Source: https://www.specialedlaw.com/database/quincy-public-schools-bsea-03-4007/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:22:08+00:00

Document:
On April 16, 2003, Parents filed a hearing request with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) alleging that the Quincy Public Schools’ (Quincy’s or School’s) IEP for April 2003 to April 2004 is not reasonably calculated to provide Student with FAPE. Parents alleged numerous substantive deficiencies in the IEP and services, as well as procedural violations.
On May 1, 2003, Parents filed a Motion for Immediate Interim Services seeking an order for Quincy to provide or fund 14.5 hours per week of Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) therapy as well as monthly monitoring by a specific speech/language therapist, in addition to his then-current preschool program. Parents requested that this interim relief be provided until the earlier of Student’s finishing the steroid treatment he was undergoing at the time or a decision on the merits.
An evidentiary hearing on the Motion was held on May 23 and June 5, 2003, followed immediately by a full hearing on the merits on June 5 and June 11, 2003. Both hearings were held at the office of the BSEA in Malden, MA. Each party was represented by counsel, presented documentary evidence and examined and cross-examined witnesses. The record from the motion hearing is subsumed into the record of the hearing on the merits, and for purposes of this Decision, both matters shall be treated as one proceeding. On June 16, 2003, the Hearing Officer issued a Ruling and Order granting the Parents’ Motion in part and denying it in part.1 This Ruling and Order is attached to and incorporated by reference into this Decision.
The official record of the hearing consists of Parents’ Exhibits 1 through 102, School’s Exhibits 1 through 3; Joint Exhibit J-1; and approximately 15 hours of tape-recorded oral testimony and argument. The parties filed written closing arguments on June 16, 2003 and the record closed on that day.
Student is a three-year-old child with serious developmental delays, especially in language, social-emotional functioning and play skills, and also has behavioral issues, as a result of Landau-Kleffner Syndrome and autism spectrum disorder. Student transitioned from Early Intervention (EI) to the Quincy Public Schools in late April 2003, shortly after his third birthday. At that time Student was receiving approximately 26 hours of EI services per week, including approximately 14 hours of 1:1 instruction using Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA)/Discrete Trial Training (DTT). In addition, at the time of transition, Student was receiving medically supervised steroid treatment that had started in late July 2002. The purpose of steroid treatment, which was expected to finish in or about late summer or early fall of 2003, was to “open him up” to interventions and therapies addressing his skill deficits. At the time of hearing, Student had begun attending the Quincy Public Schools’ preschool at the Della Chiesa Early Childhood Center, where he was spending about 2.5 hours per day each in an integrated preschool classroom and a substantially-separate, intensive special needs program, and also was receiving speech-language therapy, OT, and behavioral services.
The parties agree on Student’s profile, and his eligibility for special education, but dispute whether his IEP and placement are appropriate. The Parents allege that Quincy’s IEP for April 2003 to April 2004 is insufficient to provide Student with FAPE, and seek an intensive, full year, full day, full week program that offers a significant amount of ABA services in addition to daily speech/language, occupational, and physical therapy, and parent training. Parents also allege that Quincy committed procedural violations, and seek compensatory services as well as reimbursement for ABA and speech therapy services that they have obtained privately. Quincy, on the other hand, asserts that its IEP and placement, consisting of a four-day, full day program comprising both integrated and separate classrooms, speech therapy, OT, an aide, and a home behavioral component, provide Student with FAPE, that Student is making progress in the Quincy program, and that it is willing to adjust the program to meet Student’s needs as they emerge and/or evolve. Quincy further asserts that it has complied with all relevant procedural requirements.
2. Whether Quincy complied with relevant statutory and regulatory requirements in conducting Student’s evaluation and developing his IEP; i.e. whether Quincy completed the process within the applicable timelines, ensured Parents’ participation in the TEAM process, complied with the notice requirements of the IDEA and Chapter 766 and issued an IEP that conforms with statutory requirements.
