New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 182520

NYS Case Identifier Number: N/A

Student’s Name:

District:

Hearing Requested by: Parent

Date of Hearing: 7/18/19

9/23/19

11/4/19

12/18/19

1/17/20

2/24/20

Record close: 3/24/20

Hearing Officer: Nancy M. Lederman, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JULY 24, 2019

Attorney — Student

District representative — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED SEPTEMBER 23, 2019

Attorney — Student

District representative — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED NOVEMBER 4, 2019

Attorney — Student

District representative — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED DECEMBER 18, 2019

Attorney (Via Telephone) — Student

District representative — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JANUARY 17, 2020

Attorney — Student

District representative — DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED FEBRUARY 24, 2020

Attorney — Student

Parents

Clinical Director, (Via Telephone) — Student

Attorney — DOE

This case was brought before me pursuant to appointment by the New York City Department of Education (DOE) under the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 United States Code §1415(f)(1).

( ) is a child whose parent ( , or

parent) has brought the instant hearing, arguing that the DOE had failed to provide with a free appropriate public education for the 2018-2019 school year. The due process complaint notice (DPCN) asked for a determination that the child was denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2018-2019 school year, seeking reimbursement for the child’s placement at the ( ). Ex. A

A prehearing conference was held on May 30, 2019 and the hearing convened on July 18, September 23, November 4, December 18, 2019, and January 17 and February 24, 2020. A series of extension decisions, dated July 1, 2019 through March 27, 2020, were issued in this case, granting extension of the deadline for decision based upon regulatory standards, with a final compliance date of April 25, 2020. The record closed upon receipt of the remaining transcripts on March 24, 2020.

PARTY POSITIONS

The due process complaint notice (DPCN) claims that the district failed to provide a free appropriate public education for in the 2018-2019 school year, arguing that the district failed its affirmative duty under Child Find provisions, citing the child’s classification and program recommendation, that it failed to arrange for program and services following a CBST deferment within 30 school days, and that it failed to provide the parent with an IEP. As relief, the parent requested full tuition reimbursement for the placement of at , and the cost of four round-trip trips to the program. Ex. A.

At hearing on February 24, 2020, the district attorney stated that the district would not present any witnesses, and would rest on the documents. Tr. 32. The parent attorney stated the parent request for an order directing the DOE to reimburse the parent for tuition for for November 2018 through June 2019, during the 2018-2019 school year. Tr. 33-34

FINDINGS OF FACT

is a child currently attending . Tr. 111. .

described his educational history, attending New York City public schools. He went to and was there through the end of fifth grade. When he was young he had exhibited some oppositional behavior, and when he first started in first grade, the teacher told her that he wasn’t mature enough emotionally to move on and recommended that he repeat the year. In second grade, she had a psychological evaluation done, and he was diagnosed with ADHD. Tr. 95-96. He had an IEP beginning in second grade, and was classified as speech and language impaired, and was also given additional help. He did receive special education teacher support services (SETSS) at some time, and he also had testing accommodations. Toward the end of fifth grade, there was some school refusal, but she was told a lot of students were doing that, and he had had a couple of bullying incidents. Tr. 98-99.

After fifth grade, he was accepted at , and thought perhaps a small school would be a more appropriate setting for him. However, he refused to go after about two days, and he was actually still enrolled and on the roster at for Case No. 182520 the sixth grade. He went to for a week, and then refused to go there as well. At that point, in addition to the ADHD, he had depression and anxiety. Tr. 97. At some point, he was provided with homeschooling for the whole year, which described as really a struggle. He was very depressed, in his room, and not functioning. Someone came from the DOE, but most of the time he would not open his door. They would sometimes email her assignments, and she would try to see if she could get him to do the work that was being done in class. Tr. 100-101.

She had a meeting with the school, at which an official recommended that she should look at some residential schools. She learned about , which could not accept him until he turned 13; he went to in August 2018. At the time he was basically just not sleeping, in his room playing video games; he was in a really bad state, depressed and not wanting to live, and she was concerned about keeping him alive. Tr. 101-102.

At the IEP meeting on November 2, 2018, it was noted that the child was currently in a treatment center “due to extreme avoidance of all activities.” The team reviewed the child’s neuropsychological evaluation conducted in November 2017. Ex. 1.^[1] The IEP recorded that the neuropsychological evaluation conducted in October 2017 provided a diagnosis of major depressive disorder, single episode, moderate; generalized anxiety disorder; and ADHD, combined type (via history). It quoted the evaluation at length, noting that was experiencing significant emotional distress. Parent ratings indicated significant concerns about negative mood, somatic symptoms, adaptability, activities of daily living, functional communication, irritability, and anger control at home. reported several symptoms of depression and anxiety. “[I]t is clear that [ ] negative mood symptoms are having a detrimental impact on his daily functioning across settings. [ ] is currently experiencing clinically significant symptoms of depression and anxiety. He also has a history of school refusal, which continues to be problematic in his current school setting.” He was classified as having emotional disturbance, and recommended for a residential New York State-approved nonpublic school. Ex. 1.

discussed school placements with the CSE, and was told someone will be contacting her. However, the one school that .contacted her said that if had not completed sixth grade work, which he hadn’t, they couldn’t accommodate him academically. At the same time, said would be ready to move onto a residential school, and they were ready to discharge him. On November 4, 2018, he went directly from to , on November 5, 2018. Tr. 105-106.

, cofounder and clinical director of , testified that he is a clinical social worker licensed in the state of . As clinical director he is responsible for screening students for appropriate placement, supervising the clinical team, and providing individual, family, and group therapy to students at the school. He is involved in program design and development, direct care supervision, and overseeing the therapeutic community, as well as administrative duties. Tr. 49-51. described as a residential treatment center and a private, independent school, working with young men age 13 to 18 who are dealing with anxiety disorder. The most frequent type of disorders they treat are social anxiety disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Young men often have co-occurring difficulties like depression, as well as learning disorders. He described the tipping point that occurs for most to come as school refusal, stating these are young men who have engaged in pervasive avoidance, and as a result becoming very skilled efficient. They are anxious and depressed, and also deficient in executive functioning skills. Tr. 53-54. stated that some of the students have IEPs, although he was unaware of their classifications. Tr. 58-59.

He stated that the school was accredited by the ’s Department of Human Services.

He also stated it had academic accreditation, but he couldn’t remember the name of the accrediting agency. Tr. 84. The primary form of treatment is exposure therapy and cognitive behavioral methods. Tr. 56. He estimated that probably 75 percent of is therapeutic, although there was an argument that 100 percent of it was therapeutic, but from an academic educational standpoint about 25 percent of the emphasis was classroom work. He stated that the classroom itself is a therapeutic setting for many students. Tr. 75.

In 2018-2019, there were anywhere from 32 students to 44 students at the school. Tr. 80.

stated that has a faculty of teachers to teach the core classes, all with a teaching license and teaching certificate. Tr. 59-60. There are five full-time teachers and an academic director. None of the teachers are certified in special education. Tr. 81. Therapy is provided by licensed therapists who work full-time. also has a psychiatrist and a psychiatric nurse practitioner. Tr. 60-61. There are five therapists whose full responsibility is providing therapy, as well as and two other administrators. Therapists are typically licensed clinical social workers. Tr. 81-82.

stated that was provided with information, psychosocial history, psychological testing from parents and from the treatment setting had been in where he had been treated for anxiety disorder and avoidance. It was determined that he met admission criteria. Tr. 62. He described as behind in school due to significant amount of school refusal and avoidance and procrastination. He had attentional difficulties, difficulty staying focused, easily distracted, fidgeting, a lot of executive functioning difficulties getting started, staying focused, goal directed perseverance, emotional control, emotional flexibility. was distracted very easily. He struggled with time management, and was easily distracted by gaming screens and would avoid assignments. Tr. 63. His diagnosis was social anxiety disorder, ADHD, and intermittent explosive disorder. Tr. 68-69.

described the child’s day during the 2018-2019 school year. would get up at 6:45 AM and go to a cardio or fitness workout at 7:00 AM for an hour. After hygiene and breakfast, and morning chores, on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, he would attend a group therapy session. He would then go to academic counseling or support, and then into class from

11:00 AM to noon, with a break for lunch, and then continuing in different classes from 1:00 until 3:00. Classes are about an hour in duration. At 5 o’clock school would be over, and in the evening, he would have less structured time or participate in a life skills group or community meeting. Tr. 64-65. In addition, the school has a culinary program, and would work in the kitchen, receiving a food handler’s permit. He would also go into the community at different times for different reasons. Tr. 65. testified that was off-campus anywhere from two full days Saturday and Sunday, and during the course of the week, depending on what was happening, one or two other times. He stated that every other Friday they leave campus for service work, so he estimated would be gone three to five times a week for a duration of one hour to eight hours at a time. Tr. 78.

The abbreviated class schedules submitted by the parent for education during the second, third and fourth quarters of the school year indicated only three periods for class, first, third and fifth period, without specification as to the time. In Term 2, only ELA was specified as a daily course, in Terms 3 and 4 world history, earth science, and ELA were noted as daily courses. Ex. H. According to , there were between five and eight to 10 students in his academic classes. There were anywhere from 10 to 12 boys and time in his life skills group, typically taught by two teachers. Tr. 68.

stated that therapy happens at different times during the week, sometimes in the community doing exposure therapy activities, in addition to scheduled times. Therapy sessions for occurred at different times in different periods during the week. Tr. 65.

received individual therapy from , also a licensed clinical social worker.

provided two individual therapy sessions a week, and a family therapy session each week with and his mother. At the time, was his group therapist, working with three days a week in group therapy sessions of one hour, with eight to 10 students in the group. Tr. 82-

83. There were eight other students in group therapy class, a traditional group therapy led by one therapist. Tr. 67. did not receive any occupational therapy or related services.

stated that he might have received additional tutoring, but he didn’t know for certain. Tr.

79. The English teacher’s March 2019 report noted interventions being done by a tutor named

, with no further explanation; the same teacher’s April report noted speaking to his tutor

Ben. Ex. J.

A report card for the 2018-2019 school year indicated grades of A’s in ELA and math, and a total of three A’s and one B in core subjects in the second and third quarters. In the fourth quarter, grades fell to B+ in ELA and math, with a B+ and B in science and history. Ex. I.

Monthly reports reflected the same grades. Reports in core subjects indicated many positive statements about , including exemplary attitudes and behaviors, doing great in math, making a solid effort to engage, having an easy disposition, a joy to work with, working well on his assignments and asking questions in class, forming positive student habits, keeping up with homework and positive attitude in class, great effort and determination, responsible and caring, exceptional work ethic, good relationship with classmates, good job balancing courseload and deadlines, positive presence in the class and community. Mention of struggles or setbacks included reports of missed a couple of days, missed class periods, missing assignments, forgetful turning in work, needing motivation to get assignments done, hesitant to engage in group activities, dragging his feet with essay needing prompting, struggles with time management, easily distracted, somewhat forgetful, and problems focusing. Ex. J.

Other than these indirect references, the classroom reports did not address his social or emotional status, and there were no reports concerning his social or emotional status. Asked why there was no report issued on his anxiety, or how he did in terms of therapy and counseling, stated that there should be a monthly progress report that talks about the progress that occurs. Asked why it was not included in the classroom progress reports received, he stated that goals “would have been to decrease anxiety related symptoms and mood, increase in distress tolerance. It would have been an increase in attention and the ability to follow through.” Tr. 88-

89. From a treatment perspective, there was a Master Treatment Plan that set goals and objectives for his treatment progress. Tr. 69-71. Asked what was included in the Master Treatment Plan, he was unable to say what was included in that, repeating that the goals at the time were a reduction in anxiety and improvement in distress tolerance skills. Tr. 88-89.

stated that progress was measured on a number of different levels, what the child was doing or not doing, and the degree of support which he needed to do it. He gave as example a citizenship grade that was assigned every week, as a measure of one’s involvement in the community and the classroom. That would be the measurement of everything he did during the course of his day, whether he was on time and dressed, ready for his sessions, on time and prepared for class, did he participate in class discussions, complete assignments and attend homework hour. In class, he was graded for completion and accuracy of his work, but it was the

Master Treatment Plan that measured treatment progress. Tr. 69-71.

stated that made quite a bit of progress from the baseline of where he was when he started. He cited improvement with mood and anxiety, stating that certainly anxiety issues remained but there was a decrease from the baseline. He also noted improvement in the area of ability to follow through, although still needing support. He stated that struggled in a group session observed by , having difficulties making connections with what was being said. He stated they saw avoidance and the need for a lot of support and monitoring. Tr.

70-71. He stated that developed better emotional awareness of what was causing him to feel certain thoughts, and better distress tolerance around thoughts and feelings that bothered him.

said that he saw him developing better skills, coping skills in communication skills, and better emotional control. He also said he saw him developing better interpersonal skills, interacting with peers on a daily basis, and improvement with his ability to better manage his time. Tr. 73-74.

stated that made progress at in the 2018-2019 school year. She stated that he learned certain tools and ways of coping with his anxiety and not getting triggered and derailed. He was also in better command of his emotional state and how to handle his moods.

She stated that his school refusal behavior also improved, citing the grades in his reports, and said that he has seemed to be enthusiastic and engaged. Tr. 108-109. She noted strategies of just breathing, just stopping and taking deep breaths, walking away from the situation, like taking a timeout, and walking away, trying to collect himself and not reacting immediately. Tr. 112-113.

The documents submitted by the parent to reflect a contractual agreement with the school (the title “Conditions for Admission, Hold Harmless and Record Release Authorization,

Departure Policy”) did not contain any amount specifying tuition fees. A section entitled

“Financial Agreement/Responsibility” states that “The Student is accepted with the expectation that the Student will complete the individual Master Treatment Plan.” It continued with reference to a daily per diem program fee and monthly fees, and stated “For specific dollar amounts, please refer to the Cost of Care form.” Ex. F. There was no Cost of Care form submitted by the parent.

Asked the cost of , stated, “Currently, I think we’re $11,500 … for student each month.” Tr. 84. stated that she had paid tuition for the 2018-2019 school year in installments, every couple of months. She stated it was about $12,000 or $11,500 a month. She wasn’t sure of exactly the amount, but testified that she had receipts for her payment. Tr. 109-

112.

The IHO, upon asking the parent attorney whether there was any enrollment contract with money in it, was informed that there was a tuition affidavit, although not for the particular school year. The parent attorney was instructed to submit a tuition affidavit addressing the 2018-2019 school year, and proof of payment. Tr. 41-44. At the conclusion of the hearing, the documents request was repeated, and the parent attorney stated that affidavit and proof of payment would be provided. Tr. 113. A document signed by a accountant and described as a tuition affidavit was provided, stating a total tuition amount of $86,147.25 for 2018-2019 and reflecting various amounts paid from November 2018 to June 2019 for the 2018-2019 school year and beyond. The document, which failed to include appropriate notarization identification, stamp or seal, was admitted into evidence as Exhibit K. There were no receipts or other proof of payment provided.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

There were two request in this case, one for reimbursement for the child’s tuition at , and the second for the costs of four round-trip visits to the school. The request for reimbursement for the child’s tuition in this case rests on a determination of the three-pronged test commonly referred to as the Burlington-Carter test set forth by the United States Supreme Court, as discussed further below. The request for the cost of four round-trip trips to the program will be denied, as there was no evidence produced concerning any visits or associated costs.

The three-pronged test set forth by the Supreme Court in the Burlington case provided that a board of education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a child by the child’s parents, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parents were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parents’ claim. School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Dept. of Educ., Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985); Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 US 7

(1993).

ISSUE 1 - Appropriateness of School District Program

An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that includes a statement of the student’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance. See 34 CFR §300.320(a)(1); 8 NYCRR §200.4(d)(2)(i); see also Tarlowe v. New York City Bd. Of Educ., 2008 WL 2736027 (SDNY July 3, 2008), noting that a CSE must consider, among other things, the “results of the initial evaluation or most recent evaluation” of the student, as well as the academic, developmental, and functional needs of the student. The IEP must accurately reflect the results of evaluations to identify the student's needs, establish annual goals related to those needs, and provides for the use of appropriate special education services. 34 CFR §300.320(a)(2); 34 CFR §300.320(a)(4); 8 NYCRR §200.4(d)(2)(iii); 8 NYCRR §200.4(d)(2)(v); see Application of the Board of Education, Appeal No. 14-104; Application of the New York City Department of Education, Appeal No. 13-121.

