New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT & DECISION

Case No.: 207718

Student’s Name: [REDACTED]

(hereinafter referred to as “Student”)

Date of Birth: [REDACTED]

District: [REDACTED]

(“District”)

Hearing Request by: [REDACTED]

(“Parent(s)”)

Hearing Date(s): 6/7/2022, 7/15/2022

Record Close Date: 10/21/22

Hearing Officer: Sebastian A. Weiss, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED:

For the Student:

[REDACTED] (“Parent Representative”)

[REDACTED] (“Parent or Mother”)

[REDACTED]

(“Unilateral Placement Associate Director”)

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED]

(“District Representative”)

[REDACTED]

(“District Placement Coordinator”)

[REDACTED]

(“CSE Representative”)

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On December 9, 2021, the Parents filed a Due Process Complaint (“DPC”) against the District. The relief sought by the DPC includes payment of tuition for the Student’s unilateral placement at the [REDACTED] (“Unilateral Placement”) for the 2020-21 school year (“School Year”). (Ex. A).^[1]

The undersigned Hearing Officer was appointed to this case on December 9, 2021. A prehearing conference was conducted on December 21, 2021. The hearing on the merits was conducted on June 7 and July 15, 2022.

ISSUES AND ARGUMENTS

PARENT CASE:

The DPC alleges that the District denied the Student a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) by not providing an appropriate IEP and special education placement. (Ex. A)

At the hearing, the Parents presented the following arguments: (July 15 T 155-8; July 15 T 222)

The Student requires a small, self-contained special education class within a special education school.

The District held an IEP meeting for the Student in May of 2020 and recommended a 12:1 class placement.

The Student’s parents, her teachers, as well as the neuropsychologist who evaluated her, all stated that she needed a much smaller class than a 12student class and a much greater student-teacher ratio than a 12:1 recommended by the District.

The placement recommended by the District for the School Year has a 12:1:1 class but does not have a 12:1 class and therefore could not implement the IEP as written.

It is the Parent's position that a 12:1 or 12:1:1 are both inappropriate placements.

The Unilateral Placement was able to offer an appropriate education for the Student.

The Student’s progress reports and witness testimony from the Unilateral Placement will show that she made meaningful progress and was properly placed for the School Year.

Finally, the equities are in favor of the parent in that she participated in good faith with the IEP process.

The relief the Parents are seeking is a combination of reimbursement to the Parents and direct payment to the Unilateral Placement for Unilateral Placement tuition and costs for the School Year. The Parents are not seeking any other relief.

The Parents presented fifteen (15) alphabetically listed exhibits into evidence. The Parents also presented the testimony of two witnesses – the Unilateral Placement Associate Director and the Student’s Mother.

DISTRICT CASE:

The District presented the following arguments at the hearing: (June 7 T 61-3; July 15 T 220)

The Student was provided a free and appropriate public education for the School Year.

The District held an IEP meeting on May 6, 2020 and recommended a program that included a 12:1 special class in math, ELA, social studies, and science, five periods a week in special education classrooms, as well as related services of Occupational Therapy (“OT”), Physical Therapy (“PT”), speech-language therapy (“SLT”), and visual aids as needed.

The IEP created on May 6th, 2020, was an appropriate IEP that would enable the Student to make meaningful educational progress.

The District offered the Student an appropriate school placement at [REDACTED] which was capable of implementing the Student’s IEP program (“District Placement”).

The District does not have any equity issues with the Parent.

Even if it is determined that the District did not provide a FAPE, the District maintains that the Parents will not be able to meet their burden on Prong II to demonstrate the appropriateness of the Unilateral Placement. Accordingly, the requested relief should be denied.

The District submitted four (4) numbered exhibits into evidence and presented the testimony of two (2) witnesses – the District Placement Coordinator and the CSE Representative.

SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE LAW

The IDEA is a comprehensive statutory framework established by the United States Congress to ensure that students with disabilities are afforded a 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 Rowley; 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. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a)(2); 8 NYCRR 200.6(a)(1).

In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. 999, 14 (2017), the Court held that, “[t]o meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances, as a focus on the particular child is at the core of the IDEA. The instruction offered must be “specially designed” to meet a child’s “unique needs” through an “individualized education program.” §§1401(29), (14) (emphasis added), to reflect the fact that a contemplated IEP must be focused on the “particular child that is at the core of the IDEA.”

