Skip to main content
Special Education Law
DECISIONParent PrevailedIHO Case No. 217947

New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

August 1, 2022·Sebastian A. Weiss·New York City Department of Education

NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.

NYSED # 562096 / NYC # 217947

FINDINGS OF FACT & DECISION

Case No.: 217947

Student’s Name: [REDACTED]

(hereinafter referred to as “Student”)

Date of Birth: [REDACTED]

District: [REDACTED]

(“District”)

Hearing Request by: [REDACTED]

(“Parent”)

Hearing Date(s): 3/10/22, 3/31/22

Record Close Date: 6/3/22

Hearing Officer: Sebastian Weiss

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED:

For the Student:

[REDACTED], Esq.

(“Parent Counsel”)

[REDACTED] (“Mother”)

[REDACTED], Director of Admissions, [REDACTED] (“Admissions Director”)

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED]

(“District Representative”)

BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 20, 2021, the Parents filed an amended Due Process Complaint (“DPC”) pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) and New York State Education Law. The relief sought by the DPC includes direct payment and reimbursement of tuition for the Student’s unilateral placement at [REDACTED] (“Unilateral Placement”) for the 2021-22 school year (“School Year”), compensatory relief and transportation services. (Ex. A, P CB).[1]

The undersigned Hearing Officer was appointed to the above matter on November 2, 2021. A prehearing conference was conducted on January 6 and continued on January 12, 2022. The hearing on the merits was conducted on March 10 and March 31, 2022.

ISSUES AND ARGUMENTS

PARENT CASE:

The DPC alleges, among other items, that the District denied the Student a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) as required by the IDEA for the School Year by failing to recommend an appropriate educational program and services. (Ex. A) The Parents’ case is based on the following arguments:

The CSE failed to provide the Student with a free and appropriate public education and did not satisfy its burden of proof in this regard. (P CB) The District failed to develop an appropriate Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) for the Student and to provide an appropriate placement for the School Year. (March 10 T 43)

The Unilateral Placement is appropriate for the Student, who requires such a placement in order to progress. (Id; P CB)

Equitable considerations favor the parents as the mother attempted to work with the District and the District did not provide any evidence or witnesses in the regard. (P CB)

The case relates only to the School Year as the Parents’ claims relating to prior school years and for compensatory relief has been dropped. (March 10 T 36, 42)

The District is not presenting a case and therefor cannot meet its burdens of proof with respect to Prong I and III of the Burlington/Carter analysis. (Id 43) The only issue in this case is the appropriateness of the Unilateral Placement as well as transportation. (Id)

The Parents presented ten (10) alphabetically listed documents into evidence, as well as a closing brief. The Parents also presented the testimony of the Admissions Director and the Student’s Mother. The District did not object to the evidence. (March 10 T 39)

DISTRICT CASE:

The District appeared for the hearing but did not present any evidence or witnesses. The District Representative cross-examined the witnesses presented by the Parents.

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).

With respect to residential placements, the Second Circuit has stated that "[w]hile some children's disabilities may indeed be so acute as to require that they be educated in residential facilities, it is appropriate to proceed cautiously whenever considering such highly restrictive placements.... The norm in American public education is for children to be educated in day programs while they reside at home and receive the support of their families" (Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 at 132).  A residential placement is not appropriate unless it is required for a student to benefit from his or her educational program (M.H. v. Monroe-Woodbury Cent. Sch. Dist., 296 Fed. App'x 126, 128 [2d Cir. Oct. 7, 2008]; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 122; Mrs. B., 103 F.3d at 1121-22; see Educ. Law § 4402[2][b][2]; 34 CFR 300.104; 8 NYCRR 200.6[j][1][iii][d]).  In general, the Second Circuit has required objective evidence that a student cannot obtain educational benefit in a less restrictive setting before finding that a residential placement is required by the IDEA (M.H., 296 Fed. App'x at 128; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 131-32; see MN v. Katonah Lewisboro Sch. Dist., 2020 WL 7496435, at *9 [S.D.N.Y. Dec. 21, 2020]).  Additionally, State law requires that in order to properly recommend a residential placement, a district must make the determination that there is no appropriate non-residential school available consistent with the needs of the student (Educ. Law § 4402[2][b][2]).

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 an REDACTED year old boy in the sixth grade. (Ex. A, J1) The Student has been diagnosed with dyslexia and executive functioning deficit. (Ex. G2) The evidence describes the Student as an immature and shy, polite and respectable individual who exhibits low self-esteem, distractible and impulsive behavior, and difficulty communicating with others. (Ex. F1, G1, H9; March 10 T 60) The Student has not attended a public school. (March 31 T 80)

The Student was originally evaluated for early intervention services and found to be ineligible. (Ex. G1) In Kindergarten, the Student’s teacher suggested an evaluation because of concerns regarding his reading. (Id) The evaluation took place in December 2016, and the Student was classified as emotionally disturbed and recommended for Special Education Teacher Support Services (“SETSS”) three times a week. (Id)

In August 2018, the Student was re-evaluated and classified as learning disabled and recommended for SETSS five times per week and individual counseling once a week. (Id) The Student was subsequently referred for another evaluation after his teachers expressed concerns regarding dyslexia. (Id)

During the period September-November 2019, the Student completed a Neuropsychological/Psycho-educational Evaluation. (Id) The results of this evaluation are summarized in a report from a psychologist dated October 5, 2020 (“Psychologist Report”). (Id)

The Psychologist Report indicates a diagnosis of dyslexia and executive functioning deficit and highlights the Student’s reading challenges. (Id G-2) The Psychologist Report recommends that the Student receive the following: (Id)

  • • Extended Time (1.5) on tests and written assignments;
  • • Cognitive remediation to learn chunking and retention techniques - Preferential seating (front of classroom);
  • • Movement breaks outside the classroom or in-class jobs;
  • • Tutoring sessions as well as resource room or one-on-one services in all areas;
  • • Executive Functioning Coaching;
  • • Cognitive Behavioral Therapy to manage attention seeking behaviors;
  • • Evaluation at a clinic for visual therapy, such as SUNY Optometric;

The date of the Student’s last IEP is May 17th, 2021. (March 10 T 49) The IEP was not submitted into evidence. (Id 48) The IEP classifies the Student as learning disabled. (Id)

On April 16, 2021, the Mother attended a virtual information session at the Unilateral Placement. (Ex. I7)

On April 20, 2021, the Student and Mother attended an intake interview at the Unilateral Placement, which was conducted virtually. (Id; March 10 T 56-7)

By letter dated July 22, 2021, the Unilateral Placement informed the Mother that their program can meet the Student’s special education and social-emotional needs and offered the Student admission for the School Year. (Ex. I7)

On August 16, 2021, the Parent signed a Student Tuition Contract with the Unilateral Placement dated July 23, 2021. (Ex. C) The Student Tuition Contract states that the annual interim tuition rate is $44,134. (Id) A tuition affidavit from the Unilateral Placement dated January 24, 2022 states that the Parents have made a payment in the amount of $4,413.40 and that the balance due is $39,720.60. (Ex. D)

On August 25, 2021, the Parent issued a Ten Day Notice of Unilateral Placement to the District (“Ten Day Notice”). (Ex. B)

The Unilateral Placement is a New York State approved and accredited nonpublic day school. (Ex. E1; I3) The Unilateral Placement is not-for-profit and coeducational. (Id) Founded in 1968, the Unilateral Placement’s mission is to provide a structured supportive learning environment for learning disabled students from elementary through high school age. (Id)

The Student began attending the Unilateral Placement in September 2021. (March 10 T 55-6)

In December 2021, the Unilateral Placement prepared a progress report for the Student in the areas of mathematics, English language arts and counseling (“Progress Report”). (Ex. H)

WITNESS TESTIMONY

Admissions Director The Parent presented the testimony of the Admissions Director at the hearing and by affidavit (Ex. I) A summary of the relevant testimony of this witness includes the following:

The Admissions Director has the following degrees and licenses: (Ex. I1)

  • • Bachelor of Arts degree in Interdisciplinary Studies with Adolescent and Child Development from Hofstra University;
  • • Master’s Degree in Special Education and General Education Teaching, 7- 12, from Hofstra University;
  • • Master’s Degree in Education Leadership and Administration, General, from St. John’s University;
  • • New York State Teaching License in Special Education, Grades 7-12, General Education 7-12 and School Building Leader.

The Admissions Director has been working in special education for the past sixteen years, and has worked with students ranging in grade from 3rd to 8th with an array of language based learning differences including Dyslexia, Dysgraphia, Dyscalculia, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”), social and emotional anxiety, expressive and receptive disabilities and other learning and developmental challenges. (Id I2)

She began working at the Unilateral Placement in September 2004 as a teaching assistant and has been the Admissions Director since July of 2014. (Id)

The Admissions Director’s responsibilities include screening and placing of new students, creating class groupings, and monitoring individual progress and growth. (Id)

The Unilateral Placement follows New York State curriculum guidelines utilizing a multisensory approach to learning throughout all curricular areas. (Id) Modified materials and specialized instruction are used. (Id)

The school day at the Unilateral Placement begins at 8:15 am and ends at 2:30 pm. Transportation is provided for special education students. (Id I5) There are approximately 120 students in the 3rd through 8th grade. (Id)

The curriculum at the Unilateral Placement includes core subjects such as reading, mathematics, language arts, social studies and science, as well as art, music, family and consumer science, computer science and physical education are also part of the curriculum. (Id I3, I5)

The Unilateral Placement offers a range of support services, including but not limited to Speech/Language Therapy, Counseling, Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, SMART Boards, Audio enhanced technology, College Preparatory, Vocational Counseling, Work/Study Program and Job Development and Computer Technology instruction. (I5)

The reading program is a hallmark of the Unilateral Placement. (Id I3) Students receive a comprehensive reading assessment twice a year to determine their skill level in decoding, word attack, and comprehension. (Id)

New students are assessed to determine the most effective reading methodology, and strategies are then formulated to address each student’s specific learning style. (I4) Students are also evaluated twice a year to determine their math levels. (Id)

Student progress at the Unilateral Placement is communicated at least 4 times per year and at 2 parent/teacher conferences per year. (Ex. I7)

The Mother first contacted the Admissions Director to inquire about the Unilateral Placement in March 2021. (Ex. I6) The Admissions Director communicated with the Mother by email and by phone several times throughout the admissions process. (March 10 T 53)

On April 16, 2021, the Mother attended a virtual information session at the Unilateral Placement. (Id I7)

On April 20, 2021, the Student and Mother attended an intake interview at the Unilateral Placement, which was conducted virtually. (Id; March 10 T 56-7)

By letter dated July 22, 2021, the Unilateral Placement informed the Mother that their program can meet the Student’s special education and social/emotional needs and offered the Student admission for the School Year. (Ex. I7)

A 12:1+1 class at the Unilateral Placement can be differentiated from a 12:1 class in a public school for several reasons. (Id I8) First, multisensory and other special education supports are implemented throughout the entire school day and across all environments at the Unilateral Placement, as compared to a piecemeal basis at a public school. (Id) Second, the 12:1+1 class at the Unilateral Placement consists of one full time special education teacher and one full time teaching assistant, as compared to one full time special education teacher without further assistance in a public school 12:1 class. (Id) Third, each 12:1+1 class at the Unilateral Placement is designed to ensure that all members of the classroom have similar academic, cognitive and social-emotional profiles. (Id)

At the Unilateral Placement, the Student receives individual reading instruction to support his dyslexia and receives Orton-Gillingham aligned instruction to address his weakened decoding skills and comprehension weakness. (March 10 T 54)

The Student’s classroom teacher is a licensed certified special education and general education teacher and the teaching assistant is a level 3 licensed teaching assistant who has been employed at the Unilateral Placement for over 25 years. (Id)

The provider for the Student’s individual reading program is Orton-Gillingham trained. (Id) The Unilateral Placement provides professional development for the teachers, especially to use the reading horizon program which is an Orton-Gillingham based program. (Id 55)

The Admissions Director has reviewed two of the Student’s IEPs, which do not sufficiently address the Student’s difficulties with reading instruction as well as his fragile social-emotional state. (Id 57)

The Admissions Director also reviewed the results of previous evaluations which recommended a small, structured classroom environment with a low student to teacher ratio and highly trained educators with experience and specialized training working with such learning challenges. (Ex. I7)

The Student needs daily integrated reading support to address his reading deficit as well as a therapeutic, nurturing environment to help address his social-emotional deficit. (March 10 T 58)

The Student is unorganized and has executive dysfunctioning difficulties. (Id) He needs to be in a small classroom setting that can integrate all of these supports together, so that he can develop self-confidence and his reading skills. (Id) He loses focus and gets distracted and has a tendency to avoid tasks and forget what he's working on. (Id 60)

The Unilateral Placement implements individualized counselor led plans to motivate and support students with social emotional challenges. (Ex. I9)

The Student’s diagnoses of dyslexia and executive functioning deficits require the type of all-day, multisensory approach provided at the Unilateral Placement, which is an appropriate placement. (Ex. I8, I10)

The Student has made slow and steady progress at the Unilateral Placement, particularly with respect to social-emotional development. (Id 59; Ex. I10)

Mother The Parent presented the testimony of the Student’s Mother, at the hearing and by affidavit (Ex. K) The relevant testimony from this witness included the following:

The Student has been struggling with reading and other subjects since kindergarten. (Ex. J1; March 31 T 72) The Student received SETSS three times a week, then five times a week, but was not succeeding. (Id) As a result, the Mother began looking into alternatives during the 2020-21 school year. (Id) During the 2020-21 school year, the Student struggled with homework. (Id 84)

The Mother has participated in all of the Student’s IEP meetings, including the most recent IEP meeting in 2021. (Id 74) She requested to have the Student re-evaluated because the IEP in place at that time wasn't helping him succeed. (Id) She shared the results of the evaluation with the District (Id 84-5; Ex. J2).

The Mother identified the Unilateral Placement by researching different schools, based on the Student’s dyslexic needs. (Id 77-78)

The Unilateral Placement curriculum is designed for dyslexic students such her son, who has a reading deficit and a learning deficit, by giving him the tools so that he can learn appropriately and be successful. (Id 79)

The Student is happier and has been improving at the Unilateral Placement. (Id 78, 80) He is able to learn there and no longer feels like a failure. (Id 78)

The Student has not attended a public school. (Id 80)

The Student has received two report cards from the Unilateral Placement thus far and in between the report cards there are meetings with his teachers. (Id 81)

Paying tuition and awaiting reimbursement would represent a financial hardship. (Ex. J2)

DECISION

The first prong of the Burlington/Carter analysis is whether the District has met its burden of proof regarding whether it provided the Student a FAPE for the School Year.

Based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, I find that the District did not provide a FAPE to the Student for the School Year primarily because the District did not present a case in this regard. By comparison, the Parent presented credible evidence regarding the Student’s academic challenges and special education needs.

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.

Based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, I find that the Parent has presented sufficient evidence and witness testimony for purposes of establishing that the Student’s educational program at the Unilateral Placement for the School Year was appropriate insofar as it offered an educational program designed to meet the Student’s unique special education needs resulting from the Student’s learning disabilities, and was reasonably calculated to provide an educational benefit.

The Student’s educational program at the Unilateral Placement is generally consistent with the Student’s needs as described by the Admissions Director and Mother, and with the recommendations set forth in the Psychologist Report. For example, the Unilateral Placement offers individualized instruction with a focus on reading, executive functioning and social-emotional development. With respect to reading, which is a particular weakness of the Student, the Unilateral Placement offers Orton-Gillingham based instruction. The Unilateral Placement also offers a 12:1:1 class with an appropriate peer group, based on testimony from the Admissions Director.

The Student’s Progress Report at the Unilateral Placement discusses the Student’s progress relative to certain goals. The Progress Report indicates that the Student has not met the majority of the goals and requires ongoing support and more time in order to meet the goals. (Ex. H)

With respect to the third prong of the Burlington/Carter analysis, which considers the equities of the case, the Parent participated in the Student’s IEP meetings and sent a timely Ten Day Notice to the District. There is no indication that the District responded to the Ten Day Notice. The Mother’s decision to unilaterally enroll the Student at the Unilateral Placement was not unreasonable based on the Student’s academic history and special education needs.

In concluding the third prong of the Burlington/Carter analysis, I find that the equities of the case favor the Parent.

With respect to the Parent’s request for an order directing the District to provide transportation to the Student, I find that the Parent has not provided sufficient evidence and/or testimony regarding the Student’s transportation needs.

In conclusion, based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, 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 favor the Parent.

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 pay the Unilateral Placement for the balance owed for the Student’s tuition for the School Year, and shall reimburse the Parent for amounts paid towards the Student’s tuition for the School Year.

SO ORDERED

DATED: August 1, 2022

/s/ Sebastian A. Weiss

Sebastian A. Weiss

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:

PARENT EXHIBIT

DATE

DESCRIPTION

NUMBER OF PAGES

A 9/20/21 Due Process Complaint 3

B 8/25/21 Ten Day Notice 2

C 7/31/21 Student Tuition Contract 1

D 1/24/22 Tuition Affidavit 1

E 21-22 SY Program Description 1

F 21-22 SY Student Schedule 1

G 10/5/20 Psychologist Report 3

H December 2021 Progress Report 9

I Undated Affidavit of Admissions Director 11

J 3/30/2022 Mother Affidavit 2

K 4/20/22 Closing Memo 6

DISTRICT EVIDENCE:

NONE.

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.