TL and AL obo SL v North Hunterdon/Voorhees Reg BOE | Case 08941-19 | 2021-05-14

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer State of New Jersey OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW FINAL DECISION OAL DKT. NO. EDS 08941-19 AGENCY DKT. NO. 2019-30045 T.L. AND A.L. ON BEHALF OF S.L., Petitioners, v. NORTH HUNTERDON/ VOORHEES REGIONAL BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent. _____________________________ Beth A. Callahan, Esq., for petitioners, (Callahan & Fusco, LLC, attorneys) Teresa L. Moore , Esq. , for respondent ( Riker, Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti, LLP, attorneys) Record closed: April 1, 2021 Decided: May 14, 2021 BEFORE JOHN S. KENNEDY, ALJ: STATEMENT OF THE CASE On June 5 , 2019 , petitioners, filed f or due process seeking an out of district placement, extended school year (ESY), and transportation.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 08941-19 2 PROCEDURAL HISTORY The matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where it was filed on July 3, 2019 , as a contested case. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15 and N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13. The hearing dates that were originally scheduled in this matter had to be adjourned due to the CO VID-19 pandemic. Dur ing the COVID -19 sh utdown, the district held an Individualized Education Pro gram (IEP) meeting to propose a program for S.L. for the 2020-2021 school year. The petitioners filed an amended petition on July 29, 2020. It was agreed between the parties that the 2020 IEP would not be included in this litigation, but the F inal Order w ould apply to 2019 -2020 and the 2020 -2021 school years. A hearing was cond ucted in this matter on August 25, 2 020, August 26, 2020, September 8, 2020, October 16, 2020, and Novem ber 19, 2020. The record remained open to allow closing briefs to be submitted and additional testimony if necessary, until April 1, 2021. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The following facts were agreed upon have been submitted by both parties as factual findings pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1 -15.11. Therefore, I FIND the following as FACT: 1. S.L. was born on December 18, 2003. 2. S.L. and his family live in the town of Clinton, New Jersey. 3. S.L. attended elementary school at Clinton Public School through sixth grade and received special education and related services under the disability category “autistic.” 4. On July 7, 2015, petitioners filed a petition for due process against the Clinton Public School District (“Clinton”).

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 08941-19 3 5. After several days of hearing, petitioners and Clinton executed a Stipulation of Settlement that was incorporated in a final order entered by the Honorable Joan Bedrin Murray, A.L.J. on February 26, 2016. 6. In the summer of 2016, S.L. started attending Princeton Child Development Institute (“PCDI”) during the ESY as placed by Clinton. 7. S.L. attended seventh and eighth grades at PCDI as placed by Clinton. 8. After eighth grade, effective July 1, 2018, S.L. became eligible to attend high school in respondent’s regional high school district. 9. In high school S.L . has continued to be eligible to receive special education and related services under the disability category “autistic”. 10. For the 2018-2019 school year, respondent offered S.L. an IEP, dated May 23, 2018, that included an in-district placement. (J-3.) 11. Petitioners rejected t he May 23, 2018 , IEP. On June 6, 2018, they filed a petition for due process against respondent. A hearing occurred on December 3, 2018, and December 4, 2018. 12. On May 2, 2019, petitioners and respondent entered into a Stipulation of Settlement that was incorporated in a final order entered by the Honorable Patricia M. Kerins, A.L.J. on May 9, 2019. (J-5.) 13. On May 20, 2019, respondent offered S.L. an IEP that offered an in -district placement. (J-2.) 14. Petitioners rejected the May 20, 2019, IEP. On June 4, 20 19, they filed a petition for due process against respondent.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 08941-19 4 15. The case was scheduled for a hearing on Decembe r 16, 2019. That day the parties discussed and agreed to settlement terms subject to approval of th e Board of Education, and the Board did not approve the settlement. TESTIMONY Jennifer Komoroski Ms. Komoroski is a school psychologist employed by North Hunterdon -Voorhees Regional High School . She case manages approximately fifty students between th e ages of fourteen and twenty-one. She has a d egree in psychology and a master ’s degree in educational and school psychology. Ms. Komoroski was admitted by the court as an expert in school psychology and an expert in educating students with autism. It was Ms. Komoroski’s opinion that the placement offered by the district in May 2019, at Voorhees High Scho ol Adult Transition Community (ATC) program would be the least restrictive placement for S.L. sinc e educating students in their public high school allows access to sp ecialized programming and typical ly developing peers. Komoroski first observed S.L. at PCDI when he was in eight h grade. Based on this observation, she felt that the district could appropriately educate him. The ATC program at Voorhees is an autism program which is broken up into a vari ety of classrooms, based on grade level, as well as needs o f students. The program was developed in coordination with the distri cts Board Certified Behavior A nalyst (BCBA), occupational and physical therapists as well as nursing staff so that it is accessible to all students and provides opportunities for students to take sensory breaks during the day. All ATC students have IEPs, and each student is monitored by the teacher and other staff in the classroom. IEP goals are updated at least annu ally. The program was developed t o help prepare students transition into their adult lives. Komoroski assisted in the development of S.L. ’s IEP. The May 2019, IEP listed S.L.’s cla sses as special class, Autism, English, Math Science, Socia l Studies, Employment Orientation 1 and Physica l Education (PE). (J-2.) All classes except PE were intended to be taught by a certified special education teacher. S.L.’s IEP included a personal aide to help facilitate the transition into the program a nd behavioral

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 08941-19 5 intervention service s and consul tation. All aides receive crisis prevention and intervention (CPI) training which is a de -escalation strategy for students. Classroom teachers use applied behavior analysis (ABA) principles in t heir instruc tion including discrete trial training. The utilize whole group instruc tion and the program includes two monthly community-based trips which have included trips to the grocery store and lo cal restaurants. These trips are important to familiarize students with their community. An ESY program was offered for S.L. His parents visited the ESY program in the summer of 2019 an d met the teacher who would ha ve been teachin g S.L. in the fall of 2019. No behavior plan was included in the May 2019, IEP as Komoroski did not see any difficult behaviors when she observed S.L. at PCDI nor were any difficult behaviors reported to her. The IEP did not include what supports were avail able to families and parents of students in the program. Komoroski believes that S.L. has unique needs, but those needs can be met in the district ’s program. It is her opinion that the community experience and interacting with same -aged general education n eurotypical peers are valuable for S.L. At the time the IEP team offered the program, Ms. Komoroski had only observed S.L. at PCDI for two hours. An IEP was offered for S.L. when he was in eighth grade for his ninth-grade year. Ms. Komoroski had information from the district, including what was his, at the time, current IEP that his previous case manager provided to her as well. Ms. Komoroski agreed that the amount o f time a student is going to receive for each service should be in the IEP. Home programming was not offered in S.L.’s May 2019 , IEP. (J-2.) Ms. Komoroski agreed since S. L. started at PCDI, he received intensive parent training and home programming. At the May 2019 , IEP meeting, no one from PCDI felt it was a good idea to transition S.L. to the district. No one from PCDI was invited to the district to visit their program. The only interfering behavior reported to Komoroski by PCDI was voca l stereotypy. She had all the documents she needed to develop S.L.’s IEP and agreed that PCDI provided her with the information she requested. S.L. has made progress in all the areas that his goals and objectives address and has made meaningful progress at PCDI. PCDI documented that progress through data collection, and they have shared

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 08941-19 6 that progress with the district. S.L.’s IEP, J-2, includes one hour a week, with the BCBA working directly with S.L., which is a twenty-nine-hour reduction in BCBA servi ces. According to Ms. Komoroski, the two hours of BCBA services that are in the IEP was the initial proposal for his transition. The PE classes proposed in S.L.’s IEP could have between six to eight students, or up to sixteen students. This a combination of regular and special education students. There are no goals or objectives for S.L. in the electives and areas of interest section although the district was sugge sting piano class. The maximum number of students that would be in the English, Math, Sc ience, Socia l Studies and Employment classes proposed would be nine. Those courses are not taught in an ABA format. S.L.’s IEP does not indicate what type of ABA instruction he would receive nor how it would be taught. There is no behavior-modification plan or specific reinforcement system outlined in S.L.’s IEP. Ms. Komoroski recommended transitioning S.L. by attending PCDI three days a week, and the district two d ays a week. There are no goals and objectives regarding his transition in the IEP. Carolyn Baumann, BCBA Ms. Bauman is the district behaviorist . (R-2.) She has held that position for three years and has been with the district for eight years. She became a BCA in 2014 and her responsibilities include managing, creating, updating, changin g as necessa ry, all the behavior intervention plans , to the student’s specific plans in their IEP. She is also re sponsible to help teachers create skill acquisition programs for the st udents. Bauman trains any staff that must work with a student with a very specific behavior intervention plan. The PE teachers receive more training because of the level of students in the class. Ms. Baumann uses principals of ABA when training others a nd working with students with autism. Ms. Bauman was admitted by the court as an expert in ABA and working with students with autism. Ms. Baumann has served on S.L.’s IEP team since May 2019, and was involved in developing his May 2019, IEP. (J-2.) She helped develop goals and objectives which were based off the progress reports fro m PCDI at the time. All the goals are

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 08941-19 7 customized for S.L. Ms. Baumann observed S.L. at PCDI three times. Her April 2019, observation involved observing S.L. in the classro om and his schedules of reinforcement. (R-6.) It gave her a better understanding of what supports he was utilizing. Ms. Baumann observed S.L. on July 29, 2019, and her observation report is labeled. (R-7.) This observation was after the IEP was drafte d in May to ensure the information, she had was still accurate. Ms. Ba umann observed him a third time on September 25, 2019 . (R-8.) The IEP offers sixty minutes per week of direct service from a BCBA. Ms. Baumann based this amount of direct service and consultative services from her observations and how S.L. worked and re sponded to t he systems in place at PCDI. Ms. Baumann intended to have a consult with S.L.’s teacher in the classroom whenever a new program is introduced , with S.L. present. Every teacher in the ATC program uses ABA techniques, and S.L.’s IEP references ABA techniques. (J-2.) ABA instruction was recommended for S.L. because it is proven to be the most socia lly significant and effective treatment for individuals with autism. It is Ms. Baumann’s opinion that the district could have provided S.L. with a free appropriate public educati on ( FAPE) because “based off of students’ programs that we’ve -- that we’ve had in place and that we currently have in place, and the individual skill acquisition programs that we have, and the level of support.” (Tr. August 25, 2020, Page 210, line 24 – Page 215, Line 25). The total time Ms. Baumann observed S.L. before the IEP was drafted on May 20, 2019, was appro ximately an hour an d fifteen minutes. During that time, S.L. did not have any interfering behaviors. Ms. Baumann observed they were targeting social graces and task completion. PCDI informed her about vocal stereotypy, but she did not observe that behavior. PCDI gave her everything she asked for and Ms. Baumann agreed PCDI is a high-quality ABA program that fo llows the science and principals, and S.L. has made meaningful progress with the program. Ms. Baumann agreed that S.L. needed an aide to come to the district’s program.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 08941-19 8 At PCDI, S.L., had a contract expectation, of what was expected of him, which are so cial graces, and that he answers politely , and he was reinforced based on his program completion. Ms. Baumann did not recommend that for his IEP. She agreed that during her April 2019, observation, the contract expectation was working for S.L. Dr. Lisa Spano, BCBA Dr. Spano is currently self-employed, and her company is called MG Behavioral Consulting. (R-9.) MG Behavioral Consulting conducts evaluations and functional behavior assessments, mostly in home and in school evaluations. Dr. Spano completes approximately forty-fifty program evaluations per year, and approximately ninety percent of those program evaluations are for students with autism. She has a bac helor’s in psychology, a master’s degree in educational psychology with a concentration in clinical children and adolescents, a master’s in applied psychology, and a doctorate in clinical psychology with a concentration in developmental disabilities. (R-9.) Dr. Spano is a board-certified behavior analyst and obtained that certification in 2005. She was admitted b y the court as an expert in ABA, as a BCBA -D and evaluating adolescent students with autism. Dr. Spano was also deemed an expert in the area of clinical psychology. Dr. Spano is familiar with the program that S.L.’s local high school district offered to him for the 2019 -2020 school year. (J-2.) She observed the classroom, interviewed the staff, specifically the behaviorist, the case manager and the teacher that was part of S.L.’s program. Dr. Spano specifically observed the high school cl assroom in the ATC program. In assessing that program for S.L., Dr. Spano interviewed the staff, observe d the classroom, and reviewed his IEP. (R-10, R-11.) Dr. Spano opined that Voorhees High School can provide S.L. with a FAPE. She based this opinion off the assessment procedures that she completed, specifically, the vocational program they offer, called the employment opportunity program, the unified pee r pro gram they offer, and the community-based instruction offered. (R-10, R-11.) The vocational aspect of the ATC program assesses student interests, and they have a variety of employment opportunities. The peer program would allow S.L. to g eneralize the social skills he has learned at PCDI in a more natural setting and allow him to engage in real world

