Skip to main content
Special Education Law
DECISIONParent PrevailedIHO Case No. 230312

New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

November 17, 2022·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.

CASE NUMBER: 578129 - NYC: 230312

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 230312

Student’s Name: REDACTED

School District: New York City Department of Education Hearing Requested by: Parent Request Date/Date Complaint Filed: August 29, 2022

Date(s) of Hearing: September 16, 2022

September 30, 2022

October 31, 2022

Actual Record Closed Date: November 10, 2022

Date of Decision: November 17, 2022

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

Hearing Officer: Jean Marie Brescia, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON September 16, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED, Parent

REDACTED, Parent

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED, Esq., District Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON September 30, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED, Parent

REDACTED, Parent

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED, Consultant Hearing Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON October 31, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED, Parent

REDACTED, Parent

REDACTED, Literacy Teacher

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED, Esq., District Representative

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This matter comes before the undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) on Parents’ Due Process Complaint (“DPC") filed on or about August 29, 2022. Ex. 1.[1] On August 31, 2022, I was appointed by the New York City Department of Education to hear this matter. In the DPC, REDACTED’s Parents challenge the Department’s failures to provide IESP-mandated services to REDACTED and to conduct REDACTED’s triennial evaluation and develop an IESP for REDACTED for the 2022-2023 school year; as relief, REDACTED’s Parents seek tutoring and literacy coaching, organizational skills training and an independent neuropsychological evaluation for REDACTED. Ex. 1 at 2-4.

I conducted a pendency hearing on September 16. REDACTED’s Parents and the Department’s representative participated in the hearing. There was a discussion of due process rights and the procedures relevant to pendency hearings and pendency orders. The parties presented arguments as to their respective positions with respect to REDACTED’s pendency entitlements. After the hearing, I issued an Order on Pendency.

I conducted a prehearing conference on September 30, 2022, a date subsequent to the conclusion of the resolution period. REDACTED’s Parents and the Department’s representative appeared. There was a discussion of due process rights, burdens of proof, and hearing procedures. The hearing on the merits was scheduled for October 31, a date on which REDACTED’s Parents and the witness they wished to call were available.

The hearing on the merits was conducted and completed on October 31, 2022. REDACTED’s Parents and the Department’s representative appeared. Parents’ Exhibits A through K were admitted in evidence.[2] Department’s Exhibits 1 and 2 were admitted in evidence. The Department declined to present an opening statement and rested its case without presenting the testimony of witnesses. Tr. 52. REDACTED’s mother presented a written opening statement. Ex. K. REDACTED’s mother and REDACTED’s literacy coach testified. REDACTED’s parents confirmed the details of the relief they were seeking in this proceeding. Tr. 64.

The parties requested an extension of the compliance date, and a written Order of Extension was issued on October 31, 2022. The reason for granting the extension is set forth in the Order.

The record was closed on November 10, 2022, upon the Hearing Officer’s receipt of the transcript of the last 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.

REDACTED’s Parents consented to conducting the hearing via videoconference and to the transmission of this decision via email.

ISSUES

Parent requests the provision of: (a) tutoring and/or literacy coaching, four hours per week at a rate of $125.00 per hour; (b) organizational skills training, less the amount reimbursed by REDACTED’s family’s health insurance; and (c) the cost of an independent neuropsychological evaluation, less the amount reimbursed by REDACTED’s family’s health insurance. Ex. 1 at 2-4; Tr. 49, 64, 71.

At the hearing, the Department did not defend its IESP or proposed placement, or seek to rebut the testimony or evidence presented by REDACTED’s parents. The issues to be resolved are:

  • • Are the supports and services outlined above specially designed to meet REDACTED’s unique needs?
  • • Do equitable factors favor REDACTED’s parents?
  • • Are REDACTED’s parents entitled to funding for an independent educational evaluation?

FINDINGS OF FACT

  • • REDACTED is a REDACTED year-old boy whose disability is classified, for the purposes of the IDEA, as learning disabled. Ex. 2 at 1.
  • • REDACTED is diagnosed with a REDACTED, with REDACTED, REDACTED, and an REDACTED. Ex. A at 21.
  • • REDACTED experiences academic challenges in reading decoding, fluency and comprehension; as well as writing and math; and he is functioning below grade level in all areas. Ex. 2 at 1-3; Ex. A passim; Exs. C, D. He struggles with attention, impulsivity, emotional and behavioral regulation due to frustration, and executive functioning and organizational skills. Ex. 2 at 4-6; Ex. A passim; Exs. C, D, F, I; Tr. 77-78.
  • • REDACTED attends the REDACTED (“REDACTED”), a private general education school. He is a REDACTED grade student. Exs. 1, I, K.
  • • REDACTED provides supports for REDACTED in literacy, math and executive functioning through a learning specialist and classroom accommodations and also provides counseling with a psychologist. Ex. I at 2, 6-7.

