New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

CASE NUMBER: 544972 - NYC: 201558

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 207558

NYS Case Identifier Number: N/A

Student’s Name: [REDACTED]

Date of Birth: [REDACTED]

District: redacted

Hearing Requested by: Parent

Date of Hearing: 1/10/22

3/7/22

4/27/22

Record Close: 6/15/22

Hearing Officer: Nancy M. Lederman, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JANUARY 10, 2022*

For the Student:

[REDACTED], ESQ., Attorney

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], District Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED MARCH 7, 2022*

For the Student:

[REDACTED], ESQ., Attorney

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], District Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED APRIL 27, 2022*

For the Student:

[REDACTED], ESQ., Attorney

[REDACTED], Parent

[REDACTED], redacted Interpreter

[REDACTED], [REDACTED]

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], District Representative

* All parties appeared via telephone/videoconference.

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).

[REDACTED]([REDACTED]) is a [REDACTED]-year-old student whose [REDACTED] ([REDACTED], or parent) brought the instant hearing, arguing that the DOE had failed to provide [REDACTED] with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 school years. The hearing was filed on March 30, 2021, but I was not appointed until December 10, 2021. The hearing convened on January 10, March 7, and April 27, 2022. Extensions were entered in compliance with state regulations, with a final compliance date of July 3, 2022.

DISTRICT AND PARENT POSITIONS

The due process complaint notice (DPCN) in this case argued that the DOE had not provided. [REDACTED] with a FAPE in the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 school years, arguing inter alia, that in one or both years, the district failed to offer an appropriate program and placement and service for [REDACTED], failed to properly evaluate the child, failed to have a properly constituted IEP team, and denied the parent meaningful participation in development of the IEP by failure to provide an interpreter for the parent at an IEP meeting.

As relief, the parent requested relief of: funding of tuition for the child for 12-month extended year services at [REDACTED] ([REDACTED]) for the two school years; various evaluations by the DOE, including adaptive physical education, occupational therapy, physical therapy, and speech language evaluations, a classroom observation at the child’s school, as well as requesting transportation to and from any evaluation site, not the child’s school; an independent neuropsychological evaluation; an IEP meeting to review evaluations, consider social skills and personal care training, revise the child’s IEP to reflect extended year services, and provide interpretation services at the meeting and translation of the new IEP for the Spanish speaking parent; and transportation (requested for the remainder of the 2020-2021 school year. Ex. A.

An Interim order was issued March 10, 2022, ordering the DOE to pay for a neuropsychological evaluation of [REDACTED].

At hearing on January 10, 2022, the district representative indicated that the district was “simply resting its case.” He stated that whether the district had provided a FAPE for the child had not “technically” yet been determined. He opposed the request for evaluations requested in the DPCN as not being necessary for the child to make educational progress nor required as to timeliness. The parent attorney confirmed the request for an IEP meeting, a 12-month program, and translation services for the parent.

At hearing on March 7, 2022, the district representative confirmed that they did have issues in regard to placement at [REDACTED] and that he did not that there are any equities issues in this case.

At hearing on April 27, 2022, the parent attorney stated that he withdrew the request for transportation as concluded. The district representative stated it was ‘simply resting on the record,” without conceding Prong 1 of the Burlington Carter analysis applicable to the private school request. The district representative argued that [REDACTED] was inappropriate for the child, citing the qualifications of the teacher and specifically objecting to the child’s teacher in the 2020-2021 school year as a registered behavioral therapist and not a teacher. He confirmed that no issues regarding equities were evident in the case. He agreed that if it was to be an award for tuition, the district did not question whether or not district payment or reimbursement.

FINDINGS OF FACT

[REDACTED] is classified as having autism. Exs. F, U. According to [REDACTED], Assistant Principal at [REDACTED], the school he attends, he could become self-directed, showing aggressive behaviors towards teachers and peers at times when prevented from doing what he wanted to do. Aggression might consist of hitting, kicking, and biting. He also had a tendency to elope. He lacks self-control, and safety awareness, and is very self-directed with behavioral issues. Tr. 71-134.

2019-2020 school year. The IEP for the 2019-2020 recommended a special class, with related services of speech, occupational therapy, physical therapy, and parent counseling and training, on a 12-month basis. The IEP included some test results psychological, occupational therapy, and physical therapy, although the only date noted for any evaluation was for a psychological on June 2, 2017. Ex. F.

