NY IHO #221973: New York City... | Special Education Law

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

CASE NUMBER: 566717 – NYC: 221973

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

APRIL 19, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED Parent Attorney/Paralegal

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED DOE Representative, [REDACTED]

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

MAY 19, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED Parent Attorney

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED DOE Representative, [REDACTED]

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

JUNE 21, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED Parent Attorney

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED DOE Representative, [REDACTED]

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

JULY 20, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED Parent Attorney/Paralegal

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED DOE Representative, [REDACTED]

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

AUGUST 18, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED Parent Attorney

REDACTED Parent/Father

REDACTED Parent/Mother

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED DOE Representative, [REDACTED]

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

SEPTEMBER 1, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED Parent Attorney

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED DOE Representative, [REDACTED]

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

OCTOBER 11, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED Parent Attorney/Paralegal

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED DOE Consultant Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

OCTOBER 20, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED Parent Attorney

REDACTED Parent/Mother

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED DOE Consultant Representative

REDACTED School Psychologist

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

NOVEMBER 30, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED Parent Attorney

REDACTED Parent/Mother

REDACTED Special Education Head Teacher @

REDACTED

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED DOE Consultant Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

JANUARY 4, 2023

For the Student:

REDACTED Parent Attorney

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED DOE Consultant Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

JANUARY 10, 2023

For the Student:

REDACTED Parent Attorney/Paralegal

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED DOE Consultant Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

JANUARY 26, 2023

For the Student:

REDACTED Parent Attorney/Paralegal

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED DOE Consultant Representative

INTRODUCTION

On April 7, 2022, New York City Department of Education (DOE) appointed me to act as the impartial hearing officer (IHO) in a case brought under the Federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) [20 USC §1415(f)(3)] ("IDEA") by the parent (Parent) of REDACTED (REDACTED) for the school year 2021/22. The Parent requested the hearing by filing an impartial hearing request with DOE on or about November 23, 2021. The DPC is carried under New York City ("NYC") Case No: 221973. The impartial hearing was held The impartial hearing was held over a series of dates to complete the record on January 26, 2023. The timelines have also been extended to allow the parties opportunity to fully prepare, secure witnesses and obtain transcripts. The record officially closed on March 4, 2023. A list of persons who appeared at the hearing and the documents entered into evidence is annexed hereto.

BACKGROUND

REDACTED is a student known to the DOE and classified with "Learning Disability" (Exhibit 1). Parent alleges REDACTED presents with a variety of significant deficits and interfering behaviors and that REDACTED's deficits are pervasive and "global," and transcend behavioral, communication, social and physical domains (Exhibit A). On 02/23/21, the DOE convened an IEP meeting to develop an educational program for REDACTED for the 2021/22 school year and recommended a 10-month 12:1 Special Class, along with related services of Occupational Therapy (2x30) and Speech Language Therapy (2x30, group of 3 and 1x30, 1:1) (Exhibit 1). Thereafter, parents received a School Location Letter, dated 06/21/21, for 02M267 (Exhibit 3). Parents alerted the DOE of their concerns with the proposed IEP recommendations and placement and advised that she would be enrolled at REDACTED (REDACTED) if no appropriate program was created (Exhibit B). Lacking a response, the parents proceeded to place REDACTED at REDACTED and filed a DPC seeking reimbursement for the tuition for the entirety of the 2021/22 school along with provision or reimbursement for round-trip transportation (Exhibit A).

DOE CASE

The DOE contended that it provided the student with a FAPE and followed all legally required procedural and substantive requirements. Particularly the DOE put forth that the IEP team was duly constituted, that the IEP recommendations were based on timely and proper evaluations that allowed the team sufficient information to recommend an appropriate program for the student. Specifically the DOE presented the team considered the following documents: (1) a neuropsychological evaluation conducted by REDACTED dated February 15, 2021 (Exhibits 4 and C); (2). a psychoeducational assessment conducted by REDACTED dated November 30, 2018 (Exhibit 5); (3) REDACTED 2020/21 mid-year occupational therapy progress report, speech and language progress report and teacher report (Exhibits 10, 11 and 12); and (4) the student's classroom observations, occupational therapy assessment, physical therapy assessment and speech and language assessment which conducted by the DOE in January and February 2019 (Exhibits 6, 7, 8 and 9). Further, the DOE alleged the present levels of performance detailed in the IEP to be sufficient in that they provide detailed information about the student functioning in all areas and indicate the student's needs and further that the goals developed were based upon the student's individual needs and the teachers' familiarity with the student (T @ 64-65). Lastly, the DOE contended the IEP team determination of a 10-month 12:1 Special Class setting was an appropriate recommendation for this student. Thereon, the DOE requested the sought relief for tuition reimbursement and/or direct payment for REDACTED be denied in full or in the alternative, should there be a finding of a FAPE denial then that REDACTED be determined neither to be an appropriate setting as it does not meet the student's individualized special education nor the least restrictive environment. Lastly, the DOE argued the equities do not favor the parent as they were not open to a public school placement (T @ 46).

