New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

CASE NUMBER: 567650 - NYC: 222741

FINDINGS OF FACT

Case Number: 222741

Student's Name: REDACTED

Date of Birth: REDACTED

District: REDACTED

CSE REDACTED

Hearing Requested By: Parent Dates of Hearing: 1/10/2022

7/22/2022

9/13/2022

Record Close Date 10/24/2022

Hearing Officer: TINA MILLMAN Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON 1/10/2022

For the Student:

REDACTED, Advocate

Department of Education:

REDACTED, District Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON 7/22/2022

For the Student:

REDACTED, Advocate

Department of Education:

REDACTED

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON 9/13/2022

For the Student:

REDACTED, Advocate

REDACTED, Parent

REDACTED, Principal of REDACTED,

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED, DOE Representative

REDACTED-DOE Representative

INTRODUCTION

On 12/15/2021, I was appointed as the Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) by the Department of Education’s Impartial Hearing Office to conduct an impartial hearing pursuant to the provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1415(f) and Article89 of the Education Law of the State of New York. The Parent filed the Due Process Complaint (DPC), dated 12/15/2021. (Ex A)

Appended to the record are lists of persons in attendance and the documents received in evidence. Hearings were subsequently held for the matter on 1/10/ 22, 7/22/22 and 9/13/22. The Hearing Request alleges the DOE failed to offer the Student a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for the 2021-2022 school year. (Ex A)

On 1/10/22 a hearing was held to determine the students Pendency entitlements and an Order was issued So Ordering the following:

ORDERED that the Department of Education shall directly fund the student’s Special Education Program, Placement and Tuition at REDACTED pursuant to the FOFD dated 06/03/19 (Exhibit B)

The aforesaid Special Education Program shall be provided retroactive as of the date of filing which is 12/15/21.

The Parent seeks direct funding for the Students’ 2021-2022 unilateral placement at REDACTED (hereinafter REDACTED or “The School”).

DEPARTMENTOF EDUCATION POSITION

No witnesses were called to support that a FAPE was provided to the Student for the 2021-2022 school year. The DOE offered to enter the IEP however the Parent offered to enter the same as their Ex C so ultimately the DOE rested on their IEP and stated they will be contesting Prongs II and III. The DOE was scheduled to present their case on July 22, 2022. This hearing date was scheduled during a status conference on 5/24/22 at which time a representative from the DOE was present. During the 7/22/22 hearing date the DOE Representative stated that the DOE is still investigating the matter and that there was a lot of transition during this time. She was unaware the DOE was scheduled to go forward and requested an adjournment. The adjournment was denied as the 5/24/22 transcript clearly states that 1 ½ hours was set aside for the DOE to present their case in chief on 7/22/22. A representative was present on 5/25/22 and if there was confusion on the part of the DOE that was not a valid reason to adjourn. As previously noted the DOE rested on their IEP (Ex. C) and contests Prong II and Prong III.

THE PARENT’S POSITION The Parent ‘s advocate set forth allegations and relief sought in the DPC and at Hearing. (Ex A)

The Parents’ advocate calls two witnesses and enters into 12 documents into evidence A-L.

FINDING OF FACTS AND DECISION

Purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act(IDEA)(20U.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 unique 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. § 1400[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]).

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; H.C.v. Katonah-Lewisboro Union Free Sch. Dist., 2013 WL 3155869 [2d Cir. June 24, 2013]; R.E. v. New York City Dep't. of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 189-90 [2d Cir. 2012], cert. denied 2013 WL 1418840 [U.S. June 10, 2013]; M.H. v. New York City Dep'tof 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. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 129 [2d Cir. 1998] [quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206]; see T.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 247, 253 [2d Cir. 2009]). 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., 553 F.3d 165, 172 [2d Cir. 2009]; Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003]; Perricelli v. Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist., 2007 WL 465211, at*10 [S.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2007]).

Under the IDEA, if procedural violations are alleged, an administrative officer may find that a student did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a) impeded the student's right to a FAPE, (b) significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student, or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 CFR 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; Winkelman 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; A.H. v. Dep't of Educ., 2010 WL 3242234, at *2 [2d Cir. Aug. 16, 2010]; E.H. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 3930028, at *7 [N.D.N.Y.Aug. 21, 2008], aff'd, 2009 WL 3326627 [2d Cir. Oct. 16, 2009]; Matrejek v.

Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 471 F. Supp. 2d 415, 419 [S.D.N.Y. 2007], aff'd, 2008 WL 3852180 [2d Cir. Aug. 19, 2008]).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 a 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, 142 F.3d at 130 see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189). 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 T.P., 554 F.3d at 254; P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 118-19 [2d Cir. 2008]; Perricelli, 2007 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 Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192). The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE) (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; G.B. v. Tuxedo Union Free Sch. Dist., 751 F. Supp. 2d 552, 573-80 [S.D.N.Y. 2010], aff'd, 2012 WL 4946429 [2d Cir. Oct. 18, 2012]; E.G. v. City Sch. Dist. of New Rochelle, 606 F. Supp. 2d 384, 388 [S.D.N.Y. 2009]; Patskin v. Bd. of Educ., 583 F. Supp. 2d 422, 428 [W.D.N.Y. 2008]).

An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that includes a statement of the student's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (see 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] [noting that a CSE must consider, among other things, the "results of the initial evaluation or most recent evaluation" of the student, as well as the "'academic, developmental, and functional needs'" of the student]), establishes annual goals designed to meet the student's needs resulting from the student's disability and enable him or her to make progress in the general education curriculum (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][2][i], [2][i][A]; 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 also Application of the Dep'tof Educ., Appeal No. 07-018; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-059; Application of the Dep'tof 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 Supreme Court has stated that even if it is unreasonable to expect a student to attend a regular education setting and achieve on grade level, the educational program set forth in the student's IEP "must be appropriately ambitious in light of his [or her] circumstances, just as advancement from grade to grade is appropriately ambitious for most children in the regular classroom. The goals may differ, but every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives" (Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 1000).

A board of education may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private educational services obtained for a student by his or her parents, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parents were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parents' claim (Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]; Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-70 [1985]; R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85; T.P., 554 F.3d at 252). In Burlington, the Court found that Congress intended retroactive reimbursement to parents by school officials as an available remedy in a proper case under the IDEA (471 U.S. at 370-71; see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 111; Cerra, 427 F.3d at 192)."Reimbursement merely requires [a district] to belatedly pay expenses that it should have paid all along and would have borne in the first instance" had it offered the student a FAPE (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370-71; see 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][ii]; 34 CFR 300.148).

The burden of proof is on the school district during an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement (Educ. Law § 4404[1][c]; see R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85). A private school placement must be "proper under the Act" (Carter, 510 U.S. at 12, 15; Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370), i.e., the private school offered an educational program which met the student's special education needs (see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, 115; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 129). A parent's failure to select a program approved by the State in favor of an unapproved option is not itself a bar to reimbursement (Carter, 510 U.S. at 14). The private school need not employ certified special education teachers or have its own IEP for the student (Carter, 510 U.S. at 13- 14). Parents seeking reimbursement "bear the burden of demonstrating that their private placement was appropriate, even if the IEP was inappropriate" (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; see M.S. v. Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of Yonkers, 231 F.3d 96, 104 [2d Cir. 2000]). "Subject to certain limited exceptions, 'the same considerations and criteria that apply in determining whether the [s]chool [d]istrict's placement is appropriate should be considered in determining the appropriateness of the parents’' placement'" (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, quoting Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356, 364 [2d Cir. 2006]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207).

Parents need not show that the placement provides every special service necessary to maximize the student's potential (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65).When determining whether a unilateral placement is appropriate, "[u]ltimately, the issue turns on" whether the placement is "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits" (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364; see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115; Berger v. Medina City Sch. Dist., 348 F.3d 513, 522 [6th Cir. 2003] ["evidence of academic progress at a private school does not itself establish that the private placement offers adequate and appropriate education under the IDEA"]). A private placement is appropriate if it provides instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a student (20 U.S.C. § 1401[29]; Educ. Law § 4401[1]; 34 CFR 300.39[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[ww]; Hardison v. Bd. of Educ. of the Oneonta City Sch. Dist., 773 F.3d 372, 386 [2d Cir. 2014];C.L. v. Scarsdale Union Free Sch. Dist., 744 F.3d 826, 836 [2d Cir. 2014]; Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 114-15; Frank G., 459 F.3d at 365).

The Second Circuit has set forth the standard for determining whether parents have carried their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of their unilateral placement. No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining whether parents' unilateral placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. Grades, test scores, and regular advancement may constitute evidence that a child is receiving educational benefit, but courts assessing the propriety of a unilateral placement consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child's individual needs. To qualify for reimbursement under the IDEA, parents need not show that a private placement furnishes every special service necessary to maximize their child's potential. They need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction. Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, quoting Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65).

