New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

CORRECTED FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 567634

Student’s Name: REDACTED

Date of Birth: REDACTED

District: REDACTED

Hearing Requested By: Parents

Dates of Hearings: March 7, 2022

March 16, 2022

March 28, 2022

April 8, 2022

May 6, 2022

May 13, 2022

May 16, 2022

May 24, 2022

June 1, 2022

June 21, 2022

June 29, 2022

July 1, 2022

July 15, 2022

August 2, 2022

August 8, 2022

Record Close Date: December 3, 2022

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED MARCH 7, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED Attorney

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED Attorney

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED MARCH 16, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED Attorney

REDACTED Parent

REDACTED Parent

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED Attorney

REDACTED Assistant Superintendent for Student Support Services

REDACTED Special Education Teacher

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED MARCH 28, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED Attorney

REDACTED Parent

REDACTED Parent

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED Attorney

REDACTED Assistant Superintendent for Student Support Services

REDACTED Special Education Teacher

REDACTED General Education Teacher

REDACTED School Psychologist

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED APRIL 8, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED Attorney

REDACTED Parent

REDACTED Parent

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED Attorney

REDACTED School Psychologist

REDACTED Director of Special Education

REDACTED Behavior Intervention Specialist

REDACTED Director of Special Education

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED MAY 6, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED Attorney

REDACTED Parent

REDACTED Parent

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED Attorney

REDACTED Assistant Superintendent for Student Support Services

REDACTED Special Education Teacher

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED MAY 13, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED Attorney

REDACTED Parent

REDACTED Parent

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED Attorney

REDACTED Assistant Superintendent for Student Support Services

REDACTED Director of Special Education

REDACTED Speech -Language Pathologist

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED MAY 16, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED Attorney

REDACTED Parent

REDACTED Parent

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED Attorney

REDACTED Assistant Superintendent for Student Support Services

REDACTED General Education Teacher

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED MAY 24, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED Attorney

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED Attorney

REDACTED Assistant Superintendent for Student Support Services

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JUNE 1, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED Attorney

REDACTED Parent

REDACTED Parent

REDACTED CSE Liaison, REDACTED

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED Attorney

REDACTED Assistant Superintendent for Student Support Services

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JUNE 21, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED Attorney

REDACTED Parent

REDACTED Parent

REDACTED School Psychologist

REDACTED Special Education Teacher

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED Attorney

REDACTED Assistant Superintendent for Student Support Services

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JUNE 29, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED Attorney

REDACTED Parent

REDACTED Parent

REDACTED Psychologist

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED Attorney

REDACTED Assistant Superintendent for Student Support Services

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JULY 1, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED Attorney

REDACTED Parent

REDACTED Parent

REDACTED Speech and Language Pathologist

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED Attorney

REDACTED Assistant Superintendent for Student Support Services

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED JULY 15, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED Attorney

REDACTED Parent

REDACTED Parent

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED Attorney

REDACTED Assistant Superintendent for Student Support Services

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED AUGUST 2, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED Attorney

REDACTED Attorney

REDACTED Psychologist

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED Attorney

REDACTED Assistant Superintendent for Student Support Services

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED AUGUST 8, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED Attorney

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED Attorney

Introduction:

This case was brought before me upon my designation by the Department of Education (“District”) as an impartial hearing officer pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Act (“IDEA”), 29 USC §1400 [f][1] and Part 200 of the Regulations of the New York State Commissioner of Education. This matter was brought by REDACTED and REDACTED, the Parents (“Parents”) on behalf of REDACTED, the student (“Student”), through their attorney, REDACTED, from REDACTED by filing a Due Process Complaint dated December 14, 2021 with the District. The District was represented by REDACTED from REDACTED.

The Parents are alleging that their son, REDACTED, was denied a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22 school years. They are seeking compensatory education including the private costs of tutoring, behavior therapy and therapeutic intervals for the 2019-20 and 2020-21 school years and funding/reimbursement for the Student’s program at the REDACTED for the 2021-22 school year. They are also requesting funding for a Central Auditory Processing Evaluation provided by REDACTED, and an Expressive Language Evaluation conducted by REDACTED and a Neuropsychological Evaluation conducted by REDACTED.

There were fifteen days of hearings in this matter. Hearings were conducted on March 7, March 16, March 28, April 8, May 6, May 13, May 16, May 24, June 1, June 21, June 29, July 1, July 15, August 2 and August 8, 2022. Extensions were granted in this case making the final compliance date December 24, 2022.^[1] Briefs were prepared by the parties as well as post-hearing submissions. A list of Exhibits is attached as Exhibit A. The Parents and the District submitted exhibits.

Background

This case involves a REDACTED year old student. During the 2019-20 school year, the Student attended the REDACTED in the District for the third grade. Prior to that time, for kindergarten through second grade he attended REDACTED where he was unilaterally placed by his Parents, as a general education student. An initial eligibility referral was conducted by the REDACTED during the summer of 2019. A CSE meeting took place on August 7, 2019 and an IEP was developed by the REDACTED for the 2019-2020 school year. During the summer of 2019 the Parents had notified the District that they planned to relocate from REDACTED to the District.

With respect to the IEP developed by the REDACTED-on August 7, 2019, the Student was classified as learning disabled and the following recommendations were made:

1. Integrated C-Teaching (ICT) Services, Math, ten times per week, one period each time;

2. ICT Services, ELA, ten times per week, one period each time;

3. ICT Services, Social Studies, five times per week, one period each time;

4. ICT Services, Sciences, five times per week, one period each time;

5. Special Education Teacher Support Services (SETSS), ELA, group service, five times per week, one period each time; and

6. Counseling Services, 1:1, one time per week, 30 minutes each time. D-3.

On August 12, 2019, the Parents emailed the District a copy of the August 7, 2019, IEP (D-3) as well as certain evaluations also reviewed by the REDACTED at the meeting. D-10; D-11; D-12; D-13; D-14; D-15, D-16, D-48. Although the Parents moved to the District on September 20, 2019, the District allowed the Student to begin school at the start of the 2019-20 school year. Once the District received the August 7th IEP (D-3), they reviewed the IEP and evaluations in order to make a determination as to whether the District had a comparable program. It was immediately determined that the ICT program in their home-school, REDACTED was full and it was determined that REDACTED could accommodate him. The REDACTED administrator reached out to the Parents and a meeting was set up with the Parent and arrangements were made for the Student to meet with the teachers before school started. D-46.

The Parents, together with the District developed a District IEP based upon the August 7, 2019 IEP. This IEP was developed on August 29, 2019 for the 2019-20 school year and was consented to by the parties without a meeting. D-4. A Prior Written Notice was issued by the District on August 23, 2019. D-37. Pursuant to the IEP dated August 29, 2019 the following recommendations were made:

1. ICT Services, one time daily, three hours each time;

2. Consultant Teacher Services (specialized instruction to address reading), one time daily, one hour each time; and

3. Psychological Counseling Services, small group, (3:1), 1x6 day cycle, 30 minutes each time. D-4.

The IEP also included door-to-door transportation due to the fact that the Student was not attending his home zoned school. All of the goals listed in the August 29, 2019 IEP (D-4) were copied from the REDACTED August 7, 2019 IEP. D-3; D-4. A Prior Written Notice was issued by the District on August 29, 2019. D-38.

On December 17, 2019, the CSE conducted a program review to review an Occupational Therapy Evaluation that was conducted by the District. Pursuant to the December 17th IEP that was developed, the following recommendations were made:

1. ICT Services, one time daily, three hours each time;

2. Consultant Teacher Services (specialized instruction to address reading), one time daily, one hour each time;

3. Psychological Counseling Services, small group (3:1), 1x6 day cycle, 30 minutes each time; and

4. Occupational Therapy, small group, two times weekly, 30 minutes each time. D- In addition, there was an Occupational Therapy Program Consultation, one time monthly for one hour as part of ICT program. D-5. A Prior Written Notice was issued by the District on December 19, 2019. D-39.

On May 29, 2020, an annual IEP review was held for the Student and the Student’s IEP for the 2020-21 was developed. D-6. Pursuant to the May 29th IEP, the following recommendations were made:

1. ICT Services, one time daily, three hours per day;

2. Consultant Teacher Services (specialized instruction to support literary skills), one time daily, one hour each time;

3. Psychological Counseling Services, small group, 1x6 day cycle, 30 minutes each time; and

4. Occupational Therapy, small group, two times weekly, 30 minutes each time. D- In addition, there was (1) an Assistive Technology Consultation, one time yearly for an hour, to explore tools to develop written expression and talk to text software; (2) Psychological Consultation one time monthly for 30 minutes with the Parents, team and outside therapists to coordinate support; and (3) Occupational Therapy Consultation, one time monthly for one hour to support ICT program. D-6. The IEP provided for a 12 month service which included specialized reading instruction, small group 3x weekly, one hour each time. D-6. A Prior Written Notice was issued by the District on May 29, 2020. D-40.

The Parents together with the District amended the May 29, 2020 IEP (D-6) on August 30, 2020 without a meeting. This was based on the Parents request to move the Student back to his home school, REDACTED. The parties agreed to change the recommended school to REDACTED and remove bussing from the Student’s IEP since he was now in his home zoned school. D-7.

On December 30, 2020 the Parents sent an email to REDACTED and REDACTED advising them that they were applying to REDACTED for the 2021-22 school year. Tr. 67; Tr. 1270. The Parents sent an email to the District on January 19, 2021 advising them of the Student’s acceptance at REDACTED and the Parents’ decision to place the Student at REDACTED for the 2021-22 school year. D-70. A requested review was cancelled by the Parents for January 28, 2021. A letter was then received from the Parents’ attorney on February 24, 2021 advising the District of their intention to place the Student at REDACTED for the 2021-22 school year.

On February 23, 2021, the CSE conducted a program review to review an updated Educational Evaluation completed by the District on January 20, 2021 (D-23), a private Neuropsychological Evaluation conducted by REDACTED dated January 25, 2021 (P-Q) and provided to the District on February 17, 2021. D-8. Pursuant to the February 23rd IEP, the following recommendations were made:

1. ICT Services, one time daily, three hours each time;

2. Consultant Teacher Services (specialized instruction to support literacy skills), one time daily, one hour each time;

3. Psychological Counseling Services, small group, 2x monthly, 30 minutes each time; and

4. Occupational Therapy, small group, 2x weekly, 30 minutes each time. D-5.

In addition, there was (1) an Assistive Technology Consultation, one time yearly for an hour to explore tools to develop written expression and talk to text software; (2) a Psychological Consultation, one time monthly for 30 minutes to consult with Parents, team and outside therapist to coordinate support; and (3) an Occupational Therapy Consult, one time monthly for an hour to consult with the team, provide strategies to support the Student and make recommendations on environmental modifications. D-8. A Prior Written Notice was issued by the District on February 23, 2021. D-41.

On June 24, 2021, an annual IEP review was held for the Student and the Student’s IEP for the 2021-22 school year was developed. D-9. Pursuant to the June 24, 2021 IEP, the following recommendations were made:

1. ICT Services, one time daily, three hours per day;

2. Resource Room Program, 5:1, 5x6 day cycle, 40 minutes each time (for a multisensory reading approach to support his decoding, encoding and fluency);

3. Consultant Teacher Services (indirect), 1x6 day cycle, 20 minutes each time [for the Student’s teachers to connect and collaborate to [best support the Student];

4. Speech/Language Therapy, small group, 2x6 day cycle, 30 minutes each time;

5. Psychological Counseling Services, 1:1, 1x weekly, 30 minutes each time;

6. Psychological Counseling Services, small group, 1x weekly, 30 minutes each time; and

7. Occupational Therapy, small group, 2x weekly, 30 minutes each time. D-9.

In addition, there was (1) an Assistive Technology Consultation 1x yearly, one hour each time to explore tools to develop written expression and talk to text software; (2) Psychological Consultation, 1x monthly, 30 minutes each time to consult with outside providers and team members to support [the Student’s] emotional functioning; and (3) Occupational Therapy Consultation, 1x monthly, 30 minutes each time to consult with classroom teachers and other providers regarding [the Student’s] fine motor, handwriting and keyboarding skills. D-9. A Prior Written Notice was issued by the District on June 24, 2021. D-42.

The Parents entered into an Enrollment Contract with REDACTED for the 2021-22 school year on March 10, 2021. P-FFF.

The Parents filed a Due Process Complaint dated December 14, 2021. P-A. I was appointed as a hearing officer on December 15, 2021.

Position of the Parties

District’s Case The District called eleven witnesses, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, and REDACTED and placed 116 documents in evidence. D-1—D-30, D-32-D-82, D-84-D-91, D-95-D-110, D-112-D-116, D-188, D-190-D-194, D-196.

REDACTED

REDACTED is currently the Assistant Superintendent for Student Support Services in the District. Tr. 163. She has held this position for six years and has been with the District for over 40 years where she began as a special education teacher. D-164.

In the summer of 2019, REDACTED became aware of the new entrant to the District by the name of REDACTED. The Parent had called to say that they were moving into the District and it started the registration process. REDACTED reached out to the family via phone initially, and then by email. Tr. 167. At the time, the Student was in the process of going through the initial eligibility process with the REDACTED.

REDACTED alerted the administrator in the Student's neighborhood school, which was REDACTED, that a potential new third grader would be coming, a general education student at that time. However, when they became aware that he was classified, they took different steps.

At beginning of August, REDACTED became aware that the Student was classified by the REDACTED. Tr 169. The Parents sent the District the IEP and some other supporting documentation. The initial eligibility meeting with the REDACTED took place on August 7th, and it is reflected that an email was provided by the Parents on August 12th, 2019. D-43.

Although the Parents had sent the IEP and other supporting documents on August 12th, the Student was still not living in the District at that time. There was an email from the Parents stating that the move-in date was delayed, however, the District continued to complete the paperwork to properly transition the Student. Tr. 171. The Parents became residents of the District on September 20th pursuant to an email from the Parent. Upon reviewing the IEP (D-3), the District determined the services that were required and looked at the Student's home school, REDACTED, to see if they could provide the commensurate services indicated in the REDACTED IEP. There were already 12 students in the integrated co-teaching class at REDACTED (Tr.176), however, there was an opening in REDACTED and REDACTED for the integrated co-teaching class. Tr. 177. REDACTED was smaller and it had a smaller cohort so REDACTED reached out to REDACTED to tell them about the Student and his IEP, and determined that REDACTED would be the best fit for this Student at this time. D-45, Tr. 179.

An email was sent on August 15th to the Parent, REDACTED and REDACTED, who were the principal and assistant principal of REDACTED, to introduce and connect the Parents to the school and encourage a conversation so that they could transition the Student. Tr. 179. REDACTED met the Parent in late August. REDACTED stated that the meeting was a positive meeting and they made plans for the teachers to meet with the Student prior to the start of the school year. Tr. 181.

REDACTED spoke with REDACTED, one of the directors who worked on the Student's transition and transportation to and from REDACTED. Transportation is noted on his IEP. Because they were not sending him to their neighborhood school, they wanted it to be clear that they were offering him transportation to that school. If he were at his neighborhood school, he would not receive the transportation. Tr. 184-185.

An IEP was created for the Student using an “amendment no meeting process”. Tr. 188. Once they receive an IEP of a transfer student, they draft their own IEP based on that IEP. They make sure they have the commensurate services and adequate information, and then basically they copy and paste what the transfer IEP said. Tr. 187. Since the CSE felt the IEP was appropriate, they decided to continue with an amendment rather than a meeting to finalize the first District IEP. The Parents had sent a number of documents with the REDACTED IEP (D-3) including REDACTED documents (D-10; D-11; D-13), a Neuropsychological Evaluation (D-12); a reading report from REDACTED (a private tutor and retired reading teacher from the District) (D-15); and health records (D-16). REDACTED stated that there were also REDACTED evaluations. Tr. 192. All of these documents were shared with the REDACTED staff and administration and psychologist, REDACTED and REDACTED and uploaded to the IEP document repository so everyone who worked with the Student could see the documents and review them. Tr. 195. It was then processed and provided to the school. D-4; Tr. 189.

At the time the Student first entered the District, the CSE recommend an Occupational Therapy Evaluation be completed. Tr. 200. It was recommended due to comments on the REDACTED documents. The Occupational Therapy evaluation (D-17) was conducted and it was reviewed at a CSE meeting that took place on December 17, 2019. Tr. 204; D-5. An IEP was developed at that meeting. D-5.

The District's last day of school due to the pandemic was Friday, March 13, 2020. The District went on a synchronous remote plan right away. Following this, the Parent reached out to the school. Since REDACTED was not able to immediately get back to the Parent, she asked REDACTED to call on the District's behalf. Tr. 208. Based on her understanding, the Parents did not feel the remote learning plan was meeting the Student's needs and they wanted more synchronous time in his school day, meaning live time online with the special education teacher. Tr. 208.

REDACTED stated that after REDACTED spoke to the Parents, she then sent a follow up describing next steps, and what she thought were concerns about the Student’s social-emotional status as well as a revised remote learning plan. Tr. 209; D-55. The Parents expressed discontent and REDACTED responded. Tr. 210; D-55. The remote plan kept evolving in April, May and June and the Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum was trying to establish some kind of reasonable structure for the students with synchronous as well as asynchronous time. Tr. 211. She stated that in terms of special education services “we were all evolving and trying to do the best we could.” Tr. 211. Their focus was on the goals on the IEP. Tr. 211. The Student was receiving educational services during the period from mid-March through June from his special education teacher, REDACTED. She was providing reading support (consultant teacher) and integrated co-teaching support. Tr. 213-214. For consultant teacher support, the Student received multisensory instruction in literacy. Tr. 216. For the 2020-21 school year, REDACTED testified that the CSE recommended extended school year supports for the summer of 2020, however the Student did not receive them since he attended camp in REDACTED. Tr. 217. The ESY services were to be face-to-face. Tr. 217; D-6. The specialized reading instruction in a small group is essentially the same as the consultant teacher service that was offered during the school year. Tr. 229.

For the 2020-21 school year, REDACTED was involved with planning how the District was going to meet the challenges of providing services during COVID and met with the REDACTED which helps schools develop educational programs. Tr. 219-220. REDACTED testified that the 2020-21 program was to be a hybrid plan. Everyone came back for part of the day and a portion was synchronous (face to face) and a part was remote and everyone was in cohorts or pods. Tr. 221. The classes were split in half to allow for small group intensity. Tr. 222. The Student was in REDACTED for fourth grade and primary responsibility for his special education was REDACTED, the psychologist was REDACTED, and his general education teacher was REDACTED. Tr. 223.-227.

During the Student’s third grade year, REDACTED contacted REDACTED in December 2020 to advise her that the Parents had indicated that they were thinking of applying to REDACTED. The Parents had sent a communication regarding this to the teachers. Tr. 68. The Parents also advised REDACTED of this. Shortly thereafter, the Parents told the teachers that the Student was accepted and would go to REDACTED in September 2021. Tr. 227; Tr. 70. She did not receive any advisement subsequent to their January 19, 2021 communication that they were reconsidering their decision. Tr. 228. Following this, REDACTED offered to convene the CSE but did not receive a response. The District felt that the Student was making progress and that the program was appropriate. Tr. 229.

The District then received a communication from the attorneys for the Parents concerning the Parents’ intent to place the Student at REDACTED for the 2021-22 school year. D-74. Following this, an annual review took place to develop an IEP for the Student’s fifth grade year (2021-22). Tr. 231. Due to the pandemic, they expanded the Summer Reading Academy to include students who demonstrated vulnerability in the area of literacy that were special education students. Tr. 82. The Student was offered the Summer Reading Academy in the summer of 2021 which was three hours a day for two weeks (30 hours of instruction). Tr. 234. REDACTED testified that he was not offered ESY services because “there was no regression data to substantiate that recommendation at CSE. He actually made progress.” Tr. 235.

REDACTED

REDACTED teaches resource room and is a CTS teacher that pushes into classrooms. Tr. 255. She is familiar with the Student as she was the special education teacher for the 2019-20 school year in his ICT class. Tr. 256. She co-taught with REDACTED, the general education teacher. Tr. 256. She first learned that she was his teacher in late August, 2019 when she received an email from the principal. She reached out to the Parent and the Student came into school and met with her and REDACTED to get acquainted with the program. Tr. 257.

REDACTED testified that she played a role in the implementation of his IEP for the 2019-20 school year. She needed to make sure that all of the necessary elements of this plan were included in his education, his accommodations, his modifications, and his goals. Tr. 259. There were 24 students in this class, with two teachers engaged in different models throughout the day. Tr. 260. She stated that there were five to six students with IEPs in the classroom and that the Student made a positive transition to the school and made nice friendships. Tr. 262. She testified that the Student had a great deal of background knowledge and was able to contribute to class discussions nicely and especially during class read alouds. Tr. 262. Academically, he needed support in the areas of reading, writing and math word problems and emotionally, he needed support as he had difficulties emotionally and at times socially with other students. In reading he was receiving multisensory reading support to help with his decoding and encoding and had access to the Learning Ally, a digital library source through the assistive technology coach. He also had access to graphic organizers for writing and social-emotional support through daily reflection sheets shared with his Parents. Tr. 263. REDACTED provided the reading instruction for one hour a day in a group of 4. Tr. 264. She used the scope and sequence and guidance of Fundations. It is multisensory and repetitive and is a sequence in the rules and patterns that you teach in the English language. Tr. 266. The Student made progress in this program, however, he did not love tapping out because he thought it was babyish. Tr. 268. She knew he was making progress because as she taught each pattern, she knew she was able to move on to the next skill set based on work samples that he provided. Tr. 268. Fundations is a part of Wilson though Wilson is a more structured intervention. She is currently in the process of receiving certification in Wilson. Tr. 269. Although no other students in the group had a diagnosis of dyslexia, the Student’s reading needs were similar to the other kids in the group. Tr. 269-270.

