Special Education Appeals BSEA #08-0055
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: David[1] and Ipswich Public Schools BSEA #08-0055
DECISION
This decision is issued pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 USC 1400 et seq.), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 USC 794), the state special education law (MGL c. 71B), the state Administrative Procedure Act (MGL c. 30A), and the regulations promulgated under these statutes.
A hearing was held on August 2, 2007 in Malden, MA before William Crane, Hearing Officer. Those present for all or part of the proceedings were:
Student’s Mother
Margaret Madeiros Program Manager, Ipswich Public Schools
Sheila McAdams Winthrop School Principal, Ipswich Public Schools
Diana Minton Director of Pupil Personnel Services, Ipswich Public Schools
Laurie Smith Director of Education, Educational Consultants of New England
Mary Gallant Attorney for Ipswich Public Schools
Kathryn Gianno Court Reporter
The official record of the hearing consists of documents submitted by the Parent and marked as exhibits P-1 and P-2; documents submitted by the Ipswich Public Schools (Ipswich) and marked as exhibits S-1 through S-9; and approximately four hours of recorded oral testimony and argument. Oral closing arguments occurred at the end of the Hearing on August 2, 2007, and the record closed on that date.
INTRODUCTION
On June 21, 2007, Parent filed with the Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) a hearing request alleging that her son had not been receiving any educational services since June 13, 2007 (Parent later amended this date to June 18, 2007), and requesting that her son’s educational placement be changed to an out-of-district placement.
For the reasons explained below, I have concluded that Student received compensatory services from June 18, 2007 to July 9, 2007; and from July 9, 2007 through the hearing date of August 2, 2007, Student has been receiving the seven-week summer program to which he is entitled. Consequently, Parent has demonstrated no basis for a change of placement.
ISSUES
The issues to be decided in this case are the following:
1. Since June 18, 2007, what special education and related services has Ipswich been responsible to provide to Student?
2. Has Ipswich been ready, willing, and able to deliver those services?
3. If not, is Parent entitled to an immediate “outplacement” of her son, and if so, what should be the special education and related services to be provided in the outplacement?
PROFILE
Student, who is five years old (date of birth 2/1/02), lives with his mother (Parent) in Ipswich, MA. Student is non-verbal. He has been diagnosed with a disability on the autism spectrum. Student has deficits in fine motor and gross motor skills, communication skills, and daily living skills. He also has an eating disorder. In order to make effective educational progress, Student requires very intensive educational services, which include a combination of applied behavior analysis (ABA) techniques using discrete trial learning procedures (both at school and at home) and related services of occupational therapy, physical, and speech-language therapy. Testimony of Parent, Smith; exhibits P-1, S-3.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. Student began receiving special education and related services from Ipswich on Student’s third birthday, February 1, 2005. Ipswich offered Parent a combination of in-school and home-based services. The in-school services included ABA and related services as well as an enhanced pre-school program. Parent accepted and participated in the home-based services, accepted but did not participate in the enhanced pre-school program, and rejected and did not participate in any of the in-school services. Testimony of Madeiros.
1. Seeking to require Ipswich to provide Student’s entire educational program in the home for the 2005-2006 school year, Parent filed a hearing request with the BSEA on behalf of her son in May 2005. After conducting a three-day evidentiary hearing in June 2005, Hearing Officer Rosa Figueroa issued a Decision on September 6, 2005. Hearing Officer Figueroa noted that Ipswich’s proposed school/home program had been endorsed by Parent’s own experts (Dr. Castro, Dr. Seman, and Dr. Becker) and concluded that the “overwhelming weight of the evidence supports a finding that the appropriate program for Student is a combination of school and home services such as the one offered by Ipswich.” The Hearing Officer’s Decision upheld Ipswich’s proposed program for 2005-2006, with modifications. The Decision did not expressly address summer services.[2]
1. Parent unsuccessfully appealed the September 6, 2005 BSEA Decision to state superior court. Parent has further appealed to the state appeals court, where the case is pending.[3]
1. On May 18, 2006, the parties entered into a mediation agreement pursuant to which Ipswich agreed to provide certain special education and related services at school, as well as additional services in the home. The agreement stated that these services were to be provided during a transition period while waiting for an evaluation report from Parent’s expert (Dr. Castro) and that the IEP Team would re-convene in June 2006 to review Dr. Castro’s report as well as other reports and recommendations. The agreement did not specifically address summer services. Exhibit S-8.
1. Parent testified that the IEP which included services for the summer of 2006 stated that Student was to receive year-round programming but did not include specific dates during which the summer services were to be delivered. This IEP was not placed in evidence, nor was there evidence as to whether this IEP was accepted in whole or in part by Parent. It is also not apparent whether the IEP for the summer of 2006 was addressed in Hearing Officer Figueroa’s September 6, 2005 Decision discussed above. (An IEP for 2006-2007 was placed into evidence. This IEP included the summer of 2007, but not the summer of 2006. Exhibit P-2.)
1. There was conflicting testimony regarding the services that Ipswich actually provided during the summer of 2006. Parent testified that services were provided continuously over the course of the summer, and Parent understood that all of these services were provided pursuant to her son’s IEP. This was consistent with Parent’s understanding of the IEP, as she believed it called for a continuation, without a gap, of the educational services that were being provided during the school year. However, an Ipswich witness (Ms. Madeiros) clarified that although Parent was correct that educational services were provided throughout the summer, the summer services consisted of two parts: a seven-week program of services pursuant to an IEP and three weeks of compensatory services. Ms. Madeiros explained that, pursuant to Student’s IEP, the seven-week summer program was a continuation of the special education and related services that were being provided to Student during the school year; and during the additional time periods (a gap of one week at the beginning of the summer and a gap of two weeks at the end of the summer) when no services would have normally been provided under the IEP, Ipswich provided Student with compensatory services in order to make up for services that had been missed during the school year. I find Ms. Madeiros’ testimony (which was supported by the testimony of Ms. Smith) to be a credible explanation of the summer services that were actually provided.
1. In August 2006, Parent initiated a second appeal with the BSEA on behalf of her son, this time with respect to Ipswich’s proposed educational services for the upcoming 2006-2007 school year. The subject of this appeal became the IEP that Ipswich developed in September 2006.
1. As it had for the 2005-2006 school year, Ipswich proposed in its IEP for 2006-2007 a combination of in-district services and home-based programming. Also as it had done for the previous school year, Ipswich developed these services utilizing a combination of Ipswich staff and therapists employed by the Educational Consultants of New England (ECN). Nearly all of the direct services were to be provided outside of the regular education classroom. The proposed IEP covered the period from 9/22/06 to 9/22/07 and therefore included the summer of 2007. Although the IEP made clear that Student required summer services, the extent and nature of those services were described in the IEP only as follows: “[Student] requires a five day program with year round programming to prevent substantial regression.” Parent did not accept any part of this IEP. Testimony of Madeiros; exhibit P-2.
1. Through her BSEA appeal of this 2006-2007 IEP, Parent sought to require Ipswich to provide Student’s intensive educational program at a private school – specifically, Melmark – rather than in Ipswich’s proposed program.[4]
1. Hearing Officer Sara Berman conducted a three-day evidentiary hearing in September and October 2006. In her November 28, 2006 Decision, Hearing Officer Berman explained that “the heart of the dispute is not the services set forth in the IEP but rather Parent’s lack of confidence in Ipswich’s providers, particularly the ABA therapists and supervisors provided by ECN. Parent has contended that ECN staff did not show up for work, did not maintain consistent schedules, used ‘untraditional’ methodologies, showed up late, or came to work when ill.” After considering the evidence, the Hearing Officer concluded that “the record simply does not establish that ECN, by its actions or failures to act, has deprived Student of FAPE. ECN has implemented programs in areas of Student’s need, and Student has made progress working with ECN therapists.” As in the previous BSEA dispute, the Hearing Officer generally endorsed Ipswich’s proposed educational program, finding that “the overwhelming weight of the evidence supports the conclusion that Ipswich’s program can provide Student with a free, appropriate public education.” The Hearing Officer also noted that no evidence had been presented relevant to Parent’s proposed program (Melmark) or why Melmark would be appropriate for Student.[5]
