New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

CASE NUMBER: 550311 - NYC: 206629

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Student’s Name: REDACTED (“Student”)

Date of Birth: REDACTED

District: New York City Department of Education (“DOE” or the “District”)

Hearing Requested by: REDACTED, Esq., of Law Offices of REDACTED, on behalf of REDACTED (the “Parents”) and the Student

Record Close Date: March 11, 2022

Hearing Officer: Randy Glasser, Esq.

On February 9, REDACTED, Esq., of Law Offices of REDACTED, filed a due process complaint (“DPC”) on behalf of the Parents and their child, the Student, regarding her special education program and services for the 2020/2021 school year (Parent Ex. “A”). Pursuant to a Change in Hearing Officer resulting from the appointment of the prior Hearing Officer being rescinded, this Hearing Officer was appointed as the Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) on December 16, 2021. A prehearing conference was held on January 5, 2022, and Hearing was held on February 11, 2022. Despite an email sent by this IHO on February 5, 2022, reminding the parties of the Hearing and subsequent email to the District, once the Hearing had convened with the Parent and Parent’s Counsel, informing the District that the Hearing would go forward even if a District Representative failed to appear, no one appeared for the District (Tr. 18-19) The Parents and Student were represented by Ms. REDACTED.

In addition to not appearing, the District did not submit any documents into evidence. The Parents submitted into evidence Exhibits “A” through “P”, which included the Testimony Affidavit of REDACTED, a Social Worker at the REDACTED (“REDACTED”) Lower School, and the Parent (see Parent Exhibit “O”, and “P”, respectively). Lists of the appearances and documentary evidence submitted in this proceeding are appended to this Order. The compliance date for this matter was extended to March 31, 2022 (IHO Ex. “I”).

BACKGROUND AND POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

The Student is REDACTED years old, diagnosed with a Specific Learning Disorder with Impairment in Reading (word reading accuracy, reading rate or fluency, reading comprehension), Specific Learning Disorder with impairment in Written Expression (spelling accuracy, grammar and punctuation accuracy, clarity or organization of written expression), and Developmental Motor Coordination Disorder (Parent Ex. “B”). In addition, the Student:

... has strengths in the following areas:

• Verbal Reasoning

• Verbal Memory

• Word Generation

• Executive Functioning: Attention, Inhibition

• Math Fluency, Word Problems

• Social Perception

And deficits/weaknesses in:

• Working Memory

• Reading

• Written Expression

• Fine Motor Control (Id.)

The Parents unilaterally placed the Student at the REDACTED for the 2020/2021 school year for which they now seek tuition reimbursement (Parent Ex. “A”).

The Parents argue that based upon the issues set forth in the DPC and the record, the DOE has failed to provide a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the Student for the 2020/2021 school year, REDACTED is an appropriate setting for the Student, and the equities support the Parents and that therefore the DOE should reimburse the Parents for the Student’s tuition at REDACTED for the 2020/2021 school year (Parent Ex. “A”, see also: Parent’s opening statement at Tr. 26-41) and closing statement at Tr. 58-62).

At the Prehearing Conference, the DOE expressed its position as follows, “...but at this point, since we did create an IEP for that school year, we feel that we've provided a FAPE. And thus we feel the claims are unsubstantiated and that we did what we needed to do for this student for the school year in question (Tr. 6-7).

The Student’s eligibility and classification are not at issue in this case.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

A. Introduction: The IDEA provides that children with disabilities are entitled to a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) (20 U.S.C. § 1400 (d)(1)(A)). A FAPE consists of specialized education and related services designed to meet a student’s unique needs, provided in conformity with a comprehensively written IEP (Id., 20 U.S.C. §1414(d); 34 C.F.R. § 300.17). A school district has offered a student a FAPE when (a) the board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA; and (b) the IEP is developed through, the IDEA's procedures, and is (c) reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits. Board of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 (1982). In order to meet its substantive FAPE obligations, a district must offer a student an IEP that is “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist., RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017).

