Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 248648

Student’s Name: STUDENT

School District: [REDACTED]

Impartial Hearing Officer: Michele Host

Date of Filing: May 31, 2023

Hearing Requested by: PARENT

Dates of Hearing: August 8, 2023

Record Close Date: August 21, 2023

Time Sensitive: YES

Date of Decision: August 22, 2023

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON AUGUST 8, 2023:

[REDACTED] (Parent’s Counsel) — Student

[REDACTED] (Director) — Student

INTRODUCTION

This matter concerns the Student, a student classified as a student with a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). The Student’s eligibility for special education supports and services is not in dispute.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

This matter comes before me on the Parent’s due process complaint, filed on or about May 31, 2023. (P-A) The Parent alleges that the DOE failed to provide the Student with a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years. (PA, p. 2) Specifically, the Parent alleges that the Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) that convened for the Student for the school years in questions failed to recommend adequate services and supports for the Student, developed Individualized Education Programs (“IEPs”) that were substantively deficient, and failed to provide the Parent with written notice of the IDEA’s procedural safeguards. (P-A, pp. 3-4)

As relief, the Parent seeks an order directing the DOE to fund 863 hours of 1:1 tutoring for the Student at the tutoring center that evaluated the Student during April of 2023 (“Tutoring Center”), pay the Tutoring Center for the cost of the Student’s diagnostic testing and registration fee, provide MetroCards for the Student and Parent to use when traveling to and from the Tutoring Center, and pay the Parent’s attorneys’ fees. (P-A, pp. 4-5)

I was appointed to this matter on June 6, 2023, and I held a pre-hearing conference with representatives of both parties on July 6, 2023. I scheduled a due process hearing for August 8, 2023.

In advance of the hearing, DOE Counsel indicated over email that the DOE would not be entering any evidence into the record or calling any witnesses in this matter.^[1] (IHO-I) Parent’s Counsel submitted proposed exhibits A through I over email. The due process hearing in this matter began on August 8, 2023, and the DOE failed to appear. (Tr. 11) I emailed DOE Counsel and asked her to join the hearing, and I received no response. (IHO-I; Tr. 11-12) After approximately five minutes, I emailed DOE Counsel again and stated that I was going to begin the hearing. I never received a response. (Tr. 11-12)

At the hearing, Parent’s exhibits A through I were entered into evidence and Parent’s Counsel made an opening statement. (Tr. 12-13) The director of the Tutoring Center (“Director”) then testified on behalf of the Parent. The Parent provided a testimonial affidavit in this matter. I did not ask any questions of the Director or the Parent, and the Parent rested after the Director’s testimony. Parent’s Counsel then made a closing statement. (Tr. 52-53)

The record in this case closed on August 21, 2023. A list of the documentary evidence in this proceeding is appended to this decision.

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 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 200, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

The Parent did not identify any claims under Section 504 that are not subsumed under IDEA that would merit separate analysis and discussion. I find that the Parent’s 504 claims are subsumed within the framework of the IDEA, and I will not separately analyze the 504 claims raised in the complaint.

FINDINGS OF FACT

After considering all the evidence, as well as the closing argument of the Parent, my findings of fact are as follows: The Student was a fifth grader during the 2022-2023 school year. The Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) has classified the Student as a Student with a Speech or Language Impairment. (P-B; C; D)

A CSE convened for the Student on April 23, 2020, when the Student was in the second grade at a public school. (P-D) The April 23, 2020 IEP states that the Student was “well below benchmark” in reading and “needs intensive daily support.” (P-D, p. 1) The IEP also states that the Student was “at high risk of not achieving grade level reading by the end of the year” and struggled with phonics. (Id.) The IEP recommended that the Student be placed in an ICT classroom for ELA, Math, and Science, and receive speech-language therapy (“SLT”) once a week for 30 minutes on an individual basis and three times a week in a group for 30 minutes.

(Id. at p. 16) Another CSE convened for the Student on December 17, 2020. (P-B) At the time of the IEP meeting, the Student was eight years old and in the third grade. (P-B, p. 2) The Student was placed in an ICT classroom and received SLT once a week for 30 minutes on an individual basis and twice a week in a group of three students for 30 minutes. (P-B, p. 2) The IEP mentions results for the Student’s MAP assessments in Reading and Math from the fall of 2020, but the other evaluation results cited by the IEP are from 2018. (Id.) The IEP also includes information from the Student’s 2020-2021 report card, stating that during the first marking period, the Student received “Needs Improvement” in ELA; Reading; Writing; Listening Speaking and Language; and Math. (P-B, pp. 2-3; E) The Student’s teacher reported that the Student was functioning below grade level in Reading, Math, Writing, and in some facets of oral language skills. (P-B, pp. 3-4)

The Student was learning remotely at the time of the December 17, 2020 IEP due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the IEP notes that the Student’s Parent reported that the Student’s “academics seem to have gone down due to full time remote learning.” (P-B, p. 6)

The December 17, 2020 made largely the same recommendations as the prior IEP, namely, an ICT classroom for the Student in Math, ELA, and Social Studies, with SLT for 30 minutes per week on an individual basis and for 30 minutes, twice a week, in a group of three. (P-B, p. 13)

The Parent submitted the Student’s Term 1 Report Card for the 2020-2021 school year, and as the IEP reported, the Student’s grade in all subjects was “N” or “Needs Improvement.” (P-E, pp. 1-2)

The Student returned to in-person instruction at the beginning of the 2021-2022 school year. (P-I, p. 7) The CSE convened to design another IEP for the Student on December 7, 2021. (P-C, p. 15) The December 7, 2021 IEP does not contain updated evaluative material for the Student besides referring to MAP Testing and several in-class assessments in various subjects. Most notably, the Student’s Fountas and Pinnell reading assessment level was determined to be a Level E, or first-grade level—a regression from the prior IEP, which found the Student to be functioning at a second grade level for decoding and reading comprehension. (P-B, pp. 3-4; C, p. 1) The December 7, 2021 made virtually the same service recommendations for the Student as the December 17, 2020 IEP. The only difference between the two sets of recommendations is that the December 7, 2021 IEP recommended that the Student be placed in an ICT classroom for both Science and Social Studies. (P-C, p. 10)

In September of 2022, the Student entered the fifth grade at a private school (“Private School”). (P-I, ¶ 4)

The Parent testified that the Student did not make meaningful academic progress during the school years at issue in this case, and that the Student “is still well behind [the Student’s] same-aged peers in core academic areas. (P-I, ¶¶ 9, 10, 12, 14-17; 20-22) The Parent also testified that she was “never given appropriate or adequate information by the DOE regarding the CSE process or my rights as a parent of a child with a disability. I was not provided with notices, procedural safeguards, and other pertinent information regarding the special education process.” (P-I, ¶ 25)

In April of 2023, the Student was assessed at the Tutoring Center. (P-G) The Director testified credibly about the Tutoring Center and the Tutoring Center’s assessment of the Student, which took place in April of 2023. (Tr. 20-22) The Director has been employed at the Tutoring Center for 22 years and has a California certification in early childhood and elementary education. (Tr. 20) The Director testified that the Tutoring Center is an accredited provider of supplemental instruction in basic academic skills that employs certified teachers to provide tutoring for students in kindergarten through twelfth grade. (Tr. 21)

The Director testified that the Student was evaluated by the Tutoring Center when the Student was in fifth grade. (Tr. 23) The goal of the Tutoring Center’s evaluation of the Student was to establish the Student’s levels of independent functioning. (Tr. 23-24) The Director testified that the general impression of the Student’s functioning generated by the Tutoring Center’s assessment was that the Student “was functioning well below the level [the Student] would need to be to experience any success academically at school.” (Tr. 23)

The Director testified at length about the various assessments that the Student completed as part of the Tutoring Center’s evaluation. (Tr. 23-50) The Student’s assessments and the Tutoring Center’s analysis of the assessment results are both part of the record in this matter. (PF; G; H) On the Slosson Oral Reading Test, which assesses sight word recognition, the Student performed “very, very poorly” and did not show mastery of any skills. (Tr. 27; P-H, p. 9) The Director testified that the Tutoring center would need to begin working with the Student “at kindergarten level.” (Tr. 28) On the Chall Phonetic Analysis Test, the Student performed in a way that suggested the Student is unable to sound out words accurately and “doesn’t have complete command of the rules of phonics.” (Tr. 30; P-H, p. 10) On Rosner’s Test of Auditory Perception, the Student performed relatively well, but on a test of the Student’s reading fluency and comprehension, the Student’s performance was so poor that the Director testified the Tutoring Center would need to “start at kindergarten level if we expect [the Student] to have any success in comprehending what [the Student] reads.” (Tr. 24-35; P-H, pp. 12-18)

