NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
CASE NUMBER: 588414 - NYC: 239596
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Student’s Name: [REDACTED]
School District: N.Y.C. Dept. of Ed.,
Impartial Hearing Officer: Mercedes Cesaratto, Esq.
Date of Filing: 9/27/2022
Hearing Requested by: Parent
Date of Hearing: 5/25/2023; and 6/13/2023
Record Close Date: 8/16/2023
Date of Decision: 8/17/2023
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
MAY 25, 2023:
For the Student:
[REDACTED] (hereinafter referred to as “Parent’s attorney”)
For the Department of Education:
[REDACTED] (hereinafter referred to as “District’s Representative/DOE Attorney”)
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
JUNE 13, 2023:
For the Student:
[REDACTED] (hereinafter referred to as “Parent’s attorney”)
[REDACTED] (hereinafter referred to as “Petitioner/Parent”)
[REDACTED] (Private School Special Education Teacher, hereinafter referred to as “Special Teacher”)
For the Department of Education:
[REDACTED] appeared on behalf of the DOE, (hereinafter referred to as “District’s Representative/DOE Attorney”)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
I. 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 Art 89 § 4404 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 8 NYCRR Part 200, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
II. Background and Procedural History
A. Due Process Complaint Notice
Parent is the parent of Student (“Student” or “Child”). This matter concerns the Student, a [REDACTED] -year-old school student classified as a student with a Learning Disability, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). The Student’s eligibility for special education supports and services is not in dispute. [1]
This matter comes before the undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer (hereinafter, “IHO”) on Petitioner’s Due Process Complaint (“DPC”) against the New York City Department of Education (“NYC DOE” or “DOE” or “District”) filed on or around 9/27/2022.[2] The Parent alleged that the District failed to provide the Student a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the 2021-2022 school year. As relief, the Parent seeks tuition reimbursement for the Student’s tuition at the private school (“Private School”) during the 2021-2022 school year.
This IHO was appointed to this matter on 12/28/2022. A pre-hearing conference was held on 1/25/2023. The Due Process Hearing (“DPH”) took place on 5/25/2023 and 6/13/2023. Parent submitted documentary evidence, affidavit and live testimony of Parent and Special Education Teacher. DOE submitted documentary evidence. Both parties presented opening statements and submitted closing briefs. A list of the documentary evidence in this proceeding is appended to this decision.
III. Findings of Fact and Decision
A. The DOE Deprived Student of a FAPE for the 2021-2022, School Year (Burlington/Carter Prong I)
The IDEA (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) contemplates two specific purposes designed to ensure (1) 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) that the rights of students with disabilities and parents of such students are protected.[3] The burden of proof is on the school district during 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. 4
A free and appropriate public education can be said to be 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.[5] "[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."[6] The Supreme Court ruled 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." [7]
"Multiple procedural violations may cumulatively result in the denial of a FAPE even if the violations considered individually do not,"[8] and the Second Circuit explained that not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA.[9] Under the IDEA, if procedural violations are alleged, an IHO 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. [10] An IHO's decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE. 11 A school district offers a FAPE "by providing from that instruction,"[12] but the "IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP."[13] "The adequacy of a given IEP turns on the unique circumstances of the child for whom it was created,"[14] and an "appropriate" education, "not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents,"[15] is what is required. School districts are not required to "maximize" the potential of students with disabilities,[16] but are required to provide "an IEP that is 'likely to produce progress, not regression,' and . . . affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere 'trivial advancement.'" [17] The IEP must be "reasonably calculated to provide some 'meaningful' benefit,"[18] and designed to be provided in the least restrictive environment (“LRE”).[19] An appropriate IEP must include a description of the Student’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, 20 and outlines annual goals specifically designed to address the Student’s needs resulting from his disability in order to make progress in the general education curriculum 21 through the use of appropriate special education services. 22 Although not every student can be expected to attend a regular education curriculum, the IEP “must be appropriately ambitious in light of his circumstances, just as advancement from grade to grade is appropriately ambitious for chance to meet challenging objectives." [23] Here the DOE introduced documentary evidence, including the IEP at issue, but did not offer any testimonial evidence at the hearing.[24] The DOE chose to rest on the evidence submitted. The DOE failed to provide an explanation as to how the CSE made their recommendations in the IEP, how the IEP appropriately described Student, or whether the IEP was meaningfully calculated to confer an educational benefit upon this Student. Therefore, the DOE failed to “offer a cogent and responsive explanation for their decisions” in creating the 3/2/2021 IEP, and it is “through the IEP that “[t]he ‘free appropriate public education’ required by the Act is tailored to the unique needs of” a particular child.” [25] As to Prong I of the Burlington/Carter standard, the DOE failed to meet its burden at hearing in demonstrating they provided the Student with a FAPE for the 2021-2022 school year. Therefore, I am constrained to find that the DOE failed to offer the Student FAPE for the 2021-2022 school year. Moreover, a review of the record herein establishes that the weight of the evidence supports the conclusion that the DOE failed to offer the Student an educational program reasonably calculated to offer FAPE. B. The Unilateral Placement Was Appropriate (Burlington/Carter Prong II)
A private school placement must be "proper under the Act."[26] This means that the private school must offer an educational program which met the student's special education needs. [27] Parents seeking reimbursement "bear the burden of demonstrating that their private placement was appropriate, even if the IEP was inappropriate."[28] Subject to certain limited exceptions, 'the same considerations and criteria that apply in determining whether the [s]chool [d]istrict's placement is appropriate should be considered in determining the appropriateness of the parents' placement.'" [29] Parents need not show that the placement provides every special service necessary to maximize the student's potential, and when determining whether a unilateral placement is appropriate, "[u]ltimately, the issue turns on" whether the placement is "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits."[30] A private placement is appropriate if it provides instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a student. [31] The Second Circuit has set forth the standard for determining whether parents have carried their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of their unilateral placement. No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining whether parents' unilateral placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. 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 instruction. [32] The DOE presented no evidence to contest that Parent’s unilateral placement was appropriate, and the cross-examination of Parent’s witnesses did not refute Parent’s burden. Private School Special Education Teacher testified via direct testimony and affidavit[33] that she is familiar with Student and Student’s needs, placed Student in a classroom that would address those needs, and described the services Student was receiving at the Private School. Special Education Teacher described the Private School as a small, full time special education school for students who have learning disabilities, speech and language impairments, and attention difficulties. [34] School Education Teacher testified the small, structured classes provide students with individualized curricula geared toward their learning styles.[35] The Special Education Teacher was the Student’s head teacher during the 2021-2022 school year, the Student was in a class with 5 students and 2 teachers. The Student was assessed for reading, writing, and math readiness, using the Brigance Diagnostic Testing and an individualized program was developed for the Student. [36] At the start of the school year, the Student was unable to read any words and was inconsistent with the alphabet.[37] Special Education Teacher stated Private School utilized a Wonders reading program to address the Student’s comprehension skill. Wonders is a comprehensive literacy program that is researched supported to build literacy foundations, and rigorous instruction. Fundations was a program utilized to address the Student’s decoding and encoding skills. Fundations is a multisensory, sequential evidence-based phonics program. It is a Wilson Reading program that focuses on decoding, reading fluency, and sound symbol correspondence. These programs helped the Student build skills for literacy, and decoding skills on his level.[38] Special Education Teacher testified that by the end of the school year, Student was able to identify all the letters of the alphabet, including their sounds.[39] Additionally, Special Education Teacher testified the Student had poor handwriting which hindered the Student’s ability to communicate. Therefore, the Private School focused on the Student using correct pencil grip, copying and forming capital and lower case letters and numbers independently and provided a great deal of 1:1 support. [40] Special Education Teacher testified that with all these supports in place, Student progressed to the point that Student was able to create a sentence and write it out with assistance.[41] Special Education Teacher stated the Student struggled in math in the beginning of the school year. However, Private School utilized a Spots Math curriculum and Calendar Math to help develop the Student’s math proficiency. The Student progressed in math such that by the end of the year, the Student was able to compute sums and differences through 12 independently and through 19 with assistance.[42] The Special Education Teacher testified the Student received related service for Speech/Language and Occupational Therapy. The Student received S/L therapy on 1:1 basis 3 times a week for 30 minutes. The Speech and Language progress report noted the Student has made improvements in his ability to use proper pronouns in sentences almost independently and in using present progressive and past tenses.[43] The Student is improving in speech in that the Student can now produce the /ch/ sound.[44] The Student receives OT twice a week for 30 minutes, one session is individual and one is group. The Occupational Therapy progress report notes that the goals developed for the Student are focused on addressing the Student’s motor/manipulation skills, visual perception skills, and sensory processing skills so that the Student can participate appropriately in classroom activities.[45] The Private School provided the Student with a class called Neuronet twice a week to develop the Student’s fluency in critical math, reading, and handwriting skills. [46] The DOE Attorney argued that the Private School does not offer separate Science and Social Studies classes or Physical education within their curriculum. The DOE attorney further argues Hebrew is basically religious studies, since there are no other foreign languages offered at the Private School.[47] I do not agree with the DOE’s position. The Special Education Teacher testified that the concepts of understanding Science and Social Studies were taught and reinforced through the Language Art classes.[48] Additionally, Hebrew is a foreign language, irrespective of whether additional foreign languages are offered. Therefore, the DOE’s position is without merit.
Parent submitted Private School’s progress reports, 49 Private School enrollment contract, [50] Private School schedule, 51 Private School attendance report,[52] and Private School Report Cards.[53] I find the testimony credible, and that the Private School provided Student with instruction specially designed to meet Student’s unique needs.
49 Ex. P-F; P-G; P-H; P-I; 51 Ex. P-D.
Based on the evidence presented at the hearing I find that Parents have met their burden in proving that the private program offered an educational program which met Student’s needs under Prong II of the Burlington/Carter standard.
In reviewing the testimony and documents presented, the weight of the evidence establishes that Student’s individual special education needs were addressed by the Private School and that the instruction offered was "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits." 54
C. The Equities Favor the Parent (Burlington/Carter Prong III)
Even if a parent establishes a right to reimbursement under the IDEA, "courts retain discretion to reduce the amount of a reimbursement award if the equities so warrant." 55 In making that equitable determination, a hearing officer may consider many factors, including, inter alia, whether a parent’s unilateral withdrawal of her child from the public school was justified, whether the parent provided the Department with adequate notice of the withdrawal, whether the amount of private-school tuition was reasonable, whether the parent should have availed herself of needbased scholarships or other financial aid from the private school, and whether there was any fraud or collusion in generating (or inflating) the tuition to be charged to the Department, or whether the arrangement with the school was fraudulent or collusive in any other respect. 56
Here, Parent provided the necessary Ten-Days’ Notice 57 of their concerns with the DOE’s offer of FAPE for the Student for the 2021-2022 school year. Parent detailed specific concerns and gave the DOE notice of their intention to unilaterally place the Student at the Private School. The DOE did not submit any evidence in response to the Ten-Day Letter.
By way of relief, Parent seeks direct funding of Private School tuition costs. Direct tuition funding is relief encompassed by the equitable remedial powers inherent in IDEA, and parents may seek direct funding in the instance in which, “due to a lack of financial resources, [parents of a student with a disability] have not made tuition payments but are legally obligated to do so.” Parent testified as to his inability to pay and presented documentary evidence of the same.[58] The tuition at the Private School is $47,895.00.[59] The Special Education Teacher calculated that 9.5% of the Student’s total instruction consisted of religious studies and religious instruction at the Private School.[60] The portion of religious instruction amounts to $4,550.00, which is required to be deducted from the base tuition. After deducting the religious instruction amount, the tuition at Private School is $43,345.00. In addition, a separate, related services, contract[61] indicates that Parent was required to pay $8,093.00 for Occupational Therapy, and Speech and Language Therapy.
Equity demands that the DOE directly fund Student’s Private School tuition in the amount of $43,345.00 and the related services in the amount of $8,093.00 for a total of $51,438.40.
I find no issue with the reasonableness of the costs, including tuition, associated with the Private School. Moreover, I find that the weight of the evidence establishes that Parent cooperated with the DOE and its CSE’s efforts to develop an IEP and recommend a program and placement for the 2021-2022 school year. Overall and after considering the record at hearing, I find that the equities support Parent’s claim for tuition reimbursement, and direct funding. Attorney Fees
The Parent also sought attorneys’ fees in their brief. The IDEA does not authorize an administrative officer to award attorneys’ fees or other costs to a prevailing party, and entitlement, if any, to costs must be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B); Murphy v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 402 F.3d 332 (2d Cir. 2005); see also Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 08-008 (March 31, 2008); Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-109 (Oct. 27, 2006). Only a court can determine if a party is entitled to attorneys’ fees and I would be exceeding the scope of my authority by determining that the Parents are the prevailing party entitled to costs. Therefore, to the extent that the Parent is seeking reimbursement and/or payment of attorneys’ fees and costs, their request is denied.
I have reviewed the parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be either unnecessary to this decision, without merit, beyond my jurisdiction, or without sufficient basis in the record for a finding. Accordingly, any relief not specifically discussed in this decision is denied, and all the Parent’s remaining claims not discussed herein are dismissed with prejudice.
