NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
CASE NUMBER: 597355- NYC: 246683
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Student’s Name: [REDACTED]
School District: N.Y.C. Dept. of Ed.,
Impartial Hearing Officer: Mercedes Cesaratto, Esq.
Date of Filing: 3/15/2023
Hearing Requested by: Parent
Date of Hearing: 11/15/2023
Record Close Date: 12/14/2023
Date of Decision: 12/15/2023
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED
NOVEMBER 15, 2023:
For the Student:
[REDACTED], Esq. for the parent, (hereinafter referred to as “Parent’s attorney”)
For the Department of Education:
[REDACTED], Esq. appeared on behalf of the DOE, (hereinafter referred to as “District’s Representative/DOE Attorney”)
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
I. 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 Art 89 § 4404 et seq., and its implementing regulations, 8 NYCRR Part 200, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
II. Background and Procedural History
A. Due Process Complaint Notice
Parent is the parent of Student (“Student” or “Child”). This matter concerns the Student, a [REDACTED] school student during the 2021-2022 school year classified as a student with a Speech or Language Impairment, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). The Student’s eligibility for special education supports and services is not in dispute. [1]
This matter comes before the undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer (hereinafter, “IHO”)
on Petitioner’s Due Process Complaint (“DPC”) against the New York City Department of Education (“NYC DOE” or “DOE” or “District”) filed on or around March 15, 2023.[2] The Parent alleged that the District failed to provide the Student a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the 2021-2022 school year. As relief, the Parent seeks tuition reimbursement for the Student’s tuition at the private school (“Private School”) during the 2021-2022 school year.
This IHO was appointed to this matter on March 17, 2023. A pre-hearing conference was held on April 25, 2023. The Due Process Hearing (“DPH”) took place on November 15, 2023. Parent submitted documentary evidence, including affidavits in lieu of direct testimony of the Parent and Director of Private School. DOE did not submit any documentary or testimonial evidence. The DOE stated they were not putting on a case and that they were not going to cross examine any of the Parent’s witnesses.[3] The DOE conceded the District had failed to provide the Student with a FAPE for the 2021-2022 school year.[4] The DOE stated the case had been referred for settlement and the District was not making an opening, or closing.[5] The DOE further stated the DOE does not have a position with the Parent’s unilateral placement.[6] At the conclusion of the hearing, the Parent made a closing statement. A list of the documentary evidence in this proceeding is appended to this decision.
III. Findings of Fact and Decision
A. The DOE Deprived Student of a FAPE for the 2021-2022, School Year (Burlington/Carter Prong I)
The IDEA (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) contemplates two specific purposes designed to ensure (1) 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 and parents of such students are protected.[7] The burden of proof is on the school district during an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement. [8]
A free and appropriate public education can be said to be 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.[9] "[A]dequate compliance with the procedures prescribed would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP."[10] The Supreme Court ruled that "[t]he IEP must aim to enable the child to make progress. After all, the essential function of an IEP is to set out a plan for pursuing academic and functional advancement." [11]
"Multiple procedural violations may cumulatively result in the denial of a FAPE even if the violations considered individually do not,"[12] and the Second Circuit explained that not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA.[13] Under the IDEA, if procedural violations are alleged, an IHO may find that a student did not receive a FAPE only if the procedural inadequacies (a) impeded the student's right 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. [14] An IHO's decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE.[15] A school district offers a FAPE "by providing personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction,"[16] but the "IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP."[17] "The adequacy of a given IEP turns on the unique circumstances of the child for whom it was created,"[18] and an "appropriate" education, "not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents,"[19] is what is required. School districts are not required to "maximize" the potential of students with disabilities,[20] but are required to provide "an IEP that is 'likely to produce progress, not regression,' and . . . affords the student with an opportunity greater than mere 'trivial advancement.'" [21] The IEP must be "reasonably calculated to provide some 'meaningful' benefit,"[22] and designed to be provided in the least restrictive environment (“LRE”).