New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

CASE NUMBER: 563219 - NYC: 219006

REDACTED

FINDINGS OF FACT & DECISION

Case No.: 219006

Student’s Name: [Redacted]

(referred to as “Student”)

Date of Birth: [Redacted]

District: [Redacted]

Hearing Request by: [Redacted]

(referred to as “Parent”)

School: [Redacted]

(referred to as “Private School”)

Date of Complaint: October 6, 2021

Hearing Dates: October 25, 2022

December 1, 2022

January 9, 2023

Actual Record Close Date: January 29, 2023

Decision Date: February 12, 2023

Hearing Officer: Vanessa M. Gronbach, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON OCTOBER 25, 2022

For the Student:

[Redacted], Esq., Parent Attorney

For the Department of Education:

[Redacted], Esq., District Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON DECEMBER 1, 2022

For the Student:

[Redacted], Esq., Parent Attorney

For the Department of Education:

[Redacted], Esq., District Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON JANUARY 9, 2023

For the Student:

[Redacted], Esq., Parent Attorney

[Redacted], Parent

[Redacted], Dean of School

For the Department of Education:

[Redacted], Esq., District Representative

ISSUES

This matter comes before the undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) through the Parents’ Due Process Complaint (“DPC”) filed on or about October 6, 2021, regarding the 2021/22 school year (P-Ex. A)^[1]. The DPC alleged that the District denied the Student a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) by not providing an appropriate program and placement for the 2021/22 school year (P-Ex. A). The Parent has requested tuition reimbursement / direct payment for their unilateral placement of the Student at the Private School the Student attended during the 2021/22 school (P-Ex. A).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The undersigned was appointed as hearing officer in this matter on March 4, 2022. A prehearing conference was held on April 19, 2021, to discuss the issues in the case. A hearing on the merits began on October 25, 2022, and concluded in three days (See, Transcripts).^[2] The District did not present witnesses. The Parent presented exhibits^[3] and three witnesses, two by affidavit. The record closed on January 29, 2023. There were approximately seven extensions of the timelines granted by this Hearing Officer to allow the District to investigate the matter and accommodate witnesses.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Student was a [Redacted] year old, REDACTED grade student, who attended the Private School during the 2021/22 school year (P-Ex. A-2). The Student is diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”); Specific Learning Disorder with Impairments Reading; a Language Disorder; Hyperopia; Binocular Dysfunction; Accommodative Insufficiency; Oculomotor Dysfunction and other Neurodevelopmental Disorder (P-Ex. A-2). The Student is classified as a Student with an Other Health Impairment (D-Ex. 3; P-Ex. A-2). The Student was described as having frequent outbursts, arguments and misunderstandings with peers and teachers, and social isolation (D-Ex. 3; P-Ex. A-2; T. 71-72). The Student’s behaviors deteriorated during COVID and with remote instruction, and the Student was placed in the Private School by the Parent (P-Ex. A-2).

The District’s Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) met in the Spring of 2021, to develop an IEP for the Student for the 2021/22 school year (D-Ex. 3; P-Ex. A-2). The IEP recommended an ICT program with SETSS and counseling (D-Ex. 3-17-18). Despite his noted social emotional deficits, social isolation and emotional outbursts, the CSE did not recommend a functional behavior assessment or behavior interventions (D-Ex. 3).

The Parent received the placement recommendation during the summer but was unable to visit the recommended school prior to the beginning of the 2021/22 school year (P-Ex. A-5). The Parent was familiar with the recommended school since it was the same school recommended the year before (P-Ex. A-5). The Parent had been advised that the school had a large ICT classroom that would create a sensory overload that would trigger the Student’s frustration and anxiety (P-Ex. A-5). The Parent voiced her concerns at the meeting and followed up with a letter on August 25, 2021, indicating that the program was inappropriate and her difficulty in visiting the recommended placement (P-Ex. A-3; B).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Individuals with Disability Education Act (“IDEA”) is comprehensive statutory framework established by Congress to ensure that students with disabilities are afforded FAPE. See, 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1)(A); Schaffer v. Weast, 546 US 49 (2005). A “free appropriate public education consists of educational instruction that is designed to meet the unique needs of the handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from the instruction.” Bd. of Ed. Hendrick Hudson CSD v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 188 (1982). In order to demonstrate that FAPE is being provided, the school district must show “that it complied with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and that the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits.” See, Application of Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 05-061, quoting, Rowley at 206. The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment with non-disabled peers. See, Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dt., 142 F.3rd 119 (2nd Cir. 1998).

Two purposes of the IDEA (20 U.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]; Rowley, at 206-07).

An appropriate program begins with an IEP which accurately reflects the results of the 1) student’s present levels of performance; 2) provides for the use of appropriate special education services to address the child's special education needs; 3) establishes annual goals which are related to the child's educational deficits; 4) identifies transitions services; 5) provides a start and end date to the recommended program and services; and 6) criteria and evaluation procedures for the measurement of goals. See, Walzczak, supra; Id., Appeal No. 00-005. “The initial procedural inquiry is no mere formality.” Walczak, at 129. “Adequate compliance with the procedures prescribed [by IDEA] would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP.” Rowley at 206. For an IEP to be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, it must be likely to produce progress, not regression. This progress, must be meaningful; i.e., more than mere trivial advancement. Walczak, supra.

In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. __, 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”. In such case, the school is still required to ensure the student is given an IEP that requires not just academic but also functional progress and, although the goals may differ for students, each child must have an IEP that includes goals and services to enable a child to make both academic and functional progress. The court further stated that an IEP “is not a form document. It is constructed only after careful consideration of the child’s present levels of achievement, disability, and potential for growth” §§1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)–(IV), (d)(3)(A)(i)–(iv), and that “a student offered an educational program providing “merely more than de minimis progress” from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all.” The Court in Endrew further stated that, “[t]he IDEA demands more. It requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Although the Supreme Court declined to elaborate on the definition of “appropriate progress” from case to case, it stated that, “the adequacy of a given IEP turns on the unique circumstances of the child for whom it was created.” Finally, The Supreme Court in Endrew declined to hold, as it declined to hold in Rowley, that “every handicapped child who is advancing from grade to grade... is automatically receiving a [FAPE].” Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176, 203, n. 25 (1982). A Student’s “IEP need not aim for grade-level advancement. But his educational program must be appropriately ambitious in light of his 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. v. Douglas 580 U.S. ___ (2017). “It cannot be the case that the Act typically aims for grade-level advancement for children with disabilities who can be educated in the regular classroom, but is satisfied with barely more than de minimis progress for those who cannot.” Id.

Here, although the District presented exhibits, it did not present any witnesses to describe the recommended program or how the program was reasonably calculated to enable the Student to make progress. There was also no evidence about the recommended location. The District did not meet its burden in demonstrating that FAPE was provided to the Student for the 2021/22 school year. Based on the evidence in the record, I find that the District did not provide the Student with FAPE for the 2021/22 school year.

PARENT’S BURDEN

Parents seeking reimbursement “bear the burden of demonstrating that their private placement was appropriate, even if the IEP was inappropriate” Gagliardo, at 112; see M.S. v. Bd. Of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 104 [2d Cir. 2000]). “Subject to certain limited exceptions, ‘the same considerations and criteria that apply in determining whether the school district's placement is appropriate should be considered in determining the appropriateness of the parents’ placement…’” Gagliardo, at 112, quoting Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 364 (2d Cir. 2006). 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 the parents’ unilateral placement is appropriate, ultimately, the issue turns on whether that placement is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits” (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364; Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115). A private placement is only appropriate if it provides education instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a student (20 U.S.C. § 1401[29]; 34 CFR 300.39[a][1]; Educ. Law § 4401[1]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[ww]; Rowley, 458 U.S. at 188-89).

The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the appropriateness of a unilateral placement turns on whether it is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, which is not limited to a single dispositive factor. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 207 (1982). The Second Circuit cited several factors that may be considered evidence that a child is receiving an educational benefit, including grades, test scores, and regular advancement, yet clarified that courts assessing the appropriateness of a parent’s unilateral placement must “consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child’s individual needs.” Frank G. 459 F.3d at 364; accord Knable ex rel. Knable v. Bexley City Sch. Dist., 238 F.3d 755 (6th Cir.2001) (holding that a unilateral private placement with small classes, where the student made educational progress and grades and behavior improved, was appropriate). Under the IDEA, to meet the requirements for reimbursement, parents do not need to show that a private placement provides every single service required to “maximize their child’s potential.” Frank G. 459 F.3d at 364; See M.S. ex rel. S.S. v. Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 102 (2d Cir.2000) (“The test for parents’ private placement is not perfection.”). Parents must 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.” Frank G. 459 F.3d at 364; Rowley, 458 U.S. at 188–89. “Specially-designed instruction means adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible student under this Part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction to address the unique needs that results from the student’s disability.” 8 NYCRR § 200.1(vv). Where “the hearing record shows that [the Private School] did not provide OT or PT...” and the school “provided programs that assisted the student in developing both fine and gross motor skills,” “the lack of these services” is “not sufficient to support a finding that [the Private School] is not appropriate given that these services did not appear to be necessary to the student receiving educational benefits and [Private School] did address the needs to some extent. The student’s primary needs related to his attention and academics, and [Private School]...adequately, if not perfectly, addressed them.” Application of the Board of Education of the Arlington Central School District, Appeal No. 16- 023 at 24-25

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 must provide an educational program which meets 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 (id. at 14). The Second Circuit has set forth the standard for determining whether parents have carried their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of their unilateral placement.

“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).

Finding that the District did not provide FAPE to the student during the 2021/22 school year, the burden now shifts to the Parent to prove the appropriateness of the two Private Schools.

After reviewing the testimony and evidence provided, I find that they have met that burden. I find that the Private School provided the Student with individualized instruction in a small therapeutic setting, specially designed to meet the Student’s academic and social emotional deficits.

The Head of School of the Private School testified by affidavit regarding the Student and the Private School (P-Ex. P). The Student began attending the Private School in January 2021 (P-Ex. P-1). The mission of the Private School is to provide an opportunity for success to students of above-average intellectual ability in grades 9-12, who have had difficulties in traditional school environments (P-Ex. P-1). The school embraces an individualized approach that allows each student to realize their potential and to take accountability in all areas of life (P-Ex. P-1).

The Private School serves student with complex learning styles, with formal diagnoses of ADD/ADHD, Autism Spectrum Disorder, or a Speech Language Disorder (P-Ex. P-1). Students can also struggle with attention, motivation, executive functioning, inconsistent processing speed, and/or aspects of social understanding (P-Ex. P-1). Students who attend the Private School have a fragile self-esteem, are sometimes anxious or sometimes overcompensate to mask their social, emotional, and academic vulnerabilities (P-Ex. P-1).

The Private School has a maximum enrollment at of 44 students (P-Ex. P-1). The administrative team consists of the Head of School, Assistant Head of School, Dean of Studies, Dean of School, and Director of Student Life (P-Ex. P-1). Outside therapists who work with students collaborate with the school through the Head of School and Assistant Head of School (P-Ex. P-1). The Private School has class sizes of 3-6 students, and offers multi-modal, differentiated instruction to address individual learning styles and provides a fully integrated, process-based program in executive function skill development, which defines the individualized pedagogy (P-Ex. P-1). In addition to classroom instruction, students engage in approximately 2 1⁄2 hours of teacher-supervised, structured study time six days a week (P-Ex. P-1).

To support students’ social and emotional functioning, the school’s Communications Program, facilitated by trained faculty members, provides 6 1⁄2 hours a week of direct social skills training and development (P-Ex. P-1). The purpose of the Communications Program is for students to develop skills of self-reflection and self-expression with accountability (P-Ex. P-1). The relationship-based approach helps students achieve growth in social understanding, including but not limited to perspective taking, social reciprocity, cognitive flexibility, and anxiety and/or frustration management (P-Ex. P-1). In a specialized educational context, students develop enhanced self-awareness and self-esteem and are able to articulate increased levels of social and emotional functioning (P-Ex. P-1).

All teachers at the Private School hold a Bachelor’s Degree or higher and teach classes associated with their discipline of study (P-Ex. P-1). Teachers undergo professional development in both formal and informal settings, some of which take place at the school while other professional development is held off campus (P-Ex. P-2). Professional development in working with neurodiverse students has been provided by external professional organizations and administrators work with teachers to support staff, programming, and mission, both in the classroom and residential settings (P-Ex. P-2). Teachers also communicate with therapists and act as conduits between therapists and the school/teachers (P-Ex. P-2).

The small community and residential setting provides layers of supervision for the students during and beyond the academic day (P-Ex. P-2). Dorm parents and administrators live on campus and aid students in meeting daily responsibilities and obligations (P-Ex. P-2). Together with the school nurse, the team helps students with personal hygiene and promote healthy-living habits (P-Ex. P-2). In the academic setting, small class sizes and a small school facilitate a familiar environment that fosters relationships and individualization (P-Ex. P-2). Proctored study halls and structured meeting times ease access to teachers for additional support (P-Ex. P-2). Administrators and department heads help teachers in meeting the needs of the students, and advisors meet with advisees to help students navigate their lives on campus and act as advocates for the students (P-Ex. P-2). During the evenings, dorm parents, who are also teachers, coaches, and advisors, work with residential administrators in aiding students’ acclimation to the school community and expectations of living in a residential community (P-Ex. P-2).

The Humanities Teacher and Dean of Studies at the Private School also testified by affidavit (P-Ex. Q). He has known the Student since the Fall of 2021 (P-Ex. Q-1). He described the Student as struggling with impulsivity, frustration, and temper, as well as executive functioning skills, social skills, and self-image (P-Ex. Q-1).

The student-teacher ratio in the Student’s classes ranged from 3:1 to 5:1 and most of his classmates were in 11th and 12th grade (P-Ex. Q-1). The curriculum is college-preparatory and modified based on individual needs (P-Ex. Q-1). It was described that one of the Student’s greatest strengths in the classroom was that he was a very bright and inquisitive learner who wanted to do well in school and desired academic challenges (P-Ex. Q-1). Academically, the Student struggled with attention and long-term planning, the latter a corollary of executive functioning and organizational challenges (P-Ex. Q-1). The Student was described as highly articulate in his interactions, which mask some of his issues with slow auditory processing and working memory (P-Ex. Q-1). He could also get frustrated when he feels he is struggling or in situations where others cause him irritation; which could cause him to isolate or withdraw, become rigid, or, at times, verbally lash out (P-Ex. Q-1). His social skills and rigidity manifested in and out of the class (P-Ex. Q-1). Navigating disagreements with peers was an issue that caused confrontation (P-Ex. Q-1).

Differentiated instruction was an approach to teaching in which teachers tailored instruction to meet the individual needs of each student in the class (P-Ex. Q-1). That involved adapting the content, process, or product of instruction to meet the needs of different learners (P-Ex. Q-1). The goal of differentiated instruction was to provide all students with the support they need to succeed and to challenge them to reach their full potential (P-Ex. Q-1). Differentiated instruction for the Student included helping him stay organized through the use of the binder and planner system; assistive technology like a laptop to address his handwriting deficits; breaking apart large assignments into smaller, more manageable parts to avoid confusion, organizational problems, and frustrations; additional time on assignments; time for personalized meetings for check-in feedback during the process; and helping him engage positively with both the teacher and his peers, through cues or verbal redirection (P-Ex. Q-2). A series of interventions and accommodations, in the classroom and in the community, were used to support the Student at the Private School (P-Ex. Q-2). Additional interventions included: small classes (4:1 ratio) with teachers who live on campus and/or are on campus beyond normal academic hours to support and meet with the Student; structured time that allowed opportunities for additional support, including 1:1 support time; personalized cues for redirection and refocus; scaffolding of larger assignments; structured writing activities (including templates and graphic organizers); and structured interactions with peers to aid communication tools and build social skills (P-Ex. Q-2). The Student had a proctored, daytime study hall 4 of the 7 school days a week, and a proctored evening study hall 6 of the 7 days of the week (P-Ex. Q-2). There were multiple instances throughout the week for additional enrichment time with teachers, both during the day and the evening (P-Ex. Q-2).

With respect to the student’s progress at the Private Schools, a finding of progress is not required for a determination that a student's unilateral placement is adequate, but it is a relevant factor to be considered (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115, citing Rafferty v. Cranston Pub. Sch. Comm., 315 F.3d 21, 26-27 [1st Cir. 2002]). However, here the Student has made progress.

The Student earned As and Bs; made the Dean’s List in nearly every trimester; earned academic awards; and recently an award for dorm citizenship (P-Ex. Q-2). In the classroom, he was attentive and engaged and took advantage of his proximity and access to the teacher by asking questions (P-Ex. Q-2). He utilized his study halls and would engage other staff for help or support when needed (P-Ex. Q-2). Additionally, his interaction with his peers, even those with whom he had difficulties, dissipated (P-Ex. Q-3). The Student became a leader on campus, volunteered to help others, socialized, and engaged positively with peers and with school programming (P-Ex. Q-3). The Student no longer seems as isolated (socially) and generally is always in a pleasant mood (P-Ex. Q-3). The Parent observed the progress as well specifically in how to be a part of a community (T. 75). Based on all of the above, I find that the Private School was an appropriate placement for the Student for the 2021/22 school year.

EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS

Equitable considerations are relevant in determining relief “because the authority to grant reimbursement [under the IDEA] is discretionary.” Frank G., 459 F.3d at 363-64 (quoting, Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374). In balancing the equities, I find in favor of the Parent. To the extent possible, the Parent has participated in all aspects of the special education process and communicated their concerns with the District.

DECISION

Based on a review of the record and the facts mentioned above, I find that the District failed to provide the Student FAPE during the 2021/22 school year. I further find that the Parent’s unilateral placement at the Private School was appropriate. I have considered the Parent’s other requests for relief in the Due Process Complaint and they have been denied for lack of evidence in the record.

ORDER

Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby ordered:

• • ORDER THAT, the District shall reimburse the Parent and/or directly pay the Private School for all tuition and fees for the Student’s unilateral placement at the Private Schools during the 2021/22 school year.

SO ORDERED

DATED: February 12, 2023

Vanessa M. Gronbach

Vanessa M. Gronbach, 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.

DISTRICT EVIDENCE

Ex.

Date

Description

Pages

1

10/06/2021

Due Process Complaint

9

2

08/25/2021

Ten Day Notice

1

3

05/18/2021

Individualized Education Program

26

4

06/01/2021

Prior Written Notice

4

5

06/01/2021

School Location Letter

3

6

04/29/2019

Psychoeducational Evaluation

17

7

07/27/2020

Addendum to Psychoeducational Evaluation

2

8

03/08/2021

Assistive Technology Remote Evaluation

11

9

04/19/2021

Therapist Letter

2

10

12/21/2020

Private School Report Card: 2nd Quarter

1

11

12/2020

2020-2021 Winter Term Comments

3

12

10/08/2020

Teacher Report

2

PARENT EVIDENCE

EX.

DATE

DESCRIPTION

PAGES

A 10/06/2021 Impartial Hearing Request 8

B 08/25/2021 Parent Letter to CSE 10 Ten Day Notice 1

C Undated The Private School Program Description 1 D 2021-2022 The Private School Class Schedule 1 E Spring 2021-2022 The Private School End of Year School Report 4

F 06/03/2022 Student Official Transcript 1

G 08/30/2022 The Private School Attendance for 2021-2022 SY 1

H 04/19/2021 Letter from Therapist 2

I 09/24/2020 Letter from Psychiatrist 1

J 03/19/2021 Letter from Head of School to Parents 1

K 05/04/2021 The Private School Enrollment Agreement 3

L 09/07/2022 Affidavit-Payments Made to School 1

M Various Checks-Parents Payments to The Private School 5

N 04/2019 Psychoeducational Evaluation 17

O 07/27/2020 Addendum to Psychoeducational 2

P 01/03/2023 Affidavit from Head of School 2

Q

01/03/2023

Affidavit from Dean of School

3

Footnotes

[1] Exhibits shall be referred to as follows: “P” for Parent Exhibit; “D” for the District’s or Department’s Exhibits.

[2] Reference to the Transcript shall be referred to as “T”.

[3] A more detailed list of exhibits is attached.