Source: http://internetpdfarticles.com/m/msde.state.md.us1.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 22:55:38+00:00

Document:
The initial question presented in this case was which party, the Parents or MCPS, has the Unfortunately, there is no clear statutory authority for assigning the burden to one party or another, and the courts are split. For example, "In administrative and judicial proceedings, the school district bears the burden of proving the appropriateness of the IEP it has proposed." Carlisle Area School v. Scott P. 62 F.3d 520, 533 (3rd Cir. 1995) (quoting Oberti v. Board of Education, 995 F.2d 1204, 1219 (3rd Cir. 1993). "The School District had the burden of proving compliance with the IDEA at the administrative hearing, including the appropriateness of its evaluation." Seattle School District No. 1 v. B.S., 82 F.3d 1493, 1498 (9th Cir. 1996). But see: Johnson v. Independent School District No. 4, 921 F.2d 1022, 1026 (10th Cir. 1990) (The burden of proof rests with the party attacking the student's IEP); and Alamo Heights Independent School District v. State Board of Education, 790 F.2d 1153, 1158 (5th Cir. 1986) (The party attacking an IEP bears the burden of showing why the educational setting and IEP are not appropriate.) In Alamo Heights, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit explained the rationale for its view on the assignment of the burden of proof: [The IDEA] "place[s] primary responsibility for formulating handicapped children’s education in the hands of state and local school agencies in cooperation with each Student's parent." In deference to this statutory scheme and the reliance it places on the expertise of local education authorities . . . [The IDEA] creates a "presumption in favor of the educational placement established by a [student's IEP]," and "the party attacking its terms should bear the burden of showing why the educational setting established by the [IEP] is not appropriate." 790 F.2d at 1158 (quoting Tatro v. Texas, 703 F.2d 823 (5th Cir. 1983)). The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit addressed the question of which party bears the burden of proof in Stemple v. Board of Educ. of Prince George’s County, 623 F.2d 893, 896 (4th Cir. 1980), but declined to decide the issue. The Fourth Circuit has stated that, “a reviewing [authority] should be reluctant indeed to second-guess the judgement of education professionals.” Rowley at 207-208; Tice, 908 F.2d at 1207. Also, three recent decisions from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland have touched on the issue of burden of proof. In Fritschle v. Andes, 45 F. Supp. 2d 500, 508 footnote 21 (D. Md. 1999), Judge Davis notes the split in authorities on the issue and comments, without taking a position, that: “a determination of who bears the burden of proof at the administrative hearing has significant ramifications, as the losing party will then bear the burden [on appeal].” In Schmerling v. Anne Arundel County Board of Educ., Civil Action No. WMN-98-2283, slip op. at 5 (D. Md. May 18, 1999), Judge Nickerson addressed the issue, but declined to issue a “hard-and- fast rule for all IDEA cases.” On the facts of the case before him, Judge Nickerson affirmed the decision of the Administrative Law Judge who had placed the burden of proof on the parents to establish that an Most recently, in Brian S. v. Vance, 86 F. Supp.2d 538 (D. Md. 2000), vacated and remanded sub nom Schaffer v. Vance, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 363, 2 Fed. Appx. 232 (2001)6, Judge Messitte disagreed with Judge Nickerson as to who has the burden of proof in the instance of a challenge to an initial IEP. In a well reasoned decision, Judge Messitte discussed and decided the issue of which party should have the burden of proof under three scenarios: There is the initial IEP, proposed by the school authorities the first time it is sought for a child, with which the parents do not agree and as to which they seek an administrative due process hearing; There is the existing IEP, at one time agreed to by everyone, which either the parents or the school district seek to change against the wishes of the other, whereupon the matter goes to an administrative due process hearing; and 3) There is the IEP that has been passed upon by an independent ALJ, which a party seeks to challenge in a court proceeding. 6 Although this case was vacated on appeal, the court declined to discuss the burden of proof issue, stating, “If this court is to address the issue of who has the burden of proof in challengin g an initial IEP, it should be in the context of a matured case or controversy rather than in the piecemeal fashion in which this case now appears before us.” 2 Fed. Appx. at 234. Accordingly, given the lack of decisive authority on the issue of burden o f proof, and given the thoroughness of Judge Messitte’s opinion, his analysis has been relied upon in this decision. After a thorough discussion of the congressional intent behind the IDEA, case law, journal articles and evidentiary treatises, Judge Messitte placed the burden in the first scenario on the school district, in the second scenario on the party seeking the change and in the third scenario on the party challenging the administrative decision. Given the lack of definitive authority in this Circuit, the support in other Circuits for placing the burden of persuasion on the Parents, and in view of the reluctance expressed by the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Tice, "to second-guess the judgement of education professionals," I conclude that the rationales expressed by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Alamo Heights, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Brian S. are most persuasive. Using the analyses in those cases, I placed the burden of proof on the Parents in this case who seek a change in the IEP. To meet its burden, the Parents must demonstrate that the 2002-2003 IEP and the Student’s proposed placement at SCHOOL 1 are not reasonably calculated to enable the Student to receive FAPE in the least restrictive environment. The Student’s Disability.