Decisions of impartial hearing officers must be on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE (8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(4)(i)), except:

In matters alleging a procedural violation, an impartial hearing officer may find that a student did not receive a free appropriate public education only if the procedural inadequacies impeded the student’s right to a free appropriate public education, significantly impeded the parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a free appropriate public education to the parent’s child, or caused a deprivation of educational benefits. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to preclude an impartial hearing officer from ordering a school district to comply with procedural requirements under this Part and Part 201 of this Title 8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(4)(ii).

Id. (Emphasis added.)

School districts have the burden of proof, including the burden of persuasion and burden of production, in IDEA due process hearings, except that a parent or person in parental relationship seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral parental placement has the burden of persuasion and burden of production on the appropriateness of such placement (NYS Educ. Law § 4404(1)(c)).

• • The IDEA empowers a hearing officer to grant the relief he/she deems appropriate. 34 CFR §300.516(c)(3). One such remedy is reimbursement of tuition and related expenses. Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993); Burlington Sch. Comm. v. Mass. Dep’t. of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, (1985). Notably, the mere fact that the state educational agency and/or LEA has not approved the private school placement does not bar the parents from reimbursement. Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, supra.

REDACTED testified in relevant part regarding her education, certification(s), tenure at the REDACTED (Parent Ex. “R” at ¶¶2-3), including her duties and responsibilities (Id. at ¶¶4 -5), the professional development she receives at REDACTED (Id. at ¶6), REDACTED, including its Student population (Id. at ¶¶7, 9-11, 13-17), the related services, physical education and specials REDACTED provided during the 2020/2021 school year (Id. at ¶¶8, 19-22), the remote/distance learning option for 2020/2021 school year (Id. at ¶12), the RULER approach and Collaborative for Academic, Social and Emotional Learning (CSEL) guidelines used by REDACTED (Id. at ¶18), modification of instruction and Staff at REDACTED (Id. at ¶¶23-27), her familiarity with the Student (Id. at ¶27), the Student’s class during the 2020/2021 school year and that “it was appropriate for her academic level while also providing her with socially appropriate peers” (Id. at ¶28), the age range and classifications of the students in her homeroom class (Id. at ¶¶29-30), the instruction the Student received at REDACTED during the 2020/2021 school year, including when such instruction was in-person versus remote (Id. at ¶¶31-33), the professional development and training provided to the Student’s teachers to “ensure that they are trained to meet the needs of students with language-based learning disabilities” (Id. at ¶34), her familiarity with the Student’s teachers and providers during the 2020/2021 school year, and their respective credentials and the professional development they received (Id. at ¶¶35-36), the teacher’s and providers’ familiarity with the Student’s needs, records they reviewed at the beginning of the 2020/2021 school year and what such records revealed about the Student (Id. at ¶37), the assessments given the Student at the beginning of the 2020/2021 school year so that she could be placed in the appropriate group for reading, writing and math (Id. at ¶38), information from the Student’s prior evaluation and more-recent neuropsychological evaluations, were consistent with REDACTED’ observations, reports and assessments (Id. at ¶39), the Student’s struggles with reading at the beginning of the school year, what she worked on and how REDACTED’ program addressed her foundational reading skills (Id. at ¶40), the goals developed for the Student’s reading at the beginning of the school year, the small reading group the Student was placed in, they used the Wilson Reading System (“Wilson”), about Wilson, the Student’s performance in the group and progress (Id. at ¶¶42-45), how the Student worked on her writing from the beginning of the 2020/2021 school year, the supports provided to her in writing, and progress over the course of the year (Id. at ¶¶46-48), the math group the Student was in during the school year, modification of the math curriculum, the size of the group, how lessons were introduced, and her progress (Id. at ¶¶49-51), how the Student’s reading, spelling and writing challenges were supported (Id. at ¶52), how classes were provided when she attended REDACTED in person (Id. at ¶53), how Social Studies was taught in the REDACTED^[1] (Id. at ¶54), the language support provided to the Student in the classroom (Id. at ¶55), her occupational therapy sessions, how they were provided, and what they worked on (Id. at ¶56), the Student’s schedules and description of the School (Id. at ¶58; see Parent Ex. “I”, “J”, “K”, “L” and “M”), the progress reports issued by the Student’s teachers twice during the year and that “they are accurate reflections of her needs” (Id. at ¶57; see Parent Ex. “N” and “O”); and why the Student received an appropriate special education program at REDACTED and made “significant progress” during the 2020/2021 school year (Id. at ¶60).

The Parent testified in relevant part about the Student, and where she attended preschool and kindergarten (Parent Ex. “S” at ¶2-3); the Student’s first evaluation by REDACTED and diagnosis of a Specific Learning Disorder with impairment in Reading Writing, and Math, and that she has “severe dyslexia” (Id. at ¶4); the Student’s placement at REDACTED academy and why (Id. at ¶5); when the Parent moved to New York City the Student attended REDACTED for the third grade during the 2019/2020 school year (Id. at ¶6); the neuropsychological evaluation by REDACTED, their findings and recommendations, including but not limited to the placement the Student required, and that her placement at REDACTED was consistent with the Student’s recommended placement (Id. at ¶¶7-8); the Parent shared this evaluation with the NYCDOE, and the teacher at REDACTED and she repeatedly told the IEP Team that the Student required a smaller full-time special educational setting, and the supports and reading and writing instruction she needed (Id. at ¶¶9, 14); the Student’s first IEP Team meeting on March 3, 2020, and documents provided to the Team by the Parent (Id. at ¶¶10-11); the reading and math group the Student was in at REDACTED (Id. at¶¶12-13); once the Student attended REDACTED she was finally beginning to learn and make progress (Id. at ¶14); the occupational therapy the Student received at REDACTED (Id. at ¶15); what was detailed to the IEP Team, their recommendations, why there were not appropriate for the Student, the concerns expressed by the Parent at the meeting (Id. at ¶¶16-19); on July14, 2020 the Parent emailed the District to obtain information about the Special Education Teacher Support Services (“SETSS”) recommended by the IEP Team (Parent Ex. “P”) and also submitted a letter to the DOE detailing her concerns about the IEP Team’s recommendations, which the DOE did not respond to (Parent Ex “C”)( (Id. at ¶¶21-23); when schools opened again in August the Parent re-emailed her questions about the proposed placement to the District to which the District replied they did not have the Student in their system, but there was space in the class, the Student was placed in Model 2 and what that meant, and that the Student’s teacher could answer the Parent’s questions, but she was off for the summer (Id. at ¶¶24-25); after not hearing from the District or Teacher, the Parent re-emailed her questions to the District and Student’s teacher (Id. at ¶26); the District responded that the Student’s SETSS would be provided remotely, and that she would not receive any in-person special education (Id. at ¶ 27); whether or not the remote and blended learning was discussed by the IEP Team, and why it is not appropriate for the Student, the Parent’s concerns about the fact the Student would not receive in-person special education, and the letter she wrote to the District detailing these concerns, to which she did not receive a response (Id. at ¶¶28-31; Parent Ex. “C”); why the Parent kept the Student at REDACTED for the 2020/2021 school year, when she signed the contract with REDACTED, how she paid for the tuition, the portions paid by the Parent’s father and Parents, and that the tuition was paid in full (Id. at ¶¶32-36); the Student attended REDACTED both in-person and remotely during the 2020/2021 school year, her teacher’s did a “great job” with remote learning (Id. at ¶37); why REDACTED was appropriate for the Student (Id. at ¶¶38-41).

B. Tuition Reimbursement/Direct Funding: A board of education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a child by the child's parent, (1) if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, (2) the services selected by the parent were appropriate, and (3) equitable considerations support the parent's claim (Burlington Sch. Comm v. Mass. Dep’t. of Educ., supra; Florence County Sch. Dist. Four et al. v. Carter, supra; see also Frank G. and Dianne G. v. Board of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356 (2d Cir. 2006), cert denied, Board of Educ. of Hyde Park Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Frank G., 2007 WL 2982269 (2007). Accordingly, the above-stated three (3) prong analysis (the “Burlington/Carter Criteria”) is applied to determine whether the board of education is required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private educational services obtained for a student by his or her parents. Id.

The inquiry made pursuant to the first prong, may go beyond the appropriateness of the student’s IEP and/or placement and encompass other FAPE claims (see 20 USC §1412(a)(10)(C)(ii); 34 C.F.R. 300.148(a) and (c); Forest Grove v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230 (2009); P.C. Oceanside Union Free Sch. Dist., 818 F. Supp. 2d 516 (E.D.N.Y. 2011); Mr. N.C. v. Bedford Cent. Sch. Dist., 300 F. App’x 11 (2d Cir. 2009). To determine whether the school district made FAPE available to the student in a timely matter, Rowley’s two-part test, as modified by Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist., RE-1, supra, for appropriateness should be applied. Specifically, the hearing officer must determine whether the school district complied with the procedural requirements of the IDEA and whether the IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the child to make appropriate progress in light of her circumstances. Id. “An appropriate educational program therefore begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student’s needs, establishes annual goals related to those needs, and provides for the use of appropriate special education services.” (See Application of the Dept. of Educ., Appeal No. 07-018 (2007)). Thus, the annual goals and short-term objectives should be consistent with, and relate to, the identified needs and abilities of the student. See Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 14-078 (2015) (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(II); 34 CFR § 300.320(a)(2)(i); 8 NYCRR § 200.4(d)(2)(iii)).

While the Second Circuit has emphasized that school districts must comply with a checklist of procedures for developing a student’s IEP, the Court has also explained that not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA. See A.C. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Chappaqua Cent. Sch. Dist., 553 F.3d 165, 172 (2d Cir. 2009). Under the IDEA, if procedural violations are alleged, an administrative officer may find that a student did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies: (a) impeded the student’s right to a FAPE; (b) significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student; or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits to the student (20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(d)(E)(ii); 34 C.F.R. §300.513(a)(2); 8 NYCRR §200.5(j)(4)(ii)).

In the instant case, the DOE failed to appear at the Hearing and therefore failed to put any documents into evidence, put on a direct case, present rebuttal testimony (see infra). In fact when this IHO offered the District to reconvene the hearing to afford them the opportunity to cross-examine REDACTED, the Parents’ witness, based upon her revised Affidavit, they failed to respond (IHO Ex. “II”)^[2].

As aforementioned, the DOE has the statutory burden of persuasion and production in this case, to show that the program and services offered by the DOE pursuant to the Student’s IEPs were adequate or appropriate in order to satisfy Prong I of the Burlington/Carter Criteria. Accordingly, the District failed to proffer sufficient documentary or any testimonial evidence or otherwise prove that it had offered the Student a FAPE for the 2020/2021 school year, e.g., whether it offered a program that “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist., RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017).

Consequently, since the hearing record is devoid of any persuasive evidence, arguments or statutory authority proffered by the District, which can adequately support a contention or otherwise negate the Parents’ allegations, it is this IHO’s finding, as discussed more fully infra that the District both procedurally and substantively denied the Student a FAPE, for the 2020/2021 school year.

