Impartial Hearing Decision

FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION

Case Number: 257265

Student’s Name: REDACTED

School District: REDACTED

Impartial Hearing Officer: Rachel Glantz

Date of Filing: 09/07/2023

Hearing Requested by: Parent

Date of Hearing: 11/09/2023

Record Close Date: 11/09/2023

Date of Decision: 11/20/2023

NAMES AND TITLES OF PERSONS WHO APPEARED

NOVEMBER 09, 2023:

For the Student:

REDACTED, Parent Attorney

REDACTED, Parent Student

REDACTED, Director

For the Department of Education:

REDACTED, Consultant Hearing Representative

BACKGROUND

The Parent, through counsel, filed a Due Process Complaint (“DPC”) on or about September 7, 2023. In the DPC, the Parent alleges that the Department of Education (“DOE”) failed to offer Student a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for the 2023-2024 school year. (P-A1).

Parent alleges, among other things, that the DOE failed to develop an appropriate Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) or recommend an appropriate placement for Student for the 2023-2024 school year, and as a result, the Parent unilaterally placed Student at REDACTED (“Private School”) for the 2023-2024 school year. (Id.) By way of relief, Parent seeks an award of tuition funding for Student’s attendance at Private School, a private program not approved by the Commissioner of Education for the education of students with disabilities for the 2023-2024 school year. (Id.) Furthermore, Parent alleges that the equities support their claim for tuition funding for the school year at issue. (Id.) In light of the foregoing and as more fully discussed below, I find that: a) the DOE failed to meet its burden that it offered Student FAPE for the 2023-2024 school year, b) Private School offers Student specially designed instruction sufficient to meet Student’s needs, and c) the equities support the Parent’s requested relief.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

I was appointed as impartial hearing officer (“IHO”) on September 15, 2023. On October 12, 2023, Parent Attorney appeared for a pre-hearing conference. There was no appearance or correspondence by the DOE. Parent Attorney noted there had been no contact with anyone from the DOE since the filing of the DPC and no resolution meeting was held with Parent. Given that information, a substantive due process hearing (“DPH”) was scheduled for November 9, 2023. On October 17, 2023, a notice of appearance (“NOA”) was filed by Consultant Hearing Representative.

On November 9, 2023, Parent Attorney and Consultant Hearing Representative appeared remotely for the DPH. Without objection from the DOE, Parent submitted documentary exhibits into evidence (P-A-J), including testimonial affidavits from Parent and REDACTED, (“Director”). (P-I, P-J). The DOE entered documents into evidence (DOE-1-5) but failed to call any witnesses to testify. The DOE waived an opening statement, rested on the record, and cross-examined both Parent and Director. Parent Attorney made an opening statement and both parties made closing arguments.

FINDINGS OF FACT

After a full review of the record generated at the DPH, I make the following findings of fact and determinations:

Student is a REDACTED-year-old child who is classified by the DOE’s Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) as a student with an Intellectual Disability. (DOE-2 at 1). Student’s classification and entitlement to special education services during the specified timeframes are not in dispute.

Student has profound intellectual and learning delays whose main deficits are in the areas of reading, memory, and language. (P-I at 3). Student’s significant memory issues impact all aspects of Student’s learning because Student struggles to retain skills that have been taught. These memory issues necessitate very small group learning and positive reinforcement. (Id.). In addition, Student has critical executive functioning deficits which contribute to Student’s ongoing disorganization and as such, requires ongoing repetition, modeling, and 1:1 instruction in order to learn. (Id.). Student struggles to follow multi-step directions and requires them to be broken down into simple, manageable chunks so Student can follow them and complete each step before moving on to the next. Student is unable to put things in order of sequence, which impacts Student’s ability to independently follow a schedule. (Id.).

On May 10, 2023, the DOE conducted a psychoeducational evaluation as part of Student’s mandated triennial evaluation. (DOE-5). The DOE school psychologist who conducted the evaluation administered the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intellignece-2nd Edition (“WASI-II”) to assess Students cognitive functioning, and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Fourth Edition (“WIAT-IV”) to assess Student’s academic functioning. To assess Student’s adaptive behavior functioning, the evaluator utilized the Vineland-3 test, which was completed by Parent. (Id.). Overall, the results of the WASI-II showed Student’s cognitive skills to fall in the Mildly Delayed range. On the subtests of the WASI-II, Student’s verbal comprehension scores fell in the Borderline range while Student’s Perceptual Reasoning skills were in the Moderately Delayed range. (Id. at 4). Student’s problem-solving skills, visual information processing, and abstract reasoning abilities all fell well below age expectancy. (Id. at 2). Student’s academic skills, specifically reading, writing, and math were assessed with the WIAT-IV test. Student’s overall proficiency with reading skills was found to be in the Very Low range. (Id. at 3). While Student appeared able to memorize sight words, Student was unable to decode and despite being REDACTED years old, was unable to independently read a book on a first-grade level. (Id.). Student’s writing scores on the WIAT-IV placed Student in the Low range, with the evaluator noting that Student appears to be functioning well below age and grade expectancy. (DOE-5 at 3). Similarly, Student’s math scores placed Student in the Low range, demonstrating that Student is performing well below age and grade expectancy. (Id.). On the Vineland-3 test, Student demonstrated significant deficits in two of the three adaptive behavior domains, including communication and daily living skills, while Student showed a relative strength with socialization skills. (Id. at 4). The evaluation did not include any recommendations. Although the evaluator attended the IEP meeting that was held on May 31, 2023, she did not testify at this DPH. (Id. at 5, DOE-2 at 36).

On May 31, 2023, the DOE’s Committee on Special Education (“CSE”) convened to develop Student’s IEP for the 2023-2024 school year. (DOE-2, P-J at 1). The CSE recommended the following 12-month program and related services: placement in a special REDACTED public school with a classroom ratio of 12:1+1, 7 times per day; Adapted Physical Education, two times per week in Special Education Gym; Counseling, group, one time per week for 30 minutes; Occupational Therapy (“OT”), individual, one time per week for 30 minutes; OT, group, one time per week for 30 minutes; Speech-Language Therapy (“SLT”), individual, three times per week for 30 minutes; SLT, group, two times per week for 30 minutes. (DOE-2 at 27-28). Student was also recommended to receive special transportation including transportation from the closest safe curb location to school, route with fewer students, climate control, door to door, and time on bus not to exceed 60 minutes. (Id. at 32). No Supplementary Aids and Services, Program Modifications, Accommodations, Assistive Technology, Testing Accommodations, or Other Supports were recommended. (Id. at 28-29). Although Parent expressed her concerns with the 12:1+1 class size, the CSE disagreed, noting that the smaller 6:1:1 and 8:1:1 class sizes were rejected as being too restrictive. (Id. at 35, P-J at 1).

On June 8, 2023, Parent signed an enrollment contract with Private School, in which Parent agreed to pay tuition to Private School for Student’s 2023-2024 school year in the amount of $120,000.00. (P-D). The enrollment contract included a clause which would allow Parent to terminate the contract if Parent accepted an appropriate DOE placement prior to October 16, 2023. (Id.). To date, Parent has only paid a $280.00 to Private School, with a balance of $119,720.00 still owing towards Student’s tuition for the 2023-2024 school year. (P-E, P-J at 2).

On or about June 14, 2023, Parent received a Prior Written Notice (“PWN”) and School Location Letter (“SLL”) from DOE, which proposed to have Student attend REDACTED, (“Public School”). (DOE-3 at 5, P-J at 2). Parent attended a tour of Public School, however deemed the school to be inappropriate to meet Student’s needs. (P-J at 2).

