Citations
- 888 F. Supp. 2d 534
Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM
YVETTE KANE, Chief Judge.
The Court conducted a bench trial in the above captioned matter. The record is now closed, and the Court is prepared to render its judgment. This memorandum constitutes the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law made pursuant to Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a)(1).
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs commenced this action in this Court on August 4, 2006, naming the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Education and its Secretary, Gerald Zahorchak, as Defendants. (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 1, 2006 alleging violations of: (1) the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.) (2) Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“Section 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 794; (3) Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.) (4) the Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (“EEOA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq.; and (5) the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Const, amend. XIV. (Doc. No. 4.) Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the Court denied on February 25, 2008, 547 F.Supp.2d 422 (M.D.Pa.2008). (Doc. No. 31.) On November 3, 2008, 2008 WL 4820474, the Court reconsidered the motion to dismiss and granted the motion as to Plaintiff G.J., concluding that Plaintiff G. J.’s claims must fail for lack of standing. (Doc. No. 55.) On September 29, 2009, 2009 WL 3182599, the Court certified two classes in this matter. (Doc. No. 133.) The first class consists of special-needs students attending Pennsylvania school districts that have a seventeen percent or higher enrolled population of special-needs students and a market/value personal income (“MV/PI”) ratio of .65 or greater. The second class consists of Limited English Proficiency (“LEP”) special-needs students attending schools with a ten percent or greater population of LEP students.
On January 28, 2011, 2011 WL 318289, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 190.) The Court held that insofar as Plaintiffs were pursuing relief against Defendant Zahorchak in his individual capacity, those claims were barred by the ADA and Section 504. In addition, the Court held that Plaintiffs’ due process claim failed as a matter of law.
Trial in this matter was originally scheduled to commence on March 21, 2011. (Doc. No. 189.) However, during the pretrial conference, held on March 2, 2011, the Court continued trial and reopened discovery for the purpose of allowing Defendants to conduct depositions of some thirteen witnesses who were disclosed to Defendants for the first time in Plaintiffs’ pretrial memorandum. (Doc. No. 206.) Following the close of the supplementary discovery period, the Court conducted a bench trial in the above captioned matter over the course of seven days between September 14, 2011, and September 23, 2011. The parties submitted amended proposed findings of law and conclusions of fact on January 23, 2012. (Doc. Nos. 276, 277.)
II. FINDINGS OF FACT
As was outlined briefly above, the instant matter is a class action suit challenging 24 P.S. § 25-2509.5, the Pennsylvania statute which apportions special education funding. Specifically, the classes of special education students allege that the funding formula results in an inequitable distribution of special education funds resulting in systemic violations of the IDEA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA, and EEOA. The following constitutes this Court’s findings of fact.
A. Challenged Funding Formula
1. In accordance with the IDEA, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania provides annual supplemental special education funding to school districts in the Commonwealth via a statutory subsidy. 24 P.S. § 25-2509.5.
2. During the 2009-2010 school year, this supplemental special education funding totaled approximately $1 billion. (Tr. at 745:2-5; Def. Ex. 91 cell 503N.)
3. In the 2000-2001 school year, the Commonwealth began implementing a “base/base supplement” formula to appropriate the supplemental special education funding. 24 P.S. § 25-2509.5(bb)-(zz).
4. The Pennsylvania supplemental special education funding formula consists of four parts: (1) a base amount; (2) a base supplement; (3) an inflation index supplement; and (4) a minimum percentage funding increase. See generally 24 P.S. § 25-2509.5(mm)-(zz).
5. The base amount is equal to the total amount received by the school district in the prior school year pursuant to the supplemental special education funding formula. See, e.g., 24 P.S. § 25-2509.5(zz)(l).
6. The base supplement amount is calculated by: (1) multiplying the district’s MV/PI ratio by sixteen percent — where sixteen percent represents the average enrollment of special education students across the Commonwealth — of the school district’s average daily membership for the prior school year; (2) multiplying the resulting product by the Commonwealth’s total available supplemental funding; and (3) dividing that product by the sum of the products of the MV/PI ratio multiplied by sixteen percent of the average daily membership of all school districts for the prior school year. See, e.g., 24 P.S. § 25-2509.5(zz)(2).
7. The Commonwealth also provides a special education contingency fund, which is used to provide additional support to school districts that have experienced higher levels of need in a given school year. (Tr. at 743:19-744:7.)
8. School districts must request contingency funds. (Tr. at 744:8-11.)
9. The maximum contingency fund available to each district in the past has always been $150,000. (Tr. at 255:10-25.)
10. The Commonwealth’s special education subsidy does not include a variable factoring the cost of removing language barriers for special-needs LEP students. 24 P.S. § 25-2509.5.
11. The Commonwealth’s special education subsidy comprises on average approximately 4.8 percent of the total revenue of school districts in the class and 4.0 percent of the total revenue of all school districts. (Def. Ex. 23; Tr. at 904:1-5.)
12. As explained by Ralph Girolamo, a school district’s special education budget is comprised primarily of the district’s basic education funding and local tax effort; the Commonwealth’s special education subsidy serves to supplement the special education funds derived from each district’s general funds. (Tr. at 745:10-24.)
' 13. There is no state funding specifically earmarked for schools to provide extended school year programming. (PI. Ex. 135 at 3.)
14. The Commonwealth does not collect data on the number of students receiving extended school year services. (PI. Ex. 139 at 4.)
1. Assumed Special Needs Population Component
15. The Commonwealth’s special education funding formula assumes that sixteen percent of each school district’s average daily membership is a special education student. (Tr. at 533:9-23.)
16. The majority of children in the Commonwealth are concentrated in districts with approximately fifteen percent of children classified as having disabilities. (Tr. at 542:21-543:2.)
17. The disability rates in school districts ranges from below ten percent up to above twenty-five percent. (Tr. at 543:2-5.)
18. The geographic distribution of children with disabilities is not uniform. (PI. Ex. 5.)
2. MV/PI Component
19. The MV/PI ratio is a calculation used to measure the relative fiscal capacity of a school district to support and maintain its programming. (Tr. at 740:6:12.)
20. A high MV/PI ratio indicates a school with less capacity to support itself, whereas a low MV/PI ratio indicates a school is more self sufficient. (Tr. at 742:4-11.)
21. The MV/PI ratio is a statutory formula combining the market value aid ratio and the personal income aid ratio. 24 P.S. § 25-2501(14.1).
22. The MV/PI ratio for each school district is calculated annually. (Tr. at 740:13-15.)
23. The MV/PI ratio is designed to provide poorer districts with a greater share of state funding than the share received by richer districts. (Tr. at 741:2-11.)
