New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

CASE NUMBER: 592528 - NYC: 243136

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 30, 2022

Date(s) of Hearing: June 7, 2023, June 22, 2023 and July 10, 2023

Actual Record Closed Date: August 3, 2023

Date of Decision: August 10, 2023

Date of Distribution if Different than Decision Date:

Hearing Officer: Lisa S. Rusk, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

JUNE 7, 2023

For the Student:

No one

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], Attorney

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

JUNE 22, 2023

For the Student:

[REDACTED], Attorney

For the Department of Education:

[REDACTED], Attorney

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

JULY 10, 2023

For the Student:

[REDACTED], Attorney

[REDACTED], Parent Student

[REDACTED], Clinical Director

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 November 30, 2022. (Ex. P-A) 2. The record does not contain any evidence of a response by the [REDACTED] (hereinafter referred to as “the District”). This IHO was appointed on January 21, 2023. A prehearing conference was held on February 3, 2023. [REDACTED] appeared on behalf of the Parents. [REDACTED] appeared on behalf of the District. The parties requested the scheduling of a status conference while resolution of the matter was being considered. [REDACTED] appeared on behalf of the Parents at a status conference on March ^[2], 2023. No one appeared on behalf of the District. Hearing dates were scheduled for March 24, 2023 and March 31, 2023. Both parties requested that the hearing dates be adjourned as the parties continued to engage in the settlement process, and the adjournments were granted. Status conferences were held on March 24, 2023, April 11, 2023 and May 8, 2023. [REDACTED] attended all three status conferences on behalf of the Parents. [REDACTED] appeared for the District on March 24, 2023. [REDACTED] appeared on April 11, 2023. On May 8, 2023, no one appeared on behalf of the District.

The matter was scheduled for hearing on June 7, 2023, and notice was sent to the parties. [REDACTED] sent an email the day before advising of a family emergency and requesting an adjournment of the hearing. The IHO inquired if another attorney from her office could appear and received no response. On June 7, 2023, no one appeared on behalf of the Parents. [REDACTED] appeared on behalf of the District and advised that a settlement offer had been extended to the Parents. The hearing was adjourned until June 22, 2023. [REDACTED] appeared on behalf of the Parents. [REDACTED] appeared on behalf of the District. A settlement was not reached, and the matter proceeded to hearing. The hearing concluded on July 10, 2023.

Six extensions of the compliance date were granted on the record at the request of the parties to enable time to attempt to negotiate a settlement and submit closing briefs. On June 22, 2023, the Parents entered into evidence exhibits A-U. 3 Parent Exhibit V was provided via email and entered into evidence on August ^[3], 2023 at the request of the IHO. Two witnesses testified on behalf of the Student, including the Student’s Parent. The District did not enter any evidence into the record, present any witnesses or cross-examine the Parents’ witnesses. The District made a closing statement on the record (T:146-47). The Parents submitted a written closing brief on August 4, 2023. The record was closed on August 4, 2023 ^[4].

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.

BACKGROUND

The Student was [REDACTED] ears old at the time of the filing of the DPC. According to the DPC, the Parents sent a referral to the Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) on June 21, 2022, while she was enrolled privately as a student at [REDACTED] (hereinafter referred to as “[REDACTED]”). The Parents advised the CSE that the Student was having suicidal thoughts and had been admitted to [REDACTED] from March 29-Aprill 22, 2022. She began a partial hospitalization program on April 20, 2022. She returned to the hospital with suicidal thoughts on May 16, 2022 and recommenced the partial hospitalization program on May 18, 2022, remaining through June 8, 2022. She was again re-admitted to the hospital on June 10, 2022 and released on June 15, 2022 (Ex. P-B). The Parents did not receive a response from the District to their June 21, 2022 referral. The Parent wrote again to the CSE on July 29, 2022 regarding the Student’s urgent need for an IEP and intention to have the Student privately evaluated while reserving the right to seek reimbursement for the evaluation. The Parent still received no response from the District (Ex. P-G). The Parents again wrote to the District on August 19, 2022 (Ex. P-J). The District failed to respond, evaluate the Student, consider eligibility for special education or hold an initial meeting to develop an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) for the 2022-23 school year. As advised in the August 19, 2022 letter, the Parents unilaterally placed the Student at the [REDACTED] (hereinafter referred to as “the private school”) for the 2022-23 school year for the eighth grade and sought reimbursement for both tuition and the cost of the independent evaluation (Ex. P-J).

ISSUES

The Parents allege in the DPC that the District failed to hold an initial CSE meeting to develop an IEP for the Student for the 2022-23 school year (Ex. P-A). There is no evidence in the record to refute this. The District alleges that the Parents did not timely refer the Student to the CSE for the commencement of the 2022-23 school year. The District alleges in its opening statement that the District did not violate FAPE until October of 2022, given the referral not being received until June of 2022 and any award of tuition should not commence until October 7, 2022 (T:63-64). The Parents seek reimbursement for an independent psychological evaluation^[5] and for their unilateral placement of the Student at the private school for the 2022-23 school year.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Student’s father, hereinafter referred to as “the Parent” testified that he received a call from [REDACTED]’s school therapist in January of 2022 reporting that the Student was coming to him crying every day. The school therapist suggested she see a personal therapist, and the Student began working with [REDACTED] on February 1, 2022. About five sessions in, [REDACTED] contacted the Parent and stated that the Student was having suicidal thoughts and needed to go to the emergency room. The Parent took her directly to the child emergency room at [REDACTED]. She was admitted for a month and released on April 22, 2022 to a partial hospitalization program. The Parents entered into evidence extensive records documenting the psychiatric treatment she received at [REDACTED] between March 2022 through July of 2022 (Ex. P-E). After the completion of the partial hospitalization program on June 8, 2022, [REDACTED] informed the Parents that they were no longer able to support the Student and that she would need a new school placement for 2022-23 (T:128-29, Ex. P-L).

The Parent testified that they sent a letter to the CSE in June of 2022 seeking an IEP (T:131, Ex. P-B). The letter was accompanied by a consent for initial evaluation signed by the Parent on June 21, 2022 (Ex. P-B-3). The Parent testified that he received an email on March 21, 2023 that the CSE had opened a case (T:132). The Parent sent a follow-up email on July 29, 2022 seeking an IEP and advising of an independent evaluation (Ex. P-G). The Parents arranged for a private neuropsychological report by [REDACTED] that was conducted at the end of July/beginning of August. The Parent advised the District that he would be seeking payment for the neuropsychological evaluation (T:133-34; Ex. P-O). The Parent testified that he paid $6,000 for the report (T:136). The Parents sent the report to the CSE on December 5, 2022 (T:132-33; Ex. P-H). [REDACTED] diagnosed her with post-traumatic stress disorder, major depressive disorder, recurrent, moderate, generalized anxiety disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder inattentive type (Ex. P-H-13). Due to her social-emotional challenges, he strongly recommended that she be placed in “a small, highly-specialized school program in a highly structured class that will allow her full-day access to multi-sensory learning resources across the entire curriculum to support her social-emotional weaknesses.” (Ex. P-H13).

The Parent testified that he provided [REDACTED] on August 5, 2022 with written permission to speak with the admissions office of the private school about his preliminary findings (T:135). On August 19, 2022, the Parents sent notice to the District of their intent to place the Student at the private school (T:138; Ex. P-J). The Parent received no response until March 21, 2023 (T:139). On August 22, 2022, licensed master social worker [REDACTED] wrote to the CSE advising that she had been providing individual therapy to the Student since February 1, 2022. She further advised that the Student’s frequent mental health crises have interfered with her ability to attend school and concentrate when in class. She opined that she qualified as a student with an emotional disability and required an IEP and specialized school placement (Ex. P-K). The Parents signed a tuition agreement with the private school for tuition in the amount of $79,900 on August 23, 2022 (T:137; Ex. P-R).

[REDACTED] (hereinafter referred to as “the Clinical Director”) testified that she is a licensed clinical psychologist with 20 years of experience, who has been employed by the private school as its clinical director since 2013 (T:80-81). She described the students at the private school as bright, college bound, emotionally complex students, mostly with multiple co-occurring psychiatric diagnoses. The most common diagnoses are attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety disorders and mood disorders such as depression. Some have trauma and stressor related disorders or learning differences.

The school serves approximately 80 to 85 students in grades 8 through 12 (T:81-82,113). It is a small therapeutic school that seeks to provide its students with emotional literacy, providing both structure and flexibility to prepare the students for postsecondary education (T:84). There are five full-time clinicians on staff, including four doctorate level psychologists. Clinicians are available to students on-demand, rather than during a set meeting time (T:85). The clinicians consult with the students’ outside therapists and parents. There are also weekly scheduled support groups surrounding specific topics (T:86-87). Every student’s schedule includes three advising meetings a day in groups of 7 or 8 students. They meet at the beginning of the day to ensure students are prepared for the day and at the end of the day so the advisor can review the student’s planner (T:88). They also meet for a longer period in the middle of the day for goal planning and review (T:89) ^[6].

The student to teacher ratio is 4:1. Class sizes are typically between 5 and 10 students and capped at 12 (T:91). The curriculum is substantially equivalent to New York State’s curriculum and is delivered through direct instruction, small group and large group instruction with lots of hands-on experiences and discussions (T:94-95).

The Clinical Director reviewed the Student’s application for admission and determined that her emotional and academic profile was very typical of other students at the private school (T:104). She described the Student as having a complex history of trauma and suicidal thoughts. She was incredibly anxious and depressed and struggling with interpersonal relationships and forming connections with peers and adults. In her prior school, she was missing a lot of classes and was often crying or hiding in the bathroom (T:105). She was very distracted when she was in class and was falling behind or not completing assignments (T:106).

Her weekly schedule at the private school consisted of advising three times per day, English, earth science, physical education, algebra/geometry, early civilization, studio art and student prep/groups, along with on-demand clinical support throughout the day (Ex. P-T). Her final quarterly report card indicated that she had been arriving to school on time, engaging in class and doing a wonderful job preparing for quizzes and examinations. She was earning 4 As and 2 Bs for the quarter. Although improved, timely homework completion was still a challenge for her. She met expectations for leaving a situation or taking a break when she was feeling aggravated (Ex. P-V-29-30).

The private school addressed her needs by personalized scheduling, advising supports and clinical support. She was in smaller classes and provided prompts and redirection to refocus her. The teachers would encourage her to step out and go to the counseling center when appropriate. Her advisors encouraged her to use her planner, tracked her completion of assignments and offered additional academic support (T:107). According to the Clinical Director, the Student made tremendous academic progress at the private school. Her attendance was good, she was engaged, used supports appropriately and received almost all As. She was able to form friendships and participate in club activities (T:109). The Clinical Director highlighted that during her attendance at the private school her safety was maintained and she did not need to go to the hospital or emergency room for any reason (T:112).

The Parent concurred that the Student made tremendous improvement at the private school. She started talking at home about what she was learning in school. He testified that she was willing to go to school again, attend classes, participate and turn in her work (T:139-40).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (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).

For students suspected of having a disability, a school district is required to respond within 10 school days upon receipt of a referral for evaluation (8 NYCRR 200.4[a][2][iv]). After seeking and receiving parental consent for evaluation, the school district must initiate an individual evaluation of a student and complete the evaluation within 60 days of receipt of consent (8 NYCRR 200.4[b][1]). The CSE must consider the evaluative material and determine if the student is eligible for special education services as a student with a disability. The CSE then shall provide a recommendation to the board of education within 60 school days of the receipt of consent to evaluate (8 NYCRR 200.4[d]). This is in addition to the school district’s affirmative “Child Find” obligation under 8 NYCRR 200.2(a)(7).

In reviewing evaluative information and considering eligibility as a student with an emotional disability, Section 200.1(zz)(4) states:

“(4) Emotional disability means a condition exhibiting one or more of the following characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree that adversely affects a student's educational performance: (i) an inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors; (ii) an inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers; (iii) inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances; (iv) a generally pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression; or (v) a tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems. The term includes schizophrenia.

The term does not apply to students who are socially maladjusted, unless it is determined that they have an emotional disability.” Assuming a student is eligible for special education services, 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.

With regard to the Parents’ request for funding of the IEE, pursuant to Section 200.5(g)(1)(iv) of the Commissioner’s Regulations: “If a parent requests an independent educational evaluation at public expense, the school district must, without unnecessary delay, either ensure an independent educational evaluation is provided at public expense or file a due process complaint notice to request a hearing to show that its evaluation is appropriate or that the evaluation obtained by the parent does not meet the school district criteria.” (see also 34 CFR 300.502). A parent is entitled to one IEE at public expense each time the school district conducts a comprehensive evaluation with which the parent disagrees (34 CFR 300.502[b][5]).

ANALYSIS

The Parent’s testimony that the District failed to timely evaluate, consider her eligibility for special education and offer the Student a public school placement for the 2022-23 school year was uncontroverted. The District did not present a Prong 1 case (T:63). In assessing the Student’s eligibility, the record is abundantly clear that the Student qualified as a student with an emotional disability during the 2022-23 school year pursuant to the criteria set forth in Section 200.1(zz)(4) of the Commissioner’s Regulations based upon the significant impact her emotional distress had on her ability to attend and participate in school.

The District failed to enter any evidence or testimony to demonstrate that it offered the Student a FAPE for the 2022-23 school year. The Parents were left with no option but to provide a nonpublic school placement for the Student. I find that the District has admittedly failed to meet its burden under Prong I of the Burlington/Carter test.

Turning to the private school program selected by the Parents, based upon a thorough review of the testimony and evidence as fully set forth above, I find the Parents met their burden that the private school provided the Student with specific instruction to meet her unique special education needs during the 2022-23 school year. The uncontroverted testimony reflects that the private school provided her with specific strategies and supports to address both her academic and social-emotional needs. It is undisputed that the Student made progress during the 2022-

23 school year. The close monitoring of her academic participation and progress by her advisor, as well as the availability of on-demand counseling support enabled her to attend class, focus on her assignments and actively engage in her academics. 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 District or thwarted the CSE process in any way. The Parents also provided timely notice of their unilateral placement to the District. The Parents attempted several times to refer the Student to the CSE and alert the District to its Child Find obligation. The first response to the June 21, 2022 referral with written consent to evaluate was received on March 21, 2023 – 9 months later. Based upon the District’s complete disregard for the evaluation, eligibility determination and IEP development for this Student in crisis, I find no basis to decrease the tuition award. The letter from Packer outlining her difficulties in both sixth and seventh grades, her history of trauma and the hospitalizations starting in March of 2022, support the argument that the District’s Child Find obligation for this Student commenced even prior to June 21, 2022 (Ex. P-L). Had the District at least commenced the CSE process in the Summer of 2022, I may have considered otherwise. The equitable considerations weigh in favor of the Parents.

With regard to the request for the funding of the independent educational evaluation (“IEE”), the District stated that it did not oppose and did not consent (T:64-65). After the parent requested an IEE, it was incumbent on the District to grant the evaluation or to present an argument in defense of its evaluation of the student. The District did neither. In fact, there is no evidence in the record of the District evaluating the Student at all. I find that the Student is entitled to reimbursement for the independent neuropsychological evaluation of [REDACTED].

ORDER

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

1. ORDERED that the District shall reimburse the Parents for tuition paid to the private school for the 2022-23 school year upon presentation of proof of payment and attendance and/or pay the remainder of any amount due to the private school directly, and it is further

2. ORDERED that the District shall reimburse the Parents for the cost of the independent neuropsychological evaluation of [REDACTED] upon presentation of proof of payment, and it is further

3. ORDERED that the District, if it has not done so already, shall evaluate the Student in accordance with Section 200.4(b) of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education within 30 days of the date of this decision.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 10, 2023

Lisa S. Rusk

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 A – REDACTION IDENTIFICATION PAGE

APPENDIX B – DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

PARENT EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT DATE DOCUMENT #PAGES

A. DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT 11.30.2022 6 pages

B. REQUEST FOR FAPE AND SIGNED CONSENT FOR EVALUATION 6.21.2022 3 pages

C. PROOF OF DELIVERY FOR FAPE AND SIGNED CONSENT LETTER 6.24.2022 1 page

D. CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT FOR FAPE AND SIGNED CONSENT LETTER 6.22.2022 1 page

E. [REDACTED] MEDICAL RECORDS 4.2022 151 pages

THROUGH

7.20.2022 F 6.8.2022 [REDACTED] DISCHARGE 4 G 7.29.2022 LETTER TO DOE REQUESTING AN IEE 1 H 7.28.2022 NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION BY 24

[REDACTED]

I 7.29.2022 INVOICE FOR EVALUATION OF [REDACTED] 2

J 8.19.2022 TEN DAY NOTICE LETTER 3 K 8.22.2022 LETTER FROM SOCIAL WORKER [REDACTED] 1

TO DOE

L 6.22.2022 LETTER FROM [REDACTED] OF [REDACTED] 2 M 2019-2020 [REDACTED] SEMESTER 2 REPORT CARD -5TH 11

GRADE

N 2021-2022 [REDACTED] REPORT CARD SEMESTER 2 2 O 11.22.2022 LETTER FROM PARENT TO CSE RE: 1

NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION

P 12.7.2022 PROOF OF DELIVERY 1

NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION AND

COVER LETTER

Q 11.7.2022 FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT 1 R 2022-2023 SCHOOL CONTRACT 3 S 2022-2023 ATTENDANCE 1 T 2022-2023 SCHEDULE 1 U 7.1.2022 SCHOOL PROGRAM 2 V 2022-23 QUARTERLY REPORTS 36

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 record was originally set to close on July 28, 2023. Via email Parents’ counsel requested an extension to submit her closing brief, and such was granted.

[5] The District did not have a position on this issue.

[6] The Student’s advisor is certified in special education and has prior teaching experience in a special education program (T:114).