On August 21, 2023, Parent sent a Ten-Day Notice (“TDN”) letter to DOE providing specific reasoning as to why Parent disagreed with the May 31, 2023 IEP and had determined Public School to be an inappropriate placement for Student. Parent provided notice that unless these concerns were addressed, Parent would unilaterally place Student at Private School and seek public funding for the tuition. (P-B). Parent received no substantive response from the DOE to Parent’s TDN. (P-J at 2).

LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND ANALYSIS

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 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 v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 (2d Cir. 2005). “Not every procedural error will render an IEP legally inadequate.” M.H. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 685 F. 3d 217, 245 (2d Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). If a procedural violation is alleged, an administrative officer 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. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(a)(2); Matrejek v. Brewster Cent. Sch. Dist., 471 F. Supp. 2d 415, 419 (S.D.N.Y. 2007).

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). 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, 427 F.3d at 195, 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.

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) (2002).

Under the three-prong test established by the Supreme Court in Sch. Comm. of Burlington, Mass, v. Dep’t of Educ. of Mass, 471 U.S. 359 (1985) and Florence County. Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993), parents who unilaterally place their children in private school are entitled to reimbursement from the school district if the services offered by the school district were inadequate or inappropriate, the placement selected by the parent(s) was appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parent’s claim. See also Frank G. and Dianne G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356 (2d Cir. 2006), cert. denied, Board of Educ. of Hyde Park Cent. School Dist. v. Frank G., 2007 U.S. LEXIS 11520 (Oct. 15, 2007). The first prong of the BurlingtonCarter test encompasses whether the student’s IEP provided a FAPE. Brock v. Dutton, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44254, *14 (S.D.N.Y. March 31, 2015).

The Parents have the burden of proving that the unilateral placement was appropriate. To meet this burden, the Parents must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the unilateral placement provides “educational instruction specifically designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child.” Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 112 (2d. Cir. 2007) (quoting Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65). The private school placement “need not meet the IDEA definition of a free and appropriate public education” or “state education standards or requirements.” Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364. Parents seeking reimbursement "bear the burden of demonstrating that their private placement was appropriate, even if the IEP was inappropriate." Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112. 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.'" Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, quoting Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356, 364 (2d Cir. 2006)

Parents need not show that the placement provides every special service necessary to maximize Student's potential. Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65. 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." Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364; see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 115. A private placement is appropriate if it provides instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a student. 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).

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. Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 112, quoting Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364-65.

Burlington-Carter Test

Prong I: Provision of FAPE

As to Prong I of the Burlington/Carter standard, I find the DOE failed to meet its burden at this DPH. DOE entered documentary evidence into the record, including the May 31, 2023 IEP, Prior Written Notice and SLL, the May 16, 2023 Psychoeducational Evaluation, and a Teacher Report2. (DOE 2-5). They failed, however, to introduce any witness testimony to support the recommendations made in the IEP or to testify as to the ability of DOE to implement the IEP at Public School. This was particularly important given the credible, uncontroverted testimony provided by Director as to Student’s needs and the testimony of Parent regarding the inappropriateness of both the IEP and the school placement of Public School. Without any testimony or any additional evidence offered in support of its position, I cannot find that the DOE has met its burden of production and persuasion at this DPH. I therefore find that Student was denied FAPE for the 2023-2024 school year.