Educational History

  • • REDACTED received physical therapy through the Early Intervention program to address his gross motor skills. Ex. A at 2-3; Ex. K at 1.
  • • REDACTED attended preschool, and the Department developed an IEP for him for REDACTED. This IEP recommended that REDACTED receive physical and occupational therapies. Ex. A at 3; Ex. K at 1.
  • • REDACTED attended REDACTED at a private religious school and then repeated REDACTED at REDACTED. Ex. A at 3.
  • • In the early elementary school grades, REDACTED had difficulties with distractibility, sustaining attention, remaining seated, and disruptive behaviors in the classroom and began to have difficulties with academics. Ex. A at 3-4.
  • • At the end of his REDACTED grade year, the CSE convened, determined that REDACTED was eligible for special education and services, and developed an IESP for him. This IESP recommended that REDACTED receive SETSS and occupational therapy. Ex. A at 4.
  • • Since that time, REDACTED’s parents have had difficulties locating SETTS providers for REDACTED. Ex. K at 1.
  • • The CSE convened on June 15, 2021, and developed an IESP for REDACTED. Ex. 2.
  • • The CSE recommended that REDACTED receive SETSS (four period per week), occupational therapy (two 45-minute sessions per week, individually) and counseling (one 45-minute session per week, individually). Ex. 2 at 12.
  • • The Department was unable to locate an occupational therapy provider for REDACTED. Ex. E. As a result, REDACTED has not received occupational therapy since June 2021. Ex. K at 1-2.
  • • The Department did not provide counseling to REDACTED or offered assistance to REDACTED’s parents to locate a counselor to fulfill the IESP counseling mandate. Ex. K at 2.
  • • For three years, through the end of the 2021-2022 school year, REDACTED worked with a SETTS provider, Mr. REDACTED. Exs. C, K at 1.
  • • Mr. REDACTED observed that REDACTED was performing below grade level in reading and math. Ex. C. Mr. REDACTED worked with REDACTED on math and reading skills, completing assignments, remaining on task, and building confidence and fluency. REDACTED needed frequent prompting to stay on task, struggled with instructions for assignments and timely completion of assignments, and did not check his work. Ex. C.
  • • Ms. REDACTED, an experienced teacher who had been certified by the State of REDACTED and who was REDACTED’s REDACTED grade teacher at REDACTED, started to provide tutoring to REDACTED in January 2021. Ex. D at 1; Ex. K at 1; Tr. 74-74. These hours were in addition to the SETSS services provided by Mr. REDACTED. Tr. 64.
  • • REDACTED made progress in literacy once he started working with Ms. REDACTED. Ex. K at 2; Exs. G, H, I.
  • • During the 2021-2022 school year, Mr. REDACTED worked with REDACTED remotely via Zoom. Exs. C, K at 1; Tr. 65. Remote learning did not work well for REDACTED, and REDACTED did not continue to work with Mr. REDACTED during the 2022-2023 school year. Ex. K at 1; Tr. 65.

The 2022-2023 School Year

  • • In July and August 2022, REDACTED’s mother emailed 203 SETSS providers on the Department’s list of approved SETSS providers. Tr. 58-59; Ex. B; Ex. K at 1. She received nine responses and five “bouncebacks.” None of the providers who responded had availability to work with REDACTED and/or only accepted an “enhanced rate” for their services and did not accept the Department’s rate. Tr. 59; Ex. B; Ex. K at 1.
  • • The Department did not convene an IESP meeting for REDACTED to develop an IESP for him for the 2022-2023 school year. Ex. K at 2.
  • • Ms. REDACTED has continued to provide tutoring to REDACTED during the 2022-2023 school year. Ex. D at 1.
  • • Ms. REDACTED works with REDACTED in-person. Tr. 64.
  • • REDACTED continues to struggle with executive functioning and attention to task; reading decoding; reading rate and fluency; vocabulary; spelling; and written expression. Ms. REDACTED works with REDACTED in each of these areas. Ex. D at 1; Tr. 77-78, 80-81, 83.
  • • Ms. REDACTED utilizes, among other strategies, graphic organizers and checklists to improve REDACTED’s written work. Tr. 77-78, 81.
  • • Ms. REDACTED works with REDACTED on his reading fluency through read alouds. Tr. 78.
  • • Ms. REDACTED communicates with REDACTED’s teachers at REDACTED to discuss REDACTED’s needs in the classroom, what she should be focusing on with him in tutoring sessions, and his progress. Tr.80.
  • • REDACTED has been making progress in reading decoding, fluency and comprehension, written expression, math, and executive functioning skills. Exs. D, F, G, H, I, K at 2; Tr. 64, 78-79.
  • • Ms. REDACTED opined that REDACTED needed to continue with tutoring in order to continue to make progress and that at least four hours a week of tutoring was necessary to meet his needs. Ex. D.
  • • With additional hours of tutoring from Ms. REDACTED, specifically four hours per week, rather that the combination of SETSS and tutoring, Ms. REDACTED would be able to work with REDACTED on not only literacy but also more math and other subjects. Tr. 65.
  • • Ms. REDACTED has charged $100.00 per hour in the past, and she will be charging $125.00 per hour for continued tutoring services. Ex. D.

