New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

CASE NUMBER: 555659 - NYC: 211706

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 211706

Student’s Name:^[1] REDACTED (“STUDENT”)

Date of Birth: REDACTED

School District: New York City Department of Education Hearing Requested by: REDACTED (“Parent”)

Request Date/Date Complaint Filed: February 17, 2022 (amended)

Date(s) of Hearing: July 21, 2022

Actual Record Closed Date: April 3, 2023

Date of Decision: April 17, 2023

Date of Distribution if Different than Decision Date:

Hearing Officer: Amy Lynne Itzla, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JULY 21, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED, Attorney

REDACTED, Program Director, REDACTED (“PRIVATE SCHOOL”), Supervisor, REDACTED (“PRIVATE SCHOOL”)

REDACTED, Mother

For the Department of Education:

No appearance

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This matter comes before the undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) on the Parent’s Amended Due Process Complaint (“DPC") filed on or about February 17, 2022. (Parent Exhibit A)^[2] The undersigned IHO was appointed to this matter on December 10, 2021, by the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”).

A hearing was held on July 21, 2022. It was a closed hearing, conducted by video/teleconference, with the presence of a court reporter to create a written transcript. The Parent was represented by REDACTED, Esq. The DOE did not appear for the hearing. A list of the individuals who appeared at the hearing and a list of the documents received into evidence are attached to this decision. The record was closed on April 3, 2023.

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

JURISDICTION

The due process hearing was held and the Findings of Fact and Decision in this matter is being issued pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (hereinafter, “IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300 et seq., and the New York State Education Law, Educ. Law § 4404 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 8 NYCRR § 200.5 et seq.

BACKGROUND

STUDENT was almost REDACTED years old at the beginning of the 2021-2022 school year. She had been previously classified by the DOE, through its Committee on Preschool Special Education (“CPSE”), as a preschool student with a disability. The CPSE did not convene to develop an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) for STUDENT for the 2021-2022 school year.

By letter dated June 17, 2021, the Parent informed the DOE that she had not received a proper or adequate placement for STUDENT for the 2021-2022 school year. (Parent Exhibit C) The Parent notified the DOE that STUDENT would be unilaterally placed at PRIVATE SCHOOL for the 2021-2022 school year and that tuition funding would be sought from the DOE. By letter dated August 16, 2021, the Parent reiterated the content of the previous letter. (Parent Exhibit D) STUDENT attended PRIVATE SCHOOL during the summer months of the 2021-2022 school year and the PRIVATE SCHOOL in February through June of the 2021-2022 school year.

The Parent’s position is that the DOE failed to offer a FAPE to STUDENT for the 2021-2022 school year, that the PRIVATE SCHOOL programs constituted an appropriate placement for her, and that the equities favor the Parent. The Parent is seeking direct tuition funding from the DOE for the tuition owed to PRIVATE SCHOOL for STUDENT for the twelve-month 2021-2022 school year. Specifically, tuition is sought and due for July and August 2021 payable to PRIVATE SCHOOL and for February through June 2022 payable to PRIVATE SCHOOL.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

THE DOE’S CASE The following is noted for a complete background of the DOE’s participation, or lack thereof, in this matter. A status conference was scheduled for June 8, 2022, at 8:30 am. The DOE failed to appear, and the DOE’s representative sent the following email on June 8, 2022, at 8:28 am:

The District respectfully requests that you excuse our appearance at today's hearing as we are not available.

Please accept my email in lieu of participation.

Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience caused to the parent, the parent's attorney, and to you.

The District respectfully requests, if needed, an extension of the compliance date.

As a courtesy, following the status conference, the undersigned IHO sent an email to the DOE’s representative, on June 8, 2022, at 8:46 am, stating:

Thank you for your email. The status conference proceeded and parent’s counsel requested a hearing date. We will convene for a full hearing on July 21, 2022, at 9:30 am.

The DOE also received an emailed hearing notice from the New York City DOE’s Impartial Hearing Office, on June 8, 2022, at 10:54 am, formally confirming the scheduled hearing for July 21, 2022, at 9:30 am. In addition, by email dated June 16, 2022, the DOE received the transcript of the June 8, 2022, status conference, which contained the scheduling of the July 21, 2022, hearing. The DOE failed to appear for the July 21, 2022, hearing, scheduled to begin at 9:30 am, and the representative sent the following email on June 21, 2022, at 8:53 am:

The District respectfully requests that you excuse our presence at today's hearing as CSE 7 is overextended today.

Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience caused to the parent, the parent's attorney, and to you.

Please accept my email in lieu of participation.

The District respectfully requests, if needed, an extension of the compliance date.

The DOE did not participate in the impartial hearing.

THE PARENT’S CASE The Parent presented the testimony of two witnesses: REDACTED, Program Director, PRIVATE SCHOOL, and Supervisor, PRIVATE SCHOOL; and REDACTED, STUDENT’s mother.

REDACTED explained her responsibilities in both programs which are very similar:

[M]y job is to have oversight over the individual students, their curriculums, their needs, as it relates to their behavior, language, academic instruction, social, and emotional development, and how it -- and how it aligns with the common core curriculum to their own individual curriculum.

(T. 23)^[3]

She described the program at PRIVATE SCHOOL:

PRIVATE SCHOOL is a program that consists of five classrooms, two of which are special education classrooms, three are general education classrooms.

The two special education classrooms are designed for students with language delays and behavior challenges. They’re for students that are physically enabled. We align with the ABA methodology in our program, yet the curriculum - - the general curriculum for the special education classrooms is the common core gen ed curriculum, but we modify it, and accommodate for each individual student based on their needs and their challenges.

The program -- overall, our program is designed to make sure that our students have opportunity to interact or engage, to -- with general education peers at specific times. One, when they master individual targets. In order to generalize targets, our ABA methodology is developed in a way that we require a generalization of skills. And the second time is for social interactions, for positive peer models. When appropriate, one or two general education students are brought into the special education classroom, in order to provide those opportunities for social skill groups.

(T. 24-25)

REDACTED also described the PRIVATE SCHOOL program:

The PRIVATE SCHOOL curriculum, again, aligns with common core general education curriculum, and then modifies and accommodates according to the ABA methodology.

[T]he difference is that the grade levels, although the methodology and the thought process of the creation and inception and operation is similar, the grade levels begin over there from preschool going through 4th grade. Whereas the grade -- and is housed in a different location, in a general education building.

(T. 25-26)

REDACTED explained her familiarity with STUDENT. She has observed STUDENT in and out of the classroom, and has coordinated with her teachers, providers, and parents. She has monitored her progress for data collection procedures, and her modifications and accommodations in all domains. (T. 26-27) STUDENT attended PRIVATE SCHOOL for the summer of the 2021-2022 school year and PRIVATE SCHOOL from February through June 2022 of the 2021-2022 school year. During the 2021-2022 school year, STUDENT was in the “REDACTED” grade. In the summer, her class in PRIVATE SCHOOL had a total of twelve students. Her class in PRIVATE SCHOOL had a total of ten students. The classes consisted of students who all had special needs. She had opportunities to interact with typically developing peers in both schools. Both of her classes had one licensed special education teacher and two assistants. (T. 27-29)

REDACTED described STUDENT’s behavioral challenges. She stated that STUDENT presents with language delays and behavioral challenges, some due to poor development and some due to familial trauma. She had a rough background and presented with aggression, tantruming, defiance, and would not use her words at all. REDACTED explained that the behavior would require “intense teacher attention planning direction, or she wouldn’t be able to participate at all, in any kind of activity of the classroom environment.” “She was very much stuck in her own -- her own little emotional bubble when she had a difficult moment, difficult day, or difficult activity.” REDACTED also described STUDENT’s social, emotional, and academic challenges and provided details to demonstrate the scope of the issues. STUDENT’s readiness skills were very deficient. (T. 30-36)

REDACTED testified that the IEP dated August 20, 2020, the most recent IEP in the record, recommended a program that was “most definitely not” adequate to enable STUDENT to make meaningful progress. (Parent Exhibit B) Although the IEP described STUDENT’s interfering behaviors, “[T]he recommendation did not include any kind of strategies or behavior intervention plan that she could not function without. It was impossible for her to receive her academic instruction, in any sort of way, without that.” She added that, “Without a full-time, special ed program, STUDENT could not have made adequate progress, in any meaningful sort of way, in order for her to be able to progress academically, in any area, as well as behaviorally, socially-emotionally, and readiness skills.” (T. 37-39)

