Source: https://www.specialedlaw.com/database/student-v-salem-public-schools-bsea-04-4364/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:11:10+00:00

Document:
A hearing was held on May 20, 2004 at the Bureau of Special Education Appeals, 350 Main Street, Malden, Massachusetts, before Catherine M. Putney-Yaceshyn, Hearing Officer.
Student’s Guardian, (hereinafter, “Guardian”) requested an expedited hearing on April 21, 2004 and a hearing was scheduled for May 3, 2004. Salem requested a postponement of the hearing on April 27, 2004 and Guardian objected to the postponement. The postponement request was denied on April 29, 2004. On April 30, 2004, the case was reassigned to hearing officer Catherine Putney-Yaceshyn. On May 3, 2004, Guardian did not attend the scheduled hearing. The hearing officer reached her by telephone and a Pre-Hearing Conference was held via telephone conference call. The hearing was rescheduled for May 20, 2004. On May 20, 2004, Guardian did not attend the hearing. Reece Erlichman, Assistant Director of the BSEA, tried to reach Guardian by telephone unsuccessfully. The hearing officer proceeded in Guardian’s absence as she had previously told Guardian she would proceed if Guardian did not attend the hearing. The hearing proceeded on May 20, 2004. After approximately one and a half hours of testimony had been heard, the Assistant Director informed the hearing officer that Guardian was on the telephone and wished to be connected via speaker phone. The hearing officer denied Guardian’s request because she had explicitly told her she would be required to be present for the hearing and she would not be allowed to participate via speakerphone. The hearing officer relayed to Guardian that she would be provided with copies of the tape made of the hearing and would have an opportunity to file a written response. Salem requested that the deadline for submitting closing arguments be June 3, 2004 and the hearing officer allowed its request. The tape of the hearing was sent to Guardian. On June 3, 2004 Salem submitted its closing argument and the Guardian submitted her closing argument. The record closed at that time.
The official record of this hearing consists of Guardian’s exhibits marked P-Exhibits (unnumbered) and Salem’s exhibits marked S-1 through S-11 and approximately 2.5 hours of recorded oral testimony.
1. Whether the Student’s “stay put” rights were violated when she was suspended “until further notice” on December 19, 2003.
2. Whether Salem’s proposal of placing Student at the Bentley School Early Childhood Program to receive instruction from 3:00 p.m. – 4:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday would provide Student with a free appropriate education in the least restrictive environment.
3. Whether Student’s guardian should be compelled to consent to Salem’s request for permission to send Student’s records to the SEEM Collaborative.
1. The student (hereinafter, “Student”) is a four-year-old pre-school student residing in Salem, Massachusetts, within the Salem Public School District (hereafter, Salem). She attended a pre-school screening on 3/3/03 during which she spoke in one-word responses and some words were unintelligible. During the screening, conducted by Christine Tramondozzi, the team chairperson for the early childhood center at the Bentley School and the school psychologist who conducts evaluations, she was observed to be highly active, inattentive and distractible. Her ability to sit still and remain focused was severely delayed for a child her age. Ms. Tramondozzi testified that she requested consent for Salem to conduct a psychological, speech language, and home and health evaluation but Guardian refused to consent to a full evaluation. She later agreed to the speech and language evaluation which was conducted on July 9, 2003 and a Team meeting was held July 17. (Tramondozzi) Student’s verbal IQ is 102, her performance IQ is 97 and her full scale IQ is 100. (S-6) Aside from the speech language evaluation and occupational therapy evaluations referenced below, there is little formal testing data regarding Student.
3. The record contains no documentation pertaining to the scheduling or the convening of the July 17 Team meeting. Ms. Tramondozzi testified that the speech and language evaluation showed that Student had a communication disability. She stated that due to the evaluation results and some of Student’s behaviors that evaluators observed during the testing, the Team determined that placing Student in the integrated pre-school program would be more appropriate than just providing speech and language services. There is no IEP in evidence that was drafted pursuant to the aforementioned Team meeting. It is unclear from the record whether an IEP was ever drafted.
