New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

CASE NUMBER: 591413 NYC: 242225

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

FEBRUARY 23, 2023

For the Student:

[REDACTED], ESQ., Attorney

For the Department of Education:

None

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

MARCH 29, 2023

For the Student:

[REDACTED], ESQ., Attorney

[REDACTED], Legal Clerk

[REDACTED], Parent Student

[REDACTED], Psychologist

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], ESQ., Attorney

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

MAY 8, 2023

For the Student:

[REDACTED], ESQ., Attorney

[REDACTED], Legal Clerk

[REDACTED], Parent Student

[REDACTED], Principal, [REDACTED]

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], ESQ., Attorney

This case was brought before me pursuant to appointment by the New York City Department of Education (DOE) under the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 United States Code §1415(f)(1). [REDACTED] ([REDACTED]) is a [REDACTED]-year-old student whose parents [REDACTED] and[REDACTED] ([REDACTED], parents or parent) have filed a due process complaint notice (DPCN, or hearing request) claiming that the DOE failed to provide [REDACTED]with a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Among the relief being requested was payment for several independent education evaluations (IEEs), including a neuropsychological evaluation, a speech language evaluation, an occupational therapy evaluation, a physical therapy evaluation, an applied behavior analysis (ABA) skills assessment, and a functional behavior assessment (FBA) and behavior intervention plan (BIP). Ex. A.

The DPCN in this case, dated November 14, 2022, was amended effective January 11, 2023. The hearing was held on February 23, March 29, and May 8, 2023. An interim decision was issued on May 25, 2023. A schedule was established for submission of post-hearing briefs and accompanying documents (the last received July 11, 2023), and extensions were issued in compliance with state regulations, resulting in a compliance date of July 25, 2023.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES

The DPCN cited multiple claims, arguing that the district has failed to provide [REDACTED]is a free appropriate public education in the 2020-2021, 2021-2022, and 2022-2023 school years. Claims included failure to provide an appropriate program or placement for the child, failure to recommend appropriate related services, failure to recommend appropriate goals and teaching methodologies, failure to provide transportation services, and failure to the appropriate evaluations for the child. As relief, it requested perspective funding and/or reimbursement for the student’s tuition at [REDACTED] in the 2022-2023 school year, and related unspecified out of pocket expenses. It also asked for the district provide transportation, including a best professional, and to fund or reimburse the parents for transportation services privately obtained. In addition, it asked for independent evaluations followed by a CSE meeting to review results, related service records, and compensatory services to be determined. Exhibit A.

At hearing on March 29, 2023, the district representative stated that the district would not be presenting a Prong I case with respect to 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, conceding that the DOE had not provided [REDACTED]with a FAPE in those years, while asserting that the statute of limitations would bar any claims arising from the 2020-2021 school year. She indicated the district would not be presenting any witnesses and would be relying on its documentary evidence. The representative also reserved position on Prongs 2 and 3 of a Burlington-Carter analysis.

Following testimony about the request for independent evaluations on March 29 and May 8, 2023, and briefs submitted by the parties, an Interim Order was issued on May 25, 2023 which addressed the parent’s request for independent evaluations and ordered the district to convene to consider the results of those evaluations that were ordered. IHO-Ex. I.

FINDINGS OF FACT

[REDACTED]is a [REDACTED]-year-old child classified as having autism, primarily non-verbal and with additional deficits including sensory issues, behavior, and activities of daily living. [REDACTED], [REDACTED] father. testified at length about his son’s history.^[1] He explained that he received [REDACTED] diagnosis in March 2019, after which he was recommended for special instruction, speech, occupational therapy, and physical therapy services at home. [REDACTED] discussed his son’s deficits of length, stressing his disappointment with the DOE’s failure to address them for the school years spanning 2020 and 2022. [REDACTED]is not potty trained, and he has difficulty with using the spoon and fork, although he has improved his eating habits. He stated that between the years 2020 and 2022 the DOE did not provide [REDACTED]with any activities of daily living classes. [REDACTED] described behavior issues, stating that [REDACTED]becomes frustrated very easily and distracted very easily when just regulated things do not go his way, he bangs his head was roast himself on the floor. He also engages in loud screaming. The DOE had not provided any behavior intervention plan for him. [REDACTED]struggles with socialization, has limited interaction even with his siblings at home. DOE provided no socialization instruction.

