COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPEALS
BUREAU OF SPECIAL EDUCATION APPEALS
In Re: Student v. Topsfield Public Schools
and Masconomet Regional School District BSEA # 2510694
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 February 10, March 3 and 6, and May 1 and 18, 2026, before Hearing Officer Alina Kantor Nir. Parents were represented by two educational advocates. Topsfield Public Schools (Topsfield) and Masconomet Regional School District (MASCO) were represented by counsel. Those present for all or part of the proceedings, all of whom agreed to participate virtually, were:
Student
Father
Mother
Alison Macko Special Needs Coordinator, Topsfield
Brad Denton Assistant Superintendent of Student Services, MASCO
Holly Cole Reading Specialist
Jenny Churchill Special Needs Coordinator, Topsfield
Kathleen Babcock Teacher, Landmark School (Landmark)
Kathleen Lyons Special Educational Reading Teacher, Topsfield
Lynne Strobl General Education Teacher for 6th Grade, Topsfield
Matt LeCava Assistant Superintendent of Student Services, Topsfield
Meghan Malloy Instructional Assistant, Topsfield
Meghan Sebens Director of Student Progress and Performance, Landmark
Olivia Orlando Special Educator, Topsfield
Sara DeOreo Teacher, Topsfield
Shauna Levasseur Speech Language Pathologist (SLP), Topsfield
Susan Dillon Instructional Assistant, Topsfield
Timothy Hogan School Psychologist, Topsfield
Alisia St. Florian Attorney for Topsfield
Cynthia DeAngelis Educational Advocate
Marie Nazzaro Educational Advocate
Sean Goguen Attorney for MASCO
Erika Gleason BSEA Intern, Observer
Iman Aoun BSEA Intern, Observer
Olivia Syat BSEA Intern, Observer
Rebecca Baron Court Reporter
Jatira Cotton-Dortch Court Reporter
The official record of the hearing consists of documents submitted by Parents and marked as P-1 through P-5, P-6(1) and P-6(2), P-7(1) and P-7(2), P-9, P-10(1) through P-10(5), P-11, P-12(1) and P-12(2), P-13(1) through P-13(3), P-14, P-15(1) and P-15(2), P-16(1) and P-16(2), P-17(1) through P-17(9), P-18(1) through P-18(4), and P-19; documents submitted by Topsfield and marked as Exhibits T-4 through T-47; documents submitted by MASCO and marked as Exhibits M-1 through M-12; approximately four days of oral testimony and argument; and a five-volume transcript produced by a court reporter. Oral closing arguments were delivered on May 18, 2026, and the record closed on that day.
ISSUES IN DISPUTE:
The following issues are in dispute:
1. Whether the Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for Student’s sixth-grade year with placement at Topsfield provided Student with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE)? If the answer is negative, then whether Topsfield must provide Student with compensatory services in the form of one year at Landmark, including transportation and summer programming?
2. Whether the IEPs for Student’s seventh-grade year, with placement proposed at MASCO, provided Student with a FAPE in the LRE? If the answer is negative, then whether MASCO must reimburse Parents for Landmark, including transportation and summer programming?
FACTUAL FINDINGS[1]:
1. Student is a seventh-grade resident of Topsfield, Massachusetts. She is a kind, bubbly, social, resilient, and hard-working student. (Mother, Father, Hogan, Babcock, Churchill, Wilson, Orlando, Macko, Strobl, Lyons) Student is eligible for special education and related services under the primary disability category of Specific Learning Disability (Reading and Writing) and secondary disability category of Communication. (Churchill, Orlando, Macko, Strobl, Lyons, T-8)
2. Prior to her unilateral placement at Landmark by Parents for the sixth-grade, 2025-2026 school year, Student attended the Proctor Elementary School (Proctor) in Topsfield, Massachusetts. Proctor educates fourth to sixth-grade students. (Churchill, Macko)
3. Jenny Churchill served as Student’s Special Education Coordinator, or Team Chair, for fourth and fifth grades. She also attended Student’s first team meeting in sixth grade. (Churchill, Macko) Ms. Churchill has worked in Topsfield for 12 years. She holds several licenses through the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE). Ms. Churchill testified that Student’s progress in elementary school was “slow but steady.” (Churchill)
Fifth Grade (2022-2023)
4. The Topsfield Team convened on November 30, 2023, to develop an IEP for Student for the balance of grade 5 and part of grade 6. Mother testified that at the November 2023 meeting, Parents inquired about Student's reading grade level and became very concerned when the Team reported that Student was reading at a first- or second-grade level. (Mother, Father) Topsfield proposed an IEP for the period 11/30/2023 to 11/29/2024 (November 2023 IEP) with goals and services in the areas of Fluency, Phonological Awareness, Decoding, Encoding, Written Language, and Speech/Language.[2] The November 2023 IEP further provided for multi-sensory instruction in phonics, phonemic awareness, orthographic mapping, and structured literacy (phonology through semantics), as well as fluency and sight-word training. It incorporated a co-taught model, speech-language services (individual, small-group, and in-class), and instructional strategies such as previewing and reviewing, as well as spiraling, to reinforce skill development. Student also had access to the school counselor as needed. Student’s placement was in a language-based, co-taught classroom, with general and special education teachers jointly delivering instruction, consulting, and planning to provide specially designed instruction within the general education setting. Although Parents signed and accepted the IEP and placement on January 9, 2024, the record shows that Topsfield received the accepted IEP on March 4, 2024. (Churchill, T-6, T-7, T-8, T-9, T-10)
5. Alison Macko is the current Special Education Coordinator at Proctor. She has a master’s degree in special education and another in special education administration. She is Wilson-certified and has been trained in Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing (LiPS) and Visualizing and Verbalizing. Prior to working in Topsfield, Ms. Macko ran a language-based program in another public school district. According to Ms. Macko, a co-taught classroom is taught by both a general education teacher and a special education teacher, whereas an inclusion classroom includes a second adult, who may be a special education teacher or an instructional assistant. Ms. Macko testified that, at Proctor, all core instruction for Student was provided in co-taught language-based classrooms. The classes were “controlled for language”, and language was simplified; information and instruction were scaffolded; executive function skills were embedded; clarifications were offered; and multisensory instruction was provided. Student’s classes included peers with profiles similar to Student’s. (Macko)
6. Concerned about Student’s reading level, Parents sought a private educational evaluation. (Mother, Father) In March 2024, Dr. Kent Wilson, a nationally certified neuropsychologist, conducted a neuropsychological evaluation of Student.[3] Dr. Wilson testified that he has appeared before the BSEA once or twice before, always on behalf of parents. Dr. Wilson did not observe the Topsfield program or consult with school staff, except to review their ratings on some of the inventories.
According to Dr. Wilson, Student’s Full Scale Intelligence Quotient (FSIQ) fell in the Average range (SS 93), but her performance was variable across subtests, making a single global score misleading. Index-level analysis showed strengths in verbal reasoning, vocabulary, language comprehension, and processing speed, with generally intact nonverbal reasoning (VCI 98, FRI 97, PSI 92). However, Student had persistent weaknesses in working memory (especially auditory/phonological), executive functioning (planning, organization, cognitive flexibility), and aspects of visual-spatial organization (WM 85, VSI 89). Dr. Wilson reported that Student had a “solid potential” for comprehending grade-level material, but her executive vulnerabilities could undermine her otherwise intact intellectual abilities, particularly when cognitive load was high. Student’s academic achievement on the WIAT-4 indicated a score in the Very Low range for Reading Composite (SS 71, compared to 75 in 2021), an Extremely Low score in Word Reading (SS 68, compared to 65 in 2021), a Very Low score in Reading Comprehension (SS 75, compared to 86 in 2021), a Very Low score in Pseudoword Decoding (SS 72, compared to 85 in 2021), an Extremely Low score in Orthographic Fluency (SS 54, compared to 66 in 2021), a Very Low score in Decoding Fluency (SS 74, compared to 85 in 2021), an Extremely Low score in Dyslexia Index (SS 67), a Very Low score in Written Expression Composite (SS 79, compared to same in 2021), a Very Low score in Spelling (SS 77, compared to same in 2021), a Low Average score in Sentence Composition (SS 84, compared to 87 in 2021), an Average score in Sentence Building (SS 96), a Very Low score in Sentence Combining (SS 77), a Low Average score in Essay Composition (SS 89, compared to 95 in 2021), a High Average score in Sentence Writing Fluency (SS 112, compared to 74 in 2021), Average score in Mathematics Composite (SS 90, compared to 83 in 2021), Average score in Numerical Operations (SS 99, compared to 82 in 2021), Low Average score in Math Problem Solving (SS 83, compared to 87 in 2021), Average score in Math Fluency Composite (SS 93, compared to 78 in 2021), Average score in Addition Fluency (SS 101, compared to 93 in 2021), Average score in Subtraction Fluency (SS 91, compared to 84 in 2021), and Low Average score in Multiplication Fluency (SS 88, compared to 68 in 2021). On the GORT-5, Student’s Oral Reading Index was in the Extremely Low range (SS 65); her fluency and accuracy were in the Extremely Low range, and her comprehension was in the Very Low range.
Dr. Wilson diagnosed Student with Double Deficit Dyslexia (SLD) with impairments in Reading, Written Expression, and Applied Math Problem Solving; Executive Function Disorder/Other Specified ADHD(symptoms consistent with ADHD, likely secondary to learning and executive weaknesses); and Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood. Dr. Wilson opined that Student needed supports for her attention and executive functioning, but that these deficits were part of her SLD profile.
Dr. Wilson concluded that, despite strong effort, resilience, and many cognitive strengths, Student showed a moderate-to-severe language-based learning disability that had not responded adequately to inclusion-based programming. Her decoding, fluency, spelling, and comprehension were three to four years below grade level, and the gap had widened since her last evaluation. Reading difficulties also compromised Student’s written expression and applied math reasoning.
While Student “went along to get along” at school, anxiety and emotional stress were significant at home and appeared tied to her unmet learning needs. Although Student’s teachers, who had completed rating scales as part of Dr. Wilson’s testing, shared no concerns regarding Student’s social-emotional functioning or anxiety, Dr. Wilson surmised that Student was not always engaged and participating, that she was insecure and nervous, and that she was defensive about her deficits.[4] He concluded that Student required a substantially separate, language-based classroom, and recommended a small student-to-teacher ratio (≤8:1 ratio) with multisensory, structured literacy across all subjects; daily, 45-minute 1:1 Orton-Gillingham–based (OG) tutorials with a certified instructor; direct instruction in grammar, sentence structure, and organization; language-based instruction for applied problem solving; and ESY services. He also recommended accommodations such as breaks, read-alouds, Assistive Technology (AT)/scribe use, graphic organizers, preview/review of vocabulary, audio text, word banks, and frequent check-ins. (Wilson, P-12(1))
7. The Team convened on May 7, 2024[5] to review Dr. Wilson’s Neuropsychological report shared by Student’s family. (Churchill, P-2, T-15, T-16, T-17, T-18)
8. Ms. Churchill testified that the Team was not surprised by Dr. Wilson’s findings. The Team believed that the District was already implementing most of Dr. Wilson’s recommendations, asserting that Student’s placement at Topsfield’s program was, in fact, a language-based program with language-based supports embedded throughout the day and the curriculum. Ms. Churchill testified that Dr. Wilson’s report “was written for Landmark,” but the Team believed Landmark was too restrictive, and, although her progress was slow, Student was making progress. (Churchill) As such, the Team recommended adding direct writing services on the C-Grid (3 x 30 minutes) (May 7 Amendment to the November 2023 IEP). In addition, Topsfield requested consent to re-evaluate Student. (Churchill, Orlando, P-2, T-15, T-16, T-17, T-18) On June 4, 2024, Parents rejected the partial inclusion placement but accepted “the IEP services.” (T-18)
9. Student’s progress report in June reflects continued, though slow progress on her goals and objectives. (T-19)
Sixth Grade (2024-2025)
10. The Team reconvened on September 17, 2024, with Ms. Macko in attendance. (Churchill, P-3, T-21, T-22) (Macko)
11. At the September 2024 meeting, Parents questioned the fidelity of the reading services Student was receiving. They also inquired about an out-of-district language-based program. Although Parents reported that Student’s anxiety had increased, school staff had not witnessed this at school. The Team reiterated its request to assess Student[6], and Parents consented. AT assessment was also proposed because Dr. Wilson had expressed concern regarding Student’s level of independence (although, according to Ms. Churchill, staff did not report that Student was overly dependent on adults). The District honored Parents’ requests that executive functioning and social-emotional rating scales be included as part of the student’s re-evaluation. According to Ms. Churchill, she did not generate a Prior Written Notice (i.e., N1) as a result of this Team meeting because “nothing was changed” in the IEP. (Churchill, Macko, P-3, T-23, T-24, T-47) Another Team meeting was scheduled for November 12, 2024. (P-5, T-25, M-1)
12. In sixth grade, Olivia Orlando served as Student’s special education teacher and liaison. Ms. Orlando has a master’s degree in literacy, is DESE-licensed, has completed 40 hours of Orton-Gillingham (OG) training, and is Wilson-certified at Levels 1 and 2. Ms. Orlando had 8 to 9 students on her caseload. During the 2024-2025 school year, she served as Parents’ “main contact,” facilitated meetings and consults, and wrote progress reports and IEPs for specific service areas. (Orlando)
13. Ms. Orlando co-taught ELA with Sara DeOreo and Math/Science with Lynn Stoble. In ELA, an instructional aide was also present. Ms. Orlando testified that Student’s sixth-grade English Language Arts (ELA) class was piloting Inter-Reading, a new curriculum, and she modified the curriculum, as needed, for Student. Although she would have been responsible for adapting Student’s homework, no homework was assigned in ELA in sixth grade. Ms. Orlando “followed and supported” Student all day. Depending on the day, Student received small group instruction with 6 to 7 peers. (Orlando) According to Ms. Orlando, Student’s service providers consulted in accordance with the service delivery grid, but also at other times throughout the day. (Orlando) During the October 2024 consult meeting, staff reported that Student had transitioned well to the 2024-2025 school year and was working on transferring OG strategies into the classroom. (T-30)
14. Ms. Orlando testified that while she found Dr. Wilson’s data valuable, Student’s performance was “not so black and white,” and the report did not paint a complete picture of Student and what she could do. Staff did not witness Student’s anxiety; sometimes, they did note decreased attention. (Orlando)
15. Kathleen Lyons was Student’s reading teacher during sixth grade. Ms. Lyons has worked at Topsfield for 26 years, is DESE-licensed and Wilson Level 1-certified and has completed 30 hours of OG training. She also had LiPS, Seeing Stars, and Visualizing and Verbalizing training as well as professional development through Landmark Outreach.[7] Ms. Lyons testified that she collaborated with Ms. Orlando and the general education teachers, formally and informally, “pretty much daily,” so they would know how to carry things over into the classroom. (Lyons, Orlando)
16. Ms. Lyons met with Student during her 30-minute What-I-Need (WIN) Block and for an additional 30 minutes at the end of the day. At that time, another reading teacher was working with another student in the same room. (Orlando, Lyons) Ms. Lyons testified that Student’s reading goal was targeted using the OG methodology and the Carroll School scope and sequence[8]. Student made “slow and steady progress.” (Lyons, T-46) Student was responding well to OG after having tried LiPS before with little success. Student’s decoding was at a mid-second- to early-third-grade level, and her automaticity was at a mid-second-grade level. Lyons, T-22) Ms. Lyons testified that Dr. Wilson’s report captured Student appropriately. (Lyons)
17. Lynne Strobl was Student’s sixth-grade homeroom, math, and science general education teacher. She holds a master’s degree in education and counseling, has earned her Certificate of Advanced Graduate Study (CAGS), and holds multiple DESE licenses. She testified that she and Ms. Olando shared the same classroom, planned together daily, and based on the activity, decided which tools students would use to fully engage. There were twenty-two students in Ms. Strobl’s class, seven with IEPs. Ms. Strobl used multiple presentation modalities that were more “oral and discussion-based,” and her assignments were project-based. As such, Student did not need to be read to much in science.[9] She and Ms. Orlando often pulled small groups of students, which sometimes included Student, for additional support, but all students had access to both teachers. Students were not divided by special education status. In class, Ms. Strobl used Universal Design for Learning (UDL)-type supports, including checklists, access to materials on Google Classroom, and charts for all students. She also modified the assessments for all students on IEPs to include their accommodations (e.g., word banks, fewer problems per page). Math problems were read to Student during assessments, and Ms. Orlando scribed for her on tests. In science, there were limited writing assignments, as most of the work was project-based. As such, Student did not require much scribing. Ms. Stroble spent a lot of time in both math and science on vocabulary, which was always posted in Google Classroom as well. According to Ms. Stroble, Student could “mostly” read the vocabulary. Student utilized her tools and resources very well. Student had very good comprehension skills in math and science. She answered questions and enjoyed class discussion. She needed the supports delineated in her IEP, but nothing beyond. In Ms. Strobl’s class, Student did not require more support than other sixth-grade students. She was frequently independent and at times needed adult support to access the curriculum. In Ms. Strobl’s opinion, the services and supports provided to Student were appropriate t in the subjects Ms. Strobl taught, and Student made effective progress. (Strobl)
18. At times, in Science, Student received small group services in the “hallway” like other sixth-grade students. (Strobl) School staff testified that the hallway is an extension of the sixth-grade classroom and is furnished with desks and chairs, where other small groups convene. There were service stations in the hallway where students sometimes chose to work. (Orlando Macko, DeOreo) According to Student, the hallway was, at times, chaotic, but at other times quiet. (Student)
19. Student underwent a re-evaluation conducted by Topsfield in the fall of 2024. Shauna Levesseur, SLP-CCC, is a Topsfield speech and language pathologist (SLP).[10] She conducted Student’s fall 2024 speech and language evaluation.[11] Student demonstrated average comprehension skills when listening to orally presented passages. Her strengths included inference ability and passage synthesis, while weaknesses in vocabulary definitions from longer passages (rather than from single words) emerged. Student earned an overall language score in the average range, although her receptive language score was in the borderline range. Language content and memory for language were also in the average range, as were scores on supralinguistic testing. (Levesseur, P-10(4), T-26) Ms. Levesseur testified that Student had made great progress and most of her scores were in the average range. (Levesseur)
20. An Assistive Technology Assessment was administered by TechSolutions. Recommendations included using digital graphic organizers to help Student with pre-writing activities and brainstorming; exploring the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to provide differentiated resources at Student's independent comprehension level; facilitating understanding of historical events and figures; and increasing proficiency with technology to promote Student’s independence. (P-11, T-27, M-12)
21. Student’s general education and special education teachers completed the Educational Assessment Parts A and B. Her general education teachers reported that Student required the accommodations and modifications outlined in her IEP to access the curriculum. (P-10(2), T-28) Ms. Orlando observed Student in November 2024 as part of the re-evaluation. She noted concerns with retelling what has been said, using imprecise, vague language, mispronouncing words, having limited interest in stories, and having difficulty following directions and instructions. Conversationally, Student appeared capable and strong, but when tasked with translating her thoughts into a written output, she often looked to Ms. Orlando for clarification. Reading concerns included losing place when reading, confusing similar-looking words, reversing letter order in words, reading slowly, demonstrating poor memory for written words, having poor vocabulary retention, and disliking or avoiding reading. Ms. Orlando testified that Student did not always avoid reading and there were some books she enjoyed, but not the book being read during this observation. Ms. Orlando also noted that Student’s writing was messy and incomplete, evidencing poor spelling, and difficulty proofreading and editing. She failed to pay close attention to details, had difficulty sustaining attention and organizing materials, and was easily distractible and forgetful in routines. Ms. Orlando testified that Student’s attention varied depending on the time and day. At times, she avoided hard things. (Orlando, P-10(3), T-32) According to Ms. Orlando, Student “leaned on” speech-to-text and text-to-speech the most and became comfortable using both. She noted no concerns in the areas of gross motor, fine motor, and social-emotional skills.[12] (Orlando, P-10(3), T-32). According to Ms. Orlando, Student required a lot of support during the day across all academics. The biggest barrier to her independence was her reading. Although Student did not require everything to be read out loud to her, at times even volunteering to read out loud, she often did require a read-aloud or a scribe. However, much of sixth grade was project-based, and Student had an opportunity to work in teams, collaborate with others, and show her strengths. Moreover, her comprehension was strong, and once a task was broken down for her, Student was able to access the curriculum. (Orlando) Student was also able to self-advocate in class. (Orlando, T-22) Ms. Orlando was not aware that Student was stressed about missing instruction during pull-out services. Student was “very good” at finding a teacher and asking to be caught up. She never appeared anxious. (Orlando)
22. Ms. Lyons conducted the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement-3 (KTEA-3). Until the November Team meeting and the acceptance of the new IEP (discussed infra), Ms. Lyons worked on Student’s writing goal three days per week, utilizing the Project Read Framing Your Thoughts Program. Student made progress on this program, and her sentences grew more mature and detailed during their time together. (Lyons, T-35) Student's test scores ranged from the Very Low to the Average range. Student demonstrated relative strengths in Phonological Processing and Math Fluency, but reading was a significant area of weakness, with Very Low range scores in both reading words in isolation and in text. Student was able to decode nonwords up to two syllables accurately when untimed but demonstrated difficulty reading words in isolation under timed conditions. Student showed a relative strength in completing directed writing tasks, but a weakness with spelling. She was able to add and subtract fluently but demonstrated weakness when presented with multi-digit problems. Ms. Lyons recommended teacher check-ins, extra time, speech-to-text when writing, editing checklists, rubrics or models, word banks for spelling/use of word processor spell check, use of audiobooks, and graphic organizers. (Lyons, P-10(1), T-29) Ms. Lyons testified that her testing was consistent with Dr. Wilson’s. Student could not access the curriculum without significant modifications. Her reading was at a “mid-second grade/going into third grade” level.[13] Student worked hard but continued to struggle with fluency and automaticity. For grade-level reading, material needed to be read to Student. Ms. Lyons testified that Student’s progress had been slow, and she required multiple opportunities to practice, a multi-sensory approach, and lots of spiraling back to learn to read. She opined that Student’s IEP was appropriate and met her needs. (Lyons, T-35)
23. Timothy Hogan is the Topsfield School Psychologist who conducted Student’s psychological evaluation as part of the fall 2024 re-evaluation.[14] According to Mr. Hogan, Student’s results were consistent with Dr. Wilson’s testing. Student showed significant variability on the cognitive assessment. Her index scores ranged from below average to average, with strengths in using prior knowledge and recognizing patterns, and weaknesses in sequential processing, working memory, and learning new symbol–word associations. Student performed better when tasks were contextualized and allowed for planning and recognition; she struggled more with high cognitive load, visual–spatial reasoning, and tasks requiring simultaneous processing or multiple decisions. As testing progressed, her fatigue and restlessness increased, and she was more successful at recognition than at free recall, indicating vulnerability under high-memory-demand conditions. Overall, Student understood the “big picture” well but often missed details, especially in visually complex or multi-step tasks. While Student’s working memory was vulnerable, her verbal comprehension was a strength. Rating scales and observations also suggested emerging anxiety and reduced confidence related to learning challenges. Recommendations included: scaffolding; explicit structure; context, repetition, and building on prior knowledge to support new learning; using multi-sensory instruction (pair visual and auditory input); presenting information in small, manageable chunks with extra processing time; pre-teaching the “big picture” before details; using graphic organizers and written checklists to reduce cognitive load; breaking long tasks into short steps with frequent breaks; providing un-timed assessments and additional wait time; emphasizing accuracy and reflection over speed; using spaced practice and repetition (e.g., flashcards for automaticity); giving clear, brief, one-step directions; seating her near the teacher and away from distractions; and providing consistent positive reinforcement and reduced emphasis on competition. According to Mr. Hogan, his recommendations were only suggestions, and it was up to the Team to decide which to include in the IEP. Mr. Hogan testified that Student was doing well with supports in place, and he believed a similar program was appropriate for her. Student “fell apart” when supports were not present. She especially required scaffolding that allowed her to rely on prior knowledge. During his observation of Student, she was participating and attentive but required help organizing information. He observed the teacher reading and scribing for her. Mr. Hogan testified that Student’s rating scales were not significant for depression. Even Parents’ ratings only noted mild anxiety, and anxiety was not endorsed by any of her teachers. (Hogan, P-10(5), T-31) Mr. Hogan explained that when a student with weak working memory “works hard”, she begins to fatigue, especially as she is asked to complete novel tasks. To help with cognitive fatigue, it is important to scaffold learning and to build on a student’s prior knowledge. Repetition is important for a student with this profile because it provides her with opportunities to encode information. He opined that frequent reading instruction for a student with dyslexia and weak working memory would be beneficial. (Hogan)
24. On November 12, 2024, Student’s Topsfield Team reconvened to review the evaluations and draft a new IEP. (Mother, Father, Orlando, P-4, T-35)
25. Gillian Hosman and Erika Donovan observed Student prior to the November 2024 Team meeting. Ms. Hosman is a MASCO reading specialist. She is OG-certified and a certified structured dyslexia interventionist. She worked at Landmark before joining MASCO two years ago. (Hosman) Ms. Donovan is a Special Education Coordinator at MASCO. She has a bachelor’s degree in communication disorders, a master’s degree in rehabilitation, and an additional master’s degree in special education. She also holds several licenses from DESE. Ms. Donovan taught at Landmark for 11 years. According to Ms. Donovan, Landmark was “where she learned about being a good special education teacher.” She uses the skills and methods she learned at Landmark daily at MASCO, where she has worked for 14 years. These skills and methods include clarification, simplification, breaking down materials, vocabulary, preview and review, sentence starters, graphic organizers, word walls, and exemplars. Ms. Donovan left Landmark to start MASCO’s Landmark co-taught language-based programs. She currently co-teaches science, global cultures, and ELA, as well as 2 academic support classes, with two paraprofessionals supporting her. She has been co-teaching with the same teachers for almost 10 years. In these classes, all students are included and work on the same material. For language-based students, the language and concepts are scaffolded and broken down to reduce cognitive load. All students have homework, which is sometimes modified for language-based students. Ms. Donovan also teaches academic support, where she helps with homework and focuses on executive functioning, organization, and writing skills. Ms. Donovan utilizes the curriculum students are already working on. For writing, she uses the Claim, Evidence, Reasoning Methodology (CER), which is used across the MASCO curriculum for consistency. She speaks to and plans with the general education teachers daily. (Donovan)
26. Marie Bridges is the Assistant Director of Special Education at MASCO. In that role, she also serves as an out-of-district coordinator. Ms. Bridges attended Student’s November 2024 re-evaluation meeting. She testified that it is not unusual for her to attend a meeting when MASCO is considered as the next step for a student, and opined that the IEP proposed by Topsfield was appropriate to meet Student’s needs. (Bridges) Prior to the meeting, Gillian Hosman, MASCO reading specialist, and Erika Donovan, MASCO Special Education Program Coordinator, observed Student at Topsfield. Ms. Bridges testified that based on the reports and Team discussion, MASCO could offer Student the support and services Student required. (Bridges)
27. At the November 2024 Team meeting, Student was found eligible under the specific learning disability and communication disability categories. Teachers reported that Student struggled most in ELA and relied heavily on special education support, though her confidence in math was improving. Student understood grade-level content when it was read to her, benefited from graphic organizers, task breakdown, and front-loading, but often waited to be prompted and showed anxiety on some days. Overall, despite targeted multisensory phonics instruction and one-to-one support, Student continued to make slow and inconsistent progress in reading, with ongoing needs in decoding, fluency, written language organization, math word problems, working memory, independence, and emotional well-being, making continued intensive instruction, assistive technology, and coordinated services critical to her success. Overall, Topsfield reported that Student had made progress in phonological processing, sound symbol relationships as well as written expression and math fluency. (Orlando, P-4, T-35)
28. Parents shared significant concerns about Student’s reading level, independence with reading and writing, math word problems, attention, and access to the curriculum, as well as the emotional impact of her learning challenges on her self-esteem. According to Parents, the reading gap was not closing and Student’s strong dislike of reading, combined with her struggles, affected her emotionally and socially. She lacked independence in completing work and was frustrated by being pulled out of class and missing activities. (Mother, Father)
29. The IEP for the period 11/12/2024 to 11/11/2025 (November 2024 IEP), proposed the following goal areas: Fluency, Phonological Awareness, Decoding, Encoding, Written Language, Speech/Language.
The following services were proposed for the remainder of Student’s sixth-grade year at Topsfield: A Grid: Consult (SLP/Gen Ed/SpEd Teacher 2x15min/month); B Grid: Reading (SpEd/Gen Ed Teacher/Aide 5x45 min/week), Academic Support-Math SpEd/Gen Ed Teacher/Aide 5x45 min/week), Academic Support (SpEd/Gen Ed Teacher/Aide 3x30 min/week, Science/Social Studies); C Grid: Reading (SpEd Teacher, 5x15 min/week, fluency), Reading (SpEd Teacher, 5x45 min/week), Speech/Language (SLP/SLP Assistant, 1x30 min/week), Written Language (SpEd Teacher 5x60 min/week); ESY Reading (SG) (SpEd Teacher, 2x45 min/week, 6 weeks, reading/writing), ESY Writing (SpEd Teacher, 2x45 min/week).
For seveth grade, 2025-2026, the IEP called for placement in a language-based, co-taught classroom at MASCO and the following services: A Grid: Consult (SLP/Gen Ed/SpEd Teacher 2x15min/month); B Grid: Co-Taught Science (SpEd Teacher, 3x49 min/4 day cycle), Co-Taught Science (SpEd Teacher, 1x68 min/4 day cycle), Co-Taught Social Studies (SpEd Teacher, 3x49 min/week), Co-Taught Social Studies (SpEd Teacher, 1x68 min/4 day cycle); C Grid: Reading (Reading Teacher, 1x68 min/4 day cyle), Reading (Reading Teacher, 3x49 min/4 day cycle), Academic Support (SpEd Teacher/Aide, 1x68 min/4 day cyle), Academic Support (SpEd Teacher/Aide, 3x49 min/4 day cycle).[15]
The Team indicated that Student would have access to the school counselor as needed, with at least three counseling sessions scheduled in the fall of seventh grade to support her transition and help identify supports. Although Assistive Technology consultation was not indicated in the service delivery grid, the Additional Information section noted that up to six hours of assistive technology consultation would be available to the team, with the option to front-load services at the start of the school year. Language-based instruction would be integrated throughout the Student’s daily coursework.
Parents accepted the IEP on December 5, 2024, but rejected the partial inclusion placement. (P-5, T-33, T-34, T-35, M-1)
30. Sara DeOreo was Student’s English Language Arts (ELA) general education teacher for reading and writing in sixth grade. She is Wilson Level 1-certified, LiPS-trained, and holds a master’s degree in reading. She worked as a reading specialist for 6 years and as a general education teacher for 21 years. She testified that reading and writing were two different subjects that she co-taught with Ms. Orlando. (DeOreo) Following the November 2024 IEP Team meeting and the acceptance of the service by Parents, an aide was added for Student for the ELA reading class (and was overseen by Ms. Orlando), and Student was pulled out for writing. In the reading portion of class, Student always worked in a heterogeneous group and volunteered to read often. The class utilized InteReading. Based on the assessments, Student was absorbing the material being taught. Because the last 15 minutes of class were devoted to “extension activities” which were not instruction-based, Student left the reading ELA class 15 minutes early to go to her 1:1 reading tutorial. (Other students also left the class at that time.) As such, she did not miss any instruction. Ms. DeOreo collaborated with Ms. Orlando several times per day, and Ms. Orlando would modify work for Student. Before Student transitioned to a 1:1 writing service, Student participated in the same structured writing program as all sixth-grade students. Student gained independence and confidence with the program. Homework was limited, mostly to vocabulary work, which was modified for Student by Ms. Orlando. In class, the following accommodations were most useful: color-coded graphic organizers, verbal rehearsal before writing, small group instruction to reteach skills, a scribe when Student’s ideas were “coming out fast”, and alternative seating with reduced distraction. Ms. DeOreo testified that, based on her experience as a reading specialist, Student required daily reading tutorials. (DeOreo) She also opined that Student’s IEPs incorporated the recommendations available and were appropriate to meet her needs. (DeOreo)
31. Meghan Malloy was Student’s assigned instructional assistant for reading in ELA class, working under the supervision of Ms. Orlando. She was added to Student’s IEP as support following the November 2024 IEP meeting. Ms. Malloy holds a doctorate in audiology and a minor in speech-language pathology. She has worked as an instructional assistant in Topsfield since 2018. Ms. Malloy scribed for and read to Student while Student answered questions. At times, Student worked in the hallway when she chose to, as many of Student’s friends worked there. The hallway was not noisy. At times, Ms. Orlando took groups out into the hallway. Student was hard-working, creative, and engaged. She volunteered often and wanted to do a lot of the writing herself. Ms. Malloy did not monitor Student’s progress or break down assignments for her. She worked with Student from 1:15 PM until 2:00 PM at which time Student left to work with Ms. Lyons. At that time, the other students worked on “extension activities.” As such, Student did not miss any ELA instruction. (Malloy, DeOreo)
32. Charlene Oleary was Student’s daily 1:1 special education teacher for writing. She is a DESE-licensed special education teacher with 24 years of experience. Ms. Oleary is also Wilson Level 1-certified and OG-trained (30 hours). She did not use any specific program for her writing instruction. Ms. DeOreo collaborated with Ms. Oleary on all assignments. Ms. Oleary worked with Student from December to June during the 2024-2025 school year on a modified version of whatever the class was working on for writing, by breaking down all assignments into multiple steps. Ms. Oleary consulted with Ms. DeOreo at least once per week. Ms. Oleary also worked with Student on root vocabulary that the class was working on. Student’s comprehension was strong, and although Ms. Oleary mostly read to her, sometimes Student chose to read herself. Student became more independent in using strategies as the year progressed. She also improved in creating sentences and elaborating in her writing. Student did not like using text-to-speech, preferring to have a scribe. In sessions, Student was bubbly and enthusiastic. At times, Student would go into the general education classroom during 1:1 writing for a mini-lesson or to work with a partner. Ms. Oleary would go with her for support. She did not observe Student become distracted. Student was making progress on all her benchmarks, but the IEP term had not yet concluded when Student left for Landmark. (Oleary)
Student testified that she did not read a lot in class, as either Ms. Malloy or another teacher would read to her. Student struggled to read by herself. She took some notes on her own, but her handwriting was difficult to read. Student also testified that after pull-outs, she often felt behind. (Student)
33. Susan Dillon served as Student’s instructional assistant for ReadLive, which is a fluency computer program. She supervised Student while Student worked on ReadLive for 15 minutes per day to ensure Student attended to the computer[16]. She did not provide Student with any feedback, and Student worked independently, demonstrating good attention. Ms. Lyons supervised Ms. Dillon.[17] (Dillon, Lyons).
34. Shiela Sutton is a SLP-CCC with 23 years of experience in the field who served as Student’s SLPA in fifth and sixth grade, working with her in a small group setting of two to four students. She worked under the supervision of Ms. Levesseur. The SLP service augmented the reading services by focusing on vocabulary and exposing her to high-level vocabulary words, so that when Student came across them in class, she had “prior knowledge” of them, thereby decreasing her cognitive load. Student made exceptional progress. She met all her goals, and her confidence increased. Student was able to use her skills with less cueing, was happy and excited in the small groups. She generalized her skills into the classroom. Ms. Sutton frequently consulted with the classroom teachers, and it was based on her consultations that she decided whether to push in or pull out for Student’s service. Based on her classroom observations, Student was able to access the lessons with her accommodations. (Sutton)
35. Ms. Levesseur observed Student in the classroom a limited number of times and developed vocabulary-focused goals addressing her need for previewing, review, repetition, and use of Visualizing and Verbalizing strategies. She consulted with teachers to identify target vocabulary and support the use of strategies in class, though she could not confirm whether the Student generalized these skills. She described speech and language as a relative strength and testified that Student had made significant progress, leading her to recommend a flexible 30-minute service. The decision whether to push in or pull out was a clinical one, based on consultation with Student’s teachers. At Topsfield, push-in occurred during social studies and science, not English, due to scheduling. Ms. Levesseur also testified that Student’s classes at Topsfield were language-based, incorporating visuals and frequent vocabulary preview and review, including use of the Visualizing and Verbalizing approach. Ms. Levesseur testified that she continued to recommend SLP for MASCO.[18] Because of Student’s profile and challenges, Ms. Levesseur wanted Student to have additional support to help with the language and vocabulary of the curriculum. (Levesseur)
36. Ms. Donovan (the MASCO Special Education Program Coordinator, who had observed Student at Topsfield) works with students who read at all different levels. She testified that Student would have been able to access grade-level content in the co-taught classes at MASCO despite reading at the second-grade level. (Donovan)
37. Ms. Hosman (the MASCO reading specialist, who had also observed Student at Topsfield) testified that she does not rely on grade-level metrics to measure progress, as they are not norm-based, and noted that the Student’s scores around the eighth percentile reflect significant needs. She explained that reading progress depends heavily on time and repeated practice, with some skills requiring extensive repetition or cumulative review rather than longer intervention periods. In her practice, she uses both diagnostic and informal data, teaching skills through multiple modalities, and assessing performance across contexts. Based on the Student’s profile, Ms. Hosman opined that the Student “absolutely” requires daily 1:1 reading instruction to support consistent review and skill development. (Hosman)
38. Ms. Bridges testified that Parents toured the MASCO program on December 3, 2024. Parents asked for a “guarantee” that Student would make four-years growth in reading in one year at MASCO. Ms. Bridges could not make that guarantee but indicated that MASCO had the services that Student required. She offered Parents to have Student come to spend the day at MASCO. (Bridges)
39. Ms. Bridges testified that at MASCO the Student’s program would include daily 1:1 reading instruction, as well as small (3-4 students) language-based Language Center (LC) classes for English and math, staffed by teachers with Landmark experience. Student would also participate in co-taught science and social studies classes to access a richer curriculum and vocabulary, with skills from LC English reinforced in those settings. These co-taught classes use a structured model of whole-group instruction, small-group breakdown, and regrouping. Additionally, Student would have access to assistive technology such as a Chromebook and Learning Ally, along with two daily academic support blocks, one for reading and one to address other goals, including writing. (Bridges)
40. On December 5, 2024, Parents provided Topsfield with notice that they would be placing Student at Landmark School and seeking reimbursement. (Macko, T-37) Ms. Macko testified that there was confusion about when Student would transition to Landmark, but Parents later confirmed that Student would transition at the start of seventh grade. (Macko)
41. Student’s January 2025 progress report reflected continued progress toward her goals and objectives. (P-7(1), T-38)
42. Ms. Macko testified that a transition meeting took place on March 18, 2025. This was not an IEP meeting, but rather a 15-minute meeting to look at how Student’s service delivery grid would transfer to MASCO. Ms. Donovan testified that the transition meeting is a “15-minute meeting” to ensure that the service delivery grid “works.” An IEP was reissued with a MASCO service delivery grid, which included a language-based co-taught model. At the meeting, Parents were interested in “what Student’s services would look like” at MASCO. (Macko) MASCO presented Parents with a “mock schedule” reflecting co-taught social studies and science classes and small group, language-based ELA and math classes. While the mock schedule did not include art or music, Ms. Bridges testified that Student would have had the opportunity to take art or an elective, as reflected in her subsequent seventh-grade schedule from MASCO. This schedule reflected that Student would have an art, health, or elective class per trimester. (Donovan, Bridges, P-16(1), M-4)
43. On March 19, 2025, Topsfield proposed a revised IEP for Student dated 3/18/2025 to 11/11/2025 (March 2025 IEP), proposing co-taught Social Studies and Science, pull-out Learning Center for English and Math, Academic Support in place of a foreign language, and daily reading instruction. Parents rejected the IEP and partial inclusion placement on March 21, 2025. This was Parents’ first rejection of an IEP in Topsfield. (Macko, P-5, T-39, T-40, M-2)
44. Mother testified that she was surprised to receive an IEP following the transition meeting because she did not believe it was an IEP Team meeting. (Mother)
In March 2025, Dr. Wilson conducted an educational reevaluation of Student using the GORT-5 and WIAT-4. Testing showed that Student continued to make very limited academic progress. Student’s academic achievement on the WIAT-4 indicated a score in the Very Low range for Reading Composite (SS 70), an Extremely Low score in Word Reading (SS 68), a Very Low score in Reading Comprehension (SS 73), a Very Low score in Pseudoword Decoding (SS 77), an Extremely Low score in Orthographic Fluency (SS 55), a Very Low score in Decoding Fluency (SS 74), an Extremely Low score in Dyslexia Index (SS 68), a Very Low score in Written Expression Composite (SS 77), a Very Low score in Spelling (SS 77), a Low Average score in Sentence Composition (SS 86), an Average score in Sentence Building (SS 91), a Very Low score in Sentence Combining (SS 85), a Low Average score in Essay Composition (SS 83), a High Average score in Sentence Writing Fluency (SS 125), Average score in Mathematics Composite (SS 81), Average score in Numerical Operations (SS 87), Low Average score in Math Problem Solving (SS 78), Average score in Math Fluency Composite (SS 83), Average score in Addition Fluency (SS 90), Average score in Subtraction Fluency (SS 79), and Low Average score in Multiplication Fluency (SS 88). On the GORT-5, Student’s Oral Reading Index was in the Extremely Low range (SS 68).
