New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 229538

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

Date of Birth: [REDACTED]

District: [REDACTED]

Hearing Requested by: [REDACTED] (“Parents”)

Date of Hearing: August 31, 2022

October 13, 2022

November 9, 2022

December 5, 2022

April 20, 2023

May 23, 2023

Record Close: September 28, 2023

Hearing Officer: ANNETTE HICKS GILL, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

AUGUST 31, 2022 *

For the Student:

[REDACTED], ESQ., Attorney

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], ESQ., Attorney

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

OCTOBER 13, 2022 *

For the Student:

[REDACTED], Paralegal

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], ESQ., Attorney

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

NOVEMBER 9, 2022 *

For the Student:

[REDACTED], Paralegal

For the Department of Education:

NONE

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

DECEMBER 5, 2022 *

For the Student:

[REDACTED], Paralegal

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], District Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

APRIL 20, 2023 *

For the Student:

[REDACTED], ESQ., Attorney

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], District Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

MAY 23, 2023 *

For the Student:

[REDACTED], ESQ., Attorney

[REDACTED], Parent Student

[REDACTED], Operations and Finance Administrator

[REDACTED] [REDACTED], Educational Director, Reach for the 21 Stars Learning Center

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], District Representative

* All appearances were by video conference.

This case was brought before the undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer pursuant to appointment by the New York City Department of Education (DOE) under the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 United States Code §1415(f)(1). [REDACTED] (“Student”) is a [REDACTED]-year-old student whose parents [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] (Parent) brought the instant action, arguing that the DOE had failed to provide their child with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2022-2023 school year.

The Impartial Hearing was first held on April 20, 2023, and re-convened on May 23, 2023. All requisite extensions were granted and the record was closed on September 28, 2023.

DISTRICT AND PARENT POSITIONS

Parent’s Position

Pursuant to the Due Process Complaint (“DPC”) (Exhibit A), [REDACTED] is a [REDACTED]-year-old boy who is diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. [REDACTED] has global developmental delays, including cognitive, language and communication, socialemotional, daily living and fine motor skills. He presents with substantial rates of self-directed behaviors. He requires high rates of reinforcement for prosocial behaviors, such as sitting in his chair and following simple directives. Though [REDACTED] can produce speech, his speech does not have any communicative intent and he makes infrequent eye contact. His receptive language is underdeveloped and he does not consistently respond to questions and commands. He exhibits maladaptive behaviors that impact his ability to learn, such as crying and flopping on the floor. His sensory integration and self-help skills are also significantly delayed. He still requires support with daily living skills, such as dressing himself, and he is not yet toilet trained. [REDACTED] requires the support of a highly individualized curriculum within a small, specialized school to address his global developmental delays. He needs instruction from highly trained educators who can provide him with the type and amount of positive reinforcement, routines, and visual schedules and supports he needs to make progress. He also needs a Behavioral Intervention Plan systematically integrated throughout the day to reduce his challenging behaviors.

Counsel for the parent further states that it is essential that [REDACTED] additionally receive an intensive, individualized Applied Behavior Analysis (“ABA”) therapy program with qualified professionals in a school with full-time, ABA-based instruction to decrease the frequency of interfering behaviors. [REDACTED] also needs a program that practices Activities of Daily Living throughout the school day to help him build hygiene and dressing habits.

It is the Parent’s position that since [REDACTED] is a student who is entitled to a twelve-month school year, the Department had an obligation to provide [REDACTED] with a program by June 21, 2022, for the 2022-2023 school year and to ensure that [REDACTED] had an appropriate program and placement for the 2022-2023 school year in effect by July 6, 2022.

An Affidavit of [REDACTED] was submitted as part of the Parent’s disclosure. Mr. [REDACTED] a is an administrator overseeing the operations of [REDACTED]). He attests that the students enrolled at [REDACTED] are being provided with special education services including Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA), speech-language therapy, and occupational therapy. In July 2021, [REDACTED] changed its model from operating as a flat tuition-based program to a service-based program. Under this new model [REDACTED] employees provide individualized services consistent with the students’ recommended programs and the frequency and duration of services is recommended and authorized by the Educational Director, [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] is familiar with [REDACTED] and swears that [REDACTED]’s program consists of daily ABA-based instruction, daily speech and occupational therapy in 45-minute sessions, related service supervisions and ABA Supervision. Reach requires that its providers have significant experience and training in ABA beyond basic Registered Behavior Technician training and to be providing direct teacher support services.

