Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 247795

Student’s Name: REDACTED

School District: N.Y.C. Dep’t. of Educ.

Impartial Hearing Officer: REDACTED

Date of Filing: 04/27/2023

Hearing Requested by: Parent

Date of Hearings: 08/03/2023, 09/08/2023, 10/23/2023,

Date of Decision: 12/04/2023 Findings of Fact and Decision IHO

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

SEPTEMBER 8, 2023

For the Student:

REDACTED, Esq., Attorney

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED, Esq., Attorney

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

OCTOBER 23, 2023

For the Parents:

REDACTED, Esq., Attorney

REDACTED, PhD, Clinical Psychologist (“Neuropsychologist”)

REDACTED, MSEd, BCBA, LBA, (“BCBA”)

REDACTED, Occupational Therapist (“OT”)

REDACTED, Director, Exceptional Learner Services (“Director”)

REDACTED, Parent (“Parent”)

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED, Esq., Attorney

Findings of Fact and Decision

IHO

BACKGROUND

On April 27, 2023, Parent, through Counsel, initiated a due process complaint (“DPC”) against Respondent New York City Department of Education (“DOE”), pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (“IDEA”), The Regulations of the Commissioner of Education, 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.5 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Parent alleged, inter alia, that DOE procedurally and substantively denied Student a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) during the 2021-2022 (“21/22”), 2022-2023 “(22/23)”, and 2023-2024 “(23/24)” school years (“SYs”). On June 30, 2023, after the rescission of the prior Impartial Hearing Officer’s appointment, I was appointed as the Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”)

in this matter.

I issued two (2) Interim Orders (“IOs”) prior to the date of the substantive hearing. The First IO, dated August 17, 2023, directed DOE to fund an independent vision therapy evaluation and the second IO (IHO Ex. I) ^[1], dated September 8, 2023, directed DOE to fund an independent speech and language (“SL”) evaluation. (IHO Ex. II).

The substantive due process hearing was held on October 23, 2023. DOE entered sixteen (16) documents into the record but called no witnesses and made no attempt to defend its offer of FAPE to Student. Parent entered thirty (30) documents into the record and presented five (5) witnesses. The parties presented oral closing statements. Parent’s Counsel additionally submitted a written brief in support of the relief requested. (IHO Ex. III).

For the following reasons, Parent’s requested relief is GRANTED to the extent indicated. Findings of Fact and Decision IHO

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A School District’s Obligation to Provide a FAPE The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq. (“IDEA”), requires school districts to provide a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) to students with disabilities, which consists of special education and related services designed to meet students’ unique needs. The IDEA also seeks to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities, and their parents/guardians, are protected. Forest Grove School Dist. v. Y.M., 557 U.S. 230, 239 (2009); Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson C.S.D. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 (1982).

A school district provides a FAPE to a student with a disability when it complies with the various procedural requirements of IDEA, and the school district’s Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) develops an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) consistent with those procedural requirements and is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits. Rowley, supra, 458 U.S. at 206-07; T.M. v. Cornwall C.S.D., 752 F.3d 145, 151, 160 (2d Cir. 2014).

Under the IDEA, the obligation to identify and evaluate students, and to develop and implement IEPs for students with special education needs rests solely on the school district. In New York it is the school district that bears the burden of proof, including the burden of production and persuasion, regarding any issue at an impartial hearing, except for the appropriateness of a unilateral placement, where the burden shifts to the parent. N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404(1)(c).

If a parent alleges procedural violations of the IDEA, an IHO may find that a student did not receive a FAPE if such procedural violations: 1) impeded the student’s right to a FAPE; 2) significantly impeded the parent’s opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of FAPE to the student; or 3) caused a deprivation of educational benefits. Findings of Fact and Decision IHO See 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(3)(E); 34 C.F.R. §300.513(a)(2); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. §200.5(j)(4)(ii); see also Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 525-26 (2007).

For a district to provide for “merely more than de minimis” progress from year to year is insufficient: the U.S. Supreme Court has opined that the essential function of the IEP is to set out a plan for pursuing academic and functional advancement for the disabled student, and that such educational program must be reasonably calculated to enable the student to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s unique circumstances. See Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. School Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988, 999, 1001, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 2025 (2017).

A school district’s failure to offer or provide a FAPE for a disabled student may arise out of many different scenarios, including multiple procedural violations of IDEA requirements by the district, see R.E. v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 189-91 (2d Cir. 2012), and/or a substantively inadequate and inappropriate IEP. See Rowley, supra, 458 U.S. at 192. “Multiple procedural violations may cumulatively result in the denial of a FAPE even if the violations considered individually do not.” R.E., supra, at 190-91; see also M.H. v. N.Y.C. Dept. of Education, 685 F.3d 217, 245 (2d Cir. 2012); Werner v. Clarkstown C.S.D., 363 F. Supp.2d 656, 659 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).

A school district’s CSE is required to assess a student in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, where appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities. See 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.4(b)(6)(vii); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c)(4). The evaluation must be sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the student’s special education needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in which the student has been identified. 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.4(b)(6)(ix); see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c)(6); R.Z. v. City Sch. Dist. of New Rochelle, 2018 Findings of Fact and Decision IHO U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56564 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). Additionally, part of any reevaluation of a student, the CSE and other qualified professionals shall review the existing evaluative data on a student and determine whether additional evaluative data are needed. 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.4(b)(5).

If a student requires assistive technology (“AT”) in order to receive a FAPE, it is the district’s responsibility to provide such services that enable the student to benefit from education. See Melissa S. v. Sch. Dist., 183 Fed. Appx. 184, 187, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 14118 (3d Cir. 2006); Fisher v. Stafford Twp. Bd. of Educ., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14003 (D.N.J. 2007).

The Regulations of the N.Y.S. Commissioner of Education “are designed to ensure that students with disabilities are suitably grouped, requiring that such students be placed with students who have similar levels of academic achievement, social and physical development, and management. needs.” E.P. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77891 (S.D.N.Y. June 10, 2016); see also 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.6(h)(2). “New York state regulations implementing the IDEA clearly constrain a school district’s choice of placement classroom.” E.P., supra, citing J.F. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63178, 2013 WL 1803983, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. April 24, 2013). Moreover, if a student has been successfully educated by means of a particular methodology or curriculum, and any subsequent placement must transition from that program to a new one in order to benefit meaningfully from the new placement, it must be part of the IEP, or the IEP is invalid.

If a school district defends its IEP, “the use of retrospective testimony about what would have happened if a student had accepted the district’s proposed placement must be limited to testimony regarding the services described in the student’s individualized education program (“IEP”). Such testimony may not be used to materially alter a deficient written IEP by establishing that the student would have received services beyond those listed in the written IEP.” R.E., supra, Findings of Fact and Decision IHO at 174. Testimony regarding services that do not appear on a student’s IEP may not be used to rehabilitate a deficient IEP or amend that IEP after the fact. R.E., supra, at 185.

School authorities can be expected to “offer a cogent and responsive explanation for their decisions that shows the IEP is reasonably calculated to enable the child to make progress appropriate in light of his circumstances.” Endrew F., supra, at 1002.

COMPENSATORY EDUCATION

IDEA authorizes a hearing officer to fashion an appropriate remedy, and compensatory education is an available option under the IDEA to make up for a denial of a FAPE. P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir. 2008). The broad discretion under the IDEA allows for courts to consider reimbursement for private school tuition as compensatory education for longer than the statute of limitations. See, Draper v. Atl. Indep. Sch. Sys., 518 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2008). A student “is entitled to compensatory education for the period equal to the period of deprivation, but excluding the time reasonably required for the school district to rectify the problem.” G.L., supra, at 618-19; citing M.C. ex rel. J.C. Cent. Reg’l Sch. Dist., 81 F.3d 389, 396-97 (3d Cir. 1996).

