NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
Findings of fact and Decision Case Number 238959
CASE NUMBER: 587717 – NYC: 238959
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Student’s Name [1]: Redacted (“Student”)
Date of Birth: Redacted
School District: Redacted
Hearing Requested by: Redacted (“Parent(s)”)
Request Date/Date Complaint Filed: Redacted
Date(s) of Hearing: Redacted
Actual Record Closed Date: May 10. 2023
Date of Decision: May 14, 2023
Date of Distribution if Different than Decision Date: May 15, 2023 Hearing Officer: Guljit Kaur Bains
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON Redacted
For the Student:
Redacted
For the Department of Education:
NONE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON Redacted
For the Student:
Redacted
For the Department of Education:
NONE
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON Redacted
For the Student:
Redacted
For the Department of Education:
Redacted
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON Redacted
For the Student:
Redacted
For the Department of Education:
Redacted
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON Redacted
For the Student:
Redacted
For the Department of Education:
Redacted
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter comes before the undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) on Parent’s Due Process Complaint (“DPC") filed on or about Redacted. (Exhibit P- P) [2].
On Redacted, the Parents (hereinafter “the Parent”) filed this Due Process Complaint (DPC) alleging the New York City Department of Education (hereinafter “NYCDOE”) failed in its Child Find obligation and denied the student (hereinafter "the Student") a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the 2021-2022 and the 2022-2023 school years (Exhibit P, P).
IHO Guljit Kaur Bains was assigned to this matter on Redacted. The parent by their counsel appeared on Redacted. The District appeared on Redacted. On Redacted the Parent presented their case including witness affidavit testimony. District did not appear for the Hearing on this matter, they did appear on subsequent hearing dates for extensive closing arguments.
The District submitted a written closing brief and the Parent submitted a closing brief as well as an additional supplemental reply brief.
Parents were represented by Redacted. Parent entered into evidence exhibits A through P. The DOE did not admit documents [3].
The record was closed on May 10, 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 resides with his mother (the Parent) and father, as well as his older sister, in Redacted. The student is currently Redacted. During the 2021-2022 school year, the student was a Redacted student at Redacted, Redacted (“the School”). The student has Redacted. The student academically and socially excels in school according to the school. The parent states the student has various issues of Redacted, The DPC seeks an order for an independent educational evaluation (IEE), which includes socialemotional testing, a Section 504 plan that accommodates his Redacted condition, special educational services and placement for the student and compensatory services. Parents allege that the NYCDOE (“DOE”) failed in its Child Find obligations and failed to conduct an evaluation to determine if the child has a disability that entitles him to special education services based on what the DOE knew or should have known about the Redacted (Exhibit P- P).
The parent alleges the NYCDOE denied the student special education services. The parent disagreed with the evaluations, specifically the Redacted evaluation conducted by NYCDOE which according to the parent, inadequately addressed Redacted needs. The Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) found him ineligible for special education supports and services.
Parent alleged in the DPC that the student required accommodations pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“Section 504”) or an appropriate placement for the 2021-2022 or the 2022-2023 school year and that the district failed to develop an appropriate plan and to implement the 504 plan developed for the child. (Exhibit P- P).
According to the record, the student medical conditions include: 1) Redacted; 2) Redacted; 3) Redacted; 4) Redacted and 5) Redacted. (Exhibits P- A, D)
Parent alleges the student’s medical conditions require that the student have a 1:1 paraprofessional while in school to be Redacted and to Redact, to navigate his Redacted and to help in the event he experiences emergencies while on the school bus or in school. (Exhibit P- O and P).
ISSUES
Did the NYCDOE violate the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“Section 504”), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA) and Part 200.5 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education of the State of New York and fail in its Child Find obligation and denied the student a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the 2021-2022 and the 2022-2023 school years (Exhibit P-P).
The NYCDOE found the student ineligible for Special Education services. Parent alleged that the DOE failed to assess all of the Student’s suspected areas of disability because they did not account for his Redacted needs.
