New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 579696 – NYC: 2311699

Case Number: 231699

Student’s Name: REDACTED

School District: New York City Department of Education

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

October 11, 2022

For the Parents:

REDACTED, Esq.

For the Department:

None

October 25, 2022

For the Parents:

REDACTED, Esq.

For the Department:

None

November 28, 2022

For the Parents:

REDACTED, Esq.

For the Department:

REDACTED M. REDACTED, Esq.

January 3, 2023

For the Parents:

REDACTED, Esq.

For the Department:

REDACTED, Esq.

February 1, 2023

For the Parents:

REDACTED, Esq.

REDACTED Parent

REDACTED, Interim Head of Lower School and Director of REDACTED Program at The REDACTED School For the Department: REDACTED M. REDACTED, Esq.

On September 14, 2022, I was designated as impartial hearing officer, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. §1415(f), in the matter of REDACTED. REDACTED’s parent (“Parent”) requested the hearing on September 6, 2022, challenging the Department of Education’s failure to offer REDACTED a free appropriate public education for the 2022-2023 school year and seeking funding for REDACTED’s tuition and related services, and for a full-time health paraprofessional, at The REDACTED School (“REDACTED”), a non-public general and special education school, and for a transportation paraprofessional. Ex. A at 2, 5-6.

A pre-hearing conference was conducted on October 11, 2022. Counsel for REDACTED’s parent appeared; no one appeared on behalf of the Department. Parent’s counsel clarified the services REDACTED was currently receiving and the relief requested and sought the scheduling of a pendency hearing. Tr. 4-5. A pendency hearing was scheduled for October 25.

On October 25, counsel for REDACTED’s parent appeared; no one appeared on behalf of the Department. Counsel reported that she was attempting to resolve pendency with the Department.

On November 28, counsel for both parties appeared. The Department waived its opening statement. Tr. 22. Parent’s counsel made an opening statement. Tr. 22-24. Procedural matters were discussed. Witness testimony was scheduled for January 3, 2023.

On January 3, counsel for both parties appeared. Parent’s counsel requested a continuance of the hearing due to illness; the request was granted, and the hearing was continued to February 1. Counsel confirmed that there was a pendency agreement in place for REDACTED. Tr. 36.

On February 1, the Department rested its case without offering documents in evidence or presenting the testimony of witnesses. Tr. 47. REDACTED’s parent and the director of the REDACTED program that REDACTED attended testified. Parent’s exhibits A through P were admitted in evidence.

The parties made applications on the record for extensions of the compliance date. The applications were granted by written Orders of Extension dated October 25 and November 28, 2022 and January 3 and February 1, 2023. The record closed on March 5, 2023, upon the hearing officer’s review of the transcript of the last day of hearing, and the Actual Record Close Date is March 5, 2023.

Appended to the record are the names of the persons who appeared at the hearing and a list of the documents entered into evidence.

Findings of Fact

1. REDACTED is a REDACTED-year-old boy whose disability, for the purposes of the IDEA, is classified as multiply disabled. Ex. N at 1.

2. REDACTED was born with REDACTED, a type of REDACTED, and he experiences multiple global physical delays, REDACTED, REDACTED, and a REDACTED which impacts both his visual processing skills and his overall learning. REDACTED’s REDACTED “affects his entire body globally.” He is REDACTED and will REDACTED. REDACTED uses a REDACTED, wears a REDACTED for support, and wears REDACTED. It is difficult to understand his speech. Exs. D at 2, E, G, H; Tr. 68, 93-95.

3. During the 2022-2023 school year, REDACTED attends a REDACTE-grade class at REDACTED. Tr. 67, 93.

4. REDACTED received Early Intervention services starting as an infant. Ex. D at 2-3.

5. REDACTED’s preschool services consisted of SEIT services provided at his home, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy and vision therapy. Ex. D at 2. He also received, apart from the CPSE services, specialized physical, movement and speech therapies. Ex. D at 2.

6. REDACTED has attended REDACTED since he started REDACTED in September 2021. Tr. 65-66.

7. Dr. REDACTED, a licensed neuropsychologist, evaluated REDACTED in February and March 2021 and prepared a Neuropsychological and Educational Evaluation Report. Ex. D.

8. REDACTED’s scores varied from average to below average; and the evaluation was complicated by his verbal and motor impairments. There are things that REDACTED is able to do cognitively but not able to demonstrate physically. REDACTED’s receptive language skills are at the higher end of his abilities. Ex. D passim.

9. REDACTED impacts REDACTED’s muscle and body skills, and a significant difficulty interfering with REDACTED’s capacity in accessing learning is his motor skills. Ex. D passim; Tr. 68-69.

10. Testing revealed REDACTED’s “emerging verbal cognitive abilities,” including verbal concept formation, vocabulary, and understanding how concepts are related and can be grouped together. REDACTED performed in the low average range in listening comprehension; Dr. REDACTED noted that REDACTED’s performance on listening comprehension was consistent with REDACTED’s observed strength in everyday life regarding receptive language. Ex. D at 4, 7

11. On academic testing, REDACTED demonstrated progress in preschool learning, and he was interested and engaged in these early academic activities (letters and numbers). Ex. D. He showed emerging abilities in early reading and math learning, with “very good focus, interest, and engagement in such activities.” Ex. D at 7.

12. Dr. REDACTED noted that REDACTED’s “verbal strengths would suggest a great deal of potential to come for [his] progress with academic skills and beyond. Writing poses [a] particular challenge for him due to the visual-motor demands.” Ex. D at 7.

13. REDACTED’s overall physical development, at the time of the evaluation, was comparable to that of an 8-month-old child; he could not sit up, stand or walk without support. His adaptive behaviors were also significantly impacted by his physical challenges and “on par” with those of a 13-month-old child. Ex. at 4-5. REDACTED’s fine and gross motor skills were very limited. Ex. at 6.

14. REDACTED was a “very good natured, very well related, and empathic” child who “focuse[d] well on tasks” and was “very socially engaged, adaptable, and communicate[d] well with those around him from a social perspective.” Ex. D at 6.

15. Dr. REDACTED recommended that an IEP for REDACTED include: a. Support for REDACTED’s motor and visual challenges, such as in navigating the physical environment of school, ADL skills, and fine and gross motor skills as they impact learning tasks; b. Vision services and adaptation of materials; c. A small classroom with a low student-to-teacher ratio with a “calm setting from a sensory perspective” and with availability of teacher support and modifications; d. One-to-one support “during learning activities in order to facilitate his participation, as well as to deal with the motor demands of the classroom and engaging in the various activities of daily living that occur throughout the school day;” e. Accommodations and modifications to engage in learning activities (for example, tangible letters that he can move to and from a Velcro board); f. Participation with general education students; and g. Related services: OT, PT, speech (including PROMPT) and vision education services. Exs. D at 7-8, 12-14.

16. REDACTED’s pediatrician, Dr. REDACTED, recommended that REDACTED be placed in a small class in a small school with an elevator, a specialized chair to support REDACTED while sitting, a health paraprofessional, and physical, occupation and speech therapies. Ex. H.

17. Department personnel conducted an assistive technology evaluation of REDACTED in February 2022. Ex. E. The evaluators recommended that REDACTED utilize a dynamic display speech-generating device/tablet/computer switch interface, eye gaze communication device for a trial period and that REDACTED staff be trained to use the device with REDACTED. Ex. E at 8-9.

18. An IEP meeting was conducted for REDACTED on March 1, 2022. Exs. F, N; Tr. 95.

19. The meeting participants reviewed and considered a teacher report dated March 1, 2022 and the assistive technology report dated February 8, 2022. Ex. F at 2.

20. The CSE recommended that REDACTED attend a 12:1:1 self-contained special education class in a department community school and receive speech, occupational, physical and vision therapies and the support of a 1:1 health paraprofessional. Exs. F at 1, N at 21-22.

21. Department personnel approved specialized bus transportation for REDACTED, specifically a bus paraprofessional and wheelchair access. Exs. F at 1, N at 26.

22. By prior written notice and a school location letter dated March 29, 2022, the Department informed REDACTED’s parent that REDACTED was placed at the Department’s mainstream community school, The Riverside School for Makers and Artists located in Manhattan (“Riverside”). Ex. F at 5.

23. REDACTED’s mother visited Riverside two times. Tr. 95. There were over 600 students in the school; the class in which REDACTED would be placed included students with severe behaviors who were “often pulled out” of class due to behaviors, which would be “frightening” for REDACTED; a 1:1 paraprofessional and the full complement of the recommended related services would not be available to Benny at Riverside. Tr. 96-97; Ex. B.

24. By letter dated August 15, 2022, REDACTED’s mother notified the Department that she was placing REDACTED at REDACTED for the 2022-2023 school year. Exs. B, C. In the letter, among many other concerns, REDACTED’s mother stated that the school offered by the Department was unable to provide REDACTED with all the related services and the paraprofessional mandated by the Department’s March 2022 IEP. Ex. B.

25. REDACTED, the director of the REDACTED Program at REDACTED, is a New York State licensed speech and language pathologist. Tr. 54-55.

26. REDACTED is an inclusive independent school enrolling general education neurotypical students and students who have special educational needs. Tr. 57-59. Students in REDACTED’s REDACTED program need and receive intensive special education support and related services; they also have a “one-to-one support professional that works with them throughout the day.” Tr. 58; see also 64-65. The students with disabilities experience different challenges, and REDACTED individualizes each student’s program, and provides supports and modifications, according to the student’s needs. Tr. 60-61, 63-64; see also Ex. P.

27. REDACTED aligns its curriculum with the Common Core curriculum and New York State standards; it also uses TERC math, the Teachers College Reading and Writing program, and the Preventing Academic Failure program for students who need remediation in reading, Fundations, a Wilson-based program for phonics and spelling, and Handwriting Without Tears. Tr. 59.

28. There are approximately 72 to 75 students in REDACTED’s Lower School, which includes kindergarten through fifth grade. Tr. 61.

29. Students are grouped into classes by age; small group instruction based upon skill levels occurs throughout the school day. Tr. 62.

30. There are thirteen students in REDACTED’s class with two teachers, both of whom are dually-certified in general and special education. Tr. 74, 78.

31. REDACTED and two other students in the class have “associate teachers” assigned to them. Tr. 74-75.

32. The associate teacher provides REDACTED with academic support and his physical transport in the school; she also assists him with feeding and brings him to the nurse for toileting (which requires two adults). Tr. 85, 99. Ms. REDACTED and other therapists at the school also work with REDACTED at lunch for “safe feeding” so that the associate teacher can have a lunch break. Tr. 86.

33. REDACTED’s schedule includes morning meeting, literacy, math, small group learning periods, art, music, lunch, recess, speech therapy, occupational therapy, physical therapy, social studies, science, and physical education. Ex. L.

34. In reading, REDACTED is working on the first-grade level and participating in Fundations phonics lessons, spelling, sight words, read-alouds and reading comprehension lessons with his classmates. Tr. 71-72; Ex. I at 5.

35. REDACTED can compose sentences verbally; he is unable at this time to handwrite or type the sentences. Tr. 73. He currently has a teacher scribing his work. Tr. 74; Ex. I at 7.

36. In math, REDACTED is learning number sense and other basic math concepts, recognizing numbers, and addition and subtraction. Ex. I at 13.

37. REDACTED requires hand-over-hand assistance to learn fine motor skills such as eating and writing. Tr. 68-69.

38. REDACTED staff are working with REDACTED to use an iPad; his goals in this area include improving his fine motor skills to use the touchscreen and a joystick. These goals are worked on in both occupational therapy and in the classroom. Tr. 73-74.

39. REDACTED uses adaptive seating in school. Tr. 69.

40. REDACTED demonstrates “a great receptive vocabulary and his receptive language skills are at or above age expectations;” he can “access” and “grasp” first grade level concepts and curriculum. Tr. 69-70.

41. REDACTED personnel adapt and modify materials for REDACTED to accommodate both his vision impairment (for example, larger font size, clear pictures, use of a whiteboard) and so that he can grasp the materials motorically. Tr. 69-70, 75; see also Tr. 94-95.

42. The classroom teachers modify the curriculum, as necessary, for REDACTED. Tr. 75. The vision therapist is available to assist with modifications. Tr. 75, 84.

43. As a learner, REDACTED is “very enthusiastic” and “loves to learn” but does tire sometimes during the school day “because of how much physical effort” he must expend to work in school. Tr. 69.

44. REDACTED’s REDACTED teachers and the associate teacher provide REDACTED with a multitude of additional supports, interventions, modifications and accommodations, including, for example: small group instruction, scaffolded instruction, reduced workload, reduced complexity of texts, additional time to complete assignments, verbal prompting, preview, review and repetition of information, cues to maintain focus, manipulatives in math, tactile letters, reduced number of objects in his field of vision, and rest breaks as needed. Ex. I passim.

45. REDACTED provides REDACTED with the related services of speech, occupational and physical therapies; each therapy is provided three times per week. Tr. 76, 80.

46. REDACTED also receives vision therapy at REDACTED; it is provided by an outside clinician who comes into the school one time per week. Tr. 80, 84.

47. The vision therapist is a certified vision therapist; she modifies all of REDACTED’s educational materials for use during the upcoming week; REDACTED’s mother pays the vision therapist $200.00 per one-hour weekly visit to REDACTED and plans to submit the therapist’s invoices to her insurance company for reimbursement. Tr. 100.

48. The related services providers collaborate with REDACTED’s teachers and associate teacher at biweekly team meetings and during push-in sessions in his classroom and during lunch. Tr. 80-81, 83.

49. This school year, REDACTED has made progress in all academic areas. Tr. 76. a. As a result of the modifications developed by the vision therapist, REDACTED is starting to read and is learning math “based upon the way she presents” letters and numbers to him. Tr. 104. b. REDACTED can identify letters, has improved his phonics and decoding skills, increased his sight word vocabulary, and improved his comprehension skills. Ex. I at 5. c. REDACTED learned to compose a sentence and express it verbally to be scribed. Ex. I at 7. d. REDACTED improved his number sense and learned other foundational math concepts, learned to recognize numbers and math symbols, learned to recognize 20 shapes, learned the meaning of math operations symbols, and developed an understanding of basic word problems involving addition and subtraction. Ex. I at 13.

50. REDACTED’s parents entered into an enrollment contract with REDACTED which obligates them to pay tuition in the amount of $155,027.00 for REDACTED’s attendance for the time period from September 2022 through June 2023. Exs. J, K. REDACTED’s parents, as of the time of the hearing, have paid $4,590.64.00 towards the total tuition amount. Ex. J.

Decision

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 selected by the parents is 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. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988, 999 (2017); see also Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207; T.M. v. Cornwall Cent. Sch. Dist., 752 F.3d 145, 151, 160 (2d Cir. 2014); R.E. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 189-90 (2d Cir. 2012). A school district offers a FAPE “by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction.” Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203. The school district also must ensure that “[t]o the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities are educated with children who are not disabled” that is, in the student’s least restrictive environment. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); 8 NYCRR 200.1(cc), 200.6(a)(1); see M.W. ex rel. S.W. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 725 F.3d 131,143 (2d Cir. 2013).

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

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

In this case, the DOE did not present testimony or documentary evidence with respect to its provision of FAPE to REDACTED for the 2022-2023 school year. Since the Department did not offer any testimony or documentary evidence to explain how its IEP 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 parent bears the burden of proof concerning the appropriateness of REDACTED for REDACTED. See, e.g., Frank G. v. Board of Education of the Hyde Park Central School District, 459 F. 3d 356, 364 (2d Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 169 (2007). To meet this burden, the parent must show that the educational services provided at REDACTED addressed REDACTED's identified special education needs. See C.F., 74;6 F.3d at 82; 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 School District, 09-CV-859 (S.D.N.Y Sept. 30, 2010); Application of the Bd. of City School District of the City of New York, Appeal No. 95-79, at pp. 6-7; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 96-1. The Second Circuit instructs that:

No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining whether parents’ unilateral placement is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive education benefits.” Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207. Grades, test scores, and regular advancement may constitute evidence that a child is receiving educational benefit, but courts assessing the propriety of a unilateral placement consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child’s individual needs . . . . To qualify for reimbursement under the IDEA, parents need not show that a private placement furnishes every special service necessary to maximize their child’s potential. They need only demonstrate that the placement provides “educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child; supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction.”

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

The preponderance of the evidence establishes that REDACTED provides REDACTED with an educational environment in which his constellation of identified special education needs are addressed. In particular, REDACTED addresses REDACTED’s needs for small classes, extensive and consistent teacher accommodations, 1:1 support for learning and ambulation, modifications and supports for his physical and visual challenges, and related services. School personnel are able to create a safe, engaging and beneficial learning environment for REDACTED; an environment in which his mobility, visual and ADL needs are accommodated and in which he can engage with his peers and his environment and learn. The record is clear as to the extent of the individualized special education, related services, accommodations, modifications and supports that REDACTED personnel, with the support of the certified vision therapist, provide to REDACTED. See paragraphs 26 through 48 above. In addition, REDACTED making steady and meaningful progress this year at REDACTED. See paragraph 49 above.

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

Considering the “totality of the circumstances” as required by the Second Circuit in Frank G., the evidence supports a finding that the program at REDACTED, with the inclusion of the vision therapist, is appropriate for REDACTED for the 2022-2023 school year. As a result, REDACTED’s parent prevails with respect to the second Burlington/Carter criterion.

With respect to the third Burlington criterion, whether equitable considerations support REDACTED’s parent’s claims for tuition funding, the evidence establishes that REDACTED’s mother cooperated with the CSE by attending CSE meetings, visiting the Department’s recommended placement, communicating with Department personnel, and providing the requisite statutory notice. See, e.g., R.E., 694 F.3d at 185, 195; M.F. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79181 at *34-*35 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2013) (“equitable considerations” include parental cooperation with the school district, attending CSE meetings, and providing notice to the school district). Furthermore, even though REDACTED’s parent has not paid the total amount of tuition, she is clearly obligated to pay the total tuition, and thus meets the criteria for direct funding to REDACTED for amounts that she has not yet paid the school for the 2022-2023 school year. See Connors v. Mills, 34 F. Supp. 2d 795 (N.D.N.Y. 1998); Mr. and Mrs. A. v. New York City Department of Education, 769 F. Supp. 2d 403, 428-429 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). Equitable considerations favor the award of relief to REDACTED’s parent. As a result, REDACTED’s parent prevails with respect to the third Burlington/Carter criterion.

Therefore, for all the above reasons, it is ORDERED that:

1. The Department of Education shall fund REDACTED’s placement at The REDACTED School for the 2022-2023 school year. The amount of funding shall not exceed $155,027.00 for the 2022-2023 school year. The funding shall be reimbursement to REDACTED’s parent for the amounts she has paid to REDACTED for the 2022-2023 school year, and direct payment to the REDACTED for any amounts REDACTED’s parent has not yet paid for the 2022-2023 school year.

2. The Department of Education shall reimburse REDACTED’s parent for the costs of vision therapy, not to exceed $200.00 per hour, delivered at The REDACTED School during the 2022-2023 school year, less any amounts paid by the family’s insurance.

Dated: March 18, 2023

JEAN MARIE BRESCIA, ESQ.

Impartial Hearing Officer

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Within 40 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the New York City Department of Education has a right to appeal the decision to the State Review Officer (SRO) of the New York State Education Department under Section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

If either party plans to appeal the decision, a notice of intention to seek review shall be personally served upon the opposing party no later than 25 days after the date of the decision sought to be reviewed.

An appealing party’s request for review shall be personally served upon the opposing party within 40 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. An appealing party shall file the notice of intention to seek review, notice of request for review, request for review, and proof of service with the Office of State Review of the State Education Department within two days after service of the request for review is complete. The rules of procedure for appeals before an SRO are found in Part 279 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education. A copy of the rules in Part 279 and model forms are available at http://www.sro.nysed.gov.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

Parents’ Exhibits

EXHIBIT DATE DOCUMENT #PAGES

A. DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT 02.04.2022 9 pages

B. TEN DAY NOTICE 8.15.2022 2 pages

C. PROOF OF DELIVERY FOR TEN DAY NOTICE LETTER 8.16.2022 1 page

D. 2.26.2021; NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION 3.1.2021 16 pages

E. ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGICAL REMOTE EVALUATION AND TRACKING FORM 2.8.2022 9 pages

F. PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE AND SCHOOL LOCATION LETTER 3.29.2022 6 pages

G. LETTER FROM DR. [REDACTED] 8.30.2021 2 pages

H. LETTER FROM DR. [REDACTED] 3.1.2021 1 page

I. REDACTED PROGRESS REPORT 2022-2023 16 pages

J. FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT 2022-2023 1 page

K. REDACTED CONTRACT 2.20.2022 6 pages

L. SCHEDULE 2022-2023 1 page

M. SITE REFJECTION LETTER 07.05.2022 1 page

N. IEP 3.01.2022 29 pages

O. PRIOR WRITTEN NOTICE 3.21.2022 11 pages

P. SCHOOL PROGRAM INFORMATION 1.25.2023 12 pages