New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

CASE NUMBER: 569033 - NYC: 223840

REDACTED

FINDINGS OF FACT & DECISION

Case No.: 223840

Student’s Name: [Redacted]

(referred to as “Student”)

Date of Birth: [Redacted]

District: [Redacted]

Hearing Request by: [Redacted]

(referred to as “Parent”)

School: [Redacted]

(referred to as “Private School”)

Date of Complaint: January 18, 2022

Hearing Dates: September 12, 2022

September 28, 2022

October 21, 2022

Actual Record Close Date: November 2, 2022

Decision Date: November 16, 2022

Hearing Officer: Vanessa M. Gronbach, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON SEPTEMBER 12, 2022

For the Student:

[Redacted], Esq., Parent Attorney

[Redacted], Parent

For the Department of Education:

[Redacted], Esq., District Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2022

For the Student:

[Redacted], Esq., Parent Attorney

[Redacted], Parent

For the Department of Education:

[Redacted], Esq., District Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON OCTOBER 21, 2022

For the Student:

[Redacted], Esq., Parent Attorney

[Redacted], Law Clerk

[Redacted], Parent

[Redacted], Neuropsychologist

For the Department of Education:

[Redacted], Esq., District Representative

ISSUES

This matter comes before the undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) through the Parents’ Due Process Complaint (“DPC”) filed on or about January 18, 2022, regarding the 2021/22 school year (P-Ex. G)^[1]. The DPC alleged that the District denied the Student a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) by not providing an appropriate program and placement for the 2021/22 school year (P-Ex. G). The Parent has requested tuition reimbursement / direct payment for their unilateral placement of the Student at the Private School, as well as reimbursement for meals paid during the 2021/22 school year (P-Ex. G).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The undersigned was appointed as hearing officer in this matter on May 5, 2022. A prehearing conference was held on May 20, 2022 to discuss the issues in the case. After a status conference in June 2022, the Parent requested hearing dates. The hearing began on August 12, 2022, and was completed in three days, on October 21, 2022 (See, Transcripts).^[2] The District did not present a prong I case. The Parent presented exhibits^[3] and three witnesses, two by affidavit. The record closed on November 2, 2022. There were approximately five extensions of the compliance timelines granted by this Hearing Officer, to allow for the District to investigate the matter and then to accommodate witnesses.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Student was a [Redacted] year old, [Redacted] grade student who attended the Private School during the 2021/22 school year (P-Ex. G; L-3). The Student is classified as a student with a Learning Disability (P-Ex. H). The Student was described as kind and hard-working but struggled in school, especially with reading and math (P-Ex. K-1). According to the Parent, the Student needs a lot of academic and social supports to make progress at school (P-Ex. K-1).

During the 2019/20 school year the Student struggled to make academic progress, so the Parent sought a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation in January 2020 (P-Ex. A; K-1). The pediatric neuropsychologist who evaluated the Student in January testified regarding the Student and the evaluation (P-Ex. A; T. 53). The evaluation comprised of qualitative and quantative information (T. 59). The evaluator’s first impression of the Student was that she was hard working, quiet, and diligent, with challenges in both expressive and receptive language (T. 61). They often had to repeat questions, and prompt her to speak louder (T. 61). The Student had relative strengths in nonverbal reasoning and visual spatial tasks, but challenges with verbal skills, working memory, and processing speed (T. 61-62). The Student was diagnosed with a language disorder, and a specific learning disorder with impairments in reading and written expression (P-Ex. A; K-1; T. 62). The evaluator recommended a small, safe, language enriched classroom in a small special education environment, with evidence-based learning supports such as Orton Gillingham or Wilson Reading (P-Ex. A; K-2; T.63-64). The evaluator noted that the recommendations were made because the Student had not demonstrated measurable progress despite receiving special education services (T. 64). An occupational therapy evaluation was recommended based on the results of the Student’s visual motor integration skills, which demonstrated weaknesses on tasks (T. 65-66). An audiological evaluation was also recommended because the Student had not passed a hearing screening, she had articulation difficulties and needed increased repetition of items (P-Ex. A-15; T. 66).

On May 22, 2020, the Parent shared the evaluation with the District and requested an IEP meeting, however an IEP meeting was not held until August 28, 2020 (P-Ex. K-2). The neuropsychologist who conducted the evaluation explained that the Student required a small class in a non-public school with a language-enriched curriculum (P-Ex. K-2). The participant from the Student’s school was in agreement, however the District did not agree (P-Ex. K-2). The District also failed to provide an interpreter for the Parent and failed to provide a copy of the IEP in the Parent’s native language (P-Ex. K-2).

The Student began attending the Private School for the 2020/21 school year (P-Ex. K-1). The Private School offered specialized instruction for students who have language-based learning disabilities and the potential to do grade-level work, in small classes and intensive reading remediation (P-Ex. K-2).

On May 11, 2021, the District held an IEP meeting and recommended a 12:1+1 classroom in a public school (P-Ex. K-2). The Student’s teachers and the Parent did not agree with the recommendations since the Student had not made any academic progress in the same setting (P-Ex. K-2). Again, the District failed to provide an interpreter for the Parent a the meeting and failed to provide a copy of the IEP in the Parent’s native language (P-Ex. C-2; K-2).

In a previous due process hearing for the 2020/21 school year, an IHO found the Private School to be appropriate, ordered funding and placement at the Private School, and ordered the District to amend the Student’s IEP to recommend an approved non-public school (P-Ex. K-2).

On August 27, 2021, the Parent informed the District of her disagreement with the IEP and notified the District that the Student would be unilaterally placed at the Private School (P-Ex. C). The Parent’s income was insufficient to cover the tuition of the Private School so the Parent secured a loan to pay for the part of the tuition (P-Ex. K1; K-3). Pendency covered part of the tuition for the 2021/22 school year (P-Ex. K-3). The Parent paid for the Student’s school meals even though the Student was [Redacted] (P-Ex. G; F; K). On March 18, 2022, the District held another IEP meeting and amended the Student’s IEP to recommend placement at an approved non-public school (P-Ex. K-3).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Individuals with Disability Education Act (“IDEA”) is comprehensive statutory framework established by Congress to ensure that students with disabilities are afforded FAPE. See, 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1)(A); Schaffer v. Weast, 546 US 49 (2005). A “free appropriate public education consists of educational instruction that is designed to meet the unique needs of the handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from the instruction.” Bd. of Ed. Hendrick Hudson CSD v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 188 (1982). In order to demonstrate that FAPE is being provided, the school district must show “that it complied with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and that the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits.” See, Application of Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 05-061, quoting, Rowley at 206. The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment with non-disabled peers. See, Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dt., 142 F.3rd 119 (2nd Cir. 1998).

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 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]; Rowley, at 206-07).

An appropriate program begins with an IEP which accurately reflects the results of the 1) student’s present levels of performance; 2) provides for the use of appropriate special education services to address the child's special education needs; 3) establishes annual goals which are related to the child's educational deficits; 4) identifies transitions services; 5) provides a start and end date to the recommended program and services; and 6) criteria and evaluation procedures for the measurement of goals. See, Walzczak, supra; Id., Appeal No. 00-005. “The initial procedural inquiry is no mere formality.” Walczak, at 129. “Adequate compliance with the procedures prescribed [by IDEA] would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP.” Rowley at 206. For an IEP to be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, it must be likely to produce progress, not regression. This progress, must be meaningful; i.e., more than mere trivial advancement. Walczak, supra.

In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. __, 14 (2017), the Court held that, “[t]o 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, as a focus on the particular child is at the core of the IDEA. The instruction offered must be “specially designed” to meet a child’s “unique needs” through an “individualized education program.” §§1401(29), (14) (emphasis added), to reflect the fact that a contemplated IEP must be focused on the “particular child that is at the core of the IDEA”. In such case, the school is still required to ensure the student is given an IEP that requires not just academic but also functional progress and, although the goals may differ for students, each child must have an IEP that includes goals and services to enable a child to make both academic and functional progress. The court further stated that an IEP “is not a form document. It is constructed only after careful consideration of the child’s present levels of achievement, disability, and potential for growth” §§1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)–(IV), (d)(3)(A)(i)–(iv), and that “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.” The Court in Endrew further stated that, “[t]he IDEA demands more. It requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Although the Supreme Court declined to elaborate on the definition of “appropriate progress” from case to case, it stated that, “the adequacy of a given IEP turns on the unique circumstances of the child for whom it was created.” Finally, The Supreme Court in Endrew declined to hold, as it declined to hold in Rowley, that “every handicapped child who is advancing from grade to grade... is automatically receiving a [FAPE].” Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176, 203, n. 25 (1982). A Student’s “IEP need not aim for grade-level advancement. But his educational program must be appropriately ambitious in light of his 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. v. Douglas 580 U.S. ___ (2017). “It cannot be the case that the Act typically aims for grade-level advancement for children with disabilities who can be educated in the regular classroom, but is satisfied with barely more than de minimis progress for those who cannot.” Id.

Here, the District failed to present a case and therefore failed to meet its burden in demonstrating that FAPE was provided to the Student for the 2021/22 school year. The District failed to provide any evidence regarding how the recommendations in the IEP would support the Student’s needs; how it would implement the recommendations in the IEP; or confirm whether the recommended public school placement could accommodate the Student’s recommended classroom program. Therefore, I find that the District did not provide the Student with FAPE for the 2021/22 school year.

PARENT’S BURDEN

Parents seeking reimbursement “bear the burden of demonstrating that their private placement was appropriate, even if the IEP was inappropriate” Gagliardo, at 112; see also, M.S. v. Bd. Of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 104 [2d Cir. 2000]). “Subject to certain limited exceptions, ‘the same considerations 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…’” Gagliardo, at 112, quoting, Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 364 (2d Cir. 2006). 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 the parents’ unilateral placement is appropriate, ultimately, the issue turns on whether that placement is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits” (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364; Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115). A private placement is only appropriate if it provides education instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a student (20 U.S.C. § 1401[29]; 34 CFR 300.39[a][1]; Educ. Law § 4401[1]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[ww]; Rowley, 458 U.S. at 188-89).

The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the appropriateness of a unilateral placement turns on whether it is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, which is not limited to a single dispositive factor. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 207 (1982). The Second Circuit cited several factors that may be considered evidence that a child is receiving an educational benefit, including grades, test scores, and regular advancement, yet clarified that courts assessing the appropriateness of a parent’s unilateral placement must “consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child’s individual needs.” Frank G. 459 F.3d at 364; accord Knable ex rel. Knable v. Bexley City Sch. Dist., 238 F.3d 755 (6th Cir.2001) (holding that a unilateral private placement with small classes, where the student made educational progress and grades and behavior improved, was appropriate). Under the IDEA, to meet the requirements for reimbursement, parents do not need to show that a private placement provides every single service required to “maximize their child’s potential.” Frank G. 459 F.3d at 364; See M.S. ex rel. S.S. v. Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 102 (2d Cir.2000) (“The test for parents’ private placement is not perfection.”). Parents must 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.” Frank G. 459 F.3d at 364; Rowley, 458 U.S. at 188–89. “Specially-designed instruction means adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible student under this Part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction to address the unique needs that results from the student’s disability.” 8 NYCRR § 200.1(vv). Where “the hearing record shows that [the Private School] did not provide OT or PT...” and the school “provided programs that assisted the student in developing both fine and gross motor skills,” “the lack of these services” is “not sufficient to support a finding that [the Private School] is not appropriate given that these services did not appear to be necessary to the student receiving educational benefits and [Private School] did address the needs to some extent. The student’s primary needs related to his attention and academics, and [Private School]...adequately, if not perfectly, addressed them.” Application of the Board of Education of the Arlington Central School District, Appeal No. 16- 023 at 24-25.

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 must provide an educational program which meets 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 (id. at 14). The Second Circuit has set forth the standard for determining whether parents have carried their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of their unilateral placement.

“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).

Finding that the District did not provide FAPE to the student during the 2021/22 school year, the burden now shifts to the Parent to prove the appropriateness of the Private School.

After reviewing the testimony and evidence provided, I find that they have met that burden. The Parent’s burden is to demonstrate that the Private School provided educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of the Student, which is supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction.

The Director of the Private School testified by affidavit regarding the Private School and the Student (P-Ex. L). The Private School was described as a K-8 special education program approved by the New York State Department of Education (P-Ex. D; L-1). Students at the school have average cognitive abilities with language-based learning disabilities (expressive, receptive or central auditory processing deficits) (P-Ex. D; L-1). The class ratio at the Private School is 12:1:1 but the academic classes are taught at a student’s instructional level in small groups of about 2-8 students (P-Ex. L-2). Teachers at the Private School are all certified in special education (P-Ex. L-2). Teachers in each group engage in collaboration across subject areas with weekly meetings where teachers discuss the material they are covering in class, as well as individual student progress (P-Ex. L-2).

The Private School provides structured, small-group, multi-sensory, individually tailored instruction to its students, designed to encourage student independence and self-confidence (P-Ex. L-2). They provide support for organization and executive functioning through daily routines, utilize color-coded folders for each subject, graphic organizers, and assistive technology (P-Ex. L-2). An important objective of the Private School program is to develop self-esteem in students, encourage productive coping strategies and reduce negative and self-defeating attitudes (P-Ex. L-2). Skilled teaching, a therapeutic environment in the classroom, and the intervention of teachers, provide the major means of addressing issues such as restlessness, limited attention span, poor organizational ability, low frustration level, impulsiveness, and poor social perception (P-Ex. L-2). The Private School does not provide breakfast or lunch and does not have a cafeteria; students must bring their school meals with them from home (P-Ex. L-5).

Reading and writing classes are taught in small groups, based on multi-sensory methods, made up of students who present with similar reading levels and instructional needs (P-Ex. L-2-3). Vocabulary, spelling, punctuation, learning to write expanded sentences, paragraphs, book reports and research reports are taught using specialized methods, strategies and techniques in the Language Arts classes (P-Ex. L-3). Writing assignments are broken down in a step-by-step manner and lessons include teaching students the brainstorming process through group activities, completing graphic organizers to help with sequencing, generating outlines, a rough draft, and editing and publishing a final copy (P-Ex. L-3). Math is taught in small groups according to level, instructional needs and learning style (P-Ex. L-3). The math program is based on a multi-sensory approach involving the use of manipulatives, frequent review and repetition (P-Ex. L-3).

The Student attended the Private School in-person during the 2021/22 school year (P-Ex. L-3). The Student’s teachers and administration met on a weekly basis to discuss material covered, concerns and progress (P-Ex. L-3). The Student’s strengths were her non-verbal reasoning skills, her basic arithmetic skills, and her hardworking nature (P-Ex. L-3). Her greatest areas of need were decoding, reading comprehension, and written expression (P-Ex. L-3). The Student attended academic classes as well as a Wilson reading program, a fine motor skills class and she received three sessions of speech therapy: 2 group of 5 students and 1 individual (P-Ex. L-4). The Wilson Reading System is based on the Orton Gillingham method and builds a network of sound-symbol associations using visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile modalities (P-Ex. L-3). It is a highly structured, step-by-step approach to utilizing sight word instruction, vocabulary, oral expressive language development and comprehension in which each step builds on previous accomplishments (P-Ex. L-3).

In written expression, the Student was able to use sentence starters to craft responses and construct one sentence claims about the central idea of a text; she still needed teacher assistance to generate strong introductory and concluding sentence and to develop research skills and writing a multi-paragraph essay (P-Ex. L-4). The Student was able to utilize an editing checklist and technology to edit and revise her written work (P-Ex. L-4). In reading, the Student focused on improving her reading fluency and expanding her vocabulary (P-Ex. L-4). She was able to recount stories, describe characters, explain how a text’s illustrations contribute to the story, draw conclusions and identify conflict with teacher support, class notes and discussions (P-Ex. L-4). The Student had difficulty with identifying the central idea of a grade level text, defining unfamiliar words, pronunciation, and identifying the most relevant textual evidence independently (P-Ex. L-4). In Wilson, the Student started the year on step 4.2, which focused on VCE syllable combined with closed syllables and she ended the year on step 5.2, which focused on open syllables combined with VCE and closed syllables in two syllable words (P-Ex. L-4). In math, the Student was able to multiply multi-digit whole numbers and write simple expressions with basic operations (P-Ex. L-4). With the use of a reference sheet, she could add and subtract unlike fractions, reducing answers to simplest form (P-Ex. L-4).

In speech therapy, she worked on her ability to organize and deliver oral summaries of articles/stories and listening strategies to help with auditory comprehension of short stories, and making predictions and inferences (P-Ex. L-4). The Student was able to use context clues to define, describe and generate antonyms and synonyms for curriculum related vocabulary (P-Ex. L-4-5). She was able to use language organization strategies (graphic organizers, outlines) to explain her reasoning and summarize information and use compensatory memory strategies (visualizing, associating, repetition) to support working memory and language processing with minimal support (P-Ex. L-5). She was also working on pragmatic language by answering peer generated questions with expanded responses and maintaining a topic of low interest across five to ten conversational turns with peers (P-Ex. L-5).

With respect to the student’s progress at the Private Schools, a finding of progress is not required for a determination that a student's unilateral placement is adequate, but it is a relevant factor to be considered (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115, citing Rafferty v. Cranston Pub. Sch. Comm., 315 F.3d 21, 26-27 [1st Cir. 2002]). Here, however, as a result of the special education methods and supports provided, the Student made academic progress. Based on all of the above, I find that the Private School was an appropriate placement for the Student for the 2021/22 school year.

EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS

Equitable considerations are relevant in determining relief “because the authority to grant reimbursement [under the IDEA] is discretionary.” Frank G., 459 F.3d at 363-64 (quoting, Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374). In balancing the equities, I find in favor of the Parent. To the extent possible, the Parent has participated in all aspects of the special education process and communicated her concerns with the District.

DECISION

Based on a review of the record and the facts mentioned above, I find that the District failed to provide the Student FAPE during the 2021/22 school year. I further find that the Parent’s unilateral placement at the Private School was appropriate and that the Parent is entitled to reimbursement and direct funding based on her inability to pay the tuition. I further find that the Parent is entitled to reimbursement for [Redacted]. I have considered the Parent’s other requests for relief in the Due Process Complaint and they have been denied for lack of evidence in the record.

ORDER

Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby ordered:

• • ORDER THAT, the District shall reimburse the Parent^[4] and/or directly pay the Private School for all tuition and fees for the Student’s unilateral placement at the Private School for the 2021/22 school year;
• • ORDER THAT, the District shall reimburse the Parent for the [Redacted] she provided the Student during the 2021/22 school year.

SO ORDERED

DATED: November 16, 2022

Vanessa M. Gronbach

Vanessa M. Gronbach, Impartial Hearing Officer

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.

EXHIBITS

District Exhibits

NONE

Parent Exhibits

Ex. Date Description Pages

A 5/13/2020 Neuropsychological Evaluation 19

B 6/15/2021 Private School Contract: 2021-2022 School Year 3

C 8/27/2021 Ten Day Notice 4

D Undated 2021 Private School Program Description 1

E Undated 2021 Loan Promissory Notes 2

F 11/9/2021; 12/5/2021 School Meals Receipts 2

G 1/18/2022 Due Process Complaint 9

H 3/18/2022 Individualized Education Program 33

I 8/18/2022 Private School Tuition Affidavit:2021-2022 School Year 2

J 8/18/2022 Private School Attendance: 2021-2022 School Year 1

K 8/22/2022 Parent Affidavit 3

L

9/12/2022

Affidavit of Private School Director

5

Footnotes

[1] Exhibits shall be referred to as follows: “P” for Parent Exhibit; “D” for the District’s or Department’s Exhibits.

[2] Reference to the Transcript shall be referred to as “T”.

[3] A more detailed list of exhibits is attached.

[4] Although the Parent has requested direct payment to the organization where she secured her loan, I do not have any authority to cite to or rely on to order such an award. The Parent shall be reimbursed and is responsible for repaying her own debt.