24. Over time, the MV/PI ratio has the effect of allocating an increasingly greater share of funding to school districts with high MV/PI ratios because the base funding level is equal to the total prior year’s funding level; as a result, the total special education funding includes each prior year’s supplement, which is adjusted for the MV/PI ratio, in addition to the current year’s supplement, which is adjusted for the MV/PI ratio. (Tr. at 741:14-743:2.)
25. Special education funding per special education pupil is not closely related to a school district’s MV/PI ratio. (Tr. at 576:19-23.)
26. Although the special education funding formula includes an MV/PI component, that component makes up too small a share of the overall formula to overcome the district’s difficulty in raising funding from its local tax base. (Tr. at 576:19-23.)
C. Adequacy of Funding
27. Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Bruce Baker evaluated the effect of the Commonwealth’s special education funding formula on school districts.
28. Dr. Baker did not examine individual school budgets. (Tr. at 680:4-10.)
29. Dr. Baker did not consider the manner in which individual schools allocated resources in his evaluation. (Tr. at 680:11-15.)
30. Dr. Baker did not consider capital expenditures or expenditures incurred on bond and debt funds. (Tr. at 680:16-19.)
31. Dr. Baker did not conduct a cost efficiency analysis to evaluate whether districts effectively used their funding. (Tr. at 680:20-24.)
32. Dr. Baker did not evaluate any educational programs or services within school districts. (Tr. at 680:25-681:3.)
33. Dr. Baker did not evaluate the availability of special education services in and out of the class districts. (Tr. at 681:4-9.)
34. Dr. Baker did not consider the relative caseloads of special education teachers. (Tr. at 681:10-12.)
35. Dr. Baker did not evaluate the timeliness, rigorousness, or appropriateness of IEPs in and out of the class districts. (Tr. at 681:13— 21.)
36. Dr. Baker did not evaluate the implementation of IEPs in and out of the class districts. (Tr. at 681:22-24.)
37. Dr. Baker did not evaluate the relationship between the receipt of a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) and funding levels. (Tr. at 682:14-21.)
38. Dr. Baker did not evaluate the adequacy of services. (Tr. at 697:6-9.)
1. Benchmarks
39. Central to Dr. Baker’s analysis of the adequacy of the funding formula was the use of benchmarks to determine proper funding levels. (Tr. at 563:13-25.)
40. In developing his benchmarks Dr. Baker relied upon: (1) the Augenblick Palaich studies; and (2) the Special Education Expenditures Project. (Tr. at 564:1-12.)
a. Augenblick Palaich Benchmark
41. In 2006, the Pennsylvania State Board of Education commissioned Augenblick Palaich to conduct a study to determine the per pupil cost of educating a student to meet the Commonwealth’s academic standards. (PI. Ex. 116 at ii.)
42. The study, published in December 2007, evaluated the base cost of educating a student who had no additional needs, such as special education needs. (Tr. at 637:22-24.)
43. The cost estimates in the report are based on the “single goal” of ensuring that “100 percent of students: (1) Master state standards in 12 academic areas; and (2) Score ‘proficient’ or above on reading and math assessments by the year 2014.” (PL Ex. 116 at 3-4.)
44. The report acknowledges that “no state or country in the developed world has ever achieved” the goal identified in the basic education cost estimate report. (PL Ex. 116 at 57.)
45. The report concluded that the base cost for meeting the goal set by the report for students without any additional needs was $8,003 per student based on 2005-2006 costs. (PL Ex. 116 at iv.)
46. The report indicated that the cost of educating a special education student should receive a weight equal to 1.3 times the cost of educating a student with no additional needs, that is, $8,003 plus $8,003 multiplied by 1.3, which would equal $18,406.90, or an added cost of $10,403.90 per special education student above the base cost of that special education student. (Pl. Ex. 116 at 30, 32-34.)
47. One benchmark used by Dr. Baker is the Augenblick base weighted by 1.3 times the Augenblick base, as outlined in the preceding paragraph. The Court will refer to this benchmark as the “Augenblick benchmark.” (Tr. at 561:22-25.)
48. The 2007 Augenblick special education weight was determined based on prior studies done across the country regarding the added costs required to educate students to meet state and federal performance standards, but did not include Pennsylvania-specific data. (Pl. Ex. 116 at 9.)
49. In 2009, a second Augenblick Palaich report was issued to address the costs of special education. (Pl. Ex. 117 at 3-4.)
50. The report does not appear to be commissioned by the Pennsylvania State Board of Education, as the 2007 report was, but rather appears to be an advocacy report funded by the Education Law Center, the Disability Rights Network, and The Arc of Pennsylvania. (Pl. Ex. 117 at 37.)
51. The 2009 Augenblick report explained that this added cost did not represent the cost of a “Cadillac” special education, but rather is a cost estimate for the resources needed for a fundamental quality education. (PI. Ex. 117 at 8.)
52. The report does not clearly articulate what is meant by a fundamental quality education or the relationship between what the report defines as a fundamental quality education and the FAPE requirement in the IDEA.
b. Special Education Expenditures Project Benchmark
53. The Special Education Expenditures Project (“SEEP”) benchmarks were developed by the Center for Special Education Finance. (Tr. at 564:1-12.)
54. The study evaluated the average expenditures on special education based on disability types and found that the average additional expenditures per pupil for children with disabilities was approximately double that of average expenditures per pupil for children without disabilities. (Tr. at 564:9-17.)
55. Specifically, the Special Education Expenditures Project found that the average spending on a special education student was 90 percent above the average spending on a non-special education student during the 1999-2000 school year, that is, $6,556 spent on a non-special education student plus $6,556 multiplied by 0.9 for a total average spending of $12,525. (PI. Ex. 19.)
56. The SEEP study was not concerned with whether the spending amounts are suitable or whether the spending amounts are sufficient to provide FAPE; it only measures what school districts actually spend on special education programming. (Tr. at 564:1-565:3.)
57. Dr. Baker used the 90 percent weight figure to develop a second benchmark, where he applied the 90 percent weight to the 2007 Augenblick base, that is, $8,003, which represents the amount the Augenblick study found should be spent on a student with no special needs, plus $8,003 multiplied by 0.9. (Tr. at 636:24-637:11.)
58. One benchmark used by Dr. Baker is the Augenblick base weighted by 0.9 times the Augenblick base, as outlined in the preceding paragraph. The Court will refer to this benchmark as the “SEEP benchmark.” (Tr. at 636:24-637:11.)
59. It is not clear why Dr. Baker elected to use the Augenblick base with the SEEP multiplier to set the SEEP benchmark.
c. Ability to Meet Spending Benchmarks
60. The Court does not accept either benchmark provided by Dr. Baker as the amount that must be spent to satisfy the IDEA.
61. The Court does acknowledge that Dr. Baker’s benchmarks may be useful in clarifying the relative spending levels of the class and non-class districts.
2. Relative Funding Levels
62. Dr. Baker found that the average special education subsidy per special education pupil in the class totaled $3,327, and the average special education subsidy per special education pupil in non-class districts totaled $4,108. (PI. Ex. 18.)
63. Dr. Baker found that districts with higher shares of special education students receive systematically less state special education funding per special education child. (PI. Ex. 16.)
64. Because of the manner in which the funding is distributed in Pennsylvania, those schools that have an above-average percentage of their average daily membership enrolled in special education tend to receive less special education funding per special education pupil from the Commonwealth’s supplemental special education funding. (Tr. at 531:3-10.)
65. Special education funding per special education pupil declines systematically as special education funding rates increase. (Tr. at 585:11-17.)
66. Funding from the Commonwealth’s special education subsidy accounts for approximately 35 percent to 40 percent of total expenditures on special education in Pennsylvania. (Tr. at 589:2-9.)
67. Funding from the Commonwealth’s special education subsidy accounts for approximately 37 percent to 39 percent of special education spending by school districts in Class 1. (Tr. at 589:10-18.)
68. Funding from the Commonwealth’s special education subsidy accounts for approximately 30 percent to 32 percent of special education spending in lower need and higher wealth districts. (Tr. at 589:10-18.)
69. The reason that the Commonwealth’s special education subsidy accounts for a smaller share of non-class special education budgets, is that the budgets are significantly less reliant on state funds to support their special education programming. (Tr. at 589:19-25.)
3. Educational Outcomes
70. Dr. Baker evaluated the educational outcomes of students on IEPs in the class districts compared to those students in the non-class districts.
a. Pennsylvania System of School Assessment Scores
71. Dr. Baker evaluated the effect of funding on Pennsylvania System of School Assessment (“PSSA”) scores. (PI. Ex. 32.)
72. PSSAs are state assessments conducted in math and reading. (Tr. at 580:1-581:9.)
73. PSSAs do not test life skills, occupational abilities, or speech and language skills, although these are goals of special education. (Tr. at 673:3-14.)
74. Dr. Baker did not measure student achievement in those areas. (Tr. at 673:15-17.)
75. Dr. Baker found that over the course of a five-year mean, the percentage of students on IEPs in the class districts is systematically higher than the percentage below basic in the non-class districts. (Tr. at 604:21-605:5.)
76. Exhibit 32 does not take into account student progress over time. (Tr. at 672:12-19.)
77. The R squared figure for Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 32 indicates that 31 percent of the variance in alternative educational placements is explained by the degree to which the districts in question fall short of Dr. Baker’s spending benchmarks. (Tr. at 669:23-670:13.)
78. Exhibit 104 shows that in 2010, students on IEPs in class districts scored below basic on the Math PSSA at higher rates than students on IEPs in non-class districts. (PL Ex. 104.)
79. Exhibit 104 does not take into account student progress over time. (Tr. at 672:20-673:2.)
80. Exhibit 105 shows that in 2010, students on IEPs in class districts scored below basic on the Reading PSSA at higher rates than students on IEPs in non-class districts. (Pl. Ex. 105.) ■
81. Exhibit 105 does not take into account student progress over time. (Tr. at 672:20-673:2.)
6. Alternate Placements
82. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 31 compares the percentage of IEP students in alternative educational placements in school districts with more than 5,000 students, in both class and non-class districts. (PL Ex. 31.)
83. Dr. Baker found that on average 4.3 percent of special education students in class districts with more than 5,000 students are placed in alternative educational placements, while on average 1.4 percent of special education students in non-class districts with more than 5,000 students are placed in alternative educational placements. (PL Ex. 31.)
84. There appear to be approximately twelve class districts represented on Dr. Baker’s chart. (PL Ex. 31.)
85. All but two of those class districts fall somewhere between zero and five percent of students placed in alternative educational placements. (PL Ex. 31.)
86. Only two class districts appear to fall above five percent: The Reading School District appears to fall just barely above five percent, whereas the Harrisburg City School District falls above fifteen percent. (PL Ex. 31.)
87. The R squared figure for Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 31 indicates that 11.27 percent of the variance in alternative educational placements is explained by the degree to which the districts in question fall short of Dr. Baker’s spending benchmarks. (Tr. at 669:23-670:13.)
88. Dr. Baker evaluated the rates of students with disabilities being suspended for more than ten days in class and non-class districts. (Tr. at 604:6-14.)
89. The percentage of suspensions lasting more than ten days for students with disabilities was 1.5 percent for students not in the class in the 2007-2008 school year. (PI. Ex. 65.)
90. The percentage of suspensions lasting more than ten days for students with disabilities was 3.7 percent for students in the class in the 2007-2008 school year. (PI. Ex. 65.)
91. Dr. Baker did not present data on suspensions for any other school years.
92. Dr. Baker did not present any data regarding how much of the variance in long-term suspension rates is caused by the challenged funding formula.
93. Dr. Baker reviewed some data regarding the intersection of LEP students and students on IEPs, but he was only able to draw a preliminary conclusion regarding that data before he was ordered to delete it. (Tr. at 626:3-12.)
c. Graduation Rates
94. Dr. Baker evaluated the graduation rates compared to dropout rates of IEP students. (Tr. at 610:16-18.)
95. Dr. Baker found that in districts with greater funding gaps relative to the Augenblick and SEEP benchmarks the ratio of dropouts to graduates among special education students is higher compared to those districts with lower funding gaps compared to those benchmarks. (Tr. at 610:24-611:5.)
96. The funding gap between the Augenblick and SEEP benchmarks and actual district spending explains approximately twenty percent of the variation in dropouts to graduates. (Tr. at 611:19-24.)
97. Dropout-to-graduation ratios vary widely within class districts and within non-class districts. (Tr. at 612:5-9.)
98. Exhibit 37 suggests that a class district had the highest dropout-to-graduation ratio and another class district had the lowest dropout-to-graduation ratio. (PI. Ex. 37.)
99. Dr. Baker did not provide information regarding average dropout ratios for IEP students in class and non-class districts.
100. Defendant’s Exhibit 27 identifies the special graduation rate for each school district in the Commonwealth as collected by the federal Office for Special Education Programs. (Tr. at 838:23-839:14.)
101. As of July 2010, fifteen class districts had a 100 percent graduation rate for special education students. (Def. Ex. 27.)
102. As of July 2010, eleven class districts had graduation rates of at least 90 percent but less than 100 percent for special education students. (Def. Ex. 27.)
103. As of July 2010, twenty-two class districts had graduation rates of at least 80 percent but less than 90 percent for special education students. (Def. Ex. 27.)
104. As of July 2010, seventeen class districts had graduation rates of at least 70 percent but less than 80 percent for special education students. (Def. Ex. 27.)
105. As of July 2010, six class districts had graduation rates of at least 60 percent but less than 70 percent for special education students. (Def. Ex. 27.)
106. As of July 2010, three class districts had graduation rates below 60 percent for special education students. (Def. Ex. 27.)
107. As of July 2010, the average reported graduation rate in each non-class district was 88.65 percent. (Def. Ex. 27.)
108. As of July 2010, the average reported graduation rate in each class district was 81.55 percent. (Def. Ex. 27.)
d. Highly Qualified Teachers
109. On average, 96.8 percent of special education sections in class school districts are taught by highly qualified teachers. (PI. Ex. 18.)
110. On average, 97.3 percent of special education sections in all Pennsylvania school districts are taught by highly qualified teachers. (PL Ex. 18.)
B. English Language Learners
111. More than seventy different languages are spoken in Pennsylvania schools. (Tr. at 976:23-977:4.)
112. LEP students suspected of qualifying for special education should be assessed in their native language. (Tr. at 342:23-343:3.)
113. All evidence produced at trial suggests that students were assessed in their native languages.
114. All evidence produced at trial suggests that translators were available for all IEP meetings.
115. All evidence produced at trial suggests that all documents were provided to parents in their preferred language or translators were provided to explain the contents of documents that were not in the parents’ preferred language.
116. Some teachers who testified at trial testified to having difficulty communicating with LEP students in their special education classes. (Tr. at 316:7-318:4.)
117. Teachers do not need to be bilingual to effectively educate LEP students in English acquisition or in core academic subjects. (Tr. at 981:20-984:7.)
118. Cultural competence is the most important factor in ESL instruction. (Tr. at 974:8-11.)
119. A teacher need not be bilingual to be culturally competent. (Tr. at 975:6-8.)
120. Pennsylvania schools implement a variety of ESL instruction, and LEP students are able to receive an effective education within a variety of different programs. (Tr. at 973:3-974:5.)
D. School Districts
1. Reading School District
121. Plaintiffs have failed to produce evidence from which the Court is able to conclude that the Reading School District is a member of the class of schools with a 17 percent special education population and an MV/PI ratio of 0.65 or greater, and the evidence it did produce suggests Reading was not in the class in the 2007-2008, 2008-2009, or 2009-2010 school years.
122. In the 2009-2010 school year LEP students comprised 19.98 percent of the average daily membership of the Reading School District. (Def. Ex. 91 at 7.)
123. In the 2007-2008 school year 17.1 percent of special education students were proficient in reading compared to a statewide average of 31.1 percent. (Pl. Ex. 157.)
124. In the 2008-2009 school year 16.9 percent of special education students were proficient in reading compared to a statewide average of 32.7 percent. (Pl. Ex. 156.)
125. In the 2009-2010 school year 19.7 percent of special education students were proficient in reading compared to a statewide average of 35.3 percent.’ (Pl. Ex. 155.)
126. In the 2007-2008 school year 25.9 percent of special education students were proficient in math compared to a statewide average ' of 36.1 percent. (Pl. Ex. 157.)
127. In the 2008-2009 school year 29.1 percent of special education students were proficient in math compared to a statewide average of 38.9 percent. (PI. Ex. 156.)
128. In the 2009-2010 school year 39.9 percent of special education students were proficient in math compared to a statewide average of 45.7 percent. (PI. Ex. 155.)
129. The number of special education students who spent at least 80 percent of their time in regular education classes in the 2007-2008 school year was 45.3 percent in Reading compared to 53 percent statewide. (PI. Ex. 157.)
130. The number of special education students who spent at least 80 percent of their time in regular education classes in the 2008-2009 school year it was 50.9 percent in Reading compared to 55.3 percent statewide (PI. Ex. 156.)
131. The number of special education students who spent at least 80 percent of their time in regular education classes in the 2009-2010 school year it was 51.7 percent in Reading compared to 57.8 percent statewide. (PI. Ex. 155.)
132. A staff member whose salary was divided evenly between the special education budget and the bilingual education budget coordinated the interpreters for IEP meetings and at times conducted the translation herself. That staff member also translated some IEPs and arranged for the remainder of the IEPs to be translated by an individual who was not employed by the school district. (Tr. at 516:1— 8.)
133. A translator attends every IEP meeting involving non-English speaking parents. (Tr. at 510:20-24.)
134. IEP documents are translated into Spanish, and those portions not in Spanish are translated at the IEP meeting. (Tr. at 511:3-17.)
135. Parents sign a Notice of Recommended Educational Placement (“NOREP”) during every IEP meeting, which explains the reason the meeting is being held. (Tr. at 511:19-25.)
136. Mrs. Shultz, the Director of Special Education for Reading School District, believes that there are no problems with over- or under-identification of special education students. (Tr. at 509:17-510:3.)
137. Mrs. Shultz conducts random spot checks of IEPs developed in the district. (Tr. at 518:20-519:7.)
138. All IEPs reviewed by Mrs. Shultz were written to provide a meaningful educational benefit. (Tr. at 515:8-11.)
139. All IEPs reviewed by Mrs. Shultz were implemented as written. (Tr. at 515:12-13.)
140. The Reading School District provides notices of procedural safeguards in both Spanish and English at each due process hearing, in each school building office, in the local newspaper, at the Reading Opportunity Center for Children, and at yearly workshops hosted by the district. (Tr. at 512:18-513:13; 517:2-17.)
141. A majority of special education students spend at least part of their time in general education classes. (Tr. at 513:14-514:7.)
142. The Reading School District offered 300 special education students extended school year services during the summer of 2011, and 265 students took advantage of the extended school year program. (Tr. at 494:11:18.)
143. English language acquisition certified special education teachers are located in ten of the twenty one school buildings in the school district. In addition, two special education teachers are fluent in Spanish and many more have an understanding of Spanish but are not fluent. (Tr. at 482:1-9; 483:5-9.)
144. At least thirty percent of school counselors are bilingual. (Tr. at 495:6-7.)
145. There are approximately eight classrooms in the district that are “self-contained,” that is, classrooms where students receive all of their subject matter areas in a single classroom setting. (Tr. at 475:3-6.)
146. There are four behavior specialists in the Reading School District, none of whom are bilingual. (Tr. at 479:2-7, 480:5-6.)
147. Every building in the Reading School District has at least one English language acquisition teacher. (Tr. at 489:15-23.)
148. Both regular education and special education LEP students are on the caseload of an English language acquisition teacher who collaborates with the students’ teachers to provide support to the students in question. (Tr. at 489:15-490:2.)
149. All academic material is modified for LEP students for both special education and regular education students. (Tr. at 486:10-22.)
150. Mrs. Shultz was prohibited from using funds to train translators; however, that was not because funds were unavailable, but rather because the board did not approve of using the funding for those purposes. (Tr. at 516:21-24.)
151. Reading could not offer higher salaries to bilingual teachers and paraprofessionals because the collective bargaining agreement bars such salary adjustments. (Tr. at 505:9-23.)
152. At one point three special education teachers were under emergency certifications. (Tr. at 481:16-20.)
153. There was a time when there were not enough speech pathologists, but it is unclear how far in the past that was, why there were insufficient speech pathologists, what the shortfall of speech pathologists was, and how long the shortfall lasted. The school district did apparently correct the situation with compensatory education. (Tr. at 501-503.)
154. All Due Process complaints against the Reading School District filed in the past three years were settled prior to adjudication of the complaint. (Tr. at 500:12-22.)
2. Lancaster School District
155. In the 2007-2008 school year the Lancaster School District had a total enrollment of 11,591 students, 19.2 percent of whom were special education students. (PL Ex. 151.)
156. In the 2008-2009 school year the Lancaster School District had a total enrollment of 11,351 students, 19.2 percent of whom were special education students. (Pl. Ex. 150.)
157. In the 2009-2010 school year the Lancaster School District had a total enrollment of 11,230 students, 18.3 percent of whom were special education students. (Pl. Ex. 149.)
158. In 2011 approximately 2,300 LEP students were enrolled in the Lancaster School District, about 500 of whom are both LEP and special education students. (Tr. at 1027:21-1028:20.)
159. In the 2007-2008 school year 15.1 percent of special education students were proficient in reading compared to a statewide average of 31.1 percent. (Pl. Ex. 151.)
160. In the 2008-2009 school year 14.8 percent of special education students were proficient in reading compared to a statewide average of 32.7 percent. (Pl. Ex. 150.)
161. In the 2009-2010 school year 14.7 percent of special education students were proficient in reading compared to a statewide average of 35.3 percent. (Pl. Ex. 151.)
162. In the 2007-2008 school year 20.5 percent of special education students were proficient in math compared to a statewide average of 36.1 percent. (Pl. Ex. 151.)
163. In the 2008-2009 school year 22.3 percent of special education students were proficient in math compared to a statewide average of 38.9 percent. (Pl. Ex. 150.)
164. In the 2009-2010 school year 22.8 percent of special education students were proficient in math compared to a statewide average of 45.7 percent. (Pl. Ex. 149.)
165. The number of special education students who spent at least 80 percent of their time in regular education classes in the 2007-2008 school year totaled 63.3 percent compared to a statewide average of 53.0 percent. (Pl. Ex. 151.)
166. The number of special education students who spent at least 80 percent of their time in regular education classes in the 2008-2009 school year totaled 60.0 percent compared to a statewide average of 55.3 percent. (Pl. Ex. 150.)
167. The number of special education students who spent at least 80 percent of their time in regular education classes in the 2009-2010 school year totaled 59.7 percent compared to a statewide average of 57.8 percent. (Pl. Ex. 149.)
168. At the time of trial, Carole Clancy was beginning her third year as the supervising coordinator for special education for the Lancaster School District. (Tr. at 1018:1-4.)
169. Mrs. Clancy reviews every IEP that comes into the district for any high school student and most of the middle and elementary school students for services. (Tr. at 1021:16-25.)
170. The IEPs reviewed by Mrs. Clancy are written to meet the needs of the special education students and provide them with an educational benefit. (Tr. at 1022:2-8.)
171. Mrs. Clancy testified that in her experience as special education coordinator, the IEPs in Lancaster School District are being implemented. (1022:9-13.)
172. Parents are advised of procedural safeguards at least at the annual IEP meeting. (Tr. at 1022:14-21.)
178.Only two due process requests were filed during Mrs. Clancy’s time as special education coordinator, both of which were resolved before hearings were held. (Tr. at 1023:6-13.)
174. There has never been a circumstance in which the person with fiscal responsibility has ever rejected a service supported by the rest of the IEP team. (Tr. at 1024:14-18.)
175. Lancaster School District has four bilingual special education teachers and eight bilingual para-educators and personal care assistants. (Tr. at 1029:7-15.)
176. Recent budget cuts have had no impact on the special education services provided by the Lancaster School District. (Tr. at 1030:3-12.)
177. Scott Richardson taught in the Lancaster School District from 1999 through 2007. (Tr. at 309:7-8.)
178. There is no evidence that the Lancaster School District had a special education population above seventeen percent of the average daily membership in any of the years that Dr. Richardson taught in the Lancaster School District.
179. There is no evidence that the Lancaster School District had an LEP population above ten percent of the average daily membership in any of the years that Dr. Richardson taught in the Lancaster School District.
180. For four years during Dr. Richardson’s tenure in the Lancaster School District he taught a life skills class for approximately eight to twelve students with the assistance of a full time aide. (Tr. at 310:1-5; 311:16-23.)
181. Dr. Richardson requested additional support to assist with one particularly difficult student, but he did not receive that support for unspecified reasons. (Tr. at 312:24-313:4.)
182. Dr. Richardson was not provided with a translator to communicate with LEP students. (Tr. at 317:4-6.)
183. Dr. Richardson was not given sufficient funds to purchase groceries when the students went to the grocery store. (Tr. at 320:9-321:2.)
184. Dr. Richardson was provided with funds to purchase manipulatives and consumables, but Dr. Richardson found the funds to be inadequate. (Tr. at 315:8-11.)
185. Dr. Richardson was not given permission to include extended school years on IEPs for certain students. (Tr. at 321:15-21.)
186. Cindy Dittman teaches in a learning support classroom with the assistance of one aide. Last year she had approximately ten students with a range of disabilities including autism, mental retardation, and emotional needs. (Tr. at 60:13-61:7.)
187. All of Mrs. Dittman’s students who needed speech and language services received it, although Mrs. Dittman would have preferred they receive those services at greater frequencies. (Tr. at 77:15-17.)
188. Mrs. Dittman requested a personal care assistant for an autistic student, but she did not receive a response to that request. (Tr. at 81:15-22.)
189. Mrs. Dittman requested itinerant support for some students in her second grade class, but the request was denied. (Tr. at 77:1-10.)
190. Mrs. Dittman attempted to have students with severe behavior problems moved to an emotional support classroom, but that request was denied by her supervisor. (Tr. at 75:1-12.)
191. While her school was undergoing renovations, Mrs. Dittman taught in a small classroom; however, with renovations completed she is satisfied with her special education classroom. (Tr. at 83:14-19.)
192. In Mrs. Dittman’s experience, the Lancaster School District does a good job identifying students with special education needs. (Tr. at 89:17-19.)
193. All students of whom Mrs. Dittman is aware who have IEPs are having their IEPs implemented. (Tr. at 90:6-10.)
194. There was a time that LEP students were not seen by an ESL teacher for part of the year; however, as of last year the ESL program was running smoothly. (Tr. at 97:9-13.)
195. The Lancaster School District provides translators to parents who are not proficient in English so the parents can participate in the IEP team. (Tr. at 1020:10-13.)
196. In the summer of 2011 approximately 50 students participated in extended school year programming. (Tr. at 1028:2-6.)
3. York School District
197. In the 2007-2008 school year the York City School District had a total enrollment of 5,343 students, 28.5 percent of whom were special education students. (Pl. Ex. 160.)
198. In the 2008-2009 school year the York City School District had a total enrollment of 5,966 students, 26.3 percent of whom were special education students. (Pl. Ex. 159.)
199. In the 2009-2010 school year the York City School District had a total enrollment of 6,255 students, 22.6 percent of whom were special education students. (Pl. Ex. 158.)
200. As of September 25, 2008, approximately 1,369 LEP students were enrolled in the York School District, approximately 252 of whom are both LEP and special education. (Pl. Ex. 185 at 1.)
201. In the 2007-2008 school year 14.6 percent of special education students were proficient in reading compared to a statewide average of 31.1 percent. (Pl. Ex. 160.)
202. In the 2008-2009 school year 21.9 percent of special education students were proficient in reading compared to a statewide average of 32.7 percent. (Pl. Ex. 159.)
203. In the 2009-2010 school year 23.9 percent of special education students were proficient in reading compared to a statewide average of 35.3 percent. (Pl. Ex. 158.)
204. In the 2007-2008 school year 23.1 percent of special education students were proficient in math compared to a statewide average of 36.1 percent. (Pl. Ex. 160.)
205. In the 2008-2009 school year 30.5 percent of special education students were proficient in math compared to a statewide average of 38.9 percent. (PL Ex. 159.)
206. In the 2009-2010 school year 33.8 percent of special education students were proficient in math compared to a statewide average of 45.7 percent. (Pl. Ex. 158.)
207. number of special education students who spent at least 80 percent of their time in regular education classes in the 2007-2008 school year totaled 40.8 percent compared to a statewide average of 53.0 percent. (PL Ex. 160.)
208. The number of special education students who spent at least 80 percent of their time in regular education classes in the 2008-2009 school year totaled 42.6 percent compared to a statewide average of 55.3 percent. (PL Ex. 159.)
209. The number of special education students who spent at least 80 percent of their time in regular education classes in the 2009-2010 school year totaled 38.0 percent compared to a statewide average of 57.8 percent. (Pl. Ex. 158.)
210. At the start of trial Linda Brown was beginning her fourth year as the director of special education for the York City School District. (Tr. at 937:1-6.)
211. Based on her evaluations of IEPs, Dr. Brown has found that the IEPs are addressing the needs of the students. (Tr. at 947:15-20.)
212. Based on her evaluations of IEPs, Dr. Brown has found that the IEPs are being implemented. (Tr. 948:11-15.)
213. Funding is never a consideration in determining whether to provide a service. (Tr. at 948:16-24.)
214. Parents are provided with notices of procedural safeguards at every IEP meeting and are available in English and Spanish online. (Tr. at 949:21-950:13.)
215. In the last three years, the York City School District has mediated two disputes with parents. (Tr. at 950:18-951:8.)
216. There have been no due process hearings since Dr. Brown became director of special education. (Tr. at 951:3-6.)
217. Bruce Riek has been an emotional support instructor in the York City School District for eleven years. (Tr. at 100:20-101:6.)
218. Mr. Riek had to “beg” for some materials, but he was never short of any special education supplies. (Tr. at 114:11-16.)
219. Mr. Riek has never personally been denied a request for supplies for his classroom. (Tr. at 115:18— 23.)
220. When Mr. Riek served as an itinerant teacher he recommended that a student be moved to another placement, but that request was denied. (Tr. at 106:4-107:9.)
221. All of the students taught by Mr. Riek have had their IEPs implemented. (Tr. at 108:24-109:2.)
222. At the time of trial, Mr. Riek was aware of one therapeutic emotional support class where the aide was out on medical leave and had not yet been replaced, and a fifth and a sixth grade emotional support class, comprised of ten and twelve students respectively, in which one teacher taught each class without the benefit of an aide. (Tr. at 102:3-16.)
223. One special education teacher is bilingual in English and Spanish. (PL Ex. 185 at 2.)
224. Interpreters are provided to non-English speaking parents so they can participate in IEP team meetings. (Tr. at 942:15-20.)
225. Spanish-speaking students are evaluated in Spanish by a Spanish-speaking instructor. (Tr. at 952:8-17.)
226. In the summer of 2011, approximately thirty to forty students attended extended school year programming. (Tr. at 961:18-22.)
A Allentown School District
227. In the 2007-2008 school year the Allentown School District had a total enrollment of 17,892 students, 14.3 percent of whom were special education students. (Pl. Ex. 148.)
228. In the 2008-2009 school year the Allentown School District had a total enrollment of 17,786 students, 14.2 percent of whom were special education students. (Pl. Ex. 147.)
229. In the 2009-2010 school year the Allentown School District had a total enrollment of 18,752 students, 13.6 percent of whom were special education students. (Pl. Ex. 146.)
230. In the 2009-2010 school year the Allentown School District had an LEP population totaling 10.73 percent of the average daily membership. (Def. Ex. 91.)
231. In the 2007-2008 school year 16.2 percent of special education students were proficient in reading compared to a statewide average of 31.1 percent. (Pl. Ex. 148.)
232. In the 2008-2009 school year 18.5 percent of special education students were proficient in reading compared to a statewide average of 32.7 percent. (Pl. Ex. 147.)
233. In the 2009-2010 school year 17.8 percent of special education students were proficient in reading compared to a statewide average of 35.3 percent. (Pl. Ex. 146.)
234. In the 2007-2008 school year 24.3 percent of special education students were proficient in math compared to a statewide average of 36.1 percent. (Pl. Ex. 148.)
235. In the 2008-2009 school year 27.5 percent of special education students were proficient in math compared to a statewide average of 38.9 percent. (Pl. Ex. 147.)
236. In the 2009-2010 school year 29.6 percent of special education students were proficient in math compared to a statewide average of 45.7 percent. (Pl. Ex. 146.)
237. The number of special education students who spent at least 80 percent of their time in regular education classes in the 2007-2008 school year totaled 49.4 percent compared to a statewide average of 53.0 percent. (Pl. Ex. 148.)
238. The number of special education students who spent at least 80 percent of their time in regular education classes in the 2008-2009 school year totaled 49.3 percent compared to a statewide average of 55.3 percent. (Pl. Ex. 147.)
239. The number of special education students who spent at least 80 percent of their time in regular education classes in the 2009-2010 school year totaled 55.5 percent compared to a statewide average of 57.8 percent. (Pl. Ex. 146.)
240. Deborah Hartman has been the director of special education for the Allentown School District since 2003, and was the assistant director of special education in Allentown for the nine years prior to that. (Tr. at 248:25-249:8.)
241. One of Allentown’s special education teachers is ESL certified and there are four bilingual/bicultural special education teachers. (Tr. at 287:1-6.)
242. The Allentown School District provides a teacher and two paraprofessionals to staff full-time autistic support classes, which are capped at a maximum of eight students. (Tr. at 257:20-258:2.)
243. Disabled students may also receive one-to-one support from a personal care assistant. (Tr. at 258:22-260:4.)
244. The Allentown School District provides an itinerant vision support teacher, an assistant skilled in braille and brailling services, and other support to visually impaired students. (Tr. at 261:4-23.)
245. The Allentown District also provides itinerant support teachers who provide direct support as well as indirect support such as coaching teachers and paraprofessionals and producing materials to assist students with sensory hearing impairments. The Allentown School District also provides classroom acoustical accommodations for the students. (Tr. at 263:10-264:7.)
246. The Allentown School District provides a full continuum of support services to emotional support students including itinerant, supplemental, and full-time support, as well as behavioral specialists, mental health support services, psychiatric services at the schools, and therapeutic staff members. (Tr. at 264:13-21.)
247. The Allentown School District offers five multi-disability support classrooms with a maximum of eight students staffed by one teacher and two paraprofessionals in addition to any one-on-one continuous support such as nurses or personal care assistants that the muti-disability students require. (Tr. at 270:1-16.)
248. The Allentown School District does not consider funding when determining what services to provide a student. (Tr. at 296:17-297:1.)
5. Harrisburg School District
249. In the 2007-2008 school year the Harrisburg City School District had a total enrollment of 8,391 students, 20.3 percent of whom were special education students. (PL Ex. 163.)
250. In the 2008-2009 school year the Harrisburg City School District had a total enrollment of 8,306 students, 20.3 percent of whom were special education students. (Pl. Ex. 162.)
251. In the 2009-2010 school year the Harrisburg City School District had a total enrollment of 8,144 students, 21.0 percent of whom were special education students. (Pl. Ex. 161.)
252. In the 2007-2008 school year 8.8 percent of special education students were proficient in reading compared to a statewide average of 31.1 percent. (Pl. Ex. 163.)
253. In the 2008-2009 school year 13.8 percent of special education students were proficient in reading compared to a statewide average of 32.7 percent. (PL Ex. 162.)
254. In the 2009-2010 school year 18.6 percent of special education students were proficient in reading compared to a statewide average of 35.3 percent. (PL Ex. 161.)
255. In the 2007-2008 school year 9.7 percent of special education students were proficient in math compared to a statewide average of 36.1 percent. (Pl. Ex. 163.)
256. In the 2008-2009 school year 14.3 percent of special education students were proficient in math compared to a statewide average of 38.9 percent. (Pl. Ex. 162.)
257. In the 2009-2010 school year 21.6 percent of special education students were proficient in math compared to a statewide average of 45.7 percent. (PL Ex. 161.)
258. The number of special education students who spent at least 80 percent of their time in regular education classes in the 2007-2008 school year totaled 45.7 percent compared to a statewide average of 53.0 percent. (PL Ex. 163.)
259. The number of special education students who spent at least 80 percent of their time in regular education classes in the 2008-2009 school year totaled 50.8 percent compared to a statewide average of 55.3 percent. (PL Ex. 162.)
260. The number of special education students who spent at least 80 percent of their time in regular education classes in the 2009-2010 school year totaled 52.9 percent compared to a statewide average of 57.8 percent. (Pl. Ex. 146.)
261. Amy Cytryn has taught special education in the Harrisburg School District for nine years. (Tr. at 117:7-19.)
262. All of Mrs. Cytryn’s students have an IEP that is being implemented. (Tr. at 136:8-15.)
263. Mrs. Cytryn is not aware of any of her students who have requested a due process hearing or filed a complaint with the Department of Education. (Tr. at 136:16-25.)
264. In the past Mrs. Cytryn has had an unlimited ability to request a chartered or rented bus to conduct community-based instruction for her autism and life skills classes, but beginning in the 2010-2011 school year would need to walk or take public transportation to conduct community-based instruction. (Tr. at 119:4-121:4.)
265. Mrs. Cytryn’s classroom has a full kitchen, including a refrigerator and a stove. (Tr. at 121:20-21.)
266. In the past the school gave her $50 per month to be used to take her class to a store to purchase food and then prepare it; however, beginning with the current school year her food budget has been limited to $20. (Tr. at 122:5-11.)
267. Mrs. Cytryn has twelve students in her class. (Tr. at 122:21-22.)
268. When Mrs. Cytryn first started nine years ago she had two paraprofessionals, but in the current school year she only has one paraprofessional assigned to the entire class and one who is assigned just to a single student to provide one-to-one support for that student. (Tr. at 123:12-21.)
E. Named Plaintiffs
1. Debora R.
269. Debora is a student with disabilities who attends school in the Reading School District. (Tr. at 380-387.)
270. Prior to enrolling in the Reading School District at the age of eleven, Debora attended school in the New York City School District in New York where she received special education services. (Tr. 826:1-7.)
271. Debora has significant disabilities stemming from a brain injury at birth, which has had a negative impact on her fine motor skills, gross motor skills, balance, and cognitive ability. (Tr. at 383.)
272. Debora’s disabilities include mental retardation, speech and language difficulties, and physical limitations. (Tr. at 874:25-875:1-12.)
273. When Debora entered the Reading School District at age eleven she had an IEP from the New York City School District. (Tr. at 826:1-7.)
274. The New York City School District provided Debora with physical therapy and speech and language services. (Tr. at 826:7-10.)
275. The Reading School District continued to provide physical therapy and speech and language services to Debora, and began providing a personal care aide, adapted physical education, and transportation services. (Tr. at 457:10-13; 826:9-827:4.)
276. The Reading School District provides Debora with a Spanish speaking assistant. (Tr. at 461:6-7.)
277. Since enrolling in the Reading School District, Debora’s IEP team has met at least once per year. (Tr. at 462:4-5.)
278. Mrs. Delcy, Deborah’s mother, was invited to attend each IEP team meeting. (PI. Ex. 197 at 12-13, 47-48, 65, 69, 72, 88, 89, 161-164.)
279. Mrs. Delcy has attended IEP meetings. (Tr. at 461:24-25.)
280. A translator has always been present at the IEP meetings. (Tr. at 462:2-3.)
281. Debora’s IEP included measurable annual goals. (PI. Ex. 197:33-36, 57-62, 79-85, 100-07, 139-46, 153-60, 167-92, 204-07, 213-16.)
282. Debora’s IEPs provided for an extended school year and included various related services such as specialized transportation, a personal care assistant, adaptive physical education, physical therapy consultations, occupational therapy consultations, and speech and language pathology/therapy. (PI. Ex. 197 at 63-64, 86-87, 108-09,147-48, 208-09.)
283. Over time the frequency of certain related services provided to Debora decreased: monthly physical therapy consultations decreased to quarterly consultations; twice weekly speech and language pathology/therapy sessions decreased to weekly sessions; and “as needed” occupational therapy consultations decreased to annual consultations. (PI. Ex. 197 at 63-64, 86-87, 108-09, 147-48, 208-09.)
284. Dr. Nicodemus testified that a once-per year consultation for occupational therapy may be appropriate; however, he further testified that “I would think that a more appropriate recommendation would be consult as needed.” (Tr. at 385:23-386:2.)
285. Mrs. Delcy signed NOREPs approving of Debora’s educational program and placement. (PI. Ex. 197 at 43-46, 66-67, 70-71, 91-92.)
286. The Reading School District provided some documents to Mrs. Delcy in Spanish, which is her native language, and others in English. (Tr. at 463:13-14.)
287. The Reading School District provided a notice of procedural safeguards, which Mrs. Delcy signed, in Spanish. (Tr. 464:11-22.)
288. Mrs. Delcy never filed a formal complaint with the Department of Education regarding Debora’s education. (Tr. at 467:10-16.)
289. Mrs. Delcy never asked for a due process hearing in connection with Debora’s IEP or implementation of the IEP. (Tr. at 465:22-24.)
290. Debora is supposed to be picked up in front of her home, but at various times the school sent a bus to pick her up approximately one block from her home. (Tr. at 458:11-14.)
291. Because of Debora’s physical limitations, as well as her mother’s challenges, Debora missed a significant amount of school as a result of the bus not coming directly to Debora’s home. (Tr. at 457-459.)
292. Mrs. Delcy testified, however, that she raised these concerns to the director of special education and the bus now picks up her daughter in front of the house. (Tr. at 457:13; 463:18-464:3.)
293. The problem has reoccurred in the past, but it has been resolved, at least temporarily, when it has arisen. (Tr. at 463-466.)
294. Debora has fallen on many occasions at school, one of which was serious enough to require four stitches. (Tr. at 460:1-7.)
295. There is a girl in Debora’s school who is aggressive. (Tr. at 460:20-24.)
2. Kathleen C.
296. Kathleen is a student with disabilities who attended the Reading School District from 2002 through her graduation in June 2011. (Tr. at 35:2-6; 40:25-41:9.)
297. Prior to enrolling in the Reading School District at the age of twelve, Kathleen was enrolled in the New York City School District in New York. (Tr. at 35:7-8.)
298. Kathleen had a history of cardiac defects, was unable to eat independently, was having difficulty toileting, and was communicating only through sounds or one-word utterances. She has been diagnosed with Downs Syndrome with mental retardation and hyperactivity. (Tr. at 820:17-24; PI. Ex. 201 at 202.)
299. The Reading School District continued implementing the New York City IEP from the time of Kathleen’s enrollment until it issued its own IEP on February 12, 2004. (Tr. at 370:4-18.)
300. Mrs. Leonidas, Kathleen’s mother, speaks Spanish. (Tr. at 34:14-22.)
301. Mrs. Leonidas was invited to attend IEP meetings, the IEP invitations were in Spanish, an interpreter provided by the school district was available to Mrs. Leonidas at each IEP meeting, Kathleen’s IEPs were developed at least annually, and NOREPs were issued to Mrs. Leonidas indicating agreement with Kathleen’s educational programs and placements. (Tr. at 37:1-12, 43:22-25, 44-45:1-12, 821:20-822:3.)
302. Some documents provided by the school were in Spanish, and some were Spanish templates with English filled in. (Tr. at 45:18-46:6.)
303. When a document contained English an interpreter would explain the English portion, and Mrs. Leonidas understood all documents that she signed. (Tr. at 48:21-25-49:4.)
304. Kathleen’s IEP indicates that she was provided with extended school year services, speech and language services, and a personal care assistant. (Tr. at 37:23-38:2; 39:6-19, 49:24-19; 821:13-19.)
305. In 2009, Mrs. Leonidas requested longer extended school year services, but the district declined her request. (Tr. at 37:23-25, 38:1-2; 39:6-19.)
306. While at the Reading School District, Kathleen improved her verbal communication skills such that she was able to string words together for short sentences, she was completely self-sufficient with toileting, she could recognize sight words, she could write some letters, her self-help skills improved, she could eat with a spoon and fork independently, and she improved some of her gross motor skills. (Tr. at 821:3-12; PI. Ex. 201 at 190-210.)
307. Mrs. Leonidas requested that Kathleen be placed in a classroom with less disabled students for a trial period. (Tr. at 42:15-18.)
308. Kathleen was placed in a classroom with less disabled students for three days, but was returned to her original classroom after that period. (Tr. at 42:14-18.)
309. Mrs. Leonidas contends that other than those three days, Kathleen was never able to attend classes with students who are less disabled than she is. (Tr. at 40:6-11.)
310. Beginning in May 2006, Kathleen’s IEPs reflect that she spent between two and four hours per week receiving special education services in a regular education classroom. (P