New York City Department of Education, Impartial Hearing Decision

CASE NUMBER: 594348 - NYC: 244465

REDACTED

FINDINGS OF FACT & DECISION

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

MARCH 23, 2023

For the Student:

[Redacted], Esq., Parent Attorney

[Redacted], Esq., Parent Attorney

[Redacted], Parent Student

For the Department of Education:

[Redacted], Esq., District Representative

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

MARCH 27, 2023

For the Student:

[Redacted], Esq., Parent Attorney

[Redacted], Esq., Parent Attorney

[Redacted], Parent Student

For the Department of Education:

[Redacted], Esq., District Representative

ISSUES

This matter comes before the undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) through the Parents’ Due Process Complaint (“DPC”) filed on or about January 3, 2023, regarding the 2021/22 school year (P-Ex. A) ^[1]. The DPC alleged that the District denied the Student a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) by not providing an appropriate program and placement for the 2021/22 school year (P-Ex. A). The Parent has requested tuition reimbursement / direct payment for their unilateral placement of the Student at the Private School (P-Ex. A).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The undersigned was appointed as hearing officer in this matter on January 30, 2023. A prehearing conference was held on February 27, 2023, to discuss the issues in the case. At that time the District indicated that it wanted to proceed to hearing. A hearing was scheduled for March 23, 2023, for the District’s case and on that date the presented exhibits but no witnesses. The District also waived their opening statement. The hearing continued on March 27, 2023, for the Parent’s case and was completed on that day (See, Transcripts).^[2] The Parent presented exhibits^[3] and two witnesses by affidavit. The record closed on April 4, 2023. There was one extension of the compliance timelines granted by this Hearing Officer, to accommodate witnesses.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Student was a [Redacted] year old, 8th grade student during the 2021/22 school year (P-Ex. K-1). The Student was described as a happy and positive boy during his 8th grade year (P-Ex. K-1). He was diagnosed with learning disability (P-Ex. K-1). The Student needs a lot of redirection and repetition to get his attention and has challenges with focus and impulsivity (P-Ex. K-1).

The Student first received special education services before he was a toddler due to global delays (P-Ex. K-1). The Student did not speak until he was three and a half years old (P-Ex. K-1). The Student attended the District’s public schools from kindergarten through third grade in special education classes (P-Ex. K-1). In third grade he attended an ICT class but did not make progress (P-Ex. K-1). Due to concerns, the Student was enrolled in a full-time special education school in the middle of his third grade year (P-Ex. K-1).

On June 8, 2021, the District’s CSE held an IEP meeting (D-Ex. 2; P-Ex. K-1). The Parent attended the meeting as well as staff from the Private School (P-Ex. K-1). At the time of the June 2021 IEP meeting, the Student was last evaluated in 2017 (P-Ex. K-1). The CSE recommended a 12:1:1 classroom program with counseling, OT and speech (D-Ex. 2-21-22; P-Ex. K-1). The Parent voiced her concerns with the recommendation and the size of the class since the Student was in a class with seven other students (P-Ex. K-1). The Parent expressed that the Student needed to be in small classes and receive individualized attention with minimal distractions (P-Ex. K-1).

The Parent received a school location and made phone calls to get additional information about the school but did not receive a call back (D-Ex. 3; P-Ex. K-1-2). The Parent was able to speak to the Principal after the school reopened but the Principal did not provide information about the class the Student would be in (P-Ex. K-2). The Parent was not able to determine if the class would be appropriate and had concerns (P-Ex. K-2). The Parent wrote to the CSE twice (in August and October) with her concerns but did not receive responses (P-Ex. B; C; K-2). The Parent unilaterally placed the Student at the Private School for the 2021/22 school year (P-Ex. D; K-1). The Parent is unable to pay the balance of the tuition owed, as evidenced by the Parent’s 2021 tax return (P-Ex. J; K-2).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The Individuals with Disability Education Act (“IDEA”) is comprehensive statutory framework established by Congress to ensure that students with disabilities are afforded FAPE. See, 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1)(A); Schaffer v. Weast, 546 US 49 (2005). A “free appropriate public education consists of educational instruction that is designed to meet the unique needs of the handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from the instruction.” Bd. of Ed. Hendrick Hudson CSD v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 188 (1982). In order to demonstrate that FAPE is being provided, the school district must show “that it complied with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and that the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits.” See, Application of Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 05-061, quoting, Rowley at 206. The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment with non-disabled peers. See, Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dt., 142 F.3rd 119 (2nd Cir. 1998).

