EH and JO obo OO v. Burlington City BOE | Case 07853-23 | 2023-08-29

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer State of New Jersey OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW DECISION ON EMERGENT RELIEF OAL DKT. NO. EDS 07853-23 AGENCY DKT. NO. 2024-36381 E.H. and J.O. ON BEHALF OF O.O., Petitioners, v. BURLINGTON CITY BOARD OF EDUCATION , Respondent. ________________________________ Samuel Watson, Esq., for petitioners (South Jersey Legal Services, attorneys) William C. Morlok, Esq. for respondent (Parker McCay, P.A., attorneys) Record Closed: August 28, 2023 Decided: August 29, 2023 BEFORE JUDITH LIEBERMAN , ALJ: STATEMENT OF THE CASE Petitioners E.H. and J.O., parents of min or student O.O., s eek emergent rel ief and reinstatement of O.O . in a preschool program, as a “stay-put” placement, pending resolution of th eir un derlying due p rocess petition. They assert that O.O.’s evaluations show that he has not “maxed out” in preschool “on his ability to socially and em otionally

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 07853-23 2 develop and to develop the necessary practical and life skills to succe ed in the scho ol environment.” Pet. Brf. at 3. They assert that these skills are particularly important for a child with Down syndrome and are necessary for him to succeed in kindergarten, which is more academically oriented than preschool , which focuses on social a nd emotional development. Because kindergarten will pro vide “completely different services ” than that were provided in preschool, this would constitute a change in placement and, thus, permit enforcement of a “stay-put” placement. Respondent Burlington City Board of Education ( respondent or District) argues that emergent relief is not permissible because grade level promotion, from preschool to kindergarten, does not constitute a change in placement . Als o, grade promotion or retention do not implicate “stay-put” rights. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioners filed a Request for a Due Process Hearing and Request for Emergent Relief with the Office of Special Education Programs of the New Jersey Department of Education , (OSEP). The Request for Emergent Relie f was transmitted by OSEP to the Office of Administrative Law , (OAL) where it was filed on August 22, 2023 , as a contested case . N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to N.J.S.A. 52:14F-13. A hearing w as conducted on August 28, 2 023, during which oral argument and brief testimony was heard. The record closed that day. FACTUAL DISCUSSION The underlying facts, derived from the oral argument, testimony, and the contents of the petitions and briefs, are undisputed: O.O. was bo rn on June 26, 2 018, and is now five years old . He has been diagnosed with Down syndrome. He is enrolled in th e Burlington City School District. During the 2 022-2023 school year, O.O. was eligible for special education and related services under th e classification of p reschool chi ld with a disability. Resp. Exh.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 07853-23 3 A. He attended and completed pre -kindergarten (“Pre-K4”1) during the 2022 –2023 school year. His individualized education program (“IEP”) for that school year provided for a preschool inc lusion classroom with an aide assigned to O.O., in addition t o other services. Ibid. O.O. was eligible for special education and related services during the 2023– 2024 school year under the classification o f moderate intellec tual disability. Resp. Exh. B. The IEP for the 202 3–2024 school year p rovides for a self-contained special education kindergarten classroom with an aide assigned to O.O . as well as other services. Ibid. The classroom will have a total of six special education students. Petitioners did not agree to the 2023–2024 IEP because they believe that O.O. requires another year of preschool to help him develop the skills he needs to maximize his ability to function in kindergarten. On J uly 15, 2023, they requested that O.O. be retained in preschool for the 2023–2024 school year. Resp. Exh. C. In a certification, petitioner E.H. , O.O.’s mother, wrote that she holds a master’s degree in special e ducation and has taught pres chool and kin dergarten for almost seven years. She believes that , during the 2022 –2023 school year, O.O.’s social an d emotional development and pr actical and life skills readin ess did not p rogress. She cited the following examples of areas in which h e did not develop: taking turns, sharing, expressing wants and needs without guidance , cleanin g up after himself and independently moving through routines and activities. Certification of E. H. (“E.H. Cert.”) at ¶¶1, 7. E.H. referenced assessments of O.O. that showed “major deficits in social, language, practical and life skills. ” Id. at ¶8.2 She asserted, “Students with Down Syndrome are able to develop strong emotion al and social capabilities[.]” Id. at ¶12. She “believe[s] that, with another year of Pre -K4 spent honing th ose so cial, emotional, practical and life s kills that preschool is all about, O.O. could be far more 1 “Pre-K4” refers to the preschool program for students who are four years old. 2 E.H. referred to a n A pril 12, 2023, psychologi cal evaluation report,(Pet. Exh. A), a n April 6, 2023, speech-language evalu ation report (Pet. E xh. B), and an April 17, 20 23, occupational therapy reevaluation report (Pet. Exh. C).

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 07853-23 4 developed in these areas, giving him the best chance at suc cess in his education and life.” Ibid. In response to petitio ners’ objection to the 2023–2024 IEP and request that O.O. be retained in Pre -K4, Jacqueline O’Brien, the District’s Director of Child Study Team and Pupil Personnel Servic es, sent a July 27, 2023, letter in which she d etailed testing scores that show O.O.'s “extremely low range of cognitiv e ability[.]” Resp. Exh. D. She wrote that, “even with retention, we do not anticipate [O.O.] would be on grade level” but the child study “team does an ticipate and strive for continued personal growth in the various domains of d evelopment as defined in his IEP goals and o bjectives. Retention is not be [sic] deter mined solely on such scores, especially for a student with [O.O. ’s] profile.” Ibid. O’Brien added that, during the 2022–2023 school year, O.O. “exhibited growth in the preschool inclusion cla ssroom environment i n the areas including but not limited to social-emotional development, play skills, name writing, ro te counting, increased attention to tasks, and motor development. Furthermore, [O.O.] exhibited progress and/or mastery toward num erous individualized goals and objectives outlined in his IEP in the areas of emergent reading and math skills, soc ial/emotional/behavior (i.e., play activities, turn taking, soci al interactions with peers, etc.), speech and languag e (e.g., expressive labeling [)], and fine motor development (i.e., basic cutting skills, tracing, first name wr iting, dressing, etc.). ”3 Ibid. O’Brien ci ted academic studies that concl uded “retention is not an effective strategy to address a cademic defic its.” Ibid. The District thus recommended O.O. attend kindergarten “with the opportunity t o socialize with age - appropriate peers, further develop his skills, and work tow ard his individ ualized goals that are tail ored to meet his unique needs. ” Ibid. She expla ined that the “multiple disabilities kindergarten self-contained special education class would allow for repetition of skill s and concepts while accessing the general education curr iculum, at a slower 3 A July 17, 2023, Progress Report listed each of th e goals and objectives in O.O.’s 2022-2023 IEP and identified the de grees of progress he achieve d with respect to each, if any. Resp. Exh. E. Of his social/emotional/behavioral goals, h e achieved goal s eight (participate in associative play acti vities in the classroom and on th e p layground) and ten (communicate and interact in a positive manner wit h peers for thirty seconds) . He progressed satisfac torily with respect to the other goals. Of his mot or skills g oals, he achieved goals eleven (concerning use of scissors); he progressed satisfactorily or gradually with respect to the other goals). Ibid.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 07853-23 5 pace.” Ibid. His social, emotional, behavioral and language skills would c ontinue to be addressed. O’Brien a nticipated that O .O. would be eligible for s pecial education throughout his education and that “he would continue to be promote d with his age - appropriate peers, regardless o f whatever grade -level our diagnostic testing sh ows.” Ibid. The 2022 –2023 and 2023 –2024 IEPs require the same modifications to be utilized for O.O. Resp. Ex. A at 10, Exh. B at 11. The 2023–2024 IEP includes social, emotional and behavioral goal s and obj ectives and mot or skil ls and occupational therapy goals and objectives. It also continues th e related services of occupational and speech therapy and provides for a n aide de dicated to O.O . It explains that a self- contained classroom was selected for O.O. since he needs “a more comprehensive specialized program that canno t be provided in general education class with in-class support or a pull out replacement. I t also affords [O.O.] to be with his no n-disabled peers in the regular school activities, where appropriate. ” O.O. w ill receive “more specialized inst ruction, more intensive modifications and more supplemen tal aids and services that cannot be provided in the general education setting. ” Resp. Exh. B at 12. Petitioners acknowledged that the two IEPs are similar, with the 2023–2024 IEP havin g been slightly up dated. LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION The questi ons presented here, whether petitioners are entitled to a stay -put placement and to emerge nt relief, both requ ire an analysis of whether the District has proposed a change of placement . Petitioners ar gue t hat promotion to kindergarten constitutes a change in pla cement while r espondent conten ds that a grade le vel promotion does not constitute a change in placement. “Stay-Put” The Individuals with Disabi lities Education Act ( IDEA) contains procedural safeguards intended to guarantee that parents are entitled to an “impartial due process

