Source: http://spedsearch.com/mansfield-public-schools-bsea-1507326/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 14:59:06+00:00

Document:
This decision is issued pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), the Massachusetts special education statute (M.G.L. ch. 71B), the Massachusetts Administrative Procedure Act (M.G.L. ch. 30A), and the regulations promulgated under these statutes. This Decision is being issued on the basis of written submissions without a hearing pursuant to Rule XII of the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals.
The Student in this case (Student) is an eight-year-old rising fourth grader who carries a diagnosis of Autism. Student has received special education services under an IEP from Mansfield Public Schools (Mansfield or School) since first grade. The parties agree that Student requires extended school year (ESY) services pursuant to the requirements of 603 CMR 28.05.
Parent filed a Request for an Expedited Hearing on May 13, 2015 seeking an order finding Mansfield’s proposed ESY program for summer 2015 inadequate to meet Student’s needs. Parent seeks an order directing Mansfield to fund a summer 2015 placement for Student at The Bridge Center, which is a private summer program selected by Parent.
In its Response to Parent’s Hearing Request, the District argues that its proposed ESY services for summer 2015 would provide Student with FAPE because they are reasonably calculated to prevent substantial loss of Student’s skills and/or substantial difficulty in relearning skills.
The BSEA denied Parent’s request for an expedited hearing and assigned a non-expedited hearing date of June 17, 2015. On May 29, 2015 the Hearing Officer conducted a conference call with the parties during which Parent requested that a decision be issued without a hearing under Rule XII of the BSEA Hearing Rules. In an Order dated June 1, 2015 the Hearing Officer memorialized the Parent’s request, directed the School to report whether or not it would agree to proceed without a hearing, and advised the parties that by proceeding in this matter they would “waive the right to present the sworn oral testimony of witnesses, to cross-examine witnesses called by the opposing party, to present rebuttal testimony, and to have the Hearing Officer make findings regarding the credibility and persuasiveness of witness testimony.”  By a letter dated June 2, 2015 the School agreed to a decision without a hearing pursuant to Rule XII. On June 9, 2015, after a second conference call, the Hearing Officer issued an order directing the parties to file all proposed exhibits by June 12, 2015 and all objections to exhibits by June 17, 2015. The Order further provided that the parties could file brief explanatory memoranda that would be considered as argument but not as evidence.
The record in this case consists of Parent’s exhibits A through O (hereafter P-A through P-0) and School’s exhibits 1-23 (hereafter S-1 through S-23) as well as memoranda from each party. Parent filed objections to parts of the School’s memorandum on June 17, 2015 and the record closed on that day.
On July 3, 2015 a Conclusion and Order was issued in advance of a full decision. That Conclusion and Order is attached to this Decision as Exhibit A and is incorporated in full.
If the School’s proposed ESY program is not appropriate and cannot be made appropriate, whether the Parent’s proposed ESY placement at The Bridge Center is appropriate for Student.
During the 2014-2015 school year, Student experienced significant emotional dysregulation, primarily anxiety, at least partially because Mansfield provided an inadequate ESY program during the summer of 2014 as well as inappropriate reductions in service during Student’s stressful transition to third grade. In order to succeed in Mansfield’s proposed partial inclusion placement for fourth grade, Student needs to regain her emotional equilibrium and recover her ability to self-regulate over the summer. For this purpose, Student needs a consistent, full-day, full-summer therapeutic recreational program to implement her social-emotional IEP goals.
Mansfield’s proposed ESY program is not calculated to provide Student with FAPE because it is a one-size-fits-all program that is not designed to address Student’s unique needs stemming from her autism. The proposed 5-week program is too short in duration, entails too many transitions, and lacks the direct Occupational Therapy (OT), speech/language and ABA services that Student needs to prevent the undisputed, well-documented social, emotional and behavioral regression that Student experiences during even short breaks from school. On the other hand, the Parents’ proposed ESY program operated by the Bridge Center would meet Student’s needs by providing individualized full-day, full-summer programming with a low student to staff ratio, facilitation of friendships, skill-building, and implementation of Student’s behavior plan. In the context of a therapeutic recreational program, the Bridge program would address Student’s social, emotional and behavioral needs.
Mansfield’s proposed ESY program is calculated to meet Student’s needs by providing her with 5 hours per day, 4 days per week for 5 weeks of individualized programming based on Student’s IEP. The ESY program is reasonably calculated to prevent excessive regression in Student’s academic, social/emotional and behavioral functioning during the summer vacation. The School’s proposed program would provide Student with services of a certified special education teacher and familiar shared paraprofessional as well as consultation by an occupational therapist to address sensory needs and “as needed” support from a school psychologist to address Student’s anxiety. Student would be paired with at least one familiar peer. In addition, three weeks of the ESY program would encompass recreational opportunities in an inclusive school-sponsored day camp with the support of a special education teacher and paraprofessional. By participating in the proposed program, Student would have the opportunity to strengthen her ties to her school building and peers.
On the other hand, the parent’s proposed placement at the Bridge Center is overly restrictive and unnecessary to prevent substantial regression over the summer break.
Student is a bright, friendly, happy eight year old girl who lives with Parent in Mansfield. Student’s eligibility for special education services from the Mansfield Public Schools is not in dispute.
The Parties substantially agree on Student’s profile. On standardized testing, Student has demonstrated low-average to average cognitive functioning, with high average performance in some areas. Academically, Student has functioned at approximately grade level (slightly above grade level in some skills and slightly below in others) throughout her school career. Student communicates verbally and is able to relate to adults and peers. Student has many interests, including music and animals.
Student was diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder at two years old, at which time she began receiving Early Intervention (EI) services in speech/language, OT and physical therapy.
Student attended the Norton Public Schools (Norton) for kindergarten (2011-2012 school year). A multi-disciplinary evaluation conducted by Norton indicated that Student had average intellectual functioning. She scored in the high average range for academic achievement in reading, written language, math problem solving and in the low average range for oral expression, numerical operations and expressive vocabulary. (Parent’s Ex. A-9, A-11, A-12).
Despite Student’s cognitive and academic strengths, testing, parent and teacher rating scales and observation revealed social/emotional struggles and difficulties with transition consistent with her diagnosis. On the teacher portion of the BASC, for example, Student was in the “At-Risk” range in the categories of hyperactivity, externalizing problems, somatization, attention problems, and adaptability, and in the “Clinically Significant” range in the categories of atypicality and withdrawal. Student struggled with attention and transitions, and needed redirection and reassurance to act appropriately. (Parent’s Ex. A-9, A-11).
Student entered the Mansfield Public Schools for first grade, at the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year. Initially Mansfield implemented the Norton IEP referred to above. After a Team meeting in February 2013 Mansfield issued a new IEP dated 2/6/2013 to 2/7/2014. Parent accepted this IEP and placement in full. (S-13).
From this meeting came the IEP dated 1/29/2014 to1/29/2015, covering the latter portion of second grade and the first half of third grade. This IEP provided for a partial inclusion placement and contained updated speech /language, social/behavioral, ELA, and math goals. This IEP changed the predecessor IEPs by eliminating Student’s OT goal. The IEP also reduced ESY services, removing OT as well as direct speech/language services from the ESY program for summer 2014. The IEP initially listed the ESY program as providing 5 hours x 4 days x 5 weeks during the summer of 2014 to address Student’s social/behavioral, ELA, and mathematics goals.
The parties agree that Student had successful first and second grade years at Robinson Elementary School in Mansfield. The Robinson School serves children in grades K through 2 only. After completing second grade, Robinson students transfer to the Jordan-Jackson Elementary School (JJ School) for grades 3 through 5. The Team met on May 15, 2014 to amend Student’s IEP to prepare for Student’s anticipated transition to the JJ School for third grade. At that meeting, School representatives on the Team recommended that for transition purposes, Student should attend the JJ School’s ESY program rather than the Robinson ESY program that Student had attended in summer 2013.
An educational assessment completed by Student’s general education teacher noted that Student’s school anxiety and attention difficulties had impacted her learning so that Student’s progress has not been similar to that of her peers, but that Student’s progress had been consistent over her personal history. The teacher also noted that Student did not interact in a meaningful way with her classmates.
Subsequently, Parent sought a private speech-language evaluation from Julie Meelia, MS-CCC-SLP and Director of Blue Dragonfly Children’s Therapy. In a letter dated May 25, 2015 Meelia recommended that Student “may need a full day, socially supported, therapeutically supported program with as few transitions as possible” for ESY services. This letter was written before Meelia had the chance to observe Student. The full evaluation report was not available to the parties at the deadline for submission of documents, has not been considered by the Mansfield Team, and is not part of the record in this matter.
In response to Parent’s rejection of the original IEP spanning 2/4/2015 to 2/4/2016, the School proposed an amendment which increased ESY services from three to five hours per day (from 3 hours x 4 days x 5 weeks to 5 hours x 4 days x 5 weeks, representing an increase from 60 to 100 total hours) running from 7/13/2015 to 8/13/2015.
A 5 hour, 5 week therapeutic summer program that runs from 7/13/15 – 8/13/15, Monday through Thursday. This classroom includes on-going reinforcement of academic and social thinking/behavioral skills.
A certified special education teacher with a familiar shared paraprofessional will support her during the summer program. In addition, a school psychologist will consult and provide services as needed to address any issues related to anxiety.
[Student’s] positive behavior support and academic programs will continue to prevent significant regression.
[Student] will be paired with at least one friend she is familiar with to support peer interactions. Play, recreation, sensory integration breaks and strategies will be incorporated throughout the day.
OT will be consulted and available as needed.
As an additional part of this summer program, we propose inclusion opportunities for [Student], in order to continue to develop her social skills within the Mansfield Public Schools optional summer program available to all students on a fee-for-service basis; however, Mansfield Public Schools will fund this program for [Student]. The Champs Institute overlaps with our summer program for three weeks. During this time, with the assistance of a familiar and trained paraprofessional with oversight from a special education teacher, [Student] will be integrated with same age peers to develop friendships and engage in social conversations; all while enjoying age appropriate activities that we know she will be excited to participate in.
Parent proposes a summer program at The Bridge Center. Located in Bridgewater, MA, the Bridge Center offers a broad variety of summer camp and recreational experiences to children and adults with disabilities. The Bridge Center offers campers “therapeutic recreation and traditional playtime activities in a supportive, small group environment” (Parent’s ex. K-1).
In evidence is a list of The Bridge Center’s staff. According to this list, the staff includes one individual with a Master’s Degree in Special Education, and two individuals who are Certified Therapeutic Recreation Specialists. Both of these individuals are members of The Bridge Center’s administration. (Parent’s exhibit K-1) The documentary record contains no information about the qualifications of direct-care staff who would be interacting with Student on a daily basis if she were to attend.
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”). Student is entitled, therefore, to a free appropriate public education, that is, “to a program and services that are tailored to [her] unique needs and potential, and designed to provide ‘effective results’ and ‘demonstrable improvement’ in the educational and personal skills identified as special needs.” 34 C.F.R. 300.300(3)(ii); North Reading School Committee v. BSEA, 480 F. Supp. 2d 489 (D. Mass. 2007); citing Lenn v. Portland School Committee, 998 F.2d 1083 (1st Cir. 1993). While Student is not entitled to an educational program that maximizes her potential, she is entitled to one which is capable of providing not merely trivial benefit, but “meaningful” educational benefit. See Bd. of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 US 176, 201 (1982); Town of Burlington v. Dept. of Education, 736 F.2d 773, 789 (1st Cir. 1984); D.B., et al. v. Esposito, et al., 675 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 2012).
In a due process proceeding to determine whether a school district has offered or provided FAPE to an eligible child, the burden of proof is on the party seeking relief. In the instant case, as the moving party challenging the School’s proposed IEP, Parent bears this burden. That is, in order to prevail, Parent must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the IEP and ESY services offered by the District for the summer of 2015 are not appropriate, i.e., are not reasonably calculated to provide Student with FAPE. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 44 IDELR 150 (2005).
“Preponderance of the evidence” means that it is more likely than not that the School’s proposed program is inappropriate and cannot be made appropriate with modifications ordered by the hearing officer. If the Parent meets this burden, then the hearing officer must consider whether the program proposed by the Parent is appropriate. If the Parent does not demonstrate the inappropriateness of the School’s proposal, then the inquiry stops, and the hearing officer may not examine the merits of the Parent’s proposal. Id.
In determining whether or not ESY services are necessary to provide a child with FAPE, many states, including Massachusetts, have adopted a so-called “regression and recoupment” standard.  The applicable Massachusetts regulation provides that ESY programs “may be identified if the student has demonstrated or is likely to demonstrate substantial regression in his or her learning skills and/or substantial difficulty in relearning such skills if an extended program is not provided.” 693 CMR 28.05(4)(d)(1).
After careful review of documents and memoranda submitted by each party in light of the applicable legal standards articulated above, I conclude that the ESY program and services offered by Mansfield are not appropriate, but may be made appropriate as discussed below.
The parties agree and the record establishes that despite her disability, Student has many areas of strength, including a friendly, enthusiastic personality, the ability and willingness to learn, many solid academic skills, and a variety of interests. The parties also agree that Student’s transition from the Robinson School to the JJ School was difficult. Student was generally happy and enthusiastic about school during first and second grade at the Robinson. After transitioning to the JJ School, Student had school-related anxiety, especially at home but also in school. Student expressed socially-related worries, e.g., the fear that teachers other children did not like her. This anxiety persisted through the school year despite Parent’s and school staff’s support and reassurance.
The documentary record establishes that throughout her school career, Student has experienced significant regression in her identified areas of need—academic, social/emotional and behavioral–during school breaks. This regression has occurred even after relatively short breaks such as long weekends. Mansfield has documented this regression in support of its recommendations for ESY programming during each summer of Student’s tenure in the District.
Mansfield’s most recent proposal for ESY services consists of 5 hours/day, 4 days/week of services for five weeks during summer 2015. The services are designed to maintain Student’s academic and social thinking/behavioral skills. Student’s positive behavior support plan will be continued through the summer. Student would be paired with at least one familiar peer and a familiar shared paraprofessional. The program will be overseen by a certified special education teacher. OT and school psychologist support would be available as needed. Counseling has also been offered. Finally, the School will fund three weeks of a general education summer program which Student could attend with the support of a paraprofessional.
The content of the School’s proposed ESY program appears to be appropriate to meet Student’s identified academic and social/behavioral needs. The proposed program as it stands does not offer the Student FAPE, however, because it is only of five weeks duration. Student would be without any ESY programming for an approximately two week period from August l7 until the first day of school on September 2, 2015. This gap in service is problematic in light of Student’s documented regression during even very short breaks in her school routine. Additionally, the School’s proposal does not provide Parent with detailed information about how the proposed “overlap” between the ESY program and Summer of Champs Institute would be scheduled, does not explicitly state that the shared paraprofessional would accompany Student to the latter program, and does not indicate how Student would be supported through transitions. In light of the undisputed evidence in the record of Student’s difficulties with transitions and uncertainty, such information-sharing between the School and Parent is critical so that both Parent and School staff can prepare and support Student in a collaborative manner.
If Mansfield extends Student’s ESY program for an additional two weeks, to and including August 28, 2015, ensures that the paraprofessional actually accompanies Student to the Summer of Champs Institute, and provides Parent with the clarification about scheduling referred to above, the School’s ESY program will be appropriate. If Mansfield’s “in house” ESY program normally ends on August 13, 2015, Mansfield, in collaboration with Parent, must locate or create an additional two weeks of appropriate ESY services for Student. Such services may have a therapeutic recreational focus, but must ensure adequate social/emotional and behavioral support for Student.
The Conclusion and Order issued on July 3, 2015 and effective immediately upon receipt by the parties is attached and incorporated by reference in this Decision. For convenience, the relevant portions are reproduced below, verbatim.
Based on the documents admitted into the record and in consideration of the arguments of the parties, I conclude that the ESY program proposed by Mansfield in Bernadette Conroy’s letter of June 4, 2014 is not appropriate to provide the Student with FAPE. Mansfield’s program can be made appropriate, however, by (1) extending the duration of the program for an additional two weeks, to and including August 28, 2015; (2) providing Parent with a detailed schedule explaining the “overlap” of the ESY program and Summer of Champs Institute as well as the interventions to be used to assist Student with any transitions involved; (3) clarifying and/or ensuring that the shared paraprofessional actually accompanies Student to the Summer of Champs Institute.
If the Mansfield ESY program does not normally extend to and including August 28, 2015, Mansfield shall, in collaboration with Parent, locate or create appropriate ESY programming for the remaining two week period. Such programming may have a therapeutic recreational focus.
Because I have found that Mansfield’s program can be made appropriate for Student, I do not reach the issue of the appropriateness of the Bridge Center.

References: § 1400
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.