Source: https://www.specialedlaw.com/database/hanover-public-schools-v-student-bsea-06-1157/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 10:42:16+00:00

Document:
The official record of the hearing consists of documents submitted by the Parent and marked as exhibits PE-A through PE-E, PE-F (first two pages), PE-G, PE-J through PE-N, PE-P, PE-Q, PE-T and PE-V1 ; documents submitted by Hanover and marked as exhibits SE-1 through SE-49 and SE-51 through SE-56; and recorded oral testimony. The Parties opted not to make or submit closing arguments. The record closed on Friday February 3, 2006.
1. Is the IEP proposed by Hanover covering the period from July 21, 2005 through July 21, 2006 as amended (SE-31) reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment?
2. If not, are Parents entitled to reimbursement for their unilateral placement of Student at Carroll for the 2005-2006 school year?
Parents state that Student requires intensive language-based, multi-sensory, rule-based specially designed instruction, across all areas of the curriculum with daily Orton-Gillingham instruction to make effective progress. They assert that Student’s needs are being met at the Carroll School (Carroll) where they placed Student unilaterally in 2004. Parents further assert that Student’s needs cannot be appropriately met in Hanover under the proposed 2005-2006 IEP as amended. Parents seek reimbursement from Hanover for the 2005-2006 school year.
Hanover affirms that it has offered Student an appropriate IEP for the 2005-2006 school year, which it later amended once Parent assented and it was able to conduct the updated speech and language and the neuroeducational evaluations. Hanover asserts that it can offer Student a FAPE through the partial inclusion program that it developed at the Hanover Middle School that will allow the Student to make meaningful progress. If the IEP is found to be insufficient, Hanover asserts that it can make any modification it is ordered in accordance with my decision. Lastly, Hanover disputes that Carroll has met Student’s needs and therefore, Parents are not entitled to reimbursement.
· According to Dr. Benkov, on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition , Student obtained a Full Scale IQ score of 92, placing her in the 30 th percentile, with scale index scores as follows: Verbal Comprehension Index-104 (average range); Perceptual Reasoning Index- 90 (average range); Working Memory Index 88 (low average range); and Processing Speed Index- 91 (average range). (SE-1; PE-B2) This test showed that Student’s verbal comprehension score was significantly higher indicating that this is an area of relative strength for her. According to Dr. Benkov, the discrepancies and degree of scatter in the subtest scores indicate that the Full Scale IQ should be viewed with caution, as it inadequately reflects Student’s overall cognitive profile. (SE-1; PE-B2) Student’s verbal skills are better developed than her non-verbal skills with weaknesses seen in the visual perceptual, visual-motor integration, complex motor and organization areas.
Although there were no concerns regarding visual motor integration, visual-spatial thinking was a concern. [Student] did not demonstrate deficits in visual memory, but there were many areas of concern regarding verbal memory and attention. [Student’s] initial auditory attention span was poor, as was her use of semantic clustering (effective recall strategy). She demonstrated a passive learning style, and very low recognition memory. [Student’s] recall, whether free or cued, whether after a short or long delay, was impaired. Although categorical cues aided her recall, her performance was still weak. [Student] experienced significant difficulty in encoding verbal information into memory. Another significant concern is [Student’s] Cognitive Efficiency, or automatic cognitive processing. These cognitive deficits indicate a learning disability and impact academic achievement.
· Dr. Hurley’s numerous recommendations included further evaluations in the areas of speech and language, occupational therapy and an eye exam. (SE-4) She further recommended that Student be given additional time to complete tasks, reminders to check her work for accuracy, reduced visual information and visual distractions, emphasize key words for visual cueing, highlight information, and supplement visually presented material with verbal input. To address issues of memory and retrieval, Dr. Hurley recommended “sequential step by step presentation of information, moving from the concrete to the abstract; repetition, review, and rehearsal of information; reduce distractions while encoding information; use of multi-modal instruction; provide recognition type exams; chunking of information; corrective feedback; instruction at a slower pace that covers material at a reduced rate, and allows time for review and rehearsal of information; use of a tape recorder as a memory aid; and she should be taught memory strategies.” (SE-4) Student should continue to have instruction in decoding of words with emphasis on multi-syllabic words and use of a place card to aid with tracking. To assist with reading comprehension instruction should be provided at four levels, literal, inferential, critical and creative, with the use of strategies like the K-W-L (Know-Want to Learn-Learned), activating prior knowledge, organizational structures, SQ3R, vocabulary building, and others. (SE-4) To address spelling and writing issues, Dr. Hurley recommended that Student continue to be taught the spelling rules, use a dictionary or a spell checker, use a word processor, incorporate spelling words into the curriculum, encourage Student to check written work for errors, punctuation and style. Corrective activities should be incorporated to address Student’s b/d reversals and help Student increase the quality and expression in writing. Dr. Hurley recommended a writing model that addressed prewriting, writing and post-writing. (SE-4) The evaluation written by Dr. Hurley provides no recommendations for any specific type of program or placement for Student.
· On August 23, 2005, Mr. Shillinglaw informed Parents that given the discussions regarding Student’s abilities and deficiencies, her performance at Carroll during the previous year, Parents’ stated dissatisfaction with the Carroll program, the result of the evaluations, the proposed program and placement at Hanover, Hanover would not fund Student’s program at Carroll. (SE-12) Mr. Shillinglaw further stated that he would take Parents’ letter as a rejection of the proposed IEP for the 2005-2006 school year. ( Id. ) On that date, Hanover again wrote to Parents seeking consent to conduct the speech and language, vision and occupational therapy evaluations. (SE-12) On August 26 th , Hanover requested this Hearing before the BSEA.
· Student’s program at the Carroll School for the past three years consists of instruction provided in a small group language-based program, with a high teacher to student ratio, and individual rule-based reading or fluency instruction. (Wilkins, Colahan, Mother) The language-based techniques are integrated across all areas of the curriculum in all settings throughout the day, with emphasis on metagognitive skills development and acquisition of reading skills. (SE-1; Benkov, Mother, Colahan) None of Student’s groupings this year is larger than 5 students to one teacher. (Colahan) In addition to receiving Math, History and Science, Student receives two language arts classes per day and one, one-on-one class in Orton-Gillingham instruction daily6 . (PE-Q; Colahan) All of her periods for the aforementioned subjects run for 50 minutes. (Colahan) Carroll is an approved special education school in Massachusetts and it follows the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks.
Using a marker to keep her place while reading.
Dividing words into syllables to decode and spell.
Reminders to check for b/d reversals.
Reminders to check for m/n reversals.
Check list of spelling rules and generalizations.
Check list of proper paragraph formation.
Check list of strategies for comprehension or reading passages.
The Parties do not dispute that Student is an individual with a disability, falling within the purview of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act7 and the state special education statute.8 As such, Student is entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE).9 Neither her eligibility status nor her entitlement to FAPE is in dispute.
The initial issue before me is whether Student’s needs can be appropriately met through Hanover’s proposed program as amended.
Upon careful consideration of the evidence before me, I find that the program and services offered by Hanover for the 2005-2006 school year as amended (SE-35) with modifications delineated in this decision would offer Student a FAPE in the least restrictive environment appropriate to address her needs. Whether Hanover is able to offer an appropriate program depends on whether it can implement the modifications stated later in this decision. At the Hearing, Hanover argued that if its program were found to require modifications, it would be able to implement any modification ordered. Because I am ordering modifications to Hanover’s program, and since the evidence is persuasive that Carroll is currently providing an appropriate program for Student, I find that Parents are entitled to reimbursement for their unilateral placement of Student at Carroll from the beginning of the 2005-2006 school year until such time as Hanover presents Parents with an IEP consistent with this decision and is prepared to provide said program. In reaching my conclusions and rendering this decision, I rely on the facts delineated in the Findings of Fact section and am therefore, incorporating them by reference. Therefore, I am only providing a summary in this section.
A great deal of time was spent by both experts regarding the challenges to each specific test. I found the testimony of Dr. Hurley and Ms. Barlow to be credible in this respect. Therefore, while Dr. Benkov’s evaluation was helpful regarding her chronology, review of records, interviews, and personal observations, I cannot rely on her test results and question the reliability of her testimony. Her statements are only considered credible where they serve to corroborate information provided by another witness. As a result, Hanover shall not reimburse Parents for any expenses associated with the testimony of Dr. Benkov, including her preparation time or presence at the hearing.
With respect to Dr. Hurley, while she had plenty to say regarding Dr. Benkov’s testing, she was guarded and offered no depth or specificity at all with respect to actual implementation of her recommendations in Hanover, even when prompted. This rendered her testimony credible but limited in its usefulness to me. I find Dr. Hurley’s testing, results and recommendations to be the most helpful aspect of her testimony. I further found Ms. Colahan and Mr. Wilkins testimony regarding program and placement credible and useful in reaching my conclusions.
Dr. Hurley’s and Dr. Benkov’s recommendations were similar with respect to the services to be provided but differed regarding frequency of services, the setting and the necessary qualifications of the service providers. (Benkov, Hurley) Dr. Benkov’s findings and recommendations regarding Student’s learning style and needs are similar to those of Dr. Hurley. (Benkov, SE-3; SE-4) There was disagreement between them regarding their findings as to whether Student struggles with sight vocabulary and visual memory, as well as her need for a distraction-free environment and provision of emotional support. (Benkov, Hurley) Another source of disagreement between them concerned Student’s cognitive ability. Dr. Benkov finds Student to have at least average cognitive ability, while Dr. Hurley concluded that Student’s cognitive ability is low average. (Benkov, Hurley) Given the totality of the evidence in this case, I find their difference of opinion in this regard not to be substantial and therefore, not material to the final outcome. Their major source of disagreement was the placement recommendation. Dr. Hurley supported partial inclusion in Hanover while Dr. Benkov supported Carroll. (Hurley, Benkov) The evidence is persuasive that Carroll is the appropriate placement at this time.
To address Student’s working memory, decoding and encoding difficulties in the classroom, student would need to be reminded of key concepts consistently through visual and auditory cues. (SE-16; Barlow) To address the aforementioned difficulties, Ms. Barlow further recommended that Student learn strategies such as reauditorization, chunking, visualization and semantic clustering. (SE-16; Barlow) These should be taught through direct instruction by a special education teacher or a speech and language pathologist. Ms. Barlow also recommended that there be consultation between the classroom teacher and the service provider responsible for said instruction. ( Id .) The frequency of the strategy instruction should be once per week for sixty minutes. (SE-16; Barlow) As discussed below, I find that this last recommendation is not supported by the evidence when one considers where Student was from an educational standpoint by the end of the 2004-2005 school year.
In the spring of 2005, Student was completing the 5 th grade in Carroll where she had been unilaterally placed by Parents. By the end of the year she had made little progress in that program. Parents and Carroll staff attributed her lack of progress to the fact that her fluency instruction had been substituted for daily Orton-Gillingham instruction. (Wilkins, Mother, Benkov, Colahan) Dr. Benkov and Dr. Hurley’s evaluations of Student, which took place between January and July 2005, offered evidence of Student’s lack of progress even when she had been immersed in a language-based program. (Hurley, Benkov, Wilkins) Confronted with Parents’ serious dissatisfaction with the results of the 2004-2005 school year, Mr. Wilkins admitted Carroll’s failure and agreed to reinstate the daily individual instruction in Orton-Gillingham for Student. The Parties agree that the 2004-2005 program at Carroll was inappropriate to meet Student’s needs. It is against this background that I assess Student’s deficits and what she needs vis a vis the Hanover program.
Parents’ witnesses credibly testified that Student benefited from instruction in a substantially separate setting, with a low student to teacher ratio, with peers of similar age, cognitive and learning profiles. (Colahan, Wilkins, Benkov) The portion of Hanover’s program that is taught in the substantially separate classroom meets the aforementioned recommendation with respect to the small classroom with low teacher to student ratio. (Therrien, Hurley, Benkov) It is however unclear whether the profile of the proposed peers in Hanover is similar to Student’s. (Colahan, Therrien, Benkov) Ms. Colahan and Dr. Benkov testified that Student is currently able to write an eleven-sentence process paragraph and can read expository passages while the proposed peers were still working on areas that according to Ms. Colahan and Dr. Benkov, Student had already mastered.
Parents and Hanover’s staff recommended Student’s participation in a summer program that focuses on reading and writing skills and this was included in the proposed IEP. (SE-9; SE-35) A close liaison between Student’s family and the school has also been recognized as an important component of a successful program for Student. (SE-35; PE-B1) Continued participation in non-academic activities, that include both skill building and relationship building components, which will help to increase her self-esteem are recommended. (PE-B1; Benkov) Currently, Student is involved in gymnastics and tennis. (Mother).
Dr. Benkov did not feel that a substantially separate classroom within a larger school would be appropriate for Student. (PE-B1; Benkov) This position is not persuasive. At the present time, Student is a more independent learner, more mature, she feels capable of doing her work, and she has many friends both in Hanover and at Carroll. (Mother, Benkov, Colahan) Dr. Benkov’s emotional functioning testing and clinical interview showed that Student was emotionally stable, with good reality testing and a strong and well-developed desire to connect to others, as well as the capacity to do so. (SE-3; Benkov, Mother) From a social-emotional standpoint, and assuming that the educational supports recommended are in place, Student would be able to handle the substantially separate classroom in Hanover’s Middle School. Legally, children should be educated in the least restrictive environment appropriate to meet their needs. Therefore, if Hanover offered Student an appropriarte program consistent with this decision, and said program were located in a public school setting, it would be a more desirable program, consistent with the least restrictive environment requirement under federal and state law.
I was greatly impressed with the overall quality of the program in Hanover as well as its teachers and providers, especially Ms. Therrien, Ms. Barlow and Ms. Foss. The evidence and their testimony support a finding that with modifications in the areas I will discuss below, the program can meet Student’s needs. In reaching this conclusion I rely on the description of the program offered by Ms. Barlow, Ms. Foss, Ms. Therrien, comments by Ms. Colahan, Mr. Wilkins, and the observations.
Parents’ major areas of discontent with the Hanover program involve the inclusion piece, uncertainty about the coordination between the inclusion and substantially separate portions of the program, failure to offer the rule-based reading instruction daily, the differences between Student and the proposed peers and whether language- based instruction is being offered. I find merit in some of Parents’ challenges to the Hanover program, and therefore have below, delineated modifications to address these deficiencies.
Dr. Hurley’s and Hanover’s statement that Student belongs in a partial inclusion program, with rule-based reading instruction twice per week in a small group, is inconsistent with the evidence. (Wilkins, Colahan) Assuming arguendo , that as Dr. Hurley states, Student is of low average intelligence, and taking into account her disabilities, current performance, and lack of progress during the 2004-2005 school year when not receiving one-on-one daily Orton-Gillingham (while attending a language-based program), then Student cannot be expected to make meaningful progress in a program that offers less services at a reduced rate than the one Student received at Carroll. At a minimum, an equivalent program that was language-based and offered daily, individualized reading instruction should have been offered.
While I was impressed with Ms. Foss, the social studies teacher, I agree with Parents that the manner in which Dr. Hurley’s recommendations will be implemented so that Student does not become “invisible” in that setting, is unclear. (Callahan, Parent, Benkov) I disagree, however, with Parents that it could not be achieved. I found Ms. Foss to be a qualified, knowledgeable professional capable of handling a wide variety of learning styles and needs. She has training in differentiated teaching approaches and nothing in the record suggests that she could not continue to learn and implement new methodologies. (Foss) Moreover, the format of her class is not solely the cooperative group approach. She stated that the cooperative groups happen every several weeks but not every week, and that she also engages in lecture format with questions and answers and opportunities for students to read and write. She also testified that the aide could take a group of students out to an adjacent room when needed. Additionally, Student’s IEP provides for twice per week 30 minute academic support sessions which Student can use to complete a lesson, an exam or to work on any aspect of the lesson.
Under Student’s IEP, Ms. Therrien, Ms. Foss and Ms. Apuzzi would meet once per week for 45 minutes along with the rest of Student’s teachers. (SE-35) Without the benefit of having had Student over the past several years it is difficult for Hanover to understand exactly how to implement all of the modifications recommended by Dr. Hurley. Hanover however, expressed a willingness and desire to provide the necessary modifications. Hanover’s Team must convene inclusive of Dr. Hurley, Ms. Barlow, Ms. Therrien, Ms. Apuzzi and the regular education teachers to finesse the coordination piece so as to ensure that the inclusion piece is more language intensive and the instruction is presented in a manner Student can access with sufficiently frequent opportunities for checking on Student. Opportunities for practicing reading, writing and speaking skills must also be present.
I now turn to the issue concerning the appropriateness of Carroll’s program.
The record shows that Parents first requested reimbursement from Hanover on August 12, 2005. (SE-11) Over the summer, Parents vacillated as to whether or not to request reimbursement for their unilateral placement of Student at Carroll. (SE-13) They had made this request to Mr. Wilkins and later wrote to the Carroll Board of Trustees demanding that Carroll offer Student a tuition free year and reimbursement to Parents for transportation, for the 2005-2006 school year. (SE-13) Carroll declined.
Parents are entitled to retroactive reimbursement for expenses associated with a unilateral placement if “1) the IEP and placement proposed by the school are deemed inappropriate, and 2) the placement in the which the parents placed the child is found to be appropriate.” Doe v. West Boylston School Committee , et al., 4 MSER 149, 161 (D. Mass. September 14, 1998) citing School Committee of Town of Burlington v. Dept. of Education of Mass ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-70 (1985). Since Hanover’s proposed programs SE-9 and SE-35, were found to be inappropriate as drafted, and modifications were ordered, I turn to the second prong in Burlington . Pursuant to Doe v. West Boylston School Committee , 4 MSER 149, 161 (D. Mass. September 14, 1998), the placement selected by parents must “provide personalized instruction, with sufficient support services to permit [Student] to benefit educationally. Additionally, the services offered in the private placement must have been reasonably calculated to enable [Student ] to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade”. Doe v. West Boylston School Committee , 4 MSER 149, 161 (D. Mass. September 14, 1998) If the public school program is deemed inappropriate, and the private placement was appropriate, the hearing officer may grant any relief (s)he deems appropriate, including reimbursement. Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter , 510 U.S. 7, 12-13 (1993).
The evidence is persuasive that the program offered to Student by Carroll for the 2005-2006 year corrected the major problem with the previous year’s program, that is, it reinstated the daily one-on-one instruction in Orton-Gillingham. Carroll is a special education approved school in Massachusetts and it follows the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks. (Colahan, Wilkins) See Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7, 14 (1993) .
Dr. Benkov observed the program at Carroll in December 2005. She testified that this program meets Student’s current needs. (Benkov) The program was also observed by Dr. Hurley, Ms. Apuzzi and Ms. Therrien. On the day they observed, a substitute teacher taught the science class, so they did not have an opportunity to observe a typical day for this subject, rendering this portion of their testimony irrelevant. I considered their testimony with respect to their observation of one of the two language arts classes Student attends daily.
While all of the aforementioned assessments report progress and growth, these assessments were completed at the request of Parents and Carroll’s Controller/ Compliance Officer in contemplation of trial. The manner in which they were solicited and later re-arranged casts a shadow over their credibility and reliability. (See SE-27; SE-28; SE-29; SE-30; SE-31) However, none of Hanover’s observers concluded that the program was inappropriate. Ms. Apuzzi and Ms. Therrien suggested alternative ways to approach the classroom situation, but none of them concluded that the instruction in the language-arts class was inappropriate. Furthermore, I found Ms. Colahan, the language arts teacher, with whom Student spends three 50-minute periods per day to be impressive. Ms. Colahan’s testimony regarding her classes and Student’s overall progress was credible and convincing. Mr. Wilkins, whom I also found to be a credible witness, supported the appropriateness of the Carroll program this year. Therefore, I find that for the 2005-2006 school year Carroll has offered Student an appropriate program capable of meeting Student’s needs. Therefore, Parents are entitled to reimbursement from Hanover consistent with this decision.
· The Team shall develop a more specific plan to ensure that the inclusion piece (the regular education piece) is language-intensive, that instruction is presented in a manner that Student can access, and that there are frequent opportunities for staff to check on Student. Additionally, the plan must provide opportunities for Student to practice reading, writing and speaking skills across all settings. Dr. Hurley, Ms. Barlow, Ms. Therrien, Ms. Apuzzi and the regular education teachers must be present at the Team meeting. If the regular education teachers and/or the aide require additional training, as assessed by Dr. Hurley and Ms. Barlow, this must be provided.
· Dr. Hurley and Ms. Barlow shall conduct additional observations of the proposed classes at Hanover so that they may provide specific suggestions on how to implement their recommendations for Student across all settings. The number of observations will depend on what Dr. Hurley and Ms. Barlow deem necessary. Dr. Hurley and Ms. Barlow must develop a plan regarding coordination and implementation and must present it to the Team. Additional opportunities for them to observe the classes once the recommendations are implemented shall be built into the plan to ensure that the implementation is appropriate.
· Individual Orton-Gillingham instruction must be offered daily for 45 minutes.
· Hanover must carefully plan coordination between the inclusion and substantially separate portions of Student’s proposed program. To the extent possible, Hanover should use consistent tools and strategies across all settings to assist Student.
· All service delivery staff must be appropriately trained to deliver the service they will be responsible to deliver.
2. Hanover shall reimburse Parents for Student’s placement at Carroll and transportation from the beginning of the 2005-2006 school year, until it offers Parents an IEP consistent with this decision and is prepared to provide said program.
3. Hanover shall not reimburse Parents for any expenses associated with the testimony of Dr. Benkov including her preparation time or presence at the hearing.
PE-U was marked for identification only and PE-L was replaced with SE-16.
By April/May of Student’s second grade she was performing at the mid-first grade level in reading.
Although Hanover received a summary of Dr. Benkov’s evaluation of Student on June 9, 2005, Parents agreed to forgo a Team meeting within 10 days of receipt of that evaluation since the Team would convene on July 21, 2005. (SE-7) Also, via letter dated July 1, 2005, Mr. Shillinglaw, Hanover’s Director of Pupil Personnel Services, sought clarification as to the test instruments used by Dr. Benkov in further evaluations performed by her on June 22 nd , given that the summary of her previous evaluation indicated to him that she had concluded her evaluations earlier in the year. (SE-7) The information regarding Dr. Benkov’s updated tests was included in her final report submitted much later than her summary. (SE-2; SE-3; Benkov) The specific date was not provided.
In this request Parents also asked to be reimbursed for future years. I have jurisdiction over the 2005-2006 school year only.
20 U.S.C. 1400 (d)(1)(A), 1412 (a)(1)(A); MGL c. 71B, ss. 1 (definition of FAPE), 2, 3.
Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School Distric v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 192 (1982) (goal of Congress in passing IDEA was to make access to education “meaningful”); Deal v. Hamilton County Board of Education, 104 LRP 59544 (6 th Cir. 2004); (“ IDEA requires an IEP to confer a ‘meaningful educational benefit’ gauged in relation to the potential of the child at issue”); G. by R.G. and A.G. v. Fort Bragg Dependent Schs , 40 IDELR 4 (4th Cir. 2003) (issue is whether the IEP was reasonably calculated to provide student meaningful educational benefit); Weixel v. Board of Education of the City of New York , 287 F.3d 138 (2 nd Cir. 2002) (placement must be “‘reasonably calculated’ to ensure that [student] received a meaningful educational benefit”); Houston Independent School District v. Bobby R ., 200 F.3d 341 (5 th Cir. 2000) (educational benefit must be “meaningful”); Ridgewood Board of Education v. NE for ME , 172 F.3d 238 (3 rd Cir. 1999) (IDEA requires IEP to provide “significant learning” and confer “meaningful benefit”).
MGL c. 69, s. 1 (“paramount goal of the commonwealth to provide a public education system of sufficient quality to extend to all children the opportunity to reach their full potential ”); MGL c. 71B, s. 1 (“special education” defined to mean “educational programs and assignments . . . designed to develop the educational potential of children with disabilities . . .”); 603 CMR 28.01(3) (identifying the purpose of the state special education regulations as “to ensure that eligible Massachusetts students receive special education services designed to develop the student’s individual educational potential”). See also 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, 7 MSER Quarterly Reports 1 (2001) (appearing at www.doe.mass.edu/sped) (Massachusetts Education Reform Act “underscores the Commonwealth’s commitment to assist all students to reach their full educational potential”).
Challenges regarding ethical considerations by Dr. Hurley do not belong in this forum and I therefore, decline to address them.
At Carroll Student receives a 50-minute session of individualized Orton-Gillingham 9 days out of every 10 days. This adds up to 450 minutes, which divided by 10 equal, 45 minutes daily.
The nine out of ten possible dates is discussed in electronic mail from Ms. Colahan to Mr. Wilkins regarding Ms. Colahan’s schedule conflict during the PM activity block every other Friday when she is responsible to lead a group of students. (SE-51) Mr. Wilkins’ response agreeing to this can be found in SE-52.

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