NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
CASE NUMBER: 587295 - NYC: 238612
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Student’s Name 1:[Redacted] (“Student”)
Date of Birth: [Redacted]
School District: [Redacted], ESQ.,
Hearing Requested by: [Redacted] , (“Parent”)
Request Date/Date Complaint Filed: September 19, 2022
Dates of Hearing: March 30, 2023 and May [1], 2023
Actual Record Closed Date: May 15, 2023
Date of Decision: May 17, 2023
Date of Distribution if Different than Decision Date: May 17, 2023
Hearing Officer: Linda Agoston, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
MARCH 30, 2023
For the Student:
[Redacted], ESQ., Attorney
For the Department of Education:
[Redacted], ESQ., Attorney
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
MAY 1, 2023
For the Student:
[Redacted], ESQ., Attorney
[Redacted], Parent Student
[Redacted], Director of [Redacted]School, [Redacted]School
For the Department of Education:
None
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter comes before the undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer ("IHO") on Parents' Due Process Complaint ("DPC") filed on or about September 19, 2022(P-Exh. A)2.
On October 24, 2022, I was designated by the New York City Department of Education ("DOE") as impartial hearing officer, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, ("IDEA") 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(1) and Article 89 of the Education Law of the State of New York in the matter of [Redacted] (hereinafter the Student). A pre-hearing conference was held on November 3, 2022.
Hearings were held on March 30, 2023 and May 1, 2023. It was a closed hearing, and Parents were represented by [Redacted]and the DOE was represented [Redacted]. Parents evidence exhibits (P-Exhs. A-K). The DOE did not enter evidence [3].
The record was closed on May 15, 2022. The parties moved to extend the compliance date during the course of the hearing. In considering the requests I weighed the cumulative impact of the relevant factors and found that the need of the parties for additional time to prepare and present their positions in accordance with the requirements of due process was greater than any delay in the resolution of the matter. Accordingly, the requests for extension of the compliance date were granted (T.103; IHO-Exh. I-VI). On May 15, 2023, the Parent's representative submitted his brief (IHO-Exh. VII) and the District representative declined to submit a closing statement. The current record close date is May 15, 2023 and the decision due date is May 29, 2023.
JURISDICTION
The due process hearing was held, and a decision in this matter is being 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.
BACKGROUND
The Student is a [Redacted]-year-old boy with a history of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ("ADHD") and on-going delays in motor coordination and weaknesses in visual motor processing speed and working memory (P-Exh. C at 5,10).
The Student had been enrolled at the [Redacted] (hereinafter "The Private School" or "[REDACTED]") since September 2016, and is currently in the 8th grade (T.55;P-Exhs. A at [2];J at 1).
The Parent alleged in the DPC that the DOE failed to provide a free and appropriate public education ("FAPE") for the 2022-2023 school year as the Committee on Special Education ("CSE") had not developed an Individualized Education Program ("IEP") for the 2022-2023 school year and that the IEP developed on October 19, 2021, that recommended Integrated Co-Teaching (“ICT”) Services; Special Education Teacher Support Services (“SETSS”); Occupational Therapy ("OT"); and Counseling was outdated and that the recommended program was conducted without current evaluations including the required triennial re-valuations and not reasonably calculated to confer him educational benefit (P-Exh. A at 3).
The Parent alleged the recommended ICT program with SETSS did not consider the Student's present levels of performance and that the CSE recommended an inappropriate program while on notice of the Student's need for a program with "curricular modifications, and individualized accommodations within a small class in a small, structured, specialized school setting" (P-Exh. A at 4). The Parent challenged the goals and asserted that the goals were generic and vague and were developed without her input and that the IEP had no meaningful academic management needs (P-Exh. A at 5). The Parent alleged that the CSE provided with the same inadequate program in the 2021-2022 school year and that she was given no information about the current program without a current IEP (P-Exh. A at 4). The Parent alleged that the proposed placement in the community was inappropriate as the placement would be too large and unstructured and the recommended school was too fast paced (P-Exh. A at 6).
Accordingly, the Parent re-enrolled the Student in [REDACTED], a private school which is not approved by the New York State Education Department and requested an reimbursement and/or prospective/direct tuition for the 2022-2023 school year (P-Exh. B at 3).
On various dates in October and November 2018, Neuropsychological Evaluation was conducted by a neurologist, when the Student was [Redacted] years old, who provided the educational history of the Student and noted that the Student was eligible for a special education program from the age [Redacted] months to [Redacted] years due to delays in gross and fine motor skills and that a prior neuropsychological evaluation was conducted in 2016, that indicated that the Student was diagnosed with a motor coordination disorder and an impairment in written expression when he was [Redacted] years old (P-Exh. C at 2). The Student's general cognitive ability was assessed on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale-5th Edition ("WISC-V") and the neurologist found that the Student's Verbal Comprehension Index score was 121, in the 92nd percentile, in the superior range; his Working Memory score was 85 in the 16th percentile, in the low average range, and Processing Speed score was 66 in the 1st percentile, in the extremely low range (P-Exh. C at 6).
The Neuropsychologist also found variable scores in the Student's memory and learning skills and variable executive functioning scores, as well as variable reading comprehension and written expression scores (P-Exh. C at 7-9). The Neuropsychologist diagnosed the Student ADHD characteristics and "[Redacted])" (P-Exh. C at 10), and a "[Redacted]"(P-Exh. C at 11) and recommended a " [Redacted]" (Id.), and "[Redacted]"(Id.).
For the 2022-2023 school year, the Program Description of [REDACTED] indicated the school provided "[Redacted] " (P-Exh. D at 1).
The Enrollment Agreement dated May 23, 2022, indicated that the tuition was $[Redacted]and the financial assistance was $[Redacted]and the net tuition was $[Redacted]and the tuition deposit was $[Redacted]and the balance due was $[Redacted] (PExh. F at 1). The Tuition Payment Affidavit dated November 9, 2022, indicated that the Parent made check/credit card payments that totaled $[Redacted] (P-Exh. G at 1). The Addendum A dated May 1, 2023, indicated that the Parent paid made total payments of $[Redacted] and the current amount due for the tuition for the 2022-2023 school year was $[Redacted] (IHO-Exh. VIII at 2).
The Student's schedule for the 2022-2023 school year consisted of [Redacted] (P-Exh. H at 1).
ISSUES
Did the DOE fail to provide a FAPE for the 2022-2023 school year and did the Parent establish that [REDACTED] was appropriate and did the equities favor the Parent?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Under IDEA, New York State law and both the federal and State regulations, the right to a FAPE is guaranteed. There is no obligation on the part of the school district to provide the best education for the student but that education must be appropriate so that there is an opportunity for the student to make progress in his/her education. States receiving federal funds are required to provide "all children with disabilities" a "free and appropriate public education" (20 U.S.C. § 400[d][1][A]).(Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 122 [2d. Cir. 2007]). FAPE consists of specialized education and related services designed to meet a student's unique need, provided in conformity with a comprehensive written IEP (34 C.F.R. § 300.13). In order to meet its substantive FAPE obligations, a district must offer a student an IEP that is "reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances"(Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. RE-1, No 15-827, 2017 WL 1066206, 137 S.Ct. 988, 69 IDELR 174 [U.S. Mar 22, 2017]).
To meet its burden of showing that it had offered to provide a FAPE to a student, the board of education must show (a) that it complied with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) that the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206, 207 [1982]). As for the program itself, the Second Circuit has observed that "'for an IEP to be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, it must be likely to produce progress, not regression'" (Weixel v. Bd. of Educ., 287 F.3d 138, 151 [2d Cir. 2002], quoting M.S. ex rel. SS. V. Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of Yonkers, 231 F.3d 96 at 103 (2d Cir. 2000); see Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 at 130 (2d Cir. 1998). This progress, however, must be meaningful; i.e., more than mere trivial advancement (Id. at 130). The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.550[b]; 8 NYCRR 200.6[a][1]).
