New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

CASE NUMBER: 589642 – NYC: 240671

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Student’s Name: REDACTED REDACTED

School District: New York City Department of Education Hearing Requested by: Parent Request Date/Date Complaint Filed: October 11, 2022

Date(s) of Hearing: November 21, 2022

January 5, 2023

January 13, 2023

Actual Record Closed Date: March 3, 2023

Date of Decision: March 15, 2023

Date of Distribution if Different than Decision Date: N/A Hearing Officer: Jean Marie Brescia, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

November 21, 2022

For the Student:

REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.

For the Department of Education:

None

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

January 5, 2023

For the Student:

REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.

REDACTED REDACTED, Parent Student

REDACTED REDACTED, Head of School, REDACTED

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.

REDACTED REDACTED, Principal, REDACTED

REDACTED REDACTED, School Psychologist

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

January 13, 2023

For the Student:

REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.

REDACTED REDACTED, Parent Student

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.

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 October 11, 2022. Ex. A. 1 On November 15, 2022, I was appointed by the New York City Department of Education to hear this matter. Parent alleges that the Department failed to offer a free appropriate public education to REDACTED and seeks reimbursement for tuition for REDACTED at REDACTED at REDACTED Preparatory School (“REDACTED”) for the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years and provision of bus transportation. Ex. A at 8-9.

I conducted a prehearing conference on November 21, 2022. Counsel for REDACTED’s parents appeared; there was no appearance on behalf of the Department. Tr. 2-3. At the prehearing conference, counsel for REDACTED’s parents clarified the relief requested, and the hearing was scheduled for January 5, 2023. Tr. 5-7.

The hearing proceeded on January 5 with opening statements from counsel for the Department and for REDACTED’s parents. Department exhibits^[1] through 9 and Parent’ exhibits A through C and F through Q were admitted in evidence. The Department presented the testimony of the principal of the approved nonpublic high school that REDACTED had attended for most of the 2021-2022 school year and a school psychologist employed by the Department who attended an April 2022 IEP meeting for REDACTED; the Department rested its case. REDACTED’s parents presented the testimony of REDACTED’s head of school and REDACTED’s father. The hearing was continued to January 13 for additional testimony.

The hearing was completed on January 13, 2023 with the conclusion of REDACTED’s father’s testimony, the testimony of a psychologist who had evaluated REDACTED, and the admission of Parent’ Exhibit R.

The parties filed post-hearing briefs on February 13, 2023. The briefs are admitted in evidence as IHO Exhibits I and II.

The parties requested extensions of the compliance date, and written Orders of Extension was issued on November 21, 2022, and January 5 and 31, 3023. The reasons for granting the extensions are set forth in the Orders.

The record was closed on March 3, 2023, upon the Hearing Officer’s review and consideration of the parties’ post-hearing briefs.

JURISDICTION

The due process hearing was held, and a decision in this matter is now 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 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.5 et seq.

REDACTED’s parent consented to the hearing proceeding by videoconference and to the transmission of this decision via email.

ISSUES

REDACTED’s parents request funding for tuition and related services costs at REDACTED, reimbursement for monies paid and direct payment for tuition due and owing. The issues to be resolved are therefore:

1. Did the Department offer REDACTED a FAPE for the 2021-2022 and 2022-23 school years?

a. Were the transition planning and services, postsecondary goals, and other IEP goals provided for REDACTED appropriate for him?

b. What is the import of REDACTED having attained his high school credits and passed Regents’ examinations?

2. Was REDACTED an appropriate unilateral parental placement for REDACTED for the last weeks of the 2021-2022 school year and the 2022-2023 school year?

3. Does the balance of the equities favor REDACTED’s parents?

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. REDACTED is a REDACTED year-old young man whose disability, for the purposes of the IDEA, is classified as speech or language impairment. He currently attends REDACTED. Exs. A, 4.

2. REDACTED has been diagnosed with REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED in REDACTED, REDACTED and REDACTED. Tr. 162; Exs. B, R.

3. REDACTED demonstrates “significant difficulties in the areas of academics, executive functioning, processing speed, socialization, communication, and adaptive functioning, as well as marked struggles with anxiety.” Ex. B at 11; see also Ex. R.

4. REDACTED experiences challenges with respect to reading comprehension, math word problems, writing, attention and focus.^[2] Tr. 162-163.

5. REDACTED has difficulties understanding social cues, engaging in social interactions, and maintaining focus to complete a task. Despite his challenges and difficulties, he is a hard worker who “keeps on trying,” “doesn’t quit” and is generally cheerful. Tr. 163-164; see also Tr. 202; Ex. 4 at 1-2.

6. REDACTED attended the Department’s REDACTED program at REDACTED for kindergarten and first grade; he then transferred to the REDACTED School, a non-public special education school through sixth grade and then transferred to The REDACTED (“REDACTED”), a New York State-approved nonpublic special education school, where he remained through mid-May of the 2021-2022 school year. Exs. 4, 6, 7, 8, B at 2-3; Tr. 27, 34.

7. REDACTED enrolls REDACTED special education students. Tr. 26.

8. REDACTED provided REDACTED with reading support and instruction in essay writing throughout his time at the school, and REDACTED made slow and steady gains in reading and steady progress in writing. Tr. 65-66, 71-72.

9. REDACTED received grades in the 80s and 90s during his time at REDACTED, and his report cards and progress reports show that he participated and worked diligently in his classes and made progress on his goals. Exs. 8 at 2-12; G.

10. REDACTED participated in REDACTED’s vocational and transitional programming throughout high school. In ninth and tenth grades, the program involved career exploration; in eleventh grade, he worked with a college and transition coordinator to explore postsecondary programs, the available supports for students with disabilities within those programs, and program applications. This work continued through twelfth grade, with the inclusion of ACCES-VR. Vocational assessments were conducted each year. Tr. 58. The April 21, 2021 IEP Meeting

11. REDACTED personnel met with REDACTED’s parent for an IEP review meeting on April 21, 2021. Ex. 4 at 25-26; Tr. 32-34, 165.