Compensatory education is an equitable remedy that is tailored to meet the unique circumstances of each case. Wenger v. Canastota, 979 F. Supp. 147 (N.D.N.Y. 1997). The purpose of compensatory education is to provide an appropriate remedy for a denial of FAPE. See, e.g., E.M. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 758 F.3d 442, 451 (2d Cir. 2014); see also Newington, supra, at 123. Such an award should aim to place the student in the position they would have been had the school district complied with its obligations under the IDEA. See, e.g., Newington, supra, at 123; see also Draper, supra, 1275, 1289.

Compensatory education is an equitable remedy that may require a district to fund a child’s Findings of Fact and Decision IHO education beyond their statutory eligibility. Burr v. Ambach, 863 F. 2d 1071 (2d Cir. 1988); see also M.C. v. Cent. Reg’l Sch. Dist., 81 F. 3d 389 (3d Cir. 1996). In the Second Circuit, extended eligibility has been limited to “gross violations” of IDEA for a substantial period of time. See Garro v. State of Connecticut, 23 F.3d 734 (2d Cir. 1994); Somoza v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 538 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2008).

A presently appropriate educational placement “does not abate the need for compensatory education.” D.W. v. Dist. of Columbia, 561 F. Supp. 2d 56, 61 (D.D.C. 2008); see also Flores ex rel. J.F. v. Dist. of Columbia, 437 F. Supp. 2d 22, 30 (D.D.C. 2006). Where a current appropriate program must provide some benefit, an award of compensatory education must do more—it must compensate. See Reid ex rel. Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, 401 F. 3d 516, 525 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Moreover, a child’s entitlement to special education “should not depend on the vigilance of the parents (who may not be sufficiently sophisticated to comprehend the problem) nor be abridged because the district’s behavior did not rise to the level of slothfulness or bad faith.” M.C., supra, at 397. Where parents participated in IEP meetings, but there was no reason they knew or should have known about a school district’s denial of FAPE until an independent evaluation revealed a student’s diagnoses and capabilities, and parents initiated a due process complaint within two years of the evaluation, the finding of denial of FAPE and the amount of compensatory education was not barred by the two year statute of limitations. See K.H. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108292 (E.D.N.Y. 2014).

FINDINGS OF FACT

Student is a REDACTED old boy who resides with his family in Queens. (Ex. Y). Student is diagnosed with, inter alia, autism spectrum disorder (“ASD”) and severe visual impairment. (Exs. G, X). Student presents with global deficits and interfering behaviors that severely impact Findings of Fact and Decision IHO his ability to access his education. (Ex. G).

Student received both Early Intervention and Preschool Special Education at REDACTED Services, where he attended an 8:1:2 class and received SL, OT, PT, and vision education services (“VES”) but was unable to make progress. (Ex. Y).

The Turning 5 IEP developed for Student was insufficient to meet his unique needs. (Ex. Y, ¶¶ 4-8). As a result of a January 2023 IEP meeting, two sessions of VES and indirect vision services for the teacher were added but these were inadequate. (Ex. Y, ¶ 8).

Parent initiated the instant DPC on April 27, 2023. (Ex. A). A number of evaluations were conducted for the purpose of informing the record, including, inter alia, evaluations in SL, neuropsychological, visual perceptual, sensory integration, and assistive technology (this conducted by DOE). (Exs. F, G, H, I, N).

Curiously, although Student is severely visually impaired, and has not yet acquired to ability to read Braille, DOE failed to recommend Student for AT, reasoning that because he demonstrated the ability to verbally make his needs known, he did not require additional support. (Ex. N-7). This is in direct contrast to the findings of Neuropsychologist, who stated that Student “must be taught Braille as well as receive the use of appropriate assistive technology with instruction on how to utilize the technology that changes as his needs change and his skills increase.” (Ex. X, ¶ 14). Moreover, Director, OT, and BCBA all strongly recommended that Student receive an appropriate AT evaluation and AT device. (Exs. U, V, W).

DOE presented a document that purports to show that various related services were provided between the dates of September 16, 2022 and October 16, 2023. (Ex. 16). However, this document alone insufficient to rebut Parent’s testimony that Student was not receiving all of the services he was mandated to receive, and does not speak to the benefit, if any, of such services that Findings of Fact and Decision IHO may have been provided. (Tr. 150-151).

