Source: https://www.specialedlaw.com/database/amherst-pelham-regional-school-district-v-student-bsea-07-2259-07-3796/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:54:38+00:00

Document:
The official record of the hearing consists of documents submitted by the Parents and marked as exhibits PE-1 to PE-5, PE-7 to 22, PE-24 to PE-40, PE-42, and PE- 44 through PE-542 ; documents submitted by Amherst and marked as exhibits SE-1 through SE-109; recorded oral testimony and oral closing arguments. The record closed on April 17, 2007 upon receipt of the Parties’ written closing arguments, and Amherst’s Response to Parents’ List of Concerns.
Parents originally requested a Hearing, BSEA # 07-0830, on August 14, 2006. The matter was assigned to Hearing Officer Berman. On October 8, 2006, Amherst filed a request for hearing BSEA #07-2259, and requested that the two matters be consolidated. The matters were not consolidated and on November 1, 2006, Parents withdrew their request for hearing, leaving only BSEA #07-2259 pending. In mid-December 2006, Amherst’s request for hearing was scheduled to proceed on January 30 and February 6, 2007.
On January 8, 2007, Parents filed a request for hearing, BSEA # 07-3796, involving the issue raised by Amherst and several other issues listed in the “Issues” section of this decision. The next day, Amherst requested that the matters be consolidated and that both cases be heard on January 30, 2007. The matters were consolidated on January 29, 2007 and the Hearing was postponed that same day at the request of Parents and Amherst. A notice of Re-scheduled Hearing was issued on February 7, 2007, scheduling the Hearing for March 6 and 7, 2007.
On February 21, 2007, the Hearing was administratively re-assigned to this Hearing Officer. In preparation for the hearing, a conference call was held on February 26, 2007 as a result of which a detailed order was issued addressing all preliminary matters. Said order instructed the parties as to who carried the burden of proof regarding the different issues raised by each party.
Pursuant to the order of February 28, 2007, Amherst was advised that it carried the burden of proof regarding the appropriateness of the IEP it promulgated for the 2006-2007 school year3 , that is, the issue it raised in its hearing request received in October 2006. The order informed Parents that they carried the burden with respect to the rest of the claims raised in their Hearing Request of January 8, 2007. At the hearing, Amherst raised an objection to carrying the burden of proof, stating that Parents filed a hearing request before they did in August 2006. The objection was noted for the record but overruled for the following reason. Even though Amherst had requested that BSEA # 07-0830 and BSEA #07-2259 be consolidated, these two matters were never consolidated. Thereafter, Parents withdrew their request for hearing (BSEA # 07-0830) in November 2006, leaving the school’s request BSEA #07-2259 standing alone. Only that matter was scheduled to proceed in January 2007. Parents’ withdrawal shifted the burden of proof to Amherst with respect to the one issue it raised. This finding is consistent with Schaeffer v . Weast , 126 S.Ct. 528 (2005) which imposes the burden of proof in an administrative hearing on the party seeking relief. At least during the period of time from November 1, 2006 through January 29, 2007 the only issue before the BSEA, was raised by Amherst and the only party seeking relief was Amherst.
We hold no more than we must to resolve the case at hand: The burden of proof in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is properly placed upon the party seeking relief. In this case, that party is Brian, as represented by his parents. But the rule applies with equal effect to school districts: If they seek to challenge an IEP , they will in turn bear the burden of persuasion before an ALJ. [Emphasis supplied.] Schaeffer , 126 S.Ct. 528, 537 (2005).
Clearly, Schaeffer contemplated instances where school districts carried the burden of proof. Although the language above is not precisely on point, given that Amherst is not technically “challenging an IEP”, the intent of the court seems to be clear that the rule must apply to the “original” moving party regarding the IEP, in this case Amherst.
Parents filed a new request for hearing, BSEA # 07-3796, in January 2007. It is this case which was consolidated with BSEA #07-2259 by the previous Hearing Officer on January 30, 2007. I note that had the original two matters been consolidated back in October 2006, then the burden of proof would have stayed with Parents. However, once Parents’ original case was withdrawn, the burden shifted to Amherst. Parents’ subsequent request for Hearing does not alter this shift. As such, for purposes of the instant case, Amherst carries the burden of proof with regard to the 2006-2007 IEP.
1. Parents raised concerns regarding a clerical error made by the BSEA administrative staff regarding a subpoena for production of specific school record involving accident reports, “Summer 2006 meeting notes with school administration Speech and Physical Therapy Reports.” Amherst asserts that on three separate occasions after Parent’s initial request for hearing was received, it gave Parents access to Student’s records. Parent claims that she has been denied access to certain documents but she did not identify any specific document claimed to be missing.4 Amherst states that allegedly Parent believes that Student had more accidents in school than those accounted for in the accident reports provided to Parents. Amherst argues that Parent was not able to describe any additional accidents for which Parent could have questioned Student’s paraprofessional, Jesse Turner. Amherst asserts that both the Director of Pupil services and the Superintendent have both indicated in writing that they made the records in the possession of the school available to Parent. Lastly, Amherst asserts that this was discussed during conference calls, and was also addressed at hearing. Although Parent made allegations of missing documents, she has not been able to identify a specific incident that would have triggered creation of the alleged missing document, or otherwise specifically explained what she was referring to. Without specificity or support for Parent’s claim, and in light of Amherst’s personnel’s representations at Hearing, Parent’s claim in this regard cannot be substantiated.
(a) the school administration’s refusal to schedule the Resolution Meeting is a violation of the BSEA process. According to Parents, some of the issues raised by Parents in the August 2006 Resolution meeting differed from those raised by them in the second request for hearing (ie., NEBA, ABA, evaluation reports). Parents believe that this refusal is wrong and illegal per BSEA Rules.
(b) Parents never received an invitation by mail to a Team meeting held on March 2, 2007, of which she found out about through notes written by Ms. O’ Donovan on March 5, 2007. Parents further noted that the meeting was held in the morning of March 5, when the school was closed due to snow.
Regarding the subpoenas, Amherst stated that because of Parents’ late request for subpoenas, received by witnesses immediately before the hearing, Amherst was left with no choice but to respond with the Motion to Quash late in the process. Amherst states that under BSEA Rules, subpoenas must be requested one to two weeks before the hearing7 , and this was discussed during at least two telephone calls with the Hearing Officers8 . Parents also failed to identify any document sought from Ms. White or Mr. Slovin, the individuals whom Amherst sought to protect, which Amherst had not already made available to Parent. Amherst’s Motion to Quash was received on March 5, 2007, the day before the hearing, and a ruling was issued later that same date and sent via facsimile to the Parties. A copy of the ruling allowing the Motion to Quash, for the reasons raised by Amherst in the Motion, was also made available to the Parties prior to the hearing.
If the LEA fails to hold the resolution meeting specified in paragraph (a) of this section within fifteen days of receiving notice of parent’s due process complaint or fails to participate in the resolution meeting, the parent may seek the intervention of a hearing officer to begin the due process hearing timeline.
· The parties have notified the BSEA in writing that they have waived the resolution session.
Under the regulations and BSEA Rule I F, the resolution meeting is the final informal opportunity the parties are given to settle their differences prior to engaging in the due process hearing. This requirement applies only to hearing requests initiated by parents and in essence prevents parents from proceeding to hearing until, and unless they have participated in said meeting, have waived it together with the school or have opted for mediation instead of the resolution session. Footnote # 1 of the BSEA Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals explains that the result of a school district’s failure to convene the resolution meeting within fifteen days of receipt of the request for hearing is that the meeting is deemed waived , and this pre-requisite cannot be used by the school district to delay the timelines and prevent parents from proceeding to the hearing11 . This was explained to Parent during the conference call of February 26, 2007 and at the beginning of the hearing on March 6, 2007. Amherst is correct that it has done nothing illegal in not convening the resolution meeting. I concur with Hearing Officer Oliver that nothing in the law or regulations describe a default procedure. In Re: Ann , BSEA # 06-1175, Parent’s Motion for a Default Judgment (2005, Oliver). The IDEA and the federal regulations talk about penalties to the parents regarding the resolution session, but imposes no such penalty on a school district that fails to convene the session, other than relieving the parent from his/her duty to participate as a pre-requisite to the due process hearing. See In Re: Mount Greylock Regional School District , BSEA # 06-6459, 12 MSER 177 (2006). Furthermore, no prejudice to Parents resulted from Amherst not convening the resolution meeting.
Sub-section (b) on the Parents’ list of concerns listed above relates to Parents’ claim that they never received an invitation by mail to a Team meeting held on March 2, 2007, and that they learned of this meeting through notes written by Ms. O’ Donovan on March 5, 2007. Amherst states that Parents did not raise this as an issue at hearing and that raising it on April 9, 2007, after the hearing concluded, was too late. This decision on issues raised by the parties, addresses only issues listed by the parties and handled at hearing. The Parties are barred from raising new issues after the conclusion of the Hearing. Amherst’s objection in this regard is sustained.
3. Parent is unclear why the school’s attorney objected to Dr. Elizabeth Pawlikoski’s reports as part of Parents’ exhibits since she hand delivered the document to the school administration on 2/27/07, and states that a meeting was held on March 2, 2007 to discuss evaluation reports, though she was excluded from participation. In its response, Amherst explained that Parent delivered Ms. Pawlikoski’s report to Amherst as part of Parents’ exhibit book, and not separately. The exhibit book was delivered to the district, not the attorney representing Amherst. As Ms. O’Donovan testified, the Team meeting of March 2, 2007, was not convened to review Dr. Pawlikoski’s report, but to review an independent occupational therapy evaluation.12 Amherst further states that it named Dr. Pawlikoski in its list of witnesses, [and] had subpoenaed her and attempted to contact her when she failed to respond to the subpoena. Messages for Dr. Pawlikoski were left by the Hearing Officer, and other BSEA staff. Amherst asserts that it had a right to cross-examine the witness regarding the content of the two reports and had the right to object to inclusion of the reports when Dr. Pawlikoski did not respond to the subpoena [or] make herself available. When Amherst first raised its objection to admission of the documents regarding Dr. Pawliloski, the objection was sustained, but Parent was advised that her right to renew the request to introduce the documents in evidence was preserved so long as Dr. Pawlikoski made herself available for cross-examination at hearing. Admission of these documents would be prejudicial to the district. In spite of multiple attempts by this Hearing Officer and others to contact Dr. Pawlikoski during both days of hearing, all efforts were futile. For these reasons, Amherst’s objection was sustained and the exhibits excluded.
Additionally, Amherst objected to the statement of Jessica Gladu and Martha Lewin, attached to Parents’ closing brief, on the basis that both of these individuals were designated witnesses of Parents but did not make themselves available to testify and were not subject to cross-examination at the hearing. Amherst argued that as witnesses for Parents, Parents had a responsibility to contact both individuals and ensure that they were available to testify during the two days of hearing. Amherst’s objections to admission of the two documents in evidence is sustained, and both statements are excluded from evidence for the reasons raised by Amherst. At Parents’ request, the BSEA issued subpoenas for both of these individuals on February 28, 2007, Ms. Gladu’s, received on March 2, 2007, and Ms. Lewin’s on March 1, 2007, received on March 5, 2007, at the addresses provided by Parents. Parent further requested that the testimony of Martha Lewin be taken via telephone conference call, and this request was granted. In spite of multiple attempts and messages left by the hearing officer and other BSEA personnel to reach them, neither of them was available for hearing. Introducing information by both of them after the hearing concluded, thereby depriving Amherst of its right to cross-examine the witnesses, would be unfair and prejudicial to Amherst; therefore, the documents were set aside and excluded.
(d) eight weeks of extended school year programming?
4. Whether Amherst has repeatedly violated Student’s IEP in that it failed to deliver occupational therapy, physical therapy, and speech therapy services as well as extended day programming in contravention of the accepted portions of Student’s IEP for the 2006-2007 school year?
5. Whether Parent is entitled to reimbursement for travel and educational program expenses associated with the summer program for the summers of 2005 and 2006?
Amherst asserts that Student has made effective progress over the past years. It states that it offered Student an appropriate IEP for the 2006-2007 school year, which provides him school-based services while providing access to the community and pre-vocational skills. This IEP amply meets Amherst’s requirements for providing FAPE to Student. The IEP offered a plethora of services, which would be provided by highly trained and qualified individuals who are willing to work together to improve the program as needed, including ABA training during the after-school portion of Student’s program to address daily living skills. Amherst denies that Student is unsafe at the middle school or that he would be unsafe in the high school. According to Amherst, Student’s injuries were infrequent, not severe, and a result of Student’s significant spatial awareness issues. It maintains that it has provided training to Student’s staff, and is committed to continue this training into the future. Amherst states that it has little control over the turnover of paraprofessionals but remains committed to ensuring that Student has the staff necessary to provide him services, and that it will train this staff. To address the turnover issue, Amherst supports having multiple paraprofessionals in the school and after-school programs and maintains that this will not interfere with consistency in the delivery of services because of the high level of communication and frequent meetings among the staff. It denies Parents allegations that the school is an unsafe environment and states that it will provide quiet areas for Student’s therapies when needed. Amherst also states that the reduction in OT and PT are warranted and in no way deprive Student of a FAPE.
As part of its IEP, Amherst incorporated opportunities for Student to transition over time from the middle school building to the high school building to help acclimate him to the new environment and staff. While Student would continue to have opportunities for socialization, his services would be offered in a substantially separate classroom. Although not reflected in his IEP, an ABA consultant to Amherst would design and train staff regarding daily living skills, especially around toileting issues.
Regarding the summer 2006 program, it asserts that Student only required six weeks which is consistent with what he received in the past, and that although not all of its staff (OT person) was available during the first week, it intended on making up missed services. It states that the summer staff hired to assist Student remained employed, ready, willing, and able to offer Student’s services even after Parents removed him from the program. It contends that the length of the after-school program was in keeping with previous IEPs, which offered Student two hours per day.
Amherst argues that the program proposed by Parents would be too fragmented and overly restrictive for Student who, up to this point, has done well in school-based programs.
Parents are dissatisfied with the program offered to Student for the ninth grade, the 2006-2007 school year, as well as the services offered during the summer of 2006. They state that Student’s program is chaotic, segmented, and unsafe for Student. They view the departure of Student’s paraprofessional of several years in June 2006 as a great contributor to the current dysfunction of the program. They take issue with the proposed reduction of PT and OT reflected in the rejected IEP, for the 2006-2007 school year, and are adamant about Student not being placed in the high school, which they consider to be an unsafe environment for their child. Parents believe that there has been an increase in injuries suffered by Student during school hours, which Amherst is covering-up. Parents attribute the increase in Student’s accidents to the numerous paraprofessionals Student had in 2006-2007, the high turnover of paraprofessionals since the 2006 summer, poor training, and lack of consistency. Parents also note a decrease in peer interaction and a loss of skills since the past summer.
Parents assert that Amherst is out of compliance with what Student is entitled to receive in his summer program. First, they argue that the program should be eight, not six-weeks, long. Second, they believe that the necessary personnel was not hired or was poorly trained, as a result of which Student did not receive the OT and PT services he was supposed to receive. Third, they state that in 2006, the after-school portion was shorter than it should have been and that it consisted of “baby-sitting” services rather than a real program where Student could go into the community. According to them, Student was “warehoused” while others participated in community activities. As a result of Amherst’s transgressions, Parents pulled Student out of the summer program and are seeking reimbursement for the cost associated with putting together a summer program for Student themselves.
Parents want Amherst to fund, supervise, and coordinate a home/community-based program, with an ABA component, designed by Parents and New England Business Associates, and that the school provide the OT, PT, speech, and sensory therapies for Student. They want Student’s skill training to occur in natural settings to facilitate generalization of skills.
1. Born on, December 25, 1991, Student is a fifteen (15) year-old resident of the Amherst-Pelham Region in Massachusetts. (SE-1) His eligibility and entitlement to special education are not in dispute.
Goals # 1-8 – Special Education – Special Ed. Teacher – 1 x 45 min.
(*Paraprofessional or Special Education Teacher).
Using Materials – [Student] scored at a 2 or 3 on tasks that involved manipulation of solid objects. He was unable to perform tasks that required more fine motor skills. It is difficult for [Student] to perform tasks that involve paper, as he is more interested in crunching it.
Setup and Cleanup – [Student] scored at a 2 or 3 on tasks that involved manipulation of solid objects. He is able to be more involved in setup and cleanup when it occurs on a consistent basis. He was unable to perform tasks that required fine motor skills or care to not spill.
Eating and Drinking – [Student] scored at a 3 or 4 on eating and drinking regular foods within allotted time. He had difficulty on the steps of eating and drinking without spilling, using utensils and napkins.
Hygiene – [Student] scored at a 2 or 3 for washing and drying hands. He was unable to perform skills related to toileting, nose care.
Computer and Equipment Use – [Student] scored a 4 on using a switch with the computer as well as attending to the computer. He was unable to perform skills regarding keyboard use.
Functional Communication – [Student] scored a 3 for communicating yes/no, acceptance/refusal choice. He does this primarily through affect, pushing undesired items away, choosing between desired and non-desired object. He was not able to perform other communication skills.
Memory and Understanding – [Student] has some understanding of one step directions, as well as partial memory for routines, location of items, classroom. He is unable to demonstrate understanding of memory for two-step directions or things that do not occur consistently.
Using Social Conventions – [Student] is able to smile as a greeting, keep social boundaries. He is not aware of other social conventions (eating, manners, privacy, etc.).
Compliance with Adult Directives and School Rules – [Student] is typically cooperative and will follow peers in activities and transitions.
Task Behavior / Completion – [Student] is able to complete a task, attend, sit quietly with adult support when motivated to do so. He is not able to work independently.
Positive Interaction – [Student] responds appropriately to social interactions from both staff and peers. He will initiate interactions with a smile, hand- shake, high 5, physical presence, and vocalization.
Behavior Regulation – [Student] accepts changes in routine, maintains behavioral control. He does not have an understanding of conflict and conflict resolution.
Personal Care Awareness – [Student] is unaware of most personal care issues and requires physical assistance to complete tasks.
61. On July 27, 2006, Parents rejected the proposed IEP Amendment, and on the same date, Amherst forwarded the rejected IEP to the BSEA. (SE-88) Parents’ partial rejection of Student’s IEP for the period from May 18, 2005 through May 17, 2006, was caused by the parties disagreement regarding the length of the proposed summer program, and Amherst’s reasons to support their offer of a six-week program. (SE-88) In light of Parents’ partial rejection, Student would receive summer programming as per the last agreed upon IEP, SE-53.
65. After Parent withdrew Student from Amherst’s summer program she arranged for two individuals, Student’s uncle and Zenobia Brandford (school’s paraprofessional and Student’s long time private care provider) to care for Student and engage him in community activities, sensory integration tasks, and self-help skills. (PE-19; PE-51) No information was provided regarding the specific programming provided by the aforementioned individuals.
70. On December 12, 2006, Amherst scheduled a Team meeting to review the Collaborative Center for Assistive Technology and Training evaluation received from Hampshire Educational Collaborative. (PE-42; SE-102) Due to Parents’ unavailability during the month of December, the meeting was scheduled for January 3, 2007. ( Id. ) On December 18, 2006 Parents requested that the meeting not be held in the morning, as non-school related staff were unavailable, and therefore, Parents too would be unavailable on January 3 rd . (PE-42; SE-103) A new Team invitation was forwarded on December 20, 2006 confirming scheduling of the Team meeting for January 3, 2007 in the morning.
a. School District will contract with New England Business Associates (NEBA).
b. NEBA will provide staffing and supervision for [Student’s] program.
[Student’s] day will start in the home and end in the community.
such as toileting with access to a private bathroom, dressing, feeding, etc. using ABA techniques.
such as “laundry job” through the family-run business and community leisure activities.
f. [Student] will be able to access school resources as needed.
g. NEBA staff will be part of the IEP Team.
h. NEBA will provide transportation for [Student’s] community activities.
79. On January 26, 2007, Parents had Student evaluated by Margaret Chapuis, physical therapist at the Rehabilitation Services, Pediatric Program at the Cooley Dickinson Hospital. (PE-39) Amherst referred Student for this evaluation to address Parents’ concerns that Student had declined in his ability to dress himself, ambulate, and climb stairs. Ms. Chapuis did not contact Ms. Pepe to seek information regarding Student’s performance, or program in Amherst. (Testimony of Ms. Pepe) During the evaluation, Student presented with decreased postural alignment, decreased balance, decreased safety with ambulation, transitions, and climbing stairs. The report noted increased flailing of extremities with transitions and ambulation as well as with overstimulation, such as when Student walked in the hallway. Overstimulation also caused numerous fluctuations in ambulation patterns. There was also a decreased awareness of his body in space when he transitioned from standing to sitting; he almost bumped into walls and almost missed the chair when attempting to sit down. Parent reported that Student’s awareness increased when he used ankle weights. Student was assessed using a four-wheeled walker over which he was able to gain control after initially hitting his left foot with it, and became more focused while using the walker. In climbing and descending stairs, he did not always look at the steps or reach for the railing. After the one-hour examination, Student did not appear fatigued. The evaluator recommended that Student wear high top sneakers to increase his stability when walking. Student had been using shoes with Velcro straps because he was working on self-dressing. She also found that Student would benefit from engaging in a program that incorporated leisure activities such as swimming and adaptive bicycling, and also that community activities be incorporated into his program. (PE-39) She recommended that when Student walked on unleveled surfaces or crowded areas, he use a rolling walker with large wheels, but cautioned that he should be trained to use it safely. Regarding training, Ms. Chapuis stressed that the program should be set up with a consistent aide who should be trained for consistent follow through with the exercise program, and to work on Student’s community entry skills, leisure activities, sensory diet, and safe use of the walker. Student’s progress should be monitored, and he should be re-assessed initially every two weeks. (PE-39) Upon receipt of the evaluation, Maria Geryk e-mailed Parents asking whether Parents wished to proceed with a Team meeting to address the AT and new PT evaluations or whether Parents would prefer to wait until all evaluations were received before convening the Team to review the reports. (PE-50) The record lacks Parents’ response to the e-mail.
Student is an individual with a disability falling within the purview of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act28 (IDEA) and the state special education statute.29 As such, Student is entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE).30 Student’s eligibility status and entitlement to FAPE are not in dispute. The parties’ central dispute relates to whether the program offered by Amherst is reasonably calculated to offer Student a FAPE and if not whether the home-program proposed by Parent is appropriate to meet his needs. All other issues are peripheral and related to this central one. Upon review of the evidence and in consideration of the Least Restrictive Environment requirement of the IDEA, I find that Amherst’s program with modifications is the appropriate program in which Student can be afforded a FAPE. In reaching this conclusion, I hereby incorporate by reference and rely on the facts stated in the Facts section of this decision, but avoid restating them so as not to be redundant.
Review of the evidence shows that Student’s 2006-2007 school year program offers a highly individualized educational program inclusive of consultation and direct services in physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech and language, pre-vocational, integrated studies, general education PE services, advisory, and direct pull-out to address life-skills. (SE-90) Cognizant of Student’s difficulties, multiple changes (including the loss of his paraprofessional of several years), and following numerous IEP meetings and discussions with Parent, Amherst proposed to implement the program slowly facilitating Student’s familiarity and adaptation into the high school building/ program through a three-month transition. The program includes extended day, and extended year services, although the dispute before me includes a difference of opinion regarding the length of the summer program. I find that SE-90, Amherst’s IEP for the 2006-2007 school year with modifications, as recommended by Ms. McIntire, and Mr. Chevalier, and in consideration of the current status of this case, can offer Student a FAPE, and constitutes the least restrictive environment appropriate to meet Student’s needs consistent with federal and state law.
The areas of Student’s program requiring modification involve: carrying over the program’s development of self-care and daily living skills in context and across all settings; training of the personnel assigned to work with Student; intensification of the extended-day portion of Student’s program; communication, OT and PT; and Parent/family and if appropriate, NEBA staff training for consistent home and community carry-over of skills.
The evidence shows that in spite of his severe needs, Student has made slow but steady progress, especially in the area of socialization, in the programs provided by the school district. Student is able to make good eye-contact, is aware of the presence of peers in the environment, and seeks and follows them with a desire for interaction. Up to this point, Parents supported inclusion experiences, which exposed Student to a variety of people, which clearly helped Student’s level of comfort in group situations. The evidence shows that with the assistance of Mr. Turner, Student did well in inclusion settings. Similarly, Student made progress in OT and PT from 2005 through the present time. (SE-68; SE-97; Fact 35, 36; Testimony of Ms. Pepe, Ms. O’Donovan) This progress is notable especially when compared to Student’s performance in older evaluations. (See PE-38) At this time, in order to make a safe and successful transition into the community, his program must focus intensively on the development of self-care, communication, and daily living skills, while continuing to work on maintenance of skills and address Student’s other needs. This will require intense skills-based development through a structured, consistent program throughout the day that can be carried into the home.
Given that Student’s program is shifting to a more-skills based program with ABA, ABA must be incorporated into the after-school program to address self-help and toileting issues. ABA training must be carried into the afternoon portion of Student’s program so as to render the experience relevant and consistent with Student’s overall program and effective skill development.
Contrary to Parents’ argument, the evidence is persuasive that although staff consistency is ideal, at this time, consistency of the program across all settings, with everyone properly trained, reinforcing skills across all settings is more important than the number of professionals and paraprofessionals working with Student. Ms. O’Donovan and Ms. McIntire opined that the extended day program staff would benefit from more training and observation, something that Amherst is willing to implement. (Testimony of Ms. O’Donovan) Parents did not meet their burden of proof in showing that a more activity-based program and a reduction in the number of service providers were relevant to the success of Student’s program.
During numerous evaluations conducted over the years, Student appeared to be extremely influenced by sensory factors. Ms. Walsh and Mr. Gardner-Fox recommended ongoing attention to his sensory diet, which was found to be key in maximizing his ability to participate effectively in life activities. They found him to be more attentive and productive when he was relaxed. (SE-99; Fact 62) Given Student’s needs and issues with distractibility and sensory issues, a separate space/room free of distraction is important to conduct the ABA and self-care teaching portions of Student’s program, which can then be reinforced in the mainstream. (PE-8) Amherst must locate a separate, quiet room in the high school, or other building for provision of the ABA training, and the room must be properly equipped. For example, the physical therapy evaluations have shown that the use of a padded armchair offers Student more hip and trunk support.
Also, Student’s coordination and strength have improved with the weight training exercises in the high school weight room. This experience proved to be helpful for Student when the room was not crowded. The evidence shows a marked difference between the experience between April and June 2006, and the summer 2006 when the room was found to be potentially dangerous by Student’s physical therapist, the paraprofessional, and Parent. (Testimony of Parent, Ms. Trude, and Ms. Richards) Jesse Turner testified to the amount of equipment in the room vis a vis Student’s distractibility and mobility as an area of concern. This reality cannot be ignored, but Student should not be deprived of a service that has proven helpful out of safety concerns. Amherst’s responsibility is to provide the service in a safe manner, something that can be achieved by scheduling Student’s physical therapy at times when the room is not crowded and by providing proper supervision by trained staff.
Given that to date, Student has had access to certain parts of the high school building for at least one year, he is not a total stranger to this building/environment, and overall, he has not been involved in the types or numbers of accidents that would render this location/environment unsuited for skills development. In this regard, Parents concerns, although understandable, are insufficient to enter a finding that the rest of Student’s educational career should totally exclude the high school experience. The high school environment is also found to be consistent with the types of experiences that Student is likely to encounter in the real world. Time cannot be stopped and neither can Student’s twenty second birthday, at which time his special education entitlement expires. Student must get ready for that day slowly. Keeping him in an artificial environment is inconsistent with ongoing socialization goals and transferring of skills into the community. Parent is however, correct that there are issues with Student’s safety in the high school environment, which must be addressed.
The nature of Student’s disabilities, especially issues with coordination, ambulation, distractibility, and lack of communication makes him prone to accidents, and this is a major concern to Parents. (PE-52) Parent specifically alluded to an incident during the 2005-2006 school year when Student tripped and cut his lip. Parent attributed this accident to the lack of training of a substitute paraprofessional. Parents fear that Amherst is not keeping Student safe because of improperly trained staff, and as a result of an inappropriate program. Parents’ concerns regarding safety for Student are legitimate, but the level of their fear is not proportionate to or substantiated by the facts in this case, and do not support a finding that the school’s program and the environment are so inadequate that Student warrants a home-based program, as Parents request.
Generally, Amherst has been able to maintain Student’s safety in Amherst. Ms. O’Donovan opined that Student had been safe in the middle school, and believed that he would be safe in the high school with proper supervision. (Testimony of Ms. O’Donovan) One of the locations over which Parent and the paraprofessionals expressed concern was the high school weight room. Ms. Pepe, testified that Student required supervision for safety awareness, spatial awareness, motor planning (opening doors, climbing stairs, etc.) and other tasks throughout his routine. (Testimony of Ms. Pepe) She opined that Student made effective progress during the past two years as evidenced by his need for lesser prompts to perform or complete a task, his ability to perform more repetitions of a given exercise, and improvement in visual/ spatial awareness. According to her, with proper adult direction and supervision he is safe in the high school weight room. (SE-68; SE-97; Fact 35, 36; Testimony of Ms. Pepe) The evidence supports a finding that the weight room when not used by large groups which are distracting, can be a safe place for Student to work on his physical therapy routines. Student met with success when at the weight room with Jesse Turner during the last quarter of the 2005-2006 school year, albeit when the room was only being used by Student and one or two more students with their respective paraprofessionals. The evidence shows that so long as Student’s service providers and paraprofessionals are properly trained and the room is not crowded, Student may access the weight room safely.
Over the past several years Student’s progress has been painstakingly slow requiring a great deal of direct services, repetition, and interventions. Given that staff needs to be trained and that he will undergo so many transitions all at once, Amherst’s reduction of Student’s direct PT and OT services, with the PT and the OT staff, is inconsistent with the evidence (even though more opportunities for practice have been appropriately incorporated into his IEP), at least during the transition period and until such time as the paraprofessionals and/or service providers are knowledgeable and comfortable with Student’s routines. Continued improvement in these areas is directly related to Student’s ability to ambulate safely in the community. Student’s needs in the aforementioned areas are great, and are not likely to disappear or greatly diminish throughout his educational career.
Regarding access to the community, Ms. McIntire expressed hesitation about a program that promoted skill development in the community for extended periods of time. She endorsed a slow introduction into the community for very small portions of time because of Student’s issues with boundaries, balance and because he does not yet consistently respond to the command “stop.” (Testimony of Ms. McIntire) Student’s communication skills and immediate response to safety commands must be in place before his program can be safely and more extensively developed in the community. To the extent that, and at the time that Student’s Team finds it appropriate, nothing in the record would prevent Amherst from working together with Parents and NEBA to access and/or explore community-based activities in the future.
The evidence thus supports a finding that a skills-based program in Amherst’s high school, inclusive of ABA techniques, offered by properly certified experience staff that is given proper training is the least restrictive appropriate program for Student at the present time.
The evidence shows that Parents proposed home/ community-based program would create a more chaotic and fragmented program, and it is not the least restrictive program appropriate for Student. While Student’s activities of daily-living and pre-vocational skills must be reinforced at home and in the community, nothing in the record supports a finding that these skills cannot better be taught in the high school classroom. In Parents’ proposal, OT, PT, speech and opportunities for mainstreaming would occur in Amherst, and Amherst would be called to coordinate all of the aforementioned services. NEBA would also follow Amherst’s lead in the provision of educational services. Parents relied on the testimony of Jesse Turner, Dr. Abell and Ms. Lunden of NEBA to make their case. Of these, only Mr. Turner had actual knowledge of Amherst’s program. None of the other witnesses, while well-intentioned, had direct knowledge of Student’s program. They never observed any of Student’s programs in Amherst, conducted an in depth review of Student’s educational records, or spoke to the direct service providers in Amherst, thus decreasing their credibility with respect to recommendations that were based largely on Parent’s perceptions. See: In Re: Attleboro Public Schools , 11 MSER 177 (2005); In Re: Dennis – Yarmouth Regional Schools , 10 MSER 64 (2004); Newton Public Schools , 10 MSER 365 (2004); Gateway Regional School District , 10 MSER 112 (2004; In Re: Belcherton Public Schools , 10 MSER 128 (2004).
While I find that Parent’s perspective is important and necessary, an effective program for Student must also include the experience and recommendations of Amherst’s service providers, whose testimony was found to be candid, credible, and reliable including the testimony of Ms. Trude, Pepe, Ms. O’Donovan, Ms. Richards, and Ms. Campbell-Morton. NEBA’s staff holds fewer qualifications, with the exception of one or two of its personnel, the staff does not hold certification in severe special needs, and an outside autism consultant would have to be retained to train and consult to the program. With NEBA, Student would have multiple service providers throughout the day. (Testimony of Ms. Lunden) Parents’ scheme would impact negatively on the consistency of Student’s program, and shift the focus to a more activity-oriented program with emphasis on pre-vocational and community skills, which is not what the evidence indicates Student requires at this time. Amherst would not be able to coordinate such a program efficiently, let alone have control and require accountability from NEBA staff who would be responsible for the majority of the educational portion of Student’s program.
Parents were successful in their challenge that Student’s summer paraprofessionals lacked sufficient or proper training. A similar observation regarding the after-school program was made by Ms. O’Donovan, and Ms. McIntire who recommended additional training of this staff in skill-based approaches. (Testimony of Ms. McIntire) Parents however, did not show that the lack of training amounted to a denial of FAPE to Student. In reaching this conclusion, I take into account the fact that during the summer 2006, Parents consistently failed to bring Student for the entirety of the summer program (almost every day, he arrived late and left early), and they removed Student from the program in the fourth week.
Parents’ claim also includes a compensatory claim for reimbursement for the summer of 2006 program, including the extended day portion of the program, in addition to missed OT, PT, and speech for that time period. Parents argued that the extended school year and extended day programs were in essence babysitting services. (SE-93) They stated that the summer program should focus on community integration, which did not occur. Parents also stated that Amherst underestimated Student’s educational needs, and that no information was disclosed about the new paraprofessional at the transition meeting. According to them, Amherst did not plan adequately for transition, or training of a new paraprofessional. Concerned about Student having a new paraprofessional in the summer, Parent requested that Amherst raise the salary of the paraprofessional, a decision that was ultimately rejected by Amherst’s administrator.
Parents also argued that in the past, the program was two hours long, and that the amount of time had been reduced in the summer of 2006. The evidence shows that Student’s summer program in 2006 provided the same amount of time for the extended school day portion as in prior years, that is two hours. (SE-37; SE-88; SE-89; SE-93; SE-96; Fact 56, 57) Student’s summer extended day program as per the 2006 IEP calls for two and a half hours, 150 minutes per day (PE-37; SE-53; SE-90) Amherst asserts that this is the amount that was offered and that the staff retained to work with Student during the 2006 summer remained available during the program hours even after Parent withdrew Student.
Parents are correct that the summer OT services did not begin the first week of the summer session, and that Amherst owed Student this session. Amherst however, recognized this and was willing to make Student whole, regarding missed sessions, prior to the end of the summer session. This however, did not happen because Parent pulled Student out of the program during the fourth week, and made separate arrangements for Student’s care and summer activities. The record lacks any evidence regarding the training and actual services provided by Student’s Uncle and Zenobia Brandford; therefore, it is not possible to ascertain whether any part of the time spent by Student with these individuals was consistent with his educational program.
Similarly, there was no showing that the extended-day portion of the program was inconsistent with Student’s IEP, even though Parent is correct that Student did not participate in outings available to other Students. Parent was also alarmed by her observation of the summer physical therapy session in the high school, also described by service providers as concerning, in which the weight room was very crowded and Student was injured during execution of his weight program routine. (Testimony of Parent, Ms. Trude, Ms. Richards) Parent testified that she removed Student due to violations in the summer extended-day program, and lack of adequate provision of OT, PT, and Speech services specified in the plan. Parent alleged that she attempted to meet with the summer speech and language provider, but could not do so because of her schedule. In support of her claim that the program was unsafe, she stated that on the first day, Student bit a nurse. Student was also injured using adaptive scissors. (Testimony of Ms. Richards, Ms. Trude) Parent feels that both these incidents were the result of inadequate training of the paraprofessional.
Parents argued that in 2006, the extended day program was highly chaotic due to absenteeism of the paraprofessional, or change of plans.43 Because of this, it was difficult for the family to carry out their daily responsibilities to their business. Parents however, did not substantiate this claim. Student is therefore, not entitled to compensatory services for that time period. Similarly, Parents are not entitled to reimbursement.
By utilizing a FAPE, rather than a regression, standard, the federal regulations offer a broader approach. For example, a number of courts have interpreted the federal regulatory standard to mean that summer services are appropriate when the benefits accrued to a disabled student during a regular school year will be significantly jeopardized if he is not provided with an educational program during the summer months, with the parameter of requisite summer services defined by what is necessary to avoid this outcome.46 Given Student’s severe disabilities, under the federal regulations, Student would be entitled to a longer summer program. However, the commentary to the 2006 federal regulations appears to take the position that states may properly use regression as their criteria for eligibility for extended year services.47 Amherst’s 2006 Summer program met the regression standard..
The record shows that consistent with Massachusetts regulations, Amherst offered a six week program using a regression standard. Amherst was within its right to do so.
Although this decision covers Student’s educational services through the end of the 2006-2007 school year, it should be instructive to the Parties in drafting Student’s new IEP for the 2007-2008 school year. I note that the information relied on in this decision was current and given Student’s severe needs and disabilities, it is not likely that the analysis and determinations herein would be inapplicable through the 2007 summer and the next IEP period.
1. Amherst shall offer Student a school-based program consistent with the 2006-2007 IEP, and shall convene the Team to modify its IEP consistent with this decision.
2. Amherst shall modify Student’s IEP to include the services of the autism specialist as part of Student’s program. The autism specialist shall consult to Student’s program staff and family, shall provide direct services to Student as needed, and shall provide on-going training to the staff assigned to work with Student. The autism specialist shall also conduct parent training for Parents and/or the immediate family member responsible to care for Student with respect to toileting and other self-help skills. If NEBA services are accessed, the family member may be substituted for the individual from NEBA assigned to work with Student. If the Team is unable to agree on the frequency and duration of the services, they may bring that portion of the dispute to the BSEA for further clarification.
3. Amherst shall incorporate ABA services and consultation into Student’s IEP. It shall also locate a quiet space, free of distractions to offer the ABA services in school. ABA services shall focus on daily living skills issues including toileting, feeding, dressing, as well as safety in the community.
4. Amherst shall change the emphasis of the after-school program to offer ABA and address daily living skills including toileting, and shall provide access to community-based activities as appropriate.
5. Amherst shall initiate a transition period, as proposed by Amherst at the beginning of the 2006-2007 school year.
6. Amherst shall train paraprofessionals on the safe and effective way in which to implement Student’s weight program, and physical therapy routines in the high school. Also, Student must be provided access to the weight room at times when the weight room is not crowded, to avoid Student becoming distracted and walking away from his routine in this area.
7. Amherst shall increase OT and PT direct services, with the OT and PT staff, each to twice per week, thirty minutes each, as in the 2005-2006 IEP, in addition to the five times per week PT currently offered.
8. Amherst shall improve the quality, and increase the amount of training offered to paraprofessionals and other staff during the day and extended-day portions of Student’s program.
9. Amherst shall establish better coordination/communication between the extended day program staff and the regular school day staff.
This matter was requested by Student’s parents, however, since only Mother attended the Hearing and testimony was only provided by her, those portions of the decision refer to Mother as “Parent”.
Amherst objections to the admission of PE-6; PE-23, PE-41, and PE-43 were sustained and these exhibits were excluded.
Whether the IEP proposed for Student by Amherst-Pelham, for the 2006-2007 school year, if fully implemented, can offer Student a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment appropriate to meet his needs.
In her letter of April 20, 2007, commenting on Amherst’s Response to Parents’ List of Concerns, Parent stated that she reviewed Student’s records twice after the intervention of the previous Hearing Officer in this matter and stated that “Relevant document[s were] missing during the record review.” To date, Parent never identified the specific document to which she referred.
Parents requested that Mr. Slovin produce July 2006 meeting notes, but due to a clerical error at the BSEA, the subpoena required “production of July 2006 meeting notes, and incident/accident report school file since [Student’s] ‘school career’ .” The portion in italics was meant for the subpoena to Maria Geryk, not Mr. Slovin.
Her subpoena requested production of three meeting notes from the summer 2006.
“…The request [for subpoena] must be received by the Bureau at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing; shall specify the name and address of the person to be subpoenaed; and shall describe any documents to be produced.” Rule VIII, Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals .
A deadline for submitting requests for subpoenas was set for February 27, 2007 during the telephone conference call held on February 26, 2007. Parents’ list of witnesses and requests for subpoenas were received on Wednesday, February 28, 2007. Most of the subpoenas were issued that same date but some could not be sent until March 1, after the BSEA contacted Parent because she had failed to provide a valid address for three of the proposed witnesses.
“Resolution Session. (i) Preliminary meeting. Prior to the opportunity for an impartial due process hearing under subparagraph (A), the local educational agency shall convene a meeting with the parents and the relevant member or members of the IEP Team who have specific knowledge of the facts identified in the complaint. 20 U.S.C. §1415(f) (1)(B).
“If the school district fails to convene a resolution meeting within fifteen days of receipt of the hearing request, it shall be deemed to have waived the resolution session, and the hearing may occur.” Footnote #1 in Rule I F of the Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals .
34 CFR § 300.510 (b)(3).
Parents stated in the letter of April 20, 2007 that the only independent evaluations conducted of Student were a physical education evaluation, an assistive technology (AT) evaluation, and Dr. Betsy’s report.
Parents’ input was sought in drafting this Amendment.
The name provided for this individual was “Carla”, no last name was given.
This date was typed as 6/6/2006 on the original IEP and appears to be in error.
Initially Parent did not specify a provider, but at the hearing she and Ms. Lunden suggested that Amherst provide these services.
20 USC 1412(a)(5)(A). See also 34 CFR 300.114(a)(2(i) requiring that services be provided in the least restrictive environment to the maximum extent appropriate.
Least restrictive environment (LRE). The school district shall ensure that, to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities are educated with children who do not have disabilities, and that special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with special needs from the general education program occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in general education classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.
See also MGL c. 71B, ss. 2, 3.
E.g., Burlington v. Mass. Department of Education , 471 US 359, 369 (1985) (federal statute “contemplates that such education will be provided where possible in regular public schools, with the child participating as much as possible in the same activities as non-handicapped children”); Rome Sch. Comm. v. Mrs. B., 247 F.3d 29, 33 (1st Cir. 2001) (“ mainstreaming may not be ignored, even to fulfill substantive educational criteria”) , quoting Roland v. Concord School Committee , 910 F.2d 983, 992-993 (1 st Cir. 1990); Board of Education of LaGrange School District No. 105 v. Illinois State Board of Education , 184 F.3d 912, 916 (7 th Cir. 1999) (placement proposal, which did not enable the student to share a classroom with typically developing children, did not satisfy mainstreaming requirement because student’s disability and IEP did not prevent him from benefiting educationally in a more inclusive setting).
“ When the evidence, as in the case at bar, supports a finding that the program proposed by the district is reasonably calculated to allow a student to make meaningful effective progress, then administrative assignments of qualified personnel to provide the specific service is left to the discretion of the district. See Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd . F Educ. v. Rowley , 458 US 176 (1982); Roland M. v. Concord School Committee , 109 F. 2d 983 (1 st Cir. 1990); In Re: Medfield Public Schools , BSEA # 04-0706 (MA SEA 2004, Crane); In Re: Ipswich Public Schools , BSEA #05-3855 (MA SEA 2005, Figueroa); In Re: Ipswich Public School s, BSEA #07-0962 (MA SEA 2007, Berman).
… consistent with any State-approved or State-recognized certification, licensing, registration, or other comparable requirements that apply to the professional discipline in which those personnel are providing special education or related services.
It is not clear if these are the Parent’s words or the words of the report’s author.
Kenton County School District, v. Hunt , 384 F.3d 269, (6 th Cir. 2004); MM by DM and EM v. School Dist. of Grenville County , 37 IDELR 183 (4 th Cir. 2002); Johnson v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 4, 921 F.2d 1022, 1028 (10th Cir. 1990); Alamo Heights Indep. Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Educ. , 790 F.2d 1153, 1158 (5th Cir. 1986). Other courts have utilized a regression standard. E.g., Cordrey v. Euckert, 917 F.2d 1460, 1474 (6th Cir. 1990).
Federal Register, vol. 71, no. 156, August 14, 2006, page 46582, 3 rd column.
“The sixth paragraph of section 3 of chapter 71B of the General Laws, as appearing in the 2004 Official Edition, is hereby amended by adding the following sentence:–Whenever an evaluation indicates that a child has a disability on the autism spectrum, which includes autistic disorder, Asperger’s disorder, pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified, childhood disintegrative disorder, or Rhett’s Syndrome, as defined in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, the Individualized Education Program (IEP) team, as defined by regulations of the department, shall consider and shall specifically address the following: the verbal and nonverbal communication needs of the child; the need to develop social interaction skills and proficiencies; the needs resulting from the child’s unusual responses to sensory experiences; the needs resulting from resistance to environmental change or change in daily routines; the needs resulting from engagement in repetitive activities and stereotyped movements; the need for any positive behavioral interventions, strategies, and supports to address any behavioral difficulties resulting from autism spectrum disorder; and other needs resulting from the child’s disability that impact progress in the general curriculum, including social and emotional development.” CHAPTER 57, H.B. No. 1123: SPECIAL EDUCATION–AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER, Amending MGL c. 71B §3, approved on April 7, 2006.
On or about October 4, 2006, Parent filed a claim of Institutional Racism with Amherst. (SE-98; PE-25; PE-33) She was invited by Alvin W. Morton, Student Services Administrator, Amherst-Pelham Public Schools to discuss the allegations on September 15, 2006. (PE-24; SE-98) Mr. Morton issued his response on October 18, 2006. (PE-26; SE-98) Parent raised this issue in her hearing request but was advised by this Hearing Officer, during a conference call and via order issued on February 28, 2007, that institutional racism claims do not belong at the BSEA, but rather fall within the purview of a different forum, such as the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. The order also addressed Parents’ allegations of Institutional Neglect and Abuse, dated January 2, 2007. (PE-49; SE-105) Parents were advised that this claim also belonged before a different forum, such as the Department of Social Services.

References: §1415
 § 300
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §3