Source: https://www.specialedlaw.com/database/boston-public-schools-bsea-05-3623/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:27:22+00:00

Document:
The official record of the hearing consists of documents submitted by the Parent and marked as exhibits PE-A1 through PE-Q1 ; documents submitted by the Boston Public Schools (Boston) and marked as exhibits SE-1 through SE-6; recorded oral testimony and arguments. At the joint written request of the parties, the date for submission of written closing arguments was extended through October 28, 2005. Written closing arguments were received on October 28 th and the record closed on that date.
1. Is the IEP most recently proposed by Boston covering the period from December 2004 through December 2005 (PE-A; SE-1) reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment?
2. If not, can additions or other modifications be made to the IEP in order to satisfy this standard?
3. If not, to what program and placement is Student entitled?
4. Were the IEPs for the period between 2002-2003 and 2003-20042 reasonably calculated to offer Student a FAPE in the least restrictive environment appropriate to meet his needs?
5. Did Boston fail to offer Student the WKRP instruction in lieu of English, as agreed to by the parties?
6. Did Boston fail to provide Student with a transition plan that would enable him to transition successfully into his stated goal of pursuing post-secondary education?
7. If not, is Student entitled to compensatory education as a result of Boston’s transgressions and failure to provide agreed upon services?
Parent/Student assert that Boston failed to provide Student the intensive language-based, multi-sensory, rule-based specially designed instruction, across all areas of the curriculum required by Student to make effective progress towards his goals. Boston further failed to provide agreed upon services by qualified instructors. Specifically, it did not offer Student appropriate WKRP instruction and did not implement the assistive technology tools at home or in all settings in school.
Additionally, Boston failed to prepare a transition plan for Student and has not provided any transition services whatsoever. Instead, Boston has continued to promote Student, year after year, and now he is in the twelfth grade even though he lacks the necessary basic academic and practical skills needed to function independently in life. Student still relies tremendously on his mother and other family members to complete assignments and navigate through life.
As a result of Boston’s denial of FAPE, Student is a 12 th grader ill equipped to transition into his stated goal of pursuing secondary education. Therefore, Student is entitled to receive WKRP at Judith Wisnia and Associates, should be placed in a real language-based program, and should receive compensatory education for Boston’s failure to offer necessary and/or agreed upon services.
Boston affirms that it has provided Student a FAPE in the least restrictive environment over the past several years. Student’s placement for the 11 th and 12 th grades, while not designated a specific language based classroom, incorporates many elements of such a setting and constitutes the least restrictive placement for Student. Student’s teachers and providers are trained in WKRP. Student’s lead teacher has seen him make significant but limited progress over the years and he passed the tenth grade portions of his MCAS.
Ms. Wisnia has never observed Student’s substantially separate classroom in Boston and her testimony is unclear as to what Student needs at this juncture. Should Boston’s IEP be found to be deficient in any way it can be modified to provide additional services and keep Student in the least restrictive environment.
Boston affirms that it has been offering Student services consistent with his last accepted IEP (2002-2003) as Parent has fully or partially rejected the following IEPs and also chose not to allow to transfer Student to a different BPS school when this was offered in the ninth grade. Nevertheless, Student has attended a substantially separate class with a special education teacher who implemented many of the methodologies recommended for Student by MGH and those that appeared in the rejected IEPs enabling Student to make effective progress and therefore, no compensatory services should be awarded.
· Student’s Team convened again on December 16, 2004 for the annual review and to draft the IEP covering the period from December 2004 (Student’s 11 th grade second semester) through December 2005 (first semester of Student’s 12 th grade). (PE-C) Under this IEP Student would remain in the substantially separate classroom and would continue to receive speech and language services twice per week with Ms. Lynch. This IEP included reading support and use of assistive technology at Charlestown High School. The narrative description of the school’s program mentions Parent’s request for additional reading and assistive technology interventions. (PE-C) The previous year’s accommodations continued to be implemented throughout this period. Student would receive preferential seating, use of assistive technology and a master notebook to support study skills. (PE-C) To date Student continues to receive educational services in Boston under this model.
1. … should continue to receive an intense program similar to the intense diagnostic therapy program, using WKRP Methodology and the other various programs (i.e., Fisher Drills, G Drills, etc.) that he has been receiving at JWA so his progress may continue. (Suggested time: 2-3 hours per day).
2. [Student] should receive training using the FastForWord program to help him with auditory processing skills. (Suggested time: 1 ½ hours per day for four to six weeks).
3. [Student] would benefit from placement in a language-based school.
5. [Student] needs to have access to and utilize books on tape for the blind and dyslexic in order to compensate for the difference between his ability to read and his ability to comprehend.
· The MGH therapists recommended that Student continued to receive spoken and written language therapy, which should be based on a multi-sensory language approach that is: “structured, systematic, explicit, multi-sensory (visual, auditory, and tactile/kinesthetic input), rule-based, providing opportunities for review and practice and incorporating meaningful associations.” (PE-A1) Student should be given some degree of choice so as to address his areas of interest. (PE-A1) An approach such as Orton-Gillingham was recommended. Additional, more specific short and long term goals and objectives were enumerated (see PE-A1 pp 9 and 10).
There is no dispute that Student is an individual with a disability, falling within the purview of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act4 and the state special education statute.5 As such, Student is entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE).6 Neither his eligibility status nor his entitlement to FAPE is in dispute.
The initial issue presented is whether the programming and specialized services embodied in Boston’s proposed IEPs for 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 are consistent with this legal standard .
The IEP states that the specialized type of instruction called for to address Student’s severe needs (as of December of his junior year Student’s reading skills were below a second grade level according to Ms. Wisnia) should be achieved in a language-based classroom. Yet, Boston never provided Student a language-based classroom and instead alleged that it did not have one. In 2004, Boston offered Student placement in an alleged “language-based classroom” at Brighton High School. However, Parent testified that when she called Brighton High School to inquire about the proposed program and to ascertain whether it was appropriate for Student, she was told by Brighton staff that there was no language-based classroom for Student there, but rather another substantially separate classroom, which Parent concluded was very much like the one Student was in at Charlestown. (Testimony of Parent) Boston offered no testimony to counter Parent’s assertion nor presented any information regarding the alleged language-based program.
Instead, the evidence showed that Boston offered and provided Student placement in a substantially separate classroom for three years in a row at Charlestown High School. (Testimony of Parent, Ms. Walker, Ms. Lynch; PE-M; PE-J; PE-H; PE-C; PE-A) Teachers and service providers testified that while he was making progress in Charlestown, this was limited and he needed more than they could offer under the set up created by Boston. (Testimony of Ms. Walker, Ms. Wan, Ms. Lynch, Parent) By age 17 Student was functionally illiterate. (Testimony of Ms. Wisnia, Student, Parent) Test scores placed him at a second grade level, he could not read street signs, did not know the birthday of those close to him and could not even read comic books. (Id.) He relied on his Mother to read and write for him at home and on other students or Ms. Walker to do the same in school. (Testimony of Parent, Student, Ms. Walker) According to Student, he learned and understood things when he studied with his mother at night.
Boston argues that since Ms. Wisnia has not observed Student’s substantially separate classroom in Charlestown High School, she could not testify as to whether the classroom was or was not language based. The evidence is persuasive that while Ms. Walker’s classroom may incorporate elements of a language-based program, it is not a language-based program that addressed Student’s language needs across the curriculum, in all settings, for all subjects throughout the day, as recommended by Ms. Wisnia. (PE-E) The minimal progress made by Student over his past three and a half years at Charlestown High School speaks volumes and is consistent with Ms. Wisnia’s impressions. Given the severity of Student’s needs, the recommendations made by Ms. Lynch to increase speech and language, and the fact that Ms. Wan could not implement WKRP, the services offered by Boston were indisputably insufficient to meet Student’s needs.
The evidence shows that instead of personalizing instruction that would have enabled Student to progress effectively and become more independent, Boston basically offered a series of accommodations, including readers and scribes, that made Student more dependent on others while it should have offered him actual reading and language based instruction that could help him reach his goals. Given that in the short and interrupted amounts of time Student has worked with Ms. Wisnia, his reading skills increased from approximately a second to a fourth grade level, and his progress was noted by Ms. Lynch and Ms. Walker, if placed in an appropriate language-based program with reading supports, Student would have likely made much more progress towards reaching the goals and objectives in his IEPs.
During this period of time there was no conferring between Ms. Walker and Ms. Wan and Ms. Lynch formally or informally. None of Student’s IEPs provided any consultation time between Student’s service providers and at least Ms. Lynch, who would have been the designated consultant. Ms. Lynch testified that she was almost at full capacity with 50 students assigned to her for speech and language services. (Testimony of Ms. Lynch, Ms. Walker, Ms. Wan) Ms. Wan testified that she had never seen Student’s IEP or the attachment addressing the language goals and objectives. (PE-A; Testimony of Ms. Walker, Ms. Lynch, Ms. Wan) Not only did Student not get the WKRP he was promised and entitled to receive in Boston, but also none of his teachers or service providers were working towards meeting the agreed upon additional goals and objectives attached to the 2004-2005 IEP (PE-A). In addition, between March and June 2005, he was further deprived access to the Massachusetts Curriculum Framework English standards thereby violating State requirements and further increasing the chances that Student would not be able to pursue post secondary education as was his goal. Boston’s programs for Student were not integrated across the curriculum but rather a “piece meal” program that resulted in Student not receiving substantive curriculum content in at least one subject.
None of Student’s IEPs contain any substantive information regarding a transition plan consistent with 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII) . Ms. Walker, Ms. Lynch, Parent and Student could recall no discussions during Student’s IEP meetings where transitional services were addressed. While Student told everyone with whom he came in contact, including Ms. Wisnia, of his aspiration to go to college, the only statement that appears in his IEP under transitional services is “[Student] would like to improve his academic skills and graduate” (PE-A; PE-C; PE-Q adds the words “from high school.”) The vision statement in PE-J states only that Student “has the desire to improve his reading and math skills and to finish high school”. (PE-J) Student’s goals and desires are not reflected in any of his IEPs. There is no transition plan, no transition services, nor do any of these appear in any of the relevant IEPs. There were no referrals made for post-secondary education either. (PE-A; PE-C; PEQ; PE-J; PE-M; Testimony of Parent, Ms. Lynch, Ms. Walker) In this respect, Boston ignored Student’s desires and simply did nothing. Failure to address Student’s transition services in the IEPs constitutes in and of itself failure to provide FAPE. See Honig v. Doe , 484 U.S. 305, 311 (1988).
A discussion of compensatory education in In Re: Medford , BSEA #02-0640, October 31, 2002, 8 MSER 329 (SEA MA 2002) further clarifies the standards to be considered regarding an award of compensatory services.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals has long recognized the right of a student to receive compensatory education as a form of relief to remedy previous deprivations due to a deficient IEP. Pihl v. Massachusesetts Department of Education , 9 F. 3d 184 (1 st Cir. 1993). Where a denial of essential special education services or a significant interruption in the provision of those services has occurred during the period of the Student’s entitlement14 to special education, compensatory services may be awarded. Stock v. Massachussetts Hospital School , 467 NE. 2d 448, 392 Mass. 205 (1985). In Massachusetts, the BSEA is authorized to review the evidence and when appropriate, award compensatory services in special education cases. Murphy v. Timberlane , 973 F.2d 13 (1 st Cir. 1994); 603 CMR 28.08 et seq . In determining whether said form of relief should be granted, several factors, such as the conduct of the parties, the specific period of time during which the specific service was denied, the appropriateness of the services offered to the student and the type and extent of harm caused to the student as a result of any denial of a FAPE must be weighed. In deciding whether this form of relief is appropriate, the hearing officer must also take into account the parent’s actions. If a parent is found to have been given a real opportunity to participate in the team meeting, and if thereafter, the parent knowingly and voluntarily accepted the IEP, then compensatory education should not be considered for that period. W.B. v. Matula , 67 F. 3d. 484 (3 rd Cir. 1995). A parent’s refusal to allow the student to access services deemed to be appropriate, or rejection of services that would otherwise render an IEP appropriate for the student, would also bar the student’s claim as to those periods. In Re: Taunton Public Schools , BSEA # 01-0462 (2001); In Re: Silver Lake Regional School District , BSEA # 01-1370 (2001); In Re: Sharon Public Schools , BSEA # 02-1490 (2002). Massachusetts has recognized the following standard in determining whether an IEP was implemented: “1) failure to implement an IEP must not be a complete failure, 2) the variance from special education and related services specified in the IEP must not deprive the student of FAPE; and 3) the provision of special education and related services must make ‘progress’ toward the achievement of the goals stated in the IEP.” Ross v. Framingham , 44 F. Supp 2d 104 (D. Mass. 1999). Where the elements described infra favor the Student’s claim, then compensatory services is an acceptable form of relief to be awarded by the BSEA. See Murphy v. Timberlane , 973 F.2d 13 (1 st Cir. 1994).
The evidence shows that Boston failed to implement services delineated in Student’s IEPs regarding implementation of assistive technology, the WKRP reading program, provision of a language-based program and a transitional plan and services as a result of which Student was deprived a FAPE, and was unable to reach the goals delineated in his IEP.