3. Whether Parents are entitled to reimbursement for ABA services that they have obtained privately for Student.
4. Whether Parents are entitled to compensatory services.
Student needs an intensive, five-day, full year program of at least 25 hours per week to address the severe language and social-emotional delays associated with his Landau-Kleffner Syndrome and autism spectrum disorder. Student’s program must include a substantial amount of ABA/DTT therapy, daily speech/language and occupational therapy, and at least five hours per week of a home component, all provided by individuals with experience working with young children with autism. Moreover, as long as Student is undergoing steroid treatment, the same speech therapist who monitored his progress while he was in EI must continue to do so.
Quincy’s IEP and services meet none of these requirements, are not tailored to Student’s individual needs, and do not conform with contemporary standards for programs for children with Student’s profile. As a result, Student has not made appropriate progress in Quincy’s program, and has even regressed. Quincy has acknowledged some of its program’s shortcomings by offering certain additions and modifications during the course of the hearing.
Further, Quincy committed procedural violations by failing to conduct and complete Student’s initial evaluation in a timely manner, to sufficiently consider information from EI providers, to evaluate Student in all areas of suspected need, and to take adequate steps ensure meaningful parental participation in the TEAM process. These violations were substantial and deprived Student of FAPE; therefore, Parents are entitled to reimbursement and compensatory services for Student.
Quincy’s program is appropriate and can meet Student’s needs. The program provides 28 hours of service per week, including both an integrated and a substantially separate, language-based classroom, a 1:1 aide, speech/language, occupational, and music therapy, a home component, and behavioral consultation. The services are appropriate for Student and consistent with the recommendations of Parents’ experts. The staff is highly qualified and includes professionals with training and experience in autism and Landau-Kleffner Syndrome. The program’s individualized and flexible behavioral approach, which incorporates many features of ABA as well as other strategies, is appropriate for Student and consistent with relevant knowledge in the field. On the other hand, the amount of ABA and discrete trial teaching that Parents are seeking would reduce Student’s opportunity to generalize language and other skills.
Further, Student has made progress in Quincy’s program. If his progress slowed, it did so before he entered the program. Moreover, Parents bear some responsibility for Student’s level of performance because they did not send him to school for a time after the program was first offered, and cancelled two speech therapy sessions that Quincy had made available during that period. Additionally, Parents have kept Student in an integrated classroom for half of each day, contrary to the recommendations of Parents’ and School’s experts for a separate, intensive, special needs classroom for the entire day, with gradual introduction of highly supported integration opportunities when Student is ready.
As to procedural claims, Quincy acted appropriately by assessing Student’s needs over time instead of either relying entirely on reports from EI providers or evaluating him six months before his third birthday, in light of how rapidly young children develop and change, and had an IEP and placement ready for Student by his third birthday. Quincy has been and continues to be willing to adjust Student’s program as his needs evolve.
16. ABA is a method of teaching skills or modifying behaviors that involves, among other things, breaking down a skill or behavior into its component parts and teaching the student each component until the student has learned the entire skill, then practicing the skill until the student can perform it independently and generalize it. (Connolly, Avery). The ABA therapist records data showing whether or not the student is actually learning the skills being taught. (Id.) ABA is used to directly instruct people with PDD or ASD on skills that a person without ASD would learn automatically. Discrete trial teaching (DTT) is a type of ABA. ABA/DTT is typically intense and is taught one-on-one. (Id.) The record shows that there is research-based data showing that ABA strategies, including DTT, are effective for teaching some children with autism spectrum disorder. (Duffy, Avery, Connolly) There was no expert testimony that compared the effectiveness of ABA/DTT with other methodologies.
