New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

CASE NUMBER: 568324 - NYC: 223353

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 223353

Student’s Name: [Redacted]

Date of Birth: [Redacted]

District: redacted

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Dates of Hearing: April 13, 2022

May 9, 2022

June 2, 2022

Actual Record Close Date: June 6, 2022

Hearing Officer: Linda Agoston

CORRECTED: JUNE 20, 2022

(Order re added NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL)

On January 4, 2022, I was designated pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act ("IDEIA"), 20 U.S.C. §1415, and Article 89 of the Education Law of the State of New York, regarding the special education program of [Redacted] (hereinafter "the Student"). The hearing was convened at the request of the Parents, through their attorney, [Redacted], which was received on December 30, 2021. Hearing dates were held on April 13, 2022, May 9, 2022 and June 2, 2022. The parties moved to extend the compliance dates during the course of the hearing. In considering the requests I weighed the cumulative impact of the relevant factors and found that the need of the parties for additional time to prepare and present its positions in accordance with the requirements of due process was greater than any delay in the resolution of the matter. Accordingly the requests for extensions of the compliance dates were granted. (Tr. at 35-36;200-201, Exhs. 1-IV). The current closing date is June 6, 2022 and the compliance date for issuing a decision is June 20, 2022. Appended to the record are the documents submitted into evidence.

The hearing was requested by the Parents to challenge the May 17, 2021 review and recommendation of the Committee on Special Education ("CSE") and to obtain funding/reimbursement for a unilateral placement at [Redacted] hereinafter ("the Private School"). The Parents alleged that the Department of Education ("DOE") failed to provide a free and appropriate public education ("FAPE") for the 2021-2022 school year and seek funding/reimbursement of tuition for the Private School, a non-New York State approved program. The Private School had very small classes designed to empower children aged 5 to 12 with global delays, autism spectrum disorders ("ASD") with a multi-sensory approach (Exh. F at 2). The Private School provided Applied Behavioral Analysis ("ABA") services, speech and language therapy ("SLT"), occupational therapy ("OT") and physical therapy ("PT") to students with ASD (Tr. at 55). The Parents seek direct funding for [Redacted] for the tuition at the Private School for the 2021-2022 school year and reimbursement in the amount of [Redacted] (Tr. at 89;Exh. I at 1) for the full tuition of [Redacted] upon proof of attendance and proof of payment.

The hearing was requested by the Parents who alleged the following inter alia deficits: (1) that the CSE failed to develop an appropriate Individualized Education Program ("IEP") that was reasonably calculated to provide meaningful educational benefit to the Student; (2) that the DOE failed to recommend an appropriate education program tailored to meet the Student's needs; (3) that the CSE failed to consider a deferral to CBST and failed to provide adequate management needs and failed to develop appropriate goals;(4) that the program and services recommended by the CSE were far less restrictive than his previous [Redacted] preschool class where the Student struggled and there was no consideration of the neuropsychological evaluation and no a functional behavioral assessment and no behavior intervention plan were developed and (5) that the Parents' procedural rights under IDEA were impeded as the program was predetermined (Exh. A at 1-4). The Parents seek the following relief: (1) funding for an 1:1 full-time paraprofessional; (2) reimbursement / funding to the Private School for the 2021-2022 school year and (3) funding for a private neuropsychological (Exh. A at 5). The Parents withdrew their request for funding for an 1:1 full-time paraprofessional (Tr. at 88).

BACKGROUND

The Student is a [Redacted] year-old boy who is classified with Autism and who is attending the Private School, (Tr. at 21).

On February 26, 2019, when the Student was [Redacted] years and [Redacted] months old, a psychological evaluation was conducted by a licensed psychologist who assessed his general cognitive ability on the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, 4th Edition ("WPPSI-IV") and found that his FSIQ was not reported as due to his extremely limited verbal skills and that only his visual spatial skills were assessed and that his composite score on the Visual Spatial Index of 73 was in the 4th percentile, in the borderline range (Exh. 9 at 4). The Student's functioning was low based on the Vineland Adaptive Behavioral scales as the Student's communication, daily living and socialization skills were within [Redacted] as the Student was able to understand [Redacted] (Exh. 9 at 3).