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 07853-23 6 hearing ” before a local educational agency if they object to the decisions of the local school regarding the education of their disabled ch ild. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2). The Act provides, “[D]uring the pendency o f any proceedings conducted pursuant to this section, unless the State or local educational agency and the parents or guardian otherwise agree, the child shall remain in the then current educational placement of such child” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j). The stay-put prov ision functions as an “automatic preliminary injunction ,” which dispen ses with the need for a court to weigh the factors for emergent relief such as irreparable harm and likelihood of success on the merits and removes the court’s discretion regar ding wheth er an injunction should be ordered . “Once a court ascertains the stu dent’s current educational placement, the movants are entitled to an order without satisfaction of the u sual prerequisites to injunctive relief.” Drinker v. Colonial School Dist rict, 78 F.3d 859, 864 (3d Cir. 1996). The IDEA regulation and New Jersey Administrative Code reinforce that a child remain in his or her current e ducational placement “during the pendency of any administrative or judicial proceeding regarding a due process complaint.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a). N.J.A.C. 6A:14 -2.7(u) provides, “Pending the outcome of a due process hearing, including an expedited due p rocess hearing, or any admini strative or judicial proceeding, no change shall be made to the student’s classification, program or placement unless both parties agree, or emergency relief as part of a request for a due process hearing is granted by the Offi ce of Administrative Law acco rding to (m) above or as provided in 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)4 as amended and s upplement ed.”4 See also N.J.A.C. 6A:14 -2.6(d)10 (concerning chan ges in placement pending mediation). As such, a “stay-put” placement applies when a special education student ’s placement is challenged. Emergent Relief Emergent relief shall only be re quested for the following issues : 4 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k) addresses two exceptions: when the parents agree with the change of placement, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j), or pursuant to the d isciplinary provisions of I DEA. See R.S. & M.S. v. Somerville Bd. of Educ. , No. 10 -4215 (MLC), 2011 U.S. Dist. L EXIS 748, *32 -33 (D.N.J. Jan. 4, 2011). N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.7(m) addresses disputes concerning whether a student’s behavior was a manifestation of his disability or decisio ns regarding placement pursuant to U.S.C. § 1415(k).

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 07853-23 7 i. Issues involving a break in the delivery of services; ii. Issues involving disciplinary action, including manifestation d eterminations and determinati ons of interim alternate educational settings ; iii. Issues concerning placemen t pending the outcome of due process proceedings; and iv. Issues involving graduation or participation in graduation ceremonies. [N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.7(r)1.] As noted, only the third category, change in placement, is at issue here. Neither party has ci ted, nor have I found, a case that expressly addresses whether grade promotion or retention constitutes a change in placement. In De Leon v. Susquehanna Community School Dist. , 747 F.2d 149 (3d Cir. 1984) , the Third Circuit addressed whether a change in the method in which a student’s transpo rtation was provided constituted a change in placement such that the “stay-put” provision applied pending a due proce ss proceeding.5 The “touchstone in interpreting section 1415 has to be whether the decision is likely to affect in some significant way the child ’s learning experience.” Ibid. To conduct its analysis , the court considered the affidavits submitted by the parent and a doctor. It found that neither indicated that the proposed changes to the student ’s transpo rtation w ould have a “substantial, detrimental impact” on his education . Id. at 154. Rather, th e par ent expressed conclusory concerns and the doctor did n ot suggest that the proposed change would make a diffe rence to the student’s education . The court thus concl uded that the transportation change did not amount to a change in educational placement within the mea ning o f EHA ’s “stay-put” provision. 5 The child was eli gible for special education pursuant to the Education of All H andicapped Children Act (EHA). The stay-put provis ion was found at 20 U.S.C.S. 1415 (e)(3). Although this case appl ied a different statute, “EHA jurisprudence concerning appropriate remedies ha s . . . been incorporate d wholesale into IDEA jurisprudence. ” Y.B. on behalf of S. B.; F.B. on behalf of S.B. v. Howell Township Board of Educ ation, 4 F.4 th 196, 201 n.4 (3d Cir. 2021)(quoting D.F. v. Collingswood Borough Bd. of Educ., 694 F.3d 488, 496 n.8 (3d Cir. 2012)).

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 07853-23 8 In Lun ceford v. District of Columbia Bd. of Education , 745 F.2d 1577, 1582 (D.C. Cir. 1984), a student was eligible for special education and resided in a hospital that served children with chronic illnesses or other conditions that required residential c are. He had multiple disabilities, profound mental reta rdation and “crippling conditions. ” Id. at 1579. The stud ent received therapy and treatment for seizures and feeding difficulties. A determination was made th at he would be discharged from resident ial care and placed in an o utpatient program. A ppellee sought a preliminary injunction staying the change in placement. The circuit court held that he was required to “identify, at a minimum, a fundamental change in, or elimination of a basic element of the education program in order for the change to qualify as a change in educational placement.” Id. at 1582 . The court found that appellee had not met this standard because he contended only that the outpatient program could not administer the feeding program as well as the residenti al program. This alone was insuffici ent to constitute a change in education pla cement requiring that the student remain at the residential placement, or a comparable placement, until the underlying hearing is completed. See also Weil v. Board of Elementa ry and Secondary Educati on, 931 F.2d 1069, 1072 (5th Cir. 1991) cert. denied, 502 U.S. 910 (1992)(no change in ed ucation al placement when the prior and new program s provided “substantially similar classes , and both implemented the same IEP”); E.Z. on behal f of J.M. v. Bayonne Board of Education , OAL DKT. No. EDS 03419-026 (student was transferred from one school to anoth er and the student ’s IEP was “essentiall y . . . carried for ward intact [.]” As there was “no competent proof o f any me aningful discrepancies between the two programs [,]” there had been no change in education al placement that would trigger the “stay-put” provision). Here, petitioners contend that there will be a change of placement because there are “enormous ‘meaning ful discrepancies ’ between the curricul ums and educational programs” of the P re-K4 and kindergarten classrooms. Pet Brf. at 2. They believe their son has not fully developed in the areas of social and emotional development and practical and life skills and they want him to maximize his capacity in these areas before 6 Administrative decisions are not precedential. They are referenced here because they prov ide relevant guidance.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 07853-23 9 entering kinderga rten.7 They assert tha t Pr e-K4 fo cuses on these areas while kindergarten does not. They also asser t that the manner in which the kind ergarten class is structured will make it difficult for O.O. to further develop these skills. In support of these assertions, they rely almost exclusively upon E.H. ’s assessment of the programs. While she holds a master’s degree in special education and has taught preschool and kinderg arten fo r almost seven years, she addressed only kindergarten and preschool classes in general, highlighting the skills that she asserts are required for kindergarten that O.O. has not yet mastered. She did not discuss the specific program that is propose d for O. O., which is a self -contained special education kindergarten classroom that will have no more than six s tudents, or his IEP . Also, she did not provide specific evidence supporting the assertion that the program offered to O.O. will be fundamentall y different. Moreover, while petitioners relied upon the experts ’ reports that highlighted the areas in which O .O. is deficient and s cored poorly on tests, none of the experts opined that O.O. needed to rep eat Pre -K4. Furthermore, petitioners acknowledge d that t he 2023–2024 IEP that places O.O. in a kindergarten classroom specifically addresses social , emotional and behavioral goals and o bjectives. It also includes motor skills and occupational therapy goals and objectives. Petitioners have expressed with obvious sincerity their concern for their child and their belief that he requires additional time in preschool before he can be able to access his kindergarten education. However, they did not cite specific aspects of the kindergarten curriculum , program or structure that would cause O.O. to be denied the fundamen tal aspects of his education upon which they fo cus. This case is akin to De Leon v. Susquehanna Community School Dist. , 747 F.2d 149 , in that there is an absence of evidence that promotion to kindergarten will have a “substantial, detrimental impact” on O.O.’s education because the evidence provided by petitioners is conclusory and not specific to the District’s specific kindergarten class. Moreover, the experts who documented O.O. ’s needs did not recommend that he be r etained in preschool. For these reasons, I am con strained to CONCLUDE that promotion to kindergarten does not, on its own, constitute a change in placeme nt. Accordingly, pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 7 Underlying thes e as sertions is petition ers’ pos ition that O.O. was denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE) because the Pre -K4 class was not a tr ue inclusion class given the absence of a full- time special education teache r. Petitioners believe that this has caused O.O. to not devel op in these areas as well as he could have.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 07853-23 10 1415(j) and N.J.A.C. 6A:14 -2.7(u), a “stay-put” placement is not warranted. For the same reasons, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.7(r)1, emergent relief is not warranted. Had a change of placement been at issue, the emergent petition would be reviewed in accordance with N.J.A.C. 1:6A-12.1(e) and N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.7(s)(1), which provide that emergent relief may be granted if the judge determines from the proofs that the following conditions have been established : i. The petitioner will suffer irreparable ha rm if th e requested relief is not granted; ii. The legal right underlying the petitioner ’s claim is settled; iii. The petitioner has a likelihood of prevailing on the merits of the underlying claim; and iv. When the equities and interest s of the parties are balanced, the petitioner will suffer g reater harm than the respondent will suffer if the requested relief is not granted. See also Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126 (1982), codified at N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6(b). The petitioner bears the burden of satisfying all fou r prongs of this test. Crowe, 90 N .J. at 132 -34. Harm is irreparable when there can be no adequate after -the-fact remedy in law or in equity; or where monet ary damages cannot adequately restore a lost experience. Crowe, 90 N.J. at 132-133; Nabel v Board of Education of Hazle t, EDU 8026-09, Final Decision on Application for Emergent Relief (June 24, 2009). As discussed abov e, the re is insufficient evidence tending to show that th e special education and related services to be provided to O.O. in the kinde rgarten classroom will be inappropriate and that O.O . will be unable to access his edu cation. Petitioners offered broad statements about kindergarten and pre school classrooms but did not address the specific class provided for in the 202 3–2024 IEP. Moreover, the experts upon whom they re lied did not recommend that O.O . repeat preschool. For these reasons, I am const rained to find that petitioners have not de monstrated that O.O. will

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 07853-23 11 suffer irreparable harm. Further, the IDEA contemplates compensatory damages when there has been a finding that a FAPE was not provided. Petitioners argue that their legal right is settled because they a re entitled to a “stay-put” placement. They have not offered additional argument concerning their settled legal right. Without more, they have not demonstrated that there is a well-settled right to remain in preschool. With respect to the likelihood o f success on the merits, petitioners assert that, given the likelihood that O.O. will never achieve g rade level performance, it is “imperative” that the school “focus[es] on maximizing his social and em otional development as chil dren with Down Syndrome can thrive in t his are a with the right support.” Pet. Brf. at 3. Also, the evaluation reports show that he has no t “maxed out in Pre-K4 on his ability to socially and emotionally develop and to develop the necessary practical and life skills to succeed in the school en vironment.” Ibid. Rather, he scored below average or low on the evaluations . Another year in Pre -K4 “may help him ” develop thes e skills further. Id. at 4.8 This is speculative. Moreover, the IDEA “requires an educational program reasonably c alculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988, 1001 (2017). The “educational program ‘must be reasonably calculated to enable the child to receiv e meanin gful education al benefits in light of the student’s intellectual potential and individual abilities.’” Dunn v. Downingtown Area Sch. Dist., 904 F.3d 248, 254 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting Ridley Sch. Dist. v. M.R., 680 F.3d 260, 269 (3d Cir. 2012)). In addressing the quantu m of educational benefit required, the Third Circuit has made clear that more than a “trivial” or “de minimis” educational benefit is required, and the appropriate standard is whether the IEP provides for “significant learning” and co nfers “m eaningful bene fit” to the child. T.R. v. Kingwood Twp. Bd. of Educ., 205 F.3d 572, 577 (3d Cir. 2000); Ridgewood Bd. of Educ. v. N.E., 172 F.3d 238, 247 (3d Cir. 1999); Polk v. Cent. Susquehanna Intermediate Unit 16 , 853 F.2d 171, 180, 182–84 (3d Cir. 1988), cert. den. sub. nom., Cent. Columbia Sch. Dist. v. Polk , 488 U.S. 8 Petitioners also contend that the prior year’s IEP (2022–2023) was not properly implemented and that this denied O.O . “the benefits of a true i nclusion classroom. ” Ibid. However, they acknowledged during oral argument that the IEP , which was agreed upon, was implemented in accord with its terms.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 07853-23 12 1030 (1989). The IDEA thus does not require that the District maximize O.O.’s potential or provide him the best education possible. Carlisle Area Sch. v. Scott P. , 62 F.3d 520, 533–34 ( 3d Cir. 1995). The District will have satisfied the requi rements of law by providing him with perso nalized instruction and sufficient support services “as are necessary to permit [him] ‘to benefit’ from the instruction.” G.B. v. Bridgewater-Raritan Reg’l Bd. of Educ. , 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15671, *5 (D.N.J. Fe b. 27, 2009) 9 (citing Hendrick Huds on Cent. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 189 (1982)). “And while parents often play a role in the development of an IEP, they do not have a right to compel a school district to provide a specific program or employ specific methodology in ed ucating a student.” E.E. v. Ridgefield Park Bd. of Educ. , 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102249, *8 (June 11, 2020)(quoting Ridley Sch. Dist ., 680 F.3d at 2 69, 278). School dist ricts’ determinations are subject to deference. The “IDEA does not ‘invite the courts to substitute their own notions of sound educational policy for those of the school authorities which they review.’” Damarcus S. v. District of Co lumbia, 190 F.Supp. 3d 35, 56 (D.C. Cir. 2016), (quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206); see also E.E. v. Ridgefield Park Bd. of Educ. , 856 Fed. Appx. 367, *7 (3d Cir. 2021). See also R.L. and D.L. on behalf of E.L . v. Holmdel Township Board of Education , OAL D KT. No. EDS 08811-09 (“promotion and retention are matters within the Board ’s discretion and the courts give substantial deference to school boards on these issues ”). Without substantive evidence s upportin g the contention that the specific kindergarten cl ass offered by the Dis trict will not offer O.O. personalized instruction and sufficient support services as are nece ssary to permit him to benefit in a mean ingful way from the instruction , I am unable to con clude that petitioners have demonstrated a likeli hood of success on the merits. Having found that petitioners failed to satisfy three of the four criteria required for emergent relief, I CONCLUDE that they have failed to meet the ir burden for an order directing the emergent relief they seek. Accordingly, I ORDER that the request for emergent relief be DENIED. 9 Unpublished decisions are not precedential. They are cited here because they provide relevant guidance.

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 07853-23 13 This decision on appl ication for emergency relief sh all remain in effect until the issuance of the decision on the merits in this matter. The hearing having been requested by the parents, this matter is hereby returned to the Department of Education for a local resolution ses sion, pursuant to 20 U .S.C.A. § 1415 (f)(1)(B)(i). If the pa rent or adult student feels that this decision is not being fully implemented with respect to program or services, this concern shou ld be communicated in writing to the Director, Office of Special Education Programs. August 29, 2023 DATE JUDITH LIEBERMAN , ALJ Date Received at Agency Date Mailed to Parties: JL/jm/mph

OAL DKT. NO. EDS 07853-23 14 APPENDIX WITNESSE S For petitioner E.H. For respondent None EXHIBITS For petitioner P-A Psychological evaluation report, April 12, 2023 P-B Speech-languag e evaluation report, April 6, 2023 P-C Occupational therapy reevaluation, April 17, 2023 Certification of E.H. For respondent R-A IEP, April 28, 2023 – June 30, 2023 R-B IEP, September 1, 2023 – Jun e 30, 2024 R-C E.H. letter R-D O’Brien letter R-E July 18, 2023, progress report Certification of Jacqueline O ’Brien