text:
Recent Changes to the NH Special Education Regulations
By SpecialEducation-Lawyer on March 13, 2018 | Leave a comment
The joy of a snow day… I get a chance to catch up on a blog posting that I have been meaning to write for a long time. Last June, 2017, New Hampshire implemented a significant number of changes to its regulations related to special education. The changes range from correcting minor typos and grammatical changes, to major changes. After comparing the current and prior regs, I wanted to highlight some of what I believe are the more important changes. This list is not intended to be a complete list of the changes. These changes are all specific to New Hampshire:
Once you have been involved with the special education system for a while, you learn that the school district is supposed to evaluate a child initially as part of the special education eligibility consideration process, as well as at least every three years thereafter. However, the evaluation process was never defined. It is now. The following new reg has been added:
"Evaluation process" means the completion of initial evaluations, reevaluations and assessments, a written summary report, and a meeting of the IEP team to review the results of the evaluations and assessments. When the purpose of the meeting is to determine eligibility for special education and related services, the evaluation process also includes the determination of eligibility. Ed 1102.02(n).
Related to the evaluation process, the length of time that the school district has to conduct the evaluation has been increased from 45 to 60 days. Ed 1107.01(c), (d). Under the old rules, the allowable time for evaluations could be extended by no more than 15 days, as long as both school district and parents agreed; the new rules now permit an extension of up to 30 days.
The term "Health Evaluation" has been added and defined. The Health Evaluation is intended to provide the IEP Team with information on the student's physical condition. Ed 1102.03(b).
Related to Health Evaluations, the regs now define who is qualified to conduct such an evaluation:
"Professional licensed to provide a health evaluation" means anyone who, under their specific licensing, is qualified to provide a health evaluation. This may include, but is not limited to: a school nurse, a registered nurse, physician, psychiatrist, and naturopathic doctors. Ed 1102.04(m).
Representatives of DCYF and appointed Guardians ad Litem (GAL) are now specifically defined as potential members of the IEP Team , under the category of "other individuals." Ed 1103.01(c).
Team meeting "invitations" are now referred to as "notices." It is now defined that notices need to include "the purpose, time, location of the meeting and the identification of the participants." Ed 1103.02(c).
When a referral was made for special education consideration, it used to be that the Team needed to decide how to proceed regarding the referral within 15 days. That has now been changed to 15 business days. Ed 1106.01(d), (e).
Home instruction can now be considered an "alternative placement." Ed 1111.04(a).
Under the previous regulations, if a school district made a proposal for something in the IEP that it believed was necessary for the child to receive his or her Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), and if the parent refused to consent to that proposal, the school district was required to initiate a due process hearing. Ed 1120.05(f). The reality is that this almost never occurred. That requirement has been removed under the new regs.
When a complaint is filed with the DOE which results in corrective action being required of the school district, the regs now allow 20 days for an appeal, versus what had been 10 days in the prior regs. The regs also clarify that during the appeal process, any changes that had been ordered as part of the initial complaint decision must be implemented pending the appeal. Ed 1121.04(a).
Related to the complaint appeal process, the regs previously allowed the Commissioner 20 days to rule on the appeal; that has been shortened to 15 days. Ed 1121.04(b). The regs also now clarify that a further appeal may be made to the NH Supreme Court, or to a NH Superior Court. Ed 1121.04(c).
Posted in: FAPE, New Hampshire, Special Education, Special Education Regulations, Uncategorized	| Tagged: New Hampshire, NH, Special Education, Special Education Regulations
Written Prior Notice and IEPs
By SpecialEducation-Lawyer on August 1, 2017
In special education disputes, the question sometimes comes up about how binding statements are from a Written Prior Notice ("WPN"), especially compared to an IEP. What if a key service or description is in the WPN, but not the IEP? Can the two documents be read together, to make them equally enforceable? A case recently decided by the First Circuit Court Of Appeals helps to answer these questions. Ms. M. v. Falmouth Sch. Dept., 847 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 2017). Even though the case originated in Maine, because both Massachusetts and New Hampshire are also part of the First Circuit, the decision is binding throughout all three states (as well as Rhode Island and Puerto Rico).
Whenever a Team makes a decision to take or not take an action, it is supposed to issue a Written Prior Notice form describing the decision that was made, and why. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(3); 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(1) . Federal law and New Hampshire refer to this as a Written Prior Notice or Prior Written Notice; Massachusetts refers this as an N1 Form. Assuming any changes are going to be made, an IEP follows the WPN. The IEP is what parents are used to signing, by accepting, partially accepting, or rejecting the document. The IEP becomes the contract between the parents and the school district, at least in terms of whatever is agreed to in the IEP.
The Ms. M. case concerned a 12-year-old girl ("O.M.") diagnosed with Down Syndrome and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, attending school in Falmouth, Maine. In October 2013, the school district issued a WPN in which the district proposed "the introduction of a structured reading program to [O.M.]'s IEP." Ms. M., 847 F.3d at 23. After Ms. M. expressed dissatisfaction with various aspects of the district's proposal, the district, on November 5, 2013, issued a new WPN, in which it "'proposed' to provide O.M. with 60 minutes of daily SPIRE instruction." Id. Ms. M. responded on November 14, 2013 by writing to the school district stating that she had identified several errors in the WPN, and did not believe that SPIRE was appropriate, because according to Ms. M., SPIRE was not a research-based program. Ms. M clarified her position when she wrote that she was "'NOT in agreement with the proposal to use [SPIRE] for [O.M.]'" Id. The resulting IEP did not identify or discuss SPIRE, and instead stated that Falmouth would provide O.M. with eight hours and forty-five minutes of specially designed instruction in literacy and math per week. On April 17, 2014, Ms. M notified the school district that her daughter would start to receive private tutoring sessions in a different structured reading program called Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing ("LiPS"). On May 1, 2014, at a Team meeting, Falmouth notified Ms. M that they were declining her request to provide O.M. with LiPS instruction, and again agreed to provide her with SPIRE instead, though not until the following school year. Id. at 23 – 24.
In June 2014, Ms. M filed for due process. Ms. M., 847 F.3d at 24. The hearing officer ruled in Ms. M.'s favor, determining that the contents of the October 31st WPN were part of the IEP. The hearing officer also determined that since the combined documents called for SPIRE instruction, Falmouth had violated the IEP by not providing her with such instruction. However, the hearing officer also ruled that the failure was merely a procedural violation and had not harmed O.M. educationally, and therefore FAPE was not denied. Id. at 24 – 25.
Ms. M. then appealed to federal court. Ms. M., 847 F.3d at 25. A magistrate judge supported the findings of the hearing officer. The case then proceeded to district court, which disagreed with the magistrate judge and hearing officer in terms of whether the violation was substantive or merely procedural. The court found that the violation was material, and entered a judgment of $4,111.25 in favor of Ms. M., reflecting the cost of the LiPS tutoring for 3 1/2 months. Id.
The case then proceeded to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the lower courts. The First Circuit agreed with Falmouth's argument that "SPIRE… was never part of O.M.'s IEP because the IEP team only mentioned its use in the Written Prior Notice generated after the October 31st meeting, a document which proposed, but did not promise, that the School Department would provide specific educational programs to O.M." Ms. M. at 25. The court stated that although the WPN might contain more specific terms than the IEP, those terms are intended as proposals, and are "not binding." Id. at 28.
The court did identify an exception that would allow the WPN to be read with some binding authority. Specifically, if a term in the IEP is ambiguous, the WPN can be referenced for help clarifying the ambiguity. Ms. M. at 28.
As one last aside, it is valuable to point out how important it is for both parents and school districts to be reasonable when dealing with each other. In this case, the parent told the school district that she was opposed to SPIRE, yet then proceeded to bring a due process case for the district's failure to implement SPIRE, even though SPIRE was never in an IEP. Regardless of whether the WPN and IEP could be read together to create a binding set of services, it does not seem reasonable for a parent to bring a due process case, trying to fault the district for failing to implement the program to which the parent was opposed. That is litigation that should never occur.
In summary, based on the Ms. M. case, parents in the First Circuit (including Massachusetts and New Hampshire) should not assume that a WPN is binding, or that the WPN should be read together with an IEP. The WPN should be looked as a set of proposals that are not binding until the details are in the IEP, and the IEP is agreed to by both district and parents. If parents do not see what they are looking for in an IEP, the first step should be to ask the school district to correct the error. If the district refuses, then the parent should document their position, which would typically be done through a rejection (partial or full, depending on the circumstances).
Posted in: Down Syndrome, FAPE, First Circuit, IEP, Massachusetts, N1, New Hampshire, Prior Written Notice, WPN, Written Prior Notice	| Tagged: 847 F.3d 19, ADHD, Down Syndrome, FAPE, First Circuit, IEP, Ms. M., Ms. M. v. Falmouth, N1, Prior Written Notice, SPIRE, WPN
Nurse Practitioner's Notes vs. Physician's Notes
By SpecialEducation-Lawyer on December 14, 2016
In Massachusetts, when it comes to the provision of educational services for students who cannot attend school for medical reasons, notes from nurse practitioners now hold just as much weight as notes from physicians. Although the Massachusetts special education regulations have not yet been changed to reflect this new reality, there is a new statute in effect to support this equal weighting.
Under Massachusetts special education regulations, when a School Principal receives a note from a physician verifying that an enrolled student must remain in a hospital or at home for medical reasons for 14 or more school days, that principal must arrange for the provision of educational services in the hospital or home environment.603 CMR 28.03(3)(c). The purpose of the hospital or home educational services is to ensure that the student continues his or her educational program, even though the student is unable to physically be present at school. Although the principal is supposed to coordinate provision of the services with the Administrator of Special Education, such services should not be considered to be special education services, unless the student has already been determined eligible for such services. Id. The law is very clear that the note must be from a physician (e.g. "Upon receipt of a physician's written order verifying that any student enrolled in a public school…" Id.).
In 2012, the Massachusetts legislature amended the scope of authority granted to nurse practitioners, clarifying that when a "law or rule requires a signature, certification, stamp, verification, affidavit or endorsement by a physician, when relating to physical or mental health, that requirement may be fulfilled by a nurse practitioner …" MGL c. 112 § 80I. Thus, even though the special education regulation specifically refers to the need for a physician's written order, a nurse practitioner's written order will equally suffice.
This issue recently came up in a due process hearing decision issued by the Massachusetts Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA). In a 2016 case involving the Lenox Public Schools, the parents of a special education student presented a nurse practitioner's note to the school district, excusing the student from school for more than two weeks. In Re: Lenox Public Schools and Halsey, 22 MSER 117 (Mass. Bur. of Spec. Educ. App. 2016). A little more than two weeks later, the parents submitted a second note, this time from a physician. In response to Lenox's argument that the nurse practitioner did not have the necessary authority to justify provision of home / hospital services under 603 CMR 28.03(3)(c), BSEA Hearing Officer Lindsay Byrne referred to the new Massachusetts statute when she stated in her decision that "Lenox could not properly decline to accept the nurse practitioner's medical excuse for Halsey's absence on the basis of lack of authority." Lenox, 22 MSER at 119. Even though the nurse practitioner did have proper authority to request home / hospital services, her note was found to be faulty for other reasons. For example, the Hearing Officer stated that the note "does not address the regulatory criteria required to support a request for home instruction such as a medical diagnosis and a description of how the student's health condition affects the delivery of education services in the school and in the home." Id. The follow-up note from the physician had proper authority, and was valid in its content, as well. Id.
It is also worthwhile to point that even though a note from a physician or nurse practitioner might be completely valid and sufficient to require home / hospital educational services, the school district still has a right, and might even have a responsibility, to make further inquiries of the health care providers and seek additional medical information. The purpose of such inquiries cannot be to delay or prevent the home / hospital services. Instead, the school district might need such additional information to ensure that its educational services are appropriate given the student's diagnosis and medical needs. Id.
In conclusion, thanks to a Massachusetts law implemented in 2012, a nurse practitioner, through proper notification, can provide the necessary authority for a student to receive home or hospital educational services from a school district.
Posted in: Home Hospital, Home Hospital Services, Massachusetts, Nurse Practitioners	| Tagged: 603 CMR 28.03(3)(c), Home, Home Hospital, Hospital, Lenox, Nurse Practitioners, Physicians
Specifying Teaching Methodology in an IEP
By SpecialEducation-Lawyer on October 31, 2016
Can / should / must a special education Team specify a teaching methodology in an IEP? More specifically, if a student with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) requires Applied Behavior Analysis and Discrete Trial Training (ABA / DTT) in order to make effective progress, should the Team include the ABA/DTT methodology in the IEP? Must the Team include ABA/DTT in the IEP?
Legal Background
The very definition of the term Special Education would seem to indicate that IEP's can and should name specific methodologies. Both federal and New Hampshire law define "Special Education" as "specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability…." 34 CFR 300.39(a)(1); Ed 1102.05(c). Specially Designed Instruction is then defined as:
(3) Specially designed instruction means 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…
34 CFR 300.39(b)(3); Ed 1102.05(c). In Massachusetts, the definition is slightly different: "Special education shall mean 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).
Guidance provided by the federal Department of Education states, "if an IEP Team determines that specific instructional methods are necessary for the child to receive FAPE, the instructional methods may be addressed in the IEP." 71 FR 46665 (2006). On the other hand, that same guidance also states, "There is nothing in the Act that requires an IEP to include specific instructional methodologies… The Department's longstanding position on including instructional methodologies in a child's IEP is that it is an IEP Team's decision."
But what if the Team makes the wrong decision? What if a child requires a specific methodology in order obtain a meaningful benefit from their educational program? Surely the courts can help, right? Not necessarily. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that
[C]ourts must be careful to avoid imposing their view of preferable educational methods upon the States.[29] The primary responsibility for formulating the education to be accorded a handicapped child, and for choosing the educational method most suitable to the child's needs, was left by the Act to state and local educational agencies in cooperation with the parents or guardian of the child.
Board of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982). So, parents should not expect a court to overrule methodology choices made by IEP Teams.
Luckily for parents, though, the administrative agencies in each state which adjudicate special education matters are not part of the state or federal court systems. They are, in fact, administrative bodies of state governments. The difference might seem minor, but it is, in fact, very important. Notice that Rowley does not leave the methodology decision just to the IEP Team (i.e. the "local educational agenc[y]). Instead, it leaves the decision to "state and local educational agencies…" Furthermore, the decision must be made "in cooperation with the parents or guardian of the child." In New Hampshire, special education disputes are not initially adjudicated in the court systems; they are adjudicated by the New Hampshire Department of Education. Similarly, in Massachusetts, the administrative body that hears special education disputes is called the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA), which is part of the Massachusetts Department of Administrative Law Appeals (DALA).
Courts have even recognized the difference in knowledge and expertise between the state administrative law judges / hearing officers and judges within the state or federal court systems. For example, in Deal v. Hamilton County Bd. of Educ., 392 F.3d 840 (6th Cir. 2004), it was stated,
[T]he ALJ is a representative of the state presumed to have both the educational expertise and the ability to resolve questions of educational methodology that the federal courts do not have. While the district court always is required to give due deference to administrative findings in an IDEA case, even greater weight is due to an ALJ's determinations on matters for which educational expertise is relevant.
Id. at 865.
New Hampshire Case Law
I recently litigated a case in New Hampshire which dealt with the issue of whether an IEP of a student on the autism spectrum should be updated to reflect the need for the ABA/DTT methodology. Student v. School District, IDPH-FY-16-02-020 (NH Dept. of Educ. May 9, 2016). The result was very positive for the parents. In this case, it was well documented through private evaluations and reports that a kindergarten student with very limited verbal skills required ABA/DTT in order to learn. The student's neuropsychological evaluation stated that the student required a minimum of 25 to 30 hours of individualized, ABA/discreet trial based therapy per week, with placement in a full-time, full-year program utilizing 1:1 ABA, with staff being ABA-trained and BCBA supervised.
The school district even recognized the importance of ABA/DTT for the student. For example, Team meeting notes documented that the student was "rapidly gaining skills during ABA in a structured one-on-one setting." A Written Prior Notice documented, "The team recognizes that [Student] has benefited from discrete trial instruction by a trained therapist with oversight by a BCBA… [Student] is acquiring skills rapidly in a one-to-one setting using ABA and Discreet Trial Methodologies." Perhaps most importantly, the district's program actually included ABA/DTT, as well as other methodologies.
Despite such clear evidence, and even admission by the school district, about the need for Applied Behavior Analysis / Discrete Trial Training, the school district refused to commit to any ABA/DTT services in the IEP Service Delivery Grid. In order to ensure that the student received the required services, the parents kept the student at home, arranged for full-time private ABA/DTT services at home, and eventually filed for a due process hearing.
The hearing officer differentiated this case from other methodology cases by clarifying that this was not a dispute about the need for ABA/DTT. The district admitted that the student needed ABA/DTT, and even admitted that the program included some ABA/DTT. Instead, this was a case about the Team refusing to document the need for ABA/DTT within the IEP. In his decision, the hearing officer stated:
[T]he dispute here is more about the school district's reluctance to put specific language in an IEP about a service and a particular methodology that the Team agreed would be provided. The school members of the IEP team did not want to include any specific amount of ABA/DTT services in the IEP because they did not want to "tie their hands" and it was "not good practice" to include methodology in an IEP. That led to uncertainty about how much and what kind of special education services the student would receive.
While the cases say that methodology does not have to be included, they do not say that it cannot be included. There is nothing in the law that would prohibit the school from including a methodology in an IEP. Methodology is part of the definition of special education and specialized instruction in the IDEA and its regulations, 34 CFR § 300.30(b)(3), and it seems that it should be part of the listing of the amounts of special education services a student will receive when part of those services will knowingly be from some method like ABA/DTT… [I]f a team agrees that a student requires ABA/DTT services, which it did here, those services should be included in the IEP.
