NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
CASE NUMBER: 577855 - NYC: 230067
REDACTED
FINDINGS OF FACT & DECISION
Case No.: 230067
Student’s Name: [Redacted] (referred to as “Student”)
Date of Birth: [Redacted]
District: [Redacted]
Hearing Request by: [Redacted] (referred to as “Parent”)
School: [Redacted] (referred to as “Private School”)
Date of Complaint: August 25, 2023
Hearing Dates: March 6, 2023
March 31, 2023
April 27, 2023
Actual Record Close Date: May 2, 2023
Decision Date: May 16, 2023
Hearing Officer: Vanessa M. Gronbach, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
MARCH 6, 2023
For the Student:
[Redacted], Esq., Parent Attorney
For the Department of Education:
[Redacted], Esq., District Representative
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
MARCH 31, 2023
For the Student:
[Redacted], Esq., Parent Attorney
[Redacted], Parent Student
For the Department of Education:
[Redacted], Esq., District Representative
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
APRIL 27, 2023
For the Student:
[Redacted], Esq., Parent Attorney
[Redacted], Director of Academic Support
For the Department of Education:
[Redacted], Esq., District Representative
ISSUES
This matter comes before the undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) through the Parents’ Due Process Complaint (“DPC”) filed on or about August 25, 2022, regarding the 2022/23 school year (P-Ex. A) [1]. The DPC alleged that the District denied the Student a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) by not providing an appropriate program and placement for the 2022/23 school year (P-Ex. A). The Parent has requested tuition reimbursement / direct payment for their unilateral placement of the Student at the Private School and transportation (P-Ex. A).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The undersigned was appointed as hearing officer in this matter on August 26, 2022. A prehearing conference was held on September 30, 2022, to discuss the issues in the case. A hearing was scheduled to begin on March 6, 2023, and continued on March 31, 2023 and April 27, 2023 (See, Transcripts). 2 The District did not present a case. The Parent presented exhibits [3] and two witnesses, one by affidavit. The record closed on May [2], 2023. There were seven extensions of the compliance timelines granted by this Hearing Officer, to allow for the District to investigate the matter and then to accommodate witnesses.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Student is an [Redacted] year old student who attends the Private School during the 2022/23 school year (P-Ex. A). The Student is diagnosed with dyslexia, a language based learning disability and ADHD (T. 45). The Parent described that the Student struggles with reading, writing and spelling (T. 44). The Parent first noticed his struggles when the Student was in kindergarten and the Student began receiving services in the first grade (T. 45-46). In second grade, the Student was placed in an ICT class in a public school, where he remained through fifth grade (T. 46). According to the Parent the Student continued to struggle and was falling further behind (T. 46-47). At the IEP meeting in April 2022, the Parent provided information including his lack of progress during the 2021/22 school year (P-Ex. A-1). Despite this, the IEP team recommended continued placement in the same ICT program (P-Ex. A-1). The Parent notified the District that she was unilaterally placing the Student at the Private School for the 2022/23 school year (P-Ex. A; T. 48).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Individuals with Disability Education Act (“IDEA”) is comprehensive statutory framework established by Congress to ensure that students with disabilities are afforded FAPE. See, 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1)(A); Schaffer v. Weast, 546 US 49 (2005). 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.” Bd. of Ed. Hendrick Hudson CSD v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 188 (1982). In order to demonstrate that 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.” See, Application of Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 05-061, quoting, Rowley at 206. The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment with non-disabled peers. See, Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dt., 142 F.3rd 119 (2nd Cir. 1998).
Two purposes of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) are (1) to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE 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) to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities and parents of such students are protected (20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]-[B]; see generally, Forest Grove v. T.A., 129 S. Ct. 2484, 2491 [2009]; Rowley, at 206-07).
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. See, Walzczak, supra; Id., Appeal No. 00-005. “The initial procedural inquiry is no mere formality.” Walczak, at 129. “Adequate compliance with the procedures prescribed [by IDEA] would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP.” Rowley at 206. For an IEP to be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, it must be likely to produce progress, not regression. This progress, must be meaningful; i.e., more than mere trivial advancement. Walczak, supra.
In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. __, 14 (2017), the Court held that, “[t]o meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances, as a focus on the particular child is at the core of the IDEA. The instruction offered must be “specially designed” to meet a child’s “unique needs” through an “individualized education program.” §§1401(29), (14) (emphasis added), to reflect the fact that a contemplated IEP must be focused on the “particular child that is at the core of the IDEA”. In such case, the school is still required to ensure the student is given an IEP that requires not just academic but also functional progress and, although the goals may differ for students, each child must have an IEP that includes goals and services to enable a child to make both academic and functional progress. The court further stated that an IEP “is not a form document. It is constructed only after careful consideration of the child’s present levels of achievement, disability, and potential for growth” §§1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)–(IV), (d)(3)(A)(i)–(iv), and that “a student offered an educational program providing “merely more than de minimis progress” from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all.”
The Court in Endrew further stated that, “[t]he IDEA demands more. It requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Although the Supreme Court declined to elaborate on the definition of “appropriate progress” from case to case, it stated that, “the adequacy of a given IEP turns on the unique circumstances of the child for whom it was created.” Finally, The Supreme Court in Endrew declined to hold, as it declined to hold in Rowley, that “every handicapped child who is advancing from grade to grade . . . is automatically receiving a [FAPE].” Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176, 203, n. 25 (1982). A Student’s “IEP need not aim for grade-level advancement. But his educational program must be appropriately ambitious in light of his circumstances, just as advancement from grade to grade is appropriately ambitious for most children in the regular classroom. The goals may differ, but every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives.” Endrew F. v. Douglas 580 U.S. ___ (2017). “It cannot be the case that the Act typically aims for grade-level advancement for children with disabilities who can be educated in the regular classroom, but is satisfied with barely more than de minimis progress for those who cannot.” Id.
Here, the District did not present a case, and therefore failed to meet its burden in demonstrating that FAPE was provided to the Student for the 2022/23 school year. There was no testimony to describe why the IEP team continued to make the same recommendations it had made in the prior years, with no progress. Based on all of reasons above, I find that the District did not provide the Student with FAPE for the 2022/23 school year.
PARENT’S BURDEN
Parents seeking reimbursement “bear the burden of demonstrating that their private placement was appropriate, even if the IEP was inappropriate” Gagliardo, at 112; see also, M.S. v. Bd. Of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 104 [2d Cir. 2000]). “Subject to certain limited exceptions, ‘the same considerations and criteria that apply in determining whether the school district's placement is appropriate should be considered in determining the appropriateness of the parents’ placement…’” Gagliardo, at 112, quoting, Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 364 (2d Cir. 2006). Parents need not show that the placement provides every special service necessary to maximize the student's potential (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65). When determining whether the parents’ unilateral placement is appropriate, ultimately, the issue turns on whether that placement is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits” (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364; Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115). A private placement is only appropriate if it provides education instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a student (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).
The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the appropriateness of a unilateral placement turns on whether it is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, which is not limited to a single dispositive factor. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 207 (1982). The Second Circuit cited several factors that may be considered evidence that a child is receiving an educational benefit, including grades, test scores, and regular advancement, yet clarified that courts assessing the appropriateness of a parent’s unilateral placement must “consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child’s individual needs.” Frank G. 459 F.3d at 364; accord Knable ex rel. Knable v. th Bexley City Sch. Dist., 238 F.3d 755 (6 Cir.2001) (holding that a unilateral private placement with small classes, where the student made educational progress and grades and behavior improved, was appropriate). Under the IDEA, to meet the requirements for reimbursement, parents do not need to show that a private placement provides every single service required to “maximize their child’s potential.” Frank G. 459 F.3d at 364; See M.S. ex rel. S.S. v. Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 102 (2d Cir.2000) (“The test for parents’ private placement is not perfection.”). Parents must 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; Rowley, 458 U.S. at 188–89. “Specially-designed instruction means adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible student under this Part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction to address the unique needs that results from the student’s disability.” 8 NYCRR § 200.1(vv). Where “the hearing record shows that [the Private School] did not provide OT or PT...” and the school “provided programs that assisted the student in developing both fine and gross motor skills,” “the lack of these services” is “not sufficient to support a finding that [the Private School] is not appropriate given that these services did not appear to be necessary to the student receiving educational benefits and [Private School] did address the needs to some extent. The student’s primary needs related to his attention and academics, and [Private School]...adequately, if not perfectly, addressed them.” Application of the Board of Education of the Arlington Central School District, Appeal No. 16- 023 at 24-25.
A private school placement must be “proper under the Act” (Carter, 510 U.S. at 12, 15; Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370), i.e., the private school must provide an educational program which meets the student’s special education needs. See, Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, 115; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 129. 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 (Carter, 510 U.S. at 14). The private school need not employ certified special education teachers or have its own IEP for the student (id. at 14). 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.” (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, quoting, Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65). Finding that the District did not provide FAPE to the student during the 2022/23 school year, the burden now shifts to the Parent to prove the appropriateness of the Private School. After reviewing the testimony and evidence provided, I find that they have met that burden. The Parent’s burden is to demonstrate that the Private School provided educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of the Student, which is supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction.
The Director of Academic Support (“DAS”) at the Private School testified by affidavit regarding the Student and the Private School (P-Ex. H). The DAS testified that she reviews applications, screens students, collaborates with the team to determine if the student meets the school’s profile, and collaborates with all administrators to plan professional development opportunities (P-Ex. H-2). She also supports the teachers in applying language-based support for students in all content and skills classes (P-Ex. H-2).
The Private School is a school for children with language-based learning disabilities with at least average intelligence, and some of the students also have attentional difficulties (P-Ex. H-2). The mission is to transform the lives of bright students with language-based learning disabilities and attention deficits (P-Ex. H-2). Students become skilled, strategic learners and confident self-advocates (P-Ex. H-2). Relying on direct, multisensory instruction and guided by an Integrated curriculum, expert faculty teach students the language, literacy, and critical thinking skills that are the foundations for success in mainstream educational settings and beyond (P-Ex. H-2). In small classes, and as members of a diverse and inclusive community, students experience academic and social success, recognize their strengths, and are empowered to become independent learners (P-Ex. H-2).
The Private School has small class sizes of no more than 12 students and one head teacher (P-Ex. H-3). The Head Teacher has a master’s degree in general and special education (P-Ex. H-3). The class is then broken down into smaller groups for reading, writing, and math, which typically range from six to eight students (P-Ex. H-3). The small classroom ratios provide opportunities for students to work in a group, but also to have the one-to-one support they need to make progress (P-Ex. H-3). The small class ratio enables the teachers to ensure that all the attentional needs are addressed throughout their classroom (P-Ex. H-3). The Private School also provides speech-language therapy, occupational therapy, and counseling in lower school and speech-language therapy and counseling in middle school (P-Ex. H-3). Language skills are embedded throughout all classes to promote learning and progress (P-Ex. H-3). The curriculum includes researched based explicit instruction for reading and math, which are labeled as “skills,” and for science and social studies, which are called “subjects” (P-Ex. H-3). A skill is the ability and capacity to learn the information such as the ability to decode words, in order to read or to know how to find the main idea in a paragraph (P-Ex. H-3). Content are the concepts and information pertaining to a particular subject such as social studies or science (P-Ex. H-3). This instruction is provided in a structured, warm, and nurturing environment where students are provided the language skills needed to understand the rich content in their subject and skills classes (P-Ex. H-4). For the reading curriculum, they use [Redacted], a research based multi-sensory systematic phonics approach to teaching reading (P-Ex. H-4). For math, they use [Redacted], a research based multi-sensory approach to teaching math (P-Ex. H-4).
