Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 242265

Student’s Name: [REDACTED]

District: [REDACTED]

Hearing Requested By: Parents

Hearing Officer: Martin J. Kehoe III, Esq.

Actual Record Close Date: September 15, 2023

I. Introduction

This document constitutes the Decision and Order of the undersigned, the duly designated Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) in an Impartial Hearing brought pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) and the New York State Education Laws. The School District will be referred to as District, the parent(s) as Parent(s) and the student will be referred to as Student.

II. Overview

This is a “reimbursement” case. A board of education may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private education 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. Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993); Sch. Comm. Of Burlington v. Dep’t. of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-70 (1985). The analytical framework for deciding a reimbursement case is typically called a three-prong analysis.

This case involves a demand for tuition reimbursement for the 2021-2022 school year (“SY”). The Parents filed the complaint notice on November 15, 2022. (Ex. A-1) I was appointed as the IHO on November 16, 2022. A hearing was held across multiple dates.^[1] The Parents introduced exhibits A-M into the record and called one (1) witness: the Parent/Mother. The District did not offer any exhibits, nor did they have any witnesses testify on their behalf.

a. Parents’ Position

The Parents allege that the District failed to provide the Student a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) for the 2021-2022 SY. (Ex. A-1) Specifically, the Parents claim that the District failed to develop an appropriate Individualized Education Plan (“IEP”) for the Student. As a remedy, the Parents seek reimbursement for the tuition costs associated with the unilateral placement of the Student at the Private School.

b. District’s Position

The District did not present a Prong I case, introduce evidence, or bring any witness to testify on their behalf.

c. Background of the Case

A CSE meeting was held to develop an IEP for the Student.^[2] (Ex. D-1). The Parents sent the District a ten-day notice letter on June 16, 2021, in which they rejected the District’s recommendation and notified them of their intent to unilaterally place the Student at the Private School for the 2021-2022 SY. (Ex. B-2). On November 15, 2022, the Parents filed the complaint notice. (Ex. A) On January 9, 2022, the District belatedly sent the Parents a Prior Written Notice (“PWN”) informing them of their recommended program and placement for the Student. (Ex. D-1)

d. Student History

The Student was fifteen (15) years old at the start of the 2021-2022 SY. The Parent provided a brief description of her son: [The Student] is a student who has struggled with multiple educational and clinical issues that significantly impede his education. [The Student] has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder ("ADHD"), Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Developmental Coordination Disorder due to weak motor skills, and Other Specific Neurodevelopmental Disorder due to weak visual processing. His challenges in these areas impact his cognitive functioning, his academic skill development, and his social and emotional functioning. [The Student’s] pattern of difficulties has been described as a "Non-Verbal

Learning Disorder." [The Student] has difficulty sustaining focus, listening, and following through on instructions, missing details, becoming distracted, and being forgetful. [The Student] has difficulty varying his impulses and thinking flexibly. [The Student] has challenges with making plans and organizing information, which interferes with this capacity to manage the day-to-day experiences in a classroom and with social interactions. (Ex. M-1).

After a review of the record, it appears that the most recent evaluation of the Student was a neuropsychological and educational evaluation dated May, 2017. (Ex. C). Since then, the Parents claim that the District has failed to appropriately evaluate the Student. (Ex. A-2).

It is with this background that I now turn to the legal considerations of the IDEA.

e. Legal Overview

As a legal overview, it is useful to understand the legal framework of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”).

A state receiving federal funds under the IDEA must provide disabled children with a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”). Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 (2d Cir. 2005). To ensure that qualifying children receive a FAPE, a school district must create an individualized education program ("IEP") for each such child. See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d); Murphy v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 297 F.3d 195, 197 (2d Cir. 2002) (describing the IEP as the "centerpiece" of the IDEA system). The IEP is "a written statement that sets out the child's present educational performance, establishes annual and short-term objectives for improvements in that performance, and describes the specially designed instruction and services that will enable the child to meet those objectives." D.D. ex rel. V.D. v. N.Y.C. Bd.

Of Educ., 465 F.3d 503, 507-08 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted). The IDEA requires that an IEP be "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits." Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 207, 102 S. Ct. 3034, 73 L. Ed. 2d 690 (1982). R.E. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 694 F.3d 167 (2nd Cir. 2012).

