New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACTS & DECISION

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

Name Title For Date

[CONFIDENTIAL] Attorney PARENT 11/21/22 (V)

[CONFIDENTIAL] Attorney PARENT 12/13/22 (V)

[CONFIDENTIAL] Attorney PARENT 01/23/23 (V)

[CONFIDENTIAL] Attorney PARENT 03/03/23 (V)

[CONFIDENTIAL] Attorney PARENT 04/04/23 (V)

[CONFIDENTIAL] DOE Representative DOE 04/04/23 (V)

[CONFIDENTIAL] Attorney PARENT 05/26/23 (V)

[CONFIDENTIAL] Parent PARENT 05/26/23 (V)

[CONFIDENTIAL] Witness PARENT 05/26/23 (V) [CONFIDENTIAL] Witness PARENT 05/26/23 (V) [CONFIDENTIAL] DOE Representative DOE 05/26/23 (V)

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO RECORD

B. Number/Letter Title Dated For # of Pages A Demand for Due 09/08/22 PARENT 11 Process Hearing Ten-Day Notice 08/24/22 PARENT 12 pages

C. Mid-Year Report Card 02/2023 PARENT For 2022/2023 12 pages

E. D 2022/2023 Grades 05/2023 PARENT 01 Teacher Report 10/03/22 PARENT 02 pages

F. Report for 05/22/22 PARENT 2021/2022 G 2021/2022 Grades 06/22/22 PARENT 01 Spring 15 pages

H. Autism Skills 08/03/21 PARENT 08 Assessment I Neuropsychological 07/10/21 PARENT 36 Evaluation

J. Speech and Language 07/14/21 PARENT Evaluation K Occupational Therapy 07/29/21 PARENT 11 Evaluation 09 pages

L. Physical Therapy 06/24/21 PARENT 06 Evaluation M Assistive Technology 06/25/21 PARENT 08 Evaluation

N. Psychiatric Evaluation 06/23/21 PARENT 18 pages

O. REDACTED Program N/A PARENT 08 pages

P. Class Schedule N/A PARENT 01 pages

Q. Affidavit of Finance 09/30/22 PARENT 01 pages

R. Enrollment Contract 08/31/22 PARENT 05 pages

S. 2022/2023 School Year Affidavit of Parent 10/19/22 PARENT Repayment 01 pages

T. Parent Proof of Payment 08/30/22 PARENT 01 pages

V. U U.S. 1040 Income Tax 2022 PARENT 02 Attendance Record 09/30/22 PARENT 01 pages

W. Affidavit of REDACTED 05/10/23 PARENT 06 pages

X. Affidavit of Parent 05/18/23 PARENT 06 pages

Y. Affidavit of REDACTED 05/18/23 PARENT 09 pages

AA. Z Resume of REDACTED N/A PARENT 03 Affidavit of REDACTED 05/22/23 PARENT 11 pages

On. October 14, 2022, I was appointed as the Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) to conduct a hearing pursuant to the Individual with Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 United States Code, Section 1415(f)(1), concerning a dispute involving the special education program of a REDACTED year old student attending a private school and the New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) REDACTED. The Parents filed a Due Process Complaint (“DPC”) on or about September 08, 2022. The hearing on the merits commenced on May 26, 2023. A list of the documents taken into evidence is annexed to this decision. BACKGROUND

In. this case, the Parents allege that the student’s last Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) dated September 2021, is procedurally and substantively flawed and woefully inadequate. (A-DPC) Accordingly, the Parents further allege that the student was denied a “free and appropriate public education” (“FAPE”) for the 2022-2023 school year. (Id.) The Parents allege that the CSE failed to conduct a proper review for the student and make appropriate recommendations for their educational planning. The IEP recommended a 12:1+1 special education classroom in a recommended non public school. The DOE failed to place the student in an appropriate placement. The Parent’s state that they served the DOE with notice of the student’s unilateral placement at a private school on August 24, 2022. (B)