In an effort to support their position, the DOE submitted a documentary exhibit package consisting of twelve pieces of evidence (Exhibits 1-12), and presented one witnesses, REDACTED School Psychologist.

PARENT CASE

The parents alleged that the DOE both substantively and procedurally failed to provide REDACTED with a "free appropriate public education" ("FAPE") and enumerated an extensive list of allegations in their DPC (Exhibit A).

In an effort to support their position, the parents submitted a documentary exhibit package consisting of twelve pieces of evidence (Exhibits A-L) and presented two witnesses: REDACTED, Special Education Head Teacher at REDACTED and REDACTED, REDACTED's mother.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) was enacted with the primary purpose to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) (20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]; see Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S. Ct. 528, 531 [2005]; Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 S. Ct. 176, 179-81, 200-01 [1982]; Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 371 [2d Cir. 2006]). It is clear that the legislative intent of 20 US Code Section 1412 of the IDEA is to provide a FAPE to all children with disabilities so that these individuals may ultimately lead productive independent lives as adults, to the maximum extent possible (20 U.S.C. Sx 1400[d][1][A]; see Mrs. W v. Tirozzi, 832 F.2d 748 [2nd Cir. 1987]. A FAPE includes special education and related services designed to meet the student's unique needs, provided in conformity with a comprehensive written IEP (20 U.S.C. § 1401[9][D]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.17; see 20 U.S.C. § 1414[d]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.22). An IEP is designed as a "written statement" that addresses the educational needs of a child with a disability (20 U.S.C. § 1401[14]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.22; 8 NYCRR 200.1[y]). At the beginning of each school year, a school district is required to have an IEP in effect "for each child with a disability in its jurisdiction" (20 U.S.C. § 1414[d][2]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.323[a]; see also Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 194 [2d Cir. 2005] (finding the district fulfilled its legal obligations by providing the IEP before the first day of school). The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE) (34 C.F.R. § 300.114[a]; 8 NYCRR 200.6[A][1]). A FAPE is offered to a student when the board of education (a) complied 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 (Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 176, 206, 207 [1982]). The IDEA directs that, in general, a decision by an impartial hearing officer or state review officer must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether or not the child received a FAPE (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][i]). Under the IDEA, if a procedural violation is 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 to the child (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][ii]; see 8 NYCRR 2005[j][4][ii]). The IDEA mandates that a student with a disability be provided with a FAPE tailored to meet his unique needs and one that is "reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances." Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist., 580 U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct.988, 999 (2017). A focus on the particular child is at the core of the IDEA. Endrew F., 137 S.Ct. at 999. Under 20 U.S.C. Section 1414(d)(3)(A), the IDEA mandates an IEP team to consider a child's strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, as well as the results of the most recent evaluations of the child together with developmental and functional needs of the child. In order to determine the student's requirements and needs, the team must review and consider evaluations, assessment and information provided by the child's parents, teachers and service providers and thereon determine the type of program required for the child. A board of education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a child by the child's parent, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parent were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parent's claim. (School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 [1985]; Florence County School District Four et al. v. Carter by Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]; see also Frank R. and Dianne R. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park,459 F.3d 356 [2d Cir. 2006], cert denied, Board of Educ. of Hyde Park Cent. School Dist. v. Frank R.,2007 WL 2982269 [Oct. 15, 2007]. The case at hand is a tuition reimbursement case and is therefore governed by the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in Burlington School Comm. v. Dept of Education (471 U.S. 359 [1985]). That case set forth a three-prong test for determining if tuition reimbursement is warranted: (1) were the services offered by the school district inadequate or inappropriate; (2) where the services selected by the parents appropriate; and (3) do equitable considerations support the parents' claim. Recently enacted state legislation puts the burden of proof for the first prong on the school district and for the second prong on the parent (Chap. 583 of Laws of 2007).

