I. Introduction

This proceeding arises under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1482) and Article 89 of the New York State Education Law.  Petitioners (the parents) appeal from a decision of an impartial hearing officer (IHO) which denied their request that respondent (the district) reimburse them for their son's tuition at the Quad Preparatory School (Quad Prep) for the 2024-25 school year.  The appeal must be sustained.

II. Overview—Administrative Procedures

When a student in New York is eligible for special education services, the IDEA calls for the creation of an individualized education program (IEP), which is delegated to a local Committee on Special Education (CSE) that includes, but is not limited to, parents, teachers, a school psychologist, and a district representative (Educ. Law § 4402; see 20 U.S.C. § 1414[d][1][A]-[B]; 34 CFR 300.320, 300.321; 8 NYCRR 200.3, 200.4[d][2]).  If disputes occur between parents and school districts, incorporated among the procedural protections is the opportunity to engage in mediation, present State complaints, and initiate an impartial due process hearing (20 U.S.C. §§ 1221e-3, 1415[e]-[f]; Educ. Law § 4404[1]; 34 CFR 300.151-300.152, 300.506, 300.511; 8 NYCRR 200.5[h]-[l]).

New York State has implemented a two-tiered system of administrative review to address disputed matters between parents and school districts regarding "any matter relating to the identification, evaluation or educational placement of a student with a disability, or a student suspected of having a disability, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such student" (8 NYCRR 200.5[i][1]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1415[b][6]-[7]; 34 CFR 300.503[a][1]-[2], 300.507[a][1]).  First, after an opportunity to engage in a resolution process, the parties appear at an impartial hearing conducted at the local level before an IHO (Educ. Law § 4404[1][a]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j]).  An IHO typically conducts a trial-type hearing regarding the matters in dispute in which the parties have the right to be accompanied and advised by counsel and certain other individuals with special knowledge or training; present evidence and confront, cross-examine, and compel the attendance of witnesses; prohibit the introduction of any evidence at the hearing that has not been disclosed five business days before the hearing; and obtain a verbatim record of the proceeding (20 U.S.C. § 1415[f][2][A], [h][1]-[3]; 34 CFR 300.512[a][1]-[4]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][3][v], [vii], [xii]).  The IHO must render and transmit a final written decision in the matter to the parties not later than 45 days after the expiration period or adjusted period for the resolution process (34 CFR 300.510[b][2], [c], 300.515[a]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][5]).  A party may seek a specific extension of time of the 45-day timeline, which the IHO may grant in accordance with State and federal regulations (34 CFR 300.515[c]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][5]).  The decision of the IHO is binding upon both parties unless appealed (Educ. Law § 4404[1]).

A party aggrieved by the decision of an IHO may subsequently appeal to a State Review Officer (SRO) (Educ. Law § 4404[2]; see 20 U.S.C. § 1415[g][1]; 34 CFR 300.514[b][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[k]).  The appealing party or parties must identify the findings, conclusions, and orders of the IHO with which they disagree and indicate the relief that they would like the SRO to grant (8 NYCRR 279.4).  The opposing party is entitled to respond to an appeal or cross-appeal in an answer (8 NYCRR 279.5).  The SRO conducts an impartial review of the IHO's findings, conclusions, and decision and is required to examine the entire hearing record; ensure that the procedures at the hearing were consistent with the requirements of due process; seek additional evidence if necessary; and render an independent decision based upon the hearing record (34 CFR 300.514[b][2]; 8 NYCRR 279.12[a]).  The SRO must ensure that a final decision is reached in the review and that a copy of the decision is mailed to each of the parties not later than 30 days after the receipt of a request for a review, except that a party may seek a specific extension of time of the 30-day timeline, which the SRO may grant in accordance with State and federal regulations (34 CFR 300.515[b], [c]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[k][2]).

III. Facts and Procedural History

Due to the nature of the proceedings a full recitation of the student's educational history is unnecessary.  Briefly, the student has received a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (Parent Ex. B at pp. 1, 10).  

On May 23, 2024 the parents signed an enrollment contract for the student to attend Quad Prep from September 5, 2024 through June 17, 2025 (first grade) (see Parent Ex. E).[1]  The contract indicated that the parents could withdraw the student's enrollment to place him in a public school prior to September 5, 2024, and would be relieved of their obligation to make future payments (id. at p. 3).  The contract indicated should that happen, the parents would receive a refund less the initial deposit of $10,000 (id.).

