Impartial Hearing Decision

CASE NUMBER: 574364 - NYC: 227235

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Student’s Name: [REDACTED] (“Student”)

Date of Birth: [REDACTED]

Home District: 11

Hearing Requested by: [REDACTED] (“Parent(s)”)

Request Date/Date Complaint Filed: 6/30/22

Date(s) of Hearing: 1/10/23, 2/7/23, 3/20/23, 3/31/23, 5/9/23, 6/23/23, 7/20/23, 8/10/23

Actual Record Closed Date: 10/9/23

Date of Decision: 11/22/23

Hearing Officer: Sebastian A. Weiss, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED:

For the Student:

[REDACTED]

(“Parent Representative”)

[REDACTED], Parent (“Parent” or “Mother”) [REDACTED], PH.D., BCBA, Behavior Analyst (“ABA Provider”)

[REDACTED], Director, [REDACTED] (“Unilateral Placement Representative”)

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED]

(“District Representative(s)”) [REDACTED], School Psychologist, New York City Department of Education (“School Psychologist”)

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This matter comes before the undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) on the Parent’s Due Process Complaint filed on June 30, 2022 (“DPC"). (Ex. A) 1 The DPC concerns the Student’s special education program for the 2022-23 school year (“School Year”). The IHO was appointed to this case on June 30, 2022.

JURISDICTION

The due process hearing was held, and a decision in this matter is being rendered pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (hereinafter, “IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300 et seq., and the New York State Education Law, Educ. Law § 4404 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 8 NYCRR § 200.5 et seq.

ISSUES AND ARGUMENTS

Parent Case:

The DPC alleges that the District denied the Student a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) by failing to appropriately evaluate the Student and failing to develop an appropriate Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) and placement for the 2022-23 school year (“School Year”). (Ex. A) The DPC seeks funding for the Student’s unilateral placement at [REDACTED] (“Unilateral Placement”) and related relief, as discussed in greater detail below. At the hearing and in their closing brief, the Parents clarified the scope of the relief being requested. A summary of the arguments presented by the Parents is as follows: (Ex. A, CB)

The District failed to have an IEP in place as of July ^[1], 2022, the beginning of the extended School Year. The last IEP meeting conducted prior to July 2022 was in March 2021. The 2022 IEP was inadequate.

The evaluations relied upon by the District for purposes of the 2022 IEP were outdated as they were completed more than four years prior.

The District failed to reevaluate the Student after three years, as required by applicable federal and state education law.

The Unilateral Placement is an appropriate placement.

The Student should have been provided a home-based ABA program as of the beginning of the School Year. The testimony presented at the hearing demonstrates a clear need for such a program. To remedy the failure to provide the Student with an appropriate placement, the Parents are seeking a bank of 920 hours of 1:1 Applied Behavior Analysis (“ABA”) services to be calculated at 20 hours per week for 46 weeks. (CB 21)

The Parents are also seeking two hours per month of parent training and two hours per month of BCBA supervision. (A-8, CB 16)

The Parent presented 16 documents into evidence and testimony from three witnesses. The Parent also presented a closing brief.

District Case:

At the beginning of the hearing, the District waived their opening statement. (March 20 T 89) The District presented three documents into evidence and the testimony of one witness, the School Psychologist. At the end of the hearing, the District Representative stated that they would be presenting a closing brief but did not present one. (Aug. 12 T 251)

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Student is a female student with a disability classification of autism who was [REDACTED] years old at the beginning of the School Year.

The Student was first diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder during her early intervention evaluation. (Ex. C-2)

The Student exhibits maladaptive behaviors and is vulnerable to distraction. (Ex. C-6)

The Student is an identical twin and her twin sister has been diagnosed with [REDACTED]. (Ex. G) There were complications at birth. The Student also has an older sister who has been diagnosed with [REDACTED].

At age 16 months, the Student was referred by her mother for Early Intervention and was mandated to receive speech therapy services, physical therapy, occupational therapy, and ABA services.

