Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 246241

Student's Name: REDACTED

Date of Birth: REDACTED

District: REDACTED

CSE: REDACTED

Hearing Requested By: Parent

Dates of Hearing: 04/18/23

08/03/23

09/13/23

09/26/23

10/19/23

11/1/23

Actual Record Close Date: 12/18/23

Hearing Officer: Tina Millman, Esq.

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED 04/18/23

For the Parents:

REDACTED Parent Attorney

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED DOE Attorney

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED 08/03/23

For the Parents:

REDACTED Parent Attorney

REDACTED Parent

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED DOE Attorney

REDACTED Teacher Assigned A

REDACTED Principal, REDACTED

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED 09/13/23

For the Parents:

REDACTED Parent Attorney

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED DOE Attorney

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED 09/26/23

For the Parents:

REDACTED Parent Attorney

REDACTED Parent

REDACTED Girls Program Director

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED DOE Attorney

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED 10/19/23

For the Parents:

REDACTED Parent Attorney

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED DOE Attorney

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED 11/11/23

For the Parents:

REDACTED Parent Attorney

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED DOE Attorney

INTRODUCTION

On February 27, 2023, New York City Department of Education (DOE) appointed me to act as the impartial hearing officer (IHO) in a case brought under the Federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) [20 USC §1415(f)(3)] (“IDEA”) by the parents (Parents) of REDACTED ( REDACTED or “the student”) for the 2022/23 school year.

The Parents requested the hearing by filing an impartial hearing request with the DOE on February 27, 2022. The DPC is carried under New York

City (“NYC”) Case No: 246241 The impartial hearings were held on 04/18/23, 08/3/23, 09/13/23, 09/26/23, 10/19/23 and 11/1/23 to complete the record. The timelines have also been extended to allow the parties opportunity to fully prepare, secure witnesses and obtain transcripts. The record officially closed on December 14, 2023. A list of persons who appeared at the hearing and the documents entered into evidence is annexed hereto.

The DOE CASE

The DOE offers 4 documents into evidence, the IEP dated 4/4/22, PWN dated 6/10/22,The School Location Letter dated 6/10/22 and the Psychoeducational evaluation dated 7/7/21 ( Ex 1-4) In addition to the documents two witnesses are called. The first witness was REDACTED, the teacher assigned A, CSE 7 to explain how the IEP was created. The second witness was REDACTED Principal of REDACTED who testified the IEP could be implemented at the recommended placement for the 2022-2023 school year. The DOE asserts that a FAPE was provided to the student for the 2022-23 school year and that the Parent failed to prove that the REDACTED ( REDACTED or the School) was appropriate to meet the students’ special education needs. (IHO ex I) The DOE maintains the evidence presented proves that 4 / 4 / 2 2 IEP would have provided the Student with meaningful educational benefits.

They assert, the relief requested must be denied because the IEP was likely to produce progress, not regression; afforded the Student with an opportunity greater than mere trivial advancement in that that it was likely to provide some meaningful benefit.

The DOE recommended an integrated co-teaching ICT program for ELA, Math, Social Studies and Sciences, as well as counseling services, physical therapy and speech-language therapy. DOE Ex. 1. The recommended class size was not shown to be inappropriate for REDACTED The student was recommended placement at REDACTED, which is a DOE community school. DOE Ex. 3, DOE Ex. 10. The IEP team was composed of all the requisite members. DOE Ex. 1. The IEP team relied on up to date to develop an IEP. DOE Ex. 1. The IEP recommendation would allow the student to achieve meaningful academic and social growth and progress. DOE Ex. 1.

Further, the goals and management needs are specific, measurable, and personalized to REDACTED DOE Ex. 1.

They further maintain that the Department Placed the Student in the Least Restrictive Environment and the evidence proves that the IEP places the Student in the least restrictive environment. The April 4, 2022 IEP team considered special classes of various sizes at both specialized schools and a community school, but the program was rejected as it was deemed too restrictive. DOE Ex. 1.

They assert, the Parent has failed to prove the appropriateness of their unilateral placement in that no credible evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the instruction offered at the Unilateral Placement was specifically designed to meet the Student’s unique needs.

THE PARENTS CASE

The Parent offers 17 documents into evidence (A-Q) and calls two witnesses on their behalf. The Parent calls REDACTED, the REDACTED Program Director of the REDACTED. The affidavit of Parent is utilized in lieu of direct testimony. (Ex Q) The DOE attorney cross examined both witnesses. The Parent maintains the DOE failed to meet their burden of proof to support they provided the student with a FAPE for the 22-23 school year.

The Parents maintain the CSE failed to conduct and obtain evaluative material when creating the 4/4/22 IEP.

The PThe It is asserted that the record supports that the clinical data the CSE chose to rely on, failed to support an ICT program recommendation. They further maintain the evidence presented reveals that the ICT program is entirely inappropriate and insufficient to meet the students’ needs and that there is no evidence indicating that an ICT class could provide the student with the level of 1:1 and small group support/instruction required.

The Parents further maintain the goals in the April 2022 IEP are insufficient and the IEP failed to include goals which addressed all of the students’ needs. Finally, they maintain the District failed to prove the recommended ICT class at REDACTED could implement the students’ management needs and goals, and therefore, failed to prove it was an appropriate placement . The The Parents assert, the evidence establishes the appropriateness of REDACTED. They assert it is a supportive, special education program, specifically designed for children who are unable to make progress in the mainstream setting due to learning disabilities, speech and language delays, autism, or behavioral/social/emotional issues, such as REDACTED. They further assert that the equities favor the Parents as they cooperated with the District .

Ultimately, they maintain that in light of the DOE failing to establish they provided a FAPE, the evidence supporting the appropriateness of the REDACTED and the equities favoring the parents the Parents requested relief should be granted in its entirety.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Two purposes of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. sect. 1400-1482) are (1) to ensure that with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education (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. sect. 1400 (d) (1) (A)-(B); see generally Forest Grove v. T.A., 129 S. Ct. 2484, 2491 (2009); Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 (1982).

A FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the Board of Education complies with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and (b) the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits ( Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-207; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F. 3d 186, 192 (2d Cir 2005) ). While school districts are required to comply with all IDEA procedures, not all procedural errors render an IEP legally in adequate under the IDEA. ( A.C. v. Bd. of Educ., 553 F. 3d 165, 172 (2d Cir. 2009); Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F 3d 377, 381 ( 2d Cir. 2003); Perricelli v. Carmel Cent. Sch. Dist. 2007 WL 465211, at 10 (S.D.N.Y. Feb 9, 2007) ).

Under the IDEA, if a procedural violation is alleged, and administrative officer may find that the student to not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a) impeded the students’ rights to a FAPE, (b) significantly impeded the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a FAPE to the student, or (c) caused a deprivation of educational benefits (20 U.S.C. sect. 1415 (f)(3)(E)(ii); 34 CFR 300.513 (a) (2); 8 NYCRR 200.5 (j)(4)(ii); Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 525-526 (2007); A.H. v. Dep't.. of Educ., 2010 WL 3930028, at *2 (2d. Cir. Aug. 16, 2010; E.H. v. Bd. of Educ., 2008 WL 3930028 at *7 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2008); Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 471 F. Supp. 2d 415, 419 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) aff'd, 2008 WL 3852180 (2d Cir. Aug. 19, 2008)).

The IDEA directs that, in general, an IHO's decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE (20 U.S.C. sect 1415 (f)(3)(E)(i) ). A school district offers a FAPE "by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction" Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203). However, the "IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP" (Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F. 3d 119, 130 (2d Cir. 1998); see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189). The statute ensures an "appropriate" education" not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents " (Walczak, 142 F. 3d at 132, quoting Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F. 2d 563, 567 ( 2d Cir. 1989) (citations omitted); see Grim, 346 F. 3d at 379). Additionally, school districts are not required to "maximize" the potential of students with disabilities (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189,199; Grim, 346 F. 3d at 379; Walczak, 142 F. 3d at 132). Nonetheless, the school district must provide "an IEP that is "likely to produce progress, not regression, and..... Affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere "trivial advancement" (Cerra, 427 F. 3d at 195, quoting Walczak, 142 F. 3d at 130 ( citations omitted); see

P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F 3d 111, 118-19 ( 2d Cir. 2008); Perricelli, 2007 WL 465211 at *15). The IEP must be " reasonably calculated to provide some meaningful benefit " (Mrs. B v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 (2d Cir. 1997); see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192). The students recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE) (20 U.S.C. sect 1412(a)(5)(A); 34 CFR 300.114 (a)(2)(i), 300.116 (a)(2);8 NYCRR 200.1 (cc), 200.6 (a) (1); see Newington, 546 F.3d at 114; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F. 3d 105,108 (2d Cir. 2007); Walczak, 142 F 3d at 132; E.G. v. city Sch. diet. of New Rochelle, 606 F. Supp. 2d 384,388 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Patskin v. Bd. of Educ., 583 F. Supp. 2d 422,428 (W.D.N.Y. 2008) ). An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that accurately reflects the results of evaluations to identify the students’ needs (34 CFR 300.320 (a)(1); 8 NYCRR 200.4 (d)(2)(i); Tarlowe v. Dep't of Educ., 2008 WL 2736027, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 3,2008), establishes annual goals related to those needs (34 CFR300.320 (a)(2); 8 NYCRR 200.4 (d)(2)(iii)), and provides for the use of appropriate special education services (34 CFR 300.320 (a)(4); 8 NYCRR 200.4(d)(2)(v); see Application of the Dep't. of Educ., Appeal No. 07-018; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-059; Application of the Dep't. of Educ., Appeal No. 06-029; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 04-046; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 02-014; Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 01-095; Application of a Child Suspected of Having a Disability, Appeal No. 93-9).

The burden of proof is on the school district during an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for unilateral placement has the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement (educe. Law sect 4404 (l)(c); see M.P.G. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2010 WL 3398256 at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 27, 2010) ).

Under the second criteria of the legal standard, the Parent bears the burden of showing that the private school placement selected is appropriate. (Application of a Child with a Disability, No 95-57, Application of a Child with a Disability, No. 94- 29,Application of a Child with a Disability, No. 93-34) The Parents must show that the private school placement offers an educational program that meets the student’s special education needs. (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370, Application of a Child with a Disability, no. 94-20) The private school need not be approved by the state educational agency to provide instruction to children with disabilities. Florence County School District Four et. Al. v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993)). It is also not required that the private school employ certified special education teachers, or have its own IEP for the student. (Application of a Child with a Disability, No. 94-20)

Finally, the third criterion of the Burlington standard requires a balancing of the equities in determining whether reimbursement should be awarded.

I begin by noting that I credit the testimony of all the witnesses who appeared at the hearing. The Decision as stated below is based on the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, which is detailed above with appropriate citations to the record.

Did the DOE offer the student a FAPE/Prong I?

The first step is to determine whether the DOE offered to provide the student a FAPE. (Mrs. C. v. Voluntown, 226 F. 3d 60,66 (2nd Cir. 2000) (1982)).

The DOE offers 4 documents into evidence, the IEP dated 4/4/22, PWN dated 6/10/22, The School Location Letter dated 6/10/22 and the Psychoeducational evaluation dated 7/7/21 ( Ex 1-4) In addition to the documents two witnesses are called. The first witness was REDACTED , the teacher assigned A, CSE 7 to explain how the IEP was created. The second witness was REDACTED Principal of REDACTED who testified the IEP could be implemented at the recommended placement for the 2022-2023 school year.