On March 5, 2021, when the Student was [Redacted] years and 11 months old, a psychiatric assessment was conducted and the evaluator reviewed his history and noted that he diagnosed with ASD through early intervention ("EI") and assessed his cognitive ability on the WPPSI-IV and found that due to his limited verbal skills a FSIQ was not reported, but that in the area of visual spatial processing score was 73, in the borderline range (Exh. 7 at 1). The results of the Gilliam Autism Rating 3rd Edition, indicated that the Student very likely met the criteria for ASD with an Autism index score of 76 with limited academic and social interactions (Exh. 7 at 4). The evaluator noted that the Student was [Redacted] l and communicated by [Redacted] and had prior experience using PECS and a communication book (Exh. 7 at 2). The evaluator described the Student's level of social / emotional functioning as [Redacted] s he preferred the company of adults over his peers and needed help to [Redacted] and was unable t [Redacted] (Exh. 7 at 3).

The Student's Social History Update dated March 5, 2021, indicated that the Student received Speech, OT and ABA services through EI and that the Student was not able to [Redacted] or follow [Redacted] commands and was " [Redacted] "(Exh. 8 at 1).

The Student's Educational Evaluation dated March 11, 2019, was conducted when the Student was [Redacted] years and [Redacted] months old, and indicated that the Student was diagnosed with ASD and received SLT and OT at a center-based special education program, at [Redacted], and received home-based instruction as well as SLT and OT (Exh. 10 at 1). The Special Education Evaluator indicated that the staff to student ratio of the Student's class was [Redacted] with 1:1 instruction (10 at 6).

The Student's Initial Speech-Language Report dated March 5, 2019, indicated that the Student had received ABA, SLT, OT through [Redacted] EI services and noted that the Student presented with "severe to profound receptive language delays" (Exh. 11 at 2) and noted that the Student was able to produce [Redacted], but did not [Redacted] contact, [Redacted] or [Redacted] for social communication (Exh. 11 at 3).

The Student's OT Evaluation dated March 11, 2019, indicated that the Student attended [Redacted] ABA program 5 mornings per week and had received ABA, OT and SLTL therapeutic services through NYC EI (Exh. 12 at 1). The OT Evaluator noted that the Student exhibited " [Redacted] " and demonstrated " [Redacted] " (Exh. 12 at 3).

The Student's Preschool Evaluation Summary Report indicated that the Student did not [Redacted] when read and did not respond to [Redacted] from adults or [Redacted] social contact with peers or [Redacted] of peers (Exh. 13 at 1) and that the Student had recently begun to [Redacted] and that PDMS-II indicated that he ranked in the 2nd percentile in fine motor skills with a z-score of -2.00 (Exh. 13 at 2) and was an " [Redacted] " (Id.).

On May 17, 2021, the CSE met and classified the Student with Autism and recommended that he be placed in special class in Kindergarten class with a staff to student ratio of 12:1+1 in Math and ELA and receive related services of individual OT twice per week for 30 sessions; individual SLT 2 times per week for 30 minutes per session and SLT once per week for 30 minutes in a group of 3 and parents counseling and training ("PCAT") monthly and receive an iPad mini with Proloquo2Go as an assistive technology device or ACC device (Exhs. D at 12; E at 11; 3-22-23).

On August 20, 2021, the Parents' enrollment contract indicated that the cost of tuition for the Private School was $ [Redacted] for the 2021-2022 school year (Exh. H at 1).

On August 24, 2021, the 10-Day Notice ("TND") indicated that the Student was recommended for a 12:1+1 in a community school with OT, SLT and PCAT and an ACC device. (Exh. B). The TND further indicated that the IEP failed to recommend a 12-month program or transportation and failed to mandate an 1:1 paraprofessional despite the Student's [Redacted] and [Redacted] and only recommended a 12:1+1 program for 20 periods per week leaving the Student in a general education program for a third of the week (Exh. B at 1). The TND stated that the program and placement recommended for the Student were inadequate and inappropriate; therefore, the Parents had no choice but to place the Student at the Private School for the 20212-2022 school year and seek tuition and costs and transportation (Exh. B at 1-2).

THE DOE'S CASE

The District’s case was presented in the testimony of DOE representative who stated that he was not presenting a prong 1 case and was resting on the evidence (Tr. at 34).

THE PARENT'S CASE

The Special Education Teacher, a holder of a license to teach general education and students with disabilities for grades 1-6 and a holder of a national certification as a Board Certified Behavioral Analyst ("BCBA") and a holder of the NYS certification as a Licensed Behavior Analyst ("LBA") and a holder of a Master's degree relating to intellectual disabilities and a holder of an advanced certification of ABA, testified that she worked as an ABA special education teacher at the Private School (Tr. at 46). She stated that the student to staff ratio was 7 students with 6 adults in the Student's class during the 2021-2022 school (Tr. at 47) and that some of the students in her class had paraprofessionals. She stated that she was the head teacher and that there was a teaching assistant and 5 paraprofessionals (Tr. at 65).

The Special Education Teacher recalled that she created the skills acquisition book for the Student upon which goals and programming were based and described the Student as very smart, but stressed that the Student had behavior deficits that included [Redacted] when he was upset (Tr. at 47). She stated that she taught the Student a large amount of functional communication and that currently the Student was able to request a squeeze or a hug when he was upset and that to date the Student was able to use his vocal speech or his AAC device (Tr. at 48). She stated that she taught the Student to use a token board to increase motivation to complete work tasks and that he required a large amount of redirection (Tr. at 49). She stated that the Student had begun to use his communication device to aid his speech and that he was able to use his words to express what he wanted (Tr. at 50). She described the iPad that was programmed with a communication device application and noted that she and the speech therapist were trained to use the device at the beginning of the year (Tr. at 54) and opined that with his devise the Student was able to use vocal speech fluently (Tr. at 55).

The Special Education Teacher stated that she used ABA in the class and that at the beginning of the year she conducted an assessment of the Student and that she used the Strategies for Teaching based on Autism Research, ("STAR") and the Verbal Behavior Milestones Assessment and Placement Program, ("VB-MAPP") curriculum in her class (Exh. L at 2;Tr. at 55-56). She noted that she differentiated instruction and provided individualized instruction and 1:1 ABA to work on the Student's goals (Tr. at 57). She stated that the Student was a quick learner and worked 1:1 with herself or her teaching assistant or that the Student worked in a dyad. She stated that the Student received weekly individual sessions of SLT (3 x 30), OT (3 x 30) and PT (2x30) and opined that the Student progressed by decreasing [Redacted] behavior and by improving in his ability to socialize peers and improved his academic abilities in reading and math (Tr. at 59-60). She stated that the related service providers of OT, PT, SLT were NYS licensed and certified and that the music therapist, yoga instructor and art therapist provided services throughout the week (Exh. J;Tr. at 68). She described the sensory diet that the Student received included deep pressure squeezes, joint compression and a compression vest as well as bouncing on a therapy ball and explained that the Student was able to choose from a board created by the OT provider to pick the sensory diet to regulate himself and opined the diet made him for available for instruction (Id.). She further opined that the Student's progress included more independence in his morning and afternoon routines and noted that the Student was now able to pack more independently and now was [Redacted] and was [Redacted] (Tr. at 69).

The Parent testified regarding her son's educational history in EI with ABA and recalled that in preschool her son attended a center-based school with ABA in a class of 8 students with 2 adults (Tr. at 72). She described her son as non-verbal at the beginning of the 2021-2022 school year, but was verbal in June 2022 (Tr. at 72). She stated that as his sensory needs were met he did not need to act out and stressed that because he was able to communicate his needs his [Redacted] behavior stopped and noted that her son was able to be [Redacted] during the 2021-2022 school year (Id.). She recalled that she participated in the "Turning 5" IEP meeting in May, 2021, and recollected that the team offered her a paraprofessional in a general community setting. She opined that the program was insufficient as her son was non-verbal and had sensory issues and she stressed that she was shocked by the 12:1:1 program as it was less supportive than his [Redacted] preschool program (Tr. at 73). She stated that she was shocked by the CSE recommendation because his preschool staff had told her that her son would be placed in a class with a student to staff ratio of [Redacted] or [Redacted] (Tr. at 74). She stated that the CSE team told her that the recommendation was based on the psychological report conducted when the Student was [Redacted] and a half years old and she noted that at the time of the CSE meeting her son was [Redacted] years old (Tr. at 76).

The Parent recalled that she requested an independent assessment (Tr. at 77), but noted that there was no response to her request. She stated that when she became aware that the recommended program was in a general community school in her home zone, she reached out to the Private School and had signed the contract in August 2021 (Tr. at 80). She stated that had an appropriate program been offered to her son that she would have sent him to the public school program (Tr. at 81). She opined that her son progressed with his communication skills during the 2021-2022 school year and was now " [Redacted] " and was using words and was able to count verbally 1 to 10 and was able to tell her what he needed and when he needed sensory input (Tr. at 84). She opined that her son progressed academically as he was able to [Redacted] and was different child than he was at the beginning of the 2021-2022 school year and that she had paid [Redacted] towards the tuition (Tr. at 85). She stated that she was seeking funding for the balance of the tuition and that the cost of the tuition was more than her income for the 2021 tax year and requested that transportation continue to and from the Private School (Tr. at 86). She stated that prior to the attending the Private School her son just [Redacted], but now was able to utilize the device and communicate his wants and without frustration (Tr. at 93).

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Under IDEA, New York State law and both the federal and State regulations, the right to a FAPE is guaranteed. There is no obligation on the part of the school district to provide the best education for the student but that education must be appropriate so that there is an opportunity for the student to make progress in his/her education. States receiving federal funds are required to provide "all children with disabilities" a "free and appropriate public education" (20 U.S.C. § 400[d][1][A]).(Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 122 [2d. Cir. 2007]). FAPE consists of specialized education and related services designed to meet a student’s unique need, provided in conformity with a comprehensive written IEP (34 C.F.R. § 300.13). "To meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances…." and "a student offered an educational program providing 'merely more than de minimis progress' from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all" (Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), 2017 WL 1066260 [March 22, 2017]). To meet its burden of showing that it had offered to provide a FAPE to a student, the board of education must show (a) that it complied with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) that the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206, 207 [1982]). As for the program itself, the Second Circuit has observed that "'for an IEP to be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, it must be likely to produce progress, not regression'" (Weixel v. Bd. of Educ., 287 F.3d 138, 151 [2d Cir. 2002], quoting M.S. ex rel. SS. V. Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of Yonkers, 231 F.3d 96 at 103 (2d Cir. 2000); see Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 at 130 (2d Cir. 1998).  This progress, however, must be meaningful; i.e., more than mere trivial advancement (Id. at 130). The student's recommended program must also be provided in the LRE (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.550[b]; 8 NYCRR 200.6[a][1]).

For tuition reimbursement cases a board of education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a child by the child’s parent, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parent were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parent’s claim. (School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Dept. Education, Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 [1985]; Florence County School District Four et al. v. Carter by Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]; see also, Frank G. and Dianne G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356 [2d Cir. 2006] cert denied, Board of Educ. of Hyde Park Cent. School Dist. v. Frank G., 2007 WL 2982269 [Oct. 15, 2007]). The burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing challenging the appropriateness of an IEP is on the Department of Education. N.Y. Educ. Law §4404[1][c].

Prong 1

I find that the District presented no witnesses to establish that FAPE was offered for the 2021-2022 school year. I find that the SRO has found that allegations that are left unchallenged are deemed as true. (See Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-044). I find the evidence in the record is consistent with the allegations. I find that the District did not present any witnessed to defend Prong 1 of the Burlington/Carter test for reimbursement/prospective funding and did not contest any allegations contained in the due process complaint including allegations concerns the lack of an appropriate program and placement and predetermination and I find that the violations significantly impeded the Parent's procedural rights under IDEA.

Accordingly, I find that FAPE was not offered for the 2021-2022 school year and the Parent prevailed on the Prong 1.

Prong 2

When a public school system has failed to provide FAPE, as is the case here the program and "services chosen by the parent are "proper under the Act" if the education provided is "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits." Carter, 510 U.S. at 14. Although the parents bear the burden of proof with regard to the services obtained by the parents for the student, they are not barred from reimbursement if their program does not meet the IDEA definition of a FAPE. See 20 U.S.C. §1401(9), Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park., 459 F. 3d 356 (2nd Cir. 2006). It is not required that the provider of the services be State-approved to provide instruction to children with disabilities. Carter, 510 U.S. at 10. The student need not be in the least restrictive environment. Frank G, 459 F. 3d at 364. "Ultimately the issue turns on whether a placement…is 'reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.' [internal citations omitted] …", Frank G, 459 F. 3d at 130. No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining that. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 207 (1982). Parents need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction. Id. at 364-365. See also Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F 3d. 105, 115 (2d Cir. 2007).

I find that the testimony and evidence adduced at the hearing demonstrated that the Student's placement at the Private School was appropriate. I find that the Student benefitted "from the small, structured classroom and the multi-disciplinary approach used" and I find that the Student benefitted "from multi-sensory instruction influenced by [Redacted], and ABA (with the support of a BCBA)" (Exh. L at 4). I find that the STAR and VB-MAPP curriculum was tailored to the Student's strengths and deficits and I find that the Private School was a small, highly therapeutic setting and I find that the staff at the Private School supported his communication deficits, his behavior and his attention difficulties and enabled the Student to progress academically, behaviorally and socially (Tr. at 47;59-63;68-69;76; 83;90;Exh. L at 4). I find that the Student benefited "from [Redacted] and the use of a timer to assist with transitioning from preferred to nonpreferred activities in the therapy gym (Exh. L at 7). I find that the Student made meaningful progress in a variety of areas. I credit the testimony of the special education teacher who was a BCBA and LBA. I find that the Student received 1:1 instruction and did not require an 1:1 paraprofessional and that other classmates required an 1:1 paraprofessional (Tr. at 58). I credit the testimony and find that the ABA therapist and his SLT and OT providers worked together to address the Student's deficits and I find that the staff taught skills across all domains including academics (reading, math, writing) and daily living skills (Tr. at 58-59;Exh. L). I credit the testimony and find that the Student progressed in his toileting skills and that he progressed in his academic skills by ability to count and to match upper case letters with lower case letter (Tr. at 48;60) and I find that the Student progressed greatly in his expressive skills and was able to consistently use his communication device to speak and was able to be understood (Tr. at 48). I find that the Student's communication improved as he was better able to express his wants and needs. I find that because the Private School lengthened the Student's ability to attend and decreased the Student's [Redacted] behavior he was able to acquire more skills. I credit the Parent's testimony and find that her son progressed academically and emotionally as he was able to express his wants and needs for sensory input (Tr. at 72).

The uncontested testimony and evidence established that Student's issues were addressed by the use of 1:1 ABA programs and I find that the Private School placed an emphasis on academic skills, ADL skills and social skills development and that socialization occurred throughout the day and in dyads and in groups (Tr. at 66;Exhs. F at 2;G at 1). I find that the ABA teacher who was a BCBA and a LBA and the related service providers enabled the Student to progress and to generalize skills and I find that the 1:1 ABA and the speech, OT and PT providers improved communication, comprehension and fine and gross motor development. I find that the staff at the Private School addressed his unique special education needs and his distraction issues and his [Redacted] behavior. I find that the Student progressed in his speech, academics, behavior and his ability to attend.

Prong 3

I find that the District did not raise any Prong 3 claims. Further, the evidence shows that the Parent cooperated with the CSE and appropriately and timely notified the district as to her concerns (Tr. at 91; Exh. A at 2).

I find the testimony adduced at the hearing established that the Parent cooperated with the District. I find the Parent established that she was unable to pay to the tuition by her uncontested testimony. I find that parents who have satisfied each of the Burlington factors. have a right to retroactive direct tuition payment relief (A ex. rel D.A v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 769 F. Supp. 2d 403, 427-429 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). I find that the Parent provided detailed and uncontradicted information as to her lack of financial resources to pay the tuition as the [Redacted] in her family(Tr. at 86). I credit the Parent's testimony and I find that the Parents lacked the financial resources to pay tuition for the Private School for the 2021-2022 school year and it would be a hardship to pay the full tuition and wait for reimbursement. I find the Parents met the Connors criteria for prospective funding for the cost of the tuition for the 2021-2022 school year at the Private School and I find that the Parents are entitled to direct retroactive payment. "Once the Burlington prerequisites relative to a non-approved private school are met, and a parent shows that his or her financial circumstances eliminate the opportunity for unilateral placement in the non-approved school, the public school must pay the cost of the private placement immediately" (Connor v. Mills, 34 F.Supp.2d 795 at 805-806, 132 Ed. Law Rep. 767 (N.D.N.Y)).

IEE

As to the claim for prospective payment for the private evaluation of the an independent educational neuropsychological, I find that the DOE failed to appropriately and timely respond to the Parents' request for an Independent Educational Evaluation "IEE") on July 31, 2021, (Exh. K at 2). I find per the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education §200.5(g)(1)(iv) state: "If a parent requests an independent educational evaluation at public expense, the school district must, without unnecessary delay, either ensure an independent educational evaluation is provided at public expense or file a due process complaint notice to request a hearing to show that its evaluation is appropriate or that the evaluation obtained by the parent does not meet the school district criteria." In the instant matter, the DOE failed to comply with its own regulations, failed to authorize the IEE and did not initiate a hearing. I find that the Parent again requested an IEE for a neuropsychological evaluation on December 30, 2021 (Exh A). I find that it was undisputed that the DOE did not timely evaluate the Student. Under the Jose P. Order, "parents of handicapped students who have been referred for evaluation and who have not been evaluated within thirty days may obtain an independent evaluation". I find that the District did not file an impartial hearing request defending their failure to evaluate. 34 C.F.R. § 502 (b)(2)(i); 8 NYCRR 200.5(g)(1)(v). Based on the foregoing, I find the Parents are entitled to funding for an independent educational neuropsychological evaluation by a provider selected by the Parents.

Order

It is ordered that the DOE provide prospective payment of direct funding for [Redacted] for the tuition at the Private School for the 2021-2022 school year and reimbursement in the amount of [Redacted] upon proof of attendance and proof of payment acceptable to the DOE within 30 days of the submission of proof of attendance and proof of payment and provide payment for an independent neuropsychological evaluation by a provided selected by the Parents at the reasonable market rate previously paid by the Impartial Hearing Office's Implementation Unit in the last six months.

Dated: June 15, 2022

_____________/S/________________

LINDA AGOSTON, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

CORRECTED: JUNE 20, 2020

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Within 40 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the Public-School District has a right to appeal the decision to a State Review Officer (SRO) of the New York State Education Department under section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

If either party plans to appeal the decision, a notice of intention to seek review shall be personally served upon the opposing party no later than 25 days after the date of the decision sought to be reviewed.

An appealing party’s request for review shall be personally served upon the opposing party within 40 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. An appealing party shall file the notice of intention to seek review, notice of request for review, request for review, and proof of service with the Office of State Review of the State Education Department within two days after service of the request for review is complete. The rules of procedure for appeals before an SRO are found in Part 279 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education. A copy of the rules in Part 279 and model forms are available at http://www.sro.nysed.gov.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON FEBRUARY 9, 2022

1 Decision on Extension, 2/9/22, 1 p. IHO

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON FEBRUARY 9, 2022

1 Decision on Extension, 2/9/22, 1 p. IHO

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON APRIL 13, 2022

A Impartial hearing request, 12/30/21, 6 pp. Parents

B Ten-day letter, 8/24/21, 2 pp. Parents

C IEP, 5/3/21, 18 pp. Parents

D IEP, 5/17/21, 17 pp. Parents

E IEP, 5/17/21, 16 pp. Parents

F [Redacted] program description, undated, 2 pp. Parents

G [Redacted] learning program, 2021/2022 school year, 1 p. Parents

H Enrollment contract, 8/20/21, 4 pp. Parents

I Tuition affidavit, 4/11/22, 1 p. Parents

J Class schedule for 2021/2022 school year, 2 pp. Parents

K Email exchange between parent and REDACTED, 8/3/21, 2 pp. Parents

1 Due process complaint, 12/30/21, 7 pp. District

2 Ten-day notice, 8/24/21, 2 pp. District

3 IEP, 5/17/21, 30 pp. District

4 Prior written notice,6/14/21, 4 pp. District

5 School location document, 6/15/21, 5 pp. District

6 Social history update, 3/5/21, 3 pp. District

7 Psychiatric assessment and update, 3/5/21, 4 pp. District

8 Social history evaluation, 2/26/19, 3 pp. District

9 Psycho-educational evaluation, 2/26/19, 5 pp. District

10 Education evaluation, 3/11/19, 7 pp. District

11 Speech and language evaluation, 3/5/19, 3 pp. District

12 Occupational therapy evaluation, 3/11/19, 3 pp. District

13 Student evaluation summary report, March 2013, 2 pp. District

I1 Decision on Extension, 4/13/22, 1 p. IHO

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON MAY 9, 2022

III Decision on Extension, 5/9/22, 1 p. IHO

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD ON JUNE 2, 2022

L Quarterly progress report, 9/2021 to 12/2021, 13 pp. Parents

IV Decision on Extension, 6/2/22, 1 p. IHO