Due to the DOE’s failure to satisfy the first prong of the Burlington/Carter criteria, the burden shifts to the Parents to prove that the unilateral placement was appropriate or proper. Burlington Sch. Comm., 471 U.S. at 369 and 370; see also Florence County Sch. Dist. Four et al. v. Carter, 510 U.S. at 15. In order to meet this burden, the Parents must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the unilateral placement provides “educational instruction specifically designed to meet the unique needs of the student” (Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 112 (2d. Cir. 2007)). In this regard, the court in Gagliardo explained:

No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining whether parents' unilateral placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. Grades, test scores, and regular advancement may constitute evidence that a child is receiving educational benefit, but courts assessing the propriety of a unilateral placement consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child's individual needs. To qualify for reimbursement under the IDEA, parents need not show that a private placement furnishes every special service necessary to maximize their child's potential. They need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction.

Id. at 112 (quoting, Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65).

However, the private school placement “need not meet the IDEA’s definition of a free and appropriate public education” or “state education standards or requirements” (Frank G. v. Board of Educ., at 364). Moreover, the private placement need not provide certified special education teachers or an IEP. Parental placements are not subject to the same mainstreaming requirements as a school district placement. The private school placement must be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, and must be likely to produce progress, not regression. Id.

In the instant case, the testimony and documentary evidence overwhelmingly support the Parents’ claim that the Student’s placement at REDACTED provides her with educational instruction that is specifically designed to meet her unique special education needs, supported by such services that are necessary to permit her to benefit from instruction and established that the Student has, in fact, made meaningful progress at the School (see Infra). In this regard, and as aforementioned both Ms. REDACTED and the Parent described how REDACTED addressed the Student’s needs, resulting in her making progress in reading, writing, math, and socially (see: infra; Parent Ex. “N” and “O”). Accordingly the Parents have satisfied their burden regarding Prong II.

The determination of whether, or not equitable factors support a parent’s claim for tuition reimbursement hinges, in large part, on whether, the parent cooperated with the CSE. In the instant matter, the DOE failed to provide any evidence and/or raise any equitable factors, which would preclude or limit tuition reimbursement for the Parent’s unilateral placement of the Student at REDACTED for the 2020/2021 school year. In fact, when the Parents provided notice to the DOE that they planned to unilaterally enroll the Student at REDACTED for the 2020/2021 school year, the DOE failed to respond (see: infra; Parent Ex. “C”, “S” at ¶¶20-21).

Based on the foregoing, this IHO finds that the Parents have satisfied the third prong of the Burlington/Carter Criteria for tuition reimbursement. Having met all three (3) of the Burlington/Carter Criteria, the Parents are entitled to reimbursement for the cost of the Student’s tuition at REDACTED for the 2020/2021 school year. The record in this case establishes that the Student’s total annual tuition at REDACTED for the 2020/2021 school year was SEVENTY ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND THIRTY NINE DOLLARS ($71,739.00), and that the total amount was paid (Parent Ex. “E’, “F”, “G”, “H”). In addition the Parent paid ONE THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED NINETY ONE DOLLARS AND THIRTY CENTS ($1,291.30) for Tuition Refund Insurance (Parent Ex. “E”, “F”, “H”). The Parent explained that they borrowed SIXTY FIVE THOUSAND THIRTY DOLLARS AND THIRTY CENTS ($65,030.30) from her father (the Student’s grandfather) and the Parents paid the EIGHT THOUSAND DOLLARS ($8,000.00) deposit (Parent Ex. “S” at ¶¶34-36).

Reasonableness of the cost of the services which a Parent has obtained for a child may be considered in determining whether equitable considerations support the parent's claim for reimbursement (Florence County Sch. Dist. Four, supra). When the cost of the services which a parent has obtained is excessive, a hearing officer or reviewing officer may properly limit the parent's claim for reimbursement (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 97-10, 06-004, 06-061, 06-058, 07-028, 99-021). Even though SRO decisions are not binding authority, they offer guidance in this regard. Accordingly, this IHO finds that the Tuition Refund Insurance is excessive, and therefore not proper to be included within an award of tuition reimbursement.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than thirty (30) days after this Decision, the DOE shall reimburse the Parent an amount not to exceed of SEVENTY ONE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND THIRTY-NINE DOLLARS ($71,739.00), representing the Student’s tuition for the 2020/2021 school year at REDACTED.

