New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

CASE NUMBER NYC: 228876

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 228876

Student’s Name1: [REDACTED] (“Student”) Date of Birth: [REDACTED]

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

Request Date/Date Complaint Filed: July 7, 2022 Date(s) of Hearing: October 7, 2022

Actual Record Closed Date: November 14, 2022

Date of Decision: November 18, 2022 Hearing Officer: Teril Holston, Esq.

1 Personally identifiable information is attached as Appendix A, “Redaction Identification Page,” to this decision and must be removed prior to public distribution.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON OCTOBER 17, 2022

For the Student:

[REDACTED]

[REDACTED]

[REDACTED], Parent Parent Witnesses:

[REDACTED]

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED]

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the undersigned Hearing Officer at the request of Petitioner, the parent 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 July 7, 2022, Petitioner 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 2022-2023 school year, in that the District failed to convene an IEP meeting, develop an IEP program that was reasonably calculated to confer an educational benefit, or provide supplemental supports and services (P-A)2. The Petitioner is seeking reimbursement/ direct payment for supplemental services:16 weekly hours of 1:1 ABA instruction, 5 monthly hours of ABA Supervision and Consultation, and 2 monthly hours of parent training and counseling. Furthermore, the parent alleges that the equities support their claim for 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 2022-2023 school year, b) the 1:1 ABA instruction and parent training offer the student with specially designed instruction sufficient to meet student’s needs, and c) the equities support the Parents.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 25, 2022, the undersigned was appointed to conduct an impartial hearing, after a prior IHO recused.

On October 7, 2022, the virtual impartial hearing on the merits of the DPC commenced and concluded. It was a closed hearing and the record closed on November 14, 2022.

At the hearing, the District’s representative presented no documentary evidence and did not call any witnesses. The District waived an opening statement and presented a brief closing argument only arguing that the parent attended an IEP meeting in September 2021.

The Parent, through their representative, submitted to documents (Ex. P-A though P-F),3 and the testimony of the parent and the student’s BCBA-D, in support of the Parent’s case. All of the documents

2 Exhibits shall be referred to as follows: “P” for Parent Exhibit; “DOE” for the District’s or Department’s Exhibits; and “IHO” for the Impartial Hearing Officer’s exhibits.

3 A more detailed list of exhibits is attached. 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.

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.

FINDINGS OF FACT

After a full review of the record generated at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact and determinations3:

The student is a [REDACTED]-year old diagnosed with Autism attending [REDACTED], a 12 month program for students with Autism. In addition to receiving specialized ABA instruction in school, the student has received ABA services in the home for the last ten years.

On June 3, 2022, the parents emailed the District regarding an IEP meeting for the student (P-C). On June 15, 2022, the parents provided a Ten-Day Notice to the District via email, indicating that for the 2022-2023 school year, they had not received a notice for IEP meeting, received an IEP, or a school placement for the student (P-B). At that time, the parents also informed the District that they would be seeking reimbursement for 16 hours of 1:1 ABA instruction per week, 5 hours of ABA supervision and consultation per month, and 2 hours of parent training and counseling per month (Id.). Per the parent, she did not receive a response to her notice.

The student has been working with the BCBA-D for approximately 10 years in the home.

The BCBA-D is also the Behavior Consultant and Coordinator at the student’s current school, where she reviews and edits programs, supervises and evaluates staff, provide staff trainings, and conducts home visits. Given the BCBA-D’s relationship with the student’s school, she is able to maintain continuity of the student’s ABA instruction and programing in the home and community. For the 2022-2023 school year, the BCBA-D is providing the students with 8 hours of ABA instruction per week, and another instructor is providing 8 hours. In addition to the 16 hours or ABA instruction provided to the student weekly, the providers are also providing 2 hours monthly of parent training

(P-D).

Without the 1:1 ABA instruction, the student would be “more likely to engage in inappropriate and stereotypic behavior” (P-D-1). The student continues to display severe deficits in communication and expressive language skills, including spontaneous and conversational language (P-D). The BCBA-D indicates that the 1:1 ABA instruction in the home continues to be necessary for the student to build skills needed like selfcare, safety awareness, communication with family, behaving appropriately in the home, and working on independence. The BCBA-D charges the parents $175 per hour for 1:1 ABA instruction, despite charging $225 per hour in other cases. The BCBA further testified that the parent training is necessary for the student.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Individuals with Disability Education Act (“IDEA”) establishes that students with disabilities are entitled to a free and appropriate education (“FAPE”).4 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.”5 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.”6 The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment with non-disabled peers.7 The parent seeks reimbursement/ direct funding for the unilateral placement of the student in services for the 2022-2023 school year. 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.