At. the impartial hearing, the Parent seeks the following relief: • Tuition funding for the student’s attendance at the private school for the 2022-2023 school year and related services including transportation services to and from the private school. • ABA at home services of 10 hours per week equaling to 460 hours for the school year at a rate of $150.00 per hour. • Parent training and counseling for an hour per week for 46 weeks at the rate of $200.00 per hour. THE DOE’S CASE The DOE did not call any witnesses to testify on its behalf and submitted no documents in evidence. (T-25 ) In sum, substance and relevant part, the testamentary and documentary evidence for and against the DOE’s case is incorporated in the decision below. THE PARENT’S CASE The Parent had (4) witnesses testify on their behalf, who testified on direct testimony via affidavit pursuant to 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][3][xii][f]. The Parent also submitted (27) documents in evidence. In sum, substance and relevant part, the testamentary and documentary evidence for and against the Parent’s case is incorporated in the decision below. DOES’ DEFAULT The DOE failed to call any witnesses to testify on its behalf and submitted no documents in evidence. (T-25) The DOE did not submit any evidence to show that they had replied to the Parents

10. day Notice prior to the Parents unilateral placement of the student. The DOE has the burden of production and persuasion at an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of production and persuasion regarding the appropriateness of such placement. (See Educ. Law § 4404[1][c]) Here, the DOE did not proffer any testamentary evidence that it has offered the student a FAPE. (Supra) This amounts to a concession that the agency did not offer the student a FAPE. It would be fundamentally unfair to allow either party to rely solely on the submission of documents in meeting its burden under law, where those documents are filled with double, triple and even unidentified hearsay sources, that cannot be cross examined. While compliance with technical rules of evidence is not required in administrative hearings, under certain circumstances, the receipt of hearsay evidence may be so prejudicial as to have a tendency to deprive a party of fair hearing. (See Strain v. Sarafan, 57 A.D.2d 525, 393 N.Y.S.2d 572, N.Y.A.D. (1977), where the hearsay testimony was of vital importance and should have been subjected to cross-examination by the petitioner…the petitioner was deprived of a meaningful hearing, Dukes v. New York City Housing Authority, 63 A.D.2d 690, 404 N.Y.S.2d 889, N.Y.A.D. (1978), holding that the excessive reliance on hearsay evidence effectively denied petitioner the right to cross-examine adverse witnesses, Claim of Evans, 254 A.D.2d 564, 678 N.Y.S.2d 696, N.Y.A.D. (3 Dept. 1998), (where in an unemployment compensation proceedings, administrative l[2nd PRIVATE SCHOOL INITIALS] judge (‘ALJ”) properly exercised discretion to exclude hearsay evidence to protect employer’s fundamental right of cross-examination, where claimant proffered written hearsay statement, authored by acquaintance of the employer’s president, which allegedly indicated that claimant did not resign but was fired, but the acquaintance failed to answer subpoena directing him to testify at hearing, thereby denying employer the opportunity to cross-examine him on the statement, and Alvarado v. State of New York, 110 A.D.2d 583, 488 N.Y.S.2d 177 (1st Dept. 1985), holding that a license suspension hearing against a boxer and his managers was faulty because of a lack of an opportunity “to cross-examine certain witnesses whose reports were introduced into evidence without their testifying, in violation of SAPA Section 306, subd. (3).” (Id. at 585, 488 N.Y.S.2d at 179) The DOE did not present a case-in-chief and did not controvert the documentary or testamentary evidence submitted by the Parent. (Supra) The credibility of the documentary evidence was not rebutted by either party and the documentary evidence is clearly relevant and material to the issues to be determined. I find the documentary evidence submitted by the parent to be credible and uncontroverted in this case. I find the parent’s testamentary evidence to be credible in this case. As noted above, the DOE’s failure to present a case at the hearing is a concession that it denied the student a FAPE and that if the Parent meets her burden under Schaffer v. Weast, the Parent is entitled to the proven relief she seeks. This leaves, as the primary issue to be resolved through impartial hearing, what relief and/or compensatory education remedy, if any, is available and appropriate to remediate the denial of a FAPE. (SRO No. 17-033) It is noted that the DOE was required under the due process procedures set forth in New York State law, to address its burdens in the due process hearing context by describing its views, based on a fact-specific inquiry set forth in an evidentiary record, regarding an appropriate relief and/or compensatory education remedy that most reasonably and efficiently could place the student in the position that he would have been but for the denial of a FAPE. (See Doe v. E. Lyme Bd. of Educ., 790 F.3d 440, 457 [2d Cir. 2015], cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 2022 [2016], quoting Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, F.3d 516, 524 [D.C. Cir. 2005] [noting that the "'ultimate award [of compensatory education] must be reasonably calculated to provide the educational benefits that likely would have accrued from special education services the school district should have supplied in the first place'"]) When, as here, the DOE does not present any case at the 401 pages DOE

at. hearing, the hearing, the hearing process essentially becomes an “inquest” as to the appropriate relief. The DOE has conceded liability by failing to present a case and meet its burden under the law. New York State law has placed the burden of production and persuasion an impartial hearing on the school district, unlike states which align the burden of production and persuasion consistent with Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 58-62 [2005} The undersigned finds that the DOE failed to adhere to the requirements of the law, has denied the student in this case a FAPE for the 2022-23 school year and that the Parent may be entitled to the proven relief she has requested. APPROPRIATENESS OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT I now turn to the question of whether the DOE should be required to reimburse and/or pay for the private educational services and relief requested for the student, because the services offered by the DOE were inadequate or inappropriate, and the relief sought and services selected by the Parents are appropriate and equitable considerations support the Parent’s claim. (Burlington, Florence and Cerra, Supra) The Parent need only demonstrate that the requested services are specially designed to meet the unique needs of the student, supported by such services as are necessary to permit her to benefit from the instruction. (See Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112; see Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65) Where sought as relief, a private school placement must be "proper under the Act." (See Carter, 510 U.S. at 12, 15 and Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370), i.e., the private school offered an educational program which met the student's special education needs. (See Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, 115; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 129 and Matrejek, 471 F. Supp. 2d at 419) 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. (See Carter, 510 U.S. at 14) The private school need not employ certified special education teachers or have its own IEP for the student. (See Carter, 510 U.S. 7; SRO No. 08-085; 08-025; 08-016; 07-097; 07-038; 02-014 and 01-105) Parents also need not show that the placement provides every special service necessary to maximize the student's potential. (See Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65) When determining whether the parents' unilateral placement is appropriate, "[u]ltimately, the issue turns on" whether that placement is "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits." (See Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364; see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115 [citing Berger v. Medina City Sch. Dist., 348 F.3d 513, [6th Cir. 2003] [stating "evidence of academic progress at a private school does not itself establish that the private placement offers adequate and appropriate education under the 522 pages IDEA"])

State regulations provide in relevant part that "[t]he decision of the impartial hearing officer shall be based solely upon the record of the proceeding before the impartial hearing officer and shall set forth the reasons and the factual basis for the determination. (See 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][5][v])

The party who defaults in concedes only liability and not the amount of “damages.” (See CPLR § 3215, First Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Classic Collateral Corp., 44 A.D.2d 868, 355 N.Y.S.2d 504 (1974), James v. Powell, 19 N.Y.2d 249, 279 N.Y.S.2d 10, 225 N.E.2d 741 (1967), McClelland v. Climax Hosiery Mills, 252 N.Y. 347, 169 N.E. 605 (1930) The DOE’s default constitutes an admission of liability, but not of damages, which remains the Parent’s burden to prove. (See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55 & City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC, 645 F.3d 114 at 128 [2d Cir. 2011])

In sum, substance and relevant part, the testamentary and documentary evidence concerning the appropriateness of the private school is as follows:

The DOE’s default herein supports a judgment in favor of the Parent and a finding that the student was denied a FAPE for the 2022-2023 school year.

The Parent’s witness, REDACTED, who is a teacher at the private school, 1. I personally have conducted informal and formal assessments throughout the school year, 2022-2023, including assessments for participation, tests, quizzes, classwork, projects, homework, and observing REDACTED interactions with teachers and peers. 2. For REDACTED specifically we meet bi-weekly and the teachers also meet whenever there are issues or struggles. 3. The students who learn alongside REDACTED have similar learning issues and their social and emotional levels are also similar. 4. REDACTED is grouped appropriately with similar peers for this school year 2022-2023 academically, socially and behaviorally. 5. At the beginning of this school year, 2022-2023, REDACTED presented with some emotional challenges, but now REDACTED is friendly, hardworking and thoughtful.

They enter class each day and greet peers and teachers appropriately and warmly. 6. When REDACTED is confident in the topic being discussed, they contribute and enjoy participating answers, thoughts, ideas and questions. However when asked to make predictions or answer higher level order thinking questions. REDACTED benefits from the structure at REDACTED and from our teacher support and prompting questions in order to complete assessments with ease. 7. Although REDACTED is completing work, they will occasionally become distracted by peers and make off-topic comments, which can cause them to become overly silly and lose focus. At times, REDACTED can become upset and frustrated when they do not have an answer correct or if asked to correct work. In these moments, REDACTED will shut down and withdraw and requires a break from the class to calm down before being able to answer and solve the problem effectively. REDACTED with our support can do a great job articulating why upset and then is able to process the situation and come up with different strategies to use in the moments of frustration, such as taking deep breaths, getting water and talking with a teacher. 8. As a whole we have been assessing REDACTED progress throughout this school year through tests, quizzes, projects, class discussions, homework and participation and all the providers and teachers have noted the progress that REDACTED has made this year. 9. I am involved in the development of progress reports and report cards and all teachers and I have spoken about REDACTED needs throughout the school year and their progress. 10. We have provided them with the necessary support needed for them to make progress throughout the school day. REDACTED needs constant teacher check ins, repetition, information broken down into smaller parts, one-on-one support, the use of sensory tools, teacher prompting to initiate assignments when they are distracted, the use of their individual behavior plan, collaborative problem solving, “happy thoughts” book, extended response time, visuals, Thinking Maps, high interest activities, teacher modeling, and body breaks to make sure they are focused and able to retain the information being taught. 11. REDACTED has appropriately addressed REDACTED needs during the 2022-2023 school year. This is evident in all of the progress they have made since they came to REDACTED school. They benefit from the smaller class sizes, the constant one-on-one support, frequent teacher check ins, opportunities for movement and sensory breaks, redirection, social skills facilitation, collaborative problem solving, teacher modeling, frequent positive feedback, and repetition in order to be successful and retain the information being taught. 12. REDACTED provides REDACTED these related services weekly: Connection Time as a pull out session counseling for 30 minutes; study skills as a push in services for 30 minutes; Peer Group push in counseling for 45 minutes; Writing Lab Speech push in for 45 minutes; and Alliance as a push in service for speech and counseling for 30 minutes.

13. REDACTED has attended consistently during this school year and I have personally seen them make progress with all the specialized supports provided. (Parent’s-AA)

The Parent’s witness, REDACTED, the Principal at the private school testified via affidavit on direct as well. (Parent’s-W)

The Parent’s witness, REDACTED, who conducted the students Autism Skills Assessment (ASA) testified via direct by affidavit as follows:

1. I first became familiar with REDACTED when I conducted an autism skills assessment (ASA) during June and July of 2021 utilizing The Assessment of Basic Language and Learning Skills-revised version (ABLLS-R) protocol. I conducted a comprehensive document review of REDACTED educational and clinical records and observed of them in their home and classroom, as a part of the ASA.

2. The ABLLS-R is an assessment tool, curriculum guide, and skills-tracking system. The assessment guides the instruction of language and critical learner skills for children with autism or other developmental disabilities. Additionally, it facilitates the identification of skills needed by a child to effectively communicate and learn from everyday experience.

