Skip to main content
Special Education Law
DECISIONParent PrevailedIHO Case No. 229201

New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

January 9, 2023·Jean Marie Brescia·New York City Department of Education

NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.

NYSED # 576519 NYC# 229201

CASE NUMBER: 229201

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 229201

Student’s Name: REDACTED REDACTED

School District: New York City Department of Education Hearing Requested by: Parent Request Date/Date Complaint Filed: July 21, 2022

Date(s) of Hearing: August 22, 2022

September 22, 2022

October 12, 2022

November 21, 2022

December 22, 2022

Actual Record Closed Date: January 3, 2023

Date of Decision: January 9, 2023

Date of Distribution if Different than Decision Date: N/A

Hearing Officer: Jean Marie Brescia, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON August 22, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.

For the Department of Education:

None

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON September 22, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.

For the Department of Education:

None

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON October 12, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON November 21, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON December 22, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.

REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.

REDACTED REDACTED, Parent

REDACTED REDACTED, Parent

REDACTED REDACTED, Director, REDACTED Elementary School at REDACTED

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This matter comes before the undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) on Parent’s Due Process Complaint (“DPC") filed on or about July 21, 2022. Ex. A.[1] On July 22, 2022, I was appointed by the New York City Department of Education to hear this matter. Parent alleges that the Department failed to offer a free appropriate public education to REDACTED and seeks reimbursement for tuition for REDACTED at REDACTED REDACTED School at the REDACTED (“REDACTED”) and for transportation for the 2020-2021 school year. Ex. A at 1, 2.

I conducted a prehearing conference on August 22, 2022. Counsel for REDACTED’s parents appeared; there was no appearance on behalf of the Department. Tr. 2-3. Prior to the prehearing conference, I had entered a written order denying consolidation for the reasons set forth in the order. At the prehearing conference, counsel for REDACTED’s parents reported that there was a settlement in principle in this matter, that a stipulation of settlement had been drafted, and that REDACTED’s parents had signed the stipulation and forwarded stipulation to the Department for counter-signature. Tr. 3-4. The hearing was scheduled for September 22, 2022, in the event that the stipulation was not executed by the Department. Tr. 5-6.

On September 22, counsel for REDACTED’s parents appeared and reported that the Department had not yet counter-signed the stipulation of settlement. Since there were connectivity issues, and the Department representative did not participate in the conference call, the hearing was rescheduled for October 12. On October 12, counsel for both parties appeared. It was reported that the Department would not be executing the stipulation of settlement; the hearing was continued at the request of both parties in order to permit the parties to prepare their respective cases and for witnesses to be available to testify. Tr. 21-23.

On November 21, the parties requested an additional continuance for the reasons set forth in the transcript. Tr. 30-31. The hearing was completed on December 22; the Department rested its case without presenting documentary evidence or testimony. Tr. 42. Parents’ counsel presented an opening statement, Parents’ exhibits A through L were admitted in evidence, and the director of REDACTED testified. Parent presented testimony by affidavit and was not cross-examined by Department’s counsel.

The parties requested an extensions of the compliance date, and written Orders of Extension was issued on August 22, October 12, November 21, and December 22, 2022. The reasons for granting the extensions are set forth in the Orders.

The record was closed on January 3, upon the Hearing Officer’s receipt of the transcript of the final day of the hearing.

JURISDICTION

The due process hearing was held, and a decision in this matter is now 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

REDACTED’s parents request funding for tuition and related services costs at REDACTED, reimbursement for monies paid and direct payment for tuition due and owing, and provision of transportation. At the hearing, the Department did not defend its IEP or proposed placement. The issues to be resolved are therefore:

  • • Was REDACTED an appropriate unilateral parental placement for REDACTED for the 2020-2021 school year?
  • • Does the balance of the equities favor REDACTED’s parents?

FINDINGS OF FACT

  • • REDACTED is a now REDACTED year-old boy who is eligible to receive special education and services. Exs. A at 1, C at 3.
  • • REDACTED experiences difficulties with processing language, both receptively and expressively, social pragmatics, attention, and impulsivity; academically, he struggles with reading comprehension and writing. Tr. 63.
  • • REDACTED received Early Intervention services (SEIT and speech and occupational therapies) due to impulsive and unsafe behaviors. Ex. L at ⁋ 4.
  • • REDACTED received preschool special education services and was placed by the CPSE in a center-based special education preschool. Ex. L at ⁋ 4.
  • • As a preschool student, REDACTED experienced receptive and expressive language delays, fine motor delays, limited attention span, sensory-seeking behaviors, hyperactive and aggressive behaviors, and poor frustration tolerance. Ex. C at 17.
  • • REDACTED was first diagnosed with REDACTED at four years of age. Ex. C at 17.
  • • REDACTED attended a charter school for kindergarten and first grade in an ICT class with SETSS, a paraprofessional and related services. Ex. L at ⁋ 5.
  • • REDACTED attended P.S. redacted for second and third grades in an ICT class. Ex. L at ⁋ 5.
  • • REDACTED continued at P.S.redacted for fourth grade in a general education classroom with five hours per week of pull-out SETSS and counseling (one 30-minute session per week in a group). Ex. L at ⁋⁋ 6, 13.
  • • REDACTED struggled in fourth grade. He avoided work and completed work only when he was in a 1:1 setting or in a very small group with constant teacher support; he was unable to read a book independently, failed to make progress, and did not meet grade level standards in EKA and writing. Ex. L at ⁋⁋ 7-10; see also Ex. G.
  • • REDACTED’s parents secured a neuropsychological evaluation of REDACTED; testing was conducted in July 2020, after REDACTED had completed fourth grade at P.S. redacted. Exs. C, L at ⁋ 15.
  • • As per the evaluation, REDACTED was “a cognitively capable child with average intellectual functioning” who demonstrated “inattentiveness and poor attention on a task of selective and sustained attention” and “poor inhibitory control;” and, “[i]n the context of his poor focus and inhibition, [he] struggled to listen to and follow directions” and “his learning and retrieval of information was not consistently efficient....” Ex. C at 16-17.
  • • The evaluation also revealed that REDACTED’s inattention and executive dysfunction “significantly” impacted his learning and that he required “a high degree of one-on-one support to maintain his focus on his schoolwork.” Ex. C at 17. As his fourth grade classroom teacher reported to the evaluator, REDACTED “often falls behind peers” without one-on-one support and “struggles to start schoolwork on his own.” Ex. C at 17.
  • • Furthermore, REDACTED’s reading comprehension difficulties “may be subsumed under his diagnoses of REDACTED.” Ex. C at 18.
  • • The evaluator concluded that REDACTED needed a small, structured and supportive educational setting, “with a high teacher-to-student ratio as well as a substantial amount of support with opportunities for small group and individualized instruction,” that implemented strategies and accommodations addressing his REDACTED symptoms and provided executive functioning skills training. Ex. C at 17, 19.
  • • REDACTED’s diagnoses, as of summer 2020, included “REDACTED, REDACTED” and a REDACTED. Ex. C at 17-18.
  • • REDACTED entered REDACTED for the 2020-2021 school year as a fifth grade student. Ex. L at ⁋ 17.
  • • REDACTED is a small elementary school program with “highly individualized programming and special ed therapeutic services” which is “housed within” a mainstream school, REDACTED. REDACTED students have individualized schedules and mainstreaming opportunities as appropriate. Tr. 56.
  • • REDACTED provides the related services of speech, occupational therapy, counseling and social skills, all provided by properly certified or licensed personnel. Tr. 57.
  • • During the 2020-2021 school year, REDACTED enrolled 21 students between the ages of seven and fourteen years who experienced REDACTED, anxiety, and/or learning disabilities. Tr. 57.
  • • During the 2020-2021 school year, REDACTED followed City rules for instruction to students during times of COVID restrictions. If students were unable to attend school as per such restrictions, REDACTED provided remote instruction. Tr. 58-60.
  • • The program includes students with autism, REDACTED, language processing difficulties, dyslexia and/or anxiety. Tr. 57-58.
  • • REDACTED personnel developed an individualized Comprehensive Student Plan for REDACTED. Ex. K.
  • • REDACTED’s schedule, for the 2020-2021 school year, included: arrival/organizational skills, morning meeting, typing, prayer, reading, counseling (individual and group), REDACTED reading, writing, movement, art, lunch, math, read aloud, social studies, science, speech and OT group, speech therapy, adaptive physical therapy, art therapy group, behavioral skills program, religious classes, and weekly current events and assembly. Ex. F.
  • • School personnel utilized arrival time to work with students on organizational skills, review the day’s schedule, and reinforce material from the prior day. Tr. 65.
  • • School personnel focused on social-emotional skills during morning meeting; REDACTED had difficulties during morning meeting due to his expressive language challenges; school personnel worked with REDACTED on generating topics to discuss with the class. Tr. 65-66.
  • • REDACTED’s morning classes included six students and three teachers; REDACTED needed this student:teacher ratio because he needed much adult support. Tr. 64-66, 72.
  • • In reading, while REDACTED could read the words of a text, he did not understand the implications of punctuation and had difficulties with reading comprehension, answering questions about a text, and writing about the text. Tr. 67-68. His teachers addressed these difficulties by scaffolding instruction for him, working with him one-to-one and in small groups, providing visuals and using graphic organizers; in addition, the speech-language therapist worked with him on comprehension, expressive language, and vocabulary development. Tr. 67-69, 76.
  • • In writing, REDACTED’s teachers used a basic writing skills curriculum and provided him with structured and scaffolded instruction and individual support, from which he benefitted. Tr. 69-71.
  • • REDACTED worked with the school psychologist in counseling sessions and in a social skills class with other students. Tr. 73.
  • • REDACTED attended mainstream recess and movement class. Tr. 75.
  • • Approximately 13.2 percent of REDACTED’s schedule consisted of religious instruction and/or celebration. Ex. F.
  • • REDACTED made progress during the 2020-2021 school year:
  • • He willingly completed homework assignment (Ex. L at ⁋ 23);
  • • Learned to read grade level texts and prepare written summaries (Ex. L at ⁋ 23);
  • • Improved his reading fluency and reading comprehension (tr. 69; Ex. K at 4-5);
  • • His Fountas and Pinnell reading level moved from instructional level T to an independent level T (tr. 69);
  • • He improved his sentence writing and his skills in writing pieces of written work, such as article summaries and personal narratives (tr. 71; Ex. K at 9-10);
  • • He improved his math computation and problem-solving skills (tr. 71-72; Ex. K at 6-7); and
  • • His social skills improved (Ex. K at 20-21; Ex. L at ⁋ 24; tr. 77);
  • • REDACTED’s parents entered into an enrollment contract with REDACTED for the 2020-2021 school year. The total amount of the tuition was $102,000.00. Ex. D. The contract obligates REDACTED’s parents to pay this amount. Ex. D.
  • • As of the time of the hearing, REDACTED’s parents were on a payment plan with the school and had paid $10,500.04 of the tuition. Exs. H, J.
  • • The family’s financial circumstances were and remain such that they are unable to pay the entire tuition amount at this time. Exs. I, L at ⁋⁋ 19-20.
  • • REDACTED’s parents submitted a ten-day notice letter to the Department on August 24, 2020. In this letter, they reiterated their concerns about the Department’s IEP program recommendation of pull-out SETSS for REDACTED. Ex. B.
  • • On October 16, 2020, REDACTED’s parents forwarded a copy of the neuropsychological evaluation report to the CSE and stated that they “would welcome a new IEP meeting to discuss this evaluation and REDACTED’s learning needs.” Ex. C.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

A board of education may be required to pay for education 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. Department of Education, 471 U.S. 359 (1985). The fact that the school or the educational and related services selected by the parents are not approved as a school for children with disabilities by the State Education Department (as in the instant case) is not dispositive of the parents’ claim for tuition reimbursement. Florence County School District v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993).

The central purposes of the IDEA are to ensure: (1) that students with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education 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) that the rights of students with disabilities and their parents are protected. 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1)(A); Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 51 (2005); Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179-181 (1982).

The first step in the inquiry is to determine whether the school district offered a free appropriate public education to the student. See, e.g., Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-008; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-121. A free appropriate public education includes special education and related services designed to meet the student’s individual needs, provided in conformity with a written IEP. See 20 U.S.C. §1401(9); 20 U.S.C. §1414(d). A school district offers a student a free appropriate public education when (1) it complies with the procedural requirements of the IDEA and (2) the IEP developed by the district is “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F. ex rel. REDACTED F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988, 999 (2017); see also Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207; T.M. v. Cornwall Cent. Sch. Dist., 752 F.3d 145, 151, 160 (2d Cir. 2014); R.E. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 189-90 (2d Cir. 2012). A school district offers a FAPE “by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction.” Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203. The school district also must ensure that “[t]o the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities are educated with children who are not disabled” that is, in the student’s least restrictive environment. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); 8 NYCRR 200.1(cc), 200.6(a)(1); see M.W. ex rel. S.W. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 725 F.3d 131,143 (2d Cir. 2013).

The particular educational needs of a student with a disability and the services required to meet the needs must be set forth in a written IEP. Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 311 (1988); 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9)(D); see 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d); 34 C.P.R. § 300.320. An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the student’s needs. 34 C.F.R. 300.320 (a)(1); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. 200.4(d)(2). The CSE then must establish annual goals related to the identified needs of the student and provide for the use of appropriate special education services in the IEP. 8 N.Y.C.R.R. 200.4(d)(2)(iii), (v).

In New York, the school district bears the burden of proof in an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition or services reimbursement for a unilateral placement, or services selected by the parent, has the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement, programming or services. N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404(1)(c); see R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85.

Did the Department offer REDACTED a FAPE?

In this case, the Department did not present testimony or documentary evidence with respect to its provision of FAPE to REDACTED for the 2020-2021 school year or to rebut the testimony of REDACTED’s mother or her witness. As a result, the Department did not carry its burden of proof and cannot prevail on the first “prong” of the Burlington/Carter test.

Is REDACTED an appropriate placement for REDACTED?

REDACTED’s parents bear the burden of proof concerning the appropriateness of REDACTED’s program for REDACTED. See, e.g., Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Hyde Park Cent. Sch. Dist., 459 F. 3d 356, 364 (2d Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 169 (2007). To meet this burden, REDACTED’s parents must show that the educational services provided by REDACTED addressed REDACTED’s identified special education needs. See C.F. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 746 F.3d 68, 82 (2d Cir. 2014); C.L. v. Scarsdale Union Free Sch. Dist., 744 F.3d 826, 837 (2d Cir. 2014); R.E., 694 F.3d at 187; G.B. and L.B. on behalf of N.B. v. Tuxedo Union Free Sch. Dist., 09-CV-859 (S.D.N.Y Sept. 30, 2010); Application of the Bd. of City School District of the City of New York, Appeal No. 95-79, at pp. 6-7; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 96-1. The Second Circuit instructs that:

No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining whether parents’ unilateral placement is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive education benefits.” Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207. 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.”

Frank G., 459 F. 3d at 364 (emphasis added); also Bd. of Educ. of the Wappingers Cent. Sch. Dist. v. D.M., 831 F. App’x 29, 78 IDELR 2 (2d Cir. 2020) (Summary Order).

Furthermore, as the Second Circuit held in R.E.: “parents may provide evidence that the child made actual progress at their chosen private placement to support the adequacy of that placement.” 694 F.3d at 187 n.3.

The preponderance of the evidence establishes that REDACTED’s program provided REDACTED with an educational program in which his constellation of identified special education needs was addressed. In particular, the record is clear that REDACTED needed the small classes, specialized instruction, scaffolding, teacher support, and related services. REDACTED provided REDACTED with such instruction, supports, and services. See paragraphs 18 through 31, above. Furthermore, REDACTED made progress, in light of his unique set of challenges and circumstances, at REDACTED during the 2020-2021 school year. See paragraph 33 above.

The evidence thus demonstrates that REDACTED provided him with an appropriate special education program. See, e.g., T.K. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 810 F.3d 869, 878 (2d Cir. 2016) (unilateral program appropriate when it meets child’s needs and child makes progress); F.B. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 132 F. Supp. 3d 522, 555-56 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (unilateral program appropriate when it provided instruction and related services individualized to child’s needs and which resulted in progress); see also, e.g., Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 22-002 at pp. 16-19 (prong II burden met when testimony of school witness describes how school’s program addresses student’s individual needs); Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 21-063 at pp. 14-16 (same); Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 21-056 at pp. 18-22 (same).

Considering the “totality of the circumstances” as required by the Second Circuit in Frank G., the evidence supports a finding that REDACTED’s educational and related services programming is appropriate for REDACTED. As a result, REDACTED’s parents prevail with respect to the second Burlington/Carter criterion.

Does the balance of the equities favor REDACTED’s parents?

With respect to the third Burlington criterion, whether equitable considerations support REDACTED’s parents’ claims, the evidence establishes that REDACTED’s parents cooperated with the Department by enrolling REDACTED in the Department’s schools in prior school years, attending the IEP meeting, participating in that meeting and sharing their concerns with Department personnel, writing to the Department about their concerns, and providing the requisite statutory notice. See, e.g., R.E., 694 F.3d at 185, 195; M.F. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79181 at *34-*35 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2013) (“equitable considerations” include parental cooperation with the school district, attending CSE meetings, and providing notice to the school district).

REDACTED’s parents seek direct payment to REDACTED for a much of the tuition for the 2020-2021 school year. As the federal courts have made clear, such direct payment is appropriate when (a) equitable considerations favor an award of tuition and/or services costs, and (b) the student’s parents, though legally obligated to make payments for tuition and/or services costs, have not made such payments because they do not have the financial ability to do so. Connors v. Mills, 34 F. Supp. 2d 795 (N.D.N.Y. 1998); Mr. and Mrs. A. v. New York City Department of Education, 769 F. Supp. 2d 403, 428-429 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). REDACTED’s parents have demonstrated that they have an obligation to pay tuition and their lack of lack of available financial resources to pay the entirety of the tuition up front. As a result, a prospective award is appropriate for that portion of the REDACTED tuition that REDACTED’s parents have not yet paid.

In addition, the fact that REDACTED is an institution where religion is studied and celebrated with the students does not, in itself, render the school an inappropriate special education placement nor bar tuition reimbursement/funding to the parents. See Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 96-14. REDACTED’s schedule shows that 87 percent of the school week is spent engaged in non-religious subjects and activities, and an impartial hearing officer may grant tuition reimbursement/funding for tuition that could reasonably be construed as not funding religious education. As a result, 87 percent of the REDACTED tuition is subject to payment in this proceeding.

Equitable considerations thus favor the award of tuition funding relief to REDACTED’s parents, and they prevail with respect to the third Burlington/Carter criterion.

ORDER

Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby ORDERED that:

. The Department of Education shall fund REDACTED’s placement at REDACTED the 2020-2021 school year. The amount of funding for the 2020-2021 school year shall not exceed $88,740.00. The funding shall be reimbursement to REDACTED’s parents for the amounts that they have paid to REDACTED for REDACTED’s tuition for the 2020-2021 school year, and direct payment to REDACTED for any amounts that REDACTED’s parents have not yet paid for tuition for the 2020-2021 school year.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 9, 2023

Jean Marie Brescia, 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.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

PARENTS’ EXHIBITS

Letter

Date

Name of Document

# of Pages

A 7/21/2022 Due Process Complaint 3

B 8/24/2020 Parent Letter with Confirmation Receipt 3

C 10/16/2020 Parent Letter with Confirmation Receipt and Neuropsychological Evaluation 29

D 7/5/2020 2020-2021 Tuition Contract 1

E 6/17/2021 2020-2021 Attendance Record 1

F 2020-2021 Class Schedule 1

G 6/28/2020 2019-2020 Report Card 2

H 7/14/2021 Affidavit of Payment 1

I 2/28/2020 Form 1040 2

J Various Dates Proof of Payments 3

K 2020-2021 Comprehensive Student Plan (CSP) 21

L

12/15/2022

Testimony via Affidavit – REDACTED REDACTED

7

Footnotes

[1] Exhibits shall be referred to as follows: Parents’ Exhibits are designated by a letter; the Department’s Exhibits are designated by a number; and Impartial Hearing Officer’s Exhibits are designated as “IHO.”