In the DPC the Parents seek the following relief, at an enhanced rate, where applicable: a) a determination that the Department failed to provide this child with a free and appropriate public education for the 2022-2023 school year; b) a determination that [REDACTED] is a placement reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit and to meet this child’s needs for the 2022-2023 school year; c) a determination that the Parents have cooperated throughout the special education process and the equities do not bar an award of funding for [REDACTED] for the 2022-2023 school year; d) a determination that this student is entitled to a 12-month program to avoid substantial skill regression; e) an order that the Department must provide tuition reimbursement for any amounts paid to [REDACTED], and direct and/or prospective funding for any amounts owed to [REDACTED], including tuition, related services, and any other related costs or fees, at enhanced rates where applicable, as a result of this child’s attendance at [REDACTED] the 2022-2023 school year; f) an order that the Department must reimburse and/or direct fund the cost of an independent neuropsychological evaluation for [REDACTED]; g) an order that the Department must provide appropriate transportation to and from [REDACTED], with all necessary special transportation accommodations, including, but not limited to, limited travel time and door-to-door transportation, the extent of such accommodations to be determined during the course of this impartial hearing, AND/OR must provide reimbursement for the cost of any private transportation expenses incurred by the Parents, including expenses for a travel companion, as a result of having to set up private transportation due to the Department’s failure to provide appropriate public transportation with all necessary special transportation accommodations in a timely manner.

District’s Position

At the May 23, 2023 hearing the District presented that although the DOE is not putting on any witnesses or evidence it’s position is that the unilateral placement at [REDACTED] is inappropriate for the student. The DOE intends to bring into question the provision of services being provided to the student, the rates charged for those services, and the appropriateness of the program as a whole. As regards to Prong II, it is respectfully asserted that the Parent will not meet its Prong II burden. Further, it is the District’s position that the cost of tuition at [REDACTED] for the Stars is exorbitant in that the cost of tuition from July 2022 to January 2023 has amounted to almost $300,000 and will rise beyond that by the end of the school year. For these reasons the DOE asserts that the unilateral placement chosen by the Parent is inappropriate and that the equities are in favor of the DOE in this case. Therefore, the DOE believes that the requested relief by the Parent should be denied in full.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Due Process Complaint (DPC) dated July 29, 2022 (Exhibit A) presents the parents of [REDACTED] request for resolution and relief due to violations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"). [REDACTED] was a four-year-old boy who is diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder. He is known to the Department as a Preschool Student with a Disability.

Pursuant to the DPC, on or about July 22, 2022, Attorney for the Parents communicated to the Department that no IEP meeting had been convened, no IEP had been developed, and no public school recommendation had been received for the 2022-2023 school year. The last IEP meeting that the Department convened for [REDACTED] was on June 29, 2021, for his 2021-2022 school year. This IEP is now expired. The attorney also communicated the Parents concerns that they do not have sufficient understanding of [REDACTED]’s emerging needs and abilities. The Parents have not received any requests for consent to an evaluation or any notice scheduling an evaluation. Therein, the parent’s via their attorney notified the Department that unless and until the Department provided the Parents with an appropriate program and placement for [REDACTED], they would enroll him at [REDACTED] in a 12-month program.

Also, pursuant to the DPC [REDACTED]’s current school for the 2022-2023 school year is [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] will remain at [REDACTED] until such time as the Department offers an appropriate program and placement capable of meeting his needs.

At the April 20, 2023 hearing [REDACTED], Esq., Attorney for the parents appeared as well as [REDACTED] for the District. The District presented with two subpoenas and requested that the Hearing Officer execute them to allow for an investigation into potential fraud allegations involving the school the child currently attends.