Although decoding showed some improvement, her overall gains were minimal. Spelling remained in the Very Low range, and written expression had declined compared to the prior year. Student’s math skills were also concerning, with evidence of regression in calculation and reasoning. Dr. Wilson concluded that Student was not making effective progressdespite years of phonics-based instruction, private tutoring, and intensive inclusion-based special education services. Her reading remained at approximately a first- to second-grade level, and her executive-function and working-memory weaknesses severely limited her ability to access instruction in inclusion settings.
Dr. Wilson testified that Student’s services were a “refractory intervention”; on paper, Student was receiving the “right” interventions which were recommended , but she was not getting the “level of growth” that he would expect, and, as such, he opined that Student required a different program. In his view, Student’s disabilities could not be managed through a co-taught pull-out model; she required all supports (including executive functioning and language-based interventions) embedded throughout her day across all content areas. Student’s weaker working memory was just another factor complicating her learning and increasing her need for intervention. Dr. Wilson strongly recommended a substantially separate, highly specialized language-based program for students with moderate-to-severe dyslexia. Key components included a low student-to-teacher ratio (no more than 8:1); daily 1:1 structured, multisensory reading instruction (e.g., OG–based) for at least 45 minutes; systematic instruction in writing and specialized math instruction; multisensory, language-based teaching across all subjects; ongoing executive-function supports and appropriate peer cohort; and continued use of accommodations such as graphic organizers, assistive technology, and extended time. With a more intensive and specialized placement, he would expect Student to make stronger academic progress and reduce the emotional impact of her learning challenges. (Wilson, P-12(2), T-41)
45. Dr. Wilson testified that he had not observed Student’s program at Topsfield or her proposed program at MASCO, nor did he speak to any staff. In his opinion, neither was necessary in order for him to determine that Student was not making meaningful progress or that her setting was inappropriate. With respect to the latter, he highlighted that she is a sixth grader with a first-to-second grade reading level. To him, it was clear that Student was not internalizing and transferring what she was learning, and her abilities were extremely limited without accommodations and support. He conceded that a test does not provide a full picture of a child; however, while teachers can report on how a student is accessing the curriculum, they cannot report on what the student is internalizing, mastering, and transferring to demonstrate her skills. He testified that teachers have been reporting on Student’s progress for years, and yet Student was still reading at a first-grade level. According to Dr. Wilson, his recommendation regarding the need for a change in placement was unaffected by Topsfield’s claims that Student was in co-taught content classes and that the co-taught class ratio was 8:1, as he had prescribed. He testified that, at her first- to second grade reading level, Student could not be expected to meaningfully and independently access instruction. (Wilson)
46. Ms. Macko testified that she would not describe Student’s progress as slow and steady, but rather as effective, commensurate with Student's abilities. (Macko)
47. On March 19, 2025, Parents informed Dr. Wilson that Student had expressed concerns regarding the information she was missing from the general education classroom during her pull-outs. She was also feeling “other” from her peers. Student’s general academic progress and the degree to which she was falling behind her peers, as well as the emotional impact thereof, led Parents to consider an out-of-district placement for Student. (Wilson, Mother, M-8)
48. On March 31, 2025, Parents provided Topsfield with Dr. Wilson’s new report but waived the need for a Team meeting to discuss the evaluation, stating that “[t]his data will be used for due process.” (M-7, T-30, T-42)
49. Father testified that although they had already decided to place Student at Landmark, Parents went to look at MASCO because they wanted to be collaborative, and they wanted what was best for Student. (Father) According to Parents, MASCO was “more of the same” as Topsfield had provided, which had not been helpful to Student. It was also Parents’ understanding that Student would not have been able to take any art or music at MASCO due to her reading tutorial and pull-outs. (Mother, Father, P-16)
50. By May 2025, staff observed that Student appeared less motivated and was not consistently putting forth her best effort. They questioned whether concerns about her upcoming transition were impacting her engagement. (T-30) Still, Student’s June 2025 progress reported reflected progress. (P-7(2), T-43, T-44, T-46)
51. Even though Student began sixth grade at a second grade reading level and was entering seventh grade at a second-to-third-grade level, Ms. Lyons testified that she believes the “gap [was] closing” for Student. Student was making individualized progress relative to her past performance, and even Dr. Wilson’s scores showed an increase in decoding skills. The biggest barrier to Student making faster progress was lack of phonemic awareness and automaticity. Ms. Lyons did not know whether additional sessions with her would have resulted in more progress. (Lyons)
52. According to Ms. Macko, Student made effective progress and benefited from her co-taught classrooms because her comprehension was “great.” She understood text, whether she read it herself or it was read to her. In addition, the co-taught model allowed teachers to use Universal Design for Learning, meaning they taught “for everyone”. In assessing progress, Ms. Macko looked at where Student started and the progress she made on goals and objectives. She did not look at Student as compared to her peers. Topsfield did not utilize grade levels as a metric when developing benchmarks. Rather, Topsfield referenced standard scores, and Student’s standard scores on many subtests related to the components of reading had increased and were even within the average range. Although Student could not read sixth-grade text independently, her individual skill sets had improved. (Macko)
53. According to Ms. Macko, Student had “very robust IEPs” at Topsfield, which were appropriate for her. (Macko)
Seventh Grade (2025-2026)
54. Student transitioned to Landmark during the summer of 2025, and, in the fall, she began seventh grade there. (Mother)
55. Meghan Sebens is the Director for Student Progress and Performance at Landmark. In preparation for Student’s arrival, Ms. Sebens reviewed Student’s records, including Landmark’s battery of assessments, and developed appropriate peer groupings for Student. She developed Student’s program for phonemic awareness, decoding, and fluency. The Foundations tutorial was utilized,, targeting the most foundational aspects of reading to ensure that Student understood how sounds connected to letters. LiPS was the underlying methodology used with Student. (Sebens)
56. Ms. Sebens had no opinion as to whether Student’s IEP was appropriate. At Landmark, Student does not have an IEP because she is “not a funded student.” However, Student has goals in the areas of reading, writing, and communication. Although she does not have a math goal currently, “there is room to add it.” Student does not receive direct speech and language services, although the communication class is overseen by a speech and language pathologist. (Sebens)
57. Landmark utilizes a comprehensive language-based approach. All teachers have similar backgrounds and training, and they all utilize the same language and cueing so that there is no confusion with staff using different language or different approaches. The same templates are used across the curriculum. The 1:1 reading tutorial, delivered every other day, targets phonological awareness, decoding, fluency, and comprehension. On alternating days from the 1:1 reading tutorial, students receive a “literacy boost” during a portion of the literature class. The literacy boost includes direct instruction to reinforce phonological awareness skills using elements of different programs, direct decoding work, and shared reading for fluency. Students participate in language, communication, science, social studies, mathematics, and elective classes. Classes are 70 minutes long, with limited transitions to increase time on task, cover more content, and minimize attention and transition issues. Short movement breaks are provided in each class. At the end of each day, there is an anchor block that addresses executive functioning skills. Pacing varies by class, and students are grouped by skill. For writing, Landmark utilizes From Talking to Writing, which breaks language down to the word and sentence levels and teaches how to build sentences systematically. Content classes use seventh-grade content, but the texts are modified so the language is “lowered.” Teachers read a lot of text out loud, and seventh-grade vocabulary is taught. Wooden Math is utilized for language-based math instruction. Landmark does not introduce AT for seventh-grade students. The goal is to have students build foundational skills in decoding and spelling rather than having them use AT to bypass them. (Sebens, M-5)
58. According to Ms. Sebens, given Student’s reading skills, working memory deficits, and communication profile, Student requires information to be presented in “microunits” with a focus on decoding, shared texts at her level, and grade-level text read to her. (Sebens)
59. In October and November 2025, on behalf of Parents, Holly Cole conducted a set of observations with the aim of comparing MASCO’s in-district Language-Based Learning Disabilities (LBLD) program with Student’s placement at Landmark School. Ms. Cole is a Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)-licensed reading specialist. She also holds a dyslexia certification. Although she currently works for the Lawrence Public Schools, during observations of Student, Ms. Cole worked as an independent consultant. In the past 15 years, she has conducted approximately 200 observations/evaluations of students with dyslexia, working with both families and school districts.
60. Ms. Cole did not conduct any independent testing as Student had participated in a recent neuropsychological evaluation, and additional testing would be redundant. (Cole, P-14) Ms. Cole that she had not observed Student at Topsfield nor spoken to any staff at Topsfield, relying instead on a record review, which was “valid data.” (Cole) She testified that it was her understanding that Student had significant skill gaps and was at least 4 years behind. Student was “not closing the gap.” Moreover, based on Dr. Wilson’s testing, Student’s fluency scores had decreased over sixth grade, indicating that her intervention was not intensive enough to close the gap. Student’s triple deficit dyslexia was compounded by articulation difficulties and executive functioning weaknesses, which meant that Student was “always in cognitive overload.” According to Ms. Cole, Student required speech to print reading intervention, high repetition, immediate feedback, and language controlled across the board, not just in a language-based classroom. (Cole, P-14)
61. Ms. Cole described MASCO’s Language-Based Program as a hybrid inclusion model developed in partnership with Landmark Outreach, which offered highly trained staff and knowledgeable teachers with a continuum of supports, including structured literacy reading intervention, a small-group LBLD ELA block, and co-taught inclusion in core content areas (science, math, and social studies). Instruction across settings was explicit, multisensory, and aligned with Landmark Outreach principles, with strong modeling, repetition, and executive-function scaffolding. (Cole, P-14)
62. Ms. Cole testified that although MASCO’s program was well-designed, it relied on a print-to-speech Orton-Gillingham approach and did not provide the intensive speech-to-print (LiPS) instruction required for Student’s severe, complex dyslexia. She explained that MASCO’s larger inclusion classes and pull-out model would increase Student’s cognitive load and anxiety, and that executive functioning supports were not consistently embedded. Although beneficial for many students with language-based disabilities, MASCO’s approach was insufficient to build Student’s foundational skills. Ms. Cole further testified that MASCO could not provide the moment-to-moment prompting Student requires. Observed supports were primarily related to assistive technology and executive functioning, rather than direct instructional feedback. She noted the general education classes were not designed with embedded language-based supports and reflected co-facilitation rather than true co-teaching, resulting in reactive rather than proactive support. Ms. Cole opined that this would lead to cognitive overload, anxiety, and reduced working memory for Student. (Cole, P-14)
63. Although Ms. Cole testified and stated in her report that Student was not offered a language-based small classroom in mathematics, Topsfield did, in fact, propose such a service in the seventh-grade IEP and MASCO continued to propose this service when it convened in December 2025. (Cole, M-1, M-2, M-3)
64. In describing her October 2025 observation of Student at Landmark, she testified that, Student required “several minutes to emotionally regulate”. She noted that Student demonstrated strong engagement, effort, and resilience when provided that level of structure and support. She benefited from articulatory prompts, phonemic manipulation, sentence frames, guided note-taking, and hands-on learning. Although she had not observed Student at Topsfield, she testified that while Student continued to need modeling for task initiation, sequencing, and organization, Student’s anxiety appeared “lower,” and she showed “greater” willingness to attempt challenging tasks and persist through difficulty. Ms. Cole observed Student’s articulation errors[19] during Student’s reading tutorial, and the reading specialist offered corrective feedback, which Ms. Cole opined Student requires to take place “in the moment” in order to reduce her cognitive load so she can attend to learning. Ms. Cole concluded that Landmark’s program “directly matches” Student’s needs by providing structured linguistics (as opposed to structured literacy), small language-controlled classrooms, continuous executive-function coaching, and fully language-based instruction across all subjects. Despite strong efforts and a “well-designed in-district model”, MASCO could not provide the same level of intensity, specialization, or environmental control at this time. Landmark was “exactly the aggressive remediation” Student needed as it was an intensive, fully integrated, structured linguistics program. Ms. Cole testified that Student requires daily tutorials to some extent. Due to its intensity, the speech-to-print methodology need not be used daily. Ms. Cole testified that, during Student’s 1:1 tutorial at Landmark, Student was reading aloud at a fourth- to fifth-grade level. (Cole) According to Ms. Cole, with the continued aggressive remediation available at Landmark, and if Student maintains her current rate of progress, Student should eventually be able to access MASCO with language-based supports. (Cole, P-14)
65. Kathleen Babcock, a licensed Massachusetts teacher and special educator with 39 years’ experience at Landmark School , began working with Student in July 2025 at Landmark, when Student lacked decoding strategies and demonstrated mid–first-grade oral fluency. She provides Student’s 1:1 literacy tutorial. phonological awareness instruction using LiPS, with progress tracked by discrete skills rather than grade-level standards. Although the 1:1 tutorial occurs every other day, Student receives daily literacy instruction, including a “literacy boost” in literature class that aligns with Ms. Babcock’s work (though she is not involved in that class and is unaware of its specific content). Ms. Babcock observed that Student exhibits anxiety, including fidgeting when unsure, though this has decreased over time; Student becomes overwhelmed by new skills, is self-critical, and often requires directions to be read aloud. She also testified that Student has significant working memory deficits, struggling to retain multiple words or follow multi-step instructions, even during LiPS instruction. Student currently reads at approximately a third-grade level in non-controlled text. Ms. Babcock opined that consistent, articulation-based corrective feedback throughout the day is essential, as Student lacks automatic phonemic awareness, which limits reading progress without such support, and noted that Student is able to learn when calm and confident but not when stressed. Ms. Babcock, who has not formally assessed Student due to prior testing, offered no opinion on Topsfield’s IEP, and explained that instructional priorities at Landmark are determined collaboratively by the literacy department head and teachers. (Babcock, P-15(2), M-5)
66. According to Ms. Babcock, when Ms. Cole observed Student, Student was reading an “adapted version” of a fourth to fifth-grade book. An adapted book is one in which the language has been changed, and the vocabulary is more controlled. Even so, Student found it challenging. It was a highly “collaborative read” with ongoing decoding supports. Student cannot read a fourth to fifth-grade text independently. Even with a third-grade book, Student needed significant decoding support and feedback. (Babcock)
67. Landmark’s records reflect that Student has made progress during the 2025-2026 school year. (Sebens, P-15(1), P-15(2)) Ms. Macko testified that the progress reports from Topsfield from June 2025 and the Landmark report card reflect the same current performance (that is, Student was performing as an independent second grader at Topsfield and as a support third grader at Landmark. (Macko)
68. Ms. Babcock testified that she has never seen any student make four years of progress in one school year, even with significant support. She usually hopes for one year of growth per year or a bit more. When questioned whether Student’s progress has been slow and steady, Ms. Babcock testified that Student is making progress and is “moving right along,” but she cannot predict how fast Student will progress. Student needs to continue to develop her phonological awareness. She is “on her way” but is “not solid yet.” Student also needs to develop her automaticity at the word, sentence, and paragraph levels. (Babcock)
69. Student testified that Landmark is hard, but it pushes her in a good way. Sometimes she is read to at Landmark, but she does not have a scribe. Student enjoys learning to read at Landmark. (Student)
70. Ms. Cole testified that she was unaware of any LiPS teacher at MASCO and understood from Ms. Bridges that no speech-to-print instruction was available. While Student previously received LiPS at Topsfield, Ms. Cole noted that program effectiveness depends on the instructor’s expertise, which she could not assess. In any event, Student did not make progress at that time and is now doing so at Landmark. (Cole)
71. Ms. Cole opined that while Student had made minimal gains in isolated skills at Topsfield, she had not made meaningful progress and had even regressed in fluency. Topsfield’s intervention was not sufficiently intensive to close the gap, and Student experienced “educational stagnation”. Ms. Cole also testified that Student’s objective of 80% accuracy on her fluency goal was insufficient to allow Student meaningful comprehension. Moreover, according to Student’s November 2024 and November 2025 IEPs, Student was still working on phonemic awareness, a skill she “needed to have in place in order to make gap closing growth.” In other words, phonemic awareness needed to be fully remediated to achieve reading fluency. (Cole, P-35)
72. Ms. Macko testified that Topsfield does not assess progress in terms of “closing the gap” because that is “normed language”. Rather, Topsfield utilizes criterion language that is specific to each student’s IEP goals, because some students “will never be like their peers.” Words per minute are only one aspect to review for progress in fluency, as it is also important to consider which strategies the student is using. Ms. Macko explained that when a student begins to utilize strategies her words per minute may actually decrease as a result. (Macko)
73. Ms. Donovan disputed Ms. Cole’s assessment that Student would not have received in-the-moment executive functioning support at MASCO, as she provides such support in all of her classes “all day long”, and the Language-Based Learning Center classes do as well. Student would not have any pull-outs at MASCO, as C Grid services are part of the overall schedule, so no pull-outs are necessary. During co-taught classes, Ms. Donovan pulls the language-based students together to review the same content everyone is working on, and the class then comes together to discuss the material. Student would not miss any content or instruction during her time with Ms. Donovan.(Donovan)
74. Ms. Hosman testified that she does not teach LiPS, but other reading specialists at MASCO do. Ms. Hosman utilizes speech to text methodology in her tutorials, as she always begins a lesson with phonemic awareness. She also adjusts her scope and sequence and utilizes a sound-based spelling system and articulatory feedback. Her lessons “go back and forth” between speech-to-text and text-to-speech. (Hosman)
75. Ms. Bridges and Ms. Hosman observed Student at Landmark over two days. Both expressed concern that the other students in class worked faster than Student and appeared frustrated with her much slower processing time. Student was “markedly slower” than the other students, which they “noticed.” Student was observed to require significant adult support. Moreover, Landmark no longer holds daily tutorials, which both Topsfield and MASCO believe that Student requires. Ms. Hosman was concerned that in some weeks, students only have ELA twice per week, and, for half of the period, the class worked on cursive writing. While they believe this is an important skill, it should not replace ELA. (Hosman, Bridges)
76. Suzanne Johnson is a program coordinator for seventh grade at MASCO. In that role, she oversees students on IEPs and teaches Academic Support, a class where students work on IEP goals, Executive Functioning Skills, or get pulled out for counseling and speech. Ms. Johnson also teaches the small group language-based ELA Learning Center class. Ms. Johnson is a DESE-licensed special educator. Prior to MASCO, she worked at Landmark for 9 years, where she taught 1:1 reading tutorials and served as head of the ELA Department for four years. Ms. Johnson testified that the Learning Center ELA class is a language-based classroom addressing reading and writing. It is a very collaborative and structured program in which she incorporates many of her Landmark skills while using the content of the general education ELA classes. The Learning Center students read the same novels as the ELA classrooms, and the books are not modified, however, the scope and sequence are modified. They read books together in class, use guided questions, and draw on background knowledge. Ms. Johnson’s students receive the same knowledge as their peers but progress at a slower pace, go into more depth, and read fewer books than general education students As such, students are exposed to rich themes, sophisticated language, and more complex sentence structures. Ms. Johnson utilizes multimodal instruction. For writing, she incorporates Landmark’s personal sequenced narratives and tense structures. Currently, there are three students in the class with learning profiles similar to Student's, including those with weak working memories. She responds to their needs but at a slower pace, with lots of review and repetition, modeling, and collaborative reading, which limits the cognitive load on students. The class is small, and there is extensive individualized instruction; things are broken down, and she checks for understanding. The class uses the Claim-Evidence-Reasoning (CER) methodology with color coding, which all classes, including social studies and science, use. ELA is taught daily, but per the middle school schedule, one class is “dropped” once per week. Not much homework is assigned in the class, and when there is, it focuses on specific skills students can work on independently. Student could have a scribe assigned if it was warranted. Ms. Johnson would find it concerning that Student would only have a reading tutorial every other day at Landmark, as someone with her profile requires daily reading instruction and repetition. Further, at Landmark, students do not work on grade-level material. She opined that Student could be educated at MASCO, which offers extensive exposure to literature and grade-level concepts and exposure to nondisabled peers. Ms. Johnson’s Learning Center students also participate in co-taught classrooms, where they are exposed to grade-level vocabulary, concepts, and material (Johnson, M-1)
77. Elisa Sanders is the seventh-grade special education coordinator who teaches language-based math at MASCO and co-teaches an ELA class and Academic Support. Ms. Sanders is trained in Wilson, OG, LiPS, and other methodologies. She has taught reading and teaches math in an accessible way. Her section has nine students and a paraprofessional. Five of the students have a specific learning disability, one has a communication disorder, two have neurological disorders, and one has high-functioning autism. If an additional student is added to the class, the class will be split into two sections. Small class size allows for 1:1 time with the teacher. The paraprofessional supports the students’ social-emotional wellness and their ability to access the curriculum. It is a Building Thinking Classroom where students work together collaboratively. There is a lot of repetition, and Ms. Sanders slows down the pace of instruction while making deep connections to the curriculum standards. She teaches grade-level (not remedial) math classes. Homework is assigned a few times per week and repeats what was done in class. Ms. Sanders focuses on math vocabulary and reads the instructions to all her students. Based on Ms. Sanders’s review of Student’s testing, she believes that Student can be successful in her class. (Sanders)
78. On December 2, 2025, the Team met for Student’s annual review. Ms. Donovan chaired the meeting. (Donovan) Parents did not provide Ms. DeAngelis’s observation report or Ms. Cole’s observation report to the Team.
79. Parents shared their hope that Student’s placement at Landmark would help her regain skills and confidence, and they explained that they did not anticipate that she would stay at Landmark for more than two years. Team members who observed Student’s classes at Landmark noted that her instruction was highly focused on phonological awareness and that she would benefit from increased emphasis on phonics and morphology. Team members also discussed concerns about cognitive load, the need for more consistent and intensive structured literacy instruction, the importance of daily remediation rather than infrequent longer sessions, and the complexity of dedicating instructional time to cursive and handwriting given Student’s broader language-based needs. (Donovan, M-9)
The Team continued to propose goals in Reading Fluency, Phonological Awareness, Decoding, Encoding, Written Language, and Speech and Language. With respect to service delivery, the Team proposed an SLP/Gen Ed/Sp Ed consult in the A Grid, co-taught Science and History (with the special education teacher providing modifications) in the B Grid, Learning Center (LC) Math and LC English, 1:1 Reading, Academic Support, and Speech & Language Services in the C Grid. Summer services were also proposed. The IEP did not alter the goals or objectives since the Team did not have updated current performance levels because Student had not attended MASCO. The Team did not agree that Student required placement at Landmark. Parents did not raise concerns regarding the unchanged goals and objectives at the time of the meeting. (Bridges, Donovan, P-6(1), M-3, M-9)
80. Ms. Hosman testified that she would not change a student’s goals and objectives without first testing and/or working with her.[20] She was not surprised that Student had not met her goals and objectives from the prior Topsfield IEP since the June 2025 Progress Report reflected only half a year of work. (Hosman)
81. Typically, when a student transitions to MASCO, she carries over the goals and objectives in her IEP. After 6-8 weeks at MASCO, the Team reconvenes to amend, as needed, the goals and objectives, as well as any services. (Donovan)
82. Ms. Bridges recommended adding an executive function goal to be addressed during Academic Support. Student would also meet with the school adjustment counselor at MASCO. (Bridges)
83. MASCO proposed a seventh-grade schedule for Student with the following courses: Science (co-taught), Global Cultures (co-taught), Pre-Algebra (LB LC Math, 3 students), English (LB LC ELA, 3 students), two Academic Support blocks (one to address writing and executive functioning and one to address Reading), Speech (during the last 30 minutes of the day, when all students have a What-Do-I-Need-like block), Health (trimester 1), ELA Foundations/Geo Lab (trimester 2), and Art (trimester 3). (Bridges, P-6(1), M-3, M-4)
84. Ms. Bridges opined that MASCO was appropriate for Student because it offered her a daily individualized 1:1 reading tutorial using OG, with an experienced reading specialist who has a high level of certification. In addition, MASCO offered Student a very structured program with teachers from Landmark who carried over the Landmark philosophy to MASCO. (Bridges)
DISCUSSION:
A. Legal Standards
1. 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 FAPE.[21] 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.”[22] 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).[23] 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."[24] "The goal, then, is to find the least restrictive educational environment that will accommodate the child's legitimate needs."[25]
The IEP must be individually tailored for the student for whom it is created.[26] 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.[27] 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.”[28]
At the same time, the IDEA does not require a school district to provide special education and related services that will maximize a student’s educational potential,[29] and appropriate progress will look different depending on the student.[30] An individual analysis of a student’s progress in his/her areas of need is key.[31] 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."[32]
2. Procedural Protections
In addition to providing Parents with substantive rights, the IDEA provides both students and parents with procedural rights.[33] 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?”[34] 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.[35] 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.[36]
3. Implementation
“[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]
4. Reimbursement for Private Placement
When parents elect to place a student unilaterally in a private school notwithstanding the availability of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) through the school district, parents retain responsibility for the cost of that education.[42] 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.[43]
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.[44] For parents to obtain reimbursement, 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."[45] Hence, the review of the private placement “is more informal than the review of the original IEP: a private placement need not meet the IDEA requirement for a FAPE.”[46]
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,” and the 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.”[47]
5. Burden of Persuasion
In a due process proceeding, the burden of proof is on the moving party.[48] If the evidence is closely balanced, the moving party will not prevail.[49] In the instant case, as the moving party, Parents bear this burden.
A. Application of Legal Standards[50]:
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 evaluate disputed expert testimony, and in so doing, consider not only each witness’s credentials, but also the extent to which his or her opinions were grounded in direct knowledge of Student’s educational programming, classroom functioning, and instructional delivery. Although I found both Dr. Wilson and Ms. Cole knowledgeable, I therefore accorded portions of their testimony reduced weight for several reasons.
I credit Dr. Wilson’s neuropsychological testing and note that many of his findings were consistent with the District’s own evaluative data. However, I assign less weight to his conclusions regarding the inappropriateness of Topsfield’s and MASCO’s programs because those opinions were formed without direct observation of either placement and without meaningful consultation with the educators responsible for implementing Student’s programming. Dr. Wilson acknowledged that he did not observe Student in any classroom at Topsfield, nor did he speak with Student’s teachers regarding how she functioned instructionally during the school day. Furthermore, Dr. Wilson did not attend any Team meetings for Student.[51] As such, Dr. Wilson’s opinions regarding Student’s inability to access inclusion settings were based largely on standardized testing results and assumptions drawn therefrom, separate and apart from empirical information about how Student actually responded to the extensive scaffolding, co-teaching, language-based supports, and accommodations embedded throughout her day. While standardized testing is undeniably important, it does not alone establish that a student cannot receive meaningful educational benefits within a supported public-school setting.[52]
I also note that Dr. Wilson opined that Student’s progress was insufficient, his own testimony acknowledged that Student’s disabilities, particularly her working-memory, significantly impacted the rate at which she could reasonably be expected to progress. His opinion that Student should have demonstrated substantially greater gains was further weakened by the testimony of Landmark staff themselves, including Ms. Babcock, who testified that even students receiving Landmark’s intensive remediation generally do not make multiple years of growth in a single school year. Indeed, Student’s progress at Landmark appeared largely consistent with the slow but incremental growth documented by Topsfield.
Similarly, although I found Ms. Cole experienced and knowledgeable, I assign limited weight to portions of her testimony regarding MASCO because her understanding of the proposed program was incomplete and, in at least one material respect, inaccurate. Specifically, Ms. Cole testified that MASCO failed to offer Student a language-based mathematics class, when both the documentary evidence and testimony from MASCO staff clearly established that Student had in fact been proposed LC Math, a substantially separate language-based math class with a very small student-to-teacher ratio. This factual error undermines the reliability of portions of her broader conclusions regarding MASCO’s inability to meet Student’s needs.
In addition, Ms. Cole, like Dr. Wilson, did not observe Student within the Topsfield program itself. Nor did she consult with Student’s classroom teachers or service providers regarding the actual implementation of accommodations, scaffolding, executive-function supports, and language-based instruction. Instead, she relied heavily upon record review and generalized assumptions regarding the limitations of inclusion programming for students with severe dyslexia.
I further note that although Ms. Cole characterized MASCO’s co-taught model as lacking embedded language-based support and “true co-teaching,” multiple MASCO witnesses with extensive Landmark backgrounds credibly described highly integrated co-teaching practices, executive-function support, vocabulary instruction, and small-group language-based instruction embedded throughout the school day. Similarly, Ms. Cole opined that Student required pervasive speech-to-print methodology throughout the day and could not receive it at MASCO, yet the record established that MASCO staff, including Ms. Hosman and Ms. Sanders, possessed LiPS and phonemic-awareness training and incorporated speech-to-print practices into instruction. Notably, Dr. Wilson prescribed OG methodology for Student following his testing in both 2024 and 2025.
By comparison, I found the testimony of Topsfield and MASCO staff highly credible and persuasive. They were highly qualified, worked with Student daily over extended periods of time, observed her functioning across academic settings, collaborated regularly with one another, and provided detailed testimony regarding Student’s strengths, weaknesses, responsiveness to interventions, and educational progress. Their testimony was internally consistent, corroborated by documentary evidence, and reflected a nuanced understanding of Student’s profile rather than a singular focus on standardized testing scores or grade level equivalencies.
Both Parents were credible in describing their frustration, worry, and desire to secure the most effective educational program possible for their daughter. Their testimony reflected deep involvement in Student’s education and an understandable concern regarding the widening academic gap between Student and her peers, particularly in reading. I credit Parents’ testimony that Student experienced frustration regarding her disabilities, became increasingly aware of her academic struggles as she matured, and at times expressed discomfort regarding pull-outs and feeling “different” from peers.
I also credit Parents’ testimony that Dr. Wilson’s evaluations were alarming to them and significantly influenced their belief that Student required a substantially separate placement. The evidence demonstrates that Parents acted out of genuine concern for Student’s long-term educational and emotional well-being, not out of hostility toward the District. Their continued participation in Team meetings, willingness to tour MASCO despite having serious reservations, and efforts to collaborate with school staff support this conclusion.
Nevertheless, portions of Parents’ testimony were influenced by understandable but subjective expectations regarding the pace and nature of Student’s progress. In particular, Parents frequently framed Student’s progress through the lens of “closing the gap” with nondisabled peers and understandably hoped Student would make several years of reading growth within a relatively short period of time. However, the IDEA does not require a district to eliminate a student’s disability, guarantee grade-level performance, or ensure that a student progresses at the same rate as nondisabled peers.[53] As several witnesses, including Ms. Babcock, testified, students with the student’s profile often make slow and incremental gains despite intensive intervention.
I assign limited weight to Parents’ characterization of MASCO as merely “more of the same.” Although Parents sincerely believed that the proposed seventh-grade placement would replicate Student’s elementary experience, the credible testimony established that MASCO’s proposed program differed in several material respects from Student’s sixth-grade program. Specifically, MASCO proposed substantially smaller language-based Learning Center classes, daily 1:1 reading instruction, embedded academic support, no instructional pull-outs, and a middle-school language-based structure staffed by educators with extensive Landmark experience. Parents’ perception that MASCO would necessarily fail Student, therefore, appeared influenced in significant part by their dissatisfaction with the student’s historical rate of progress rather than by a fully accurate understanding of MASCO’s proposed services.
In addition, although Parents testified extensively regarding Student’s anxiety and emotional distress related to school, the objective evidence regarding the severity of such was mixed. School staff who interacted with Student daily consistently testified that she generally appeared socially connected, engaged, participatory, and comfortable within the school environment. Rating scales and observations reflected only mild anxiety concerns, and those concerns were not consistently endorsed across settings. I do not doubt that Student experienced frustration and discouragement related to her disabilities; however, I find that Parents’ understandable concern regarding Student’s emotional well-being at times led them to perceive the school environment more negatively than is reflected by the broader evidentiary record.
I further note that Parents had largely decided to pursue Landmark before MASCO had the opportunity to implement its proposed seventh-grade program. Indeed, Father acknowledged that although Parents toured MASCO in an effort to remain collaborative, they had already become convinced that Student required Landmark. Parents also declined to reconvene the Team to review Dr. Wilson’s March 2025 evaluation, expressly stating that the data would instead be used “for due process.” Accordingly, while I found Parents entirely sincere and credible regarding their observations of Student and their desire to secure the best possible educational setting for her, I assign reduced weight to portions of their testimony insofar as they concluded that Student could receive meaningful educational benefit only within a substantially separate private placement, such as Landmark.[54]
Based upon four days of oral testimony, the extensive exhibits introduced into evidence, thoughtful arguments of Advocates and Counsel, I find as follows with respect to each issue presented:
A. Substantive Claims
1. Student’s Sixth Grade IEPs
I note at the outset that the November 2023 IEP, including placement, was fully accepted by Parents; the May 7, 2024, amendment was accepted with rejection only of the partial inclusion placement; and the November 2024 IEP was likewise accepted with rejection only of the partial inclusion placement. As such, for the accepted portions of those IEPs, the dispute is properly framed as one concerning implementation and the appropriateness of the District’s continuation of Student’s language-based co-taught model, rather than a retrospective challenge to accepted programming. Hearing officers are generally precluded from revisiting expired, accepted, and implemented IEPs where parents meaningfully participated in the process and were afforded procedural protections. [55] Here, short of a de minimis implementation issue, as discussed infra, Student’s IEPs were fully implemented. In addition, the record reflects extensive parental participation throughout Student’s sixth-grade year. Specifically, Parents actively participated in all Team meetings, provided private evaluations, requested additional assessments, expressed disagreement with placement recommendations, and were afforded opportunities to accept or reject the District’s proposals.
The appropriateness of an IEP must be judged prospectively, based on the information reasonably available to the Team at the time the IEP was developed, rather than through hindsight. [56] At the time the November 2024 and March 2025 IEPs were proposed, the Team had before it substantial evaluative data, including Dr. Wilson’s March 2024 neuropsychological evaluation, Topsfield’s own comprehensive re-evaluation, classroom observations, teacher reports, rating scales, speech-language testing, assistive technology recommendations, and progress-monitoring data from Student’s service providers. The Team, therefore, possessed extensive information regarding Student’s significant dyslexia, working-memory vulnerabilities, executive-functioning weaknesses, and emotional concerns related to her learning profile.
The evidence demonstrates that Topsfield developed and implemented a highly supported, language-based educational program specifically designed to address Student’s profile. Student received daily reading instruction utilizing structured literacy methodologies grounded in OG principles; individualized written-language instruction; speech and language services targeting vocabulary, language processing, and comprehension; co-taught language-based academic classes; academic support; accommodations for reading, writing, and executive functioning; and extensive scaffolding throughout the school day. Assistive technology consultation was also provided. Multiple staff members who worked with Student held Wilson and OG certifications and had additional training in LiPS, Visualizing and Verbalizing, Seeing Stars, and Landmark Outreach methodologies. The credible evidence established that language-based instruction was embedded throughout Student’s school day, not isolated solely to her pull-out reading tutorial.
I found the testimony of Ms. Orlando, Ms. Lyons, Ms. DeOreo, and Ms. Strobl, who worked with Student daily, to be persuasive, as they described in detail the manner in which Student accessed the curriculum. These witnesses consistently testified about the supports and interventions intentionally embedded in Student’s classes, including language-based strategies, highly scaffolded instruction, simplified language, front-loading vocabulary, graphic organizers, repeated review, executive-function supports, visual cues, modeling, chunking of tasks, and opportunities for small-group instruction. I credit their testimony that Student benefited from exposure to grade-level concepts and vocabulary within this supported setting.
As discussed below, the evidence further supports the conclusion that Student was able to meaningfully access portions of the curriculum despite her severe reading deficits. Student demonstrated relative strengths in oral language, listening comprehension, class discussion, and conceptual understanding. Teachers consistently testified that Student participated in classroom discussions, volunteered answers, collaborated with peers, and demonstrated understanding of grade-level material when presented through supported modalities. Ms. Strobl testified credibly that Student performed well in math and science when information was presented orally or through projects and discussion-based instruction. Ms. DeOreo testified that Student absorbed the material taught in ELA despite requiring modifications and supports. Ms. Orlando explained that once tasks were broken down and language demands reduced, Student was able to engage meaningfully with instruction. Such testimony supports the District’s position that Student was not merely physically present in inclusion settings but was, in fact, accessing the curriculum using the substantial supplementary aids and services provided.
Parents correctly point out that Student remained significantly below grade level in reading throughout sixth grade. Indeed, the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that Student’s dyslexia was severe and persistent and that, at times, she was confused. However, the IDEA does not require a school district to maximize a student’s potential, eliminate a disability, or ensure that a student “closes the gap” with nondisabled peers. [57] Nor does it require a district to select the preferred methodology of a parent’s expert.[58] Rather, the inquiry is whether the program was reasonably calculated to enable Student to make progress appropriate in light of her circumstances.
Here, the evidence supports the District’s position that Student was making progress, albeit slowly and incrementally. Progress reports from January and June 2025 documented gains in reading, writing, vocabulary, and use of strategies. Ms. Lyons testified that Student’s decoding skills improved, that she was responding positively to OG-based instruction, and that she made progress in phonological awareness, sentence construction, and written expression. Ms. Oleary similarly testified that Student became more independent over time in utilizing writing strategies and organizational structures. Ms. Sutton described significant gains in vocabulary development and confidence. Although Student remained well below grade level, the evidence reflects individualized progress relative to her own baseline performance.
Moreover, even Parents’ own expert evidence was not persuasive in demonstrating that Student’s progress at Landmark materially exceeded the progress achieved at Topsfield. Dr. Wilson opined that Student required a different placement because her gains at Topsfield were insufficient; however, Landmark witnesses themselves acknowledged that students with Student’s profile rarely make multiple years’ growth in a single year. Ms. Babcock testified that she had never observed a student make four years of progress in one year, even within Landmark’s intensive model, and described Student’s progress there as “moving right along,” though Student still required continued remediation of phonological awareness and automaticity. Indeed, Ms. Macko credibly testified that the functional performance described in Landmark’s records was largely consistent with Student’s performance level at the conclusion of sixth grade at Topsfield. Thus, the record does not establish that Student’s lack of dramatic academic acceleration at Topsfield rendered the District’s program inappropriate under the IDEA.
Nor am I persuaded that Student’s emotional concerns necessitated a substantially separate placement during sixth grade. Parents understandably expressed concern regarding Student’s self-esteem, anxiety, and awareness of her academic struggles. However, school staff consistently testified that they did not observe clinically significant anxiety within the school setting. Mr. Hogan’s rating scales reflected only mild anxiety concerns, which were not endorsed by teachers. Student remained socially connected, participated in class, self-advocated appropriately, and interacted positively with peers and adults. While Parents and Student reported frustration regarding pull-outs and awareness of differences from peers, such concerns do not alone establish that Student could not be educated appropriately in the less restrictive public school setting with supports.
Parents also argue that Student’s reliance on accommodations and adult support demonstrated that the co-taught model was fundamentally inappropriate. I disagree. The IDEA expressly contemplates that students with disabilities may require significant accommodations, scaffolding, read-aloud support, executive-function coaching, scribing, and modifications in order to access instruction in the least restrictive environment.[59] Dr. Wilson also recommended accommodations for Student such as read-alouds, Assistive Technology (AT)/scribe use, graphic organizers, preview/review of vocabulary, and audio text. Here, the evidence demonstrated that Student’s supports were thoughtfully integrated throughout the school day and implemented consistently. That Student required substantial adult support does not establish that she was incapable of benefitting from such support in an inclusion environment, especially since she continued to require such support at Landmark as testified to by Ms. Babcock and observed by MASCO staff and by Ms. Cole.
I similarly do not find Parents’ argument regarding Student’s pull-outs and use of the hallway persuasive. The credible testimony established that Student’s 15-minute early departure from ELA occurred during extension activities and did not deprive her of core instruction. With respect to Parents’ allegation that Student was provided B-Grid services in the hallway, outside the general education classroom, teachers testified that the hallway functioned as an extension of the classroom and was routinely utilized by multiple students and staff for small-group work and independent instruction. Groups of students were either pulled into small groups for work in the hallway by both general education teachers and special education teachers, or students, including Student, often chose to go there to participate in independent work or in group work. Although Student testified that the hallway could sometimes feel chaotic, the evidence does not establish that these practices materially deprived her of educational benefit or violated the LRE requirements of her IEPAs such, Parents failed to meet their burden on this claim.
I next address Parents’ concern regarding the use of a paraprofessional, Ms. Dillon, to oversee Student’s fluency service. The November 2024 IEP included C Grid Reading Services with the Special Education Teacher, 5x15 min/week. Parents are correct that a paraprofessional was not listed on the November 2024 IEP for said service, and yet Ms. Dillon was responsible for monitoring Student’s attention and focus while she worked on her fluency using the ReadLive program.
The IDEA allows paraprofessionals who are appropriately trained and supervised, in accordance with state law, regulations, or written policy, to meet the requirements of the IDEA and assist in the provision of special education and related services to children with disabilities.[60] Districts violate the IDEA when they rely on paraprofessionals to provide required specialized instruction under a student's IEP rather than the special education teacher.[61]
Although it does not appear that Ms. Dillon provided Student with instruction, the IEP clearly did not designate a paraprofessional as the staff member responsible for implementing the fluency service, and it does not appear that Ms. Lyons, the special education teacher, provided any direct fluency services to Student. As such, the District failed to implement this portion of the IEP.[62] However, while a compensatory services remedy is appropriate for this failure (infra), I do not find that it resulted in a denial of FAPE to Student. 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; or (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.[63] Here, the failure to implement was not complete, as Student received the ReadLive service as prescribed. Nevertheless, such an implementation error cannot be overlooked, and Student’s progress may have been greater had the service been provided by Ms. Lyons. Parents met their burden on this claim.
Thus, while I find that the use of Ms. Dillon to supervise ReadLive constituted a minor implementation discrepancy because the IEP did not specifically identify a paraprofessional for that service, the evidence does not demonstrate that this variance materially impacted Student’s educational progress or deprived her of FAPE. Student continued to receive the fluency intervention contemplated by the IEP, and no persuasive evidence established that direct teacher implementation of ReadLive would have altered Student’s progress trajectory.
I further note that many of the recommendations later advanced by Ms. Cole and Parents’ experts, including speech-to-print methodology, more pervasive LiPS instruction, and a fully language-controlled environment, were not recommendations presented to the Team during Student’s sixth-grade year. Dr. Wilson’s recommendations at the relevant time focused primarily on daily 1:1 OG-based instruction within a language-based program, recommendations that the District substantially incorporated into Student’s programming. The District was not obligated to adopt a substantially separate placement merely because Parents’ expert preferred it.[64]
Finally, the record demonstrates that Topsfield consistently attempted to respond to Student’s evolving needs. The District conducted additional evaluations at Parent request, added writing instruction, explored assistive technology, proposed ongoing reading intervention, coordinated transition planning with MASCO, and incorporated additional language-based supports into the proposed seventh-grade program. The evidence does not support a finding that the District ignored Student’s struggles or failed to individualize programming. Rather, the record reflects a District actively attempting to balance intensive intervention with education alongside nondisabled peers in the least restrictive environment.
For all the foregoing reasons, I conclude that Parents failed to meet their burden of proving that Student’s sixth-grade programming at Topsfield denied her a FAPE in the LRE.
2. Student’s Seventh Grade IEPs
The primary dispute regarding seventh grade concerns whether the November 2024 and March 2025 IEPs with placement at the MASCO Language-Based Learning Disabilities program, were reasonably calculated to provide Student with a FAPE in the least restrictive environment. Parents contend that MASCO represented merely “more of the same” as Topsfield programming and could not meet Student’s severe dyslexia, working-memory, and executive-functioning needs. They further argue that Student required a fully language-based, substantially separate placement such as Landmark in order to make meaningful progress. After careful review of the evidence, I find that Parents did not meet their evidentiary burden with respect to this issue.
As with the sixth-grade IEPs, the Team had extensive evaluative information when the seventh-grade IEPs were developed. By November 2024 and March 2025, the Team had reviewed Dr. Wilson’s neuropsychological findings, Topsfield’s comprehensive re-evaluation data, speech-language assessments, classroom observations, teacher reports, assistive technology recommendations, and Student’s progress-monitoring data. The Team was fully aware that Student remained significantly delayed in reading and writing, required substantial scaffolding and executive-function support, and experienced frustration regarding her learning difficulties. Indeed, the November 2024 Team discussion expressly acknowledged Parents’ concerns regarding Student’s reading level, independence, emotional well-being, and the widening gap between Student and her peers.
The evidence demonstrates that MASCO’s proposed program was not a generic continuation of Topsfield’s elementary program, but rather a significantly expanded and more specialized middle-school language-based model tailored to Student’s evolving needs. The proposed seventh-grade program included: daily 1:1 reading instruction by a certified reading specialist; small-group language-based Learning Center classes for English and mathematics; daily academic support; speech and language services; executive-function support; assistive technology access; co-taught science and social studies classes; and extensive language-based scaffolding across all settings. Importantly, unlike Student’s elementary schedule, MASCO proposed that Student would not miss instruction due to pull-outs because her services were embedded directly into her daily schedule. MASCO also proposed daily 1:1 reading instruction, a recommendation repeatedly emphasized by both Parents’ and District’s experts.
I found the testimony of MASCO staff regarding both the structure of the program and their opinion that Student would have been able to access it to be persuasive. Ms. Donovan, Ms. Johnson, Ms. Sanders, Ms. Hosman, and Ms. Bridges provided detailed, credible testimony describing MASCO’s language-based instructional model, which offered structured literacy instruction and incorporated many methodologies and strategies derived from Landmark. Several MASCO staff members previously worked at Landmark for substantial periods of time and testified that they integrated Landmark-based instructional approaches into MASCO’s programming daily. These included explicit vocabulary instruction, preview/review, multimodal instruction, chunking of information, reduced cognitive load, guided reading, collaborative instruction, graphic organizers, sentence frames, executive-function coaching, and structured literacy methodologies.
The evidence further demonstrated that MASCO’s LC English and Math classes were smaller and distinctly language-based. Student would have participated in LC English and LC Math classes consisting of approximately three to four students, staffed by highly trained special educators experienced in language-based instruction. Ms. Johnson credibly testified that the LC English class was structured specifically for students with profiles similar to Student’s, including students with weak working memory and dyslexia. Instruction was deliberately slowed, heavily scaffolded, repetitive, multimodal, and individualized. Students were exposed to grade-level themes and concepts while working at a modified pace and scope. Similarly, Ms. Sanders described a small, highly supported, language-based mathematics environment emphasizing vocabulary, repetition, collaborative problem-solving, and direct teacher support.
Moreover, the credible evidence supports MASCO’s position that Student could meaningfully access science and social studies content with the proposed supports. Ms. Donovan’s testimony was especially persuasive, explaining that the co-taught classes utilized extensive scaffolding, small-group breakdowns, guided discussion, modified pacing, and language-based supports embedded directly into instruction.
I again note that Dr. Wilson never observed the proposed MASCO placement, consulted with MASCO staff, or reviewed how Student’s supports would be implemented there. Ms. Cole’s opinions were similarly undermined as her understanding of MASCO’s services was incomplete. By way of example, her belief that MASCO had not proposed a language-based mathematics class was contradicted by Masco and the record. In addition, despite her understanding to the contrary, MASCO was able to provide Student with speech-to-text methodology.
I also credit the testimony of MASCO witnesses disputing Ms. Cole’s characterization of the program as lacking embedded executive-function and language-based support. Ms. Donovan credibly testified that such supports were provided continuously throughout the school day, including during co-taught classes and academic support blocks. Similarly, Ms. Hosman testified that her reading instruction incorporated phonemic awareness, articulatory feedback, sound-based spelling systems, and both speech-to-print and print-to-speech methodologies. Although Parents emphasized that Student required LiPS-based intervention, the record does not establish that LiPS was the only methodology capable of providing Student educational benefit. The co-taught social studies and science model would have allowed Student exposure to grade-level vocabulary, discussions, science and social studies concepts, and peer models. Further, although Parents believed Student would lose access to electives, the credible testimony and proposed schedules demonstrated otherwise.
Nor does the evidence establish that Student’s emotional needs could only be addressed within a substantially separate private placement. MASCO proposed access to counseling, academic support, executive-function intervention, and a more cohesive, middle-school-based, language-focused peer group. Moreover, the record does not support a finding that Student experienced clinically significant emotional deterioration in the public-school setting.
Accordingly, I conclude that Parents failed to meet their burden on this claim.
B. Procedural Claims
1. Failure to Provide N1/N2 Following the September 2024 Team
At hearing, Parents argued that the District violated the IDEA by failing to issue an N1/N2 following the September 2024 Team meeting. According to Ms. Churchill, no N1 was generated as a result of this Team meeting because “nothing was changed” in the IEP.
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.[65] The IDEA does not require separate forms for a proposal to act and a refusal to act.[66] Although Topsfield argued that “nothing was changed” in the IEP following the September 2024 meeting, the Team did, in fact, address Parents’ new concerns regarding Student’s anxiety, and the Team proposed adding an Assistive Technology assessment and, at Parents’ request, executive functioning and social-emotional rating scales to the re-evaluation. Accordingly, the District should have documented these proposals in a Prior Written Notice. Nevertheless, as Parents had consented to the re-evaluation and the new assessments at said meeting, I cannot find that this procedural violation was harmful or resulted in a lack of meaningful parental participation. Parents did not meet their burden on this claim.
MASCO’s Failure to Revise Goals and Objectives in December 2025
Parents argue that MASCO’s December 2025 IEP was inappropriate because the Team failed to revise Student’s goals and objectives after Student had attended Landmark for several months. This concern is understandable, and I am equally troubled by Ms. Bridges’s instruction to Ms. Donovan prior to the Team meeting that the goals should remain unchanged, as this is and should have been a Team decision. The IDEA requires that an IEP contain measurable annual goals reasonably designed to address the student’s needs and enable progress in the general curriculum.[67] While goals and objectives are written for a 12-month period[68], the decision to amend them at the end of that period is fact-specific and subject to the Team’s assessment of the Student’s circumstances[69] (i.e., whether the goals remain calculated to address the student’s identified areas of need).
Although Parents argue that the Team could have relied on information provided by Landmark to revise and update the goals, the record demonstrates that Parents made no such request at the Team meeting, and that the only Landmark information available was the report card for the first quarter, as Landmark staff did not attend the Team meeting. Parents did not identify any specific goal that had become obsolete, unattainable, or educationally inappropriate by December 2025. Nor did Parents present Dr. Wilson’s 2025 report or Ms. DeAngelis's observational information to the Team during the December meeting. In addition, the evidence established that the December 2025 Team did not materially revise Student’s goals because Student had not attended MASCO, and MASCO staff had not yet had the opportunity to work directly with Student, conduct baseline assessments, or gather meaningful progress-monitoring data within the proposed program. Ms. Hosman credibly testified that she would not alter Student’s goals or objectives without first assessing Student herself and determining current functioning levels within instruction. Similarly, Ms. Donovan testified that when students transition into MASCO, the Team customarily implements the existing goals initially and reconvenes after approximately six to eight weeks to revise goals, objectives, and services as necessary, based on actual performance data in the MASCO setting. Ms. Bridges likewise testified that MASCO intended to conduct updated baseline assessments and anticipated adding an executive-functioning goal once Student began attending the program. Ms. Bridges’s email, while concerning, was not a predetermination of goals but rather an explanation that the goals remain unchanged in the circumstances of the case (i.e., Student had not attended the program, and there was no information on her current performance on which the Team felt it could rely). There is no evidence that the Team did not consider the information brought by Parents to the Team, including any information from Landmark. However, the Team was not obligated to change the goals and objectives based on the limited information by Landmark.
Under these circumstances, I do not find the Team’s decision to temporarily maintain Student’s existing goals to be unreasonable pending updated data collection. Importantly, the maintained goals continued to address all Student’s core areas of need, including fluency, phonological awareness, decoding, encoding, written language, and speech and language. The evidence does not establish that the goals themselves were inappropriate or unrelated to Student’s functioning merely because they were carried forward from the prior IEP period. I am also unconvinced that Ms. Bridges’s instruction to Ms. Donovan, while concerning, resulted in a loss of FAPE to Student or denial of meaningful participation to Parents. Here, Parents and their Advocate were members of the IEP Team, and Parents offered no credible evidence that they were not fully included in the development of the IEP at this meeting.[70]
Accordingly, Parents failed to meet their burden on this claim.
As I have concluded that Parents failed to demonstrate that the IEPs proposed by Topsfield and MASCO, respectively, were not reasonably calculated to offer Student a FAPE, I need not determine whether Landmark was responsive to Student’s needs.
ORDER:
Parents are not entitled to reimbursement for expenses incurred for Student’s placement at Landmark, nor for any other expenses incurred during said time.
However, as I have also concluded that Topsfield failed to provide Student's mandated fluency services with a special education teacher during the 2024–2025 school year, I hereby order Topsfield Public Schools to provide Student with forty-five (45) hours of compensatory fluency services, representing the services missed during the 2024–2025 school year. Such services shall be delivered by a qualified special education teacher. The Topsfield Public Schools shall consult with Parents regarding the scheduling and delivery of the compensatory services. Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, the compensatory services shall be completed within one (1) year of the date of this Decision.
So Ordered,
By the Hearing Officer,
/s/ Alina Kantor Nir
Alina Kantor Nir, Hearing Officer
June 15, 2026
Footnotes
[1] I have carefully considered all evidence presented in this matter. I make findings of fact, however, only as necessary to resolve the issues presented. Consequently, all evidence and all aspects of each witness’s testimony, although considered, is not included if it was not needed to resolve said issues.
[2] The following services were proposed: A Grid: Consult (SLP/Gen Ed/SpEd Teacher 2x15min/month); B Grid: Reading (SpEd/Gen Ed Teacher/Aide 5x45 min/week), Academic Support-Math (SpEd/Gen Ed Teacher/Aide 5x45 min/week), Academic Support (SpEd/Gen Ed Teacher/Aide 3x30 min/week, Science/Social Studies), Written Language (SpEd/Gen Ed Teacher/Aide 5x45 min/week); C Grid: Reading (SpEd Teacher, 5x15 min/week, fluency, flexibly delivered), Reading (SpEd Teacher, 5x45 min/week), Speech/Language (SLP/SLP Assistant, 1x30 min/week), Extended School Year (ESY) Reading (SG) (SpEd Teacher, 2x45 min/week, 6 weeks, reading/ writing), and Writing (SpEd Teacher, 2x45 min/week). Accommodations included visual and organizational aids, modeling, verbal rehearsal, scaffolded tasks, and supports for attention and confidence (e.g., preferential seating, breaks, extra time, and opportunities to read aloud and share work). (T-6, T-7, T-8, T-9, T-10)
[3] The following formal tests were conducted: Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration (Beery VMI); Behavior Assessment System for Children, 3rd Edition (BASC-3); Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, 2nd Edition (BRIEF-2); Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, 2nd Edition (CTOPP-2), selected subtests; Conners’ Continuous Performance Test, 3rd Edition (CPT-3); Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test, 4th Edition (EOPVT-4); Gray Oral Reading Test, 5th Edition (GORT-5), Form A; NEPSY-2, Comprehension of Instructions subtest; Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test, 4th Edition (ROPVT-4); Rey Complex Figure Test (RCFT); Sentence Completion Test; Test of Everyday Attention for Children, 2nd Edition (TEA-Ch-2), Vigil subtest; Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning, 3rd Edition (WRAML-3), selected subtests; Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children, 5th Edition (WISC-5); Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, 4th Edition (WIAT-4); and Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST).
