With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". “average.” The teacher recommended diagnostic testing. [AR 354]. In fourth grade, plaintiff “was so far behind that I had him tested for possible special class placement. I hope that this is more suitable for him. He has difficulty relating with peers.” Plaintiff was administered the Wide Range Achievement Test (“WRAT”), which measures reading recognition, spelling, and arithmetic computation. [AR 354; JS 7 n. 2], As a fourth-grader, plaintiff tested at grade levels 1.3, 1.1, and 3.0 in the three areas measured. Shortly after that test was administered, an Individual Educational Plan (“IEP”) was written and approved. The nature of the IEP and whether or how it was implemented cannot be ascertained from the record; however, plaintiff testified that he had attended specia (3d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); Bailey, 230 F.3d at 1065-1066 (holding that

A: holding that the record did not belie the claimants iq of 58 where he attended special education classes did not live independently and dropped out of school at a low grade either in the sixth or eighth grade
B: recognizing that texas courts have adopted the aamr definition of mental retardation providing that mental retardation must manifest before age of 18 years
C: holding that the alj erred in finding that the claimants mental retardation did not manifest itself before age 22 where the claimant attended special education classes dropped out of school in ninth grade had trouble with reading writing and math and had frequent fights with other children
D: holding that the record was not inconsistent with mental retardation meeting section 1205 where the claimant dropped out in tenth grade obtained a ged and could read write add and subtract but had problems with multiplication and division
D.