Source: https://www.specialedlaw.com/database/19-02509/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 10:04:59+00:00

Document:
This decision is issued pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 USC § 1400 et seq.), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC § 794), the state special education law (MGL ch. 71B), the state Administrative Procedure Act (MGL ch. 30A), and the regulations promulgated under these statutes.
Parents filed a request for hearing on October 16, 2018. The hearing was scheduled for November 20, 2018. Parents’ request to postpone the Hearing until January was allowed for good cause and the Hearing was scheduled for January 18, 25, and 28, 2019. There was a conference call to resolve the Parties’ outstanding discovery dispute on January 7, 2019. Quabbin’s request to postpone the first day of hearing because Parents provided their discovery responses late was allowed. The Hearing was held on January 25 and 28, 2019 at the office of Catuogno Court Reporting, Worcester, MA. The Parties’ joint request to postpone the closing of the record to submit written closing arguments by February 15, 2019 was allowed. On February 13, 2019 the Parties made a joint request to further postpone the closing of the record until February 19, 2019. Their request was allowed for good cause, both Parties submitted their written closing arguments on February 19, 2019, and the record closed at that time.
The official record of this hearing consists of Parents’ exhibits marked P-A through P-T and Quabbin’s exhibits marked S-1 through S-32 and approximately 8 ½ hours of recorded oral testimony.
Whether the IEPs proposed for the period from June 2017 through January 0f 2019 were reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.
Whether Student is entitled to any compensatory education due to the proposal of IEPs that were not reasonably calculated to provide a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.
What modifications would be necessary to provide Student with a free appropriate education in the least restrictive environment if I find that the IEPs did not propose FAPE.
The Team convened on January 25, 2017 to review the results of Student’s three-year evaluation and proposed a new IEP. The IEP included goals in ELA-reading, vocabulary, mathematics, motor skills, occupational therapy, and communication. The A grid contained a physical therapy consult 1 x 15 minutes per month; an occupational therapy consult 1 x 15 minutes per month, and a speech language consult 1 x 10 minutes per five day cycle. The B Grid included inclusion support 5 x 85 minutes per cycle, occupational therapy 1 x 30 minutes per cycle and communication 1 x 30 minutes per cycle. The C grid contained ELA 5 x 50 minutes per cycle; academics 5 x 175 minutes per cycle; mathematics 5 x 50 minutes per cycle; physical therapy 1 x 30 minutes per cycle; occupational therapy 1 x 30 minutes per cycle; communication 2 x 30 minutes per cycle; ESY academics 4 x 180 minutes per cycle; ESY occupational therapy 1 x 30m minutes per cycle; and ESY communication 1 x 30 minutes per cycle 5.
The Team reconvened on September 11, 2017. It reviewed the rejected portions of the IEP and proposed a revised IEP. The Parent Concern section of the IEP was updated and a bullying statement was added to the Additional Information section. Pre-teaching was added to PLEP-A and language was added to the accommodation section to address Parents’ concern regarding positive behavioral interventions. A number of goals were updated. A life skills goal was added 9. An accommodation related to Student’s speech services was added to PLEP-B. State and District testing was updated to include accommodations. An academic consultation was added to the A Grid between the general education and special education teachers. The Grid C speech language services were changed from all small group to half small group and half individual. Physical therapy services were moved from the C Grid to the B Grid. Science and social studies times were changed to reflect science 5 x 30 and social studies 5 x 30 instead of 5 x 30 science/social studies. Homeroom was changed from 5 x 30 to 5 x 15 per day.
Kayla Dowd, M.A., CCC-SLP, evaluated Student and spoke with Parents on July 24, 2018 for approximately 2.5 to 3 hours. She has worked at Children’s Hospital since completing her education and has never delivered direct services in a school setting. She wrote a report of her conclusions and recommendations that Parents provided to the Team on September 12, 2018. She concluded that Student’s communication profile is best characterized by diagnoses of mixed receptive-expressive language disorder (describing Student’s receptive language abilities as being severely impaired, yet a relative strength when considering his entire communication profile), phonological disorder, fluency disorder and Down Syndrome. She recommended that Student continue receiving speech language therapy for at least 90 minutes per week across multiple sessions. She stated that it would be important that most of his support be provided on an individual basis using a pull-out model to provide the opportunity for repetitive and drill-based support. She noted that any group therapy should be conducted with only one or two other children working toward the same communication objectives, though conceded that she had never observed Student’s group or individual speech language therapy sessions and has not spoken with his speech language providers at Quabbin.
The Team convened on October 4, 2018. It reviewed Student’s progress to date, a Developmental Medicine Note by Jessica Solomon and Nicole Baumer, and a speech language evaluation completed by Kayla Dowd. It also reviewed Parents’ rejections of the previously proposed IEP and discussed Dr. Jorgensen’s recommendations.
Ms. Lambert noted that Ms. Dowd’s evaluation results were similar to her own. She agreed with Ms. Dowd’s statement that Student’s communication impairments will regularly impact his ability to participate and perform within both social and academic settings. She disagreed with Ms. Dowd’s recommendation that Student’s group session be limited to one or two other children because she has worked with him in groups of four to seven students and observed him making progress. She has observed him using techniques she has taught him during their individual sessions in the larger group session as well. She did not think it would be appropriate for Student to receive speech language services as a push-in service in a general education setting. It would limit her ability to provide the articulation drill that he requires.
Given his significant expressive and receptive language skill deficits, Ms. Lambert disagreed with Dr. Jorgenen’s recommendation that Student should attend sixth grade ELA and math in the general education setting with supplementary services as such a model would not provide the intense work he requires in both ELA and math.
Sarah Faucher is the teacher of Quabbin’s Create program. She has a bachelor’s degree in early childhood special education and is licensed in special education (through eighth grade) and early childhood elementary education. She has provided services to Student since the 2017-2018 school year. She provides his math, reading, vocabulary and life skill services. Although there are eight students in her class, she usually breaks them into even smaller groups. When she instructs Student, she often provides one to one instruction and generally he is instructed with no more than two other students. She noted that Student does not have a 1:1 aide and generally does not require one. He is currently reading at a level E, which correlates to a first grade reading level. He has progressed in reading at a rate of two to three levels per year. Ms. Faucher noted that Student knows his numbers, although he struggles to get through 13, 14, and 15 when counting. She noted that he has progressed in his life skills goal. She described Student as “the life of the party” in the Create classroom and stated that he likes his peers and is well-liked by them. He is particularly close to another student who has a similar diagnosis. She noted that Student does not show any hesitation when entering the Create classroom, but about once or twice per month he shows some hesitation when leaving the classroom for social studies or science.
Christopher Nosek is Student’s science and social studies teacher. He has a degree in communications and is certified in grades five through eight mathematics. He has worked in Quabbin for ten years. He teaches Student every day in science and three times per week in social studies. (Student has social studies every day, but two days per week it is taught by Mr. Nosek’s sixth grade team mate.) Student is accompanied by a one to one aide (the same aide each day) in his classroom. He stays for the entire forty five minute class.
Mother described Student by stating that he is very social, he loves his family, friends, and pets and loves music. Mother has a bachelor’s degree in psychology with a concentration in adolescents and children and worked as a substitute one to one aide in New York for a number of years. Student lived in New York, when he was in pre-school and Kindergarten and he was in a full inclusion setting and Mother testified that she witnessed him flourishing. Student successfully attended a summer camp with typical peers during the past summer. He attends weekly religious education classes with typical peers and he is an altar server at his church. Mother explained that she works on academic skills with Student during the summer, such as having him count, write the date, read and send e-mails. She testified that Student’s IEP does not require specialized transportation, but because he participates in the Create classroom a van picks him up and brings him to school. The van ride is approximately forty-five minutes long despite his school being about fifteen minutes away from his homed.
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.
The burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is placed upon the party seeking relief. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 126 S. Ct. 528, 534, 537 (2005) In this case, Parents are the party seeking relief, and as such has the burden of persuading the Hearing Officer of its position.
With the foregoing legal framework in mind, I turn to the issues before me. The first issue is whether the IEPs proposed for the period from June 2017 through January of 2019 were reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. Because many of the rejected portions remained the same throughout the different iterations of the IEPs, I will address the IEPs as a unit. It is notable that the Team convened six times between June 2017 and November 2018. Each time an IEP was rejected or the Parents submitted an independent evaluation or report, the Team appropriately convened to review the new information and make amendments or additions to the IEP as deemed appropriate. The credible documentary evidence and testimony show that the Team appropriately considered Student’s areas of need, including the areas of ELA/reading, vocabulary mathematics, motor skills, occupational therapy, and communication. The goals appropriately addressed all areas of need that had been identified by evaluators and providers and were modified at times based upon suggestions from both Quabbin providers and outside evaluators. (See descriptions of Team meetings above.) Parents’ concerns were also often addressed through modifications to Student’s accommodations, goals and services. For instance, when Mother rejected the use of the MCAS alternate assessment and explained that the Parents wanted Student to pursue a high school diploma, the IEP was modified to allow Student to take the MCAS with accommodations. Additionally, when Parents sought the addition of specific goals for Student such as learning to call 9-1-1 and tie his shoes, the Team added the requested goals. When Parents requested that pre-teaching time be added to the IEP, it was added as an accommodation and later added to the Grid.
Although Parents rejected several portions of the IEPs (which will be addressed in more detail below), the primary focus of the evidence and the real crux of this dispute pertains to Student’s placement. Parents have consistently requested that Student be placed in the general education setting, with supplementary aids and services, for his entire school day. Quabbin has consistently proposed a placement which would allow Student to receive some of his services within the general education setting with supplementary aids and services and some services in a separate setting.
Under state and federal special education law, a school district has an obligation to provide services in the “least restrictive environment.” 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); Mass. Gen. Laws c. 71B, §§ 2, 3. See also 20 U.S.C. §1400(d)(1)(A); 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.114(a)(2)(i); 603 C.M.R. § 28.06(2)(c). The phrase “least restrictive environment” means that, to the maximum extent appropriate, a student must be educated with other students who do not have a disability, and that “removal . . . 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.” Mass. Gen. Laws c. 71B, §§ 2, 3; 34 CFR 300.114(a)(2(i); 603 CMR 28.06(2)(c). See also Burlington v. Mass. Department of Education, 471 US 359, 369 (1985) (federal statute “contemplates that such education will be provided where possible in regular public schools, with the child participating as much as possible in the same activities as nonhandicapped children”). Where there is tension between the educational services necessary to meet the needs of a child (and to provide him with educational benefit) and the principles of least restrictive environment, “the desirability of mainstreaming must be weighed in concert with the Act’s mandate for educational improvement . . . , requir[ing] a balancing of the marginal benefits to be gained or lost on both sides of the maximum benefit/least restrictive fulcrum.” Roland v. Concord School Committee, 910 F.2d 983 (1st Cir. 1990).
Parents relied primarily upon the recommendation of their evaluator, Dr. Jorgensen, to support their position that Student can and should be educated in the general education setting. I did not find Dr. Jorgensen to be a credible witness for several reasons. First, she was hired by Quabbin to be an independent evaluator. However, Dr. Jorgensen was not in fact independent, as she had a prior relationship with Parents that she presumably did not disclose prior to conducting her observation. She testified about exchanging a number of emails with Mother regarding Student’s participation in the Quabbin program starting in 2016. The emails presented to her during cross examination showed that she had made a determination that Quabbin was not providing Student’s services appropriately based upon Mother’s emails to her and without speaking to anybody at Quabbin. Additionally, her first-hand knowledge of the Quabbin program was limited to her observation of a portion of a school day (including an observation of only the introduction to Student’s science class) and her review of a March 2018 progress report, Student’s schedule, three work samples, one evaluation, and one IEP. Lastly, Dr. Jorgensen admitted during her testimony that she viewed inclusion as a social justice issue and she had taken the position that it is not educationally or morally defensible to segregate students with disabilities in an article she wrote for a nationwide publication. (See page 8 above.) Thus, it is difficult to determine whether her recommendations are truly made on the basis of her observation, or her overarching beliefs that inclusion is always preferable without regard to what is necessary for Student. For the following reasons, I did not rely upon Dr. Jorgensen’s testimony or report.
With respect to the question of what constitutes the least restrictive environment for Student, I relied heavily upon the testimony of his current service providers. Ms. Faucher, who I found to be credible, has been Student’s teacher since the 2017-18 school year and is very familiar with his strengths, weaknesses, and educational needs. She explained that Student has made progress in reading at a rate of two to three levels per year and is currently reading at a first grade level. In math she reported that he knows his numbers, but continues to struggle to get from 13 to 15 when counting. She explained that Student requires substantially separate small classes for math and English language arts because he is still learning foundational skills. She stated that he needs to work on the “building blocks” of math and English language arts and is currently working at the first to second grade level in both of those subjects. She credibly testified that she utilizes the accommodations noted in Student’s IEP and that Student is comfortable and making progress within the Create classroom.
Similarly, I relied on the testimony of Christopher Nosek and found him to be credible and knowledgeable of Student and his learning profile. As Student’s general education science and (one of his) social studies teachers, he works with Student and observes his progress every day. He was able to explain how he modifies science content to make it accessible to Student and reported that Student was able to make progress in science. He also provided unique insight in his capacity as a math teacher because he is familiar with the sixth grade math curriculum that Student would be expected to learn in a general education math class. I credited his opinion that a general education math class would not be appropriate for Student given his familiarity with Student’s current math level, learning style, and his knowledge of the sixth grade math curriculum. I relied on his description of the concepts Student would be expected to learn in the general education and contrasted them with the skills on which Student is currently working. Mr. Nosek was persuasive in his opinion that math is different than social studies and science, in that one has to master fourth grade math standards in order to learn fifth grade standards, and fifth grade math standards in order to learn sixth grade standards. I thus relied on Mr. Nosek’s opinion that the IEPs proposed by the Team were reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.
Although Parents are correct in their assertion that the IDEA favors inclusion when appropriate, the mandate for the least restrictive environment cannot override the requirement that Student benefit from the services. Given that the IDEA’s least restrictive environment mandate cannot override the IDEA’s free appropriate public education requirement, the end result must be a program and placement that provide the student with a “meaningful” educational benefit, that is, a program and placement that are “reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist, 137 S.Ct. 988 (2017); see also Bd. Of Ed. Of Hendrick Hudson Central Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982); D.B. et al v. Esposito, 675 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2012). I am not persuaded that Student will receive meaningful benefit from his services in the general education for math or ELA. His teachers were persuasive that Student requires intensive services in those areas that are not possible to provide in the general education setting. Mr. Nosek explained that sixth grade general education math students are learning ratios and proportions, graphing on the coordinate plane, algebraic equations, and finding mean, median and mode. Student is learning to count by fives and tens, identify shapes and identify odd and even numbers. Dr. Jorgensen testified that Student could be included in the general education math class by being called upon to identify whether a number is odd or even while the teacher is guiding students through a more complicated math problem. However, requiring Student to sit through an entire math lesson, during which he is not likely to understand all of the grade-level vocabulary used by the teacher and peers (see testimony of Ms. Lambert), simply to have an opportunity to identify whether a number is odd or even does not confer a meaningful educational benefit upon Student. His math instructional time is better used in a classroom where he can work on skills at his own level and progress at his own pace. As Mr. Nosek credibly testified, Student needs to acquire underlying skills in math before he can benefit from grade level instruction. He requires intensive instruction in basic math skills, which he can receive in the Create classroom, before he is exposed to grade level math. Dr. Jurgensen also recommended that Student participate in general education English language arts, where he could be provided with adapted books at his reading level to access novels that are part of the general curriculum. (In addition she recommended that he also participate in a daily literacy class because he is still learning to read and needs to work on phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension, and writing.) Participation in the general education English language arts class in the manner described by Dr. Jorgensen would not be appropriate for Student, rather he would derive educational benefit from focusing on learning to read during the English language arts portion of the Create class.
In balancing the benefits to be gained or lost on both sides of the meaningful benefit/least restrictive environment fulcrum, it is necessary to consider that Student is provided services in the general education setting for a significant part of his day. He is exposed to general education peers during specials, homeroom, lunch, science and social studies. He is only provided services in a separate setting when it is necessary to appropriately address his needs. The evidence is persuasive that Student requires a separate setting for math, and English language arts in order to benefit from the services. The pace of instruction, given his expressive and receptive language challenges, and his current skill levels, would make it is unlikely that he would meaningfully benefit from the instruction in the general education English language arts and math classes where the instruction is fast paced and the content far above his skill level. He is still working on learning basic skills in math and learning to read in English language arts.
With respect to speech language services, both Ms. Lambert and Ms. Dowd recommended services using a pull-out model and found that a push-in model would be stigmatizing and inappropriate. There was no testimony from an occupational therapist with respect to the appropriateness of pull-out versus push-in services. Therefore, Parents did not meet their burden of showing that Student’s occupational therapy services should be provided using the push-in model.
Parents, as the moving party, had the burden of showing that the IEPs and placement as proposed by Quabbin did not provide Student with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. They were not able to meet that burden.
I decline to adopt any of the Proposed Orders in Parents’ closing argument, as they have not met their burden of showing that the IEPs as proposed did not provide Student with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.
Based upon the foregoing, I find that the IEPs proposed by Quabbin were reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. Therefore, no modifications to the IEP are required.
Student is not entitled to any compensatory services.
1 Ms. Dowd testified via speaker phone.
3 Ms. Rhodes administered the Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test 4 (ROWPVT4), the Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test (EOWPVT), the Goldman Fristoe Test of Articualtion 2 (GFTA2), the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals – Fifth Edition (CELF-5), and observation, and teacher report.
12 20 USC 1400 et seq.

References: § 1400
 § 794
 v. 
 § 1412
 §1400
 § 1412
 § 300
 § 28
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.