T.L. v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-0885
| Decision Date | 20 June 2016 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-0885 |
| Parties | T.L., a Minor, By and Through His Parents and Guardians, K.L. and K.L., et al., Plaintiffs, v. LOWER MERION SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Presently before the Court are Plaintiffs' Complaint (Doc. 1), Defendant's Answer to the Complaint (Doc. 6), Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record (Doc. 12), Defendant's Response in Opposition (Doc. 13), Plaintiffs' Reply (Doc. 14), Defendant's Sur-Reply (Doc. 15), Plaintiffs' Additional Exhibits 1 and 2 (Doc. 18), and the record of this case. Upon consideration of the parties' submissions and exhibits and for the reasons set forth below, this Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion.
Plaintiff T.L., a minor formerly enrolled in Gladwyne Elementary School, and his parents, Plaintiff K.L. and Plaintiff K.L. (collectively "Plaintiffs") filed a complaint in this Courtto challenge the decision of Hearing Officer Dr. Linda M. Valentini of the Office of Dispute Resolution (the "Hearing Officer") denying Plaintiffs tuition reimbursement from Defendant Lower Merion School District ("Defendant" or "Lower Merion") (the "Complaint"). Plaintiffs allege that Defendant failed to provide T.L. with a free appropriate public education and thus violated the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
In 2009, T.L. began Kindergarten in Lower Merion. Throughout the year, T.L. "experienced reading problems and was referred to a District certified reading specialist." Def. Answer, Exh. A ¶ 1, Doc 6 ("HOD"). Defendant provided T.L. with two thirty-minute small group supplemental reading sessions per week to help with the reading difficulties.
In the summer of 2010, K.L. and K.L. arranged for T.L. to have private tutoring in reading.
In the fall of 2010, T.L. began first grade and continued to experience reading difficulties. Additionally, T.L. began exhibiting difficulty with writing. In response to these difficulties, Defendant implemented an "Action Plan" to address T.L.'s difficulty with reading and writing. HOD ¶ 3. Under the Action Plan, Defendant provided T.L. with four to five thirty-minute small group supplemental reading sessions per week with the certified reading specialist. Id.
In the summer of 2011, K.L. and K.L. arranged for T.L. to have private tutoring.
In the fall of 2011, T.L. began second grade and continued to experience difficulties with reading and writing and also began to exhibit difficulty with math. In the beginning of the school year, Defendant implemented another "Action Plan" to address T.L.'s difficulty with reading and math. Id. ¶ 6. Under the Action Plan, T.L. received "preferential seating, pre-teaching during small group, scribing when [T.L.] became frustrated, and one-on-one instruction with [the] teacher during independent time, particularly during language arts." Id. ¶ 7. Although Lower Merion made modifications to T.L.'s classroom experience, "by early November of 2nd grade [Lower Merion] concluded that despite supplemental intervention under an Action Plan and making some progress in response to intervention [T.L.] was still struggling academically, particularly in literacy." Id. ¶ 8. On November 7, 2011, Defendant met with K.L. and K.L. to discuss T.L.'s difficulties and suggested an evaluation.
At the time Defendant proposed an evaluation, K.L. and K.L. described T.L. "as getting along with other children and adults, working very hard academically, loving school, having good self-esteem and having difficulty with focus at some times but not at other times." Id. ¶ 9. Similarly, T.L. was described as "kind, caring, always respectful, having some friends, being very organized, turning in all homework, being extremely creative, being able to follow directions when given examples." Id. ¶ 10. T.L. also "volunteer[ed] answers in class when feeling confident and when encouraged, want[ed] to do well and to please, ha[d] moments of insecurity when reading, [gave] up at times, and ha[d] some behaviors immature for age." Id. Further, "during structured whole group lessons [T.L.] tried to stay on task, but often became distracted . . . [and] would make noises, get up and down out of [the] seat, talk to neighbors andturn head away from the instruction." Id. ¶ 11. During the "unstructured times [T.L.] was improving the ability to start on a task immediately, but if [T.L.] had difficulty with the task, [T.L.] would give up and begin distracting behaviors. Id.
On November 11, 2011, Lower Merion "prepared a Permission to Evaluate [PTE] form." Id. ¶ 12. The letter was not postmarked until November, 28, 2011. Id. On December 1, 2011, K.L. and K.L. received the form and signed and returned it on December 6, 2011. Id. In the interim, K.L. (father) notified Defendant on November 14, 2011, that K.L. and K.L. elected to complete an independent evaluation of T.L., in addition to the evaluation Defendant was to conduct. Id. ¶ 13. K.L. and K.L. sought a date for the private psychologist to go to T.L.'s school to observe T.L. at the school. Id. In Lower Merion's evaluation report, Lower Merion "found [T.L.] eligible for special education services under the primary classification of specific learning disability and the secondary classification of other health impairment due to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder [ADHD]." Id. ¶ 25. The evaluation report also "recommended a 'multisensory, sequential, rule based program of reading instruction2 as [T.L.] is a bright youngster and concepts support memory for [T.L.].'" Id. ¶ 27 (quoting P-2). On February 10, 2012, Defendant met with K.L. and K.L. to discuss the evaluation report and K.L. and K.L. indicated that they agreed with the evaluation. Id. ¶ 26.
On February 10, 2012, in addition to discussing Lower Merion's evaluation report, a team, including K.L. and K.L., met to create an Individualized Education Plan ("IEP") for T.L. (the "February 2012 IEP"). The February 2012 IEP contained the following:
goals/objectives in handwriting related to copying text and to letter formation; goals/objectives in reading related to decoding [reading] and encoding [spelling]single and multisyllabic words, decoding letter sounds in nonsense words, acquiring high frequency sight words and oral reading fluency; and goals/objectives in math related to word problems with computation, money or time.
Id. ¶ 29. Further, the February 2012 IEP included numerous Specifically Designed Instructions ("SDIs") to address T.L.'s difficulty with reading; math; attention, hyperactivity and organization; and handwriting. Id. ¶¶ 30-33. In particular, there were SDIs for, inter alia, "multisensory, systematic, rule-based program for reading and spelling; . . . provision of math tools; . . . preferential seating; visual of 'whole body cues' on desk and classroom wall; longer tasks divided into small parts; . . . provide incentives for attention and work completion with decreased prompting; [and] . . . extended time to complete assignments in writing." Id. (quoting P-6). Additionally, the February 2012 IEP "provided for Occupational Therapy for one 30-minute [individual] session weekly." Id. ¶ 34. The February 2012 IEP also called for the special education teacher and the regular education teacher to meet on a weekly basis for a consultation.
On February 10, 2012, Lower Merion also provided a Notice of Recommended Educational Placement ("NOREP") that "recommended, 'Itinerant Learning Support for Language Arts for 1 hour daily and Occupational Therapy 30 minutes weekly, direct.'" Id. ¶ 36 (quoting P-14). On the same day, K.L. and K.L. signed the NOREP thereby approving the February 2012 IEP. Id. ¶ 37. Nonetheless, K.L. and K.L. took T.L. to visit a private school (the "Private School") on February 29, 2012. On the day of the visit, K.L. and K.L. contacted the school to request that Lower Merion send T.L.'s records to the Private School.
During the spring parent-teacher conference on March 28, 2012, K.L. and K.L. spoke to Lower Merion about T.L.'s Extended School Year ("ESY") eligibility. Id. ¶ 39. In response tothe conversation, on March 30, 2012, an amendment was made to the February 2012 IEP to include ESY services (the "March 2012 IEP"). Id. The March 2012 IEP included a "summer 2012 ESY [which] was designed to address decoding and spelling single and multisyllabic words containing word patterns or families." Id. ¶ 40. K.L. and K.L. approved the March 2012 IEP through a NOREP on March 30, 2012. Id. ¶ 42. T.L.'s "recommended ESY program included services for the summer of 2012, specifically: 'Reading tutor for 45 minutes, 3x a week for 6 weeks; Hours between 8:00am to 3:30pm Monday through Friday; Location: to be determined mutually by the Parents and the tutor.'" Id. ¶ 42 (quoting P-7, P-15).
To continue reading
Request your trial