Source: https://www.specialedlaw.com/database/melrose-public-schools-bsea-08-4385/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:56:44+00:00

Document:
This decision is issued pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 USC §1400 et seq .; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC §794); the Massachusetts special education statute or “Chapter 766,” (MGL c. 71B) and the Massachusetts Administrative Procedures Act (MGL c. 30A), as well as the regulations promulgated under these statutes.
On February 6, 2008 Parents filed a hearing request with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) alleging that the Melrose Public Schools had failed to provide agreed-upon speech and language services between September 2007 and January 2008. As relief, Parent requested an out-of-district placement until Student’s 22 nd birthday. (Student is 18 years old). Following a pre-hearing conference on March 7, 2008, as well as several telephone conference calls, the parties agreed that the issue of speech/language therapy had been resolved, and the issue for hearing was whether the IEP and placement proposed by Melrose for the period April 11, 2008 through April 11, 2009 is reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free, appropriate public education, particularly in the areas of vocational and community training and experience.
Parents now seek an order requiring Melrose to place Student in a vocational program for students with disabilities operated by the LABB Collaborative in Lexington, MA.
A hearing was held on May 28, 2008. Parents proceeded pro se, and the School was represented by counsel. Each party had an opportunity to examine and cross-examine witnesses and submit documents into the record. The documentary record consists of Parents’ exhibits P-1 through P-15 and School’s exhibits S-1 through S-30. The record also consists of approximately 3 hours of tape-recorded testimony and argument. The parties made oral closing arguments on June 2, 2008 and the record closed that day.
b. If not, whether Student requires placement in the vocational program operated by the LABB Collaborative in Lexington, MA in order to receive FAPE.
Student is a young adult with autism and cognitive limitations. At this point in his life, Student needs a well-developed program specifically designed to teach vocational and community living skills to young adults on the autism spectrum. Melrose’s proposed program for Student is well-intentioned, but is in its infancy. The program lacks the depth and quality of services that Student needs. Thus far, the program proposes only one specific new job site in addition to the job sites where Student has been placed throughout high school. Melrose has only hired one of two job coaches needed. The teacher who will oversee the program lacks experience with adults on the autism spectrum. On the other hand, the LABB program is well-established and would offer a larger number of potential job sites, as well as more community experiences with peers. Student is entitled to a program that is fully developed and that can afford him a broader, more stimulating range of experiences in order to increase his ability to be employed and to function independently.
Student has made tremendous progress during the past four years at Melrose High School, and already has many excellent foundational skills for employment and increased independence. Melrose agrees with Parents that the focus of Student’s program now should shift from academics to development of employment and independence-related skills. Melrose also agrees that the Student should spend increasing amounts of time on job sites and elsewhere in the community, rather than in Melrose High School. Melrose disagrees with Parents’ characterization of its proposed program, however, and asserts that the proposed IEP is capable of meeting Student’s needs. The IEP appropriately emphasizes a variety of skills that Student will need to function as an adult. Although the program is new, and is being developed to meet the needs of Student and some of his classmates, it is well-planned and appropriately staffed. The lead teacher of the program has significant experience in program development, and is well-qualified for her position. The proposed additional job site is appropriate, and can be added to Student’s existing job placements, where he is doing very well. Given Student’s difficulties with transition and change, it would not be appropriate, at this point, to offer multiple job placement options in addition to his current job placements.
Parents have offered no evidence suggesting that Melrose’s program is inappropriate. Moreover, they have introduced no evidence demonstrating that LABB could meet Student’s needs.
Finally, to the extent that missed speech/language therapy is an issue, the School has offered some 27 sessions to compensate Parents and Student for sessions missed between September 2007 and January 2008.
