House 518 Would Require Transportation and Increased Funding for Recovery High Schools – a Proven Resource in a Troubled Time

Readers may recall a number of posts we have entered over the past few years regarding Recovery High Schools. Massachusetts currently has five such high schools – in Boston, Brockton, Beverly, Worcester and Springfield – and they have each proven to be an excellent support for high school age students who are struggling to disengage from drug and/or alcohol dependence/abuse. A Recovery High School’s ability to provide a solid high school education along with appropriate services and supports to such students, in the company of peers who are struggling with the same issues, is critical to the success of this resource. The alternative – returning to the student’s home high school – is all too often disastrous, as a student’s fragile beginning toward recovery can so easily be crushed by a school district’s lack of supports while a user subculture of peers eagerly draws the student back into its mix. Continue reading

A New First Circuit Case: C.D. v. Natick Public School District

In a recent decision, C.D. v. Natick Pub. Sch. Dist., No. 18-1794 (1st Cir. May 22, 2019), the First Circuit Court of Appeals grappled with the legal standards at the heart of most special education disputes – namely, the entitlement of a student with special needs to a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE) in the “least restrictive environment” (LRE).  The First Circuit’s decision followed the Supreme Court’s decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017), which, for the first time since 1982, squarely considered the contours of a FAPE.  For an in-depth discussion about Endrew F., please see our previous post here. Continue reading

45 Years Old – Are the Purposes of Chapter 766 Being Achieved?

September 2019 will be the 45th anniversary of the effective date of the special education reform act known as “Chapter 766.” (Although Chapter 766 was adopted in 1972, its full implementation was delayed for two years to allow educators and agencies time to prepare.)

Five years ago we checked in with readers to invite their comments on whether the stated purposes of Chapter 766 were being met.  Comments from some of the advocates and political leaders who were behind the legislation in 1972 were eloquent, insightful and heartfelt. They included, for example, the following from Martha Ziegler, a great civil rights leader whose work in 1972 organizing the widely disparate interest groups of the world of disability advocacy into a cohesive lobbying force was a key factor in the success of the movement, as was her later work founding and presiding over the Federation for Children With Special Needs. Continue reading

Vigil for the Abuse Registry (Dana’s Law/Nicky’s Law)

We have represented numerous children and adults with disabilities who have been abused by caregivers in their residential schools and group homes. On occasion, the perpetrators of that abuse have been found to have previous allegations of abuse substantiated by the Disabled Person Protection Commission (DPPC).  While there has been an accessible registry of individuals with criminal charges maintained by the Commonwealth’s Department of Criminal Justice Information Services, known as CORI, there has been no corresponding registry for DPPC findings.  Continue reading

BSEA Applies Work Product Protection to Non-lawyer Advocate Materials and Communications; The Ruling also Stands as a Caution on Therapeutic/Medical Records

In a Ruling in the matter of In Re: Dorian issued on July 20, 2017, BSEA Hearing Officer Amy Reichbach held that the communications and materials of non-lawyer special education advocates are subject to the protections of the work product doctrine.  The hearing officer reasoned that such protection is necessary in order to minimize the potential chilling effect that discovery of such information would have on parents’ and their consultants’ ability to communicate freely when special education litigation is anticipated. The hearing officer’s analysis vindicates arguments that parent attorneys and advocates have advanced for some time now (see, e.g., our posting on the subject in June 2015).  We hope and trust that her reasoning will be adopted by her colleagues at the BSEA. Continue reading

A Superb Article on Endrew F. Closes Bill Crane’s Career as an Advocate for Children with Disabilities

Bill Crane has just posted an excellent article on the website for Mass Advocates for Children (“MAC”), analyzing and commenting on the ramifications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Endrew F. decision on the required standard for services and placements under IDEA.    Continue reading