4 See, 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1)(A); Schaffer v. Weast, 546 US 49 (2005).

5 Bd. of Ed. Hendrick Hudson CSD v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 188 (1982).

6 See, Application of Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 05-061, quoting, Rowley at 206.

7 See, Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dt., 142 F.3rd 119 (2nd Cir. 1998).

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 FAPE8. A school district offers a FAPE "by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction."9 “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.”10 Further, “an IEP is not a form document” and it should be constructed after carefully evaluating the student.11

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.12

Special education services must be provided by the district in conformity with the student's IEP.13 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.14

However, school districts are not required to "maximize" the potential of students with disabilities15, but must provide "an IEP that is 'likely to produce progress, not regression,' and... affords

8 20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][i].

9 Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203.

10 Endrew F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988, 999

11 Id.

12 See, Walzczak, supra; Id., Appeal No. 00-005.

13 20 U.S.C. § 1401[9][D]; 34 CFR 300.17[d]; 20 U.S.C. § 1414[d]; 34 CFR 300.320.

14 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].

15 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. the student with an opportunity greater than mere 'trivial advancement'"16. The IEP must be "reasonably calculated to provide some 'meaningful' benefit"17.

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 placement18. 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.

ANALYSIS

• • Prong I: FAPE It is asserted in the DPC that the DOE failed to provide the student with a FAPE for the 2022- 2023 school year for a number of reasons. As to Prong I of the Burlington/Carter standard, the DOE failed to meet its burden. The District presented no witness or documentary evidence to demonstrate that an IEP meeting was held, that the parents were provided with an IEP, or explanation as to how the CSE made its recommendation (if at all), how the IEP appropriately describes the Student, whether the IEP is meaningfully calculated to confer educational benefit, or whether a school was identified by the District met the student’s needs. Per the hearing record, the parent reached out to the District before the start of the 2022-2023 school year at least two times for an IEP meeting. In short, the District declined to “offer a cogent and responsive explanation for their decisions” regarding the student’s 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”. Endrew F., 137 S.Ct. at 1002. 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 2022-2023 school year.
• • Unilateral Placement In this case, as the District did not offer the student a FAPE for the 2022-2023 school year, the next issue to determine is whether the Parent’s unilateral placement of the student was appropriate. The Parent argues that the 1:1 ABA instruction is an appropriate unilateral placement for the student as it 16 Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195, quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130.

17 Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 [2d Cir. 1997]; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192.

18 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]. provides instruction and services that are specifically designed to meet the student’s unique needs and that enable the student to make meaningful progress. 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.19 When determining whether the parents' unilateral placement is appropriate, that placement must be “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.”20 A private placement is only appropriate if it provides education instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a student.21

A private school placement must be “proper under the Act”22, i.e., the private school must provide an educational program which meets the student's special education needs.23 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.24 The private school need not employ certified special education teachers or have its own IEP for the student.25 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.”26

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

19. Frank G. v Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 364-65 (2d Cir. 2006)

20 Id.; see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115.

21 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.

22 Carter, 510 U.S. at 12, 15; Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370

23 See, Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, 115; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 129.

24 Carter, 510 U.S. at 14

25 Id.

26 Gagliardi, 489 F.3d at 112, quoting Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65. 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.27 In this case, the Parent submitted a progress report provided by the BCBA-D (P-D) and her testimony, detailing the student’s needs and progress. Without 1:1 ABA instruction, the student would revert to social unacceptable behaviors. With respect to the student’s progress, 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.28 However, here the progress report, BCBA-D’s and parent’s testimony detail the progress the student has made in his daily functioning and academics, over the last ten years while receiving the 1:1 ABA instruction in the home. Although the student receives ABA instruction in school, the BCBA-D credibly testified that the student continues to require additional 1:1 ABA instruction outside of the school setting.

