New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

CASE NUMBER: 538649 - NYC: 195375

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number:

195375

NYS Identifier Number:

538649

Student’s Name:

STUDENT

Date of Birth:

REDACTED

Region:

REDACTED

Hearing Requested By:

Parent

Date(s) of Hearing:

7/30/21; 11/9/21

Actual Record Close Date:

February 17, 2022

Hearing Officer:

Amy Lynne Itzla, Esq.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

INTRODUCTION

I conducted an impartial hearing pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(3), regarding STUDENT The hearing was convened at the written requests of the Parent by letters dated July 1, 2020, and July 1, 2021. (Exhibits C; D) These requests, regarding the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years, respectively, were given case numbers 195375 and 210028, also respectively, and consolidated by a Consolidation Order dated July 30, 2021. (Exhibit E) The earlier case number, 195375, is used for purposes of the consolidated matter. A hearing was held on July 30, 2021, and November 9, 2021. Since the hearing was conducted during the Covid-19 pandemic, it was held by telephone, with the presence of a court reporter to create a written transcript. A list of the individuals who appeared at the hearing and a list of the documents received into evidence are attached to this decision.

In scheduling the hearing date, and throughout this proceeding, this Impartial Hearing Officer granted multiple requests by the parties for extensions of the 45-day timeline for the due process hearing, pursuant to 34 C.F.R. §300.515(a). The requests were granted, in accordance with 34 C.F.R. §300.515(c), and after full consideration of the cumulative impact of the following factors: 1) the impact on the child’s educational interest or well-being which might be occasioned by the delay; 2) the need of a party for additional time to prepare or present the party’s position at the hearing in accordance with the requirements of due process; 3) any financial or other detrimental consequences likely to be suffered by a party in the event of delay; and, 4) whether there has already been a delay in the proceeding through the actions of one of the parties. [8 NYCCR §200.5(j)(5)(ii)]

BACKGROUND

STUDENT was REDACTED years old at the beginning of the 2020-2021 school year and REDACTED years old at the beginning of the 2021-2022 school year. She was classified by the DOE’s Committee on Preschool Special Education (“CPSE”) as a preschool student with a disability, at age four, as documented in an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) dated June 17, 2013. (Exhibit DD) The record reflects that there have been no subsequent IEP’s developed for STUDENT Her medical history includes diagnoses of REDACTED, and global developmental delays. (Exhibit CC) Most recently, she was given a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder with cognitive impairment associated with a medical condition. (Exhibit CC) The CPSE had recommended a 12-month dual program, with both a school program and a program outside of school. The recommended school program consisted of a special class (6:1:2) with a one-to-one management paraprofessional and the related services of individual speech language, occupational, and physical therapies of three, thirty-minute sessions each. The recommended program outside of school consisted of Special Education Itinerant Teacher (“SEIT”) services for five hours per week; individual speech and language therapy for three, one-hour sessions per week; individual occupational therapy for three, forty-five-minute sessions per week; and physical therapy for two, forty-five-minute sessions per week. STUDENT has been attending school at the REDACTED (“REDACTED”) for several years and receiving the program outside of school, as recommended by the CPSE.

By letter to the CSE, dated June 15, 2020, through counsel, the Parent notified the DOE of their intention to place STUDENT in a dual program consisting of placement at REDACTED and the continuation of the last-agreed to “at home” recommendation of SEIT services of 5 hours per week, Speech and Language Therapy, 3x60, 1:1, Occupational Therapy, 3x45, 1:1, and Physical Therapy, 2x45, 1:1, as of the first day of the 12-month school year for academic year 2021-2022, and to seek reimbursement for this placement from the District. (Exhibit A) By letter dated July 1, 2020, the Parent requested an impartial hearing seeking tuition reimbursement for the placement at REDACTED and direct funding for the home-based program, based on the DOE’s failure to provide a FAPE to STUDENT for the 2020-2021 school year. (Exhibit C)

By letter to the CSE, dated June 16, 2020, through counsel, the Parent notified the DOE of their intention to place STUDENT in a dual program consisting of placement at REDACTED and the continuation of the last-agreed to “at home” recommendation of Speech and Language Therapy, 3x60, 1:1, Occupational Therapy, 3x45, 1:1, and Physical Therapy, 2x45, 1:1, plus 20 hours of home-based ABA therapy as of the first day of the 12-month school year for academic year

2020-2021, and to seek reimbursement for this placement from the District. (Exhibit B) By letter dated July 1, 2021, the Parent requested an impartial hearing seeking tuition reimbursement for the placement at REDACTED and direct funding for the home-based program, based on the DOE’s failure to provide a FAPE to STUDENT for the 2021-2022 school year. (Exhibit D)

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES THE DOE’S CASE The DOE did not offer any documents or witness testimony. At the outset of the hearing, the DOE presented an opening statement “conceding prong I of the Burlington-Carter analysis,” meaning that the DOE had failed to offer a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) to STUDENT for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years. (T. 26-27) The DOE stated that it “reserves the right to challenge Parent’s proffered placement Prong II, as it unfolds in documents entered into evidence and testimony elicited during the hearing.” (T. 26) The DOE chose not to cross-examine any of the Parent’s witnesses. (T. 42; 72; 80; 90) The DOE added that, “Likewise, though not asserting specific Prong III concerns at this point, it reserves the right to do so if such should arise during the course of documents entered into evidence and testimony elicited.” (T. 26)

When offered an opportunity to present a closing argument, the DOE’s representative stated the following: “So given that the Department of Education has not presented a case nor has it provided any cross-examination of the Parent’s witnesses, it is going to waive its closing statement in this matter. Thank you.” The IHO asked for confirmation that the DOE was not presenting any challenge to the Parent’s unilateral placement or raising any equitable consideration that would reduce or bar an award or order in favor of the Parent. The representative’s response was, “That is correct.” (T. 91)

THE PARENT’S CASE The Parent presented the testimony of four witnesses: Dr. REDACTED, neuropsychologist; Dr. REDACTED, Director of Education at REDACTED; REDACTED, Board Certified Behavior Analyst (“BCBA”); and REDACTED, STUDENT’s mother.

Dr. REDACTED is a neuoropsychologist who conducted an evaluation of STUDENT in the spring of 2021. Dr. REDACTED’s evaluation included reviewing medical and other records provided by the Parent, as well as discussions with STUDENT’s teacher and Applied Behavior Analysis (“ABA”) therapist. Dr. REDACTED’s evaluation was conducted over the course of three days and also included an observation of STUDENT in the home environment. (T. 34-36) Dr. REDACTED described STUDENT’s “incredible positive energy” as “infectious” and stated that she “lights up a room when she walks into it.” (T. 36)

At the conclusion of her evaluation of STUDENT, Dr. REDACTED prepared a report. (Exhibit CC) Dr. REDACTED recommended that STUDENT “continues to require placement in a special education school that provides one-to-one instruction grounded in ABA principles,” based on her experience with STUDENT and her knowledge as an ABA therapist. She explained that the environment must be organized in that things are broken down into their smallest components and step by step scaffolding is used. STUDENT was benefitting from that system in school and progressing. Dr. REDACTED also recommended 15-20 hours of home-based ABA therapy due to the kinds of impairments STUDENT presents with and concerns over safety. She needs to generalize the skills she is taught at school in the home environment. Dr. REDACTED’s home observation confirmed that she “absolutely requires support at home and requires the kind of instruction and interventions based in ABA methodology that would ensure that she continues to acquire skills and independence and does not engage in unsafe behaviors at home.” This home-based program is also required so all of those around her are trained in managing her behaviors using the same interventions. Dr. REDACTED believes that STUDENT’s needs cannot be met with a school-based program alone. “Her adaptive skills, her communication skills, and the issues related to her behaviors have to be addressed in the home environment directly with ABA instruction and methodology and interventions.” The amount of ABA hours recommended was determined by the time she gets home and the right amount of time to target those areas and also train those around her, which would require weekend hours as well. Home-based services also address transferring skills and behaviors in the community, which is another reason that weekend hours are necessary. (T. 38-41)

Dr. REDACTED is the Director of Education at REDACTED. Dr. REDACTED explained her role, which includes assessing students, behavior plan development, day-to-day oversight and supervision, working with teachers, providing staff training, parent workshops, and directly working with families on individual needs. (T. 44-51)

Dr. REDACTED described REDACTED as a school program for students aged five to twenty-one with the primary population being students on the autism spectrum or who have related disabilities. The “hallmark and cornerstone of our program really is applied behavior analysis,” but is also a transdisciplinary approach to teaching with all disciplines working collaboratively. (T. 52-53) During the 2020-2021 school year, the school had 102 students and in the 2021-2022 school year, there are 103 students. Each classroom has a classroom supervisor with a master’s degree in ABA and either BCBA or a teaching certification in special education. Each classroom also has a lead teacher who has either an ABA background and BCBA or completing it, or is a certified special educator who may also have BCBA. The classrooms also have ABA instructors who have bachelor’s degrees and some have master’s degrees or certifications. The school has certified occupational therapists, speech and language pathologists, and social workers. (T.53-56) There are different types of classrooms based on the level of assistance required by the students; there are one-to-one classes and two-to-one classes. (T. 56-57)

Dr. REDACTED has worked directly with STUDENT and her family and has observed her in her classroom on a daily basis over the last approximately seven years that she has attended REDACTED. Dr. REDACTED described STUDENT as “first and foremost the mayor of our school.” She is very social, lights up a room, and wants to interact with everyone. She described STUDENT as a nonverbal student who uses an assistive technology device, gestures, and signs to communicate her needs and wants. She has REDACTED, and a lot of muscle spasticity. She requires “a high level of hands-on supervision at all times.” Key pieces of her programming have included getting STUDENT to communicate her basic needs and expanding her utterances and teaching her self-help skills from toileting to washing her hands. The academic programming for her is “largely very functional, being able to complete tasks like utilizing a credit card or a money exchange in the community.” She has a lot of interest, but a very high level of distractibility. She needs a very dense schedule of reinforcers to direct her attention and frequent tactics for acquiring new skills. (T. 58-62)

Dr. REDACTED explained that with ABA, data is collected contemporaneously throughout the day for analysis, which is critical with STUDENT As a result, her progress can be seen each day. It can also be visually seen when she is struggling with a skill, so it can be individually changed for that specific program. Prompts are slowly faded out as she makes progress on a skill until she masters it. Her learning is very systematic. (T. 62-64)

During the 2020-2021 school year, STUDENT was in a classroom of eight students, with only six students physically in the classroom, while the other two students were participating remotely. There were four girls and four boys in the class, from ages nine to eleven. Similar to STUDENT, they all required a great deal of “eyes-on, hands-on supervision.” They were provided that through the one-on-one instruction throughout the day. They engaged in behaviors at a similar level and demonstrated emerging academic skills. STUDENT’s class for the 2021-2022 school year has five girls and three boys, from ages twelve to fourteen. The students are similar in their emerging academic skills and behaviors, and use a combination or vocal approximations and assistive technology to communicate. The peer grouping in these classes has been appropriate for STUDENT (T. 64-67)

Dr. REDACTED testified that there is a very high level of collaboration between STUDENT’s school and home programs using a Google sheet where the school, the home providers, and the family collect some data together when there is an overlap of goals that are critical to STUDENT’s success, such as toileting and communications skills, for example. Working in tandem provides the consistency is so important for STUDENT to acquire skills. Everyone communicates through email, phone, and Zoom conferences. Communication is frequent and notes and observations are also shared. Dr. REDACTED stated that REDACTED is STUDENT’s core educational setting, but the home is also a learning environment for her. The skills she is learning are addressed across both environments. STUDENT requires many opportunities to practice each individual skill before she acquires it. These are basic life skills, and those critical to her safety; they are required so she has opportunities in programs in the community in the future. STUDENT’s family seeks out assistance and is determined and committed. They give verbal reports each day at school drop-off, provide written notes, and collect data. Having guidance and direction from professionals in school and at home, who work collaboratively, has been “key in STUDENT’s progress across these past two years.” (T. 67-72)

REDACTED is a BCBA and has been providing two hours of home-based ABA services to STUDENT since January 14, 2021. Ms. REDACTED described STUDENT as “a very social and engaging little girl, at times to her detriment, because she loves attention and loves being around people and can get very excited and off-task. But she is a total joy.” Ms. REDACTED described STUDENT’s communication skills. Since STUDENT’s REDACTED limits her use of one side of her body, she has limited motor skills. She requires support with activities of daily living skills (“ADLs”), such as hand and face washing, since she is unable to use both hands together. STUDENT’s attentional skills require frequent reinforcement, about every ten seconds, to remain on task with activities. (T. 75-78)

Ms. REDACTED testified that STUDENT has made progress in her communication and language, motor skills, ADLs,, and attentional skills. She requires a lot of consistency and carryover from all of her caregivers with behavioral skills, safety skills, and ADLs. She needs both the school program and the outside ABA program. (T. 78-80)