The Private School provides formal professional development for all faculty and staff nine times during the school year (P-Ex. H-4). During sessions, they focus on language development, social development, and how methods support students’ growth; and faculty and supervisors participate in outside professional development courses to learn about current programs and methods to best serve students and to further develop professional expertise in skill and content areas (P-Ex. H-4). Formal staff meetings are held twice a week to help facilitate collaboration among teachers, related service providers, and staff (P-Ex. H-4). In addition, teachers meet with coaches and supervisors weekly to discuss each student and how best to meet their needs (P-Ex. H-4). The coach meets weekly with the classroom teachers to model lessons, discuss how the teaching practices affects a student’s learning curve, support lesson planning and help to develop short and long-term goals (P-Ex. H-4). The teacher implements the goals, teaches all subject and skill areas, and is responsible for understanding the individual needs of the students as they become independent learners (P-Ex. H-4). The supervisor observes the teacher and provides feedback concerning the teacher’s use of explicit teaching practices and how the goals are being met, as well as the teacher’s classroom management skills and how the teachers are developing their expertise as a professional in the field of education (P-Ex. H-4). At the beginning of the school year, the Private School holds a formal meeting for each student to discuss the student’s areas of strength and weaknesses (P-Ex. H-4). Over the course of the year, teachers issue two report cards that describe the students’ progress in all skill and subject areas (P-Ex. H-4). In addition, they hold two formal parent/teacher conferences during the year to allow parents and teachers to discuss the students’ progress (P-Ex. H-4). Teachers and parents are also able to communicate daily through email, and parents can request special meetings at any time to discuss a concern or share information (P-Ex. H-4). During the 2022/23 school year, there are 147 students enrolled at the Private School (P-Ex. H-6). The Student was enrolled at the Private School that year (P-Ex. H-6). The Student was described as friendly and socially motivated to interact appropriately with peers and teachers, however he struggles with focus, attention and occasional impulsive behaviors (P-Ex. H-6). He exhibits deficits with decoding, reading rate, reading comprehension, reading fluency, difficulty with generating complex sentences, paragraph writing, using learned punctuation, grammar, syntax, math computation and problem solving (P-Ex. H-6).
In order to address his attention and focusing needs, the Student has been placed in small classes throughout the day and with access to his advisor and counselor (P-Ex. H-6). He is provided with visual reminders, refocusing prompts and pre-programming (P-Ex. H-6). All of his classes are presented with language skill supports and he is taught using multi-sensory approaches (P-Ex. H-6). The Student’s writing needs are addressed through a systematic writing program, his reading challenges have been addressed through an Orton Gillingham based reading program, and math are addressed through the multi-sensory Singapore Math Program (P-Ex. H-7). All of the Student’s teachers are available for 1:1 support when he requires clarification or reteaching of a challenging concept (P-Ex. H-7). At the beginning of the school year, the Student was assessed and he was estimated to be at a Third Grade reading and writing level, and a beginning Fourth Grade math level (P-Ex. H-7). As a result of his difficulties, it was determined that the Student needs explicit instruction, multisensory activities, and research-based learning programs within groups of varying size ranging from dyads, small group instruction (4-6 students) and larger groupings of no more than 12 students, with 1 to 2 teachers according to the subject area, with opportunities for short breaks during the school day (P-Ex. H-7).
For the 2022/23 school year, the Student is in sixth grade self-contained classes with Head Teachers, who have a master’s degrees in General/Special Education (P-Ex. H-7). All skill areas and content learning are broken into various group structures based on the students’ needs (P-Ex. H-7). The groups range in sizes from small groups of 7, to dyads, and 1:1 when needed (P-Ex. H-7). The students have language-based learning disabilities and delays in academic development and are grouped for reading, writing, and math according to same levels of development (P-Ex. H-7). The Student is placed in a reading group with students at or near his instructional levels in reading and writing and his teacher has a master’s degree in general/special education (P-Ex. H-8). He is placed in a math class with students at or near his instructional levels in math and his math teacher has a master’s degree in general and special education and had completed the training for Singapore Math (P-Ex. H-8).
The Student also receives speech-language therapy and counseling by licensed and certified providers (P-Ex. H-8). The speech and language group meets once per week in a group of five students and they are addressing the Student’s language formulation skills, word-retrieval challenges, communication skills, and pragmatic language skills (P-Ex. H-8). In counseling, they are working on social/pragmatic communication, working collaboratively, and problem-solving skills to support his social and emotional development, which enables him to better access education (P-Ex. H-8).
In order to support the Student’s language-based learning disability for reading, writing and math, as well as all content learning, small class explicit multi-sensory instruction is needed for him to learn new material, process the information, and generalize this learning (P-Ex. H-8). Small class instruction supports his attention and his ability to focus in an environment where directions are broken down, repeated, rephrased, and modeled to support his learning needs (P-Ex. H-8). Repeated directions, task breakdown, visual and auditory cues, and extended processing time are additionally necessary (P-Ex. H-8-9). Directions are provided in writing and orally; and repeated when necessary (P-Ex. H-9). Teachers break down information, preview, and review the material in order for the Student to be able to process the language and content presented in class (P-Ex. H-9). To support his considerably challenged writing skills, he receives one-to-one writing instruction and support when needed; modeling; scaffolding; and the use of graphic organizers, outlines and technology (P-Ex. H-9). To support his challenges in math, he receives small group instruction, modeling, previewing of information, chunking of information, repeated directions, task breakdown, visual and auditory cues, and extended processing time using a research based multisensory approach to learning math (P-Ex. H-9). To support his executive functioning challenges, he is placed in a small, structured classroom setting, receives direct instruction, prompts, breaks, cues and is provided with graphic organizers to support task maintenance and organization (P-Ex. H-9).
With respect to the student’s progress at the Private Schools, 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 (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115, citing Rafferty v. Cranston Pub. Sch. Comm., 315 F.3d 21, 26-27 [1st Cir. 2002]). Here, the Student’s teachers monitor his progress daily through teacher-made materials and report cards are provided twice a year (P-Ex. H-10). The report cards identify the language skills and attention skills needed to achieve the academic goals and make progress in all academic areas (P-Ex. H-10). The Student progressed to a Fourth Grade level for decoding and comprehension with the supports provided to answer the explicit and implicit questions with text evidence (P-Ex. H-10). He has also made progress in writing and in math, going up to a 5th grade level (P-Ex. H-10). He has demonstrated improved skills in multiplying and dividing fractions and decimals and in choosing the correct bar model when solving word problems (P-Ex. H-10). The Parent also testified that she has seen the Student’s progress, as he does not push back in reading anymore, where the year before he did not want to read at all (T. 49). Based on all of the above, I find that the Private School is an appropriate placement for the Student for the 2022/23 school year.
EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS
Equitable considerations are relevant in determining relief “because the authority to grant reimbursement [under the IDEA] is discretionary.” Frank G., 459 F.3d at 363-64 (quoting, Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374). 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 and communicated their concerns with the District.
DECISION
Based on a review of the record and the facts mentioned above, I find that the District failed to provide the Student FAPE during the 2022/23 school year. I further find that the Parent’s unilateral placement at the Private School was appropriate and that the Parent is entitled to reimbursement / direct funding. I have considered the Parent’s other requests for relief in the Due Process Complaint and they have been denied for lack of evidence in the record.
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby ordered: 1) ORDER THAT, the District shall reimburse the Parent and/or directly pay the Private School for all tuition and fees for the Student’s unilateral placement at the Private School during the 2022/23 school year and provide transportation.
SO ORDERED
DATED: May 16, 2023
Vanessa M. Gronbach
Vanessa M. Gronbach, 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.
EXHIBITS
DISTRICT EXHIBITS
1. IEP 4/6/22 22 pages District
PARENT EXHIBITS
A. Ten-Day Notice and Due Process Complaint 8/15/2022 4 pages
B. Neuropsychological Evaluation 9/28/2021 15 pages
C. Individualized Education Program (IEP) 2/04/2021 23 pages
D. Private School Program Description Undated 2 pages
E. Private School Enrollment Contract 7/22/2022 3 pages
F. Class Schedule for Semester 1 2022-2023 1 page
G. Class Schedule for Semester 2 2022-2023 1 page
H. Affidavit of Director Undated 11 pages
I. Speech Language Report Undated 2 pages
J. Teacher Report 4/11/2023 6 pages
K. Counseling Progress Report 4/11/2023 2 pages
L. Attendance 4/05/2023 1 page
M. Affidavit of Tuition Payment 4/20/2023 2 pages
Footnotes
[1] Exhibits shall be referred to as follows: “P” for Parent Exhibit; “D” for the District’s or Department’s Exhibits.
[2] Reference to the Transcript shall be referred to as “T”.
[3] A more detailed list of exhibits is attached.