Here, the parent also seeks 5 hours weekly of supervision and consultation. A review of the hearing record fails to demonstrate that these hours are recommended by the provider or a requirement for the student to receive a FAPE. The BCBA-D, in her testimony and her report, did not mention any recommendation for hours of supervision or consultation.

Based on all of the above, the parent has met the burden that the 1:1 ABA instruction is appropriate for the student for the 2022-2023 school year as required.

The weight of the evidence demonstrates that the student’s individual special education needs are being addressed by 1:1 ABA instruction and that the instruction offered is "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits."29 Of note, the District offered no valid arguments concerning the appropriateness of Parent’s unilateral placement, nor challenged the equities in this action. Further, the District had the opportunity to cross-examine the Parent’s witnesses and did not

27 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

28 Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115, citing Rafferty v. Cranston Pub. Sch. Comm., 315 F.3d 21, 26-27 (1st Cir. 2002)

29 Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364. object to any evidence entered into the record. Under these circumstances, I find that the Parent’s witnesses and documentary evidence are credible.

• • Equitable Considerations Equitable considerations are relevant in determining relief “because the authority to grant reimbursement [under the IDEA] is discretionary.”30 “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."31 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."32 Although a reduction in reimbursement is discretionary, courts have upheld the denial of reimbursement in cases where it was shown that parents

30 Frank G., 459 F.3d at 363-64 (quoting, Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374).

31 20 U.S.C. § 14129(a)(10)(C)(iii)(I); see 34 CFR 300.148(d)(1)

32 Greenland Sch. Dist. v. Amy N., 358 F.3d 150, 160 (1st Cir. 2004). failed to comply with this statutory provision.33 Parents of students enrolled in private school are not exempted from 10-day notice requirements.34 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"35

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.36 In the instant case, the parents provided the necessary Ten-Days’ Notice of their concerns with the District’s offer of a FAPE for the student for the 2022-2023 school year on June 15, 2022, after reaching out to the District for an IEP meeting weeks before (P-B; P-C). Therein, the parents detailed their specific concerns and provide notice of their intention to unilaterally place the student (P-B). The District failed to respond.

By way of relief, Parent seeks direct funding for the 1:1 ABA instruction. 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 associated with the 1:1 ABA instruction and the Student is currently receiving the services for the 2022-2023 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 2022-2023 school year.

33 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).

34 S.W. v New York City Dep't of Educ., 646 F. Supp. 2d 346, 361-63 (S.D.N.Y. 2009).

35 Bd. of Educ. of Yorktown Cent. Sch. Dist. v C.S., 990 F.3d 152, 171 (2d Cir. 2021).

36 See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(iv); 34 C.F.R. § 300.148(e)(1)

• • The parent’s unilateral placement was appropriate and equitable considerations support an award of direct funding for the 2022-2023 school year.
• • The parents failed to meet their burden in demonstrating that the 5 hours of supervision and consultation are appropriate for the student.
• • 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

Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law,

• • IT IS HEREBY, ORDERED, that the New York City Department of Education shall directly fund 16 hours of 1:1 ABA Instruction in the home or community, weekly, for the 2022-2023 school year in an amount not to exceed $175 per hour within 25 calendar days of receiving an invoice.
• • IT IS HEREBY, ORDERED, that the New York City Department of Education shall directly fund 2 hours of parent training and counseling each month for the 2022-2023 school year, in an amount not to exceed $175, within 25 calendar days of receiving proof of payment.

DATED: SO, ORDERED

11/18/2022 /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

11/18/2022 /s/ Teril Holston

Teril Holston, Esq., IHO

APPENDIX A – REDACTION IDENTIFICATION PAGE

Student’s Name

[REDACTED]

Date of Birth

[REDACTED]

Student’s I.D. Number

[REDACTED]

Parents

[REDACTED] and [REDACTED]

Parents’ representative

[REDACTED]

District’s representative

[REDACTED]

BCBA-D

[REDACTED]

APPENDIX B – DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

PARENT EXHIBITS

Exhibit

Document

Date

Pages

A Due Process Complaint with email confirmation 07/07/2022 5

B Ten-Day Notice with email confirmation 06/15/2022 2

C Parent Email to CSE re: IEP meeting 06/03/2022 1

D Progress Report by [REDACTED] 09/22/2022 8

E [REDACTED] License and Resume Undated 3

F [REDACTED]Certificate Undated 2