NY IHO #224315: New York City... | Special Education Law

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

CASE NUMBER: 569669 - NYC: 224315

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 224315

Student’s Name: REDACTED

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Dates of Hearing: May 19, 2022

May 27, 2022

June 16, 2022

June 28, 2022

Actual Record Close Date: August 1, 2022

Hearing Officer: Jean Marie Brescia, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

May 19, 2022 For the Parent:

None

For the Department:

None

May 27, 2022 For the Parent:

REDACTED, Esq.

For the Department:

Dr. REDACTED, District Representative

June 16, 2022 For the Parent:

REDACTED, Esq.

REDACTED, Parent For the Department:

None

June 28, 2022 For the Parent:

REDACTED, Esq.

REDACTED, Parent

Dr. REDACTED

REDACTED, Director of REDACTED Program at the REDACTED School For the Department:

Dr. REDACTED, District Representative

On May 12, 2022, I was designated as impartial hearing officer, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §1415(f), in the matter of REDACTED after the appointment of another hearing officer was rescinded. REDACTED’s parent (“Parent”) requested the hearing on February 4, 2022, challenging the Department of Education’s failure to offer REDACTED a free appropriate public education for the 2021-2022 school year and seeking funding for REDACTED’s tuition at The REDACTED School (“REDACTED”), a non-public special education school. Ex. A at 1.

A pre-hearing conference was scheduled for May 19, 2022. Neither a representative of the Department nor Parent’s counsel attended the pre-hearing conference. Tr. 2-3. I rescheduled the matter for May 27. The hearing on the merits was conducted on June 16 and June 28, 2022. The Department did not appear on the June 16 hearing date despite a notice from the hearing officer, in light of a prior nonappearance in this proceeding, that the DOE would be in default if it did not appear. IHO Ex. I; Tr. 24-25, 33. At the July 1 hearing date, the District Representative stated that the Department “did not plan to present witnesses today.” Tr. 41.

The parties made joint applications on the record for extensions of the compliance date. The applications were granted by written Orders of Extension dated May 27 and July 28, 2022. The record closed on August 1, 2022, upon the hearing officer’s review of the transcript of the last day of hearing, and the Actual Record Close Date is August 1, 2022.

Appended to the record are the names of the persons who appeared at the hearing and a list of the documents entered into evidence.

