Source: https://www.specialedlaw.com/database/ross-v-hampden-wilbraham-regional-school-district-bsea-08-0880/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:22:04+00:00

Document:
This decision is rendered pursuant to M.G.L. Chapters 30A and 71B; 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.; 29 U.S.C. §794; and the regulations promulgated under these statutes.
A hearing in the above-entitled matter was held on January 19, 2008 (partial day); March 3, 4, 10 & 12, 2008; April 16 & 29, 2008; May 30, 2008 and June 23, 2008. A final day of rebuttal hearing scheduled for July 30, 2008 was cancelled by Parents. The record remained open for receipt of written closing arguments until August 25, 2008.
The evidence consisted of Parents Exhibits labeled P-1 through P-60; School Exhibits labeled S-1 through S-96; and approximately 32 ½ hours of oral testimony.
Ross has been extensively evaluated. (See P-21, 24; S-1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 66.) The most recent evaluations were performed by HW in January-March 2007 (P-21, 24; S-7, 8, 9, 10, 11). Ross was also independently evaluated by Dr. Rebecca (Ettelson) Anderson on August 27, 2007 (S-66).
1. Does/did HW’s proposed IEP for Ross from October 2007 to October 2008 appropriately address his special education needs so as to provide him with a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive educational environment?
2. If not does/did Parents’ unilateral placement of Ross at RCS appropriately address his special education needs so as to provide him with FAPE in the least restrictive educational environment?
3. What liability, if any, does HW have for the time period that no IEP was proposed for Ross from March 2007 until October 2007?
4. Is HW responsible to provide compensatory services/reimbursement for Ross back to the summer of 2005?
Parents’ position is that HW’s proposed IEP for Ross from October 2007 to October 2008 is/was inappropriate to address his special education needs so as to provide him with FAPE in the least restrictive educational environment. Parents contend that their unilateral placement of Ross at RCS for the 2007 summer and the 2007-2008 school year is/was appropriate to provide him with FAPE in the least restrictive educational environment. Parents contend that HW is also liable for the time period from March 2007 when Ross’ last accepted HW IEP expired until the new IEP was promulgated in October 2007. Finally, Parents contend that HW is responsible for providing compensatory services/reimbursement for services privately provided to Ross by Parents during the 2005, 2006 and 2007 summers as well as during the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 school years.
HW’s position is that its proposed IEP for Ross from October 2007 to October 2008 is/was appropriate to address his special education needs so as to provide him with FAPE in the least restrictive educational environment. HW contends that Parents’ unilateral placement of Ross at RCS for the 2007 summer and the 2007-2008 school year was inappropriate and overly restrictive to address his special education needs so as to provide him with FAPE in the least restrictive educational environment. HW contends that it is not liable for the time period between the expiration of Ross’ last accepted IEP in March 2007 and the promulgation of a new IEP in October 2007 because of Parents’ actions in delaying the team process. Finally HW contends that it is not responsible for providing Parents compensatory services/reimbursement for services provided privately by Parents from the summer of 2005 onward.
Although he is making small steady gains in his skills, he continues to present with significant delays in his communications.
[Ross] continues to progress in his speech and language development. Based upon this battery of assessments he has a wealth of skills.
Summary/Recommendations: At this time [Ross] is accessing the PE curriculum as well as gross motor activities at recess with supervision and only occasional modifications. He is participating fully in every PE class. [Ross] currently has the ability to meet the requirements of the PE class and is able access the playground equipment. At this time, no direct physical therapy services are recommended. Consultation will be provided as needed to assist with any PE activities that require modification.
Parents propose that RCS is/was the appropriate educational placement for Ross. RCS is a Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (MDESE) approved private day school program located in Natick, MA. RCS provides behavioral and educational services for children with autism spectrum disorder and other developmental disabilities. RCS services students ages 6-14. Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) is the major treatment modality employed in all RCS programs. The verbal behavior model for teaching communications and language skills is also utilized, as is incidental teaching between intensive teaching sessions to promote generalization of skills. Programs are individualized to fit each student’s particular needs and learning style. Data is collected in all areas. Students receive 1:1 or 1:2 instruction within the classroom. Teachers have at least a bachelor’s degree and are referred to as behavior therapists. Supervisors are masters level special education teachers and/or board certified behavior analysts (BCBA). Speech-language therapists and occupational therapists consult to teachers and supervisors but behavior therapists/teachers carry out speech-language therapy and occupational therapy recommendations. Curriculum in focused on the development of language, academics, self-help, play, and social skills.
HW proposes that, pursuant to its October 2007 to October 2008 IEP, a partial inclusion program at HW’s Green Meadows Elementary School in Hampden, MA is/was the appropriate educational placement for Ross. Under this proposed IEP Ross would receive the following special education services within a special education classroom (Grid C): reading skills daily for 45 minutes; writing skills daily for 45 minutes; math skills daily for 30 minutes; and speech-language therapy for 30 minutes per day. Ross would receive the following special education services in the regular education 4 th grade classroom (Grid B): science support for 40 minutes per day; social studies support for 40 minutes per day; related arts support for 30 minutes per day. At all times whether in the special education class, regular education class, related arts classes, lunch, recess, in transition between classes, or during his 2008 summer program Ross would be accompanied by his 1:1 assistant. Consultation to Ross’ service providers would consist of consultation/observation by a behavior analyst for one hour twice per week and consultation by a speech-language pathologist, occupational therapist and physical therapist each for ½ hour once per month. Parental consultation from the special education staff would take place once weekly for one hour and there would also be a monthly meeting between all staff working with Ross and Parents for one hour.
It is undisputed by the parties and confirmed by the evidence presented that Ross is a student with special education needs as defined under state and federal statutes and regulations. The parties are in substantial agreement regarding the nature and manifestations of Ross’ special education needs. The fundamental issues in dispute are listed under ISSUES IN DISPUTE , above.
I. The Individual Education Plan proposed by the Hampden-Wilbraham Regional School district for Ross for the period of October 24, 2007 to October 23, 2008 was/is appropriate to address Ross’ special education needs so as to provide him with a free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive education environment.
II. Hampden-Wilbraham Regional School District is not financially responsible for any part of Parents’ unilateral placement of Ross at Realizing Children’s Strengths Learning Center.
III. Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case HW has no liability for the time period that no IEP was proposed for Ross from March 2007 until October 2007.
IV. HW is not responsible to provide compensatory services/reimbursement for Ross back to the summer of 2005.
Pursuant to Schaeffer v. Weast 126 S. Ct. 528 (2005) the United States Supreme Court has placed the burden of proof in special education administrative hearings upon the party seeking relief. Therefore, in the instant case, Parents bear the burden of proof in demonstrating that HW’s proposed IEP is inappropriate to address Ross’ special education needs so as to provide him with FAPE in the least restrictive educational environment. Parents have failed to meet that burden.
I find it highly significant that no professional who has either taught and/or evaluated Ross has recommended that his special education needs require an out of district placement. Indeed, even Dr. Anderson, who independently evaluated Ross in August 2007 and knew that he was attending RCS, did not recommend that Ross required an out of district placement. (See S-66.) Subsequently, when Dr. Anderson was asked by Parents’ attorney to provide a written summary of the recommendation after her attendance at Ross’s October 2007 team meeting, Dr. Anderson again did not recommend an out of district placement for Ross. (See P-51; S-83.)6 Dr. Magiure, who testified on behalf of Parents, performed no evaluations of Ross and has never taught Ross (testimony Maguire).
There is nothing within the voluminous exhibits that indicates any educational or clinical recommendation that Ross required an out of district placement prior to the commencement of this hearing. The only 2 witnesses to testify for Parents were Mother and Dr. Maguire. No one from RCS testified at this hearing. Dr. Maguire testified that he did not become involved in this case until October 2007, which was after Ross had already been unilaterally placed by Parents at RCS for the 2007-2008 school year (testimony, Maguire). Therefore, based upon written exhibits and oral testimony presented at this hearing, Parents placed Ross at RCS for both the 2007 summer and the 2007-2008 school year with no professional recommendation that Ross required an out of district placement.