Based on the above Findings of Fact, it is hereby:
1. ORDERED that the DOE failed to provide the Student with a FAPE for the 2021-2022 school year, and it is further
2. ORDERED that the DOE shall directly fund Private School secular tuition cost for the 2021-2022, School Year, inclusive of related services, in the amount of $51,438.40 to Private School within 30 days of the date of this Order
SO ORDERED
DATED: August 17, 2023
Impartial Hearing Officer
Mercedes Cesaratto
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 proceedings before an SRO are found in Part[279] of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education. A copy of the rules in Part
APPENDIX A – ADMITTED EXHIBITS
PARENT’S EXHIBITS
A. Due Process Complaint 9/27/2022 4 pages
B. Ten-Day Notice Letter 10/18/2021 3 pages
C. IEP 3/2/2021 17 pages
D. Classroom Schedule Undated 1 page
E. [REDACTED] IEP Goals Undated 4 pages
F. Mid-Year Teacher Report 12/16/2021 1 page
G. Progress Report 5/10/2022 Spring 1 page
H. Speech Report 12/28/2021 2 pages
I. Occupational Therapy Report 12/31/2021 2 pages
J. Final Report Card Undated 2 pages
K. Attendance Record 6/15/2022 1 page
L. [REDACTED]Contract 9/9/2021 21-22 5 pages
M. Payment Affidavit 8/23/2022 1 page
N. Tax Form 1040 12/10/2021 2021 1 page
O. [REDACTED] Testimony Affidavit 5/19/2023 5 pages
P. [REDACTED] Testimony Affidavit Q. R. 5/23/2023 8 pages
DISTRICT’S EXHIBITS
1. Due Process Complaint 9/27/2022 4 pages District
2. Parental Acknowledgment 3/2/2021 2 pages District
3. Individualized Education Program 3/2/2021 27 pages District
4. Attendance Page 3/2/2021 2 pages District
5. Prior Written Notice 3/2/2021 6. 7. 8. 9. IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER’S EXHIBITS 9 pages District
PARENT
I. Closing Brief 7/14/2023 10 pages District
II. DOE Closing Brief 7/6/2023 12 pages District
Footnotes
[1] The Hearing Officer Exhibits, if any, will be referred to as “(IHO- (followed by a roman numeral))”; Petitioners Exhibits, if any, will be referred to as “(P-(followed by a letter))”; and, Respondent Exhibits, if any, will be referred to as “(R-(followed by a number))”. References to the hearing transcript, if any, are denoted as (T (followed by a page number and line number)).
[2] Ex. P-A Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 [1982]. 4 Educ. Law § 4404[1][c]; see R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85.
[3] 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 U.S. 516, 525-26 [2007]; R.E., 694 F.3d at 190; M.H., 685 F.3d at 245. 11 20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][i].
[5] 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].
[6] 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].
[7] Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S. __, 137 S. Ct. 988, 999 [2017].
[8] R.E., 694 F.3d at 190-91.
[9] 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].
[10] 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 personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally 546 F.3d at 114; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 [2d Cir. 2007]; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132. 20 34 CFR 300.320[a][1]; 8 NYCRR §200.4[d][2][i]. 21 34 CFR 300.320[a][2][i], [2][i][A]; 8 NYCRR §200.4[d][2][iii]. 22 34 CFR 300.320[a][4]; 8 NYCRR §200.4[d][2][v].
[12] Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203.
[13] Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189.
[14] Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 1001.
[15] 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.
[16] Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199; Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132.
[17] 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].
[18] Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 [2d Cir. 1997]; see Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 1001.
[19] 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 CFR 300.114[a][2][i], 300.116[a][2]; 8 NYCRR §200.1[cc], §200.6[a][1]; see Newington, most children in the regular classroom. The goals may differ, but every child should have the F.3d 119, 129 (2d Cir. 1998).
[23] Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 1000.
[24] Ex. D-3; P-C
[25] Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 1002.
[26] Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7, 12, 15 (1993); Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 370 (1985).
[27] See Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 112, 115 (2d Cir. 2007); Walczak v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 Oneonta City Sch. Dist., 773 F.3d 372, 386 (2d Cir. 2014).
[28] Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112.
[29] Id., quoting Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356, 364 (2d Cir. 2006).
[30] Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364; see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115.
[31] 20 U.S.C. § 1401(29); Educ. Law § 4401(1); 34 CFR 300.39(a)(1); 8 NYCRR 200.1(ww); Hardison v. Bd. of Educ. of the handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from
[32] Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, quoting Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65).
[33] Ex. P-P; Tr. 74-99.
[34] Ex. P-P1
[35] Id.
[36] Ex. P-P3
[37] Ex. Id.
[38] Ex. P-P4
[39] Ex. Id.
[40] Ex. P-P4
[41] Ex. Id.
[42] Ex. P-P5
[43] Ex. P-H2
[44] Ex. Id.
[45] Ex. P-I
[46] Ex. P-P7
[47] Ex. IHO- II- DOE Brief
[48] Ex. Tr. 87
[50] Ex. P-L.
[52] Ex. P-K.
[53] Ex. P-J 54 Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364. 55 Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230, 246-47, 129 S. Ct. 2484, 174 L. Ed. 2d 168 (2009). 56 E.M. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 758 F.3d 442, 461 (2d Cir. 2014). 57 Ex. P-B.
[58] Ex. P-N.
[59] Ex. P-L1-5.
[60] Ex. P-7; Tr. 89
[61] Ex. P-L1-5.
[279] and model forms are available at http://www.sro.nysed.gov.