Student v. Boston Public Schools – BSEA # 06-6542R

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS

In Re: Student v. Boston Public Schools

BSEA # 06-6542

Ruling on Boston Public Schools’ Motion to Join The Department of Mental Health

On July 6, 2006, Boston Public Schools (hereinafter Boston) filed a Motion To Join The Department of Mental Health (DMH) in the above referenced matter. The DMH filed an Opposition to Boston’s Motion for Joinder on July 11, 2006, and supplemented the motion with a memorandum forwarded to the BSEA on July 14, 2006. On July 14 th Parent also filed an Opposition to Boston’s Motion to Join The DMH. The Parent’s and the DMH’s oppositions were received within 7 days from the date on which Boston’s Motion To Join DMH was received.¹ On July 17, 2006 Boston submitted a Reply to Parent’s and DMH’s Oppositions to Boston’s Motion to Join the Department of Mental Health. The Parties’ positions and status of the case were further discussed during a telephone conference call also held on July 17 th .

This Ruling is issued in consideration of the above.

FACTUAL INFORMATION:

1. Born on August 31, 2006, Student is a 17 year-old tenth grader at the McKinley South End Academy in Boston, MA. He has participated in a substantially separate program at McKinley since the fifth grade. Student resides with Mother who works full time in Boston.

2. Student has been diagnosed with language learning disabilities (dyslexia) Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and possible Mild Mental Retardation² and Pervasive Developmental Disorder. (PE-1) A Children’s Hospital report states that “the diagnosis of PDD does not appear appropriate given that [Student’s] symptom picture worsened when he stopped taking an antipsychotic, and improved once he was back on one.” (PE-1) Student has also been diagnosed with Dysthemic Disorder NOS, Psychotic Disorder, Depression, Anxiety, Bipolar Disorder NOS, Psychotic Disorder NOS (with a rule out diagnosis of Paranoid Schizophrenia, prodromal phase), and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, and he presents with Obsessive Compulsive Behaviors. (PE-1; PE-2) Student’s history is also notable for physical and verbal abuse by his father, difficulty with peer relationships, and other traumatic experiences. ( Id. )

3. From an early age Student has engaged in unsafe behaviors, which include running from home and school and refusal to take his medications. (PE-1; PE-2) He displays hyperactivity, and problems with mood and destructive behaviors dating back to 1993. (PE-1) Mother and school records also note a long history of impulsivity, and oppositional and defiant behaviors. ( Id. ) He takes Lithium (a mood stabilizer) and Risperdal (an anti-psychotic.)

4. Since 1999, Student has had 10 psychiatric hospitalizations, the most recent one occurring in April 2006. This hospitalization lasted through June 2006. (PE-6)

5. In October/November 2004, Student underwent a psychological and neuro-psychological evaluation by Dr. David L. Gleason, Licensed Psychologist of the Wediko Children’s Services. (PE-1) Student was 16 years old at the time. He was on Risperdal and Lithium. The purpose was to assess Student’s cognitive functioning and his level of reality testing. Over the previous years, his behavior had become increasingly “odd”, paranoid, and in the eighth grade he stopped taking his medication which lead to a hospitalization. The interruption in medication resulted in his becoming “increasingly isolative, ‘spending time in his room talking to his stuffed snakes and the television’… he refused to maintain activities of daily living including showering and brushing his teeth… had become more verbally aggressive, was not sleeping consistently… at school …[he stated] that he was a pterodactyl, and [got] up on the window sill because he thought he could fly… told school personnel that he had wanted to run to the jungle to protect the animals from poachers by using home made weapons and martial arts.” At the time of the evaluation by Wediko, Student was refusing to cut his extremely long fingernails stating that he needed them as claws to protect himself. (PE-1)