Moreover, it is a guide to assist with programming for students that builds off current skillset repertoires. The ABLLS-R was administered to identify levels of instruction, language skills, and critical domains that serve as prerequisites for further skill sets.

3. The results of the ABLLS-R protocol demonstrated severe deficits in many domains, which severely impact REDACTED ability to learn. REDACTED has a lack of selfregulation skills which has resulted in engaging in physical and verbal aggression behaviors. The history of engaging in these behaviors has prevented REDACTED from accessing their education and interacting appropriately with adults and peers.

4. Stride Behavior Services began working with REDACTED on May 10, 2022. Services included 10-hours per week of home-based ABA, 2-hours per week of BCBA Supervision, 1-hour per week of Parent Counseling and Training services and 1-hour per week of Counseling services.

5. Home-based ABA skill acquisition programs have targeted increasing REDACTED ontask behaviors. REDACTED has trouble remaining on-task when they are engaging in non-preferred activities such as academic instruction and household chores. Baseline data taken June 2022 displays that REDACTED was able to remain on-task during non-preferred activities for 1.5 minutes, they are now able to remain on-task during non-preferred activities on average of 10 minutes. REDACTED mastered independently following 1 and 2-step directions. They are currently learning to follow 3-step directions when they are provided with a gesture prompt. REDACTED mastered remaining on topic for three minutes during conversations initiated by another speaker. They are currently learning to remain on topic during a conversation for five minutes when they are provided with least-to-most prompting. REDACTED is also working on other programs that target increasing self-management, social skills and other independent skills in the home and community (i.e., grocery shopping and interacting in public).

Increasing self-regulation skills is embedded throughout REDACTED ABA programs, as that is an area where they require constant support and opportunities to generalize appropriate responses across all settings and people. REDACTED is learning to replace inappropriate physical and verbal aggression behaviors with socially appropriate responses (i.e., “I need a break”, “I feel ____”, “I need space”).

6. REDACTED continues to require a very supportive small non-public school setting like the REDACTED School that meets their academic, social and behavioral needs. It is my clinical recommendation that REDACTED should continue to receive their education in a small setting with small student-to-teacher ratio learning alongside similar peers.

7. REDACTED has demonstrated progress with the compensatory home-based ABA hours that were awarded to them in 2022. Given the significant behaviors and functional skills deficits, REDACTED still requires 10 hours per week of one-to-one home-based ABA services with a provider who is certified in ABA and is experienced and skilled in implementing a BIP and teaching replacement functional skill acquisition procedures as part of REDACTED program. Behavior intervention should incorporate decreasing maladaptive behaviors, as well as increasing replacement appropriate behaviors in order to effectuate appropriate behavior change not only at school but also in the home and community settings. The ABA provider should also work to condition appropriate social skills to reduce REDACTED isolation. Behavior intervention should incorporate decreasing maladaptive behaviors and increase replacement functional skills, which will effectuate appropriate behavior change and make REDACTED available for learning at school and prevent regression in the school setting if her inappropriate behaviors are intermittently reinforced at home. All services will collaborate with other providers.

8. At home ABA is not just an additional benefit, but a necessary service to ensure REDACTED does not regress at school if behaviors are not remediated in all environments.

9. Continuity across school and home settings is necessary and appropriate to the decrease of maladaptive behaviors to prevent regression in school and can teach REDACTED skills that will help them to access their education. Home-based ABA is a necessary service to ensure that REDACTED does not regress at school if behaviors are not remediated in all environments. Further, REDACTED is unlikely to receive appropriate educational benefit from school in the absence of an at-home ABA program, as ABA is very methodical and must be applied and reinforced to prevent regression and reinforcement of maladaptive behaviors. If maladaptive behaviors are not addressed in the home, then the access to education is impacted.

