Holyoke Public School and Mount Greylock School Union 69 – BSEA # 06-3101



<br /> Holyoke Public School and Mount Greylock School Union 69 – BSEA # 06-3101<br />

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS

In Re: Holyoke Public Schools and Mount Greylock School Union 69

BSEA # 06-3101

DECISION

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.

A hearing was held on January 20, 2006 in Springfield, MA before William Crane, Hearing Officer. Those present for all or part of the proceedings were:

Richard Carbone Student’s Educational Surrogate Parent

Kurt Granatis1 Principal, Housatonic Academy

Celia Cauley Special Education Supervisor, Holyoke Public Schools

Marianne Currier Director of Student Services and Special Education, Holyoke PS

Nancy Gardner Principal, Hillcrest Educational Center, Lenox, MA

Paul Mays Special Education Director, Mount Greylock School Union 69

Peter Smith Attorney for Holyoke Public Schools

Philip Grandchamp Attorney for Mount Greylock School Union 69

Michael Hinkley Attorney with Mr. Grandchamp

The official record of the hearing consists of documents submitted by the Holyoke Public Schools and marked as exhibits H-1 through H-20; documents submitted by the Mount Greylock School Union 69 and marked as exhibits G-1 through G-8; oral stipulations made at the evidentiary Hearing and marked as stipulations # 1 through 11; and approximately two hours of recorded oral testimony, discussion and argument.

The Hearing Request was filed with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) on January 5, 2006. The Hearing date was originally set by the BSEA for February 9, 2006. In light of the potential continuing harm to Student as a result of living at his current placement and pursuant to BSEA Hearing Rule IIF and by agreement of the parties, the Hearing date was advanced to January 20, 2006.

As agreed by the parties, written closing arguments were due on January 27, 2006, and the record closed on that date.

ISSUE

The issue to be decided in this case is whether Holyoke Public Schools (Holyoke) or Mount Greylock School Union 69 (Greylock) has fiscal responsibility for the day portion of Student’s anticipated residential placement at the Hillcrest Educational Center.

SUMMARY OF THE DISPUTE

Holyoke filed the Hearing Request against Greylock (which includes Lanesborough Public Schools), seeking an order from the BSEA requiring Greylock to pay for the day portion of the proposed residential placement for Student through June 30, 2006 in accordance with a Massachusetts Department of Education (DOE) assignment of school district responsibility.

Student is a twelve-year-old boy who functions at the extremely low range of intellectual functioning and has significant social, emotional and behavioral needs. At all times relevant to this dispute, Student has been under the care and custody of the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS). Stipulation # 3; exhibits H-13, G-1, G-2, G-3.

Student’s mother resides in Holyoke. Holyoke was Student’s responsible school district until Student was placed in a DSS-funded foster home in Lanesborough, MA, in January 2005, at which time Greylock/Lanesborough became Student’s responsible school district. Stipulation # 11; exhibits H-3, H-6, H-18.

On April 22, 2005, Student left his foster home and was placed at the Crisis Stabilization Unit (CSU) of the Brien Center in Pittsfield, MA. Pursuant to Student’s fully, accepted current IEP, Student is to be placed at the Hillcrest Educational Center in Lenox, MA, which is a private residential program. DSS has agreed to cost-share the residential component of the Hillcrest placement. Stipulations # 2, 4, 10; exhibit H-6.

The issue in dispute is which school district (Holyoke or Lanesborough/Greylock) bears financial responsibility for the day portion of the Hillcrest placement.

Student’s placement at Hillcrest has been and continues to be delayed, to Student’s detriment, pending resolution of this dispute between the two school districts notwithstanding that (1) DOE determined financial responsibility through a June 21, 2005 assignment of school district responsibility memorandum, (2) there currently is no appeal of the DOE assignment of school district responsibility, and (3) DOE has directed, through its regulations, that a school district determined by DOE to be responsible for a student must continue responsibility for that student until another school district is determined to be responsible.2 Exhibits H-6, H-9, H-10, H-12, H-18, H-19.

STIPIULATED FACTS

Holyoke and Greylock have agreed to the following stipulated facts:

1. Greylock acknowledges that it will fund and pay to Hillcrest the bills for Student’s attending Housatonic Academy during May and June 2005.3

2. The parties do not dispute that the appropriate current day placement for Student is Housatonic Academy (a day program) and that the appropriate prospective placement for Student is the Hillcrest Educational Center in Lenox, MA (a residential program).

3. During all times relevant to this dispute, Student has been under the care and custody of the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS).

4. DSS has paid for and continues to pay for the residential portion of Student’s past and current services as follows:

· From January 2005 to April 22, 2005, in a foster home placement in Lanesborough, MA.

· From April 22, 2005 to the present, at the Crisis Stabilization Unit of the Brien Center for Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services in Pittsfield, MA.

DSS will be funding the residential portion of Student’s placement at the Hillcrest Educational Center in Lenox, MA.

5. Hillcrest Educational Center in Lenox, MA, is a private, residential school approved by the Massachusetts Department of Education (DOE) to provide services to publicly-funded students.

6. Richard Carbone is the duly-appointed Educational Surrogate Parent for Student, as reflected in exhibit H-20.

7. Holyoke acknowledges that it is the programmatically-responsible local education agency (LEA) for Student and will become the fiscally-responsible LEA beginning July 1, 2006 should Student be placed at the Hillcrest Educational Center in Lenox, MA, unless otherwise ordered by the BSEA, prospectively until July 1, 2006.

8. Exhibits H-13 and G-1 are the current IEP for Student for the period October 11, 2005 to October 9, 2006. The IEP and placement determination have been signed and consented-to by the Educational Surrogate Parent.

9. Pittsfield, MA, as a result of Student’s placement at the Crisis Stabilization Unit at the Brien Center and located in Pittsfield, MA, is not currently and has not been Student’s residence.

10. Student’s foster care placement in Lanesborough, MA, terminated on April 22, 2005.

Greylock agreed to and Holyoke neither agreed to nor disputed the following:

11. At all times relevant to this dispute, Student’s biological mother was and currently is a resident of Holyoke, MA.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK

Student is an individual with a disability, falling within the purview of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act4 and the state special education statute.5 As such, Student is entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE).6 Neither his eligibility status nor his entitlement to FAPE is in dispute.

The sole point in contention is which school district must pay for the educational portion of the proposed Hillcrest placement. Accordingly, the dispute is governed by MGL c. 71B, ss 3 and 5. Sections 3 and 5 of MGL c. 71B have been construed as “clearly imposing the burden of paying for a special education program on the municipality (or school district) where the child needing the program resides”.7 While the residence of a student is typically the same as that of the parent who has physical custody of the student, the phrase “residing therein” in MGL c. 71B, § 3, “is not so obviously self-defining when considerations such as split families, guardianships, children living with foster parents, relatives or friends, and institutionalized children enter the picture”.8

Recognizing this, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has explained that “under the terms of § 3, the [Massachusetts] department [of education] has been given the authority to adopt regulations addressed to resolving the issue of residence in situations in which a child’s legal residence may be in some doubt.”9 The Court has also specifically noted that this situation (i.e., doubt regarding residence) is present where a student has been in DSS custody and therefore has no custodial parent, which reflects the situation in the present dispute.10

For these reasons, I rely on DOE regulations (and the process under these regulations for assigning responsibility) in determining Student’s residence for purposes of school district responsibility.

DISCUSSION

Student is under the care and custody of the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS) and in January 2005, he was placed in a DSS-funded foster home in Lanesborough, MA. Lanesborough is part of a consortium of four western Massachusetts school districts referred to as Mount Greylock School Union 69 (Greylock). Until the foster placement in January 2005, Holyoke (where Student’s mother lives) was Student’s responsible school. Stipulation # 4; exhibits H-6, H-18.

DOE regulations provide that when a student has been placed by DSS at a foster home in Massachusetts, the school district in which the student resides has programmatic and fiscal responsibility for the student.11 Consistent with these regulatory standards, by memorandum of February 2, 2005, DOE assigned Lanesborough as having fiscal and programmatic responsibility for Student. Exhibit H-3.

Lanesborough convened an IEP Team meeting on January 27, 2005 in order to determine Student’s appropriate academic placement. An IEP was written for the period 2/9/05 to 2/9/06 providing for Student to be placed in a day school identified as Housatonic Academy which is a private, unapproved day school located in Pittsfield, MA. Exhibits G-7, H-4.

Student began attending Housatonic Academy in February 2005. He has continued to attend school there through the present. Stipulation # 2; exhibit H-4.

On April 22, 2005, Student left his foster home in Lanesborough and entered the Crisis Stabilization Unit (CSU) at the Brien Center for Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services in Pittsfield, MA. Student has been placed at the CSU in Pittsfield since April 22, 2005. Stipulation # 4; exhibits H-6, H-18.

The parties have stipulated that by virtue of Student’s placement at the CSU (which is located in Pittsfield, MA), Pittsfield did not become Student’s residence. Stipulation # 9. From January 2005 through the present, Lanesborough has assumed financial responsibility for Student’s educational services at the Housatonic Academy. Stipulations # 1, 7; exhibit H-18.12

According to DOE SPED Advisory 2004-4 , DSS has authority to determine where the child lives if the child is in DSS custody. The Advisory explains:

DSS places children in a residential school following a clinical determination, based on diagnostic and other assessment information, that the child requires such a setting. DSS is making a residential placement but is not making a special education residential school placement as this term is used in the special education law and on the Department of Education special education placement form PL1. DSS does not make special education placement decisions.13

At some time during the summer of 2005, DSS (through Commonworks) determined that Student should be placed in a residential school and that the appropriate residential school was the Hillcrest Educational Center located in Lenox, MA. Student was referred to and accepted for placement by Hillcrest. Exhibits H-8, H-9, H-10.14

As discussed in greater detail below, DOE issued an assignment of school district responsibility memorandum, dated June 21, 2005, finding that Holyoke was programmatically responsible for Student’s education. At the request of the Educational Surrogate Parent, Holyoke convened an IEP Team meeting in October 2005, which generated Student’s current IEP for the period 10/11/05 to 10/9/06. The IEP calls for Student to be placed at the Hillcrest program in Lenox. The IEP was fully accepted by the Educational Surrogate Parent on October 13, 2005. The parties have stipulated that the appropriate placement for Student is the Hillcrest program in Lenox, MA. Stipulations # 2, 8; exhibits H-6, H-13, G-1.15

Hillcrest is a private, residential school approved by DOE to provide services to publicly-funded special education students with emotional and/or behavioral deficits. In the event that Student were to attend Hillcrest pursuant to his current IEP, the IEP would be implemented during the school day from 8:30 AM to 3:30 PM. Approximately 50 to 60 % of the current 54 students at Hillcrest are designated as “cost share” with DSS. When a student is designated as a “cost share”, DSS pays for 50 % of the approved rate. Stipulation # 5; testimony of Gardner.

I now turn to the ultimate issue in the present dispute, which is the question of whether Greylock (which includes Lanesborough) or Holyoke (where Student’s mother lives) is the school district with financial responsibility for Student’s prospective educational placement at Hillcrest.

As discussed above, DOE regulations determine Student’s residence for purposes of school district responsibility. I therefore consider the relevant section of those regulations, which provides as follows:

The school district where the parent(s) or legal guardian resides shall have both programmatic and financial responsibility under the following circumstances: . . .
(b) When a student whose IEP requires an out of district placement lives and receives special education services at a special education residential school.16

The term “parent” as used in the above-quoted regulation, refers to a student’s mother or father.17

It is apparent (and not disputed by the parties) that pursuant to these regulations, Holyoke will become Student’s residence for purposes of school district responsibility once Student is placed at Hillcrest since (1) Hillcrest is a special education residential school, (2) Student’s mother continues to reside in Holyoke and (3) his father apparently lived in Holyoke immediately prior to his current incarceration. Stipulations # 2, 11; testimony of Gardner; exhibit H-6.

Upon being placed at Hillcrest, Holyoke would immediately assume financial responsibility for Student’s educational placement but for the so-called “move-in” law, which reallocates financial responsibility for certain kinds of placements when a student or parents change residence.18 The only point in contention in the present dispute is what implications, if any, the move-in law has on the instant dispute.

The move-in law provides, in relevant part, as follows: if a child with a disability for whom a school committee currently provides or arranges for the provision of special education in an approved private day or residential school placement, including placement in a pediatric nursing home pursuant to the provisions of section 3, or his parent or guardian moves to a different school district on or after July 1 of any fiscal year, such school committee of the former community of residence shall pay the approved budgeted costs, including necessary transportation costs, of such day or residential placement, including placement in a pediatric nursing home, of such child for the balance of such fiscal year; provided, however, that if such move occurs between April 1 and June 30, such school committee of the former community of residence shall pay such costs for the balance of the fiscal year in which the move occurred as well as for the subsequent fiscal year.19

The relevance of the move-in law to the instant dispute has been addressed by DOE’s June 21, 2005 assignment of school district responsibility memorandum, which includes a determination of application of the move-in law. Exhibit H-6.

Through its June 21, 2005 assignment memorandum, DOE re-determined fiscal and programmatic responsibility for Student in anticipation of Student’s change of placement to Hillcrest. The DOE assignment memorandum noted Student’s residence in a DSS-funded foster home in Lanesborough, MA from 1/05 to 4/22/05 and his current residence at the CSU in Pittsfield, MA. DOE’s assignment memorandum found that Student’s “former community of residence” was Greylock and that Student’s “new community of residence” was Holyoke. The change of school district responsibility reflected Student’s anticipated move to a residential placement, which would make determinative the residence of Student’s mother in Holyoke. Exhibit H-6.

In its June 21, 2005 assignment memorandum, DOE then applied the move-in law to this factual context. Because the anticipated change in Student’s residence would occur between April 1, 2005 and June 30, 2005, DOE found that Greylock would be financially responsible for the remainder of the fiscal year ending June 30, 2005, with financial responsibility continuing with Greylock for the entire next fiscal year, ending June 30, 2006. Exhibit H-6.20

Student, of course, was not placed at Hillcrest on or before June 30, 2005. However, the DOE analysis is not changed by the delay in placement to Hillcrest. Under any analysis, Greylock’s fiscal responsibility for the Hillcrest placement can only start on the date that Student actually is placed there. The end date of Greylock’s responsibility for Hillcrest (June 30, 2006) under the DOE assignment memorandum does not change so long as the Hillcrest placement occurs prior to April 1, 2006. In the event that the placement were to occur on or after April 1, 2006, the move-in law would extend Greylock’s financial responsibility until June 30, 2007.

In an e-mail message dated October 12, 2005 from Kathy Theodore to Ann Silver (Program Coordinator, Local Education Agency Assignments, Department of Education) after Student had not been placed at Hillcrest on or before June 30, 2005, Ms. Theodore requested clarification regarding school district responsibility. It continued to be anticipated that Student would be placed at Hillcrest through a DSS cost-share agreement. Ms. Theodore noted that Lanesborough was questioning why Lanesborough should continue to be responsible after Student is moved to Hillcrest. In her e-mail message reply of the same date, Ms. Silver wrote that after Student’s move to Hillcrest, Lanesborough would remain fiscally responsible for Student under the move-in law. Exhibit H-14.

The DOE regulations in effect when DOE issued its June 21, 2005 assignment memorandum provided that a state agency may request DOE’s assistance in assigning school district responsibility, which request was made by DSS in the present dispute.21 DOE issued its June 21, 2005 school district assignment memorandum under this regulatory authority.

The DOE regulations then in effect allowed a school district to appeal a DOE assignment of responsibility to the BSEA, provided that the appeal is filed “within 30 days of receipt of the Department’s assignment.”22 Neither party has requested that DOE reconsider its assignment of school district responsibility, nor has either party sought to join DOE as a party to the present dispute.23 Perhaps most importantly, there is no current appeal to the BSEA regarding DOE’s assignment of school district responsibility.24

I therefore conclude that the June 21, 2005 DOE assignment of school district responsibility (which included a determination of application of the move-in law and resulted in assignment of fiscal responsibility to Greylock/Lanesborough through June 30, 2006) is a final assignment of school district responsibility that cannot now be reviewed or otherwise altered by the BSEA.

I am therefore in the position of ordering the parties to comply with this assignment, rather than reviewing whether it was correctly decided. Pursuant to the June 21, 2005 DOE assignment of school district responsibility, I find that Greylock/Lanesborough is financially responsible for the Hillcrest placement through June 30, 2006. Holyoke becomes financially responsible for the Hillcrest placement effective July 1, 2006.25

ORDER

Mount Greylock School Union 69 (which includes Lanesborough Public Schools) is financially responsible for the Hillcrest placement (at the Hillcrest Educational Center in Lenox, MA) through June 30, 2006. Holyoke Public Schools will become financially responsible for the Hillcrest placement effective July 1, 2006.26

Because the financial dispute between Holyoke Public Schools and Mount Greylock School Union 69 has been resolved, Student shall be placed immediately at the Hillcrest Educational Center in Lenox, MA.

By the Hearing Officer,

William Crane

Dated: February 2, 2006

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS

EFFECT OF BUREAU DECISION AND RIGHTS OF APPEAL

Effect of the Decision

20 U.S.C. s. 1415(i)(1)(B) requires that a decision of the Bureau of Special Education Appeals be final and subject to no further agency review. Accordingly, the Bureau cannot permit motions to reconsider or to re-open a Bureau decision once it is issued. Bureau decisions are final decisions subject only to judicial review.

Except as set forth below, the final decision of the Bureau must be implemented immediately. Pursuant to M.G.L. c. 30A, s. 14(3), appeal of the decision does not operate as a stay. Rather, a party seeking to stay the decision of the Bureau must obtain such stay from the court having jurisdiction over the party’s appeal.

Under the provisions of 20 U.S.C. s. 1415(j), “unless the State or local education agency and the parents otherwise agree, the child shall remain in the then-current educational placement,” during the pendency of any judicial appeal of the Bureau decision, unless the child is seeking initial admission to a public school, in which case “with the consent of the parents, the child shall be placed in the public school program”. Therefore, where the Bureau has ordered the public school to place the child in a new placement, and the parents or guardian agree with that order, the public school shall immediately implement the placement ordered by the Bureau. School Committee of Burlington, v. Massachusetts Department of Education , 471 U.S. 359 (1985). Otherwise, a party seeking to change the child’s placement during the pendency of judicial proceedings must seek a preliminary injunction ordering such a change in placement from the court having jurisdiction over the appeal. Honig v. Doe , 484 U.S. 305 (1988); Doe v. Brookline , 722 F.2d 910 (1st Cir. 1983).

Compliance

A party contending that a Bureau of Special Education Appeals decision is not being implemented may file a motion with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals contending that the decision is not being implemented and setting out the areas of non-compliance. The Hearing Officer may convene a hearing at which the scope of the inquiry shall be limited to the facts on the issue of compliance, facts of such a nature as to excuse performance, and facts bearing on a remedy. Upon a finding of non-compliance, the Hearing Officer may fashion appropriate relief, including referral of the matter to the Legal Office of the Department of Education or other office for appropriate enforcement action. 603 CMR 28.08(6)(b).

Rights of Appeal

Any party aggrieved by a decision of the Bureau of Special Education Appeals may file a complaint in the state superior court of competent jurisdiction or in the District Court of the United States for Massachusetts, for review of the Bureau decision. 20 U.S.C. s. 1415(i)(2).

An appeal of a Bureau decision to state superior court or to federal district court must be filed within ninety (90) days from the date of the decision. 20 U.S.C. s. 1415(i)(2)(B).

Confidentiality

In order to preserve the confidentiality of the student involved in these proceedings, when an appeal is taken to superior court or to federal district court, the parties are strongly urged to file the complaint without identifying the true name of the parents or the child, and to move that all exhibits, including the transcript of the hearing before the Bureau of Special Education Appeals, be impounded by the court. See Webster Grove School District v. Pulitzer Publishing Company , 898 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990). If the appealing party does not seek to impound the documents, the Bureau of Special Education Appeals, through the Attorney General’s Office, may move to impound the documents.

Record of the Hearing

The Bureau of Special Education Appeals will provide an electronic verbatim record of the hearing to any party, free of charge, upon receipt of a written request. Pursuant to federal law, upon receipt of a written request from any party, the Bureau of Special Education Appeals will arrange for and provide a certified written transcription of the entire proceedings by a certified court reporter, free of charge.


1

The spelling of this name, taken from the attendance sheet, was unclear, with the result that I have likely misspelled the name.


2

603 CMR 28.10(d).


3

My understanding is that all other outstanding bills for services from Housatonic Academy have been paid by Greylock.


4

20 USC 1400 et seq .


5

MGL c. 71B.


6

20 USC 1400(d)(1(A), 1412(a)(1(A); MGL c. 71B, ss. 2, 3.


7

Walker Home for Children v. Franklin. 416 Mass. 291, 295, 621 N.E.2d 376 (1993), quoted in City of Salem v. BSEA of Department of Education , 444 Mass. 476, 481; 829 N.E.2d 641 (2005).


8

Board of Educ. v. School Comm. of Amesbury , 16 Mass. App. Ct. 508, 512, 452 N.E.2d 302 (1983), quoted in City of Salem v. BSEA of Department of Education , 444 Mass. 476, 482; 829 N.E.2d 641(2005).


9

Walker Home for Children v. Franklin. 416 Mass. 291, 296, 621 N.E.2d 376 (1993), quoted in City of Salem v. BSEA of Department of Education , 444 Mass. 476, 482; 829 N.E.2d 641(2005).


10

City of Salem v. BSEA of Department of Education , 444 Mass. 476, 482; 829 N.E.2d 641(2005).


11

The DOE regulations then in effect were 603 CMR 28.03(4)(a)(3). See also 603 CMR 28.02(20) (definition of “resident school district”). The DOE regulations governing LEA responsibility were revised effective July 1, 2005. However, the revised regulations continue to assign responsibility to the LEA in which the student resides when the student is placed in a DSS-funded foster home – that is, Lanesborough. 603 CMR 28.10(2)(c).


12

I note, also, that DOE regulations provide that a school district’s responsibility for a student continues “until another school district is deemed responsible under 603 CMR 28.10.” 603 CMR 28.10(1)(d).


13

The Advisory may be found at: http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/advisories/04_4.html

The parties stipulated that I may take administrative notice of this Advisory.


14

DSS’s proposed placement to Hillcrest was consistent with a September 2005 psychological report concluding that Student “would benefit from placement in a residential treatment milieu that is capable of addressing his social, emotional, learning and behavior issues”. The report advised against further placement in foster care. Exhibit G-2.


15

Student’s IEP calls for a day placement, which is identified as Hillcrest, even though Hillcrest is considered a residential school (or residential program). This is because the educational component of Student’s placement at Hillcrest is a day placement, with DSS paying for the residential component of Hillcrest on a cost-share basis, just as DSS has paid for Student’s residential care in foster placement in Lanesborough and during his current placement at the CSU in Pittsfield. Stipulation # 4.


16

603 CMR 28.10(3)(b). These are the DOE regulations that went into effect on July 1, 2005. The previous DOE regulations similarly provided that with respect to a student in a residential placement, the residence of the student’s parents determined school district responsibility. 603 CMR 28.03(4)(b).


17

603 CMR 28.02(15).


18

City of Salem v. BSEA of Department of Education , 444 Mass. 476; 829 N.E.2d 641(2005) (“‘ move-in law ’ provides an exception to the general rule of assigning responsibility to a school district or municipality based on the municipality in which the parents (in this case) currently live”).


19

MGL c. 151B, s. 5.


20

The June 2005 DOE assignment memorandum was decided under previous DOE assignment regulations. The DOE regulations then in effect were 603 CMR 28.03(4)(b). See also 603 CMR 28.02(16) (definition of “parent’s school district”). However, there is no substantive difference between these regulations and the currently applicable regulations relevant to residential placements. 603 CMR 28.10(3)(b). See also 603 CMR 28.02(15) (definition of “parent”).


21

603 CMR 28.03(4(f).


22

603 CMR 28.03(4)(h). The current regulations, which took effect July 1, 2005, allow appeal within 60 days. 603 CMR 28.10(9)(a).


23

DOE regulations provide that a school district’s responsibility for a student continues “until another school district is deemed responsible under 603 CMR 28.10.” 603 CMR 28.10(1)(d).


24

Holyoke has taken the position, and Greylock has not disputed, that Lanesborough filed a Hearing Request with the BSEA, appealing the DOE June 21, 2005 assignment, but unilaterally withdrew its appeal in August 2005. Holyoke’s closing argument, at page 6.


25

This allocation of financial responsibility assumes that Student is placed at Hillcrest prior to April 1, 2006. In the event that placement were to occur on or after April 1, 2006, Greylock/Lanesborough’s financial responsibility would continue until June 30, 2007.


26

See footnote 25, above.


Related Articles

Leave A Comment?