12. At the meeting, the participants reviewed the draft IEP, progress reports, vocational assessments, and attendance. Tr. 36; Ex. 6 at 2.

13. REDACTED had passed the Algebra 1 Regents with a score 75 and the Living Environment Regents with a score of 72.^[3] Ex. 4 at 1.

14. The IEP notes that testing in Fall of 2020 indicated that REDACTED was reading independently at a sixth-grade level, instructionally at a seventh-grade level, and reached frustration at a tenth to twelfth grade level. His teacher reported that, at the time of the meeting, he was reading at seventh-grade level and that his performance in math was at a ninth-grade level; he was taking Geometry 2. Ex. 4 at 1-3, 24.

15. The IEP notes that REDACTED was a “good self-advocate and will ask for help when he feels he needs it” and continued to have difficulties with “peer interactions and understanding social cues.” Ex. 4 at 5.

16. School personnel did not have concerns for REDACTED with respect to “academics” because he “was doing quite well with all the supports in place.” Rather, school personnel and REDACTED’s parents “always had concerns for REDACTED for nonacademic issues . . . . So any concerns from that meeting, like other meetings” related to “social-emotional” issues. Tr. 36-37.

17. During the meeting, the participants discussed REDACTED’s goals and levels of performance with respect to counseling and his difficulties with socializations and peer relations. Tr. 37.

18. The IEP set forth a number of management needs, including a classroom with minimal distractions, teacher cues, directions broken down and repeated, modeling, 1:1 assistance, modified curricula materials, explicit instruction, repetition, visual aids, calculator, additional time for processing, positive reinforcement and text broken down into smaller chunks. Ex. 4 at 7.

19. The participants also discussed ACCES-VR, transition services, accessing services at college, and a college visit that REDACTED had made with his father. Tr. 37-38, 166.

20. The IEP includes the following measurable postsecondary goals for REDACTED: attend a culinary college or a vocational training program; employment as a chef or baker after completing his postsecondary education; and continue to live at home with the support of his family. Ex. 4 at 8.

21. The IEP includes a “Coordinated Set of Transition Activities:” improving academic skills and working towards a high school diploma; improve “self-esteem,” organizational skills, and communication skills; complete a resume; research culinary training programs; complete college and trade school applications; and attend an ACCES-VR orientation.

Ex. 4 at 21.

22. The IEP includes goals in the areas of reading, writing, math, speech and language, counseling, and occupational therapy. Ex. 4 at 10-17.

23. According to the REDACTED principal, REDACTED’s father did not indicate, at the IEP meeting, that REDACTED was not prepared to graduate from high school. Tr. 39.

24. An IEP was developed for REDACTED. Ex. 4. The IEP recommended that REDACTED continue to attend a 12:1:1 class in a New York State-approved non-public special education school and receive the related services of speech and language therapy, counseling, and occupational therapy and additional individual reading instruction and the use of an iPad for word processing. Ex. 4 at17-18, 25; Tr. 35; see also Ex. 6 at 5.

25. The IEP also included provision for an extended school year and testing accommodations. Ex. 4 at 19-20. The 2021-2022 School Year at REDACTED

26. During the 2021-2022 school year, REDACTED was a twelfth-grade student at REDACTED. Tr. 27.

27. During the 2021-2022 school year, REDACTED was “a very diligent, hard-working young man.” Tr. 50. He did well academically with REDACTED’s supports, differentiated instruction and modified curriculum. Tr. 50.

28. During the 2021-2022 school year, REDACTED’s counseling at REDACTED focused on how to cope, reach out for help, maintain relationships, and boundaries. Tr. 54-55.

While REDACTED “did well” during counseling sessions, he “just was not able to implement some of the strategies that he needed in real life situations.” Tr. 55.

29. As of the 2021-2022 school year, REDACTED was not ready to live independently because he needed “lots of boundaries and monitoring until he is able to live independently” because he is emotionally needy and has difficulty understanding social norms, which was typical of the students in REDACTED who were on the autism spectrum. Tr. 55-56. REDACTED REDACTED’s Evaluation

30. REDACTED’s parents secured an evaluation of REDACTED conducted by REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED, a clinical neuropsychologist; testing was conducted in December 2021 and March 2022.^[4] Ex. B at 2-19. This evaluation revealed the following information:

a. REDACTED’s overall performance on the WAIS-IV was in the low average and average ranges, with a Full Scale IQ of 84 (14th percentile) and a General Ability Index of 92 (30th percentile).

b. REDACTED’s pragmatic language skills and executive functioning skills were “underdeveloped.”

c. On tests relating to academic functioning, REDACTED’s scores indicated this he was functioning on a 6.8 grade level in reading comprehension, on a 11.2 grade level in math computation and a 4.4 grade level on math word problems. REDACTED’s essay writing skills were significantly delayed.

d. REDACTED’s attention was age-appropriate. ^[5]

e. REDACTED demonstrated delayed social and independence skills, anxiety, and hyperactive and impulsive behaviors.

31. REDACTED REDACTED made the following conclusions and recommendations:

a. REDACTED “require[d] ongoing remediation and additional, individualized instruction as part of a comprehensive full-time program in order to achieve appropriate gains and receive adequate transitional preparation for his postsecondary life.” Ex. B at 11.

b. REDACTED’s “unique profile and myriad of deficits warrants ongoing remediation in individualized transitional support before he will be ready to transition from high school.” Ex. B at 11.

c. REDACTED require[d] “transitional support in the form of a comprehensive, specialized program that can promote greater independence, academic skills, execution functioning, socialization, and coping skills within a supportive social milieu as he pursues his post-secondary education or vocational training.” Ex. B at 11.

The April 14, 2022 IEP Meeting

32. REDACTED personnel (including a certified special education teacher), and a Department school psychologist, met with REDACTED’s parents and REDACTED for an IEP review meeting on April 14, 2022. Exs. 3 at 1, 5 at 32-33; Tr. 41, 78-79, 165.