I concur with the Parents position stated in their closing brief that

“At the hearing, REDACTED testified that she also relied on the progress reports provided by REDACTED staff to develop the IEP. However, none of those reports were submitted as evidence by the District. Nevertheless, the IEP does incorporate portions of those reports. “ The IEP references a teacher progress report from February 2022 which notes that at the time of the meeting, the student attended a 6:1+2 student to staffing ratio and in this small class environment, REDACTED required 1:1 and small group instruction, new information presented with visual aids and multi-sensory activities, constant positive reinforcement and visuals with clear expectations, and direct social skills instruction and teacher intervention to navigate social situations appropriately to function in this setting.” The teacher progress notes that “it is necessary to provide reading instruction in a 1:1 setting in order to keep REDACTED focused on task and to provide constant feedback,” and math instruction in a group of two to reduce distractions and provide constant feedback. (Ex. 1-3)

I concur that the record supports that the clinical data REDACTED obtained from REDACTED teachers and providers did not support recommending REDACTED for a program with typically 25- 30 students and only 2 teachers, given the level of support REDACTED required at the time of the meeting.

The record does not support that an ICT class could provide the student with the level of 1:1 and small group support/instruction REDACTED required

During the 2022-2023 school year, Evidence and testimony support the student required very small group instructionof 2-5 students, had a difficult time asking for help and required behavioral support to address REDACTED anxiety and attentional deficits (T. 109, 110) The IEP acknowledges the students need for small group instruction, prompting and frequent check-ins, however no evidence was presented that an ICT class of 25-30 students could implement these needs.

Ms. REDACTED , the Program Director at REDACTED, credibly testified an ICT program is entirely inappropriate for REDACTED as REDACTED would have become overwhelmed and shut down. She notes that an ICT class could not provide REDACTED with the level of support REDACTED required. (Tr. 128-129).

She notes that the student “is a child who was very, very shut down, very quiet, very reserved. REDACTED had significant attention deficits. REDACTED needed support like a structured behavior modification program to stay on track. And REDACTED needed a lot of constant feedback. REDACTED needed small group instruction to learn. And REDACTED needed a lot of help socially, just navigating social interactions in class. I think that REDACTED needed a lot encouragement all through the day. And also, language wise, in terms of instruction, REDACTED needed very, very explicit instruction. REDACTED needed things to be broken down into very manageable pieces. I don’t know that that would have been accomplished in a class that size.” (Tr. 134)

Ms. REDACTED adds that the IEP itself lacks Direct Social Skill instruction or a Behavior Plan to keep REDACTED on task. Despite the fact, the student requires modified worksheets and graphic organizers Ms. REDACTED notes the IEP does not include them. In addition, the IEP lacks Vocabulary and Comprehension goals. Ultimately, Ms. REDACTED believes the placement was completely inappropriate. (Tr. 131-133)

The Parent REDACTED, credibly testified on direct via affidavit as well as testifying on cross-examination that she had disagreed with the ICT class. She felt it was too large. She notes that she had previously taken REDACTED out of a class with 25-30 children because she had difficulty in a large school environment. REDACTED testified that she went to visit the recommended placement and saw an ICT class of 25-30 kids. And felt it was too large. She adds the gymnasium and lunchroom are too large for her REDACTED as she gets nervous. (Tr. 138-139 )

The DOE witness, REDACTED testified that the recommendation of an ICT program was based on REDACTED needing some supports but also because REDACTED had some strengths such as functioning on grade level in math and that REDACTED improved in REDACTED reading abilities. (Tr. 45) This rationale does not sufficiently explain as to how recommending a class size 3-4 times larger than where REDACTED was attending would meet REDACTED management needs.

The district presented 1 witness from P.S. REDACTED, Ms. REDACTED, the School Principal who testified that there were 25 students in the proposed class at P.S. REDACTED and they follow a 3rd grade curriculum.(Tr. 68) I concur with the Parent that as the proposed class follows a 3rd grade curriculum, there is no evidence it would have been able to implement REDACTED individual goals and provide REDACTED with multisensory approach to learning, particularly in reading as REDACTED did not function on a 3rd grade level for the 2022-2023 school year. .

Based upon the evidence and testimony presented I find the DOE has failed to meet their burden that the IEP was reasonably calculated to meet the students’ special education needs. Based upon the aforementioned I find the DOE failed to provide the student with a FAPE for the 2022-2023 school year.

Prong II

Having found that a FAPE has not been offered I will look to the appropriateness of the Parent’s unilateral placement.

The DOE maintains that :

The relief requested must be denied because Parent has failed to present sufficiently credible evidence to establish that the instruction offered at the Unilateral Placement was appropriate for the Student. The DOE maintains REDACTED was able to speak to the school in general, but provided very little detail regarding the student's specific special education programming. Based on the foregoing, the available evidence contained in the hearing record does not convincingly or objectively show that [unilateral placement] provided the student with specially designed instruction to address the students’ unique special education needs during the 2022-2023 school year. The D O E m a i n t a i n s t h e evidence shows that [unilateral placement] provided the student with the types of advantages—including a small class size, a general education curriculum, tutoring, community activities—"that might be preferred by the parents of any child, disabled or not”). However, the DOE asserts that no credible evidence has been presented to demonstrate that the instruction offered at the Unilateral Placement was specifically designed to meet the Student’s unique needs. Despite the blanket statement JCSE is inappropriate, after review of all the evidence and testimony I find REDACTED was an appropriate placement for the student for the 2022-2023 school year The Second Circuit has set forth the standard for determining whether parents have carried their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of their unilateral placement. 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; see, Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65.

With respect to the relief of tuition reimbursement, the regulations and case law are quite clear, the parent’s shoulder the burden of proving that the unilateral placement for the Student is appropriate. The case law that has developed is equally clear that this appropriateness of the unilateral placement is not as rigid as the Rowley standards for the District, the parent’s however must still prove that the unilateral placement is sufficiently unique to address the unique needs ofthe Student. Taking this one step further, the unilateral placement must not be a “one size fits all”approach but tailored to address the unique needs of the student and that this tailored instruction must show some benefit for the Student.

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, “[u]ltimately, the issue turns on ‘whether that placement is "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receiveeducational benefits." (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364; Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115).

The Parents have more than sufficiently supported their burden of the appropriateness of REDACTED.

The Parent’s witness REDACTED credibly testified on direct ( Tr. 93-117) that REDACTED is a small special education program for children who have problems in a mainstream setting due to disabilities, speech and language delay, behavioral and or emotional issues. The school utilizes a multi-sensory approach and provides various therapies. She testifies the student who is diagnosed with REDACTED, was in a class of 7 students all 8-9 years old functioning on a 1st-2nd grade level. The class has 1 teacher and 2 assistants.

She describes the student as having significant attention deficits, academic delays and significant speech and language delays. REDACTED requires “everything” to be broken down. REDACTED has limited conversational ability and has difficulty expressing REDACTED. Due to the aforementioned, REDACTED had difficulty socially.

To address REDACTED reading difficulties the student was taught in a group of 2 using a multisensory approach with games. Overall, REDACTED was taught in small groups utilizing multisensory approaches and everything was broken down and modified.

REDACTED credibly testified the students’ attention span improved and REDACTED was able to work independently for short periods of time which was “huge” for REDACTED. She notes that due to the small group instruction and multisensory approach utilized the student made academic progress in reading and by the end of the 22-

23 school year REDACTED was reading on a mid 2nd grade level and REDACTED spelling improved. She noted improvement in the students’ math skills as well as REDACTED social and conversational skills. REDACTED comments the student was better able to express REDACTED needs . (Tr.115-117) Overall, she believes that REDACTED appropriately addressed the students’ needs. (Tr. 127-128) The Parent, in her affidavit and during cross examination credibly attests to the progress the student made both academically and socially. (Tr. 142-143, Exhibit Q.

Based upon the evidence submitted and credible testimony of the witnesses I find that REDACTED was an appropriate placement for the student for the 2022-2023 school year. (Ex E, F, G, H )

Prong III

DO THE EQUITIES FAVOR THE PARENTS?

The third prong of the Burlington test requires the parent to demonstrate that the equities favor their claim for reimbursement.

To prevail on a claim for tuition reimbursement, “equitable considerations [must] support the parents’ claims.” M.C., 226 F.3d at 68; Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370, 374; Carter, 510 U.S. at 16. Such equitable considerations include “the reasonableness of the parties’ positions.” Burlington, 736 F.2d at 801-802. Indeed, the IDEA states that tuition reimbursement may be “reduced or denied . . . upon a judicial finding of unreasonableness with respect to actions taken by the parents.” 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a) (10) (c)(iii)(III).

The DOE makes no assertion during the hearing nor in their brief (IHO Ex I) that the parents acted in a way to reduce or deny the relief the Parents requested. The Upon review of the record, there has been no suggestion in this case that the parent contributed to the FAPE deprivation.

The record also leaves no question as to the costs incurred in relation to the students’ attendance at REDACTED and the Parent’s obligation to pay to do so if unsuccessful in this hearing

In light of the fact that the evidence and testimony support that the Parent fully cooperated with the CSE and did nothing to impede their offering a FAPE and notified the DOE of their intent to unilaterally place the student, based on the aforementioned, I find the equities favor the Parent.

I find the DOE failed to offer the student a FAPE for the 2022-2023 school year, The Parents have met their burden of supporting the appropriateness of REDACTED for the 2022-2023 school year and the equities favor the Parents. In light of the aforementioned, upon proof of attendance the DOE will pay to REDACTED for the students’ tuition inclusive of related services and transportation, in an amount not to exceed $75,820.00 . (Exhibits, I )

ORDER

For reasons indicated herein, it is ORDERED

A) that the Department of Education failed to Provide REDACTED with a FAPE for the 2022-2023 school year.

B) The REDACTED was an appropriate placement for the student for the 2022-2023 school year.

C) There are no equitable considerations that would bar the Parent from the requested relief.

D) Upon Proof of the students’ attendance and proof of payment, the DOE is to pay the REDACTED for the students’ tuition inclusive of related services and transportation in an amount not to exceed $75,820.00 for the 22-23 school year.

December 18, 2023

Tina Millman Esq.

Impartial Hearing Officer

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

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 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 parties' petition 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

EVIDENCE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD

IHO EXHIBIT

I. 10/31/2023, DOE Closing Brief, 8pp.

II. 10/31/23, Parent Closing Brief, 19pp.

DOE EXHIBITS

1. Individualized Education Program (IEP) 04/04/2022 32 pages DOE

2. Prior Written Notice 06/10/2022 4 pages DOE

3. School Location Letter 06/10/2022 2 pages DOE

4. Psychoeducational Evaluation 07/07/2021 6 pages DOE

PARENTS EXHIBITS

A. Exhibit Date Title Number of Pages Impartial Hearing Request 02/27/2023 3 pages

B. Amended Impartial Hearing Request 02/28/2023 3 pages

C. Ten-Day Notice Letter (w. email confirmation) 08/23/2022 3 pages

D. Letter to CSE Chairperson 07/07/2022 3 pages

E. Counseling Progress Report 02/2023 1 page

F. Physical Therapy Progress Report 02/2023 1 page

G. Speech-Language Therapy Progress Report 02/2023 2 pages

H. Teacher Progress Report 02/2023 5 pages

I. Daily Schedule 2022-2023 1 page

J. Enrollment Contract (w. Transportation Addendum) and 10/03/2022 09/07/2022 4 pages

K. Attendance 2022-2023 1 page

L. Affidavit of Payment 06/27/2023 1 page

M. U.S. Individual Income Tax Return 2020 3 pages

N. Counseling Goals 06/2023 1 page

O. Speech-Language Therapy Goals 06/2023 2 pages

P. Teacher Goals 06/2023 9 pages

Q. Testimonial Affidavit of REDACTED 09/06/2023 5 pages