The final criterion for a reimbursement award is that the parents' claim must be supported by equitable considerations. Equitable considerations are relevant to fashioning relief under the IDEA (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374; R.E., 694 F.3d at 185, 194; M.C. v. Voluntown Bd. of Educ., 226 F.3d 60, 68 [2d Cir. 2000]; see Carter, 510 U.S. at 16 ["Courts fashioning discretionary equitable relief under IDEA must consider all relevant factors, including the appropriate and reasonable level of reimbursement that should be required. Total reimbursement will not be appropriate if the court determines that the cost of the private education was unreasonable"]; L.K. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 674 Fed. App'x 100, 101 [2d Cir. Jan. 19, 2017]). With respect to equitable considerations, the IDEA also provides that reimbursement maybe reduced or denied when parents fail to raise the appropriateness of an IEP in a timely manner, fail to make their child available for evaluation by the district, or upon a finding of unreasonableness with respect to the actions taken by the parents (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][iii]; 34 CFR 300.148[d]; E.M. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 758 F.3d 442, 461 [2d Cir. 2014] [identifying factors relevant to equitable considerations, including whether the withdrawal of the student from public-school was justified, whether the parent provided adequate notice, whether the amount of the private school tuition was reasonable, possible scholarships or other financial aid from the private school, and any fraud or collusion on the part of the parent or private school]; C.L., 744 F.3d at 840 [noting that "[i]mportant to the equitable consideration is whether the parents obstructed or were uncooperative in the school district's efforts to meet its obligations under the IDEA"]).

Reimbursement may be reduced or denied if parents do not provide notice of the unilateral placement either at the most recent CSE meeting prior to their removal of the student from public school, or by written notice ten business days before such removal, "that they were rejecting the placement proposed by the public agency to provide a [FAPE] to their child, including stating their concerns and their intent to enroll their child in a private school at public expense" (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][iii][I]; see 34 CFR 300.148[d][1]). This statutory provision "serves the important purpose of giving the school system an opportunity, before the child is removed, to assemble a team, evaluate the child, devise an appropriate plan, and determine whether a [FAPE] can be provided in the public schools" (Greenland Sch. Dist. v. Amy N., 358 F.3d 150, 160 [1st Cir. 2004]). Although a reduction in reimbursement is discretionary, courts have upheld the denial of reimbursement in cases where it was shown that parents failed to comply with this statutory provision (Greenland, 358 F.3d at 160; Ms. M. v. Portland Sch. Comm., 360 F.3d 267 [1st Cir. 2004]; Berger v.

Medina City Sch. Dist., 348 F.3d 513, 523-24 [6th Cir. 2003]; Rafferty v. Cranston Public Sch. Comm., 315 F.3d 21, 27 [1st Cir. 2002]); see Frank G., 459 F.3d at 376; Voluntown, 226 F.3d at 68).

Prong I

Did the DOE offer a FAPE for the 2021-22 School Year?

The DOE rested on their IEP dated 4/15/21 without calling any witnesses to explain the reasoning or rationale for their recommendations. Without having an explanation as to how or why the CSE made the recommendations and mandates on the 4/15/21 IEP I find the DOE failed to establish that they provided the student with a FAPE for the school year in question. Although the DOE representative stated they are not conceding they just do not have evidence as to Prong I, by just resting on their IEP without any testimony as to how they came to their recommendations is in effect a concession. The SRO has found that allegations that are left unchallenged are deemed as true. ( See Application of a Student with a Disability, 01-044.) By failing to present witnesses, I find that the DOE Representative conceded that a FAPE was not provided to the student for the 21-22 school year.

Prong II

Was REDACTED an appropriate Placement for the 21-22 School Year?

Testimony and documentary evidence support REDACTED and the supplemental educational and related services were appropriate for the student, for the 21-22 school year.

The Parents first witness is REDACTED the Principal of REDACTED. She credibly testifies that the classes at the school range from 5-7 students per class and for every student there is 1 adult assigned. REDACTED (hereinafter “the student” ) attends REDACTED. She notes REDACTED is classified with REDACTED, is completely REDACTED and utilizes a REDACTED which REDACTED has become proficient. She notes that REDACTED can say full sentences REDACTED however REDACTED requires support and redirection to do so. She adds that REDACTED requires a REDACTED throughout the school day.

She believes the biggest issue that impedes REDACTED ability to learn is REDACTED high level of distractibility. To address this issue REDACTED utilizes dividers in the classroom to limit REDACTED visual exposure. They also give the student a visual checklist of tasks that keep REDACTED focused. REDACTED knows that once REDACTED completes a certain number of tasks REDACTED gets to take a break. Another issue that impedes REDACTED learning is REDACTED engaging in attention seeking behaviors. REDACTED will get up in the middle of something and start walking around the classroom. To address this issue REDACTED has a social thinking practice which targets appropriate social behaviors.

REDACTED testifies that everyone in the school works with REDACTED to increase REDACTED ability to communicate utilizing REDACTED and that every person that works with REDACTED has been trained by their Speech Department so they will know the proper way to instruct REDACTED how to properly utilize REDACTED.