I find that he district failed to sustain its burden on regard to providing with a FAPE in the 2018-2019 school year. The district’s attorney rested on the documents, and make no argument concerning the district providing an appropriate program for the child. There was no dispute that the district had failed to provide program and services for following deferment to the CBST to arrange a residential placement for the child. I also agree that the district failed to meet its Child Find obligations in this case. I make no determination concerning the parent’s receipt of an IEP.

For the reasons noted above, I find the district failed to provide a FAPE for

ISSUE 2 – Appropriateness of Parent Placement

Analysis turns to the second prong of Burlington, under which the parents bear the burden of proving the appropriateness of the services obtained for M.S. v. Board of Education of Case No. 182520 the City of Yonkers, 231 F.3d 96, 104 (2d Cir. 2000); Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 99-51; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 94-29; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 95-57. In order to meet that burden, the parents must show that offered an educational program designed to meet special education needs.

School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985); Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 99-51; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 98-76; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No.

94-29.

It is well established law that parents are not held to the same standards as public school districts in placing their child. The test for a unilateral placement is whether it provides education instruction specifically designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child. Gagliardo v.

Arlington Central School district, 489 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2007).

I find that the parent has not met the burden showing that the program at was appropriate for special education needs.

There was no dispute that the child’s emotional and educational needs required support in a residential school setting supplying therapeutic support. In closing the district’s attorney basically argued that there was no evidence the student was making academic progress at the school, or that the school provided any academic class time as opposed to the therapeutic program. She also cited ’s inability to cite a baseline for his academic or the testing upon which his admission was based.

I agree that it was an abbreviated program, noting a schedule that seemed to offer daily classes of English but significantly fewer classes in other core subjects. More disturbingly, despite ’s description of as a therapeutic program with as much as 100 percent with the classroom itself functioning as a therapeutic setting for some students, there was no evidence of the therapeutic program for other than ’s testimony of a schedule of individual and group sessions. In testifying to progress made at , , who was not only clinical director of the program at the school but also conducted the group therapy sessions with in the 2018-2019 school year, was only able to offer a general statements of improvement with mood and anxiety, emotional control and coping skills. He said he saw him developing better interpersonal skills, while at the same time saying struggled in group having difficulties making connections with what was being said. Despite ’s testimony of a Master Treatment Plan setting goals and objectives for his treatment progress, he was unable to state what goals were.

The Master Treatment Plan was also referenced in the admission agreement, which stated that the student was expected to complete the Master Treatment Plan. There was no treatment plan submitted by the parent. also stated there were monthly progress reports concerning therapy, but these too were not submitted. There was no written report of the child’s treatment or progress in treatment. also described a citizenship grade assigned weekly, which would provide a measure of the child’s progress, but that too was not offered in evidence. Certainly, determining what special education modifications and supports should be requires some evidence of a treatment plan. I also question the missing Cost of Care documents referenced in the admission document that would have supplied a tuition amount that the parent was obligating the parent. Given the absence of these many documents critical to the child’s education, general statements of better emotional skills and coping mechanisms were not sufficient to prove education instruction specifically designed to meet unique special education needs.

As for the classroom reports, the absence of any reference to this child’s anxieties and depression was bewildering. testified that they saw avoidance and the need for a lot of support and monitoring but other than mentions of missed assignments or homework struggles, the teachers seemed to have no information about the child’s individual special education needs. While the parent credited improvement in school refusal based on the grades that were reported, I question the reliability of reports producing A’s and B’s immediately upon his admission to the school while totally omitting any reference to the very condition that placed him in the school. Certainly, the reports did not support ’s claim of the classrooms as a therapeutic setting for the child. There was also no explanation of the tutor for mentioned in the reports.

For the reasons noted above, I find the program at failed to offer an educational program designed to meet special education needs.

ISSUE 3 – Equities

The third prong of the Burlington decision requires a balancing of the equities in determining whether reimbursement should be awarded. Although my decision in the prior section of this decision makes the issue of equities moot, I include it for use in possible appeal.