[23] An appropriate IEP must include a description of the Student’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance,[24] and outlines annual goals specifically designed to address the Student’s needs resulting from his disability in order to make progress in the general education curriculum [25] through the use of appropriate special education services.[26] Although not every student can be expected to attend a regular education curriculum, the IEP “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." [27] Here the DOE did not offer any testimonial evidence at the hearing, did not cross examine any of the Parent’s witnesses, and conceded the District failed to provide the Student with a FAPE for the 2021-2022 school year.[28] The DOE rested on the evidence submitted by Parent. The DOE failed to provide an explanation as to how the CSE made their recommendations in the IEP, how the IEP appropriately described the Student, or whether the IEP was meaningfully calculated to confer an educational benefit upon this Student. Therefore, the DOE failed to “offer a cogent and responsive explanation for their decisions” in creating the Student’s IEP, and it is “through the IEP that “[t]he ‘free appropriate public education’ required by the Act is tailored to the unique needs of” a particular child.” [29] As to Prong I of the Burlington/Carter standard, the DOE failed to meet its burden at hearing in demonstrating they provided the Student with a FAPE for the 2021-2022 school year. Therefore, I am constrained to find that the DOE failed to offer the Student a FAPE for the 2021-2022 school year. Moreover, a review of the record herein establishes that the weight of the evidence supports the conclusion that the DOE failed to offer the Student an educational program reasonably calculated to offer FAPE. B. The Unilateral Placement Was Appropriate (Burlington/Carter Prong II)
A private school placement must be "proper under the Act."[30] This means that the private school must offer an educational program which met the student's special education needs. [31] Parents seeking reimbursement "bear the burden of demonstrating that their private placement was appropriate, even if the IEP was inappropriate."[32] Subject to certain limited exceptions, 'the same considerations and criteria that apply in determining whether the [s]chool [d]istrict's placement is appropriate should be considered in determining the appropriateness of the parents' placement.'" [33] Parents need not show that the placement provides every special service necessary to maximize the student's potential, and when determining whether a unilateral placement is appropriate, "[u]ltimately, the issue turns on" whether the placement is "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits."[34] A private placement is appropriate if it provides instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a student. [35] 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. [36] The DOE presented no evidence to contest that Parent’s unilateral placement was appropriate, and the DOE did not cross examine the Director of the Private School.[37] The District also stated that they did not hold a position with respect to the unilateral placement of the Student.[38] Private School “Director” testified via affidavit[39] that she is familiar with Student and Student’s needs, and placed Student in a classroom that would address those needs, and described the services Student was receiving at the Private School. Director described the Private School program as a special education program of self-contained classes for children who have learning disabilities, speech and language impairments, attention difficulties, and students whose disabilities impact the acquisition of academic and social skills.[40] The Director further testified the Private School provides all the related services any student requires by licensed and credentialed providers.[41] Director testified the program is a self-contained 12:1: class ratio and provides full-time special education with a 4:1 student to teacher ratio.[42] The Student’s REDACTED teacher during the 2021-2022 school year was a special education teacher with 22 years of teaching experience and there was also an assistant teacher who was completing her Master’s in special education.[43] The Student was in a class with 7 students all functioning at similar levels [44]. The Student received Speech and Language Therapy (SLT) twice a week for 30 minutes; counseling once a week for 30 minutes; Occupational Therapy (OT) twice a week for 30 minutes individual. [45] The Student received social skills lessons using the Second Step Program, in addition to socializing with the mainstream students housed in the same building as the Private School.[46] The Student was assessed for reading, writing, and math readiness, using various formal and informal assessments to develop an individualized program for the Student.[47] Project SIR Literary assesses letter recognition and identification of upper and lower case letter, phonics, sight vocabulary, spelling of short vowels, and rhyming. At the start of the school year, the Student lacked most basic skills including letter/sound recognition and identification, and possessed no sight word vocabulary.[48] The Student had very inconsistent pre-math skills related to shapes, numbers, patterns, and one to one correspondence.[49] The Student also struggled with delayed receptive, expressive language skill, gross and fine motor skills.[50] The Student was supported throughout the day with consistent methodologies and related services to address and support the Student’s individual needs. The Director testified Fundations was a program utilized to address the Student’s decoding and encoding skills. Fundations is a multisensory, sequential evidence-based phonics correspondence. These programs helped the Student build skills for literacy, and helped with decoding skills that the Student was learning.[51] Director testified that by the end of the school year, Student was able to identify all the upper and lower case letters of the alphabet, including 20 corresponding sounds.[52] Additionally, Director testified the Student could not write letters independently at the beginning of the school year. Student had difficulty grasping writing instruments. Therefore, the Private School focused on the Student using correct pencil grip, copying and forming capital and lower case letters and numbers independently and provided a great deal of 1:1 support.[53] The Fundations workbook utilized a writing curriculum which also assisted the Student in writing. Director testified that with all these supports in place, Student progressed to the point that Student was able to write most of the letters in lower- and upper-case with assistance.[54] Director stated the Student struggled in math in the beginning of the school year and could not rote count to 10 consistently.[55] However, Private School utilized Sadlier Oxford Progress in Mathematics, with other teacher made supplements, manipulatives and computer based learning to reinforce, practice, and help develop the Student’s math proficiency.[56] The Student progressed in math such that by the end of the year, the Student was able to rote count to 20, identify numerals 0-15, and was developing the ability to write numerals.[57] The Director testified the Student made progress in all the related services domains in Speech/Language, Occupational Therapy, Counseling, and social skills. The Student received S/L therapy on 3:1 basis 2 times a week for 30 minutes. The Speech and Language progress report noted the Student was working on tenses, and expressive and receptive language and copying letters.[58] The Student receives OT twice a week for 30 minutes, 1:1. The Director testified the Occupational Therapist notes that the goals developed for the Student are focused on addressing the Student’s motor/manipulation skills, visual perception skills, and sensory processing skills so that the Student can participate appropriately in classroom activities.[59] The Counseling teacher focused on the Student’s social/emotional and focusing/attention challenges.[60] The Student also had a behavior modification plan which assisted in the Student’s social skills development. [61] Parent submitted Private School’s progress reports, 62 Private School related services and enrollment contract, 63 Private School schedule,[64] and Private School program description.[65] I find the testimony credible, and that the Private School provided Student with instruction specially designed to meet Student’s unique needs.
Based on the evidence presented at the hearing I find that Parents’ have met their burden in proving that the private program offered an educational program which met Student’s needs under Prong II of the Burlington/Carter standard.
In reviewing the testimony and documents presented, the weight of the evidence establishes that Student’s individual special education needs were addressed by the Private School and that the instruction offered was "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits." [66]
62 Ex. P-I;
63 Ex. P-C, D.
C. The Equities Favor the Parent (Burlington/Carter Prong III)
Even if a parent establishes a right to reimbursement under the IDEA, "courts retain discretion to reduce the amount of a reimbursement award if the equities so warrant."[67] In making that equitable determination, a hearing officer may consider many factors, including, inter alia, whether a parent’s unilateral withdrawal of her child from the public school was justified, whether the parent provided the Department with adequate notice of the withdrawal, whether the amount of private-school tuition was reasonable, whether the parent should have availed herself of needbased scholarships or other financial aid from the private school, and whether there was any fraud or collusion in generating (or inflating) the tuition to be charged to the Department, or whether the arrangement with the school was fraudulent or collusive in any other respect. [68]
Here, Parent provided the necessary Ten-Days’ Notice[69] of their concerns with the DOE’s offer of FAPE for the Student for the 2021-2022 school year. Parent detailed specific concerns and gave the DOE notice of their intention to unilaterally place the Student at the Private School. The DOE did not submit any evidence in response to the Ten-Day Letter.
By way of relief, Parent seeks direct funding of Private School tuition costs. Direct tuition funding is relief encompassed by the equitable remedial powers inherent in IDEA, and parents may seek direct funding in the instance in which, “due to a lack of financial resources, [parents of a student with a disability] have not made tuition payments but are legally obligated to do so.” Parent testified as to the inability to pay and presented documentary evidence of the same.[70] The tuition at the Private School for 2021-2022 school year is $37,000.00.[71] The only appropriate 6% of the Student’s total instruction consisted of religious instruction at the Private School.[72] The portion of religious instruction amounts to $2,220.00, which is required to be deducted from the base tuition. Parent argues that Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 23-133 (October 16, 2023) provides that the religious instruction need not be deducted. However, I believe deducting the religious instruction portion of the tuition is consistent with the controlling caselaw. [73]
After deducting the religious instruction amount, the tuition at Private School is $34,780.00. In addition, a separate, related services, contract[74] indicates that Parent was required to pay $8,325.00 for Counseling, Occupational Therapy, and Speech and Language Therapy.
Equity demands that the DOE directly fund Student’s Private School tuition in the amount of $34, 780.00 and the related services in the amount of $8,325.00 for a total of $43,105.00. [75]
I find no issue with the reasonableness of the costs, including tuition, associated with the Private School. Moreover, I find that the weight of the evidence establishes that Parent cooperated with the DOE and its CSE’s efforts to develop an IEP and recommend a program and placement for the 2021-2022 school year. Overall and after considering the record at hearing, I find that the equities support Parent’s claim for tuition reimbursement, and direct funding.
I have reviewed the parties’ remaining contentions and find them to be either unnecessary to this decision, without merit, beyond my jurisdiction, or without sufficient basis in the record for Based on the above Findings of Fact, it is hereby:
1. ORDERED that the DOE failed to provide the Student with a FAPE for the 2021-2022 school year, and it is further
2. ORDERED that the DOE shall directly fund Private School secular tuition cost for the 2021-2022, School Year, inclusive of related services, in the amount of $43,105.00 to Private School within 30 days of the date of this Order
SO ORDERED
DATED: December 15, 2023
Mercedes Cesaratto (signed electronically)
Impartial Hearing Officer
Mercedes Cesaratto
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 proceedings before an SRO are found in Part[279] of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education. A copy of the rules in Part
APPENDIX A – ADMITTED EXHIBITS
PARENT’S EXHIBITS
A. Due Process Complaint with E-Receipt 3/14/2023 4 pages
B. Ten Day Notice Letter with E-Receipt 8/30/2021 4 pages
C. Enrollment Agreement 9/2/2021 2 pages
D. Related Services Contract 9/8/2021 1 page
E. Tuition Affidavit 6/21/2022 1 page
F. Parent Tax Documents (2020) 4/2/2021 2 pages
G. Program Description undated 1 page
H. Class Schedule undated 2 pages
I. Progress Report 2/28/2022 5 pages
J. Testimony Affidavit of [REDACTED] 11/7/2023 11 pages
K. Testimony Affidavit of [REDACTED] 11/8/2023 2 pages
DISTRICT’S EXHIBITS
1. NONE IMPARTIAL HEARING OFFICER’S EXHIBITS DOE
PARENT
I. Addendum to Relief Requested II. undated 1 page District
Footnotes
[1] The Hearing Officer Exhibits, if any, will be referred to as “(IHO- (followed by a roman numeral))”; Petitioners Exhibits, if any, will be referred to as “(P-(followed by a letter))”; and, Respondent Exhibits, if any, will be referred to as “(R-(followed by a number))”. References to the hearing transcript, if any, are denoted as (T (followed by a page number)).
[2] Ex. P-A- DPC is dated 3-14-2023 but filed on 3-15-2023.
[3] Tr. 31
[4] Tr. 31; 34
[5] Tr. 31
[6] Tr. 34 education, employment, and independent living; and (2) that the rights of students with disabilities Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003].
[7] 20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]-[B]; see generally Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230, 239 [2009]; Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 [1982].
[8] Educ. Law § 4404[1][c]; see R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85.
[9] Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206-07; T.M. v. Cornwall Cent. Sch. Dist., 752 F.3d 145, 151, 160 [2d Cir. 2014]; R.E. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 189-90 [2d Cir. 2012]; M.H. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 685 F.3d 217, 245 [2d Cir. 2012]; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005].
[10] Walczak v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 129 [2d Cir. 1998], quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206; see T.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 247, 253 [2d Cir. 2009].
[11] Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S. __, 137 S. Ct. 988, 999 [2017].
[12] R.E., 694 F.3d at 190-91.
[13] M.H., 685 F.3d at 245; A.C. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Chappaqua Cent. Sch. Dist., 553 F.3d 165, 172 [2d Cir. 2009]; Grim v.
[14] 20 U.S.C. § 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, 525-26 [2007]; R.E., 694 F.3d at 190; M.H., 685 F.3d at 245.
[15] 20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][3][E][i].
[16] Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203.
[17] Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189.
[18] Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 1001.
[19] 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.
[20] Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199; Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132.
[21] Cerra, 427 F.3d at 195, quoting Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130 [citations omitted]; see T.P., 554 F.3d at 254; P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 118-19 [2d Cir. 2008].
[22] Mrs. B. v. Milford Bd. of Educ., 103 F.3d 1114, 1120 [2d Cir. 1997]; see Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 1001.
[23] 20 U.S.C. § 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.
[24] 34 CFR 300.320[a][1]; 8 NYCRR §200.4[d][2][i].
[25] 34 CFR 300.320[a][2][i], [2][i][A]; 8 NYCRR §200.4[d][2][iii].
[26] 34 CFR 300.320[a][4]; 8 NYCRR §200.4[d][2][v].
[27] Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 1000.
[28] Tr. 31, 34
[29] Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 1002.
[30] Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7, 12, 15 (1993); Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 370 (1985).
[31] See Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 112, 115 (2d Cir. 2007); Walczak v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 129 (2d Cir. 1998).
[32] Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112.
[33] Id., quoting Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356, 364 (2d Cir. 2006).
[34] Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364; see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115.
[35] 20 U.S.C. § 1401(29); Educ. Law § 4401(1); 34 CFR 300.39(a)(1); 8 NYCRR 200.1(ww); Hardison v. Bd. of Educ. of the Oneonta City Sch. Dist., 773 F.3d 372, 386 (2d Cir. 2014).
[36] Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, quoting Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65).
[37] Tr. 31; 34
[38] Tr. 34
[39] Ex. P-J.
[40] Ex. P-J1-2.
[41] Ex. P-J3.
[42] Id.
[43] Ex. P-J2
[44] Id.
[45] Ex. P-J3
[46] Id.
[47] Ex. P-J
[48] Ex.P-J3
[49] Ex. Id.
[50] Ex. P-J4-5 program. It is a program that focuses on decoding, reading fluency, and sound symbol
[51] Ex. P-J7
[52] Ex. Id.
[53] Ex. P-J
[54] Ex. P-J8
[55] Ex. Id.
[56] Ex. P-J9
[57] Ex. Id.
[58] Ex.P-I
[59] Ex. P-J10
[60] Ex. Id.
[61] Ex. P-11
[64] Ex. P-H.
[65] Ex. P-G.
[66] Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364.
[67] Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230, 246-47, 129 S. Ct. 2484, 174 L. Ed. 2d 168 (2009).
[68] E.M. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 758 F.3d 442, 461 (2d Cir. 2014).
[69] Ex. P-B.
[70] Ex. P-F; K.
[71] Ex. P-C; Tr. 43-44; Ex. IHO-I deduction in tuition is for the religious component of the curriculum. The Director calculated that
[72] Ex. P-J3; Tr.44
[73] A school district has no duty under the IDEA to provide religious instruction. M. L. v. Smith, 867 F.3d 487, 499 (4th Cir. 2017). According to the court in M.L., “federal regulations support the conclusion that states may not use IDEA funds to provide religious and cultural instruction.” Id citing 34 C.F.R. §76.532(a)(1) (funding regulation prohibiting a state from “us[ing] its grant or subgrant to pay for ... [r]eligious worship, instruction, or proselytization”).
[74] Ex. P-D; Tr.43-44.
[75] Ex. IHO-I; Tr.44 a finding. Accordingly, any relief not specifically discussed in this decision is denied, and all the Parent’s remaining claims not discussed herein are dismissed with prejudice.
[279] and model forms are available at http://www.sro.nysed.gov.