Skip to main content
Special Education Law
DECISIONMixed ResultIHO Case No. 540170

Impartial Hearing Decision

December 4, 2020·(“District”) under the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 United States Code

NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER AND DECISION

NYS Case Identifier Number: 540170 Findings of Fact and Decision SED Case Number 540170

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This case was brought before me pursuant to appointment by the [REDACTED] School District (“District”) under the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 United States Code §1415(f)(1). Upon receipt of the case, the Parties informed the undersigned that they have been litigating the student’s placement for the past several school years and that the student has been receiving instruction and related services pursuant to a pendency agreement for all these years.[1] [REDACTED] is an [redacted]-year-old student whose parent (“Parent”) has brought a hearing alleging that the District has failed to provide the student with a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the 2020-21 school year. The Parent submitted a due process complaint, (“DPC”) dated August 11, 2020, thereafter, I was appointed the impartial hearing officer. A prehearing conference took place on September 8, 2020, and October 1, 2020, a pendency hearing took place on September 16, 2020 and a hearing on the merits took place over the following 4 dates: October 29, 2020, November 3, 2020, November 12, 2020 and November 13, 2020. The Parents testified in support of their position and called 2 witnesses to testify. The District called one witness in support of its case. A list of the exhibits submitted by the parties is attached hereto as “Attachment A”. The record closed on December 10, 2020 upon receipt of the transcript and post-hearing submissions.

PARENT AND DISTRICT POSITIONS

The DPC, received by the District on August 11, 2020, made numerous claims concerning the District’s failure to provide the student with a FAPE for the 2020-2021 school year. The DPC broke down the claims into 5 broad claims: 1. The District failed to implement an “appropriately ambitious” free and appropriate education for the 20-21 school year; 2. The District failed to develop an appropriate IEP for the 20-21school year; 3. The District failed to recommend an educational placement for the student within the least restrictive learning environment; 4. The District pre-determined the educational placement of the student; and 5.The District failed to include the Parents as meaningful participants.[2] Findings of Fact and Decision SED Case Number 540170

Each of the above 5 allegations contain additional allegations as basis for their position. The Parent alleged the District failed to recommend an appropriate program and placement for the 2020-2021 school year, specifically by failing to recommend:

1. An “appropriately ambitious” free and appropriate education; based on: 1a. the District’s failure to derive appropriate “present levels of performance for the 20-21 school year, 1b. failure to appropriately align the student’s goals with appropriate grade-level learning standards for the 20-21 school year, 1c. failure to provide the student with access to the grade-level curriculum for purposes of affording appropriate curriculum modification for the 20-21 school year, 1d. failure to utilize the appropriate curriculum and learning standards which thereby precluded the ability of the District to set appropriate goals for the 20-21 school year and 1e. failure to develop and implement appropriate post-secondary goals and transition activities for the 20-21 school year.

2. The District failed to develop an appropriate IEP for the 20-21 school year, based on 2a. the failure of the District to utilize peer-based research for the 20-21 school year, 2b. failure to have the general education staff coordinate with the CSE to modify the student’s curriculum, 2c. inappropriate drafting of the IEP by the CSE Chairperson.

the student’s goals with appropriate grade-level learning standards for the 20-21 school year, 1c. failure to provide the student with access to the grade-level curriculum for purposes of affording appropriate curriculum modification for the 20-21 school year, 1d. failure to utilize the appropriate curriculum and learning standards which thereby precluded the ability of the District to set appropriate goals for the 20-21 school year and 1e. failure to develop and implement appropriate post-secondary goals and transition activities for the 20-21 school year. 2. The District failed to develop an appropriate IEP for the 20-21 school year, based on 2a. the failure of the District to utilize peer-based research for the 20-21 school year, 2b. failure to have the general education staff coordinate with the CSE to modify the student’s curriculum, 2c. inappropriate drafting of the IEP by the CSE Chairperson. 3. District failed to recommend an appropriate placement within the least restrictive environment, based on 3a. failure to consider the LRE, 3b. failure to consider the continuum of placements, 3c. failure to recommend the student’s home zoned school. 4. The District predetermined the student’s educational placement for the 20-21 school year, based on: 4a. failure to consider the ability of the District High School to education the student, 4b. failure to consider the continuum of services, 4c. failure to consider alternatives for the education for the student to attend his home-zoned school. 4. Failure to include CSE required members. 5. The District prevented the parent from meaningfully participating in the development of the child’s IEP, 5b., 5c. the District failed to provide the parent with data and information the parent needed for meaningful participation in the development of the student’s 20-21 IEP. Findings of Fact and Decision SED

3. District failed to recommend an appropriate placement within the least restrictive environment, based on 3a. failure to consider the LRE, 3b. failure to consider the continuum of placements, 3c. failure to recommend the student’s home zoned school.

4. The District predetermined the student’s educational placement for the 20-21 school year, based on: 4a. failure to consider the ability of the District High School to education the student, 4b. failure to consider the continuum of services, 4c. failure to consider alternatives for the education for the student to attend his home-zoned school. 4. Failure to include CSE required members.

5. The District prevented the parent from meaningfully participating in the development of the child’s IEP, 5b., 5c. the District failed to provide the parent with data and information the parent needed for meaningful participation in the development of the student’s 20-21 IEP.

As relief, the parent asked for a judgment sustaining its claims that the District violated IDEA by failing to provide the student with a FAPE. The Parent also sought judgment for “back-end” compensatory education.

The District maintained that it provided the student with a FAPE. The District maintained that it developed an IEP that addressed the student’s needs in compliance with State and Federal requirements.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Committee on Special Education, (“CSE”) was scheduled to meet prior to the end of the 2019-2020 school year, however, due to difficulties with obtaining a court reporter, the Parents declined to participate, and the meeting was adjourned. (Ex D-P). On August 10, 2020, the CSE met to develop an Individual Education Program, (“IEP”), for the 2020-2021 school year. The participants at the meeting were the following: Dr. [REDACTED] Chairperson and Director of Pupil Personnel Services, [REDACTED], school psychologist, [REDACTED], Special education teacher, [REDACTED], Physical Therapist, (“P/T”), [REDACTED], Speech/Language Therapist, (“S/L”) [REDACTED] Occupational Therapist, (“O/T”), [REDACTED], General Education teacher, [REDACTED], Parent Trainer, [REDACTED], Educational Consultant, the Parents, Mr. and Mrs. [REDACTED], and the Attorney Findings of Fact and Decision SED for the School District, [REDACTED]. (Ex C, p. 2).

For purposes of developing the 2020-2021 IEP, the participants reviewed the student’s educational, social, and emotional functioning. The CSE Chairperson stated the purpose of the meeting was to develop an IEP for the student’s 2020-21 school year, and she directed the participants to report on the student. (Ex. C, p. 3).

The student’s S/L therapist reported on the student’s needs and abilities and she made recommendations for the 2020-2021 school year. She stated that the student exhibits significant receptive and expressive language deficits which interfere with his ability to communicate effectively. (Ex C, p. 8). The Parent asked the S/L questions regarding the student’s ability to function in a general education setting, but the S/L was unable to answer as she provides the services in a 1:1 setting. (Ex C, p. 9).

The student’s special education teacher then reviewed the student’s needs and abilities. The Parents requested that the special education teacher share the data she used in her assessment of the student, which did not include all the goals being worked on by the student. (Ex C, p, 23). The special education teacher stated that she used the criteria as set forth in the IEP to measure progress and used the dynamic learning maps to draft the student’s goals. Further, the special education teacher stated that the dynamic learning maps are based on the common core curriculum. (Ex C, pps. 23, 27). The special education teacher also reported the student was very social and enjoyed interacting with people. The special education teacher noted however, that his 1:1 instructional setting does not provide the student with opportunities to socialize with peers during the school day. She stated that the student would benefit from being with peers in any capacity. (Ex C, pp. 34, 39).

The student’s PT reviewed the student’s physical development. The PT stated the student has a sufficient level of school based gross motor functioning and he has compensatory strategies that allow him to participate in a school environment. Additionally, although she would not recommend PT for the student, the CSE did continue the PT service based on the Parent’s input. (Ex C, pps 43, 48).