REDACTED is STUDENT’s mother. She said that STUDENT is very social, loves to make people happy, is motivated by approval from others, and wishes she could really express herself. She is limited by her REDACTED, but never gives up. REDACTED described STUDENT’s educational history from early intervention to date. She has attended REDACTED since age five. She has also receiving speech, occupational, and physical therapies after school and SEIT services at home. Most of the SEIT providers work with children who are much younger and they work on things that were not necessarily the most critical for STUDENT at that point in her development. She needed more of a focus on her ADLs, her changing behaviors, her safety, and her interactions with others, including her younger sister. Since she has been receiving ABA services at home, with Ms. REDACTED, Ms. REDACTED is able to break things down, communicate properly with the school, and teach the family how to work with STUDENT REDACTED said, “it’s working” and “there’s just so much.” (T. 82-87) REDACTED confirmed that she had participated in all meetings, as requested by the DOE for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years, has shared all documentation she has with the DOE, and has provided any documentation requested. She also stated that she was open to considering pubic programs over the years for STUDENT if anything appropriate had been offered. (T. 88-89)

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The central purpose of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C.

§§ 1400-1482) is to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a Free Appropriate Public Education (20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]; see Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S. Ct. 528, 531 [2005]; Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179-81, 200-01 [1982]; Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 371 [2d Cir. 2006]). A FAPE includes special education and related services designed to meet the student's unique needs, provided in conformity with a written IEP (20 U.S.C. § 1401[9][D]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.17[d]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1414[d]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.320). A FAPE is offered to a student when: (a) the board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]).

A board of education may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private educational services, obtained for a student by his or her parent, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parent were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parent's claim (Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't 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 [2d Cir. 2005]). 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 (id.). "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 developed a proper IEP" (Burlington, at 370-71; see Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 05-073).

The DOE conceded its failure to offer a FAPE to STUDENT for both the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years. Therefore, the first prong of the analysis, under the Burlington and Carter decisions, supports the Parent’s case.

The Parent has the burden of establishing the appropriateness of the program they have provided to STUDENT (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 95-57; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-093) In order to meet that burden, they must demonstrate that the services provided offer an educational program which meets the student’s special education needs. (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 94-29; Frank G. v. Board of Education of Hyde Park, 459 F. 3d at 363; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F. 3d 105 [2d Cir. 2007]) The standard used to measure the appropriateness of the Parent’s placement is “not perfection.” (M.S. ex rel S.S. v. Bd. of Ed., 231 F.3d 96 [2d Cir. 2000]) “The issue turns on whether a placement - public or private- is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.” (Gagliardo, 489 F. 3d at 112) The Parent’s failure to select a program approved by the state in favor of an unapproved option is not itself a bar to reimbursement. (Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993])

I find that the Parent has prevailed with respect to the second criterion for reimbursement under the Burlington and Carter decisions. Those who are familiar with STUDENT, including Dr.

REDACTED, Dr. REDACTED, Ms. REDACTED, and REDACTED, have determined and strongly agree that REDACTED along with the home-based program, and the addition of the home-based ABA therapy, was appropriate for STUDENT for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years. The witnesses provided persuasive testimony and supporting evidence to this effect. The testimony provided by the witnesses strongly affirms the appropriateness of the placement and program and demonstrates that it was reasonably calculated to allow STUDENT to make meaningful progress and to address her individual needs. In fact, she made meaningful progress through her participation in the dual program in the 2020-2021 school year and is continuing to make meaningful progress in the 2021-2022 school year.

The Parent’s ten-day notice and request for impartial hearing for the 2020-2021 school year differ from the ten-day notice and request for impartial hearing for the 2021-2022 school year in the relief requested only with regard to one component of the home-based services: specifically, the 2020-2021 school year program included five hours per week of SEIT services, as recommended in the CPSE IEP; and the 2021-2022 school year program included a request for 20 hours per week of ABA services. The record reflects that home-based ABA services were recommended by Dr. REDACTED in her neuropsychological evaluation, which was the documented basis for the Parent’s request for those services. Dr. REDACTED’s evaluation was conducted over the course off three dates, the last being April 12, 2021. The report does not indicate the date on which it was written. The recommendation that STUDENT “receive a minimum of 15-20 hours of home-based ABA instruction to be provided by a board certified behavior analyst (BCBA),” made by Dr. REDACTED, is sought as partial relief for the 2021-2022 school year. The testimony of Ms. REDACTED established that she has been providing two hours of ABA home-based services since January 2021. These services were provided prior to Dr. REDACTED’s evaluation and there has been no request made for reimbursement for those services. The recommendation for home-based ABA services is applicable, appropriate, and requested for the 12-month 2021-2022 school year, beginning July1, 2021. There was no allegation that the services mandated under the CPSE IEP were not provided by the DOE or were, instead, funded by the Parent in the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years. The only service outside of the school placement that is at issue in this matter is the home-based ABA therapy.