Asked whether the DOE provided appropriate supports for the three school years, [REDACTED] noted occupational therapy recommended for him. [REDACTED] testified that no ABA services were recommended in August 2020. He testified that he asked for more speech services than were recommended. He stated that the DOE never provided any related service records to either him or his counsel. Asked whether he received all the recommended services during the 2020-2021 school year, he noted the difficulty of interaction and service interruptions during the pandemic. He stated the same thing happened in the 2021-2022 school year, with interruption services.

In the April 2, 2021 IEP meeting for the 2021-2022 school year, he described [REDACTED] headbanging, and was told that they should put him in a helmet. He also requested limited time travel, again it didn’t change anything. [REDACTED]was not given ABA services, nor a behavior plan. IN the 2022 IEP meeting, he was told they would put them in a 6:1:1 classroom in district 75. Again he asked for limited time trial, without success. [REDACTED] stated that [REDACTED] was trying to address [REDACTED] issues, noting a functional behavior assessment and a behavior plan created to do that. He also noted the classroom set up, including the individual paraprofessional for [REDACTED] He cited the size of the classroom, as well as being a restricted environment, with ABA methodology being used to observe and resolve issues. He also noted mandatory services being provided, on a frequency of speech four times weekly which he stated was necessary for [REDACTED]

He stated that [REDACTED] communication ability is a little bit improved from last year, and he has started using two or three words to communicate rather than a single word, which was hard for him trying to articulate a request. He has also begun to follow some instructions [REDACTED]had also improved his sensory issues, improving day-to-day living, using the fork and spoon, and starting to request items, such as water, chips, some veggies. He has also asked his father to “come, come.” He’s been repeating nursery rhymes more, all of [REDACTED] described as good progress compared to the prior year. In reading, he can read the colors, noting B-L-U-E spells blue and R-E-D spells red, and he is also able to read and pronounce exit signs. The paraprofessional has reported that [REDACTED]tries to read the signs in the street, noting his motivation to read and understand. In math he knew his numbers but it was tough for him to repeat them sequentially, although now he can count to 50 with few errors. He can also type the keyboard numbers one through 30, and is currently working on addition. An additional improvement has occurred in his feeding, and he is also cooperating more with taking his bath, and having his hair and nails cut. [REDACTED] stated that the main issue with his behavior was aggressiveness, which still exists, but the frequency is less. Tr. 200-202.

He stated that the DOE has provided transportation to and from [REDACTED] during the 2022-2023 school year but it has not been consistent. At the beginning of the school year they would be picking him up at 6 AM, and might not be dropping him off till 5:30 or 6 PM. He described huge trouble with the bus company, which then agreed to pick him up at 6:45 AM, still more than one and one-half hour. [REDACTED] applied for limited time travel for [REDACTED] with a recommendation from the doctor for 30 minutes, but the district denied it.

The physician report sent to the DOE, dated September 6, 2022, stated that [REDACTED]becomes “very agitated/aggressive, and exhibits self-injury behaviors when overstimulated.” He further stated that “because of his stress response, [REDACTED]requires time and transportation to be limited to avoid agitation and self-injury we are requesting MAXIMUM 30 minutes on bus to avoid exacerbation.” The DOE’s Office of School Health issued a decision on November 11, 2022, noting the request and citing the student’s autism, communication behavior difficulties, requiring one-to-one para, assistance with ADL, and request for limited time on bus of 30 minutes and air conditioning. It stated that there was no mention of aggression in the IEP, and although the child was approved for 1:1 paraprofessional for close supervision, climate control, and door-to-door busing, the decision stated that the child was “medically stable and not highly aggressive,” thus limited travel time was “not medically indicated,” instead modifying the transportation order to a bus with fewer students.

