NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Case Number: 246545
Student’s Name: [REDACTED]
Date of Birth: [REDACTED]
School District: N.Y.C. Dept. of Education
Home District: [REDACTED]
Service District: [REDACTED]
Date of Filing: 03/09/2023
Hearing Requested by: Guardian
Hearing Date: 08/21/2023
Actual Record Closed Date: 08/23/2023
Date of Decision: 08/24/2023
Date of Distribution: 08/24/2023
Impartial Hearing Officer: Patricia Peña, Esq.
NAMES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON 08/21/2023
For Student and Parent:
[REDACTED] [REDACTED]
Witness for Parent
[REDACTED]
For the Department of Education:
[REDACTED]
INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter comes before the undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) on Guardian’s Due Process Complaint (“DPC”) filed on or about 03/09/2023 through counsel on behalf of Student against the New York City Department of Education (“DOE” or “District”). I was appointed as the IHO on 03/13/2023.
On 04/12/2023, a Pre-Hearing conference was held. Guardian indicated that an amendment to the DPC was forthcoming. On or about 04/19/2023, Guardian amended the DPC, and a second Pre-Hearing conference was held on 05/25/23. Parties indicated that: (1) a resolution meeting was not held; (2) DOE was still investigating this matter but believed that Guardian’s request for an evaluation could be resolved via settlement; (3) case concerned a denial of free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the 2021-2022, and 2022-2023 school years; and (3) Guardian was seeking compensatory relief as a remedy for the denial of FAPE.
A virtual due process hearing was held on 08/21/2023. [REDACTED] represented Guardian and [REDACTED] represented DOE. DOE did not offer any documents or witness testimony into evidence, waived opening statement, and conceded a denial of FAPE.[1] Parent submitted exhibits 20 into evidence without objection[2] and presented the testimony of one witness, [REDACTED]. Both parties made closing statements.
JURISDICTION
The due process hearing was held, and a decision in this matter is being rendered pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.,
BACKGROUND
Student is a [REDACTED]-year-old child classified by the Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) under the classification of “Other Health Impairment.” Student has a diagnosis of Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”), Language Disorder, and Developmental Disorder of Scholastics Skills.[3] In its DPC, Guardian contends that Student has been receiving special education supports since Kindergarten but despite these services, Student who is currently repeating the 6th grade, is functioning at 1st grade level in reading and 2nd grade level in math.[4] Guardian contends that DOE has overlooked Student’s “stagnant academic progress” as well as Student’s significant emotional challenges and passed her from grade to grade.[5] Guardian further contends that a neuropsychological evaluation conducted in December 2021 revealed that with the proper support and services, Student has the potential to make meaningful progress.[6] With respect to the 2021-2022 school year, Guardian contends that DOE failed to (1) recommend an appropriate program and necessary academic remediation to address Student’s academic deficits (2) failed to reevaluate Student prior to the 03/09/2021 IEP,[7] and (3) failed to offer Student sufficient related services.[8] With respect to the 2022-2023 school year, Guardian contends DOE failed to (1) reevaluate Student and (2) failed to conduct an IEP meeting compensatory relief as follows: 1) 400 hours of compensatory individual tutoring in math, reading and writing from a qualified provider of Guardian’s choosing at a rate of $150 per hour. Guardian based the number of hours requested is based on 5 hours of tutoring per week, times 36 weeks in a school year, times the 2-year denial of FAPE. [10]
2) 180 hours of compensatory individual speech and language therapy from a qualified provider of Guardian’s choosing. Guardian based the number of hours requested is based on 5 30-minute sessions per week times 36 weeks, times a 2-year denial of FAPE. [11]
3) 72 hours of compensatory individual occupational therapy from a qualified provider of Guardian’s choosing. Guardian based the number of hours requested is based on 2 30-minute sessions per week, times 36 weeks, times 2-year denial of FAPE.
4) Independent neuropsychological evaluation to be conducted by Dr. Downing at a rate of $5,000. [12]
ISSUE
The issue for determination is whether Student was denied a FAPE for the 2021-2022, and 2022-2023 school years.
I find that Student was denied a FAPE for the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years and is therefore entitled to compensatory relief.
Id. at A10- A11
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
After a full review of the record generated at the hearing, I make the following findings of fact and determinations.