[REDACTED], [REDACTED]’s mother, stated that she enrolled [REDACTED] at [REDACTED] at first 2019, as recommended by the teacher to therapy with him. She said he didn’t speak at the time; he was very behind, and needed a lot of instruction. Tr. 137-142.

[REDACTED] testified in person and additionally confirming to the authenticity of a statement in evidence as Exhibit LL. The school is a nonpublic school specializing in serving children on the autism spectrum, although some with other classifications. She testified that [REDACTED] entered [REDACTED] on September 2019. He was admitted into the BASE program, which provides a full-day 12-month academic, social skills, and behavioral program. She testified that the school’s BASE program is for students who are typically alternative assessed students, providing a very structured small classrooms, eyes focusing on ABA discrete trial learning. The program focuses on functional academics, social skills, daily living skills, and prevocational and vocational skills.

She stated that there are currently about 200 students at [REDACTED], but there would have been fewer in the years at question here. There were approximately 60 students in the BASE program in both years. The school had 26 classes in the school, about 18 classes in the BASE program, all 6:1:1 classes. [REDACTED] was placed in a 6:1:1 classroom, with teachers, teacher assistant, and various paraprofessionals. His teacher in 2019-2020 was [REDACTED], then in school for a Master’s in special education and trying to obtain a license. In 2020-2021, his teacher was [REDACTED], a registered behavioral technician, pursuing a Master’s degree in education. He had a paraprofessional for the entire two years. During remote, the one-to-one para assisted with the group lessons, keeping him on task and motivating him. The para participated on video with all his instructional programs. [REDACTED] described the para’s duties as staying in close proximity, carrying out the child’s behavior intervention plan, making sure he remained on task, and working with him one-on-one with discrete trials under the teachers, guidance and taking data.

She stated that [REDACTED] needed one-to-one support for behavioral reasons, such as aggression and eloping, as well as for toilet training. He received academics, including reading, writing, and math, as well as social skills training. He received services of occupational therapy, physical therapy, and speech. He also received adaptive physical education, three times weekly, and art therapy twice weekly. The adaptive physical education was based on a number of factors, including his gross motor skills, and the need for physical therapy, as well as his difficulties with attention and multistep directions. For [REDACTED], goals in activities of daily living pertained to toileting and personal hygiene tasks, such as brushing teeth, using utensils correctly, communicate without going to and taking care of herself in the bathroom.

In regard to his behaviors, a functional behavior assessment (FBA) was conducted and the behavior intervention plan (BIP) created. At [REDACTED], appeal, a board-certified behavior analysts (BCBA) conducts the FBAs. She also looks at data collected from the classroom teacher and creates the BIP. She also testified about the related services he received, noting that they were consistent with IEP recommendations as well as getting additional occupational therapy session. The occupational and speech therapist world licensed by New York State; the physical therapist was a physical therapy assistant, overseen by a state licensed therapist. Tr. 71-134; Exs. O, LL.

IEP meeting, April 2, 2020. At the IEP meeting for the 2020-2021 school year. According to [REDACTED], the private school presented annual reports in all areas, including academic, related services, as well as a functional behavior assessment and behavior intervention plan. Her recommendation of the meeting was that he continue in a small, structured 6:1:1 classroom. She said that it was important, he received ABA all day across all settings, breaking down skills, and providing proactive strategies to keep on task and reduce maladaptive behaviors. She expressed that the recommended 12:1:1 class recommendation was inappropriate for [REDACTED], who need the smaller class size. She also stated that the DOE representative did not offer any evaluative basis for the recommended class size for the coming school year. Nor was there any classroom observation in the previous school year. A full-time paraprofessional was added to his IEP for the 2020-2021 school year, as [REDACTED] needed one-to-one support to carry out his behavior intervention plan, and reduce behaviors, as well as for academics. Tr. 71-134; Exs. T, U.

[REDACTED] testified that she did not recall any conversation of an occupational therapy evaluation or physical examination report at the meeting. She stated that no testing was discussed. Regression was spoken about, and it was indicated in the annual review reports that he will regress over breaks, usually behavioral progress. She testified that she definitely recommended summer services for him verbally at the meeting. There was no representation from the DOE representative on the team that the student no longer requires a 12-month program, nor was there any discussion that it be removed from his IEP. Tr. 71-134; Ex. F.

[REDACTED] stated that [REDACTED] made progress on all his academic goals in the 2019-2020 school year. She said he made progress behaviorally, with his academic goals, social emotional goals, definitely growing socially in the school year. She said that there was a decrease in duration, intensity, and frequency in behaviors, noting the reduction in aggressions using some of the strategies taught with the behavior intervention plan, including sensory movement breaks, positive reinforcement and praise. He also made progress in all those related services areas. She noted an increase in utterances when he spoke his words, and his ability to engage in longer reciprocal conversations. In occupational therapy, he was progressing with some self-help skills, such as buttoning, snapping, and zipping. He also made progress with fine motor, specifically his handwriting skills. In physical therapy, he progressed with navigating the building more safely, including stairs. Tr. 71-134; Exs. K-N, Q.

[REDACTED] continued in the BASE elementary program in the following 2020-2021 school year. He attended the summer program in 2020, which was provided through distance learning. [REDACTED] stated that it was pursuant to a mandate of school closings due to COVID, which had begun in March 2020, and said he was still able to receive his one to one instruction, group instruction, and related services. Remote learning was the same hours as the school day would be. In September 2020, a hybrid schedule was implemented, which continued until April 2021.

[REDACTED] progressed with his academic skills in remote instruction. She elaborated on progress, stating that he had to be taught how to play, and now has friends and engages in reciprocal conversation and plays appropriately in the classroom. His self-help skills have increased tremendously. He’s able to go to the bathroom independently, and follows routine and schedule. Academic progress included that he had moved from just learning sounds and letters to being able to read small sentences. He had also gone from learning how to answer basic “wh” questions to answering the main idea of the passage. In math, where he had been able to recognize numbers and count, he was now able to add and to subtract. He is also able to tell time, and able to write short sentences. Tr. 71-134; Exs. BB-EE, GG-HH.

[REDACTED] also described progress, stating that now when [REDACTED] speaks, he speaks more, he has more vocabulary and can form sentences, and speak more clearly and tell her what he wants or needs. She also noted there were positive changes in regard to him getting along with other children. When he entered [REDACTED], he was not toilet trained, which he presently is; she attributed the change to training from [REDACTED]. With help he can dress and undress himself, showing more independence. She stated that the school has helped him in his education, helping him to improve and move forward. Tr. 137-142.

Contract. The contract with [REDACTED] for the 2019-2020 indicated a total price for a 10-month school year, including paraprofessional services, of $109,300. Ex. I. The parental guarantee for the 2020-2021 school year indicated the same total of $109,300 for the 10-month school year, also including related services and para. Ex. AA. The guarantee for the summer of 2020 indicated a total charge of $12,000 for a 4-week program.. Ex. Y. An affidavit from the school indicated a total amount of $127,300 for the 2020 summer, including the same $109,300 fee and $18,000 for a 6-week summer program from July 8 to August 18, 2020. Affidavits from the school indicated that the parent had not paid anything to the school. Exs. S, FF. Attendance records confirmed the child’s attendance for the 6-week program in the summer of 2020. Ex. II. [REDACTED] stated that she works as a home intendant, taking care of her father at a rate of $15 per hour. She said she was not able to afford to pay for [REDACTED]’s annual tuition. Tr. 146-147.

Request for evaluations. By letter from the parent attorney on March 30, 2021, the same day as the DPCN was filed, a request was made for evaluations to be conducted by the DOE, including evaluations for occupational therapy, physical therapy, adaptive physical education, speech-language evaluation. It also included a request for an independent neuropsychological evaluation. Ex, B, D.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The decision in this case addresses the challenge to the district’s actions and request for tuition for [REDACTED]’s placement at [REDACTED] in 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 and for various evaluations of [REDACTED], as well as language services for the parent. Analysis concerning the evaluations and language services follows the discussion of the child’s placement below.^[1]

The decision regarding the child’s placement at [REDACTED] rests on a determination of the three-pronged test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in the Burlington case, which 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

A central purpose of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education (FAPE). 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A); see Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S. Ct. 528 (2005); Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S.176 (1982); Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356 (2d Cir. 2006). A FAPE includes special education and related services designed to meet the student’s unique needs, provided in conformity with a comprehensive written IEP, which is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefit. See Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S.176 (1982); 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9)(D); 34 C.F.R. § 300.17; see 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d); 34 C.F.R. § 300.22. The student’s recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE). 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a)(2); 8 NYCRR 200.6(a)(1).

In this case I find that the DOE has failed to sustain its burden. The district representative failed to submit any evidence or put on any witnesses. Despite his statement that he would rest on the record, there was no evidence in the record to support a finding that the district had provided a FAPE for [REDACTED] in either 2019-2020 or 2020-2021.

For the reasons noted above, I find the district failed to provide FAPE to [REDACTED] in both 2019-2020 and 2020-2021.

ISSUE 2 - Appropriateness of Parent Placement

Under the second prong of Burlington, the parents bear the burden of proving the appropriateness of the services sought for REDACTED. M.S. v. Board of Education of 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 [REDACTED] offered an educational program designed to meet [REDACTED]’s 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. A unilateral placement is only appropriate if 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).

In this regard, I find that the parent have sustained their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of the program at [REDACTED] for [REDACTED].

I credit [REDACTED]’s description of the program services provided [REDACTED] at [REDACTED] in both school years regarding academics, social skills training, and speech-language therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy, and adaptive physical education addressing his gross motor skills. The child’s progress at the school was noted in testimony and in progress reports across all domains. In academics, she noted reading and write short sentences, answering the main idea of the passage, able to add and subtract and tell time. Also noted was [REDACTED]’s progress in activities of daily living, specifically improvement in toileting and personal hygiene tasks. Of particular note was the FBA and BIP, and his progress behaviorally, in social emotional goals, with a marked decrease in duration, intensity, and frequency in behaviors, specifically a reduction in aggressions attributed to the behavior intervention plan and strategies. I also credit her description of progress in related services areas, including increased utterances, longer reciprocal conversations, progressing in self-help skills, and handwriting skills.

[REDACTED] also attributed [REDACTED]’s progress to [REDACTED], with clearer speech, increased vocabulary, and able to communicate his wants and needs. She also noted successful toilet training, behavior with other children, and progress in self-help skills and more independence. I credit her statement that the school has helped him to improve and move forward.

The only specific objection to the placement the district representative voiced was that the teachers weren’t licensed teachers, but as is well documented in case law, nonpublic schools are not held to the same standard as school districts when it comes to the qualifications of their teachers.

There was no dispute to the paraprofessional services for [REDACTED], which had been added to his 2020-2021 IEP. As for the appropriateness of the extended school year program at [REDACTED], I note the removal of the 12-month recommendation that was in the child’s 2019-2020 IEP from his IEP in the following 2020-2021 school years, without explanation. In that regard, I credit the undisputed testimony of [REDACTED] that reports form the school confirmed regression over breaks, specifically in behavior, which was discussed at the meeting, as well as her verbal recommendation for summer services. There had been no dispute at the meeting nor any discussion that it be removed from his IEP.

For the reasons noted above, I find that [REDACTED] provided a program for [REDACTED] designed to meet his special education needs in both school years.

As noted below, I am ordering evaluations and review of the child’s IEP. With that review, I will including an order for the IEP to be change to ensure a 12-month program is included on the child’s IEP, or if rejected the reasons documented in the IEP.

ISSUE 3 - Equitable Considerations The third prong of the Burlington decision requires a balancing of the equities in determining whether reimbursement should be awarded. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (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).

In this case, there was no evidence that the parent did anything but cooperate with the DOE at all times. Under the circumstances, there is no evidence to warrant any denial of an award.

Direct payment.

The parent has also requested direct funding to the school. In Connors vs. Mills, 34 F.Supp.2d 795 (NDNY, 1998), the Court stated that once the Burlington/Carter prerequisites are met, the issue is not the fact of payment, but the timing of that payment, and stated that when “…a parent shows that his or her financial circumstances eliminate the opportunity for unilateral placement in the non-approved school, the public school must pay the cost of private placement immediately.” An impartial hearing officer can order prospective tuition funding, where in circumstances to hold otherwise would be to deny a child the right to access to services under the IDEA. Sabatini v. Corning-Painted Post Area School District, 78 F.Supp. 2d 138 (USDC, WDNY).

In this case, the parent indicated an inability to afford the tuition and the district representative offered no opinion on equities nor any objection to an award of reimbursement or direct payment. Under the circumstances, direct funding in this case is warranted.

Evaluations and CSE review The request on March 30, 2021 was for adaptive physical education, occupational therapy, physical therapy, and speech language evaluations. There was no evidence of any response to this request.

