Complaint Investigation Report
Parent v. Jay

September 25, 2009

Complaint #10.011C
Complaint Investigator: Jonathan Braff, Esq.

I. Identifying Information

Complainant: Parent Address City, Zip

Respondent: 	Robert Wall, Ed. D., Superintendent
31 Community Dr.
Jay, ME 04239

Special Services Director: Tina Collins

Student: 	Student
DOB: xx/xx/xxxx

II.	Summary of Complaint Investigation Activities

The Department of Education received this complaint on August 10, 2009.  The Complaint
Investigator was appointed on August 12, 2009 and issued a draft allegations report on August
14, 2009.  The Complaint Investigator conducted a complaint investigation meeting on
September 1, 2009 (rescheduled from the original date of August 24, 2009 at the Respondent’s request), resulting in a set of stipulations.  On September 8, 2009, the Complaint Investigator received a list of interviewees from the Complainant, and received a
9-page memorandum and 237 pages of documents from the Jay School Department (the
“District”). Another 2 pages of documents were received from the Complainant on September
16, 2009.  Additional documents were received from the District as follows: 7 pages on
September 10, 2009 and 9 pages on September 11, 2009.  Interviews were conducted with the following: Tina Collins, special services director; Megan Porter, case manager; Chris Hollingsworth, principal; Jeanie Rackliffe, teacher; Bonnie Melcher, educational technician; Katie Ouelette, educational technician; Lourdes Soto-Moreno, M.D., psychiatrist; Scott Christie, Psy.D., psychologist; Nicholas Rehagen, Ph.D., psychologist; Christina Ceseare, social worker; the Student’s stepfather; and the Student’s mother.

III.	Preliminary Statement

The Student is xx years old and is currently receiving special education under the eligibility criterion Other Health Impaired. This complaint was filed by (the “Parent”), the Student’s mother, alleging violations of the Maine Unified Special Education Regulations (MUSER), Chapter 101, as set forth below.

IV.	Allegations

1.   Failure to properly and adequately implement the student’s IEP with respect to the
“quiet area” referenced in the Student’s behavior plan in violation of MUSER
§IX.3.B(3);
2.   Failure to provide relevant information to the Student’s parent regarding use of a
time out room and restraint of the Student so as to enable the parent to be an equal participant in IEP team meetings and to allow the IEP team to make joint, informed decisions regarding the Student’s IEP in violation of MUSER §§VI.2(I).

V.	Stipulations

1.	One of the locations used as a “quiet area” in the implementation of the Student’s behavior plan was the “sensory room” located in the Student’s classroom.
2.	Prior to March 23, 2009, the Student’s behavior plan did not contain any reference to the use of physical restraint.

VI.	Summary of Findings

1.  The Student lives in Jay with the Parent and with his Step-father, and will be attending xx grade at Jay Middle School. He began receiving special education services under the category Other Health Impaired in xx.

2.  At the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year, the Student was in the self-contained classroom for all his classes except Spanish, art and library. He started the day in the regular education classroom, and participated in recess, assemblies and field trips with his grade level peers with the assistance of an educational technician. The Student also received 30 minutes per week of occupational therapy (“OT”).

3.  The Student’s IEP in effect at that time included a positive intervention behavior plan that contained 3 target behaviors (following teacher directions, appropriate physical behaviors,
and staying in designated area), and allowed the Student to earn up to 5 minutes of “free time”
activity for exhibiting the target behaviors. The behavior plan also contained a 6-step behavior intervention plan for when the Student was not exhibiting the target behaviors. Steps 2-5 included “time out in a quiet area for 1 minute or until [the Student] is calm and
ready to return to original activity/room.” At the 6th step, the Student was to be “removed to a
quieter area” to finish his given activity, and the principal would be called. After the principal was called twice, the Parent would be called to take the Student home.

4.  The Student’s IEP team met on December 10, 2008 to conduct its annual review of the IEP.  The team decided to no longer have the Student participate in Spanish class as it was making him very anxious. The Student’s teacher, Ms. Rackliff, noted that she had seen some increased behaviors from the Student recently. She stated, however, that the Student was having success with the behavior plan, and recommended maintaining it as it was. The Parent stated that she had seen much progress during the year, and supported the program that was being developed.

5.  The behavior plan developed on December 10, 2008 was somewhat different than it was previously. It introduced the concept of star shapes that the Student could use (two in the morning and two in the afternoon) to initiate a “quiet break.” The first three steps of the plan consisted of verbal prompting and a few minutes for the Student to process. Steps 4-6 involved check marks next to the Student’s name and loss of recess or special activity time. Step 7 provided that the Student “will go to a quiet area and will remain there until he has demonstrated that he is calm and ready to return to original activity.” A note following step 7 stated: “If serious significant aggressive physical behaviors occur, [the Student] will go to a quiet area and the principal will be notified for discipline consistent with the Jay School Department and principal’s discretion. Parent will be contacted.”

6.  The “quiet break” referenced in the behavior plan was taken by the Student in a room within the self-contained classroom known both as the “sensory room” and the “life space area.” It was an 8 ft. x 6.5 ft. (52 sq. ft.) room, with a door that had a window built into it. The room was adequately lit and heated, and the same height as the classroom (8.5 ft.). The door had no lock. The floor of the room was covered with floor mats. The room was variously used as a room in which students could take quiet breaks or engage in physical activity (e.g., bouncing on a ball or trampoline, blowing bubbles, etc.), for teachers to do testing or conduct activities with a student or small group of students, and for students who were behaving in an unsafe manner to have a safe place to calm down.

