Skip to main content
Special Education Law
DECISIONMixed ResultIHO Case No. 220474

New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

October 12, 2022·Randy Glasser·New York City Department of Education (“DOE” or the “District”)

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

CASE NUMBER: 565010 - NYC: 220474

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Student’s Name: REDACTED (“Student”)

Date of Birth: REDACTED

District: New York City Department of Education (“DOE” or the “District”)

Hearing Requested by: REDACTED, Esq., of the REDACTED, on behalf of REDACTED (the “Parents”) and the Student

Record Close Date: October 12, 2022

Hearing Officer: Randy Glasser, Esq.

On October 27, 2021, REDACTED, Esq., of REDACTED, filed a due process complaint (“DPC”) on behalf of the Parents and their child, the Student, regarding his special education program and services for the 2021/2022 school year, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (the “IDEA”) (Parent Ex. “A”). This Hearing Officer was appointed as the Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) on November 1, 2021, after the appointment of the previous Hearing Officer for this case was rescinded. A prehearing conference (“PHC”) was held on November 29, 2021, status conferences on January 11, 2022, January 27, 2022, March 7, 2022, April 18, 2022, May 23, 2022, and June 21, 2022, and a Hearing went forward on July 21, 2022. District Representative, REDACTED, appeared for the District, while the Parents and Student were represented by REDACTED, Esq. Pursuant to this IHO’s direction, the parties were directed to submit their closing statements on or before August 25, 2022 (Tr. 95). However, at the hearing, Ms. REDACTED stated that the District would not be submitting a closing statement for this matter (Tr. 95).

Lists of the appearances and documentary evidence submitted in this proceeding are appended to this Decision. The compliance date for this matter was extended to October 22, 2022 (IHO Ex. “I”).

BACKGROUND AND POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

The Student is REDACTED (REDACTED) years old, classified as a student with a Speech or Language Impairment, and diagnosed with Mixed Receptive-Expressive Language Disorder, Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Predominantly Inattentive Presentation, Moderate range, a Specific Learning Disorder in Reading, with his writing achievement considered to be in the at-risk range, and Developmental Coordination Disorder, due to his difficulties in motor functioning (Parent Ex. “C” at p. 12, Parent Ex. “L” at ¶¶3, 12, IHO Ex. “II”).

The Student’s Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) dated June 15, 2021, for the 2021/2022 school year recommends the following ten (10) month special education program and services: Integrated co-teaching for Math, English Language Arts, Social Studies and Science, each five (5) times per week, one period per session, along with individual occupational therapy two (2) times per week, thirty (30) minutes per session, and individual speech language therapy two times per week thirty (30) minutes per session (IHO Ex. “II”).

The Parents unilaterally placed the Student at the REDACTED (the “School”) for the 2021/2022 school year, for which they are now seeking reimbursement for tuition reimbursement, and transportation from the Student’s home to the School (Parent Ex. “A”). The Parents also seek attorneys’ fees. However, at the prehearing conference, Parents’ counsel agreed to the fact that this IHO does not have the authority to order attorneys’ fees (Tr. 5).

The Student’s eligibility and classification are not at issue in this case.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

A. Introduction: The IDEA provides that children with disabilities are entitled to a FAPE (20 U.S.C. § 1400 (d)(1)(A)). A FAPE consists of specialized education and related services designed to meet a student’s unique needs, provided in conformity with a comprehensively written IEP (Id., 20 U.S.C. §1414(d); 34 C.F.R. § 300.17). A school district has offered a student a FAPE when (a) the board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA; and (b) the IEP is developed through, the IDEA's procedures, and is (c) reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits. Board of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 (1982). In order to meet its substantive FAPE obligations, a district must offer a student an IEP that is “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist., RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017).

Decisions of impartial hearing officers must be on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE (8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(4)(i)), except:

In matters alleging a procedural violation, an impartial hearing officer may find that a student did not receive a free appropriate public education only if the procedural inadequacies impeded the student’s right to a free appropriate public education, significantly impeded the parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a free appropriate public education to the parent’s child, or caused a deprivation of educational benefits. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to preclude an impartial hearing officer from ordering a school district to comply with procedural requirements under this Part and Part 201 of this Title 8 NYCRR § 200.5(j)(4)(ii).

Id. (Emphasis added.)

School districts have the burden of proof, including the burden of persuasion and burden of production, in IDEA due process hearings, except that a parent or person in parental relationship seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral parental placement has the burden of persuasion and burden of production on the appropriateness of such placement (NYS Educ. Law § 4404(1)(c)).

