STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
B. DOE, Petitioner
v.
WOONSOCKET SCHOOL COMMITTEE, Respondent
RIDE No.: 22-043S
DECISION AND ORDER
Held: Appeal of School Committee decision denying elementary school student’s request to attend a virtual learning program in lieu of in-person attendance at her assigned elementary school is denied as the School Department was under no obligation to offer a virtual or distance learning option as an alternative to in-person attendance where the student had no medical condition which precluded her from attending school in-person and the student did not otherwise qualify for an out-of-district placement.
Date: December 2, 2022
I. Travel of the Case
On August 2, 2022, Student B. Doe’s mother filed an appeal of the Woonsocket School Committee’s (the “School Committee’s”) denial of her appeal of the Woonsocket School Department’s (the “School Department’s) decision not to allow her daughter, Student B. Doe, to attend a virtual learning program offered by the Rhode Island Connections Academy (the “RICA”) in lieu of attending her local elementary school in-person.
The matter was referred to the undersigned Hearing Officer and a prehearing conference call was scheduled with the parties on August 22, 2022. The parties were unable to resolve the matter during the call and a hearing was scheduled for September 8, 2022. At Student B. Doe’s mother’s request, the hearing was held virtually via Zoom. This decision is based on the testimony of the parties, as set forth in the hearing transcript together with the documentary evidence submitted by the parties via electronic mail.
II. Jurisdiction and Burden of Proof
The Commissioner of Education has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to, inter alia, R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-39-2, and Student B. Doe has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.[1]
III. Issues Presented
The following issues were presented to the Hearing Officer:
- Is Student B. Doe’s request to attend school via an online virtual program at RICA a request for accommodation pursuant to Section 504 of the Americans with Disabilities Act?
- Is the Woonsocket School Committee obligated to continue to afford a distance learning option to Student B. Doe without regard to medical issues?
- Does Student B. Doe qualify for out-of-district placement to attend school virtually at RICA?
IV. Findings of Fact
- Student B. Doe resides with her parents in the city of Woonsocket and is enrolled at the Leo A. Savoie Elementary School, which is her local school.
- She had been seen in the emergency room on three occasions for gastroenteritis, i.e., a “stomach bug,” in 2016, 2017, and 2018. Her 2017 emergency room visit, when she was 4 years old, resulted in her being admitted to Hasbro Children’s Hospital, and the record indicates that she was treated with IV fluids for dehydration, and experienced a fever and nausea due to gastroenteritis.
- Student B. Doe does not have a medical condition which results in her being immunocompromised or which otherwise places her at high risk of serious illness from COVID-19, and according to School Nurse Renee DeCenso, the health records submitted with her school enrollment indicate that she was in good health and could participate fully, in-person in all activities in school without limitation.
- Nurse DeCenso further testified that Student B. Doe’s diagnosis of gastroenteritis refers to either enterovirus or norovirus – a group of viruses commonly referred to as the “stomach bug” – and which symptoms include nausea and diarrhea. She testified that it is not unusual for children to end up at the hospital in need of fluids for dehydration due to vomiting and diarrhea, a condition that occurs very quickly in young children.
- In the 2021-2022 school year, Student B. Doe attended school via distance learning through a virtual program offered by RICA in partnership with the School Department.
- The School Department did not renew its partnership with the RICA and did not offer a distance learning option for the 2022-2023 school year.
- Student B. Doe’s parents were informed that the virtual program at RICA was not available as an option for the 2022-2023 school year. When Student B. Doe’s mother expressed her concerns regarding Student B. Doe’s medical history, she was informed about the process for requesting to attend school virtually as a reasonable accommodation pursuant to Section 504 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA” and “Section 504,” respectively).
- Although no formal Section 504 application was submitted, the parties considered the option and agreed that Student B. Doe likely did not qualify for a 504 accommodation as she was not immunocompromised and did not have any diagnosis or medical condition that might be deemed a disability under the ADA.
- The school nurse, Ms. DeCenso, contacted Student B. Doe’s pediatrician, with her parents’ authorization, and was informed that: (a) Student B. Doe had no medical condition which would support the notion that she should refrain from attending school in-person; and (b) the pediatrician recommended that Student B. Doe attend school in-person.
- After Mrs. B.’s request that her daughter be permitted to attend school virtually was denied by School Department Superintendent Dr. Patrick McKee (the “Superintendent”), Mrs. Doe appealed to the School Committee.
- The School Committee denied Mrs. B.’s appeal at its meeting on July 20, 2022.
V. Positions of the Parties
A. Student B. Doe’s Mother (Mrs. B.)
Mrs. B. claims that Student B. Doe must attend school virtually due to her history of “severe” symptoms after contracting other viruses, see § IV, ¶ 2 at 3, supra, and objects to the School Committee’s denial of her appeal. She also claims that she received no notice of the School Committee meeting on July 20 when her appeal was denied, and testified that she would have attended to make her case had she received notice. Mrs. B. indicated that she will be homeschool if necessary but that she does not want Student B. Doe to lose the opportunity to interact with other children.
B. Woonsocket School Department’s Position
The Superintendent testified that the School Department decided to offer the virtual learning opportunity through RICA during the 2021-2022 school year as a transitionary measure during the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic since at the time, students under 12 years of age were not yet eligible for a vaccine and the transmission rate in the district was high. He also stated that Mrs. B. was informed that the program was for the 2021-2022 school year only and that there was no guarantee that it would be continued thereafter.
In addition, the Superintendent emphasized that since Student B. Doe’s health records indicated that she was in good health and could participate fully in all activities in school without limitation, and since her own pediatrician recommended that she attend school in-person, the School Department was under no obligation to offer a virtual learning option for students.
VI. Decision
A. The ADA 504 process is not applicable.
We need not decide whether Student B. Doe is entitled to enroll in the RICA virtual learning program as a reasonable Section 504 accommodation because both parties agreed on the record that Student B. Doe was not immunocompromised and had no condition which qualified as a disability under the ADA.
B. The School Department is under no obligation to offer a virtual learning option and Student B. Doe does not qualify for out-of-district placement.
There is no statute or regulation which requires a local education agency to make a virtual learning option available to all students. While Mrs. B.’s fears about Student B. Doe possibly experiencing severe illness should she contract COVID-19 are no doubt the natural feelings of a loving parent who wants to keep her child safe, she nonetheless offers no legal basis whatsoever to support her claim of entitlement for Student B. Doe to attend school virtually as opposed to in-person. As noted, the parties agree that Student B. Doe is not immunocompromised and has no medical condition which qualifies as a disability under the ADA, and Mrs. B. acknowledged that when applying for the RICA program for the 2021-2022 school year, she understood that the application was for that academic year only and that there was no guarantee that the program would be available in subsequent school years.
Accordingly, Petitioner failed to meet her burden to prove that the School Department is under any obligation to make available a virtual learning option in lieu of in-person attendance.
Moreover, R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-64-1 provides, in pertinent part, that “[e]xcept as provided by law or by agreement, a child shall be enrolled in the school system of the city or town where he or she resides.” RICA is not a school operated by the School Department, but rather is an entirely separate entity with no connection to the school district following the termination of the partnership at the end of the 2021-2022 school year.
Mrs. B. made no showing, nor even alleged, that Student B. Doe’s educational needs cannot be met by her local elementary school. Rather, she merely expressed her disagreement with the School Department’s decision to no longer offer the option for students to enroll in the virtual program at RICA in lieu of in-person attendance in order to reduce the risk of potential exposure to COVID-19.
Accordingly, Petitioner failed to meet her burden to prove that Student B. Doe qualifies for out-of-district placement in the RICA virtual learning program.[2]
VII. Order
For the foregoing reasons, Student B. Doe’s appeal in the above matter is denied.
Footnotes
[1] See Larue v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles, Dept. of Transp., 568 A.2d 755, 758-59 (R.I. 1990), citing Gorman v. University of Rhode Island, 837 F.2d 7, 15 (1st Cir.1988) (general presumption in administrative proceedings “favors the administrators” and places the burden of proof upon the party challenging the action “to produce evidence sufficient to rebut this presumption.”).
[2] Finally, it also should be noted that even if Mrs. B. failed to receive notice of the School Committee meeting on July 20, 2022, this de novo review by the Commissioner renders moot and effectively cures any alleged violation of due process.
SERGIO A. SPAZIANO, ESQ.
as Hearing Officer for the Commissioner
ANGÉLICA INFANTE-GREEN,
Commissioner of Education
Date: December 2, 2022