1. Home
  2. Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) Decisions
  3. In Re: Student v. Wachusett Regional School District BSEA# 25-05348
Searching...

Advanced Search +

In Re: Student v. Wachusett Regional School District BSEA# 25-05348

COMMONWEATLTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS

BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS

In Re: Student v. Wachusett Regional School District                                                       

BSEA# 25-05348

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. 

RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Parents requested an Accelerated Hearing on November 25, 2024, and the Hearing was scheduled for December 26, 2024.  On December 12, 2024 the Parties filed a Joint Motion to remove the case from the Accelerated track and schedule the Hearing for February 10, 2025, which was allowed by the Hearing Officer on December 13, 2024.   On January 14, 2025 the Hearing Officer allowed the joint request to postpone the Hearing until March 14 and 19, 2025 for good cause.  Subsequent joint postponement requests were also allowed for good cause and the matter was scheduled for Hearing on May 8, 9, and 16, 2025.  On May 2, 2025, the case was administratively reassigned from Hearing Officer Marguerite Mitchell to Hearing Officer Catherine Putney-Yaceshyn.  The Hearing proceeded via Zoom (by agreement of the parties) on May 8 and 9, 2025.  On May 16, 2025, the Parties presented their oral arguments and the record closed.

Those present for all or part of the hearing were:

Mother

Father

Renee Marchant                              Private Pediatric neuropsychologist

Brendan O’Neil                                Parents’ placement consultant

Joan DeAngelis                               Director of Special Education and Pupil Services, Wachusett Regional School District

Daniel Heffernan                            Attorney, Parents

Eliza Presson                                   Attorney, Parents

Craig Kowalski                                 Attorney, Wachusett Regional School District

Sophie Rudloff                                Attorney, Wachusett Regional School District (observer)

Ellen Muir                                        Court Reporter

Catherine Putney-Yaceshyn         Hearing Officer        

The official record of this hearing consists of: Parents’ exhibits marked P-1 through P-36; Wachusett Regional School District’s exhibits marked S-1 through S-9; and approximately  6 hours of recorded oral testimony. 

ISSUES

  1. Whether the Wachusett Regional School District developed and implemented individualized education programs (IEPs) reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free appropriate public education between November 25, 2022 and January 27, 2025.
  1. Whether Student was without an appropriate placement between November 25, 2022 and January 27, 2025.
  1. Whether Wachusett committed procedural violations that amounted to a deprivation of a FAPE by failing to propose any IEP for the period between November 25, 2022 and September 22, 2023.
  1. Whether Student is entitled to compensatory services and, if so, in what form, including a prospective placement at a residential treatment program that specializes in providing therapeutic and transition-related services to young adults with psychosis spectrum conditions and autism spectrum disorder and/or funds placed in a trust or escrow account from which parents may draw to arrange appropriate services for Student.

SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE

  1. The student (hereafter,“Student”) is a 22-year-old[1] student residing within the Wachusett Regional School District (Wachusett or District).  (P-4)  He enrolled in Wachusett in January 2019, his ninth grade, after being home-schooled and remained in attendance in Wachusett through the end of the 2021 school year.  Student was then placed by the District at Glenhaven for a summer program, which Mother described as a traumatic experience for Student.  Thereafter, he was placed by Wachusett at Wediko where he successfully remained for about nine months, at which time it was determined that he required a program that focused on transition services.  He enrolled in the Grove School, (hereafter, “Grove”) pursuant to an IEP as a residential student in April 2022, which was the start of Grove’s trimester.  (Mother)  He attended Grove from April 28, 2022 until August 10, 2023, when his placement was terminated by Grove.  (P-18, Mother) 
  2. Renee Marchant, Psy.D., diagnosed Student with Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar type; Autism Spectrum Disorder (Level 1) (initially diagnosed in 2019); and Learning Disorder in Reading and Writing in July/August 2023.  (P-21)
  1. Student’s last fully implemented IEP was for the period from November 16, 2021 through November 15, 2022.  It contained goals in the following areas: executive functioning/transition; self-help; speech and language skills; reading, writing; and healthy life.  The Grid A service delivery section included consultations in academic instruction/support, social/emotional/behavioral instruction, and speech and language.  The C grid services included: private school program with private school staff 5 x 5.5 hours per cycle; residential services with private school staff 18.5 hours per cycle; residential services with private school staff 24 hours; counseling with a counselor 4 x 60 per cycle (group counseling); counseling with a counselor 1 x 60 per cycle (family therapy); and speech and language services with a speech language pathologist 1 x 60 per cycle.  (P-4) Parents consented to the placement in a residential school on August 1, 2022.  (P-4) They noted their rejection of portions of the IEP and referenced a letter dated August 1, 2022[2].  Student was placed at Grove pursuant to this IEP.  (P-4)
  1. When Student began at Grove in April 2022, he lived in the senior dorm with eight to nine male students and 2 live-in staff.  He attended his classes, completed homework and participated in social activities. However, by the fall he had not made progress in the area of independence and continued to require the same level of supervision as when he arrived. He then moved to the Grove transition house which was located off campus.  He lived with six male and female students and 1-2 live-in staff.  The goal at the transition house was to increase independence.  Students were able to take community college classes.  Staff members did not closely supervise students (i.e., they did not make sure students did homework, followed  schedules  or went to bed at reasonable hours, and they did not monitor electronics use).  The student immediately started doing poorly in his community college classes, as he was not doing his homework.  He was also not doing homework for his Grove classes.  In October or November he started struggling with attendance.  He missed 8 days of classes with no medical excuse.  (Mother)
  1. On October 19, 2022, Mother emailed Wachusett’s Coordinator of Special Education, Lincoln Waterhouse, and reminded him that Student’s annual review meeting had to be scheduled before November 15, 2022.  On October 27, 2022, Jacob Lieber, from the Grove School, emailed Lincoln Waterhouse and multiple other people inquiring as to whether an IEP meeting date had been scheduled.  (P-6)
  1. On November 3, 2022, Mr. Lieber, Student’s adviser at Grove, emailed Parents regarding Student’s schedule.  He noted that Student wished to drop his physics class, but Mr. Lieber thought he should continue to be challenged.  He noted that Student needed to continue to build stamina if college was his goal.  He stated that he thought they may have “pushed him out of the nest too soon for Gateway classes[3].”  He stated that he could discuss supportive college environments and trade schools with Parents and Student to keep his options open.  (P-7)
  1. The Team convened for Student’s annual review on December 19, 2022.  Attendees included Parents, Student, Lincoln Waterhouse, Jacob Lieber, Dawn Clark, speech and language therapist; Michelle Callus, therapist/counselor; Robert Ruggiero,  Education Director, Grove; Sean Kursawe, Grove  Principal , and Lynne Carlson LeFort, Parents’ advocate.  (P-8) The Team discussed Student’s struggling with his classes and having difficulty with sleeping, attendance, and personal grooming.  Grove staff reported Student was not making progress on his IEP goals.  No changes were proposed to Student’s IEP nor were any additional supports suggested.  No IEP was issued after the meeting.  (Mother)
  1. Student spent his winter break at home and returned to Grove after break.  He further decompensated.  He missed more classes, struggled with sleep and getting out of bed and played an increased amount of video games.  (Mother)
  1. On February 16, 2023 Jacob Lieber emailed Lincoln Waterhouse and asked for a copy of Student’s finalized IEP.  (P-9)
  1. On or around April 20, 2023, Student was admitted to the behavioral health unit at Middlesex Hospital. He was brought by ambulance to the emergency department due to “intrusive thoughts that are sexual in nature” and thoughts of potentially harming himself or others.  He was having command hallucinations telling him to commit suicide.  He reported auditory hallucinations that had been worsening over the past week.  He heard voices repeatedly saying, “get them.”  Student was admitted for stabilization and monitoring of presenting symptomatology.  Student was discharged on April 26, 2023 and reported that his mood and thoughts were improved and he felt safe being discharged to Grove School.  (P-10)
  1. A Team meeting was held on June 22, 2023.   The Team discussed the need for updated neuropsychological testing to clarify Student’s diagnosis.  They discussed Student’s motivational challenges, stress and his desire to graduate. They also discussed Student’s intrusive thoughts, increased mania, depression, anxiety, and auditory hallucinations.  (P-11)
  1. Renee Marchant, has a Master’s degree and a Psy.D in clinical psychology[4].  She has been a licensed clinical psychologist for seven years and has a specialty in the overlap between neurodevelopmental and psychiatric issues, particularly the overlap between autism and significant psychiatric and high-risk challenges.  Her training included working with teens and young adults who, like Student, had psychosis spectrum issues, as well as neurodevelopmental differences, such as autism. She specializes in working with autistic neurodivergent students. Dr. Marchant conducted a neuropsychological re-evaluation and school observation of Student on June 20, July 6, July 7, July 13, and July 25, 2023[5].  Her school observation was on July 13, and she provided the family with feedback on August 1, 2023.  She interviewed Student, his parents, members of Student’s team at the Grove School, spoke to the clinical director at Student’s prior placement (The Wediko School) on the phone, and reviewed records.  (P-21) The evaluation was conducted to clarify Student’s diagnosis due to symptoms he had been exhibiting at Grove which caused concern for school staff and Parents.  Dr. Marchant diagnosed Student with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, which she described as including a combination of symptoms of schizophrenia and a major mood disorder, which comprises mania, hypomania, and depression.  She maintained his prior diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder and language-based learning disabilities.  Dr. Marchant noted that Student presented with hallucinations and delusions as well as low motivation, depression, withdrawal, and apathy, which were associated with the schizoaffective disorder diagnosis.  She noted global decompensation in his mental health and concerns about his judgment and his reality testing  since she last evaluated him in June 2021.  (P-21)

 Dr. Marchant concluded that Student “needs intensive stabilization and treatment ‘24/7’ for schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type within a supervised and controlled environment, primarily for medication stabilization, psychotherapy, as well as improved symptom management and daily functioning.”  She opined that Student requires a therapeutic residential program which specializes in providing therapeutic and transition related services to young adults with psychosis spectrum conditions and ASD Level 1.  She did not support his continued placement at Grove and noted that there was clear evidence of regression of Student’s skills and overall functioning while he was at Grove.  She recommended that his placement provide support in social communication, executive functioning, self-determination, life skills required for daily living routines, mental health maintenance, community functioning, and vocational training.  She further recommended that Student not be placed in a program with individuals with dangerous or threatening behaviors or moderate to severe developmental disabilities.  She further recommended that Student participate in an outpatient, community-based program for psychosis.  Dr, Marchant indicated that there is a critical period of two to five years following the onset of psychosis during which early intervention for psychosis (EIS) is likely to be more effective.  She further opined that Student requires an IEP under the disability categories of emotional and autism. She indicated that Student requires direct instruction in social skills in a small group format and direct teaching in completing employment applications, time management for job settings and planning for short and long term goals.  Her report states that Student requires vocational training and reflects a number of recommendations as to how that should be provided.  She stated that Student requires services through the Department of Mental Health (DMH) as his primary diagnosis, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, is interfering with his life and causing functional impairment.  (P-21)

  1. On July 22, 2023 Student was admitted to McLean Hospital.  His admission notes indicate he was having increasing manic symptoms and was unable to care for himself due to a decline in function, disorganization, and psychotic symptoms.  He had experienced poor sleep for four days with behavioral dysregulation.  While at McLean he received treatment including individual counseling, case management, group and milieu treatment, and daily nursing care.  A diagnostic and medication re-evaluation was undertaken.  Student was discharged on August 4, 2023. He stated that going to the hospital helped to get his mood stable.  (P-13)
  1. On August 10, 2023, Sean Kursawe, Principal of Grove School, sent a letter to Lincoln Waterhouse informing him that Grove intended to immediately terminate Student’s placement because they did not believe they could adequately treat him while maintaining his safety and that of others.  He based his decision on Student’s mental health decline over the past several weeks and an incident that occurred during an August 8, 2023 meeting.  He explained that Student was unable to tolerate the stress of the meeting and became physically and emotionally dysregulated.  Student appeared to be responding to audio-visual hallucinations, and his thoughts were disorganized and tangential.  Student presented in an intimidating matter (clenching fists, shaking, head banging) and using language to describe self-harm and harm to others.  He was unable to follow the direction of staff and was taken to Yale New Haven Hospital by ambulance.  (P-18, P-20, Mother)  Mr. Kursawe recommended that Student be placed at an in-patient psychiatric facility or an intensive outpatient program for immediate attention to his mental health.  Grove also recommended a longer-term hospitalization for Student and noted that Student’s decompensating mental health has made him too high a risk for the Grove School environment.  (P-18)
  1. On August 11, 2023, Lincoln Waterhouse sent an email to Parents, a number of people from Grove, and Student’s advocate, among others.  He stated he would not be available the following week, but would let the new special education director, Joan DeAngelis, know about Student’s situation[6]. He stated that he received the termination letter from Grove and intended to assemble referral packets when he returned to the office to identify another approved residential program.  (P-19)
  1. Although Student was abruptly terminated from Grove without any prior notice to Wachusett or an opportunity to convene Student’s Team, Wachusett did not pursue any efforts to maintain Student’s Grove placement with the addition of supports while it sought a new placement.  (DeAngelis) Although Mother did not believe that Grove continued to be an appropriate long-term placement for Student after his termination, she would have preferred that he be returned to Grove while the Team searched for an appropriate successor placement.  In her view, it would have been better for Student than returning home without any services.  (Mother) It was Ms. DeAngelis’ understanding, from her communications with Lincoln Waterhouse, that Parents did not wish to maintain Student’s Grove placement. (DeAngelis)
  1. On or around September 22, 2023 Wachusett proposed an IEP for the period from September 20, 2023 through September 19, 2024.  The N1 states that Student has not progressed as expected during the past IEP period.  It noted that Student’s mental health deteriorated resulting in hospitalization and Student was recently terminated from his placement at Grove School.  According to Wachusett, Student was at home receiving tutoring and speech language services while the Team worked to identify a residential school placement that could meet his needs.  It noted that Parents were considering Dr. Marchant’s recommendation that Student receive treatment in a hospital setting to address his recent psychosis diagnosis. 

The IEP contained goals in self-help; speech and language; and healthy life.  (Goals in the areas of executive functioning/transition, reading, and writing that had appeared in the last IEP were eliminated.)  The service delivery grid, like the previous IEP’s, included Grid A consultation in the following areas  academic instruction/support consultation by the special education teacher 10 minute per cycle; social/emotional/behavioral consultation by the counselor 10 minutes per cycle; and speech language consultation services by the speech language pathologist 10 minutes per cycle It included an additional consultation in the area of medical/nursing services with the nurse 1 x 30 monthly.  The C grid services, like the previous IEP, included: private school program with private school staff 5 x 5.5 hours per cycle; residential services with private school staff 18.5 hours per cycle; residential services with private school staff 24 hours; counseling with a counselor 4 x 60 per cycle (group counseling); counseling with a counselor 1 x 60 per cycle (family therapy); and speech and language services with a speech language pathologist 1 x 60 per cycle[7].  (P-22, S-1) 

  1. On September 27, 2023, Lincoln Waterhouse sent referral packets seeking residential placement for Student to JRI Pelham Academy, JRI Walden Street School, Chamberlain International School, Ivy Street School, and JRI Swansea Wood School.  (P-23)  Two of the schools to which referral packets were sent only admit female students[8].  (Mother, DeAngelis)
  1. Parents signed the IEP on October 19, 2023, indicating that they were rejecting portions of the IEP and attaching a letter of same date explaining the portions of the IEP they were accepting and rejecting.  (P-22, S-1 S-2)   They informed Mr. Waterhouse that it had been two months since Student’s termination from Grove and he was still not receiving any tutoring or speech and language services.  They also noted that they had not received responses from any of the schools to which referrals were sent.  Further, they requested several additions to goals, objectives, and accommodations, and that the goals of executive functioning/transition and reading and writing be reinstated in the  IEP.  (S-2)
  1. Student was not accepted to any of the placements to which he was referred and Wachusett did not send out any additional packets.  On November 21, 2023, Mother emailed Lincoln Waterhouse and requested that Wachusett consider funding a therapeutic work-based residential program for Student.  She also provided contact information for an independent therapeutic placement consulting company.  (P-24)

Wachusett did not hire a placement consultant or seek additional assistance from any other resources to identify a residential placement for Student. (Mother, DeAngelis)  At some point Wachusett suggested sending a packet to Glenhaven.  (DeAngelis)  Parents rejected this option due to Student’s prior negative experience there.  (Mother, Father) According to Father, Student would not have agreed to return to Glenhaven.  (Father)

  1. On November 22, 2023, Mother emailed Lincoln Waterhouse and reiterated Student’s need for a therapeutic residential program to provide transition-related services.  She noted that Student requires more external structure, management, prompting and wrap around support than a community-based program could provide.  She asked him to “redouble efforts” to find an appropriate residential program for Student and reiterated her request that Wachusett work with One Oak Consulting or a similar placement consultant.  (P-25)
  1. On November 30, 2023, Joan DeAngelis emailed Parents and Lincoln Waterhouse.  She stated that the district had not yet identified a placement for Student and that they needed to think about transition services and ensuring that Student completes high school.  She suggested setting up a meeting to discuss next steps.  (P-25)
  1. On or around January 29, 2024, Wachusett proposed an IEP Amendment and placement.  The N1 states that Wachusett is proposing services be provided in Student’s home and/or community-based settings because it had not been able to identify an alternative approved special education residential program.  It further stated that in consideration of services available through DMH and DDS, and in light of Student having met all  requirements necessary to receive his high school diploma, the IEP and placement are proposed to provide for transition based supports to enable Student to make progress in the areas of continued need that cannot be addressed immediately by adult service agencies.  The N1 also noted that Wachusett had not been able to identify a provider for the social/pragmatic services in his IEP, but would continue to “explore whether a social skills group that has age/need similar peers can be found and communicate those options to the family as they are identified.”  The N1 then listed DDS and DMH services that Student could access should the family choose to accept Student’s diploma.  (P-27, S-3)

The proposed IEP Amendment had goals in the areas of communication and transition.  There are no Grid A or Grid B services.  The C grid proposes transition services with the transition specialist up to 10 hours per week and speech and language services with the speech and language pathologist “60 group/individual”.  (P-27, S-3) 

Parents partially accepted and partially rejected portions of the proposed IEP as noted in a February 16, 2024 letter to Lincoln Waterhouse.  They indicated that Student had been without transition programming or speech and language services since being terminated from Grove months before.  They noted that they rejected everything in the IEP except   the “HMEA TRACS programming.” They opined that the transition goal was insufficient, but accepted it so that HMEA could get started.  They asserted stay put with respect to the services in the November 16, 2021-November 15, 2022 IEP which was signed on August 1, 2022.  They accepted placement at home and community because Wachusett had not identified and secured an appropriate residential program.  Parents asserted that Student had not met graduation requirements because he had not attended enough school to do so.  (P-27, S-4)

  1. There had not been any evaluation of Student that concluded he no longer required a residential program at the time Wachusett proposed the IEP for community and home-based services.  Parents never stopped asking for a residential therapeutic placement.  (DeAngelis)
  1. Wachusett agreed to contract with a job coach to provide services to Student for up to ten hours per week.  Parents requested that the provider be HMEA, an agency that would provide Student’s services after he turned 22 and Wachusett agreed.  Student worked with employment specialist, James Bavosi, from approximately March 2024 until he turned 22 in January 2025.  (DeAngelis, Mother, P-31, S-6)  Student initially was able to arrive at his sessions on time and remain engaged for 60 to 90 minutes.  He often told Mr. Bavosi that he had not slept well the night before; was not feeling well due to his medications; or had been using electronics excessively.  During their sessions they discussed potential employment opportunities and visited job sites.  It took Student a while to be willing to attempt working at one of the job sites.  Mr. Bavosi attributed his reluctance to a prior negative job experience.  By the end of their sessions Student was able to perform volunteer work at a thrift store/food pantry both with and without Mr. Bavosi’s presence.  Student missed several sessions due to his mental health issues and a two-month hospitalization.  (P-31, S-6)
  1. Student did not receive any speech language services from Wachusett.  (Mother) It took Wachusett a long time to identify an adult group for Student.  By the time a group was located and Mother completed the intake Student had missed the start date of the group and then Student turned 22.  (Mother, DeAngelis)
  1. Student was hospitalized at McLean Hospital from October 10, 2024 until his discharge on October 29, 2024 due to bipolar mania and schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. During his hospitalization medications were adjusted and Student was accepted to an aftercare residential program.  (P-32)
  1. Student was  admitted to New Freedom Academy on October 29, 2024 for intervention and treatment of his mental health.  Student expressed an unwillingness to participate in his treatment and engaged in behavioral action to attempt to impact being discharged.  He minimally attended groups, initially attempted to stay in bed for most of the morning, and frequently stated he did not want to receive treatment services.  Student exhibited behavioral concerns and was unable or unwilling to accept direction and redirection.  He declined to attend or engage in both group and individual psychoeducational services.  His primary therapist recommended that Student may do well with engaging in ABA services in the community or home setting.  Student was discharged on November 26, 2024.  (P-33)

Dr. Marchant met with Student on September 17, 2024 for an updated assessment of his mental status and current functioning, and wrote an updated report sometime thereafter. She noted that since Student’s admission to Grove and his termination from the program his functioning has declined, citing a lack of progress and regression across social-emotional, academic, and functional domains.  The report  stated that he presented with worsened avolition, emotional dysregulation, anxiety, depression, and social functioning, coping abilities, and written communication skills.  She concluded that Student required a  therapeutic residential program to progress in self-determination, self-efficacy, and  independence, which are key components for his transition and remain unmet  According to Dr, Marchant, the program should specialize in providing therapeutic and transition-related services to young adults with mental health and autism-related needs  and provide in-the moment teaching of social skills and executive functional skills as well as daily living skills.  She further recommended vocational and educational training within a supported work environment with direct job coaching as well as specialized instruction for the academic skills required for employment.  (P-30)

  1. Parents hired Brendan O’Neil, MSW, who provides therapeutic placement consultation via his company, Cloverlea Consulting.  He has a bachelor’s degree in film and theater for social justice, a Master’s degree in social work, and is pursuing a Ph.D. in education/human development.  He is not a licensed special educator or psychologist.  He typically receives referrals from psychologists, neuropsychologists, schools, and families.  Before making recommendations, he reviews records, sometimes speaks to the student’s service providers, looks at information on websites and formulates questions to ask staff.  He researches programs and develops a list of potential placements. He then sets up meetings with families and potential placements, supports families in the enrollment process and continues to meet with the program once the student is placed.  He then becomes part of the treatment team.  (O’Neil)

In working with Student and his family, Mr. O’Neil sought a program with clinical sophistication to handle both autism and schizoaffective disorder, relying on Dr. Marchant’s opinion of what Student required in programming.  He acknowledged that Student’s schizoaffective disorder requires medical and psychiatric interventions.   He spoke to admissions staff at programs and sometimes with a clinical director.  In Mr. O’Neil’s opinion, CooperRiis would be an appropriate program for Student.  He opined that Cooper Riis has the clinical sophistication to support Student’s needs. CooperRiis has several phases to their program, to wit:   a farm program, which he described as self-contained; a community based integrated program; and apartment living. He listed several vocational opportunities on the farm including landscaping, maintenance, working in offices and cooking.  He stated that there are other vocational opportunities in the community outside the farm.  (O’Neal) 

Mr. O’Neil indicated that if a person struggles or get disruptive in the program, CooperRiis can supply more intensive staff support until the person is able to return to their program.  He stated that the qualifications of the clinical staff are extensive, but did not give details other than that there are a couple of doctoral level people, a clinical director, lots of Master’s level clinicians, and there is a psychiatrist on staff[9].  He noted that the vocational support staff and educational staff are clinically trained.

Mr. O’Neil is aware that CooperRiis is not a special education school, but rather a mental health treatment facility.  It is not approved by the state of Massachusetts to provide special education services.  He testified that CooperRiis has educational opportunities that could be individualized for a resident, but gave vague answers to the Hearing Officer’s questions about how the educational component and transition services would be provided to Student.  Mr. O’Neil was unable to recall specifically who he had spoken to at CooperRiis to obtain information.  He visited CooperRiis sometime “pre-Covid.”  (O’Neil)

  1. According to its program description, “CooperRiis is a residential treatment and healing community providing primary supports for those struggling with serious and persistent mental health diagnosis.” (P-35)  It is located in North Carolina.  Its program description does not include any mention of an educational component or special education services.  (P-35) It offers “individualized care and recovery planning, clinical services, and community work and connectedness focused on the development of independent living skills.”  It offers “The Farm” program; “The Farm Extended Care” program; and “Asheville Community Program”.  The Farm program requires each resident to write a dream statement that lays out their hopes for the future and serves as a roadmap for each resident to work toward their goals.  A person centered plan is then developed for each person.  The program offers clinical services including a psychiatrist, nursing staff, therapists and a recovery coordinator/case manager.  There is a physical wellness component to the program staffed by a nutritionist, massage therapist, personal trainer, and wellness coordinator.  There is an opportunity for residents to engage in purposeful work such as being part of the gardening crew, the greenhouse crew, the animal crew, the woodworking crew, or the campus crew.  (P-35) The Farm Extended Care program is open to those who have completed a minimum of a two-to-four-week assessment period at the Farm.  Participants are required to maintain personal hygiene independently; be independent with life skills such as laundry and maintaining a tidy room; be medically stable; and able to engage in structured daily activities.  The Ashville Community program is a transitional living program for residents to integrate into the larger community more fully in preparation for living independently.  (P-35)
  1. Student turned 22 in January 2025.  (DeAngelis, P-4) He has been accepted into the DDS-DMH partnership program and offered 30 hours per week of services.  Ms. DeAngelis did not know the details of the program.  (DeAngelis) Student currently meets with a DMH peer specialist once per week and with a prescriber every other week.  He also meets with a counselor.  He has his driver’s license, but only drives short distances.  (Father)
  1. Dr. Marchant most recently met with Student in March and May 2025.  She continues to recommend a therapeutic residential program for students with autism and psychosis spectrum disorders, that has a “step down” component which will allow Student to develop more independence as he gains more skills. She opined that that CooperRiis is the type of program that Student requires now and contains the elements that she recommended for Student’s program. (Marchant)

Dr. Marchant went on to indicate that considering the regression and decompensation  she has noted in Student’s skills during the time since he was terminated from Grove, she believes he will require at least two more years of residential services.    She speculated that if Student had received appropriate programming after his termination from Grove in August 2023, he would now be able to hold down a job, be living at home or with supports in the community, would have better coping skills and be in “recovery.”  She could also envision him living in a DMH group home or in an apartment with supports to help him manage his daily life.   She believes two years of the residential program and supports she described in her reports would compensate Student for the services that he missed as a result of being without a residential placement since August 2023.  (Marchant)

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION:

Student is an individual with a disability, falling within the purview of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)[10] and the state special education statute.[11]  As such, he is entitled to a free appropriate public education (FAPE).  Neither his status nor his entitlement is in dispute. 

Legal Standard: Eligibility for Special Education.

The right to a FAPE for all students with a disability is guaranteed by both federal and state law through the IDEA, M.G.L. c. 71B, and their corresponding regulations[12]. If a student is found eligible to receive special education, the Team must then develop an IEP setting forth the special education and related services that meet the special education needs of the student[13]. An IEP is a “a snapshot, not a retrospective. In striving for ‘appropriateness,’ an IEP must take into account what was and was not objectively reasonable when the snapshot was taken, that is, at the time the IEP was promulgated”[14]. The IDEA defines a “child with a disability” as a student having specifically identified disabilities “who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services”. 20 USC 1401(3)(A) and (B)[15] (emphasis added). “Special education” is defined as “specially designed instruction[16], at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability, … [inclusive of] speech-language pathology services, or any other related service, if the service is considered special education rather than a related service under State standards”[17]. 

Similarly, Massachusetts defines a “school age child with a disability” as a child “… who, because of [specifically identified disabilities] … is unable to progress effectively in regular education and requires special education services, including … only a related service … [if they] are required to ensure access of the child with a disability to the general education curriculum[18]. The regulations define “eligible student” as “… a person aged three through 21 … who has been determined by a Team to have a disability(ies), and as a consequence is unable to progress effectively in the general education program without specially designed instruction or is unable to access the general curriculum without a related service”. 603 CMR 28.02(9) (emphasis added). To  “[P]rogress effectively in the general education program”, means to make documented growth in the acquisition of knowledge and skills, including social/emotional development, within the general education program, with or without accommodations, according to chronological age and developmental expectations, the individual educational potential of the student, and the learning standards set forth in the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks and the curriculum of the district.[19]

School districts are required to offer IDEA eligible students a FAPE (free appropriate public education), through individualized education programs (IEPs) tailored to meet their unique needs[20] in a manner “reasonably calculated to confer a meaningful educational benefit”[21] to the eligible student.[22]  Moreover, the program and services offered must be delivered in the least restrictive environment appropriate to meet the individual student’s needs[23], and must be  “reasonably calculated to enable [the student] to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.” Endrew F. v. Douglas County Sch. Distr., 137 S. Ct. 988 (March 22, 2017); D.B. ex rel. Elizabeth B., 675 F.3d at 34.

The burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing is placed upon the party seeking relief.   Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 126 S. Ct. 528, 534, 537 (2005)  In this case, Parents are seeking relief, and as such have the burden of persuading the Hearing Officer of their position by a preponderance of the evidence.

It is in the context of the foregoing legal framework that I now turn to the issues before me in the instant matter. 

  1. Whether the Wachusett Regional School District developed and implemented individual education programs reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free appropriate public education between November 25, 2022 and January 27, 2025.

There was no testimony or other evidence in the record concerning the appropriateness of the IEPs developed for the time period from November 16, 2021-November 15, 2022.  The IEP for the time period from November 16, 2021-November 15, 2022 was partially accepted on August 3, 2022.  The response section indicates that portions of the IEP were rejected and references a letter dated August 1, 2022, which does not appear in the record.  Thus, with respect to that IEP, the Parents have not met their burden of showing the IEP was not reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. 

There was no proposed IEP for the time period from November 16, 2022 through September 20, 2023.  This oversight will be discussed in Section III, infra.

There was no testimony or other evidence presented concerning the appropriateness of the IEP developed for the period from September 20, 2023 through September 19, 2024.  This IEP was accepted in part and rejected in part.    (S-2)  As Parents did not present any evidence regarding the appropriateness of this IEP, they have not met their burden with respect to demonstrating that it was not reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.

There was sufficient evidence to show that the IEP proposed for the period from January 25, 2024 through January 24, 2025 was not reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment.  The N1 indicates that the new IEP, which offers services in Student’s home and/or community based settings, is being proposed because Wachusett could not identify a successor residential placement after Student was discharged from his last special education residential program.  The decision to reduce the proposed services and change the placement from a residential placement to a home and community-based program was not based on updated evaluation results or on the recommendations of any evaluator or service provider.  According to the N1, the decision resulted from meetings on December 20, 2023, January 11, 2024, and January 25, 2024.  There was no testimony or documentary evidence regarding what transpired at these meetings.  (S-3)  There is nothing in the record to support a finding that this IEP was reasonably calculated to provide Student with a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment and I find that it was not.

  1. Whether Student was without an appropriate placement between November 25, 2022 and January 27, 2025.

Student began attending Grove on April 28, 2022.  Initially, there were no concerns raised about the placement.  However, some time around November 2022 Student’s adviser raised some academic concerns with Parents.  It is unclear whether Wachusett received the same report at that time[24].  Although the record shows Student struggled at Grove during at least part of this time, it is unclear that his struggles were a result of being in an inappropriate placement or due to his emerging mental health issues.

Upon Student’s termination from Grove, Wachusett failed to locate a successor placement for Student.  After sending a total of five packets, two of which were sent to programs which only admitted female students, Wachusett abandoned its search for a placement.  Upon learning that the three placements which accepted male students did not accept Student to their programs, Wachusett did not propose any additional packets be sent other than to Glenhaven. Parents’ refusal to consent to such packet was reasonable given Student’s past experience at that placement.   Wachusett did not engage the services of a placement consultant to assist in its search.  It did not consult with DESE for assistance it its search.  It did not send  packets to any unapproved or out-of-state schools.  It simply stopped searching after a less than exhaustive search.  This left Student without a residential placement, as required by his IEP, from August 11, 2023 until he turned 22 on January 28, 2025.

On January 29, 2024, Wachusett proposed an IEP for home-based and community-based services which significantly decreased the services from Student’s prior IEP which required a residential placement.  The January IEP proposed only two goals, in communication and transition and services in transition and speech language therapy.  (S-3) The reduction in services was not based upon recommendations by any service provider or the results of any evaluation.

Despite the inadequacy of the IEP, Parents accepted the services while continuing to maintain that Student required the residential placement that they had accepted in his prior IEP.  Wachusett’s argument that it was no longer responsible for providing a residential placement after Parents signed the IEP is disingenuous and unpersuasive.  

Wachusett was unable to identify a service provider for the speech and language services, and thus did not provide them.  The vocational services which were provided by Jim Bavosi were at times successful, but were difficult for Student to thoroughly engage in given his significant needs and his mental health issues.

I thus find that Student was without an appropriate placement from August 11, 2023 through January 27, 2025.

  1. Whether Wachusett committed procedural violations that amounted to a deprivation of a FAPE by failing to propose any IEP for the period between November 25, 2022 and September 22, 2023.

It is undisputed that Wachusett did not produce any IEP for the period from November 16, 2022 through September 20, 2023, a period of ten months.  While this is a significant procedural violation, it is unclear whether it resulted in a deprivation of FAPE for Student.   

[P]rocedural violations generally do not amount to a per se denial of a FAPE, without some showing that they have impacted a student negatively.[25] Recently, however, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts upheld a Hearing Officer’s determination that “although plaintiffs did not make any showing that [Student] suffered any educational harm as a result of” the District’s failure to propose an IEP for a particular school year, the “failure to produce an IEP is so significant and fundamental a procedural misstep that some remedy was justified.”[26] Wachusett argues that there was no harm to Student in this matter because at the time that it failed to produce an IEP Student was placed in a residential school, and thus was not harmed. 

Although there was no apparent harm to Student resulting from Wachusett’s oversight, such procedural violation is significant. Wachusett is strongly cautioned about such procedural missteps going forward and urged to take all steps necessary to ensure compliance with federal and state laws regarding the issuance of IEPs.

  1. Whether Student is entitled to compensatory services and, if so, in what form, including a prospective placement at a residential treatment program that specializes in providing therapeutic and transition-related services to young adults with psychosis spectrum conditions and autism spectrum disorder and/or funds placed in a trust or escrow account from which parents may draw to arrange appropriate services for Student.

Compensatory education is an award of educational services that is offered prospectively to compensate for a previously inadequate program.  Reid v. District of Columbia, 43 IDELR 32 (D.C. Cir. 2005) The award of compensatory services is an equitable remedy available to courts and hearing officers, designed to bring the student “to the point he would have been, had he received a FAPE all along.”  R.P. ex rel. C.P. v. Prescott Unified Sch.Dist., 631 F.3d 1117, 11126 (9th Cir. 2011.)  In considering compensatory claims, hearing officers must “balance the equities” and consider closely the conduct of both parents and districts, as well as the resultant impact on the student.

Although Student has turned 22, in order to give meaning to a disabled student’s right to an education between the ages of three and twenty-one, compensatory education must be available beyond a student’s twenty-first birthday. Otherwise, school districts simply could stop providing required services to older teenagers, relying on the Act’s time-consuming review process to protect them from further obligations. Pihl v. Massachusetts Dept. of Educ., 9 F.3d 184 at 189 (1st Cir. 1993)

Having already found that Student has been denied FAPE for the period from August 10, 2023, when he was discharged from Grove until he aged out of eligibility for special education services on January 27, 2023, I now consider the appropriate remedy.

Parents seek a prospective placement at CooperRiis for a period of two years.  They argue that CooperRiis can provide all of the elements of a program recommended by Dr. Marchant.  They rely on Dr. Marchant’s opinion that Student requires a minimum of two years of compensatory services to make up for the time that he was not placed in a residential school, and in consideration of the regression and decompensation he has experienced since leaving Grove.  They also rely on her opinion that but for the failure of Wachusett to find a placement for Student, he would now be less reliant on adults and would have made more gains toward his goals such as being able to maintain employment.  (Marchant)

Wachusett argues that it is not responsible for providing compensatory services in the form of a prospective placement at CooperRiis because it is a mental health treatment center and not a special education placement.

Nothing in the IDEA precludes an award of compensatory education in the form of private placement.  Draper v. Atlanta Indep.Sch. Sys., 518 F.3d 1275 (11th Cir. 2008)  However, public school districts do not have an obligation to fund non-educational placements, such as mental health treatment centers.  This is consistent with the principle that the IDEA does not cover medical services unless they are for diagnostic or evaluative purposes.  (See 34 CFR 300.34(a)).  In a Third Circuit case, the court found that parents were not entitled to reimbursement for the costs of attending Wediko because the primary purpose of that placement was the provision of mental health treatment rather than provision of special education.  See Munir v. Pottsiville Area School Dist., 723 F.3d 423 (2013) Similarly, a Washington court recently found that Parents were not entitled to reimbursement for placement of Student in a short-term stabilization program designed to address medical and emotional issues rather than educational issues, as it did not provide any educational services.  M.K. v. Issaquah Sch. Dist., 125 LRP 18023 (W.D. Wash. 6/12/25.) 

There is no dispute that CooperRiis is not a special education school.  (Marchant, O’Neil, P-35)    The documentary evidence regarding CooperRiis submitted by the Parents contains almost no reference to education.  There was no testimony from any staff at CooperRiis.  Mr. O’Neil provided testimony about his impressions of CooperRiis, but it was so vague as to be of little use.  He had not visited the program since prior to the Covid epidemic and he was not able to recall the specific people with whom he spoke to glean information and form his opinion that CooperRiis would be an appropriate placement for Student.  Even if I had the authority to order Student’s placement in a mental health treatment center, the record does not contain sufficient information about the program upon which I could make such an order.

Parents request that they receive funds in a trust or escrow account as a compensatory award.  Wachusett argues that this is akin to the award of monetary damages which the BSEA does not have authority to award.  I agree.

As the First Circuit recognized, “in choosing not to authorize tort-like monetary damages or punitive damages in cases under the IDEA, Congress made a balanced judgment that such damages would be an unjustified remedy for this statutorily created cause of action”[27].  Instead, the available remedies under the IDEA involve “[a]wards of compensatory education and equitable remedies that involve the payment of money, such as reimbursements to parents for expenses incurred on private educational services to which their child was later found to have been entitled …”[28].   The BSEA does not have authority to award monetary damages.  In re: Ric and Westborough Public Schools, BSEA #18-09434 (Oliver, 2018) Likewise, I am unaware of any case granting an administrative hearing officer authority to order the creation of a trust or escrow account.

Having found that Student is entitled to compensatory services and that the remedies suggested by parents are not authorized by law, I now consider how to appropriately compensate Student.  Although I find that Student is entitled to a significant compensatory award, I was not persuaded by Dr. Marchant that he requires at least two years of services.  Her recommendation was based at least in part on her determination that Student would have achieved a certain level of independence by now if he had received appropriate services.  I found her conclusion (that Student would be living either at home or in an apartment) to be speculative.  There is no way of knowing what Student would have achieved at this point in his education if he had been placed in an appropriate placement.  There is also no way of knowing whether his current difficulty with engaging is due to having not received appropriate services or due to his emerging mental illness. 

Since Student was without a residential placement from August 11, 2023 through the end of his entitlement for special education services, January 27, 2025, a period of 17 months, I hereby find that Wachusett must locate an appropriate residential special education school to address Student’s needs as identified in the IEP implemented at Grove (P-4) Wachusett must provide him with a placement in said school for a period of  17 months.   Further, in light of the circumstances surrounding its previous search for a placement for Student, Wachusett must hire a placement consultant to assist with identifying an appropriate educational residential placement.  This search shall include, if necessary, placements which are out of Massachusetts and educational placements that are unapproved. In addition, Wachusett will provide Student with compensatory speech language services to make up for the sessions that were missed due to Wachusett’s failure to secure a provider. 

ORDER

  1. Wachusett shall provide Student with a placement in a residential special education school for a period of 17 months.
  2. Wachusett shall hire a placement consultant and shall immediately begin searching for an appropriate placement for Student.  If necessary, it will consider out of state and unapproved placements.
  3. Wachusett shall provide Student with compensatory speech and language services due its failure to provide him with speech and language services since he left Grove.

So Ordered by the Hearing Officer,

/s/ Catherine M.  Putney-Yaceshyn

Catherine M.  Putney-Yaceshyn

Dated:  June 25, 2025

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS

EFFECT OF FINAL BSEA ACTIONS AND RIGHTS OF APPEAL

Effect of BSEA Decision, Dismissal with Prejudice and Allowance of Motion for Summary Judgment

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. Similarly, a Ruling Dismissing a Matter with Prejudice and a Ruling Allowing a Motion for Summary Judgment are final agency actions. If a ruling orders Dismissal with Prejudice of some, but not all claims in the hearing request, or if a ruling orders Summary Judgment with respect to some but not all claims, the ruling of Dismissal with Prejudice or Summary Judgment is final with respect to those claims only. 

Accordingly, the Bureau cannot permit motions to reconsider or to re-open either a Bureau decision or the Rulings set forth above once they have issued. They are final subject only to judicial (court) 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.  This means that the decision must be implemented immediately even if the other party files an appeal in court, and implementation cannot be delayed while the appeal is being decided.  Rather, a party seeking to stay-that is, delay implementation of– the decision of the Bureau must request and 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,” while a judicial appeal of the Bureau decision is pending, 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 while judicial proceedings are pending must ask the court having jurisdiction over the appeal to grant a preliminary injunction ordering such a change in placement. 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 Elementary and Secondary Education or other office for appropriate enforcement action. 603 CMR 28.08(6)(b).

Rights of Appeal

Any party aggrieved by a final agency action by 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. 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] Parents were appointed guardians for Student on or around November 28, 2023 (P-34)

[2] The letter does not appear in the record.

[3] Gateway classes were Student’s community college classes.  (Mother)

[4] She received her Psy.D. in 2017 and completed a postdoctoral fellow in psychology/child and adolescent acute services in 2018.  (P-36, Marchant)

[5] Dr. Marchant had conducted a previous neuropsychological evaluation of Student in May and June 2021.  (Marchant, P-1)

[6] Ms. DeAngelis became the Director of Special Education and Pupil Services for Wachusett in July 2023.

[7] This IEP added the notation group/individual to the speech language services provision.  (P-22)

[8] I take administrative notice that the websites for JRI Pelham Academy and JRI Walden Street School indicate they are schools for female students.

[9] There is an on-staff psychiatrist that does individualized assessments with every resident and is available to meet with residents a minimum of every three weeks and as often as needed throughout their staff.  (P-35)

[10] 20 USC 1400 et seq.

[11] MGL c. 71B.

[12] 20 USC 1400, et seq.; M.G.L. c. 71B; 34 CFR 300.000, et seq.; 603 CMR 28.00 et seq.

[13] 603 CMR 28.02(11); 603 CMR 28.05(3).

[14] Roland M. v. Concord School Committee, 910 F.2d 983, 992 (1st Cir. 1990).

[15] The identified disabilities in the IDEA include “other health impairments” and for students ages 3 through 9, “developmental delays defined by the state”.

[16]  “Specially designed instruction”, is defined as “adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an eligible child under this part, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction— (i) To address the unique needs of the child that result from the child’s disability; and (ii) To ensure access of the child to the general curriculum ….” 34 CFR 300.39(a)(3) (emphasis added).

[17]  20 USC 1401(29); 34 CFR 300.39(a). Massachusetts defines “special education” as “specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of the eligible student or related services necessary to access the general curriculum and shall include the programs and services set forth in state and federal special education law.” 603 CMR 28.02(20).

[18] M.G.L. c. 71B §1. Relevant to this proceeding, the disabilities recognized in the Massachusetts laws and regulations include developmental delay for children ages 3 through 9 (provided supra), and “other health impairment”, including health impairments “due to … [ADD] or [ADHD] …”. 603 CMR 28.02(7)(b) and (i).

[19]  603 CMR 28.02(17).

[20] 20 USC 1400(d)(1)(A) (purpose of the federal law is to ensure that children with disabilities have FAPE that “emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs . . . .”); 20 USC 1401(29) (“special education” defined to mean “specially designed instruction . . . to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability . . .”); Honig v. DOE, 484 U.S. 305, 311 (1988) (FAPE must be tailored “to each child’s unique needs”).

[21] See D.B. v. Esposito, 675 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 2012).

[22] Sebastian M. v. King Philip Regional School Dist., 685 F.3d 79, 84 (1st Cir. 2012)(“the IEP must be custom-tailored to suit a particular child”); Mr. I. ex rel L.I. v. Maine School Admin. Dist. No. 55, 480 F.3d 1, 4-5, 20 (1st Dir. 2007) (stating that FAPE must include “specially designed instruction …[t]o address the unique needs of the child that result from the child’s disability”) (quoting 34 C.F.R. 300.39(b)(3)).  See also Lenn v. Portland School Committee, 998 F.2d 1083 (1st Cir. 1993) (program must be “reasonably calculated to provide ‘effective results’ and ‘demonstrable improvement’ in the various ‘educational and personal skills identified as special needs’”); Roland v. Concord School Committee, 910 F.2d  983 (1st Cir. 1990) (“Congress indubitably desired ‘effective results’ and ‘demonstrable improvement’ for the Act’s beneficiaries”); Burlington v. Department of Education, 736 F.2d 773, 788 (1st Cir. 1984) (“objective of the federal floor, then, is the achievement of effective results–demonstrable improvement in the educational and personal skills identified as special needs–as a consequence of implementing the proposed IEP”); 603 CMR 28.05(4)(b) (Student’s IEP must be “designed to enable the student to progress effectively in the content areas of the general curriculum”); 603 CMR 28.02(18) (“Progress effectively in the general education program shall mean to make documented growth in the acquisition of knowledge and skills, including social/emotional development, within the general education program, with or without accommodations, according to chronological age and developmental expectations, the individual educational potential of the child, and the learning standards set forth in the Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks and the curriculum of the district.”)

[23] 20 USC 1412 (a)(5)(A)

[24] The record contains an email from Student’s adviser regarding his academics, but it is not copied to anybody at Wachusett.

[25] See, e.g., A.M. v. Monrovia Unified Sch. Dist., 627 F.3d 773, 779-80 (9th Cir. 2010) (although district failed to develop a new valid IEP within thirty day deadline, student suffered no deprivation of educational benefit and therefore has no claim”); Gonzalez, 969 F. Supp. at 812 (explaining that the failure to comply with procedural safeguards may be sufficient grounds to hold that a school district has failed to provide a FAPE where there is “some rational basis to believe that procedural inadequacies compromised the pupil’s right to an appropriate education, seriously hampered the parents’ opportunity to participate in the formulation process, or caused a deprivation of educational benefits”; even a state department of education’s failure to hold a timely hearing and render a decision does not constitute a violation of the IDEA unless it meets these criteria). But see Acton-Boxborough Regional School District, BSEA #2103253 (Figueroa, 2021) (“Certainly, failures to meet procedural requirements may be adequate grounds by themselves for holding that a school failed to provide a FAPE”).

[26] C.D. v. Natick Pub. Sch. Dist., No. CV 19-12427, 2020 WL 7632260 (D. Mass. 2020) at *12, *16. In a footnote, the Court observed that “although it appears that Parents had, in general, obstructed Natick’s attempts to provide [Student] with a FAPE, the burden to review the IEP annually falls on the school, and there is no evidence that Parents specifically acted to prevent Natick from proposing a new IEP or scheduling a Team meeting during the relevant period.” As such, the Court concluded that the District’s procedural missteps impeded Parents’ ability to participate meaningfully in educational planning for that school year. Id. at *16 n.12.

[27]  See Frazier v Fairhaven School Committee, 276 F.3d 52, 59 (1st Cir. 2002) (noting without explanation that “… the array of remedies available under the IDEA does not include money damages.”).

[28] Nieves-Marquez v. Puerto Rico, 353 F.3d 108, 124 (1st Cir. 2003); see 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii); Diaz-Fonseca 451 F.3d at 31.

Updated on June 26, 2025

Related Documents