Bernadette Harris

June 4, 2009
EDA6232

Brief #2

Title/Caption: Roland M. v. Concord School Committee, 910 F.2d 983

Facts: Roland and Miriam M. and their son Matthew had their case heard in
Massachusetts, regarding the Concord School’s alleged failure to adequately write
Matthew’s IEP, and in doing so, failing to provide him a free and appropriate public
education.

Procedural History: At the initial circuit court hearing, the courts ruled that the school
had provided Matthew an appropriate education, but awarded the parents compensation
for the interim program Matthew participated in while waiting for his IEP to be corrected.
Massachusetts’ state constitution includes an act that commands the state to provide, at
public expense support services assure that students with disabilities are guaranteed a free
appropriate public education. The primary safeguard, according to this act, is the
development of an accurate IEP to address the student’s performance and instructional
objectives. Matthew has social and developmental delays, and attended Concord public
school from kindergarten through fifth grade, in a self-contained ESE classroom. At the
end of fifth grade, dissatisfied with Matthew’s progress, his parents rejected Concord’s
suggested IEP for the coming school year and enrolled him in a private residential school.
The Bureau of Special Education Appeals reviewed Matthew’s case and determined that
his needs were not severe enough to render the necessity of the residential private school
and recommended he continue at Concord under the current IEP. The parents then
alleged that the school had been resistant to determine that Matthew also suffered from
ADHD. The parents decided to bring suit against both the school and the Bureau of
Special Education Appeals. At a hearing the following year, the BSEA duly noted
Matthew’s progress at the private residential school, but refused to credit the school for
this progress.

Issues: Was the Concord School Committee negligent in addressing all of Matthew’s
needs in his IEP, thereby failing to provide him a free and appropriate education,
according to IDEA?

Holdings The court decided that in cases regarding IDEA, the burden of proof lies on the
plaintiff to adequately prove that the school willfully failed to provide a FAPE for the
student. In this case, the courts decided that the parents did not prove the school’s
decision and IEP to be inadequate, and ruled in favor of the school. The school,
according to the court, had done its due diligence in providing for the student’s needs by
placing him in special education services. The self-contained program was what the
school deemed in the best interest of the child, and acted in good faith in implementing
that program. Despite this decision, the courts did initially award compensatory damages
to the parents for the private interim education that Roland received.
Rationale: At a trial encompassing both of the previous appeals, the judge found the IEP
to be adequate and sufficient, and reversed the initial court’s order to provide
compensation for the interim program. They determined that the school had acted in
good faith and was not liable to pay compensatory damages for Roland’s private school
interim education.

Disposition: The courts originally awarded compensatory damages to Roland and

Miriam M., but later reversed their decision.

Concurrence: None

1. Why did you choose this case? How does it specifically relate to your individual
project topic?

I chose this case based on my research for my individual project. I am very interested in
litigation relating to the writing, revising and implementing of student IEP’s. This is my
school’s first year accepting students on McKay scholarships, all of whom come with
public school IEP’s. It is my understanding that, although we are a private school, we are
held under state mandates for the following of student IEP’s. I am particularly interested
in the many ways in which schools, districts, states, or teachers are found to be/not be
negligent in this process. It is also very interesting to me as a future educational leader,
in the absence of the once-existing self contained ESE classroom!

2. Do you agree or disagree with the decision?

In this case I neither agree nor disagree with the decision, because I did not have an
opportunity to review the student’s IEP. I somewhat disagree with the decision in the
context of the further psychological testing that affirmed that the student also had ADHD,
which was not specifically addressed in the student’s IEP. I feel that the IEP should have
been rewritten to include such accommodations, and also that if his parents no longer
wanted Matthew in a self-contained ESE classroom, he should have been allowed to enter
the mainstream class setting with pull-out services, in order to determine which setting
was more advantageous for him. On the other hand, the parents were alleging gross
negligence and malice on the part of the school with regard to their child, and it doesn’t
seem as if they were completely and maliciously negligent. Once again, there lies the
unwritten question as to whether those involved in determining the future of this student
had adequate training and expertise in implementing the most beneficial situation for the
child.

3. As a future educational leader, how might you either a) prevent a similar situation –or-
b) handle a similar situation?
In a similar situation as the school leader, I would call together the child study team,
which includes the student’s parents, and also have the students bring the psychologist’s
report and findings of ADHD. In addition to the report, I would request from the
student’s medical doctor as well as the psychologist, their recommendation as to the
preferred academic setting for the student. I would also have the ESE specialist and
school psychologist review these documents and recommendations, and hear the parents’
concerns. If the recommendations and collaboration agreed, I would have the child study
team revise the IEP and perhaps add an addendum to the IEP that would allow for a “trial
period” for the student to be mainstreamed and receive daily pull-out services. During
this trial period, the student would be closely observed and the observations documented
by the regular classroom teacher, ESE specialist, school psychologist, as well as myself.
At the end of the trial period, we would reconvene and discuss our observations, as well
as all assessment of the student’s progress in order to determine the best permanent
placement as well as permanent modifications and adjustment’s to the IEP.