As discussed supra in this decision, Boston did not offer all of the assistive technology mentioned in its IEP of December 2004-December 2005. (PE-A; SE-1; PE-C) While the IEP states that assistive technology is a necessary instructional modification for delivery of instruction to Student, Boston’s witnesses provided no testimony that assistive technology was consistently provided in the classroom or outside the classroom, other than some limited exposure during the sessions with Ms. Lynch. (Testimony of Ms. Lynch) Ms. Lynch testified that she trained Student on the Alpha Smart with Co-writer which was used during some of their sessions, but she had no knowledge as to whether Student used this in any of his classes. ( Id .) The 2004-2005 IEP calls for use of Alpha Smart with Co-writer, FastForWord, Inspiration, tape recorder for assignments and books on tape consistent with Susan Dubuske, Boston’s consultant’s assistive technology assessment of November 2004. ( Id. ; SE-4) Parent and Student testified that they requested instruction regarding the use of the different modalities of assistive technology but this was not given. Student testified that he did not use assistive technology in any of his classes. (Testimony of Student) There was no testimony from Boston’s witnesses that they used Inspiration, FastForWord or books on tape in the classroom.
Also, Parent testified that while provision of extended school year services was discussed during the Team meeting held in May 2005 (because of Student’s severe needs in reading and the progress made in reading after working with Ms. Wisnia), Boston did not make any written proposals regarding a program during the summer 2005, and no amendment to the IEP was proffered by either Party. (Testimony of Parent) Boston offered no evidence to refute Parent’s assertions.
Under the federal regulations, extended school year services must be available if necessary to provide students a FAPE. 34 CFR §300.309. In order for extended school year services to be warranted the student’s Team must determine on an individual basis that the services are needed for the provision of FAPE to that Student. 34 CFR §300.309(a)(2). Furthermore, extended school year services include special education and related services which are provided to eligible students, in accordance with the student’s IEP, at no cost to the parents, beyond the normal school year. 34 CFR §300.309(a)(3)(ii)(b).
The evidence is persuasive that Student was entitled to participate in a reading summer program, that Boston agreed to offer him extended school year services and later failed to make any specific proposal. Boston shall reimburse Parent the $75.00 per hour for the 10 hours per week between July and August 2005 that Student attended JWA.
Student is entitled to receive compensatory services for the agreed upon daily WKRP services it failed to offer Student between March and June 2005. Boston shall fund these services quid-pro-quo at JWA.
As adduced earlier in the fact section of this decision and supra in the conclusion section, the record is replete with evidence of Boston’s failure to provide Student a FAPE for the 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 years, up to the time of the Hearing. As a result of this, Student is entitled to receive compensatory education. While the evidence is equally persuasive that the program and services offered Student in the 9 th grade were inadequate and inappropriate to meet his needs, I am excluding this school year from the period of entitlement to special education because Parent knew that the program and services were inadequate but she agreed to allow Student to stay in that program at Charlestown High School for the remainder of the 2002-2003 school year. (Testimony of Parent) The same is not true for the 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 school years, that is, Student’s 10 th , 11 th and part of the12 th grade15 .
Parent and Student spoke about the amount of time they spent together each night with Parent reading assignments to Student and acting as his scribe. Student testified that it was not until his nighttime with his mother that he was able to finally understand what teachers were trying to teach during the day. In school he totally relied on other students, Ms. Walker and Ms. Lynch for all of his reading and writing. (Testimony of Parent, Student, Ms. Walker, Ms. Lynch) Boston provided accommodations but failed to provide integrated, coordinated language-based instruction.
It is surprising that Student never gave up in the face of years of educational neglect by BPS. The evidence is persuasive that this young man’s resilience and determination is due in great part to the commitment and arduous work of his Mother, other family members, Ms. Wisnia, as well as those Boston providers, such as Ms. Lynch, who over the years tried their best to help Student “swim against the current”.
As a result of Boston’s failure to provide FAPE during the 2003-2004 and the 2004-2005 school years, Student is entitled to two years of compensatory education in a language-based program outside the Boston Public Schools.
(c) beginning not later than 1 year before the child reaches the age of majority, under State law, a statement that the child has been informed of the child’s rights under this title [ 20 U.S.C. §§1400 et seq.], if any, that will transfer to the child on reaching the age of majority under section 615(m) [ 20 U.S.C. §1415 (m)].
These goals must be updated annually. 20 U.S.C. §1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII).
v) if appropriate, acquisition of daily living skills and functional vocational evaluation. 34 CFR §300.29(a).
Transition services for students with disabilities may be special education, if provided as specially designed instruction, or related services, if required to assist a student with a disability to benefit from special education.