It was Attorney [REDACTED] from the DOE that reported that a federal indictment is pending for [REDACTED] and [REDACTED], the prior owners and operators of [REDACTED]. The issue presented in support of the request for signed subpoenas is whether the services for which the parents’ seek reimbursement were ever provided to the student. Counsel for the parents responded that the subpoenas are unduly burdensome and therefore the request should be denied. The IHO denied the request citing to the investigation being outside the scope of this case, prejudicial and that it was cause undue delay in a final decision. Also, the target of the investigation was not the owner during the 2022-2023 school year which is the subject of this proceeding. The District agreed that cross-examination of witnesses would suffice at a later hearing to address the fraud allegations. Also, the District will have ample opportunity to respond to the Parent’s disclosures at the second impartial hearing scheduled for May 23, 2023.

At the May 23, 2023 Impartial Hearing the witnesses included [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] of [REDACTED] and [REDACTED], Parent. [REDACTED] testified that every student has a dedicated program for themselves. The addendum to the enrollment agreement is the program that was created for [REDACTED]. That is an individualized program. In a similar way, every other child is going to have a program that the educational director, based on their needs, will create.

The parent [REDACTED] also testified that she placed [REDACTED] at [REDACTED] because she did not receive a school placement that included the necessary one on one ABA. At [REDACTED] she communicates every day with the whole staff and receives reports on his daily progress included goals met for the day. The parent stated that “He needed one-on-one ABA because one, he needs to be watched by one person. He wanders a lot. He can't sit for more than six minutes, so he needs that one-on-one to focus on him. And he does best when someone's giving him the attention that he needs, so that's why he really needs one-on-one. And it's been working, the whole ABA method, the whole reinforcement has been working for him and he's been progressing that way.” [REDACTED] testified it's one teacher per student. It never is less than one teacher per student. It is always one-to-one the entire school day because the teacher with the student needs to make sure the behavior intervention plan and reinforcement systems are being followed. Even if they're in a group, they're still working on the prompting and the fading of the prompt and the shaping of the behavior with the support of the person who's leading the group. That one-to-one person is still implementing ABA procedures for that student to learn that skill within the group.

Attorney for the parent [REDACTED] closed by stating I do submit that there is ample proof that this student is receiving services at [REDACTED] that are specifically and specially designed for his unique needs. We just had the testimony of the educational director, who explained how the school uses ABA to create a unique program for each student, including the student who is the subject of this hearing, [REDACTED]. He is making progress using this ABA program that breaks down instruction step by step, and provides reinforcement for each step in order for him to learn new skills. He also is receiving the related services of speech and occupational therapy. The services are not only proven by the testimony of [REDACTED] and [REDACTED], but also of the parent, who testified that she communicates back and forth with the school staff every single day. The school has also demonstrated that each provider logs each session that they engage with each student. Not only that, but there was testimony about the billing and the rates charged. The school has recently, in recent years, switched to a billing model where they bill per service rendered. The witness explained that this reflects the actual costs of providing services to each student at [REDACTED]. The parent also testified that she provided notice to the DOE that she was going to send [REDACTED] to [REDACTED] in 2022, and the DOE did not respond to her. The DOE presented no evidence of any response to the parent or that they attempted to convene an IEP meeting or give the parent a school placement. Therefore, the Parent submits that the equities lie in her favor. The Parent is asking for direct funding for [REDACTED] for the cost of [REDACTED]'s attendance, as well as for funding for an independent, comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation, as well as reimbursement for the parent's private transportation expenses.

The District rep closed by stating as to Prong I, the DOE did not present witnesses or evidence in this case in support of its Prong I burden. As to Prong II, the Parents failed to meet their Prong II burden. The Parents failed to show that the student was making sufficient progress at [REDACTED]. The cost of education and services at [REDACTED] exorbitant and lacks justification. From July 2022 to January 2023, [REDACTED]'s program had run up a charge of nearly $300,000, with expectations to exceed that by the end of the school year. [REDACTED] is charging enhanced rates for 30-minute sessions and double dipping in its billing practices. Students are receiving co-treatment sessions, where multiple adults are working with each child and billing for those practices. This is blatantly excessive and further emphasizes the inappropriate billing practices at [REDACTED]. There's no indication of when co-treatment sessions happen, and the daily schedule provided by the Parent can change on a minute-to-minute basis. The [REDACTED] enrollment contract and testimony elicited at hearing indicate that [REDACTED] can unilaterally change the frequency and duration of services based simply on what they believe the student needs. Therefore, providing the school with the ability to charge even more for services than the original enrollment contract states. The Parent failed to establish that there is a total amount of obligation that the parent would have to pay for the '22/'23 school year. And further, given the vastness of tuition from [REDACTED], it's unclear whether the parent could even be held to a financial obligation if one was imposed or if the school would provide the parent with any accommodations or modifications for the final tuition amount if funding could not be secured by the Department of Education. [REDACTED] testified that students are receiving speech-language, OT, and ABA at [REDACTED]. A program providing a blanket of related services to each student is not sufficiently individualized for the student to be considered an individualized program. It is respectfully asserted that the equities in this case favor of DOE. Given the exorbitant cost of [REDACTED] for the Stars tuition yearly, the Parents requested relief should be denied.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The decision in this case rests on a determination of the three-pronged test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in the Burlington case, 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 US 7 (1993). ISSUE 1 - Appropriateness of School District Program

An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that includes a statement of the student’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance. See 34 CFR §300.320(a)(1); 8 NYCRR §200.4(d)(2)(i); see also Tarlowe v. New York City Bd. Of Educ., 2008 WL 2736027 (SDNY July 3, 2008), noting that a CSE must consider, among other things, the “results of the initial evaluation or most recent evaluation” of the student, as well as the academic, developmental, and functional needs of the student. The IEP must accurately reflect the results of evaluations to identify the student's needs, establish annual goals related to those needs, and provides for the use of appropriate special education services. 34 CFR §300.320(a)(2); 34 CFR §300.320(a)(4); 8 NYCRR §200.4(d)(2)(iii); 8 NYCRR §200.4(d)(2)(v); see Application of the Board of Education, Appeal No. 14-104; Application of the New York City Department of Education, Appeal No. 13-121.

In this case, sufficient supporting documentary evidence and witness testimony supports the position that the child was not provided with a FAPE for the 2022-2023 and the DOE did not provide any evidence to the contrary.

The District failed to present any testimonial evidence, nor did they submit any documentary evidence to prove that the IEP created for the 2022-2023 school year provided the Student with a free and appropriate public education.

Additionally, the District failed to present any testimonial or sufficient documentary evidence to support that the recommended program could provide the student with appropriate services or implement the subject IEP. The Department of Education also failed to present any documentary or testimonial evidence to prove that it considered adequate evaluative material.

For the reasons noted, I find the district failed to provide a FAPE for the student. ISSUE 2 – Appropriateness of Parent Placement

Analysis turns to the second prong of Burlington, under which the parents bear the burden of proving the appropriateness of the services obtained for the student. 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 JCSE offered an educational program designed to meet student’s special education needs. School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985). 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).

In this regard, I find that the parents have sustained their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of the program at the unilateral placement. It was established through testimony and other evidence that the school provides the types of services and instruction that the student is in need of and it is found that he made significant progress at this placement by the Parent.

For all the above, I find that the Parent has demonstrated the appropriateness of the program at [REDACTED] for the Student. ISSUE 3 – Equities

The third prong of the Burlington decision requires a balancing of the equities in determining whether reimbursement should be awarded. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) provides that an award of tuition reimbursement may be reduced or denied if notwithstanding their being advised that they should do so, parents neither inform the CSE of their disagreement with its proposed placement and their intent to place their child in a private school at public expense at the most recent CSE meeting prior to their removal of the child from public school, nor provide the school district with written notice of such information ten business days before such removal. 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(10)(C)(iii).