There is little question that the Student is in need of special education services. Her Woodcock-Johnson7 scores place her in the 8th percentile in broad reading and the 4th percentile in broad writing, with a lower score in broad math (.1 percentile) (MCPS Ex. # 9, page 1). When tested on the WISC-III8 scale in July 1999, her Verbal IQ was found to be 75 and her performance IQ was 46 (MCPS Ex. #12). Other testing indicated that she functioned in a lower 7 This is a test to determine how well students do in academic subjects by testing achievement rather than cognitive abilities (T. 24). range than expected for her age due to both external and internal distractions, and her emotional problems have affected her availability for education with increasing intensity. 9 She has such a significant presence of anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, thought disorder, non-compliance and distractibility (T.103), that Mr. XXXX, the school psychologist, places her in a high at-risk range (MCPS Ex. # 12). Although MCPS does not believe that the Student has a learning disability, she does have an educational disability (T. 49) and is in need of special education services, as she cannot access the MCPS’s general curriculum. The Student has been assessed as Emotionally Disabled (“ED”), coding her disability as “06” (T.31-2, 111). The witnesses who presented evidence for MCPS unanimously confirmed this assessment. There is little question that the student needs special education services. The question becomes what is the least restrictive environment for this student consistent with her SCHOOL 1.
SCHOOL 1 has approximately 120 students (T.51) distributed in middle and high school grades, grouped according to skill levels rather than academic grades (T.17). All of the students at SCHOOL 1 have disabilities that entitle them to receive special education and related services under the IDEA (T.7-18). The SCHOOL 1 program is designed for students who are not expected to meet the academic criteria for a high school diploma. The school teaches a fundamental life skills program rather than the general curriculum high school program leading to the awarding of a diploma. The fundamental life skills program of studies is designed to focus on learning functional life skills, such as travel training and vocational education, along with 8 Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. 9 One of the teachers noted in the IEP that “Anxiety, socialization and fears impact her consistent performance in the classroom,” a sentiment echoed by Ms. XXXX (T. 43). academics integrated in a functional way so that the Child can learn to become as independent as possible (T. 25). At SCHOOL 1, students are taught in classes of eight to ten students with one special education teacher and a special education teacher’s aide, resulting in a teacher-to-student ratio of between four and five to one (T. 22). SCHOOL 3, the Student’s home high school, has a population of approximately 2,000 students with a special education program contained within that school (T.51). SCHOOL 1 is a self-contained school, containing only special education students (T.18). This placement is designed to meet a student’s need to be in a small class with a low teacher-to-student ratio rather than in a general education school such as SCHOOL 3. One of the other main components at SCHOOL 1 is the presence of mental health specialists from The XXXX Center, Inc., an outside mental health agency that is present at the school to provide mental health support services to the students (T.18). These services include individual counseling, group counseling and crisis management (T. 64). Counseling support of this magnitude is not available in other general curriculum schools such as SCHOOL 3 (T.51-2). Placement at SCHOOL 1.
The document that is the basis of the student’s placement is the IEP (MCPS Ex. # 1) which resulted from the annual review occurring on February 8, 2002. That plan, dated April 13, 2002, placed the student in the MCPS Fundamental Life Skills Program of Studies, as opposed to General Education Program of Studies. The IEP recognized the student’s strengths as well as areas of need. However, her anxiety, difficulties socializing and her fears adversely impacted her consistent performance in the classroom, and special education needs were identified recognizing her emotional disability. In fact, 30 hours of crisis management services were recommended. This is the maximum amount of time that services can be provided in a school The Parents seek to have the Student educated at her home school in a special education program located within that facility. The prospect of the student’s participation with non- disabled peers was discussed on page 8 of her IEP. Given the recommended supplementary aids and services on pages 6 and 7 of the IEP (which inc lude providing consultation for psychologists, counselors, and mental health professionals), the student could not participate with non-disabled students in the general education environment because “anxiety and emotional interference require a comprehensive special education approach”10 as well as her need for supervision in general school or extra-curricular activities. Primary special education services were required 29 hours per week11 for all activities, due to the need for counseling, consultation and crisis management. Given the student’s IEP goals and objectives, as well as the recommended supplementary aids and services, the student could not be educated in a general education classroom or a resource/classroom combination of special classroom within a general education facility. What the student required was a separate special education day school, which in this instance, was determined to be SCHOOL 1.12 The Student’s Family’s opposition to placement at SCHOOL 1.
The Parents, her brother and the Student testified. At the IEP team meeting as well as at the hearing in this matter, the Parents expressed concern that the Student was placed in a segregated special education school. They believe that, although there was some comfort to being at SCHOOL 1 (Brother, T. 135), the Student should be in a general education environment 10 The prior year’s IEP stated that, “[d]ue to significant socio emotional interference, [the student] requires a full day special education program]” without participation with nondisabled peers because she “needs one on one supervision” to monitor her behavior (MCPS #9, page 8). Even though posit ive steps have been noted, the student’s condition had deteriorated and her anxiety about her peers continues. MCPS Ex. #11. 11 One week is 30 hours total. and not among only disabled students. Her brother believed that she needed to be in a more general group, which would motivate her and encourage her, increasing her morale at home and in school (Brother, T. 135). Her mother testified that she did not need to be at SCHOOL 1 (T. 35). This sentiment was echoed by her father, who testified that his agreement to place the Student at SCHOOL 1 caused friction in the family because the Student blames her parents for making her attend SCHOOL 1 (T. 138-9). The Student expressly states that she does not want to be among disabled students (T.137) and has caused problems at home because of this placement The Student testified that she did not like being at SCHOOL 1 and did not feel that she belonged there. The Student expressed the desire to attend SCHOOL 3, her home school, for “lots of reasons” (T.143) which remain unspecified but which seem to center on her perception that she did not want to be educated or socialize with disabled students, as she did not see herself At last year’s IEP meeting, the Parents acknowledge that the Student has social phobias, but also that she feels that she does not belong at SCHOOL 1 because “she doesn’t have the same problems as the students in her school. This makes her feel really out of place” (MCPS Ex. Yet the student has not fully thought about the size of the school to which she aspires. Like at SCHOOL 2, at SCHOOL 3 there are students who might be rude or mean to her and tease her. When the student was specifically asked about how she could function in SCHOOL 3, which was a much larger school, she did not have a clear answer or a coping mechanism in place, simply stating that she would “try” to handle situations that might come up (T. 152-5). She 12 Extended Year Services (“ESY”) were also recommended. was not definitive in any of her answers13; this lack of response does not disparage her in any way, but does demonstrate that she would not be emotionally prepared to meet the challenges of a larger institution where she would not have counseling, supportive staff or the crisis support staff that she has come to rely upon. From my observations of the Student’s timidity in answering questions, as well as the testimony of the MCPS witnesses, I do not believe that the Student is ready for inclusion into a large, generally unprotected and unsupported environment. Although it is commendable that the Student desires inclusion into the general student population, she is not yet emotionally or educationally ready for such a change. Her desire for change is motivated by her desire not to be included in a total special education population, however the fact is that she is in need of such a restrictive environment due to her emotional issues. There appears not to be any less restrictive environment consistent with her educational Support by MCPS and XXXX Center staff for placement at SCHOOL 1.
