COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Longmeadow Public Schools
BSEA #2510207
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 via a virtual platform on January 28, 29, and 30, 2026, before Hearing Officer Alina Kantor Nir. Parent appeared pro se. Longmeadow Public Schools (Longmeadow or the District) was represented by counsel. Those present for all or part of the proceedings, all of whom agreed to participate virtually, were:
Mother
Alisia St. Florian Attorney for Longmeadow
Anne-Marie Tonsing School Psychologist, Longmeadow
Catherine Giampietro Special Education Teacher, Longmeadow
David Lassof Private Therapist
Juliet Keenan Special Education Supervisor, Longmeadow High School (LHS)
Katherine Fedorov English Teacher (formerly of Longmeadow)
Kim Mirer Occupational Therapist, Longmeadow
Lizandra Rodriguez School Adjustment Counselor, Longmeadow
Lynn Henwood Head of School FlexSchool
Matthew Webber Special Education Teacher, Longmeadow
Michael Rosemond School Counselor, Longmeadow
Dr. Nicole Kassissieh Clinical Psychologist
Nicole Paris-Kro Director of Special Education, Longmeadow
Thomas Landers Principal, LHS
Rebecca Baron Court Reporter
The official record of the hearing consists of documents submitted by Parent and marked as Exhibits P-11A, P-11C, P-12A through P-12C, P-13A, P-13B, P-14A, P-14B, P-15A through P-15D, P-16A through P-16D, P-17A through P-17C, P-18B, P-19A through P-19F, P-29A, P-30A, P-31A, P-32A, P-33A, P-34A, P-35A, P-36A, P-37A, P-38A through P-38G, P-39A through P-39E, P-40A through P-40F, P-41A, P-42A, P-43A through P-43C, P-43E, P-44A, P-44B, P-44C, P-45A through P-45C, P-50B, P-50B-2, P-50C through P-50E, P-50G through P-50O, P-51A through P-51H, P-51J, P-51M through P- 51P, P-52B through P-52I, P-53A through P-53D, P-53F, P-53G, P-54A through P-54N, P-56, P-57, P-58A through P-58C, P-59A, and P-59C; documents submitted by Longmeadow and marked as Exhibits S-1 through and including S-18, S-19A through and including S-19D, S-20 through and including S-22, S-23A, S-23B, and S-24 through and including S-28; approximately three days of oral testimony and argument; and a three-volume transcript produced by a court reporter. At the joint request of the parties, an extension was allowed for good cause until March 2, 2026, for submission of written closing arguments. Closing arguments were submitted as scheduled, on March 2, 2026, and the record closed on that day.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE:
The following issues are in dispute:
Academic Year 2022-2023
Whether Longmeadow failed to implement accommodations proposed in Student's Individualized Education Program (IEP) for the period March 18, 2022 to March 17, 2023, as amended on November 18, 2022 (March 2022 IEP, as Amended), from March 21, 2023 until the end of the 2022-2023 school year (during Student's ninth grade), including but not limited to access to assistive technology
Whether Longmeadow violated Student's and Parent's procedural due process rights during the relevant time period in the 2022-2023 school year (i.e., March 21, 2023 through the end of the school year), including whether Longmeadow violated the child find requirement of the law in failing to identify a specific learning disability in written expression;
If the answer to any of the above is affirmative, then what is the proper remedy?
Academic Year 2023-2024
Whether Longmeadow failed to implement accommodations in the accepted stay put March 2022 IEP, as amended, and accepted portions, if any, of the IEP for the period December 20, 2023 to December 19, 2024 (December 2023 IEP) during the 2023-2024 school year, including but not limited to access to assistive technology and other accommodations);
Whether the IEPs dated April 4, 2023 to April 3, 2024 (April 2023 IEP) and December 20, 2023 to December 19, 2024 (December 2023 IEP) failed to offer Student a FAPE for the 2024-2025 school year;
Whether Longmeadow violated Student's and Parent's procedural due process rights during the 2023-2024 school year, including whether Longmeadow violated the child find requirement of the law in failing to identify a specific learning disability in written expression;
Whether the District failed to convene an IEP meeting to consider the results of an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) within 10 school days;
If the answer to any of the above is affirmative, then what is the proper remedy?
Academic Year 2024-2025
Where the District failed to offer an IEP for Student between December 20, 2024 and April 16, 2025, whether Paret should be reimbursed for Student's unilateral placement at FlexSchool;
Whether the District failed to provide Student with assistive technology for the 2024-2025 school year;
Whether the IEP proposed for the period April 16, 2025 to April 14, 2026 (April 2025 IEP) failed to provide Student with a FAPE due to its failure to consider Student's trauma, its failure to include Autism and/or Specific Learning Disability in writing as Disability Categories, and its proposal of a full inclusion program at Longmeadow High School;
Whether the District failed to hold a timely meeting to review the rejected April 16, 2025 IEP and Parent's concerns; [1]
If the answer to any of the above is affirmative, then what is the proper remedy?
Academic Year 2025-2026
Whether the District failed to provide Student with assistive technology for the 2025-2026 school year;
If the answer to any of the above is affirmative, then what is the proper remedy?
FACTUAL FINDINGS:
Student is a twelfth-grade resident of Longmeadow, Massachusetts. He currently attends FlexSchool, an online program, where he was unilaterally placed by Parent in August 2024. Prior to his unilateral placement, Student attended Longmeadow High School pursuant to an IEP under the Disability Categories of Emotional (anxiety) and Health (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)). (Keenan, Parent, S-8, S-14) Student's medical history is also noteworthy for past "developmental/behavioral" problems. (P-41A)
Student is described as smart, funny, insightful, and creative. (Parent, Kassissieh, Fedorov, Rosemond, Lassoff, Webber, P-35A) Historically, Student struggled with writing. During elementary school, assistive technology was a "game changer" for Student. (Parent)
Ninth Grade
Student did well during eighth grade, while depending on assistive technology, which included the use of his personal iPad and Apple 2 Pencil (Pencil), for all assignments, assessments, and organization. (Parent)
Kimberly Mirer has worked as an occupational therapist at Longmeadow for 19 years. She testified that Student was allowed to use the Pencil because Parent felt strongly that it improved the legibility of Student's handwriting. (Mirer)
On March 18, 2022, the Team convened and developed an IEP for the period March 18, 2022 to March 17, 2023 (March 2022 IEP). The IEP included the following accommodations: the use of technology for assignments, classwork, and homework; assignments broken down; the use of noise-cancelling headphones; and copies of the teacher's notes, as needed. No specific technology was noted, and breaks were not included as an accommodation.[2] A Self-Management Goal and services in the areas of Counseling (15 minutes biweekly) and Academic Support (3x45 minutes weekly (middle school), and 6x56 biweekly (high school)) were proposed. Parent accepted the IEP and full inclusion placement at LHS. (P-11A, P-11B)
Juliet Keenan is the Special Education Supervisor at LHS, having served in this role for four years. She testified that her involvement with Student was greater than typical. According to Ms. Keenan, from the first day of 9th grade, Student had access to his personal iPad and to a school-issued Chromebook. (Keenan, S-25) Because Student was not allowed to complete assessments on his personal device without special permission, pursuant to school committee policy, he was provided a separate school-issued device on which to complete assessments. (Keenan, Giampietro)
Catherine Giampietro was Student's Academic Support teacher during the 2022-2023 school year (and for one month of the 2023-2024 school year). She has worked in the District since 2013. Student utilized Ms. Giampietro's classroom for organizing, brainstorming, and doing homework. Student struggled with work submission "because work wasn't getting done outside of school." Student found homework "unfair" and refused to do any after school. (Giampietro)
In the fall of 2022, Parent became concerned that Student was not allowed to utilize his iPad to take assessments, that Student was not getting breaks, which she believed were part of his IEP, and that he was generally discouraged from using his accommodations. Staff treated Student's accommodations as an inconvenience, and Student perceived his need to use accommodations as a personal failure. (Parent, P-43E, P-50B, P-50B1, P-50C, P-50D, P-50E, P-50G, P-50H, P-50I, P-50J, P-50K, P-50L, P-50M, P-50N, P-50O, P-51A) On November 9, 2022, Parent reached out to Ms. Giampietro and requested a Team meeting to address concerns about implementation. (Keenan, S-25)
Ms. Giampietro testified that Student had his personal iPad, Pencil, and Chromebook. Until the District ordered Student his own MacBook for assessments, he was allowed to use Ms. Giampietro's MacBook. At times, Student did not submit his work "correctly," but teachers were lenient with late submissions. Student chose to complete some assessments with paper and pencil, especially in math. (Giampietro, Mirer, P-50-B, P-50G, P-50H, P-50J, P-50K, P-50L, P-50M)
Lizandra Rodriguez is a school adjustment counselor (SAC) at LHS. She provided Student with C Grid counseling services in the fall of 2022. Because Student was not receptive to Ms. Rodriguez or to his counseling services, the Team agreed to remove counseling services from his IEP. (Keenan, Rodriguez, P-12A, P-12B, S-20, S-25) Ms. Rodriguez remained available to Student, seeking him out whenever Parent contacted her with concerns. (Rodriguez, S-21)
The Team convened on November 18, 2022. Staff reported that recent problems with electronic work submission had been resolved[3], but asked that Student communicate with teachers when leaving class. (Keenan, Rodriguez, Rosemond, P-12A, P-12B, S-20, S-25) Ms. Giampietro testified that Parent's primary concern at the meeting was Student's ability to use his own device, not his anxiety, and Ms. Giampietro was not concerned about the removal of counseling services.(Giampietro)
The Amendment to the March 2022 IEP, to which Parent consented in full, provided Student with access to technology for assessments and the option to submit assignments electronically, discontinued counseling services, allowed for a "special pass" to leave class, and provided Student with an additional 24 hours to submit assignments that were delayed due to technological glitches. (Keenan, Rodriguez, P-12A, P-12B, S-20, S-25) The Amendment did not specify the technology that would be available to Student. (Keenan)
Michael Rosemond is a school guidance counselor who has served in that role for 30 years. In ninth grade, Student saw Mr. Rosemond once every couple of weeks, but this increased in tenth grade. Student "wasn't into making appointments." Mr. Rosemond had no concerns about the implementation of Student's accommodations. (Rosemond)
According to Ms. Keenan, on December 7, 2022, she requested that the Longmeadow technology department issue a dedicated assessment device to Student.[4] (S-25) Parent felt frustrated because, although they had agreed to an iPad at the meeting, Ms. Keenan ordered a MacBook. (Parent) On January 3, 2023, Ms. Keenan ordered an iPad for Student with Notability "so he would have a platform he's used to." She believed that an iPad pencil would be compatible with it. (P-50N)
On March 10, 2023, Parent requested to reschedule the annual review because the general education teacher was unavailable and Parent would not excuse her. (Keenan, S-25)
In the spring of ninth grade, Student elected to take two math classes in the fall of tenth grade. In March 2023, Mr. Rosemond, Ms. Giampietro, and Ms. Keenan expressed concern that this schedule would remove essential support blocks, reduce needed decompression time, and create an unmanageable executive functioning load. They warned that, without school-day support, Student would have to complete more work at home, which he had historically resisted. Although staff cautioned that the schedule would be exhausting and personally taxing, Student insisted on proceeding with the additional math coursework. (Rosemond, Keenan, Giampietro) On March 21, 2023, Mr. Rosemond emailed Parent expressing misgivings about Student's schedule, but Parent did not respond. (Keenan, Rosemond, S-25)
The Team convened on April 4, 2023, for Student's annual IEP review. (Keenan, P-13A, P-13B, P-17C, S-16, S-17, S-18) At the meeting, Parent expressed doubts that Student would not be successful without "appropriate supports" in place. (P-13A, P-13B, P-17C, S-16, S-17, S-18) Ms. Keenan testified that Parent's main concern at the meeting was technology, and she did not raise any questions regarding counseling services or social-emotional supports. (Keenan) At the meeting, classroom struggles were consistently reported in the areas of attention, participation, and interpersonal skills (i.e., speaking to peers in class, speaking without permission), but Student was said to be doing well overall and submitting most of his work on time. Work completion was identified as a strength in most classes, and Student's grades were all in the A to B range. (P-13A, P-13B, P-17C, S-16, S-17, S-18)
The Team proposed an IEP for the period April 4, 2023 to April 3, 2024 (April 2023 IEP) with a Self-Management Goal, C-Grid Academic Support, and placement in a full-inclusion setting at LHS. Accommodations included the use of noise-canceling headphones; support with completing graphic organizers for longer writing assignments; breaking writing tasks into small, manageable chunks; use of technology to organize classwork and homework; access to copies of teacher notes when available, provided Student demonstrated active note-taking; permission for Student to submit assignments electronically after making arrangements with each content teacher regarding the method of submission (e.g., Google Classroom or email); testing in a separate setting or small group; and use of technology on a school-issued device, separate from one issued to all students, for assessments that require more than five sentences of writing. (Keenan, P-13A, P-13B, P-17C, S-16, S-17, S-18) .
Parent testified that because Student was accessing Mr. Rosemond, the District should have included counseling services in the IEP, and that an IEP without a counseling service and corresponding goal was deficient. (Parent) However, the meeting notes reflect no concerns regarding anxiety by staff or Parent, nor any requests to add counseling services. (P-13B) Ms. Keenan did not recall Parent asking for anything other than what the Team proposed. (Keenan) On May 10, 2023[5], Parent rejected the IEP in full but accepted the placement. (S-16)
According to Ms. Keenan, the April 2023 IEP addressed the concerns raised by Student's general education teachers (i.e., deficits in attention, participation, and interpersonal skills). (Keenan, P-13A, P-13B, P-17C, S-17, S-18)
The Team met on May 18, 2023, to discuss the rejected April 2023 IEP. At the meeting, Parent expressed that Student was "twice exceptional" and that her goal was for Student to use his assistive technology to compensate for his deficits. The Team proposed to "move up" Student's re-evaluation. Because Team meetings were becoming contentious, Ms. Keenan offered Parent a facilitated Team meeting, which Parent declined. (Keenan, P-14A, P-14B)
On May 19, 2023, Ms. Keenan sent Parent a consent form and N1 proposing a re-evaluation for Student, including the use of the Feifer Assessment of Writing to evaluate his graphomotor and written expression. (Keenan, P-14A, S-25) Parent did not respond during the 2022-2023 school year. (Keenan)
In June 2023, Parent contacted Ms. Giampietro due to concerns that Student had many missing assignments. Student reported to the District that he was completing the assignments but forgetting to turn them in. (P-50O)
Ms. Giampietro reported that she maintained a positive relationship with Student and that he frequently used her room to "decompress." She observed that he made significant progress, ending the year in a "great place" with a solid social circle formed through the Robotics and Dungeons and Dragons clubs. He earned As and Bs and made progress on his IEP objectives. While she was aware of his general dislike for school and his skepticism regarding its benefit, she did not observe any signs of anxiety or depression. Ms. Giampietro remained in frequent contact with Student's general education teachers and testified that his IEP was appropriate, with no gaps in the delivery of services or accommodations. She felt optimistic about working with Student in tenth grade. (Giampietro, P-12C, P-38B, S-21)
Tenth Grade
In the fall of 2023, Parent wrote to Student's teachers to reiterate Student's accommodations, including access to a "special pass" when Student felt anxious. (P-51A) As the term progressed, Parent became increasingly concerned that Student was "spiraling," struggling with anxiety, work submission, and "interactions" with his English teacher which were "causing anxiety and making him not want to attend school." Student "expressed concern that he was asked [not to] use his IEP accommodations in her class." (Parent, Keenan, P-51D, P-51E, P-51F, S-25) In addition, Student was "not understanding" the content of several classes and complained about the workload. When Parent expressed to Student that the school may not be the right fit, he responded, "[I]t is not the school[.] It is English." (P-43A, P-43B, P-43C) Student was offered to switch English teachers. He declined. (Keenan, Rosemond, S-25)
Katherine Federov, Student's tenth-grade English teacher[6], testified that Student was enrolled in a standard college-preparatory English class centered on choice reading and frequent writing. He was permitted to use headphones, a tablet, and a computer as accommodations. However, Ms. Federov observed that Student often used his headphones to listen to music during class, disengaging from instruction and discussion. He also rearranged his seating to isolate himself from peers he described as "insufferable." Student completed assignments using assistive technology and submitted work electronically, although timely submission remained an ongoing challenge. Ms. Federov collaborated extensively with Student's special education teacher to provide feedback and support work completion. She testified that the academic content was not beyond Student's ability; rather, he resisted the daily writing assignments required for homework. Mr. Rosemond communicated with Ms. Federov almost daily regarding Student's progress. Ms. Federov testified that she was able to read Student's handwriting and encouraged handwritten responses when appropriate, as this allowed her to provide immediate feedback and grades. When assignments were completed electronically, feedback was typically relayed through the special education teacher, to whom Student appeared more receptive. Ms. Federov further testified that she did not single Student out, implemented all required accommodations, and exercised flexibility with respect to late submissions. (Federov, Webber, Rosemond, P-51F)
Student was "vociferous in his disdain for homework." He did not want homework to interfere with his after-school activities and felt that he was a full-time student, but after school, he should not have to do anything school-related. (Giampietro, Rosemond, Keenan, Federov, Webber)
On September 14, 2023, Parent consented to Student's three-year re-evaluation. (Keenan, S-25) Parent subsequently requested additional tests, which Ms. Keenan added to the consent form without asking Parent for another signature. (Keenan)
Also in mid-September, Parent requested that Student be reassigned to a different special education teacher. (S-25, Giampietro, Parent) Parent felt that Ms. Giampietro did not understand Student and was not supportive of his accommodations. (Parent) Ms. Keenan testified that it is "very rare" for her to accommodate a parent's request for a change of special education teacher. Here, she did so because she wanted to offer the family "an olive branch." (Keenan) Matthew Webber assumed the role of Student's special education teacher for the remainder of tenth grade. (Webber)
On October 5, 2023, Mr. Webber emailed Parent reiterating that Student was overscheduled. (S-25)
Because Parent felt that Student was "in crisis", Mr. Webber encouraged Student to meet with the counselor to work through his feelings of being overwhelmed and "struggling." (Rosemond, Keenan, P-43B, P-43C, P-43E, P-51D, P-51E) Ms. Rodriguez testified that, because Parent reported to school staff that Student was "in crisis," she reached out to Student, but he declined to engage. In November, in response to Parent's concern about Student's anxiety, Ms. Rodriguez provided Parent with a list of local mental health providers. (Rodriguez)
In the fall of 2023, Student participated in a three-year reevaluation. (P-45A) Parent was concerned that other than the occupational therapist, none of the evaluators had reached out to her. Ms. Keenan explained to Parent that Ms. Mirer had reached out to Parent because her portion of the evaluations had a home component, but the remaining evaluations were school-based. Ms. Keenan invited Parent to contact other evaluators in advance with any questions and to provide input if she wished. (P-45A, P-51B)
Anne-Marie Tonsing conducted Student's 2021 and 2023 psychoeducational evaluations.[7] Ms. Tonsing does not routinely seek out parents' input because her recommendations are school-based, and her findings and recommendations would not have changed had she received Parent's input. As part of her assessment, Ms. Tonsing reviewed Student's special education file.[8] Ms. Tonsing tested Student over three days. On the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Fifth Edition (WISC-V), Student obtained a Full Scale IQ of 107 (Average, 68th percentile), a General Ability Index of 117 (High Average, 87th percentile), and a Cognitive Proficiency Index of 94 (Average, 34th percentile). Student's Verbal Comprehension Index was Very High at 124, Visual Spatial 108 (Average), Fluid Reasoning 109 (Average), Working Memory 88 (Low Average), and Processing Speed 103 (Average). These results were largely consistent with Longmeadow's re-evaluation completed in March 2021, which also reflected strong verbal and reasoning abilities.[9] Scores were consistent in their variability and the impact of this variability on Student's FSIQ. According to Ms. Tonsing, Student's scores did "not rise to the level of giftedness."
Academic testing on the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Fourth Edition (WIAT-4) indicated high-average math skills (WIAT-4 Mathematics Composite 113; Math Problem Solving 115, Numerical Operations 107) and strong overall reading abilities (Feifer Assessment of Reading (FAR) Total Index 115, Phonological Index 113, Fluency Index 115, Comprehension Index 110), with oral and silent reading fluency scores on the Gray Oral Reading Test- Fifth Edition (GORT-5) in the Significantly Above Average range (Oral Reading Fluency 148; Silent Reading Fluency Rate 136). According to Ms. Tonsing, although Student's writing, assessed via the Feifer Assessment of Writing (FAW), was below average overall (Total Index 85), it was primarily due to graphomotor weaknesses (Graphomotor Index 76), not cognitive factors related to thoughts and ideas. She noted that Student's "ideas were good and his vocabulary was descriptive [but] his writing lacked organization," and he did not address the prompt in his response. In addition, there were multiple spelling, punctuation, and capitalization errors which interfered with the readability of his work." Nevertheless, Student was able to generate sequence ideas, demonstrated average spelling skills, and could even write a story about a topic not of his choosing. None of Student's teachers expressed any concerns regarding his writing ability. When questioned about Student's writing abilities compared to his very strong verbal ability, Ms. Tonsing testified that the two skills were completely different and could not be compared. Executive functioning as measured by Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS) was generally intact, with High Average scores on tasks of cognitive flexibility, design fluency, verbal fluency, problem-solving, and planning. Ms. Tonsing did not endorse a specific learning disability in writing. She testified that had she seen any signs of it, she would have definitely "flagged it." Ms. Tonsing did not conduct any testing specific to autism because "schools don't diagnose autism" and because she had no reason to suspect an autism disability. She did not conduct any testing relative to anxiety, and none of the staff with whom she spoke endorsed the need to do so. Ms. Tonsing recommended having Student use technology to support writing and organization, visual supports to aid working memory for verbal information, and careful reading to maintain comprehension. (Tonsing, P-31A, P-45A,P-45B, P-45C, S-19A)
A speech and language evaluation was completed to assess Student's pragmatic language skills. On the Social Language Development Test–Adolescent: Normative Update, Student's scores were mostly in the average range. His only relative weakness was in Making Inferences (82, Below Average/Borderline), indicating some difficulty matching the intensity of a situation when interpreting others' thoughts from visual cues. Teacher reports supported these findings, as Student generally communicated clearly and could self-advocate in some classes, but often preferred to work independently, participated inconsistently in group work, and at times isolated himself or needed redirection to remain attentive. (P-34A, S-19b)
For the occupational therapy evaluation, Student was evaluated using Clinical Observations, the Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration (VMI-6), the Beery Visual Perception (VP-6), the Beery Motor Coordination (MC-6), the Test of Handwriting Skills–Revised (THS-R), handwriting samples, and an Assistive Technology Screening. On the VMI-6, Student's scores indicated a relative weaknesses in integrating visual and perceptual information with motor output, with average fine-motor control. On the THS-R, his Overall Performance Standard Score was 115 (84th percentile, Above Average), with strengths in copying letters and sentences and writing from dictation (many subtests in the Above Average to Superior range), though he showed a relative weakness in printing numerals from dictation (7, Below Average). During the occupational therapy sensory evaluation, Student showed a sensory pattern characterized by high sensitivity and avoidance. Student relied heavily on noise-canceling headphones and became easily overstimulated. (P-33A, S-19c)
According to the assistive technology screening, Student demonstrated strong independent use of a Chromebook and iPad (keyboarding 45–55 WPM at ~90% accuracy) and effective use of Notability and Google apps for organization and editing. The report recommended "access to Chromebook or technology for longer writing assignments." (P-32A, S-14, S-19d) Ms. Mirer testified at Hearing that although Student has the ability to write legibly in isolation, his other deficits impact his legibility. (Mirer) Ms. Mirer testified that Student's needs could be accommodated at Longmeadow High School. (Mirer)
Parent continued to communicate with the District in late October and November 2023 regarding Student's increasing anxiety and feelings of being overwhelmed. Student frequently reported feeling "not good at school" and often visited the nurse due to nausea. District staff, including Mr. Rosemond and Ms. Keenan, continued to encourage Student to drop the additional math class, which they believed was contributing significantly to his stress. (Rosemond, Keenan, P-51D, P-51E) On November 29, 2023, Ms. Keenan met with Parent to discuss Student's anxiety, and Parent consented to Student dropping the additional math class. (Keenan, P-51D, S-25) Mr. Rosemond subsequently observed a significant emotional "load off" for Student, as the change increased his access to needed support blocks. (Rosemond) Consistent with this, the November 2023 progress report noted that although Student had experienced a "difficult stretch" at the beginning of Quarter 2, he showed improvement in recognizing when he was overwhelmed, accessing supports, and using graphic organizers for longer writing assignments. (P-15D, S-12)
A re-evaluation meeting was held on November 17, 2023, and continued on December 20, 2023. (Keenan, P-15A, P-15-B, P-15C, S-13, S-14, S-15) No classroom observation was completed by the November 17, 2023 meeting due to an oversight by Ms. Keenan. (P-37A) However, Mr. Webber completed the observation before the December 20, 2023, meeting. During the observation, Student had his headphones on and utilized both his iPad and laptop. He responded appropriately when questioned and worked well in a group. A review of his written work showed poor, age-inappropriate penmanship, but his spelling was consistent and good. Mr. Webber noted that Student did not revise his work before submitting the final drafts despite the teacher's input and comments. (Webber, P-37A)
No general education teacher "initialed" the November 2023 Team meeting attendance list. However, Ms. Keenan's contemporaneous notes and testimony at hearing reflect that a general education teacher (though not the same one) was present at both the November and December 2023 meetings. (Keenan, P-15B, S-14, S-15) Ms. Keenan testified that the contentious November meeting began with a review of the evaluations.[10] (Paris-Kro, Keenan) Parent's concerns included Student's anxiety and writing, and she wanted the IEP to include а goal to focus on Student "manage feelings of panic and а growth mindset" and "to be supported in technology" for his executive functioning and writing needs. Student attended the November and December team meetings. He explained that he experienced increased stress when he fell behind. Teachers reported that Student struggled with attention, interpersonal skills, and work completion. (P-15A, P-15B)
On December 20, 2023, the Team determined eligibility and developed an IEP. Student was found eligible under the disability categories of Health (ADHD) and Emotional (anxiety). Although the Team had a "robust conversation" about whether Student had a specific learning disability in writing, Team members agreed that Student's difficulties resulted from graphomotor difficulties and his other disabilities. Student was struggling with English but staying on top of his work. (Keenan, Parent, P-15A, P-15C, S-13, S-14, S-15)
Parent presented no expert opinion or outside reports indicating that Student had a specific learning disability in writing.
Ms. Keenan testified that the Team did not complete the SLD flowchart. According to Ms. Keenan, the flowchart is an inclusionary, not an exclusionary, tool, which is completed when the Team is ruling in, not ruling out, a specific learning disability. Here, the Team considered the question of a SLD diagnosis and the exclusionary factors and concluded that other diagnoses were contributing to Student's writing difficulties. No N2 was issued, but the Team's rejection of the SLD diagnosis was indicated in the N1. Counseling was discussed at the meeting, and Parent indicated she was looking into a private therapist. Counseling was not proposed because Student did not do well with scheduled sessions. (Keenan, P-15A, P-15-B, P-15C, S-13, S-14, S-15) Although Parent testified that she asked for counseling to be included in the IEP at every meeting (Parent), this is not reflected in the meeting notes.
The Team proposed an IEP on December 21, 2023, for the period December 20, 2023 to December 19, 2024 (December 2023 IEP). The December 2023 IEP included accommodations such as the use of noise-canceling headphones to support focus and manage sensory input; access to graphic organizers and breaking longer writing assignments into small, manageable chunks; use of technology to organize classwork and homework; access to copies of teacher notes when available, provided Student demonstrates effort to keep up with note-taking; permission to submit assignments electronically, with the expectation that he coordinate with each content teacher regarding the method of submission (e.g., Google Classroom or email); testing in a separate setting or small group; and use of technology on a school-issued device, separate from one issued to all students, for assessments that require more than 5 sentences of writing. Goals and services focused on Self-Management and Writing Student were offered C Grid Academic Support (7 x 56 minutes, biweekly) in a full inclusion setting at LHS. (P-15A, P-15C, S-13, S-14, S-15)
On January 22, 2024[11], Parent accepted the December 2023 IEP in full. She also accepted the full inclusion placement at Longmeadow High School. (S-14)
Mr. Webber testified that had Student received a diagnosis of a SLD in writing in tenth grade, his writing goal and service would have "looked" the same. (Webber)
In January 2024, Ms. Keenan initiated a request to acquire an iPad with Notability with Apple Pencil accessibility for Student. (Keenan, P-50N, P-51G, P-51H, P-54L) However, the technology department ordered a different stylus, to which Parent objected, despite the IEP not specifying a "brand". The District re-ordered the Parent-preferred Pencil. During this time, Student continued to have access to assistive technology. (Paris-Kro) According to Ms. Keenan and Ms. Paris-Kro, Director of Special Education and Student Services at Longmeadow, the District's agreement to order an iPad and Apple Pencil for Student was "the District "going above and beyond" what Student actually needed. The iPad was Parent's preference only and not recommended by any expert based on need. (Keenan, Paris-Kro)
According to Student's January 2024 Progress Report, Student was making partial progress toward his Self-Management Goal, completing the majority of his classwork and homework and earning mostly As and Bs. (P-15D, S-12)
On February 8, 2024, Parent emailed Mr. Webber expressing concern about "the continual decline of Student's grades," noting she had never seen them "drop this low before" (P-51H). Although Student did not appear outwardly anxious, Parent worried he was in denial and at risk of spiraling. She reported grounding him until his grades improved to at least a C and requested a specific plan to help him catch up. Parent also inquired whether Student had been meeting with the counselor and seeking help from Mr. Webber. (P-51H) Mr. Webber responded that teachers observed ongoing difficulties with focus, attention, and assignment follow-through in class and support blocks. Student's productivity in Academic Support class was inconsistent, and he did not reliably seek or accept help. Although Student recognized his third-quarter grades were low due to missing or incomplete work, he continued to prioritize technology-based decompression over completing assignments or seeking assistance. Mr. Webber had attempted to help Student balance decompression and academic responsibility, but this contributed to Student's difficulties. (Webber, P-51H, P-54B)
Mr. Webber testified that, apart from difficulties in English, Student's primary challenge was assignment submission, which impacted his grades negatively. (Webber, Rosemond, P-51M). While most teachers divided larger assignments into smaller components, and Mr. Webber further assisted Student in breaking tasks down and setting deadlines, Student continued to procrastinate. He also failed to take advantage of opportunities to improve his grades, often submitting rough drafts without revision and not turning in assignments despite extensions. (Webber, Rosemond, P-51M) Mr. Webber had limited opportunities to observe Student's graphomotor skills but noted that Student sometimes chose to complete assessments on paper. He observed Student using graphic organizers effectively to develop and elaborate on ideas, with primary weaknesses in editing and revising. (Webber) Ms. Rodriguez testified that she reached out to Student, who acknowledged he was overwhelmed and not completing work and declined to use academic support time for assignments. She reviewed anxiety-reduction strategies and offered support. (Rodriguez)
Mr. Rosemond testified that Student sought him out more frequently around this time. Student never reported not fitting in at school, had strong relationships with many of his teachers, and had a group of friends from Robotics and Dungeons and Dragons. (Rosemond)
Thomas Landers is the principal of Longmeadow High School and has served in that role for 12 years. He works with teachers to ensure IEPs are implemented but has never attended any of Student's IEP meetings. (Landers) On April 4, 2024, Parent reported to Mr. Landers concerns about Mrs. Fedorov's treatment of Student, which she felt created an unsafe and anxiety-provoking classroom environment. She described an incident where Ms. Fedorov publicly mocked Student for using his noise-canceling headphones, an IEP accommodation, which prompted other students to laugh. Parent also expressed concern regarding humiliating bathroom-use rules that resulted in Student avoiding use of his pass due to fear of comments.[12] (Parent, Keenan, Landers, Webber, Rosemond, P-43A, P-54A, S-25) In her email to Mr. Landers, Parent requested a meeting to amend Student's IEP to address needed accommodations. (Landers, P-54A) Mr. Landers investigated Parent's claims, finding them unsupported. (Landers, Federov, P-52D, P-54A)[13]
Student was again offered the opportunity to switch to another English class, but he adamantly refused. (Keenan, Landers, Webber, Rosemond, P-43A, S-25)
On April 8, 2024, Student was provided with a District-issued iPad, but it was not compatible with the Apple 2 Pencil, and a new device was ordered. Student continued to use his personal iPad, District-issued Chromebook, and District-issued MacBook. (Keenan, S-25, P-51J, P-51N, P-51O)
Before April vacation, Mr. Rosemond facilitated a successful meeting between Student and Ms. Federov. (Landers, Federov, Rosemond, P-52G, P-54A, P-54E, P-54F) However, following April vacation, Student stopped attending English class altogether. (Landers, Rosemond) Ms. Federov testified that she did not know why Student stopped attending her class. (Federov) Per school policy, Student was not allowed to participate in after-school activities due to not attending class. (Landers)
Mr. Rosemond did not see Student much in May 2024. As the Advanced Placement (AP) Test Coordinator, he was largely working in that capacity at the time. (Rosemond)
A meeting was held on n May 3, 2024, identified District records as a "Special Education Team Meeting", to discuss Student's progress. No general education teacher attended the meeting. Ms. Keenan testified that it was not an IEP meeting because no changes were made. At the meeting, the Team discussed Student's difficulties in English, and Parent raised concerns about delayed technology supports and requested an accommodation of extended time. Student declined the accommodation. As such, the Team rejected the request but agreed to collect data on task initiation. The Team also confirmed a technology device had been ordered. An N2 was issued regarding the rejected accommodation. (Webber, Keenan, P-16A, P-16B, S-7, S-10, S-11) Mr. Webber did not recall collecting data on task initiation and focus following the meeting. (Webber, Keenan) Ms. Keenan testified that no meeting was scheduled to review any data, but staff were having informal meetings about Student's issues with English class, and data collection was less of a priority. (Keenan)
Mr. Webber testified that Parent raised technology at every meeting and strongly preferred Student have an iPad with a Pencil. He stated that although Student had consistent access to assistive technology he did not consistently use it. Student never indicated that he needed different services or accommodations. Teachers' notes were provided to him, and teachers were very flexible with late assignments. (Webber) Ms. Keenan testified that schools cannot force students to use accommodations and that Student's input must be considered in IEP development. The dispute concerned Student's personal device; however, he always had access to three school devices. No evaluator had recommended Parent's preferred device, and it was not included in the IEP. The District ordered it based on preference, not necessity. (Keenan)
On May 5, 2024, Student was provided with a new iPad, but it was not compatible with the Pencil. (P-51N, P-51O)
On May 16, 2024, Parent made a student records request. Records were provided on June 4, 2024. On June 6, Parent requested a review of the entire file. On June 10, 204, a meeting was scheduled for record review on June 18. The request and production were supplemented multiple times. On August 9, 2024, Ms. Paris-Kro indicated that all records have been provided to Parent. (Paris-Kro, P-543A, P-53B, P-54G, P-54H, S-25)
On or about May 17, 2024, Parent told Ms. Keenan that because Student was having panic attacks in Ms. Federov's class, he would no longer attend it. Ms. Keenan testified that "everyone on the Team was concerned about" Student who, reported to her, a "high level of anxiety regarding English," stating that it was "unfair" to have a large workload in English while he was also doing MCAS and had to study for an AP exam. Mr. Webber also testified that the last quarter of 10th grade was stressful for Student as he had missed a lot of work, had an upcoming AP exam, and MCAS. Ms. Keenan offered for Ms. Rodriguez to meet with Student before English class to encourage his attendance. Ms. Keenan testified that the Team discussed concerns about Student often, including with Parent. (Webber, Keenan, Landers, P-52C, P-54C) Student continued to miss English class into June 2024. (P-39E)
On May 20, 2024, a new iPad Pro was assigned and deployed to Student. (P-51P)
On May 31, 2024, Mr. Webber updated Parent on Student's English assignments. Because of missing assignments, Student's Quarter 4 grade was 32, reducing his final grade for the year to 61[14]. (Landers, Webber, P-52E, P-52F, P-52H, P-54D)
On June 4, 2024, Parent requested that Student be allowed to stay in Mr. Webber's room during English, have tutoring in lieu of Ms. Federov's class, attend English virtually, be assigned a different English teacher, or finish English over the summer. (P-54D) According to Parent, she was told to dismiss Student from English class, and this was "the last straw" in her decision to seek an alternate placement for Student. (Parent)
Ms. Keenan testified that she did not encourage Parent to dismiss Student from English class but rather explained that a parent had the right to verify an absence, making it an excused rather than an unexcused absence. (Keenan)
On June 7, 2024, Ms. Keenan wrote to Parent to follow up on their May 17 conversation, as she had not heard from Parent after having e-mailed her on both March 20 and 21, 2024. (Keenan, P-52B) Ms. Keenan stated she could not make unilateral decisions about accommodations. She noted that Student had declined two teacher-switch offers, was passing English with 11 classes remaining, and that moving to an online course would require restarting the semester, thus adding workload, which Ms. Keenan believed would be counterproductive. If Student later failed English, summer credit-recovery options would be available. She offered Student support to attend English, including in-class special education assistance and counseling. Ms. Keenan offered Parent a team meeting if she wished to have one. (Keenan, P-52B)
Ms. Keenan did not reconvene the Team because she was in constant communication with Parent and Team members, and Parent did not request one. Ms. Keenan did not consider proposing a functional behavior assessment to address Student's avoidance behaviors. (Keenan, Parent)
Mr. Webber testified that Student's C-Grid services were appropriate and that Student would not have benefited from B-Grid support. While Student was in class, he was keeping up. In addition, Student would not have been receptive to additional support in the classroom. (Webber)
Student's end-of-year grades included a D- in English, a C in Computer Science, and a C+ in chemistry, the latter two reflecting poor performance on midterm assessments. All his other grades were As and Bs. (P-38C, P-38F, P-38G, P-43A, P-43B, P-43C, P-43E, P-52G, P-52H) According to Mr. Webber, Student made partial progress in his end-of-year progress report, as he was using organizational and executive function strategies and demonstrated an ability to expand on ideas and cite evidence in writing. (Webber, P-15D)
Although Parent alleged that Ms. Federov improperly changed Student's final grade from 57 to 60, Mr. Landers investigated and concluded that Student had earned the grade. (Landers, P-38G) Because Student passed English, he was not eligible for grade recovery. (Parent)
The 2023-2024 school year ended on June 12, 2024. (P-39A)
In a letter dated June 27, 2024, Parent inquired about an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) and requested an out-of-district placement for Student at FlexSchool – Cloud Campus, with continued eligibility for extracurricular activities at Longmeadow High School. (P-19D, P-40C, P-40E, P-40F) Ms. Paris-Kro denied the request. (Paris-Kro) On July 29, 2024, Ms. Paris-Kro informed Parent that she may choose any independent evaluator who adhered to the Massachusetts rate-setting and offered to help locate an evaluator. Ms. Pari-Kro explained that a placement change would require a Team meeting once school was back in session, and she proposed to reconvene the Team within the first 10 days of school. (P-54H)
On August 14, 2024, Parent enrolled Student at the FlexSchool.[15] (P-40E) On August 16, 2024, she formally withdrew Student from Longmeadow. (P-19B, P-53D) (Landers, P-53F)
Staff at Longmeadow High School testified that they were "shocked" when Parent withdrew Student. Ms. Paris-Kro expressed concern that FlexSchool is an unapproved, fully virtual program and more restrictive than any placement proposed by the IEP Team. Ms. Federov testified that a virtual setting was inappropriate given Student's tendency to isolate and stressed the importance of peer interaction, particularly where classroom accommodations were available. Mr. Landers similarly testified that Student could have been educated successfully at Longmeadow High School. According to Mr. Webber, Student was capable of making effective progress at LHS and did not require placement at FlexSchool to do so. He expressed concern about the lack of in-person social interaction at FlexSchool and opined that an in-person program was necessary to support Student's social-emotional well-being. (Webber, Keena, Rosemond, Paris-Kro, Federov, Landers)
On June 28, 2024, Parent formally rejected Student's last accepted IEP (December 2023 IEP) and the 2023 psychological evaluation conducted by Longmeadow High School.[16] (P-19A) The Team did not reconvene at the time of Parent's rejection, because school had ended, and the Team was unavailable during the summer. (Paris-Kro)
Parent presented no private evaluations to the Team during Student's tenure at Longmeadow. (Keenan)
Parent has never observed Student at Longmeadow High School. (Parent)
On July 29, 2024, Parent provided Longmeadow with a formal "10-day Notice of Intent to Outplace Student at FlexSchool – Cloud Campus" and requested public reimbursement for the unilateral placement. (P-19E, P-19-F, S-7, S-9) The Notice did not include notice of intent to seek reimbursement for Mr. Lassoff's therapy services.
Eleventh Grade
Due to a clerical oversight, no IEP was developed for Student in December 2024 following the expiration of the December 2023 IEP. (Paris-Kro) The Team did not convene until April 2025.
FlexSchool is a private school serving gifted and twice-exceptional (2e) students in grades K–12, accredited by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, the National Independent Private School Association, and the National Council for Private School Accreditation. It operates two physical campuses in New York and New Jersey and a live virtual "Cloud Campus" accessible worldwide. Its mission is to provide safe, inclusive, strengths-based environments where students develop their talents while receiving support for challenges. FlexSchool provides synchronous instruction and places students by ability. rather than age. in small, discussion-based classes taught at honors or high-honors levels. While AP courses are not formally offered, comparable material is covered and many students take AP exams. The program emphasizes talent development, academic choice, and real-world connections through experiential learning (e.g., field trips and guest speakers). Students receive individualized Learning Profiles, daily small-group advisory for executive functioning, supported study halls, learning specialist support, social-emotional learning, and access to counseling. Classroom accommodations include small class sizes, flexible movement breaks, alternative assessments, in-class work time, structured teacher support, executive functioning coaching, and social-pragmatic support. Additional services (e.g., one-to-one counseling, speech, or occupational therapy) are available for an added fee. FlexSchool implements IEPs for students who are publicly placed and have an IEP. The Cloud Campus serves 42 students in grades 3–12. Many teachers hold state certification and master's degrees in education; some have graduate training in gifted or special education. All staff receive extensive professional development focused on 2e learners. Tuition for 2024–2025 was $41,500. (Henwood, P-40A, P-40B, P-40E, P-40F, P-44A)
Admissions at FlexSchool are holistic, and Student was accepted based on his neuropsychological evaluation, interview, and "shadow day." Student began attending FlexSchool at the start of the 2024–2025 school year. (Henwood)
Lynn Henwood, Head of the Cloud Campus, holds a master's degree in educational psychology with a concentration in giftedness, creativity, and talent development. (Henwood, P-40A, P-40B, P-40E, P-40F, P-44A) She "has not seen" a public school successfully educate a 2e student and believes that FlexSchool is the least restrictive environment for such students because it allows them to access their education and learning without the anxiety of a public-school setting. (Henwood)
On April 16, 2025[17], the Team convened to develop an IEP. Neither Student nor FlexSchool staff attended, but Parent provided Longmeadow with FlexSchool's records. (Ms. Paris-Kro, P-17A, S-7, S-8) Parent reported that since enrolling at FlexSchool, Student had made significant academic and social-emotional progress, showing reduced panic, increased confidence, and greater independence. Parent requested placement at FlexSchool and asked that Student regain eligibility to participate in extracurricular activities at Longmeadow. (Parent, P-17B, P-41, S-8)
The Team reviewed Student's performance data from FlexSchool. (S-7, S-8; P-16D, P-17B, P-38D, S-8) On MAP testing, Student showed high growth in math and average growth in English. (P-36A) Report cards reflected improved skills in writing and executive functioning, including stronger planning, revision, and self-monitoring, with consistently high performance across subjects and strong discussion, research, visual, and problem-solving skills. However, Student continued to need support with time management, task initiation, sustained productivity, and written expression, and was working toward greater independence, participation, and confidence in presentations. (Parent, P-38D, P-38E)The Team proposed an IEP for the period April 16, 2025 to April 15, 2026 (April 2025 IEP) with the following accommodations: breaking writing assignments into small, manageable chunks using graphic organizers, guided notes, and multisensory teaching techniques; reinforcing verbal information with visual supports and clarifying test directions as needed; allowing Student to use assistive technology and digital tools to organize ideas, produce longer written work, and submit assignments electronically; support with completing organizers for extended writing tasks; not penalizing spelling errors on demand to reduce anxiety; offering frequent check-ins with a teacher or aide; scheduling breaks to support attention and self-regulation; access to noise-canceling headphones; and administration of tests in a separate, small-group setting with advance notice to instructional and support staff. The District also proposed a school-issued iPad, preloaded with a note-taking application, to support Student's written expression needs during class activities and assignments requiring written responses of more than five sentences. Parent requested the addition of extended time on classroom assignments as an accommodation in the proposed IEP, but the Team rejected this request. (P-17A, S-7) The IEP contained goals in the areas of Social/Emotional/Behavior, Executive Writing and Education/Training.[18] The Team proposed C-Grid services (Academic Support 7x56 minutes per 8-day schedule and 30 minutes of social service work monthly) and a full inclusion placement at LHS. (Paris-Kro, P-17A, S-7, S-8) The District did not provide Parent with two copies of the proposed IEP within five days of the meeting. (Parent) Ms. Paris-Kro testified that Parent's only objection to the April 2025 IEP was that it did not designate FlexSchool as Student's placement. Parent testified that the IEP would have been appropriate only if it specified FlexSchool and that, due to a loss of trust, Student could not return to Longmeadow High School. (Parent)
Nicole Kassissieh, Psy.D., has had an extensive career conducting neuropsychological, psychological, and academic assessments. (Kassissieh, P-44C) In April 2025, Dr. Kassissieh completed a private comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation of Student. (Kassissieh , P-38A) According to Dr. Kassissieh, Student demonstrated exceptional strengths in verbal knowledge, fluid reasoning, visual–spatial skills (when organization was not required), math concepts, and multiple-choice reading comprehension. On the WAIS, his full-scale IQ was 111, in the high-average range. [19] Student however showed significant weaknesses in visual-motor integration, working memory, visual memory, organization, and fine motor output, which severely limited his ability to express knowledge in written format. Specifically, on the Written Expression subtest of the KTEA-3 Academic Achievement Test, Student scored in the 8th percentile (SS 79, Very Low range). His score for Sentence Combining on the WIAT-IV was in the 10th percentile (SS 81), and he struggled formulating sentences with all the necessary information. Capitalization, punctuation, and legibility were problematic, and, although Student's Spelling score was average, there was inconsistency in his ability to recall and execute the right letter groups or spelling rules. Dr. Kassissieh concluded that this would make it hard for Student to spell at the expected level when writing lengthier passages. In addition, Student's score on the Sentence Writing Fluency test was in the 34th percentile, and he refused to do the open-ended essay task from the WIAT-IV. According to Dr. Kassissieh, Student met diagnostic criteria for: Specific Learning Disorder with impairment in Written Expression; ADHD, Combined Type; Executive Functioning Deficits; Autism Spectrum Disorder, Level 1[20] with symptoms of anxiety[21] and depression related to school stress.
Dr. Kassissieh explained that the Specific Learning Disorder with impairment in Written Expression was evidenced by over two standard deviations between Student's 8th percentile Written Expression score and his 90th percentile verbal cognitive potential. The disability was due to working memory, visual memory, organization and language formulation challenges intersecting with each other. Student's writing was laborious, illegible, and fatiguing, which resulted in limited expression, emotional reactivity and avoidance when writing. Mistakes and/or low scores (10th - 1st percentile) in Beery-VMI[22], ROCF, Coding, Written Expression, and Sentence Composition showed the depth and scope of the disability. These difficulties prevented him from demonstrating his true knowledge through handwritten work.
In Dr. Kassissieh's opinion, Student required assistive technology, reduced handwriting demands, explicit instruction in writing organization, executive functioning support, social-emotional and pragmatic skills intervention, and a small, flexible, neurodiversity-affirming educational environment.
Dr. Kassissieh explained that the Autism Spectrum Disorder, Level 1 diagnosis was evidenced by Student's concrete thinking, difficulty reading social cues, difficulty reading between the lines, scripted speech, evidence of camouflaging (adapting to societal norms), and trouble with flexibility.
According to Dr. Kassissieh, Student's profile was best understood as Twice Exceptional (2e), that is, gifted with co-occurring disabilities, which was evidenced by the diversity of his scores. Student had "clusters" of very high scores and others at the very "low end." Dr. Kassissieh testified that it is "very hard" for 2e learners to be in a "typical classroom." A 2e learner can show very strong skills in isolation, but not when these skills must be integrated. (Kassissieh, P-35A)
Dr. Kassissieh stressed that Student could not be expected to make effective progress without the removal of handwriting demands in his educational plan. Access to counseling, use of assistive technology, and appropriate academic support were essential to help Student manage the demands of the school and the variability in his Twice-Exceptional profile.
She recommended a small group size (no more than 10:1 student-to-teacher ratio) to ensure students could ask questions as needed and receive individualized attention, and where Executive Functioning training, Social Skills development and Emotional Regulation accommodations and interventions were provided without Student having to move in and out of his cohort. The setting should be steeped in the philosophy that children do well when they can and that problematic behavior reflects a lack of necessary skills, rather than a lack of will. Student required staff trained in the dynamics behind Twice Exceptionality, specifically how to address the emotional, academic and social needs of students with both giftedness, ADHD, Executive Function Disorder, and Autism. To prevent Student from being overwhelmed by emotions, Student also required classes that incorporate check-ins, with embedded language about identifying and shifting feeling states.
Student further needed to be a paperless student for academic activities that required more than a single word of writing. He also required social-emotional supports to teach and reinforce coping mechanisms and specialized intervention in social pragmatics. (Kassissieh, P-35A)
Dr. Kassissieh recommended carefully selected peers and teachers to ensure a safe, welcoming, neurodiverse-affirming environment; scaffolding for reading comprehension (previewing, guiding questions, graphic organizers); repeated instructions with 1:1 check-ins for understanding; opportunities for spontaneous clarification in small, open-question class settings; lecture handouts, recording, note-taking apps, and appropriate devices, with tools such as SnapType Pro or Notability; graphic-focused assignments, text-to-speech, and freedom to type using apps such as MindMeister and Evernote; access to audio readers and text-to-speech software; presentation of long assignments and projects in clearly defined steps to support organization, planning, and task completion; flexible deadlines with support for meeting interim goals and estimating time realistically; step-wise instruction for complex tasks using visual organizers, cue cards, and routines; alternative methods to demonstrate knowledge; access to high-interest peer groups to foster belonging and self-esteem; a sensorily appropriate environment with reduced noise, crowds, and overload; allowing extended wait time for verbal responses; participation in district-based social activities to support community, interests, and relationships; and 50% extended time on all timed assessments to accommodate challenges in attention, organization, working memory, and integration, even with the benefit of assistive technology. (Kassissieh, P-35A) Dr. Kassissieh did not specify that Student required an iPad with Apple 2 pencil.
Dr. Kassissieh did not speak to any Longmeadow staff prior to making her recommendations nor did she observe LHS. She received her input from Parent, which she testified was standard practice. According to Dr. Kassissieh, Student's experience is "paramount," and it is not "unheard of" that teachers believe that students are making effective progress while students have internal experiences of which teachers are unaware. (Kassissieh)
Ms. Tonsing disagreed with Dr. Kassissieh's diagnoses of a Specific Learning Disability in writing and autism. She found it perplexing that, on the WIAT, Dr. Kassissieh reported only the Spelling score, rather than the two scores usually reported for Sentence Combining. Dr. Kassissieh did not provide a written language composite score on the KTEA. According to Ms. Tonsing, Dr. Kassissieh conducted "random" parts of tests, with none "form[ing] a composite" score. Moreover, Dr. Kassissieh did not speak with any LHS teachers or staff. A SLD, in writing, is a disability that typically manifests in school, making teacher input particularly important. Regarding the autism diagnosis, Dr. Kassissieh relied on conversations with Parent and Student and did not complete the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS), which is standard for an autism diagnosis, and which typically relies on more than one reporter. (Tonsing)
Based on her observation of one pre-recorded FlexSchool class, a review of Student's materials, and a review of the FlexSchool program description, Dr. Kassissieh "endorsed FlexSchool as a more appropriate educational environment for Student than his 9th - 10th grade program."[23] She noted the decline in grades during 10th grade and the clear "emotional strain" Student experienced at his prior placement, contrasting it with the FlexSchool's warm environment that allowed for personal expression without fear of being picked on by peers. Dr. Kassissieh relied solely on Parent's and Student's reports as to the emotional toll of LHS on him. (Kassissieh, P-35A)
According to Dr. Kassissieh, it is "possible but not common" that a public school can educate a 2e student, and it is "well known" that 2e students "have a hard time in public schools." Based on how Student felt about LHS, as well as the decline in his grades and social-emotional functioning while attending LHS, LHS was not appropriate for Student. Dr. Kassissieh testified that "things [at LHS] stopped working " and "there [was no] an appropriate response." (Kassissieh)
Ms. Tonsing disagreed with Dr. Kassissieh's opinion that public schools cannot service 2e students. (Tonsing)
Dr. Kassissieh opined that Student needs peers who are similar to him in cognitive ability and with whom he can connect and be himself. She expressed no concern about the virtual nature of FlexSchool, testifying that for many neurodivergent students it is beneficial not to have "to deal with" the sensory overload of in-person school. She testified that "not everyone is built to be social all day," and "life after high school can be online." She endorsed Student participating in in-person after school activities at the high school. These activities need not be virtual because they are "self-selected." (Kassissieh)
On May 17, 2025[24], Parent rejected the April 2025 IEP and full inclusion placement at LHS, asserting that the April 2025 IEP failed to accurately reflect Student's academic and social-emotional history and current needs; omitted mentioning the significant academic decline Student experienced at LHS; failed to credit the gains made as a result of appropriate placement at FlexSchool; failed to include accommodations such as small, supportive classes, clearly defined assistive technology, appropriate assessments, and extended time; and failed to indicate FlexSchool as Student's placement. Parent also challenged the adequacy of the proposed goals, indicating that Goal 1 (Social/Emotional/Behavior) lacked accurate baseline data and relevance; Goal 3 (Writing) failed to address Student's reliance on assistive technology and graphomotor dysgraphia; and Goal 4 (Education/Training) disregarded Student's long-standing participation in IEP meetings and the trauma and hostility associated with past meetings. (Parent, P-18B, S-8)
On June 2, 2025, Parent provided the District with Dr. Kassissieh's report and requested funding for the neuropsychological evaluation. (Parent, Paris-Kro, S-26) This was the first and only private evaluation Parent provided to the District during the relevant timeframe. (Parent)
The last day of school at Longmeadow was June 13, 2025. The Team did not convene to review the IEE during the summer. (Paris-Kro, P-39B. S-26)
Twelfth Grade
LHS resumed classes on August 26, 2025. Due to an illness, Ms. Paris-Kro first communicated with Parent on September 9, 2025, proposing September dates for a meeting. Parent responded, requesting a facilitated team meeting. A facilitated meeting on October 27, 2025 was proposed by the BSEA facilitator, and the meeting was scheduled for that date. (Paris-Kro)
On October 27, 2025, the Team reconvened, reviewed the IEE, and proposed an Amendment to the April 2025 IEP, updating Student's educational profile to include eligibility under Autism, Emotional Impairment, Health Impairment, and Specific Learning Disability. Accommodations included structured, scaffolded instruction with assignments broken into manageable steps; visual and multisensory supports; assistive and digital technology for writing and organization; frequent teacher check-ins and breaks for attention and emotional regulation; flexible and supportive classroom groupings; access to noise-reducing tools; adapted assignments; electronic submission options; small-group or separate testing with advance notice; up to 50% extended time on timed assessments; and a District-managed iPad equipped with note-taking applications, organizational tools, and audio reading software to support access to the curriculum and written expression for assignments requiring responses longer than five sentences. Goals were proposed in the areas of Social-Emotional/Behavioral, Executive Functioning, and Writing. Services included Academic support (7x56 minutes biweekly) and Counseling (30 minutes monthly).
The Team rejected Parent's request to revise the anticipated graduation date to June 2027 on the grounds that Student's graduation requirements and timelines remained aligned with his progress, and there was no substantiated evidence demonstrating а denial of FAPE or regression requiring а change in the current graduation date of June 2026. The request to include access to extracurricular activities in the IEP was also denied. The Team further rejected the request for an out-of-district placement. (Paris-Kro, P-59C, S-5, S-26, S-27)
Ms. Paris-Kro testified that the update to Student's profile in the IEP did not significantly alter the goals, accommodations, or services proposed for Student. The Team included the diagnosis of Autism Level 1 and Specific Learning Disability in Writing in an effort to reach consensus. (Paris-Kro)
On November 4, 2025, the Team proposed to reimburse Parent $5,460.00 for the full cost of the IEE. Ms. Paris-Kro testified that the Team did not agree with all of Dr. Kassissieh's findings and recommendations but found the report "valuable." (Paris-Kro, S-4)
On November 17, 2025, the District proposed compensatory services for Student to address the lapse in the IEP from December 20, 2024, to April 16, 2025, to include tutoring focused on developing skills like planning, organization, and self-regulation, twice per week for 16 weeks either virtually or at the Office of Pupil Services. Upon completion of the 16-week period, the Team planned to reconvene to review Student's progress, determine the effectiveness of the compensatory services, and consider whether any additional support or adjustments to his IEP were warranted. (Paris-Kro, S-3) Ms. Paris-Kro testified that she relied on Student's IEP in determining the amount of compensatory education to offer. She did not reconvene the Team to discuss compensatory services. (Paris-Kro)
On November 25, 2025, Parent requested correction of Student's records, including his English grade. (P-53G)
On December 21, 2025, via a 53-page document, Parent rejected the Amended April 2025 IEP and full inclusion placement at LHS. (Paris-Kro P-58A, P-58B, P-58C)
Student has had a very strong start to his senior year at FlexSchool, demonstrating high engagement, intellectual curiosity, and steady growth across academic, creative, and social-emotional areas. Socially-emotionally, he has shown strong self-regulation, resilience, and citizenship, with continued growth in self-advocacy and consistent participation. (P-16D, P-38E) Student "feels that he has been improving in his ability to ask for help and that virtual school has lowered the barrier here to make it easier. He has developed a great relationship with some of his teachers and feels comfortable communicating with them about problems in school and outside." Student has improved in his written expression and is open to accepting help. (P-16D)
David Lassoff is Student's therapist and has been since June 2022, seeing him via a virtual platform mostly weekly. Mr. Lassoff is a licensed mental health counselor. He also works as a school adjustment counselor at an alternative school. (Lassoff, P-44B) Although Student was first referred to Mr. Lassoff for a different reason, once school started in the fall of 2022, sessions centered on school related issues. According to Mr. Lassoff, Student was "not a fan of school"; felt "insecure about his position in school"; and lacked self-esteem. He often felt overwhelmed and was "confused" about what he could do to feel less so. He had a small group of friends and participated in after school activities but did not have much interaction with the group outside of school. Student often reported shame and stated that he needed to do better. The school environment at Longmeadow was a struggle for Student. Student was excited about transitioning to FlexSchool, especially about having a "new start". Since attending FlexSchool, Student has become less anxious and stressed and is able to talk about things other than school, although he is still anxious about the future. Although Mr. Lassoff's license allows him to diagnose autism, he does not typically do so. However, he believes the diagnosis is appropriate for Student as he is socially awkward and manifests "other symptoms." According to Dr. Lassoff, FlexSchool is appropriate for Student due to his social anxiety. Although Student is "upset" that he cannot participate in robotics, he is happier, less overwhelmed, and more confident now. (Lassoff)
Parent testified that Student is now engaged and successful, despite a heavy course load, due to the built-in supports and small classes at FlexSchool. Parent testified that Student's Service Plan there differs from Longmeadow's IEP because the educational settings are not the same. She further testified that she is not seeking an IEP or any specific IEP services for Student. Rather, she seeks only District funding for Student's placement at FlexSchool. (Parent)
Parent did not request reimbursement for Mr. Lassoff's services until the first day of the hearing. (Paris-Kro)
According to Parent, Student will not graduate from FlexSchool at the end of the 2025-2026 school year because he needs another year of writing remediation before college. (Parent) During the hearing, Parent declined the District's offer of compensatory services. She asserted that any compensatory relief should take the form of additional time at FlexSchool, including postponing Student's graduation date and requiring the District to fund an additional year at FlexSchool. She further seeks reimbursement for Student's 11th- and 12th-grade tuition. (Parent)
DISCUSSION
Legal Standards
Free Appropriate Public Education in the Least Restrictive Environment
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was enacted "to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education" (FAPE).[25] To provide a student with a FAPE, a school district must follow identification, evaluation, program design, and implementation practices that ensure that each student with a disability receives an IEP that is: custom tailored to the student's unique learning needs; "reasonably calculated to confer a meaningful educational benefit"; and ensures access to and participation in the general education setting and curriculum as appropriate for that student so as "to enable the student to progress effectively in the content areas of the general curriculum."[26] Under state and federal special education law, a school district has an obligation to provide the services that comprise FAPE in the "least restrictive environment" (LRE).[27] This means that to the maximum extent appropriate, a student must be educated with other students who do not have disabilities, and that "removal . . . from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability of a child is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services, cannot be achieved satisfactorily."[28] "The goal, then, is to find the least restrictive educational environment that will accommodate the child's legitimate needs."[29]
The IEP must be individually tailored for the student for whom it is created.[30] When developing the IEP, the Team must consider parental concerns; the student's strengths, disabilities, recent evaluations and present level of achievement; the academic, developmental and functional needs of the child; and the child's potential for growth.[31] Evaluating an IEP requires viewing it as a "a snapshot, not a retrospective. In striving for 'appropriateness,' an IEP must take into account what was . . . objectively reasonable . . . at the time the IEP was promulgated."[32]
At the same time, FAPE does not require a school district to provide special education and related services that will maximize a student's educational potential,[33] and appropriate progress will look different depending on the student.[34] An individual analysis of a student's progress in his/her areas of need is key.[35] The educational services provided to a student, therefore, need not be, "the only appropriate choice, or the choice of certain selected experts, or the child's parents' first choice, or even the best choice."[36]
Implementation Failures
"[H]earing officers are precluded from revisiting or re-opening accepted IEPs that have expired where parents participated in the development of the IEP. The purpose of this rule is plain; deciding upon which goals and methods to include in any student's IEP is not an exact science, and allowing parents to second guess IEP decisions after it has expired would only undermine the process of providing students with the educational services they need."[37] Nevertheless, "[t]o provide a free and appropriate public education to a student with disabilities, the school district must not only develop the IEP, but it also must implement the IEP in accordance with its requirements."[38] Where an IEP has been accepted in full and has expired, the analysis focuses on implementation.[39] The generally adopted standard requires "more than a de minimis failure" to prevail on an implementation claim under the IDEA.[40] Specifically,
"a court reviewing failure-to-implement claims under the IDEA must ascertain whether the aspects of the IEP that were not followed were 'substantial or significant,' or, in other words, whether the deviations from the IEP's stated requirements were 'material.' A material failure occurs when there is more than a minor discrepancy between the services a school provides to a disabled child and the services required by the child's IEP. This standard does not require that the child suffer demonstrable educational harm in order to prevail; rather, courts applying the materiality standard have focused on the proportion of services mandated to those actually provided, and the goal and import (as articulated in the IEP) of the specific service that was withheld."[41]
Courts have found FAPE violations where (1) the "failure" to implement was "complete"; (2) the variance from the special education and related services specified in the IEP deprived the student of a FAPE; and (3) the provision of special education and related services failed to enable the student to make "progress" toward the achievement of the goals stated in the IEP.[42]
Child Find
The Child Find "obligation applies to a school district regardless of whether the parent (or anyone else on behalf of the student) has actually requested special education eligibility or services."[43] Child Find does not, however, require a school district to evaluate a student whose parent has not requested such evaluation, even if the district is aware of the student's disability, if the district has insufficient reason to believe the disability has an adverse impact on the student's educational performance, such that the student needs special education and related services because of the disability.[44]
The IDEA's Child Find provision does not "demand that schools conduct a formal evaluation of every struggling student."[45] "A school's failure to diagnose a disability at the earliest possible moment is not per se actionable, in part because some disabilities 'are notoriously difficult to diagnose ….'"[46] To establish a violation of the Child Find requirement, plaintiffs "must show that school officials overlooked clear signs of disability and were negligent in failing to order testing, or that there was no rational justification for not deciding to evaluate."[47]
Reimbursement for Private Placement
When parents elect to place a student unilaterally in a private school notwithstanding the availability of a FAPE through the school district, parents retain responsibility for the cost of that education.[48] However, parents who enroll a student in a private school without the consent of or referral by the school district may obtain reimbursement if a hearing officer finds both that the school district "had not made FAPE available to the child in a timely manner prior to that enrollment and that the private placement is appropriate" for the student.[49]
Parents are entitled to reimbursement for a private placement if (1) the school district's proposed placement violated the IDEA, and (2) the parent's alternative private placement was appropriate.[50] In other words, parents may be entitled to reimbursement for their unilateral placement if, after demonstrating that the district's proposed IEP and placement were not appropriate, they demonstrate that their chosen placement was appropriately responsive to the student's needs. To be reimbursed, parents' chosen placement need not meet state standards for special education schools, provided that the school chosen by the parents is "otherwise proper" under the IDEA or "appropriately responsive to [the child's] special needs."[51] Parents "need only demonstrate that the placement provides 'educational instruction specially designed to meet the unique needs of a handicapped child, supported by such services as are necessary to permit the child to benefit from instruction."[52] Hence, the review of the private placement "is more informal than review of the original IEP: a private placement need not meet the IDEA requirement for a FAPE."[53]
Although evidence of a child's success at the unilateral placement is relevant to the court's review, such evidence does not itself demonstrate that a private placement was appropriate; rather the Hearing Officer must assess the "totality of the circumstances." [54]
Burden of Persuasion
In a due process proceeding, the burden of proof is on the moving party.[55] If the evidence is closely balanced, the moving party will not prevail.[56] In the instant case, Parent bears this burden.
Application of Legal Standards[57]:
It is not disputed that Student is a student with a disability who is entitled to special education services under state and federal law. The fundamental issues in dispute are set out under ISSUES IN DISPUTE, supra.
I first address the credibility of the witnesses. I found Ms. Giampietro, Ms. Keenan, Mr. Webber, and Mr. Rosemond to be highly knowledgeable regarding Student and his unique needs. Their genuine care and commitment to Student were evident through both their testimony and the documentary record. These staff demonstrated professional expertise and a consistent focus on supporting Student, and their testimony was credible and persuasive. Ms. Tonsing also provided thoughtful, balanced, and credible testimony concerning Student's cognitive and academic testing. The results of her assessments were corroborated by the observations and testimony of District staff, further strengthening the reliability of her conclusions. With limited exceptions noted in the Decision, infra, Ms. Tonsing's testimony was largely consistent with and supported by the documentary evidence. Parent, too, was a credible witness.
In contrast, I found Dr. Kassissieh's testimony to reflect bias, and accordingly, her testimony was less persuasive. In particular, her statements regarding the general inappropriateness of public school placements for twice-exceptional students were overly broad and failed to reflect an individualized approach to Student's needs. For the same reasons, Ms. Henwood's testimony about the general inability of public schools to adequately educate the twice-exceptional population was unpersuasive and lacked credibility. Both witnesses demonstrated a limited perspective that did not sufficiently account for the variation among twice-exceptional students or the potential of individualized programming within public school settings.
I now turn to the procedural claims delineated in the issues for hearing.[58]
2022-2023: Ninth Grade
Procedural Claims
Implementation Claims
In assessing whether the District implemented Student's accepted IEPs (the March 2022 IEP, as Amended, and the December 2023 IEP), I must
"consider implementation as a whole in light of the IEP's overall goals. That means that [I] consider the cumulative impact of [any] implementation failures when those failures, though minor in isolation, conspire to amount to something more. In an implementation case, the question is not whether the school has materially failed to implement an individual provision in isolation, but rather whether the school has materially failed to implement the IEP as a whole. Cumulative analysis is therefore built into the materiality standard itself."[59]
Due to the statute of limitations, I examine Parent's implementation claims arising only from March 21, 2023. Parent's ninth-grade implementation claims allege that Student was denied access to technology for assessments, discouraged from using assistive technology, and not provided his preferred technology. However, the fully accepted March 2022 IEP did not provide for the use of technology during assessments, much less specify any particular technology, nor did it specify the type of technology Student required.[60] When Parent later raised concerns about Student's access to technology, the Team reconvened in November 2022 and amended the IEP to clarify that Student could use assistive technology for assessments. The amended IEP did not identify any specific device, and no evaluator had recommended a particular form of technology at that time. The Apple Pencil and iPad were Parent's preferred tools, but the 2021 evaluations did not specifically recommend them. Moreover, there is no evidence that, as of March 21, 2023, Student was denied access to assistive technology, only that the assistive technology provided to Student may not have been the specific technology preferred by Parent.
Parent also asserted that Student was not permitted to take breaks. However, the March 2022 IEP did not include breaks as an accommodation. When the IEP was amended in November 2022, a special pass was added, and there is no evidence that Student was prevented from using it.
Accordingly, I find that Parent has not met her burden on these claims.
Child Find Claims
Parent presented no evidence that the District had reason to suspect autism or a specific learning disability in writing during Student's ninth-grade year. Student continued to receive the same services under which he had been successful in eighth grade, and the District had no basis to believe those supports would not continue to enable meaningful progress. By all accounts, Student performed well in ninth grade, earning As and Bs and making consistent progress on his IEP goals. Parent did not provide the Team with any outside evaluations or reports at that time, suggesting an additional disability or the need for different services. Accordingly, I find that Parent has not met her burden on the child find claim.
Substantive Claim: Whether the April 2023 IEP Offered Student a FAPE in the LRE
Courts have long held "that school districts defending the adequacy of an IEP must do so with evidence that was available … at the time of the IEP's creation."[61] Accordingly, my analysis of the April 2023 IEP is based on the information available to the Team at that time regarding Student's needs and skill levels, as discussed supra. Ms. Keenan testified that Parent's primary concern was Student's access to technology; she did not raise concerns about counseling or social-emotional supports. The meeting notes do not reflect that Parent raised this issue. When the Team reconvened in May 2023 following Parent's rejection of the IEP, Parent expressed concerns about accommodations and writing, not anxiety or counseling services. Staff likewise did not express concerns regarding anxiety. Although teachers noted weaknesses in attention, participation, and certain interpersonal skills (e.g., speaking to peers during class or speaking out of turn), Student was generally performing well, earning As and Bs[62] and making progress on his IEP goals.
At hearing, Parent testified that the IEP was deficient because it did not include counseling services, despite Student's fairly regular access to Mr. Rosemond, a general education guidance counselor available to all students. Mr. Rosemond was a credible and persuasive witness, having had a close relationship with Student and a strong understanding of his needs. He expressed no concern regarding the absence of counseling services or a social-emotional goal in the April 2023 IEP, nor did other Team members believe such supports were necessary. The evidence demonstrates that Student accessed him as needed and that this level of support was sufficient to enable Student to make effective progress on his goals and objectives as well as in the general education curriculum. There is no evidence that Student required specialized counseling services or specially designed instruction in the social-emotional domain at that time.
With no evaluator recommending any services or supports other than those proposed in the April 2023 IEP, I cannot find that the accommodations (including "testing in a separate setting or small group; use of technology on a school-issued device, separate from one issued to all students, for assessments that require more than 5 sentences of writing"), the Self-Management Goal (which addressed Student's ability to identify and access the necessary supports or space when feeling overwhelmed with increasing independence, to identify where he was struggling academically and seek support from the content teacher with increasing independence, and ability to identify the appropriate time during class to ask or answer questions with minimal reminders), the C-Grid biweekly academic support, and the proposed placement in a full-inclusion setting at Longmeadow High School, were anything but appropriate.
As such, Parent did not meet her burden on this claim.
2023-2024: Tenth Grade
Procedural Claims
Implementation Claims
When Student began tenth grade, as Parent had rejected the April 2023 IEP in full, the District was required to implement the March 2022 IEP, as amended in November 2022. Again, Parent offered no evidence that Student was denied access to any of his services or accommodations.[63] The evidence is consistent that Student often chose whether to utilize his accommodations (including the use of technology). Even had Ms. Federov encouraged Student to write rather than to use his assistive technology, such occasional inconsistencies, if any, were not material in light of the overall implementation of the IEP. In addition, no specific technology was identified in the December 2023 IEP, which Parent accepted in full. Although the District ordered the preferred technology, the IEP did not specify this specific technology, and the delay in having Student receive the iPad and Pencil did not result in educational loss to Student, as Student continued to have available to him his personal iPad and Apple pencil for in-class use and a different assistive technology (whether a Chromebook or a MacBook) for assessments. Although the Chromebook and/or MacBook may not have been Parent's (or Student's) preferred technology, there was no recommendation at any time from any evaluator that the iPad and Pencil were required for Student to access a FAPE.[64] In fact, even Dr. Kassissieh, who recommended that Student be "paperless," did not specify that Student required an iPad and Pencil. Moreover, there was no evidence presented that Student's intensified struggles and anxiety at the end of tenth grade had any relation to the absence of a specific assistive technology. As such, I do not find that Parent met her burden on the tenth grade implementation claim.
Child Find Claims
Here, based on Parent's concern regarding a specific learning disability in writing, as expressed by Parent at the April 2023 Team meeting, the District proposed, at the end of ninth grade, to re-evaluate Student sooner than his expected re-evaluation. The consent form and N1 including specific testing for a SLD in writing were provided to Parent immediately following the meeting, but she did not sign it until after the start of tenth grade. No staff expressed concerns relative to Student's anxiety, except for noting that Student experienced additional stress, as expected due to his decision (which was strongly discouraged by all staff who worked closely with Student, including Ms. Giampietro and Mr. Rosemond), to assume a heavier courseload, which reduced his time during the day to have "executive function" and "emotional" breaks.[65]
Parent also argued that the Team failed to complete the SLD Flowchart at the November/December 2023 Team meetings. As a procedural matter, in Massachusetts, the Specific Learning Disability Team Determination of Eligibility form (28M/10) is mandated for inclusion in every eligibility determination Team meeting and includes documentation of the four components used to determine eligibility. Each component has a corresponding SLD form to document the findings.[66] Here, Ms. Keenan testified that she did not believe it was necessary to complete the form because the form is for exclusionary factors, not inclusionary ones. However, the SLD form requires a Team review of both exclusionary factors (Component 3) and inclusionary factors (Components 1, 2, and 4). As such, the Team's failure to complete the form is a procedural violation.
That said, based on the totality of the facts and circumstances in the instant case, the District's failure to complete the SLD flowchart at the November/December 2023 Team meetings, was harmless. As I have discussed in prior decisions[67], the IDEA makes no specific provision for a student to be classified under a particular disability, but instead requires that the student's educational program be designed to suit the student's demonstrated needs.[68] The fact that Parent believes that Student's disability was mislabeled does not per se mean that he was denied a FAPE. Hence, even if Parent could prove that Student's disability classification in the IEP was improper, she would still need to establish that the IEP denied Student a FAPE on the basis of his unique needs, regardless of the disability label given to those needs. Moreover, in the instant matter, based on the information available to the Team, the Team did not err in finding no specific learning disability.[69]
Furthermore, Parent accepted the December 2023 IEP in full, despite its exclusion of a SLD in the writing disability category. The general and well-settled rule is that acceptance of an IEP that was implemented and has since expired, precludes a Hearing Officer from considering its appropriateness.[70] Parent cannot, on the one hand, accept the IEP, thereby indicating that she agreed with the Disability Category and the types and amounts of services reflected within that IEP, and then, at a later time after the IEP has been implemented and lapsed, argue that the IEP should have included additional or different services. [71]
Moreover, the District had no reason to suspect that even if Student had an autism disability or "autism-like characteristics", he required special education and related services because of this disability.[72] Although the 2021 evaluations noted a past diagnosis, autism was not reflected as an educational disability category in Student's 2021 testing nor in any of the IEPs that followed. In addition, no teacher raised any concerns that would have prompted testing in the area of autism, and Parent, who made specific requests for testing for a specific learning disability in writing, did not request testing in this area. The 2023 re-evaluation failed to raise concerns regarding a possible autism diagnosis, and Parent did not provide any private evaluations reflecting such a diagnosis until she provided the District with Dr. Kassissieh's report on June 2, 2025.
As such, I find that Parent has not met her burden on the Child Find claims.
Claims Relating to the District's Failure to Reconvene the Team
Failure to Reconvene the Team When Student Stopped Attending English in 2024
The IEP Team must convene at least annually.[73] Meetings should also be held as needed "to determine whether the annual goals for the child are being achieved."[74] However, the IDEA encourages consolidating meetings when possible,[75] and if the district and parents agree, minor IEP adjustments can be handled without formally convening the Team.[76]
As a general rule, whenever a district proposes to substantially or materially alter a student's then-current educational program, it should convene an IEP meeting beforehand.[77] A district is not required, however, to schedule an IEP meeting based solely upon parental request.[78]
Nevertheless, the IDEA requires that an IEP Team review and revise an IEP as may be appropriate to address a lack of a student's expected progress toward the annual goals.[79] Here, there is no doubt that Student began to experience struggles at the end of the third quarter and throughout the fourth quarter of academic 2023-2024. Mr. Rosemond and Mr. Webber testified credibly that Student was visibly stressed and anxious. Moreover, Student stopped attending English class.
However, in order to determine whether the district was required to convene a team meeting in response, absent a request from Parent, a case-specific inquiry into the totality of the circumstances must be made. Here, the documentary evidence reflects a robust school-based response to the above-noted struggles on Student's part. The record demonstrates consistent staff efforts to work with Student (offering to switch his English class, access to the school adjustment counselor for coping strategies, and even the provision of special education support in the English class).[80] In addition, Ms. Keenan offered Parent the option of a Team meeting to consider an online option (even though she herself was not in support of such an option); however, Parent did not then pursue the meeting. Later, when Parent did opt to request an IEP meeting (in her April 4, 2024 email to Mr. Landers), a meeting was scheduled and ultimately held on May 3, 2024.[81] Subsequently, staff continued to engage in informal discussions about Student's struggles, including with Student and parent, and attempted to find strategies to help Student attend English class and submit work. As such, I find that Parent has not met her burden on this claim.
Failure to Reconvene the Team Following Parent's Unilateral Notice Letter
The purpose of the Parent Notice of Unilateral Placement requirement is to give public school districts the opportunity to provide a FAPE before a child leaves public school and enrolls in a private school.[82] Here, on June 28, 2024, while school was on summer break, Parent rejected Student's IEP and provided Notice of Unilateral Placement. At least one court has found that although the Parent Notice of Unilateral Placement "could be viewed as another request for the [Team] to reconvene, absent additional information about how the student's needs had changed since the [last Team] meeting, … [failure to reconvene the Team at that time is] not [] a denial of a FAPE."[83]
As there is no requirement to reconvene the Team upon a unilateral placement, Parent has not met her burden on this claim.
Substantive Claim: Whether the December 2023 IEP Offered Student a FAPE in the LRE
As the December 2023 IEP was accepted in full by Parent in January 2024 and only rejected after the 2023-2024 school year had concluded, and as there is no evidence that the December 2023 IEP was not implemented in full, I do not assess the appropriateness of the December 2023 IEP in reviewing Parent's substantive claims for tenth grade. The IEP's appropriateness or lack thereof can only be assessed from the point of rejection (i.e., for eleventh grade), which I address infra.
2024-2025: Eleventh Grade
Procedural Claims
Failure to Convene the Team Before the Expiration of the December 2023 IEP
As I already addressed this question in my Ruling on Parent's Motion For Partial Summary Judgement And Declaratory [Relief] Regarding Denial of FAPE December 20, 2024 - April 16, 2025 (Kantor Nir, November 6, 2025),[84] I need not address it here, except to state that the District failed to offer Student an IEP from December 2024 to April 2025, thereby violating Student's right to a FAPE.[85] Parent has met her burden on this claim.[86]
As Parent gave proper notice of her unilateral placement at FlexSchool, and the District failed to propose an IEP before the expiration of the December 2023 IEP, I now turn to whether FlexSchool was "appropriately responsive to [Student's] special needs."[87] FlexSchool addressed Student's executive functioning, graphomotor, and social-emotional deficits through built in accommodations and scheduled support periods with access to teachers for individualized assistance. FlexSchool also offered Student social pragmatic support and small group counseling. Therefore, I find that FlexSchool was "appropriately responsive to [Student's] special needs" and met the standard for reimbursement in a unilateral placement matter.[88] Student is entitled to reimbursement for tuition at FlexSchool for the period between December 2024 and April 2025.
Failure to Provide Assistive Technology
The District was not obligated to offer Student assistive technology and/or C-Grid IEP services at Longmeadow High School during the time Parent unilaterally placed him at FlexSchool.[89] School districts have different obligations to privately placed students and to unilaterally placed students. Massachusetts state law requires school districts to offer special education and related services to all eligible students who reside in the district, including students who are privately enrolled, regardless of where the student attends school.[90] Pursuant to 603 CMR 28.03(1)(e) (1), each "school district shall provide special education designed to meet the needs of eligible students who are [privately placed] and whose parents reside in the jurisdiction of the school district. The school district shall provide to such students genuine opportunities to participate in the public school special education program consistent with state constitutional limitations." The school district must provide or arrange for the provision of evaluation services and an IEP for any eligible private school student whose parent resides in the jurisdiction of the school district.[91] Moreover, the "school district shall provide or arrange for the provision of the special education described by the student's IEP provided that school districts shall ensure that special education services funded with state or local funds are provided in a public school facility or other public or neutral site."[92] Special education provided by the school district to a student privately placed "shall be comparable in quality, scope, and opportunity for participation to that provided to public school students with needs of equal importance."[93]
Here, Parent is not seeking "comparable" services; Parent is seeking reimbursement for her unilateral placement as well as the provision of the assistive technology and/or the C Grid services proposed in Student's IEP (which, notably, she had rejected in full). As Student was offered special education and related services, which offer Parent rejected in full, instead placing Student at a school of her choosing (with appropriate notice to the District) and seeking reimbursement, the District had no obligation to provide Student with assistive technology and/or C-Grid services. Parent has not met her burden on these claims relative to the 2024-2025 and 2025-2026 school years.
Failure to Send to Parent the April 2025 IEP within Five School Days
603 CMR 28.05(7) states that immediately following the development of the IEP, and within 45 school working days after receipt of the parent's written consent to an initial evaluation or reevaluation, the district shall provide the parents with two copies of the proposed IEP and proposed placement along with the required notice, except that the proposal of placement may be delayed according to the provisions of 603 CMR 28.06(2)(e) in a limited number of cases. In Implementation of 603 CMR 28.05(7): Parent response to proposed IEP and proposed placement(June 13, 2025),[94] the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) sought to clarify school districts' obligations under this regulatory requirement. The Department defined the term "immediately" as occurring within 45-school working days and no later than five school days after the Team meeting. This Guidance superseded the prior Guidance from DESE from 2006, which allowed districts ten school working days to prepare the complete IEP for the parent's signature and for the student's records, provided that a summary of the decisions and agreements reached during the Team meeting was provided at the conclusion of the Team meeting.
Here, the IEP Team convened before the issuance of DESE's June 13, 2025 Guidance, and as such I cannot find that the District erred in not sending Parent the IEP within five school days of the Team meeting. Moreover, even though the District failed to send Parent the IEP within 10 school days in accordance with DESE's 2006 Guidance, I find this procedural error to be harmless. Parent made it clear to the Team that she would not return Student to Longmeadow and that the only placement she would accept is FlexSchool. As such, Parent failed to meet her burden on this claim.
Failure to Reconvene the Team within Ten Days of Receipt of an IEE[95]
Pursuant to 603 CMR 28.04(5)(f), within ten school days from a school district's receipt of an independent education evaluation report, "the Team shall reconvene and consider the independent education evaluation and whether a new or amended IEP is appropriate." Here, the District received Dr. Kassissieh's report on June 2, 2025. School ended on June 12, 2025. As Student did not have extended school year (ESY) services in his IEP (either proposed or accepted), the District was not required to convene during the summer to review the IEE. Once school resumed, however, the countdown of the ten-school-day period continued, and, although there were extenuating circumstances, such as Ms. Pari-Kro's illness, the fact remains that the District did not convene within the ten-school-day deadline.
A school district's failure to reconvene a timely Team meeting following submission of an IEE would be considered a procedural violation. As stated supra, not all procedural errors automatically entitle a parent or disabled child to relief, and some procedural errors may not result in any substantive harm.[96] Such is the case here. Although the District delayed convening the Team to review Dr. Kassissieh's report, this "procedural inadequacy" did not "(I) impede[] the child's right to a free appropriate public education; (II) significantly impede[d] [Parent's[ opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provision of a free appropriate public education to the parents' child; or (III) cause[d] a deprivation of educational benefits."[97] First, in the fall of 2025, although the District had already been untimely in proposing a Team meeting to review the report, Parent requested a facilitated Team meeting, which extended the review timelines. Also, by August 2025, Student had been unilaterally placed by Parent for fall 2024, and Parent testified that she had no intention of returning Student to Longmeadow or of accepting any IEP that did not indicate FlexSchool as Student's placement. As such, even had the Team reconvened and reviewed Dr. Kassissieh's report within the requisite ten days rather than in October, and even had the district adopted most, if not all, of her recommendations (as it did in October 2025), Parent would still have refused any proposed IEP that would not have included a placement at FlexSchool. As such, Parent has not met her burden on this claim.
Substantive Claims:
Whether the December 2023 IEP, Which Parent Rejected on June 28, 2024, Offered Student a FAPE in the LRE
The weight of the Parent's concerns at the end of tenth grade centered on Student's conflict with Ms. Federov, rather than on any identified need for additional or different special education supports or services, and no school-based witnesses testified that Student required services beyond those included in the IEP at that time. Moreover, Parent did not provide the Team with any evaluative data, expert report, or other professional opinion indicating that Student required different or additional services, accommodations, or a change in placement. In the absence of such evidence, and where the primary concern raised related to a specific interpersonal conflict rather than a demonstrated programmatic deficiency, Parent has not met her burden on this claim.
Whether the April 2025 IEP Offered Student a FAPE in the LRE
Parent argues that the April 2025 IEP failed to provide Student with a FAPE due to its failure to consider Student's trauma, omission of an Autism and/or Specific Learning Disability in Writing Disability Categories, and its proposal of a full inclusion program at Longmeadow High School. Parent's argument, however, is disingenuous. At the time the April 2025 IEP was proposed, the District did not have available Dr. Kassissieh's report with these diagnoses, and no doctor or evaluator, to date, has diagnosed Student with trauma.[98]
In fact, the April 2025 IEP addressed all of Student's then-identified disability-related needs. At the time, based on his FlexSchool report card, Student continued to need support with time management, task initiation, and sustaining productivity when he felt tired, overwhelmed, or emotionally off. His verbal expression remained stronger than his written output, and he benefited from continued emphasis on expanding detail, clarity, and evidence in writing. He was also working toward greater independence in participation, daily practice habits, and presenting with confidence.
The Longmeadow Team proposed accommodations and services to address Student's then struggles as reported by FlexSchool, which reflected the same deficits he had struggled with at Longmeadow. Specifically, the April 2025 IEP proposed, in part, breaking writing assignments into small, manageable chunks using graphic organizers, guided notes, and multisensory teaching techniques; reinforcing verbal information with visual supports and clarifying test directions as needed; allowing Student to use assistive technology and digital tools to organize ideas, produce longer written work, and submit assignments electronically; support with completing organizers for extended writing tasks; not penalizing spelling errors on demand to reduce anxiety; offering frequent check-ins with a teacher or aide; scheduling breaks to support attention and self-regulation; access to noise-canceling headphones; and administering tests in a separate, small-group setting with advance notice to instructional and support staff. The District also proposed a school-issued iPad, preloaded with a note-taking application, to support Student's written expression needs during class activities and assignments requiring written responses of more than five sentences.
Goals and services in the areas of Social/Emotional/Behavior (identifying personal emotional triggers and compensatory strategies, reflecting on behavior), Executive Functioning (beginning academic tasks, using a planner/checklist, breaking down assignments, self-monitoring when off-task) Writing (using graphic organizer to generate ideas, collaboratively breaking down larger writing assignments, responding to prompts in multi paragraph format with supportive evidence, explaining how evidence supports thesis, collaboratively editing and revising writing), Education/Training (reviewing IEP goals/accommodations and preparing for meetings, reflecting on IEP questions/comments, verbally share positive and negative from meeting) addressed all of Student's areas of need.
In her letter rejecting the proposed April 2025 IEP, Parent requested a revised IEP with "[c]learly defined, measurable goals tailored to Student's identified learning disability, along with targeted instruction to meet those goals"; "social-emotional goals and appropriate, documented supports"; and placement at FlexSchool, as well as "immediate inclusion in extracurricular activities at Longmeadow High School while enrolled at FlexSchool." However, as set out above, the IEP did in fact address Student's writing difficulties (beyond just his graphomotor weaknesses) and his social-emotional needs. Parent provided no credible evidence as to why the supports and services provided in this IEP were insufficient to address Student's needs. The essence of Parent's dispute with the April 2025 IEP was placement for Student and at that time, no expert had recommended a more restrictive placement, let alone a virtual setting. As such, Parent did not meet her burden on this claim.
2025-2026: Twelfth Grade
Substantive Claim: Whether the April 2025 IEP, as Amended in October 2025, Offered Student a FAPE in the LRE
The April 2025 IEP was amended on October 27, 2025 to incorporate a significant number of Dr. Kassissieh's recommendations, many of which were included as an attempt to reach a consensus with Parent. In her testimony, Parent failed to identify any goals, accommodations, or services that Student required that were not included in the IEP. Parent testified that she had no specific issue with the IEP's particulars, except that it did not provide for placement at FlexSchool.
I find that the April 2025 IEP, as amended in October 2025, thoroughly addressed Student's unique special education needs. It updated Student's educational profile to include eligibility under Autism, Emotional Impairment, Health Impairment, and Specific Learning Disability. Accommodations were consistent with the majority of Dr. Kassissieh's recommendations. Goals and services addressed areas of deficits, including those identified by Dr. Kassissieh, and were proposed in the areas of Social-Emotional/Behavioral, Executive Functioning, and Writing. Academic support (7x56 minutes biweekly) and Counseling (30 minutes monthly). Additionally, the IEP provided Parent's preferred assistive technology, a District-managed iPad equipped with note-taking applications, organizational tools, and audio reading software to support access to the curriculum and written expression for assignments requiring responses longer than five sentences. [99]
I do not find that Student requires FlexSchool to make meaningful and effective progress. First, there is nothing in the record to support his need for a virtual learning format in order to progress effectively. Further, I place significant weight on the concerns raised by staff who have worked with Student regarding the restrictiveness of a virtual setting for Student. Moreover, Dr. Kassissieh testified that FlexSchool met her recommendations but not that Student required a virtual school in order to receive a FAPE. Even if a smaller classroom may be a better learning environment for Student, this "case is, unfortunately, not about what is the ideal placement for Student."[100] As I indicated supra, I did not find Dr. Kassissieh's or Ms. Henwood's testimony persuasive that a public school placement cannot be an appropriate placement for a student with Student's profile. Parent and Dr. Kassissieh contend that Student requires the small class size and "built in" executive function and social emotional supports of FlexSchool. However, as neither Parent nor Dr. Kassissieh observed the program at Longmeadow, it is unclear why the supports and services proposed in the IEP, which reflect those recommended by Dr. Kassissieh in her report, could not be effectively implemented in a larger classroom or in a full inclusion setting with C Grid supports. As such, Parent did not meet her burden on this claim.
ORDER:
With respect to grades 9 and 10 (the 2022–2023 and 2023–2024 school years), Parent failed to meet her burden of persuasion on all claims. Accordingly, she is not entitled to compensatory services or reimbursement for any expenses incurred during that period.
With respect to grade 11 (the 2024–2025 school year), Parent failed to meet her burden for the period from the start of the school year through December 20, 2024. However, Parent met her burden in establishing that the District denied Student a FAPE by failing to propose an IEP from December 20, 2024, through April 16, 2025, and that Student's unilateral placement at FlexSchool was appropriate during that discrete period. Accordingly, Parent is entitled to reimbursement for expenses incurred for Student's placement at FlexSchool from December 20, 2024, through April 16, 2025, but not for any other expenses before or after that timeframe.[101]
With respect to the 2025–2026 school year, Parent again failed to meet her burden on all claims and is not entitled to reimbursement or other relief.
Finally, Student is not entitled to stay-put placement at FlexSchool.
So Ordered,
By the Hearing Officer,
/s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir, Hearing Officer
March 31, 2026
Footnotes
[1] When delineating the issues in prior Orders and when reading them into the record, issues #s C(2) (whether the IEP proposed for the period April 16, 2025 to April 14, 2026 (the "April 2025 IEP") failed to provide Student with a FAPE) and C(3) (whether the District failed to hold a timely meeting to review the rejected April 16, 2025 IEP and Parent's concerns) were listed under "Academic Year 2025–2026." Although the IEP spans portions of both the 2024–2025 and 2025–2026 school years, it was developed and proposed in April 2025. Accordingly, I have placed these issues under the "Academic Year 2024–2025" heading in this Decision.
[2] Parent testified that Student had breaks included in his IEP. An examination of the March 2022 IEP contradicts this testimony.
[3] The N1 notes that the Team discussed consulting with OT regarding SnapType. Neither Ms. Giampietro nor Ms. Keenan could not recall whether this consult subsequently took place. (Giampietro, Keenan)
[4] Around that time, Ms. Mirer was consulted about how Student could use his personal iPad safely for assessments. Recommendations were made for taking the assessment on Google Docs, using Kami or Notability to annotate the assessments. (Mirer, P-50J)
[5] The District received Parent's response on May 15, 2023. (S-16)
[6] Ms. Federov no longer works in Longmeadow. (Federov)
[7] Ms. Tonsing is a licensed school psychologist and educational psychologist. She is a member of the American Board of School Neuropsychology and has worked in the District for 17 years. She tests approximately 100 students each year. (Tonsing)
[8] According to Ms. Tonsing, prior assessments noted that Student had mild characteristics of autism or Asperger's. (Tonsing) According to Parent, Student had been diagnosed with autism/pervasive development disorder (PDD-NOS) when younger. (Parent)
[9] Cognitive testing in 2021 showed high-average to very high reasoning ability (FSIQ 115; GAI 123), with relative weaknesses in working memory and processing efficiency (CPI 82; Working Memory Index 76). Verbal Comprehension was a particular strength (127). (S-23a and S-23b) When questioned whether Student's IQ score had decreased, Ms. Tonsing testified that his scores were consistent within the confidence interval. She testified that Student's highest IQ was when he was younger, when it was "less stable." (Tonsing)
[10] Ms. Mirer reviewed the OT evaluations at the November 2023 meeting. (Mirer)
[11] Longmeadow received the accepted IEP and placement on January 25, 2024. (S-14)
[12] At hearing, Ms. Federov did not recall any bathroom policies in her class. (Federov)
[13] Following April vacation, Mr. Landers investigated additional allegations of bullying raised by Parent against Ms. Federov. He wanted to question Student regarding the allegations, but Parent declined. Mr. Landers did not substantiate Parent's allegations. (Landers)
[14] This was a passing grade.
[15] Student's enrollment in FlexSchool precluded his being considered a homeschooled student and there could not participate in after-school clubs at Longmeadow because he was not considered homeschooled.
[16] Parent also formally requested an IEE at public expense. (P-19A)
[17] The Team was initially rescheduled because the general education teacher was unavailable. (P-16C)
[18] This goal comprised reviewing IEP goals/accommodations and preparing for meetings, reflecting on IEP questions/comments, and verbally sharing positive and negative from meeting.
[19] Ms. Tonsing testified that Dr. Kassissieh utilized the adult cognitive test which is newer and is normed differently than WISC-V she herself had utilized in 2023. Because the tests are normed differently, it is not possible to compare their scores. (Tonsing)
[20] Student's 2021 Psychological Evaluation noted that Student had been diagnosed with autism "although not at a critical level". (P-29A)
[21] Student's medical notes from his pediatrician, dating back to August 2023, reflect a diagnosis of anxiety. (P-41A)
[22] Dr. Kassissieh reported Student's standard score as 67, in the 25th percentile, and in the average range. Ms. Mirer testified that either the standard score was incorrect or Dr. Kassissieh erred in stating that the score was in the average range, as this score is in the below average range. (Mirer)
[23] Dr. Kassissieh testified that she did not inquire about the credentials or qualifications of FlexSchool staff, but she observed "in the moment social emotional support" and specialized individualized instruction. (Kassissieh)
[24] The District received the rejected IEP and placement on May 23, 2025. (S-8)
[25] Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1400 (d)(1)(A).
[26] See 20 U.S.C. §1401(9), (26), (29); 603 CMR 28.05(4)(b); C.D. ex. rel. v. Natick Pub. Sch. Dist, 924 F.3d 621, 629 (1st Cir. 2019).
[27] 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(5)(A); 34 CFR 300.114(a)(2)(i); M.G.L. c. 71 B, §§2, 3; 603 CMR 28.06(2)(c).
[28] 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(5)(A); C.D., 924 F. 3d at 631 (internal citations omitted).
[29] C.G., 513 F.3d at 285.
[30] Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S. 386, 402 (2017).
[31] 34 CFR §300.324(a)(i-v); Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 402; D.B. ex rel. Elizabeth B. v. Esposito, 675 F.3d 26, 34 (1st Cir. 2012); N. Reading Sch. Comm. v. Bureau of Special Educ. Appeals, 480 F. Supp. 2d 479, 489 (D. Mass. 2007) ("The First Circuit has characterized the federal floor, which defines the minimum that must be offered to all handicapped children, as providing a meaningful, beneficial educational opportunity, and that Court has stated that a handicapped child's educational program must be reasonably calculated to provide effective results and demonstrable improvement in the various educational and personal skills identified as special needs")(internal citations and quotations omitted).
[32] Roland M. v. Concord Sch. Comm., 910 F.2d 983, 992 (1st Cir. 1990).
[33] Bd. of Educ. of the Hendrick Hudson Central Sch. Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 197, n.21 (1982) ("Whatever Congress meant by an "appropriate" education, it is clear that it did not mean a potential-maximizing education"); see N. Reading Sch. Comm., 480 F. Supp. 2d at 488 ("The focus of inquiry under 20 U.S.C. §1415(e)(i) must recognize the IDEA's modest goal of an appropriate, rather than an ideal, education").
[34] Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 400-401; see 603 CMR 28.02(17).
[35] Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 388 ("The nature of the IEP process, from the initial consultation through state administrative proceedings, ensures that parents and school representatives will fully air their respective opinions on the degree of progress a child's IEP should pursue"); see K.E. ex rel. K.E. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 15, 647 F.3d 795, 809 (8th Cir. 2011) (explaining that the court would not compare the student to her nondisabled peers since the key question was whether the student made gains in her areas of need).
[36] G.D. Westmoreland Sch. Dist., 930 F.2d 942, 948-949 (1st Cir. 1991).
[37] Doe ex rel. Doe v. Hampden-Wilbraham Reg'l Sch. Dist., 715 F. Supp. 2d 185, 194–95 (D. Mass. 2010).
[38] See Colón-Vazquez v. Dep't of Educ., 46 F. Supp. 3d 132, 144 (D. P.R. 2014).
[39] See id. at 143-44.
[40] Id. at 143.
[41] Id. at 143-44 (citing and quoting Van Duyn v. Baker Sch. Dist., 502 F.3d 811, 822 (9th Cir. 2007) and Garmany v. District of Columbia, 935 F. Supp. 2d 177, 181 (D. D.C. 2013); see Van Duyn, 502 F.3d at 815.
[42] See Ross v. Framingham Sch. Comm., 44 F. Supp. 2d 104, 119 (D. Mass. 1999), aff'd, 229 F.3d 1133 (1st Cir. 2000).
[43] In Re: CBDE Public Schools, BSEA #106854 (Crane, 2011); see Bd. of Educ. v. L.M., 478 F.3d 307, 313 (6th Cir. 2007) ("Even children who are only suspected of having a disability, although they are progressing from grade to grade, are protected by [Child Find] requirement"); W.B. v. Matula, 67 F.3d 484, 501 (3d Cir. 1995) (abrogated on other grounds by A.W. v. Jersey City Pub. Sch., 486 F.3d 791 (3rd Cir. 2007)) (Child Find requires school district to identify and evaluate children "who are suspected of having a qualifying disability" within a reasonable time after the district is "on notice of behavior that is likely to indicate a disability"); Dep't of Educ. v. Cari Rae S., 158 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1194 (D. Haw. 2001) (Child Find duty is triggered when school district "has reason to suspect a disability, and reason to suspect that special education services may be needed to address that disability").
[44] See Cape Elizabeth Sch. Dep't, 382 F. Supp. 3d 83, 99 (D. Me. 2019); Mr. I. ex rel. L.I. v. Me. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 55, 480 F.3d 1, 13 (1st Cir. 2007).
[45] D.K. v. Abington Sch. Dist., 696 F.3d 233, 249 (3d Cir. 2012).
[46] Id. (quoting A.P. ex rel. Powers v. Woodstock Bd. of Educ., 572 F. Supp. 2d 211, 226 (D. Conn. 2008)).
[47] Ja.B. v. Wilson Cnty. Bd. of Educ., No. 3:20-CV-00955, 2022 WL 326273, at *9 (M.D. Tenn. Feb. 2, 2022), report and recommendation adopted (Apr. 28, 2022), aff'd, 61 F.4th 494 (6th Cir. 2023) (internal quotations and citations omitted).
[48] See 34 CFR §300.148.
[49] 34 CFR §300.148(c). See 20 USC §1412(a)(10)(C)(ii); see also Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230, 243 (2009) (explaining that §1415(i)(2)(C)(iii) authorizes "reimbursement when a school district fails to provide a FAPE and a child's private school placement is appropriate").
[50] See Florence County Sch. Dist. Four v. Carter, 510 U.S. 7 (1993) (parents are entitled to reimbursement only if federal court concludes public placement violated IDEA and private placement was proper, and the court is to consider all factors in fashioning equitable relief); Sch. Comm. of Town of Burlington v. Dep't of Educ., 471 U.S. 349 (1985) (parents may be reimbursed for private special education if court ultimately determines private placement was proper).
[51] Florence Cnty., 510 U.S. at 14; see Matthew J. v. Mass. Dep't. of Educ., et al., 988 F. Supp. 380, 391 (1998).
[52] H.W., 2015 WL 1509509, at *19; see Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356, 364 (2d Cir. 2006) ("No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining whether parents' unilateral placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. Grades, test scores, and regular advancement may constitute evidence that a child is receiving educational benefit, but courts assessing the propriety of a unilateral placement consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child's individual needs") (internal citations and quotations omitted).
[53] H.W. v. New York State Educ. Dep't, No. CV 13-3873 SIL, 2015 WL 1509509, at *19 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2015); see Florence Cnty., 510 U.S. at 14–15, ("Nor do we believe that reimbursement is necessarily barred by a private school's failure to meet state education standards…. Indeed, the school district's emphasis on state standards is somewhat ironic. … [It] hardly seems consistent with the Act's goals to forbid parents from educating their child at a school that provides an appropriate education simply because that school lacks the stamp of approval of the same public school system that failed to meet the child's needs in the first place")(internal citations and quotations omitted).
[54] H.W., 2015 WL 1509509, at *19; see Frank G. v. Bd. of Educ. of Hyde Park, 459 F.3d 356, 364 (2d Cir. 2006) ("No one factor is necessarily dispositive in determining whether parents' unilateral placement is reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits. Grades, test scores, and regular advancement may constitute evidence that a child is receiving educational benefit, but courts assessing the propriety of a unilateral placement consider the totality of the circumstances in determining whether that placement reasonably serves a child's individual needs") (internal citations and quotations omitted).
[55] Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 62 (2008).
[56] Id. (places the burden of proof in an administrative hearing on the party seeking relief).
[57] In making my determinations, I rely on the facts I have found as set forth in the Findings of Facts, above, and incorporate them by reference to avoid restating them except where necessary.
[58] I note that although the issues in this hearing were identified well in advance of the hearing, and the parties had extensive opportunities to object to their form and substance, during the hearing, Parent raised the following procedural violations which were not explicitly delineated in the identified issues: 1) student records request violations, 2) failure to provide N2s, 3) improper configuration of Team meetings (specifically November 17, 2023, December 20, 2023, and May 3, 2024), and 4) inappropriateness of District assessments. However, as Parent appeared pro se and represented that she believed that her claim for "procedural violations" encompassed these claims, I address these here, before turning to the issues identified supra.In addition to providing Parents with substantive rights, the IDEA provides both students and parents with procedural rights. See Deal v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 392 F.3d 840, 853-54 (6th Cir. 2004). Hence, "a [fact-finder's] inquiry … is twofold. First, has the State complied with the procedures set forth in the Act? Second, is the [IEP] developed through the Act's procedures reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits?" See Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S. 386, 404 (2017). Although a finding of procedural violations does not necessarily entitle appellants to relief, a procedural violation that results in substantive harm constitutes a denial of a FAPE for which relief may be granted. Deal, 392 F.3d at 854. A hearing officer may find that a child did not receive a FAPE if the procedural inadequacies impeded the child's right to a FAPE; significantly impeded the parent's opportunity to participate in the decision-making process regarding the provisions of a FAPE to the parent's child; or caused a deprivation of educational benefits. 34 CFR 300.513 (a)(2); see MM ex rel. DM v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cty., 303 F.3d 523, 533 (4th Cir. 2002).Although generally student records disputes are not within the jurisdiction of the BSEA, the BSEA may retain jurisdiction where a delay in providing a parent with a student's records impacts a student's access to a FAPE and a parent's opportunity to meaningfully participate in the IEP process. See In Re: Student v. Belmont Public Schools (Ruling On Belmont Public Schools' Partial Motion To Dismiss), BSEA # 26-05150 (Kantor Nir, 2026). Rights related to student records are protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 USC 1232(g), and 34 CFR Part 99, as well as by M.G.L. c. 71 §34D in Massachusetts. 603 CMR 23.07(2) states that an eligible student or the parent, subject to the provisions of 603 CMR 23.07 (5), shall have access to the student record "as soon as practicable and within ten days after the initial request, except in the case of non-custodial parents as provided in 603 CMR 23.07(5)." For students eligible for special education, IDEA's implementing regulation 34 CFR § 300.613 addresses additional rights to student records in due process proceedings. Specifically, 34 CFR 300.613(a) states that "[e]ach participating agency must permit parents to inspect and review any education records relating to their children that are collected, maintained, or used by the agency under this part. The agency must comply with a request without unnecessary delay and before any meeting regarding an IEP, or any hearing pursuant to § 300.507 or §§ 300.530 through 300.532, or resolution session pursuant to § 300.510, and in no case more than 45 days after the request has been made." No such argument can be reasonably relied upon here. In her Amended Hearing Request dated May 5, 2025, Parent noted that she had made a student records request relative to "communications" and "emails" about Student. The record shows that Parent made her first records request on May 16, 2024. No IEP meeting or hearing was scheduled at that time, and the record reflects that between June and August 2024, Parent was provided with access to all available records. Even if there had been a delay in the provision of records to Parent, Parent offered no evidence that such delay impacted Student's access to a FAPE or impeded her opportunity to meaningfully participate in the IEP process. Parent did not meet her burden on this claim.Parent's claim that the District failed to issue N2s is unpersuasive. A school district is required to provide a parent with prior written notice before the public agency proposes or refuses to initiate or change the identification, evaluation, educational placement, or the provision of FAPE. See 34 CFR 300.503 (a). The IDEA does not require separate forms for a proposal to act and a refusal to act. See 34 CFR 300.503 (b). In Massachusetts, Districts utilize the N1 (Notice of Proposed School District Action) and N2 (Notice of School District Refusal to Act) forms. However, Question # 3 on the N1, states "What rejected options were considered and why was each option rejected?" As such, I cannot find that the use of N1, rather than N2, constitutes a procedural violation, and if it does, it is harmless. Parent did not meet her burden on this claim. Parent did not provide sufficient evidence that a regular education teacher did not attend the November 17 and December 20, 2023 Team meetings. Although a regular education teacher's initials are missing from the December sign-in sheet, a regular education teacher is noted in Ms. Keenan's notes for both meetings (albeit a different teacher at each), and I find Ms. Keenan's notes to be a credible contemporaneous record. I address Parent's claim regarding the improper configuration of the May 3, 2024 Team meetings when I discuss her claim that the District failed to reconvene the Team when Student stopped attending English class in 2023, and Parent's claim relative to the appropriateness of the District's assessments when I address her Child Find claim for tenth grade, infra.
[59] L.J. by N.N.J. v. Sch. Bd. of Broward Cnty., 927 F.3d 1203, 1215 (11th Cir. 2019).
[60] In her Closing Argument, Parent asserted that by sixth grade Student's IEP "formalized the use of an iPad (home device) with Apple Pencil and writing applications, including Notability, for written expression," and that a November 2022 amendment clarified that this assistive technology was to be used for assessments as well as classwork and homework. She further contended that this configuration "had been used successfully for years" and "was not an aspirational support," but rather documented and agreed upon.I do not find these statements to be consistent with the documentary record. Even assuming that, in practice, Student used a personal iPad with specific applications during middle school, the IEP that transitioned with Student into high school does not document a requirement that he be permitted to use his personal home device for assessments. The written IEP controls, and it does not reflect the level of specificity Parent now attributes to it. Similarly, the record does not support Parent's assertion that Student was categorically denied assistive technology for assessments in ninth grade. While Student was not permitted to use his personal iPad during assessments, he was offered alternative assistive technology for that purpose in accordance with the IEP. To the extent Student completed assessments using paper and pencil, the evidence reflects that he did so by choice, not because the District refused to provide assistive technology accommodations.
[61] T.K. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 810 F.3d 869, 877 (2d Cir. 2016).
[62] See Rowley, 458 U.S. at 204, 203 (when a learning disabled student "is being educated in the regular classrooms of the public education system, [an IEP] should be reasonably calculated to enable the child to achieve passing marks and advance from grade to grade" because grading and advancement in regular classrooms monitor a child's progress, and the "system itself" confirms the extent of educational benefit to the child).
[63] In her Closing Argument, Parent contends that "Mr. Rosemond and Mr. Webber testified that [Student] was not receiving consistent C-grid minutes during the fall of 10th grade because he did not have a study hall or ICE block during which services could be delivered…. Nothing in IDEA or Massachusetts regulations states that IEP services may only be delivered during study hall. Scheduling barriers do not excuse noncompliance."As an initial matter, Parent did not allege in her Hearing Request that the District failed to implement Student's C-Grid services. This issue was therefore not properly raised for adjudication. Moreover, Parent's argument mischaracterizes the testimony and the circumstances. Mr. Rosemond credibly testified that he warned both Parent and Student in 9th grade, and again at the outset of 10th grade, that electing to enroll in two math courses would significantly limit Student's access to a support block during which C-Grid services could be delivered. Despite these expressed concerns, Parent did not respond or agree to modify Student's schedule until November of the 2023–2024 school year. The District made the services set forth in the IEP available. It was Student's decision, with Parent's support, to prioritize an additional academic course over the scheduled delivery of those services. Under these circumstances, the record does not support a finding that the District failed to offer or make available the required C-Grid services.
[64] See L.J., 927 F.3d at 1216–18 ("Other alleged implementation "failures" reflected simple disagreements between L.J.'s mother and the school about how to provide the services described in the IEP"); cf. R.B. v. New York City Dep't of Educ., 15 F. Supp. 3d 421, 436 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), aff'd sub nom. R.B. ex rel. D.B. v. New York City Dep't of Educ.
[65] I note that at the hearing, Parent consistently argued that the District's 2023 psychological evaluation was inappropriate, and I reminded Parent that this issue was not identified in the issues for hearing. While it is inarguable that Mr. Webber did not complete his observation prior to the November 2023 meeting, the Team's discussion continued into December, and no eligibility, goals, accommodations, or services were determined until the second meeting, by which time Mr. Webber completed his observation and was able to report on it to the Team. I further note that Parent had handwritten "anxiety" onto the evaluation consent form, which she signed in September 2023, no testing in that area took place. Still, Parent did not reject any of the 2023 evaluations when they were completed and reviewed by the Team. She did not reject the evaluation until after the end of tenth grade, when she had already decided to unilaterally place Student at FlexSchool.In addition, although it is indisputable that Parent's input is crucial to the IEP Team process, the IDEA is silent as to the specific form that parental input must take during the evaluation process. See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(c)(1)(A) and 34 C.F.R. § 300.305(a)(1)(i)-(iii) (the IEP Team is required to "review existing evaluation data on the child, including (i) evaluations and information provided by the parents of the child; (ii) current classroom-based, local, or State assessments, and classroom-based observations; and (iii) observations by teachers and related service providers"). Here, Ms. Keenan invited Parent to contact the evaluators with any questions and share her concerns, but it does not appear that Parent did so. Moreover, Ms. Tonsing testified that she reviewed Student's special education file and spoke to his teachers as part of her evaluation, and, as such, she was privy to the notes from Student's April 2023 Team meeting and the proposal for re-evaluation that highlighted Parent's concerns. See Memorandum on Specific Learning Disability — Eligibility Process/Forms (December 10, 2017) which may be found at https://www.doe.mass.edu/specialeducation/iep/sld/.
[66] See Memorandum on Specific Learning Disability — Eligibility Process/Forms (December 10, 2017) which may be found at https://www.doe.mass.edu/specialeducation/iep/sld/.
[67] See In Re: Student v. Bedford Public Schools, BSEA # 25-14231 (Kantor Nir, 2025) and In re: Student and Hamilton-Wenham Regional School District, BSEA # 2104633 (Kantor Nir, 2021).
[68] See 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(3)(B) ("Nothing in this chapter requires that children be classified by their disability so long as each child who has a disability listed in section 1401 of this title and who, by reason of that disability, needs special education and related services is regarded as a child with a disability under this subchapter"); Fort Osage R-1 Sch. Dist. v. Sims ex rel. B.S., 641 F.3d 996, 1004 (8th Cir. 2011) (given the IDEA's focus on identifying and addressing a child's specific needs, the particular disability label assigned in an IEP is often immaterial so long as the program is tailored to those needs); K.E. ex rel. K.E. v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 15, 647 F.3d 795, 814 (8th Cir. 2011) ("A school district is not required to identify a student's issues by name or official diagnosis so long as the IEP properly identifies and addresses the student's disability").
[69] In her Closing Argument, Parent argued that the Team failed to properly document its discussion of SLD in written expression because no minutes or vote were recorded. However, the IDEA does not require LEAs to prepare minutes of IEP meetings. Here, Student's eligibility determination was documented, and the District relied on the re-evaluation results in making that determination.
[70] See Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 432, Mahnomen School v. J.H., 8 F.Supp.2d 1166, 28 IDELR 427 (D.Minn. 1998); In Re: Yale and Upper Cape Cod Regional Technical School and Sandwich Public Schools, BSEA # 06-0501 & # 06-0808 (Byrne, 2005) (without a showing of lack of notice of parental options and due process rights, lack of meaningful parental participation in the development of the IEP, or any other procedural impropriety, the BSEA does not revisit accepted expired IEPs).
[71] Hampden-Wilbraham Regional School Dist., 715 F.Supp.2d at 194-195 ("hearing officers are precluded from revisiting or re-opening accepted IEPs that have expired where parents participated in the development of the IEP" …. "The purpose of this rule is plain; deciding upon which goals and methods to include in any student's IEP is not an exact science, and allowing parents to second guess IEP decisions after it has expired would only undermine the process of providing students with the educational services they need"). Similarly, Parent fully accepted the November 2022 Amendment to the March 2022 IEP, removing counseling services, and the December 2023 IEP with no counseling services or social emotional goal, and she cannot now argue that either was inappropriate. Moreover, the 2023 assessments were consistent with Student's 2021 reevaluation, and no private evaluation diagnosing a specific learning disability was provided until June 2, 2025. District witnesses (Tonsing, Mirer, and Webber) consistently identified graphomotor weaknesses as the source of Student's writing difficulties, with Ms. Tonsing concluding that although Student had strong ideas and vocabulary, his writing lacked organization. Mr. Webber testified that even if Student had been found eligible for an SLD in December 2023, his IEP services and goals would have remained the same. See Torda ex rel. Torda v. Fairfax Cty. Sch. Bd., 517 F. App'x 162, 163 (4th Cir. 2013) (classification does not matter where all needs are addressed). Nor did the June 2025 diagnosis by Dr. Kassissieh establish that the District had violated Child Find in December 2024. I found Dr. Kassissieh to be biased and unreliable, as she had not observed Student in the public school setting or consulted with school staff, and did not challenge the validity of the District's testing or reconcile her conclusions with it. In contrast, Ms. Tonsing credibly criticized Dr. Kassissieh's methodology, including her use of selectively chosen subtests that did not support an SLD diagnosis. Finally, while Massachusetts does not require screening for giftedness, IDEA requires that any disability be addressed through an appropriately tailored IEP. See Coleman v. Pottstown Sch. Dist., 983 F. Supp. 2d 543, 571–72 (E.D. Pa. 2013), aff'd in part, 581 F. App'x 141 (3d Cir. 2014) (failure to identify a secondary exceptionality is not a violation absent impact on services or educational progress).
[72] See Cape Elizabeth Sch. Dep't, 382 F. Supp. 3d at 99; Mr. I., 480 F.3d at 13.
[73] 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(4).
[74] 34 CFR 300.324 (b)(1)(i).
[75] See 34 CFR 300.324 (a)(5).
[76] See 20 USC § 1414 (d)(3)(D); 34 CFR 300.324 (a)(4).
[77] See Letter to Green, 22 IDELR 639 (OSEP 1995).
[78] See Notice of Interpretation, Appendix A to 34 CFR Part 300, Question 20 (1999 regulations).
[79] See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(4)(ii)(I); 34 C.F.R. § 300.324(b)(1)(ii).
[80] I find Parent's argument that Student was excluded from English class unpersuasive. Student was offered the opportunity to switch out of the class, but he declined. Ms. Keenan offered to have a special education staff member attend the class with him. Student declined. She also offered that he meet with the SAC, and he declined. That the District did not offer Student Parent's preferred options (i.e., to drop the class, to be allowed to fail the class and take summer school, or to restart an online English class ) does not mean that he was excluded from his English class. However, where Student refused the accommodations offered to him by the District, and, as a result, was not accessing his English class, the District should have reconvened the Team to discuss Student's needs.
[81] The evidence substantiates Parent's allegation that a regular education teacher did not attend the May 3, 2024, meeting at which Student's extended-time accommodation was discussed. According to the District, the meeting was "not a Team meeting", as no IEP was being developed and no goals or services were amended. I find the District's position unpersuasive, especially where the District's Meeting Invitation and Attendance Sheet for the meeting state "Special Education Team Meeting." Ms. Keenan's notes are labelled "Progress Meeting," and the "purpose of the meeting [was] to discuss [Student's] progress." Although no goals, services, or accommodations were altered as a result of the meeting, there was the potential for an amendment considering that Student's progress was being discussed, and the Team did, in fact, make a "Team decision" when rejecting Parent's request for an extended time accommodation. Hence, the meeting was an IEP Team meeting, and the general education teacher should have been present. See 34 CFR 300.321 (a) (the IEP team for each student with a disability generally must include, among other mandatory members, not less than one general education teacher of the child if the child is or may be participating in the general education setting). Nevertheless, there is no evidence that the extended time accommodation was necessary for Student to receive educational benefit or that it would have helped with his anxiety over incomplete assignments.
[82] See W.D. v. Watchung Hills Reg'l High Sch. Bd. of Educ., 602 F. App'x 563, 567–68 (3d Cir. 2015) ("We, and other courts, have previously denied reimbursement when, … the parent fails to satisfy the "obligation to cooperate and assist in the formulation of an IEP, and ... to timely notify the District of [the] intent to seek private school tuition reimbursement").
[83] Mason v. Carranza, No. 20-CV-4010 (PKC) (SJB), 2024 WL 3624058, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2024).
[84] See Ruling on Parent's Motion For Partial Summary Judgement And Declaratory [Relief] Regarding Denial of FAPE December 20, 2024 - April 16, 2025, BSEA # 25-10207 (Kantor Nir, November 6, 2025) (finding that "there is no genuine issue of fact relating to whether the District's failure to propose an IEP for Student between December 20, 2024 and April 16, 2025 was a per se violation of federal and state law and a denial of a FAPE, and Parent is entitled to prevail on said claim as a matter of law. Where the District failed to offer an IEP, Parent has satisfied the first prong for reimbursement of a unilateral private school placement. The issue next becomes whether Student's unilateral placement was an otherwise proper placement.")
[85] See, e.g., Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230, 238–39, 129 S.Ct. 2484, 174 L.Ed.2d 168 (2009) ("[W]hen a child requires special-education services, a school district's failure to propose an IEP of any kind is at least as serious a violation of its responsibilities under IDEA as a failure to provide an adequate IEP"); Blackman v. District of Columbia, 277 F.Supp.2d 71, 79 (D.D.C.2003) ("[T]he failure to provide an IEP, … or the failure to provide a written determination in a timely manner after requests for an IEP meeting … have been made constitutes the denial of a free appropriate public education as required by the IDEA. Where there is a denial of a free appropriate education because no hearing has been held and no determination has been issued, and a proper placement therefore has not been made, there results a per se harm to the student[]") (citation omitted); Justin G. ex rel. Gene R. v. Bd. of Educ. of Montgomery Cnty., 148 F.Supp.2d 576, 584 (D.Md.2001) ("It is undisputed that no IEP was developed for the 1998–1999 school year. Such a violation goes to the heart of the district's ability to provide a FAPE and resulted in a denial thereof"); Parent v. Gorham Sch. Dep't, Case No. 07020H, slip op. at 18 (Me.Dep't of Educ. Jan. 5, 2007) ("Because the Gorham School Department was, and continues to be, obligated to prepare a 2006–2007 IEP for the student and has admittedly failed to do so, Gorham has failed to provide the student with a free and appropriate public education, thereby violating the IDEA").
[86] Whether Parent is entitled to reimbursement of a unilateral private school placement depends on whether the unilateral placement was "an otherwise proper placement," an issue I address infra. See Florence Cnty., 510 U.S. at 14.
[87] Florence Cnty., 510 U.S. at 14.
[88] Florence Cnty., 510 U.S. at 14.
[89] At hearing, Parent also asserted that the District violated Student's right by not allowing Student access to after-school activities at Longmeadow after his unilateral placement. As this issue was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in In Re: Student v. Longmeadow Public Schools (Ruling on Motions), BSEA # 25-10207 (Kantor Nir, October 31, 2025), I do not address it in this Decision.
[90] M.G.L. c. 71B, § 3.; 603 CMR 28.03(1)(e).
[91] See 603 CMR 28.03(e)(2).
[92] 603 CMR 28.03(e)(3).
[93] 603 CMR 28.03(e)(4).
[94] This Guidance may be found at https://www.doe.mass.edu/specialeducation/policy/dese/advisories/memo-sy2024-2025-6.html
[95] I note that this is the only IEE-related claim that I address in this Decision.
[96] See Michael D.M. ex rel. Michael M. v. Pemi-Baker Reg'l Sch. Dist., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17400, at *12 (D.N.H 2004); see also Murphy v. Timberlane Reg'l Sch. Dist. 22 F.3d 1186, 1196 (1st Cir. 1994) ("It is plainly true, of course . . . that not every procedural irregularity gives rise to liability under the IDEA").
[97] 20 U.S.C. §1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); 34 CFR 300.513(a)(2); see Roland M. v Concord Sch. Comm., 910 F.2d 983, 994 (1st Cir. 1990).
[98] Ms. Henwood testified that many of FlexSchool's 2e students suffered trauma in their respective public school settings. However, Ms. Henwood is not qualified to diagnose trauma, and Parent offered no evidence of a trauma diagnosis, much less of a connection between such diagnosis and Student's experience at Longmeadow.
[99] The Team denied Parent's request to include access to extracurricular activities in the IEP. Dr. Kassissieh recommended "participation in district-based social activities to support community, interests, and relationships." However, she provided no explanation as to why this was essential to Student's access to a FAPE. Moreover, this recommendation appears inconsistent with her other recommendation that Student be grouped with "carefully selected peers." While Student clearly benefited from his afterschool activities at Longmeadow, there was no credible evidence submitted to suggest that he requires participation therein in order to receive a FAPE. See 71 Fed. Reg. 46,583. (2006) (the IDEA does not require districts to provide nonacademic services and extracurricular activities to students with disabilities, only to take the steps necessary to afford students an equal opportunity for participation in these activities).
[100] Sneitzer v. Iowa Dep't of Educ., 796 F.3d 942, 950 (8th Cir. 2015).
[101] As Student has been attending a virtual school, this is not a case in which transition or social concerns would justify keeping Student at FlexSchool until the end of the school year. Cf. In Re: Student and Framingham Public Schools, BSEA# 23-12178 (Mitchell, 2024) (ordering reimbursement for Student's unilateral placement through the date of the Decision, not the remainder of the school year).