Source: https://www.specialedlaw.com/database/student-v-middleborough-public-schools-bsea-06-4208/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:52:39+00:00

Document:
This decision is issued pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 USC 1400 et seq .), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC 794), the state special education law (MGL ch. 71B), the state Administrative Procedure Act (MGL ch. 30A), and the regulations promulgated under these statutes.
Jennifer M. Pinkham Attorney for Parent and Student.
Rachel Wiseman, Psy. D. Neuropsychologist.
Sheryl Heggi Riverview School, head teacher.
Janet Hastings Riverview School, teacher.
Elinore Pasquill, Private tutor, former Middleborough Public Schools Teacher.
Adam Wannie Riverview School, Advisor, LMHC.
Dawn Hotetz Riverview School, Advisor, Teacher.
Regina Williams Tate Attorney for Middleborough Public Schools.
Alisia St. Florian Attorney/Observer, Middleborough Public Schools.
Lisa McDonald Middleborough Public Schools, Team Facilitator.
Melissa Deutschmann Middleborough Public Schools, Special Education Director.
Gail Morrissey Middleborough Public Schools, Special Needs Teacher.
Nancy Eldredge Middleborough Public Schools, Special Needs Teacher.
Andrew Collins Middleborough Public Schools, Science Teacher.
Tanya Sullivan Middleborough Public Schools, School Adjustment Counselor.
The official record of the hearing consists of documents submitted by the Parent and marked as exhibits PE-1 through PE-521 ; documents submitted by the Middleborough Public Schools (Middleborough) and marked as exhibits SE-1 through SE-108; recorded oral testimony and written closing arguments. At Middleborough’s written request, the date for submission of written closing arguments was extended through October 31, 2006. Written closing arguments were received on October 31 st and the record closed on that date.
1. Were the IEPs promulgated by Middleborough in December 2005 (SE-68) and in January 2006 (SE-69) covering the period from December 2005 through June 2006 reasonably calculated to offer Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment?
2. If not, are Parents entitled to reimbursement for their unilateral placement of Student as a residential student at the Riverview School (Riverview)?
Parent/Student state that after Dr. Rachel Wiseman evaluated Student in the summer 2005, she recommended that Student not attend Bristol-Plymouth Regional Vocational School and instead attend high school where they believed that her needs would be better served. When Student entered the high school she underwent a transformation because she could not handle the demands socially or academically. She began to dress in Goth-like style, defied Parents’ rules, and could not handle the academic demands in the inclusion classes. This resulted in Student’s psychiatric hospitalization in October 2005 after which Parents requested a Team meeting in consultation with Middleborough’s staff. The new plan offered by Middleborough eliminated Student’s participation in science and social studies and changed Student’s math from inclusion math to a functional mathematics program. In the new proposed program Student would not have access to peers with a similar profile to hers and according to Parents the overall program was too piecemeal. According to Parents, some of Middleborough’s staff also thought that the program proposed at the Team meeting of December 2005 would not work for Student and that she would need an outside placement. Parents assert that the Middleborough program denied Student a FAPE. Also, Student refused to participate in the proposed program when presented to her by Parents.
As a result, Parents placed Student residentially at Riverview in February 2006, where according to them, she has thrived. Parents seek reimbursement for their unilateral placement of Student at Riverview.
Middleborough asserts that in December 2005/January 2006 it offered Student highly individualized educational programs through the proposed IEPs, SE-68 and SE-69. These IEPs took into account Student’s strengths and weaknesses while addressing her emotional needs and offered Student an opportunity to work on vocational skills prior to transition planning. The plan was prepared so as to address Student’s emotional state and her difficulties transitioning into the high school, which Middleborough asserts were the result of an adolescent power struggle with Parents, Student’s loss of her first serious boyfriend, identity and self-esteem issues. According to Middleborough, Parents cannot meet their burden of proof because they cannot meet the first prong in Burlington2 requiring them to show that the school’s program was not reasonably calculated to offer Student a FAPE, especially where Parents did not give the plan a chance, or the staff with whom Student enjoyed a good relationship an opportunity to explain the plan to her. In Middleborough’s opinion, Parents did not understand the plan before them and could not convey it adequately to Student, especially when they did not want Student to remain in the high school. Middleborough asserts that there was every reason to expect that Student’s comfort level would increase with the new program and that she would progress educationally.
Middleborough states that even if the hearing officer determines that the plans were inadequate, Parents are not entitled to reimbursement for their unilateral placement of Student at Riverview because they chose an overly restrictive placement, which is not supported by any evaluation or document in evidence. Middleborough notes that Parents transferred Student at a time when her performance was improving and she was beginning to stabilize in school. Parents chose the residential placement for non-educational reasons, according to Middleborough, namely to protect Student from transforming into the rebellious teenager who tested rules and disobeyed them, and who expressed her individuality in ways they found distressing.
Student does appear to be in an emotional crisis, marked by acute sadness, a sense of rejection or abandonment, and some suicidal preoccupation. While [Student] dates these feelings to her placement in her present school, it is impossible to tell whether the feelings began then, or have only become exacerbated by her placement. And while some period of adjustment and some sense of emotional loss is likely to be seen in many young students leaving home for a residential setting, [Student’s] feelings appear to be so palpable and acute as to be beyond what can normally be expected. Moreover, she is clearly having some suicidal thoughts, and her fantasies as revealed in projective testing show at times some glamorization of the idea of dying by suicide.
There is no dispute that Student is an individual with a disability, falling within the purview of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act11 and the state special education statute.12 As such, Student is entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE).13 Neither her eligibility status nor her entitlement to FAPE is in dispute.
The areas of disability that impact her education are also not in dispute. The issue before me is whether Student’s needs were appropriately addressed by Middleborough, and if not whether Middleborough is required to reimburse Parents for their unilateral placement of Student in Riverview.
Petitioners in effect ask this Court to assume that every IEP is invalid until the school District demonstrates that it is not. The Act does not support this conclusion. The IDEA relies heavily upon the expertise of school districts to meet its goals. It also includes a so-called “stay-put” provision, which requires a child to remain in his or her “then-current educational placement” during the pendency of an IDEA hearing. §1415(j). Congress could have required that a child be given the educational placement that a parent requested during a dispute, but it did no such thing. Congress appears to have presumed instead that, if the Act’s procedural requirements are respected, parents will prevail when they have legitimate grievances. See Rowley , supra at 206 (noting the ‘legislative conviction that adequate compliance with the procedures prescribed would in most cases assure much if not all of what Congress wished in the way of substantive content in an IEP’).
Under Shaeffer , Parents bear the burden of proving that the IEP program and services offered by Middleborouh in January 2006 were inappropriate to meet Student’s needs.
In the case at bar, since Parents are seeking reimbursement for a unilateral placement, they must show that Middleborough’s program was inappropriate. They must then show that Student required residential services and that their placement of choice, Riverview, was appropriate for Student. School Comm. of Burlington v. Dept. of Ed ., 471 U.S. 359, 369 (1985); Amherst-Pelham School Comm. v. Dept. of Ed ., 376 Mass 480, 482- 483 (1978). The U.S. Supreme Court explained in Florence County School District 4 v. Carter , 510 U.S. 7 (1993) that when parents decide to place their disabled child in a private school, without first seeking the consent of the public school district responsible for the child, they “do so at their own risk.” The fact that the student could make greater progress in the private placement than s/he would in the public school’s program is not determinative as to the issue of reimbursement. The question is “not whether the IEP [offered by the district] was prescient enough to achieve perfect results, but whether it was ‘reasonably calculated’ to provide an “appropriate” education as defined in federal and state law.” Roland M. v. Concord School Committee , 910 F. 2d 983, 992 (1 st Cir. 1990) In doing so, the public school district is not responsible to offer Student a “Cadillac” but rather a serviceable “Chevrolet” that allows Student to get around effectively. Arlington Public Schools , 8 MSER 187 (Crane, 2002) The actions of the school district in proposing an IEP cannot be judged in hindsight. Instead, the IEP is a snapshot that takes into account what was objectively reasonable in light of what the school district knew or reasonably should have known about the child at the time the IEP was promulgated; not a retrospective. Roland M ., supra at 992.
Dr. Wiseman did not support either mainstream or inclusion models for Student. Instead she recommended participation in a substantially separate, language-based program with like peers. She recommended a setting that offered “increased structure, individualized attention, additional personnel to provide extra support, and modified instruction.” (PE-44; SE-80) The curriculum would have to be specifically designed to meet Student at her level and should be delivered by special education teachers with expertise working with youngsters like Student. (PE-44; SE-80) Additionally, Student’s instruction should have a functional component so as to increase Student’s ability to carry out every-day tasks in the community. She recommended individual counseling to address emotional issues, develop assertiveness, and build self-advocacy skills. Speech and language therapy should continue with an emphasis on comprehension, expressive and receptive language skills such as vocabulary development, formulation and organizational skills. (PE-44; SE-80) She also recommended a vocational assessment to explore Student’s interests and skills. Dr. Wiseman opined that any vocational tasks incorporated into Student’s schedule should be structured, supervised, and designed towards fostering independence. (PE-44; SE-80) The record contains no evidence of a recommendation by Dr. Wiseman for Student’s participation in a residential program.
Given the information available to the Team by December 2005 and January 2006, the program and services offered by Middleborough were designed to meet Student at her then current level, given her state of mind, by attempting to stabilize her emotionally and help ease her transition into the high school.21 (SE-68; SE-69) By December 2005, when the first of the two IEPs at issue was drafted, Student’s teachers and providers knew that she was struggling in the inclusion classes. The proposed IEP would have allowed Student an opportunity to progress effectively and in fact was in most respects consistent with the recommendations of Dr. Wiseman. Her report recommended tailored instruction with a flexible approach in a program that offered “increased structure, individualized attention, additional personnel to provide extra support and modified instruction,” taught by special education teachers so that Student’s participation could be meaningful. (SE-80) Middleborough’s proposal to try the program short term, reconvene the Team, and if the program was not working, then look for an out of district placement, was reasonable.
As stated supra , the proposed IEP was intended for implementation for a short time with an agreement to reconvene the Team within a month and re-evaluate the situation. Under the IDEA, special education students may receive services up to their high school graduation day, or the day on which they turn twenty-two years of age, whichever event comes first. 20 USC §1412 (a)(1)(A). In light of this, and given that Student was only 16 years of age, it was appropriate for Middleborough to postpone Student’s inclusion in mainstream courses until after Student’s transition into the high school had been addressed from an educational, social, and emotional basis. While counseling and participation in a social skills group were not specifically mentioned in the proposed IEPs at issue, Student was already taking advantage of these services through the regular education program. The evidence shows that Student was in fact meeting with Ms. Sullivan, of her own volition and on her own initiative, for counseling services. (SE-52; Testimony of Ms. Sullivan) Both the private psychotherapy services and the school counseling services centered on Student’s issues regarding adolescent struggles for independence from Parents, the loss of her first serious boyfriend, identity and self esteem issues, interactions with peers, difficulty communicating with Parents and other typical teenage issues. (SE-52; SE-66; PE-49; SE-81) These issues, compounded by Student’s cognitive profile, would have been more difficult for Student to handle than for typical peers since she requires very concrete, sequential assistance to process information effectively. (Testimony of Ms. Sullivan) Student also participated in the social skills group run by Taryn Carbone, Middleborough’s school psychologist. While Middleborough made a persuasive argument that these services which were part of regular education services were being offered to Student, given Student’s issues and Parents concerns, they should have been included in the service delivery grid portion of the IEP. However, this deficiency is found to be de minimis given that Student was receiving the services.
The evidence further shows that by December 5, 2005, Parents intended to place Student in Riverview. On that day Ms. Morrissey completed Student’s recommendation for Riverview. (PE-51) This occurred ten days prior to reconvening of Student’s Team in Middleborough. (PE-A5) I find that in order to ensure Student’s FAPE in the least restrictive environment, Parents should have supported Student in the proposed program in Middleborough at least for the short term, before removing Student to Riverview. To accomplish this, they could have enlisted the assistance of those members of the Middleborough staff with whom Student had a positive relationship (such as Ms. Bizinkauskas and Ms. Sullivan.) I find that both of these professionals, as well as Ms. Morrissey, were credible witnesses and would have supported Student in Middleborough. I note that the Team had also considered the worst case scenario, where Student was unable to stabilize in the short term, even with the highly individualized program designed for her and if that were the case, the Team had already expressed their willingness to explore an outside day placement for Student. (Testimony of Ms. Sullivan, Ms. McDonald, Ms. Morrissey, Mother, Dr. Wiseman) Retroactive reimbursement is an equitable remedy, and Parents unwillingness to try Middleborough’s proposed program on the short term weighs against their claim for reimbursement.
The record lacks any recommendation whatsoever that Student required residential placement. Parents presented no evidence to support such conclusion and none of their experts recommended such a restrictive setting. Even when Student was hospitalized in Pembroke Hospital, after Parents found the note in her journal stating that she wished she were dead, she was only admitted to the day program and for a very brief period of time. (SE-63) As a residential student at Riverview, Student is completely segregated from all mainstream students; she is away from her community, her family, and her friends. From a parental standpoint such action might have been justified in light of their concern over Student’s adolescent transformation, rule testing, choice of clothing, friends, and music. From their standpoint, they were loosing the child they had raised. She was wearing black, dressing in a Goth-like style, challenging parental rules, fraternizing with other youngsters of whom Parents disapproved, and not performing academically. Parents had no control over Student’s choices in the high school environment where she was becoming invisible and where she was struggling to appear like a mainstream student. The evidence is persuasive that as loving, caring, and concerned parents, they yearned for the daughter they thought they were losing, as they did not approve of the person she was becoming. Parents feared for their daughter and this fear caused them to act and place Student residentially in Riverview, without the district’s approval. There, they could control the environment, assure support for their daughter twenty-four hours per day, and minimize potential harm. In doing so they acted at their own risk. Florence County School District 4 v. Carter , 510 U.S. 7 (1993).
Parents did not meet their burden, and therefore there is no need to reach a determination as to whether Riverview was appropriate. However, I note that there are serious questions presented as to its appropriateness for Student given that the teachers were not properly certified, Student had already mastered some of the work she was covering, and there is a question as to whether Student was working on the ninth grade Curriculum Frameworks. (Testimony of Dr. Bowen, Ms. Morrissey, Ms. Hastings, Mr. Wannie, Ms. Hotetz) Student herself stated to Ms. Solomon-Schwartz that some of the work at Riverview was easy for her. (PE-49) Additionally, Student did not present with any functional living skills difficulties and her social skills are a strength, rendering the residential experience overly restrictive and without foundation. See Berkshire Hills Regional School District , 11 MSER 45 (2005). Parents argued that Student had improved academically in Riverview because of the increased structure, small class sizes, multi-model teaching, and increased individualization. (Testimony of Mother, Mr. Wannie, Ms. Heggi, Ms. Hastings, Ms. Hotetz, Father, Mother, Ms. Solomon-Schwartz) The record shows that with the exception of access to a larger peer group with similar profiles to Student’s, the program in Middleborough offered the same type of individualization and specialization. Middleborough’s program would have been delivered by properly certified, experienced professionals and was offered in a less restrictive environment. Student’s transition into Riverview was very difficult even with the increased level of support she received from all those around her including the like-peers. Whereas in Middleborough she attempted to blend with others and not be singled out, in Riverview she acted out inappropriately and it was not until the end of the school year that she stopped fighting the process. (PE-49) For all of the reasons stated above, Middleborough’s December 2005 and January 2006 IEPs and placement are found to be appropriate for Student at the time offered, given Student’s unique presentation, and therefore, Parents are not legally entitled to reimbursement for their unilateral placement of Student in Riverview.
Given the length of time that has lapsed since the time Student’s last IEP was drafted, the fact that she has been away from Middleborough and was described as a different person from an emotional standpoint, Middleborough is ordered to reconvene Student’s Team and include relevant Riverview and private service providers so that a new IEP can be drafted.
1. Middleborough is not responsible to reimburse Parents for their unilateral placement of Student in Riverview.
2. Middleborough shall reconvene Student’s Team and include relevant Riverview and private service providers so that a new IEP may be drafted.
PE-45 was admitted for a limited purpose. Information regarding the observation of December 1, 2005 was allowed regarding Student’s social emotional deficits and the observation of June 9, 2006 was allowed as to Student’s functioning at Riverview for the purpose of determining the appropriateness of Riverview for Student.
School Comm. of Burlington v. Dept. of Ed ., 471 U.S. 359, 369 (1985).
TLC stands for time at the Learning Center which is also the Computer Center.
MGL c. 71B, ss. 1 (definition of FAPE), 2, 3.
E.g., 20 USC 1400(d)(1)(A) (purpose of the federal law is to ensure that children with disabilities have FAPE that “emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs . . . .”); 20 USC 1401(25) (“special education” defined to mean “specially designed instruction . . . to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability . . .”); Honig v. DOE , 484 U.S. 305, 311 (1988) (FAPE must be tailored “to each child’s unique needs”).
Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School District v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 192 (1982) (goal of Congress in passing IDEA was to make access to education “meaningful”); Deal v. Hamilton County Board of Education, 104 LRP 59544 (6 th Cir. 2004); (“ IDEA requires an IEP to confer a ‘meaningful educational benefit’ gauged in relation to the potential of the child at issue”); G. by R.G. and A.G. v. Fort Bragg Dependent Schs , 40 IDELR 4 (4th Cir. 2003) (issue is whether the IEP was reasonably calculated to provide student meaningful educational benefit); Weixel v. Board of Education of the City of New York , 287 F.3d 138 (2 nd Cir. 2002) (placement must be “‘reasonably calculated’ to ensure that [student] received a meaningful educational benefit”); Houston Independent School District v. Bobby R ., 200 F.3d 341 (5 th Cir. 2000) (educational benefit must be “meaningful”); Ridgewood Board of Education v. NE for ME , 172 F.3d 238 (3 rd Cir. 1999) (IDEA requires IEP to provide “significant learning” and confer “meaningful benefit”).
