Source: https://www.specialedlaw.com/database/acushnet-public-schools-v-student-bsea-09-0818/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 13:46:41+00:00

Document:
A hearing was held on January 27, 2009 at the Bureau of Special Education Appeals before Catherine M. Putney-Yaceshyn, Hearing Officer.
Acushnet Public Schools requested a hearing on July 25, 2008 and the hearing was scheduled to proceed on August 14, 2008. Acushnet’s unopposed request to postpone the hearing was allowed. On August 22, 2008, while the hearing was being rescheduled, Acushnet requested that the matter be taken off calendar. Parent assented to the request. The matter was taken off calendar until November 22, 2008. An Order to Show Cause was sent on November 25, 2008. On December 23, 2008, Acushnet requested that the matter be returned to the active calendar and submitted an amended request for hearing. There was a conference call on January 7, 2009. When the hearing officer contacted Father he informed the hearing officer that he did not wish to speak to her and told her not to call him again before hanging up the phone. The hearing was scheduled for January 27, 2009 and both parties received written notice of the date. On January 23, 2009, Father contacted the BSEA and spoke to an administrative assistant who confirmed the hearing date for him. He initially agreed to speak to a hearing officer who was not assigned to his case about his case, but hung up when the hearing officer got on the phone. Later, on January 23, 2009, he faxed the hearing officer a copy of the Order scheduling the hearing. He had written a notation indicating that he viewed this case as a “civil rights issue.” The hearing was held on January 27, 2009. Father did not attend the hearing. After the hearing, the hearing officer sent Father a copy of the hearing tapes along with a letter informing him that he could submit a closing argument by February 6, 2009. On January 29, 2009, two days after the hearing was held, Father sent a fax indicating that the case is about his son having the right to attend Fairhaven High School. He stated that he filed a complaint “with civil rights” and asked that the hearing be postponed. He did not submit a closing argument and the record closed on February 6, 2009.
The official record of this hearing consists of Acushnet Public Schools’ exhibits marked S-1 through S-69 and approximately three hours of recorded oral testimony.
1. Whether the IEP proposed for the time period from March 2008 through March 2009 was reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.
2. Whether the IEP proposed for the period from October 2008 through October 2009 was reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.
3. Whether Student’s non-attendance at school constitutes a denial of a free appropriate public education.
Student is an individual with a disability, falling within the purview of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)5 and the state special education statute.6 As such, he is entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). Neither his status nor his entitlement is in dispute. Under the FAPE standard, the IEP proposed by the school district must offer the student a free appropriate public education that meets state educational standards. This education must be offered in the least restrictive environment appropriate to meet the student’s individual needs7 . Federal law also requires that the student be able to fully participate in the general curriculum to the maximum extent possible. 20 USC § 1415(d)(1)(A)(iii); 34 CFR 300.347(a)(2)(I) and (a)(3)(ii); 64 Fed. Reg. No. 48, page 12595, column 1; See also, In Re: Worcester Public Schools, BSEA # 00-1912, 6 MSER 194 (2000).
Additionally, the student’s education must be offered in the least restrictive environment appropriate to meet his/her individual needs8 . 20 USC §1414(d)(1)(A)(iii); 34 CFR 300.347(a)(2)(i) and (a)(3)(ii); 64 Fed. Reg. No. 48, page 12595, column 1; MGL c. 71B § 1; 603 CMR 28.02 (12). See In re: Worcester Public Schools , BSEA # 00-0912, 6 MSER 194 (SEA MA 2000) and In re: Gill-Montague Public Schools District , BSEA # 02-1776, August 28, 2002.
As stated by the federal courts, the LEA is responsible to offer students meaningful access to an education through an IEP that provides “significant learning” and confers “meaningful benefit” to the student9 , through “personalized instruction with sufficient support services …”10 . The requirements of the law assure the student access to a public education rather than an education that maximizes the student’s individual potential. Lenn v. Portland School Committee , 998 F.2d 1083 (1 st Cir. 1993); GD v. Westmoreland School District , 930 F.2d 942 (1 st Cir. 1991).
The burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is placed upon the party seeking relief. Schaffer v. Weast , 546 U.S. 49, 126 S. Ct. 528, 534, 537 (2005) In this case, Acushnet is the party seeking relief, and thus has the burden of persuading the hearing officer of its position.
In this case, Father has stopped sending Student to school because he wishes for him to receive his education at Fairhaven High School and in an inclusion setting. However, Acushnet is obligated to propose and provide services that will meet Student’s individual needs and must provide those services in a setting equipped to provide Student’s required services. Thus, a dispute has arisen between the parties and Acushnet seeks a determination that its proposed IEPs are appropriate and that Student’s non-attendance at school constitutes a denial of a free appropriate public education.
