New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACTS & DECISION - DOE DEFAULT & INQUEST

Case Number: 180528

NYS Identifier Number N/A Student's Name: [“Confidential”]

Date of Birth:

District:

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Dates(s) of Hearing: 05/29/19

Actual Record Close Date: 12/13/19

Hearing Officer: Edgar De Leon

On January 23, 2019, I was appointed the Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) to conduct an impartial hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 USC § 1415(f)(3), Article 89 of the New York State Education Law, Part 200 of the Regulations of the New York State Commissioner of Education and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, concerning a dispute between the Parent ofa(_) year old student attending a private school and the New York City - Department of Education (“DOE”) - District: _, regarding the student’s special education program. I was appointed after the recusal of at least one other IHO. After having adjournments granted at the request and with the consent of the parties, or for good cause, the impartial hearing was held on May 29, 2019. A list of the persons who appeared at the hearing and the documents entered into evidence is annexed hereto.

BACKGROUND

This case was initiated as the result of a written Due Process Complaint (“DPC”) made by the student's Parent via her attorney, and received at the Department of Education Impartial Hearing Office (“DOE-IHO”) on or about December 14, 2018. The DPC is carried under New York City (“NYC”) .

The Parents in this case alleges that the student has been denied a “free and appropriate public education” (“FAPE”) for the 2018-2019 school year. At the impartial hearing, the Parent seeks the following relief: (a) A declaration that the DOE failed to provide the student with an offer of a FAPE for the 2018-2019 school year; and (b) A declaration that the DOE and/or denied the student a FAPE and/or the services she was mandated to receive and thus, is entitled to compensatory services for the 2012-2013 through and including the 2017-2018 school years; and (c) An order requiring the DOE to reimburse the Parent and directly pay the balance of any money that she owes the private school in connection with the 2018-2019 school year; and (d) An order requiring the DOE to provide the student with compensatory or additional educational services as set forth in the footnotes above or as determined by the IHO to compensate for the DOE’s failure to provide her with a FAPE during the 2018-2019 school year; and (e) An order requiring the DOE to provide the Parent with authorizations to obtain evaluations of the student in any and all areas in which the DOE failed to evaluate the student using evaluators of the Parent's choosing; and (f) An order requiring the DOE to reimburse the Parent for any funds expended, debts incurred, or economic harm they suffered, including but not limited to late fees and/or interest on any loans, in connection with student’s placement at the private school during the 2018-2019 school year prior; and (g) | Anorder granting such further relief as is deemed just and proper.

THE DOE’S CASE

The DOE did not call any witnesses to testify on its behalf, submitted (1) document in evidence, did not object to the Parents documentary submissions and cross examined the Parent's two witnesses. (T-6, 9-10, 48 & 81) The DOE consented to having the student evaluated for an IEP. (T-26) The testamentary and documentary evidence for and against the DOE’s default is incorporated in the decision below.

THE PARENT’S CASE

The Parent called (2) witness to testify on her behalf, who testified on direct testimony via affidavit pursuant to 8 NYCRR 200.5{j][3][xii][f]. (P-M & P-N) The DOE did cross examine the Parent's witnesses. (T-48 & 81) The Parent also submitted (11) documents in evidence. The DOE did not object to the Parent's documentary evidence.

(T-35-9) The testamentary and documentary evidence for and against the Parent's case is incorporated in the decision below.

FINDINGS OF FACTS & DECISION - DOE DEFAULT & INQUEST

IDEA ensures that students with disabilities are afforded a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”). (20 U.S.C. § 1400 & Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S.Ct. 528 [2005]) A FAPE includes special education and related services designed to meet the student’s unique needs, provided in conformity with a comprehensive written IEP. (20 U.S.C. 1401(8) & 141(d) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.13) The burden of proof in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief. (Schaffer, 126 S.Ct. 528, 537)

The DOE may be required to reimburse Parents for their expenditures for private educational services obtained for a student, if the services offered by the DOE were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the Parents are appropriate and equitable considerations support the parent’s claim. (Sch. Comm. Of Burlington v. Dept.

