New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

CASE NUMBER: 590354 - NYC: 241285

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Student’s Name 1: [REDACTED] (“Student”)

Date of Birth: [REDACTED]

School District: [REDACTED]

Hearing Requested by: [REDACTED] (“Parents”)

Request Date/Date Complaint Filed: November ^[1], 2022

Date(s) of Hearing: January 13, 2023, February 9, 2023, March 8, 2023 and March 28, 2023

Actual Record Closed Date: April 15, 2023

Date of Decision: April 29, 2023

Date of Distribution if Different than Decision Date:

Hearing Officer: Lisa S. Rusk, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

JANUARY 13, 2023

For the Student:

[REDACTED] Attorney

For the Department of Education:

No one

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

FEBRUARY 9, 2023

For the Student:

[REDACTED] Attorney

For the Department of Education:

No one

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

MARCH 8, 2023

For the Student:

[REDACTED] Attorney

[REDACTED] Assistant Principal and Director of Speech Pathology

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED] Attorney

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

MARCH 28, 2023

For the Student:

[REDACTED] Attorney

[REDACTED] Parent

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED] Attorney

INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This matter comes before the undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) on Parents’ Due Process Complaint (“DPC"), dated October 31, 2022 and filed on November 1, 2022 against the [REDACTED] (hereinafter referred to as “the District”) (Ex. P-A)2. This IHO was appointed on December 30, 2022. A prehearing conference was held on January 4, 2023. [REDACTED] appeared on behalf of the Parents. No one appeared on behalf of the District. At the request of the Parents, a pendency hearing was held on January 13, 2023, and a pendency order was issued. A hearing on the merits was scheduled on notice to both parties for February 9, 2023 (Ex. IHO-I). [REDACTED] appeared on behalf of the Parents. No one appeared on behalf of the District. Parent Exhibits A-R 3 were entered into evidence. The hearing was continued on March 8, 2023. [REDACTED] appeared on behalf of the Parents. [REDACTED] appeared on behalf of the District. Parent Exhibit S was entered into evidence. District Exhibits^[2] and^[3] were entered into evidence. The District did not present any witnesses. The Parent presented the testimony of the Assistant Principal of the private school. On March 28, 2023, [REDACTED] appeared on behalf of the Parents and presented testimony from the Student’s mother. [REDACTED] appeared on behalf of the District and did not present any witnesses. The District rested on its documents (T:89).

Four extensions of the compliance date were granted at the request of the Parents to enable time to negotiate a settlement, ensure witnesses were available and allow time to receive all necessary information for a decision to be rendered ^[4]. The Parties made oral closing statements on the record. At the request of the IHO, the Parent provided case citations (Ex. IHOII). The record was closed on April 15, 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.

The DPC also requested relief under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Section 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Parents’ counsel advised that the claims under Section 504 are not distinct from the IDEA claims. I advised Parents’ counsel that I did not have jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 or the ADA (T:9).

BACKGROUND

The Student was [REDACTED] years old at the time of the filing of the DPC. He was classified by the District’s Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) as a student with Multiple Disabilities. A CSE annual review meeting was held on April 1, 2022 to develop an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) and recommended an 8:1:1 class in a [REDACTED] specialized school for the 2022-23 school year. The IEP also recommended physical therapy (“PT”), occupational therapy (“OT”), speech language therapy and a full-time health paraprofessional (Ex. D-2). The Parents rejected the IEP and unilaterally placed the Student at the [REDACTED] (hereinafter referred to as “the private school”).

ISSUES

The Parents raise in the DPC numerous procedural and substantive challenges to the IEP including:

• Failure to properly assess the Student

• Inadequate prior written notice (“PWN”)

• Inappropriate 8:1:1 District 75 program

• Improperly refused to consider a nonpublic school placement

• IEP based upon insufficient information

• Proposed goals are insufficient and inappropriate

• The proposed goals cannot be implemented in the proposed program

• Failure to conduct a functional behavioral assessment (“FBA”) and draft a behavior intervention plan (“BIP”)

• Lack of transitional support services to move to new program

• IEP does not adequately describe the Student’s medical condition and needs

• Lack of appropriate sensory accommodations

• Parents denied the right to meaningfully participate in development of IEP

• Recommendations were improperly predetermined

• Recommended placement is inappropriate

• The IEP lacks needed 1:1 instruction

• CSE team was not duly constituted

• Inadequate remote learning plan

The DPC states further that the private school is appropriate and that equitable considerations support the Parents.

The DPC seeks as relief:

• Pendency funding of private school

• Compensatory education for any delay in services ^[5]

• Declaration that District failed to provide a free appropriate public education

(“FAPE”)

• Reimbursement of any monies paid to the private school, including any interest or late fees incurred

• Direct payment of any money due to the private school

• Round-trip special education transportation and reimbursement for any monies spent by the Parents ^[6]

• Neuropsychological, speech, occupational therapy and physical therapy evaluation authorizations using evaluators of the Parent’s choosing.

There is no response from the District to the DPC in the record (T:41). The District presented two documents in support of its burden. The District argued that the private school was not appropriate and that the equities weigh in favor of the District (T:90).

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Parent testified that the Student is very medically fragile. His delays are in the areas of language, articulation, attention, social, physical and fine motor skills. The Student had a [REDACTED], is immunocompromised and utilizes a feeding tube (T:77-78). He began attending the private school in 2017 at age REDACTED (T:87). When he began at the private school, he was largely nonverbal and had high levels of impulsivity and distractibility (T:62). The Parent testified that she took part in the April 1, 2022 CSE meeting, along with a representative from the private school (T:78-79). Both the principal and a teacher from the private school were in attendance in addition to a District provider/teacher and District representative/school psychologist (Ex. D-2-26-27). The Parent testified that she disagreed with the proposed 8:1:1 ratio and advised the group that he required a smaller teacher to student ratio to help him with his medical needs and to learn (T:79).

The IEP states the Student’s classification as multiply disabled and describes him as presenting with moderate to severe global deficits including, developmental delays in expressive and receptive language, social and emotional development and academic skills. He is working on foundational cognitive and pre-academic skills. The IEP’s current functioning levels are based upon the private school’s progress reports, and there is no reference on the IEP to any evaluative information. The IEP states that he has increased independence and mastered the majority of activities of daily living at school. His speech is moderately unintelligible, and he uses body movements and gestures to supplement his speech. He is learning to use the phonemes that match each letter. He is friendly and enjoys socializing. He is medically fragile, immunosuppressed due to a [REDACTED], is fed via a feeding tube and uses a catheter (Ex. D-2-2).

He has fine and gross motor delays as well as sensory deficits that are addressed in OT and PT. OT has improved his focus, attention and impulse control. He has an idiosyncratic posture, slow, effortful laborious gait and overall poor strength and coordination. He has low muscle tone and decreased muscle strength in upper and lower extremities (Ex. D-2-3).

His management needs require placement in a highly structured, small classroom setting in a specialized school. He requires breaks as needed, a multi-sensory approach to learning, environmental modifications, praise and reinforcement and refocusing and redirection. (Ex. D-2-3). The private school staff and Parent reported to the CSE that the Student benefits greatly from the structure of a 1:1 setting and from the specific methodologies that the private school implements (Ex. D-2-2). Annual goals and short-term objectives were included for identifying the names and sounds of the alphabet, expressive and receptive language, labeling, grapho-motor activities, matching, listening comprehension, phonological awareness, hand skills, activities of daily living, balance and coordination and ball skills (Ex. D-2-5-17).

The CSE recommended a 12 month 8:1:1 class in a District specialized school for math, ELA, science and social studies, adaptive physical education, individual OT 3 x 45, individual PT 3 x 45, individual speech-language therapy 2 x 45, group speech-language therapy 1 x 45 and a full-time individual health paraprofessional (Ex. D-2-18-19). The IEP states that he does not require positive behavioral intervention or a behavioral intervention plan. He also does not require a communication device or assistive technology (Ex. D-2-4-5).

The Student is alternatively assessed. His IEP indicates that he has a severe cognitive disability, significant deficits in communication/language and significant deficits in adaptive behavior. He requires a highly specialized education program that facilitates the acquisition, application and transfer of skills across natural environments (Ex. D-2-21).

[REDACTED], the Assistant Principal and Director of Speech-Language Pathology (hereinafter referred to as “the AP”) at the private school testified that she worked in a District 75 program for 4 years, is familiar with other District 75 programs and has visited numerous District 75 8:1:1 programs. She opined that at this time this type of program is not appropriate for the Student. She testified that the programs do not individualize the curriculum, do not intensively train their staff and are in large school buildings. Based upon her knowledge and experience, the Student would not receive sufficient support in a District 75 8:1:1 program, and such a program would have denied him a FAPE (Ex. P-S-18-19). The AP testified that she was advised by the Parent and private school staff that attending the April 1, 2022 CSE meeting that they advised the District that a District 75 8:1:1 wound not be appropriate because it would not provide sufficient individual ABA or DIR, both of which he required. In addition, the school building would be too large given his compromised immune system (Ex. P-S-26-27). The AP testified that the IEP goals were developed with input from the private school and appropriate for the Student, but that the goals were intended to be delivered in a small individualized ABA environment (T:58,66).

On April 29, 2022, the District provided the Parents with prior written notice of its recommendations for the Student. The recommendations were based upon a January 18, 2017 classroom observation and March 24, 2022 OT, PT, speech and language and teacher progress reports. The CSE determined that a 6:1:1 program would have been too restrictive with limited opportunities for social interaction (Ex. D-3-2).

The Parent testified that the District did not respond to the May 6, 2022 letter to [REDACTED] sent by their counsel (T:81, Ex. P-C). The Parents also did not receive a response to their email dated June 10, 2022 (T:82, Ex. P-D). The District did not assist the Parents in visiting the proposed school (T:82). The Parents also did not receive a substantive response to the August 18, 2022 letter sent by their counsel (T:82-83, Exs. P-E and P-F).

The AP described the private school as a full-time special education school primarily serving students diagnosed with Autism and developmental challenges between the age of 5 and 21 with a total enrollment of 45 students (Ex. P-S-1,6). The school offers a blend of methodologies including Applied Behavioral Analysis (“ABA”), Treatment and Education of Autistic and Related Communication Handicapped Children (“TEACCH”) and the Developmental, Individual Differences, Relationship-Based (“DIR”) (Ex. P-S-2). The private school creates their own curriculum in line with the Common Core Standards as set forth by the New York State Education Department. The material is differentiated, and the presentation of instruction is based upon the students’ individual learning needs (Ex. P-S-6).

The AP testified that she has delivered speech and language services to the Student three times per week for 45 minutes since the beginning of the 2017-18 school year and has seen and interacted with him on almost a daily basis since he has been in the private school. She has discussed his learning needs and progress with his caregivers, teachers and related service providers at the private school (Ex. P-S-17). His teacher holds a master’s degree in special education and has ten years of experience working with students with special needs. There are 7 students in his class with similar functioning levels academically and socially (Ex. P-S-20, T:50). The age range is from 8 to 12 (T:50). In the classroom there is one teacher, one teaching assistant and five instructors (T:55-56). The teacher is a certified special education teacher, and the teaching assistant has a master’s degree in education (T:56-57). His class is ungraded, but chronologically the student would be in the third or fourth grade (T:61).

For the 2022-23 school year, the Student has successfully formed relationships with both staff and peers at the private school. Socially, they have been working to facilitate his engagement in sustained play for longer periods of time. Both positive behavioral interventions and reactive measures are implemented when the Student displays challenging behaviors. The proactive supports include positive reinforcement, embedded scheduling, clear expectations and noncontingent reinforcement. Reactively, he is redirected to replacement skills (Ex. P-S-20).

Academically, the private school has been working on reading comprehension, math, visual perception and labeling. In reading they are working on phonemic foundational skills and listening to passages and responding with “wh” questions. In math, they are focusing on premath skills including patterning, one-to-one correspondence, rote counting and number identification (Ex. P-S-20-21). The AP further described how the private school is addressing his toileting needs with some success (Ex. P-S-21, T:51-52). His impulsivity has been addressed with verbal cueing, redirection to task and use of his positive behavioral support strategies (T:51-52). The AP described his reading and math skills at the pre-k, maybe entering kindergarten level (T:52-53). He is supported through 1:1 seated work in an enclosed space where distractors are eliminated and fast paced directions are given with embedded visual schedules (Ex. P-R-3).

The AP testified that students are scheduled for about nine academic periods per week (T:60). The Student is scheduled for seven academic periods per week (T:60-61, Ex. P-L). During these periods, the content is goals related to reading, math and other skills designed by the teacher and the BCBA (T:60). She said there is some literacy-based content during speech language on Wednesdays and some academic skills are addressed during morning meetings (T:61). Academics are also incorporated into PROMPT, social studies and science (T:64, Ex. PL). His weekly schedule includes morning meeting, PT, speech therapy, academics, lunch, art group, biking group, rhythmic movement training and physical restructure of oral motor phonetic targets, social studies group, yoga/reading, music therapy in a group, food prep, APE, science group, floor time and snack (Ex. P-L).

In speech therapy the Student has been working on describing objects by category, function and appearance. His articulation challenges are addressed by working to repair communication breakdowns and providing tactile prompts on his face to facilitate target sounds. He receives occupational therapy (“OT”) in an individual setting and in groups to improve his gross and fine motor skills, strength and endurance, motor planning, visual perceptual, pre-writing skills, ability to follow directions and activities of daily living. (Ex. P-S-21-23). He receives physical therapy three times per week to assist with stairs, balance, lower extremity strength and ball skills (Ex. P-S-23). He also participates in a music therapy and a recreational art therapy one time per week in a group (Ex. P-S-24). The AP testified that through the use of ABA, TEACCH and DIR, the Student has made a significant amount of progress (Ex. P-S-25). His progress is tracked by regular data collection and graphing (T:48).

For the 2022-23 school year, the private school issued progress reports in November and March (Ex. P-R). His progress report indicates that by the second trimester, he had mastered or gained competency in many of his academic skills (Ex. P-R-1-3). The related service reports also indicate that he is making steady progress toward goal achievement (Ex. P-R-4-9). The Parent testified that the Student is doing very well at the school. His language has improved, he is more appropriate socially and his toilet training has taken off (T:84-85).

The Parents entered into a contract with the private school on June 9, 2022, and the annual tuition is $123,000 (Ex. P-K). To date, the Parents have not paid the tuition because they cannot afford it (T:83-84).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The IDEA provides that children with disabilities are entitled to a FAPE (20 U.S.C. § 1400 [d][1][A]). A FAPE consists of specialized education and related services designed to meet a student’s unique needs, provided in conformity with a comprehensive written IEP (34 C.F.R. § 300.13). A school district has offered a student a FAPE when (a) the board of education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA; and (b) the IEP is developed through the IDEA's procedures and is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits Bd. of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 (1982). In order to meet its substantive FAPE obligations, a district must offer a student an IEP that is “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances” Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S.Ct. 988 (2017). If a procedural violation has occurred, relief is warranted only if the procedural violation affected the student's right to a FAPE. 8 NYCRR §200.5[4]; J.D. v. Pawlet Sch. Dist., 224 F.3d 60, 69 (2d Cir. 2000).

In New York State, school districts have the burden of proof, including the burden of persuasion and burden of production in IDEA due process hearings, except that a parent or person in parental relationship seeking tuition reimbursement or payment for services for a unilateral parental placement has the burden of persuasion and burden of production on the appropriateness of such placement (NYS Educ. Law § 4404(1)(c)). It is well settled that 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]).(Application of a Child with a Disability, SRO Appeal No. 22-154).

A board of education may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private educational services obtained for a student by his or her 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, Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 [1985]; Florence County School Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 US 7 [1993]). If the District is unable to prove that it met its burden under Prong I of the three prong Burlington/Carter test, the Parents in order to meet their burden must establish by a preponderance of the evidence, that the unilateral placement provided “educational instruction specifically designed to meet the unique needs of the student” (Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 112 [2d. Cir. 2007]. However, the private school placement “need not meet the IDEA definition of a free and appropriate public education” or “state education standards or requirements” (Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 364 [2d. Cr. 2006]. The private placement need not provide certified special education teachers or an IEP. Parental placements are not subject to the same mainstreaming requirements as a school district placement. The private school placement must be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, and must be likely to produce progress, not regression.

The standard to apply is whether "[the] unilateral private placement ... provides educational instruction specifically designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child" Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115):

“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 handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction.” Gagliardo,489 F.3d at 112 (quoting Frank G , 459 F.3d at 364-65).

Finally, under the third prong of the Burlington/Carter test, equitable factors must weigh in the favor of the parents in order to qualify for an award of tuition reimbursement. Where parents “lack the financial resources to ‘front’ the costs of private school tuition, and in the rare instances where a private school is willing to enroll the student and take the risk that the parents will not be able to pay tuition costs – or will take years to do so- parents who satisfy Burlington factors have a right to retroactive direct tuition payment relief” (Mr. and Mrs. A. v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 769 F.Supp. 2d 403,428 [SDNY 2011]. Proof of inability to pay is not required to establish the propriety of direct retrospective payment of tuition or fees by a school district (Ferreira and Rojas v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 22 Civ 4993, 123 LRP 9785 [March 14, 2023 SDNY]).

ANALYSIS

The testimony presented by the Parent and her witness that the District’s recommended program did not offer the Student a FAPE is uncontroverted. The District did not appear on February 8, 2023, its day to present testimony, and presented no witnesses to describe how the 8:1:1 program would have provided the Student an appropriate education. In its closing statement the only argument that the District made in defense of the IEP was “with respect to Prong I, the District has rested on the documents.” (T:89). The testimony that the Student required 1:1 instruction was unrebutted, and there is no testimony or evidence that the proposed program would have provided 1:1 instruction. Based upon the District’s failure to present any defense of its 2022-23 IEP and/or a description as to how it would meet the Student’s special education needs, I find that the District has failed to meet its burden under Prong I of the Burlington/Carter test. Given the District’s complete failure to meet its burden, I do not find it necessary to consider all of the specific challenges to the IEP raised in the DPC. However, given the lack of evidence of any updated evaluation conducted by the District, I find that the District should evaluate the Student in all areas of disability, if it has not done so already.

Turning to the private school program selected by the Parents, based upon a thorough review of the testimony and evidence, I find the Parents met their burden that the private school provided the Student with specific instruction to meet his unique special education needs during the 2022-23 school year. The uncontroverted testimony reflects that the private school provided him with specific strategies and instructional methodologies to address his global delays in academics, speech, executive functioning, motor functioning and activities of daily living. His instruction was individualized based upon his needs and included research-based methodologies for addressing the needs of students with significant developmental delays.

The District in its closing argument argues that the private school provides only a limited number of “academic” periods. However, the AP described how his special education needs are addressed throughout the day in different classes and related services. The District also cites to the limited progress made by the Student. Progress is but one factor to consider. His 2022-23 progress reports reflect that his skills are progressing and not regressing. Given his significant delays as recognized by the District in its own IEP, the Student has made progress commensurate with his circumstances. I find that the private school was an appropriate unilateral placement.

There is no evidence in the record that the Parents did not cooperate with the CSE and/or thwarted the CSE process. As such, I find that the equities weigh in the Parents’ favor. There is also no evidence to dispute the Parents’ inability to pay the tuition directly.

ORDER

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

1. ORDERED that the District shall pay the private school directly for the Student's 2022-

23 school year tuition within 30 days of the date of this decision to the extent it has not already paid based upon the pendency order; and it is further

2. ORDERED that if the District has not conducted a triennial evaluation of the Student, it shall conduct an evaluation of the Student, including but not limited to a neuropsychological evaluation, speech language evaluation, occupational therapy evaluation and physical therapy evaluation.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 29, 2023

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

(A) 10/31/22 Impartial hearing request (22 pp.)

(B) 7/6/22 Findings of fact and decision for impartial hearing no. 197098/217078 (33 pp.) (C) 5/6/22 Letter to [REDACTED] (5 pp.) (D) 6/10/22 E-mail correspondence between parent and [REDACTED] (1 p.) (E) 8/18/22 Ten-day letter (4 pp.) (F) 8/18/22 DOE response to document E (1 p.) (G) 11/8/22 DOE acknowledgment of receiving the impartial hearing request (1 p.) (H) 12/30/22 E-mail advising of the appointment of an Impartial Hearing Officer (1 p.) (I) 1/10/23 E-mail correspondence regarding the DOE’s response to the impartial hearing request with the attached DOE response (10 pp.) (J) 1/30/23 Attendance report (1 p.) (K) 9/7/22 Tuition affidavit and 6/6/22 enrollment agreement (4 pp.) (L) 2022-2023 Weekly schedule (1 p.) (M) 5/6/18 [REDACTED] web page (30 pp.) (N) Nov. 2020, March 2021, and June 2021 Progress report (13 pp.) (O) 3/17/21 Annual review package (19 pp.) (P) Nov. 2021, March 2022, and June 2022 Progress report (13 pp.) (Q) 3/24/22 Annual review package (20 pp.) (R) Nov. 2022 Progress report (10 pp.) (S) 2/16/23 Affidavit in lieu of direct testimony of [REDACTED] (31 pp.)

DISTRICT EXHIBITS

2. Individualized Education Program 4/1/22 27 pages DOE

3. Prior Written Notice 4/29/22 13 pages DOE

IHO’S EXHIBITS

II. I. Emails to parties from IHO 1/4/23- 2 2/9/23 Email to IHO from [REDACTED] 3/28/23 2 pages

Footnotes

[1] Personally identifiable information is attached as Appendix A, “Redaction Identification Page,” to this decision and must be removed prior to public distribution.

[2] Exhibits shall be referred to as follows: “P” for Parents’ Exhibit; “D” for District’s or Department’s Exhibits; and “IHO” for Impartial Hearing Officer’s Exhibits. Exhibits will be followed by the exhibit number and page numbers as needed and appropriate.

[3] A more detailed list of the admitted exhibits is attached as Appendix B, “Documentation Entered Into the Record,” to this decision.

[4] The final extension was jointly requested.

[5] The record does not contain any evidence of a delay in services or missed services.

[6] The record does not contain any evidence of funds expended by the Parents for transportation.