19. Both Parents and Ms. Steinberg found that Student responded positively to the first month of steroid treatment. Mother testified that initially, the change was “amazing.” (Mother) She observed that within weeks of beginning treatment, Student’s eye contact improved. He began using toys appropriately, for example, putting together puzzles, instead of chewing, mouthing and dumping toys as he had done previously. He became more focused, attentive and more responsive to his name. Ms. Steinberg’s report of her observation of August 26, 2002, describes improvement in eye contact as “significant” and “marked” during rough and active play. She additionally found that Student could take turns rolling a ball, stack 8 blocks in a tower after watching her do the same, help put away toys, and allow her to interrupt and join his play. He followed the therapist’s lead in putting toy people in a toy bus, but it was not clear whether he was following her verbal directions or was responding to what he saw the therapist doing with the toys. Student spent about 6-7 minutes in each play activity with Ms. Steinberg, with some “self-stimming” behavior between activities. He babbled through the session but with no new sounds. (P3-1).
34. Quincy conducted the initial TEAM meeting on March 19, 2003. Parents did not receive advance written notice of the meeting but did attend. Also in attendance were Parents’ advocate, an ABA therapist from HMEA, Student’s EI service coordinator (Michele Glidden) the classroom teacher for the Intensive Special Needs Class (ISNC) at the Della Chiesa Early Childhood Center (Susan Haberstroh), the Quincy school psychologist (Ingeborg Damm-Luhr, Ph.D.), and speech/language therapist (Ellen Ridge). In addition to the reports of the psychological and speech-language evaluations, the TEAM was provided with reports and letters from Student’s service providers. These included progress reports from HMEA, and as well as letters from Dr. Avery, Dr. Duffy, and Dr. Irons (Student’s pediatrician).
36. Based on her observation and reviews, Dr. Damm-Luhr recommended intensive, very small group intervention, in a highly structured preschool program with unspecified additional services. She stated that Student seemed to learn most effectively through individual instruction, hand over hand demonstration, and constant repetition, with variation in his program introduced gradually and with repetition. (P21-4).
41. No member of the Quincy TEAM observed Student in any of his EI settings (toddler group, home-based therapies or ABA session).
42. Neither the PT nor OT evaluations had been completed prior to the TEAM meeting but were completed later.
45. This IEP contains three goals related to pre-academic, visual motor, social interaction/play, and communication skills, and offers a 4-day per week placement in a substantially separate preschool program for intensive special needs (the intensive special needs class or ISNC), at the Della Chiesa Early Childhood Center, with pullout speech therapy for two half-hour sessions per week. (P8, P19) The service delivery grid is blank in sections A (“Consultation”) and B (direct service in general classroom). Section C lists “Educational” services with frequency listed as “ongoing,” and speech and language for two, 30-minute sessions per 4-day cycle. (P19-9).
· Consistent implementation of behavioral principals and close monitoring.
(P20-11, 12, 13, 14; Avery) Dr. Avery’s evaluation was made available to both parties after the start of the hearing and was not considered by the TEAM.
The HMEA discharge report recommends several hours per week of 1:1 ABA teaching with a discrete trial format, along with systematic evaluation of progress through collection and analysis of data. The report further recommends opportunities to observe and imitate the behavior of typical peers and adults in an integrated preschool setting, as well as daily speech, occupational, and physical therapy. (P15) It is not clear when and whether the recommendations were shared with the TEAM.
68. At about 10:30 AM, Student’s aide takes him to the ISNC where he spends the remainder of the day.9 Student is pulled out of class for speech therapy twice per week for 30 minutes with Ms. O’Brien, who also spends time in the classroom. (O’Brien) Student also is pulled out for OT. (Haberstroh) Parents and staff communicate via a daily communication log that goes back and forth with Student. (P36).
73. At the time of hearing, neither Ms. Haberstroh nor any staff member working with her class was using discrete trials with Student at the Della Chiesa Center. (Haberstroh) Ms. Haberstroh testified that based on her experience, DTT, at least when used in home-based 1:1 sessions, is overly prompt-dependent and artificial and that children do not easily generalize skills learned in the sessions. She is not aware of scientific studies or articles reaching this conclusion or comparing the two techniques. (Haberstroh).
78. Ms. O’Brien also testified that she consults to the ISNC, although it was not clear what her consultation services are for Student.
82. Dr. Avery found that Quincy’s program, particularly the inclusion component, does not provide sufficient or intense enough adult support and supervision (i.e., she observed too much “down time” when the children were directed to play, but when Student just wandered and “stimmed”). She further found that the total communication approach with visual supports is not consistently in place; behavioral interventions are not as consistent as Student requires, the FBA had not been completed, and the in-home behavioral component was insufficient. (This is the component that Quincy increased to three hours per week). Dr. Avery both stated in her report and testified that Student does not yet have the skills for extended time in the integrated setting, although he can benefit from gradual, supported inclusion opportunities. (Avery, P10-5).
87. On May 23, 2003, Caren Steinberg again assessed Student’s language progress in conjunction with his steroid therapy. Ms. Steinberg reported that Student “appears to have lost some receptive skills that he as demonstrated but is still able to demonstrate some imitation skills necessary for expressive language…His lack of progress at this time is of concern and should be addressed in his current educational setting with individual 1:1 intervention.” During Ms. Steinberg’s observation, Student waved good-bye to his mother with a prompt, easily put together an unfamiliar 10-piece puzzle, responded to the verbal and gestural prompt of “more” but did not sign “more” spontaneously, did not point to pictures of familiar animals when names, but did try to imitate initial sounds for animals when cued verbally, visually and with tactile prompts to lips. He pulled the therapist’s hands to indicate that he wanted more of a push-pull play activity. Ms. Steinberg commented that “this was a positive social and language interaction demonstrating clear intention and desire.” (P11) The record does not show whether the Quincy TEAM received a copy of Ms. Steinberg’s evaluation.
Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, as well as the applicable law, I conclude that Quincy’s IEP and services are reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free, appropriate public education, if modified to include some of the relief requested by Parents.
Specifically, Parents have shown by a preponderance of evidence that Student needs a behaviorally-based, twelve-month, five-day, full-day program with a significant component of ABA/DTT therapy (as well as other services) in order to receive FAPE. The record shows that while Quincy’s program contains many of the elements that Student needs, it will not provide FAPE to Student unless it is expanded and modified to incorporate one additional day of service per week, increased ABA therapy which may include discrete trials, increased support for the inclusion portion of the program, and a full time summer program that does not end several weeks before the start of the regular school year. Parents have not shown that Student needs daily direct speech/language, occupational or physical therapy.
I find further that Quincy committed some procedural violations but is not liable for compensatory service because the violations were de minimis and did not contribute to a denial of FAPE. Finally, Parents are entitled to be reimbursed for the costs they incurred to provide private ABA therapy from the time they began doing so after Student’s third birthday until implementation of the Order for Interim Services of May 16, 2003. My reasoning follows.
The parties agree that Student is a school-aged child with a disability who is eligible for special education and related services pursuant to the IDEA, 20 USC Section 1400, et seq ., and the Massachusetts special education statute, G.L. c. 71B (“Chapter 766”). Therefore, Student is entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE) as defined in federal and state law. Effective January 2002, the Massachusetts special Chapter 766 has incorporated the federal FAPE standard for determining whether special education services are appropriate; thus, to determine if a child’s program is appropriate under state law, it is necessary to examine the relevant federal statutory provisions and case law, in conjunction with pertinent state statutes, regulations, case law, and agency interpretations.
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 an properly developed IEP. 20 USC Sec. 1401; 34 CFR Sec. 300.13. The state statute defines FAPE as special education and related services that conform to 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.
In general, FAPE encompasses substantive appropriateness, 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. Some federal courts have held that “effective results” and “demonstrable improvement” should be measured in light of the student’s individual potential. See , e.g ., Houston Independent School District v. Bobby R ., 200 F.3d 341 (5 th Cir. 2000). On the other hand, the IDEA does not require districts to maximize a student’s potential, but rather to assure access to a public education and the opportunity for meaningful educational benefit. Lenn , 998 F.3d at 1091; G.D. v. Westmoreland School District , 930 F.2d 942 (1 st Cir. 1991).
