New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

CASE NUMBER: 572589 - NYC: 226131

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 226131

Student’s Name: REDACTED

Date of Birth: REDACTED

District: REDACTED

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Date of Hearing: July 6, 2022

August 5, 2022

August 9, 2022

September 12, 2022

October 3, 2022

Actual Record Closed Date: December 7, 2022

Hearing Officer: Judith Schneider, Esq.

An Impartial Hearing for the New York City Department of Education (“DOE” or “the district”) Impartial Hearing Office, 131 Livingston Street, Brooklyn, New York, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (“IDEIA”), 20 U.S.C. §1415, and Article 89 of the Education Law of the State of New York, regarding the special education program of XXX (“the student”) was conducted y me remotely (via videoconference).

Procedural History

The proceeding was initiated at the request of the parent (“DPC”) by correspondence dated May 2, 2022. (Ex. A) I was appointed Impartial Hearing Officer on May 4, 2022. A prehearing conference was conducted on June 2, 2022. Status conferences were held on July 6, 2022, August 5, 2022, August 15, 2022, and September 12, 2022. An evidentiary hearing was conducted on October 3, 2022.

Parties moved to extend the compliance date on various occasions in light of settlement discussions, anticipated testimony, the scheduling of witnesses and submission of evidence, receipt of the transcript and closing memoranda and issuance of the decision within the permitted time period. In considering the requests I weighed the cumulative impact of the relevant factors and found that the need of the parties for additional time to prepare and present their positions in accordance with the requirements of due process was greater than any delay in the resolution of this matter. Accordingly, the requests for extensions of the compliance dates were granted.

The current compliance date is January13, 2023. The record closed on December 7, 2022, upon my receipt of all closing memoranda.

Positions of the Parties The parent asserts, among other things, that the IESP created for the 2021-22 SY (the student’s Kindergarten year) was procedurally and defective, that the district failed to timely provide an IEP, that the IEPs ultimately issued for that school year were substantively and procedurally defective and that the district did not identify a school which would accept the student pursuant to those IEPs. Accordingly, the parent claims the district failed to provide a FAPE for the 2021-2022 SY. The parent unilaterally enrolled the student in REDACTEDl (“School” ) for the period March 28, 2022 through June 23, 2022, which the parent claims was an appropriate placement, and for which district funding through reimbursement and direct payment to the School due to parent financial inability to pay and seek reimbursement. The parent claims that there is no basis in equity for denial or limitation of district funding. Further, the parent also requests the following independent educational evaluations (“IEEs”): Speech and Language; Occupational Therapy (“OT”); Neuropsychological. (Exs. A, I, III; T68-76)

The district asserts that a FAPE was provided for the 2021-2022 SY, that the parent has failed to establish that the School was an appropriate placement and that equitable considerations do not support the district funding sought. Further the district claims lack of entitlement to the requested IEEs. (Ex. II,; T76-77)

Cases Presented

Both parties presented documents which were admitted into evidence. (A list of documents in the record is appended)

The district presented no testimonial evidence.

The parent presented the testimony of: the Program Director of the School (“the director”); the student’s mother (“the parent”).

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

A Factual Findings With regard to the testimony of the witnesses, I find the testimony of each credible in that I conclude that they each testified truthfully in accordance with their understanding and recollections and as to the opinions they held. I find that the uncontested evidence in this matter establishes the following:

The student was REDACTED during the 2021-2022 SY and his current classification is Autism. (Ex. B) His has deficits and difficulties with attention, focus, language, communication, transitions and social skills and can become emotionally dysregulated when unable to communicate. (T121-125)

In Summer 2019, the student was classified by the CPSE as eligible for special education services and for the 2019-2020 SY was recommended to receive SEIT (8 hours per week). Speech-Language Therapy (“SLT”) and Occupational Therapy (“OT”). (T122-123). The student, however, in the 2019-2020 SY the student received only SEIT services in the 2019-2020 SY due to district inability to identify providers. (T123) The student continued to receive SEIT services during the the 2020-2021 Sy but for most of the year did not receive SLT and OT. (T124)

The student attended a REDACTED preschool program for the 2020-2021 SY and was described as “a delight” and “a pleasure to have in class” notwithstanding significant academic and related service area deficits, attentional difficultiea, behaviors and his need for a lot of support. (Exs. Q, R, S; T127)

The CSE convened to develop a program for the student’s Kindergarten year on or about March 25, 2021. (Ex. E,; T125) No evaluations or assessments were completed for that meeting but the student’s teacher and the parent participated and described the student’s difficulties. (T(T127-129) The student’s classification was not discussed. (T129) Subsequent to the meeting, the parent informed the CSE that she anticipated that the student would continue to attend the non-public REDACTED school, and an IESP was issued. (Exs. U, E; T132, 135-136) The parent had been previously informed that SETSS, SLT, OT and Counseling would be provided but had not been informed that the that the instructional services would be reduced from SEIT (1:1) 8 hours a week to SETSS (Group) 5 periods per week. (T130-132) The student’s classification was Speech-Language Impairment. (Ex. E)

The parent, who had been uncertain about the student’s placement for Kindergarten, had also been informed that a change to an IEP could be quickly made if requested by the parent. (Ex. U, T133-134) Commencing by June 30, 2021, the parent informed the CSE that the student would attend public school in September 2021 and requested an IEP. (Ex. U; T133-136). However, an IEP meeting was not conducted prior to the September start of the 2021-2022 SY and the student began public school with the IESP in effect. (T136)

The student had difficulty adjusting to the public school and became dysregulated resulting in the parent repeatedly being called to remove the student, usually within an hour of his arrival. (T137-138)

The CSE reconvened on October 5, 2021 to change the student’s IESP to an IEP and at that time recommended a 12:1:1 class in a community school and weekly SLT 2x30 ((1:1), OT 1x30 (group and 1x30 (1:!), Counseling (1x30 (group) and 1x30 (1:11) Ex. D) No individual instructional/behavioral support was recommended although it was reported that the student presented with a high safety concern for himself and others and demonstrated “extreme violence” at times. (Ex. D; T139-140) The student’s classification remained unchanged. (Ex. D)

A Child Autism Rating Scale (CARS) assessment was conducted on October 14, 2021 and “Severe” Autism was indicated. (Ex. 13.) The district has not contested the parent claim that the parent was not informed of this assessment until receiving disclosure documents for the evidentiary hearing. (T74-75)

The parent’s request for a neuropsychological evaluation was denied by the CSE but a bilingual (Russian English) psychoeducational was thereafter provided and occurred on October 28, 2021. (Exs. J, P; T145-146) At the time a cognitive assessment could only be roughly estimated and academic assessment was extremely limited due to the student’s refusal to engage with material but the student was found to fall in the “Mild” Autistic Range and it was reported that his then current educational setting was “a clear traumatizing factor”.(Ex. P) Evaluator recommendations included DIR -Floortime or modified ABA for at least one-two hours a day “given the intensity of his behavioral issues stemming from his ASD diagnosis.” (Ex. P) At the end of October 2021 the parent stopped sending the student to the public school due to lack of services and his emotional distress. (T154; Ex. V)

The CSE reconvened on November 23, 2021 and recommended a 12:1:1 class in a District 75 school and classified the student with Autism. (Ex. C) Additional one to one support was not recommended. However, by about that time, the student was receiving pendency services, including home special education instruction in connection with a DPC relating to prior years. (T153; Ex. V) ^[1]

By correspondence date December 13, 2021, the parent received a school location letter recommended a District 75 program but upon inquiry to that school the parent was informed that the student could not be supported in the class available at that time and that the CSE would be notified. (Ex. G; T156)

By correspondence dated January 31, 2022 another school placement recommendation was made but upon her inquiry the parent was informed that there no spot available in the recommended program and was advised that a placement in an 8:1:1 class might be easier for the district to provide. (Ex. F; T157)

The CSE reconvened February 18, 2022 and revised the November 23, 2021 IEP to recommend an 8:1:1 class in District 75 although at that meeting the parent expressed concern that sufficient individualized support would be provided and the CSE had previously rejected that program. (Exs. B, C,13; T157-158)) The CSE never offered a placement with regard to this recommendation. (T160-161)

On March 8, 2022, the parent executed a contract with the School for the period from March 23, 2022 through June 23, 2022 for the total sum of $40,435. (Ex. Y) A deposit of $500 was required and was paid on April 7, 2022. (Exs. Y, Z) The parent is responsible for paying the tuition but does not have funds to do so and seek reimbursement. (Ex. Y, EE;T102-103, 163

By letter dated March 14, 2022, the CSE was informed that the student would be placed at the School and district funding sought. (Ex. V)

B Conclusions ^[2]

(1) Program and Placement The legal standard applicable to a request for reimbursement for educational services is well established. Reimbursement is granted if: (1) the services offered by the Board of Education are inadequate or inappropriate (Prong 1); (2) the services selected by the parent are appropriate (Prong 2); and (3) equitable considerations support the parent's claim (Prong 3). Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993); School Comm. of Burlington v. Department of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359 (1985). In New York State the DOE bears the burden of proof with regard to Prong 1 and Prong 3 and the parent bears the burden of proof with regard to Prong 2. Educ. Law 4404[1][c] Prospective payment for tuition may be ordered by an impartial hearing officer when a child would otherwise be denied a free appropriate education and the parent can show financial inability to pay the tuition and then seek reimbursement. Mr. & Mrs. A v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 769 F. Supp. 2d 403 (S.D. N.Y. 2011). See also, Connors v. Mills, 34 F. Supp 2nd 795 at 806, n.7 (N.D. N.Y. 1998)

Prong 1 The parent asserted specific substantive and procedural inadequacy claims concerning the district’s IEPs and presented evidence purporting to support those claims. The parent’s claims were not contested or rebutted and are not inconsistent with evidence in the record. See Appeal No. 01-044; see also Appeal No. 12-006 The district presented no witnesses to establish that it provided a FAPE. Although the district submitted various documents including an IEP, it is well established that an IEP does not on its own, without testimony to explain its appropriateness, establish that a FAPE has been provided. See e.g. R.E. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 694 F. 3d 167, 185-186 (2d Cir. 2012); L.O. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 822 F2d 95,111 (2d Cir. 2016) Further, unrebutted evidence shows that no district proposed placements to implement Fall 2022 IEPs were in fact available and that the district proposed no placement whatever to implement its March 2022 IEP.

In view of the foregoing findings, I do not address various specific insufficiency and defect claims. I conclude, based upon the foregoing, that the district has failed to meet its burden to establish that it provided a FAPE for the 2021-2022 SY.

Prong 2

When a public school system has failed to provide FAPE, the program and services chosen by the parent are “proper under the Act” if the education provided is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.” Carter, 510 U.S. at 14. The parents bear the burden of proof with regard to the services obtained by the parents for the student. However, parents are not barred from reimbursement if their program does not meet the IDEA definition of a FAPE. See 20 U.S.C. §1401(9), Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park., 459 F. 3d 356 (2nd Cir. 2006). It is not required that the provider of the services be State-approved to provide instruction to children with disabilities. Carter, 510 U.S. at 10. The student need not be the least restrictive environment. Frank G, 459 F. 3d at 364.. “Ultimately the issue turns on whether a placement…is ‘reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.’ [internal citations omitted] …”, Frank G, 459 F. 3d at 130. No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining that. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 207 (1982). Parents need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction. Id. at 364-365. See also Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F 3d. 105, 115 (2d Cir. 2007). However, the program should reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances. Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), 2017 WL 1066260 (March 22, 2017). Although the restrictiveness of a parental placement may be considered as a factor in determining entitlement to an award of tuition reimbursement, parents are not as strictly held to the standard of placement in the LRE as are school districts. C.L. v. Scarsdale UFSD, 744 F. 3d 826, 830, 836-37 (2d Cir. 2014); see Carter, 510 U.S. at 14-15; M.S., 231F.3d at 105 and “the totality of the circumstances” must be considered in determining the appropriateness of the unilateral placement, Frank G., 459 F. 3d at 64.

Unrebutted credible evidence in this matter, testimonial and documentary, establishes that:

The unilateral placement is a private therapeutic school for students ages 3-21 who have neurodevelopmental delays in relating and communicating, including children on the autism spectrum. (Ex. W; T-82) The School uses a developmental model of teaching – REDACTED which was specifically recommended in the district provided Psychoeducational Evaluation and is supported by multiple peer-reviewed studies, and which determines the developmental levels a student is operating on seeks to work with the student at that level and enable mastery and generalization. (Ex P; T84-86) Upon entry, students are assessed by an interdisciplinary team which includes related service providers and an individualized plan is created. (T87, 91) Multidisciplinary team meetings regarding individual students are held weekly, progress reports are created twice yearly and the individual student treatment plan is updated twice yearly. (T89-90; Ex. BB)

Students are grouped into classes of 8-9 with overall staff student ratio of 2:1. (T88) Nine student class have a had teacher, and four teaching assistants and eight student classes have a head teacher and three teaching assistants. (T88) Appropriate professional development is routinely provided. (T85-86, 112-113) Academics are provided during each day and related service of OT, PT, SLT and Counseling are provided by appropriately licensed providers. (T87-91). The School has two sensory gyms, a large gym, a sensory corner in each room, a playground.an art studio and three music studios (Ex. W, T90-92) This student was placed in an 8 student class and he received SLT, OT and Counseling n class and in pullout sessions and was provided with a sensory diet. (T94-95, Ex. BB) Most academic skills were taught to him on an individualized basis but he received some small group instruction. (T99; Ex. CC)

Although the student attended the School for only about 3 months, progress was demonstrated particularly with regard to dysregulation, speech and attitude toward school. (T101, 114, 161, Ex. BB)

The district asserts that the parent has failed to establish that the placement was appropriate. The district asserts that the sole School witness did not have daily interaction with the student and information as to the degree of 1:1 support he received, the progress he made. the curricula that was utilized and the progress he made was second-hand and therefore unreliable. (Ex. II) However, I find credible the testimony of the director and note that her testimony was supported by documentary material in the record which includes information as to the curricula utilized for this student and progress demonstrated. (Exs. BB, CC) The director ‘s role includes substantial interaction with staff and hearsay evidence is admissible in these proceedings. Further, I note that the program provided is sufficiently aligned with the with recommendations of the district provided psychoeducational evaluation and that it is well established that evidence of progress is not required. (Ex. P) with regard to that issue I note the limited period of consideration regarding that.

I conclude that the parent has demonstrated that the unilateral program provided, which included necessary related services, was reasonably calculated to enable the student to make meaningful progress in his unique circumstances. Accordingly, I find that the parent’s burden has been met.

Prong 3 The determination of whether equitable factors support a parent’s claim for tuition reimbursement hinges, in large part, on whether or not a parent cooperated with the DOE and CSE. See generally Burlington, 471 U.S. 359; Carter, 510 U.S. 7; see also Mr. & Mrs. A ex rel. D.A. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Edu., 769 F. Supp. 2d 403, 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2011); see also N.R. ex rel. T.R. v. Dep’t of Educ. of City Sch. Distr. Of N.Y., No. 07 Civ. 9648, 2009 WL 874061, at *14 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2009). It is well established that a parent’s subjective intent, or preference for a nonpublic educational setting, is not relevant to a determination of the equities, even if, in seeking tuition funding, the parent has, as “[p]resumably, nearly all parents who make unilateral placement... and then seek tuition reimbursement, act[ed] at least in part out of a hope, belief, or expectation that the school district [would] ultimately be forced to fund [the] placement,” Mr. & Mrs. A. ex rel. D.A., 769 F. Supp. 2d at 430; see also N.R. ex rel. T.R. 2009 WL 874061, at *14. See also C.L. v. Scarsdale UFSD, 744 F. 3d 826 (2d Cir. 2014) (“[Parents] pursuit of a private placement was not a basis for denying their tuition reimbursement, even assuming…that the parents never intended to keep [the student] in public school.”)

The district has the burden with regard to Prong 3. The district asserts that the parent never intended to place the student in a public school and that, accordingly, the funding sought should be denied. (Ex. II) I conclude that the evidence does not support the district’s claim regarding parental unwillingness to consider a district placement and note that no actual available placement was offered to the parent. Further, as referenced above, even if the parent never intended to accept a subsequent district placement that is not a basis for denial of district funding where the parent has cooperated with the CSE. C.L.

I conclude that the evidence shows the parent cooperated with the CSE in the creation of the IESP and the IEPs and did not refuse any offered placement. There is nothing in the record to the contrary and the district apparently does not dispute that. (Ex. II) I note that the district did not identify a placement which would accept the student after issuance of IEPs. I find no basis for denial or reduction in district funding baaed on equitable considerations. Further, the parent has demonstrated financial inability to pay and seek reimbursement and therefore direct payment of the balance due is ordered.

(2) IEEs The parent seeks IEES for Speech Language (“SL”), Occupational Therapy (“OT”) and Neuropsychological evaluations.

Speech Language and Occupational Therapy IEEs.

It is undisputed that the parent requested Speech Language and Occupational Therapy evaluations in the hearing request. (Ex. A) The district took no action to provide the requested evaluations or file a hearing request to challenge the demand for them. Further, at the hearing the district did not challenge the student’s need for them or contest the claim that timely evaluations were required for this student in view of demonstrated deficits but had not been provided. (Exs. Q, R, S) Rather the district asserts that the DPC request is insufficient to require DOE action in accordance with 200.5(g) because that IEE request was initially asserted in that hearing request. (Ex. II)

However, I note that “…there is no reason why a due process complaint notice may not serve the function of expressing parent’s disagreement to the district.” Appeal No. 19-094. The district had ample time in the 30 day resolution period and thereafter to have agreed to the parent’s request or proceed in the manner provided by 8 NYCRR 200.5(g). Appeal No. 19-094 It did neither. I conclude the parent is entitled to Speech Language and Occupational Therapy IEEs requested.

Neuropsychological IEE The parent concedes that this IEE was not requested in the DPC and raised for the first time at the hearing.

I note significant inconsistencies between district staff’s CARS assessment conducted on October 14, 2021 (Ex. 18) and the Psychoeducational Evaluation conducted on October 22, 2021 for the district by a different evaluator (Ex. P) concerning the severity of the student’s ASD symptoms. Further, I note the limited substantial evaluative information concerning this student. (Ex. P) I conclude that the requested evaluation would enable accurate and complete relevant information and that evaluation is therefore ordered. It is well established that under §§1412 and 1415 of the IDEA, a free appropriate public education is available to all children with disabilities residing in the State between the ages of 3 and 21, and courts and hearing officers have broad authority to grant such relief as they deem appropriate. 20 U.S.C. §§1412(a)(1), 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii); Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A, 129 S. Ct. 2484, 2492 (S. Ct. 2009); Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 371 (2d Cir. 2006); Appeal No. 08-052. See also Letter to Kohn, 17 IDELR522 (OSEP 1991) (a hearing officer has the authority and discretion to grant relief deemed necessary based upon the facts and circumstances of each individual case).

Further, I also note that the parent’s claim that information relevant to this issue was not provided to the parent until the disclosure of documents a few days prior to the hearing and therefore inconsistencies in DOE evaluative material were not timely known to the parent has not been contested by the district. (T74-75) I conclude in those circumstances that the parent could not have included a relief claim arising from those discrepancies in the DPC and is not barred from seeking that relief after the hearing commenced.

ORDER

It is hereby ordered that:

• • The district, within 45 days of issuance of this order, shall reimburse the parent for $500 and pay the School $39,935 for the student’s attendance there during the 2021-2022 SY (March 28, 2022-June 23, 2022).
• • The district shall directly fund independent evaluations from providers of the parent’s choice at the providers’ customary rates the following evaluations: Neuropsychological; Speech-Language, Occupational Therapy.

Dated: December 19, 2022

_________/s/_____________

JUDITH SCHNEIDER, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

The parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to obtain a review of this decision by a State Review Officer of the New York State Education Department under Part 200.5(k) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, Section 4404 of the Education Law, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The Department of Education has designated the New York City Law Department to accept service of papers on its behalf, including appeals of decisions of Impartial Hearing Officers.  Such service is made at 100 Church Street, New York, NY 10007 at the Messenger Center.

EXHIBITS

District

1 12-7-2020 Annual Progress Report, 3 pgs.

2 12/31/2020 Special Education Report, 9 pgs.

3 9/9/2020 IEP Review SEIT, 2 pgs.

4 4.21.2021 Parent Letter, 1 pg.

5 4/2021 Prior Written Notice, 6 pgs.

6 3/25/2021 Attendance Page. 1 pg.

7 7/13/2021 Child Outcomes Summary Form, 2 pgs.

9 3/4/2021 Consent Letter for Additional Assessments, 1 pg.

9 Undated Prior Written Notice, printed 9/26/22, 15 pgs.

10 9/20/2021 IEP Review, 1 pg.

11 9/27/2021 Consent for Teletherapy, 1 pg.

12 WITHDRAWN

13 2/2/2022 Meeting Notice CSE, 5 pgs.

14 3/4/2022 IEP Team Efforts to Place in LRE, 4 pgs.

15 3/4/2022 Arranging Evaluation Assistance for chools, 4 pgs.

16 10/18/2021 Classroom Observation, 3 pgs.

17 10/18/2021 Psychoeducational Assessment, 7 pgs.

18 10/14/2021 CARS-2, 2 pgs.

19 WITHDRAWN

20 WITHDRAWN

21 9/15/2021 Request for Reevaluation, 1 pg.

22 10/5/2021 Permission for Reassessment, 1 pg.\

23 10/12/2021 Agreement for Additional Evaluation, 1 pg.

24 10/12/2021 Agreement for Additional Evaluation 1, 1 pg.

25 10/12/2021 Consent for Additional Assessments 2, 1 pg.

26 10/16/2021 Agreement for Additional Reevaluation 2, 1 pg.

27 9/15/2021 Prior Written Notice, 3 pgs.

Parent

A 5/2/22 Impartial Heating Request with Deiv Confirm, 12 pg.

B 11/23/21 Revised IEP (rec. 8:1:1), 31 pg.

C 11/23/21 Original IEP, 31 pg.

D 10/5/21 IEP, 29 pg.

E 3/25/21 IESP, 13 pg.

F 1/31/22 School Location Letter 4 pg.

G Undated School Loc Letter printed on 12-13-21 2 pgs.

H 3/4/22 PWN of Recommend.,(PWN), 7 pgs.

I 12/6/21 PWN, 4 pg.

J 10/15/21 PWN, 2 pgs.

K 10/12/21 PWN re Re-evaluation, (3 pgs.

L 10/12/21 PWN re program recommend., 4 pgs.

M 4/21/21 PWN, 5 pgs.

N 10/18/21 FBA, 8 pgs.

O 10/26/21 BIP, 8 pg.s

P 10/27/21 Psychoeducational Evaluation Report, 7 pgs.

Q 2020-2021 Report Card, 2pgs.

R 12/31/20 Student Progress Report, 3 pgs.

S 12/7/20 Annual Progress Report, 3 pgs.

T 11/5/21 OT Report, 2 pgs.

U 3-19-21- Email Corres. Betw. Parent and CSE, 6 pgs.

7/3/21

V 3/14/22 10-Day Notice with Submission and Del. Confirm, 5 pgs.

W Undated School Brochure, 8 pgs.

X Fall 2021 Learning Plan, 1 pg.

Y 2021-2022 Enrollment Contract, 1 pg.

Z 9/13/22 Affidavit of School Program Director

AA 2021-2022 Attendance Record, 1 pg.

BB June 2022 Interdisciplinary Development Summary, 12 pgs.

CC 2022 Individual Schedule, 1 pg.

DD 4/7/22 Proof of Payment for $500 Deposit to School, 1pg.

EE 2021 Federal Income Tax Forms 8879-PE and 1065, 7 pgs.

Impartial Hearing Officer

I Parent Closing Memorandum

II District Closing Memorandum

III Parent Reply Memorandum

Footnotes

[1] Case No. 220486 as amended did not include any claims for the 2021-2022 SY.

[2] Record references not specified below as stated above.