March 11, 2022

Randy Glasser

Randy Glasser, Esq.

Impartial Hearing Officer

NAMES AND TITLES OF APPEARANCES ON NOVEMBER 22, 2021

DOE

None

Parents

REDACTED, Esq., Law Offices of REDACTED

REDACTED, Parent

REDACTED, Social Worker, REDACTED

DOCUMENTS ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

IHO Exhibits

I. Order of Extension, 2/10/2022, 1 page

• • II. Emails, 3/8/2022, 6 pages
• • DOE Exhibits

None

• • Parent Exhibits A. Due Process Compliant, 2/9/2021, 6 pages B. Neuropsychological and Educational Evaluation, 11/2019, 31 pages C. Ten Day Notice, 7/13/2020, 5 pages D. Parent Letter to DOE, 10/9/2020, 5 pages E. REDACTED Contract, 2/20/2020, 5 pages F. Payment Record for REDACTED, 2/4/2020, 1 page G. Loan Documentation, 2021, 2 pages H. Proof of Payment, Various Dates, 5 pages I. REDACTED Schedule, 2020-2021, 1 page J. REDACTED Remote Schedule, 202-2021, 1 page K. REDACTED Remote Learning Schedule, 2020-2021, 1 page L. REDACTED Description, 2020-2021, 5 pages M. REDACTED Distance Learning Plan, 2020-2021, 1 page N. Mid-Year Report, 1/29/2021, 13 pages O. Year-End Report, 6/2021, 11 pages P. Parent Email to REDACTED, 7/14/2020, 1 page Q. Emails between Parent & REDACTED, August/October 2020, 3 pages R. Testimony Affidavit, 2/8/22, 13 pages S. Testimony Affidavit, 2/10/22, 7 pages

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 appeals 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.

Footnotes

[1] Ms. REDACTED explained that the “REDACTED” is the name of the Student’s classroom (Tr. 47).

[2] In an email dated March 8, 2022, this IHO stated in relevant part: As the parties know, as the IHO I am obligated to certify the record upon submission to the DOE of the evidence in this case after submission of my Findings of Fact and Decision. Upon review of Kathleen REDACTED's Affidavit (at Parent Ex. "R"), it appears that there may be a typographical error in one of the paragraphs. Specifically, it appears that paragraph 35 is referring to the 2020/2021 school year when it states the "2019/2020" school year. I would therefore appreciate Parents' counsel conferring with Ms. REDACTED to see whether or not this is in fact a typographical error. If it is, and the affidavit is therefore revised, I will provide the DOE with the opportunity to cross examine this witness on a hearing date to be scheduled by the parties. I would appreciate Ms. REDACTED getting back to me no later than tomorrow regarding this matter and, if this is in fact a typographical error, I would appreciate the District getting back to me as to whether or not they want to reconvene the hearing so that they can cross-examine the witness, no later than Thursday, March 10th. If I do not hear from the District by such date, I will assume that the District does not want to cross examine Ms. REDACTED. To which Ms. REDACTED responded in relevant part, “I have confirmed with the witness, Ms. REDACTED. It was in fact a typographical error and the paragraph was referring to the 2020-2021 school year” to which this IHO responded in relevant part, “Thank you for your prompt response Ms. REDACTED. As stated above, if I do not hear from the District by Thursday, March 10th that they would like to reconvene the hearing to cross-examine Ms. REDACTED, I record will be complete as amended e.g., paragraph 35 in Ms. REDACTED's affidavit at Parent Ex. "R". I will also be placing this email chain into the record as IHO Ex. "II"” (IHO Ex. “II”) (emphasis added). The DOE did not respond by March 10th.