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 08941-19 9 interactions. Dr. Spano feels S.L. needs more opportunities to engage in interactions with his typical de veloping peers. The community-based program would allow S.L. to have an opportunity to practice skills they have le arned in school in a community setting. Dr. Spano observed S.L. at PCDI with his peers that have autism, and she thinks he needs to expand his access to additional peers. (R-10, R-11.) Dr. Spano observed the ATC program at Voorhees two times , approximately in October 2018, and October 2019. She wrote reports each time. (R-10, R -11.) The techniques that the district was using included discreet trial instruction, visual cues, token economies and rewards, which are “all characteristics of an Applied Behavior Analysis Program.” Dr. Spano believes the IEP offered to S.L. in May 2019, is individualized for him. (J-2.) She observed a program that could meet S.L.’s needs. She observed S.L. in the home and at the grocery store in 2018, and agai n in the hom e in 2019 , while he was completing his visual checklists. (R-10, R-11.) S.L. had a contract which listed basic behavioral goals for when he was at the grocery store. S.L.’s mother reviewed the goals on the contract before entering the grocer y store. They were basic goals such as use a friendly voice and be polite. During the parent interview, S.L.’s parents expressed that he was engaging in more unpredictable behavior in t he summer months of 2019 and that his behavior became more stable as he started back with his school schedule. S.L.’s parents communicated to Dr. Spano that they required training for S.L. to learn. S.L.’s May 2019, IEP did not include parent training, and Dr. Spano testified that ideally the parents should receive “some kind of support.” (J-2.) Dr. Spano observed S.L. at PCDI two times, once in 2018 and once in 2019. (R- 10, R -11.) PCDI has a more restrictive setting for S.L. because there are no neuro- typical p eers, there is no formal vocational program, there is no community-based instruction with his peers, and there is also the issue of no related services at PCDI. Dr. Spano believes that PCDI’s services are very limiting and she deems PCDI inappropriate for S.L.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 08941-19 10 Dr. Spano admitted that an IEP should contain all the services a student would receive, as well as the frequency and duration of those services. Dr. Spano was not aware that speech, occupational therapy and physical therapy were not offered services in S.L.’s May 2019, IEP. (J-2.) Dr. Carol Fiorile, BCBA-D Dr. Fiorile has an undergrad uate degree from St. John’s University in general education in math, grades seven through twelve. (P-33.) She has a masters from Adelphi University in spe cial. education with an area o f c oncentration in learning disabilities, and a PhD from Teachers Coll ege, Columbia University, in special education with an area of concentration in A BA. Dr. Fiorile is a doctorate -level BCBA. (P-33.) Dr. Fiorile is curren tly lice nsed in New York State as a special education teacher and a general education teacher. Dr. Fiorile has her supervisory and administrative license and she is a New York State licensed behavior analyst. (P- 33.) Dr. Fiorile had prior experience w orking i n New Jersey public s chool districts. She conducts evaluations for parents who seek her services to make determinations as to the appropriateness of programming for their child. Dr. Fiorile has approximately four clients that she works with on a monthly/weekly basis conductin g evaluations or providing direct instruction. Dr. Fiorile uses ABA when she is w orking with those students and has been involved in transitioning students from a private ABA school into a public-school program. (Tr. September 8, 2020, Page 27, line 10 – Page 32, Line 8). Dr. Fiorile has evaluated approximately 300 programs on behalf of a combination of school districts and parents. Dr. Fiorile was first involved with S.L. during fall of 2018, when she observed him in his program at PC DI. (P-34.) After her observation of S.L. at PCDI, she had the opportunity to meet with Dr. Freem an, the educational. director at PCDI to ask questions. She then went to the high school with Dr. Spano that was recommended for S.L., which was followed by a visit to S.L.’s home. Dr. Fiorile went to a supermarket to observe S.L. (P-34.) Dr. Fiorile observed the class taught by Ms. Cummins and concluded that most of the instruction would be taught in small groups rather than individual instruction. She also observed the children in the class were being prompted

