New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

CASE NUMBER: 561831 - NYC: 217697

FINDINGS OF FACT

Case Number: 217697

Student's Name: REDACTED

Date of Birth: REDACTED

District: REDACTED

CSE: REDACTED

Hearing Requested By: Parent Dates of Hearing: 11/9//22,

9/19/22 10/27/22

Record Close Date 11/23/2022

Hearing Officer: TINA MILLMAN Esq.

NAMESAND TITLES OFPERSONS WHO APPEARED ON 11/09/2021

For the Student-REDACTED -Attorney

For the DOE

REDACTED- Representative

NAMESAND TITLES OFPERSONS WHO APPEARED ON 6/16/2022

For the Student:

REDACTED- Attorney For the DOE:

REDACTED-Representative

NAMESAND TITLES OFPERSONS WHO APPEARED ON 10/27/2022

For the Student:

REDACTED-Attorney

REDACTED-Parent

REDACTED-Clinical Supervisor & Co-owner, REDACTED

REDACTED-SETSS provider, REDACTED For the DOE:

REDACTED- Representative

INTRODUCTION

On October 13, 2021, I was appointed as the Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) by the Department of Education’s Impartial Hearing Office to conduct an impartial hearing pursuant to the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1415(f) and Article89 of the Education Law of the State of New York. The Parent filed the Due Process Complaint (DPC), dated 9/14/2021. (Ex A)

Appended to the record are lists of persons in attendance and the documents received in evidence. Hearings were subsequently held for the matter on 11/9/ 21, 09/19/22, and 10/27/22. The Hearing Request alleges the DOE failed to offer the Student a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for the 2021-2022 school years. (Ex A)

The Parent alleges that the 5/18/21 IESP created for the student failed to provide REDACTED with a FAPE as it recommended 10 hours of SETSS in a group however the student requires 20 hours of weekly individual SETSS to make educational progress in REDACTED general education classroom. They maintain the agency REDACTED provided 20 hours of weekly SETSS at a fair market rate however were never paid for the services provided. The Parents paid out of pocket for 10 of the 20 hours of SETSS. The Parent seeks reimbursement of monies paid for the Students services as well as direct funding to the agency REDACTED for mandated services provided to the student that the DOE has failed to pay for. The Parents maintain that the 20 hours of 1:1 SETSS is appropriate and the equities favor the Parents.

DEPARTMENTOF EDUCATION POSITION

The DOE was scheduled to present their case on 9/19/21. At that time, the DOE Representative stated on the record that the DOE is not presenting a case. No witnesses nor evidence was submitted to support that a FAPE was provided to the Student for the 2021-2022 school year. The DOE representative briefly cross examined 2 of the parents 3 witnesses. REDACTED the owner of REDACTED and REDACTED the SETSS provider were cross-examined. Most of the questions regarded the rate of service and what the provider was being paid. No challenges were raised regarding the equities nor the appropriateness of the 20 hours per week of 1:1 SETSS. The DOE in his closing argument stated that this case revolved around an issue of implementation which is not covered by IDEA. I reject this argument

THEPARENT’S POSITION The Parent ‘s attorney set forth allegations and relief sought in the DPC and at Hearing. (Ex A)

The Parents’ attorney enters documents A-Q to support the appropriateness of the program. The Parents submit 3 affidavits that are utilized in lieu of direct testimony. One affidavit is of the Parent REDACTED (Ex. Q), one of the SETSS provider REDACTED (Ex P) and the third of REDACTED, the Clinical Supervisor and Co-Owner of REDACTED (Ex. O) The DOE representative briefly questioned Ms. REDACTED and Mr. REDCTED however no assertions were voiced as to the appropriateness of the 20 hours nor challenges regarding the equities.

FINDING OF FACTS AND DECISION

Purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act(IDEA)(20U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) are (1) to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living; and (2) to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities and parents of such students are protected (20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]-[B]; see generally Forest Grove v. T.A., 129 S. Ct. 2484, )2491 [2009]; Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 [1982]).

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; H.C. v. Katonah- Lewisboro Union Free Sch. Dist., 2013 WL 3155869 [2d Cir. June 24, 2013]; R.E. v. New York City Dep't. of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 189-90 [2d Cir. 2012], cert. denied 2013 WL 1418840 [U.S. June 10, 2013]; 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. Florida 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]). 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., 553 F.3d 165, 172 [2d Cir. 2009]; Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003]; Perricelli v. Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 465211, at*10 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2007]).