15. In April 2006, when Student was 16 years old and a sophomore, the Merrimac Education Center (MEC) of the Merrimac Special Education Collaborative conducted an “Program Evaluation” in order to “evaluate the Supported Training and Education Program (S.T.E.P.) at Melrose High School as it relates to [Student’s] vocational and social programming. The evaluation consisted of three separate observations of Student in the program, both at Melrose High School and on job sites (the school cafeteria and a hospital) as well as conversations with classroom teachers. The evaluator observed Student perform his assigned tasks of wiping tables, washing fruit, and filling plastic ware containers. In the hospital setting, the evaluator also observed Student arriving at work, taking the elevator to his work location, interacting with co-workers, and the like. Finally, the evaluator observed Student in a Best Buddies meeting and in some integrated activities in the High School (a square dancing class) (S-26).
19. In addition to some consultation services, the proposed IEP calls for of the following services, listed in Section B of the Service Delivery Grid, for April-June 2008 and September 2008 – April 2009 (there is a 5 week ESY program during July and August 2008): functional academics (5×90 minutes/week); OT and speech therapy (2×45 minutes/week each), social skills instruction (1×45 minutes/week), recreational/leisure skills (3x 90 minutes/week), life skills instruction (5×120 minutes/week) and vocational activities with a job coach (5×120 minutes/week). (S-3). Parent has rejected this IEP.
21. Melrose’s proposed IEP is designed to deliver the IEP services described above within the context of a “post graduate” program, beginning in September 2008. (Maloney) Melrose is in the process of developing this program to serve Student and about 5 of his peers, all of whom will have completed the 12 th grade in the S.T.E.P. program. The post-graduate program is intended to continue and expand the students’ work and community experience with the goal of advancing students’ employability as well as independent living skills and participation in community recreational and leisure activities. Because the post-graduate program will not be tied to the rotating weekly schedule used by Melrose High School, it will be easier for Melrose to plan and implement job placements and community activities. (Maloney, White-Lambright).
28. Melrose also has been discussing relationships with the YMCA for recreational activities. (Wright-Lambright).
31. Ms. White-Lambright has had discussions with the LABBB Program director. She noted that the recreational activities, while well-developed, are actually organized by parents of LABBB students, and are not part of an extended day program as they are in Melrose. (White-Lambert) Aside from the brochure referred to above, and limited testimony from Ms. White-Lambert, neither party has introduced evidence reagarding LABB.
Based on the evidence in the record, I conclude that Melrose Public Schools’ IEP for the period April 2008 to April 2009 is reasonably calculated to provide Student with FAPE. Parents have not presented sufficient evidence to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the School’s proposed program is inappropriate. Because the School’s program is appropriate, it is not necessary to rule on the appropriateness of the LABBB Program.
There is no dispute that Student is a school-aged child with a disability who is eligible for special education and related services pursuant to the IDEA, 20 USC § 1400, et seq ., and the Massachusetts special education statute, G.L. c. 71B (“Chapter 766”). Therefore, Student is entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) as defined in federal and state law.
The definition of FAPE in Massachusetts has been discussed extensively in prior BSEA decisions and will not be reiterated at length here.2 In sum, an eligible child, like Student, is entitled to a program and services that are tailored to his or her unique needs and that provide significant, meaningful benefit in light of the child’s needs and potential, that is, “‘effective results’ and ‘demonstrable improvement’ in the educational and personal skills identified as special needs.” 34 C.F.R. 300.300(3)(ii); Lenn v. Portland School Committee , 998 F.2d 1083 (1 st Cir. 1993), citing Roland M. v. Concord School Committee , 910 F.2d 983 (1 st Cir. 1990), cert. denied , 499 U.S. 912 (1991) The program need not be perfect, and, in Massachusetts, the program need no longer provide a student with maximum feasible benefit. In other words, as long as the student is making reasonable, meaningful, demonstrable progress in areas identified as special needs, the program and services may past muster. Id.
Finally, any determination of whether a program provides a student with FAPE, especially an older student with severe or pervasive disabilities, should be made in light of the stated purpose of the IDEA, that is, to “ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free, appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living. ” 20 USC §1400(d)(1)(A) (Emphasis supplied.) See also 34 CFR §200.1(a).