33. At the meeting, the participants considered teacher and related services provider reports, a vocational assessment,^[6] and REDACTED REDACTED’s March 2022 evaluation. Exs. 7 at 2, B. Tr. 69, 86-87, 166.

34. The IEP summarizes the testing results set forth in REDACTED REDACTED’s March 2022 evaluation. Ex. 5 at 1-2.

35. At the meeting, the participants also considered and discussed school-based assessments and draft present levels of performance and goals prepared by the providers working with REDACTED. Tr. 45, 87, 165-166.

36. The meeting participants discussed REDACTED’s social-emotional development, selfadvocacy, and management needs. Tr. 45, 84.

37. The meeting participants discussed REDACTED’s vocational interests and goals for after high school graduation, measurable postsecondary goals, and the IEP’s coordinated set of transition activities. Tr. 80. According to the information shared at the meeting, REDACTED would be attending REDACTED Community College, continue to live at home, work in the hospitality industry, access ACCES-VR counselors and the disability office at college, and participate in a modified course load and remedial classes at college. Tr. 81-83.

38. The IEP includes measurable postsecondary goals for REDACTED: attend REDACTED Community College; employment in the hospitality industry after completing his postsecondary education; and continue to live at home with the support of his family. Ex. 5 at 10.

39. The meeting participants discussed course selection in college, including that REDACTED should not take a full load of classes and should balance the classes that he takes such that he is, for example, taking a difficult class along with a class that he would enjoy and modifying his program in order for him to succeed. Tr. 48.

40. At the time of the meeting, REDACTED and his parents had been exploring college programs and had contacted ACCES-VR. Tr. 49.

41. The IEP also includes the following Transition Needs for REDACTED: remain in contact with his ACCES-VR counselor; improve academic skills for college readiness; apply for testing accommodations at REDACTED Community College; meet with an academic advisor at REDACTED to create his schedule; obtain his high school diploma; and continue to meet with the Transition Coordinator at REDACTED a9nd discuss his transition plan. Ex. 5 at 11.

42. The Coordinated Set of Transition Activities for REDACTED included: continue to improve his academic skills and work towards a high school diploma; improve his selfesteem and organizational and communication skills; apply for testing accommodations at REDACTED; provide college information to his ACCES-VR counselor; and work with his teachers to create an organization system for his usernames and passwords for college accounts and to include college information on his calendar. Ex. 5 at 28.

43. According to REDACTED’s principal, REDACTED’s parents did not raise any concerns about, or disagree with, the IEP or the transition planning discussed at the meeting or whether REDACTED was prepared to seek the accommodations he needed in college, and did not indicate that REDACTED needed additional transition planning or a “transition year” of education. Tr. 83-84, 87-88, 97.

44. According to REDACTED’s father, he and REDACTED’s mother expressed—at the meeting—their concerns about REDACTED’s readiness to attend either a community college or a vocational school and asserted that REDACTED REDACTED, in his March 2022 report, corroborated their concerns that REDACTED was not “academically . . . ready to move on.” Tr. 165-166.

45. According to REDACTED’s father, he and REDACTED’s mother were of the opinion that taking one or two community college courses in a semester meant that REDACTED was not ready to attend community college. Tr. 166, 188.

46. REDACTED’s principal testified that REDACTED’s parents agreed with the goals set forth in the IEP and did not raise any concerns with the goals. Tr. 42-43, 166.

47. REDACTED’s father testified that he stated at the meeting that REDACTED needed more time (than the few weeks remaining in the school year) to achieve the IEP goals because REDACTED is a “slow learner” who “makes slow but steady progress.” Tr. 167.

48. The IEP included goals in the areas of counseling, social skills, reading, essay writing, math, and communication skills. Ex. 5 at 11-24.

49. The REDACTED principal opined that the counseling goals were “not unreasonable” for REDACTED at the time of the IEP meeting. Tr. 44; see also Tr. 67-69.

50. The IEP continued to recommend that REDACTED continue the school year in the 12:1:1 program in an approved non-public school (REDACTED) and receive related services. Tr. 84-86. Occupational therapy was discontinued. Tr. 85; Ex. 5 at 24-25.

51. The REDACTED principal opined that, at the time of the April 2022 IEP meeting, REDACTED had “completed his high school classes to the best of his ability,” “did very well” in his classes, and was “academically” ready to graduate. Tr. 47, 49, 53; see also Exs. 5 at 2-3, 7 (REDACTED “consistently me[t] the academic demands of his classes”).

52. REDACTED continued to struggle socially and emotionally with peer relations, understanding social cues, and maintaining relationships. Tr. 53; Ex. 5 at 3, 6-7.

53. In addition, the IEP states that REDACTED’s “weaknesses in organization, executive functioning and attentional skills negatively impacts his participation in tasks and activities throughout the school environment.” Ex. 5 at 9.

54. The REDACTED principal opined that REDACTED, if he were to attend college, “would have been able with assistance . . . to go to class, do his work, and possibly join activities. He would struggle with relationships.” Tr. 54.

55. REDACTED continued to need support, structure, and guidance for socializing and organization. At the meeting, there was discussion of REDACTED’s need for support in college and that he should access the college’s Office of Accessibility. Tr. 49-50; see also Tr. 52-53.

REDACTED’s Removal from REDACTED

56. Subsequent to the IEP meeting, REDACTED’s mother expressed her concerns “about where REDACTED would fit in the world after graduation.” Tr. 48.

57. REDACTED’s parents sent a ten-day notice letter dated May 2, 2022 to the Department informing the Department that they planned to enroll REDACTED at REDACTED and seek reimbursement from the Department. Ex. B. This letter was not sent to REDACTED personnel.

58. REDACTED did not complete twelfth grade at REDACTED; he left REDACTED as of May 13, 2022 when his parents removed him from REDACTED and placed him at REDACTED. Tr. 27, 29; Ex. 9.

