Source: https://www.specialedlaw.com/database/student-v-taunton-public-schools-bsea-01-0462/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 09:42:15+00:00

Document:
This decision is issued pursuant to 20 U.S.C. 1401 et seq. (the “IDEA”), 29 U.S.C. 794, M.G.L. chs. 30A, 71B and the regulations promulgated under said statutes.
A Hearing in the above referenced matter was convened on April 3, 2001 at the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (hereinafter, “BSEA”), in Malden, MA, and on April 30, 2001, in Taunton, MA, before Rosa I. Figueroa, Hearing Officer. Parents’ Closing Argument was hand delivered on the last day of the Hearing and School’s Closing Argument was received at the BSEA on May 10 th . The record closed on May 11, 2001.
School Exhibits 1 through 29 and Student’s/Parents’ Exhibits 1 through 17 were admitted in evidence, and were considered in issuing this decision. School Exhibit 29 was admitted over the Parent’s objection.
2. Whether the Learning Prep School, or a similar type of program, constitutes the appropriate least restrictive placement that can assure the Student’s maximum feasible development.
Taunton Public Schools (hereinafter, “Taunton”) asserts that the Student’s difficulties can and have been appropriately addressed in Taunton and it is prepared to provide the Student with any services required so that he can continue to make progress. When entering the high school the Student went through a period of adjustment that impacted on his academic progress. Taunton has evidenced improvement between the Student’s freshman and sophomore years. If Taunton has not been able to meet all of the Student’s needs it is due to the Parents lack of cooperation in the IEP process and rejection of services that would have benefited the Student. One of the student’s main problem involves his inability to complete assignments which Taunton partially blames on the Parents’ failure to provide the necessary support. Taunton argues that with proper parental support, assistance in the homework assignments and the implementation of the IEP program outlined in the IEP of June 2000, the Student would be successful in Taunton High School.
The Student/Parents assert that historically Taunton has failed to offer the Student services that allowed him to make effective progress. As a result of the Student’s lack of academic success he has developed emotional problems associated with feelings of inadequacy. The services provided by Taunton were de minimis so it owes the Student three years of compensatory education. The current IEP again fails to propose services that would enable the Student to maximize his educational potential because it does not offer the highly individualized structured approach to teaching required by the Student.
The Student/Parents argue that the Student requires daily language tutorials in the areas of reading, writing and organizational skills. He also needs small group classes in math, science, social studies and language arts. They request that the Student be placed at the Learning Prep School, or other similar type of program, at public expense, where the Student would benefit from a small group language based program with a multi-sensory approach, implemented throughout the curriculum.
· The Student’s “spelling reflect[ed] Orton Gillingham training he has had however he often added unneeded phonemes or substituted same sound configurations. His grapho-motor skills do not appear automatic as there were several instances where he needed to stop and think or correct b/d reversals. During self-directed arithmetic tasks, the Student had a hard time getting started and following through on problems until completed. His attention obviously wandered and he showed little awareness or self-monitoring in his work habits during this evaluation.
· The Parents filed their request for hearing on December 18, 2000 and asked that a Pre-Hearing Conference be scheduled. The Pre Hearing was held on January 30, 2001.
There is ample support in the record for Student to receive special education services in English, Reading, Math, Organizational Skills and academic support as needed and counseling as per the recommendations of Taunton and the independent evaluators. (SE-11; SE-12; SE-13; SE-14; SE-15; SE-16; SE-17; SE-18) While some or all of these services have been offered by Taunton at different times, not all of them have been implemented simultaneously. The evidence shows that the Parents’ decision not to cooperate with Taunton in implementing an IEP that addressed all areas of need made it difficult for Taunton to actually offer services that would have met the Student’s needs.
The United States Supreme Court in Burlington v. U.S. Dept. Of Education , EHLR 556:389 (US S CT, 1985), granted courts broad authority to fashion relief that is appropriate under the IDEA. In said case equitable factors were considered in allowing the parents to obtain reimbursement for unilaterally placing the Student in a private school when they showed that the IEP offered by the school district did not offer the Student a FAPE. If a parent is not able to place a child who is being denied a FAPE, they can request that a court grant compensatory services as an equitable relief. To achieve this, it must be shown that the denial of FAPE was more than de minimus. See, e.g., Carlisle Area School District v. Scott P ., 3d 520, 537 (3d Cir. 1995) Since compensatory services are an equitable relief, the conduct of the parties must be assessed to determine how it may impact on a possible award. The specific period of time during which the specific services were denied must be identified, as well as the type and extent of harm caused to the child as a result of the denial of FAPE. In the case at bar, the Parents argue that the denial of appropriate services has occurred during the past three years. According to them, the main areas where services were not offered were in Reading, Math, English and assistance with homework. Under the facts of the case at bar it is difficult to assess responsibility only to Taunton because of the Parents’ own actions.