7.   On January 6, 2009, the Student came in after recess and refused to remove his snow pants and boots. He eventually climbed over and tipped over furniture in the classroom and called his teacher names. His teacher directed him to the sensory room, but after the Student left the sensory room his inappropriate behavior continued. The other students were cleared from the classroom. Consistent with the behavior plan, the Student lost all recess time as a result of the incident. The Parent was notified of the incident via the homework/communication sheet sent home with the Student.

8.  On March 12, 2009, the Student brought a toy to school, and refused to give it to the teacher to be returned to him at the end of the day. The Student escalated, and began hitting and kicking staff members, swearing, and pushing over furniture towards other students. Ultimately, the Student’s stepfather was contacted to take the Student home, and the Student was suspended for one day. A Critical Incident Report (“CIR”) was completed for the incident, which indicated that staff interventions during the incident included verbal instructions, verbal prediction, cool down time and time out. The CIR described the date, time, duration and location of the incident, the participants, specific student behavior creating

the incident, the events prior to the incident and events following the incident. The CIR was provided to the Parent.

9.  On March 23, 2009, the Student refused to place his sunglasses in his cubby, and began to escalate. The staff reached step 7 of the behavior plan, but the Student refused to go to a quiet area. As there was no principal in the building at the time, the Parent was called to take the Student home. No CIR was prepared for the incident, but it was described in a homework/communication sheet.

10.  That same day, the Student’s IEP team met to review the Student’s progress and discuss whether the Student’s opportunities to be in the regular education setting should be increased. The Parent was accompanied by an advocate form the Disabilities Rights Center, Katrina Ringrose. The team agreed to amend the IEP to provide for physical education, computer and lunch in the regular education setting, although Ms. Rackliff stated her concern that the Student would find this overwhelming when he was already struggling with maintaining good behavior. The team also discussed the possibility that the Student would begin to transition to the Jay Middle School towards the end of April 2009.

11.  At the IEP team meeting, the Parent also initiated a discussion of the behavior plan. She stated that the Student had reported that he was physically restrained by staff members on two occasions when he was directed to the sensory room. While the Parent acknowledged that the Student can be aggressive and raise safety concerns, she explained that the Student doesn’t do well with being touched. Ms. Rackliff stated that the Student was supported to go to the
room, but that no restraint was used. The team agreed to amend the behavior plan to include
the following language: “Staff should be aware of a traumatic history with [the Student]. Consistent with Jay School Department procedure, a non-physical approach is preferred in the implementation of disciplinary procedures. The team acknowledges that implementation of a therapeutically designed hands-on approach (such as supportive stances) may need to be implemented to maintain the physical safety of the Student, the staff, or other students.”

12.  The IEP team also amended the behavior plan to reduce it to 5 steps: verbal prompt and prediction (step 1); verbal warning and check marks next to his name, resulting in loss of recess time (steps 2-4); and, at step 5, “MAINTAINING SAFETY: If [the Student] continues to exhibit target behaviors or, if he exhibits aggressive physical behaviors (kicking, hitting, throwing objects, pinching, climbing onto furniture, etc.) he will be directed to a nearby quiet area/empty room available and will remain there under staff supervision until he has demonstrated that he is calm and ready to return to original activity. If there is no such area available, other students may be evacuated to another location in order to maintain safety. Administration will be contacted to assess the situation and to consider if further disciplinary action is needed (i.e., parents notified, detention, in or out of school suspension, etc.). Disciplinary measures may be implemented consistent with the IEP and Jay School Department policies and procedures. Parent will be notified regarding disciplinary action taken.”

13.  The next day, March 24, 2009, the Student was crawling on the floor in the classroom
and was directed to stand up.  He refused, and then became aggressive towards other students

in the room, pushing chairs and room dividers towards them while shouting “Hands off me!” The behavior plan was followed and the principal was called. No CIR was completed, but the incident was documented in a Jay School Department Communication Documentation.

14.  On April 6, 2009, the Student’s IEP was amended by agreement to provide that the Student would begin his afternoons at Jay Middle School beginning April 8, 2009.  Ms. Rackliff noted that the Student’s behavioral incidents had been more frequent and demonstrated an increase in non-compliant behaviors leading to displays of aggressive behaviors. It was hoped that the middle school’s larger physical space and the positive role modeling of the older students would benefit the Student.

15.  On April 7, 2009, the Student had another behavior incident, which began when he was provoking other students. When staff members formed a barrier to isolate him from the other students, the Student escalated. Eventually, he engaged in bolting, and grabbing, punching
and kicking teachers and the principal. The Student was escorted out of the gymnasium to the principal’s office, where he climbed on and under and jumped off of furniture, and continued to lunge, punch and kick. The Student also repeatedly attempted to grab his book bag, which was then removed from the room. The police department was called to the school, as well as the Student’s stepfather. The incident was described in a CIR, and resulted in a three-day suspension for the Student. At this time, the District also determined to do a risk assessment and functional behavior analysis of the Student.