The IDEA provides that an award of tuition reimbursement may be reduced or denied if notwithstanding their being advised that they should do so, parents neither inform the CSE of their disagreement with its proposed placement and their intent to place their child in a private school at public expense at the most recent CSE meeting prior to their removal of the child from public school, nor provide the school district with written notice of such information ten business days before such removal. 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(10)(C)(iii).

Factors relevant to equitable considerations include whether the withdrawal of the student from public school was justified. The statutory provision serves the important purpose of giving the school system an opportunity, before the child is removed, to assemble a team, evaluate the child, devise an appropriate plan, and determine whether a FAPE can be provided in the public schools. Greenland Sch. Dist. v. Amy N., 358 F.3d 150, 160 (1st Cir. 2004); see also Frank G., 459 F.3d 356 (2nd Cir. 2006).

While was a credible witness, her memory of the tuition amount was uncertain, and the receipts she stated she had were not forthcoming. The admission agreement submitted into evidence reflected a schedule for payment of tuition but failed to state the tuition amount, instead referring to another document called Cost of Care which was not provided in evidence.

The document submitting post-hearing as a tuition affidavit lacked valid authentication, and despite assurances, there was also no proof of payment provided to the hearing officer.

The absence of these documents must weigh in consideration of equity, as must the district’s failure to provide a placement for the child. It’s important to the equitable consideration question as to whether the parents obstructed or were uncooperative in the school district's efforts to meet its obligations under the IDEA. C.L., 744 F.3d at 840. In this case, there was no dispute that the parent cooperated with the district, nor that the district had not secured a placement for the child. Certainly the child’s withdrawal from the public school system in this case was justified. While a tuition determination might merit additional scrutiny, analysis of equities would not prevent an award for tuition at .

ORDER

1. The parent’s claim for reimbursement for tuition at in the 2018-2019 school year is denied.

2. The parent’s claim for the cost of four round-trip visits to the program is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 6, 2020

___ Nancy M. Lederman________

NANCY M. LEDERMAN

Impartial Hearing Officer

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Within 40 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the Public School district has a right to appeal the decision to a State Review Officer (SRO) of the New York State Education Department under Section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

If either party plans to appeal the decision, a notice of intention to seek review shall be personally served upon the opposing party no later than 25 days after the date of the decision sought to be reviewed.

An Appealing party’s request for review shall be personally served upon the opposing party within 40 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. An appealing party shall file the notice of intention to seek review, notice of request for review, request for review, and proof of service with the Office of State Review of the State Education Department within two days after service of the request for review is complete. The rules of procedure for proceedings before an SRO are found in Part 279 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education. A copy of the rules in Part 279 and model forms are available at http://www.sro.nysed.gov.

EXHIBITS

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION EXHIBITS *

1 IEP, 11/2/18, 13 pages

2 CSE meeting minutes, 11/2/18, 4 pages

3 Response, CBST, 11/8/18, 1 page

* Documents were admitted into evidence post-hearing, without objection.

PARENT EXHIBITS

A Request for impartial hearing, 4/16/19, 6 pages

B Notice of unilateral placement, 10/30/18, 4 pages

C Due process response, 5/22/19, 3 pages

D Letter, DOE Office of General Counsel, 9/23/19, 1 page

E Brochure, , undated, 15 pages

F Admission document, 11/1/18, 6 pages

G Academic calendar, , 2018/2019, 1 page

H Class schedule, 10/30/18 to 6/7/19, 2018/2019, 4 pages

I Report card, 2018/2019, 1 page

J Progress report, December through July, 9 pages

K Tuition statement, , , 3/3/20, 1 page **

** Document was admitted into evidence post-hearing, without objection.

IHO EXHIBITS

I Prehearing conference summary, 5/30/19, 1 page

---

Footnotes

[1] The neuropsychological evaluation was one of four documents proffered by the DOE; upon the parent’s objection based on untimeliness documents were to be entered into evidence following the hearing, subject to consideration of any further objection. The evaluation was marked for identification only as Exhibit 4. Tr. 35-38. There was no further objection from the parent. However, upon review, the document submitted by the district contained only odd-numbered pages, presumably half of the total evaluation, and the document itself will not be admitted into the record and is not being considered in this decision.