A. Due Process Complaint Notice

In a due process complaint notice dated August 15, 2024, the parents alleged that the district denied the student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) (see Parent Ex. A).[2]  The parents asserted that the district had failed to convene a CSE meeting for the 2024-25 school year and that to the extent the student's September 2023 IEP could be "misconstrued" to apply to the 2024-25 school year, that IEP was inappropriate (id. at p. 1).[3]  The parent indicated that "in the absence of a FAPE or other cure of the denial of IDEA rights before school resumes in September the Parents will –on timely notice– be forced to enroll the Student at the Quad Prep[] (which is appropriate) and hold the [district] liable for his tuition there" (id. at p. 3).  The parents requested tuition reimbursement and/or prospective funding and indicated that the parental placement was Quad Prep (id.).

B. Impartial Hearing Officer Decision

An impartial hearing convened before an IHO with the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) on October 30, 2024, and concluded on December 16, 2024, after three days of proceedings (Tr. pp. 1-30).[4]  In a decision dated January 6, 2025, the IHO noted that the district did not proffer exhibits, did not make an opening statement, waived cross-examination, and did not offer a closing statement, therefore, the district failed to meet its burden that it offered a FAPE to the student for the 2024-25 school year (IHO Decision at pp. 2-3, 6).  Turning to the appropriateness of Quad Prep, the IHO determined that the parents had met their burden to prove that the private program offered an educational program which met the student's needs (id. at pp. 3-5).

However, the IHO found that equitable considerations did not fully favor the parents (IHO Decision at pp. 5-6).  The IHO determined that the parents did not provide the necessary 10-day notice to the district of their intent to unilaterally place the student at public expense (id. at p. 5).  The IHO noted that the "joint" 10-day notice and due process complaint was dated more than 10 days prior to the start of the 2024-25 school year; however, the IHO held that the document "did not put [the] [d]istrict on notice" of the parents' intent to seek relief if the district did not address the parents' concerns (id.).  Instead, the IHO concluded that "the document was the request for relief" (id. [emphasis in original]).  Moreover, the IHO held that the parents' statement that they were forced to enroll the student at Quad Prep was "somewhat disingenuous" because the parents had enrolled the student at Quad Prep nearly three months earlier (id.).  The IHO acknowledged that Quad Prep contract would have allowed the parents to withdraw the student prior to September 5, 2024, and return any payments, but that the school still would have retained $10,000 (id.).

Additionally, the IHO noted that during the 2024-25 school year the student had not regularly attended Quad Prep according to the attendance report (IHO Decision at p. 5).  The IHO specifically noted that the report indicated that the student had zero excused absences, but listed the student as absent on 25 occasions between September 5, 2024 and November 19, 2024 (id.).  The IHO held that these absences "constituted approximately 50 [percent] of the days in which school was in session" (id.).  The IHO indicated that he found this "pattern to be troubling" and found that full funding by the district, when a student did not attend half of the time, was inequitable (id.).  The IHO concluded that, even if the student maintained perfect attendance for the remainder of the school year, he would have missed nearly 14 percent of the 2024-25 school year (id. at pp. 5-6).[5]  Based on the lack of attendance and lack of 10-day notice, the IHO reduced the award by 20 percent (id. at p. 6).  The IHO ordered the district to reimburse the tuition payments for the 2024-25 school year in the amount of $83,424.00 within 45 days of the submission of a signed, notarized statement listing the tuition payments made by the parents to Quad Prep for the 2024-25 school year (id.).

IV. Appeal for State-Level Review

The parents appeal.  The parents contend that the IHO erred by reducing the requested tuition reimbursement amount by 20 percent.  The parents allege that the IHO raised the issues of equitable considerations sua sponte and without notice.  The parents assert that the district never contested the validity of the 10-day notice/due process complaint, nor did the district take issue with the notice or request for relief.  According to the parents, as the district did not raise these issues, the IHO was required to provide the parents with notice of his intention to raise these issues but failed to do so.  The parents argue that this is a basic issue of due process and fairness.  Based on this reason alone, the parents contend that the IHO decision should be reversed, and full tuition reimbursement granted.  Moreover, the parents assert that the IHO is incorrect, and the combined 10-day notice/due process complaint was entirely proper.  The notice provided the district with a statement of the parent's rejection, their concerns, and their intent to enroll the student at a private placement.  Further, the notice was timely as it was filed on August 20, 2024, more than ten days from the start of the 2024-25 school year.

The parents allege that the IHO erred in finding that the parents' nonrefundable deposit was disingenuous, and it was not a basis for denying full tuition reimbursement.  The parents note that the student stayed in the district placement through the end of the 2023-24 school year.  Next, the parents contend that the IHO erred in using the student's attendance to reduce reimbursement.  The parents argue that this was not a legal basis for a reduction, and they should not be penalized for the student's school refusal, which is common with students like their child.  Moreover, the parents argue that the attendance record stated that the student had zero excused absences, which is the information that the IHO should have considered.[6]  The parents request that the IHO's decision be modified to grant their request for full tuition reimbursement of Quad Prep for the 2024-25 school year.[7]

In an answer, the district contends that the parents had the attendance record admitted into the hearing record and it demonstrated multiple absences.  The district alleges that a clear reading of the document indicated that there was a distinction between excused and unexcused absences.  According to the district, the parents are now impermissibly attempting to present more information than what was available to the IHO, which effectively deprives the district of its right to confront.  The district contends that the parents should have known this information could be central to the issues in dispute and should not, now after the hearing, be allowed to expand the hearing record.

The district also asserts that equitable considerations do not favor the parents' request for relief.  The district argues that the parents had already signed the enrollment contract with Quad Prep when they sent the 10-day notice, and that contract did not relieve the parents of their obligations without conditions.  The district alleges that the 10-day notice/due process complaint notice was sent, not to allow the district to address deficiencies, but to fulfill a requirement to secure tuition funding.  Regarding the parents' assertion that the IHO raised these issues sua sponte, the district contends that it did not waive or concede on the issue of equities and the IHO was required to do a full analysis.

The parents reply to the district's answer.  The parents again assert that the IHO erred by reducing the requested award.

V. Applicable Standards

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 Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230, 239 [2009]; Bd. of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206-07 [1982]).

A FAPE is offered to a student when (a) the board of education 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; T.M. v. Cornwall Cent. Sch. Dist., 752 F.3d 145, 151, 160 [2d Cir. 2014]; R.E. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 694 F.3d 167, 189-90 [2d Cir. 2012]; M.H. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 685 F.3d 217, 245 [2d Cir. 2012]; Cerra v. Pawling Cent. Sch. Dist., 427 F.3d 186, 192 [2d Cir. 2005]).  "'[A]dequate compliance with the procedures prescribed would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP'" (Walczak v. Fla. Union Free Sch. Dist., 142 F.3d 119, 129 [2d Cir. 1998], quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 206; see T.P. v. Mamaroneck Union Free Sch. Dist., 554 F.3d 247, 253 [2d Cir. 2009]).  The Supreme Court has indicated that "[t]he IEP must aim to enable the child to make progress.  After all, the essential function of an IEP is to set out a plan for pursuing academic and functional advancement" (Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S. 386, 399 [2017]).  While the Second Circuit has emphasized that school districts must comply with the checklist of procedures for developing a student's IEP and indicated that "[m]ultiple procedural violations may cumulatively result in the denial of a FAPE even if the violations considered individually do not" (R.E., 694 F.3d at 190-91), the Court has also explained that not all procedural errors render an IEP legally inadequate under the IDEA (M.H., 685 F.3d at 245; A.C. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Chappaqua Cent. Sch. Dist., 553 F.3d 165, 172 [2d Cir. 2009]; Grim v. Rhinebeck Cent. Sch. Dist., 346 F.3d 377, 381 [2d Cir. 2003]).  Under the IDEA, if procedural violations are 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 CFR 300.513[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][4][ii]; Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 525-26 [2007]; R.E., 694 F.3d at 190; M.H., 685 F.3d at 245).

The IDEA directs that, in general, an IHO'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).  However, the "IDEA does not itself articulate any specific level of educational benefits that must be provided through an IEP" (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 130; see Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189).  "The adequacy of a given IEP turns on the unique circumstances of the child for whom it was created" (Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 404).  The statute ensures an "appropriate" education, "not one that provides everything that might be thought desirable by loving parents" (Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132, quoting Tucker v. Bay Shore Union Free Sch. Dist., 873 F.2d 563, 567 [2d Cir. 1989] [citations omitted]; see Grim, 346 F.3d at 379).  Additionally, school districts are not required to "maximize" the potential of students with disabilities (Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189, 199; Grim, 346 F.3d at 379; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132).  Nonetheless, a school district 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, 142 F.3d at 130 [citations omitted]; see T.P., 554 F.3d at 254; P. v. Newington Bd. of Educ., 546 F.3d 111, 118-19 [2d Cir. 2008]).  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 Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 403 [holding that the IDEA "requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances"]; Rowley, 458 U.S. at 192).  The student's recommended program must also be provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE) (20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][5][A]; 34 CFR 300.114[a][2][i], 300.116[a][2]; 8 NYCRR 200.1[cc], 200.6[a][1]; see Newington, 546 F.3d at 114; Gagliardo v. Arlington Cent. Sch. Dist., 489 F.3d 105, 108 [2d Cir. 2007]; Walczak, 142 F.3d at 132).

An appropriate educational program begins with an IEP that includes a statement of the student's present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][1]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][i]), establishes annual goals designed to meet the student's needs resulting from the student's disability and enable him or her to make progress in the general education curriculum (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][2][i], [2][i][A]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][iii]), and provides for the use of appropriate special education services (see 34 CFR 300.320[a][4]; 8 NYCRR 200.4[d][2][v]).[8]

A board of education may be required to reimburse parents for their expenditures for private educational services obtained for a student by his or her parents, if the services offered by the board of education were inadequate or inappropriate, the services selected by the parents were appropriate, and equitable considerations support the parents' claim (Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 [1993]; Sch. Comm. of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-70 [1985]; R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85; T.P., 554 F.3d at 252).  In Burlington, the Court found that Congress intended retroactive reimbursement to parents by school officials as an available remedy in a proper case under the IDEA (471 U.S. at 370-71; see Gagliardo, 489 F.3d at 111; Cerra, 427 F.3d at 192).  "Reimbursement merely requires [a district] to belatedly pay expenses that it should have paid all along and would have borne in the first instance" had it offered the student a FAPE (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 370-71; see 20 U.S.C. § 1412[a][10][C][ii]; 34 CFR 300.148).

The burden of proof is on the school district during an impartial hearing, except that a parent seeking tuition reimbursement for a unilateral placement has the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of such placement (Educ. Law § 4404[1][c]; see R.E., 694 F.3d at 184-85).

VI. Discussion

A. Preliminary Matters

Neither party has appealed from the IHO's finding that the district did not offer the student a FAPE for the 2024-25 school year and that Quad Prep was an appropriate unilateral placement (IHO Decision at pp. 3-5).  Accordingly, these findings have become final and binding on the parties and will not be reviewed on appeal (34 CFR 300.514[a]; 8 NYCRR 200.5[j][5][v]; see M.Z. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 2013 WL 1314992, at *6-*7, *10 [S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2013]).  As such, the only issue on appeal is whether equitable considerations favor the parents' request for full tuition reimbursement for the student's placement at Quad Prep for the 2024-25 school year.

B. Equitable Considerations

The final criterion for a reimbursement award is that the parents' claim must be supported by equitable considerations.  Equitable considerations are relevant to fashioning relief under the IDEA (Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374; R.E., 694 F.3d at 185, 194; M.C. v. Voluntown Bd. of Educ., 226 F.3d 60, 68 [2d Cir. 2000]; see Carter, 510 U.S. at 16 ["Courts fashioning discretionary equitable relief under IDEA must consider all relevant factors, including the appropriate and reasonable level of reimbursement that should be required.  Total reimbursement will not be appropriate if the court determines that the cost of the private education was unreasonable"]; L.K. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 674 Fed. App'x 100, 101 [2d Cir. Jan. 19, 2017]).  With respect to equitable considerations, the IDEA also provides that reimbursement may be reduced or denied when parents fail to raise 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]; E.M. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 758 F.3d 442, 461 [2d Cir. 2014] [identifying factors relevant to equitable considerations, including whether the withdrawal of the student from public school was justified, whether the parent provided adequate notice, whether the amount of the private school tuition was reasonable, possible scholarships or other financial aid from the private school, and any fraud or collusion on the part of the parent or private school]; C.L., 744 F.3d at 840 [noting that "[i]mportant to the equitable consideration is whether the parents obstructed or were uncooperative in the school district's efforts to meet its obligations under the IDEA"]).

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 their removal of 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 a [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 provision "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]).  Although a reduction in reimbursement is discretionary, courts have upheld the denial of reimbursement in cases where it was shown that parents failed to comply with this statutory provision (Greenland, 358 F.3d at 160; Ms. M. v. Portland Sch. Comm., 360 F.3d 267 [1st Cir. 2004]; Berger v. Medina City Sch. Dist., 348 F.3d 513, 523-24 [6th Cir. 2003]; Rafferty v. Cranston Public Sch. Comm., 315 F.3d 21, 27 [1st Cir. 2002]); see Frank G., 459 F.3d at 376; Voluntown, 226 F.3d at 68).

Here, the IHO reduced the award by 20 percent, finding that equitable considerations did not favor the parents due to the combined due process complaint/10-day notice and issues with the student's attendance.

Initially, I note that the district did not raise any equitable concerns during the impartial hearing.  Specifically, the district's attorney was asked if there were any objections to the parents' exhibits, did not cross examine the parents' witnesses, and waived opening and closing statements (Tr. pp. 24-26).

Regarding the combined 10-day notice and due process complaint notice, there is nothing that prevents parents from filing the two notices together.  The combined due process complaint notice/10-day notice was dated August 15, 2024 (see Parent Ex. A).  The document was sent to the district on August 20, 2024, which is not disputed by the district (see id. at p. 4; see also Answer  ¶ 11).  In that document, the parents stated, "in the absence of a FAPE or other cure of the denial of IDEA rights before school resumes in September, the Parents will –on timely notice– be forced to enroll the Student at the Quad Preparatory School (which is appropriate) and hold the [district] liable for his tuition there" (Parent Ex. A at p. 3).  The parents listed a request for relief of "[t]uition reimbursement and/or prospective funding, pendency, award and implementation of specialized transportation, reimbursement for private transportation costs, related services, compensatory services, attorney fees, reimbursement for the cost of independent testing and evaluations, and any additional relief the IHO may deem just and equitable" (id.).  Lastly, the parents listed Quad Prep as the parental placement (id.).

The document properly put the district on notice as it states the parents would place the student at Quad Prep, should the district fail to provide a FAPE to the student (Parent Ex. A at p. 3).  The document indicated that at the time the letter was sent, the district had not convened a CSE for the student and the hearing record does not establish that a CSE was convened prior to the start of the 10-month 2024-25 school year.[9]  As the district never convened a CSE, it is unclear how they would have cured any of the parents' listed complaints.

A review of the document does not support the IHO's conclusion that it did not put the district on notice of the intent to seek relief.  Moreover, the IHO's finding that the timing and terms of the unilateral placement contract were "disingenuous" is not supported by the hearing record or case law.  The parents were able to take on the risk of such a large deposit without it being presumed that they would not have seriously considered the recommendations of the CSE.  The timing of when they signed the contract also does not prevent the parents from continuing to seek an appropriate placement through the CSE.  There is no evidence in the hearing record to suggest that had the CSE convened prior to the start of the 10-month 2024-25 school year, the parents would not have accepted the district's program, if they believed the recommendations were appropriate for the student.  For the IHO to have found otherwise, was contrary to the evidence in the hearing record and speculative. In any event, it is well-settled that even if the parents had no intention of placing the student in the district's recommended program, it would not be a basis to deny their request for tuition reimbursement (see E.M., 758 F.3d at 461; C.L., 744 F.3d at 840 [holding that the parents' "pursuit of a private placement was not a basis for denying their [request for] tuition reimbursement, even assuming . . . that the parents never intended to keep [the student] in public school"]). 

Lastly, turning to the issue of the student's attendance, as noted above, the district did not raise this issue at the impartial hearing, it was only raised by the IHO in the decision.  If the IHO had provided the parents with notice that he intended to address the issue, they would have had an opportunity to explain the student's attendance during the impartial hearing.  Additionally, it is unclear whether the student's attendance was a clerical error as now asserted by the parents or related to the student's disability.  These facts were not fleshed out during the impartial hearing because the parents were not aware that it was at issue.  Moreover, the parents demonstrated that they cooperated with the district and did not impede the CSE process, and the district did not allege that the parents had acted in bad faith or were uncooperative with scheduling a CSE meeting.  Therefore, under the circumstances presented here, I find that the IHO erred in reducing the award to the parents, and that equitable considerations weigh in favor of their request for full tuition reimbursement.

VII. Conclusion

Having found that the IHO erred in reducing the parents' award of full tuition reimbursement based on equitable considerations, the necessary inquiry is at an end.

THE APPEAL IS SUSTAINED.

IT IS ORDERED that the IHO decision, dated January 6, 2025, is modified by reversing those portions of the decision which denied the parents' request for full reimbursement of the student's tuition costs at Quad Prep for the 2024-25 school year based on equitable considerations;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parents are granted their request for full tuition reimbursement for the cost of the student's tuition at Quad Prep for the 10-month 2024-25 school year.