X hits on this document

Word document

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS - page 3 / 16

55 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

3 / 16

received special education support in his English Language Arts class.  Ryan also received direct Wilson reading services, speech and language services and assisted study services. (Exhibits S-6 and P-2)

In November, 2009, Ryan’s mother requested an additional speech and language session because Ryan enjoyed working with Ms. Kelly, the speech and language therapist.  An amendment to the IEP was proposed adding this additional service. The parents accepted the amendment. (Exhibit P-3 and testimony of Ryan’s mother, Benn and Medaglio)

The TEAM met again on February 12, 2010 to develop an IEP for the coming year.  No new IEP was proposed because the parents were waiting to receive a report from Dr. Seligsohn who had evaluated Ryan on January 4, 2010.  A further meeting was held on March 19, 2010 to discuss the results of Dr. Seligsohn’s evaluation. A new IEP was proposed for March 19, 2010 to March 18, 2011. (Exhibits P-1, 7 and S-5 and testimony of Benn, Ryan’s mother and Medaglio)

The 2010 to 2011 IEP differed slightly from the prior IEP.  This IEP called for inclusion support in math, social studies and science and English Language Arts.  The parents rejected the IEP. (Exhibits P-1 and S-5 and testimony of Benn, Medaglio and Ryan’s mother)

On April 7, 2010, the parents filed a due process Hearing Request with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals.  After receiving an extension of time, Medford filed a response to the Hearing Request on May 4, 2010.  A prehearing conference was held on June 11, 2010.  The matter was scheduled for Hearing at that time.

On May 4, 2010 a resolution meeting was held.  Medford subsequently proposed a new IEP from May 4, 2010 to March 18, 2011.  One session per week of direct counseling services and a regular education reading comprehension class twice per week were added to the IEP.  Medford also advised the parents that a “lunch bunch” could be added to Ryan’s IEP.  The parents rejected the IEP. (Exhibit P-3 and testimony of Ryan’s mother, Benn and Medaglio)

This matter proceeded to Hearing on July 26 and July 28, 2010.  It is the parents’ position that the May 4, 2010 to March 18, 2011 IEP does not provide Ryan with a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) in the least restrictive environment.  Furthermore, it is their position that the Landmark School is appropriate.

It is Medford’s position that the May 4, 2010 to March 18, 2011 IEP does provide Ryan with a FAPE and the Landmark School is too restrictive.

Document info
Document views55
Page views56
Page last viewedTue Dec 06 08:18:07 UTC 2016
Pages16
Paragraphs146
Words6686

Comments