59. According to REDACTED’s principal, prior to this removal, REDACTED’s parents had not indicated to REDACTED personnel that REDACTED was not preparing REDACTED for graduation nor had they asked REDACTED personnel for changes in REDACTED’s programming or services, including vocational and transition programming to prepare him for graduation. Tr. 57-59.

60. If REDACTED had remained at REDACTED for the remainder of the month of May and for the month of June 2022, he would have attained over 22 high school credits and passed Regents’ examinations “for a pathway to graduation.” Tr. 28-29.

61. At the time he left REDACTED, REDACTED’s “scores were high enough that he would have graduated at the end of the school year” with a high school diploma on June 25, 2022, REDACTED’s graduation day. Tr. 29-30, 32.

62. REDACTED enrolls students up to age 21 for those students who are unable to fulfill academic requirements; students are evaluated annually and, based upon the data gathered from these evaluations, decisions about whether students should remain in school past twelfth grade. Tr. 60-61.

63. REDACTED students, after graduation, “typically” live at home and attend two-year college programs, taking three courses per semester rather than four or five courses. Tr. 62.

64. The Department’s school psychologist (who attended the IEP meeting) disagreed with REDACTED REDACTED’s conclusions that REDACTED (a) was not ready to graduate from high school and (b) needed a transition year to build independence because REDACTED had attended a “specialized program” to “prepare him for a life of independence and to be able to transition to the next steps” because, based upon the discussions at the IEP meeting, REDACTED “was prepared to the greatest extent possible.” Tr. 88-89; see also Tr. 92.

65. The Department’s school psychologist opined that REDACTED was not a candidate for a transition program because he met all his high school graduation requirements, received “a substantial amount of specialized supported that prepared him for a life of independence and to have a successful transition,” his IEP goals were “targeted,” and a comprehensive plan was in place “that would support his transitioning needs.” Tr. 94; see also Tr. 101-102.

66. The school psychologist explained that the “job” of the Department “is to make sure that [REDACTED] has the knowledge of those resources that will be available to him and he is prepared to advocate for his needs and knows what to do and where to go and who to ask for to receive additional supports.” She opined that this is what the Department and REDACTED had done. Tr. 94; see also Tr. 101-102.

67. She also opined that REDACTED was prepared to transition to a small, two-year college with a modified caseload and remedial classes. Tr. 95-96.

68. If REDACTED had not met the criteria for graduation, he could have continued to work on his transitioning skills at REDACTED or at a Department REDACTED program. Tr. 98-99.

69. REDACTED’s parents asserted that REDACTED was not ready for college because he lacked the academic skills to attend college, specifically with respect to reading, writing and math, which they stated were on a middle school level. Tr. 182-183. REDACTED also lacked the social skills to attend college without the support of a social worker. Tr. 183.

REDACTED

70. REDACTED enrolled at REDACTED on May 16, 2022. Tr. 123.

71. REDACTED is a special education school “for students with learning differences that specializes in not only developing and further developing academic skills and readiness, but also work readiness, preparing students for employment and for independence, as well as developing social-emotional skills.” Tr. 116; see also Tr. 140, 148; Ex. H.

72. There are 43 students in the program with a teacher:student ratio of one to ten. Students are grouped based upon their cognitive and academic learning profiles. Tr. 119-120, 140.

73. REDACTED provides each student with an individualized program and with scaffolding, technology supports, and supports for attentional and executive functioning challenges.

Tr. 118-119.

74. REDACTED personnel determined that REDACTED had “needs” in the following areas:

executive functioning skills, attentional skills, processing speed, social communication skills, and regulating emotions and impulses. Tr. 124.

75. For the remaining weeks of the 2021-2022 school year (a total of four weeks at REDACTED, through the middle of June), REDACTED’s classes included nine to ten students, with five to six students present in class and the remainder attending internships. Tr. 125-126, 145-146.

76. REDACTED’s classes included Focus, which is a one-to-one program addressing a student’s individualized goals, providing executive functioning and social-emotional supports, and developing strategies to improve social communication skills, selfregulation and resilience. Tr. 126-127.

77. REDACTED also participated in a professional studies class, which addressed job skills such as gaining employment, resume writing, preparing for interviews and practicing workplace skills. Tr. 128.

78. REDACTED’s schedule also included math, literacy, creative projects, contemporary issues, health and wellness, and yoga. Ex. K.

79. Another class, Adulting 101 included independence skills such as budgeting and some activities of daily living. Tr. 130-131.

80. REDACTED did not attend REDACTED during summer 2022. Tr. 145.

81. In July 2022, after having received a copy of the IEP developed at the April 2022 meeting, REDACTED’s father wrote to the Department expressing his concerns and disagreements with the IEP. Ex. F.

82. REDACTED’s parents submitted a ten-day notice letter to the Department on August 23, 2022 for the 2022-2023 school year. Ex. C. In the letter, they informed that Department that they were re-enrolling REDACTED at REDACTED for the 2022-2023 school year. Ex. C.

83. In September 2022, REDACTED continued at REDACTED for the 2022-2023 school year with many of the same classes as in May 2022. He did not continue with Adulting 101. Tr. 132-133.

84. REDACTED’s schedule includes language arts, professional studies, health and wellness, math, contemporary issues, and creative projects. Ex. O.

85. Math class focuses on “how to utilize math in the real world and apply math skills in the real world.” Tr. 150.

86. In addition to his classes, REDACTED has also been participating in an internship for two days per week in an office, where he is working on office skills such as mail, phone calls, data entry, and filing. Tr. 133-134.

87. This year, REDACTED’s teachers at REDACTED have been focusing on emotional intelligence, coping strategies, social communication skills, reading and writing competencies, self-confidence and self-advocacy, communication skills, taking responsibility for emotions and behaviors, and workplace skills. Ex. Q.