The student’s OT reviewed the student’s fine motor skills and abilities. She reported that the student was Findings of Fact and Decision SED doing well working with the computer and that he made slow, but steady progress. She reported that the student requires assistance of others for higher level bilateral coordination activities. She also stated the student was working on functional activities, such as buttoning and zippering. (Ex C pp. 49-50).

The CSE discussed the student’s transition activities, the Parent trainer stated that based upon the review of the rating forms, it was reported that college and/or technical school may be pursued by the student. Additionally, the Parent said the student has work attitudes needed for employment. With reference to independent living, the student will most likely reside in an attached apartment with the Parent. (Ex C, p. 57, Exs. QQ, RR).

The Parent trainer and educational consultant reviewed the student’s performance (Ex. C, p.72). The CSE discussed the student’s 5/13/2019 independent evaluation, (“[REDACTED] Report”), (Ex. 17, Ex. C, p. 78). The Parent expressed concern that the [REDACTED] Report’s recommendation that the student be placed in a general education setting was not viewed and reviewed by the CSE. It should be noted, that review of the [REDACTED] Report reveals in relevant part: “an independent psychological evaluation, which was done through [REDACTED] Psychological Services in July of 2016, [contained the following information]: “…Intellectual Functioning in the extremely low range (Stanford-Binet Scale V, 07/2016 -FS IQ 47, Non-Verbal IQ 50), (Letter International Performance Scale Third Edition, 01/2016 – Non-Verbal IQ 36, Figure Ground 0, Classifications/Analogies 1, Form Completion 2). Academic scores fell within the below average to deficient range, according to the (Wechsler Individual Achievement Test III 1/2016 – Basic Reading 79, Pseudoword Decoding 84, Reading Comprehension 53, Spelling 40, Word Reading 74). AK’s scores on both his Receptive and Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test were both in the deficient range. Oral Language scores according to the Woodcock-Johnson IV, Test of Oral Language, were all in the deficient range as well.” The results of the student’s performance in the 2019 reading evaluation also stated: “His intellectual profile indicated cognitive functioning in the extremely low range (and would warrant particular and careful attention be given to his language development). His personal strengths and weaknesses indicate the need for specific intervention and support in the areas of decoding, vocabulary development, comprehension, and language expression (written and verbal). Considering [REDACTED]’s current age and grade level, a comprehensive and prescriptive plan for addressing his unique goals and objectives would best be met by a collaborative team approach in which the professionals involved share and Findings of Fact and Decision SED coordinate their efforts toward meeting them.” (Ex 17, p. 8, “Recommendations”).

The educational consultant stated the goals were related to the student’s level of development, which were high school level goals from the dynamic learning maps. The Parent objected to the educational goals not being recommended in a general education setting. The Parent sought placement of the student in the general education setting. (Ex. C pp. 80,-82, 86, 87, Ex. YY).

The Parent trainer discussed the student’s transition and indicated that New York State has programs that offer a college experience for students who are alternately assessed. Further, she shared that the student may obtain paid employment and that the local community for the student as a [REDACTED] resident is very important for the family. She also stated that the student would benefit from a transition coordinator. In addition to her input at the CSE meeting, the Parent trainer testified at the hearing that “transition is really about collaboration and coordination”. Additionally, since the student is [redacted] years old, she felt it was very important, “that somebody take the reins on this and somebody engage in specific activities.” And that it was especially important for this student since he has a lot of teachers coming and going…”. The witness also testified that in this case, where the District and the Parent were not in agreement, a transition coordinator was critical to enable the student to obtain needed instruction and activities. (Transcript dated 11/12/2020 pp. 771, 772, 784, 788).

