NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
Case Number: 570795 -NYC: 224988
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Student’s Name: [REDACTED]
School District: N.Y.C. Dept. of Ed.,
Impartial Hearing Officer: Teril Holston, Esq.
Date of Filing: March 8, 2022
Hearing Requested by: Parent
Date of Hearing: June 22, 2023
Record Close Date: July 14, 2023
Date of Decision: July 14, 2023
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
March 30, 2023
For the Student:
[REDACTED]
For the Department of Education:
[REDACTED], Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
June 22, 2023
For the Student:
[REDACTED] [REDACTED]
Parent Witness:
[REDACTED] [REDACTED]
For the Department of Education:
[REDACTED], Esq.
INTRODUCTION
This matter comes before the undersigned Hearing Officer at the request of Petitioners, the parents of the student, a [REDACTED]-year-old school student classified as a student with a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”); New York State Education Law; and the New York State regulations.
On March 8, 2022, Petitioners filed a Due Process Compliant (“Complaint” or “DPC”) against the New York City Department of Education (“NYC DOE” or “DOE” or “District”) alleging that the District failed to provide the student with a Free and Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) for the 2021-2022 school year, in that the District’s IEP program was not reasonably calculated to confer an educational benefit, and the school placement was inappropriate (P-A) 1. The Petitioners are seeking tuition reimbursement for their unilateral placement of the student at Private School, a private program not approved by the Commissioner of Education for the education of students with disabilities for the 2021-2022 school year (Id.). Furthermore, the parent alleges that the equities support their claim for tuition reimbursement for the school year at issue (Id.).
In light of the foregoing and as more fully discussed below, I find that a) the DOE failed to meet its burden that it offered the student FAPE for the 2021-2022 school year, b) the Private School offers the student with specially designed instruction sufficient to meet student’s needs, and c) the equities support the Parents.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 21, 2022, IHO 1 was appointed to conduct an impartial hearing.[2] On March 30, 2023, IHO[1] held a status conference and scheduled a due process hearing for May 4, 2023, which was subsequently adjourned. On May 30, 2023, IHO 1’s appointment was rescinded.
On May 31, 2023, the undersigned was appointed to conduct an impartial hearing. On June 22, 2023, the virtual impartial hearing on the merits of the DPC commenced and concluded. The record closed on July 14, 2023.
At the hearing, the District’s representative did not present any documentary evidence or call any witnesses in support of the District’s case.
The Parent, through their representative, submitted to documents (Ex. P-A though P-L), [3] including the affidavit testimony of the Private School CSE Coordinator and the parent, in support of the Parent’s case. All of the documents were admitted into evidence without objection from the District. The Parent rested and the DOE advised that it had no further statement to make or testimony or documents to offer. The parent’s representative and the District representative both made opening and closing statements.
FINDINGS OF FACT
After a full review of the record generated at hearing, I make the following findings of fact and determinations 4:
The student is a [REDACTED]-year-old who has been attending Private School since the 2021-2022 school year. Prior to attending Private School, the student had been attending public school in an Integrated Co-Teaching (“ICT”) classroom setting for several years (P-K). The parents felt that despite the great teachers and small class sizes at the public school, the student continued to struggle (id.). The student continued to barely obtain passing grades and the parents had frequent meetings with the principal about the student’s behaviors (id.).
The student’s mother is employed by the Private School, and long considered placing the student in Private School but continued to work with the public school ICT classroom for several years, despite the student’s constant struggles (See Transcript).
The parents sought an updated neuropsychological evaluation where the student was diagnosed with Specific Learning Disorder with Impairment in Mathematics, Specific Learning Disorder with Impairment in Written Expression, and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) Predominantly Inattentive Presentation (P-C). The neuropsychologist opined that the student required a small, highly structured yet nurturing special education classroom where the student can receive intensive and individualized support (id.).
In December 2020, the CSE reconvened and recommended the student remain in an ICT setting. The parents disagreed with the CSE recommendation as the ICT classroom had not proven successful in the past (P-K).