The Court in Rowley also observed that states are not required under IDEA to maximize every disabled child’s potential (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 198). The Second Circuit further observed that the IDEA is not intended to "secure the best education money can buy" or "guarantee any particular level of education" (Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119 [2d Cir. 1998]) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). FAPE is delivered by a school through the implementation of an appropriate IEP. See Endrew F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist., 137 S.Ct. 988, 994 (2017).
Under the IDEA, if a procedural violation is alleged, an administrative officer may find that a student did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a) impeded the student's right to a FAPE, (b) significantly impeded the parents' opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student, or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][ii]; 34 C.F.R. § 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; E.H. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 3930028, at *7 [N.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2008]; Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 471 F. Supp. 2d 415, 419 [S.D.N.Y. 2007] aff'd, 2008 WL 3852180 [2d Cir. Aug. 19, 2008]); Bd. of Educ. v. Schaefer, 923 N.Y.S.2d 579, 56 IDELR ¶ 234 (App. Div. 2011).
For tuition reimbursement cases a board of education may be required to pay for educational services obtained for a child by the child’s parent, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parent were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parent’s claim. (School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Dept. Education, Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 [1985]; Florence County School District Four et al. v. Carter by Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]; see also, Frank G. and Dianne G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356 [2d Cir. 2006] cert denied, Board of Educ. of Hyde Park Cent. School Dist. v. Frank G., 2007 WL 2982269 [Oct. 15, 2007]).
The burden of both production and persuasion in an administrative hearing challenging the appropriateness of an IEP is on the Department of Education. N.Y. Educ. Law §4404[1][c].
I credit the testimony of the District representative who did not contest any allegations contained in the DPC in that there was no IEP conducted and that there were no current evaluations and no appropriate placement notice provided for the 2022-2023 school year. I find that the District representative conceded that there was a denial of FAPE, (Prong 1) both to the lack of appropriate program and placement (T.38). I find the SRO has found that allegations that are left unchallenged are deemed as true. (See Application of a Student with a Disability, 01-044). The Parent's attorney argued that "it is the district’s burden to produce evidence that describes the proposed program that is the subject of a due process proceeding (See Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 19-119) and the district has failed to address that burden in this case"(IHO-VII at 1). I agree.
I find that a student must be assessed in all areas and that DOE failed to produce any evaluations much less evaluations sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the student's special education needs prior to the April 25, 2021 IEP meeting (20 U.S.C. §1414, 8 NYCRR §200.4(b)). I credit the testimony and evidence and find that the Student was not evaluated for the past 3 years (T.66;P-Exh. J at 4). I find that without the benefit of recent evaluations of its own supporting its determinations and recommendations, the program and placement offered was inappropriate and the Parent was denied the opportunity to meaningfully participate.
I credit the evidence and find the Parent wrote letters in September and August 2022 (P-Exhs. A-B) to alert the CSE that a FAPE was not provided for the 2022-2023 school year and I find that there was no response. I credit the evidence and find that the Parent would have considered an appropriate school had the DOE offered an appropriate school and I find that she re-enrolled her son at [REDACTED] as it was consistent with the recommendations in the neuropsychological (P-Exhs. B at 2;J at 4). I find that she signed the enrollment contract, (P-Exh. F) that indicated that the tuition for the 2022-2023 school year was $[Redacted]and the financial assistance was $[Redacted]and the net tuition was $[Redacted] (P-Exh. F at 1,8) and I find that she paid the tuition deposit and could not afford to pay the tuition and requested reimbursement for the deposit was $[Redacted] and I find that the balance due was $[Redacted] (P-Exh. F at 1). The Addendum A indicated that the payments from the Parent totaled $[Redacted] and the current amount due for [REDACTED] for the 2022-2023 school year was $[Redacted] (IHO-Exh. VIII)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based on the foregoing, I find that a FAPE was not offered for the 2022-2023 school. I further find that the deprivation of a FAPE for the 2022-2023 school year impeded the Parent's substantive and procedural rights under the IDEA, and significantly impeded the Parent's opportunity to participate in the provision of a FAPE to her son.
Parents must establish the Second Prong (Prong 2) of the Burlington/Carter test for reimbursement in that the proposed parental placement is appropriate under the IDEA, i.e., that the private school is offering an instructional program that meets the child’s special education needs. The fact that the facility selected by the parent to provide special educational services to the child is not State-approved as a school for children with disabilities is not dispositive of the parents' claim for tuition reimbursement (Florence County School District Four v. Carter by Carter, 114 S.Ct. 361 [1993]). The Parent must prove that the Student will receive an appropriate educational benefit from [REDACTED] program. The Second Circuit framed the legal standard for the second prong in Frank G. v. Board of Education, 459 F.3d 356 (2d Cir. 2006) and Gagliardo v. Arlington Central School District, 489 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2007). Under Frank G. the Court held that "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" (Id.). Parent's placement may not be held to certain requirements that Districts are held such as teacher licenses or least restrictive environment under Frank G. and Gagliardo and the unilateral placement is a not perfect placement. M.S. ex rel S.S. v Bd. Of Ed., 231 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2000). I conclude that the Parent met her burden to establish that [REDACTED] for the 2022-2023 school provided instruction designed to meet the Student's unique needs and was reasonably calculated to enable the Student to make meaningful educational gains.
Testimony and evidence presented demonstrated that the Student's current classes at [REDACTED] in small, highly structured classroom with a class size of [Redacted] with a Head Teacher who was a NYS certified special education head teacher with experience in Orton-Gillingham ("OG") by a 30-hour OG training and an assistant teacher with 30 hours of OG training supported his [Redacted] in his Advisory class (T.55;.P-Exh. K at 2) and established that the Advisory class incorporated checklists at the beginning and end of the day and that the frequent check-ins and 1:1 teacher support assisted the Student's attention needs. The evidence established that the Student had a [Redacted] and the entire teacher staff at [REDACTED] received at least 30 hours of OG training, to provide structured, multisensory instruction. The evidence established that the SLT provider pushed into the reading class of [Redacted] students with a special education head teacher to provide additional support with language and that the Student's peers were at the same skill level (P-Exh. K at 2;T.57;87). The classroom teachers used multi-sensory instruction to present instruction visually by[Redacted].
The Parent's attorney asserted that the Student "[Redacted] (Exs. I, J, K; Tr. 82, 90, 95) (IHO-VII at 3). I agree.
The evidence established that the Student benefitted from an OG spelling program and pre-annotated texts as well as constant reminders to participate in class (P-Exh. K at 3). The evidence established that the Student increased his reading fluency and was able to incorporate textual evidence within his answers and spell accurately and participate more frequently in class (P-Exhs. K at 4; I at 3). I find the small class matched the neurologist's recommendation of setting for individualized attention as well as multisensory approach (Exh. C at 11) and I find that the Student's [Redacted] needs were met by the [Redacted] supports and I find that his [Redacted] needs were met by the small classes, and even smaller groups for reading and math and by the multisensory tools of [Redacted] and that the Student continued to build proficiency in math in a class of [Redacted] students with a special education teacher and student's on the same level with multisensory instruction in math such as [Redacted] (P-Exhs. K at 4;I at 8).
Testimony and evidence adduced that the hearing established that the Student received language-based supports and the special education head teacher and assistant teacher addressed his needs in organization in a small class of [Redacted] in the Advisory class and an even smaller class of [Redacted] and [Redacted] students in reading and math and the speech pathologist pushed in the reading class to ensure that the Student received even smaller group instruction using a multisensory approach and that the teaching strategies developed by the teachers at [REDACTED] utilized many of the recommendations of the neurologist to decrease [Redacted] and to address [Redacted]. The testimony and evidence established that [REDACTED]'s [Redacted] had a small student population of [Redacted] for the [Redacted] school met the Student's [Redacted] needs for [Redacted] (T.82;P-Exh. K at 1).
The uncontested evidence demonstrated that the Student benefitted from the small language-based learning environment, and I find that the multi-sensory techniques used by the teaching staff and the speech pathologist met his [Redacted] deficits and [Redacted] as well as his [Redacted] deficits (P-Exh. K at 4-5).
While progress is not necessary to establish that [REDACTED] was appropriate as progress is a factor to consider, I find that the Student made meaningful progress in a variety of areas. The uncontested testimony established that the Student improved his [Redacted] skills and was [Redacted] by the use of [Redacted] and I find that his [Redacted] skills improved his reading [Redacted] (T.91;P-Exh. I at 4) and his math ability improved with [Redacted] and that improved his ability to [Redacted] (T.94;P-Exh. I at 8). The testimony and evidence established that the Student's improved his ability to [Redacted] and his [Redacted] skills in the [Redacted] class and that he progressed through the use of his [Redacted] to the final product P-Exh. I at 1).
The testimony established that the Student's [Redacted] and that the Student improved his [Redacted] skills (T.95). The Parent's attorney argued that [REDACTED] addressed the Student's "[Redacted] (Ex. K, pg. 6; Tr. 83-4, 89)"(IHO-Exh. VII at 5). I agree. Moreover, the use of assignments posted on [Redacted] and the [Redacted] skills that were taught to the Student enabled him to [Redacted] (P-Exh. K at 3).
The uncontested testimony and evidence established that Student's [Redacted] and [Redacted] issues were addressed by the multi-sensory techniques, [Redacted] and frequent 1:1 teacher instruction as well as [Redacted] outlines (Id.) The evidence and testimony established that the Student progressed in academics in reading, writing and math and progressed in his confidence as [REDACTED] enabled the Student to understand and regulate his emotions (T.84).
Credible testimony of the Parent demonstrated that the Student was provided with the tools he needed to address his deficiency in [Redacted] in math and that the Student improved his math ability by the 1:1 support from the teacher, [Redacted] (T.63) and [REDACTED]'s small school and small classes with verbal and non-verbal cues to refocus addressed [Redacted] issues (P-Exh. J at 3). Further, the credible testimony established that the Student required 1:1 instruction and established that the Student was grouped appropriately for his academic needs and his social/emotional development at [REDACTED] as the class was working on techniques to [Redacted] (P-Exh. J at 2).
Accordingly, the Student's academic, behavioral and, social/emotional needs were met at [REDACTED]. Therefore, I find that the Parent met her burden regarding the unilateral placement of the Student at [REDACTED] for the 2022-2023 school year and I find that the program at [REDACTED] met the Student's unique special education needs.
Therefore, I find [REDACTED] was an appropriate placement. Based on the foregoing, I find the Parent satisfied the Prong 2.
Prong 3 of the test for tuition reimbursement is whether the equities favor the Parent's position. Tuition reimbursement to be reduced or denied if the Parent (1) did not provide notice of the unilateral placement either at the most recent CSE meeting prior to removing the child from the public school or by written notice 10 business days before such removal (2) did not make the student available for an evaluation requested by the district prior to his “removal”, (3) took actions determined to be unreasonable. 28 U.S.C. Section 1412(a)(10)(c)(iii). I find the Parent informed the CSE that she intended to enroll her son at [REDACTED] for the 2022-2023 school year when no appropriate program/placement was offered (P-Exhs. A-B) after the most recent CSE meeting and complied with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. Section 1412(a)(10)(c)(iii). I find the equitable considerations do support the Parent's claim for reimbursement/funding. In this case, the Parent fully cooperated with the district to the best of her ability. I find the testimony adduced at the hearing established that the Parent cooperated with the District. I find the Parent established that she was unable to pay to the full tuition by her uncontested testimony (T.67).