The IEP generated from the August 10, 2020 CSE meeting made the following recommendations: the student was recommended for an extended school year beginning 7/6/2020 in a 12:1:1 classroom with the related services of individual speech language therapy twice a week, individual occupational therapy twice a week, individual physical therapy twice a week and parent counseling and training once a month. The CSE also recommended a special class in a 12:1:1 classroom with adaptive physical education for the school year beginning 9/8/2020, with the related services of individual occupational therapy, twice a week, individual physical therapy, three times a week, individual speech and language therapy three times a week and once a week in a group setting, individual special instruction four times a week in the home and community and 2 hours of parent counseling and training in the home. (Ex. D-B).

The CSE classified the student with an intellectual disability and generated goals in reading, writing, Findings of Fact and Decision SED mathematics, speech and language, motor skills, daily living skills and physical education. The CSE recommended that the student have an aide in a 2:1 setting who would assist him to transition to class, the bus and from one room to another. Additionally, the student was recommended for a computer, a communication device and audible books for use at school and at home. The student was also recommended for special transportation with an attendant. Further, the team recommended 60 hours of educational consultation to support the school personnel on behalf of the student. (Ex. D). According to the IEP, the student was recommended for an “Other School District”.

The IEP included goals for transition activities that include instruction, related services, community experiences, development of employment and other post school adult living objectives, acquisition of daily living skills and a functional vocational assessment. I find that the transition goals inadequate based on the lack of a designation that the activities be provided within the [REDACTED] local community and because a Transitional Coordinator was not recommended. (Ex D).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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.

With regard to how much benefit is required for the educational program to be considered as appropriate, the US Supreme Court concluded that a school district is not required to “maximize each child’s potential commensurate with the opportunity provided other children.” Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. Findings of Fact and Decision SED 176, at 198. Clarifying how much benefit is required to achieve FAPE, in Cerra v. Pawling, 427 F.3d 186 (2005) at 195, the Second Circuit, citing Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130 and Mrs. B., 103 F.3d at 1121, explained that a district fulfills its substantive obligations if its IEP leads to progress and not regression and a district court in evaluating whether a district has met its obligation, must examine the record for “objective evidence” of whether a child is likely to progress or regress under a proposed plan. In a recent decision, the United States Supreme Court clarified that an IEP must be “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress in light of his circumstances.” Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist., 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017).

To the extent the Parent alleged in the DPC that the student’s IEP was a denial of FAPE based on the CSE’s failure to recommend a general education setting, or utilize goals based on the general education curriculum for High School students, I find these allegations were not supported by evidence. The IEP produced by the district showed that the CSE members included the required members, and there was no evidence to the contrary. The transcript of the CSE meeting, showed the Parent’s meaningful participation in development of the IEP. Moreover, the IEP recommended physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech and language services, with goals in each of those categories. The student was recommended for assistive technology, adaptive physical education, special transportation and an aide for transitions, Parent counseling and training and an educational consultant. Given the evidence adduced in the hearing, I do not find the recommendation of a self-contained special education to be a denial of FAPE. Nor do I find the absence of a recommendation for general education to constitute a denial of FAPE. The evaluation before the CSE made clear that the child was functioning well below grade level, with significant academic needs and without the cognitive, language and functional skills for a general education curriculum. Accordingly, the Parent’s allegation that the District failed to implement an appropriately ambitious free and appropriate education for the student for the 2020-2021 school year is denied.

The Parent’s allegation that the District failed to develop an appropriate IEP for the 20-21 school year, based on the failure of the District to utilize peer-based research for the 20-21 school year, failure to have the general education staff coordinate with the CSE to modify the student’s curriculum, and allegations that the CSE Chairperson drafted the IEP are without merit. The development of an IEP is governed by, among other things, the “results of the initial evaluation or most recent evaluation” of the student, as well Findings of Fact and Decision SED 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 service. See Tarlowe v. New York City Bd. Of Educ. Additionally, the Parent’s objections to development of the student’s IEP because of a failure to have general education staff coordinate with the CSE to modify the student’s curriculum is not supported by the evidence. According to the educational consultant, the goals were related to the student’s level of development, which were high school level goals from the dynamic learning maps. Finally, the Parent’s allegation that the IEP was drafted by the CSE Chairperson is not supported, according to the transcript of the 8/10/2020 CSE meeting the service providers drafted the student’s goals.