Two purposes of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) are (1) to ensure that students with disabilities have available to them a FAPE 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) to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities and parents of such students are protected (20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]-[B]; see generally, Forest Grove v. T.A., 129 S. Ct. 2484, 2491 [2009]; Rowley, at 206-07).

An appropriate program begins with an IEP which accurately reflects the results of the 1) student’s present levels of performance; 2) provides for the use of appropriate special education services to address the child's special education needs; 3) establishes annual goals which are related to the child's educational deficits; 4) identifies transitions services; 5) provides a start and end date to the recommended program and services; and 6) criteria and evaluation procedures for the measurement of goals. See, Walzczak, supra; Id., Appeal No. 00-005. “The initial procedural inquiry is no mere formality.” Walczak, at 129. “Adequate compliance with the procedures prescribed [by IDEA] would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP.” Rowley at 206. For an IEP to be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, it must be likely to produce progress, not regression. This progress, must be meaningful; i.e., more than mere trivial advancement. Walczak, supra.

In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. __, 14 (2017), the Court held that, “[t]o meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances, as a focus on the particular child is at the core of the IDEA. The instruction offered must be “specially designed” to meet a child’s “unique needs” through an “individualized education program.” §§1401(29), (14) (emphasis added), to reflect the fact that a contemplated IEP must be focused on the “particular child that is at the core of the IDEA”. In such case, the school is still required to ensure the student is given an IEP that requires not just academic but also functional progress and, although the goals may differ for students, each child must have an IEP that includes goals and services to enable a child to make both academic and functional progress. The court further stated that an IEP “is not a form document. It is constructed only after careful consideration of the child’s present levels of achievement, disability, and potential for growth” §§1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)–(IV), (d)(3)(A)(i)–(iv), and that “a student offered an educational program providing “merely more than de minimis progress” from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all.”

The Court in Endrew further stated that, “[t]he IDEA demands more. It requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Although the Supreme Court declined to elaborate on the definition of “appropriate progress” from case to case, it stated that, “the adequacy of a given IEP turns on the unique circumstances of the child for whom it was created.” Finally, The Supreme Court in Endrew declined to hold, as it declined to hold in Rowley, that “every handicapped child who is advancing from grade to grade . . . is automatically receiving a [FAPE].” Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176, 203, n. 25 (1982). A Student’s “IEP need not aim for grade-level advancement. But his educational program must be appropriately ambitious in light of his circumstances, just as advancement from grade to grade is appropriately ambitious for most children in the regular classroom. The goals may differ, but every child should have the chance to meet challenging objectives.” Endrew F. v. Douglas 580 U.S. ___ (2017). “It cannot be the case that the Act typically aims for grade-level advancement for children with disabilities who can be educated in the regular classroom, but is satisfied with barely more than de minimis progress for those who cannot.” Id.

Here, the District failed to present a case and therefore failed to meet its burden in demonstrating that FAPE was provided to the Student for the 2021/22 school year. The District failed to provide any evidence as to how the recommendations in the IEP would be reasonably calculated to meet the Student’s needs. Therefore, I find that the District did not provide the Student with FAPE for the 2021/22 school year.

PARENT’S BURDEN

Parents seeking reimbursement “bear the burden of demonstrating that their private placement was appropriate, even if the IEP was inappropriate” Gagliardo, at 112; see also, M.S. v. Bd. Of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 104 [2d Cir. 2000]). “Subject to certain limited exceptions, ‘the same considerations and criteria that apply in determining whether the school district's placement is appropriate should be considered in determining the appropriateness of the parents’ placement…’” Gagliardo, at 112, quoting, Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 364 (2d Cir. 2006). Parents need not show that the placement provides every special service necessary to maximize the student's potential (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65). When determining whether the parents’ unilateral placement is appropriate, ultimately, the issue turns on whether that placement is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits” (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364; Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115). A private placement is only appropriate if it provides education instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a student (20 U.S.C. § 1401[29]; 34 CFR 300.39[a][1]; Educ. Law § 4401[1]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[ww]; Rowley, 458 U.S. at 188-89).

The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the appropriateness of a unilateral placement turns on whether it is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, which is not limited to a single dispositive factor. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 207 (1982). The Second Circuit cited several factors that may be considered evidence that a child is receiving an educational benefit, including grades, test scores, and regular advancement, yet clarified that courts assessing the appropriateness of a parent’s unilateral placement must “consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child’s individual needs.” Frank G. 459 F.3d at 364; accord Knable ex rel. Knable v. th Bexley City Sch. Dist., 238 F.3d 755 (6 Cir.2001) (holding that a unilateral private placement with small classes, where the student made educational progress and grades and behavior improved, was appropriate). Under the IDEA, to meet the requirements for reimbursement, parents do not need to show that a private placement provides every single service required to “maximize their child’s potential.” Frank G. 459 F.3d at 364; See M.S. ex rel. S.S. v. Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 102 (2d Cir.2000) (“The test for parents’ private placement is not perfection.”). Parents must 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; Rowley, 458 U.S. at 188–89. “Specially-designed instruction means adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible student under this Part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction to address the unique needs that results from the student’s disability.” 8 NYCRR § 200.1(vv). Where “the hearing record shows that [the Private School] did not provide OT or PT...” and the school “provided programs that assisted the student in developing both fine and gross motor skills,” “the lack of these services” is “not sufficient to support a finding that [the Private School] is not appropriate given that these services did not appear to be necessary to the student receiving educational benefits and [Private School] did address the needs to some extent. The student’s primary needs related to his attention and academics, and [Private School]...adequately, if not perfectly, addressed them.” Application of the Board of Education of the Arlington Central School District, Appeal No. 16- 023 at 24-25.

A private school placement must be “proper under the Act” (Carter, 510 U.S. at 12, 15; Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370), i.e., the private school must provide an educational program which meets the student’s special education needs. See, Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, 115; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 129. A parent’s failure to select a program approved by the State in favor of an unapproved option is not itself a bar to reimbursement (Carter, 510 U.S. at 14). The private school need not employ certified special education teachers or have its own IEP for the student (id. at 14). The Second Circuit has set forth the standard for determining whether parents have carried their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of their unilateral placement.

“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). Finding that the District did not provide FAPE to the student during the 2021/22 school year, the burden now shifts to the Parent to prove the appropriateness of the Private School. After reviewing the testimony and evidence provided, I find that they have met that burden. The Parent’s burden is to demonstrate that the Private School provided educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of the Student, which is supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction.

The Director of the Private School testified by affidavit about the Student and the Private School (P-Ex. L). The Director’s duties and responsibilities include supervising all aspects of the school program, including teachers and service providers, handling admissions assessments, observing classrooms, participating in IEP meetings, working directly with teachers and students, and provide training and ongoing professional development for all staff (P-Ex. L-1).

The special education program at the Private School offers self-contained special education programs hosted within mainstream school sites (P-Ex. L-1). Inclusion means something different for every student at the school and Parents partner with administrators and teachers to define their child’s academic goals and consider the myriad of inclusion opportunities within the partner school (P-Ex. L-1). Students are “mainstreamed” into partner school academic classes after careful planning and supports are in place (P-Ex. L-1). They also participate in the many non-academic activities offered by the partner school, including recess, lunch, gym, music, sports teams, and clubs, as appropriate (P-Ex. L-1).

The Private School enrolls students who are ages 5-14 and totaled approximately 32 students were enrolled for the 2021/22 school year (P-Ex. H; L-1). Students often have IEP classifications including Autism, Learning Disabilities, Speech Impairment, Intellectual Disabilities and Multiple Disabilities (P-Ex. L-2). Each class is carefully grouped based upon each student’s academic, social and learning needs (P-Ex. L-2). The Private School offers the related services of Speech Therapy, Occupational Therapy, Physical Therapy, Art Therapy and Counseling (P-Ex. L-2). All of the service providers are licensed and certified in their respective disciplines (P-Ex. L-2). Each student has a comprehensive service plan (“CSP”), which outlines his/her programs and goals (P-Ex. L-2). The CSP is used to track progress throughout the year and progress is measured by the degree of support needed for a student to demonstrate that skill, as he/she works towards independence (P-Ex. L-2).

The Director participated in the Student’s IEP meeting which took place on June 8, 2021 (P-Ex. L-2). At that meeting, the recommendation was made for a 12:1:1 program and the Director expressed her concerns about the class size recommended given the Student’s frustration tolerance, impulsivity, and distractibility (P-Ex. L-2). The Student also had sensory needs, difficulty staying in his seat, needed frequent redirection and teacher attention, and needed information to be broken down (P-Ex. L-2). These deficits all impacted his academic progress and social interactions (P-Ex. L-2). If he had trouble with an assignment or lesson, he became frustrated, and it was very difficult for him to get past that (P-Ex. L-2).

The Student was performing below grade level in reading, writing and math (P-Ex. L-2). Socially, his impatience and impulsiveness contributed to conflicts with peers and he had trouble with reading social cues (P-Ex. L-2). The instruction provided to the Student was highly individualized to meet his unique special education needs (P-Ex. L-2). Information was broken down into smaller steps (P-Ex. L-2). To keep the Student focused, visual aids were used in addition to visual organizers such as checklists and charts, hands-on activities, as well as illustrations, graphic organizers, videos, educational games and software, and collaborative work with peers (P-Ex. L-2). From the beginning of the 2021/22 school year, the Student had goals to help him make appropriate academic, social and emotional progress in the classroom (P-Ex. L-3). His school day included a combination of academic classes and fully integrated related services (P-Ex. L-3). His homeroom was a class of 6 students with similar needs and levels to the Student (P-Ex. L-3). The students were divided into smaller groups for core subjects such as reading and math (P-Ex. L-3). Two teachers were present in homeroom, offering a student to adult ratio of approximately 2:1:3 (P-Ex. L-3). The Student’s core classes were taught by a Special Education Teacher (P-Ex. L-3).

There were 3 students in the Student’s reading class (P-Ex. L-3). The Student needed the material to be broken down into smaller units, and guided re-reading with check-ins for comprehension (P-Ex. L-3). He needed the small group instruction and frequent refocusing (P-Ex. L-3). In order to learn, the Student required frequent refocusing, as well as materials broken down, guided re-reading, visual aids, graphic organizers, instruction using multiple modalities, highlighting and underlining to identify new vocabulary and important information (P-Ex. L-3). Progress was measured through informal teacher observations, assessments and assignments (P-Ex. L-3). Over the course of the year, the Student made progress in reading comprehension in that he was able to answer questions about the text, sequence events in the text, and find details in the text, with fewer prompts (P-Ex. L-3). He also became more independent in understanding longer texts and by the end of the school year, he could analyze 5th grade texts with minimal teacher intervention (P-Ex. L-3).

In math, he was taught concepts such as integers, rational numbers, word problems, and geometry (P-Ex. L-3). There were 3 students in the math class (P-Ex. L-3). In order for the Student to learn math, the material was broken down and repeated, using multiple modalities, and there was consistent, cumulative review of concepts previously learned (P-Ex. L-3). The Student also needed written step-by-step instructions and checklists to solve math problems (P-Ex. L-3). Progress was measured through informal teacher observations, assignments, and assessments (P-Ex. L-3). The Student made progress in math with small group instruction, intensive support and with a division step checklist (P-Ex. L-3). By the end of the school year, he was able to solve two step inequalities, add, subtract and multiply integers, add and subtract rational numbers, and add and subtract equivalent expressions with independence (P-Ex. L-3).

The Student’s writing class was focused on writing a topic sentence, accompanying details about the topic, and essay writing including a five paragraph essay (P-Ex. L-4). The format was whole group instruction, with 6 students (P-Ex. L-4). Each student worked at their own pace and received individualized instruction (P-Ex. L-4). An occupational therapist also pushed into the class to provide extra support (P-Ex. L-4). It was difficult for the Student to put his thoughts into writing in an organized manner and he needed guidance to plan his writing (P-Ex. L-4). He used graphic organizers and charts and required one-to-one support, frequent redirection and prompting (P-Ex. L-4). The Student made progress in writing and by the end of the school year, he was able to write an organized paragraph on a given topic with one-to-one guidance to use a visual organizer to plan his thoughts, and reminders to use correct punctuation (P-Ex. L-4). He also could write a structured essay with one-to-one support, frequent redirection and prompting (P-Ex. L-4).

In Science and social studies, the Student also received modifications of having information broken down, reminders, teacher guidance, frequent redirection, repetition, and prompts (P-Ex. L-4). The Student made progress in both areas (P-Ex. L-4). During Morning Meetings they addressed the Student’s social/emotional needs and were part of the Responsive Classroom program (P-Ex. L-4). The focus of the class was to start the day with a positive, encouraging tone, foster a supportive classroom community, prepare for the day and set him up for success (P-Ex. L-4). Each day ended with Closing Circle/Organization, which was part of the Responsive Classroom program where the Student was able to organize his materials and backpack, discuss and reflect on his day and end his day on a positive note (P-Ex. L-4).

The cognitive skills class addressed the Student’ social emotional challenges (P-Ex. L-4). Frustration, focus, following directions, impulsivity and problem solving were some of the areas addressed (P-Ex. L-4). The Student needed direct instruction, practice of skills, frequent prompts, breaks and opportunities to physically move (P-Ex. L-4). The Student also worked on skills related to interacting with peers, reading social cues, and presenting his ideas in a respectful manner (P-Ex. L-4). He made progress, especially in self-regulation (P-Ex. L-4).

The Student received language therapy twice per week in a group and individually; OT twice per week in a group and once per week individually; and counseling individually once per week and in a group once per week (P-Ex. L-5). Sensory challenges and writing were addressed in occupational therapy (P-Ex. L-5). The Student learned how to use sensory information and exercises in order to self-regulate and remain calm and alert for learning (P-Ex. L-5). Writing skills were reinforced with occupational therapy in addition to keyboarding skills (P-Ex. L-5). In counseling they worked on holding conversations with peers and adults, and coping skills when overwhelmed or upset (P-Ex. L-5). The Student also made progress with his related services (P-Ex. L-5). Formal meetings took place weekly between the Student’s teachers and related service providers to ensure the Student’s academic, social-emotional, and therapeutic needs were being met (P-Ex. L-5). In addition to the weekly formal meeting, there was ongoing collaboration between all staff on a daily basis (P-Ex. L-5). With respect to the student’s progress at the Private Schools, a finding of progress is not required for a determination that a student's unilateral placement is adequate, but it is a relevant factor to be considered (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115, citing Rafferty v. Cranston Pub. Sch. Comm., 315 F.3d 21, 26-27 [1st Cir. 2002]). Here, however, as a result of the special education methods and supports provided, the Student made clear and consistent progress, academically, socially and emotionally (P-Ex. I; L; K). The Parent also testified that the Student made progress during the 2021/22 school year (P-K-2). According to the Parent, his self-esteem was very good because he was doing well academically and felt really good about himself (P-Ex. K-2). Based on all of the above, I find that the Private School was an appropriate placement for the Student for the 2020/21 school year.

EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS

Equitable considerations are relevant in determining relief “because the authority to grant reimbursement [under the IDEA] is discretionary.” Frank G., 459 F.3d at 363-64 (quoting, Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374). In balancing the equities, I find in favor of the Parent. To the extent possible, the Parent has participated in all aspects of the special education process and communicated their concerns with the District. In contrast, the District ignored the Parent’s concerns and failed to create an IEP for the Student for the 2021/22 school year.

DECISION

Based on a review of the record and the facts mentioned above, I find that the District failed to provide the Student FAPE during the 2021/22 school year. I further find that the Parent’s unilateral placement at the Private School was appropriate and that the Parent is entitled to reimbursement. I have considered the Parent’s other requests for relief in the Due Process Complaint and they have been denied for lack of evidence in the record.

ORDER

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

ORDER THAT, the District shall reimburse the Parent and/or directly pay the Private School for all tuition and fees for the Student’s unilateral placement at the Private School during the 2021/22 school year.

SO ORDERED

DATED: April 18, 2023

Vanessa M. Gronbach

Vanessa M. Gronbach, 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.

EXHIBITS

DISTRICT EXHIBITS

1. DPC 1/3/23 4 pages District

2. IEP 6/8/21 30 pages District

3. Prior Written Notice and School Location Letter 6/9/21 7 pages District

4. Comprehensive Student Plan 20/21 18 pages District

5. Physical Therapy Evaluation 7/18/19 5 pages District

6. Occupational Therapy Evaluation 7/18/19 9 pages District

7. Social History Update 5/26/20 2 pages District

8. 3-year mandated Evaluation Report 10/20/17 10 pages District

PARENT EXHIBITS

A. DPC 1/3/2023 4 pages

B. Parent Letter 8/18/2021 3 pages

C. Parent Letter 10/22/2021 2 pages

D. Tuition Contract March 2021 1 page

E. Payment Affidavit 7/21/2022 1 page

F. Schedule 2021-2022 1 page

G. Proof of Payment various 3 pages

H. Program Description undated 1 page

I. Progress Report 2021/22 22 pages

J. Parent Tax Return 2021 2 pages

K. Affidavit of Parent 3/20/2023 2 pages

L. Affidavit of Director 3/17/2023 6 pages

Footnotes

[1] Exhibits shall be referred to as follows: “P” for Parent Exhibit; “D” for the District’s or Department’s Exhibits.

[2] Reference to the Transcript shall be referred to as “T”.

[3] A more detailed list of exhibits is attached.