Source: https://www.specialedlaw.com/database/joseph-v-boston-public-schools-bsea-06-3836/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 14:17:29+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 c. 71B), the state Administrative Procedure Act (MGL c. 30A), and the regulations promulgated under these statutes.
Pursuant to BSEA Hearing Rule XII and by agreement of the parties, this Decision is based solely upon stipulations, documents admitted into evidence, and oral argument.
On March 24, 2006, Parent filed her Hearing Request . She wrote that on October 15, 2004 she had filed a previous Hearing Request with the BSEA in which she took the position that Boston had violated Student’s rights with respect to evaluation and appropriate services. The October 15, 2004 Hearing Request was resolved through a Settlement Agreement signed by the parties on February 9, 2005. Pursuant to the Agreement, Boston was to provide Student with a therapeutic summer program (with transportation) and in-home after-school tutoring.
In her March 24, 2006 Hearing Request , Parent took the position that Boston failed to provide the transportation and tutoring described within the Settlement Agreement, and that Boston further failed to implement fully Student’s IEP during part of the current school year (2005-2006).
By agreement of the parties, the original Hearing date of April 28, 2006 was changed to a Pre-Hearing Conference at the BSEA offices and the Hearing date was re-scheduled for May 25, 2006.
After a Motion Hearing on May 22, 2006, I issued a ruling on the same day, denying the Motion to Dismiss . My ruling found that there remained substantive issues of fact that are in dispute, that the parties have not resolved the question of the relief to be provided as well as other terms of a possible settlement, and that some or all of the disputed issues fall within the jurisdiction of the BSEA. I also found persuasive Parent’s argument that it would be inappropriate for me to dismiss part or all of the case based on Boston’s representations that it would provide certain requested services where the parties had not entered into an agreement to that effect.
Because of the apparent likelihood that the disputed issues and relief could be further narrowed and/or the live testimony shortened or eliminated, I ordered Parent to file detailed proposed findings of fact and relief. I ordered Boston to respond, either agreeing or disagreeing, with an explanation as to the reasons for any disagreements. This process resulted in the stipulations reflected below.
During a conference call on May 24, 2006, the parties agreed that the May 25, 2006 Hearing would not include any live testimony and that the dispute would be resolved through stipulations, documentary evidence, and argument.
1. Did Boston fail to provide services that the parties agreed upon for purposes of settling a dispute before the BSEA; and if so, what relief should be provided?
2. Did Boston fail to implement Student’s IEPs; and if so, what relief should be provided?
Student began this current school year in 6 th grade at the King Middle School in Dorchester, MA, where he received special education services for reading, math, speech, and occupational therapy. Student was then placed at the Lewis Middle School in a substantially separate program. Exhibits S-2, P-23 (current IEP).
Student is considered to be angry and depressed with low self-esteem and impulse tendencies. Student would benefit from a small, therapeutic, highly structured classroom setting. Exhibits S-2, P-23.
1. Parent and Boston Public Schools (Boston) executed a Release and Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Agreement”) on February 9, 2005.
2. The Settlement Agreement required Boston to provide Student with two summers of a therapeutic summer program, including door-to-door transportation, for the 2005 and 2006 summers.
3. The Settlement Agreement required Boston to provide Student with four hours per week of in-home, after-school tutoring services for the entirety of the 2005-2006 school year during the weeks that school is in session.
4. Boston did not provide door-to-door transportation to and from Student’s therapeutic summer program between June 30, 2005 and July 20, 2005.
5. Boston did not provide Student with any in-home, after-school tutoring services from September 8, 2005 until on or about April 26, 2006. The parties disagree as to the reasons why this occurred.
· Resource room instruction in math for 60 minutes per day, 5 days per week.
· Resource room instruction in language arts for 60 minutes per day, 5 days per week.
· Speech and language therapy for 30 minutes per day, 1 day per week.
· Occupational therapy for 30 minutes per day, 1 day per week.
· Psychological counseling for 30 minutes per day, 1 day per week.
· Social skills group led by a school psychologist 15 minutes per day, 1 day per week.
