Source: https://www.specialedlaw.com/database/melanie-concord-carlisle-regional-school-district-bsea-02-3458/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:56:30+00:00

Document:
This decision is rendered pursuant to 20 USC 1400 et seq . (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), 29 USC 794 (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act), MGL chs. 30A (state administrative procedure act) and 71B (state special education law), and the regulations promulgated under said statutes.
A hearing on this matter was held before Hearing Officer Sandra Sherwood on November 12 and 18, 2002 at Catuogno’s Reporting Service in Worcester, Massachusetts, and on November 26, 2002, March 3, 4, April 2, 15, 16, and 22, 2003 at the Bureau of Special Education Appeals in Malden, Massachusetts. At the request of the parties, the record remained open until May 23, 2003 for receipt of closing arguments. Thereafter, at the school’s unopposed request for an extension, the record remained open until July 21, 2003.
3. If not, a) whether the Eagle Hill School, a private residential school in Hardwick, Massachusetts, was designed to provide Melanie with an appropriate 2001 – 2003 educational program in the least restrictive setting, and b) whether Parents should be reimbursed for Melanie’s tuition and transportation costs at the Eagle Hill School.
C-C’s IEPs fail to provide the special education setting and expertise necessary to address Melanie’s severe language based disability affecting her learning and social/emotional skills. Melanie requires small classes, a residential, therapeutic setting, and a program taught by teachers highly skilled in working with learning disabled students. She requires a systematic phonics program, reading comprehension help, a multi-sensory curriculum, organizational strategies, and tools for analyzing. She requires the residential setting in order to address her social skills throughout the day. She should be grouped with similarly disabled students. C-C’s mainstreamed setting fails to provide such, for the classes are too large, the regular education staff is not trained to address her language based learning disabilities nor her social/emotional needs, the mainstreamed students are too sophisticated and are inappropriate peers for Melanie, and the special education services, although excellent, are insufficient. Finally, Parents point out that the 2001-2002 services must be reasonably calculated to maximize her educational development in the least restrictive setting. Not until the 2002-2003 school year, did Massachusetts adopt the federal standard ensuring an adequate and appropriate education in the least restrictive setting. The Eagle Hill School has provided Student with the small group setting designed for students similar to Melanie. In such setting, she is provided the direct teaching, the ongoing monitoring of her understanding, the organizational skill development, the reading comprehension support, and the social/emotional skill development throughout the day.
Student’s learning disabilities are best addressed at C-C’s High School where she can receive the expertise provided by the special education staff, where she can benefit from the mainstreamed classes, and where her social/emotional needs can be addressed in group settings designed to address social skill development. Student has shown her ability to handle mainstreamed classes while at Minuteman. Further, to the extent that she requires more intensive services, they can be provided at C-C’s High School. The Eagle Hill School lacks the special education expertise in addressing Melanie’s language based deficits, fails to address her social/emotional needs, and cannot provide the mainstreamed experiences so helpful for Student. Accordingly, it is neither appropriate nor the least restrictive appropriate setting for Melanie.
2. Melanie attended the Carroll School, a private school for special needs learning disabled students, for her fourth through seventh grade years, the Concord Public Middle School for her eighth grade year, the Minuteman Vocational Technical School (Minuteman) for her ninth and tenth grade years, and the Eagle Hill School (Eagle Hill), a private residential school for students with learning disabilities, for her repeated tenth grade year and her eleventh grade year.
Melanie’s major source of academic support occurred in the resource room, however Ms. Zapolin talked with her teachers on a regular basis. The teachers provided her with extra support but provided modifications only with occasional untimed testing.
9. Driven by ILD’s as well as their own concerns regarding Melanie’s struggles at Minuteman, Parents began looking at private schools. They sought the help of an educational consultant experienced in recommending possible private schools for their daughter, and applied to several special education schools. Melanie was rejected from many. Frequently because her academic skills were too low, they could not provide sufficient support, there was no appropriate peer group, and/or they could not address her social issues. (Father, P-40, P-45, P-87) In September of 2001, Landmark rejected her, saying that it could not meet her needs. They noted that her profile suggested struggles with integrating information and comprehending complex language, and that she had deficits in her pragmatics of language and social interaction. (P-45) Landmark recommended Eagle Hill or Pine Ridge.
12. Several evaluations are relevant to a determination of appropriate educational placement for Melanie’s 2001 – 2003 school years.
· direct teaching of social skills and opportunities for practice during all of her waking hours.
I find that Concord-Carlisle failed to address Melanie’s special education needs from a substantive as well as procedural point of view. Such decision is reached after an exhaustive review of the record, weighing the benefits and drawbacks of C-C’s proposed program and Eagle Hill’s program, and weighing the reasons for and impact of any non-compliance with the legally mandated TEAM process. As much as C-C provided considerable support for its positions, in weighing all of the evidence, I find that Melanie’s needs require a school designed for learning disabled students – one that provides small class sizes, a student population of similarly intelligent but disabled students, and teaching methodologies throughout the day that are tailored to the needs of the learning disabled students. I further find that although Melanie’s educational needs do not require a residential setting, such is called for given the one and one-half hour commute between Melanie’s home and Eagle Hill. I find that despite some excellent services, C-C’s IEPs failed to provide an adequate and appropriate education addressing Melanie’s described needs, and more clearly failed to maximize her educational development, as required for the 2001-2002 school year. In contrast, I find that Eagle Hill provides for Melanie’s educational needs and accordingly, offers an educational program that is adequate and appropriate in the least restrictive setting. Finally, I find that C-C failed to a) convene the TEAM with the necessary expertise, and b) consider the evaluations available to them, and thus, C-C denied Parents their legally mandated process for defining Melanie’s educational needs. As a result, neither Parents nor C-C staff possessed a solid understanding of Melanie’s needs, or of C-C’s abilities to address those needs. My reasoning follows.
1. Melanie is a classic example of a student who, in her younger years, required special education in a private school setting, and then with great effort, attempted to return to a mainstreamed setting. In fact, she tried two different mainstreamed settings – first the Concord Middle School, then, after a perceived unsuccessful year, Minuteman for two more years. She is a student, who for many reasons, should have been able to successfully reenter the regular education settings. She is intelligent, extremely hard working, a self-advocate for help, and her family was supportive, working with the school as well as providing home tutoring. Her special needs teacher was fully supportive, helping her in the resource room, and she received specialized reading instruction in the ninth grade. With all these factors in her favor, she had many successes. Her freshman year she earned high grades – A’s and B’s. Her successes, albeit fewer, continued into her sophomore year. She thrived and enjoyed the vocational classes. She was successful in her math classes. (Father, Zapolin) Finally, she succeeded in her Literature and Writing class with Ms. Archambault. In that class, she was an avid participant, volunteering in class discussions, felt confident about her knowledge of the material, kept up with the conversations, and responded well to others in discussions. (Archambault) This description of her Literature/Writing class performance certainly speaks to her ability to be a successful learner. However, her tenth grade mainstreamed experiences took a toll on her, both academically and emotionally. Despite her strengths, her parentally-provided home tutoring, and her dogged determination to do well, her mainstreamed academic grades were in the C range (English, History, Biology, and Spanish), with the exception of her math class and this one Literature/Writing class where she earned B’s. (P-66) Further, without dispute, Melanie exhibited significant emotional stress, frequently crying over her difficulties with the academic work. She constantly required intervention from the special education teacher to calm her down and help her with the work. Yet even with this, many of her grades were in the C range, and both Parents and Minuteman staff were extremely concerned about Melanie’s emotional status. Given her level of intelligence and her diligence, one must question whether, with smaller classes and more language based instruction, she could have accomplished more. Parents are persuasive that she could have.
A closer examination of her Minuteman record is revealing. First, her ninth grade was significantly less demanding than her 10 th grade, in the sense that it included a repeated eighth grade math class, a level 3 science class, a level 2 remedial writing class and two special education level 4 classes – accelerated reading and resource room. By all accounts, her 10 th grade mainstreamed academic successes were significantly fewer, earning with little fluctuation, C’s in most of her mainstreamed classes. Of those, she fared best in her math and literature/writing class. Her ability to handle mainstreamed math classes is not at issue, however, her success in this mainstreamed literature/writing class is instructive. It turns out that this class, taught by Ms. Archambault, had only fifteen or so students, and in order to accommodate the needs of the students, the reading materials were short and were at a grade level to 2-3 years below actual grade level. Thus, Ms. Archambault’s support of mainstreaming in settings similar to hers, is not inconsistent with Parents’ view that Melanie’s needs cannot be met in C-C’s larger classes and less supportive settings. Her cross-examination response was revealing: she was asked whether Melanie would function well in a class with 22 – 25 students, some being more academically able and quicker, having better analytical skills, abstract thinking skills, etc. After a lengthy pause, she stated “I prefer seeing her in a situation where she is on top of the material and confident about herself and her skills and … I would rather she grow and learn as much as possible in the kind of setting she’s been in than throw her more angst.” Clearly, she was concerned.6 (Archambault, April 15, page 105-107) Indeed, given a close look at Melanie’s performance in the various Minuteman settings, Parents rightfully expressed concern that, in the larger class setting, her reading difficulties, her difficulty with abstract thinking, and her need for significant support, would be problematic. Clearly, they were problematic in her tenth grade classes. They rightfully asserted that with the small classes, the teacher could more quickly monitor Melanie’s understanding of the material, and that further, she would have more time and chances to express herself. (P-71) Melanie’s special education teacher, who certainly knew Melanie well, and clearly wants the best for her, spoke in favor of mainstreaming for Melanie, for she is a self-proclaimed optimist. She provided many examples of Melanie’s success. However, several themes were predominant in her testimony. One was that Melanie required a nurturing, supportive setting in order for her to learn effectively. The second was that Melanie struggled and required significant support. Given that even with all of this support, Melanie had many “meltdowns”, cried frequently, and ended up with predominantly C’s in her larger academic classes, Ms. Zapolin’s support of mainstreaming is overly optimistic. Clearly she knows Melanie well, and clearly she and some of her colleagues offered her significant nurturing and support. However, Ms. Zapolin was not persuasive that Minuteman’s mainstream setting offered her the nurturing, supportive environment necessary for her educational growth. It didn’t and this is what led her to go to Eagle Hill. Mr. Lee’s opinion that Melanie’s stress was only during the swim season, is inaccurate, for her grades reveal her academic difficulties throughout the year. Rather, it appears that she tried her best through the year, and the cumulative effect led to greater stress in the second semester.
There are virtually no current educational evaluations recommending the mainstreamed academic setting, there is insufficient success at Minuteman to support further learning in a mainstreamed setting – particularly a more demanding one, and there is confirmation at Eagle Hill of the need for small group classes designed to address her learning disabilities. Thus, C-C is not persuasive that its mainstreamed program, albeit with excellent components, can address Melanie’s needs. C-C does indeed offer an excellent special education Integrated English class – the class size, the teacher and speech/language pathologist’s expertise, and the peers are appropriate. The tutorials are appropriate8 . C-C’s social pragmatics class addresses Melanie’s social pragmatics skill development. It is the mainstreamed classes, however, that render C-C’s program inadequate and inappropriate for Melanie. The IEPs provide little to ensure Parents that Melanie’s needs would be addressed in that setting. They offer no special education consultation. They offer no direct special education services in the mainstreamed. They offer extra time for reading, but offer reduced content or alternative text only for above grade level readings. They offer some specially designed methodology/delivery of instruction, but fail to address Melanie’s need for monitoring of her understanding, need for frequent opportunities to participate, and need for help bridging from the concrete to the abstract. (S-1, S-37, P-3) It may be that the regular education teachers are provided significant leeway in developing their teaching styles, and it may be that some teachers are skilled in addressing the individual needs of students. However, Melanie’s IEPs do not ensure for this. Further, even if they did, C-C was not persuasive that it could overcome the difficulties presented in her tenth grade mainstreamed classes9 . It was not persuasive that Melanie’s classes would be taught at her level and at her speed, would provide her with sufficient opportunity to participate, would provide the necessary level of direct teaching support and monitoring, and ultimately, would provide the safe, nurturing setting wherein she would be successful10 . C-C was not persuasive that its mainstreamed program would address her needs and would differ sufficiently from Minuteman’s tenth grade program wherein she had such difficulty. Further, Dr. Carra was persuasive that the Inclusion English class, although appropriate, meets only once per day, and therefore, cannot adequately cover Melanie’s reading, writing, and comprehension needs. (Carra) Finally, C-C was not persuasive that the diverse student groupings would be appropriate for Melanie, for such would place Melanie with some faster-paced students, creating an environment where she would push herself to succeed at a level difficult for her. Ms. Archambault, Ms. Zapolin, and Ms. McMahan were each quite clear that Melanie requires a setting where she feels successful and nurtured, and should not be further stressed. Dr. Carra was persuasive that C-C’s mainstreamed classes could not provide for that.
There are two further factors to consider in determining Melanie’s ability to handle the mainstreamed setting. One is the inevitable increasing complexity of materials as she moved in to the eleventh and twelfth grades, and the second is the shift from Minuteman’s academic/vocational program to C-C’s all-academic program. The increasing complexity of academic work can only further challenge Melanie, and the vocational classes were a source of success for Melanie. The question remains, therefore, as to what impact the elimination of that source of success would have on Melanie, especially given the more complex academic work. Given Melanie’s significant stress in her academic subjects, this concern is significant.
Finally, Melanie’s own words undermined C-C’s claim that its programs were appropriate. That is, after attending Eagle Hill’s summer program, she clearly stated to Dr. Carra in reference to the small class setting and the teaching style, that “you can’t hide there, they help you. Further, they taught in a way that I could understand the material”. (Carra) Further, when asked, Melanie expressed that the small classes and individual attention were the main thing Eagle Hill School could offer her. (P-71) Given Melanie’s long-standing desire for a mainstreamed setting (she tried two different mainstreamed settings for three years), her comments regarding her need for the specialized more restrictive setting must be taken seriously. She clearly wants to learn, is a dedicated student, and states the conditions necessary for her to learn. It is interesting that three of her Minuteman teachers stated on her Eagle Hill application recommendations, that the small group settings would be so helpful for her. C-C attempted to rebut this by asserting that the teachers did not intend to recommend the small group settings, but wrote such only to support Parents’ application. C-C was not persuasive, however, for the only teacher to testify was the one with a smaller class – 15 students – and she in fact recommended settings smaller than the typical class size. Further, she could not comment on Melanie’s performance in the larger classes, wherein Melanie had such difficulty.
3. Parents are not persuasive that Melanie requires a residential setting in order to address her social/emotional and organizational needs. However, it appears that the commute between Melanie’s home and Eagle Hill is one and a half hours. Assuming this to be correct, residential placement is warranted. Requiring Melanie to endure three hours per day traveling is a burden not imposed on the non-disabled student, and is in fact well over the state mandated one hour (each way) limit. It is also noted that after an exhaustive search, Eagle Hill was the only school that accepted Melanie. (Father) Accordingly, residential placement is warranted. Having found such, it is important that it be stated that Melanie’s social/emotional needs do not dictate the need for a residential placement. It may be true that she needs support in developing her social skills and in strengthening her emotional status. However, there is nothing to suggest that such cannot be addressed in a day program. First, although she lacks social pragmatics skills, Melanie does in fact have successes in the social arena. While at Minuteman, she had a small group of good friends and a larger group of students with whom she was friendly. Parents in fact recognized her progress in her second year there, for they stated in the Eagle Hill School application that “during ninth grade, her after school and weekend contacts tended to revolve around e-mail and chat rooms with her school friends. During the past year, however, she has begun initiating getting together and has also been using the telephone more often.” (P-71) Further, her multiple sports and other interests provide her venues for socializing. Clearly, her social pragmatics necessitate intervention, however, that could be provided through counseling, speech/language therapy, small group work, and intervention throughout the school day. There is nothing to suggest that Melanie would not benefit sufficiently from such intervention. She in fact looked forward to attending the weekly girls’ group at Minuteman. (Zapolin) Parents rely on Dr. Carra’s assessment as to her need for a residential setting. Such is not persuasive for several reasons. First, Dr. Carra is the only evaluator calling for such, and she had limited information regarding Melanie’s emotional/social status as well as her social life in and out of school. She had not spoken with the school staff. She was unaware, for instance, of her social success during her summer. Further, she acknowledged that Melanie was under stress when tested, and that observing her at Eagle Hill evidenced better social/emotional skills. (Carra) Secondly, the facts just do not support such. There is too much evidence of her successful social experiences, and of her ability to interact in the classroom setting, to justify the need for such a restrictive educational setting. Dr. Carra’s testing may be accurate in diagnosing her social/emotional difficulties – such difficulties with inferring what people felt, how they would resolve it, what people needed, etc. are documented by her teachers at Eagle Hill as well as at Minuteman. This, however, does not support the need for a residential setting.
4. Aside from the substantive determination of Melanie’s educational needs, there is a procedural determination as to whether C-C’s process was sufficient to render its conclusion reliable. I find that, in significant ways, it was not. C-C possessed very little information of its own on which to determine Melanie’s educational needs, for C-C had conducted no evaluations of its own, and had not taught Melanie for the last two years of schooling while she was at Minuteman. Thus, C-C was dependent on the Minuteman staff’s and Parents’ information, Melanie’s school record, the several independent evaluations, and the spring of 2000 speech/language evaluation. The TEAM convened in January of 200212 , then again in November of 2002. The January TEAM included Melanie’s special education teacher but not any of her mainstreamed teachers. Further, although there was significant expertise at the meeting – a speech/language pathologist, school psychologist, reading teacher, special educator and social worker – only the special educator, reading teacher, and social worker had worked with Melanie, and none were provided the rather extensive evaluation reports prior to the meeting. (P-3, S-1, Delaney) Thus, without the evaluation reports, all were denied information, but the speech/language pathologist and the school psychologist had little information with which to voice their opinions. Further, there was no mainstreamed teacher who could voice an opinion. Yet these are critical areas of expertise in addressing Melanie’s educational needs. Further, the law requires that a regular education teacher of the student be present at the TEAM meeting (see 34 CFR §300.344) and that the evaluations be used by the TEAM in discerning a child’s educational needs (see 34 CFR §300.320(a)(2)). Given C-C’s general lack of knowledge about Melanie’s educational needs, it was even more important that the TEAM members include a Minuteman mainstreamed teacher and that the TEAM members have access to the evaluations relevant to their expertise. It is true that Ms. Delaney has expertise as a psychologist and she had read the report. However, it is the TEAM, not one member, who is responsible for determining Melanie’s educational needs. She may have read the reports, but there was virtually no discussion of the reports at the meeting. Thus, the TEAM meeting could not have given confidence to Parents or the Bureau, that a well-reasoned analysis went in to understanding Melanie’s needs or defining a program to address those needs. This failure is particularly significant, given the fact that a) Parents and Minuteman staff disagreed as to the source of Melanie’s emotional problems, thereby alerting C-C to the need for a close look at the situation, and b) the TEAM’s recommendations for mainstreamed classes were in such sharp disagreement with most of the evaluators’. (See page 19 above) It appears that this lack of analysis impacted Father’s observation of C-C’s classes, for that observation just furthered his unaddressed concerns. From his understanding, the science classes are leveled and students are placed according to their reading abilities, thus denying Melanie access to the higher level class. The English class is too fast paced, and Melanie could not have kept up with it; how would it be for Melanie if she were expected to master only part of the material given to the class (some students master only 25%)? The economics class included significant lecture, used a difficult textbook, and the teacher assumed that the students understood the reading homework. (Father) It may be that C-C had not intended to show Parents classes specifically selected for Melanie, but rather teaching style. If the TEAM had appropriately addressed the concerns of her teachers and of the evaluators, it would have become clear that in Melanie’s case, if the TEAM were to recommend C-C’s high school, it would have to select specific classes deemed appropriate for Melanie, in order to assess whether her needs could be met in the mainstreamed setting. This did not happen.
The November of 2002 TEAM again lacked sufficient knowledge and expertise, for no one currently teaching Melanie attended the meeting. (S-37) As a result, the TEAM did not have adequate information. Further, they again failed to address in any comprehensive way, the evaluators’ recommendations as to class size, Melanie’s need for specialized teaching methodologies, and her ability to handle mainstreamed classes. Apparently, Dr. Carra’s evaluation had been summarized for the TEAM, but only she and the special educator had seen it. Finally, C-C failed to convene its TEAM prior to the 2002-2003 school year in order that Parents be informed as to C-C’s proposed educational program for that year. Such TEAM did not convene until it came to the attention of the Hearing Officer. C-C claimed that they had not done so previously because the case was in litigation. However, when there is a clear dispute between the parties, it is even more important that a TEAM review its offering in light of any updated information. Thus, in addition to an inadequate TEAM process, C-C offered nothing prior to Parents’ decision to keep Melanie at Eagle Hill for the 2002 – 2003 school year.
It is noted that Eagle Hill is not Chapter 766 approved by the Massachusetts Department of Education. However, because Parents clearly made an exhaustive attempt to locate an approved school and because Melanie was not accepted at any such school, Parents had no choice but to place Melanie in a non-approved school, and should not be denied reimbursement for this reason.
6. C-C has raised several concerns regarding the appropriateness of Eagle Hill. It is important to note that the applicable standard for Parents’ right to reimbursement is not the same standard applicable to C-C’s IEP for the 2001-2002 school year – the courts have looked to the federal standard of the IDEA, and not the relevant state educational requirements. See Matthew J. v. Massachusetts Dept. of Educ ., 989 F. Supp. 380 (D.Mass. 1998); Joseph Doe v. West Boylston, 4 MSER 149 (D.Mass. 1998). Thus, although C-C’s 2001 – 2002 IEP must be reasonably calculated to maximize Melanie’s educational development, its 2002 – 2003 IEP and Eagle Hill’s program must be reasonably calculated to enable Melanie to achieve educational benefits. It must provide for significant learning and confer meaningful benefit through personalized instruction with sufficient support services. See Hendrick Hudson Bd. Of Education v. Rowley , 458 U.S. 176, 188-189 (1992); Burlington v. Department of Education , 736 F.2d 773 (1 st Cir. 1984). Some of C-C’s concerns may be justified, however, in weighing the benefits with such concerns, the benefits are clear. This is a setting in which Melanie has an excellent opportunity to further her learning and strengthen her social/emotional skills. As such, it provides her with an appropriate educational program, and Parents should be reimbursed for their out-of-pocket expenses.
C-C’s concern regarding the staff expertise is legitimate in that special education certification is evidence of a certain level of expertise, and most of the teaching staff members lack this certification. However, this is tempered by several factors. First, the teachers are supervised by the Assistant Head Master who has a masters in Education and has completed his doctoral work in language literacy, and by the Assistant Director of Education who has a masters in education, and is certified in special education 1-12, reading K-12, and Orton Gillingham. They supervise as needed, as much as biweekly, and make classroom observations as needed. Second, the teachers all receive yearly an intensive week of training, and are encouraged to participate in workshops and classes on a regular basis. Third, the teaching is in the context of a school designed for students with learning disabilities. C-C was also concerned that the speech/language therapist consults but is not closely involved with the teachers. Again, C-C’s concern is legitimate, given the language based nature of Melanie’s disabilities. It should be noted, however, that C-C’s mainstreamed classes do not offer language based teaching techniques, and Melanie’s IEPs call for no speech/language consultation or coordination with the mainstreamed teachers. C-C also questions the effectiveness of some of Mr. Dykstra’s techniques with Melanie (for example, he did not incorporate her visual strength when working with her auditory weaknesses, and he failed to use her class work as a motivator, and failed to teach her social pragmatics in her 1:1 setting). Finally, C-C notes that Melanie’s test scores reveal a widening gap in her phonics skills, and this is concerning – it is unclear whether this is attributable to her tendency for testing inconsistencies. Despite the importance of C-C’s concerns, when looking at the amount of expertise that is there, along with speech/language therapy, the small class sizes the student population, and Melanie’s changed attitude towards learning, Parents are persuasive that Eagle Hill provides an educational program that allows Melanie to make educational progress in her academic as well as social/emotional skill developent.
C-C asserts that the staff is not providing the language based techniques or the teaching of social skill development. This program may not provide a full language based program – the teachers are not trained in such, and the speech/language therapist does not integrate his work with the classroom work. However, Melanie receives intensive work with language skills in her tutorial, literature, and writing class daily as well as speech/language weekly. Thus, language is a central focus of her curriculum. Further, the small class setting (as opposed to the larger class setting) more easily allows the teacher to address Melanie’s expressive and receptive language skills. As for the social pragmatics, Ms. McMahan testified with significant assurance that contrary to C-C’s observations, social pragmatics is taught throughout the day, sometimes in class, sometimes after class where it can be addressed more privately with the student. Given that the curriculum material emphasizes social pragmatics, Melanie’s IEP includes social pragmatic goals, Ms. McMahan’s testimony is credited as true. It may be that C-C staff did not observe teachers taking advantage of “teachable moments”, however, there is too much evidence of staff focusing on social pragmatics, to agree with C-C’s position on this matter. (McMahan, McDonald, Dykstra, P-18) Further, just as C-C staff observed a lack of appropriate teaching techniques, Dr. Carra observed appropriate techniques. C-C’s observations may speak to the need for better supervision of its staff, but not to any inappropriateness of the program for Melanie.
In sum, despite C-C’s several legitimate concerns, Parents were persuasive that in this setting, Melanie is provided an education directed to her learning needs, her skill levels, and her social/emotional needs. She is provided with a setting wherein she can and is relaxed, comfortable, and able to successfully learn. Accordingly, it provides her with an appropriate educational program.
C-C shall reimburse Parents for their out-of-pocket expenses for the Eagle Hill tuition and transportation for the 2001 – 2003 school years.
Melanie is a pseudonym chosen by the Hearing Officer in order to protect the privacy of the student.
As of January 1, 2002, Massachusetts state law regarding the standard for IEP services changed. Accordingly, the older standard applies to the 2001-2002 IEP and the newer standard applies to the 2002-2003 IEP. See M.G.L. Ch. 71B §3, Stat 2002, c. 184 §83.
Melanie would have entered as an eleventh grader, given her credits at Minuteman. Her repeat of the tenth grade at Eagle Hill was a decision made by the Eagle Hill staff.
On redirect, she stated that if the class was diverse, including students who were lower as well as higher functioning, this would be a good setting for Melanie and that she would benefit from the rich content and discussion. In the context of her testimony, her initial response evidencing her concern, is given more weight than this later statement.
The Pathway tutorial peers may be a closely bonded group of boys, and they may have strengths and weaknesses different from Melanie’s, however, they all have average to above-average cognitive skills and have language based disabilities and share her problems with inferential, abstract thinking. Parents were unpersuasive that such a group would not offer appropriate peers for learning.
C-C’s reliance on Melanie’s success at Minuteman’s significantly lower skilled ninth grade classes was misplaced. Several of those classes were special needs classes and they included a repeated eighth grade algebra class. C-C’s program does not replicate this degree of special education classes and lower level classes, and does not include a repeated subject.
Parents were unpersuasive that the peers in the proposed social skills group rendered the group inappropriate for Melanie. Rather, C-C was persuasive that placing her in a group with diverse strengths and weaknesses could be helpful to Melanie in strengthening her self-esteem.
Although C-C offered no IEP until January of 2002 after its TEAM meeting, both parties agree that this delay was necessitated by Parents’ request to obtain the independent evaluations prior to the TEAM meeting. Thus, the lack of an earlier IEP is not to be held against C-C.

References: §300
 §300
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §3
 §83