88. REDACTED’s head of school opined that REDACTED needed a transition program and had made progress at REDACTED and that REDACTED was an appropriate program for him. Tr. 135-136.

89. REDACTED’s head of school explained that REDACTED continued to need to strengthen his communication, self-regulation, social, organizational, and attentional skills. Tr. 136.

90. REDACTED’s parents entered into enrollment contracts with REDACTED. Tr. 136-137. For the May – June 2022 time period, the tuition was $9,598.60. For the 2022-2023 school year, tuition is $75,000.00; REDACTED’s parents have paid these amounts in full. Tr. 137; Exs. I, J, M, N.

91. REDACTED’s father explained that REDACTED will require financial, emotional, and other assistance from his parents for many years. Tr. 189-190.

92. REDACTED REDACTED opined that REDACTED, in the spring of 2022, was about to graduate from high school with deficits in speed and efficiency of processing, executive functioning skills, pragmatic language and social skills and was reading independently at a sixth-grade. level. Tr. 203-204.

93. REDACTED REDACTED opined that REDACTED, at the time of the March 2022 evaluation, was not prepared to transition from high school. Tr. 207. In particular, REDACTED did not demonstrate “readiness” in the “two crucial areas” of social skills (including social pragmatic skills and self-advocacy) and executive functioning. Tr. 208-209; see also Ex. R at ⁋⁋ 16-19.

94. REDACTED REDACTED opined that the REDACTED was unprepared to transition from high school to college and that the April 2022 IEP did not address REDACTED’s readiness for such a transition and did not include data that REDACTED had the skills needed to graduate from high school. Ex. R at ⁋⁋ 16-18.

95. REDACTED REDACTED noted that “it’s very hard to survive college without some degree of social pragmatic skills,” and, in college, students with disabilities must request, and advocate to receive, accommodations and modifications—which requires that the student understand what he needs and for what to advocate. Tr. 209.

96. REDACTED REDACTED opined that REDACTED, with its focus on increasing REDACTED’s independence, functional academics and college and vocational readiness, will prepare REDACTED for the next step in his future. Tr. 207.

97. REDACTED REDACTED opined that REDACTED would require accommodations and supports should he attend college, including, at minimum, access to an office for students with disabilities, accommodations in his schedule, access to tutoring through an office for students with disabilities, testing accommodations. Tr. 207-208.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The central purposes of the IDEA are to ensure: (1) that students with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living and (2) that the rights of students with disabilities and their parents are protected. 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1)(A); Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 51 (2005); Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179-181 (1982).

A board of education may be required to pay for education services obtained for a child by the child's parents if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parents were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parents’ claim. School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, 471 U.S. 359 (1985). The fact that the school or the educational and related services selected by the parents are not approved as a school for children with disabilities by the State Education Department (as in the instant case) is not dispositive of the parents’ claim for tuition reimbursement. Florence County School District v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993). ^[7]

The first step in the inquiry is to determine whether the school district offered a free appropriate public education to the student. See, e.g., R.E. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 189-90 (2d Cir. 2012); Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-008; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-121. A free appropriate public education includes special education and related services designed to meet the student’s individual needs, provided in conformity with a written IEP. See 20 U.S.C. §1401(9); 20 U.S.C. §1414(d). A school district offers a student a free appropriate public education when (1) it complies with the procedural requirements of the IDEA and (2) the IEP developed by the district is “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988, 999 (2017); see also Rowley, 458 U.S. at 207; T.M. v. Cornwall Cent. Sch. Dist., 752 F.3d 145, 151, 160 (2d Cir. 2014); R.E., 694 F.3d at 189-90. A school district offers a FAPE “by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction.” Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203. The school district also must ensure that “[t]o the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities are educated with children who are not disabled” that is, in the student’s least restrictive environment. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); 8 NYCRR 200.1(cc), 200.6(a)(1); see M.W. ex rel. S.W. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 725 F.3d 131,143 (2d Cir. 2013).

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

A hearing officer may determine that a school district denied a student a FAPE based upon the district’s procedural errors in the development of the IEP, deficiencies in the substance of the educational program set forth in the IEP, or both. See L.O. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 822 F.3d, 95, 109 (2d Cir. 2016); see also 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(i); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.5(j)(5)(v). If a procedural violation is alleged, a hearing officer may find that a student did not receive an appropriate special educational program only if the procedural inadequacy: (1) impeded the student’s right to a free appropriate public education; (2) “significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decisionmaking process regarding the provision of a free appropriate education” to the student; or (3) “caused a deprivation of educational benefits.” 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); see also Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-007. Furthermore, “[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; see also L.O., 822 F.3d at 123-124.

In New York, the school district bears the burden of proof in an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition or services reimbursement for a unilateral placement, or services selected by the parent, has the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement, programming or services. N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404(1)(c); see R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85. Did the Department offer REDACTED a FAPE for the 2021-2022 and 2022-23 school years?

The DPC alleges, with respect to the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years and the IEP developed in April 2022 that: (a) the Department failed to provide REDACTED with a program appropriate to address his transition needs; (b) the Department failed to provide REDACTED with appropriate IEP goals in written expression; 8 (c) REDACTED was not prepared for “postsecondary education.” Ex. A at 6; and (d) the Department ignored REDACTED’s parents’ concerns expressed at the April 2022 IEP meeting and denied them a meaningful opportunity to participate in the IEP process. Ex. A at 6-8; see also IHO Ex. I at 8-9.

The DPC alleges that REDACTED requires a “full-time transition program” because he does not possess the “independent skills necessary for post-high school graduation life” and “requires ongoing remediation” in independence skills, academic skills, executive functioning, socialization, and “coping skills.” Ex. A at 5, see also 8-9.

The IDEA requires all school districts to take steps to prepare students with disabilities for adulthood by preparing them to become, to the extent of each student’s capabilities, independent and contributing members of society. “Transition services” are the mechanism to effectuate this process. 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(34), 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII). In this proceeding, the gravamen of the DPC is that the Department did not provide REDACTED with appropriate transition services and that, therefore, the Department should reimburse his parents for the costs of REDACTED tuition.