The Tutoring Center also administered an assessment of the Student’s writing skills. (PH, pp. 19-20; Tr. 36-37) The Director testified that the results of the assessment were what she would expect to see from a student in “late kindergarten or early 1st grade.” (Tr. 37) In short, the Student’s “writing, like [the Student’s] reading, is very far below where it should be at this point.” (Tr. 37) On a multiple-choice reading comprehension achievement test, the Student’s grade equivalency was in the first percentile, which is very far below the Student’s peers. (Tr. 38; P-F, p. 2) On the Tutoring Center’s math placement exam, which assessed the Student’s computational ability and problem solving skills, the Student did not display mastery of any of the skills that were tested. (Tr. 39-40; P-H, pp. 21-58)

The Director summarized the Tutoring Center’s assessment of the Student’s academic skills by testifying that the Director would characterize the Student “as having an independent reading level of kindergarten and having mastery of math up to 1st grade.” (Tr. 42) The Director also testified about how the Tutoring Center would work with the Student to remediate the Student’s academic deficits. To determine how many hours of tutoring the Student will need, and what areas the Student will need to focus on, the Director “identified the areas where [the Student] gave evidence of having some level of struggle and selected curriculum to address each of those areas and then estimated how many hours it would take [the Student] to complete all of the curriculum selected.” (Tr. 42) The Tutoring Center’s prescribed curriculum for the Student is in evidence as exhibit G, and recommends 863 hours of tutoring for the Student. (Tr. 50; P-G)

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

The IDEA establishes a “substantive right to a ‘free appropriate public education’” for children with disabilities. Endrew F. v. Douglas Co. School Dist, 137 S. Ct. 988, 993 (2017) (quoting Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982)).

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. School districts are not required to “maximize” the potential of students with disabilities but 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 v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 195 (2d Cir. 2005) (quoting Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 130 (2d Cir. 1998)); see also Rowley, 458 U.S. at 199; Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 379 (2d Cir. 2003). 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.

One tool used to guide the development of an IEP is an up to date evaluation. Every student referred for special education services must have an initial evaluation conducted within 60 days of the district’s receipt of parental consent. 8 N.Y.C.R.R. §200.4(b)(1). According to the Second Circuit, “an evaluation means a comprehensive assessment of the child that follows the mandatory procedures outlined in Section 1414 of the IDEA, including assessing the child in all areas of their disability.” D.S. by M.S. and R.S. v. Trumbull Bd. Of Educ., 975 F.3d 152, 158 (2d Cir. 2020) (emphasis in original). Those mandatory procedures include using “a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information.” 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(2)(A); using “technically sound instruments that may assess the relative contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors, in addition to physical or developmental factors” 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(2)(C); and assessing the child “in all areas of suspected disability.” 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(3)(B).

A FAPE is offered to a student when: (a) the DOE 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 206-07; Cerra, 427 F.3d at 192.

In general, an impartial hearing officer’s decision must be made on substantive grounds based on a determination of whether the student received a FAPE. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(i). 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 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. N.Y. Educ. Law § 4404(1)(c). Compensatory Education

An appropriate equitable remedy for a denial of FAPE can include an award of compensatory education. E.M. v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 758 F.3d 442, 451 (2d Cir. 2014). The Second Circuit has stated, “[t]he 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.” P. ex rel. Mr. & Mrs. P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 123 (2d Cir. 2008).

Compensatory education is “prospective equitable relief” that requires a school district to fund education “as a remedy for any earlier deprivations in the child’s education.” Somoza v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 538 F.3d 106, 109 n.2 (2d Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). Courts “may award various forms of retroactive and prospective equitable relief, including reimbursement of tuition, compensatory education, and other declaratory and injunctive remedies.” Doe v. East Lyme Bd. of Educ., 790 F.3d 440, 454 (2d Cir. 2015). Unlike ordinary IEPs “that need only provide ‘some benefit,’ compensatory awards must do more—they must compensate.” Reid v. Dist. of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516, 525 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (emphasis in original). An award of compensatory education “must be 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.” Reid, 401 F.3d at 518, 524. Compensatory education awards may include reimbursement for out-of-pocket educational expenses paid by a parent for services not delivered to a student, provided the school district’s failure to provide those services constitutes a denial of FAPE and the services are an appropriate alternative. Foster v. Bd. Of Educ., 611 Fed. App’x 874, 878-79 (7th Cir. 2015); Batchelor v. Rose Tree Media Sch. Dist., 759 F.3d 266, 277-78 (3d Cir. 2014).

ANALYSIS

In IDEA impartial due process proceedings conducted in New York, the burden is on the DOE to establish that it provided a student with a FAPE. M.W. ex rel. S.W. v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 725 F.3d 131, 135 (2d Cir. 2013); A.M. ex rel. E.H. v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 845 F.3d 523, 535 (2d Cir. 2017). In this matter, the DOE failed to appear. Therefore, the DOE entered no evidence into the record, called no witnesses, and made no argument regarding its position. The Supreme Court has found a reviewing court may expect school district staff “to be able 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. v. Douglas County School District, 137 S.Ct. 988, 1002 (2017). By failing to appear in this matter, the DOE offered no explanation for its decisions and failed to meet its burden. Therefore, I find that the DOE failed to offer the Student a FAPE for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years.

In addition, by failing to appear, the DOE did not object to or contest the evidentiary material submitted by the Parent in support of her claims, and it offered no rebuttal to the testimony provided by the Parent’s witnesses. Therefore, the Parent is entitled to a presumption as to the truth of the asserted facts underlying her claims that are contained in the documentary evidence and testimony to the extent those facts are credible and are not contradicted by the hearing record.

REQUESTED RELIEF

The Supreme Court has emphasized that relief under the IDEA depends, in part, on “equitable considerations.” See Sch. Comm. of Town of Burlington, Mass. v. Dept. of Educ. of Mass., 471 U.S. 359, 374 (1985); Carter, 510 U.S. at 15-16. As previously discussed, “when a school district denies a child a FAPE, the courts have ‘broad discretion’ to fashion an appropriate remedy.” Boose v District of Columbia, 786 F. 3d 1054, 1056 (D.C. Cir. 2015), citing Carter, 510 U.S. at 15-16). In actions brought under the IDEA alleging a denial of FAPE, “the court shall grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate,” limited only by the restriction that “the relief is to be appropriate in light of the purpose of the Act.” Doe v. East Lyme, 790 F.3d at 454.

In this case, the relief requested by the Parent is equitable in nature, as she is asking me to devise an appropriate remedy to address the DOE’s failure to provide the Student with a FAPE for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years.

Specifically, the Parent has requested that I order the DOE to: • fund 863 hours of one-to-one tutoring for the Student at the Tutoring Center at the rate of $110 per hour, as well as $395 in testing and registration fees; and • fund Metro Cards for the Student and Parent to use when traveling to and from the Tutoring Center. (P-A; Tr. 53)

DECISION

An award of compensatory services may be appropriate if a student has been denied appropriate services for an extended period of time and if such deprivation of instruction can be remedied through the provision of additional services before the student becomes ineligible for instruction by reason of age or graduation. An award of additional services should aim to place a student in the position he or she would have been in had the DOE complied with its obligations under the IDEA. Newington, 546 F. 3d at 123. A compensatory education award can be designed using either a “quantitative” or a “qualitative” approach. Under the quantitative approach, the compensatory award is based on the amount of time that comprised the FAPE deprivation. Under the qualitative approach, the focus is on a student’s needs and is based on the specific educational deficits that resulted from the FAPE deprivation (with the compensatory award being the specific services needed to correct those deficits). Given the duration of the deprivation and the evidence and testimony in the record, this case lends itself more appropriately towards the qualitative approach.

In this matter, the DOE failed to provide the Student with a FAPE for the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years. The Parent has provided ample documentary evidence regarding the Student’s academic history and the Student’s April 2023 evaluation at the Tutoring Center. (PB; C; D; E; F; G; H) The Parent has also provided testimony from the Director, as well as the Parent’s affidavit.

The testimony of the Director, the documentary evidence from the Tutoring Center provided by the Parent, a review of the Student’s academic records (including the Student’s IEPs), and the testimony of the Parent clearly establish the Student’s deficits and the DOE’s ongoing failure to provide the Student with individualized instruction that would have allowed the Student to make academic progress. The service plan that the Parent and the Tutoring Center have designed to remediate the Student’s deficits and enable the Student to receive educational benefits is reasonable appropriate. Accordingly, I will order the DOE to fund the relief requested by the Parent.

OTHER RELIEF SOUGHT

In addition to the relief described above, the Parent seeks additional relief that I will discuss below. Transportation

The IDEA requires that a school district must provide transportation for a child with a disability if that service is necessary for a disabled child ‘to benefit from special education.” Donald B. v. Board of Sch. Comm’rs, 117 F.3d 1371, 1374 (11th Cir. 1997) (citing 20 U.S.C. § 1401(a)(17); see also N.Y. Educ. Law §§ 4401(4), 4402(4)(d). Transportation may be deemed necessary “if in its absence a disabled child in private school would be denied ‘a genuine opportunity for equitable participation in [a special education program]’, . . . or special education program benefits “comparable in quality, scope, and opportunity for participation . . . [to those provided for] students enrolled in public schools’” Donald B., 117 F.3d at 1375 (internal citations omitted).

In addition, New York law defines special education as “specially designed instruction . . . and transportation, provided at no cost to the parents to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability,” and requires school districts to provide disabled students with “suitable transportation to and from special classes or programs.” Education Law §§ 4401(1), 4402(4)(a); see also Education Law § 4401(2); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 200.1(ww).

The Parent’s due process complaint seeks MetroCards to allow the Student and Parent to travel to and from the Tutoring Center. (P-A) The Parent testified that if the Student receives compensatory services at the Tutoring Center, the Parent will need MetroCards for herself and the Student to travel to the Tutoring Center, and that the Parent cannot afford to pay for the MetroCards herself. (P-I, ¶ 32) As I am ordering compensatory tutoring for the Student at the Tutoring Center, I will order that the DOE provide the Student and Parent with MetroCards. Attorneys’ Fees

The Parent also requested attorneys’ fees and expenses in the Parent’s due process complaint. (P-A, p. 5) The IDEA does not authorize an administrative officer to award attorneys’ fees or other costs to a prevailing party, and entitlement, if any, to costs must be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B); Murphy v. Arlington

Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 402 F.3d 332 (2d Cir. 2005); see also Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 08-008 (March 31, 2008); Application of a Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 06-109 (Oct. 27, 2006). Only a court can determine if a party is entitled to attorneys’ fees, and I would be exceeding the scope of my authority by determining that the Parent is the prevailing party entitled to costs. Therefore, to the extent that the Parent is seeking reimbursement and/or payment of attorneys’ fees and costs, the Parent’s request is denied.

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 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.

ORDER

Based upon the above findings of fact, it is hereby:

1. ORDERED, that the DOE shall fund compensatory services for the Student in the form of 863 hours of 1:1 tutoring with no expiration date to be provided by the Tutoring Center at a rate of $110.00 per hour, to be paid within 30 days of receipt of the Tutoring Center’s invoices for these services; it is further

2. ORDERED, that the DOE shall pay the Tutoring Center $295.00 for the cost of the Student’s diagnostic testing and $100.00 for the Student’s standard registration fee at the Tutoring Center within 30 days of receipt of the Tutoring Center’s invoices for these services; it is further

3. ORDERED, that the DOE shall provide the Student and Parent with MetroCards to allow them to travel to and from the Tutoring Center; it is further

4. ORDERED, that the DOE’s Implementation Unit shall authorize all compensatory services hereby ordered within 14 days.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 22, 2023

Michele Host (signed electronically)

Impartial Hearing Officer

Michele Host

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL

Within 40 days of the date of this decision, the parent and/or the Public School District has a right to appeal the decision to a State Review Officer (SRO) of the New York State Education Department under section 4404 of the Education Law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

If either party plans to appeal the decision, a notice of intention to seek review shall be personally served upon the opposing party no later than 25 days after the date of the decision sought to be reviewed.

An appealing party's request for review shall be personally served upon the opposing party within 40 days from the date of the decision sought to be reviewed. An appealing party shall file the notice of intention to seek review, notice of request for review, request for review, and proof of service with the Office of State Review of the State Education Department within two days after service of the request for review is complete. The rules of procedure for appeals before an SRO are found in Part 279 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education. A copy of the rules in Part 279 and model forms are available at http://www.sro.nysed.gov.

DOE EVIDENCE

None

PARENT’S EVIDENCE

A. Impartial Hearing Request 3/31/2023 (5 pages)

B. IEP 12/17/20 (20 pages)

C. IEP 12/7/2021 (17 pages)

D. IEP 4/23/20 (23 pages)

E. Student Report Card 2020-2021 (2 pages)

F. Tutoring Center Student Academic Evaluation Results 4/12/23 (3 pages)

G. Tutoring Center Individualized Prescribed Hours 4/12/23 (3 pages)

H. Tutoring Center Student Test Results 4/12/23 (59 pages)

I. Parent Affidavit 7/31/23 (6 pages)

IHO EVIDENCE

I. Emails between IHO and counsel regarding exhibits/witnesses and DOE Counsel’s failure to appear 8/1/2023-8/8/2023 (1 page)

Footnotes

[1] The Parent’s exhibits are cited as “P” followed by a letter, and IHO exhibits are cited as “IHO” followed by a roman numeral. The transcript of the due process hearing is cited as “Tr” followed by a page number.