Given the Parents’ allegations that the Student did not receive adequate services during the 1998-1999, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, I first turn to the IEPs for those 3 school years. Services for the 1998-1999 school year were rendered as a result of the Team meetings of November 20, 1997 and November 23, 1998. (PE-6; SE-8; PE-5; SE-7) One of the Parents was present at each of these Team meetings and nothing in the record indicates that they did not understand what was being presented and offered to the Student at that time. The signature pages of the IEP for 1997-1998 and 1998-1999 show that the Parents accepted the IEPs in full. (PE-6; SE-8; PE-5; SE-7) Nothing in the record indicates that the Parents accepted the IEP under duress but rather that acceptance was a voluntary act. The record further shows that Taunton provided the services as per the IEP.
During the 1999-2000 school year the Student participated only in special needs English as per the accepted IEP of May 5, 1999. (Testimony of Ms. Grefe) According to Ms. Grefe and Ms. Broderick, had the Team been able to convene in March of 2000 after the evaluations were completed, the same services that were proposed in June 2000 could have been made available to the Student much earlier. Without the benefit of those services the Student faced non-promotion by the end of the school year. The Student was enrolled in Math, Social Studies and Science during the summer of 2000 and was able to pass all three courses. (Id.) I find that the IEP presented to the Parents in June of 2000 would have offered the Student services likely to address the areas of need identified during the evaluation of February 2000.
The Parents testified that while in the beginning they were willing to work with Taunton, the Student’s lack of academic progress caused them a great deal of frustration resulting in their unwillingness to continue to work with the Taunton personnel from 1999 forward. (Testimony of the Parents and Ms. Grefe) The Parents did not believe that much of what Taunton offered the Student was helpful. For instance, the Parents asserted that the pull out model for reading and literacy impaired the Student’s progress in regular academics. (Testimony of the Parents) They also did not understand why the Orton Gillingham, offered on a one to one basis in the home, could not be offered during school hours. The breakdown of communication and cooperation between the School and the Parents, at a time when the student underwent a difficult transition from middle school to high school, resulted in available services not being accessed or provided to the Student. Lacking parental consent, Taunton was unable to offer services which would have addressed most of the areas of concern identified by the Parents. The Parents hold the school responsible for the Student’s difficulties but fail to see how their own actions, even if well-intended, made the situation worse. Without the benefit of needed services to address the learning disabilities, this shy Student’s frustration increased as his motivation decreased. Personalized instruction with sufficient supports may have been available in Taunton, but the Parents’ rejection of the IEP coupled with their non-participation in the IEP meeting following the Student’s evaluation in 2000, made it difficult for the parties to agree on a program capable of meeting the Student’s needs.
One of the areas identified as having an impact on the Student’s overall performance was homework. According to the Father, the Student’s problems in completing homework manifested in high school. The School personnel agree that this is an area of great concern. (PE-16; SE-25) The record showed that problems with completing or turning in homework have been present for at least two years. (SE-25) The teachers’ notes are filled with references to Student’s failure to complete homework and class-work. The teachers also state that the Student seemed to have difficulty with the material presented and also express their belief that he made little effort to understand the material, or that he did not seem to care about certain courses. Additional special education services were recommended. (PE-16) The Student testified that he had problems with Reading and Math and that he had difficulty understanding homework assignments. He also testified that he asked teachers for assistance but that the teachers paid no attention to him.
The Student’s emotional needs have been neglected for a long period of time and they seem to be impacting negatively on his motivation and his willingness to make himself available to learn. Up to the time of the Pre-Hearing Conference (the end of January 2001) the Student had not participated in any form of counseling or received the benefits of psychotherapy. As a result of the Pre-Hearing Conference, the Student participated in a few counseling sessions in Taunton. He however, had stopped attending prior to the second date of hearing. (PE-9; SE-16) The testimony of Ms. Broderick is persuasive that while a service such as counseling can be made available, ultimately Student must decide to invest himself in such a service if it is going to yield a positive result. The Father asserted that what the Student needed was one-to-one intensive academic assistance with peers who were at his same level. I find that while the Student may certainly benefit from more intensive services in Reading, Math, English and Organizational Skills it is essential that his emotional issues be addressed. The evidence is persuasive that these are separate and distinct issues which should be addressed via provision of services.
Given the above, the Parents are not entitled to compensatory education services for the Student in the form of a private school placement.
Nothing in the record supports a finding that the type of services needed by the Student cannot be implemented in Taunton. Under Federal and Massachusetts law, eligible students have a right to receive a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services, designed to develop that student’s maximum individual educational potential in the least restrictive environment . 20 U.S.C. §1400, 34 CFR §300.1(a), MGL c. 71B §1, 603 CMR 28.01(3). To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, whether enrolled in a public or private institution, must be educated with non-disabled students. Their removal from the regular educational environment should occur only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in a regular classroom cannot be achieved in a satisfactory manner even when supplementary aids and services are used. 34 CFR §300.550 (b)(1) & (2), MGL c. 71B §1,603 CMR 28.02(12).
Lastly, I find the record lacking in any specific recommendation for a placement outside Taunton. No evaluator private or otherwise recommended a placement as restrictive as the Learning Prep School or a similar program. The Parents’ own independent evaluator, Dr. Timmel, of MGH, made no recommendation for the type of program or placement sought by Parents. I find the testimony of Taunton’s witnesses credible in that Taunton is able to implement Dr. Timmel’s recommendations within their district. Mr. Jackman and Ms. Grefe testified to availability of the Wilson Reading program, opportunities to work on organizational skills, and the provision of tutorials in the areas of need. Additionally, the Parents failed to present any testimony regarding the appropriateness of such a program for the Student nor was there any evidence to show that he had been accepted to the Learning Prep School or a similar program. Both the Student’s emotional needs and his learning disabilities can and must be addressed in Taunton which is the least restrictive environment. Since the evidence supports Taunton’s ability to implement the services required by the Student in accordance with State and Federal law, I need not reach the issue of the appropriateness of the Learning Prep School or another private day school at public expense.
Also, I find the services offered to the Student in the IEP of December 2000 (which decreased the services offered in June of 2000) to be insufficient to meet the Student’s needs. The recommendations made by Ms. Broderick in February of 2000, specifically the “additional reading instruction focusing on syllabication and complex word analysis to encourage automaticity; development of keyboarding skills to compensate for spelling deficit… to use word processing software to check spelling, grammar and punctuation; breakdown of long term assignments into smaller chunks with frequent checks to make sure he is on target; [Student] should be encouraged to seek help after school if he does not understand classroom material; use of agenda book with frequent checks to make sure homework is completed in a timely manner”, to be appropriate. (PE-8; SE-11) Also, Dr. Timmel’s recommendation of October, 2000, inclusive of services by a “properly trained tutor in the use of a rule based reading program such as the Wilson or the Orton Gillingham for at least four, 45 minute periods per week to address the [student’s] specific reading disorder.” (PE-7; SE-14) Additionally, “directions and long narratives [should]be read to him in testing situations”; “outlines and notes for all lecture classes should be provided to the Student unless he were allowed use of a word processor in classes, a word bank should be provided when responding to fill in the blanks type questions on exams, and provision of “curriculum support to bridge the gap between written language… [with] emphasis in the tutorial of his written narratives and essays as well as the organization of his work in general” should be implemented. (Id.) Dr. Timmel also recommended the services of a pediatric neurologist who specializes in attentional difficulties as they pertain to education.” (PE-7; SE-14) Finally, the organizational skills and counseling services proposed in January 2001(in which the student participated for a brief period of time) should also be made available to the Student.
Taunton must gather the Team to fashion an IEP that includes the services stated infra .This IEP would be reasonably calculated to offer the Student a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment that will allow the Student to reach his maxim feasible potential.
Wherefore the evidence proffered by Taunton and the Parents indicates that the Student presents with difficulties in Reading, Math, Organizational skills and issues related to a low self-esteem secondary to feelings of inadequacy, his needs can be appropriately addressed in Taunton. Taunton shall provide a program that addresses all of these areas of need forthwith.

References: v. 
 v. 
 §1400
 §300
 §1
 §300
 §1