6. The neuropsychological evaluation consisted of a review of the records, and administration of the following tests: the WISC IV scores fell in the deficient range of intellectual ability with a FSIQ of 68, Verbal of 53 and Performance of 86); the WIAT II (selected subtests, Word Reading, 1.9 grade equivalence; Spelling, 3.0 grade equivalence; and Numerical Operations, 1.8 grade equivalence); Rey Complex Figure Test (ranged between high average and deficient); BASC Rating Scales for Teacher and Parent (at risk in the categories of depression, atypicality and Behavior Symptom Index, and clinically significant for attention problems, withdrawal, school problems and learning problems); Rorschach Inkblot Test (RIT)(insufficient responses provided not resulting in a clinically valid profile); Thematic Apperception Test (TAT)(Student was unable to provide any stories); Sentence Completion Series- Adolescent Form (SCS)(Student shut down as items became too complex for him); Delis Kaplan Executive Functioning System (D-KEFS) (Verbal Fluency (found to be deficient overall except in the Total switching category), Color-Word Interference Test (found deficient), Twenty Questions (found deficient), Tower Test (found average).) (PE-1) During the evaluation, Student presented as cooperative, timid and passive. The evaluator found Student’s non-verbal reasoning abilities to be better developed than his verbal abilities, but intellectually he performed significantly below grade level in all academic areas with academic functioning equivalent to that of a seven to eight year old child, between the first and third grades. ( Id .) According to the evaluator, given Student’s complex profile and significant disabilities, it is likely that he misreads social events in his daily life while thinking that he perceived them accurately, and hence responds in ways that are off target or inappropriate. The evaluator found that when Student felt overwhelmed during the evaluation, his most frequent response was to shut down and “withdraw completely from the social world around him, still harboring chronic fears and anxieties that undoubtedly lead him to experience ‘disordered’ thinking, and to behaviors that are unconventional, peculiar and at times bizarre.” (PE-1)

7. Dr. Gleason made recommendations for referrals to be made to the Department of Mental Retardation and the DMH. (PE-1) He also recommended maintaining and monitoring Student’s psychiatric medication, structured vocational training opportunities, weekly psychotherapy which focused on social and basic life skills, and “cognitive mediation” in his academic, vocational and social endeavors, a highly structured learning environment that focused on learning to read and doing basic arithmetic, and other educational programming recommendations. (PE-1)

8. A psychological evaluation to address school-focused trauma was performed on January 28, 2005, at The Children’s Hospital by Drs. Penny Haney and Amy Tishelman³ . As part of this evaluation Student was observed in school. He was found to appear significantly more impaired than the other students in his class, was very distracted during most of the structured time in the classroom, demanded his thirty minute breaks every thirty minutes, and completed only three-fifths of his math worksheet. (PE-2) The summary of diagnostic opinion noted a steady decline of test scores and of Student’s functioning over the previous 6 years with behaviors that range from “hyperactivity to flat and withdrawn to aggressive.” The findings presented a complex young man with a combination of disorders and interrelated deficits due to a mix of “genetic, developmental, emotional and social deficits that are not readily differentiated.…” Student was diagnosed with Pervasive Developmental Disorder and Psychotic Disorder as well as a Learning Disability. The evaluators indicated that Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder should also be considered. According to them, given Student’s complex combination of deficits, it is likely that he will experience significant challenges even in optimal situations. (PE-2) At the time of this evaluation in 2005, it was recommended that Student remain in his then current educational setting at McKinley where Student’s daily schedule was extremely structured. The evaluators recommended that a functional behavioral analysis program based on applied behavior analysis (ABA) techniques should be developed for Student by an experienced professional. They further stated that Student would require an aide that could help him stay focused and learn. Also, the program should provide sufficient motivation and reinforcement for time spent on-task. They also found that Student requires a more appropriate peer group in class, and said that no teasing from peers should be tolerated so that Student were able to perceive his environment as safe in order to learn. The evaluators opined that Student should be involved in structured interactions with peers and participate in an appropriate social skills group with other “young adults who are experiencing similar social challenges.” Student also needed basic life and vocational skills development to help him become more independent, and attention must be paid to interpersonal and adaptive living skills. (PE-2) The evaluators concluded that he would require highly intensive individualized services in school and in the community. They also believed that individual psychotherapy and family therapy should continue and Student would also benefit from interactions with an adult male mentor. (PE-2)