DOE conducted a Psychoeducational Evaluation in 2022 which contains no testing for ASD despite the increasing indicators that Student required behavioral and academic interventions, including counseling and training for Parent, as a result of his ASD diagnosis. (cf. Exs. G, O; see Ex. Y; Tr. 149-51).

Student has never received Applied Behavior Analysis (“ABA”) therapy. (Ex. Y; Tr. 150). However, the record supports a finding that Student will benefit from an ABA-based school program, supported by home-based ABA.

ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

DOE FAILED TO OFFER OR PROVIDE A FAPE TO STUDENT

As an initial matter, DOE offered no defense of its placement. Far from presenting a cogent explanation for its recommendations, DOE instead opted to leave all of the heavy lifting at the hearing to Parent. DOE, having admitted its failure to Student, seems to have participated in the impartial hearing for the sole purpose of arguing to reduce or eliminate Parent’s requested relief.

I must note that the failure to conduct any testing to determine whether Student was on the autism spectrum, the failure to recommend an appropriate AT device and training, and the failure to ever offer or provide ABA therapy each provide an independent basis to conclude that DOE failed to offer or provide Student with a FAPE.

Accordingly, Parent’s allegations that DOE procedurally and substantively denied Student. a FAPE during the 21/22, 22/23, and 23/24 SYs are sustained.

PARENT IS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF REQUESTED TO THE EXTENT

INDICATED

Having found that DOE failed to uphold its obligation to Student for the time period in question, my inquiry now shifts to the remedy for such failure. To this end, Parent has provided Findings of Fact and Decision IHO extensive documentation and testimony which contain recommendations for how to remediate DOE’s failures and to enable Student to finally make educational progress. (Ex. U; see also Exs. F, G, H, I, T, V, W, X). While all calculations of services a student needs to make progress, including calculations of appropriate compensatory hours, are necessarily speculative, I find that Parent’s witnesses, particularly Neuropsychologist, provided a credible basis upon which to fashion an appropriate award. (See, e.g., Exs. F, G, H, I, T, U, V, W, X; Tr. 75-150).

With respect to ordering DOE to defer Student’s placement to the Center Based Support Team (“CBST”) for a nonpublic placement, under certain circumstances, courts have frowned on an IHO ordering relief in the form of specific IEP recommendations, as such have the effect of circumventing the process detailed in the IDEA, where the school district’s CSE is tasked with reviewing information about the student’s progress under current educational programming and periodically assessing the student’s needs. See, e.g., SRO Appeal No. 22-145, citing Adams v. Dist. of Columbia, 285 F. Supp. 3d 381, 393, 396-97 (D.D.C. 2018). However, where, as here DOE has failed Student consistently, where it has offered no defense of its various IEPs, and placements, and where Parent has proposed an educational placement capable of producing progress, it is within this IHO’s discretion to fashion appropriate relief, and placement at NPS, with the added support of a home ABA program, is an appropriate remedy in this instance.

I give considerable weight to the testimony of Neuropsychologist, BCBA, OT, and Director as to Student’s educational needs in light of his deficits and diagnoses. (Exs. G, X; Tr. 75-150). Parent has therefore shown by a preponderance of the evidence that Student’s needs have not, and cannot, be met in a public-school setting, and that Student requires an appropriate nonpublic school (“NPS”) in order to make educational progress. Findings of Fact and Decision IHO

Aside from arguing that Parent’s requested relief should be reduced or denied, DOE offered very little of substance at the hearing. Especially meritless was the position that there was no evidence that ABA would be appropriate for Student “who has never received ABA services.” (Tr. 157). The testimony and evidence presented make a strong case that Student is in the position he is in because he never received ABA services. As for limiting any award to those not marked as “provided” in the SESIS Log (Ex. 16), DOE has failed to rebut Parent’s testimony that certain of these services marked as “provided” were not, and has failed to show that provision of those services would be sufficient to put Student in the place he would have been but for DOE’s failures, which is the purpose of compensatory education. See, e.g., Reid, supra.

A student with severe deficits and complex needs, such as Student, should be provided with an educational program with commensurate complexity in order to meet their educational needs. Such a plan is what Parent has proposed and it is hopeful that, with the provision of the services that he so desperately needs, Student will be able to realize the progress that is his entitlement under the law.

DECISION AND ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that DOE procedurally and substantively denied Student a FAPE during the 2021-2022, 2022-2023, and 2023-2024 school years; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Parent’s requested relief, including the request for compensatory education, is appropriate; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that DOE shall

1. Within fifteen (15) days of this order, convene a CSE and defer Student’s placement to the Center Based Support Team to identify an appropriate nonpublic placement. Such placement must be specialized for children with ASD and Visual Impairment provided Findings of Fact and Decision IHO over an Extended School Year, and include the following:

a. A small teacher to student ratio;

b. One-to-one Applied Behavior Analysis in school;

c. Individual teacher for the visually impaired provided throughout the school day in addition to the ABA provider and vision therapy;

d. Braille instruction;

e. Speech and Language therapy four times per week individually and once in a group;

f. Individual sensory-based Occupational Therapy three times per week;

g. A sensory diet;

h. Adaptive physical education;

i. Individual Physical Therapy twice per week;

j. Orientation and Mobility Services four times per week;

k. An Assistive Technology device with support during the school day;

2. Within fifteen (15) days of this Order, DOE shall fund an Interim Program of thirty (30) hours per week of ABA pushed into Student’s current classroom, with three (3) hours per week of BCBA supervision, until Student is placed in an appropriate NPS, at a rate of $150/hour for ABA and $200/hour for BCBA supervision;

3. Within fifteen (15) days of this Order, DOE shall fund independent evaluations, by providers of Parent’s choosing at the providers customary and regular rates, in the following areas:

a. Functional Behavioral Assessment (“FBA”) at a rate of $2,800, with accompanying Behavior Intervention Plan (“BIP”) at a rate of $500; Findings of Fact and Decision IHO b. Comprehensive Vision-Based Assistive Technology Evaluation to be funded at a rate of $3,000;

c. An updated Neuropsychological Evaluation by REDACTED at her rate, to be conducted in two years’ time, following the implementation of this Order;

4. DOE shall fund a bank of compensatory instructional and related services hours for Student, which may be provided during the summer, on weekdays, weekends, holidays, or during school vacations, by providers of Parent’s choosing at those providers’ customary and regular rates:

a. 690 hours of 1:1 compensatory ABA hours at a rate of $150/hour;

b. 69 hours of BCBA Supervision of the compensatory ABA hours at a rate of $200/hour;

c. 92 hours of Parent Counseling and Training (“PCAT”) at a rate of $200/hour;

d. 100 hours of Compensatory Vision Therapy and Braille Instruction;

e. 138 hours of Occupational Therapy at a rate of $185/hour;

f. 92 hours of Assistive Technology instruction at a rate of $185/hour;

g. 46 hours of AT Parent Training at a rate of $185/hour;

h. 184 hours of Speech and Language Therapy at a rate of $185/hour;

i. 48 hours of indirect services for the AT professional with the Vision Therapist at a rate of $185/hour;

j. 48 hours of indirect services for Speech and Language Pathologist Assistive Technology Professional and with the Vision Teacher/Vision Therapist at a rate of $185/hour;

k. 600 hours of academic instruction (reading, writing, math) to be used as Parent Findings of Fact and Decision IHO deems appropriate, by providers of Parent’s choosing at those providers customary and regular rates; and

5. DOE’s Implementation Unit shall authorize all action and services within fifteen (15) days of this Order; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that DOE shall provide a copy of this decision to any person participating in any review of Student’s placement that takes place during the next twelve (12) months from the date of this decision, at least three (3) days in advance of any such meeting.

Dated: New York, NY

December 4, 2023

/s: John Henry Olthoff/

Impartial Hearing Officer

Findings of Fact and Decision IHO

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Within forty (40) days 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, pursuant to Section 4404 of the New York 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 twenty-five (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, the 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 (2) 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 are available at http://www.sro.nysed.gov. Findings of Fact and Decision IHO

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD BY DOE

# DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION DATE PAGE

1. Social History Update 09/01/2020 4 pages DOE

2. Psychoeducational Evaluation 09/02/2020 8 pages DOE

3. Educational Evaluation 09/03/2020 7 pages DOE

4. OT Evaluation 09/02/2020 6 pages DOE

5. PT Evaluation 09/02/2020 3 pages DOE

6 SLT Evaluation 09/07/2020

7 pages DOE

7. Functional Vision Assessment 09/17/2020 3 pages DOE

8. Final Notice of Recommendation 10/07/2020 1 page DOE

9. Pre-k Acceptance Letter 10/07/2020 2 pages DOE

10. Authorization to Attend 10/13/2020 1 page DOE

11. Authorization to Change 11/22/2021 1 page DOE

12. IEP 11/22/2021 20 pages DOE

13. Social History Evaluation 03/24/2022 3 pages DOE

14. Classroom Observation 03/31/2022 3 pages DOE

15. Classroom Observation 06/15/2023 2 pages DOE

16. SESIS Related Services Log – 10/16/2023 09/16/2022 41 pages DOE

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD BY PARENT

P-A. Exhibit Number Number Exhibit Date of Pages Demand for Due Process Hearing 04/27/23 13 pages

P-B. IEE Request Letter 04/25/23 3 pages

P-C. Amended Due Process Complaint INDIVIDUALIZED EDUCATION PROGRAM 06/06/23 13 pages

P-D. IEP 01/04/23 35 pages

P-E. IEP 05/19/22 22 pages

EVALUATIONS, ASSESSMENTS, AND PROGRESS REPORTS

P-F Speech/Language Evaluation 09/20/23 37 P-G Neuropsychological Evaluation 08/27/23 30 P-H Visual Perceptual Evaluation 08/24/23 2 P-I Sensory Integration Evaluation 08/02/23 19 P-J NYC DOE Elementary School OT Evaluation of 08/10/23 12

Function and Participation P-K NYC DOE PT School Function Evaluation 08/09/23 8 P-L NYC DOE Learning Media Assessment 07/19/23 3 P-M NYC DOE 2022-2023 Report Card, Term 1 03/07/23 2 Findings of Fact and Decision IHO

P-N NYC DOE Assistive Technology Evaluation 06/16/23 10 P-O NYC DOE Psychoeducational Evaluation 11/22/22 3 P-P Speech-Language Annual Progress Report 02/25/22 4 P-Q Occupational Therapy Turning 5 Report 01/28/22 5 P-R Turning 5 Report 01/24/22 4 P-S PT Turning 5 Report for CSE 01/10/22 7

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS

P-T. Affidavit of REDACTED 10/12/23 9 pages

P-U. Compensatory Service Plan 10/16/23 19 pages

P-V. Affidavit of REDACTED 10/16/23 6 pages

P-W. Affidavit of REDACTED Undated 5 pages

P-X. Affidavit of REDACTED 10/13/23 8 pages

P-Y. Affidavit of Parent 10/16/23 5 pages

P-Z. Resume of REDACTED Undated 2 pages

P-AA. Curriculum Vitae of REDACTED Undated 2 pages

P-BB. Resume of REDACTED Undated 1 page

P-CC. Resume of REDACTED Undated 4 pages

P-DD. Resume of REDACTED Undated 1 page

DOCUMENTATION ENTERED INTO THE RECORD BY THE IHO

EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION DATE PAGES

I. INTERIM ORDER 08/07/2023 7 pages

II. SECOND INTERIM ORDER 08/23/2023 5 pages

III. LIST OF RELIEF 10/26/2023 8 pages

Footnotes

[1] “(Ex. __)” and “(Exs. __)” refer to an exhibit or exhibits entered into the record, while “(IHO Ex. __)” refers to an exhibit entered into the record by the IHO. “(Tr. __)” refers to the page of the transcript cited.