Prong II- Appropriateness of Unilateral

Placement

Private School is a special education school that offers self-contained special education programs within mainstream school sites. This provides the opportunity for the students to receive the small, full-time, special education programming they require for their academics and social needs while still allowing for mainstreaming opportunities as appropriate for each student. (P-I at 2). Students enrolled at Private School often have IEP classifications of Autism, Learning Disabilities, Speech Impairment, Intellectual Disabilities and Multiple Disabilities. Each class is grouped based upon each student’s academic, social, and learning needs. Given the significant needs of its students, Private School uses a 3-prong approach focusing on academics, including functional academics; vocational training; and life skills, including daily living skills. (Id.). For the 2023-2024 school year, Private School enrolled fifteen (15) students ages 14-21. Private School offers SLT, OT, Physical Therapy, Art Therapy, Counseling, and Social Skills groups. All of the service providers and teachers employed at Private School hold master’s degrees and are licensed and certified in their respective fields. (Id. at 2, 4). Private School develops a comprehensive service plan (“CSP”) for each of its students which outlines their programs and goals. The CSP is used to track progress throughout the year and progress is measured by the degree of support needed for a student to demonstrate that skill as they work towards independence. (Id. at 3, Tr. at 25-26).

Director testified to Student’s specific needs, program, and progress. (P-I). Director provided extensive, uncontroverted testimony about the specific individualized supports, methodologies, accommodations, and modifications that were implemented and utilized by Private School to address Student’s academic and social needs. (Id. at 6-8). Further, Director testified to the measurable progress Student has made at Private School thus far during the 2023-2024 school year. (Id.). In addition to academic instruction, Student receives related services including Counseling, OT, SLT, Art Therapy, Physical Therapy, and Social Skills. (Id. at 8). Director testified to the multiple opportunities Student has to engage with non-disabled peers, including Freshman Seminar class, socializing at the school’s coffee bar, participating in a school play at the mainstream school. Further, Student has been participating in a work study program by working as an assistant in a preschool class. (Id. at 10). Finally, Parent offered testimony about Student’s progress over the course of the school year. (P-J at 2).

I fully credit the testimony of both Parent and Director, whose testimony was not undermined or controverted in any way. I find that the weight of the evidence clearly and overwhelmingly establishes that Student’s individual special education needs are being addressed by Private School and that the instruction offered was "reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits." Frank G., 459 F.3d at 364.

I find that Parent has met their burden in proving that Private School offered an educational program which met Student’s needs under Prong II of the Burlington/Carter standard.

Prong III- Equities

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." Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230, 246-47, 129 S. Ct. 2484, 174 L. Ed. 2d 168 (2009). 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. E.M. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 758 F.3d 442, 461 (2d Cir. 2014). Reimbursement of private school tuition may be reduced or denied when parents fail to challenge the appropriateness of an IEP in a timely manner, fail to make their child available for evaluation by the district, or upon a finding of unreasonableness with respect to the actions taken by the parents. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(iii); 34 CFR § 300.148(d); see S.W. v. New York City Dep’t of Educ., 646 F. Supp. 2d 346, 362-64 (S.D.N.Y. 2009); Thies v. New York City Bd. of Educ., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11354 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 4, 2008); Werner v. Clarkstown Cent. Sch. Dist., 363 F. Supp. 2d 656, 660-61 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).

The IDEA allows that reimbursement may be reduced or denied if parents do not provide notice of the unilateral placement either at the most recent CSE meeting prior to removing the student from public school, or by written notice ten business days before such removal, “that they were rejecting the placement proposed by the public agency to provide [FAPE] to their child, including stating their concerns and their intent to enroll their child in a private school at public expense.” 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(iii)(I); see 34 CFR §300.148(d)(1). This statutory requirement “serves the important purpose of giving the school system an opportunity, before the child is removed, to assemble a team, evaluate the child, devise an appropriate plan, and determine whether a [FAPE] can be provided in the public schools.” Greenland Sch. Dist. v. Amy N., 358 F.3d 150, 160 (1st Cir. 2004).

In this case, the record does not establish that the Parent “acted with the requisite level of unreasonableness or misconduct that reimbursement should be denied on equitable grounds.” Jennifer D. ex rel. Travis D. v. New York City Dept. of Educ., 550 F. Supp 2d 420, 437 (S.D.N.Y. 2008). There is nothing in the hearing record to suggest, let alone demonstrate, that the Parent interfered in any manner with the CSE’s evaluation of Student or prevented it from providing the Student with a FAPE for 2023-2024 school year. The record supports the finding that the Parent cooperated fully with the DOE, visited Public School, and timely sent the requisite TDN to the DOE in advance of the commencement of the 2023-2024 school year.

I find no issue with the reasonableness of the costs, including tuition, associated with Private School. Student attended Private School during the year at issue and Parent incurred a financial obligation to Private School for the full amount of the 2023-2024 tuition. Director testified that Private School has a religious component which consists of “REDACTED Studies”, and accounts for approximately one hour per day of Student’s school day, while 82.36% of the instruction provided at Private School is non-sectarian. (P-I at 11, P-F). DOE, in its closing argument said, “…[i]f IHO finds that they have met that burden, we would request that tuition be reduced by the amount of religious instruction”. (Tr. at 33). DOE, however, offered no legal argument or authority to support such a reduction in any award for tuition. Parent, on the other hand, while deferring on the issue of whether to reduce an award for tuition by the amount of religious instruction provided to Student at Private School, cited to a recent SRO decision which modified an IHO’s Order reducing tuition funding by the amount of religious instruction and instead ordered funding of the full tuition, including religious instruction. See Application of a Student with a Disability, Appeal No. 23-133. Of note, Private School was the same private school at issue in that SRO decision, and therefore the factual analysis of the amount and type of religious instruction is analogous to the facts in this case- specifically that Student attends a “REDACTED Studies” class throughout the week. There the SRO found reimbursement to the parents for the full tuition amount was not precluded by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment based upon applicable case law, statutes, and regulations addressing the issue in the context of the availability of federal funding for religious private schools generally and the IDEA in particular. (Id. at 13). As such, I am adopting the reasoning and analysis applied in that decision, and as such I decline to reduce Parent’s award of tuition funding for religious instruction, and instead am ordering the DOE to fund Student’s tuition in full at Private School for the 2023-2024 school year.

After considering the hearing record in its entirety, I find that the equities support Parent’s claim for direct funding in the amount of $119,720.00 and reimbursement in the amount of $280.00 for Student’s tuition at Private School for the 2023-2024 school year.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY:

ORDERED, that the DOE shall provide direct funding for Student’s tuition at Private School for the 2023-2024 school year, within 45 days of this Order, in the amount of $119,720.00, less any funding already paid through pendency.

ORDERED, that the DOE shall reimburse Parent, within 45 days of this Order, in the amount of $280.00 for tuition payments made to Private School for the 2023-2024 school year.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 20, 2023

Rachel Glantz

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.

PARENT EVIDENCE

A. DPC 09/07/2023 3 pages

B. Parent Letter 08/21/2023 3 pages

C. Request for pendency with underlying FOFD 10/12/2023 15 pages

D. Contract 2023-2024 1 page

E. Payment Affidavit 10/18/2023 1 page

F. Schedule 2023-2024 1 page

G. Federal 1040 Form 2022 2 pages

H. Program Description N/A 2 pages

I. Affidavit of Director 11/01/2023 12 pages

J. Affidavit of Parent 10/30/2023 3 pages

DISTRICT EVIDENCE

1 The DOE entered Parent’s DPC into evidence as DOE-1, while Parent entered the same document into evidence as P-A. To avoid confusion, I will cite to Parent’s DPC throughout this decision as P-A.

2 The “Teacher Report” that was entered into evidence as DOE-4, is entitled “Comprehensive Student Plan” on the actual document and reflects Student’s goals and progress during the 2021-2022 school year. Given that no witness testified to its relevance, I accord it no weight.

1. Dur Process Complaint 09/07/2023 3 pages District

2. Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) 05/31/2023 36 pages District

3. Prior Written Notice 06/14/2023 13 pages District

4. Teacher Report 05/30/2023 23 pages District

5. Psychoeducational Assessment IHO EXHIBITS- NONE 05/10/2023 5 pages District