In Massachusetts, the Department of Education (DOE) has issued a memorandum analyzing the effect of the Commonwealth’s adoption of the federal FAPE standard. See Massachusetts DOE Administrative Advisory SPED 2002-1: Guidance on the change…from “maximum possible development” to “free appropriate public education” (“FAPE”), Effective January 1, 2002 (November 20, 2001) (“DOE Advisory” ) In this memorandum, DOE has commented that “court decisions make clear that FAPE is not a minimal or trivial standard.” Id . Moreover, according to DOE, one of the Legislature’s intentions in amending Chapter 766, in addition to adopting the federal FAPE standard, was to bring students with disabilities within the scope of the Massachusetts Education Reform Act, which “underscores the Commonwealth’s commitment to assist all students to reach their full educational potential. Improving educational outcomes for students with disabilities is a goal of the state and federal special education laws, and improving educational outcomes for all students, including students with disabilities, is central to education reform” Id .
Additionally, DOE has interpreted the state statutory and regulatory educational standards referred to in G.L. c. 71B, Sec. 1 to include not only the special education regulations but also the state curriculum frameworks, promulgated pursuant to the Education Reform Act, such that all Massachusetts public school students, “including students with disabilities, are entitled to the opportunity to learn the material…in the Massachusetts curriculum frameworks.” Id .
Under both federal and state law, FAPE requires schools to educate eligible students in the least restrictive environment, i.e., to the extent appropriate, with children who do not have disabilities. 20 U.S.C. 1412(5)(A).
Finally, FAPE also entails complying with the procedural requirements of the IDEA. These requirements, among other things, are designed to ensure that IEPs are written by duly constituted TEAMs, with meaningful parental participation, and that services are delivered in a timely manner. 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). Thus, for example, “a procedural default which permits a disabled child’s entitlement to a free and appropriate education to go unmet for two years constitutes sufficient ground for liability under the IDEA.” 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).
If parents of an eligible disabled child can prove that their district’s IEP and services do not provide FAPE, they may be reimbursed for the costs of unilaterally obtaining a private program or services, if they also can prove that the private services are appropriate. 20 USC Sec. 1415 (d)(2)(H), School Committee of Town of Burlington v. Dept. of Education of Mass ., 471 U.S. 359, 369-70 (1985). Thus, if a school offers inappropriate services that do not provide FAPE, the school may be required to reimburse a parent for the costs of a unilateral placement or services that are appropriate, i.e., that are “appropriately responsive to [a student’s] special needs;” so that the student can benefit educationally. Matthew J. v. Mass. Dept. of Education , 989 F. Supp. at 387, 27 IDELR 339 at 343-344 (1998), citing Florence County School District Four v. Carter , 510 US 7, 13 (1993); Doe v. West Boylston School Committee , 28 IDELR 1182 (D. Mass., 1998); In Re Gill-Montague RSD , BSEA #01-1222 (Crane, August 2001).
Here, the parties basically agree on Student’s profile as well as on his need for an intensive program to address his identified needs. The major substantive dispute is whether Quincy’s program is appropriate, such that Student is making meaningful progress in the program as constituted, or whether Student requires a program meeting the Parents’ description, i.e., a year-round, full-day, five-day per week program; with a significant amount of individual, home-based ABA/DTT services; and daily speech-language and occupational therapy, and a home component of at least five hours per week. If Student either does not require these services, or if Quincy already is providing them, the inquiry stops.
If not, then the issues are (a) whether Quincy must provide, prospectively, the program requested by the Parents; (b) whether it can do so by modifying the current program; and (c) whether Parents are entitled to reimbursement for the private ABA services because they were obtained in the face of an inappropriate IEP and also were/are reasonably tailored to meet Student’s special educational needs.
The parties also dispute whether Quincy committed procedural violations that deprived Student of FAPE, in which case Parents may be entitled to compensatory service, or whether Quincy complied with the procedural requirements in evaluating Student and developing his IEP.