· Behavioral and social/emotional supports for 25 minutes per day, 5 days per week.
· Consultation for Student’s teacher from a behavioral specialist for 15 minutes per day, 1 day per month.
Although Parent rejected certain parts of this IEP, Parent accepted all of the above-described services. Exhibit P-4.
· Resource room instruction in math for 45 minutes per day, 5 days per week.
· Resource room instruction in language arts for 45 minutes per day, 5 days per week.
Parent signed this IEP, accepting all of the above-described services, on October 12, 2005. The IEP took effect on that date. Exhibits S-1, P-20.
8. Boston did not provide door-to-door transportation to and from school pursuant to Student’s IEP between September 8, 2005 and on or about December 1, 2005.
9. Boston did not provide Student with psychological counseling pursuant to the terms of the IEP during the following weeks: September 26, 2005; October 3, 2005; October 24, 2005; October 31, 2005; November 7, 2005; November 14, 2005; November 28, 2005; December 12, 2005; and December 19, 2005.
10. Boston did not provide Student with occupational therapy pursuant to the terms of the IEP during the following weeks: September 12, 2005; September 19, 2005; and October 3, 2005.
11. Student no longer receives occupational therapy services.
14. Twenty-eight weeks of in-home after-school tutoring services at 4 hours per week would compensate Student for 112 hours of missed tutoring services.
15. Nine sessions of psychological counseling at 30 minutes per session would compensate Student for 9 weeks of missed counseling.
16. Three sessions of occupational therapy at 30 minutes per session would compensate Student for 3 weeks of missed occupational therapy.
17. Twelve sessions of psychological counseling may be provided in lieu of 9 sessions of counseling and 3 sessions of occupational therapy.
1. Pursuant to the IEPs for the time period when services were missed (September 2005 to December 2005), Student was to receive counseling services for 30 minutes, once each day, for the purpose of addressing IEP goal # 1. Goal # 1, entitled “social emotional skills”, provides for the following measurable goal: “Student will improve social emotional skills, in the area(s) of: — interpersonal relations, emotionality”. Exhibits S-1, P-4, P-20.
2. Pursuant to the IEP for the first half of the 2006-2007 school year, Student is to receive counseling services for 30 minutes, once each day, for the purpose of addressing IEP goal # 1. Goal # 1, entitled “social emotional skills”, provides for the following measurable goal: “Student will improve social emotional skills, in the area(s) of: — emotionality, personal development, conversation/communications”. Exhibits S-2, P-23.
3. Pursuant to Student’s current IEP, he is to be placed at a substantially separate, therapeutic program for the 2006-2007 school year. Exhibits S-2, P-23.
4. The YouthCare program that Student will attend for the summer of 2006 offers a therapeutic day camp that includes both traditional camp activities (for example, boating) and approximately four therapeutic groups each week. The therapeutic groups focus on social language (or speech pragmatics) and social skills. These groups are structured to teach the concrete steps of (and the skills for) successful communication and interaction, and to apply them in supportive settings throughout the camp day. The YouthCare summer program does not provide individual psychological support, but collaborates with any outside providers (including those providing individual counseling to campers) to assure a smooth continuum of services and to support the transfer or generalization of skills or strategies between home, school, camp, and community settings. Exhibit P-33.
Jurisdiction regarding claims under the settlement agreement .
For these reasons, I conclude that although I do not have the authority to force Boston to comply with the Settlement Agreement, I may consider whether Boston has complied with the terms of the agreement; and I may issue an order relative to any compensatory claims that Parent may have relative to compliance with the agreement in the same manner that I may issue an order relative to any compensatory claims relative to compliance with the IEPs in this dispute.
This dispute involves compensatory claims for alleged failure to implement the terms of the Settlement Agreement and alleged failure to implement accepted portions of IEPs.
It is not disputed that Boston failed to implement the terms of the Settlement Agreement in two respects. First, Boston did not provide Student with door-to-door transportation to and from Student’s therapeutic summer program between June 30, 2005 and July 20, 2005. Second, Boston did not provide Student with any in-home, after-school tutoring services from September 8, 2005 until on or about April 26, 2006. Stipulations paras. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
It is not disputed that Boston failed to implement the accepted portions of IEPs in three respects. First, Boston did not provide Student with door-to-door transportation to and from school between September 8, 2005 and on or about December 1, 2005. Second, Boston did not provide Student with psychological counseling during the following weeks: September 26, 2005; October 3, 2005; October 24, 2005; October 31, 2005; November 7, 2005; November 14, 2005; November 28, 2005; December 12, 2005; and December 19, 2005. Third, Boston did not provide Student with occupational therapy during the following weeks: September 12, 2005; September 19, 2005; and October 3, 2005. Stipulations paras. 8, 9, 10.
I now consider what compensation is due Parent and Student regarding missed transportation, tutoring, psychological counseling and occupational therapy.
From June 30, 2005 to July 9, 2005, Parent transported her son 30.36 miles per day for 7 days to and from the therapeutic summer program. Stipulation para. 12. Applying the mileage rate of $0.28, Boston must reimbursement Parent $59.51.
From July 10, 2005 to July 20, 2005, Parent transported her son 30.36 miles per day for 7 days to and from the therapeutic summer program. Stipulation para. 12. Applying the mileage rate of $0.30, Boston must reimbursement Parent $63.76.
From September 8, 2005 to September 11, 2005, Parent transported her son 6 miles per day for 2 days to and from King Middle School. Stipulation para. 13. Applying the mileage rate of $0.30, Boston must reimbursement Parent $3.60.
From September 12, 2005 to December 1, 2005, Parent transported her son 6 miles per day for 65 days to and from King Middle School. Stipulation para. 13. Applying the mileage rate of $0.40, Boston must reimbursement Parent $156.00.
Boston must reimburse Parent for transportation for a total amount of $282.87.
As discussed above, Boston did not provide Student with any in-home, after-school tutoring services from September 8, 2005 until on or about April 26, 2006. The Settlement Agreement required Boston to provide 4 hours per week of tutoring during this time period. Boston failed to provide Student with a total of 112 hours of tutoring. Stipulations paras. 3, 5, 14.
To compensate for this omission, Boston must provide Student with 4 hours per week of in-home, after-school tutoring services for 28 weeks.
Psychological counseling and occupational therapy services .
As discussed above, Boston failed to provide Student with a total of 9 sessions of psychological counseling at 30 minutes per session during the time period from September 26, 2005 to December 19, 2005. Stipulations paras. 9, 15.
Also, Boston failed to provide Student with a total of 3 sessions of occupational therapy at 30 minutes per session during the time period from September 12, 2005 to October 3, 2005. Stipulations paras. 10, 16.
The parties agreed that sufficient additional psychological counseling may be provided to make up for both the missed psychological counseling and the missed occupational therapy. Stipulation para. 17.
Accordingly, to compensate for these omissions, Boston must provide Student with 12 weekly sessions of psychological counseling at 30 minutes per session.
Timing of compensatory psychological counseling .
The parties disagree as to when the compensatory psychological counseling should take place. Boston argues that it should occur during the 2006-2007 school year since this service is intended to address school-based issues. Parent argues that it should occur during Student’s summer program. For the reasons explained below, I agree with Parent.
As discussed above, the purpose of compensatory services is to make Student whole – that is, to make up for what was lost as a result of not having received the requisite special education services.
As a result of Boston’s failures, Student more often than not was without needed psychological counseling services during the time period from September 26, 2005 to December 19, 2005. It is this loss that the compensatory services are intended to remedy.
The psychological counseling services in Student’s IEP were originally intended to help address his interpersonal relations and emotionality. Findings of Fact para. 1. During this coming summer, Student’s therapeutic day camp will seek to address some of these same concerns – that is, Student’s social skills, including successful communication and interaction with others. The camp does not provide individual psychological counseling but would collaborate with an outside provider of these services to further support the generalization of skills. Findings of Fact para. 4. Under these circumstances, the addition of individual psychological counseling to the work of the camp would be a welcome (and non-duplicative) complement to its therapeutic program, providing Student with benefits similar to what he would likely have received had the counseling been provided from September 26, 2005 to December 19, 2005.
In contrast, providing the compensatory psychological counseling services during the next school year would essentially double the recommended service delivery regime. Findings of Fact paras. 2, 3. It therefore seems likely that providing the compensatory services during the next school year would result in Student’s receiving more psychological services than are necessary, reducing the marginal benefit of the compensatory services.
I find that providing the compensatory psychological counseling services during the summer of 2006, rather than during the 2006-2007 school year, is significantly more likely to make up for what was lost as a result of not having received these services during the 2005-2006 school year.
Boston shall reimburse Parent for travel in the amount of $282.87.
Boston shall provide Student with 4 hours per week of in-home after-school tutoring services for 28 weeks.
Boston shall provide Student with 12 weekly sessions of psychological counseling at 30 minutes per session. To the extent possible, Boston shall provide these services during the summer of 2006.
“Joseph” is a pseudonym chosen by the Hearing Officer to protect the privacy of the Student in publicly available documents.
Parent was represented by Michael Gregory of the Hale and Dorr Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School. Boston was represented by Andrea Alves Thomas.
20 USC 1400(d)(1)(A); 20 USC 1412(a)(1)(A); MGL c. 71B, ss. 2, 3.
In re: Arlington , 37 IDELR 119, 8 MSER 187, 193-195 (SEA MA 2002) (collecting authorities).
20 USC 1415(b)(6)(A) (IDEA language defining a hearing officer’s jurisdiction).
In Re: Norwood , BSEA # 06-0214, 11 MSER 161, 105 LRP 41921 (MA SEA 2005) (collecting authorities and considering this issue under IDEA 2004); In Re: Boston Public Schools & Waltham Public Schools , BSEA # 02-4323, 8 MSER 396, 102 LRP 39658 (SEA MA 2002) (ruling) (collecting authorities).
Compare 20 USC 1415(e)(2)(F) and 1415(f)(1)(B)(iii) (language added by IDEA 2004, providing for judicial enforcement of settlement agreements with respect to disputes under the IDEA) with A.R. v. New York City Department of Education , 407 F.3d 65, n.13 (2 nd Cir. 2005) (although the terms of a special education Hearing Officer’s decision are enforceable by a court, “[Hearing Officers], as is common in administrative procedures, have no enforcement mechanism of their own”).
See decision and ruling cited in footnote 8 above with respect to a Hearing Officer’s jurisdiction regarding agreements. Federal courts have routinely taken into consideration an agreement for purposes of determining parents’ rights (and a school district’s obligations) under the IDEA even though specific language regarding a court’s authority regarding agreements was included, for the first time, in IDEA 2004. For example, the First Circuit concluded that an agreement addressed and extinguished parent’s claim for attorney fees under the IDEA. Alison H. v. Byard , 163 F.3d 2 (1 st Cir. 1998). See also, e.g., Amy S. v. Danbury Local School District , 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 8215 (6 th Cir. 2006); W. B. v. Matula , 67 F.3d 484 (3rd Cir. 1995); R. by M.R. v. East Brunswick Bd. of Educ., 838 F.Supp. 184, 193 (D.N.J. 1993), aff’d, 109 F.3d 896 (3d Cir. 1997).
Pihl v. Mass. Dept. of Ed. , 9 F.3d 184 (1 st Cir. 1993) (“compensatory education is available to remedy past deprivations”); Lester H. v. Gilhool, 916 F.2d 865 (3rd Cir. 1990), cert. denied 499 U.S. 923, 111 S.Ct. 317 (1991) (compensatory education is intended to be “an appropriate remedy to cure the deprivation of a child’s right to a free appropriate public education”); Miener v. State of Missouri , 800 F.2d 749 (8th Cir. 1986) (compensatory education intended to cure the deprivation of a handicapped child’s statutory rights).
Reid v. District of Columbia, 401 F.3d 516 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
Pihl v. Mass. Dept. of Ed. , 9 F.3d 184 (1 st Cir. 1993) (The IDEA “may require services at a future time to compensate for what was lost”).
This information is taken from travel forms for Mass. DOE employees.

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