NYSED redacts decisions, and its source files vary in quality. Gaps and text errors are original to the NYSED documents.
CASE NUMBER: 603334 - NYC: 251143
REDACTED
FINDINGS OF FACT & DECISION
Case No.: 251143
Student’s Name: [Redacted] (referred to as “Student”)
Date of Birth: [Redacted]
District: [Redacted]
Hearing Request by: [Redacted] (referred to as “Parent”)
School: [Redacted] (referred to as “Private School”)
Date of Complaint: July 6, 2023
Hearing Dates: October 6, 2023
Actual Record Close Date: October 6, 2023
Decision Date: October 20, 2023
Hearing Officer: Vanessa M. Gronbach, Esq.
NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED ON OCTOBER 20, 2023
[Redacted], Esq., Parent Attorney — Student
[Redacted] — Parents
[Redacted], Esq., District Representative — DOE
ISSUES
This matter comes before the undersigned Impartial Hearing Officer (“IHO”) through the Parents’ Due Process Complaint (“DPC”) filed on or about July 6, 2023, regarding the 2023/24 school year (P-Ex. A) [1]. The DPC alleged that the District denied the Student a Free Appropriate Public Education (“FAPE”) as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) by failing to provide the Student with special education services and an appropriate program and placement for the 2023/24 school year (P-Ex. A). The Parent requested tuition reimbursement and/or direct funding to the Private School (P-Ex. A).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The undersigned was appointed as hearing officer in this matter on July 12, 2023. A prehearing conference was held on September 6, 2023, to discuss the issues in the case, and although the matter had been referred for settlement, a hearing date was scheduled. A hearing on the merits began on October 6, 2023, and concluded in one day (See, Transcripts).[2] The District did not present a case, waived opening and closing, and did not cross examine the affidavit witness. The Parent presented exhibits[3] and two witnesses, one by affidavit. The record closed on October 6, 2023. There was one extension of the compliance timelines to accommodate witnesses.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Student is a [Redacted] year old student who is currently attending the Private School during the 2023/24 school year (P-Ex. A; T. 25). The Student is diagnosed with Autism (P-Ex. A). The Student began attending the Private School three years ago and was nonverbal when he entered the school (T. 25-26). According to the Parent, the Private School has provided him with an extensive expressive-language program and he is now able to communicate and has expressive language (T. 25-26). The Student also has attention deficit, does not make eye contact, and has trouble focusing (T. 26). The Private School has also helped the Parent understand his development including helping the Student with his daily living skills, which he is now able to do with minimum support (T. 26-27, 29). The Student also had issues with eloping and the Private School has taken him on community walks and taught him to interact in the community (T. 27). Although he has had a few incidents at school, he does not elope with the Parent (T. 27).
The Private School provides the Parent with training every month and offers 1:1 weekly conversations when the Student is experiencing difficulties (T. 28-29). They also send weekly reports about his progress and the difficulties he is having (T. 29). The Parent testified that the Private School has provided the Student with a lot of support and he has made progress (T. 27).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Individuals with Disability Education Act (“IDEA”) is comprehensive statutory framework established by Congress to ensure that students with disabilities are afforded FAPE. See, 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1)(A); Schaffer v. Weast, 546 US 49 (2005). A “free appropriate public education consists of educational instruction that is designed to meet the unique needs of the handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from the instruction.” Bd. of Ed. Hendrick Hudson CSD v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 188 (1982). In order to demonstrate that FAPE is being provided, the school district must show “that it complied with the procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA, and that the IEP developed by its CSE through the IDEA's procedures is reasonably calculated to enable the student to receive educational benefits.” See, Application of Child with a Disability, Appeal No. 05-061, quoting, Rowley at 206. The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment with non-disabled peers. See, Walczak v. Florida Union Free Sch. Dt., 142 F.3rd 119 (2nd Cir. 1998).
Two purposes of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) are (1) to ensure 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 education, employment, and independent living; and (2) to ensure that the rights of students with disabilities and parents of such students are protected (20 U.S.C. § 1400[d][1][A]-[B]; see generally, Forest Grove v. T.A., 129 S. Ct. 2484, 2491 [2009]; Rowley, at 206-07).
An appropriate program begins with an IEP which accurately reflects the results of the 1) student’s present levels of performance; 2) provides for the use of appropriate special education services to address the child's special education needs; 3) establishes annual goals which are related to the child's educational deficits; 4) identifies transitions services; 5) provides a start and end date to the recommended program and services; and 6) criteria and evaluation procedures for the measurement of goals. See, Walzczak, supra; Id., Appeal No. 00-005. “The initial procedural inquiry is no mere formality.” Walczak, at 129. “Adequate compliance with the procedures prescribed [by IDEA] would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP.” Rowley at 206. For an IEP to be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, it must be likely to produce progress, not regression. This progress, must be meaningful; i.e., more than mere trivial advancement. Walczak, supra.
In Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, 580 U.S. __, 14 (2017), the Court held that, “[t]o meet its substantive obligation under the IDEA, a school must offer an IEP reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances, as a focus on the particular child is at the core of the IDEA. The instruction offered must be “specially designed” to meet a child’s “unique needs” through an “individualized education program.” §§1401(29), (14) (emphasis added), to reflect the fact that a contemplated IEP must be focused on the “particular child that is at the core of the IDEA”. In such case, the school is still required to ensure the student is given an IEP that requires not just academic but also functional progress and, although the goals may differ for students, each child must have an IEP that includes goals and services to enable a child to make both academic and functional progress. The court further stated that an IEP “is not a form document. It is constructed only after careful consideration of the child’s present levels of achievement, disability, and potential for growth” §§1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(I)–(IV), (d)(3)(A)(i)–(iv), and that “a student offered an educational program providing “merely more than de minimis progress” from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all.”
The Court in Endrew further stated that, “[t]he IDEA demands more. It requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Although the Supreme Court declined to elaborate on the definition of “appropriate progress” from case to case, it stated that, “the adequacy of a given IEP turns on the unique circumstances of the child for whom it was created.” Finally, The Supreme Court in Endrew declined to hold, as it declined to hold in Rowley, that “every handicapped child who is advancing from grade to grade . . . is automatically receiving a [FAPE].” Board of Ed. of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist., Westchester Cty v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176, 203, n. 25 (1982). A Student’s “IEP need not aim for grade-level advancement. But his educational program 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.” Endrew F. v. Douglas 580 U.S. ___ (2017). “It cannot be the case that the Act typically aims for grade-level advancement for children with disabilities who can be educated in the regular classroom, but is satisfied with barely more than de minimis progress for those who cannot.” Id.
Here, the District did not present a case and conceded that it failed to provide the Student with FAPE during the 2023/24 school year (T. 17).
PARENT’S BURDEN
Parents seeking reimbursement “bear the burden of demonstrating that their private placement was appropriate, even if the IEP was inappropriate” Gagliardo, at 112; see M.S. v. Bd. Of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 104 [2d Cir. 2000]). “Subject to certain limited exceptions, ‘the same considerations and criteria that apply in determining whether the school district's placement is appropriate should be considered in determining the appropriateness of the parents’ placement…’” Gagliardo, at 112, quoting Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ., 459 F.3d 356, 364 (2d Cir. 2006). Parents need not show that the placement provides every special service necessary to maximize the student's potential (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65). When determining whether the parents’ unilateral placement is appropriate, ultimately, the issue turns on whether that placement is “reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits” (Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364; Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115). A private placement is only appropriate if it provides education instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a student (20 U.S.C. § 1401[29]; 34 CFR 300.39[a][1]; Educ. Law § 4401[1]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[ww]; Rowley, 458 U.S. at 188-89).
The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the appropriateness of a unilateral placement turns on whether it is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits, which is not limited to a single dispositive factor. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 207 (1982). The Second Circuit cited several factors that may be considered evidence that a child is receiving an educational benefit, including grades, test scores, and regular advancement, yet clarified that courts assessing the appropriateness of a parent’s unilateral placement must “consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child’s individual needs.” Frank G. 459 F.3d at 364; accord Knable ex rel. Knable v. Bexley City Sch. Dist., 238 F.3d 755 (6th Cir.2001) (holding that a unilateral private placement with small classes, where the student made educational progress and grades and behavior improved, was appropriate). Under the IDEA, to meet the requirements for reimbursement, parents do not need to show that a private placement provides every single service required to “maximize their child’s potential.” Frank G. 459 F.3d at 364; See M.S. ex rel. S.S. v. Bd. of Educ., 231 F.3d 96, 102 (2d Cir.2000) (“The test for parents’ private placement is not perfection.”). Parents must 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.” Frank G. 459 F.3d at 364; Rowley, 458 U.S. at 188–89. “Specially-designed instruction means adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible student under this Part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction to address the unique needs that results from the student’s disability.” 8 NYCRR § 200.1(vv). Where “the hearing record shows that [the Private School] did not provide OT or PT...” and the school “provided programs that assisted the student in developing both fine and gross motor skills,” “the lack of these services” is “not sufficient to support a finding that [the Private School] is not appropriate given that these services did not appear to be necessary to the student receiving educational benefits and [Private School] did address the needs to some extent. The student’s primary needs related to his attention and academics, and [Private School]...adequately, if not perfectly, addressed them.” Application of the Board of Education of the Arlington Central School District, Appeal No. 16- 023 at 24-25
A private school placement must be “proper under the Act” (Carter, 510 U.S. at 12, 15; Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370), i.e., the private school must provide an educational program which meets the student’s special education needs. See, Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, 115; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 129. A parent’s failure to select a program approved by the State in favor of an unapproved option is not itself a bar to reimbursement (Carter, 510 U.S. at 14). The private school need not employ certified special education teachers or have its own IEP for the student (id. at 14). The Second Circuit has set forth the standard for determining whether parents have carried their burden of demonstrating the appropriateness of their unilateral placement.
“Grades, test scores, and regular advancement may constitute evidence that a child is receiving educational benefit, but courts assessing the propriety of a unilateral placement consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child’s individual needs. To qualify for reimbursement under the IDEA, parents need not show that a private placement furnishes every special service necessary to maximize their child’s potential. They need only demonstrate that the placement provides educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction.”
(Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, quoting Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65).
Finding that the District did not provide FAPE to the student during the 2023/24 school year, the burden now shifts to the Parent to prove the appropriateness of the Private School. After reviewing the testimony and evidence provided, I find that they have met that burden.
The Assistant Head of School for the Lower and Middle School at the Private School testified regarding the school and the Student (P-Ex. N). The Private School is a non-profit, independent school for students with disabilities from kindergarten through age twenty-one (P-Ex. N-1). It is accredited by the New York State Association of Independent Schools (P-Ex. N-1). Students at the Private School have a broad range of developmental disabilities including Autism, a variety of disability classifications, and often have language-based learning disabilities, academic deficits, and/or deficits in adaptive daily living skills (P-Ex. N-2).
During the 2022/23 school year, there were 120 students at the Lower and Middle School, with ten classes from kindergarten through eighth grade (P-Ex. N-2). Students require individualized curriculum and individual learning goals (P-Ex. N-2). Their progress is not measured based on advancement from grade level to grade level, but rather they are assessed based on their progress with their individual learning goals (P-Ex. N-2). The Private School develops an individualized educational program for each student at the beginning of each school year to ensure that each student’s individual needs are addressed and progress is ensured in all areas of educational need (P-Ex. N-3).
The Private School provides students with small class sizes with a low student-to-teacher ratio, which allows students to be provided with individual, small group, and one-to-one attention from teachers and service providers when necessary (P-Ex. N-3). Classrooms have a head teacher, assistant teacher, paraprofessionals, and a full-time Speech and Language pathologist and Occupational Therapist in the classroom (P-Ex. N-3). In addition, counselors, psychologists, and other service providers often push-in to the classroom creating a one-to-one or two-to-one student to adult ratio (P-Ex. N-3). The mission is to help students gain independence by teaching them skills needed for participation within their communities and supports their growth in all aspects of their lives (P-Ex. N-3).
The program at the Private School focuses on the student’s current functioning levels and provides the curriculum needed to address student deficits (P-Ex. N-4). Staff use a variety of different programs tailored to meet a student’s individual needs, that include guided reading programs, phonemic awareness, vocabulary development, a repetitive sight word reading program (P-Ex. N-4). In math, teachers draw from a variety of instructional resources, both externally made and teacher-made, to teach concrete and sequential math concepts while applying them to real life situations (e.g., measurement, money, and estimation) (P-Ex. N-4). The Private School provides a multi-sensory curriculum to facilitate progress (P-Ex. N-4).
Progress reports are produced at the end of the Summer, then again two times during the traditional academic school year (P-Ex. F; G; N-5). The Private School provides supports that enable consistent performance of skills that foster total independence (P-Ex. N-5). It also provides students with an intensive related service program, as needed, in areas including occupational therapy (“OT”), S/L therapy, physical therapy (“PT”), and counseling (P-Ex. N-5). All related services are provided through providers who are certified in their respective fields and students receive related services in push-in and pull-out formats (P-Ex. N-5). The Private School has two sensory gyms, which are fully equipped and specially designed to meet the needs of students with sensory swings, ladders, a squeeze machine, and balancing equipment (P-Ex. N-6). Students have access to the equipment when dysregulated or in need of a sensory break (P-Ex. N-7). S/L therapy is provided individually, in small groups (two to four students), and/or by pushing into the classrooms to provide language support while working on lessons (P-Ex. N-7). The Private School has a school psychologist on staff for every two classes in the lower school, and provides individual and group counseling, and develops Behavior Intervention Plans (“BIPs”) for students, including the Student (P-Ex. N-6).
The Private School also offers Adaptive Services, Art Therapy, Music Therapy, Drama Therapy, Social Skills instruction, Self-help/Activities of Daily Living (“ADL”) Skills Instruction, Yoga, Cooking, Adaptive Physical Education, and Community Exploration (P-Ex. N-5-6). All teachers and providers participate in weekly team meetings and have access to multiple professional development opportunities throughout the year (P-Ex. N-6). Once a month, the Privat School has professional development sessions for all teachers, related service providers and classroom staff; and staff are provided with opportunities to attend outside training or programs (P-Ex. N-8).
The Student’s classroom for the 2023/24 school year contains twelve students who are of similar age, educational needs and abilities, and social/emotional skills (P-Ex. N-9). There is one head teacher, one assistant teacher, and three classroom paraprofessionals (P-Ex. N-9). The S/L pathologist is also in the classroom, as well as the Occupational Therapist (P-Ex. N-9). The small class size is important for the Student because of his attention, executive functioning and sensory processing deficits (P-Ex. N-9). He requires a great deal of adult support and often requires one-on-one instruction and support in order to learn (P-Ex. N-9-10). An individualized educational program was developed for the Student at the beginning of the school year and his educational program, goals, and instruction are individually tailored to meet his unique learning needs (P-Ex. N-10).
In Reading, the Student struggles with decoding, comprehension, fluency, phonemic awareness, and letter identification (P-Ex. N-10). To address his reading, the Student receives one-on-one multi-sensory reading instruction and interventions such as group read-alouds, strategic instruction, shared readings, repeated readings, and small group guided reading contributed to this reading progress (P-Ex. N-10). In Writing, his teachers provide him with tools such as scaffolded graphic organizers, sentence frames, and word walls (P-Ex. N-11). His teachers collaborate with the occupational therapist regarding letter formation and follow the ‘Handwriting Without Tears’ methodology and as a result, he has demonstrated great progress in his writing abilities (P-Ex. N-11). In Math, he is provided with one-on-one support and small group instruction and his curriculum includes differentiated learning materials, manipulatives, repetition, scaffolded graphic organizers, direct teacher, and visual representations (P-Ex. N-11). The math curriculum is multisensory which allows the Student to attend and process instruction despite his attention, executive functioning, and sensory processing deficits (P-Ex. N-12). The Student has demonstrated significantly improved attention and ability to attend to instruction as a direct result of the curriculum and multisensory methodology (P-Ex. N-11).
To address the Student’s expressive, receptive and pragmatic language deficits, he receives S/L services and supports throughout the school day, which are built into the curriculum and he receives weekly individual language support in a group of two students (P-Ex. N-12). The Student also receives social skills support in a weekly social skills class taught by the S/L pathologist and the school psychologist (P-Ex. N-12). The social skills class focuses on problem solving, personal space, community safety, play skills, and feeling vocabulary/coping strategies (P-Ex. N-12). As a result of the social skills class and language interventions provided at the Private School, the Student is now better able to initiate interactions with peers and interact with peers appropriately subsequent to the initiation (P-Ex. N-13). The Student also receives a Life Skills class, also co-taught by the S/L pathologist and occupational therapist (P-Ex. N-13). The Life Skills class addresses a variety of topics including household chores, seasonal clothing, recycling, and planting (P-Ex. N-13). As a result of this class as well as other interventions, the Student demonstrates increased safety awareness in the community, increased self-care skills, and increased independence with household tasks (P-Ex. N-13).
The Student also receives weekly counseling services and supports in individual and group formats, as well as during field trips, recess, classroom activities, and community walks (P-Ex. N-14). Counseling sessions include developing social skills through play, either with a peer or counselor, or both (P-Ex. N-14). As a result of the counseling interventions, the Student has exhibited progress in his ability to take turns, respect personal space, keep his hands to himself, play cooperatively, show awareness of peers, and comment appropriately regarding peer actions (P-Ex. N-14). The Student has developed increased safety awareness as a result of counseling sessions including his awareness of strangers and not talking to strangers (P-Ex. N-14-15). He has also demonstrated progress in his ability to understand his behaviors and emotions in order to better express his feelings, problem solving skills, impulse control, and coping skills (P-Ex. N-15). His behavioral challenges and require support throughout the school day in order to stay regulated staff provide the Student with behavioral supports and interventions including a behavior reward chart, individualized paraprofessional support, push-in Applied Behavior Analysis (“ABA”) therapy, counselor check-ins, small group and one-on-one instruction, movement breaks, a visual schedule, positive reinforcement, leadership roles within the classroom, preferential seating, personalized stories, and personalized visuals (P-Ex. N-15). He now requires less supports than in the past due to the behavioral interventions and he is better able to self-regulate his behaviors (P-Ex. N-15).
OT also addresses the Students deficits in sensory processing, activities of daily living, written language abilities, executive functioning skills, gross motor skills and fine motor skills (P-Ex. N-15). He receives multiple scheduled OT sessions per week in a sensory gym (P-Ex. N-15-16). The therapist also conducts a ‘Mind Body Move’ class in collaboration with the physical therapist, focusing on development of motor, sensory regulation and executive function skills, and a Life Skills class, co-led with the S/L pathologist (P-Ex. N-16). The OT also provides rotating support to the Student during recess, community walks, playground, lunch, arrival, and dismissal (P-Ex. N-16). The Student has been responding positively to implemented tools and interventions such as noise reducing headphones, weighted lap pad, weighted blanket, bean bag break, use of visual schedules, and opportunities to speak with staff members to co-regulate (P-Ex. N-16). He is able to become regulated and attend to classroom activities through the use of these sensory tools and interventions and is now able to request sensory breaks (P-Ex. N-16). In order to address the Student’s fine motor deficits, he engages in many daily activities that involve fine motor strength, coordination, and dexterity, such as completing written tasks, managing fasteners, and managing school supplies (P-Ex. N-16). His fine motor skills are strengthened with activities such as use of tongs and clothes pins within therapeutic games and activities, use of small manipulatives that require precision, use of resistive materials such as play doh kinetic sand and putty, and through engagement in therapeutic games and activities (P-Ex. N-17). The Student has demonstrated steady progress in his ability to manage his daily fine motor tasks (P-Ex. N-17). The Student is provided with effective writing tools such as a slant board, visual borders, and small-sized writing utensils and has also demonstrated significant improvement in his writing abilities and can now consistently print his first and last name, consistently copy uppercase letters from a near point or far point visual model, copy words in upper-case letters, and increased representational drawing activities (P-Ex. N-18).
With respect to the student’s progress at the Private Schools, a finding of progress is not required for a determination that a student's unilateral placement is adequate, but it is a relevant factor to be considered (Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115, citing Rafferty v. Cranston Pub. Sch. Comm., 315 F.3d 21, 26-27 [1st Cir. 2002]). However, here the Student has made progress as demonstrated above. The Private School provides the Student with the supports, services and interventions that he requires in order to make meaningfully progress in all areas of educational, social, emotional, and behavioral needs. Based on all of the above, I find that the Private School was an appropriate placement for the Student for the 2023/24 school year.
EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS
Equitable considerations are relevant in determining relief “because the authority to grant reimbursement [under the IDEA] is discretionary.” Frank G., 459 F.3d at 363-64 (quoting, Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374). In balancing the equities, I find in favor of the Parent. To the extent possible, the Parent has participated in all aspects of the special education process and communicated their concerns with the District.
DECISION
Based on a review of the record and the facts mentioned above, I find that the District failed to provide the Student FAPE during the 2023/24 school year. I further find that the Parent’s unilateral placement at the Private School was appropriate. I have considered the Parent’s other requests for relief in the Due Process Complaint and they have been denied for lack of evidence in the record.
ORDER
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby ordered:
1). ORDER THAT, the District shall reimburse the Parent and/or directly pay the Private School for the full tuition and fees for the 12-month 2023/24 school year.
SO ORDERED
DATED: October 20, 2023
Vanessa M. Gronbach
Vanessa M. Gronbach, Impartial Hearing Officer
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.
EXHIBITS
District Exhibits
NONE
Parent Exhibits
P-A Parent’s Hearing Request 07/06/23 16
P-B Ten Day Notice Letter 06/16/23 3
P-C Neuropsychological Evaluation 01/18/21 14
P-D Occupational Therapy Evaluation 02/08/21 22
P-E Speech and Language Evaluation 03/04/21 22
P-F School Progress Report 06/16/23 22
P-G School Summer Progress Report Undated 7
P-H School Enrollment Contract 2023-2024 05/05/23 3
P-I School Summer Program Description 04/11/22 2
P-J Lower School Program Description Undated 7
P-K Student Schedule Undated 1
P-L Attendance Document Undated 1
P-M Tuition Document 08/22/23 2
P-N Affidavit of Asst. Head of School 10/02/23 19
Footnotes
[1] Exhibits shall be referred to as follows: “P” for Parent Exhibit; “D” for the District’s or Department’s Exhibits.
[2] Reference to the Transcript shall be referred to as “T”.
[3] A more detailed list of exhibits is attached.