The parents provided notice to the District on March 8, 2021, indicating that they disagreed with the IEP recommendations and the school placement and would seek to unilaterally place the student at the Private School for the 2021-2022 school year (P-B). Private School is a private college preparatory school servicing students from kindergarten through 12th grade focusing on students with learning disabilities (P-G). The student began attending Private School in September 2021 for the 2021-2022 school year (P-F; P-H; P-I). The class ratio is an average of 7:1 in every classroom (P-L). The school also offers
4 Although only portions of the evidence are referenced herein, the testimony and documents were reviewed and considered, in full. other related services based on the needs of the students (id).
The parent signed a contract with Private School for the 2021-2022 academic school year on June 16, 2021, with the tuition cost of $73,174 plus fees (P-D). The parents have paid the full tuition costs for the 2021-2022 school year (P-E; P-K).
APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD
The Individuals with Disability Education Act (“IDEA”) establishes that students with disabilities are entitled to a free and appropriate education (“FAPE”).[5] 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.”[6] In order to demonstrate that a 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.” 7 The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment with non-disabled peers. [8]
The family seeks tuition reimbursement for the unilateral placement of the student in Private School for the 2021-2022 and 2021-2022 school years and the cost of related services. As set forth in Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S.[7] (1993); Sch. Comm. Of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ., 471 U.S. 359 (1985) it is well established that a District may be required to reimburse parents for tuition payment to a private school if the services offered by the District were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parents were appropriate under the IDEA, and equitable considerations support the parent’s claim for reimbursement. Thus, consideration of such a claim has been expressed by a three-prong test: (1) was student denied FAPE; (2) the appropriateness of the Parent’s unilateral placement; and (3) a balancing of the equities.
The IDEA directs that, in general, an IHO's decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE [9]. A school district offers a FAPE "by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction."[10] “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.”[11] Further, “an IEP is not a form document” and it should be constructed after carefully evaluating the student. [12]
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. [13]
Special education services must be provided by the district in conformity with the student's IEP.[14] A denial of a FAPE occurs if the district deviates from substantial or significant provisions of the student's IEP in a material way and thereby precludes the student from the opportunity to receive educational benefits. [15]
However, school districts are not required to "maximize" the potential of students with disabilities [16], but must provide "an IEP that is 'likely to produce progress, not regression,' and ... affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere 'trivial advancement'" [17]. The IEP must be "reasonably calculated to provide some 'meaningful' benefit" [18].
The burden of persuasion and proof is by the preponderance of the evidence standard, which requires a finding that the existence of a fact is more probable than not. When the evidence is evenly balanced, the party with the burden loses. The burden of proof at an impartial hearing is on the district, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement [19]. Accordingly, the burden of production and persuasion is on the District for the first and third prongs and on the Parent for the second prong.
DISCUSSION
A. Prong I: FAPE It is asserted in the DPC that the DOE failed to provide the student with a FAPE for the 2021-2022 school years for a number of reasons. As to Prong I of the Burlington/Carter standard, the DOE failed to meet its burden. The District submitted no relevant evidence or witnesses to demonstrate it provided the student with a FAPE in for the school year at issue. A review of the hearing record offers no explanation as to how the CSE made its recommendation, how the IEP appropriately describe the Student, whether the IEP are meaningfully calculated to confer educational benefit, or whether the school identified by the District was sufficient to meet the student’s needs. In short, the District declined to “offer a cogent and responsive explanation for their decisions” in creating that IEP, and it is “through the IEP that “[t]he ‘free appropriate public education’ required by the Act is tailored to the unique needs of” a particular child”. [20] The District failed to provide any defense of the program recommended for the student. Therefore, the undersigned is constrained to find that the District failed to offer the student a FAPE for the 2021-2022 school year.
B. Unilateral Placement In this case, as the District did not offer the student a FAPE for the 2021-2022 school year, the next issue to determine is whether the Parent’s unilateral placement of the student at Private School was appropriate. The Parent argues that the Private School is an appropriate unilateral placement for the student as it provides instruction and services that are specifically designed to meet the student’s unique needs and that enable the student to make meaningful progress there. For the reasons below, the Parent’s unilateral placement was appropriate.
Parents need not show that the placement provides every special service necessary to maximize the student's potential.[21] When determining whether the parents' unilateral placement is appropriate, that placement must be “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.”[22] A private placement is only appropriate if it provides education instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a student. [23]
A private school placement must be “proper under the Act” [24], i.e., the private school must provide an educational program which meets the student's special education needs.[25] 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.[26] The private school need not employ certified special education teachers or have its own IEP for the student.[27] 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.” [28] Moreover, where the District failed to provide the student with a FAPE, the District is precluded from arguing that the testing, evaluations, or assessments introduced by the Parent’s and utilized by the unilateral placement are not sufficiently comprehensive evaluations of the student’s functioning levels and needs, as it is the District that retains the requirement to comprehensively evaluate the student. [29] a. Student Needs
In this case, the student’s educational needs are identified in the neuropsychological evaluation (P-C). Further, the CSE Coordinator testified that the student’s evaluations and needs were carefully assessed before enrollment and when being placed into a class setting with similarly situated peers (P-L).
b. Program
The Private School is a private and highly specialized special education program created for students with learning disabilities, offering all services during its school day (P-C). During
With respect to the student’s progress at Private School, 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.[30] However, here the parent and the CSE Coordinator testified that the student has been making progress in the Private School (P-K; P-L). Specifically, the student is engaged in the classroom and eagerly completes his homework, Additionally, the parent submitted progress reports composed by the student’s providers detailing the student’s progress over the current academic year while enrolled in the Private School (P-H; P-I).
Based on all of the above, the parent has met the burden that the Private School is an appropriate placement for the student for the 2021-2022 school year as required.
The weight of the evidence demonstrates that the student’s individual special education needs were addressed by the private school and that the instruction offered was "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits."[31] Of note, the District offered no evidence concerning the appropriateness of Parent’s unilateral placement, nor challenging the equities in this action with any witnesses or evidence. Further, the District had the opportunity to cross-examine the Parent’s witnesses. Under these circumstances, I find that the Parent’s witnesses and documentary evidence are credible.
C. Equitable Considerations
Equitable considerations are relevant in determining relief “because the authority to grant reimbursement [under the IDEA] is discretionary.” [32]
“With respect to equitable considerations, the IDEA also provides that reimbursement may be reduced or denied when parents fail to raise the appropriateness of an IEP in a timely manner, fail to make their child available for evaluation by the district, or upon a finding of unreasonableness with respect to the actions taken by the parents (20 U.S.C. § 1412 [a][10][C][iii]; 34 CFR 300.148[d]; E.M. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 758 F.3d 442, 461 [2d Cir. 2014] [identifying factors relevant to equitable considerations, including whether the withdrawal of the student from public school was justified, whether the parent provided adequate notice, whether the amount of the private school tuition was reasonable, possible scholarships or other financial aid from the private school, and any fraud or collusion on the part of the parent or private school]; C.L., 744 F.3d at 840 [noting that "[i]important to the equitable consideration is whether the parents obstructed or were uncooperative in the school district's efforts to meet its obligations under the IDEA"]).
Reimbursement may also be reduced or denied if parents do not provide notice of the unilateral placement either at the most recent CSE meeting prior to their removal of the student from public school, or by written notice 10 business days before such removal, "that they were rejecting the placement proposed by the public agency to provide a [FAPE] to their child, including stating their concerns and their intent to enroll their child in a private school at public expense."[33] This statutory provision "serves the important purpose of giving the school system an opportunity, before the child is removed, to assemble a team, evaluate the child, devise an appropriate plan, and determine whether a [FAPE] can be provided in the public schools." [34] Although a reduction in reimbursement is discretionary, courts have upheld the denial of reimbursement in cases where it was shown that parents failed to comply with this statutory provision.[35] Parents of students enrolled in private school are not exempted from 10-day notice requirements. [36]
The Second Circuit has recently reiterated that "[t]he ten-day notice requirement gives school districts an opportunity to discuss with parents their objections to the IEP and to offer changes to the IEP designed to address those objections—all before the parents enroll their child in a private school and file a due process complaint" and that "if parents unreasonably reject the school district's proposed changes to the IEP, or are otherwise uncooperative, courts and hearing officers are fully empowered to deny them reimbursement" [37]
However, the hearing officer must excuse the failure to provide timely notice if, in her discretion, she determines that the reason for the lack of timely notice is that the school district prevented the parents from providing the notice, the parents had not received the procedural safeguards notice advising of the requirement to provide notice, or compliance with the notice requirement would likely result in physical harm to the student. [38]
In the instant case, the parent provided the necessary Ten-Days’ Notice of their concerns with the District’s offer of a FAPE for the student for the 2021-2022 school year on March 8, 2021, six months prior to the start of the school year (P-K). Therein, the family detailed their specific concerns with the recommendations and provide notice of their intention to unilaterally place the student (id.). The hearing record is void of any evidence to demonstrate that the District made any efforts to resolve the family’s concerns in the six months before the school year began.
By way of relief, family seeks tuition reimbursement to the Private School. The record establishes that parent incurred an obligation to pay the Private School and did so (P-D; P-E; P-K).
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. I find no issue with the reasonableness of the costs, including tuition, associated with the Private School and the Student is currently enrolled for the 2021-2022 school year.
CONCLUSION
Based on a review of the record and the findings mentioned above, the undersigned makes the following findings:
• The District failed to provide the student with a FAPE during the school year at issue.
• The parent’s unilateral placement at Private School was appropriate and equitable considerations support an award of full tuition reimbursement and direct funding for the 2021-2022 school year.
• The undersigned has reviewed the parent’s remaining contentions and find them to be either unnecessary to this decision, without merit, beyond my jurisdiction, too vague to be of use, or without sufficient basis in the record for a finding and award of relief.
Accordingly, any relief not specifically discussed in this decision is denied, and all the Parent’s remaining claims not discussed herein are dismissed with prejudice.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY, ORDERED, that the New York City Department of Education shall reimburse the Parents for the full cost of all tuition and fees paid for the student’s unilateral placement at Private School for the 2021-2022 school year within 30 calendar days of this Order.
DATED: SO, ORDERED
7/14/2023 /s/ Teril Holston
Teril Holston, Esq., IHO
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.
IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER'S CERTIFICATION OF THE RECORD
I, Teril Holston, Impartial Hearing Officer in this matter, do hereby certify that the below Index of Exhibits included within this Findings of Fact and Decision itemizes the entire record before me. I further certify that the materials included in the record are either the original or a true copy of the original materials that were provided to me in this matter.
DATED: CERTIFIED BY
7/14/2023 /s/ Teril Holston
Teril Holston, Esq., IHO
CASE # 224988 EXHIBITS
IHO EXHIBITS
DISTRICT’S EXHIBITS
PARENT’S EXHIBITS
A. Exh. # Description Date Pages Request for Impartial Hearing 3/8/2022 5 pages
B. Ten Day Notice 3/8/2021 2 pages
C. Neuropsychological Evaluation 2019 3 pages
D. Enrollment Contract 6/16/2021 5 pages
E. Payment Affidavit 5/31/2022 1 page
F. Classroom Schedule 2021-2022 1 page
G. Program Description 2021-2022 2 pages
H. S1 Progress Report 9/2021-1/2022 3 pages
I. S2 Progress Report 1/2022-6/2022 4 pages
J. Attendance Record 2021-2022 1 page
K. Affidavit of [REDACTED] 6/15/2023 4 pages
L. Affidavit of [REDACTED] 6/20/2023 10 pages
APPENDIX A – PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION
Footnotes
[1] Exhibits shall be referred to as follows: “P” for Parent Exhibit; “D” for the District’s or Department’s Exhibits; and “IHO” for the Impartial Hearing Officer’s exhibits.
[2] All information is upon information and belief, after review of hearing record developed by IHO 1.
[3] A more detailed list of exhibits is attached.
[5] See, 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1)(A); Schaffer v. Weast, 546 US 49 (2005).
[6] Bd. of Ed. Hendrick Hudson CSD v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 188 (1982).
[7] See, Application of Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 05-061, quoting, Rowley at 206.
[8] See, Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dt., 142 F.3rd 119 (2nd Cir. 1998).
[9] 20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][i].
[10] Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203.
[11] Endrew F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988, 999
[12] Id.
[13] See, Walzczak, supra; Id., Appeal No. 00-005.
[14] 20 U.S.C. § 1401[9][D]; 34 CFR 300.17[d]; 20 U.S.C. § 1414[d]; 34 CFR 300.320.
[15] T.L. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2012 WL 1107652, *14 [E.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2012]; D.D-S. v. Southold Union Free Sch. Dist., 2011 WL 3919040, at *13 [E.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2011]; A.L. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 812 F. Supp. 2d 492, 503 [S.D.N.Y. 2011]; A.P. v. Woodstock Bd. of Educ., 370 Fed. App'x 202, 205, 2010 WL 1049297 [2d Cir. Mar. 23, 2010]; Van Duyn v. Baker Sch. Dist. 5J, 502 F.3d 811, 821-22 [9th Cir. 2007]; Houston Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Bobby R., 200 F.3d 341, 349 [5th Cir. 2000].
[16] Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199; Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 [2d Cir. 1998], at 132.
[17] Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195, quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130.
[18] Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 [2d Cir. 1997]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192.
[19] Educ. Law § 4404[1][c]; see R.E. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 184-85 [2d Cir. 2012].
[20] Endrew F., 137 S.Ct. at 1002.
[21] Frank G. v Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 364-65 (2d Cir. 2006)
[22] Id.; see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115.
[23] 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.
[24] Carter, 510 U.S. at 12, 15; Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370
[25] See, Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, 115; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 129.
[26] Carter, 510 U.S. at 14
[27] Id.
[28] Gagliardi, 489 F.3d at 112, quoting Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65.
[29] see 34 CFR 300.305[c]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[b][5][iii]; A.D. v. Bd. of Educ., 690 F. Supp. 2d 193, 208 [S.D.N.Y. 2010] [finding that a unilateral placement was appropriate even where the private school reports were alleged by the district to be incomplete or inaccurate and finding that the fault for such inaccuracy or incomplete assessment of the student's needs lies with the district]; see also Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 21-194; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 20-131; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 18-125; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 180-049; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 15-076; Application of a Student Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 15-038; 17 Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 14-033; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 14-028; Application of a Student Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 14-003; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 13- 198; Application of the Dep't of Educ., Appeal No. 13-072; Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 12-027 the 2021-2022 school year, there were approximately 170 students enrolled in the upper school. The student are grouped in their homerooms by age and social maturity. Further, all of the head teachers hold masters degrees and all of the assistant teachers have bachelors degrees (P-L). The Private School provides small group instruction in all subject, with students also being placed in small advisory groups (id). The Private School provides a wholly individualized plan geared to each student’s needs, while developing goals appropriate for the student. c. Progress
[30] Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115, citing Rafferty v. Cranston Pub. Sch. Comm., 315 F.3d 21, 26-27 (1st Cir. 2002)
[31] Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364.
[32] Frank G., 459 F.3d at 363-64 (quoting, Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374).
[33] 20 U.S.C. § 14129(a)(10)(C)(iii)(I); see 34 CFR 300.148(d)(1)
[34] Greenland Sch. Dist. v. Amy N., 358 F.3d 150, 160 (1st Cir. 2004).
[35] Greenland, 358 F.3d at 160; Ms. M. v. Portland Sch. Comm., 360 F.3d 267 (1st Cir. 2004); Berger v. Medina City Sch. Dist., 348 F.3d 513, 523-24 (6th Cir. 2003); Rafferty v. Cranston Public Sch. Comm., 315 F.3d 21, 27 (1st Cir. 2002); see Frank G., 459 F.3d at 376; Voluntown, 226 F.3d at 68).
[36] S.W. v New York City Dep't of Educ., 646 F. Supp. 2d 346, 361-63 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).
[37] Bd. of Educ. of Yorktown Cent. Sch. Dist. v C.S., 990 F.3d 152, 171 (2d Cir. 2021).
[38] See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(iv); 34 C.F.R. § 300.148(e)(1)