It must be emphasized that the DOE has not challenged the appropriateness of STUDENT’s placement at REDACTED, the continuation of her related services pursuant to the CPSE IEP, or the Parent’s request for 20 hours of home-based ABA therapy. There has been no aspect of the Parent’s hearing requests, the witness testimony, the documentary evidence, or the relief sought, with which the DOE expressed disagreement. The entirety of the Parent’s case for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years is undisputed. I find that the Parent has prevailed with respect to the second criterion for reimbursement under the Burlington and Carter decisions.

The final criterion for an award of funding or reimbursement is whether the Parent’s claim is supported by equitable considerations. 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 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 a parent 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 reimbursement (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-049).

The DOE clearly stated that it was not making any assertions with regard to any equitable consideration that would preclude an order in favor of the Parent. There is absolutely no basis on which to reduce or modify the remedy for the Parent.

ORDER

• • The DOE failed to offer a FAPE to STUDENT for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years;
• • The Parent’s unilateral placement of STUDENT at REDACTED was appropriate for the twelve-month 2020-2021 and twelve-month 2021-2022 school years;
• • The continuation of the program of services recommended in the CPSE IEP, dated June 17, 2013, consisting of SEIT services of 5 hours per week, Speech and Language Therapy, 3x60, 1:1, Occupational Therapy, 3x45, 1:1, and Physical Therapy, 2x45, 1:1, outside of school, was appropriate for the 12-month 2020-2021 school year;
• • The continuation of the program of services recommended in the CPSE IEP, dated June 17, 2013, consisting of Speech and Language Therapy, 3x60, 1:1, Occupational Therapy, 3x45, 1:1, and Physical Therapy, 2x45, 1:1, outside of school, with the addition of 20 hours per week of home-based ABA therapy, is appropriate for the 12-month 2021-2022 school year;
• • There are no equitable considerations which would reduce or bar an award of reimbursement for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years; and, therefore,
• • The DOE shall reimburse the Parent for the tuition paid to REDACTED in the amount of $154,040 for the twelve-month 2020-2021 school year. Payment shall be made immediately, since the Parent has already submitted proof of payment to the DOE. (Exhibits H; I);
• • The DOE shall reimburse the Parent for the tuition paid to REDACTED for the twelve-month 2021-2022 school year. The total amount of tuition for the twelve-month 2021-2022 school year is $164,780. Payment shall be made upon the submission of proof of payment to the DOE, since the record reflects partial payment, of $44,945, as of the date of hearing, with a balance due of $119,835. (Exhibits J; K);
• • The DOE shall fund twenty hours per week of home-based ABA services for the twelve-month 2021-2022 school year. To the extent that those services have been funded by the Parent, the DOE shall reimburse the Parent upon submission of proof of the provision of services and proof of payment. To the extent that there remains any payment due for services provided to date, the DOE shall make direct payment for those services upon submission of an invoice for services provided. For the remainder of the 2021-2022 school year, the DOE shall make direct payment upon submission of an invoice for services provided.

Dated: March 3, 2022 Amy Lynne Itzla, Esq.

Amy Lynne Itzla, Esq.

Arbitrator

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

Within 30 days of the receipt of this decision, the parent and/or Board of Education has a right to appeal the decision to the State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Failure to file the notice of intention to seek review is a waiver of the right to appeal this decision.

Directions and forms for filing an appeal are included with this decision. Directions and forms can also be found on the Office of State Review website: www.sro.nysed.gov/ appeals.htm.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 30, 2021

REDACTED, Esq.

Attorney

Parent

REDACTED

CSE Representative

DOE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON NOVEMBER 9, 2021

REDACTED, Esq. Attorney Parent

STUDENT Mother Parent

Dr. REDACTED Neuropsychologist Parent

Dr. REDACTED Director of Education Parent REDACTED Center

REDACTED BCBA Parent

REDACTED CSE Representative DOE

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

REDACTED