The Present Levels of Performance and Individual Needs section of the 02/11/2022 IEP indicates that Student needs practice decoding unfamiliar words. She struggles with decoding words with long vowels. Student requires support with unfamiliar multisyllabic words, vowel teams, segmenting, blending, and suffixes. 13 Due to Student’s decoding needs, “she is still not yet always able to read aloud with the accuracy, emotion, volume, and expression appropriate for large group discussions. She struggles when it comes to reading with accuracy and a good pace for a 6th grade scholar.”[14] Student’s “comprehension of a text is approximately on a 2nd grade level. When it comes to a literary text, with heavy prompting [Student] is able to identify story problems such as the main idea, characters, and setting. She is able to identify a character's thoughts and feelings. As well as retell key information.”[15] With respect to Student’s needs in writing, Student “struggles with handwriting, she struggles to use the appropriate spacing in her writing. She also struggles when it comes to spelling, she is frequently asking the teacher to spell words for her, since she struggles with spelling grade level appropriate multisyllabic words. As well as, using subject/verb agreement in her sentences. When it comes to writing she struggles with independently providing an answer to develop a strong claim. As well as identifying evidence from the text to support her claim.”[16] With respect to math, “although [Student] is able to solve one step word problems when familiar with the operations or methods, when given a list of word problems with a mix of different ways to solve it, she does not consistently solve them correctly and requires a mini review before attempting them and solving them correctly.” [17] Additionally, Student “needs support with adding and subtracting fractions with unlike denominators. She is able to find a common denominator but struggles to remember this is a necessary step to solve.”[18] The CSE recommended an Integrated Co-Teaching (“ICT”) class as well a 12:1 class for core subjects; counseling services 1 time per week for 30 minutes; occupational therapy, 2 times per week for 30 minutes; speech language therapy, 3 timers per week for 30 minutes; and a paraprofessional for behavioral support.[19] Student’s functioning level for reading was on a 1st grade level and at a 2nd grade level for math. [20]
In December 2021, Student underwent a neuropsychological evaluation.[21] Student’s overall intellectual functioning fell within the “very low range,” Student’s verbal abilities were underdeveloped.[22] Student’s working memory capacity and processing speed were areas of strength for Student. Scores fell within the “average range.”[23] Additionally, in the area of expressive language, Student performed at “extremely low range.”[24] Student’s receptive language comprehension for information contained in longer paragraphs and for multiple-step instructions was also poor.[25] Based on the results of her evaluation, Neuropsychologist made a series of recommendations including: a small, structured environment with low student to teacher ration such as a 12:1 or 12:1+1; a multisensory curriculum and frequent individual and small group instruction; 12 month program; individualized academic tutoring in reading, math, writing, and study skills; speech and language therapy; counseling; occupational therapy; assistive technology; and a behavioral intervention plan. [26]
Neuropsychologist testified about her evaluation. At the time of her evaluation, Student was taking medication which helped Student with focus, stamina, and self-regulation. [27] Regarding her observations, Neuropsychologist testified that Student’s language was immature, and exhibited some attention challenges and impulsivity.[28] With the right supports, Student can make academic progress.[29] Neuropsychologist testified that Student is performing well below her cognitive level.[30] Since completing the evaluation in December 2021, Neuropsychologist has not worked with Student.[31] The only update she’s received was via the family’s attorney, namely that since her evaluation, Student was hospitalized in a psychiatric unit in 2022 and has experienced a decline in her functioning as far as taking care of her hygiene and refusing to go to school.[32] Based on the updates, she’s received, Neuropsychologist believes Student still requires academic remediation and an updated neuropsychological evaluation. [33]
Regarding a 10/03/2021 speech and language evaluation, testing showed “difficulties in interpreting spoken directives, reproducing sentences of increasing length and complexity, following directions, providing explanations, understanding relationships between words, and Student’s deficits can transfer into the classroom as it relates to following directions and academic instruction and processing information without visual cues and describing events using details.[35] The report further notes that “[b]ased on R.I.O.T. procedures it is determined that [REDACTED] presents with language deficits which are negatively impacting her rate of progress. It is further determined that measures implemented at home and within the classroom have been insufficient to promote success and meet her needs. Therefore, speech and language services are required to support student’s progress.”[36] The evaluator recommended that Student receive 5 30-minute speech and language sessions a week to address Student’s deficits in receptive and expressive language and reading.
