STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Ms. Doe, as parent and next friend of STUDENT A. DOE v. FOSTER-GLOCESTER REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT
RIDE NO. 22-045A
INTERIM DECISION AND ORDER
Held: Appeal from decision denying high school student’s request to attend last year of a four-year CTE program at college pursuant to district’s dual enrollment program, rather than at district high school, was granted as: (1) the unchallenged opinion of the student’s psychologist was that student had reported experiencing multiple incidents of bullying and/or harassment and thus physically attending classes in the high school building “could potentially harm her current stable mental health status;” and (2) the district’s cryptic letter retracting its prior approval of the student’s request and disenrolling her from its dual enrollment program was both “a violation of statewide education policy” and “arbitrary and capricious.”
On August 16, 2022, Petitioner, Ms. Doe, as parent and next friend of STUDENT A. DOE (“Doe”), filed a Motion for Interim Protective Order, or in the Alternative, Motion for Emergency Hearing, with respect to the August 5, 2022 appeal (the “August 5 Appeal”) Doe filed with the Commissioner alleging that Respondent, FOSTER-GLOCESTER REGIONAL SCHOOL DISTRICT (“FGRSD” or the “District”), had: (1) arbitrarily and capriciously denied Doe’s request to complete her career and technical education (“CTE”) programs at Roger Williams University College (“UC”)[1] through the District’s dual enrollment program (the “DEP”); and (2) failed to adhere to Doe’s Section 504 Plan and/or individualized education program (“IEP”).
I. Some Preliminary Matters
1. Jurisdiction, Burden of Proof and Standard of Review
The Commissioner has jurisdiction over this dispute under R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-39-1 as it arises under laws “relating to schools or education,”[2] and as in most proceedings before the Commissioner, the petitioner – in this case Doe – has the burden of proof by a fair preponderance of the evidence.[3]
As for the standard of review, in Diane Martin v. Smithfield School Committee, RIDE No. 0009-02 (March 22, 2002), the Commissioner concluded that:
... the Commissioner’s authority to review the decisions of school committees in educational matters is broader than the scope of review that would be used by a court.[4] It should be remembered that education is a state rather than a local function.[5] It is therefore appropriate that, while local control is the norm, there is also a mechanism to ensure that the State’s overall interest in public education is respected.[6] Still, in most cases, the Commissioner will give deference to a local academic decision as long as this decision is not contrary to significant statewide academic policy.[7] Id. at 9-10 (footnotes omitted). Thus, while providing a de novo review of the applicable facts, the Commissioner has held that the decision of a local school committee will not ordinarily be reversed unless “there has been a violation of statewide education policy or an arbitrary and capricious decision at the local level.”[8]
The rationale applied to the review of actions by local school committees under § 16-39-2 is equally persuasive when directly reviewing the action of school officials, and thus here, the action of the FGRSD will not be reversed unless “there has been a violation of statewide education policy” or the District’s retraction of its approval of Doe’s request to complete her courses at UC was “arbitrary and capricious.”
2. The Evidentiary Hearings
The undersigned Hearing Officer conducted a telephone conference with counsel for the parties on August 22, 2022, after which attempts were made to voluntarily settle the pending claims, without success. Evidentiary hearings were then expedited to consider the District’s denial of Doe’s request to complete her CTE program at UC, and abbreviated sessions were held on August 31 and September 6, 7 and 9, 2022.[9] The remaining issues involving Doe’s Section 504 Plan and IEP were tabled for later consideration and/or the filing of a due process or state law complaint with the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s (“RIDE’s”) Office of Student, Community and Academic Supports.
3. The Issues Raised
The August 5 Appeal raises two basic issues: First, did the former FGRSD Superintendent and UC’s Dean approve Doe’s plan to complete the fourth year of her Health and Fitness/EMT CTE program at UC? And second, if Doe’s plan had been so approved, was the District’s retraction and the disenrollment of Doe from its DEP on May 4 either “a violation of statewide education policy” or “arbitrary and capricious”?
II. Facts and Applicable Law
The facts set forth below were deduced from the documents introduced and testimony offered at the evidentiary hearings. Both parties were represented by counsel and testimony was elicited from Ponaganset High School (“PHS”) Guidance Counselor Rhonda Dira; FGRSD Superintendent Renee Palazzo; RIDE Deputy Commissioner (and former FGRSD Assistant Superintendent) Lisa Odom-Villella; and Doe’s psychologist, Tara Reddington, MA, CAGS.
1. Doe, who resides in Warwick, Rhode Island, is a seventeen (17) year-old rising high school senior at PHS, which is located in North Scituate, Rhode Island, and under the control of the FGRSD.
2. Doe is enrolled in two (2) CTE programs at PHS: (a) Health and Fitness/EMT and (b) Biomedical Science (although only the former is relevant here).
a. The District’s DEP and the Health & Fitness/EMT Program
3. FGRSD School Committee’s Policy No. 6270, entitled Early College, Dual and Concurrent Enrollment Policy (the “DEP Policy”)[10] defines “dual enrollment” as occurring when “[a] student is enrolled in a secondary school while simultaneously enrolled part-time or fulltime as a non-matriculating student at a postsecondary institution, such as a community college, college, or university.” Joint Exhibit 3 at 1.
4. The DEP Policy provides that “[a]ll students are eligible to participate in early college, dual and concurrent enrollment courses, given the availability of space,” id. at 2, yet also states that “[t]he approval of the principal may be denied or withdrawn when... a student’s GPA falls below 3.0...” Id. (emphasis added).
5. The FGRSD budget for Fiscal Years 2022 and 2023 includes all costs associated with dual enrollment. See Doe Exhibit 4.
6. The Health and Fitness/EMT curriculum consists of Health & Fitness I – IV. Doe has yet to complete Health & Fitness IV, which consists of a Health & Fitness component as well as a Basic EMT component
7. Health & Fitness IV was described in RIDE’s CTE Program Approval 2018 (FGRSD Exhibit 9), as consisting of:
... required EMT coursework through Roger Williams University (6 college credits), field experience at local Fire Departments, continued training & preparation for the Candidate Physical Agility Test, and CPR, First Aid, and AED Certification. Students will be required to complete a Bureau of Criminal Investigation report. Upon completion of this course, students will be eligible to take the National Registry of Emergency Medical Technicians Examination.
Students are eligible to take the EMT Exam and participate in clinical experience once reaching 18 years of age. Extended school hours are expected as part of this course to allow for EMT Lab experience, clinical experience, and RWU coursework. RWU also provides tutoring services for all students as part of the Advanced Course Network agreement. Id. at 12-13.
8. Moreover, the description of the Health & Fitness IV curriculum in the FGRSD Program of Studies (FGRSD Ex. 5 at 39) expressly provides that “[t]he curriculum is aligned with Roger Williams EMS.121.45C-20/FA EMT.” Id.
b. The Initial Approval of Doe’s Request to Attend UC
9. According to Doe’s psychologist, Tara Reddington, MA, CAGS, Doe has suffered from anxiety and depression and has been bullied at PHS, some of which is related to the fact that until April of 2022, Ms. Doe served as Director of Finance and Operations in the District, and evidently was blamed by some at PHS for certain unpopular staff layoffs. See August 5 Appeal (Joint Exhibit 1), ¶ 28 at 3-4.[11]
10. In an August 31, 2022 letter to the FGRSD, Psychologist Reddington opined that: [Doe] has suffered some pretty extreme social and emotional challenges along with some academic challenges within the walls of [PHS] and it has not broken her or discouraged her but it has caused her to be ready to fly from the traditional high school nest. I do not feel that it would be valuable or in the best interest of [Doe’s] psychological and overall health to physically attend classes in the high school building, where she has reported experiencing multiple incidents of bullying/harassment by individuals within the school environment. It could potentially harm her current stable mental health status. See Doe Exhibit 3 at p. 3.
11. Not surprisingly, Doe, who has an IEP, sought to complete her CTE Program by attending courses at UC on a full-time basis through the DEP rather than having to attend classes in-person at PHS.[12]
12. Doe was the first PHS student to attempt to use the DEP to attend courses at UC, rather than at the University of Rhode Island (“URI”), the Community College of Rhode Island (“CCRI”), or Rhode Island College (“RIC”). Thus, according to Superintendent Palazzo, when Doe was asking to attend classes at UC last spring, there was no established “process or paperwork” at the District for Doe to follow and/or complete.[13]
13. In fact, according to Ms. Doe, the District did provide a form on its website for students interested in courses at UC to complete, and Ms. Doe testified that Doe completed and submitted the form, which was returnable to UC.
14. According to both Deputy Commissioner Odom-Villella and Ms. Doe, they met with UC Dean Gina Bianco (“Dean Bianco”) in late March or early April of 2022 (while they were still employed by the District) to discuss Doe’s ability to complete her CTE Program at UC and graduate in the spring,[14] and were informed that Doe could complete her program at UC, and the reduced tuition rate offered to students, employees, and alumni would be billed to the District.[15]
15. Ms. Doe testified that former Superintendent Barnes was pleased that UC approved Doe’s plan to attend her remaining courses at UC, and also approved the plan. In addition, the Deputy Commissioner testified that she had informed then FGRSD Superintendent Barnes of Doe’s plan in April of 2022, and she interpreted his acknowledgment as approval.
c. The May 4 Letter from the District’s Counsel
16. On or about May 4, 2022, Ms. Doe received a letter from counsel for the FGRSD advising that “since you are not a resident of Foster or Glocester... your daughter cannot attend Roger Williams University at the expense of the Foster-Glocester Regional School Department.” See FGRSD Exhibit 1.
17. The May 4 letter went on to advise Ms. Doe that “if you wish for your daughter to remain at Ponaganset High School she must continue to remain at Ponaganset for her senior year and she must continue to be enrolled in the CTE program at Ponaganset... On the other hand, if you wish for your child to attend Roger Williams University, please enroll her in the Warwick School Department and request permission for her to attend Roger Williams University through Warwick.” Id.
18. Superintendent Palazzo testified that she was not aware that Doe had ever properly applied to take all her remaining courses at UC, had never spoken to Ms. Doe about the issue, and stated that she had not even seen the May 4 letter from FGRSD’s counsel before it was sent.
19. According to Superintendent Palazzo and Guidance Counselor Dira, the Health & Fitness component of Health & Fitness IV was being offered at PHS during the first semester of the 2022-2023 school year, and the Basic EMT component was being offered at UC,[16] and they maintained that Doe would not be considered to be enrolled in the FGRSD CTE Program – and thus would not be qualified to participate in the District’s DEP – unless she took the Health & Fitness component of Health & Fitness IV at PHS.[17]
20. Yet, nothing in the relevant course descriptions in the FGRSD Course Guide (see FGRSD Exhibit 5 at 39), or in RIDE’s CTE Program Approval 2018 (Doe Exhibit 9 at 12), or in the Rhode Island CTE Industry-Specific Program Standards (Doe Exhibit 5 at 97), refer to where any of the course work must be completed or otherwise support FGRSD’s narrow view of what is required to complete Health and Safety IV.
21. In addition, Superintendent Pallazo and Guidance Counselor Dira also claimed that Doe’s GPA for the 2021-22 school year was lower than 3.0, and thus the District’s May 4 decision to disenroll Doe from the DEP was justified under the DEP Policy, which provides that a principal may reject candidates for the DEP whose GPA is below 3.0. See FGRSD Exhibit 3 at 2.
22. Finally, Superintendent Pallazo and Guidance Counselor Dira both claimed that if Doe followed her preferred plan, she would not be able to graduate in the spring because, as was explained by the District’s counsel, she would not have satisfied the District’s physical education requirement.[18]
d. The Law Applicable to CTE and Dual Enrollment Programs
23. In its declaration of policy concerning CTE and vocational education, the General Assembly stated that “[a] full range of programs and supplemental services shall be provided for those students whose previous achievements and preparation indicate that additional support is necessary for them to succeed in vocational education.” R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-45-1.1(d)(1)(iii).
24. In addition, the Regulations Governing Career and Technical Education in Rhode Island (the “CTE Regs.”), while providing that districts operating CTE programs have the right to set “reasonable, fair, equitable and program-appropriate admission standards,” id., 200 R.I. Admin. Code 20-10-3.5.1.A(3), also provide that districts shall:
Provide students and families with accurate information about the availability of approved career preparation programs and students’ rights to apply and enroll; and Provide students and families an appeals process in cases where students do not gain access to a career preparation program. Id., 200 R.I. Admin. Code 20-10-3.3.2.A(4) and (5).
25. The General Assembly also has made clear that “all students retain the right to enroll in a state approved career and technical education program approved by the CTE board of trustees in communities outside their community of residence,” but following recent statutory amendments, that right exists only “if [a student’s] home district does not provide a substantially similar state-approved CTE program.” R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-45-6.1(d)(1).[19]
26. On November 12, 2021, the CTE Board and RIDE determined that none of the CTE programs throughout the state were “substantially similar.” Thus Doe, although a resident of Warwick, had a legal right to attend FGRSD’s CTE Program, which was not filled to capacity, and the FGRSD would be entitled to reimbursement from Doe’s district of residence, i.e., the Warwick Public School District (the “WPSD”), “in accordance with the cost benchmark for the assigned program in which the student is assigned.” See CTE Regs., 200 R.I. Admin. Code 20- 10-3.7.2.C.
27. Moreover, since PHS is within the school transportation region of the WPSD, Warwick would be responsible for providing Doe with transportation. See id., 200 R.I. Admin. Code 20-10-3.5.1.A.2.
III. Positions of the Parties
1. Doe
Doe argued that unrefuted testimony established that her plan to attend her remaining courses during her senior year at UC had been approved last spring by both the FGRSD (by former Superintendent Barnes) and by UC (by Dean Bianco), and that the District’s subsequent retraction of this approval was not based upon what would be best for Doe or any legitimate pedagogic concern. She claimed that the District simply ignored the unchallenged opinion of her psychologist, and claimed that its proffered reasons for not approving her plan were pretextual, and effectively “arbitrary and capricious,” and should be reversed.
2. FGRSD
The District made two primary points. First, it argued that in order to be considered to be in a full-time CTE Program at the District – and thus be eligible for continued enrollment in the DEP – Doe must enroll for the Health & Fitness component of Health & Fitness IV at PHS, rather than following the plan requested by Doe and enrolling for the full-year at UC. And second, the District claimed that Doe’s GPA was below 3.0, and the District was therefore authorized to disenroll her from the DEP under the DEP Policy. See FGRSD Exhibit 3 at 2.
In addition, the District argued that if Doe followed her preferred course of study at UC she would not be able to graduate in the spring because she would not have fulfilled the physical education requirement. Finally, Superintendent Palazzo inferred that Doe had not completed the proper forms, or followed the proper procedure, when seeking District approval of her plan.
IV. Decision
Returning now to the two issues raised by the August 2 Appeal. See§ I (3), supra at 4. As to the first issue, the uncontradicted testimony of Deputy Commissioner Odom-Villella and Ms. Doe established that both former Superintendent Barnes as well as UC’s Dean Bianco approved Doe’s plan to take all her remaining courses at UC last April. See§ II, ¶¶ 14-15, supra at 7-8. The fact that there was no paperwork to evidence this approval is explained by the fact that Doe was the first PHS student to attempt to use the DEP to attend courses at UC and thus, as explained by Superintendent Palazzo, there was no established “process or paperwork” at the FGRSD for Doe to follow and/or complete when seeking approval to attend classes at UC last spring. See id., ¶ 12, supra at 7.
As to the second issue, the District’s retraction of its approval and its disenrollment of Doe from its DEP on May 4 was both “a violation of statewide education policy” and “arbitrary and capricious.” It was a violation of the CTE Regs. because, as noted, they provide that admission standards for CTE programs must be “reasonable, fair [and] equitable” with “program-appropriate admission standards,” id., 200 R.I. Admin. Code 20-10-3.5.1.A(3), and further, they mandate that districts must “[p]rovide students and families with accurate information about the availability of approved career preparation programs and students’ rights to apply and enroll,” and provide “an appeals process in cases where students do not gain access to a career preparation program.” Id., 200 R.I. Admin. Code 20-10-3.3.2.A(4) and (5).
Here, while the rather cryptic May 4 letter stated flatly that “you are not a resident of Foster or Glocester and therefore your daughter cannot attend Roger Williams University at the expense of the Foster-Glocester Regional School Department,” see FGRSD Exhibit 1, it did not explain why this was the case other than to state in conclusory fashion that “if you wish for your daughter to remain at Ponaganset High School she must continue to remain at Ponaganset for her senior year.” Id. Moreover, no mention was made in the May 4 letter of the physical education requirement, which the District now claims would not be fulfilled if Doe’s request to study at UC were to be granted, a claim which has been denied by Doe.[20]
The “arbitrary and capricious” nature of the May 4 retraction is evidenced not only by the above, but also by the rather outrageous fact that when deciding to retract a plan that had been approved by its own Superintendent and Assistant Superintendent, as well as by the Dean of UC, the District never once considered what was best for Doe, a student suffering from depression and anxiety whose psychologist made clear that in her opinion, forcing Doe to take classes at PHS, where Doe had “reported experiencing multiple incidents of bullying/harassment... [that] ... could potentially harm her current stable mental health status.” See Doe Exhibit 3 at p. 3 (quoted more fully at § II, ¶ 10, supra at 6). Indeed, Superintendent Palazzo testified that she never even spoke with Ms. Doe about her daughter, and had not seen the May 4, 2022 letter reversing the District’s approval of Doe’s plan to attend courses at UC until after it had been sent.[21] And although Guidance Counselor Dira commented that Doe had not had success with virtual courses in the past (as presumably would be offered by UC), she admitted that Doe had been ill when taking the virtual courses that were referenced.
Finally, the District has itself provided further evidence of the arbitrary and capricious nature of its retraction by relying upon the provision in its DEP Policy (FGRSD Exhibit 3 at 2) authorizing principals to reject DEP candidates whose GPA is below 3.0. The District appears to believe that the provision means that students with GPAs less than 3.0 are automatically disqualified. However, the plain language of the Policy makes clear that while a principal can reject these candidates, they are not required to do so. Thus, the provision calls for an exercise of discretion. Yet here, the person authorized to make the call, i.e., the Principal at PHS, was not even called as a witness, and as has been discussed, the District mechanically applied the provision without even making the effort to consider how it might impact Doe.
3. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
Ms. Doe’s request for an award of attorney's fees and costs must be considered under the Equal Access to Justice Act (the “Act”), R.I. Gen Laws § 42-92-1, et seq., the purpose of which is to:
... encourage individuals and small businesses to contest unjust actions by the state and/or municipal agencies, the legislature hereby declares that the financial burden borne by these individuals and small businesses should be, in all fairness, subject to state and/or municipal reimbursement of reasonable litigation expenses when the individual or small business prevails in contesting an agency action, which was without substantial justification. R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-92-1. The Act provides, in pertinent part, that:
(a) [w]henever the agency conducts an adjudicatory proceeding subject to this chapter, the adjudicative officer shall award to a prevailing party reasonable litigation expenses incurred by the party in connection with that proceeding. The adjudicative officer will not award fees or expenses if he or she finds that the agency was substantially justified in actions leading to the proceedings and in the proceeding itself. The adjudicative officer may, at his or her discretion, deny fees or expenses if special circumstances make an award unjust. The award shall be made at the conclusion of any adjudicatory proceeding, including, but not limited to, conclusions by a decision, an informal disposition, or termination of the proceeding by the agency. The decision of the adjudicatory officer under this chapter shall be made a part of the record and shall include written findings and conclusions. No other agency official may review the award.
(b) If a court reviews the underlying decision of the adversary adjudication, an award for fees and other expenses shall be made by that court in accordance with the provisions of this chapter.
R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-92-3 (emphasis added). Moreover, the broad definitions of the “adjudicatory proceedings” and “agencies” to which the Act applies[22] make clear that it applies to hearings before the Commissioner under Title 16.
Finally, it should be noted that in Taft v. Pare, 536 A.2d 888 (RI. 1988), the Rhode Island
Supreme Court adopted the Eighth Circuit’s interpretation of what it means to be “substantially justified” set forth in United States v. 1,378.65 Acres of Land, 794 F.2d 1313, 1318 (8th Cir.
1986), where the Circuit held that in meeting the substantial justification test, “the Government must show not merely that its position was marginally reasonable; its position must be clearly reasonable, well founded in law and fact, solid though not necessarily correct.” Id.
However, this is an Interim Decision and Order, and thus a ruling as to an award of fees and costs to the “prevailing party” under the Act must await a final decision. That being said, based upon the evidence presented so far, the District’s position is not “clearly reasonable, well founded in law and fact,” and/or “solid.”
V. Order
For all the above reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
- Doe’s August 5 Appeal requesting an interim order is hereby GRANTED, in part.
- FGRSD shall forthwith:
- enable Doe to remain enrolled in the CTE Program while she completes the necessary courses in the DEP at UC as planned and approved by the District last April;
- pay Doe’s tuition to UC so that she may successfully complete her career clusters in the District’s CTE Program; and
- use its best efforts to work with Doe to enable her to fulfill her physical education requirement outside of PHS if that is necessary for Doe to graduate from PHS in the spring.
- Doe’s request for an award of attorney's fees and costs is continued pending a final decision.
Footnotes
[1] UC is the School of Continuing Studies at Roger Williams University.
[2] The doctrine of administrative exhaustion normally would require that a petitioner first bring an appeal to a school committee before the Commissioner can hear it, but there was no time to bring the matter before the school committee in this case as school began on August 31. See Doe v. East Greenwich, 899 A.2d 1258, 1266 (R.I. 2006) (doctrine inapplicable when the administrative process would be “futile or inadequate”).
[3] 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.”).
[4] Noting that ‘ “[t]he jurisdiction of the school commissioner under the public school act, by way of appeal...is, looking to subject, nature, and manner of its exercise, rather a visitatorial power, than that of an ordinary legal tribunal...’’’Appeal of Emor Smith, 4 R.I.590 (1857).
[5] Citing Article XII of the Rhode Island Constitution and City of Pawtucket v. Sundlun, 662 A.2d 40 (R.I.1995).
[6] Citing Donna F. v. Burrillville School Committee, RIDE No. 001-00, (January 10, 2000).
[7] Citing Lusignan v. East Providence School Committee, RIDE No. 0013-99 (June 17, 1999).
[8] See, e.g., B. Doe v. South Kingstown School Committee, RIDE No. 012-15 (September 15, 2015) (‘ “On appeal to the Commissioner in a de novo review, our obligation is to hold an evidentiary hearing, make findings of fact and determine whether there has been a violation of statewide education policy or an arbitrary and capricious decision at the local level.” ’); and Student B. Doe v. Coventry School Committee, RIDE No. 0035-06 (August 29, 2006) (“While the Commissioner has more authority than a court does to review an academic decision, in most cases review of a local academic decision will be limited to determining whether the academic decision was arbitrary, contrary to state-wide academic policy, grounded in an incorrect computation, or made in bad faith.”).
[9] The Commissioner attempts to expedite hearings when a child is out of school awaiting a decision, and the expedition of the hearings here removed the need to decide whether the interim protective order statute, R.I. Gen. Laws § 16-39-3.2, was applicable.
[10] All referenced exhibits were entered into evidence at the hearings.
[11] Ms. Doe left the employ of the District in April of 2022 along with RIDE Deputy Commissioner Lisa Odom- Villella (who served as Assistant Superintendent at FGRSD) at the same time as the District’s Superintendent, Dr. Michael Barnes, retired.
[12] It also would not be surprising if, as testified by Superintendent Palazzo and Guidance Counselor Dira, Doe failed to complain about any bullying to any school official at FGRSD. After all, such complaints would have to be made to the very same people who allegedly resented certain staff layoffs at the District that were blamed on Ms. Doe.
[13] This is reflected in the FGRSD Program of Studies (FGRSD Exhibit 5), which refers to application procedures for URI, RIC and CCRI’s Running Start Program while making no mention of UC. See id. at 13-14.
[14] Although not in evidence, Doe’s counsel claimed in an email to the Hearing Officer and the District’s counsel that Doe could fulfill the District’s graduation requirement, if: (a) she took (i) EMT Basic, (ii) Introduction to Academic Writing, (iii) Introduction to Psychology and (iv) Financial Literacy at UC during the first semester; and (b) took (i) RWU Math.110 Math/The Modern World, (ii) WTNG.102, How Writing Works, (iii) RWU Spanish in the Workplace, and (iv) RWU HCA Moral and Ethical Issues in Healthcare at UC during the second semester.
[15] As will be discussed, FGRSD would then be entitled to a fixed amount of reimbursement from Doe’s sending district.
[16] This conflicts with the Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”) between Roger Williams University and the FGFSD signed on August 17 and 26, 2022 (Doe Exhibit 3), which provides that the EMT Basic component would be taught by UC instructors at PHS. See id., § II at 2.
[17] Although Superintendent Palazzo also testified that she was aware that in at least one prior year, other students had been permitted to complete their final year of their CTE program entirely at other colleges participating in the District’s DEP.
[18] Although Doe’s transcripts entered into evidence (see FGRSD Exhibits 6 and 11) both contained a handwritten note stating “PE/H (if does not take H & F IV).” Id.
[19] See also id. at (e) and (f)(1)(i) (providing that “[a] student’s request to enroll in an out of district state CTE boardapproved career and technical program shall not be denied, provided that... [a] substantially similar program is not available in the student’s home district”). Prior to these recent amendments, students had such a right under the CTE Regs. even if their district of residence had a “substantially similar program.” See Chariho Regional School District v. R.I. Council on Elementary and Secondary Education, C.A. No. PC-2017-1866 (Superior Court, Carnes, J.) (February 26, 2019) (“the only limitations on a student’s choice of a RIDE-approved career preparation program are enrollment availability, lack of district transportation for programs outside the student’s school transportation region (if the enrollment occurs after September 1, 2012) and program admission standards.”).
[20] And which appears to be contradicted by a hand-written note on Doe’s transcript. See note 18, supra.
[21] Thus, who actually authorized FGRSD’s counsel to send the May 4 letter remains a mystery. The fact that counsel’s May 4 letter was cc’d to two School Committee members – Shelley Pezza and Cynthia Jones – only raises more questions relating not only to who actually made the decision to retract the District’s approval, but also to possible violations of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and/or the state’s Open Meetings Act, possible violations which presumably will be clarified.
[22] See R.I. Gen. Laws § 42-92-2(2) (defining “adjudicatory proceedings” as including “any proceeding conducted by or on behalf of the state administratively or quasi-judicially which may result in the loss of benefits, the imposition of a fine, the adjustment of a tax assessment, the denial, suspension, or revocation of a license or permit, or which may result in the compulsion or restriction of the activities of a party.”) and § 42-92-2(3) (defining “agency” as including “any state and/or municipal board, commission, council, department, or officer, other than the legislature or the courts, authorized by law to make rules or to determine contested cases, to bring any action at law or in equity, including, but not limited to, injunctive and other relief, or to initiate criminal proceedings. This shall include contract boards of appeal, tax proceedings, and employment security administrative proceedings.”).
ANGÉLICA INFANTE-GREEN,
Commissioner
ANTHONY F. COTTONE, ESQ.
As Hearing Officer for the Commissioner
Dated: September 13, 2022