REDACTED explained how the PRIVATE SCHOOL program addressed STUDENT’s particular needs. The program began by conducting a functional behavior assessment to recognize the challenging behaviors, identify them, and then develop a plan to make the behavioral challenges irrelevant and inefficient in the classroom. This led to the behavior intervention plan, which provided proactive and reactive instructional strategies to make sure STUDENT’s needs were met and that her response became easier to do in a functional, communicative way, rather than in her behavioral maladaptive way. From the behavior intervention plan, the program moved to a treatment plan which “provided small, incremental goals for STUDENT based on her needs or challenges in all areas.” Those goals were imported into STUDENT’s electronic portfolio on the electronic platform, Rethink, which allows real-time data to be taken on the individual goals by all of the providers within with STUDENT throughout the school day. It generates graphic visual displays so the providers can properly measure and adapt. As a result, STUDENT is receiving data-driven instruction so the behavioral component is not holding her back academically or causing her to regress. (T. 38-40)

REDACTED explained that she was able to carry through and adapt from the functional behavior assessment, behavior intervention plan and treatment plan, to allow STUDENT to continue to be supported with her challenges in the PRIVATE SCHOOL program. The data collection procedures, utilizing Rethink, were also continued. REDACTED stated that STUDENT did not attend PRIVATE SCHOOL for several months of the 2021-2022 school year, because the family was displaced and in a shelter far from the program. This caused some regression, but when STUDENT returned, she continued “to perform and develop in an appropriate, supportive environment that allowed her to gain that sense of recognition and reinforcement and trust, she was really able to follow through with the plan that we created, and that was adapted to, consistently, for her.” (T. 41-42)

REDACTED testified that STUDENT made meaningful progress for the extended 2021-2022 school year in both PRIVATE SCHOOL and PRIVATE SCHOOL. She offered details and examples of how STUDENT “reduced the number of times that she was displaying those challenging behaviors that were impeding on her classroom learning.” She stated that STUDENT “progressed tremendously” academically. The progress included STUDENT increasing her expressive vocabulary and using full sentences; increasing her readiness skills, including recognizing a routine, responding to an instruction, and increasing time on task and productivity; recognizing all letters, recognizing numbers, and gaining the ability to sequence. The many experientials, hands on opportunities STUDENT had, from hatching animals and going to zoos, to going through grocery stores, helped her to engage, retain information, and develop awareness of the concrete moving to the abstract. (T. 42-46)

STUDENT received the related services of speech therapy, occupational therapy, and counseling from licensed and certified professionals in those fields during the 2021-2022 school year. (T. 47) REDACTED testified that there was no religious component of the PRIVATE SCHOOL and PRIVATE SCHOOL programs. (T. 48)

REDACTED (MOTHER) testified that she did not receive an evaluation or public-school placement from the DOE for the 2021-2022 school year for STUDENT, although she sent two letters to the DOE, dated June 17, 2021, and August 16, 2021. (Parent Exhibits C, D) She did not receive any response to her letters. (T. 50) REDACTED testified that she did not have any earnings during the 2021-2022 school year, and she was on public assistance. (T. 51)

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The DOE has the burden of establishing that it offered a FAPE to STUDENT (R.E. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 184-185 [2d Cir. 2012]; Educ. Law § 4404[1][c]). A FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07; T.M. v. Cornwall Cent. Sch. Dist., 752 F.3d 145, 151, 160 [2d Cir. 2014]; R.E., 694 F.3d at 189-190; M.H. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 685 F.3d 217, 245 [2d Cir. 2012]; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]). "'[A]dequate compliance with the procedures prescribed would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP'" (Walczak v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 129 [2d Cir. 1998], quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206; see T.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 247, 253 [2d Cir. 2009]). The Supreme Court has indicated that "[t]he IEP must aim to enable the child to make progress. After all, the essential function of an IEP is to set out a plan for pursuing academic and functional advancement" (Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S. __, 137 S. Ct. 988, 999 [2017]). While the Second Circuit has emphasized that school districts must comply with the checklist of procedures for developing a student's IEP and indicated that "[m]ultiple procedural violations may cumulatively result in the denial of a FAPE even if the violations considered individually do not" (R.E., 694 F.3d at 190-91), the Court has also explained that not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (M.H., 685 F.3d at 245; A.C. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Chappaqua Cent. Sch. Dist., 553 F.3d 165, 172 [2d Cir. 2009]; Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003]). 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 (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 CFR 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 525-26 [2007]; R.E., 694 F.3d at 190; M.H., 685 F.3d at 245).