Here, the parties agree on Student’s general profile as a young adult who has a long-standing diagnosis of autism and mental retardation, and accompanying difficulties with communication, social interaction, and independent living, among other things, but who also is very pleasant, cooperative, hard-working and reliable. Thanks to his own hard work and that of his parents and teachers, Student has developed an impressive array of personal qualities and skills that can help prepare him for adult life. Student shows up for school and work regularly, on time, appropriately dressed and groomed. He completes his assigned tasks correctly, and gets along with supervisors and co-workers. Despite his diagnosis of autism, Student has no behavioral issues that are severe enough to interfere with learning or work in an appropriate setting.
Further, Student is able to read at approximately a second grade level, and can sight read safety words. He can do simple math. He can perform multi-step tasks that he has been explicitly taught. With instruction, he is able to learn new skills and routines quickly. Student has successfully performed basic clerical, retail (e.g., stocking shelves, selling popcorn), and housekeeping tasks, and is learning more complex tasks such as data entry. Although the parties disagree on the effectiveness and quality of Melrose’s S.T.E.P. program, there is no dispute that Student has made progress.
Finally, there is no real dispute on the appropriateness of the goals and objectives of the proposed IEP for April 2008 through April 2009. Rather, the parties’ dispute centers on whether the proposed post-graduate program operated by the Melrose Public Schools offers Student a sufficient number and variety of vocational and community opportunities to constitute FAPE. A subsidiary issue is whether the program, which is new, is sufficiently well-established to offer what it purports to offer, that is, job, community, and recreational opportunities that follow up and expand on those provided within the S.T.E.P. program at Melrose High School.
With respect to the first question, it is entirely understandable that Parents want Student to have the broadest possible array of vocational options to available to explore. However, Parents have presented no evidence showing that Student needs additional vocational placement options (as opposed to expanded opportunities and increasingly complex work within his current placements, which he has been receiving) in order to receive FAPE. The only evaluations on point, conducted by SEEM and MEC, unequivocally concluded that the S.T.E.P. program was appropriate for Student when he was in high school, and while they suggest exposure to additional options, they do not state that these are necessary for FAPE. In any event, there are no evaluations on the record of the proposed program, and, thus, no expert evidence that the proposed program is inadequate or inappropriate.
Regarding the second issue, the Parents correctly point out that as of the hearing date, the post-graduate program was not yet fully established. Melrose had only hired one of the two proposed job coaches, had not yet identified the paraprofessional for the program, and had not established any new job sites, with the possible exception of a position (with no definite job description) in the Mayor’s office. Finally, Parents point out that Ms. Maloney, the lead teacher, does not have extensive experience in teaching or programming for students on the autism spectrum. For these reasons, the post-graduate program amounts to a rehash of the STEP program, and will not afford Student with the opportunity to grow to which he is entitled.
Parents’ concerns are reasonable. There absolutely is no dispute that the program is still being formed, and as of the hearing date, there were no community job placements in addition to the ones already available to Student. Further, development of those placements depends on the actions of third parties over whom neither Parents nor Melrose have any control.
Nevertheless, for reasons stated above, Parents have not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the School’s proposed program—which continues many aspects of his current program– is inappropriate. Parents have presented no evidence that Student should discontinue his current job placements, even if he picks up new placements, especially given that Student’s responsibilities within his current placements have expanded and varied over the past several years, and could continue to do so. Thus, even if Melrose is unable to negotiate satisfactory new job placements in the immediate future, it can provide Student with FAPE by increasing the variety and complexity of tasks he does in the job settings he attends now, just as it has in the past.
Moreover, the two Melrose staff in charge of the post-graduate program have significant experience in program development, and appear to have the skills and abilities to negotiate and put into place at least some of the job and community programming they envision, as well as to ensure that the open positions (for job coach and paraprofessional) are filled.
The Parents have not met their burden of proving the School’s proposed program to be inappropriate; therefore, I need not examine the appropriateness of the LABBB Program for Student.
Based on the foregoing, Melrose’s proposed IEP and placement for April 2008 through April 2009 are appropriate, in that they are reasonably calculated to provide Student with FAPE in the least restrictive environment.

References: §1400
 §794
 § 1400
 v. 
 v. 
 §1400
 §200