Findings of Fact

• REDACTED is now REDACTED year-old boy whose disability, for the purposes of the IDEA, is classified as multiply disabled. Tr. 65.
• REDACTED was born with REDACTED (“REDACTED”), a type of REDACTED, and he experiences REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, and a REDACTED which impacts both his REDACTED processing skills and his overall learning. REDACTED’s REDACTED “affects his entire body globally.” He is REDACTED and REDACTED. REDACTED uses a REDACTED, wears a REDACTED, and wears REDACTED. It is difficult to understand his speech. Exs. B, C, E, F, W, X at ⁋⁋ 9-11, Y at ⁋⁋ 13-15, 17.
• During the 2021-2022 10-month school year, REDACTED attended a REDACTED class at REDACTED. Tr. 65.
• REDACTED received Early Intervention services starting as an infant. Tr. 65-66.
• REDACTED’s preschool services consisted of SEIT services provided at his home, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy and vision therapy. Tr. 65; Exs. B at 2, E at 1. He also received, apart from the CPSE services, specialized physical, movement and speech therapies. Exs. B at 2, E at 1.
• Dr. REDACTED, a licensed neuropsychologist, evaluated REDACTED in February and March 2021 and prepared a Neuropsychological and Educational Evaluation Report. Tr. 57; Exs. B, V, X at ⁋⁋ 1-8.
• REDACTED’s scores varied from average to below average; and the evaluation was complicated by his verbal and motor impairments. There are things that REDACTED is able to do cognitively but not able to demonstrate physically. REDACTED’s receptive language skills are “at the higher end of his abilities. Ex. X at ⁋ 13-14, 16.
• REDACTED impacts REDACTED’s muscle and body skills, and REDACTED’s “primary issue” in accessing learning is his motor skills. Ex. X at ⁋⁋ 15, 19.
• Testing revealed REDACTED’s “emerging verbal cognitive abilities,” including verbal concept formation, vocabulary, and understanding how concepts are related and can be grouped together. REDACTED performed in the low average range in listening comprehension; Dr. REDACTED noted that REDACTED’s performance on listening comprehension was “consistent” with REDACTED’s “observed strength in everyday life regarding receptive language.” Exs. B at 4, 7; X at ⁋⁋ 17-19.
• On academic testing, REDACTED demonstrated progress in preschool learning, and he was interested and engaged in these early academic activities (letters and numbers). Ex. B at 4, 7. He showed emerging abilities in early reading and math learning, with “very good focus, interest, and engagement in such activities.” Ex. B at 7.
• Dr. REDACTED noted that REDACTED’s “verbal strengths would suggest a great deal of potential to come for [his] progress with academic skills and beyond. Writing poses [a] particular challenge for him due to the REDACTED-motor demands.” Ex. B at 7.
• REDACTED’s overall physical development was comparable to that of an 8-month old child; he could not sit up, stand or walk without support. His adaptive behaviors were also significantly impacted by his physical challenges and “on par” with those of a 13-month old child. Ex. B at 4-5. REDACTED’s fine and gross motor skills were very limited. Ex. B at 6.
• REDACTED was a “very good natured, very well related, and empathic” child who “focuse[d] well on tasks” and was “very socially engaged, adaptable, and communicate[d] well with those around him from a social perspective.” Ex. B at 6.
• Dr. REDACTED recommended that an IEP for REDACTED include:
• Support for REDACTED’s motor and REDACTED challenges, such as in navigating the physical environment of school, ADL skills, and fine and gross motor skills as they impact learning tasks;
• Vision services and adaptation of materials;
• A small classroom with a low student-to-teacher ratio with a “calm setting from a sensory perspective” and with availability of teacher support and modifications;
• One-to-one support “during learning activities in order to facilitate his participation, as well as to deal with the motor demands of the classroom and engaging in the various activities of daily living that occur throughout the school day;”
• Accommodations and modifications to engage in learning activities (for example, tangible letters that he can move to and from a Velcro board);
• Participation with general education students; and
• Related services. Exs. B at 7-8, 12-14; X at ⁋⁋ 20, 22, 24-27.
• REDACTED’s pediatrician, Dr. REDACTED, recommended a small class in a small school with an elevator, a specialized chair to support REDACTED while sitting, a health paraprofessional, and physical, occupation and speech therapies. Ex. C.
• REDACTED’s CPSE SEIT, Ms. REDACTED, recommended that REDACTED attend a small REDACTED classroom with supports, including 1:1 support throughout the school day, to ensure that he attends to his environment, navigates his environment, increases his use of language, and interacts with his peers, and receive related services, including vision support services. Ex. E at 8-9;^[1] see also Ex. W (speech therapist report).
• REDACTED’s mother attended REDACTED’s “REDACTED” IEP meeting on June 16, 2021. Tr. 68. She provided the CSE with Dr. REDACTED’s report, letters or reports from Dr. REDACTED, Ms. REDACTED, and related services providers and vision assessments and reports as well as medical records. Tr. 69; Ex. J at 2.
• The above reports were not reviewed at the meeting, and REDACTED’s mother felt that the Department personnel did not pay attention to the above documentation. Tr. 69; Ex. J at 2.
• The CSE discussed recommending a health paraprofessional for REDACTED, and the meeting participants agreed that REDACTED needed a health paraprofessional. Tr. 71; Exs. J at 2, Ex. K.
• The CSE recommended that REDACTED attend a 12:1:1 special education class and receive speech, occupational, physical and vision therapies. Tr. 69; Ex. J at 2.
• Department personnel approved specialized bus transportation for REDACTED, specifically a bus paraprofessional and REDACTED access. Ex. H.
• After the IEP meeting, REDACTED’s mother did not receive a copy of the IEP or a school location letter. Tr. 70.
• By letter dated August 25, 2021, REDACTED’s mother notified the Department that she was placing REDACTED at REDACTED. Tr. 73-74; Exs. Q, U. In the letter, among many other concerns, REDACTED’s mother stated that she had not received a copy of REDACTED’s IEP, a School Location Letter or any Prior Written Notice documents. Ex. J at 3.
• REDACTED’s mother enrolled REDACTED in REDACTED in the REDACTED Program at REDACTED because this program and school would provide him with a small class and the supports he needed. Tr. 71-72. REDACTED attended REDACTED as of September 2021. Tr. 74-75, 78; Ex. Y at ⁋ 11.
• REDACTED is a REDACTED through grade 12 school that includes general and special education students. REDACTED is an acronym for inclusion, diversity, excellence, acceptance and leadership. Ex. Y at ⁋ 4. There are approximately 80 students in the Lower School, which includes REDACTED through fifth grade classes. Ex. Y at ⁋ 7.
• In the Lower School, the curriculum is based on the Common Core and the New York State Standards for Learning, and teachers utilize TERC math, Fundations for phonics, and the Teachers College Reading and Writing Program. For students with disabilities, teachers modify the speed, manner and/or timing of instruction. Ex. Y at ⁋⁋ 5-6.
• General education and special education students are in the same classes; students who need “an extra layer of support” are included in the REDACTED Program, in which they receive the support of a 1:1 associate teacher and related services. Ex. Y at ⁋⁋ 9-10.
• REDACTED is a bright student who is aware of his environment and benefits from listening, observing and participating in the classroom. Tr. 60-62.
• As a result of his physical challenges, REDACTED has labored speech; while his vocabulary is significant, he often speaks in very short and labored phrases. In addition, he is unable to write. Ex. Y at ⁋⁋.16-17.
• The associate teacher adapted materials for REDACTED to accommodate his REDACTED. In addition, REDACTED often needed a distraction-free space; the associate teacher would use this time to review and preview material with him. Tr. 87; Ex. Y at ⁋⁋.19-20. The associate teacher also scribed REDACTED’s writing ideas so that he could participate in writing activities. Ex. Y at ⁋ 23.
• REDACTED benefits from interacting with his typically-developing peers at REDACTED for modeling and for developing social, communication and engagement skills. Ex. Y at ⁋ 21.
• REDACTED’s teachers provide him with specialized reading instruction through Fundations, a structured and multisensory program emphasizing phonemic awareness, phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary, comprehension and spelling. Ex. Y at ⁋ 22.
• When REDACTED started at REDACTED, his mother requested that REDACTED provide him with a health paraprofessional. School personnel informed her that they needed an IEP recommending a paraprofessional for REDACTED before they could provide one. Tr. 75.
• By letter dated December 24, 2021, REDACTED’s mother again informed the Department that she had not yet received a copy of the IEP and stated that, at the IEP meeting “it was agreed that REDACTED would have a mobility para for his REDACTED and Cortical [V]ision Impairment.” Ex. K.
• REDACTED’s mother requested a copy of the IEP, and asked how she would go about securing the paraprofessional. Tr. 75; Ex. K.
• The Department eventually forwarded REDACTED’s mother a copy of the IEP, but it did not include the health paraprofessional. Tr. 75; Ex. S.
• REDACTED’s mother then requested a health paraprofessional from the Department, but the Department did not provide one. Tr. 76.
• Since REDACTED did not have a health paraprofessional during the 2021-2022 school year at REDACTED, REDACTED personnel worked together to provide REDACTED with some of the most necessary supports that a health paraprofessional would have supplied: (a) the REDACTED Program “associate teacher” accompanied REDACTED throughout the school day. She assisted him with academics and “help[ed] him out” both in the classroom and throughout the school so he could move within the classroom and navigate the school building. Tr. 80-82, 87, 89. (b) The associate teacher also transitioned him from his adaptive seating to standing or other positions so that his body was not confined to one position for the entire school day. Tr. 89. (c) The school nurse assisted the associate teacher when REDACTED needed the bathroom; and (d) the occupational therapist (and sometimes other school personnel) provided assistance during lunch. Tr. 82, 88-89.
• REDACTED, the director of the REDACTED Program at REDACTED, is a New York State licensed speech and language pathologist. Ex. Y at ⁋ 1. Ms. REDACTED is a pediatric feeding therapist, and she trained the associate teacher and other school staff to feed REDACTED. Tr. 91-92.
• At lunch, REDACTED needed to be fed by an adult for safety and nutrition reasons. Tr. 88.
• REDACTED had the adaptive toileting equipment that REDACTED needed, but the equipment required a two-person lift. Tr. 87-88.
• REDACTED would benefit from the consistency of a health paraprofessional to assist him with mobility, toileting and feeding. Tr. 89-90. This would also permit the associate teacher to focus on her teaching duties to support REDACTED’s learning, modify the curriculum, adapt materials for him, and preview and review material with him.
• The Department reconvened an IEP meeting for REDACTED on March 1, 2022, and added a health paraprofessional to REDACTED’s IEP. Ex. O at 2.
• The Department forwarded REDACTED’s parent a Prior Written Notice dated March 29, 2022. Ex. O. This document states that the Department recommends a 1:1 health paraprofessional for REDACTED (as well as a transportation paraprofessional). Ex. O at 1.
• REDACTED tried to hire someone to fill the health paraprofessional position but were not able to find someone given that it was late in the school year. Tr. 92-93.
• REDACTED provided REDACTED with occupational therapy. The therapist targeted REDACTED’s fine motor skills, including his grasp, pointing, feeding skills, and body awareness. Ex. M at 1-2.
• REDACTED provided REDACTED with speech and language therapy. The therapist targeted expanding REDACTED’s length of utterances, engaging in conversation, describing objects, engaging in greetings, improving breath support, and oral motor control. Ex. M at 2-3.
• REDACTED provided REDACTED with physical therapy. The therapist targeted REDACTED’s trunk control, standing, and coordination. Ex. M at 3.
• Dr. REDACTED stated that he was familiar with the REDACTED Program at REDACTED and opined that it was appropriate for REDACTED because it provides him with the teacher support that he needs and a classroom in which he participates with typically developing peers. Ex. X at ⁋ 21.
• REDACTED’s mother has observed that REDACTED made progress at REDACTED: he has learned the alphabet, recognizes letters, sounds out letters, adds small numbers, counts (forwards and backwards), and count by tens. Tr. 76-77.
• REDACTED’s parents entered into an enrollment contract with REDACTED which obligates them to pay tuition in the amount of $148,352.00 for REDACTED’s attendance for the time period from September 2021 through June 2022. Exs. P, Q. REDACTED’s parents, as of the time of the hearing, have paid $8,000.00 towards the total tuition amount. Ex. P.

Decision

A board of education may be required to pay for education services obtained for a child by the child's 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. School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, 471 U.S. 359 (1985). The fact that the school selected by the parents is not approved as a school for children with disabilities by the State Education Department (as in the instant case) is not dispositive of the parents’ claim for tuition reimbursement. Florence County School District v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993).

The central purposes of the IDEA are to ensure: (1) that students with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education 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) that the rights of students with disabilities and their parents are protected. 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1)(A); Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 51 (2005); Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179-181 (1982). The first step in the inquiry is to determine whether the school district offered a free appropriate public education to the student. See, e.g., Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-008; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-121. A free appropriate public education includes special education and related services designed to meet the student’s individual needs, provided in conformity with a written IEP. See 20 U.S.C. §1401(9); 20 U.S.C. §1414(d).

A school district offers a student a free appropriate public education when (1) it complies with the procedural requirements of the IDEA and (2) the IEP developed by the district is “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988, 999 (2017); see also Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207; 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). 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. The school district also must ensure that “[t]o the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities are educated with children who are not disabled” that is, in the student’s least restrictive environment. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); 8 NYCRR 200.1(cc), 200.6(a)(1); see M.W. ex rel. S.W. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 725 F.3d 131,143 (2d Cir. 2013).

The particular educational needs of a student with a disability and the services required to meet the needs must be set forth in a written IEP. Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 311 (1988); 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9)(D); see 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d); 34 C.P.R. § 300.320. An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student’s needs. 34 C.F.R. 300.320 (a)(1); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. 200.4(d)(2). The CSE then must establish annual goals related to the identified needs of the student and provide for the use of appropriate special education services in the IEP. 8 N.Y.C.R.R. 200.4(d)(2)(iii), (v).

In New York, the school district bears the burden of proof in 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. N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404(1)(c); see R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85. In this case, the DOE did not present testimony or documentary evidence with respect to its provision of FAPE to REDACTED for the 2021-2022 school year. Since the Department did not offer any testimony or documentary evidence to explain how its IEP for REDACTED was “reasonably calculated” to permit him to make progress given his unique circumstances, the Department did not carry its burden of proof and cannot prevail on the first “prong” of the Burlington/Carter test.

REDACTED’s parents bear the burden of proof concerning the appropriateness of REDACTED for REDACTED. See, e.g., Frank G. v. Board of Education of the Hyde Park Central School District, 459 F. 3d 356, 364 (2d Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 169 (2007). To meet this burden, the parent must show that the educational services provided at REDACTED addressed REDACTED's identified special education needs. See C.F., 74;6 F.3d at 82; C.L. v. Scarsdale Union Free Sch. Dist., 744 F.3d 826, 837 (2d Cir. 2014); R.E., 694 F.3d at 187; G.B. and L.B. on behalf of N.B. v. Tuxedo Union Free School District, 09-CV-859 (S.D.N.Y Sept. 30, 2010); Application of the Bd. of City School District of the City of New York, Appeal No. 95-79, at pp. 6-7; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 96-1. The Second Circuit instructs that:

No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining whether parents’ unilateral placement is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive education benefits.” Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207. 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.”