The Parents disagreed with the CSE’s determination refusing to implement an IEP for the student. The parent seeks an order for an independent educational evaluation (IEE), which includes Redacted testing, a Section 504 plan that accommodates his medical condition, special educational services and placement for the student and compensatory services.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The student has Redacted and the School and Students are aware of them. A protocol in detail is in place to address Redacted of Redacted. A number Redacted during various times the student attended school Redacted. The letters/notices included everything Redacted to, Redacted in detail, if Redacted suspected what to do. The letters show how to Redacted and all the contacts and protocol in that circumstance. It also includes the Redacted. The letters include 8 to10 school staff trained in emergency treatment of the student, including a Nurse, Paraprofessionals, School Aides, Parent Coordinator, and one specific Assigned Paraprofessional to the student. (Exhibits P- A, I and M).
An Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act accommodation request for 2021-2-22 school year was signed and submitted by the student’s parent. (Exhibit P-A 8-21).
On Redacted, the School held a Section 504 Accommodation Plan team meeting for the 2021-2022 school year with the Parent and with the 504 Coordinator. A 504 Plan was developed and documented (Exhibit P- C).
On Redacted and on an undated letter, Dr. Redacted, a Redacted with Redacted, wrote a letter to the School stating that she “followed the student since Redacted for his Redacted, which included Redacted, Redacted.” She noted that the student had been followed by her colleagues prior to 9/2020. She recommended that the student have Redacted at school and staff should Redacted. It stated that the student “should have a safe and inclusive experience at school.” (Exhibit P- D).
On Redact the School held a Section 504 Accommodation Plan team meeting for the 2022-2023 school year with the Parent and with the 504 Coordinator. The plan provided detail of the student’s Redacted and the potential for Redacted for the student, listed the various Redacted, provided directions on Redacted, provided Redacted is given, included the various emergency contacts; listed the Redacted on reducing Redaction; listed the 504 team and their role totaling 12 staff and parents including 504 Coordinator, Nurse, principal, parents parent advocate, parent coordinator three teachers., classroom paraprofessional, Redacted and a Redacted; devised a communication plan between the School staff, nurse, and office staff and trained school staff, provided a plan to meet monthly regarding updates on the student’s health, and a review of protocols. (Exhibit P- L).
A Teachers report from Redacted (Exhibit P- J) and the Classroom Observation Dated Redacted with the date of observation Redacted (Exhibit P- K) noted the “child excelled and socially bloomed”.
On March 22, 2022, the parent stated that they and their advocate met with Redacted to discuss the removal of Redacted paraprofessional. (Exhibit P-O ).
On Redacted, a school Redacted conducted a Redacted Evaluation of the student administering the following tests:
1. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fifth Edition;
2. a subtest to measure working memory;
3. the Woodcock-Johnson–IV Test of Achievement Form-A;
4. clinical interview with student;
5. clinical test Redacted observations;
6. an informal interview with the Parent; and
7. a review of the student’s Redacted history. ( Exhibit P- F)