4. Ms. Tramondozzi testified that the Team recommended additional testing to assess Student’s overall learning style and difficulties with processing, attention and behavior and Guardian agreed to the psychological evaluation which was conducted on August 12, 2003.
7. Ms. Tramondozzi testified that the Team meeting to review the psychological evaluation was held on August 8, 2003. The chronology of events drafted by Ms. Crimble and Ms. Tramondozzi also states that the Team meeting was held on August 8, 2003. (S-1) Ms. Tramondozzi’s report states that she evaluated Student on August 12, 2003. The record contains no documentation regarding the scheduling or convening of a Team meeting on either August 8 or August 12, 2003. Ms. Tramondozzi testified that during the meeting the Team determined Student should be placed in the integrated pre-school program and should receive speech language services. The record does not contain an IEP drafted pursuant to the August Team meeting and it is unclear from the testimony whether the Team drafted an IEP for Student.
19. Ms. Crimble wrote notes dated November 12, 2003. She reported that when Student was asked to come over to the table she stated, “I don’t like to, Mrs. Crimble.” Student sat at a table with another adult playing with and identifying animals for about twenty-five minutes. She then played cooperatively with a peer with teacher facilitation. Student then climbed under the table, climbed on the lego table and jumped off and ran over to the book area. During circle time Student was successful initially, but returned to the other table to play with the animals. She played quietly at first, but heard a story being read at the circle and “forcefully [fell] over a student at circle to find a place to sit.” She returned to the other table and attempted to clean up the toys, but “left unsuccessfully.” A teacher redirected her attention to cleaning up and she returned to circle and hit a student and pulled toys off of shelves and ran to the teacher’s desk and knocked things to the floor. When she calmed down, the teacher asked if she wanted to go for a walk with her to the office to help her calm down. She walked calmly to the office, but once there she pulled things off the secretary’s desk and ran back to the classroom. She rejoined her peers, but when she did not like their activity, she screamed and ran to the book area.
During snack time she ran around the room interrupting another class at another table. She laid on a table and rolled off on to the floor and showed no pain or discomfort when she hit the floor. She left the cafeteria and ran into another classroom interrupting their activity. She then ran out of the classroom and kicked the trash barrel on her way out. Student continued to run around her own classroom and threw things on the floor. She took the rhythm sticks and drummed on everything she could find and threw them when Ms. Crimble tried to take them. She ran from her and curled up cowering behind the bookcase. Student then climbed onto a counter to look out the window with binoculars. She fell off the counter and her feet hit a toy on a shelf and the shelf broke. Her body hit the floor and she showed no signs of any pain. Student calmed down and Ms. Crimble brought her to the gym to meet her class. She ran away from Ms. Crimble in the hallway and ran to the gym and began playing with a ball. Student would not stay with the class. When the class left the gym she refused to leave. She ran from Ms. Crimble and rolled all over the gym floor. Ms. Crimble chased her around the gym and then watched her climb on equipment. Student ran from the gym and around the school foyer. Ms. Crimble could not catch her and other staff attempted to help.
27. In response to Hearing Officer questioning regarding the steps Salem took to provide additional support to Student in the classroom, Ms. Tramondozzi testified that the Team tried to talk to Guardian regarding their concerns. She testified that the Team had recommended that Student receive OT services, but that Guardian did not accept the November 20, 2003 IEP proposing said services. She stated that “around” November 20, 2003 Salem added an additional paraprofessional to Student’s classroom so there were four adults and 15 children in the classroom when Student was there. She stated that staff modified the expectations for Student. The school adjustment counselor was initially involved in Student’s services, but Guardian did not want him working with Student. (Tramondozzi) Ms. Crimble testified that there is another adjustment counselor in the school who is generally there in the afternoon.
