment. This was noteworthy as she had seen him several times a couple of months prior in August 2016. Such behavior may be due to simple indifference which demonstrates a social communication difficulty and lack of interest in othe r people unle ss something was needed from them, or that he did not recognize her which is known as Facial Agnosia. Facial Agnosia, which is the difficulty in recognizing a fa miliar face, is consistent with ASD. It was her position tha t the fact that he b umped into he r without any acknowledgement, such as an apology, was an indication of social communication difficulties – particularly given his age. After the class was over , she went to speak to B.S.’s teacher ( Pirrone) to talk about the curriculum that was being used – Fundations. When she had evaluated B.S. the prior August, deficits were found in his phonological awareness, reading fluency and comprehension and writing. The Fundations program used by the District was an Orton Gillingham based program that had a lot of strength with respect to phonics , however, it was lacking in other areas. Because of that, it did not match the deficits that B.S. was displaying. What B.S. needed was a combination of other things in order to addr ess his skill deficiencies. The school also used the Lucy Calkins’ Reading and Writing Project to teach reading and writing. This method teaches children to read by recognizing words as whole pieces of language. Elleseff opined that the proponents of this method be lieve that language should not be broken down into letters and combinations of letters and “decoded”. This may confuse the children because you have a combination of a synthetic p honics program, which B.S. has mastered, and then you have th e Lucy Calkins method - a creative program where you are expected to be self -directed. During her assessment, she found that B.S. could not be self -directed and needed a lot

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 46 of support and struc ture. Given all of this, it is her belief that it is difficu lt for B.S. to comprehend and thrive or even appropriately benefit from the program. Observations and Conclusions - She determined that B.S. needed actual remediation, not just accommodations in the classroom setting. When she saw him, he did not have any intervention servi ces or an IEP in place. Giving a child, that has notable difficulties with accommodations such as a laptop or speech detect software, does not suffice. You need to work on remediating their actual deficits by giving them therapeutic assistance or at least some form o f resource instruction. As an example, she used her observation of B.S. in the classroom where he was praised for using his Chromebook, yet his writing contain ed numerous errors. She also noted that socially, the use of the Chrome book and headphones in creases his isolation because he was not spontaneously interacting with his peers on assignments. While the teacher verbally prompted B.S. to interact with other students during assigned activities, no other facilitation was offered such as teaching or modeling. She also questioned, after watching B.S. silently read to himself prior to writing his response - whether the method utilized by Pirrone was sufficient ly reliable to determine whether B.S. could correctly and flu ently read and appropriately comprehend the material. Given B.S.’s presentation at the time which included her observations, in conjunction with the reports that she had read, it was her bel ief that he qualified and satisfied the criteria of a “twice exceptional” student who required special education and related services. She also determined that the current instructional practice and accommodations were not appropriately meeting his educat ional needs. If no further action was taken, then B.S. would continue to fall fu rther behind his peers both academically and socially. Auditory Function and Peripheral Oral Motor Exam - No formal testing was performed in either of these areas.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 47 Voice, Fluency, Resonance, and Prosody - While J.S. (mother) repo rted that B.S. had d ifficulty mod ulating his tone of voice at home, he fell within normal limits during her evaluation. When someone has difficulty modulating their loudness, it reflects poorly on their social communication. Articulation and Phonology - She found that B. S.’s speech h ad some mild residual distortions which would need to be addressed in therapy. Executive Functions, Memory, Processing and Listening Comprehension - Elleseff de scribed the Executive Functions Test: Elementary (EFT -E), whi ch is composed of mu ltiple subtes ts, as an assessment that is given to confirm or rule out advanced listening comprehension deficits as it pertains to memory, vocabulary and some aspects of verba l reasoning. In B.S. case, she found that B.S.’s ability to answer critical thinking abstract questions to be borderline which was consistent with his social communication difficulties. This surprised her however given B.S.’s level of intelligence. Expressive Language and Semantic Flexibility Skills - This formal assessment of expressive language ability included the administration of select subtests from the Word Test 3: Elementary (WT3 -E), Expressive Language Test – 2 (ELT -2), as well as the administration of the Vocabulary Awareness subtest from the Test of In tegrated Language and Literacy (T ILLS). The purpose of these particular tests was to reaffirm that there were no deficits at the simpler level before moving on to more complex tasks. B.S. sc ored below average on one of the subtests (Flexible Word Use) of the WT3-E. The example given was his correct and incorrect response when he was asked to provide two different meanings to the word “order”. The error pattern was again seen in the TILLS subtest (Vocabulary Awareness) where he had vague explanations of word relationships. Whil e he scored below average in these tests, she put this down as a strength as opposed to a weakness given his performance on the other tests. When B.S. was asked t o summarize a recently read book or movie, he talked about a movie that he had re cently s een. In summarizing his recitation, she found

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 48 B.S.’s response to be excessively verbose which was an indication of social communication difficulties. She went on to explain that when a story is so long and excessive, it has a lot of irrelevant detail. At some point, you will lose your listener. His reporting also lacked age -level story summarization and interpretation which was again an example of social communicati on difficulties. It was her belief that in order to address B.S.’s weaknesses in this area, he requires therapeutic intervention. Problem Solving, Critical Thinking, and Verbal Reasoning Abilities - In this section, she administered the Test to Proble m Solving 3 Elementary (TOPS-3) in which B.S. scored borderline or low average on the test. According to Elleseff, it is important to monitor B.S.’s abilities in this area with ongoing therapy in order to avoid regression due to rising academic demands. Social Communication - This section is included in her evalu ations because social communication is firmly part of language which has three significant areas - content, form, and use. B.S. was given the Social L anguage Development Test: Elementary (SLDT-E). His total test score was the standard score of seventy -five and a percentile rank of five which was below average. Elleseff stated that this was significant because it confirmed his social difficulties. Whe n viewed in light of his IQ of 133, it showed a huge discrepancy both statistically and clinically which meant that something needed to be addressed and treated. On Making Inferences subtest, B.S. obtained a standard score of seventy -nine and a percentile rank of eight. The test requires the pe rson to assume the perspective of another person and state wh at they were thinking. B.S. had difficulty putting himself in another person’s shoes. On Task A – a test designed to have the test taker infer w hat someone in a picture was thinking, B.S. ha d had difficulty making the correct inference. He missed the non-verbal body language of the person in the picture. In this case, it was a picture of a man receiving a present that was clearly meant for a fem ale. The look on the man’s face was one of in credulity. When questioned what the person may be thinking

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 49 – B.S. stated “I got a present” which misinterpreted the man’s look and emotion. While he was able to recognize the problem, was not able to offer an appropriate solution and/or articulate why it was appropriate. According to Elleseff, it is easier to respond to something that is static because it is in one place and you can analyze it. It is not so easy to respond to something that is dynamic - such as social communication interactions in di fferent settings (i.e. school in the community). If B.S. was having difficulty in static tasks, he would have significant difficulty in dynamic tasks. Moving forward, if there was therapy and intervention and if B.S. was taught new social skills, she wou ld recommend that his teachers and parents place him in scena rios that re quire h im to utilize the skill to see whether he’s generalizing it. On Task B, B.S. obtained a score of sixty -four and a percentil e rank of one indicating a profoundly impaired performance. In this task, B.S. was asked to provide a solution to a problem that was presented – specifically, he and a friend were hiking, and the friend wanted to go down. When asked for a solution, B.S.’ s response was “you could go home”. The respo nse was not a first -person perspective – rather a second person pronoun. His response completely removed himself from the scenario. While a surprise given his intelligence, it was consistent with his signific ant social communication deficits. On Tas k C, B.S. was required to provide a justification of why he p icked a particular solution and why the solution is superior to others. He scored eighty -one on this task and a percentile rank of ten. B.S. had di fficulty placing himself in a situation and therefore his answers were vague – using a second- or third-person perspective. Another subtest – Interpersonal Negotiation was also administered to B.S. He achieved a standard score of eighty-one and a percentile rank of ten – which, according to Elleseff was higher than she expected. She rationalized that he s cored higher than expected because of his response to Task A and his ability to recognize a problem.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 50 On the Multiple Interpretations subtest, B.S. obtained a score of sixty-eight and a percentile rank of two. In this test, the person is shown a pictur e or video and asked to presume two different scenarios. If the person provides similar responses, it shows rigidity and difficulty in assuming diffe rent perspectives which is indicative of soci al communication difficulties. She found B.S.’s performance in this area severely impaired. According to Elleseff, when a person has difficulty assuming social perspective, they may not be socially flexible. On the academic side, particularly when a child enters the higher grades, there will be difficulty specula ting why a character in a book did something or whether the character had a particular motive. Supporting Peers - on this subtest, B.S. scored an eighty-five and a percentile rank of sixteen which was in the borderline range. According to Elleseff, sh e did not expect thi s score. She went on to explain that socially, if a person cannot show supportive reactions to friends and peers, that person wou ld be avoided socially. Academically, that person would have difficulty working in groups. On the Inf ormal Social Thinking Dynamic Assessment Protocol (ISTDAP), B.S. had difficulty coherently and cohesively explaining certain things such as his home a nd school life. The same with his friendship s at school. The children whom he identified as friends at s chool appeared to on ly be casual acquaintances. He did not have any friends outside of school. Supporting Peers – another subtest of the SLDT -E, was also administered to B.S. He scored an e ighty-five, with a percentile rank of sixteen which fell with in the borderline range. Elleseff commented that if you can’t master the art of a white lie – it is not going to make that person the life of the par ty. If a person can’t show supportive reactions to friends and peers, they would be avoided in social set tings. The academic implications are the inability to work in groups and get along. That person would get on his/her peers' nerves and could potentially end up sitting by themselves during recess. During the “Double Interview” B.S. had difficulty main taining “giv e and tak e” exchanges when the conversation did not pertain to his interests. She also noted that

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 51 B.S. failed to acknowledge the interests of others and tended to steer the conversat ion topic to his interests. Socially- this was significant citing to her earlier example of B.S.’s peers begging him to stop stalking about the Titanic. It was also academically significant because you get so f ocused on what you want to say that you igno re questions and comments from others. When you do speak, ot hers may not be interested in what you have to say, or your comments may be irrelevant to the topic. This may have a significant impact as the child g ets older and is required to participate in group projects. Elleseff went on to state that because of B.S.’s intellect, likeable personality, is easy to talk to and not a behavioral problem, adults outside of his immediate environment may fail to see hi s social difficulties. However, his peers s ee it and will pick up on any social oddities or non -accepted behavior ri ght away. They will not tolerate his social quirks or oddities and will avoid him which will further isolate him. According to Elleseff, based on studies, when he gets older, due to his lack of social communication skills, he may not receive promotions or financial increases because he was not as well liked or received in the workplace. Reading Assessment - For this assessment, the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing -2 (CTOPP-2) was administered to B.S. The test was administered to better understand B.S.’s phonological awareness skills. His score for phonological awareness was eighty -eight and seventy-six on his phonological memory. She found these scores significantl y discrepant from his IQ She also administered the Phonemic Awareness subtest of the TILLS. She gave him this test to cross compare to see if there were the same deficits; slig htly different deficits; or if there was a discrepancy. In this test, B.S. sc ored a four and had a percentile rank of nine. Based upon his responses, one o f which was his inability to remove initial sounds correctly in nonsense words, it meant that he ha d residual phonological awareness difficulties. He was also having difficulty removing certain sounds from consonant clusters. Another subtest of the TI LLS, the Nonword Reading test, was administered to B.S. to ascertain his reading abilities. The te st was designed primarily as a measure of

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 52 reading decoding. B.S. obtained a score of thirteen and a percentile rank of seventy-six which placed him above average for children his age in his ability to decode nonsense words. Based upon his strength in thi s area, she would not recommend using nonsense words to remediate B.S.’s readi ng difficulties. Her rationale being that there is no end purpose to decode nonsense words and they do not transfer into a reading fluency task successfully. Instead, she would use rare words that have a true morphology associated with them. This would serve multiple purposes as B.S. would not only learn vocab ulary words but prefixes and suffixes as well. This will improve his knowledge as well as his reading vocabulary. Elle seff recommended targeted therapeutic remediation to improve this area which i n laymen’s terms meant remediating only the areas of defic iency – not areas that are not needed, too simple or too complex. B.S.’s basic reading comprehension abilities were al so assessed through the Test of Reading Comprehension 4th Edition (TORC -4). S he administered this test to determine if he can compensat e with his e xisting reading skills and decode basic text. B.S. tested in the average range with a total test score of 1 08 and a percentile rank of seventy. She noted however that as the testing pr ogressed and the subtest complexity increased, the tests b eing arranged in the hierarchy of complexity, there was a significant drop on select subtests, in both his score and per centile, which she found atypical. Informal Reading Assessment - Based upon his earlier results, she administered an informal reading assessment. In analyzing his reading fluency, she found that when B.S. encountered an unfamiliar word, he did not atte mpt to decode it, he simply read it as “something” and moved on to reading oth er words. He made no attempt to comprehend the meaning of the words t hat he re ad which means he was not really thinking about the text. Elleseff went on to state that if you do n’t think about the text, then you are going to be very poor at comprehending it. The fact that B.S. did not omit the word, invent a wo rd or skip t he word i s different than just reading the word as “something” and is indicative of a social communication issue.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 53 The subtest of Main Idea in Text Vocabulary Comprehension was also administered. B.S. was unable to summarize the story in hi s own words after reading it. This meant that he did not understand the text. On the Reading Comprehension (with/out text) - an assessment that requires the child to recall and retell details o f a story without the text in front of them, B.S. incorrectly responded to the questions asked. He missed the point of the entire story. On the multiple -choice section, B.S. wa s unable to answer a vast majority of the questions due to his text misreading . This part surprised her as she had expected B.S. to “cr ush” this se ction whi ch he did not. According to Elleseff, for remediation purposes, this information would be importan t so that the remediator can predict, anticipate and replace to ensure that th e same errors do not keep continuing. It was her position that while B.S. coul d compensate at that time, in the future, it would adversely affect his academic performance. Spelling - A formal assessment was conducted of B.S. spelling language ability. The Assessment included the administration of the Nonwor d Spelling subtest from the TILLS. Based upon the assessment, she recommended therapeutic intervention targeting spelling due to his multiple spelling errors. Written Assessment - One of the su btests administered in this area was Contextual Writing su btest. In t his test, B.S. was asked to write his own story with an introduction, middle and conclusion based upon a pic ture prompt. He was provided a time limit of thirty minutes with time allotte d to allow him to plot his story on a separate piece of pa per before actually writing it. B.S. declined to do so and immediately wrote his story without any planning. This mean t that he was not actively thinking regarding the planning of his story. He w rote the story in five minutes. The story was overgeneralized and did not contain relevant details to engage the reader. Additionally, there were issues with his spelling, punc tuation, capitalization, immature writing style among other things. His stand ardized score was seventy-eight and a percentile rank of seven which fell within the poor performance range. For this area, she recommended

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 54 that B.S. receive targeted therapeutic intervention which focused on written composition and contextual conventions. In addition to the written assessment, she also admini stered an in formal assessment of B.S.’s persuasive writing. He was provided a written prompt and asked to develop his t houghts. Based upon what the common core expectations were and after cross co mparing those requirements from other sources in the field , E lleseff determined that the content of B.S.’s composition, was immature for his age and grade level. Impression - According to Elleseff, what she found particularly noteworthy was the fact th at none of the weaknesses that she had found, which have g radually increased ov er the years, were never diagnosed by the school. Had they been recognized earlier, and interventi on put in place B.S.’s weaknesses would not have been targeted in her assessme nt. As part of her impressions, she provided her diagnosis o f B.S. as it relat ed to her assessment and a referral to OT for B.S. handwriting, and a SLP Nutritionist to address his diet. Based on her observations of B.S.’s current classroom set -up, she felt that the school was not meeting his educational need s. This was evidenced by several factors which included: no appropriate identification and remediation of B.S.’s social communication difficulties; no remediation of his reading and writing difficu lties; and B.S.’s use of multiple chairs, multiple chrome books and he adphones and an over - reliance on the same. She recommended among other things that: B.S. be provided with an IEP; a classification of SLD; provision of an in -class special education i nstructor who would actively coordinate with the replacement services teacher; a replacement services which would provide B.S. with a smaller sett ing and more targeted intervention; weekly targeted language therapy; weekly targeted social communication t herapy that focuses on social thinking; and continued accommodations

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 55 Suggested Therapy Goals - According to Elleseff, this section is the purpose of the entire assessment. It is included to provide the person that is reading her report an understanding of the scope of her assessm ent and the areas that B.S. needs to work on. B.S. had a lot of goals which, given his level of intelligence were relat ively high in number. To the best of her knowledge, not all of the recommended goals were implemented in B.S.’s April 2017 IEP which she had reviewed. (R-77) In November 2017, after the implementation of the IEP and at the request of the petitioners, she went to observe B.S. at the IEF School. (P -77) She observed B.S.’s Fundations class. When she later spoke to B.S.’s classroom teacher, she learned that they were using the Wilson Reading Program. She was critical of this b ecause Wilson’s Fundations was not typically used in a fourth -grade setting which should have been a different program. Wilson’s Fundat ions was specific for grades kindergarten through third and had a significant phonics component. In fourth grade, child ren are supposed to be more fluent in reading and the focus is supposed to be on comprehension and morphology. While observing the c lass, she noted that the teacher started to assist B.S. because he was spelling his sentences improperly. She was helpi ng him sound out the words, howeve r, she did not provide him with any strategies to correct his spelling. While this was occurring, the other children were told to wait until she was finished with B.S. This too was of significant because it not only sing led him out, it coul d also socially impact him. She did not observe the implementation of any of her recommendations as it related to his spelling during her visit. She also noted that B.S. did not appear to be appropriately remediated in his identified needs. N either the general Fun dations instruction or the pullout Fundations constituted appropriate remediation of his reading, comp rehension, spelling and writing difficulties. She went on to state that she would have had a combination of reading comprehension text and within that, she would have incorporated aspects of vocabulary and morphology. She would have wanted to see more ma in idea identification and

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 56 summarization and identify prefixes and suffixes. Additionally, she would have had a spelling activity. She also observed B.S.’s ST session which had three children including B.S. One of the things she observed was that the teacher alternated between asking each child their specific therapy related questions, while the other children wa ited for their turns. According to Ell eseff, this cut down on the instructional time provided to each child and was a violation of B.S.’s IE P which called for thirty minutes of instruction. Additionally, B.S. was working on vocabulary words w hich was the least o f B.S.’s problems. This caused her to question why the teacher was working on something that B.S. already knew. Instead, they shoul d have worked on the myriad of social communication goals which she had identified in her earlier evalu ation of B.S. All in all, she found that B.S. had not been appropriately remediated in his identified areas of difficulty. She further opined that the present therapy setting was not appropriate for B.S. at that time. Based upon her overall observati ons, she con cluded t hat B.S.’s program of instruction (use of Fundations and Undifferentiated Language Therapy Serv ices) was not appropriate and were not meeting his educational needs. It was her recommendation that B.S. be placed out of district. While an IEP had b een put in place, it did not have the t argeted services that she had recommended and was therefore not meeting his needs. Had the IEP includ ed the recommended targeted services, there would have been a significant impact and progress by B.S. b y November 2017. Elleseff went on to testify tha t approximately a year later, in December 2018, once again at th e petitioner’s request, she went to th e Flex School to observe B.S. (P - 95) As part of her observation/assessment, she reviewed B.S.’s first quarter rep ort card. (P -93) His report card, whi ch contained teacher comments, was consistent with her observati ons and prior assessments. She sat in on B.S.’s social studies class which was about an hour long and his language arts less for which she w as present for approximately fifteen minutes.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 57 The classroom setting was small with the children working on a Ja mestown Colony project. As part of th e project, they were required to put together a supply list for the inhabitants and given very specific instructions on wha t they were supposed to do so t hat they didn’t overextend their resources. The project integra ted quite a few things such as statist ics, math and had the children using executive functioning skills. The class was more than a social st udies class, it comb ined elements of math and language arts. B.S. was very engaged in the project – more so than t he other children and it was apparent that the project interested him. There were two teachers present, one of which walked around the room and asking t he child ren “why” and “how” questions t o promote their critical thinking and make sure that they unders tood the project. According to Elleseff, this is what she would have done in therapy and believed the environment at the Flex School was language enriched. She also noted that B.S. use of technology (laptop) was appropriate and purposeful as it was be ing used for teaching purposes rather than to occupy his time in a non-learning fashion. She also observed B.S. being pro -social by going up to another child an d asking if he wanted help in f inishing his colony. Elleseff very pleased at seeing this because she had never seen him previously demonstrate such behavior and it appeared as though he was genuinely trying to help the other student wh o was having difficulty with his project. She a lso toured the school to better understand the environment. The school was unusual with a lot of open spaces with students walking around doing their own thing. She noted however, that it was not a free for all. Af ter taking a brief tour of the school, she went back to B.S.’s class to observe his language arts lesson. There was a therapy dog in the roo m and at one point during the lesson, B.S. came over to her and as he was trying to get close to the do g to pet him, commented that he thought that the dog was spying. He did not appear to recognize her which was still an issue – however, the important th ing was that he approached her and tried to engage her in conversation. Given the content of his comme nts, it also demonstrated that B.S. still had subtle social communication difficulties.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 58 After observing B.S. at the Flex School, it was her opinion that the school setting and level of instruction appropriately meets his complex needs. On cross -examination, E lleseff was questioned what she attribu ted B.S. improvement to – the IEP that the District had put in p lace or the Flex School. In response, she stated that she did not attribute his improvement to either the District or the Flex School, she w as just repo rting on his progress. She later modif ied this statement by saying that when she saw B.S. a year prior , she did not see a lot of progress, however, one year later, she saw a significant amount of progress. She did not believe the progress was due to the implementation of the IEP which, by tha t time (November 2017), had been in place for six months. She b elieved that the Flex School was engaging B.S. at his level – giving him tasks that were both commensurate with his intellect and his interes t. The scho ol also used a lot of executive functio n strategies such as continuous questioning of the “why” and “how”. She was questioned why her tes timony added quite a bit of detail regarding her observations of B.S. at the Flex School, but her report lacked the same information, she responded that her report was sufficient to allow the reader to understand what s he had observed. Elleseff was also questioned about her observations at the IEF School . Specifically, why didn’t she go into an equal am ount of detail in her report regarding the Flex Sch ool’s reading program as she had when she visited the IEF School . In response, she stated that she ob served a social studies class at the Flex School and did not observe their reading program. Therefore, she could not comment on it. When questioned whether it would have been best practice to compare the same programs for purposes of her evaluation, she stated under certain circumstances – yes. But under other circumstances, you can observe something dif ferent to se e if ther e is an integration of skills. It was her belief that the activity she observed - B.S. silentl y reading about his project and there after able to attend to his tasks appropriately demonstrated this fact.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 59 She was also asked to justi fy her comme nt/criticism in her evaluation that B.S . was not “receiving any recommended social communication as well as writing interventions…” at the IEF School yet she did not criticize the Flex School who did not provide it. In response she stated that these issue s were st ill a concern of hers, however, she looked at his overall functioning at the Flex School and wa s seeing a difference in his socialization patterns. When pressed again on the issue, she again reiterated that on the whole, seeing B.S. in the Fle x School environment she felt that it w as a better fit for B.S. He was engaged, interested and motivate d. She went on to state that a child can make progress without the therapies and all of the integrated treatments. However, a child can make greater progress if they receive the targeted remediation and intervention. When questioned about the inconsistencies in her statement that B.S. w ould have made better progress had the Flex School implemented the suggested program, but that B.S. cou ldn’t make any progress in the District who had the programs in place, she went back to h er observations of his ST class. During that class, he was bein g taught something which he already excelled at. Therefore, why intervene in a skill that already exists when ther e are othe r deficiencies. When questio ned further about her conclusions on this point, she stated that during the time that she observed, no ne of the social communication goals that she had recommended were implemented. While she acquiesced that the Dist rict was n ot bound by her recommendatio ns, they did have to provide B.S. with appropriate goals and objectives which was not what she observed. When shown an email from B.S.’s Speech Therapist, Sommer Engler (Engler), wherein J.S. (mother) w as updated o n what the y had worked on in class that day, a targeted goal, Elleseff stated that she did not see that when she had observed the class one m onth prior. (R -48, GB1624) The same with another email updating J.S. about what was worked on in clas s on that pa rticular day. (R-48, GB1598) In that email, the teacher informed J.S. that they were working on short scenarios, identifying the problem

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 60 and working on a solution. Based upon her reading of the emails, Elleseff acknowledged that the District was in fact implementing goals and objectives. Upon referring back to her observatio ns at the Flex School and her statement that B.S. was getting up and moving around, she stated that while he got up, it was not as frequently as the other children in the class. There was a certain amount of sitting, standing and walking by everyone however nobody was disruptive. In discussing the testing which sh e performed, Elleseff stated that they were all standardized or objective tests. In looking at the sco res, B.S.’s testing sc ores, she acknowledged that a majority of the scores fell within th e average range, however, she was comparing his scores to his in tellectual ability as well as his observed areas of weaknesses which is social communication. She went on to state that soci al communication is a combina tion of standardized assessments and s ubjective measures. The findings set forth in her evaluation we re a combination of subjective and objective data integrated. She concurred that many of her conclusio ns in the evaluation were subjective. This is beca use standardized social communication testing was still static and didn’t take into account many dynam ic social situations. Therefore, she supports her conclusions or interpretations with information from studies and available research. When questione d why, when she subjectively determine d that the District was doing something inappropriate or wrong, that the entire program was inappropriate, she stated that she based her findings on her judgment and o bservations. When she went to the Flex School, she looked at his report card in conjunct ion with her observations, determined that he was doing better s ocially and was engaged - despite the lack of services at the school. She put his progress down to the environment and B.S. maturation. While she did no t observe any classes other than the social studies and language arts, based upon her observations and experience, it was her belief that B.S. was generalizing the skills being taught in his classes and ap plying them to his oth er classes.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 61 Elleseff went on to state that while a school can provide interventions, if they are not appropriate to the student, then there is an issue with the quality of instruction which in turn would account for the limited gains. On the other hand, you could have a school that has a completely different settin g which utilizes other types of instructional practices. While the practices may not be perfect, they may be better suited to the students' needs. The example pro vided of an inappropriate instructional program was the District’s use of Fundations give n B.S.’s grade level. The program that he should have been exposed to should have focused on reading and writing, not phonics which was suitable for beginning readers . She ackno wledged that she did not know what read ing program the Flex School was using or whether it was appropriate. What she did observe at the Flex School was the classroom working on syntax – subject and predicate review which is in preparation for syntactically correct sentences. According to Elleseff, children such as B.S. who ha ve difficulties in all areas of writing, need basic prerequisite skills in order to write. Elleseff was also questioned about her credentials as it relates to readin g instruction and lite racy. In response, she itemi zed the courses that she had attended and study groups that she was associated with. She acknowledged that she did not have a degree or a State certification as a reading specialist nor was she a learning consultant, however, according to the American Spe ech Language Association, a degree or certification was not required given her education and training. As a Speech Language Pathologist, she was allowed to address reading, writing, and spelling. Regarding her earlier testimony that B.S. the accommoda tions and modifications that B.S. was receiving in the District were insufficient, she stated that she came to that conclusion based upon her observations of B.S. at the IEF School. She was also asked about B.S.’s IQ She responded by stating that acco rding to Dr. Paul’s report, B.S. had an IQ of 133 which was in the superior range of functioning.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 62 She acknowledged that an IQ can stabilize with age and go a little higher or lower. She went on to state that when she was evaluating B.S., his IQ was not in the equation and what she put in her report were his areas of strengths and weaknesses and what area s needed remediation. Elleseff was also asked whether she had looked at B.S.’s WIST scores which she had not. (R -52) After being shown the tests and in going through the results, she noted that while B.S. had an made an excellent start and showed imp rovement, there was much more that needed to be done for him to progress from the word level, t hen to the s entence le vel and so on. She acknowledged, how ever, that it was important to build a foundation and then build upon it. She went on to state howeve r that she would not have administered that specific test because it was particular to the Wils on Reading Program, an d as such, assesses the words for the Wilson Reading Program. She would have administered a different test that was not associated with th e Wilson Reading Program. When questioned about her earlier testimony that B.S. requires a structured environment and whether the Flex School offered such an environment she state d yes. When pressed on this response given the fact that her observatio n lasted for approximately an hour and a half during which the students freely roamed the room , sat where ever they liked, and a dog wandering around, she stated that given how B.S. was performing, the school had structure. When asked whether she agreed w ith the statement that it takes time to make progress, even when an IEP is put in place, she acknowledged that it does take time to make progress. Shiela Smith-Allen (Allen), an O ccupational Therapist testified as an expert on behalf of the petitioners in OT. (P -69) In describing OT she stated that “it was a profession that evaluates and serv es to improv e people’s problems that are impacting their abi lity to engage in an occupati on or purposeful goal directed activity related to their life roles.”

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 63 She first met B.S. in May 2017 (third grade), when he was referred to her for a second opinion – the first evaluation having been done by the IEF School. (P-68) She met with him over a period of four sessions during which she performed clinical testing. When she conducts her evaluations, she has a set format. In going through each section of her report, she stated the following: Occupational Profile and History - In describing this section, Allen stated that the section focuses on B.S.’s “occupati on” or his roles in life at this time. She also lists all the reports that she r eviews as par t of the eva luative pr ocess. By reviewing the collateral re ports, she is given further information as to other people’s findings. The reports however, are not r eviewed until she completes her own evaluation and has made her own findings. Assessment o f Occupation al Performance - Allen described this as a summa ry of her evaluation. In describing B.S., she found him to be a very fast moving and thinking child. To her, the rapidity of his thinking and movement were quite often more than he was able to structure for himself. When she had him do something, he rus hed through it. When there was a free choice activity and there were no directions imposed on him, B. S. would spend considerably more time on those activities. To Allen, this meant that B.S. req uired structure and al so noted that he was very responsive t o her cues. One of the tests administered was the Bruininks -Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency. B.S. scored in the sixteenth percentile which was the beginning of below normal limits. Allen stated that this was significantly discrepant given B.S. in tellectual abilities and below his academic levels. She went on to state that while the IEF School had given B.S. the same test and he had performed comparably, the school did not give him the fu ll battery o f subtests , only select ones. She, on the other hand, administered the full test battery. On the Word Sentence Copying Test, she found that B.S. ’s copying speed was fast for a child of his age and the quality was compromised. She noticed notable

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 64 qualitative limitations in his writing (letter form ation; orientation of words to other words; gradation of his control from light to soft). This was sp ecifically related to the mechanics of his handwriting. Sensorily, she found B.S.’s patterns of relating to sensory input in daily life to be much mor e pronounced than typically seen. She felt that he was much more of a sensory seeker than most people but was more apt to be bothered by sensory input and move away from it than othe rs. Allen de scribed a sensory seeker as an individual who has a stronger drive for a certain type of stimulation that is not met through typical kinds of stimulation. The in dividual looks for more input but at the same time is bothered by the sensory inp ut from other s. This is a characte ristic of people with sensory processi ng disorders. In B.S.’s case, he was easily auditorily distracted and certain touches bothered him. He had some oral tactical sensitivities which would tend to take him off task. Allen used the clickin g of a key board as an example. Such a noise wou ld capture B.S.’s attention. If the teacher was giving him directions at the same time that the click ing was occurring, more than likely, she would have to repeat the directions before he would actually pay attention to them. As part of her findings, s he identified both B.S.’s educational strengths and weaknesses. Allen went on to state that it was im portant to note B.S.’s deficits, of which there were many – with all starting out at a foundat ional level. In reporting the deficits, she not only identi fies the deficit but also identifies factors that may be influencing it. The deficits which she identi fied were categorized as follows: 1.) Sleep; 2.) Diet; 3.) Handwriting; 4.) Form al Education Participation; 5.) Soc ial Participation Within the Classroom Community, with Family and with Peers/Friends. 1. Sleep - Sleep was identified as a foundational level performance deficit. B.S.’s parents filled her in about his sleep issues. This informa tion was important because people at school need to be aware of i t due to B.S.’s inadequate postural control in his seat. His sleep issue may be one of the

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 65 reasons he has a tendency to move a lot or get up from his seat. It may be related to B.S. keeping himself optimally aroused. 2. Diet - Diet was another foundation al level performance deficit that was identified. Due to B.S.’s poor diet, she questioned how his nut ritional intake was affecting his academic performance. 3. Handwriting - B.S.’s h andwriting w as another deficit that was identified. While B.S. was able to make most letters, he was unable to form them in a uniform and consistent manner. Allen went on to s tate that B.S.’s handwriting issues have been known since he was in first grade. Among the factor s that she believes contributed to his poor handwriti ng was a suspected visual dysfunction – specifically his ability to control his eye movements. She su spected this given his poor posture and difficulty sustaining visual contact. She believes that B.S.’s awkward positioning was done to place himself into a position to best use his eyes. This could also be related to his lack of accuracy in the forming a nd orienting his letters. It is draining and tiring for a student if their eye s are not wo rking toge ther and is another thing that compromises B.S.'s ability to fully engage with the task at hand. Another factor that she identified as affecting B.S.’s handwriting was the persistent, mild influence of the asymmetrical and symmetri cal tonic ne ck reflexes and mature reflex of movement patterns. This went hand in hand with another identified issue which was B.S.’s lack of core muscle stren gth. In describing this, Allen stated that as we develop, early on we have stereotypic reflexive movement p atterns. Over time, the reflexive patterns subside as they are replaced by motor control. Motor control is gained by having core muscle strength. B.S. lacks core muscle strength, so for him, one of the ways that he is able to do things and g ain control is to unco nsciously revert back. It’s another compensation for him that serves to provide more of a qualitative compromise to what he is doing.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 66 Insufficient upper limb coordination was another factor that she found affected B.S.’s handwritin g. This fin ding was b ased upon his performance on the Bruinlinks-Oserestsky Test of Motor Proficiency 2 which was low. B.S. was not crossing his mid line with his right hand a nd had a lot of hyper mobility in his elbows. The way he used his pencil was i diosyncratic and he wa s having challenges with prolonged fine motor tasks b ecause he was weak and did not have a good grasp and pinch strength to sustain. Acco rding to Allen, this relates very strongly to visual motor integration score which was at an age equivalent that was l ow and the Battle Basic Visual Motor Association Test , another visual motor test, wherein he had difficulty going back and forth between t he coding information and filling in the squares that required the code. According to Allen, these issues can be seen in the classroom when for instance, B.S. is required to copy something from the white board to a piece of paper, or just transferring inf ormation by handw riting, from one piece of paper to another. She believes that B.S. compensates by using his memory. Another factor identified which interfered with B. S. handwriting was a relative weakness in visual closure. This was also identified b y the school. An example of visual closure is closing a stroke. A weakness would be making a c ircle and leaving a ga p or overlapping the line in the circle. This impact s legibility. It is also may be a visual perception issue - possibly dysfunctional e ye movement control. Mild limitations and sequential processing or the ability to put somethi ng in order, was also identified as a factor. She found B.S.’s ability to put a suitable sequence of actions/steps to take to get something done was mildly lim ited. This could affect his ability to follow through a task that has been provided without specific instructions. Or if there were instructions that were lengthy, his a bility to process all of the steps.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 67 The last identified factor was B.S. idiosyncratic letter formation. B.S. has his own way of making letters that appears to be self -taught and wrought with inefficient habits. This has the effect of impacting his sch ool performance. He is a fast thinker and a fast writer because he is trying to kee p up with what he is thinking. This in turn affects his legibility as well as his written language output. Allen went on to state that she believes that B.S. compromises by using the computer. He does not have the strength, visual motor control or the p recision to be abl e to write in a manner that lends itself to output. Additionally, if he had a task at hand and his o bjective was to write neatly, his attention would be diverted from the higher-level aspect of the task and instead be diverted to his han dwriting. In other words, it would take him from the academic task to instead focus on the mechanical task of handwriting. 4. Formal Educational Participation - Another identified deficit was Formal Educational Participation. She found this as a defi cit due to a combination of things such as his compromised postural positioning, tendency not to stay seated, his handw riting, his distractibility and impulsivity to name a few. The factors which she felt contributed to B.S.’s deficient participation in h is formal education included among other things his sleep issues and diet. Other factors she fel t contribute d to his deficient participation in his formal education were h is handwriting issues, balance problems, suspected deficit in his motor planning abi lity and questionable self-monitoring. 5. Social Participation Within the Classroom Community, With Family and With Peers/Friends - Allen felt that this deficit was a key factor that influenced his ability to perform as a student. As a third grader, he had a history of n ot playing with others and was perpetuating his tendencies to be a loner on th e playground. He did not elaborate on any classmates as friends or playmates - his brother appeared to be his closest playmate.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 68 According to Allen, B.S. ha d a number of asset s which she put together based upon the collateral reports that she reviewed as well as from her own observations. Impression/Level of Clinical Decisio n Making - Based upon her assessment and the collateral information reviewed, it wa s her impression th at OT once a month was insufficient in terms of his educational and relevant n eeds. In her opinion, B.S. required OT thirty minutes each week which would provide him with the intensity of stimulation that he needed to address all his underlying problems. She went on to note that although B.S. was medicated, he continued to have difficulty regulating himself. Based upon his teachers’ and parents’ obse rvations of his responses to sensory events of daily life, it strongly indicated se nsory processing differences which may be contributing to his insufficient self -regulation. Acco rding to Allen, insuff icient self -regulation was interfering with B.S.’s abi lity to be able to pay attention and engage in the activities required of him in th e classroom and fil ter out the extraneous environmental irrelevant stimulation. Teaching a child to self -regulate is part of OT. This was also identified by Lodado in her evaluation wherein she recommended three sensory strategies that he could use in th e classroom. Allen herself had identified the same areas of weakness and would have used the sam e strategies but noted however that she had also identified other areas that were contributing to B.S.’s problems which also needed to be addressed. Allen was also questioned h ow, given the areas of weaknesses that Lodado herself had identified (core stability, sensory awareness, and pencil graft), she (Lodado) could adequately addr ess the issues in a thirty -minute session once a month. Additionally, in her opini on, given the f requency, intensity and duration of treatment without a specified means for ongoin g regular ca rryover integrated into B.S.’s school day, was highly insufficient. As an example, she cited the exercises that were provided to B.S. in addition to his monthly group OT. She was unclear what type of monitoring was in place to ensure that the exercises were done. Ideally, she would recommend providing B.S. with individual therapy as well as specified activities that were integrated

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 69 into the classr oom and then mo nitored accordingly. This would be in addition to everything else. Also noted was B.S.’s handwriting, which had been a longstanding concern with him, was still an issue. She recommended that an additional diagnosis of Dysgraphia be added to his list of multiple diagnoses. His writing problems were affecting his ability to get his work done and were also affecting his ability to engage in activities withi n the classroom. This suggested that his handwriting continued to be a problem and whatever previ ous instruction he had received had not helped. As a result, his handwriting was idiosyncratic. It was her belief that B.S. required individualized handwriting instruction, three times a week with e ach session lasting approximately thirty minutes. Addit ionally, she recommended the program, Writing Without Tears, in which the students get daily practice with structured handwriting activities. She also rec ommended a custom plan for school -based ty ping and word processing. As with his handwriting, B.S. also had an idiosyncratic way of typing. Sometimes he used one hand, others he w ould use two . He had no real keyboarding skills. It was her belief that it was important, for someone who types a lo t, to integrate a higher level of word processing instru ction. This was to ensure that his use of word processing for written language wa s optimized and also i ndividualized to meet his needs as opposed to group in struction. It was her belief that B.S. wo uld also benefit from more structure as it relates to th e handwriting and written language demand on him. For instance – what specific assignments are required to be handwritten or typed or can he do something ver bally. Allen also thought that speech -to-text technology would be beneficial for B.S. however, re cognized that it would not be beneficial for him to have a program that punctuates for him and spells for him – particularly since he has not yet mastered that himself. Another recommendation was the provision of sensory breaks (i.e. movement, listening to music, etc.) integrated into B.S.’s school day. This would assist in keeping his attenti on and enga ged at a more consistent level. She also felt that d aily core strengthening exercises - monitored by the occupational therapist or by someone who

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 70 was trained by the occupational therapist, was important. Also proposed was the possibility of ad aptive phys ical education which was an individualized physical education program for B.S. for fitness and d evelopment. She also recommended that B.S.’s positioning in the classroom be monitored and if necessary, adaptations made to ensure optimal sustainable positioning for attention, learning and arm/hand use. Additionally, she strongly recommended a deve lopmental optometric evaluation to verify the status of B.S. functional use of his vision which according to his mother had already been scheduled. Last, she r ecommended that B.S. continue with his piano lessons which provided him a motor workout as playi ng the piano required him to use his hands, fingers and coordinate both sides of his body. It also worked on his posture at the same time. She believed that this was very therapeutic for him. Additionally, she also believed that music in general would b enefit B.S. with his peers as it was an activity that could translate into being part of a group – playing, singing, moving together in time to the beat. Test Data - Allen testified that she refers to the objec tive test findings in the body of her repor t and for ease of reference, attaches the actual result s of the tests to the back of her report. What she found notable in B.S.’s testi ng was the g aps – he had a number of scores that were within normal limits, but he also had some very significant deficits. Some of B.S.’s results in the Bruininks Oseretsky Test Motor Proficiency were an example of his deficits. On the body coordination , B.S. score d in the fo urteenth percentile and on the strength and agility h e scored in the second percentile. Both placed him below normal limits. With regard to the Sen sory Processing Measure and Sensory Profile 2, she noted the significance of these two measure s as being reflective of performance and daily life. Allen w ent on to state that in addition to evaluat ing B.S. in May 2017, she observed him at the IEF School in October 2017, after which she reported her findings to his parents. (P -73) B.S. was in physical education class (gym) at the time and the

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 71 activity was “touchdown relay” where B.S. was in a group of four children. He appeared to be enjoying the acti vity with some qualitative limitations but was very much participating in the group. In detailing the qualitative limitations, Allen stated that B.S. was having balance problems when he was going up or do wn into the hiking position and having difficulty t hrowing the ball. He was also observed watching the other children to figure out what to do in hi s position. When he was “tagged out”, he sat on the bench and wasn’t interactive with any of the other children. He was also squinting a lot which went back to her thought that he may have vision issues and was squinting to gain motor control for his focus. When gym ended and they went back to the classroom, B.S. transitioned nicely. He stayed in line an d took a seat along the classroom wall with the res t of the children where they were partnered up for their writing class. During this a ctivity, B.S. and his partner did not speak to one another and at one point, B.S.’s partner turned to the other children sitting next to him and started talking to that g roup while B.S. sat there. The activity did not last long and then the children went to their sea ts. B.S. h ad two seats due to his difficulty with sitting appro priately in a chair. This allowed him to s prawl out and place his materials, however, he needed them. No other children had the same set up. Allen did note that at one point, th e teacher saw B.S. with his feet on the chair and encouraged him to sit prop erly in the chair which subsequently morphe d into a slouch. Allen went on to state that the t eacher was obviously aware of B.S.’s issues , however, was probably too busy with the res t of the cla ss to follo w-up on his posture. In her opinion, without follow-through, her encouragement was not effective. At one point, it was B.S.'s turn to talk to his teacher about the writing assignment. When he went up, he took his Chrome book, w hich he had been using for the assignment, and positioned himself on the fl oor next to her chair with his Chrome book balanced on his thigh. She likened B.S.’s seating p osture to that of a contortionist. When he returned to his chair, he again assumed a position whi ch was less than optimal for him to complete his work.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 72 As she continued to observe B.S., she saw that h e typed very quickly in his own idiosyncratic way. For the lesson that they were working on, the students were given a choice of whether they wanted to hand write the activity or use the Chromebook. B.S. opted to use the Chromebook and was very engaged i n completing the assigned task. Allen went on to s tate that the teacher provided her with a copy of B.S.’s work product. She noted seve ral grammati cal issues and a lack of organization. His work product was mor e like a stream of consciousness and if it was the final draft, it was not acceptable. When the class moved from the writer’s workshop into reading, B.S.’s transition did not g o as smoothl y. He had a hard time stopping what he was doing as he kept going back to work on something. As a result, he was the last one to get into the circle and everyone was already seated. In summing up her observations of B.S. at the IEF School, she found that while his teachers were trying to create a supportive envir onment for his learning and academic perfor mance, it was difficult to do so in a classroom wit h children who all have their own diverse needs. It was very difficult to provide an individualized experience but at the same time not stick out as being “indiv idualized”. Allen used as an example the fact that B.S. had two desks, but other children did not. This made him different from the group. The same with her observation of B.S. and his partner during the writing activity when his partner turned and join ed another group, leaving B.S. alone and once again, removed from the group. Based upon he r evaluation and observations, she again reiterated that B.S. required more OT pushed into his cla ssroom and p ossibly some before and after school. Approximately a year later, in December 2018, she went to the Flex School to observe B.S. (P -102) She immediately noticed a significant “affective” difference in him. He was engaged and s eemed to be part of things. While he was not consistent in his visual regar d, he appeared to be listening and his body language was reflective of

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 73 his orientation to the teacher and classmates. He followed along in the discussion and readily participated in the same. She also n oted that his auditory distraction was minimal and that he was able to redirect himself to the task in that environment. Also observed was B.S.’s posture. He seemed awake and his posture was more upright, even though the chair/ table arrangement was not optimal. The classroom had an array of seating areas and the children all had the ability to get up and move around as needed. His organizatio n and time management appeared to be sufficient. At one point during the observation, the teacher, seeing tha t B.S. was not participating in t he activity, questioned him why to which he provided a proper and reasonable response. Allen stated that she was impressed with how the teacher handled the situation and B.S.’s responsiveness. Ther e were no de sks in the c lassroom however there were big tables, on which B.S. could spread his material over. In talking about B.S. positioning, she was initially conce rned by the fact that the chairs and tables did not provide optimal seating positions, however, upon speaking to his teacher, she learned that furniture had been ordered for him which would provide a better sitting position and table height. She was also impressed with the environment which offered the children the ability to do work, rela x and socialize. B.S. a ppeared to be very comfortable in the environment. She also observed B.S. writing. The teacher explained to her that when B.S. first started, h e refused to write his assignments in class, so they worked with him on the issue. He now writes in that class which is what most of the stude nts do. His handwr iting itself appears to continue to be an issue but his teachers felt that with time, this too would resolve. She felt that the Flex School had a nice way of providing structur e to B.S. without him fe eling like he was being individua lized. The school has a style of trying to empower the students with coming to their own ideas of things yet at the same time sets realistic limitations. She still had concerns over B.S. ocular motor contro l deficienci es that she believed were interfe ring with his class room performance and getting B.S. to wear his

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 74 glasses. However, when she discussed it with hi s teacher, the teacher was optimistic that they could provide support in that regard. It was he r belief tha t given its small student/teacher ratio, individuali zation of learning opportunities based on relative strengths and weaknesses and interests, and its emphasis on discussion based experiential educational experiences and the push in OT support, the Flex School was the least restrictive an d most appropriate educational environment for B.S. She based this on not only what she observed at the Flex Sch ool but at IEF School as well. B.S. appears to be comfortable in his present learning environment and very en gaged. He was receptive to every thing and with that receptivity, his enthusiasm and his sense of belonging, there was potential to turn things around for him. On cross-examination, Allen was questioned about her comments regard ing the “push-in” OT – specifically, how it was different than group OT. In response, she stated that she did not actually observe the “push -in” OT and did not know how the support was provided. She believes however, that B.S. has benefitted from it base d upon her personal obse rvations and her conversation wit h his teacher who w as aware of his issues and how they were going to accommodate him going forward. Allen also s tated that given B.S.’s age now, the delivery model (push -in) may be more suitable to him at this time. Regarding B.S. glasses, she stated t hat when she observ ed B.S. at the Flex School, he was not wearing his glasses. Apparently, he had a history of r efusing to wear them. She acknowledged that with corrective vision, some of his issue s would improve. In questioning Allen about the Flex School “style” whic h she had testified about on direct -examination, she stated that she was referring to how the classroom was managed. The teacher had a particular task that needed to be performed but also had an understa nding of each child’s individual differences which m ay affect their engagement in the activity. It was her belief that the teacher was doing a ni ce job in

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 75 keeping the classroom group cohesive while at the same time allowing each ch ild to do what they need ed to do to help manage their own needs to keep thei r attention and continue their engagement. While unfamiliar with behavior management, she is familiar with instructional strategies. She believes that allowing B.S. to get up and move fre quently was an instructional strategy, not an accommodation - even though his IEP had it listed as such. She also felt that the teacher herself provided an i nstructional strategy. She kept the students engaged in how she spoke to them - bringing them studen ts into conversations, going around the room and observing and c ommenting on what they were doing, redirecting if necessary and providing positive reinforcement. Allen was questioned, given the timing of when she first observed B.S. at the IEF School, whether with more time - which would have all owed for further im plementation of the IEP, B.S. would have made progress, she stated that she couldn’t commen t on that. From what she heard from his parents, as the year progressed, B.S. became increasingly fr ustrated and was less compliant in getting hi s work done. She h erself never witnessed any outbursts or behavioral issues. Allen was also asked about the private model versus the school-based model of OT. In response she stated that in a sch ool-based mo del, there i s a very focused structure on a speci fic function su ch as fine motor and handwriting. In private therapy the area of focus may be less on the child as a student and more their role as a son, brother or friend. In her practice, she primarily p rovides priv ate therapy and sees approximately sixteen clients weekly. While she does not know what the legal standard is for a FAPE, she does not believe that the IEF School is meeting B.S.’s OT needs. She went on to state that given the de gree of prob lems that B. S. was experiencing, having group OT once a month wa s insufficient. Remediation requires frequency, intensity, and duration. Therefore, having a program of such a low level of intensity for someone who has such significant needs, was insuffic ient. When asked how she could support this

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 76 supposition when she had never observed the OT program at the IEF School and was unaware how often Lodato vis ited the classroom, she responded that she based her opinion on her years of experience. She also no ted that the IEP did not have Lodato providing “push-in” support in the classroom. When pushed further on this response Allen stated that her comments a bout the Flex School were not necessarily about B.S.’s improvements, rather the behaviors she observed and therefore improvement can be inferred. Thi s statement was altered later in her testimony when she stated that she could not speak to B.S.’s progress at either the Flex School or the IEF School – all she could address was the improvement she saw. Ba sed upon tha t, in her judgment, the program offer ed by the Distr ict was insufficient to meet B.S.’s needs. This opinion was based upon no new data or updated evaluation. It was her further judgment that the Flex School was currently meeting his needs and that they also working on addressing all his areas of need. Allen was also questioned about her testimony regarding B.S.’s lack of core strength. In describing core strength, she stated that it was primarily the strength of the front, back and side mu scles of the body that enables it to maintain a s uitable upright position and allows the individual to use their extremities. It was also foundational for balance. In B.S.’s case, she was unsure how he was able to assume the various postural positions that he did. One of the reasons she believes that he was able to get into his contortionist positions was because he had some hyper mobility in a lot of his joints. When asked about her comments that B.S.’s organization and time management were better at the Flex S chool, and what that was based on, she stated that d uring her observation of B.S. at the Flex School, he was required to do a timed assignment. She could not st ate how much time he was allotted or how much time he used to finish th e assignment. When c hallenged about her testimony that B.S. was redirect ing himself, appropriately aroused, awake, and his posture was upright, she stated she was not

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 77 talking about improvement per se rather describing what she had observed. She couldn’t say whether he was doing the same things at the IEF School. When aske d to clarify her testimony that the Flex School offered B.S. different opportunities that w ould meet his need s, she cited to the fact that the Flex School allows B.S. to get up out of his chair when he ne eded to move. When questioned how this provides him structure that she had earlier testified he needed, she stated it wasn’t the same. She went on to explain that the structure that she had referenced earlier was how the teacher m anaged the c hildren in t he room. Every student did what they were required to do. There were fewer children in the class therefore more opportunity for movement. Th e movement was nat ural with some students taking breaks, other students moving around to another location to do t heir work. Other opportunities cited was the array of seating in the classroom – some chairs swiveled, some rocked, and there was a couch. Th e children could s it wherever they wanted to complete their assignments. All the childre n took advan tage of this which she felt was important because no child was singled out as the only one moving around. Allen was also asked about what IEP or occupat ional programming data was provided to her by the Flex School which demonstrated that B.S . had improv ed. Her response was “none”. In questioning her about the l ack of a recommendation for PT in her evaluation, she stated that OT could deal with B.S.’s postural issues in addition to gym class or the recommended adaptive physical education. She went o n to state t hat there was overlap between OT and PT. She also d id not recommend feeding therapy as she did not feel that B.S. needed it. Allen could n ot explain why, in her observation report of B.S. at the IEF School, she was critical of B.S.’s performance in gy m class where he self -regulated himself by watching other students to see how to play the game and the position he was in, yet in her observation report from the Flex School, the same behavior was deemed a positive. She later clari fied this re sponse indicating that B.S.’s actions in gym class were not so

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 78 much self-regulation as it was B.S. getting a reference point. She reiterated, however, that based upon her o bservations of B.S. at the Flex School, the overall environment was conducive to meeting B.S.’s sensory needs and accomplish the task that’s at hand. Thomas Gavor, Jr. (Gavor) , the Head of the Flex School and a Certified Social Worker, testified on beh alf of the petitioners as an expert in Special Education Programs, IEP development, and case ma nagement administration. As part of his responsibilities, he oversees the daily operations of the school, conducts student interviews, record reviews which incl ude student report cards, parent communications and conducts teacher observations, among other things. Prior to becoming the Head of the Fle x School in May 2018, he was a Social Worker on a CST in Scotch Plains -Fanwood Middle/High School for thirteen years. (P- 88) Among his responsibilities at that time were eligibil ity determin ations for classification, development, and implementation of IE P’s, liaison between the general education and special education teachers, parent communica tions and case management. As part of his case management responsibilities, he managed o ut of district students - most of whom had IEP’s. He met B.S. and his par ents when B.S. attended the Flex School ESY program - a twenty-one-day program, in July 2018. In describing the vetting process for entry into the Flex School, he stated that it included interviews and review of any testing that may have previously been d one either privately or through the District. Among the testing data reviewed for B.S , were the District’s evaluations and the April 2017 IEP. (R -21 – 25; R-28) If a student was deemed a good fit for the school and they had an active IEP, the school tri es to implement the recommended programs provided they are appropriate in the Flex School setting and the school’s ability to mirror the IEP. Upon comple tion of the ESY program, he sent home a progress note. (P -87) According to Gavor, he had spent qu ite a bit of time in the classroom that summer and saw B.S. three or four hours daily and would occasionally have conversations with him. The class size was approximately fifteen s tudents. When B.S. first arrived, he was a

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 79 combination of eager, apprehens ive and unsure of himself academically. He had strong academic skills but lacked the confidence and organizational skills to thrive. Gavor went on to st ate that B.S . picked up the school culture - a loving and nurturing environment geared towards enga ging the children, relatively quickly. Each day he came to school and was engaged. A s he became more comfortable in the environment, he started making frie nds and init iating conve rsations. His classes included Flex Life, Packing for Mars and the Legos R obotics. As the program progressed, B.S. showed continued improvement in his ability to redirect. According to Gavor, when students become off task, the t eachers use various strategies to refocus them such as having the child take a break, go outside an d get some fresh air or redirection. To enter the Flex School for the academic year , the parents are provided an enrollment contract and the student must meet their p rofile which is gifted and twice exceptional. (P -112) They typically look towards the cognitive testing that is provided to get an idea of where the student’s area of gif tedness may be and to also weed out students that may have behavioral i ssues, or wh o are reluct ant to engage in their own learning. The school is not a therapeutic settin g therefore they also attempt to deny students who do not meet their profile. B.S. w as accepted into the school and started attending in September 2018 (fifth grade). While he was not able to spend as much time observing B.S. during the school year due to his increased responsibilities, he did stop in on each class weekly. He is familiar w ith the school’s report cards and has first -hand knowledge of wha t the teachers report. As it relates to B.S., he was familiar with his Quarter 1 Report Card whi ch reported the following: English – In English, his teacher reported that B.S. was phys ically writing more. According to Gavor, the output was not grea t, and belie ved that the physical task of

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 80 writing was possibly painful for B.S. The way they starte d to get B.S. to write more was by asking him about things he enjoys. Additionally, he was being taught cursive which may have also alleviated some of the stress associated with writing. It was also reported that B.S. loved having Marvin, the school ’s therapy dog in the classroom. Gavo r went on to state that many children have never expe rienced a dog in the classroom. Marvin was popular with the chil dren and not a distraction. The presence of Marvin helped reduce the overall anxiety in the class a nd had a calming effect on the children. City Building (Science) – In City Building, B. S.’s teacher reported that eventually B.S. will optimize and chan ge his ideas rather than assume that his vision is one that will continually function. According to Gavor, this was one of the targeted areas for B.S. – for him to understand that there are ideas out there that were equal or better to his and to collabora te with the other person’s idea rather than ruling it out. He went on to state that the strategy used to facilitate this was framing and redirecting. Social Science – In this class, B.S. ’s teacher reported that the class was using a multi-sensory approach to learning. In describing what this meant he explained that the classroom had tables, chairs, books, and technology. The expectation is that for certain parts of a lecture, the studen ts are expected to sit in their seats for a period of time. The seats are no t assigned. However, if a student feels the need to get up, it is allowed. If there is an activity where the entire class moves around, it is encouraged – hence, a multi -sensory approach or kinetic learning which can be individualized for a student if needed. Gavor went on to state that for B.S., expectations have been differentiated in the classroom. As an example, early on, B.S. was resisting writing and at times, he would request to create a model rather than do additional writing. Th is would be allowed and would be an example of individualization of his expectations. He went on to opine that if the method of output for a particular student is compromised due to a disabi lity-based reason, then they allow for other avenues of output.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 81 Photoshop – In this c lass, B.S. ’s teacher reported that B.S., while slow, he always got his work done and did not rush through it. Applied Engineering - Gavor likened this class to an e nhanced woodshop. B.S.’s teacher commented that while B.S. was enthusiastic about the physical work, he tended to overcomplicate things which became magnified when h e tried to figure out where he went wrong. Gavor went on to state that in correcting issu es such as this, the teacher uses a “teachable moment” to point o ut to the ch ild where his/her idea may have been right and which steps may have been wrong. Physical Education – According to Gavor, this is a daily event in which the entire school parti cipates. Some of the daily activities include walking outside or playing organized games in the park. If the weather is inclement, they do yoga or put on dance music and teach the children to dance. Flex Life – is a class that occurs every Friday. T he students are broken up into age groups and rotated throughout the year into different programs such as Health, the Flex Life Newsletter which is a writing-based debate exchange and Woodshop. He was present when Elleseff visited the school. When que stioned about her observation of B.S.’s using a calculator, he st ated that ma thematical calculations were one of B.S.’s deficits. (P -95) At his age and grade level , it is a skill that B.S. should have already achieved. In going through her report, he ag reed with her findings. When questioned about whether the schoo l offered pu ll-out pragma tic langua ge class, he stated no, it is implemented in the “moment - redirecting teachable moments”. He was also present when Dr. Dranoff visited the school in Dec ember 2018/January 2019. In reviewing his report, Gavor also ag reed with Dr . Dranoff’s findings having himself observed B.S. in the classroom setting. One of the t hings that Dr. Dranoff observed was B.S. getting individualized instruction in math. Regar ding this particular observation, Gavor testified that B.S. does not routine ly get indivi dualized

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 82 instruction in math, however, on this occasion it was needed. If a student requires one on one instruction, a contract would be required between the parents and the school. Another observation by Dr. Dranoff was that B. S. became so mewhat dysregulated and walked around the room - at one point, crawling under one of th e seats to spend time with the dog. Gavor testified that while a child may get up and move around, it should not be perceived that they are not listening or learning. To confirm th is, the te achers frequently do a “comprehension check” to ensure that she had the attention of the entire class or to bring a student back to the table without bringing negative attention on them. With regard to Allen’s observat ion of B.S., he was on si te that da y however did not interact with her. However, upon being read c ertain excerpts from her report, he agreed with many of her findings, having observed them himself. One such example was B.S. being inconsistent with his vi sual regard, however, he still foll owed the discussion and appropriately interacted. Another examp le was the fact that B.S. did not appear to have any difficulty following his teacher’s dir ectives. He went on to opine that the teachers at the school use various stra tegies to ens ure that t heir directives are understandable. Some of the strategies empl oyed include things like breaking the directions down into smaller components or making sur e that the entire class understands the assignment and the expecta tions before beginning th e activity. The teacher may even stop parts of the instruction if there’s a collective group of students who are not grasping a concept. Regarding Allen’s obser vations that B.S. got out of his seat a couple of times and took a break - at one point gra bbed therapy putty, Gavor indicated that this was allowed. He went on to state that most likely the teacher probably recognized that B.S. needed a moment to fidget. The environment was not a free for all and there was a lot of structured learning going on. As to Allen’s comment related to B.S.’s increased writing, he stat ed that part of the school’s program was to take an area of weakness and try t o exploit it for the better.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 83 In B.S.’s case, they got him to write about somet hing that interested him and from there slowly changed the topic. Once a student learns that they are capable of doing something which they previously thought they could not, t he process ca n be generalized into other concepts and other areas and topics. Additionally, the scho ol has a Student Support Services Coordinator, Alana Kanofsky (Kanofsky) w ho is a licensed occupational therapist trained in sensory integration. One o f her job responsibilities is to work with the students who have IEP’s, related services an d students wh o need instructional support. She reviews the student’s reports and ident ify the areas that need services and thereafter coordinates the services and s trategies wit h the appropriate staff member. As it relates to B.S., she’s been working on cursive handwriting with him and they have seen a decrease in frustration when it comes to physical writing. They also allow him to use voice to text or his Chromebook if he needs to. In January 2019, he sent to the petitioners, B.S.’s P rogress Note (Note). (P-111) Through this Note, he advised them of B.S.’s growth since he started at the Flex School. He put this growth down to the culture of the school and B.S.’s comfort level in it. It was his belief that B.S. was now comfortable ta king risks a nd putting hi mself out there as well. He was also using higher level thinking - such a s considering other variables and considering other people’s opinions before m aking his own determination. While he initially had difficulty getting started on his writ ten assignments, his teachers gave him strategies to work on that such as breaking down and managing the tasks and giving him verbal encouragement. B.S. was also ge tting executive function lessons on a daily basis which were overseen and reinforced by Kanofsky. According to Gavor, the executive function lessons take place at the beginni ng of the school day and again at the end of the day. Kanofsky comes into the classroom and asks the children if they have a test that they need to study fo r, or homework or a project that is due. It is a way for the children to keep track of their day. This is a three -step program. The first part or phase one is the children w riting out their schedule and homework assignments daily. The second phase req uires the ch ildren to pla ce their

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 84 schedules into a binder which they can carry around. The third p hase is a technological component to the program where the students post their schedule on their personal Flex School Google calendar. The Note also advi sed petition ers that B.S. was being encouraged to take on higher level assignments if he’s finished with his class work. Gavor stated that the purpose of this was to discourage B.S. from rushing through his work. If he did, he was rewarded with more chal lenging work . B.S. was a lso participating in the “Writer’s Workshop” which was geared towards addr essing his writing production and phonological awareness. The class was simil ar to a suppl emental class wherein the teachers allow the students to pick a to pic of their interest and write about it. They then deconstruct the written piece and reconstruct it. The program is very similar to the public-school program which was intentional on the school’s part as they want to ensure that the students continue to perform at their grade level equivalent. Regarding the staffing at the Flex School, Gavor testified that all the teachers are certified elementary school teachers. (P -114) The school itself is accredited, however, it is not on the New Jersey Departm ent of Educa tion (NJDOE) approved education school list. Therefore, if a school district seeks to place a child at the school, they must fill out a “Naples Packet” in accordance with the Naples Act. (P-113) On cross-examination, Gavor was asked how many teachers at the Fle x School held certifications in special education. In response, he state d one possibly two. The student population at the school was forty -two - six o f which were neuro-typical students. In describing the range of disabilities, he stated th at it was a f air range with some of the children diagnosed with ADS, ADHD, various dia gnosis of twice exceptional, anxiety, SLD, and depress ion to name a few. There were no Board- Certified Behavior Analysis (BCBA) on s taff nor was anyone that was on the staff trained in Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA). While they have children at the scho ol that have been diagnosed with autism, none of them require a Functional Behavior Assessment (FBA) to appropriately educate them on a daily basis.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 85 When questioned about their ABA program, Gavor stated that they did not have one. The same with multipl e language and learning disability. If a student’s sp ecial education needs were significan t, they either hired a special education t eacher or a BCBA to come in and work with that student. However, such a student would really have to be a good fit to be a ccepted into the school because they were not on the NJDOE list of approved schools. If th e child had significant special educationa l, maladaptive social fun ctioning to the point that they could not interact with other students or psychiatric needs, they too would most likely not be accepted into the school. When questioned how B.S. was pre sented to the school by his parents, Gavor could not r ecall whether the emphasis was on B.S.’s severe deficits that needed remediation or whether it was due to his h igh average intellect. However, as part of the admissions process, a team of professionals from the school who have varied backgrounds, looked a t all of B.S. ’s assessments and thereafter talked amongst themselves to determine whether he was a suitable can didate. The school did no testing of its own nor, whe n he was accepted into the school, was a learning plan put in place. If a child has an IEP when they arrive at the schoo l, they attempt to mimic as best as possible. They do not question whether an IEP is appropriate . He later changed this statement by saying that the school considers the IEP, however, depending on what is recommended, they may n ot be able t o implement t he recommendation given the schools' current staffing abilities. It was his belief that B.S. was the smartest kid in his class the IEF School however t hat was purely an assumption on his part. Gavor was also asked how the schoo l programs f or a child. In response, he stated that they group the children based upon their ability. Using geometry and algebra as an example - if a child proficient in those subjects, an assessm ent is performed to determine the extent of the child’s ab ility. Depe nding on the results, the child is placed in the appropriate grouping of students. The group could consist of younger, older or same age kids. The groups themselve s are based on the ch ildren’s

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 86 abilities and areas of giftedness with considerat ion given fo r their areas of deficit and disability. He went on to state that the school uses a multi -disciplinary appro ach to teaching – the teachers work across the discipl inary curriculums. T hey take into account sensory issues; a child’s comfort le vel; the chi ld’s strengths and weaknesses. They would for instance attack a science problem through the “lens” of a math p roblem. The teachers do not follow a State curriculum however create their own. Packing for Mars, which was one of the classes offe red in the E SY program, w as an example of their multi -disciplinary approach. It combined science, social studies, social s cience, physics, actual physics, theoretical physics a nd mathematics. The goal of the class/activity was to transport ten students t o Mars and f igure out how to sustain life once there. The social functioning aspect of the class was the researched based debates between the students on what was the best soci ety to set up and how . He acquiesced that the class did not specifically address any social skill dysfunction. The related service providers on staff include a school counsellor, a learning disabilities teaching consultant, occupational therapist and a social worker. If one of the students has additional needs, such as physical therapy, the school hires out. Gavor has seen B.S.’s IEP and unequivocally feels that the school was meeting the thirty-minute once a month recommendation. Unlike the Distr ict, they do not chec k a box like the IEP indicating that they had met the requ irement, ins tead, the sch ool tracks the progress they see in the child. When questioned how frequently Kanofsky worked with B.S., Gavor stated that she probably pulls him out at least once a wee k for not more than an hour – however, nothing is documente d so he wasn ’t sure when and the length of each session. When asked about Kanofs ky, Gavor testified that while she was li censed as an occupational therapist, she was not employed by the school as one.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 87 In shifting gears, Gavor was asked what the purpos e of an ESY program. In response, he stated that its origination was for regress ion and recoupment of academics. However , B.S. was not accepted into the ESY program to address regression or recou pment, rather to see what areas of weakness he needed to be addressed during the school year. He disagreed with the notion that it was impo ssible for an ESY program to have the sam e rigorous academics as presented during the school year. The ESY progr am at the Flex School was a twenty -one-day program, eight - hours-a-day. The three pr imary reasons a child would attend the program was for credit recovery, acceleration or maintenan ce. He acquiesced that when B.S. attended the ESY program, he was in there for the maintenance aspect of the program as he already had the skill sets. According to Gavor, when B.S. first started the ESY program, he was “dysregulated”. He was apprehens ive and rigid in his approach with the staff and other students. There was no transition plan put in place and it took him five to te n days to assimilate. Wh en questioned how B.S. did on the remaining eleven days of instruction if the first ten consisted of him dysregulating, Gavor modified his earlier statement by stating that B.S. was “at times” dysregulated. This statement was also subsequently modified to reflect that B.S.’s dysregulation occurred maybe fiftee n minutes a day wherein he was not reachable and needed a break. When questioned about his earlier testimony tha t B.S. was so problematic and had academic scar tissue when he started at the Flex S chool, he stated that this was based on the reports he r ead and from B.S. himself. According to Gavor, when B.S. came to the school, he was lost, and had little faith in t he education system – he had lost a little of his spark and love to learn and possibly felt poorly about himself. Later in his testimony, G avor modified his earlier comments about B.S. having academic scar tissue and stated that he may have been making a generalization about all new students that come to his school.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 88 Gavor was also as ked about his August 6, 2018, Note, wherein he gave accolades on B.S.’s progress, given the lengt h of the program and his earlier testimony about B.S.’s significant issues when he first started. He was also asked what supporting data was avai lable to supp ort B.S.’s progress. In response, he stated that there was no supporting data. When questioned about his comment that B.S. was “implementing skills that were taught in th e Flex Life Class” and what specific improvement he was referencing, he again stated that there was no data supporting his statements in the letter. He did not know the name of the curriculum used by the teachers or if the teachers, none of whom had certi fications to teach special education, created their own exe cutive funct ioning curric ulum. However, they had teaching certifications and tea chers routinely throughout the day implem ent social skills strategies. Additionally, while the teachers in question did not have certifications to teach special education, on e of them ha d a PhD in Co mparative American Literature and the other a PhD in Engineering. At the Flex School, this qualified them to teach the course. On the issue of Marvin, the dog, Gavor k new only what he was told, that Marvin was a certified therapy dog that was owned by one of the teachers at the school. Even if he was not, given his good temperament and the fact that he brought out the best in the children, he would still allow the dog in the classrooms. In going through B.S.’s Quarter 1 Re port Card, was asked about the accelerated track that he earlier testified to – specifically, was B.S. taking any of the classes. Gavor responded that he was not. When questioned about the applied engineering teacher’s comments that B.S. over complicates things and whether there was any supporting data, he stated that this was based o n his assignments and the grades he achi eved. No additional testing was performed. Gavor was also asked about his earlier testimony that the school was structured and what he meant by that. In r esponse, he stated that there were desks and physical spaces that the children were expected to be in periods, curriculums and syllabi. When questioned what B.S.’s disabi lities were and whether he required structure, he stated

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 89 that B.S. was diagnosed with high functioning ASD and ADHD, however, he did not directly answer the question regarding wheth er B.S. required structure. Instead, he stated that the importance and level of structure depended on the child. What works for one child may not work for another child. In asking him how the school was address ing B.S.’s ADHD, Gavor stated that they raised his teacher’s awareness so that they could work with B.S. in creatin g a beneficial structure. When questioned what programs we re used and the type of training the teaches received to provide this, his respons e was “it’s a feel and it’s a skill”. W hen probed on this later on in his testimony, he added that the school also utilizes Global Compliance Network and their modules and t hat B.S.’s t eachers were certified to teach. If they needed assistance or had a q uestion, they could go to the special education teacher who was on staff, Mike Good (Good). Good was not B.S.’s teacher nor did he provide “push -in” services into B.S.’s cla ssroom. The school does not provide B.S. with special education and related servi ces, instead, they provide him with an individualized education. Gavor was also asked to clarify his earlier testimony that the school focused on a higher order of thinki ng and how t hat was facili tated. In response, he stated that a higher order of thi nking was the ability to make inference s and go beyond what was being presented. To facilitate this, the teachers ask the students challenging and probing questions. He we nt on to add that it was p art of the school’s culture to prove the child wrong in a controlled way so that they can learn to fail and that its ok, and then they help them pick up the pieces and tak e a different approach. When again asked how they actually facilitate this, he stated by probing, challenging and asking calculated questions to make the children think outside of the box. The instruction being “in the moment” When questioned about m odeling and the fact that there were only six neuro - typical peers atten ding the Flex School, Gavor opined that it was his belief that modeling appropriate behavior is more on the ad ults rather than students. However, he

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 90 did agree that it was good for a st udent who has an area of growth that needed to be worked on to have a role model. Erik Dranoff, PhD. (Dr. Dranoff) , a Licensed Psychologis t testified as an expert in Child and A dolescent Psychology and Forensic Psychology on behalf of the petitioners. (P-84) He has been a licensed psychologist for four years and over th e course of that time has completed approximately 150 – 200 evaluations. Observations are a large part of his evaluation process. The petitioners brought B.S. to see him for a fore nsic evaluation when B.S. was ten-years-old after which he prepared a r eport. (P -83) A forensic evaluation, unlike a typical psychological e valuation, is conducted to increase the validity and reliability of the information that is being relied on. Ther efore, data collection from a lot of different sources is i mportant. I n his forensic evaluations, he uses five sources: 1.) record review – any legal, educational and/or mental hea lth records available; 2.) clinical interviewing of the patient and observa tions during the interview; 3.) interviews which include interviewing the parents and any other mental health providers that may have been invol ved in the case; 4.) psychological an d neuropsychological testing; and 5.) blind observation – a direct observation before even meeting the patient. According to Dr. Dranoff, the information t hat converges across that all of the data sources is what he uses to formulate his opinion. In discussing his report/evaluation, he follows a set format. In this regard, and in going through his report, he stated the following: Reason for Referral and Background Information - The referral reason gives the reader an understanding as to why he was B.S. Background information is important, particularly in this case, beca use B.S. has a neurodevelopmental disorder. When he sees a patient for the first tim e, he looks to see if there is a history of developmental problems and if so, when they were first seen.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 91 In B.S.’s case, he was having significant problems at an early age – prior to going into the public schools. He w as maki ng high -pitched noises, ex hibited social withdrawal, inattention and hyperactivity. This information was provided to him by the petitioners and corroborated by Dr. Nanci -Lebowitz-Naegali, M.D. - his medical doctor, who diagnosed him with ADHD, comb ined ty pe. It was also corrobora ted by Dr. Isralowitz, a licensed psychologist. Dr. Isralowitz found B.S. to have significant problems in attention and hyperactivity. He also found it significant th at when B.S. was five -years-old, he was placed on medication by his ped iatrician whic h was unusual and meant that B.S. was having severe psychological problems early on. He also no ted that in or around this same time, B.S. was seen by Dr. Kapila Sheshadri, M.D., who reported that B.S. was showing some social problems consistent with individuals with Aspergers. B.S. was reported to get overly preoccupied with preferred tasks; was a stickler for routine, and was not making eye contact. He also found it not eworthy that four mental health professionals identified B.S. as having significant development problems. Prior to entering kindergarten, Dr. Isralowitz wrote to Lamberti, placing the school on notice of B.S.’s problems and informed them that B.S. woul d most likely require some intervention services whe n he en tered preschool. It was h is belief that the letter was not taken into consideration by the school as B.S. went into eleme ntary school without any special education services put in place. The 504 Team eligibility determination did not take place un til B.S . was in fir st grade. Thi s meant that the school was starting to see that B.S. was having issues which required remediati on. It was also in or around this time, that B.S. was diagnosed with ASD a nd classified, which meant that he was having restri ctive r epetitive pa tterns of beha vior and was having problems in social and emotional reciprocity. His language development and cognitive was intact so he was classified with higher functioning autism. Dr. Dranoff’s went on to state that it wasn’t unt il B.S. was in third grade that t he CST determined that B.S. required an IEP. B.S. was classified as “Other Health

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 92 Impaired” and given in-class resource support in math, reading and to a lesser extent social studies and science. He was also given ST, OT and social skills. When he first started the evaluation, it was unclear why B.S., a child with an ASD and demonstrating significant problems at home and at school, was only getting ST one time a week, OT once a month, and social skills training twenty times a year. When he reviewed B.S.’s progress notes from his IEP, he noted that while B.S. was meeting some of the goals, th ere were a number that he was not meeting, or he was progressing gradually or inconsistently. This was particularly evident in his writ ing, ST, OT and social skills. There were also indications that he was struggling socially. He did not find this surpr ising given B.S.’s history of developmental problems that have impacted his executive and social functioning. Assessment Procedures - He includes this section to provide an understanding to the reader of his evaluation process. In this evaluation, he had a number of data sources such as B.S.’s records (multiple evaluations, cor respondence, acade mic records, etc.), parent interviews, collateral interviews, direct observations at school and at home and neurological testing. Much of the information about B.S.’s performance at the school was obtained through the IEP evaluations and B.S.’s progress r eports. When s hown Szenasy class observation of B.S. at the Flex School, he stated that he would not rely upon it due to it’s lack of formality and lack of pertinent information, such as who was being observed and who the observers were. Sessions with B.S. - He conducted a c linical interview of B.S. on February 16, 2018, and March 18, 2018. Psychological testing was also performed on these same dates. Prior to that, he did a classroom observation at the IEF School on February 13, 2018, and at the end of his evaluation, he conducted a home observation on March 22, 2018. Tests Administered - According to Dr. Dranoff, he administered a battery of tests that consisted of neuropsychological testing integrated with personality assessment and diagnostic assessment. The first te st administered to B.S. was a broadband intelligent

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 93 test - the WISC -V for children. He administered the standard subtests (verbal reasoning, non -verbal reasoning, working memory, and processing speed). He also gave the Cognitive Assessment System, 2nd Edition (CAS-2). The purpose of this test was to look at the underlying abilities in verbal and non -verbal reasoning. As part of that, he also gave executive functioning tests which look at planning, organization, error detection. He also gave tests of selective attention. He also administered the Children and Adolescent Memory Profile (CHAMP) which looked at verbal and non -verbal memory. In addition to this, he also administered select subtests from the WIAT-III and supplemented this by administering the Gray Oral Reading Test (GORT -5). He administered this test because the reading comprehensive test from the Wexler reading test was differen t. One test allows the person to look at the passage, and the othe r test takes that passage away. By supplementing the testing, he was able to do a more thorough assessment of B.S.’s reading. He also administered to B.S., some rating scales on his be havior and social emotional functioning and then gave him the Rorsc hach Performance Assessment System to rule out any types of problems in reality testing. The parents were also given rating scales from the Behavior Assessment System for Children, Third Edition (BASC-3-PRS) to look at B.S.’s social, emotional and behavioral functioning as well as his adaptive functioning. They were also given the Emotional Disturbance Decision Tree, Parent Form (EDDT -PF) which looks to see whether B.S. meets the criter ia for emotionally disturbed. J.S. (Mo ther), in addit ion to the other two rating scales was given the Gillinham Autism Rating Scale which required her to rate B.S. on a variety of behaviors and whether or not those behaviors were consistent with an ASD. For the classroom observation, he uti lized the BASC III Student O bservation System. According to Dr. Dranoff, this is a formal rating system for classroom observation. It is a blind observation as he performs the observation prior to meeting

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 94 the child. He conducted his observation after he had interviewed the petitio ners and reviewed B.S.’s records. He did ask Szenasy to speak to him so that he could obtain additional information, however, she never got back to him. The first thing he noticed was that B.S. was a child with high functioning autism who was in a cla ssroom with numerous students and one teacher. The lesson at the time was math, and B.S. was not given a lot of individualized instruction and appeared to have lapses of attention. The l ack of support was concerning given the fact that B.S. was a child w ith significant social problems and problems with attention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. The next activity he observed was B.S. in the lunch room and at r ecess. Instead of going t o lunch and thereafter rece ss, B.S. wen t to social ski lls group. To him, this was unusual because typically in public schools, social skill group is scattered throughout the day – not at lunch. It was apparent that B.S. did not want to be there. The teacher provided a couple of s cenarios that involved picture cards and the children were asked to describe the person’s emotions in the card. B.S.’s responses were inappropriate which did not surprise him, however, what was concerni ng was the lack of feedback or remediation by the teacher. Overall, he did n ot see how B.S. was benefitting from the social skills group. No one from the school spoke to him and he was not sure how what was learned in the social skills group was carri ed over into the classroom . To him, what B.S. learne d in the soc ial skills grou p should be “i noculated” in him all day long, not just every two weeks. B.S. was next observed during his neuropsychological assessment which was conducted at the family home over a period of two days - February 16, 2018, and March 18, 201 8. He believed that testing B.S. in the home environment was appropriate because sometimes a child needs a different testing setting. He thought B.S. performed well on the tests because he was distraction free and c ould take a break when he needed to.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 95 Throughout the testing, B. S. was alert, adequately attentive, however, his mood was somewhat depressed, and his affect was flat. He was difficult to interview. While he had glasses, he d id not wear them. He was on medications and was calm throughout the testing period. Also conducted was a Clinical Interview of B.S. During this interview, he spoke to B.S. about his social functioning. B.S. informed him that he had a few friends wh o have come over to his ho use a couple of times. He also reported, without gett ing into specifics, that he has on occasion been bullied at school. It was his impression that B.S. had significant problems relating to people and socializing and needed help scaffolding that. When asked about what service s he receive d at school. B. S. described t hem which included speech, reading, and social skills. B.S. told him that they just play games in speech with the teacher asking questions which the students ans wer. For the social skills group, which B.S. stated he did not e njoy, they play feeling related games. The reading class was boring to him. It was his belief that for B.S. to say that he was bored in school, meant that he was not engaged and mildly depres sed. Additionally, wh ile B.S. did not go into an y detail regarding the bullying, this too was concerning as children with ASD and different, places the child at a higher risk for being bullied as they get older. A home observation was conducted on March 18, 2018, after school. He wanted to observe B.S. after s chool due to hi s mother’s com ments that B.S. was always exhausted throughout the day. When B.S. came in the door, he did not talk to his mom and went to his room. He was not communicative at al l. It was his belief that B.S. was exhausted fro m the day an d could not eng age in even a simple conversation with his mother.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 96 Cognitive Evaluation - Dr. Dranoff testified that he always reviews prior cognitive assessments that have been performed. In t his regard, he reviewe d the psychological evaluations that we re performed. He is familiar with the Flynn Effect as well as the Migration to Mean. He reviewed the WISC -IV conducted by Dr. Paul in 2015. It was his belief, that despite the fact that the WI SC-V was available at the time of administration, the finding s, while not in validated, sho uld be looked at with a grain of salt. He also looked at the WISC-V administered by Dr. Muglia in 2017. He too administered the WISC -V to B.S. and there after did a side by si de comparison. B.S.’s sc ores were ge nerally similar , however, B.S.’s perform ance in working memory and processing speed was significantly lower. His vocabulary also appeared to go down a bit. Dr. Dranoff acquiesced that this coul d possibly be due to the Flynn Effect or it could be due to regression given how high his test scores were on the WISC -IV test administered in 2015. He believed that his testing was valid and supported by the collateral data sources that he had obtained. He did note, however , that when he presented hi s report, he had attached t he wrong appendix. His r eport itself had the accurate information, however, the appendix which contained the raw data was wrong as he had attached the wrong printout of the WISC -V. On tests of B.S. ’s basic academic skills, g iven B.S.’s high IQ, his ac ademic scores were in the average range. Math and reading comprehension were in the average range and his writing was intelligible. According to Dr. Dranoff, B.S. was a child with academic skills significantly lower than his general cognitive functioning. This could be due to a variety of factors which may include social emotional factors, learning at school or due to the environment. In either event, B.S.’s learning was being impacted and he was not learning at the rate comme nsurate with his intellectu al abilities. In discussing this further and by way of example he talked about his findings on the WIAT-III and the GORT-5. The WIAT-III allows the student to look at the questions. The GORT -5 take s the passage away and the child is req uired to answer multiple choice questions without it. B.S. scored below the average range in this test which he

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 97 felt unusual given B.S.’s very high IQ. A child with B.S.’s IQ would be expected to perform in the average to above average range. Personality Structure - Dr. Dranoff testified that while his observations of B.S. with his peers was limited, what he did observe showed B.S.’s lack of interaction with his peers - even in his social s kills group. Based up on the findings in the Rors chach test, while there was no evidence of any thoug ht disorder, there was an indication that B.S. had significant social problems – specifically reading social cues. Dr. Dranoff went on to state that it is unclear how intereste d B.S. is in people. He is disengaged and socially wi thdrawn. He has a hard time starting conversations, so he avoids social interaction. He has limited coping skills to participate in everyday activities. If a problem arises, he ’s more likely to beco me frustrated, negative, mi ldly depressed and slightly stressed. He went o n to opine that B.S. keeps the stress at bay by using two defense mechanisms – denial and avoidance of stress or not engage. As he gets older, he will not be able to control th e stress and will need help navigating the social environment so that he can deal with the social situations more effectively. B.S. also internalizes his emotions and is not one to express himself. What J.S. (mother) experiences after school was an examp le of his internalization. According to Dr. Dranoff, as time goes on, B.S. may have difficulty controlling his impulses and modulating his emotions which may result in behavioral issues at school. He also went on to note that B.S. does not have any signi ficant problems with self -esteem. This may be attribu table to his use of denial and social withdrawal as a coping mechanism. Current Symptoms and Diagnostic Impressions - In summing up his findings, Dr. Dranoff stated that B.S. has a wide range of em otional, social and behavioral problems consistent wit h his diagnosis of ADHD, ODD, and ASD. His parents rated him as a child that was irritable, impulsive, hyperactive, defiant, occasionally aggressive who also at times engaged in what would be deemed as strange and r epetitive behavior. This was an i ndication of a child that has a personality structure that is driving significant problems in his social development.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 98 Based upon his evaluation and the information that he obtained as part of the evaluative process, in his opinion, thirty minutes of so cial skills group every other w eek was an inappropriate treatment for a child with ASD. B.S. needed to have an environment where he is constantly “inoculated” by other students and other teachers where every one was workin g on social ski lls. While B.S.’s parents have obtained outside services, a “therapeutic milieu” would be the most effective type of intervention. Collateral Sources - As part of his data collecting processes, he interviewed Dr. Petti who se findings he gave great wei ght to and were con sistent with his own determinations. Among the similarities was that Dr. Petti found B.S. to have a high intellectual potential but with developmental deficits. Without appropriate educational supports, it would be hard for B.S. to ach ieve his potential. Dr. Petti also believed that B.S. needed educational supports and had recommended a therapeutic day school. Additionally, consistent with his findings, Dr. Petti found that B.S. met the criteria for a variety of neuro d evelopmental disorders, including pragmatic communication disorde r due to his problems in understanding the nuances of communication and inability to communicate appropriately with others, ASD and ADHD. Also interviewed was Dr. Panter a L icensed Psycho logist who had been providing B.S. with cognitive behavioral ther apy and social skills instruction. While she reported B.S.’s behavior and diagnosis (ASD, restrictive repetitive patterns of behavior, rigid thinking, socially uncomfortable, e asily frustrated) she did not provide an opinion as to the appropriate education placement for him. He also attempted to interview Elleseff, however, she, due to not having seen B.S. for quite some time, she referred him to her report. He felt that this bolst ered her credibility as she w asn’t taking on the role of petitioner’s a dvocate. In a review of Elleseff’s report, she too noted B.S.’s pragmatic communication problems which overlapped with his social skills development. She also reported that B.S.’s cur rent educational program was not appropriate for B.S.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 99 He also interv iewed Allen who was concerned about B.S. visual motor skills in that his eyes were not lining up correctly and he wasn’t wearing his glasses. Allen was concerned over the fact that B.S . has OT once a month and bel ieved that this was insufficient. In s um, all the professionals, whom he either interviewed or whose report he reviewed, found that B.S. has an ASD and specific impairments in a lot of different areas and that he needed a variety of therapeutic support along with medication. Case Formulation - According to Dr. Dranoff, he puts this section in his report to provide a summary in which all of the five sources of data are integrated. What stood out to him was the fact that ea rly on, B.S. w as diagnosed wi th a neuro -developmental disorder and due to its severity, he had to be put on medication which was unusual for one so young. Three psychiatrists and one psychologist recommended that some type of educational services be pu t in place - yet this did not occur until B.S. w as in kindergarten or f irst grade. The 504 Plan was not put in place until he was in second grade which was around the same time that his problems worsened, and people started seeing that he met the full cri teria for ASD. Additionally, he was most likely not receiving support at that time either because there was no social skill program available and if there was, thirty minutes a week was insufficient. In third grade, B.S., who was still on medication, was evaluated for problems related to speech and language and found to have significant deficits in pragmatic communication. He was also evaluated by an occupational therapist who identified weaknesses in his visual motor and writing skills. The mental h ealth professionals were all i n agreement that B. S. was a child with si gnificant emotional and social problems who was not able to achieve his full potential because he had pragmatic communication weaknesses in social skills and impairments in his ability to write.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 100 It was his belie f that due to all t he opinions that were presented to the District, B.S. was eventually provided an IEP in third grade. He went from no services to having services in the areas of reading, mathematics, sciences, social studie s, OT, speech and language therapy, and social sk ills development. How ever, putting him in a classroom without sufficient supports, very limited social skills programming and limited language - based programming and almost no OT services , suggests that the p lacement in th e District was inappropriate for B.S. Dr. Dranoff went on to state that his findings were consistent with the previous assessments that were done on B.S. He went on to state, however, that there was some indication that B.S.’s symptoms may be increasing in frequency an d intensity as he gets older. This find ing appears to be consistent with the most recent reevaluations that were done. He found B.S. clearly had a learning disability in reading comprehension and a severe learning disability in written expression. His evaluation also p rovided information o n B.S.’s current emotional and social functioning. In this regard, he found that B.S. has shown an exacerbation of his mental health problems over the past year. While the problems hav e been present for quite some time (irritability, hyperactivity, oppositional, difficulty modulating his emotions), he now appears to be experiencing some passive suicidal ideations. This indicates the beginning of some self -esteem problems. While B.S. h as been receiv ing psychiatric and psychological s ervices for the past five years, he has not made any significant progress. This goes towards his belief that B.S. would only benefit from a therapeutic day school where he can be immersed in a variety of th erapeutic interventions daily. In this environme nt, B.S. can be “caug ht in the moment” – having a small student to teacher ratio would help someone like B.S. with ASD. He needs to be in an environment where there is constant attention to his social probl ems and not tr eated like a child that does not have a significant developmental disorder. It was his opinion that B.S. can be overlooked in a lot of ways because of his high IQ. It was his further belief that it would be in B.S.’s best interest to deal with his social and emotional issues now as opposed to later when he is in middle school or

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 101 high school and a lot of changes take place. He further opined that B.S. was not learning from watching his peers or being around neurotypical peers. Instead, B. S. needs to be in a more socia lly based environment where there are mo re professionals and children who are struggling with the same issues. Appendix - This section is always included in a neuro -psychological evaluation so that other people can review the raw data. Dr. Dranoff t estified that subsequent to his evaluati on of B.S. in February/March 2018, the petitioners requested him to evaluate B.S. at the Flex School to determine whether the placement was appropriate. The evaluation took place over a period of two days - December 12, 2018, and January 10, 2019. (P -101) To obtain an overview of the school, he met with the founder of the school and the director of social emotional development. He learned that t he school provided services to students from fifth grade to twelfth gr ade and that there were currently forty -eight students in the school. The student body was made up of children that were twice exceptional – those having significant learning, emotional or social problems who had high IQ’s. They were aware that B.S. was classified with an ASD and had needs in the areas of OT and social pragmatic speech. He was informed that B.S. was enrolled in fifth grade, however, was performing at the sixth-grade level. There were seven children in th e fifth and si xth grades that were similar to B.S – high intellectual skills but significant social, emotional, or learning problems. What he found noteworthy about the school was that it had a variety of programming that seemed to “inoculate” the student s - not only a small student t o teacher ratio but programming. Each m orning executive functioning and personal responsibility was focused on. One of B.S.’s teachers had a Master’s in Education and the other one had a Master’s in School Psychology. On a daily basis he is given OT by Kanofsky. His four main subjects wer e social studies, english, pre-algebra, city building and flex Fridays which consists of substantial counseling curriculum, including health aware ness and

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 102 social emotional learning. Add itionally, the school has a director of social emotional learning who is constantly inoculating all the students. The environment was exactly what he had recommended - a therapeutic milieu. In going through the highlights of his tour of the school, Dr. Dranoff stated that on his f irst observation date, he met with B.S. teachers and other staff members, and thereafter observed B.S. in his math class. While he thought the activity was a usual way to learn math, wh at he found notable was that B.S. was re ceiving one on one instruction. At one point during the instruction, another student was invited to participate and both B.S. and other students worked together on a project. It was clear to him that B.S. was socializing better and getting individualized instruction. When he went back for his second day of observation in January 2019, he sat in on B.S.’s social studies class. The teacher ran the class very smoothly and did not put a lot of pressure on the child ren. There were not many children in th e class, and she was able to provide individual instruction to all. The environment was unusual in that the students were permitted to walk around if they needed to and there was a therapy dog. He observed B.S. ge tting on the floor to pet the dog. The atmosphere was structured and n ot a free for all even though the children were able to get up and roam around. The teacher was able to bring them back to the lecture and ask them questions. It was his belief that th e environment allowed the children to d ischarge their energy in a way that made them more comfortable. This more than likely improved their learning, decreased their emotional problems and improved their social functioning. He found it significant that a ll the children in the class were invol ved in a conversation and socializing as the lecture went on. At one point he observed B.S. staring out the window and did not appear to be paying attention however he completed the worksheet at the end of the activi ty was given individualized attention from his teacher. On cross-examination, Dr. Dranoff was questioned about the fact that he would not rely upon the District’s observations of B.S. at the Flex School citing to its

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 103 unreliability, yet he submitted a r eport with the wrong appendix and witho ut a date. In response he stat ed that he was unaware until most recen tly that he had placed the wrong appendix on the report when he generated it in April 2018, and by that point, rather than amend the report, he cor rected the error when he was on the sta nd. He did not believe it was a major mistake because the correct inf ormation was in the body of his report. He was also questioned about the private evaluations that he reviewed and whether he thought they were a hundred percent accurate. In response , he stated that nothing is a h undred percent accurate, however, he be lieved that the private evaluations that he read, and the recommendations provided therein, made a lot of sense and consistent with his findings and he gave them great weight. His direct observations of B.S. were another source of data that he obtained to see if it converged with the other data that he had collected. His first observation was a blind observation at the IEF School. He wanted to see B.S. in a natural environment that was not being influenced by his parents or anyone else, including him. He had not yet met B.S., however, he had met his parents prior to observing B.S. at school to better understand B.S.’s background. His next observations occurred on the first test ing date when he conducted his neuropsychological assessment at the residence. During the assessment, B.S. was not wearing his “prism” glasses, but he did not believe that this affected the results of the psychological testing. If B.S. had problems seein g the material, it would have come out in the behavior observations an d he would have been getting things completely incorrect. He would not have been able to see the stimuli, which was not the case here. Dr. Dranoff was also asked about his report whe rein he stated that B.S.’s “pencil grasp was grossly normal” yet Allen ’s report stated that it was not. In response, he stated that he reported what he saw. He was evaluating B.S. for his writing, reading, mathematics, mental speed, and simple motor spee d and did not do a comprehensive

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 104 OT assessment. He uses the collatera l information that he obtains to corroborate his findings and denied ignoring findings that were contrary to his own. His last observation was h is direct observation of B.S. at home after school. Based upon his observation at that time, in his opinion , B.S. was tired and irritable after school which was why he would not engage in conversation with his mother. While he blamed the fatigue on the s chool day, he acquiesced that the reas on for his fat igue could have du e to sleeping poorly the night before or from other factors which he did not believe required exploration such as the familial relationships. He was also questioned about his criticism that the 504 Plan was not implemented un til B.S. was i n second grade – specifically where was the impact? In response he stated that he did not know, however, the parents informed him that B.S. was having social problems at school and not making friends. In talking about the 504 Plan, he agr eed that intervention services should always be the first course o f action and that there is a hierarchy of steps after that. He acknowledged that the process takes time and d oes not occur overnight but went on to state that it should not take years. He later modified this statement by acknowledging that it could take years to see progress. While familiar with IDEA, he is unfamiliar with the term “least restrictive environment”. In transitioning over to the psychological testing that was performed and how much time should elapse betw een testing, he stated that it dep ends on the test, however, it was best practice to wait six months - not a year. It is up to the evaluator and if a test is re -administered close in time, the “practice” effect would have t o be considered. Regarding his findings in his report and observ ations of B.S. that he appeared to be bored, Dr. Dranoff denied that he equated boredom to depression in his r eport. He went on to state, however, that children in kindergarten, first or se cond grade who are bored, typically have other problems that are going on because children of that age, are

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 105 not inherently bored. He based this on his prior training and exper ience in evaluating children in that age group. He could not say how many child ren he worked with where boredom was associated with underlying de pression. His conclusion in this case that B.S. was depressed was based upon the multitude of data (collatera l sources and testing) that he reviewed and converged. The testing in question was the BASC 3 and the Parent Rating Scale. While the BASC -3 does not say that B.S.’s boredom equates to depression, he extrapolated it from all of the data he obtained and th ereafter made a conclusion. Dr. Dranoff was also questioned about his comment s that B.S. wa s not making progress in the District and therefore it was an inappropriate placement. In response, he stated that the progress report itself reflected that B.S. was progressing gradually or inconsistently. His comments were also based upon the fact that B.S. has an ASD; his programming did not involve so cial skills training; he wasn’t having regular OT appointments; speech and language was once a week, and he wa s in an environment with other students with whom he was unable to appropriately interact with. He acknowledged that while the Flex School did not have an autism program, it was a therapeutic milieu for children with learning, emotional and social prob lems who also have a high IQ. It has a low teacher ratio, a therapeutic milieu, social/emotional programming ev ery day, and teachers who were tra ined in social emotional learning. The school also had a therapy dog which was helpful for children with ASD to regulate their emotions, control their impulses and reduce their anxiety. On this last statement, he admitte d that he did not know what specif ic training the teachers had received or what their credentials were. He did not know how many special educat ion teachers there were on staff or how the school was addressing B.S.’s ADHD. When questioned on the Flex School’s programming, he stated that it offered the core curriculum and a social program. There was OT daily. He did not personally observe the social program nor did he know what programming they were using or what services B.S. was rec eiving. He is als o unfamiliar with the term “relate d services” or what they were.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 106 In questioning him about the teaching methodologies that were used at the Fl ex School, Dr. Dranoff stated that the school provided a social emotional progra m the entire d ay which was bette r than what was being provided in the District which was once every two to three weeks. He admitted that he had no idea if B.S. was generalizing what he learned in the social skills group at the IEF School because no one th ere would spea k to him. However , he couldn’t fathom it occurring given how infrequently the sessions were. This opinion was based upon his experience as a clinical psychologi st, not an educator. He went on to state that B.S. was also being “inoculated” with other stu dents and was over seen by a mental health profession al every day at the Flex School. While exposure to typical peers can be helpful for some children, in B.S.’s case, the Flex School environment was more beneficial as he was around children with similar problems and issues. When asked to explain his co ntinuous use of the word “inoculated”, Dr. Dranoff explained, using a social emotional program as the example, that if a child is doing something wrong, the teacher would immediately come to them and expl ain the right way of doing it. Another student woul d see it and be part of the experience and learn something. In describing how the Flex School was therapeutic milieu, he explained that the school has a small student to teacher ratio, it f ocuses on social emotional learning, executive functioning, attent ion and the children are provided a lot of attention that addresses their issues and problems. He bases this not on his personal observation, rather his interviews with the staff members. Dr. Dranoff was next asked ab out his observation at the IEF School. He stated that he was there for an hour and observed B.S.’s math class and social skills program. He ag ain noted that no one from the District wanted to participate in the evaluation process, howev er, when asked whe n he invited them to participate, he stated that it was the day of the observation. He never followed up with any of the school personnel to obtain additional information or ask questions. He went on to state that he had a n issue with the fact that the s ocial skills program, which was pr ovided every two to three weeks, took place during the lunch/recess period. He feels that children need

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 107 lunch/recess to relax and take a break. Instead, they were going to what was in essence another class. He did no t rely on the District’s reports b ecause he did not find them to be as comprehensive as the ones that the parents had obtained from the private specialist. He did, however, give some stock to the IQ testing that was conduct ed by the Dist rict whose results were consistent with his own. Ho wever, he also gave weight to the testing conducted by Dr. Paul who administered the WISC -IV. He went on to s tate that usually the Flynn Effect and the regression to mean, may reflect a fiv e-point differential but not an eighteen-point difference which occurred in B.S.’s case. To him, this meant that there was no change in B.S.’s cognitive functions , however, there was a drastic change between his cognitive skills and his academic functioning. B.S.’s ac ademic functioning was falling below what would be expected given his cognitive skills. He attributes this change to the District – having reached this conclusion based upon his evaluations and petitioner’s experts. He did not rely upon the Districts reports/evaluations t hey did not speak to him and the evaluations lacked substance in his opinion. J.S. (Mother), testified that she is a college graduate with a degree in fine arts and is currently a stay at home mom. She has two sons, B. S. and A.S. B.S . was diagnosed wi th ADHD and was referred to Dr. Isralowitz. After evaluating B.S., the initial thought process was to work on some of B. S.’s behaviors before going down the medication path. Given the fact that B.S . was to attend kindergarten in th e fall, and to work on his impulsivity and focus, Dr. I sralowitz sent the school a letter suggesting that a 504 Plan be put in place and provide d recommendations. (P -1) By email, dated July 2, 2013, Principal Lamberti responded to J.S. that she would nee d to contact Casazza at the beginning of the school yea r at which time the possibility of a 504 Plan would be discussed. (P-2) According to J.S., the meeting never occurred. When B.S. was in first grade, he was tested for a pull-out program – the GATE Program for gifted children. B.S. did not test into t he program. She sent his teacher,

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 108 Lori Alhanti (Alhanti) an email questioning the program and also questioned whether B.S.’s ADHD was affecting his testing. (P -4) Subsequent to this, she sent an ema il to Maggie Silver (Silver), the gifted and talented t eacher, requesting to speak to her about her son and the recent test. (P -6) In speaking to Silver, she learned that B.S. had been tested, however, he did not meet t he criteria, therefore was not to b e included in the program. On October 12, 2014, J.S . heard from Alhanti who i nformed J.S. that her son was “super bright” but at times was at times fidgety and bored. (P -8) As a proactive measure, Alhanti informed J .S. that she allo ws B.S. and a few other children to complete some of the work independent ly and then she reviews it with them. However, by that point in the lesson, B.S. has already lost interest and wants to read a book in the back of the room. A coupl e of days later, she responded to A lhanti’s email, thanking her for her observations and i nforming Alhanti that B.S. was currently working with his therapist on “flexibility”. (P-9) According to J.S., it was her intent to keep B.S.’s teachers informed a s to what outside services were bei ng used to further support B.S.’s learning and vice ver sa in keeping the doctors informed as to what was happening in school. This included updates on any medication changes. (P -10) At no time did Alhanti complain abou t the volume of emails that she sent. In December 2014, an issue arose with B.S. regar ding teasing that he was getting for playing with only girls. Alhanti addressed the issue in class by having a lesson on how to deal with bullying and teasing and ho w to express yourself and also to let an adult know. (P -12, P-13). The issue was discuss ed with Dr. Isralowitz and Dr. Sheshadri. (P -15) It was Dr. Sheshadri's recommendation that a 504 Plan should be put in place. It was also Dr. Sheshardri who re commended that th ey get B.S.’s IQ tested. Based upon that recommendation, in April 2015, they went to see Dr. Pau l, for an evaluation. They wanted to get B.S.’s IQ tested and to find out more about his social,

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 109 emotional and academic functioning . According to Dr. Paul, B.S.’s IQ was 133 which put him in the top one percent. Dr. Paul’s findin gs and recommendations were sent to the school so that his teacher s could better understand B.S.’s potential and where he was struggling both academically and socially. (R-11) In May 2015, Dr. Isralowtiz sent another letter to the District, once again recommending that B.S. be provided with a 504 Plan and provided a number of recommendations. One of the recommendations was to provide B.S. a high -top desk with a stool . (P -19) Accordi ng to J.S., nothing ever happened with the proposed recommendations by either Dr. Paul or Dr. Isralowitz. On June 1, 2015, she and her husband sent a letter to the school. Attached to the letter was the Neurodevelopmental Evaluation by Dr. Seshardri; the Neuropsychological Evaluation by Dr. Paul; and the letter from D r. Isralowitz. Through this letter, they requested that a 504 Plan be put in place and asked for a meeting. (P - 20) The meeting was held on June 10, 2015, at which time it was determined that B.S. qualified for a 504 Plan and an Accommodation Plan was developed. (P-21 and P-22) No evaluations were performed by the District in the development of the 504 Plan nor did they (petitioners) receive the Parental R ights in Spe cial Education book . (P -23) Additionally, B.S. was not admitted into the GATE Program at that time. B.S. report card for his first-grade year showed a lot of “D” for developing and “S” for satisfactory. There were no “I” for independent. J.S. was c oncerned over this especially knowing how high B.S.’s IQ was. (P-25) According to J. S., she participated in the development of the 2015 -2016 (second grade) 504 Plan development. (P -26) Among the accommodations that were supposed to be imp lemented was the provision that B.S. be allowed to utilize Read and Write Google. This did not occur, and B.S. did not have a Chrome book throughout the school year. Nor were some of the recommendations by Dr. Paul implemented. As a result, in Novemb er 2 015, she requested a meeting with the school and requested that representatives from the CST be i ncluded. (P -27) She also requested

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 110 that Dr. Paul be in attendance at the meeting. (P -29) The request for CST members to be present was declined as it w as a 504 matter, not a special e ducation matter. (P-28) No Parental Rights in Special Education (PR ISE) booklet was provided to her at that time, however, she did receive the booklet at the beginning of B.S.’s third grade in 2017. J.S. went on to state that she was upset that the CST members were not going to be present. She felt that the experts need ed to be pre sent for the meeting to understand Dr. Paul’s findings. Dr. Paul was the one who was identifying B.S.’s academic strengths and social pragmati c is sues. H e recognized that wh ile B.S. was reading at two or three levels ahead, he still did not have basic decoding skills. The meeting was held on November 15, 2015, and J.S. was angry over the lack of interest and understanding on the part of Lamberti. (P-31 and P-32) However after the meeting, she heard from the IEF school Reading Specialist , Christine Doane (Doane), who informed her that she had administered the Predictive Assessment of Reading Test to B.S. The results show ed that B.S. was making average progress in his grade level. Despite it not being in B.S.’s 504 Plan, Doane offe red to provide B.S. additional small group instruction in Fundations twice a week. While J.S. requested a six-month follow-up, it never occurred. (P-33) B.S.’s first progress report was sent home in December 2015. (P-35) One of the observations was that B. S. was unsure of letter sounds when spelling words which is something she had observed. In or around Ma rch 2016, concerned about B.S. a nd his medication levels, they took B.S. to see Dr. Milrod for an evaluation. He recommended that B.S. receive ST and pr agmatic language instruction. (P -40) This recommendation was brought to the school’s attention; however, nothing was done - the expla nation being that B.S. did not qualify for speech language services. According t o J.S., there was no speech pathologist involved in that decision. Later that year, in June 2016, a letter was sent home from the school whi ch stated th at B.S. would no lon ger be required to attend the basic skills classes for reading due to his demonst rated success. (P -42) She disagreed wi th this determination as he had only been provided support for six months and they were still

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 111 seeing B.S. struggle with the same issues . The support was not part of the 504 Plan and was only put in place after Dr. P aul had attended the meeting earlier in the year and described the decoding issues and other issues that B.S. was having. In or around this same time period, they received B. S.’s most recent Student Intervention Log. (P - 44) According to J.S., they were never informed of B.S.’s progress or his skill achievements. Later that month, on June 20, 2016, Dr. Paul performed an arithmetic reassessment. (P-45) J.S. testified that she had previously requested that the District reassess B.S. but they refused to do so. The reason for the request was to obtain a benchmark so that they could thereafter see how B.S. was accelerating given his potential. As a result of his testing, Dr. Paul recommended that B.S. receive academic enrichment which J.S. stated the school did not implement. Due to the fac t that they disagreed with the school’s discontinuation of B.S.’s reading services, she sought the opin ion of Elleseff who performed a Comprehensive Language and Literacy Evaluation in August 2016. (P -47) J.S.’s takeaway from the report was that B.S. was a very gifted child who had some challenging difficul ties. She brought Elleseff’s findings to the school’s attention. J.S. went on to testify that she participated in the 2016 -2017 (third grade) 504 Plan for B.S. While she agreed to the plan, she d id not agree with everything in it. (P - 52) One of th e things she disagreed with was the n umber of social skills group whi ch was slated for twelve times a year – a little more than once a month. Given B.S.’s issues, this would not benefit him very much. Regarding the recommendation that the school would wo rk on looking for ways to accommodate B.S.’s needs for enrichment activities, the school never came back with anything. While he had a Chrome Book in third grade and access to “Talk to Text”, it was he r belief that Talk to Text in a classroom does not wor k. Additionally, B.S. was frustrated with the pr ogram and wouldn’t u se it – deciding instead to type it in manually. He did not get any specific keyboarding instruction however, he taught himself on h ow to do the functions on the Chrome Book.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 112 In December 2016, through their attorney, a re quest was made to the school to refer B.S. to the CST and for an IEP. (P -57) She reviewed the Occupational Therapy Evaluation that was performed by the school and disagreed with the findings. (P -58) More specifically, she did not believe that B.S.’s se nsory issues were being adequately addressed. Based upon her disagreement with the school 's report she decided to have an outside evaluation done. At the school ’s request for additional documentation, she took B.S. to see Dr. Milrod to re -document his diagnosis of high functioning A SD. Dr. Milrod documented his findings in a letter, dated March 9, 2017, which was sent to the school for their review. (P -59 and P -60) Also sent to the school was a request for B.S. to attend the ESY program at HI-STEP. (P-63) J.S. also sought t he services of Dr. Petti who performed a psychiatric evaluation of B.S. One of the recommendations that he had made was that the famil y seek the services of Perform Care which they did a year ago. They are no longer recei ving their services. She part icipated in the April 2017, IEP meeting and allowed it to go in effect, however, was not in agreement with everything put forward in th e IEP. (P -67) For instance, while she agreed that B .S. needed ST, based upon Elleseff’ s evaluation and given B.S.’s issues, it should have been more than once a week. The same with the OT which was once a month. B.S.’s handwriting was illegible, and he was having sensory issues which concerned her tre mendously, so she obtained a second opinion through Allen after the IEP had been implemented. Based upon Allen’s observation/evaluation, which was shared with the school, B.S. required OT more than once a month. (P-71) One of the things that Allen commented upon was her observation that B .S. did not interact with his group partner who he paired with during one of the activities. According to J.S., this was consistent with what she saw when she was the “classroom mom” a nd disheartened her as it was her expe ctation that the

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 113 classroom teache rs would reengage B.S. and facilitate social skills. J.S. went on to note that when B.S. left the District, he had not achieved any of the OT goals and objectives (imp rove core stabili ty, sensory awareness and fine motor s kills) that were set forth in the IEP. This also went for the social skills group – which when broken down, equated to meeting every two to three weeks. Given B.S. communication issues, that was insufficient. J. S. expanded upon this last part by sta ting that B. S. did not have any friends at the time the IEP was put in place. He did not have any play -dates outside of school and, in school, he was isolating himself. This was based upon her person al observation when she visited the school as a “classroom mom”. In looking at the IEP’s Social Skills Goals and Objectives, she felt that B.S. had already mastered some of the objectives itemized such as saying “hello” and “goodbye” so that was not a ppropriate. Othe r goals and objectives such as fosteri ng a nd maintaining two positive relationships with peers; or identifying specific times of the day and/or triggers that impacted his ability to attend, were never attained by the time he left the District. With regard to the ESY program offered in the IE P, it was her impression that it was just for special education children so he wouldn’t be with any of his neuro -typical peers. She felt that he needed extreme social thinking intervention, therefore she said not to t he proposed ESY program. Instead, B.S . at tended t he “H I-STEP” program which provided social skills training. When Elleseff went back to observe B.S. in the classroom setting in November 2017, she reiterated that neither the Fundations or the pu ll-out F undations were remediating B.S.’s reading comprehension, spelling, writing and related difficulties. (P - 77) Elleseff’s observations were consistent with her own. The same with the ST. One of the things that Elleseff observed was that the children in the group all had diffe rent goals and objectives. Therefore, even in that setting, he wasn’t getting the full amount

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 114 of allotted time as the teacher spent time working individually with each child which took away from the whole. When s he received B.S.’s progress report for the GATE Program in January 2018, she disagreed with the reported progress. The progress report marked B.S. as satisfactorily in: communicating clearly in writing; expressing himself w ell verbally; uses problem solvi ng techniques and thinks critically. ( P-78) She found the marks impossible given that the fact that these were among B.S.’s major areas of struggle. It was her belief that the GATE Program did not provide B.S. with a curr iculum that recognized and brought out his exceptional abilities. Thereafter in April 2018, the District was placed on notice that they were seeking an out of district placement for B.S. at the Flex School. (P -82) Their decision was based upon their e xpert reports (Elleseff, Allen , and Dr. Dranoff) that the IEP cur rently in place for B.S. was inappropriate and that his needs were not being addressed by the District. (P-82) They also notified the District that they were unilaterally placing B.S . at the Flex School for the 2018 ESY. (P-85) The rationale behind placing B.S. at the Flex School for the ESY was to focus on his social communication skills. The school also worked on executive functioning skills and provided academic enrichment. When they received B.S.’s progress rep ort in June 2018, they disagreed with the findings. (P -86) Many of the goals and objectives were marked as “progressing gradually” which for someone with B.S.’s cognitive abilities, more progress should have been seen. He had had an IEP since April 201 7, and it was her belief that the goals and objectives were not as meaningful as they should have been. By comparison, they received B.S.’s progress notes from the Flex School for the ESY which identified B.S.’s academic skills and weaknesses and how he p rogressed an d grew – socially and academically, over the summer. (P-87) The ESY progress notes from the Flex School were shared with the District and they again requested that B.S.’s IEP be amended to reflect an out of district placement at the Flex S chool for the 2018-2019 school year. The District was also provided with

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 115 a copy of Dr. Petty’s progress notes of August 16, 2018, wherein he noted that a number of B.S.’s existing problems (i.e. ODD, Generalized Anxiety Disorder; Language Disorder, etc.) h ad improved. (P -91) After seeing how well B.S. had done at the Flex School ESY, and wanting to provide him the intervention he needed, they enrolled him in the Flex School for the 2018-2019 school year. (P-112 and P-113) According t o J.S., B.S.’s p rogress could also be seen in his First Quarter Progress Report from the Flex School. (P -93) Based upon what was reported, it was apparent that the Flex School was targeting all the things that B.S. had been struggling with (i .e. spelling skills, writing skills, inference, observation skills, reading comprehension, etc.) throughout the school year. Using B.S.’s improved writing skills as an example, J.S. stated that it was apparent that someone at the Flex School was working w ith him and he was getting m ore comfortable with writing. The progress report also noted areas of weakness. This too pleased J.S. and her husband because the school was not only identifying B.S.’s areas of weakness but addressing them. B.S.’s progress was also seen by Elleseff wh en she went to observe B.S. at the Flex School in Dec ember 2018. In her report, Elleseff commented upon the teacher/student ratio and overall class size which finding that it promoted individualized attention. She also noted h ow engaged a nd focused B.S. was in the classroom and that he was using his Chrom ebook less. (P -95) After observing B.S. at the Flex School, it was her opinion that B.S. was sufficiently challenged at the Flex School and that his placement there was appropriate. According to J.S. , this sentiment was also mirrored in Dr. Dranoff’s report which was generated after he observed B.S. at the Flex School in December 2018. (P -101) In his opinion, the Flex School addresses B.S.’s academic weaknesses and socia l anxiety and communication i ssues. One of the observations made by Dr. Dranoff was that B.S. had made friends and was interacting with them in the classroom. J.S. commented that this progress was also for the first time being seen at home with B.S. having playdates and sleepovers.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 116 J.S. went on to testify that Allen was als o asked to observe B.S. at the Flex School. Allen found B.S. to be motivated and contributing in the classroom. At the time of observation, there were six students in t he class wit h one on one teachi ng staff present. While intermittently distracte d, he independently redirected himself. He was also able to take sensory breaks and move around. Allen observed that B.S. was not the only child that needed to move aro und. Based on her observations , it was Allen’s opinion that the Flex School was the most appropriate environment for B.S. She agreed with B.S.’s January 2019 progress note from the Flex School. (P - 111) According to J.S., it was apparent that B .S. had grown and made a lot of progress since he had started at the school. According to the progress note, B.S. was now doing his assignments more successfully due to his teachers providing him with built -in executive function instruction. Socially he was doing we ll and was liked by his classmates with w hom he worked cooperatively with. J.S. stated that she particularly liked the fact that if B.S. finishes his assignment before the other students, he is given another higher -level assignment to challen ge him. Add itionally, his grow th at school was also seen at home as B.S. had become a different child. He was no longer fighting her to go to school or giving her problems. According to J.S., B.S. did not have all of these skills when he started at the Flex School or if he had th em, they were not bein g addressed by the District . After seeing how well B.S. did at the Flex School ESY, and wanting to provide him the intervention he needed, they enrolled him in the Flex School for the 2018 -2019 school year. (P-112 and P-113) On cross-examination, J.S. was questioned why she felt that B.S. was not getting the services that she believed he needed in District. In response, J.S. stated that she had provided multiple expert reports which identified B.S. ’s problems and provided recommendations to the District who in turn took no action to address the issues. Using the 504 Plan as an example, when it was finally implemented by the District two years after it was first requested, no specific testing was pe rformed, the plan was just implemented. The 504 Plan was only put in place afte r they brought Dr. Paul to the

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 117 meeting to explain his report on B.S. Thereafter, services were being denied or discontinued without a basis. J.S. went on to state that she in itially provided all of the reports to the administration and requested a CST evaluation. After the 504 meeting, they retained counsel because they were getting no - where with the District. J.S. acknowledged that B.S. progressed in the District however it was her belief that it was not at the levels that he should have progressed. This last statement was based upon the evaluat ions and observations done by her experts. When questioned about B.S. IEP Progress Reports, J.S. testified that the level of progress reported was not quantified by data. Whe n pre ssed on this response, J.S . could not justify her answer. It was her beli ef, however, that the progress report from the Flex School, reflected a significant amount of progress by B.S. in that it targeted and understood B.S.’s needs. When questioned about the data that was used t o back up the Flex School’s report, she stated tha t the school is accredited therefore they were required to meet certain criteria. She went on to state that any back -up data would have to be obtained from the Flex School. When asked for an example o f B.S.’s progress at the Flex School, J.S. relayed an incident between B.S. and another child over the float design and construction for a Mardi Gras parade. The project worked on the children’s executive functioning skills and social and emotional skills . B.S. wanted to design and construct the float a nd so did another child. With the assistance of the teacher, a compromise was reached wherein B.S. agreed that the other child could build the float and he would decorate it. She learned of the incident f rom the teacher. J.S. felt that this was importan t for a couple of reasons, one of which was the fact that B.S. was compromising and the other was that the teacher was right there to help direct and redirect him. The situat ion was fluid and the teacher was right there and able to accommodate the situation. When questioned how the Flex School was addressing B.S. ’s ADHD, she responded by stating through a small classroom environment and working on B.S.’s executive functioning skills. It was her belief that the District was not paying attention to B.S.’s needs – citing as an example the language arts pull-out resource wherein B.S.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 118 received a “double dose” of Fundations two times a week. According to Elle seff, this was insufficient and did not work for him. J.S. also went on to ta lk about the friends that B.S. now had. The children also attend the Flex School. While his new friends have never been to their home, they have gone to outside activities. According to J.S., the Flex School also promotes social networking – one of which is a week retreat which helps develop relationships and trust. When questioned whether B.S. has any neighborhood friends or friends through his participation in Boy Scouts, she responded that he did not and that this was in part due to B.S.’s possessory tendencies and rigid thinking which caused conflicts. When asked how the Flex School was working on B.S.’s social skills and social thinking, she responded that they were w orking on it . When que stioned how it was acceptable for the Flex School to be “w orking on it” but not acceptable when the District says that B.S. was “progressing”, she referred to Elleseff’s report and the fact that the social skills group was not workin g. She went on to poin t out that the District di d not listen to what her experts were saying and in fact, one of the evaluations - the OT evaluation by Allen was not even given to the District’s occupational therapist Lodato. Had they listened to what her experts had said and implemented the recommendations, there would have been no need for a hearing. J.S. was also questioned about the District’s 2017 ESY program and the fact that B.S. could have been provided the same HI-STEP program as the c amp that B.S . had attended. In response she stat ed that she was aware that it wa s the same program, however, felt that the District’s personnel were not qualified or sufficiently trained to direct such a program. Additionally, B.S, would have been in the program with other special education children. The program doesn’t acknowledge or address the fact that B.S. was a twice exceptional child and that he needs something more than what was being offered. Upon being asked, J.S. acknowledged that at the ti me all of th is was happening they were having issues with B.S.’s medications. This was in or around May 2017 and

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 119 B.S. was in third grade at the time. The medications were changed and while it took a while to g et him stabilized, at this time he was doing well on the medication regimen. The medication a ssists B.S. in controlling his impulsivity and allow him more time to think. Discussion: It is the duty of the trier of fact to weigh each witness’s credibility and make a factual finding. Credibility is the value a fact finder assign s to the testimony of a witness, and it contemplates an overall asse ssment of the witness’s story considering its rationality, consistency, and how it comports with other evidence. Carbo v. United States, 314 F.2d 718 (9th C ir. 1963); see In re Polk , 90 N .J. 550 (1982). C redibility findings “are often influenced by matte rs such as observations of the character and demeanor of witnesses and common human experience that are not transmitted by the record.” State v. Locurto , 15 7 N.J. 463 (1999). A fact find er is expected to base decisions on credibility on his or her common sense, intuition or experience. Barnes v. United States, 412 U.S. 837 (1973). A trier of fact may reject testimony because it is inherently incredible, or because it is inconsistent wit h other testimony or with common experience, or because it is overbo rne by other testimony. Congleton v. Pura -Tex Stone Corp., 53 N.J. Super 282, 287 (App. Div. 1958). Petitioner’s expert, Allen, a Certified Occupational Therapist, evaluated B.S. in May 2017 (third grade ), one month after the IEP was implemented. Among the tests administered was the BOT-2 – the same test that had been administered by Lodato two months prior which is contrary to best practices. While Lodat o had identified many of the same areas of weaknesses and made recommendations similar to what she herself would have recommended, she felt that the Districts recommendations were insufficient to meet B.S.’s needs and that they had failed to identify all o f B.S. problem areas. One such area was motor planning – using her observation of B.S. in gym c lass. Allen’s own testimony as to B.S.’s performance in the class does not appear to be consistent with a finding of motor planning issues. Nor is the fact that he plays the

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 120 piano - an activity that requires the coordination of both hands and feet, consi stent with the and individual who has motor planning issues. Overall, Allen’s testimony did not inspire confidence. While she went into great detail on ho w well the Flex School was meet ing B.S.’s needs, she could not provide concrete examples. When que stioned how the Flex School was providing B.S. OT, she admitted that she had never witnessed the program at the Flex School - nor had she ever observed OT at the IEF School. In this regar d, she had no idea how often Ladoto came into B.S.’s classroom or sp oke to his teacher. Nor did she have any data from the Flex School which reflected B.S. progress – it was an inference on her part based upon her observatio ns and what was being reported to her. At the en d of her testimony, Lodato admitted that she coul d not speak to B.S.’s progress at either the Flex School or the IEF School . It was just her judgement that the Flex School was meeting his needs. Dr. Dran off, a Licensed Psychologist te stified that he is familiar with the Flynn Effect as well as the re gression to mean. He reviewed the WISC -IV conducted by Dr. Paul in 2015, and credibly testified that while the findings are not invalid, they should be looked at with a grain of salt given the fact that the WISC-V was available at the time of administration. His credibility slipped , however, when he went on to testify about the weight he had given to Dr. Paul’s findings in arriving at his own conclusions. Dr. Dranoff also provided broad sweeping statement s that lacked foundation. Examples of this were seen when he was questioned about his criticism of the District for not implementing a 504 Plan until B.S. was in second grade – specifically the impact. In response, he stated that he did not know what the impact was and based his commentary upon statements made by the petitioners. He also testified about how qualified the teachers were at the Flex School, and that the school had a low teacher ratio; social/ emotional programming every da y; and that it was a therapeutic milieu. When questioned about these s tatements, he admitted that he did not know what type of training or qualifications the teachers had, did not know how many special education teachers were on staff or how the school was addressing B.S.’s ADHD. He also did not

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 121 observe the social program a t the school, did not know what programming they were using or the specific services B.S. was receiving. Dr. Dranoff also repeatedly brought up the fact that no one from the IEF School would speak to him. He did not rely on the District’s reports becau se he did not find them to be comprehensive and the staff did not speak to him. Instead, he relied on the petitioner’s private specialists reports as they corroborated his findings. W hat he failed to m ention until specifically asked on cross -examination, was that he did not ask to speak to the staff at the IEF School until the day of his observation, and at no time did he follow-up with the school to obtai n further information. He did not even request the teacher’s at the IEF School to fill out a rating form. Dr. Petti, a Board-Certified Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist, also testified as an expert for the petitioners. I found his testimony to be subj ective and his findings conclusory without a rea sonable explanation. As an example, he provided B.S. ’s parents and teachers with SNAP assessments. The petitioner’s reported oppositional defiant behavior and his teachers at the IEF School reported none. He felt that it was rare to se e a “zero” for opp ositional/defiant behavior for a child with ADHD and the problems B.S. was presenting with. Therefore, he concluded that the demands on B.S. in school must not have been very great and he diagnosed B.S. with ODD. He never personally observed the behavior and never spoke to B.S.’s teachers – it was all based upon the petitioner’s representations. Another example is when he was questioned about his finding that B.S. was not receiving the appropriate services at the IEF School. According to Dr. Petti he based his opinion on the fact that the services that had been recommended by himself and other professionals such as Elleseff had not been implemented. He subsequently acquiesced th at not all of the services that had been recomme nded wer e necessary and his assumption that because they were not listed in the IEP, the services were not being provided.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 122 While he acknowledged that B.S. was doing well at the IEF School, he felt that it came at a price on both a psychic and intellectua l level. On the intellect ual piece, he cited to B.S.’s lower score on the Wechsler test. While he is familiar with the phrase regression to mean, he is not familiar with the Flynn Effect. He also upon furt her questioning, acquiesced that the first test given by Dr. Paul could have been a high test and the second one was the norm score or that other factors may be in play. Regarding his testimony that the Flex School was an appropriate placement for B.S., he never went there, had no real knowledge of the progr am and did not kno w what qualifications the teachers had. I found Elleseff to be a credible witness and the testing she performed informative and, as will be later discussed, were in part relied up on by the District in developing B.S.’s IEP. However, I did not give as much weight to her testimony/reports as it relates to her observation of B.S. at the IEF School in November 2017, and at the Flex School in December 2018, as they lacked objectivity and foundation. As an example, Elleseff, who is not a certified reading instructor or certified in the Wilson Program, was critical of the IEF School for using Wilson’s Fundations Curriculum in fourth grade. In the IEF School, the first half of Fundation s is taught in third grade and the second half is extended into the beginn ing of fourth grade and thereafter becomes the Wilson Program. It does not appear that Elleseff had any discussion with B.S.’s teachers as to how and why the curriculum is set up in that fashion and what additional supports were be ing pro vided. Additional ly, while she observed B.S. approximately six months into the implementation of the IEP, she herself recognized that progress takes time. Elleseff was also critical of what was bei ng taught in B.S.’s ST class and her belief that her recommendations had not been implemented. However, her observation was limited, and her conclusions flawed as evidenced by the multiple communications between the J.S. (mother) and Engler regarding what had been taught in class that day.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 123 Upon reading some o f the emails, she acquiesced that the District was in fact implementing the goals and objectives. She also used Dr. Paul’s findings – specifically his IQ testing, to conclude that B.S. was twice exceptional and that the IEF School was not meeting his ne eds. As such, she recommended out of District placement. Yet, in her testimony, she stated that his IQ was not a consideration. Not only is this inconsistent, it also calls into question how mu ch she relied upon the WISC -IV data which a ccording to petit ioner’s own expert, Dr. Dranoff, should be “looked at with a grain of salt”. Additionally, in her observation at the Flex School, Elleseff was very descriptive of how well B.S. was doing an d of her overall impression that the school setting was meeting his “complex e ducational needs”. Interestingly, in her observation report from the IEF School , she reiterated all of her recommendations from her August 2016 , evaluation which contained multi ple recommendations that targeted therapeuti c interventions and therapeutic remediation were needed. Yet, the Flex School, who by her own admission lacked many of the services that she had recommended and whose programming she had no knowledge of, was still the appropriate environment for him. It is difficult to reconcile these co nflicting statements and as such undermines her observational findings. I found Gavor to be elusive when responding to questions asked on cross - examination and his responses la cking candor. One such example was when he w as questioned a bout his statement that B.S. had “academic scar tissue” when he first came to the Flex School. After going around on this comment a couple of times, he changed his testimony and stated that it wa s a generalization of all new students at the Flex School – not B.S. specifically. Another example was seen when asked about his August 2018 , letter to the petitioners providing a glowing report of B.S .’s progress during his participation in the Flex School ESY program which was a twenty -one-day program. Yet, h e testified that B.S. was dysregulated when he first started the ESY program and it took him ten days

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 124 to assimilate. When asked how B.S. could have made the meaningful progress that he had expounde d upon in his August 2018 , letter in the remain ing eleven days of the program, he changed his statement to reflect that B.S. was “at times” dysregulated. When questioned again how B.S. made such meaningful progress in such a short time period, he again ch anged his statement yet again to say that B.S. was dysregulated maybe fifteen minutes a day. His lack of candor was again exhibited when he was questioned about how B.S. was “implementing skills that were taught in the Flex Life Class” and the improvem ents he referenced. After circling the answer on this question, he ultimately acquiesced that there was no supporting data to his statements and that he did not even know what curriculum was used. I found that J.S. testified credibly , however, she is not a special education teacher and her view point s are u nderstandably subj ective. J.S. acknowledged that B.S. was progressing at the IEF School , however , it was her belief, based upon her experts reports, that he was not progressing at the appropriate levels given his cognitive abilities. The District employees all testified credibly and were familiar with the facts and their respective direct contacts with B.S. throughout the school day as well as their direct contacts with J.S. (Mother) regarding her parental concerns documented in the numerous meetings and emails between t he parties. The detailed testimony of B.S.’s teachers who personally worked with and routinely observed B.S. from kindergarten through fourth grade was especially persuasive as the y are all educational experts in delivering special instruction to children with disabilities. The testimony was detailed as far as the chronology of events and evaluations completed to assess the suspected areas of B.S.’s disability; his performance in s chool; the specific teaching methodologies used for instruction; B.S.’s int eractions with his teachers and peers; the modifications and supports in place to assist B.W.; and the assessments utilized to determine that B.S. made reasonable and appropriate e ducational progress.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 125 Based upon due consideration of th e testimonial and documentary evidence presented at this hearing, and having had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses and assess their credibility, I FIND the following as FACTS: B.S. was diagnosed with ADHD, combined type when he was five-years-old. In and around that time he was started on a trial of medication by his pediatrician . Prior to entering kindergarten, J.S. (mother) reached out to Lamberti requesting that B.S. be provided a 504 Plan due to B.S.’s diagnosis of ADHD. T his was based upon a recommendation by Dr. Isralowitz, B.S.’s Psychologist, who also suggested that certain accommodations be put in place. (P-1) In September 2013, Casazza, the 504 Coordinator for the IEF School, reached out to J.S. and advised her t hat it was the school’s practice to wait until the child came into the school setting to see how he functioned in the classroom. J.S. was assured at that time that some of Dr. Isralowitz ’s suggestions could be implemented without a 504 Plan. No aca demic issues, social concerns or disciplinary issues were raised in kindergarten. In first grade, aside from one incident wherein J.S. reached out to Casazza regarding an incident with B.S. being teased, which was addressed by the school, there were no a cademic concerns raised or social issues such as disciplinary problems, anger issues or inappropriate conduct. (P -25) From all reports, B.S. was an amiable and bright little boy who was progressing satisfactorily. (P-23 and P-25) At the end of first grade, at the request of the petitioners and upon receipt of supporting medical documentation which included among other things the evaluations of Dr. Paul, Dr. Sheshadri and Dr. Isralowit z, the 504 Committee met for an eligibility determination which resu lted in the development of a 504 Plan for implementation in the 2015 -2016 school year ( second grade). (P20 – P-21; R -10 and R -11) The

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 126 recommendations that were suggested by the doctors w ere for implementation of a 504 Plan, not for special education or related services. A 504 Plan is usually formed after a parent comes forward with a diagnosis and a concern about how their child is performing in the classroom in light of the diagnosis . The school then starts the process to determine a child’s 504 eli gibility. The administration may or may not implement all of the recommendations made by a student’s doctor as the doctor is not familiar with how the child functions in the school setting a nd their recommendation may or may not be appropriate based upon staff observations. The 504 Plan is revisited each year in September to determine if any “tweaks” are necessary. The 504 Plan provided for B.S. for the 2015 -2016 school year ( second grade) provided for many of the recommendations proffered by B.S.’s doctors, but not all as some of them fell under “good teaching” and were already being implemented in the classroom when possible. B.S. was routinely observed by Casazza in the classroom, cafeteria and at recess to ensure that he was receiving the accommo dations outlined in his 504 Plan. Additionally, he was also part of a social skills group that Casazza administered. The curriculum in the social skills group varied where one lesson may be geared for a student such as B.S. and another lesson may be gear ed towards another child who has a different deficit. However, all the lessons were designed to benefit the entire group. In November 2015, J.S. (mother) requested a meeting due to co ncerns that the 504 Plan did not provide for the services that had b een recommended by Dr. Paul. (P- 27) The meeting took place on November 19, 201 5, and was also attended by Dr. Paul. Thereafter, B.S. was provided additional services in the form of smal l group instruction in Fundations. (P -33, P -35) B.S.’s grades in s econd grade reflected that overall he was progressing satisfactorily. (P -46) Throughout this time, petitioners continued to provide the school with copies of the independent evaluations that the y had obtained on B.S. behalf.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 127 In September 2016 ( third grade) B.S.’s 504 Plan was revisited and amended. (P-52) While the SNAP -IV Syndrome Rating Scale filled out by his teacher ( Pirrone) did not reflect that B.S.’s diagnosis was impacting his performance in the classroom, his 504 Plan was amended to add a f ew additional accommodations such as “Talk to Text”. (P-51, P-54, and P-55) In December 2016, the District was provided with an evaluation that had been performed by Elleseff along wi th a request that B.S. be referred to the CST for eligibility and an appropriate IEP. (P-47, P-57) In January 2017, a meeting was set up to decide whether an evaluation was warranted to determine if B.S. had a disability which adversely affected his e ducational performance and whether he was in need of special educati on and related services. (R-17) As part of the process a number of things were taken into consideration which included: review of B.S.’s 504 Plan; review of the private evaluations provi ded by the petitioners; communications from the petitioners; and B.S . cumulative file. Upon review and consideration, it was determined that further evaluations ( educational, psychological, social history, speech/language, OT) were required and medical documentation reviewed to establish a medical diagnosis and vision and hearing be obtained. (R-18, R-20) In addition to medical documentation that had been received from Dr. Lerner and Dr. Seshadri, the District was also provided a letter from Dr. Milrod who noted that in addition to his diagnosis of ADHD, he also diagn osed B.S. with high functioning ASD. (P-59) The Social Work assessment was conducted in February 2016. (R -22) As part of the assessment process, B.S. student records were revie wed, parent interviews were conducted, a student interview was conducted and B.S. was observed at both lunch and recess. Based upon the totality of evaluation by the school Social Worker, Marydenise Appio, it was determined that B.S. had age appropriate i nterests both

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 128 inside and outside of the school setting. He appeared to g et along with other children, however, did not always pick up on social cues. The Educational Evaluation was conducted over a series of days in March 2017 , by Szenasy which included administering a series of tests (KTEA -3, TAPS-3, Berry VMI – sixth edition). (R-21) On the KTEA -3 assessment for reading, B.S. was able to read grade -level sentences and passages and accurately respond to all types of /wh/ questions . He was also able to respond to literal questions however occasionally confused story deta ils when answering questions and would not refer back to the passage to correct/check his answers. He had difficulty responding to inferential questions. In phonological processing, he was able to accurately identify rhyming words and words with the sa me sounds however was inconsistent in his ability to segment words into their individual sounds and delete sounds in words. He was able to read single and multi-syllabic words with automaticity, however, when presented with an unknown word, had difficulty correctly decoding it. B.S. exhibited appropriate rea ding fluency when reading. In math, B.S. showed strength in his problem solving skills. His math calculation skills were compar able to about half of his grade level peers. However, he could not perform simple or multi -step calculations involving divis ion or calculations involving fractions. He was having difficulty memorizing his multiplication facts and unable to solve multi-digit multiplication problems. In writing, B.S. was able to generate creative ideas, however, needed to develop his writing stamina. He completed writing tasks very quickly and did not pay attention to details such as capitalization and punctuation. He does be st when using his Chromebook and at times uses his speech to t ext feature of the Chromebook. Spelling is a relative dif ficulty for B.S. and he also has difficulty copying words from near point because he tends to not look at his paper when he writes.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 129 B.S. also demonstrated a strength in his listening comprehensi on skills, however, displayed an area of weakness in his oral expression. On the TAPS-3, his overall score fell within the upper limits of average range of functioning (standard score of 110 and percentile range of seventy-five) which meant that his audit ory processing skills were comparable to or higher than seventy -five percent of his age level peers. On the Beery VMI, B.S.’s Visual Motor Integration score, he fell within the upper lim its of the low range which indicated that this was an area of weakness. The Psychological Evaluation was conducted by the school Psychol ogist, Emilia Muglia over a series of two days in February. (R-24) As part of her evaluation, she administered the WISC-V to assess B.S .’s current cognitive abilities. B.S. had a full - scale IQ of 115 at a ninety-five confidence interval. Dr. Muglia noted that B .S. had been administered the WISC -IV in 2015 when he was seven -years-old and he was now nine-years-four-months and identified a number of factor s that may have contributed to the discrepancy. She also recognized that it was easier to receive a false low score than a false high score and therefore proposed that the current IQ score was an underestimate of his true cog nitive ability and that he prob ably falls between the high average and extremely high average range. This is consistent with the finding of Dr. Dranoff who also administered to B.S. when he was 10.3 years old , the WISC -V in 2018 and determined that B.S.’s f ull scale IQ was 116. I specifically FIND Dr. Muglia’s findings credible as to B.S. full scale IQ. On the Speech/Language Evaluation conducted by Berger, she found that B.S. had strengths in receptive, expressive, lexical sem antic/and syntactic indexes however noted weaknesses in pragmatic language – particularly in picking up on non -verbal cues; providing more than one solution; recognizing when a communicative breakdown has occurred; and taking the perspective of others into account. Additionally, he does not always relate information in a sequential manner a nd provide the necessary details when retelling an event. These findings were similar to what Elleseff had determined and consistent with what the parents were reporting and what was observed in his social skills group.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 130 The OT evaluation was conducted by Lodato. (R-23) B.S. scored above average w ith visual perceptual skills and average for visual motor integration skills. Functionally, he did not s it upright at the table top, therefore it caused decreased stability in his fine motor control. His fi ne motor skills were below average and if he did not sit upright, his skill decreased. Concerns were raised by his teachers on the sensory profile which they had completed. Almost all of the evaluations done by the school identified instructional implications and/ or recommendations. Upon completio n of the evaluations, the CST met with the petitioners on April 5, 2017 , to go through the results and deve lop an IEP. (R-26) The CST also read, reviewed and took into consideration was the information/evaluations provi ded by Dr. Milrod, Ell eseff, Dr. Pa ul and Dr. Seshadri in developing the IEP as well as the parents concerns. (R-28) At the April 5, 2017 , IEP meeting, the CST determined that B.S. was eligible for special education and related services u nder the clas sification of “Other He alth Impaired” and eligible to receive ESY. Annual measurable academic and/or functional goals and objectives were provided in the IEP for each identified area of weakness. As part of his programming and related servic es the IEP pr oposed that B.S. receiv e in - class resource (support) in reading/language arts, math, science and social studies. He would also receive pull -out supplementary instruction in reading/language arts for the same period of time. Additionally, he would receive ST group once a week for thirty minutes and OT for thirty minutes (1x month) and social skills group – 30 minutes (20x yearly). (R-28) In order to prevent regression in B.S. social skills, language skills (including pragmatic/social skill s), OT and ac ademic skills, the IEP also offered B.S. the ESY program. The program included in -class services for reading/language arts, math, social skills group and related arts and pull-out services for ST Group. (R-28)

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 131 The accommodations and modifi cations included in the IEP among other things included: allowing extra time for task completion; all ow typed rather than handwritten response; use of daily routine; frequently checking for understanding; modeling; small group instruction; directions repea ted, clarified or reworded; read directions alou d; use interest to increase motivation; additional ti me to complete classroom tests/quizzes; modified tests/quizzes; allowed typed rather than handwritten responses; preferential seating; arrange private signal to cue student to off-task behavior; provide short breaks to focus attention; edit written work wi th teacher guidance; use social skills group to teach skills and provide feedback; use of Chrome book for all writing tasks within the classroom; availability of speech-to-text on the Chrom ebook for all writing tasks within the classroom. (R-28) The petitioners consented to the implementation of the IEP , however, reserved their rights to seek changes to the IEP based upon the advice of t heir personal consultants. (R-28) Thereafter, the IEP was imme diately implemented. B.S. report card for third grade fo und that he was either proficient or that progress was observed. His IEP progress report for the fourth quarter of his third -grade year reflected for the most part , that he was progressing either sat isfactorily or gradually in his goals and objectives. (R-32, GB0465 – 0479) B.S. did not attend the District’s ESY program that summer, instead attended a program called Power Solving. B.S.’s first IEP Progress Report in fourth grade was released in November 2017, and found his progress similar to the one in June 2017. However, as the year went on, a notable trend was seen in B.S.’s progress with each quarter. By the fourth quarter, with a few ex ceptions in r eading, writing and math, B.S. was pro gressing satisfactorily and in two of the goals (Goal 10 (multiply within 100 with automaticity) and Goal 13 (improve phonological awareness), he had achieved the goal. Notably, in the fir st half of t he school year, the p etitioner’s requested that the ir consultants observe B.S. at the IEF School. Their findings were shared with the CST

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 132 and considered as part of the annual IEP review in conjunction with other evaluations/reports that were p reviously co nducted/obtained. (R - 29) One of the reports was from Dr. Dranoff wherein he reported that he had administered the WISC0V to B.S. which placed B.S.’s full scale IQ at 116. This finding was similar to that of Dr. Muglia from the District. By letter , dated April 2 6, 2018, t he Di strict was placed on no tice that the petitioners were seeking an out of district placement at the Flex School. Through this letter, the petitioners asserted that B.S.’s was a twice exceptional student for whom the IEP and in -district progra m was not appropriately ambitious. Pe titioner’s further claimed, among other things, that B.S.’s IQ had dropped due in part to his program and services received in the District which was not appropriately meeting his learning needs. It was t heir belief t hat B.S. re quired a smaller environmen t where all the children were dealing with similar issues and the school offered a high level of academics but at the same time offered in vivos support. (P-82) In June 2018, the school schedu led an a nnual IEP mee ting to asse ss B. S.’s educational prog ress and to review and revise if necessary, his IEP. As part of the evaluation process, his teachers provided an outline of B.S. accomplishments and areas where he was progressing slowly such as i n the s ocial/emotional goals and objectives. (R-29) The CST also read, reviewed and took into consideration , among other things , the information/evaluations provided by Dr. Dranoff, Elleseff, Allen, Dr. Paul and Dr. Petti in developing the IEP as well as the parents’ concerns. Given the progress that B.S. had made, the same type of program was offered which provided measurable goals and objectives with some minor changes that were appropriate for B.S.’s needs. The IEP also recognized the achievements tha t B.S. had made over the course of the year and accordingly reduced the services as he no longer required the same level of support. One such example of that was in reading. As part of his programming and related services the IEP proposed that he woul d receive in-class resource (support) for reading/language arts, math, science and social

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 133 studies. He would also receive pull -out supplementary instruction in reading/language arts and receive ST group, OT group and social skills group. Additionally, an ESY program w as al so offered to B.S. that among other th ings, included a social skill component (Power Solving) which was identical to the program that B.S. had attended the year before. (R-29) The accommodations and modifications offered in the IEP for th e 2 018-2019 academic year included among other thin gs: allowing extra time for task completion; allowing typed rather than handwritten responses; frequent checks for understanding; provide modeling; provide small group instruction; directions repeated, cla rified o r reworded; read directions aloud; use inte rest to increase motivation; additional time to complete classroom tests/quizzes; modified tests/quizzes; preferential seating; arrange private signal to cue student to off -task be havior; provide short bre aks to f ocus attention; edit written work with teac her guidance; use social skills group to teach skills and provide feedback; use of Chromebook for all writing tasks within the classroom; availability of speech -to-text on the Chro mebook for all writing ta sks within th e classroom. (R-29) The petitioners did not consent to the implementation of the proposed IEP for the 2018-2019 academic year nor did B.S. attend the 2018 ESY program which the District had offered. LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW This case arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C.A. §§ 1400 to 1482. One pu rpose of the Act, among others, is to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a “free appropriate public education that emphasizes s pecial education and related services designed to meet their unique needs an d prepare them for fur ther education, employment, and independent living. ” 20 U.S.C.A. § 1400(d)(1)(A). This “free appropriate public education ” is known as FAPE. In short, the Act defines FAPE as special education and related services

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 134 provided in confo rmity with the IEP. S ee 20 U.S.C.A. § 1401(9). A FAPE and related services must be provided to all students with disabilities from age three through twenty-one. N.J .A.C. 6A:14 -1.1(d). A FAPE means special education and related services that: a) have be en provided at public expense, under public supervision and direction, and without charge; b) meet the standards of the State educational agency; c) include an approp riate preschoo l, elementary, or secondary school education in the State involved; and d) a re provided in conform ity with the individualized education program (IEP) required under sec. 614(d). 20 U.S.C.A. § 1401(9); N.J.A.C. 6A:14 -1.1 et seq. The responsib ility to deliv er these services rests with the local public -school district. N.J.A.C. 6A:14-1.1(d). In orde r to provide a FAPE, a school district must develop and implement an IEP. N.J.A.C. 6A:14 -3.7. An IEP is “a comprehensive statement of the educ ational needs o f a handicapped child and the specially designed instruction and related services to be employed to meet those needs. ” Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep ’t of Educ. of Mass. , 471 U.S. 359, 368, 105 S. Ct. 1 996, 2002, 85 L. Ed. 2d 385, 394 (1985). An IEP should be developed with the participation of parents and members of a district board of education ’s CST who have participated in the evaluation of the child ’s eligibility for special education and related s ervices. N.J.A.C. 6A:14 -3.7(b). The IEP team should consider the strengths of the student and the concerns of the parents for enhancing the education of their child; the results of the initial or most recent evaluations of the student; the student ’s language and communications needs; and th e student’s need for assistive technology devices and services. The IEP establishes the rationale for the pupil ’s educational placement, serves as the basis for program implementation, and complies with the mandates se t forth in N.J.A.C. 6A:14 -1.1 to - 10.2. The Act, h owever, leaves the interpretation of FAPE to the courts. See Ridgewood Bd. of Educ. v. N.E. , 1 72 F.3d 238, 247 (3d Cir. 1999). In Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 203, 102 S. Ct. 3034, 3049, 73 L. Ed. 2d 690, 710 (1982), the United States Supreme Court held that a state provides a handicapp ed child with FAPE if it provides personalized

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 135 instruction with sufficient support services to permit the c hild to benefit educationally from that instruction. The Court reasoned that the Act was intended to bring previously excluded handicapped children into the public education systems of the states and to require the states to adopt procedures that would re sult in individualized consideration of and instruction for each child. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 102 S. Ct. at 3042, 73 L. Ed. 2d at 701 The Act did not, however, impose upon the states any greater substantive educational standard than would be necessa ry to make such access to public education meaningful. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192, 102 S. Ct. at 3043, 73 L. Ed. 2d at 703. In support of this limita tion, the Court quoted Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania , 334 F. Supp. 1257 (ED Pa. 1971) and 343 F. Sup p. 279 (1972), and Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866 (DC 1972). Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192, 102 S. Ct. at 3043 - 44, 73 L. Ed. 2d at 703. The Court reasoned that these two cases wer e the impetus of the Act; that these two c ases held that handicapped children must be given access to an adequate education; and that neither of thes e two cases purported any substantive standard. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192–93, 102 S. Ct. at 3043–44, 73 L. Ed. 2d at 703–04. In addition, the Court noted that avai lable funds need only be expended “equitably” so that no child is entirely excluded. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 193, 102 S. Ct. at 3044, 73 L. Ed. 2d at 704, n.15. Indeed, the Court commented that “the furnishing of every special service necessar y to maximize e ach handicapped child’s potential is . . . further than Congress intended to go. ” Rowley, 458 U.S. at 199, 102 S. Ct. at 3047, 73 L. Ed. 2d at 707. Therefore, the inquiry is whether the IEP is “reasonably calculated” to enable the child to receive educational benefits. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206 –07, 102 S. Ct. at 3051, 73 L. Ed. 2d at 712. The Board will have satisfied the requirements of law by providing B.S. with personalized instruction and suf ficient support services “as are necessary to permit [him] ‘to benefit’ from the instruction. ” G.B. v. Bridgewater -Raritan Reg’l Bd. of Educ. , 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15671 (D.N.J. Feb. 27, 2009) (citing Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 102 S. Ct. at 3042, 7 3 L. Ed. 2d at 701). The IDEA does not require th e B oard to maximize B.S. ’s potential or provide him the best education possible. Instead, the

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 136 IDEA requires a school district to provide a basic floor of opportunity. Carlisle Area Sch. v. Scott P. , 62 F. 3d 520, 533 –34 (3d Cir. 1995). But an IEP must pr ovide meaningful access to education and confer some educational benefit upon the child. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192, 102 S. Ct. at 3043, 73 L. Ed. 2d at 703. To meet its obligation to deliver FAPE, a school district must offer an IEP that is reasonably calc ulated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances. Endrew F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist., 580 U.S. (2017);137 S.Ct. 988; 197 LEd 2d 335. “The educational oppo rtunities provided by our public school systems undoubtedly differ from student to student, depending upon a myriad of factors that might affect a pa rticular student's ability to assimilate information presented in the classroom.” Rowley, 458 U.S. at 198, 102 S. Ct. at 3047, 73 L. Ed. 2d at 707. The Rowley Court recognized that measuring educational benefit is a fact -sensitive, highly individualized inquiry, and that “[i]t is clear that the benefits obtainable by children at one end of the spectrum will d iffer dramatically from those obtainable by childre n at the other end, with infinite variation in between. ” Rowley, 458 U.S. at 202, 102 S. Ct. at 3049, 73 L. Ed. 2d at 709. Based upon the testimony and documentary evidence, I CONCLUDE that the June 2018 , IEP proposed by the District offered B.S. a FAPE with the opportunity for meaningful educational benefit and progress appropriate in light of B.S. ’s circumstances, within the least restrictive environment. I CONCLUDE that the program offered B.S. by the District constituted FAPE as that term is define d b y la w. A r eview of the evidence reveals that B.S. steadil y progressed in his educational progr am, and that the CST regularly monitored and adjusted his program in an ongoing effort to personalize his instruction and address his educational needs. Scho ol personnel testified convincingly as to B.S. ’s progress, and the burden of proof and production rests with the Board. N.J.S.A. 18A:46-1.1

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 137 The IDEA a lso includes a mainstreaming requirement requiring education in the “least restrictive environment.” 20 U.S.C.A. § 1412(a)(5) mandates that [t]o the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private instituti ons or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, sep arate s chooling, or other removal of children wi th disabilities from the regular educational envir onment occurs only when the nature or severity of the d isability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. The law describes a continuum of placement options, r anging from mainstreaming in a regular public school se tting as least restrictive, to enrollment in a residential private school as most restrictive. 34 C.F. R. § 300.115 ( 2015); N.J.A.C. 6A:14-4.3. Federa l regulations further require that placement must be “as close as possible to the child ’s home. ” 34 C.F.R . § 300.116(b)(3) (2015); N.J.A.C. 6A:14 -4.2; Oberti v. Clementon Bd. of Educ., 789 F. Supp. 1322 (D.N.J. 1992). Courts in this Circuit have interp reted this mainstreaming requirement as mandating education in the least restrictive environment that wil l provide meaningful educational benefit. “The least restrictive environment is the one that, to the g reatest extent possible, satisfactorily educates disabled children together with children who are not disabled, in the same school the disabled child wou ld attend if the child were not disabled.” Carlisle Area Sch. v. Scott P. , 62 F.3d 520, 535 (3d Cir. 1 995), cert. den. sub. nom., Scott P. v. Carlisle Area Sch. Dist. , 517 U.S. 1135, 116 S. Ct. 1419, 134 L. Ed. 2d 544 (1996).

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 138 The IEF School is B.S. ’s home school and is the least restrictive environment that will provide B.S. a meaningful educational ben efit. The evaluations conducted in 2017 revealed among other things that B.S. had diffic ulty with maintaining focus in class, pragmatics, social skills, fine motor skills, handwriting skills, positioning when sitting in a chair and oral expression. As a result of the evaluations, B.S. was cla ssified as “Other Health Impaired ” because it was determined that his ADHD and ASD were impacting him in the classroom setting. He was appropriately placed in the general education class with in class supports for reading/language arts, math, science and social studies. He was also provided pull out sup plementary instruction in reading/language arts and also received OT and was in the social skills group. Due to the demonstrative progress he made over the 2017 -2018 (fourth grade) school year, the IEP offered for the 2018-2019 (fifth grade) academic year, contained many of the same services and supports with some modifications. It provided services and accommodations tailored to his unique needs and set measureable goals and benchmarks based upon his individual abilities and intellectual capabilities. Parents who unilaterally withdraw their child from public school and place him in a private school without consent from the school district “do so at their own f inancial risk.” School Comm. of Burlington v. Mass. Dep ’t of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 374 (1985). They may be entitled to reimbursement for the costs of their unilateral private placement only if a court finds that the proposed IEP was inappropriate and that the private pla cement was appropriate under the IDEA. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii); N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.10(b).

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 139 When a court examines whether a district has provided FAPE, the appropriateness of an IEP is not determined by a comparison between the priv ate school unilaterally chosen by parents and the program proposed by the District. S.H. v. State-Operated Sch. Dist. of Newark , 336 F.3d 260, 271 (3d Cir. 2003). Rather, the pertinent inquiry is whether the IEP proposed by the District offered FAPE with the opportunity for significant learning and meaningful educational benefit within the LRE . G.B. and D.B. ex rel J.B. v. Bridgewater -Raritan Reg’l Bd. of Educ., EDS 4075-06, Final Decision (June 13, 2007), http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/. Upon a finding that the District provided FAPE, the appropria teness of the private school program is irrelevant. H.W. and J.W. ex rel A.W. v. Highland Park Bd. of Educ. , 108 Fed. Appx. 731, 734 (3d Cir. 2004). The District bears the burden of proof by the pr eponderance of the competent and credible evidence that i t has provided a FAPE to B.S. in the least restrictive environment. N.J.S.A. 18A:46 -1.1. In this case, the District has proven by a preponderance of the competent and credible evidence that the IEP proposed by the District offered B.S. a FAPE with the opportunity for meaningful educational benefit appropriate in light of B.S. ’s circumstances, within the least restrictive environment. To the extent that I have concluded that the District has prov ided a FAPE to B.S., the appro priateness of a placement at the Flex School is irrelevant. Child Find Claim Petitioners also allege claims against the District arising from the requirement in Federal Law that local public -school districts locate and id entify children in need of special education services. Known as “child find, ” the requirements of 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(3)(A) provide for the implementation of policies and procedures designed to ensure that “[a]ll children with disabilities residing in the State, . . . re gardless of th e severity of their disabilities, an d who are in need of special e ducation and related services, are identified, located and evaluated. . . ” See also: 34 C.F.R. §300.111; N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.3.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 140 Respondent had a continuing obli gation under the IDEA to iden tify and evaluate students reasonabl y suspected of having a disabi lity. P.P. ex rel. Michael P. v. West Chester Area Sch. Dist. , 585 F.3d 727, 738 (3d Cir. 2009). But case law interpreting this obligation has recognized that it is not, and cannot be, the intent of the law that school districts locate and service each a nd every struggling student. The courts have recognized that “the IDEA is not an absolute liability statute and the ‘child find’ provision does not ensure that every child with a disability will be found. ” J.S. v Scarsdale Un ion Free Sch. Dist. , 826 F. Su pp. 2d 635, 660(S.D.N.Y. 2011), quoting A.P. v. Woodstock Bd. of Educ., 572 F. Supp. 2d 221 (D.C. Ct. 2008). The courts have moreover recognized that where a di sability is not clear, the st udent or their parents have some obligation to bring their concern s to the school district ’s attention. See e.g. B.J. v River Vale Bd. of Educ. , EDS 1335 -06, Final Decision (June 19, 2007) http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/>. Petitioners argume nt that the District failed to meet its obligations to timely identify B.S. as a special education student is not persuasive. B.S. progressed in kindergarten and first grade and had no academic or social issues that would have triggered the need for a 504 Plan. At the end of first grade, upon receipt of additional m edical documentation and request by the petitioners for the development of a 504 Plan, the 504 Committee met for an eligibility determination which resulted in t he development of a 504 Plan for implementation in the 2015 -2016 school year (second grade). The 504 Plan remained in place through second grade and for most of the 2016 -2017 (third grade) academic year. Of note, it was revisited in September 2016, and amended. In December 2016, the petitioners requested that B.S. be referred to the CST to determine his eligibility which occurred in January 2017. Evaluations were conducted and B.S. was found eligible for special education and related services and an IEP was developed in April 2017 and immediately implemented.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 141 At all times, the District was responsive and acted appropriately. Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that the District has met its “child find” obligations set forth in the IDEA in identifying and cla ssifying B.S. as a student in need of spec ial education and related services. I further CONCLUDE that the petitioners are not entitled to reimbursement for the costs incurred for their experts prior to B.S.’s referral to the CST. ORDER Based on the foregoing, the due-process petition is DISMISSED. This decision is final pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(1)(A) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.514 (2019) and is appealable by filing a complaint and bringing a civil action either in the Law Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey or in a district court of the United States. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2); 34 C.F.R. § 300.516 (2019). If the parent or adult s tudent feels that this decision is not being fully implemented with respect to program or services, this co ncern shou ld be communicated in writing to the Directo r, Office of Special Education Programs. September 9, 2019 DATE TAMA B. HUGHES, ALJ Date Received at Agency Date Mailed to Parties: TBH/dm

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 142 APPENDIX Witnesses For Petitioners: J.S. Theodore Petti, M.D. Tatyana Elleseff Erik Dranoff, Ph.D. Thomas Gavor Sheila Allen-Smith For Respondent: Amy Berger Linda Flora Jennifer Stetz Shaune Aileen Casazza Bernadette Szenasy (f/k/a Van Pelt) Meghan Deutsch Michell Ritter-Lodato Exhibits For Petitioners: P-1 June 19, 2013, letter from Stuart Isralowitz, Ph.D. to Armand Lamberti P-2 Email from Armand Lamberti to J.S. P-3 December 20, 2013, letter from US Department of Education to Dr. Jim Delisle P-4 Email from J.S. to Lori Alhanti P-5 Email exchange between J.S. and Lori Alhanti P-6 Email from J.S. to Maggie Silver

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 143 P-7 Email exchange between J.S. and Lori Alhanti P-8 Email from J.S. to J.S. forwarding Email from Lori Alhanti P-9 Email exchange Between J.S. and Lori Alhanti P-10 Email from J.S. to Lori Alhanti P-11 Grade history P-12 Email Exhange between J.S. and Lori Alhanti P-13 Email from Lori Alhanti to J.S. P-14 Email from J.S. to Lori Alhanti P-15 Email from J.S. to Stuart Isralowitz, Ph.D. P-16 Email exhange between J.S. and Lori Alhanti P-17 Psychological Evaluation by Howard Paul, Ph.D. P-18 Curriculum Vitae of Howard A. Paul, Ph.D. P-19 May 29, 2015, letter from Howard Paul, Ph.D. to Armand Lamberti P-20 June 1, 2015, letter from J.S. and J.S. to Armand Lamberti P-21 June 10, 2015, 504 Team Eligibility Determination P-22 504 Plan P-23 June 15, 2015, 504 Evaluation Summary & Determination of Eligibility P-24 Email from Lori Alhanti to J.S. & J.S. P-25 B.S. Grade 1 Report Card P-26 2015-2016 504 Plan P-27 Email from J.S. to Armand Lamberti P-28 Email from Armand Lamberti to J.S. P-29 Email from J.S. to Armand Lamberti P-30 Conner’s Abbreviated Teacher Rating Scale P-31 November 2015, 504 Plan Accommodation Plan Summary P-32 Email from J.S. to Dr. Howard Paul P-33 Email exchange between J.S. and Chris Doane P-34 Email exchange between Chris Doane and Shaune Casazza P-35 RTI Student Intervention Log P-36 Student Progress Report P-37 Conner’s Abbreviated Teacher Rating Scale P-38 Gilliam Asperger’s Disorder Scale (Rater, Kathleen Guide)

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 144 P-39 Gilliam Asperger’s Disorder Scale (Rater, JS) P-40 March 8, 2016, letter from Lewis Milrod, M.D. P-41 Email from J.S. to Dr. Howard Paul P-42 June 2, 2016, letter from Derek Ressa to J.S. and J.S. P-43 Email from J.S. to Shaune Casazza P-44 RTI Student Intervention Log P-45 Arithmetic re-assessment by Dr. Howard Paul P-46 Report Card and Progress Report P-47 Comprehensive Language & Literacy Evaluation by Tatyana Elleseff, M.A., CCC-SLP P-48 Parent chronology of events P-49 Spell-2 P-50 Curriculum Vitae of Tatyana Elleseff, M.A., CCC-SLP P-51 SNAP-IV Syndrome Rating Scale P-52 2016-2017 504 Plan P-53 September 27, 2016, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Derek Ressa P-54 SNAP-IV Syndrome Rating Scale P-55 SNAP-IV Syndrome Rating Scale P-56 October 14, 2016, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Derek Ressa P-57 December 15, 2016, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Stephen M. Bacigalupo, Esq. P-58 February/March 2017 Occupational Therapy Evaluation P-59 March 9, 2017, letter from Lewis M. Milrod, M.D. P-60 March 15, 2017, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Stephen M. Bacigalupo, Esq. P-61 SD Speech/Language Evaluation by Amy Berger, M.A., CC-SLP P-62 SD Psychological Evaluation by Emilia Muglia, Psy.D. P-63 March 23, 2017, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Stephen M. Bacigalupo, Esq. P-64 SD Education Evaluation P-65 Psychiatric Evaluation Report by Theodore A. Petti, M.D. P-66 Curriculum Vitae of Theodore A. Petti, M.D., MPH

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 145 P-67 In Evidence as R-28 P-68 Occupational Therapy Evaluation by Sheila Smith Allen, M.A., OT P-69 Curriculum Vitae of Sheila Smith Allen, M.A., OT P-70 August 30, 2017, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Stephen M. Bacigalupo, Esq. P-71 September 13, 2017, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Stephen M. Bacigalupo, Esq. P-72 September 18, 2017, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Stepyhen Bacigalupo, Esq. P-73 Observation Report of Sheila Smith-Allen, M.A., OT P-74 October 26, 2017, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Stephen M. Bacigalupo, Esq. P-75 October 27, 2017, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Stephen M. Bacigalupo, Esq. P-76 November 27, 2017, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Stephen M. Bacigalupo, Esq. P-77 School Visit Observation Report of Tatyana Elleseff, M.A., CCC-SLP P-78 January 29, 2018 - Academic Enrich ment & Tale nted Programs Student Progress Report P-79 January 29, 2018, Progress Report for IEP Goals and Objectives P-80 February 15, 2018, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Stephen Bacigalupo, Esq. P-81 April 18, 2018, Progress Report for IEP Goals and Objectives P-82 April 26, 2018, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Stephen M. Bacigalupo, Esq. P-83 Psychological Evaluation of Erik Dranoff, Ph.D. P-84 Curriculum Vitae of Erik Dranoff, Ph.D. P-85 June 20, 2018, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Stephen M. Bacigalupo, Esq. P-86 June 22, 2018, Progress Report for IEP Goals and Objectives P-87 Flex School Progress Report Note P-88 Curriculum Vitae of TJ Gavor

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 146 P-89 August 15, 2018, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Marc Mucciolo, Esq. P-90 August 16, 2018, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Marc Mucciolo, Esq. P-91 Progress Note by Theordore A. Petti, M.D. P-92 August 21, 2018, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Marc Mucciolo, Esq. P-93 Flex School Quarter 1 Report Card P-94 December 14, 2018, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Joseph Castellucci, Esq. P-95 Observation Report of Tatyana Elleseff, M.A., CCC-SLP P-96 January 2, 2019, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Joseph Castellucci, Esq. P-97 “Feeling Guy” handout created by B.S. P-98 Responsible Action sheet created by B.S. P-99 January 15, 2019, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Joseph Castellucci, Esq. P-100 January 15, 2019, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Joseph Castellucci, Esq. P-101 Observation Report of Erik Dranoff, PhD. P-102 Observation Report of Sheila Smith-Allen, M.A.,OT P-103 January 16, 2019, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Joseph Castellucci, Esq. enclosing Dr. Petti’s file; Dr. Petti’s file. P-104 January 16, 2019, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Joseph Castellucci, Esq. enclosing Dr. Paul’s file; Dr. Paul’s file. P-105 January 18, 2019, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Joseph Castellucci, Esq. enclosing Tatyana Elleseff’s file; Tatyana Elleseff’s file. P-106 January 16, 2019, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Joseph Castellucci, Esq. enclosing Dr. Dranoff’s Observation Report. P-107 January 21, 2019, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Joseph Castellucci, Esq. enclosing Observation Report of Sheila Smith-Allen. P-108 January 21, 2019, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Joseph Castellucci, Esq. enclosing Sheila Smith-Allen’s file; Sheila Smith-Allen’s file. P-109 January 23, 2019, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Joseph Castellucci, Esq. enclosing Dr. Dranoff’s file; Dr. Dranoff’s file.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 147 P-110 January 24, 2019, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Joseph Castellucci, Esq. P-111 Flex School Progress Note P-112 Flex School Enrollment Contract P-113 Flex School Naples Packet P-114 Flex Teacher Certifications P-115 Documents pulled form discovery documents received from the District on January 25, 2019 P-116 Curriculum Vitae of Amy Berger P-117 Curriculum Vitae and Certifications of Bernadette T. Szenasy P-118 Curriculum Vitae and Certifications of Beth Stanton P-119 Curriculum Vitae and Certifications of Deborah D. Rizzoli P-120 Curriculum Vitae and Certifications of Derek Ressa P-121 Curriculum Vitae and Certifications of Donna Pirrone P-122 Curriculum Vitae and Certifications of Jason S. Bayly P-123 Curriculum Vitae and Certifications of Jennifer L. Grant (Stanislao) P-124 Curriculum Vitae and Certifications of Jennifer Stetz P-125 Curriculum Vitae and Certifications of Linda Kenny P-126 Curriculum Vitae and Certifications of Mary Denise Appio P-127 Curriculum Vitae and Certifications of Michelle Ritter-Lodato P-128 Curriculum Vitae and Certifications of Shaune A. Casazza P-129 Curriculum Vitae and Certifications of Sommer Engler Ott P-130 Curriculum Vitae and Certifications of Susan K. Wardell P-131 Curriculum Vitae and Certifications of Meghan Drews Deutsch P-132 Flex School 2018-2019 Q2 Report Card For Respondent: R-1 October 7, 2016, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Derek Ressa R-2 March 23, 2017, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Stephen Bacigalupo, Esq. R-3 Prehearing Order R-4 January 9, 2019, letter from Joseph Castellucci, Jr., Esq. to Lenore

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 148 Boyarin, Esq. R-5 January 11, 2019, letter from Lenore Boyarin, Esq. to Joseph Castellucci, Jr., Esq. R-6 January 25, 2019, letter from Joseph D. Castellucci, Jr., Esq. to Lenore Boyarin, Esq. R-7 January 25, 2019, letter from Joseph D. Castellucci, Jr., Esq. to Lenore Boyarin, Esq. R-8 Letter and Subpoena Duces Tecum, Dated January 30, 2019, from Joseph D. Castellucci, Jr. to Jacqui Byrne R-9 January 30, 2019, Email chain R-10 Section 504 Accommodation Plan, dated June 2015 R-11 Section 504 Accommodation Plan, dated September 2015 R-11A June 18, 2014, Neurodevelopmental Initial Evaluation R-12 Section 504 Accommodation Plan, dated September 2015 R-13 Conference outline, dated October 24, 2016 R-14 Notice regarding B.S.’s missing homework assignments R-15 Self-Evaluation by B.S. R-16 Teacher rating scales R-17 Invitation for initial identification and evaluation planning meeting, dated January 13, 2017 R-18 Initial identification and evaluation planning – proposed action, dated January 19, 2017 R-19 Correspondence enclosing evaluations from Bernadette Van Pelt to Petitioners, dated March 27, 2017 R-20 Health/Vision/Audiometric summary, dated January 19, 2017 R-21 March 24, 2017, Educational Evaluation R-22 February 28, 2017, Social Work Assessment R-23 March 3, 2017, Occupational Therapy Evaluation R-24 March 22, 2017, Psychological Evaluation R-25 March 2017, Speech/Language Evaluation R-26 Invitations to IEP meetings R-27 Request for additional assessment, dated May 22, 2017

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 09937-18 149 R-28 May 1, 2017, IEP R-29 June 14, 2018, Annual Review of IEP (Draft) R-30 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 Report Cards R-31 Report Cards 2015-2016 school years R-32 June 22, 2018, letter from Bernadette Van Pelt to J.S. and J.S. and B.S. Progress Report for IEP Goals and Objectives 2017-2018 R-33 NJ PARCC score reports R-34 Speech Language data R-35 Related services sign in sheets R-36 Social Skills attendance forms R-37 Assessments for independent reading levels R-38 Scot Foresman Baseline Group Test R-39 Reading logs R-40 Word identification assessment R-41 Communication logs R-42 Reflection questions R-43 Writing samples R-44 Communication logs from Mr. Bayley’s class R-46 Work samples R-47 2016 Emails R-48 2017 Emails R-49 2018 Emails R-50 Curriculum Vitae’s R-51 Supplement to subpoena to Jacqueline Byrne dated January 31, 2019 R-52 WIST Score Reports R-53 January 25, 2019, Email Chain R-54 Supplemental report, dated February 12, 2019 R-55 January 29, 2019, Observation Report