[4] Dr. Wilson also testified that Parents had reported a history of anxiety and that Student had suffered a panic attack once that necessitated an emergency room visit. (Wilson)
[5] The Team had also convened for a progress meeting on March 12, 2024 and as a result increased IEP ESY services in reading (4 x 45 minutes/week) and writing (2 x 45 minutes/week). (P-1, T-11, T-12, T-14)
[6] Student’s reevaluation was due in November 2024. (Churchill)
[7] According to Ms. Macko, there is no LiPS certification, only a training. Student received LiPS services at Topsfield by a trained provider. (Macko)
[8] Ms. Macko testified that Ms. Lyons was trained in both LiPS and OG and used both with Student, as she utilized a multisensory approach. (Macko)
[9] This witness testified that Ms. Orlando read to Student during assessments.
[10] Ms. Levesseur did not provide direct services to Student. Shiela Sutton, the SLPA who is also an SLP-CCC, provided services to Student and a peer, focusing on vocabulary. (Levesseur, T-22)
[11] Ms. Levesseur utilized the Oral Passage Understanding Scale (OPUS), Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, Fifth Edition (CELF-5), portions of the Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language Second Edition (CASL-2), observational data, and teacher consultation. (Levesseur, P-10(4), T-26)
[12] Ms. Orlando did not note any concerns in math because she had not observed Student in math as part of her formal observation.
[13] Although Ms. Lyons testified that Student was capable of functioning at that level independently, she hesitated significantly before answering in the affirmative.
[14] The following tools were utilized: the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children, Second Edition (KABC-II, NU); Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF-2); Children's Depression Inventory, Second Edition (CDI-2); and Behavior Assessment System for Children Third Edition (BASC-III). (P-10(5), T-31)
[15] No SLP services are included on the service delivery grid for MASCO. However, Ms. Levesseur testified that she had recommend such service for Student, despite Student’s progress, to provide her with additional support through the transition to middle school. (Levesseur) The exclusion of such service appears to be a clerical omission as it is included in the updated service delivery grid for MASCO in the revised IEP dated 03/18/2025 (discussed infra).
[16] Ms. Dillon monitored Student for ReadLive even though an aide was not listed on the November 2024 IEP.
[17] Ms. Lyons was present in the room while Student worked on ReadLive, but she was working with another student.
[18] As noted supra, the service was not identified for the MASCO service delivery grid in November 2024 but was included in the March 2025 revised IEP.
[19] Ms. Cole testified that although she is not a SLP, her Master of Science degree in special education, language literacy, and hearing disorders included training in observational articulation analysis. However, she could not opine as to whether Student required speech and language services. (Cole)
[20] According to Ms. Bridges, if Student were to attend MASCO, Ms. Hosman would conduct a baseline assessment of her reading skills to obtain a new current performance level (CPL).
[21] Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §1400 (d)(1)(A).
[22] See 20 U.S.C. §1401(9), (26), (29); 603 CMR 28.05(4)(b); C.D. ex rel M.D. v. Natick Pub. Sch. Dist., 924 F.3d 621, 629 (1st Cir. 2019); Sebastian M. v. King Philip Reg'l Sch. Dist., 685 F.3d 84, 84 (1st Cir. 2012); Lessard v. Wilton Lyndeborough Cooperative Sch. Dist., 518 F. 3d 18 (1st Cir. 2008); C.G. ex rel. A.S. v. Five Town Comty. Sch. Dist., 513 F. 3d 279 (1st Cir. 2008).
[23] 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(5)(A); 34 C.F.R. 300.114(a)(2)(i); M.G.L. c. 71 B, §§2, 3; 603 CMR 28.06(2)(c).
[24] 20 U.S.C. §1412(a)(5)(A); C.D., 924 F. 3d at 631 (internal citations omitted).
[25] C.G., 513 F.3d at 285.
[26] Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S. 386, 402 (2017).
[27] 34 C.F.R. §300.324(a)(i-v); Endrew F., 137 S. Ct. at 999; 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 of Mass. Dep't of Educ., 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).
[28] Roland M. v. Concord Sch. Comm., 910 F.2d 983, 992 (1st Cir. 1990).
[29] 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”).
[30] Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 400-401; see 603 CMR 28.02(17).
[31] 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).
[32] G.D. Westmoreland Sch. Dist. v. Westmoreland Sch. Dist., 930 F.2d 942, 948-949 (1st Cir. 1991).
[33] See Deal v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 392 F.3d 840, 853-54 (6th Cir. 2004).
[34] See Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S. 386, 404 (2017).
[35] Deal, 392 F.3d at 854.
[36] 34 C.F.R. 300.513 (a)(2); see MM ex rel. DM v. Sch. Dist. of Greenville Cty., 303 F.3d 523, 533 (4th Cir. 2002).
[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 34 C.F.R. §300.148.
[43] 34 C.F.R. §300.148(c). See 20 U.S.C. §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").
[44] 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, 369 (1985) (parents may be reimbursed for private special education if court ultimately determines private placement was proper).
[45] Florence Cnty., 510 U.S. at 14; see Matthew J. v. Mass. Dep’t. of Educ., et al., 988 F. Supp. 380, 391 (1998).
[46] 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).
[47] 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).
[48] Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49, 62 (2008).
[49] Id. (places the burden of proof in an administrative hearing on the party seeking relief).
[50] 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.
[51] I note that while having a private evaluator conduct observations and/or attend Team meetings imposes a financial hardship on parents, such participation in the instant matter would have allowed Dr. Wilson and Ms. Cole to assess Student in the educational setting firsthand and respond to questions or concerns in real time, especially where Student’s functioning in a general education setting (or inability to function and make progress in such a setting) was the crux of the disagreement between the parties.
[52] See G.D. by & through Jeffrey D. v. Swampscott Pub. Schs., 27 F.4th 1, 12 (1st Cir. 2022) (“A standardized test is, by definition, designed to measure a child's progress without regard to her individual circumstances, let alone with regard to the individual circumstances for that child identified in her IEP”).
[53] See Rowley, 458 U .S. at 192 (The IDEA is meant to create opportunities for disabled children, not to guarantee a specific result); see also K.D. v. Downingtown Area Sch. Dist., 904 F.3d 248, 255 (3d Cir. 2018) (Rather than presuming grade-level advancement, the Act requires revisions to education programs as appropriate to address any lack of expected progress toward the annual goals and in the general education curriculum, where appropriate”) (internal citations and quotations omitted); Houston Independent School Dist. v. Bobby R., 200 F.3d 341, 349 (5th Cir.2000) (“a disabled child's development should be measured not by his relation to the rest of the class, but rather with respect to the individual student”).
[54] At the start of the Hearing, Ms. Nazarro stated that Ms. DeAngelis would not testify at Hearing and instead act as co-advocate for the purposes of the hearing. Following the close of Parents’ case-in-chief and the beginning of Topsfield’s and then MASCO’s presentation of their cases-in-chief, Ms. Nazarro made two motions to reopen Parents’ case-in-chief and have Ms. DeAngelis testify as to her observations, the report of which was included in Parents’ Exhibit Book and marked as P-13(3). Both school districts objected and their objections were sustained. I note also that Ms. DeAngelis’s report was not shared with either Topsfield or MASCO prior to the submission of the Exhibit Binder for hearing. As neither Team had an opportunity to review Ms. DeAngelis’s observations, and as she served as co-advocate and not an expert witness in tis matter, I place no weight on the report in this Decision.
[55] See In Re: Blue Hills Regional Technical High School, BSEA # 2008213 (Figueroa, 2020); see also In Re: Student and Middleboro Public Schools (Ruling on Motion for Summary Judgment), BSEA # 1908178 (Berman, 2019) (compensatory relief is not available for the periods corresponding to fully accepted, implemented, and expired IEPs); In Re: Sudbury Public Schools, BSEA # 05-4726 and # 05-4827 (Crane, 2005) ("the general and well-settled rule is that acceptance of an IEP precludes the Hearing Officer from considering its appropriateness").
[56] Roland M. v. Concord Sch. Comm., 910 F.2d 983, 992 (1st Cir.1990) (“[A]ctions of school systems cannot ... be judged exclusively in hindsight”).
[57] See, e.g., Johnson v. Bos. Pub. Schs., 906 F.3d 182, 195–96 (1st Cir. 2018) (“To the extent that Johnson implies that ‘slow’ progress is, in and of itself, insufficient to constitute a ‘meaningful educational benefit,’ we cannot agree. Instead, the relationship between speed of advancement and the educational benefit must be viewed in light of a child's individual circumstances”); Klein Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Hovem, 690 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2012) (“overall educational benefit, not solely disability remediation, is IDEA's statutory goal”); Ruffin v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 459 F. App'x 358, 363 (5th Cir. 2012) (“Although L.F. consistently performed at least one grade level below her peers, the IEP listed goals, specific objectives, and evaluation methods that required L.F. to improve. L.F.'s teachers testified at the administrative hearing that L.F. had shown improvement. The record indicates that L.F. passed each of her classes and was promoted to the next grade level….The district court did not clearly err in determining that the IEP provided positive academic and non-academic benefits”).
[58] See, e.g., M.M. v. Dist. 0001 Lancaster Cnty. Sch., 702 F.3d 479, 488–89 (8th Cir. 2012) (“While [Parents] wanted the District to stop using the calming room as urged by KKI, IDEA does not mandate that parental preferences guide educational decisions”); N.F. v. Charino Reg'l Sch. Dist., No. CA 11-177-ML, 2012 WL 723124, at *11 (D.R.I. Mar. 1, 2012) (where “the Parent did not agree with the methods used by RYSE staff, e.g. for time-outs, and produced her own modified behavior plan, which she wanted included in the 11/05/10 IEP,” the court agreed with the Hearing Officer that the “IDEA does not ensure that a FAPE will consist of the precise plan that the parent desires”) (internal citations omitted); Mr. C v. Maine Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 6, No. CIV. 06-198-P-H, 2007 WL 4206166, at *25 (D. Me. Nov. 28, 2007), report and recommendation adopted sub nom.Mr. C. v. Maine Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 6, 538 F. Supp. 2d 298 (D. Me. 2008) (where “the Parents' quarrel [was] with the necessity and the wisdom of the approach taken by the [] behavioral plan,” the court found that “[i]t is precisely in regard to disagreements over such sensitive and difficult methodological matters that courts are directed to refrain from substituting their preferred approach and defer to the decisions of educators and specialized hearing officers”).
[59] See Dear Colleague Letter, 66 IDELR 227 (OSERS/OSEP 2015) (explaining that modifications may allow a student who is performing significantly below grade level academically to access the same general education curriculum as his nondisabled peers).
[60] See 20 USC 1412 (a)(14)(B)(iii).
[61] See Benton Sch. Dist., 125 LRP 10676 (SEA AR 03/19/25) (determining that a district improperly relied on a paraprofessional and a speech-therapist-in-training to deliver IEP-mandated services to a nonverbal kindergartner with autism); New Haven Pub. Schs., 125 LRP 29651 (SEA CT 03/07/25) (finding that a district violated the IDEA when it relied on a paraeducator rather than a certified teacher to properly implement the literary services outlined in a student's IEP); and District of Columbia Pub. Schs.,124 LRP 31565 (SEA DC 07/11/24) (noting no evidence that a certified special education substitute teacher, rather than a paraprofessional, covered the classroom for the three weeks when the special education teacher was absent).
[62] See Ross v. Framingham Sch. Comm., 44 F. Supp. 2d 104, 119 (D. Mass. 1999), aff’d, 229 F.3d 1133 (1st Cir. 2000).
[63] See id.
[64] See Crofts v. Issaquah Sch. Dist. No. 411, 22 F.4th 1048, 1051 (9th Cir. 2022) (“The District was also not required to use the parents' preferred teaching method to provide A.S. with a FAPE”).
[65] See 34 C.F.R. 300.503(a).
[66] See 34 C.F.R. 300.503(b).
[67] See 34 C.F.R. 300.320(a)(2).
[68] See Letter to Butler, 213 IDELR 118 (OSERS 1988) (annual goals are statements that describe what a child with a disability can reasonably be expected to accomplish within a 12-month period in the child's special education program).
[69] See 34 C.F.R. 300.324(b) (“Each public agency must ensure that, subject to paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of this section, the IEP Team— (i) Reviews the child's IEP periodically, but not less than annually, to determine whether the annual goals for the child are being achieved; and(ii) Revises the IEP, as appropriate…”) (emphasis added).
[70] Where a parent has actively and meaningfully participated in the development of an IEP, courts have rejected predetermination claims. See Deal, 392 F.3d at 857–58; see also N.L. ex rel. Mrs. C. v. Knox Cnty. Sch., 315 F.3d 688, 694 (6th Cir. 2003) (“when a parent fully participates in the IEP Team meeting and is an active participant in the final determination of the child's eligibility, there is no substantive harm caused when school-appointed experts and school officials confer ex parte so as to coordinate the drafting of an assessment report”); Fuhrmann ex rel. Fuhrmann v. E. Hanover Bd. of Educ., 993 F.2d 1031, 1036 (3d Cir.1993) (finding parents had opportunity to participate in IEP formulation in meaningful way).