There is less evidence about the integrated preschool program, but the record does show that the integrated preschool teacher, Ms. Gargano, is dually certified in early childhood and special education with specialized training in ABA, sign language, behavioral strategies, and communication systems, uses sign language throughout the day, and various behavioral strategies with Student. Student has an aide at all times, including in the integrated classroom. (P12, P10, P36).
Based on the totality of the evidence, however, Student’s program will have to be modified by adding a substantial number of hours of 1:1 ABA training that may include discrete trial training. The IEP and placement as constituted at the time of hearing do not offer sufficient individual ABA services, in the face of a preponderance of evidence that Student needs a substantial amount of such service to make meaningful progress. In addition, Student requires a five-day, twelve-month program. The record also shows that Student needs additional support in the inclusion part of the program. Thus, to provide FAPE, Quincy must expand or augment its program for Student to provide this level of service as well as to increase support to the inclusion program. On the other hand, the record does not establish that Student needs more direct speech therapy, OT, or PT than he currently is receiving.
The uncontradicted testimony and reports of Drs. Duffy and Avery, and speech therapist Caren Steinberg, as well as of Student’s former service providers from EI as to Student’s clearly show that Student needs and benefits from a substantial amount of daily, or nearly daily, individual ABA therapy.
Additionally, Student showed improved response to his other EI services (speech therapy, toddler group, etc.) after he started receiving home-based ABA/DTT therapy, and his progress increased with the amount and intensity of ABA services.11 The reports and testimony of Drs. Duffy and Avery, as well as Caren Steinberg’s reports, are consistent with those of the EI providers. (Glidden, Mother, Duffy, Avery, P2, P3, P14, P15, P20, P30, P31, P34).
To summarize, every professional who worked with Student before he turned three, from Step One, HMEA, and Children’s Hospital, supports Student’s receiving ABA as a significant component of Student’s program. (Duffy, Avery, Glidden, P15) These witnesses and others base their opinions on both their professional experience and their experience with Student over time.
Based on the foregoing, I conclude that the Parents have proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a significant portion of Student’s educational program must include individualized ABA services, including discrete trial training, if he is to make meaningful educational progress.
It is less clear how the ABA services should fit in with the remainder of Student’s school day, especially since as of the hearing he already was receiving five hours per day, four days per week in the language-based classrooms and inclusion classrooms plus two hours per week of in-home service, for a total of 22 hours per week, that would increase to 23 hours with the addition of another hour of Ms. Connolly’s behavioral services. In her report of May 2003, Dr. Avery stated that student should receive at least 25 hours of service per week, up to 50% of which (12.5 hours) should be 1:1 ABA. Dr. Avery also testified that as many as 30 total weekly service hours per week might be appropriate. Ms. Connolly testified that Student should receive a total of 27 to 28 hours per week of service, including about 3 hours of home-based therapy.
I conclude that Student should have 27 or 28 hours per week of services as recommended by Ms. Kerry, as this figure would meet the recommendations of professionals who testified for both parties. (Avery, Connolly). I also conclude that this should include a substantial amount of 1:1 ABA instruction, with close coordination among Parents, ABA providers, teachers, and other service providers. This conclusion is based on Student’s positive response to ABA while he was in EI, which response improved as the number of hours of instruction increased. Additionally, Dr. Avery was persuasive that Student works well in the 1:1 format and can become dysregulated, self-stimulatory and lose learning opportunities outside of the 1:1 setting.
However, there is not enough evidence on the record for me to determine how many hours of ABA services Student should receive. Student had only been in a school setting for a few weeks. Student’s functional behavioral assessment (FBA) had not been completed, and so the results were not available. Further, Student’s steroid dosage was being tapered, and he had been having problems with medication side effects. What the record does show, however, is that Student needs a significant amount of ABA for FAPE, and that this should be an integral, rather than peripheral, part of his program. Therefore, the TEAM should determine how much 1:1 behavioral intervention Student needs, based on current information. Part of that information will now be Student’s response to the 12.5 hours per week of ABA that was ordered after the Motion hearing in this case.
Parents have requested home, rather than school-based ABA; however there is no evidence that either setting is more or less appropriate than the other. Therefore, the TEAM should determine the location, as well as the amount, of the ABA service, and also determine how Student’s time should be allocated between classroom and individual services within the above parameters.
Parent has not demonstrated that Student needs direct speech, OT and PT on a daily basis; therefore, I decline to order these. However, Dr. Avery testified without contradiction that speech/language strategies needed to be implemented more consistently in the classroom settings. (Avery) Again, the TEAM should develop a plan to achieve this goal, perhaps with increased consultation and/or meetings among all service providers.
The record establishes that Student needs a full-year program. (Duffy, Avery) Student has serious needs and regressed when he went without more that a few hours of service for only two or three weeks in April 2003. Quincy does not dispute that Student needs an extended school year (ESY) program. However, the ESY program that Quincy offers is only five weeks long. Quincy has presented no evidence that the short length of its summer program meets Student’s needs, or that the ESY schedule was developed to meet those needs. Therefore, Quincy must ensure that Student’s ESY program lasts for the entire summer, so that Student receives the full 12 months of programming recommended by the various evaluators must be provided with a full, 12-month program. Similarly, the evidence shows that Student needs to be in school five days per week. Quincy’s program is only four days per week, for administrative reasons not related to Student’s needs. Therefore, Student must be provided with a fifth day of service.
Parents assert that Quincy failed to evaluate Student in a timely manner, denied Parents meaningful participation in the IEP process, and failed to adequately consider the reports of Student’s Early Intervention providers. The record shows, however, that while Quincy may have committed some procedural violations, these either did not deprive Student of FAPE or caused de minimis deprivation that was or is subject to correction via the May 16 Order or by the prospective relief in this Decision. Murphy v. Timberlane at 22 F.3d 1196.
Specifically, pursuant to 603 CMR 28.04(1)(d), Quincy was required to evaluate Student in October 2002 upon receiving Parents’and Step One’s initial referrals, as Student had reached age 2.5 years. However, even though Quincy delayed evaluating Student until March 2003, contrary to the requirements of this regulation, it did complete much of the evaluation (except for the FBA, OT and PT assessments), find Student eligible, and issue an IEP in time to start special education services by his third birthday as required by this same regulation as well as by 34 CFR Secs. 300.121(c) and 132. The OT and PT evaluations were completed shortly after his third birthday. The FBA was in process during the hearing. I conclude that the delay in evaluating Student either did not deprive him of FAPE, or, to the extent that it did, did so for a minimal amount of time, and that such deprivation has been and will be rectified as described above.
Parents also contend that the IEP was flawed in that it did not, among other things, state a specific number of hours for the length of the school day, and did not specify objectives for OT and behavioral support (see Finding No. 48.) The federal regulations at 34 CFR Sec. 300.347(a) require IEPs to state goals and objectives as well as the special education and related services that will be provided to enable the child to advance towards attaining annual goals, progress in the general curriculum and participate with non-disabled children. State regulations at 603 CMR 28.05(3) and (4) have similar requirements and, in addition, require a specific statement of reasons if the child’s school day is shorter or longer than the regular school day. Id. at 28.05(4)(d). I conclude that the IEP should have stated goals and objectives for OT and behavioral support. Again, however, if there was a deprivation of FAPE, it was minimal and/or has been corrected with the Interim Order, and/or the Order in this Decision. Specifically, to provide the behavioral services ordered, Quincy would have to complete an FBA. Also, there is no evidence that Student would not be receiving appropriate PT and OT services if needed. In addition, although Quincy did not adopt all findings of the evaluators from EI, they were not required to do so, and the record does not establish that Quincy failed to consider information that was made available at the time of the TEAM meeting. See 20 USC Sec. 1414(d)(B); 34 CFR Sec. 300.342(c).
Although Quincy did not issue the written notice of the initial TEAM meeting required by 20 USC Sec. 1414(d)(1(B)(1) and 34 CFR Sec. 300.345(a) and (b), Parents actually participated in TEAM meetings as well as other, informal meetings with Quincy staff. The failure to issue written notice was, therefore, a technical violation that did not deprive Student of FAPE.
Because Quincy did not offer significant ABA services in its initial IEP, Parents are entitled to be reimbursed for out of pocket expenses for ABA services from Student’s third birthday up to and including implementation of the Order of May 16, 2003 (exclusive, of course, of services that Quincy already paid for, See Finding No. 55). Burlington at 471 U.S. 369-70. Parents did not file a motion for implementation of that Order or otherwise indicate to the BSEA that Quincy had failed to provide appropriate ABA services, therefore, there is no basis to reimburse Parents for any services that they might have paid for after that point.
Quincy shall modify Student’s IEP and placement for April 2003 through April 2004 to add ABA services, expand the ESY program, and provide additional inclusion support as described above. Quincy shall also reimburse Parents for expenses for privately funded ABA services from Student’s third birthday up to and including implementation of the Order of May 16, 2003. As Quincy did not commit any procedural violations that deprived Student of FAPE, Parents are not entitled to compensatory relief.
In sum, the Order granted Parents’ request for ABA/DTT therapy in addition to Student’s then-current services, having concluded that Parents had demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm if ABA services were not reinstituted pending the end of steroid therapy or a final decision. Parents’ request for speech- language consultation was also granted; however, the request for a specific, named speech/language consultant was denied, as the hearing officer found that any properly credentialed, and disinterested speech/therapist could perform the functions at issue, as long as the substitute monitoring therapist received sufficient transition information from the initial therapist.
Student’s birth date is April 3, 2000. He aged out of EI on his third birthday, April 3, 2003. He reached age 2.5 on October 3, 2002.
The Step One speech-language therapist wrote a synopsis of Student’s progress in January 2003, and recommended continued speech-language therapy after age 3, but did not report results of formal testing. (P34) The record does not show whether or not the Quincy TEAM had received the report.
As of the January 2003 report, Student’s ABA programs in progress included numerous specific skills including gross motor imitation, imitation of block building patterns, looking in response to point cue, imitating actions with objects, making choices of objects, identifying body parts, matching, responding to commands, and verbal imitation. Mastered programs included responding to his name, visually scanning shapes, and responding to “come here.” P31-4, 5.
Parent also introduced two other articles: Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General , Chapter 3, “Other Mental Disorders in Children and Adolescents…Autism.” (Undated) (“Surgeon General’s report”), (P38); Smith, Tristam, Outcome of Early Intervention for Children with Autism , Clinical Psychology : Science and Practice, Vol. 6, No. 1 (Spring 1999) (P41) No testimony was offered on these articles, however.
Some of the testimony in this case involved the relative merits of discrete trial training versus naturalistic teaching moments. (Avery, Haberstroh, Connolly, Duffy, Glidden) It would be a mistake to characterize this case as a dispute over methodology, however, as, in the final analysis, the parties agreed that Student needs a flexible approach incorporating many recognized strategies. While I am persuaded by the evidence that he needs more 1:1 behavioral services than he is getting, and that these services should include ABA therapy, I neither criticize “naturalistic teacher moments” nor attempt to dictate methodology, so long as the approaches used are helping Student. The conclusion simply is that 1:1 ABA therapy is necessary as part of a total package of services for Student , along with speech/language therapy, OT, etc.
Ms. Connolly is to be commended for putting forward her professional view of Student’s needs even though this led her to depart, somewhat, from her employer’s initial litigation position. Quincy also should be commended for adding behavioral services in response to Ms. Connolly’s testimony rather than attempting to discredit her opinion.
Since Quincy is not liable for compensatory services, I need not address the effect on such liability of Parents’ brief delay in sending Student to school in April 2003.

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