On Redacted, the CSE convened a meeting, the IEP Team discussed the Redacted of Redacted. As a result of the meeting, it was determined that the student is not eligible for special education services because he does not have a disability as defined in part 200 of the regulations of the Commissioner of Education. (Exhibit P-G)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The purpose of the "child find" provisions of the IDEA are to identify, locate, and evaluate students who are suspected of being a student with a disability and thereby may be in need of special education and related services, but for whom no determination of eligibility as a student with a disability has been made (see Handberry v. Thompson, 446 F.3d 335, 347-48 [2d Cir. 2006]; E.T. v. Bd. of Educ. of Pine Bush Cent. Sch. Dist., 2012 WL 5936537, at *11 [S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2012]; A.P. v. Woodstock Bd. of Educ., 572 F. Supp. 2d 221, 225 [D. Conn. 2008], aff'd, 370 Fed. App'x 202 [2d Cir. Mar. 23, 2010]; see also 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][3][A]; 34 CFR 300.111; 8 NYCRR 200.2[a][1], [7]). The IDEA places an affirmative duty on State and local educational agencies to identify, locate, and evaluate all children with disabilities residing in the State "to ensure that they receive needed special education services" (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][3]; 34 CFR 300.111[a][1][i]; Forest Grove, 557 U.S. at 245; K.B. v. Katonah Lewisboro Union Free Sch. Dist., 2019 WL 5553292, at *7 [S.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2019]; E.T., 2012 WL 5936537, at *11; see 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][A][ii]; see also 8 NYCRR 200.2[a][1], [7]; New Paltz Cent. Sch. Dist. v. St. Pierre, 307 F. Supp. 2d 394, 400 n.13 [N.D.N.Y. 2004]). The "child find" requirements apply to "children who are suspected of being a child with a disability . . . and in need of special education, even though they are advancing from grade to grade" (34 CFR 300.111[c][1]; see 8 NYCRR 200.2[a][1], [7]; D.K. v. Abington Sch. Dist., 696 F.3d 233, 249 [3d Cir. 2012]; J.S. v. Scarsdale Union Free Sch. Dist., 826 F. Supp. 2d 635, 660 [S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2011]). To satisfy the requirements, a board of education must have procedures in place that will enable it to identify, locate, and evaluate such children (34 CFR 300.111[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.2[a][1], [7]). Because the child find obligation is an affirmative one, the IDEA does not require parents to request that the district evaluate their child (see Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 518 [D.C. Cir. 2005] [noting that "[s]chool districts may not ignore disabled students' needs, nor may they await parental demands before providing special instruction"]; see also Application of the Bd. of Educ., Appeal No. 11-153; Application of a Student Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal Nos. 11-092 & 11-094). A district's child find duty is triggered when there is "reason to suspect a disability and reason to suspect that special education services may be needed to address that disability" (J.S., 826 F. Supp. 2d at 660; New Paltz Cent. Sch. Dist., 307 F. Supp. 2d at 400 n.13, quoting Dep't of Educ., State of Hawaii v. Cari Rae S., 158 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1194 [D. Haw. 2001]). To support a finding that a child find violation has occurred, school officials must have "overlooked clear signs of disability" and been "negligent in failing to order testing," or have "no rational justification for deciding not to evaluate" the student (Mr. P v. W. Hartford Bd. of Educ., 885 F.3d 735, 750 [2d Cir. 2018], quoting Bd. of Educ. of Fayette County, Ky. v. L.M., 478 F.3d 307, 313 [6th Cir. 2007]; see A.P., 572 F. Supp. 2d at 225). States are encouraged to develop "effective teaching strategies and positive behavioral interventions to prevent over-identification and to assist students without an automatic default to special education" (Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. v. D.L., 548 F. Supp. 2d 815, 819 [C.D. Cal. 2008], citing 20 U.S.C. § 1400[c][5]). Related to child find is the referral process. Upon written request by a student's parent, a district must initiate an individual evaluation of a student (see Educ. Law § 4401-a[1], [3]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[a][1][i]; [a][2][ii]-[iv]; [b]; see also 20 U.S.C. § 1414[a][1][B]; 34 CFR 300.301[b]).
Here, parent alleged that the district had reason to suspect that the student had a disability requiring special education to warrant a referral of the student to the CSE for an evaluation. In reviewing whether the district satisfied its child find obligations, the child find inquiry "must focus on what the [d]istrict knew and when" (K.B., 2019 WL 5553292, at *8, quoting J.S., 826 F. Supp. 2d at 652). The two purposes of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) are (1) to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living; and (2) to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities and parents of such students are protected (20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]-[B]; see generally Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230, 239 [2009]; Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 [1982]). A FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07; 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]; M.H. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 685 F.3d 217, 245 [2d Cir. 2012]; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]). "'[A]dequate compliance with the procedures prescribed would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP'" (Walczak v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 129 [2d Cir. 1998], quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206; see T.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 247, 253 [2d Cir. 2009]). The Supreme Court has indicated that "[t]he IEP must aim to enable the child to make progress. After all, the essential function of an IEP is to set out a plan for pursuing academic and functional advancement" (Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S. __, 137 S. Ct. 988, 999 [2017]). While the Second Circuit has emphasized that school districts must comply with the checklist of procedures for developing a student's IEP and indicated that "[m]ultiple procedural violations may cumulatively result in the denial of a FAPE even if the violations considered individually do not" (R.E., 694 F.3d at 190-91), the Court has also explained that not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (M.H., 685 F.3d at 245; A.C. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Chappaqua Cent. Sch. Dist., 553 F.3d 165, 172 [2d Cir. 2009]; Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003]). Under the IDEA, if procedural violations are 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 CFR 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 525-26 [2007]; R.E., 694 F.3d at 190; M.H., 685 F.3d at 245).The IDEA directs that, in general, an IHO's decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][i]). 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). However, the "IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP" (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189). "The adequacy of a given IEP turns on the unique circumstances of the child for whom it was created" (Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 1001). The statute ensures an "appropriate" education, "not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents" (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132, quoting Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d 563, 567 [2d Cir. 1989] [citations omitted]; see Grim, 346 F.3d at 379). Additionally, school districts are not required to "maximize" the potential of students with disabilities (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199; Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132). Nonetheless, a school district must provide "an IEP that is 'likely to produce progress, not regression,' and . . . affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere 'trivial advancement'" (Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195, quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130 [citations omitted]; see T.P., 554 F.3d at 254;
P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 118-19 [2d Cir. 2008]). The IEP must be "reasonably calculated to provide some 'meaningful' benefit" (Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 [2d Cir. 1997]; see Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 1001 [holding that the IDEA "requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances"]; Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192). An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that includes a statement of the student's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]), establishes annual goals designed to meet the student's needs resulting from the student's disability and enable him or her to make progress in the general education curriculum (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][2][i], [2][i][A]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]), and provides for the use of appropriate special education services (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][4]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]). The burden of proof is on the school district during an impartial hearing. (Educ. Law § 4404[1][c]; see R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85).
Pursuant to Due Process Procedures 200.5(j)(4)(i) a decision made by an impartial hearing officer shall be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”). In the event a case concerns procedural violations an impartial hearing officer “may find that a student did not receive a free appropriate public education only if the procedural inadequacies impeded the student's right to a free appropriate public education, significantly impeded the parent's opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a free appropriate public education to the parent's child, or caused a deprivation of educational benefits.” 200.5(j)(4)(ii).
ANALYSIS
The purpose of the "child find" provisions of the IDEA are to identify, locate, and evaluate students who are suspected of being a student with a disability and thereby may be in need of special education and related services, but for whom no determination of eligibility as a student with a disability has been made (see Handberry v. Thompson, 446 F.3d 335, 347-48 [2d Cir. 2006]; E.T. v. Bd. of Educ. of Pine Bush Cent. Sch. Dist., 2012 WL 5936537, at *11 [S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2012]; A.P. v. Woodstock Bd. of Educ., 572 F. Supp. 2d 221, 225 [D. Conn. 2008], aff'd, 370 Fed. App'x 202 [2d Cir. Mar. 23, 2010]; see also 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][3][A]; 34 CFR 300.111; 8 NYCRR 200.2[a][1], [7]). The IDEA places an affirmative duty on State and local educational agencies to identify, locate, and evaluate all children with disabilities residing in the State "to ensure that they receive needed special education services" (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][3]; 34 CFR
The record in this case establishes that the DOE did not fail in its child find obligations. The DOE did accommodate this child’s medical issues pursuant to a 504 plan. (Exhibits P-C,F,G, I, J and K). They evaluated this student and based on a Redacted evaluation, teacher reports and observation, deemed the student ineligible for Special Education Services.