As noted, the district representative opposed the request for evaluations requested in the DPCN as not being necessary for the child to make educational progress, nor required as to timeliness. There was no evidence of any evaluation within a three-year period. In fact, the only evaluation for which a date was noted was a 2017 psychological evaluation noted on the child’s April 2, 2019 IEP. Ex. F. I note also [REDACTED]’s testimony that the DOE representative did not offer any evaluative basis for the recommended class size at the meeting for the 2020-2021 school year nor had any classroom observation been conducted.

Under the circumstances, if the specified evaluations have not yet been conducted, the district will be ordered to provide the evaluations requested. As noted above, while the request did not include a classroom observation, the demand for relief requested an observation on the child’s current school. Also in the DPCN was a request for as well as requesting transportation to and from any evaluation site not at the child’s school, for which no support was provided. The observation will be included in the order for evaluations, although transportation will not be ordered. As requested, a CSE review will follow the evaluations.

In regard to language services for the parent, the DPCN noted there was no Spanish interpreter at the CSE meetings. Under the circumstances, I am ordering translations services to be provided the parent during the CSE meeting and a copy of the IEP translated into Spanish.

ORDER

• • The DOE shall provide funding for [REDACTED]’s tuition at [REDACTED] for the 2019-2020 school year, at an annual rate not to exceed $109,300.
• • The DOE shall provide funding for [REDACTED]’s tuition at [REDACTED] for a 6-week program in the summer of 2020 at a rate not to exceed $18,000.
• • The DOE shall provide funding for [REDACTED]’s tuition at [REDACTED] for the 2020-2021 school year, at an annual rate not to exceed $109,300.
• • The district shall conduct evaluations of [REDACTED], including adaptive physical education, occupational therapy, physical therapy, and speech language evaluations, and a classroom observation. The classroom observation shall be conducted at the child’s school. Any of these evaluations that have been conducted since the March 30, 2021 hearing request do not need to be repeated.
• • At the conclusion of the evaluations described in Paragraph 4 of this Order, if it has not already done so, the CSE shall convene an IEP meeting to consider the results of the evaluations and make a recommendation for the child’s IEP. The IEP’s recommendation shall be revised to include 12-month extended year services, or if not recommended the IEP shall include an explanation of the basis for it being rejected. Interpretation services shall be provided at the meeting and the IEP developed at the meeting shall be translated into Spanish for the parent.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 20, 2022

_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

None

PARENT EXHIBITS

A DPCN, 3/30/21, 12 pages

B Acknowledgement of DPC, 3/30/21, 2 pages

C IEE, unidentified date, 7 pages

D Email, 3/30/21, 2 pages

E Notice of end of resolution, 3/30/21, 2 pages

F IEP, 4/2/19, 24 pages

G TDN, 8/10/19, 3 pages

H Acknowledgement of TDN, 8/10/19, 1 page

I Guarantee of tuition, 8/30/19, 2 pages

J Class schedule, 9/2019, 1 page

K OT annual review, 1/15/20, 3 pages

L PT annual review, 3/5/20, 2 pages

M Speech annual review, 3/5/20, 3 pages

N Academic annual review, 3/9/20, 4 pages

O FBA, 3/31/20, 4 pages

P BIP, 3/21/20, 5 pages

Q Progress and goals report, 6/2020, 18 pages

R Attendance report, 6/26/20, 1 page

S Tuition affidavit, 7/10/20, 1 page

T Program review worksheet, 4/20/20, 3 pages

U IEP, 4/2/20, 29 pages

V TDN, 6/24/20, 6 pages

W Acknowledgment of TDN, 6/24/20, 1 page

X PWN, 7/30/20, 3 pages

Y Guarantee of tuition, 7/20/20, 2 pages

Z Progress and goal report, 8/2020, 20 pages

AA Guarantee of tuition, 8/31/20, 2 pages

BB Academic progress report, 11/9/20, 3 pages

CC OT annual review, 1/15/21, 3 pages

DD Academic annual review, 1/21/21, 4 pages

EE Speech annual review, 2/18/21, 3 pages

FF Tuition affidavit, 3/4/21, 1 page

GG PT annual review, 3/25/21, 4 pages

HH Progress and goals report, 6/2021, 1 page

II Attendance report, 6/25/21, 1 page

JJ Program description, undated, 2 pages

KK Affidavit, [REDACTED], 3/4/22, 2 pages

LL Statement, [REDACTED], undated, 5 pages

Footnotes

[1] As noted above, the requested independent neuropsychological evaluation was ordered in an Interim order issued March 10, 2022. The transportation requested for the remainder of the 2020-2021 school year was withdrawn.