Source: https://www.specialedlaw.com/database/re-north-reading-public-schools-bsea-05-2109/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 10:07:13+00:00

Document:
This decision is issued pursuant to 20 USC Sec. 1400 et seq. (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), 29 USC Sec. 794 (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act); MGL c. 71B (the Massachusetts special education statute; “Chapter 766”); MGL c. 30A (the Massachusetts Administrative Procedures Act), and the regulations promulgated under these statutes.
On October 27, 2004, Parents filed a hearing request with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) alleging that the North Reading Public Schools (North Reading or School) had denied Student a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) from June 2003 to March 2004 by failing to evaluate Student and offer him an IEP; that the School’s IEP for March 2004 – March 2005 was not designed to provide Student with FAPE, and that Parents’ unilateral placement of Student at the Landmark School was appropriate. Parents requested an order directing North Reading to reimburse Parents for the costs of the unilateral placement from January 2004 forward, as well as compensatory services and cost of litigation including attorney fees.
On November 15, 2004 the School filed an assented-to request to postpone the automatic hearing date of November 17, 2004. The request was granted, and at Parents’ request, a pre-hearing conference was held on December 9, 2004. Pursuant to the pre-hearing conference, the Hearing Officer issued a Notice of Hearing for February 15, 17, and 18, 2004. Additionally, the parties were ordered to file on December 21 and 24, respectively, memoranda and stipulations of fact relative to Motions for Partial Summary Judgment on the issue of reimbursement for 2003-04.
By letter dated December 22, 2004, Parents’ counsel stated that “[t]he parents have elected not to pursue reimbursement for the 2003-2004 school year (except as a possible remedy for any potential child find violation).” This waiver of the reimbursement claim, which eliminated the need for partial summary judgment motions, was affirmed by an Order dated December 23, 2004.
A hearing on the merits was held as previously scheduled on February 15, 17, and 18 and March 14, 2005, at the office of the BSEA in Malden, MA. Each party was represented by counsel, presented documentary evidence and examined and cross-examined witnesses. .
Jim Canino Asst. Dir. Pupil Personnel Svcs., N. Reading P.S.
The official record of the hearing consists of Parent’s Exhibits P-1 through P-28; School’s Exhibits S-1 through S-26, and approximately 16.5 hours of tape-recorded and transcribed oral testimony and argument. At the parties’ request, leave was granted to file written closing arguments by April 4, 2005. This date was extended to April 11, 2005, also at the request of the parties, on which date the briefs were filed and the record was closed.
1. Were the IEP and placement offered by North Reading for the 2004-2005 school year reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free, appropriate public education?
2. If not, is the Landmark School placement in which Student’s parents unilaterally enrolled him, appropriate?
3. Is Student entitled to compensatory services for the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 school years as a result of the alleged failure of North Reading to offer special education and related services?
The IEP and placement that North Reading offered Student in March 2004 for the spring of 2004 and the beginning of the 2004-2005 school year were not capable of providing Student with a free, appropriate public education (FAPE). The proposed language based program is not sufficiently integrated, cohesive or comprehensive to meet Student’s needs. It does not provide an appropriate peer group, includes a mainstream science class that is inappropriate for Student, and cannot be modified to meet his needs. Moreover, the subsequent IEP and placement offered in December 2004 should be disregarded as a basis for a decision here because the TEAM that produced the IEP did not include the necessary personnel. On the other hand, the Landmark School placement chosen by Parents meets Student’s needs. Finally, North Reading failed to offer special education services to Student while he was enrolled in a private school. Therefore, North Reading is liable for compensatory services corresponding to the period from June 2002 to March 9, 2004. A fair and reasonable remedy in this case is tuition reimbursement for the period from January 1, 2004 through the end of the 2003-2004 school year.
The North Reading Public School program is reasonably calculated to provide Student with FAPE, in that it can provide Student with a seamless, integrated program that provides appropriate instruction while enabling to benefit from exposure to typical peers. On the other hand, the Landmark School placement is overly restrictive and inappropriate for Student. Finally, Parents are not entitled to any award of reimbursement or compensatory services associated with alleged violation of statutory child find requirements, as such violations are de minimus and are merely a pretext for asserting an otherwise unwarranted claim for compensatory services or reimbursement.
22. In February 2004, North Reading conducted its own psychological, educational, and speech/language evaluations and also observed Student at Landmark.
27. Ms. Fiore also observed Student during his Auditory/Oral Expression class at the Landmark School. (Details of that observation will be discussed below).
3. Parents are not entitled to reimbursement for the costs of the Landmark placement prior to the start of the 2004-2005 school year.