10. Based on the significant skill deficits and severity of the behaviors, it is recommended that the empirically based behavioral intervention program at home be overseen by a Board-Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA) who can provide direct supervision, interobserver agreement (IOA) data, increase treatment fidelity, collaborate with teachers and related service providers, analyze the data on a weekly basis as well as provide systematic changes to the intervention as needed. It is recommended that the BCBA oversee the program eight (8) hours per month to analyze the data and make behavioral intervention changes as needed as part of REDACTED educational program.

11. REDACTED mother must also be trained and taught how to implement the strategies and the behavior change principles in order to decrease reinforcement of problem behaviors that will carry over to into various settings. REDACTED mother should have received Parent Training and Counseling (PCAT) four (4) hours per month to train her in the interventions and this should be part of REDACTED educational program. PCAT will also teach REDACTED mother how to increase socially appropriate and functional skills. Parent training and at home ABA and mutually dependent and one should not exist without the other, as PCAT does not take the place of the at-home ABA program and required for REDACTED progress. The professional providing PCAT should be a Board-Certified Behavior Analyst.

12. Lastly, I am recommending that REDACTED continues to receive 1-hour per week of Counseling services to address their severe anxiety and depression and teach them coping skills. (Parent’s-Y)

The District argues that the private school does not meet the students needs since the student is also in need of ABA services. (T 62-64)

The Parents witness, REDACTED was clear and articulate in her professional opinion as to the students need for ABA services in order to strive in school. (See Ex. Y)

The Student’s Progress Reports were also submitted into evidence, and they show the students’ progress through his semesters for the 2022-2023 school year. (C,D,E). The student has progressed academically and socially from the instruction provided at the student’s unilateral placement school. (Id)

The Parent also submitted into evidence a Psychological evaluation that was not disputed by the District. (Parent’s- N) When determining whether the parents' unilateral placement is appropriate, "[u]ltimately, the issue turns on" whether that placement is "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits." (See Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364; see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115 [citing Berger v. Medina City Sch. Dist., 348 F.3d 513, 522 [6th Cir. 2003]) (emphasis added) This standard is well below those other standards of review in the law such as “beyond a reasonable doubt”, “clear and convincing evidence”, “preponderance of the evidence”, “substantial evidence” or even perhaps “rational basis.” The record, as accurately summarized by the parties above and adopted in this decision and order, supports a finding that the decision to place the student at the private school was ”reasonable” as an appropriate placement for the student’s 2022-2023 school year.

There is nothing in the record that support a finding that the Parent has not cooperated with the DOE.

NOW therefore, it is hereby

ORDERED that the DOE denied the student a FAPE for the 2022-2023 school year and that upon its receipt of reasonably satisfactory proof of services having been rendered, the DOE, within 30 days of this order shall fund and/or directly pay for the cost of the student’s tuition and related cost and expenses at the private school, including transportation for the 2022-2023 school year; and it is further

ORDERED that the DOE shall pay directly the cost of the students receipt of at home ABA services of 10 hours per week equaling to 460 hours for the school year at a rate of $150.00 per hour for the 2022-2023 school year.

ORDERED that the DOE shall pay directly the cost of the students receipt of Parent training and counseling for an hour per week for 46 weeks at the rate of $200.00 per hour for the 2022-2023 school year.

ORDERED that the DOE shall conduct evaluations of the student in all areas of their suspected disabilities, not identified above and not evaluated within the last two years, for their 2023-2024 school year; and it is further

ORDERED that the CSE shall forthwith reconvene and consider all of the student’s evaluations and any other relevant information and produce an IEP for the student’s 2023-2024 school year; and it is further

ORDERED that any of the other relief sought by the Parent not addressed by this “Final Order” is found to be either resolved by the parties, withdrawn by the Parent, outside the scope of the IHO’s authority or unsupported by the record.

Sharifa Milena Nasser

DATED: August 03, 2023

Queens, New York

Sharifa Milena Nasser - I.H.O.

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 L[2nd PRIVATE SCHOOL INITIALS] 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. (Rev. 07/09/20)