For students with disabilities and their parents, “transition services” are an integrated and “coordinated” bundle of procedural and substantive rights that include: (a) assessments of the student’s needs, capabilities and interests (such as vocational evaluations); (b) planning by educators and families to create appropriate post-secondary goals for the student; (c) notices to parents and students to facilitate their participation in determining the student’s interests and creating the student’s goals; and (d) programs and services to develop skills (whether academic skills, vocational skills, employment skills, and/or life skills) that are designed and “reasonably calculated” to reach those goals. 20 U.S.C. §§ 1401(34), 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII), 1415(b)(3), 1415(c)(1); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.320(b), 300.321(b).

Students with disabilities (in New York State commencing in the year in which the student turns 15 years of age, unless appropriate to start earlier) are entitled, inter alia, to “coordinated” transition-compliant vocational assessments, post-secondary goals, and individualized and disability-appropriate “transition” related services and programming, all as required by the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 300, the New York Education Law §§ 4401, 4401-a, and the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, N.Y.C.R.R., Part 200. ^[9]

The IDEA establishes a series of “coordinated” steps that must be undertaken by school districts with the participation of students with disabilities and their parents, designated as “transition services,” to prepare students with disabilities to progress from the school environment to post-school life. “Transition services” are expressly defined in IDEA as “a coordinated set of activities for a child with a disability that— is designed to be within a results-oriented process, that is focused on improving the academic and functional achievement of the child with a disability to facilitate the child’s movement from school to post-school activities, including postsecondary education, vocational education, integrated employment (including supported employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or community participation; is based on the individual child’s needs, taking into account the child’s strengths, preferences, and interests; and includes instruction, related services, community experiences, the development of employment and other post-school adult living objectives, and, when appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills and functional vocational evaluation. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(34)(A) – (C) (emphasis added).

Under the IDEA’s statutory scheme, school districts are mandated to plan for and effectuate a student’s transition services through the IEP development process. 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i). The student’s IEP must be updated each year and must include “appropriate measurable postsecondary goals based upon age appropriate transition assessments related to training, education, employment, and, where appropriate, independent living skills” and “the transition services (including courses of study) needed to assist the child in reaching those goals . . . .” 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d) (1)(A)(i)(VIII)(aa) – (bb) (emphasis added). The school district must then provide the student with the transition services described in that student’s IEP. See, e.g., 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(2)(A).

Defects in transition planning and services are considered “procedural violations,” and must be evaluated accordingly. F.L. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 15 CV 520 at 19 (S.D.N.Y. June 8, 2016); see also R.B. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 603 F. App’x 36 (2d Cir 2015) (lack of vocational assessments a procedural failure that does not constitute a denial of FAPE). A deficient transition plan is a “procedural” defect that will rise to a denial of FAPE only when it (1) impedes the student’s right to a free appropriate public education; (2) “significantly impede[s] the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decisionmaking process regarding the provision of a free appropriate education” to the student; or (3) “cause[s] a deprivation of educational benefits.” 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(3)(E)(ii).

The Department, through REDACTED’s placement at REDACTED, provided REDACTED with transition programming, services and goals tailored to REDACTED’s identified special educational needs and his “unique circumstances.” For example, during his high school years at REDACTED, REDACTED received reading support and instruction in writing; REDACTED made progress in both reading and writing. See paragraphs 3-5, 8, 10, 16, 24 above. REDACTED received good grades throughout his time at REDACTED, demonstrating that he was learning the academic material and that the related services at REDACTED were appropriately supporting his learning. See paragraph 9 above. REDACTED passed Regents examinations in math and science, also demonstrating that he was learning the academic material taught at REDACTED and that he was benefitting from related services. See paragraph 13 above. REDACTED continued to make progress at REDACTED through the 2021-2022 school year. See paragraphs 27, 28, 37, 38, 51, 60, 61, 64, 66 above. In fact, there is no dispute that REDACTED made steady progress on his IEP goals and postsecondary goals during his time at REDACTED. See paragraph 27 above. There is also no dispute that REDACTED had earned all the high school credits to entitle him to receive a Regents diploma.

REDACTED’s head of school testified credibly and reliably as to the services and programming (including transition-related services and programming) that REDACTED provided to REDACTED and the steady progress he made at REDACTED. The transition services and programming were appropriate for REDACTED given his “unique circumstances” and special educational needs. REDACTED’s 2021 and 2022 IEPs included measurable postsecondary goals tailored to his needs, described his transition needs, and set forth coordinated sets of transition activities as well as goals in his areas of need. See paragraphs 20, 21, 22, 38, 41, 42 above. These postsecondary goals and transition services were, based upon the record in this case, appropriate for REDACTED, and REDACTED made progress towards his transition-related goals. See R.B. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 689 F. App’x 48 (2d Cir. 2017) (discussing what constitutes “reasonably calculated” postsecondary goals and transition services); F.L., 15 CV 520 at 20-21. In addition, REDACTED’s parents fully participated in the IEP meetings, made their concerns known, and were not denied their opportunity to participate in the development of REDACTED’s IEPs.

The evidence in the record thus establishes that the transition planning process and the transition services did not impede REDACTED’s right to a FAPE; did not “significantly impede” REDACTED’s parents’ opportunity to participate in the decisionmaking process; or cause a “deprivation of educational benefits” to REDACTED. See 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); see also R.B., 689 F. App’x 48. As a result, the transition planning and services provided to REDACTED did not rise to a denial of FAPE.

