New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

CASE NUMBER: 564344 - NYC: 219938

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 219938

Student’s Name: REDACTED

Date of Birth: REDACTED

District: REDACTED

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Date of Hearing: May 18, 2022

May 26, 2022

June 16, 2022

July 5, 2022

July 26, 2022

Actual Record Closed Date: October 12, 2022

Hearing Officer: Judith Schneider, Esq.

An Impartial Hearing for the New York City Department of Education (“DOE” or “the district”) Impartial Hearing Office, 131 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, New York, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (“IDEIA”), 20 U.S.C. §1415, and Article 89 of the Education Law of the State of New York, regarding the special education program of XXX (“the student”) was conducted remotely via videoconference by me.

Procedural History

The proceeding was initiated at the request of the parents (hereinafter “the parent”) by correspondence dated October 20, 2021. (Ex. A) I was appointed Impartial Hearing Officer on March 16, 2022. A prehearing conference was held on March 28, 2022. Hearings were held on May 18, 2022, May 26, 2022, June 16, 2022, July 5, 2022 and July 26, 2022.

Parties moved to extend the compliance date on various occasions in light of settlement discussions, anticipated testimony, the scheduling of witnesses and submission of evidence, receipt of the transcript and closing briefs and timely issuance of the decision. In considering the requests I weighed the cumulative impact of the relevant factors and found that the need of the parties for additional time to prepare and present their positions in accordance with the requirements of due process was greater than any delay in the resolution of this matter. Accordingly, the requests for extensions of the compliance dates were granted.

The current compliance date is October 27, 2022. The record closed on October 12, 2022, upon my receipt of all closing briefs.

Positions of the Parties The parent asserts DOE denial of a FAPE for the 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years. The parent seeks: 1) compensatory education in the form of tutoring services stemming from a failure to provide recommended SETSS for a period during the 2019-2020 school year (“SY”); 2) district funding for tuition for REDACTED (“the School’) stemming from a denial of a FAPE in the 2021-2022 SY; 3) reimbursement for a private speech and language evaluation; 4) reimbursement for a private neuropsychological evaluation. (Ex, II) ^[1]

The district: 1) with regard to the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 school years asserts that it created substantively and procedurally valid IEPs and, further, the evidence does not support an award of compensatory services; 2) with regard to the 2021-2022 school year (“SY”) did not present a case to establish that it provided a FAPE did district “concede”)?????, and asserts no claims that the unilateral placement was not appropriate but raises equitable issues concerning a 10 Day Notice 3) asserts parental non-entitlement to reimbursement for the private neuropsychological evaluation but does not make a similar claim concerning the the speech language evaluation. (Ex. I)

Cases Presented

Documents presented by both parties were admitted into evidence. (A list of documents in the record is appended.)

The district presented the testimony of: the REDACTED (“the charter school”) IEP Coordinator (“the IEP coordinator;”) the student’s 5th grade special education teacher (“the spec ed teacher”).

The parent presented the testimony of: the student’s mother (“the parent”); the neuropsychologist who conducted the 2021 evaluation (“the neuropsychologist”); the School’s Academic Dean (“the Dean”).

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

A Initial Factual Findings

Persuasive evidence, substantially uncontested, shows the following:

The student was REDACTED and in the 6th grade during the 2021-2022 SY. (T457). His CSE disability classification is Learning Disability. He has been diagnosed with ADHD (combined type); Specific Learning Disorder with impairment in Reading; Specific Learning Disorder with impairment in Written Expression; Expressive Language Disorder; and Social Pragmatic Language Disorder. (Ex. 27) Cognitive testing reported that his cognitive functioning was “Extremely High” although his processing speed was in the average range. (Ex. 2)

The student was classified as a preschool student with a disability by the CPSE. (Exs. A, B) At his Turning-5 review he was classified as learning disabled and special education services were recommended. (Exs. A, B) He attended the charter school from kindergarten through 5th grade (2020-2021 SY. (Ex. A, T97,460) In the 2018-2019 SY the student was in a 3rd grade Integrated Co-Teaching (ICT) class and receiving SETSS and related services.

The CSE convened on April 8, 2019 and reconvened on May 22, 2019 to develop a program for the student’s 4th grade (2019-2020). (Exs. 1,11) The student was classified with Learning Disability and the CSE recommended an ICT program with SETSS in ELA (4xper week) and related services of Counseling and Occupational Therapy (“OT”) (Exs. 11, 12) As a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic, the charter school transitioned to remote academic and related service instruction in mid-March 2020. The student received one session a week remotely through May 14, 2020 and then received none. (T119-120, 189-190,460-463, Ex. I) Charter school staff acknowledged that the student would have benefited from continued SETSS instruction. (T210-211)

On May 28, 2020, the CSE convened to develop a program for the 2020-2021 SY.

The student’s disability classification was not changed. The student was again placed in an ICT program and SETSS in ELA and Counseling and OT were again recommended. (Exs. 18, 19) In summer 2020, the parent expressed disagreement and requested a reconvene. (Ex. NN)

The reconvene was held on October 19, 2020. (Exs. 17, 22, 23, 24) Parental concern about goals was addressed and agreed upon goals were provided. The program was otherwise unchanged. (Exs. 17,22)

Pursuant to subsequent parent request, a DOE speech/language evaluation was conducted with results reported on January 18, 2021. (Exs. 25, P) On January 27, 2021, the parent informed the CSE of specific concerns about the evaluation and requested an independent speech evaluation. (Ex. P, T466-467) The parent was informed that the concerns would be addressed with the evaluator but that the CSE was denying an Independent Educational Evaluation as unnecessary. (Ex. R, TT467-468) After receiving the rejection of the request, the parent obtained and paid for a private speech evaluation ($5060). (Exs. 26, S, T467-469) The evaluation was conducted in February, March and April 2021. (Ex. 26)

The parent also obtained a neuropsychological evaluation which commenced with an intake on January 27, 2021 and concluded several months later. (Exs. 27, U, T470) There is no claim that the parent requested district provision of an independent neuropsychological evaluation.

The CSE convened on June 22, 2021 to develop a program for the 2021-2022 SY (6th grade). (Ex. 32) It recommended an ICT program, SETSS- ELA, and related services (Counseling, OT, Speech-Language Therapy (“SLT”) ). (Ex. 27)

The parent disagreed with the recommendation and by letter dated August 24, 2021, informed the CSE of concerns and that the student would attend the School and district funding would be sought if an appropriate program and placement were not timely provided. (Ex. Y, T492)

On August 17, 2021, the parent signed a contract for the student’s attendance in a 10 month program at the School ($73,300). The contract permitted withdrawal without penalty if a CSE placement was timely accepted. (Ex. X) The parent made a partial payment but is financially unable to pay the tuition and seek reimbursement. (Exs. X, T, 492)

B Conclusions The parent requests: 1) funding for the unilateral placement (“the School”) based upon denial of a FAPE for the 2021-2022 SY, 2) a bank of compensatory services for services recommended but not provided in the 2019-2020 SY; 3) and payment for the speech-language and neuropsychological evaluations independently obtained. ^[2]

1. Unilateral Placement Funding The legal standard applicable to a request for reimbursement for educational services is well established. Reimbursement is granted if: (1) the services offered by the Board of Education are inadequate or inappropriate (Prong 1); (2) the services selected by the parent are appropriate (Prong 2); and (3) equitable considerations support the parent's claim (Prong 3). Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993); School Comm. of Burlington v. Department of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359 (1985). In New York State the DOE bears the burden of proof with regard to Prong 1 and Prong 3 and the parent bears the burden of proof with regard to Prong 2. Educ. Law 4404[1][c] Prospective payment for tuition may be ordered by an impartial hearing officer when a child would otherwise be denied a free appropriate education and the parent can show financial inability to pay the tuition and then seek reimbursement. Mr. & Mrs. A v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 769 F. Supp. 2d 403 (S.D. N.Y. 2011). See also, Connors v. Mills, 34 F. Supp 2nd 795 at 806, n.7 (N.D. N.Y. 1998)

Prong 1 The parent asserted that the district failed to provide a FAPE for the 2021-2022 SY. The district did not present a case with regard to that issue. Accordingly, the district has not met its burden. I find that the district did not establish that a FAPE was provided for that school year.

Prong 2

When a public school system has failed to provide FAPE, the program and services chosen by the parent are “proper under the Act” if the education provided is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.” Carter, 510 U.S. at 14. The parents bear the burden of proof with regard to the services obtained by the parents for the student. However, parents are not barred from reimbursement if their program does not meet the IDEA definition of a FAPE. See 20 U.S.C. §1401(9), Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park., 459 F. 3d 356 (2nd Cir. 2006). It is not required that the provider of the services be State-approved to provide instruction to children with disabilities. Carter, 510 U.S. at 10. The student need not be the least restrictive environment. Frank G, 459 F. 3d at 364.. “Ultimately the issue turns on whether a placement…is ‘reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.’ [internal citations omitted] …”, Frank G, 459 F. 3d at 130. No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining that. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 207 (1982). Parents 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. Id. at 364-365. See also Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F 3d. 105, 115 (2d Cir. 2007). However, the program should reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances. Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), 2017 WL 1066260 (March 22, 2017). Although the restrictiveness of a parental placement may be considered as a factor in determining entitlement to an award of tuition reimbursement, parents are not as strictly held to the standard of placement in the LRE as are school districts. C.L. v. Scarsdale UFSD, 744 F. 3d 826, 830, 836-37 (2d Cir. 2014); see Carter, 510 U.S. at 14-15; M.S., 231F.3d at 105 and “the totality of the circumstances” must be considered in determining the appropriateness of the unilateral placement, Frank G., 459 F. 3d at 64.

Credible and uncontested unrebutted evidence establishes that:

The School is a private school devoted specifically to students grades 4-12 with learning disabilities and serves student diagnosed primarily with language processing disorders, specific learning disorders and executive functioning difficulties. Each student participates daily in a 45-minute REDACTED class which provides one to one instruction utilizing a curriculum individualized for the student. (T343, Ex. FF)

The School provides small classes and the student was placed in classes with nine students and one teacher but for math where there were 11 students and he was grouped with students with similar cognitive profiles and difficulties (executive functioning, reading fluency, impulsivity and attention). (T349)

Instruction for this student was provided in a multisensory manner and structured to address attentional and executive functioning difficulties and instruction was differentiated and delivered at a slower pace to accommodate language difficulties and processing speed. (T364-365) Strategies for building self-awareness, self-control and to address time management issues were utilized. (T366-369)

Student pragmatic speech needs were addressed in REDACTED class in in his small classes and support within the program is appropriate for this student. (T440-443) Counseling needs were addressed by providing access on request to the counselor, utilized by the student routinely, often weekly, with subsequent follow ups. AT is utilized when necessary to address any handwriting issues. School staff includes a speech language pathologist, an occupational therapist and two school counselors.

The student’s REDACTED teacher was trained in evidence-based reading curricula which were utilized and difficulties with other deficit areas were also addressed. (T351-355)

The School utilizes standardized testing. (Ex. YY) It conducts weekly and bi-weekly meetings with staff and weekly reports are provided by the REDACTED teacher. Professional development activities are provided.

The student progressed academically, emotionally and socially and developed self-advocacy skills during the 2021-2022 SY and was promoted to the next grade. (Exs. BB, CC, DD, XX, T377, 384-385, 481-489)

I note that the School’s program is consistent with the recommendations of the neuropsychologist. (Ex. 2, 27, T428)

Further, the district has not stated any objection or concern with regard to the program provided by the parent. (Ex. I)

Based upon the foregoing, I conclude that the parent’s burden to establish that the unilateral placement was appropriate has been met.

Prong 3 The determination of whether equitable factors support a parent’s claim for tuition reimbursement hinges, in large part, on whether or not a parent cooperated with the DOE and CSE. See generally Burlington, 471 U.S. 359; Carter, 510 U.S. 7; see also Mr. & Mrs. A ex rel. D.A. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Edu., 769 F. Supp. 2d 403, 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); see also N.R. ex rel. T.R. v. Dep’t of Educ. of City Sch. Distr. Of N.Y., No. 07 Civ. 9648, 2009 WL 874061, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2009). It is well established that a parent’s subjective intent, or preference for a nonpublic educational setting, is not relevant to a determination of the equities, even if, in seeking tuition funding, the parent has, as “[p]resumably, nearly all parents who make unilateral placement... and then seek tuition reimbursement, act[ed] at least in part out of a hope, belief, or expectation that the school district [would] ultimately be forced to fund [the] placement,” Mr. & Mrs. A. ex rel. D.A., 769 F. Supp. 2d at 430; see also N.R. ex rel. T.R. 2009 WL 874061, at *14. See also C.L. v. Scarsdale UFSD, 744 F. 3d 826 (2d Cir. 2014) (“[Parents] pursuit of a private placement was not a basis for denying their tuition reimbursement, even assuming…that the parents never intended to keep [the student] in public school.”)

Extensive evidence shows parental cooperation with the CSE. That cooperation included timely notification as to concerns and of the intention to place the student in the School and seek DOE funding in light of those concerns. (Ex. Y) I find no basis for reduction or denial of district funding in the record of this matter

2. Compensatory Services With regard to the 2019-2020 SY, the parent asserts that the district failed to implement its IEP resulting in a denial of a FAPE. (Ex. II) ^[3] It is undisputed that the student received only a few SETSS sessions from the pandemic school closure through the balance of the school year. (T460-463, Exs. I, II) It is well established that a failure to implement an IEP can support a conclusion that a FAPE was denied. I note that the district does not assert that the deprivation was de minimis. I conclude that it was not. I note that it was not intermittent but rather a substantial continuous period resulting in a denial of a FAPE for the 2019-2020 SY.

It is well established that compensatory education may be awarded to students still eligible for services who have not received a FAPE. P. v. Newington, 546 F.3d 111(2d Cir. 2008) Further, “[i]f the student has become ineligible for special education by reason of age or graduation, compensatory education has been awarded if there has been a gross violation of the IDEA resulting in the denial of, or exclusion from, educational services for a substantial period of time (see Somoza v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 538 F.3d 106, 109 n.2, 113 n.6 [2d Cir. 2008]; Mrs. C. v. Wheaton, 916 F.2d 69 [2d Cir. 1990]; Burr v. Ambach, 863 F.2d 1071 [2d Cir. 1988]; Cosgrove v. Bd. of Educ., 175 F. Supp. 2d 375, 387 [N.D.N.Y. 2001]).” Appeal No. 11-027. However, it is not required that the denial be gross when occurring as here during the age range of student eligibility. See, e.g., Appeal No. 13-048, Appeal No. 12-235, Appeal No. 12-209. “…[C]ompensatory education is an equitable remedy that is tailored to meet the unique circumstances of each case (Wenger v. Canastota, 979 F. Supp. 147 [N.D.N.Y. 1997]).” Appeal No. 11-027.

In fashioning an appropriate compensatory education remedy, “the inquiry must be fact-specific, and … the ultimate award must be reasonably calculated to provide the educational benefits that likely would have accrued from special education services the school district should have supplied in the first place.” Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 524 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (emphasis added); see also Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d at 123; Draper v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 518 F.3d 1275, 1289 (11th Cir. 2008) ("[c]ompensatory awards should place children in the position they would have been in but for the violation of the Act").

With regard to compensatory education services when there is a denial of FAPE, the district has the burden of proof and persuasion. Appeal No. 11-091 n. 10. It is not sufficient for the district to simply criticize the remedy sought by the parent but rather it must provide credible evidence to support its own view of what is warranted. Appeal No. 11-091. See also Appeal No. 14-014.

In this matter the district asserts that no compensatory services are warranted even if a FAPE denial is found because sufficient subsequent progress was made by the student. (Ex. II) However, a provision of what was missed when that is quantifiable is a permissible remedy for a denial of a FAPE. Further, the benefits that might have accrued to this student, who has superior cognitive skills, from full implementation of the IEP at issue cannot be determined. I also note that the neuropsychologist reported academic weaknesses after testing the following year. (Ex. 27) Accordingly, the district will be ordered to provide the requested bank of SETSS sessions consisting of all sessions missed from March 17, 2020.

The sole other claim asserted by the parent with regard to the 2019-2020 SY is a failure to provide a recommended ICT class. (Science) (T189-190) In view of my finding with regard to a denial of a FAPE and my conclusion that the parent was entitled therefore to the entirety of the compensatory services the parent has requested, I do not address that claim.

3. Reimbursement for IEEs a) Speech Language Evaluation

As acknowledged by the district, the parent expressed disagreement with the speech language evaluation conducted by the district, detailed concerns and requested an IEE but was denied. I note that the concerns expressed by the parent were not unreasonable and that no evidence was presented by the district to support its evaluation and explain its denial of an IEE. Further, the district has asserted no objection to reimbursement for this evaluation. (Ex. I) Reimbursement is granted. b. Neuropsychological Evaluation The parent seeks reimbursement for the 2021 independent evaluation obtained. A neuropsychological evaluation was conducted in 2019 and was timely. There is no evidence establishing that the CSE was informed of any dissatisfaction with that evaluation or that the parent was seeking an IEE. It is well established that a parent must express disagreement with the appropriateness of a district evaluation in order to obtain an IEE. The fact that district did not defend its IEP does not provide entitlement to the reimbursement sought.

ORDER

It is hereby ordered that:

1.The student is entitled to full DOE funding for tuition at the School ($73,300). The DOE shall directly fund any outstanding balance and reimburse the parent for any payments made for the 2021-2022 school year based upon documentation submitted to the DOE of the payments.

2. As compensation for SETSS sessions missed from March 17, 2020 through the end of the 2019-2020 SY, the district shall issue authorization for the student to obtain 1:1 tutoring for the number of sessions missed, as determined by documentation, from a provider of the parent’s choice at a reasonable market rate. The services must be utilized by August 21, 2024.

3. The district shall reimburse the parent in the amount of $5060 for the independent Speech Language Evaluation obtained.

Dated: October 24, 2022

_________/s/_____________

JUDITH SCHNEIDER, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

The parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to obtain a review of this decision by a State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Part 200.5(k) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, Section 4404 of the Education Law, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. 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.

EXHIBITS

District

1 04/08/2019 Individualized Education Program (IEP) 32 pgs.

2 02/18/2019 Integrative Neuropsychological Services PLLC 16 pgs

3 03/06/2018 REDACTED Assessment 7 pgs.

4 03/08/2019 Teacher Progress Report Special Education Annual Review 6 pgs

5 03/18/2019 Classroom Observation 3 pgs.

6 04/08/2019 Minutes from IEP Meeting

7 04/16/2019 Prior Written Notice (PWN) 4 pgs.

8 04/25/2019 Letter to CSE 8 re: reconvene 8 pgs.

9 05/02/2019 Meeting Notice re: reconvene 3 pgs

10 05/22/2019 IEP Attendance Page 1 pg

11 05/22/2019 Individualized Education Program (IEP) 36 pgs

12 05/31/2019 Prior Written Notice (PWN)

13 Undated Narrative Reports 1-3 19-20 SY 12 pgs

14 Undated 2019-2020 Progress Report of IEP Goals, re: OT 3 pgs

15 Undated 2019-2020 Progress Report of IEP Goals 6pgs.

16 05/24/2020 REDACTED Teacher Progress Report 8 pgs

17 10/19/2020 VERSION 2 10/19/2020 Individualized Education

Program (IEP) 28 pgs.

18 05/28/2020 Meeting Minutes 4 pgs

19 06/26/2020 Prior Written Notice (PWN) 4 pgs.

20 10/11/2020 Meeting Notice re: reconvene 3 pgs.

21 10/15/2020 REDACTED Teacher Progress Report 15 pgs.

22 10/19/2020 VERSION 1 10/19/2020 Individualized Education

Program (IEP) 30 pgs.

23 10/19/2020 Minutes from IEP Meeting 3 pgs.

24 11/10/2020 Prior Written Notice (PWN) 4 pgs.

25 01/18/2021 DOE Speech/Language Evaluation 11 pgs.

26 02 – 04/2021 REDACTED LLC Evaluation 34 pgs.

27 05/25/2021 Neuropsychological Evaluation 30 pgs.

28 Undated Narrative Reports 1-3 20-21 SY 11pgs.

29 06/18/2021 REDACTED Teacher Progress Report 15 pgs.

30 Undated 2020-2021 Progress Report of Classroom IEP Goals 11

31 06/22/2021 Occupational Therapy Goals 3 pgs.

32 06/22/2021 Individualized Education Program (IEP) 29 pgs.

33 06/22/2021 Attendance Page 2 pgs.

34 06/22/2021 Minutes from IEP Meeting 3pgs.

Parent

A 10/20/2021 Hearing Request 20 pgs.

B 1/27/2014 Turning 5 Report 4 pgs.

C 10/17/2018 Parent Request for Neuropsychological Evaluation 1 pg.

D 10/24/2018 Teacher Report Form for Psychiatrist 4 pgs.

E 12/6/2018 Progress Report of IEP Goals 5 pgs.

F 12/16/2018 Parent Request for IEP Reconvene 1 pg.

G 6/18/2019 Parent Request for IEP Reconvene 3 pgs.

H Undated Fountas & Pinnell Text Level Gradient 1 pg.

I 5/20/2020 SETSS Session Log 4 pgs.

J 10/26/2020 Parent Letter Outlining Concerns and Requesting

Consideration of CSBT Deferral 4 pgs.

K 11/2/2020 Student Writing Samples 3 pgs.

L 11/10/2020 Student Handwriting Sample 1 pg.

M 11/10/2020 Student Handwriting Sample 1 pg.

N 12/11/2020 Parent Consent to Conduct Speech Evaluation 1 pg.

O 12/15/2020 Signed Consent for Additional Assessments 6 pgs.

P 1/27/2021 Parent Email Sending Letter About Speech Report 3 pgs.

Q 1/29/2021 CSE 8 Response to Letter About Speech Report 2

R 2/8/2021 CSE 8 Email – IEE for Additional Speech

Evaluation Not Recommended 2 pgs.

S 2/12/2021 Contract for Comprehensive Independent Language and Literacy Assessment 1 pg.

T 4/6/2021 Parent 2020 Tax Return 2 pgs.

U 5/25/2021 Testing Invoice 1 pg.

V 6/16/2021 Parent Emails Regarding IEP Meeting 3 pgs.

W 6/17/2021 Parent Emails with Teacher 3 pgs.

X 8/17/2021 2021-2022 School Contract 7 pgs.

Y 8/24/2021 Ten Day Notice 9 pgs.

Z 9/17/2021 Email From REDACTED Regarding Lack of

Service Providers 1 pg.

AA 11/5/2021 Email from REDACTED Regarding New

Occupational Therapist 1 pg.

BB 12/20/2021School Fall Progress Report 8

CC 2021-2022 School Fall Report 9 pgs.

DD 2021-2022 School Winter Report 9 pgs.

EE 2021-2022 School 2021-2022 Class Schedule 1 pg

FF 2021-2022 School Program Description 1 pg.

GG 6/23/2021 Prior Written Notice 9 pgs.

HH 5/19/2018 IEP 24 pgs.

II 4/16/2019 Prior Written Notice 4 pgs.

JJ 2/28/2020 SETSS Session Log 2 pgs.

KK 3/29/2020 Lexia Level 9 Completion Certificate 1 pg.

LL 5/26/2020 Lexia Progress Report 3 pgs.

MM WITHDRAWN

NN 8/5/2020 Email Chain about IEP Reconvene 7 pgs

OO 8/19/2020 Email Chain about IEP Reconvene Date 8 pgs.

PP 8/31/2020 Email Chain Following Up About IEP Reconvene 9 pgs.

QQ 9/4/2020 Case Manager Introduction Email 3pgs.

RR 9/17/2020 Email About Lexia Login Conflict 2 pgs.

SS 9/17/2020 Picture of Lexia Minutes Progress 1 pg.

TT 9/18/2020 School Response about Lexia Login Conflict 1 pg.

UU 10/16/2020 Email Chain with Proposed Goals Before IEP Reconvene 18 pgs.

VV 10/25/2020 Email About Requesting Alternative School Placement 2 pgs.

WW Undated Lexia Core Scope and Sequence Chart 2 pgs.

XX 2021-2022 School Spring Report 8 pg.

YY 6/20/22 School Standardized Testing Report 4 pgs.

Impartial Hearing Officer

I District Closing Brief

II Parent Closing Brief

Footnotes

[1] Claims made in the hearing request not addressed in the parent’s closing are deemed to have been abandoned. Certain relief claims asserted in the hearing request have been withdrawn. (T87)

[2] With regard to the 2020-2021 SY, the sole claim articulated at this time is that provision of a FAPE has not been established because of the IEP in evidence at the beginning of the school year is not in evidence. (Ex. II) The parent has made no relief claim arising from any 2020-2021 FAPE failure and accordingly I do not address this issue.

[3]