4. The Parents are not entitled to compensatory service for the period from June 2002 through March 2004.
There is no dispute that Student is a school-aged child with a disability who is eligible for special education and related services pursuant to the IDEA, 20 USC Section 1400, et seq ., and the Massachusetts special education statute, G.L. c. 71B (“Chapter 766”). Therefore, Student is entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) as defined in federal and state law.
The IDEA defines FAPE as special education and related services that (A) are provided at public expense and under public control; (B) meet the standards of the state educational agency; (C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or secondary school education; and (D) are provided in conformity with an properly developed IEP. 20 USC Sec. 1401; 34 CFR Sec. 300.13. The corresponding state statute defines FAPE as special education and related services that conform to the IDEA and its regulations and also “meet the education standards established by statute or…by regulations promulgated by the Board of Education.” G.L. c. 71B, Sec.1.
In general, FAPE encompasses substantive appropriateness, placement in the least restrictive environment (LRE) consistent with providing an appropriate program, and conformity with the IDEA’s procedural requirements. Substantively, federal courts have interpreted FAPE to mean an IEP and services that provide “significant learning” and confer “meaningful benefit” on the student via “personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally.” Hendrick Hudson Bd. of Education v. Rowley , 458 U.S. 176, 188-9, 203 (1992); see also Burlington v. Mass. Dept. of Education , 736 F.2d 773, 788 (1 st Cir. 1984). The IEP must be tailored to the unique needs of the disabled child, and must be “reasonably calculated to provide ‘effective results’ and ‘demonstrable improvement’ in the educational and personal skills identified as special needs.” 34 C.F.R. 300.300(3)(ii); Lenn v. Portland School Committee , 998 F.2d 1083 (1 st Cir. 1993), citing Roland M. v. Concord School Committee , 910 F.2d 983 (1 st Cir. 1990), cert. denied , 499 U.S. 912 (1991) and Burlington , 736 F.2d at 788. Some federal courts have held that “effective results” and “demonstrable improvement” should be measured in light of the student’s individual potential. See , e.g ., Houston Independent School District v. Bobby R ., 200 F.3d 341 (5 th Cir. 2000). On the other hand, the IDEA does not require districts to maximize a student’s potential, but rather to assure access to a public education and the opportunity for meaningful educational benefit. Lenn , 998 F.3d at 1091; G.D. v. Westmoreland School District , 930 F.2d 942 (1 st Cir. 1991).
If parents of an eligible disabled child can prove that the program and services offered by their school district do not provide FAP, they may be reimbursed for the costs of unilaterally placing their child in a private program, if they also can prove that the privately obtained services are appropriate. School Committee of Town of Burlington v. Dept. of Education of Mass ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-70 (1985). Matthew J. , supra (citations omitted); In Re Gill-Montague RSD , supra. A parentally-chosen program need not be perfect, rather, it must be “appropriately responsive to [a student’s] special needs;” so that the student can benefit educationally. Matthew J. , 27 IDELR at 344.
The first issue here is whether the program and services that North Reading offered to Student in the IEPs proposed in March and December 2004 were reasonably calculated to provide FAPE. If so, the inquiry stops. If not, then the issue is whether the Parents’ unilateral educational placement at the Landmark School was “appropriate,” i.e., whether it was reasonably tailored to meet Student’s special educational needs. Matthew J. v. Mass. Dept. of Education , 989 F. Supp. at 387, 27 IDELR 339 at 343-344 (1998), citing Florence County School District Four v. Carter , 510 US 7, 13 (1993); Doe v. West Boylston School Committee , 28 IDELR 1182 (D. Mass., 1998); In Re Gill-Montague RSD , BSEA #01-1222 (Crane, August 2001) If the Landmark placement was appropriate, I must then determine whether and for what period North Reading is responsible for reimbursing Parents for the costs of the Landmark placement.
Here, the parties agree on the nature of Student’s disabilities, and their impact on his educational performance, and the record amply supports their mutual view of Student. It is clear that Student is a bright, funny, happy, and likeable boy who makes friends easily and is eager to please adults and work hard in school. The record also establishes that Student’s constellation of disabilities including pervasive language-based learning disabilities, coupled with weaknesses in auditory processing, working memory, oral expression, executive functioning, self-regulation and attention, as well as a higher than usual sensitivity to perceived failure, have significantly affected his educational progress and have caused him frustration and discouragement.
The parties also agree, and the record establishes, that Student needs intensive, language-based instruction, mostly in a self-contained, specialized setting to address and accommodate his language, memory, executive functioning, and attentional weaknesses. Finally, the parties are in remarkable accord on the type of services and even the methodologies that would benefit Student. They agree, for example, that he needs 1:1 instruction in a program such as LiPS to develop his phonemic processing, accompanied or followed by a rules-based encoding/decoding program such as Orton-Gillingham or Wilson Reading. They agree generally that he needs a language-based classroom for most or all academics as well as on what that term means. They also agree that he should be with peers who have at least average cognitive ability and similar language and learning needs.
