Source: https://www.specialedlaw.com/database/boston-collegiate-charter-school-bsea-16-10551/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 09:52:13+00:00

Document:
This decision is issued pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA (20 USC §1400 et seq.); Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC §794); the Massachusetts special education statute or “Chapter 766,” (MGL c. 71B) the Massachusetts Administrative Procedures Act (MGL c. 30A) and the regulations promulgated under these statutes.
On June 8, 2016, Parent filed a request for an expedited hearing with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) in which she challenged the Boston Collegiate Charter School’s (BCCS’s) determination that several disciplinary incidents were not manifestations of Student’s identified social-emotional disabilities. In her hearing request, Parent seeks findings that the alleged conduct at issue was a manifestation of Student’s disabilities. She also seeks expungement of those disciplinary incidents from Student’s school records, compensatory services for days that Student was allegedly unlawfully excluded from school, and various additional findings of fact and rulings of law. At the hearing, Parent requested an order directing BCCS to train staff in meeting the needs of children with social-emotional disabilities; however, the hearing request was not amended to incorporate this additional request for relief.
The School contends that the Manifestation Determination Reviews (MDRs) at issue correctly determined that Student’s behavior was not a manifestation of his disabilities, and that Student, therefore, is entitled to no compensatory services.
The BSEA granted the Parent’s request for an expedited hearing, and set an initial hearing date of June 23, 2016. On that date the hearing went forward, all testimony was completed, and all documentary exhibits were accepted into the record.
Throughout these proceedings, both Parent and BCCS were represented by counsel. Each party presented documentary evidence and examined and cross-examined witnesses. At the joint request of the parties, the matter was postponed to June 27, 2016 for telephonic oral closing arguments. Upon completion of the arguments on that date, the record closed.
The record in this case consists of the Parent’s exhibits P-A through P-N, BCCS (School’s) exhibits S-1 through S-21 and approximately six hours of electronically recorded testimony and argument.
If BCCS’ determinations were incorrect, for which time period during 2015-2016 is Student entitled to relief.
BCCS improperly suspended or otherwise excluded Student from school for a total of at least 21school days during the 2015-2016 school year, as well as many additional hours, all for conduct that was a manifestation of his identified social-emotional disabilities. These disabilities, which including anxiety and attentional challenges, give rise to avoidant and oppositional behavior. Such behavior functions to remove Student from academic and social demands that he experiences as overwhelming.
BCCS conducted five separate manifestation determination reviews (MDRs) during the 2015-16 school year. Although each of these MDR’s was conducted for similar types of behaviors, all of which were referred to in school-based evaluations and listed as “target behaviors” in Student’s behavioral intervention plan (BIP), BCCS incorrectly determined in three of these MDRs that the behavior was not a manifestation of Student’s disabilities. BCCS’ argument that Student’s behaviors were the product of willful choices designed to get Student removed from BCCS or avoid complying with teachers’ directives, mischaracterizes the evaluations.
Further, BCCS improperly conducted “emergency removals” of Student for conduct that did not meet the regulatory criteria for emergency removal and “strongly urged” Parent to keep Student out of school for periods when he had not been suspended.
Finally, even after BCCS had identified Student’s disabilities and developed an initial IEP in March 2016, it failed to implement its own Positive Behavior Support (PBS) Plan. There was no systematic oversight of the behavioral plan, and no positive incentives provided to Student. Instead, the School’s reactions to Student’s behaviors continued to be punitive.
As a consequence of its unlawful and improper exclusion of Student, BCCS owes Student compensatory services in the form of tutoring. Additionally, the BSEA should order BCCS to train staff in meeting the needs of students with emotional and behavioral disabilities.
Parent’s position is flawed both procedurally and substantively. First, BCCS had been concerned about Student’s behavior from the start of the 2015-2016 school year or earlier, and had made several attempts to secure Parent’s consent for an evaluation at that time. Parent refused to grant such consent until February 5, 2016 however. Until Parent provided consent to evaluate Student, Student had no entitlement to any of the disciplinary protections afforded to students with disabilities by federal and state special education law. Thus, the ten days of removal that would constitute a change in placement triggering these protections did not begin to accrue until after that date. No suspensions or other disciplinary removals from class prior to that date may be counted in determining what compensatory or other relief, if any, is owed to Student. Since the ten-day mark was not approached or reached until approximately May 27, 2106, only the MDR’s held on that date and on June 8, 2016 may be considered in this proceeding.
Second, at all relevant times, BCCS correctly determined that the conduct leading to Student’s suspensions did not constitute a manifestation of his disabilities. While there is no dispute that Student has a diagnosis of anxiety related to his ability to perform academically, as well as attentional challenges, much or most of his misconduct took place outside of the classroom, in the absence of any academic demands. Moreover, Student could immediately stop his misbehavior with certain individuals, even in stressful circumstances. This ability of Student to conduct himself appropriately in the presence of particular people is further evidence that he is in control of his inappropriate behavior. Student did not want to attend BCCS and he willfully and consciously made behavioral choices that he believed would get him removed from that placement.
Boston Collegiate Charter School. As of the date of hearing in this matter, the parties agree that Student will not be returning to BCCS for eighth grade, but instead will be attending an as-yet unspecified placement within the Boston Public Schools.
Student entered BCCS at the start of fifth grade (2013-2014 school year). At the time he entered BCCS Student had not been identified as a child with disabilities and did not have an IEP or §504 plan.1 Student began having some mild behavioral concerns towards the end of sixth grade, and the BCCS Lower School staff offered to conduct an evaluation of Student. (Cyprien, Parent) Parent declined an evaluation at that time because she felt he “didn’t need it.” (Parent) The record does not reflect either a formal referral or proposal to evaluate Student.
Behavior problems recurred at the beginning of seventh grade, consisting primarily of non-compliance with teacher requests, disrespectful language, leaving class, horseplay, talking in the hallways, and similar infractions. In addition to imposing multiple detentions and demerits, BCCS staff spoke repeatedly to Parent to discuss their concerns for Student and to encourage her to allow an evaluation. (Charton, Cyprien, P-A).
Pursuant to the suspension hearing and MDR, Student was suspended out of school for two days, March 17 and 21, 2016.
Student’s accepted IEP was put into place on or about April 4, 2016. As called for in the IEP, Student was placed in small group classes for reading instruction and math and was assigned a 1:1 paraprofessional to support him throughout the day, including in his mainstream classes. (Parent, Cyprien, Charton) The record contains no information about the training or qualifications of the paraprofessional or about his specific functions.
As of the hearing date, Parent had not yet responded to the proposed IEP and placement, the appropriateness of which are not at issue in this hearing.
Student was suspended from school for a total of 9 days out of school and one day in school before February 5, 2016. From February 5, 2016 through June 15, 2016, Student was suspended out of school for 21 days and in school for one day for a total of 22 days.
After carefully reviewing the documentary and testimonial evidence in light of the relevant provisions of law, I reach the following conclusions in this case. First, Student became eligible for the procedural protections of the IDEA and G.L. c. 71B with respect to discipline on February 5, 2016, when Parent consented to a special education evaluation by BCCS. He remained subject to those protections from that point forward. Days on which Student was suspended before Parent consented to his evaluation do not “count” towards the ten-day threshold for a disciplinary change in placement.
Second, Student’s disciplinary removals from BCCS reached the ten-day threshold for a change in placement point on May 27, 2016. From that point forward, Student could not be suspended for conduct that had a direct and substantial relationship to his disability.
Third, all conduct that was the subject of manifestation determination reviews (MDRs) held on May 27 and June 8, 2016 (and previously) had a direct and substantial relationship to the Student’s identified disabilities; BCCS’ determinations to the contrary were incorrect. Finally, Since Student was suspended for thirteen (13) days between May 27 and June 15, 2016 as a result of these incorrect determinations, he is entitled to compensatory services corresponding to thirteen days of exclusion from school. My reasoning follows.
Pursuant to the IDEA at 20 USC §1415(k) and its implementing regulations at 34 CFR §§300.530-536, school districts may not change the placements of students with disabilities for disciplinary purposes (i.e., via suspension or expulsion) if the conduct triggering the removal is a manifestation of the students’ disabilities, that is, was caused by, has a direct and substantial relationship to those disabilities. 20 USC §1415(k)(1)(E)(I); 34 CFR §300.530(e).
The statute and regulation consider that in most instances, a change in placement occurs when a child has been removed for more than ten consecutive days in a school year or when “the child has been subjected to a series of removals that constitute a pattern (i) because the series of removals total more than 10 school days in a school year; (ii) because the child’s behavior is substantially similar to the child’s behavior in previous incidents that resulted in the series of removals and (iii) because of such additional factors as the length of each removal, the total amount of time the child has been removed and the proximity of the removals to one another.” 34 CFR §300.536(a)(2).
To be covered by the IDEA’s procedural protections in disciplinary matters, a student must either have been determined eligible for special education at the time the misconduct at issue occurs or, if the child has a disability but has not yet been found eligible, if the school district “knew or should have known if the child had a disability” before the behavior that triggered the disciplinary action occurred. 34 CFR §300.534(a). The “knew or should have known” standard may be satisfied under various circumstances, including if school staff expressed specific concerns about a pattern of behavior to the special education director or similar supervisory personnel. 34 CFR §300.534(b)(3). However, a school district is not deemed to have knowledge of a child’s disability if the child’s parent has not allowed an evaluation of the child. 34 CFR §300.534(c).
In the instant case, Student began demonstrating concerning behaviors in the latter portion of sixth grade (2014-15 school year), continuing into the beginning of seventh grade (2015-16 school year). Between September 2015 and February 1, 2015, Student had accumulated 9 days of out-of-school suspension and one day of in-school suspension, all for similar types of behavior. Additionally, BCCS administrative and special education supervisory staff had expressed specific concerns about this behavior and had urged Parent to consider an evaluation during the latter part of sixth grade and the beginning of seventh grade, and, eventually, in November 2015, made a formal proposal to evaluate Student.
The combination of multiple suspensions during a relatively short period, for similar behavior, arguably constituted a pattern of removals pursuant to the regulation cited above. Moreover, the School’s expression of concern (and eventual proposal of an evaluation) likely would have given rise to deemed knowledge by BCCS of Student’s disability by November 2015 at the latest. By rejecting the proposed evaluation, however, by operation of the regulation, Parent foreclosed the opportunity for the 9 days of suspension before February 5, 2016 to be counted towards the 10-day placement-change threshold. 34 CFR §300.534(c), supra.
Beginning on February 5, 2016, when Parent consented to an evaluation, Student was protected by the relevant portions of the IDEA and its regulations, even though he was not actually determined to be eligible for special education until March 23, 2016. 34 CFR §300.534 Once he was subject to IDEA protections by virtue of Parent’s consent to evaluate, any days of suspension would “count” towards a determination that the School had changed Student’s placement. Between February 5, 2016 and May 27, 2016 Student had accumulated 8 days of out of school suspension and one day of in-school suspension for a total of nine days. After the MDR and suspension hearings of May 27, which imposed a 5 day suspension, the total number of days rose to 13. The 8-day suspension imposed on June 8, 2016 brought the total to 22 days (including a one-day in-school suspension). This total comprised a series of short suspensions, imposed at frequent intervals, for the same or similar behavior by Student. Clearly, by May 27, 2016 there was a pattern of removals constituting a change in placement and triggering the MDR requirement.
BCCS determined that the Student’s conduct leading to the MDR of May 27, 2016, as well as the subsequent MDR held on June 8, 2016 was not directly and substantially related to his disabilities. This conclusion on the part of the BCCS is not supported by any credible evidence in the record. In fact, even if I completely disregard any arguments made by Parent on this issue, the overwhelming and uncontroverted weight of the School’s own documents and testimony establish that the behavior addressed in each and every one of the five MDR meetings held during the 2015-16 school year was “directly and substantially related” to Student’s disability.
There is no dispute that Student has emotional and behavioral disabilities, including pervasive anxiety, features of ADHD, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, difficulties with self-regulation with respect to mood and behavior, sleep difficulties, and somatic complaints. There is also no dispute that Student’s concerning behavior has been avoidant, oppositional, and increasingly dysregulated. His behavioral difficulties have escalated during the course of the 2015-16 school year, but have not changed much in character.
Indeed, it was BCCS that first suspected that Student had emotional difficulties based on this behavior. It was BCCS that first urged Parent to have Student evaluated, and went to the length of filing a CRA petition when Parent initially refused to consent to an evaluation. It was BCCS’ own school psychologist who documented Student’s emotional and behavioral difficulties, explained how they impeded Student’s educational progress, and expressed concern about Student’s mental health. BCCS’ initial IEP for Student relied heavily on the psychologist’s report to develop goals, services and accommodations that focused almost exclusively on Student’s emotional and behavioral needs.
BCCS’ position that Student’s most recent behavioral episodes were willful choices, made for the purpose of getting out of a school placement that he dislikes, are simply unsupported by any clinical evidence. To interpret Dr. Bostic’s comments that Student relies on oppositional behavior to escape from anxiety-producing tasks, from exposure of his weaknesses, and from his current placement to mean that Student—who is only 12 years old– makes conscious choices to misbehave in furtherance of a larger motive is simply not persuasive. Dr. Bostic was very clear that Student has genuine psychiatric diagnoses and needs a therapeutic placement, not that he is simply a willful child who needs more correction or punishment. Similarly, BCCS’ argument that Student is able to “turn off” his behavior in the presence of certain adults indicates that his behavior is under his conscious control and unrelated to his disabilities is unsupported by any of the school’s own evaluations or other evidence. It is very plausible that a Student feels supported, contained or even intimidated by the presence of his Parent, probation officer, or evaluator. This does not mean that he can “switch off” his misbehavior at any time. Finally, BCCS’ argument that Student’s behavior occurred outside of the potentially stressful situation of the classroom similarly is unsupported by the evidence. Dr. Bostic’s report in particular indicates that Student’s anxiety about being discovered as flawed, among other things, is pervasive, and does not stop at the classroom door.
BCCS’ determinations on May 27 and June 8, 2016 that Student’s behavior was not a manifestation of his emotional disabilities was incorrect. I conclude that the behavior that triggered this disciplinary action was, in fact, directly and substantially related to Student’s disabilities. I further find that BCCS was not justified in imposing thirteen total days of suspension as a result of these improper determinations. Student is entitled to compensatory services corresponding to thirteen days of unlawful exclusion from BCCS. Within thirty days from the date of this Decision, the Team shall convene to determine the type of service as well as the time, manner and location of delivery that is appropriate for Student.
Finally, Parent has requested an order directing BCCS to expunge the record of discipline from Student’s file. The BSEA has no authority under the relevant student record statutes or regulations to issue such an order. However, Parent may request to have this Decision added to Student’s school records.

References: §1400
 §794
 §504
 §1415
 §1415
 §300
 §300
 §300
 §300
 §300
 §300
 §300