Lenn v. Portland School Committee , 998 F.2d 1083 (1 st Cir. 1993) (program must be “reasonably calculated to provide ‘effective results’ and ‘demonstrable improvement’ in the various ‘educational and personal skills identified as special needs’”); Roland v. Concord School Committee , 910 F.2d 983 (1 st Cir. 1990) (“Congress indubitably desired ‘effective results’ and ‘demonstrable improvement’ for the Act’s beneficiaries”); Burlington v. Department of Education , 736 F.2d 773, 788 (1 st Cir. 1984) (“objective of the federal floor, then, is the achievement of effective results–demonstrable improvement in the educational and personal skills identified as special needs–as a consequence of implementing the proposed IEP”); 603 CMR 28.05(4)(b) (Student’s IEP must be “ designed to enable the student to progress effectively in the content areas of the general curriculum”); 603 CMR 28.02(18) (“ Progress effectively in the general education program shall mean to make documented growth in the acquisition of knowledge and skills, including social/emotional development, within the general education program, with or without accommodations, according to chronological age and developmental expectations, the individual educational potential of the child, and the learning standards set forth in the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks and the curriculum of the district.”).
See generally In re: Arlington , 37 IDELR 119, 8 MSER 187, 193-195 (SEA MA 2002) (collecting cases and other authorities).
MGL c. 69, s. 1 (“paramount goal of the commonwealth to provide a public education system of sufficient quality to extend to all children the opportunity to reach their full potential ”); MGL c. 71B, s. 1 (“special education” defined to mean “educational programs and assignments . . . designed to develop the educational potential of children with disabilities . . . .”); 603 CMR 28.01(3) (identifying the purpose of the state special education regulations as “to ensure that eligible Massachusetts students receive special education services designed to develop the student’s individual educational potential”). See also Mass. Department of Education’s Administrative Advisory SPED 2002-1: Guidance on the change in special education standard of service from “maximum possible development” to “free appropriate public education” (“FAPE”), Effective January 1, 2002, 7 MSER Quarterly Reports 1 (2001) (appearing at www.doe.mass.edu/sped) (Massachusetts Education Reform Act “underscores the Commonwealth’s commitment to assist all students to reach their full educational potential”).
Hendrick Hudson Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley , 458 U.S. 176, 199, 202 ( court declined to set out a bright-line rule for what satisfies a FAPE, noting that children have different abilities and are therefore capable of different achievements; court adopted an approach that takes into account the potential of the disabled student ); Deal v. Hamilton County Board of Education, 104 LRP 59544 (6 th Cir. 2004); (“ IDEA requires an IEP to confer a ‘meaningful educational benefit’ gauged in relation to the potential of the child at issue”); HW and JW v. Highland Park Board of Education , 104 LRP 40799 (3 rd Cir. 2004) (“benefit must be gauged in relation to the child’s potential”); Houston Independent School District v. Bobby R ., 200 F.3d 341 (5 th Cir. 2000) (progress should be measured with respect to the individual student, not with respect to others); T.R. ex rel. N.R. v. Kingwood Twp. Bd. of Educ., 205 F.3d 572, 578 (3d Cir. 2000) (appropriate education assessed in light of “individual needs and potential”); Ridgewood Board of Education v. NE , 172 F.3d 238 (3 rd Cir. 1999) (“quantum of educational benefit necessary to satisfy IDEA . . .requires a court to consider the potential of the particular disabled student”); Mrs. B. v. Milford Board of Ed. , 103 F.3d 1114, 1122 (2d Cir. 1997) (“child’s academic progress must be viewed in light of the limitations imposed by the child’s disability”); MC v. Central Regional School District , 81 F.3d 389 (3 rd Cir. 1996), cert. denied 519 US 866 (1996) (child’s untapped potential was appropriate basis for residential placement); Roland v. Concord School Committee , 910 F.2d 983 (1 st Cir. 1990) (“academic potential is one factor to be considered”); Kevin T. v. Elmhurst , 36 IDELR 153 (N.D. Ill. 2002) (“ Court must assess [student’s] intellectual potential, given his disability, and then determine the academic progress [student] made under the IEPs designed and implemented by the District ”).
The report of Dr. Wiseman’s evaluation was not provided to Middleborough until May 2006 and her recommendations for a substantially separate-language based classroom for Student were not shared with the Team until her oral presentation on December 15, 2005. Even then, there was no recommendation for removal of Student to a residential program.

References: §1415
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1412
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.