Callie and Southern Berkshire Regional School District – BSEA #03-2013



<br /> Callie and Southern Berkshire Regional School District – BSEA #03-2013<br />

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

Bureau of Special Education Appeals

In Re: Callie1 and Southern Berkshire Regional School District

BSEA # 03-2013

DECISION

This decision is issued pursuant to M.G.L. c. 71B and 30A, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq ., 20 U.S.C. 794 and the regulations promulgated under these statutes. A hearing was held in the above-entitled matter on May 5, 6, and 22, 2003, at the offices of Catuogno Court Reporting Services in Springfield, MA. Those present for all or part of the proceeding were:

Mother/Guardian

Sean Jennings Program Director- PICU Berkshire Medical Center

John Struth Clinical Director, Nanotuck Resources Associates

Linda Sullivan Sullivan & Associates

Helen Bray-Garretson Psychologist

David Pottle Guidance Counselor, Southern Berkshire Regional School District

Robin Perrilli Resource Room Teacher, Southern Berkshire Regional School District

Tanya Cook Paraprofessional, Southern Berkshire Regional School District

Brenda Ullrich School Adjustment Counselor, Southern Berkshire Regional School District

Lynn Summerill Special Education Director, Southern Berkshire Regional School District

Mary Joanne Reedy Attorney for Southern Berkshire Regional School District

Matthew Engel Attorney for Student

C.J. Gagne Attorney for Department of Mental Retardation

Crystal Chow Observer

Lindsay Byrne Hearing Officer

The official record of the hearing consists of documents submitted by the Student labeled P-1 through P-27, documents submitted by the School marked S-1 through S-5, one document submitted by the Department of Mental Retardation marked D-1, and approximately 13.5 hours of recorded oral testimony. The parties made oral closing arguments on the last day of testimony, May 22, 2003, and the record closed.

Procedural History

A hearing was requested in this matter on October 30, 2002. The hearing was postponed several times by agreement of the parties in order to clarify the guardianship status of the Student, and to explore the potential contributions of other entities to the resolution of this dispute. The Berkshire Medical Center participated as an Intervenor in all pre-hearing proceedings, but was not represented at the hearing. The Department of Mental Retardation was joined as a party to this matter on April 15, 2003, over its continuing objection.2 The Department participated meaningfully in the hearing.

Issues

1. Whether the 2002-2003 Individual Education Plan developed by the Southern Berkshire Regional School District is reasonably calculated to provide a free, appropriate public education to Callie in the least restrictive setting.

2. If so, is the Department of Mental Retardation responsible for providing an appropriate residence to permit Callie to access and benefit from the Individualized Education Plan developed by Southern Berkshire Regional School District?

3. If not, does Callie require residential educational programming in order to receive a free appropriate public education?

Summary of the Evidence

1. Callie is a nineteen year old young woman who has received special education services since she began school. Her mother has been appointed as her guardian. She has been determined to be generally eligible for adult services from the Department of Mental Retardation. Callie has been diagnosed with mental retardation, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and personality disorder. (P-20, 23, 24, 25, 26). Her behavior is characterized by poor impulse control, poor frustration tolerance, mood swings, limited insight and unprovoked violence toward others, at times resulting in an assessment that she presents a danger to herself and others. Functionally, Callie has poor self-care skills, limited activity of daily living skills, and weak social skills. Academically, Callie functions on a second to third grade level in all subjects. (P-9, S-1; P-10, P-14, P-15)

2. During the 2000-2001 school year Callie attended 9 th grade at Mt. Everett High School in the Southern Berkshire Regional School District. Identified as a student with both academic and emotional needs, Callie followed a primarily mainstreamed educational program spending one and one half hours per day in the resource room for individualized academic instruction and a daily check-in with the school adjustment counselor. There are no progress reports in the record from that school year. (P-1)

3. Callie was placed in foster care during the 2001-2002 school year. She attended Waconah Regional High School through the Central Berkshire Regional School District on a facially inadequate IEP that provided for a reading tutor three hours per week. (P-2) In the spring and summer of 2002, Callie had multiple psychiatric hospitalizations. (P-17, 18, 22) She returned home during the summer, 2002, and re-enrolled in Southern Berkshire Regional Schools. (Parent)

4. On September 18, 2002, the Team met to plan Callie’s 10 th grade3 program. On September 24, 2002, Southern Berkshire proposed an IEP providing a one-to-one paraprofessional for Callie throughout the school day, three hours daily of resource room assistance and counseling “as needed.” The IEP was implemented immediately. There was no student or guardian signature on the proposed IEP until January 21, 2003. (P-3) The Team did not have access to any information from Callie’s prior placement at Waconah High School, nor from her recent hospitalizations, in developing the IEP. No evaluations or assessments were undertaken by Southern Berkshire to aid in framing the IEP. ( Perilli, Ullrich) The Team based its planning on what it knew of Callie’s functioning at Mt. Everett High School during her 2000-2001 9 th grade year. There is no evidence that the proposed IEP was developed or supervised by a certified special educator. ( Perilli)

5. On October 2, 2002, Callie made homicidal threats to and about family members. She repeated these threats to her school adjustment counselor and subsequently to her private therapist. Based on a finding of imminent dangerousness she was transported to the acute locked psychiatric facility at Berkshire Medical Center, Jones III . She has remained on the Jones III unit involuntarily since that time. Callie has been medically ready for discharge since mid-October, 2002. (Jennings; Ullrich; P-14; P-20; P-23; P-24; P-25; P-26)

6. Southern Berkshire arranged tutoring for Callie at Jones III. The tutoring was provided by Callie’s one-to-one paraprofessional, Tanya Cook. The School proposed an Amendment to Callie’s IEP calling for the in-hospital tutoring on October 31, 2002. The tutoring began on November 8, 2002. The proposed amendment was sent to the Parent on November 20, 2002. The Parent accepted the amendment on January 21, 2002. (P-7; S-5; Cook)

7. Sean Jennings is the Director of Jones III and the case manager for Callie. He testified that Jones III is an involuntary, locked psychiatric unit with 15 patient beds and 50 staff. Most other patients are 25-50 years old with chronic psychosis, antisocial personalities and/or elderly dementia. The Jones III is highly stimulating and noisy. Most other patients have short stays so no educational or behavioral training takes place on the unit. There are no appropriate activities or peers for Callie. The staff has successfully used some behavioral modification techniques with Callie, however, the unit is not behaviorally oriented. Callie mimics the psychiatric behavior she observes on the unit. For example, Mr. Jennings stated, the staff extinguished Callie’s self-cutting behavior by using “planned ignoring”, but then Callie switched attention-seeking behaviors to throwing chairs at visitors. According to Mr. Jennings Callie’s provocative behaviors are difficult to manage in the Jones III environment since it cannot offer desired rewards, and does not use restraints as a matter of policy and practice.

Mr. Jennings testified that Callie has been ready for discharge from the Jones III unit since 7-10 days after her October 2, 2002, admission. She no longer poses a risk of immediate harm to herself or others, although it can be expected that those behaviors will resurface in a provocative environment without additional behavioral training. Callie cannot be discharged home as it is a provocative environment and her mother refuses to take her in. Mr. Jennings recommends that Callie be discharged to a highly structured staff intensive residential education setting which uses a consistent, behaviorally based approach to teach functional living skills, emotional and social skills. The facility must be able to anticipate, absorb, and retrain the violent behavior Mr. Jennings believes Callie will exhibit during the transition to a new setting. Jones III has been unable to discharge Callie because such a “step down” setting has not been made available. (Jennings; P-21; P-26)

8. Lynn Summerill became the special education director at Southern Berkshire on November 2, 2002. As a result of formal and informal discussions among Ms. Summerill, the Parent, and Sean Jennings, a highly unusual arrangement was made to transport Callie between Mt. Everett High School and Jones III. Callie resumed her “mainstream” program at Mt. Everett on December 9, 2002. She had two aides accompany her at all times. No evaluations were performed, no team meeting was convened, and no new IEP was developed prior to Callie’s return to Mt. Everett. At some time later the two-to-one aide ratio was reduced to one-to-one. There is no documentation of this change. (Summerill, Cook)

9. As a result of her medication regime and poor sleep in the Jones III environment Callie is prone to fatigue and sleepiness during the day. Callie slept through some or most of her classes in twenty-four of twenty-eight days of school logged by her one-to-one paraprofessional, Ms. Cook. (S-5; Cook; Summerill) Although the service providers and administrators at Mt. Everett High School noticed the change in Callie’s level of alertness the Team was not reconvened. (Summerill, Cook, Perrilli, Ullrich)

10. Callie continued to follow a “mainstream” program consisting of 3 hours daily academic instruction in the resource room, art class in the mainstream and an afternoon culinary arts class from December 2002, to mid-March 2003. Although Ms. Cook kept a running log of Callie’s behavior during this time, there are no other assessments, observations, evaluations or progress reports by school personnel documenting Callie’s adjustment to or performance in any class, or in any educational domain.

11. Between January and March, 2003, Ms. Cook’s log noted 7 “good” days out of a total of 42 entries. Five “good” days were special events. On 37 of the days behaviors such as task avoidance, extended sleep times, or aggression were noted. (S-5; Bray-Garretson)

12. In March 2003, the culinary arts instructor informed Ms. Summerill that Callie could no longer participate in the program because her hygiene was too poor. Ms. Cook then developed a 5 week behavior plan to address Callie’s long-standing lack of personal hygiene skills. (P-5) Callie completed the program successfully. (Cook) Currently, however, Callie’s independent personal grooming skills remain poor. (Bray-Garretson)

13. In mid-March 2003, Callie started participating in Allied Health, an off-campus vocational preparation program. Ms. Cook testified that the class is a better match to Callie’s interests and skills than culinary arts had been. She also noted that there is no “carryover” or coordination between the academic and vocational portions of Callie’s program. After beginning the Allied Health program Callie continued at times to display difficult behaviors, such as punching, biting, threatening, throwing objects, pushing students and teachers, and swearing. Callie’s behavior resulted in at least one suspension. (Cook, S-5)

14. Ms. Summerill explained the various IEPs developed for Callie. The initial IEP resulted from the Team meeting on September 18, 2002, and called for a mainstream academic program and academic support in the resource room, with a one-to-one aide at all times. That IEP was based on Callie’s success with a similar IEP model in the 9 th grade and was implemented without parental or student signature. (P-3) The IEP was signed by the Parent on January 21, 2003, without an indication of acceptance or rejection. An amendment to the 2002-2003 IEP calling for tutorial services in a hospital setting was proposed on October 31, 2002, but not accepted by the Parent/guardian until January 21, 2003, when tutoring was no longer being provided. (P-7) Another amendment was developed on January 14, 2003, to reflect Callie’s December 9th, 2002 return to Mt. Everett High School. No team meeting was held to develop that IEP. The Parent/guardian also signed that amendment on January 21, 2003, but did not indicate acceptance or rejection. (P-4) On January 10, 2003, the School revised the original 2002-2003 IEP proposed in September to provide for no unsupervised contact between Callie and her sister, an element requested by the Parent. The Parent signed the revised IEP on January 10, 2003, but did not indicate acceptance or rejection. Although the cover letter states that this revised IEP was developed as a result of a Team meeting held on January 10, 2003, no Team was actually held on that date. (Parent, Summerill; P-6) Finally, an amendment was proposed on March 17, 2003, to allow Callie to participate in the off-campus Allied Health vocational preparation program. No vocational or other assessments were conducted prior to this program change. The Parent/guardian accepted that amendment on March 17, 2003. (P-8)

15. Callie’s resource room instructor/liaison is not certified in special education. No certified special educator developed or delivered special education to Callie during 2002-2003. (Perilli, Cook, Summerill, S-5)

16. Ms. Summerill testified that, based on her knowledge of Callie, gleaned from her review of Callie’s records, her conversations with Callie’s service providers, and her observations of Callie in school, Callie responds well to behavior modifications and reinforcements. Other than the time limited hygiene plan, however, Southern Berkshire has not developed or implemented a behavior plan for Callie to address either her noncompliance or her violence and other acting out behaviors, nor to improve her academic, vocational or social skills. Southern Berkshire has never conducted a behavioral evaluation.

Ms. Summerill also testified that Callie could have independent community skills, and thus would be appropriately placed in a community residence operated by the Department of Mental Retardation, allowing her to continue to attend Mt. Everett. In reaching this conclusion Ms. Summerill relied in large measure on the “fact” that Callie had worked independently at a local grocery store during the summer before returning to Mt. Everett. There was no contact, however, between the School and the job and thus no verification of Callie’s reports of success there. (Summerill)

17. Callie’s treating physician on Jones III, Stuart Bartle, wrote that Callie has not responded well to multiple efforts to maintain her in the community, either at home or in foster care. Instead, Dr. Bartle recommended that Callie be placed in a residential educational program which consistently uses behavior modification to address emotional dysregulation and to teach coping strategies for use in academic, employment and daily living settings. (P-15; see also P-14, 16)

18. Helen Bray-Garretson is a licensed clinical psychologist with 17 years experience in evaluation and program consultation for adolescents with significant mental, emotional, behavioral and cognitive disabilities (D-1) In May 2003, she reviewed Callie’s records, visited Callie’s family, spoke with and observed Callie both on Jones III and at Mt. Everett, and discussed Callie with Jones III and Mt. Everett staff. Dr. Bray-Garretson described Callie as an immature appearing young woman with mental retardation, in obvious emotional distress. She appeared sedated and had extremely poor hygiene. At school she did not have a behavior plan to address readily apparent hygiene, functional living or behavior skills deficits. Instead, according to Dr. Bray-Garretson, the staff implemented an “appeasement model” set up for the sole purpose of avoiding escalating behaviors by giving in to Callie’s whims. Callie has virtually no interaction with typical age peers and lacks the skills to relate to any peers in a meaningful way. At the hospital, Callie appeared disheveled, tired, and isolated. She retreated to her bed immediately upon her return from school. The hospital setting provides no appropriate instruction, intervention, models or peers for Callie. (Bray-Garretson)

Based on her review, Dr. Bray-Garrettson testified that Callie’s educational needs are not being met in her current program at Mt. Everett, and cannot be met in a combined Mt. Everett/group home placement. Dr. Bray-Garretson stated that Callie needs intensive educational intervention in order to prepare for adult living. She requires a staff-secure residential educational setting that can provide a twenty four hour behavioral program; an individualized functional academic program; appropriate vocational preparation program; adolescent peers with similar disabilities and strict, supervised routines, expectations, and structure using a psycoeducational process approach. Callie needs to learn the emotional coping skills, reciprocal social skills, and functioning living skills that form the basis of all independent adult living. As seen in her response to the limited hygiene plan and the minimal behavioral interventions on Jones III, Callie can learn new skills by following a strict behavioral model, with clear expectations and consequences. She needs direct, concrete, repetitive instruction and real life practice, cueing, coaching and prompting to acquire independent social skills sufficient for group living and vocational situations. Chronic episodes of emotional dysregulation are to be expected given her multiple diagnoses. Therefore all instruction must focus on teaching skills for self-regulation. This would be a more challenging type of program than she has been exposed to and would initially increase her resistance and her challenging, even dangerous, behaviors. Therefore the program has to be equipped to anticipate, handle and redirect Callie’s oppositional behaviors. According to Dr. Bray-Garretson, Mt. Everett High School has not and cannot offer Calllie any of the elements necessary for an appropriate education at this time. Furthermore, placement in any community shared living arrangement would be inappropriate. Callie has a history of failure in the community with no subsequent history of success. There has been no positive change in her skill set since her last community placement. Before any such placement can be successful, Callie needs to learn fundamental social, behavioral, and daily living skills in a more tightly structured and supervised setting. (Bray-Garretson)

19. Sullivan and Associates provides day and residential services for approximately 100 state funded adults with disabilities, typically in small, community based one and two person homes. In February 2003, Linda Sullivan reviewed Callie’s history at the request of Mr. Jennings and Mr. Huntington of the Department of Mental Retardation. She developed a residential plan for Callie that would place her in a single family house or apartment with one-to-one staffing at all times. For the initial six month period Callie would be in an intensive, individual behavior shaping program. Then there would be a gradual transition to a home share model with one roommate. During the day Callie could continue to attend her program at Mt. Everett. (Sullivan)

20. Nanotuck Resource Associates provides residential supports to approximately 75 adults with mental retardation. The clinical director, John Smith, met Callie in February, 2003, and reviewed her records. He concluded that Nanotuck could appropriately place Callie with a foster family in Lee from which she could continue her education at Mt. Everett. The foster family, in this case a single woman and her young daughter, would be responsible for establishing a family relationship, oversight of Callie’s personal care routine, assistance with transportation and implementing any existing behavior management plan (Smith)

Findings and Conclusions

There is no dispute that Callie is a student with a disability as defined by 603 CMR 28.02 (7) and 34 CFR 380.7 and is thus entitled to receive a free, appropriate public education. Indeed there is substantial agreement about the nature and scope of Callie’s special learning needs. The issue presented here is whether those needs can be appropriately addressed in a special education program within the local high school, or whether Callie requires a comprehensive, residential educational program in order to receive FAPE. In a twist on the typical presentation of this type of appeal, the school district and the parent/guardian agree that Callie is appropriately placed at Mt. Everett High School. They seek an order pursuant to chapter 159, section 162 of the Acts of 2000. (hereinafter “Section 162”) requiring the Department of Mental Retardation (hereinafter “DMR”) to provide an appropriate residence for Callie so that she may continue to participate in her Mt. Everett High School program. The DMR argues,4 on the other hand, that the Mt. Everett program is inadequate, that Callie requires twenty four hour programming for educational reasons, and therefore that the School is wholly responsible for securing a residential educational placement for Callie. After careful consideration of all the evidence presented at the hearing, and the thoughtful arguments of counsel for all parties, I find I agree with DMR’s position that the appropriate placement for Callie is a residential educational program. My reasoning follows:

The School has, at all times, the duty to develop and to provide a free, appropriate public education to Callie. Here the School maintains that its “mainstream” program at Mt. Everett High School is the least restrictive, appropriate special education placement for Callie at this time. According to the School Callie lacks only an appropriate living situation from which to access the program and with which it could coordinate services. It contends that if DMR were to provide an appropriate home for Callie in the community she could successfully attend the Mt. Everett program. Therefore I look first to the special education program offered by Southern Berkshire to Callie. I must determine whether it is reasonably calculated to assure personalized instruction and support services tailored to meet the Student’s unique needs and to permit her to make meaningful educational progress. The preponderance of the evidence in this hearing supports the conclusion that it is not and does not.

At the outset I note that the multiple, inexplicable and ongoing procedural deficiencies in this Student’s IEP process do not promote my confidence in the capacity of Southern Berkshire Regional School District to meet this Student’s needs under any circumstances. I n September 2002, when Callie returned to Mt. Everett High School after a year’s absence with a facially inadequate IEP and a history of unhappy foster care placements and multiple psychiatric hospitalizations, Southern Berkshire did not conduct any assessments or evaluations. I t did not request any information from Callie’s prior educational, medical, home or work settings. I t is difficult to understand on what basis the proposed IEP was developed, and subsequently implemented, despite a lack of parental or student consent. (See 603 CMR 28.04) After Callie’s October 2002 hospitalization the School developed a tutoring plan without a Team meeting and delivered it without consent. (P-7) When, after two months, Callie returned to the Mt. Everett High School while still living at the hospital she did so without a team meeting or a new IEP. (P-4; 603 CMR 28.04 (4).) When school personnel noticed a significant change in Callie’s level of alertness and ability to participate in and benefit from the program at Mt. Everett High School, the Team was not reconvened. (Summerill) Despite agreement that Callie needs behaviorally based programming to address her multiple behavioral, social and independent living skill needs, Southern Berkshire neither evaluated her in this area, nor developed behavioral plans designed to meet her identified learning needs.

Substantively, there are no current evaluations in the record which support Callie’s placement at Mt. Everett High School. The record of her participation in the program over the last six months, such as it is, documents continual behavioral difficulties, little instruction of any type, and poor coordination between settings. Significantly there are no progress reports in the record which could support a finding that Callie has made meaningful educational progress in the Mt. Everett High School. While Southern Berkshire argued that Callie could make progress if she were not hospitalized and/or medicated, there is not one reliable piece of current evidence to support such an argument. Whether or not an individual might make progress if some circumstances were different is a determination that always carries some degree of risk. I t cannot, however, be based on mere speculation. A finding that Callie would be entitled to residential supports from another agency in order to benefit from her special education program requires a predicate finding that she is, or reasonably could be, receiving a free, appropriate public education under the School’s IEP5 . Based on the evidence at this hearing I cannot make such a finding. On the contrary neither the IEP, nor the actual program available to Callie, adequately addresses Callie’s multiple learning needs, as it does not provide the behavioral management, the peer community, the social skills training, the functional academics and the vocational preparation recommended by those people best positioned and qualified to evaluate her needs.

I necessarily rely on expert recommendations when considering alternate models of service provision to students with disabilities. In considering who is an “expert” I look not only to the relevance of the individual’s education, experience, and licensure and/certifications, but to the length and quality of his/her interaction with the Student, the depth and breadth of the individual’s knowledge of the circumstances of the Student and of the factors at issue in the appeal, and the potential for bias. Here all the “experts” recommended that Callie participate in a residential educational program. Sean Jennings, who has coordinated Callie’s care over the course of several hospitalizations, has demonstrated extraordinary flexibility, advocacy and commitment to Callie under extremely trying circumstances, and has nothing to gain from his testimony, spoke eloquently on behalf of a residential education program for Callie. Mr. Jennings pointed to Calllie’s amenability to behavioral programming, her lack of progress without consistent behavioral support, and her history of regression to violence when not provided with appropriate stimulation, structure and predictable consequences. I credit Mr. Jennings’ testimony in full. (para.7)

Similarly, I found the testimony of Ms. Bray-Garretson to be highly persuasive. Ms. Bray-Garretson conducted the only in depth review of Callie’s current needs and program in the record. She has extensive, relevant experience with students with similar multiple learning issues, and has no identifiable interest in the outcome of the hearing. I found her to be candid, thoughtful and a sensible witness. Ms. Bray-Garretson, testified that Callie’s learning needs were not being met at Mt. Everett High School and could not be met in any day placement at this time. She recommended that Callie be placed in a highly structured, behaviorally oriented, residential educational program to learn the behavioral, social and functional skills necessary to live in the community as an adult. I credit Ms. Bray-Garretson’s testimony in full.
(para. 18)

On the contrary the recommendations of the Southern Berkshire Regional School District staff for Callie’s continued placement at Mt. Everett High School were weak, and at times seemed based on assessments of Callie’s functioning during the 2000-2001 school year. Ms. Summerill, while agreeing that Callie needed a behaviorally based program, did not arrange for any behavioral evaluations or services. Ms. Perilli lacks the experience and appropriate certification to provide services to Callie, and did not provide any new information on Callie’s educational functioning at the hearing. Ms. Ullrich focused on Callie’s positive behavior when she attended Mt. Everett two years ago. Other witnesses seemed unaware of both Callie’s learning needs and her current functioning.

The IEP developed by Southern Berkshire does not meet the consistent, credible educational recommendations in the record. It lacks the recommended behavioral orientation in all settings, appropriate services to address Callie’s social, functional academic, life skills and vocational deficits, and appropriate peers to permit Callie meaningful interaction and practice opportunities. The clear preponderance of the credible evidence supports a residential educational program for Callie. There are no credible expert educational recommendations to the contrary. I am convinced that nothing short of a comprehensive, coordinated, behaviorally oriented, twenty-four hour program containing the elements outlined by Ms. Bray-Garretson would provide the least restrictive, appropriate educational option for Callie at this time.

Therefore, the School shall convene a Team meeting to develop an Individualized Education Plan calling for, at a minimum, Callie’s placement in a residential education facility with the following characteristics:

1. a consistent, highly structured behaviorally based approach implemented in all settings:

2. a community of students of ages and with learning needs similar to Callie;

3. social, vocational, functional academic and independent living skill training;

4. the capacity to appropriately manage Callie’s medication and dangerous or provocative behaviors.

Order

The IEP developed by the Southern Berkshire Regional School District is not reasonably calculated to provide Callie with a free, appropriate ‘public education in the least restrictive setting. In order to receive a free, appropriate public education Callie requires a consistent, highly structured, behaviorally oriented residential education program. Southern Berkshire shall convene a Team to develop or identify such a program within ten days of receipt of this Decision. Southern Berkshire shall submit reports concerning its compliance with this Decision on June 27 and July 11, 2003 and on each subsequent Friday thereafter until such time as a new IEP is accepted by the guardian and Callie is attending a residential school thereunder. The Department of Mental Retardation is dismissed as a party to this Appeal.

Date: June 17, 2003
Lindsay Byrne, Hearing Officer


1

Callie is a pseudonym chosen by the Hearing Officer for use in publicly available documents to protect the privacy of the Student.


2

See Ruling on Motion to Join, BSEA # 02-2013, April 15, 2003


3

Callie did not complete sufficient credits at Waconah Regional High School to qualify for promotion to 11 th grade.


4

Throughout the hearing DMR also maintained its position that it is not required by its regulations, and does not as a matter of policy, provide residential services to eligible individuals between the ages of 18 and 22. I do not address that argument in this decision.


5

As this matter involves residential supports only I do not address other circumstances where discrete services uniquely within the control of another human service agency may be necessary in order to ensure FAPE. See Section 162.


Related Articles

Leave A Comment?