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 08941-19 11 significantly, whereas when she observed S.L. at PCDI, the focus is developing his level of independence in terms of completing tasks or responding to instructional demands. She also observed that there were no behavior intervention plans in place and there was a lack of direct data collection occurring during the district’s observation. Dr. Fiorile based her opinion off both of her observations; she testified there were many similarities between both observations, and she would have to see if changes in the classroom in 2019 were different than those in 2018. (P-34.) (Tr. September 8, 2020, Page 39, Line 13 – Page 45, Line 25.) From Dr. Fiorile’s November 2019 , report, she found that S.L. has a lot of residual deficits that are consistent with children with autism. (P-36.) S.L. gets agitated and will have loud vocal protests. S.L. also engages in “property destruction” where he will swipe things off the table and toss things around the room. (P-36.) S.L. will jump up and down on his seat a lot and will repetitively obsess about different topics. Unless you treat those specific obsessions effectively, the student will be limited in their ability to appropriately engage with instructional opportunities and therefore their progress toward goals is limited. S.L. is very impacted by his autism, as he is functioning at about a second-grade level. (P-36.) He is working at an instructional level at second grade for math and around the same for reading. (P-36.) Dr. Fiorile also conducted observations of videos that were taped by PCDI in November 2019, that totaled sixty -five minutes. (Tr. September 8, 2020, Page 46, Line 1 – Page 51, Line 4.) According to Dr. Fiorile, the IEP that was proposed for S.L. from the district is not a sufficient program. (J-2). She disagrees with Ms. Ba uman’s statement in the IEP that S.L. does not need a behavior intervention plan because one was not provided to her by PCDI. The IEP also ha s no mention o f parent training or counseling which has been an integral component of S.L.’s program at PCDI according to Dr. Fiorile. S.L.’s IEP was also missing a transition plan. (J-2.) There was a schedule incorporated which stated S.L. was to attend PCDI either two or thr ee days a week, and Voorhees High School either two or three days a week, but no plan on how S.L. was to transition into his new school. (J-2.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 08941-19 12 Dr. Fiorile opined that S.L. was not ready for a less restrictive environment based on her observations, as he did not have the pr erequisite skills for such. Dr. Fiorile had concerns about the size of the high school he was transitioning to, as he was coming from a very small setting, to a very large one. (J-2.) (Tr. September 8, 2020, Page 52, Line 2 – Page 57, Line 25.) Dr. Fior ile observed the district program in September 2019. (P-36.) She observed the teacher and the five students tha t were present. Dr. Fiorile was informed that the lesson was going on for a month and a half and most of the students were not able to answer the questions. Therefore, it is Dr. Fiorile’s opinion that the students are not le arning to a mastery level of criterion which is extremely important in an ABA program. (P-36.) Dr. Fiorile observed Ms. Baumann having trouble getting a student to make eye contact with her. She also observed a boy who was emitting “motor stereotypies” such as wiggling his fingers and things under his desk; however, the teachers could not see that. At PCDI, a BCBA is always in the room with S.L. Dr. Fiorile feels that i s necessary because his problem behaviors, and the protocols at PCDI are extremely systematic in terms of their behavior intervention techniques. (Tr. September 8, 2020, Page 64, Line 9 – Page 70, Line 19. S.L.’s IEP designated a personal. aide. (J-2.) The individual aide would require training and expertise to get S.L. around the b uilding and responding appropriately to his behaviors. Dr. Fiorile was concerned after her observations because there were inappropriate behaviors that were not being addressed in the district. (P-36.) Dr. Fiorile testified that the student should receive one hour of supervision by a BCBA for every five hours of instruction. (P-36.)(J-2.) S.L.’s IEP included th at he would receive one hour per week with BCBA supervision specifically for him. (J-2). Dr. Fiorile opined that what was offered to S.L. was not an intensive ABA program, therefore, it is inappropriate for S.L. (P-36.) (Tr. September 8, 2020, Page 64, Line 9 – Page 70, Line 19.) At PCDI, S.L. has a reinforcement system that travels around with him the entire day, and he gets clicks for appropriate behaviors. There was no reinforcement system

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 08941-19 13 set forth in S.L.’s IEP. (J-2.) Dr. Fiorile found it concerning that a reinforcement system was no t in the IEP be cause a reinforcement system is usually written in a behavior intervention plan. S.L.’s IEP did not contain a sufficient transition plan. (J-2.) The IEP contained that the district would conduct baseline assessments once S.L. transitions into the district. Dr. Fiorile did not recommend for S.L. to be exposed to neurotypical peers. During Dr. Fiorile’s visit to ATC, she saw the staff sitting with the students helping them with their work. Dr. Fiorile te stified she observed one of the tea chers in the ATC program using a tally counter. (P-34.) (Tr. September 8, 2020, Page 95, Line 1 – Page 103, Line 4) S.L.’s mom has a lot of good skills; however, she does not think she knows how to implement new programs. Therefore, she needs to continue to work on new skills that S.L. needs to work towards in establishing independence in the home and community. Dr. Fiorile observed S.L.’s mom implementing specific programs that she had been trained to implement. Dr. Fiorile does not know, at this point in time, when it woul d be appropriate for S.L.’s parents to stop parent training. (Tr. September 8, 2020, Page 127, line 4 – Page 134, Line 23.) Dr. Fiorile does not feel the goals in the IEP will be implemented because these goals are meant for a very small group instruction or one- to- one instruction. (J-2.) She opines that the only effective way, for some of the goals in J-2 to be delivered is through one-on-one teaching. If the teacher does not know how to run discrete trial instruction, these goal’s will likely not be implemented. (Tr. September 8, 2020, Page 145, Line 3 – Page 150, Line 25.) A.L. A.L. is S.L.’s mother, and S.L. is her biological child. She first noticed developmental issues with S.L. when he was a baby. S.L. was diagnosed with autism in early 2007, he was three years old at the time. Before PCDI, A.L. could not t each S.L. an ything and she did not know how to make him quiet and attentive. S.L. had a lot of interfering behaviors which caused a

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 08941-19 14 disconnect with A.L. When S.L. would get upset, he w ould take h is nails and scratch his face or rake his nails across his arm. S.L. started PCDI the summer of 2016, and he was going into seventh grade. (Tr. September 8, 2020, Page 179, Line 1 - Page 184, Line 6.) Within the first few months at PCDI, S.L. was quiet at a desk and following directions. A.L. was able to go in to the schoo l once a week and watch S.L. with his teachers for parent training. The teachers would teac h A.L. about his program. The teachers would also do home visits. A.L. would watch the teachers talk to S.L. and how they use his motivational system. During a ho me visit, if A.L. was having trouble with S.L. during dinner, the teachers would observe S.L. at dinner and come back and implement a system and teach A.L. how to do it. A.L. signs off on all of S.L.’s programs at PCDI and she gets a copy of the program. (Tr. September 8, 2020, Page 184, line 9 – Page 187, Line 25.) A.L. was first contacted by North Hunterdon-Voorhees in approximately December 2017, about S.L. becoming a p art of the school d istrict. She and her husband visited Voorhees in D ecember and met with the assis tant principal and observed two different classrooms. A.L. asked to see each student’s motivational systems and they all had the same system at their desk, which is not individualized. A.L. did not see a lot of data be ing ta ken. A.L. witnes sed a lot of verbal prompting which is something S.L. became dependent on in his elementary years. She did not see any behavior-specific praise. PCDI taught A.L. to give behavior-specific praise to S.L., as it was something he needed. A.L. also witnessed t he unified peers in the classrooms, where they would sit next to the students and prompt them. A.L. does not feel this would benefit S.L. (Tr. September 8, 2020, Page 188, line 1 – Page 195, Line 1.) A.L. is not concerned that S.L. does not have exposure to typical peers at PCDI. S.L. has a typical brother, cousins, and other friends. S.L. had experience with typical peers in elementary and middle school and he did not learn any social skills form those experiences. S.L. does not gain any social skills from less structured interactions. S.L. learns by having things broken down and explicitly taught.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 08941-19 15 In 2019, A.L. was given an IEP proposal. (J-2.) Prior to the meeting, the district did not discuss a transition plan for S.L. with A.L. A.L. and T.L. went to o bserve the district program in the summer of 2019. A.L. did not feel confident in this program, as she described what sh e saw as terrifying. (Tr. September 8, 2020, Page 195, Line 7 – Page 206, Line 25.) A.L. feels parent training is important because S.L. is changing, and she does not know how to alter his programs or motivational. systems. S.L. recently had to get an electroencephalogram (EEG) and a Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) because he started having seizures. The PCDI staff assisted her, over zoom, on how to practice sitting still and reward him for doing so, in preparation of his MRI. He also had to learn how to p ut a mask on. A.L. had a motivational system in place for S.L. to stay quiet and attend to a movie. The home programmer and the BCBA would come for home visits, but sometimes only the BCBA would come. (P-21, P-42, P- 43.) A.L. has been trained to use behavior contracts, which included a set of rules for S.L. to follow. (Tr. September 8, 2020, Page 207, Line 8 – Page 213, Line 11.) A.L. feels she still needs training, as she does not know how to react to some of S.L.’s behaviors. The program that was offered for S.L. at PCDI this year included a BCBA being available to him all day. When the school went to remote learning, A.L. saw how fragile his progress is because of how he was learning on the computer versus how he was at PCDI. S.L. was slamming t he monitor trying to get away from the computer. Overtime, S.L. has gotten better with virtual learning, and parent training continued throughout the lockdown. S.L. still gets very upset and does not necessarily know how to calm down. He will also hit and scratch. Without a plan, S.L. would not know how to fill his time. He would either pace around or rip apart leaves outside. (Tr. September 8, 2020, Page 213, Line 16 – Page 218, Line 5.) Dr. Amanda Freeman, BCBA-D Dr. Freeman has a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Maryland, a master’s degree in applied behavior analysis from Caldwell University, and a Ph.D. from Caldwell University. (P-27.) Dr. Freeman is a BCBA and has a certificate to

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 08941-19 16 provide BCBA supervision. (P-27.) Her entire career has been devoted to usi ng applied ABA with children with autism. (P-27.) From 2007 to 2021, she worked at PCDI as a home programmer data analyst and then moved on to a trainer position where she was responsible for training staff, developing goals and objectives for students, and training staff to provide home programming. (P-27.) In Dr. Freeman’s current role, she is responsible for training staff in ABA. Dr. Freeman collaborates with trainers who are responsible for generating goals an d obj ectives for the student’s IEPs. Dr. Freeman helped develop goals for approximately twen ty to thirty students per year for the past eight years. (Tr. October 16, 2020, Page 8, line 1 – Page 12, Line 15.) Dr. Freeman was determined by the court to be an expert in ABA, on the development of goals and objectives for students with autism using ABA, and on the evaluation of programming for students using ABA. (Tr. October 16, 2020, Page 12, Lines 17 -21)(Tr. October 16, 2020, Page 17, Lines 15-16.) Dr. Freeman first met S.L. when he arrived at PCDI in 2016. When S.L. first arrived to PCDI, he was disengaged, did not make eye contact, and had difficulty attending to tasks that were presented to him. Dr. Freeman also observed S.L. in his prior district pr ogram at Clinton Public Schools. There was no social interactions with peers (at Clinton), and he was very disengaged. When S.L. arrived to PCDI, they collected data in fi ve-minute intervals and score d him on whether he was engaged in non-contextual vocalizations and that data was 10 0 percent initially, meaning there was at least one non-contextual vocalization every five minutes. It took approximately six months to get that number near zero by simultaneously teaching many pro -social responses to replace those behaviors. Those behaviors int erfered with S.L.’s ability to learn. At PCDI, every student is assigned a data analyst and a home programmer. You must hav e a bachelor’s degree to work at PCDI, but there is no specific educational background you mu st ha ve to be a trainer at PCDI. In S.L.’s module, Ms. Lagatic Kassalow, BCBA, serves as the trainer and Dr. Freeman serves as the consultant. (Tr. October 16, 2020, Page 18, Line 19 – Page 21, Line 12.) During the 2019/2020 school year, before COVID-19, S.L. required a one to one when he first started. Throughout the school year, S.L. improve d where he did not always require a staff member to be standing next to him. They started to introduce

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 08941-19 17 S.L. to some small group instruction within the last school year. S.L. has a history of displaying aggression, however, Dr. Freeman noted that they have been able to maintain that at relatively low levels using immediate feedback and designing an instructional program that suits his needs. S.L.’s curriculum need s to be h ighly individualized and tailored to him with a lot of opportunities for him to respond and stay engaged. PCDI has been invo lved in the transition of st udents from PCDI to less restrictive environments. Dr. Freeman opined that S.L. is not ready to tr ansition to a less restrictive en vironment. No one spoke to her or anyone else at PCDI about whether S .L. was ready to transition. A few prerequisite skills D r. Freeman finds are necessary for that transition are maintaining low levels of disruptive behavior, general direction following , a nd whether the student needs immediate feedback pertaining t o responses. (Tr. October 16, 2020, P age 22, Line 10 – Page 25, Line 17.) In spring of 2019, S.L. did not display responses at the criterion level for him to transition into a less restrictive environment. They have seen more erratic behavior out of S.L. be cause of his recent seizure activity, so they redesigned some of the systems in place to address those behaviors. The IEP that was proposed to S.L. is not appropriate for him because there is only t wo hours of behavioral intervention services per week, and S.L.’s instructors need to be trained to deliver behavioral int erventions for every portion of his school day and staff receive training on that dail y. (J-2.) Dr. Freeman is not concerned that PCDI does not have typical developing peers because she believ es S.L. does not have the prerequisite skills to learn from typical developing peers. For students to really learn from typically developing peers, there must be some level of observational learning and modeling. There is no data that suggests that this will be a beneficial teaching strategy for S.L. (Tr. October 16, 2020, Page 25, Line 18 - Page 30, Line 14.) Dr. Freeman asserts family training is extremely relevant to S.L.’s program and his progress. Parent training benefits S.L. at home, and it facilitates his learning at school. Dr. Freeman was present when the district’s BCBA visited PCDI prior to the May 2019, IEP. She asked about whether disruptive behavior occurred, and she observed the motivational system they had in place. S.L.’s May 2019, IEP did not have a behavior intervention plan (J-2) or motivational system or list any specific behavioral supports. Dr. Freem an explained behavioral supports differ from behavioral in terventional plans because behavioral interventional plans are specifically designed to reduce behaviors while behavioral supports work to maintain behaviors when they are in a low point. Dr.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 08941-19 18 Freeman feels that taking away the behavior systems that are in place would likely result in an increase in disruptive behaviors. S.L.’s autism still significantly impacts every area of his life. (Tr. October 16, 2020, Page 36, Line 5 – Page 42, Line 14.) Dr. Freeman was concerned about the district’s plan to essentially remove S.L. from activities he did not understand. In a group , S.L. can learn basic and rote concepts, bu t what he can do effectively in a group setting is limited. Ms. Lagatic Kassalow, the BCBA, spends appro ximately eighty percent of her day in S.L.’s module. There are five students within the module, a nd three to four additional staff members, one of whom is also a BCBA. Dr. Freeman was concerned that S.L.’s IEP included English, Geometry, Chemistry, American History and unified PE, but there were no goals that corresponded to each of those areas. (J-2.) Dr. Freeman believes S.L. has appropriate peers to learn from at PCDI. S.L. has made the most progress with the use of language. Dr. Freem an has seen S.L. walk through the hallway independently to go complete his self-care routine without a teacher right be hind him. The peers in S.L.’s module typically all have stronge r vocal repertoires than he does and tend to learn academic content quicker than he does. (Tr. October 16, 2020, Page 53, Line 23 – Page 60, Line 23.) Dr. Freeman attended S.L.’s May 2020 , IEP meeting via Zoom, and S.L.’s May 2019, IEP meeting at PCDI. S.L.’s progress reports are sent to the district, and during their o bservations, PCD I tho roughly discusses all procedures in place, as well as motivational systems. PCDI supplied its written programs for S.L. to the school district. When S.L. has incidents of aggressive behavior or tantrums, i t is maintained within certain programs, whi ch is then summarized within the prog ress reports sent to the school district. S.L. had a serious incident of aggression in August 2019. S.L. was throwing materials and there was aggression towards a peer. The incident did not result in an injury and they do not feel the need to alert the district each time this occurs. There was an observation by the district soon after the incident. PCDI documents incidents of aggression, ho wever, not all incidents are documented in the reports which are sent to the school district. (Tr. October 16, 20 20, Page 73, Line 8 – Page 78, Line 12.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 08941-19 19 Christa Lagatic Kassalow, BCBA Ms. Lagatic Kassalow has a bachelor’s degree in sociology from Douglass College at Rutgers University, and a master’s in education th rough Rutgers University. (P-29.) Her BCBA coursework was completed through Florida Institute of Technology and the cou rsework related to her standard supervisor, New Jersey supervisor certificate, New Jersey school principal certificate, was completed through New Jersey EXCEL. (P-29.) Ms. Lagatic Kassalow is a BCBA and obtained that certification in May 2014. (P-29.) Ms. Lagatic Kassalow’s first job specializing in working with people with autism in the field of ABA was in 2007. (P-29.) She started at PCDI in July 2011. (P- 29.) She was hired as a data analyst and home programmer, working with students i n the early intervention or preschool module. Over the course of her career at PCDI, she has since moved into the role of a trainer, which began in July 2017. She has a lso obtained responsibilities as the assistant principal to PCDI. Ms. Lagatic Kassalow spends approximately thirty to forty percent of her day in the classroom either observing students and teachers working together, providing feedback about pro grams that are implemented, teaching strategies that are in place, or otherwise working directly with students and providing direct service on their educational programs. She also meets regularly with her consultant to discuss matters where additional observation is warranted. Christa Lagatic Kassalow was determined by the court to be an expert in the development of programs for students using ABA and ABA programming for students with autism. (Tr. October 16, 2020)(Page 139, Lines 21-25 – Page 140, Lines 1-5.) The testimony by thi s witness reiterated the complex needs of S.L. and the significant level of training and expertise needed to run an appropriate ABA program for him. S.L.’s program is supervised by Ms. Lagatic Kassalow, Dr. Freeman, and another BCBA who is full time in the classroom. She testified that the parent training component is necessary for S.L. to make meaningful educational social and behavioral progress. Ms. Lagatic Kassalow has worked with S.L. ever y day. She is aware of his stren gths, weaknesses, and his areas of deep est need. Not a single witness from the District chose to talk about S.L., only their program.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 08941-19 20 FINDINGS OF FACT In order to as sess credibility, the witness’ interest in the outc ome, motive or bias should be conside red. Furthermore, a trier of fac t may reject testimony because it is inherently incredible, or because it is inconsistent with other testimony or with common experience, or because it is o verborne by other testimony. Congleton v. Pura -Tex Stone Corp., 53 N.J. Super. 282, 287 (App. Div. 1958). Having considered the testimonial and documentar y evidence offered b y the parties, the testimony of Dr. Freeman appeared on its face to be the most credible. She has worked the most w ith S.L. as opposed to the limi ted observations of the district’s experts. She has the most dat a to assess S.L.’s individual needs. I also deem Dr. Fiorile to be a credible witness. She has been working with students with autism since the mid-1990s and has been involved with S.L. sin ce 2018. All three witnesses for th e district presented similar testimony regarding S. L.’s proposed program and all three of the witnesses felt the district program was adequate to meet S.L. ’s specific needs. Dr. Spano gave cursory approval of a program while simultaneously agreeing that it lacked critical aspects. Based on the levels of interaction each witne ss has had with S.L., I give more weight to the expert testimony of Dr. Fiorile and Dr. Freeman. Having considered the testimonial and documenta ry evidence presented I FIND the following additional FACTS: The district proposed that S.L. be transitioned from PCDI to Voorhees High School at the start of the 2019-2020 school year. (J-2.) The parents asked that S.L. remain at PCDI. The offered district program and services are not diffe rent than the one offered for the 2018 -2019, J -4, besides adding a one -to-one aide. (J-2.) The program is not rooted in ABA, there is no transition plan, no parent training, no home program, no behavior plan, no beh avioral interventions, and there is a r eduction of the BCBA supervision of S.L’s program by twenty -nine hours. (J-2.) The district failed to

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 08941-19 21 give a data based or educational reason for this change in placement and reduction of services. (J-2.)(Tr. September 8, 2020, Page 195, Line 7 – Page 206, Line 25.) S.L. requires a full day intensive educational program b ased on the science and principles of ABA. S.L. is acquiring skills that he did not acquire during his many years in public school. The IEP references the district’s hired expert Dr. Lisa Spano, but fails to refer to Dr. Carol Fiorile’s, BCBA-D, reports. (P-34, P-36.)(J-2.) S.L. began to experience seizures and had to get an EEG and an MRI. S.L.’s first seizure was on April 22, 2020. The MRI was on May 8, 2020, the EEG was put on his head June 22, 2020, and taken off on June 25, 2020. He began medication in early May and the parents had to change it a month later because of behavioral reactions. PCDI staff assisted A.L., over Zoom, on how to practice sitting still and rewarding him in preparation of his MRI. LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Individuals with Disabilities Education Ac t (IDEA), as amended by the Individuals with Disa bilities Ed ucation Impr ovement Ac t ( IDEIA), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400- 1482, provides the framework for special education in New Jersey. It is designed “to ensure that a ll children with disabilities have available t o them free a ppropriate public education that emp hasizes spe cial e ducation an d rel ated se rvices desi gned to me et their uniqu e needs and pre pare them f or employment and independent living.” 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)( 1)(A); see generally id. § 1400(c), (d) (descr ibing need fo r, and purposes of, the IDEA). A st ate may qua lify f or fed eral funds under the IDEA by adopting “policies and procedures to e nsure that it meets” several enumerated conditions. This Act requires that boards of education provide students between the age s of three and twenty -one who suffer f rom a disab ility with a free appr opriate public education, or FAPE. In fulfilling its FAPE obligation, the Board must develop an IEP for the student, and the IE P mu st be reasonably calculated to confer some educationa l benefit. Hendrick Hudson District Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 192, 73

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 08941-19 22 L.Ed. 2d 690, 703, 102 S.Ct. 3034 (1982) (Rowley). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has clarified the meaning of this "educational benefit. ” It must be "more than trivial and must be significant” and "meaningful.” Polk v. Central Sus quehanna Intermediate Unit 16, 853 F.2d 171, 1 80 (3rd Ci r. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1030 (1989) (Polk); Ridgewood Board of Education v. N.E. , 172 F.3d 238, 247 -48 (3rd Cir. 1999) (Ridgewood). In evaluating whether a FAPE was furnished, an i ndividual inquiry into the student’s potential and educational needs must be made. Ridgewood, supra, 172 F.3d at 247. In providing a stu dent with a FAPE, a school district must provide such related services and s upports as are necessa ry to enable the dis abled child to benefit from the education. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 188-89. If an administrativ e law judge finds that a district has not made FAPE available to a student who previously received special education in a timely manner prior t o his enrollme nt in a nonpubli c scho ol, the judge may require the district to reimburse t he parents for the cost of that enrollment if the private placement is appropriate. N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.10. The Supreme Court also held that two fa ctual findings must be made before awarding reimbursement for the costs of a unilateral placement: (1) the sc hool district failed to provide a FAPE to the student, and (2) the pla cement selected by the parents was proper. School Comm’n of Burl ington v. D ep’t of Educ. of M ass., 471 U.S. 359, 369-70 (1985). Since the Burlington decision, its holding has been adop ted by both Congress and the United States Department of Education. 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(10)(C); 34 C.F.R. 300.403(c) (2005). It is also set forth at N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.10(b) in that an ALJ may requi re the district to reimburse the parents for the cost of en rollment if the ALJ finds that the district had not made FAPE availabl e to that student in a ti mely manner prior to that enrollment and that the private placement is appropriate. A placement may be found to be appropriate by an ALJ according to N.J.A.C. 6A:14-6.5 for placements in unapproved schools, even if it does not mee t the standards t hat apply to the education provided by the district board of education. Parents who are di ssatisfied with an IEP may seek an a dministrative due - process hearing. 20 U.S.C.A. § 1415(f). The burden of proof is pl aced on the school district. N.J.S.A. 18A:46-1.1. The Board will satisfy the requirement t hat a chil d with disabilities receive a FAPE by providing perso nalized instruction with sufficient support

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 08941-19 23 services to permit that child to benefit educationally from instruction. Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 203, 102 S. Ct. 3034, 3049, 73 L. Ed. 2d 690, 710 (1982). To meet its obligation to deliver a FAPE, a school district must offer an IEP that is reasonably calculated to e nable 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. In Endrew, the District Court for the District of Colorado initially upheld the school denial of a reimbursement for an out of district placement. However, the Supreme Court reversed finding that an IEP should be appropriately ambitious in light of the child’s circumstances, and “tailored to t he unique needs of a particular child.” In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988, 1001 (2017), the United State s S upreme C ourt c onstrued t he FAPE mandat e to require school d istricts to p rovide “an e ducational program reason ably calculated to enable a child to make progress a ppropriate in light of the child’s circumst ances.” The Court’s holding in Endrew F. largely mirrored t he Third Circuit ’s lon g-established FAPE standard, which require s that school districts provide an ed ucational program that is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to rec eive meaningful educational benefits in light of the student’s intellectual potential and individual abilities.” Dunn v. Downingtown Area Sch. Dist. (In re K.D.), 904 F.3d 248, 254 (3rd Cir. 2018) (quoting Ridley Sch. Dist. v. M.R., 680 F.3d 260, 269 (3rd . Cir. 2012)). In addressing the quantum of educational benefit, the Third Circ uit ha s made cle ar tha t more t han a “trivial” or “ de minimis” educational be nefit is required, and th e app ropriate standard is whether the IEP provides for “significant learning” and confers “mean ingful benefit” to the child. Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 1000–01; T.R. v. Kingwood Twp. Bd. of Educ., 205 F.3d 572, 577 (3d Cir. 200 0); Ridgewood Bd. of Educ. v. N.E. ex rel. M.E. , 172 F.3d 238, 247 (3d Cir. 1999), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized by P.P. v . W . Chester Area Sch. Dist., 585 F.3d 727 (3d Cir. 2009) ; Polk v. C ent. Susquehanna Intermediate Unit 16, 853 F.2d 171, 180, 182 –84 (3d Cir. 1 988). Hence, an appropriate educational program will likely “produce progress, not regre ssion or trivial educat ional advancement.” Dunn, 904 F.3d at 254 (quoting Ridley, 680 F.3d at 269).

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 08941-19 24 Thus, the first issue is whether the district’s proposed IEP provided FAPE. The testimony o f petitioners’ expert, whom I found credible, as well as S.L.’s mother demonstrates petitioners’ ar gument that the significant needs of S.L. were not addressed in th e proposed IEP and wou ld not have been met in the p roposed placement. S.L. had significant issues which led to his placement at PCDI. In addition to academic troubles, S.L. has severe autism and the IEP does not address his individualized educational needs . The IEP failed to provide sp ecific goals and objectives on a social, emotional and academ ic level which would provide a significant and meaningful education al benefit to S.L. Moreover, the IEP did not provide any meaningful way to transition S.L. to th e entirely new school environment, nor did it provide a behavior intervention plan or parental training which has been proven necessary at PCDI. Although t here should be a s tatement of measurable annual acade mic and functional goals with short-term objectives or bench marks and t he IEP should describe a program of individually designed instructional activities and related services necessary to achieve the stated goals and obje ctives (20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(II)-(IV); N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.7(e)(2)-(4)), those were not clear in the proposed IEP. Although the IEP should establish th e r ationale for the pupil’s ed ucational placement, the proposed IEP recommended S.L.’s placement in a school that was very large, with no meaningful way to acclimate him. Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that the proposed IEP would provide no meaningful educational benefit and is a denial of a FAPE. CONCLUSION Based on the eva luations and reports and based upon the past history of S.L., I CONCLUDE that the district’s proposed IEP, did not provide S.L. with a FAPE. I further CONCLUDE that the IEP was not con sistent wit h the observa tions o f t he petitioners’ expert, th e reports fro m th e PDCI teachers, the parents’ concerns and the recommendations of petitioners’ experts. Further, I CONCLUDE that the IEP was not reasonably calculated to deliver a measure o f pro gress deemed reason able and beneficial give n the special needs and specif ic requiremen ts of S.L. Therefore, I

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 08941-19 25 CONCLUDE that the petitioners met the standard in showing that the district’s proposed IEP failed to provide FAPE. ORDER It is ORDERED that the r elief request ed by petitioner as set forth abov e, is GRANTED. 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 compl aint 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 no t being fully implemented with respect to program or serv ices, this concern should be communic ated in writing to the Directo r, Office of Special Education Policy and Dispute Resolution. May 14, 2021 DATE JOHN S. KENNEDY, ALJ Date Received at Agency Date Mailed to Parties: JSK/dm

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 08941-19 26 APPENDIX WITNESSES For petitioner: Dr. Carol Fiorile A.L. Dr. Amanda Freeman Christa Lagatic Kassalow For respondent: Jennifer Komoroski Carolyn Baumann Dr. Lisa Spano EXHIBITS Joint Exhibits: J-1 Stipulation of Facts J-2 May 20, 2019, IEP J-3 May 23, 2018, IEP J-4 May 23, 2018 draft IEP J-5 Judge Kerins Final Decision Approving Settlement, dated May 9, 2019 J-6 December 3, 2018, Transcript for EDS 09665-18 J-7 December 4, 2018, Transcript for EDS 09665-18 J-8 2019-2020 PCDI Academic Calendar

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 08941-19 27 For petitioner: P-1 Not Admitted P-2 Not Admitted P-3 Not Admitted P-4 Not Admitted P-5 Not Admitted P-6 Not Admitted P7 Not Admitted P8 Not Admitted P9 Not Admitted P10 Not Admitted P-11 Not Admitted P-12 Not Admitted P-13 Not Admitted P-14 Not Admitted P-15 Not Admitted P-16 Behavior contracts P-17 Not Admitted P-18 Progress Report, dated July 12, 2019 P-19 Progress Report, dated March 21, 2019 P-20 Not Admitted P-21 November 2019, Home Program P-22 November 2019, School Program P-23 PCDI Goal and Objectives, dated May 2019 P-24 PCDI Home Programming Log for 2018-2019 P-25 PCDI Home Programming Log for 209-2020 P-26 Not Admitted P-27 Freeman CV P-28 Not Admitted P-29 Kassalow CV P-30 Not Admitted P-31 Not Admitted

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 08941-19 28 P-32 Not Admitted P-33 Fiorile CV P-34 Report of Fiorile, dated November 22, 2018 P-35 Not Admitted P-36 Report of Fiorile, dated November 25, 2019 P-37 Not Admitted P-38 Not Admitted P-39 Not Admitted P-40 Not Admitted P-41 Not Admitted P-42 PDCI Home Programming Summary for 2019-2020 P-43 PDCI Home Programming Summary for 2020-2021 P-44 Not Admitted P-45 Not Admitted P-46 Not Admitted P-47 Not Admitted P-48 Not Admitted P-49 Not Admitted P-50 Not Admitted P-51 Not Admitted P-52 PCDI Daily Schedules for 2019-2020 For respondent: R-1 Komoroski CV R-2 Bauman CV R-3 Not Admitted R-4 Photos of ATC wing R-5 Not Admitted R-6 Bauman Observation Report, dated April 12, 2019 R-7 Bauman Observation Report, dated July 29, 2019 R-8 Bauman Observation Report, dated September 25, 2019

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 08941-19 29 R-9 Spano CV R-10 Spano Observation Report, dated November 11, 2019 R-11 Spano Observation Report, dated November 26, 2018 R-12 Not Admitted R-13 Not Admitted R-14 Not Admitted R-15 Not Admitted