New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

CASE NUMBER: 590833 – NYC: 241743

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: November 7, 2022

Date(s) of Hearing: January 12, 2023

January 27, 2023

February 9, 2023

March 15, 2023

Actual Record Closed Date: April 6, 2023

Date of Decision: April 6, 2023

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

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

January 12, 2023

For the Student:

REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.

For the Department of Education:

None

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

January 27, 2023

For the Student:

REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.

For the Department of Education:

None

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

February 9, 2023

For the Student:

REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.

For the Department of Education:

None

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

March 15, 2023

For the Student:

REDACTED REDACTED, Esq.

REDACTED REDACTED, Parent Student

REDACTED REDACTED, School Witness

For the Department of Education:

None

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 November 7, 2022. Ex. A.^[1] On January 5, 2023, I was appointed by the New York City Department of Education to hear this matter. Parent seeks reimbursement or direct funding for tuition for REDACTED’s placement at The REDACTED Program of REDACTED at REDACTED (“REDACTED”) for the 2021-2022 school year. Ex. A.

I conducted a prehearing conference on January 12, 2023. Counsel` appeared on behalf of REDACTED’s parent; no one appeared on behalf of the Department. Counsel confirmed that REDACTED’s parent was seeking tuition reimbursement for REDACTED for the 2021-2022 school year and reported that the Department was investigating the case for settlement. Counsel requested a pendency hearing. I scheduled the pendency hearing for January 27. On January 27, counsel for REDACTED’s parent appeared; no one appeared on behalf of the Department. A pendency hearing was conducted; Parent’s Exhibits A through C were admitted in evidence; and an Order on Pendency was subsequently issued. The hearing was scheduled for February 9.

On February 9, counsel for REDACTED’s parent appeared; no one appeared on behalf of the Department. Counsel reported that REDACTED’s parents wished to continue to try to resolve this matter through settlement but that there had been no progress on the settlement. The hearing was rescheduled one final time to permit the parties time to resolve this matter through settlement.

On March 15, the Department again failed to appear, and the hearing went forward in the Department’s absence. Parent’s counsel presented an opening statement. REDACTED’s parent and the program director of REDACTED testified. Parent’s Exhibits D through N were admitted in evidence. Parent’s counsel provided a closing statement; after the conclusion of the hearing, counsel forwarded a progress reports for REDACTED, which were admitted in evidence as Parent Exhibits O through S on April 6, and the record was closed on April 6.

Counsel for the Parent requested extensions of the compliance date, and written Orders of Extension were issued on January 12, February 9, and March 15, 2023. The reasons for granting the extensions are set forth in the Orders.

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. Part 300, and New York State Education Law § 4404, and its implementing regulations, 8 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 200.

Parent, through counsel, consented to conducting the hearing via videoconference and to the transmission of this written decision via email. Tr. 4, see also 68-69.

ISSUES

REDACTED’s parent requests funding for tuition and related services costs owed to REDACTED for REDACTED’s enrollment at REDACTED for the 2021-2022 school year. At the hearing, the Department did not defend the special education program that it offered to REDACTED for the 2021-2022 school year. The issues to be resolved are:

1. Was REDACTED an appropriate unilateral parental placement for REDACTED for the 2021-2022 school year?

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

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. REDACTED is a now REDACTED-year-old boy who is eligible for special education and services under the IDEA and whose disability, for the purposes of the IDEA, is classified as autism. Ex. A at 1.

2. REDACTED is diagnosed with REDACTED. Ex. M at ⁋ 1.

3. REDACTED experiences challenges with comprehension, communication, interaction with both adults and peers, rigidity and frustration, attention, academics and all area of learning. Ex. M at ⁋ 3; Ex. N at ⁋⁋ 12, 14. He also demonstrates anxiety, difficulties with emotional regulation, and is often unfocused and unaware of his environment. Ex. N at ⁋⁋

14-15. While he demonstrates severe expressive, receptive, and cognitive language deficits, he is verbal, and, when his is motivated, engages in instructional activities, his related services, and with his classmates. Ex. N at ⁋ 12.

4. REDACTED is a bilingual REDACTED student who has attended, and continues to attend, bilingual REDACTED school programs. Ex. M at ⁋ 1.

5. REDACTED received preschool CPSE services in a bilingual REDACTED 12:1:2 center-based preschool. When that school closed, the CPSE placed REDACTED in a monolingual center-based preschool program. REDACTED struggled in the monolingual program. Ex.

