New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACTS & DECISION

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

Name Title For Date

[CONFIDENTIAL] Attorney PARENT 06/27/22 (V)

[CONFIDENTIAL] DOE Representative DOE 06/27/22 (V)

[CONFIDENTIAL] DOE Representative DOE 08/16/22 (V)

[CONFIDENTIAL] Attorney PARENT 10/12/22 (V)

[CONFIDENTIAL] DOE Representative DOE 10/12/22 (V)

[CONFIDENTIAL] Attorney PARENT 12/02/22 (V)

[CONFIDENTIAL] DOE Representative DOE 12/02/22 (V)

[CONFIDENTIAL] Attorney PARENT 02/06/23 (V)

[CONFIDENTIAL] Mother PARENT 02/06/23 (V)

[CONFIDENTIAL] Witness PARENT 02/06/23 (V) [CONFIDENTIAL] Witness PARENT 02/06/23 (V)

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD

A. Number/Letter Title Dated For # of Pages Impartial Hearing 02/25/22 PARENT Request 05 pages

B. Program Description N/A PARENT 07 pages

D. C. REDACTED Academy N/A PARENT 01 '21/'22 Learning Plan Ten-Day Notice 08/27/21 PARENT 02 pages

E. Class Schedule '21/'22 N/A PARENT 01 pages

F. Quarterly Report of N/A PARENT Progress, September Through January 16 '21/'22 13 pages

G. Quarterly Report of Progress PARENT February to June '21/'22 12 pages

H. Psychological Evaluation 10/24/19 PARENT 07 pages

I. School Affidavit 10/18/22 PARENT 01 pages

J. Enrollment Contract 06/28/21 PARENT 04 pages

K. Parent Proof of Payment N/A PARENT '21/'22 01 pages

M. L. Parent 2021 1040 U.S N/A PARENT 02 Individual Income Tax Return Affidavit of Testimony of 01/31/23 PARENT REDACTED 06 pages

N. Affidavit of Testimony of 01/31/23 PARENT REDACTED 05 pages

O. Affidavit of Testimony of 02/02/23 PARENT Parent 02 pages

On. May ^[20], 2022, I was appointed as the Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) to conduct a hearing pursuant to the Individual with Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”), THE DOE’S CASE The DOE failed to appear at the Impartial Hearing on February 06, 2023. The DOE did not call any witnesses to testify on its behalf and submitted no documents in evidence. In sum, substance and relevant part, the testamentary and documentary evidence for and against the DOE’s case is incorporated in the decision below. THE PARENT’S CASE The Parent had (2) witnesses testify on their behalf, who testified on direct testimony via affidavit pursuant to 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][3][xii][f]. The DOE was not present at the hearing to cross-examine any of the witnesses. The Parent also submitted twenty (20) documents in evidence. In sum, substance and relevant part, the testamentary and documentary evidence for and against the Parent’s case is incorporated in the decision below. DOES’ DEFAULT The DOE failed to appear and call any witnesses to testify on its behalf and did not submit any documents in evidence. The DOE has the burden of production and persuasion at an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of production and persuasion regarding the appropriateness of such placement. (See Educ. Law § 4404[1][c]) Here, the DOE did not proffer any testamentary evidence that it has offered the student a FAPE. (Supra) This amounts to a concession that the agency did not offer the student a FAPE. It would be fundamentally unfair to allow either party to rely solely on the submission of documents in meeting its burden under law, where those documents are filled with double, triple and even unidentified hearsay sources, that cannot be cross examined. While compliance with technical rules of evidence is not required in administrative hearings, under certain circumstances, the receipt of hearsay evidence may be so prejudicial as to have a tendency to deprive a party of fair hearing. (See Strain v. Sarafan, 57 A.D.2d 525, 393 N.Y.S.2d 572, N.Y.A.D. (1977), where the hearsay testimony was of vital importance and should have been subjected to cross-examination by the petitioner…the petitioner was deprived of a meaningful hearing, Dukes v. New York City Housing Authority, 63 A.D.2d 690, 404 N.Y.S.2d 889, N.Y.A.D. (1978), holding that the excessive reliance on hearsay evidence effectively denied petitioner the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses, Claim of Evans, 254 A.D.2d 564, 678 N.Y.S.2d 696, N.Y.A.D. (3 Dept. 1998), (where in an unemployment compensation proceedings, administrative l[2nd PRIVATE SCHOOL INITIALS] judge (‘ALJ”) properly exercised discretion to exclude hearsay evidence to protect employer’s fundamental right of cross-examination, where claimant proffered written hearsay statement, authored by acquaintance of the employer’s president, which allegedly indicated that claimant did not resign but was fired, but the acquaintance failed to answer subpoena directing him to testify at hearing, thereby denying employer the opportunity to cross-examine him on the statement, and Alvarado v. State of New York, 110 A.D.2d 583, 488 N.Y.S.2d 177 (1st Dept. 1985), holding that a license suspension hearing against a boxer and his managers was faulty because of a lack of an opportunity “to cross-examine certain witnesses whose reports were introduced into evidence without their testifying, in violation of SAPA Section 306, subd. (3).” (Id. at 585, 488 N.Y.S.2d at 179) The DOE did not present a case-in-chief and did not controvert the documentary evidence submitted by the Parent. (Supra) The credibility of the documentary evidence was not rebutted by either party and the documentary evidence is clearly relevant and material to the issues to be determined. I find the documentary evidence submitted by the parent in this case to be credible and uncontroverted in this case. As noted above, the DOE’s failure to present a case at the hearing is a concession that it denied the student a FAPE and that if the Parent meets her burden under Schaffer v. Weast, the Parent is entitled to the proven relief she seeks. This leaves, as the primary issue to be resolved through impartial hearing, what relief and/or compensatory education remedy, if any, is available and appropriate to remediate the denial of a FAPE. (SRO No. 17-033) It is noted that the DOE was required under the due process procedures set forth in New York State law, to address its burdens in the due process hearing context by describing its views, based on a fact-specific inquiry set forth in an evidentiary record, regarding an appropriate relief and/or compensatory education remedy that most reasonably and efficiently could place the student in the position that he would have been but for the denial of a FAPE. (See Doe v. E. Lyme Bd. of Educ., 790 F.3d 440, 457 [2d Cir. 2015], cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 2022 [2016], quoting Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, F.3d 516, 524 [D.C. Cir. 2005] [noting that the "'ultimate award [of compensatory education] must be reasonably calculated to provide the educational benefits that likely would have accrued from special education services the school district should have supplied in the first place'"]) When, as here, the DOE does not present any case at the 401 pages

at. hearing, the hearing, the hearing process essentially becomes an “inquest” as to the appropriate relief. The DOE has conceded liability by failing to present a case and meet its burden under the law. New York State law has placed the burden of production and persuasion an impartial hearing on the school district, unlike states which align the burden of production and persuasion consistent with Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 58-62 [2005} The undersigned finds that the DOE failed to adhere to the requirements of the law, has denied the student in this case a FAPE for the 2020-2021 and 2021-22 school year and that the Parent may be entitled to the proven relief she has requested. APPROPRIATENESS OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT I now turn to the question of whether the DOE should be required to reimburse and/or pay for the private educational services and other relief requested for the student, because the services offered by the DOE were inadequate or inappropriate, and the relief sought and services selected by the Parents are appropriate and equitable considerations support the Parent’s claim. (Burlington, Florence and Cerra, Supra) The Parent need only demonstrate that the requested services are specially designed to meet the unique needs of the student, supported by such services as are necessary to permit her to benefit from the instruction. (See Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; see Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65) Where sought as relief, a private school placement must be "proper under the Act." (See Carter, 510 U.S. at 12, 15 and 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 and Matrejek, 471 F. Supp. 2d at 419) 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. (See Carter, 510 U.S. at 14) The private school need not employ certified special education teachers or have its own IEP for the student. (See Carter, 510 U.S. 7; SRO No. 08-085; 08-025; 08-016; 07-097; 07-038; 02-014 and 01-105) Parents also need not show that the placement provides every special service necessary to maximize the student's potential. (See Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65) When determining whether the parents' unilateral placement is appropriate, "[u]ltimately, the issue turns on" whether that placement is "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits." (See Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364; see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115 [citing Berger v. Medina City Sch. Dist., 348 F.3d 513, [6th Cir. 2003] [stating "evidence of academic progress at a private school does not itself establish that the private placement offers adequate and appropriate education under the 522 pages IDEA"])

State regulations provide in relevant part that "[t]he decision of the impartial hearing officer shall be based solely upon the record of the proceeding before the impartial hearing officer and shall set forth the reasons and the factual basis for the determination. (See 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][5][v])

The party who defaults in concedes only liability and not the amount of “damages.” (See CPLR § 3215, First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Classic Collateral Corp., 44 A.D.2d 868, 355 N.Y.S.2d 504 (1974), James v. Powell, 19 N.Y.2d 249, 279 N.Y.S.2d 10, 225 N.E.2d 741 (1967), McClelland v. Climax Hosiery Mills, 252 N.Y. 347, 169 N.E. 605 (1930) The DOE’s default constitutes an admission of liability, but not of damages, which remains the Parent’s burden to prove. (See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 & City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114 at 128 [2d Cir. 2011])

In sum, substance and relevant part, the testamentary and documentary evidence concerning the appropriateness of the private school is as follows: The DOE’s default herein supports a judgment in favor of the Parent and a finding that the student was denied a FAPE for the 2021-2022 school year.

The Parents witness, REDACTED, the Special Education Teacher at the private school testified on direct via affidavit:

1. I am familiar with REDACTED, as he has been attending REDACTED since September 2021.1 was his head teacher in REDACTED for 2021-22 school year. I interacted with REDACTED daily during this time.

2. I was the Head Teacher of REDACTED delineates a specific classroom at REDACTED that had students ranging from 4-6 years old during the 2021-22 school year. The students placed in REDACTED had diagnoses including autism, global developmental delays, cerebral palsy, and genetic disorders. REDACTED has one Smart Board and multiple iPads for students to utilize in the classroom. The iPads have educational applications downloaded onto them for student and staff use.

Students also have individual iPads and other assistive technology devices and services to augment their communication.

3. In determining the make-up of the class, we look to place students with similar learning needs and take into consideration the level of supports required to make that student successful.

4. For the 2021-2022 school year, REDACTED was in REDACTED because of his social, developmental, and cognitive skills. REDACTED had peers in REDACTED that are working on similar academic skills and require similar management needs throughout the day. REDACTED had up to 8 students in the class.

11.1 had two assistant teachers and four paraprofessionals in my class. My assistant teachers were REDACTED and REDACTED, and they are certified teaching assistants in the state of New York with Level 1 certification. My paraprofessionals all have at least a high school degree, while some have college level courses. The paraprofessionals receive additional training beyond the standard professional development sessions to support their understanding of the student population at REDACTED.

12.1 submit quarterly progress reports to the parents and remain in regular communication with them about their student. I utilize a daily communication notebook and I also communicate with families regularly via email.

13. When REDACTED first arrived at REDACTED in September 2021, he presented with a limited knowledge base for his age group. For example, due to his limited attention and delays in communication, he had trouble participating in group learning activities. He had delays in both receptive and expressive language, such as responding to questions and instructions, as well as demonstrating what he knows.

14. REDACTED employs a full time BCBA on staff who is available throughout the school day, and this professional will work with REDACTED individually for behavioral support as needed. Elements of ABA, including task analysis, prompting, and prompt fading, are incorporated into the curriculum and daily routines in the classroom to help with managing student behavior.

15. The classroom curriculum at REDACTED includes a multi-sensory approach, which includes opportunities for REDACTED to have movement breaks and access to sensory materials as needed all throughout the school day as a way to help increase his engagement and prevent challenging behaviors.

16. The multisensory approach used at REDACTED helped support REDACTED with his needs regarding short attention span, including opportunities for sensory breaks; special classes in music therapy, art therapy, gym, and yoga; and positive reinforcers in the form of a token system whereby

REDACTED can earn time to engage with a preferred activity after completing a non-preferred activity.

17. To help support REDACTED motor skills and development, he participates in individual occupational therapy sessions at school twice each week, as well as individual physical therapy sessions at school twice each week. The occupational therapist and physical therapist participate in team meetings regularly with the classroom teachers to ensure that his progress with motor skills is generalized across environments.

18. To help support REDACTED language development, he participated in individual speech therapy sessions at school three times each week. The speech therapist also participated in the team meetings regularly with the classroom teachers to ensure that his progress with language and communication is generalized across environments.

19. The schedule provided in Parents’ Exhibit E is accurate representations of REDACTED schedule for the 2021-2022 school year. High academic periods such as reading, math and writing, are arranged in the morning because students are typically more engaged and focused first thing in the morning, which then enhances their learning. Each day begins with a whole class morning meeting lesson that follows a repetitive routine to foster classroom community and practice important functional skills such as greetings, calendar, and weather.

20. REDACTED is providing a program that is appropriate to meet REDACTED unique, individual needs. While he has exposure to diverse peers, REDACTED receives small group instruction with students who are working on the same skills. REDACTED independently assesses students and develops individual goals. We track progress towards the goals and have the flexibility to change the goals as the student’s needs evolve. In reading, REDACTED was working on answering WH questions when a story is read to him, as well as learning to expressively identify letters of the alphabet. In math, REDACTED was working on counting with 1:1 correspondence up to 10 objects and. In speech therapy, REDACTED was working on receptive language, expressive language and speech intelligibility, cooperative play skills, and appropriate social greets. In occupational therapy, REDACTED was working on fmstration tolerance, holding a writing utensil, cutting with scissors, and dressing/undressing skills. In physical therapy, REDACTED is working on reciprocal ball play, balancing on one foot, navigating an obstacle course, jumping, maintaining a squatted position, and navigating stairs. In all academic and therapeutic areas, REDACTED requires individualized supports in order to meet his education goals, including visuals, wait time, faded prompting, a range of sensory input and materials, positive reinforcers and praise, and the support of a paraprofessional.

21. About every two weeks, I held a team meeting, called an Enrichment Meeting, to collaborate with REDACTED entire service provider team and discuss his progress and collaborate on instruction.

Additionally, I communicated informally with REDACTED service providers more frequently as the need arose. We, as REDACTED team at REDACTED, communicated with his parents daily and we are actively involved in his learning.

22. Academically, REDACTED made progress. His 1:1 counting correspondence improved, and he could identify more letters of the alphabet. REDACTED has demonstrated great potential as a learner.

REDACTED demonstrated improvement with following classroom routines as well. He was very social with peers and adults, and he needed some adult support to play with his classmates. He improved in activities of daily living, such dressing and cleaning up from meals. REDACTED has many visual supports in the classroom, and those have been helpful for REDACTED.

23. Based on my knowledge of REDACTED and REDACTED, I believe REDACTED was appropriately placed at REDACTED for the 2021-2022 school year, because the small group instruction with individualized attention and an individualized curriculum that we provide have helped him to make the progress he has demonstrated throughout the school year. I do not believe that a larger classroom or less restrictive environment would have been appropriate for REDACTED for the 202122 school year.

Based on his delays in academics, language, and daily living skills, and his challenges with attention and regulation, REDACTED requires a very small classroom with a high student-teacher ratio.

31.1 believe we at REDACTED can support REDACTED in his overall educational progress, because, in addition to a small classroom size, individualized attention and curriculum, and a small student to teacher ratio, we have specialized full time professionals on staff that can help address his specific needs with attention and self-regulation. REDACTED also responded well to positive reinforcers, completing his academic work more readily so he could earn access to more preferred items.

Opportunities for movement breaks and sensory input also enabled REDACTED to engage with the academic content at school more easily and helped with his continued progress.

32. During the 2021 -2022 school year REDACTED was provided with special education transportation that did not meet his needs. His spent an excessive amount of time on the school bus each day. REDACTED and REDACTED staff spent many hours during the 2021-2022 school year trying to correct this problem. (M)

The Parents witness, REDACTED, the Director at the private school.

7. Our teachers all have their master’s degree and are certified in Special Education within the State of New York. We also have assistant teachers in the classrooms. The assistant teachers are all certified teaching assistants, either Level 3 or in the process of achieving Level 3 status. Our paraprofessionals all have at least a high school degree, while some have college level courses. Tire paraprofessionals receive additional training beyond the standard professional development sessions to support the paraprofessionals’ understanding of the student population at REDACTED.

8. The teachers and staff receive professional development every Thursday. For example, some of the more recent professional development courses have been focused on managing behaviors and sensory processing. For example, our BCBA runs school-wide professional developments to go through and understand how to use ABA, verbal behavior, understanding behaviors, and creating as well as maintain reinforcement schedules.

9. All of our classrooms have SmartBoards and each classroom has iPads for students. The iPads within the classrooms have educational applications downloaded onto them for student and staff use. Students also have individual iPads and other assistive technology devices and services to augment their communication.

10. At REDACTED, teachers submit quarterly progress reports to the Parents and remain in regular communication with them about their student. They utilize a daily communication sheets and also communicate via email. Our social work department is also responsible for the home school connection.

11. I am familiar with REDACTED, as he has been attending REDACTED since September 2021. 1 see REDACTED daily when 1 do my classroom rounds and observations.

12. REDACTED was admitted to REDACTED for September 2021. As per the admission process, REDACTED parents submitted an application. The admissions team also reviewed his prior school reports, psychological evaluation, doctors’ evaluations, and other videos of REDACTED interacting in various settings. As a result of our review, we determined that we could support REDACTED complex needs at REDACTED and provide him with an individualized learning program. Thus, we offered him an acceptance to REDACTED.

13. At REDACTED, we provide REDACTED with a small, safe environment for him to navigate—an important part of REDACTED program given his multiple disabilities. We also have sound-proof classrooms to support his attention needs and to tone down the extraneous sounds. Finally, REDACTED classroom is a very high teacher to student ratio, so we can provide REDACTED with individualized and specialized support in a calm, regulated, and safe environment.

14. For the 2021-2022 school year, we determined that REDACTED needs would be met in an 8:1:2 ratio special class with the following related services: Speech Therapy (3x30:1), Occupational Therapy (3x30:1), and Physical Therapy (3x30:1). We determined that this would be an appropriate program for him through the review of his progress reports, prior Individualized Education Programs, and various evaluations and medical reports.

15. REDACTED school building has been architecturally designed for students with special needs, (LED lighting, sensory tiles on the wall, soundproof classrooms). REDACTED classroom also has accommodations for his behavioral and sensory needs, including, art therapy, physical education and music therapy as well as technology supports (Smaitboards and iPads).

16. For the 2021-2022 school year, we placed REDACTED in Star C, because Star C had students who were cognitively, academically, socially, and behaviorally at the same level as REDACTED. As a result, I believe that the peer grouping is appropriate for REDACTED in this class. In addition, Star C provides REDACTED with a small class setting so that he can receive individual instruction that is based on REDACTED strengths and weaknesses. Star C is taught by a New York State licensed and certified special education teacher.

17. At REDACTED, we support REDACTED needs through the spacious hallways and classrooms; visual markers to help with navigation; sound proofing classrooms to support his sensory needs; small classroom ratios so he receives an appropriate amount of individualized support throughout the day; sensory gym times and specialized equipment to support his specific motor skills; and a language rich environment using trained speech pathologists.

18. REDACTED team at REDACTED communicates with his parents daily and they are actively involved in his learning.

19. Based on my knowledge of REDACTED and REDACTED, I believe REDACTED is made appropriate progress during the 2021-2022 school year across his subjects and related services. I believe REDACTED is appropriately placed at REDACTED because we offer an individualized program for his needs with appropriate peer models. REDACTED small class sizes and low student-to-teacher ratios ensure that he is provided with a significant amount of individual attention and very small group instruction.

The program at REDACTED includes the individualized instruction he requires— including, among other things: a low student-to-teacher ratio; small class sizes; 1:1 instruction; multisensory instruction; and weekly speech, physical, and occupational therapy sessions tailored to meet his needs. The program provides him with significant support in her academics, language, social, emotional, and other related services, to enable him to make progress in all areas of him development. (N)

When determining whether the parents' unilateral placement is appropriate, "[u]ltimately, the issue turns on" whether that placement is "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits." (See Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364; see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115 [citing Berger v. Medina City Sch. Dist., 348 F.3d 513, 522 [6th Cir. 2003]) (emphasis added) This standard is well below those other standards of review in the law such as “beyond a reasonable doubt”, “clear and convincing evidence”, “preponderance of the evidence”, “substantial evidence” or even perhaps “rational basis.” The record, as accurately summarized by the parties above and adopted in this decision and order, supports a finding that the decision to place the student at the private school was ”reasonable” as an appropriate placement for the student’s 2021-2022 school year.

The Parent’s evidence show the Progress the student has made throughout the year. (F&G)

There is nothing in the record that support a finding that the Parent has not cooperated with the DOE.

NOW therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that the DOE denied the student a FAPE for the 2021-2022 school year and that upon its receipt of reasonably satisfactory proof of services having been rendered, the DOE shall either reimburse the Parent, and/or directly pay for the cost of the student’s tuition and related cost at the private school for the time the student attended the private school during the 2021-2022 school year; and it is further

ORDERED that the CSE shall forthwith reconvene after the completion of the student’s evaluations and consider all of the student’s evaluations and any other relevant information and produce an IEP for the student’s 2022-2023 school year; and it is further

ORDERED that the DOE shall conduct evaluations of the student in all areas of their suspected disabilities, not identified above and not evaluated within the last two years, for their 2022-2023 school year; and it is further

ORDERED that any of the other relief sought by the Parent not addressed by this “Final Order” is found to be either resolved by the parties, withdrawn by the Parent, outside the scope of the IHO’s authority or unsupported by the record.

Sharifa Milena Nasser

DATED: July 27, 2023

Queens, New York

Sharif Milena Nasser - I.H.O.

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 L[2nd PRIVATE SCHOOL INITIALS] 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. (Rev. 07/09/20)

Footnotes

[20] United States Code, Section 1415(f)(1), concerning a dispute involving the special education program of REDACTED year old student attending a private school and the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) District 22. The Parents filed a Due Process Complaint (“DPC”) on or about February 25, 2022. The Impartial was held on June 27, 2022, August 16, 2022, October 12, 2022, December 02, 2022 and February 06, 2023. A list of the documents taken into evidence is annexed to this decision. BACKGROUND In this case, the Parents allege that the student’s Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) is procedurally and substantively flawed and woefully inadequate. (A-DPC) Accordingly, the Parents further allege that the student was denied a “free and appropriate public education” (“FAPE”) for the 2021-2022 school year. (Id.) The Parents allege that the CSE failed to conduct a proper review for the student and make appropriate recommendations for his educational planning. The Parents served the DOE on August 27, 2021 with their 10 day Notice letter and the District has not submitted any evidence to show that they responded to the Parent. (D) At the impartial hearing, the Parent seeks the following relief: • Tuition reimbursement for the student’s attendance at the private school for the 2021-2022 school year.