The Student has attended the Unilateral Placement for the prior two school years. (Ex. N-3)

A summary of the relevant evidence is as follows:

On October 27, 2020, a SETSS-ABA Assessment was conducted by the ABA Provider (“2020 ABA Assessment”). (P Ex. D) The assessment recommends the following: • 20 hours per week of after-school 1:1 SETSS-ABA services provided in the home/community (e.g., generalized imitation training, DTT, echoic mand training, NET) • 2 hours per month of supervision by a BCBA and/or NYS LBA at home and in the community • 2 hours per month of parent training in the home and community by a BCBA and/or NYS

LBA

• Formal FBA and creation of formal BIP as well as subsequent training of FBA and BIP to all treatment team members by a BCBA and/or NYS LBA

• Direct 1:1 training in the home to use AAC device in the home/community

On March 22, 2021, an IEP meeting was conducted an IEP was developed (“2021 IEP”) which recommends the following special education program and services: (P Ex. Q)

• Adapted Physical Education, 2 periods per week

• 8:1:1 Special Class, District 75, 35 periods per week

• Occupational Therapy, Individual service, 3 times per week for 30 minutes, Push in/Pull out model

• Parent Counseling and Training, 1 time per month for 60 minutes

• Physical Therapy, Individual service, 2 times per week for 30 minutes, Separate location, Push in/Pull out model

• Speech-Language Therapy, Individual service, 3 times per week for 30 minutes, Separate location, Push in/Pull out model

• Speech-Language Therapy, Group of 2, 1 time per week for 30 minutes, Separate location, Push in/Pull out model

• Behavior management/support plan, Individual, Daily, Full time

• Assistive technology equipment, iPadMini with communication application, Individual, Daily, Full time

• Paraprofessional-Behavior, Individual, Daily, Full time

• Twelve month program

• Special transportation accommodations from the closest safe curb location to school

• Placement Recommendation: NYC DOE Specialized School In March/April 2021, a Comprehensive Neuropsychological Evaluation of the Student was conducted by a licensed psychologist. (P Ex. C) The evaluation sets forth a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder with cognitive challenges.

The Student’s Nonverbal Index score was 80, which was Low Average range and at the 16th percentile. The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale indicated that the Student’s Adaptive Behavior composite was below 1st percentile and in the Delayed range.

A summary of the evaluation’s recommendations is as follows:

• Placement in a highly specialized school setting in a class with a small student-to-teacher ratio and full-day multisensory learning interventions for 12 months per year with a focus on developing communication skills and providing behavioral supports to increase independent behaviors. • The program should utilize a structured behavioral methodology, consistent with ABA, under the close supervision of Board Certified Behavior Analyst/ Licensed Behavior Analyst (BCBA/LBA). ABA services should also be provided at home. • Full-time one-to-one paraprofessional to provide support in the classroom • Assistive technology and a speech-generating device • Limited transportation time • Occupational therapy and physical therapy services • Twice monthly Parent Training in the use of communication techniques and Technology

On April 1, 2022, the Parent entered into an enrollment contract with the Unilateral Placement for the 12 month School Year (“Enrollment Contract”). (P Ex. F) The Enrollment Contract specifies total education costs of $147,000 including base tuition of $112,000 plus additional services and costs of $35,000 for 1:1 paraprofessional services. (P Ex. F)

The Student’s educational plan at the Unilateral Placement consisted of the following: (Ex. E-1)

• 8:1:2 classroom ratio

• Speech Therapy, 3X30

• Occupational Therapy, 3x30

• Physical Therapy, 2x30

• Counseling/Music Therapy, 1x30

• Paraprofessional

• Assistive Technology, iPad with the application Proloquo2Go

The Student attends the Unilateral Placement’s lower school for students aged 3-10. (July 20 T)

The related services were provided on a pull-out basis. (Id)

The other students have learning disabilities, including autism and speech and language disorders. (Id)

The Student was previously placed in a 6:1:1 class at the Unilateral Placement and made sufficient progress to justify a transition to an 8:1:2 class where she would have more social interaction with peers. (Id)

At the Unilateral Placement, the Student receives multi-sensory instruction influenced by TEACCH, DIR/Floortime, and ABA (with the support of a BCBA). (K-5)

On June 16, 2022, the Parents issued a ten day notice to the District (“Ten Day Notice”). (P Ex. B)

On August 9, 2022, an IEP meeting was conducted and an IEP was developed which recommends the following special education program and services (“2022 IEP”): (D Ex. 1)

• Adapted Physical Education, 2 periods per week

• 8:1:1 Special Class, 35 periods per week

• Occupational Therapy, Individual service, 3 times per week for 30 minutes, Push in/Pull out model

• Parent Counseling and Training, 1 time per month for 60 minutes

• Physical Therapy, Individual service, 2 times per week for 30 minutes, Separate location, Push in/Pull out model

• Speech-Language Therapy, Individual service, 3 times per week for 30 minutes, Separate location, Push in/Pull out model

• Speech-Language Therapy, Group of 2, 1 times per week for 30 minutes, Separate location, Push in/Pull out model

• Behavior management/support plan, Individual service, Daily, Full time

• Paraprofessional Behavior Support, Individual service, Daily, Full time

• Twelve month program

• Special transportation accommodations

• Placement Recommendation: NYC DOE Specialized School The Instructional/Functional Levels indicated on the 2022 IEP is Kindergarten for both reading and math. (D Ex. 1-32)

On August 11, 2022, the District issued a School Location Letter and Prior Written Notice. (D Ex. 2, 3) The school specified in the School Location Letter is [REDACTED] (“District Placement”).

In October 2022, the Unilateral Placement prepared a document entitled Areas of Instructional and Therapeutic Focus for the School Year. (P Ex. E)

Three progress reports from the Unilateral Placement were submitted into evidence. (P. Ex. I, K, M)

On April 15, 2023, the ABA Provider issued a report (“ABA Report”). (P Ex. L)

The report states that the Student has benefited from ABA services. (Ex. L-10) For example, the report states: [The Student] has demonstrated progress during her ABA sessions with the present providers. [The Student] has increased her receptive and expressive language skills, ability to identify and write novel site words, and write numbers 1-100 when presented with an oral directive. [The Student] is able to greet others by name, with minimal prompting for eye contact. [The Student] has also learned to complete an activity schedule of 4 activities with minimal prompting required. [The Student] has also mastered being able to make choices from a digital/visual choice board.

The report also states that [the Student] continues to engage in display of maladaptive behaviors and continues to demonstrate difficulty with sustaining attention.

The report further states that “[The Student] requires continued support to further develop academic comprehension and adaptive skills, as well as expressive language and communication skills. [The Student] benefits from continued support to improve her ability to self-regulate emotions and acclimate to natural changes in her environment. Therefore, the present providers highly recommend a continuation of ABA services to address the noted issues.”

Witness Testimony

I. School Psychologist At the hearing the District presented the direct testimony of the School Psychologist, who was also cross examined by the Parent Counsel. (March 20 T, June 23 T)

The School Psychologist participated in the August 2022 IEP meeting as the School Psychologist and District representative.

To make their recommendation the CSE relied on reports from the Student’s school, as well as psychological and educational evaluations conducted in 2018, which the witness testified were sufficient for purposes of making their determination. The program recommended on the August 2022 IEP was appropriate for the Student.

ABA services cannot be recommended on an IEP. ABA programs are not offered at community schools. There are ABA programs in specialized schools, such as the D75 program, but the CSE does not specifically know which school the student would be placed in, so they do not make the recommendation on the IEP.

The School Psychologist did not meet the Student and was not familiar with the Student’s school.

On cross-examination, the School Psychologist agreed that the evaluations conducted in 2018 were out of date at the time of the August 2022 IEP meeting. The School Psychologist did not conduct new evaluations because that was not her role at the time.

II. Unilateral Placement Representative The Parent presented the testimony of the Unilateral Placement Representative, who testified by affidavit and appeared at the hearing for cross examination. (P Ex. N)

The Unilateral Placement Representative testified regarding the Student’s program and performance at the Unilateral Placement as well as the Student’s maladaptive behaviors. I credit the Unilateral Placement Representative’s testimony.

III. Mother The Parents presented the testimony of the Student’s Mother by affidavit. (Ex. O) The witness also appeared at the hearing for questioning.

IV. ABA Provider The Parent presented the testimony of the ABA Provider, who testified by affidavit and appeared at the hearing. (Ex. P) The ABA Provider first met the Student when he conducted the 2020 ABA Assessment. The ABA Provider has been providing services to the Student since 2022. The Student has benefited from the ABA services. The ABA Provider recommends at least 20 hours per week of home based 1:1 ABA instruction. (Ex. P-9)

SUMMARY OF APPLICABLE LAW

The IDEA is a comprehensive statutory framework established by the United States Congress to ensure that students with disabilities are afforded a FAPE. 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1)(A); see Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S. Ct. 528 (2005); Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S.176 (1982); Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356 (2d Cir. 2006). A FAPE includes special education and related services designed to meet the student's unique needs, provided in conformity with a comprehensive written IEP, which is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefit. See Rowley; 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9)(D); 34 C.F.R. § 300.17; see 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d); 34 C.F.R. § 300.22. The student’s recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a)(2); 8 NYCRR 200.6(a)(1).

In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. 999, 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.”

Pursuant to New York Education Law §4404(1)(c), the board of education shall have the burden of proof, the burden of persuasion, and the burden of production in impartial hearings except for instances where the parent is seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral parental placement and in those cases the parent shall have the burden of persuasion and the burden of production as to the appropriateness of the placement. The burden of proof in matters such as this shall only be met upon a fair preponderance of the evidence. The preponderance of the evidence standard requires the trier of fact to find that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence. Concrete Pipe & Products of California, Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California, 508 U.S. 602, 622 (1993). In other words, preponderance of the evidence is evidence that is more convincing than the evidence offered in opposition to it. Greenwich Collieries v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 990 F. 2d 730, 736 (3rd. Cir. 1993), aff’d, 512 U.S. 246 (1994).

The decision in this case rests on a determination of the three-pronged test set forth by the United States Supreme Court, which provided that a board of education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a child by the child’s parents, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parents were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parents’ claim. School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Dept. of Educ., Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985); Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993).

Under the second prong of the Burlington/Carter test, the parents bear the burden of proving the appropriateness of the Unilateral Placement. See M.S. v. Board of Education of the City of Yonkers, 231 F.3d 96, 104 (2d Cir. 2000); Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 99-51; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 94-29; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 95-57. In order to meet that burden, the parents must show that the Unilateral Placement offered an educational program designed to meet the Student’s special education needs. School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985); Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 99-51; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 98-76; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 94-29. A Unilateral Placement is only appropriate if it provides education instruction specifically designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child. Gagliardo v. Arlington Central School District, 489 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2007).

Regarding the placement of students with disabilities, N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 8 § 200.6(a)(3) states: “Students with disabilities placed together for purposes of special education shall be grouped by similarity of individual needs as defined in section 200.1(ww) of this Part, in accordance with the following: (i) The range of academic or educational achievement of such students shall be limited to assure that instruction provides each student appropriate opportunities to achieve his or her annual goals. The learning characteristics of students in the group shall be sufficiently similar to assure that this range of academic or educational achievement is at least maintained. (ii) The social development of each student shall be considered prior to placement in any instructional group to assure that the social interaction within the group is beneficial to each student, contributes to each student's social growth and maturity, and does not consistently interfere with the instruction being provided. The social needs of a student shall not be the sole determinant of such placement. (iii) The levels of physical development of such students may vary, provided that each student is provided appropriate opportunities to benefit from such instruction. Physical needs shall be considered prior to determining placement to assure access to appropriate programs. The physical needs of the student shall not be the sole basis for determining placement. (iv) The management needs of such students may vary, provided that environmental modifications, adaptations, or, human or material resources required to meet the needs of any one student in the group are provided and do not consistently detract from the opportunities of other students in the group to benefit from instruction.”

Regarding least restrictive environment, N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 8 § 200.1(cc) states that “Least restrictive environment means that placement of students with disabilities in special classes, separate schools or other removal from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that even with the use of supplementary aids and services, education cannot be satisfactorily achieved. The placement of an individual student with a disability in the least restrictive environment shall: (1) provide the special education needed by the student; (2) provide for education of the student to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of the student with other students who do not have disabilities; and (3) be as close as possible to the student's home.”

Regarding compensatory education, where a school system fails to provide special education or related services to a student with a disability, the student is entitled to compensatory education, “i.e., replacement of educational services the child should have received in the first place” (Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516 (D.C. Cir. 2005). An award of compensatory education “should aim to place the disabled children in the same position they would have occupied but for the school district’s violations of IDEA” (Id.). Compensatory education is a remedy for “past deficiencies” therefore a finding as to whether a student was “denied a FAPE in the relevant time period is a necessary prerequisite to a compensatory education award.” (Peak v. District of Columbia, 526 F. Supp. 2d 32 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

DECISION

Regarding the issue of whether the Student was provided a FAPE for the School Year, the District bears the burden of proof. Based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, I find that the District has not satisfied its burden of proof in this regard and did not provide a FAPE for the School Year because the District did not provide sufficient evidence to establish the appropriateness of the IEP or of the District Placement.

Regarding the appropriateness of the 2022 IEP, the District witness testified that the 2022 IEP meeting was conducted after the start of the extended school year, and the District relied upon outdated evaluations conducted four years prior. The District did not conduct reevaluations of the Student within three year timeframe required by applicable law.

Regarding the appropriateness of the District Placement, the District did not present any witness testimony or evidence in this regard and did not present an opening statement or closing statement.

By comparison, the Parent presented evidence and witness testimony indicating that the Student requires additional services and supports, such as individualized support and ABA services.