In their closing brief, REDACTED’s parents rely upon Application of the Board of Education of the Northport-East Northport Union Free School District, Appeal No. 17-028. While that SRO decision is a detailed study of transition assessment, planning and services, the facts are REDACTEDedly different than in the instant matter. In Appeal No. 17-028, the student’s parent had, over the course of several years, requested that the district provide the student, as a component of transition planning, services in the areas of ADL skills and travel training. The district objected to providing travel training because, it contended, the student did not qualify for travel training as per “regulation.” Id. at 34-35. In that case, “[b]ecause the student had exhibited deficits in independent living skills and specifically in safety awareness for traveling, which went unaddressed in prior school years . . . . the district's failure to address travel training when combined with the deficits in the student's academic program, contributed to a denial of a FAPE . . . .” Id. at 39. In the instant case, transition planning for REDACTED encompassed consideration of his varied difficulties—for example, related services to address his socialemotional deficits and individualized reading instruction to address his reading skills.

REDACTED’s parents argue that the Department failed to provide REDACTED with a FAPE for the 2022-2023 school year because REDACTED was entitled to continue to receive special education and services until he reached 21 years of age or received a high school diploma. IHO II at 7. This argument must fail because REDACTED was scheduled to receive his high school diploma—in just two months after the IEP meeting and just a few weeks after REDACTED’s parents removed him from REDACTED.

REDACTED’s parents also argue that REDACTED had not made sufficient progress on the skills that he needed to be successful in life after high school—specifically in the areas of social-emotional skills, communication skills, executive functioning and academics. REDACTED would be graduating from high school with continuing difficulties in these areas. I give significant weight to REDACTED REDACTED’s evaluation and his testimony on these issues and in understanding REDACTED as a learner and as a young man moving from high school into adulthood. However, I must be guided, in my decision-making, by controlling Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court, in both Rowley and Endrew F., rejected the proposition that FAPE requires a school district to ensure that a student reaches his or her potential. Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 998-999; Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192, 198-199; see also Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 22-111 at 16. As a result, I conclude that REDACTED made appropriate progress at REDACTED, in light of his “unique circumstances,” with the special education, related services, supports, transition planning, and transition services provided to him at REDACTED and that, therefore, REDACTED received a FAPE, and the Department prevails on its “prong I” burden.

It is understandable that REDACTED’s parents would strive to secure for REDACTED all the services and programming that would further REDACTED’s preparedness for his future. However, the Department has met the Endrew F. FAPE standard with the specialized education and services provided to REDACTED at REDACTED. Is REDACTED an appropriate placement for REDACTED?

REDACTED’s parents bear the burden of proof concerning the appropriateness of REDACTED’s program for REDACTED. See, e.g., Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Hyde Park Cent. Sch. Dist., 459 F. 3d 356, 364 (2d Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 169 (2007). To meet this burden, REDACTED’s parents must show that the education and services provided by REDACTED addressed REDACTED’s identified special education needs. See C.F. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 746 F.3d 68, 82 (2d Cir. 2014); C.L. v. Scarsdale Union Free Sch. Dist., 744 F.3d 826, 837 (2d Cir. 2014); R.E., 694 F.3d at 187; G.B. and L.B. on behalf of N.B. v. Tuxedo Union Free Sch. Dist., 09-CV-859 (S.D.N.Y Sept. 30, 2010); Application of the Bd. of City School District of the City of New York, Appeal No. 95-79, at pp. 6-7; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 96-1. The Second Circuit instructs that:

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

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

Furthermore, as the Second Circuit held in R.E.: “parents may provide evidence that the child made actual progress at their chosen private placement to support the adequacy of that placement.” 694 F.3d at 187 n.3.

The Department argues that REDACTED does not meet the Second Circuit’s “prong II” standard. IHO Ex. I at 16-20. The preponderance of the evidence, however, establishes that REDACTED’s program provides REDACTED with an educational program in which his identified special education needs continue to be addressed. REDACTED does not address every need (for example, REDACTED does not provide related services), but the Second Circuit standard does not require that a unilateral placement provide every service and/or all programming. See, e.g., T.K. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 810 F.3d 869, 878 (2d Cir. 2016) (unilateral program appropriate even when it does not provide all recommended related services); C.L. v. Scarsdale, 744 F.3d at 839 (unilateral program appropriate even when it is a more restrictive program than the program offered by the district). REDACTED personnel work with REDACTED on executive functioning and on developing strategies to improve social communication skills, self-regulation and resilience, and coping strategies; job skills such as gaining employment, resume writing, preparing for interviews and practicing workplace skills; some independence skills (such as budgeting); practical reading, writing and math skills; selfconfidence and self-advocacy. These are skill areas that REDACTED worked on at REDACTED. REDACTED is working on an internship through REDACTED. The internship is in an office, where he is focused on mail, phone calls, data entry, and filing. There was no explanation from the witnesses as to why REDACTED is participating in this particular internship. In addition, testimony relating to progress lacks detail and is conclusory. ^[10]

However, the “totality of the circumstances” demonstrates that REDACTED provides REDACTED with an appropriate special education program. See, e.g., T.K., 810 F.3d at 878; F.B. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 132 F. Supp. 3d 522, 555-56 (S.D.N.Y. 2015); see also, e.g., Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 22-002 at pp. 16-19 (prong II burden met when testimony of school witness describes how school’s program addresses student’s individual needs); Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 21-063 at pp. 14-16 (same); Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 21-056 at pp. 18-22 (same).

Considering the “totality of the circumstances” as required by the Second Circuit in Frank G., the evidence supports a finding that REDACTED’s educational programming is appropriate for REDACTED. As a result, REDACTED’s parents prevail with respect to the second Burlington/Carter criterion. Does the balance of the equities favor REDACTED’s parents?

With respect to the third Burlington criterion, whether equitable considerations support REDACTED’s parents’ claims, the evidence establishes that REDACTED’s parents cooperated with the Department by enrolling REDACTED in New York State-approved nonpublic schools as per the Department’s recommendations in prior school years, sharing evaluative material with the Department, attending and participating in IEP meetings, writing to the Department about their concerns, and providing the requisite statutory notice. See, e.g., R.E., 694 F.3d at 185, 195; M.F. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79181 at *34-*35 (S.D.N.Y. June 4, 2013) (“equitable considerations” include parental cooperation with the school district, attending CSE meetings, and providing notice to the school district).