Id. The Massachusetts Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) has established similar case law. For example, in the case In Re: Middleborough Public Schools, 9 MSER 244 (2003), the school district raised similar arguments as the NH case just described. "The School argues that this is purely a question of methodology, that the choice of educational methodologies belongs solely to the school, and cannot be dictated by Parents or a hearing officer." Id. The hearing officer stated that the school district was taking a general principle and carrying it too far. While it is true that courts generally defer to educators on the issue of methodology, this general principle does not apply when the IEP itself is inappropriate. Interestingly, the hearing officer got even more specific regarding ABA/DTT methodology, when she stated,
Additionally, courts seem to address ABA/DTT differently from other methodology disputes. In numerous cases courts have held that there is a "window of opportunity" for children with PDD/autism spectrum disorders to develop language and behavioral skills. If the evidence—including expert testimony– shows that ABA/DTT is necessary for FAPE during that window, courts have ordered schools to provide it. See, e.g., T.H. v. Palatine , supra.
Educators, collaborating with parents and guardians, generally determine methodology. If a specific methodology is necessary for a student to receive a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), that methodology should – and I would argue must – be included in the IEP. Courts generally will not overrule the methodology decisions of school districts. However, the administrative bodies that adjudicate special education cases are not part of the court system; they are considered part of the "state educational agency" as described in Rowley. Hearing officers have expertise in educational matters, and while they may generally defer to the "local educational agencies," they do have the right and responsibility to override a methodology decision if such methodology is required for FAPE.
Posted in: ABA, ABA/DTT, Applied Behavior Analysis, Autism Spectrum Disorder, BSEA, Bureau of Special Education Appeals, Discrete Trial Training, DTT, Massachusetts, Methodology, New Hampshire, Service Delivery Grid, Services, Special Education	| Tagged: ABA, ABA/DTT, Applied Behavior Analysis, ASD, Autism Spectrum Disorder, Discrete Trial Training, DTT, FAPE, IEP, Methodology, Service Delivery Grid, services, Special Education
Joining a Third Party to a BSEA Case
When you have been harmed, and you need to take legal action against another party, you probably think of a lawsuit between a plaintiff and defendant. But what if you, as the plaintiff, cannot get complete relief from taking action against just one party? Or what if the relief sought by the plaintiff would result in an unfair burden placed on the defendant? In those types of cases, it might be necessary to "Join" a third party, thereby making that third party part of the lawsuit.
For matters dealing with special education, a due process hearing is the equivalent of a lawsuit in court. Each state has its own administrative body which adjudicates due process hearings. In Massachusetts, the administrative body is called the Bureau of Special Education Appeals ("BSEA"). The BSEA Hearing Rules for Special Education Appeals list factors that a Hearing Officer should consider when a request is made to join a third party (See BSEA Hearing Rule 1(J) in the above link).
The factors defined in Rule 1(J) are:
The risk of prejudice to the present parties in the absence of the proposed party;
The range of alternatives for fashioning relief;
The inadequacy of a judgment entered in the proposed party's absence; and
The existence of an alternative forum to resolve the issues.
Two recent rulings from the BSEA provide excellent examples of how a Hearing Officer applies the above factors to a real-life situation. In the case of Student v. North Middlesex Regional School District & Department of Children and Families (22 MSER 156 (2016)), the parents filed a BSEA due process hearing request against both the school district ("NMR") and the Department of Children and Families ("DCF") seeking a six month residential placement to address the student's chronic stress. DCF believed that it should not be joined as a party, and filed a Motion to Dismiss. The school district, on the other hand, was opposed to removing DCF as a joined party.
Hearing Officer Rosa Figueroa ruled in favor of the parents and the school district in denying DCF's Motion to Dismiss. Although DCF did not have care or custody of the student, it did provide a Treatment Plan and also arranged for a neuropsychological evaluation of the student, so there was a pre-existing relationship between the student and DCF. The hearing decision documents the school district's argument:
NMR argued that the scope of the Hearing therefore involves not only Student's need for residential placement but also: a) whether her current private day placement offers her a FAPE; b) whether Student requires additional in-home or residential services; (3) whether those in-home or residential services would be educational in nature; and d) if not educational in nature, whether DCF is responsible to provide them. Moreover, according to NMR, given that Student and her family are currently receiving services under a Treatment Plan Document (June 1, 2016 Treatment Plan Document) it would appear that any difficulty experienced by Student in the home is attributable to the home environment rather than unmet educational needs, therefore, a private day placement for Student would suffice to offer her a FAPE in the least restrictive environment. Since a determination of the need for residential placement and/or home wrap-around services, as well as whether such services would be for educational reasons may involve orders against NMR and DCF, the BSEA would be unable to fashion the necessary remedies in the absence of DCF. Lastly, NMR argued that administrative efficiency could only be assured by maintaining DCF as a party.
22 MSER 156 (2016). Hearing Officer Figueroa agreed that "the existence of an active and comprehensive Treatment Plan establishes enough of a relationship to allow the BSEA to order non-residential services (such as additional home-based or therapeutic services) consistent with DCF's rules and regulations, that are necessary to enable Student to receive a FAPE." Id. In other words, since there was at least a possibility that DCF's services might be needed in order for the student to be able to receive her Free and Appropriate Public Education ("FAPE"), DCF needed to stay involved as a joined party in the case.
It is important to realize that the ruling against DCF's Motion to Dismiss does not mean that the parents won their residential placement. This Motion was just one aspect of the larger overall litigation. The decision simply kept DCF involved as part of the case.
In the second case, Student & Natick Public Schools (22 MSER 159 (2016)), the result was the exact opposite (DCF was not joined), but for reasons that are very much in line with the North Middlesex case. In Natick, it was the parent who tried to join DCF "because she asserts that DCF was 'complicit' with alleged actions by Natick that Parent believes deprived Student of a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) and created a 'hostile environment' within the Natick Public Schools. Parent's position is that… DCF (among others) collaborated with Natick to deprive Student of her rights." 22 MSER 159 (2016).
The facts in Natick show that Natick did apply for a Child Requiring Assistance (CRA) petition with the Juvenile Court. Natick also filed a 51A report with DCF because of concerns about the students school attendance. However, the student was never under DCF care or custody, DCF did not have an open case on the student or her family, and DCF was not providing any services to student or the family.
Hearing Officer Sara Berman provided an excellent summary of the factors that a Hearing Officer considers in determining joinder:
In general, factors that hearing officers consider in determining whether the criteria of 603 CMR 28.08(3) and Rule I.J have been met include the following:
The student's eligibility for services from the agency;
status (or lack thereof) as a current client of the agency;
length and degree of involvement that the agency already has with the student, if any;
likelihood that the evidence at hearing will show that the student needs services that only are available from the agency to benefit from special education, that the agency has refused or failed to provide such services, and that no appropriate forum exists to contest the agency's decision;
likelihood that an order to the school district alone will provide the student with FAPE;
administrative efficiency of joining a potentially responsible state agency early in the proceeding.
On the other hand, the BSEA has declined to join human services agencies in situations where the agency has found the student ineligible or has not determined eligibility under its own regulations, where the student is eligible only for minimal services from the agency, or where agency involvement in the future is theoretically possible but speculative.
22 MSER 159 (2016). The Hearing Officer concluded:
DCF should not be joined as a party in the instant case because none of the criteria for joinder listed in the "Legal Frameworks" section of this Ruling have been met. Student is not a current client of DCF. She is not in DCF care or custody, voluntary or otherwise, and receives no DCF services. Moreover, Parents seek no DCF services for Student and/or their family now, and there is no evidence in the parties submissions that they intend to do so in the future… [C]omplete relief, i.e. all relief sought by Parent from the BSEA, can be granted without DCF as a party. There is no risk of prejudice to any existing party if DCF is not joined because there is no remedy that the BSEA can order against DCF.
Id. Through these two cases, we can see how a very similar approach and analysis resulted in polar opposite decisions because the facts of the cases were so different.
Posted in: BSEA, Bureau of Special Education Appeals, DCF, Department of Children and Families, Due Process, Joinder, Natick, North Middlesex, Uncategorized	| Tagged: BSEA, DCF, Department of Children and Families, Due Process, Joinder, Natick
When General Education is not the Least Restrictive Environment
By SpecialEducation-Lawyer on September 2, 2015
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA") requires that an eligible child receive a free appropriate public education ("FAPE") in the least restrictive environment ("LRE") (20 U.S.C. § 1401(9); 20 U.S.C. § 1406(2)). Although special education includes a wide spectrum of available services, ranging from minor adjustments in the child's mainstreamed class to a complete residential placement, the goal of special education is to keep the child as mainstreamed as possible. An out-of-district residential placement is considered more restrictive than an out-of-district day placement, which in turn is considered more restrictive than a public school placement with pullouts for various services, which in turn is considered more restrictive than a public school placement in the general education classroom.
However, this all depends on the needs of the child. If the Team agrees that a student needs special education services, can a non-special education school suffice? This was the issue decided very recently by the Massachusetts Bureau of Special Education Appeals ("BSEA") in the case of In re: Curt and West Boylston Public Schools – BSEA # 15-08235.
In this case, the student, who was diagnosed with a Language Based Learning Disabiity ("LBLD"), attended the Carroll School through the ninth grade, which is the highest grade available at Carroll. The Team agreed that Landmark School, which is another school that specializes in LBLD, would be appropriate for Curt for high school. However, attending Landmark would have meant a commute of over one hour from West Boylston.
Curt's parents pointed to 603 CMR 28.06(8)(a), which guides Teams against commutes of over an hour. This regulation states, "The district shall not permit any eligible student to be transported in a manner that requires the student to remain in the vehicle for more than one hour each way except with the approval of the Team. The Team shall document such determination on the IEP." To avoid this commuting problem, the school district even offered to pay for a residential placement.
Parents were not thrilled with either a long commute OR a residential placement at Landmark, so they requested a placement at school district expense at one of two private general education schools: The Winchendon School or Chapel Hill – Chauncy Hall. When West Boylston refused both placements, parents made a unilateral placement of Curt at the Winchendon School, and then filed a hearing request with the BSEA.
The Hearing Officer, Ray Oliver, found in favor of the school district. His reasoning was that if the Team agreed that Curt required a special education placement, a general education placement would not be appropriate. It would not provide the student with the services that he needed. Therefore, between the choices of a distant special education school or a nearby general education school, the distant special education school would be where the student could get his FAPE in the LRE. The Hearing Officer also stated that the regulation regarding commuting time "is not an absolute bar to transporting a student more than one hour each way but rather allows a waiver of such time limit by the Team." Although a residential placement would be more restrictive than a day placement, it would at least allow the required IEP services to be implemented, whereas that would not be possible at a regular education school.
Posted in: General Education, Least Restrictive Environment, LRE, Special Education, Unilateral Placements	| Tagged: Carroll School, Landmark School, Language Based Learning Disability, LBLD, Least Restrictive Environment, LRE, Unilateral Placement
Stay Put is a Powerful Tool
By SpecialEducation-Lawyer on August 27, 2015
Stay put is the mechanism intended to ensure stability for students while parents and school districts work out their disputes. Under 20 U.S.C. §1415(j), "during the pendency of any proceedings conducted pursuant to this section, unless the State or local educational agency and the parents otherwise agree, the child shall remain in the then-current educational placement of the child…" Similarly, in Massachusetts, under 28 CMR 28.08 (7), "during the pendency of any dispute regarding placement or services, the eligible student shall remain in his or her then current education program and placement unless the parents and the school district agree otherwise." New Hampshire's stay put regulation is Ed. 1123.23.
So, what happens if a student is in an out-of-district placement, which the parent approves of, but the school district wins at due process for a different placement, and the parent appeals to federal court? This was the scenario in a recent decision handed down by the Massachusetts Bureau of Special Education Appeals. In the case of In Re: Boston Public Schools v. Student – BSEA # 15-03083 & BSEA # 14-01653, a Boston student was attending the READS Collaborative, pursuant to a prior stay put decision of the BSEA. Boston then filed for a hearing, asking the BSEA to rule that its proposed placement at a different school – the Horace Mann School – was appropriate for the student. Boston won that due process hearing. Ordinarily, this would mean that the student would need to start attending the Horace Mann School instead of READS. However, the Parent in this case appealed to the U.S. District Court.
The dispute then became the issue of what the stay put placement should be. The Parent claimed that stay put should be READS, since that was the then-current placement of the student. Boston argued that stay put should be the Horace Mann School, since that was the decision of the BSEA hearing officer.
Hearing Officer Rosa Figueroa ruled in favor of the Parent. The reasoning for this decision was that the student's then-current placement was indeed the READS Collaborative. Even though Boston won the case at the BSEA in favor of the Horace Mann School, the fact that the Parent appealed the case to U.S. District Court meant that there were still legal proceedings that were pending. To ensure stability for the student, the hearing officer maintained READS as stay put while the dispute worked its way through the system.
Posted in: BSEA, Due Process, Stay Put	| Tagged: Stay Put
#COPAA2015 – The Annual Conference of the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates
By SpecialEducation-Lawyer on March 6, 2015
The best teachers teach their students that they should never stop learning. I remember my favorite teachers reinforcing that. My father, who was a public school teacher and principal for 35 years, also taught that to me. As a lawyer, I love learning from other lawyers and advocates – new tips, new ways of thinking about issues, new procedures, new laws, new approaches, etc. With this in mind, I am currently attending the annual conference of the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA) in San Diego. It is four solid days of interacting with colleagues from around the country and learning from the best in the field.
Today, I attended an all day session entitled "OCR, 504, ADA and Making the Most of Your Civil Rights." Just as the name implies, we spent all day dealing with alternatives to the standard special education due process procedure. When most people think of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), they think of special education and IDEA. But Section 504 also has a FAPE standard. Bullying and disability discrimination can be a basis for denial of FAPE under Section 504. Another interesting tidbit we discussed today was that when it comes to communication devices, in the decision about which devices are appropriate, the ADA gives primary consideration to the preference of the individual with a disability. 28 CFR 35.160. In fact, the public school must honor the choice of the student with a disability unless they can prove that an alternative would be just as effective. IDEA does not contain this "equally effective" standard, but the ADA does. This is just the tip of the iceberg – many of the rights granted to students and parents by Section 504 and the ADA can be just as powerful, if not more powerful, then those granted under special education law. We also spent a good deal of time talking about restraints, seclusion, OCR complaints, and OCR mediation.
Tomorrow will be another all-day session entitled "Assessment Boot Camp: Understanding Tests and Measurements." Saturday and Sunday will consist of several shorter sessions dealing with a plethora of subjects. I also will have the honor of presenting a session designed to help attorneys who are running their own special education law practice (i.e. the things that special education attorneys need to think about when they run their own practice versus working for somebody else).
This is now my fourth annual national COPAA conference. In each of these conferences, I have come away with so many new ideas and approaches to help me advocate successfully for my clients.
Posted in: ADA, COPAA, OCR, Section 504	| Tagged: #COPAA2015, ADA, COPAA, OCR, Section 504
What Qualifies as a Disability?
By SpecialEducation-Lawyer on August 31, 2014 | Leave a comment
Medically speaking, there are countless types of disabilities. Educationally speaking, the number disability categories is much more limited. What sometimes causes confusion and frustration for parents and school personnel alike is that the definition of disabilities under state and federal laws differs from the medical definitions used by doctors under the DSM-5 manual.
For a child in Massachusetts to qualify for an IEP, he or she must have at least one of the following specifically defined types of disabilities: Autism, Developmental Delay, Intellectual Impairment, Sensory Impairment (Hearing Impairment or Deaf, Vision Impairment or Blind, Deafblind), Neurological Impairment, Emotional Impairment, Communication Impairment, Physical Impairment, Health Impairment, or Specific Learning Disability. 603 CMR 28.02(7). Although this might seem like a very limited list of disabilities, they are, in fact, very broad categories that cover a wide variety of conditions. The specific definitions under Massachusetts education law are as follows:
(a) Autism – A developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal communication and social interaction. The term shall have the meaning given it in federal law at 34 CFR §300.8(c)(1).
(b) Developmental Delay – The learning capacity of a young child (3-9 years old) is significantly limited, impaired, or delayed and is exhibited by difficulties in one or more of the following areas: receptive and/or expressive language; cognitive abilities; physical functioning; social, emotional, or adaptive functioning; and/or self-help skills.
(c) Intellectual Impairment – The permanent capacity for performing cognitive tasks, functions, or problem solving is significantly limited or impaired and is exhibited by more than one of the following: a slower rate of learning; disorganized patterns of learning; difficulty with adaptive behavior; and/or difficulty understanding abstract concepts. Such term shall include students with mental retardation.
(d) Sensory Impairment – The term shall include the following:
Hearing Impairment or Deaf – The capacity to hear, with amplification, is limited, impaired, or absent and results in one or more of the following: reduced performance in hearing acuity tasks; difficulty with oral communication; and/or difficulty in understanding auditorally-presented information in the education environment. The term includes students who are deaf and students who are hard-of-hearing.
Vision Impairment or Blind – The capacity to see, after correction, is limited, impaired, or absent and results in one or more of the following: reduced performance in visual acuity tasks; difficulty with written communication; and/or difficulty with understanding information presented visually in the education environment. The term includes students who are blind and students with limited vision.
Deafblind – Concomitant hearing and visual impairments, the combination of which causes severe communication and other developmental and educational needs.
(e) Neurological Impairment – The capacity of the nervous system is limited or impaired with difficulties exhibited in one or more of the following areas: the use of memory, the control and use of cognitive functioning, sensory and motor skills, speech, language, organizational skills, information processing, affect, social skills, or basic life functions. The term includes students who have received a traumatic brain injury.
(f) Emotional Impairment – As defined under federal law at 34 CFR §300.8(c)(4), the student exhibits one or more of the following characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree that adversely affects educational performance: an inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors; an inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers; inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances; a general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression; or a tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems. The determination of disability shall not be made solely because the student's behavior violates the school's discipline code, because the student is involved with a state court or social service agency, or because the student is socially maladjusted, unless the Team determines that the student has a serious emotional disturbance.
(g) Communication Impairment – The capacity to use expressive and/or receptive language is significantly limited, impaired, or delayed and is exhibited by difficulties in one or more of the following areas: speech, such as articulation and/or voice; conveying, understanding, or using spoken, written, or symbolic language. The term may include a student with impaired articulation, stuttering, language impairment, or voice impairment if such impairment adversely affects the student's educational performance.
(h) Physical Impairment – The physical capacity to move, coordinate actions, or perform physical activities is significantly limited, impaired, or delayed and is exhibited by difficulties in one or more of the following areas: physical and motor tasks; independent movement; performing basic life functions. The term shall include severe orthopedic impairments or impairments caused by congenital anomaly, cerebral palsy, amputations, and fractures, if such impairment adversely affects a student's educational performance.
(i) Health Impairment – A chronic or acute health problem such that the physiological capacity to function is significantly limited or impaired and results in one or more of the following: limited strength, vitality, or alertness including a heightened alertness to environmental stimuli resulting in limited alertness with respect to the educational environment. The term shall include health impairments due to asthma, attention deficit disorder or attention deficit with hyperactivity disorder, diabetes, epilepsy, a heart condition, hemophilia, lead poisoning, leukemia, nephritis, rheumatic fever, and sickle cell anemia, if such health impairment adversely affects a student's educational performance.
(j) Specific Learning Disability – The term means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations. Use of the term shall meet all federal requirements given in federal law at 34 CFR §§300.8(c)(10) and 300.309.
New Hampshire and Federal Education Law
Unlike Massachusetts, New Hampshire education law simply defers to the federal educational definitions of disability, but then adds two more categories not found in the federal law. The federal special education disability categories are as follows: mental retardation, a hearing impairment (including deafness), a speech or language impairment, a visual impairment (including blindness), a serious emotional disturbance (referred to in this part as "emotional disturbance"), an orthopedic impairment, autism, traumatic brain injury, an other health impairment, a specific learning disability, deaf-blindness, or multiple disabilities, and who, by reason thereof, needs special education and related services. 34 CFR 300.8. The extensive definitions are as follows:
(i) Autism means a developmental disability significantly affecting verbal and nonverbal communication and social interaction, generally evident before age three, that adversely affects a child's educational performance. Other characteristics often associated with autism are engagement in repetitive activities and stereotyped movements, resistance to environmental change or change in daily routines, and unusual responses to sensory experiences.
(ii) Autism does not apply if a child's educational performance is adversely affected primarily because the child has an emotional disturbance, as defined in paragraph (c)(4) of this section.
(iii) A child who manifests the characteristics of autism after age three could be identified as having autism if the criteria in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section are satisfied.
(2) Deaf-blindness means concomitant hearing and visual impairments, the combination of which causes such severe communication and other developmental and educational needs that they cannot be accommodated in special education programs solely for children with deafness or children with blindness.
(3) Deafness means a hearing impairment that is so severe that the child is impaired in processing linguistic information through hearing, with or without amplification that adversely affects a child's educational performance.
(i) Emotional disturbance means a condition exhibiting one or more of the following characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree that adversely affects a child's educational performance:
(A) An inability to learn that cannot be explained by intellectual, sensory, or health factors.
(B) An inability to build or maintain satisfactory interpersonal relationships with peers and teachers.
(C) Inappropriate types of behavior or feelings under normal circumstances.
(D) A general pervasive mood of unhappiness or depression.
(E) A tendency to develop physical symptoms or fears associated with personal or school problems.
(ii) Emotional disturbance includes schizophrenia. The term does not apply to children who are socially maladjusted, unless it is determined that they have an emotional disturbance under paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section.
(5) Hearing impairment means an impairment in hearing, whether permanent or fluctuating, that adversely affects a child's educational performance but that is not included under the definition of deafness in this section.
(6) Mental retardation means significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental period, that adversely affects a child's educational performance.
(7) Multiple disabilities means concomitant impairments (such as mental retardation-blindness or mental retardation-orthopedic impairment), the combination of which causes such severe educational needs that they cannot be accommodated in special education programs solely for one of the impairments. Multiple disabilities does not include deaf-blindness.
(8) Orthopedic impairment means a severe orthopedic impairment that adversely affects a child's educational performance. The term includes impairments caused by a congenital anomaly, impairments caused by disease (e.g., poliomyelitis, bone tuberculosis), and impairments from other causes (e.g., cerebral palsy, amputations, and fractures or burns that cause contractures).
(9) Other health impairment means having limited strength, vitality, or alertness, including a heightened alertness to environmental stimuli, that results in limited alertness with respect to the educational environment, that–
(i) Is due to chronic or acute health problems such as asthma, attention deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, diabetes, epilepsy, a heart condition, hemophilia, lead poisoning, leukemia, nephritis, rheumatic fever, sickle cell anemia, and Tourette syndrome; and
(ii) Adversely affects a child's educational performance.
(10) Specific learning disability.
(i) General. Specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.
(ii) Disorders not included. Specific learning disability does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.
(11) Speech or language impairment means a communication disorder, such as stuttering, impaired articulation, a language impairment, or a voice impairment, that adversely affects a child's educational performance.
(12) Traumatic brain injury means an acquired injury to the brain caused by an external physical force, resulting in total or partial functional disability or psychosocial impairment, or both, that adversely affects a child's educational performance. Traumatic brain injury applies to open or closed head injuries resulting in impairments in one or more areas, such as cognition; language; memory; attention; reasoning; abstract thinking; judgment; problem-solving; sensory, perceptual, and motor abilities; psychosocial behavior; physical functions; information processing; and speech. Traumatic brain injury does not apply to brain injuries that are congenital or degenerative, or to brain injuries induced by birth trauma.
(13) Visual impairment including blindness means an impairment in vision that, even with correction, adversely affects a child's educational performance. The term includes both partial sight and blindness.
34 CFR 300.8(c).
New Hampshire specifically references the federal definition (Ed 1102.01(t)(1)), but then also includes developmental delays and acquired brain injury as two additional categories. Ed 1102.01(t)(2 – 3).
Posted in: Diagnosis, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Uncategorized
MA Legislature Passes Autism Omnibus Bill
By SpecialEducation-Lawyer on August 3, 2014 | Leave a comment
The Massachusetts Legislature recently passed the Autism Omnibus Bill. Massachusetts Advocates for Children, which provided vital advocacy in support of the Bill, has summarized the key provisions as follows:
A requirement that MassHealth cover medically necessary treatments for children with ASD who are under 21 years old – including ABA therapies as well as dedicated and non-dedicated AAC devices;
Extension of Department of Developmental Services (DDS) eligibility to many persons with Autism, Prader Willi Syndrome and Smith-Magenis syndrome;
The creation of an Autism Endorsement for special education teachers to enable them to voluntarily gain in-depth knowledge about the complexities of educating students with ASD;
The creation of tax-free saving accounts (called "Achieving a Better Life Experience" or ABLE) to help families cover anticipated disability-related expenses for individuals with ASD and other physical and developmental disabilities;
Requiring DMH and DDS to develop and implement a plan to provide services to individuals who have both a mental illness and a developmental disabilities; and
Establishing the Autism Commission as a permanent entity.
Mass Advocates Web Site Summary
Mass Advocates has also published:
A fact sheet, which you can find here: Mass Advocates Fact Sheet; and
The complete Bill, which you can find here: Autism Omnibus Bill.
Posted in: Asperger's, Autism Endorsement, Autism Spectrum Disorder, Massachusetts Advocates for Children	| Tagged: Autism, Autism Commission, Autism Endorsement, Autism Omnibus Bill, Mass Advocates for Children, Prader Willi Syndrome


text:
Databurst From the 501st
August 15, 2018 at 12:00 am | Posted in 501st, Charity, Conventions, Databurst From the 501st, Events, Star Wars | Leave a comment
Latest Databurst From the 501st covering 501st Legion events around the world from August 15 to 21st. As always, be sure to mark your calendars and support your local garrisons.
Garrison Excelsior will be in Rochester, NY for The Strong's Happiest Hour.
Garrison Tyranus will be in Harrisonburg, VA for the Rockingham County Fair from August 15 to 18th.
Star Garrison will be in Dallas, TX for Movie Night in West Village.
Badlands Garrison will be in Red Deer, AB for the Summer Reading Program Mini ComiCon.
Garrison Tyranus will be in Virginia Beach, VA for the CHKD Lemonade Stand at Sheraton Virginia Beach Oceanfront from 12:00 to 5:00 PM.
70th Explorers Garrison will be in Grain Valley, MO for Family Fun Night at the Grain Valley Chiropractic from 6:00 to 9:00 PM.
Bast Alpha Garrison will be in Shreveport, LA for Geek'd Con from August 17 to 19th.
Connecticut Garrison will be in Uncasville, CT for Terrificon 2018 at the Mohegan Sun Convention Center from August 17 to 18th.
Garrison Carida will be in Souderton, PA for 3rd Fridays Souderton from 6:00 to 8:00 PM.
Great Lakes Garrison will be in Detroit, MI for Detroit Comic Con.
Northeast Remnant Garrison will be in Parsippany, NJ for Liquid Church Movie Night at 7:30 PM.
Old Line Garrison will be in Washington D.C. for the End of Summer Community Event at Benning Courts Apartments from 2:00 to 5:00 PM, and in Annapolis, MD for the SPCA Dock Bar Party at the Annapolis Waterfront Hotel from 4:00 to 6:00 PM.
Star Garrison will be in Frisco, TX for the Frisco RoughRiders Star Wars Night.
UK Garrison will be in Cullompton for Maddie's Fun Day at Padbrook Park from 12:00 to 5:00 PM.
70th Explorers Garrison will be in St. Louis, MO for the St. Louis World's Fare Heritage Festival at World's Fair Pavilion in Forest Park from 5:00 to 9:00 PM.
Badlands Garrison will be in Edmonton, AB for the Good Neighbor Program.
Bast Alpha Garrison will be in Lafayette, LA for Games of Acadiana.
Central Garrison will be in Omaha, NE for the Isiash Wilkins Cancer Fundraiser.
Danish Garrison will be in Outrup for U21 VM For Hold at Outrup Speedway Club.
First State Garrison will be in Dover, DE for Dover Comic Con at the Dover Public Library from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
Florida Garrison will be in Tamarac, FL for the Back 2 School Bash and Health Fair at Sawgrass Lanes.
Garrison Carida will be in Reading, PA for the Reading Public Museum Sci-Fi Day from 12:00 to 2:00 PM.
Garrison Tyranus will be in Christianburg, VA for the NRVHBA Touch-a-Truck at the New River Valley Mall from 10:00 AM to 3:30 PM.
Great Lakes Garrison will be in Coldwater, MI for the 9th Annual Paw Paw Eagles Charity Car Show, and in Grand Rapids, MI for the Grand Rapids Mini Maker Faire.
Midsouth Garrison will be in Columbus, MI for the Golden Triangle Comic Con at the Trotter Center from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
Mountain Garrison will be in Grand Junction, CO for the August 2018 Meet & Greet at IHOP from 6:00 to 9:00 PM.
Northeast Remnant Garrison will be in Sea Isle City, NJ for Cape Con at Sea Isle City Library from 11:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
Redback Garrison will be in Toowoomba for the BMS Mitre 10.
Star Garrison will be in Lubbock, TX for the UMC Hospital visit, in Bonham, TX for BonCon 2018, and in Sachse, TX for the Sachse Movie in the Amphitheater.
Timberline Garrison will be at Couer d'Con from 11:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
UK Garrison will be in Didcot for Children in Need Fun Day at Cineworld from 12:00 to 4:00 PM, in Paignton for Children's Week Sci-Fi Movie Day at Paignton Green from 9:45 AM to 4:00 PM, in Sale for Everyone Can Game '18 from 11:00 AM to 5:00 PM, in Sheffield for Film & Comic Con Sheffield at Sheffield Arena from August 18 to 19th, in Gibraltar for the RAOB Charity Cardboard Boat Race at Ocean Village Marina from 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM, in Glasgow for the Big Glasgow Comic Page Cumbernauld Comic Con 2018 at Cumbernauld New Town Hall from 11:00 AM to 5:00 PM, in Bury for SciFi in the Sidings at Bolton Street Station from August 18 to 19th, and in Sandown for The Garlic Festival from August 18 to 19th.
Badlands Garrison will be in Sylvan Lake, AB for Scouts Canada Family Training Event.
Garrison Excelsior will be in Baldwinsville, NY for Baldwinsville Comic-Con.
Japanese Garrison will be in Akita Prefecture for the Noshiro Space Event.
Northeast Remnant Garrison will be in Toms River, NJ for the Jersey Shore Comic Book Show at Toms River Elks Club from 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM.
Outer Rim Garrison will be in Port Coquitlam, BC for the Downtown Port Coquitlam Car Show from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
Star Garrison will be in Lubbock, TX for Build A Better Basket.
Timberline Garrison will be in Sun Valley, ID for Sun Valley Summer Symphony Star Wars: A New Hope Live in Concert at Sun Valley Pavilion from 5:30 to 7:00 PM.
UK Garrison will be in Ibstock for Ibstock Country Fair at Pretoria Showground from 11:00 AM to 5:00 PM, in Manchester for RAC Fun & Supercar Day at R A C Motoring from 11:00 AM to 4:00 PM, and in Reading for the Reading Dragon Boat Festival at Thames Valley Business Park from 11:00 AM to 3:00 PM.
Japanese Garrison will be in Kabukicho for the Greenbird Volunteer Cleanup.
Alpine Garrison will be in Draper, UT for the Kids on the Move Alumni Party at the Living Planet Aquarium from 6:00 to 9:00 PM.
Next Databurst…August 22nd.
*If you didn't see the events listed for your garrison, send us an email at roqoodepot(at)gmail.com and let us know. We're glad to add any we missed. For more info on the 501st Legion, be sure to check out their official website.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Real Madrid 2-1 Sevilla: Vinicius stunner seals victory for Ancelotti's men
By	Sports Desk	November 28, 2021
Vinicius Junior's stunning late strike helped Real Madrid to a 2-1 win over Sevilla at the Santiago Bernabeu on Sunday.
Sevilla, led by former Los Blancos boss Julen Lopetegui, could have moved a point clear of Madrid at the top of the table with victory, and they got off to a fine start thanks to Rafa Mir's early header.
Karim Benzema pulled the hosts level shortly after the half-hour mark, before Vinicius secured maximum points three minutes from full-time with a wonderful long-range drive.
The result moved Carlo Ancelotti's men four points clear of Atletico Madrid and Real Sociedad at the top of the table, with Sevilla a further point back in fourth.
Sevilla went ahead in the 12th minute when an unmarked Mir headed Marcos Acuna's corner past Thibaut Courtois from 12 yards.
The striker should have scored again just minutes later, but David Alaba cleared his initial effort off the line and Courtois got down well to block the follow-up.
Lucas Ocampos hit the crossbar from distance as Sevilla sought to consolidate their lead, but Madrid pulled level when Benzema slotted into an empty net after Yassine Bounou had spilled Eder Militao's long-range strike onto the post.
Marco Asensio whipped wide from 25 yards shortly before the hour mark, while Vinicius wastefully blazed over after a rapid counter-attack.
The Brazil international had the final say, though, cutting in from the left and fizzing a strike past Bounou from 22 yards to seal an important win.
« We have to be realistic – Koeman claims Barcelona are not ready to win major trophies Muchas grassias! Real Madrid granted €225m loan for underground greenhouse »
No fans allowed for Reggae Boyz upcoming home matches against Mexico, Costa Rica
Jamaica's Reggae Boyz will once again be without fans for upcoming home World Cup qualifiers against Mexico and Costa Rica as the government looks to put measures in place to combat the recent spike in coronavirus cases.
The country has played the majority of its matches behind closed doors so far, with the lone exception being its last match against the United States, which allowed for 5000 vaccinated spectators to be present.
With 15 more COVID deaths, 1,548 new cases, and a positivity rate of 51.5 percent, as of Tuesday, the Government has decided to return to closed-door measures. The Reggae Boyz have been the only time in the octagonal round that has been affected so severely impacted by coronavirus restrictions, with many other teams sticking to the practice of limiting the numbers of fans allowed at the venues.
The country, however, has the lowest vaccination rate of all the countries participating in the qualifiers with just 557,000 persons fully vaccinated, representing just 20.4 percent of the population.
The Reggae Boyz will be hoping to make a late run to book a place at this year's FIFA World Cup having found themselves well off the pace. The team is currently 6th in the standings on 7 points, seven short of the final qualification spot. The team will kick off the next round with a match against Mexico on January 27th, followed by a trip to Panama three days late and a home fixture against Costa Rica on January 30.
Naomi Osaka will face Amanda Anisimova in round three of the Australian Open after easing past Madison Brengle on Wednesday.
The two-time champion in Melbourne won 6-0 6-4 to set up a meeting with the 20-year-old American, who earlier upset Olympic gold medallist Belinda Bencic in straight sets.
Despite a second-set wobble on serve that gave Brengle hope of a comeback, Osaka looked in comfortable control of the contest and has now dropped just one set in her five matches in 2022.
Brengle was a 6-2 6-2 winner in the only previous meeting in Rock Hill way back in 2013, when Osaka had just turned 16 and had barely any Tour experience. Against the Osaka of 2022, a four-time major champion, she had few answers.
Osaka tore through Brengle's defence in the opening set, wrapping it up in 20 minutes while dropping just three points on serve.
Brengle was credited with just one winner in her chaotic first-round match with Dayana Yastremska, who retired trailing 6-1 0-6 0-5. It was not until the second game of the second set that Brengle matched that tally, but it was worth the wait: a brutal inside-out backhand across court, celebrated with gusto, as she began to make inroads on the Osaka serve.
Osaka dug deep, saving three break points before holding for 2-1 and then another with a timely ace in her next service game. Her play was becoming erratic, though, and after saving a further three break points at 3-3, a wild overhead handed Brengle the breakthrough.
Yet if the 31-year-old thought then that the match was just getting started, it was suddenly over. Osaka broke back immediately with a backhand volley at the net and did not lose another point from there, clinching the contest when Brengle's passing shot dropped wide.
DATA SLAM: Osaka into overdrive
Brengle quadrupled her winner count from her first-round match, but the world number 54 was simply outgunned by Osaka when it came to rallies.
The Japanese star fired in 37 winners to 32 unforced errors, turning on the power just when it seemed like the contest was balancing out.
WINNERS/UNFORCED ERRORS
Brengle – 4/14
Osaka – 37/32
ACES/DOUBLE FAULTS
Brengle – 0/1
Osaka – 8/1
BREAK POINTS WON
Mona kicked out of Walker Cup final for use of ineligible players
Mona High has been removed from the final of the ISSA Walker Cup after being found guilty of using ineligible players.
Mona was expected to face defending champions St Catherine in the final of the competition on Saturday, after securing their spot last week with a resounding 5-0 win over Kingston Technical.
However, following a decision handed down by ISSA on Tuesday, it is St Elizabeth Technical who will replace Mona in the final. The issue stems from the use of the school's use of two ineligible players during the semifinal.
During the Manning Cup quarterfinal against St Andrew Technical High School, both Mona players Ronaldo Jones and Carlton Brown received red cards. While Jones received a straight red card, Brown had two yellow cards. Neither should have been eligible for the Walker Cup semifinals but were still used in the fixture.
"If a player receives a "red card" he automatically misses the next scheduled match in the competition in which he is eligible," the release issue by ISSA stated.
Mona is coached by Phoenix All-Star Football Academy manager Craig Butler.
Popular Football News
Athletic Bilbao 0-2 Real Madrid: Benzema and Modri…
Jan 16, 2022 LaLiga
Diego Costa confirms Atletico Mineiro exit amid Arsenal rumo…
Guardado denies mocking Jordan injury after Betis beat Sevil…
Real Betis v Sevilla game to resume behind closed doors on S…
'I will never refuse to play for Man United' – Martial ref…
American Football ATP Barcelona Basketball Bundesliga Chelsea cricket Data Data Features england Euro 2020 Features football Football Juventus La Liga Ligue 1 Liverpool Manchester City Manchester United NBA NFL Premier League psg Real Madrid Serie A Tennis Tottenham Hotspur Transfer News UEFA Champions League


The X1 DVR from Xfinity lets you control the content across every TV in your Marshall home. That's just right for you if you fit in with the 33%, or 7,839 of Texans with multiple TVs.
Xfinity Internet packages from Comcast offer download speeds of up to 150 Mbps. That's a significant increase in speed from the Marshall average download speed.
Xfinity Bundles are another great way to save money each month by paying one provider for all of your telecommunications costs. Join the 72% of other Marshall residents, or 17,104 people, who already bundle TV, Internet, and/or Phone.
The majority of Americans watch 35 hours of television per week; that includes Xfinity customers in Marshall, TX. The current and classic TV shows and movies you love are included in Xfinity TV specials. Get the most live, local sports in Marshall with a local programming package from Xfinity.
With Xfinity TV from Comcast, you can enjoy the best television programming in Marshall. With a variety of programming packages to fit any budget, you get HD channels, the convenience of DVR recording and playback, and On Demand movies and TV shows. Call today to find out what Xfinity TV can give you.
In Marshall, TX, Xfinity Internet is available in a wide variety of packages and options. Every Internet package offers high-speed connections, with speeds up to 105 Mbps, and no-cost extras like the industry-leading Constant Guard® Protection Suite. Xfinity lets you stream your favorite TV shows to your wireless devices and provides up to seven email accounts so everyone in the family can stay connected.
When you bundle your TV, Internet package, and/or digital Home Phone services in a Triple Play or Double Play bundle, you get innovative equipment standard with your cable package in Marshall, TX. These exclusive features include displaying Caller ID on your TV, PC, and mobile devices. Get it all when you bundle Xfinity Voice and TV, and join the more than two-thirds of Marshall residents who have already made the decision to bundle their telecommunications services with a single provider.
One of the most satisfying aspects of watching Petrocelli and other locally filmed TV programs is seeing Marshall actors like Susan Howard. With premium home television programming, Xfinity has all the local, regional, and national channels you want. Plus, it's designed to bring you the best in sports, movies, shows, and news. You can add great original content from channels like HBO®, Showtime®, and Cinemax® to get the most out of your cable TV subscription.


Disclaimer: Please note this map may be out-of-date and may not showcase recent subdivisions and contains some street name errors. We are working to keep the map as up to date as possible.
Aerial Photography of the	City of Winnipeg exists in a variety of forms and locations.
Historically the City of Winnipeg contracted for aerial photography every 2 years. Air photo prints exist for Winnipeg dating back to 1974.
Air photos for 1981, 1984, 1986, 1988 and 1991 available in tif format. Copies prior to 1981 not available.
The City of Winnipeg contracted for the provision of digital ortho-photography for internal use by City departments. Grayscale digital photography is available from the spring of 1998, and colour photography from spring of 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2012. Prints are available at Mapping Services, west side mezzanine, Fort Garry Place phone: 311.


How does your school deal with bullying?
We have a statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities in which rights are matched by responsibilities emphasising our commitment to each other. The School totally rejects any notion that bullying forms a natural part of growing up. Bullying will not be tolerated in any form.
The School periodically consults with the student body on the incidence of bullying within the School and takes positive steps to address any issues identified. The supportive networks of relationships between students and with staff, helps to ensure that bullying is at a very low level of incidence. When bullying does occur the emphasis is on the restoration of relationships.
Often this will involve a mediation process.


text:
https://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2013/11/18/former-pakistan-fin-min-on-growth-vs-stability/
India Real Time
Former Pakistani Fin Min: Growth vs. Stability
Nov 18, 2013 10:30 am IST
By Shahid Javed Burki
Asim Hafeez/Bloomberg News
Traders at the Karachi Stock Exchange in Karachi, Pakistan, Nov. 7. 2013.
As different as they like to think they are, India and Pakistan face the same quandary over the best economic strategy: To go for growth or shoot for stability.
It is not a new debate, nor is it one about the most effective instrument for increasing the rate of economic growth. That argument is fairly settled. There is a virtual consensus among policy analysts that interest rates are the most important tool available for governments to promote growth. Cut rates and boost growth.
But both India and neighboring Pakistan appear to be eyeing a stable economy as the prize, implementing short-term measures to shore up their flailing currencies. This is a mistake that will be politically costly and for which they have already been punished by the markets.
Markets sense when public policy is made in a state of panic. This is what happened in India in mid-August, when the Indian rupee plunged to its lowest level ever against the greenback. Pushing the value of the rupee down was the markets' response to a series of ill-advised moves by the country's economic managers. The most troubling being the focus on reducing inflation by raising interest rates even at the expense of growth.
The plunge and recovery by the Pakistani rupee was equally spectacular. While India's currency swing happened over a period of two weeks, the Pakistani rupee moved down and up against the dollar in just two days. Flooding the market with dollars might have bought the authorities a little time and attempting to open a line of credit with a consortium of banks might provide more foreign exchange at hand if the pressure on the rupee does not ease.
But the only credible way to steady the markets on both sides of the border is to give them a clear signal that policymakers have well thought out strategies in place to address longer-term issues.
Both nations are using the interest rate as the instrument for stabilizing the economy rather than promoting growth by raising rates.
The policy makers fear inflation more than a slowdown in economic growth, but they don't have the political muscle to rein in government expenditure making interest rates an impotent weapon in the promotion of growth.
Without fiscal policy as a stabilizer for inflation, the policy makers are using monetary tools, such as interest rate policy. This is a mistake. They should take some risks with inflation allowing central banks to keep interest rates low to get growth back on track. That would also create greater confidence in the markets and help their currencies.
For economies such as those in South Asia, slight interest adjustments can produce impressive results in terms of growth.
With sharp declines in the growth of gross domestic product in India over the last year and a half, the country needs to lower interest rates to reignite growth.
With Pakistan's economy stuck in a recession for the past six years, suppressing interest rates should be the policy of choice.
In both cases, however, the currency markets have pushed the policy makers in the opposite direction. Sharp declines in the value of both currencies have persuaded the economic managers in India and Pakistan to raise interest rates. By doing so they have stabilized – perhaps only momentarily – their currencies, but they have achieved that result by jeopardizing growth.
Mr. Burki, is an economist, who is a former finance minister of Pakistan, and has served as a vice president of the World Bank. He will be speaking at the South Asian Diaspora Convention, being held in Singapore on 21-22 November 2013.
Follow India Real Time on Twitter @WSJIndia.
Shahid Javed Burki
Previous Tendulkar Gets India's Highest Civilian Honor Next 'For Many, Tendulkar More or Less Is Cricket'


text:
Articles tagged R2
Formal Interpretation of R2:2013 Provision 5.a
The R2 Technical Advisory Committee has released a formal interpretation of Provision 5.a - specifically relating to control of Focus Materials.
"Control" in Provision 5.a applies or begins at the point where and when the R2 Certified recycler takes title or physical possession of the Focus Materials or equipment containing Focus Materials. Therefore, the R2 Standard requirements under Provision 5 would apply when:
R2 TAC
Chinese R2 Guidance now available
SERI has completed a Chinese translation of the R2 Guidance document.
As with all translations, the official version of the R2 Guidance is English. In the event there are inconsistencies between translated versions of documents, all readers should use the English versions.
The document can be accessed via the R2 Document Library.
Japanese R2 translation now available
SERI has completed translations of both the R2:2013 Standard and R2 Guidance documents. Both are now available for public download on the SERI website.
As with all translations, the official version of the R2 Standard and all supporting documentation is English. In the event there are inconsistencies between translated versions of documents, all readers should use the English versions.
The documents can be accessed via the R2 Document Library.
R2 Japan
R2 Standard now available in Chinese and French
SERI is excited to announce that the R2:2013 Standard is now available in French (Quebecois) and Chinese (Mandarin).
The translations are part of SERI's ongoing effort to improve access to the certification program in communities around the world. The two additions join English, Spanish, and Portuguese translations of the R2:2013 Standard, and can be accessed on the R2 Document Library on sustainableelectronics.org.
Spanish & Portuguese R2 Documents Available
Spanish and Portuguese translations of the R2:2013 Standard, Guidance Document, and Code of Practices are now available for download and use by current and prospective R2 certified recyclers.
Spanish Translated Documents
R2:2013 Standard
R2:2013 Guidance
R2:2013 Code of Practices
Portuguese Translated Documents
New Organization Will Manage R2 Standard
Boulder, Colorado -- R2 Solutions today welcomed the formation of SERI (Sustainable Electronics Recycling International), which will succeed R2 Solutions in developing and promoting the R2 Standard.
Beginning today, the R2 Standard will be managed by SERI. R2 Solutions will cease operations and its staff, the board of directors, the R2 Technical Advisory Committee, the R2 Standard and supporting documents, and all other assets will be transferred to SERI.
R2:2013 Quality Plan Released


text:
ACCEPTED

#### According to
The Catalogue of Life, 3rd January 2011

#### Published in
Annls Sci. Nat. , Bot. Biol. Vég. , sér. 12 9: 106 (1968)

#### Original name
Pennella hovassei Manier ex Manier, 1968

### Remarks
null

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
Dan Chandler
3-time Olympian, Olympic Team Coach
When you talk about wrestling history in Minnesota the name of Dan Chandler has to be mentioned. This 12-Time National Greco Roman Champion, 3 Time Olympian, 3-Time World place winner (6th place twice and 5th once), twice 2-time Pan American Games Champion (1975, 1979) and a wrestler with 11 international medals would be enough to qualify him as legendary proportions in Minnesota Wrestling. However, his many contributions go well beyond his former status as a Greco Roman Wrestler.
Chandler is a 3-time Olympic Team Coach. He has coached the Senior Greco team since 1982. He has coached the likes of Minnesota greats Jim Martinez – 1984 Olympic Bronze Medalist Dennis Kozlowski – 1992 Olympic Silver Medalist Brandon Paulson – 1996 Olympic Silver Medalist Garrett Lowney – 2000 Olympic Bronze Medalist Mike Houck – 1985 World Champion Mike Foy- 1989 World Runner-up
He is a member if the Bartelma Hall of Fame (1992) named 5 times as USA Wrestling National Coach of the year (1994, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2000); US Olympic committee 'Coach of the year' for the 2000 Olympics and is a gold level coach with the USAW named in 2004. He has served as Minnesota USA coach for several years and also volunteered his time as a coach on the Minneapolis Park and Rec. program since 1989. He also served as head coach at the University of St. Thomas. Currently he serves as State Coach and General Manager for Minnesota USA Wrestling, Inc.
Chandler got his start as a high school wrestler at Anoka under Coach Ron Malcolm. He went on to the University of Minnesota where he placed 3rd and 4th in the Big Ten and served as Team Captain his senior year for Coach Wally Johnson's Gopher Teams.
Longtime North Dakota State University Coach Bucky Maughan says, "Dan Chandler is one of the real leaders in making Minnesota wrestling as good as it is. He's been a major player." Obviously statements like that show the high regard for Chandler's contributions to the sport of wrestling. However, the respect he has from the wrestlers he's coached is phenomenal. Wrestler, Mike Fiedler, says, "When he (Chandler) talks everybody listens. Everybody freezes and watches him. Anything he says a wrestler will do or try to do. You want to impress him."
Coach Chandler has brought Greco Roman Wrestling to a higher level pf achievement as USA Olympic coach. He coached Rulon Gardner to one of Olympic history's most historic victories in winning his gold medal by defeating the Russian, Alexander Karelin, a 3-time Olympic Champion! Dan has helped put Minnesota wrestling not only on a national scene but the world scene. He is truly one of the greatest contributors as an athlete and coach to Minnesota Wrestling success and recognition throughout the country and world.
SOURCE: National Wrestling Hall of Fame
http://nwhof.org/stillwater/hall-of-fame/#type=hof&honoree=1517
International Resume
1975 Pan American Games Team Member (Mexico City, Mexico), 82kg Gold Medal
1975 World Team Member (Minsk, USSR), 82kg
1976 Olympic Team Member (Montreal, Canada), 82kg
1977 World Team Member (Gothenburg, Sweden), 82kg
1978 World Team Member (Mexico City, Mexico), 82kg
1979 Pan American Games Team Member (San Juan, Puerto Rico), 82kg Gold Medal
1979 World Team Member (San Diego, Calif.), 82kg
1980 Olympic Team Member (Moscow, USSR), 82kg - boycott year
1981 World Team Member (Oslo, Norway), 82kg
1983 Pan American Games Team Member (Caracas, Venezuela), 82kg, Bronze Medal
1983 World Team Member (Kiev, USSR), 82kg
1984 Olympic Team Member (Los Angeles, Calif.), 82kg,
1988 Olympic Team Coach (Seoul, South Korea)
1992 Olympic Team Coach (Barcelona, Spain)
1996 Olympic Team Coach (Atlanta, Georgia)
2000 Olympic Team Coach (Sydney, Australia)
2004 Olympic Team Coach (Athens, Greece)
2008 Olympic Team Coach (Beijing, China)
2012 Olympic Team Coach (London, England)


When it comes to publishing a book, the easiest part is indeed the writing of the book, but what do you do afterwards. For the first part of our series, we are talking about the importance of cover design and 5 tips to help your books succeed.
Although we'd love to say that no one judges a book by its cover, that is unfortunately not the truth. The cover should convey the feel of what is between the cover, and if you take a look at any bookstore shelf, you'll see that the genres also have particular styles for their cover art — from fonts, to images and types of images used.
One of the worse things you can do is have a cover that is either promising a story of one caliber but delivering another, or having a cover that is not suitable for the story in your genre.
Check online in the genre your book will be in and compare it to the books in that genre. Does it look like it will fit in? Or, is it too unique? Too different. In this regard, having a cover that is too unique is not always a good thing. Readers have certain expectations, and familiar covers help.
No, do not copy the cover art of those books — those designs are created by talented artists whose blood, sweat and tears have been dripped into photoshop to reign down confetti. Instead, look at the cover art and see what you like from that. Be inspired by them, but again DO NOT COPY THEIR COVER ART!
There are numerous designers online, who offer great services. Some even have premade covers that can be bought and can fit your story. My advice is to always hire a designer to create your cover — it will save you a lot of problems later on (because like I said, many will judge your book by its cover).
If you are talented with photoshop and typography, then give it a shot — but beware of the risk. A bad cover can sink your sales and the viability of your book.
Did you know that different typographies will also convey a different message? If not, then if you are dead set on creating your own cover, you can hire a designer to just do your typography. I see it like this: the engine light might be on, but you can still drive the car. Of course, I still recommend that you hire a good designer. I know several who are extraordinary and more than capable to make your cover art pop.
(Note: When I created my cover above, my designer did an amazing job creating the typography for me to go with all of my books in my series. I love this cover for sure. I can almost feel the fire).
Before you press publish, get feedback on your cover to make sure it is hitting the mark. Whenever I get a cover created (or create one), I make sure to ask several of my readers, as well as fellow authors — each set has different insight, and by listening to them, and following their advice I find that my releases go extremely well.
If you don't have someone you can ask, there are groups online — like on Facebook — that group members can ask for opinions. There is nothing wrong with asking, and trying to do better.
Unless you are purchasing the exclusive rights to an image, there is a high chance that the photo used on your book will be a stock image. No book cover will be 100% the same as long as the designer has treated the image — meaning, if the stock photo has truly been worked on, it will not appear 100% like the finished book cover.
If you are in love with a photo, let your designer know about it; let them help your vision come to life (I'm sure you can tell that I am very much in favor of hire professional designers for cover art).
I believe that professional cover art can make all the difference in your book's success. Many readers believe that a poor cover reflects on poor content, and we don't want that to happen.
In our next part of the series, we will talk about editing and how important an editor is to every author.