New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

CASE NUMBER: 573515 - NYC: 226702

REDACTED

FINDINGS OF FACT & DECISION

Case No.: 226702

Student's Name: [Redacted] (referred to as "Student")

Date of Birth: [Redacted]

District: [Redacted]

Hearing Request by: [Redacted] (referred to as "Parent")

School: [Redacted] (referred to as "Private School")

Date of Complaint: May 31, 2022

Hearing Dates: July 27, 2023

September 7, 2023

Actual Record Close Date: September 24, 2023

Decision Date: October 8, 2023

Hearing Officer: Vanessa M. Gronbach, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

JULY 27, 2023

For the Student:

[Redacted], Esq., Parent Attorney

For the Department of Education:

[Redacted], Esq., District Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

SEPTEMBER 7, 2023

For the Student:

[Redacted], Esq., Parent Attorney

[Redacted], Parent Student

[Redacted], Principal of Private School

For the Department of Education:

[Redacted], Esq., District Representative

ISSUES

This matter comes before the undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer ("IHO") through the Parents' Due Process Complaint ("DPC") filed on or about May 31, 2022, regarding the 2021/22 school year (P-Ex. A) 1. The DPC alleged that the District denied the Student a Free Appropriate Public Education ("FAPE") as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") by failing to provide the Student with special education services and an appropriate program and placement for the 2021/22 school year (P-Ex. A). The Parent requested tuition reimbursement and/or direct funding to the Private School as well as transportation (P-Ex. A).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The undersigned was appointed as hearing officer in this matter on June ^[1], 2022. A prehearing conference was held on September 7, 2022, to discuss the issues in the case, and the parties indicated that the matter had been referred for settlement. Status conferences were held for several months and since there was no movement on settlement, a hearing was scheduled. A hearing on the merits began on July 27, 2023, and concluded in two days, on September 7, 2023 (See, Transcripts).^[2] The District did not present a case. The Parent presented exhibits^[3] and two witnesses by affidavit. The record closed on September 24, 2023. There were fourteen extensions of the compliance timelines to allow for the settlement process and then to accommodate witnesses.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Student was a [Redacted]-year-old student who attended the Private School as a bilingual Yiddish student during the 2021/22 school year (P-Ex. A). The Student is classified as a student with a Speech or Language Impairment (P-Ex. M-1). The Student was described as a hard worker who exhibits delays in the areas of academics, language/communication, and daily living skills (P-Ex. M-1). Socially, he struggles to interact with his peers and he has notable anxiety and a low frustration tolerance (P-Ex. M-1).

Due to his delays the Student has had special education services since a very young age and attended small special education schools (P-Ex. M-1). He first started attending the Private School in September 2018 (P-Ex. M-1). The District's Committee on Special Education ("CSE") held an IEP meeting for the Student on June 5, 2021 for the 2021/22 school year and recommended a 12:1:1 bilingual Yiddish special class in a specialized school on a 12 month basis (P-Ex. M-1). The Parent and the participants from the Private School, disagreed with the recommendation because the class of 12 would be too large (P-Ex. M-1; N-5). At the time of the IEP meeting, the Student was attending a class of six students and still struggled (P-Ex. M-1). The Parent indicated that he needed more direct teacher support than what could be offered in a class of 12, and she was concerned that the proposed class could not provide him with the appropriate peers he would require to improve his social skills (P-Ex. M-1).

After the IEP meeting, the Parent received a placement offer in a public school classroom (P-Ex. M-1). The Parent contacted the school and was concerned it would not meet the Student's needs (P-Ex. M-1). The proposed public school could not implement the IEP as written, as it would not provide the Student with a bilingual Yiddish program or related services (P-Ex. M-1). The Parent advised the CSE, in writing, of her concerns with the IEP and public school placement, and informed the District that unless they were provided an appropriate IEP and placement, the Student would return to the Private School for the 2021/22 school year (P-Ex. B; M-2). The CSE/District failed to provide any substantive response to the Parent's concerns and the Student continued at the Private school for the 2021/22 school year (P-Ex. M-2). The Parent is fully liable for the tuition cost of the Private School as per the contract, however the Parent was/is financially unable to directly pay the tuition (P-Ex. C; F; K; M-2).

According to the Parent, during the 2021/22 school year the Student made progress at the Private School (P-Ex. M-2). The small classes and individualized attention helped him to grow as a student and learner; his language skills expanded, as did his ability to interact with his peers (P-Ex. M-2).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

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

Two purposes of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) are (1) to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living; and (2) to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities and parents of such students are protected (20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]-[B]; see generally, Forest Grove v. T.A., 129 S. Ct. 2484, 2491 [2009]; Rowley, at 206-07).

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

In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. __, 14 (2017), the Court held that, "[t]o meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances, as a focus on the particular child is at the core of the IDEA. The instruction offered must be "specially designed" to meet a child's "unique needs" through an "individualized education program." §§1401(29), (14) (emphasis added), to reflect the fact that a contemplated IEP must be focused on the "particular child that is at the core of the IDEA". In such case, the school is still required to ensure the student is given an IEP that requires not just academic but also functional progress and, although the goals may differ for students, each child must have an IEP that includes goals and services to enable a child to make both academic and functional progress. The court further stated that an IEP "is not a form document. It is constructed only after careful consideration of the child's present levels of achievement, disability, and potential for growth" §§1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)–(IV), (d)(3)(A)(i)–(iv), and that "a student offered an educational program providing "merely more than de minimis progress" from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all."

The Court in Endrew further stated that, "[t]he IDEA demands more. It requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances." Although the Supreme Court declined to elaborate on the definition of "appropriate progress" from case to case, it stated that, "the adequacy of a given IEP turns on the unique circumstances of the child for whom it was created." Finally, The Supreme Court in Endrew declined to hold, as it declined to hold in Rowley, that "every handicapped child who is advancing from grade to grade . . . is automatically receiving a [FAPE]." Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176, 203, n. 25 (1982). A Student's "IEP need not aim for grade-level advancement. But his educational program must be appropriately ambitious in light of his circumstances, just as advancement from grade to grade is appropriately ambitious for most children in the regular classroom. The goals may differ, but every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives." Endrew F. v. Douglas 580 U.S. ___ (2017). "It cannot be the case that the Act typically aims for grade-level advancement for children with disabilities who can be educated in the regular classroom, but is satisfied with barely more than de minimis progress for those who cannot." Id.

Here, the District did not present a case, and therefore failed to meet its burden in demonstrating that FAPE was provided to the Student for the 2021/22 school year. The only evidence presented was the Parent's affidavit testimony that the proposed public school did not provide the Student with a bilingual program or related services recommended in the IEP. The District did not cross examine the Parent regarding the allegations. Based on all of reasons above, I find that the District did not provide the Student with FAPE for the 2021/22 school year.

PARENT'S BURDEN

Parents seeking reimbursement "bear the burden of demonstrating that their private placement was appropriate, even if the IEP was inappropriate" Gagliardo, at 112; see M.S. v. Bd. Of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 104 [2d Cir. 2000]). "Subject to certain limited exceptions, 'the same considerations and criteria that apply in determining whether the school district's placement is appropriate should be considered in determining the appropriateness of the parents' placement…'" Gagliardo, at 112, quoting Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 364 (2d Cir. 2006). Parents need not show that the placement provides every special service necessary to maximize the student's potential (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65). When determining whether the parents' unilateral placement is appropriate, ultimately, the issue turns on whether that placement is "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits" (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364; Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115). A private placement is only appropriate if it provides education instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a student (20 U.S.C. § 1401[29]; 34 CFR 300.39[a][1]; Educ. Law § 4401[1]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[ww]; Rowley, 458 U.S. at 188-89).

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

A private school placement must be "proper under the Act" (Carter, 510 U.S. at 12, 15; Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370), i.e., the private school must provide an educational program which meets the student's special education needs. See, Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, 115; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 129. A parent's failure to select a program approved by the State in favor of an unapproved option is not itself a bar to reimbursement (Carter, 510 U.S. at 14). The private school need not employ certified special education teachers or have its own IEP for the student (id. at 14). The Second Circuit has set forth the standard for determining whether parents have carried their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of their unilateral placement.

"Grades, test scores, and regular advancement may constitute evidence that a child is receiving educational benefit, but courts assessing the propriety of a unilateral placement consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child's individual needs. To qualify for reimbursement under the IDEA, parents need not show that a private placement furnishes every special service necessary to maximize their child's potential. They need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction." (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, quoting Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65). Finding that the District did not provide FAPE to the student during the 2021/22 school year, the burden now shifts to the Parent to prove the appropriateness of the Private School. After reviewing the testimony and evidence provided, I find that they have met that burden. I find that the Private School provided the Student with individualized instruction in a small setting, specially designed to meet the Student's academic, social, emotional and behavioral needs.

The Principal of Private School testified regarding the Student and the School (P-Ex. N). The Principal's duties include all aspects of school management: interviewing potential students, supervising and working with teachers and staff, hiring, and managing staff and working with parents (P-Ex. N-1).

The Private School is a small bilingual Yiddish special education school designed to meet the specific and individual needs of students with significant language, speech, and social delays (P-Ex. N-1). As a bilingual Yiddish program most of the students are Yiddish dominant and as such instruction is often provided in both Yiddish and English to ensure that the students have multiple ways to understand and learn in the classroom (P-Ex. N-1). Students in the Private School program range from 6-17 years old (P-Ex. N-1). During the 2021/22 school year there were approximately 34 students in the Private School (P-Ex. N-1).

The Private School's goal is to look at a student as a whole, develop their selfconfidence, and help support their language development (P-Ex. N-1). The Private School sees language as the central key to academic, social, and behavioral progress (P-Ex. N-1). Each class is carefully grouped according to academic and social/ emotional levels and needs (P-Ex. N-2). Staff take part in curriculum development and professional training throughout the year and during the 2021/22 school year, numerous trainings were provided, such as, Floortime methodology, reading workshops focused on teaching decoding and comprehension skills, Language Processing Difficulties, and developing handwriting skills (P-Ex. N-2). The Private School offers the related services of Speech & Language Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, and School Counseling and all service providers are licensed and certified in their respective disciplines (P-Ex. N-2).

The Student is a bilingual Yiddish student who is eager to do well and presents with academic, speech-language, and attentional delays (P-Ex. N-2). The Student struggled to selfadvocate and had difficultly expressing basic wants and needs (P-Ex. N-2). He also struggled with social skills, often acting immature, and struggled with age-appropriate behavior (P-Ex. N-2). He also had significant anxiety, a low frustration tolerance, and was often fearful of his environment and others (P-Ex. N-2). His anxiety and fears affected how he relates to his peers and due to his delays, the goal at the Private School was to help the Student develop his language skills, increase his ability to remain focused, and improve his ADLs (P-Ex. N-2). During the 2021/22 school year, the Student's class consisted of 6 students, 1 teacher and1 assistant teacher (6:1+1) (P-Ex. N-2). The class was taught by a New York State Certified Special Education teacher (P-Ex. N-2). The students in the class were in a 3-year age span and had similar needs to the Student (P-Ex. N-2). The small class allowed the Student to receive the attention that he required to help control his focus and give him the 1:1 support he needed (P-Ex. N-2). The 6:1+1 class size was critical as he was unable to work independently and needed material broken down into small pieces (P-Ex. N-2). As a bilingual Yiddish program, skills are often first taught to the students in their dominant Yiddish language, with the goal of students learning and increasing their English language and reading skills (P-Ex. N-3).

The ELA program focused on a combination of reading and writing goals (P-Ex. N-3). At the beginning of the year, the Student was reading on a beginning 2nd grade level (P-Ex. N-3). He possessed basic decoding skills, but struggled with his reading speed, lacked fluency and automaticity when reading, and his sight word base was limited (P-Ex. N-3). The Student possessed stronger comprehension skills and was able to answer basic WH questions (P-Ex. N-3). To address his needs, he was provided with Orton Gillingham based instruction and his progress was measured via the built-in assessments in Orton Gillingham (P-Ex. N-3). By the end of the school year, he made progress in his reading skills and was on end of 2nd grade level, was able to read a two-sentence paragraph, could answer cause and effect questions, and improved his ability to answer WH questions (P-Ex. N-3). The Student struggled greatly with writing skills and was able to write a simple sentence with support (P-Ex. N-3). He also had poor spelling and grammar skills (P-Ex. N-3). To address his writing needs, they used the Handwriting Without Tears program (P-Ex. N-3). By the end of the school year, the Student was able to write more complex sentences using a subject and predicate and improved his punctuation (P-Ex. N-3). At the beginning of the 2021/22 school year, the Student was on a 4th grade level in math (P-Ex. N-3). He possessed basic computation skills but struggled with automaticity (P-Ex. N-3). While he was able to learn new math rules fairly easily, he struggled to apply those rules independently (P-Ex. N-3). To address his needs, the Structural Arithmetic program was utilized to provide hands on, multisensory instruction; and they reinforced new skills via a traditional drill and practice format (P-Ex. N-3). By the end of the school year, the Student was on an end of 4th grade level in math, he mastered addition and subtraction with regrouping, was able to multiply 2-digit examples with automaticity, as well as examples with remainders, was learning how to multiply 3-digit examples, and was able to complete 3 step word problems (P-Ex. N-3). Students were grouped for instruction in social studies and science and the material was taught through a unit-based approach, crossed curriculum, and emphasis was placed on developing fund of information and language-based skills (P-Ex. N-4).

The Student participated in a social skills period to address his social/emotional needs, using the Social Thinking program and roleplay (P-Ex. N-4). The social skills period was used to address perspective taking skills, self-awareness, and self-regulation (P-Ex. N-4). The Student struggled with self-advocacy and immature behavior, as well as anxiety and was very fearful of others and his environment (P-Ex. N-4). By the end of the school year, the Student made progress in his coping skills to manage his anxiety, learned proper expectations in different social settings, became comfortable when meeting new people, and was able to initiate appropriate interactions (P-Ex. N-4).

The Student also participated in a class to address Activities of Daily Living ("ADL") (P-Ex. N-4). His ADL instruction was focused on learning how to stay safe in public, identifying street signs, and how to integrate with society (P-Ex. N-4). By the end of the school year, the Student understood the difference between a street and an avenue, was able to navigate the streets around school with teacher support, and was able to shop in a supermarket independently (P-Ex. N-4).

The Student also received related services of Occupational Therapy (2x30), Physical Therapy (2x30), Counseling (2x30) and Speech and Language Therapy (4x30) (P-Ex. N-4). Speech Therapy focused on improving his receptive and expressive language, as well as his pragmatic language skills and comprehension (P-Ex. N-4). The Student made progress in his ability to choose the correct answer from multiple choices and his ability to identify appropriate vs inappropriate language with prompting (P-Ex. N-4). OT focused on improving handwriting, visual motor integration, strength, and coordination (P-Ex. N-4). By the end of the year, the Student made progress in his sensory processing skills and was overall less anxious when presented with changes or challenges during the school day (P-Ex. N-4). He was also able to participate in climbing, swinging, and other gross motor activities he was previously fearful of (P-Ex. N-4-5). In addition, he improved his graphomotor skills with accurate letter formation (P-Ex. N-5). The Student's PT program focused on improving body awareness and gross motor skills (P-Ex. N-5). He made progress by the end of the school year and was able to jump greater distances independently, walk down steps using an alternate step pattern, and he improved his balance (P-Ex. N-5). In Counseling, the Student worked on his communication skills, understanding emotions, and anxiety management (P-Ex. N-5). He made progress in developing his awareness of his emotions and utilizing coping strategies for his anxiety, with support (P-Ex. N-5). Formal meetings between the Student's service providers and classroom teachers occurred approximately once a month to discuss his present performance, including strengths and weaknesses, and to monitor his progress (P-Ex. N-5). With respect to the student's progress at the Private Schools, a finding of progress is not required for a determination that a student's unilateral placement is adequate, but it is a relevant factor to be considered (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115, citing Rafferty v. Cranston Pub. Sch. Comm., 315 F.3d 21, 26-27 [1st Cir. 2002]). However, here the Student made progress. The Student made significant progress at the Private School during the 2021/22 school year (P-Ex. N-5). The Student improved academically and in his social and ADL skills (P-Ex. N-5). According to the Principal, the small classes and individualized instruction, as well as the social-emotional learning supports allowed the Student to make meaningful progress in all areas of development (P-Ex. N-6). Based on all of the above, I find that the Private School was an appropriate placement for the Student for the 2021/22 school year.

EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS

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

DECISION

Based on a review of the record and the facts mentioned above, I find that the District failed to provide the Student FAPE during the 2021/22 school year. I further find that the Parent's unilateral placement at the Private School was appropriate. I have considered the Parent's other requests for relief in the Due Process Complaint and they have been denied for lack of evidence in the record.

ORDER

Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby ordered: 1) ORDER THAT, the District shall reimburse the Parent and/or directly pay the Private School for all tuition and fees for the secular portion of the school day for the 12-month, 2021/22 school year, and provide the Student with special transportation.

SO ORDERED

DATED: October 8, 2023

Vanessa M. Gronbach

Vanessa M. Gronbach, Impartial Hearing Officer

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Within 40 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the Public School District has a right to appeal the decision to a State Review Officer (SRO) of the New York State Education Department under section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

If either party plans to appeal the decision, a notice of intention to seek review shall be personally served upon the opposing party no later than 25 days after the date of the decision sought to be reviewed.

An appealing party's request for review shall be personally served upon the opposing party within 40 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. An appealing party shall file the notice of intention to seek review, notice of request for review, request for review, and proof of service with the Office of State Review of the State Education Department within two days after service of the request for review is complete. The rules of procedure for appeals before an SRO are found in Part 279 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education. A copy of the rules in Part 279 and model forms are available at http://www.sro.nysed.gov.

EXHIBITS

DISTRICT EXHIBITS

1. Meeting Notice for CSE 5/20/21 3 pages District

2. IEP 6/7/21 25 pages District

3. Prior Written Notice 6/14/21 3 pages District

PARENT EXHIBITS

A. Ex. Date Description Pages DPC 5/31/22 3 pages

B. Parent letter 6/22/21 2 pages

C. Summer contract 21-22 1 page

D. Summer service providers affidavit 2/12/22 1 page

E. Summer payment affidavit 2/12/22 1 page

F. corrected contract 21-22 School year 1 page

G. School year service providers affidavit 2/12/22 1 page

H. School year payment affidavit 2/12/22 1 page

I. Summer schedule 21-22 3 pages

J. schedule 21-22 School year 2 pages

K. Federal 1040 form 2020 2 pages

L. Program description N/A 2 pages

M. Parent Testimony Affidavit 8/29/23 2 pages

N. School Witness Testimony Affidavit 9/4/23 6 pages

O. Summer schedule – corrected 21-22 3 pages

P. schedule - corrected 21-22 School year 2 pages

Footnotes

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

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

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