Although Father has indicated his desire for Student to attend Fairhaven High School, Fairhaven does not have a program that would meet Student’s extensive needs. Both state and federal law require that special education students are educated in the least restrictive environment. This means that to the maximum extent appropriate, students with disabilities must be educated with students who do not have disabilities. Programs and services can only be implemented in separate settings when the nature and severity of the child’s special needs is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. See 20 U.S.C. 1412 (5)(A). In this case, Acushnet has demonstrated that Fairhaven does not have a program that is capable of meeting Student’s needs. (Coffin, S-33, S-36) Although Ms. Coffin believed that New Bedford High School could provide an appropriate program for Student, Father was not interested in placing Student there. Therefore, Student was placed at the Cape Cod Collaborative when Achusnet determined that it was capable of meeting Student’s needs, Ms. Woods found him to be appropriate for her program, and Father consented to the placement decision.
Acushnet has provided sufficient unrebutted evidence to show that the IEP proposed for Student for the period from March 2008 through March 2009 was appropriate. The IEP addressed Student’s needs as identified by prior evaluations and his last accepted IEP. The services were almost identical to those provided in the last accepted IEP, and there was no information in the record to suggest that his needs had changed in any way that would make the services inappropriate. Student’s progress reports from March 2008 through June 2008 show that he was making progress and gaining new skills during this time period. Ms. Pomocka, who was implementing the last accepted IEP which contained the same services proposed by the March 2008 through March 2009 IEP credibly testified that Student was making progress while receiving the services required under this IEP. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the March 2008 – March 2009 IEP was not reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.
The IEP proposed for the period from October 2008 through October 2009 was drafted after Student’s three-year evaluation. The IEP contained updated goals and objectives based upon the updated information gleaned from the evaluations. Father was invited and encouraged to attend the Team meeting to assist in its drafting, but refused to attend. The evaluations considered included a psychological evaluation which had been conducted by an evaluator chosen by Father and his advocate. The IEP was responsive to most of the recommendations made by the evaluators. The speech language pathologist’s recommendations that services continue to be provided 2 x 30 minutes per week were incorporated. Likewise, the recommendations of the occupational therapist were adopted. Most of the recommendations of Father’s requested evaluator, James Paicopolos, were incorporated. However, Ms. Pomocka disagreed with his suggestion that Student be given a behavior plan. She credibly testified that Student did not require a behavior plan because he is able to calm himself when he becomes frustrated and his behavior is not an area of difficulty in the classroom. (Pomocka). Some of Mr. Paicopolos recommendations regarding methods for teaching reading were also not included in the IEP because Ms. Pomocka explained that Student is a sight reader rather than a phonetic reader and would be confused by some of the strategies recommended by Mr. Paicopolos. Because Mr. Paicopolos had only met with Student for the evaluation, had not observed him at his placement, and did not provide testimony during the hearing, I found Ms. Pomocka to have a more credible opinion regarding Student’s needs.
The October 2008-October 2009 IEP addressed all areas of Student’s identified needs. Father did not submit any evidence that would suggest that there were areas of need that would not be met by this IEP. The primary area of dispute appears to be that Father would prefer that Student be educated in an inclusion setting and at Fairhaven High School. However, there is nothing in the record that would suggest that Student would receive any educational benefit from being in an inclusion setting at this time. Both Ms. Pomocka and Ms. Woods credibly testified that Student would be over-stimulated in an inclusion setting and would not be able to understand the language utilized by the teachers and peers. Both Ms. Pomocka and Ms. Woods have extensive experience in teaching and working with students on the autism spectrum, and therefore I credit their opinions.
The final issue before me is whether Student’s non-attendance at school constitutes a denial of a free appropriate public education. Clearly, based upon the totality of the evidence, Student’s non-attendance is resulting in a denial of a free appropriate public education. The evidence shows that Student was making progress in both academic and social skills at the Cape Cod Collaborative. The IEPs that were proposed were designed to meet his individual needs. Student was happy at school and responded well to the structure. He was able to calm himself when he became frustrated. Clearly, when a student with significant needs stops attending school and is not receiving services, this is a denial of a free appropriate public education. Acushnet continues to fund his placement, so it remains available to Student. However, Father has decided not to continue to send Student to school, and is thereby causing Student to be denied services he requires. Although Student is sixteen years old, he has not been withdrawn from school. Additionally, he benefitted from the services he was receiving, was making good progress, and has a great deal of potential to learn more academic, social, and life skills.
Father is encouraged to reconsider his position with respect to sending Student to school. Student is entitled to receive services until he receives a diploma or reaches his twenty-second birthday. 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A), 603 C.M.R. 28.02(9). Father is encouraged to engage in a dialogue with Acushnet to discuss any concerns he may have with the Cape Cod Collaborative program, utilizing the assistance of a BSEA mediator at the option of the parties. Father is urged to consider the consequences of not allowing Student to receive services to which he is legally entitled.
Based upon the foregoing, I find that Acushnet’s proposed IEP for the period from March 2008 through March 2009 is reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.
Additionally, I find that the IEP proposed by Acushnet for the period from October 2008 through October 2009 is reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.
I further find that Parent’s ongoing refusal to permit Acushnet Public Schools to implement such services constitutes a denial of a free appropriate public education to Student. Acushnet should take whatever further steps it deems necessary to encourage Father to return Student to school.
Ms. Pomocka testified that Student sees himself as a verbal communicator. However, she noted that if one is unfamiliar with Student he or she would have trouble understanding Student.

References: § 1415
 §1414
 § 1
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1412