Prong I:

An appropriate program begins with an IEP which accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the child's needs, establishes annual goals and short-term instructional objectives which are related to the child's educational deficits, and provides for the use of appropriate special education services to address the child's special education needs. Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No 93-12; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No 93-9; Application of a Child with a Handicapping Condition, Appeal No 92-7; Matter of Handicapped Child, 22 Ed Dept Rep 487, March 11, 1983.

In the instant matter, the DOE bears the burden of presentation and persuasion in all allegations raised in the DPC. While the DOE submitted documentary evidence (Exhibits 1-12), it presented a single witness, REDACTED - someone who was not a participant in any aspect of the IEP development, had no first-hand knowledge of the IEP meeting, and was not a participant in the placement selection. REDACTED admitted to not being personally familiar with REDACTED, that he did not know if the CSE followed any of its recommendations, whether the goals and objectives were actually developed at the meeting or how the team arrived at a 12:1 program recommendation (T @ 44-83). REDACTED's testimony was provided not with particulars as to the matter at hand but in a generalized manner based on his years as a school psychologist with the DOE who was asked to review the documents pertaining to the matter at hand and thereafter testify (T @ 54-76). Upon being asked as to his familiarity with REDACTED, REDACTED stated:

"I was asked to testify on behalf of the Department of Education. I was given a number of documents, which is referred to as exhibits in this matter, and I had the opportunity to review those documents" (T @ 54);

"I was asked to review the said documents, the exhibits of -- of the Department of Education and make a statement based on my experience, but not my participation, because I did not participation -- participate in the development of the IEP" (T @ 77-78).

The DOE failed to present any witnesses with actual knowledge of the circumstances at hand to support of its burden to show that the educational program it recommended for REDACTED was appropriate or reasonably calculated to convey meaningful academic and functional benefits to REDACTED or to overcome the numerous allegations contained in Parent's DPC regarding the sufficiency of the IEP dated February 23, 2021 (Exhibit 1). Further, the CSE failed to conduct a triennial evaluation and review of the DOE documents reflects reliance on outdated evaluations for the school year at hand, particularly a psychoeducational evaluation dated 11/30/18 (Exhibit 5), a classroom observation dated February 6, 2019 (Exhibit 6), an occupational therapy assessment dated 1/18/19 (Exhibit 7), a physical therapy assessment dated 1/9/19 (Exhibit 8), and a speech language assessment dated 2/10/29 (Exhibit 9) – which were insufficient to create a sufficiently individualized and reasonably calculated program for REDACTED.

Herein, I find the DOE failed to meet its burden of proof under the first of the three Burlington/Carter criteria for tuition reimbursement. I find the DOE failed to provide REDACTED a FAPE for the 2021/22 school year. Prong II: Having determined that the DOE did not offer the student a FAPE for the 2021/22 school year, I now proceed to evaluating the appropriateness of the parents' unilateral placement of the student at REDACTED. The parent's failure to select a program approved by the state in favor of an unapproved option is not itself a bar to reimbursement (Florence County Sch Dist Four v. Carter 510 U.S. 7 [1993]). The private placement need not employ certified special education teachers, Carter, supra. The Second Circuit has set forth the standard for determining whether parents have carried their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of the unilateral placement: "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". (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, quoting Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65).

As per the findings of the Neuropsychological Evaluation (Exhibit C and 4):

"……Given her language disorder, REDACTED's current class size is too large. She becomes confused with directions in class and needs an individualized curriculum, with teacher supports such as re-explanation. She requires a small class size with two teachers both specialized in special education. She needs an individualized curriculum in a self-contained classroom with other bright students with similar needs, in a nonpublic school".