Frank G., 459 F. 3d at 364 (emphasis added); also Bd. of Educ. of the Wappingers Cent. Sch. Dist. v. D.M., 831 F. App’x 29, 78 IDELR 2 (2d Cir. 2020) (Summary Order).

The preponderance of the evidence establishes that REDACTED provided REDACTED with an educational environment in which his constellation of identified special education needs were addressed. In particular, REDACTED addressed REDACTED’s needs for small classes, extensive and consistent teacher accommodations, modifications and supports for his physical and REDACTED challenges and related services. Furthermore, the efforts made by REDACTED personnel in the absence of a health paraprofessional were extraordinary. School personnel were able to create a safe, engaging and beneficial learning environment for REDACTED; an environment in which his mobility, REDACTED and ADL needs were accommodated and in which he could engage with his peers and his environment and learn. The record is clear as to the extent of the individualized special education, related services, accommodations, modifications and supports that REDACTED personnel provide to REDACTED. See paragraphs 26 through 32, 38 through 42, and 46 through 48 above.

Considering the “totality of the circumstances” as required by the Second Circuit in Frank G., the evidence supports a finding that the program at REDACTED is appropriate for REDACTED for the 2021-2022 school year. As a result, REDACTED’s parents prevail with respect to the second Burlington/Carter criterion.

With respect to the third Burlington criterion, whether equitable considerations support REDACTED’s parents’ claims, the evidence establishes that REDACTED’s mother cooperated with the CSE by attending CSE meetings, communicating with Department personnel, and providing the requisite statutory notice. See, e.g., R.E., 694 F.3d at 185, 195; M.F. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79181 at *34-*35 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2013) (“equitable considerations” include parental cooperation with the school district, attending CSE meetings, and providing notice to the school district). Equitable considerations favor the award of relief to REDACTED’s parents. As a result, REDACTED’s parents prevail with respect to the third Burlington/Carter criterion.

Therefore, for all the above reasons, it is ORDERED that:

The Department of Education shall fund REDACTED’s placement at The REDACTED School for the 2021-2022 school year. The amount of funding shall not exceed $148,352.00 for the 2021-2022 school year. The funding shall be reimbursement to REDACTED’s Parents for the amounts they have paid to REDACTED for the 2021-2022 school year, and direct payment to the REDACTED for any amounts REDACTED’s Parents have not yet paid.

Dated: August 13, 2022

______________________________

JEAN MARIE BRESCIA, 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 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

Parents’ Exhibits

EXHIBIT

DATE

DOCUMENT

#PAGES

A 02.04.2022 DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT 11

B 02.26.2021-03.01.2021 NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL AND EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION 16

03.01.2021

LETTER FROM DR. REDACTED RE: EDUCATIONAL PLACEMENT

Withdrawn

E 01.15.2021 EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS REPORT 9

F 10.13.2019 FUNCTIONAL VISION ASSESSMENT FOR CORTICAL REDACTED IMPAIRMENT 7

8.30.2021

LETTER FROM DR. REDACTED

H 06.21.2021 OSH PHYSICIAN REVIEW RE TRANSPORTATION 2

I 01.05.2021 EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS REPORT FROM SEIT 9

J 08.25.2021 TEN DAY NOTICE LETTER 3

K 12.24.2021 LETTER TO CSE REQUESTING IEP 1

10.22.2021

EMAIL FROM MS. REDACTED FOR ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION

M JANUARY 2022 REDACTED INTERIM THERAPY REPORT 4

N 02.08.2022 ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION 9

O 03.29.2022 PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE/SCHOOL LOCATION LETTER 6

P 04.29.2022 FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT 1

Q 07.23.2021 REDACTED SCHOOL CONTRACT 5

R 2021-2022 REDACTED SCHOOL SCHEDULE 2

06.16.2021

IEP 27 T 10.22.2021

EMAIL FROM PARENT TO MS. REDACTED

RE: ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION

08.25.2021

PROOF OF DELIVERY OF TEN-DAY NOTICE LETTER

Undated

CV Dr. REDACTED

2/8/2021

Speech and Language Letter

6/23/2022

Affidavit of Dr. REDACTED

6/23/2022

Affidavit of REDACTED

Footnotes

[1] Exhibit I appears to be a duplicate of Exhibit E.

New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

Findings of Fact