1. The Hearing Officer’s Decision ordered Ipswich to implement its proposed 2006-2007 IEP, with the following modifications: (1) “Ipswich shall propose a formal evaluation of Student’s feeding issues,” together with an IEP amendment to address these issues; and (2) develop a plan for managing Student’s asthma in school. This Decision did not separately discuss the educational services to be provided during the summer.[6]
1. On December 5, 2006, Parent appealed the November 28, 2006 BSEA Decision to state superior court, where the case is pending.[7]
1. On or about December 5, 2006, Parent filed with the BSEA a motion to order compliance with the November 28, 2006 Decision. The two issues presented by Parent’s motion and addressed by the Hearing Officer were whether Ipswich was complying with (1) the Hearing Officer’s order to implement the 2006-2007 IEP and (2) the Hearing Officer’s order to propose a feeding evaluation. Only the first issue is relevant to the instant dispute.[8]
1. At Hearing, Ipswich conceded that it had not implemented its proposed 2006-2007 IEP and argued that it should be excused from doing so. The Hearing Officer agreed. In her July 27, 2007 Compliance Decision, she concluded that because Parent had appealed the Hearing Officer’s November 28, 2006 decision, Ipswich must implement Student’s “stay put placement” unless the parties agreed otherwise.[9]
1. The Hearing Officer further explained that Parent had never agreed to the 2006-2007 IEP (or any part of it), and therefore this IEP could not be Student’s stay put placement. The Hearing Officer then determined that because the parties had reached agreement in May 2006 to a schedule of services, it was the “package of placement and services... embodied within the mediation agreement of May 2006” that must be provided to Student as his stay put placement. Accordingly, the Hearing Officer concluded that Ipswich was excused from implementation of the 2006-2007 IEP. The Hearing Officer’s Compliance Decision did not specifically address summer services.[10]
1. On May 16, 2007 (which was after the close of the evidentiary record in the compliance hearing discussed immediately above), the parties engaged in mediation. Ipswich and Parent were not able to settle Parent’s then on-going compliance claim but did reach agreement regarding a schedule of prospective special education and related services, which would commence on May 21, 2007. These services are described within the mediation agreement as follows:
ECN services
at School ECN Services
at HomeTherapy
Monday9:00 – 11:45 12:15 – 2:45
Tuesday9:00 – 11:00
10:15 – 10:30 PT
10:30 – 10:45 PT Group 11:00 – 11:30 OT
11:30 – 12:00 OT/Speech
Wednesday9:00 – 11:45
10:00 – 10:30 Speech 12:15 – 2:45
Thursday9:00 – 11:45
9:15 – 9:45 Speech 12:15 – 2:45
Friday9:00 – 11:45 12:00 – 2:30
“PT” refers to physical therapy; “PT Group” refers to physical therapy provided within a group; “OT” refers to occupational therapy; and “Speech” refers to speech language therapy. ABA services are to be provided during time slots where no related services (OT, PT, Speech) are being provided. Exhibit S-3.
1. Other than providing a date upon which the services would commence, the mediation agreement did not include any timeframe or other dates during which the above-described services would be provided. The agreement also did not specifically address the subject of summer services. Apparently at the time of the mediation, it was the parties’ understanding that summer services would be discussed at a future time. Testimony of Smith; exhibit S-3.
1. The IEP Team met on June 15, 2007 to develop a new IEP that would include services for the summer of 2007 and the first part of the 2007-2008 school year. Parent did not attend or otherwise participate in this Team meeting. The IEP Team (without Parent) developed a proposed IEP for the time period 6/15/07 to 5/15/08. In addition to school-year services, the IEP proposed services for the summer of 2007, stating “[Student] requires a 7 week summer program to prevent substantial regression. All services will be the same as the school year. The program will run July 9 – August 4.” Parent has neither accepted nor rejected any part of this IEP. Testimony of Parent, Madeiros; exhibit S-2.
1. The 2006-2007 school year for Ipswich ended June 15, 2007. Ipswich’s seven-week summer program for Student began on July 9, 2007 and is scheduled to continue until August 24, 2007. The 2007-2008 school year is scheduled to begin soon after Labor Day (September 3, 2007). The result is a gap of services for three weeks (June 18, 2007 to July 6, 2007) at the beginning of the summer and a gap of one week (August 27, 2007 to August 31, 2007) at the end of the summer. Testimony of Madeiros.
1. During the three-week gap (June 18, 2007 to July 6, 2007), Ipswich provided home-based, compensatory services to make up for services that had been missed during the school year. These services included both the services that would normally have been provided at home during the school year, as well as services that would normally have been provided at school during the school year. Ipswich recognizes that additional compensatory services are due and intends to provide these compensatory services through additional home-based services during the one-week gap (August 27, 2007 to August 31, 2007). During the seven-week summer program that began on July 9, 2007, Student has been receiving the same special education and related services that were being provided during the school year. Testimony of Madeiros.
1. Ipswich anticipates having a meeting in the spring of 2008 to discuss Student’s services for the summer of 2008. Testimony of Madeiros.
DISCUSSION
Student is an individual with a disability, falling within the purview of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)[11] and the state special education statute.[12] The IDEA was enacted "to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education [FAPE] that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living."[13] The Supreme Court has described FAPE as "personalized instruction with sufficient support services to permit the child to benefit educationally from that instruction."[14] Neither Student’s eligibility status nor his entitlement to FAPE is in dispute.
In the instant dispute, Parent has the burden of persuasion on all issues.[15]
Parent’s principal concern (and the concern that resulted in her filing her hearing request in the instant dispute) is the importance of her son’s receiving continuity of special education and related services throughout the calendar year so that there are no significant gaps in services. Parent is appropriately concerned about this issue. She premises her concern, in large part, on a recommendation of her expert neuropsychologist (Dr. Rafael Castro) who, in his 2006 written evaluation report, stated in relevant part as follows:
Also consistent with previous recommendations, we respectfully suggest that programming must be maintained throughout the calendar year with no more than a week break from services and with the same levels of intervention, intensity, and personnel. This is required to avoid the well-documented tendency of children within the PDD/Autism spectrum to regress with the discontinuation or withdrawal of services. [Exhibit P-1, page 8.]
When Parent filed her hearing request with the BSEA on June 21, 2007, she was concerned that her son would have a three-week gap in services prior to the commencement of his summer program on July 9, 2007. As she explained in her testimony, Parent soon became aware that compensatory services were being and would be provided during this three-week gap, but she noted correctly that compensatory services are not the same as (and cannot be relied upon in the future in the same manner as) prospective services that are provided pursuant to an IEP, agreement, or BSEA order. Parent testified that she was not concerned about a one-week gap in services at the end of the seven-week summer program since Dr. Castro’s evaluation, quoted above, considered a one-week gap in services to be acceptable. Therefore, Parent’s principal complaint was that Ipswich should not be allowed to have a three-week gap in her son’s services during the beginning of the summer. She seeks an order requiring Ipswich to provide continuous services throughout the summer except for a one-week gap. Testimony of Parent.
Parent takes the position that her son requires continuous services (except for one week) to avoid regression and receive FAPE. The purpose of the BSEA Hearing, however, was not to determine whether Ipswich’s seven-week summer program meets the regression/FAPE standards applicable to summer services. Rather, Parent’s claim is premised upon the argument that the need for continuous services has already been established pursuant to one or more previous IEPs. Essentially, Parent’s claim is that by refusing to provide for a continuation of services during the three-week period from June 18, 2007 to July 9, 2007, Ipswich was not complying with its already-established legal obligations.
The instant dispute arises within the context of rejected IEPs, mediation agreements, and BSEA Decisions, all of which are discussed above in the Factual Background (hereinafter “Facts”) section of this Decision above.
The services for the summer of 2007 are part of the 2006-2007 IEP, which has been rejected in full by Parent. In her November 28, 2006 Decision, Hearing Officer Berman ordered implementation of this IEP, but Parent then appealed Hearing Officer Berman’s Decision to court, and the appeal is pending. See Facts, pars. # 8, 11, 12. This triggers a stay put analysis, similar to that utilized by Hearing Officer Berman in her July 27, 2007 Compliance Decision.
Under a stay put analysis, Parent must demonstrate either that Student’s “then current placement” includes continuous summer services (except for one week) or that the parties have agreed to such continuous summer services.[16] For the reasons explained below, Parent has demonstrated neither.
Although the statutory term “then current placement” has been defined by the courts in different ways,[17] its essential purpose is “to preserve the status quo pending resolution of challenge proceedings under the IDEA.”[18] As explained above, both for the summer of 2006 and the summer of 2007, Ipswich implemented a seven-week summer program, rather than the ten-week program sought by Parent. See Facts, pars. # 6, 19, 20. I find that the “then current placement” was therefore a seven-week summer program. I now turn to the question of whether there was an agreement, either through an accepted IEP or a mediation agreement, for additional or different summer services.
The parties have entered into two mediation agreements (May 2006 and May 2007). Neither agreement considers summer services or otherwise resolves the essential question in dispute as to the time period during which the summer services are to be provided. See Facts, pars. # 4, 17. Therefore, the mediation agreements are not relevant to the stay put analysis.
Parent has accepted no part of the most recent IEP (6/15/07 to 5/15/08) which includes the summer of 2007. She accepted no part of the next most recent IEP (9/22/06 to 9/22/07) which also included the summer of 2007. Hearing Officer Berman ordered implementation of the 2006-2007 IEP, but Parent appealed the Hearing Officer’s Decision, and Parent’s appeal is pending. See Facts, pars. # 8, 12, 18. Therefore, neither of these IEPs can be considered the stay put placement.
Parent’s principal argument is based upon the IEP that included services for the summer of 2006. Since this IEP was not placed in evidence, I can rely only on testimony (which was from Parent) as to the language within the IEP relative to the length of services to be provided during the summer. According to Parent, the IEP language provided for year-round programming for Student without including specific dates during which the summer services were to be delivered.A consideration of the IEP language itself (as well as the IEP context in which that language appears and the broader context of Student's special education services) leads to the conclusion that the language is ambiguous, allowing for different interpretations by Parent and Ipswich.[19] It is apparent from the testimony that Parent understood that the IEP called for continuing services, without a gap, during the summer, while Ipswich understood its obligation under the IEP to be only the provision of a seven-week summer program, plus any compensatory services that were due at that time.Testimony of Parent, Madeiros.See also Facts, par. # 5.
I need not resolve this difference in interpretation. Under stay put analysis, the IEP providing for services during the summer of 2006 cannot govern what Ipswich is required to provide during the summer of 2007 unless the parties agreed to the IEP. There is no evidence that Parent ever accepted this IEP in whole or in part. It is also unclear whether this IEP was the subject of Hearing Officer Figueroa’s Decision, which Parent has appealed. See Facts, pars. # 2, 3. Therefore, this IEP cannot determine Student’s stay put summer placement.
For these reasons, I find that Student’s stay put placement for purposes of summer services is Student’s currently provided program – that is, the seven-week program that Ipswich provided in 2006 and has been providing in 2007.
Ipswich’s evidence is persuasive (and was not disputed by Parent) that Ipswich has been providing Student with these services since July 9, 2007, with the exception of an occasional missed session (for example, because of illness) and with the exception of services (occupational therapy) to which Parent has objected. Testimony of Madeiros, Smith; exhibits S-5, S-6, S-7, S-9.
In her hearing request, Parent raised several related concerns regarding Ipswich’s ability to provide summer services. Parent stated that the program supervisor had left her job and that a new therapist could not be trained. In a subsequent filing on July 26, 2007, Parent added that her son “is at risk in an unsupervised, inconsistent program” and that he was “harmed by an [occupational therapist] at school.”[20]
Parent did not testify regarding these additional concerns, nor did Parent submit documentary evidence relevant to them. Parent and Ipswich asked several questions of Ipswich’s two witnesses (Ms. Madeiros and Ms. Smith) relevant to these concerns. Their testimony did not provide any probative evidence from which I could conclude that there were difficulties regarding supervision or training that impacted upon the quality or quantity of Student’s educational summer services, or that Student was harmed by an occupational therapist.
For these reasons, I find that Parent has not met her burden of persuasion regarding her related, additional concerns.
I conclude that since June 18, 2007, Ipswich has been ready, willing, and able to provide Student with the special education and related services to which he is entitled, and therefore Parent has demonstrated no basis for changing her son’s educational placement.
ORDER
During the summer of 2007, Ipswich is responsible for providing Student with a seven-week summer program that consists of a continuation of the special education and related services which were being provided during the school year. Ipswich has also agreed to provide compensatory services to which Student is entitled.
Ipswich has been providing those services to Student, with the exception of an occasional missed session (for example, because of illness) and with the exception of services (occupational therapy) to which Parent has objected.
By the Hearing Officer,
William Crane
Dated: August 10, 2007
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
Footnotes
[1] “David” is a pseudonym chosen by the Hearing Officer to protect the privacy of the Student in publicly available documents.
[2] In Re: Ipswich Public Schools, BSEA No. 05-3855, 12 MSER 37 (SEA MA 2005). I take administrative notice of this Decision, as well as the following additional two Decisions involving the same parties as are involved in the instant dispute:In Re: Ipswich Public Schools, BSEA No. 07-0962, 12 MSER 336 (SEA MA 2006); In Re: Ipswich Public Schools, BSEA # 07-0962 (SEA MA 2007).
[3] See discussion of this case in In Re: Ipswich Public Schools, BSEA No. 07-0962, 12 MSER 336 (SEA MA 2006).
[4] In Re: Ipswich Public Schools, BSEA No. 07-0962, 12 MSER 336 (SEA MA 2006).
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] See discussion of this case in In Re: Ipswich Public Schools, BSEA # 07-0962 (SEA MA 2007).
[8] In Re: Ipswich Public Schools, BSEA # 07-0962 (SEA MA 2007).
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] 20 USC 1400 et seq. Congress reauthorized and amended the IDEA in 2004, with changes to take effect on July 1, 2005. Unless otherwise indicated, references in this Decision to the IDEA are to IDEA 2004.
[12] MGL c. 71B.
[13] 20 USC 1400(d)(1)(A). See also 20 USC 1412(a)(1)(A); MGL c. 71B, ss. 2, 3.
[14] Bd. of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Central Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 203 (1982).
[15] Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49,126 S. Ct. 528, 534, 537 (2005) (burden of persuasion in an administrative hearing challenging an IEP is placed upon the party seeking relief; a party who has the burden of persuasion “loses if the evidence is closely balanced”).
[16] The stay put protections are set forth within the IDEA at 20 USC § 1415 (j) (“Except as provided in subsection (k)(4), 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, or, if applying for initial admission to a public school, shall, with the consent of the parents, be placed in the public school program until all such proceedings have been completed.”) and regulations thereunder. 34 CFR §300.518 (“Except as provided in §300.533, during the pendency of any administrative or judicial proceeding regarding a due process complaint notice requesting a due process hearing under §300.507, unless the State or local agency and the parents of the child agree otherwise, the child involved in the complaint must remain in his or her current educational placement.”). The First Circuit has discussed stay put protections (which remained the same from the IDEA to IDEA 2004) in Verhoeven v. Brunswick School Committee, 207 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1999). See also Hearing Officer Berman’s discussion of stay put in In Re: Ipswich Public Schools, BSEA # 07-0962 (SEA MA 2007).
[17] Mackey ex rel. Thomas M. v. Board of Educ. For Arlington Central School Dist. , 386 F.3d 158, 163 (2nd Cir. 2004) and cases cited therein.
[18] Verhoeven v. Brunswick School Committee, 207 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1999).
[19] Cf. Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341 (1997) (“The plainness or ambiguity of statutory language is determined by reference to the language itself, the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole.”).
[20] I take these additional concerns (included within the July 26, 2007 filing) to be a further clarification of the claim in Parent’s original hearing request that Ipswich was not providing the summer services to which her son was entitled, and I therefore address these concerns in this Decision. However, in the July 26, 2007 filing, Parent also stated that Ipswich held an “illegal” IEP meeting to which she was not invited. This claim falls outside of the original hearing request. The BSEA may only address issues set forth within the hearing request unless the other party agrees otherwise. 20 USC § 1415(f)(3)(B). Therefore, this additional claim is not addressed in this Decision.