Transition planning and services are an essential and substantive part of what must be provided by a school district to a special education student over the course of many years, beginning when the student turns 14 years old or earlier.17 As compared to other educational services (which under FAPE must be reasonably calculated to provide a certain minimum level of educational progress in light of the student’s potential to learn), transitional planning and services are “an outcome-oriented process” focused on allowing the student to transition successfully “from school to post school activities, including post-secondary education, vocational training, integrated employment (including supported employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or community participation”.18 As with other educational services under FAPE, transitional planning and services must be individually tailored to address the needs of the particular student but there is an added emphasis on consideration of the student’s own preferences and interests.19 The IDEA provides that in the event that the student does not attend an IEP Team meeting. The school district is to take additional steps to ensure that the student’s preferences and interests are considered.20 As with other services under FAPE, transitional services may include instruction, including special education services, as well as related services.21 Finally, I note the specific requirements regarding written notice to parents when the IEP team is to consider transitional planning and/or services.22 In Re : Quabbin Regional School District , BSEA # 05-3115 & # 05-4356, August 16, 2005, 11 MSER 146 (SEA MA 2005).
As discussed earlier in page 21 supra , Student’s relevant IEPs for the purpose of transitional planning/services offer no substantive information. (PE-A; PE-C; PE-Q; PE-J) All of the witnesses who participated in Student’s Team meetings testified that up to the Team meeting held in May 2005, there was no discussion regarding transition planning. (Testimony of Parent, Student, Ms. Lynch, Ms. Walker) Every witness who testified knew of Student’s desire to go on to college after high school, and yet this goal is not mentioned in any of his IEPs. (Testimony of Parent, Student, Ms. Lynch, Ms. Walker, Ms. Wan) As adduced earlier, the only statement appearing in Student’s IEP was that he wanted to “improve his academic skills and graduate.” (PE-A; PE-C; PE-Q) Even the statement regarding his desire to improve his reading and math skills, which appeared in PE-J, the IEP in effect when Student turned sixteen years of age, was dropped by the following IEP. (See PE-Q) In spite of Student’s markedly low reading ability, which would have a clear impact on his ability to continue post-secondary education and even limit his ability to seek gainful employment, Boston has been ready to graduate Student from high school in June 2006. Boston presented no evidence to support that it had provided transitional services or that this had even been discussed. Parent and Student both testified that no discussion of planning ever took place and the lack of substantive information in the IEPs support Parent’s/ Student’s assertions. One can only conclude that there were no appropriate transitional plans discussed or developed throughout the past relevant years. Therefore, Boston is responsible to offer Student compensatory services in this regard. Student’s Team, inclusive of Ms. Wisnia, shall discuss and plan for Student’s transition into a post-secondary program.
1. Boston shall hire Judith Wisnia as a consultant regarding Student’s reading needs and program recommendations for the remainder of this school year.
2. Boston is responsible for convening the Team to draft an IEP that offers Student placement at an out of district school that offers a language-based program. Boston will also include WKRP instruction at JWA.
3. Boston shall draft and implement an appropriate transition plan for Student and make it part of Student’s IEP forthwith. The transitional plan must delineate appropriate transitional services that address Student’s goal for a post-secondary education.
4. Boston shall fund two years of an out of district language-based program for Student as compensatory education consistent with this decision.
5. Boston shall assure full, consistent implementation of the assistive technology recommendations for Student as per the 2004-2005 IEP, especially until such time as an out of district language-based program is found for Student.
6. Boston shall provide Student with three hours per day intense WKRP therapy program at JWA as compensatory education for its failure to provide effective WKRP during the period from March through June 2005.
7. Boston shall fund a neuropsychological evaluation of Student, which shall be conducted as soon as possible.
8. Boston shall reimburse Parent for the $75.00 per hour expenses associated with services offered Student at JWA during July and August 2005.
PE-R was marked for identification only.
Since Student filed his Request for Hearing prior to July 1, 2005, the statute of limitations adopted in BSEA proceedings in Massachusetts was three years as opposed to the two year limitation under the new IDEA.
Neither the Parent’s Exhibits book nor the School’s contained copies of the placement and/or program acceptance sheets reflecting Parent’s decision regarding any of the IEPs submitted for consideration.
See M.G.L. c. 71B §1 establishing that the disabled student’s period of entitlement runs from the time s/he is 3 years of age until s/he attains a high school diploma (or its equivalent), or the day of the student’s twenty second birthday, whichever comes first. 603 CMR 28.02 (9).
It should be noted that Student’s IEPs run from December to December.
“For any student approaching graduation or the age of twenty-two, the Team shall determine whether the student is likely to require continuing services from adult human service agencies. In such circumstances, the Administrator of Special Education shall make a referral to the Bureau of Transitional Planning in the Executive Office of Health and Human Services in accordance with the requirements of M.G.L. c. 71B, § 12A through C (known as Chapter 688).” 603 CMR 28.05(4)(c).

References: §1414
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §300
 §300
 §300
 §1415
 §1414
 §300
 §1
 § 12