I find that parents who have satisfied each of the Burlington factors. have a right to retroactive direct tuition payment relief (A ex. rel D.A v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 769 F. Supp. 2d 403, 427-429 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). I credit the Parent's testimony and I find that the Parent lacked the financial resources to pay tuition for [REDACTED] for the 2022-2023 school year and it would be a hardship to pay the full tuition and wait for reimbursement. I find the Parent met the Connors criteria for prospective funding for the cost of the tuition for the 2022-2023 school year at [REDACTED] and I find that the Parent is entitled to direct retroactive payment. "Once the Burlington prerequisites relative to a non-approved private school are met, and a parent shows that his or her financial circumstances eliminate the opportunity for unilateral placement in the non-approved school, the public school must pay the cost of the private placement immediately" (Connor v. Mills, 34 F.Supp.2d 795 at 805-806, 132 Ed. Law Rep. 767 (N.D.N.Y)).
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ordered that the DOE directly fund the tuition for the Student's placement at [REDACTED] for the 2022-2023 school year in the amount of $[Redacted] by providing reimbursement to the Parent in the amount of $[Redacted] (the evidence of such payment must be acceptable to the DOE) and by providing direct prospective payment of $ [Redacted] to [REDACTED] for the 2022-2023 school year within 30 days of the submission of proof of attendance.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 17, 2023
/S/ Linda Agoston
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.
APPENDIX A – REDACTION IDENTIFICATION PAGE
Student’s Name:[Redacted]
Date of Birth:[Redacted]
School District:[Redacted] , Attorney Parent’s Name: [Redacted]
SUBMIT THIS PAGE TO THE PARENT AND SCHOOL DISTRICT ONLY. DO NOT SUBMIT
TO THE NYSED.
APPENDIX B – DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD
PARENT EXHIBITS
A. Due Process Impartial Hearing Request 0919/22 6 pages
B. Notice of unilateral placement 08/22/22 3 pages
C. Neuropsychological Evaluation 11/5/ and 1/16/18 13 pages
D. [Redacted] program description 09/21 1 page
E. End of year report 06/27/22 17 pages
F. Enrollment agreement 02/23/22 8 pages
G. Tuition affidavit 11/30/22 6 pages
H. Daily schedule for 2022.2023 school year undated 1 page
I. Midyear report 12/20/22 17 pages
J. Statement of direct testimony by the Parent undated 4 pages
K. Affidavit of direct testimony by [Redacted] 04/17/23 6 pages
IHO’S EXHIBITS
I. Decision on Extension 12/12/22 1 page
III. II Decision on Extension 12/30//22 1 Decision on Extension 02/01/23 1 page
IV. Decision on Extension 03/02/23 1 page
V. Decision on Extension 03/30/23 1 page
VI. Decision on Extension 05/01/23 1 page
VII. Parent's Post-Hearing Closing Statement and Memorandum of Law 05/15/2023 7 pages
VIII. Addendum A Tuition Payment 05/01/2023 2 pages
Footnotes
[1] Personally identifiable information is attached as Appendix A, “Redaction Identification Page,” to this decision and must be removed prior to public distribution.
[2] Exhibits shall be referred to as follows: “P” for Parents’ Exhibit; “D” for District’s or Department’s Exhibits; and “IHO” for Impartial Hearing Officer’s Exhibits. Exhibits will be followed by the exhibit number and page numbers as needed and appropriate.
[3] A more detailed list of the admitted exhibits is attached as Appendix B, “Documentation Entered Into the Record,” to this decision.