In this case, the Parent did inform the District of their disagreement with the proposed placement their intentions to place their child in a private school at the public school’s expense within the appropriate timeframe. As provided by testimony, In terms of equities, there is no evidence offered to support a claim that the Parent failed to raise an issue with the District’s evaluation before seeking alternative education options. Under the circumstances, analysis of equities would not prevent an award for the student’s tuition at [REDACTED].

REIMBURSEMENT

A hearing officer is empowered to grant relief he, she or the court determines to be appropriate. 34 C.F.R. §300.516(c)(3). Once such remedy is reimbursement of tuition and related expenses. Florence Cunty Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7, IDELR 532 (1993); Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ., 471 U.S.359, 103 LRP 37667(1985). A local education agency (LEA”) may be required to reimburse parents for their tuition payment to a private school for the services obtained for the student by his or her parents if the services offered by the LEA were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parents were appropriate under the Act, and equitable considerations support the parents’ claim for reimbursement. Id. In Burlington, the Court found that Congress intended retroactive reimbursement to parents by a Lea as an available remedy in a proper case. Burlington, 471 U.S.at 370-71. “Reimbursement merely requires [an LEA] to belatedly pay expenses that it should have paid all along and would have borne in the first instance had it developed a proper [IEP] Id. The mere fact that the private school placement does not bar the parents from reimbursement. Florence County Schl. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 US. 7 (1993).

The initial inquiry is whether the student’s IEP and/or placement is/are “proper or “appropriate.” School Comm. Of Burlington, 471 U.S. at 369 and 374. However, this initial inquiry may go beyond the appropriateness of the IEP and/or placement, See, e.g., Forest Grove

v. T.A., 57 U.S. 230 (2009) (child find); P.C. v. Oceanside Union Free Sch. Dist., 818 F. Supp. 2d 516 (E.E.N.Y. 2011) (eligibility) Mr. N.C. v. Bedford Cent. School. Dist., 300 F. App’s 11(2d Cir. 2008) inappropriate evaluation).

In this case, it was established that the placement was no longer able to meet the student’s needs as demonstrated by the testimony of the [REDACTED] school representatives and of the Parent. Should the hearing officer determine that the school district did not offer a FAPE to the student, the next inquiry is whether the parent’s unilateral placement is appropriate” or “proper”. School Comm. Of Burlington, 42 U.S. at 369 and 370; see also Carter 510 U.S. at 15.

I find that the Parent demonstrated through documentary and testimonial evidence that the unilateral placement was appropriate for the student for the 2022-2023 school year.

The final consideration is the balancing of the equities. In this step, the hearing officer must examine the action of the parents and school district, including:

1. Whether the parents failed to provide the school district with timely notice, either at the most recent IEP team meeting or at least 10 business days prior to removal of the student from the public school of their rejection of the proposed public placement, including their concerns and intent to enroll the student in a private school at public expense. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(iii)(I); 34 C.F.R. § 300.148(d)(1).

2. Whether prior to the student’s removal, the school district informed the parents of its intent to evaluate the student, but the parent did not make the student available for the evaluation. 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(10)(C)(iii)(II), 34 C.F.R. § 300.148(d)(2).

3. Whether the parents’ action was unreasonable. 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(10)(C)(iii)(III), 34 C.F.R. § 300.148(d)(3).

4. Whether the cost of the private placement is unreasonable. Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. at 16.

5. Whether there was a lack of parental cooperation with the school district.

C.G. v. Five Town Community Sch. Dist., 513 F.3d 279 (1st Cir. 2008)

In this case, the Parent gave timely notice and the District failed to perform an appropriate evaluation of the Student.

As to reasonableness of the costs, the Parent provided sufficient justification for the costs. The Parent hires a private driver to take [REDACTED] to and from school because the DOE did not set up transportation. The Parent is seeking reimbursement for these costs for the 12-month school year. Tr. 82. The DOE is already obligated to reimburse the Parent for transportation costs for the 10-month school year. Par. Exh. D. The Parent requests reimbursement for the 12-month school year. An award of funding is routinely given if the parent provided the school district with notice of the unilateral placement and did not take any action to obstruct the special education process. The Parent provided notice that [REDACTED] was attending [REDACTED] h which the DOE was already aware of due to an ongoing hearing and decision in favor of his placement at Reach for the 2021-22 school year. Further, nothing in the record suggests that the Parent failed to cooperate with the DOE, as the DOE did not send the Parent a school placement or invite her to an IEP meeting. Tr. 75. While the DOE has contested the costs of the program, the Parent testified that she understood the obligations that she was incurring when she signed the enrollment contract, but that the school permitted her to go to a hearing before paying. Tr. 80. The Parent also had pendency in the placement for most of the school year. Par. Exh. D, Tr. 61. [REDACTED], who works in administration and billing at [REDACTED] testified that [REDACTED] charges only for services actually rendered to the student and that the rates charged reflect the true costs of educational services at [REDACTED]. Par. Exh. X-2, Tr. 53-54. It is not unheard of for a school to charge based on each component of the program. Lastly, the DOE has not introduced evidence of the tuition or rates that would be more appropriate. Based on the evidence provided, I find the Parent’s action and the cost to be reasonable. Lastly, the District failed to demonstrate lack of cooperation on the Parent’s part.

ORDER

1. The New York City Department of Education did not offer [REDACTED] a FAPE for the 2022-2023 school year;

2. [REDACTED] was a placement reasonably calculated to enable [REDACTED] to make progress;

3. The Parent cooperated with the DOE and the equities do not pose a barrier to funding;

4. The New York City Department of Education is to fund the costs of [REDACTED]’s attendance at [REDACTED] and /or [REDACTED] LLC for the 2022-2023 school year;

5. [REDACTED] is entitled to a 12-month school year;

6. The Department of Education is to provide or otherwise fund a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation to assess [REDACTED] in all areas of suspected disability; and

7. The Department of Education must provide appropriate transportation to and from [REDACTED] and reimburse the Parent for any amounts paid for transportation over the course of the 2022-2023 school year.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2023

Annette HIcks Gill

ANNETTE HICKS GILL

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 proceedings before an SRO are found in Part 279 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education. A copy of the rules in Part 279 and model forms are available at http://www.sro.nysed.gov.

EXHIBITS

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION EXHIBITS

None

PARENT EXHIBITS

A. Exh. Date Description # of Pages Due Process Complaint 07/29/2022 14 pages

B. Ten Day Notice with Confirmations C 07/21/2022 Finding of Fact and Decision by [REDACTED], Esq. Case No. 220275 22 D 09/07/2022 Signed Pendency Agreement 2 E 06/29/2021 DOE Individualized Education Plan 17 07/22/2022 5 pages

F 2022-2023 [REDACTED]

Enrollment Contract 8

G 2022-2023 [REDACTED]

Program Description 1

H 2022-2023 [REDACTED]

Service Affidavits for July 2022 – February 2023 8

I 2022-2023 [REDACTED] Session

Logs for July 2022

– January 2023 20 J 03/31/2023 Attendance Record 1 K 2022-2023 Class Schedule 1 L 2022-2023 ABA Data: ACE

Progress Snapshot 75

M 2022-2023 Student Work Protocol 2

N 2022-2023 Student Desensitization Program 1

O 2022-2023 Student Toilet Training Protocol 1

P 2022-2023 [REDACTED] Individualized

Education Plan Mid-Year

Progress Report 9

Q 2022-2023 [REDACTED]

Individualized Education

Plan Q3 Scores 6

R March 2022 [REDACTED]

Speech and Language Evaluation 8

S 11/11/2022 [REDACTED]

and Language Progress Report 6

T 2022-2023 [REDACTED]

and Language Q3 Scores 4

U May 2022 [REDACTED]

Occupational Therapy Evaluation 9

V December 2022 Reach For The [REDACTED]

Occupational Therapy Progress

Report 4

W 2022-2023 Reach For The [REDACTED]

Occupational Therapy Q3 Scores 3

X 4/17/2023 Affidavit of [REDACTED] 3 Y 2021 Federal Tax Return (1040) 2