Source: https://www.specialedlaw.com/database/dracut-public-schools-bsea-08-6414/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 09:57:11+00:00

Document:
The pertinent facts are not in dispute, except as specifically noted below.
Student has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Bipolar Disorder. He may also have a language-based learning disability and executive function deficits.
Student had been receiving his educational services at the Learning Center at Dracut’s Lakeview Junior High School. Student currently either is in 8 th grade or is repeating the 7 th grade.4 Through Massachusetts Department of Mental Health funding, Student resides at the Northeast Diversion Program in Haverhill, MA.
Student’s guardian ad litem filed a hearing request with the BSEA on April 29, 2008. By agreement of the parties on June 11, 2008, Student was placed at MSEC for extended year services during the summer of 2008, to be followed by placement at MSEC for a 45-day assessment to determine an appropriate educational placement. The 45-day placement at MSEC was completed on November 5, 2008. Near the completion of this placement, MSEC provided a report with recommendations, which were discussed by Student’s IEP Team on November 3, 2008. The IEP Team determined that Student requires a small group setting with a therapeutic component.
Dracut proposed that Student attend its Choices Alternative Program, which is located at the Lakeview Junior High School. Parent rejected this placement and has sought to have Student continue at MSEC.
Student’s last-accepted IEP expired in January 2008.
The issue to be addressed is whether MSEC is Student’s stay put placement.
Additional guidance is found in the federal court decisions that consider a student’s stay put placement after a temporary or interim educational placement. The facts of the instant dispute are analogous to those in the First Circuit’s decision in Verhoeven v. Brunswick School Committee . In Verhoeven , as in the instant dispute, the parties expressly agreed that the student would be placed in a particular setting for a certain period of time, with no agreement that the student’s placement would extend beyond this time period. In dicta, the court explained its rationale for concluding that this temporary setting is not the student’s stay put placement.
Other courts have similarly concluded that a temporary or interim placement is not a student’s stay put placement. These temporary or interim placements typically are scheduled to end on a specific date or after a specific period of time and are usually contemplated by the parties as a one-time occurrence.14 I am aware of no judicial decisions to the contrary.
By agreement of the parties, the MSEC placement was utilized by Dracut for extended year services during the summer of 2008, followed by an extended evaluation of 45 days. The MSEC placement was not otherwise intended to be utilized as Student’s educational placement.
For these reasons, Dracut’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is ALLOWED . This case will proceed to hearing, as scheduled, on December 16, 2008.
Student’s guardian ad litem is attorney Joseph Presti. Dracut is represented by attorney Kevin Murphy.
801 CMR 1.01(7)(h). These rules govern BSEA proceedings pursuant to 603 CMR 28.08(5)(b).
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-50 (1986) .
The parties disagreed on this fact, but the fact is not material to resolution of the instant dispute.
603 CMR 28.5(2)(b)5 (“The extended evaluation shall not be considered a placement.”).
See In Re: Melrose Public Schools & C. M ., BSEA # 07-4987, 13 MSER 70 (2007) (“diagnostic program … cannot, by regulation, be a Student’s ‘Stay Put’ placement”); In Re: Melrose Public Schools , BSEA # 07-2782 (2006) (at the completion of student’s extended evaluation, his stay put placement was a return to his regular education placement).
Verhoeven v. Brunswick School Committee , 207 F.3d 1, 10 (1 st Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Casey K. v. St. Anne Community High School Dist. No. 302 , 400 F.3d 508, 517 (7 th Cir. 2005) (“ district’s temporary and conditional acquiescence in the parents’ unilateral action cannot constitute an ‘educational placement’ for purposes of the stay-put requirement”); Stanley C. v. M.S.D. of Southwest Allen County Schools , 2008 WL 2228648 ( ND Ind. 2008) (court denied parents’ request for stay put order where agreements between the parties included funding only for a definite time period); Gabel v. Board of Education, 368 F. Supp. 2d 313, 325 (SDNY 2005) (“agreement in which a Board of Education agrees to pay tuition to a private school makes that school the child’s pendency placement unless the stipulation is explicitly limited to a specific school year or definite time period”).
The only issue to be decided by this Ruling is whether MSEC is Student’s stay put placement for purposes of the regular (as compared to extended) school year. Presumably, Student’s stay put placement is whatever his stay put placement was prior to being placed at MSEC. The parties did not provide the last-agreed-upon IEP or other information sufficient for me to determine the specific location or services of Student’s stay put placement.

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