New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 229451

Student’s Name: [REDACTED]

Date of Birth: [REDACTED]

Service District: [REDACTED]

Home District: [REDACTED]

Region: [REDACTED]

Hearing Requested By: Parents

Dates of Hearing: September 8, 2022

September 15, 2022

October 11, 2022

October 19, 2022

November 7, 2022

December 5, 2022

January 6, 2023

February 1, 2023

March 10, 2023

April 26, 2023

May 31, 2023

Actual Record Close Date: July 22, 2023

Hearing Officer: Maria R. Dispenza, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

SEPTEMBER 8, 2022

For the Student:

[REDACTED], Parent Attorney/Legal Assistant

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], District Consultant Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

SEPTEMBER 15, 2022

For the Student:

[REDACTED], Parent Attorney

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], District Consultant Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

OCTOBER 11, 2022

For the Student:

[REDACTED], Parent Attorney/Legal Assistant

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], District Consultant Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

OCTOBER 19, 2022

For the Student:

[REDACTED], Parent Attorney/Legal Assistant

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], District Consultant Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

NOVEMBER 7, 2022

For the Student:

[REDACTED], Parent Attorney/Legal Assistant

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], District Consultant Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

DECEMBER 5, 2022

For the Student:

[REDACTED], Parent Attorney/Legal Assistant

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], District Consultant Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

JANUARY 6, 2023

For the Student:

[REDACTED], Parent Attorney/Legal Assistant

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], District Consultant Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

FEBRUARY 1, 2023, 2023

For the Student:

[REDACTED], Parent Attorney/Legal Assistant

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], District Consultant Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

MARCH 10, 2023

For the Student:

[REDACTED], Parent Attorney

[REDACTED], Parent/Mother

[REDACTED], Interpreter

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], District Consultant Representative

[REDACTED], District Consultant Representative

[REDACTED], Special Education Teacher Assigned, Committee on Special Education

[REDACTED]

[REDACTED], School Psychologist, Department of Education

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

APRIL 26, 2023

For the Student:

[REDACTED]., Parent Attorney

[REDACTED], Parent/Mother

[REDACTED], Interpreter

[REDACTED], Ph.D., BCBA, [REDACTED]

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], District Consultant Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

MAY 31, 2023

For the Student:

[REDACTED]., Parent Attorney

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], District Consultant Representative

INTRODUCTION

On July 27, 2022, I was appointed by the New York City Department of Education (DOE) to act as the impartial hearing officer (IHO) in a case brought under the Federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) [20 USC §1415(f)(3)] (“IDEA”) by the parent (Parent) of [REDACTED] ([REDACTED]) for the school year 2022/23. The Parent requested the hearing by filing an impartial hearing request with DOE on or about July 26, 2022. The Due Process Complaint (DPC) is carried under New York City (“NYC”) Case No: 229451. A Pendency Hearing was held on September 15, 2022 and an Order issued thereon. The impartial hearing was held over a series of dates, to complete the record on May 31, 2023. The timelines have also been extended to allow the parties opportunity to fully prepare. The record officially closed on July 22, 2023. A list of persons who appeared at the hearing and the documents entered into evidence is annexed hereto.

BACKGROUND

[REDACTED] has been classified with Autism (Exhibit 4) by the CSE and has been diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Moderate Intellectual Disability and Hyperkinesis of Childhood with Developmental Delay and presents with self-injurious behavior and aggression (Exhibits A, E, J, Q and 4). For several years, the DOE has been ordered to locate placement for [REDACTED] at a 1:1 ABA-based nonpublic school that is no more than 60 minutes from [REDACTED]’s home; however, the DOE has never presented parent with such a placement (Exhibits 11 and C). As such, [REDACTED] has been receiving home schooling with ABA services, via pendency order granting: 40 hours/week of 1:1 ABA with a trained provider under the supervision of a BCBA of the Parent’s choosing to be delivered in [REDACTED]’s home; 8 hours per month of team supervision/data analysis provided by a provider with appropriate credentials in ABA under the supervision of a BCBA of the Parent’s choosing; 4 hours per month of parent training by trained ABA providers under the supervision of a BCBA of the Parent’s choosing; 3 hours per week of team meetings by trained ABA providers under the supervision of a BCBA of the Parent’s choosing; and 5 sessions per week of 1:1 speech language therapy by an appropriately credentialed speech-language therapist (Exhibit L).

For the 2022/23 school year, the parent requested a home instruction program and a home instruction IEP for [REDACTED] (Exhibit E) but initially mistakenly enrolled [REDACTED] inhome schooling instead (Exhibits A, E, F, H, I and 12). On May 3, 2022, the Committee on Special Education (CSE) convened an IEP meeting for [REDACTED]’s 2022/23 school year and agreed to develop an IESP as a temporary solution to ensure continuity of services to remain in effect until the parent’s request for Home Instruction was approved (Exhibit E, H, I and R, T @ 88, 104-105). Upon developing the IESP, the CSE recommended: SETSS (8 periods per week, 1:1) along with related services Speech-Language Therapy (5x45, 1:1), Occupational Therapy (3x30, 1:1) and Counseling (3x30, 1:1), along with a dynamic display speech generating device (Exhibit 4). An IEP for Home Instruction never ensued, Parent expressed disagreement with the IESP (Exhibit J, T @ 156-157), claimed a denial of a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2022/23 and filed a DPC seeking relief as herein requested (Exhibit IHO-2, T @ 134-137).

DOE CASE

In presentation of its case, the DOE asserted that [REDACTED] was offered a FAPE for the 2022/23 school year alleging the Department worked diligently and closely with the family to craft a program that met the student's needs and on May 3, 2022, the CSE met to develop an individualized education program for the student (T @ 71). The DOE held that the IEP recommendations were based upon timely and proper evaluation and reports which provided the team with sufficient information to recommend an appropriate program for [REDACTED]. Further the DOE held that the IEP team discussed the recommendations with the parent, who was present at the meeting with the assistance of an interpreter (T @ 158, 105), and considered the parent's concern (T @ 72). Moreover, the DOE put forth that the services Parent seeks to maintain for the student is not an appropriate placement, but merely the placement and/or services the Parent desires (T @ 72).

In an effort to support their position, the DOE presented the direct testimony of two witnesses via affidavits: [REDACTED], Special Education Teacher Assigned – CSE [REDACTED] (Exhibit 29), and [REDACTED], DOE School Psychologist Teacher (Exhibit 30), along with a documentary exhibit package consisting of thirty pieces of evidence (Exhibits 1-30, #16 withdrawn and #17-18 omitted). The DOE only opted to briefly cross-examine the Parent, [REDACTED].

PARENT CASE

Parent alleges [REDACTED] was denied a FAPE for the 2022/23 school year and via the DPC enumerates a series of allegations of procedural and substantiative violations. The Parent further disputes the program recommendations and goals of the IESP (Exhibit A). Parent attested that she timely applied for Medically Necessary Home Instruction for the 2022/23 school year to the DOE (Exhibit E, F, R and H) and that the DOE did not respond prior to the start of the school year to said request. Instead, the CSE convened on May 3, 2022 and created an IESP (Exhibit 4, T @ 88, 104-105). Parent alleges same was to be a “temporary band-aid” only intended to keep [REDACTED]’s much needed services flowing until a Home Instruction IEP was created (Exhibit IHO-2), T @ 88). Parent further requested that the temporary program cover the 12-month school year to avoid regression and requested it include ABA, but that the CSE failed to address same (T @ 80-90). Parent alleges that the DOE failed to provide [REDACTED] with a FAPE and as such the DOE should be required to fund the program and services obtained by the Parent, specifically: a full-time, 1:1 ABA program complete with parent counseling, team meetings, and supervision by a BCBA, and speech-therapy five times per week (Exhibits A, L, IHO-2 and T @ 134-137).

In an effort to support the relief requested, the parents presented eighteen pieces of evidence (Exhibits A-R) and two witnesses via affidavits - [REDACTED], [REDACTED]’s mother (Exhibit R) and [REDACTED], BCBA-D Behavioral Analyst (Exhibit Q).

[REDACTED] attested to the need of ABA and stated [REDACTED] through the implementation of ABA in a highly structured 1:1 program has made progress in academics, in communication skills and in decreasing aggressive behaviors. However, as he continues to engage in aggression on a daily basis, it prevents him from attending a school setting (Exhibit Q). The DOE opted not to cross-examine [REDACTED] (T @ 142), thus his testimony is uncontroverted.

[REDACTED]’s mother, testified that

“[REDACTED] has received ABA therapy for years. It is the only approach that has helped to improve his behaviors and allow him to learn…..I told the CSE that [REDACTED] required ABA and asked that they recommend it on the program they developed. They did not……..I told the CSE that [REDACTED] required a 12-month program because his needs are so severe. They refused to and recommended just a 10-month program” (Exhibit R).

While [REDACTED] testified that the CSE did not consider a 12-month program for [REDACTED] as the Parent was advised that she needed to provide the CSE with updated reports from providers with the justification for 12-month services (T @ 80), during cross-examination she acknowledged that the reports dated April 15, 2022 (Exhibit G) provided by Parent at the CSE meeting would constitute the most recent documentation (T @ 80-82). During cross-examination, [REDACTED] also conceded that students with autism are often at risk of regression if their program is stopped for any significant length of time and that [REDACTED] fits that profile (T @ 90).

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) was enacted with the primary purpose to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) (20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]; see Schaffer v. Weast, 126 S. Ct. 528, 531 [2005]; Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 S. Ct. 176, 179-81, 200-01 [1982]; Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 371 [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 (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). An IEP is designed as a "written statement" that addresses the educational needs of a child with a disability (20 U.S.C. § 1401[14]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.22; 8 NYCRR 200.1[y]). At the beginning of each school year, a school district is required to have an IEP in effect "for each child with a disability in its jurisdiction" (20 U.S.C. § 1414[d][2]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.323[a]; see also Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 194 [2d Cir. 2005] (finding the district fulfilled its legal obligations by providing the IEP before the first day of school). The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE) (34 C.F.R. § 300.114[a]; 8 NYCRR 200.6[A][1]). A FAPE is offered to a student when the board of education (a) complied with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. at 176, 206, 207 [1982]). The IDEA directs that, in general, a decision by an impartial hearing officer or state review officer must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether or not the child received a FAPE (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][i]). Under the IDEA, if a procedural violation is alleged, an administrative officer may find that a child did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a) impeded the child's right to a FAPE, (b) significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in the decision making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the child, or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits to the child (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][ii]; see 8 NYCRR 2005[j][4][ii]). The IDEA mandates that a student with a disability be provided with a FAPE tailored to meet his unique needs and one that is “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist., 580 U.S. ___, 137 S.Ct.988, 999 (2017). A focus on the particular child is at the core of the IDEA. Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 999. Under 20 U.S.C. Section 1414(d)(3)(A), the IDEA mandates an IEP team to consider a child’s strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies, as well as the results of the most recent evaluations of the child together with developmental and functional needs of the child. In order to determine the student’s requirements and needs, the team must review and consider evaluations, assessment and information provided by the child’s parents, teachers and service providers and thereon determine the type of program required for the child.

PRONG I:

An appropriate program begins with an IEP which accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the child’s needs, establishes annual goals and short-term instructional objectives which are related to the child’s educational deficits, and provides for the use of appropriate special education services to address the child’s special education needs. Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No 93-12; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No 93-9; Application of a Child with a Handicapping Condition, Appeal No 92-7; Matter of Handicapped Child, 22 Ed Dept Rep 487, March 11, 1983.

In the instant matter, the DOE bears the burden of presentation and persuasion in all allegations raised in the DPC. While the DOE submitted documentary evidence (Exhibits 1-30) and witnesses, it failed to meet its burden. The evidence supports the Parent requested a FAPE through the vehicle of a Home Instruction IEP (Exhibit R, E and H). She submitted her application on April 22, 2022 for the 2022/23 school year (Exhibit R, E and H). The DOE failed to timely respond to her application for a Home Instruction IEP, instead convening an IESP meeting. It is undisputed the parent renewed her request for a Home Instruction IEP at the CSE meeting convened (Exhibit R, T @ 88, 104-105) and only consented to an IESP with temporary services to ensure her son’s program would not be interrupted (Exhibit R). The testimony credibly supports that at no time did the Parent abandon her request for an IEP (Exhibit R). This stance was clear to the CSE members, particularly as [REDACTED] testified that the team developed an IESP as an “interim” remedy to serve “temporarily” until the Parent’s application for Home Instruction was approved (T @ 88). [REDACTED] testified that the CSE’s IESP recommendation was “made to support and supplement the instruction being provided by the parent” (Exhibit 30). The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the DOE purposely created the IESP as a stopgap measure to allow [REDACTED] to get services while his application for a Home Instruction IEP was pending, thus the IESP was not intended to confer a FAPE. Further, the evidence supports Parent’s allegations that the IESP was substantively inappropriate in that it failed to recommend ABA services, and did not recommend 12-month services.

Herein, upon due consideration, I find the DOE failed to meet its burden of proof under the first of the three Burlington/Carter criteria for tuition reimbursement. I find the DOE failed to provide [REDACTED] a FAPE for the 2022/23 school year.

PRONG II:

Having determined that the DOE did not offer the student a FAPE for the 2022/23 school year, I now proceed to evaluating the appropriateness of the services [REDACTED] has been receiving. The parent’s failure to select a program approved by the state in favor of an unapproved option is not itself a bar to reimbursement (Florence County Sch Dist Four v. Carter 510 U.S. 7 [1993]). The private placement need not employ certified special education teachers, Carter, supra. The Second Circuit has set forth the standard for determining whether parents have carried their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of the unilateral placement: “No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining whether parents’ unilateral placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. 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). Parents bear the burden of showing that their unilateral program is appropriate and meets the student’s special education needs. Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370. The Parents need only to demonstrate that the requested services are designed to meet the unique needs of the student. Gagliardo v. Arlington CSD, 489 F.3d 105, 112; Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65.

In the case at hand, the DOE evidence and testimony failed to generate material challenge to Parent assertions. Contrarily, the evidence and testimony presented by the Parent supports that during the 2022/23 school year, [REDACTED] has been receiving and continues to require (a) 40 hours per week of 1:1 ABA therapy; (b) 8 hours per month of team supervision/data analysis by trained ABA providers; (c) 4 hours per month of ABA parent training; (d) 3 hours per week of team meetings by trained ABA providers under the supervision of a BCBA; and (e) 5, 45-minute sessions of 1:1 speech-language therapy per week (Exhibit L). The unrebutted testimony of [REDACTED]’s ABA supervisor [REDACTED] (Exhibit Q), along with the progress reports from his ABA provider (Exhibits G and N) and from his speech-language therapy provider (Exhibit M) clearly demonstrate that these services are addressing [REDACTED]’s maladaptive behaviors and allowing him to make slow but cognizable progress across academic domains, in activities of daily living, and in terms of his expressive, receptive, and pragmatic language skills. The DOE failed to elicit any contrary testimony or evidence. While the DOE opted to cross-examine parent, the nature of the cross-examination did not materially challenge parent’s allegations or requested relief.

Thus, the record supports a finding that the services [REDACTED] has been receiving are appropriate for him and tailored to his unique needs.

PRONG III:

Having found the services [REDACTED] has been receiving are appropriate for him and tailored to his unique needs, I now consider equitable considerations, the final criterion to be determined. In weighing the equities, “the critical consideration, as the Court sees it, is whether the parents have cooperated in good faith to attempt to develop an IEP to the maximum extent possible, Schaffer, supra. There is nothing in the record to show that the parent was anything other than cooperative. The parent credibly testified to attending CSE meetings, providing the evaluations to the DOE, cooperating in good faith with the CSE in an attempt to develop an appropriate Home Instruction IEP, and gave timely notice to the DOE of her intentions. Parent credible testified she could not afford aforementioned program (Exhibit R). The DOE failed to raise any specific Prong III allegations.

I find that the DOE failed to offer the student a FAPE for the 2022/23 school year, the services [REDACTED] has been receiving are appropriate for him and tailored to his unique needs, and that equitable considerations weighed in favor of the parents’ request for funding/reimbursement for all costs associated with the services [REDACTED] has been receiving for the 2022/23 school year. Based upon the failure of the DOE to provide a FAPE, the court has broad equitable authority to grant such relief as it determines appropriate (20 U.S.C.S section 141.5(i)(2)(C). Burlington, 471 U.S. 359, 105 S. Ct. 1996, 85 L. Ed. 2d 385).

IT IS THEREFORE DETERMINED AND ORDERED THAT:

1. The pendency provisions established in the unappealed FOFD dated June 29, 2021 (#174188) shall survive as the program that the student is receiving is appropriate and must be directly funded by the DOE:

i) 40 hours per week of 1:1 ABA therapy; ii) 8 hours per month of team supervision/data analysis by trained ABA providers; iii) 4 hours per month of ABA parent training; iv) 3 hours per week of team meetings by trained ABA providers under the supervision of a BCBA; and v) Speech Language Therapy (5x45-minute sessions per week, 1:1);

2. The DOE shall provide Occupational Therapy(3x30 minute sessions per week, 1:1) and Counseling (2x30 minute sessions per week, 1:1) during the 2022/23 school year; and

3. The CSE shall within 30 days of this Order convene an IEP meeting to place the student in an appropriate ABA based non-public school with a 1:1 ratio that is located not more than 60 minutes from his home.

All reimbursements and direct funding shall be supported by the presentation of appropriate documentation; and This Order excludes any sessions that may have been previously paid by the DOE pursuant to any Pendency Agreement/Order.

Dated: July 31, 2023

Maria R. Dispenza

MARIA R. DISPENZA, ESQ./IHO

Impartial Hearing Officer

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

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 MARCH 10, 2023

1. By DOE: Due Process Complaint, 07/26/22 – 19pps DOE

2. Prior Written Notice (recommendation), 06/24/22 – 10pps DOE

3. Ten Day Notice (Notice of Recommendation), 06/16/22 – 3pps DOE

4. IESP, 05/03/22 – 23pps DOE

5. IESP Meeting Minutes, 05/03/22 – 6pps DOE

6. Progress Report (Speech), 04/20/22 – 3pps DOE

7. Progress Report (Speech), 12/23/22 – 2pps DOE

8. Social Update, 11/12/22 – 4pps DOE

9. Progress Report (SETSS-ABA), 09/30/21 – 17pps 10. Individualized Home Instruction Plan (IHIP), 09/01/21 – 3pps DOE

11. Ten Day Notice, 07/15/21 – 3pps DOE

12. Parent Letter of Intent to Homeschool, 06/01/21- 1pps DOE

13. Psychological Evaluation, 04/28/21 – 6pp DOE

14. Progress Report (SETSS-ABA), 04/12/21 – 17pps DOE

15. Parent Letter for IEP Meeting, 04/02/21 – 1pps DOE

16. WITHDRAWN 17. OMITTED 18. OMITTED DOE

19. Parent Letter for IEP Meeting, 07/14/20 -1pp DOE

20. Progress Report (Speech), 06/19/20 -3pp DOE

21. Progress Report (OT), 06/17/20 -3pp DOE

22. Medical Report, 05/22/20 -2pp DOE

23. Social History Update, 05/18/20 -2pp DOE

24. Progress Reports (SETSS-ABA), 03/15/20 -15pp DOE

25. Progress Report (Speech/3 month), 01/12/20 -2pp 26. Vineland-3, 08/21/19 -15pp DOE

27. Social History Update, 08/21/19 -2pp DOE

28. Psychoeducational Evaluation Report, 08/21/19 -4pp DOE

29. Special Education Teacher Affidavit, Undated -3pp DOE

30. School Psychologist Affidavit, Undated -5pp DOE

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD APRIL 26, 2023

A. By Parent: Hearing Request, 07/26/22, - 9pp

B. Voluntary Resolution Agreement, 12/20/19 - 9pp C. Decision, 12/30/21 - 19pp D. Decision, 12/30/21 - 17pp E. Medically Necessary Instruction Application, 03/03/22 - 8pp

F. Correspondence with DOE Student Placement, 04/14/22 - 1pp

G. SETSS-ABA Progress Report 04/15/22 - 17pp

H. Email to DOE: Submission of Request for Home Instruction, 04/22/22, -1pp

I. Correspondence with DOE: Social History Update and Request for Home Instruction 05/03/22-05/13/22 -4pp

J. Ten Day Notice, 06/16/22 -3pp

K. Ten Day Notice Confirmation, 06/16/22 -1pp L. Order On Pendency, 09/15/22 -5pp

M. Speech and Language Therapy Progress Report, 03/01/23 -3pp

N. SETSS-ABA Progress Report, 03/07/23 -15pp O. NYC DOE Language Access Policy, Undated -1pp

P. Special Education Standard Operating Procedures Manual Excerpt, Undated -2pp

Q. Affidavit of Testimony: [REDACTED], 04/24/23-7pp

R. Affidavit Testimony: [REDACTED], Undated -3pp

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD MAY 31, 2023

By IHO:

IHO-1. DOE Closing Brief, 05/30/23-10pp

IHO-2. Parent Closing Brief, 05/30/23 -15pp