Related Services

  • • REDACTED participated in three sessions of organizational skills training (“OST”) through the REDACTED. Tr. 70-71.
  • • OST is a program to improve a student’s “organization, time management, planning skills, academic performance....” Ex. K at 2.
  • • REDACTED’s 2019 neuropsychological evaluation recommended OST for REDACTED. Ex A at 26.
  • • OST consists of 20 sessions provided by a psychologist and addresses executive functioning and organizational skills relating to REDACTED’s REDACTED. Tr. 67-69, 71.
  • • The psychologist providing the sessions to REDACTED incorporates counseling into the sessions. Ex. K at 2.
  • • REDACTED’s parents seek OST as a substitute for the IESP-mandated occupational therapy and counseling services that the Department has never provided to REDACTED. Tr. 67.
  • • REDACTED completed three sessions of OST in the fall of 2022; when the psychologist who was working with REDACTED moved to Zoom sessions, REDACTED’s parents paused this service because REDACTED does not respond well to instruction and services provided via Zoom. Tr. 67, 70-71.
  • • REDACTED’s parents intend to resume OST for REDACTED in the spring with the expectation that in-person sessions will be available. Ex. K at 2.
  • • OST sessions cost $320.00 per 45-minute session; 70 percent of these costs are reimbursed by the family’s health insurance. Tr. 67. REDACTED’s parents seek funding from the Department for the 30 percent of the costs that are not covered by insurance. Tr. 72.
  • • REDACTED’s parents were charged a total of $920.00 for the three OST sessions in the fall; insurance reimbursed REDACTED’s parents 70 percent of this amount, leaving an out-of-pocket expense of $276.00, for which REDACTED’s parents seek reimbursement. Ex. K at 3.

Evaluation

  • • REDACTED’s last evaluation was in 2019. Ex. K at 2.
  • • REDACTED is due for a triennial evaluation this year. Tr. 66.
  • • REDACTED’s parents have arranged for a neuropsychological evaluation of REDACTED to be conducted in December by Dr. REDACTED. The full charge for the evaluation is $7,500.00. REDACTED’s parents seek only up to $2,500.00, the amount that would not be covered by insurance. Tr. 65, 71.

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).

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.

In this case, the Department did not present testimony with respect to its provision of FAPE to REDACTED for the 2022-2023 school year or to rebut the testimony of REDACTED’s mother or her witnesses. Since the Department did not offer any testimony to explain how its program for REDACTED was “reasonably calculated” to permit him to make progress given his unique circumstances, the Department did not carry its burden of proof and cannot prevail on the first “prong” of the Burlington/Carter test.

REDACTED’s parents bear the burden of proof concerning the appropriateness of Ms. Roman’s tutoring and OST for REDACTED. See, e.g., Frank G. v. Board of Education of the Hyde Park Central 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 these educational services address 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 REDACTED 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 REDACTED 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 Ms. REDACTED’s tutoring addresses REDACTED’s identified and specific special educational needs. See paragraphs 24-28 above. Furthermore, through Ms. REDACTED’s tutoring, REDACTED has made progress. See paragraph 29 above. The evidence clearly demonstrates that Ms. REDACTED’s tutoring is an appropriate service for REDACTED. 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).

The preponderance of the evidence also establishes that OST is designed to address REDACTED’s identified and specific needs in the areas of executive functioning and organization. See paragraphs 34-38 above. Furthermore, since the Department has not provided REDACTED with IESP-mandated occupational therapy and counseling, REDACTED’s parents have been left to their devices and secured a service recommended by professionals that would address REDACTED’s particular executive functioning and organization-related needs that should have been addressed by occupational therapy and counseling.

Considering the “totality of the circumstances” as required by the REDACTED Circuit in Frank G., the evidence supports a finding that Ms. REDACTED’s tutoring and OST are appropriate for REDACTED. As a result, REDACTED’s parents prevail with respect to the REDACTED Burlington/Carter criterion.

With respect to the REDACTED Burlington criterion, whether equitable considerations support REDACTED’s parents’ claims, the evidence establishes that REDACTED’s parents cooperated with the Department by searching for SETSS providers for REDACTED and communicating with school personnel. The record does not indicate that REDACTED’s parents, in any way, impeded the Department’s provision of education and services to REDACTED. 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). It is also important to note that REDACTED’s mother went above and beyond cooperation in her efforts to secure a SETSS provider from the Department’s list of approved providers—to no avail. And that the Department failed to provide REDACTED with occupational therapy and counseling as mandated by the last IESP and then failed to create an IESP for REDACTED for this school year. The “balance of the equities” clearly is in REDACTED’s parents’ favor.

Equitable considerations thus favor the award of relief to REDACTED’s parents. As a result, REDACTED’s parents prevail with respect to the REDACTED Burlington/Carter criterion.

As to REDACTED’s parents’ request for an independent evaluation of REDACTED, the Department has not demonstrated that it has evaluated REDACTED. The regulations relevant to the IEE request in this proceeding state that: “[i]f the parent disagrees with an evaluation obtained the school district, the parent has a right to obtain an independent educational evaluation at public expense.” 8 N.Y.C.R.R. §200.5(g)(1). However, “a parent is entitled to only one independent educational evaluation at public expense each time the school district conducts an evaluation with which the parent disagrees.” Id. If a parent requests an independent educational evaluation at public expense, “the school district must, without unnecessary delay, either ensure that an independent education evaluation is provided at public expense” or initiate an impartial hearing “to show that its evaluation is appropriate, or that the evaluation obtained by the parent does not meet the school district criteria.” 8 N.Y.C.R.R. §200.5(g)(1)(iv) (emphasis added); see also Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 21-091 at p. 52; Application of the New York City Department of Education, Appeal No. 20-117 at pp. 13-15.

REDACTED’s parents disagree with the Department’s failure to evaluate REDACTED. The Department has neither offered an IEE to REDACTED’s parents nor requested an impartial hearing to challenge REDACTED’s parents’ request for an IEE. As a result, I will grant REDACTED’s parents’ request that the Department reimburse them for the portion of Dr. REDACTED’s evaluation that is not covered by insurance.

ORDER

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

1. The Department of Education shall fund for REDACTED the following education and services for the 2022-2023 school year, from September 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023:

(a) Four hours per week of tutoring provided by Ms. REDACTED, or a comparable provider selected by REDACTED’s parents, at an hourly rate not to exceed $125.00.

(b) A total of 20 hours of OST at the REDACTED; with the Department reimbursing REDACTED’s parents, forthwith upon proof of payment: (i) the amount of $276.00 for the three sessions provided during fall 2022; and (ii) with respect to the remaining 17 sessions, the 30 percent of the $320.00 per session costs that are not covered by insurance, provided that any such OST session is provided to REDACTED before December 31, 2023.

2. The Department shall also reimburse REDACTED’s parents for a neuropsychological evaluation of REDACTED to be conducted by Dr. REDACTED, or a comparable provider, for that portion of the expense of the evaluation not covered by insurance. The amount reimbursed by the Department shall not exceed $2,500.00.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 17, 2022

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

PENDENCY HEARING:

Department Ex. 1 /20/2021 8 pages

Department Ex. 2 Mediation Agreement 9/22/2020 3 pages

IHO Ex. I Due Process Complaint 8/29/2022 4 pages

HEARING ON THE MERITS:

PARENT’S EXHIBITS

A. December 2019 REDACTED Feedback Report 43 pages

B. Summer 2022 SETTS Log 43 pages

C. October 2022 SETSS Progress Report, 1 page

D. October 2022 REDACTED Affidavit 1 page

E. Fall 2021 OT Emails 4 pages

F. Spring 2022 Report Card 7 pages

G. Spring 2022 MAP Test Results 1 page

H. Summer 2022 MAP Test Results 1 page

I. Fall 2022 Individual Learning Plan 7 pages

J. September 2022 Resolution Agreement 1 page

K. Opening/Closing Statement, 3 pages

DEPARTMENT’S EXHIBITS

1. Due Process Complaint August 29, 2022 4 pages

2. Individualized Education Program June 15, 2021 15 pages

Footnotes

[1] Exhibits shall be referred to as follows: Parents’ Exhibits are designated with letters; Department’s Exhibits are designated with numbers; and Impartial Hearing Officer’s Exhibits are designated as “IHO.”

[2] A more detailed list of the admitted exhibits is attached to this Decision as “Documentation Entered Into the Record.”