M at ⁋⁋ 4-7; Tr. 45-46.

6. The CPSE again recommended a bilingual REDACTED program for REDACTED and provided him with interim bilingual REDACTED SEIT services for summer 2017. Ex. M at ⁋ 7.

7. When REDACTED’s mother attended REDACTED’s “turning five” CSE meeting, Department personnel informed her that they “had to recommend a monolingual program” for REDACTED despite REDACTED’s mother’s concerns that he would not progress in such a program. Ex. M at ⁋ 8.

8. In September 2018, REDACTED’s mother placed REDACTED at REDACTED. Ex. M at ⁋ 12.

9. REDACTED is a nonpublic school for students with disabilities. The REDACTED program at REDACTED is a bilingual REDACTED program designed for students with significant delays in functional areas such as language and social-emotional skills; many of the students in the program are diagnosed with autism. The program emphasizes develop language and social skills and provides explicit teaching in functional skills. Tr. 61-63; Ex. L at 1; Ex. N at ⁋⁋ 4-5.

10. Each school year since 2018, REDACTED’s mother challenged the IEPs that the CSE developed for REDACTED on the grounds that the CSE continued to recommend monolingual programs for him. Ex. M at ⁋⁋ 13-17.

11. REDACTED’s mother attended an IEP meeting for REDACTED on May 7, 2021. The CSE recommended that REDACTED be placed in a monolingual 12:1:1 special education class in a special education school and recommended a 12-month school year for him.

REDACTED’s mother informed the CSE that REDACTED needed a bilingual REDACTED program and that a class of twelve students would be too large for REDACTED. Ex. M at ⁋⁋ 18-20.

12. At the meeting, REDACTED’s mother explained that REDACTED, given his autismrelated challenges with language and social skills, “needs to be able to speak and learn in his native language,” that he “speaks in REDACTED and learns and socializes in REDACTED,” and that he “would be lost in a classroom where he is expected to learn fully in English and would not continue to develop his social skills.” Ex. M at ⁋ 20; see also Ex. N at ⁋ 13.

13. REDACTED’s mother never received a copy of the IEP developed at the May 2021 meeting. Ex. M at ⁋ 21.

14. REDACTED’s mother submitted a “ten-day” notice letter to the Department on June 23, 2021. Ex. D. In the letter, REDACTED’s mother informed the Department that she had not yet received the IEP from the May 2021 CSE meeting, that she had not yet received a school placement for REDACTED, and that she would be continuing REDACTED at REDACTED and seeking tuition funding from the Department. Ex. D.

15. REDACTED attended REDACTED for the entirety of the 2021-2022 12-month school year. Ex. M.

16. REDACTED program classes are housed in a general education schools. Ex. N at ⁋ 4.

17. There were eight students in REDACTED’s class, with one teacher and one assistant teacher. Tr. 60. REDACTED and the students in his class share similar speech, language, and behavioral needs. Ex. N at ⁋ 18.

18. REDACTED’s school schedule included prayers, physical education, calendar and journaling, social skills, English Language Arts, snack and recess, lunch, spelling, writing, social studies, science, outdoor play, grammar, vocabulary, music therapy, and bible portion. The schedule also included REDACTED’s related services sessions for physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech therapy and counseling. Ex. J.

19. English, spelling, writing, math, social studies, and science were taught bilingually because the students in the class were REDACTED-speaking; material is taught in REDACTED and English-language is promoted and encouraged in the classroom. Tr. 56-37.

20. Instruction in English language is also provided throughout the school day in order to develop and improve the students’ English language skills. Tr. 57.

21. As REDACTED-dominant speakers, the school’s students “connected much better to information in REDACTED,” so the teachers introduced material in REDACTED, and then “generalize[d]” the material using English. Tr. 57. Explicit English language instruction occurred during English Language Arts class. Tr. 64.

22. Calendar and journaling were the morning meeting time for the class. Tr. 56.

23. Prayer time, Pentateuch class and Bible portion were the religious components of the school day. Tr. 55. Religious observance and study constituted 16 percent of the summer schedule and 14 percent of the September through June schedule. Tr. 55; Ex. N at ⁋ 49.

24. Even in classes of eight students, REDACTED needed (and REDACTED teachers provided) individualized direct instruction with verbal and tangible reinforcement for motivation and emotional support for scaffolding of his communication deficits, learning difficulties and engagement challenges. Ex. N at ⁋⁋ 19-20; Ex. O.

25. In reading, REDACTED’s teachers worked with REDACTED on phonemic awareness, phonics, decoding, reading comprehension, sequencing, inferences and making predictions through both individualized and group reading instruction. Ex. N at ⁋⁋ 21-.24, Ex. O.

26. REDACTED’s teachers utilized multi-sensory approaches to teaching REDACTED, as well as strategies to engage him, and keep him engaged, in learning; they also utilized intensive and timed instruction, practice of learned skills, kinesthetic activities, and readalouds. Ex. N at ⁋⁋ 25-26.

27. In math, REDACTED’s teachers utilized a research-based comprehensive math program and a multisensory structured methodology to teach math skills, which were difficult for REDACTED to understand due to his cognitive difficulties. Ex. N at ⁋⁋ 29-31; Ex. O.

28. The REDACTED program implemented social skills programming and social-emotional learning and behavioral supports to develop REDACTED’s social cognition and awareness, communication skills, emotional regulation, and coping strategies. Social skills were also addressed in counseling. Ex. N at ⁋⁋ 34-37.

29. Speech therapists worked with REDACTED on expressive and receptive language skills and articulation. Ex. N at ⁋ 40.

30. REDACTED’s weaknesses in fine and gross motor skills, visual motor skills, perceptual skills, sensory processing, and balance and coordination were addressed in OT and PT. Ex.

N at ⁋⁋ 42, 44.

31. REDACTED made progress at REDACTED during the 2021-2022 school year (Tr. 47-49, 60, 65-66; Exs. M at ⁋ 7, N at ⁋⁋ 27- 28, 33, 38-39, 41, 43, 45, 50-53; Exs. O, P, Q, R, S): a. Improved his pre-reading skills: learning to decode CVC words and recognize 30 sight words and improving his phonemic awareness; by the end of the school year, he was reading on a mid-first-grade level; b. Improved comprehension skills by learning to follow one-step directions and to answer questions about personal events and some “wh” questions about a simple story.

c. Improved his social skills and was able to interact with his peers; d. .Improved his play skills e. Improved comprehension and “became more aware of his surroundings” {tr. 48);

f. Improved speech articulation; g. Improved expressive language, demonstrated, in part, by asking questions; h. Improved fine and gross motor skills; i. Became interested in books and enjoyed reading.

32. REDACTED’s mother signed enrollment contracts for REDACTED’s attendance at REDACTED for the 2021-2022 school year. Exs. E, H. REDACTED’s parents are obligated to pay the tuition amounts set forth in the contracts. Exs. E, H.

33. The total tuition amount for July and August 2021 included the costs of related services. Tr. 58-59. That total was $16,986.00. Ex. E at 2; Ex. F.

34. The total tuition amount for September through June included the costs of related services. Tr. 58-59. That total was $114,300.00. Tr. 59; Ex. H at 2; Ex. I.

35. REDACTED’s parents have not paid the REDACTED tuition and were, at the time of the hearing, financially unable to pay the tuition. Ex. K, Ex. M at ⁋ 26.

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). 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., Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-008; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-121.

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 selected by the parents is 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). 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. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 189-90 (2d Cir. 2012). 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). The school district must then implement the IEP. 8 N.Y.C.R.R. 200.4(e)(1), (3).

In New York, the school district bears the burden of proof in an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement. N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404(1)(c); see R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85.

In this case, the DOE did not present testimony or documentary evidence with respect to its provision of FAPE to REDACTED for the 2021-2022 school year. Since the Department did not offer any testimony or documentary evidence to demonstrate that a program it had developed for REDACTED for the 2021-2022 school year was “reasonably calculated” to permit him to make progress given his unique circumstances, the Department did not carry its burden of proof and cannot prevail on the first “prong” of the Burlington/Carter test. Was REDACTED an appropriate placement for REDACTED for the 2021-2022 school year?

REDACTED’s parent bears the burden of proof concerning the appropriateness of REDACTED for REDACTED. See, e.g., Frank G. v. Board of Education of the Hyde Park Central Sch. Dist., 459 F. 3d 356, 364 (2d Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 169 (2007). To meet this burden, REDACTED’s mother must show that the educational services provided at 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 preponderance of the evidence establishes that REDACTED provided REDACTED with an educational environment in which his specific and identified special education needs were addressed. In particular, REDACTED addressed REDACTED’s need for small classes in which he received an individualized programming, multisensory instruction, social skills programming, related services and a 12-month program that he required in order to address his cognitive, communication, behavioral, and speech and language delays so he could learn. The record is clear as to the extent of the individualized special education and other supports that REDACTED personnel provided to REDACTED. See paragraphs 17 through 30, above. REDACTED made progress at REDACTED during the 2021-2022 school year. See paragraph 31, above.

The evidence thus demonstrates that REDACTED provided REDACTED with an appropriate special education program. See, e.g., T.K. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 810 F.3d 869, 878 (2d Cir. 2016) (unilateral program appropriate when it meets child’s needs and child makes progress); F.B. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 132 F. Supp. 3d 522, 555-56 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (unilateral program appropriate when it provided instruction and related services individualized to child’s needs and which resulted in progress); 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 the program at REDACTED was appropriate for REDACTED for the 2021-2022 school year. As a result, REDACTED’s parent prevails with respect to the second Burlington/Carter criterion. Does the balance of the equities favor REDACTED’ parents?

With respect to the third Burlington criterion, whether equitable considerations support REDACTED’s parent’s claims, the evidence establishes that REDACTED’ parent cooperated with the CSE by attending the CSE meeting, communicating with Department personnel 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). “Important to the equitable consideration is whether the parents obstructed or were uncooperative in the school district's efforts to meet its obligations under the IDEA.” C.L. v. Scarsdale Union Free Sch. Dist., 744 F.3d 826, 840 (2d Cir. 2014). There is no indication in the record that REDACTED’s parent impeded the Department’s efforts to offer REDACTED a FAPE.

Furthermore, REDACTED’s parent has an obligation under the contract to pay REDACTED’s tuition at REDACTED for the 2021-2022 school year. A hearing officer may, where the other requirements of Burlington and Carter permit, order prospective payment to a school or provider (rather than reimbursement to a parent) because: (1) such payment is permitted by Connors v. Mills, 34 F. Supp. 2d 795 (N.D.N.Y. 1998); and (2) it would be patently unfair to extend the protections granted by the United States Supreme Court in Burlington and Carter only to those disabled children whose parents happen to have the financial wherewithal to “front” the entire amount of the private school tuition, as in the instant case, and subsequently seek repayment from the school district. See also Ferreira v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 22 Civ. 4993 (S.D.N.Y. March 14, 2023). While REDACTED’s parent is financial unable to pay the REDACTED tuition (see paragraph 35, above), there is a recent decision from the Southern District, which is precedent controlling in this matter, holding that proof in inability to pay is not necessary. See Ferreira v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 22 Civ. 4993 (S.D.N.Y. March 14, 2023). Thus, an analysis and a ruling on REDACTED’s parents’ inability to pay is neither necessary nor appropriate.

Equitable considerations thus favor the award of relief to REDACTED’s parent. As a result, REDACTED’s parent prevails with respect to the third Burlington/Carter criterion.

ORDER

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

The Department of Education shall fund REDACTED’ placement at REDACTED for the 2021-2022 12-month school year. The amount of funding for the 2021-2022 12-month school year shall consist of 86 percent of the total summer 2021 program costs and 84 percent of the total September 2021 through June 2022 program, in the respective amounts of $14,268.24 and $98,298.00.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 6, 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

A. Letter Date PARENT’S EXHIBITS - Name of Document # of Pages DPC 11/4/22 3 pages

B. FOFD 202385 7/25/22 17 pages

C. FOFD 206988 9/23/22 26 pages

D. Parent letter 6/23/21 2 pages

E. Summer contract 21-22 2 pages

F. Payment affidavit 2/27/23 1 page

G. Summer schedule 21-22 1 page

H. Contract 21-22 2 pages

I. Payment affidavit 1/25/22 1 page

J. Schedule 21-22 1 page

K. Federal 1040 form 2019 2 pages

L. Program description N/A 3 pages

M. Parent testimony affidavit 3/3/23 4 pages

N. School testimony affidavit 3/6/23 8 pages

O. School progress report 6/5/22 4 pages

P. PT progress report 5/20/22 2 pages

Q. OT progress report 5/3/22 2 pages

R. Counseling progress report 6/1/22 1 page

S. Speech progress report 5/30/22 2 pages

Footnotes

[1] Exhibits shall be referred to as follows: Parent’s exhibits are identified with letters; Department exhibits are identified with numbers; and Impartial Hearing Officer’s Exhibits are labelled as “IHO.”