of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (1985), Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993), Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2"° Cir. 2005])

The first step is to determine whether the DOE offered to provide the student a FAPE. (Mrs. C. v. Voluntown, 226 F.3d 60, 66 [2"¢ Cir. 2000]) A FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the DOE complies with procedural requirements set forth in IDEA and (b) the IEP developed by the CSE through the procedures set forth in IDEA, is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits. (Bd. Of Educ. V. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-7 [1982]) The student’s recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (“LRE”). (20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A), 34 C.F.R. § 300.550(b), 8 NYCRR §200.6(a)[1])

The Parent bears the burden of showing that the private school placement selected is appropriate. (SRO Nos.: 95-57, 94-29 & 93-34) The Parents must show that the private school placement offers an educational program that meets the student's special education needs. (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370 & SRO No. 94-20) The private school need not be approved by the state educational agency to provide instruction to children with disabilities. (Florence County School District Four et. al. v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]). It is also not required that the private school employ certified special education teachers or have its own IEP for the student. (SRO No. 94-20)

Finally, the IHO must consider whether equitable considerations favor the Parents’ request for tuition reimbursement. State Review Officer (“SRO”) Decision 06-004 holds: Equitable considerations are relevant to fashioning relief under the IDEA (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374; M. C. v. Voluntown Bd. of Educ., 226 F.3d 60, 68 [2d Cir. 2000]; see Carter, 510 U.S. at 16 ["Courts fashioning discretionary equitable relief under IDEA must consider all relevant factors, including the appropriate and reasonable level of reimbursement that should be required"]). Such considerations "include the parties’ compliance or noncompliance with state and federal regulations pending review, the reasonableness of the parties’ positions, and like matters” (Wolfe _v. Taconic Hills Cent. Sch. Dist., 167 F. Supp. 2d 530, 533 [N.D.N.Y. 2001], citing Town of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 736 F.2d at 773, 801-02 [1st Cir. 1984], aff'd, 471 U.S. 359 [1985]). With respect to equitable considerations, a parent may be denied tuition reimbursement upon a finding of a failure to cooperate with the CSE in the development of an IEP or if the parent's conduct precluded the CSE's ability to develop an appropriate IEP (Warren G. v. Cumberland Co. Sch. Dist., 190 F.3d 80, 86 [3rd Cir. 1999]; see Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 04-102; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 04-026). In the absence of evidence demonstrating that petitioners failed to cooperate in the development of the IEP or otherwise engaged in conduct that precluded the development of an appropriate IEP, or failed to give proper notice, equitable considerations generally support a_ claim of _ tuition reimbursement. (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-049).

In Burlington, the Court found that Congress intended retroactive reimbursement to Parents by school officials as an available remedy in a proper case under the IDEA.

(Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370-71, Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 111 [2d Cir. 2007] and Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186 at 192 [2d Cir. 2005]) “Reimbursement merely requires [a district] to belatedly pay expenses that it should have paid all along and would have borne in the first instance” had it offered the student a FAPE. (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370-71, 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C]Iii] and 34 C.F.R. § 300.148)

The DOE failed to call any witnesses to testify on its behalf, submitted (1) document in evidence, did not object to the Parent's documentary submissions, did not file and serve a “Due Process Response” and did not serve a “Prior Written Notice” in this case. (See 20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(3)[e] & T-6, 9-10, 35-9, 48 & 81) “Prior Written Notice” means written statements developed in accordance with Section 200.5(a) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, and provided to the parents of a student with a disability a reasonable time before the school district proposes to or refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the student or the provision of a free appropriate public education to the student.

It is noted that silence in a responsive pleading is an admission, and a counterclaim in federal practice is compulsory in the answer or deemed waived. (See New York Practice, 4° Edition §§ 223 & 224, citing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 13(a) & Cummings v. Dresher, 18 N.Y.2d 105, 108, 271 N.Y.S.2d 976, 218 N.E.2d 688, 690 [1966]) Here, the DOE did not file a responsive pleading.

The DOE has the burden of production and persuasion at an impartial hearing, except that a Parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of production and persuasion regarding the appropriateness of such placement.

(See Educ. Law § 4404[1][c]) Here, the DOE did not proffer any evidence that it has offered the student a FAPE and did not rebut the presumption in the law that the Parent has cooperated with the agency. (Supra) This amounts to a concession that the agency did not offer the student a FAPE. As previously noted, the DOE did not serve and file an answer in the case and did not serve the Parent with “Prior Written Notice’, which provides either a denial of the Parent’s allegations, or some explanation for the agency’s failure to provide a FAPE. (See 20 U.S.C. 1415(f)(3)[e])

It would be fundamentally unfair to allow either party to rely solely on the submission of documents in meeting its burden under law, where those documents are rife with double, triple and even unidentified hearsay sources, that cannot be cross examined. While compliance with technical rules of evidence is not required in administrative hearings, under certain circumstances, the receipt of hearsay evidence may be so prejudicial as to have a tendency to deprive a party of fair hearing. (See Strain _v. Sarafan, 57 A.D.2d 525, 393 N.Y.S.2d 572, N.Y.A.D. (1977), where the hearsay testimony was of vital importance and should have been subjected to cross-examination by the petitioner...the petitioner was deprived of a meaningful hearing,_ Dukes v. New York City Housing Authority, 63 A.D.2d 690, 404 N.Y.S.2d 889, N.Y.A.D.

(1978), holding that the excessive reliance on hearsay evidence effectively denied petitioner the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses, Claim of Evans, 254 A.D.2d 564, 678 N.Y.S.2d 696, N.Y.A.D. (3 Dept. 1998), (where in an unemployment compensation proceedings, administrative law judge (‘ALJ’) properly exercised discretion to exclude hearsay evidence to protect employer's fundamental right of cross-examination, where claimant proffered written hearsay statement, authored by acquaintance of the employer’s president, which allegedly indicated that claimant did not resign but was fired, but the acquaintance failed to answer subpoena directing him to testify at hearing, thereby denying employer the opportunity to cross-examine him on the statement, and Alvarado v. State of New York, 110 A.D.2d 583, 488 N.Y.S.2d 177 (1*' Dept. 1985), holding that a license suspension hearing against a boxer and his managers was faulty because of a lack of an opportunity “to cross-examine certain witnesses whose reports were introduced into evidence without their testifying, in violation of SAPA Section 306, subd. (3).” (Id. at 585, 488 N.Y.S.2d at 179)

However, here the DOE did not present a case-in-chief and did not controvert the documentary evidence submitted by the Parent but did cross examine (2) of the Parent’s witness, who testified on direct examination via affidavit. (T-6, 9-10, 35-9, 48, 81, P-M & P-N) The credibility of the documentary and testamentary evidence was not controverted by the agency and the evidence is relevant and material to the issues to be determined. (Id.) I find the documentary and testamentary evidence submitted by the Parent in this case to be credible, uncontroverted and based upon the DOE’s default in this case, that evidence favors of the Parent.

As noted above, the DOE’s failure to present a case at the hearing is a concession that it denied the student a FAPE and that if the Parents meet their burden under Schaffer _v. Weast, the Parent is entitled to the proven relief she seeks. This leaves, as the primary issue to be resolved through impartial hearing, what relief and/or compensatory education remedy, if any, is available and appropriate to remediate the denial of a FAPE. (SRO No. 17-033) It is noted that the DOE was required under the due process procedures set forth in New York State law, to address its burdens in the due process hearing context by describing its views, based on a fact-specific inquiry set forth in an evidentiary record, regarding an appropriate relief and/or compensatory education remedy that most reasonably and efficiently could place the student in the position that he would have been but for the denial of a FAPE. (See Doe v. E. Lyme Bd.

of Educ., 790 F.3d 440, 457 [2d Cir. 2015], cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 2022 [2016], quoting Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 524 [D.C. Cir. 2005] [noting that the "ultimate award [of compensatory education] must be reasonably calculated to provide the educational benefits that likely would have accrued from special education services the school district should have supplied in the first place'|) When, as here, the DOE does not present any case at the hearing, the hearing process essentially becomes an “inquest” as to the appropriate relief.

The DOE has conceded liability by failing to present a case and meet its burden under the law. New York State law has placed the burden of production and persuasion at an impartial hearing on the school district, unlike states which align the burden of production and persuasion consistent with Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 58-62 [2005]. It is not an IHO's responsibility to craft the DOE’s position regarding the primary issue in the case, for the denial of FAPE. The undersigned finds that the DOE failed to adhere to the requirements of the law, has denied the student in this case a FAPE and that the Parents may be entitled to the proven relief they have requested.

I now turn to the question of whether the DOE should be required to reimburse and/or pay for the private educational services and relief requested for the student, because the services offered by the DOE were inadequate or inappropriate, and the relief sought and services selected by the Parents are appropriate and equitable considerations support the Parents’ claim. (Burlington, Florence and Cerra, Supra) The Parent need only demonstrate that the requested services are specially designed to meet the unique needs of the student, supported by such services as are necessary to permit him to benefit from the instruction. (See Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; see Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65)

If sought as relief, a private school placement must be "proper under the Act." (See Carter, 510 U.S. at 12, 15 and Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370), i.e., the private school offered an educational program which met the student's special education needs. (See Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, 115; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 129 and Matrejek, 471 F. Supp.

2d at 419) A Parent's failure to select a program approved by the State in favor of an Unapproved option is not itself a bar to reimbursement. (See Carter, 510 U.S. at 14)

The private school need not employ certified special education teachers or have its own IEP for the student. (See Carter, 510 U.S. 7; SRO No. 08-085; 08-025; 08-016; 07-097; 07-038; 02-014 and 01-105) Parents also need not show that the placement provides every special service necessary to maximize the student's potential. (See Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65) When determining whether the Parents’ unilateral placement is appropriate, "[u]ltimately, the issue turns on" whether that placement is "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits." (See Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364; see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115 [citing Berger v. Medina City Sch. Dist., 348 F.3d 513, 522 [6th Cir. 2003] [stating "evidence of academic progress at a private school does not itself establish that the private placement offers adequate and appropriate education under the IDEA"]])

There is a request for compensatory educational services in this case and an IHO cannot determine the amount of compensatory education that a student requires unless the record provides him with sufficient “insight about the precise types of education services the student needs to progress.” (Mary McLeod Bethune Day Acad. Pub. Charter Sch., 555 F.

Supp. 2d 130, 50 IDELR 134 [D.D.C. 2008] citing Branham v. District of Columbia, 427 F.3d 7, 44 IDELR 149 [D.C. Cir. 2005]) Pertinent findings to enable an IHO to tailor the ultimate award to the student's unique needs should include the nature and severity of the student's disability, the student's specialized educational needs, the link between those needs and the services requested, and the student’s current educational abilities. (See Branham v. District of Columbia, 427 F.3d 7, 44 IDELR 149 [D.C. Cir. 2005], see also Mary McLeod Bethune Day Acad. Pub. Charter Sch., 555 F. Supp. 2d 130, 50 IDELR 134 [D.D.C. 2008]) The Parent has the burden of “propos|[ing] a well-articulated plan that reflects the student’s current education abilities and needs and is supported by the record.” (See Phillips v. District of Columbia, 2010 WL 3563068, at *6, 55 IDELR 101 [D.D.C. Sept. 13, 2010] quoting Friendship Edison Pub. Charter Sch. Collegiate Campus v. Nesbitt (“Nesbitt II”), 583 F. Supp. 2d 169, 172, 51 IDELR 125 [D.D.C. 2008])

State regulations provide in relevant part that "[t]he decision of the impartial hearing officer shall be based solely upon the record of the proceeding before the impartial hearing officer and shall set forth the reasons and the factual basis for the determination. (See 8 NYCRR 200.5{j][5][v])

Shaffer decision of the Supreme Court of the United States issued on November 14, 2005, held as follows:

“We hold no more than we must to resolve the case at hand: The burden of proof in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief. In this case, that party is Brian, as represented by his parents. But the rule applies with equal effect to school districts: If they seek to challenge an IEP, they will in turn bear the burden of persuasion before an ALJ.

The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is, therefore affirmed.” (Supra, Ill, [2) (See Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 58-

62 [2005] (emphasis added)

Here, for the reasons stated above, the DOE did not meet its burden under the law. (Supra) I find that the student has been denied a FAPE for the and 2018-2019 school year.

A gross violation of the IDEA may result from the denial of, or exclusion from, educational services for a substantial period of time. (See SRO No. 04-074, citing Mrs.

C. v. Wheaton, 916 F.2d 69 (2d Cir. 1990), Burr v. Ambach, 863 F.2d 1071 (2d Cir.

1988) and SRO No. 02-047.) In Burr, exclusion from educational services for a substantial period of time was defined as “almost two years.” (See SRO No. 02-033 citing Burr “...after a severely disabled student's school was closed, prolonged delays in the administrative proceedings in obtaining a new placement resulted in a complete exclusion from any educational placement for the student for almost two years.” I find that the violations in this case do not meet the standard of a “gross violation” of FAPE.

I now turn to the question of whether the relief sought by the Parent is appropriate. As noted above, the DOE may be required to reimburse and/or pay for the private educational services and relief requested for the student, because the services offered by the DOE were inadequate or inappropriate, and the relief sought and services selected by the Parents are appropriate and equitable considerations support the Parent's claim. (Burlington, Florence & Cerra, Supra) The Parent need only demonstrate that the requested services are specially designed to meet the unique needs of the student, supported by such services as are necessary to permit her to benefit from the instruction. (Gagliardo & Frank G., Supra)

Here, as previously noted, the DOE did not controvert the testamentary and documentary evidence submitted by the Parent but did cross examine (2) of the Parent's witnesses, who testified on direct examination via affidavit. (T-6, 9-10, 35-9, 48, 81, P-M & P-N)_ The credibility of the Parents’ documentary and testamentary evidence was uncontroverted by the agency’s cross examination. (ld.) The uncontroverted evidence need not be restated in its entirety here as the transcript of the proceeding is available for the benefit of the reader.

In sum, substance and relevant part, the evidence in this case is as follows: The DOE argues that on or about August 30, 2018, the Parent requested that the student be evaluated. As per 8 NYCRR 200.4, the CSE had until December 5, 2018 to hold a review. (D-1) The student in this case is cognitively functioning in the superior to above average range but is placed in a small classroom setting with no exposure to mainstreamed students, the majority of whom have IEP’s. (T-58, 63 & P-K)

Accordingly, it is the DOE’s position that the private school is too restrictive for the student. (D-1)

Additionally, the DOE argues that he Parent did not intend to maintain the child in the public school because she signed a contract with the private school on September 29, 2018, before the expiration of the compliance date for the CSE to hold an IEP meeting for the student, which the DOE argues was on or before December 5, 2018. (D1 & P-G)

The Parent concedes that prior to attending the private school, the student attended a public-school program for gifted and talented students. (P-M) The Student had an “IESP”, but the Parent was unaware of the difference between an “IESP” and an “IEP.” (Id.) The student was first classified for special education services during the 2012-2013 school year and has never been declassified from being entitled to those services. (T-15 & P-M) Even if the student's prior school were considered a non-public school because it is chartered by CUNY, in New York, both the public-school district of residence and the charter school are assigned responsibilities to ensure that a student with a disability wno attends a charter school receives a FAPE. (SRO No. 19-026 & N.Y. Educ. Law § 2853(4)[a]) Here, the DOE offered no evidence to rebut the Parent’s claim that the DOE and the student’s previous school never explained the difference between and IEP and an IESP to her or advised her she would be giving up anything by accepting an IESP. (T-89-90, 91-2 & P-M)

The private school is a school for students diagnosed as having learning disabilities but are also considered to be gifted with high cognitive potential, yet unable to achieve commensurate progress in a traditional classroom. (P-J & P-N) The private school has approximately (55) students in grades kindergarten through grade 12, with each class consisting of no more than (12) students and led by a special education teacher who is also trained in gifted education. (P-N) Students are grouped in terms of their chronological ages, personalities, academic and social functional levels, and abilities and the curriculum is based on the New York State Standards for Learning, which are also Known as the Common Core Standards. (Id.)

