Source: https://www.specialedlaw.com/database/groton-dunstable-regional-school-district-bsea-07-1194/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 13:46:45+00:00

Document:
On August 17, 2006, Parents filed a hearing request with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) alleging that the IEP and placement that the Groton-Dunstable Regional School District (Groton-Dunstable or School) provided for the 2005-2006 school year and the amended IEP that Groton-Dunstable proposed for the 2006-2007 school year, did not and would not, respectively, provide Student with the comprehensive language-based programming that the Parents assert Student needs to make meaningful educational progress. Rather, Parents claim that the Learning Prep School (Learning Prep or LPS), where they unilaterally placed Student in or about August 2006, is an appropriate placement for Student.
Parents seek the following relief:2 (1) reimbursement for tuition, transportation and costs associated with Student’s placement at Learning Prep; (2) prospective funding of all costs of Student’s placement at Learning Prep through the expiration date (September 5, 2007) of Groton-Dunstable’s most recently proposed IEP; (3) reimbursement for independent evaluations requested during the 2005-2006 school year.
A hearing was held on March 27, 28, 29, and April 5 and 13, 2007 at the office of the BSEA in Malden, MA.3 Each party was represented by counsel and had an opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses and submit documents into the record. The record consists of Parents’ exhibits Book I, Index 1, documents 1-44; Book I, Index 2, documents 1-36, and Book II, Index 1, documents 1 through 29; School’s exhibits S-1 through S-45, approximately 22 hours of tape recorded testimony and the transcript produced by the court reporters. Counsel submitted written closing arguments on May 3 and 4, 2007, and the record closed on May 4, 2007.
1. Whether the IEP and placement that Groton-Dunstable offered in July 2006 for the 2006-2007 school year were reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free, appropriate public education (FAPE).
2. Whether the amended IEP and placement that Groton-Dunstable offered in November 2006 for the 2006-2007 school year were reasonably calculated to provide Student with FAPE.
3. If not, whether the placement chosen by Parents at the Learning Prep school was appropriate, such that Parents are entitled to reimbursement.
4. Whether Parents are entitled to be reimbursed for the costs of independent evaluations during the 2006-2007 school year.
Student has a complex profile that includes a seizure disorder and resultant impairment of executive functioning and integration of information, along with a language-based learning disability and central auditory processing deficit. These disabilities affect Student’s ability to learn all aspects of the curriculum. To make effective progress, Student needs a small-group, language-based program with similar peers, in which language-based strategies and approaches are fully implemented in all subject areas.
In fifth grade (2005-2006), Student struggled and did not make effective progress in Groton-Dunstable’s program, which was an inclusion program with one period per day of Grid C support and an aide in science and social studies. Student also suffered loss of confidence and lowered self-esteem as a result of her academic difficulties.
Despite this lack of progress, of which Groton-Dunstable was aware, the district proposed an IEP in July 2006 for 2006-2007 which essentially replicated the inadequate IEP from fifth grade, only adding Grid B services (an aide) in English and math. In November 2006, after Parents had submitted additional evaluations, Groton-Dunstable offered an amended IEP, which added Grid C services in English and Math; however, the amended IEP also was inappropriate. The peer grouping in the pull-out classes was not compatible with Student’s needs, and the program as a whole would not offer the language-based instruction across all academic settings that Student requires to make progress.
Faced with these inappropriate IEPs, Parents were justified in unilaterally placing Student at Learning Prep School in late August 2006, and keeping her there after Groton-Dunstable offered the amended IEP in late November 2006. Learning Prep provides Student with the small-group instruction and integrated language-based approach that will enable her to make effective progress, and she has done well there both academically and emotionally.
Groton-Dunstable’s proposed IEP for the 2006-2007 school year was reasonably calculated to provide Student with a FAPE, and Parents are not entitled to reimbursement for Student’s unilateral placement at Learning Prep. First, the psychological and educational evaluations on which Parents relied at hearing to justify their position were not available to Groton-Dunstable at the time of the June 2006 TEAM meeting that developed the initial IEP for 2006-2007. That IEP was entirely justified by the information available to the TEAM at the time it was written, and the School is not responsible for funding a unilateral placement on the basis of information it receives several months later.
Moreover, in November 2006, the School considered and incorporated many recommendations of Parents’ independent evaluators when it offered an amended IEP calling for substantially separate services in English and Math. However, the School never was able to implement this IEP because Parents already had placed Student at LPS and also had rejected this IEP as well as the IEP from June 2006 which had added Grid B services. It would be unfair to order Groton-Dunstable to pay for a unilateral placement when it has been denied an opportunity to implement increased services in a less restrictive environment.
The witness testimony and documents on which Parents have relied at hearing are not persuasive, for many reasons. Among other things, Parents experts have overpathologized Student and failed to adequately consider Student’s functioning in Groton-Dunstable’s program, or Groton-Dunstable’s ability to meet her needs.
In fact, Student made effective progress in Groton-Dunstable’s program in the fifth grade, and likely would have made even more progress if the School had had an opportunity to implement the additional services set forth in the rejected IEPs. She does not need the more restrictive setting of Learning Prep.
Finally, Parents have not presented evidence in support of their claim for reimbursement for independent evaluations; therefore, this claim should be denied.
· Participation in “any phonetically-based reading program, “ given Student’s demonstrated problems with letter substitutions, sequencing, management of syllables.
· Helping Student develop and apply organizational skills and strategies, exploring with Student the types of strategies that are helpful.
9. In follow-up correspondence to Mother dated March 23, 2005, Dr. Schreiber clarified her diagnostic conclusions by stating that Student met the criteria for the Combined Type of ADHD, and “showed a cognitive profile of impaired executive functions consistent with this disorder,” as well as a language based learning disorder manifesting in poor phonetic skills, spelling, and sequencing skills, variable grammar; a reading disorder, limited expressive language skills and impaired management of visual-spatial material. Mother forwarded this correspondence to the School. (P-I-2-21).
12. In late April 2005, the TEAM convened to consider Dr. Schreiber’s report as well as those of Student’s classroom teacher and reading specialist. As stated above, the classroom teacher reported that Student was not progressing in the general curriculum. The reading specialist reported that based on DRA results, Student had made some progress in reading fluency, but “comprehension is a major concern,” and Student had not made much progress since October 2004. (S-22) When doing written work, Student found it difficult to make inferences, organize her thoughts and explain or elaborate. (P-I-1-30).
· Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE): Total Word Reading Efficiency—Below average. She performed better when the test was not timed.
· Test of Written Language (TOWL)-3: Contrived Writing and certain other subtests—below average. Overall writing—average.
· KeyMath-Revised: Total achievement—average. Difficulty with subtraction, mental computation, and problem solving.
23. For fifth grade, pursuant to the partially rejected IEP, Student had all her core subjects—language arts, math, science, social studies– in the regular education classroom.
26. Student’s social studies class consisted of 25 students, five of whom, including Student, were on IEPs. Ms. Cragg also taught this class, and was assisted by a classroom aide. The aide’s function was to be available to help all of the special education students, either individually or in small groups, with focusing or with understanding the material being taught.
· Academics: Student demonstrates little independence in class; works with aide and specialist on strategies but does not use them on her own, and is shy in the classroom, waiting for the aide to help her rather than asking for help.
· Reading: Student showed good word reading ability, could answer questions when prompted, had difficulty making judgments and answering questions involving higher-level thinking. She was improving at finding answers to questions in text.
· Writing: Student used graphic organizers. Her spelling and grammar were on a par with peers. Her ability to write good compositions depended on her interest in and knowledge of the topic.
· Math: Student needed support and encouragement for word problems; needed to be given specific steps for solving problems. Needed help on basic facts; did well with accommodations.
· Academics: Student was learning strategies such as repeating back instructions and highlighting, but was more dependent on aides than at the start of the year.
· Reading: Student was learning strategies for reading such as visualization, questioning, making connections and inferencing. She read a “level four” passage during a running record at 82 wpm with 98% accuracy, and was able to answer questions including inferential ones. She had difficulty stating any opinions.
· Writing: Her written work was “developing,” spelling was “acceptable as compared to her peers.” While style and quality varied, Student was showing more creativity than in the past.
51. On the same day of the TEAM meeting (June 8, 2006), Parents made a written request for funding for independent educational, speech and language, and neuropsychological evaluations. (P-I-2-32) They reiterated this request in the June 9 e-mail referred to above.
52. In a letter dated June 15, 2006, Groton-Dunstable stated its intent to conduct its own evaluations in the areas identified by the Parents, reconvene the TEAM, and fund independent evaluations if Parents disputed the District’s evaluations. (P-I-2-36) The record does not disclose what took place subsequently.
· Academics: Student was able to repeat back and explain directions, but continued to be dependent on adult supports in the classroom; was learning strategies such as highlighting, rereading and skimming text; was improving her ability to highlight relevant material.
· Reading: Student could read orally an estimated 5 th grade passage fluently at 115 wpm with 99% accuracy. Comprehension strengths included predicting, identifying concrete information, and understanding important implications. Weaknesses were in summarizing in her own words, understanding the theme.
· Writing: Skills were “continuing to develop.” Student had difficulty expressing herself and this affects written language. She needed graphic organizers because her writing often could be difficult to follow.
· Mathematics: Student was “doing well” in math, and had improved in problem solving. She needed to work on confidence.
56. During the summer of 2006, Parents obtained private educational and neuropsychological evaluations.
· CTOPP: Phonological awareness: below average; Phonological Memory: Poor, Rapid Naming: Average.
· Gray Oral Reading Test: Oral reading quotient: Very poor.
· Test of Reading Comprehension: Syntactic similarities: Average (high); Sentence sequencing: Average; Paragraph Reading: Below Average.
· Daily 1:1 instruction in structured programs for phonemic awareness, reading fluency, reading comprehension, writing, and spelling.
· Direct teaching and modeling of metacognitive strategies throughout each subject.
61. Parents did not provide reports from Dr. Shaw or Ms. Gray until approximately November 2006.
62. In August, 2006, after duly notifying Groton-Dunstable, Parents unilaterally enrolled Student in Learning Prep School (Learning Prep or LPS), located in Newton, MA. Student began attending LPS on or about August 31, 2006.
Based on the evidence at the hearing, I conclude that Groton-Dunstable’s IEPs issued in July and November 2006 were not reasonably calculated to provide Student with FAPE. On the other hand the placement at Learning Prep School does provide Student with FAPE. I further find that Parents are entitled to reimbursement for the independent educational evaluation conducted by Ms. Jody Gray, but are not entitled to reimbursement for the neuropsychological assessment performed by Dr. Lisa Shaw. My reasoning follows.
Education must be provided in the least restrictive environment (LRE) consistent with an appropriate program; that is, students should be placed in more restrictive environments, such as private day or residential schools, only when the nature or severity of the child’s disability is such that the child cannot receive FAPE in a less restrictive setting. (Id.) The program need not be perfect, and, in Massachusetts, need no longer provide a student with maximum feasible benefit. In other words, as long as the student is making reasonable, meaningful, demonstrable progress in areas identified as special needs, the program and services may past muster.
Here, the parties agree on Student’s general profile, although they disagree on the severity of her needs as well as her progress. The parties do not dispute that Student is a very pleasant, cooperative, empathetic child with average cognitive ability. They also agree that Student has a seizure disorder that has led to neurologically-based deficits in the areas of attention, working memory, executive functioning, and integration of information, and also has a language-based learning disability and reading disorder. In school, these deficits impair Student’s reading (especially fluency and comprehension) written expression, visuospatial skills, math, attentional and organizational skills. Student also has a mild central auditory processing disorder. She works and processes information very slowly and laboriously. Because of the nature of Student’s disability, her performance can be variable. Although standardized tests show that Student has average skill development in many areas, she cannot consistently access or demonstrate these skills in the classroom context or when doing homework and long-term assignments. There is no dispute that Student is very quiet, does not generally take academic risks, and needs to develop her self-advocacy skills. Historically, she has told teachers that she understands concepts or lessons when she does not.
In addition to their agreement on Student’s profile, the parties are in general accord that based on information now available to Groton-Dunstable, Student would benefit from substantially separate instruction in language arts and math as proposed in the November 2006 IEP.
The parties’ dispute centers first, on whether the July 2006 IEP was appropriate based on the information available to Groton-Dunstable at the time it was developed. Parents contend that even without the reports and recommendations of Dr. Shaw and Ms. Gray, Groton-Dunstable had enough information to determine that at the very least, Student needed substantially separate instruction in language arts and math, such that when the District refused to offer these services, Parents were justified in unilaterally placing Student at LPS. Once Groton-Dunstable had the Shaw and Gray evaluations, it was clear that even with Grid C services, the proffered IEP was inappropriate, justifying Student’s continuing at LPS for the remainder of sixth grade.
The School argues, on the other hand, that Student made progress commensurate with her abilities throughout fifth grade, and would have made even more progress in sixth grade if the July 2006 IEP had been implemented. The November 2006 IEP provides for even more services and certainly would have been appropriate for Student.
To determine whether Groton-Dunstable’s proposed IEPs were appropriate for Student, it is important to step back, figuratively, and look at the “fit” between Student’s profile and the services she has been provided and offered. The record amply demonstrates that Student has tremendous difficulty with remembering, planning, organizing, and integrating information, and that this weakness, in combination with more specific weaknesses in reading, writing, and math, has a pervasive impact on her ability to make academic progress.
While Student has average cognitive ability, and achieves average scores on some educational tests, her disabilities interfere significantly with her application of the skills she has. As a result, Student was not working at the level of her peers at Groton-Dunstable, and needed significant accommodations and modifications to get through the curriculum. Three neuropsychologists, Drs. Schreiber, Shaw, and, the School’s expert, Dr. Postal, concluded, in effect, that Student’s constellation of disabilities require an integrated approach to enable her to make meaningful progress. Their reports are supported by evidence of Student’s day-to-day experience, i.e., her difficulty in generalizing skills and strategies, even as she has experienced some improvement in specific subject areas (i.e., reading and math).
In sum, because of the pervasive impact of Student’s neurological disability, the totality of Student’s educational needs is greater than might be expected from looking at any one, discrete skill or subject. It is within this context that I examine the appropriateness of the IEPs offered by Groton-Dunstable, and Parents’ claim for reimbursement.
Reimbursement for “self-help,” i.e. public funding for parents’ unilateral placement into an educational program (or purchase of educational services) may be available when a school fails to offer or provide appropriate services and the services obtained by the parents are appropriate. School Committee of Town of Burlington v. Dept. of Education of Mass ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-70 (1985.) Here, Parents are seeking reimbursement for their unilateral placement of Student at Learning Prep for the 2006-2007 school year. In order to prevail, Parents here must demonstrate first, that the program and services that Groton-Dunstable proposed for 2006-2007 were inappropriate, and, second, that Learning Prep was appropriate.
To determine whether Parents have met their burden of proof, I look first at whether Student made effective progress in fifth grade (2005-2006). Parents are not requesting compensatory relief relative to the 2005-2006 school year. However, the adequacy of programming and Student’s progress for that year are relevant to the issue of whether Parents were substantially justified in unilaterally placing Student at LPS when presented with a very similar IEP for the following year. .
There is no dispute that Student made some progress with reading fluency and comprehension, understanding of math concepts, and willingness to participate in class. In her content reinforcement class, she was exposed to various strategies for understanding and organizing her assignments. She received passing grades in her courses.
However, the record shows that Student continued to struggle with the over-arching issues of organization, attention and memory, which affected her rate of reading and other work, as well as her ability to understand and complete assignments independently. Student may always have difficulties in these areas as a result of her seizure disorder; however, the record does not indicate that she received systematic instruction in strategies for compensating for or working around these difficulties that she could use in all settings. The record also shows that Student was becoming increasingly dependent upon adults, perhaps indicating that she was not effectively learning how to apply the strategies she was being taught, that she will need more intensive instruction as the curriculum becomes more complex, or both.
Moreover, the School’s evidence in support of its theory that Student made gains is difficult to quantify. Student’s passing grades were achieved with many accommodations, including reduced workload, reduced reading difficulty, the opportunity to retake exams, and the like. Student is, of course, entitled to accommodations so that she can access the curriculum; however, given the degree of accommodation she was given, grades are not necessarily a reliable indicator of her progress in areas of special need. Quarterly progress reports, for the most part, were general and conclusory, without reference to specific benchmarks that Student had or had not achieved. On the other hand, the progress reports indicate that Student was becoming increasingly dependent upon adults as the school year progressed.
Finally, Mother’s uncontradicted testimony indicates that Student’s school-related difficulties at home continued through the course of fifth grade. Despite the assistance she was receiving in school, Student continued to have great difficulty doing long-term assignments, had great difficulty applying concepts or strategies she had been taught in school to homework assignments, and, in math, was unable to carry over a concept she had used in one problem to the next. Student had numerous meltdowns at home and was experiencing school related stress.
Student is no longer legally entitled to “maximum feasible benefit.” However, she is entitled to services that provide her with benefit that is more than minimal, such that she makes meaningful, measurable gains in areas identified as special needs. Lenn v. Portland School Committee , supra . I find that the gains Student made in fifth grade did not meet the latter standard, and that Groton-Dunstable did not provide a systematic, comprehensive, and integrated approach to her organizational, memory, and executive functioning problems that she requires to make progress in these areas.
The IEP offered in July 2006 was inappropriate because it did not address Student’s need for the integrated approach referred to above. This need was not unknown to Groton-Dunstable during 2005-2006. As early as fourth grade, even before Student had an IEP, teachers felt she had weak organizational skills. Student’s initial IEP in fifth grade acknowledged Student’s executive functioning and organizational weaknesses based on Dr. Schreiber’s report. Student’s teachers used informal meetings and their common planning time in an attempt to help Student carry over strategies from one area to the next, in light of her documented weaknesses in executive functioning. Faced with this inappropriate IEP, which did not adequately address needs known to the School at the time, Parents were justified in unilaterally placing Student at LPS.
In November 2006, after Student had attended LPS for approximately three months, Groton-Dunstable offered an IEP with the Grid C services in language arts and math that Parents had requested during fifth grade. By this time, the reports of Dr. Shaw and Jody Gray were available to the TEAM. Once again, however, the proposed IEP was inappropriate in light of the clear and strong recommendations of these evaluators for a comprehensive, integrated, language-based program.12 The teacher for the separate language arts class, Ms. Bazzinotti, clearly has substantial training and experience in teaching reading to students with learning disabilities, and also communicates regularly with her students’ other service providers. She acknowledged in her testimony, however, that this communication, together with the work done in her class, does not constitute an integrated, language-based program. Additionally, Groton-Dunstable presented no evidence regarding the separate math class, even though math is an undisputed area of weakness for Student. I find that while the November 2006 IEP would have intensified services to Student, the services would not likely be sufficiently integrated to meet Students’ needs.
Having found that the program and services offered by Groton-Dunstable were inappropriate, I now must determine whether the placement chosen by the Parents is appropriate. The program need not be perfect, but must be capable of providing the student with FAPE. Matthew J. v. Mass. Dept. of Education , 989 F. Supp. at 387, 27 IDELR 339 at 343-344 (1998), citing Florence County School District Four v. Carter , 510 US 7, 13 (1993); Doe v. West Boylston School Committee , 28 IDELR 1182 (D. Mass., 1998); In Re Gill-Montague RSD , BSEA #01-1222 (Crane, August 2001). Thus, a parent may be reimbursed for the costs of a unilateral placement if that placement is “appropriately responsive to [a student’s] special needs;” i.e., so that the student can benefit educationally. Matthew J. , 27 IDELR at 344.
The record shows that the Learning Prep School has provided Student with FAPE, and hence was an appropriate setting for Student during 2006-2007. Learning Prep is an established, Chapter 766-approved private day school for students who have language disorders and who may also have additional disabilities such as ADHD and seizure disorders. Course content is aligned with the Massachusetts curriculum frameworks. Student has been placed in small, homogeneously grouped classes based on her skill levels in various subjects. She is functioning in the middle of her peer group, neither the strongest nor weakest student in her classes. Most importantly, LPS has an integrated, uniform, routinized approach to conducting classes, and analyzing and organizing written work and assignments, which directly addresses Student’s areas of weakness.13 According to Mother, she is able to apply the strategies she is learning to homework, which she has begun to do independently. Finally, Student has made a good adjustment to LPS, and has made friends there, while maintaining her friendships in her home community. According to Mother, Student is much happier than she was in fifth grade in Groton-Dunstable. Clearly, there is ample evidence that the LPS placement has been appropriate for Student for the 2006-2007 school year, such that Parents are entitled to reimbursement for tuition and transportation from the time of placement to the date of this Decision. For the same reasons, Parents are also entitled to have Groton-Dunstable fund Student’s placement and transportation prospectively from the date of this decision until the end of the LPS 2006-2007 academic year.
Parents are entitled to an independent evaluation at public expense “[u]pon receipt of evaluation results, if a parent disagrees with an initial evaluation or re-evaluation completed by the school district…” 603 CMR §28.04(5). See also 34 CFR §300.502(b). In Massachusetts, the right to a publicly funded independent evaluation extends for 16 months from the date of the evaluation with which the parent disagrees. 603 CMR 28.04(5)(c)6. Upon receipt of a request for an independent evaluation, a school district is obligated to either fund the evaluation, or, within five school days, request a due process hearing with the BSEA to show that the school’s evaluation was comprehensive and appropriate. 603 CMR §28.04(5)(d). The school’s obligation either to fund the evaluation or proceed to the BSEA is contingent upon the school’s right to evaluate the child in the applicable area in the first instance. See In Re: Abington Public Schools , BSEA No. 04-3493 (Figueroa, 5/13/04).
Here, Groton-Dunstable had conducted its own educational evaluation fewer than 16 months before the Parents’ request for public funding for an independent evaluation. Therefore, the District’s obligation was either to fund the independent educational evaluation or, within five school days, proceed to hearing to demonstrate that its own evaluation was appropriate. The District did not request such hearing within the requisite period or subsequently; therefore, under the applicable law, Groton-Dunstable is responsible for funding the independent educational evaluation conducted by Jody Gray, provided Ms. Gray’s evaluation meets the criteria set forth in 603 CMR 28.04(5)(a) regarding credentials of the evaluator and allowable rate of payment.
On the other hand, Groton-Dunstable had never conducted its own neuropsychological evaluation of Student, and therefore was under no obligation to either fund an independent evaluation or proceed to hearing until it had done so. Groton-Dunstable is not required to fund the independent neuropsychological evaluation conducted by Dr. Lisa Shaw.
1. Upon receipt of appropriate documentation verifying expenditures, reimburse Parents for tuition payments made to Learning Prep School from the date of Student’s enrollment on August 31, 2006 through the date of this Decision.
2. Reimburse Parents for transportation that they provided to Student to and from Learning Prep School according to the requirements of 603 CMR §28:07(6).
3. Draft an IEP calling for Student’s placement at Learning Prep School, as well as for round-trip transportation, from the date of this Decision through the end of Learning Prep’s 2006-2007 academic year.
4. Upon receipt of documentation of Parents’ expenditures, as well any documents necessary to show compliance with 603 CMR §28.04(5)(a), reimburse Parents for allowable out-of-pocket expenses for the educational evaluation conducted by Jody Gray.
In their original hearing request of August 2006, Parents also requested reimbursement for unspecified past and future ancillary or supplemental services, and also made a claim for compensatory services. On March 20, 2007, Parents filed the list of claims stated above after the Hearing Officer directed them to specify the time periods for which they sought relief.
On September 6, 2006, the original Hearing Officer in this case granted the School’s unopposed request to postpone the initial hearing date of September 26, 2006. Between September and November, 2006, the parties were engaged in evaluations and TEAM meetings in an effort to reach resolution of this matter. Pursuant to orders of that Hearing Officer, the parties filed written status reports in September, November and December, 2006 and participated in conference calls, in October and December 2006, to advise the BSEA of the progress of settlement efforts and the need for BSEA involvement. In February 2006, this case was reassigned to the current Hearing Officer. A pre-hearing conference was held on March 15, 2007, and the case proceeded to hearing on the dates specified above.
Parents assert that Student should be formally diagnosed with dyslexia, in addition to her seizure disorder. (P-1-2-8) The School does not contest the existence of a reading or language disorder, or the need for services in this area. (S-1) In any event, the diagnostic category does not dictate the services to which she is entitled. For an eligible child, “the type of disability…shall not define the needs of the student and shall in no way limit the services, programs or inclusion opportunities provided to the student.” 603 CMR §28.05(2)(a)(1)(ii)..
A speech/language therapist employed by Groton-Dunstable.
Dr. Postal testified at length to the effect that much of Ms. Gray’s and Dr. Shaw’s reporting painted a picture of Student as being more severely impaired than the testing actually indicated. However, all three evaluators reached similar conclusions as to Student’s profile and to her general educational needs.
Dr. Postal testified that she generally supports mainstreaming of students with disabilities, and that a regular education setting should be able to implement the modifications and accommodations Student needs.
I found the testimony of these witnesses regarding Student’s need for an integrated approach persuasive based on their findings, consistent with that of prior evaluators, that Student had significant weakness in executive functioning.
It is significant that the School’s expert, Dr. Postal, reported that Student requires such an approach. Dr. Postal testified that this could be achieved in a public school setting if all teachers employed the necessary strategies. In this case, however, Student needs a far more integrated and comprehensive approach across the curriculum than the School was able to implement in practice.
Parents never obtained a private speech/language assessment.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §28
 §300
 §28
 §28
 §28
 §28