The Parent’s allegation that the District failed to recommend an appropriate placement within the least restrictive environment, based on failure to consider the LRE, failure to consider the continuum of placements, failure to recommend the student’s home zoned school is supported by the record to the extent that there was no offer of placement. According to the transcript of the 8/10/2020 CSE meeting, there was discussion of the 12:1:1 class at [REDCTED] and the inability of the [REDACTED] School to offer a 12:1:1 class, however, there was no offered placement.

The Prior Written Notice, (“PWN”) states the CSE recommended placement in a 12:1:1 setting in a neighboring school district and that the program in the [REDACTED] High School was discussed. (Ex. D-A). The School District, however, did not apply for the student’s enrollment in the [REDACTED] program and as such, there was no offer of placement for the 2020-2021 school year. (Ex. D-M). In accordance with Part 200.4(3)(xii): The IEP shall indicate the recommended placement, as such, the failure to indicate the recommended placement was a violation of the student’s right to a FAPE. Further, the District’s testimony in the hearing regarding the ability of the [REDACTED] Program to provide services did not rehabilitate the District’s failure to offer a placement. As stated in the decision by the State Review Officer, “The District may not be happy defending its CSE recommendation every year, but the IDEA specifies that the CSE must go through a host of specified procedures every year to review and revise a student’s IEP not less than annually, that it is the right afforded the parent under IDEA to challenge the CSE’s annual process and revised IEPs on both procedural and substantive grounds and thereby require the district to present evidence every year as opposed to relying on administrative Findings of Fact and Decision SED determinations based on factual events from prior school years.” Application of a Student with a Disability by his parent for review of a determination of a hearing officer relating to the provision of educational services by the Board of Education of the Westhampton Beach Union Free School District. Decision 20135, September 16, 2020. The fact that no school was actually offered denied the Parent’s ability to determine whether the student’s education plan could be implemented, it stands to reason that it is a critical element for the IEP to address. Accordingly, I find that the failure of the District to provide an offer of placement to be a denial of due process and a violation of the student’s right to a FAPE.

The Parent’s allegation that District predetermined the student’s educational placement for the 20-21 school year, based on: the failure to consider the ability of the District High School to education the student, the failure to consider the continuum of services, the failure to consider alternatives for the education for the student to attend his home-zoned school and the failure to include CSE required members is without merit. The CSE Chairperson testified that the District did not have an appropriate class for the student and although the Parents sought a placement for the student in the District High School, the fact that the District did not have an appropriate class and thus, the CSE could not make that recommendation does not establish predetermination. Moreover, review of the transcript of the CSE meeting shows the student’s providers and the Parent actively participated in the meeting. The mere fact that the Parent did not agree with the recommendation does not establish predetermination. As indicated above, the CSE’s recommendations for the continuation of the PT services was based on the Parent’s participation. (“While the [IEP team] here did not change [the student's] IEPs in the way that [the parents] would have liked, it did implement changes to both IEPs after hearing [the parents'] objections," the judge wrote. Judge Seibel explained that the team's discussions of the student's needs and the resulting IEP modifications showed that the district did not predetermine the student's placement.”) G.S. and D.S., individually and on behalf of S.S. v. Pleasantville Union Free School District, 19-CV-6508 (SDNY August 10, 2020). Accordingly, the Parent’s allegation that the District pre-determined the student’s educational placement for the 20202021 school year is denied.

The Parent’s allegation that the District prevented the parent from meaningfully participating in the development of the child’s IEP, that the CSE Chairperson acted unilaterally and that the District failed to provide the parent with data and information the parent needed for meaningful participation in the Findings of Fact and Decision SED development of the student’s 20-21 IEP is persuasive. The District has failed to refute the Parent’s claim that the District did not provide the information regarding the student’s performance on his goals other than a graph given to the Parent. The District is directed to provide the Parent with quarterly reports of the student’s progress.

There is a request for compensatory educational services in this case, but, 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]) I find there is no basis upon which to determine an award of compensatory education for the student.