The curriculum is modified according to each student’s individual potential and related services of speech and language therapy, counseling and occupational therapy are embedded into the program. (Id.) Many of the special education teachers are New York State certified and there are (3) certified school psychologists, a licensed Speech and Language Pathologist and a licensed Occupational therapist on staff with a robust professional development program. (Id.)

The private school provides multi-sensory instruction and uses literacy programs that include Fountas & Pinnell, Great Leaps Reading, Recipe for Reading, Step Up to Writing, and Teachers College Reading and Writing Project. (Id.) Classroom management and shaping behavior includes “positive behavior supports” (“PBS”), daily report cards, and Collaborative and Proactive Solutions (“CAPS”) to help students develop self/social awareness, self-advocacy skills, affective communication skills, and to foster cognitive and behavioral flexibility, as well as pro-social skills. (Id) Students are encouraged to ask for and take sensory, exercise, and “centering” breaks, and fine and gross motor skills development, as well as self-regulation skills, are worked on ina sensory gym. (Id.) The student has made meaningful progress across all domains, academically, socially and in terms of her executive functioning during the 2018-2019 school year at the private school. (P-N)

Based upon the DOE’s default, its violation of FAPE in this case and the uncontroverted record regarding the appropriateness of the relief sought as cited above, as well as in the documents received in evidence, there is no basis in the record to deny the Parent's request for relief. Accordingly, I find that the relief sought meets the unique needs of the student and permits him to benefit from instruction. (Gagliardo & Frank G., Supra)

For all of the reasons stated herein, I find that the Parent has in part met her burden under Schaffer. Accordingly, the Parent’s request for relief must be granted where indicated below.

NOW therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED on the DOE’s DEFAULT after INQUEST that upon its receipt of reasonably satisfactory proof of services having been rendered, the DOE shall either reimburse the Parent and/or directly pay the cost of the student’s tuition and related services at the private school for the entirety of the student’s 2018-2019 school year thereat; and it is further

ORDERED that the DOE shall conduct evaluations of the student in all areas of her suspected disabilities not evaluated within the last two years, for the 2020-2021 school year; and it is further

ORDERED that the CSE shall forthwith reconvene after the completion of the student's evaluations and consider all of the student's evaluations and any other relevant information and produce a new IEP for the student’s 2020-2021 school year; and it is further

ORDERED that any of the other relief sought by the Parent not addressed by this decision is found to be either agreed upon by the parties, withdrawn by the Parent, outside the scope of the IHO’s authority or unsupported by the record.

DATED: December 22, 2019

New York, New York Edgar De Leon - I.H.O.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

The parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to obtain a review of this decision by a State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Part 200.5(k) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, Section 4404 of the Education Law, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Directions and forms can be found on the Office of State Review website: http://www.sro.nysed.gov/RevisedRegulationsOverview.html

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

Title For Date Attorney DOE 05/29/19 Attorney DOE 05/29/19 Attorney PARENT 05/29/19

Mother PARENT 05/29/19

School Psychologist PARENT 05/29/19

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD

Number/Letter Title Dated For #of Pages

Closing Statement 07/08/19 DOE 07

IHR 12/14/18 PARENT 15

Withdrawn / Not Received N/A PARENT N/A Affidavit of Tuition 12/12/18 PARENT 01

Enrollment Contract 09/29/18 PARENT 09

Attendance Report 12/11/18 PARENT 01

Weekly Schedule 12/11/18 PARENT 01

Program Overview undated PARENT 01

E-Mails & Reports various PARENT 74

Progress Report 09-12/2018 PARENT 30

Affidavit of Mother 05/28/19 PARENT 08

Affidavit of 05/29/19 PARENT 17

Closing Statement 07/08/19 PARENT 25

N/A N/A IHO N/A