Source: https://www.specialedlaw.com/database/taunton-public-schools-bsea-03-4093/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 13:46:17+00:00

Document:
On June 19, 2003, the Taunton Public Schools (“Taunton” or “School”) filed a hearing request with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA). Taunton sought a decision that its proposed IEP for the 2003-04 school year, which Parents had rejected, was appropriate. In April 2004, while the hearing was in progress, Taunton offered a subsequent IEP for April – June 2004, which the Parents also rejected. Both of these IEPs are the subjects of this appeal.
The procedural history of the case prior to the hearing on the merits is complicated and will not be fully recounted here. In sum, between the time the hearing was requested and approximately September 22, 2003, several attempts were made to conduct telephone conferences between the parties in an effort to clarify the issues in the case. Parents were not reachable for these calls and did not participate. On August 18, 2003, counsel for Parents entered an appearance and requested such a telephone conference call, which was held on August 29, 2003 with counsel for both parties. As a result of this conference call, the Hearing Officer recommended, and Taunton agreed, to conduct a functional behavioral assessment of Student to evaluate Student’s behavior in school and at home as well as to conduct other updated evaluations. As will be discussed in the Findings of Fact, below, no such assessment took place because Parents did not consent. A further telephone conference call with counsel for the parties was held on September 23, 2003.
A pre-hearing conference was held on October 17, 2003. Taunton’s counsel, the Director of Special Education, and the principal of Student’s preschool attended on behalf of the School. Parents’ counsel attended on behalf of Parents, but due to an undisclosed emergency, neither Parent appeared at the pre-hearing conference. On October 23, 2003 Parents’ counsel withdrew her appearance. Parents proceeded pro se from that time forward.
A hearing was scheduled for December 3, 4, and 5, 2003. All parties were duly notified of the hearing dates. On October 23, 2003, Parents had requested a postponement of the hearing. This request was denied on November 24, 2003.
The first day of hearing was held on December 3, 2003, via speaker telephone. Parents did not appear at the hearing. The Hearing Officer called the Parents by telephone to offer them an opportunity to participate, but Parents were not reachable. Therefore, the School was the only party to present evidence, and rested after presenting its documents and two witnesses.
On December 10, 2003, the Hearing Officer sent both parties copies of the tape recorded testimony from the first day of hearing as well as an order granting Parents the right to present rebuttal testimony and documents and setting forth detailed procedures and deadlines for the parties to submit and respond to additional evidence. On or about December 16, 2003, Parents filed proposed documentary exhibits and witness lists pursuant to this Order. Taunton filed its responses on December 30, 2003. After several telephone conferences to discuss procedural matters, an in-person conference with the parties and the Hearing Officer took place on February 13, 2004. Pursuant to that conference, the Hearing Officer issued an order that (1) reported that there was no dispute that Student’s “stay put” placement was four half-days per week in a substantially separate kindergarten, and one day in an integrated kindergarten at the Chamberlain Elementary School in Taunton, (2) ordered Taunton to consider Student’s most recent evaluation at Children’s Hospital, and (3) scheduled further hearing dates of March 30 and April 1, 2004.
After a brief postponement the hearing resumed on April 13, 15, and 20, 2004. For the convenience of the parties, the hearing on April 13 and 15 was held in the offices of Wynn & Wynn, P.C. in Taunton.1 Both parties were present for the hearing on April 13 and 15. The hearing on April 20, 2004 consisted of the testimony of one witness and took place by telephone. Parents were unavailable by telephone and did not participate. A subsequent letter from the Parents explained that they had been unavailable because of a medical issue.
Each party presented documentary evidence and examined and cross-examined witnesses at the hearing.
2. Whether Taunton’s proposed IEP for April-June 2004 was reasonably calculated to provide Student with FAPE.
3. Whether Student’s “stay put” placement was unsafe for Student or others.
The IEP proposed for Student for September 2003-June 2004, and the subsequent IEP, proposed after additional evaluations, for April – June 2004, were both reasonably calculated to provide Student with FAPE. Student’s academic and behavioral needs can be addressed primarily within the mainstream, with supports, accommodations and related services as specified in the IEPs. Student’s academic and behavioral needs are not severe enough to warrant a more restrictive placement.
Student has serious psychological, behavioral and learning needs. In particular, Student has severe behavioral issues related to ADHD, neurological problems and language deficits. Student’s behavioral needs preclude his being educated safely in a mainstreamed setting. Rather, Student needs a small, substantially separate language based classroom for children with similar issues along with one-on-one assistance at all times and a comprehensive behavior intervention plan. Taunton has denied the existence and/or minimized the severity of Student’s behavioral issues. Moreover, the substantially separate Kindergarten classroom that Taunton provided pending resolution of this dispute was inappropriate for Student because there were insufficient behavioral supports and the setting was unsafe for Student. Therefore, Taunton is required to provide a substantially separate kindergarten “stay put” classroom in a different school building within Taunton.
17. The psychological assessment indicated that Student had low-average nonverbal cognitive skills. Based on parental report, Student showed significant “temperamental, self-regulatory and behavioral issues” which the psychologist attributed, in part, to poorly developed language skills. Student’s behavior during the evaluation was cooperative and appropriate, however. The psychologist found Student’s profile to be consistent with a diagnosis of Disruptive Behavior Disorder, Not otherwise Specified.” (S-20, P-20).
23. The record also is unclear as to when and whether Taunton convened a TEAM to specifically to consider the Children’s Hospital reports, although service providers who received the reports (presumably from Ms. Antunes; see Para. 22, above) did conduct some review of the recommendations during the 2002-03 school year/ (Antunes, Whelan) Thus, in October 2002, pursuant to the Children’s Hospital recommendations, Taunton’s school psychologist conducted a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) consisting of 2 classroom observations as well as review of the daily home-school communication book (“blue book”) The evaluation report consisted of one page that indicated that Student “adhered to classroom routine, changed activities when verbally cued by any adult…and related socially with peers…These observations were described as being typical of [Student’s] school presentation…” (S-18) In short, the psychologist could identify no problematic behaviors.
Dr. Deal recommended placement in a small class of 4-6 students, psychological testing, individual behavioral therapy, an emergency Core evaluation and IEP, an after school program, longer academic school day as tolerated, and social skills and groups to facilitate reintegration into the school setting. (P- 22) It is not clear when this report was made available to the school.
The foremost priority is getting [Student] back into a school setting which will preserve his safety and provide him with appropriate special educational support. I anticipate that [Student] will require a full day program provided full-year (including summers)…direct, one to one adult support during transportation…and throughout the school day…a small classroom setting, ideally in a language based classroom…speech therapy…3 times per week. He will also require appropriate behavioral support for his ADHD. Social skills training with a focus on social use of language is also recommended.
41. According to the evidence on the record, the information that Children’s Hospital had about Student’s behavioral problems appears to come from interviews with Parents, who reported that Student would come home from school complaining of headaches and full of rage. Parents also reported that Student’s behavior sometimes was “so out of control that it was borderline hospitalization.” (P-28) There is no evidence on the record of Children’s Hospital evaluators having observed problematic behavior from Student. Rather, Student’s behavior was appropriate and manageable during evaluation sessions. (P-28) There is no evidence that any the Children’s Hospital evaluators conveyed the Parent’s reports of behavioral problems or their own conclusions about those issues to any representative from Taunton.
43. Ms. Dickenson reported that Student behaved appropriately during the evaluation, was somewhat motorically restless, had reduced frustration tolerance and gave up easily when frustrated by difficult tasks. Id.
44. Tests of receptive language showed a “mixed profile.” Student’s scores on single word comprehension as measured by the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-IIIA) were in the average range, which “indicated excellent gains” since he was assessed in April 2002, when he had scored in the “severely impaired” range. On the other hand, another test instrument, the Verbal Comprehension Scale A of the Reynell Devleopmental Language Scales, which measures comprehension of more complex verbal information, measured skills in the “severely impaired” range, corresponding to the mid-three year age level. On this test, Student had the same standard score as in 2002, and had gained approximately 17 months in the age score in the 22 months since he had been tested.
51. Parent did not send Student to any school program for the remainder of the 2003-2004 school year—either the “stay put” substantially separate program or the program proposed in the IEP of April 1, 2004, and did not consent to a functional behavioral assessment.
Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, as well as the applicable law, I conclude that the IEP presented for the 2003-2004 school year was reasonably calculated to provide Student with FAPE, as was the IEP amendment for the last quarter of that year. While the evidence suggests that Student may have had significant behavioral problems outside of school that warranted more formal evaluation and, possibly, additional interventions, Parent has precluded such interventions and/or services by refusing to consent to an expanded functional behavioral assessment after one had been recommended by Parents’ own evaluators at Children’s Hospital and ordered in the context of this proceeding.
Thus, Parents have prevented Taunton from evaluating the area of disability that Parents themselves have asserted. Taunton cannot be required to provide behavioral services for a problem that has been neither corroborated nor evaluated, especially when Student had no serious behavioral problems when he attended the Barnum School.
Further, there is no evidence that Student would be unsafe in the “stay put” placement at the Chamberlain School, either with or without the one-to-one paraprofessional offered by Taunton. Therefore, Taunton was not required to offer a stay- put placement in any other location.
Finally, Parents request for reimbursement for evaluations and for funding as set forth in their letter of March 22, 2004 is denied, without prejudice as to the usual course of payment for independent evaluations or any separate agreements on this issue entered into by the parties.
In general, FAPE encompasses substantive appropriateness, least restrictive environment (LRE) considerations, and conformity with the IDEA’s procedural requirements. Substantively, Federal courts have interpreted FAPE to mean an IEP and services that provide “significant learning” and confer “meaningful benefit” on the student via “personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally.” Hendrick Hudson Bd. of Education v. Rowley , 458 U.S. 176, 188-9, 203 (1992); see also Burlington v. Mass. Dept. of Education , 736 F.2d 773, 788 (1 st Cir. 1984).
The IEP must be tailored to the unique needs of the disabled child, and must be “reasonably calculated to provide ‘effective results’ and ‘demonstrable improvement’ in the educational and personal skills identified as special needs.” 34 C.F.R. 300.300(3)(ii); Lenn v. Portland School Committee , 998 F.2d 1083 (1 st Cir. 1993), citing Roland M. v. Concord School Committee , 910 F.2d 983 (1 st Cir. 1990), cert. denied , 499 U.S. 912 (1991) and Burlington , 736 F.2d at 788. Courts have measured educational benefit by whether the child makes progress towards the goals stated in the IEP. Hamilton-Wenham Public Schools , BSEA Nos. 04-1791, 03-3932 (Figueroa, 11/3/03), citing County of San Diego v. Calif. Special Educ. Hearing Office , 93 F.3d 1458 (9 th Cir. 1996); Evans v. Bd. Of Educ. Of Rhinebeck Central Sch. District , 930 F. Supp. 83 (SDNY 1996).
Finally, FAPE also entails complying with the procedural requirements of the IDEA. These requirements, among other things, are designed to ensure that students are evaluated in all areas of need, that IEPs are written by duly constituted TEAMs, with meaningful parental participation, and that services are delivered in a timely manner. 20 USC Sec. 1414; 34 CFR 300.536; 603 CMR 29.04(2)-(3).
A school district that violates a student’s procedural rights under federal or state law may be liable for compensatory services where “procedural inadequacies [have] compromised the pupil’s right to an appropriate education … or caused a deprivation of educational benefits.” Roland M. , 910 F.2d at 994 (citations omitted), Murphy v. Timberlane Regional Sch. Dist. , 22 F.3d 1186, 1196 (1 st Cir. 1994). On the other hand, technical or de minimis violations that do not deprive the child of FAPE do not entitle parents to compensatory relief. Id . Moreover, compensatory education is in the nature of an equitable remedy. An award of compensatory service may be denied or reduced if undue delays or other actions on the parents’ part have contributed to the loss or denial of services. (Id).
Here, the record shows that Student is a sweet, cooperative, likeable child who consistently follows the school routine, is eager to learn, and enjoys forming relationships with adults and other children. The record also shows that Student and made meaningful progress when he attended school. Specifically, Taunton’s initial evaluation, as well as the Children’s Hospital evaluation of April-May 2002, both conducted before Student had spent significant time in any school placement,9 revealed that Student had significant receptive and expressive language delays and some problems with attention, sensory integration, and fine motor skills. The record shows that the Barnum School preschool program met those needs so that Student made meaningful progress in all areas of need identified by the TEAM. Student entered the program in April 2002 with severe deficits in language and life skills, and completed the program at the end of the 2002-03 school year with skills that were age appropriate or nearly so according to the school’s measurements.
The testimony of Rebecca Antunes is persuasive that even before Student completed the sub-separate preschool program in the spring of 2003, his skills surpassed those of his peers, and he was frustrated because those peers could not respond to Student’s attempts to talk and play with them. During his limited exposure to settings with typical peers, Student did well. Student was ready for a less restrictive setting with more exposure to typical peers.
On the other hand, Parents reported that Student had serious behavior problems at home that resulted in injury to others and risk to Student. Parents repeatedly asked Ms. Antunes and the school psychologist for help and/or suggestions. Further, Student’s behavior at home was one of the major concerns that Parents raised with Children’s Hospital when they had Student evaluated there. Parents’ continual reports of behavioral problems should have prompted Taunton to further evaluate Student to determine if behavioral issues existed that did implicate his educational progress (to determine, for example, if Student could not generalize his classroom behavioral skills to the less structured setting of home, and needed educational services to enable him to do so, or was frustrated by his language limitations and needed additional accommodations, services, or home-based strategies for the Parents.) It is troubling that a functional behavioral assessment was only conducted upon the recommendation of Children’s Hospital. It also is troubling that this FBA stopped when no problematic behavior was identified at school, when all concerned knew that the reported problems arose not at school but at home. Not every behavioral problem that arises in the home is an educational issue. Without assessment, however, it may be difficult to determine if a student’s educational progress is affected by outside behavioral problems, or if home-based behavioral problems indicate frustration with an area already being addressed by the IEP, for example, language. This is especially true with a young child with documented delays in language and other areas of development, who reportedly becomes frustrated and angry when he can’t express himself. Without more investigation, it is difficult to determine if such problems (assuming they are verified) indicate that additional goals should be added to the IEP and/or the child should receive additional services.
Even though it might have been preferable for Taunton to address Parents’ concerns more systematically, however, Taunton did not commit actionable procedural violations by not doing so, for a number of reasons. First, Taunton did not ignore Parents’ concerns. Taunton offered a parent training group to address disciplinary issues. This group may or may not have been appropriate for Student’s needs, but since Parents only attended one session, they denied themselves the opportunity to find out.
Additionally, as early as September 2003, Taunton attempted to secure Parents’ consent for an expanded FBA. Subsequently, as this litigation progressed, Taunton renewed its offer several times, including in the proposed IEP issued in April 2004. Children’s Hospital also recommended an FBA in both the 2002 and 2004 evaluations. Parents neither consented to this evaluation, nor obtained their own, however. Taunton cannot be held liable for failure to address behavioral issues asserted by the Parents when Parents (a) did not participate in services that were offered (i.e., the parent group); and, more importantly, (b) refused to participate in an expanded FBA that might have shed light on or even resolved the situation, especially where the school had no first-hand knowledge of Student’s alleged behavioral problems because they did not manifest in school.
Parents are not entitled to behavioral services for Student when they have refused to allow Taunton to evaluate the basis for their claim. See Murphy v. Timberlane Regional Sch. Dist. , supra , at 22 F.3d at 1196 (1 st Cir. 1994). Moreover, Taunton cannot impose potentially intrusive behavioral interventions when Student has not displayed problematic behavior in school and there is no data as to behavioral issues in other settings. Taunton was not required to provide such interventions based on the 2002 or 2004 Children’s Hospital evaluations, as these reports (1) noted no inappropriate behavior during the evaluations themselves; (2) relied solely on Parents’ reports for their recommendation for a behavioral intervention plan. (3) recommended an FBA to which Parents refused to consent. Moreover, there is no evidence on the record that any evaluator from Children’s Hospital attended TEAM meetings, observed Student in school or at home, or took other steps to assess Student’s behavior. Rather, Children’s Hospital recommended a FBA for this purpose.
In light of the foregoing, Taunton’s initial proposed IEP for 2003-2004, which called for a regular kindergarten placement with two 30-minute sessions per week of speech/language therapy was appropriate in light of the information available to the TEAM at the time the IEP was written. This IEP and placement were reasonably calculated to provide Student with the services he needed for his areas of weakness while also providing Student with access to typical peers and a regular education environment.
The proposed IEP for April through June 2004 was also appropriate, in that it offered increased services recommended by Children’s Hospital while enabling Student to remain in the mainstream. This IEP incorporated numerous recommendations from the 2004 Children’s Hospital evaluation, including a renewed offer of a functional behavioral assessment, strategies and accommodations to support Student’s language development, 90 minutes per week of speech/language therapy, 120 minutes per week of academic support and a one-on-one assistant.
The substantially separate Kindergarten at the Chamberlain School, with or without the one-on-one assistant offered by Taunton, met applicable “stay put” standards in that it essentially replicated Student’s preschool setting only on a Kindergarten level. Despite numerous opportunities, Parents presented no facts to warrant a conclusion that this setting was unsafe for Student.
I decline to specifically order reimbursemement for all past and future evaluations as requested by the Parents because (1) Parents have stated no legal basis for reimbursement for “all past and future evaluations” and (2) there is no evidence that Taunton has refused any request to pay for independent evaluations that it is required by law to fund. This denial shall not be construed to relieve Taunton of the responsibility to fund independent evaluations when required to do so by pertinent regulations or to preclude the parties from entering voluntary agreements on this issue. I also deny Parents’ request for “public funding for private use” based on denial of FAPE because I have found that Student received or was offered FAPE during the period covered by this Decision.
Taunton’s IEPs for the 2003-2004 school years were reasonably calculated to provide student with FAPE. The initial IEP incorporated all available and verified information as to Student’s needs. When the Children’s Hospital evaluations of February 2004 suggested that Student needed additional services, Taunton issued a new IEP that incorporated many or most of the hospital recommendations, including a 1:1 aide and increased speech/language therapy and academic support. Moreover, Taunton repeatedly offered to assess Student’s behavior in order to determine if additional behavioral services were necessary. Finally, Parents did not demonstrate that the “stay put” placement at the Chamberlain School was unsafe for Student.
This law firm was not involved in this case.
Both parties filed numerous procedural and evidentiary motions that were ruled on during the hearing or on August 27, 2004. School filed a motion in April 2004 regarding Parents’ allegations of procedural violations. I have not ruled specifically on that Motion as this decision resolves any outstanding issues raised therein.
Parents sought the relief stated in this paragraph in a request filed on March 22, 2004. (Exhibit P-42) In that same letter, Parents stated that it would not be in Student’s best interests for Taunton to retaliate against him or Parents, but did not appear to seek a specific order to that effect.
The speech-language evaluation report does not state why Student could not be formally assessed.
The medical report provides information about Student’s early medical history and the result of a head MRI that showed “non-specific findings of cerebral underdevelopment:” however, there is no evidence on the record that explains how this diagnosis might affect Student’s functioning and educational needs.
This concern was based on the school operating on a six day, rather than 5 day cycle.
The IDEA defines FAPE as special education and related services that (A) are provided at public expense and under public control; (B) meet the standards of the state educational agency; (C) include an appropriate preschool, elementary, or secondary school education; and (D) are provided in conformity with a properly developed IEP. 20 USC Sec. 1401; 34 CFR Sec. 300.13. The state statute, G.L. c. 71B, (“Chapter 766”) defines FAPE as special education and related services that conform with the IDEA and its regulations and also “meet the education standards established by statute or…by regulations promulgated by the Board of Education.” G.L. c. 71B, Sec.1.
Taunton evaluated Student in February and March 2002. Children’s Hospital evaluated him in April 2002. Student began the Barnum preschool in April 2002. This was his first school placement.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.