Although [REDACTED]was approved for a one-on-one para in the bus, [REDACTED] explained that when the para was not available the bus would not pick him up and there were several times he missed school because of the para. There was also an incident when they replaced the bus driver and he didn’t show up. He said because of the para they were missing school since December 19, 2022, but now they have a para and the bus is a little stable since January 20 till now, and he is regular with school. He doesn’t know what to do if an issue comes up again. Tr. 158-199; Exs. 6, T-AA, LL, KK. [REDACTED], Principal at [REDACTED], described the school’s [REDACTED] program for students who are alternately assessed. In the [REDACTED] program, students are taught functional academics, as well as receiving social skills training, pre-vocational training, and daily living training. Students are taught with the ABA methodology, using discrete trials and working one-on-one in a data-driven system. [REDACTED] also offers the [REDACTED]program for state assessed students, and a blended program that combines students from both programs. [REDACTED] stated that [REDACTED]was in the [REDACTED] elementary program for the 2022-2023 school year. [REDACTED]is a 12-month student, but began at [REDACTED] in October 2022. He is a 6:1:1 class, with teacher and teacher assistant, and he also has a one-to-one para. His teacher, [REDACTED], is a registered behavior technician, currently in school for her BCBA. [REDACTED]also receives speech, physical therapy, and occupational therapy.

She stated that [REDACTED]needs intensive ABA and discrete trials all day in all of the areas, the classroom, related services, gym and art. He requires and benefits from positive reinforcement. such as a token board. He has a behavior intervention plan and a sensory diet. The behavior plan, which includes proactive strategies to address his maladaptive behavior before it occurs, was developed following data taken when he first started for a functional behavior assessment that was written. Exs. KK, LL. [REDACTED] stated that he works well with visuals and repetition, and he was introduced to some CVC words and pre-primer sight words. She noted progress in all academics, reading, math, and writing, particularly noting progress with his letters and letter sounds, and also citing improvement in his attention span, sitting and attending for longer periods of time and transitioning much better from not preferred activities. She also noted progress in his behaviors, stating that he was less self-injurious than when he began. He has also been progressing in communication. [REDACTED] noted that [REDACTED]has his limited verbal abilities and is echolalic at times, but they're working on reciprocal conversations and communicating. He is working on receptive language, expressive language, and pragmatic language, on paying attention to task, and intelligibility. His social skills training included the social thinking curriculum, working on appropriate play, sharing, taking turns. She confirmed progress reports issued by the school. Tr. 123-155; Exs. GG, HH, II, JJ.

Contract. The contract with [REDACTED] for at 33-week 10-month program for the 2022-2023 school year beginning October 14, 2022 indicated a total price including related services and a designated 1:1 paraprofessional of $103,008.75. Ex. NN. An affidavit from the school indicated that the parent had paid $500, leaving a balance due of $102,508.75. Ex. OO. [REDACTED] explained that he works as an information technology analyst in a contract position, an hourly position, earning around $80,000 or $83,000 a year. He paid $500 towards [REDACTED] tuition for the 2022-2023 school year. He said he is not able to provide any of the tuition fees to [REDACTED] out-of-pocket. Tr. 193-198; Ex. XX.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The decision in this case addresses the challenge to the district’s actions and request for tuition for [REDACTED] placement at [REDACTED] in 2022-2023. The decision rests on a determination of the three-pronged test set forth by the United States Supreme Court in the Burlington case, which provided that a board of education may be required to pay for educational 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. Dept. of Educ., Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985); Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 US 7 (1993).

As noted above, the district representative stated that the district was not presenting a Prong 1 case with respect to 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, conceding that the district had failed to sustain its burden as to providing [REDACTED]with a FAPE. The representative had reserved position on Prongs 2 and 3; the brief submitted by the DOE argued that the placement at [REDACTED] was not appropriate, and made no mention of equities, presenting no position on the topic.^[2] Thus, the decision about the child’s placement at [REDACTED] turns exclusively on a determination concerning the appropriateness of the placement.

Under the second prong of Burlington, the parents bear the burden of proving the appropriateness of the services sought for [REDACTED] M.S. v. Board of Education of the City of Yonkers, 231 F.3d 96, 104 (2d Cir. 2000); Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 99-51; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 94-29; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 95-57. In order to meet that burden, the parents must show that [REDACTED] offered an educational program designed to meet [REDACTED]’s special education needs. School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education, Massachusetts, 471 U.S. 359 (1985); Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 99-51; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 98-76; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 94-29. A unilateral placement is only appropriate if it provides education instruction specifically designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child. Gagliardo v. Arlington Central School District, 489 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2007).

In this regard, I find that the parent has sustained their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of the program at [REDACTED] for [REDACTED]

I credit [REDACTED]’s description of the services provided [REDACTED]in the [REDACTED] program at [REDACTED], noting the 1:1 ABA instruction and discrete trials for academics in the 6:1:1 class, as well as the functional behavioral assessment and behavior intervention plan developed to address the child’s maladaptive behaviors. I also note social skills training, and speech-language therapy, occupational therapy, and physical therapy, and reports of [REDACTED] progress in all areas. [REDACTED] also noted improvement in [REDACTED] communication skills, using multiple words rather than single words, making requests for things he wanted, and following instructions, and noting improvements in math as well. He also noted improvement in sensory issues, with improvements in day-to-day living, in feeding, and in cooperating in hygiene tasks. He particularly cited the classroom environment at [REDACTED], including the size of the classroom and individual help of the paraprofessional and ABA methodology used in the classroom. I credit his description of aggressiveness as [REDACTED] main issue, noting his praise of the fact that a functional behavior plan was conducted and a behavior plan put in place to address those issues, and I credit his assessment that the frequency of maladaptive behavior was less.

For the reasons noted above, I find that [REDACTED] provided a program for [REDACTED]designed to meet his special education needs in the 2022-2023 school year.

The parent has also requested direct funding to the school, as authorized by case law. Connors vs. Mills, 34 F.Supp.2d 795 (NDNY, 1998); Sabatini v. Corning-Painted Post Area School District, 78 F.Supp. 2d 138 (USDC, WDNY). In this case, the parent’s inability to afford the tuition was confirmed by his testimony and tax returns and earnings statement. Despite early reservation on the issue of equities, the district representative offered no opinion on equities nor any objection to an award of reimbursement or direct payment during the hearing or in the post hearing brief submitted.. Under the circumstances, direct funding in this case is warranted.

Additional claims

Limited travel time. The request for transportation was for limited time transportation provide the student, no more than 30 minutes, as recommended by his pediatrician. Tr. 200-202; Ex. A. As [REDACTED] testified and as the parent’s brief noted, the child’s commute to and from [REDACTED] is about 2.5 hours each way.

The request for limited time is precisely the request that was in the September 6, 2022 letter from the child’s doctor, stating that [REDACTED]becomes “very agitated/aggressive, and exhibits self-injury behaviors when overstimulated.” The request specifically stated that “because of his stress response, [[REDACTED]] requires time and transportation to be limited to avoid agitation and self-injury we are requesting MAXIMUM 30 minutes on bus to avoid exacerbation.” Despite the express reference to the child’s aggression, the Office of School Health issued a decision refusing the request, stating that the IEP did not include any mention of aggression and failing to acknowledge the doctor’s express reference to aggression.

The district offered no position during hearing or in its post-hearing brief concerning the parent’s request for appropriate transportation for [REDACTED] Ex. 11. As the district has conceded that it did not provide a FAPE for 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the IEP does not provide valid justification for the district’s decision rejecting the transportation request. Under the circumstances, I am ordering the district to immediately provide appropriate transportation for [REDACTED] which shall be included on the child’s IEP “special transportation” including 30 minutes maximum time accompanied by the bus paraprofessional.

Compensatory services. The request for compensatory services in the DPCN was narrowed by the parent in the post-hearing brief to a request for 100 hours of occupational therapy, 100 hours of physical therapy, and 150 hours of speech language therapy. The request is [REDACTED]d on a calculation covering two-and-a half years, a calculation that included (1) a school year (2020-2021) the district disputed as barred by the statute of limitations, (2) another school year (2021-2022) in which the DOE conceded that it had not provided a FAPE for the child, and (3) another half-year in the 2022-2023 school year which the child attended the private school and transportation difficulties kept him out of school.

The parent argues that the DOE’s failure to provide requested records of related service encounters requested in the DPCN supported a finding of negative inference concerning services provided to the child during those time periods.

The district’s brief never mentions the request for related service encounter records (nor did the district representative mentioned the topic during hearing). The brief seems to state that the district has provided everything it must by providing due process, without any mention of the request for records concerning related services for the child over the three-year period. There was no attempt to provide those records nor to explain why they were not provided or that they could not be found. The request was simply ignored.

There was also no mention of compensatory services for any year by the district representative at any time, during the hearing or the post-hearing brief. As noted above, there was also no mention concerning the failure provide transportation to the child during the 2022-2023 period in which the child attended [REDACTED].

At the same time, the DOE conceded that it had not provided a FAPE for the child in the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years. Under the circumstances, it is beyond dispute the child is owed compensatory hours for these related services over the course of the 12-month school year of 2021-2022, which would total 46 hours of compensatory occupational therapy, 46 hours of compensatory physical therapy, and 69 hours of compensatory speech language therapy. In addition, the undisputed time missed due to the DOE’s failures during the 2022-2023 school year adds eight hours of occupational therapy, eight hours of physical therapy, and 12 hours of speech language therapy.

As to the competing arguments concerning the 2020-2021 school year, I don’t need to address the argument concerning the statute of limitations and I don’t need to address the argument concerning negative inference. The request and the claim were clearly in the DPCN, all issues clearly within the scope of the hearing and to be considered in the hearing. The district in hearing and its post-hearing brief chose not to address the request for related service encounter records and not to address the request for compensatory services in toto. I note also the district’s wholesale failure to comply with the requirements of the Family Educational and Rights Privacy Act (FERPA) and Chancellor’s regulations concerning parental rights for inspection and review of the student’s education records. 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99; Chancellor’s Regulation A-820. Accordingly, it failed to meet the burden of proof concerning the claims in the DPCN. The 46 hours of occupational therapy, the 46 hours of physical therapy, and 69 hours of compensatory speech language therapy for the 2020-2021 school year will be added to the total of compensatory related services to be provided to the child.

Request for independent evaluations. As noted above, this was decided in the Interim Order, which ordered a neuropsychological evaluation, list of technology evaluation, and ABA skills assessment, to be followed by a CSE review, and denied request for independent evaluations of [REDACTED]for physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech-language, and for a functional behavioral assessment and behavior intervention plan. The parent’s brief repeated the request.

The Interim Order included the parent’s testimony and documents, and there was no further evidence offered into the record following the hearing. Despite the parent’s post-hearing brief, there is no new basis for any different holding than was issued in the Interim Order.

ORDER

1. The DOE shall provide funding for [REDACTED] tuition at [REDACTED] for the 10-month 2022-2023 school year at a rate not to exceed $102,508.75.

2. The DOE shall refund $500 to the parent for payment towards [REDACTED] tuition at [REDACTED] for the 2022-2023 school year.

3. The DOE shall provide appropriate transportation for [REDACTED]to and from [REDACTED], which shall be included on the child’s IEP under “special transportation” to include 30 minutes maximum time accompanied by the bus paraprofessional.

4. The DOE shall provide compensatory services to be accessed by [REDACTED]for a total of 100 hours of occupational therapy, 100 hours of physical therapy, and 150 hours of speech language therapy, services to be funded by the DOE by a qualified provider chosen by the parent at market rate.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Issued: July 20, 2023

Corrected: July 24, 2023

__Nancy M. Lederman_______

NANCY M. LEDERMAN

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 proceedings 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.

EXHIBITS

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION EXHIBITS *

1. IEP, 4/5/22, 30 pages DOE

2. Prior written notice, 4/28/22, 4 pages DOE

3. Classroom observation, 3/9/22 2 pages DOE

4. Psychological evaluation, 5/9/22, 5 pages DOE

6. Physician review for transportation request, 11/11/22, 2 pages DOE

7. School location document, 12/1/22, 2 pages DOE

8. Parent waiver for an, IEP meeting, 11/23/22, 6 pages DOE

9. Due process complaint, 11/14/22, 12 pages

10 Brief for DOE, [REDACTED], 4/12/23, 7 pages (131 total pages with attached cases) DOE

11. Closing Brief and Memorandum of Law, [REDACTED], 6/2/23 * There was no exhibit 5 entered in the record. 9 pages DOE

PARENT EXHIBITS **

A. Parent’s Hearing Request, 11/14/22, 12 pages

B. Individualized Education Program, 8/21/20, 21 pages

C. Individualized Education Program, 4/22/21, 20 pages

D. Individualized Education Program, 4/05/22, 31 pages

E. Preschool Student Evaluation Summary Report, 7/01/20, 4 pages

F. Preschool Observation, 7/01/20 1 page

G. Preschool Social History, 7/01/20 5 pages

H. Preschool Bilingual Psychological Evaluation, 7/01/20, 8 pages

I. Preschool Speech and Language Evaluation, 7/08/20, 6 pages

J. Preschool Occupational Therapy Evaluation, 7/08/20, 5 pages

K. Preschool Physical Therapy Evaluation, 7/02/20, 5 pages

L. Turning 5 Psychological Evaluation, 3/09/22, 5 pages

M. Ten Day Notice Letter and Confirmation Receipts, 9/16/22, 5 pages

N. Notice of Classroom Staffing Disruption, 10/18/21, 1 page

O. Prior Written Notice re: Placement, 6/10/22, 5 pages

P. Parent Email to DOE, 6/15/22, 3 pages

Q. Parent Email to DOE, 6/21/22, 1 page

R. Parent Email to DOE, 9/09/22, 1 page

S. DOE Email to Parent, 9/12/22, 1 page

T. Physician Recommendation re Transportation, 9/06/22, 2 pages

U. Email to CSE re Transportation, 10/07/22-10/28/22, 2 pages

V. Physician Review Form for Transportation, 11/11/22, 2 pages

W. Parent Signed IEP Waiver, 12/01/22, 1 page

PARENT

X. Email to DOE, 12/05/22, 1 page

Y. Parent Emails to [REDACTED] re Bus Para, 12/19/22-01/05/23 4 pages

Z. Email from DOE re Bus Para, 1/03/23, 1 page

AA. Parent Letter to DOE re Bus Para, 1/09/23, 3 pages

BB. Subpoena, Related Service Records, 1/04/23 4 pages

CC. Parent’s Request for IEE, 10/11/22, 7 pages

DD. Rate Sheet, [REDACTED], 1/01/23 2 pages

EE. Rate Sheet, [REDACTED] Speech Services, undated, 1 page

FF. Parent’s Motion for IEE, 1/18/23 34 pages

GG. [REDACTED] Physical Therapy Progress Report, 11/28/22, 3 pages

HH. [REDACTED] Occupational Therapy Progress Report, 12/03/22, 2 pages

II. [REDACTED] Speech Therapy Progress Report, 12/18/22, 3 pages

JJ. [REDACTED] Academic Progress Report, 12/22/22, 3 pages

KK. [REDACTED] Behavior Intervention Plan, 12/16/22 4 pages

LL. [REDACTED] Functional Behavior Assessment, 12/16/22 7 pages

MM. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] Program Description, 2022, 2 pages

NN. [REDACTED] 2022-2023 Tuition Agreement, 10/24/22, 2 pages

OO. [REDACTED] 2022-2023 Tuition Affidavit, 1/11/23, 1 page

PP. [REDACTED] 2022-2023 Schedule, 2022-2023, 1 page

QQ. Resume of [REDACTED], [REDACTED] Administrator, undated 3 pages

RR. Resume, [REDACTED] Teacher, undated 2 pages

SS. Parent Emails to DOE re Bus Para, 1/09/23-01/20/23 4 pages

TT. Parent Emails to DOE re Bus Para, 1/30/23 1 page

UU. Rate Affidavit [REDACTED], MPG, 3/12/23, 2 pages

WW. Rate Affidavit, [REDACTED], Psychologist, 3/14/23, 2 pages

YY. Parents’ Closing Brief redacted, undated ** There was no exhibit VV entered in the record. 30 pages

IHO EXHIBITS

I. Interim Order, N. Lederman, 5/25/23 11 pages

Footnotes

[1] [REDACTED]’s testimony about evaluations for [REDACTED]was the subject of and included in the Interim Order issued in this case. IHO-Ex. I. It will not be repeated here.

[2] The position of the parties on claims concerning 2020-2021 were not relevant to a determination concerning the unilateral placement of the child in the 2022-2023 school year.