Ms. Crimble testified that she consulted with Ms. Guaragna with respect to Student, although the record does not show that Ms. Guaragna is a behaviorist nor that she made any recommendations for remediating Student’s behaviors. In her September 11, 2003, observation report Ms. Guaragna made some alarming conclusions about Student. She described Student, then three years old, as “oppositional, defiant, calculating and controlling.” She found her to be “not only a danger to herself but to all children and staff in her environment.” She did not make any recommendations for implementing any positive behavior supports or assisting Student in the classroom. The record shows that Ms. Crimble did not request that the Team reconvene to determine whether additional supports could be added to assist Student with her apparent behavioral difficulties at that time. The evidence does not show that anybody from Salem did a functional behavior assessment as required by § 300.520(b) to determine what triggered Student’s difficult behaviors and how the staff could deal with them. Ms. Crimble testified that she did not consult with a behaviorist or anybody with expertise in dealing with children with behavior difficulties. The reports did not contain any recommendations and were written in a tone that indicated a feeling of hostility toward Student. She seemed to suggest that Student was intentionally causing havoc in the classroom and should be dealt with punitively.
Although Ms. Crimble testified that she and other Salem staff continuously made modifications for Student throughout the school year, the evidence does not support that conclusion. After the September 22, 2003 Team meeting, there does not appear to have been any Team activity until November 6, 2003 when the Team convened to discuss the O.T. evaluation and Student’s behavior. Between the September 22 Team meeting and the November 6 Team meeting, the record does not show that Student received any additional classroom support to address her behavioral issues. It is interesting to note that Ms. Crimble taught an afternoon session of her integrated pre-school program that had three fewer children than the morning session. She testified that she believed Student would have more success in a setting with fewer children and a larger ratio of adults to students. However, neither she nor any other Salem staff member recommended placing Student in the smaller environment of the afternoon pre-school classroom. Even after the Team reviewed the O.T. evaluation on November 6, 2003 there was no recommendation that Student be placed in the smaller setting that was available within the same school building. (S-7) Additionally, Student was not provided with a 1:1 aide nor was an additional adult added to classroom until on or after November 20, 20035 . Assuming that the additional adult was in the classroom on November 20, 2003 Student was only present for approximately three days after the adult was added due to suspensions and absences. Three days is hardly sufficient time to determine whether the addition of another adult would benefit Student.
During the Hearing, Salem witnesses testified that Student was a safety risk to herself, the staff, and other children. The testimony and reports of Ms. Crimble and Ms. Guaragna tend to support that contention. However, the law does not authorize a school district to unilaterally terminate the services of a child who is eligible for special education services even when it sincerely believes that the student poses a safety risk.
Based upon its belief that Student’s behaviors made her a risk to others, Salem suspended Student on December 18, 2003 “until a date to be determined at the mediation meeting on January 14, 2004.” In effect, Salem changed Student’s placement without following any of the procedures required by the law, violating 20 U.S.C. Chapter 33, § 1415 and the Discipline Procedures outlined in 34 CFR § 300.519 – 300.528.
§300.519 states “For purposes of removals of a child with a disability from the child’s current educational placement under §§ 300.520-300.529, a change of placement occurs if – (a) The removal is for more than 10 consecutive school days; or (b) The child is subjected to a series of removals that constitute a pattern because they cumulate to more than 10 school days in a school year, and because of factors such as the length of each removal, the total amount of time the child is removed, and the proximity of the removals to one another.” Clearly, excluding Student from school from December 18, 2003 “until a date to be determined at the mediation meeting on January 14, 2004” resulted in a unilateral change in her placement in contravention of state and federal law.
There are instances in which a school is authorized to place a student in an alternative educational setting. A school’s authority to change the Student’s placement is limited by § 1415(k)(1) and §300.520 which describe the authority of school personnel to place a Student in an alternative educational setting.
§300.520 Authority of school personnel.
Pursuant to the above, after suspending Student, Salem should have begun providing her services on or about the second school day after December 18, 2003. Student had previously been excluded from school for disciplinary reasons eight times, including the days that Salem staff testified Student was asked to “leave school” although was not technically suspended. The evidence shows that Student did not begin receiving any services from Salem until Guardian accepted the May 13, 2003 IEP.
(ii) The child knowingly possesses or uses illegal drugs or sells or solicits the sale of a con­trolled substance while at school or a school function under the jurisdiction of a State or local educational agency.
Student did not either carry a weapon or possess illegal drugs at school, therefore there is no authorization to changes Student’s placement pursuant to the above.
(i) If the LEA did not conduct a functional behavioral assessment and implement a behavioral intervention plan for the child before the behavior that resulted in the removal described in paragraph (a) of this section, the agency shall convene an IEP meeting to develop an assessment plan.
(ii) If the child already has a behavioral intervention plan, the IEP team shall meet to review the plan and its implementation, and, modify the plan and its implementation as necessary, to address the behavior.
Salem did not follow the directive above. There was never a functional behavioral assessment done of Student nor was there a request for consent to conduct one. There was a behavior modification plan proposed at some point, but it was not accepted by Guardian and consequently not implemented. The Team did not meet to review the behavior modification plan and no modifications to the plan were recommended.
§300.521 Authority of hearing officer.
(d) Determines that the interim alternative edu­cational setting that is proposed by school personnel who have consulted with the child’s special education teacher, meets the requirements of §300.522(b).
(e) As used in this section, the term substantial evidence means beyond a preponderance of the evidence.
The aforementioned section does not apply in this case, because Salem did not request an expedited hearing before suspending Student indefinitely. Instead, Salem scheduled a mediation which was then rescheduled and did not result in agreement between the parties. While mediation is generally a helpful tool for parties involved in a dispute and is sometimes the preferable avenue to pursue when parties are seeking to maintain an amicable working relationship, it was impermissible under federal law for Salem to request a mediation in lieu of a hearing while excluding Student beyond the tenth day of her suspension. The law is very clear that a hearing officer is the only person authorized to order the child to attend an interim alternative educational setting in a case such as this where weapons or drugs were not involved and where there is not agreement between the parties regarding placement. Salem should have requested an expedited hearing and allowed a hearing officer to conduct the analysis required under §1415(k)(2). If Salem wished to instead resolve its dispute via mediation, it should have simultaneously requested an expedited hearing and held the mediation prior to the hearing date or allowed Student to return to school while rescheduling the mediation.
Had Salem requested an expedited hearing at the appropriate time and presented the evidence now before me, there would not have been sufficient evidence to support the necessity of the interim alternate placement. Although Ms. Crimble’s testimony and reports demonstrate that Student engaged in unsafe behavior and Salem would have likely been able to satisfy the criteria in §300.521(a), I am not convinced that Salem “made reasonable efforts to minimize the risk of harm in the child’s current placement, including the use of supplementary aids and services.” See §300.521(c). As discussed above, the September 22 Team did not modify Student’s IEP and the Team did not reconvene for over six weeks after that despite Student’s continued behavior difficulties as documented by Ms. Crimble and Ms. Guaragna. Salem never conducted a functional behavior assessment and did not even suggest a behavior plan until late November, after Student had been experiencing difficulties for several months. Although Salem eventually added an additional adult to the classroom, Student was only in the classroom for a maximum of four days after the adult was added, insufficient time to determine whether she benefited from the adult’s presence.
§1415(k)(4) of the statute requires that the Team determine whether a student’s behavior was a manifestation of his or her disability before taking disciplinary action involving change in placement for more than ten days. The relevant portion of §1415(k)(4) states as follows.
(ii) immediately, if possible, but in no case later than 10 school days after the date on which the decision to take that action is made, a review shall be conducted of the relationship between the child’s disability and the behavior subject to the disciplinary action.
Salem did not conduct a manifestation determination before excluding Student for more than ten days. Ms. Tramondozzi testified that Salem scheduled a manifestation determination meeting on April 1, 2004 and was rescheduled until April 15, 2004 at the request of Guardian. Salem’s chronology of events (S-1) shows that Guardian cancelled the second date due to a funeral. Ms. Tramondozzi testified that the manifestation determination was never done. Even if Salem had been able to complete its manifestation determination in April, it would have occurred approximately three and one half months later than required by law.
Student continued to remain excluded from school without being provided any services until May 13, 2004 when she began attending the one hour after school session with Ms. Kolin and a paraprofessional Guardian agreed to on May 13, 2004. It is not necessary to determine whether or not the IEP proposed on May 13, 2004 provided Student with a free appropriate education in the least restrictive environment as Salem acknowledged that it did not and because Guardian accepted it. Ms. Tramondozzi testified that Salem knew the program did not provide Student with sufficient services and had just intended it to be a temporary program until the dispute was resolved. It bears noting that the IEP was drafted without a Team meeting. Additionally, Guardian requested that Student receive speech and O.T. services in addition to the services proposed on the IEP. Although Guardian had previously accepted speech services, Salem did not provide them as part of Student’s after school program6 .