The Department argues that REDACTED’s parents did not express any concerns to REDACTED personnel or to the Department that REDACTED was not preparing REDACTED for graduation and for transitioning to postsecondary life prior to withdrawing him from REDACTED in May 2022. IHO Ex. I at 11. The record does not support the Department’s assertions. The credible testimony of REDACTED’s parent establishes that he and REDACTED’s mother provided REDACTED REDACTED’s report to the Department prior to the April 2022 IEP meeting and that REDACTED’s parents, at that IEP meeting, expressed their concerns about REDACTED’s readiness to attend community college or a vocational school, REDACTED REDACTED’s conclusions that REDACTED was not academically ready to leave high school, and REDACTED’s ability to achieve the IEP goals. See paragraphs 44, 47 above; see also paragraph 57 and Ex. B.

However, REDACTED’s parents should have expressed their concerns about REDACTED’s transition from high school before the eve of his graduation from high school. They should have been raising such concerns at least as of the April 2021 IEP meeting; but I find that the evidence supports an inference that it was not until REDACTED’s parents received and considered REDACTED REDACTED’s report that they crystallized their concerns about REDACTED’s readiness to leave high school. In light of this finding, I conclude that any delay in raising concerns about REDACTED’s readiness to leave high school should not be held against REDACTED’s parents in terms of the equities.

No evidence was adduced as to bus transportation, and this claim is deemed abandoned.

ORDER

Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby ORDERED that:

REDACTED’s parents’ request for reimbursement for tuition for REDACTED’s attendance at the REDACTED program is denied.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 15, 2023

Jean Marie Brescia, Esq.

Impartial Hearing Officer

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Within 40 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the 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.

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION EXHIBITS

# DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION DATE PAGE

1. IEP Meeting Notice 04/05/2021 3 pages DOE

2 IEP Meeting Notice 04/05/2022 3 pages DOE

3. IEP Student Invitation 04/05/2022 1 page DOE

4. IEP 04/21/2021 26 pages DOE

5. IEP 04/14/2022 33 pages DOE

6. PWN 05/05/2021 6 pages DOE

7. PWN Various 05/16/2022 9 pages DOE

8. The REDACTED Transcript Dates 12 pages DOE

9. The REDACTED Student Discharge Form 05/25/2022 2 pages DOE

PARENT’S EXHIBITS

A. Exh. Date Description # of Due Process Complaint 10/11/2022 10 pages

B. 2021-2022 Ten-Day Notice with CSE REDACTED and REDACTED Confirmations 05/02/2022 21 pages

C. 2022-2023 Ten-Day Notice with CSE REDACTED and REDACTED Confirmations 08/23/22 4 pages

F. Letter to CSE re. IEP concerns 07/11/2022 3 pages

G. REDACTED High School Report Card 2021-2022 10 pages

H. REDACTED REDACTED Program Description & 2022-2023 2021 -2022 2 pages

I. REDACTED REDACTED Location Enrollment Contract 2021-2022 5 pages

J. Tuition Affidavit 2021-2022 1 page

K. Class Schedule 2021-2022 1 page

L. Final Attendance 2021-2022 1 page

M. REDACTED Preparatory School Transitions Location Enrollment Contract 2022-2023 4 pages

N. Tuition Affidavit 2022-2023 1 page

O. Class Schedule 2022-2023 1 page

P. Attendance 12/16/2022 1 page

Q. Progress Report Fall 2022 7 pages

R. Affidavit of REDACTED REDACTED 12/27/2022 6 pages

IHO EXHIBITS

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

I. Post-Hearing Brief 23 pages IHO

II. Parents’ Post-Hearing Brief 13 pages IHO

Footnotes

[1] Exhibits shall be referred to as follows: Parents’ Exhibits are designated by a letter; the Department’s Exhibits are designated by a number; and Impartial Hearing Officer’s Exhibits are designated as “IHO.”

[2] REDACTED is REDACTED for both ADHD and OCD. Tr. 163. He also receives therapy from a social worker and participates in a social skills group outside of the school setting. Tr. 191-192. His parents are not seeking funding from the Department for these services.

[3] REDACTED’s Global History Regents was cancelled due to COVID-19. Ex. 4 at 1.

[4] REDACTED REDACTED previously evaluated REDACTED in winter of 2018-2019. Ex. B at 3.

[5] The evaluation noted that REDACTED was taking his REDACTED at the time of the evaluation.

[6] Neither party offered in evidence vocational assessments of REDACTED. REDACTED’s parents do not challenge the vocational assessments. Ex. A.

[7] In this proceeding, REDACTED’s parents seek only tuition reimbursement for their unilateral placement of REDACTED at REDACTED. Ex. A. The DPC does not set forth any allegations or claims for relief with respect to compensatory educational services. REDACTED’s parents did not pursue compensatory educational services at the hearing. While a hearing officer has extensive equitable authority to craft relief, I am constrained from authorizing compensatory educational services relief in this case because REDACTED’s parents did not present evidence relating to compensatory services nor offer evidence relating to the computation, or any other means or methods for crafting, such relief. As a result, this decision will not consider compensatory educational services for REDACTED.

[8] Even if the April 2022 IEP goals were not achievable, that does not mean that the special education provided by the Department at REDACTED for almost the entire 2021-2022 school year was deficient.

[9] REDACTED’s parents do not challenge (or otherwise assert the inadequacy or inappropriateness of) the Department’s vocational assessments, IEP meeting notices, and post- IEP meeting prior written notices; therefore, these transition-related topics will not be addressed in this decision.

[10] The exhibit identified as REDACTED’s “Progress Report” for REDACTED (Ex. Q) is written more as an individualized learning plan describing courses and learning goals for REDACTED, rather than a report of progress REDACTED made during the fall of 2022. As a result, information in the record relating to REDACTED’s progress at REDACTED is limited.