While the parties may have some differences of opinion on, for example, whether or not Student should receive direct speech/language therapy, or whether or not he is ready for the Visualizing and Verbalizing program, I find that these differences are minor in light of the parties’ overall agreement on Student’s educational profile and needs.
When analyzed in light of Student’s unique profile, however, the proposed program for 2004-2005 was not appropriate for Student at the times it was offered (March and December 2004) because it did not adequately address Student’s well-documented auditory processing and attentional issues.9 The weight of the evidence shows that Student is simply too easily distracted and has too many problems with auditory processing and auditory memory to be able to function successfully in a setting where multiple activities are going on within earshot. Even in the quiet, relatively distraction-free environment of his Landmark School classrooms, where there are no more than six students and one teacher, in a small room, and all students are doing the same thing at the same time, Student requires frequent prompts to remain focused. It is hard to imagine that at least during the 2004-2005 school year, he could have remained focused in the busier setting of the language-based classroom or the mainstream science class, regardless of accommodations and strategies offered. Moreover, while it may very well be possible to modify the environment of the North Reading program to be more suitable for Student, North Reading has presented no evidence of whether and how that might be done.
If this were a hearing regarding prospective placement rather than reimbursement for a unilateral placement, the outcome might very well have been different. I do not agree with the Parents that it would be impossible to modify Student’s IEP and the North Reading program in order to make it appropriate for Student. In a retroactive reimbursement case such as this one, however, I must look back at whether the IEPs and placement proposed by the North Reading Public Schools were appropriate as written, when offered (here, in March and December 2004) and find that they were not, for the reasons stated above.
On the other hand, the Parents’ placement at the Landmark School was appropriate. Landmark is a Chapter 766-approved private school that is designed to meet the needs of children with Student’s profile. No placement is perfect, and Landmark, like any school may have its shortcomings for Student. However, the overwhelming weight of the evidence is that Landmark addresses Student’s language and reading issues in much the same way that North Reading proposes to do, in an environment that does not exacerbate his attentional issues. Moreover, Student appears to have made effective progress at Landmark, as noted not only by Landmark itself and Parents but also by Ms. Feeney-Grater, who commented on the progress Student had made in reading.
The Parents seek compensatory service for the period that Student was at Meritor Academy, a private, non-special needs school. Parents argue that by not conducting TEAM meetings or offering an IEP for Student during his time at Meritor (other than an offer of speech-language services), North Reading deprived Student of a meaningful opportunity to participate in the public school program while he was a private school student. Parents are correct that school districts are required to offer such opportunity to parentally-placed private school students. Here, however, even if Parents were to prove that they were denied a meaningful opportunity to participate, any offer of compensatory services for an alleged violation of this obligation would be based on speculation, in light numerous factors, including but not limited to the fact that just before Student enrolled in Meritor, North Reading wrote an IEP for kindergarten to which Parents did not respond; that Parents rejected a subsequent offer of speech-language services, and that the private speech-language therapist had discharged Student from therapy after Kindergarten. Therefore, Parents’ claim for compensatory services for this period is denied.
For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that Parents are entitled to reimbursement for Student’s placement at the Landmark School for the period from the start of the 2004-2005 school year until March 9, 2005, when North Reading’s proposed IEPs expired.
The North Reading Public Schools shall reimburse Parents for the costs of Student’s placement at the Landmark School for the period referred to above.
Ms. Fiore’s report notes that the Student’s performance on these tests was worse than on similar tests given by Dr. Lappen, where he had scored in the solidly average range in both domains. Id.
Ms. Fiore became qualified to provide LiPS training in October 2004, after the start of the 2004-05 school year.
The IDEA’s procedural requirements, among other things, are designed to ensure that IEPs are written by duly constituted TEAMs, with meaningful parental participation, and that services are delivered in a timely manner. Roland M. , 910 F.2d at 994 (citations omitted); Murphy v. Timberlane Regional Sch. Dist. , 22 F.3d 1186, 1196 (1 st Cir. 1994).
Parents argue that the December 2004 IEP should be disregarded because the process for developing it was procedurally flawed. I decline to do so and need not reach this issue because I am finding that the placement offered was substantively inappropriate for other reasons.
The Parents argue that the peer grouping in the North Reading program is inappropriate. I decline to make this finding, as I do not believe that it would be supported by the evidence on the record. I further would not have found the program inappropriate on the basis of North Reading’s offer of language pragmatics that might not be needed or the fact that his teachers might have to adjust Student’s math program for his relative strength in math. These factors are not sufficient to support a conclusion that the program is inappropriate. What makes the program inappropriate here is a physical /structural environment that “plays” to an identified area of weakness, namely, attention, that has the potential to undermine the rest of Student’s educational functioning.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.