Dr. Maguire has impressive behavioral credentials and has extensive experience as a behaviorist (P-55; testimony Maguire). However, he was unable to observe Ross at Green Meadows because Ross had already been placed at RCS. When Dr. Maguire attended the second session of Ross’ team meeting on October 24, 2007 he had never even met Ross. Except at that team meeting Dr. Maguire never spoke with any of Ross’ service providers or evaluators from HW, nor with Dr. Anderson, the independent evaluator. He first observed Ross on November 2, 2007 at RCS and over 2 dates on November 2, 2007 and January 15, 2008 only for a total of 1 ½ hours. As stated above, he has never evaluated Ross (See testimony, Maguire.) Given the above amount of involvement with Ross, all occurring essentially “after the fact”, I am unable to accord Dr. Maguire’s testimony and recommendations significant weight.
A significant amount of testimony revolved around a June 4, 2007 incident which greatly upset Mother (testimony, Mother). On that date Ross perseverated on an item/task in his regular education 3 rd grade classroom, was unable to overcome it, and his behavior esculated. Ms. Thomas, consultant from May was observing that day. It was decided that Ross should be escorted out of the classroom, down the corridor and into the principal’s air conditioned conference room which had 3 doors and lots of windows. Ross was accompanied down the corridor and into the conference room by his 1:1, Ms. DeGray, Ms. Thomas, and Ms. Orr. In the conference room Ms. Orr was replaced by Ms. Hildreth. Ross remained in the conference room for about 40 minutes with Ms. DeGray, Ms. Thomas, and/or Ms. Hildreth talking to him until he calmed down and finished his work. He then had lunch and returned to class. This was the only such incident over the entire 2006-2007 school year in HW with Ross. (See testimony, Thomas; DeGray; Orr; Hildreth; Thompson.) I find nothing improper in the way this incident was handled. In fact, I conclude that it was handled in a low key, respectful manner.
In summary, I conclude that HW’s October 2007 to October 2008 IEP (S-81) and January 2008 IEP Amendment (S-95) are/were appropriate to address Ross’ special education needs so as to provide him FAPE in the least restrictive educational environment – that is/was, a partial inclusion program at Green Meadows Elementary School. Numerous teaching methodologies (including ABA, direct teaching and incidental teaching) are utilized along with a number of different teaching systems (including Edmark-reading and Touch-math) all of which have been effective with Ross in the past. Ross would spend approximately ½ of his day receiving special education instruction in the intensive resource room and approximately ½ of his day integrated into regular 4 th grade where he can continue his progress in peer modeling and interactions, socialization skills, and generalization of skills. I conclude that HW’s IEP/IEP Amendment comprehensively and intensively addresses Ross’ special education needs while allowing him to be educated in the least restrictive educational environment consistent with the provision of FAPE. HW’s IEP/IEP Amendment is entirely consistent with state and federal special education law.
(III) caused a deprivation of educational benefits.
special education law may be liable for compensatory services only where the procedural irregularities have compromised the pupil’s right to an appropriate education or caused a depivation of educational benefits, Roland M. v. Concord School Committee 910 F.2d 983 (1 st Cir. 1990). Compensatory services are basically a remedy to make up to a student what was lost as a result of not having received the requisite special education services, and is an equitable remedy involving discretion in determining what relief is appropriate after considering all aspects of the case. Phil v. Mass. Dept. of Education 9 F.3d 184 (1 st Cir. 1993). Violations that do not deprive a child of FAPE do not entitle parents to compensatory relief. Murphy v. Timberlane Regional School District 22 F. 3d 1186 (1 st Cir. 1994); Pihl v. Mass. Dept. of Education , supra. The development of an IEP is a collaborative effort and it is not proper to hold a school district liable for the procedural violation of failing to complete an IEP when such failure was caused by the lack of cooperation and obstruction of the parent of the IEP process and such obstruction can relieve a school from its obligation to have an IEP in place. MM v. School District of Greenville County 303 F. 3d 523 (4 th Cir. 2002); Lessard v. Wilton Lyndelborough 518 F. 3d 18 (1 st Cir. 2008); Roland M. v. Concord School Committee , supra.
liability for the March to October 2007 time period when no IEP was in place for Ross. Parents’ actions cancelling team meetings at the last minute or simply not attending scheduled team meetings for which they received adequate notice (and when all other team members were already assembled), and Parents not attending a resolution meeting that was specifically requested by their own attorney, were precisely the reasons that no IEP was proposed for Ross in a timely manner. (See HISTORY/STATEMENT OF THE CASE , above; testimony, Tobias; Mother.) Further, Ross continued to function under his expired but last accepted IEP and he continued to receive all such services until the end of the 2006-2007 school year. This last accepted IEP (P-35; S-18), like prior IEPs, had a provision for extended school year services (summer services) which Parent could have accessed but chose not to, instead placing Ross at RCS for the 2007 summer. In summary, this time gap and HW’s actions in postponing the team meetings in order to ensure Parents’ participation did not impede Ross’ right to FAPE, impede Parents’ right to participate in the team process, or deprive Ross of educational benefit. Therefore, HW owes no compensatory services or reimbursement for this period.
20 U.S.C. §1415 (f)(3) provides for a two year statute of limitations under the IDEA. Parents can reach back two years from the date of the filing of the hearing request. Therefore, all claims prior to August 3, 2005 are barred by the above statute of limitations.
Further, except for the current, rejected October 2007 to October 2008 IEP in dispute, all of Ross’s prior IEPs were accepted by Parents and they all have expired as accepted IEPs . Both the courts and the BSEA have repeatedly held that Hearing Officers are precluded from revisiting/re-opening accepted IEPs that have expired where parents have participated in the development of the IEP; parents have received notice of their options for rejection of an IEP and proceeding to a due process hearing; parents have chosen to accept the IEP; and parents have never rejected the IEP during its term. See Chris A. v. Stow Public Schools , 16 EHLR 1304 (MA 1990), affirmed on appeal, Amann v. Stow School, System 982 F.2d 644 at 651 (1992). See also Burlington v. Department of Education , 471 U.S. 359 at 373 (1985); Amherst-Pelham Regional School District v. Department of Education , 376 Mass. 480 at 483 (1978). Manchester School District v. Christopher B. , 19 IDELR 143 at 147 (DNH); In re: Marblehead Public Schools , 7 MSER 176 at 180 (SEA Mass 2002); In re: Fairhaven Public Schools , 12 MSER 95 (SEA Mass 2006). In re: Hopkinton Public Schools 13 MSER 234 (2007).
Based upon the above, HW is not responsible to provide compensatory services/reimbursement to Parents for parentially obtained private services back to August 3, 2005.
II. Hampden-Wilbraham Regional School District is not financially responsible for any part of Parents’ unilateral placement of Student at Realizing Children’s Strenghs Learning Center.
III. Based upon the facts and circumstances of this case, HW has no liability for the time period that no IEP was proposed for Ross from March 2007 until October 2007.
Ross is a pseudonym chosen by the Hearing Officer to protect the privacy of the student in publicly available documents.
By the conclusion of testimony in this case, Ross had turned 11 years old. Ross and his family now reside in Wellesley, MA (Parents closing brief).
Two other dates were scheduled but not utilized due to Parents’ attorney’s: 1) illness in family and 2) being called into court on an emergency matter in which she was issued a protective order by the court.
Ross’ 3 rd grade regular education teacher during the 2006-2007 school year was Ms. Orr who was also certified to teach grades 1-6.
Interestingly, Dr. Anderson was not called as a witness at this BSEA hearing.

References: §1400
 §794
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1415
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.