REDACTED, REDACTED's classroom teacher for the 2021/22 school year, asserted REDACTED is unique because every student follows "a sort of individualized learning path" (T @ 104) and that REDACTED's instruction was differentiated and individualized. (T @105). She testified that for the 2021/22 school year REDACTED was in a class of 10 students, including REDACTED, all functioning at the same academic level, with similar social skills (T @ 99-100), and with the assistant teacher the class was supported by two special educators. REDACTED stated that REDACTED is diagnosed with ADHD in addition to her reading and writing challenges and opined that the small class size was "crucial" and "essential" for REDACTED's distractibility (T @ 100-101). REDACTED stated that REDACTED's class size for reading and math was even smaller than 10 students (T @ 101). REDACTED testified that although REDACTED struggled to learn even with the smaller class sizes, push in and pull out support from the occupational therapy and speech language therapy, and multisensory instruction, she did make progress during the school year (T @ 101-102). REDACTED opined: "if she was in a significantly larger class than ten…..that would have just been a huge detriment to her overall self-esteem and confidence. I think the small class size and the ratio of two special educators was extremely beneficial to supporting REDACTED in the moment. If she had a question or needed support, there was a teacher there to support her in the moment. The small class size was able to prevent the distractions; that really supported her overall" (T @ 116-117).

REDACTED asserted that she is extensively trained in Orton-Gillingham, a multisensory approach that REDACTED benefited from. (T @ 106-108). REDACTED testified that REDACTED's providers also had weekly "collaboration" meetings to discuss REDACTED's goals, as well as the goals of the class in general (T @ 103). The cumulative educational approach described proved successful in the learning process for REDACTED (Exhibits G-L).

The record reflects that REDACTED benefitted from the entirety of the REDACTED program during the 2021/22 school year and that it was calculated to convey meaningful academic and functional benefits to her.

The DOE contended that REDACTED is not the student's LRE and presents that the restrictiveness of the unilateral placement is relevant to the discussion of appropriateness. While the DOE argued that REDACTED would not be provided the opportunity to mainstream with non-disabled peers, REDACTED continued to explain that a goal at REDACTED is graduating its students into mainstream or inclusion settings and that:

"my job in kind of this early elementary age is to really foster this academic confidence and independence and really lay the foundational groundwork of her core academics, so as she progresses through her schooling years, she has the tools and strategies she needs to succeed" (T @ 124-125).

While the restrictiveness of the parental placement may be considered as a factor in determining whether the parents are entitled to an award of tuition reimbursement (Raffeety v. Cranston Pub. Sch Comm., 315 F.3d 21, 26-27 [1st Cir. 2002]]; M.S., 231 F.3d at 105; Schreiber v. East Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist., 700 F. Supp. 2d 529, 549 [S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2010]; W.S. v. Rye City Sch. Dist., 454 F. Supp 2d 134, 138 [S.D.N.Y 2006]; Pinn v. Harrison Cent. Sch. Dist., 473 F. Supp 2d 477, 482-83 [S.D.N.Y 2007], parents are not as strictly held to the standard of placement in the LRE as are school districts (see Carter, 510 U.S. at 14-15). According to the Second Circuit, LRE is only one factor in the "totality of circumstances" standard.

Considering the totality of the circumstances, LRE considerations do not outweigh the other indications in the hearing record that REDACTED was an appropriate placement for the student in the 2021/22 school year.

In their closing brief, the DOE brought forth that "the evidence and witness testimony revealed that the student has made little to no academic progress at the unilateral placement, evidencing that there is no "added benefit" for the student at the program. Parent's witness, REDACTED initially testified that even with the ten students in a class, the student was struggling (Tr. 101)".

Contrarily, I find the testimony of the parent and REDACTED credible and supporting that REDACTED designed a program for REDACTED that addressed her needs and that for the 2021/22 school year REDACTED demonstrated progress. The record reflects REDACTED provided a rich supportive environment that correlated well with REDACTED, that the curriculum was specifically tailored to meet REDACTED's needs and that she received a highly individualized instruction that enabled her to make appropriate progress (Exhibits G-L). Based upon the foregoing, I find that the student made meaningful progress at REDACTED for the 2021/22 school year across the board: academically, socially and emotionally. The record reflects that REDACTED was a placement that was "specifically designed to meet the unique needs" of the student Frank G, supra and that REDACTED has made progress therein.

Prong III:

Having found REDACTED an appropriate placement, I now consider equitable considerations, the final criterion for a reimbursement award. In weighing the equities, "the critical consideration, as the Court sees it, is whether they have cooperated in good faith to attempt to develop an IEP to the maximum extent possible, Schaffer, supra.

The DOE argued the equities not favor the parents as they showed a lack of intent to enroll REDACTED at a DOE community school. Specifically, the DOE claimed parents served their notice of intent to unilaterally enroll the student in REDACTED on September 10, 2021 (Exhibit B), which provided the DOE no opportunity to cure any alleged defects and parents intended for the student to attend REDACTED all along. In their closing brief (IHO-1), the DOE noted the IEP team considered the February 15, 2021's neuropsychological evaluation and November 2018's psychoeducational assessment conducted by REDACTED and followed the recommendations therein:

• REDACTED should continue to have placement in a special school that allows for an individualized curriculum, with a very small student-teacher ratio and peers who also have learning disabilities and language disorders. • REDACTED should have speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, and school counseling at current levels. • REDACTED requires double time on exams, not just time and a half, as she works very slowly. REDACTED qualifies for a reader and a scribe and access to lecture notes. She should have a separate location and breaks as needed. She qualifies for use of a keyboard in class. REDACTED qualifies for a foreign language waiver. She needs on-task focusing prompts. (Exhibits 4 and 5)

The DOE contends the IEP team made the same recommendation for the student. (T @ 140-145).

REDACTED testified as to her cooperation in the IEP process and to providing private evaluations to the DOE prior to IEP meetings (T @ 127, 135-136) She testified upon receiving the school location letter identifying REDACTED as the recommended placement her husband contacted the school principal and was able to speak with her toward the end of August, 2021 (T @ 152). REDACTED presented that REDACTED was the same school REDACTED had attended kindergarten in an ICT classroom (T @ 128-129). She testified that the school principal admitted and shared that REDACTED would not meet REDACTED's needs and that no other REDACTED students were at REDACTED's level and acknowledged that REDACTED had struggled during her kindergarten year there (T @ 130, 156). REDACTED spoke of REDACTED's "incredible" progress at REDACTED (T @ 131-32). She stated that public education would have been their first choice for REDACTED (T @ 133-34). She credibly testified:

"That was our first choice, was the public education system for REDACTED. That was our first choice. Only after did we witness her actually going through a full year and her struggles, did REDACTED and I go down this path of a special education school" (T @ 134).

REDACTED credibly testified that had the DOE offered an appropriate program and school site, she and her husband would have walked away from their tuition deposit (T @ 153).

Upon due consideration of the record herein, there is nothing to show that the parents were anything other than cooperative at all relevant times and provided the DOE with ten days' notice about their concerns with the lack of an appropriate IEP and placement as well as their intention to unilaterally place REDACTED at REDACTED for the 2021/22 school year (Exhibit B).

I find (1). that the DOE failed to offer the student a FAPE for the 2021/22 school year, (2). that the unilateral placement of the student at REDACTED was appropriate (3). that the program at REDACTED is "reasonably calculated" to provide REDACTED with meaningful educational benefits and (4). that equitable considerations weighed in favor of the parents' request for reimbursement for all costs associated with the placement of the student at the REDACTED for the 2021/22 school year.

ORDER

Therefore, it is hereby ordered that

1. The Department of Education shall fund/reimburse the tuition and all costs associated with the student's unilateral placement at REDACTED for the 2021/22 school in the amount of $72,725.00;

2. The Department of Education shall be responsible to provide transportation to and from REDACTED and/or reimburse transportation costs incurred by Parents.

All reimbursements and direct funding shall be supported by the presentation of appropriate documentation.

This Order shall exclude any payment that may have been previously paid by the DOE pursuant to any Pendency Agreement.

Dated: March 12, 2023

Maria R. Dispenza

MARIA R. DISPENZA, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

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.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON OCTOBER 20, 2022

1. DOE: IEP, 02/23/21 –34pp DOE

2. IEP Attendance Form, 02/23/21 –1pp DOE

3. Prior Written Notice and School Location Letter, 06/21/21 –11pp DOE

4. Neuropsychological Evaluation, 02/20/21 -47pp DOE

5. Psychoeducational Assessment, 11/30/18 –39pp 6. Classroom Observation, 02/06/19 –2pp 7. Occupational Therapy Assessment, 01/18/19 –10pp 8. Physical Therapy Assessment, 01/09/19 –7pp DOE

New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision