Source: https://www.specialedlaw.com/database/student-v-belchertown-public-schools-bsea-03-5069/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 09:47:40+00:00

Document:
A hearing was held on January 12, 14, and 15, 2004 at the office of Catuogno Court Reporters, in Worcester, Massachusetts, before Catherine M. Putney-Yaceshyn, Hearing Officer.
Parents requested a Hearing on July 7, 2003 and a Hearing was scheduled for July 28, 2003. Both parties requested a postponement of the Hearing which was granted and a Pre-Hearing Conference was scheduled for September 11, 2003, the first date upon which both parties were available. A Hearing was scheduled to proceed on November 17, 19, and 21, 2003. On November 5, 2003, the Parents requested a postponement of the Hearing to allow their expert to observe Student’s program. The Postponement request was granted and the Hearing was scheduled for and proceeded on January 12, 14, and 15, 2004. The Parties submitted their closing arguments on February 2, 2004 and the record closed.
The official record of this hearing consists of marked P-1 through P-36 and S-1 through S-71 and approximately 21 hours of recorded oral testimony.
1. Whether the IEP proposed by Belchertown Public Schools for the 2003-2004 school year is reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.
2. If not, whether the IEP can be modified to provide Student a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.
3. If not, whether the White Oak School would provide Student with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.
45. Ms. Muzio testified that the math lesson she observed was difficult for Student and others in the class. He was engaged and trying hard. She reported Ms. Monette was patient and at one point Student said “I think I’ve got it.” During academic support Student took a make-up test in the hallway. She testified that the aide gave him a hint about one problem and she was unsure why, but did not ask her why. After Student took the test, the aide provided students with a science study guide. Ms. Muzio found the study guide to be visually very busy. She testified it was not the most useful method of review because of Student’s reading inefficiency and executive functioning and processing speed. She did not ask Student if he found it to be useful to him. She testified that during academic support the aide handed things out and kept order, but “is not a teacher.” Ms. Monette returned for the last ten minutes of class and instructed the students to review their study guides.
Student is an individual with a disability, falling within the purview of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)12 and the state special education statute.13 As such, he is entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Neither his status nor his entitlement is in dispute. Under the FAPE standard, the IEP proposed by the school district must offer the student a free appropriate public education that meets state educational standards. This education must be offered in the least restrictive environment appropriate to meet the student’s individual needs14 . Federal law also requires that the student be able to fully participate in the general curriculum to the maximum extent possible. 20 USC § 1415(d)(1)(A)(iii); 34 CFR 300.347(a)(2)(I) and (a)(3)(ii); 64 Fed. Reg. No. 48, page 12595, column 1; See also, In Re: Worcester Public Schools, BSEA # 00-1912, 6 MSER 194 (2000).
As stated by the federal courts, the LEA is responsible to offer students meaningful access to an education through an IEP that provides “significant learning” and confers “meaningful benefit” to the student18 , through “personalized instruction with sufficient support services …”19 . The requirements of the law assure the student access to a public education rather than an education that maximizes the student’s individual potential. Lenn v. Portland School Committee , 998 F.2d 1083 (1 st Cir. 1993); GD v. Westmoreland School District , 930 F.2d 942 (1 st Cir. 1991).
Similarly, the Massachusetts special education statute defines “special education” to mean “educational programs and assignments . . . designed to develop the educational potential of children with disabilities . . .” which permit a student to make meaningful educational progress.22 MGL c. 71B § 1, the special education statute in Massachusetts, requires that eligible students receive special education services designed to develop the student’s individual educational potential”23 consistent with the interpretation provided by other Courts. The IEP is the road map that defines the services to be offered and the measurable goals embodied therein determine whether the student has made educational progress.24 See also, In Re: Arlington Public Schools , BSEA # 02-1327, issued on July 23, 2002.
There is not significant disagreement regarding the Student’s profile. The central dispute in this case involves the level of services Student requires and whether the Belchertown Public Schools can provide appropriate services to address his needs. The Parents believe that Student’s academic difficulties stem primarily from his reading disability and that he requires a day placement in a school designed to meet the needs of students with language learning disabilities. Belchertown believes that it can appropriately meet Student’s needs using the model proposed in its IEP for the 2003-2004 school year, a combination of resource room instruction, inclusion, and tutoring. I am not persuaded by either party in that regard. While I agree with the Parents that the IEP proposed for Student for the 2003-2004 school year is not reasonably calculated to provide him with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment, the evidence does not show that Student requires a placement as restrictive as the White Oak School. The evidence does show that Belchertown’s program can be modified so as to make it appropriate for Student.
Ms. Monette testified that Student was the most disorganized Student she had encountered in her career. She described the binder system that she had implemented to assist Student and the use of binders for worksheets and folders in math and language arts. However, she acknowledged that Student’s organizational skills did not improve as a result of her intervention. She testified that Student would sometimes complete an assignment and show it to her and would lose it by the time he was to hand it in two periods later. (Monette) Student testified that the binder system did not work for him and that he still had a significant amount of loose paper in his binder and backpack. (Student) Dr. Vargo made recommendations regarding Student’s organizational skills that included having somebody check in with Student at the end of each day to ensure he had recorded his assignments appropriately, understood them, and had the necessary materials. (S-19, P-19) The IEP proposed for Student in June 2003 proposed providing Student with an agenda as a written back up to Student’s use of the organizational features of the assistive technology. Although Student received an agenda, there is nothing in the record to suggest that he was provided with assistive technology to assist him in maintaining his agenda. (S-11, P-20) Student’s agenda was not always used appropriately. Although Ms. Monette testified that she always signed Student’s agenda, the record shows that there were a number of dates when she did not sign the agenda. It is unclear how many of those days were due to Student’s absence, Ms. Monette’s absence, or Student losing the agenda. However, it is clear that the agenda was not always being completed by Student or signed. Parents bear some responsibility for the agenda not being the communicative device it was intended by the Team to be. Although Mother testified that Student told her that she no longer had to sign the agenda, it is unclear why she did not continue to review the agenda because the IEP specifically indicated the agenda was to be used for home-school communication.
There is no question that Student continues to require assistance in the area of organizational skills. Although Ms. Monette recognized that Student had great difficulty in that area and testified that she had a lot of ideas that she could implement to assist him, Belchertown did not do enough to assist Student. It is unclear why Student was not provided with an opportunity to receive services in the area of organizational skills especially in light of Belchertown’s knowledge that Ms. Fino had the ability to provide services in organizational skills. Although finding time in Student’s schedule to provide him with necessary services has been a challenge, it is not an excuse for the Team not offering services in that area. The record shows that Belchertown was aware that Student had organizational difficulty and that it was continuing over the course of two school years. The Team should have proposed direct services in the area of organizational skills.
Student’s reading disability was another major focus of the Hearing. Student has been receiving tutorials in the Phono-Graphix program since October 2003. Parents have argued that it is inappropriate to provide Student with tutorial in the area of reading decoding outside of the “regular school day.” However, Student’s schedule did not allow for him to receive the tutorial during his regular school day. Belchertown acted completely appropriately in offering to provide the services after regular school hours. See In Re: Worcester Public Schools , BSEA # 00-1912, 6 MSER 194 (2000). It was important to Student and Parents that he participate in band. Consequently, there was not a free period in Student’s schedule that would allow him to receive a tutorial during regular school hours. I was not persuaded by Ms. Muzio or Parents that it was somehow inappropriate to offer tutorial services after school to allow a Student with a disability to participate in an extra-curricular activity that he enjoyed and that proved beneficial to his self-esteem.
The provision of the tutorial services has been imperfect for several reasons. First, Student has missed many sessions in order to participate in the drama club. Although it is wonderful that Student has extra-curricular interests and talents, his progress has undoubtedly been slower in the Phono-Graphix program due to the lack of continuity in services. I found Ms. Fino to be a credible witness and relied upon her testimony regarding Student’s progress in the program. I find that he is making progress in the area of reading decoding. Although Ms. Muzio focussed on the fact that Student’s score had not improved in the area of word attack from October until January, his score in the area of word attack had increased from 6.4 grade equivalency to a grade level, eighth grade equivalency. Ms. Fino was persuasive when she testified that Student score improvement showed that he was actually decoding words and not guessing as he previously would have. I also cannot ignore the fact that Student is now at grade level in the area of word attack after receiving just 35 sessions. Ms. Fino had worked with Student, had observed other tutors working with him, and had discussed his progress with the tutors. Her testimony that he was making progress was persuasive because she had more direct knowledge of his reading decoding skills that any of the Parents’ witnesses. Ms. Monette also had direct knowledge of Student’s reading ability from hearing him read in her class and in Ms. Thompson’s class. She testified that Student sounded like a fluent reader. (Monette) Based on the foregoing, I find that the services being provided to Student in the Phono-Graphix program are appropriate. However, the record shows that there is not any regular communication between the tutors who provide services to Student and anybody else at Belchertown. The record also did not contain regular progress reports from the tutor. Ms. Muzio testified that Student required carry-over from his tutoring to his academic classes. While I did not rely heavily upon Ms. Muzio’s testimony for reasons that will be explained below, I was persuaded that Student would receive more benefit from his tutoring and potentially his academic classes if there was a consultation between Student’s special education teacher and his Phono-Graphix tutor. It would be helpful for the special education teacher to know what area Student is learning in his tutoring so she could reinforce it during school. It would also be helpful if the special education teacher could report areas where Student was having difficulty to the tutor so she could provide additional drilling in those areas.
Parents’ independent evaluator, Dr. Vargo, did not recommend an out-of -district program for Student. He did not even recommend a substantially separate program. After assessing Student and analyzing his scores, he recommended a series of modifications to assist Student. The only person who recommended an out-of-district program for Student was Ms. Muzio. Ms. Muzio testified that she reviewed limited records and observed Student in his current placement on December 2, six weeks before the Hearing. She did not do any independent testing of Student, did not write a report of her findings, and did not attend any Team meeting. She testified that she did not speak to any of Student’s teachers regarding their perception of his school functioning. Throughout her testimony she made presumptions such as stating that the science lesson she observed was complicated and challenging to keep organized, without asking Student or any teacher if her presumption was correct. She criticized Ms. Piwcio for not offering what she considered appropriate support, but did not indicate what she would consider appropriate support. She criticized Ms. Piwcio for “not being a teacher” but did not explain why Student required a teacher and not a paraprofessional. Because Ms. Muzio’s sole knowledge of Student and his program was based upon her review of limited records and a one day observation during which she did not ask Student’s teachers questions about Student’s functioning or the lessons she observed, I relied very little upon her testimony.
To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, … are educated with children who are not disabled, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. 20 U.S.C., Chapter 33 § 1412(5)(A).
Parents have not met their burden of showing that education within the Bechertown Public Schools is inappropriate due to the nature or severity of Student’s disability. To remove Student from a school environment where he is accessing the general curriculum successfully, making academic progress, and participating in the school community would be a disservice to him and contrary to the least restrictive environment requirement of the IDEA. 20 U.S.C., Chapter 33 § 1412(5)(A).
I find that the IEP proposed by the Belchertown Public Schools for the 2003-2004 school year was not reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.
I find that Student’s program can be modified within the Belchertown Public Schools and Student does not require an out-of-district placement at the White Oak School.
I hereby order that the Team reconvene to add additional services to Student’s IEP. Student clearly requires direct services in the area of organizational skills. The Team shall determine when the services are to take place and should consider using Ms. Fino’s “Take Charge” program. The Team shall consider options such as providing direct services in organization during the academic support period. The organizational skills program should deal with homework completion and use of the agenda. The instructor shall determine whether Student requires assistive technology to assist him in maintaining the agenda. (This was an accommodation listed in his IEP, but there was nothing in the record to indicate whether student received any such assistive technology.) The Team might also consider whether Student is required to attend gym and/or band every day. It may be possible to provide services to Student once or twice per week in lieu of gym or band. The provider of organizational skills services should consult with Student’s teachers regarding skills which he or she is teaching Student so that they can be reinforced in all of his classes. Additionally, there should be one person responsible each day to check in with Student at the end of the day and ensure that he has properly recorded his homework assignments, understands how to begin the assignments, and has the appropriate materials to complete the assignments.
Student shall continue to receive tutorial in the Phono-Graphix program. His progress shall be assessed by the end of May to determine whether he is continuing to make adequate progress. If he is not making adequate progress, the Team shall reconvene to determine whether he requires intense summer services in the area of reading decoding. Additionally, the Team shall add a consultation between the special education teacher and the Phono-Graphix tutor to Student’s IEP.
The Team should consider whether the IEP should contain a consultation between the special education teacher and Student’s science teacher.
Testimony taken via speaker phone per agreement of the Parties.
Ms. Sabilia’s assessment consisted of a record review; behavioral observation; brief interview; WISC-III- Pseudoword Decoding Subtest; WIAT-II; Test of Memory and Learning (TOMAL); and Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale. (S-14) She noted Student’s Verbal IQ to be 110, his Performance IQ to be 98, and his Full Scale IQ to be 104.
The tests administered by Dr. Vargo were: Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale for children-Fourth Edition; Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning: (Story Memory subtest); Children’s Auditory Verbal Learning Test-2; Rey Osterrieth Complex Figure Test; WIAT-II; Grey Oral Reading Test-Third Edition; Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing; Attention Deficit Disorder Behavior Rating Scale-Parent Report.
The IEP indicates that this is to be a written back up to Student’s use of the organizational features of the assistive technology, however there is no indication that Student received any assistive technology to assist him in maintaining his agenda.
Student’s testimony corroborated Mr. McInerny’s.
She did not specify which class she was referring to.
She testified that she believed that students in Student’s science small group were not moving at the same pace as the rest of the class. She stated that she thought some of the other group members were special education students, but she did not ask anyone if her belief was accurate.
See the Mass. Department of Education’s Administrative Advisory SPED 2002-1: Guidance on the change in special education standard of service from “maximum possible development” to “free appropriate public education” (“FAPE”), Effective January 1, 2002 (hereafter Mass . FAPE Advisory ), 7 MSER Quarterly Reports 1 (2001).
33 USC 1401(8). The federal regulations adopted pursuant to the IDEA include a similar definition of FAPE. 34 CFR 300.13.
For a discussion of FAPE see Hendrick Hudson Bd. Of Education v. Rowley , 458 U.S. 176, 188-189 (1992); Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999); Burlington v. Department of Educatio n , 736 F. 2d 773 (1 st Cir. 1984). Houston Independent School District v. Bobby R ., 200 F.3d 341 (5 th Cir. 2000); Stockton by Stockton v. Barbour County Bd. of Educ., 25 IDELR 1076 (4 th Cir. 1997); MC v. Central Regional School District , 81 F.3d 389 (3 rd Cir. 1996), cert. denied 519 US 866 (1966); Ridgewood Board of Education v. NE , 30 IDELR 41 (3 rd Cir. 1999). See also GD v. Westmoreland School District , 930 F.3d 942 (1 st Cir. 1991).
Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 203, 102 S.Ct. 3034, 3049 (1982).
Lenn v. Portland School Committee , 998 F.2d 1083 (1 st Cir. 1993) (program must be “reasonably calculated to provide ‘effective results’ and ‘demonstrable improvement’ in the various ‘educational and personal skills identified as special needs’”); Roland v. Concord School Committee , 910 F.2d 983 (1 st Cir. 1990); Burlington v. Department of Education , 736 F.2d 773, 788 (1 st Cir. 1984).
Houston Independent School District v. Bobby R ., 200 F.3d 341 (5 th Cir. 2000) (a disabled child’s development must be measured with respect to the individual student, not by his relation to the rest of the class, as declining percentile scores may represent the student’s inability to maintain the same level of academic progress achieved by regular peers and not necessarily a lack of educational benefit); Ridgewood Board of Education v. NE , 172 F.3d 238 (3 rd Cir. 1999); MC v. Central Regional School District , 81 F.3d 389 (3 rd Cir. 1996), cert. denied 519 US 866 (1996); Roland v. Concord School Committee , 910 F.2d 983 (1 st Cir. 1990); Kevin T. v. Elmhurst , 36 IDELR 153 (N.D. Ill. 2002).
The Massachusetts Department of Education (DOE) stated that the “FAPE standard . . . requires the school district to provide personalized instruction tailored to the student’s needs, with sufficient support services to permit the student to make meaningful educational progress .” Mass. FAPE Advisory (see footnote 8 above for full title and citation of Advisory) (emphasis supplied).
County of San Diego v. California Special Educ. Hearing Office, 93 F.3d 1458 (9th Cir. 1996) (the correct standard for measuring educational benefit under the IDEA is whether the child makes progress toward the goals set forth in IEP and not just whether the placement is reasonably calculated to provide the student educational benefits.); Evans v. Board of Education of the Rhinebeck Central School District , 930 F.Supp. 83 (S.D. N.Y. 1996) (the IEP must include measurable criteria to assess the student’s progress).

References: § 1415
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1
 § 1412
 § 1412
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.