Source: https://www.specialedlaw.com/database/brookline-public-schools-bsea-06-2295/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 13:46:29+00:00

Document:
This decision is issued pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA), (20 USC Sec. 1400 et seq.); as amended by P.L. 108-4461 ; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC Sec. 794); the Massachusetts special education statute or “Chapter 766,” (MGL c. 71B) and the Massachusetts Administrative Procedures Act (MGL c. 30A) and the regulations promulgated under these statutes.
The issues for consideration here are (1) whether the parent of a three-year-old child with a disability may attend the child’s occupational therapy (OT) at the parent’s discretion and (2) if so, whether Brookline may be required to conduct OT on the premises of the child’s private school if necessary to allow for parental attendance; (3) whether the Brookline Public Schools must refrain from retaliating or otherwise discriminating against Parents and/or Student in response to Parents’ pursuit of due process.
The procedural history of the case is somewhat complicated. For purposes of this Decision, it is sufficient to recount that on December 2, 2005, Parents filed a hearing request with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA), alleging that Brookline had scheduled Student’s OT and PT services at hours that were inappropriate in light of Student’s disability. On December 3, the BSEA issued a notice of a hearing scheduled for January 6, 2006. On or about December 9, 2005 the parties resolved this scheduling issue; however, shortly thereafter, a dispute arose over parental attendance at OT sessions.
By agreement of the parties at a January 10, 2006 conference call, the hearing in this matter was rescheduled to January 18, 2006. Pursuant to the Hearing Officer’s direction during the conference call, Parents filed a statement of the above-listed issues and relief requested on the same day.
The parties made further efforts to settle the matter after the conference call but were unsuccessful, and so the hearing on the merits took place as scheduled on January 18, 2006. Mother appeared pro se , and the Brookline Public Schools was represented by counsel. Each party presented documentary evidence and examined and cross-examined witnesses.
The official record of the hearing consists of Parents’ Exhibits P-1 through P-6, School’s Exhibits S-1 through S-5 and approximately 2.5 hours of tape-recorded oral testimony and argument. The parties presented oral closing arguments on the day of the hearing and the record closed on that day.
3. Whether Brookline should be ordered to refrain from discriminating against Parents/Student as a result of Parents’ request for a hearing.
Student is only three years old, and has an IEP calling for 1:1 OT services on Brookline’s premises, outside of her private preschool. In light of Student’s young age as well as the location of the services away from her classroom, it is best practice for Parents to be able to attend at their discretion, as they would be entitled to do if the Student were being treated in an outpatient medical setting.
Moreover, Parents must observe the OT sessions first hand in order to implement the home carryover component of Student’s services as well as to monitor her progress.
If the privacy rights of other Brookline students would be compromised by Parents’ presence during Student’s OT sessions, then Brookline should provide OT services on the premises of Student’s private preschool.
Brookline has made great efforts to accommodate Parents’ wishes, and is willing to allow Parent(s) to stay with Student during her OT session long enough for her to settle in, and/or to be present for entire sessions if there are no privacy concerns. However, the only space available during the one time slot that Parents have agreed to for OT is also used by other students, teachers and school staff during Student’s scheduled OT time. Parents’ continued presence would interfere with the privacy of other children. Parent consultation for carryover of OT strategies in the home and discussion of Student’s progress can be accomplished via telephone conversations, notes, pre-arranged meetings and/or email exchanges with the therapist. Parents do not need to attend all OT sessions for this purpose.
1. Student is a three-year, three-month old child who lives with her parents in Brookline (Mother, Ex. S-1) Student is a bright, verbal, engaging child. Her speech/language, cognitive, social/emotional, and perceptual/fine motor skills are at or above age level. She has a neuromuscular disorder that interferes with her muscle strength, stamina, gross motor skills, and sensory processing, as well as with her ability to perceive pain. (Mother, S-1) Student’s eligibility for special education and the type of services that she needs–occupational and physical therapy–are not in dispute.
16. There is no evidence on the record that Dr. Ray has ever met or evaluated Student or reviewed her records.
17. Student’s private preschool has offered to make space available for Student’s OT sessions during her preschool hours, so that Parents could attend. (P- 1, Mother) There is no evidence on the record of whether the proffered space is appropriate, or has the requisite equipment. There also is no evidence on the record of Brookline’s response to this proposal.
After reviewing the testimony and documents on the record, I conclude that Parents have not proved that unrestricted parental access to Student’s OT sessions is necessary to provide Student with a free, appropriate public education (FAPE). Because parental presence at OT sessions is not a necessary to ensure FAPE for Student, it follows that Brookline need not deliver the OT services at Student’s private preschool in order to enable Parents to attend. My reasoning follows.
The Parents and School agree that Student is a child with a disability who is entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) as defined in federal and state law.3 The parties also agree that OT and PT services as outlined in Student’s most recent IEP are appropriate. The only point of contention between the parties is whether Parents, at their discretion, have the right to attend Student’s OT sessions with her.
Neither the IDEA nor Chapter 766 squarely addresses this issue. Both statutes, as well as the applicable regulations, provide for parental participation in identifying and evaluating children with disabilities as well as in developing IEPs, tracking student progress, and changing students’ services and/or placements.4 The Massachusetts special education regulations also provide for parent involvement via consent to evaluations and services, the right to view proposed programs, the right to receive reports, and to participate in parent advisory councils. 603 CMR 28:07.
The statutes and regulations are silent, however, on whether a parent can attend a class or related service session on a regular basis. Moreover, there appear to be no reported decisions directly on point. In the absence of such an explicit directive, I will analyze the Parents’ request to attend OT sessions as a request for an accommodation or modification like any other (e.g, preferential seating, reduced homework, etc.) As such, the Parents’ request should be granted only if Student requires a parent to be present in order to receive FAPE. To elaborate, Parents are entitled to have one of them be present in the OT session if they can demonstrate, with competent evidence, that such presence is necessary to enable Student to derive benefit from, and make meaningful progress in, her educational program.
Parents’ position is certainly understandable. It is not legally supportable in light of the evidence on the record, however. A BSEA hearing officer does not have the authority to substitute his/her judgment for that of a duly qualified professional educator or service provider on how to deliver services unless the provider’s methods affect FAPE .6 And, here, Parents have neither asserted nor proved that Student will be denied FAPE if a parent cannot attend OT sessions at his/her discretion.
Common sense does dictate that a parent be allowed to help a young child settle in with a new service provider, but Brookline does not object to Parent’s presence at sessions for this purpose, and, in fact, has made additional attempts to find an open OT slot at the Lynch Center, which can more easily accommodate parental attendance than the Driscoll School. (Unfortunately, none of the available times are acceptable to Parents.) As for home carryover, Brookline’s witnesses testified credibly that Parents can learn the necessary strategies and consult with the therapist via phone calls, and correspondence, emails, and pre-arranged observations of sessions. Neither the facts nor the law give Parents an entitlement to attend any and all OT sessions at their discretion.
Because Parents do not have an entitlement to attend OT sessions at their discretion, there is no need to address whether Brookline can be required to provide services at Student’s private school in order to enable them to attend as requested.
Finally, Parents have requested an order directing Brookline not to discriminate against Parents and/or Student in retaliation for having pursued due process in this case. I decline to do so. Of course, it is axiomatic that no school district may retaliate against a parent for requesting a due process hearing. For this reason alone, a “no retaliation” order should be unnecessary. Additionally, however, in this case, there is no evidence on the record that Brookline has taken any adverse action against Parents or Student, as a result of Parents’ pursuit of due process. On the contrary, the district has continued to make efforts to amicably resolve the matter. For these reasons, the order that Parents have requested is not warranted.
. The IDEA defines FAPE as special education and related services that (A) are provided at public expense and under public control; (B) meet the standards of the state educational agency; (C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or secondary school education; and (D) are provided in conformity with an properly developed IEP. 20 USC Sec. 1401 (as amended by IDEA-2004). The Massachusetts special education statute, G.L. c. 71B, Sec. 1 (“Chapter 766”) defines FAPE as special education and related services that conform to the IDEA and its regulations and also “meet the education standards established by statute or…by regulations promulgated by the Board of Education.” G.L. c. 71B, Sec.1. Relevant case law defines FAPE as, among other things, educational services that enable the eligible child to derive educational benefit, and make meaningful progress in the areas identified as special needs. See generally, Hendrick Hudson Bd. of Education v. Rowley , 458 U.S. 176, 188-9, 203 (1992); Burlington v. Mass. Dept. of Education , 736 F.2d 773, 788 (1 st Cir. 1984); Lenn v. Portland School Committee , 998 F.2d 1083 (1 st Cir. 1993).
See, for example, 20 USC §1414(a)(1(C) (parental consent for evaluations); 1414(b)(4) (parents are members of the IEP team); 34 CFR §300.345 (parents’ right to participate in meetings and be notified of proposed changes in services and placement).
I give little weight to the correspondence from Dr. Ray. She has never met or evaluated Student. In any event, Dr. Ray herself indicates that whether a parent should attend an OT session should be determined on a case by case basis.
See Roland M. v. Concord School Committee , 109 F.2d 983 (1 st Cir. 1990 ); Board of Educ. of Hendrick Hudson Cent. Sch. Dist. v. Rowley , 458 U.S. 176, 206, (1982).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1414
 §300
 v. 
 v.