In New York, the state has assigned responsibility for developing IEPs to local

Committees on Special Education ("CSEs"). N.Y. Educ. Law § 4402(1)(b)(1); Walczak v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 123 (2d Cir. 1998). CSEs are comprised of members appointed by the local school district's board of education, and must include the student's parent(s), a regular or special education teacher, a school board representative, a parent representative, and others. N.Y.

Educ. Law § 4402(1)(b)(1)(a). The CSE must examine the student's level of achievement and specific needs and determine an appropriate educational program. Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 107-08 (2d Cir.

2007). R.E., 694 F.3d 167 (2nd Cir. 2012). If a parent believes that his child's IEP does not comply with the IDEA, the parent may file a "due process complaint" (a type of administrative challenge unrelated to the concept of constitutional due process) with the appropriate state agency. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6). In such cases, the IDEA mandates that states provide "impartial due process hearings" before impartial hearing officers ("IHOs"). Id. § 1415(f). Under New York's administrative system, the parties first pursue their claim in a hearing before an IHO. N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404(1). Either party may then appeal the case to the state review officer ("SRO"), who may affirm or modify the IHO's order. Id. § 4404(2). Either party may then bring a civil action in state or federal court to review the SRO's decision. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A). R.E., 694 F.3d 167 (2nd Cir. 2012).

III. Prong I

a. Did the District Present a Prima Facie Case?

i. Legal Standard

1. Procedural Standard

Detailed procedural provisions lie at the heart of the IDEA. 20 U.S.C. §§ 612 and 615; 34 C.F.R. §§300.300-300.576; Evans v. Rhinebeck Central School District, 930 F. Supp. 83 (S.D.N.Y. 1996); B.E. R.R. v. State Bd. of Educ. 874 F.2d 1036, 1041 (5th Cir. 1989). In order to achieve the goal of providing all children with eligible disabilities with a FAPE, the IDEA statute requires that the states comply with “extensive procedural rights and safeguards” in order to receive federal funds for use in special education programs. See 20 U.S.C. § 615(a); LIH v. New York City Board of Educ., 33 IDELR 1 (E.D.N.Y. 2000); J.G. v. Board of Education of the Rochester City Sch. Dist., 830 F.2d 444, 445 (2d Cir. 1987).

In evaluating whether the District has complied with the procedural requirements of the IDEA, I consider whether the alleged procedural violation either 1) impeded the Student’s right to a free and appropriate public education, 2) significantly impeded the Parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision making process regarding the provision of a free and appropriate education, or 3) caused a deprivation of educational benefits. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); see also, Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 471 F. Supp.2d 415, 419 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 9, 2007), Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 07-007.

2. Substantive Standard

IDEA requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriately considering the child's circumstances. Endrew F. v. Douglas Co. School Dist. Re-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017). This obligation of the District is accompanied by the requirement to demonstrate the appropriateness of the program recommended by its CSE. (Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 93-9; Application of a Child with a Handicapping Condition, Appeal No. 92-7; Application of a Handicapped Child, 22 Ed Dept Rep 487 [1983]).

To meet its burden, a board of education must be able to “. . . offer a cogent and responsive explanation for their decisions . . .” Endrew F., Supra.

ii. Analysis

I first look to the Parents’ allegations to determine the scrutiny to apply in evaluating the District’s presentation. The complaint notice was explicit about the following issues: 1) The documentation and anecdotal information available to the review team established [the Student’s] need for a program that offers academic and therapeutic support.

2) The parents maintain that the review team failed to adequately consider the information before them regarding [the Student’s] needs. Instead, the review team unilaterally shoehorned [the Student] into a program, absent proper justification. This served to deprive [the Student] of educational opportunities.

3) The DOE has not evaluated [the Student] in over three years. This results in a clear denial of his right to a FAPE.

4) Despite being on notice of [the Student’s] need for one-to-one special education support and teaching, the district did not properly consider [the Student’s] need for one-to-one teaching support. This served to deprive [the Student] of educational opportunities.

5) The IEP does not accurately describe [the Student’s] present levels of performance. The CSE’s failure to include information related to [the Student’s] functional abilities serves to deprive [the Student] of educational opportunities.

6) The annual goals are improper. The goals are vague, generic and were clearly drafted without regard to [the Student’s] functional needs or present capabilities.

The subject IEP is deficient based upon its failure, inter alia, to provide goals relating to [the Student’s] documented deficits. This violates the IDEA as well as New York regulations, which require the IEP to contain goals related to each area of the child’s educational needs. See 34 CFR 300.320 (a)(2)(i); 8 NYCRR 200.4 (d)(2)(iii)(A). The absence of goals in the IEP which reflect the student’s individualized needs, and which are capable of implementation and measurement, operate to deprive [the Student] of educational benefits.

7) The annual goals are not measurable. Thus, the IEP is fatally flawed. .

8) The parent asserts that they were not involved in the development of goals on [the Student’s] IEP. In fact, no goals were discussed at the meeting. This was a serious infringement upon the parent’s right to meaningfully participate in the development of the IEP and therefore constituted a denial of FAPE.

9) The IEP does not provide necessary support to facilitate [the Student’s] social and emotional development; notwithstanding the District’s knowledge of [the Student’s] social/emotional challenges that impede his education and that he requires a 24-hour, 7-day per week residential, therapeutic program. This serves to deprive [the Student] of educational opportunities.

10) The IEP does not provide necessary support to facilitate the development of [the Student’s] language-based learning skills.

11) The IEP also does not provide sufficient support to address [the Student’s] identified executive functioning challenges.

12) The CSE failed to evaluate [the Student] in all areas of his suspected disability. The IEP was, therefore, developed absent necessary information related to [the Student’s] functioning.

13) The team failed to properly consider Assistive Technology, which it is obligated to do.

14) The Management needs included in the IEP are extremely vague and cannot be properly implemented in the recommended program.

15) The IEP team was not duly constituted.

16) The proposed program/placement cannot provide [the Student] a suitable and functional peer group for instructional and social/emotional purposes.

17) The IEP does not include -and the team did not properly consider- peer reviewed research based methods; notwithstanding the district knowledge that [the Student] requires such methods to receive a FAPE.

18) The IEP does not adequately describe the basis of the CSE’s recommendations.

19) The CSE has not recommended a placement that is appropriate or that can implement the IEP. (Ex. A.2-4). This is the backdrop in which I weigh the District’s recommendations, ever mindful that the District has the burden of proof. In New York State, “[t]he board of education or trustees of the school district or the state agency responsible for providing education to students with disabilities shall have the burden of proof, including the burden of persuasion and burden of production, in any such impartial hearing …” N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404 (1)(c), modifying the rule enunciated in Schaffer where “[t]he burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is on the party seeking relief.” Schaffer, 546 U.S. at 537.

The District conceded Prong I to the extent that they did not defend the/any recommended program or placement. L.O. v. N.Y. City Dep't of Educ., 822 F.3d 95, 111 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9239. There was no testimony indicating the nature of the CSE deliberations, or even if such deliberations occurred. Rather, I am left to speculate concerning the particulars of the review process, the rationale employed by the CSE members and the discussions that may or may not have contributed to a final recommendation. Further, given the myriad specific substantive allegations against the school, and the complete failure to defend, I find that the District fell short of their burden in this case.

iii. Conclusion

Upon review, I find that the District failed to demonstrate that they met their burden in providing the Student an IEP tailored to meet his individualized needs. I, therefore, rule for the Parents on Prong I.

IV. Prong II

a. Legal Issue: Did the Parents Establish the Appropriateness of the Private School?

i. Legal Standard

Having determined that the District failed to offer the student a FAPE for the 2021-2022 SY, the next inquiry focuses on whether the parent's unilateral placement of the student at the Private School was appropriate. In doing so, I must consider whether the Parents met their burden of proving the appropriateness of the unilateral placement of the Student at the Private School. On Prong II, New York federal courts have held that parental placements are “subject to fewer constraints than that applied to the school authorities.” Schreiber v. E. Ramapo Cent. Sch. Dist., 700 F. Supp 529 [S.D.N.Y. 2010] The Second Circuit has clearly stated:

. . . [P]arents 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 v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105 [2d Cir. 2007] quoting Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 364 [2d Cir. 2006]

Moreover, parents "may not be subject to the same mainstreaming requirements as a school board." Frank G. v. Bd. of Ed. of Hyde Park [2d Cir. 2006] quoting M.S. v. Bd. of Ed. of City Sch. Dist. of Yonkers, 231 F.3d 96, 105 [2d Cir. 2000] citing Warren G. v. Cumberland County Sch. Dist., 190 F.3d 80, 84 [3d Cir. 1999] (holding that "the test for the parents' private placement is that it is appropriate, and not that it is perfect").

ii. Analysis

The Private School hosts the Program, which is a residential treatment program for students ages 13-18 with emotional or behavioral problems. (Ex. H-1). The program description provides some insight regarding the specifics of the Program:

Classes are designed in a self-contained classroom as the Essential Elements of the core subjects. Students also receive credit for Physical Education and Music/Art. The curriculum is based on the Utah State Core Standards for Essential Elements. Classes are taught by a teacher with a Special Education endorsement. The academic program is integrated into the residential program, which provides comprehensive psychological treatment for adolescents.

The other integrated components of the program include recreation, counseling, psychiatric services, medical services and behavioral interventions. Individual therapy-students meet with a licensed counselor for a minimum of one hour per week. Sessions are intended to address goals and objectives identified on the Master Treatment Plan.

Family therapy-students meet with a licensed counselor and their parents (via phone or video conference) for a minimum of one hour every two weeks. Sessions are intended to address goals and objectives on the Master Treatment Plan. Group therapy-students meet with licensed counselor(s) and peers for a minimum of five hours per week. Sessions are intended to address goals and objectives on the Master Treatment Plan. Psychiatric services-the medication regimen of those students who have identified medication needs are managed by a Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist. Students meet with the psychiatrist regularly to assess efficacy of medication. Recreational-students participate weekly in off-campus activities (outdoor recreation, leisure activities and community service). Students also participate in physical fitness activities daily for a minimum of one hour. Eligible students go off campus with staff once per week to do activities in the community or volunteer for community service. Special education-students are provided with special education services listed on their IEP by licensed personnel. Students are provided with access to licensed nursing personnel twenty-four hours a day. (Ex. H.1-2).

The Mother testified that her son had struggled with impulsivity and behavioral challenges at his previous placement, which prompted her to transition him to the Private School. (Ex. M.2-3). At the Private School, the Student was provided with intensive therapy and life skill building along with preparation for transition to a long-term setting. (Ex. M-3). The Mother demonstrated some of the ways in which the Student has benefited from attending the Private School:

[The Private School] was able to address all of [the Student’s] education needs for the 2021-2022 school year through a highly individualized program. [The Student] benefitted from the small group size where he received immediate feedback, as well as explicit and repeated instruction that was broken down into manageable chunks, which he could manage.

He benefitted from frequent teacher check-ins at [the Private School], which supported his understanding of concepts, to aid in the retrieval of word problems, and the organization of his thoughts. [The Student] benefitted from explicit instruction and repetition provided by [the Private School]. [The Student] benefitted from the small classes and verbal and nonverbal cues to refocus during instruction provided by [the Private School]. [The Student] benefitted from an explicit social/emotional learning class that focused on self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making. (Ex. M.3-4).

The Mother concluded her testimony by stating that her son made “significant progress” during the 2021-2022 SY in the following areas: attention, and self-advocacy, anxiety, frustration tolerance, and academics. (Ex. M-5). She attributed the Student’s success to the Private School. (Ex. M-5).

iii. Conclusion

In addition to considering the testimony and observations of the Mother, I am mindful of the unique and complicated profile of the Student as outlined above in the “Student History” and is amplified throughout the record.

Thus, I find that the Private School provided educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of the Student. I credit the Parents’ exhibits and witnesses for articulating the appropriateness of the placement in addition to the Student’s progress. The Parents have met their burden by establishing that such services were necessary to permit the Student to benefit from instruction. I, therefore, rule for the Parents for Prong II.

V. Prong III

a. Legal Issue: Did the Parents Cooperate with the District?

i. Legal Standard

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 where equitable considerations support the parents' claim (Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]; Sch.

Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-70 [1985]; R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85; T.P., 554 F.3d at 252). In Burlington, the Court found that Congress intended retroactive reimbursement to parents by school officials as an available remedy in a proper case under the IDEA (471 U.S. at 370-71; see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 111; Cerra, 427 F.3d at 192).

"Reimbursement merely requires [a district] to belatedly pay expenses that it should have paid all along and would have borne in the first instance" had it offered the student a FAPE (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370-71; see 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][ii]; 34 CFR 300.148 3). The burden of proof

3 § 300.148 Placement of children by parents when FAPE is at issue.

(a) General. This part does not require an LEA to pay for the cost of education, including special education and related services, of a child with a disability at a private school or facility if that agency made FAPE available to the child and the parents elected to place the child in a private school or facility. However, the public agency must include that child in the population whose needs are addressed consistent with §§ 300.131 through 300.144.

(b) Disagreements about FAPE. Disagreements between the parents and a public agency regarding the availability of a program appropriate for the child, and the question of financial reimbursement, are subject to the due process procedures in §§ 300.504 through 300.520.

(c) Reimbursement for private school placement. If the parents of a child with a disability, who previously received special education and related services under the authority of a public agency, enroll the child in a private preschool, elementary school, or secondary school without the consent of or referral by the public agency, a court or a hearing officer may require the agency to reimburse the parents for the cost of that enrollment if the court or hearing officer finds that the agency had not made FAPE available to the child in a timely manner prior to that enrollment and that the private placement is appropriate. A parental placement may be found to be appropriate by a hearing officer or a court even if it does not meet the State standards that apply to education provided by the SEA and LEAs.

(d) Limitation on reimbursement. The cost of reimbursement described in paragraph (c) of this section may be reduced or denied (1) If - (i) At the most recent IEP Team meeting that the parents attended prior to removal of the child from the public school, the parents did not inform the IEP Team that they were rejecting the placement proposed by the public agency to provide FAPE to their child, including stating their concerns and their intent to enroll their child in a private school at public expense; or (ii) At least ten (10) business days (including any holidays that occur on a business day) prior to the removal of the child from the public school, the parents did not give written notice to the public agency of the information described in paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section;

(2) If, prior to the parents' removal of the child from the public school, the public agency informed the parents, through the notice requirements described in § 300.503(a)(1), of its intent to evaluate the child (including a statement of the purpose of the evaluation that was appropriate and reasonable), but the parents did not make the child available for the evaluation; or (3) Upon a judicial finding of unreasonableness with respect to actions taken by the parents.

(e) Exception. Notwithstanding the notice requirement in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the cost of reimbursement - (1) Must not be reduced or denied for failure to provide the notice if is on the school district during an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement (Educ. Law § 4404[1][c]; see R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85; M.P.G. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2010 WL 3398256, at 7 [S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2010]).

Tuition reimbursement may be reduced or denied if parents do not provide notice of the unilateral placement either at the most recent CSE meeting prior to removing the child from public school, or by written notice ten business days before such removal, "that they were rejecting the placement proposed by the public agency to provide a [FAPE] to their child, including stating their concerns and their intent to enroll their child in a private school at public expense." (20 U.S.C. § 612[a][10][C][iii][I]; see 34 C.F.R. § 300.148[d]) This statutory provision "serves the important purpose of giving the school system an opportunity, before the child is removed, to assemble a team, evaluate the child, devise an appropriate plan, and determine whether a [FAPE] can be provided in the public schools." (Greenland Sch. Dist. v. Amy N., 358 F.3d 150, 160 [1st Cir. 2004])

ii. Analysis

The Parents sent a ten-day notice letter in a timely manner, expressing their intent to unilaterally place the Student at the Private School for the 2021-2022 SY. In the letter, the Parents informed the District that he would seek funding from the District for the placement. (Ex. B-2).

(i) The school prevented the parents from providing the notice; (ii) The parents had not received notice, pursuant to § 300.504, of the notice requirement in paragraph (d)(1) of this section; or (iii) Compliance with paragraph (d)(1) of this section would likely result in physical harm to the child; and

(2) May, in the discretion of the court or a hearing officer, not be reduced or denied for failure to provide this notice if - (i) The parents are not literate or cannot write in English; or (ii) Compliance with paragraph (d)(1) of this section would likely result in serious emotional harm to the child. (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1820-0030) (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(10)(C))

iii. Conclusion

Upon review of the record, I find that the Parents cooperated with the District and did nothing to impede them from developing an appropriate IEP for the Student. As such, I find no reason for reduction in tuition reimbursement. I, therefore, rule for the Parents in Prong III.

It is therefore ORDERED

For the District to reimburse/directly pay the Parents/Private School for cost of tuition at the Private School, where they unilaterally placed the Student for the 2021-2022 SY.

Dated: September 15, 2023

Martin J. Kehoe, 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.

Footnotes

[1] A hearing was held across the following dates: January 24, 2023; May 18, 2023; June 2, 2023; June 29, 2023; July 26, 2023; and August 2, 2023.

[2] The date of the meeting remains unclear. There is mention of a April 6, 2021 meeting in which the CSE team recommended the Student be placed in a 12:1+1 special education class with the following related services: Counseling Services (Group); Counseling Services (Individual); and Occupational Therapy (Individual). (Ex. D-1).