REDACTED stated that she was his reading teacher and special education teacher from September through November when she went on maternity leave and was due to return on March 16, 2020. She remained his special education teacher for the remainder of school year. Tr. 271. His IEP provided for three hours of integrated co-teaching plus an hour of specialized instruction. Tr. 273. During specialized instruction, other students with IEPs are going in and out of the room to various services. No new teaching is happening during this block, it is just for small group instruction and catching up on work that was not completed. Tr. 273. During the day, there was a literary block where the class had classroom read alouds, they would break up into two groups and parallel teach, read articles, focus on a skill, etc. Tr. 274. The groups were always mixed. In the ICT class, students were never isolated based on their skill set or academic level unless it was specialized instruction or a group that needed more support during DIP time. Tr. 274.

REDACTED stated that during the period from September through the end of November, he needed support in the social-emotional realm in the areas of putting forth effort and also his overall attitude towards academics. She created a check in where she would reflect on the day with him. Tr. 278. This helped him recognize what was bothering him during the day since she found that sometimes the social-emotional piece would hinder his ability to refocus back to his academic work. Tr. 278. She did not think he needed a behavior plan. D-110. She started the reflection sheets because she noted areas of struggle where he was feeling a little down and needed motivation and she thought reflecting would help him. Tr. 282. She created these sheets after having a conversation with REDACTED, the school psychologist. Her goal was “for him to have a positive emotional experience in school, to help assist him with academics and help him with self-esteem and help him realize that there are ways to help work through things when they get hard.” Tr. 283. The sheets were done mostly towards the end of the day and they would discuss how his day went. Tr. 284. REDACTED would email the sheets to the Parent and if there was a concern, they would have a discussion. Tr. 285.

Between September to November, REDACTED noticed that the Student benefited from close proximity to the teacher, check-ins to get feedback how he was doing on an academic piece, access to graphic organizers and verbally rehearsing ideas before writing, and reminders for previously learned spelling patterns if they were editing. Tr. 286. Socially, although the Student made friends easily, he sometimes needed social support navigating situations. He always benefited from discussing them. These social situations were more frequent than a typical student. Tr. 290. They did not bring REDACTED, the psychologist in because they were able to resolve the issue. Tr. 292. The whole class had a mindfulness break after lunch and recess and responded well to it. Tr. 293.

REDACTED testified that part of her job was to make sure the modifications on his IEP were in place and she believed that all of them were beneficial to him. Tr. 297. REDACTED felt that between September and November, the Student was making progress within the ICT program based on the work he was doing. In the area of math, Fundations and word study there was progress based on work samples and the teacher’s observations. Tr. 299. In reading, they administrated a Fountas & Pinnell assessment at the end of September and then before she left and he went from a J to a K reading level. Tr. 361. A J is a January benchmark for second grade and a K is a March benchmark for second grade. Tr. 362. He was reading at level J when he came into the District. Tr. 362.

Prior to COVID, REDACTED and her co-teacher were using strategies with the Student that were recommended by the previous school that the student attended, REDACTED. D-11. First, encouragement and positive reinforcement were used in the social-emotional check-ins. Tr. 367. REDACTED would talk to the Student daily about the positives that he had throughout the day in each area of the curriculum, and she always praised him when he did a great job during that time. If he did have a difficult time during the school day, he would check in with the teacher to discuss his feelings and they would try to work through them. The growth mindset was another area that was used as a strategy. This involved giving him pep talks and telling him "You can do this," This set him up for success and was a really important strategy. Tr. 368. The positive self-talk and persevering through challenges was another area that they worked on through the social-emotional check-ins. The mindful practices were implemented every day after lunch as a way of relaxing and centering the students back into academics. Tr. 369. REDACTED felt that she had a good teacher-student relationship with the Student during the 2019-20 school year, and she felt that he was able to talk to her about his feelings and things that were bothering him. She felt like she connected with him right away. Tr. 370.

Another area of recommended support that was used by REDACTED in the classroom was visual processing. The use of multisensory instruction was an area of visual processing. Tr. 373. It was used in reading to tap out words or air trace words to help remember things or using his fingers to tactilely push on the table to help remember how to spell words and learn patterns. It was used in math with manipulatives to be able to understand challenging math concepts. Tr. 374-375.

With respect to the Student showing difficulty locating items on a busy page in Math, they would often break apart a problem for him or put less problems on a page to help him break things down. Tr. 375. With respect to fluid reasoning, they would utilize previewing things that are coming up and new concepts to help him. This also helped him boost his confidence because he became a little familiar with things before they were presented. Tr. 376.

With respect to memory strategies, they used anchor charts and word walls to help him. An anchor chart helps guide the lesson. It bullets the most important pieces of a lesson, and it's a great reference sheet for the Student to refer back to. Also, for memory, reviewing previously learned material was very important for the Student and was done continuously with him. Therefore, he needed the preview of new material and also the review of previously learned material.

With respect to working memory and perseverance strategies, they broke down tasks. Tr. 378. They used checklists to help support the Student before beginning a writing draft. They also verbally discussed topics to help him generate ideas and help him understand where he was going with his writing. They also used graphic organizers to help break apart his understanding of topics and help with the following of lessons. In Math, they always broke apart multi-step assignments. Another strategic area was graphomotor/writing conventions. Tr. 379. Checklists were provided to the Student to help him with writing for editing. He needed help with practice conventions, when to use capital letters, and explicit review of the conventions of upper case and lower case letter usage.

With respect to another strategy set forth in the REDACTED document (D-11), capitalizing on strengths, the Student has a huge strength in his being able to talk through his understanding. He's a great participant in discussions and providing his own reasoning for things and has great background knowledge and is a strong contributor to class discussions. This gave him a lot of confidence in the classroom. Tr. 381. With respect to visual spatial abilities, they included building and puzzles in the curriculum where possible. Tr. 382. Comprehension and reasoning skills were a huge strength for him. He had good background knowledge on cultures and areas around the world, so he would provide a lot of information to his classmates. Tr.383. With respect to comprehension and reasoning skills strategies, he was provided with Learning Ally, which is a digital library where it gives students access to all different kinds of different texts. It's literally a digital library that put books at their fingertips like any sort of genre. He could listen to books and look at them as well. Tr. 383. They also used Storyworks where videos were provided alongside an article or the article was provided with a read-along feature.

REDACTED, the Student's outside tutor, provided a report to the District on May 27th, 2020. D-19. REDACTED spoke with her in the beginning of the year, and then a few weeks later, but had not spoken with her since because she was on leave. Tr. 387. REDACTED stated in her report that her lessons provided him with clear and precise instruction with much guided practice so that he could eventually master the content and strategies. Tr. 388. REDACTED stated that she was doing similar things with him in the classroom. Tr. 388.

With respect to reading, REDACTED stated that there are many different aspects to teaching reading, so there was the specialized reading instruction period where he worked on becoming fluent in isolation with words, becoming fluent in those structured kind of texts that include the patterns and being fluent in that, and then bringing overall, all of that together, like building blocks, and building off of spelling patterns that become multi-syllabic words. The specialized reading instruction focused on decoding and spelling in reading. Through the classroom, there was a lot of read out louds where he had demonstrated understanding and comprehension. Tr. 392. They also had conference time where they would read one-on-one and ask questions about comprehension and review previously learned patterns that the Student had been exposed to.

When REDACTED returned to teaching after maternity leave, the students were receiving a learning plan remotely. It was linked to Google Classroom and it broke down each subject area and assignments were provided to students on that learning plan. D-95. There was a remote learning log that allowed her to keep track of her interactions with parents and students during this remote time, and she kept this log from March 16th until the last day of school. Once they realized that COVID was becoming a longer term issue, they began using Zoom as part of their learning plan. Tr. 395.

Since there were many different needs in her classroom and each student needed a plan tailored to his/her needs, she created different learning plans. District Exhibits 105, 113 and 114 show three learning plans that were created for her students for one day. District Exhibit 105 is an example of a learning plan for the general education group of students. District Exhibit 113 is a learning plan that was tailored for students who needed something a little different for their learning needs, and District Exhibit 114 was a learning plan that was created for one particular student that needed much more support. Within each learning plan, each aspect was tailored for the particular student. Tr. 399. REDACTED stated that after feedback from the Student’s Parents, they adjusted his learning plan and sometimes gave him a choice of two learning plans to see which one was best for him, however, all assignments were differentiated for him. REDACTED stated that he was very capable She also stated that as a writer, he had a lot of knowledge and needed support generating those ideas verbally and by using a graphic organizer to help get the information down. Tr. 409. He demonstrated a good understanding of paragraph structure, but often did not elaborate with details. As a math student, he understood and demonstrated a good understanding of standard algorithms but needed support with word problems. Tr. 410. His comprehension was strong and his background knowledge helped support him when he was reading text. He also was good at using inferencing to support the text. Although he went from a level J to a level K in Fountas & Pinnell between September and November, she was not present from November to March and was not sure whether he was assessed. Following this, from March, his reading had to be assessed informally since he was not in the classroom.

On the IEP dated May 29th, 2020 (D-6), there was a discussion concerning goals at the meeting. REDACTED had direct responsibility for proposing study skills, reading, writing, and math goals. In terms of study skills, there was a goal pertaining to rushing through assignments and REDACTED believed that he needed support in that area. Having him go back and check his work and edit his work for errors after feedback was important. The reading goals were also reviewed and included a fluency and comprehension goal and no objection was raised to these goals as well. Tr. 423. With respect to writing, clearly the Student needed to work on spelling patterns and apply the conventions of upper case usage. Tr. 423.This was a continued goal. He also continued to need to write detailed sentences. In addition, with respect to mathematics, the Student needed to continue to work on these because he was exhibiting struggles with fractions, which was a new concept that he had learned that year and needed to continue to work on adding and subtraction within 20 with fluency and solving two step word problems and algorithms with regrouping with addition and subtraction. Tr. 425. No one voiced any objection to any of these goals.

With respect to the goals that were on his IEP for his third grade school year (2019-20), during COVID, it was very hard to evaluate some of the goals, so to be on the safe side they rolled some of them over. Despite this, he did achieve quite a few goals on his IEP. Tr. 426. The final IEP Progress Report was sent home to the Parents at the end of the year. D-32. Although this Progress Report was not utilized at the IEP meeting, his progress on his goals was discussed at the meeting. Tr. 426. Program modifications were also discussed at the CSE meeting and no objections were voiced with respect to them. Tr. 427.

An Assistive Technology Consultation was also recommended to give the Student access to reading and access to tools to help support with output for writing. The CSE team felt that it was something that he definitely needed to explore to help him with his productivity with writing. Tr. 428-429. With respect to the Psychological Consultation, the CSE still felt he needed social-emotional support throughout the year and that the feedback that was shared with his Parents was also beneficial so they decided to continue with this consultation. Tr. 429.

With respect to testing accommodations, the Parents had asked about the use of a scribe during testing as an accommodation. Tr. 430. The District utilized a decision-making tool to decide whether or not the Student would qualify for tests read, and this is Exhibit D-106, and it was determined that, in fact, he would benefit from having this accommodation on his IEP. At that meeting the CSE also made a recommendation for extended school-year services. It was determined that although he was receiving a multisensory approach to reading, that in order to continue to make progress and not regress, he would need the summer services.

At the CSE meeting for his fourth-grade year, 2020-21, he was recommended to an integrated co-teaching program with specialized instruction in reading, and he also was provided with counseling. D-6. REDACTED believed that this was an appropriate program for him because he was making gains and making progress during the time that she worked with him. She also saw the co-teach model and how it worked with him and small group instruction and she believed that a more restrictive environment would not have been appropriate for him since he was appropriately supported in the model that he was in. Tr. 437.

REDACTED

REDACTED is a fourth grade teacher in the District. She has a Master’s Degree in literacy birth to twelfth grade and one in gifted education. She is certified for grades pre-k through sixth for general education and for literacy birth to twelfth grade. Tr. 472. For the 2019-20 school year, she was in a third grade class (which she had done for the fourteen previous years). Tr. 472.

She was the general education teacher in the Student’s ICT third grade classroom. She testified that there were 24 students in the class with a total of seven with IEPs (a seventh came in December). Tr. 474. The general and special education teacher worked closely in planning the curriculum and executing the curriculum using different models including parallel teaching, staff teaching, central teaching, etc. Tr. 473. The two teachers were with the students all day except when they are at specials. Tr. 474. There was also a teaching assistant in the classroom and a 3:1 aide. Tr. 499. She met the Student on August 29, 2019 before school started to ease his transition as a new student. Tr. 475. In the morning, there was a math and literacy block and in the afternoon there was social studies, science and DIP period, which stands for differential instruction period. Tr. 478. This is the time when students can go out of the classroom for reading or math support, speech, instruction in musical instruments, etc. The rest of the class utilizes small group instruction or centers and this is when the Student received specialized reading group. Tr. 478. REDACTED and REDACTED mostly used the parallel teaching model where they would split the students into two small groups and teach the same lesson. The students were broken up with a mix of general education and special education students and the groups were changed every day or two, and also were changed for different subjects. Tr. 480. The literacy block included reading instruction and writing instruction. Tr. 481. There was also a math block. Tr. 484.

Based upon REDACTED’s observations of the Student in the fall of 2019, in math he had strong rote skills although word problems could be challenging for him. Tr. 485. Therefore, they would modify the math work and break it down and help for understanding. Tr. 486. In terms of reading, he liked finding books in the library but also used Learning Ally. His listening comprehension was way above his reading comprehension and his decoding was low compared to where it should have been. Tr. 486. In writing, when it was a structured piece, he would use a graphic organizer and set it up with topic sentence, details, and concluding sentence. When it was more open ended, he struggled more, getting his ideas out and the teachers would support them. Tr. 487. Science and social studies was hands-on and he enjoyed them. Tr. 488.

They focused on decoding strategies in his specialized reading instruction. Tr. 488. They were working to increase his reading rate. Tr. 489. He was also working in reading multisyllabic words. Tr. 489. He was responding well to the supports and was making slow progress. Tr. 489. At the beginning of the year he was reading word-by-word and paying attention to each word in isolation, however, he then began reading phrases in a more fluent manner. Tr. 491. In his specialized instruction he was focusing on word patterns and practicing doing informal running records. Tr. 497. He was making gains first semester when the teacher would read and he would listen. His listening comprehension skills were better than some of the general education students. He was able to understand a character’s motivations and make inferences. Tr. 494. For writing, they used graphic organizers for him and had him orally tell his ideas and then write them on a white board. They would also do a lot of check-ins to move from one piece of assignment to the next. Tr. 495.

REDACTED testified that she attended a CSE meeting on December 17, 2019. Tr. 501; D-5. The purpose of the meeting was to review the Occupational Therapy evaluation that was conducted in the early fall. Tr. 501. On the IEP, it stated that the Student made a good transition into the class. Tr. 501. He was following routines and procedures that they had implemented in the classroom, was participating, was completing his work and was seeking help when needed. Tr. 501. REDACTED stated that he had shown progress in all areas—math, reading and writing. She stated that he was still below in reading but had made progress. Tr. 504. In math, he was becoming more independent and after checking in, was able to work on a problem on his own. Tr. 503. In reading, he was reading for longer periods of time and increasing his stamina and was reading in two word or three word phrases rather than word-by-word. Tr. 504. In writing, he was able to take a question, turn it into a topic sentence and come up with reasons that related to the topic sentence and was able to prepare a conclusion. Tr. 504.

The Student’s biggest roadblock was his confidence. He would compare himself to others and what they were doing. Tr. 505. At the beginning of the year, he needed daily emotional support, however, he started to feel “more autonomous and successful.” Tr. 506. He had some recess issues but this was typical of students during unstructured time. Tr. 508. REDACTED felt that the Student’s recommended program in December was appropriate and the CSE did not think it needed to be altered. Tr. 509.

Between December 2019 and March 2020, REDACTED worked with REDACTED’s leave replacement and she stepped into REDACTED’s shoes. Tr. 509. For reading, assessments for a student who was reading below grade level would occur typically five times a year. Tr. 510. She stated that the Student entered third grade at Level J and in November and January was reading at Level K, and because the school was closed in March, he was not assessed. Tr. 511. REDACTED stated that REDACTED, the leave replacement used a running record to get a sense of his decoding, his rate and how his reading was flowing. Tr. 512. REDACTED believes REDACTED was using an online program called Reading A-Z where you can print running records and their levels and they correlate with the Fountas & Pinnell that is used to formally assess. Tr. 512-513.

REDACTED attended another CSE meeting on May 29, 2020. Tr. 516. The Parent brought an advocate, REDACTED, who had at one point been a special education coordinator in the District. Tr. 517. REDACTED presented the classroom teacher report at the meeting. Tr. 518. REDACTED stated that the Student was able to follow multi-step directions during transitional times throughout the day. Tr. 519. To support organizational skills, she would make sure his desk was neat and that he had a folder system and that his books were in his book box and easy to access, and make sure he had the right notebook for the subject being taught. Tr. 521. REDACTED stated that he was reading books on his level and reading them independently. Tr. 527. REDACTED stated they were not able to read with him and assess him during COVID because they were working asynchronously. Tr. 527. He made gains in his writing but was still using graphic organizers. Tr. 527. In math, he understood concepts as they were being taught like multiplication, division and measurement but still needed help breaking down multistep word problems. Tr. 527.

REDACTED believes that the program that the Student experienced for his first year of special education services in third grade was successful and he was showing progress. Tr. 529. She thought that everything he had in third grade was a good fit for him going forward. Tr. 529. REDACTED testified that the program developed on May 29, 2020 for the Student’s fourth grade school year was an appropriate program for him. Tr. 530.

REDACTED

REDACTED works at the District as a school psychologist. Tr. 553. She received her doctorate in school psychology and is certified as a school psychologist in New York and New Jersey and is licensed in New York State. Tr 553. She works with Student that have counseling mandates on their IEPs and also works with students on the building level who demonstrate social-emotional difficulties. She also provides counseling services, consults with teachers and parents and does evaluations and testing.

The Student was in a counseling group that REDACTED led at REDACTED. She was seeing him due to his history of low self-esteem regarding his academic functioning, identifying himself only through his disability, and a history of frustration when it came to academic challenges. Tr. 555. She saw the Student in group counseling. There were three students in the group. They worked on frustration tolerance; understanding different aspects of intelligence; understanding each student’s personal strengths and weakness; understanding how thoughts influence feelings and then our behaviors; and increasing social skills and awareness. Tr. 556.

REDACTED felt that counseling was beneficial for the Student during his third grade level. Earlier in the year he was hesitant about how his teachers would be able to teach him; that he would not be able to learn because he had a learning disability. Tr. 557. She felt that he was able to talk about his feelings in counseling and this helped him. Tr. 557. He was seen as a leader in the group and the other students liked working with him. Tr. 557. She observed him in his class and only saw him socially relating well to others and did not see him witness frustration. Tr. 558. She felt he was very responsive to the supports that his teachers put in place and nothing ever escalated to the point that she needed to be called in. Tr. 558. She saw him as a student wo was working hard, was getting support and related well socially to both teachers and students. REDACTED was in the building two days a week and there was another psychologist there the other days REDACTED. Tr. 561. She was no there the whole year due to a split maternity leave and REDACTED saw him when she was out. Tr. 561. REDACTED stated that the teachers did a very good job and did not require REDACTED or REDACTED to provide further support in the classroom. Tr. 562.

REDACTED attended the CSE meeting in December 2019. D-5. She stated that most of the conversation centered around his occupational therapy needs. Tr. 564. When REDACTED came back from maternity leave, and REDACTED discussed each child and any concerns that came up, there were no concerns that come up with respect to the Student. Tr, 565. During COVID, they made a Google classroom where resources were provided to parents and students and they also emailed the Parents weekly with counseling activities related to his goals on his IEP and just tried to check up on them and see how things were going. Tr. 567.

REDACTED

REDACTED is presently the school psychologist at REDACTED. She has been there since September, 2001. She has her doctorate in school clinical psychology. This is her 24th year as a school psychologist. Tr. 618. She provides consultation and counseling and evaluative measures for school-aged students. Tr. 619. She also participates in both the 504 committee and the CSE meetings, and she sits regularly on the instructional support team.

She is familiar with the Student, as he was a student at REDACTED and during his third grade year, she provided counseling to him when REDACTED was on maternity leave. Tr. 622. She provided counseling from the end of October, until REDACTED came back in December and then again from January to March when REDACTED was again on maternity leave. Tr. 621. When she became aware that she was going to be providing counseling to the Student, she sent an email to the Parents stating that she was going to be covering REDACTED's caseload and set up a meeting. Tr. 623. The Parent shared background information about the Student. Tr. 626. The Parent explained that when the Student was in the city, he was working with a private therapist to address emotional regulation, and how it pertained to his home life. The Student was not seeing a private therapist at the time of their discussion, however at a later point the Parent reached out and asked for names of private therapists. Tr. 628-629. REDACTED testified that she was working on his goals of emotional regulation and frustration tolerance and building his confidence around learning. Tr. 623-354. It was a group format and each week they had activities that they worked on that addressed these goals. She stated that the Student enjoyed coming into the group and he was actively engaged and a regular participant. She also indicated that she was in consultation with his teachers and his frustration and emotional issues were not playing out significantly in the classroom. Tr. 625.

REDACTED attended two meetings for the Student, a CSE meeting in December 2019 as well as a CSE meeting in May 2020. REDACTED discussed at the meeting that he was doing well, and she even noted, what a great transition he had into the building in terms of his confidence and feelings. REDACTED stated that he needed daily emotional support at the beginning of the year, however, as time went on, he did not. From January to March 2020 he continued to be an active participant in her counseling sessions and was doing nicely within his classroom, and there were no increased concerns. She attended a second CSE meeting, in May 2020 and reported to the CSE. She was in agreement with the counseling recommendation that was on the Student’s IEP for the 2020-21 school year (D-6) and she believed that this was appropriate because of all the data they had up until the time he went into remote learning and the growth he was showing. Tr. 637.

REDACTED

REDACTED is one of the two directors of special education. This is her third year in that position. Prior to that, she was a special education teacher for over twenty years. Tr. 644. She oversees the special education programs in the District under the supervision of REDACTED. REDACTED is in charge of two elementary schools and the high school. Tr. 645. In addition, she chairs meetings and trains administrators on 504. She is in charge of progress monitoring. They use 1-Ready which is a progress monitoring tool so that they can have a benchmark in the beginning of the year or preassessment, and then a mid-year and end of year assessment to monitor progress in both ELA and Math. Tr. 646-647. The students who have testing accommodations receive them with respect to this digital assessment. Tr. 647.

She is familiar with the Student since he is in the ICT program at REDACTED. During the summer of 2019, REDACTED had made her aware that she was working on an “amendment no meeting” for the Student and that he would be attending the ICT program at REDACTED in September. Tr. 649. During the 2019-20 school year, she chaired his annual review. Tr. 649. Between September 2019 and March 2020, she visited the Student’s classroom approximately every 2 weeks and had monthly meetings with the building administrators, psychologist and teacher. Tr.650. She stated that in her visits to the classroom, there was nothing unusual she noticed about the Student nor did the teachers report any concerns. Tr. 652. When she had her monthly administrative meetings to discuss student cases that had problem solving issues, the Student was never discussed. Tr. 653.

The COVID pause began on March 13, 2020. At the beginning of April 2020, REDACTED shared that the Student’s mother was very concerned about the Student’s ability to access the instruction that was being provided. Tr. 655. REDACTED called the Parent and the Parent indicated that she was having a difficult time walking him through the asynchronous lessons and having him complete the work. Tr. 655. She stated that math was a particular area of difficulty and the access to the learning plan and Google classroom itself. Tr. 656. She said it was difficult for him to open things and just the logistics of using a computer. REDACTED stated that she would have REDACTED, the behaviorist that supported REDACTED reach out to her to talk through what structures they could put in place at home to structure the Student’s time better and set contingencies for work completion. Tr. 656. She also offered to have the assistive technology specialist, REDACTED reach out and share tips and tools with the Student and Parents that would make it easier for the Student to do all things in his learning plan help navigate Google read and write and all the different features that would make the asynchronous learning a little easier for him. Tr. 657; Tr. 660. She also spoke to his teachers and then sent an email to the Parent with all the things they could offer as a team. Tr. 661; D-5. REDACTED also sent an email. She stated that as a District in April, they were moving at this time, towards more web based learning tools that would allow feedback from teachers, like Zearn (a web based math program). Tr. 664. The Parent responded to REDACTED’s proposal and indicated that she just was not happy with the fact that he was not having in-person synchronous instruction with a teacher. REDACTED responded to the Parent’s email and letting her know that they heard Parent’s concerns and knew virtual learning was difficult for kids, and they were trying to provide as many supports as they could as a District. T. 668.

On May 29, 2020, REDACTED chaired the annual review meeting for the Student. D-6. She thought the meeting was positive. Tr. 669. REDACTED felt that she heard the Parent’s concerns about the Student’s reading and they talked about all the supports the District had to offer in that area and came up with a good plan in addressing the Parent’s concerns and what the CSE knew his needs would be. Tr. 670.The team reported that during his third grade year, he had made progress and was on track to doing well. Tr. 670. The goals were individually reviewed by REDACTED. The Parent asked why, in addition to the special education teacher, a reading teacher could not work with the Student. Tr. 674. The CSE discussed how reading was taught and how the goals could be met via the special education teacher. Tr. 675. They explained that all the students are instructed in literacy by their teachers and that any specific decoding work at the fourth grade level could be addressed by the special education teacher. Tr. 675. They discussed the goals that the special education teacher could address in the co-teach session during the literacy block and those that would be addressed during specialized instruction. Tr. 676. During specialized instruction, it could be 1:1 or group depending on the goal being addressed and whether other students had similar goals. Tr. 678.

At the end of the May 29, 2020 CSE meeting, REDACTED stated that when the recommendations were made for the program for the 2020-21 school year, she did not recollect any dissension from the Parents or REDACTED. Tr 685. REDACTED stated that her recollection was that the parties left the meeting feeling that the fourth grade ICT program was the best match for the Student to meet the goals that had been developed for him. Tr. 685. With respect to ESY services, the CSE determined that the Student met the criteria for ESY services as substantial regression was reported and he was recommended to receive reading three times per week for one hour each time over the summer. The Parents opted out of ESY due to the fact it could not be done virtually at his summer camp. Tr. 687. At the end of the meeting, the Student’s Parents requested that the District try to move the Student from REDACTED to REDACTED, his home school. Tr. 687. Sometime in late August, a seat became available at REDACTED and they again did an “amendment no meeting” to change the school. Tr. 688.

REDACTED

REDACTED is a behavior intervention specialist and has worked in that capacity for the District for the past four years. Tr. 708; Tr. 710. She supports classrooms and teachers and supports the environment and structures to increase positive behaviors for students. Tr. 708. She has an advanced certification in Applied Behavior Analysis and an advanced certification in school administration.

She is familiar with the Student as she was asked by REDACTED and REDACTED to support his learning during April 2020 after the school shut down. Tr. 710. They asked her to meet with the team to brainstorm ways the District could support the Student’s submission of assignments in the remote learning environment. Tr. 711. She met with REDACTED and REDACTED, his classroom teachers, and REDACTED, an assistive technology specialist. Tr. 712. When the new learning structures were put into place during COVID, the Student was having difficulty logging on, reading the assignments, finding the assignments and navigating the platform. Tr. 712. The team looked at the Student as a learner and how he had been functioning in-person and in the classroom. Tr. 713. They learned that if he felt a task was challenging, he had a tendency to shut down and benefited from reflections and check ins with the teachers to assess his attitude going in, his level of understanding and his productivity after a task so he could identify his successes. The teachers indicated that they were using a self-reflection form. Tr. 713. After the meeting she coordinated with REDACTED to create a self-reflection form on Google with similar questions. Tr. 714; D-112. This would be available to the Student after an activity. Tr. 715. She also reached out to the Parents to consult in providing support at home to set up learning structures similar to what she would do in the classroom. Tr. 715. Also REDACTED was going to reach out to provide support on the assistive technology end. Tr. 715. REDACTED did an assistive technology consult (Tr, 719; D-26) and provided a consultation to the family. Tr. 720. REDACTED reached out to the Parents via email to discuss the Student’s current needs at home and how she could support them but received no response, however, she received an email from REDACTED stating that the Parents did not want to use the electronic form created. Tr. 723; D-54. Based on an email sent by the Parents, they did not believe they needed REDACTED’s support since they stated the issue was educational not behavioral. Tr. 723-727. REDACTED based on her communication with staff and reading of the IEP believed there was a social-emotional behavioral component since the Student is shutting down when tasks are challenging and that is avoidance behavior. Tr. 725. She believed environmental supports like checking in with the teacher and having opportunities to reflect would be strategies that helped the Student in school and could help him in the remote environment. Tr. 725.

REDACTED

REDACTED works for the District as a Director of Special Education. She has done so for five years from pre-K through high school. Tr. 730. She has a certification in elementary general education and an SBL at the administrative level. Tr. 731. There are two directors of special education and they each are the point person for three schools. Tr. 733. The elementary schools she has direct supervisory responsibility for are at REDACTED and REDACTED. Tr. 734. She is familiar with the Student when he came to the District in 2019. Tr. 734. After REDACTED worked with the Student on his transition, she did the “Agreement-no meeting” for the District’s IEP and was in touch with the mother. Tr. 735. The Parents signed a consent on August 27, 2019 to the agreement. REDACTED read through the documents that were provided and created an IEP and sent the Parent a Prior Written Notice. Tr. 735. She also processed the consent for the Occupational Therapy evaluation. D-4; D-49.

The Student began attending REDACTED for the 2020-221 school year in the fourth grade since an ICT seat opened up. Tr. 738. REDACTED stated that her understanding of the Student was that he had good cognitive abilities, was struggling in the areas of reading and decoding but was very capable. Tr. 739. The Student was receiving the ICT program coupled with one hour of specialized instruction. During the 2020-21 school year at REDACTED, they were in hybrid. This meant the students were split into two pods; the Student was in the morning pod from 8:30-11:00 where the teachers worked with the Students on reading, writing and math. Tr. 740. The specialized instruction for reading was based on the Student’s IEP and he generally got it with other children with similar goals and the instruction was very specific. Tr. 741. The special education teacher in the classroom, REDACTED, provided the specialized instruction. His comprehension was very strong but the specialized instruction was geared towards encoding and decoding. Tr. 743. There are reading groups in the hour and a half literacy block in the ICT time period as well Tr. 744. During that block there would be word study-looking at patterns of words, depending on grade level. There would also be reading instruction, guided reading groups, including talking about comprehension, applying strategies and applying decoding strategies. Tr. 745. There would also be word work (looking at how words are structured and built) and writing. Tr. 745.

REDACTED chaired the Student’s CSE meeting on February 23, 2021. Tr. 746. Updated testing was recommended and was completed by REDACTED in the Fall of 2020. Tr. 747. REDACTED stated that the Parents were pursuing a private neuropsychological with REDACTED and they were waiting for the report. Tr. 747. The meetings that were scheduled prior to the February meeting were cancelled due to the fact that they were waiting for the report. Tr. 747. REDACTED was at the meeting and presented her findings and they all reviewed the evaluation (D-23) completed by the District. Tr. 748. The District’s Educational Evaluation reinforced the Student’s needs for decoding and targeted instruction in reading. It showed that he had some skills in place but needed support in other areas including math problem solving and word problems. Tr. 750. In terms of specialized reading instruction, the special education teacher shifted the Student’s reading progress to Wilson in December 2020, which is a multisensory reading instructional program to target encoding and decoding. Tr. 751. He was receiving that and was making good gains. Tr. 751. There was a Wilson group already that he became a part of. At the time of the CSE meeting, he was at a reading Level O which was slightly below the benchmark and his words per minute had increased. Tr. 753. Level O was at the end of third grade-beginning of fourth grade and he was in fourth grade. Tr. 754; D-109. As of May 2020, he had been reading at Level K. Tr. 757. According to REDACTED going from a Level K in May 2020 to an independent Level O in January 2021 demonstrates a year of growth and a little more and is significant. Tr. 757. REDACTED sated that REDACTED’s evaluation was very much aligned with how the District viewed the Student’s strengths and weaknesses. REDACTED also talked about the social-emotional component and low self-esteem, which the District was also aware of. Both agreed he had a good wealth of knowledge and good comprehension and written language was another area of weakness. Tr. 758.

On December 9, 2020, the District recommended that a Speech-Language Evaluation be conducted. Tr. 1079. It was recommended because the teachers had some questions about his recall and his overall language and was hoping to get more information in those areas. Tr. 1079. The District made multiple attempts to obtain consent for the evaluation from the Parent. In January, the Parents stated that they were waiting for the report from REDACTED to see what that showed before giving consent. Tr. 1080. In March they signed a consent and then revoked it and then in June, a consent was signed and the evaluation took place. Tr. 1080.

REDACTED attended the June 24, 2021 CSE meeting. Tr. 1081. This was an annual review meeting. Tr. 1081. The CSE reviewed the District’s Speech and Language Evaluation, the outside Speech Evaluation conducted by REDACTED and the BASC and BRIEF scales and reading scales conducted by the District. Tr. 1081. REDACTED stated that the evaluation conducted by REDACTED did not provide them with much information. D-25. No standardized tests were done. It was just an expressive language evaluation where the Student responded to some prompts verbally. Tr. 1082. Another evaluation reviewed was the Assistive Technology Consultation and Summary (D-26) which indicated some of the tools and programs the Student had access to. Tr. 1083. The school psychologist’s report was also reviewed and focused on the Student’s social-emotional work, some executive functioning, and contained the results of the BRIEF and the BASC. Tr. 1084. REDACTED testified that this report indicated that the Student had grown in a positive way in social-emotional learning in certain areas, although there were other areas they would need to focus on. Tr. 1084. The District’s Speech and Language Evaluation was also reviewed at the meeting. Tr. 1085; D-28. REDACTED stated that based on the report the Student has stronger receptive language and vocabulary and has some word retrieval challenges and issues with recall. Tr. 1085. The Teacher Report was also reviewed at the June CSE meeting. Tr. 1085; D-29. They stated that overall fourth grade was a positive year for the Student. Socially and emotionally, his transition from REDACTED to REDACTED was good, he made friends, and gained confidence in many areas academically. He made very good progress in reading though there are still areas to work on. Although good progress was made in writing and he was taking more risks, he needed additional support. His handwriting went from being hard to decipher and not legible to legible. Tr. 1087. Since the teachers and the Parents were in constant communication, she felt comfortable that the Parents were familiar with the Student’s progress and areas of continual support. Tr. 1086. REDACTED felt it was a positive meeting in terms of collaboration. Tr. 1088. The Parents did not raise any objections nor did they raise objections to the goals on the recommended programs and services. Tr. 1090.

The program for the 2021-22 school year provided for an ICT program since the CSE felt that he had made some really good gains this year and has good cognitive abilities. Tr. 1090. Also counseling would be increased to weekly counseling. When they went back to full day in April 2021, he was going to the school psychologist outside of his recommended time and they saw him settle in and start to speak positively about school so decided to carry forward the momentum. Tr. 1091. They also added Speech as a related service. The Parents asked questions about resource room and asked for a mock schedule as to how the day would go and it was provided the following day. Tr. 1092. The DIP period would encompass resource room and Speech and counseling might occur during lunch depending on scheduling. Tr. 1085. With respect to extended year services, the District did not have any regression to indicate the need. Tr. 1094. REDACTED stated that she believed that the program provided for the 2021-22 school year was appropriate for the Student based on the progress he had made. Tr. 1095.

REDACTED

REDACTED is a speech-language pathologist at Central School in the District. Tr. 1166. She is a New York State certified speech and language pathologist and also is a teacher at the Speech and Hearing Handicapped and the American Speech and Hearing Association. Tr. 1166.

She is familiar with the Student as she evaluated him in June of 2021. She knew that the Student was identified as a special education student with a diagnosis of dyslexic and in fourth grade was in a co-teaching class and receiving services including reading. Tr. 1169. She was aware that a central auditory processing evaluation and private neuropsychological evaluation had taken place. Tr. 1170. She believed the District and REDACTED recommended a speech evaluation. Tr. 1170. The District recommended it in December 2020 however she tested in June 2021. The reason for the delay was that the Parents were conducting various evaluations and were waiting for the results before they would consent to this evaluation. Tr. 1171.

When conducting the evaluation, REDACTED looked to see if there was a discrepancy between receptive language, which is the ability to identify words, and expressive vocabulary, which is the ability to name words. Through this, she was looking to see if there was a word retrieval deficit. She was also looking at his ability to follow directions, formulate sentences, and define words. Tr. 1172.

Before doing her evaluation, she reviewed the Central Auditory Processing evaluation (D-22) and the Neuropsychological evaluation. He was diagnosed with an auditory processing disorder and there was difficulty with temporal processing and auditory attention. It is very relevant to a speech pathologist because it has to do with the signal that comes through in terms of language and speech and the way you process information. Tr. 1174. In terms of the Expressive Language Evaluation, he had trouble retelling something that he had already heard, however did well with giving information when given a prompt. Tr. 1175. On the Neuropsychological Evaluation (D-21), the testing showed that the Student can recall information from an orally presented paragraph in the average range, that he was able to make inferences, describe words that have more than one meaning and was able to describe the meaning of a word that was presented in context. Tr. 1178. She stated that the report indicated that he had trouble with manipulation of sound and language which correlates to reading issues. Tr. 1179.

When asked why REDACTED made behavioral observations of the Student in her evaluation, she testified that behaviors during a test are really important because a child has to be motivated and attentive in order to participate in an assessment. Tr. 1179. Her observations were that he was very social and chatty, but very fidgety and all over the place and did not have great stamina. Tr. 1180. During two of the subtests for semantic relationships and sentence assembly, he scored very low and kept saying he was very stressed. She felt this impacted his scores because he was not able to engage with the materials. Tr. 1881. The other subtests had visuals and a shorter amount of attention span is required to complete them. Tr. 1182.

The CELF-5 is a global language assessment that tests both receptive and expressive language. Tr. 1184. REDACTED stated he had some good skills on this testing. Tr. 1185. Most of his scores were in the average range. Tr. 1186. She stated that putting all his scores together on the CELF she believes his receptive language was weak but she thought attention played a role in that. Tr. 1189. The expressive language was also weak but she believed that sentence assembly really impacted it. Tr. 1189. She said that it’s hard to say what part was attention issues and what part was language processing issues. Tr. 1190. She said he had issues with stamina and was being silly at times. Tr. 1190.

REDACTED issued the Expressive Vocabulary Test (EVT-3) which looks at vocabulary and word retrieval. Tr. 1191. His score was average in the 30th percentile. She stated that what was important was the comparison of his expressive vocabulary to his receptive vocabulary which was the 30th percentile versus the 81st which tells you that he has a word retrieval deficit. Tr. 1192. She testified that the “word retrieval is when you have word but you cannot pull them out versus just a deficient vocabulary where you just do not know a lot of word.” There are different ways for a speech pathologist to help a student with a word retrieval deficit. You can give the student phonemic cues (sound cues), a semantic cue, or develop categories to help with this. Tr. 1193.

REDACTED attended the CSE meeting dated June 24, 2021 for the 2021-22 school year. Tr. 1195. She spoke about her evaluation and REDACTED’s Expressive Language Evaluation. Tr. 1195. She recommended goals including (1) a goal for WH questions with inferencing and prediction due to his issues with attention; (2) a summarization goal because students with word retrieval issues have difficulty being concise and efficient in giving information; (3) a goal for formation of complex sentences; and (4) vocabulary due to word retrieval issues. Tr. 1197. No one had issues with the goals nor with a recommendation of Speech, twice in a group per six day cycle. Tr. 1198. REDACTED testified that she went over her report with the Parents prior to the June CSE meeting. Tr. 1201.

REDACTED

REDACTED is currently teaching the 15:1 program for fifth grade. This is her 15th year in the District. Tr. 786. She is certified in New York State for special education and general education. She has her Level 1 and 2 training in Preventing Academic Failure at REDACTED Institute and is Level 1 certified in Wilson. Tr. 787. She has taught in the District for 15 years.

During the 2020-21 school year, she taught a fourth grade ICT class with REDACTED. Tr. 789. Due to the pandemic, the class was split into two different cohorts. One met for two and a half hours in the morning and the other in the afternoon. Tr. 789. When the morning pod went home, they were doing individualized remote work which was specific to their small reading and math groups (Zearn) and IT was posted in Google classroom. Tr. 789-790. They also had word study, guided reading homework and independent reading. Tr. 790.

She is familiar with the Student as he was in her fourth grade class. Tr. 791. He just switched into REDACTED and was shy at first and needed an adult near him to ensure he was doing what he needed to do. He was very articulate about his feeling and himself. He avoided writing even though he was articulate and had a lot to say and would write the least amount and check-in on spelling. Tr. 791. He found spelling hard and did not want to write words he did not know how to spell. Tr. 794. In reading, he presented as a strong reader and had good comprehension. Tr. 792. He had a lot of confidence in math and sometimes would not wait for directions. Tr. 792. Socially he was well liked by his peers. He was not confident with school and would pull her and REDACTED aside to discuss his feelings. Tr. 793. She played a role in the development of the 2020-21 IEP (D-7), however was involved in its implementation. Tr. 793. The teachers worked together to ensure that his accommodations and goals would be addressed throughout the morning. Tr. 797. He needed handholding at the beginning of the year. It took him some time to make connections but he adjusted nicely into the group. Tr. 795.

In the pods, once the teachers got to know the students, the groups changed depending on the skill being taught. The groups consisted of 6 or 7 students. The entire am pod was 13. Tr. 795. For reading, they started off the year in guided groups where they had left off but that changed as soon as they got to know the kids and their reading levels. Tr. 795. There were guided reading groups for 45 minutes each day and there were 3 or 4 students in a group. Tr. 800. There were two other staff member who were in the classroom for certain students but would also help with others. Tr. 801. Guided reading groups deal with specific skills (i.e., decoding, reading rate, comprehension, inferencing). It could also be writing skills. Tr. 801. They also used a program called the Literacy Footprints program where the kids were grouped in terms of skill level. The Student started in REDACTED’s group which had the kids with more needs and moved to REDACTED’s group because they realized they could push him further in that group since he was doing really well. Once, he moved he continued to do well and it was a better fit. Tr. 803. His comprehension was good. His inferencing was inconsistent but he was very articulate and able to give cogent answers, however if he did not understand the question, his answer would be based on his interpretation. Tr. 804. In that group, he worked on his decoding and comprehension. Tr. 804.

They gave benchmark assessments in reading throughout the year using Literacy Footprints and Fountas & Pinnell. They would sit with each student individually and read a text at a level to determine the student’s independent reading level and what their instructional reading level is. REDACTED stated that you get that through their decoding, their accuracy, their comprehension, their reading rate, and their ability to answer the literal and inferential questions that go with it. Tr. 806.

At the beginning of the year, they had determined that the Student had issues with spelling and started using a lot of Wilson strategies and also used them in his guided reading. Tr. 808. REDACTED would also pull him or pull a small group and work on specific strategies for decoding, fluency or encoding. Tr. 808. She used a lot of spelling decoding multisensory strategies with him and for fluency, she used scooping which is a Wilson technique. Tr. 810.

REDACTED stated that she had consistent communication with the Parent every day at pick up and in November discussed putting him in her Wilson group to specifically work on spelling. She explained to the Parent that it teaches the students how to break the words into syllables and how to spell them in syllables. Tr. 811. The Student’s mom had a lot of questions and did not think he needed it. The Parent asked the Student’s tutor and she was not in favor of it either. Tr. 813. REDACTED stated that she has background knowledge about the tutor and understood that she did not believe in specific methodologies. Tr. 813. REDACTED explained that she was doing it informally with him and wanted to put him in a group where they do it every day. Tr. 812. REDACTED ended up transitioning the Student into the Wilson group and her first charting with him was December 10, 2020. Tr. 814. This was in addition to his reading instruction. Tr. 815. He would have his hour of reading and then get a half hour plus of Wilson every day and worked on decoding and encoding, which is the reading and spelling of words. It also worked on fluency and comprehension. Tr. 815. At first, the Student did not buy into the Wilson program and she had to try and get him to accept it. Tr. 817. After watching him in Wilson, she realized he had a hard time reading words in isolation because he was relying heavily on comprehension to get through and she felt even more strongly that he needed to be in the Wilson program. Tr. 818. She stated that she saw his progress when she looked at the data from his guided reading from the beginning of the year to the end of the year. Tr. 819. Most of the errors at the beginning of the year were visual errors and his words per minute were slower and he was not self-correcting or going back and rereading. Tr. 820. She stated that by the last two assessments, he was a different child. Tr. 820. She indicated that he made a lot of progress during the year, which he would not be able to do if he was not making progress with his decoding words in isolation. His words per minute increased and he started rereading which held back his fluency but it was beneficial to him. Tr. 820. The biggest area of progress was spelling. Tr. 822. In writing, at the beginning of the year, he would give you the least amount in writing though he could talk for days about a specific topic. Tr. 822. As the year progressed, he started writing more, spelling more sigh words correctly and sounding out words using syllabication rules. Tr. 822. He definitely needed support with organization and had to work using graphic organizers for support. Tr. 823.

For math, they were using a Zearn hybrid program. They would watch a video and then reteach the material and do a lot of practice. The Student felt comfortable with math and did well, however word problems were tough for him and needed to be broken down. He needed a lot of review with multi-step algorithms like for multi-step multiplication. Fractions were also difficult for him. Tr. 827-828.

The Student also had Occupational Therapy twice a week and counseling once a week, however he was never pulled out of an academic period. Tr. 828; D-7. Counseling was provided afterschool and he did not always go. Tr. 830. They made it so that he went to counseling with a friend and this made it better for him. Tr. 830. The students received art, music and physical education during their at home time. Tr. 831. In mid-April or mid-March, they went back to full day. Some of his groups changed and/or increased but the changes were minimal. Tr. 837. The teachers and students had many meetings in the hallway to work out social emotional issues, however REDACTED felt that he transitioned nicely into the full day program. Tr. 834.

In Wilson, in order to move from one sub step to the next, in decoding, you need to master it before you can move on but you do not hold them back for spelling errors. Tr. 840. It appears in the charting of District Document 98 that between December 2020 and June 2021, the Student made fewer errors and was able to use them with independence in isolation. REDACTED stated that “For a kid like [REDACTED], that shows mastering because he does not have a context of the sentence on the story to help.” Tr. 843. He also moving through Wilson word list chart from chart subset 3.5 to 5.5 within that six month period which shows average progress. Tr. 844. This indicates that Wilson was the right approach for him. REDACTED was concerned that sometimes the Student would misinterpret or think that they asked for something else and found multi-step directions challenging. Tr. 846. She mentioned to the Parent early in the year that she thought he should have a Speech and Language evaluation. The Parent had questions about this since she felt the Student was so articulate and engaging. Tr. 849; D-99.

The Student was first assessed for reading in fourth grade on September 30, 2020. Tr. 866; D-116. REDACTED was testing the Student on a Level M. Tr. 870. She felt that he could not manage a Level M independently. She made this determination based on the type of errors he was making even though he had 97% accuracy. Also he was reading at 64 words per minute which is slow. Therefore, she administered the Level L testing and found that his words per minute increased and he had five errors. His comprehension was great and he used an inference. Tr. 873. Therefore, she made the determination that Level L was a good place for him independently and his guided reading was a Level M as they always go one level above to try and push them in this area. Tr. 874. An independent level means “that on any given day that student would be able to navigate independently for decoding and comprehension.” Tr. 875. For every reading level, A to Z, there are identifying characteristics of what you should be able to do independently of that level. Tr. 883. The benchmarks are pretty consistent across all reading assessments. Tr. 887. The characteristics are pretty much the same Fountas & Pinnell and Literacy Footprints. Tr. 886. Based on the independent reading benchmarks for the District by grade level and time of year (D-109), the Student is reading at the end of second grade, beginning of third grade. Tr. 876. In addition to the September 30, 2020 assessment, similar assessments were done in November, January, March and May. Tr. 888. On November 12, 2020, REDACTED did a running record at Level N. D-116; Tr. 889. The Student read the passage out loud and had six errors which is 98% accuracy and was reading 86 words per minute and his comprehension was 9/10. Therefore, by November he was at an independent Level N. Tr. 892. At that time he was at March of third grade and had moved two levels since September. Tr. 892.

On January 21, 2021, Level O benchmark assessment was given to the Student. He read 95 words per minute and his accuracy was 99%. D-116. As a result, the teacher felt that in January he was consistently reading at an independent Level O. Tr. 896. An independent Level O is at an end of third grade, beginning of fourth grade level. Tr. 898. At this point REDACTED saw that he was internalizing some of the things that they were doing in guided reading and since he was now in her daily Wilson group he was scooping and improved his reading rate. Tr. 897. From September to January, he had made a year’s worth of progress. Tr. 899.

In May 2021, a Level P benchmark assessment was given to the Student. He was at 83 words per minute and his fluency was a 2. His accuracy was 97% and he had six errors and his comprehension was 10/10. Tr 901; D-103. REDACTED indicated that his reading was more fluent sometimes than others because he did some rereading which is typical of students with dyslexia. Tr. 901. An independent Level P puts the Student at the November to January range of fourth grade. Tr. 905. This reflects a year and a half’s progress. Tr. 905.

REDACTED testified that during the 2020-21 school year she attended two CSE meetings for the Student, a program review and an end of the year annual review. Tr. 906. The requested review took place on February 23,2021. D-8. Ms. REDACTED showed the Teacher report prepared by her and REDACTED (D-24), an Educational Evaluation (D-23), and she discussed the progress he had made on the goals up to that point. Tr. 906. The Parents had requested the meeting and they also went over an independent Neuropsychological Evaluation by REDACTED. Everyone at the CSE meeting got the documents that were going to be reviewed prior to the meeting. Tr. 908. At the meeting, she believes she reported that he was reading at an independent Level O with 99% accuracy and 95 words per minute. Tr. 908. In writing, she reported that there was progress but he still needed a lot of support. He had only been in the Wilson program for a month and was not carrying over much for encoding yet. Tr. 912. His writing started to pick up in the Spring and his sentences got longer, spelling got better, and he was working more independently. Tr. 913. In terms of math, REDACTED stated that he was a perfectionist so would sometimes get frustrated and shut down if he had to fix something. Tr. 913. He was starting to build his fact fluency, and his fluency did improve significantly on timed tasks. That gave him more independence and he could use his cognitive energy to work on standard algorithms without trying to remember the facts. Tr. 914. He also showed improvement and consistency on solving one-step word problems, however continued to need support to solve multi-step word problems and to comprehend what the question was asking. Tr. 914. REDACTED adjusted some of his goals at the meeting including changing his study skill goals to get him organized to start a lesson (Tr. 917), she lowered his words per minute to make it more achievable for him from 120 to 110 (Tr. 917-919), and added a decoding goal specific for Wilson. Tr. 917. She changed a math goal with respect to adding with no more than one prompt (Goal 4). Tr. 919. She also added some program modifications. Tr. 916. The Parents expressed difficulty with the changes in goals and felt that we were lowering expectations. Tr. 920. She stated that whenever you have a program review, you look at the goals and you know the student better and what is achievable. Tr. 921; D-8. REDACTED also added three program modifications. The first was pre-teaching of new materials. This would give him a little edge so he feft more confident going into the mini lessons. Tr. 923. Also she added visual and verbal cues because when working with multistep algorithms like long division or multistep multiplication, he benefited from having the visual and the mnemonic in front of him. Tr. 922. She also added frequent check-ins because when doing independent work, his attention is sometimes variable. Tr. 923. REDACTED believed that the program recommended for the Student in February 2021 was appropriate for the Student because he was making progress. Tr. 94. Her one concern was the language component and it was her understanding that the District had reached out regarding a Speech and Language assessment. Tr. 924. REDACTED had also mentioned the evaluation in her report. Tr. 925.

The first day of the full time non-hybrid program was April 8, 2020 and they were keeping the structure the same academically with reading, literacy, math and word study. Literacy was actually an additional 30 minutes. Tr. 926. He adjusted nicely. Overall, he was social and in the mix of kids. His math group was about the same size, his Wilson group went up two kids and the guided reading groups were the same and they had an extra special education teacher pushing in. Tr. 928. REDACTED stated that the Student had a lot going on outside of school including two tutors and tennis and indicated that he felt overwhelmed. Tr. 929. The Parent made the District aware of their intent to place the Student at REDACTED by emails dated December 30, 2020 and January 19, 2021. D-67; D-70; Tr. 932.

The annual review for the Student took place on June 24, 2021. D-9. The teachers shared his progress, went over where he progressed in his goals and what was anticipated for the next year. Tr. 934. They also shared the Teacher’s Report in the annual review meeting. D-29. At the meeting, REDACTED stated she was really happy with the progress he had made in reading and writing. Tr. 937. He also increased his stamina. He was resistant to reading anything independent at the beginning of the year, however at the end of the year, he was sustaining attention to task for reading independently for 20 minutes spurts. Tr. 938. At the beginning of the year in writing he would leave vowels out, he would leave out syllables and his sentences were very simplistic and did not match what he was able to articulate. Tr. 939. His writing was leaps and bounds where it was at the end of the year. His spelling sight word vocabulary increased. Tr. 939. He also made progress in math and was more fluent with his facts and was more independent with place value, regrouping for addition and subtraction, and for fact fluency with multiplication and division. This made it easier for him to do multistep algorithms. Tr. 941. Socially, he was comfortable with the students and teachers and had a very successful year. Tr. 941. REDACTED does not recall whether the Parent’s desire to unilaterally place him at REDACTED was discussed. Tr. 942. The 2020-21 Progress Report for goals indicated that he had achieved most of his goals. Tr. 943-948; D-34. He was working with more independence and not needing the level of prompting he had had. Tr. 943. For reading goals, through the Wilson data he had solidified closed syllables and inferencing and did nicely with comprehension. In terms of fluency, he started out with 64 words per minute and was reading 91-105. Tr. 945. Not only was there improvement, but he was happy and felt good about himself. Tr. 945. Another area of improvement was that he had developed a bigger bank of words that he could spell. In terms of the goal including “writing a narrative using three details to describe actions, he was not using transition words between sentences independently so we did not mark that goal “achieved.” In addition, although he made progress in the writing process and revising and editing, he still battled looking back at his work and needed to continue to on this. The goal relating to functions and the one regarding two-step word patterns showed that he made progress but he needed to do it with more independence. Tr. 947. As part of his program recommendation, resource room five times in a six day cycle was recommended. Tr. 951. REDACTED felt that this was important for him emotionally to receive his Wilson instruction outside the classroom. Tr. 951. The purpose of resource room was to work on multisensory reading strategies for reading and spelling. Tr. 952. REDACTED does not recall any objection to any of the goals proposed by the CSE. The concern of the Parents was fitting everything in. Tr 953. Additional program modifications were provided to the Student for the 2021-22 school year including the addition of word banks and scaffolding tasks. The word banks were to assist in retrieval of information, and the scaffolding helped make tasks less overwhelming and more manageable. Tr. 955. No ESY services were offered since there was no data to support substantial regression in reading from third to fourth grade or when he came back from vacation. Tr. 957. REDACTED stated she felt that the program the CSE created for the Student for the 2021-22 school year was appropriate. She felt that moving the multisensory reading instruction to a resource room would help him academically and emotionally, that the addition of speech was important for him and he made good progress in the co-teach model so replicating it was important with additional supports. She felt he already made progress without some of the supports so he would do even better if they were put in place. Tr. 959.

REDACTED

REDACTED is currently a first grade teacher, however co-taught third grade with REDACTED at REDACTED during the 2020-21 school year. She was the general education teacher. She is certified to teach general education grades one through six and special education grades one through six. Tr. 1237.

She is familiar with the Student as he was in her class for the 2020-21 school year for third grade. Tr. 1238. He connected with the teachers and the students quickly. Academically, he did not want to take risks at first and preferred to have a teacher by his side to initiate a task to complete an assignment. He gained confidence during the year and was able to work independently. Tr. 1240. When the year stared there were two pods and the students had to stay apart, however once everyone came back, many restrictions were lifted and he was able to form nice friendships. Tr. 1241.

For the 2020-21 school year, she did not play a role in the development of the IEP but played a role in its implementation. D-7. Although REDACTED was the general education teacher, they planned together, and used may aspect of different models of co-teaching. She was aware of the Student’s goals and tried to target them when working with him. Tr. 1242.

In terms of reading, in order to support him, they did a lot of small group and guided work with him and then brought in the Wilson program in December. Tr. 1244. After several weeks, he was picking up skills and his confidence increased. Tr. 1255. In guided reading, he was in a group of three to four students and they would read texts, have a comprehension and vocabulary focus and there would be some spelling and writing attached to it. Tr. 1244. At the beginning of the school year a spelling assessment was done and it was determined that he needed support in foundational reading and writing skills with initial blends and silent vowels, etc. Tr. 1250-1251. In addition to the Student’s work in Wilson, he was also receiving small group reading instruction, whole class reading instruction and 1:1 reading instruction. Tr. 1254. Writing was an issue especially getting his ideas on paper and he would want the teachers to be there to help him spell words or talk through ideas. There were some reversals in spelling. As the year progress, he was able to work more independently. Tr. 1258. In math, the Student needed support with word patterns, breaking them down and understanding what the problem was asking for. He had the foundational skills, it was the language that was getting in his way. Once he gained confidence, he did well. Tr. 1260-1262.

From a social-emotional perspective, he started out feeling comfortable with the teachers in close proximity but this faded quickly. He gained confidence and made friends. Some days he came in feeling overwhelmed with his schedule jam packed with soccer, tennis and tutoring and the teachers would talk him through it. Tr. 1263.

In January 2021, the teachers jointly prepared a Classroom Teacher Report which was provided for the February 23, 2021 CSE meeting. D-24; D-8. At the meeting, they reported that he was making a lot of progress in reading, starting to make progress as a speller, and in math he was making steady progress. A report card for January was also provided. D-35. There were two parent teacher conferences in fourth grade, one in the Fall and one in the Spring. Tr. 1268. She does not recall the Parent’s voicing concern at the Fall conference. Tr. 1269. In fact, there was no indication of dissatisfaction.

On December 30, 2020, the Parents sent the teachers an email advising them that they had decided to apply to REDACTED. Tr. 1270; D-67. REDACTED stated that she was surprised. Tr. 1270. She stated that the Parents were opposed to the Wilson program and so was the reading tutor when they first introduced it. Tr. 1271. The District received another email on January 21, 2022 stating that he would be attending REDACTED in the Fall. Tr. 1273. Both REDACTED and REDACTED thought he was doing well and making a lot of progress and did not think a transition was necessary. Tr. 1273. He was doing well in reading and they could see a transference of skills between the Wilson group and his ability in reading. He was using the strategies to decode and beginning to use them to encode. His fluency rate was improving. Tr. 1274. Between the end of January and June, there was a lot of progress in reading. They used the Fountas & Pinnell assessment for the Student. Tr. 1276; D-103. The Student started the year at a Level L at the beginning of the 2020-21 school year and was at a Level P in May. Tr. 1280. She said it is significant progress. Tr 1280. In writing, he was writing more independently, getting more ideas out, and he was using the things he was learning in Wilson and applying them in his encoding. In math, some of the more complex areas like converting fractions and long division required breaking it down into steps. Tr. 1281. From a social-emotional perspective, he was making nice friendships. Tr. 1282. At the end of the year, they also did another Teacher Report indicating progress. Tr. 1283.

REDACTED attended another CSE meeting on June 24, 2022. She shared with the committee the progress he had made and the gains he was making in the Wilson group and the continued progress they thought he would make with the goals created for fifth grade. Tr. 1284. The information was consistent with what was in the Teacher Report. D-29. REDACTED believed that the program developed at the June 24, 2021 IEP meeting was appropriate for the Student. They already knew the Wilson program was working as was the ICT program. He was comfortable with the students and he was progressing. Tr. 1292.

Rebuttal Witness – REDACTED The District called back REDACTED as a rebuttal witness. She was the special education teacher in the co-teaching class for the Student during the 2021-22 school year. Tr. 2470. She stated that their interactions with the mother were positive and complimentary and there was no reason for them to think that the Parent was losing faith in their teaching. Tr. 2481. They talked about everything with the Parents, not just the Student. They never discussed “failing grade”, REDACTED stated she does not use those kinds of words and they do not grade things that way. Tr. 2474. If the Student struggled during the day, often times they would remediate and then just give the Parent a breakdown of the day. Tr. 2474.

In terms of frustration tolerance, this was discussed between the teacher and Parent because that did impact academics but it was often not because of work but if something happened in the morning. They supported him to address frustration intolerance by talking it through with him and through counseling. Tr. 2475. The Parent indicated at one time that he was getting counseling outside of school and did not need it in school, however the teachers would meet with the psychologist and they would talk about things that were getting in the Student’s way and the psychologist would plan a lesson plan or activity around that. Tr. 2476. REDACTED also testified that she talked with the Parent often about the Wilson program because she was not really on board at first and she discussed how he was doing and how she and the tutor could support him at home. Tr. 2477.

REDACTED stated that she was not told by the Parent that she applied to REDACTED until the end of December when the Parent sent an email and REDACTED was shocked. Tr. 2478. She stated that she never told the Parent “I get it now”. Tr. 2479. She felt that he was making connections and making progress. Tr. 2479. She did, however, hear about the application process through the Student who indicated that he was going to his new school for testing. Tr. 2479. She believes it was around October and he was also being pulled out for testing by REDACTED. Tr. 2479. Even though she knew that he was applying, she was generally surprised in December, because he was doing so well. Tr. 2481. They received a letter from the Parent on January 19, 2021 stating that the Student would be attending REDACTED for the 2021-22 school year. D-70. Following that the District received a Ten Day letter from the lawyer dated February 24, 2021 stating that they were privately placing the Student and requesting tuition reimbursement. D-74; Tr. 2483. Following that REDACTED had a conversation with the Parent stating that she was really excited and so was her son that he would be attending REDACTED. Tr. 2483.

REDACTED also testified that whenever the tutors reached out to her, she responded, however she does not usually reach out to tutors. Tr. 2485. REDACTED testified that the Parent wanted the teachers to prepare assignments a week in advance so that the tutor could work on them with the Student, however, it was at the beginning of the pandemic, and they were not able to plan out a week ahead of time. Tr. 2486. Under normal circumstances they were planned out weeks in advance. Tr. 2486. Due to the change in circumstances they would plan but based on where the kids were at, they needed to shift on a moments notice. Tr. 2487. They felt that in this time period they needed flexibility and actually felt it would be detrimental to give him work a week ahead and then have to pivot. Tr. 2467.

REDACTED testified that D-109 is Independent Reading Benchmark Chart. They assess students five times a year at their independent reading levels. Tr. 2490.

Parents’ Case The Parents called seven witnesses, each of the Parents, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED and REDACTED and placed 45 documents in evidence. P-A—P-GG, P-II, P-KK—P-MM, P-OO-P-PP, P-SS, P-UU, P-AAA-P-FFF.

REDACTED

REDACTED is a CSE liaison at the REDACTED. Tr. 1367. She is the liaison between REDACTED and the CSE and speaks on behalf of many REDACTED students at CSE meetings. She also works with families to help them understand the IEP process. Tr. 1368. She also helps parents understand programs available to them in their public schools when they transition back. Tr. 1368. P-MM.

The REDACTED is a private full-time special education school. The mission is to identify students who have been unsuccessful in learning to read and write previously, and to give them the tools they need to be successful. Tr. 1370. There are three criteria for acceptance of students: (1) the students should be average or above average in their cognitive potential; (2) the students must have a diagnosed language-based learning disability; (3) the students cannot have behaviors that impede their learning and distract others in the classroom. Tr. 1370. The REDACTED campus has a lower school for grades one through five and middle school and the REDACTED campus has a lower school and a middle school that houses grades six through eight and a small ninth grade. Tr. 1371. There are 930 students at REDACTED, with 300 in REDACTED, 350 in REDACTED middle school and another 300 in the lower school. Tr. 1371; P-II. All REDACTED classes are no more than 12 students; in the lower school there are usually six to ten in language arts and math and eight to twelve in other subject areas. Tr. 1372. All teachers at REDACTED are expected to take three capstone classes offered by the REDACTED Institute. All teachers have to start as assistant teachers under the mentorship of a head teacher. Tr. 1374. At the REDACTED Institute, there are reading classes, classes in ADHD, social-emotional classes, etc. The courses required are Preventing Academic Failure which is a multisensory reading program utilizing Orton Gillingham, which is very phonics based. Tr. 1377. The second class is a writing class which utilizes a very skill-based, structured writing program which focuses on sentence writing, paragraph writing, organization of essays, etc. Tr. 1378. There is also a class on language dynamics because all of their students have language-based learning disabilities. These classes are essential because they are covered in every academic class. Tr. 1376. There is also a Singapore math course, which teacher take, which focuses on teaching students the concepts behind math rather than just role memorization. Tr. 1378. The teachers have to take the capstone classes when they start and refresh every five years. Tr. 1376. There is also professional development for all teachers every Friday and for new teachers very Tuesday. Tr. 1376.

The ELA program is delivered at REDACTED with three periods of English Language Arts for 120 minutes a day, which includes a period of reading, writing, and a skills class. Tr. 1381. The reading class is either from controlled readers, which is text they have been previously taught to decode explicitly, and then they move on to easier trade books which they are reading together with the teacher. The class focuses on decoding and comprehension. Tr. 1381. The writing class is another 40 minute class focusing on sentence and paragraph writing, the mechanics of writing, syntax, grammar and spelling. There is also a skills class which covers decoding and encoding. Tr. 1382. Students also have math every day and follow for the most part the Common core curriculum. They usually use Go Math and the Singapore Math model. Tr. 1383. There is a lot of pre-teaching and math is covered at a slower pace and in a little less depth. Tr. 1384. Math classes are homogeneously grouped.

Science and social studies follow the New York State curriculum and are heterogeneously grouped. There are no more than 12 students and two teachers. Tr. 1385. In ELA and math, the students are grouped on how they appear when they are initially screened, as well as prior teacher input and groups change as needed.

There are specials like art, music, computer, lunch, recess and a focus period. Tr. 1387. The focus period is a class at the end of the day where the students organize, start their homework and ask questions. It is the last 20 minutes every day. Tr. 1388. Physical education is a typical class. In terms of social-emotional support, the lower school has a school psychologist and three teachers and counselors are available to meet with students, parents and teachers. Tr. 1389. If a student requires behavioral support, a behavior plan may be developed. Tr. 1390. They are light on technology because the focus is on remediating skills, however they do have technology in the classroom to make sure the teaching is multisensory, as well as white boards and computers. Tr. 1391.

REDACTED is familiar with the Student because she reviewed his reports, spoke to his teachers, observed the Student in the classroom and prepared and participated in an IEP meeting on May 22, 2022. There is a Test Grid which summarizes all standardized and internal assessments done at REDACTED. P-U. The coding tests and IOWAs are given every Spring and when he was given them when initially screened on January 7, 2020. REDACTED was not able to interpret the tests, she is simply stating what they are. Tr. 1409. These tests are administered 1:1 so testing accommodations are not necessary. The purpose of the Iowa testing is to obtain a baseline. Tr. 1424.

REDACTED testified with respect to the Student’s REDACTED Student Schedule for the 2021-22 school year. Tr. 1433. The Student has three periods of ELA every day, however it is different every day. Tr. 1434. She stated that he does not get counseling, speech or resource room. Tr 1433. There are ten students and two teachers in his ELA class. REDACTED is the lead teacher and has a Master’s degree in education and her NYS certification and is in her fifth year at REDACTED. The other teacher is REDACTED. She has her Bachelor’s degree and is working towards her Master’s degree. Tr. 1436. Based on conversations with the Student’s English Language Arts teacher, at the beginning of the year, he struggled with decoding, mostly the unfamiliar multisyllabic words. Tr. 1439. Also, his comprehension with higher level questions liking drawing inferences and making conclusions was an area of weakness and he needed a lot of scaffolding. Tr. 1439. He tended to use long convoluted answers and had difficulty expressing or distinguishing between relevant and irrelevant information. His spelling was weaker than his decoding and his handwriting was small and he could not write more than a simplistic sentence. Tr. 1440. His teachers indicated that he had some difficulties with attention and executive functioning. Tr. 1440. For decoding, he was in the PAF reading program. Also, he practiced the multisyllabic words in the skills class. Tr 1440. She visited his class once for the purpose of observing him and went in another time to observe another student. Tr. 1442. The specific things that are done specifically for him are sitting in the front, getting 1:1 feedback and a lot of reminders for routines and attending. He also needs to be held accountable to initiate tasks and to stay on task through nonverbal cues.

REDACTED completed an observation of the Student in his fifth grade ELA class on March 8, 2022. P-SS. Based on the observation, she stated that he was on task, following along with all routines. From time to time, the teacher would give some nonverbal cues to keep him focused. She stated that he was eager to participate. He read from a wordlist and made some decoding errors and self-corrected on second try. He also read aloud and answered follow up questions. Tr. 1450. They do not always conduct an observation for a reevaluation but REDACTED stated she wanted to see if what she observed was consistent with what the teachers told her. REDACTED spoke to the teacher, REDACTED after the observation and the teacher reported that the Student needed to be at REDACTED, was relying on all supports, and “was like a textbook REDACTED student”. Tr. 1454. The Student was bright, however required supports in decoding and comprehension and executive functioning and also needed 1:1 support throughout the day. Tr. 1454; P-DD. The Winter Progress report was shared at the May 22 CSE meeting. Tr. 1455.

In his math class, there were two teachers, REDACTED and REDACTED. REDACTED has a Master’s in special education and this is approximately her fifth year of teaching. Tr. 1460. REDACTED has her Bachelor’s degree. REDACTED spoke at the CSE meeting about the Student’s math needs after speaking with the math teacher. Tr. 1461. She learned that he has good math thinking but is not confident in his abilities with his math facts. Tr. 1461. He needs a lot of reassurance and can be careless and misstep. He needs modeling and needs the language of math taught to him, he needs slower paced instruction and repetition. Tr. 1462. He is grouped heterogeneously and there are two teachers and ten students. Specifically with respect to the Student, he gets more 1:1 support with multistep problems and overall attending, staying on task, and staying organized. Tr. 1464. The teacher advised REDACTED that the Student is progressing nicely with the supports in place and is becoming more confident. Tr. 1465. She also reported that independently he is closer to a fourth grade level in Math and in ELA, he is able to read fifth grade level books with a lot of teacher support, but independently would be a little below grade level. Tr. 1465.

In Social Studies there are 10-12 students in this class. His teacher is REDACTED and she does not remember the other teacher. The teacher reported that he loves social studies because he has a wealth of background knowledge and takes pride in his ability to contribute. He does, however, need support in note taking, understanding main ideas and he needs reminders to stay on task and keep his materials organized. Tr. 1467. The teacher reported that he is confident, progressing with his understanding of concepts, learning how to take notes and doing well on assessments. Tr. 1469.

There are also 10-12 students and two teachers in his Science class. REDACTED, the lead teacher has her Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in education. REDACTED spoke with REDACTED and she told her that he does nicely on quizzes and labs, however does require direct instruction and comprehension check ins. Tr. 1469.

At the reevaluation meeting in May 2022, REDACTED reviewed the evaluation results. Tr. 1471. REDACTED did an anecdotal update based on her conversations with the teachers, what they are doing and the progress the Student is making. Tr. 1471. REDACTED testified that REDACTED chaired the meeting and was happy to hear how the Student was doing but indicated that they are a public CSE team and have to recommend a program that is available in District. Tr. 1474. The CSE did not recommend other programs and were all in agreement with the program recommended. Tr. 1475.

REDACTED

REDACTED is a school psychologist with the District. As part of her position, she conducts evaluations. She is a certified school psychologist. Tr. 1630. She is familiar with the Student and conducted his psychological evaluation this year. For purposes of the evaluation, she reviewed past IEPS and psychological evaluations. She did a classroom observation and spoke to the Student’s mom. Tr. 1632. She also spoke with REDACTED, the special education teacher that conducted the academic evaluation and REDACTED, the speech pathologist that also conducted an evaluation. The evaluation was done over two days. She was with him for approximately three hours. He came after full day of school and told her halfway through the testing that he had taken the Iowa state test for several hours in the morning. Tr. 1634. When he initially started, he was a little lethargic but after a snack, he was focused and attentive and pushed through. Tr. 1635.

She used the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, fifth addition (WISC-V) and the Behavior Assessment System for Children, self-report version (BASC). P-BBB. Overall, he had an IQ score of 101 which is in the 53rd percentile and is considered average. Tr. 1636. On verbal comprehension, he was in the 70th percentile which is a solid strength and was also in past testing. Tr. 1637. In the area of visual-spatial reasoning he also scored at the 70th percentile. His past scores were also in the average range. Tr. 1638. For fluid reasoning, he scored at the 79th percentile which is a high average range. Tr. 1640. Quantitative reasoning definitely can point to math skills and math skill development and he scored at the 50th percentile which is right in the middle of the average range. Tr. 1640. His fluid reasoning score was in the 79% percentile when tested while in 2019 it was in the 8th percentile and in 2021 it was in the 27th percentile. Tr. 1642. She cannot speak to the behavioral observations at the time of the other testing though attention, focus, stamina and comfort level can play a role as well as anxiety. Tr. 1642. She can only speak to her observations during testing and he appeared relaxed and motivated. Tr. 1643. REDACTED confirmed that her test was the same assessment given in April 2019 and January 2021. Tr. 1644.

In working memory, the Student scored in the 16th percentile. In 2019, he scored at the 19th percentile and in 2021 he scored in the 8th percentile. REDACTED stated that working memory can be impacted by attention, internal distractions and things like that. Tr. 1645. She stated that there was a significant difference between his auditory memory which was in the second percentile and his visual memory which was in the 63rd percentile. Tr. 1655. His processing speed was in the 63rd percentile whereas in 2019 it was in the 9th percentile and in 2021, it was in the 37th percentile. Both the 37th percentile and 63rd percentile are in the average range. Tr. 1648.

REDACTED believes the results she received from the Student are valid estimates of his current levels of cognitive functioning. Tr. 1649. REDACTED attended a CSE meeting on May 23, 2022 for the 2022-23 school year (which is not part of this case). Tr. 1649. Her recollection was that at the meeting, they discussed that he made progress in some areas and not in others but she does not recall who the REDACTED representative was and did not have her notes in front of her. Tr. 1653. She stated that she focused on the social-emotional piece and he still needed support in that area. Tr. 1653. On the BASC-3, he reported some levels of social stress and depression, he has difficulty establishing and maintaining close relationships, sometimes feels isolated and has a lower self-image and continues to need support in that area. Tr. 1654. He did state that he was feeling comfortable in his school setting, and his mom is trying to set up playdates to make him feel more connected with his REDACTED classmates.

A classroom observation is done every three years and she conducted one. Tr. 1656. Her evaluation was noted as a reevaluation. She stated that the District’s procedure is that every three years all students who have an IEP undergo a three year evaluation including a psychological, an educational, a classroom observation and a physical exam. Tr. 1662. The classroom observation is a component of the reevaluation. Tr. 1676. REDACTED stated that based on the observation, she recalled that the Student was engaged, participated and transitioned to snack and back to the classroom setting appropriately. Tr. 1685.

REDACTED

REDACTED is a special education teacher at REDACTED, teaches resource room and has students in grades one through five. Tr. 1708. This is her third year. She is certified in New York State in children with disabilities and general education grades one through six. Tr.. 1709. As part of her job she does Educational evaluations. Tr. 1710.

She is familiar with the Student as she conducted an Educational Evaluation for him In the Spring 2022. She first met him on the first day of testing, March 11, 2022. Tr. 1710. Prior to meeting him, she reviewed his previous Educational evaluations and IEPs. Tr. 1711. She also spoke with REDACTED, REDACTED and REDACTED. Tr. 1711. She conducted the Feifer Assessment of Reading (FAR). The FAR is more in depth in looking at reading skills than the WIAT. The Phonological Index is the Student’s ability to independently sound out unfamiliar words in print and to seek multiple sounds together in order to accurately recognize a specific word. The Student performed in the average range on most subtests with only nonsense words in the below average category. Tr. 1717. Nonsense words decoding correlates to pseudo decoding and the scores were similar. D-23; P-CCC. This also correlates with REDACTED’s Word Attack on the Woodcock Johnson. D-21. In REDACTED’s testing the Student scored in the 9th percentile so he actually went up in REDACTED’s testing and remained the same with respect to letter word identification, for REDACTED he was in the 19th percentile, in REDACTED’s Woodcock Johnson, he was in the 27th percentile and in the FAR he was in the 37th percentile. Tr. 1723-1724. With respect to oral reading fluency, he scored in the 39th percentile on the FAR, on the Woodcock Johnson he was in the 16th percentile and then went up to the 21st percentile. Tr. 1725. In positioning sounds (where you need to isolate sounds, decode and blend them together) on the FAR he scored in the average range. The fluency index is made up of four subtests and put into a computer. There was no comparable test done. This is also true for verbal fluency, where he scored above average. Tr. 1729. With respect to irregular word fluency, he scored in the average range (32nd percentile). On the Woodcock Johnson on a similar test, letter word recognition, he scored in the 19th percentile (D-21) and then on the WIAT he scored in the 27th percentile. Tr. 1731. There is no similar testing with respect to Orthographical processing on the FAR. Tr. 1732.

REDACTED did not recall if she reviewed a Speech and Language Evaluation. On semantic concepts he scored in the average range, however there is no comparable test on the Woodcock Johnson or WIAT. Tr. 1736. There is also no corollary with language retrieval or morphological processing in the Woodcock Johnson or the WIAT. Tr. 1736. On silent reading fluency comprehension he scored in the 79th percentile. This indicates that he is understanding what he is reading. The passage comprehension on the Woodcock Johnson is similar and he scored in the 13th percentile and on the WIAT in reading comprehension, he scored in the 34th percentile. Tr. 1740.

Based on the testing, REDACTED testified that her overall impressions of him as a reader were that his scores were mostly in the average range. Tr. 1742. For the Feifer Assessment of Materials (FAM), she does not believe that the individual tests did not correlate. Tr. 1745. Overall her impression is that he is an average math student. He had a few areas that he had some below average scores on but no glaring math issues. Tr. 1745. On the addition fluency and on the WIAT he was in the 47th percentile. Tr. 1747.

REDACTED also did the Test of Written Language (TOWL). Tr. 1747. On the vocabulary subtest, he scored in the average range. On the spelling subtest, he scored in the 25th percentile. On the WIAT (D-21) he scored in the fifth percentile and on the Woodcock Johnson he scored in the 7th percentile. Tr. 1749. On the TOWL in punctuation he scored in the average range. On the essay he created, he scored in the average range. Tr. 1752. There are no related tests on either the WIAT or Woodcock Johnson. Tr. 1752. He also scored in the average range on story composition and there is no comparable testing on the WIAT or Woodcock Johnson. Tr. 1752-1753. Her overall impressions of his written language skills based on the TOWL testing were that he was a fairly average writer but he did not like to write. Tr. 1754.

After she completed the evaluations, she met with the mother, REDACTED, and REDACTED to go over the results. She did not know how he was doing at REDACTED. Tr. 1755. In looking at his evaluation from REDACTED to REDACTED he made progress in many areas and from REDACTED’s evaluation to the FAR, he also made improvements. Tr. 1756.

From looking at the four evaluations (including her own) REDACTED testified that the Student had been making progress from the initial evaluation in April 2019 through the present. Tr. 1763.

REDACTED

REDACTED is certified as a Teacher of the Speech and Hearing Handicapped. Tr. 2002. She developed curriculum materials to teach social skills, writing mechanics and reading. She has 30 hours of instructional training in Orton-Gillingham which she received in July 2021. Tr. 2001. She also advocates for students with Speech-language and literacy deficits. She gets calls from developmental pediatricians to evaluate students for language learning deficits. She reviews the reports from the school, does her own independent evaluation, and then goes to IEP meeting to discuss results. Tr. 1976. The reports she is given usually include a speech and language report, a neuropsych report, etc. Tr. 1977. REDACTED also has her own private practice where she works with students with dyslexia and language learning deficits which includes problems with reading. Tr. 1978.

REDACTED stated that she is familiar with the Fountas & Pinnell system because she reviews IEPs that have this or other systems listed on it and has had to learn about the system. Tr. 1982. She believes a level P in Fountas & Pinnell correlates to the end of third grade based upon her years at looking at charts. Tr. 1988. She stated that she has never administered a Fountas & Pinnell assessment. Tr. 1988.

REDACTED stated that she was familiar with the Student because she conducted an Expressive Language evaluation on him on April 14, 2021. P-R; D-25; Tr. 1997. She stated that the assessment she did was qualitative. Tr. 1997. She stated that the Student had significant difficulty with “expressing from the text expressive language.” Tr. 1998. She stated that if he cannot clearly express himself, he cannot write that information and he is not understanding it. Tr. 1999. When she first was contacted by the Parent, she was going to conduct a broader speech and language evaluation, however since REDACTED’s evaluation was comprehensive, she focused only on expressive language. Tr. 2021. She stated that “expressive language is the student’s ability to verbally express his/her ideas in sentences with appropriate vocabulary and sentences.” Tr. 2021. The evaluation took an hour and no standardized normed assessments were used. She indicated that he did better at summarizing fourth grade level text then he did at third grade level text. Tr. 2026. She does not recall if she had the IEP at the time of the evaluation but she had REDACTED’s report. Tr. 2032. REDACTED testified that the recommendations in paragraph 1, 2 and found in her report related to receptive language and written language, not expressive language.

REDACTED

The next witness was REDACTED. She has her Ph.D. in clinical psychology and has had a private practice in psychotherapy and neuropsychology since 2019. P-PP; Tr. 1829. REDACTED stated that the Student has been evaluated by another psychologist in 2019 and the Parents contacted her because the Student had been diagnosed with a reading and writing disorder and was still struggling with literacy in school and they wanted to get a more in-depth evaluation. Tr. 1832. Before the evaluation, she interviewed the Parents, reviewed his academic records, reviewed previous evaluations, any IEPs he had and submitted questionnaires to the teachers to get information on the Student’s attention, executive functioning and social-emotional functioning in school. Tr. 1833.

The first test she did was the WISC-V. His verbal IQ is a relative strength for him. There were also verbal comprehension subtests including similarities and vocabulary and for his age. She testified that he is exactly where he should be in terms of being able to think abstractly and make connections between information he may know and being a concrete thinker. His vocabulary is in the 75th percentile which indicates he has a good grasp and understanding of words and knows what they mean. Tr. 1836. Therefore, REDACTED stated that when she focuses on these two items, his fund of knowledge was exactly where it should be. Tr. 1837. It’s also a measure of long-term memory, his holding on to discrete factual information he gets in school, and the comprehension tells her that he is intellectually curious and is picking up information from his environment.

The visual-spatial skills and fluid reasoning have nothing to do with prior learning and they are problem solving skills. The visual-spatial score indicates that when the Student is under pressure he may have difficulty working towards a goal by trial and error and being flexible. Tr. 1838. His scores on fluid reasoning skills indicate that he may have a bit of inconsistency in his ability to figure out information he has never seen before by using what he as in front of him. Tr. 1838. She also looked at deductive reasoning reconciliation which is picture concepts which was low average, which is solving problems by using basic logic and that would be a challenge for the Student. Tr. 1839. In math there was also numerous reasoning and applying computational abilities and that was in the 37th percentile. This can be vulnerable to challenges with working memory. Tr. 1840. With respect to his working memory skills, his immediate auditory attention was poor, his working memory was vulnerable, and his visual working memory was in the low average range.

With respect to the Beery-Buktenica Development Test of Visual Motor Integration, and using subtests, his visual perception was well developed but his motor coordination was not. This has to do with graphomotor control and affects him in terms of being able to write quickly and neatly. This may have impacted his writing fluency. Tr. 1842.

REDACTED then stated that she used the Woodcock-Johnson IV Test of Achievement to test academic skills. Tr. 1842. She stated that his reading skills when she evaluated him were “a couple of years below where he should be.” His sight word vocabulary was at a 2.6 grade level. Tr. 1843. When reading simple sentences with vocabulary he was below grade level and from the WISC he got a 75th percentile vocabulary word knowledge. She stated that his decoding skills were poor and this affects your comprehension. In oral reading, he struggled to read accurately. Tr. 1844.

On the OWLS written expressions, he was held accountable for all aspects of writing and his abilities were poor. Tr. 1847. His spelling was quite challenged as was his ability to word some of his sentences properly. Tr. 1847. His spelling errors are both phonological and orthographic. Tr. 1848.

In terms of broad math scores, he is up to par with his basic math skills. She stated that “those really solidify in the fourth grade and he was where he needed to be.” Tr. 1851. Straightforward math calculations and word problems were challenging for him. She believes this is because they are language-based. Tr. 1852. He did better on the CELF-S understanding spoken paragraphs then he did on the Woodcock Johnson IV Test of Oral Language because he was offered a lot more context and plot and he was able to grasp onto it. Tr. 1855. REDACTED gave the Student the Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning because he scored low on picture span in his IQ test. His story memory is strong, however his visual memory skills were at the lowest end of average. Tr. 1856.

On the Gray Oral Reading Test, he scored at the 2.2 grade level on oral reading and had a great deal of difficulty reading accurately and it was choppy, effortful and an arduous process. Tr. 1858. Based on the Comprehension Test of Phonological Processing, his phonological awareness fell in the 6th percentile. Rapid naming skills were a relative strength for the Student. Tr. 1861. REDACTED stated that this tells her he has a dyslexic profile because he as a normal IQ, yet his early reading skills do not get off the ground. She stated that this profile makes sense for somebody that is wired to understand language but cannot get through the words on a page or produce words on a page because of spelling. Tr. 1861.

Under Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language, he did well as he scored in the average range. He can make inferences. Tr. 1862. This is consistent with his verbal IQ. Tr. 1867. The next test was the Continuous Performance Test, which is a computerized test of sustained attention and he produced a fairly normal profile. Tr. 1863.

The next test was the Conners Third Edition Rating Scale which she gave to his teachers and the Parents to get information regarding the Student’s ability to grasp in the classroom. The Parents scored in the highly significant range and the teachers in the average range. The teachers sees the Student as a lot more restless in school than at home. Tr. 1868. REDACTED stated that based on her review of the scores, Parents and teachers are viewing him as having challenges with learning and areas of emotional lability. Tr. 1865.

On the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning, Parents and teachers also filled out questionnaires. It appears that Parents feel he is okay at home but in school he has difficulty self-regulating to a significant degree, and at home he has difficulty monitoring his performance on tasks. Tr. 1867.

The Wisconsin Card Sorting Test is a test of executive functions. The Student got a high score on this. Tr. 1869. The Delis Kaplan Executive Functioning Test looks at verbal fluency, impulse control and the ability to plan and problem solve. Tr. 1869. The testing showed that he is able to brainstorm well. Therefore, he should be able to access verbal concepts and words very quickly and that should not slow him down which is the first step in writing. Tr. 1869. He does have difficultly shifting his attention back and forth between concepts. He did have difficulty with pacing himself on the color word inference, however he is not impulsive, unless he gets dysregulated and anxious. Tr. 1870. On the Turner Test he did okay with planning when he had a couple of variables to work with to create a shorter plan, however the more information he had to manage, the longer it took him. Tr. 1871.

The Behavioral Assessment System for Children/Adolescents is a questionnaire given to the Parents and teachers to assess him from a social and emotional perspective at home and at school. Tr. 1877. The Parents are reporting significant anxiety but the teachers are not. Tr. 1872. On the Student’s questionnaire there were no elevated scores. Tr. 1873.

REDACTED met with the Student four times for two hour sessions. He would periodically ask to see his mother and connect with her. He was pleasant to work with, interacted well with her, and was very inquisitive. He was generally attentive, however was having difficulty sustaining his stamina. Tr. 1876. He worked hard and was invested in the process. Tr. 1876. He used his compensatory strategies, would read to himself when trying to problem solve and would repeat things to himself when doing tests of working memory. Tr. 1877. He told the evaluator that math and reading were “tricky”, and that spelling and writing were his worst subjects. Tr. 1878.

Based on REDACTED’s review of the assessments, her impression of the Student as a learner is that he has more potential and is “grossly” behind for a boy that is in the middle of fourth grade. Tr. 1880. He was diagnosed with dyslexia, specific learning disorder with impairment in mathematics, combined attention deficit (ADHD), unspecified depressive disorder and unspecified anxiety disorder. Tr. 1881. REDACTED made the recommendation that he belonged in a special education school tailored for students with language-based learning disabilities. Tr. 1881. She stated that the Student was evaluated one time before in 2019 and then by REDACTED in 2020 and his scores plummeted in terms of his performance. Tr. 1887. His intellectual testing remains constant which supports higher level learning. She stated that she felt he was over two years behind in his literacy and learning skills. Tr. 1882. Her next recommendation was that he receive a PAF program providing for 30-40 minutes a day of direct instruction in writing and letter formation, an hour of direct instruction in reading comprehension and vocabulary development and one hour of tutorial with direct instruction in phonics and decoding. Tr. 1883. She made this recommendation because based on the Woodcock Johnson, the OWLS, and the CTOPP, his skills were poor and he needed very concentrated consistent instruction in these areas. Tr. 1883.

As Parent Exhibit UU, REDACTED compared the scores of (1) the 2020-21 Educational Evaluation conducted by the District when the Student was in fourth grade (D-23); (2) the 2019 Neuropsychological Evaluation conducted by REDACTED in second grade (D-12); and (3) REDACTED’s Neuropsychological Evaluation (P-Q).

REDACTED testified that she was familiar with the February 2021 IEP for the 2020-21 school year as she was in attendance at the meeting and was there to go over her evaluation results and to clarify any questions and help create a program for the Student. Tr. 1894. She does not remember how long she stayed at the meeting, however she remembers participating. She specifically stated that “I remember feeling like we were on the same page, and it felt like it was a good meeting. It was a cooperative meeting.” Tr. 1896. Based upon a comparison of her recommendations in her Neuropsychological Report (P-Q) and the recommendations on the IEP (D-8), she believes there is not enough direct instruction based upon how behind he was. Tr. 1898. She recommended 15 hours of direct instruction and she is seeing five hours of direct instruction plus 15 hours of integrated co-teaching. Tr. 1898. She said he needed a strong phonics-based program, and he needed something that would immerse him in phonics instruction for a greater part of every day. Tr. 1898-1899.

REDACTED testified that she did not attend the IEP meeting dated June 24, 2021. D-9. She felt again, by looking at the program recommendations that he was getting less than the recommended 15 hours a week of direct instruction and that was not sufficient to meet his needs. Tr. 1901.

Student’s mother The next witness was the mother. She stated that in second grade, the Student attended REDACTED in New REDACTED. Tr. 2064. At the end of second grade in the Spring of 2019, the Parents had the Student evaluated by REDACTED because he had been struggling in school in reading. REDACTED is a private school. The Parents asked the school in first grade and second grade whether he required more support in reading, and the teachers indicated that he did not. For nursery, he was at a temple program, which he attended for three years in the two to five program. Tr. 2066. No one suggested he be evaluated in nursery school. Tr. 2066.

When they received the evaluation from REDACTED, they were shocked. Tr. 2067. They were told that the Student had a significant form of dyslexia, and they were not sure how to approach it. D-12. They immediately contacted REDACTED in May and decided to get an IEP for the following school year. Tr. 2069. Although they were moving to REDACTED, they were not able to obtain an IEP in REDACTED because they did not have residency there yet, so decided to obtain an IEP in the REDACTED. Tr.2071. At the same time, they were investigating REDACTED. Tr, 2069. They contacted REDACTED, and sent in an application, however, were told that there was no space for another student at that time.

In August 2018, they had the Student see a reading tutor as he was starting to exhibit frustration in school around reading. Tr. 2074. They also started to see a therapist around this time due to his sadness and anxiety around reading. Tr. 2075. After school ended in June 2019, they got all the information they needed from REDACTED and set up an IEP meeting with REDACTED. Once they received the IEP, they provided all of the documents to REDACTED and she spoke to the Parents several times on the phone and facilitated a meeting with the principal and vice principal at REDACTED. Tr. 2076-2077. She gave them reports from REDACTED, from the reading specialist, a report from his tutor, as well as a copy of the Neuropsychological evaluation and IEP.

An IEP was created for the Student on August 29, 2019 with the District. The Parent does not recall whether there was an IEP meeting held to review this. Although REDACTED was his home school, they had placed him at REDACTED for third grade since the IEP recommended an ICT class there was not an opening at REDACTED. His teachers for third grade were REDACTED and REDACTED. Tr. 2080. The Parent stated that when she started the year, she felt like they were in a place where the IEP could support him in the way he needed to be supported. Tr. 2081. They had a reading tutor that lived down the street, and they were very excited to start the Student in third grade.

During the school year the teachers were reporting to the Parent that the Student was working hard, and he was conscientious and he was thriving, and that his reading level was only one letter below where he needed to be, and they felt that within a year he was going to take off because he had so much more confidence than he did at the beginning of the year. Tr. 2082. It became clear during COVID with remote learning that he was unable to complete the work, therefore the Parent felt that the information that the teachers were reporting throughout the year was erroneous. Tr. 2083. The trigger was the first night of the pandemic when they got math homework, and he was unable to do the problems. This occurred with respect to math, reading, and writing. Tr 2089.

They communicated their concerns with the teachers. They were in crisis mode at this point, as the Student could not complete any of his homework. In terms of tutoring, he was seeing REDACTED, who was a reading specialist in REDACTED. Prior to that, he was seeing REDACTED, who was a reading specialist in New York City. He began working with REDACTED in July or August 2019, and she finished working with him in the summer of 2021. Tr. 2088. At the beginning, she worked with him at least two days, usually three days a week, and once the pandemic started, they hired a homework person, REDACTED in April to primarily help support him in getting the material, downloading material, and completing the material and supporting his executive functioning needs. Tr. 2089. REDACTED worked with the Student every day and often on weekends. Tr. 2090. According to the Parent, the tutors reached out to the teachers from time to time, however, the teachers did not reach out to the Parents, except when they were specifically asked questions by the tutors. Tr. 2091.

For fourth grade, the Student attended REDACTED, as a place in the ICT program opened up for him over the summer. They did not apply to REDACTED during their third grade year because they thought things were going well until the pandemic started. The Parent testified that they decided to do another Neuropsychological evaluation for the Student in the fall of 2020 because they realized the District had no idea how much the Student knew and how much he did not know. According to the Parents, REDACTED's report revealed that the Students decoding skills in fourth grade were at a first grade level. Tr. 2099. He was also seeing an outside therapist at this time in school. At REDACTED, during third grade he was mandated to receive counseling in a group. Unfortunately, the counselor made them aware that there was not a group available and he would be seen one-to-one. He did not enjoy going to counseling and being asked questions by the therapist and he felt that it was a chore. Tr. 2101. The Parents went back to the District and tried to brainstorm and see if they could put him in a therapeutic group with other children with dyslexia, however, they were unable to do so. Tr. 2103. In fourth grade he also had counseling. Again, there was no group of kids who all had dyslexia that could all be in a group together, and again, he often was one-on-one with the counselor. The Parents stated that counseling was not an experience that made him happy. Tr. 2103.

Once the Parents got the results of REDACTED's evaluation in October of 2020, they decided to apply to REDACTED again. Tr, 2104. It should be noted that the date of the report is January 25, 2021. Tr. 2109. The Parent said it was her understanding that REDACTED provided them with her results before the report was drafted. Tr. 2106. The reason they applied to REDACTED so early in the fourth grade school year was because the teachers reported that he was having failing grades, that he was having difficulty almost all the time in math and reading, and they felt that this was significant. Tr. 2108. His teachers were REDACTED and REDACTED. The mother stated that she had to apply to REDACTED prior to January of 2021 because of the way the admissions process worked and that his teachers knew they were applying, as she told them in the fall of 2020. Tr. 2110-2111. The Parent stated that when she told REDACTED, she was applying to REDACTED she nodded and said she got it. Tr. 2113. On November 9, 2020, the Parents sent an email to the teachers suggesting that they send the tutor, REDACTED, the homework assignments on Friday or Saturday for the following week. The teachers stated that they could not provide the tutor with this kind of information in advance at tht time. The Parent also indicated that there was no communication between the other tutor, REDACTED, and the teachers. Tr. 2116.

On January 26, 2021, the Parent sent an email to the teachers, REDACTED and REDACTED concerning canceling the CSE meeting and requesting that the Parents complete questionnaires on attention, executive functioning, social, emotional for the Student, which would be added to the evaluation that REDACTED was preparing. The Parents stated that given the fact that it has been reported that the Student has a low frustration tolerance, is constantly in motion, has difficulty with organization, and presents with a perfectionist tendency, REDACTED felt that it would be helpful to have these questionnaires. Tr. 2119.

The Parent testified that the Student was accepted to REDACTED prior to January 25th, 2020 when REDACTED’s Neuropsychological evaluation was issued, and the Parent is not clear as to whether this report was sent to REDACTED or they utilized the former Neuropsychological evaluation from REDACTED. In terms of the email that the Parents sent on January 26th, the teachers and the District agreed to reschedule the meeting and gave back the questionnaires to REDACTED. The Parent described the teachers as incredibly empathetic, and she really liked them however, she did not feel that they met the Student’s needs academically. Tr. 2124.

With respect to a Speech and Language evaluation, the Parent found a private therapist to conduct an evaluation of the Student and sent an email to the District with respect to that. Tr. 2127; P-J. She stated that she elected to have a private Speech evaluation for the same reason she had a private neuropsychological evaluation, as she was losing faith in the District. Tr. 2127.

At the CSE meeting on June 24, 2021, the CSE stated that, "We know you have been transparent with us about your desire to unilaterally place the student at REDACTED. However, let us go through the CSE meeting and tell you what we think we would be able to offer him for the fifth grade." Tr. 2129. The Parents stated that the day after the CSE meeting, which was by Zoom, they decided to place the child at REDACTED because they felt that 100% his basic needs were not going to be met in the District.

The Student began at REDACTED in the fall of 2022 for fifth grade. The Parent testified that he is working harder than he has ever worked, and he's happier than he has ever been and is making steady progress. She has also noticed a tremendous difference in his self-esteem. Tr. 2130. He can complete the homework he has been given on his own.

During the 2021-22 school year there came a time that the District evaluated the Student in March or April of 2022. There were two days of testing, and the Parent would pick the Student up from REDACTED at the end of the day and go over to the District for testing. After the evaluations were completed, they had a CSE meeting for the Student. First, they had a meeting at REDACTED to go over the test results, which the father attended. A classroom observation was done in the Spring of 2022; however, the Parent is not aware of whether she got a copy of it prior to the meeting or whether she got it at the meeting.

Student’s Father The Student’s father stated that the Student is a very friendly, social, physically active and wonderful 11 year old who is a GREAT advocate for his needs. Tr. 2276. The Student began school in the District at the beginning of the 2019-20 school year. He stated that he never had a negative vibe toward school until then. He testified that the Student was unable to do the homework. Tr. 2279. He was anxious and did not have the scaffolding to do the assignments. Tr. 2279. They obtained tutors at the end of his time at REDACTED after the Neuropsychological Evaluation was completed. The report stated that his son learned differently than other kids and needed something else. Tr. 2282. When they had him evaluated again by REDACTED in the fall of 2020, they were in shock. P-Q. REDACTED’s first recommendation was that he be placed in a special education school that offers a specialized program for students with disabilities. Tr. 2284. He was not sure he understood what this meant and what he needed. Tr. 2285. They attended a meeting in February 2021 and the lead teacher stated that he is doing okay and is within the boundaries of what they would accept, however the Parent felt they were lowering the standards for the Student. Tr. 2287.

In terms of REDACTED, the Parent stated that they did not make a final decision to move him until late June or early July 2021. Tr. 2289. He kept hearing over and over that REDACTED was the appropriate place for a student like his son, with severe dyslexia. Tr. 2289. The Parent stated that he was familiar with the Test Grid in evidence. P-DDD. There was a parent-teacher conference by Zoom in May where REDACTED explained this document. The teacher stated that he was making phenomenal success from when he first got to REDACTED. Tr. 2292. When he tested in September 2021, he was reading at the 49th percentile and when he tested again in May 2022, he was at the 61st percentile. Tr. 2293; P-EEE. They have also had two to three formal parent-teacher conferences, and they indicated that he is doing great, seems happy, has friends and is exactly where they want him to be in terms of workload. Tr. 2295. He has read 32 books as of this time in the school year where he would avoid books in the past. Tr. 2295. There was a marked change in him at home and at school. Tr. 2295.

The Parent attended a CSE meeting on May 23, 2022. The two teachers at the meeting stated that the results speak for themselves, he is doing well at REDACTED. Tr. 2298.

Findings

Two purposes of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. §§1400-1482) are (1) to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their individual needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living; and (2) to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities and parents of such students are protected (20 U.S.C. 1499[D][1][A]-[B]; see generally, Forest Grove v. T.A., 129 S. Ct. 2484, 2491 [2009]; Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 [1982]).

The decision in this case rests on a determination of the three-pronged test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ. of Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 [1985]. 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 (Prong 1), the services selected by the Parent were appropriate (Prong 2), and equitable considerations support the parent’s claim (Prong 3). Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 92d Cir. 2005]).

Prong 1-Appropriateness of District Program The purpose of the IDEA is to ensure that all children with disabilities have available a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) which addresses their unique special education needs and to ensure that their rights and the rights of Parents are protected. A FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA; and (b) the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA’s procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07; T.M. v. Cornwall Cent. Sch. Dist., 752 F.3d 145, 151, 160 [2d Cir. 2014]; R.E. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 189-90 [2d Cir. 2012]; M.H. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 685 F.3d 217, 245 [2d Cir. 2012]; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]). “[A]dequate compliance with the procedures prescribed would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP” (Walczak v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 R.3d 119, 129 [2d Cir. 1998], quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206; see T.P. v. REDACTED Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 247, 253 [2d Cir. 2009]). The Supreme Court has indicated that “[t]he IEP must aim to enable the child to make progress. After all, the essential function of an IEP is to set out a plan for pursuing academic and functional advancement” (Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 988, 999 [2017]). While the Second Circuit has emphasized that school districts must comply with the checklist of procedures for developing a student’s IEP and indicated that “[m]ultiple procedural violations may cumulatively result in the denial of a FAPE even if the violations considered individually do not” (R.E., 694 F.3d at 190-91), the Court has also explained that not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (M.H., 685 F.3d at 245; A.C. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Chappaqua Cent. Sch. Dist., 553 F.3d 165, 172 [2d Cir. 2009]; Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003]). Under the IDEA, if a procedural violation is 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 (20 U.S.C. §1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 CFR 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; Winkleman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 525-26 [2007]; (R.E., 694 F.3d at 190; M.H., 685 F. 3d at 245).

The IDEA directs that, in general, an IHO’s decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE (20 U.S.C. § 1415 [f][3][E][i]). A school district offers FAPE by “providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction” (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203). However, the “IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP” (Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 [2d Cir. 1998]; see, Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189). “The adequacy of a given IEP turns on the unique circumstances of the child for whom it was created.” (Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 1001). The statute ensures an “appropriate” education, “not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents” (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132, quoting Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d 563, 567 [2d Cir. 1989] [citations omitted]; see, Grim, 346 F.3d at 379). Additionally, school districts are not required to “maximize” the potential of students with disabilities (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199; Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132). Nonetheless, a school district must provide “an IEP that is ‘likely to produce progress, not regression,’ and …affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere ‘trivial advancement’ (Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195, quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130 [citations omitted]; see, P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 118-19 [2d Cir. 2008]; Perricelli, 20007 WL 465211, at *15). The IEP must be “reasonably calculated to provide some ‘meaningful’ benefit” (Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 [2d Cir. 1997]; see Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 1001 [holding that the IDEA “requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances”]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192). The student’s recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (20 U.S.C. § 1412 [a][5][A]; 34 CFR 300.114[a][2][i], 300.116[a][2];8 NYCRR 200.1[cc], 200.6[a][1]; see Newington, 546 F.3d at 114; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 [2d Cir.2007]; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132).

An appropriate education begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the students’ needs (34 CFR 300.320[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]; Tarlowe v. Dep’t of Educ., 2008 WL 2736027, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2008), establishes annual goals related to those needs (34 CFR 300.320[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]), and provides for the use of appropriate special education services. (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][4];8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]; see Application of the Dep’t of Educ., Appeal No. 07-018; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-059; Application of the Dep’t of Educ., Appeal No. 06-029; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-046; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-014; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 93-9).

The New York State Legislature amended the Education Law to place the burden of production and persuasion upon the school district during an impartial hearing except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of production and persuasion regarding the appropriateness of such placement (Educ. Law §4404[1][c], as amended by Ch. 583 of the Laws of 2007).

The Parents are alleging that the District did not provide FAPE to the Student for the 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 school years. Based on the review of the testimonial and documentary evidence in this matter, I believe the District has met its burden in this regard and that FAPE was provided to the Student for the years in question.

Clearly, no procedural violations or implementation issues were raised in the December 14, 2021 Due Process Complaint regarding the IEPs developed for the years in question. Generally, the party requesting an impartial hearing has the first opportunity to identify the range of issues to be addressed at the hearing (Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 09-141; Application of the Dep’t of Educ., Appeal No. 08-056). Under the IDEA and its implementing regulations, a party requesting an impartial hearing may not raise issues at the impartial hearing that were not raised in its due process complaint notice unless the other party agrees (20 U.S.C. § 1415 [f][3][B]; 34 CFR 300.507[d][3][i], 300.511[d]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][1][ii]0, or the original due process complaint notice is amended prior to the impartial hearing per permission given by the IHO at least five days prior to the impartial hearing (20 U.S.C. § 1415[c][2][E][i][II]; 34 CFR 300.507 [d]3][ii]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[i][7][b]). Indeed, “[t]he parent must state all of the alleged deficiencies in the IEP in their due process complaint in order for the resolution period to function. To permit [the parents] to add a new claim after the resolution period has expired would allow them to sandbag the school district” (R.E., 694 F.3d 167 at 187-88 n.4; see also B.M. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 569 Fed. App’x 57, 58-59 [2d Cir. June 18, 2014)].

For the 2019-20 school year (the Student’s third grade year), the REDACTED evaluated the Student’s eligibility for a IEP and developed an IEP dated August 7, 2019, recommending that the Student attend an ICT class daily for Math, ELA, Social Studies and Science, SETSS services in ELA and counseling. Although the Student was not yet a resident of the District, the District received the August 7, 2019 IEP (D-3), reviewed it as well as all evaluations and reports provided to them, and once they determined that based on the documentation the IEP is appropriate, they make sure they have commensurate services in the District. Since they felt the IEP was appropriate, they decided to draft their own IEP based on this IEP and did it through the “amendment no meeting process.” The documents that were reviewed included: the NYC IEP (D-3), REDACTED documents (D-10; D-11; D-13), a Neuropsychological evaluation from REDACTED (D-12), a reading report from REDACTED (private tutor) (D-15), and health records. Tr. 192. The August 29, 2019 IEP was consented to by the Parents and provided for: ICT services, one time daily, three hours each time; consultation teacher services (specialized instruction to address reading), one time daily for one hour, and counseling services, in a group, once every six days for 30 minutes. D-4. On December 17, 2019, the CSE conducted a program review and considered the recommendations on an Occupational Therapy Evaluation conducted by the District. In this IEP, Occupational Therapy was added two times weekly and an Occupational Therapy Consult was added. D-5. The 2019-20 school year was the first year the Student was to receive special education supports as part of his school program. His teachers in his ICT program for the 2019-20 school year were REDACTED and REDACTED.

As a result of a Neuropsychological Evaluation conducted by REDACTED dated April 2020, he was diagnosed with a specific learning disability with impairments in reading and a specific learning disability with impairments in written expression. REDACTED reported that academically he needed support in the areas of reading, writing, and math word problems and emotionally, he had difficulties socially with other students and he had difficulties with confidence and self-esteem and frustration tolerance.

Specifically, REDACTED and REDACTED testified that they addressed his needs throughout the day. REDACTED testified that he made a positive transition to school and made nice friendships. In reading, he was receiving multisensory reading support to help with his decoding and encoding and had access to the Learning Ally, a digital library source, he had access to graphic organizers for writing and brainstorming sessions and had social-emotional support throughout the day through daily reflection sheets shared with his Parents. Clearly, their testimony indicates the strategies, accommodations and 1:1 support they provided to the Student and the progress he made as a result of these interventions. He was benefiting from being in small groups in the ICT program. REDACTED felt that between September and November and based on what she heard when she returned from maternity leave, he made progress in the ICT program based on the work he was doing. In the areas of Math, there was progress based on work samples and teacher observations. In reading, he started at a Level J (January of second grade) and by November was at a K Level (March of second grade). Tr. 361. REDACTED who was here throughout the year also noted the Student’s progress. She stated that his stamina for reading increased. Also, at the beginning of the year, he would read word-by-word and as the year progressed, he was reading in phrases and with fluency. Tr. 489-491. REDACTED stated that in math he as becoming more independent and after a check-in could do a problem on his own. In writing, he was able to take a question, turn it into a topic sentence and come up with reasons that related to the topic sentence and was able to prepare conclusion. Tr. 504. Both teachers reported at the December 17, 2019 IEP meeting that he was making gains in all academic areas and needed less emotional support than he had needed at the beginning. The teachers and the psychologists, REDACTED and REDACTED felt that the year was positive for the Student. the beginning of the year.

At the May 29, 2020 IEP meeting, REDACTED stated that she believed that the program the Student experienced for his first year of special education services was successful and he was showing progress. Tr. 529. She thought that everything he had in third grade was a good fit for him. It should be noted that with respect to the goals that were on his IEP for his third grade year, he made a lot of progress. Although due to COVID, it was hard to evaluate some of the goals and to be on the safe side some were rolled over, he was progressing satisfactorily towards the achievement of all 17 goals and achieved 10 out of 17 even with COVID shut downs.

The Parent testified that when she started the 2019-20 school year, she felt like they were in a place where the IEP could support him in the way he needed to be supported. Tr. 2081. It was not until COVID hit and a remote learning plan was instituted, that the Parent changed her mind. She even testified that she did not apply to REDACTED during the Student’s third grade year because they thought he was doing well until the pandemic started. As soon as the remote learning program started, the Parents had concerns with the initial phase. The Parent indicated that the Student was having trouble logging on, reading the assignments, finding the assignments and navigating the plan as well as difficulty with doing the work. The teachers and administrators did everything they could during remote learning to accommodate the Student’s needs including setting up a plan with the teachers, REDACTED, an assistive technology specialist and REDACTED, a behavior intervention specialist. The adjustment to COVID was affecting all students and based on the testimony presented the teachers were utilizing the new system to address the Student’s needs and address his goals, constantly revising the programs to support him and he had shown progress within the 2019-20 program. Clearly the District met its burden in showing that FAPE was provided for the 2019-20 school year.

For the 2020-21 school year (the Student’s fourth grade year), an IEP meeting was held on May 29, 2020. Pursuant to said IEP, the Student was recommended to receive ICT services, one time daily, three hours each time; consultant teacher services (specialized instruction to support literacy skills), one time daily for one hour; Psychological Counseling services, in a group, once every six days for 30 minutes; and Occupational Therapy, in a group, two times a week for 30 minutes. D-8. There was also an Assistive Technology Consult, a Psychological Consult, and an Occupational Therapy Consult as well as ESY services for specialized reading instruction. D-8. The IEP was then amended without a meeting to move his placement from REDACTED to REDACTED.

For the 2020-21 school year, the teachers were REDACTED and REDACTED. Due to COVID, the class for the 2020-21 school year started off into two different cohorts, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. There was an hour of math instruction a day. There were three 45 minute guided reading groups each working on skills such as decoding, rate, comprehension on writing. The groups were determined based on assessments. Although the Student started out in REDACTED’s reading group he was moved to REDACTED because they felt he could be pushed more rapidly in that group. He also received specialized reading from REDACTED and by December was moved to her Wilson group to work on spelling, reading words in isolation, reading multisyllabic closed syllables, etc.

The teachers saw tremendous progress after he was put into the Wilson program. REDACTED stated that “by the last two assessments, he was a different child.” Tr. 820. His words per minute increased and he started rereading which held back his fluency but was beneficial to him. Tr. 820. She stated that his biggest area of growth was spelling. Tr. 822. In writing, as the year progressed, he started writing more, spelling more sight words correctly and sounding out words using the syllabication rules. Tr. 822. The Student was first assessed in reading in fourth grade in September 2020 and was at a L Level and reading 64 words per minute. In June, he was reading 91-105 words per minute (Tr. 945) and was at a Level P. This was compelling evidence as to the meaningful progress the Student made in the 2020-21 school year. In addition to the daily schoolwork and other assessments utilized, the Student’s reading level on September 30, 2020 was on a September 3rd grade level and in May 2021, he was on a January 4th grade level. Tr. 1280. He also increased his stamina. In writing, REDACTED said that he was writing more independently, getting more ideas out, and he was using the things he learned in Wilson and applying them in his encoding. At the beginning of the year, in writing he would leave out vowels, and syllables and his sentences were simplistic. By the end of the year, REDACTED stated that his writing was “leaps and bounds” ahead of where it had been. He also made progress in Math and was more fluent with his facts, more independent with place value, regrouping for addition and subtraction, and for algorithms. Tr. 941. Socially, he was comfortable with the students and teachers and had a great year. Tr. 941. In addition, the 2020-21 Progress Report for goals indicated that he had achieved most of his goals. Tr. 943-948; D-34.

An IEP meeting also took place on February 23, 2021 to review an updated Educational Evaluation completed by the District on January 20, 2021 (D-3) and a private Neuropsychological Evaluation conducted by REDACTED dated January 25, 2021 (P-Q) and provided to the District on February 17, 2021. The only change in program from the May 29, 2020 IEP was that an additional session of counseling added since he was reaching out and using this service outside of his mandated time. Although REDACTED recommended that the Student be placed in a special education school that offers a specialized program for students with language based learning disabilities and the CSE did not agree that he needed this type of program. REDACTED still felt it was a cooperative meeting and the people at the meeting were all on the same page. Tr. 1896; P-Q. REDACTED also stated that she also felt it was a positive meeting in terms of collaboration. Tr. 1088. She also stated that at the end of the meeting, the Parents did not object to the goals or the recommended services and programs.

In developing the recommendations for a student’s IEP, the CSE must consider the results of the initial or most recent evaluation; the student’s strengths; the concerns of the parents for enhancing the education of their child; the academic, developmental, and functional needs of the student, including, as appropriate, the student’s performance on any general State or district-wide assessments as well as any special factors as set forth in federal and State regulations (34 CFR 300.32[a]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2]). A CSE must consider independent educational evaluations whether obtained at public or private expense, provided that such evaluations meet the district’s criteria, in any decision made with respect to the provisions of a FAPE to a student (34 CFR 300.502[c]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[g][1][vi]). However, consideration does not require substantive discussion, or that every member of the CSE read the document, or that the CSE accord the private evaluation any particular weight or adopt their recommendations (Mr. P. v. W. Hartford Bd. of Educ., 885 F.3d 735, 753 [2d Cir. 2018], citing T.S. v. Ridgefield Bd. of Educ., 10 F.3d 87, 89-90 [2d Cir. 1993]; Watson v. Kingston City Sch. Dist., 325 Supp. 2d 141, 145 [N.D.N.Y. 2004] [noting that even if a district relies on a privately obtained evaluation to determine a student’s levels of functional performance, it need not adopt wholesale the ultimate recommendations made by the private evaluator], aff’d, 142 Fed. App’x 9 [2d Cir. July 25, 2005]; see Michael P. v. Dep’t of Educ., State of Hawaii, 656 F.3d 1057, 1066 n.9 [9th Cir. 2011]; K.E. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 15, 647 F.3d 795,805-06 [8th Cir. 2011]; Evans v. Dist. No. 17, 841 F.2d 824, 830 [8th Cir. 1988]; James D. v. Educ. of Aptakisic-Tripp Community Consol. Sch. Dist. No. 102; 642 F. Supp. 2d 804, 818 [N.D. III 2009]).

The testimony and evidence supports the District’s position that the CSE acted properly in its review and consideration of the evaluative data, and in continuing with the program recommendations that were working for this Student in the least restrictive environment. He was also receiving related services of Speech Therapy, Occupational Therapy and Counseling which he needed to access the curriculum.

For the 2021-22 school year (fifth grade), an IEP meeting was held on June 24, 2021. Pursuant to said IEP, the Student was recommended to receive ICT services, one time daily, three hours each time, resource room, 5:1, 5x6 day cycle for 40 minutes each time (for a multisensory reading approach to support his decoding, encoding and fluency); Consultant Teacher Services, 1x6 day cycle, 20 minutes each time [for the Student’s teachers to connect and collaborate to best support the Student]; Speech and Language Therapy, small group, 2x6 day cycle, 30 minutes each time; Psychological Counseling Services, small group, 1x weekly, 30 minutes each time; and Occupational Therapy, small group, 2x weekly, 30 minutes each time. D-9. There was also an assistive technology consult, a psychological consult and an Occupational Therapy consult. D-9. No ESY services were offered since there was no data to support substantial regression from reading. Tr. 957. In this regard, REDACTED stated that the program the CSE created for the Student for the 2021-22 school year was appropriate. She also felt that moving the multisensory reading instruction to a resource room would help him academically and emotionally. Also, she felt that the addition of Speech was important for him and since he had made good progress in the ICT model, replicating it would be great with additional supports. Tr. 959. REDACTED stated that they provided a continuation of the ICT program for the 2021-22 school year since the CSE felt he had made some really good gains in 2020-21 school year and has good cognitive skills. Tr. 1094.

As was stated in the Memorandum of Law from the District, “the IEP developed for [the Student’s] 2021-2022 school year constituted a strengthening of an educational program that was clearly working for him. Based upon the history of success that [the Student] had within the programs that had been developed and implemented in the District during the preceding two years, there can be little doubt that such program was reasonably calculated to enable [the Student] to make gains that were appropriate in light of his individual circumstances.” IHO-II.

Based on the totality of the evidence, I believe that the District met its burden in showing that the recommended programs for the 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 school years were sufficient to meet the Student’s needs and provide him with academic benefit in the least restrictive environment. Therefore, for all the foregoing reasons, I find that the District satisfied the requirements to prove prong 1 and therefore, FAPE was provided to the Student for the 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22 school years.

Prong 2-Appropriateness of Parental Placement

Under the second prong of Burlington, the Parents bear the burden of proving the appropriateness of the Parents’ unilateral placement of the Student at REDACTED. In order to meet that burden, the Parents must show that REDACTED offered an educational program designed to meet the Student’s special education needs. Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370; M.S. v. Board of Education of the City of Yonkers, 231 F.3d 96, 104 (2d Cir. 2000). The Second Circuit has explained that “Subject to certain limited exception, the same consideration and criteria that apply in determining whether the school district’s placement is appropriate should be considered in determining the appropriateness of the parents’ placement…” (Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d at 364 (2d Cir. 2006) (quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207 and identifying exceptions). The issue turns on “whether a placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefit. A private placement meeting this standard is one that provides progress not regression. Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112. “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, See, Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65). See also, A.D. and M.D. v. Bd. of Educ., 690 F. Supp. 2d 193 (2d Cir. 2010). It should be noted, however, that while evidence of progress is relevant, it does not establish that a private placement is appropriate (Gagliardo, 489 F 3d. at 115 [citing Berger v. Median City Sch. Dist., 348 F3d 513, 522[6th Cir. 2003][stating that evidence of academic progress at a private school does not establish that the private placement offers adequate and appropriate education under the IDEA”])

The Parents have met their burden in showing that REDACTED would have been an appropriate program for the Student for the 2021-22 school year had FAPE not been provided.

Testimony was provided by REDACTED, a REDACTED CSE liaison to show that REDACTED offers a multisensory educational program for children with language-based disabilities. The mission of REDACTED is to provide a multisensory curriculum designed for students with average to superior intelligence with a central focus on addressing their language-based learning disabilities and the difficulties stemming from them.

All REDACTED classes are no more than 12 students; in the lower school there are usually six to ten in ELA and Math and 8 to 12 in other subject areas. All teachers at REDACTED are required to take three capstone classes offered by the REDACTED Institute. The courses required are Preventing Academic Failure which is a multisensory reading program utilizing Orton-Gillingham. The second is a writing class utilizing a very skill-based structured program. There is also a required class on language dynamics. These classes are essential because they are covered in every class. In addition, all teachers have to start as assistant teachers under the mentorship of a head teacher.

According to REDACTED, the ELA program is delivered at REDACTED with three periods of ELA for approximately 120 minutes which includes a period of reading, writing and a skills class. Tr. 1381. The reading class focuses on decoding and comprehension. Tr. 1381. The writing class focuses on sentence and paragraph writing, the mechanics of writing, syntax, grammar and spelling and there is a skills class that focuses on decoding and encoding. The students have math every day and follow for the most part the core curriculum. There is a lot of pre-teaching and math is covered at a slower pace and in a little less depth. Tr. 1384. Both math and ELA are homogeneously group while Science, Social Studies and the specials are heterogeneously grouped. There is also a focus class at the end of the day where the students organize, start their homework and ask questions. All areas of curriculum are language-based, sequential and highly structured. Students’ progress is monitored continually and programs are modified as necessary. There is a psychologist in the elementary school and counselors in the middle school. Students who require behavioral support to keep them on task might work closely with the school psychologist or school counselors. Tr. 1389-1390.

REDACTED testified that there are ten students and two teachers in his ELA class and and that the lead teacher has her Master’s degree in education and is NYS certified and the other teacher is working towards her Master’s degree. She stated that to address his needs, he was in the PAF reading program, and is practicing decoding unfamiliar multisyllabic words, he is receiving teacher scaffolding, he is also provided with visuals to remind him of the decoding and encoding rules. He is also sitting in the front of the room, getting 1:1 feedback and a lot of reminders for routines and attending. He is also being held accountable to initiate tasks and stay on task through nonverbal cues. In his math class, there are also two teachers, one who has her Master’s degree in special education and ten students in his class. He receives reassurance to give him confidence in his math facts, modeling and help with the language of math, 1:1 support with multistep problems and overall attending to stay on task and keep organized. The math instruction is slower paced with a lot of repetition. In Social Studies, there are 10-12 students in his class. He needs support in note taking, understanding main ideas and needs reminders to stay on task and stay organized. The teacher reported that he is confident, progressing with his understanding of concepts, learning how to take notes, and doing well on assessments. Tr. 1467-1469. In science, there are 10-12 students in his class and two teachers, one of whom has his Master’s degree in education. He is doing nicely on quizzes and labs and requires direct instruction and comprehension check-ins. Tr. 1469.

REDACTED progress reports and report cards pertaining to the Student during the 2021-22 school year reflect that he made progress in developing his reading, spelling, writing and math skills. P-DD, P-EE, P-FF, P-FF. The father stated that he was informed by his teachers at REDACTED that his son was doing well at REDACTED. Tr. 2292. He testified that when the Student was tested in September 2021, he was reading at the 49th percentile and when he tested again in May 2022, he was at the 61st percentile. Tr. 2293; P-EEE. He also indicated that at the parent-teacher conferences, they have been told that he is doing great, seems happy, has friends and is exactly where they want him to be in terms of workload. Tr. 2295. The mother testified that he is working harder than he has ever worked, and he's happier than he has ever been and is making steady progress.

Based on the foregoing, I find that REDACTED would meet the Student’s needs and he would receive educational benefit if the District had not provided the Student with a FAPE for the 2021-22 school year.

Prong 3-Equitable Considerations The third prong of the Burlington decision requires a balancing of the equities in determining whether reimbursement should be granted.

The IDEA provides that an award of tuition reimbursement may be reduced or denied if notwithstanding their being advised that they should do so, parents never inform the CSE of their disagreement with its proposed placement and their intent to place their child in a private school at public expense at the most recent CSE meeting prior to their removal of the child from public school, nor provide the school district with written notice of such information ten business days before such removal. 20 USC 1412 (a)(10)(C) (ii).

I find that the Parents participated in the August 29, 2019 (D-4), December 17, 2019 (D-5), May 29, 2020 (D-6), August 30, 2020 (D-7), February 23, 2021 (D-8), and June 24, 2021 (D-9) CSE meetings and provided the school with all reports, and other necessary evaluations.

The issue is whether the Parents gave the District proper notice of their intent to place the Student at REDACTED. Clearly, the first time the Parents applied to REDACTED, (before the Parents moved from REDACTED to REDACTED), before the August 29, 2019 IEP was developed, they did not advise the District, however the Student was not admitted at that time so it was not a consideration. However, the second time the Parents applied to REDACTED and was accepted, the Parents did notify the District on January 19, 2021 by email (D-70), that the Student was admitted to REDACTED and would be attending in the Fall. She specifically wrote “Dear team…I wanted to let you know that [the Student] has been admitted to REDACTED. At this point, he is set to begin in the Fall…Fortunately, [he] is very happy that he will be joining the community, knowing there are many kids with similar learning challenges at the school.” D-70. The District then received a Ten Day Notice on February 24, 2022 from the law firm representing the Parents expressing their intent to send the Student to REDACTED for the 2021-22 school year and seeking funding and/or reimbursement. D-74. Although the Parent testified that she did not decide to send the Student to REDACTED until after the June CSE meeting, this is contrary to the evidence, however, it is a Parent’s prerogative to unilaterally place their child and does not indicate a failure of notification that would affect equitable considerations. It should also be noted that despite the foregoing, following the June 24, 2021 CSE meeting, the Parents sent another letter informing the District that the Parents did not believe the program and services offered to the Student for the 2021-22 school year were appropriate to meet his needs and that in accordance with the prior letter dated February 24, 2021, they have identified REDACTED as an appropriate placement and are requesting funding/reimbursement for such placement. P-K. Therefore, throughout the process the Parents gave the District proper notice. The District also raised the issue of the failure of the Parents to give initial consent for the Speech and Language Evaluation that the District was requesting. It should be noted that consent was given, albeit late, however their failure to do so in a timely manner does not tip the scale in this matter.

Therefore, based upon their actions, in terms of equitable considerations, I continue to find that the Parents cooperated with the District and analysis of equitable considerations offers no basis to rule against them.

IEEs

Federal and State regulations provide that, subject to certain limitations, a parent has the right to an IEE at public expense if the parent disagrees with an evaluation obtained by the school district (34 CFR 300.502[a], [b]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[g][1]; see R.L. v. Plainville Bd. of Educ., 363 F. Supp. 2d. 222, 234-35 [D. Conn. 2005] [finding parental failure to disagree with an evaluation obtained by a public agency defeated a parent's claim for an IEE at public expense]). A parent, however, is only entitled to one IEE at public expense "each time the public agency conducts an evaluation with which the parent disagrees" (34 CFR 300.502[b][5]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[g][1]; see R.L., 363 F. Supp. 2d at 234-35). If a parent requests an IEE at public expense, the school district must, without unnecessary delay, ensure that either an IEE is provided at public expense or initiate an impartial hearing to show that its evaluation is appropriate or that the evaluation obtained by the parent does not meet the school district criteria (34 CFR 300.502[b][2][i]-[ii];10 8 NYCRR 200.5[g][1][iv]; see, e.g., A.S. v. Norwalk Bd. of Educ., 183 F. Supp. 2d 534, 549 [D. Conn. 2002] [upholding order of reimbursement where the district failed to demonstrate that its evaluation was appropriate]; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 09-109; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 08-101). If a school district's evaluation is appropriate, a parent may not obtain an IEE at public expense (34 CFR 300.502[b][3]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[g][1][v]; DeMerchant v. Springfield Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 2572357, at *6 [D. Vt. Sept. 4, 2007]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 08-039; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-126; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-10 The Analysis of Comments accompanying the federal regulations implementing the provisions for an IEE state that "[a]lthough it is appropriate for a public agency to establish reasonable cost containment criteria applicable to personnel used by the agency, as well as to personnel used by parents, a public agency would need to provide a parent the opportunity to demonstrate that unique circumstances justify selection of an evaluator whose fees fall outside the agency's cost containment criteria" (Independent Educational Evaluation, 71 Fed. Reg. 46689-90 [Aug. 14, 2006]). 21067; Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 05-009; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-082; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-027).

. In the instant matter, in the Due Process Complaint (D-1) the Parents are asking for (1) all costs associated with the procurement of the Neuropsychological Evaluation performed by REDACTED; (2) all costs associated with the procurement of the Central Auditory Processing Evaluation performed by REDACTED and REDACTED.; and (3) all costs associated with the procurement of the expressive language evaluation performed by REDACTED. This is in the remedy section of the Due Process Complaint and none of these remedies are tied to a claim that was brought in the Due Process complaint indicating what their allegations are. No testimony was provided with respect to their request for IEEs at the hearing and nothing was raised in the closing briefs. In the Parents testimony, she made clear that she wanted to do her own evaluations with her own evaluators and then share them with the team.

With respect to the Neuropsychological Evaluation conducted by REDACTED dated January 25, 2021, the Parents found the evaluator and had the Student evaluated in the Fall of 2020. They did not ask the District for an IEE at public expense nor did they express disagreement with an evaluation conducted by the District.

With respect to the Independent Speech and Language Evaluation conducted by REDACTED, the Parents found the evaluator and hired her to do an evaluation. Clearly, the CSE had recommended that a Speech and Language Evaluation be done at the February 23, 2021 IEP meeting and asked the Parents for consent to conduct the evaluation. Although the Parents signed a consent form and someone for the District contacted them, the Parents made clear in an email dated March 19, 2021 (P-J) that they were not consenting to a District evaluation. The Parents then advised the District in an email dated April 13, 2021 that they had found their own evaluator and the evaluator was conducting an Expressive language evaluation.

With respect to the Central Auditory Processing Evaluation, REDACTED had recommended the evaluation and the Parent found the evaluator and did not ask for the District to do the evaluation based upon the Federal and State regulations for IEEs.

Accordingly, the Parents are not entitled to costs for procurement of the (1) the Neuropsychological Evaluation performed by REDACTED; (2) the Central Auditory Processing Evaluation performed by REDACTED and REDACTED.; and (3) the Expressive Language Evaluation performed by REDACTED.

Compensatory Services With respect to Parents’ request for compensatory services, compensatory education is an equitable remedy that is tailored to meet the unique circumstances of each case (Wenger v. Canastota, 979 F. Supp. 147, 150-51 [N.D.N.Y. 1997]). Within the Second Circuit, compensatory education has been awarded to students who are ineligible by reason of age or graduation 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, 75 [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]; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 03-078 [awarding two years of instruction after expiration of IDEA eligibility as compensatory education]). Compensatory education relief may also be awarded to a student with a disability who remains eligible for instruction under the IDEA (see 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401[3], 1412[a][1][B]; Educ. Law §§ 3202[1], 4401[1], 4402[5]). Within the Second Circuit, compensatory education relief in the form of supplemental special education or related services has been awarded to such students if there has been a denial of a FAPE (see P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d at 123 [2d Cir. 2008] [stating that "[t]he IDEA allows a hearing officer to fashion an appropriate remedy, and... compensatory education is an available option under the Act to make up for denial of a [FAPE]"]; Student X. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2008 WL 4890440, at *24 [E.D.N.Y. Oct. 30, 2008] [finding that compensatory education may be awarded to students under the age of twenty-one]; see generally R.C. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 9731053, at *12-*13 [S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2008], adopted at 2008 WL 9731174 [Jul. 7, 2008]). Likewise, SROs have awarded compensatory "additional services" to students who remain eligible to attend school and have been denied appropriate services, if such deprivation of instruction could be remedied through the provision of additional services before the student becomes ineligible for instruction by reason of age or graduation (Bd. of Educ. v. Munoz, 16 A.D.3d 1142 [4th Dep't 2005] [finding it proper for an SRO to order a school district to provide "make-up services" to a student upon the school district's failure to provide those educational services to the student during home instruction]; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 13-236 [upholding an additional service award of physical therapy]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal Nos. 13- 226 & 13-228 [awarding additional services in the form of tutoring or other direct support from a special education teacher]; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 13-208 [upholding an additional service award of 100 hours of compensatory one-to-one tutoring in math and reading]; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 13-048 [awarding the student with 1:1 counseling services and 1:1 speech-language therapy in compensatory additional services]).

In fashioning an appropriate award of compensatory education, one must be mindful that the central purpose of such award is to provide a remedy for a specific denial of a FAPE (see Newington, 546 F.3d at 123 [holding that compensatory education is a remedy designed to "make up for" a denial of a FAPE]; see also Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 524 [D.C. Cir. 2005] [holding that, in fashioning an appropriate compensatory education remedy, "the inquiry must be fact-specific, and to accomplish IDEA's purposes, the ultimate award must be 8 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"]; Parents of Student W. v. Puyallup Sch. Dist., 31 F.3d 1489, 1497 [9th Cir. 1994] [holding that "[a]ppropriate relief is relief designed to ensure that the student is appropriately educated within the meaning of the IDEA"]). Accordingly, an award of additional services should aim to place the student in the position he or she would have been in had the district complied with its obligations under the IDEA (see Newington, 546 F.3d at 123 [holding that compensatory education awards should be designed so as to "appropriately address[] the problems with the IEP"]; see also Draper v. Atlanta Indep. Sch. Sys., 518 F.3d 1275, 1289 [11th Cir. 2008] [holding that "[c]ompensatory awards should place children in the position they would have been in but for the violation of the Act"]; Bd. of Educ. v. L.M., 478 F.3d 307, 316 [6th Cir. 2007] [holding that "a flexible approach, rather than a rote hour-by-hour compensation award, is more likely to address [the student's] educational problems successfully"]; Reid, 401 F.3d at 518, 525 [holding that compensatory education is a "replacement of educational services the child should have received in the first place" and that compensatory education awards "should aim to place disabled children in the same position they would have occupied but for the school district's violations of IDEA"]; Puyallup, 31 F.3d at 1497 ["There is no obligation to provide a day-for day compensation for time missed"]; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 11-132; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 11-091).

Where there has been a violation of FAPE, hearing officers have broad authority to grant such relief as they deem appropriate, including compensatory education. 20 U.S.C. 1412 (a)(1), 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii), 34 C.F.R. 300.51 (c)(5); P. v. Newington Bd of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir. 2008). A hearing officer should thus award compensatory education in the form of education or services where such an award is necessary to make up for a FAPE deprivation. P., 546 F. 3d at 123 (citation omitted). In evaluating a claim for compensatory education, a hearing officer must engage in a fact-specific inquiry to fashion an award that is “reasonably calculated to provide educational benefits that likely would have accrued from…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).

In this instant matter, the Parents are requesting the costs of private tutoring, behavior therapy, and therapeutic interventions provided at [Parents] expense. Since there has not been a violation of FAPE in this matter, no award of compensatory services shall be granted.

Based upon the foregoing, I find that the District provided FAPE to the Student for the 2019-20, 2020-21, and 2021-22 school years (Prong 1), the Parents’ placement of the Student at REDACTED would have been appropriate if FAPE had not been provided (Prong 2), and the Parents cooperated with the District and analysis of equitable considerations offers no basis for ruling against him. (Prong 3). Since the District provided FAPE to the Student for the 2019-2020, 2020-21 and 2021-22 school years, there will be no funding/reimbursement for tuition for the 2021-22 school year for the Student at REDACTED nor any award of compensatory services for the 2019-20 or 2020-21 school years.

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby

ORDERED, that the Parents’ request for funding/reimbursement for tuition at REDACTED for the 2021-22 school year shall be denied as well as their request for an award of compensatory services for the 2019-20 or 2020-21 school years and the Due Process Complaint dated December 14, 2021 shall be dismissed with prejudice at this time.

Dated: December 13, 2022

Corrected: January 7, 2023

Elise B. Kestenbaum

Elise B. Kestenbaum, Esq.

Impartial Hearing Officer

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Within 40 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to appeal the decision to the 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 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 serviced upon opposing part 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 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 and model forms are available at: www.sro.nysed.gov/appeals.htm.

Appendix A

Evidence

District Exhibits

No. Date Document Pages

1 12/14/21 Due Process Complaint 13

2 3/6/22 Answer 2

3 8/7/19 IEP 25

4 8/29/19 IEP 12

5 12/17/19 IEP 14

6 5/29/20 IEP 17

7 8/30/20 IEP 17

8 2/23/21 IEP 22

9 6/24/21 IEP 21

10 Spring 2019 REDACTED Progress Report 14

11 Undated Recommended Support Strategies 3

12 3/29/19

4/25/19

4/26/19 Neuropsychological Evaluation 13

13 6/12/19 Teacher Report 8

14 7/18/18 Email from REDACTED to REDACTED 2

15 8/20/19 Letter from [REDACTED] 3

16 10/21/19 Medical Records 4

17 11/8/19 Occupational Therapy Evaluation 5

18 5/20/20 Classroom Teacher Report 2

19 5/27/20 Letter from REDACTED 1

20 5/29/20 ESY Projection Form 3

21 9/28/20

10/2/20

10/16/20

10/20/20 Neuropsychological Evaluation 36

22 11/9/20 Central Auditory Processing Evaluation 13

23 1/20/21 Educational Evaluation 6

24 1/20/21 Classroom Teacher Report 2

25 4/14/21 Expressive Language Evaluation 5

26 4/16/21 Assistive Technology Consultation Summary 2

27 6/6/21 Psychological Evaluation 9

28 6/7/21

6/8/21

6/9/21 Speech-Language Evaluation 5

29 6/11/21 Classroom Teacher Report 2

30 multiple dates i-Ready Report 3

31 withdrawn

32 2019-2020 Progress Report on IEP Goals 8

33 2019-2020 Report Card 8

34 2020-2021 Progress Report on IEP Goals 7

35 2020-2021 Report Card 5

36 2019-2020

• • Attendance 2
• • 37 8/23/19 PWN 3
• • 38 8/29/19 PWN 2
• • 39 12/19/19 PWN 2
• • 40 5/29/20 PWN 2
• • 41 2/23/21 PWN 2
• • 42 6/24/21 PWN 2
• • 43 8/2/19 – 8/13/19 Email 3
• • 44 8/19/19 Email 1
• • 45 8/15/19 – 8/23/19 Emails 3
• • 46 8/16/19 – 8/24/19 Emails 2
• • 47 8/26/19 – 8/27/19 Emails 2
• • 48 8/27/19 IEP Amendment Consent Form 1
• • 49 8/27/19 Consent for Evaluation 1
• • 50 9/20/19 Statement of Closing 1
• • 51 11/6/19 Email 1
• • 52 12/2/19 – 12/10/19 Emails 3
• • 53 12/9-/9 – 12/7/19 Emails 1
• • 54 4/13/20 Email 1
• • 55 4/12/20 – 4/13/20 Emails 4
• • 56 6/9/20 – 6/10/20 Emails 3
• • 57 6/26/20 – 6/29/20 Emails 1
• • 58 8/6/20 Email 1
• • 59 8/6/20 – 8/7/20 Emails 1
• • 60 8/25/20 Email 1
• • 61 9/13/20 Emails 3
• • 62 9/4/20 – 9/17/20 Emails 3
• • 63 9/21/20 Emails 3
• • 64 12/8/20 Email 1
• • 65 11/23/20 – 12/14/20 Emails 5
• • 66 12/11/20 – 12/14/20 Emails 1
• • 67 12/30/20 Email 1
• • 68 1/3/21 Email 1
• • 69 12/11/20 – 1/7/21 Emails 3
• • 70 1/19/21 Email 1
• • 71 1/21/21 Email 1
• • 72 2/12/21 Emails 2
• • 73 2/5/21 – 2/17/21 Emails 3
• • 74 2/24/21 Letter from REDACTED to REDACTED 1
• • 75 3/1/21 Email 1
• • 76 3/4/21 Letter from REDACTED to Parents 1
• • 77 3/4/21 – 3/9/21 Emails 2
• • 78 3/15/21 Email 1
• • 79 4/7/21 Email 3
• • 80 4/8/21 – 4/14/21 Emails 2
• • 81 4/15/21 Email 1
• • 82 5/28/21 Email 1
• • 83 withdrawn
• • 84 3/8/21 – 6/4/21 Emails 4
• • 85 6/4/21 Email 1
• • 86 6/21/21 Email 1
• • 87 6/22/21 Email 1
• • 88 6/23/21 Email 1
• • 89 6/25/21 Email 1
• • 90 7/1/21 Letter from REDACTED to REDACTED 1
• • 91 8/23/21 Letter from REDACTED to Parents 1
• • 92 withdrawn
• • 93 withdrawn
• • 94 withdrawn
• • 95 multiple dates Remote Learning Log for REDACTED 26
• • 96 withdrawn
• • 97 undated Sample of Level P Text 3
• • 98 multiple dates REDACTED – Wilson Data 3
• • 99 multiple dates REDACTED – Informal Reading Comp. Data 3
• • 100 multiple dates REDACTED Little Footprints Data 3
• • 101 undated Math Part 2 5
• • 102 multiple dates Math 24
• • 103 5/21 Reading Assessment Part 2 6
• • 104 multiple dates Writing Samples 3
• • 105 5/27/20 REDACTED Wed. Third Grade Learning 3
• • 106 5/9-/20 Test Accommodation 1
• • 107 multiple dates REDACTED Social Emotional Communication 41
• • 108 multiple dates REDACTED Class Remote Learning Differentiated
• • Stream 26
• • 109 undated Independent Reading Benchmark Levels Mam.
• • Color Coded by grade 1
• • 110 multiple dates Daily Communication Sept – End of Nov. 39
• • 111 withdrawn
• • 112 undated Reflection Form Remote Learning 2
• • 113 5/27/20 Modified Learning Plan – Third Grade Learning Plan 2
• • 114 5/27/20 Wednesday Third Grade Learning Plan 2
• • 115 multiple dates PDF REDACTED in REDACTED & REDACTED class 10
• • 116 Sept. – Jan. Reading Assessment Sept. – Jan. 24
• • 117 withdrawn
• • 118 withdrawn
• • 119 withdrawn
• • 120 withdrawn
• • 121 withdrawn
• • 122 withdrawn
• • 123 withdrawn
• • 124 withdrawn
• • 125 withdrawn
• • 126 withdrawn
• • 127 withdrawn
• • 128 withdrawn
• • 129 withdrawn
• • 130 withdrawn
• • 131 withdrawn
• • 132 withdrawn
• • 133 withdrawn
• • 134 withdrawn
• • 135 withdrawn
• • 136 withdrawn
• • 137 withdrawn
• • 138 withdrawn
• • 139 withdrawn
• • 140 withdrawn
• • 141 withdrawn
• • 142 withdrawn
• • 143 withdrawn
• • 144 withdrawn
• • 145 withdrawn
• • 146 withdrawn
• • 147 withdrawn
• • 148 withdrawn
• • 149 withdrawn
• • 150 withdrawn
• • 151 withdrawn
• • 152 withdrawn
• • 153 withdrawn
• • 154 withdrawn
• • 155 withdrawn
• • 156 withdrawn
• • 157 withdrawn
• • 158 withdrawn
• • 159 withdrawn
• • 160 withdrawn
• • 161 withdrawn
• • 162 withdrawn
• • 163 withdrawn
• • 164 withdrawn
• • 165 withdrawn
• • 166 withdrawn
• • 167 withdrawn
• • 168 withdrawn
• • 169 withdrawn
• • 170 withdrawn
• • 171 withdrawn
• • 172 withdrawn
• • 173 withdrawn
• • 174 withdrawn
• • 175 withdrawn
• • 176 withdrawn
• • 177 withdrawn
• • 178 withdrawn
• • 179 withdrawn
• • 180 withdrawn
• • 181 withdrawn
• • 182 withdrawn
• • 183 withdrawn
• • 184 withdrawn
• • 185 withdrawn
• • 186 withdrawn
• • 187 withdrawn
• • 188 multiple dates Special Calendars 1
• • 189 withdrawn
• • 190 9/9/20 Special Education in the Hybrid Plan 14
• • 191 undated Sample of Level L Text 5
• • 192 undated Characteristics of Level L 1
• • 193 multiple dates REDACTED Subpoena Records 60
• • 194 multiple dates REDACTED Subpoena Records 18
• • 195 withdrawn
• • 196 multiple dates REDACTED Hand-Written Notes 9 Parents’ Exhibits No. Date Document Pages A 12/14/21 Petitioners Due Process Complaint 13 B 4/23/20 Text REDACTED to Teachers re Homework 1 C 5/27/20 Report from REDACTED re: REDACTED 1 D 11/9/20 Email from REDACTED to REDACTED, REDACTED, and REDACTED re: Organizational Efforts 2 E 11/23/20 Emails between REDACTED and REDACTED re:

Reading Group 2

F 1/19/21 Email from REDACTED to REDACTED, REDACTED, and REDACTED re: Student Update/REDACTED 1

G 1/26/21 Email from REDACTED to REDACTED, REDACTED,

REDACTED, and REDACTED re:

CSE Meeting 1

H 2/24/21 Letter from REDACTED to REDACTED re: 10 Day Notice 1

I 3/12/21 Emails between REDACTED, REDACTED, and REDACTED re: Planners 2

J 4/13/21 Emails between REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, and REDACTED re: Speech-Language Evaluation 4

K 7/1/21 Letter from REDACTED to REDACTED re: 10 Day Notice 1 L undated Email from REDACTED to REDACTED and REDACTED re: ICT 1

M 4/26/19 Neuropsychological Evaluation by REDACTED 13

N 8/20/19 Reading Report by REDACTED 3

O 11/5/19 Occupational Therapy Evaluation by REDACTED 5

P 11/9/20 Central Auditory Processing Evaluation by REDACTED and REDACTED 13

Q 1/25/21 Neuropsychological Evaluation by REDACTED 43

R 4/14/21 Expressive Language Evaluation by REDACTED 5

S 6/6/21 Psychological Evaluation by REDACTED 9

T 6/9/21 Speech-Language Evaluation by REDACTED 5

U 2021-22 REDACTED Assessments 1

V 8/7/19 Individualized Education Program 25

W 8/29/19 Individualized Education Program 12

X 12/17/19 Individualized Education Program 14

Y 5/29/20 Individualized Education Program 17

Z 8/30/20 Individualized Education Program 17

AA 2/23/21 Individualized Education Program 22

BB 6/24/21 Individualized Education Program 21

CC 6/25/21 2020-2021 IEP Progress Report 7

DD 2021-2022 Winter Progress Report, REDACTED 6

EE 2021-2022 Quarter 1 Report Card, REDACTED 6

FF 2021-2022 Quarter 2 Report Card, REDACTED 3

GG 1/12/20 Third Grade “What Do You Do for Fun” Assignment 3

HH Withdrawn

II The REDACTED School Program Description 2

JJ Withdrawn

KK 2021-2022 The REDACTED School Student Schedule 1

LL 2021-2022 District Projected Student Schedule 1

MM undated REDACTED Curriculum Vitae 2

NN withdrawn

OO undated REDACTED Curriculum Vitae 4

PP undated REDACTED Curriculum Vitae 9

QQ withdrawn

RR withdrawn

SS 3/8/22 Observation of REDACTED in ELA Class 2

TT withdrawn

UU undated REDACTED Academic Matrix 3

VV withdrawn

WW withdrawn

XX withdrawn

YY withdrawn

ZZ withdrawn

AAA undated Fountas & Pinell Text Level Ladder of Progress 1

BBB 5/16/22 Psychological Re-Evaluation by REDACTED 11

CCC 5/4/22 Educational Evaluation by REDACTED 17

DDD 5/23/22 Test Grid 1

EEE 2/10/22 Classroom Observation 2

FFF 3/10/21 The REDACTED School Enrollment Contract 2021-2022 3

IHO Exhibits

No. Date Document Pages

I 10/11/222 Petitioners Post Hearing Brief 30

II 10/11/22 Memorandum of Law on Behalf of the District 30

Footnotes

[1] The Parties moved to extend the compliance date in this matter several times during the course of the hearing. In considering these requests, I weighed the cumulative impact of the relevant factors and found that the requests were in accordance with the requirements of due process. Accordingly requests for extensions of the case compliance date were granted.