The Law Office of Lillian E. Wong
A Massachusetts Special Education Attorney

Case Name:   In re: Rick  (BSEA #11-6535)                                  Foxborough Public Schools
Decision Date:     September 2, 2011
Hearing Officer:   Raymond Oliver
Representation:  Thomas Nuttall,  School Attorney
                                 Parents, Pro Se

Issue Presented:  
Does school's proposed IEP provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE)?

Decision:                
Yes, the IEP provides FAPE.  To quote the Hearing Officer, "I find that in all school areas, Rick is truly a success story."  In response to Mother's previous multi-page IEP rejections the Hearing Officer writes, "An IEP is designed to be a functional blueprint for addressing a student's special education needs, not an encyclopedia."

My Comments:
This decision highlights a common situation when school districts will request a BSEA hearing.  In this case, there were five years of partially rejected IEPS and various assertions of stay-put during appeal.  The school was confused about what portions of the IEP they were supposed to be implementing.  The Hearing Officer agreed that this situation was "unworkable."  With this decision, the school has a "clean IEP" and a clear understanding of what program to implement.

Remember, the best special education attorneys in Massachusetts consistently review and analyze hearing decisions by the Massachusetts Board of Special Education Appeals (BSEA).  Hearing decisions provide insight into the litigation interests of school districts, their attorneys, and the legal reasoning of hearing officers.  If you have a question about your child's special education rights, including the right to stay-put, contact Massachusetts special education Lawyer Lillian E. Wong today.

The Massachusetts Bureau of Special Education Appeals has released its statistics for its fiscal 2011 year.   From July 1, 2010 until  June 31, 2011 the BSEA received 8,348 rejected IEPs, an increase of 473 over the past  year. 

The statistics reveal that the majority of rejected IEPs resulted in a resolution long before a hearing decision was issued, and if the dispute reached the hearing stage the school district was likely to prevail.  809 cases voluntarily participated in mediation and 86% ended in a legally binding agreement. 544 parties requested hearings, but the vast majority of disputes were resolved before a decision was issued.  Only 35 hearing decisions were issued and the school district prevailed outright in 63% of the time, the parents prevailed in 20% of the decisions, and 17% of the time mixed relief was granted.
 
School districts were represented by counsel 100% of the time.  Of the 22 cases where the school districts fully prevailed, parents were represented by an attorney in 9 cases (40% of the time).  Of the 7 cases where parents fully prevailed, parents were represented by counsel in 5 cases (71% of the time).  These statistics highlight the importance working with a special education lawyer when pursuing a due process claim.

Read the entire report here.

If you are considering filing a due process request with the Massachusetts Board of Special Education Appeals, contact the North Shore special education Law Office of Lillian E. Wong today.

The U.S. Department of Education (DOE) recently published a report suggesting was for states and school district to increase opportunities for children with disabilities to participate in PE and athletics. The report is called Creating Equal Opportunities for Children and Youth with Disabilities to Participate in Physical Education and Extracurricular Athletics. 

Within the report, the DOE emphasizes the need for accessible facilities and equipment,  professional development and a continuum of inclusive program options.  Read the entire document here.

Remember, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) includes instruction in physical education as part of the definition of special education.  Therefore, a student's IEP must include goals and accommodations for PE if such instruction is needed.  This new DOE report recommends that general and adaptive physical education teachers participate in IEP team meetings and help develop IEP goals and accommodations for children whose disabilities affect their ability to access the general physical education curricula.

If you believe your child's school is not providing equal opportunities in physical education, contact the Boston area Law Office of Lillian E. Wong today.

UPDATE: On December 16, 2011 the Massachusetts Department of Education advised against Procedures Lite.  Read the entire article here.

Have you heard about "Procedures Lite?"  If you  have a child in special education you need to. 

What is Procedures Lite?

Procedures Lite is contract between schools and parents that waives special education procedural rights.  Parents waive the right to convene an IEP meeting, develop an IEP, receive progress notes, and request annual evaluations.  Parents also waive the right to enforce these rights and seek compensatory services and damages. What does the school waive?  Nothing.  Instead the school gains the unilateral right to educate your child without parent input, updated evaluations, and judicial oversight. 

What is the purpose of Procedures Lite?

Schools and their attorneys claim that the purpose of Procedures Lite is to foster trust and communication between Parents and Schools.  They believe that special education law, and not school officials or budgetary concerns, create conflict and distrust between parents and schools.  Their solution - do away with IEPs as we know them and replace them with a one page Student Learning Plan  (SLP). Don't allow parents to enforce the supports and services outlined in the SLP.  Eliminate IEP meetings and Progress Reports in the name of better communication.  Does this sound counter-intuitive?  Maybe.  But it's happening in Massachusetts.  Read the current Weston, Massachusetts Procedures Lite contract here.

What is the ultimate agenda of Procedures Lite proponents?

Those proposing Procedures Lite would like to eliminate special education rights.   One of Procedure Lite's vocal advocates is Massachusetts school attorney Miriam Kurtzig Freedman.  In her recent presentation at the University of Chicago School of Law, Ms. Freedman compared special education to welfare and talked about the need to eliminate special education rights.  In the meantime, Ms. Freedman supports Procedures Lite because, "Even if we won't or can't end the [special education] entitlement right away, [we can] end litigation and the fear of litigation about a proposed FAPE."  Read the entire presentation abstract here.

What can you do?

First, NEVER sign away your child's special education rights without consulting an experienced special education attorney.  Procedures Lite is a relatively new idea, but convincing parents to waive their child's rights is not.  Read my warning to parents about waiving rights in settlement agreements here.

Second, inform other parents.  Make sure every parent who has a child on an IEP is aware of their rights and the serious consequences of "Procedures Lite."

Third, talk to school administrators.  Explain to them that eliminating laws designed to protect your child will not make your more trusting of the school.  Emphasize that IEP meetings,  Progress Reports and the IEP document are fundamental to parent-school communication.  Point out that without required evaluations, your child's needs cannot be assessed and the school cannot provide a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).

If you have any other questions about your child's special education rights, feel free to contact Massachusetts special education attorney Lillian E. Wong today.