9. During the ninth grade Student was administered the STAR Reading Assessment at McKinley. (PE-4; PE-6⁴ ) He obtained a 2.1 grade equivalence score in September 2004 and a 1.7 grade equivalence score in January 2005. These scores show a decline from a 2.2 grade equivalence score achieved in 2003, while in his seventh grade, on the same test. (PE-4; PE-5; PE-6) On the WIAT, administered in October 2004, he obtained the following grade equivalence scores: 2.0 Basic Reading; 2.4 Reading Comprehension; 2.1 Reading Composite; 3.6 Numerical Operations; 3.3 Math Reasoning; and 3.5 Math Composite. (PE-4; PE-6) In the seventh grade, two years earlier, Student obtained the following grade equivalence scores on the WIAT: 1.9 Basic Reading; 2.0 Reading Comprehension; 1.9 Reading Composite; 3.6 Numerical Operations; 2.7 Math Reasoning; and 3.1 Math Composite. (PE-5) The teachers stated that Student refused to complete homework or classwork and was out of class due to behavioral issues. (PE-5)

10. While in the ninth grade, overall, Student was found to operate at the “emerging” level in virtually all math skills as per the Mathematics Skills Inventory. (PE-7) In a Life Skills Inventory also completed in the ninth grade, Student scored at the emerging level for the majority of life skills and was only at the independent level in understanding time. (PE-8)

11. In 2005, two of Student’s teachers in Boston, Ms. Nee and Mr. Swink described Student as withdrawn but likeable and able to engage with adults at times. (PE-2) He displayed off-task and socially isolative behaviors a great deal of the time, and seemed distracted and tired. Most of Student’s time in the classroom appeared to fluctuate quite significantly with Student spending very little time in the classroom during some weeks. He seemed to respond better to schedules that afforded him 30-minute breaks for every 30 minutes of class-time. Student was described as spending his breaks walking outside the school, going to the boiler room or the gym, usually unaccompanied by anyone. (PE-2) Student did not participate in-group activities and only completed reading work or math on his own. For other more complex tasks, he required one-to-one attention. His strengths included ability to organize routine events and keep time. Overall, he was not observed to have made substantial progress. (PE-2)

12. On April 29, 2005, near the end of the ninth grade, Student underwent an Educational Evaluation with Mary Ellen Efferen, Ed.M. (PE-9) Ms. Efferen found that Student wanted to come to school and perform some academic tasks but he also wanted to be able to come and go as he pleased. As a result, he “[was] not learning new skills or acquiring new knowledge.” It seemed to the evaluator that Student was in charge of his schedule, the curriculum and his expectations for performance, in effect directing his own program. Ms. Efferen’s report states that Student’s profile of learning and mental health disabilities affect “all areas of learning as well as [his] overall functioning in and out of school.” (PE-9) She recommended that he “be placed in a highly structured, highly individualized and therapeutic environment in which a team of clinicians, therapists and educators can work collaboratively to design, evaluate and monitor his program on an ongoing basis. The rest of her recommendations were similar to those made in the Children’s Hospital evaluation report discussed supra including incorporating a behavioral system with explicit contingencies specifically designed to address his needs. (PE-9)

13. Boston’s most recently proposed IEP runs from December 2005 through December 2006 and addresses behavior, non-academic activities, communication and social/emotional issues. (PE-3) It calls for implementation of the McKinley School Behavior Management System as described in the school’s manual. The social/emotional skills goal includes learning to recognize and communicate feelings of anxiety, improving Student’s self-concept in order to take on more challenging work, and developing more areas of academic and social interest. The IEP provides Student individual psychotherapy services “due to global issues related to isolation and safety,” individual and family counseling are also provided. This IEP also calls for opportunities to develop vocational skills. (PE-3) The plan includes numerous other accommodations and additional goals to address reading and language arts, arithmetic, social studies, science skills, motor abilities, study and organizational skills, and art. All of Student’s services would be provided in a substantially separate small group setting at McKinley with participation in an extended school year program. (PE-3)