The efficacy of this placement was confirmed by all of the MCPS’s witnesses testifying Ms. XXXX, the SCHOOL 1 school counselor, has an undergraduate degree in special education with a masters degree in rehabilitation counseling. She has a Maryland State Teaching certification, teaching between 1974 to 1992, and acting as a guidance counsel for 10 years. The witness was admitted as an expert in special education (T.13-15). I found her testimony to be complete, informed, accurate and consistent with the other witnesses and the exhibits admitted into evidence in this case, leading me to consider her to be a persuasive witness. 13 In answer to questions regarding specific situations she might encounter in a larger school that she is not encountering in her present school, the Student’s answers were diminutive and vague: “Yeah, I could try;” “I don’t know,” “I’ve never been there,” and “ Probably.” Ms. XXXX testified that she has worked with the Student since the Student first enrolled at SCHOOL 1 (T.18). Ms. XXXX initially observed that the Student had difficulty successfully managing to complete her school day, and felt that she could progress academically if her emotional issues were not present (T. 19-20). The Student had difficulties managing to get through a school day due to her “rather significant” emotional issues (T.31). Ms. XXXX testified that the Student had considerable fears about other students, perceiving actions and words that were not directly observable by others (T. 20). The Student consistently complained that other students were looking at her, were out to get her or were saying things about her.14 While in class, the Student abstains from contact with other students. The Student consistently shows up late for classes or hides in the bathroom instead of going to class in order to avoid contact with other students (T. 37-8)15 and needs to have crisis management to bring her back to class. She views her relationship with her peers to be full of conflicts and has no positive peer relationships (MCPS #12). She has fears about other students, perceiving actions and words attributable to those students that only she can see or hear (T66). The Student claimed that other students were “out to get her” which consistently made her unhappy and unavailable for education. These same issues were present at SCHOOL 2 as well (XXXX, T.55 and XXXX, Despite the Student’s protestations, Ms. XXXX believes that the Student is comfortable at SCHOOL 1 due to its small size, supportive atmosphere and the presence of the XXXX Center staff, which as been written into her IEP (T. 44). Ms. XXXX expressed concern about the 14 More often than not, there was no provocation for striking out against other students. In one instance, the Student stated that another student was saying things about her; however, that other student spoke Russian and was not able to speak any English (T. 21). 15 The Student acknowledges this behavior, stating that she hides to avoid “situations” (T. 148). Student’s emotional stability in a large uncontrolled atmosphere such as at SCHOOL 3 which would not provide the emotional support from which she is benefiting at SCHOOL 1 (T. 46). The Students wo uld be “absolutely overwhelmed” at SCHOOL 3(T. 52, 54-5).16 XXXX XXXX is a therapist who has works at The XXXX Center at SCHOOL 1 for the past three and a half years.17 She has a undergraduate degree in history and took some graduate classes in elementary education. She was initially a schoolteacher but obtained her Master’s Degree in social work. Ms. XXXX is a licensed social worker. Ms. XXXX was admitted as an expert with respect to therapeutic services and social work (T. 61-63). I also found her testimony to be complete, informed, accurate and consistent with the other witnesses and the exhibits admitted into evidence in this case, leading me to consider her to be a persuasive witness. As a therapist, Ms. XXXX worked with the Student individually and in small group settings since late 1999. Sometimes, the Student withdraws into herself and hides in the school’s bathroom, missing hours of classes before she can be talked out of that room (T.69-70). In those instances, she does not go to classes, but stays in private therapy for 2-3 hours. Ms XXXX testified these severe emotional problems required professional intervention, and her progress was like a roller coaster (T. 77), with peaks and valleys, but generally showing gradual improvement.18 Ms. XXXX believes that the Student is progressing in her goals to limit this behavior (T. 71, 77) as the intervention sessions are getting shorter and the incidents are diminishing. These problems stem from paranoid and homicidal ideations based on fears that the 16 “And I would be very concerned that in a school of thousands of students who expect you to show up in class, and if you’re not there you’re not there, that that just would n ot be enough for her” (T. 48). 17 The mental health service that she provides at SCHOOL 1 has been provided under a number of different contractors ( T 61-62). 18 The GAF is a scale to determine how well a patient is functioning. Earlier psychological tests revealed a GAF of 35; presently it is in the 50-55 range (T. 88-89) demonstrating clinical progress. other students are going to tease her (T.77-8)(MCPS Ex. #3).19 The student is either unwilling or unable to discuss or attempt strategies to cope with these fears (MCPS Ex. # 3), even to the extent that she will not look her fellow students in the eye (T. 80). This fear is not limited to school settings, but to visits to shopping malls as well (T. 54). Ms. XXXX believes that she may have genuine hallucinations which cause her behavior (T.83). Although her brother thinks that her abnormal behavior is an attempt to get out of SCHOOL 1 (T.82, 83), Ms. XXXX believes that she cannot help herself and this is a manifestation of her condition. 20 The student gets along with staff better than she gets along with other students, as she believes that the other students are disabled and she is not.21 All of the witnesses consistently testified that the student’s interactions with staff were more positive than those with fellow students. (See e.g., MCPS #4, page 2 of 2). Placing the student in a school with a higher student to staff ratio would not be a positive step for the Student. She does not like being the lunchroom with 30 to 40 other students; Ms. XXXX believes that being in the lunchroom with two to three hundred students at SCHOOL 3 would be impossible for her to withstand (T. 81, 83). Ms. XXXX believed that the IEP appropriately places the Student at SCHOOL 1 as the student would not be able to function in a school setting without crisis management and counseling services readily available. Additionally, the Student is on a medication regiment 22 that must be closely monitored in the school by XXXX; it might not be monitored in a general 19 “And she talks about wanting to hurt people and wanting to hurt those boys that, in her mind, are going to tease her. And we’ve gotten into some fairly – she would love to have somebody kill them. She talks about that frequently - about having somebody kill - and she has used that word – those boys” (T. 7). 20 When asked the same question, Mr. XXXX answered that, “[s]he would have to be a master of patience herself, a master of manipulation to such a degree that she could carry this out and have this go for so long, so many hours, so many days. Given even the most dedicated teenager, I don’t think that they could follow through with it in the way that she did” (T. 122). 21 Even her parents refers to non-disabled students as “normal people” (Father, T. 54) and “regular kids” (Mother, T. 55). 22 The medication regiment currently consists of Prozac and Risperdal (T.88). education school (T. 88). These needs are met at SCHOOL 1 where there are full time outside counselors and a full time school psychologist; these services wound not be so readily available in a general education setting such as SCHOOL 3. Mr. XXXX, the school psychologist has undergraduate degrees in both psychology and music. He possesses a Masters of Arts degree and a Certificate of Advanced Studies in school psychology. Mr. XXXX is a certified school psychologist and has worked at SCHOOL 1 since 1996. (T. 93-94). Mr. XXXX was admitted as an expert in school psychology. His testimony was complete, informed, accurate and consistent with the other witnesses and the exhibits admitted into evidence in this case, leading me to consider him to be a persuasive witness. Mr. XXXX testified he has worked with the Student since 1999 and that she has made some progress at SCHOOL 1. Mr. XXXX agreed with Ms. XXXX that the student has some paranoid ideations concerning those around her – either at school, driving in cars, or at shopping malls (MCPS Ex. #7 and 11). She does not attempt to interact with her peers (T. 106-7), but chooses associations with staff and other adults (XXXX, T. 78)(MCPS Ex. #7). Mr. XXXX believes that the Student suffers from depression, thought disorder, non-compliance issues, impulse control, and anxiety; these conditions are in need of treatment including medication. Testing confirmed the earlier witness’ testimony (T. 97-101). Mr. XXXX believes that without crisis intervention services available to her, the Student would lose the self-control she has gained, and would continue to strike out against her peers whom she believes (without any proof) intended to harm her (T. 116). Mr. XXXX believes that she is progressing more than she has in previous years due to the structure and personal attention she receives at SCHOOL 1 (T-114), although the “roller coaster” affect was still present. Mr. XXXX believes that if crisis intervention and counseling services were no longer available to her (such as if she were to attend SCHOOL 3), she would not be able to manage due to her anxiety and paranoia (T.118), and her safety would be at issue (T. 119).23 All of these witnesses have well founded, fully supported opinions that the most appropriate placement for this Student is a small, self-contained special education school with a low teacher to student ratio and a professional mental health staff on-hand that can serve a crisis management function for the Student. One of the key elements of this mix is the presence of the XXXX Center staff and a full time school psychologist who services a limited number of students on a full time basis. The student to teacher ratio is also important to the Student’s emotional stability, which is calculated to lead to her availability for education. All of these witnesses agree that placing the student at SCHOOL 3 would be disastrous for the Student due to her emotional fragility and paranoid ideations. VIII. Conclusion.
Within 180 calendar days of the issuance of the hearing decision, any party to the hearing may file an appeal from a final review decision of the Office of Administrative Hearings to the federal District Court for Maryland or to the circuit court for the county in which the student resides. Md. Code Ann., Educ. §8-413(h) (Supp. 2001). Should a party file an appeal of the hearing decision, that party must notify the Assistant State Superintendent for Special Education, Maryland State Department of Education, 200 West Baltimore Street, Baltimore, MD 21201, in writing, of the filing of the court action. The written notification of the filing of the court action must include the OAH case name and number, the date of the decision, and the county circuit or federal district court case name and docket number. The Office of Administrative Hearings is not a party to any review process.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §8