Source: https://www.specialedlaw.com/database/18-05127/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 10:11:02+00:00

Document:
The Student in the instant case is a nine-year-old child with language-based learning disabilities who currently attends the Landmark School in Beverly, MA pursuant to a unilateral placement made by Parents in August 2017. On December 15, 2017, Parents filed a hearing request with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) in which they alleged that previous and then-current Individual Education Programs (IEPs) and corresponding placements proposed by the Andover Public Schools (Andover, APS, or School) were not reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free, appropriate public education (FAPE). Parents seek an order from the BSEA directing Andover to reimburse them for the expenses they incurred in placing Student at Landmark as well as to fund Student’s Landmark placement prospectively.
Upon receipt of Parents’ hearing request, the BSEA scheduled an initial hearing date of January 19, 2018 and assigned this matter to Hearing Officer Rosa Figueroa. On January 9, 2018, Hearing Officer Figueroa issued an order granting the parties’ joint request to postpone the hearing until May 22, 23, and 24, 2018. On May 9, 2018, the BSEA Director administratively reassigned this matter to the undersigned Hearing Officer.
An evidentiary hearing was held as previously scheduled on May 22, 23 and 24, 2018 at the office of the BSEA in Boston, MA. Both Parents and Andover were represented by counsel. All parties had an opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses as well as submit documentary evidence for consideration by the Hearing Officer. The parties requested and were granted a postponement until May 30, 2018 to present oral closing arguments, and the record closed on that day.
The record in this case consists of Parents’ Exhibits P-1 through P-47, School’s Exhibits S-1 through S-62, as well as witness testimony and argument of counsel recorded electronically by the Hearing Officer and stenographically by certified court reporters.
Whether the IEPs and placement that Andover offered in June of 2017 for the 2017-2018 school year (second grade) were reasonably calculated to provide the Student with a free, appropriate public education (FAPE).
If not, whether the placement chosen by the Parents at the Landmark School was appropriate such that the Parents are entitled to reimbursement for the time period from August 2017 through June 2018.
Whether the IEPs and placement that Andover has offered covering the time period from June 2018 through November 18, 2018 are reasonably calculated to provide the Student with FAPE.
If not, whether the Parents are entitled to prospective funding for Landmark School.
Student has a severe language-based learning disability (dyslexia). Despite tremendous dedication and effort by Andover staff, collaboration and support from Parents, and persistence and hard work by Student, Student has not made effective progress in acquiring literacy skills during his three years in the district. In June 2017 Andover proposed its district-wide language-based program for Student’s second grade year, recognizing the magnitude of Student’s needs. At that time, however, Andover had not yet developed a second grade class within the proposed program for Parents to observe or consider. For this reason, Parents were justified in unilaterally placing Student at Landmark. Moreover, the second grade program that Andover did establish for the 2017-2018 school year was not appropriate for Student at that time, and the third grade program will not be appropriate for him for the portion of third grade addressed in this matter because it is not the fully self-contained, cohesive, intensive program with closely matched peers that Student needs in order to make effective progress. On the other hand, the Landmark School is an approved, well-established, highly specialized school that is designed and equipped to meet the needs of children like Student, and is highly appropriate for Student, who already has begun to make progress since enrolling there.
Andover’s proposed language-based program would have provided and can provide Student with all of the language-based interventions and instruction that he were recommended by his evaluators and which he needs in order to make effective progress. All special and general education staff involved with the program are trained in language-based strategies. The program was carefully designed and developed to meet the needs of children with profiles similar to Student, with input from experts in the field of dyslexia and language-based learning disabilities including Landmark. In fact, APS regularly consults with Landmark Outreach and has imported numerous Landmark School features into its language-based program. Student could and can make effective progress in his areas of disability in the Andover program, while still accessing the general education environment and curriculum. Although there was no second grade class for Parents to observe during the early summer of 2017, Parents knew that Andover was committed to forming and staffing such a class, which indeed was available at the start of the 2017-2018 school year. Thus Parents were not justified in placing Student at Landmark in August 2017, and are not entitled to reimbursement. Further, Landmark is overly restrictive for Student, who can make effective progress within the general education setting with the supports provided in the language-based program.
1. Student is a 9-year-old child with disabilities who is a resident of Andover. Student’s eligibility for special education and related services from the Andover Public Schools pursuant to the IDEA and MGL c. 71B is not in dispute.
13. On December 8, 2015, after a Team meeting to consider the evaluations, Andover proposed an IEP covering the period from December 3, 2015 to December 2, 2016. This IEP contained a speech and language goal addressing following multi-step directions, understanding linguistic concepts, and improving memory; an occupational therapy goal focusing on written output and self-regulation; and a social pragmatic goal to improve Student’s social communication skills. (P-6) The service delivery grid included classroom assistant support 5×60/5 days and OT services 1×30/5 days in Grid B, as well as speech/language services 1×30/5 days in Grid C. Parents accepted the proposed IEP and full inclusion K-2 placement on December 8, 2015, and Student completed the 2015-2016 school year in that placement. (Parent, P-6).
14. Parent worked with Student at home on reading skills during K-2 and became concerned that certain skills appeared to be regressing. After informal meetings between Parent, Student’s teachers, and the elementary school’s reading specialist, Andover convened a Team meeting on March 2, 2016 to discuss Student’s progress. On March 8, 2016, Andover issued a proposed amendment to Student’s IEP adding a literacy goal and math goal, and adjusting the service delivery grid accordingly to add 5×30 minutes/5 days of math support in Grid B and 3×30 minutes/week of small group reading instruction in Grid C. The amendment also added ESY services to in reading and math, and instituted regular communication between teachers and Parents. According to the N-1 form accompanying the proposed amendment, the additional goals and services were necessary because “[a]ccording to curriculum- based assessments, [Student’s] rate of progress in the area of literacy has not been sufficient.” (P-7) Despite the additional services, Parents believed that Student’s math and literacy progress was insufficient in K-2 based, in part, on Student’s final report card, which showed lower “grades” in several English language arts and math skill areas than he had achieved at the end of K-1, a year earlier. (Parent, P-8).
32. Academic achievement was measured with the Gray Oral Reading Test-Fifth Edition (GORT-5) and the Wechsler Individual Achievment Test-Third Edition (WIAT-III). Student’s overall score on the GORT-5 was in the 4th percentile based on age. Rate, accuracy, and fluency were in the 1 st, 2nd, and 1st percentiles, respectively. Comprehension scores were higher (16th percentile) because Student was able to use his intellectual ability to fill in information and derive meaning from text. (Kiley-Brabeck, S-17,).
67. Dr. Macht-Greenberg observed Andover’s proposed language-based program on March 26, 2018. Prior to conducting her observations, Dr. Macht-Greenberg interviewed Parents and reviewed Student’s prior evaluations and IEPs. Additionally, she had observed Student in his Landmark School placement a few days earlier, on March 29, 2018. (Macht-Greenberg, P-28).
80. Student’s teacher for math, oral expression/literature, language arts, enrichment, and social studies and science was Meg Arnio, who holds a Massachusetts certification in moderate special needs/Pre-K-8. (P-22) With the exception of math class, where Student is one of 4 students, Student has the same 5 classmates for each subject.
94. On December 19, 2017 Parents rejected the proposed IEP and placement, and reiterated their request for funding of the Landmark placement.
There is no dispute that Student is a school-aged child with a disability who at all relevant times was eligible for special education and related services pursuant to the IDEA, 20 USC Section 1400, et seq., and the Massachusetts special education statute, M.G.L. c. 71B (“Chapter 766″). Student was and is entitled, therefore, to a free appropriate public education (FAPE), that is, to a program and services that are tailored to his unique needs and potential, and is designed to provide ‘effective results’ and ‘demonstrable improvement’ in the educational and personal skills identified as special needs.” 34 C.F.R. 300.300(3)(ii); North Reading School Committee v. BSEA, 480 F. Supp. 2d 489 (D. Mass. 2007); citing Lenn v. Portland School Committee, 998 F.2d 1083 (1st Cir. 1993).
While Student is not entitled to an educational program that maximizes his potential, he is entitled to one which is capable of providing not merely trivial benefit, but “meaningful” educational benefit. See Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 69 IDELR 174 (March 22, 2017), Bd.of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley , 458 US 176, 201 (1982), Town of Burlington v. Dept. of Education, 736 F.2d 773, 789 (1st Cir. 1984); 675 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 2012); D.B. v. Esposito, 675 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir . 2014) Whether educational benefit is “meaningful” must be determined in the context of a student’s potential to learn. Rowley, supra, at 202,Lessard v. Wilton Lyndeborough Cooperative School District, 518 F3d 18, 29 (1st Cir. 2008); D.B. v. Esposito, supra. As the U.S. Supreme court recently held in Endrew F. at 69 IDELR 174, a disabled child’s goals should be “appropriately ambitious in light of [his or her] circumstances, Id. Finally, eligible children must be educated 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. On the other hand, the opportunity to be educated with non-disabled students does not cure a program that otherwise is inappropriate. School Committee of Town of Burlington v. Dept. of Education of Mass., 471 U.S. 359 (1985).
FAPE entails both a substantive component, as described above , and procedural protections for students with disabilities and their parent. These protections are intended to support the parent-school collaboration envisioned by federal and state special education statutes by ensuring that parents have full and meaningful opportunities to participate in the Team process. Parents in the instant case have alleged no procedural violations by Andover, and it is clear from the record that Parents have been active participants in developing and monitoring Student’s educational programming; therefore, the procedural component of FAPE need not be discussed further.
The parties substantially agree that Student’s significant language-based learning disabilities make it very difficult for him to acquire basic literacy skills that are commensurate with his cognitive ability, age or grade level, and that Student’s progress has been slow and laborious despite increasing interventions since preschool. The parties also agree that Student needs an intensive, coherent language-based program that provides specialized instruction in all aspects of literacy acquisition, including phonemic awareness, decoding/encoding, written expression, comprehension, and fluency, and implements language-based strategies across the curriculum.
The instant matter is distinguishable from Natick. In that case, the school district was unable to provide the parent with any concrete information about how its proposed community-based transition program would meet the student’s unique needs or implement critical portions of his IEP. Moreover, the purchased curriculum had not been individualized for the student, and key program components (e.g., job placements) did not exist. Id., p. 56. Here, unlike Natick, Andover added a second grade cohort to an elementary language-based program that had been in existence for a number of years. Although Parents were not able to see a second-grade class in June 2017, they had been offered an IEP which stated clearly how the placement would address Student’s needs, were able to observe fourth grade classes utilizing at least some of the staff who would be teaching the second grade, and had access to staff members who would be able to provide additional information. Moreover, in contrast to the situation described in Natick, nothing in the record indicates that Andover would be unable to deliver the services called for in Student’s IEP.
In these circumstances, any claim for reimbursement by the Parents hinges not on alleged unavailability of a placement, because a placement was, in fact, available in a timely manner, but on whether the IEPs and placements offered in June 2017 and November 2017 for the 2017-2018 school year and first quarter of the 2018-2019 school years were appropriate for Student. Based on a careful review of the evidence, including three days of testimony and a voluminous documentary record, I conclude that they were not. My reasoning follows.
The record establishes that Student is a motivated, hard-working child who has at least average intelligence and no major social, emotional or behavioral challenges. For Student, achieving literacy is, therefore, a goal that is “appropriately ambitious in light of [his] circumstances.” Endrew, supra. Student’s constellation of disabilities, which includes a language-based learning disability (dyslexia) as well as challenges with attention, executive functioning, and processing speed, have posed a formidable barrier to achieving this goal. To their credit, both Parents and Andover recognized Student’s challenges early in his educational career, and have collaborated to address his needs as they have evolved. Andover provided Student with specialized preschool followed by two years of full-day Kindergarten in which he received speech/language and OT services in K-1, and additional supports in math and literacy in K-2. For first grade, Andover provided Student with a co-taught classroom with an experienced general education teacher who also was a reading specialist (Ms. Waller), a certified special education co-teacher (Ms. Gorman), and daily pull-out instruction with a special education teacher who also was qualified in the Orton-Gillingham approach. Andover adjusted the IEP as the first grade year progressed to increase the amount of O-G tutoring as well as to add fluency instruction. Parents provided Student with O-G tutoring over the summer months between K-2 and first grade and again after first grade. Parents secured outside evaluations from Children’s Hospital, Dr. Kiley-Brabeck, and Ms. Arinsburg, and Andover duly considered these evaluations and incorporated many findings into IEPs. Parent, who is an experienced reading specialist herself, had no complaints about the quality of services that Andover provided, and commented repeatedly that the professionals who worked with Student were caring, dedicated, and highly skilled.
Despite all of the assistance that Student received in K-1, K-2 and first grade, his progress in learning the basic mechanics of reading, spelling and writing was halting and seemingly infinitesimal. Based on this experience, as well as the clear recommendations of Dr. Kiley-Brabeck for an intensive, cohesive, self-contained language-based program, Andover offered the language-based program at the Bancroft School. This program contains most of the elements recommended by Dr. Kiley-Brabeck and endorsed by both parties, including systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, decoding, encoding, fluency, and written expression using programs such as LiPS, O-G, Read Naturally and Story Grammar Marker, and use of language-based strategies in both the separate classroom and the co-taught science, social studies and math classrooms. And, in fact, it appears that the separate language-based classroom itself would have been appropriate for Student in second grade and the first quarter of third grade. The language-based teacher, Christina Fichera, testified persuasively that her classroom would be capable of meeting Student’s needs and there is no evidence in the record to the contrary.
In reaching this conclusion, I rely on the reports and testimony of Dr. Kiley-Brabeck and Dr. Macht-Greenberg. After extensive testing of Student, Dr. Kiley-Brabeck made clear recommendations for a small (6-8 students), intensive, cohesive program in which language-based approaches were infused into curriculum areas “seamlessly” and with fidelity. Dr. Macht-Greenberg, who had reviewed Student’s prior evaluations and observed Student at Landmark before observing the Bancroft program, testified persuasively that contrary to Dr. Kiley-Brabeck’s recommendations, the instruction in the inclusion classroom was too fast-paced for Student, who works extremely slowly, has relative weaknesses with processing speed, and has attentional challenges. Additionally, she concluded that the classroom contained too many students and that language-based strategies in the classroom were not being implemented consistently. I credit the reports and testimony of both of these witnesses. Both are experienced psychologists who either evaluated Student (Kiley-Brabeck) or reviewed evaluations by a fellow psychologist (Macht-Greenberg). Both are experienced in observing classrooms; Dr. Macht-Greenberg has authored publications on classroom management. On the other hand, the testimony of Dr. Cataldo was not persuasive as to the appropriateness of the Andover program for Student as she did not address how Student, with his slow rate of work, low level of reading and writing ability, and distractibility, could keep up with the demands of the inclusion classroom. Similarly, although Student’s first grade teachers, Ms. Waller and Ms. Gorman, testified that Student functioned in the general education classroom in that grade, I cannot infer that he would be able to “keep up” with the second and third grade inclusion content classes. In any event, the time spent in the inclusion setting in second and third grade would be time lost from remediation during a critical window for acquiring literacy.
The proposed third grade placement, the first quarter of which is covered by the November 2017 IEP, appears substantially similar to the second grade placement. Language-based services would continue in the same substantially separate grade 2/3 classroom as for second grade, and, as with second grade, Parents have not shown that these services would be inappropriate for Student, or could not be adjusted as needed to make them appropriate. The problematic inclusion portion for science and social studies would remain, however.
Ultimately, while Andover has committed an impressive amount of resources to developing and improving its district-wide language-based program at the Bancroft School, that program is not fully appropriate for Student at this time. Student had the benefit of skilled and devoted in-class and pull-out support in Kindergarten and first grade, but his progress was such that the Team agreed he needed more intensive programming. Despite the higher level of resources (such as Landmark Outreach) available to the Bancroft program, service delivery is not sufficiently integrated across content areas and is not cohesive enough to meet Student’s needs.
Student’s placement at Landmark was and is appropriate for Student for the time periods at issue in this hearing. There is no dispute that Landmark is an approved, well-established school that specializes in educating children with language-based learning disabilities. As observed by both Dr. Macht-Greenberg and Dr. Cataldo, and as documented in Landmark’s progress reports, Student appears to be benefiting from the slow, methodical pace of instruction, small classes, reduced distractions, and consistent language-based approach that he is receiving at Landmark.
Finally, I note that Andover’s program could be appropriate for Student in the near future if either (1) Andover expands the self-contained portion of the language-based classroom to encompass all of the other core subjects, 14 or (2) Student makes sufficient progress with basic reading and writing skills to benefit from the inclusion portion of the program without losing necessary remediation time.
Based on the foregoing, the IEPs and corresponding placements for Student covering June 2017 to November 2017 and November 2017 to November 2018 were not reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free, appropriate public education; therefore, upon receipt of appropriate documentation from Parents, Andover shall reimburse Parents for the cost of Student’s placement at the Landmark School from June 2017 to June 2018. Additionally, Andover also shall issue an IEP or amendment either providing for an in-district substantially-separate language-based program for all academic content areas or calling for Student’s placement at the Landmark School for the period from June 2018 to November 18, 2018.
1 At the time in question, Andover only provided half-days of Kindergarten to general education students and charged tuition for full days. Because Student’s Team deemed full days to be necessary to provide FAPE, Student attended full days without tuition pursuant to his IEP.
6 Parents did not cite evidence to support this claim about the teacher’s training or experience.
7 In her role as Director of Student Services, Dr. Stetson has been responsible for overseeing much of Andover’ language-based program development. Dr. Stetson has had extensive involvement with research and teaching strategies for students with dyslexia. Dr. Stetson has never met or evaluated Student, has not observed him and was not involved in developing his IEPs.
8 Neither Ms. Larsen nor Ms. Brooks testified at the hearing or submitted reports or other documents. Andover’s contract with Ms. Larsen stipulates that neither she nor any other Landmark Outreach representative would participate in litigation in which the Landmark School might be involved.
9 These are certificates issued by the programs themselves or by private organizations, not to be confused with Massachusetts teacher certifications.
11 In Re Natick Public Schools , 16 MSER 47 (2009).
14 See, for example, In Re Lauren & Hampden-Wilbraham R.S.D., BSEA No. 150285 (Reichbach, 2015). In that case, the hearing officer found that a program still in the planning stage might be appropriate for the student in the future, if the plans come to fruition. Similarly, changes to Andover’s program consistent with Student’s needs as outlined in this Decision might render it appropriate in the future.

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