Impartial Hearing Decision

SED # 563320 NYC # 219068

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION AND ORDER

Case Number: 219068

NYS Case Number: REDACTED

Student’s Name: REDACTED

Date of Birth: REDACTED

District: REDACTED

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Date of Hearing: December 13 & 14, 2021

Record Close Date: February 2, 2022

Hearing Officer: Diane Ciccone, Esq.

I. Introduction

On October 12, 2021, I was appointed to conduct an impartial hearing pursuant to 20 U.S.C. §1415, regarding the special education program of STUDENT, hearings were held on December 13 and 14, 2021. Lists of persons in attendance and documents received in evidence are appended to the record.

The decision deadline was extended at both parties’ request October 9, 2020, Dec. 14,2021, due to witness availability, receipt of closing briefs and to obtain the transcripts of the hearing. I determined that the child was placed in and attending a program, and that granting the extension would have no adverse impact on the child’s educational interest or well-being, and no adverse financial or other detrimental consequences for both parties. I also determined that the extension request was not based on school vacations, scheduling conflicts of the parties or their representatives, or settlement discussions.

II. Background

STUDENT is REDACTED year old who attends the REDACTED (PRIVATE SCHOOL) since March 2, 2020. STUDENT has been medically diagnosed with REDACTED STUDENT is nonverbal and non-ambulatory and is dependent in all activities of daily living (ADL). STUDENT received Early Intervention until age 3, attended PS 138 from ages 5-12 in a special education class of 12:1:4 with occupational (OT), physical (PT), Vision Education Services (VES) and speech therapy (SP). STUDENT was assigned to D75 M 721 an ungraded District 75 school. STUDENT was unable to attend school for the prior three years and received home instruction and related services. The 18/19 IEP provided home instruction with related services. The STUDENT continued home instruction for the 19/20 school year until he was unilaterally placed at PRIVATE SCHOOL on March 2, 2020, days before the pandemic closed all schools for in person instruction. In a Findings of Fact and Decision dated 11.9.21 (IHO#3), it was held that the DOE failed to provide FAPE to the STUDENT and the PRIVATE SCHOOL was an appropriate placement for the STUDENT.

The Due Process Complaint filed on October 7, 2021, alleged the DOE failed to provide FAPE for the 2021/2022 school year and requested funding for PRIVATE SCHOOL for the 20/21 12-month school year, transportation and funding for the related services providers. At the start of the hearing the parent requested pendency based on the Findings of Fact and Decision dated Nov. 9, 2021, and the DOE did not object (IHO #2).

III. The parties’ positions The DOE asserts that the DOE offered a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for the 2021/2022 school year and the parent is not entitled to prospective tuition funding at PRIVATE SCHOOL. The DOE additionally argues that the PRIVATE SCHOOL is not an appropriate unilateral placement under the IDEA. The DOE presented two witnesses (a school psychologist and the assistant principal) and exhibits #1-14.

The Parent asserts that the DOE failed to provide FAPE for the 21/22 school year and that The PRIVATE SCHOOL is an appropriate placement, and the equites favors the parents’ claim for reimbursement/direct payment of educational expenses and costs, including related services and transportation. The parent presented the parent, director of the SCHOOL, and the neuropsychologist who conducted an IEE and exhibits # A-N.

IV. Statement of Facts The STUDENT who was REDACTED at the time of the filing of the Due Process Complaint has been known to the DOE since the age of 3. Classified as a student with REDACTED. He has been diagnosed with REDACTED.

On March 10, 2021, the CSE convened and held an IEP meeting (Exh. #3). The parent and the director of the PRIVATE SCHOOL attended. The committee had several reports at their disposal in developing the IEP including a social history update, vocational assessment, teacher and school report, quarterly progress report, neuropsychological report conducted by the DOE, speech/language assessment and score report, physical therapy assessment tool and the gross motor function measure. The committee made the following recommendations: a 6.1.1 in a D75 school, occupational therapy 4 x 60 1:1, parent counseling and training one time a month, physical therapy 5 x 60 1:1, School Nurse services daily, full-time 1:1,speech-language 5 x 60 1:1, vision education services 3 x 60 1:1, paraprofessional, health, ambulation, feeding safety daily full-time 1:1, Assistive technology devices and/or services- switches-both voice output and with computer interface daily 1:1 throughout the day, AT services 1:1 1 x 60, transition activities, and special transportation. He was classified with REDACTED The parent agreed with the classification, class size and related services but rejected a D75 placement. A placement letter was sent to the parent for placement in a 6:1:1 class size at the REDACTED school a D75 school.

Another IEP meeting was held in August 2021 (Exh. N). Neither the parent nor the PRIVATE SCHOOL representative was present. The team had an assistive technology report date June 2021 that was not available at the March meeting. They relied on the reports from the March IEP meeting. The CSE changed the classification to REDACTED. The class size (6:1:1) and related services remained the same from the March recommendations. The IEE neuropsychological report dated June 2021 was not part of the documents reviewed by the CSE team at the August IEP.

V. Review of Evidence In March 2021, the CSE team conducted an IEP meeting. A representative from the PRIVATE SCHOOL and the parent participated at the IEP meeting. The team conducted an updated social history in December 2021. The team reviewed the vocational assessment, teacher and school report, quarterly progress report, neuropsychological, speech/language assessment and score report, physical therapy assessment tool and Gross Motor Function Measure. The Gross Motor Function Measure found improvement from March 2020 to February 2021 (Exh. #3 p.2). It was also noted in the IEP that the STUDENT was unable to self-propel and requires an attendant to always navigate the school environment (Exh. #3 p.3). In the social history it was noted that the parents were beyond satisfied with the PRIVATE SCHOOL with the consistent progress (Exh. #3 p.6). It was also noted that the STUDENT needs a modified environment that reduces visual and sound distractions (Exh. #3 p.8). The team recommended a D75 school in a 6:1:1 class with occupational therapy 4 x 60 1:1, parent counseling and training one time a month, physical therapy 5 x 60 1:1, School Nurse services daily, full-time 1:1,speech-language 5 x 60 1:1, vision education services 3 x 60 1:1, paraprofessional, health, ambulation, feeding safety daily full-time 1:1, Assistive technology devices and/or services- switches-both voice output and with computer interface daily 1:1 throughout the day, AT services 1:1 1 x 60, transition activities, and special transportation. The parent agreed with all the recommendations except for placement at a D75 school believing the STUDENT’s needs could not be met in a D75 environment.

The parent in his affidavit during the hearing (Exh. M) stated he agreed with the CSE’s recommendation except that the STUDENT’s needs could not be met in a District 75 school, from their previous experience with D75 schools. (Exh.M p.2). He further articulated the DOE’s persistent failures to recommend an appropriate program and the STUDENT has made daily progress while at the PRIVATE SCHOOL (Exh. M p. 2).

An IEE neuropsychological evaluation was conducted in May and June of 2021. The report recommended the STUDENT remain in the 6:1:1 class at the PRIVATE SCHOOL as the 6:1:1 D75 classroom placement cannot provide the high degree of individualized attention. Furthermore, D75 programs often include children on the autism spectrum disorder diagnoses, a clinical presentation that requires different academic and supportive needs than those needed of a child with an REDACTED (Exh. J p.7).

The PRIVATE SCHOOL prepared an IEP in March 2021. The recommendations were the same as the DOE IEP except for adding music therapy 2 x60 and of course staying at the PRIVATE SCHOOL.

The DOE conducted another IEP in August 2021 the parent and PRIVATE SCHOOL were not in attendance. The IEP was held as the AT evaluation was not available at the time of the March IEP. The classification was changed to REDACTED from REDACTED based on the report of the DOE neuropsychological evaluation but other than that it relied on the data collected from the March IEP (Exh. N).

The school psychologist testified through an affidavit (Exh. 14) and cross examination. She had never met or observed the STUDENT (Exh.14) but reviewed the DOE neuropsychological evaluation before the IEP meeting. She testified that the team felt a 6:1:1 class size would meet the STUDENT’s needs and 60-minute related services were appropriate (Tr.37,38). She stated that the school would be able to provide the 60-minute related services as they would be push in services (Tr.44). She had no input in the August IEP (Tr.42).

The Assistant principal at the proposed placement school testified that she reviewed the IEP and stated they could have implemented the IEP program. There were 5 6:1:1 classes in the STUDENT’s age range (Tr.58). The school day was 6 hours and 50 minutes (Tr. 58). She indicated that all the related services could be provided in the classroom so to not have the STUDENT miss an extended amount of instructional time in the classroom (Tr.59). She testified that the majority of students in the 6:1:1 class are on the autism spectrum (Tr.61), with some students who have a behavior paraprofessional (Tr.62) and the majority of the students are ambulatory (Tr. 63).

The director of the PRIVATE SCHOOL provided an affidavit (Exh. L) as well as testified. She stated that she had not received notice of the August IEP (Tr.103). She agreed with the CSE IEP recommendations except for the public-school placement. (Tr.112). In her affidavit she outlined the basic tenets of the PRIVATE SCHOOL and the services provided to the students (Ex. L). Specifically, as to this STUDENT, she indicated he has highly intensive management needs that require a high degree of individualized attention and intervention and adult support for all activities of daily living (Exh.L p.3). She outlined the related services that he receives, is in a 6:1:1 class and an assistive technology device and receives assistive technology services (all as recommended by the DOE’s IEP) (Exh. L p. 3,4). She opined that the STUDENT has made progress in skills across academic and related service domains and that a District 75 program cannot meet his needs (Exh. L.p.4).

The neuropsychologist who conducted the IEE in May and June testified. Her report was Exhibit J. She testified that she reviewed the neuropsychological report by the DOE and disagreed with the diagnosis stating the STUDENT had a profound intellectual disability whereas the DOE doctor diagnosed a moderate intellectual development disorder (Tr. 131). Moderate would apply to a child who produces spoken language and progress in academics which is not the case with this STUDENT (Tr.131). She testified that she had conducted research into the pedagogic academic model at the PRIVATE SCHOOL and found the school specifically teaches children like the STUDENT (Tr.134). She stated she had concerns for the STUDENT’s safety at a D75 school given he has very little gross motor control and with autism students they have stereotyped movements and are often have maladaptive or disruptive behaviors (Tr.135).

The parent provided an affidavit (Exh. M) and testified as well. He stated he enrolled the STUDENT at the PRIVATE SCHOOL after years at a D75 school where the services as prescribed on the IEPs were not met (Exh. M p.2) and he lost confidence in the ability of the D75 placements to implement the IEPs and related services as written (Exh. M p. 2). He agreed with the recommendations of the CSE at the March IEP except did not agree with the placement in a D75 school (Exh. M p.2). He testified that the DOE failed too many times and he had no confidence the DOE could help his child (Tr.162). He stated in his affidavit and testimony that he was unaware of the August IEP meeting and only became aware during this process that the August IEP had been held (Exh. M p. 3, Tr.157). When he was advised he checked his junk mail and found the notice and tried contacting the DOE but had no response (Tr.157,158). He stated he has observed progress of the STUDENT since attending the PRIVATE SCHOOL. The STUDENT is stronger, stands up, rolls over, tries to vocalize sounds often, sit up, sit on a bench, and use both arms (Exh.M p.2).

VI. The Law

A central purpose of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) is to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE (20 U.S.C. §1400[d][1][A]; Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179-81, 200-01 [1982]; Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 371 [2d Cir. 2006]). “To 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.” Id. The crafting of an appropriate educational program for a specific child is thus a “fact-intensive exercise” based on the particular child’s individual needs. Id.

A FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the District 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. While Districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures, not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA. Pursuant to the IDEA, when procedural violations are alleged, an administrative officer may find that a child did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a) impeded the child'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 child, or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits. 20 U.S.C. Sect. 1415(f)(1)(E)(ii); 34 C.F.R. Sect. 300.513(a)(2).

A free appropriate public education “must include ‘special education and related services' tailored to meet the unique needs of a particular child and be ‘reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.’” Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 122 (2d Cir.1998) (quoting Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 207 (1982)) (internal citation omitted). While Districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures, not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA. Pursuant to the IDEA, when procedural violations are alleged, an administrative officer may find that a child did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a) impeded the child'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 child, or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits. 20 U.S.C. Sect. 1415(f)(1)(E)(ii); 34 C.F.R. Sect. 300.513(a)(2).

The purpose of IDEA is to provide students with a “basic floor of opportunity” of access to specialized instruction and related services that are individually designed to provide educational benefits. Board of Education, Hendrick Hudson CSD v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 189-190, 102 S. Ct. 3034 (1982); Walczak v. Florida UFSD, 142 F.3d 119 (2nd Cir. 1998). Neither the IDEA, nor Article 89 of the New York State Education Law, requires a school district to provide special education and related services designed to maximize the potential of a disabled student. Nor do federal and state education laws require a school district to provide the best possible educational program and related services, or match those services requested by a parent. Application of a Child with a Disability (City School District of Buffalo), S.R.O. Decision 04-20 (2004). Rather, the goals and mandates of the IDEA and N.Y. Education Law are relatively modest: namely, to provide appropriate specialized education and related services sufficient for the disabled student to benefit from his/her education. Straube v. Florida UFSD, 801 F. Supp. 1164, 11751176 (S.D.N.Y. 1992); Moubry v. Independent School District, 9 F. Supp.2d 1086, 1104 (D. Minn. 1998) (citing Rowley).

This straightforward obligation of the District is accompanied by the requirement to demonstrate the appropriateness of the program recommended by its CSE. (Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 93-9; Application of a Child with a Handicapping Condition, Appeal No. 92-7; Application of a Handicapped Child, 22 Ed Dept Rep 487 [1983]). To meet its burden, a board of education must show that its recommended program is reasonably calculated to confer educational benefits (Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 [1982]). The recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (34 C.F.R. § 300.550[b]; 8 NYCRR200.6[a][1]).

The legal standard for funding cases such as this one is well established, based upon School Committee of Burlington v. Department of Education of Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359, 1985. A District may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private special educational services obtained for a student by the parents, if three prongs are met: (1) the district fails to meet its burden in showing that the IEP was appropriate, (2) the parents demonstrate the services they selected were appropriate, and (3) equitable considerations support the parent’s claim. Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dept. of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 370 (1985). Regarding the burden of proof in New York State, the school district has the burden of proof, including the burden of persuasion, in any impartial special education due process hearing. The exception to this is that “a parent or person in parental relation seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement shall have the burden of persuasion and burden of production on the appropriateness of such placement.” New York Education Law Section 4404.

The school site is an important factor that parents rely upon in making their determination regarding the adequacy of a recommended placement (V.S. v. New York City Department of Education, 25 F. Supp. 3d 295 (E.D.N.Y. 6/10/14). See D.C. ex. rel. E.B. v. New York City Department of Education, 950 F. Supp. 2d 494 (S.D.N.Y. 3/26/13) (finding that parents rely on information that was given at time that they were required to make placement decision and not on retrospective testimony by District justifying placement). See also R.E. 694 F.3d at 187-88) [“At the time the parents must decide whether to make a unilateral placement... [t]he appropriate inquiry is into the nature of the program actually offered”]; see Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 18-001; Application of a Student Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 16-011). Since R.E., the Second Circuit has continued to emphasize the importance of limiting a FAPE analysis to include a review only of the information “reasonably known to the parties at the time of the [parents’] placement decision” (R.E., 694 F.3d at 187; see J.C. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 643 Fed. App’x 31, 33 [2d Cir. Mar. 16, 2016]; M.O. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 793 F.3d 236, 244 [2d Cir. 2015]; Reyes v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 760 F.3d 211, 220 [2d Cir. 2014]; C.F. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 746 F3d 68, 81 [2d Cir. 2014]).

VII. Discussion

Recommendations

It is undisputed that the parent agreed with the DOE recommendations with exception to the recommended D75 placement on the March IEP. The August IEP mirrored the March IEP except that it included the report on AT and changed the classification. Moreover, the parent was not present, arguing the email went into his junk email and the PRIVATE SCHOOL was not notified of the August meeting. Thus, the parent did not have the opportunity to have meaningful participation in the process.

The March team recommended a D75 school in a 6:1:1 class with occupational therapy 4 x 60 1:1, parent counseling and training one time a month, physical therapy 5 x 60 1:1, School Nurse services daily, full-time 1:1,speech-language 5 x 60 1:1, vision education services 3 x 60 1:1, paraprofessional, health, ambulation, feeding safety daily full-time 1:1, Assistive technology devices and/or services- switches-both voice output and with computer interface daily 1:1 throughout the day, AT services 1:1 1 x 60, transition activities, and special transportation.

The DOE witness testified that the services could be implemented in the D75 school day. She stated that typically the students are self-contained for 4 periods a day which would allow a provider to push in 60-minute intervals (Tr.65). She also testified that there were 5 6:1:1 classes available for the 2021/2022 school year the STUDENT could have enrolled in given his age (Tr.62). Based on the evidence presented the recommendations were appropriate for this STUDENT.

Placement The issue as to whether the DOE provided FAPE to this STUDENT for the 2021/2022 school year is whether the placement was appropriate for this STUDENT. The DOE witnesses testified that most of the students in the 6:1:1 are on the autism spectrum, mostly ambulatory and many have behavioral paraprofessionals.

The doctor who conducted the IEE testified of her concerns for the STUDENT’s safety given his visual impairment, lack of mobility in a classroom with students who are ambulatory, on the autism spectrum who would have stereotypical maladaptive behaviors which could place the STUDENT in danger. The doctor also opined that the students on the autism spectrum require a different type of instruction from students who have brain injuries (Tr.150). She opined the STUDENT needed to continue the highly individualized instruction that he was receiving at the PRIVATE SCHOOL (Tr.149). The placement in the D75 environment would not be appropriate for this student. Significant safety issues involving other students, and the need for a highly intensive instruction which is different than his classmates make the placement in a D75 6:1:1 with children on the autism spectrum inappropriate.

The DOE argued that if it was determined to be a denial of FAPE, the PRIVATE SCHOOL was not appropriate. The parent articulated in his affidavit the daily progress they have observed in the STUDENT since attending the PRIVATE SCHOOL (Exh. M.) The Director of the PRIVATE SCHOOL also articulated the STUDENT has made progress (Exh.L). She also testified as to the benefit of music therapy stating that music accesses a different pathway for processing information (Tr. 104) and the thematic curriculum is used to integrate individualized skills with each student (Tr.105).

During the March CSE meeting, the team had access to the quarterly progress report and teacher and school reports. At the time of the meeting in March 2021, the STUDENT had been attending the PRIVATE SCHOOL for approximately one year. It was noted in the Present Levels of Performance and Individual Needs discussed the improvements the STUDENT had made in several areas (Exh. 2 p.1-26, Exh.10, Exh. 11) while attending the PRIVATE SCHOOL. The parent has met its burden under School Committee of Burlington v. Department of Education of Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359, 1985.

Classification The August IEP changed the classification from REDACTED to REDACTED on the rationale that it had been multiple disabilities in previous years. There is nothing in the record that warranted this change and particularly considering the fact it was made during the August IEP that the parent was not present through no fault of his own. The classification should be changed back.

Transportation The parent is seeking payment for transportation costs for the STUDENT to and from school. The IEP recommended special transportation accommodations (Exh.3 p.54). During the discovery of this matter, the DOE served a subpoena on the company providing transportation (Exh.8). The parent provided the contract for transportation services (Exh. K). The contract provides for monthly billing of fees (Exh. K p.2) and provides that the client is not liable for fees if the provider is at fault (Exh. K p.2) yet is responsible for costs whether the STUDENT uses the services or not. However, the hearing officer does not have any invoices for services, or the amount owed under the contract. The DOE argues that the amount is excessive, and the hearing officer agrees. Furthermore, without a monthly invoice of fees, the provider is in breach of the contract and is voidable. The parties have no idea the true costs for the transportation of this student. The amount charged is exorbitant.

Tuition and related services fees The parent provided the contract during the hearing in REDACTED without a certified translated copy in English (Exh.E). However, the DOE provided a copy of the contract in English (Exh. 7). Tuition for the 2021/2022 school year is $163,000 and an additional fee of $104.00 per hour for each related service providers totaling a fee of $91,936.00 for the 2021/2022 school year. However, invoices for services rendered by each provider have not been included in the documentary evidence or testimony. In reviewing the class schedule (Exh. 7 p.19) in any given day the providers are with the STUDENT for more than 4 hours a day, which questions the reasonableness of the base tuition plus an additional amount equal to more than half of the base rate to be paid for related services.

It is not known if the providers are employees or independent contractors. If the providers are independent contractors, they should be paid for actual services rendered and documented with accurate invoices at the rate of $104.00 per hour. However, if they are employees additional fees of $91,936.00 are not warranted. Before any payment is made the PRIVATE SCHOOL shall provide documentation of employment status and invoices of services actually rendered.

Findings of Fact

I find that the DOE failed to provide FAPE for this STUDENT for the 2021/2022 school year.

I find the equities favor the parent’s request for funding of the unilateral placement at PRIVATE SCHOOL from July 2021 to June 2022.

I find the parent is entitled to transportation costs to and from school for the 2021/2022 school year.

I find the appropriate classification for this STUDENT is REDACTED and the classification on the IEP should reflect the classification.

Order

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: a). The DOE to pay the base tuition costs for the STUDENT’s attendance at the PRIVATE SCHOOL for the 2021/2022 school year of $163, 00.00 b). The DOE shall pay for the related services of any independent service provider upon receipt of invoices and documentation of proof of independent contractor status at the rate of $104 per hour. However, if the providers are employees of the PRIVATE SCHOOL, the DOE will pay the rate charged if funded by Medicaid for the same services upon receipt of invoices. c). the DOE to pay 150% of the rate the transportation provider would receive for the same services if funded by Medicaid upon receipt of invoices.

Dated: February 9,2022

Diane Ciccone, Esq.

Diane Ciccone, Esq. IHO

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.

Persons attending the December 13,2021 hearing:

DOE

REDACTED, Esq.

REDACTED, Esq.

REDACTED- school psychologist

REDACTED- Assistant principal REDACTED school

Parent

REDACTED, Esq.

REDACTED, Esq.

REDACTED, Esq.

Persons attending the Dec. 14, 2021 hearing

DOE

REDACTED, Esq.

REDACTED, Esq.

Parent

REDACTED, Esq.

REDACTED, Esq.

REDACTED, Esq.

REDACTED-parent

REDACTED- translator

REDACTED- Director REDACTED

REDACTED, -clinical neuropsychologist

Exhibits for the DOE

REDACTED

Exhibits for the Parent

REDACTED

Exhibits for the IHO

IHO #1- Order denying consolidation dated 10.12.21, 3 pages

IHO#2- Pendency Order dated 12.13.21, 7 pages

IHO#3- Findings of Fact and Decision dated 11.9.21- 37 pages

IHO#4-DOE closing brief dated January 5, 2022- 19 pages

IHO#5- Parent closing brief dated January 12, 2022- 20 pages

.