16.  The risk assessment and functional behavior analysis were conducted by Dr. Nicholas Rehagen on April 14, 2009.  Dr. Rehagen, in reviewing the Student’s several serious incidents of aggressive behavior, found that the staff had followed the Student’s behavior plan. Following the assessment, Dr. Rehagen’s diagnostic impressions included: post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”); oppositional defiant disorder; and attention deficit and hyper- activity disorder. As to the risk assessment, Dr. Rehagen found that “the threat that [the Student]’s behavior presents in the Elementary school setting remains high,” however, he concluded that a lower risk existed in the middle school setting. With regard to the functional behavior analysis, Dr. Rehagen found that triggers for the Student’s behavior included demands or requests from staff, task difficulty and transitions. Dr. Rehagen further found that the functions of the behaviors included avoiding demands or activities, and escaping from the classroom or the school, with the primary issue being one of control. In this context, Dr. Rehagen stated that: “It is clear that the current placement in the self-contained program at the elementary school has clear goals, employs pre-teaching, direct instruction, and reinforced practice, as well as appropriate array of responses to the problem behaviors.” Among Dr. Rehagen’s recommendations were: placement of the Student in the middle school; reviewing the reasonable expectations of the classroom with the Student and providing him with alternative behaviors he can use rather than becoming aggressive; and regular and frequent communication between home and school.

17.  On May 15, 2009, the Student’s IEP team met to consider the risk assessment and agreed to amend the IEP to provide for the Student to spend both mornings and afternoons at the middle school.  The reports from the team members were that the Student’s behaviors had

minimized at the middle school, while continuing to be a problem at the elementary school. The Parent felt that the change in placement was working and supported the proposal.

18.  During those incidents when the Student was escorted, directed or supported to a quiet area or other location, staff members would place themselves alongside and/or behind the Student and walk him to the desired destination. At least some of the time, staff members would place a hand above the Student’s elbow while they walked. The only other documented physical contact that took place between staff and the Student occurred when staff members held the Student by the hand or arm to assist him in coming down after having
climbed up onto furniture, when staff members used blocking techniques to defend against the
Student’s physical aggression, and when the principal briefly restrained the Student from climbing up onto the windows of the conference room.

19.  During those incidents when the Student was escorted/directed/supported to a quiet area, the choice of which room was to be used was a function of the room’s proximity to where the Student was when the escalation occurred and of the room’s availability. Although the sensory room in the student’s classroom was often used, the OT room, conference room, and the offices of the principal and special education director were also used at various times.

20.	During an interview conducted by the Complaint Investigator with Chris Hollingsworth, Mr. Hollingsworth stated the following: He has been principal of the Jay Elementary School for 3 years. The “sensory room” in the self-contained classroom was used as a place for the Student to calm down, and the Student used it quite often. The sensory
room was also used, however, by other students for other purposes. The room had mats on the floor, and the Student would sometimes go in and create a tunnel using the mats. Sometimes when the Student was out of control (climbing up on things, throwing things over), the Student acted like he wanted to go to the sensory room, but needed someone to guide him in. He might knock something over on the way, but he allowed himself to be
guided there. When he got to the room, he might at first smack the walls, but then tunnel into
the mats. In addition to the sensory room, staff members used his office, the conference room
(which was nearest the playground) and the OT room as quiet areas for the Student. When
the Student escalated, staff members looked for the nearest available place the Student could use to calm down.

To guide the Student to a quiet area, staff members would stand behind or alongside the Student and walk him towards the chosen room. The Student might push against the staff members or try to hit and kick them, but they would block those blows and keep walking. The Staff members didn’t grab the Student, and even though it was the Student who was initiating contact by hitting and kicking, the Student would shout things like “Don’t touch me!”  He is not aware of any occasion when the Student was physically restrained at the school.

There was one occasion when he was called to the conference room to help with the Student. The Student had been brought to the conference room from the playground due to aggressive behavior. When he got to the room, the Student was climbing up on the window. He got up on the counter and helped bring the Student down to the floor. As soon as the Student was back on the floor, the Student started to try and climb up again. He held the Student to

prevent this for just a few seconds, and then the Student’s stepfather came into the room. He released the Student, who ran to his stepfather. Other than that incident, the only time he recalls putting his hands on the Student was when the Student was gripping him and he removed the Student’s hand. He did once try to have the Student sit in his office chair and then stand behind the Student and place his arms on the arms of the chair, sort of like a shoulder harness seat belt, but the Student then began kicking so that this didn’t work very well.

He believes that there was a lot of communication between Ms. Rackliff and the Parent. He thinks Ms. Rackliff is very good about keeping records of what goes on in her class, and believes that she shared those records with the Parent. Also, the Parent had been in Ms. Rackliff’s classroom many times. The Parent came to all the IEP team meetings, and he doesn’t remember her ever bringing up a lack of communication as an issue.

21.  During an interview conducted by the Complaint Investigator with Jeanie Rackliff, Ms. Rackliff stated the following: She is a special education teacher, and has been the teacher in the self-contained classroom in Jay Elementary School for 10 years. The Student was in her class from xx through xx grade. She is also a certified instructor for Crisis Prevention Institute (CPI)’s Nonviolent Crisis Intervention training program. When doing training for staff members at the school, she does not teach physical restraint. Physical restraint is not practiced at the school. She was also specifically aware from the Parent of the need to avoid physical restraint with the Student. When the Student escalated and became physically aggressive (hitting, kicking, lunging, knocking over furniture), staff members knew how to block those hits, kicks, etc., and would put themselves between the Student and other students/adults/furniture.  At these times, while the Student was hitting, kicking, etc., and staff members were blocking, the Student would often shout: “Don’t touch me!” “Get your hands off me!” “I’m going to call the cops on you!” or “You can’t touch me!”

On these occasions, staff members would use a “supportive stance” to guide the Student to a quiet area where the Student could be safe and calm down.  This involved holding the Student’s arm above the elbow and guiding him to the quiet area. They also had to guide the Student down when he was climbing on furniture, a sink or a window sill. This was not safe for the Student, and he needed to be directed down from that location. Sometimes the Student climbed under a table, but this did not create a safety concern so staff members did not pull
the Student out from under the table. Staff members also guided the Student to a quiet area by
blocking access to other spaces, such as the bathroom or a doorway to the hall, so that the Student couldn’t bolt. When staff members did support the Student to guide him down from a height or into a quiet area, the Student did not seem to react to the physical contact, and he generally allowed himself to be guided.

Several different spaces were used as quiet areas for the Student, depending on where he was when he began escalating. If he was in the classroom, the sensory room located within the classroom would generally be used for this purpose, but at other times, the conference room, the OT room or the principal’s office would be used.

Before the Student reached the point that he needed to be supported to a quiet area, staff members would always first try to talk to the Student and suggest to him that he needed to go

“take a break.”  A goal for the Student was to have him recognize when he was becoming frustrated or angry and to then be able to say he needed to go to a quiet area. The Student was given laminated stars at his desk. He could use those to signal that he wanted to take a break. He was permitted to just walk into the sensory room and put a star next to the door.  There were no negative consequences associated with his doing that – he would lose no tokens. In the sensory room, the Student could tunnel into the floor mats, or lie on a pillow. Sometimes he bounced on a ball, played with play-dough or listened to music. Staff members tried to make it inviting for him. They might say: “Why don’t you take 5 minutes and then we can play checkers?” At the beginning of xx grade, this plan seemed to be successful. The Student was going into the sensory room at his own initiation, or with a verbal prompt from a staff member, and came out ready to resume his original activity. Starting in February or March, however, this changed, and she began to see the out-of-control behaviors.

The sensory room was used for a variety of purposes. Sometimes, desks and chairs were placed in the room for testing or as a quiet work space. Students could also go in there when they were going to engage in activities that would be distracting to other students, like lying down, blowing bubbles or bouncing on a ball. It was not considered a “timeout” room for students who were being unsafe. It has a window in the door, and has adequate light and heat. There is no lock on the door.

With regard to documentation of the Student being guided to a quiet area, she prepared a critical incident report (“CIR”) only when the Student’s behavior plan was not successful. She did not prepare a CIR each time the Student used the sensory room. She also did not prepare a CIR for an incident where the Parent was called to the school, since the Parent already knew about it. Whenever a CIR was prepared, she sent a copy to the Parent. In addition to the CIRs, she also used a home/school communication notebook at the beginning of the year to document both the Student’s successes and difficulties. After a few of those were lost, she began sending home separate homework communication sheets, and tried whenever possible to make and retain a copy of those in the student’s file. Those sheets described behavior problems that were dealt with under the Student’s behavior plan. In
addition to the written communication, she also spoke to the Parent on the phone, not so much at the beginning of the year but more so towards the end. When the Parent did come to the school because of an incident, either she, Mr. Hollingsworth or both would discuss the
incident with the Parent.

22.  During an interview conducted by the Complaint Investigator with Bonnie Melcher, Ms. Melcher stated the following: She is an educational technician, and has been assigned to the self-contained classroom in Jay Elementary School for 4 years.  The educational technicians in the classroom all rotate, so that they each spend time working with each of the students. Last year there were 9 students in the self-contained classroom. Ms. Rackliffe provides training to the educational technicians each year on crisis intervention. She does not train them how to use physical restraint.

The sensory room in the classroom was used by all the students if at any time they needed to take a break. It was usually something they chose to do.  They could bounce on a ball. The floor was covered with mats, and they could lie down and rest. Usually the students would

use the room during 5-minute intervals. The Student was the only one who used stars to indicate when he wanted to take a break in the sensory room. If the Student was violent, 2 or
3 staff members would get alongside or behind him and guide the Student to the room, talking to him in low tones the entire time. There was no physical contact, except for blocking the
Student’s punches and kicks. After the Student was in the room for about 5 minutes, someone would ask him if he was ready to come out. She never saw anything that made her believe
that the sensory room created a problem for the Student, or made his behavior worse.

She never saw or heard about anyone at school physically restraining the Student.  She would lose her job if she ever did that. Staff members are always being told not to restrain; it is drilled into them. The only time anyone put their hands on the Student was when he climbed onto things. For example, one time he was on an 8’ high cabinet. Staff members would talk
to him and help him down by holding his hand or under his arm. When the Student crawled under a table, she would say things to him like: “How about playing checkers with Mrs. Rackliff?” She never pulled the Student out from under a table.

Whenever a significant incident happened at school, Ms. Rackliff would call the Parent on the phone. Even on good days, Ms. Rackliff would call and tell the Parent about that, so the Parent could then get on the phone with the Student and praise him. The Parent was also in
the class many times, and saw the sensory room. There were times when the Parent came into
the classroom and the Student was in the sensory room. She believes that this had happened in or before the fall of 2008.

23.  During an interview conducted by the Complaint Investigator with Katie Ouelette, Ms. Ouelette stated the following: She is an educational technician, and has been assigned to the self-contained classroom in Jay Elementary School for 3 years. Last year, she only worked in the mornings. The Student was one of only two xx graders in the classroom last year, and the other xx grade student was completely non-communicative.