With respect to the second prong of the Burlington/Carter analysis, the issue for adjudication at the hearing was whether the Unilateral Placement was appropriate. Under the Burlington/Carter analysis, the Parent bears the burden of proof. Based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, I find that the Parents have satisfied their burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of the Unilateral Placement.

The Student’s educational program at the Unilateral Placement is consistent with the recommendations set forth in the Neuropsychological Evaluation and 2022 IEP, including a small class size and individualized support.

As compared to the District’s 8:1:1 class recommendation, the Unilateral Placement offers an 8:1:2 class with an additional teaching assistant.

The Student’s transition from a 6:1:1 class to an 8:1:2 class at the Unilateral Placement suggests that the Student has made progress at the Unilateral Placement.

In addition, I credit the Parent witness testimony regarding the appropriateness of the Unilateral Placement. The District did not present any evidence or witness testimony regarding the appropriateness off the Unilateral Placement, and the cross examination of the Parent witness by the District Counsel was not sufficient to establish a different finding.

In concluding the second prong of the Burlington/Carter analysis, based on a preponderance of the evidence standard, I find that the Parent has met their burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of the Unilateral Placement.

The third prong of the Burlington/Carter analysis considers the equities of the case. I find that the equities favor the Parent insofar as the Parent issued a timely ten day notice prior to the start of the extended School Year, whereas the 2022 IEP meeting was conducted, and the Prior Written notice and School Location Letter were issued, after the start of the extended School Year.

Regarding the Parent’s claim for compensatory education, the District bears the burden of proof in this regard.

The District witness testified that ABA services cannot be recommended on an IEP, although certain District schools offer ABA services.

The ABA Provider testified that the Student has made progress with ABA services, including her receptive and expressive language skills. The ABA Provider also testified that the Student continues to exhibit maladaptive behavior and requires ongoing services.

Regarding the Parent’s claim for compensatory services, I find that the Parent has presented credible evidence regarding the Student’s need for compensatory ABA services. The ABA Provider’s affidavit and the ABA Report recommend up to 20 hours of home based 1:1 ABA services. The Neuropsychological Evaluation recommends that the Student’s ABA program be conducted under BCBA supervision, as well as parent training. (Ex. C-10)

ORDER

Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby ORDERED THAT: 1) The District did not provide the Student a FAPE for the School Year; and 2) The District shall pay the Unilateral Placement for the Student’s tuition for the School Year pursuant to the Enrollment Contract; 3) The District shall provide the following compensatory services to be provided by a licensed New York State provider at a reasonable market rate and to be used within three years from the date hereof:

• Up to 920 hours of compensatory home based 1:1 ABA services • Up to 24 hours of BCBA supervision • Up to 24 hours of parent training

SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 22, 2023

/s/ Sebastian A. Weiss, Esq.

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.

APPENDIX B – DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

PARENT EXHIBITS

A. Due Process Complaint 6/30/22 10 pages

B. Ten Day Notice 6/16/22 11 pages

C. Neuropsychological Evaluation April 2021 14 pages

D. SETSS ABA Assessment 10/27/20 9 pages

E. Unilateral Placement Areas of Focus October 2022 6 pages

F. Unilateral Placement Enrollment Contract 4/1/22 9 pages

G. FOFD 3/19/22 23 pages

H. Unilateral Placement Summer Schedule Undated 1 page

I. Unilateral Placement Fall Schedule Undated 1 page

J. Unilateral Placement Quarterly Progress Report 7/2022 – 8/2022 19 pages

K. Unilateral Placement Progress Report 9/2022 – 1/2023 16 pages

L. ABA Report 4/15/22 10 pages

M. Unilateral Placement Progress Report 2/23 – 6/23 18 pages

N. Unilateral Placement Representative Affidavit Undated 12 pages

O. Parent Affidavit Undated 3 pages

P. ABA Provider Affidavit Undated 10 pages

Q. IEP 3/21 2021 34 pages

R. Closing Statement 9/18/23 24 pages

DOE EXHIBITS

1. IEP 8/9/22 35 pages DOE

2. School Location Letter 8/11/22 3 pages DOE

3. Prior Written Notice 8/11/22 5 pages DOE

Footnotes

[1] Exhibits, or “Ex.”, shall be referred to as follows: “P” for Parent Exhibits, which are otherwise indicated alphabetically; “D” for District Exhibits, which are otherwise indicated numerically; “JE” for Joint Exhibits; “CB” for closing brief; “IHO” for any Impartial Hearing Officer’s exhibits; and “T” for the hearing transcript, accompanied by the applicable hearing date.