An occupational therapy evaluation was also conducted in 2021.[37] At the time of her evaluation, Student was [REDACTED] years old. Student tested at an age equivalency of 6:3. Further, “[o]verall, it appears that [Student] has difficulty with successfully and effortlessly integrating visual information from her eyes with other senses and abilities such as motor and cognition secondary to reading difficulties, decreased visual memory, and difficulty with sustaining her attention, and executive functioning vulnerabilities. Continued difficulties in the abovementioned areas can result increased errors, future avoidance of handwriting and reading tasks and decline in academic performance/grades in school which could also lead to low selfesteem.”[38] Based on the above, the evaluator recommended that Student receive 1 30-minute
Parent’s I 10
FAPE
The IDEA provides that children with disabilities are entitled to a FAPE. 41 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. 42 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 Student to receive educational benefits. 43 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.” 44 School districts are not required to "maximize" the potential of students with disabilities 45 but are required to provide
Id. 40 NYS Educ. Law § 4404[1][c] 41 20 U.S.C. § 1400 [d] [1] [A] 42 34 C.F.R. § 300.13 43 Bd. of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 [1982]. 44 Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S.Ct. 988, 999 [2017]. 45 Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199; Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d at 379; Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d at 132. "an IEP that is 'likely to produce progress, not regression,' and . . . affords Student with an opportunity greater than mere 'trivial advancement'." [46]
An appropriate remedy for a denial of FAPE can include an award of compensatory education.[47] The purpose of a compensatory education award is to place the student in the position he/she would have been in had the district complied with its obligation under the IDEA.[48] A court may, therefore “award various forms of retroactive and prospective equitable relief, including reimbursement of tuition, compensatory education, and other declaratory and injunctive remedies.”[49] Further, “whereas ordinary IEPs need only provide ‘some benefit,’ compensatory awards must do more—they must compensate.”[50] A request for compensatory relief may be denied if there is not a sufficient a causal link in the record between any deprivation and Student’s current deficits. [51]
An award of compensatory education can be crafted following either a quantitative approach or a qualitative approach. The “quantitative” approach is based on the amount of time that comprised the FAPE deprivation.[52] The “qualitative” approach is based on a student’s needs and on the specific educational deficits that resulted from the FAPE deprivation. 53 This approach reasonably calculated to provide the educational benefits that likely would have accrued from special education services the school district should have supplied in the first place.”[55] The Second Circuit has not adopted a preferred approach and leaves the mechanics of structuring an award to the court’s discretion.[56] Irrespective of the approach taken in crafting the award, “the remedy must be ‘appropriate in light of the purpose of the Act.’” [57]
In New York State, when a parent seeks compensatory relief, the burden is on the District to “describ[e] its views, based on a fact-specific inquiry set forth in an evidentiary record, regarding an appropriate compensatory education remedy that would most reasonably and efficiently place the student in the position that [they] would have been but for the denial of FAPE.”[58] Additionally, default judgements awarding compensatory education are disfavored. In an SRO decision, the SRO stated that “an outright default judgement awarding compensatory education- or as in this case, any and all relief requested without question-is a disfavored outcome even where the district’s conduct in denying the student a FAPE and in failing to actively participate in the impartial hearing process is egregious.” [59]
Further, the purpose of compensatory education is not to “maximize the student's potential or to guarantee that the student achieves a particular grade-level in [their] areas of need. Thus, it would, for certain, be a pyrrhic victory if the delivery of an award of compensatory educational
Id. at 524 services only served to overwhelm the student or outpace the student's ability to make progress.”[60]
ANALYSIS
As previously stated, the District bears the burden of providing that Student was offered a FAPE. Here, the District did not offer any documents or witness testimony into evidence and conceded on the record that it failed to offer Student a FAPE for the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years. Moreover, a review of the record herein supports the conclusion that despite Student’s stagnant progress made over the years, DOE failed to provide Student with adequate supports and services to enable Student to make progress. Therefore, I find that DOE failed to offer Student FAPE for the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years. The only question now is whether the relief requested is appropriate.
The Relief
As an appropriate remedy the District’s denial of FAPE for the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years, Guardian seeks compensatory relief. In its closing statement, DOE argued that the record did not establish the appropriateness of the relief requested and should be denied. [61] Guardian argued that the record shows that in the years leading up to the 2021 IEP, despite Student’s lack of progress, DOE failed to recommend academic remediation.[62] Guardian contends that the relief requested is appropriate in light of the denial of FAPE.[63] The record established that Student’s academic delays are such that she is functioning on a 1st grade level for reading and at a 2nd grade level for math despite receiving special education support and services since Kindergarten. This fact is not in dispute. Further, the credible testimony of Neuropsychologist established that despite Student’s deficits and challenges, Student’s cognitive profile indicates that with the proper supports, Student can make academic progress. IHOs have broad discretion in fashioning equitable relief. As such, based on the record before me and Student’s obvious need for academic remediation and additional support, I find that compensatory relief is appropriate as follows:
Compensatory Tutoring
Based on a 36-week calculation for a 10-month student, I find that Student is entitled to 360 hours of compensatory tutoring services. This calculation is based on Guardian’s proposed 5 hours a week of tutoring times 36 times, times 2 for the 2-year denial of FAPE. Additionally, although Guardian seeks an hourly rate of $150 an hour, the record is devoid of what the prevailing market rate is for a qualified provider. Therefore, I am ordering DOE to pay reasonable market rate for a qualified provider.
Compensatory Speech and Language
Based on the recommendations made by the Speech and Language evaluator recommending 5 30-minute sessions a week for speech and language, I find that using a 36-week calculation for the school year, Student should receive 2.5 hours a week for a total of 180 hours for the 2-year denial of FAPE. However, Student’s IEPs for the school years in question mandated speech and language services and according to Guardian’s representative, sessions were provided albeit inconsistently. Therefore, I am ordering the DOE Implementation unit to Compensatory Occupational Therapy
Based on the recommendations made by the occupational therapist, recommending a total of 1 hour a week, I find that Student should have received 72 hours of speech and language therapy based on a two-year denial of FAPE. However, since the IEPs for the school years in question mandated occupational therapy, I am ordering the DOE Implementation unit to perform an accounting of the occupational therapy sessions Student received during the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school year and to fund the difference between the 72 hours Student should have received and the hours received.
The Evaluation
As part of its relief, Guardian requests an updated neuropsychological evaluation to be conducted by Neuropsychologist at a rate of $5,000. Guardian contends that based on all that transpired during the 2022-2023 school year, an updated neuropsychological evaluation is warranted. DOE does not dispute Student’s entitlement to the neuropsychological evaluation and based on the record before me, I find the request appropriate and grant the request.
ORDER
Based upon the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, I HEREBY FIND: (1) DOE failed to provide Student with a FAPE for the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years.
(2) Student is entitled to compensatory relief in accordance with this decision.
(3) DOE Implementation Unit shall, within 35 days of this order, calculate the hours of speech and language and occupational therapy services Student received during the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school and fund the difference as outlined below. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, DOE shall fund compensatory services as follows:
(1) 360 hours of compensatory individual tutoring in math, reading and writing from a qualified provider of Guardian’s choosing at a reasonable market rate, to be determined by DOE’s implementation unit based on the rate paid to similar providers in the last 6 months.
(2) A bank of compensatory occupational therapy equal to the difference between the 72 hours of services Student should have received during 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years and the hours of service Student actually received, to be provided by a qualified provider of Parent’s choosing at reasonable market rate, to be determined by DOE’s implementation unit based on the rate paid to similar providers in the last 6 months.
(3) A bank of compensatory speech and language therapy equal to the difference between the 180 hours of speech and language services Student should have received during 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years and the hours of services Student actually received, to be provided by a qualified provider of Parent’s choosing at reasonable market rate, to be determined by DOE’s implementation unit based on the rate paid to similar providers in the last 6 months.
(4) DOE shall fund a neuropsychological evaluation to be provided by Dr. [REDACTED] or other qualified provider of Guardian’s choosing at a rate not to exceed $5,000.
(5) All compensatory award ordered pursuant to this order shall expired within 2 years of the date of this order.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: 08/24/2023
Patricia Peña, Esq. (signed electronically)
Impartial Hearing Officer
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
Within 40 days of the date of this decision, 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.
DISTRICT EVIDENCE
None
PARENT EVIDENCE
EXHIBIT DATE DOCUMENT PAGES
A. Amended Due Process Complaint 4/19/2023 12 pages
B. Due Process Complaint 3/9/2023 12 pages
C. Assessment Authorization Form 3/20/2023 8 pages
D. Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) Request Letter 3/6/2023 1 page
E. IEP 2/11/2022 26 pages
F. Assistive Technology Evaluation 12/17/2021 11 pages
G. Neuropsychological Evaluation 12/11/2021 25 pages
H. Occupational Therapy Evaluation 10/5/2021 9 pages
I. Speech and Language Evaluation 10/3/2021 11 pages
J. Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) 3/18/2021 1 page
K. IEP 3/9/2021 18 pages
L. IEP 4/29/2020 20 pages
M. Teacher Report 4/27/2020 6 pages
N. IEP 5/9/2019 15 pages
O. IEP 5/30/2018 18 pages
P. BIP 6/23/2017 8 pages
Q. IEP 2/6/2017 21 pages
R. IEP 2/9/2016 24 pages
S. Resume of [REDACTED] Undated 6 pages
T. SESIS Documents Log Undated 3 pages
IHO EXHIBITS
1. PHC Summary and Order 05/25/2023 9 pages IHO
Footnotes
[1] Tr. 14
[2] Tr. 13 and its implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 300 et seq., and the New York State Education Law, § 4404 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 8 NYCRR § 200.5 et seq.
[3] Parent’s A-1
[4] Id. at A2
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id. at A8
[8] Id. at A9 during the 2022-2023 school year. 9 Based on the above, Guardian filed the instant action seeking
[10] Tr. 58-59
[11] Id.
[12] Id. at A12, Tr. 17 Although only portions of the evidence are referenced herein, I reviewed the testimony and documents in full.
[14] Id.
[15] Id.
[16] Id. at E3
[17] Id.
[18] Id. at E4
[19] Id. at E 18-19
[20] Id. at E24
[21] Parent’s G1
[22] Id. at G13
[23] Id.
[24] Id.
[25] Id.
[26] Id. at G16- G17
[27] Tr. 24
[28] Tr. 25
[29] Tr. 36
[30] Tr. 37
[31] Tr. 39
[32] Id.
[33] Tr. 41-42 answering questions presented verbally without pictured stimuli.” 34 The evaluator stated that
[35] Id.
[36] Id. at I10
[37] Parent’s H
[38] Id. at H7 session per week of individual occupational therapy and 1 30-minute session per week in a group of 2 to address her deficits. 39 Legal Framework Burden 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 a parental relationship seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral parental placement has the burden of persuasion and burden of production on the appropriateness of such placement. 40 compensatory education equal to the period of deprivation]. 53 See Reid, 401 F.3d 516
[46] Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d at 195, quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130 [citation omitted]; see T.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d at 254; P v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 118-19 [2d Cir. 2008].
[47] E.M. v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 758 F.3d 442, 451 (2d Cir. 2014) citing Somoza v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 538 F.3d 106, 109 (2d Cir. 2008). See also, P. ex rel. Mr. & Mrs. P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir. 2008) (finding that the “IDEA allows a hearing officer to fashion an appropriate remedy, and we have held compensatory education is an available option under the Act to make up for denial of a free and appropriate public education”).
[48] See Newington, 546 F.ed at 123; see also Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 524 [D.C. Cir. 2005]
[49] Doe v. East Lyme, 790 F.3d at 454 [2nd Cir. 2015]
[50] Reid ex rel. Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 525 (D.C. Cir. 2005)
[51] See, e.g., Phillips v. Dist. Of Columbia, 932 F. Supp. 2d 42 (D.C.Cir. 2013) (upholding denial where student received a similar level of comparable services during the period of deprivation and there was support in the record for IHO’s conclusion that Student’s current difficulties do not stem from the FAPE denial); T.B. v. Prince George's Cty. Bd. of Educ., 897 F.3d 566 (4th Cir. 2018) (Parents failed to prove a loss of educational benefits where teachers showed that when student attended class he performed well and completed assignments); Somberg v. Utica Cmty. Schs., 908 F.3d 162 (6th Cir. 2018) (holding that Endrew F. standard is not applicable to determination of compensatory education and it is appropriate to consider any advancement made by Student in crafting an award, regardless of the substantive appropriateness of the IEP).
[52] M.C. ex rel. J.C. v. Cent. Reg’l Sch. Dist., 81 F.3d 389 [3d Cir. 1996] [holding that a student denied a FAPE is entitled to requires a “fact-specific inquiry” 54 and “[t]he ultimate award of compensatory education must be
[55] Id.
[56] Doe v. East Lyme, 790 F.3d at 457
[57] Doe. v. East Lyme, 790 F.3d at 457 citing to Burlington, 471 U.S. at 369.
[58] Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 22-004; see also M.M. v. NYC Dep’t of Educ., 2017 WL 1194685, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2017); Educ. Law § 4404(1)(c); E. Lyme, 790 F.3d at 457; and Reid, 401 F.3d at 524.
[59] See Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 22-004 (citing Branham v. Govt. of the Dist. of Columbia, 427 F.3d 7, 11-12 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
[60] See Application of the Board of Ed. of the S.C.S.D, Appeal No. 21-065
[61] Tr. 54
[62] Tr. 55
[63] Tr. 60 perform an accounting of the speech and language therapy sessions Student received during the 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years and to fund the difference between the 180 hours of services Student should have received and the hours received.