The sensory room is a multi-purpose room. Students can use it when they need a quiet space. Students with high energy levels can use it as a place to release some of that energy. They
can bounce on a ball or on a small trampoline. The mats on the floor can be folded into a
triangle, and some students go in there and tunnel under the mats. Others climb into a body sock. Sometimes, a teacher can take a student into the room and read to them. Other times, a teacher will take a small group (2-3 students) and conduct an activity. The room is also used as a place where a student who is being unsafe can decompress.

The Student often chose to go in the sensory room. He didn’t usually bounce on the ball or use the body sock. Sometimes he tunneled into the mats, but mostly he just liked having a quiet space where he could be alone and regroup. On some days, he would walk into the classroom in the morning and immediately go into the room. When the Student was escalating, staff members would follow the behavior plan. While someone was talking to the Student, others might casually walk over to the exits and block them. They would get alongside the Student and guide him to a quiet room, one of them gently cupping his upper arm to guide him as they walked. They would use whatever open space was available. In addition to the sensory room, they also took the Student to the OT room, to the conference

room, to Ms. Collins’ office and to the principal’s office. Different spaces worked on different days. The Student didn’t struggle as they walked, although he sometimes would buckle his knees and drag his feet. The staff members would stop and tell the Student he needed to walk. It was never a very long walk. She never saw anything to suggest that putting the Student in the sensory room made things worse or was traumatic for the Student. She doesn’t remember the Student ever saying something like “Don’t put me in that room.”

She never witnessed or heard about the Student being restrained at school. Ms. Rackliff was very clear that this was never acceptable.

Ms. Rackliff put a lot of effort into communicating with the Parent. There were notebooks sent between school and home, communication sheets stapled to the Student’s folder, and many phone calls. The Parent came into the classroom many times, and was there on occasions when the Student was in the sensory room. Also, during open house events, Ms. Rackliff would point out the sensory room and discuss how it was used by the students.

24.  During an interview conducted by the Complaint Investigator with Megan Porter, Ms. Porter stated the following: She is a case manager with the agency Care and Comfort, and has been acting as the Student’s case manager since November 21, 2008.  In that capacity, she attended IEP team meetings on December 10, 2008 and March 23, 2009, and briefly observed the Student in his classroom on both occasions. During these brief observations, she saw nothing that caused her concern regarding staff-Student interactions. On the first occasion, when she arrived in the classroom with the Parent, the Student was in the sensory room and was refusing the staff members’ requests for him to come out. A staff member explained that the Student went into the room after having failed to correctly complete or turn in an assignment. The Parent went into the room and succeeded in persuading the Student to return to the classroom. When the Student then apologized, the staff accepted his apology.

At the March 23, 2009 meeting, staff members explained to the Parent and to her advocate, Ms. Ringrose, the use of the sensory room in the classroom as a “quiet area” in implementing the Student’s positive intervention behavior plans. They discussed when the room was used and why it was helpful. Ms. Ringrose requested documentation of when the Student entered and exited the room on each occasion when it was used, and the District did not have that information. Team members also discussed the use of physical restraint with the Student, and the Staff agreed at that meeting to amend the Student’s IEP to include explicit reference to
this issue. There were at least two prior IEP team meetings when the Parent had provided
details of the Student’s trauma history, had previously alerted the staff to the Student’s heightened sensitivity to physical contact as a result of his post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), and the need for the staff to therefore not touch the Student.

On March 12, 2009, the Parent called her to report that there had been an incident where staff members restrained the Student by holding his feet and his hands while he lay on his back. After the March 23, 2009 meeting, there was an incident on April 7, 2009 that began with the Student swinging his book bag at other students, leading a staff member to physically take the book bag away from the Student. The Student then hit a teacher and ran at the principal in an effort to get the book bag back. The Student was eventually placed in a room with an adult

blocking the doorway until the police arrived. The District claimed that they didn’t restrain the Student, and that they confined the Student in that room in order to keep him safe. The incident resulted in a 3-day suspension for the Student and prompted the District to request a risk assessment for him. The Parent requested an incident report for this incident, but she doesn’t know if the Parent ever received it. She made several phone calls to staff members to discuss the incident, and no one ever called her back.

She is concerned that staff members are following the Student’s behavior plan, but are not sufficiently sensitive to the Student’s PTSD. Taking the Student’s book bag, which the Student said contained things he needed for his homework, caused the Student to escalate. At the IEP team meetings, she felt there was tension between staff members and the Parent because staff members don’t really know how to work with the Student. She is not certain what is missing, but school is not a great environment or experience for the Student right now, and everyone is trying to figure out why.

25.  During an interview conducted by the Complaint Investigator with Tina Collins, Ms. Collins stated the following: She has been special services director for the District for 8 years. The District has a written policy regarding timeout and restraint. The CIR form used by Ms. Rackliff is not used throughout the District, and there is no District policy regarding its use. Ms. Rackliff generally completes a CIR whenever staff reaches the end of the behavior intervention plan without the Student being able to regroup. Even when the CIR wasn’t completed, Ms. Rackliff made sure the Parent was informed of any significant behavior incident, either by phone, in person or through a written note. In general, she believes Ms. Rackliff did a very good job of communicating with the Parent, keeping her informed on at least an every-other-day, if not daily, basis.