She concludes that REDACTED has demonstrated progress during the school year in question. REDACTED has improved REDACTED skills in Reading, writing and Math. She adds that REDACTED has definitely improved REDACTED Social Skills and Social Thinking ability. The DOE representative had no cross for the witness.

The second witness to testify for the student was the Parent. She states that at 2 ½ REDACTED was diagnosed with REDACTED. She signed a contract for the 21-22 school year and has not made any payments towards the tuition. She believes REDACTED has made progress and adds that the staff is “awesome” and that REDACTED “thrives” in the 1:1 setting. In addition to the academics REDACTED receives Occupational Therapy, Speech Therapy, REDACTED AND REDACTED. REDACTED needs to be redirected and refocused and the 1:1 staffing allows this to happen. The staff will redirect REDACTED and have REDACTED utilize REDACTED which REDACTED does not always like to do. She concludes by stating that she “firmly believes REDACTED is an appropriate placement for her REDACTED. The DOE had no cross. Although the DOE stated they would be contesting the appropriateness of the Parents unilateral placement no such challenges were made. The IEP alone without testimony to support the appropriateness of the same is equivalent to silence. The SRO has found that allegations that are left unchallenged are deemed as true “unless found to be inconsistent with the evidence in the record.” Application of a Student with a Disability, 01-044 (SRO March 27, 2002). The DOE’s silence at hearing has the effect of conceding every point alleged by the parent against the DOE unless it is inconsistent with the hearing record. Based upon the non-contradicted evidence submitted by the Parent of the appropriateness of their unilateral placement coupled with the DOE’s silence I find REDACTED served as an appropriate placement and program to the Student for the 2021-22 school year.

Prong III- Are their equitable considerations that would reduce or bar the relief requested by the Parents?

The Parent is not evidenced in any way to have frustrated any attempt by the DOE to offer the Student a FAPE for the 21-22 school year. Although the DOE Representative stated they would be challenging the equities, no such challenges were made at any time during the hearing. As such I find the equities favor the Parents.

FUNDING 2021-2022School Year The Parent is seeking direct payment to REDACTED in the amount of $129,000 for the students 12-month placement(Ex K ). The Parent credibly testifies that she is unable to pay the tuition and submits her tax return to support her inability. (Ex L) The DOE has not supported their burden of showing they have provided a FAPE for the 2021-2022 school year and the Parent has supported their Prong II burden and the equities favor the Parent. I find the DOE should pay directly to REDACTED the sum of $129,000 which represents the tuition for the 2021-2022 school year, less any monies paid previously under Pendency.

ORDER

• • Department of Education (DOE) failed to offer the Student a FAPE for the 2021-2022 school year.
• • REDACTED serves as an appropriate placement for the Student for the 2021-22 school year.
• • Upon proof of the student’s attendance the DOE shall directly pay for the students’12-month placement and tuition at REDACTED in an amount not to exceed $129,000, less any monies previously paid under Pendency.
• • This decision is subject to appeal and review by the State Review Officer.

Dated: October 24, 2022 IHO Tina Millman

Impartial Hearing Officer

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Within 40 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the Public-School District has a right to appeal the decision to a State Review Officer (SRO) of the New York State Education Department under section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The regulations governing appeals are found in Part 279 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education. A copy of the rules in Part 279 and model forms are available at http://www.sro.nysed.gov.

As those Regulations detail, before filing an appeal, if either party intends to appeal the decision, a Notice of Intention to Seek Review shall be personally served upon the opposing party before the Appeal itself is filed, no later than 25 days after the date of the decision sought to be reviewed.

The Appeal itself must be personally served upon the opposing party within 40 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. An appealing party shall file the notice of intention to seek review, notice of request for review, request for review, and proof of service with the Office of State Review of the State Education Department within two days after service of the request for review is complete. The rules of procedure for appeals before an SRO are found.

The Department of Education has designated the New York City Law Department to accept service of papers on its behalf, including appeals of decisions of Impartial Hearing Officers. Such service is made at 100 Church Street, New York, NY 10007 at the Messenger Center.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

PARENT

ITEM NUMBER

DATE

DESCRIPTION

Number of pages

A 12/15/21 Impartial Hearing Request 4

B 06/03/19 Findings of Facts and Decision 12

C 04/15/21 Individualized Education Program 22

D Program Description 8

E 06/17/21 Ten Day Notice 2

F 21/22 Class Schedule 1

G 21/22 Progress Report 14

H 03/25/21 Annual Review 15

I 06/09/22 School Affidavit 1

J 21/22 Attendance Record 1

K 06/14/21 Enrollment Contract 2

L

2020

Parent 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return

3

DEPARTMENTOF EDUCATION

NONE