Another significant issue in this case is the lack of evaluative information that Salem has been afforded to determine Student’s needs. Salem has sought Guardian’s consent to conduct more detailed evaluations of Student in order to assess all of her needs. Guardian apparently had a private neuropsychological evaluation of Student done at North Shore Children’s Hospital and possesses a report of its findings. Salem has requested that Guardian provide a copy of the report so that the Team can consider it and implement appropriate services for Student. I also suggested to Guardian that she provide the report to Salem for review by the Team. Guardian agreed that she would share the report, but has yet to do so. Although Ms. Curtis testified that Salem believes that a neuropsychological evaluation and a home evaluation would provide beneficial information to the Team, the record does not show that Salem has requested consent from Guardian to conduct either evaluation. I would strongly encourage Guardian to either provide Salem with the report of the North Shore Children’s Hospital evaluation or to provide her consent for Salem to conduct a neuropsychological assessment of Student. The Team will be able to ensure that it is addressing all of Student’s areas of need if it is provided with all available information regarding her needs.
Because Student’s rights were violated when she was excluded from school without receiving any services between December 18, 2003 and May 13, 2004, when Guardian accepted the IEP for the “after school program” she is entitled to compensatory educational services. Because her “after school program” did not include the speech language services Student’s accepted IEP required, she is entitled to compensatory services in the area of speech and language until the end of the school year. The Team shall determine what services will appropriately compensate Student for her missed educational services as the record does not contain any evidence as to what Student requires.
Because Student was wrongfully excluded from the Salem Public Schools and because I have found that Salem did not meet its burden of proving that it “made reasonable efforts to minimize the risk of harm in the child’s current placement, including the use of supple­mentary aids and services,” Student shall be placed in the Salem Public Schools with the appropriate “supplementary aids and services” when she returns in September. The Team shall reconvene as soon as possible to begin planning for her September program. The record is unclear as to whether Student will be placed in a pre-school or Kindergarten program, but the Team shall determine what Salem program is appropriate for Student. In making its determination, the Team should consider the recommendations made by Ms. Crimble and Ms. Tramondozzi during the hearing. The Team shall also consider whether Student requires counseling services due to Ms. Tromondozzi’s testimony that Ms. Kolin reported Student believed she was a “bad child” as a result of being excluded from school.
If after Salem provides appropriate “supplementary aids and services” to Student in the program that they propose, Student continues to have difficulties that make her unsafe to herself or others, Salem shall follow the appropriate steps required under state and federal law to gain authority to place Student elsewhere within the district or out-of-district.
Salem has not met its burden in showing that Guardian should be compelled to consent to Salem’s request for permission to send Student’s records to the SEEM Collaborative.
Salem shall request consent to conduct the additional evaluations it believes are necessary and if it is unable to secure consent may request the assistance of a mediator or request a hearing.
Ms. Crimble testified that she sought advice regarding working with Student from Ms. Guaragna who teaches in a therapeutic classroom for students on the autism spectrum.
Accommodations include: repeat and rephrase directions as needed; praise and encouragement to engage in activities; predictable routines, structure and consistency; hands on visual supports for oral directions; break down tasks into small components; have student repeat back directions to assess comprehension; frequent check ins for on task behavior; preferential seating, away from distractions and near the teacher; and provide opportunities for positive peer interactions.
It is unclear whether this person actually began attending Student’s classroom on November 20, 2003 because the record shows that November 20, 2003 was the day the IEP was provided to Guardian and that she did not return a signed IEP to Salem.
Ms. Tramondozzi testified that Guardian had not accepted the IEP that proposed O.T. services.

References: § 300
 § 1415
 § 300

§300
 § 1415
 §300

§300

§300
 §300
 §1415
 §300
 §300

§1415
 §1415