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.H. v. Dep't of Educ., 2010 WL 3242234, at *2 [2d Cir. Aug. 16, 2010]; E.H. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 3930028, at *7 [N.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2008], aff'd, 2009 WL 3326627 [2d Cir. Oct. 16, 2009]; Matrejek v.

Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 471 F. Supp. 2d 415, 419 [S.D.N.Y. 2007], aff'd, 2008 WL 3852180 [2d Cir. Aug. 19, 2008]).The IDEA directs that, in general, an IHO's decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][i]). 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 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 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]; Perricelli, 2007 WL 465211, at *15). 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 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; G.B. v. Tuxedo Union Free Sch. Dist., 751 F. Supp. 2d 552, 573-80 [S.D.N.Y. 2010], aff'd, 2012 WL 4946429 [2d Cir. Oct. 18, 2012]; E.G. v. City Sch. Dist. of New Rochelle, 606 F. Supp. 2d 384, 388 [S.D.N.Y. 2009]; Patskin v. Bd. of Educ., 583 F. Supp. 2d 422, 428 [W.D.N.Y. 2008]).

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]; Tarlowe v. Dep't of Educ., 2008 WL 2736027, at *6[S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2008] [noting that a CSE must consider, among other things, the "results of the initial evaluation or most recent evaluation" of the student, as well as the "'academic, developmental, and functional needs'" of the student]), 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]; see also Application of the Dep'tof Educ., Appeal No. 07-018; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-059; Application of the Dep'tof Educ., Appeal No. 06-029; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-046; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-014; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 93-9).

The Supreme Court has stated that even if it is unreasonable to expect a student to attend a regular education setting and achieve on grade level, the educational program set forth in the student's IEP "must be appropriately ambitious in light of his [or her] circumstances, just as advancement from grade to grade is appropriately ambitious for most children in the regular classroom. The goals may differ, but every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives" (Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 1000).

Aboard of education may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private educational services obtained for a student by his or her 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 (Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]; Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-70 [1985]; R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85; T.P., 554 F.3d at 252). In Burlington, the Court found that Congress intended retroactive reimbursement to parents by school officials as an available remedy in a proper case under the IDEA (471 U.S. at 370-71; see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 111; Cerra, 427 F.3d at 192)."Reimbursement merely requires [a district] to belatedly pay expenses that it should have paid all along and would have borne in the first instance" had it offered the student a FAPE (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370-71; see 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][ii]; 34 CFR 300.148).

The burden of proof is on the school district during an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement (Educ. Law § 4404[1][c]; see R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85). A private school placement must be "proper under the Act" (Carter, 510 U.S. at 12, 15; Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370), i.e., the private school offered an educational program which met the student's special education needs (see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, 115; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 129). A parent's failure to select a program approved by the State in favor of an unapproved option is not itself a bar to reimbursement (Carter, 510 U.S. at 14). The private school need not employ certified special education teachers or have its own IEP for the student (Carter, 510 U.S. at 13- 14). Parents seeking reimbursement "bear the burden of demonstrating that their private placement was appropriate, even if the IEP was inappropriate" (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; see M.S. v. Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of Yonkers, 231 F.3d 96, 104 [2d Cir. 2000]). "Subject to certain limited exceptions, 'the same considerations and criteria that apply in determining whether the [s]chool [d]istrict's placement is appropriate should be considered in determining the appropriateness of the parents’' placement'" (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, quoting Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356, 364 [2d Cir. 2006]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207).

Parents need not show that the placement provides every special service necessary to maximize the student's potential (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65). When determining whether a unilateral placement is appropriate, "[u]ltimately, the issue turns on" whether the placement is "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits" (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364; see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115; Berger v. Medina City Sch. Dist., 348 F.3d 513, 522 [6th Cir. 2003] ["evidence of academic progress at a private school does not itself establish that the private placement offers adequate and appropriate education under the IDEA"]). A private placement is appropriate if it provides instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a student (20 U.S.C. § 1401[29]; Educ. Law § 4401[1]; 34 CFR 300.39[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[ww]; Hardison v. Bd. of Educ. of the Oneonta City Sch. Dist., 773 F.3d 372, 386 [2d Cir. 2014];C.L. v. Scarsdale Union Free Sch. Dist., 744 F.3d 826, 836 [2d Cir. 2014]; Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 114-15; Frank G., 459 F.3d at 365). The Second Circuit has set forth the standard for determining whether parents have carried their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of their unilateral placement. 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. Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, quoting Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65).

8 The final criterion for a reimbursement award is that the parents' claim must be supported by equitable considerations. Equitable considerations are relevant to fashioning relief under the IDEA (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374; R.E., 694 F.3d at 185, 194; 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. Total reimbursement will not be appropriate if the court determines that the cost of the private education was unreasonable"]; L.K. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 674 Fed. App'x 100, 101 [2d Cir. Jan. 19, 2017]). With respect to equitable considerations, the IDEA also provides that reimbursement maybe reduced or denied when parents fail to raise the appropriateness of an IEP in a timely manner, fail to make their child available for evaluation by the district, or upon a finding of unreasonableness with respect to the actions taken by the parents (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][iii]; 34 CFR 300.148[d]; E.M. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 758 F.3d 442, 461 [2d Cir. 2014] [identifying factors relevant to equitable considerations, including whether the withdrawal of the student from public-school was justified, whether the parent provided adequate notice, whether the amount of the private school tuition was reasonable, possible scholarships or other financial aid from the private school, and any fraud or collusion on the part of the parent or private school]; C.L., 744 F.3d at 840 [noting that "[i]mportant to the equitable consideration is whether the parents obstructed or were uncooperative in the school district's efforts to meet its obligations under the IDEA"]).

Reimbursement may be reduced or denied if parents do not provide notice of the unilateral placement either at the most recent CSE meeting prior to their removal of the student from public school, or by written notice ten business days before such removal, "that they were rejecting the placement proposed by the public agency to provide a [FAPE] to their child, including stating their concerns and their intent to enroll their child in a private school at public expense" (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][iii][I]; see 34 CFR 300.148[d][1]). This statutory provision "serves the important purpose of giving the school system an opportunity, before the child is removed, to assemble a team, evaluate the child, devise an appropriate plan, and determine whether a [FAPE] can be provided in the public schools" (Greenland Sch. Dist. v. Amy N., 358 F.3d 150, 160 [1st Cir. 2004]). Although a reduction in reimbursement is discretionary, courts have upheld the denial of reimbursement in cases where it was shown that parents failed to comply with this statutory provision (Greenland, 358 F.3d at 160; Ms. M. v. Portland Sch. Comm., 360 F.3d 267 [1st Cir. 2004]; Berger v.

Medina City Sch. Dist., 348 F.3d 513, 523-24 [6th Cir. 2003]; Rafferty v. Cranston Public Sch. Comm., 315 F.3d 21, 27 [1st Cir. 2002]); see Frank G., 459 F.3d at 376; Voluntown, 226 F.3d at 68).

Although I note this is not a tuition reimbursement case I will go through the 3-prong analysis.

Prong I

Did the DOE offer of FAPE for the 2021-2022 School Years?

The DOE offered no evidence of an offer of FAPE for the Student for either the 2021-2022 school year. As previously noted the Parents challenged the recommendation on the 5/18/21 IESP and maintain the student required 20 hours of 1:1 SETSS. They maintain the 10 hours of group SETSS is inappropriate for the student to make adequate educational progress. The SRO has found that allegations that are left unchallenged are deemed as true. ( See Application of a Student with a Disability, 01-044.) By failing to present witnesses, or evidence I find that the DOE Representative conceded that a FAPE was not provided to the student for the 2021-2022 school year at issue. (Tr. 50)

Prong II

Was 20 hours of 1:1 SETSS an appropriate program for the 21-22 School Year?

Affidavit Testimony and documentary evidence support that 20 hours of 1:1 SETSS was appropriate for the student to make meaningful educational progress for the school year at issue.

The Parents utilize affidavits in lieu of direct testimony of all their witnesses to support the need for 20 hours of individual SETSS. The affidavits submitted along with a neuropsychological Evaluation, progress and observation reports of the SETSS provider as well as the students’ teacher support the need for 20 hours of SETSS. (Ex. C,D,G

As previously noted, although the DOE Representative briefly cross-examined 2 of the witnesses, no claims were ever raised regarding the appropriateness of the student receiving 20 hours of SETSS.

10 The SRO has found that allegations that are left unchallenged are deemed as true “unless found to be inconsistent with the evidence in the record.” Application of a Student with a Disability, 01-044 (SRO March 27, 2002). The DOE’s silence at hearing has the effect of conceding every point alleged by the parent against the DOE unless it is inconsistent with the hearing record. Based upon the non-contradicted evidence submitted by the Parent as well as witness testimony, coupled with the DOE’s silence I find 20 hours of individual SETSS served as an appropriate program to the Student for the 2021-22 school year.

Prong III- Are their equitable considerations that would reduce or bar the relief requested by the Parents?

The Parent has not evidenced in any way to have frustrated any attempt by the DOE to offer the Student a FAPE for the school year at issue. No challenges were raised by the DOE regarding the equities. There is no evidence that the Parent was anything but cooperative. As such I find the equities favor the Parents.

FUNDING 2021-2022 School Year The Parent is seeking reimbursement for monies paid for the additional 10 hours of SETSS not provided for by the DOE in the amount of $24,000.00 as well as Direct funding to the agency REDACTED for the unpaid balance of $43,110. ( Ex. H, K,L,O,Q) The agency charges $90 per hour for their services. The Parents maintain this is a Fair Market Rate. It is noted there was a conflict as to what the provider gets paid. Ms. REDACTED testified she receives $35 from the agency and Mr. REDACTED testifies this provider receives $60 of the $90 charged. Despite the conflict, of what the provider is paid I take judicial notice that $90 per hour is a Fair Market Rate. Upon proof of Payment for services rendered; the Parents should be reimbursed for payments made for the students SETSS services in an amount not to exceed $24,000. Upon proof of services provided The DOE is to directly pay the Agency REDACTED for all outstanding bills submitted for the 2021-2022 school year in an amount not to exceed $43,110 for a total amount not to exceed $67,110.00.

ORDER

• • Department of Education (DOE) failed to offer the Student a FAPE for the 2021-2022 school years.
• • Twenty (20) hours of 1:1 SETSS serves as an appropriate program for the Student for the 2021-2022 school year.
• • Upon proof of payment the DOE shall reimburse the Parents for amounts paid for the students’ SETSS services for the 2021-2022 school year in an amount not to exceed $24, 000.00.
• • Upon proof of services rendered the DOE shall directly pay the Agency REDACTED for outstanding bills that were submitted for services to the student during the 2021-2022 school year in an amount not to exceed $43,110.00.
• • This decision is subject to appeal and review by the State Review Officer.

Dated: November 23, 2022

IHO Tina Millman Impartial Hearing Officer

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

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. The regulations governing appeals 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.

As those Regulations detail, before filing an appeal, if either party intends to appeal the decision, a Notice of Intention to Seek Review shall be personally served upon the opposing party before the Appeal itself is filed, no later than 25 days after the date of the decision sought to be reviewed.

The Appeal itself must 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.

The Department of Education has designated the New York City Law Department to accept service of papers on its behalf, including appeals of decisions of Impartial Hearing Officers. Such service is made at 100 Church Street, New York, NY 10007 at the Messenger Center.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED

PARENT

P-A

September 14, 2021

Demand for Due Process

06 Pages

P-B

May 18, 2021

Individualized Educational Service Plan

21 Pages

P-C

April 13, 2021

Updated Neuropsychological Evaluation By: REDACTED

15 Pages

P-D

May 1, 2022

SETSS Progress Report By: REDACTED

06 Pages

P-E

December 2021-

April 2022

Speech and Language Progress Report

By: REDACTED M.S. CCC–SLP, TSSLD

05 Pages

P-F

May 2, 2022

Occupational Therapy Progress Report By: REDACTED, OTR/L

02 Pages

P-G

December 14, 2021

Teacher Observation Report By: REDACTED

02 Pages

P-H

August 26, 2021

SETSS Authorization Form

02 Pages

P-I

March 9, 2022

Email to NYCDOE from REDACTED

02 Pages

P-J

July 12, 2022

Email to NYCDOE from REDACTED

02 Pages

P-K

September 2021-June 2022

SETSS Invoices

10 Pages

3 The case involves more than a question of implementation. The Parents challenge the 10 hours of group SETSS mandated for the student and maintains the student requires 20 hours of individual SETSS to make educational progress within REDACTED general education classroom.

P- L September 2021-July 2022   SETSS Invoices with Parent Proofs of Payment   26Pages

P-M April 13, 2021     Letter from Parents to NYCDOE           01 Page

P-N July 30, 2021     Letter from Parents to NYCDOE           02 Pages

P-O October 13, 2022   Affidavit of REDACTED             04 Pages

P-P October 15, 2022   Affidavit of REDACTED              04 Pages

P-Q October 19, 2022   Affidavit of REDACTED           04 Pages