The 2008-2009 school year began very well for the Student. It was not until the incident of March 12, 2009 that staff members had to support the Student to a quiet area. The next day, Ms. Rackliff discussed the incident with the Parent and described the technique used by staff members. The Parent has always been very involved with the school, and the meeting of March 23, 2009 was the first time she ever raised questions about physical contact or use of the sensory room.

She is not aware of any incident involving physical restraint of the Student, or of any physical contact beyond supporting the Student at the upper arm to guide him to a quiet area or to help him come down when he has climbed on furniture.

26.  During an interview conducted by the Complaint Investigator with Lourdes Soto-Moreno, M.D., Dr. Soto-Moreno stated the following: She is a psychiatrist, and the Student has been
her patient for the last two years. She sees the Student on a regular basis, sometimes more
often than others. She has never been to the Student’s school to observe him or the staff. She has some documentation from the school, but no one from the school has ever called to speak with her about the Student. Most of the information she has comes from the Student and the Parent.

At the Student’s most recent visit, September 2, 2009, the Parent was very upset about the Student’s behavior at school. He had been very disruptive, very hyperactive, and had been climbing on the furniture. The Parent told her that the Student’s behavior plan restricts school staff from touching him, because when staff members touched him in the past it made things worse. The Parent said that the Student knows that staff members aren’t allowed to touch him and takes advantage of it. The Parent felt very frustrated with the school’s inability to control the Student. She had taken the Student off his medication for his ADHD in June 2009, but
put him back on it after this last visit. The Student is a very hyperactive child. He managed
well enough at home over the summer without the medication, but home is a less structured environment than school.

She does not recall any discussion with the Parent or Student regarding use of a timeout room.

27.  During an interview conducted by the Complaint Investigator with Nicholas Rehagen, Ph.D., Dr. Rehagen stated the following: He is a psychologist, and is contracted with the District to provide consultation and other services. In this capacity, he performed a risk assessment and functional behavior analysis regarding the Student on April 14, 2009.  He has never observed the Student in the school setting, or observed him during any of the problem behavior incidents. During his conversations with the Student and the Parent, there was no discussion of incidents when the Student was harmed as a result of being placed in the sensory room. There was also no discussion about physical contact with the Student during behavioral interventions by school staff. The Parent did discuss with him, however, that the Student had PTSD and was very sensitive and defensive about being touched.

He is familiar with the sensory room in the Student’s self-contained classroom.  It is used for de-escalation of students, but also has other uses like testing of students. He never thought of it as a “timeout room,” which is usually a very boring space used as a last resort for out-of- control children. The sensory room has too much stimulation and reinforcement (mats, bouncing balls, etc.) to be a timeout room. Students choose to go in the sensory room.

28.  During an interview conducted by the Complaint Investigator with Scott Christie, Psy.D., Dr. Christie stated the following: He is a clinical psychologist, and conducted an evaluation of the Student at the parent’s request in July 2009.  The Parent wanted another evaluation to compare with the evaluation conducted by Dr. Rehagen in April 2009, and was referred to
him by the Student’s developmental pediatrician. The results of his evaluation were mostly similar to those of Dr. Rehagen’s evaluation which, in his opinion, was particularly well done. There was no mention of the issues of the sensory room, timeout or physical restraint during any part of the evaluation he conducted.

The Student has problems with groups and crowds, and having a room available to him where he can be alone has merit, providing he has appropriate supervision. With regard to the question whether the same room should be used both for the Student to take self-initiated
quiet breaks and as a room the Student is directed to when he is being unsafe, he believes this would not be unreasonable with the proper staff support. Staff members should initially encourage the Student to recognize his agitated state and to self-select use of the room, and continue to verbalize his need for the room as a place to calm himself as they direct him there.

The Student’s reported reference to the sensory room as the “bad room” is not that significant, as the Student tends to view his world negatively.

29.  During an interview conducted by the Complaint Investigator with Christina Cesaere, Ms. Cesaere stated the following: She is a licensed clinical social worker employed by Evergreen Behavioral Services, and has been working with the Student since December 2007.  In reviewing her notes, she found reference to three incidents involving the Student’s use of the sensory room: on September 2, 2008, the Student was in the sensory room when she arrived
to meet with him. The Student reported that he had chosen to go there because he was tired and wanted to rest; on November 13, 2008, a teacher told her that the Student had had a hard time at recess and had chosen to go to the sensory room and take a break rather than continue to do school work; on January 22, 2009, a teacher reported that the Student had been agitated ever since the Student arrived at school, and had chosen to go into the sensory room.

She never had the impression that staff members put the Student in the room as punishment; she was always allowed to take him out of the room when she arrived, as long as he wasn’t being aggressive. The Student never told her that he didn’t like going into the sensory room, or that it was a bad room. She never had cause for concern that the Student’s experiences in the sensory room were causing him harm, particularly as he continued to choose it as a self- calming strategy.

The Student never spoke to her about being physically restrained.

30.  During an interview conducted by the Complaint Investigator with the Student’s stepfather, the Student’s stepfather stated the following: He came to the school once to pick up the Student, and was directed to a room he thinks was the conference room. When he got
there, Mr. Hollingsworth had just released the Student who came running to him. He spoke to
Mr. Hollingsworth, who said he had been restraining the Student because he had been
climbing on the windows. This was the only time he had witnessed anyone restraining the
Student at the school.

31.  During an interview conducted by the Complaint Investigator with the Parent, the Parent stated the following: It is clear that staff members understood they were using the sensory room for timeout. She has one of the notebooks that were used for communication between herself and Ms. Rackliff in the 2007-2008 school year. In an entry dated April 1, 2008, Ms. Rackliff described an incident where she attempted to take something away from the Student and the Student bit her arm. Ms. Rackliff then wrote that she “initiated timeout” until the Student was calm. In another entry dated May 7, 2008, Ms. Rackliff wrote that the Student refused to put a toy away and then attempted to leave the area, so she “directed him to a timeout.” She understood at the time that this meant the Student was directed to either the sensory room or the principal’s office, although she believes that staff members only used the principal’s office for timeout after first attempting to use the sensory room without success (the Student wouldn’t calm down there). She doesn’t recall the OT room or the conference room ever being used for timeout with the Student. Although she understood that the sensory room was being used as a timeout room, she didn’t really appreciate the significance of that until the 2008-2009 school year.

She agrees that timeout belongs in the Student’s behavior plan, but she doesn’t think it should take place in the sensory room. The sensory room is supposed to be a place where students choose to go, in order to relax and regroup. If the room is used as a timeout room, students will feel they are being punished if they go there. She also believes that staff members were using the room as a disciplinary measure, directing the Student to the room when he wasn’t doing his work, or when he crawled under a table. One morning in fall 2008, when the Student was about to go off to school, she reminded the Student that he could take a “star” break if he needed to during the day. The Student said: “I don’t want to go in the bad room.” There was another room across from the Student’s classroom that was sometimes used by counselors that could have been used for timeout instead. She suggested it, but was told that there were toys in that room, and the staff didn’t want to reward out-of-control behavior with toys.

One day the Student came home and complained of a sore foot. He said that a teacher had pulled him out from under a table. She called and spoke to a staff member (she believes it was Ms. Melcher), and that person admitted that she pulled him out from under the table because that was the only way she could get him to come out from there. After that time, the Student had issues with Ms. Melcher whenever she was in the classroom. Ms. Melcher was also the teacher involved in an incident on November 10, 2008.  She was called to come get the Student at the office, and when she arrived, she asked Ms. Melcher what had happened.
Ms. Melcher said “Why don’t you ask [the Student]?” The Student, however, is not a reliable
source for this kind of information.

The problems with physical contact with the Student often arose when Ms. Rackliff was not present. On one of those occasions, March 12, 2009, the Student reported that he had been carried to the office by three teachers, one on each side holding his arm and the other holding his feet. Ms. Rackliff later told her that she spoke to the teachers and they denied this, but the Student was describing one of the restraints taught in both the Non Abusive Psychological
and Physical Intervention (NAPPI) and Mandt System programs, with both of which she is
familiar. The Student couldn’t have made that up.  On April 7, 2009, when the police were called to the school, the Student reported that he had been lying on the floor when a teacher got on top of him, picked him up and carried him into the office. On another occasion, the Student’s step-father went to the principal’s office to get the Student and found Mr. Hollingsworth restraining the Student in his lap until he got there. From the beginning of the Student’s time at the school, she had made sure that Ms. Rackliff and the other teachers knew
of the Student’s trauma history, and the importance of not using physical intervention with the
Student.

She agrees that the Student often destroyed or threw away papers that Ms. Rackliff sent home for her. She recalls the two notebooks that were “lost” at the beginning of last year. After that, she got the communication sheets, but not every day. Sometimes she had to call and ask Ms. Rackliff whether she had sent anything home. In general, when Ms. Rackliff was
present, she got good communication efforts. There were papers that were supplied during the investigation that she does not remember seeing at the time. For example, she recalls

seeing some of the CIRs, but not others. In addition, some of the papers supplied during the investigation were altered from the way they appeared when she first received them.

VII.  Conclusions

Allegation #1: Failure to properly and adequately implement the student’s IEP with respect to the “quiet area” referenced in the Student’s behavior plan in violation of MUSER §IX.3.B(3).
NO VIOLATION FOUND

The Student’s IEP in effect at the beginning of the 2008-2009 school year included a positive intervention behavior plan that provided for the Student to have “time out in a quiet area” until he was calm and ready to return to his original activity, and for him to be “removed to a quieter area” if that was not successful. The behavior plan that was incorporated into the Student’s IEP dated December 10, 2008 provided that the Student would “go to a quiet area” and remain there until he demonstrated that he was calm and ready to return to his original activity.  The behavior plan was again revised when the IEP was amended on March 23,
2009, and the last step of the behavior intervention plan now provided for the Student to be “directed to a nearby quiet area/empty room available” and remain there under staff supervision until he demonstrated that he was calm and ready to return to his original activity.

A student, and the student’s parents, may reasonably expect that the student’s IEP, as constructed and implemented, will comply with any applicable regulations of the Department. The Parent, in this complaint, asserts that the sensory room used, most often but by no means exclusively, in the implementation of the Student’s behavior plan, was a “timeout room” as defined in the Maine Department of Education Regulations at Chapter 33, and therefore subject to the requirements of the regulation. Chapter 33 §1.1 states that the purpose of the regulation is to “establish standards for the use of separate, isolated timeout rooms.” A “timeout room” is defined, at §2.2, as a “designated space, separate from a student’s classroom, which is used to isolate a student from his or her peers and school activities.” Section 2.1, in defining “timeout,” describes the use of timeout rooms as permitting the student to “regain his or her composure and to assist the student to return to the learning environment. Timeout includes requiring a student to leave the classroom, playground, or other educational setting and go to a designated timeout room….For purposes of these rules, timeout is limited to a designated timeout room” (emphasis added). The common definition
of “designate” includes: to indicate or specify, to give a name or title to, or to select and set aside for a purpose. See The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed.,
2009).

The District, in 2002, adopted a written policy on timeout rooms and therapeutic restraint (the “policy”). The policy, at §I.A, defines “designated time out room” as a room “used specifically to isolate a student for the purpose of bringing under control student behavior that is dangerous or presents a risk of significant property damage.” Further, that section states that the policy is “limited to use of a room specifically designated by the superintendent for the purpose of isolating students as described above.” Still further, §II.A of the policy

provides that “[o]nce a room has been designated specifically for this purpose, it shall not be used in any manner that would be inconsistent with its use as a designated time out room.” With the above definition in mind, the foregoing policy language is consistent with the language of Chapter 33, which also restricts the scope of its application to a “designated” time out room.

Although the sensory room in the self-contained classroom was clearly used at times for the purpose described in Chapter 33 and in the policy, the room itself cannot properly be said to
be a “designated timeout room,” within the meaning of either Chapter 33 or the policy. It was not set aside for this purpose, and was used in manners inconsistent with that purpose (e.g.,
testing of students, small group activities). At the same time that the sensory room was not used exclusively for purposes of timeout, it was also not the only room utilized at the school
for purposes of timeout. The Student, in the implementation of his behavior plan, variously used the OT room, the conference room and both the principal’s and special education
director’s rooms as timeout areas.

The requirements of Chapter 33 aside, evidence that the Student’s use of the sensory room as a “quiet area” interfered with the effective implementation of his behavior plan or caused him any significant distress was ultimately unpersuasive. While the Parent recounted the
Student’s stated reluctance to go to “the bad room,” this was not corroborated by anyone else.
While there were also at least two occasions when the Student, while he was escalating, refused staff members’ suggestions that he take a break in the sensory room, there were, on the other hand, numerous accounts of the Student’s continuing to choose to go there to take a break. For instance, the report of the incident of March 23, 2009 included reference to the Student’s refusal to go to a “quiet area” (it is unclear whether this meant the sensory room), but four days later the Student was reported to request a break in the sensory room. Accordingly, no violation is found in regard to this allegation.

Allegation #2: Failure to provide relevant information to the Student’s parent regarding use of a time out room and restraint of the Student so as to enable the parent to be an equal participant in IEP team meetings and to allow the IEP team to make joint, informed decisions regarding the Student’s IEP in violation of MUSER
§§VI.2(I).
NO VIOLATION FOUND

This issue is premised on the contention that the Parent was not adequately informed with regards to the District’s practice of using the sensory room as a “quiet area” within the scope of the Student’s behavior plan, and of its use of physical restraint against the Student. The Parent asserts that her ability to participate in the development of the behavior plan was compromised due to her not having this information.

The Parent was clearly aware of the existence and nature of the sensory room, having been in the Student’s classroom on multiple occasions. Not only was she aware of the room generally, but she had observed the Student when he was in the room. In addition, there was communication between the school and the Parent regarding the use of the room in

connection with the Student’s problem behavior incidents. Just in the last school year, a CIR dated November 10, 2008 described the Student’s use of a star to access the sensory room when he was being non-compliant. The homework/communication sheet for the date January
6, 2009 described an incident of non-compliance by the Student followed by his climbing on
and tipping over furniture, so that he needed to have a staff member “direct him to the life space area.” The Parent, by her own admission, understood prior to the beginning of the
2008-2009 school year that the sensory room was being used both as a quiet area where the
Student could take a break, and as a place where the Student was directed for timeout. Not
until the IEP team meeting of March 23, 2009, did the Parent raise any concerns about this.

With regard to physical restraint, unlike timeout, it was not a component of the Student’s behavior plan. The issue presented under the laws pertaining to special education is not, therefore, whether any restraint being used with the Student complied with the Chapter 33 regulations. The issue, rather, is whether the Parent was prevented from being able to fully participate in discussions about the behavior plan because she was unaware that physical restraint had been practiced on the Student. In any event, no evidence was uncovered to corroborate the Student’s account of having been physically restrained at the legs and arms on March 12, 2009, and the Parent offered that the Student was not a reliable reporter regarding his behavioral incidents. Furthermore, the Student’s pattern of shouting things like “Get your hands off me!” as he was being physically aggressive suggests that his perception of what was happening to him during these incidents may have been somewhat distorted.

The District did describe to the Parent directly after the incident the supportive direction of the Student staff members claimed to have practiced, consisting of the guiding of the Student by the upper arm while staff members walked the Student to a quiet area. Furthermore, when the Parent brought her concerns regarding such physical contact to the IEP team meeting, the District was responsive to her concerns and agreed to amend the behavior plan to make clear that a non-physical approach with the Student was to be preferred. The only other physical contact described by witnesses between staff members and the Student involved the grasping of the Student by the hand or upper arm to assist him to come down after he had climbed on furniture, and the brief restraint of the Student by Mr. Hollingsworth, implemented to prevent the Student from climbing back up on the windows, where he would be at serous risk for injury. There was no evidence that the Parent was not aware of those physical interventions.

VIII. Corrective Action Plan

None required.