The record supports there is a concern for this student Redacted, in all other respects the child is doing well in all areas of academia and Redacted based on grades and teacher observations as well as the Redacted evaluation dated 6/11/22. The one noted concern is the parent reporting Redacted concerns, Redacted, none of which are supported by this record. New York courts (see, e.g., M.N. v. Katonah-Lewisboro Sch. Dist., 2016 WL 4939559, at *11-*13 [S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2016]; M.M. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 26 F. Supp. 3d 249, 255-57 [S.D.N.Y. 2014]; cf. W.A., 2016 WL 6915271, at *23 [in the child find context, distinguishing a narrow view of "academic success" (e.g., grades alone) from a broader view that included "feedback from teachers and standardized test scores as well"]).
The parent’s observations and concerns were not indicated by the child’s own doctor (Redacted) who’s group has followed the student for an unknown time frame but the doctor herself had followed him since Redacted. (Exhibit P-D)
Redacted letter to the school from Redacted, a Redacted, wrote a letter to the School stating that she “followed the student since Redacted for his Redacted, which included Redacted.” She noted that the student had been followed by her colleagues prior to Redacted. She recommended that the student have Redacted at school and staff Redacted. No other concerns except that the student “should have a safe and inclusive experience at school.” She further provides that the school “Redacted”. (Exhibit PD).
The Teachers report from Redacted (Exhibit P- J) and the Classroom Observation Dated Redacted with the date of observation being Redacted (Exhibit P- K) noted the “child excelled and socially bloomed”, no other concerns were noted.
The NYDOE had detailed Section 504 Accommodation plans for both the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years. (Exhibits P- C and L).
The School was responsive to the parents and addressed any concerns they had. (Exhibits P-A, B and I).
Based on the evidence admitted on this record, the District did not deny the student a free appropriate public education during the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school year. District did not fail in its child find obligations. The District provided the Parent meaningful participation in the CSE, the parents disagree with the outcome.
The student is not entitled to compensatory education or tutoring, related services and placement. The student is not entitled to a unilateral, private Redacted Evaluation paid for by the District. The District must conduct the evaluation with New York State certified personnel and not place the burden on the parent to contract with a private provider. The student is entitled to protections and medical accommodation under Section 504. It’s unclear from the record whether the 504 plan approved by the District is in place. If it is not, the School must implement that plan or reconvene a 504 meeting to change it consistent with DOE policies and with Section 504. The record supports that in all aspects the child is doing well in all areas of academia and social behavior based on the record. The school should continue to follow Redacted.
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the New York City Department of Education is directed to provide the following:
1. The District must conduct all appropriate evaluations of the student with New York State certified personnel and not place the burden on the parent to contract with a private provider;
2. The student is entitled to protections and medical accommodation under Section 504. It’s unclear from the record whether the 504 plan approved by the district is in place. If it is not, the School must implement that plan or reconvene a 504 meeting to change it consistent with DOE policies and with Section 504.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: 5/14/23 Guljit Kaur Bains
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 B – DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD
PARENT EXHIBITS
H. A- Redacted Plan 21 pages Enter date A-P of exhibit. B- Redacted Email correspondence between parent and Press tab school regarding incident 1 page key. C- Redacted Section 504 Accommodation Plan 2021-2022 8 D- Redacted Letter from Dr. Redacted 2 pages E- Redacted Request for Referral to Committee on Special Education 1 page F- Redacted Evaluation Report 8 pages G- Redacted Notice of Ineligibility for Special Education Services 2 pages -Redacted Correspondence from Redacted Coaching regarding Academic Evaluation 1 page I- Redacted Plan 5 pages J- Redacted Teacher Report 2 pages K- Redacted Classroom Observation 2 pages L- Redacted Section 504 Accommodation Plan M- Redacted Plan Revised 5 pages N- Redacted Affidavit of Redacted 3 pages O- Redacted Affidavit of Parent, Redacted 8 pages P- Redacted Request for Impartial Hearing 11 pages 2022-2023 7 pages
DOE’S EXHIBITS
1. NONE Enter date Enter # of of exhibit. pages.
Press tab Press tab
key. key to enter next
item.
IHO’S EXHIBITS
I. NONE Enter date Enter # of of exhibit. pages.
Press tab Press tab
key. key to enter next
item.
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.