ORDER

Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby ordered:

Within 30 days of the date of decision, the District is to reconvene to recommend a specific placement for the student; and the CSE is directed to review the student’s transition goals to include community opportunities within the Findings of Fact and Decision SED [REDACTED] local community that can provide pre-employment opportunities; and the student’s IEP is to be amended to include a Transition Coordinator who can collaborate and cooperate with both the District and the Parent.

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.

Roslyn Roth

Impartial Hearing Officer IT IS SO ORDERED.

December 24, 2020 Findings of Fact and Decision SED

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. Findings of Fact and Decision SED

Attachment A District Exhibits

1. Federal Complaint

2. Federal Order to Show Cause

3. [REDACTED] Affirmation in Opposition to Order to Show Cause

4. [REDACTED] Affirmation with: Exhibit A ([REDACTED] Affirmation in opposition)

5. [REDCTED] Affirmation with attached: Exhibit A: 2019 Agreement Exhibit B: [REDACTED] Letter to parents dated 8/28/2020 Exhibit C: [REDACTED] Letter to parents dated 9/1/2020 Exhibit D: [REDACTED] Letter to parents dated 9/3/2020

6. [REDACTED] Letter to parents dated 9/14/2020 re teacher’s availability

7. [REDACTED] email to parents dated 9/15/2020 re service providers for 2020-2021 school year

8. [REDACTED] email dated 9/11/2020 to educational consultant re continuing her services

9. Teacher [REDACTED]’s email dated 9/14/2020 to parents re flexible availability for remote instruction

10. Teacher [REDACTED]’s email dated 9/10/2020 to [REDACTED] re educating student

11. Questions And Answers On Providing Services To Children With Disabilities During The Coronavirus Findings of Fact and Decision SED Disease 2019 Outbreak - CDC

A PWN dated August 10th, 2020, three pages B IEP dated August 10th, 2020, 21 pages F IEP dated August 10th 2020, 23 pages M Letter dated August 19th, 2020, one page O Letter dated July 1, 2020, two pages P Letter dated June 26th, one page Q Letter dated June 16th, 2020, one page NN Parent training notes dated June 11th, 2020, one page QQ Home rating form completed Sept 4th, 2019, four pages RR School rating form, transition plan invent second edition, completed 11/19/19, four pages SS Unique Learning System alignment to New York Next Generation, P through 12 learning standards for ELA, 114 pages TT Unique Learning System P-12 learning systems for math, 67 pages VV Unique Learning System Transition instructional targets, undated, one page WW Unique Learning Systems scope and sequence English Language Arts, 29 pages XX Unique Learning Systems in sequence math, 30 pages YY Dynamic learning maps essential elements for ELA, CCC Affidavit 148 pages

of Dr. [REDACTED], 55 pages Findings of Fact and Decision SED

Parent Exhibits

1 Fact sheet from Center for

Parent Information and Resources,[10] pages

2 Special education field advisory dated Nov 2015, two pages 2A Supplement to Exhibit 2, six pages

3 New York State ed document dated June 2014, 6 pages

4 Dynamic learning maps profiles

for ELA, copyright 2017, pages 28 to 31 four pages total

5 Document from the US DOE dated Nov 16, 2015, seven pages

6 Special education field dated June 14, seven pages advisory 9 Brief from the Center dated July 20, 2020, four pages

11 Special education field advisory dated Dec 2015, 28 pages

12 Learning profile 2015-2016 year, 22 pages

17 Learning Center Eval 18 dated 5/13/19 11 pages Statement of Facts by Mr. undated 14 pages

IHO EXHIBIITS

I Parent’s Closing Brief, submitted12/3/2020 20 pages II District’s Closing Brief, dated 12/3/2020 20 pages

Footnotes

[1] SRO Decision 20-135, dated 9/16/2020

[2] Each of the above 5 allegations contain additional allegations as basis for their position as follows: 1.The District failed to recommend an appropriate program and placement for the 2020-2021 school year, specifically by failing to recommend: 1. An “appropriately ambitious” free and appropriate education; based on: 1a. the District’s failure to derive appropriate “present levels of performance for the 20-21 school year, 1b. failure to appropriately align

[10] Brief from the Center dated July 20th, eight pages