A school district offers a FAPE "by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction" (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203). However, the "IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP" (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189). "The adequacy of a given IEP turns on the unique circumstances of the child for whom it was created" (Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 1001). The statute ensures an "appropriate" education, "not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents" (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132, quoting Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d 563, 567 [2d Cir. 1989] [citations 5 omitted]; see Grim, 346 F.3d at 379). Additionally, school districts are not required to "maximize" the potential of students with disabilities (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199; Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132). Nonetheless, a school district must provide "an IEP that is 'likely to produce progress, not regression,' and... affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere 'trivial advancement'" (Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195, quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130 [citations omitted]; see T.P., 554 F.3d at 254; P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 118-19 [2d Cir. 2008]). The IEP must be "reasonably calculated to provide some 'meaningful' benefit" (Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 [2d Cir. 1997]; see Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 1001 [holding that the IDEA "requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances"]; Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192). The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE) (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 CFR 300.114[a][2][i], 300.116[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[cc], 200.6[a][1]; see Newington, 546 F.3d at 114; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 [2d Cir. 2007]; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132).

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]), establishes annual goals designed to meet the student's needs resulting from the student's disability and enable him or her to make progress in the general education curriculum (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][2][i], [2][i][A]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]), and provides for the use of appropriate special education services (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][4]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]).

The DOE chose not to participate in the impartial hearing and, therefore, could not meet its burden to demonstrate that it offered a FAPE to STUDENT for the 2021-2022 school year. In addition, the record established that the DOE did not develop an IEP or offer a placement to STUDENT for the 2021-2022 school year. The DOE clearly failed to offer a FAPE to STUDENT.

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

I find that the Parent has prevailed with respect to the appropriateness of STUDENT’s placement at PRIVATE SCHOOL and PRIVATE SCHOOL. PRIVATE SCHOOL is an early childhood school “established to enable children with special needs to integrate into the social setting of a general education program. Our multi-dimensional program allows students who require individualized services to benefit from the models and social interaction of the typical children.” (Parent Exhibit E) PRIVATE SCHOOL “was established to educate children with special needs by providing the finest in special education techniques in a comprehensive day school program. The program services children with learning disabilities, behavioral issues and attention deficit disorders within a warm, self-contained environment. Our program is arranged to provide individual curricula geared towards specific learning needs and styles as well as specialized focus on each student, afforded by the small class sizes.” (Parent Exhibit J)

The record established that the special education program provided to STUDENT by PRIVATE SCHOOL and PRIVATE SCHOOL was appropriate for her. The program was able to address her needs, provide individualized instruction, and otherwise support her academically, socially, and emotionally. She made progress due to the program being tailored to her individual needs. REDACTED provided persuasive and unrefuted testimony and supporting evidence to this effect. She strongly affirmed the appropriateness of the program to address STUDENT’s individual and complex needs. The program was reasonably calculated to allow STUDENT to receive educational benefits and make meaningful progress. REDACTED described the progress STUDENT made during the twelve-month 2021-2022 school year, which was also documented by her providers. (Parent Exhibits I, N)

The record persuasively demonstrated the appropriateness of PRIVATE SCHOOL and PRIVATE SCHOOL. Since the DOE chose not to participate in the impartial hearing, the entirety of the Parent’s case was undisputed. I find that the Parent has prevailed with respect to the appropriateness of STUDENT’s placement at PRIVATE SCHOOL and PRIVATE SCHOOL.