14. This IEP of December 2005-2006, in effect for the tenth grade, states, “progress has been slow due to refusing to participate in small group instruction regularly.” It also states that “he withdraws during classroom discussions and whole group instruction” and “can become extremely oppositional when faced with something he does not want to do… and sometimes walks out of class.” (PE-3)

15. During the fall of 2005, Student’s treating therapist at McKinley stated that Student had stopped taking his prescribed Risperdal, had become increasingly agitated and confrontational, and had evidenced a loss of reality testing. (PE-10; SE-C) Student seemed to be in a manic state, he talked about how he could control his surroundings and “appeared paranoid around adults with whom he had previously trusting relationships.” He “began to isolate himself from school staff and peers and stopped responding to usually successful attempts at engagement.” Student was observed to respond to internal stimuli by laughing, talking to himself or jerking his head during individual sessions. He “did not bathe and did not wear clean clothes.” (PE-10; SE-C) Similar behaviors were observed in the home.

16. In January 2006, Student had his ninth psychiatric hospitalization at the Bournewood Hospital (Bournewood) in Brookline when he was “found by police wandering in the rain near an abandoned railway track.” (PE-11)

17. In April 2006, Student was hospitalized for the tenth time. This, his second hospitalization in 2006 at Bournewood, was triggered when he physically pushed his teacher in school. Student had never before displayed this type of behavior in school. The hospitalization report states that Student had become increasingly defiant and aggressive in school. School staff had expressed concern over Student’s ability to remain in the community given their concerns over Student’s safety. At home, he had also pushed his mother as pressure mounted for him to take his medication. (PE-11) The psychiatric evaluation found Student to have no conceptualization of housing, safety, work or danger. (PE-11)

18. Bournewood’s clinician, Victoria Levi, MD, recommended that Student be placed in a residential program that can address his educational needs and where he could be trained. The evaluation further states that Student “has shown potential for growth… in an environment where limits can be set and a 24-hour routine and structure can be provided.” (PE-11) Student was discharged to his home on June 27, 2006. (PE-11)

19. Boston offered Student participation in a summer day program, which is run by Wediko Children’s Services. On July 7, 2006, personnel from McKinley went to Student’s home to convince him to attend the summer program. During the meeting, Student became angry and defiant and refused to attend the program.

20. In 2004 Parent applied for services from the DMH but her application was denied on February 12, 2004. (PE-12) Parent again applied for services from DMH in 2006. This application was denied again on May 9, 2006, based on a Psychoeducational report that reported Student’s IQ of 68. (PE-13) The Denial suggested that Parent apply for services with the Department of Mental Retardation⁵ (DMR).

21. Student’s treating psychiatrist wrote a letter to the DMH on June 9, 2006, urging the DMH to find Student eligible so that he could receive the services he urgently needed. (SE-B)

22. Parent appealed the DMH denial on June 8, 2006 and heard on June 21, 2006 that the appeal had also been denied. (PE-14) The last denial also states that the diagnosis of PDD is an exclusionary diagnosis for DMH, and where as in the case at bar, it has been refuted by some and supported by others, an evaluation from an expert in the field is required to refute the diagnosis. Lastly, the DMH denial states that the type of educational residential services mentioned in the Bournewood report are not the type of services that DMH can provide. (PE-14)

23. Under DMH Regulations, Parent still has three more appeals available to her in order to exhaust administrative remedies in said agency, including the opportunity for a fair hearing. The next appeal level in that agency is a Deputy Commissioner level appeal. (PE-14)

LEGAL STANDARD:

The Massachusetts Special Education Regulations grant jurisdiction to the BSEA over State agencies in order to provide for the resolution of differences between parties regarding provision of services to special education students. 603 CMR 28.08(3). The Regulations provide that the BSEA may determine …“in accordance with the rules, regulations, and policies of the respective agencies” that services must be provided “in addition to the IEP services to be provided by the school district.” 603 CMR 28.08(3). Whereas in the case at bar, participation of the particular state agency is sought after the request for hearing has been filed, said participation may be obtained by filing a motion for joinder of the additional party. The rules governing joinder of a party are provided in Rule 1J of The Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals. Upon receipt of a motion, joinder of a state agency may be ordered under Rule 1J upon a finding that

1. complete relief cannot be granted by the originally named parties or

2. the third party has an interest in the matter and is so situated that the case cannot be disposed of in its absence.

Rule 1J further provides that factors to be considered in the determination of joinder are

1. risk of prejudice to the present parties;

2. the range of alternatives for fashioning relief;

3. the inadequacy of a judgment entered in the proposed party’s absence; and

4. the existence of an alternative forum to resolve the issues. Id.

In order to join a state agency, the moving party “must be able to show, at least in a preliminary way, that it will be able to present evidence at a Hearing that may result in the entity being found responsible to offer some service…to the student.” In re: Boston Public Schools District , BSEA #02-4553 (2002, Figueroa.) If joinder is granted, the hearing officer may only order services consistent with the rules, regulations, and policies that govern the particular state agency. Any services ordered must fall within the array of services that the particular agency offers and there is a presumption that the student is eligible to receive said services. School districts are ultimately responsible for all types of placements required by a student for educational reasons, including residential placements, even if another state agency offers residential placements to its clients.⁶

RULING:

Taking into account the facts of this case and in consideration of the arguments proffered by the Parties and the DMH, I find that Joinder of DMH is not warranted at this time.

The main disagreement between the parties is whether Student requires placement in a residential setting for educational issues. Boston argues that but for Student’s mental health issues Boston could provide Student with an appropriate education in the least restrictive environment. It further argues that Student progressed in his placement at McKinley during the 2005-2006 school year. According to Boston, Student’s need for a residential placement is the result of his mental illness, the family’s concerns over safety and mother’s inability to set limits for this 18-year-old. Boston relies on the October 2004 Children’s Hospital evaluation recommendation and the April 2005 evaluation by Dr. Efferen. (PE-2; PE-9) Boston argues that the DMH has been misguided in denying Student eligibility and states that it is doing so to avoid possible fiscal and programmatic responsibility for Student.

Boston further argues that the criteria used by the DMH to deny Student eligibility disregard service providers’ reports and the DMH’s own eligibility criteria. (See SE-A, which explicitly states that Pervasive Developmental Disorders can meet the criteria with a qualifying mental, behavioral or emotional disorder⁷ .) Evaluators and service providers’ reports have repeatedly stated that Student’s IQ is not an adequate measure of his actual academic functioning. (PE-1) Boston finally argues that the DMH fails to point to any law, regulation or policy stating that Pervasive Developmental Disorder is an “exclusionary” diagnosis. Whether or not the DMH erred in its determination of eligibility of Student is not a question that can be decided by the BSEA. Mindful of the Parties’ arguments and facts, I look at the limited issue to be ruled on here, which is joinder of the DMH.

The central issue in Parent’s appeal is what constitutes a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for Student, whether he requires residential placement for educational reasons, and if not, what is the extent of Boston’s educational responsibility for Student. As stated before, Boston disputes that Student requires residential placement for educational reasons and maintains that the residential portion of a program for Student should be the responsibility of DMH. The preliminary question in this motion for joinder is whether DMH has an interest in this action. The evidence shows that following two applications and two appeals, Student continues to be denied eligibility by the DMH, at present is not a client of said agency and has never received any services from the DMH. Also, Parent has not exhausted all administrative remedies at the DMH. While Boston makes very compelling arguments regarding Student’s long history of psychiatric problems and numerous psychiatric hospitalizations, it makes these arguments before the wrong forum regarding the determination of eligibility. Until Student’s status within the DMH changes, it will be difficult for Boston to argue that the DMH has an interest in this matter.

The DMH is not a necessary party at this juncture, because Student has not yet been determined eligible to receive services. The BSEA may order state human services agencies to provide services that are necessary for a student to access FAPE “in accordance with the rules, regulations and policies of the respective agencies,” 603 CMR 28.08(3). When an agency has found a client eligible for services, the BSEA may order the provision of specific services, even if the agency originally exercised its discretion to withhold them. See, e.g., In Re: Southern Berkshire Regional School District , BSEA #03-2013, 9 MSER 143, 147 (2003, Byrne); In Re: Brockton Public Schools District , BSEA # 02-0310, 7 MSER 243, 247 (2002, Figueroa); In Re: Medford Public Schools , BSEA #01-3941 7 MSER 75 (2001, Crane.)

There is a distinction between an agency’s refusal to provide specific services for an established, eligible client and an agency’s determination that a student is ineligible for services in the first place. This is an area where hearing officers have been uniform in their denial of motions for joinder. See In Re: Plymouth Public Schools , BSEA #06-2584, 12 MSER 33 (2006, Crane) (denying joinder of DYS and DSS, which had previously found student eligible but was currently providing minimal services, but allowing joinder of DMH “in part because DMH has been and continues to be involved with Student and his family”); In Re: West Springfield Public Schools , BSEA #04-5315, 10 MSER 472 (2004, Byrne) (denying joinder of DMH where the agency determined student ineligible for services); In Re: Lowell Public Schools , BSEA #03-2637, 9 MSER 52 (2003, Oliver) (stating “whatever I may think of DSS’ inaction and/or refusal of involvement in this situation, I conclude that 603 CMR 28.03 (3) does not contemplate a BSEA Hearing Officer ordering DSS to accept a child for DSS services”); In Re: Brockton Public Schools , BSEA #02-3337, 8 MSER 2008 (2002, Oliver) (denying joinder of DMR in a residential placement case where DMR had determined that student only had “a much more limited eligibility for family support services”).⁸

In its Motion, Boston relies on In Re: Brockton , a case involving residential placement where DSS had a continuing relationship with the student and had even previously provided him with a year-long residential placement at its own expense. In Re: Brockton School District , BSEA #02-0310, 7 MSER 243 (2002, Figueroa.) The situation in the present case is clearly distinguishable. In order to join an agency that has not yet determined eligibility, some nexus must exist between the agency and the client. It is conceivable that the BSEA may join a state agency that has not yet found a student eligible in “extraordinary circumstances” such as a “substantial showing of agency misaction”, or where the agency has already begun providing services to a student whose eligibility has not yet been determined⁹ . In Re: Ware Public Schools , BSEA #05-4126, 10 MSER 137 (2005, Byrne); In Re: Quincy Public Schools , BSEA #05-4315, 11 MSER 83 (2005, Sherwood). The case at bar does not rise to the level of extraordinary circumstances nor has the DMH ever provided any services to Student.

Even if it is puzzling, given Student’s profile, that the DMH found him ineligible, the BSEA’s role is limited within the special education context. Therefore, I am not persuaded that a BSEA hearing officer can interfere in the preliminary question regarding eligibility; which is a threshold question within the purview of the other agency. Additionally, while it is not the case here, should anyone in the agency sought to be joined, have relevant information regarding Student in the educational context, that person can be called as a witness. Without an eligibility determination, Boston cannot demonstrate that the DMH has an interest in this matter or that it is a necessary party. In light of the current circumstances in this case, delaying the special education process until Parent exhausts all of its appeals with the DMH would be a risk to Student’s health and safety and could result in a denial of FAPE to Student.

Between the filing of Parent’s complaint and the receipt of the Parties’ memoranda regarding joinder, Student was discharged from the Bournewood Hospital. Student’s mother works full-time during the day, Student is currently at home and he is still vulnerable and has a long history of running. Boston has offered Student participation in a summer day program at McKinley, but Student refuses to attend. Given Student’s critical situation, Boston’s responsibilities toward Student must be clarified.

Residential placement is certainly within the array of services for which schools are responsible if such placement is considered necessary in order for a student to receive FAPE. In such instance, it is “the sole responsibility of the local education agency,” to offer said placement. In Re: Plymouth Public Schools , BSEA #06-2584, 12 MSER 33, 35 (2006, Crane.) This is true even where the student is a client of another state agency that could also provide a residential placement under its own regulations. See In Re: Westford Public Schools , BSEA #05-0621, 10 MSER 541 (2004, Beron) (stating that a school “is not absolved of providing…residential services if he needs them in order to learn simply because” the student is “also eligible for DMR services”); In Re: Lunenburg Public Schools and Department of Mental Health , BSEA #05-0799, 10 MSER 518 (2004, Crane, HO) (declining to discuss DMH services after finding a residential placement needed for educational reasons). When contemplating residential placement for educational reasons, Student must be looked at as a whole; the district must look at all of the student’s areas of need at that point in time. In Student’s current IEP, Boston has included social/emotional and behavioral goals and objectives for Student, correctly recognizing these areas of need for Student. It is therefore conceivable that in order for Student to make meaningful educational progress, residential placement is within the realm of possible outcomes. Should there be sufficient evidence at Hearing to support an educational residential placement for Student, then Boston may be found responsible to fund that placement for Student.

Should Student become eligible to receive services from the DMH at a later time, Boston may file a request for hearing to ascertain what responsibilities the DMH may have in the educational context vis à vis Student. If Student were to become eligible to receive services from the DMH during the course of this hearing, then a motion to join may be entertained at a later time. See, e.g., In Re: Plymouth Public Schools , BSEA #06-2584, 12 MSER 33, 35 (2006, Crane) (stating that “[i]n the unlikely event that Student were to become eligible for DSS services, joinder may then be considered if additional services were needed in order for student to be able to access or benefit from [the school’s] special education program”).

ORDER:

Boston’s Motion To Join the DMH is DENIED . The Hearing will proceed as previously scheduled on August 8, 9 and 10, 2006 at 9:30 A.M. at the BSEA.

So Ordered by the Hearing Officer,

_________________________________

Rosa I. Figueroa

Dated: July 24, 2006

1

Rule VII C of The Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals .

2

The most recent cognitive testing performed in fall 2004, shows a Verbal IQ score of 53 (deficient range), Performance IQ score of 86 (low average range), Full Scale IQ score of 68 (deficient range), with a 33 point discrepancy between verbal and performance IQ scores. (PE-1)

3

The report is dated October 7, 2005.

4

PE-6 is the same as PE-4.

5

The record contains no information regarding Parent’s having filed an application with the DMR.

6

See In Re: Westford Public Schools, BSEA #05-0621, 10 MSER 541, 551 (2004, Beron.)

7

Boston asserts that Student has qualifying mental, behavioral, and emotional disorders.

8

The BSEA has also declined to join a state agency where the determination of eligibility has not yet been reached or where the agency has not been asked to make one. See In Re: Ware Public Schools , BSEA #05-4126, 10 MSER 137 (2005, Byrne) (stating that “extraordinary circumstances” involving “a substantial showing of agency misaction” are required to join a service agency that has not made a determination of eligibility); In Re: Medford Public Schools , BSEA #01-3941, 7 MSER 75 (2001, Crane) (stating “[I]t is apparent that the DMH eligibility process…has not yet resulted in a final, fair determination. For this reason, the Motion to Join DMH will be denied”).

9

The BSEA allowed joinder of DMR in one case where the child had not yet been found formally eligible, but had nonetheless already received 28 hours of DMR services. In Re: Quincy Public Schools , BSEA #05 4315, 11 MSER 83 (2005, Sherwood.)