  • • The IDEA empowers a hearing officer to grant the relief he/she deems appropriate. 34 CFR §300.516(c)(3). One such remedy is reimbursement of tuition and related expenses. Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993); Burlington Sch. Comm. v. Mass. Dep’t. of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, (1985). Notably, the mere fact that the state educational agency and/or LEA has not approved the private school placement does not bar the parents from reimbursement. Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, supra.

The District conceded that they did not provide the Student with a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”), did not put documents into evidence, put on a direct case or present rebuttal witnesses (Tr. 73, 81, 93).

The Parents presented two (2) witnesses on their direct case; REDACTED, Head of the School (“Head of the School”), and the Parent.

B. Tuition Reimbursement: A board of education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a child by the child's parent, (1) if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, (2) the services selected by the parent were appropriate, and (3) equitable considerations support the parent's claim (Burlington Sch. Comm v. Mass. Dep’t. of Educ., supra; Florence County Sch. Dist. Four et al. v. Carter, supra; see also Frank G. and Dianne G. v. Board of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356 (2d Cir. 2006), cert denied, Board of Educ. of Hyde Park Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Frank G., 2007 WL 2982269 (2007). Accordingly, the above-stated three (3) prong analysis (the “Burlington/Carter Criteria”) is applied to determine whether the board of education is required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private educational services obtained for a student by his or her parents. Id.

The inquiry made pursuant to the first prong, may go beyond the appropriateness of the student’s IEP and/or placement and encompass other FAPE claims (see 20 USC §1412(a)(10)(C)(ii); 34 C.F.R. §300.148(a) and (c); Forest Grove v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230 (2009); P.C. Oceanside Union Free Sch. Dist., 818 F. Supp. 2d 516 (E.D.N.Y. 2011); Mr. N.C. v. Bedford Cent. Sch. Dist., 300 F. App’x 11 (2d Cir. 2009). To determine whether the school district made FAPE available to the student in a timely matter, Rowley’s two-part test, as modified by Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist., RE-1, supra, for appropriateness should be applied. Specifically, the hearing officer must determine whether the school district complied with the procedural requirements of the IDEA and whether the IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the child to make appropriate progress in light of her circumstances. Id. “An appropriate educational program therefore begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student’s needs, establishes annual goals related to those needs, and provides for the use of appropriate special education services.” (See Application of the Dept. of Educ., Appeal No. 07-018 (2007)). Thus, the annual goals and short-term objectives should be consistent with, and relate to, the identified needs and abilities of the student. See Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 14-078 (2015) (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(II); 34 CFR § 300.320(a)(2)(i); 8 NYCRR § 200.4(d)(2)(iii)).

While the Second Circuit has emphasized that school districts must comply with a checklist of procedures for developing a student’s IEP, the Court has also explained that not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA. See A.C. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Chappaqua Cent. Sch. Dist., 553 F.3d 165, 172 (2d Cir. 2009). Under the IDEA, if procedural violations are alleged, an administrative officer may find that a student did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies: (a) impeded the student’s right to a FAPE; (b) significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student; or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits to the student (20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(d)(E)(ii); 34 C.F.R. §300.513(a)(2); 8 NYCRR §200.5(j)(4)(ii)).

As aforementioned, the DOE has the statutory burden of persuasion and production in this case, to show that the program and services offered by the DOE pursuant to the Student’s IEP were adequate or appropriate in order to satisfy Prong I of the Burlington/Carter Criteria. In addition to conceding FAPE, the District failed to proffer sufficient documentary or any testimonial evidence or otherwise prove that it had offered the Student a FAPE for the 2021/2022 school year, e.g., whether it offered a program that “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist., RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017).

The Parents presented credible testimony and evidence proving the programs that were recommended in the past for the Student, and for the 2021/2022 school year were not appropriate, in that they did not address his needs (Parent Ex. “N” at ¶¶12, 18).

Moreover, the Parents allege the DOE denied the Student a FAPE for the following reasons:

  • • The DOE failed to comprehensively evaluate the Student in all areas of his disability;
  • • The DOE failed to convene a procedurally and substantively appropriate CSE review meeting;
  • • The DOE failed to develop an IEP that was reasonably calculated to confer an education benefit to the Student; and
  • • The DOE failed to offer the Student a special education placement that could implement his IEP and that was reasonably calculated to confer an educational benefit.

(Parent Ex. “A”).

Below please find this IHO’s analysis regarding each of these allegations:

1. The DOE failed to comprehensively evaluate the Student in all areas of his disability:

Federal and State regulations require that a school district must conduct an evaluation of a student where the educational or related services needs of a student warrant a reevaluation or if the student's parent or teacher requests a reevaluation (34 CFR 300.303(a)(2); 8 NYCRR 200.4(b)(4)); however, a district need not conduct a reevaluation more frequently than once per year unless the parent and the district otherwise agree and at least once every three years unless the district and the parent agree in writing that such a reevaluation is unnecessary (8 NYCRR 200.4)(4); see 34 CFR 300.303(b)(1)-(2)). A CSE may direct that additional evaluations or assessments be conducted in order to appropriately assess the student in all areas related to the suspected disabilities (8 NYCRR 200.4(b)(3)). Any evaluation of a student with a disability must use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information about the student, including information provided by the parent, that may assist in determining, among other things, the content of the student's IEP (20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(2)(A); 34 CFR 300.304(b)(1)(ii); see S.F. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 2011 WL 5419847 at *12 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); see Letter to Clarke, 48 IDELR 77 (OSEP 2007)). In particular, a district must rely on technically sound instruments that may assess the relative contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors, in addition to physical or developmental factors (20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(2)(C); 34 CFR 300.304(b)(3); 8 NYCRR 200.4(b)(6)(x)). A district must ensure that a student is appropriately assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, where appropriate, social, and emotional status (20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(3)(B); 34 CFR 300.304(c)(4); 8 NYCRR 200.4(b)(6)(vii)). An evaluation of a student must be sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the student's special education and related services needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in which the student has been classified (34 CFR 300.304(c)(6); 8 NYCRR 200.4(b)((ix).

Specifically, the Parents contend “the team did not conduct, secure, or rely on sufficient evaluative measures to make a determination of the student’s present levels of performance, educational and cognitive profile, and areas of need, including functional behavioral needs. The team failed to adequately consider and rely upon the findings and recommendations of the evaluate material provided by the Parents. The CSE significantly impeded the ability of the Parents to participate in the development of the IEP” (Parent Ex. “A”). However, the Parents’ attorney failed to offer any evidence or testimony in this regard, or even address this allegation in her closing statement. Moreover, the hearing record shows that the June 15, 2021 Committee on Special Education considered the Woodcock Johnson-IV, Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-V, and WISC-V conducted on December 15, 2020, as well as the NEPSY: Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-V, which are memorialized in part, on the IEP (IHO Ex. “II” at pp. 1-2). Moreover, the CSE meeting that developed the IEP at issue in these proceedings was held approximately six months later in June 2021 (Id.). Accordingly, the evaluations were still current, and without a request for a reevaluation or, at least, a more detailed complaint indicating a reason why the CSE should not have relied on this evaluative data, the District was not obligated to conduct a reevaluation of the student at the time of the June 2021 CSE meeting.

  • • The DOE failed to convene a procedurally and substantively appropriate CSE review meeting:

Pursuant to 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(B) a CSE or IEP Team is comprised of the following members:

(i) the parents of a child with a disability; (ii) not less than 1 regular education teacher of such child (if the child is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment); (iii) not less than 1 special education teacher, or where appropriate, not less than 1 special education provider of such child;

(iv) a representative of the local educational agency who—

(I) is qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities;

(II) is knowledgeable about the general education curriculum; and

(III) is knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the local educational agency.

(v) an individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results, who may be a member of the team described in clauses (ii) through (vi);

(vi) at the discretion of the parent or the agency, other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child, including related services personnel as appropriate; and

(vii) whenever appropriate, the child with a disability.

Id. Similarly, 8 NYCRR §200.3(a) provides:

(a) Each board of education or board of trustees shall appoint:

(1) committees on special education in accordance with the provisions of Education Law, section 4402, as necessary to ensure timely evaluation and placement of students. The membership of each committee shall include, but not be limited to:

(i) the parents or persons in parental relationship to the student; (ii) not less than one regular education teacher of the student whenever the student is or may be participating in the regular education environment; (iii) not less than one special education teacher of the student, or, if appropriate, not less than one special education provider of the student; (iv) a school psychologist;

(v) a representative of the school district who is qualified to provide or supervise special education and who is knowledgeable about the general education curriculum and the availability of resources of the school district, provided that an individual who meets these qualifications may also be the same individual appointed as the special education teacher or the special education provider of the student or the school psychologist. The representative of the school district shall serve as the chairperson of the committee; (vi) an individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results. such individual may also be the individual appointed as the regular education teacher, the special education teacher or special education provider, the school psychologist, the representative of the school district or a person having knowledge or special expertise regarding the student when such member is determined by the school district to have the knowledge and expertise to fulfill this role on the committee;

* *. *

(ix) other persons having knowledge or special expertise regarding the student, including related services personnel as appropriate, as the school district or the parent(s) shall designate. The determination of knowledge or special expertise of such person shall be made by the party (parents or school district) who invited the individual to be a member of the committee on special education; and

(x) if appropriate, the student;(2) committees on preschool special education in accordance with provisions of Education Law, section 4410 to implement the provisions of section 200.16 of this Part.

Id. (Emphasis added).

The IEP Team that developed the IEP dated June 15, 2021, for the 2021/2022 school year, consisted of the following members: REDACTED (IHO Ex. “II” at pp. 16-17). Accordingly, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. §1414(d) and 8 NYCRR §200.3, the CSE was properly constituted at the meeting held on January 13, 2020.

  • • The DOE failed to develop an IEP that was reasonably calculated to confer an education benefit to the Student; and
  • • The DOE failed to offer the Student a special education placement that could implement his IEP and that was reasonably calculated to confer an educational benefit.

Based upon the analysis above, including but not limited to the fact that the District admitted that it failed to provide a FAPE to the Student, it has failed to satisfy the first prong of the Burlington/Carter criteria, the burden shifts to the Parents to prove that the unilateral placement was appropriate or proper. Burlington Sch. Comm., 471 U.S. at 369 and 370; see also Florence County Sch. Dist. Four et al. v. Carter, 510 U.S. at 15. In order to meet this burden, the Parents must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the unilateral placement provides “educational instruction specifically designed to meet the unique needs of the student” (Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 112 (2d. Cir. 2007)). In this regard, the court in Gagliardo explained:

No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining whether parents' unilateral placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. Grades, test scores, and regular advancement may constitute evidence that a child is receiving educational benefit, but courts assessing the propriety of a unilateral placement consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child's individual needs. To qualify for reimbursement under the IDEA, parents need not show that a private placement furnishes every special service necessary to maximize their child's potential. They need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction.

Id. at 112 (quoting, Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65).

However, the private school placement “need not meet the IDEA’s definition of a free and appropriate public education” or “state education standards or requirements” (Frank G. v. Board of Educ., at 364). Moreover, the private placement need not provide certified special education teachers or an IEP. Parental placements are not subject to the same mainstreaming requirements as a school district placement. The private school placement must be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, and must be likely to produce progress, not regression. Id.

In the instant case, the testimony and documentary evidence overwhelmingly support the Parents’ claim that the Student’s placement at the School provides him with educational instruction that is specifically designed to meet his unique special education needs, supported by such services that are necessary to permit him to benefit from instruction and established that the Student has, in fact, made meaningful progress at the School. In this regard the Head of the School testified how the School provided instruction to the Student based upon his individual needs in an appropriate peer group (Parent Ex. “M” at ¶19), the School provided the Student with the necessary structure and support to enable him to make progress during the 2021/2022 school year (Id. at ¶23), based upon the Student’s progress reports at the School for January 2022 and June 2022, and the underlying data, he made “significant progress” in his decoding and encoding of consonant-vowel-consonant, words, which he was not able to read when he first came to the School, improved in his ability to comprehend stories, develop stronger number sense, and write coherent sentences versus when he started at the School, he struggled with decoding simple words and writing a coherent sentence, demonstrated the ability to read words with all five short vowels with accuracy and fluency, write sentences with conjunctions, and learn basic addition and subtraction facts, improved in his ability to understand and produce oral language and ability to write complete sentences that begin with a capital letter and end with a punctuation mark, continues to make progress in all academic areas (Id. at ¶24), and “Overall, the... School was able to address all of [the Student's] identified special education needs... and highly appropriate for [the Student] for the 2021-2022 school year” (Id. at ¶15). The Parent also testified regarding the “amazing progress” the Student demonstrated for the 2021/2022 school year when he attended the School (Parent Ex. “N” at ¶21). is providing is pro The determination of whether, or not equitable factors support a parent’s claim for tuition reimbursement hinges, in large part, on whether, the parent cooperated with the CSE. In the instant matter, the DOE failed to provide any evidence and/or raise any equitable factors, which would preclude or limit tuition reimbursement for the Parent’s unilateral placement of the Student at the School for the 2021/2022 school year. In addition, the Parent’s tour of the recommended program was “abruptly ended” even though the Parent was “sincerely interested in learning about this school, and I did not have a chance to get much information about the school to determine whether [the Student’s] needs would be met”, and regardless, has “always cooperated with the DOE, in every instance” (Parent Ex. “N” at ¶18).

Based on the foregoing, this IHO finds that the Parents have satisfied the third prong of the Burlington/Carter Criteria for tuition reimbursement. Having met all three (3) of the Burlington/Carter Criteria, the Parents are entitled to reimbursement for the cost of the Student’s tuition at the School for the 2021/2022 school year, less the portion for the percentage of religious instruction. The record in this case establishes that the Student’s total annual tuition at the School for the 2021/2022 school year was SIXTY-EIGHT THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($68,300.00), of which the Parents paid the total amount (see: Parent Ex. “F”, “H”, “L”).

However, pursuant to the Student’s schedule and the Religious Component Calculation, the Student’s total instruction of two thousand two hundred and fifteen (2,215) minutes per week, includes two hundred and sixty (260) minutes or 11.738% of religious instruction per week (Parent Ex. “H”). Accordingly, the Parents are entitled to the District funding 88.262% of the Student’s tuition which equals SIXTY THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTY DOLLARS AND NINETY-FIVE CENTS ($60,282.95), representing the non-religious portion of the Student’s tuition for the 2021/2022 school year.

G. Transportation: As aforementioned the Parents request that a determination be made by this IHO that the District is obligated to provide transportation to the School (Parent Ex. “A”). As explained by the SRO in App. No. 18-115 (2018), citing relevant case law:

... under a more traditional application of the Burlington/Carter framework for tuition reimbursement, an order for tuition reimbursement may very likely have included the costs of the transportation sought by the parent (see Union Sch. Dist. v. Smith, 15 F.3d 1519, 1528 [9th Cir 1994) (finding "that the language and spirit of the IDEA encompass reimbursement for reasonable transportation and lodging expenses... as related services"); see also N.E. Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Sobol, 79 N.Y.2d 598, 608 (1992) [finding that, since a FAPE included related services such as transportation, an order of reimbursement for transportation was an appropriate remedy for a denial of a FAPE)).

Id.

Accordingly, this IHO’s decision that the Parents are entitled to tuition reimbursement, encompasses the District’s provision of reasonable transportation for the Student to the School for the 2021/2022 school year. In this regard the Parent testified that they paid a total of SIX THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS ($6,600.00) to Dime Transportation, to provide roundtrip transportation for the Student between her home and the School during the 2021/2022 school year, for which they have credit card statements substantiating such claim (Tr. 61, 92).

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than thirty (30) days after this Decision, the DOE shall pay the Parents the total amount of SIXTY THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHT TWO DOLLARS AND NINETY-FIVE CENTS ($60,282.95), representing the Student’s total tuition (less 11.738%, which is the portion attributable to the Student’s religious instruction) for the School for the 2021/2022 school year; and AND IT IS FURTHER ORDRED that no later than thirty (30) days after the Parents present to the District their credit card statements, and/or documents, evidencing their payment to Dime Transportation for the Student’s roundtrip transportation between the School and the Student’s home during the 2021/2022 school year, up to the total amount of SIX THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED DOLLARS ($6,600.00).

October 12, 2022

Randy Glasser

Randy Glasser, Esq.

Impartial Hearing Officer

NAMES AND TITLES OF APPEARANCES FOR HEARING HELD ON

JULY 21, 2022

DOE

REDACTED, District Representative

PARENTS

REDACTED, Esq, REDACTED, Parent

REDACTED, Parent

REDACTED, Head of the School

DOCUMENTS ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

IHO Exhibits

I. Order of Extension, 8/23/2022, 1 page

II. IEP, 6/15/2021, 17 pages

  • • DOE Exhibits
  • • None
  • • Parents’ Exhibits A. Request for Impartial Hearing, 10/27/21, 8 pages B. Ten-Day Notice Letter, 8/25/21, 3 pages C. Neuropsychological and Educational Evaluation, 12/15/2020, 17 pages D. REDACTED Program Description, 2021/2022, 5 pages E. REDACTED Distance Program Description, 2021/2022, 1 page F. Enrollment Contract, 3/15/2021, 5 pages G. Class Schedule, 2021/2022, 1 page H. Religious Component Calculation, 6/22/2022, 1 page I. Mid-year Report, 1/2022, 23 pages J. End of Year Report, 6/20/2022, 25 pages K. Attendance Record, 2021/2022, 1 page L. Tuition Statement, 6/21/2022, 1 page M. Affidavit, 7/20/2022, 4 pages N. Affidavit, 7/18/2022, 7 pages

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.