The final criterion for an award is whether the Parent’s claim is supported by equitable considerations. Equitable considerations are relevant to fashioning relief under the IDEA (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374; M. C. v. Voluntown Bd. of Educ., 226 F.3d 60, 68 [2d Cir. 2000]; see Carter, 510 U.S. at 16 ["Courts fashioning discretionary equitable relief under IDEA must consider all relevant factors, including the appropriate and reasonable level of reimbursement that should be required"]). Such considerations "include the parties' compliance or noncompliance with state and federal regulations pending review, the reasonableness of the parties' positions, and like matters" (Wolfe v. Taconic Hills Cent. Sch. Dist., 167 F. Supp. 2d 530, 533 [N.D.N.Y. 2001], citing Town of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 736 F.2d at 773, 801-02 [1st Cir. 1984], aff'd, 471 U.S. 359 [1985]). An award may be impacted by a parent’s failure to cooperate with the CSE in the development of an IEP or if the parent's conduct precluded the CSE's ability to develop an appropriate IEP (Warren G. v. Cumberland Co. Sch. Dist., 190 F.3d 80, 86 [3rd Cir. 1999]; see Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 04-102; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 04-026).  In the absence of evidence demonstrating that a parent failed to cooperate in the development of the IEP, or otherwise engaged in conduct that precluded the development of an appropriate IEP, or failed to give proper notice, equitable considerations generally support an award in favor of the parent. (Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-049).

There are no equitable considerations that would preclude or adversely affect an order in favor of the Parent. The record clearly established that the Parent cooperated and communicated with the DOE. The Parent shared their concerns and there was no response. There is absolutely no basis on which to reduce or modify the remedy for the Parent.

ORDER

1. The DOE failed to provide a FAPE to STUDENT for the 2021-2022 school year;

2. The Parent’s unilateral placement of STUDENT at PRIVATE SCHOOL and PRIVATE SCHOOL was appropriate for the twelve-month 2021-2022 school year;

3. There are no equitable considerations which would reduce or bar an award of reimbursement; and, therefore, a) The DOE shall directly pay $24,000 to PRIVATE SCHOOL for STUDENT’s tuition for the two summer months of the twelve-month 2021-2022 school year. Proof of the amount due has already been established. (see Parent Exhibit F); and, b) The DOE shall directly pay $60,000 to PRIVATE SCHOOL for STUDENT’s tuition for five months (February through June) of the twelve-month 2021-2022 school year. Proof of the amount due has already been established. (see Parent Exhibit K).

SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 17, 2023 Amy Lynne Itzla, Esq.

Amy Lynne Itzla 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.

APPENDIX A – REDACTION IDENTIFICATION PAGE

SUBMIT THIS PAGE TO THE PARENT AND SCHOOL DISTRICT ONLY. DO NOT SUBMIT TO THE NYSED.

APPENDIX B – DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

PARENT EXHIBITS

Letter Description Date Pages

A   Amended Request for Due Process 2/17/2022 4 Proceeding and Notice of Appearance

B   IEP 8/20/20 19

C Ten-Day Notice 6/17/21 2

D Ten-Day Notice 8/16/21 2

E Student Contract, Program Description, 6/18/21 25 and Curriculum (PRIVATE SCHOOL)

F   Affirmations regarding Tuition Breakdown 7/18/22 2 and Payments (PRIVATE SCHOOL)

G   Daily Schedule (PRIVATE SCHOOL) 2021-2022 2

H  Student Attendance (PRIVATE SCHOOL) 7/2021-8/2021 1

I   Assessments, Plans, and Reports Various 10 (PRIVATE SCHOOL)

J   Student Contract, Program Description, 1/31/22 19 and Curriculum (PRIVATE SCHOOL)

K Affirmations regarding Tuition Breakdown 7/18/22 2 and Payments (PRIVATE SCHOOL)

L REDACTED Daily Schedule: STUDENT 2021-2022 2 (PRIVATE SCHOOL)

M Student Attendance: STUDENT 2021-2022 1 (PRIVATE SCHOOL)

N Assessments, Plans, and Reports Various 40 (PRIVATE SCHOOL)

Footnotes

[1] Personally identifiable information is attached to this decision as Appendix A, “Redaction Identification Page,” and must be removed prior to public distribution.

[2] A more detailed list of the admitted exhibits is attached to this decision as Appendix B, “Documentation Entered Into the Record.”

[3] References to the transcript are indicated by “T.” followed by the page number(s).