Pursuant to New York Education Law §4404(1)(c), the board of education shall have the burden of proof, the burden of persuasion, and the burden of production in impartial hearings except for instances where the parent is seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral parental placement and in those cases the parent shall have the burden of persuasion and the burden of production as to the appropriateness of the placement. The burden of proof in matters such as this shall only be met upon a fair preponderance of the evidence. The preponderance of the evidence standard requires the trier of fact to find that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence. Concrete Pipe & Products of California, Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California, 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993). In other words, preponderance of the evidence is evidence that is more convincing than the evidence offered in opposition to it. Greenwich Collieries v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 990 F. 2d 730, 736 (3rd. Cir. 1993), aff’d, 512 U.S. 246 (1994).

The decision in this case rests on a determination of the three-pronged test set forth by the United States Supreme Court, 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 U.S. 7 (1993).

Under the second prong of the Burlington/Carter test, the parents bear the burden of proving the appropriateness of the unilateral placement. See 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 unilateral placement offered an educational program designed to meet the Student’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).

Regarding the placement of students with disabilities, N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 8 § 200.6(a)(3) states: “Students with disabilities placed together for purposes of special education shall be grouped by similarity of individual needs as defined in section 200.1(ww) of this Part, in accordance with the following: (i) The range of academic or educational achievement of such students shall be limited to assure that instruction provides each student appropriate opportunities to achieve his or her annual goals. The learning characteristics of students in the group shall be sufficiently similar to assure that this range of academic or educational achievement is at least maintained. (ii) The social development of each student shall be considered prior to placement in any instructional group to assure that the social interaction within the group is beneficial to each student, contributes to each student's social growth and maturity, and does not consistently interfere with the instruction being provided. The social needs of a student shall not be the sole determinant of such placement. (iii) The levels of physical development of such students may vary, provided that each student is provided appropriate opportunities to benefit from such instruction. Physical needs shall be considered prior to determining placement to assure access to appropriate programs. The physical needs of the student shall not be the sole basis for determining placement. (iv) The management needs of such students may vary, provided that environmental modifications, adaptations, or, human or material resources required to meet the needs of any one student in the group are provided and do not consistently detract from the opportunities of other students in the group to benefit from instruction.”

Regarding least restrictive environment, N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 8 § 200.1(cc) states that “Least restrictive environment means that placement of students with disabilities in special classes, separate schools or other removal from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that even with the use of supplementary aids and services, education cannot be satisfactorily achieved. The placement of an individual student with a disability in the least restrictive environment shall: (1) provide the special education needed by the student; (2) provide for education of the student to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of the student with other students who do not have disabilities; and (3) be as close as possible to the student's home.”

FINDINGS OF FACT

At the beginning of the School Year, the Student was entering the [REDACTED] grade. The Disability Classification indicated on the Student’s Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) is Learning Disability. (D Ex. 1)

The Student’s preschool teacher reported speech difficulties and motor weakness. (Ex. B-001)

In 2018, a Neuropsychological Evaluation was conducted (“2018 Neuropsychological Evaluation”) and the Student was diagnosed with Specific Learning Disability with Impairment in Reading (dyslexia) and a Language Disorder. (Ex. B-001) The academic testing revealed that the Student’s reading, spelling and math skills were well below age and grade level (Ex. 1-1)

For kindergarten and 1st grade, the Student attended the District Placement.

For the 2019-2020 school year, the Student attended the Unilateral Placement. (Ex. J-002)

On January 21, 2020, another Neuropsychological Evaluation of the Student was conducted by a Pediatric Neuropsychologist (“2020 Neuropsychological Evaluation”). (Ex. B) Among other findings, the Student’s language skills were judged to be below average for her age and the Student’s test scores indicated that she may struggle with inattentiveness, impulsivity, and sustained attention. (Id)

Based on the test results, the 2020 Neuropsychological Evaluation recommends that the Student remain at the Unilateral Placement, where she has “benefited from the consistent and intensive academic remediation particularly with respect to her delayed reading and writing skills.” (Id)

The 2020 Neuropsychological Evaluation further states that “an ICT class in a community school is too large and will not adequately meet her learning needs; a 12:1:1 special class in a community school will not provide a curriculum to address her specific needs and may include students who impede her functional success (i.e., students exhibiting significant behavioral difficulties). [The Student] should be placed with students of at least average intellectual potential who also exhibit difficulties with learning. Classroom ratio should be low so she receives the necessary 1:1 attention.” (Id)

The 2020 Neuropsychological Evaluation also recommends that the Student continue to receive SLT and OT. (Id B-005)

On May 6, 2020, the District convened an IEP meeting (“2020 IEP Meeting”) to develop an IEP for the Student (“2020 IEP”). (Ex. 1, 2) The 2020 IEP recommends the following placement and program a ten month school year:

• • Placement in a NYC DOE School Non-Specialized (District 1-32)
• • Special Class - Staffing Ratio: 12:1
• • Occupational Therapy (Group),
• • Physical Therapy (Group),
• • Speech-Language Therapy (Group),
• • Speech-Language Therapy (Individual)
• • Visual aids On May 13, 2020, the District issued a Prior Written Notice (Notice of Recommendation) to the Parents summarizing the recommendation set forth in the 2020 IEP. (Ex. 3)

Also on May 13, 2020, the District issued a School Location Letter to the Parents indicating the name and location of the District Placement.

On May 25, 2020, the Parents entered into an Enrollment Contract with the Unilateral Placement (“Enrollment Contract”). (Ex. K)

On August 24, 2020, the Parents issued a Ten Day Notice to the District. (Ex. C)

On December 11, 2020, the Parents issued a follow up letter to the District. (Ex. D)

The Unilateral Placement’s Year-End Report for the School Year states that the Student was “in a self-contained class of ten students and two teachers. Along with regular academic subjects, [the Student] received language therapy one time per week with one other child and occupational therapy one time per week with one other child/individually. [The Student] also participated in a weekly all-class speech and occupational therapy group. Special classes, including art, science, music and library, occurred in-person three times a week on a quarterly rotation over the course of the year. At the time of this report [the Student] participated in art and science with in-person teaching. Library and music have been posted weekly lessons. [The Student] participated in PE twice weekly.” (Ex. J-002)

An affidavit from the Unilateral Placement dated March 25, 2022 indicates the following amounts:

• • Tuition: $71,739.00
• • Total Amount Received: $28,081.00
• • Balance Due: $43,658.00.

DISTRICT WITNESS TESTIMONY

• • District Placement Coordinator The District presented the testimony of the District Placement Coordinator at the hearing. (June 7 T 72-99) A summary of the relevant testimony is as follows:

The District Placement Coordinator has a Bachelor's of Arts degree in English and political science, a master's degree in teaching English as a new language, and was a Ph.D. candidate for administration and supervision.

The District Placement Coordinator is a licensed English as a New Language (“ENL”) teacher for students K through 12, has held the positions of special education ENL coordinator and instructional coach at the District Placement for seven years, and oversees the special education and ENL populations, and provides professional development to teachers.

The District Placement offers an ICT program, a SETSS program, a 12:1:1 program, and various related services with licensed and certified teachers.

The qualities that make the District Placement unique and special is that it affords all students with special needs access and participation in the general education setting and is able to provide students with programs that are on their IEPs.

The witness has not met the Student and has not spoken with the Parents.

The District Placement would be able to offer the 12:1:1 program and related services recommended on the Student’s IEP. The District Placement would also provide any visual aids as written on the Student’s IEP.

The witness agreed with the District Representative’s statement that the District Placement would have been able to provide an appropriate special education program for the Student and that there would have been a seat available for the School Year.

The District Placement must provide a seat to all students. Even if the number exceeds 12, the District Placement would employ flexible programing and would have been able to provide a seat for the Student.

On cross examination, the witness explained that flexible programming means that there would be no more than 12 children in the class for a period.

The difference between a 12:1:1 class and 12:1 class is the presence of a paraprofessional. The District Placement does not offer a 12:1 class setting. The District Placement would have accepted the Student and would have a reconvene to make the program for the student, if parent agreed, 12:1:1. The District Placement would not have been able to implement the 2020 IEP if it was maintained at 12:1.

Having a paraprofessional in the classroom would enhance the classroom for the betterment of all the students in the room, whatever their various disabilities and needs are.

• • CSE Representative The District next presented the testimony of the CSE Representative at the hearing, whose relevant testimony included the following: (June 7 T 107-139)

The CSE Representative has a master's degree and is certified as a special education teacher from grades 7 through 12 in social studies, as well as a generalist. The CSE Representative is also certified in general education, grades 7 to 12.

The CSE Representative has worked at CSE 8 for six years where her responsibilities include holding IEP meetings, developing IEPs, case management, parent outreach.

The CSE Representative represented the District at the Student’s 2020 IEP Meeting and has final responsibility to make recommendations for the IEP, to facilitate discussion in the meeting, and to be knowledgeable about the services and supports that are offered in our District.

At the 2020 IEP Meeting, the Student’s Mother and the Unilateral Placement representative expressed concerns.

The special class of 12:1 would offer a high level of support that would address the Student’s needs. The CSE also offered a number of related services for additional supports.

In terms of the level of support, the CSE wants to encourage the Student to be as independent as possible and does not want to over recommend supports.

The CSE wants to provide students as much opportunity as possible to be integrated with their mainstream peers because evidence shows that that promotes academic and social development.

The CSE doesn’t want to remove students from a general education or mainstream environment except to the degree that it's really warranted.

On cross examination, the CSE Representative’s testimony included the following:

She has not met the Student.

The CSE recommended the 12:1 versus the 12:1:1 because the 12:1:1 is generally more for students who also have more significant social-emotional or behavioral needs. And a 12:1 is more tailored towards students whose needs are primarily academic or learning focused.

Given the Student’s profile, the 12:1 was more appropriate because the Student didn't have significant behavioral or social-emotional difficulties. A 12:1:1 classroom was not recommended because it was too restrictive.

PARENT WITNESS TESTIMONY

• • Unilateral Placement Associate Director The Parent presented the testimony of the Unilateral Placement Associate Director by affidavit, and the witness also appeared at the hearing. (Ex. O; July 15 T 161-181).

The Unilateral Placement Associate Director has the following credentials and work experience: (Ex. O-001)

• • Bachelor of Liberal Arts Degree in Special Education
• • Masters of Science Degree in Education.
• • Dual Certification in Childhood Special and General Education.
• • 18 years experience in the field of education, including 15 years at the Unilateral Placement, where her current position is Lower School Associate Director.

The Unilateral Placement is a non-public special education school for students with language-based learning disabilities including: speech/language impairments; language-based learning disabilities such as dyslexia, dysgraphia, and dyscalculia; non-verbal learning disabilities; attention deficit disorders. The Unilateral Placement also provides related services, including language therapy and occupational therapy.

There are approximately 398 students ages 5 through 18 at the Unilateral Placement. The typical class size is 10-12 students with two teachers. All head teachers have Master’s degrees. There is also an assistant teacher or co-head teacher in each class. The assistant teachers all have bachelor’s degrees and most have Master's degrees or are pursuing Master's degrees. The students are always with teachers with special education training and/or degrees. Ongoing training is provided for all staff to work with the special education population.

During the School Year, the Student was placed in a small, self-contained third grade class with same-aged peers consisting of ten students and two teachers.

The other students in the class had classifications of Learning Disability, Speech and Language Impairment, and/or Other Health Impairments.

The Student’s skills were assessed at the start of the year to place her in appropriate classes.

The Student was grouped in smaller targeted academic groups for reading and math by similarity of need. The rest of the day, the Student was in classes with the students from her homeroom with teachers who knew her individual needs and were able to differentiate instruction accordingly

She was placed in smaller reading and math groups based on her functioning level. The Student was in a math group with one teacher and two other students. The group met four times a week for 45 minutes and one day a week for 30 minutes.

The Student was in a reading group with four other students that met one hour per day, and for thirty minutes on Wednesdays. The group used the Orton-Gillingham Preventing Academic Failure (PAF) program, a structured multi-sensory program that utilizes auditory, visual and kinesthetic channels to help students master the processes of decoding, spelling and handwriting.

The Student began the School Year at a beginning first grade level in decoding, encoding, and reading comprehension and ended the School Year on a mid-first grade level in decoding, encoding and reading comprehension.

For math, the Student’s math level was assessed at a mid-first grade level at the beginning of the School Year and made significant progress in math during the School Year and ended the year at an end-first grade math level.

During the School Year, there were periods of remote learning due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The Unilateral Placement was an appropriate setting for the Student for the School Year, and a 12:1:1 class in a community school would not have been appropriate for the Student.

• • Mother The Parent also presented the testimony of the Student’s Mother at the hearing (July 15 T 184-217). A summary of the relevant testimony is as follows:

The Mother participated in the 2020 IEP Meeting and expressed her concerns regarding the CSE’s recommended program and placement.

The Mother attempted to contact the District Placement to schedule a visit but was not successful.

The Mother would have accepted an appropriate public school placement if proposed by the District because the Unilateral Placement presented a financial and logistical challenge.

The Parents would have been able to terminate the Enrollment Contract if the District had provided the correct setting for the Student.

The Parents could not afford to pay the entire amount of the Unilateral Placement tuition amount. The Parents paid $16,000 towards the tuition. The Mother understands that she would be responsible for paying the tuition is she doesn’t prevail at the hearing.

The Student made progress at the Unilateral Placement during the School Year, including in the areas of reading and math and also behaviorally.

DECISION

For cases seeking payment for tuition at a Unilateral Placement, the first prong of the Burlington/Carter analysis is whether the District has met its burden of proof regarding whether the Student was provided a FAPE for the School Year.

Based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, I find that the Student was not provided a FAPE for the School Year. The 2020 IEP recommends a 12:1 class, yet the District Placement Coordinator testified that the District Placement does not offer a 12:1 class and that the Student’s parents would be required to agree to change the Student’s IEP to a 12:1:1 class in order for the Student to be able attend the District Placement. In addition, the CSE Representative testified that a 12:1:1 class would not be appropriate for the Student.

The 2020 Neuropsychological Evaluation recommends a low classroom ratio so that the Student receives the necessary 1:1 instruction.

With respect to the second prong of the Burlington/Carter analysis, the issue for adjudication at the hearing was whether the Unilateral Placement was appropriate. Under the Burlington/Carter analysis, the Parent bears the burden of proof in this regard.

The Parents presented credible evidence and testimony regarding the appropriateness of the program at the Unilateral Placement. By comparison, the District did not establish that the Unilateral Placement was not appropriate.

At the Unilateral Placement, the evidence indicates that the Student was in a self-contained class of ten students and two teachers, with related services of SLT and OT. The class composition is consistent with the 2020 Neuropsychological Evaluation’s recommendation of a low classroom ratio for the Student. The 2020 Neuropsychological Evaluation also recommends that the Student remain at the Unilateral Placement because she has benefited from the academic remediation with respect to her delayed reading and writing skills. The related services provided to the Student at the Unilateral Placement are consistent with the related services recommended in the 2020 IEP as well as the Management Needs section of the 2020 IEP which states that the Student will benefit from a multi sensory approach and small group support as needed. This is consistent with the Student’s program at the Unilateral Placement, where she receives small group support with a 4:1 ratio in both reading and math.

In concluding the second prong of the Burlington/Carter analysis, based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, I find that the Parent has met its burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of the Unilateral Placement.

The third prong of the Burlington/Carter analysis considers the equities of the case. The Parent participated in the 2020 IEP Meeting and provided a timely Ten Day Notice to the District. The District did not contest the equities of the case at the hearing.

In concluding the Burlington/Carter analysis, I find that the Student was not provided a FAPE for the School Year, that the Unilateral Placement was appropriate, and that the equities of the case support payment for the Student’s tuition at the Unilateral Placement for the School Year.

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby:

• • ORDERED THAT, the Student was not provided a FAPE for the School Year; and
• • ORDERED THAT, the District shall reimburse the Parents for tuition paid to the Unilateral Placement for the School Year pursuant to the Enrollment Contract, and shall make direct payment to the Unilateral Placement for any balance due pursuant to the Enrollment Contract.

SO ORDERED

DATED: November 7, 2022

/s/ Sebastian A. Weiss, Esq.

Sebastian A. Weiss, Esq.

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 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.

PARENT EVIDENCE:

Exhibit

Date

Title

# of Pages

A 04-07-2021 Impartial Hearing Request and Pendency Form with Receipt 05

B 01-21-2020 2020 Neuropsychological Evaluation 09

C 08-24-2020 Ten-Day Notice with Receipt 04

D 12-14-2020 Follow-up Ten-Day Notice with Receipt 04

E 8-17-2020 Parent E-mails to District Placement 02

F Undated Unilateral Placement Program Description 05

G 06-14-2021 Attendance Record 2020-2021 01

H Undated 2020-2021 Class Schedule 01

I 01-29-2021 2020-2021 Mid-Year Report 14

J June 2021 2020-2021 Year-End Report 12

K 05-25-2020 Enrollment Contract 06

L 02-16-2021 2020 Tax Return 02

M 03-25-2022 Tuition Affidavit 01

N 07-02-2020 07-15-2020 Distance Learning Plan 03

O 07-08-2022 Unilateral Placement Associate Director Affidavit 04 DISTRICT EVIDENCE: Ex.

Document

Date(s)

Pages

1

IEP

5/6/20

32

2

IEP Meeting Minutes

5/6/20

5

3

Prior Notice Package

5/13/20

6

4

School Placement Request

5/13/20

2

Footnotes

[1] Exhibits, or “Ex.”, shall be referred to as follows: “P” for Parent Exhibits, which are otherwise indicated alphabetically; “D” for District Exhibits, which are otherwise indicated numerically; “JE” for Joint Exhibits; “CB” for closing brief; “IHO” for any Impartial Hearing Officer’s exhibits; and “T” for the hearing transcript, accompanied by the applicable hearing date.