New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

NEW YORK CITY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE

TRIALS AND HEARINGS (OATH)

SPECIAL EDUCATION HEARINGS DIVISION

REDACTED, a Minor, by and through his/her Parent(s),

PETITIONER FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

against Case # 220542 THE NEW YORK CITY Dustin Johnson, Esq.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Impartial Hearing Officer

RESPONDENT

NYSED # 565079 / NYC # 220542

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

I. Introduction

This proceeding arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482); the federal regulations implementing IDEA, 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.1, et seq.; Article 89 of the New York State Education Law; and the New York State regulations at 8 NYCRR § Part 200, et seq.

II. Preliminary Matter – Motion to Recuse

On April 20, 2022, Petitioner submitted a Motion to Recuse the undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) (see Petitioner’s Exhibit K). The undersigned issued an oral ruling at the Due Process Hearing on April 25, 2022, denying the motion and stating that the reasoning for such ruling would be included in the final written decision.

It is well settled that an IHO must be fair and impartial and must avoid even the appearance of impropriety or prejudice (see, e.g., Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 12-066). Moreover, an IHO, like a judge, must be patient, dignified, and courteous in dealings with litigants and others with whom the IHO interacts in an official capacity and must perform all duties without bias or prejudice against or in favor of any person, according each party the right to be heard, and shall not, by words or conduct, manifest bias or prejudice (e.g., Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 12-064).

Pursuant to applicable law, an IHO may not be an employee of the district that is involved in the education or care of the child, may not have any actual bias because of a personal or professional interest that conflicts with the IHO's objectivity, must be knowledgeable of the provisions of the IDEA and State and Federal regulations, the legal interpretations of the IDEA and its implementing regulations, and must possess the knowledge and ability to conduct hearings and render and write decisions in accordance with appropriate, standard legal practice (see 20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][A]; 34 CFR 300.511[c][1]; and 8 NYCRR 200.1[x]).

In addition, New York State sets forth specific qualifications for hearing officers. The hearing officer must be admitted to the practice of law in New York, have a minimum of two years practice experience in education, special education, disability rights, or civil rights, have access to support and equipment necessary to perform the required duties, and be certified by the Commissioner of the New York State Education Department as an impartial hearing officer, which requires, among other things, successful completion of a training program as well as periodic update programs and an annual submission of a certification that these requirements have been met (see 8 NYCRR § 200.1(x)(1) - (4)).

Courts have held that hearing officers need only meet minimum standards of impartiality set out in the IDEA and enjoy a presumption of honesty and integrity, which is only rebutted by a showing of some substantial countervailing reason to conclude that the hearing officer is actually biased with respect to factual issues being adjudicated (see L.C. v. Utah State Bd. of Educ., 125 F. App'x 252, 43 IDELR 29 (10th Cir. 2005) quoting Harline v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 148 F.3d 1199 (10th Cir. 1998)). Furthermore, administrative adjudicators are entitled to a "presumption of honesty and integrity," and in order to overcome this presumption and establish bias, "evidence is required that the decision maker 'had it in' for the party for reasons unrelated to the officer's view of the law." (see B.H. v. Joliet Sch. Dist., 54 IDELR 121 (N.D. Ill. 2010) citing Keith v. Massanari, 17 Fed. Appx. 478 (7th Cir. 2001)).

Courts have also held that the absence of information demonstrating expertise required to decide an IDEA claim does not mean that an adjudicator is not qualified to hear IDEA claims or that he/she has not received special education training (see Wooley v. Valley Center-Pauma Unified Sch. Dist., 47 IDELR 66 (S.D. Cal. 2007)).

The undersigned Special Education Impartial Hearing Officer is employed by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) and is authorized to conduct impartial due process hearings at which parents, pursuant to Federal and State law, can challenge decisions made by the New York City Department of Education related to special education and seek relief in connection with the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of their children, or the provision of a free and appropriate public education for their children. The mission of OATH’s Special Education Hearings Division is to provide fair and neutral administrative proceedings, which protect the due process rights of all litigants.

OATH's Special Education Impartial Hearing Officers are appointed to four-year terms by OATH's Commissioner and Chief Administrative Law Judge. The four-year appointment of the OATH Special Education Impartial Hearing Officer ensures additional independence and impartiality in the decision-making process. Furthermore, each OATH Special Education Impartial Hearing Officer is an experienced attorney who has satisfactorily completed a New York State-mandated training, has been certified by the Commissioner of the New York State Education Department to conduct impartial due process hearings, and meets all Federal and State qualification requirements as contemplated in the relevant statutory schemes. Finally, each OATH Special Education Impartial Hearing Officer has sole authority to issue orders and make decisions on the cases before them and must comply with the Federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the New York State Education Law, and the regulations of the State Commissioner of Education. An OATH Special Education Impartial Hearing Officer's decision is binding upon both parties unless appealed to the New York State Education Department's Office of State Review or to the courts.

Petitioner’s Motion to Recuse fails to provide sufficient evidence or a convincing argument to prove that the undersigned hearing officer would not be impartial in adjudicating the above matter. Additionally, Petitioner fails to offer any evidence evincing an actual bias on the part of the undersigned hearing officer which would necessitate a recusal. Petitioner’s vague and generalized argument that an inherent conflict of interest exists by virtue of a hearing officer being employed by the City of New York is unavailing and fails to overcome the presumption of honesty and integrity that hearing officers enjoy. Petitioner also assumes, without statutory or case law support, that 8 NYCRR §200.2(e)(1)(i)-(ii) creates an automatic procedural entitlement for a Petitioner to be provided with information as to a Hearing Officer’s background or qualifications when a hearing officer is assigned to a case and prior to proceedings with a hearing. Petitioner arbitrarily reads into the aforementioned statute a baseless conclusion that any failure to be provided with such information somehow creates a cause of action for a Petitioner to seek a hearing officer’s recusal. The plain language of the aforementioned statue belies any such interpretation and Petitioner has failed to provide any case law to support their conclusion.

Because the undersigned hearing officer meets all the Federal and State qualification standards to hear the above matter, because the Petitioner has failed to overcome the presumption of honesty and integrity afforded hearing officers, and because the Petitioner has failed to offer any evidence of actual bias on the part of the undersigned hearing officer, Petitioner’s Motion to Recuse is denied.

III. Overview – Administrative Procedures

When a student who resides in New York is eligible for special education services and attends a nonpublic school, Article 73 of the New York State Education Law allows for the creation of an individualized education services program (IESP) under the State's so-called "dual enrollment" statute (see Educ. Law § 3602-c). The task of creating an IESP is assigned to the same committee that designs educational programing for students with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482), namely a local Committee on Special Education (CSE) that includes, but is not limited to, parents, teachers, a school psychologist, and a district representative (Educ. Law § 4402; see 20 U.S.C. § 1414[d][1][A]-[B]; 34 CFR 300.320, 300.321; 8 NYCRR 200.3, 200.4[d][2]). If disputes occur between parents and school districts related to IESPs, State law provides that "[r]eview of the recommendation of the committee on special education may be obtained by the parent or person in parental relation of the pupil pursuant to the provisions of [Education Law § 4404]," which effectuates the due process provisions called for by the IDEA (Educ. Law § 3602-c[2][b][1]). Incorporated among the procedural protections of the IDEA and the analogous State law provisions is the opportunity to engage in mediation, present State complaints, and initiate an impartial due process hearing (20 U.S.C. §§ 1221e-3, 1415[e]-[f]; Educ. Law § 4404[1]; 34 CFR 300.151-300.152, 300.506, 300.511; 8 NYCRR 200.5[h]-[l]).

New York State has implemented a two-tiered system of administrative review to address disputed matters between parents and school districts regarding "any matter relating to the identification, evaluation or educational placement of a student with a disability, or a student suspected of having a disability, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such student" (8 NYCRR 200.5[i][1]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1415[b][6]-[7]; 34 CFR 300.503[a][1]-[2], 300.507[a][1]). First, after an opportunity to engage in a resolution process, the parties appear at an impartial hearing conducted at the local level before an IHO (Educ. Law § 4404[1][a]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j]). An IHO typically conducts a trial-type hearing regarding the matters in dispute in which the parties have the right to be accompanied and advised by counsel and certain other individuals with special knowledge or training; present evidence and confront, cross-examine, and compel the attendance of witnesses; prohibit the introduction of any evidence at the hearing that has not been disclosed five business days before the hearing; and obtain a verbatim record of the proceeding (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][2][A], [h][1]-[3]; 34 CFR 300.512[a][1]-[4]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][3][v], [vii], [xii]). The IHO must render and transmit a final written decision in the matter to the parties not later than 45 days after the expiration period or adjusted period for the resolution process (34 CFR 300.510[b][2], [c], 300.515[a]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][5]). A party may seek a specific extension of time of the 45-day timeline, which the IHO may grant in accordance with State and federal regulations (34 CFR 300.515[c]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][5]). The decision of the IHO is binding upon both parties unless appealed (Educ. Law § 4404[1]). A party aggrieved by the decision of an IHO may subsequently appeal to a State Review Officer (“SRO”) (Educ. Law § 4404[2]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1415[g][1]; 34 CFR 300.514[b][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[k]).

IV. Findings of Fact and Procedural History

Petitioner is the parent of REDACTED (“Student” or “Child”). On October 28, 2021, Petitioner filed a Due Process Compliant (“Complaint” or “DPC”) against Respondent, the New York City Department of Education (“NYC DOE” or “DOE” or “District”).

On March 23, 2022, the undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) was appointed to preside over this case. On April 1, 2022, a Prehearing Conference was held (See Exhibit IHO 1). On April 25, 2022, an impartial hearing on the merits of the DPC was held and completed the same day.

The student is an REDACTED-year-old who was last classified by the New York City Department of Education’s Committee on Special Education (CSE) as a student with a Learning Disability (See Exhibits JE-1; P-J-1). The student has also been diagnosed with a Specific Learning Disorder with impairment in reading (dyslexia) and Developmental Coordination Disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder-predominantly inattentive type, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (JE-1; P-J-1).

The student attended a general education class setting and received integrated co-teaching beginning in Kindergarten (P-L-1). After Kindergarten, the student was placed in a private special education program for three years (P-L-2). The DOE held an IEP meeting in December 2018 for the 2019-2020 school year and recommended an ICT Placement, which the parent disagreed with (P-L-2). The CSE last held an IESP meeting on July 24, 2020, and recommended 10 hours weekly of Special Education Teacher Support Services (SETSS); occupational therapy services two times weekly for 30 minutes, individually; and counseling services one time weekly for 30 minutes, individually (JE-1; P-J-9). The July 24, 2020, IESP mentions via references a neuropsychological update from May 4, 2016, but makes no mention of or reference to the neuropsychological evaluation conducted on July 24 and 27, 2018, (see P-F) or the Academic Update conducted on June 11, 2019 (see P-G).

On March 4, 2021, the Parent filed a DPC for the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 school years seeking, inter alia, that the District provide the recommended SETSS from the July 24, 2020, IESP, plus an additional 20 hours of weekly SETSS (P-C-3). On June 7, 2021, a separate IHO ordered the CSE to provide compensatory services of 10 hours weekly of SETSS at a market rate to make up for services not provided during the 2019-2020 school year; that the CSE provide compensatory services of 10 hours weekly of SETSS at a market rate to make up for services not provided during the 2020-21 school year; and that the student also receive counseling and occupational therapy per the July 2020 IESP at district expense. The IHO declined to order the additional 20 hours of weekly SETSS that was requested by the Parent. Neither the District nor the Parent appealed this decision (JE-1; P-C generally).

On December 29, 2021, pursuant to a pendency agreement, the District agreed to provide 10 hours weekly of SETSS and to issue Related Services Authorizations (RSAs) for occupational therapy and counseling, during the pendency of the current litigation, retroactive to October 28, 2021, the date of the filing of the above hearing request (JE-1; P-B generally).

For the 2021-2022 school year, the student is being homeschooled by the Parent (P-L-5 at Q. 32).

Due Process Complaint Notice

By due process complaint notice dated October 28, 2021, the parent alleged that the District failed to offer the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2021-2022 school year (see P-A). Generally, the parent alleged that the CSE failed to convene an IEP or IESP in over one year, failed to develop an IESP or IEP for the 2021-2022 school year, failed to provide services for the 2021-2022 school year, failed to conduct and consider adequate and sufficient evaluations, failed to provide prior written notice, and failed to ensure the parents are part of the educational planning process (id.).

As relief, the parent requested a finding that the District denied the student a FAPE, an order implementing 10 hours per week of SETSS at an enhanced rate of $175 per hour as recommended in the July 24, 2020, IESP, an order increasing the SETSS to 30 hours per week, and an order implementing all other services listed on the July 24, 2020, IESP at an enhanced rate of $175 per hour (id.).

V. Applicable Standards

A board of education must offer a FAPE to each student with a disability residing in the school district who requires special education services or programs (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][1][A]; Educ. Law § 4402[2][a], [b][2]). However, the IDEA confers no individual entitlement to special education or related services upon students who are enrolled by their parents in nonpublic schools (see 34 CFR 300.137[a]). Although districts are required by the IDEA to participate in a consultation process for making special education services available to students who are enrolled privately by their parents in nonpublic schools, such students are not individually entitled under the IDEA to receive some or all of the special education and related services they would receive if enrolled in a public school (see 34 CFR 300.134, 300.137[a], [c], 300.138[b]).

However, under State law, parents of a student with a disability who have privately enrolled their child in a nonpublic school may seek to obtain educational "services" for their child by filing a request for such services in the district of location where the nonpublic school is located on or before the first day of June preceding the school year for which the request for services is made (Educ. Law § 3602-c[2]) (emphasis added). This is commonly known in New York as the "dual enrollment" statute. "Boards of education of all school districts of the state shall furnish services to students who are residents of this state and who attend nonpublic schools located in such school districts, upon the written request of the parent" (Educ. Law § 3602-c[2][a]) (emphasis added). In such circumstances, the district of location's CSE must review the request for services and "develop an [IESP] for the student based on the student's individual needs in the same manner and with the same contents as an [IEP]" (Educ. Law § 3602c[2][b][1]) (emphasis added). The CSE must "assure that special education programs and services are made available to students with disabilities attending nonpublic schools located within the school district on an equitable basis, as compared to special education programs and services provided to other students with disabilities attending public or nonpublic schools located within the school district (id.). Thus, under State law, an eligible New York State resident student may be voluntarily enrolled by a parent in a nonpublic school, but at the same time the student is also enrolled in the public school district for the purpose of receiving special education programming under Education Law § 3602-c, services for which a public school district may be held accountable through an impartial hearing.

Additionally, solely for the purpose of the provision of education for students with disabilities pursuant to Education Law § 3602-c, a student in a home instruction program shall be deemed to be a student enrolled in and attending a nonpublic school eligible to receive services pursuant to subdivision two of Education Law § 3602-c; provided that such student has an individualized home instruction plan that has been determined by the superintendent of schools of the school district in which the home school is located to be in compliance with the regulations of the commissioner. The deadlines for submission of written requests for the education of students with disabilities set forth in subdivision two of Education Law § 3602-c shall apply to students in a home instruction program (Educ. Law § 3602c[2-c]) (emphasis added).

A board of education may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private educational services obtained for a student by his or her parents, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parents were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parents' claim (Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]; Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369- 70 [1985]; R.E. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 184-85 [2d Cir. 2012]; T.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 247, 252 [2d Cir. 2009]). In Burlington, the Court found that Congress intended retroactive reimbursement to parents by school officials as an available remedy in a proper case under the IDEA (471 U.S. at 370-71; see Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 111 [2d Cir. 2007]; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]). Generally, a remedy for a deficiency in equitable services under State law should be similar to a remedy for deficient services under the IDEA.

The burden of proof is on the school district during an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement (Educ. Law § 4404[1][c]; see R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85).

VI. Discussion The Parent contends that the District failed to convene an IEP or IESP in over one year, failed to develop an IESP or IEP for the 2021-2022 school year, failed to provide services for the 2021-2022 school year, failed to conduct and consider adequate and sufficient evaluations, failed to provide prior written notice, and failed to ensure the parents are part of the educational planning process.

At the Due Process Hearing, the District declined to call any witnesses and declined to offer any evidence in its case in chief (apart from the Joint Stipulation of Facts prepared by the Petitioner). There is no evidence in the record that the district provided the student with the SETSS recommended in her July 24, 2020, IESP for the 2021-2022 school year prior to consenting to a Pendency Agreement on December 29, 2021, no evidence that the District convened a CSE and generated an updated IESP for the 2021-2022 school year, no evidence that the District conducted updated evaluations, and no evidence that the District provided prior written notice to the Parents.

Overall, I find that the evidence in the record establishes that the District did not evaluate the student, convene a CSE meeting, or develop an IESP for the 2021-2022 school year.

Despite the above, because the Parent failed to make a timely written request for services in compliance with Education Law §3602-c, I do not find that the District violated Federal or State law (see Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 18-028) (see also, V.D. v. New York, 403 F. Supp. 3d 76, 84, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139815, *14, 2019 WL 3886622, “In order to receive these services, a parent must first complete an Individualized Home Instruction Plan and make a written request for services to the local school district's board of education.”).

While the Parent claims in the Due Process Complaint that the District failed to provide services for the Student for the 2021-2022 school year, the hearing record supports the conclusion that the parent did not request services by June 1, 2021, in accordance with Education Law § 3602-c. Education Law § 3602-c requires that parents who seek to obtain educational services for students with disabilities in a home instruction program file a written request for such services in the district in which the home school is located on or before the first day of June preceding the school year for which the request for services is made (Educ. Law § 3602-c[2][a], [2-c]). Such a request from a parent then triggers the obligation a CSE has to review the request for services, develop an IESP for the student based on the student's individual needs, and then to assure that special education programs and services are made available to the student (Educ. Law § 3602c[2][b][1]).

The Parent testified that for the 2021-2022 school year, the student is being homeschooled (P-L-5 at Q. 32). On cross examination by the District, the Parent was asked whether she reached out in any way to the District, either by calling or emailing the District. The Parent testified that she responded by filing this due process complaint (See Tr. P. 16, L. 06-11). Regarding the Student’s right to receive services, the Parent testified that she asserted the Student’s right to receive services pursuant to the pendency protection of the IDEA (P-L-5 at Q. 34).

The Parent’s request for a Pendency Agreement for continuation of the Student’s services came in the October 28, 2021, due process complaint (P-A). Apart from the current due process complaint, the Parent failed to provide any testimony or evidence that the Parent provided the District with notice of the Parent’s intent to homeschool the student. The Parent also failed to provide any testimony or evidence that the Parent submitted an Individualized Home Instruction Plan to the District. And the Parent likewise failed to provide any testimony or evidence that the Parent timely requested an IESP or timely requested that the District provide services for the 2021-2022 school year as required under Education Law § 3602-c. The record supports the conclusion that the only notice provided to the District of the Parent’s request for services came in the October 28, 2021, due process complaint notice, which was filed nearly five months after the June 1, 2021, deadline for notice to be provided to the District.

If the parent intends to continue to homeschool the student and desires the District to provide services, the Parent must comply with Education Law §3602-c by, among other things, submitting a written request for special education services (see Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 18-028) (see also, V.D. v. New York, 403 F. Supp. 3d 76, 84, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139815, *14, 2019 WL 3886622, “In order to receive these services, a parent must first complete an Individualized Home Instruction Plan and make a written request for services to the local school district's board of education.”).

Based on the Parent’s failure to comply with Education Law § 3602-c by failing to provide the District with the requisite notice and request for services, I find that the District is relieved of its obligation to provide any 3602-c services in this matter. As such, I decline to grant the Parent any requested relief and I am dismissing the due process complaint in its entirety.

While my findings resolve the instant proceeding, the Student's educational status going forward remains unresolved. The hearing record before me includes substantial testimony and evidence indicating that the student has made significant progress but still has significant needs. There is testimony and evidence of updated evaluations and recommendations which were not available for consideration by the CSE at the previous IESP meeting and which may lead the CSE to revise its recommendations. There is also testimony and evidence that the Parents are seeking to have the IESP revised. In this case, the student would best be served by having the student’s present levels of skill and current service requirements reevaluated by the CSE after considering all available current information. Furthermore, a formal CSE meeting, following the completion of any necessary reevaluations and review of all the updated information available, is the more appropriate forum to address changes to the student’s IESP. The CSE and the Parents together should be afforded an opportunity to discuss changes to the student’s IESP based on all current evaluative data and then make the appropriate recommendations for a modification of services, if any are warranted.

Towards that end, I encourage the CSE to convene a meeting with the Parents within 30 calendar days of the date of this decision to review all updated evaluations for this student obtained by the Parent, conduct any reevaluations the District deems appropriate, and develop an IEP or IESP for the student for the 2022-2023 school year in accordance with the student's present levels of performance and special education needs. Finally, if the Parent intends to seek services for the 2022-2023 school year, I encourage the Parent to comply with Education Law §3602-c by submitting all required notices by the statutory deadline.

I have considered the Parent’s remaining contentions and find that it is unnecessary to address them in light of my determinations above.

FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH ABOVE, THE OCTOBER 28, 2021, DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED.

DATED: SO ORDERED

5/6/2022 /s/ Dustin Johnson

Dustin Johnson, 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 proceedings 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.

EXHIBITS

Parent Exhibit

Date

Title

Number of Pages

P-A

10/28/2021

Impartial Hearing Request

3

P-B

12/29/2021

Pendency Agreement

2

P-C

06/07/2021

Findings of Fact and Decision

13

P-D

04/13/2022

Dyslexia Associates Re-Evaluation

9

P-E

04/19/2021

REDACTED Educational Evaluation

15

P-F

07/24/2018,

07/27/2018

Neuropsychological Evaluation

9

P-G

06/11/2019

Academic Update

5

P-H

04/14/2022

Dyslexia Associates Contract

1

P-I

2021

U.S. Individual Income Tax Return

2

P-J

07/24/2020

Individualized Education Services Program (IESP)

12

P-K

04/20/2022

Motion to Recuse

2

P-L

04/20/2022

REDACTED

6

P-M

04/20/2022

REDACTED

4

P-N

04/20/2022

REDACTED

12

Joint Exhibit

JE-1

04/20/2022

Statement of Uncontested Facts

1

IHO Exhibit

IHO-1

04/01/2022

Prehearing Conference Summary and Order

9